Reviews

An Obi Wan story which comes in the back of the massive success of the brilliant Mandalorian, this is doing about enough to justify its existence. The negative reviews I've read on here fall into the 'what did you expect?' category, so ignore them. This is an attempt at - forgive me - balance.

First, it's a huge shame Jon Favreau, who has single-handedly saved Star Wars under Disney, isn't involved in this show. He alone seems to understand the universe and the vision of George Lucas above all in any of the sequels I've seen apart from Gareth Edwards, who did a great job on Rogue One. But neither of them are involved which seems to have relegated this show to one which piggy-backs on the success of the other show rather than taking the success further. So first of all we need to get over that. This show has been made by second-raters. Why, Disney? This could have been brilliant if the right touch had been applied.

Second, this is, 4 episodes in, a good story. I won't spoil the plot but it's fairly obviously about Obi Wans attempts to protect Luke and Leila from discovery or capture. There is plenty of opportunity to explore this, so far the plot is decent.

Finally, what we do have to help the story, in lieu of the right writers / directors is Ewan McGregor. His contribution to this show gives it a heart and soul the production team needs so badly. So far he's doing a great job of showing Obi Wan as a defeated man, sad and lost yet focussed on the one thing that could save him and the fight against the Sith. It's a beautifully nuanced performance which gives credibility to scenes which would otherwise be awful.

Episode 4, which I'm up to now, is good and much better than reviews suggest. It points a way forward to the series after a pretty clunky start. I hope the show improves, but I think even if it continues in its somewhat ham-fisted approach that Ewan will save it. Because of him, this is Star Wars. Just about. May the force be with you, old friend.

Nymphomaniac is a good film. It has bad moments, but it must be said it has some flashes of brilliance. Von Trier is a funny guy, a filmmaker who plays with his audience and can occasionally go a bit far, but this film is, at it's core, a warm hearted and sympathetic look at a woman driven to extreme behaviour by her own inner demons. The dialogue is at times clunky and feels like it is being read from the page- particularly by Gainsbourg, who I thought was less well suited to this role than that in Antichrist. Her flat delivery occasionally shows up lines that need polish. Stellan Skaarsgard, however, is great, his own performance saving the script at times. Yes, it is contrived, yes, it is pretentious and the film is below the standards of von Trier's best work such as Dogville, Dancer in the Dark or The Idiots, but for me, this is nearer to those films than Melancholia or Antichrist. Don't let the morons writing these reviews put you off. Give it a go and watch with an open mind. Lets just not talk about Shia Leboeuf.

Every season of Breaking Bad does it: that moment when you realise your jaw has dropped and you are completely aghast at two separate things - the shocking turn of events and the fearless brilliance of the shows creators. The 'mid-season finale' does not disappoint.

I can scarcely thing of a less predictable show than BB. No matter if you guess one of the things that might happen - you'll never guess how, and anyone who hasn't seen this episode should run mile from anyone who tries to spoil it for them. Again, Vince Gilligan makes amazing use of the shows back catalogue of episodes to make this episode fit so beautifully, almost poetically, as a key point in the story of so many characters. It ends the mini-season leaving you itching to jump forward in time so you can find out what happens next, and is easily the best episode in what has been another incredible season.

Discussions will rage on geek sites for the next 8 months and in bars all over the US and hopefully the world about what should happen, what will happen, who the hero of the show is or will be, and who will survive. The saddest thing is that this masterpiece of television will end next year, leaving a Sopranos-sized whole in the lives of all those who have watched it.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was my favourite book as a kid. I read all of Roald Dahl's books until they fell apart but Charlie was my fave. The 'original' movie with Gene Wilder was an absolute travesty. I'm sure it seems like a cool film if you know nothing about the book, but as an adaptation of a classic, it omitted every bit of dark humour and the child's glimpse of the adult world that was Dahl's trademark. It isn't a cinema adaptation of the book, more a complete revamp for a Disney type audience. This Burton film, in my view, is a near perfect film imagining of the Dahl novel. Long overdue, it captures the essence of Dahl even better than the excellent James and the Giant Peach animated movie. Not only that, it is easily the best Burton film since Ed Wood, maybe even Edward Scissorhands, and places him back on the top of the list of Hollywood auteurs (to misuse a term). Dahl fans, Burton fans, rejoice! Fans of the Gene Wilder film, stay away.

What I mean is, don't let the hype surrounding this film put you off. If you like suspense thrillers with a bit of action that demand FULL attention, you should love Inception. The film is not an intelligence test, although I'm sure its growing number of fans consider themselves to be superior to those who don't like it. However, it WILL test your patience at the beginning and will only pay off according to how much you pay attention. The plot is very complicated, much of it taking place in one of the character's dreams. These dreams have been orchestrated and designed by Cobb (Di Caprio) and his associates. Without revealing the plot, the central premise is that you can sedate a person, induce a specific dream using a technological thingamajig and invade that dream in order to, for example, steal information from them. This essentially is the set up for a complicated narrative involving DiCaprio being half forced, half cajoled into the more difficult task of planting an idea into the head of the heir to a massive energy conglomerate, played by Cillian Murphy. I'll leave the rest for you to discover. The beginning is hugely action-packed, but in a way that is deliberately confusing. Director Nolan attempts to have the plot reveal itself to the audience as naturally as possible, using fairly traditional story-telling devices for exposure. His intention seems to be to have as little authorial presence as he can, to draw the audience in fully. How much you enjoy the film depends on how successful Nolan is at drawing you in. I gather many people have gone in expecting the greatest film ever, and left disappointed. This is inevitable. If, however, you go into it wanting to be drawn in, and follow the path laid out for you, you will, I believe, be drawn in as fully as I was. Time to gush: the plot is really original, and pretty air-tight. There are no gaping holes that cannot be explained. After the long opening sequence, the film is totally gripping. The packed audience at the screening I saw was literally on the edge of its seat, leaning forward spellbound by the end. The shouts and applause I witnessed as the credits appeared were louder and more enthusiastic than anything I have seen since Pulp Fiction. Wow. In addition the effects are stunning, while at the same time necessary and unobtrusive. The over-dramatic, very loud and much hated score really only mirrors the drama on the screen and I have no problem with it. Of key importance is the acting, as the film is so big, it could swamp the characters. The ensemble cast, however, is uniformly brilliant, although Ellen Page from Juno is a little overwhelmed and is the weak link, she does a really good job to be fair. Special mention must go to Ken Watanabe and Tom Hardy who are super cool and provide a little lightness now and then. But this is Di Caprio's film. This will surely be seen as his best role, the culmination of a superb recent streak of great performances in great films. He genuinely has the gravitas to hold the film together and give it a moving, human element sorely lacking in some of Nolan's otherwise brilliant previous films. A great movie. Watch it at the cinema, with an open mind.

This is what happens when you don't get in to see the film you intended. There we were, looking at alternatives, and I say lets see this. Why? Isn't it obvious? Neil Jordan, Bruce Robinson, both awesome at what they do, Robert Downey Junior, great actor. All I can say is I have never lived picking this film down with my mate and whenever I try to say anything about his taste, he reminds me I picked this. It isn't scary, it isn't interesting, there is no suspense. Maybe Robinson was operating out of his comfort zone, but this film is truly appalling, boring, and occasionally laughably silly. If you want to see something vaguely like this, see 'Fallen' with Denzel Washington, which is much better. Stay away from this.

Scorcese is the greatest. Even his films that fail do so with the most admirable of intentions. This is not one of those. One of his best films of the nineties, second only to the monolithic achievement of Goodfellas, this is an altogether different kind of Scorcese film, an understated, beautiful piece of film-making.

The way to enjoy this film is to look out for the implicit violence threatening always to break out into this horrific world of upper middle class intrigue. The vile backstabbing of old New York society feels as realistically portrayed as the other New York we normally associate Scorcese with. We are truly transported into this era - the director being significantly aided by some truly incredible performances. Daniel Day Lewis, who is without a doubt the best film actor in the world, certainly of the last 20 or so years, is predictably excellent, but this film really belongs to its women. Michelle Pfeiffer is stunning, as is the oft-derided Winona Ryder in a career-best performance of astonishing depth.

I have watched this film many times, less often perhaps than the more obvious entertaining crowd pleaser films Marty has made his name making, but every time I watch it I discover something new. The action is slow, it requires patience, but this film will, if you let it, reward you in spades. Highly recommended to anyone who isn't put off by period costumes and old-fashioned dialogue, or anyone who likes Scorcese but has let this gem pass them by.

