Reviews

23 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
it's so bad that is good
7 May 2022
I'll give credit is due and that is the film cinematography, the cars and the scenery....but that's it.

The film is basically a combination a pop music video and montages of who knows what. The way it was filmed you could tell it the production was under COVID 19 restrictions hence the poorly disguised sets and lack of people except in the ballroom scene. Now there is a "plot" that is so thin that a gust of breeze can blow it away.

The characters are unlikeable...yes very unlikable and Laura is spoilt woman, the guy playing Massimo can't act and the rival is weird and I mean weird. What him act around his "sister", I dunno it it's a Poiish or European or Italian or Sicillan thing but it's pretty creepy .

BUT the film is bad it's good because it's a comedy.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Wasn't as bad as people say
11 October 2019
Firstly the Dark Phoenix is one of the best comic book stories in all of X-Men history, and it is a ballsy move for 20th Century Fox studios to make this movie. the story line for the Dark Phoenix movie is simple and uncomplicated. This will definitely annoy people who need to know the ins and outs of every reason way this happening. And the dialogue can be ...well....written better, alas the actors did the best they can with what material was given to them

Secondly, the movie itself is not as bad people make it out to be, it's entertaining and has great special effect. Simon Kinberg, director, is obviously an X-men fan, because there are glimpses of his vision for this movie. For whatever reason, this movie is not what the X-men fans wanted. Still it is a great movie and highly entertaining.

Thirdly, hand down, this movie has the best use of X-Men powers...the train sequence is superb. Whoever dreamt up the train sequence with mutants using their powers in unique was, is brilliant. Whether the characters are good or bad, X Men movies always have a team effort when fighting and using each others powers.

Finally, Michael Fassbender is exceptionally good as Magneto (as always) as is James McAvoy. Sophie Turner is mediocre as Jean Grey and I did not buy the romance between Jean Grey and Scott Summers.

The backlash to this movie is odd, because Star Wars: The Last Jedi....again a similar story of girl (Rey) with mutant powers...is 1000% than any blockbuster movie and those who like The Last Jedi over The Dark Phoenix should be banished from good society.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
That's once creepy doll.
4 August 2019
Firstly, David F Sandberg is living the dream - a Youtuber who made short films now directs a Hollywood movie for Warner Bros. Can't get any better than that, and in Annabelle Creations, it is event what Warner Bros. why they chose Sandberg.

Although the budget was estimated $15 million, looks top notch. It was a refreshing change to the norm of the modern standard junk horror film. It is reminiscent of horror films of the 70's and 80's were the use of sound design and cinematography is put to good use to create an atmosphere of suspense. James Wan is exceptionally good at this which is evident in The Conjoining (2013).

Basically it is Annabelle Creation is a haunted house story with a demon, but is directed in a way that is creative and enjoyable. And yes, it is enjoyable. The story is straight forward, focusing on the friendship of 2 girls; what tears they apart is pure evil.

The cast is exceptionally.. The adults actors Miranda Otto,Anthony LaPaglia and Stephanie Sigman were brilliant although this must be, by far, Miranda Otto's easiest acting gig yet - all she had to do is pretty much lie in bed or turn up when her scene was ready. An young Lulu Wilson will be one to watch, she is simply amazing as Linda

Lastly, the demon was not discriminating with its victim. it picked out the most likeliest, curiously stupid girl character in the bunch of orphan girls who go to the

Now for the negatives - way too many jump scares in the first act. It's annoying and it's a ploy too many 2nd rate horror directors use to create a scare.

Next, the decisions made by some of the characters, for example a person is killed in the most unnatural and gruesome way and the sister said let's get ready for bed? Really? I'd screaming at the cops to take me with them. Another dumb decision is a ghost is standing in front of Janice, in sheets, and she just stands here....No screaming, no yelling nothing and them she goes back, the next night for more....why?

Now although the Annabelle is a freaky looking doll, she essentially does nothing, the demon pretty much does everything. So yeah, Annabelle is lazy - Chucky had to work for his living.

In conclusion, Annabelle Creation is a hell of a lot more better than it's predecessor. I'd recommend anyone to watch it, as part of The Conjuring University. And at the end. there is an ingenious method of tying up Annabelle Creation to Annabelle (2014)

******side note****watch until the end to see a sneak peak to the next movie in The Conjuring University - The Nun (2018)
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Annabelle (I) (2014)
5/10
Too many jump scares
29 July 2019
Whilst the storyline premise itself was unusual, it was shot exceptionally well and the cinematography was great. BUT the whole movie was predictable, with shots set up to scare people and Annabelle is just plain lazy.

For example for some oddball reason, the husband gifts his pregnant wife the most ugliest and freakishly creepy looking of dolls - Annabella. Yeah that's right - the husband brings evil into his loving family home and the wife places the doll, front and centre in their child's nursery.....why?

Sadly, it has too many jump scares in this movie. In the end I just said to hell with it and watched it with captions and on mute. The characters were making stupid choices where I just couldn't give a rats about them.

Is Annabelle a better movie than The Conjuring? The answer is NO. The Conjuring is a far more superior movie. Still if you want to watch all the movies in the Conjuring universe, Annabelle is a must watch movie.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The final in a Trilogy....really?
21 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a typical young adult entertainment movie adaptation, much in the vein of The Hunger Games Series and the Divergent Series, where it is set in a post-apocalyptic future. It is however, a hell of a lot better than Twilight.

The plot is actually the government aka WICKED searching for a cure, which turns the population into zombies, very smellier to the Resident Evil movies. BUT the subplot is Thomas and Co. searching for his buddy who is locked in a corporate city/lab, is the actual plot...go figure.

There are some good acting and touching moments, like a lost love romance, questions of morally, losing friendships and loved one. What lets this movie down is that there is no emotional connection to the character to even care about them. It's like a soulless juggernaut.

Maze Runner: The Death Cure is beautifully shot with great scenes, which you notice like in the church interrogation scene with Gally. The lighting is masterful and the acting is pretty good. Hopefully Dylan O'Brien would go onto greater roles in his character. There are glimpses of his acting ability but the role of Thomas is boring. Thomas never really grows as a character and his remains pretty much the same as he was in the first Maze Runner movie.

Trivia note: Wes Ball directed all 3 Maze Runner trilogy movies, which is great because the movie is consistent in it's tone, action, feel and look. The production value is worth every dollar and topnotch action sequences.

On a serious note, Dylan O'Brian (who played Thomas) was seriously injured when performing a stunt during the production of the movie, and he was hospitalized. It turned out the injury was life threatening and the whole production shut down for 2-3 months.

