Reviews written by registered user

6 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Sherlock (2002) (TV)
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Not bad. But not good, 16 January 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The problem with this interpretation is that it seems a disconnected story from the canon of Sherlock Holmes stories. While it has a fascinating (though not original) idea of having a younger Sherlock Holmes who is the polar opposite of the character we came to know in the book, it never fully develops this.

Richard E Grant plays a good role, as Mycroft. To the reviewer who stated that Mycroft never appeared in the stories, I direct you to the 'Greek Interpreter' and 'The Bruce-Partington Plans'. Watson may well be the person who Holmes accuses in the stories of making things up - he is a police official - not in Afghanistan. The idea that Moriarty invents heroin is a bit much.

In all, the story was good, but the film could have been better.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Flawed Masterpiece, 20 October 2004

Scorsese gets the underworld of big cities: this is the roots of such things as Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. I could have lived without the unconvincing love story between Leo and Cam. Having said that, the Oedipal tension between amsterdam and Bill the Butcher is terrifically done. This film will grow with the years.

The performance by Daniel Day-Lewis is just amazing (no, I am not him). Liam Neeson proves he can act again, after almost destroying himself in Star Wars Episode 1. Leo is watchable (for once) and Cameron Diaz is terrific. All actors are great.

Watch this film. Then watch it again. Congratulations, Mr Scorsese.

Nixon (1995)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Masterpiece, 19 October 2004

It's been said before, but Oliver Stone has made one of the best film bios ever. Hopkins is superb as the conflicted president. The tagline "one step from greatness" is apposite. There is a wonderful scene where Nixon raves about his jealousy of Kennedy. Why Hopkins didn't win the Academy award for this is beyond me.

Stone has obviously begun to empathise with his subject. You don't leave the film thinking that Nixon was innocent, but you do understand why he might have ruined a promising career on such small-minded shenanigans.

Oliver Stone should be congratulated on a film that entertains, educates and challenges its audience.

13 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
Over-rated rubbish, 8 September 2004

This film was terrible. Not in an Ed Wood way - Spacey and Bening are fine actors, and carry off the risible dialogue with conviction - but in conception and script, and direction. Never has a film so enraged me (for ripping me off) and bored me simultaneously. A friend said, "ah, but it's good to smack Americans." I said, "Ah, but it's too easy, and that's not America, nor anything near it."

Ultimately, the film is about an underdeveloped scapegrace, who should sitdown and get some counseling. His wife is a frigid slut, and the daughter is a freak. Now these should make a good film, but it doesn't. It makes a dull, repetitive, uninsightful night. A night at the laundromat is much better than an hour and a half in this mediocre tedium

Miss it. You won't regret it.

Goodfellas (1990)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
3 great films, tied into one OK film, 7 September 2004

Scorsese is a great director. Yet, I felt he couldn't mesh these three strands together into a coherent whole. The Gangster part is great. The Jail part is great. The Witness protection part is great. Yet, somehow, the sum is less than the parts. Still worth a watch, though. Liotta is great. De Niro is De Niro. Joe Pesci is terrific. Beautifully shot, well edited, in its component parts, all the things you expect from a Scorsese film are there. Except coherence. If you compare it to, say 'Last Temptation of Christ', which in many ways was a harder film to direct, Goodfellas comes up wanting. Watch it. But appreciate its three discrete parts, rather than the whole.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Great Show, but ..., 16 August 2004

It is a great show, and Denton is a fine interviewer. However, there are two small criticisms I should make, only for balance, and I hope they are constructive.

Firstly, Denton promised the hard interviews - he wasn't going to do the usual round of airhead celebrities and dull authors. Unfortunately, I think he's discovered that it is air-head celebrities and dull authors who prefer these shows. With notable exceptions (John Elliot and Rene Rivkin - and a very few others), I get sick of pop-stars, actresses with a barrow to push and 'celebrities' selling their latest wares. I don't blame Denton per se - he has a show to run. I would prefer less Enough Rope, with better guests, rather than 'Rove Live' on the ABC. (Rove is a great show, too, but different.)

Secondly, the first season was a bit patchy. It has improved immeasurably. I wish Denton well.i have been a fan of his since he was 'Andrew the Boy Wonder' on Sydney Morning Radio. If we can get the type of guests he wants (and I know they are difficult), he will enter his place in the pantheon of Australian Television