tryptych

This series continues to grow in interest, quality and plot lines.

Whenever people rave about CSi, (which I consider it, and it's even lamer derivatives to be THE worst drama on TV), I always point them to Silent Witness. It follows accurate pathology, police routine and technology, and doesn't talk down, or dumb down. If you want to see pathologists at work, then you are going to see cadavers opened up. (That's what they do.) If you don't like that sort of thing, stop complaining that it's sick and go back to washed-out, inaccurate American cop shows that wouldn't know a dead body if it jumped up and bit them. (Or just lay there looking pretty with a cloth laid over their naughty bits.)

Well, as it seems virtually all the main characters have had some kind of homosexual relationship, let's bring in a new one from some other fantasy show, and Jack can snog him too.

Sorry, but Russell T. Davies needs to get off this whole gay aspect. It's unrealistic and BORING. We don't want sex, we don't want swashbuckling. We want thrills and chills and interesting characters and plots, and not some vehicle for RTD's sexual fantasies. Get Steven Moffat to write. He wrote "Blink" and "The Empty Child" for Dr Who and scared the pants off everyone at tea time, without so much as a profanity. RTD should take a leaf out of his book, stick to producing and leave the writing to writers.

I have always loved this show, and I think has has been said many times before, anyone who was a 60's child in Britain couldn't have missed this, and whenever the theme came up, it sent tingles up the spine.

A simple film on a low budget, but with outstanding talents all round, it is well worth finding. The acting and direction really stand out, and the cinematography in black and white only helps to give it that quality edge. It is now confirmed that Network DVD is releasing it on DVD on June 18th 2007 after a very long wait. It is also worth noting that the haunting score is also now available in an expanded CD from Silva Screen. The original soundtrack was in mono, but it seems there was such a demand for this piece, that the composers recently recreated a medley with a full orchestra in stereo, and all those memories come flying back to the long hot summers as a kid.

Watch it, and I guarantee there won't be a dry eye in the house.

James Bond meets Saturday morning movies. Atrocious. A 14yo boy (hahaha, he's got a deeper voice than I have) saves the world from Bluto and evil Olive Oyl.

Adults seem to think youngsters live on another planet, and treat them like morons. Rotten script, rotten story, over-produced action scenes, and plot holes you could drive a truck through. Stars Robbie Coltrane (for about 2 mins at the end), Ewan McGregor (dies before the opening credits roll), Stephen Fry (blink and you miss him.)

I suspect a serious case of "Do us a favour mate, just come in and do a days shoot for us" going on, to try and help plug the film.

Done on a budget of about £12.50, and a young persons railcard. I thought Samuelsons were cheap, but not this cheap...

I've never heard of the books, but based on this travesty, I'm not planning on reading them. I'll stick to reading "Disc Drive World".

Hmm. "Doctor Who" meets "Queer as Folk". Personally, I thought generally the poorest episodes of Doctor Who were by Russell T. Davies, but he had the enthusiasm to resurrect an old favourite and keep both the old veterans and the new viewers happy as a producer. With Torchwood, he had a clean slate to come up with something new, and frankly, completely missed the target. Taking what is essentially a kids show and throwing in a few 'F' words does not make it adult. The plot line and concept is thin and weedy, the dialogue is the usual combination of sugary epithets and incomprehensible technobabble, the acting just about passes muster, but overall, it's just another "Bugs". I will however give credit to the production design, effects and makeup as they've done a great job on a low budget. As someone else remarked though, the music is awful and intrusive (and the single worst aspect of the new Doctor Who too, incidentally) Davies said he wanted "grit" but I think he mistyped and gave us "grot". It has about as much grit as a Barbara Cartland novel. Give us Ultraviolet, Layer cake, Millennium etc, not this watered down stuff.

I'm sorry, I was't going to make a comment regarding this until I saw the high but unworthy praise drizzled over this charade of a movie. Yes, we may have the worlds supposedly greatest director directing one of Hollywood's top stars, but Spielberg seems to be film-making by numbers these days. Pick a topic, gather stock crew together (John Williams music again. Janus Kamnski DP again ILM Effects bunch etc etc) Pick nice safe box office dead certs for cast. Rattle the thing off and get working on the next job before even finishing the last one. I'm not saying War of the Worlds is a turkey, but it should have been on my Christmas dinner table with an onion stuffed up it's backside.

It is truly abysmal. Take an age-old English classic, move it both in time and space to New York (WHY!!?) Screw around with the plot and bury the story deeper than the spaceships, (What was wrong with meteorites?). Set the "hero" as a miserable, obnoxious idiot with a dysfunctional family of a separated wife, car-stealing son and a precocious daughter that never stops squealing. She is one good reason to keep the pro-spanking bill. Most leads, you want to follow them, empathise with them, worry for them. Personally I wish Tom Cruise's character had been made toast in the first reel and put us all out of our misery. He was totally unlikeable, as were most of the cast. The only redeeming feature were the effects, but we still spent far too much time running around dark cellars with little green men.

The recent remake of "The Time Machine" was not great, but it had the atmosphere and joi d'vivres of H.G.Wells, The fact that Victorians would have reacted so much differently to this technology. Shifting it both historically and geographically so that Americans could understand it just makes me wince. Why do filmmakers SO underestimate their audiences intelligence?

I despise Hollywood for messing with other peoples work. Maybe we should take an American Classic like "Gone with the Wind" and transpose it to 1980's Guy Ritchie's London. I think there would be a riot.

"Frankly my dear, I don't give a rat's arse."

Well, after months of hype and publicity, the film I have been waiting for finally hits. Yes, it looks wonderful, yes, CGI may be a new artform waiting to take on real film, but sadly no, this film, like so many other scifi's and flops because of a dire script.

Isn't it about time film makers figured out that visuals are only part of the big picture? Just like most dance music is instantly forgettable because it has no melody, so many Hollywood epics fall over because they have such a lame plot and dialogue, that within ten minutes you are starting to examine the wallpaper of the theatre. Also, stop assuming all your audience needs everything spelling out; They are not as stupid as you might think. Sorry guys, but this is just another turkey. Why not take a leaf out of the great scifi writers books such as Heinlein, Asimov, Pournelle, Niven etc, and give us something we can get our teeth into? 2001 set the scene back 30 years ago, so why now that we are in that very year, do we have to suffer such interminable dross as this?