Film Book and Music reviews

Enchanted April [1991]

Captivating

Set just after the First World War this is a gentle and beguiling tale of four ladies who seek some peace and quiet, basically some room to reflect, away from their cares in a watery England by renting an Italian castle, no less. It's remarkable that such a captivating film should result from such an unpromising storyline yet it does.

How overdue can a DVD release get?

The film was made in 1991, saw a Golden Globe award for Miranda Richardson for 'Best Actress' and a deserved Oscar nomination for 'Best Supporting Actress' for Dame Joan Plowright.

Anyway, it's here at last. If you haven't seen it yet and are a fan of 'Merchant Ivory style' productions (it's unlikely these two things will coincide but just in case they do) you should lose no time in buying and watching this DVD as soon as you can. The performances are a delight.

Snobs: A Novel

Sub-Waugh and not very good

This is a curate's egg of a novel but mostly bad, alas. A situation comedy about some forgettable characters it's at its best when we hear a kind of "voice-over" from the narrator describing the mores and values of the self-styled upper-class and these all-too-rare scattered paragraphs analysing this bunch, documentary-style, have a nicely ironic tone. However, the moment the reader is buried once again in the rather tepid and under-written comedy scenes the whole thing flags and you get at best, at very best, a pale imitation of early Waugh stuff. I think possibly the problem is that the author couldn't really decide whether he wanted to savage the upper crust or 'explain' them, love 'em or loathe 'em, and ends up doing none of these things very well. As a novel it cries out for some sharp edges and they're simply not there so the whole read is well, a bit dull, unfortunately.

Lost In Austen [2008]

A treat

At one point in this lovingly-made, delightful and funny production the invented Austen character Miss Amanda Price, acted with verve by Jemima Rooper, persuades Mr Darcy to play Colin Firth (in that soaked shirt scene so tortured by the pause button on so many VHS recorders for so long by so many female followers) and exclaims 'I'm having a strange post-modern moment here.' It's a telly moment to relish.

What went right with this four-part series? Just about everything.

You have the Pride and Prejudice story intact but endangered by its time-travelling visitor yet the feel of the story is there in a way that no television or film production has captured since arguably its best ever representation, the BBC series (pre-dating the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle effort for all its merit) with the Fay Weldon scripted excellence that was the BBC's production in 1980.

Looking just at the, how can I put it, the dramatic 'side' of "Lost in Austen" I think some of the characterizations in this series approach and in a couple of cases even surpass the performances of the actors in the definitive 1980 Pride and Prejudice series. Both excel in their own way and just in case you are at all worried about any humorous tinkering that might 'spoil' the original Austen story then all I can say is please don't be. This series I think appeals on several levels, not least to fans, like me, of the original novel.

Apart from anything else, here we have the best and prettiest ever Jane (Morven Christie) and the best ever Wickham (played by Tom Riley) to name but two from a cast who clearly enjoyed themselves making this series. However, singling out anyone is perhaps unfair because there are very convincing performances all round. The director, too, handles adeptly the original story as if re-telling it to fellow fans but adding some of his own wry "Life on Mars" type jokes along the way. It just works.

The series is a credit to all concerned but if special mention be made then it should be of Guy Andrews who wrote the script giving all its invented P&P scenes a witty and authentic Austen irony.

He also gifts us such lines as "Miss Elizabeth Bennet has just lent me her mobile..."

Miss Amanda Price's expression as she delivers this deadpan line is a treat.

So is this series.

Twenty Thousand Streets Under The Sky

Superbly acted 1930s costume drama

This is a superb three-parter, played back-to-back, adapted from the semi-autobiographical 1930s trilogy by Patrick Hamilton.

Apart from the fine performances in the lead roles by Bryan Dick (Bleak House and The Virgin Queen), Zoë Tapper (who played Nell Gwynne in Stage Beauty) and Sally Hawkins (what a gifted actress she is - she just seems to get better and better every role she takes), there's great support from all the cast as the Beeb does what it does best - costume drama. There's an authentic feel to the whole thing as three very ordinary people are caught up in a twisting melodrama based on unrequited love.

Here Auntie has transported us to the thirties and you do feel you're really there (there are nice little touches like the can of Brasso on the bar for cleaning the pumps etc.- the unsung heroes of BBC dramas are its production designers and set dressers.)

My very favourite scenes (and that's up against some strong competition from other scenes) are when Ella (played by Sally Hawkins) deals with the amorous advances by one Ernest Eccles (Phil Davis, very good as ever) - The scenes are funny, poignant, tragic, realistic; the lot, and these two make it seem so easy. It's like watching a how-to acting lesson.

I won't put in any spoilers at all. If you like excellent acting and first-class costume drama, set aside a Sunday afternoon for this one. I think you'll enjoy it.

The Wire: Complete HBO Season 3

Realistic Stuff

I've just finished watching this series, having seen the previous two and it's just as good. For anyone who doesn't know these series at all; if you enjoyed the Sopranos saga you'll probably like 'The Wire' too.