Overall: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS MOVIE? This movie is an extremely slow burner, which takes a while to get to the actual point, hence why the plot is stretched paper-thin. It is predictable with awful dialogue. By The way this movie is terrifically filled every movie cliché.

MY WHAT THE MOMENT: ** SPOILER**: The beginning of the movie starts with Thomas and this friends hijacking a train car of teenagers who are immune to the Flare. They hitch a train car with wires from a plane they stole from WICKED. These wires are winched up to the belly of the plane. At the end of the movie, an injured Thomas and Teresa are at the top of the roof of a burning building. They can't go back and they can't go down, chaos is all around them, then like Bishop from Aliens, Thomas's friends show up with the stolen plane but instead hovering and opening the winch and lowing the cables to help Thomas and Teresa, they open the back doors....There is equipment in the plane like wires, rope, cargo netting etc. to help this rescued attempt. Those who seen the movie would know what I going on about.

Would I recommend this movie? Yes whilst it is a lack lustre movie, it is better than the 50 Shades of Grey movie and it would be great to watch if you wanted to fall asleep within 15 minutes of watching this movie.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ghost Rider (2007)
8/10
Great fun with no expectations
31 March 2018
If only Columbia Pictures and it's associated studios could have waited and made this film after Deadpool (2016) and Logan (2017). This movie should of been rated "R", with all the blood, gore, violence, sex and filled with every curse word under the sun and blessed with a solid storyline and exceptional director. Nevertheless, whilst it is cheesy, with poor dialogue, a God awful script and the plot is pretty basic, it is actually an enjoyable film.

The Good: (1) The Special Effects for the Ghost Rider. Whenever he is on screen, blazing on his motor cycle with his flaming skull, the film picks 10 fold. The part where he jumps of the skyscraper or when Cage morphs to the ghost rider is fantastic. But those parts are far and few between in the film. (2) The A-grade actors in a (essentially) B-grade film. What this means is, there are a number of surprisingly good actors ( Nicholas Cage as Johnny Blaze and Eva Mendes as Roxanne, Sam Elliot as the Caretaker) which bring their all to a poor script. Yes the dialogue is laughable when it is delivered, but that is what makes it so enjoyable. Raquel Alessi could easily have been a Eva Mendes younger twin sister. (3) The Western tones interwoven in the film is great.

The Bad: (1) The villains are so weak. Peter Fonda as the Devil gets a pass. Only because it's really good to see him on screen. BUT Wes Bentley, as main nemesis Blackhearts should of walked when he read the script. He has some of the movies worst dialogue. Sadly, unlike Cage and Mendes, he simply does not have the "knack" for delivery and his lines are dreadfully executed. (2) People who put a lot of themselves in film usually indicate they love the source material, so it is very difficult to understand if Mark Steven Johnson was either a writer/director with no balls to stand up to the studios or it was simply a job to him, (3) The plot is a no brainer. Boy loves girl. Boy mets Devil. Boy makes a deal with the Devil. Boy loses Girl. Boy becomes a flaming skull. Boy meets girl again. Thankfully the Ghost Rider, is a marginally better written script, then most Hollywood blockbusters such as Star Wars:The Clone Wars.

The Ugly: (1) The biggest problem is Nicholas Cage as Johnny Blaze. In a nutshell....he was cast wrong. Look a the actor Matt Long who played an 18 year old Johnny Blaze to then 42 year old Johnny Blaze played by Nicholas Cage. The film really is asking a lot for the audience to believe they are the same person.

Don't over analyse the film too much, because it create lofty expectations. Films like the Ghost Rider is a guilty pleasure, with great action, a uncomplicated plot and exceptional special effects. Hopefully this franchise gets a robot in the future and upgraded to "R" rating. PS: was going to grade the film at 7 BUT that awesome soundtrack song at the end credits by Spiderbait reworking the song "Ghost Riders in the Sky" pushed it to 8
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Watched it without any expectations
12 March 2018
Having seen the original anime movie years ago and watching this movie, starring Scarlet Johanson, I found them both to be on same level, with the live action marginally better. I do applaud the movie director Rupert Sanders and the writers Jamie Moss, William Wheeler, and Ehren Kruger, for having the balls to remake a anime into live action.

A Ghost in the Shell is based on the Japanese manga of the same name by Masamune Shirow and it is not just any anime but one of the holy grails of anime. And thank God, it is as good as it is. Any anime/Manga film brought to life by an American production is scary. Translating Japanese philosophy to Western ideals on the big screen has been littered with awful, vomit pucking horrors-just the mere mention of the live action abomination Dragonball Z still is a shuddering thought.

The 2017 live action films Ghost In The Shell stars Scarlett Johansson, Takeshi Kitano, Michael Pitt, Pilou Asbæk, Chin Han and Juliette Binoche,set in a near future when the line between humans and robots is blurring, the plot follows the Major (Johansson), a cyborg supersoldier who investigates her past.

Now the The Good ** Visual: Visually this movie is stunning. Each frame of film is filled with visual delights that reminded me of the original film. ** Costume: Costume design is almost as good as the Fifth Element. Very textual but mixed with edgy cyber-punk. ** Lighting: It is top notch lighting. from the opening shot to the street life and dark underworld ** Cinematography: Who ever is in charge of Cinematography should be awarded an oscar or at least a million dollars. This film has most spectacular cinematography to date, near duplicating Masamune Shirow original world of Ghost in the Shell. ** Production design: breathtaking comes to mind ** Sound Design: thumbs up!!!! listen to the creative mecca of sound poured thought the movie. ** Music: I really don't know if the original score is better or the live action score is above. But it does fit in this universe of Masamune Shirow. Upon watching the film a second time, I loved this score!!! ** Special Effects: Two words - BLOODY MAGNIFICENT!!!! ** Takeshi Kitano: legendary Japanese actor/director : can it get any better. Watch Hana-bai to appreciate his talent. Loved how he was the only character that spoke Japanese while other spoke English.

Now the The Okay ** Scarlet Johansson: I couldn't give two rats if Major was an asian actress or not. Scarlet Johansson did what she could with the script. Many have trashed her performance and found her portrayal of Major dull and soulless. I, on the other hand, enjoyed her performance to some degree. There is a real sense of conflict and internal struggle when she notices thing in her past that are affecting the present. Overall I would rather Scarlet Johansson's Major any day over the Disney's Know-it-all Daisy Ridley portrayal of "Rei". ** The Tone: Unlike many other films the tone of the film does not shift and remains the same. It not a good thing nor is it a bad thing. It would of been jarring if there was an overly sense of humour thorough the film like Guardians of the Galaxy. ** The Story: Very much like the original it was very linear and did not have any expected plot twists ** Pacing: I admit I did get a bit bored in the second act for about 10 minutes. I cannot pin point why. I can only put it to pacing.

