grantss

Philomena Cunk examines life and its meaning. By speaking to academics and other experts in their fields she looks at the big questions regarding life.

If you've watched Cunk on Earth you'll know what to expect: Philomena Cunk (Dianne Morgan) essentially asks absurdly silly but funny questions to some of the brightest people on the planet. If you've watched Da Ali G Show this will seem familiar as Cunk is derivative of that (and not as good).

However, despite not being entirely original it is pretty funny and entertaining. Dianne Morgan is great with spot-on timing.

Not as good as Cunk on Earth though. The set-ups are less intelligent, the humour cheaper and lower-brow and the experts less easily shocked.

Last time they seemed shocked at the silly questions but, to their credit, didn't lose their composure. Here they seemed to expect the silly questions (possibly they'd done their research and seen previous Cunk stuff) and rolled with it. Brian Cox, the eminent physicist, even seemed to be successfully anticipating where Cunk was going with her double entendre questions but played along anyway.

The story of Elizabeth Holmes and her company Theranos: how a medical innovation that was supposed to revolutionise healthcare turned out to be non-functional and fraudulent. We see the rise of Holmes and Theranos and how it all fell apart.

A quite eye-opening, riveting documentary, written and directed by Alex Gibney who gave us the documentary masterpieces 'Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room' and 'Mr. Dynamite: The Rise of James Brown' as well as several other great documentary movies and series.

Gibney skilfully sucks us into the Holmes/Theranos hype, showing how Holmes built up the company based on ideals and an honest belief that she was going to revolutionise healthcare. We see how she is feted by prestigious publications and how it appears her dream will come true. At a point the narrative is so engaging you want her to succeed, even though you know how things turn out.

We then see the downfall. Like many of these rise and fall narratives it's not a single moment where it all falls apart but an accumulation of events of a longish period of time. Most profoundly we get an insight into why it all happened. From the initial coverage I doubt that Holmes set out to create a fake product and defraud customers and investors: she genuinely thought she could deliver the product, even when progress significantly lagged vision her vision. The more things lagged, the harder it was to disclose that the product wasn't yet ready for production.

What's more, in her mind the goodness of her cause justified the lies she was telling and cover-ups she was involved in. However, this doesn't excuse her actions, just explains them.

Quite powerful and engrossing.

Long Island, 1937. Emily Boynton has, under dubious circumstances, just inherited her late husband's vast fortune, much to the dismay and suspicion of her child and step-children. To ease the tension she takes them on a holiday to Europe and the Holy Land. In Trieste they meet the famous Belgian detective Hercule Poirot and end up on the same ship as him, heading for the Holy Land. Ms Boynton rules the family with an iron fist and it is clear that she is not like by any of her children, step-children or children-in-law, all of whom stand to inherit vast amounts upon her death. Poirot suspects that the murder of Ms Boynton is imminent.

Based on an Agatha Christie novel and featuring an all-star cast, including Peter Ustinov in his sixth (and final) appearance as Hercule Poirot, you'd think this should be an easy slam-dunk. Yet the writers and director Michael Winner manage to turn this into something quite weak.

It starts badly enough. We spend the first 30 minutes or so following the irritating Boynton family around and being subjected to the ridiculous rants and controlling mannerisms of Emily Boynton. It feels a lot like a B-grade US TV movie or soap opera, complete with over-the-top melodrama and people shouting at each other all the time. It also turns out that the insufferability of American tourists is not a new thing...

If the intention of this was to introduce us to the family dynamic and show how despicable and despised Emily Boynton is, it worked. I kept hoping someone would kill her, and quickly.

Things get slightly better once Poirot appears as sub-plots begin to form but even here the usual quaintness, wordplay and intellect of Poirot seems subdued.

Once the murder occurs (which you have to wait a long time for), the intrigue picks up but once again things feel subdued. The writers and director did such a great job of portraying Emily Boynton as loathsome we don't care, feeling why bother looking for her murderer. There are some good Poirotisms towards the end though, reminding one of better Ustinov-Poirot movies.

Ultimately, however, the whole thing feels like a watered-down, B-grade TV movie.