Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

SnoopyStyle This is the UK version of the popular American TV show. It's a police and legal procedural dealing with both ends of the prosecution. It takes place in London. The police side is anchored by senior Detective Sergeant Ronnie Brooks (Bradley Walsh). Matt Devlin (Jamie Bamber) is his younger partner and has been replaced with others. The legal team has also changed over the years.The Law & Order franchise was losing steam in America by the time it made the trip across the Atlantic. There isn't anything particularly new or special. In fact, many of the episodes are copied from the American show. It's a functional show but one that feels like a copy with different accents. This needs to dive into British society much more. It needs to be ripped from the headlines of the London tabloids.

ianlouisiana Let me from the start declare the breadth of my ignorance of U.S. cop shows.I have never seen the original "Law and Order" nor any of the "CSI" or "NCIS" series nor any combination thereof. I came to "Law and Order - U.K."with no preconceived ideas,no knowledge of the format therefore nothing to compare it with. The first thing that struck me was the ludicrous juxtaposition of the separate functions of the police and the C.P.S. In England the police are not the lackeys of the Proecutors,they do the investigating,compile the evidence,submit it to the C.P.S. in a so - called "Soup Report".The function of the C.P.S. at this stage is to decide whether there is a realistic chance of getting a conviction i.e. a 75% or more likelihood of convincing a jury of the accused's guilt. If this criterion is met a prosecution may go ahead presuming it is in the Public Interest to do so. The C.P.S. do not investigate - they prosecute.They rarely consult officers of such low rank as D.S.Brooks.Rarely see victims or their relatives,grieving or otherwise.Never plot revenge if a villain gets a "Not Guilty". The real life consequences of such a verdict are diametrically opposite to the ones in "Law and Order - U.K." The Prosecutors are philosophical and blase - it is the police who get outraged.And who can blame them if all their hard work for months has counted for nothing;the painstaking gathering of evidence,the coaxing of witnesses,the arrogance of the "No Comment" interview,the distress of the victims,they see all of this made worthless by some obscure technical point of law or the machinations of a weasel lawyer and they are mightily annoyed. That D.S.Brooks should smile and shrug it off is quite unthinkable. I knew a D.S. of about his age who would throw his papers on the desk in disgust and stomp out of the court whenever he lost a case.That's how much it should mean.Brooks should offer more than a wink and a smile and a "That's life",he really should.He and his oppo seem do to a lot of walking too,don't the C.I.D. run to motors nowadays?I suppose it's an excuse to show the scuzzier side of Sarff London,but I bet he still claims his Car Allowance..... Despite all this,"Law and Order - U.K." is compulsive viewing.Two reasons.First the inspired casting of Mr Bradley Walsh and Mr Bill Paterson,the only believable characters in the show.They act their respective juniors off the screen with absolutely no effort.And secondly the care with which the minor parts are cast.Too often these are the province of "resting" soap veterans,but L & O has a habit of using new faces that is very refreshing. It's entertaining if you don't know how the system really works,annoying if you do,but Messrs Walsh and Paterson are worth an hour of anybody's time.

scorpiocat I haven't yet decided, as a huge L&O fan, if this stands up to scrutiny. Firstly, the characters. Bradley's seems an Anglicised version of the wonderful Lenny Briscoe, and Bill's seems entirely based on Jack McCoy. The acting has been of a better standard than I expected, and the 'formula' has been followed.I agree with Greg Noel and maybe some others that the plot for the second episode was directly lifted from the original episode of L&O "Born Bad", and the first episode also seemed strangely familiar in plot. Having just seen episode 3, it's another complete copy of an episode from the original series.I had hoped that it was not going to be a regular occurrence. As it would appear that this is the case, sadly I will be turning off, until there are newly written episodes, instead of rehashed ones.I really,really hate repeats, and this is almost as bad as a repeat!

Greg Noel Ripped from the Headlines, those of TV Guide....The most recent episode is based on a Law & Order episode from 1993, Born Bad. One of the things about the original series was that it took headlines, made them culminate into a homicide, and then adapted them into the bifurcated form we all know.Not sure if this recycling is to be standard, but you would think that the first episodes would be wholly weaved from new cloth.Shame, it is. I do like the cast, including the under-rated Bill Paterson, and Jamie Bamber with his native accent ( never understood why BSG, though excellent, has a Galaxy completely dominated by American accents ), all capped off by a sound and attractive job done by Freema Agyeman.