Reviews

The pilot was intriguing. The concept can seem interesting - nothing groundbreaking, don't get me wrong, but this is a show in which there's no gratuitous violence, no sex and bare T&A, and no gore. Strangely enough, only one of the female characters is a porn star lookalike wearing remarkably skimpy clothing (Little Red Riding Hood in 4). This look is, as usual, unnecessary for plot/character development and has only been inserted to gratify male viewers. Nevertheless, prime time shows that don't rely on female nudity, blood & guts closeups, the glorification of violence or all of the above to get attention aren't exactly common so even without the "fairy tale characters exiled in the real world" premise (which is nice), at first glance Once Upon A Time could still vaguely feel somehow different, possibly original. Which it could have become, except it didn't.

The producers and screenwriters evidently decided that no actual effort was required to make the series successful. As such:

The actors, good as I know some of them are, seem strangely uninvolved - with their characters and with each other. Some of them (like Emma and Prince Charming, to name 2) have been miscast.

The characters feel flat (poor writing you can't expect actors to always be able to undo) so 4 episodes later I still don't care about anyone in particular. That's a problem considering the number of people to choose favorites (or most disliked antagonists) from.

The plots are slow, simplistic and predictable. The dialog ranges from average to mediocre, and I often find myself wondering if someone made a mistake that still hasn't been discovered, as a result of which a children's show (and a poor one at that) is being aired in Once Upon A Time's time slot 4 weeks in a row.

I don't think the potential the series had at the beginning is ever going to unfold - the people in charge clearly decided to rest on whatever laurels they think they possess, walk all over said potential, and settle for a low maintenance time waster. The thing is, they aren't going to waste any more of my time.

I've never had much of a clue what kind of person Fanny Cradock was off screen. On the surface, what bits and pieces I've seen of her TV show always made her seem very quick on her feet, somewhat posh in a calm, intimidating sort of way but most of all perfectly confident. Very little (if any) of that attitude is to be found in this film. Julia Davis comes across uptight instead of posh or intimidating, and constantly nervous and easily upset instead of calm and confident. (That includes the TV show segments so it's not a matter of the movie implying Fanny might have looked formidable on TV but was actually insecure and neurotic off camera.)

I just couldn't recommend this film - when even the obvious stuff is so far off base (whether that's on purpose or because Davis just couldn't pull off a proper Fanny is another matter), I simply can't lend any believability to the more complex parts that are meant to be dealing with the woman's private life and personality while not so subtly passing judgment on both every 20 minutes. 2 out of 10.

I first saw this on TV a couple of years after it was released, I must have been 11 or 12 years old. My memories are not detailed, but I did like it. It had a happy vibe to it, it was about high school which was a hot subject with me at the time; I enjoyed myself and it made me feel good. I have no recollection of the girls (or any of the boys, for that matter) being "ugly" as noted by the first reviewer, nor would I have found it even remotely relevant had it been true. Out 2 Lunch wasn't a movie where the male viewers are supposed to get all hot and bothered, it was kids entertainment. For what it's worth, the guy who played the lead role (Lenny Gonzalez) was interesting looking enough to make quite an impression on me at the time. I'd love to see the movie again now - curious if I'll still feel the same way I did when my age actually matched that of its target audience.

There are about... 6 TV shows I value very, very highly. Of those, Outrageous Fortune is the only one I started watching again, from scratch, as soon as the last episode of season 5 was over. I've done that about 3 times now, and I'm not planning to stop at 4. It amazes me I don't get tired or bored of it. Nor do I ever start feeling like my initial "wow" reaction was misplaced. It really is as brilliantly written as I thought the moment I first laid eyes on it, which was 2 years ago.

I translate TV series and movies for a living, and as such, a lot of crap has gone through my hands. Outragous Fortune is solid gold. It comes once in a few decades, if that. It follows the lives, tribulations and evolving personalities of a family of career criminals, a handful of their friends, and a cop who falls in love with the strong, stubborn, ever caring matriarch, Sheryl West. I'd say the show falls into the comedy-drama (dramedy?) genre, and even though it's deliberately over the top at times, it feels amazingly true to life.

