timsmith37 Reviews

Troy: Fall of a City (2018– )

Better than the ratings suggest

[6/10 · 27 February 2018]

While there would seem to be no shortage of those who have watched Troy: Fall of a City and feel compelled to splutter their outrage at failings real and imagined, this is not in itself unusual and seems insufficient to account for the sort of IMDb rating usually reserved for 1970's British sex comdies and SyFy Channel made-for-TV movies featuring mutated wildlife. From comments posted by other reviewers there would appear to have been a concerted campaign of posting one star ratings before the show aired. Judging from vitriol I have seen heaped on the show elsewhere online this would seem to originate with Greek nationalists outraged by what they see as the BBC's politically correct cultural appropriation - a concept to make The Guardian's identity politics mullahs heads spin.

Colour blind casting can be problematic - a recent drama documentary on the Battle of Hastings featured a Norman knight of distinctly non-Viking ancestry, which, given the factual context, I found rather distracting. But if Zeus could be a bull, a swan or a shower of gold, then I am sure that if the whim took him he could be a person of colour. As for Achilles, I shall chose to assume that we are deprived of his famous golden locks only because of the number zero razor cut. While the casting of Aeneas would doubtless have had Virgil rotating in his grave, for me none of this is an issue. The way I see it, if Greeks of the heroic age can speak (decidedly) modern English, David Gyasi's ebony hues as Achilles are no more incongrous than the Celtic pallor flaunted by Jonas Armstrong's Menelaus. But then it is not my culture.

As for the programme itself, the plot is suprisingly faithful in following Homeric era legend. While this sometimes plodding literalism might reflect a lack of artifice on the part of the screenwriters, I do find it refreshing to have an adaptation of a classic that does not impertinently attempt to improve upon the source material. The real issue with the script is the dialogue, which blends Eastenders ersatz naturalness with thudding declatory pronouncements. There is alas none of the verbal dexterity that distinguishes Game of Thrones, the series this so painfully aspires to be.

But it is as handsomely mounted as a BBC budget allows, and the cinematography is pleasing on the eye, as are the cast. Helen is always a tough role to fill, but surrounding the perfectly passable Bella Dayne with ladies just as lovely rather detracts from her supposedly unique voluptuosness. Even, Hecuba, played by Frances O'Connor, who could pass for being younger than some of her on-screen sons, gives this Helen a run for her money. If some of the younger actors seem a little out of their depth, the likes of Joseph Mawle as Oddysseus and Johnny Harris as Agammememnon are there to bring some serious acting heft.

If one suspends ones critical faculties a little, this is entertaining enough Saturday night viewing to tide us over until our next visit ot Westeros.

The Persuaders!: The Long Goodbye (1971) Season 1, Episode 13

Easy on the eye

[7/10 · 20 December 2017]

The plot is the usual fluff carried by the leads charm. but the episode is notable for the presence on screen of four iconic Seventies beauties: Valerie Leon, Madeline Smith, Anouska Hempel and Nicola Pagett.

Gunpowder (2017)

Robert Catesby and some other blokes

[5/10 · 5 November 2017]

Notice there is a word missing from the title? That's right Plot. The Gunpowder Plot was a conspiracy, and a conspiracy by definition is not all about one person. Thirteen men plotted to blow up the King and government, kidnap the princess royal, foment an armed rebellion and seize the reigns of state with the aid of a foreign power. It was daring, almost certainly stupid and heroically irresponsible.

Robert Catesby is important yes, because he had the vision and the charisma to persuade twelve very different individuals to sign up for this madcap scheme. But that is part of the problem here: the vision is elusive and, in Kit Harrington's stolid performance there is precious little charisma. As for the remaining conspirators, they are blanks, even Guy Fawkes is nothing more than a by-the-numbers Tom Hardy tribute act. We know nothing about them or what drew them into the plot. In focussing so exclusively on the part played by his aristocratic ancestor, Harrington does not just do a disservice to the other conspirators (half of whom do not get speaking parts), he also drains all the tension from the conspiracy storyline. There should be clashing personalities and differing agendas, paranoia and suspicions, false starts and difficulties encountered; above all as the conspiracy reaches it's climax there should be jangling nerves. It's hard to care about the inner turmoil of characters you have not been properly introduced to, and in fairness the script does not even make the attempt.

