Reviews

This film may be good entertainment. Good luck to all those that enjoyed it. But for me it does rather missed the mark. I appreciate it is a dramatization about historical figures.

And not necessarily meant to be educational. Given that it would be better if the mind set of the scriptwriters had been set at the time of the actual events.

Rather than in the prevailing environment of today.

At the time of the scientific enterprise. The world was in the midst of the worst catastrophe that history had so far witnessed. The whole of Europe was under German and Italian fascist dominance.

In Southeast Asia, it was the Imperial Japanese junta who were performing a similar function.

Only the USSR and the United States of America had so far not fallen under the fascist yoke.

Although both countries had experienced invasion.

So essentially the object of the United States military. Was to roll back the catastrophe that was engulfing the world. Moral niceties and whether something was right or wrong did not enter the equation. The USA was in the struggle for its very existence.

I think I have therefore given view then world which was far different to our more certain view of it today. During the Second World War there was absolutely no certainty.

Returning to historical characters. It is now widely regarded that Edward Teller and not Robert Oppenheimer. Was the ' Father of the A-bomb ' We come away from the movie very much believing that teller had little if no contribution to the A-bomb.

Furthermore. Teller was never subject to a House Un-American Activities Investigation.

Unlike Oppenheimer, whose answers to quite straightforward questions. Left a great deal of doubt as to his loyalty to the United States.

I do hope that as a result of watching this film. And having had their attention drawn to the events depicted. Enlightened persons. We'll have a thirst to dig deeper and learn the true facts of one of the momentous events. In the life of many of us.

I watched this film whilst being engaged in another task. That may indicate my appreciation of it. No matter.

Toward the end of the film the train caught my attention. As they invariably do. The carriages bore the logo ' LMR '. Which puzzled me.

It could mean the London Midland region during the time of British railways.

But to my knowledge they never permanently assigned stock to one particular region or other.

On examining the locomotive all became clear to me.

The filmmakers used the Longmoor Military Railway for the railway scenes.

There they would be able to start and stop the train at will as they required. Which they could not possibly have done on the British Railway system for considerations of rail safety.

I believe the locomotive to be ROD 2-10-0 ' Gordon '. Which is now in the possession of the Severn Valley Railway in Worcestershire.

Had I been permitted to enjoy a railway career. I would have been the sixth generation of a railway man. In my extended family.

Instead I had to settle for a long career in the army.

This is a truly excellent drama series. Accomplished acting, plausible script and good production values throughout.

What is more surprising is that it is a product of the BBC. He decades ago. Consistently produced work of this calibre. But in recent years as preferred to generate trash.

Unfortunately the goal is slightly askew. Because this is really a story about the struggle of three women. And their attempts to do well for their children. And of course it is set against the experiences of persons who chose to embrace the Assisted Passage Initiative of the Australian government.

One should be very careful about judging the attitudes of native Australians. Toward the immigrants. From other European countries as well as England.

When a government decides to embark on a controversial course of action. Without consulting its own people. Those people nevertheless just have to kowtow and accept the administration's policy.

The Australian government decided to force immigration upon its native population. They even subsidised the initiative with taxpayers money.

Similarly the UK government decided to force immigration from the Caribbean states upon its own native population.

And in most cases there was a very unfortunate but understandable resentment toward the ' incomers '

This is a series to be commended upon many levels.

Another variation on the same daft theme A deranged psychopath causing mayhem And despite telegraphing their actions No one suspects. The police as always in these efforts. Being ' baffled ' Not worth a star.

Primarily. I think everybody who gave it a good review must have confused it with another film Secondarily.

I watched it in a UK Channel Five crime series screened in the matinee slot. After fifty minutes of tedium. I was still waiting for the murder. It never happened.

Instead I was bombarded by inane vacuous philosophical yawp. Spoken by wooden characters. Who firmly believed we live forever and can have everything.

Oh dear. Are some people in for a rude awakening ? One hundred years ago. Only a short time relatively. Our forebears felt they were lucky to be alive, valued each day given to them and counted their blessings. No matter how terrible any of their lives might have appeared. They just thanked God for it and never complained this stupid film seems to perpetrate a myth which if believed will inevitably result in impressionable souls being seduced by a total fiction If you live in the real world as I do. Ignore this fairy tale.