I've read this film compared to Coppolla's The Conversation, both favourably and unfavourably, on the discussion boards here. It should be noted that the two films bear only superficial similarities, mainly that the protagonists are middle-aged surveillance operatives who get involved with a case.

However the styles are very different. The Conversation is a classic, and magnificent, piece of 1970s US paranoia-thriller, the best kind of film which came out of Hollywood in that decade of scandal that signified for many, the death of the American dream. Das Leben der Anderen is an equally intelligent and artful film, but one (from what I can gather) typical of modern German cinema, drenched in a sadness about its past, featuring strong themes of divided loyalties and moral dilemmas, but hopeful (unlike Coppola's film) about the future. Less suspenseful and pacey than The Conversation, this is a tale that gives a human face to the victims of the Stasi in East Germany, and, although it keeps you on the edge of your seat, is more of a drama, more sentimental in tone.

A wonderful film, its magic is in the feeling it generates in you for its characters, and the almost gentle tragedy that unfolds. A serious, well made and superbly (that should be underlined: superbly) acted film that isn't ashamed to tug at the heartstrings a little. Small wonder it won the Oscar for best film of 2006: I can't imagine a better film was made anywhere that year.

The only reason for anyone to review this is surely just to gush. Some friends were talking about it the other night and it just made me want to post something on here. I think that, although a lot of modern US shows are following on from where 'The Sopranos' took things, with cinema-level writing, acting and production values, I think there is an argument that Twin Peaks has never been topped.

At the time, it was a phenomenon. People of all age groups watched it - although rather adult in theme and very confusing, my little sister who was 10-11 in 1990-91 was completely hooked and over the course of a year or so spent all her pocket money on buying the videos, books and other stuff - she even bought a dictaphone! (main character and 'hero' of the show Agent Cooper always talks into a dictaphone). Its has, of course, become one of the biggest cult shows ever, and has been hugely influential on modern television.

Like all David Lynch's work, most of which of course has been released at the cinema, Twin Peaks is heavily stylised and can seem a bit silly out of context - the acting can seem theatrical and plain bad. But once you get into it, you realise it is part of the show's otherworldly charms. The dreamlike feeling, the creation of a vaguely 1950s time-warp atmosphere, the collision of childlike small town innocence with the brutality of modern life and the outside world, these Lynch staples are played out to maximum effect here (much like in Blue Velvet), and by using the soap opera format, the characters get time to develop and fill out, becoming as real as any on-screen creations I can think of, full of flaws and contradictions. As a result, Twin Peaks is one of the most affecting pieces of modern culture you are likely to come across in any medium. It is a topsy turvy journey into the imagination of a man who really does deserve the accolade genius, and for me it is his masterpiece.

Anyone out there who hasn't had their life enriched by watching this fabulous show please, give it a go. It's weird (its REALLY weird) and uneven and it can test your patience. But it's as high art as TV gets and you will come to love it if you give it a chance. It is, pardon me, a damn fine television programme.

Well, another reviewer says they laughed at this twice. They also recommended Michael McIntyre instead, which I think tells you everything you need to know.

I could be rude about them, but then this wouldn't make it past submission.

In fact, although many of Frankie's jokes ended up on Mock the Week (not the other way around), a lot of this is far too offensive to get on TV, and much of it is off the cuff. It's hilarious from start to finish. You will hurt. What's great about Frankie is that he is actually interested in comedy as a form, and is trying to be individual (if originality is rather difficult these days for the angry comic). He is also genuinely trying to make us think about what is acceptable content for a joke. If, like me, you think humour is one of the only ways we can cope with tragedy and horror, and that therefore anything is acceptable providing it is not exploitative, you will love this DVD. If, however, you think cancer, rape, cerebral palsy and Down's Syndrome are unsuitable areas for comedy, do not repeat do not watch this. And while you're at it, have a rethink. Because this is as close as British comedy has come to a Bill Hicks or Lenny Bruce type of comic. Long may he reign.

Tony Scott can make good films and bad, personally I think he can be a bit flashy and trashy and his work obviously suffers in comparison with that of his rather famous brother, but this is quite possibly his best film.

