jfwhelan Reviews

Contagion (2011)

Very Disappointing

[4/10 · 28 April 2014]

This film is very hard to review since in many ways it defies categorisation. It defines itself as a disaster movie, but it isn't really, as the disaster is more of a way to move the plot on than being the plot itself.

The trouble is that the film never went anywhere and did not even follow through with its own predictions. We were given the maths, but the maths were never applied. Through out the film there seemed to be no problems with petrol (gas), power or communications and the effects of something that based on the figures given in the film should have accounted for more than 7% of the worlds population long before the end of the movie were completely absent.

Anyone with a basic grasp of maths and science is going to pick holes and find the script laughable and possibly insultingly oversimplified.

Watch it, you might be entertained, but don't expect to be impressed.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Turkish Delight!

[5/10 · 11 August 2012]

The kind that Edmund was given by the White Witch – it tastes good initially, but it does not leave you with a good feeling.

This is a well-made film and it does the book justice; so much so that it throws a particular aspect of that book into stark relief. The ancient roman games were a visual spectacle and now that this film presents these 'Hunger' games as just that – a visual spectacle – there are questions that can no longer be left unasked.

When I read the book I had to ask myself whether the story justified the violence. I found myself unconvinced – my problem was that for so much of the book, the violence was the story. Now I have watched the film I find my lack of conviction goes further; I worry that story is there simply as a metaphor to enable the violence.

This is not a film about the horrors of a group of young children and teenagers forced into a gladiatorial arena; it is a film about that horrific gladiatorial combat.

The film, like the book, is careful in its portrayal of the combatants; with one exception we are prevented from getting to know any of them. And that one – well she is used almost callously, for a moment of poignancy – a moment of meaning to counterpoint the meaninglessness of the violence that is playing out all around. So we have the death of Rue. She is killed and Katniss kills her killer. There is sorrow and sadness. Katniss sings to Rue and the body is laid to rest amongst flowers. But what of the young boy, he was only doing what was forced upon him – he was simply striving to live. No tears were shed for him. Of course not, he and the other 'red shirts' had to die. "Bread and Circuses," I can almost hear the cry.

Ultimately everyone who watches this must find their own truths. I hope they will ask themselves why they watched and more importantly, how they feel about their reactions to this film. For me the real horror would be to hear that people enjoyed the killing and the violence.

John Carter (2012)

It's not the book, but it's still good.

[7/10 · 19 May 2012]

I fell in love with Barsoom as a boy. I dreamt of going to Mars and finding my own Deja Thoris. And as I lived my life growing into each new age, these stories have stayed with me. Now as I find myself approaching my sixth age, as Shakespeare would have it, finally I find there has been a creditable attempt to bring my childhood hero to the silver screen.

The makers of this film clearly have some love and respect for the original; I find much of the heart of the stories that I loved in this film, but inwardly I weep that the attempt was not more honest and true to the source.

Too much was attempted here, much was changed, unnecessary complexity was introduced with insufficient back story and to what end? There was no need; had they followed the original story, they would have had a stronger film with a much easier and more coherent plot.

Why bring in Therns at all or the pilgrimage to Issus, this is all from the second book 'The Gods of Mars' and in it the Therns are anything but super-scientists and instead effete petty charlatans.

Still I enjoyed this film and John Carter and Deja Thoris were surprisingly well cast, but it has to be said that Deja Thoris Princess of Helium and granddaughter of Tardos Mors would sooner take her own life than run from anything that she considered her duty.

My abiding sorrow is that in the end this film missed its mark. I cannot help feeling that had there been less embellishment and more actual story-telling, then just maybe this film would have been more of a success and then perhaps there would have been a franchise… That way I would get to visit Barsoom again.

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

I was entertained

[6/10 · 6 November 2011]

I am not going to spend time discussing what is or is not a good film; in other reviews, I have owned that, on the face of it, a less than perfect film can prove very entertaining and that some acknowledgedly good films can prove a chore to watch. It's a wet Sunday afternoon: which would you rather crack a beer and watch, 'The English Patient' or 'Gold Finger'?

