Film Reviews by JD

Peter Capaldi is this political drama. Every scene without him in lacks for it. He is a seething swearing tornado, spinning through the ministerial corridors of power. He is the spin doctor that makes ministers wince and fawn. His outbursts are utterly brilliant. Sometimes the swearing reaches levels of creativity that are artistic. He makes stressed Eric (a cartoon series) look banal. The plot is pretty good, it shows ministers as puppets of the civil servants and reactionaries to media pressure, who knows how accurate that is but I suspect there is more than a grain of truth. This is secondary to the whirlwind of humour. There are good comedians around Capaldi but to be frank their candles are blown out by the force 12.

I am a great admirer of North European Crime drama and recommend The Bridge with Sofia Helin and The Killing with Sofie Grabol. Salamander was recommended to me because of this. There is a distinctly different feel of this Belgian drama to the Scandinavian ones. Paul Gerardi is not such a likable character. He is an excellent detective but less committed and involved, he swaggers though his career and his family. The crime is a little more complicated than usual in these multi-level plots. It is a highly organised multiple blackmail, the nature of which unfolds slowly; as the victims are persecuted so they commit suicide. It is not done with any great emotion or intrigue and I felt was a weak area of the direction. I would generally recommend it as a dramatic and interesting detective series. I still prefer the Scandinavian ones.

I agree with the 6 reviews that go before me. I particularly liked the alliteration of PV "pity party polemic". Scoring two 1 stars, two 3 stars and two 5 stars is an unusually wide diversity of rating. Roots was an excellent ground breaking film into the evils of slavery in America. A difficult film to improve on. As I remember though Roots focused mainly on the capture in Africa, transportation to America and then the extreme subjugation of previously content, free tribesmen. 12 years features a less common practice of kidnapping American blacks and then subjecting them to constant, often sexually motivated, violence to the point of murder. There is more hanging and whipping in 12 years than other slave films. The sickening violence maybe helped to secure so many accolades. It is certainly well acted and shows slavery as the corrupting and decadent practice that it was. The characters are however extremely stereotyped and made me feel that the point was being made rather too simplistically. I am surprised that it was rated at 15 with as much rape, flogging and murder as there is. I think this goes to show the box ticking mentality of the censors: was there any nakedness? No. Did any one swear? No. It's not an 18 then. The 15 certificate may be what they were aiming for as a demographic. Simple, violent and haven't seen the older better slave films. Is it worth seeing? In my opinion, only when you have seen Roots as a serious film and Django Unchained as a partly serious and partly comical film, both of which are far more complex and rewarding.

This American TV drama has achieved cult status. Psychology students throughout the UK have the chemistry symbols on their T-shirts. From the perspective of one who was naive to this I would recommend it as a well acted drama series. It is definitely a walk on the dark side. An impoverished Chemistry teacher is forced to take a job washing cars (including those of his arrogant pupils) to get out of debt. The lure of making lots of money by "cooking meth" becomes too great. So far so good. He then quickly becomes a serial killer and super hero, able even to front up to drug barons, he spends most nights away from home making high quality amphetamine, his wife tolerates this remarkably well. The credibility for me was lost after the car wash. We are supposed to believe that just because he has cancer he will become a sociopath. Nevertheless it is an original idea and goes into the genre of black, nay light-less, humour.

A gem. This 1969 comedy drama will not appeal to many under 50. It is very dated, the action sequences are pitiful by today's standards, the role of women would be seen as unacceptable, and the acting a little projected, but at the time I first saw it, it was good and I when I re-watched them I felt a very strong nostalgic fondness for the wry, silly humour. Even for those who did not see them before there is nothing like this now and you might just find yourself smiling stupidly at the cine screen.

Like pretty much all medical dramas it is far too dramatic: Junior doctors physically bullied on ward rounds, senior doctors having swimming pools built by corrupt drug companies, managers directly coercing consultants to make unethical decisions. Real life is much more subtle and almost impossible to show in the format of a film. Nevertheless the essence of managers trying to assert power over consultants, of juniors feeling unvalued and the insinuating influence of sponsors on a trial are important points that are unfortunately too real and are illustrated effectively. The issue that was accurately defined was that of the dangerously incompetent doctor not only avoiding suspension but rising like scum through the ranks, promoted by the unknowledgeable managers while the competent skilled doctors are ensnared in bureaucratic traps.

If you care about medical politics this series will make your blood boil, if you want a dramatic drama the medical crises are very graphic and gut turning. The acting is 7/10 except for Keith Allen who is 10/10.

If you prefer Radios 1 or 2 to Radio 4 do not order these. These are spoken biographies of desolate ordinary people sitting in small, ordinary rooms. They take you into the heads of people who are in a quiet place, mostly lonely. Within this place there are poignant insights into the human psyche and moments of very amusing irony. In my opinion by far the best is Alan Bennett's autobiography which although dour has descriptions of childhood (that probably will not resonate with many modern children) which are so painfully and personally funny that it is embarrassing to admit to identifying with them. I gave examples but decided to remove them as they were not nearly so funny from my description. Some of the biographies I did not like, particularly Patricia Routledge's monologue of a blindly opinionated petty busybody. No doubt if you know someone like this it is funnier, I found it irritating and skipped these. Maggie Smith's is I think the saddest, a tale of a missed life and Julie Walters' tale of failed trial over adversity also a heart sinker. Definitely one for an intellectual watch, not for escapism.

This is a feel good action film for enjoying without effort. There are enough explosions and climbing lift shafts and car chases to satisfy any thrill seeker. The plot is a little unoriginal. The president and the free world are threatened, an unlikely superhero emerges. But you won't want it for the intellect.

This has a simple plot. A lone yachtsman has some bad luck then terrible weather then more bad luck. The only word throughout is an expletive said during some particularly bad luck. Some of the camera shots are dreamily beautiful some of the scenes are breathtakingly dramatic. Robert Redford acts very convincingly and I felt his frustration. As a one person cast though it would have been better to have a less famous actor not so type cast in very different roles. Some background to the character might have been good. It was good drama but lacked compassion.

It is usually pretty much the end of a dazzling career when a successful stand up comedian does their own TV show. But this is a well written sit-com with some glorious English comedy talent. Spleen's daughter Sam is just world class as a 20-ish student. Magda the housekeeper is played so well you cannot describe it. To be frank Jack Dee is the weak link, his acting skills are fair and he is outshone. The script is held back just to keep his stand up persona in the character of Spleen. A lot of his right wing rants, arrogance and deceitfulness would have to be played by a much more endearing actor to be funny, say Michael Palin. As it stands it is as cringey as Alan Partridge. I thought about a 4 star because of this but the rest is just too good.

Interesting description of 10 or so birds with some reasonable footage. Some of the filming is pretty old and faded. Most of the commentary is interesting but will be known to enthusiasts. Appropriate for birding beginners but a pretty short documentary.

Does MI5 really just provide evidence to suit the cabinet? Is the prime minister (Tony Blair) really so focused on doing anything to appease the USA? Probably. Is there ever going to be a member of MI5 who is prepared to have a show down with the cabinet and secret service? Probably not. It is however a good spy fiction drama. Bill Nighy is immeasurable talented. His character was utterly immersing and intriguing. This is for those who enjoyed Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy or like Nighy or just a good drama.

This account of the rise and fall of the Roman empire is given by a number of historians. For me the spoiler was that the American historians could not resist comparing every aspect to American history. I didn't get this to listen to American historians telling me how great Americans are. It was very irritating. The rest is good. The description of the games is quite difficult to comprehend in scale and violence but gives an interesting insight into the Roman psyche.

For me these lads are better than Jackass but it's close. I was surprised that in the bonus feature part one of the top 10 pranks (number 3) had been censored. There was still a commentary which made it clear that it involved a painful graze of the buttocks but it seemed odd to censor this rather than, for example, testicles being cut and bruised by snooker balls. There are some interviews with employers which don't add much but are quite funny. If you don't know what you are letting yourself in for, these are 4 lads who do very painful things to themselves or to each other.It is not big and certainly not clever but if you like slap stick this is the ultimate.

The colour is a bit weird. I don't know how they did colour in 1954 but everyone has mesmerisingly blue eyes. Some of it is a bit dated the stunt for example of falling looks very staged. Most is absolutely awesome, the direction (Hitchcock what more can you say), and the plot. The acting is definitely 50's style, sort of twee and theatrical but not bad in a light hearted drama, James Stewart varies. His comedy (trying to scratch inside a plaster of paris) is very average, his ability to convey the sense of frustration of an ambitious man stuck indoors, is spot on.