alex239-545-53158 Reviews

Jamie Johnson (2016– )

Game effort that falls slightly flat

[6/10 · 14 April 2017]

Given the obsession most young British kids have with the national sport, it is surprising that more programs like this don't exist. The BBC have certainly gone all out here, securing cameos by the likes of Carl Froch and Steven Gerrard and giving the show more mainstream advertising than perhaps any CBBC show has had before.

The premise is fairly simple - hot headed football mad young boy from a broken home learns about the trials and tribulations of life and growing up while playing for his school team. This does mean a lot of this is pretty contrived, with social plots dominating the first season and in the second the usual moral parables about 'getting too big for your boots but coming out of it stronger with more humility'. As you can imagine, many 'lessons are learned' and most story lines seem to exist for this purpose only, so the lead character can search within himself and become a better person.

The kid playing Jamie is merely adequate - he does a good line in looking sulky but is pretty wooden and monotone when delivering his lines, and not in a practised 'apathetic teenager' sort of way. He isn't helped by being handed some truly dreadful lines that an eight year old could have written - "no one bad mouths my Granddad and gets away with it" is one that springs to mind but is far from the worst. Some of the adult actors are appalling as well - whoever plays footballer "Theo Baines" manages to put in one of the most woeful performances you could hope to see, and he's only on the screen for about two minutes!

The supporting cast are a bit better, with the two antagonist bully types being well acted and believable, if utterly one dimensional - although there were signs that might change during the second season, with them becoming characters in their own right rather than nasty plot devices to put hurdles in front of the hero. Jamie's friends are reasonable enough, although his closeness with the ginger nerdy kid (who is of course unrealistically kitted out in NHS glasses and only here for 'laugh at the socially awkward geek' comedy relief) stretches the credulity of the viewer a bit too far. Not sure you will find many posh, awkward, chess enthusiast swots hanging out with angry, working class kids on the football team in most schools.

There are definitely some positive things to be said about this. It is certainly as well meaning as you might expect from the militantly left wing BBC, and in a way that doesn't feel too corny or weigh the story down. The setting and subject matter are refreshing, and the quality of filming is excellent, even if they do get bogged down by the usual football movie clichés - slow motion, zooming in, internal monologues, cheap ways of amping up tension etc. It manages to highlight issues like absent fatherhood, anger management and jealousy in a way that most idealistically sunshine filled kids television does not. It even manages to be genuinely humorous at times, especially with the character of Indira, played with a lot of spark by the promising Millie Gibbons.

On the whole, though, it just feels too predictable and wooden at times for me to rate it really highly. I have a feeling this will be most enjoyable for kids aged 5 to 11 - which I'm not sure was the target audience. Older kids will cringe at parts and see through the average script and acting, and the lack of any really engrossing, exciting story lines - this is 2017 and they have anything they want at their fingertips, usually things with more edge and creativity than this.

On a sidenote, you can be almost certain that the soundtrack was put together by a white guy in his early 30s - football matches are soundtracked by the new Radiohead album, and just about every song used on the program (and there are a lot) is by a UK indie/rock band from 1995 to 2010. Not exactly reflective of what estate kids are listening to these days, but hey ho, it seems to work pretty well.

The Go-Between (2015 TV Movie)

Disappointing

[5/10 · 20 September 2015]

This was a major disappointment compared to the novel and original film. Like most modern period dramas, it is style over substance, with stunning photography masking a misguided script and some unconvincing acting.

The earlier 1971 movie was a flawless adaptation, with Harold Pinter's script tending to say less with more, upping the tension with the slow, languid pace reflecting the heat of the summer and limited, meaningful dialog. Here, unnecessary lines are inserted as will, many not even in the novel, such as Leo's embarrassment about his old and ragged summer clothes after Marian accuses him of lying – this is just a cheap way of garnering sympathy for the boy, and not reflective of the times it was set. Such things would have been left unsaid. It is the same through the program; everything needs to be spelt out, rather than leaving it to the actors to subtly convey.

There are poor minor plot additions such as Ted seeming defensive about being poor – certainly not true to the book, and a far cry from Alan Bates and his worldly self confidence. Here he attempts to be brooding and moody, as oppose to charismatic and cheery but with a fiery temper, and it makes him far less likable and far less obvious why Marian would risk everything for him. Mariam herself is only passably acted, with Julie Christie an impossible act to follow. Marian's father being away is another pointless adjustment, and the production misses his steady, world weary presence, especially in the smoking room scene that was so integral to the first film. Trimmingham also loses some of his aristocratic dignity and military bearing, and the writer inexplicably takes away his fantastic line that gives him such honour and pathos: "Nothing is ever a ladies fault, Leo".

Leo himself puts in a fairly lifeless, strangely camp performance, with a certain charm combined with adolescent awkwardness which is very different from the more honest, believable performance in the film. Less attention paid to the central theme of oppressive heat, the film seems to move much quicker and out of sequence. It's also more outwardly emotional, compared to the stoicism of the film and novel, where passions are repressed and below the surface. The vital moments here are filled with shrieks and histrionics. The final meeting is too warm and pleasant – it should have that edge of regret, memory, pain and nostalgia mixed together, the dialog has been watered down, the hint of bitterness discarded.

Unfortunately it suffers greatly by comparison, because taken by itself it is a very solid, beautifully shot production. The filming is breathtaking, with so many lovely touches including the reflection in the water scene and that wonderful final shot of older Leo against the hall and endless lawn. For people who haven't seen the original or read the book this may seem a far better film that the one I have described.

Skins (2007–2013)

Diminishing returns

[7/10 · 30 January 2015]

Despite some scathing criticism and a reductionist advert campaign that focused disproportionately on the rebellious, edgy elements of the show, Skins produced some remarkable television. The first generation especially were moving, funny, intriguing personalities and the writing was superb.

Season 1, structured mainly around the bored, semi-sociopathic narcissism of Tony and the nihilistic emotional turmoil of Cassie had heart, humour and amazing chemistry between all the leads. You cared about every character, episodes were structured fantastically and work as individual pieces as well as fitting the whole. Despite the much derided parting and drug taking, the season actually felt extremely realistic in everything from the dialogue to the wardrobe to the moral ambiguity to the parents, who are probably the most well drawn adult characters in the entire history of teen television. They are three dimensional and interesting, not merely stereotypes. Their comedy is natural and unforced. The pilot is as good an example of a lead television episode as you will find, perfectly introducing the cast, maintaining forward motion and a satisfying ending.

Season 2 is almost as good, darker and pervaded with melancholy as the cast start to grow up and lose their dreams. Hannah Murray and Joe Dempsey put in career defining performances, full of pathos and humanity. Criticisms? The Sketch storyline divided viewers, being well executed but badly conceived, and the NYC storyline was preemptive of future seasons in its lack of believability although was beautifully shot with the usual superb photography that underpinned this show. The final episode is very poignant.

Season 3 drops off a little but still surpassed expectations after the cast completely. The characters are still well drawn and memorable, the acting is solid, the music and cinematography continue to excel, the writing still concise and focused. The excellent Naomi/Emily plot got a huge online following. Jack O'Connell is sensational as Cook, a role that could slip easily into embarrassing parody but is instead absolutely riveting. The biggest drawback is the complete lack of chemistry between Freddie & Effy, undermining the love triangle storyline that the season fixates on - they are portrayed as deeply in love despite never having a meaningful exchange. Their scenes together are awkward and unnatural. The adult characters also become two dimensional, depicted as being out of touch and mainly used for badly written attempts at comedy.

Season 4 sees a massive drop off in quality and is almost uniformly awful in terms of storyline and writing. The enhanced focus on Thomas is a negative - by far the most ridiculous character ever drawn on the show. The immigrant from a tiny, impoverished village in Congo who speaks perfect, eloquent English, portrayed as a perfect character without flaws. He nurses his little brother, fights off a local gangster with his wit and charm, forgives his girlfriend for cheating, makes a stand against underage drinking, gives girls his coat and shoes in freezing cold weather, is devoted to his family, reacting with serenity when goaded, and absurdly gets an instant athletic scholarship to Harvard despite having never ran before. His plot lines have no life because he doesn't ring true, even if the efforts to counter negative stereotypes of immigrants were noble if a little patronizing.

