Reviews written by registered user
|9 reviews in total|
Having recently seen Elizabeth Debicki in The Night Manager, I was
looking forward to this apart from the constant barrage of advertising.
What a complete and utter disappointment. It started off quite well,
but then deteriorated pretty quickly and we just about struggled to
watch the 2-part premier to the end. We decided to give episode 3 a go,
but after 20 minutes or so gave up.
Australian productions like this often suffer from the Soap Syndrome, this is where most of the Australian actors earn there living. Their acting is usually wooden and there is often a "soap" moment at the end of a scene where the actors cast meaningful glances at each other. Elizabeth Debicki struggled with a script in which she spends most of the time walking around in a daze. Also a lot of time and camera work concentrates on the beautiful Tasmanian scenery, but you can get this from any good documentary. I am sure that anybody who liked this is a "Home and Away" fan.
I found this experience even more disappointing, because as an Australian, we just seem incapable of producing drama of the same quality of the BBC, ITV and occasionally the US networks.
We gave up watching this show around episode 6. Had high hopes when we started watching, but the storyline became so tedious that it was hard to stay awake. Production was good and the acting was fine although the characters became very irritating after awhile especially Danny with a cigarette permanently hanging from his lips - a donation to the production costs from Phillip Morris perhaps? There was also the predictability, as with many American TV series (the recent True Detective series is an exception) that we would be left hanging at the final episode to hook us to the inevitable Season 2. Whatever happened to a beginning middle and and ending with some closure? A good contrast is British television where the series are usually no more than 6 episodes and even if there is a second series you always get an ending - Good example is the recent Happy Valley series produced by the BBC.
I was actually looking forward to watching these series, but with so many US series it was an absolute load of rubbish. I cringed through the first inept episode and wondered if perhaps Phillip Morris had financed the show as everybody seemed to be smoking. I assume this will gain a following as it will appeal to the lowest common denominator while you are eating your pizza. I actually wanted to be succinct, but it seems IMDb really don't want this as they require at least 10 lines! So, I will continue ad nauseum until I reach the necessary quota. As I have only a few lines left, I would urge US based makers of TV series to go for quality programmes of no more than six episodes. Let's have a beginning, a middle and and end. A lot to ask I know considering the commercial imperatives on the makers of such shows. But until they do we will be served up with the same mundane rubbish with a few exceptions. Look at the quality drama that comes from the UK and other European countries and hopefully learn.
The US version of House of Cards is a classic example of how to totally
ruin what was an excellent 4 part British series from the 90s. I
actually lasted to episode 9 after admittedly falling asleep a couple
of times, but the tedium just got too much for me and I totally gave
First of all the good points (or should I say "point"), which was the acting primarily from Kevin Spacey. The biggest failure was trying to convert what was a thrilling, engrossing, tight and well paced 4 episode series into an unbelievable 13 episodes. I understand that revenue and profit is a driver for US networks, but this was absolutely ridiculous and typical of US made for TV series which just go on and on. I assume that the "second series" based on To Play the King is in the wings and I fully expect this to be as mind numbingly boring.
I am sure we all remember the travesty of Dick Van Dyke's attempt at a
cockney accent in Mary Poppins? It seems that Don Cheadle went to the
same school of acting and continually confused an Australian accent
with cockney. Why on earth bother, and why did they not employ a real
Londoner (cockneys very hard to find now) who would at least be
credible? I know this film is over 10 years old and maybe things have
improved, but just needed to vent my spleen. The movie is however very
watchable and apart from the aforementioned, there are good
performances by all
Need another few lines, so only reason watching now this is that we just came back from Las Vegas and spent a happy evening at the Bellagio. Also interesting to know that George Clooney has a villa close to Bellagio on Lake Como in Italy.
Unlike the majority of reviewers, I found this movie extremely hard
going and verging on the boring. After about an hour, and after almost
dropping off, we had just had enough and had to go.
The plot has been thoroughly described in other reviews, and I am glad to say we missed the weepy parts, but if I were asked for one word to describe what we saw, it would be "ponderous". Why George Clooney is so highly thought of totally beats me as he is very one dimensional and almost exactly the same character in every film I see him in. I often wonder if he was not so photogenic, would he have had the success he has had?
I grew up in Poplar in the 50s where this series is supposedly based
and I do remember the district nurses and mid-wives riding around on
their bikes. However, the representation of the East End of London was
so poorly done and the acting so poor, that I shall not watch another
The depiction of houses almost in the docks was silly and although there were some streets where you could see ships docked, nobody actually lived that close to actually see the docks or the river from where they lived. Also, I never ever saw washing strung out across the street, most people had back-yards for this and apartment blocks in Poplar at that time were few. The people were also badly portrayed, there were of course some "dodgy" characters but most people were very friendly and at that time there was a real sense of community, sadly destroyed by the later council developers.
The other thing that didn't come through is that during the mid to late 50s the East End was quite prosperous, lots of jobs about especially in the docks where most of the male side of my family worked including my Father who was a Lighterman.
It seems that there is very little middle ground from other reviewers,
this film seems to generally either hated or loved. I am firmly on the
latter side and thoroughly enjoyed this movie which is based on a very
good children's book by Michael Morpugo. Yes it is sentimental in
parts,but what's wrong about that? On the other side it also brings
home the horrors of trench warfare and the overall futility of WW1
which is nicely contrasted with Devon country life in the early 1900s.
It is a superbly made film - would you expect anything else from Spielberg? and I agree with all the positive comments made in other reviews. A film that is sure become a classic.
This movie was pretty awful. Woody Allen would obviously have loved to play the male lead but as he is nearing his dotage he seems to have made Owen Wilson into a clone of himself. Obviously a problem for Owen as he in turn tries very hard to be the 21st Century's answer to Jimmy Stewart. The movie as a whole was very predictable with lots of silliness including time traveling back to the 20s and late 1800s and being able to pay for dinner/drinks, I would love to see the face of a 1920s waiter when you offered to pay him in Euros! The saving grace was the shots of Paris and Versailles which I enjoyed. However I think time for Woody to hang up his directing boots