Reviews

22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Wolverine (2013)
3/10
Lots of action but a bit boring & predictable.
28 December 2017
Story close to style of comic, sadly I just found it boring, lots of running around & a bit predictable. Typical Wolverine story, bad guys will keep pushing the hermit-guy & force him to slice them up, the big villain will beat him up badly but he'll just win in the end. The nuance this time is all the Japanese stuff, but its all the cliched stuff thats been done a million times.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Faux intellectual run of the mill Bourne Identity like thing with autism & math
28 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Its just another typical Bourne Identity super soldier spy thing, except the super soldier also is autistic & great at accounting. The attempt at a romantic interest is non-existent, in fact, she's really annoying. A very contrived story with contradictions, e.g. Dad gets accidentally shot at funeral of his ex-wife, where, not only for totally unknown reasons a gang of funeral-goers decided to throw them out, but super soldier decides to fight them all & then also the cops. All so that dad can get killed poetically & with angst near the wife who abandoned him & his autistic kid...who is now a grown man & cold-blooded mass killer. Then, by another HUGE coincidence the guy defending his next target just happens to be his brother. And they have a fight where just stands & takes a beating from his brother, but seems totally invincible, like the guy is just slapping him with a small fish. The amazing savant accountant who's a genius at money laundering, somehow manages to get all his own money laundered through companies that are all in the same block where he has his own practice.

Lets not mention (or lets mention) small geek annoyances, loose ends & magic happenings: like sniper bullets hitting at exactly the same time as the noise of the shot, or the guy just running around in the open while in a firefight with 5 men. Its like the A-Team. The huge thing about the Airstream trailer which is there so he can quickly disappear...except...throughout the whole movie, including when he disappears, he's driving around in exactly the same pickup truck. Law enforcement procedures too in this film are just 'convenience' or imagined procedures & lacking any kind of believability.

Everything else, like the acting, is so-so (professional). Except, Jon Bernthal as the brother is great, as are the child actors. John Lithgow, his usual charismatic self.

If you're not the sort to notice these sorts of things & is happy with a bit of super soldiering, mass killing, good guy with troubled life, then its probably a 7/10 movie.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Snakes on a plane is a better film & I didn't like that.
23 August 2017
The title of this review basically says it all. The best thing about it is the Black Sabbath sound track and what I call the helicopter sequence just before they meet the ape about half hour into the film. Thats the only positive. The characters are dreadful. The period setting is all wrong - computers, black people, asians & women involved in military roles that never happened. Which is OK to do, its just so badly done, its like "we know its 21st century so just pretend" shallow lazyness. Forget this piece of crap and watch Shin Godzilla instead.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Arrival (II) (2016)
1/10
Sci-fi for housewives (no offence to housewives)
23 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Sorry, but dull dull dull. I'm into very clever mind stuff and slow sci-fi but this was boring and pointless and well over-hyped as usual. Imagine you're a housewife who's grown three kids & had job in a kindergarten and suddenly you're called on by military to talk to octopus like aliens because you had a college degree in languages and can speak 10 human languages. Then imagine a floating camera following you around as you meander around every minutiae of moving around & eventually meeting the aliens. Its all portrayed from point of view of housewife who's never contemplated such wondrous things, only looking after cute little children. And, thats the film. The sting in the tail is that the housewife part never really happened but happens now... May have worked if it wasn't so long and something else happened. Oh yes, the Chinese, of all people, known for their jumping into war at the drop of a hat, the savages they are, want to start a war with the aliens.

This is the outpourings of an America that has no clue of the world, and not much about sci-fi or about mathematics, science or military. Avoid. Unless you're a housewife (who isn't highly educated).
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Its based on existing Japanese anime
21 February 2017
1. It is competently made but all the concepts are derived from Japanese anime - so the reviewers saying its the best art ever made are wrong. Its the best thing they have seen. I refer them to Naruto (and especially Naruto Shipuden), which will truly blow their minds. After you have watched a few Japanese anime shows you can see that Avatar is just OK not the best thing since sliced bread. Its not new.

2. Regardless of the above comment I would like to rate Avatar 8/10 but I can only give 6/10 because the storyline (main plot) is a mess, some of the stories are just boring & contrived, and there is too much middle-class American teenager TV culture (which ruins the fantasy). E.g. episode The Beach. In many episodes you just know that the characters are going to do exactly the thing they know is going to get them into trouble. At one time there is a scary time limit to the 'end of the world' but at other times it is totally forgotten and lots of clowning around wasting time without a care in the world is happening. In addition, they really milk the tropes too far. E.g. Zuko is so foul, traitorous, and angry all the time compared to his poor treatment as a child, that trying to make him out as having an internal struggle is just a joke. Sokka is always sceptical of everything supernatural no matter that everyone uses superpowers to bend the elements or that they have met numerous spirits and hang around with a guy that can contact the spirit world. Gets bit annoying after 10 episodes. Etc.

3. Finally, the avatar learns how to fight using all sorts of bending but hardly ever uses anything but air bending, even in fights. He mastered fire bending but he won't use it to even light a cooking fire or a torch. And of course there are strange things like metal bending being a subset of earth bending, but it is used by the fire nation to build all of their machines because they are safe from earth benders. Everyone (earth & fire benders) uses metal cells to hold earth benders. The fire nation uses a huge fleet to attack everyone but some how the water benders never thought about sinking the ships by just filling them with water. The water benders can also bend ice. Apparently no-one has heard of unsinkable ships being sunk by icebergs either (Titanic anyone?). The air benders can only apparently fly with the help of kite wings. They can't create jets of air to help them fly. Earth benders can disappear into the ground and move about but they never use this ability to sneak around. Etc, etc, etc. These holes are endless.

Its a good show but the 10/10 reviews are just stupid (as usual).
7 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sicario (2015)
2/10
Got 30 mins in and its like some girly feely movie
5 February 2017
I'm sorry, got as far as 30 mins into this trying hard but it seems to be some kind of girly feeling stuff sort of thing as its spent staring at some woman policeperson's face reacting to things and nothing out of ordinary TV happening. Boring boring boring. Yet more usual hyped up Hollywood nonsense? I don't know, I have a life to lead.

Apparently I have to write 5 more lines of text because I wasn't clear enough with the first 5. Well, I'm all for the women's point of view and equality and all that. I'm just bored out of my wits, being a man, with watching some poor woman's face all day long as she reacts to emotional stuff. Those guys have a job to do. Get over it and get on with it. Yes people get killed because of the drug trade. We know that. There have been a hundred films about it already.

All the Hollywood hype is just plain shite.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Father Brown (2013– )
5/10
Depends on if you're looking for brain stimulation or not
19 January 2017
I haven't read Chesterton's books and I accept that many reviewers have indicated that the link with the author is very tenuous and its probably only made for legal reasons. My review is based on interest in period TV detective stories.

I really want to love this version of Father Brown but, for me, it is let down by plot holes, blundering contrivances and shoe-horning in of 21st century liberal morality and angst. It appears to be written for women in their 70s and 80s. I.e. lots of social mush and Women's Institute fantasy but missing the intelligence and subtlety of competent mystery writers, and unconvincing action scenes, whose only purpose is to add to the romance of the story. As there are so many writers I'm not sure if they are responsible or the production company (the BBC). Its the sort of thing you put your feet up and switch-off your ability to think, just immerse yourself in the feel of the place. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a valid purpose for making a product (TV show) as many people want that. I'm just stating it to show that the appeal will depend on what you're looking for and this show may be deceptive because of the association with Chesterton and a production that is similar to other UK period mysteries. The morality and religious link are also deceptive (unrepresentative of the time).

Everything else about the production is great; wonderful locations and period feel with a warm, rural, affluent, Women's Institute fantasy (that I love), great actors (although they can be a bit pantomime but I think they are directed to be), great directing except for the pantomime, great camera work, theme tune, etc. Sorcha Cusack is wonderful and I'm a fan of Mark Williams, he does a great job here too. I believe they intended to make Father Brown a jolly nice, understated chap whose religion is more about morality and 'love from God to all' than dogma. Sadly a 21st morality but, brightly, he himself steers clear of showing morality of any sort, preferring to leave EVERYTHING to God, except catching murderers and adding a touch of light-heartedness. Williams delivers whats required, delivering humour by raising an eyebrow, averting his gaze or pausing at just the right time. These actors a let down by the poor writing/mushy intention of this product.

Would give it 10/10 if the stories were more along the lines of the Suchet's Poirot, Brett's Holmes, Columbo, Midsomer Murders, or even Murder She Wrote. Would give 9/10 if the stories even just showed a little bit of intelligence, political comment or art. 5/10 reflects the well produced, warm, period rural fantasy.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Fantastic in ways terrible in others - for specific tastes only
5 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
In many parts it is 9/10, but in others 2/10.

