Reviews

Never read the book, saw the film, thought it was a bit meh. And no disrespect to Anne Hathaway, but this is much better casting.

Nicely observed detail, slow burning story, well done all round; would have given it a 10.

But... NO ONE EVER referred to a Snakebite as 'a pint of Snakebite'.

Worse still, in the 1989 episode we're told that they're off to 'Hartwood Community Primary in Wolverhampton' which we're led to believe is a deprived inner city area... but Emma uses a map which is a good 50 years out of date, even for 1989, and clearly points to the village of Shipley, which is incidentally *still* a village and nothing to do with Wolverhampton.

All that effort, the travel budget, the great cast and all the rest of it... and but little jarring details can spoil the mood completely. All they had to do was do a bit of research and get decent props. Really, how hard can it be?

I'll admit to having a pretty low personal bar where Christmas movies are concerned - but this is so dreadful that it makes the trashiest Netflix holiday nonsense look like Shakespeare.

They might have bagged a decent enough cast for this - nevertheless, once the opening credits are out of the way, it all goes rapidly downhill.

The script is SO poor and SO unfunny that the actors struggle to deliver it in any kind of convincing way. The direction is clumsy and pedestrian. The humour is crass and lewd.

Worst of all, the incidental music is the cherry on the top of this embarrassing and amateurish attempt at a wacky Christmas movie. I don't need to be told by the horn section when a joke is funny, I'm quite capable of deciding for myself... and I didn't laugh ONCE.

The fact that this series spawned about a thousand new barber shops tells you all you need to know....

The thing is, I know lots of people, Brummies too, who absolutely LOVE this - and good luck to them. Perhaps that's why I've tried with it, and tried at least three times, but it's just not working for me - because it's just not good enough.

Yes, it's visually striking and the soundtrack is great, and yes, some of the performances are brilliant.

BUT...

1. The accents are pretty bad - as someone local to Brum it makes me wince every time they open their mouths.

2. The language is anachronistic. Yes, they were rough, but this is a 21st century spin on how people spoke a full 100 years ago, and it jars.

3. It's gratuitously violent. Yes yes, I know it's a story about violent gangs, but at times it's a proper gore-fest and hard to watch. 'Gritty realism' doesn't revel in brutality.

4. It glamourises some really seedy and unpleasant characters, putting them on a pedestal, making them into flawed but ultimately honourable anti-heroes. Yeah right. Life would have been nasty, brutish and short - and utterly devoid of rough-hewn glamour, or a cool soundtrack.

5. Worst of all, it buys into its own hype. At times iit's like watching an hour long pop video with a smattering of dialogue here and there and a few punch ups. How silly and puffed up it all is.

I give up. I'm off to watch 'The Godfather'.

I despair. All those wonderful Agatha Christie mysteries, and yet so many tv adaptations are absolute garbage... and this one is no exception.

Based on the fairly lightweight novel of the same name, this three part story of bright young things on the hunt for the murderer of a mysterious stranger *should* have been entertaining Sunday night tv fluff - instead of which it's ponderous, pretentious and mannered.

The plot is confusing, partly thanks to the inexplicable addition of random characters and gratuitously violent scenes. Another major irritant is the anachronisms, whether they crop up in the script, or in the way that ethnic minority characters, of which there really weren't that many in rural Britain in the 1930s, get shoehorned into so many scenes, as if there were some kind of quota that needed to be filled in order to produce a TV drama in 2022. How patronising.

The thing is generally miscast in any case; in particular the actor playing Roger is a terrible ham - and don't get me started on Hugh Laurie! Lucy Boynton initially made a good impression, but her petulance and pouting got really old, really fast.

Oh, and Emma Thompson... Why??

I like this movie. It's not The Greatest Movie of All Time (but it's more than competent) and its biggest fans are likely to be pre-teen girls and possibly their grannies - BUT - it's a nice little movie, so let's not get all snotty about it.

The drama hinges on a case of mistaken identity à la Princess Switch, but classier, with three Texan fishes out of water finding themselves living it up in Paris and Monte Carlo, and learning about life in the process. An entertaining story, with the predictable happy ending, plus charming performances, good use of great locations, stylish musical choices and smooth direction. What's not to like?

I watched this yesterday and I'm still unsure what the hell it was all about.

The thing is overlong for a start, as it's separated into four geographical sections - but the first act goes by *so* fast that the main protagonist's motivation makes NO SENSE AT ALL - and yet we're supposed to feel sympathy for her? There's no convincing explanation as to why she feels so trapped in her marriage - no, wait, there's the devoted husband, the nice house, the glamorous job, so yeah, obviously her life is a total dud.