This film entertained me; the time passed and I found that for the scales weighing enjoyment against annoyance, enjoyment had won out.

Yes, the first twenty-five minutes were in a different class to the rest of the film and it is a pity that this good start was not carried through to the end. There were things wrong with this film. Script, emotion and tight direction were often lacking, yet there was generally good pacing and cinematography.

At the end the main redeeming feature was that there was some coherence to the story and that it did follow from beginning to end. The use of the sword as link throughout the film was under used and at times almost forgotten, yet it still helped maintain a story line with basic closure. I have no real problem with the absence of dialogue; there are many ways to tell a story and the visual method can work well. That it was not wholly successful here is down to the lack of emotion and atmosphere that was needed to colour the picture in the absence of the vocal interplay.

What this film needed was more finish, better thematic and emotional pacing and an overall 'style'. It is not sufficient for just the scenes and the story to be set in some age; life has to be breathed into that age; one needs to feel that one is watching a Cimerian and that his land and culture are real. This is, I believe, where this film failed and the root cause for the disappointment and poor reviews. We often fail to notice how good or bad something really is, when our first though is that it is not as good as we had hoped!

Hanna (2011)

A Very absorbing story, but there will be questions

[8/10 · 5 June 2011]

My immediate reaction after watching this is "Wow!"

This a is roller-coaster ride of a film and most of it is the fast paced downhill and tight cornering part, though there are one or two necessary breaks when the roller-coaster climbs to it's next peak.

The film is well made and the acting is impressive. Saoirse Ronan is a revelation in her role. She played the part of an all knowing ingénue to perfection and in so doing displayed a detached and innocent beauty that was never coy or knowingly sexual. I believed, it that she could have told the hotelier in absolute detail how the light worked, yet found the actuality of its working almost magical.

As can be inferred from the above,I very much enjoyed this film. I particularly liked the way the director allowed the film to unfold without those overused ploys that add false tension and maximise the embarrassment of certain encounters. Hanna was not embarrassed by her ignorance or mistakes and it was right that we were not lead to be embarrassed for her. The levels of tension and menace occurred naturally with the plot and worked.

If I have any problems with this film, it is with the story. There is some exposition as the film progresses and we do glean a certain understanding of the immediate focus of some of the characters. However, we never really get to nail the underlying motives and reasons and we certainly never get answers for some of the important questions. I wanted to know a little more about Hanna by the end and was a little let down by the way the film just stopped, as it did. Maybe there is to be a sequel: there is certainly room for one.

I don't usually look for parallels or possible muses when I watch films. Sometimes, however, they come unbidden to me. When watching this I find definite parallels somewhat obviously, I suspect, to 'The Bourne Identity' and perhaps less obviously to 'Blade Runner'. And like 'Blade Runner' we have a pretty good idea who the 'baddies' are, but we never really get to decide who the 'goodies' are. I just hope that like 'The Bourne Identity' there is more to come.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)

Finally! This one is well worth watching, 10 April 2011

[7/10 · 10 April 2011]

The Dawntreader just ahead of 'The Horse and his Boy" was always my favourite Narnia book - not sure why. Maybe it's because it was a little out of the mould of the rest. Anyway this film worked; it had a good story and the whole thing hung together well. I know they changed the story somewhat, but they maintained the spirit of the story: it is, in my opinion, a reverential and very acceptable version.

I can't help feeling that this was make or break for this franchise. 'The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe' was okay. A little shallow and overly effects and action driven, but it wasn't bad - but then it wasn't exactly memorable, either.

Then we had 'Prince Caspian' perhaps my least favourite of the books, but still the book was streets better than the film, which completely failed to convey the magic of the book. All one can say is that the director had gone for a 'Return of the King'-light approach and completely failed to bring it off.

So I had pretty low expectations when I set out to watch this film. As it happens I could have set them pretty high and still found them low of the mark. As said above, this film was very well done and certainly did not let the audience down. Here was magic; here was action; here was pure entertainment.