Instead we get spurious action sequences, such as Catesby's rescue of John Gerard, who actually escaped from the Tower a decade earlier and without Catesby's assistance, and hackneyed Hollywood moments, such as the climatic sequence when Butch Catesby and the Wintourdance Kid charge out in slow motion onto the guns of the Bolivian police force.

Above all the focus is on Catesby and his motivations, all seen through a prism of modern sensibilities and contemporary relevance. And that again is a problem, as the history gets mucked around quite a lot in order to make these points. If you are going to depict atrocities in prurient detail and justify them as providing the context for your character's actions, then you can expect to be called out if you over-egg the pudding.

The look of the show is good, if a little underlit, but the script is hack work and the performances, for the most part (Liv Tyler as Anne Vaux is a luminous exception) either soapily two-dimensional or pantomime broad. The ubiquitous Gatiss renders a particularly ripe King Rat as that fascinating statesman Robert Cecil. (Historical accuracy would incidentally have been better served by a shorter Cecil and a taller Catesby.)

Since Harrington is milking his moment in the sun to get vanity projects commissioned on the lives of his ancestors, I shall look forward with eager anticipation to a three-part drama on the inventor of the flush toilet, an achievement worthy of celebration. Would that someone at the BBC had pulled the chain on this production.

Privates on Parade (1983)

It Ain't Half Hot Mum for grown ups

[8/10 · 19 March 2017]

Very surprising that this has such a low IMDb rating. I suspect that has less to do with the quality of the film than with viewers prejudices and preconceptions.

Based on Peter Nichols real life experiences it is It Ain't Half Hot Mum meets Virgin Soldiers, only much more nuanced than the one and more subversive than the other. Imagine an episode of IAHHM where Windsor Davies and Michael Knowles are running guns, Donald Hewlett has got religion, Melvyn Hayes is talented, Don Estelle has coupled up with Ken MacDonald, John Clegg is aggressively heterosexual, Stuart McGugan is a serial shagger, and Dino Shafeek is female and seduces Christopher Mitchell.

The casting of Cleese as the uptight officer is problematic, and perhaps puts the tone off kilter, but he plays the role straight (other than the surreal and cathartic scene at the end where he joins the performers to launch into his silly walks).

Patrick Pearson is effective as the young recruit, and Joe Melia, David Bamber, Bruce Payne and Simon Jones all hold their own (difficult to avoid double entendres with this review). Michael Elphick is also excellent as the tough sergeant while Nicola Pagett's Indian accent lapsing deliberately into Welsh resolves some of the criticism that might otherwise be levelled for playing blackface. The film though belongs to Dennis Quilley, the queen of the jungle.

Robin Hood (2010)

Nottingham-on-Sea

[4/10 · 15 January 2017]

There is no one Robin Hood story, just an accretion of folk tales, antiquarian speculation and literary invention. The Saxons versus Norman theme was an anachronism that originated with Sir Walter Scott. The story can legitimately be set in the time of Richard and John, of Simon de Montfort or of any of the first three Edwards. Robin can be a yeoman, as in the ballads, or he can be an earl fallen on hard times, as the Elizabethan playwrights had it. He can inhabit the realm of history or, increasingly in modern retellings, that of fantasy. He can be a merry trickster or a grim guerrilla fighter. The only constant is that Robin Hood is an outlaw.

Except in this version. Well not until the last five minutes, anyway. This it is claimed is an origin story: the story of how the Robin became an outlaw. The problem is that the actor playing Robin is too long in the tooth for a prequel, why he is outlawed is never really made clear and the plot, such as it is, has no particular connection to any story element associated with Robin Hood. Just a few characters with the same names. Not that Robin himself is ever actually called Robin Hood.

So what is this film? An action adventure story, in which playing fast and loose with history can be excused because we are on a helter skelter ride of thrills? Nah, it is far too plodding for that. An historical drama then? Well in that case some grounding in real events seems to be a prerequisite. I don't really know where to start on the historical inaccuracies. But let's start right at the start. Richard did not die on his return from the crusades, he had already been back to England and was campaigning to secure his lands in France. The castle he invested at Chalus-Chabrol was defended by just forty men of whom only two had real any military training. But Ridley Scott needs to reassure the audience that this is going to be a full-blooded epic (because the next hour and a half is going to be really dull) so the siege becomes a major production number with Richard struck down in the thick of the frantic action. Rather than, as history records, being hit by a lucky potshot and lingering on to die of gangrene in his mother's arms.