Then Madam sets off on her journey of self-discovery, having ditched both spouse and toy boy within about five minutes of the opening credits. And yet, two plus hours later, when we reach the end of her 'journey', I'm damned if I can work out what she's supposed to have learned from it and, unforgivably for a movie this long, I JUST DON'T CARE.

On top of which I'm really not sure that there's a personality there to be discovered. What does she have that makes men throw themselves at her from one end of the globe to the other? I'm just not seeing it.

None of the supporting characters is properly fleshed out, so a solid cast is given very little to do - only appearing when needed, as satellites orbiting our shining star at the centre. In fact, it seems as though the entire population of the globe seems only to exist in order to bolster this sociopath's sense of self, and the more simplistic and patronising the depiction of each nationality, the better to quickly take in all the necessary clichés about them.

I give it three stars for the nice scenery and sexy pasta scenes.

This is quite the cultural melting pot - and I'm not just talking about Chrismukkah. It's half soap opera, half teen drama, brought together in a fast-moving, wise-cracking, pop culture-referencing, blink-and-you've-missed-it comedy-drama in the 'Gilmore Girls' mold. Plus the soundtrack rightly spawned a good half dozen compilations.

And it really is a case of 'blink and you'll miss it' as the crazy merry-go-round of incestuous, will-they-won't-they relationships play out. By and large it's silly fluff with the occasional dark moment, but it's always entertaining. The characters are great, Adam Brody's Seth being the standout performance.

I actually missed this show completely when it first aired and am currently only on Season 2... so far, so good.

Oh my. This is so bad. From across the pond I can still spot a duff Southern accent - and I can certainly recognise terrible acting when I see it.

But why, oh why, does this show have to be so utterly vomit-inducing? The plot can be summarised thus: nauseating platitudes uttered in hushed tones, latched onto an ever-changing but somehow incredibly dull merry-go-round of sickly sweet relationships. That's it. I'd say the religious angle is laid on pretty thick too, except that it can't possibly be, when it's such a shallow, two-dimensional and paper thin version of religion.

There's no depth, no wit, no humour, no intelligence. And some of the characters! I really don't know whom I dislike more: Maddie's cloyingly sweet mother, Helen for her bizarre delivery, the hideously clingy Erik, the drippy Isaac, the vacuous Noreen, the spectacularly irritating Trotter... the list is endless. Oh, and the three blokes at Annie's party... NO ONE TALKS LIKE THAT! Bunch of weirdos. If I heard people talking the way people do in this show I'd give them a pretty wide berth I can tell you.

So why do I watch it if I hate it so much? You may well ask! And the answer is: I WATCH IT FOR THE BLOUSES, THAT'S WHAT. (Also I spotted some nice wallpaper at Sullivan's.)

Possibly the silliest movie I've seen in a very, very long time, if not all time.

A deliriously over-the-top explosion-fest, unfortunately it simultaneously manages to be really very dull, which is quite the feat. The problem isn't that it's predominantly an action movie, it's not the flexible approach to reality, it's not the preposterous plot, or the daft script, or the cheesy sentimentality. The real problem with this movie is that it's a bloody mess.

Whilst individual shots are striking, like a comic book come to life, as a moving picture it quickly falls apart. The ludicrously fast-paced action and the chaotic shoutiness of it all are grating from very early on, and it doesn't get much better, so the thing just drags. There's no emotional connection whatsoever with any of the characters so you neither know nor care who's bought it, it's just another damn explosion to laugh at.

Disappointing....

I have got to say, the high rating for this (8.2) staggers me. It is easily the most toe-curlingly bad television programme I've ever seen and, years later, I still don't know how I got through the episode I did watch; I was obviously being far too generous. The script is unfunny, the acting terrible, the accents aren't even accurate. To cap it all, opening credits aside, it's filmed in Manchester and not Wolverhampton. It's an insult to the good people of the Black Country, who are depicted as absolute morons. If it hadn't been written by Caitlin Moran it would never have hit the airwaves. If only.

Wow, this innocuous little sitcom gets quite a pasting from the imdb crowd! I wonder why?

I find it odd that so many reviewers, the majority of whom are presumably American, are getting their knickers in a twist over it to such an extent. 'How DARE this American girl roll up in Paris, without any experience of the language or culture, and proceed to make a series of social gaffes in every episode?! And THEN, to make matters worse, she posts pictures of herself eating patisserie on Instagram! This is OUTRAGEOUS - and symptomatic of EVERYTHING THAT'S WRONG WITH THE WORLD!!!'

Well, get over yourselves, it's a sitcom, not a treatise on the dangers of US cultural imperialism - and don't forget that the French once had a powerful empire too. It's a classic 'fish out of water' scenario, it's meant to be light and fluffy, and it's raison d'être is to poke fun at social mores and the clash of cultures, against the backdrop of Paris at its most appealing. If you're not into any of these things then why are you even watching?