Watch it if you like a good story, this will suffice and if you want a bit more than just a good story this still will suffice.

A standard has been set now, so lets hope it's maintained for the next, which I am guessing will be 'The Silver Chair'

Clash of the Titans (2010)

If you know the story or enjoy a good film, please avoid this!

[2/10 · 20 August 2010]

I learnt the myth of Perseus and Andromeda as a boy when I started looking at the night sky and the constellations: Perseus, Andromeda, Cassopeia, Cepheus, Pegasus and Cetus.

I guess most of us know this story about how the beautiful princess is punished by Poseidon after her mother Queen Cassopeia boasts that her daughter is more beautiful than the Nereids. Andromeda is chained naked to a rock as a sacrifice to the cetus (a sea monster, but not a kraken). In the myth Perseus saves and weds his princess, though there is a spot of bother at the wedding and 'yes', Pegasus and Medusa Gorgon do come into it.

The 1981 film did not stray too far from the story and in addition we had Judy Bowker and Ursula Andress to look at, along with Ray Harryhausen special effects and a pretty decent cast. All in all I was quite satisfied.

I have a soft spot for this story, so I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately the director and screen writers saw things differently and seem to have gone out of their way to ensure that I would be completely and utterly disappointed and have left me asking these questions:

• Why was there no character development?

• Wouldn't it have been nice to allow the actors and actresses a chance to act?

• The myth provides a rip-roaring yarn, why not use it?

• Also I have to question why was Pegasus black? If this was some miss-guided attempt at political correctness, then it was just crass, insulting and hopefully born of ignorance.

• Why was Andromeda roped to a wooden trestle on top of a building? Given the vast amounts of paintings and statuary depicting this scene all I can assume is that the Director and script-writers are sadly ignorant or worse they assume that we are.

• Clearly this is meant to be an 'effects' driven movie; why then aren't the special effects special? Compared to the effects in other recent films, these are really not as good and are certainly not sufficient for a remake of a film with Ray Harryhausen special effects.

I could go on and on, but then I would be just as boring as this turkey of a film. So, instead I choose to finish on a good point: Gemma Arterton - you know she really is most awfully pretty.

Alice (2009)

A Masterly Re-imagining

[9/10 · 9 December 2009]

I rarely like 're-worked' classics. They normally miss the point that the author was trying to make or lose their way trying to be different. This, however, is a masterpiece and works on every level.

If like myself you are a fan of the author Lewis Caroll and the mathematician/logician Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson then this has got to appeal: the intermingled references, quirky facts and nods to the knowing are just wonderful. I am sure I did not get anything like all of them, but the enjoyment I found in spotting these references and obscure nods to Lewis Caroll/Charles Dodgson was immensely almost smugly satisfying.

The story is of itself interesting and absorbing, with truly wonderful acting, casting and direction and the cinematography and visual interpretation of this edgy dangerous wonderland is nothing short of inspired.

It almost seems unfair to single anyone out for extra praise, but Mat Frewer (The White Knight) and Andrew Lee Potts (The Hatter) in particular were both quite simply exceptional.

If I have a slight criticism it is that sometimes Caterina Scorsone as Alice failed to completely deliver the softer vulnerable 'girlie' aspect to her character that was the necessary balance to her harsher more brittle and damaged personality. Her character was necessarily incredibly complex, requiring a multi-levelled and very pure almost innocent interpretation and for the most part she pulled this off, truly convincing me.

So to conclude I can only exhort you to watch this. Whether you have read the 'Alice' stories or not I cannot believe that this will fail to entertain and impress.

My Sister's Keeper (2009)

Good, but I can't help feeling there is something missing.

[6/10 · 3 November 2009]

Do I think this is a good film? Well yes, but I have reservations. The acting was first rate and the writing and direction are well above average, but still there is something that is not quite right for me.

I guess my problem is that the film begins by touching on a very tricky and emotive problem and then seems to get cold feet and fails to fully examine it and at the end side-steps it completely.