What makes this film so great is that Scott gives Denzel (on scorching form, better than Training Day) and the revelation who is Dakota Fanning time to develop a relationship of real warmth and tenderness. The set up is absolutely NOT boring, although it takes time - it is involving, and takes us on a little journey into the characters - including a superb role for Radha Mitchell as the mother. This all serves to make the action so much more effective, as we are so invested in the characters, for all their all too obvious weaknesses. This film has you on the edge for its entirety, and doesn't cop out at the end either.

The film would of course be nothing without Washington. I often wonder why he seems to get so many duff roles, when he quite clearly is as good as almost any leading man out there (I can only really think of one, Daniel Day Lewis, who has more on-screen power these days). This film should have been huge, given his status and the strength of his performance, and the quality of the film. It just goes to show you that if a studio doesn't back a film to the hilt, it ends up going straight to video. I wish I'd got the chance to see this on the big screen.

Amidst all the mediocrity of this years Oscar haul comes this charming little gem. I must admit to having been put off by the fact that Nick Hornby adapted the screenplay. He is a part of that Richard Curtis 'flogging of chocolate-box-England to the yanks' axis that so many of us find so detestable. However, here there are no cheap stereotypes, no Hugh Grant er er erring his way through another feeble Hugh Laurie impression, and no out of sequence seductive shots of Tower bridge or St Pauls cathedral 30 seconds after the same characters left their Fulham flat. This film is a fairly real feeling, evocative depiction of England on the cusp of the dull MacMillan years and the real swinging sixties. Never fear, no clichés here guys, the film is neither neo-Kitchen sink or third hand nostalgia for something that hardly really existed. It's an honest story about a girl on a dangerous voyage of discovery, full of excitement and pitfalls, just like real growing up.

Exciting it is, too, with its themes of escape and dream fulfilment, but as we witness and experience all this quite believable glamour, we are so aware of the kind of avenues most film like this lead us down. Will the film cop out? No! Again, the film avoids all cliché, leaves us a little sad, and doesn't spoil a great little story with any moral or warnings. The ending may lack the spark of the start, but it again feels real. It must be said, the title is perfect.

As are the performances. Carey Mulligan will get the plaudits, and I hope, the Oscar, for her charming (there's that word again) natural performance, full of subtlety and insight. However Peter Sarsgaard is pitch perfect as is the ever gorgeous Rosamund Pike and a terrific support cast including national treasure Emma Thompson, who is apparently now old enough to play a headmistress, Dollhouse's Olivia Williams, and the wonderful Alfred Molina.

Of all the Oscar nominated films I've seen (Ive seen quite a few), this is by far the best. A British film that isn't targetted at a demographic, that only wants to succeed on its own terms. If only they did em like this all the time. Hopefully Oscar glory will get it a re-release, in which case, go see it!!!

This second part of the story sees Mesrine lose his direction a little - what is he doing it for? He starts to see himself as a revolutionary, opening up some avenues for the film to explore. However, considering the run-time of the films when put together approaches a whopping four hours, we see very little of the vacuous, empty soul of this disgusting man. By far the most revealing scenes of the whole thing occurs when he is in prison in the first part. The terror he experienced is not built on. All we see in this part is surface.

As a result, we know very little about Mesrine after watching this film, except that he hated the capitalist system he waged war on. Of course, perhaps there is little you can say about him without humanising him. I know Cassell, a powerhouse of an actor who carries the film in the manner of a Brando or De Niro, wanted to give an honest portrayal, without causing excessive sympathy for his character. However cinema can do so much to convey depth and humanity in all its glory and terror, sometimes in a single shot or line, and that is lacking here both in the writing and in the direction, which (and this is a flaw of many biopics) is too episodic and even paced to create much drama or interest other than that brought by the efforts of Cassell.

Perhaps a tighter single volume would have been a better film, even if it meant leaving out some details of the story, perhaps a braver editor might have cut some of it down. But this film is too long and delivers too little. Maybe its just not that good a story to tell?

