jane_concannon

I am a fan of food and movies so was really disappointed when I saw this last night. Also it had many good or very good reviews on IMDb.

Before I start criticising the film, I would just like to say that I have enjoyed many foodie moves previously, such as Chocolate and Julie & Julia, so this was not the problem for me. Also I am a fan of Helen Mirren.

Right from the start I knew it was going to be overly sentimental and totally unrealistic. Also you could see all the story lines coming a mile off.

I also found the acting very unconvincing and the characters very 2-dimensional and stereotyped.

It was also at least 30 minutes to long, and seemed to take forever to wrap up.

My only enjoyment was seeing some of that area of France, which looked very charming.

My husband was also bored, it wasn't just me!

I've watched the first 3 episodes (out of 4 I think) and am really enjoying this, as is my husband.

It is an intriguing mystery about a young woman found dead in an attic many months after her death, and a cop's attempts to find out who did it and why nobody noticed she was missing for so long.

For a TV drama, I'm finding this particularly gripping. It is very well directed and acted, particularly from the victim and the 17 year old son of the journalist. And its nice to see Russell Tovey's and Stephen Mackintosh's darker side - they are both very good too.

I can't think what else to write in this tenth line other that to recommend that you give it a go on catch up or catch it next time.

My reasons for seeing this film were as follows: I quite like period dramas, it was an adaptation of a classic book, it had a good cast, it looked well-made in the trailer. I was hopeful of maybe even seeing a film of the quality of The Duchess or Dangerous Liaisons.

Well how wrong could I have been? Myself and my friend both looked at each other when the film ended and said what a load of rubbish it was!

Whilst most of the cast were very good (especially Philip Glenister and Kristin Scott Thomas), Robert Pattinson spoilt all of their efforts. Not only was his acting awful and unconvincing, he looked completely unappealing, which I'm sure was not the intention as he was playing a man who is irresistible to women. I was also left totally confused as to what his character was about; one minute he seemed to be a uneducated loser, the next a calculating swine. Also, I'm never sure what he actually did to elevate himself from abject poverty to high level politics except sleep with everybody's wives.

All in all then a confusing and badly-made mess. One to maybe have a go at on TV rather than see at the cinema.

I read the book Birdsong (the basis for this series) by Sebastian Faulks many years ago and really enjoyed it, particularly the sections about life in the trenches, which I found very gripping and evocative. Perhaps my memory is playing up, but I seemed to remember that this was the main point of the book, not the romance between Stephen and his french girlfriend, which was the main focus of this disappointing adaptation.

I am amazed how the production team managed to turn such a good book about WW1 into such a dull and plodding romantic drama. The dialogue was stilted, and although I am English and therefore used to the various English dialects, I struggled most of the time to understand what was being said so had to turn the volume up higher than normal. The acting was also poor - involving lots of staring mournfully at each other and simpering. I'm not sure if this was the actors' / director's faults or whether it was such a bad script that there was just no dialogue to work with. I've never watched a drama with so many long silences in it (except maybe the Twilight films); I'm sure this wasn't a feature of the book. I found myself getting very frustrated with the slow pace and kept wanting to reach for the FF button on the remote. I also found the casting of several of the characters very odd - especially the normally excellent Matthew Goode and Eddie Redmayne.

The one redeeming feature of the series was that it looked good.

In summary then, one to avoid and read the book instead.

I really enjoyed this 5-part drama.

Not only is it an engrossing and well made drama, it also makes you think about the rights and wrongs of the British jury system.

The story is quite simple: it is about the retrial of a previously-convicted multiple murder, and focuses mainly on the people who have been selected to be the jury, offering up things about some of the jurors that seriously make you think about whether or not random selection from the general public is the best way to go about selecting a jury for such an important case.

The backdrop for the entire series is an ongoing political debate as to whether trial by jury is a good system or should be replaces.

Interesting stuff, and entertaining too.

This is a feature-length adaptation of Sarah Water's book of the same name.

I first came across Sarah Water's writing when I watch Tipping The Velvet on TV. I enjoyed the series so much that I then read the book, which was a great read. (I thoroughly recommend you read the book and watch the series - I don't think the order matters).

I guess the reason that I wasn't bowled over by this drama stems from the fact that I am not a fan of the book. I read it a few months ago, and whilst I enjoyed it, it was nowhere near as good as Tipping The Velvet. I think the problem being that whilst it has interesting characters, the story just wasn't strong enough and it just seemed to pootle along without much direction.