Is it right for a child to be used in this way? Most of us would go along with blood transfusions and then bone marrow transplants, but when it starts to get to kidney transplants and dangerous and life-changing (for the worse) procedures we would all feel that the ethics here need to be examined. It is certainly a judgement of Solomon.

I am British and things are a little different here. As I understand it such an operation could not be so easily sanctioned and Doctors and Hospitals have a legal requirement to protect the rights of the Donor. Anna would almost certainly be made a ward of court and if it was judged she was capable of informed consent then her wishes would be paramount, otherwise things would get messy, but the courts would act for Anna until a decision had been made. I cannot help wondering how accurate this film is: would Doctors in America really be prepared to forcibly remove a kidney from an unwilling donor just on the parent's say so? If the answer were 'Yes', that would be a little worrying.

Surely the whole point of this film's story was to examine these difficult issues, which begs the question: why did it chicken out? I haven't read the book but I am aware that the story had a very different conclusion. I can't make comparisons and I am not one that believes there can't be a good book and a good film if they are different, but film or book a story has to deal with the issues it raises and unfortunately, this, the film fails to do.

Still it is a wonderful film and the time will pass quickly, its just that it is thought provoking and may well leave you with the feeling that there was a wrong that was not properly acknowledged or identified and certainly never righted, which when all is said and done is a bit of pity.

The Hangover (2009)

It didn't really work for me.

[4/10 · 25 July 2009]

Clearly lots of people enjoyed this movie and even found it funny, so I certainly don't intend to insult what appears to be the majority, by suggesting that they don't know what they are talking about. Taste and humour are very personnel, so please read this review as one man's opinion.

The humour on display here, strikes no cultural accord with me, yet is clearly popular in the US, which leads me to assume that this is idiosyncratically American humour (or should that be 'humor'?), though I mean no disrespect in drawing this conclusion. To me it was unsubtle and based almost entirely on put-downs and pratfalls - it was not sympathetic or comfortable; one would definitely have to laugh at someone, there was never that warm inclusive moment when one felt included in a instant of shared humour.

As one would expect from the title the story as a whole was very predictable: This film was always going to rely on the set-up and delivery with the punch line, being less relevant, but not unimportant, since this is where the the audience would expect to find satisfaction: the themes, plot and sub-plots need resolution and vindication at this point and the extent to which this gives closure and satisfaction to the viewer is ultimately what helps to inform our overall impression.

The idea of this movie is fairly well used, but still has plenty of life left in it: we start with a seemingly impossible and certainly implausible scenario and then unwind the story to show how it came about, finally winding it on to the point at which all the issues are resolved. Ideally we should find as the story unfolds relationships and pre-existing problems are also solved and resolved as the characters we come to love, grow as a result of their trials and vicissitudes. Unfortunately I didn't like any of the characters and at best I could only claim to have come to tolerate some of them by the end of the movie. To this extend there seems to be something of a groundswell agreeing with me from my perusal of other comments.

The set-up when it finally happened - it would have been so much better as the opening scene - was reasonably inventive and certainly had scope, but... We had already met the characters by this stage - opinions were formed! I can not believe I am alone in finding the juxtaposition of the Alan Garner character and the baby as anything other than uncomfortable. For me as for every parent, I would assume, the idea of a baby with a character that has told us he is banned from going near schools is completely drained of humour.

From here on the film proceeded as a succession of vignettes and comedy sketches, with the main characters taking a level of damage that would have finished Wile E. Coyote, yet carrying on little scathed. There were uncomfortable moments, but there were no moments of tension. It wasn't that one did not care what happened to these people (though I didn't much), it was more a case that the 'comedy' seemed to imply the characters were indestructible in a cartoon-like way and therefore not requiring of our care or sympathy.

Which leads to the denouement (the punchline) which for me was sloppy and hurried. It was more a mad-cap ticking off of items on a list than a careful and satisfying final weaving of the various story threads into a triumphal and complete ending.

