SB100

Even allowing for the limitations imposed by a TV budget and noticeable in some fairly dodgy locations - an 'airport' appears to be really a disused factory, this is a poor film.

First, Sebastian Koch, a good actor, is miscast as Stauffenberg (even though he has played other German officers to better effect, eg in 'The Black Book'). He lacks intensity and is not believable as someone who would make the daring leap involved here.

More seriously, the script is a mess. Characters appear without explanation; there is no attempt to show the process of gathering support and planning the operation; things just happen. The place of the Valkyrie plan and reserve army in the conspiracy is never properly explained, nor is it clear how Stauffenberg makes the transition from injured but ordinary Wehrmacht officer to someone with access to Hitler and the High Command.

I am not a great fan of Tom Cruise, but his film of the same subject is much better on every count.

Rupert Graves is not an actor I care for much, but he is good in this film as William Shakespeare, having to eternally make money and using that as an excuse to escape domestic life. This is all shown through a story about what might have been the motivation behind the writing of the Sonnets, which are one of the finest achievements in English poetry. The story is credible, although of course there are many theories about the issue. The period settings were very believable, and in contrast to a number of films about the era (eg All is True) the dialogue was easily audible and understandable. Amongst other performances, Tom Sturridge makes a devious pretty boy, and Indira Varma is very good as the mixed race prostitute Lucie, making her way in a world which will use her even as she uses the men. Camilla Arfwedson manages to make an impression in a single thirty second scene, and Zoe Wanamaker also has an effective cameo.

This is the product of people who don't have confidence in their source material, a 1943 Christie novel. The basic plot is preserved but it is glossed-up in a number of ways. It is filmed in startlingly bright colours, in an over-pretty village. Homosexuality is referred to openly rather than in the way it would have been then and an additional death is inserted and linked to it. The hero, Jerry, is no longer just an injured pilot but a pilot who cannot adjust to peace, womanises and drinks, and attempts suicide. The governess is no long beautiful but boring but instead is amazingly glamorous and sexy and of course tries it on with the hero.

Ken Russell hams it up as the vicar. Miss Marple is ever-present rather than arriving in the last third of the book, reducing the important role Jerry and the police play in the novel. And so on. There are a few good performances - Frances de la Tour as the vicar's wife, and Tallulah Riley as the despised stepdaughter Megan. On the whole, however, this is far inferior to the 1980s Joan Hickson version.

This is a muted film, both in tone and appearance, and is the tale of a weak man whose failure to stand up to his wife exposes him when an outsider who is naïve but understanding of him appears in the family's life. His weakness leads him to value that understanding above his responsibilities, and leads him to disaster - a disaster which leaves him more firmly trapped than ever. There is a nice sub-plot which shows the hell of American High School in an understated way.

The script and direction avoid the temptation to take the sexual angle further than is required; in fact, it is hard to see why the film is rated 15. The performances are good, especially from Felicity Jones believably playing an 18 year old, despite being 27 at the time of filming. The settings and design are all that is necessary. In the last third credibility seems a bit stretched, but maybe not; the combination of youth and middle aged idiocy can be a potent one.

This is a superb story about the way someone finds her way back from adversity when by pure chance her great ability at one specific thing is unlocked by someone who sees her potential. Although the story centres on chess, it could have been made in much the same way about, say, tennis. It isn't necessary to know anything about chess to enjoy the story. The story could perhaps have done with a little more adversity in terms of games and their outomes; but then there is a good deal of adversity in other areas of her life

The period settings and costuming, on which a great deal of money was spent, seem impeccable.

Anya Taylor-Joy has rightly received a lot of praise and awards for her portrayal of Beth Harmon, but for me the more astonishing performance is that of Isla Johnston as the young Beth, vulnerable, suspicious but knowing within herself that she is someone special. There is very good support acting. Also, the direction and cinematography/editing are supremely assured - this series was made by people who know what they are doing.

This is an engaging look at the experience of the young Elizabeth Tudor as she tried to navigate the dangers of life after the death of her father Henry VIII. Some liberties are taken with history (eg a prominent role for Stephen Gardiner, the pro-Catholic Bishop of Winchester who was actually imprisoned the whole time, but none at all for the father of the English reformation Archbishop Thomas Cranmer; and there is also some compression of timelines), but on the whole it is much more careful about facts than, say, 'The Tudors'.