In common with 'The Sopranos' it has a well constructed script with lots of story arcs and fine acting (it's easy sometimes to forget you're watching actors and not the real thing). The 'action' ranges from the long periods of mundane day-to-day drudge where nothing seems to happen to sudden frenetic and violent catastrophes when everything does. Often things go wrong because of inter-departmental rivalries, unco-operative colleagues, sheer bloodymindedness, bad decisions and bad luck.

The gangs mirror the police in a similar way having their own hierarchy and suffering perversely the same problems as do the police above. 'Meetings' take place at various levels from the street level right up to the gang leaders planning and strategizing.

This is clever and quality stuff indeed and worth seeing.

Sea Of Souls - Series 1 [2004]

Each of the stories in this series are split over two long episodes and I think the series suffers as a result.

The stories aren't bad at all, if you like the supernatural/paranormal sort of thing (and I do) but I think there is too often some plodding and ponderous plot to get through on the way and that leaves the whole series feeling a bit two-dimensional and `Afternoon TV' (a quick note though - there's a fair amount of gruesome stuff.)

There's no problem with the acting at all and Bill Paterson and his side-kicks do well despite the slowish and somewhat humourless script they've been given. By cutting and creating a single episode out of two each time the creators might have made better use of the quite good material they had.

Blood Diamond [2006]

Worth seeing and with a message

Leonardo DiCaprio plays a diamond smuggler in a dirty industry where diamonds are smuggled out of a civil war zone to a neutral country and indirectly fund and prolong the civil war. All this is explained to you in the film in a better way than I'm doing here. I heard in an interview with him how hard Leonardo worked on his Rhodie accent to get it right and there's certainly not a trace of American about it. Not so the film.

The very powerful message about child soldiers, indiscriminate slaughter of innocent crowds, people, villagers, bystanders, families, anyone is brutally well delivered. It is delivered perhaps so well that the makers felt they had to strike some notes of hope especially in the second half of the film. Here's an example; a survivor of the story walks into a conference hall of `world leaders' to a pious, standing ovation. Many platitudes follow. Perhaps the film was making a wry comment about the superficial pronouncements at such conferences but I don't think it was. Statistics reveal (as quoted in the closing titles) that the real world doesn't really care really that much. As Stalin said, if one man dies it's a tragedy, if a million die, it's a statistic. Sorry about this cynicism and it should be said that this film did perform a function much more effective than any UN announcement in publicising the iniquity and evil of the blood diamond trade. So hats off to it for that.

Looking at the film as a piece of cinema though, striking notes of hope has some unwelcome fallout too in the film. Perhaps to temper the grimness of it all, some very old Hollywood chestnuts make an unwelcome appearance. Heroes are missed by bullets, (Leonardo must dodge and be missed by literally hundreds) while... extras are mown down. Heroes get the dignified last words and dying breath scenes while... baddies die horribly. Heroines recover from grazing bullets, slight wounds AND recover their hair styles with disconcerting speed. The evil capitalists behind it all get their comeuppance in the end and so on.

In terms of leads Leonardo has a really good try at the wizened tough guy hero but it doesn't quite come off. Fine actor that he is (and I think he is underrated) I think he may be destined to flourish in films where a younger, more ingénue interpretation is needed. Djimon Hounsou is, however, completely convincing as Solomon Vandy and Jennifer Connelly is beautiful (perhaps too much so) as the crusading journalist. I think the film will be remembered more in years to come for explaining the phenomenon of child soldiers (currently 200,000 in Africa as the film tells us at the end) and bringing the terrible fact of this and the blood diamond trade more to public notice so it can be thanked and praised for that.

The Departed (2006)

Plenty of action but no depth

If you want to spend 145 minutes on fairly mindless entertainment then you could do worse than watch this film. It's slick, fast and has stylised violence in gangland Boston. If you want a bit more and you're expecting better of a director that made the iconic "Goodfellas" then you may end up disappointed as it never reaches those highs.

On the plus side it's entertaining enough as Martin Scorcese knows what he's doing when it comes to moving any plot from the storyboard to the take and there's lots of well-choreographed violence. Also, there are some very good support performances from Martin Sheen and Ray Winstone amongst others (most of the cast are "names" and have a great track record in films.)

On the minus side, for me, there's a whole stack of things. Standing out though you have Jack Nicholson (Costello) whose performance, to my mind, is somewhat over the top. Next down the line you have the plot (if you haven't seen the film yet and intend to then please skip the next paragraph's spoilers).

Costello's gang is infiltrated by a newly-enrolled cop (Leonardo di Caprio) and the "Staties" (a kind of elite police force in Boston) is infiltrated by the Costello gang in the shape of a newly-enrolled cop (Matt Damon). They do the whole informer thing, and both die in the end. Shootings, violence, bloodshed, more shootings, more violence, a few more shootings and there you go. I knew nothing of the plot before I saw the film and once I'd got it after the first few minutes the parallel infiltration idea seemed embarrassingly simple-minded (and it still does).

Also the very slickness of the film was off-putting. Just as "The Bourne Identity" made the Pierce Brosnan James Bond films look old-fashioned I think the real-world feel of something like "The Wire" has made "The Departed" look very 90s. By the way, if you like dramatic endings you'll get your money's worth because the film tries to end dramatically several times. Once you get to the final, final ending I, for one, had really had enough and laughed. All the way through, also, Leonardo di Caprio looked too young and Matt Damon looked too clean-cut. They might have been better swapping roles with each other.