The writing is very brave, not only in its bluntness and razor-sharp wit, but in its treatment of social norms we've been struggling to alter for years. For example, I've yet to see another show where people in their late 40s and 60s are represented not just as somebody's parents /grandparents, but as human beings with sex lives of their own (which are going splendidly well, too).

The male characters are beautifully multifaceted, each and every one of them (which men in television and real life are rarely allowed to be). The female characters also break taboos about how women "are supposed and expected to be" by being independent and tough as nails, each in her very own way. (Check out the magnificent Ngaire Munroe who's plain fierce.)

The acting is superb, and it's a pity that because of US's hegemony in every cultural sphere, audiences worldwide (minus Nz and Oz) aren't already familiar with these actors. We should have all known who some of them are long before the show aired. Many are no spring chickens, and are certainly brilliant enough to deserve the international recognition American stars get so easily, including those that are objectively mediocre.

With that said, it's the writers' work and specifically the character development that's the spark of genius making the show one of a kind. There's no flatness, no predictability, personalities grow and change, revealing sides the viewer was previously unaware of - some good, some terrible. Same as in real life, which is exactly where many writes fail (in books, too). To date, all story lines have been worth following and every single episode has been memorable, some to the point they shook me and stayed with me for days. I pray that Outrageous Fortune won't stop at 6 seasons. If it does, I'll try to move to New Zealand in hopes of living to see the day Kiwi television produces another gem like that.

The movie is exceptional in more ways than one, I'd never encountered anything as original. It was obviously conceived by a fascinating enough mind - or a number of them.

At the same time, it's one of the most reactionary, misogynist movies I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty. Sexist jokes, demeaning talk, a female antagonist who's "the most beautiful woman in the world" on the outside, but whose true self is evil, twisted and ugly to the last; feminists being portrayed as fat, ugly, raving maniacs - you name it, if it's a woman-bashing cliché it's most likely in there (and it's by no means in there to be mocked or deconstructed, in case anyone was wondering).

The movie's being a comedy is a poor excuse, plus an unoriginal one. Whenever a nasty shot at women gets challenged, it's defended with "oh come on, it's just a joke", but the simple fact is (and will always remain) that the kinds of jokes one chooses to make reflect one's attitude and views on the subject at hand. All in all, the movie is yet another potshot at females, taken by a man who's obviously fundamentally intimidated by them. Very engaging and interesting to watch no doubt (makes a change), but no less typical.

In response to a previous reviewer's guess that certain characters like the porn director are caricatures: Those who have seen "Body Without Soul" (a powerful documentary by the same director which was clearly the basis for Mandragora's script and the blueprint for its characters) no doubt recognized many lines and scenes. The same can be said about a few characters, the director being one. (David being another - there's even physical resemblance between the actor and the real David.) They both exist in real life, the actor playing the porn director also looks like the original and most of his lines have been taken (word for word) from the documentary where the prototype is being interviewed in GREAT (often sickening) depth plus filmed in action, as he's interviewing a few newboys and prepping them for the next shoot. I'm afraid that unlike everything else he does and says in Mandraghora, the scene of his arrest is fiction, something Grodecki desperately wants to happen. The rest, however, is real.

Mandragora itself, although erratic until a certain point (there are also a few lines that sound forced, it's as though the writer was trying too hard to condense "the point" and jam it down our throats), eventually becomes coldly honest in the realistic depiction of its characters' degradation and despair. It's also unique in that it doesn't try to explain anything. We never understand the father's insensitive behavior to Marek; we don't get a "valid" reason why the boy runs away from home. Nothing is rationalized like it no doubt would have been if this were mainstream cinema (for example: "The father is a drunk and Marek left home because he was being beaten or sexually molested").