After that, well actually after that any resemblance to history flies out of the window, with vague, incoherent references to Magna Carta and the First Baron's War being tossed into a stew of anachronistic ingredients that barely bubbles to a simmer. For me the most precious moment was when the turncoat Godfrey begins speaking to Phillipe Augustus in French, and the King says, 'In English, please.' The King of England couldn't speak English let alone the King of France!

Okay, you can rely on the average audience having a tenuous grasp on English history, English audiences not least, but this is the most geographically challenged Robin Hood film since Kevin Costner took the rolling English road to Nottingham by way Hadrian's Wall. Or perhaps the producers of this film had a different Nottingham in mind, since the Nottingham here appears to be a seaside Hampshire village rather than a heavily fortified midland stronghold.

Some effort is made to get the material culture correct, but it always bemuses me when the producers of historical dramas lavish immense care and cost on authentic costumes and set dressing, and the script is then entrusted to a hack who can't be bothered to do even the most basic Ladybird book level research. Having the peasants playing Celtic folk rock at their celebration did in any case rather detract from the carefully constructed medieval ambiance.

So we have a story not set in real time, not set in the real world and not grounded in myth. Just a jumble of badly integrated plot elements, topped and tailed with some tacked on action sequences.

It is a film without point, without purpose, without soul.

Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (2010)

I want those two hours back

[1/10 · 3 December 2016]

People who rate films as 'one star' annoy me. Few films are seldom entirely without merit and there is a scale of one to ten to reflect differing degrees of success and failure. But in this case no other rating will do. As cinema this film is a failure on every conceivable level: concept, plot, script, performances, direction, photography, lighting, editing, everything. There is just nothing to appreciate, and the viewer comes away with absolutely nothing. It is not enjoyable at any level.

But then this is not really cinema: it is conceptual art. An installation. One for the chin-strokers then. If that is your thing, knock yourself out, but I would rather watch a Jim Carrey marathon than sit through this again (and I hate Jim Carrey with a passion).

The Imitation Game (2014)

Art fails to imitate life

[5/10 · 19 December 2014]

In a film based on the life of a real person one expects characters to be conflated and timescales compressed; it goes without saying that the role of the hero in events will be exaggerated, while exposition will necessarily be simplified and scenes invented for dramatic purposes. But as the narrative of The Imitation Game lurched from one Hollywood moment to the next, alarm bells began to ring. I know relatively little about Bletchley Park, but I found myself very much doubting that Turing had won World War Two single-handedly and in the teeth of opposition from establishment stereotypes.

I had similar reservations concerning Castles in the Sky, the BBC drama on the wartime development of radar by a group of under-resourced mavericks, but to my delight the events of that film turned out to be firmly grounded in real life. Alas that is not the case here. The events of this film are fabricated to the point where it fails to serve any useful purpose as testimony to the life of its remarkable protagonist. And for an insight into the breaking of the enigma code you might as well watch U-571.

Benedict Cumberbatch's performance is the engine that drives the film, and is very good, though the banalities of the script with which he is working prevent it from being Oscar worthy. Dance, Strong and Goode are sound without being stretched, as are Kinnear, Goodman-Hill and Waddingon as the coppers, but Leech and Knightly fail to suggest the required complexity in their roles. The acting laurels go to Alex Lawther as the young Turing, who does a remarkable job of channelling Cumberbatch's performance while surpassing him in emotional truth.

Michael Apted 2001 drama, Enigma, based on Robert Harris' excellent novel, for all its thriller structure, felt a more truthful testament to the legacy of Bletchley Park than this cheesy, anachronistic hodge-podge.

The Legend of Robin Hood (1975)

Robin is to the greenwood gone

[8/10 · 24 November 2014]

This seventies BBC version with Martin Potter and Diane Keen remains one of my favourite adaptations of the Robin Hood legend, but its not without its failings.

