Again I ask why would use instant? Well there is one time in my life it would be useful and that’s at work, I have very little spare time and instant definitely saves on washing up, etc. so I’m always on the look out for something decent I can have.

I’ve tried a couple of options and so far the best is the Starbucks instant which wasn’t too bad (in the taste department) but I found it a little expensive. When I saw Kenco had released a new product called ‘Kenco Millicano’ described by Kenco as “our first ‘Wholebean Instant coffee’: a clever combination of instant coffee and finely-milled coffee beans. Made from high quality Arabica beans, Millicano delivers a smooth, full-bodied, velvety flavour and a rich aroma. So you can enjoy an instantly indulgent and satisfying coffee experience whenever you want it – every single day.” They conclude by saying “Discover Kenco Millicano, the closest thing to ‘proper’ coffee in an instant.”

This sounded very much like the Starbucks approach which kind of worked for me. However what I found inside was what looked like smaller granules of instant coffee. The taste isn’t bad it’s a good instant coffee but that’s all and you’d expect it to taste better with it’s premium price. By no means am I saying it’s a bad drink but it’s not proper coffee.

My Solution
If you want that proper coffee taste then go to the supermarket and pick up some ‘Lyons coffee bags’ (why these things haven’t caught on I’ll never know) put them in hot water, leave to brew (I find if you stir a little you get a much stronger flavour) and that’ll give you the best cup of ‘proper’ instant coffee on the market (it is proper coffee!!)

After a trip to Germany a couple of years ago I discovered that lager can taste so much better than the standard lagers that we drink in England. Some supermarkets now how a selection of some less common lagers from around the world but I set about trying to find something a bit different. After scouting around farm shops I found a lot of UK based bitters but not many lagers. Eventually after much searching out I found a few different lagers my favourite being from Freedom. Freedom are based in Staffordshire, not a million miles away, so I went to take a look. They now have five different products, Organic Lager, Pilsner, Dark lager, Stout & Freedom Stout. My favourite is the Pilsner.

It is a little more expensive than ‘standard’ lager (when I bought a crate directly from the brewery I don’t actually think it was that much more expensive). If you like a drink it is well worth checking out the Freedom products, you’ll be support British Brewing but more importantly have a lovely drink!!

The lack of script would not be too bad if there was some great action but I just didn’t feel the action scenes worked. There were lots of them and just not enough linking them together. My biggest gripe is the camera work, one word sums that up – shocking! I’m not a big fan of the ‘wobbly camera’ shot, a steady cam is a wonderful invention please use it! In Battle: LA the annoyance of the wobbly camera is so bad that it is a distraction, the cameraman didn’t seem to have a sense of direction and never seemed to know what they should be pointing at. Add to this the fact a lot of shots were just too close up to the actors faces. On top of that you add very loud gunfire and explosions for what seemed like most of the 2 hours it felt like I was banging my head against the wall. All I could think is ‘I hope these aliens have brought an asprin!’

Some would argue these are effects to make the film seem more real and this is obviously what the director has thought and yes it can be used to make a film more real, I loved Black Hawk Down and this used some of the above effects but it just did it better, well constructed way and because it actually had a plot it wasn’t relentless.

If I’m honest Battle: Los Angeles was exactly what I expected which is a shame because I thought the trailer was really well thought out and hoped that their may be something in the film that might have lifted it above average, it hasn’t! I’m certain some will love all the action but I want more than that from a film. Great trailer, average film.

More information at IMDB

The Adjustment Bureau is about David Norris (Matt Damon), a young, ambitious politician. A chance meeting with dancer Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) changes his life forever. He feels a connection with her and instantly wants to see her again but he doesn’t know how to get hold of her or anything about her other than her name is Elise. His job is made even harder when a group of mysterious men try and prevent them seeing each other. David learns these men ‘control’ the course of our lives. These men are members of The Adjustment Bureau, they will do anything to prevent David and Elise from being together. Can David change his ‘fate’ or will The Adjustment Bureau managed to carry out their duties and prevent them.

The Adjustment Bureau is a decent enough thriller, it has just about enough of a plot to carry the movie along but I actually think it’s the relationship between David & Elise that is the most interesting. There are some nice chase scenes, although the ‘door’ chase scene is a little long winded, the New York backdrop forms a nice setting and there is an interesting sci-fi element to the plot but this alone would not have kept my attention for the duration of the movie. I was David and Elise’s relationship which actually kept my attention.

The relationship plot is the fairly standard, boy meets girl, boy loses girl, will boy get girl back? Kind of affair but it is the brilliant chemistry between Matt Damon & Emily Blunt that makes this film more enjoyable than the average film in this genre. I loved the humor between Damon & Blunt and while Matt Damon puts in another solid showing, it is Emily Blunt that is truly captivating and makes you see why David will do anything to be with her.

I’ve heard The Adjustment Bureau described as Inception vs The Matrix and although there are similarities in style I feel this film has a different focus. As I say I think this is more a story of love.

I could go on about minor plot problems or the slightly unsatisfactory ending or the fact it is trying to be a little cleverer than it actually is but you know what, I go to the cinema to escape reality and be entertained. The Adjustment Bureau, despite it’s minor short comings did that and did it well. It’s worth a watch.

More information at IMDB

First my general thoughts on last year’s cinema. When I wrote my Oscar post last year I said that I was left wondering whether we were going to see movies made just to make money but I’m pleased to say we seemed to have bounced back a little this year. Interesting to note though that most of the films that are at the top of my ratings recently have also been doing pretty well at the box office. May be it is in producers best interest to be making good films and not worrying about the return, that will come if they make a good film. The only couple of things that have annoyed me a little are 3D films, I will continue to moan about them when ever possible till they stop making them or at least make them good films! The second minor gripe is sequels, either when it’s the first film of what the studio wants to become a series (if popular) with pointless scenes at the end to set up for a sequel or the sequel itself. I don’t mind sequels if they actually have a story for it, Pixar have proved you can do it very successfully but a lot of sequels are just garbage!

On to this year’s Oscars then. I’m not going to go through the awards as usual I’m just going to write a little about some of the movies and performances that I have seen that are up for Oscars, as usual because of the way films are released I haven’t seen all the films up for Oscars, something I still think needs to be addressed.

There have been some fantastic performances across the board this year and in the actor in a leading role category there were two performances that were stunning, both James Franco and Colin Firth put in awesome performances, I have a sneaky suspicion that James Franco will get it, it was an amazing performance in 127 hours and the Oscars have always favoured American actors/actresses & films, hence why I think he will win it. Personally though I’d give it to Colin Firth, he put in an awesome performance last year in A Single Man and was pretty close to winning, this year he put in another stunning performance in A King’s Speech, arguably even better than his A Single Man performance, surely he deserves to win this year.

Although Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush also put in pretty good performances in The King’s Speech but I would give both the awards they are nominated for to The Fighter, which showed how a good character based film should be done. The best supporting actor surely has to go to Cristian Bale, his performance is genius, he total embodies the role both physical and mentally. Although I’m unsure which of the performances I preferred I think both Amy Adams and Melissa Leo put in pretty good performances and would tip one of them to win.

As certain as I am Christian Bale will win I am even more sure Natalie Portman will win best actress and if she doesn’t then she should! I’ve not seen all the films in the category but her performance in Black Swan is truly brilliant.

Best animated feature film should surely be renamed as ‘The Pixar award’, with Toy Story 3 Pixar showed it is possible to make a good sequel, I still don’t think it will have enough to take the best picture but surely Pixar will win one of those at some point if they continue to produce the quality films they are currently doing.

The big surprise of the nominations was that Christopher Nolan didn’t get nominated for best director but I am pleased to see Inception is included on the list of best picture, I don’t know who’s going to win, it’s a very diverse list with some great films in it and I think the winner is going to be a very personal choice. Personally I’d go for The King’s Speech I think it’s a brilliant piece of cinema and is very much an ‘Oscar’ film. Although in my personal list Inception isn’t too far behind it is just the wrong type of film for the Oscars.

The 83rd Acadamy Awards (Oscars 2011) are on 27th February 2011

In Hereafter we follow three people. George (Matt Damon) appears to be a normal guy but he has a ‘gift’ which allows him to connect to the afterlife, he worked as a psychic for a time but the pressure became too much and he now has what he considers a much similar life though he still feels he can’t have a normal life due to his ‘gift’. Marie (Cécile De France), a French journalist, has a near-death experience and this is so profound that it effects how she sees the world and what comes after life. The final thread of the film follows young Marcus (Frankie/George McLaren), a London schoolboy, when he loses the person closest to him he finds himself struggling with to carry on with his life without them and needs to find some answers.

Let’s get all the negatives out the way and then I’ll try and talk about some of the positives. This film doesn’t work completely and is by far the weakest film I have seen from Clint Eastwood.

The three stories come together in the end but they just feel too insular, we cut from one scene to another in the three stories, jumping around with no real form. There is no real logic to how the film is constructed, this is not just in the way the three stories are put together but also within the separate stories themselves. I found some of the film pretty hard work and it is only because I found some of the themes within the film interesting that it perhaps kept my interest and gave it a higher rating overall (in my eyes) than actually it probably deserved.

I didn’t like the use of real tragic events in this kind of film, it seemed a little insensitive and served no purpose, the tragic events that happen in the story could have been fictional. I don’t know why I found it insensitive I just found it a very strange thing to do in this kind of film, the only reason I guess they did it is to try and portray this as real, which is weird in itself. In some films the mixing of reality and fiction works but in this it just seemed pointless.

My final complaint is that the film just didn’t seem to know what it wanted to be, there were so many interesting themes that could have been looked at but nothing was really explored. I don’t know who to really blame for this. The script seemed quite poor and not something you’d expect from a writer of Peter Morgan’s stature but I also think the film had no flow to it and there was no clear direction.

So Hereafter has a lot wrong with it, so how did it manage to get a ’6′ in my rating? I think there are some really interesting issues covered by the film and I just wish it would have taken time to cover some of these issues properly, then we could have had something a bit special. I’m not going to list all the themes/issues here but I can think of at least 5/6 issues which were touched on but never fully explored.

Overall then this film was just an average affair, as I said there’s a lot wrong with it, but some interesting thoughts an ideas save it from being a disaster. Not the kind of effort I would expect from the obvious talents of Peter Morgan and Clint Eastwood and a real case of, if only…..

More information at IMDB

The Fighter tells the true story of “Irish” Micky Ward, a boxer from Lowell, Massachusetts. Micky lives in the shadow of his older half brother Dickie Eklund. Dickie “The Pride of Lowell” Eklund had been a promising boxer before he turned to crime and became addicted to crack. Micky is coached by Dickie and managed by his mother. We see how Micky struggles with the current situation he is in and after a series of events culminating in Micky’s hand getting injured and Dickie being put inside Micky decides he needs to refocus on boxing and that may mean making some difficult decisions.

The Boxing is definitely the driving force that moves the story forward and I really liked the gritty boxing scenes, they were shot as the TV of the time would have shot them, this gave them a pretty real look. However the fighter really isn’t about the boxing. It’s about the family, it’s about Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and how he struggles to cope with how his family behaves and looks after him. It’s about his brother, Dickie Eklund (Christian Bale) and his struggle to be centre of attention but more importantly his struggle with his crack addiction. It’s about Micky’s new girlfriend Charlene Fleming (Amy Adams), she can see what Micky’s family is doing to him and knows Micky needs to put himself first. It’s about Micky’s mum and manager?! Alice Ward (Melissa Leo) who, well there aren’t enough words to describe her! It’s about family, whatever that may look like. It’s about Micky’s fight not in the ring but out of it.

The supporting cast is great but it’s the relationships between this four people and how they effect each other that makes the fighter an interesting character piece. Mark Wahlberg is solid in the role as Micky Ward, and his much talked about dedication to training for the role is clear for anyone to see but it’s Christian Bale who steels the show. He is brilliant as Dickie, struggling with his addiction. We see the obvious struggle he has had adjusting to not being centre of attention, his reaction to his defeat against Sugar Ray (whatever he says happened it’s clear it’s not the truth!) and what addiction can do to a person.

The fighter is an absorbing drama about this group of people, this family. Definitely worth checking out.

More information at IMDB

Nina Sayer (Natale Portman) is a ballerina who is totally in love with what she does but is still waiting to get her big break. We pick up Nina’s story as the artistic director of her ballet company, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) decides to replace prima ballerina Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder) for the opening production of their new season, Swan Lake. Nina manages to win the role of swan queen. The swan queen has two sides to her, the White Swan with innocence and grace, and the Black Swan, who represents guile and sensuality. Leroy is confident that Nina will carry the White Swan side of the role perfectly but is unsure about Nina’s ‘black swan’ side and encourages her to try and discover it. Lily (Mila Kunis), is a new dancer to the company, who seems to have also caught Leroy’s eye as a perfect black swan. Nina begins to feel the pressure of both the role and the competition from Lily and as she works hard to get in contact with her darker side her mind begins to take control of her.

I hate really putting films into a genre but I must start by doing just that, I feel it’s important to understand that this is a psychological thriller, drama (if there is such a thing). I’ve even heard it describe as a horror (I have to say I don’t share this view but I can see what people are getting at). If you have seen the trailer you’ll know exactly what this film is going to be like, I think it’s been very fairly and accurately advertised. The point is this is not a ballet drama, just like The Wrestler was not really about wrestling. Aronofsky uses the theme as a back drop for his drama to unfold. So I am amazed to hear people complaining that the film was a little strange and not what they expected. I could understand if the trailer had been misleading but it hadn’t, it was exactly the kind of thing I was expected!

You can immediately see the ‘Aronofsky’ style from the opening few shots and you can see he is pays attention to the little details that really make this film look and feel special. The use of the ‘over the shoulder’ shot is used to great effect here as it was in the Wrestler. Subtle changes in colour to portray the white and black side of Nina’s character, the very fluid movements in the white swan ballet scenes, compared that to the more unstable camera movements as Nina discovers her darker side. Subtle but very clever and shows what a thoughtful director Aronofsky is.

In the way that 127 hours was carried by James Franco, there is no doubt that Black Swan is the Natalie Portman show. The cast is great but Portman is fantastic, she total commands the role and I would have thought she is a dead cert for an Oscar. I can’t help but feel that Nina’s search for perfection, to totally encompass both sides of her role is completely mirrored by Portman in her search for perfection to portray both sides of Nina. Portman manages it perfectly, a truly awesome performance.

I can see why Black Swan has polarised audiences, it’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea but in my eyes that’s a good thing. I cry out for originality and that’s what Black Swan is, an original piece of art, well done Aronofsky for doing something different. I’m perhaps a little surprised that it has become such a relatively main stream hit but am equally pleased that it’s getting the exposure it so richly deserves. When I see the drivel that is produced far to often from Hollywood with the big blockbusters I often think I don’t want something middle of the road all the time. I want a film to challenge me and Black Swan does that and does it well.

More information at IMDB

My hatred though is not only because I don’t like the tech but because I feel it is currently being used to cover up the shortage of really good films coming out of Hollywood and is trying to encourage people to the cinema by impressing people by things popping out of them. I can do a more impressive version of this by standing at the front of the cinema and lobbing things into the audience, that’s real 3D!

Right time to lay in to 3D TV. How pointless is watching football in 3D? how much of a 3D effect do you actually get when you go to the football, how far away do you sit? I can tell you the actually 3D effect the eyes get in real life when you are viewing at that distance isn’t much, if any. I don’t need a 3D TV, it’s more expensive upfront, the only real content at the moment is via sky (more expense) or films that I buy. Every one who watches the TV has to wear glasses, what happens if you have a few friends round (how many spare glasses do you have)? For people like me who wear glasses already we have to wear glasses over our glasses (there’s only so much of my nose to rest my glasses on!). In summary 3D TV is even more pointless than 3D cinema.

I still can’t see 3D TVs being the next big thing, although I’m not bothered I haven’t got a high definition TV yet I get the point of them, it adds to your viewing experience, 3D distracts from it. Those of us who suffer from that headache or eyestrain after watching a 3D film at the cinema will know how annoying and irritating it is, those of you who don’t are lucky, it’s a horrible feeling and it’s even worse when there is fast moving images that’s why I don’t watch many 3D films, it discourages me from going to watch a film if it’s only in 3D (this is the exact opposite effect that the cinema or the producers want). The only way I can describe how it feels is if you imagine watching a film and every 5 minutes spinning on the spot so you are really dizzy. The only film I didn’t really experience this in was Avatar and I believe this is because of the way it was filmed, when the 3D effect is applied post production it can be horrendous. For TV shows because of the added expenses of filming the way avatar was the only way I think TV companies will use 3D is via post production, if that happens prepare yourself for awful looking 3D effects.

As you can tell I get a little grumpy when I talk about 3D tech, I can’t help it 3D technology just does it to me! I only hope that the current fascination ends very soon like it has when it has been tried in the past and that TV production companies never really bother with it, fingers crossed!

The AOP’s (Association of Optometrists) education advisor Karen Sparrow comments about the release of the Nintendo 3DS were published by both the Daily Telegraph (21st Jan 11) and the Guardian online (20th Jan 12)

In the statement issued by Karen Sparrow she warned: “As with anything else – children should not use the 3DS to excess. As 3D technology has only recently hit the High Street there is little scientific research available yet but Nintendo is right to warn the public of the potential harm of excessive use.

“This [potential risk] is not unique to the Nintendo 3DS as watching 3D images through other means, such as at the cinema or on a 3D television, could give rise to the same concerns, however there are two additional factors when using the 3DS. The close proximity of the device could place more stress on eyesight than looking at a television set, meaning that eyes have to focus harder, and it is more likely to be used by children for longer periods.


Children need a clear, sharp image in each eye in order for their vision to develop properly. If anything upsets that balance (natural or artificial) it could affect the visual development resulting in amblyopia or a squint.


This can be a problem when viewing 3D if you have a weaker eye. If a child spends excessive time using a device such as the 3DS it could effectively act as a negative exercise, as opposed to strengthening the eye, and it can leave it underdeveloped, causing a ‘lazy eye’.”

Other professional bodies and people within UK optics have also stated their positions.

Loughborough University’s Dr Peter Howarth is about to publish a review of the potential hazards of viewing 3D which I look forward to reading. He said: “Although people have reported experiencing symptoms when watching 3D content, specifically headaches and eyestrain, there have been no studies whatsoever which have detected any permanent damage. Furthermore, stationary examples of these types of pictures have been around since Victorian times (Wheatstone stereoscopes), and films have been around since the craze for them in the 1950s. The normal eye is adaptable enough to accept small 3D stereoscopic content without stress. It is only if there are large, prolonged effects that people experience symptoms of eyestrain.”

The ABDO (The Association of British Dispensing Opticians) has added its voice to the debate. Its spokesman said: “It is essential to advise any member of the public who is seeking to benefit from 3D technology, that, prior to purchase, they should have an eye examination to discover if they will be able to enjoy the benefits it offers. The association also asks all manufacturers and suppliers of such equipment to clearly draw attention to the fact that there are those who will be unable to obtain a 3D view.” Something I have been keen for cinemas to do from the introduction of 3D films. I believe a very simple test could be offered to cinema goers to check they will be able to see the 3D effect before they purchase a 3D cinema ticket (which generally costs more than 2D)

I’ll try and pull the important stuff out of that lot. Firstly I can’t help but feel that the Nintendo have put a warning on the 3DS as a kind of legal protection (I don’t blame them in the modern world) but I would say it seems to be pretty good advise. I think we probably need to carry out some proper research just to insure 100% that there is going to be no long term risk from watching 3D for long periods (if it’s going to stay around). There seems to be some thought they’re may be some potential risk if 3D is over used, particularly the young but I have also read that it may help pick up any pre existing condition that would have normally been missed, which is a good thing! There is no doubt that it can cause headaches, eyestrain, even nausea as you watch the 3D sources but this goes when you stop viewing it, I myself suffer from this effect but I’ll leave that for 3D technology: a personal view. I would have thought the general advise though would be to not over use the technology and take regular breaks, as with any concentrated task such as VDU use, but that’s common sense surely?!