CamdenBill

I haven't read the source material so come at with a fresh perspective. I'm about halfway through and will watch until the end, purely because I love sci-fi. If not for that, I may not have finished it because the quality of both the writing and performances is sub par. I care little for any of the characters. They're not interesting or engaging. Even Benedict Wong seems a little off in it, and he's an excellent actor. Here, he has strange, rather forced accent. At times, it feels like some of the other characters voices have been dubbed, so wooden are they. Overall, I'd recommend it if you enjoy sci-fi. If not, I'd give it a miss.

I made it through the first couple of episodes but gave up because the show lacked authenticity, and seemed artifical and forced. The issue of racism was a prevalent theme but it placed characters and attitudes from perhaps the 1980s into the 2020s and it just didn't stack up at all. It was all too black and white and the agenda of the writers intruded far too much on the story itself. There were moments of great acting by the likes of Peter Capaldi and Cush Jumbo but the lack of any subtlety in the writing left them with little room for manoeuvre. Overall, one to avoid in my opinion as there's much better written stuff out there.

At heart this is the story of father-daughter relationship that goes beyond blood ties. Cee's real father leads her into danger in pursuit of financial wealth and she's lead out of it by a stranger who ultimately spurns riches and is prepared to sacrifice himself to save her. Her smile at the end indicates she's finally discovered a feeling that had never existed with her biological father. The budget was obviously small but the alien world was far more believable than sci-fi films with a hundred times the budget. It also has a great score and is just a wonderfully well written, acted and put together film.

Macbeth, in my opinion, is the greatest work of art in the English language that speaks across time and will forever be discovered by generations to come, and adaptations will continually be made of it. So there is a rich history to compare new versions with. The greatest in my opinion is Polanski's 1971 film, with an honourable mention to Rupert Goold's 2010 effort. What both those films got fundamentally correct was the casting of Macbeth, with Jon Finch and Patrick Stewart respectively. Both masters of Shakespearean blank verse, and this is what makes Shakespeare what it is. Denzil Washington just didn't quite cut it. The American accent didn't help either. An Americanized Hamlet seems to work OK but it doesn't work at all well with Macbeth.

Another thing they got wrong with this production was the casting of Lady Macbeth. Frances McDormand is just too old and the chemistry with Washington just wasn't there. The 2015 Justin Kurzel is far from a favourite of mine but the casting and performance of Marion Cotillard is one of its standout features, and the direction and originality of her madness scene one of the triumps of Kurzel. One of the suprising disappointments of this film is the lack of any original or different takes on anything. The dagger shaped door handle was a nice touch but little else springs to mind, which is disappointing from a Coen film.

So all in all, a visually interesting adaptation but not one I'm likely to revisit.

Worth watching and informative but not great production. Narrator not so good and, as a Brit, it's quite irritating to here constant uses of England when Britain/the UK should be used, and also hearing Dick Van Dyke like cockney accent for a British Asian terror suspect.

As a fan of Philip K. Dick stories (Although I hadn't read this one) and having an interest in WW2, I'd been looking forward to watching this series.

I've been through all 10 episodes and it left me decidedly underwhelmed. It's just so incredibly slow moving and drawn out. Very few of the characters are engaging and some of the acting left a lot to be desired - there were several occasions when actors seemed to stumble over their lines.

There was a big "reveal" at the end of the last episode that will obviously lead into a further series, but this reveal should have been made half way through this one and more work gone into making sure the audience stick around for a future series as I'm not entirely sure I will personally.

Prior to seeing this Macbeth, the undisputed greatest adaptation in my opinion is the Polanski/Finch version, so I use that as the benchmark to judge this version.

Where this film excels is the wonderful cinematography, though it's done at great expense of losing much of the text, too much in my opinion, and the deeper meaning of the story is lost also. Polanski never overly compromised what actually makes Shakespeare Shakespeare - the beautiful language, and to a large extent Kurzel does.

Fassbender's lack of time spent on the stage doing Shakespeare shows and he isn't always spot on with his timing of Shakespeare's Blank Verse and he lacks the mastery and elucidation that an experienced Shakespearean actor like Jon Finch had, where his crisp and cutting voice pours meaning into every word.

Whether it was lack of experience performing Shakespeare or how Fassbender/Kurzel intended it, is hard to tell, but the upshot is that Macbeth here is presented as a severally depressed man from the beginning and struggles to generate any emotion. He speaks in a constant monotone and rather mumbling way for the majority of the play. Portraying Macbeth in such a way, while original, actually defeats the deeper meaning of Macbeth, as the point really is that, at the beginning of the play, he is a perfectly happy person, has just won a great battle for his King, has good friends like Banquo and a lovely wife and castle - or tent in this adaptation! And then all this changes when he receives a prophecy by some witches and stops behaving rationally.

Often, I felt Fassbender was trying to fight against what the actual lines were to force them into his interpretation. For example, in the latter part of the play, when Fassbender's Macbeth says: "I 'gin to be aweary of the sun, And wish th' estate o' th' world were now undone." It doesn't actually carry much weight because it seems he's been aweary of the Sun since the beginning of the film. Whereas in the Polanski/Finch film, it's full of power because of the emotion he'd shown before. And many great lines and scenes were not included in this version because the emotion displayed by Macbeth wouldn't make sense with how Fassbender plays him.

The whole part of the film before and after the murder scene is pretty poor in my opinion, though I'd have to watch it again to be able to say for sure what happened, as it seemed the "dagger scene" was said in the presence of Malcolm, who seems complicit in it. But it was all rather confusing to be honest, with a massive amount of dialogue removed and other lines rearranged.

From quite early on we get another repeated problem I feel - of characters important to the play having their lines so drastically cut they often become little more than extras. Polanski got the editing down of the text spot on but Kurzel overdoes it I think. Martin Shaw's Banquo in Polanski's film is a major presence, as is his endearing relationship with Fleance, himself given enough screen time to truly become a part of the film and even a song to sing in front of the King, whereas Paddy Considine's Banquo is little more than an extra and I don't think Fleance actually says a word.

I thought Marion Cotillard was the pick of the actors. I think in part this was due to her not even attempting to do a Scottish accent while trying to get Shakespeare's lines just right, something some of the other actors struggled with - at one point Sean Harris sounded like he came from three different parts of the UK in the same sentence. Though I think he really came into his own later on in the film and gave a powerful performance.

Where I think this version came good was the last half an hour or so. The final breakdown of Lady Macbeth is a very powerful piece of film and the scene with the burial of a child at the beginning helped explain her character. I.E. The ambition she showed for Macbeth to kill Duncan comes as a replacement for the emptiness she feels no longer being a mother - and she hoped becoming Queen would fill that emptiness, though it doesn't of course.

The news of her death is done in such a way as to catch those familiar with the play off guard. "The Tomorrow and Tomorrow..." speech is delivered well by Fassbender and we perhaps see the payback for his "depressed and melancholic" Macbeth when he finally breaks down emotionally and picks up and holds her.

In many ways Fassbender's Macbeth goes on a polar opposite journey to Finch's and personally I prefer the latter and found it more powerful, and the "Towmorrow and Tomorrow..." speech as done by Finch accurately represents the journey Macbeth went on. I.E. That the prophecy by the witches created a delusion that there was a purpose to his life and that he had a destiny - this can be a good thing and inspire people to become things they otherwise wouldn't, but it's more than likely it will end up causing them to make increasingly irrational choices, which is what happens to Macbeth and he destroys all that had been good in his life, and his tyranny destroys many other lives too. And this moment where he realises that he's actually no-one special at all and life is essentially meaningless is one of the most powerful created in all of literature and spans across the centuries and still has resonances today, where many people still succumb to this notion.

The end was excellently done, with an original take on Burnham Wood coming to Dunsinane, and the finale of the fight between Macbeth and Macduff against a backdrop of fire was spectacular.

The premise of the film - every male member of a nauseatingly happy family has the ability to go back in time... by going into a wardrobe, thinking of the time they want to go back to and... clenching their fists.

This requires a suspension of belief of course as physics tells us this is rather silly.

Our narrator and central character is told this by the man who claims to be his father. I say "claims" because Tim is ginger haired and no-one else in his family is. This is never explored in the film.

The restrictions of the time travelling are explained by his father to let us all know the parameters of the film/plot. He can't go further back than his own birth and he shouldn't go chasing after money because his uncle Fred did and it didn't make him happy.

There is no philosophical discussion about possibly intervening to prevent disasters such as 9/11 or warn people of coming Tsunamis.

Our Tim decides he will use his magic power to find love.

What follows is the usual formulaic clap-trap found in most other films Richard Curtis has been involved in, such as Love Actually, Notting Hill and Four Weddings and a Funeral.

It is set in Britain - a Britain aimed at an American audience where everyone has a nice clear and quaint accent, is a tiny bit eccentric and drinks tea.

He falls for, surprise, surprise, an American girl. They have the most vomit inducing, perfect happy little relationship anyone has ever had. The second hour of the film is just pure tediousness. They never row, get sick or have money troubles. Our Tim does not use his power to sleep with lots of girls and go back and then not do.

There is a mysterious uncle who has a touch of Alzheimer's. We perhaps expect this to be a sub-plot and his condition has been caused by going back in time too much. This is never delved into though and he just seems to be there for humour.

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of the film is failure to fully explore the consequences of going back in time would have. For example he goes back together with his father to when he was a boy. By doing so he would have condemned himself to have to follow the exact same course of his life as he had previously, knowing for the next twenty years every single event that would happen both to him and in the world. It is not explained how, for example, he dealt with being a child whilst having the memories of having had intimate relationships with women. We just see him strolling along the beach with his dad and are left to believe that somehow his life followed the same pattern as before.

Groundhog day this ain't. One to give a miss.

Just seen this. Felt rather let down. I was hoping for something a little more existential, but it all felt a little inconsequential.

The plot issues I could over look - we'll be lucky to the have left our own solar system by the end of the century, let alone travel many light years in a couple of Earth years.

The biggest flaw was perhaps that there were too many characters and most of them were under developed to the point where I struggle to remember any of their names - the exception being David the robot - and didn't particularly care what happened to them. Lots of strong accents I doubt will exist by the end of the century, such of the forces of globalization. Little details that spoiled the film in a lot of ways.

I think the film ultimately fails because it tried to tie in with the Alien franchise and leave the possibility for a sequel to this prequel. And the art of film making suffered as a result.

-----------------------------------

Some further thoughts on reflection. I think we need to see the sequel to this film before making a final judgement. As a stand alone film, it has too many faults to be considered a great film, but seen as the early chapters of an ultimately great story, I may change my mind about this film.

I will await the sequel and hope it redeems the faults of the original and I will get a little more of the existentialism I hoped to find in this film.

Right, first off, don't watch this movie if you're not familiar with "The Tempest," you will be wasting your time and won't be able to follow anything, and you'll waste more time coming on here moaning that you didn't understand anything and how it really sucks!

Actually, it probably isn't enough to be just familiar with The Tempest, but to know it well and love it well. Every character and every line! Because, to me, it seems that this is not really an adaptation of The Tempest at all, it's a film about the creation of it. John Gielgud isn't really playing the part of Prospero but he's playing the role of Shakespeare himself as he is writing the play. The film is kind of set in the mind of Shakespeare and is part opera, part theatre, part musical, part acid trip gone wrong, part... too many parts to describe!

The Tempest is a very special play. It was Shakespeare's last, and he probably played the part of Prospero. And there are a lot of connections between the journey of Prospero and Shakespeare's own life, culminating in the beautiful Epilogue speech, which is both a valedictory of Prospero and of Shakespeare. And all this with one of the greatest Shakespearean actors of all time performing all the voices!

In summary, if you love Shakespeare, you'll love this film, you'll get the urge to revisit it often. If you don't, then neither waste your time watching it or cast your vote upon it - it's a disgrace this film has such a low rating!