Saying that though, I would still recommend that you watch this drama as it is very atmospheric and the acting is on the whole good, especially the wonderful Anna Maxwell Martin, who is always very watchable, as is Clare Foy.

My reasons for choosing to see this film were as follows: 1) I am a fan of Joe Wrights previous films Atonement and Pride & Prejudice. 2) It had a good cast - particularly Cate Blanchet and Eric Bana. 3) It had a good score on this site (7.5) and mainly good reviews. 4) I generally like action thrillers. 5) I wanted a good film to take my 12 year old son to.

Well.. all I can say is that I was disappointed on all counts. The plot was full of holes, the acting was poor, the music was overpowering, and I found it boring and a little weird. What little pace there was, was killed throughout by slow scenes, such as a 5-minute flamenco dancing sequence, which added nothing at all to the story. Also for a 12A, it was actually quite disturbing in places and I thought it had an unpleasant tone throughout. All in all it reminded me of watching a bad French film.

I would say definitely one to avoid at all costs!

As a fan of Victorian-era drama, this 4-part adaptation of a Michel Faber book of the same name is right up my street. It is the story of a London prostitute called Sugar (played by Romola Garai) who takes the fancy of a well-to-do merchant Mr Rackham (Chris O'Dowd) and how their relationship develops. What starts of as a purely sexual thing, soon become much more than that and Sugar becomes increasingly involved in Mr Rackham's home and business life. The whole production is fantastic - from the stylistic direction right down to the set design, costumes, music and acting. Romola Garia and Chris O'Dowd particularly stand out, as does Amanda Hale as the mentally disturbed wife. I have just finished watching the 3rd episode and did not want it to end, it was that gripping. I can't wait to read the book and only hope it is half as good as this series. I will definitely buy this when it comes out on DVD and watch it again. All in all, highly recommended!

This is a sweet and quite likable comedy but it could have been so much better...

The acting on the whole was awful - especially from the 'love interest' Robert Pattinson look-a-likey Ed Westwick.

I guess all romcoms are somewhat predictable, but in this it was painfully obvious what was going to happen.

The plot was ridiculous in places - with a complete novice learning to snowboard to competition level within a matter of weeks.

Despite all these criticisms I kind of enjoyed it (mainly for the snowboarding and the Alps) but would neither recommend it nor want to watch it again. Perhaps more one to watch at home if you have some time to kill and there was nothing much else on.

Having heard some reviews before I went, I did not have high hopes of this film, however even so was disappointed. I have seen the original film several times and enjoyed it but thought with today's technology, it should be redone and could be even better. Well I was wrong! I cannot think of a good thing to say about this film. Weak story that didn't make sense a lot of the time, mediocre acting, awful music, poor casting - especially for the lead man - who seemed to have no charisma whatsoever. It was also too long by about half an hour. One thing I really enjoyed about the original was the long and involved race/chase scenes. In this film there was no way near enough of this for me, instead too much talking and fighting. In my mind this was even worse than Transformers 2 which is saying something.

This is a quirky, witty and quite often laugh-out-load funny comedy about the goings on in the kitchen of a posh restaurant. I really like this series and can't understand why it has received such mixed reviews; It has great characters played by a great cast, is very current in its subject matter (in these days where TV seems obsessed with posh cooking) and is actually funny. Alan Davis plays the main character - a chef called Roland White (hence the name of the program), whom I gather is based on a celebrity chef with the same surname but in French. I find Mr Davis a very likable actor to watch as well as being funny. By the way, it was mainly filmed at Thornbury Castle near Bristol.

I recorded all 3 episode of this series then ended up watching them back to back as it turned out to be so gripping! The casting and performances of the main characters was excellent, although I do think that that Peter should have been played by someone slightly more attractive. The actor who played Gavin was perfect for the part, as you have to be very good looking and sexy to get away with the darker aspects to that character. I can't really say much more without giving away the plot, other than to say do give this a go. Gripping, sexy, well made, well acted, good story. What more could you ask? By the way I did see the original series and read the book as a teenager, and really enjoyed the story back then but can't remember enough about it to really compare the two TV versions.

I watched Sleep With Me as I thought it sounded quite different from the usual dramas we get to see on British TV. It was gripping from the start and I was intrigued to see how the story played out. Personally, I found all the characters, especially that of the seducer, to be quite unbelievable and slightly annoying but this didn't stop me enjoying what was a sexually charged and refreshingly different drama. The acting was generally good, especially that of the actress who played Sylvie. Well done ITV for going out on a limb and bring us something different. Hopefully ITV will go on to make more of this type of adult drama as it makes a change to the period dramas and detective stories that we see so often.