This is unfortunately symptomatic of a season that completely sheds any semblance of believability. Edgy shots of drug abuse are inserted for shock value, with one character taking ecstasy, cocaine and cannabis in one sitting before cycling to college, with no explanation as to how he would pay for them, or why he would mix such different drugs other than that they needed a 'cool' looking montage of him snorting powder to show how deep, sad and lost he was. Lazy. The adult characters deteriorate further, becoming caricatures with the usual stock stereotypes of buffoonish headmasters and smug evil teachers expelling pupils, and an obsessive, murdering psychotherapist who is meant to make the show seem dark and haunting but succeeds in making it a ludicrous laughing stock. The JJ episode is the only saving grace, sweet and warm and cutting out the story arcs of the season to work as a lovely standalone piece.

In Seasons 5 and 6 the writers vowed to 'bring back the lighter side' of the show. In practice this meant ripping off Mean Girls and especially The Inbetweeners, a show that had rocketed in popularity and prompted a backlash against Skins which was held to be an unrealistic portrayal of teen life next to the embarrassment and social awkwardness of The Inbetweeners. The cast were solid but unremarkable, and not helped by being given hipster makeovers making the show even less relateable to your normal teenager. The dialogue and clothes and plots were not a felt false; the collapse of ratings came as no surprise. More deaths were inserted for no other reason than easy drama and cheap tragedy to give the characters a reason to be angsty and enjoy those lonely, brooding close ups of them that had descended into self parody.

Season 7 just served to tarnish memories. The lack of creativity in the writing is seen by more pointless, unrealistic deaths and dreadful dialogue ("Fetch me a towel, jewboy" a Muslim chef says to his Jewish assistant...). Shabby, poorly thought out plot lines include a girl going from admin assistant to top trader at a London stockbroker in a couple of weeks. Visually the show continued to excel but the episodes were incredibly disappointing.

For all that, the first two series captured lighting in a bottle with a truly special cast coming together to create memorable, groundbreaking television that maintains a huge cult following still on Tumblr. It is no surprise that so many of the actors have become huge worldwide names. The writing, photography and characterization were all stunning and Season 1 especially is an inch perfect time capsule for being seventeen and at college in the UK in 2006/2007. Stick to the early stuff.

A Brony Tale (2014)

Uplifting

[9/10 · 7 January 2015]

Despite not being a Brony myself, I found this documentary to be extremely uplifting. In keeping with the good vibes of the fandom, it tries to accentuate the positives without mentioning the more sinister connotations that detractors have associated with supporters of the show. And while that means this isn't a balanced cultural analysis, it does make for ninety minutes of feel good entertainment that made me smile, if only for the reason that the show brings together people who might otherwise feel lonely and marginalized. Don't underestimate the importance of that.

As a documentary it was very well made. The will she/won't she go to the conference storyline with Ashleigh Ball was a bit contrived but gave the film some forward motion and structure. The cinematography was surprisingly good and they captured a lot of interesting, varied footage from around the country on what must have been a fairly meager budget. The way they weaved in news clips, interviews with creators and fans, scenery shots, the analysis of the psychologists...it gave the film variety and it never felt stagnant or boring. The scenes with the ex-military brony added a sense of deepness and soul and were definitely the emotional centerpiece, especially the interview in the car on the way to the convention which was actually quite inspiring and didn't feel forced or scripted.

The art direction was cool and stayed true to the show, with bright block colors adding to the positivity. All in all it was a very natural, enjoyable documentary and at the very least will serve as a fitting historical reference point for this bizarre yet strangely inspirational fandom.

Mortified (2006–2007)

No surprise most of the kids went onto bigger things

[8/10 · 22 December 2014]

Mortified was a short lived kids drama set on the Gold Coast, cancelled after 26 episodes in 2007. There is plenty of sunshine, beaches, and the one thing a disproportionate number of Australian kids shows focus on - parental embarrassment.

Taylor Fry being ashamed of her eccentric parents is essentially the premise for this enjoyable if unsubstantial program, which is unfortunate since the plot lines that veer down that avenue range from unrealistic to cringe worthy to plain bad. Almost all the adult characters are badly drawn and badly acted, overblown caricatures which may get over with young kids but to anyone else will stink of bad writing and ideas that should never have made it past the creative room.

The show could definitely use greater focus on the kids. They are all very solid actors, especially Marny Kennedy who is confident and spirited in the title role, and Maia Mitchell who adds some complexity to her character and the relationship with her parents (who have great chemistry). This is the most interesting and well constructed part of the show. No surprise that she went on to be a major star in America. Nicholas Dunn is pretty good as the perennially exasperated Hector, and Dajana Cahill puts in a fun and realistic performance in a limited role as selfish boy crazy big sister Layla. The way the characters interact are the prime reason to watch Mortified, and invariably the scenes with them hanging out or talking are the most natural and enjoyable - such as when the core four get lost on a trip into the jungle and sit round the fire.

Low key moments like this are a pleasant respite since few of the actual plot lines are compelling or memorable - most are framed around a shaky premise that seems formulaic and stolid and just doesn't hold the attention. It doesn't help that Taylor isn't especially a likable character - she is delusional and melodramatic, spending most of her time complaining and acting ungrateful. Long suffering Hector draws more of a response, his occasionally laconic remarks saving him from being completely wet. Brittany is as mentioned the more complex of the characters, but 'school heartthrob' Luke is purely a plot device, and seems to have few traits that go beyond supposedly comedic stupidity and cocky cuteness for the girls to swoon over.

Despite all the criticisms, this show is pretty good. The acting is a step ahead of most of the dross on the kids channels, the writing and dialog is usually reasonably solid, and each episode is a fun, clean, easy to digest piece of television that will appeal to a lot of kids, especially girls. Although this review is from the perspective of an adult, my young niece with whom I watched it enjoyed the show and agreed with my assessment that this is pleasant, family entertainment which falls short of being essential due to a lack of excitement, drama and engrossing story lines.

Nor'easter (2012)

Atmospheric and aimless

[7/10 · 3 June 2014]

A boy is kidnapped. Five years later he is declared dead. A few days later he returns home. That is essentially the complete summary of this psychological slow burner, a fairly aimless film that makes up for its lack of compelling plot with suspense, beautiful cinematography, accomplished acting and presence.

If Nor'easter was intended as an intriguing, thrilling mystery it fails completely. The unanswered question that dominates the early sections of the film is answered quickly and without ceremony at the half way point. It is a short, easy to follow story that quickly unravels, to the point where it could have easily been made as a short film rather than a feature. The dialogue is functional and perfunctory. The characters seem to be complex, although their complexities are rarely explored. It is left to the imagination of the viewer, with the motivations of the protagonists unclear throughout and never really resolved. The death at the end feels tagged on, a lazy attempt to give the film some resolution and/or element of tragedy.

That isn't to say this is a bad movie, though. It is high on suspense, with the perpetual lull soundtracked by an eerie, foreboding score that hangs in the air like a mist. The scenery is perfect for the tone of the film, with the stark, northern, snowy rural locations adding to the sense of loneliness, isolation and inscrutability.

Liam Aiken steals the show by just being on screen, managing to upstage even the scenery with his callow, brooding beauty and jet black hair set back amongst the white snow and grey, perennially overcast skies. The lighting is atmospheric, although at times it gets a little too dark to the point where you are straining to see what is happening.

The rest of the cast put in solid performances, especially Richard Bekins who is suitably gruff and troubled and pained. David Call is competent, albeit slightly disappointing - his was the only character who went on any sort of journey in the film. A newly qualified priest escaping from a troubled past, his faith is confirmed when Aiken seemingly returns from the death, only to dissipate once more as things begin to dismantle and he is caught by the events that unfold. It is one of the more interesting roles, and he doesn't bring anything unusual or special to it. That perhaps is an apt summary for the film itself - interesting, unusual and atmospheric, but ultimately nothing special.

Wah-Wah (2005)

Boring but likable

[7/10 · 26 March 2014]

The script for this is awful; it probably wouldn't have seen the light of day if Richard E Grant hadn't written it. Every line is obvious, a few make you cringe, and basically a creative writing undergraduate could have written similar tosh.

I liked the film quite a lot, though. Nicholas Hoult is one of my favourite young actors, and puts in a solid performance, looking convincing in the unusual and enjoyable movie setting of Africa post-empire – the first film ever shot in Swaziland, reportedly. Grant is a legend too, and his directing is better than his writing. He frames a believable portrait of a sleepy, dull, dying outpost, without romanticizing or condemning it, resisting the endless shots of wild savannah soundtracked by tribal drum featuring 'world music' that generally plague anything set in Africa. It is to his credit that the feature never lapses into cliché and laziness. The colourful costumes add to the feel of it.

Still, despite my positive expectations it is a shame to say that the film isn't any better than average. The plot, insomuch as there is one, couldn't be described as compelling or even interesting. The flaws in the script have already been detailed, and the acting on the whole is just passable. Really, this feels like an episode of Wild Of Heart rather than a high end film with some big names, and so it only really works as mindless wallpaper to pass a dull afternoon.

Rumble Fish (1983)

Flawed masterpiece

[9/10 · 24 March 2014]

There are definite echoes of East Of Eden here, with Matt Dillon playing the insecure, brooding, rebellious James Dean role in the shadow of his brother, with a second parallel being the mysterious back story behind the mother shared by both films.

This is actually better in my opinion. More stylish, with unquestionably superior photography and a fantastically distinct art direction which makes it stand out immediately, all monochrome in black and white, with smoky backdrops and a film noir style that perfectly brings to life the 50s youth gang setting. It's also a much more natural film, with the dialogue flowing and not stylized in the least. There are some brilliant lines that fit seamlessly into the normal young conversation, and feel like things people would say in real life. There is a sense of grit and realism alongside the panache, and it strikes the perfect balance in that respect.

The two lead actors are magnetic in their roles, and beautifully framed by Coppola. Matt Dillon smoulders in a white vest throughout as Rusty James, brilliantly portraying a compelling juxtaposition between his brash, arrogant teenage exterior and the self destructive tendencies that mask the pain he feels inside from a troubled life. Mickey Rourke as his brother is stiller, more measured, more world weary, and it is a wonderful turn in a career full of high points; his charismatic is instant, and the two actors have a undeniable rapport on screen. Diane Lane is solid in the supporting role and very believable.

It isn't quite a perfect film. The constant repetition of Rusty James is beyond annoying, and a real flaw in the script. His full name is said probably over a hundred times in a movie that lasts only ninety minutes – it's clearly deliberate, but it's hard to see why. Other than that the plot might be a bit meandering and aimless for some, although personally I prefer character driven films such as this, which focus on the relationships between the protagonists rather than hurtling through a storyline. The ending is also unsatisfying, quite sudden and nobody really gets what they deserve.

Perhaps the biggest compliment you can pay this film is that it is interesting and meaningful but at the same time a pleasure to watch. It succeeds in transporting you back to that time, and you can become totally lost in the movie and its setting. It's also very cool, very stylish and visually flawless. Highly recommended.

The First Time (I) (2012)

Average

[6/10 · 7 February 2014]

This was a passably interesting take on the high school movie. The characters felt real and had at least some depth, other than Dave's friends who felt shoehorned in for non-existent comedy. I thought the 'token black guy' was the thing of the past, but here he is again in a mostly silent, vaguely racist role as the friend and straight talking foil of the sensitive dreamy white kid. The 'English' friend was very awkward too, the accent was way off and the actor wooden.

Other than that, there wasn't anything offensive about the film. The dialogue was fairly smart and snappy, the acting was passable, the storyline was at least somewhat different.

I can't see anyone being passionate about the film, though, and that is the problem. Everything is just average, from the cinematography to the pacing to the plot. The attempts at being 'deep' and 'meaningful' such as the car wreck and the pretentious conversation felt shoehorned in. Essentially it is just a concise teen film that doesn't insult your intelligence but doesn't enthrall you either. There really isn't much to say about it.

After Earth (2013)

Hideous

[1/10 · 12 June 2013]

I hate nepotism, and I hate Will Smith movies, and I hate sci-fi, so I was predisposed to also hate this.

Even so, it didn't prepare me for how interminably bored I was when I was dragged along to the cinema to watch this pile of rubbish. The acting is forced and wooden, the storyline is plain bad and not remotely interesting.

Jaden Smith was incompetent at best, hideously annoying at worst, his Dad seemed to be going through the motions. I can't remember a single memorable scene or good line of dialogue.

Truly awful.

Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer (2011)

Interminably boring

[4/10 · 12 April 2013]

As you probably know, this film isn't very good. There are stereotypes, the plot and dialogue are basic at best, but worst of all it is almost interminably boring. The characters are vacuums for charisma and personality, with the exception of perhaps the little brother who plays the hyperactive annoying little boy role with alarming credibility. The whole 'thrill points' storyline wasn't fun or interesting.

The production department is the only one that comes out with any credit here: the bright, bold and colorful art direction injects the film with an energy and immediacy it hitherto would have lacked. The whole movie maintains this look, including the costumes and even the ice lollies - it is easily the most identifiable thing here.

Otherwise, there simply isn't enough in Judy Moody to keep a viewer of any age engrossed; if a film can't hold your attention it really has nothing. Aside from the promising first ten minutes this was a letdown.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

alright

[6/10 · 3 March 2013]

I hate most Wes Anderson films, mainly because they don't have any sense of believability. People don't talk like that, think like that, look like that - all semblance of reality is sacrificed to make things arty and quirky and supposedly humorous. He is doing something right judging by the acclaim: it seems that I simply don't 'get it'.

All that said, I was surprised to quite enjoy this. It still suffered from the usual pitfalls of his films, with poor dialogue and a focus on cool, unusual, deliberately left-field scenes instead of character development and a compelling plot, but overall it was cute and fun and vaguely entertaining. Maybe the fact it was based around children made me judge it a bit more open-mindedly.

I'm always surprised to see his works listed as comedy though - this, like his other movies, barely raised a smile. My sense of humour must be completely out of whack with his.

Gangs of New York (2002)

too Hollywood

[5/10 · 14 February 2013]

Gangs of New York is a film that suffers from the typical Hollywood problems. Miscasting for one: Di Caprio and Diaz may have got more people through the gate, but they are completely unbelievable as characters who have suffered hard times and poverty. LDC in particular isn't authentic in the slightest as a vengeful, hand-to-mouth street criminal. There is also the mandatory romance storyline thrown in, that has no purpose other than ticking the box of what a blockbuster film must contain. The much-admired fight scene at the start is just your average mainstream slasher, more about the gore and violence than the characters. The movie is also too long for what it is.

Otherwise, they get some things right. It looks nice enough, evoking 1860s New York in an interesting and believable way. There is the occasional snatch of nice dialogue, or intense scene. Still, you can't shake the feeling that this is far too Hollywood: a story about hardship on the streets, told through a pampered, privileged cast with a mega budget.

A Young Doctor's Notebook & Other Stories (2012–2013)

Badly written and woefully acted

[1/10 · 3 January 2013]

Despite only making it through one episode, I can confidently say this is one of the most woeful pieces of television I've ever watched. It's such a shame that the brilliant set, production and lighting were wasted on a program that is not only badly written but dreadfully acted.

Daniel Radcliffe is again unnatural and wooden, with the rest of the cast ranging from serviceable to out-of-place to just bad. The humour is so predictable (the utter lack of timing and expression from Radcliffe barely helps), the dialogue is unrealistic and inconsistent.

The entire setting is just wrong; a series set in Siberian Russia where the cast speak in English. It sets the wrong impression from the start. Why not just relocate the story to England/Scotland if you want to keep the actors, or better yet take a risk and produce it in Russian with subtitles.

This looks stylish enough, but unfortunately the actual content is appalling.