Reviews

The reviews I have read so far discuss the movie as a drama. Some refer to its factual basis but none display knowledge of the actual event, the 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision in Europe, between a US registered B757 DHL Air Freighter and a Russian Tupoleve airliner carrying many schoolchildren.

The event in the.movie was transposed to the US. An interested reader can Google the event. It's true that a Russian parent of one of the children killed, joined the search and found his daughter's body. He then murdered the blameless air traffic controller in front of his family. He served only a few years in prison and returned to Russia where he was decorated by the brutal Russian regime as a hero. He accepted the honour without remorse.

A number of managers of the Swiss sir traffic control company were charged with manslaughter, for the poor state of the equipment in the enroute control centre (not an airport tower as shown in the movie) and its chronic under staffing. The controller was blameless. One reviewer said it lacked credibility that a control centre could be left with only one controller on duty and with phone lines out of order. But this was exactly the case.

Victim relatives compensation was outrageously low, pegged by Swiss law. However other legal cases were brought in other jurisdictions.

In reality there was no follow up revenge mission by a son of the murdered controller, added as a dramatic ending by the profucers of the movie.

I have always liked Marcel Pagnol stories. And I am a long term fan of the great Daniel Auteuil, an actor who can play drama and tragedy but who has an instinct for comedic figures.

I can't fault this movie's production values. Its setting in the warmth of Provence, superb photography bringing out the best of that regions scenery. The construct shows French culture with its tradition with humour and zest. A delight to the eyes and heartwarming to boot. I enjoyed it.

At heart its the Cinderella fairy story of the poor girl (not so poor here) gets the 'prince'.

But it's not just the fairy tale base that gives a sence of unreality, of a scenario in a vacuum. It's the early days of WW2. Our young 'prince's dashing Armée De L'air fighter pilot, returns from the (assumed) dead. All is happy again. Apart from a casual reference to France having lost the war, there is none of the sense of despair at Northern France at this stage, under Nazi occupation. No sense of tragedy. No reference to our patriotic fighter pilot about to leave to put himself again in harm's way, to fight with deGaulle and the Free French, with Britain's RAF's heroic 'backs to the wall' last ditch defence - as many French and other European pilots: Polish, Dutch, Czech, etc, did.

Its difficult to pad this out to the required 600 characters. Why can't a pithy review do?

OK. Well the plot is well known. The Pepsi Co pitched the adds at teenagers but the corporate, cold blooded judge disallowed the plaintiff to depose Pepsi executives, then disallowed a jury trial which might have allowed real people, targets of the advertising, to judge the misleading conduct of the company. She determined that a 'reasonable' person, clearly a clear thinking infomed adult (not the ads target audience) would conclude that the ad was a joke.

While it's most unlikely that the young guy woud actually get a then US$39 million military jet, Pepsi got away scott free. Wrong.

I'm surprised it was not appealed to the US Supreme Court. But hey, small guys don't have the budget of giant corporations, do they.

As a rider, demilitarised Harriers can now be bought from the bone yard at a knock down price. Some are actually now in private hands. Multi millionaire hands! The cost of getting them airborne, fuel and maintenance costs are only for the super rich, and corporations using them for air shows and movies.

The film kept my interest. But it was sold as a comedy. But I thought it more of a detective story. The central character's obsession was essential to the discovery of the bones of Richard III. Her instincts as presented were 'spooky'. But I didn't like the apparitions of Richard III appearing throughout, as it trivialised the solid research work she had done, and made her appear to be 'flakey' and an object of comedy herself. Clearly for 'artistic' purposes her research process was truncated.

True, or again just to give the film some 'drama', her sidelining by the pompous nincompoops who had derided her search, which she largely financed, but who then claimed the credit for Richard's discovery, gave the film, to me, a nasty edge and ruined what should have been a 'happy ending' (perhaps I was affected by own life experience here - 'success has many fathers, failure is an orphan'. Sometimes it's better not to succeed. But I digress.)

Overall a good film that could have been much better had the subject matter been treated more seriously.

I guess it was a case of. 'smash up the furniture' so nobody could continue the series.

I note that no writer was accredited to this episode. Nobody, I assume wanted to own it. I would have better accepted Montalbano being killed in action that the weak squib we got. Fallng in love at first sight with a mere girl, and brutally discarding Livia, who has been his 'girlfriend' over 36 of the 37 episodes .... over the phone!? I know it's just a story BUT ir leaves a bitter taste in one's mouth.

Yes the series long time director had died, as had the forensics doctor who jousted with Montalbano. And some of the actors were showing their age. But it's truly a tragedy that two of Camilari's books never made it to the screen.

