Reviews

Once again David Attenborough has come up with a novel and innovative way to show just how diverse and interesting our planet is. Every episode or series he does piques my curiosity. But the sad truth is that the advent of humanity presents an existential threat to every single aspect of life, including our own. Unless we change the Anthropocene will destroy us and much of our contemporaries, most whom have been here since life began some 2 billion years ago. David shows us what beauty and dignity there is on Earth. He resists the urge to scold. He holds up a mirror to ourselves. Enjoy and take the challenge to advocate for the wonder that David, at 97 still shows us.

Because this film is billed as about an end of the world movie the point is missed. The backdrop to the story is largely irrelevant. It could have been set in a number of genres. It's not a plot driven piece. It's a film about two guys working out their differences and learning from one another. Once this becomes clear, it's a very decent watch. Forrest Whittikar is a wonderful actor, with an Oscar for Best Actor in his back pocket for the Last King of Scotland where he plays Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. The other actors were unfamiliar to me but each played their part in an engrossing piece of work.

This is one of those films, which gets better in your mind the more you reflect on it.

The director before the showing, spoke to us about what he was trying to create, that is a simple piece about a guy's search for meaning.

I thought he succeeded really well. The cinematics were bold, but worked to make an emotional impact. For example we see a whole four-minute single shot of our man packing his bag to leave the ship. No dialogue but the superb and understated acting by Nieves Cabrera leaves us in no doubt that this is a man in turmoil and on the cusp of facing his demons.

In fact the single shot, no dialogue gambit is deployed a great deal in this film, but it works due to Cabrera and no little contribution from the stunning and unforgiving sub Antarctic scenery.

This is a personal journey, brilliantly done by the director and his lead. Thought provoking and real sums Liverpool up for me.

Spiderman enters the Dark Side as a strange black entity from another world bonds with mild mannered photographer Peter Parker, and causes inner turmoil as he contends with new villains, temptations, and revenge…….

In a somewhat desperate attempt to enhance recalcitrant Year 11 classes with the concept of relative versus absolute Morality, we dissected some scenes from the first movie where Our Hero has some very tough calls to make. At the end of the Year they all remembered watching the film clips, but as for the concepts… I enjoyed these films more than the the Batman franchise, as to me they seem a bit lighter and with more humour as the former film got a bit unrelenting in the end.

The action, which is what holds the thing together after all was fantastic making good use, but not at the expense of the cast, of the available computer enhancements. The opening fight sequence has the feeling of one on one intensity but with a superb backdrop of back street New York.

The story shows Parker dealing with his ego and the added power afforded to him by the new entity, which gives him a black costume to go with the temptations to abuse his gifts, but the blackness is made up for with some good comedy scenes in a restaurant and then in a Jazz Club where the erstwhile photographer discovers his inner John Travolta, much to everyone's surprise.

The character relationships, complete with the usual romantic complications continue in this picture and we see Parker growing up and becoming far more Worldly Wise, having to deal with adult situations and emotions which osmosise into his alter ego's behaviour. Trouble at work and with his girlfriend, with the added angst of the fallout from his Uncle's death in Part One, add a decent story to complement the action.

Sandman is a new character, and an excellent villain engaging in the usual skulduggery (I actually sympathised with him which I'm not sure the writers wanted) but as usual, and predictably the ending turned into a moralising, flag waving tribute to the concept of "America". If only the truth mirrored fiction….

That's churlish. It's comes with the deal when you buy a ticket and doesn't detract from a fun experience, which is perhaps twenty minutes too long.

Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay is a centre for the torture and degradation of "suspects" in the War on Terror. Only nine inmates have been charged and non convicted. It is without doubt, a major recruiting agent for the extremists and shows that Gandhi wasn't joking when asked about Western Civilisation he said; "I think it would be good idea".

George Bush wants to export American Values. What example is he setting when suspects are chained, hooded, subjected to sensory deprivation, have Korans flushed down the bog and are routinely insulted by their captors? These are not charges laid by the Far Left but by the Red Cross, Amnesty and the United Nations. Blimey, even Blair wants it shut down so it must be bad.

If these individuals pose a threat then charge them and let's see the wheels of justice set in motion. To just lock people up because in best Jack Bauer speak they are the "Bad Guys", is simply indefensible and sums up why large sections of the world hate America.

This story filmed by Michael Winterbottom (24 Hour Party People, Jude) centres around the so called Tipton Three who were caught by the Northern Alliance in a Taliban stronghold and handed over to the Americans.

Winterbottom skates over the reasons why these lads were holed up in a Taliban area and what on earth they were doing in Afghanistan in the first place.

This does them a disservice as we don't get to find out what they thought of America, 9/11 or their own Muslim faith prior to their capture. Were they misguided West haters? Did they act out of naivety, were they there to help in a aid manner? We never find out because the director gives us no opportunity to get to know the protagonists. We need to know these things in order to put their disgusting treatment in context.

If they were there to train as Al Queda operatives then that puts the viewers relationship with the characters in a different context. Do we empathise or judge? I felt I wanted to do one or the other.

The film was done with talking heads with the real men, interspersed with actors doing reconstructions of real situations and this worked as a mechanism despite the fact we are given no motivational context.

Whether guilty or innocent, there is no way a Labour Government should allow British Citizens to be treated in such a depraved manner. For goodness sake Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman, both senior Labour Cabinet Ministers ran Liberty, the Human Rights pressure group for a while in the Eighties. Crazy but true.

