Film Reviews by JD

Although this an excellently acted American war film it is competing with an overfull genre. It is in a minority in that it is the Japanese that are the enemy. It is not unusual however in that there are overwhelming moralistic themes on the horror of war. The gentle soldier is the main theme. Some of them become numbed with brutality, others go mad. To be frank there are so many moralistic points being made that it loses its own thread. There are flash forwards to African villages that really are never clear, are they flash backs? How do they get to Africa from Japan? Why? Everyone drinks spirits by the bottle but nobody is drunk. Are they all extra-special? Will you care? I don't think so.

Eddy Remayne was rightly lauded for his amazing portrayal of Steven Hawking as he became increasingly disabled with Motor Neurone Disease. The film is otherwise full of plot holes and inconsistencies. I understand that the film is actually about Jane Hawking which may explain some of these, but I agree with other reviewers that this seems to be a film reaching out to an American market. As I recall they even refer to his disease by the American term ALS.

The plot has been pretty well covered in the cover "live, die, repeat" and the other reviewer's mention of Groundhog Day. This plot line has not been over-explored in my opinion and does well for the Cruise treatment. Some reviewers are not predisposed to Cruise. If you are not, don't get this film. He is in every minute of it. I think Mission Impossible is a fantastic series and saw every one. The fighting suits that the soldiers wear are great, like small transformers. Some of the acting is a bit limp but I hardly noticed. Good fun film.

When you see a film that sneaks into your thoughts all the following day; is that a good film? I think so. It is emotional which will appeal to many but also very thought provoking. Without giving too much away the central character is driving and is distracted when his car collides. 7 are killed including his wife. His guilt and sense of loss become intensely motivating. Is this possible, to become so focussed and determined, driven by such a force? Extreme altruism is difficult to believe, and this is what the film leaves you with. Is it believable? It is a bit overly sentimental at times in an attempt to stay mainstream, but I didn't find it too contrived.

If you have read Dan Brown, been told by some arrogant cock that it is all bull, or all gospel, and remain quietly unsure but interested; then watch this. Is Friday 13th unlucky because of the assassination of the Knight's Templar? Was Leonardo da Vinci trying to hide clues in his painting of the last supper? Is there a secret organisation following the descendancy of the daughter of Christ? Why were/are women subjugated for religious causes. Was Mary Magdelene a prostitute? Was she Jesus's wife and mother of his children? How many children did he have? What do we know, how much is complete and utter speculation?

Some of the historians who have studied these problems are a little eccentric and more interesting for it. Like life, more grey than black and white but still, extremely interesting

Not a good title. It would suggest too brief a moment in time. It would also suggest a day of great joy. Far from it. Although the more pedestrian parts of this film are of Palin walking through cemeteries looking for stones with the date of death being 11th November 1918, and pointing out, rather patronisingly, that this doesn't necessarily mean that they were shot on this day. There are also some interesting parts:

Hitler's reaction to the German surrender as a private.

The suppression of a report into the ridiculous attack after surrender, allowing American commanders to receive honours for the pointless, condescending, self-aggrandizing loss of life of thousands of soldiers, resulting from their orders of stupid hubris. It's what politics is all about.

If you want to feel sick to the bottom of your stomach to see the very worst aspects of human behaviour, a must see.

I think this is aimed at 3 - 8 year olds. It is a silly story involving 3 llamas who cause wanton damage and act very selfishly towards the other farmyard animals, causing initially sadness then anger and finally relief when finally they go. Not really what I would recommend for small children but maybe there is a good moral in it somewhere. The sadness for me is that there are Nick Park animations that I have watched with great joy for decades and have been an inspiration to generations. These are tough acts to follow and it fails miserably.

Fry and Laurie. Marmite I'm guessing. Personally I'm a great fan but I can see they might be a bit self-indulgent for some. Added to which Jeeves and Wooster also Marmite, except that I did like the concept initially of an underdog being all-knowing while his incredibly rich master is less knowing. After an hour of What Ho!, jolly japes, blighter, spiffing, dashed awful, crickies, I was less enamoured. After 2 hours really not enamoured at all. Similarly there is a foot-tapping jazz melody that plays during the opening credits which is absolutely corking. It is then played, in variations, continually, as background. After 2 hours you will want the cornet player to push his mute in to the hilt.

I would suggest that 1 episode a week will leave you wanting more. I wish I had done this.

The level of horrific, real African style violence in this film is maximum. I have no doubt that there have been many times where this is an accurate portrayal of the life and times of South Africans. It does not make for easy viewing and you will leave the sofa at the end of this film feeling shocked, angry and bitter. Is it better to see such barbaric, savage brutality or to be sheltered and serene? Personally I would prefer to believe that it is uncommon and leave it at that. If you want to see what Edward Zwick thinks it was like, go ahead but will it make you better?

Storming Normans does not even come close to describing the impact of these soldiers in the 11th and 12th century. Prof Bartlett is a great presenter if a little blighted by styes/hordeolums. His account of 1066 is fascinating. Why did it only take 1 battle to conquer England? Why did he want to? There are a hundred things you thought you knew about the Normans that are only partly true. Dr Baxter's account of the Doomsday book is interesting but overshadowed by the better prepared and cleaner narrative of the preceding 3 episodes. The legacy of the Irish invasion remains with us today.

The Nordic countries seem to specialise in excellent crime suspense detective stories. Are there any that are not awesome? Dominic Monaghan, I accept is a Brit and his character is great: disturbed, utterly motivated and pleasantly unfriendly to his colleague (none of the Hollywood style hate gives way to love trite rubbish). The story is of the pursuit of a serial killer which becomes the pursuit of serial killers. Novel plot, stunning acting and totally compelling.

This is essentially 2 films. Distant voices is set around a physically abusive father and husband. Still lives is set around the weddings of the 3 children. There are so many flash backs and forwards it is difficult to maintain an interest. The theme is life and times of a working class family who sing for about 50% of the film and cry for a similar fraction. Muddled, disjointed and far too much singing to make it feel authentic.

On the negative side this is now 19 years old. The 3 Gorges dam on the Yangtze river is no longer a dream. More positively it is a very candid and interesting trip round the Pacific rim. Michael Palin is one of the most likeable actors, but to be frank he starts to grate on the nerves after about 2 hours. I think he should have been allowed off centre shot for much longer. Some of the scenery is wonderful, some of the people and customs fascinating, Palin should be allowed to let us see them.

12 years ago watching this series was cult and classy. A new comedy that was really funny not just because it was so different. The strange filming style of speeding up and slowing down was quirky and the British actors unknown but genuinely talented. What has changed? The most important is that you shouldn't watch the episodes together. The comedy is too repetitive, almost a sketch show of caricatures. The second is that I have seen them before and although I can't remember that much plot, it is no longer shocking. It was so ahead of its time that it isn't dated. For those with a medical humour leaning who have not watched it before highly recommended but just order 1 disc.

A historical portrait of a period in time is a difficult thing to achieve. Do you concentrate on politics, fashions, art, science, religion, crime, scandal or discovery or a bit of everything? Too much of everything risks being chaotic and disjointed. Some things are better documented than others and therefore more accurately recalled, some are more photogenic.

This attempt for me is a poor pic'n'mix of salacious news stories, light entertainment and politics. How Rolls had to travel to Manchester to meet Royce was quite interesting, watching Marr being driven in a Silver Ghost uninteresting, in fact there is far too much of Marr's face altogether. Just because he wrote this hotchpotch doesn't mean he is the best to present it, nor do I wish to gaze endlessly at him.