Film Reviews by AB

I really liked this film - OK it is in the same vein as Hunt For Red October as a submarine-based film but in this film (as in others) you realise the pressures of command that these submarine captains are under - not through leadership of men but the power that they hold in the capability of starting a conflict that will have no winners, and they are asked to play politics as well, dealing with people who drive a desk all day and call it pressure. Submarines are not as un-manoeuvrable as some will have you believe, just slow and steady when required and where everyone has to think in more than 2 dimensions. My one major gripe about the film was the unbelievably simplified scenario that the SEAL team just walked into a Russian naval base. I would recommend this film

Contrary to the film critic's view, this is not "a masterpiece" nor a "must see" - it is unadulterated drivel, with a premise of a storyline quickly disintegrating into a fairy story and psychedelic over-reliance on the viewer's observation and guesswork. As for the ending, wtf is it supposed to mean? Another of those films that only film critics rave over due to 'atmosphere' 'camera work', 'storyline' or sound-track, but especially the last of those do NOT make a film worth watching. Even the critic below does not know what is going on "What is this main event you may ask? Well, I don’t know for certain:". I do - there isn't one that is worth mentioning but it is rubbish whatever it is

Don't know why this spawned 6 sequels as it was very average with only a couple of amusing scenes with predicable outcomes in the whole storyline

Intriguing film but a bit confusing at times - trying to work out what *actually* happened, I turned to Wikipedia where it told me that there were two timelines in play - one in black and white and the other in colour (backwards and forwards). The film might have held it together for me a bit better if I had known that before watching it.

This is just a female Indian version of the "Only Fools and Horses" Jolly Boys Outing but with a bit more social commentary, probably more akin to an Eastenders/Coronation Street episode. Most of life's foibles and troubles are here but what spoiled the film for me was the soundtrack - most of the time I couldn't make out what was being said by the characters - accents? poor diction? Poor soundtrack quality?

Wasn't a great deal of actual history in this - sure the outline facts were correct and the film was set in one particular time and setting, but the whole thing was set in Britain, so it was basically about the Romans trying to subdue the Iceni, etc. (despite a side issue to inter-"racial" love story) and nothing to do with their whole way of life, structure, army, conquests, etc The modern-day rapping, dancing and singing would help younger viewers remember some areas of the history but it still left me hankering after the Monty Python "What did the Romans do for us?" scenario

Despite the critic's review (see below) I found the opening scene the funniest of the film - not much laughter followed after that because of the paucity of jokes, scenes and situations. Very American in its humour -i.e. puerile, in a suburban setting where everyone has perfect teeth, houses, cars, jobs, money and ways of overcoming any sort of obstacle without getting into any harm

Nice storyline with several twists to the plot and good acting with Audrey Hepburn looking gorgeous and Cary Grant effortlessly gliding his way through his character. A young James Coburn adds to the faces that you know. Don't know if this is defined as one of the 'classics' but if not, it almost is IMHO. Recommended

To me most of the second half of the film was confusing - was WM's travels to find the photographer in his mind or was it real? Too arty to be a film to recommend with all sorts of morals seeming to drive the story rather than any entertainment value. Characterisations were a bit standardised and the acting wasn't very difficult - lots of trite phrasing and situations. Even the much-sought-after photograph was a bit underwhelming but was a clever denouement. Did like the scene when "Ben Stiller" was showing off "his" skateboard skills whilst his paramour wasn't even paying attention - I hope the real 'athlete' got paid well.

I usually like Ben Stiller's stuff but this is not one of them and the daydream sequences were too overboard to be acceptable - more akin to the Marvel Cinematic Universe's CGI

Fonda gives a class in how to act cool, calm and collected - even his horse riding seems to be better than everyone else in the film. You know the story and how it will pan out but that doesn't detract from the film's overall ambience and who will get the just rewards, positive or negative.

Too confusing, too loud, too unbelievable, too rubbishy to even be taken seriously as a film.

"edge-of-your-seat" adventure? No. An early Kurt Russell film that should have been buried under San Francisco.

Nothing good about the film at all, no storyline, no decent special effects (perhaps excepting the bug-eyed all-seeing beach ball) and too many Chinese mythology sub-stories that just help confuse the main 'action', which is a long uninteresting sequence of kung-fu confrontations that have been better done in other films and TV series - yes, you, Grasshopper. Cannot recommend at all

A bit of the "only in America" scenario here - the religious cult, the over-zealous FBI, the 'odd' child but the film is actually quite watchable if only to find out what will happen at the end - which is quite interesting. My major quibble about the film is how much of it is filmed at night or in the dark, where it is nigh-on impossible to see what is going on with a minor observation that not enough is explained as to *what* the boy does to people. Watchable

The drawback to this disc is that there are only 3 episodes on it, the first 2 are parts 1 &2 of a story, the third is the first half of a 2-parter, so you get the full onslaught of one but only a skirmish with the other. I loved the first scenes (ie pre-title music) of the first story, introducing a character that I defy anyone to have predicted and which leads to some quite touching scenes later on. The interaction of the storyline with Missy (with or without Peter Capaldi) is great fun and the pair of them with Scots accents bringing out the humour of the situations is well worth the watch!

Amusing in parts, saccharine in others, but overall not a great film - too twee, too predictable, too American to be of any good. Kills a couple of hours of your life.

Over the 3 programmes, every known fact and story applicable to the tragedy was given to us, with personal stories of 3 Londoners, but historical facts, modern-day surviving artefacts and stonework and re-enactments were well done (albeit with cheap graphics). However, what was too irritating was the repetitive push that the programme was about The Fire of London - we know that ( the clue is in the title); that the London in question was a tinder-box (anyone with any knowledge of history would know that buildings were wooden in those days) and that it spread quickly- the presenters kept repeating these, as if speaking to an audience with goldfish-memory syndrome. The replica burning buildings at the School of Firefighting were educational, as was the temperature measuring and calculations, and I would have loved to have seen an experiment showing the river of molten lead from St Pauls. The saving of the Tower of London was shown to be a real positive, due to the fact that it was an arms dump, but I'm afraid that because it was originally shown on a commercial TV channel, the advert breaks would have driven me to distraction - even their removal here without the removal of the 'welcome back' speech preyed on me and the whole thing would have been better as a 2-part, rather than 3-part, series. If you ever invent a time machine, avoid London in 1665 AND 1666 - it won't end well otherwise. Watch the series, despite my misgivings on it.