I fail to see how this rates a 5.5 When better but still cobbled together shambolic films are rated lower. So much that is wrong with it . Easier to rate the good bits. Only one. The friendly chat between the two young women at the start of the film. That was believable People who contributed to the 5.5 must have questionable taste in films.

Americans just love to stick the knife into their ' old enemy ' But their research is pathetic ' Hang him for treason ' says one of the characters

Britain has not sentenced anyone to capital punishment for more than fifty years Unlike the civilized North America. Where you might be executed for jay walking. If it is your ' Third Strike ' E pluribus unum

Borrowing some text from another reviewr.

As soon as the female protagonist reveals her coconut allergy, it is clear that this is going to be used to advance the plot. When her Epipen is found in the rubbish, no one really questions it.{ END }

So many of these thriller plots rely on a victim having A fatal reaction to one allergy or other. Yet the affected person keeps the antidote in their luggage, in their purse even a car. Why not on their person always at hand and less likely to be stolen ?

Am I the only one who finds this strange ?

Commenting on the story. The identity of the killer is telegraphed almost at the beginning of the film. So no surprise by the end

I have to declare a prejudice or at least an indifference before I continue. As a straight male WASP. This story would most definitely not be my normal fare. A Sapphic friend of mine had recorded it from national television and persuaded me to watch it with her. Not wishing to view it alone.

I subsequently learned Exarchopoulos is the youngest ever actress to receive Palme d'Or award in Cannes. And it was for the part she played in this film. I will make a direct with the late great Lauren Bacall. She was the same age as Exarchopoulos when she appeared in To Have And Have Not In her role. She exhibited such poise, professionalism and confidence. She almost acted the seasoned Humphrey Bogart ' of the screen ' Exarchopoulos on the other hand. Appeared like a rabbit which has been frightened by a reptile for much of the film. Not helped by a peculiar tick. Exhibited even when she is feigning sleep. Of keeping her lips apart and revealing to prominent upper teeth. Her wavering and indecisiveness even appeared at times. To distract Seydoux. Her co-star throughout the film.

Something which was NOT her fault for much of the film. Was her hair which appeared to have a mind of its own. I tend to be oblivious to female physical attributes. Including hair. So for me to notice it had to have been bad. Do film studios no longer employ wardrobe and makeup artists of late ?

These professionals used to be fastidious in checking their actresses and actors before they appeared before camera. In the traditional period of Holywood. Stars looked immaculate even in action sequences set in hostile environment. A great shame this little detail is no longer preserved.

These observations aside. My friend was of the opinion. That as a romantic ' chick flick ' The story worked. Despite my personal view. The sheer volume of nudity and salacious deviant behaviour Was gratuitous and excessive. That is why I am being generous in my review of the film. Which clearly met its mark despite a lamentable performance by its star. To those who enjoy Sapphic intrigues. I do commend it.

This excellent film has become even more humorous since the Autumn of 2001.

I recall my father, who was born in Eire and moved to the UK during the 1930s, relating tales of how he found being blown up by Irish terrorists preferable to being blown up by luftwaffe terrorists.

Other correspondents have seen fit to criticize two eminent actors for their interpretation of the gaelic brogue. It's not very easy to emulate. And those of us fortunate enough to have been born with a brogue also have ears which can detect the phony however skillfully delivered.

The story line is a little shaky. But then it was probably composed by a hyphenated Irishman and in that event it's not a bad effort.

The captain of the Jervis Bay, Captain E. S. F. Fegen Royal Navy, was the escort commander for convoy HX84 traveling between Halifax and Great Britain.

The Jervis Bay was an armed merchant cruiser only equipped with four inch guns but quite adequate to deal with any German U boats which might happen to ' chance their arm. '

It was therefore quite a shock when he encountered the German pocket battleship, Admiral Scheer in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Certainly not where he would have expected a German surface raider to be.

Taking a gamble Captain Fegen engaged the raider, itself equipped with radar controlled eleven inch guns, and thus allowed the convoy a further twenty minutes to escape into the darkness which by that time was beginning to fall.

