IN: Review: If I had not read Pat Barker's 'Union Street' before seeing this film, I would have liked it. Unfortuntately this is not the case. It is actually my kind of film, it is well made, and in no way do I want to say otherwise, but as an adaptation, it fails from every angle.

The harrowing novel about the reality of living in a northern England working-class area grabbed hold of my heartstrings and refused to let go for weeks after I had finished. I was put through tears, repulsion, shock, anger, sympathy and misery when reading about the women of Union Street. Excellent. A novel that at times I felt I could not read any more of, but I novel I simply couldn't put down. Depressing yes, but utterly gripping.

The film. Oh dear. Hollywood took Barker's truth and reality, and showered a layer of sweet icing sugar over the top of it. A beautiful film, an inspiring soundtrack, excellent performances, a tale of hope and romance...yes. An adaptation of 'Union Street'...no.

The women of Union Street and their stories are condensed into Fonda's character, their stories are touched on, but many are discarded. I accept that some of Barker's tales are sensitive issues and are too horrific for mass viewing, and that a film with around 7 leading protagonists just isn't practical, but the content is not my main issue. The essence and the real gut of the novel is lost - darkness and rain, broken windows covered with cardboard, and the graphically described stench of poverty is replaced with sunshine, pretty houses, and a twinkling William's score.

If you enjoyed the film for its positivity and hope in the face of 'reality', I advise that you hesitate to read the book without first preparing yourself for something more like 'Schindler's List'...but without the happy ending.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I'm actually surprised at the amount of good ratings this anti-Christian pseudo-documentary got. Now, I respect the guy's opinion and faith, I myself am not, at this state, believer of the taught Christian doctrine. However, anti-Christian propaganda is somewhat of a different issue.

This film has valid points, but they are very few and represented in a very biased context. I'm not recommending against seeing it. In fact, I think everyone should see it and decide on their own whether they believe it or not. And this is actually more of a chance than the one the director gives to Christian teachings. Rather than an inquiring approach on the subject, it looks like a personal vendetta on the Christian school that affected his childhood. It also misrepresents the Christians most of the times as either incredibly naive or fundamentalists, no moderation in between.

The director uses movie scenes from Passion of Christ without permission, sets up an interview with the headmaster of his former school and presents almost solely anti-Christian historians and writers. I actually found the headmaster to be the most down-to-earth person and think that his attitude was fully justified. I also strongly doubt that any of the Christian believers who were interviewed were consulted afterwords or even told before the interview the purpose of the inquiry.

With this being said, there are certainly new and interesting facts to be found here and some very original thoughts on the question of Christianity. But the way in which this whole think is produced is often offensive, highly unprofessional and dreadfully biased.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Surprisingly good early effort from Alfred Hitchcock. One of the only original screenplays written by Hitchcock himself, this film shows remarkable story structure. It kicks off with a rousing boxing match in which carnival champ "One Round" Jack loses to a challenger from the audience who happens to be a professional prizefighter. The movie then slows down to develop the characters and introduce a love triangle between Jack, his girl and the professional boxer. The rest of the film is a dramatic buildup to the rematch between the two men, this time for the heavyweight crown. Even in this early film, Hitchcock shows his talent for meaningful cinematography and prop placement. An armband bought for the girl by the boxer continues to pop up throughout the movie as a symbol of her unfaithfulness. The only big detractor of this film is that the art of filming a boxing match had not yet been perfected in 1927. The final match, as a result, ends up being somewhat anticlimactic. The story, though, is what carries this film through.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This is right up at the top of my list of the most hysterically funny shows I've ever seen. I laughed so hard, I'm sure I missed half the jokes. This showcases Izzard as the brilliantly gifted comedian he is. What I particularly like is that he seems never to be "dumbing down" the material for his audience. His timing is impeccable and the routine is tied together as a performance piece rather than just a series of gags. Thumbs way up.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive