Reviews

This has only two things in common with the classic series. The name and the location. It stands up quite well on its own, and had it been set in London or Leeds it would have been less interesting. However, it has not got the cleverness, wit and, especially, charm of the original. I'd have preferred them to call Warren's character Cruyff, and not pretend it had inherited any sort of legacy from Barry Foster's character.

A lot of the time I could barely make out detail, because they refused to put a light on. The story dragged on and could easily have been 45 minutes shorter. Disappointing.

Watching in 2022 where politicians have now regularly created false issues to galvanise support and maintained that over years has devalued the impact of this film. Most frightening is that this type of deception now works.

Full of Australian viewpoint stereotypes which spoils the overall conveying of a fascinating period of cricket history. Filming some of it in the UK might have helped.

I have read the Foundation Trilogy three times over more than 40 years. It remains a classic. This adaptation adds to what was scant detail and develops storylines not seen, but implied, in the text. It is not a retelling of the books as 'Lord of the Rings' could be, because it's nearly 80 year old science fiction. I understand why some are upset that it's not exactly like the book, but as an Azimov fan I think he would approve.

Dune is a magnificent, highly detailed book. So far none of the attempts to make a film of it have been successful, including this one, despite it's obvious attempt to avoid the mistakes of previous efforts.

Aiden Gallagher has turned in a masterful performance as 'Five'. However the actor playing his older (technically younger) self does not seem to have watched Gallagher's previous efforts and is totally unconvincing and ruins the episode.

They spoke the words, but Mainwaring and Jones were not right. Probably not surprising because both Lowe and Dunn delivered their roles so distinctively. Episode 3 shows the worst of this failure with awful slapstick Dunn would have mastered.

When he was in Australia he was funny. Maybe this material was designed for the USA, but it was bland and, at best, mildly amusing in places.

This film is so far removed from reality that it really is to be avoided. The errors are too many to mention and one can only think this is a belated attempt at character assassination when all witnesses are safely dead.

This film covers a period of real tension and drama. So why does the film have to invent fiction to tell the story? Perhaps modern film making prioritizes a flowing narrative over the truth, but to misrepresent so many people telling the story accurately would have provided more than sufficient content staggers me. Oldman plays his part as written well. Chamberlain and Halifax are quite unconvincing though and many of the scenes are so unrepresentative of what would have happened in the Britain of 1940 ruins the fictitious plot line. The number of historical inaccuracies are currently beyond counting, and many unecessary, for example Chamberlain was in pain in May 1940, but had yet to be diagnosed with cancer, and when he was he remained ignorant of the fact because his doctors elected not to tell him. Overall a huge let down.