This is definitely for those who enjoy sight-gags and humour that tends to the slapstick end of the comedy spectrum. Those looking for dry humour, one-liners, satire, pastiche or the more cerebral styles will not be so well catered for.

I cannot pronounce against what is clearly not my cup of tea, but by defining what did not work for me I would hope to help others who's tastes might be more conformant with mine own.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Not deep, not Good and not the book! ...but it made money

[3/10 · 14 July 2009]

I really enjoyed the book. It was a thundering good read. Okay maybe the story lacked consistency and depth, but that doesn't matter: it did what it was meant to do - it entertained. For all those people who poke fun, pick holes or spend ages listing the errors, I have but one response: you are missing the point - it's fiction.

So as you can see I was hoping for an entertaining and absorbing movie. Alright they were going to have to make the puzzles a little harder. I mean was there anyone who failed to solve the anagrams or mirror writing at first sight? (One criticism of the book that is hard not to concur with) In addition the script writers were going to have to be resourceful, since suspense would be difficult to engender given that the story was so well known and the plot admittedly a tad linear.

Unfortunately the movie missed the mark by a country mile. Where the book was fast paced and enthralling the film was slow and uninvolving. The dialogue was trite and unbelievable and the plot completely mismanaged.

The book certainly simplified the subject matter and adjusted facts to fit the plot, but it never insulted the reader - it assumed a knowing intelligence and a willful suspension of belief. The film however was crass and insulting in its treatment of the audience and the way it negligently failed to even bother to try and paper over the cracks and, indeed, chasms in what plot it allowed was extraordinary.

As far as I can see there was but one single intent in making this movie - to make money!

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

A Story Without a Plot

[4/10 · 16 February 2009]

The original was impressive and still has merit today, so it is easy to see why a remake seemed so enticing. The trouble seems to have been one of maintaining a relevant and coherent plot.

In the original the premise that our race was dangerous to ourselves and ultimately others made sense within the context of the story, but We, as a race, have moved on from that point and nuclear destruction is a less meaningful plot; so the central premise has been changed to the environment and this is, I would posit, the downfall of this movie.

That we inflict harm on our own planet is to the detriment of ourselves and the other creatures that share our planet, it in no way affects other civilisations. Even if one accepts Klaatu's glib statement that there are very few worlds capable of supporting complex life, this is still not a reason for what Klaatu is planning to do. Time and evolution will take care of our suicidal short-sightedness and in the scheme of this planet we are as much a natural disaster as 'Snowball Earth', the end of the Dinosaurs or the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period.

The film would have us believe that Klaatu is some sort of galactic creationist who believes that the damage we do is permanent and that there can be no further evolution or change. This is of course unsupportable and unbelievable even within the context of the movie.

Micheal Rennie's Klaatu was complex and multi-layered with a clear an moral raison d'etre; Keanu Reeves' Klaatu is almost robotically devoid of any complexity with an amoral ill-defined purpose - rather than being a messenger of hope and reason, he comes across as one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Whereas Micheal Rennie's Klaatu could and did take the moral high-ground, in this version we have an amoral alien learning reason and morality from us. This ill-conceived turnabout removes any kind of purpose from the story: a story without a plot, as it were!

What we are left with is a shell of a movie: technically well crafted; reasonable, when not cheesy, special effects; good sound and occasionally very good photography.

Without a plot the story cannot sustain, the acting has no meaning and the experience is flat an uninvolving. I am left believing that the original was of its time and quite simply did not allow a contemporary remake.

I have to conclude that it would have been better if this film had not been made.

The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008)

A film worth the seeing, with story, action and a large dash of the outré.

[7/10 · 14 June 2008]

I really enjoyed this film: the story; the cinematography; the clever intermix of action and narrative allowing the pace and depth of the story to build carrying me the audience along with it. It is an almost forgotten pleasure to enjoy a film where the story is as important to the director as his film-craft.

This is a children's tale and there is just enough menace and terror to excite and frighten its intended audience without ever going too far. And in addition there is also more than enough joy, humour and healing in it to easily offset the darker moments.

The acting is for the most-part, good, with Sarah Bolger (Malory) easily the best and carrying her every scene.

Watch and saver this film and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Skinwalkers (2006)

Hard work - not a joy to watch!

[2/10 · 29 January 2008]

I mainly watch films to be entertained. Some good films, though usually worth the effort, are not exactly entertaining and some really bad films are a good way to spend a couple of hours and forget the world. Unfortunately this is neither a good film nor an entertaining one.

There just was not enough story to go round. There is supposed to be a legend and a curse to be lifted. I needed more back-story. I found it impossible to care about a fight that had little or no explanation.

The film failed to create its own mythology and did not respect the generally accepted mythology. For instance, though silver was mentioned at least once, it did not seem fundamental and ordinary bullets were quite effective. In addition there did not seem to be a hard and fast rule as to when the change-over was meant to or had to take place.

Acting, direction, cinematography and script were patchy at best and for the most part not anything any of those involved could be proud of.

To conclude it is hard to say anything positive about this film, I cannot even say it was a good attempt, since I haven't the slightest idea what was being attempted here. The only thing I cared about, by the time the film was finished, was that finally the tedium was at an end.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

Embarrassingly Bad

[2/10 · 23 December 2007]

I wanted to give this film a 'one' and then I thought: was it that bad? Well, yes, in a way it was, but then it was never pretending to be great art. To be fair, it never really lost site of the fact that it was attempting low-brow entertainment.

There were intriguing aspects, small glimpses of vapid silliness; perhaps it was not totally without some glimmer of redemption. Watch it if you dare and see for yourself.

With reservation I have awarded this a 'two', but feel I am being generous, it is just that I have to reserve 'one' for the truly terrible (E.g. films that believe cold water is only dangerous on the outside of ships!).

The Breed (2001)

Okay, so it was pretty dreadful—but still, I sort of enjoyed it!

[3/10 · 7 October 2007]

Like the curate's egg' this film was good in parts, but they weren't very big parts.

I have always enjoyed the twist associated with 'good vampires' and I guess I am still waiting for a film to properly use it.

This film was too outré and grotesque (in the original meaning of the word) for it to have worked as anything other than an over-the-top dance-macabre of a film; a sort of Grand Guinol of the film world. Unfortunately it never really achieved this distinction and instead we are left with a mishmash of themes and failed attempts at being something that it never quite achieved.

The script and the acting were pretty deplorable and the direction was anything but tight, though still one can sort of envisage what was intended; and those stolen fleeting glimpses serve to supply enough motive to keep watching. In the end this continued attention is utterly frustrating, since the ending manages to further let one down and, indeed, the rest of the film.

I don't say 'Don't watch this film!' I would, however, warn you to keep you expectation low, and not to be too surprised if it fails to live up to them.

Vampires: The Turning (2004)

Story never really goes anywhere!

[4/10 · 6 October 2007]

There's a good story well hidden and never really used!

The film is short and overly dependent on action and thematic photography; somehow, character and story development have been forgotten. What is left is muddled and superficial.

Turn off your brain and watch—you will probably find that the time goes quickly enough, but unless you are the sort of person that finds soaps deep and meaningful, you are going to get no real satisfaction from this film.

Watch only if you have nothing better to do and then only if someone else pays for the video rental.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1981)

There is a need to set the record straight!

[8/10 · 23 February 2005]

I have read through the reviews and find that many people are questioning whether this series is faithful to the books. It pre-dated most of them! I remember listening to the original radio shows on the BBC – I loved them: the humour, the wit, the sheer mind-boggling grandeur of the concept. Later when Adams rewrote his early radio scripts as a book I read it, but was disappointed: for me, it lacked the immediacy and the warmth of the radio scripts – I personally think the later books that were not radio script rewrites were better, or maybe it's just that I wasn't finding fault with differences between the books and the loved original.