More going against it than going for it, then? Well, yes, I think so. 3 stars I take as meaning OK, still worth seeing, but it's no classic.

Extras : Complete BBC Series 2 [2005]

Some funny moments...but not enough

This isn't as good as series one. It's very funny in places and without giving any spoilers the `Vaseline' joke in the Sir Ian McKellen episode is priceless and made me laugh out loud. Lots of other good bits come your way too, not least the comedy within a comedy "When the Whistle Blows" which is funny in a mindless way (and funnier than long periods of the `real' show.)

What goes wrong for me is that the whole idea has become more than a bit formulaic and repetitive. Megastatically, hyperphrastically famous name actor does a grotesque cameo and Andy Millman (who tends back towards David Brent in some episodes) is left speechless as he cannot comment in the presence of such a STAR. Also painfully awkward situations about physically disadvantaged/ill people are revisited here in this series in three episodes. They're not bad, just too frequent.

Personally, I couldn't stand the extras (helpfully provided here on a whole DVD to themselves) where the comedy of awkwardness so often well done in the shows by Ricky Gervais crops up in the interviews with him and Stephen Merchant together. I found it uncomfortable not knowing whether the many barbed comments they make about each other were for real or made just to be witty/funny. Sorry to bang on about this extras DVD but also you have Ricky with his deeply sincere voice telling you that Robert de Niro is the greatest actor on the planet and what a genius David Bowie is. I hope you're getting the picture.

Oh my God, reading this back, this review kills the series dead. I didn't mean to. No, it's better than that and it has some funny moments...but not enough.

Pan's Labyrinth [2006]

Magic realism

Anyone liking magic realism, a genre popular in South American writing but here transplanted to Europe and to the bloody and brutal aftermath of the Spanish Civil War, will be won over immediately by this exquisitely crafted film. There are continual echoes in the film of the writings of Isabel Allende (or of a European counterpart such as Louis de Bernières). If they're for you, then so is this film, dare I say?

Mixing magic and reality as per the genre you have in one story a fairy tale being told of a young girl who escapes into a private world away from the dreadful daily horrors of the real world at war. Her fantasy world contains all the creatures of mystery and the best that cgi and animatronics can offer. In the other real world the film tells the absolutely brutal story of a unit of the fascistic, utterly cruel Nationalist Army fighting the last stragglers of the defeated republican government `army' in the rain-drenched hills of Northern Spain.

What has the film got? The cinematography is superlative and the palette of the film, the cold greys, greens, browns and blues of the `reality' and the warm golden oranges of the fantasy world, is entirely convincing. The acting from the mesmerizing performance of the child actress playing one of the leads - what a find she is! - (effectively the film has several 'leads') to that by the minor role players could serve as a template of how to act full-stop. The action itself is beautifully directed whether the scenes are of quiet pathos or stomach-churning violence, by the excellent and sure-footed Guillermo del Toro. (By the way, the `15' certificate is a bit of a surprise for me - I've seen less violent `18' films.)

Both stories of the film work very well. Do they work together once the director has put them together in one place side by side? Well... almost. I enjoyed, if that's the right word, the reality scenes more than the fantasy ones but I've never been a fan of fantasy and its paraphernalia so that's probably why. Hence the four stars above instead of five.

N.B. It is not a film to see if you're feeling low. It's unremittingly sombre and sad with no comic details whatsoever. The relief for a viewer comes rather in the form of the fantasy world visited by the young heroine (for us just as it does for her). There could be no happiness and laughter in this film and this makes it tough-going. It's never boring but it's certainly tough-going and this is something to bear in mind before you sit down cheerfully to watch it.

All that said the film stands head, shoulders, torso what have you above most of the films released in 2006 and deserves the plaudits it has received.

Collaborator by Murray Davies

Chilling and convincing

This is an excellent read. It takes as its premise a successful German invasion of England in 1940 and tries to forecast the aftermath. In fact the novel covers a similar area to the acclaimed "SS-GB", a compelling novel by Len Deighton of a few year's ago but I think it surpasses that well-told story.

I've always thought, somewhat jingoistically, that England's resistance might have been better than that of France or other occupied countries. This novel makes me re-think that completely. Recognizable and well-drawn types from all walks of English life react to the invasion in a range of ways (some chilling) that sound entirely convincing.

I suppose one shouldn't forget that there was a clamour for capitulation and for becoming a self-governing province in the German empire from many MPs and that it was only the unlikely and unholy alliance of Churchill and the socialists that saw this off.

To put any spoilers here would be cruel so I won't.

A highly-recommended page-turner.

Girl With A Pearl Earring [2004]

Atmospheric and beautifully photographed

This is a fine film, atmospheric and beautifully photographed.

I've no wish to go over the ground already well covered by many reviews but when I watched this film again recently I was struck by two things. Firstly how apt the haunting music was, a poignant piano trill that adds so much to the visual feast on screen and also just how very good Essie Davis is in the part of Catharina Vermeer.

This is a tough part to play because Catharina's not a sympathetic character at all but there are examples of Essie Davis's acting finesse all through the film. One instance of many is the scene when she half cries to Jan Vermeer (Colin Firth) in a moment of exasperated, frustrated and understandable pain, "She can't even read". Super acting. (This is for me the best film in terms of supporting actors in the last couple of years.)

It's easy to overlook her (I did) in a way because the lovely Scarlett Johansson plays the lead so memorably well.

This is a film with many details to savour and it will bear several viewings.

In Good Company [2004]

Well crafted and intelligent

I don't want to re-tread the ground covered already and very well by other reviewers of this film but I should like to say that apart from excellently played leads by Dennis Quaid (in my opinion this performance is the best he has ever given in any film he has made), Topher Grace and the sure-footed Scarlett Johansson, it is a pleasure to watch some superb support acting from the prolific David Paymer (Matt Warner in 'School of Life'), Eugene Kalb (Jimmy Gator in 'Magnolia') and best of all, Clark Gregg (FBI Special Agent Michael Casper in 'West Wing').

Rarely do you find a film so good yet so overlooked as this well-crafted tale of ordinary and recognizable human beings caught in the cross-fire of an inhuman hire-and-fire corporate battleground. Worth an evening of anyone's time.

In My Father's Den [2005]

No tension whatsoever

Described on the DVD box as "an atmospheric thriller" I've rarely come across a film that is so distant from such a description. Without giving the plot away the setting is a kind of New Zealand "Pleasantville" with the magnificent mountains and plains we all loved in "The Lord of the Rings" stretching away into the distance. At least this gives me the opportunity to say something pleasant about the film viz. the scenery's nice. Against this backdrop you have a disappearance mystery.

But. There's no tension whatsoever in the film. None.

The scenes are built laboriously and long before the end I found myself willing this languid effort to stagger to its conclusion. If you are anything like me when you're chatting to someone about a film you've seen, you don't give a detailed review, you try to sum up in a word or two. The most obvious thing to say about this is 'tedious'.

Partly this is down to the script and partly to the direction. Taking the latter, here's a for instance; in the film you have a subject walking off into the distance several, no quite a few, times (especially right at the very end where the diminishing figure must be on screen for 30 long, numbing seconds.) Only the bravest director will take on such a cliché shot anyway; to repeat this shot several times in the course of one film is well... Another example of faulty footwork is where you have a long extract from the haunting theme "Baïlèro" from the collection by Canteloube from his "Songs of the Auvergne". This theme is wonderfully atmospheric the first time it's used; the second time you say to yourself 'uh huh, there it is again'; the third long visit gives you the uncomfortable feeling that somethings going sadly wrong.

Striving desperately to say something else nice about this film I can say that fans of Matthew MacFadyen will enjoy seeing his moody presence on the screen and that no one in the cast puts in a poor performance so the acting, at least, won't disappoint you.

Green Wing Series 1 [2004]

Frantic, surrealistic and very funny

In the unlikely event you're a fan of "Spaced" or "Shaun of the Dead" but still haven't seen this, then you should buy it straight away without hesitation because it belongs to this same fast-paced, surrealistic genre and you'll love it. This series makes no nods at all to the stock Britcom format of the twentieth century. It's the very antithesis of "My Family" or "Dad's Army" or their like (though occasionally there's a very, very distant echo of the stranger moments of that fine series, "A Very Peculiar Practice"). For one thing there's lots of clever, speeded-up and stop-start filming and for another there are thick and plentiful savage, even cruel, jokes. The whole thing works most if not all of the time and even where it doesn't it's a still a pleasure to see programme-makers at least taking such risks. The highest points for me are firstly the comic acting all-round (to name a few players but I could name half a dozen, Tamsin Greig (Black Books) is outstanding as the newly-arrived ingenue, Dr Caroline Todd, Stephen Mangan (once Adrian Mole in the BBC TV series) plays a sardonic anaesthetist, and Julian Rhind-Tutt (Black Books) a surgeon brilliantly acting as his foil and deadly rival in the love stakes.) Secondly there's a script to die for. Highly recommended.

Gladiatress [2004]

Carry on Gladiatress

This film really misses the mark. I watched it as a huge fan of British cinema actively and patriotically wanting it to be good. It does have its moments with a few witty throw-away lines and anachronisms (giving you echoes of the Asterix series) but the talents of 3 fine comic actresses (the ever-reliable Sally Phillips does very well as the delightfully named Worthaboutapig) cannot prevail against such a dire script. The idea of gladiatresses taking on the Roman Empire was such a good one too and to succeed the film could have chosen to parody "Gladiator" or even done a "Green Wing" surrealist take on the whole thing but instead and unfortunately the producers opted to make "Carry on Gladiatress" and this wholly dated format just isn't the vehicle for the idea (and delivers about the same level of laughs as the 'Carry on...' series.) The best joke of all is saved for the DVD cover where you have, in homage to the iconic 70s Athena poster of the woman tennis player, the question, "Does my Gluteous Maximus look big in this"?

The Impressionists [DVD]

Beautifully photographed

Painting is often a slow, silent and private activity so a film essentially about painters is unlikely to be full of action and indeed this isn't. It concentrates instead in its 3 one-hour episodes (told mostly in flashback by an aged Monet) on the relationships and interaction between Monet, Renoir, Degas, Bazille, Manet and Cézanne.

It's beautifully photographed, just beautifully. With the utmost care the director manages, not only to capture the intense colour of the scenes and scenery but also through great technical skill, and patient staging of the shot, to pass the viewer from what the painter is seeing in real life to a finished work that has come down to us. One moment you are shown the dramatic crashing of waves against the cliffs at Etretat and in the next, the final painting from precisely the same perspective. Very clever stuff and much appreciated by this viewer.

While the relationships of the painters above are explored, at times in some detail, for me a very big question remains; where on earth is Pissarro? Credited by many as "The Father of Impressionism", instrumental not only in inventing the impressionist style of painting (though the word comes from an insulting remark made by a critic, Louis Leroy on seeing Monet's "Impression, Sunrise") but also in getting his colleagues' works exhibited and acting as mentor/patriarch to the group especially Cézanne, alongside whom he painted many times. There must be a good reason he was completely and strangely left out (a copyright problem with the Pissarro estate perhaps?) but no reason is given in the film unless I missed it. I wish too a little more had been done on the life of Renoir. However these are only quibbles. This is a colourful and very rewarding mini-series.

(Just a word of warning about the rating of 4 above. This is how I personally found the film; I love art history and enjoyed very much the clever bringing to life of these names from the Impressionist world. Perhaps a more neutral viewer understandably might find the whole thing a little bit slow and uneventful.)

Gladiator [2000]

The Emperor's Clothes

Reading through the reviews for this film I concede that I may be missing out on what everyone else can see, apparently. I've just watched the film again, having seen it before at the cinema on its release but my view of it remains unchanged.

The blood and battle scenes are brilliantly executed. They're by far the highlights of the film and I think it's fair to say that Ridley Scott handles this kind of action with practically no peer as a director. The DVD extras show the meticulous care he takes over every shot.

Looking at the film as a whole, though, the best comparison I can make is that it's a bit like driving into London (or any big city) in the morning - at one moment you're coasting along and then you hit some traffic lights and then some more and then some more and then, if you're very lucky, you're on your way again. The coasting along could stand for the action sequences in this film and the traffic lights, the dialogues (especially the head to head ones). These are all far too long-winded and heroic (or to put it better, mock-heroic and even clichéd). Once you are away from the frenetic action it is these speeches that drag the film from a plod to a stop.

As for characterisation, I wish Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) had been given some darkness in his character too. He is shown to us as a kindly, avuncular figure who longs wistfully for peace and for what sounds suspiciously like a modern Western liberal democracy. Although Marcus Aurelius was philosophical and serious-minded and a reformer it is a mistake to portray him as Dumbledore. It is the part not the actor (Richard Harris, is as good as ever) that needs some colour.

Other characters are given some terribly creaky lines to deliver, too, Lucilla (Connie Nielson) , for example, in the Colosseum final scene. Her squeaky-clean character is somewhat monochromatic and underdeveloped as well, which ia a pity.

Some characters are well-drawn, granted. Commodus (Joaquin Pheonix) is wonderfully flawed and cunning and Oliver Reed gives a fine performance (one of the best of his career, in my view) as Proximo so the film is far from a disaster. It's just as equally far, though, from a masterpiece which is clearly the accepted view but not mine.

The DVD contains some excellent 'making of' documentaries showing the evident care taken over costuming and setting up the battle scenes amongst many other things so you do at least get your money's worth with this package.

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire [2006]

A vintage year

2006 was a vintage year for people who like stories about Ancient Rome. There was the excellent `Rome' from the HBO/BBC that concentrated on the rivalry between Julius and Pompey and how the former overturned 500 years of republican rule to become emperor and then there's this series.

`Ancient Rome: The Rise And Fall Of An Empire' is a six-part dramatized documentary covering momentous periods of Roman history. If you haven't seen this yet but you've seen the other offering, `Rome' from the HBO/BBC, I'll try to make some helpful comparisons between the two.

First of all, you can count yourself lucky if you haven't seen `Ancient Rome: The Rise And Fall Of An Empire' yet because this series is very good indeed.

It doesn't start, however, all that promisingly. In a way faintly reminiscent of 1970s schools broadcasts you get screens at the beginning of the first and indeed then of every episode telling you how the series has been made with advice from modern historians and based on historical accounts from the time and in due course the names of three very well-known Oxford dons appear in the credits at the end of each episode. Despite the hint of a lecture theatre there's nothing consciously educational, dry or dusty or here and I should say that giving each story such a distinguished pedigree helps the series enormously. (I presume that when there are any errors about the cut of the jerkin or the shape of the helmet then the reasons are more likely to have been budgetary than accidental.) The whole series is, I think, finally more satisfying than `Rome' because for one thing it's covering six very different stories it has much more material to play with.

The acting in `Rome' was good to very good. (Sometimes it was even outstanding; Lyndsey Marshal was a memorable Cleopatra, for instance, but `Rome' has nonetheless its weaker points - Julius and Pompey were less well played, in my view). Here in `Ancient Rome: the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire', the acting is almost invariably excellent; a whole notch up. (Interestingly enough some supporting actors appear in both series and it's quite fun to compare them in each.) Importantly for the `Ancient Rome' series the six different leads are all brilliantly played and each one dominates his episode. To pick two but I could pick six, Michael Sheen is chillingly good as Nero (about as good as John Hurt was when he played Caligula in `I, Claudius', to give you an idea.) and Sebastian Armesto takes the truly dry, useless, nothing part of Honorius and brings it to life, which is superb acting.