Points against: I hate Emily's clothes, although I appreciate that she's meant to be a bright, brash contrast to the likes of Sylvie. Also I'm on series 2 at present and concerned that it's all going to be relationship shenanigans and not much else. But series 1, for me, was a 10. And Lily Collins is great.

Gosh, this is good.

I started watching the repeats as it's a programme that my parents used to watch every week and I remembered the great opening credits with the scenes of the ship out at sea and the famously romantic music.

For all its technical limitations, this show could give any modern TV series a run for its money. Fascinating historical detail, intelligent and well-rounded characters, great performances, and a profoundly gritty realism without being self-consciously so.

The women are also a joy: complex, able and utterly real.

Granted, the studio-bound scenes look really clunky, but this is offset by the myriad location work either in port or out at sea.

Recommended.

Yes, it contains all the Hallmark Christmas movie clichés. Yes, it's an improbable fairy tale. Yes, the demographic of this particular remote Aberdeenshire village is ludicrously diverse and yes, Brooke Shields is impossibly tall in flats.

But I still love it. Maybe because of the location, it manages to be a Christmas movie that's the-same-but-different. It looks great. The humour is just the right side of naff and the charm just the right side of cheesy. The leads are enormously appealing and, for once, look like they might have actually lived a life. It's cheery and Christmassy and upbeat, what's not to like?

So, yeah, it's not 'A Wonderful Life' or one of the old Christmas classics - but all the same, I personally plan to make it a staple of my future Christmas viewing from now on.

They do it so much better in the U. S., don't they?

This is the sort of tv that makes you want to gouge out your eyes just to make it stop. A bunch of footballers' wives with almost no redeeming features showcase their lives, mortifying an entire county in the process.

For the uninformed, Cheshire is in the North West of England. It's an attractive part of the country, filled with pretty villages, and has historic Chester as its county town. Its proximity to cities such as Manchester and Liverpool make living there a good place to enjoy the best of both the metropolitan and the rural life. Unfortunately this proximity to the aforementioned cities is what makes it the main stamping ground of the dreaded WAG.

What amazes me is that any of these women would think that participating in this televisual excrement would be in any way beneficial. From the trashy trash talk in the opening credits, you gasp in disbelief that anyone with a grain of common sense would think that this was a good way to introduce yourself to the wider community. And they all seem to have made it by marrying money, either footballer money or millionaire-businessman money. They then swan about in oversized, hideously-decorated mansions, bragging and bitching, and looking for a fight. That's when they're not shuttling between the beauty salon, the jewellers, the cosmetic surgeon....

I'm sorry but these women are just dreadful. Thick, crass, gobby, vain, shallow and appallingly ill-mannered, they make a mockery of womens' emancipation, not because they married money, which is not a bad thing in itself, but because they failed to understand how to behave when they got it.

'Beverly Hills' does it so much better.

This could have been so, so much better. A ridiculously camp and trashy royal romp, with Liz Hurley doing her best Joan Collins impression as a fictional Queen of England. Perfect for enjoying whilst throwing popcorn at the TV, all the time laughing like a hyena.

But, to my huge disappointment, the damn thing is just so bloody boring! The acting is unconvincing, the plot is rambling, the pace ponderous, the script is nowhere near as witty as it needs to be, the angst is teenage... it's all just so... meh.

Worst of all are all the meaningful close ups, whilst the cast get busy furiously emoting to the sound of cruddy third rate ballads.

DISAPPOINTING!

Hugely enjoyable armchair traveller fluff with an engaging trio trying out super glamorous rentals for size and giving the viewer their personal take on each one, alongside the basic facts and figures. Each programme has a theme and features three different destinations in different price brackets.

The trio know their design history and it's a joy to see them, for example, beside themselves with excitement at the prospect of staying in a Frank Lloyd Wright house. They spend a night in each rental and get to try out local activities such as a wine-tasting experience or a boat trip. They look as though they're having a grand time and the mood is excitably upbeat.

Seriously, what's not to like?

A low rent 'Devil Wears Prada' knockoff.

This is your typical glossy and shallow Netflix piece, with all the usual woke boxes being ticked. With this political agenda shoehorned into pretty much every exchange, viewing inevitably involves a lot of eye rolling. Predictably, this will do nothing to bridge the generation gap, as anyone over the age of 20 is likely to find it a major irritatant. I'd have said teens might enjoy this, but that's a dead loss, as so much of the script is massively inappropriate for minors.

Recommended only if you enjoy fashion and are happy to watch with the sound off. Of course, that means you may find the scene with the Japanese love egg somewhat perplexing.