Now the Bad ** The Villain: very one dimensional character. Basically like any other corporate guy with a big ego and a hidden agenda. The secondary villain isn't all that omnipotent and god-like; more of a passing thought really. ** It's too clean!!!! It lacked the grittiness, slums and grime of the original film. It was just too clean with no garbage, rats running around, alley cats and dirt. It had a look of cleanliness (very much like Star Trek). I get it is not like the original animated movie,, but I found it a tad too sterile and not at all solid, down-to-earth and textual.

Unlike many of the critics or reviewers, I did not delve too deeply into this film. I watched it with out any expectations. My best advise is to watch it. If you like then you like it. If you don't , then you don't. Have an open mind and have no expectations.
22 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Just an OK movie
1 October 2017
Where do I begin? Lets start with the good stuff... Firstly there is the music score by Danny Elfman gets a big stamp of approval.(barely). Secondly, Cimentogrphy by Seamus McGarvey was fantastic and beautiful. And lastly, the over all Style of the film with production design was sleek. So what was the issue. It is in my opinion:

CONTROL: the author E.L. James massive ego killed it for me. It is very difficult to translate a book to film successfully but it can be done. Schindler's List, Gorilla's in the Mist, The Great Gatsby, Silence of the Lambs and Atonement to name a few. But with this film it's did not come across. And this is a prime example of the author, E.L. James having too much control on the source material. Whenever the film tries to be a movie because somethings in novels cannot be translated into a visual medium, E.L.James practically chokes it back to a novel format. Slap my forehead, Fifty Shades has the full symptoms of The Phantom Menace. We've seen this happen with George Lucas controlling influences and his team of "yes" people

CASTING: the two main leads Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornam; two good looking people who "should" have and can act. But in Fifty Shades of Grey they both look like this is their first acting job. There was no soul or believable in the characters of Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele. So it comes down to casting. If the leads are right..like Clarke Gable and Vivien Leigh in Gone With The Wind..the film can be good. And sometimes exception, for example, Lord Of the Ring trilogy.

WRITING (SCRIPT). The story is very simplistic. Boy meets girl. Fall in love and they go through the tribulations of a relationship. But likes kinky stuff, girl doesn't like it but she has hit the jackpot. She has successfully nabbed a billionaire. So she goes along with it. Script is so bad that a 5 year old could of written it better. And it has E.L. James in the writing credits. A middle age woman with no previous experience as a film writer. There are parts where you get the feeling something is right, or important information for the audience are glossed over. Scenes that need further exploration are abruptly ended. Dialogue is stiff and goes into the territory of...oh God help us...yep...Daytime television.

CHARACTERS:. Ana is poorly develops, weak and needs a man to rescue her. She has no ambitions a of a modern woman, no driving force that motivates her to follow her destiny. NOTHING!!! No interest, no hobbies, no backbone. Christian JUST is dull and boring. A handsome man with absolutely no real character arc. Is he arrogant? NO Is he an interesting person? NO Does he go through life changing events in the movie which affect him and Ana, he grows and become a different person. But do we get this on screen. NOPE the audience has been ripped off. Christain is the same person as he is in the beginning. Think about, what truly changed him as a character, what event categorically changed the fundamentally of this character. And there it is again, what were all the characters motivations in this movie? Sadly all the characters lacked connectivity with the audience and came across as fake.

I don't want to trash Fifty Shades of Grey like many critics and reviewers, because honestly, we've seen worst. I will say this is an OK movie not a masterpiece.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ring (2002)
6/10
Great story but.....
1 October 2017
Gonna keep this short. What the Japanese version Ringu (1998), the meaning of water for Japanese people, the way it was shot, symbolism and the over all plot development is, to this day, is phenomenal. Dated yes, but can stand up on its'own.

Sadoko in the Japanes version is just freaking scary. Those who have seen it, know the well scene can scare the living daylights out of viewers.

Nevertheless credit is due to the American version where the lead female character Rachel, played out by Naomi Watts is more fleshed out and modernized. This may be a cultural thing, but the Japanese Reiko Asakawa comes across as submissive to her male counterpart.

The ring a a great movie and the pacing is well constructed, but if you have seen the Japanese film first, than you may end up not liking this film.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great story
18 September 2017
MlFantastic Beast and Where to find them is directed by David Yates, who directed Harry Potter and the order of the Pheonix (2007), Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince (2009) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1 (2010) and part 2 (2011). Which goes a long way as David Yates is very familiar with Harry Potter.

This movie has a stellar cast of talented people. Eddie Redmayne, Ezra Miller, Samantha Morton, Jon Voight, Colin Farrell and Dan Folger.

The academy award for costume is well deserved. Look at how the costumes not only enhance the actors' performance in their gesture, moment, and posture. And the textures and colours of the 1920 costumes look at authentic and pleasing.

Don't go to watch this film as you would a Harry Potter movie. I personally found this movie far more entertaining than Harry Potter movies. Go watch it. If you like it good but if you do not then..hey. it is okay.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Yawn...sorry did I miss something?
22 July 2016
Where do I start with this film?

Over all the film had all the elements for truly memorable film: right cast, perfect script, fantastic costume, production design excellent, the locations were superb and lighting was perfection. The whole movie visually looked like a painting and it felt so wonderful. The Director Tom Hooper and writer David Seidler (screenplay) at the helm of the movie production what could go possible go wrong?

Well the trailer did what it was suppose to it-to draw you in and make you want to watch this film. It has sense of intelligence, of being a great movie based on a true story along the lines of The Kings Speech (2010). Einar Wegener / Lili Elbe played by Eddie Redmayne, was the first transgender to have a sex reassignment surgery. His story dealt with prejudice, acceptance, and biases in the 1930's.

What the Hell happened? The pacing made me want to fall asleep, its as simple as that. This film was put me to sleep. I could not connect with any of the actors on film. Einar Wegener / Lili Elbe came across to me like a selfish douche bag and kept on crying and crying. My God how He/She cried and I get it he/she is insensitive but for God sakes grow a backbone! My pet cat is tougher than the Einar Wegener / Lili Elbe.

Alicia Vikander plays Gerda Wegener, the wife and to me she was the only realistic person in the film and even then, she doesn't get enough credit. She is the most supportive film character throughout the entire movie and the wanna be transgender husband is so caught up in his own dramas that when she asked for a bit of emotional support he/she just doesn't care.

So, I wonder if the film would be better if they actually cast a transgender actor in the lead rather than a Caucasian male playing a transgender, much like Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club (2013).
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
OMG it's mediocre Star Wars: The Mary Sue Awakens!
3 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I waited for it come out on home rental markets; for that I am grateful I had the foresight to do so. I WAS BORED OUT OF MY FRIGGIN' MIND!!!.

Here's the good points: good action sequences, sound and noise crew did a fantastic job and set design. A thumbs up for the special effects and Kylo Ren stopping a blaster shot in mid air. Now for the bad points: MISSED OPPORTUNITY: Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) they never together in a single scene. What the HELL!!! It has been rumoured that director JJ Abrams and his team of writers wanted to audience to focus on the new character. And they had absolutely no idea what to do with Luke Skywalker that they his appearance at the end with no dialogue? Because they feared audiences would focus on Luke and not the new character. An iconic character and legendary Jedi Master is reduced to a cameo because they lacked the balls and imagination to let Mark Hamill be Luke? Shame on you Disney.

SCRIPT: lazy writing of the dialogue and plot. The lack lustre plot is a direct plagiarism of A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. There is no original thought of a new story- it's wasted opportunity to individualise The Force Awakens. Nothing is explained about the First Order, no exposition to the audience on how the Star Destroyer was built without anyone knowing about it. But hey, read about it in the novels, comics etc. Sadly, it is ,obviously, a Disney production of a movie that has $$$ for merchandise, capitalising on the nostalgia of the Star Wars movies- A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

ORIGINALITY: forget originality for interesting aliens creatures. Costumes (Han is wearing the same clothes as in SW4. Ray is dressed like in flowing feminine clothes in the desert planet Arrakis, sorry I mean Tatooine,er sorry Jakku. It's amazing she has not been overpowered and/or stunned by raiders and sexually violated and/or sold as a sex slave. Her costume should be a practical and hide her curses, like Arya Stark in Game of Throne . AND can we please have a strong female lead character like Ahsoka Tano in The Clone Wars?. Bare bones of any character are and many question leaving you with blue balls. Ship designs are ok but nothing special.

CHARACTERS: no development or likability in the leads and supporting character (both real and CGI). Look at the 4 main ones-

(1) MARY SUE: It took Luke Skywalker time as an apprentice to learn all about the force, how to use it, how to use a lightsaber and to be a jedi master. In The Empire Strikes Back Yoda warned Luke not to go to save his friend because his training is incomplete - Luke goes and gets beaten by Darth Vader.

Rey learns the force, wield a lightsaber like a pro in 2 minutes, fight and overpowers an experience Forced user(Kylo Ren), is an expert with the Jedi mind tricks, can fly the Millinium Falcon better than Han, knows everything without being trained AND understands droids and Chewie! What is unbelievable is there is no subtle hints that, Rey is Force user let alone seen anyone use it. She a desert scavenger with limited knowledge BUT can do everything. Thing are handed to her for plot convenience. Rey is a Mary Sue - a character who is perfect at everything which makes it very hard to like. By the way Daisy Ridley acting is mediocre. IF I WANTED TO WATCH A KNOW-IT-ALL person, I would go to work because there are dozens wannabes there. Also Daisy Ridley needs to learn to close her mouth when acting, cause it's distracting.

(2) THE PROTAGONIST: actor Adam Driver is good actor (better than Daisy Ridley) but Kylo Ren is poorly written character. He has a mask on for no apparent reason, whinges all the time, damaged property, kills/harms his own men and has anger management issues. Kylo Ren has no menacing presence compared to Vader. AND how did he get Darth Vader's mask? Was it not burnt on the funeral prye in Return of the Jedi. Kylo Ren real named Ben Solo. WHY? Obi-Wan Kenobie (Ben) never had a connection with Leia. Han never actually, spent time with Obi-Wan in a New Hope. So it would make more sense if Luke had children to name of of them after his first mentor.

However this movie should be about Kylo Ren's and not Rey. How he got seduced to the dark side, why he is conflicted, show why the the Knight of Ren faithfully follow him. He is by far the most interesting character in the film, despite his EMO ways.

(3) TOKEN: Finn,played by John Boyega, bad casting, is just a token black person in the movie. Did you ever wonder if this movie would of been different if the character was Asian looking or a female from another planet? Finn is a low level sanitation worker who just happens to knows plans on how to defeat the Star Destroyer? He whines all the time, a coward and is immediately friend zoned by Rey. This sweaty character should of died in the desert from lack of water and heat exhaustion.

(4) WASTE: Poe is a soulless character. Lets forget him.

TONE: the movies Tone changes way too fast. JJ Abrams doesn't know who to capture somber moment For example in beginning a village is destroyed, Max Von Sydow is killed, Poe is captured and brought before Kylo Ren. Poe makes a joke - villagers are murdered and there is humour? Finn and Poe are best pals at the end but Poe killed Finns friend in the beginning?

INJUSTICE: Leia needs a map to find him? WHY...they are connected. Leia is Force sensitive and Luke's twin. It would make sense for Leia to learn about the Force and it's powers, thus be MORE connected to her twin brother. Unfortunately the kick- arse, flawed, headstrong, no nonsense princess is a delegated to be a side lined cheerleader boring General. Why are Leia and Han portrayed as poor parents? Sadly Han Solo killed by his EMO son, surrounded by strangers, but there is no small emotional scene with Chewbacca. Leia immediately hugs Rey after Han dies but no moment with BFF Chewie. Bad ass Chewie is treated worse than any other OT characters, he is just a walking carpet for Disney to wipe their feet.

PLOT ARMOUR: all the character, with the exception of Han Solo and expendable extras, have an iron cast plot armour. Not once did it feel like the actors were in serious trouble or could die at any given moment....oh yeah let's not forget Rey is on the sidelines to save the day...again.

MUSIC: THE MOST ICONIC SCORE IN FILM HISTORY IS REDUCED TO WHITE NOISE. There is no emotional connection to melodies except Reys theme. Disney made an error not to allow John Williams do his magic within the time he were given. Remembers, in SW4, Luke looking at the suns on Tattoine and the music swelling up or the Imperial March. The Forces Awakens score is just OK. It isn't great, memorable and uplifting, it is just OK.

HOPEFUL: Disney to do a SW movie based on the online game The Old Republic. Look on Youtube and search for The Old Republic clips "Betrayed" "Return", "Hope" and "Knight of the fallen empire". But it is dubious Disney will do justice to the "Old Republic", based on the crap by JJ Abrams...

I could go on and on about this, but I am so tired of this movie that I'm gonna watch something else. Maybe Spongebob Square pants or something along those lines
21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Relax, it's entertainment
3 July 2016
Yes, this is an odd ball of a movie, but nevertheless very entertaining...if you can bend your mind to your imagination and view this as simple entertainment. This is no Schindler's List (1993) or an epic movie like Gone With The Wind (1939).

What this movie has is: (1) Far better acting and script writing and witty dialogue then 50 Shades of Grey(2015). Ask yourself this, if your were drunk, would you want to watch a dull BDSM movie or a kick arse zombie movie? (2) Cinematography: just watch the camera as it has those wide shots of the English manors. Visually the movie well crafted. (3) Cast: Lily James, Sam Riley, Lena Headey and Charles Dance (taking a break from the Game Of Thrones set), and Matt Smith. Good acting and nicely timed comic relief. AND I might add all the actors have not lost the personality of the P&P characters. (4) This is the 3rd P&P adaption in which the P&P cast closely matched the age of the P&P in the books. (the other two being Pride and Prejudice (2005) and Lost in Austin (2008)). (5) Costume: very authentic, however the costume Julian Day designer did do a nice job of blending the period ensemble with practical "modern" updates. Seriously I ain't fight zombies in empire style dress without my leather jeans underneath my skirts? (6) Sets and Location: The movie could of skimped on the location and made sets, but the producers didn't. The sets are real and they give the movie a more realistic look. (7) Audiences need to look at the Lighting in this movie. How the candle light flickers across the actors faces, the contrast between shadows in a room. Watch the dungeon scene where Lizzy and Jane are practicing and check out the blues and whites in the room contrasting with the black/gray shadows.

I have read the harsh criticism of reviews, and having seen the movie, it did not faze me one bit. I really found myself thoroughly enjoying myself. I am very glad I did not waste my money on this movie. It provided light entertainment, romance, chemistry between the leads actors is wonderfully balanced and yes.....Lena Headey.

So why 10 out of 10 rating....because I can.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
12 Minutes Of Bored To Death
1 May 2016
My God, how the Hell can any anyone give this movie anything above 1 star let alone Oscars. This has to be the most hyped up, BS, dribble drooling, crap I've ever seen. People and critics alike are stating it's the best thing that ever happened since sliced bread...really?

12 years as a Slave is over melodramatic, lacking historical context and quite simply boring as hell. This movie lacked soul and plays on the heart string of anyone who ever was a sucker for such BS dribble.

It's not the actors fault this movie sucked. It had exceptional actors: Michael Fassbender,Benedict Cumberbatch , Paul Giamatti and Brad Pitt. A stellar line up expect for Lupita Nyong'o AND SHE WON THE Oscar FOR HER PERFORMANCE. She was the weakest of the cast and her acting was over dramatic to the point of nausea. Truly I dare you to compare the scene where she is being punished with the whip to Denzel Washington's performance in Glory (1989) and seriously think who truly deserved that golden midget statue?

Chiwetel Ejiofor, as Solomon is mis-casted as the lead. His character really doesn't develop much, which is the reason the audience don't fully engage with him. Sure we follow his journey and feel sympathy but along the way you realise Solomon is a douchbag. He is suppose to be intelligent, articulate and..well...smart. Come on dude! where's the personality. Seriously, it that does not translate at all through the screen. I reckon the book is better on character development and empathy.

The editing and pacing was choppy that it makes you want to pull your hair out. It was all over the place and it is very noticeable in the beginning of the movie. The first and second act were slow but the haste to put the main actor in the south was rushed, and so was the ending.

And the costume, what the heck? 36 minutes into the film and you realise he's the only slave in the bayou wearing knee high boots? Say what???

I'm not even gonna bother with Steve McQueen as a director...he is really not worth the effort. What is truly bothersome is scenes are left hanging and there is no follow up, or any explanation of what is going on and why. Where's the back story to the main characters & supporting characters? Where's the humour to add lightness and texture to the movie up after a heavy sombre screen (the beatings) like in The Color Purple (1985) or the interaction of the supporting characters.

The script was the only thing that made sense but the execution of the story was poorly done. When you think about it you've seen the story line before with a sadistic boss and a slave:- put Lupita Nyong'o as a slave Jewish maid and Michael Fassbender's character in a Nazi uniform and in WWII. Wham!! same relationship scenario in Schindlers List with Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) and Helen (Embeth Davidtz) only better direction of their relationship and the dynamics of it.

If anyone wants to see a film about the human spirit and triumph over evil view Schindler's List (1993).

For those you are interested in a the plight of the slaves in America see Roots (1977). It might be dated but it's better that the sordid mess called 12 Years as a Slave.
12 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ice pick please, my eyes are hurting
27 January 2015
What in the world?? Here's the thing:

(1) New Line, Warner Bros and Village Roadshow: What were you all thinking, financing this movie! Do you have people who actually read this script? Or do you employ people those sole job is to insult the intelligence of movie goers? If you made a loss on this film, you only have yourself to blame.

(2) If you want to put the kids to sleep or get rid of someone you don't like, rent this, otherwise avoid it like the plague.

(3) How in the world did Richard Armitage ever sign a contact to star in this film is utter disbelief. He must have awful agents working for him or he can't recognize this is a wasted script; either way, not even his screen presence or Matt Welsh can save this film.

(4) The acting (...if you can call it that) was wooden and over the top. Seriously, no academy awards here, thank God. The Muppets have better acting skills than the entire cast put together. .

(5) Movie makes no sense, for example they hid in a storm drain, in a ditch to escape a huge tornado and no flooding occurs? Everyone makes it out alive and no one requires medical attention? At the end Alison makes a phone call and all the lines are available! Movie is set in a small country town and there is a major airport! And why couldn't the guy filming the fire tornado, film it from the safety of the church and simply zoom in and at the same time upload a selfie?

(6) John Swetnam, (script writer), needs to stay away from script writing and focus on producing, but then look at his credentials of IMDb and you realize this is his 4th film he has ever written. Then you have this inkling the guy has no imagination or talent, except he and wanna-be director Steven Quale, has miraculously managed to swindle New Line, Warner Bros and Village Roadshow to finance it.