Yes this was first a radio show, then a book (later books) and during the process of writing the books was transcribed from radio to a TV comedy in 6 half hour episodes closely matching the equivalent radio episodes from the first (radio) series. Don't assume you are watching a film or a mini-series – you are not! This was produced, because the Radio series was absolutely cult for many baby-boomers who had listened to it during their University years and the BBC recognised the demand and catered for it. Yes it was low budget, yes of course there were many things wrong with it, but Adams, himself, was involved in the TV scripts and the story changes were his or at least approved by him.

For those of us who had loved the radio series, this was good stuff; the right jokes were there and more importantly the late great Peter Jones was still the voice of the book. In fact we had the same Arthur Dent, Zaphod and Marvin as well. I, personally, was reasonably happy with the new Ford Prefect, but oh so disappointed by Sandra Dickenson as Trillian; for me, as for so many, this character had to have Susan Sheridan's voice and I will never be able to imagine her as blond.

It wasn't the radio series, but it was still very good, so please see this show in context as something between the original radio series and the books: it was never an adaptation of a book it was an adaptation of a radio script as were at least half of the books (I say at least half, since Adams wrote more radio scripts than were ever made and I think some of the later books were first conceived as radio scripts). Finally please remember you are criticising what was designed to be a sort of six episode sitcom it was never a mini-series. And for those of you who are only familiar with the books go back to source, if you can, and revel in the original radio series (12 half hour episodes in two series) and please remember these are not an adaptation of the books: these are the original and were made and broadcast before the first book was ever written.

12 Monkeys (1995)

This could have been a great film, but

[5/10 · 31 January 2005]

The acting: really very good.

The direction: clever, thematic and nicely understated.

The plot: unbelievably simple – a six year old would easily spot the holes: - ah but we can't have that can we? So what to do? "I know" someone says "lets hide it." This is where the film goes wrong: time travel is notoriously difficult to get right in terms of narrative so that it both works out and is internally consistent. Unfortunately the method used here was not to bother and just hope that if everything is sufficiently cryptic-seeming then no one would notice. To be fair this does seem to have worked at least partially judging by some of the reviews. I have a mathematical background and am a lover of science fiction and I am sorry but good acting and film-craft can't cover up a childish plot.

Clearly the overly signalled end was the starting, and perhaps the only, plot premise of this entire film. This really means that the rest of the film was effectively filler to get us there and when analysed in terms of plot consistency this does seem the only possible conclusion. Let us look at some of the many really blatant faux pas:

1. They are not very good at finding the right time or place. Yet they always manage to find the Earth and get there person on the surface wherever and whenever they inadvertently send him. (We will forgive this one: it is a biggie, but it is kind of necessary so lets be generous)

2. Why do they need this 'dead letter' method of passing messages if they can find there target when they inadvertently put him amongst the French forces in world war I or when the collect him from his hospital cell?

3. What is the point anyway? They know when and where to find the first victim – so go back get a blood sample; end of problem.

In those precious few moments in this film when we are given access to some actual plot we are presented with that tried and tested 'Time Travel' conundrum: what came first the cause or the effect? The 'If I hadn't tried to fix it there would not have been a problem to fix, so how did this get started anyway' question. Don't get me wrong, I realise this is the inevitable distillation of most good 'Time Travel' stories and if it is handled well and given a new or interesting spin it still has plenty of mileage left in it. Unfortunately there was nothing new or interesting here; there was not even a real attempt to make it fit with the ultimate (obvious from the beginning) plot twist.

This film could have been so good, but no one likes being taken for a fool. So once one realises that in plot terms the king really does not have any clothes one really feels rather used and this makes the good parts of this film all the harder to appreciate or enjoy. Unfortunately a near miss often come off worse than something a good deal worse: compare this with 'Plan Nine from Outer space'; this is so nearly a good film, yet 'Plan Nine' is arguably less annoying to watch!

50 First Dates (2004)

I Enjoyed it.