Despite the evident attention to historical detail in the matter of costumes and props, there are some jarring anachronisms in the script, such as a Saxon thegn called Kenneth (Gaelic), a Norman henchman called Alaric (Visigothic) and a merry man called Brett (Tuolumne County).

The production is very much of its time. There is a very Seventies cynical edge and lots of speechifying; the script is not frightened of serving up dollops of history and at times borders on the lumberingly expositional. But while the production suffers as a result of the disastrous decision made by the BBC to video all interiors on cardboard sets at Television Centre, the location photography is rather charming - seldom has the greenwood looked greener.

British B movie beefcake Potter is a handsome if far from merry Robin, Keen of course is luminous as Marion, while David "Ford Prefect" Dixon and Paul "Ker Avon" Darrow, as respectively Prince John and the Sheriff, exercise more restraint than one might have thought them capable. Some of the supporting players are pure repertory ham (an old crone is straight out of Blackadder), but William Marlowe and Miles Anderson add Shakespearean heft in their roles as Guy of Gisborne and Will Scarlet.

Tony Caunter had yet to acquire the girth one associates with Friar Tuck, but Conrad Asquith is a booming Little John; Much is played by Johnny Speight's boy Richard and Stephen Whittaker completes the meiny as the hitherto unrecorded outlaw Ralph Gammon. David Ryall enjoys himself as a corrupt abbot.

The action sequences are lame by today's slick, and often graphic, standards, but the climactic broadsword duel between Potter and Marlowe has an earthy vigour. Seldom have you seen two actors looking quite so completely knackered.

The White Queen (2013)

Better as history than as drama

[7/10 · 11 August 2013]

If people want to complain about this being historically inaccurate then they should try Shakespeare for size... There are character conflations and timeline adjustments in the interests of narrative clarity, but the historical outline is preserved.

A BBC Budget is never going to bring the sumptuous splendours of late medieval England alive before our eyes, and frankly I am not going to be to be too fussed if Elizabeth is wearing cosmetics that were not available at the time, so long as the series works as drama. It is probably fair to say though that make-up, costumes, and set dressing could, and probably should, have been better, while lighting and camera work do not do much to help paper over the cracks.

Given the dynastic complexity, the serving up of some fairly gristly chunks of exposition is inevitable, and in fact the script does a solid job of making the tangled web of interconnections comprehensible. To the person who cited I Claudius as the way it should be done, that had a narrator, which in this instance is a cheat unavailable to the adaptor. Having said that, some of Jack Pullman's pith and wit would not have gone amiss.

Two big narrative decisions did not quite come off, both presumably taken from Gregory's novels: the first is to see the bloody dynastic struggles of the Wars of the Roses through an entirely female prism; the second is the use of magic to give the women a more empowered role.

I am not sure that any of the senior cast members will be highlighting this series on their CVs. Janet McTeer and Michael Maloney are wonderful actors, but they have seldom been less commanding on screen. However, Caroline Goodall as Duchess Cecily and Rupert Graves as Lord Stanley do have some pantomime villain fun with their roles.

The younger actors though seem to lack the dramatic chops to carry the weight of the story. Rebecca Ferguson is a pretty girl in a very modern style but I did not buy her as the captivating intriguer who twisted a king about her little finger, nor could I see the rather lumpen Max Irons as the charismatic sun king Edward. Aneurin Barnard at least looks the part as Richard, but comes across as a bit wet, while Faye Marsay as a mousey Anne Neville only begins to become interesting with age and bitterness.

On the plus side David Oakes is quite fun as George, while Amanda Hale gives a compelling performance as Margaret Beaufort.

Not a disaster by any means, but there is a better drama series to be made about the Cousins' War.

Carry on Follow That Camel (1967)

And over there. You see? Figs, dates, senna pods, cascara. They couldn't have been regular troops, sir.

[7/10 · 24 March 2013]

Sergeant Bilko makes for a disconcerting presence in a Carry On spoof of Beau Geste, but the experiment is more successful than not thanks to a solid Talbot Rothwell script, with Silvers playing well off the stiff upper lip types. Dale and Butterworth are in fine form as the naive aristo and his loyal valet, while Gilmore puts in a moustache twirling turn as the caddish rival, and as the object of their affections Douglas is absolutely luminous - and laugh out loud funny as she undergoes her rites of passage while retaining impeccable English manners.

Less successful are the broader ethnic stereotypes from Williams, Hawtry, Simms and Bluthal, though Bresslaw enjoys himself as the villainous sheik, while Harris is more sultry than might be thought possible as a treacherous belly dancer.

Not a classic, but by no means the dregs of the series (see Convenience, Loving, Behind, Henry, England, and - shudder - Emmanuelle and Columbus.)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Technological cul de sac rather than timeless fantasy

[6/10 · 15 December 2012]

The film did not feel as drawn out beyond its natural length as I had feared, and, refreshingly, the story has not been too tinkered with. It was notable that more of Tolkien's original dialogue survives here than in LoTR, while the plot changes felt less arbitrary, than, for instance, Aragorn falling off a cliff. The backstory has been mucked about quite a bit, with some loss of meaning, but the gist is there. There is a genuine respect for the source material, more so than in the first trilogy, as in the bold, and to my mind successful, decision to recreate the opening 'unexpected party', complete with songs.

The interpolated White Council scene feels stilted, but the magical woodland adventures of Radagast and his furry chums are not as cringeworthy as they could have been. Other changes are mostly for justifiable cinematic reasons, even if some, such as the treatment of the encounter with the trolls, are not necessarily an improvement in dramatic terms. However, the need to give this first installment a distinct dramatic focus causes tensions with the book. A dynamic between Thorin and Bilbo is sketched in which is absent in Tolkien's work, and this is resolved in a way which jarringly detracts from Bilbo's own personal character arc.

Since the ring arrested the ageing process in Bilbo, Ian Holm could strictly speaking have continued in the part, but Martin Freeman's light comedic touch actually works very well. Richard Armitage channels Sean Bean as Thorin, and is rather more broodingly handsome, and a lot younger, than I had imagined, but I guess an action film must have an action hero. A reasonable stab is made at differentiating the other dwarfs, even if the bizarre tonsorial creations and confusion of regional accents is a little distracting. I also found it odd that one of the few dwarfs to develop a distinct personality in the book, the amiable strongman Dori, is unrecognisable in Mark Hadlow's depiction of him as a rather twee old buffer. Graham McTavish's tough Dwalin and Aidan Turner's boyish Kili are probably the most successful realisations.

What fatally undermines the project is the misjudged technological gimmickry. There is the usual 3D issue of the actors looking like cardboard cut-outs in a Victorian toy theatre, so divorced from the scenery behind that it might as well be a blue screen. Worse, HFR has the curious effect of making all the interiors appear as if they were shot on video at BBC Television Centre in the nineteen-seventies. To add to the disconcertingly retro feel the prostheses and hairpieces don't really stand up to that level of high definition. Sometimes there is something to be said for grainy and indistinct. And while the CGI was often excellent, it was over-used to the point where the connection with real actors and landscapes was lost, the swirling camera work giving the action scenes in particular a distinct video game vibe.

Better than perhaps it has a right to be, given the uncinematic source material, but the of-the-moment technology makes it ultimately disposable.

PS. I note that IMDb autocorrects the spelling of 'dwarves' to 'dwarfs'. Tolkien would be incandescent.

It Takes a Worried Man (1981–1983)

A neglected gem

[9/10 · 24 August 2012]

IMDb rating system is beyond baffling - how can an arithmetic mean of 8.6 and a median of 9 possibly equate to a weighted average of 4.2?!

This was a fantastic series. If any aspiring comedy writers take the trouble to watch this, they will see that Peter Tilbury's technique defies every single piece of received wisdom on sitcom writing. The plots are wafer thin, Philip Roath seldom finds himself up a tree that he has to get down from, there is precious little conflict to be resolved and it is all tell and no show: most of the laughs come from the characters we never see: Gerald, the analyst's boyfriend, the boss's Mohican son-in-law, and Napley's delinquent sprog.

Tilbury's central performance is workmanlike; the comparison with Hywel Bennet who took the part he had written for himself in Shelley, is interesting. ITAWM demonstrates the advantages of having the writer deliver his own lines; Tilbury knows exactly what he is trying to achieve. But Shelley shows how a great actor can lift a script with a performance that exceeds the writer's vision.

The supporting performances, particularly from Benjamin and the wonderful Le Prevost, are excellent.

Blood and Oil (2010 TV Movie)

Finely crafted drama

[9/10 · 18 April 2010]

I almost did not bother watching this after reading the first two reviews on here, so thanks to jegpad for persuading me to give it a go. This was top notch both as a political thriller and a human drama, with fine performances from both the two female leads, Naomi Harris and Jodhi May. The script was constructed tightly, with twists and intrigues enough to hold the viewer's attention, yet filmed to allow the performances room to breathe, so the full emotional impact was felt.

The film also provided an enlightening insight into the politics of a part of the world our mass media largely shy away from, an issue touched on in the drama. We would rather not know. (A theme cleverly mirrored in the discoveries the two protagonists make about the men in their lives.) And while the crushing institutionalised corruption and exploitation were exposed, and with it our complicity as western consumers, there was sufficient sense of humanity to spare the film from utter bleakness.

Oh and to the poster who thought it too neat that "the one person who knows something and is willing to let her know is the kindly gardener she had met earlier", she had met him because he worked on the grounds of her husbands apartment, which was also the reason he knew of the comings and goings.

Burn Up (2008)

Strong message, weak characters

[7/10 · 19 August 2008]

I can understand why a lot of viewers tuned out after the ponderous first episode, but it is a shame, as the second instalment ratcheted the tension up nicely. The drag on the story was not the the weight of polemic, so much as the human interest elements; these had some relevance in setting up character motivation and building plot, but it was impossible to care about Rupert Penry-Jones bland corporate man or Neve Campbell's simpering environmental do-gooder. Also the ending depended a lot on our accepting the relationship between Penry-Jones and Bradley Whitford, but the background to this was never explained.

The environmental scenarios in the storyline were certainly credible, the political aspects perhaps less so. The rival lobbyists played by Bradley Whitford and Marc Warren did not seem rooted in any recognisable political power structure, and it is to the credit of both actors that the characters came to life as more than two dimensional cyphers. The depiction of big oil was perhaps simplistic. Not all in the industry are opposed to Kyoto; outside of the US at least, it is seen as a commercial opportunity. The likes of BP and Shell do not particularly care what energy agenda Governments adopt so long as they send out clear signals and stand-by them, enabling investments to be planned with minimal risk. US intransigence on Kyoto is driven more by a lack of political will to tackle the average voter's seeming belief that it is their God-ordained right to consume a vastly disproportionate share of the planet's resources.

Siege of the Saxons (1963)

Saxons in shining armour on horseback...? What's that all about!?

[6/10 · 7 June 2008]

I remember enjoying this when I was a kid. Which shows how indiscriminating I was, because it is drivel. But it is worth sticking with for the battle scene at the end, which is exciting, lavishly staged, and takes place in a noticeably more arid landscape than the rest of the film. It seems the producers acquired from somewhere a lot of stock footage of knights besieging a castle, and constructed a film around it. With costumes being chosen for continuity. Within the battle scene there is much blending of old and new footage. This is not entirely seamless. It is conspicuous that the battlements behind which the archers are sheltering when struck by an arrow are of a different design to the battlements from which they fall. You get a lot of chance to study this because the same archers fall from the same battlements with some regularity. 6 out of 10 then for nostalgia, and because I would probably still be thrilled by it if I was eight years old.

The Beiderbecke Affair (1985)

Splendily entertaining and disturbingly prescient

[10/10 · 3 May 2008]

This was not the first outing for Alan Plater's schoolteacher detectives, who in 1981's Get Lost had been played admirably by Alun Armstrong and Frances Tomelty. However no-one could quibble with the re-casting. James Bolam effortlessly nails each line of the arch dialogue, while the talented Barbara Flynn has that rare quality of looking both believably ordinary and incredibly fanciable. Some wonderful British character actors also get plenty of screen time in what is effectively an ensemble piece. Colin Blakely, Keith Marsh, Danny Schiller, Robert Longden and Keith Clarke all do sterling work, but special mention must be made of Dudley Sutton's tweedy schoolmaster and Terence Rigby's saturnine Big Al, while Dominic Jephcott was a real find as the callow university educated detective. A beautifully constructed series, that remains as pertinent as ever in a society increasingly disrespectful of privacy and intolerant of eccentricity.

High Heels and Low Lifes (2001)

Innocuous fluff

[6/10 · 30 April 2008]

The direction from Mel Smith is pedestrian at best, and the plot falls between two stools, being neither farcical nor plausible. Rather than being swept up in events, the female protagonists doggedly pursue a reckless course of action without adequate motivation. The cartoon violence, in which despite hails of bullets no-one actually gets killed, contributes to the lack of edge. We never really care about the heroines, because we never feel they are actually in any danger. A further problem is Mary McCormack, who just does not have the comic chops to carry off the demands placed on her. One would have hoped in any case that British cinema had got beyond the point of importing Hollywood C-listers in the forlorn hope of sales across the Pond. It might have been interesting to see what a talented British comedienne, such as Jane Horrocks or Sally Phillips, could have done with the role. The jolie laide Minnie Driver puts in an acceptable performance in a less demanding role, without doing anything to suggest that a career in comedy lies before her. Michael Gambon lends some much needed menace as a camp East End gangster, and Kevin McNally and Len Collin astutely play it straight as the heavies, but for laughs the film relies on the comic coppers, Mark Williams, as the acerbic inspector, and Kevin Eldon as his property price obsessed sergeant. Other familiar Brit faces, such as Hugh Bonneville, Paul Bown and Julian Wadham, do the best they can with blink-and-you'll-miss-them cameos. It is harmless enough way to pass an hour and a half, and will raise the occasional smile, but you will find yourself easily distracted.

Sword of Sherwood Forest (1960)

Period charm

[7/10 · 18 March 2008]

This is not as bad as all that. Terence Fisher as ever does a competent job, there are reasonable production values and some rather fetching photography. I always thought Richard Greene a little too schoolmasterly for an outlaw, and he is here rather portly, but he can certainly handle a bow. Nigel Greene and Niall McGinnis are well cast as Little John and Tuck, Peter Cushing is an excellent Sheriff, and Richard Pasco does well as the ambiguous Lord Newark. Oliver Reed's camp henchman is perhaps less successful.

The conspiracy plot unfolds at a relaxed pace and resolves satisfyingly. The weakest element is the tacked on romance with Sarah Branch's rather bland Maid Marion.

All in all a rather charming period piece, that gets closer to the spirit of the original ballads than most versions.

Glory at Sea (1952)

A missed opportunity

[6/10 · 10 July 2007]

Compton Bennett's surefooted direction and a sterling performance from Trevor Howard keeps this leaky old vessel afloat. You have to wonder though at the misguided optimism of the producers in thinking that casting the execrable Sonny Tufts would be a draw across the Pond. Curiously the part that was obviously written for an American, the raffish Canadian first officer, goes to that archetypal English gent, James Donald. And very uncomfortable he looks too. The most interesting character is Richard Attenborough's Dripper Daniels. It is Attenborough in familiar mouthy ranker mode, but with the added twist that his character is a trade union organiser in civilian life. Some fun is had with this, but the portrayal is perhaps more sympathetic than it would have been if the film had been made a few years later. The message of all-pulling together is a reminder of just how soon after the war this film was made. The film certainly takes its time to build up to the raid on St.Nazaire, which is dealt with rather perfunctorily. This must count as a missed opportunity as the raid was one of the most remarkable operations of the war. Instead we have a rather conventional tale of a raggle taggle ship's crew bonding into a disciplined fighting force. In fairness the vintage of the film means that some of the clichés may not then have been clichés, but it is fairly turgid at times, not least the anodyne romance between Donald and wren Joan Rice. An unrecognisably youthful Robin Bailey and a winsome Dora Bryan shine out among the supporting players.

Five Days (2007–2010)

Gripping human drama

[10/10 · 15 April 2007]

A number of posters have commented on the unsatisfactory conclusion. This is always a problem with long, complex dramas. Crime is essentially banal, so the pay off is always anti-climactic, whilst detailed exposition detracts from the human drama. The writer has used a number of clever devices to try and get round this, but has not been entirely successful. Answers to precisely what happened and why may have been supplied, but if so they are well buried. The viewer inevitably feels a little cheated.