Donnie Darko's director Kelly had a lot of good will behind him in making his second film, and he definitely used it all up with this mess. There are holes in his debut, but it has a centre round which to hang things and we are able to make some Lynch-like sense of everything. Its a great film, full of humanity as well as crazy ideas. Here, Kelly has clearly either let success go to his head, thinking that he's some sort of genius, or else he's drowning in a sea of angst. The apocalyptic vision on offer here is straight out of a teenage fantasy, with characters like Sarah Michelle Geller playing a (totally unconvincing) porn star and Justin Timberlake singing for the Killers in what is a great scene out of context but means nothing in the context of a narrative. That's the problem with this film. It has interesting ideas and bits, and it looks great, but it has no narrative to hang onto, no characters to care about and no heart. Its pretty girl pretty boy end of the world angst is reminiscent of a Gregg Araki film (like Nowhere)but without the wit or anarchic craziness to entertain you. I genuinely don't know what Kelly wanted people to take from this film. It should be great, but its just a big, confusing, boring mess.

I urge all British comedy fans who haven't been lucky enough to discover Seinfeld to grab themselves some dvds. It never received a decent slot on network TV here in Britain, where it is only really has a cult following, which is bizarre considering how popular it was over the pond. This has been our loss. It really is my favourite show ever.

Seinfeld is comedy as high art, the episodes working as mini-plays that mix farce with realism in a Woody Allen style, but with a hard modern edge that derives from Larry David's unique view of the world. The interplay between the four main characters is incredible, and the writing is never sloppy, due I believe in the meticulous nature of Seinfeld and David, who always retained creative control. Michael Richards' fabulous physical comedy and timing as Kramer won the fans over but the show really belongs to Jason Alexander, the true actor in the cast, as my hero George Costanza, the ultimate deconstructed man. Guys, lets face it, we're all a little George.

Its been over for years but I still re-watch old seasons every so often and talk about episodes and funny bits with my friends - which I could do for hours. Effortlessly hilarious and inventive, charming without ever being sentimental, Seinfeld shows us how to find comedy in our own lives. It is truly a gift to us all. Thanks Jerry.

Woody Allen rose to prominence as a maker of comedies that rely on witty neurotic dialogue and hilarious one-liners. Its still what we associate him with and love him for. In Sleeper, he was stepping out of his comfort zone and making much more physical comedy, inspired more by Charlie Chaplin than his hero Groucho Marx. The result was probably his most balanced really funny film. His other truly hilarious films are often rather crazy, with a sense of total loss of control on his part, scenes being in place purely for their humour rather than adding to a well thought out story. But here, despite still being a truly silly film, he is in total control of every element. The parody of the modern New York society that he usually inhabits which he manages to construct in the future is so perfect that it still feels like we are in his world. His interplay with muse no.1 Diane Keaton is at a high point, and his own performance is possibly his greatest, with his physical comedy timing up there with the silent movie greats. Shelve next to Annie Hall, Manhatten and the Purple Rose of Cairo right at the front of your collection. A classic.

I love Woody Allen films and whenever a new film by him comes out, I am rooting for him to produce something great again, so when I heard good things about this I was looking forward to it. I hated it. The plot is predicable noir, with some of Woody's clunkiest dialogue ever. The pressure, given the genre, is on the leads to smoke up the screen. The lovely Scarlett is quite well cast and suits her role physically, but there isn't much chemistry with Jonathen Rhys-Meyer. What can you say about this guy. Truly dreadful. His lines are poor in the main, but he makes them seem worse. The scenes with him and Scarlett should lift the film and give it a heartbeat, but they seem under-rehearsed and wooden. Its like watching a school play. He may have the looks, but next time Woody, cast an actor please. This guy just wrecked your film. Together with that, Woody Allen love him just doesn't have the feel for London that he has for New York. Johannsen's Fulham flat is a cheap dump? Come on! Anyone who live in London would be able to tell you that that place would cost a fortune and a student would NEVER be able to afford it! So the film is rendered out of touch and lacks all credibility. The tennis metaphor, to finish off, is rather flimsy and lacking any resonance, unlike a lot of Woody Allen's work. Altogether one for us fans to gloss over and forget.