This is the kind of TV programme that triggers a lot of hand-wringing about the state of modern Western culture, perhaps unsurprisingly.

The three Melbourne-based yummy mummies don't seem particularly unpleasant, but boy, do they do have an exagerrated sense of their own importance. They see their friendship circle as an exclusive club; apparently, all men want them and all women want to be them! Childbirth demands $100,000 gifts from doting husbands as a reward, so there's a lot of conspicuous consumption going on. It's all very vain and shallow, and rather silly. Adelaide-based Maria cranks it up a notch or ten with her brattish demands and narcissistic obsession with labels.

This is one of those reality shows that is so OTT that you start wondering if the whole thing was actually meant to be satirical.

Only watch if you're in the mood for a black comedy.

I started watching this on Netflix when I was feeling ill. Easy on the eye, easy on the brain and vacuous in the extreme, it's the sort of thing that really cries out for a mug of hot cocoa and a plate of biccies as accompaniment. If you're asking for anything with depth, grit or intelligence, then look elsewhere.

Despite the title, the only references to actual witchcraft seem to involve giving out herbal teas and having a knack for knowing who's walked into a room without looking. None of the characters is ever truly bad and the good guys are so syrupy sweet they'll make your teeth itch. The script and acting are, obviously, terrible. So if you're in the mood for B list actors performing cheesy lines in a Hallmark style, then be my guest and go for it.

Oh yeah. Seriously, who dresses like that at home?! Come on!

Easily the winner in the 'worst film of all time' category, this ugly mess of a movie takes the lightest and brightest of Austen novels and turns it into the most heavy and depressing film I've seen in a very long time. Hideously miscast, unforgivably boring and unfunny, the story is littered with inexplicable random additions such as Emma warming her arse by the fire or getting a sudden nosebleed at a crucial moment. The whole thing is set in a bizarrely pristine 'sugar almond' universe, peopled with characters that are either wooden or just plain unpleasant - particularly Emma, who should be flawed but ultimately likeable, but sadly comes across as a cold-hearted bitch. Life's too short, don't waste yours on this travesty.

BADLY DONE EMMA!

... but before anyone starts on me, I have nothing against 'Bridgerton' - I'm actually a bit of a fan. I'm still unsure that Bridgerton-ing up Austen was a wise move to begin with, but - if you're going to push the edge of the creative envelope, then for goodness sake do a decent job of it (see the genius that is 'Clueless'). This is *not* doing a decent job, it's a flipping car crash of a movie. I know this because a number of times I found myself shouting: 'What?? REALLY?!?' at the screen.

I suspect the major reason for this mess is that - unlike the makers of your usual Austen adaptation/Bridgerton/Fleabag/Clueless/Bridget Jones, etc., the people responsible *assumed that their target audience is as dumb as a rock*.

Hence we see the quiet, dutiful and overlooked Anne Elliot portrayed as a crass and embarrassing lush, because you can't be quiet and unassuming if you want to be down with the kids, right? Then every plot twist needs to be explained out loud, repeatedly, and in simple language, and every character needs to be described clearly, directly to us, by Anne, so that when they finally appear on screen we already know what to think of them. Well, at least it saves us having to rely on the actors to do it for us in the traditional manner, by, you know... *acting*. Considering the source material, the script is therefore by comparison - of necessity - absolutely dire.

There were, to be fair, a couple of moments early on that were laugh-out-loud funny and I thought to myself: 'Hey, those negative reviews are being too harsh, I reckon this is going to be proper LOLZ.' (The 'playlist'! The bit when Anne effectively receives a 'sad face' text message from Mary!) A funny and irreverent romp through nineteenth century England, we can deal with that - oh how those Georgians could romp. But how wrong I was! Not too long after this snappy start the whole thing runs out of steam and - at one hour and fifty minutes - it's about one and half hours too long.

To really show off the rotten script to its best advantage we have some poor casting decisions. Richard E. Grant is an entertaining Sir Walter, Henry Golding is convincingly smooth, and I really enjoyed Lydia Rose Bewley's take on Mrs Clay - but far too much of the acting was merely competent, which for a movie with this much fanfare - the great novel, the big houses, the lovely scenery - just isn't good enough. Worse still, Cosmo Jarvis as Captain Wentworth had all the smouldering intensity of a damp dishrag, there was *ZERO* chemistry between him and Dakota Johnson, and by the end of the movie, I could quite happily have slapped the apparently 'incandescent' Johnson in the chops for being so insufferably smug and annoying. Never has the fourth wall been broken so many times in one production to so little dramatic effect.

By the end, I was bored, disappointed and just wanted the whole thing to be over. Then, just to rub salt into the wound, the final song started.

And it's *still* not the worst Jane Austen adaptation ever (I'm looking at you, 'Emma').