dlewis-12

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.

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.

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.

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.

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