Several of the merchant ships were still badly damaged subsequently by the Admiral Scheer. San Demetrio was abandoned by her captain and crew, but later rejoined by part of her crew without the captain. This latter point together with the refusal to accept assistance once in home waters allowed the insurers to make salvage payments to all who embarked on the perilous voyage.

A member of the party interviewed after the war said that the men would have made every effort to save the ship and cargo in any event. Great Britain being upon its knees and fighting alone for her very existence against Germany, Italy and Japan with a neutral USSR and USA observing with a casual interest.

The King later awarded Captain Fegen the Victoria Cross in recognition of the courageous sacrifice of himself and his crew.

The film renders an entertaining account of this annal of the sea.

From experience I doubt the Germans would have been quite so sporting.

‘Went the day well ? We died and never knew. But good or ill, freedom, we died for you ‘

Rather sentimental and probably written by some one who never had to face mortal danger.

The behaviour of the fictional villagers ? Well the United Kingdom escaped invasion in two world wars. Very fortunate for them. So we will never know.

Not one of Grahame Greene's better efforts.

I have not seen this film since its original release in the United Kingdom. At the time I was on leave from several years of colonial service in British East Africa ( the Kenya of today ). The film made me reflect upon how little the region had altered in eighty years or so.

I do not remember it being racialist or particularly violent. Modern films are far more extreme upon both counts. The films ( and Cornel Wildes ) tragedy was its accuracy and fidelity. That would upset the armchair members of the Academy awaking from their afternoon nap and cause them to pass it over when making awards. This film portrayed all of its participants in a decent and honourable guise. I have yet to see another film about the dark continent with the same integrity.

I would draw to the attention of the gentleman from Virginia a book by John Bierman, 'DARK SAFARI' But I would caution that, unlike the film, it is not for the faint hearted. 'THE WASHING OF THE SPEARS' by Donald R. Morris removes any notion that the film ZULU, despite being excellent entertainment, was an accurate portrayal of events in and around the Cape Colony in 1879.

However I whole heartedly agree it is a mistake to judge indigenous peoples of this region as bestial by simply exemplifying methods of execution. It is the act of execution which is bestial not the method. Thankfully most European countries have now come to this realisation and amended their laws accordingly. The rest of the world, I am confident, will follow when they are ready.

Such a shame this film is not more widely known and consequently viewed.

At the end of this film I felt like kicking myself hard for not having recorded it.

To my generation Angela Lansbury was a screen siren. It is nice to see that the years have been kind to her quite apart from her still being able to deliver a consummate performance.

In one scene Mme. Colbert states that her husband was murdered by the Germans "twelve years ago". That dates the film to 1952-54. (The Germans occupied France from June 1940 until September 1944 )

Andre the accountant claims to have served in Algeria. But the Algerian problem occurred after the French expulsion from Indochina in 1954.

It would appear that history has got a little lost. Apart from the sad caricature of John Savident as the "Hinglish" hating Frenchman all the characters had depth and credibility. This film belongs to a bygone age when people went to the cinema for escapism and not to be reminded of their own sordid humanity. And that is the great sadness.

If you enjoy the current output of the film industry DONT watch this film.

Unlike other contributors I do not know the technical details of the series production. However at the time this series was transmitted I remember the characters manifesting as strong, tough, reliable types. Chaps you would have liked to have with you in a tight spot. Awkward social issues were tackled in a no nonsense manner. Unlike their TV counterparts of today they seemed to have their minds, for the most part, on the job. Sympathy was extended to victims, and others caught up in crimes. Villains were regarded and dealt with as a sub-species. No quarter was expected or given.

Nice touches as well. At the end of one episode, the optimistic search for a child ended with it being found dead from natural causes. The end titles were played in silence. Today you would have some cretinus announcer talking over the same titles, giving us a blow by blow account of the next programme.

Sadly the series did become a victim of its own success. It ran for far to long. The final series(1977-8) was a shadow of its former self. Reduced from 50 to 30 minutes and containing to many new characters it lacked history and credibility.