I haven't read the book and, though I'm sure I have, I don't remember seeing other versions. Firstly and primarily this very very slow and plodding. The story is there, watchable and interesting but the scenes are so overly stretched out that they've gone beyond art and into boredom. So, if you like slow moving stories steeped with brilliantly astute and deep vignettes on life, garnished with an excellent but dark period drama, you will love this.

The acting is generally very good as is the period feel. The cold reality of life, especially due to the war, imparts the darkness. The twists and turns of the plot are very good, except the final twist of the crime story, which leaves you feeling the whole rest of the story was just 'camera tricks' (as in magic shows) to mislead us. It felt like a big con. The whodunnit part is maintained well throughout.

The poignant imprints of war on life are genius, especially the generational statement at the end, but the time spent on them turns parts of this more into an Alan Bennett play than a crime thriller.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the worst things I've ever seen
3 December 2016
I guess after so many seasons of great episodes it was bound to happen sooner or later that they would get bored making it. This episode has absolutely nothing of value. Extremely contrived to the point of disbelief and nothing funny or witty whatsoever. Actors just going through the motions. For example, the scene of the tour in the old house where Shawn & Gus are looking for a slot for the dagger-key. Shawn is looking in the cushions of a sofa for the slot. OK thats ridiculous and his usual nonsense, but the stretch it out, it just goes on and on and on. It was so unfunny it became embarrassing. In the rest of the show people just keep appearing and disappearing like magic.

Other than a few recent episodes like this (though not as bad) the show has been excellent.
1 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pacific Rim (2013)
5/10
a badly spoiled masterpiece
23 September 2016
I would love to give this 10 out of 10. Its the closest Hollywood has ever come close to realistic manga (with CGI)(AFAIK - the previous Godzilla films were too much Hollywood and not enough manga). Lets face it, the big draw of this film is big robots vs. big monsters a la the well loved Godzilla. Those parts are perfectly implemented. I ABSOLUTELY LOVED THEM and I'm v.critical. Where the film fails, uncommonly for Del Torro, is the effeminate screenplay and bad acting. Idris Elba & Ron Perlman are excellent but others are wishy-washy and the scientists are terrible - which I cannot believe from the guy who made the excellent Hellboy.

There is way way too much touchy-feely talky talky and girly stuff. The fact the film makers missed was that girly girls are not ever going to flock to giant monster/robot films. So all you managed to do was alienate the majority of the potential audience. I feel VERY VERY let down by the glaring flaws in the run-of-the-mill areas of the film-making.

I really hope the next film plays to its strengths - there's a big worldwide audience for that, and the potential technical achievement of 'reality' Manga is a world first.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A poor film unless you just like lots of things happening & effects
29 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
It HAS got superheroes. It has got non-stop action. It has got special effects. If you like only those, you'll love this film. If you like story that makes sense and is not too contrived, some moral point to a film, and the original comics, you won't. Best not to watch it.

This should actually have been called an Iron Man film, or an Avengers film because a) its mostly about those and b) it ruins the half-decent Cap. America franchise. In addition, all these superhero films are becoming the same. This could have been an X-Men film, there's little difference.

The moral point they tried to make was about who should wield massive power. Sadly, this point was lost in all the contrivances and out of character hero behaviour. They were like a bunch of teenagers having a gang fight in the school playground. The villain story was also far-fetched and highly contrived, and forgettable. Also, sometimes in the film I didn't know who side characters were, but felt I needed to.

Finally, they introduced Spiderman & Black Panther. As a boy my favourite hero was Spiderman. I really didn't care for Iron Man (a guy in a magic suit) or Captain America (a guy that threw a shield for American propaganda - yes' even as a boy I thought that). I haven't liked previous Spiderman films (I didn't hate them). I liked everything about this new Spiderman except for the fact that he's around 13 yrs old and his aunt is about 40. Call me picky, but thats just not Spiderman. Did they really stoop to this just to rope in younger film goers? I liked the Black Panther story-line and the acting, however, his in-costume movements & behaviour were not Panther-like. Another indication that this is just a formulaic offering for a quick buck. There's no love of comic genre here.
36 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Excellent but let down by some idiocy mainly in last episode
18 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Really wanted to give it 9/10. If you're someone who can ignore absolutely ridiculous things happening just for an exciting story this will be 9/10, its great, and a breath of fresh air. Great acting great locations and thrilling storyline. Really loved the dangerous gay guy - acting and storyline. However, if your brain stumbles over totally farcical things or uncharacteristic behaviour, you'll have the occasional trouble until the last episode. Until then I'd give it 7/10. For example, the head of a secret service unit is so naive he's not even mildly suspicious about his boss when only a few hours of passing a document to her it ends up in the hands of another department and then the baddies.

But the last episode had too much stupidity for my liking, so only 5/10 for me. It reeks of writers trying so hard to cram in thrills they lose sense of reality or even of the genre. For example, the guy torturing a girl in hotel is told to go kill agents in another room. So whats the most sensible thing to do? Drag the beaten girl around the hotel to the other room. Another one; girl wants to secretly pass boyfriend's safe combination to guy she has regular hushed words with, without her murderous boyfriend noticing. So, the best plan of course is just to bet on those numbers on the roulette table - with her boyfriend standing next to her. The boyfriend who knows the numbers by heart. Its not about her being an ordinary person, who can easily make a mistake. Its about her knowing her boyfriend would brutally murder her if he found out - and therefore would never be so brazen or careless. What a shame.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Grantchester (2014– )
5/10
The second series is better.
14 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I love period crime dramas. Loved Sherlock Holmes (with Brett) and Poirot (with Suchet). Liked some of Father Brown too, but like that series this one is flawed (unlike Holmes or Poirot). The main problem I have is that in a rush to cater to women and romance (I feel) they have thrown out some common sense. Mainly most things to do with Christianity. Quite odd for a vicar. And added instead emotional baggage to do with the war that conveniently pops up to make women swoon for the lead character. Otherwise, this could be a brilliant series. Series 2 seems to tone it down a bit and focus a bit more on the crimes and is therefore better. There were episodes in series 1 that I just gave up watching due to incredulity, thats why I can only give 5/10. Would have liked to have rated higher.

I don't have any problem with romance and programs that cater to women (or even only for women). I have a problem with throwing common sense out of the window to do it - which is actually insulting to women (like saying women can only cope with Mills & Boon type romantic mush). I really loved Sharp and Hornblower, which were also popular with women. They also managed to pull off some strong female characters (given the male infested nature of the settings) without throwing common sense out and without the lead characters always trying to look sexy-moody.

I'm beginning to think I either don't have any understanding of religion or this program is actually anti-Christian (I'm not Christian nor religious). This vicar, the hero, never consoles any of his flock or any victims of crime with the mention of god or religion. He just wanders around with a puppy-face. In addition, he is carrying on affairs with two women, one of whom is about to get married (so basically destroying that marriage without any serious intentions toward that woman), while having sex with a third. What a nice man. Forgive me for being dense but I thought some sins before Christ happened here. Now, this guy takes confessions, but he doesn't confess himself. Maybe after the war only children could be made vicars? Its all a bit sick and some people are lapping it up. He is the opposite of a hero.

Fortunately, there are the real and quite gritty police, including Geordie (Robson Green), to save the day. And the period features are very well done. The police are made out to be nasty with their harsh treatment of the 'vicar', but I'm on their side. He often hides or makes off with evidence and police files - he needs to be in jail for that. I like that Geordie has a young family and they deal with the real-to-life version of that. The hard life that his wife has to live at home by herself.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
True Grit (2010)
4/10
Pointless waste.
13 April 2016
Cannot think of a single reason this film is better than, or even as good as, the original. Although its well made, the acting good, Bridges great, its just a totally pointless exercise. Watch the original. Re-release the original. It is 100 times better. Its a very good academic example of how you can make money from dumbos pure through marketing. Its like getting Warhol to copy the Mona Lisa and then people paying as much as the original to buy it. They buy it simply because its new and because the original had a reputation. Thats all. The dumbos totally devalue the original work, and thats saying nothing about the people trying to make a quick buck off the backs of the original artists.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Snowpiercer (2013)
4/10
A collection of contrived stupid things happening on a dumb train
13 April 2016
I'm still trying to figure out how this has got such a high rating. Although some mildly interesting things happen and there is a little bit of good acting (I enjoyed Swinton's comic character), and the set design is great and CGI good, but thats all. The very concept of a perpetual motion engine indicates the level of intelligence involved in the making of this movie. Nobody told them that the only reason people talk about perpetual motion is that its impossible. I expected some clever loop-hole to allow us to ignore that, but no. It sounded nice & clever so they put it in, and that is the method used for everything in this movie. I.e. some schoolboys thought up stuff that sounded cool or emotional so they put it in. And everyone else went along with it cos of the dollar signs Similarly there's no attempt to explain who clears the tracks of avalanches and landslides or who repairs the tracks or the train or where the factory that makes the metal is. There may be a perpetual engine but does that also mean that the wheels and bearings don't wear down? Some people may say I'm nit-picking, but, I'm sorry, I can' help it; my brain stopped accepting that people run down the middle of a road to avoid being run down by a car when I was about 8 years old. I am an adult now and this film is for adults.

Gets 4/10 cos its not utterly repellent, the set design, there is some watchable action and because it was a bold manga-esque idea (and bold ideas are to be encouraged if we don't want to live in a total desert of pop films).
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Godzilla (2014)
2/10
A film made by 11 yr old minds
12 April 2016
There is nothing of any value in this film. Its boring. The CGI Godzilla monster was believable. Thats the only positive thing I can say here. I've given it higher than 1/10 simply for not being repellent. I would recommend people re-watch ANY of the old Godzilla films rather than this. Even if its a drunken party viewing. I liked many old B-movies, some that were really bad. So its nothing to do with the quality of the story, or making sense, or anything. They at least all had something; tension, likable characters, over-acting, really rubbish effects, etc. This film simply has nothing. And as its a modern film you'd think they'd update with all the latest military technology, but no. Also the MOTU monsters were pathetic. The only worthwhile acting was Cranston (his usual), but he was hardly in it. I really have no idea why they even thought about making this. Maybe they thought they'd just make money from the name Godzilla. So glad I did not go to cinema to watch it.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dredd (2012)
7/10
Great film but Dredd could have been more menacing
8 April 2016
Love Dredd comic and this was a good portrayal, especially of Anderson. Liked the film. Liked the way things were translated into the real world from the comic but still managed to keep the look & story of the comic. Only criticism is Dredd was not menacing enough for me. In the comic no ordinary citizen wanted to draw the attention of a judge. Dredd particularly. He is basically a Dirty Harry robot. In this portrayal the robot part was good but he could have been harder - not the acting but the portrayal. For example the scene with perp holding hostage - some clever pauses or slo-mo showing emotions on faces & terror of realisation by the perp would have been good.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deadpool (2016)
7/10
its good if you like comics not if you like x-men movies
7 April 2016
I'm not a fan-boy of anything so I don't give 10/10 for anything I liked slightly. So 7/10 is a good review from me. There was only a couple of times I found my mind wandering in this. There were times I found the wisecracking annoying, but I did not mind that because it was supposed to be annoying. I liked the comic book style. For example, we spend a lot of time in silly dialogue with a taxi driver while ignoring the main plot - just as you'd expect in a comic of this nature.

I found the story to be interesting and sufficiently different from other hero films to make it worthwhile (some reminiscences of Watchmen - which I enjoyed). I found the main villain also to be good; robotic in his evil as to be expected but also in some ways human (in a "its nothing personal friend but I'm forced to hurt you now" kind of way). The villain side-kick is also quite a scary woman. The involvement of the x-men was rightfully a side-issue as this was the story of Deadpool.

On the whole its slightly more artistic than the usual pulp superhero movie, as was Watchmen and dare I say it, Guardians of the Galaxy (but more adult than either of those).
10 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ant-Man (2015)
5/10
very good but last half hour turns into Disney farce
7 April 2016
Its very good until the defeating the villain begins, then it turns into a Disney movie farce - Herbie defeats the baddies. Although the clichés of super hero stories are to be expected, they're not expected to be handled in such ham-fisted way (i.e. very noticeably). We all expect the villain to escape just when things were going well and then return with the super weapon so we can have the final battle to save the world. But one has to suspend disbelief when the hero turns his back on the villain who is just standing around waiting to shoot everyone, just to pamper a buddy who got an owie. What a shame. And as usual the movie was hyped up by Hollywood beyond expectations.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Lot of potential at start but suspension of disbelief needed
20 March 2016
As other reviewers indicated, it had a lot of potential at the start but the suspension of disbelief gets more and more as episodes progress. I started off with 7/10 rating but this has dropped to 4/10. I managed to stick with it until episode 6 but really can't stand to watch anymore. The contrivances have turned it into a humourless pantomime. Whoever wrote and directed this lives in cloud cuckoo land as far as policing (and even common sense goes) - possibly the way things were done in '60s popular shows (when the public knew no better). The method of policing we see is: find some hearsay, arrest and accuse the alleged perpetrator very loudly, run into things without any backup and collect no evidence, get shouted at by horrible boss for there being no evidence, alleged perpetrator (who we really hate) gets released by horrible possibly evil boss, we are all supposed to be sympathetic with the heroes.

Here's an example of disbelief: cops raid container yard; one cop runs off chasing bad guy; isn't seen or heard from since for 12 hours; no-one bothers to do anything, his partner apparently tried to get him on his cell and thats all. By the way, he was kidnapped by a baddie from the container yard. This is a senior police officer going missing during work and no-one bats an eyelid - very convenient. If only this was an isolated incident, those of us who actually have a working brain could get into the fantasy.

Another issue I have is that all the actors/cops seem to be playing characters from children's TV, apart from Nesbitt. Especially his partner played by Karan. Its very difficult to imagine a children's TV presenter as a cop. The baddies on the other hand are well played, as are the side characters, especially Jing Lusi and Omid Jalili. The side characters are played with a lot of real-life angst - like the waiter whose family is being threatened by crooks. Nesbitt plays himself as usual and for some reason that always works well.

Its a shame because the novelty is that its a Marvel Hero based in London. Its refreshing; the city, the stories, the characters, and the British production.
21 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Heartless (2014– )
5/10
In many parts 8/10 rating but in many others 2/10
27 January 2016
Its a teenage vampire type story with a new twist (not quite vampires) and a certain amount of Scandinavian style. Scandinavian style is not to everyone's taste. Too much morbid standing around, staring into space or watching people walking around... Heartless does have a bit of that but it fits in with the style and is only occasionally annoying. I watched it in Danish with English subtitles. I prefer watching foreign programs with subtitles to get the feel of the originating culture, and I love listening to Danish (though don't understand it).

The story is very good and a lot of different types of teenage angst are mixed in to get all sorts of emotions started, and then they are well managed. There are people who don't know their parents and have no future, there is moving to a new, uncomfortable environment to live in (the boarding school and its intrigues), there is love between the teens, love between teens and adults, broken family relationships, old secret trysts, murders, unrequited lovers being abused, unrequited lovers doing the abuse, etc, etc. The tie in with the historical story is good.

There are all sorts of things going on and it is very well acted and directed all round (apart from comments below). It is quite artistic and adult. More along the lines of Interview With A Vampire for teens than another Twilight. The opening credits and music are great. Amazing performances are given by two of the actors: Frederikke Dahl Hansen as Nadja gives a very nuanced performance of an innocent young abused girl torn by many emotions, and Julie Christiansen as Emelie, a charismatic performance as person of power even though just a young girl.

It is filmed in a dark and dreary way which works but does eventually get in the way. Instead of being engrossed, you eventually start wondering about it. Even indoors with all the lights on in a room, its difficult to see anything but people's faces. When something bad happens, everyone just stumbles around in the dark. No-one thinks of switching the lights on.

The main problems for me started from episode 6 on. Up to this it is great and definitely recommended. After this it is not recommended. The contrivances became common and ridiculous. Silly, and I feel sad as it was ruined. For example, a girl who is truly in love, suddenly voluntarily goes out with a boy she doesn't like who was arranged by a dad she has been rebelling against. A person gets killed all by himself in the woods and a janitor starts violently questioning the person's ex-girlfriend because the janitor has just randomly decided its something to do with her, for no sane reason whatsoever. Just cheaply contrived to get some suspense and emotion.

Finally, something that all the advertising seems to avoid mentioning. It has an 18 rating (in UK). That may be due to the violent murders (beatings, stabbings and burnings). Nothing out of the ordinary by modern standards, except maybe the one burning on the stake due to the condition of the person. It may be due to the sex, which is also mild by modern standards. I think the main problem is that most of this involves people who are of school-age. It is teenagers being murdered. It is teenagers having sex and being naked. I loved watching the young girls in the shower, not to mention some of the other things. I'm a liberal middle-aged male, but this sort of thing is controversial. In some parts of the world, people go to jail for making such images. In works of art such things manage to get away with a bit more leeway but, can any TV series be a work of art due to its 'mass market product' nature? I think this may offend some people.
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No Offence (2015– )
2/10
Will appeal to childish adults who never left the school playground
5 May 2015
Simply put take characters from a high-school playground, put them in older bodies, give them serious 'life-and-death' jobs like police or jobs requiring long and expensive education, and then move things around quickly with very fast talking, lots of childish and gross observations, bad language, 'common' accents, and spend a lot of time in toilets. Pretend they're doing something serious and good, and the grown children that never left the school playground will love it and watch it and think its the work of a genius, and they'll talk about it with their friends the next day just to show their friends that they are actually smart by association.
16 out of 134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed