One down, one to go

Centurion is the first of two films out this year taking is their premise the mysterious disappearance of the Ninth Legion in Scotland in the early part of the second century. The other is Kevin Macdonald's Eagle of the Ninth due later in the year. The fact that the 'disappearance' of the Ninth was probably down to a bureaucratic blunder rather than wholesale carnage doesn't seem to make a difference here.

The film is an unlikely choice for Neil Marshall on the back of cracking genre films such as Dog Soldiers and The Descent; however once you get into it the choice turns out not to be so surprising after all.

The period and location give Marshall another opportunity to do what he does best which is essentially a tense drama about a group of people banding together against an implacable enemy. In this case the small group is the remainder of the Ninth Legion - destroyed in a sequence of spectacular carnage - and the implacable foe are the Picts who are hunting them down. Apart from the setting it could just as easily pass as a Western in terms of its genre components.

The motley bunch feature some stirring performances especially from Michael Fassbender in the title role and the cosmopolitan nature of the Roman army is an opportunity to provide roles for Noel Clarke and Riz Ahmed; not the sort of actors you would rush to cast in a historical epic. Historically the film is a joke for reasons too many and tedious to go into here but Marshall's fans don't want historical accuracy.

What they want is gore and he delivers by the blood-filled bucket. All arrow strikes have to puncture eyes or heads; all sword strokes have to sever limbs, all spear thrusts have to transfix the victim, any blow to the head must result in decapitation and so on. Filmed in glorious HD it certainly makes for a very effective piece of genre cinema, if a little relentless.

One thing that does puzzle me are the ' fly through' titles and the extensive use of helicopter shots. I get the sense that someone somewhere might have thought about converting this to 3D but perhaps had a change of heart. Or it may just be that the possibility of an audience becoming used to 3D means directors are changing their visual thinking; either way it is not a welcome development.

24 no more...

The following takes place between 7.30 and 8.15 pm - well if you use the fast forward on Sky+ you can watch an episode of 24 in about 45 minutes - and is my first chance to catch up with 24 since the news of its cancellation broke last week. The series is to end after the current run - Day 8 in 24 chronology - and probably not before time.

Three or four times a series the producers will kick in a game changing episode and this week's comes into that category with a major gun battle, a crisis at CPU, some internecine wrangling with the NSA, and a surprise reveal at the end which should change things quite a lot.

That apart there is no getting away from the fact that this series has been running on fumes and there have been one or two episodes where literally nothing happens. The main plot - about a load of nuclear rods - is somewhat less than urgent and Jack seems more concerned about mooning around after FBI agent Renee Walker than denying bad guys their constitutional rights. Also, whisper it, Jack Bauer - to quote Danny Glover - is getting too old for this sh*t. He is a grandad now and the whole series takes place in the one day delay to his plans to go to Los Angeles and look after his granddaughter. Also the subsidiary story involving Katee Sackhoff and Freddie Prinze Jr is just embarrassingly bad, although that may change.

The producers are promising a slam bang finale for this series and I hope they live up to their word. 24 has been a great show, it broke the mould for episodic drama, it reflected a disturbing climate in US politics, and Jack Bauer is one of the great TV heroes. Let's hope he gets to go out taking names and kicking butt and not babysitting a grandchild.

Why won't people face reality about this show?

I've never quite got why people are so quick to dismiss the American version of The Office. The prevailing wisdom among the chattering classes is that it is a pale imitation of the genius that is Ricky Gervais. That is if you believe Gervais is a genius, as opposed to a short egocentric whose talent is being stretched to the point of transparency.

Gervais's version of The Office takes place in a paper company in Milton Keynes run by David Brent, a deluded autocrat with dreams of fame. The American version takes place in Scranton, Pennyslvania in the office of a paper company this time managed by Michael Scott, played by Steve Carrell. The UK version ran for two seasons and stopped, the US version is currently on season six although we are currently only up to Season Four here (ITV4, Mondays and Wednesdays).

Again the prevailing wisdom is that two seasons in the UK left us with a gem of comic brilliance in which Gervais and co exited at the top of their game leaving us wanting more. Wrong. Given that the US series shows no sign of dropping its quality in six series we can only assume that Gervais either got bored or ran out of ideas. The UK version of the show is an exercise in egocentricity; David Brent is not a character he is simply a collection of characteristics. The supporting cast, with the exception of Martin Freeman, Mackenzie Crook and Lucy Davis, merely stand around rolling their eyes or looking aghast at Brent's antics. It doesn't help that Gervais is a very limited actor.

The American show however is a masterpiece of ensemble comedy. Steve Carrell's Michael Scott is a touching buffoon with a completely rounded set of unrealistic hopes and dreams and thwarted ambitions. There are no background artists in this show, there is no one here to make the central character look good, they are all fully realised characters with storylines and internal lives that contribute to the overall narrative arc.

There really is no comparison between the two shows. The US version is far superior and illustrates that while in the UK we often have the better ideas, US television is structurally set up to get the best out of those ideas.

Dying is easy...

Richard Attenborough tells the story of the great character actor Edmund Gwenn - trivia buffs should note that both men played Santa Claus in separate versions of Miracle on 34th Street. Anyway Gwenn was on his deathbed and the family were gathering round to pay their respects. Among them was his small granddaughter who, when it was explained to her what has happening, had a question. 'Grandpa' she asked. 'Is dying difficult?' Gwenn thought for a moment before replying. 'No sweetheart,' he said. 'Dying is easy, comedy is difficult.'

And if you needed any proof of that you only have to look at Sandra Bullock's Best Actress Oscar for The Blind Side. When she went up to receive the trophy Bullock wondered aloud 'Did I earn this or did I just wear you down?' It's a nice self-deprecating line but there is more than a grain of truth in it.

Bullock is a gifted comedienne. She has been doing excellent work for years but because it was in films such as Demolition Man, Speed, While Y0u Were Sleeping, and Miss Congeniality - a seriously under rated performance - it attracted no attention whatsoever. However she does a drama and suddenly she is a contender; it was the same when she appeared in the ensemble cast of Crash.

Not having seen The Blind Side I may be doing Bullock a disservice but I'm guessing it is not a performance to make Meryl Streep consider her future career options. I'm sure it is a fine, effective performance but I am equally sure she has done better. It's just that comedy exists, along with a number of other genres, on the Academy's blind side. Perhaps the Academy should remember what Edmund Gwenn said and widen its horizons in future.