Reviews

I read one of the trivia thingies on this site that said a writer got on a message board to find out what fans wanted in the next Highlander movie, but either that version did not get made, or someone was not listening. The Highlander fandom has a large fan base, and it is still there, but time and again they seem to ignore us and do what they want anyway.

Clearly, historically, the story lines that have totally tanked with the fans were the ones that took the Immortals out of the realm of quasi-reality and thrown them into something supernatural. HL2. The Zoroastrian baloney. Real Highlander fans not only dislike this, they PRETEND it never HAPPENED. Get a clue - if your fans are acting that way, they do not want more.

The Source goes into the future (which, I understand, they had wanted to do at the end of the series. We all loved that last season, right? That's why we called it "Season Sux"?), but not so far into the future because Joe Dawson (a mortal) is still alive. Still, everything has gone to hell in a hand basket pretty quickly, and some of the Immortals are looking for something called the Source. Some believe it exists, some do not. Duncan MacLeod, one who does not, has finally married but has lost the woman because she wants children (he did not tell her this when, after 400 plus years he finally marries someone? Every other time he tells his sweetie what she is getting). Wifey does believe in it, and is getting visions, leading her there. This does not even sound good on paper! What were they thinking? Sorry. This is just such a waste of a great fandom! Personally, if it were me, I would have done the Methos Chronicles. The best part of Highlander was the flashbacks (this one has flashbacks - to Duncan and wife, with no background, so they are just floating in front of a white screen. Trust me, it is awful). The belief that Immortals lived with us, and have done since who knows when is, IMO, one of the things that makes it such a great series. Taking it out of that mode has always been a mistake. And having them move in superhuman speed is just silly. It is also dark and depressing, like almost all movies nowadays. I like watching the "making of"s because the filter or whatever they put on it is not there, and you can see people in color and clearly.

I don't blame the actors - this was just misconceived from the start, and the wonderful Highlander universe was wasted on it. I give it a three only because Methos is in it, and one can never have too much Methos.

There are some who see this and say it is better than the '95 version, but it just is not, and there are several reasons. The first and foremost reason it cannot touch the other is Colin Firth. And I do not mean because Colin got dunked in the lake, and looked sexy all wet. That bit is not in the book, and I wonder to myself why it was put in. That same scene in this movie is ALSO not like it is in the book - will we ever see them meeting by accident in the stables? But that aside, the reason Colin carries the other is because he just *is* Darcy. When we, as viewers, look at his face, we can see why Elizabeth is misreading him, but we can *also* see what he is really thinking. This is acting! In this movie, when Darcy proposes the first time, he BLURTS OUT most of his feelings to her . . . half the fun of the story is how they misunderstand each other, and when Darcy pulls back and puts up walls, she cannot see into his mind. This Darcy tells her part of what is actually told to her later by letter, and then they have him write the letter anyway. Stupid, IMO. Either have him tell her, or have him write it, but why both?

The second reason the '95 one is better is the length. That one is what, five hours long? It tells the entire story. This one is the Reader's Digest version and that always leaves things out.

The story itself, of course, cannot be ruined. It is Austen's best and most readable novel, and unless it is completely taken apart, it is going to continue to be a great story. But this interpretation leaves something to be desired. For one thing, the Bennets seem little more than dirt poor farmers, whereas I took it from the novel (and the '95 version) that they were comfortable, if not rich. The problem was not that they were poor now, but that the estate was entailed away from the female line. In other words, Mr. Bennet could not leave the estate to his wife and daughters, so his nephew, the simpering Collins, was going to get everything. Having five daughters, the mother spends all of her time wondering how they will live after her husband dies. That is one of the main points of the story (and in fact, Bennet was known to point out to her that SHE could very well die before him!). If the daughters are not married off well, they would be one day be destitute, but for the moment the family was comfortable enough. In the '95 version Lizzie makes it clear she is the daughter of a gentleman - the *mother* is the commoner.

In this one, the house is a run-down farm, and their clothing is little more than rags. And the fashions are decidedly UN-Austen - just look at Sense and Sensiblity, and you will see that their dresses match very well to the '95 version, but neither look anything like what they are wearing this movie. What year is it supposed to be? I can't make it out. It just does not look right for the period. They do mention having servants, but their hair is mostly undone and sloppy, as if left to do it themselves.

As for Keira - God Bless her, she does try. Her attitude as Lizzie is fine, but she is much too thin for the time period. Jennifer Ehle may not be as fashionable to "modern audiences", but that is what women looked like then. Someone as thin as Keira would have been seen as sickly.

On the upside, I loved Donald Sutherland, and Judi Dench can never disappoint. I just do not know why this needed to be made. The other was perfect. No one is ever going to do Darcy as well as Firth - why even try?

Everyone seems to love this show, my own father included. Since my father was the most obsessive person I'd ever met before my marriage, you might think that should be enough, but after marriage I had a child and . . . she actually has this disease.

For disease it is. And Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is really nothing to laugh about. It is a mental illness! I know, I know, I am a killjoy. But in this PC world I watch, and wonder how they can laugh about something like this? I live with it every day, and trust me, it is not *funny*.

I'm so frustrated. First off, he has EVERY obsession. Anyone that messed up should be under a doctor's care and on some sort of medication, but they don't seem to mention that side of it. It's like, let's put what's funny in, and not show how serious this can be.

At least, MOST of the time they don't. There are a few moments I like, that are really true to life. But they are not the funny bits. If anything, the moments of this show that I do like are the ones where his helper (I do not know her name) shields him from the disbelieving or teasing eyes of others. One show, he was tapping posts and missed one, and she turned around and let him start all over. That was realistic. Some of the other things, though, are just exaggerated. Seeing it, I will say, no, someone like this actually would not do it that way, or, if he did, it would not be funny. Least of all to the people dealing with him.

It is a very frustrating disorder. People laughing at that frustration just seems . . . wrong to me. So I am conflicted. Everyone and his brother thinks this is funny. I am the killjoy who says it's borderline insulting. But they don't have to deal with the reality. Is it fair to laugh at these people, and is this show actually making fun of a serious mental illness?

I must say, I cannot understand those who say this one is the best of the Harry Potters. To me, it is clearly my least favorite. I don't understand, really, how anyone can want *less*. And this is less in every way.

What, exactly, is wrong with being faithful to the books? They are GOOD books! I can understand cutting some things for time, but really - how can you leave out all of the relationships with Harry's parents? How can you leave out who made the map? I've read the books, but a friend of mine did not, and is going *only* by the movies. She was completely confused by this lack, which IMO should have been in the movie.

It's not like this one was running three hours, so let's cut. It barely made two. And honestly, the one that went long - the second one - is my favorite to date. I am hoping the next one (I see it Friday) will be better than this one, and back to up to the first two's standards.

Why did I dislike this one? Firstly, it was a GREAT shock to me to find this was actually about becoming a teenager. When I read it, it seemed to be about Harry's family background, and his parents' old friends. These books are very well written, with puzzle pieces all coming together, and this one was especially fun in that way. I read it to my son, who had NO idea of the surprises that came out at the end. Yes, the Scabbers surprise was still in the movie, but Peter Pettigrew was merely explained as a kid who followed Sirius Black around all the time. We needed to know about Moony, Padfoot, Prongs and Wormtail. It was vital. Magazines I've read have pointed out that some things can be cut without taking from the story, and some things cannot - and the author of the article (I believe he was the guy with the Harry Potter Lexicon) was specifically writing about this cut.

Next, I really did not like that they changed the grounds of Hogwarts. I know they had to recast Dumbledore, and for the most part I am okay with that (I had wanted Richard Briers, who would have brought more humor to it, I think. More of the, say a few words: Idiot! Pumpkin! sort of thing from the books), but changing how the place looks suddenly is a little unnerving. If it had to be done, it should have been more subtle. It's almost like starting from scratch this way.

Reading reviews of Goblet of Fire, most said they thought it to be the best of all the Harry Potter movies, but one said no, Azkaban is best. I cannot agree. I will watch it, and enjoy bits of it, but overall I was unsatisfied at the time, and eager to be on with the others the minute it was over (which, to me, was too soon). Of the ones up to Goblet, I will re watch Chamber of Secrets more often that the others, but something tells me, with Ralph Fiennes playing Voldemort, that from Goblet on I won't be looking back!

I'm not saying this was another English Patient. But I have to say I am getting pretty tired of reading self-important pans of EVERY movie I look up. I could see from the get - go that this was trying to be light hearted . . . a spoof of the old TV show and an even greater spoof of the absurdity of action movies. I know this movie contains men dressed in Teddy Bear Suits, but heck, do we really believe James Bond can jump into thin air to catch a plane which is dive-bombing to ruin, get INside the plane and save it? It's all ridiculous, isn't it? It's called entertainment. We go to movies to relax and get lost in a story, not to sit back and pick it apart so we can look smarter than the ones who made it.

In my case, I really enjoy Rafe Finnes. So, to me, the movie was worth the $6 I paid (you could rent something for $4 these days, so buying it for $6 is a bargain in my book.). Heck, seeing him in the sauna with only a newspaper covering his incidentals *alone* was worth $6! And to some, I suppose Thurman in her cat suits were worth that much. I did not go into it to see Sean Connery, who is not the be all and end all for me, so when he came across as a caricature of evil domination it did not bother me at all that he might look back on this movie and cringe. For everything silly or annoying in the movie, there was something passable or down right enjoyable to balance it. That means it was not a total waste of my time, simply not my favorite movie of all time! Dame Eileen was great, and so was Rafe. I cannot understand why they must have Americans play Brits, and vise versa, just to get that A-list Hollywood icon on the bill, and I don't think Uma had the timing or dry humor needed for Emma Peel, but hey, Diana Rigg's boots are hard to fill. Would I toss the movie out because of it? Nope. I bought it and watched it a few times in a row. I will watch it again, I think, and when I do, I'll concentrate on Mr. Fiennes - which is why I paid my $6 anyway.