Reviews

OK, I admit it- I haven't read the book.... But that meant that my sudden and unexpected encounter with this little gem came as a complete surprise. OK (again), Billie Piper was Billie Piper- she is no Larry Olivier or Alec Guinness to submerge herself in the role, but she was perfectly fine as the central character. Julie Walters was genuinely brilliant (and quite terrifyingly malign) along with her supporting cast of interestingly flawed villains. But what made it for me was the total lack of "well, just let me explain..." and "as you already know...". The viewer was left to work things out! Oh JOY!!! Especially since I watched it directly after the explanation-studded car crash that was the Da Vinci Code (didn't live up to the book, apparently- wow, that must have taken some doing). The sheer entertainment value of not having everything laid out and the understanding of it idiot-proofed was immense. Period detail was excellent, lots of fascinating little details thrown in just for the love of it all. Truly excellent, utterly enjoyable. Watch the next one!

What to say about this snapshot of every comedian in Britain being very, very silly? The acting isn't always great, but that isn't what it is about. It is essentially a series of sketches back to back, tacked onto the very slightly naughty plot line involving airships, brothels, opium, social reform, and more. In among all that are some truly inspired moments ("You mutinous dogs! Shoot if you dare....!") is one of the funniest moments of all time, in my opinion. And having John Cleese in such a tiny role? Wow. Also look out for brilliant cameos by such Victorian worthies as Emmeline Pankhurst and Charles Dickens. All in all.... just watch the thing. OK?

Very derivative, with odd bits of various Holmes stories stapled together. I would agree that Edward Woodward is an excellent actor, but not Holmes. Anthony Andrews is, however, an excellent Moriarty. Once again Mycroft is rather too thin for the role, and I would agree that being snuck up on by a large Thug who has to lever open a casket to do so is pretty improbable. The main problem for me is that the time lines simply do not hold together- having missed the announcement of the date at the start I was looking for clues. So.... last public execution in England, 1863 (and not a multiple hanging at that). Victoria in widow's weeds, after 1861, before 1902. All looking good, except the bit where Oberstein pulls a gun not manufactured until 1893... oh well!

Let's face it, we don't expect searing revelations on social issues from Pixar- but we've been spoiled by Toy Story, Monsters Inc., Bugs Life.... to expect a story for the kids with enough amusement to keep parents entertained. This time, they just skipped that bit. Probably much of this cultural- for once again we have an American movie that assumes everyone watching it is American. Indycar racing is dull and almost unknown to Europeans- which does not help. Many of the other clichés are again almost unknown outside the US of A, and even as a Brit who has lived in the midwest they rankle. Combine the two and you have a film where gnawing my own legs off provided a superior alternative. My 9 year old twins loved it. My 15 and 17 year olds cried off and went to Pirates of the Caribbean 2, next door. Good call.

Awful, terrible, appalling, garbage, ah yes- crap. That's the word I was looking for. Pretentious, tedious and dull. My wife is normally pretty tolerant, but the only way we kept watching this was an ongoing game of "spot the stupidity" (like a blind girl who finds her around better than almost anyone else). The idea that humans would submit to being terrified by nothing at all without fighting back in any way at all does *not* work- especially in America! "Those we do not speak of" would probably end up as "those with a lot of holes in them" in very short order. Like the equally dull and appalling "Blair Witch Project" you end up backing the monsters just to get rid of the lead characters who are individually and collectively "wetter than a haddock's bathing costume". No spoilers, but let's just say a very odd choice of quester.... Please do not watch this film. Please.....

This one needed a few changes, since (unlike the books) this Indian outing is set *after* the Peninsular war and blends several of the "Indian" Sharpe books. This is of course unavoidable, partly because the cast are all ten years older but also because the first Sharpe film skipped over the Indian books and had Sharpe obtaining his field commission in Spain rather than in India. Thus they need another horrible sergeant to replace Hakeswill, for example. That is only relevant for obsessives and the whole thing is a proper dose of Sharpe- all the usual elements of the formula are well serviced. Some truly excellent moments and clearly with a higher budget that the originals. India provides a spectacular backdrop and the attention to detail is as impressive as ever (even if, as ever in the films, the cannon shot continues to explode inappropriately). Enjoy!

Eeeeee.... ah started readin' t'Viz when ya could onnly get't at't Kard Bar...... which is the one outlet in Newcastle that sold the thing way before its glory days (also now long gone). But on that basis, I feel entitled to say that this is actually a very funny film. It has an incredible cast, looked the part- OK, they departed from the usual locations of Mr. Vitoni's and the Dog & Hammer, but for me it worked (except for the fact that Dolph Lundgren got away with his shorts still on, of course). Geri Haliwell was actually rather excellent, and Anthony Head was superb ("...and Ethiopa has a space programme..."). The number of genuinely funny moments was enough to sustain a pleasant game of "spot the cameo"). Overall, vastly better than the animated version, and a thoroughly enjoyable bit of light entertainment. After all, anything that combines a dig at the Turner Prize with an informed critique of the doner kebab can't be all bad. Give it a try- you might just agree that it is extremely funny.

There is a continuity error that does not seem to have been noticed between the original film and this rather good prequel. In Tremors at the start of the film a sign on the edge of town states (in black and white, even) "Perfection, founded 1902". I seemed to recall that Tremors 4 gives a very specific date at the start of the film and this site confirms it as 1889, with the name of the town being changed from Rejection to Perfection at the end of the movie. Apart from that Tremors 4 is a welcome return to the original humorous form after the silliness's of Tremors 2 and 3, when there seemed to be a need to give the Graboids a new ability to prop up the movie. If that had continued they would have had to be Harvard MBA's by movie eight or so.