The point to this approach is quite clear - that in real life, most things can't be explained and others just happen. That there doesn't necessarily need to be a specific, profound reason for a child to run, get lost and spiral down into Hell. Mandragora doesn't look for such excuses because they're not relevant. What is is that most of the time kids run away for no good reason which doesn't make the consequences any different. For life to slip through a child's fingers really could be this accidental and this easy which is exactly where the tragedy is.

Despite its flaws, I highly recommend this movie. However, you'll get the most accurate idea of the subject matter and Grodecki's perspective if you watch it along with the much better "Body Without Soul".

As someone who is trying to help a 23 year old recover from that lifestyle, I can say the film is a very accurate representation of not just boy prostitution in Prague in the 1990s but of boy prostitution as such. I saw it, along with many other films on that subject, because I wanted to educate myself as much as possible and had exhausted all other sources of information I could think of. Of the docos I saw, "Body Without Soul" was the most in-depth. The 2 hours (maybe 2+, I'm not sure) went in the blink of an eye, the film draws you in. In that sense, it's easy to get through but otherwise it's beyond painful, it hits very close to home and it hits repeatedly. The fate of one of the boys being interviewed - the youngest, most articulate and most beautiful, of course - is particularly heart-breaking. I finished watching the movie a few hours ago and I'm hurting almost physically.

Contrary to what other reviewers have said, I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone because the truth of the matter is that however unsavory, the subject "Body Without Soul" deals with is one people should be a lot more familiar with than most currently are. I find myself wondering what those who voted 5 or worse are evaluating exactly, said subject matter or their own reaction to the film. If it's the former, I can only advise them to direct their negative energy elsewhere. The movie didn't invent prostitution, adult males did. If it's the latter - if Body without Soul made them feel bad enough to hate it - then they should have given it a 10.

It's a haunting movie, rather fascinating and I fail to understand why the ratings are so abysmal. There's more depth and subtlety to it than people would expect from this genre (maybe that's the problem), and the supernatural elements never seem forced or out of place. The antagonist is the kind of antagonist you're expected (and given every reason to) hate and fear and although you do, at the same time you don't because understanding him comes naturally. The storyline is far from predictable, the acting is good, and the soundtrack has its moments of brilliance. However, in my experience the ambiance was what made Sleepstalker unique. I saw it once on TV a year after it was released and it's been with me ever since. Highly recommended.

I saw this movie twice in the mid 80s and I still can't get over how fascinating, touching and profoundly deep it was (excuse the tautology, but it is). It can definitely hold a child's interest (I was one) but it's not really a cartoon meant for kids. The ending and the overall atmosphere haunt me to this day, to some degree thanks to the soundtrack which is out-worldly. Rumen Petkov's style (which is rather peculiar) definitely adds to that. It's a shame the movie hasn't been shown in Bulgaria for years, it's a shame there's no way to obtain a copy, and it's definitely a shame people worldwide associate the title with Disney's "Treasure Planet" (which, compared to its predecessor is, to say the least, silly). Not that they ever had much choice.

The movie is very true to the book it's based on, Vreme razdelno (Time of Division) by Anton Donchev, and the casting is near flawless. Very good soundtrack too. Highly recommended.

As to how representative it is of Bulgarian history, I beg to differ from the user who commented before me. The Rhodopa mountains (which is where the movie takes place) are, to this day, populated by Bulgarian "turks," that is, Bulgarians converted to Islam in the 1500-1600 period. Some of them, when interviewed, relate stories (dating back to the period in question and carried across generations) that are very reminiscent of the picture painted by Vreme razdelno. It's no coincidence (or accident) that the book claims to be based on the accounts of two people who witnessed the events described. Anton Donchev did his own bit of extensive research before setting out to write the book (as he usually does, he specializes in the history genre) - what he found out is reflected in the book, and hence the movie. Whether the accounts of those who suffered the conversion to Islam (as retold by their descendants) can be defined as harsh or "historically inaccurate" is obviously a question of perspective. However, the fact remains some of those accounts are what's reflected in the book (and the movie). Claims that they are fiction are, to put it mildly, overblown.