Bottlebrush Reviews

Bull (2016–2022)

Scruffy unshaven look makes men look ugly

[3/10 · 9 September 2018]

Overall, I find this series quite mediocre, and would be so happy if Di Nozzo returned to NCIS instead (that series is suffering notably from his absence and Ziva's, and the introduction of mediocre, unpleasant characters with little acting ability, as well as boring scripts).

I also find the unshaven look extremely off-putting. Many men appear to be adopting such a look, as if they are having to hide under a skimpy, scruffy beard - you actually cannot tell if men with such a look are handsome or not these days, since they all seem to look more or less the same. The tramp-like clothes also make one turn away from the screen. I don't know why there is a need to make men look ugly - very strange.

Scorpion (2014–2018)

What a load of rubbish

[1/10 · 23 August 2018]

This series suddenly appeared among the promotions with other series on a UK station, like the ones for the once-excellent NCIS. That's incidentally now been ruined by an awful new cast of mismatched, unlikely characters that don't gel and aren't funny, despite the retention of the excellent Gibbs, McGee, Abby and Duckie - for now (bring back De Nozo and Ziva at some point to save that series).

Anyway, Scorpion has been sneaked in among the NCIS-type series, unfortunately replacing NCIS Los Angeles. It is aired at 11 p.m., when it is clearly a programme intended for children. It features the 'child geniuses' that appear to be a prerequisite of new series, along with some horrible special effects (shouldn't be necessary in a well-acted and scripted series) and absolutely stupid storylines. No wonder people are shying away from television and films - the excellent series that were broadcast in the US and the UK right up to not so long ago appear to be being replaced by this kind of rubbish, which fits right in with things like the Flash and Supergirl. I hope this gets taken off the programme in the UK, and that perhaps NCIS LA is reinstated (there's an unfinished story there).

Producers and directors take note: viewers are not all narcissistic morons who spend much of their time on social media and the like.

I also don't take kindly to the fact that ratings are being blatantly manipulated on this site by vested interest. It makes them meaningless.

NCIS (2003– )

Sad loss of brilliant characters

[24 June 2018]

I used to thoroughly enjoy this series, but with Ziva and Tony gone and Abby apparently about to leave, it has gone right down in my estimation. The three new cast members are very poor substitutes for the above, the two females (especially the dark one) being the most annoying. One feels no empathy towards them, and they seem unlikely characters to exist in an organisation such as NCIS.

Has the USA gone to same way as the UK in being unable to produce decent TV series (or films) any longer? Guess I'll just have to stick to watching older stuff on DVD.

What a shame.

Poldark (2015–2019)

Very good series

[9/10 · 17 June 2018]

I'd say this is just as good as (though not better than) the original. They are just two different animals. This one has more slick production values, so beautiful scenery can be shown well, and good characterisation by Aidan Turner (I hope they don't cheapen the thing with more 'bare-chested views', though) and Elearor Tomlinson. I do miss the 'rustic chorus' that was in the initial series - and the peasants are portrayed as a bit too clean looking, in my view.

It is good to see that the BBC can still produce something decent of the type that used to be produced (in the genre of North and South, though that was better), without descending into the onslaught of PC messaging that is so off-putting to many viewers, making them turn away from the BBC ...

New Tricks (2003–2015)

Absolutely wonderful!

[10/10 · 8 June 2018]

I've just started watching the reruns of this series on TV (I had watched some of it originally). It is brilliant - so funny, original, well acted and with brilliant story writing, each episode actually being unique. All the cast members are great - I remember I went off it a bit when most of the original cast disappeared rather abruptly. The replacements were OK - just not nearly as good as the originals.

It's a great shame the BBC doesn't produce such programmes any more. I rarely find the BBC watchable at all nowadays, with its dramas with unpleasant, ugly characters that one doesn't relate to or wouldn't aspire to be like, annoying forced PC messages, and generally poor scriptwriting.

But New Tricks is thoroughly recommended!

Supergirl (2015–2021)

Another awful series!

[2/10 · 7 May 2018]

This one started off OK with the first season, but then became subsumed with PC nonsense that ruined the series. Who cares about the characters' sexual proclivities - there are plenty of other places viewers can go to see dramas about lbtzxyw or whatever individuals, or indeed straight romances. What attracted me to the superhero genre was the classic fun/adventure/SF element, as reflected in the original comics, and certainly not all the PC nonsense and boring personal relationships that are rammed down people's throats.

I'd strongly suggest that people go back to series and films produced a decade and more ago, which is what I have done. This is sheer rubbish, ruined by the perceived need of the makers to tick all the boxes, and written by apparent morons without the ability to write intelligent scripts. The Olsen character in the series is utterly wrong for Superman/Supergirl-related series (or films), while Superman himself looks like a South American gigalo.

The crossover episodes - a stupid marketing ploy to try and make people buy the other series - make no sense and are another irritation. Of course, we get the opportunity to see the 'child geniuses' from the Flash (another horrible series of the same ilk as this one), and one of these unlikely geniuses even gives Supergirl an idiotic piece of cheap jewellery that is supposed to enable her to travel across dimensions (or some such rubbish)!

Ugh. Horrible.

The Flash (2014–2023)

Awful

[2/10 · 7 May 2018]

The first season was OK, but then it appeared to go off on a loop, with endless boring repetitive stories, and nonsense featuring unlikely child 'geniuses'. An obsession with ticking all the PC boxes - as with so much stuff produced nowadays - degrades most films and series these days, resulting in boring and predictable 'plots'. The 'cross-over' episodes, no doubt intended as promotions for the other series, are terrible and make no sense. I wonder how old the writers of this rot are? Ten, twelve or what? They certainly seem an untalented lot. No wonder so many people are going back to older stuff and ignoring what is produced now.

Presumably the voting tally at the top (giving this rubbish an 8!) has been provided by vested interests.

McMafia (2018)

It's a definite NO for me!!!

[2/10 · 4 January 2018]

Like much of the drama (particularly that in contemporary settings) the BBC produces these days, I find this one, showing the worst of human nature, deeply unpleasant. I view things that make me happy and optimistic, that provide an escape and that I can relate to in some way. I'm not interested in dramas that show horrible stuff and unpleasant characters I'm aware exist (in ALL nations, not just the ones focused on here), but can do nothing about. There's enough of this sort of thing going on in 'real' life and it's not something I want to be 'entertained' by.

Additionally, the scale of the thing is confusing, with characters appearing here, there and everywhere in the world in all manner of 'exotic' (and unnecessarily expensive to film) locations, as are the foreign languages. Why couldn't they have used English alone, with no annoying subtitles, as has been done effectively for a long time in other dramas and films of all kinds?

I also don't appreciate the non-so-subtle (to me) messaging that pervades the production - also seems a characteristic of the BBC these days.

No matter how much money and superficial gloss the BBC throws at this, I won't watch any more of it (I gave it a chance by watching the first two episodes but that's it).

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

Excellent film!

[10/10 · 4 May 2017]

I don't particularly like Marvel films generally – they all appear the same, with by-the-numbers, easily forgettable plots. However, Guardians 2 is different, like the first film was.

My favourite things about the film are:

• The characterizations. Rocket (he's very well done and even more expressive than he was in Guardians 1) and Baby Groot. All the characters are pretty good, especially the two leads, and Drax comes into his own more in Guardians 2 than he did in the first film. Yondu did very well here, too. I like the mixture of fun and emotion, including sadness.

• The visuals. The colours and the depictions of environments and outer space.

• The plot, especially due to great characterization.

Making a film that equalled the first one was a difficult thing to pull off, and I think the director did a great job.

I hope the Guardians stay as a unit and are not sucked into the rest of the Marvel 'universe'. They are different and much more quirky than the characters in the other films. Trying to integrate them with the other films would be a mistake, in my view, and would be a turn-off (for me, anyway).

Eddie the Eagle (2015)

Excellent film!

[9/10 · 7 April 2016]

I really enjoyed this film – found it uplifting, well acted and very well filmed. I thought the jumps were beautiful (that one with Hugh Jackman and the sparks flying from his cigarette was really inventively filmed).

I vaguely remember Eddie the Eagle, and he was well known (in Britain in any case) and quite endearing.

I also thought the 1970s' atmosphere was captured really well, including the interiors of Eddie's home, and I liked the inclusion of footage from the actual Olympics.

Would like to see more such quirky, enjoyable films.

The Night Manager (2016–2025)

Fabulous

[10/10 · 28 March 2016]

I thought this was absolutely wonderful, and was especially impressed by Tom Hiddleston (such a superb, beautiful actor) and Hugh Laurie (brilliant in the 'evil role'). One thing: I did think that a pregnant Olivia Coleman was a bit of an oddity in the series, since I don't find it plausible that a spy would put herself in a massively dangerous situation when heavily pregnant.

The design of the entire thing was beautiful – I don't know where the BBC managed to find the budget to film in such wonderful locations. The initial visuals to each episode are probably the best I've ever seen – so much style and beauty.

Gorgeous, fascinating and different from the ordinary run of thrillers. Looking at something like this makes one realize how much better a lot of TV (like this and the Scandi dramas) is than most of today's churned-out films for the masses.

Deadpool (2016)

Boring language and basically unpleasant film

[3/10 · 11 March 2016]

I don't know what all the fuss is about with this unpleasant film. I find it peculiar and not very interesting. For me, it's not funny, with the humour being crass and boring (unlike the humour in Guardians of the Galaxy). The constant use of swear words (mostly the same ones over and over again) is boring and irritating. The violence is OTT and unnecessary (maybe it is felt by the money makers that films need to be increasingly violent to attract audiences, which are perhaps becoming inured to violence both on and off the screen?). It seems that film companies are looking for different ways of making money with the Marvel franchise, since the standard formulaic super-hero films with their celebrity personalities lost their interest to many after the first few, being 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'.

The only thing that is reasonably good about Deadpool, IMHO, is the visual effects, so for that it could have a 3 from me.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Absolutely breathtaking – possibly my favourite of the ME films

[8/10 · 20 December 2014]

I've seen this film twice now and intend to see it several more times. I find the acting and character moments truly outstanding – notably of Richard Armitage as Thorin and Martin Freeman as Bilbo. (I swear Richard Armitage can speak with his eyes!) Thranduil, Bard and Balin are all given great moments. (I did feel that such moments were lacking in DoS, especially in the cinema edition, but this film is very satisfying in this respect.)

The beginning of the film is absolutely stunning – I simply cannot believe what has been done to produce such a fabulous Smaug. The fire reminds me of the Great Fire of London, and the bell is a great touch. I also like the 'visions' of Smaug that both Thorin and Bilbo have after the dragon had been killed.

Even Alfrid doesn't particularly bother me, since he provides an additional dimension to the film – showing a type of character that is found all too often in war situations. He provides a bit of light relief to lighten the darkness following Smaug's destruction of Lake-town.

All round, the visuals are absolutely amazing. (I've seen the film in both 48 HFR and IMAX 3D, and both were brilliant formats to watch the film in.)

The last part of the film is heart rending for me, right into the credits with Billy Boyd's lovely song.

I would have liked more Beorn, since I love that character, and a few more things – I can't wait for the EE for this film.

Well done and thank you PJ (and cast and crew). You've brought something special into my life.

Rush (I) (2013)

Excellent film

[9/10 · 18 September 2013]

Rush features great acting, atmosphere and music, and I would say it could be a strong Oscar/BAFTA contender. It's among the best films I've seen for some time (among the few films that I have really enjoyed).

The film captures the atmosphere of the 1970s and things like the weather conditions on the track, really well, without resorting to gimmicks or 3D effects. It's a revelation to see how dangerous conditions on the track actually are if you are not that interested in car racing. It will also appeal to women (I'm one) as well as men, since the action on the race track and 'car speak' are not too dominant.

The performances by the two male leads are sterling, and it is a nice touch to see the real Hunt and Lauda towards the end of the film. Chris Hemsworth shows that he has a broader range than just fantasy films, and Daniel Brühl is excellent as Lauda. The acting by the supporting cast is otherwise good throughout, but – rightly in my view – the film focuses on the two key personalities of Hunt and Lauda.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Absolutely breathtaking.

[10/10 · 17 December 2012]

I had already posted my thoughts on this film after seeing it in 2D, but thought I would now do so after seeing it in 3D 48 HFR last night.

CASTING The LOTR films are my favourites of all time, but I have always thought there were weak points in the casting, notably of the Hobbits. Whether it is because PJ didn't have the choice, or the knowledge, to get the right actors for LOTR ten years ago, I don't know. In any case, the casting for the Hobbit is brilliant. Martin Freeman is superb as Bilbo, as is Richard Armitage in the role of Thorin Oakenshield. Sir Ian McKellen is wonderful, as can be expected. These actors simply have the range to produce the right sort of work for the film, and to do the characters justice. The other characters were all pretty well cast (though of necessity their personalities could not be shown much, which is the case in the book as well). After Thorin, my favourite among the Dwarfs is Balin, played by Ken Stott, another fine actor (I didn't actually realize it was him until after I saw the film). Thandruil looks extremely impressive, and Elrond and Galadriel were the usual pleasure to watch.

MUSIC This connected effortlessly with the LOTR films. The song Thorin sang at Bilbo's house is beautiful. All of the music was perfectly in tune with the scenery and action.

PLOT This was much smoother than that in the LOTR films, where the action jumped about from place to place (due to the story, I know, but it was a bit distracting).

VISUALS These were simply stunning (and all the better for 3D 48 HFR in my view).

FRAME RATES While I very much enjoyed the film in 2D, the 3D 48 HFR format made the film extraordinary. Particularly magnificent were scenes like Erebor, Rivendale (the waterfall in moonlight, for example), the eagles with the scenery around them, Smaug's lair with the tinkling gold, Riddles in the Dark, and the breathtaking views of the mountains as the company made its way through them. The Goblin city improved immensely with this format. The scenes in Bilbo's house were so sharp – you could see every detail of beards, hair, costumes and artefacts. It truly felt as though you could immerse yourself in the experience.

I really don't get the criticism levied at the higher rate format at all. There was no blurred vision, no headaches, and I didn't have to get used to the format for an hour or so. I don't know: perhaps people who complain about these things need to have their eyes tested? The only time that things got a little bit blurred was in the close-up shots of Dwarfs battling with Goblins. This is, however, new technology, and I am sure such things will eventually be ironed out. (Perhaps these particular incidents need to be shown in a yet higher frame rate, or maybe the actors are moving too quickly? When wielding heavy swords surely the action must be quite slow?)

All in all, the film is an absolute delight, and I fully intend to see it again. These were also the thoughts of the people who were with me. The film in fact made such an impression on me that I dreamed about it last night (unusual for me).

Since I rate films according to the pleasure they give me, rather than focusing on nitpicking details, this is a 10/10 for me.

The Hollow Crown (2012–2016)

Absolutely wonderful

[10/10 · 21 July 2012]

Unfortunately, I didn't manage to watch all three parts of this trilogy, mainly because one was postponed due to a Wimbledon match being played in its stead! Anyway, this is a marvellous production, brilliantly acted, particularly by Tom Hiddleston as King Henry. There's tragedy and humour, both wonderfully portrayed by a string of brilliant actors who know what they are doing.

Budgetary constraints prevented the showing of the epic battle scenes (for example at Agincourt) that have become standard in Hollywood, usually with a heavy use of CGI. This did not detract from the production at all, because it is about real acting, including a beautiful use of language. The costumes and locations also worked well.

Well done the BBC – may you produce many more such productions, and well done the cast. This production stands out among all the horrible 'reality TV' dross that is spewed out on our screens.

I cannot wait to buy The Hollow Crown once it is out on DVD.

True Blood: And When I Die (2011) Season 4, Episode 12

Vampire bits were fine, but...

[6/10 · 1 June 2012]

I enjoyed the vampire elements of this season, but not much else. Eric is as brilliant as ever and I still like Sookie, and Bill, Pam and Jessica are fine.

Overall, though, there were too many subplots that went nowhere and contributed nothing to the main story line, and indeed detracted from it.

The werewolves are incredibly irritating and pointless (perhaps especially so for me because I find the actor who plays Alcid annoying), as are the were-panthers, the psycho baby, Tara (hopefully we have got shot of her?), the policeman and his drug problem, Lafayette and his partner, and so on. The final episode was particularly annoying. Why on Earth does Sookie have a change of heart about Bill, when he has shown himself to be useless for her? Her relationship with Eric is far more interesting – and really I feel they ultimately belong together. I haven't read the books, but gather that in the books Eric forgets the relationship they had when he goes back to being 'bad', then starts remembering after a while. That sounds to me like a much more interesting story development than what has been imposed here.

Particularly when there are so few episodes in a season, the focus should be on a main, coherent plot-line. The story should not veer of constantly into various subplots. The past three seasons achieved this, although season 3 was already showing signs of fragmentation.

I do hope season 5 will improve and get back to the superb quality of the first two seasons. I'll give this one a higher vote that it merits, for Eric, Sookie and overall atmosphere, but not much else.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)

Very pleasantly surprised

[9/10 · 3 January 2011]

I thought this film was much better than I expected it to be. It basically stayed true to the spirit of C.S. Lewis's work – much more than the first two films did. There were no stupid battles (trying to make the film like LOTR).

Reepicheep was brilliant, and I particularly liked Eustace, the Dawn Treader itself, the dragon, the picture/sea and the bit at the end about Aslan's country.

Didn't like the insertion of the witch, who I actually thought was completely wrong in the first film, and very badly played by an insipid-looking actress.

Also thought the acknowledgment to Pauline Baynes at the end was a good idea - what a pity she did not live to see her work so recognized.

Casino Royale (2006)

Good locations, not much else

[4/10 · 9 December 2006]

Overall, I thought this was a disappointing film that didn't live up to the hype. The plot was thin and unoriginal, with a lot of gaps. What was all the bombing, crashing, jumping around like monkeys and shooting about - and right from the start of the film? The bearded guy is a friend and then suddenly he is not. Who was the American and what exactly was his connection to the plot line? Who was the man who was shot by Bond at the beginning of the film? What was the background of the outfit run by the man with the bleeding eye? None of this was properly explained.

By far the worst thing in the film was the anorexic woman who played Bond's love interest - she is a terrible actress. And apart from her skeletal and unattractive appearance in general, in one scene she is portrayed as completely flat-chested (wearing a purple dress), and in another as buxom (wearing a black dress). I know cinema is largely about illusion, but does this fact have to be quite so obvious?

Bond himself was not the best Bond by any means - although he was not terrible, I thought he was not particularly convincing or charismatic enough. He was not cool and suave like Bond should be (and always has been before), but some wimpish creature who occasionally suddenly and violently shoots someone, often seemingly without provocation. The actor is not bad - he is just miscast in this particular role.

The best things about the film were the locations, which were beautifully shot. The effects were also well done, but at the expense of the plot. The locations in particular helped cover up the bad plot line.

I cannot believe that 'critics' gave this film such high praise - just goes to show you can't rely on the opinions of people who seem to pander to taste and are seduced by hype.

Broken Flowers (2005)

Vastly overrated in my view

[3/10 · 3 November 2005]

I went to see this today expecting something really good but was disappointed. The film doesn't go anywhere and is rather boring.

It doesn't give any explanations for the main character's depression and the way he is, nor does it give any insight into his relationships with the female characters. I also found the inclusion of the naked young females pointless and gratuitous - meant to pull the audiences in.

I am astonished that there is a thread on the message boards for this film talking about Sharon Stone being nominated for an Oscar. Her performance was mediocre at best.

I did like the music and the American scenery shown while the main character was driving to his destinations - but that's about it.

Hellboy (2004)

Really good film!

[8/10 · 21 September 2004]

I went to see this film without any real expectations (I don't know the comics), and found it very entertaining. For me it was the best of the recent comic-book adaptations - way better than Spiderman and X-men, despite (or perhaps because of?) the lack of well-known actors.

The film had humour in the right bits, was well filmed and well acted. I look forward to more Hellboy films in the future.

I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Excellent film - great fun

[14 August 2004]

I liked this film. Went to see it with no expectations in particular, and both my sister and I were surprised at how much it kept us on our toes. The effects are fantastic, and we like Dennis Quade and think he's pretty good in any film he appears. It didn't need a deep human plot (that would have detracted from the adventure story), so this aspect of the film was quite right, apart from the

obligatory love stories, which were as Hollywood usual, irritating and pointless.

I intend to buy the DVD - it is one of the few American films of recent years I have really enjoyed (NB I don't regard the Lord of the Rings films as American).

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

I liked this film (SPOILERS?)

[16 June 2004]

I went to see this film expecting not to like it because of some negative comments I'd read about it and was surprisingly engaged by it - as were the two people with me.

The effects, of course, are absolutely magnificent, especially the flooding of New York, the twisters, and the coming of the great cold, and the performances by Dennis Quade and Jake W were OK.

I realize that the events depicted could not take place within such a short period of time, but they could nonetheless occur over a longer period. If nothing else, the film might make a few people aware of what humans are doing to the planet, so that is a good thing.

The only things I really didn't like were the inclusion of the obligatory Hollywood love interest (the girl with the son), and the completely unnecessary addition of the Quade character's wife.

Nonethless, 8/10.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Brilliant conclusion to trilogy SPOILERS

[10/10 · 10 June 2004]

I like this film very much, though FOTR for me is the best.

The cast was superb, as ever, as were the visuals and the emotional elements of the film - I felt they went back to what we saw in FOTR in their intensity. I loved the Faramir/Denethor/Pippin sequences; Gandalf's ride up to Minas Tirith and his 'white shores' speech; the ride of the Rohirrim; the lighting of the beacons; the screeching Nazgul and the beacon thing that shot up from Minas Morgul; 'I'm glad to be with you Samwise Gamgee, here at the end of all things'; 'I do not say do not weep . . .' among many other things.

Actors who really stood out for their fine performances in this film include Ian McKellen, David Wenham, Bernard Hill, John Noble and Elijah Wood.

I did feel that ROTK suffered from the changes that were made to Tolkien's story in TTT - the filmmakers had to catch up on ground lost in that film, which really bore little resemblance to Tolkien's story, despite brilliant casting, acting and visuals (Where was Eomer? Gandalf? Faramir? Why the weak Theoden? Why the Warg fights, dream sequences and unnecessary expansion of Arwen's role at the expense of crucial elements of the story?). I felt that the Gollum/Smeagol sequence should have been in TTT not ROTK, and that it is a great shame that Saruman was not seen in ROTK - apart from anything else, it's too bad that he wasn't given credit for his sterling work on and enthusiasm for the trilogy. His apparent ill treatment by the filmmakers left me feeling rather bad for him.

I am really looking forward to the Extended Edition of the film - the cinema edition was incomplete, in my view, with some very obvious cuts, for instance the Houses of Healing/resolution of Faramir and his talks with Aragorn, which would have affirmed the latter as the rightful king of Gondor, the Black Gate/ MOS, Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-King, etc. I also think it would have been good to include a proper representation of Denethor, and to have seen Gandalf show the White Tree seedling to Aragorn. Lots of things have not been explained in the film.

Despite all this, the film is incredible - as is the whole trilogy. They are the only films I've seen (much) more than once in the cinema, and I really appreciate the huge effort made by PJ and other people involved in the films. IMHO appreciation of the films will grow with the passage of time, and we will not see their like for many years to come. The end of each year in future is going to seem rather bleak . . .

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Very good film, but barely Tolkien!

[10/10 · 3 July 2003]

Having seen FOTR and loved it - the acting, the scenery, the sets, and the fact that the film captured the spirit of Tolkien, I was desperate to see TTT. I knew that it was going to be changed from the book more than FOTR had been, but didn't know that it was going to be changed to the extent that it was.

1. The nauseating 'Arwen' inclusion is a disaster. It has nothing to do with Tolkien, however romantic and 'beautiful' they tried to make the scenes, and despite the fact that they had Hugo Weaving's seductive voice in one of them (in point of fact that was the only scene with 'Arwen' that bore a remote resemblance to Tolkien, i.e. the appendix). Putting this virtually new character into the film has meant that various changes were made which took away from much needed time that could have been used to explore the real Tolkien story. For instance, why have the Warg fight - just so that Aragorn could fall over a cliff and have 'Arwen' change into a horse over him? It was totally unnecessary to change Tolkien's storyline - the original story is brilliant enough in itself.

And why does 'Arwen' appear everywhere in the promotional stuff - is she being used to promote the film? The main characters in the story are FAR more important, and they are who most people feel is important to the story, and want to see.

2. Why did Eomer disappear for virtually the whole film? Why was Treebeard - supposedly the oldest and wisest being in Middle-earth - portrayed as stupid? Where was the noble Faramir? Why wasn't there more of Gandalf, who is the figure around which everything turns? Where were the wonderful Huorns, and all the action involving them, which we were so much looking forward to? Why was there so little about the Hobbits, who with Gandalf are the main characters in Tolkien's LOTR? None of this is the fault of the actors, because the casting for the film is excellent - it is great that they used mostly British, New Zealand and Australian actors who weren't known 'movie stars', which would have completely ruined the film. It is to do with the way the story was rewritten.

Certainly there are brilliant things in the film - Gollum, Gandalf leading the charge on Shadowfax at the end of the film, the three running at the beginning of the film, the horses, Edoras, Helm's Deep, the marching Uruk Hai, New Zealand as Middle Earth, the costumes, among other things . . . but it would have been so much better if the story had been stuck to. The changes just seem so pointless, and I've heard far more criticism than praise for them.

I really, really hope ROTK will go back to the books, but think this may be a forlorn hope - for one thing, I don't know how they could squash everything in from TTT that wasn't included in the film, and still do ROTK justice.