Costuming and scene design are very good, and there is generous use of candle-lit scenes, emphasising how dark it would often have been at the time.

The performamces are good. Alicia von Rittberg, who played the lead role in the Netflix series Charite, has been de-glamorised and makes an unusual, intense Elizabeth, sometimes almost surprising herself with the way she twists and turns to respond to danger whether it is the sexual advances of her stepmother's new husband or attempts to get her support for the latest conspuiracy. If at times she seems rather mature for a 15 year old, it must be remembered that Elizabeth was one of the most highly educated females in England, and had had to live on her wits since her mother was executed. There is strong competition in the acting stakes from Romola Garai, who plays Elizabeth's older sister Mary, fierce and upright but far from one-dimensional. In fact, at times the series is in danger of turning into 'Becoming Mary'. Perhaps the most surprising success however is Oliver Zetterstrom as the young Edward VI. A far from easy role: vulnerable but priggish and tending to fanaticism, having to fight his own battles against an adult woirld which bowed to him but controlled him. The supporting cast are also generally good.

The story only goes up to a point before the death of Edward VI, presumably with an intention of a second series.

Before watching this film I saw a good deal of comment, critical and Austenite, about it. Most was negative. However I decided to try and watch it with an open mind. Afterwards, my thoughts are as follows:

Positive

The film looks good. The production design and cinematography are consistent and beautiful. One scene was like a Caspar David Friedrich painting. The settings are in fact probably too opulent for the social classes involved (especially the Musgroves) but that is not a huge fault. I am not comptent to judge the accuracy of the costuming but it was effective as part of the overall mise-en-scene, albeit with one serious flaw (see below).

Some of the performances are good: Henry Golding as Mr Elliott, and Mia McKenna-Bruce as Mary Musgrove especially. Richard E Grant plays himself to some effect as Sir Walter. Nia Towle captures Louisa's effervescence well.

There are individual effective moments: Louisa's jump is done much better than in previous adaptations, and makes us believe she is really injured.

The colour blind casting works well and is applied consistently. It is a pity that many commentators seem to not understand, perhaps wilfully, what the purposes and principles of colour-blind casting are, and condemn the results as anachronistic or tokenistic. They are not.

Negative

The script seriously misrepresents the character of Anne. She is far too sharp, mutinous and dominant. She is an alcoholic, and rude. As a mistaken version of an Austen character it is even worse than the 1999 and 2007 versions of Fanny Price in Mansfield Park. Her self doubt is mostly represented by laying on a bed crying or talking to her rabbit. The script also topedoes the strained relationship between Anne and Wentworth when he returns. This should be mostly agonised silence on both sides. In this version they have far too much to say to each other. The wholly inserted conversation on the beach is horrible to watch and listen to, it is so wrong. The letter scene is seriously mishandled. The script and the relationship between Anne and Wentworth form the central failing of the film.

Dakota Johnson plays the part well, even if it is not Austen's Anne in any real sense. But her appearance makes no real transition from downtrodden mouse to second bloom. Her beauty dominates every scene from start to finish and the costuming and hair styling simply intensify this. This is a great pity because a different approach to costume, make-up etc could have yielded a stunning transformation.

Wentworth comes across as a gormless git. This is partly the script, but also, Cosmo Jarvis' performance is totally inadequate and lacks all chemistry with Johnson. Anne's assertion that he should try to become an admiral ( which is totally against the actual position of Wentworth vis-a-vis the navy) sounds especially ludicrous. It is very hard indeed to see why Anne wants to marry him when Mr Elliott is available.

Mrs Clay's character, which here is represented as a crude voluptuary, should be much more refined. It is not believable that she represents a danger to Mr Elliott's dynatic ambitions. And the scene where he is snogging her in the street is ridiculous.

Neutral

There has been a lot of comment on the breaking of the fourth wall by Anne. This is not a first (the 1999 Mansfield Park and 2007 Persuasion both did it, though to a much smaller extent). In this film it works on its own terms; the question is whether the character thus revealed is the right one for the novel. It isn't, and so the problems of the script are reinforced.

Series 4 Power and Glory - This revived series of Borgen, set quite a few years after the much better original three series (some of the male actors look dreadfully aged), manages to fall between several stools. It cannot decide whether as in the original it is a political drama showing the incestuous, toxic and democracy-denying relationship between politicians and media, or a geopolitical thriller with indigenous people, climate change and veganism thrown in for good measure.