[7/10 · 28 January 2005]

This is quite simply a very enjoyable film. It's not, perhaps, a great film, but it is fun and it left me feeling pleasantly content. Basically this is a romantic comedy about a man (Henry) and a woman (Lucy) who meet and fall in love, there is just one problem: Lucy won't remember, tomorrow.

It is easy to pick holes in films and yes there are things wrong with this film:-

• The first 5 to 10 minutes do seem a little out of place: I understand the need to set the scene, but couldn't help feeling that the pace and characterisations didn't quite fit with what was to come.

• Some of the characters take away from the story: Doug (Sean Astin) is a little over done and comes across as more damaged than his sister. Perhaps the worst, though, is Henry's female (?) assistant: this character was a mistake and did not belong in the film.

In the end, these flaws don't matter: the film is enjoyable and that is what counts.

The plot, even if somewhat contrived, is clever and in the context of the film believable: there is a good beginning, middle and surprisingly satisfying end. Some of the difficult aspects of the film are not ignored but properly dealt with. Clearly it is easy to read a sordid side into the idea of a man meeting a beautiful woman each day in the knowledge that she will forget everything and they can start again tomorrow. This is covered and Henry is asked some pointed questions; without giving anything away, his answers worked and leave us, the audience, able to enjoy the film, without any unpleasant nagging doubts or feelings of guilt.

Don't analyse or pick holes; just watch this film. Chances are very good that you will enjoy it. It is a fantasy a bit of escapism: a first rate piece of entertainment and hopefully it will leave you, as it did me, feeling pleasantly content.

Cheaper by the Dozen (2003)

Deeply Flawed – The message seems to be: "Give up; accept second best"

[4/10 · 21 January 2005]

I have resisted watching this film for a long time; I remember cringing when watching Steve Martin in the remake of 'Father of the Bride' and did not wish to see an actor, I enjoy, suffering so again. Well this also was not a patch on the original, but that said there was nothing wrong with Steve Martin's performance; he does well with the material as indeed do all the performers. In fact this is well directed, and a fine film technically: it is just that the script is unbelievably awful (warning there may be slight spoilers):-

This is a film about family values, yet it has been written by people who clearly don't understand family values. There is no family spirit; no feeling that, with the exception of the parents, any of the family members cares about anyone but themselves. Of course children can be selfish; of course families have off-days; but at the end of it all they pull together, that's what it means to be part of a family. This family didn't pull together; it was self destructive to an absurd degree. I come from a big family I have a big family and one thing I know, as does anyone who is or has been part of a big family, is that big families need discipline. When you have more children than you have hands, you have to know that your children will do what they are told when it matters: this is fundamental it is simple survival. The major calamities, the scenes of complete mayhem, these at least rang true, but where was the aftermath: the parents seemed to accept it as there lot to be the butt of their children's nasty pranks. I don't mean to be overtly moral, but for this film to have worked it needed to have a moral backbone, there needed to be a demonstrable upside to helping each other and a realisation that when hurt was done, that this was bad: unfortunately this was missing even to the point that we, the audience, were meant to think it funny that one of the children was nicknamed Fed Ex to signify that he did not fit in. The first time it was sort of funny, but when it kept happening and was not challenged it became unpleasant. At least here there was a consequence, but there was no acceptance of guilt on the part of the main perpetrator and there was no evident remorse.

If you watch this film, I am sure there are odd moments of high comedy that will appeal, but, unfortunately, that is probably all. There is no pathos, no feel-good emotional payoff. The ending is deeply disappointing. The parents give up. All they needed was for the children to help for two weeks, but that was too much for this loveless family, so the parents give up their dreams, and accept the easy course. What sort of lesson is this? If threatened with difficulty, if the right thing to do is too hard – Give up! This film does not have a nice message. I find it deeply worrying that there are so many favourable reviews. On reading some of these I am relieved to find that their authors, clearly, took other things from this film; who knows, they may be right, perhaps I have misinterpreted the content. There are others, however, who seem to have read the same message as I, but see no wrong in it: this I find disturbing!