This really is stunning, by far the best episode of Dollhouse. Well, it isn't even really an episode of Dollhouse and should really have been the 'Serenity' to the series' 'Firefly'. It is cinema quality and a worthy story of full movie treatment. I only hope it is pursued at some point. I thought Dollhouse was a great first season, with a terrific finale, but this has surpassed the show by a long way, and its really a crime that it received a low-level release. I urge all Whedon fans to buy or get hold of the series and watch this 'epitaph' last. How the series goes on from here (i wont spoil it by even hinting what happens) is anyone's guess, but I cannot wait to see the second season now. Joss Rocks!!

When I saw this on release, I was amazed, and was really affected for a long time. The director's manipulation of the audience is impressive, but only in the way Rupert Murdoch, for example, uses his media empire to manipulate voters. Now we know just how much Stone wilfully distorted facts and lied. The message of the film is all-important. And, being a lie, what's the point? All the acting is first-rate, and I'm sure many of the members of this stellar cast still see it as a worthy addition to their CV. It is, it must be said, a masterful use of the tools of cinema. With all the subtlety of a brick, Stone has perpetrated one of the biggest crimes in cinema. I will never go to another Oliver Stone film after discovering what he did with this film.

Charlie Kaufman is a great writer of enjoyable multi-layered movies that try to break with convention and keep the audience on its toes. I found Synecdoche a bit predictable, however, and not up to the level of his best work as a screenwriter.

The Woody Allen-like angst ridden hypochondriac male protagonist is becoming a bit of a Kaufman cliché, as is the estrangement of male-female relationships and the difficulty of male-female communication. See Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind for more of the same.

So, much like Woody Allen, the content of the film is no surprise. It was exactly like I expected. Surely for CK this is a bad thing? He used to be Mr. Originality...

I must say that I do agree with other reviewers that the first hour is brilliant and for a while I thought I was going to adore this film. The problem is that the film takes place over decades, and in order to get in as much time change as possible, the messing about with time that occurs at the beginning of the film accelerates to an almost unmanageable degree by the second half of the film, making it disconnected, formulaic and boring. The film is so (intentionally) self-referential that it becomes self-indulgent, mirroring the play Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character Caden is directing to such an extent that it becomes just as pointless, with the ending really too predictable. It is telling that the really ambitious part of the film, then, doesn't really work. Its also really depressing. Depressing and boring is never a good combination, the good will built over the first hour almost gone by the time the credits come to our rescue.

The acting, however, is uniformly superb, especially the always great PSF and one of our true British stars, Samantha Morton. Even the girl from Dawson's Creek is pretty good. But I think Charlie needs firstly to get a collaborator to work with who can harness his frankly absurdly prodigious talents as a writer, and secondly stop making films that appear to be about caricatures of himself - maybe I'm wrong but it seems that way, and we've seen it all before. The seven I gave it is as much for trying as anything, but the film falls some way short of its lofty ambitions.

This was my favourite film when I was a kid, when John Landis really was it. Here, his use of the actors and the setting of the city of Philadelphia is wonderful. He has a way of using cut-aways to still objects that heighten the comedy, and in this film, his talent was I think at its peak, as is that of Eddie Murphy, before the mega-stardom that ruined him. The script is fantastic, not a line is wasted or cheap and the delivery of each line right down to the cameos (from the likes of Jim Belushi, Bo Diddley and Frank Oz) is spot-on. The script is so choc-full of laughs the whole cast gets to add their own touch of humour, so that twenty-five years on, discussions still go on about your favourite bit (mine is Eddie Murphy's face at the BLT line). Even the music is perfect - the use of 'serious' classical music in a comedy was of course a Landis/Bernstein innovation also previously used in Animal House, but its even better in Trading Places. A rare thing - an intelligent farce. Timeless.

This film is probably one of if not the best sleeper hits in film history. Of all the votes cast on IMDb, I bet less than 1% saw the film at the cinema. Like all sleeper hits, under-hyped at the time of release, when you watch it and revel in its brilliance, your hair standing on end in parts, it feels more personal to you than a massive blockbuster. I think this is why it is so over-rated. it is not a ten. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman are so fantastic and the story is so emotionally wrought that it is possible to get carried away. But better than the Godfather? Gimme a break!!! We are comparing the work of a superb craftsman with the work of a visionary artist whose films have had more influence on modern cinema than anyone bar perhaps his old film-school mates. A fantastic, hugely-credible tearjerker. By the DVD, get it out now and again, get yer tissues ready.