The plot, centering around an oil find in Greenland and resultant squabbles over revenue, enables a lot of pretty landscapes to be shown but has plenty of holes otherwise. A secret services project resulting in a death is never properly developed, and the tensions between the Greenland government and Denmark are played out mainly in the kitchen of a politician and the hotel bedroom of a civil servant. The superpowers are represented by a few stock shots of fighter planes and four Russian soldiers running away after a Danish soldier fires a pistol into the air. The Chinese are always stereotypically represented as cunning, manipulative and dressed in dark suits.

But perhaps the most egregious part is the tacked-on media sub-plot, in which media people stand around arguing and occasionally firing each other while trying to say something meaningful about current events. In this series, the most beautiful woman in Denmark gets to have a breakdown because she can't hack it at the top. But it's okay because she now has an understanding elderly husband who owns a farm where she can get close to nature.

Birgitte Nyborg is as manipulative and dishonest as ever, despite her apparent difference from normal politicians, and the series relies on these flaws being explained away as the contradictions of power. To back these up there is a liberal scattering of quotations. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

This independent British film is basically a road movie based on a conceit - that two female friends go round the country scattering the ashes of a deceased friend, at his behest. They both have problems, and the film is really about them. On the way they encounter various people, some odder than others. Some of the film is sad, some mildly funny. It is always engrossing. Julian Rhind-Tutt is good as the obnoxious, self centred and now dead Dan, who only appears on a laptop. It is good to see Laura Carmichael in something less buttoned-up than Downton Abbey. But the centre of this film is Chloe Pirrie's performance as closed-up Alex, burdened with secrets she can't talk about. Well worth seeing.

I saw this film in one go at the Queen Elizabeth Hall in the 1970s, and remember only being bored. But I knew nothing then about Tolstoy's work, so that was probably inevitable. Since then I have read the book (it's not a novel, said Tolstoy), seen the 1956 film and also the 2007 and 2016 TV series. All of those have their virtues.

The Bondachurk film has now appeared in Youtube in four segments and I have managed to watch it. Although it has brief moments of greatness (usually related to the scenery), these are far outweighed by the many faults, which I would list as follows: a. Despite the length, the script leaves out huge chunks of the story, particularly for certain characters, among them Helena Kuragina, Sonya, Maria Bolksonskaya and Nikolai Rostov. In general the military aspects are favoured above the personal, and although it could be said that other adaptations go too far the other way, the balance here is far awry. Also, there is insufficient connectivity between scenes so that if you don't know the original you may well wonder what is happening; b. The casting is very bad. Of course I was reading subtitles rather than understanding Russian, but I cannot think of a single character where the performance was more than adequate. Kutuzsov and Natasha might just about deserve that label (in the latter case, it was a welcome change to see Natasha played as young as she should be). Some characters like the Kuragins were entirely unmemorable, Prince Andrei was colourless and Pierre was a stolid dolt; c. Most of the battle scenes were interminable and boring. Yes, there were thousands of men on loan from the Red Army and loads of horses, but you need more than that to make a battle interesting. The viewer needs to know what is going on; there needs to be tension. And very little of the book's extensive philosophical points about war came out; ci. The direction was very uninspired. There were, for example, too few close-ups of people when they were talking. This distances the audience from the characters and makes it more difficult to engage with them. Some of the sequences which were meant to be clever (eg Prince Andrei's death) just looked silly.

Overall, I think it worth watching if you are interested in the book, but prepare for a gruelling time.

This tale of an American academic confronting sexism, snobbery and so on while getting mixed up in Middle East politics because she becomes an expensive escort seemed very with it when it was released but now seems very dated. Its view of feminism is pretty narrow. Michael Caine plays Michael Caine and Signourney Waver stands around talking about pretrodollars. The film does not aim for eroticism, but despite that shows plenty of Ms Weaver semi-naked. The ending is a cop-out, and also features an unbelievably incompetent hit man.

This is one of those films where you don't know whether to laugh or cry. There might have been a neat, if unoriginal, film inside - unhappily married woman starts affair, is blackmailed and there's a plot twist at the end; but everything is so badly done that the end result is very poor indeed.

