FILM: Les Miserables (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

The Mrs loved it and thought I needed to see it so I decided to give it a go.

What's it all about?

Les Miserables tells the story of one Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a paroled convict, over several decades in 19th century France. Valjean becomes guardian of factory worker Fantine's (Anne Hathaway) daughter Cosette and ends up taking part in a Parisian revolutionary uprising, all the while being hunted by Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe).

The Good:

• Intensity from live singing has to be credited .
• Grand production - nice visuals of France/Paris.
• Hugh Jackman's dedication to the role. The man gives everything.
• Appearance of Sascha Baron Cohen brings a bit of humour.
• Epic story.

The Bad:

• Seriously, how many words rhyme with Cosette?
• The shock of no dialogue whatsoever took some getting over.
• Yeah Russell Crowe's singing isn't great but at least he tried.

Jean Valjean...decent Movember entry

Favourite line:

'La la la la, ' - Everyone

Stand-out moment:

Jean Valjean and Javert facing off time and time again.

Like singing? Watch: Mamma Mia, Evita etc.

Like the director? Watch: The King's Speech

What my wife would say: I love musicals.

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 70%

Metacritic - 63/100

LAMB Score - 3.73/5

FILM: Argo (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

Argo has been high up on my list of films to see following the hype and awards it received on its release. I liked both of Ben Affleck's previous directorial efforts Gone Baby Gone and The Town.

What's it all about?

Based on a true story, Ben Affleck plays a CIA ex-filtration specialist Tony Mendez, tasked with getting a group of American embassy staff out of Iran in the months following the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979. Mendez turns to Hollywood, with support from film producers Alan Arkin and John Goodman, to create cover for the operation.

The Good:

• Sharp, funny script
• Affleck builds up the tension almost from the off and it rarely lets up anytime the action returns to Tehran
• The cynical Hollywood angle - Alan Arkin and John Goodman
• Bryan Cranston - just because
• Balanced introductory montage setting the scene for the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis

The Bad:

• I got nothing, maybe the Mendez family angle which didn't add much value for me

Passport please, Mr Bat. Man

Favourite line:

'If I'm doing a fake movie, it's gonna be a fake hit!' - Lester Siegel

Stand-out moment:

The build-up to and storming of the American embassy in Tehran told from the viewpoint of the embassy officials

Like the film? Watch: Munich, The Americans (TV show)

Like the director? Watch: Gone Baby Gone, The Town

What my wife would say: Watched it and enjoyed it.

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 96%

Metacritic - 86/100

LAMB Score - 4.33/5
Twitter - 

Argo never fails to give me anxiety attacks even though I know the ending
— Maggie Genske (@maggie_genske) November 2, 2013

TV: The Americans (S1) (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
I caught on to the success of this over the pond and decided to give it a go. Also, Justified creator Graham Yost is attached as showrunner, and the bloke knows his stuff.

What's it all about?

Living in Washington at the height of the Cold War, Elizabeth and Phillip are KGB agents posing as the perfect American married couple tasked with gathering intelligence. Things become complicated for the spies when Stan Beerman, an FBI Counter-Intelligence agent, moves in next door.

Should you watch it?
Another brief review here........
Matthew Rhys was tipped by some to earn an Emmy nomination for his role as Soviet spy Phillip Jennings and although he ultimately missed out on making the list, for my money he can't have been too far away. As half of the undercover couple, his performances throughout the debut season, in all manner of dodgy 80's wigs, certainly deserve some credit. I found Keri Russell to be trying to hard in her portrayal of the more resolute and dogged Elizabeth.

As far as the story goes the show starts strongly, 
driven by the stronger episodes, 'Pilot' and 'Gregory' but loses its momentum towards the end when the agent double-crossing becomes a little benign before an excellent finale 'The Colonel' closes the season on a high note.

FILM: Wrath of the Titans (5/10)

Why did I watch it?

I watched Clash of the Titans and decided to see how the follow-up fared, more out of having nothing better to do than particularly enjoying the first film.

What's it all about?

Zeus (again played by Liam Neeson) and the gods call on Perseus to save mankind once more after Hades begins to return power to Kronos and the long imprisoned Titans.

Should you watch it?

Wrath, clash, smash, bash, it's all the same for Sam Worthington as he returns as Greek demigod Perseus. Wrath is very similar in style, plot and well just about everything else to Louis Leterrier's 2010 Clash of the Titans. It treads the same ground, impressive visuals, monsters, battles, the reluctant hero, nothing is new.

The film certainly doesn't score any points for it's dialogue. Somebody needs to explain to me why writers continually load scripts with cheesy lines. Point in case being Perseus looking up at the cyclops towering over him for the first time and saying to himself, 'You gotta be kidding me'. WHY, WHY, WHY, doesn't anyone from the directors to the actor themselves resist spouting garbage like this.

I struggle to comprehend why the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson and Bill Nighy, making his first appearance of the franchise, bother with this type of mediocrity.

Wrath of the Titans is not going to win any awards for originality, script or its acting. I guess that no-one watches this film with those kind of expectations, however for mindless, action blockbusters there are better options.

TV: Da Vinci's Demons (S1) (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
My interest in this new Starz show was three fold, one its historical, two it's set in Florence during the Renaissance and I enjoyed that setting when playing Assassin's Creed II and thirdly it was created and predominantly written by David. S. Goyer, a chief part of the writing brains behind The Dark Knight trilogy.

What's it all about?
Set in Florence, the show follows 25 year old Leonardo Da Vinci (Tom Riley) as he becomes embroiled in the political scheming between Florence and Rome all the while trying to uncover secrets of his heritage.

Should you watch it?
Ultimately I was disappointed with Demons considering it's creator. When the show was announced I wondered what 'demons' the title was referring to and it's these demons that for me detract from the narrative's stronger elements. The show is strongest when Da Vinci is caught up in the power struggle fought between the Medici's and the Pope through his sly nephew Count Riario. 

The 'demons' element weakens Da Vinci and has him fighting a repressed childhood memory while hunting for clues of his mother. He is contacted by the Son's of Mithras, who instruct him to access the Fountain of Memory to find the Vault of Heaven where he will find the Book of Leaves. Seriously, you couldn't make it up. The Book of Leaves will probably be followed by the Turd of Glory.


In terms of historical accuracy the show is tongue in cheek and pretty good fun. For me Da Vinci is a bearded old man, but here is he reinvented as a cool, fast talking, talented sword fighter. I wondered if Goyer would stay true to dialogue of the time but this was answered in the first ten seconds of the opening episode when Hugh Bonneville, in a cameo as the Duke of Milan, responds 'Balls!' to be told he was late! Tom Riley is charismatic as Leonardo and is well supported by Elliot Cowan as Lorenzo de Medici and Blake Ritson as Count Riario.

The production is glossy and features some decent CGI used to illustrate Da Vinci's brain at work as he plots and develops his inventions.

The finale was disappointing finishing not just following a cliffhanger but midway through one which I found incredibly unsatisfying. At only eight episodes, the season was the perfect length, short and punchy and the show has been renewed for another round in 2014.

FILM: Robin Hood (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
The Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe combo has served up some more than decent films over the years and I was definitely interested in seeing Scott's take on a British legend.

What's it all about?
Russell Crowe stars as Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard I's army returning across France from the Holy Lands. Longstride interrupts a French plot to assassinate the King, who unbeknown to the French has already been killed. Impersonating Sir Robin Loxley, who was killed in the failed ambush, Robin escort the King's crown back to England with his closest soldiers and Robin continues to Nottingham fulfil a promise to the dying Loxley.
 
Should you watch it?
If the plot described above sounds nothing like any Robin Hood film or TV show you have seen before you would be right. This is Ridley Scott's story behind the legend. It's certainly a fresh take on the well known character and I think Scott should be applauded for not repeating the same story of Robin Hood and his band of merry men running amok in Sherwood forest. The true story of Robin Hood is shrouded in doubt and conflicting myths but I think that Brian Helgeland's (L.A. Confidential) screenplay probably stretches historical accuracy to the maximum you may expect of an American-produced film of a British myth.

That leads me onto my next point, the cast. Casting Russell Crowe as Robin, hmmm. Crowe brings a fairly stoic grittiness to the role but I can't help but feel that there were better options. The fact that Crowe is one of the films producers suggests his role as Robin was paid for. As angry as this may make Crowe, there is no denying that his accent in the film was plain off and seems to cover almost all UK regions at some point in time. With the exception of Mark Strong and Mark Addy, the cast is largely American and I found that frustrating as there are scores of British actors that could have played the likes of Little John, Will Scarlett and King Richard I at least as well as Danny Huston. Shows like Game of Thrones have shown that a largely British cast can deliver the goods. Cate Blanchett can be excused as I thought she was excellent as Lady Marian.

Towards the film's end I thought that the film began to morph into Kingdom of Heaven as Robin lead the British defence en masse against the French invasion force on the beaches of the South Coast. At this stage the story seemed to have veered too far away from the Robin Hood we know and love. 

An alternative take on the much told story of one of Britain's favourite characters and one that is worth a watch even if the gritty nature of Robin and his story take away some of the fun and adventure that always been associated with the character. 

FILM: Immortals (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
I guess I watched this because I'm a fan of 300 and I was drawn in by a combination of the Greek legend and 300-style visuals.

What's it all about?
King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) feels wronged by the Gods (the Zeus's) and plots to release the Titans (a race of deities previously beaten and imprisoned by the Gods) by finding the Epirus bow. Zeus won't allow the Gods to intervene directly in the lives of mortals so it's left to the warrior Theseus (Henry Cavill), trained by the Old Man (John Hurt), to save mankind.
Should you watch it?
I'm going to compare this Immortals to 300, I can't help myself. The film was marketed as 'from the producers of 300' so they can't blame me. If you want to watch a Greek mythology based film loaded with impressive visuals and special effects then watch Zack Snyder's.


Don't get me wrong, director Tarsem Singh delivers some eye-popping visuals and fight scenes that rival those of Snyder but in truth the rest of Immortals really falls short of being anything close to a great movie. 

Soon to be Superman Henry Cavill looks the part as Theseus but I thought he was pretty wooden although he certainly wasn't working with an award winning script. The army rousing speech scene (think 'tonight we dine in hell' with Gerard Butler, no acting great either) made me pity the guy for having to read the lines. Unfortunately, Mickey Rourke doesn't fare much better either, his performance made even more comical by his venus fly-trap/playboy bunny headpiece. Seriously, what were they thinking?

Immortals didn't even manage to hold my attention for the duration, which for me is almost unheard of, but hey, it looks good right.

Man of with Steel

FILM: The Great Gatsby (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

Being British, I was force fed Shakespeare at school rather than any of the so called 'Great American Novels' and I never got around to reading F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Bearing that mind I was curious to see what the story was all about.

What's it all about?
Told through the eyes of Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), The Great Gatsby is a story of lost love, glitz and glamour and excess set in the Jazz Age of the early 1920's. After moving to New York to make his fame and fortune on Wall Street, Carraway discovers his rented house borders the huge estate of the enigmatic Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a millionaire renowned for the hosting of New York's most glamorous parties. After making Gatsby's acquaintance, Carraway discovers that Gatsby hopes to reintroduce himself to his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan), a married woman, having made a success of himself in the five years since he left her to go to war.

Should you watch it?

So, could Baz Luhrmann, with Jay-Z at his side, deliver a modern adaptation of the the Great American Novel that would be well received by all? I think the answer from the offset was always going to be no. Instead, Luhrmann delivers a visual feast of a film, one that tries to balance the director's big number style with an authenticity to the source material but one that relies too heavily on narration, some cheap visual effects and ends up failing to fully flesh out the key relationship central to the story.

I don't have any specific problem with Baz Luhrmann's style, I liked his take on Romeo & Juliet and have managed to avoid Moulin Rouge so far. I thought he would be a good match for the glitz, glamour and decadence of the period and I thought this side of the film worked out well. The style factor was never going to be in doubt. The use of music in the film has been the subject of some debate and I'm going to side with the positive. It worked fairly well for me, hip hop goes hand in hand with excess and the modern songs fitted well with the music video style of Gatsby's parties. Lana Del Rey's song Young & Beautiful is mesmerisingly haunting and is the perfect accompaniment for the film's troubled lovers. Having not read the book and therefore not being aware of the literary themes in place this may be an unfair comment, especially if fans of the book appreciated the inclusion, but I felt the direction was slightly heavy handed in places, I certainly felt the references to the all-seeing eyes and green light were more than driven home.

Leonardo DiCaprio gives a mature, refined performance befitting the great nature of the man. Carey Mulligan is also excellent as Daisy, giving what I call a 'bambi' type performance complete with beautifully innocent doe eyes. She is let down by the direction/narrative, wherever you want to lay the blame, which doesn't do enough to make you understand the passion of Gatsby for the girl, especially given the choices she ultimately makes. Tobey Maguire is suited to the role of Carraway, though his key role in the film as narrator, really limited my enjoyment. The guy always seems to come off so square, disapproving and lame.

I enjoyed The Great Gatsby but I'm sure it won't suit all tastes.

TV: Spartacus: War of the Damned (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
Because I am Spartacus.

What's it all about?
After disposing of Praetor Glaber at the end of Spartacus: Vengeance, Spartacus' rebellion marches on and takes control of the city of Sinuessa en Valle to house it's growing numbers. Meanwhile, the Roman Senate turns to the ruthless and powerful Marcus Crassus to lead his legions, including his son Tiberius and a young Julius Caesar, to defeat Spartacus.

Should you watch it?
Fans of this hugely entertaining show will love this epic final season, which closes the chapter on Spartacus' journey from Thrace to Batiatus' ludus to hero of the slave rebellion.

The final season sees Spartacus as de facto leader, supported by the gladiator heroes of the previous seasons, Crixus, Gannicus and Agron. The leaders routinely clash of the rebellion's direction and objectives, Crixus in particular driven by uncompromising vengeance on the republic, dreaming of smashing an army through the gates of Rome, while Spartacus has grown more responsible, dreaming of a free life for his followers if not for himself. Seeing the two spar reminds of seasons of old. Gannicus also mellows, and finally finds a cause to fight for other than the traditional spoils of victory, wine and women.

Are you not entertained?

Following the precedent of previous seasons, War of the Damned is loaded with copious amounts of blood, sex and scenery chewing speeches, perhaps even more than before. The montage at the beginning of the first episode beats 300 for blood spilt and sprayed across the screen. The scheming and trickery of Lucretia and Illythia from past seasons is replaced by that of Caesar and Tiberius, fighting for the lead role under Crassus. I originally disliked the casting of Caesar, but after time newcomer Todd Lasance won me over with his ambitious, scheming, hot headed take on the famous leader.

For a show that many dismissed as trashy and gratuitous, Spartacus is surprisingly accurate (for a TV show) with respect to its historical basis. Spartacus' rebellion was squashed by Crassus, he was betrayed by Sicilian pirates, the names of Oenamaus, Gannicus and Crixus were among the rebellion leaders and those captured were crucified along the Appian Way into Rome.

The final episodes build up to the inevitable ending, firstly dedicating suitable time to Crixus, before a fantastic finale worthy of the show's epic nature, culminating in some emotional final scenes. The closing credits returned many of the fallen character over the four seasons and as a touching gesture were book ended with both Liam McIntyre's and Andy Whitfield's Spartacus. Gratitude.

Overall, a fantastic show featuring a cast of largely unknown bunch of Aussies and New Zealanders that only got better and one that will be sorely missed. 

On to The Borgia's for my over the top historical fix.

FILM: Thirteen Days (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

Caught a description of this film in the TV guide and it appealed to my interest in all things historical. Also, I had just finished reading Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears, which culminates in a stand-off between the US and Soviets that teeters on the brink of nuclear war so this film seemed apt.

What's it all about?

Thirteen Days follows the actions of US President JFK (Bruce Greenwood) and his administration and military during the thirteen days that followed the discovery of Soviet nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba in 1962 as the two world superpowers edged towards nuclear war. At the centre of the decision-making alongside JFK, Kevin Costner stars as adviser Kenny O'Donnell and Steven Culp as Robert Kennedy.

Should you watch it?
Led by strong performances by Greenwood and Culp, Thirteen Days is an interesting and taught political drama, even if the final outcome is known to all (hint - we weren't all incinerated by mutual nuclear destruction). In addition to the Kennedy administration, the narrative covers the roles of both the military and US UN representatives in the crisis. I've always thought that the roles of military personnel in movies is clichéd in the manner they always push for war, but seeing as this film depicts actual events (according to the source book) it turns out that that is actually the case. In fact, in this case the military chiefs repeatedly undermine JFK's restrained  by not cancelling a planned atom bomb test or spy flights close to the Soviet Union.

The script faithfully recreates actual speeches given by JFK during the crisis, 'not merely peace in our time but peace for all time' and both Greenwood and Culp accurately nail the Boston Irish accent of the Kennedy family. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the film's lead and producer, Kevin Costner. His accent veers from credible to laughable to non-existent during the film and his failings are only highlighted by his co-stars' performances.

FILM: Lincoln (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
Lincoln was one of 2012's biggest releases and earned Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor. I caught in on a plane before general release in the UK.

What's it all about?
Set in January 1985, with the backdrop of the American Civil War, Lincoln follows the 16th President of the United States as he strives to get the landmark Thirteenth Amendment passed through the House of Representatives, legally abolishing slavery. Lincoln faces friction within his own party, accused of not giving every effort to first end the war, as well as opposition to the bill from the Democrat party.  

Should you watch it?
Don't let the above plot put you off. Yes, its politics but it's so much more. It's a character study of the highest order. We get to see Lincoln's political machinations, frustrations with public office, as well as his personal strife behind the White House's doors. The narrative never feels dull or anything other than monumentous. 

No, its not an early episode of Suits

I haven't seen any of the films featuring other nominees for Academy Best Actor but I just cannot imagine that any of the performances come close to Daniel Day-Lewis' as Lincoln. Just when you think the guy can't get any better (There Will Be Blood), he steps up to another level. His performance as Lincoln is simply wonderful. Patient, stoic, inspirational, determined, regretful, melancholy, Day-Lewis manages to capture everything.

To heap all the praise on Day-Lewis would be disrespectful to the rest of the cast. Credit where due, Sally Fields is excellent as the Mary Lincoln, Tommy Lee Jones turns in a strong, sombre performance and with the cast on offer I could go on all day.

FILM: There Will Be Blood (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
A more appropriate question would be 'how has it taken me so long to watch this?'. I've had this on DVD for several years, read positive review after positive review but I never found the time.....until now.

What's it all about?
Daniel Day-Lewis is Daniel Plainview, a determined and ruthless Californian oil driller, out for his piece of the freshly baked oil pie at the turn of the 19th century. Having unintentionally struck oil when mining for silver, the opening act shows Plainview building a steady portfolio of oil claims across California, unafraid of shamelessly using his adopted son to present the image of a family business. Following a tip, Plainview purchases claims for a large expanse of land where he clashes with a local pastor (Paul Dano) in his unquenchable thirst for oil.  

Should you watch it?
Where to start, on the first viewing There Will Be Blood has comfortably become one of my favourite films of all time. From the dialogue-free 15 minute opening of Plainview mining alone, to the intense and violent conclusion, There Will Be Blood is unrelenting. You cannot take your eyes off Daniel Day-Lewis. He is quite simply fantastic as the fiery, vengeful and driven oilman and deserved his . Plainview becomes so dislikeable he is likeable, and I found myself routing for him, after all he is the film. The scenes between pastor Eli and Daniel, in particular the two where each humiliates the other, are worth the price of admission alone.

I....drink....your.......MILKSHAKE!!!!

Maybe I'm biased, maybe Daniel Day-Lewis is one of my favourite actors, maybe because I work in the oil industry the film's subject appeals to me more, maybe great shots of drilling derricks and flaming oil gushers set against the American West just do it for me. Or maybe not, maybe Paul Thomas Anderson has just created a truly great film, full of memorable images and lines. Although central to the film, the themes of religion and capitalism are allowed to exist without heavy handed interference from Anderson. Ultimately, neither come out of the other side smelling of roses.

The reason this film only scores 9/10 is due to the score. Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood is responsible for the score which Tarantino complimented as "one of the great modern original soundtracks of the last decade" but it just didn't agree with me.

FILM: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
I saw Guy Ritchie's first take on the Sherlock Holmes story in 2009 at the cinema. It was a pretty fun outing for Robert Downey Jr. so I decided to give the follow-up a go, albeit at home this time around.

What's it all about?
Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law reprise their roles as Holmes and Watson respectively, with Guy Ritchie once more in the directors chair. This time around, new writers Kieran and Michele Mulroney plump for a story pitting Holmes against his traditional nemesis, Professor Moriarty. Having moved out of Baker Street to get married, Watson is pulled back into Holmes' investigation by Moriarty, who targets Holmes' sidekick and his wife as revenge for Holmes' attention. The investigation into Moriarty's warmongering schemes sees Holmes' travel across Europe to Paris, Germany and finally to the famous Reichenbach waterfall in Switzerland. 

Should you watch it?
Game of Shadows is certainly not going to uproot any trees but as with its predecessor it's a entertaining action film that audiences can enjoy with minimal effort. As with the original, the film makes a mockery of Holmes' traditional sleuthing and is nothing more than a buddy movie complete with Victorian fisticuffs with the Sherlock Holmes badge on. At least the writers paid some homage to the story by featuring Professor Moriarty and the infamous waterfall scene even if Moriarty's warmongering plot is 

Downey quips his way through the film (is his Holmes character an ancestor of his Iron Man!?) while Jared Harris (Mad Men's Lane Pryce) provides Holmes with an intellectual foe as clever as himself as Moriarty.

The film suffers from being unevenly paced, at times the action and script, especially considering Downey's sharp delivery, are overly frantic. The film's action pieces are heavy with slow motion effects and while this works in places, it felt overused by the film's end.

BOOK: Excalibur: A Novel of Arthur, Bernard Cornwell (6/10)

The final book of Bernard Cornwell's Arthurian trilogy finds Arthur still battling the invading Saxon armies, while struggling to keep the peace within the kingdoms of Wales and the South West of Britain.


As with each of the previous books, the story is a combination of epic battles and shield walls, mixed with the magic of Merlin and the contrasting religions of Paganism and Christianity. However, the description of the epic siege at Mynydd Baddon does feel repetitive coming off the back of the similarly epic battles at Lugg Vale in The Winter King and Thames Valley in The Enemy of God. That said, Cornwell manages keep to the rest of the story interesting enough until it's end when the reader is at last rewarded with discovering how the main protagonist and storyteller Derfel ends up a Christian monk. Across all three books I enjoyed the story in between the battles more when Cornwell's portrayal of the familiar historical characters was given chance to come across.


Looking back, the trilogy is an interesting and more realistic take on the often romanticised Arthurian legends, with a grand scope that Cornwell manages to do justice to.

FILM: Frost/Nixon (8/10)

Absorbing historical drama based on the series of interviews between British chat show host David Frost and disgraced former US President Richard Nixon in 1977. 


The film is based on the play of the same name and Michael Sheen (Frost) and Frank Langella (Nixon) reprise their characters from the stage version. This continuity gives both actors confidence in their portrayals and both give terrific performances, in particular Langella, who earned an Oscar nod for his initially snarling and defiant and later personal and sombre portrayal of Nixon.


Frost/Nixon deals with the preparation for the interviews by both camps, an unfavoured Frost and team and an over-confident Nixon. The interviews are likened to a boxing match, with both participants retiring to their respective corners in between sparring sessions, and Nixon's chief of staff Jack Brennan (Kevin Bacon) temporarily 'throwing in the towel' on Nixon's behalf before Frost delivers the knock-out blow.   


In dealing with the most significant scandal in American politics, director Ron Howard has an engrossing subject matter to work with and he does a decent job behind the camera mixing in faux-documentary retrospective interviews with some of the bit part players with clever shots of the interviews from behind the camera.

BOOK: The Winter King, Bernard Cornwell (7/10)

The first in Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles trilogy is a fictional depiction of early Saxon Britain retrospectively told through the eyes of one of Arthur's warriors. Cornwell turns his back on the typically romanticised version of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and portrays Arthur as the more historically accurate military leader. This is a refreshing change and allows Cornwell to ground the story in realism rather than magical fairy tales of ladies in lakes and wizards. However, Cornwell does allow himself the artistic license to introduce characters such as Merlin (a druid rather than wizard), Lancelot (a crown prince from Brittany) and Guinevere into the action.


The story tells of Arthur's return from exile in France to act as protector to the infant king of Dummonia and his attempts to unite the warring kingdoms of southern Britain and Wales against the growing Saxon threat.


Cornwell delivers the story in sufficient detail and depth to give the reader plenty to go on. Often historical authors can fall into the trap of either glossing over or dedicating too much time and detail to battle scenes but Cornwell seems to find the middle ground well in describing the book's final scenes. 


An enjoyable read for any fan of fictionalised history.

TV: John Adams (8/10)

Having an interest in most things historical, I looked forward to the HBO produced mini-series chronicling the life of American Founding Father John Adams.


History does not appear to have been as kind to the reputation and legacy of John Adams when compared to the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and as such I was curious to discover more of Adams's role in the American Revolution.

It soon becomes apparent that Adams is a feisty, strong willed and self-adored character of the revolution. At first uncertain of using his legal skills to defend Massachusett's interests amongst the thirteen colonies in their dispute against the British crown, Adams grows into his role as statesman and becomes instrumental in campaigning for and assisting in the development of the Declaration of Independence. More due to his vanity and stubborn nature than any particular political beliefs, Adams seems to be largely unpopular amongst his peers. 

The show provides an unromanticised insight into the hard work and personal sacrifices given not by the soldiers of the war but by the new statesmen of the American independence. Following on from independence, the political machinations of the early US government are seen through Adams's eyes as he serves first as vice-president and then as the 2nd President. Adams and Jefferson's friendship breaks down, leading to some greatly dignified but passionate disputes between the two as the ideals of the revolution diverge into Federalist and Republicans party beliefs. In a similar manner to its subject, the series may be slightly overblown at eight hours in length. The middle section in which Adams travels throughout Europe certainly did not need to last for two or three episodes. Although this does serve the purpose of making the time Adams was apart from his family seem extended and more credible bearing in mind his family's remonstrations. That said I certainly would not wish to see any of the brilliant and emotionally intense last episode cut. The series can be subtly humorous in places, notably in Europe where Adams struggles to communicate with the French nobility and deal with their gratuitious pomp and excess and later in London when taught the required etiquette of an ambassador in King George's presence. 

The scope of the mini-series is impressive and as is the norm for an HBO production the visuals and attentions to detail are great.


Now here is the kicker, Paul Giamatti is not a favourite actor of mine. I find him quite limited and find him too abrasive and shouty for my liking. I tried to look past this when watching him on screen and in fairness he does play the part quite well and is capable of portraying some of Adams's character flaws but I just feel strongly that the main part could have been much better cast. Thankfully, Giamatti is supported by a terrific cast. Laura Linney, in particular, is fantastic as Adams's wife Abigail and Washington, Jefferson and Franklin are superbly played with real thought by David Morse, Stephen Dillane and Tom Wilkinson respectively. 
All in all a strong series well worth watching for anyone with a degree of interest in the subject matter. Even non-Giamatti fans!