Perhaps, the series coumd be resurrected for the last two books, via: the new girlfriend dumps Salvo, and he recovers from his mid life crisis, and gets on with the business of solving crimes - with or without a rekindling of his relationship with Livia???

Jason Isascs. Great cast. Weak story. Experienced, brilliant head of surgery (Isaacs) at a major city hospital, shot by a lunatic. Wakes up after a 6 month coma .... no mental or physical affects. (A stretch .... ) Still has all his faculties. But finds his job taken by his brilliant less experienced daughter, previously one of the junior surgeons on his team. He requires supervision to get back into surgery as a staff surgeon, not head. His supervisor is his ..... yes, you got it, his daughter. The rest of episode one is about smart daughter putting dad in his place. Groan. Cancelled after 13 episodes? I certainly hope so.

I rated this 8/10 for production values, direction, script and superb acting and casting. However, overall it left a bitter taste in my mouth. A sense of the time watching it having been a waste.

There are virtually NO good guys in this yarn. It's cynical attitude is encapsulated in the last few minutes of the very last episode. The Byrds are confronted by the only moral character in the entire series. An ex Chicago cop, who has the evidence against them and is about to turn them in. He says that they don't get to win: 'That's not the way the world works'. Wendy Byrd says, 'Since when'? And the ex cop is promptly murdered by their teenage son, who demonstrates that he is as bad as his parents.

I sat through the entire series waiting for the scheming psychopath Byrds to 'get it in the neck', only to see them win.

The other key character, Ruth Langmore, a more interesting character that the Byrds: uneducated, but cunningly shrewd dirt poor to rich, grasping hillbilly, is strangely moral within her world view. Her killings are either in revenge of murders of her family members or in self defence. But she is discarded by her more sophisticated partners, to the tender mercies of the new female cartel boss, if possible, more ruthless and deadly than her betrayed brother, and is killed.

One of the most historically accurate Civil War movies ever made. Matthew Broderick was very impressive as the idealistic young abolitionist from a wealthy Boston family, Harvard graduate, bloodied at Antietam, the young captain of infantry takes on the job of colonel, training and leading into battle the first black regiment.

Prejudices abound against his command so he volunteers it to lead the suicidal attack on Fort Wagner. Narration by Broderick from Robert Gould Shaw's letters home are poignant and it's clear from his release of his horse as he takes position at the head of his troops, that he knew that he would die in the attack. The credits roll against the images of the memorial on Boston Common.

I found the feeling of impending doom overwhelming and very similar to that of the final scenes in Peter Weir's WW1 movie Galipoli, as the soldiers remove their personal effects, bayoneting them to sandbags with hastily written letters of goodbye, before their suicidal rush into massed machine gun and rifle fire in an attack all knew was a mistake and from which nobody would survive.

Cold blooded female psychopath. Twisted story. I was 'slathering' to see this evil harpy come to a very sticky end. But was frustrated at the horrible ending. Audible 'What'!? By audience members at the end. Cops portrayed as completely gormless nongs. No teal investigations of either her initial disappearance or her murder of the rich guy who took her in after she was robbed. I wonder if the author is also a psychopath to come up with such a horrible, twisted story. Why film it? Gave it 6 to be generous to supporting cast. Really a zero for me.

Well made movie. Certain level of comedy. But look a little deeper. Self absorbed brat. Dad not a great father. Mother he worshipped dies and he makes his dad's life hell. Dad's new wife a 'character', but he is her implacable enemy: forever. Never compromises. Selfish to the end. Shallow.

All about himself.

The rat.

I scored this 9 as much for the story, a tribute to an ordinary young English girl from an English-French family, widowed, who served with British SOE. I found the story inspiring and moving. There were many others like Violette Szabo who also were captured, mercilessly tortured, gave up nothing and were executed.

A more recent film 'A Call to Spy', covers the story of Noor Inayat Khan, a Muslim Indian Princess, who volunteered for SOE. As a pacifist, she refused a weapon or a suicide pill. Betrayed, she gave nothing to her torturers and was executed.

The bravery of SOE agents is that 'pure' kind where people walk into extreme danger knowing that they have almost no chance to survive. Both Violette and Noor were awarded posthumously the George Cross, equal to the VC, Britain's highest award for bravery.

For more, I recommend Leo Mark's brilliant book, 'Between Silk and Cyanide'. Leo, a post WW2 screen writer, was at age 20 appointed SOE chief code maker. The beautiful poem used by Violette Szabo, was written by Leo for his girlfriend, killed in the war, and given to Violette. The book is informative, at times funny and also heartbreakingly sad. Leo knew all of the agents personally, briefing each and giving them their codes, and grieved their brutal deaths. The book was written in 1960 but not allowed to be published until 1998, due to the British Official Secrets Act, because he also described how he developed his codes.