The violence in each episode is savage indeed. In this as in other things there's something of a difference of scale between this series and `Rome'. Here's a really terrible comparison to try to make the point; it's like the difference between `Lord of the Rings' and `Harry Potter'. That comparison doesn't really work but I hope you're feeling generous as you read this. It's a scale thing.

There is also a smell of testosterone about this series. The men drive, lead, dominate, order, betray, slaughter and rule. The women play only peripheral parts in events and that probably better reflects the mis-division of rule in that unmodern time. What the masculinity does give the series is drama as opposed to the entertaining melodrama of `Rome'. `Ancient Rome' doesn't sag at all and always has a slightly rough edge to it.

Looking back at what I've written I think I might be giving the wrong impression about the HBO/BBC `Rome'. `Rome' is, after all, extremely good and very entertaining.

Having said that, though, `Ancient Rome: the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' is even better and I think worth 5 stars.

Elizabeth I [DVD]

A mixed production,

I should like to comment first on the positive aspects of this 240-minute two-parter on the life of Elizabeth I in her later years. Helen Mirren gives us a fine, gutsy performance and a worthy interpretation of one of our most famous and wilful monarchs. Like many I have grown up seeing Helen in a wide variety of roles and she always adds something special to any part she plays. In this film, amongst supporting actors mention could be made of Hugh Dancy as the Earl of Essex who gives the part plenty of youthful dash and Patrick Malahide is very good as Walsingham. Also, for want of a better word, the `blood' scenes in the film are shockingly well done and if you want to attend a beheading without doing so then watch this film.

The recreation of the set and scenery for the film was a skilful combination of design and cgi and was utterly convincing. In fact amongst the extras on disk one you'll find a fascinating collection of clips showing via a screen wipe how, before your eyes, the original shot footage changes into the final generated film. The extras also contain some deleted scenes, at least one of which could usefully have made the final cut of the film, in my view.

Some spoilers follow so you might want to skip the next paragraph.

The film shows Elizabeth meeting Mary Queen of Scots. The dialogue tells us this is a secret meeting where all witnesses are sworn to silence so presumably the screenwriter's thinking is that the meeting has never come down to us. However, it must be said there has a never been a whisper over the intervening four centuries that such a meeting took place and it goes flat against all the known facts we have. An exchange that is certainly well known to us is where Elizabeth asked, famously, "How high is she? Is she higher than me?" On hearing the answer `yes', Elizabeth concluded, "Then she is too high for I am just the right height." Elizabeth was terrified of and fascinated by her unknown rival. This mystery, which would have been dispelled by a personal meeting, fuelled in part her fear. There's nothing wrong with conjecture in itself, of course, but the episode where Elizabeth meets Mary is included seamlessly into the film as `fact' and that irreversibly undermines the plot, in my opinion. The same strange device (a secret meeting) is used again in the film as we are shown Elizabeth in conversation with James VI of Scotland. Once again there has never been a breath of a suggestion of a rumour that such a momentous meeting took place, behind closed doors, and had it taken place it would counter all the facts we definitely do have of the dramatic takeover that Cecil engineered.

(Spoilers over).

Jeremy Irons gives a solid performance as the Earl of Leicester but to my taste it's a bit too solid (again) and varies little from the stock performance he seems content to revisit in many, if not all, of his films. Also, there's very little on-screen chemistry evident between him and Helen Mirren in their respective roles and this doesn't help the film at all.

In the unlikely event that you haven't seen this film but you have seen the several productions on the life of Elizabeth I of recent years you'll probably be wondering how this compares to the others. I have to say that despite its virtues and many Emmy nominations it's still the weakest by a hair. Granted the competition it's up against that's not too bad at all. For one thing Helen Mirren's performance for all its doubtless merits is not as good as Anne-Marie Duff's in `The Virgin Queen' (perhaps the new `Gold Standard', inheriting such an honour from Glenda Jackson's 1970s interpretation) nor Cate Blanchett's in `Elizabeth'. And, lest we forget, Dame Judi Dench did enough on screen in eight minutes to win a deserved Oscar for her interpretation of Elizabeth in her later years in `Shakespeare in Love'.

In conclusion I think this film is certainly worth seeing but equally certainly it isn't the best of its kind.

Rome: The Complete HBO Season 1 2005

Highly recommended

IJust a short review with no spoilers.

If you're coming to Rome with I, Claudius as a point of reference, as I did, and if you haven't seen Rome but know I, Claudius well then I hope the following is helpful.

Few people would dispute that I, Claudius represents the pinnacle of BBC drama. It deservedly won a sackfull of awards so perhaps it is unfair putting Rome up against it as a yardstick. But, here goes.

Rome is a large (very large) production shot in Rome on a 20 acre set with mostly British TV actors or at least actors who can manage a flawless home counties English accent and no fewer than 400 Italian extras. (There are no Hollywood superstars at $20m a time so the producers must have spent what they saved here on the set.)

