Reviews

Downton; A new era did not fail to impress me .

It is beautifully filmed in stunning locations. There is the usual attention to detail and of course all the glorious one liners.

The usual cast are all present and the whole thing is like an elegant comedy. I can't wait for the DVD.

This film had lots of promise,- beautiful girl takes her computer in to be repaired and then meets perfect guy who shares all her interests. But at every opportunity she is there posing in black undies ... Most of it was totally gratuitous, especially when she is just with her female companions. Maybe the director is old and creepy. In these days of METOO however, the unnecessary black undies are a bit of a surprise.

The plot line was obvious from the start. Drew Seeley though is very good as the unnerving stalker/ boy friend. The comeuppance though was disappointing and too quick. Given that, why was the final scene so totally confusing ?

Music As this is set in Stuart times, I had at least expected some Stuart music, harpsichord sort of thing but no. There is a constant discordant fog horn which was totally out of place and put me off from the start. Comedy I had been informed this was a comedy. if you find comedy in someone who loses 17 of her babies and goes slightly madder and sadder with each loss, then this is for you. Historical accuracies I expect historical accuracy and there are certain inaccuracies but also there are anachronisms such as when Emma Stone repeats the f word as a swear word. This wasn't a swear word at that time. With all the money spent on this why put a 20/21st C swear word in a film set in 18th C film? Lighting The film is quite dark to see at times. Acting The acting is very good. The oranges though? ... what was that for? It had absolutely no place in the story of the film.

Disappointing.

How many remakes of this will there be?

This is a lavish star studded presentation of a timeless tale. The attention to 1930's detail is excellent, the scenery superb, the camera angles are all excellent. Brannagh holds the Belgian accent well. Johnny Depp and Michelle Pfeiffer steal the film with Depp being remarkably understated.

So why only a 7 out of 10 ? The first scenes are all totally unnecessary and not even in the book! The "prostitute in the kitchen" aside .... (where did that thread come from ? ) ... I was unsure of the purpose other than Brannagh's bombastic monologues. The ending... oh my ! ... was definitely not in the book. And the ending paves the way for another film. But knowing the book in question, I am unsure how they will work that one. Brannagh is rather too bombastic and sharp to be an excellent Poirot but he works it well. Not all the characters on the train are the same as in the book.

I enjoyed the film well enough. There are plenty positives.

This is a very confusing film throughout and I was hoping for enlightenment by the end but it didn't come.

A young woman with a heart defect marries a cardiac doctor but soon suspects all is not as it seems.

We are told she has had a poor early life so it isn't her money he's after. She becomes increasingly sick and there is a spooky, weirdo Gothic sister who bears no relevance to ...well anything really! Instead of immediately emailing herself something on the computer the heroine waits to upload it to a memory stick? Why? But it is the rude, unhelpful police who "steal the day". I would have put a complaint in against them for telling me to find them evidence and not following leads, I'd have said that's your job.

I can't say I'd watch this again.

This is a surprisingly good film for an afternoon movie. My husband and I kept changing our minds about who had done it. There is a surprise at the end which we hadn't seen coming.

When there is an apparent murder/suicide in a small town, the detective who investigates finds evidence of an affair between a rather attractive pastor and the deceased woman.

The town scenes are attractively portrayed. The acting was very good all round and looking back there are clues along the way. The flashbacks were occasionally a bit confusing but at the end they seem to fit in with what has happened. Some of the flash backs were quite chilling and the pastor's calm persona was quite creepy at times.

I didn't expect much from an afternoon movie but this is well above average.

This is a strange film and I am unable to decide fully what I think of it.

Watching the film, I could not see how the initial scene linked in to the plot although we know it must be relevant in some way. Kirsten Prout plays the strange and unnerving Michelle very well. The strange baddie of course is in big goofy glasses, like she must be strange with these on. We cannot understand why she does the things she does and why she has chosen Sophia as a target.( if you hate spiders ...don't watch this) I could not see where the film was leading, as to what finale. There is a huge element of "the unknown enemy within" feeling which makes it unnerving.

The reasons come about 15 minutes from the end. The idea behind it is very good but then the film gets silly.

Watchable on an empty afternoon.

I make a point of disliking screen adaptations of classic masterpieces of English Literature so I went along to look for faults in the adaptation.

High praise indeed from me; there are very few departures from the masterly text! In fact I LOVED this film.

Visually stunning and artistically photographed, the attention to historical detail was perfect. Costumes, houses, carriages, uniforms, tea cups......Faultless.

Michael Sheen's sensitive and nervous portrayal of Boldwood made the film for me alongside the superb Matthias S. who is the ideal choice for Gabriel Oak.

9/10 from me. 9 ? Well.... a few mistakes over the Fanny Robin scenario. :)

I actually have no idea why this Geraldine McEwan series was allowed to continue.

This episode Nemesis has to be the worst yet and if I could give it a Zero, nil point, then I would.

Why is the plot so changed? Why call it Nemesis and then do a different plot that bears no resemblance to the author's? Her family should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the intellectual property rights on this to be so be abused in such fashion.

The script writers of this series should give their fee back and indeed pay the viewers. The murder of one character is omitted and the original victim's aunts are portrayed as nuns? nuns ? NUNS ?? Where did that come from? The scenes are also altered.

Just put another title on this TV drama but don't call it Agatha Christie's Nemesis. It's a beautiful haunting book. WAS ....

Settling down with a cuppa for an afternoon film, the idea of a single mum being stalked by a loony driver seemed quite entertaining. How wrong I was! The single mum who works nights is run off the road by a man furious at a driving mistake she made on the road. But because her phone number is in the car window he can track her down! Therein follows a ridiculous trail of events, totally unrealistic things in the circumstances e.g. leaving her child alone ( who is never allowed to be alone )in a motel to order pizza very late at night whilst she goes to see her ex husband hoping for a reconciliation. The sex scene here was totally unnecessary to the plot of the film.

The ending was just silly! And there is a very obvious time goof in that she leaves the motel at night and gets out of the car in the daylight.

This is a charming tale of double standards and age discrimination in our society. It isn't an earth shatteringly intelligent film and requires no concentration to watch it after a long, hard day. The scenery is stunning and Heather Locklear, the heroine is lovely.

The heroine is divorced, after her husband went off with an airhead bimbo who allows the kids to eat what they want. We are informed that Bimbo is 14 years younger than the husband. Which everyone just accepts. No problem. But when the heroine has a holiday fling with a handsome young man... whoooa ... everyone raises an eyebrow. As I said double standards. Why? The young male lover is seriously decorative. You can watch this at a couple of levels, lazing in the armchair with a glass of wine or pondering life's injustices. It won't get any awards but it's OK.

This is the perfect thriller for a Saturday Night In.

Will Smith puts in a fine performance in a serious role as a lawyer who is being chased by the establishment and framed. He handles serious roles very well and portrays the frustration and confusion of the character with great skill. Jon Voigt is excellent as a Government Official and manages to keep that calm persona throughout.

It is Gene Hackman who steals the film though for me. Playing a mysterious character whose role and background are kept quiet until the end, he manages to portray a sense of urgency, secrecy, menace, dramatic irony and purpose. Yet he still keeps a vague sense of humour at the same time.

There are a couple of good subplots in this film.. One which was totally unnecessary to the plot and one which appeared to be until the clever ending.

I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.

I really do have mixed feelings about the film. There are some superb performances Jennifer Lawrence and Jeremy Renner are nothing short of superb especially Jennifer singing. Hilarious.

But at times it is fairly confusing and I found some parts hard to follow. And hair rollers appeared rather too frequently! I have been told that these were to show that everything is a superficial image but I am not sure that the film is that deep.

There is great attention to detail in so many aspects of the film that it is unfortunate that they neglected the women's fashions of the 70s. The "women's wardrobe" on this film need to do some SERIOUS study on 70s fashion! I don't understand how they can get the room sets looking so authentic and then have 21st century glamour sitting in a 70s set.IT was anachronistic.

Although the film is a fictionalised account of a real event, I feel that Jeremy Renner's character was not sufficiently sympathetic to the real person on whom it is based; the man was a hero who just "fell of the box " and paid for it.

This is a feel-good film which is funny as well as moving.

Mark Harmon, a radio psychologist takes his children on holiday to British Columbia. The scenery is stunning throughout. The child actors actually seemed like nice kids unlike most child actors these days. Mark Harmon copes with changing personalities very well. The children are excellent.

The whole film though predictable from the start,made me smile and laugh. It's a good way to unwind at the end of the day. It was worth watching if only for the policewoman on the door step! And Orky of course, in his various forms!

Natasha Gregson Wagner acts very well in this above average TV film. I was left surprisingly pleased with it, for all it was an afternoon movie! The film has many thrills and lots of dramatic irony moments that made me want to shout out at the screen to warn the heroine and others.

Natasha plays an aspiring legal who does n't know that she has witnessed a murder and is unaware that the murderer is pursuing her.

The sub plots is interesting with a reliable fiancé , stolidly supporting her. The bad guy in this film is excellently and nervously played showing a man on the edge.

I would just like to know what happened to the policeman at the end.

The third outing for Men In Black burst onto my cinema screen last night and had me hooked right from the start.

A vastly superior sequel to the second film,( and longer too )this film succeeds in that it is n't just another MIB formulaic outing.

Time-travel needs careful handling in films and here, it makes it necessary to the plot. Josh Brolin stole the show for me though and made a hilarious and well voiced youthful Tommy Lee Jones. Not sure about Emma Thompson's 'age'in relation to Tommy Lee's. And the baddie ...is REALLY BAD.

The twist at the end was very clever and heart rending and had me thinking about it for some while after I had got home.

I don't know why the estate of Agatha Christie allowed the Geraldine McEwan series to be made. They are a total violation of the books. I accept there will be differences for the sake of good TV . But this adaptation is just an insult to the intelligence.

We have Gwenda, an engaged young lady, whereas in the book she is there with her husband and many other discrepancies. Why do they call it Sleeping Murder when it bears little semblance.

I can only think the Christie family were very well paid. The sad thing is that people who have not read the books will think this is the true story.

I went to see this film last night and was immersed in it from the very first minutes.

The action was constant edge of the set stuff, the locations stunning, the CGI, the acting excellent. The use of slow motion in this film adds to the action.

The only possible minus would be a little too much flesh from the weighty Stephen Fry. How Kelly Reilly kept her composure I have no idea, but I would expect it was easy to look away.

The best part for me was the verbal war of wits between Moriarty and Holmes especially.Clever writing and acting. Also, the ending; it left me wanting more.

It is not often that a sequel is as good as the original film. I would suggest that this is better. I left the cinema saying I wanted to go back in to see all the hints I had missed .

I watched this afternoon film on the first afternoon of my Christmas holidays .Otherwise I think would have given it a miss but just wanted to chill and unwind.

The basic storyline is that of a young newly engaged woman , engaged a matter of minutes on top of a minute when her fiancé is killed . Move on two years and she is again on the mountain leading some odd guys on a rather ridiculous quest .

The acting was rather over the top especially the lead man , who has a weird expression akin to Christopher Lloyd in back to the future. The end was really cheesy and naff and I could never quite work out what happened to the disappeared body .

I also loved watching this and quite expected there to be a follow up series. WHY do the very best things never go to a second series?

The show was well researched and authentic to the period of between the wars Britain and the surrounding countryside was beautifully shot by the camera team.

The bonds, tensions and relationships between the women in the family were very well drawn.

The story gave a vivid picture of the desperation of families in post World War 1 Britain, struggling to establish a home and new life .

Rebecca Callard though stole the show for me. She is going to do very well in future.

Michael Fassbender continues to take the screen by storm is this glorious adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's classic novel.

Judi Dench is perfect as the kindly Mrs Fairfax . The young upcoming actress though Mia Wasikowska is a delight to see.She can act with her face and eyes.

Filmed in stunning locations, on the Derbyshire moors and Haddon Hall the scenery adds to the darkly brooding atmosphere. Michael Fassbender's dark passion smolders off the screen.The attention to detail is excellent and is well researched for the era.

This is an excellent adaptation and well worth going to see. There should be a few Oscars from this if there is any fairness in the world.

I gave this a film an 8 because although it is beautifully done and acted and the locations scenery is superb, I object to how names and locations are changed when it is supposed to be factual. She should be Jenny Cockell in England ...not Jenny Cole in USA . WHY change it ? Jane Seymour gives a remarkable performance and as always knows how to act with her face as well as her words. The children in Ireland are beautifully evocative. Hume Cronyn makes an appearance ...But again ...why ? when there are so many Irish actors ? The main line for me seemed to be , ''yes, we believe that one soul can reach out and touch another''.

A lovely film that is truly unforgettable because of it's haunting and painful subject matter. Just let factual mean factual please!!