(7) So much for the hero of the film - the twisters. One was good, two even better but four plus; I call it plagiarism. Watch X-Men 2 (2003) and you'll get the gist. However the Twister (1996) film showed multiple twister (3) at the water way screen, and Bill Paxton called them "Sisters". But as old as this movie was Twister's special effects were great!!!. So don't expect any creative shots, cinematography, innovative use of a camera, lighting or an exciting plot in this film. The budget obviously went to the special effects and Richard Armitage (how much money did it take for him to sign on for this project) and not into essential things such as editing, soundtrack, sound, costume, make up artist etc.

Seriously, for those hardcore disaster movie goers, if you ever need to see a good movie about tornadoes I'd recommend Twisters (1996). Also an added bonus you see a young cast of well known actors, and a very youthful Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
diamonds and opals
26 March 2011
This is a movie that every Australian must watch. It's a story about the unforgotten heroes, who went and did their bit for the Great War. Amazingly it's based on a true story of miners who, went to the Western Front and dug a network of tunnels deep beneath the Germans. Implanted within the labyrinth of tunnels, is millions of explosives waiting to be set off.

What makes this film is the human side of emotion. There is mate ship and bonds which can never be set aside; experiences that only the men can relate to. There is the love story between Oliver Woodward (Brendan Cowell) and young Marjorie Waddell (Bella Heathcote). And you see the youthful innocence of young men, in particular Frank Tiffin, played by Harrison Gilbertson and Walter Sneddon (Alex Thompson).

The contrast between the Queensland and the war is reflected in the use of colour and lighting. Queensland is bathed in sunlight, warm clean colours and in the costumes. While the Western Front is portrayed in constant bleak colours where bright colours don't exist. It's cold, wet and rain(for some reason, it's not a war movie until is has the element of rain and coldness).

The English accent of the British troops are not great, they sound more like upper crust Australians. But apart from that comment, this is a gem of a movie. It will have you hooked until the very last second.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Centurion (2010)
8/10
An interesting tale to tell
27 February 2011
At first when you see the gore, the blood and hacked off limbs, you think this is going to be another rip off of Ridly Scott's "Gladiator". Then you see the blue paint on the warrior's skin and their axe wielding ways, and it's a rip off of "Braveheart". Well it's not. Centurion is about the legendary 9th legion, marched under orders, into the heart of the Picts and was never heard of again. 6 soldiers survive only to be hunted down by a vengeful Etain and her warriors.

I have enjoyed this movie because firstly the one big thing I noticed was the cinematography and the use of the wide lens to capture the wilderness of the Scotish highland. Sam McCurdy vision is sublime. Not a soul to be seen for miles, the scenery looked beautiful yet at the same time dangerous as you can see the actual cold shivers of the actors and the breath coming from their mouths. (That's were most of my 6 of my star votes going to).

Secondly, costume and set design, looked all authentic, even down to the shoes. I found the Picts garment to be well suited to the climate, while the Roman's wore a much more sturdier clothing. Not overly powering elaborately designed as in Gladiator, but that's the difference between a Hollywood budget and the British Film industry. The props were cleverly done as was the set for Roman garrison and the village of the Picts.

Thirdly, the actors: Olga Kurylenko as Etain was a much more realistic character then the skinny, barely covered Kiera Knightly in 'King Arthur" (2004). She's tough, resilient and vengeful, not one part of her is soft, vulnerable and feminine. Being mute made the actor rely on other methods to convey her feelings; she stand her own ground when it comes to fighting with the men. Centurion Quintus Dias played by Michael Fassbender,certainly looks the part of a Roman soldier. Strong, dependable, loyal and sturdy. His acting was very good and I can only put it down to the harsh conditions the actors were in on location shooting. The supporting cast are good, wonderful to see Liam Cunningham as the veteran fighter, full of wisdom. The man is a GOD!!!

Lastly, although this production is flawed (i.e. actors riding saddles) and too much blood and gore, this is overall a very entertaining film. This is not an Hollywood epic nor a history lesson, it has a simple plot and action...don't take it too seriously.

There is one thing that I disliked about the film is the ending; not one of it's strong points. It was cheesy, clique and pointless...I won't put a spoiler comment, only you have to see it yourself.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jane Eyre (2006)
6/10
BBC tried too hard with Jane Eyre
28 January 2011
I have only seen 4 adaptations of Jane Eyre: Jane Eyre (1943)Joan Fontaine and Orsen Wells; Jane Eyre (1973) Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston; Jane Eyre (1983)Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton and Jane Eyre (1996)Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. So I was looking forward to this miniseries. But I have issues with this version.

(1). Sandy Welch's script: having scripted the beautiful Our Mutual Friend (1998) and the exquisite North & South (2004), tried way too hard in this series. The book does not need to be vandalized and hacked to pieces, just updated to suit today's audiences. Stay within the bounds of the novel. Which begs the question: What was she thinking? What is it with that séance scene and that woman dressed up as a gypsy lady, instead of Rochester? Those crazy twin character, are they really necessary and the ending was rather odd and Disney like.

(2) The series needs to be at least 5-6 episodes. Why? Because they missed out on vital character building of Jane. This need for her to meet Rochester was entirely unnecessary, the pacing of the miniseries was all wrong. Jane was physically and mentally abused living under Mrs Reed's household; where was the Red room scene. All they did was drag her up the stairs and lock her in a room. Jane Eyre's inner strength and character comes from the Lowood Institution, where she learned discipline, self control, the need to become independent and to seek freedom. The short 10-15 minutes, the production spend on it was rushed and it showed.

(3). Jane's liberation to sex: If you want to sexually liberate a character, then do it correctly. This is a love story with Rochester in the heart of it all, set in the Victorian era, passion can be shown on screen in many different ways. It can be subtlety achieved by looks, touching, gestures and a sentence or even by musical score; audiences do not need to be spoon fed.

(4) Suspense and drama: There was not enough suspense in this production. And the build up was to the reveal of secrets, wasn't what I expected. Yes, there was a stabbing of Mason, a torn veil and a candle in Jane's face as she slept, but nothing much. Plus Mrs Rochester did not look mad; her hair looked neatly brushed plus her teeth looked like she went to the dentist.

(5) As outlined in Chp XXVII, after the wedding scene, a desperate Rochester asks for forgiveness; he would do anything to hold her, while Jane is heartbroken, resolute but strong. This part was missing, or rather misconstrued into the "bedroom scene". What a pity, a missed opportunity for the 2 lead actors to really "sink their teeth" into the emotionally charged scene.

Ruth Wilson was above average as Jane Eyre; she looked the part, though she is tall while Jane is petite. Although I still believe Gainsbourg appearance is better suited visually, no great beauty, slender and small boned. Toby Stephens may not be my ideal choice of Edward Rochester (odd to cast him as Rochester), yet surprisingly, he has managed to pull it off. This Rochester is playful, not so severe or over brooding.

The supporting cast, are suitably casted for this production: - Pam Ferris (Mrs Poole), Cosima Littlewood (Adele), Lorraine Ashbourne (Mrs Fairfax), Christina Cole (Blanche Ingram, Andrew Buchan (St John Eyre Rivers) and Tara Fitzgerald (Mrs Reed).

Over all the production, the score and the cinematography is brilliant, just don't put too much effort into the pacing. There are many people who read the book and loved the character, like I have, and want simply the story of Jane Eyre told with respect, honesty and truthfully.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
V (2009–2011)
4/10
get rid of Elizabeth Mitchell
20 January 2011
When it was announced "V" was going to be remade to suit a contemporary audiences, I was looking forward to it. But now in its second season, in Austalia, it seems to have lost its shine.

There are so many character cliques in this series: 1. The token black man,Ryan (Morris Chestnut) 2. The righteous rebel, Erica Evans(Elizabeth Mitchell) 3. The love sick puppy, Tyler Evans (Logan Huffman) 4. The beautiful princess, Lisa (Laura Vanderhoot) 5. The evil queen, Anna(Morena Baccarin) 6. The bad guy turned good, Josuah (Mark Hildreth) 7. The wannabe macho man, Kyle Hobbs (Charles Mesure) 8. The token priest, Jack Landry (Joel Gretsch) 9. The idealist, Chad Decker (Scott Wolf) 10. The loyal general, Marcus (Christopher Shyer)

These characters don't have much scope for any development or growth, and the audience really doesn't know how to connect with them, nor even care if they die. The only real stand out character is Anna, and Morena portrays the queen reptile to perfection. Elizabeth Mitchell botoxed face is like watching cardboard talk! Her character Erica is the least convincing as a FBI agent; get rid of her and hire a actress who looked like a mother of a teenage boy and has expression lines on her face! Logan Huffman really needs to see an acting coach, it's just embarrassing (and laughable) to see him "attempting" to act like a sex crazed, angry teenage with a face of a 2 year old.

And where in the Hell are the world leaders? It seems the Visitors are content to speak to Erica than the American President; which one has to stretch the mind to it's limit for understand this reason why; this is beyond disbelief.

Having seen the first "V" years ago, it's hard not to compare the two productions, hopefully the series will develop and grow, yet it is annoying to see an excellent production by Josh Weldon's FIREFLY, get axed in the first session, and this version "V" has another season. Overall not a bad attempt at Sci-fi, but could be better.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Milk (I) (2008)
1/10
Sorry, not for me
20 January 2011
I tried very hard to watch Milk, as Sean Penn is a very good actor and he deserves an Oscar or two. But I just could not get into this film. About 10 minutes into the film, found my mind wondering about I was going to have for dinner. About 20 minutes into it, I got bored and restless. Then I started to tapping my feet - I really need to go to the shop to get bread, coffee and something for my dog.

And the story was very interesting truthful at first glance,which is why I purchased a ticket with my friends. I guess it lagged in some areas and slowed to a crawl in scenes. Not sure whether it was the screen writers fault or the director. Sadly, I lost interest in the movie, and prayed it would hurry up and end. Toilet break was a blessing, even visiting the food stall levitate the zombie like state I was in. (I could of escaped and ditched my pals but good friends are hard to find).

Everything was excellent, the cast, the costume for the time this movie was set in, the lighting and even the acting. Still I'd rather watch paint dry than watch this movie.

Wish I can give it more credit, but I honestly can't. This film was not for me.
17 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Simply a matter of bad taste
11 January 2011
Did not like this adaption at all. Everything was wrong, sets, location, costumes and even the cast. Where was the chemistry between these two tragic lovers? Lost on the Moors, I guess, for it certainly was not there between the two leading cast members.

Tom Hardy, was OK but something was lacking...charisma, screen presence, the ability to portray Heathcliff as a man with heart? He talent is wasted, for he is very good in Star Trek 2002 and Inception 2009. This Heathcliff is over the top with melodrama and desperate! I wish someone would tell him Cathy's married, get over it!

And the actress who played Cathy, Charlotte Riley, needs to speak to her agent and fire him(or her). She would be great in something else rather than this. Cathy misfortunes and bleeding heart was painful to watch and I could not suppress joy, when she finally passed away on the TV.

The ITV gives great period drama's but this rendition was not one of their finest. Maybe a better director, other than Coky Giedroyc, maybe an entire different cast or a better screen writer, whatever was missing from this production, this was truly terrible. It grieves me to admit I did watch the whole 2 episodes, sadly that's 142 minutes of my life I can never get back. So I give the one star point to the dark colored horse in the production, who looked simply stunning.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Clarissa (1991)
9/10
customs, wigs and Sean Bean
11 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I have waited for SO long for Clarissa to come out on DVD region 4. I saw this production when it was first aired on TV in Australia and it still remains a favorite of mine. Samuel Richardson's hefty novel "Clarissa:The History of a Young Lady", thankfully has been updated to suit the modern audiences and the small screen. The BBC ought to be commended for tackling such a subject. And what a treat it is.

Sean Bean reeks masculine sexuality and cunningness as the devilish aristocratic libertine predator Robert Lovelace. Devious to the soul, Sean Bean's performance is excellent, as he struts his way around England in the mid 18th century. The audience witness his stratagems and manipulations in order to secure the virtuous Clarissa Harlowe. His journey from a unscrupulous rake to a man with an unhealthy obsession to a soul filled with remorse and regret, seeking redemption for the wrongs he has done to the virginal Clarissa, is well crafted.

Saskia Wickham, as Clarissa Harlowe, is outstanding. There is something about her face and expressions that shows innocence and intelligence. Clarissa's grandfather left her a large inheritance, which makes her sibling James & Arabella jealous, they manipulate the Harlowe family to imprison her and force her to marry the odious Mr Soames. Clarissa asks Lovelace for his "protection, but changes her mind. It is then that Lovelace tricks Clarissa to run away with him (watch Sean Bean's expression as Saskia unlocks the garden gate). As the story goes on, Lovelace takes her to London and secures lodgings for them; unknown to Clarissa, is a brothel.

Sean Pertwee as Jack Belford, Lovelace's friend and fellow rake, gives and outstanding performance. Here is an actor who is often overlooked and oddly cast, but not in Clarissa.

Set design and editing, faultless and the customs and wigs create the feel of Georgian times. Unlike the over powdered white faces and red lips of the prostitutes, the BBC thankfully used minimal makeup on Saskia's face keeping it natural. A huge bonus is the usage of outdoor sets and real locations.

My only criticism is that the BBC TV production is too short, and fails to deliver on how truly vile Lovelace was to Clarissa. The novel depicts Lovelace's constant pursuit of her, his nature for vengeance, his manipulation and stratagem's on the innocent lady, his plot to make her dependent on him, his determination to humiliate and ruin her, the prostitutes inciting him to act against Clarissa, Dorcus' treason and the cold hearts of the Harlowe family...not to mention, after he has the prostitutes drug her and hold her while he has his way with her, he then contrives another plot to rape her again, with her being fully conscious.

I recommend, if you can find it, the radio play 2010 "Clarissa:The History of a Young Lady", with the voices of Richard Armitage and Zoe Waites production from the BBC, which is more closer to the novel then the BBC TV production.

***SPOILER***** It is interesting to watch Lovelace, struggles against his growing obsession for Clarissa. His letters to Jack are full of lust and immorality are testimony to his fixation with 'his Clarissa'. Lovelace's attempt to subdue her to his control by humiliating her and having the whores hold her while he rapes her is a pivotal point in the story. After the event, Lovelace is forced to face his feelings for Clarissa knowing fully the implications of his actions. For Clarissa, she too is changed, although her body is bruised, her spirit is stronger, her will for independence is greater. Her "soul is above" his, she knows she is better than him. If you have read the novel, you know the rape was never about sex but power. If it was about sex, Lovelace can easily go to one of the prostitutes in the brothel or "pick" up a woman (willing or not). Unlike the book ending, Clarissa dies in a debtors jail, surrounded by her makeshift family.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
North & South (2004)
10/10
A diamond in the rough
8 January 2011
It's been a while since the BBC has given a outstanding period drama. I've seen North and South when it was first aired in Australia on the ABC TV, where there was very little promotion about it. And what a surprise it was. I brought it immediately once it was available on DVD in Australia.

I've just finished watching it (for the hundredth time) and is still stands the test of time. How on Earth did the BBC managed to get a near perfect cast for this production is simply miraculous and the lead actors were virtually unknown at the time! Elizabeth Gaskell works may not be well known, however Mrs Gaskell is to be given credit. She was one of the first to write how exactly the common man, at the time, spoke with imperfect English. She witnessed the decay and filth, breathed the smoke of industry and saw the poverty of the workers, when she lived in Manchester with her preacher husband; North and South, the novel, depicts all this.

This adaptation of Mrs Gaskell's North and South is faultless and the acting is sublime.Some lines and scenes are from the book, while others parts are adapted to suit the small screen and modern audiences. For example, Margaret in the book never went to the mill, where as she does in the TV mini series. Nevertheless it does follow the book closely, far closer than Mrs Gaskell's other novel turned into a mini series Cansford (2007).

Daniela Denby-Ashe is absolutely ideal as the beautiful, privileged and head strong Margaret Hale who is uprooted from her beloved Helstone to the industrial town of Milton by her father Mr Hale. It is in Milton where Margaret's middle class ideals are challenged and she slowly grows as a person of real character; along this journey she slows admires and eventually falls in love with the local mill owner John Thornton (a self made man who has successfully, raised his family and himself out of poverty, whom she considers to be socially inferior) . This challenging role allows Ms Denby-Ashe to stretch her acting abilities, develop her character and her portrayal as Margaret is simply stunning. There are scenes, combined with great lighting and the Victorian costume, where Daniela is gorgeously beautiful. What a contrast to see her in this, then the dumbing character of Janey in My Family.

Richard Armitage is John Thornton! He breathed life in to this character and gave him dimensions. Mr Armitage portrays him as man with many facets: flawed, ruthless, angry, intelligent but also with a honest and frank countenance. Cannot think of any other English actor to portray John Thornton as Richard Armitage has. Not many actors can pull off expressions that can convey a range of emotions with a look and not uttering a single word. His screen presence is charismatic and riveting, but well balanced, as to not overwhelm Ms Denby-Ashe presence on the small screen. Simply put, the man has TALENT! which puts to shames his contemporaries thespians in Hollywood.

And the chemistry between the two leading actors makes watching the end worthwhile. (Puritans would gasp in horror, but if you read the book, you'll know what I mean, when I state, although I loved the book, I prefer this modern updated ending). But lets not forget the supporting cast.

Sinead Cusack, a delight to watch as Mrs Hannah Thornton. To witness Richard Armitage and Sinead, having similar characteristics and as well as mannerisms, even looks, you'd be lead to believe they are related. And Mrs Thornton's love for her son John, is beautifully enacted, in the scene before and after the proposal.

Great to see Tim Piggot-Smith as Mr Hale (a weak character) in a role that does not stereo cast him as villain. Leslie Manville as Mrs Maria Hale, another weak character, is virtually unrecognizable. Brendan Coyle does justice to the character of Nicholas Higgins; notice the twinkle in his eye when he reveals some truths to Thornton.

Anna Maxwell Martin as Bessie Higgins, Pauline Quirke as Dixon, Jo Joyner as self absorbed Fanny Thornton and Brian Protheroe (Mr Bell) all have their moments in the spotlight. Finally, Rupert Evans, surprising to see him cast as Frederick Hale, and he does look a bit like Daniela Denby-Ashe.

Sandy Welch script is placed in the careful hands of director Brian Percival who manages to film N&S beautifully. Edinburgh as Milton in the 1800 gives a wonderful feel, for the the industrialization of England, the cotton mills and the Union movement. Locations and set design are a treat, which give the feel of the Victorian era. The rigid social structure is highlighted not only in the actors accents, speech and manner of dress but also where they live. Just look at the difference between the household of the Higgins, Hales and Thornton not to mention London, where Edith lives.

The costumes give depth and assist the actors with their character; delightful to see Daniela in a wide brim hat than a bonnet. Richard Armitage look devilishly handsome with or without a cravat.

Lastly music by Martin Phipps, this man can compose and it shone in N&S. The score plays beautifully to important moments in the story. Margaret and John's simple piano tune, subtly overlaid, when there is an emotional development in their relationship or when they are both internalizing their feels for each other; to the swelling music when something dramatic has happened, all fits in well with the overall production.

North & South is proof that you don't need state of the art special effects, million dollar budgets and overpaid actors with star power or sex scenes. A simple story can touch a thousand souls...for it connects to the emotional human side and you feel for the characters as they travel on their journey, and North & South has all that.
46 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed