Q: Even though Ian Kershaw distanced himself from this project due to inaccuracies in regards to Hitler's life and yes, this is dramatised, but essential. Robert Carlyle plays Hitler during his later years, during this documentary that only deals with Hitler from boyhood until he became Chancellor of Germany, including The Night of the Long Knives. This TV-film (also a two-part mini-series) shows how a series of factors allowed Hitler to come to power, e.g. the financial disaster of 1930.

The series follows Hitler and little else, apart from the lives of Fritz Gerlich and Ernst Hanfstaengl. All in all, valuable and filled with interesting actors, yet I feel it should have been more tightly directed with stronger cinematography; most actors are portrayed in half-body shots which (for me) makes for a theatrical stance, not cinematic. The tempo is at times drowsy, and the film does suffer from it, being approximately 2,5 hours long.
A: positive
Q: How you could say that Peaches, with its complex narrative dealing with a multitude of issues, is "a small TV idea" is beyond me. Besides I can think of many films that have "a small TV idea" in their plots. Your obvious dislike of the TV industry (" Sue Smith has failed to rise above her television background") is confusing. particularly as you are having such "a great time" working in TV. If only we could all be so talented as Ms Smith (no, I am not a friend or relative) - AFI award winning Brides of Christ, Road from Coorain,etc. All made for TV. Come to think of it, what about those other "small TV ideas" like "Against the Wind", "Bodyline", "The Dismissal", "Scales of Justice", "Blue Murder", "Water under the Bridge" ,etc. I think Peaches is a good entertaining film which had me interested, and most of my friends as well, from start to finish. It is far from flawless yet I think it is among the best Australian films I have seen over the last couple of years. Who knows, with a few more viewings (there's so much to think about), it might just be up there with classics like "The Year My Voice Broke", "The Devil's Playground". I really did enjoy this film much more than "Somersault" and "Three Dollars". These films, I think, had their moments-surreal, atmospheric, realistic and dealing with important contemporary issues, but as for sheer entertainment for mr.and mrs average movie goer and me, it was very ordinary if not boring. When I go to a movie, I am always conscious of the audience's reaction to a film (through in- cinemas reactions and overheard conversations in the foyer and loo). Some came out of Peaches shaking their heads, some with negative criticisms, but many seemed to have enjoyed the experience.
A: positive
Q: *May Contain Spoilers* A few weeks after I had originally wrote my review for Hood of the Living Dead I realized that I may have been a bit too harsh on this movie. Which is why I decided I would do something I had never done before. Review the same movie again. Don't get me wrong, I still don't like the movie, I still think it's dreck, and I still think the zombies don't look all that zombie-ish. The story in the movie is still in my opinion, weak and rather lame. The story is about a guy named Rick, who works as a scientist (that just happens to be working on a serum thing that heals sick cells, in animals) and his brother Germaine, the two aren't exactly on the best of terms (my my, an original plot point) and argue a lot. One day Germaine is shot in a drive-by shooting, and Rick calls up his scientist buddy to bring the serum to try to resuscitate Germaine(whereas most people would've called 911, but whatever), naturally the serum fails and Germaine "dies" (if that didn't happen there'd have been no movie), after the police and the coroner (until the end of time I will still think that maybe the paramedics should've shown up) leave the scene shows the coroner van (which I still believe was just someone's van with a "coroner" decal thrown on the side), and Germaine returning to life to attack and kill the paramedics. I would talk more about the plot, but I feel that if I reveal more about the story you wouldn't want to watch it (and we wouldn't want that now would we?), but suffice to say that the story (in my opinion at least) meanders and is rather slow moving (pun not intended). As I've previously said in my review the zombies don't look all that much like zombies, I still think they look like they've been in a bar fight. That's not to say that they should all be decaying and whatnot, but still there should at least be bite marks on the victims. Also I still don't like the fact that the director(s) continually switch up the pace at which the zombies move. They couldn't really seem to decide on whether or not to have the zombies run or shamble (as most zombie movies do), don't get me wrong, I'm all for running zombies but make up your minds people. In one scene the zombie runs toward the living, and in the other he just shambles to them. And sometimes they just don't seem believable (yes I know their fictitious creatures but still), I am of course referring to the zombie that runs his hand on the wall as though he were walking through a dark living room, and I still don't like the zombie who is lying on the ground, gets shot, then jerks like he was just shot. The sound in the movie also bothered me, mainly the music, which while it may have just been my copy of the film seemed pretty much non-existent. Music in a movie is important folks. Especially when the sound editing does sound like the director just took a friends camcorder and shot a little zombie flick. The acting is still atrocious (in my opinion) and is on par with the American "actors" from the Japanese zombie movie Junk. The movie is still bad, almost House of the Dead bad, it's better, no doubt about that, but then again that's not saying much. It's not the worst movie out there, and it is better than a lot of direct to video movies that are out there but at the end of the day wasn't good. I also think the movie moves really really slow, despite the fact that it is only an hour and twenty or so minutes (and yes, I still don't like the opening song). This is the type of movie I think is well-suited to be premiered on the Sci-Fi network. Which is why I am obligated to give this debacle of a film a one out of ten. But think of it this way, at least it's not a negative one.
A: negative