This set, its design, its colour and "feel" is one of the stars of the series. If you haven't seen the series yet you can expect a grubby, grimy, lived-in, spectacular, gloriously colourful, garish, filthy, gorgeous and utterly authentic looking backdrop. Much loving care went into the historical research for this production and no less care into the costuming and props. (E.g No Coliseum yet - this had to wait for Vespasian, years later, so the gladiatorial contests take place in improvised pens in the Forum as was the case in Julian times). In comparison, I, Claudius with its studio-bound, almost clinical BBC-budgeted sets looks a poor second. The big budget means also that gone are I, Claudius lines such as `There has been a tremendous battle on the Rhine..." In Rome you get to see such battles in graphic detail.

I, Claudius was daring for its day in its sex scenes but Rome has quite a few more and they are startling so it certainly isn't for the prudish.

It would be difficult to match the characterization and script of I, Claudius and while Rome has its (more than a few) moments it compares less well here. It's less `even' than I, Claudius and some parts of some episodes (there are several changes of writer and director in the series) drag just a little.

Most of the acting in Rome is good to very good to excellent. You can expect fine performances from Kevin McKidd as Lucius and Ray Stevenson as Titus (Who? As I said at the beginning; no spoilers.) and a really superb performance from Lyndsey Marshall as Cleopatra. I was slightly less taken with Ciarán Hinds as Caesar and Kenneth Cranham as Pompey but a very good all round cast, nonetheless.

This is where you might feel that Rome fares less well against I, Claudius where every single character was played memorably to perfection if you're coming to the series ready to make, as I did, the comparison with its distinguished TV ancestor.

To keep matters in perspective though, this is TV at just about its very best and a great way to spend a few evenings in. Highly recommended.

The Virgin Queen [DVD]

Excellent

When I'd finished watching this mini-series on DVD I found myself wanting to go back to previous productions about the life of Elizabeth in order to see just how good Anne-Marie Duff is in this by comparing her performance to that of others, just to make sure I've got it right.

I think I have. Make no mistake, she is very good indeed in this.

Dare I say she does even slightly better than Cate Blanchett who gave an impressive performance as Elizabeth in the eponymous film? Of Dame Judi Dench more later. (Glenda Jackson's interpretation is more of a hazy memory for me. I haven't seen the series for decades and I know there has been a film with Helen Mirren but I haven't seen that yet so I admit there are two on my list to catch up on.)

Queen Elizabeth I was, as the modern phrase has it, "highly strung" and the screech of anger or laughter is never far from the surface in Anne-Marie Duff's interpretation. Elizabeth's wilfulness and indecisiveness are also portrayed with great accomplishment.

For me, one moment in the film(s) stands out against many. Elizabeth's speech at Tilbury (this speech was never made at the time but composed retrospectively for her in Stuart times but it is so typically what she would have said that it is embodies Elizabeth) is delivered with tremendous emotion and power. (Olivier and Henry V?) The kind of majestic command AND presence here reminds you of Dame Judi Dench's performance as Elizabeth and Judi Dench won that deserved Oscar for her eight minutes in `Shakespeare in Love'. Anne-Marie Duff's interpretation is of that standard.

Clearly, a great deal of care (and expense) went into the design of this production and the four parts work very well because of it. The interiors are sumptuous so the big picture looks marvellous as does the "small picture" which shows, for example exquisite details such as the authentic-looking antique spectacles worn by Walsingham's code breaker.

The music from "Medieval Babes" (great name) adds a lot and makes itself noticed for all the right reasons. It promoted a "the music's good" comment from my wife (not known for hyperbole). I hope they sell lots of CDs on the strength of the series.

What about the other players? No one is less than good and some are outstanding indeed - Tom Hardy plays the Earl of Leicester with great panache but this series revolves around its leader just as the world did in Elizabeth's own lifetime.

You might enjoy the series even more if you know something of Tudor history because I can imagine the parade of faces and names might prove tricky but you can enjoy it very well without.

Doctor Zhivago [2002]

A modernized version

When the producer, director and screenplay writer of this refer repeatedly in the DVD's extras to "The Film" this isn't to their own made-for-TV effort but to David Lean's sprawling masterpiece. The premise they all have is that while The Film is a masterpiece, almost canonical (and their tone is quite reverential) The Film has dated and it is their challenging task to update its 1960s style to the present. Fair enough. How well did they succeed in their 225 minute adaptation?

David Lean painted on a big canvas and the makers are at pains to point out their budget didn't allow them to do this but instead gave them the opportunity to concentrate on characterisation and to be more faithful to Pasternak's novel.

Ironically the film doesn't suffer noticeably from having a lower budget and it isn't in the panoramic scenes that this production shows up as inferior to The Film. Such scenes are all well done and are probably the best aspect of the modern Dr Zhivago. Trains, war, snow and horror are all there in convincing (and sometimes gruesome) detail.

It's far less successful either in comparison to The Film or standing on its own two feet in other areas. To begin with, the soundtrack/music is unmemorable and also slightly odd in places (Were they Peruvian pipes on the steppes?).

It doesn't succeed in other areas either, notably in the acting and direction. Hans Matteson gives a fine if workaday performance as the doctor and Maryam d'Abo is excellent in the schizophrenic role of Lara's mother, Alexandra Maria Lara is tearful and warm and attractive as Tonya (and this, by the way, makes it more difficult to accept that Zhivago should leave her for Keira Knightley's slightly soppy Lara.)

TV filming takes you up closer to the actor than cinema filming and this effect does not help Keira Knightley in her part at all. She seems often to have an ironic smile playing on her lips as if she's not taking seriously what is happening to her or around her. So why should we? This grin gets in the way far too often and jars most dreadfully and inappropriately when it pops up once again even when she's being taken away to her drawn-out punishment and probable death in the labour camp at the end. She cannot be blamed for the school scene where her flamboyant classroom teacher (all waving arms and enthusiasm) looks horribly wrong in the 19th century schoolroom setting - serried ranks of silenced children were the style of the time. This is poor direction, pure and simple and Lara looks too modern too often.

Bill Paterson, Celia Imrie and Sam Neill do quite well but Kris Marshall struggles as Pasha and you get a less sinister Strelnikov than you might.

There's probably a slightly better film buried in here running at 120 minutes with some critical cutting. Several name directors turned this film down, mostly because they didn't want to be compared to David Lean and I don't think they'll regret their decision looking at this result.

Don Quixote [DVD]

Worth seeing once

Bob Hoskins is magnificently and dryly funny as Sancho Panza, John Lithgow plays Don Quixote with verve and style and the scenic backdrops of Southern Spain are breathtaking so why is the result so dreary? Possibly because the film is based on the lengthy, sprawling, rambling masterpiece by Miguel de Cervantes and this work of genius stubbornly refuses to be summarized as a film or in the case, mini-series. (A mini-series, by the way which irritatingly keeps its fades to black where the commercials should go.)

The original book is so full of wonderful puns and perhaps the puns should have materialized into visual ones for the film to succeed. In my opinion we get a clue about what the film might have been when windmills become filmic monsters and the whole thing becomes lots of fun. These kinds of scenes are the most entertaining in the film.

To its credit, this adaptation sticks worthily to the original story but a film is not a book and needs an altogether different approach if it is to establish itself as an entertainment, separate from a book. Worth seeing once, I think.

The Hole [2001]

A good little thriller and worth watching

In 'The Hole' the story is well told and the psychological twist well executed. 'The Hole' doesn't have the stylised slickness of 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' and its imitators but given its budget that's hardly surprising and besides, such barmy films deserve the parodies they've spawned. On the plus side there are some very good performances indeed, not least from Keira Knightley (amazingly only 15 when the film was shot though the distributors had to wait until she was 16 to release it because of "that shot"), Thora Birch, the gifted young actress from 'Ghost World' and 'American Beauty' amongst others (and she makes a fair job of the English accent) and Laurence Fox who plays the public school Captain of the rugby team type with just the right amount of youthful self-importance. Daniel Brocklebank does well, too. (Although, on the down side, perhaps less convincing is Desmond Harrington as the American sixth-former whose histrionics reminded me a bit of Tom Cruise when the latter is "acting" but as he's playing the spoilt son of an American rock star he can be let off). You might be forgiven for anticipating one of the worst films ever made if you read only the Amazon review and this film is far, far better than that. A good little thriller and worth watching.

Bright Young Things [2003]

Very good visually

Stephen Fry, the director of this film, has many talents, not least as a comedian and wit and in my view he has made a thoroughly good job of this film. It has a sparkle and pace to it and some wonderful performances from a young and enthusiastic group of actors. (Particularly good is Fenella Woolgar as Agatha Runcible but everyone is at least good in his/her role.) All that having been said I think Stephen could have chosen a better novel to adapt for his first film as director. "Vile Bodies", the novel on which it based, is a fizzy but rather empty read and even if you adapt it very well, as he has, the best you can probably hope for is a fizzy, empty film and that's more or less what you get. No fault can be attached to the direction, acting or the set design. (The sets, by the way, are sumptuous, exquisitely designed and wholly convincing). In conclusion 5 stars for effort and visual appeal but possibly three for the overall film.

Guilty Pleasures Vol.1

Sing along...

This is the best album I've bought in years. All my favourites are here. "How Long" by Ace, "Say you don't mind" by Colin Blunstone. You can see the astonishing list for yourself above. This is an album for those who lived through those times without going to the extremes. This is an album for those who became neither skinheads nor anoraks nor ells angels. This is an album for the vast bulk of us. This is an album to enjoy and sing along to. AT LAST IT IS TIME FOR THE SILENT MAJORITY TO BE HEARD! Leave that dog unwalked, that shelf unrepaired, borrow your nephew's discman (no, not that shiny rectangular thing; that's the MP3 player. You're going to play an audio disc, remember. Keep a grip), march defiantly down to the garden shed past your amazed family, clutching "The Rotters Club" or "Full Circle" by Jonathan Coe. Installed in there, sing along to this album again and again. Get that thug chorus, "I don't think so", just right on the David Essex track. Join, with pride, the support group for people who love this album. I love this album.

Masterpieces of Western Art (From Gothic to Neoclassicism: Part 1)

Disappointing