But in a sense this is unimportant. The drama was never about the crime, or even the investigation, it was about the impact of events on the lives of those involved; the family, the investigators, the witnesses, the press. And as such it was gripping. The writing was a significant cut above the run of the mill for prime-time drama, and the performances uniformly good. In an ensemble piece it is invidious to focus on individuals, but Penelope Wilton deserves special mention for an extraordinary tour de force as the mother-wife-daughter, and Janet McTeer was in cracking form as a hard-bitten old cop.

One of the most interesting aspects of the drama is the handling of race, as the elephant in the room that no-one is prepared to mention. Subtle, powerful stuff.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Mostly disappointing

[5/10 · 16 May 2005]

A project drawing upon such familiar and much beloved material was always going to stand or fall on the delivery of the lines, and therefore the casting. Stephen Fry (a close personal friend of Douglas Adams) is a very acceptable Book, and the suitably improbably monikered Zooey Deschanel makes a fetching Trillian. Mos Def however is a bland Ford: there is no sense of assumed cool masking near panic. And Sam Rockwell gets Zaphod all wrong: a narcissistic pin-up with a crazed alter ego, when what he should be aiming at is Nathan Barley to the power of infinity. The second head is real cop out as well.

Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast is another disappointment; on paper he must have seemed perfect, but it does not come off. He works so hard on being diffident and dithery, that he fails to nail down his punchlines.

The likable Martin Freeman is also miscast as Arthur: Arthur is not likable, he is English. Faced with the destruction of his planet and immensity of the cosmos, his response is petulance and peevishness. Freemen misses this: you never feel that his Arther really NEEDS a cup of tea. He plays Arthur instead as a sensitive, modest, genuinely self-effacing sort of chap; Arthur is not self-effacing - any show of modesty is English understatement, and intended by him to be understood as such. One of the funniest lines in the book is when Zaphod congratulates Arthur on saving all their lives, "Oh, it was nothing", says Arthur. His chagrin when Zaphod takes him at his word is glorious. The exchange, needless, to say is missing from the film.

Doubtless the makeover of Arthur's character is deliberate; the film makers apparently feeling the need to give audiences a lead they could identify with, in an aspirational sort of way. Personally I always identified with the old Arthur, in a distinctly non-aspirational sort of way, and to be honest I kind of thought that that was the point. Satire is not supposed to be feelgood.

In similar vein, a gooey romance between Arthur and Trillian is thrown into the mix; worse it is implied that Zaphod is jealous, which is all wrong. An ego as monstrous as Zaphod should not be jealous of, of all people, Arthur. In the books Zaphod barely acknowledges Arthur as a sentient lifeform.

The film makers would doubtless defend themselves, arguing that the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy has continued to evolve through all its versions. This is true, but only up to a point; the changes have been structual, not wholesale reimaginings.

Other changes are less grating. John Malkovich makes a special effects heavy appearance as Zaphod's presidential rival, Humma Kavula; and there is a detour to the Kafkaesque planet Vogsphere. Accommodating these subplots does however mean that much original dialogue has to be sacrificed, whilst the storyline becomes even more rushed and lacking in proper resolution. The new material is not always as strong as the original, but it does at least have the virtue of being fresh; which is preferable to waiting for favourite lines, only to cringe as they are mangled.

Enough of the true Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy spirit remains to ensure that if you are coming to the film fresh there will be something to enjoy, but you would be better off seeking out the books or the original radio version (or dare I say it, the BBC television adaptation, cheesy special effects and all).

Kidnapped (2005 TV Movie)

Disappointing.

[3/10 · 28 March 2005]

The BBC Sunday tea time classic serial has been away a long time; in case anyone was feeling nostalgic this is a typical example of the amateurish, patronising fare considered appropriate for the slot. This is a far from faithful adaptation; which would be acceptable if the changes had been effective in replicating the excitement of the book in another medium. Unfortunately this was very, very dull. Precious little of the tension of the novel survives, but there is a lot of running around. The expanded role given to the cabin boy does nothing to advance the plot, and the young actor playing him is rather irritating. In another major plot change Catriona, the eponymous heroine of the sequel, appears a book early as the feisty daughter of the noble James of the Glens (rather than of the villainous James More MacGregor). On the plus side, Iain Glenn makes quite a decent Alan Breck, and New Zealand puts in a perfectly adequate performance as Scotland.