tuppen2010

I can't comment on the other parts of this trilogy. Nor on the novels on which they are based, though friends say that the books are good. However, this film is dreadful. Firstly, it looks like second rate TV - awful mood music grinds on endlessly in the background, but there's absolutely no mood. The total lack of tension is extraordinary. The books must be gripping otherwise millions would not have bought them. I found myself mentally compiling my next shopping list. The acting ranged from adequate to poor, but you have to pity the actors given that they were not given characters to play. Maybe all the characterisation was in the previous film? Well, none of it made it this far. The the whole thing just looks shoddy. I wish that I had stayed at home and watched an episode of Wallander instead.

This film is fine. It's well made and well acted. You know the plot before you go in: man falls down hole; man's arm gets trapped; man hacks off his arm. That, unfortunately, is it. Boyle is great at developing tension, but despite the film's relatively short running time, it drags. The problem is there's nowhere for either character or narrative to go. Yes, it's amazing (and hideous to watch) that Aron Ralston chops off his own arm - and you marvel at his grim determination - but it doesn't make him an interesting or engaging character. The film is sustained by the flashy energy of the cinematography (and flights of poorly realised fantasy), to take us out of Ralston's stony prison, and it looks great. But I quickly reached a point where I wanted to shout "enough already!" Too many gimmicks, too much flash and not enough substance. This is a film for unsophisticated boys.

Burton seems to have strayed too far from wonderland. He gives us some magical effects and a degree of mild peril. But where is the wonder? Where is the danger? I had hoped for the kind of nightmarish vision that Carroll evokes, interpreted for the 21st century, but the world that Burton has created is far closer to the Disney 1950s animated version. Helena Bonham Carter gives a good turn as the Red Queen (clearly basing her performance on Miranda Richardson's magnificent 'Queenie' from Blackadder), though Johnny Depp is a big disappointment. Yes, his mad hatter is clearly mad, but to what effect? It felt as if Dick Van Dyke was impersonating a cross-dressing Scotsman. Best of the 'voices' without a doubt is Alan Rickman's perfectly unsettling caterpillar.

Burton's reimagining of Alice is also annoying. I like the fact that Alice is now on the verge of womanhood, and that her sexual/romantic confusion comes into play, but Burton really misses the opportunities that this set-up provides. Instead he tries to turn her into a 21st century hero. Great that she is given a bit of gumption, but did he have to give her balls, too? As a number of scenes at the end of the film make clear, Alice is not capable of being strong and powerful as a woman - she has to turn herself into a man (the final image even has her wearing a tie). Had the film been more intelligent, I would like to have thought that this was Burton's way of describing the lot of Victorian women, instead it just feels like a backfiring attempt at clumsy feminism.

Burton would have done well to take a look at the 1903 film of Alice in Wonderland which has become a YouTube phenomenon. This film is truly unsettling and magical in equal parts and despite its disjointed nature, conjures up Wonderland perfectly.

One of those endeavours that makes you wonder "why"? The Paul Abbott-scripted, 6 hour BBC production from 1993 was stand out TV. This is a run of the mill thriller, with way, WAY too much plot shoehorned into 2 hours.

We all know the problems that the producers had when Brad Pitt abandoned the production at the 11th hour (I suspect he'd just read the script). A relief to some, perhaps, but his replacement, Russell Crowe, is irksome in the extreme. Yet again he gives one of those furrowed-browed performances (this time aided by about 50lbs of spare flab and a mane of hair that looks as if it's auditioning for a shampoo advert) that he clearly thinks implies complexity and internal struggle. But not even he can be wholly blamed for the indigestible ending that tries to convince us that he's some kind of morally superior being.

The writers didn't bother the write a character for poor Rachel McAdams, and she doesn't have the star quality to overcome this. I've no idea whether or not Ben Affleck was any good as whenever he was on screen I was trying to decide whether or not he was wearing a wig. Helen Mirren appears to phone in her performance as a grizzled, world-weary editor. She, and the screenwriters, appear to think that she's reprising her role as Jane Tennyson in Prime Suspect.

Despite these significant problems, director Macdonald turns in some good thriller moments. Nothing to raise it above the average, but plenty of scenes rack up the tension more than adequately.

Do yourself a favour- in the UK you can currently buy the BBC original for £3.95 on Amazon. Half the price as a cinema ticket; 3 times the film for your money and about 10 times as good.

I'm not quite sure how this new series manages to fail so spectacularly. On the surface the set- up is funny, even some of the gags are funny - well, perhaps they were on paper. But the reality is miserable, forced and with no sense of comic timing whatsoever, which is odd given that there are a number of great actors involved (Daniel Mays, in particular). The beats and rhythms of comedy are missing and I couldn't work out whether this was the fault of the writer or director. However, the writer is responsible for thinking that cheap gags ironically mocking racism are funny and not understanding that British actors, as a rule, are not good at using expletives and still making the line funny. Watch the first episode only for the sight of Mays dressed as a giant panda.