As a piece it was well constructed in a technical sense, and got Winterbottom's objective of educating the wider public to such vile practices, but lacked context and that's a real shame

To End All Wars"

Starring Robert Carlyle,Keifer Sutherland and Mark Strong.The lead is played by Cairain McMenamin as Earnest Gordon who is our guide through the hell on earth that was the Burma Railway. It isn't your typical action war film with clear cut heroes and villains,more an exercise in morality.How do you deal with extremes and maintain some kind of moral code.?

The Carlyle character is a man's man soldier and wants death or glory.It is pointed out to him there can be no glory because what would you do even if you did escape?Nevertheless he consumes himself with hatred for his captors and plans of escape even though he knows it will lead to reprisals against everyone.He has lost his ability to connect with others.

Eventually he tries to escape and inevitably he and his fellow would be escapees are executed.However Mark Strong,whose character is an ardent Christian,decides to sacrifice himself to save Carlyle.The Japanese have seen a depiction of the crucifixion in his bible and choose to kill him this way.

How do you evaluate this?If you think about it,he gets to have his cake and eat it.He is "liberated" from his situation and has performed the ultimate selfless act by saving someone.But has he?Imagine the guilt that the Carlyle character must carry around for the rest of his life.I imagine no one could live up to that. I read about a guy who saved himself from the Herald Of Free Enterprise by standing on someones head to lever himself up,but condemning the other guy to drown.A more natural reaction perhaps,but what a thing to live with.

The Keifer Sutherland Character provides an insight as to how crisis can change people.He is known as Yanker due to being American and a bit of a J.Arthur Rank(er). As the Death Railway is being built he becomes adept at black racketeering with the locals and the Japanese.He has no qualms about this even if it screws things up for everyone else. He develops a sense for the needs of others when he joins the study group set up by Earnest and they discuss Plato,the nature of justice,forgiveness and various other moral questions. A shovel goes missing and the Japanese are about to seek revenge when Yankers says it was him.He receives the mother of all beatings and becomes paralysed.It emerges there was a miscount and it was for nothing. Why did he do it?It is left to us to decide.Perhaps to punish himself for previous conduct.I like this about the film.You aren't directed what to think.

This cruelty brings us to the Japanese.What are we to make of their behaviour? The Bushido Shame Code is explained.It seems guards at POW camps were only there as punishment for some act of cowardice and disgracing the Code and therefore the Emperor himself.This may explain the extreme behaviour towards POW's themselves,in the Bushido system,the lowest of the low for surrendering.At least they weren't as bad as the prisoners and they could take their own frustrations and sense of worthlessness out on them. However,acts of kindness are portrayed.The translator interacts on a human level and the Commandant rewards the men with Red Cross Parcels and books for hard work.

Our image of Japan in the West is inevitably shaped by these events. It is a weirdly homogeneous society where the individual is submerged by the honour system.This is exhibited in unusual things such as if a company is doing badly,the directors would rather go without pay than lay people off as it is seen as disgrace to do so.The opposite is true here! Japan was totally cut off from the West until the 19th Century and evolved differently as a result.In a daft sense it was only the contact with the West that brought out the worst in them as capitalism and the Code led to a ruthlessness that was shocking in the extreme.Imperialism and a nd a superiority complex were a disastrous mix. I'm interested by how they turned it around post war.It's an idiosyncratic place but the extremism seems to have gone.How and why? The Pliger documentary "Behind the Mask" uncovers some ideas.

Lastly I think that the fact the Japanses were portrayed as yellow peril made it easy to drop the atom bomb.Even if the Allies had developed it a year earlier,I don't believe it would have been used against Germany.

The film ends with a meeting a la Schindler's List between Earnest and the translator.He can forgive but I understand why others can't.

A great film,hard going and lacking mawkishness

This brilliant series from the 70's is repeated on UKTV

It is set in the Second World War but is far from the stereotypical wartime drama.The heroes are flawed and the Germans shown in a more realistic light.The Kessler character could be seen by some as a trajectory,but can people who order mass murder at the drop of a hat be portrayed sympathetically?Both the Luftwaffe officers are shown to be ordinary people stuck in an extraordinary situation,and the contempt that Brandt has for his Gestapo superior is cleverly and subtlety done.

This can only enhance or understanding of the psychology of the war. The plot revolves around "Lifeline" which is an evasion line for downed airmen run by Lisa who is scarred by the death of her parents and wants to defeat the Nazis.She is portrayed as ruthless and willing to take hard decisions for the greater good.An especially dark episode ends with the Candide owner,Albert,giving up two allied airmen to certain death in order to protect the line.

This is brilliant,well thought out drama and very thought provoking.We can all look at the German people and say it couldn't happen here,or at the Occupied Countries and say we would have been in the Resistance.But Nazi domination was based on simple everyday slights to minorities that in themselves didn't seem OTT but produced an atmosphere of fear and the opportunity for ruthless or inadequate people to do their worst whilst people looked the other way or said "It's not my problem".Exactly the type of thing that allows (present tense) Sinn Fein/IRA to keep Nationalist areas under control.

Six million don't die because the Nazi Elite thought it was a good idea.You have to make people complicit and feel big or at best make it so they are ambivalent to the fate of others or just plain scared.

This drama is for me the best thing broadcast by the BBC ever.Dark,atmospheric,Pinteresque spring to mind.

There is a myth that telly was better in the 70's.It wasn't.It was mostly terrible but with the odd absolute gem such as this.I fear these programmes would not be made today due to ratings which is the King.