The script is clunky and unbelievable; the London work environment which the plot revolves around is portrayed very unrealistically; some of the acting is very poor. The sex scenes are mechanistic rather than erotic, and not nearly as revealing as the director imagines; there is hardly a drop of sweat. Then towards the end, when events turn violent, the violence is so badly filmed that it appears ridiculous. Throughout, the score makes things worse.

This film went straight to DVD/streaming - never a good sign. Best watched with a lot of drinks and crisps - if at all.

This 1985 version of Anna Karenina (unfortunately unobtainable at present on DVD) has some good things in it - mainly the performances of some of the actors. Chief among these are Jacqueline Bisset as the eponymous heroine, mature yet still youthful and sensual though never over-dramatic, and Paul Scofield, who makes Karenin very human despite his cold nature. It is unfortunate that Christopher Reeve is only adequate as Vronsky, his acting was rather wooden though he looks impressive, but although eight years younger than Bisset he comes across as being about the same age, which should not be the case. Joanna David is good as Dolly, but Judi Bowker's limited range is unable to make much of Kitty, although the script (see below) gives her limited scope anyway.

The worst aspect of the film is the script. It dumps completely the Kitty/Levin parallel plot, probably for time considerations - Levin does not appear at all, and Kitty does so only when needed in relation to Vronsky. This causes at least two serious losses - the stark contrast between the Anna/Vronsky and Kitty/Levin relationships, which is an important thread running through the book; and the contrast between the formality and dissipation of city and society life on the one hand, and on the other, the simplicity and truth of the countryside. These were very important to Tolstoy. Even in more minor ways, though, the script is poor - it changes parts of the Anna/Vronsky/Karenin story, and even has scenes which are not in the book or are almost unrecognisable because they have been changed.

The suicide scene is well staged, which is often far from the case; but the scene at the start with the railway worker's death is not shown properly at all, which somewhat destroys the intended comparison.

Production values put an emphasis on quietly luxurious settings. The film was shot with rather dark lighting, which although probably realistic, now seems very old-fashioned.

Okay but very compressed version of the story of the events surrounding Edward VIII's abdication. Joely Richardson and Stephen Campbell Moore are adequate - she capturing some of the allure, and he showing the petulance and self centred nature of Edward. However some otehr characters are more caricatures. Appears to be filmed in northern America - some scenes rather unrealistic. The script shows a lack of knowledge in the writers, eg no idea of Parliamentary procedure and a reference to the KGB, a name which did not yet exist (it was the NKVD at the time). Also does not fully explain why the Church's role was crucial.

Sparse but beautiful film about the difficulties of emotional connection and loneliness in a place with few people; set in the Scottish Highlands. Chloe Pirrie is very good as the teenager who is oppressed by the weight of need - her own need for connection, and the needs of others which are placed upon her. This film says more in 90 minutes than many others do in a much longer time.

This was better than I had expected from reading critics' reviews - but that doesn't mean that it's a very good film. In many ways it's a routine spy tale of who is double crossing whom, with views of a few European cities thrown in. The back story of the lead character's career as a ballerina cut short, and her ill mother, is really just padding and not interesting except insofar as the family background motivates her later actions in a particular way. Various big name actors eg Jeremy Irons, do what are essentially cameos with accents. The grizzled American CIA man is a rather feeble character, making only a feeble show of suspicion before falling for his beautiful counterpart. Jennifer Lawrence naturally looks good at all times even after being savagely beaten etc etc, but physically is an unlikely ballerina. She certainly looks Slavic, and has the required hauteur for the role.

In some ways this isn't too bad an adaptation, and has a good Watson, though he is too old. But Matt Frewer's Holmes is ridiculously exaggerated. Fortunately he is not on screen much. But there are also tiresome pointless changes from the original novel, and inaccuracies like referring to Baskerville as a lord. And the adaptation is filmed in surroundings that are not nearly bleak enough.

The performances are mostly good in this adaptation, and it is especially welcome to see Dr Watson as a thoughtful younger man rather than an old buffer. This is much closer to the original. What is not closer is the adaptation itself, with some sub-plots and characters removed, and totally unnecessary things inserted - a seance, a Christmas party etc etc. Also extra scenes to spice up characterisation, eg Holmes assaulting a cab driver. A pity that more faith wasn't put in the original story. Filmed in the north of England rather than on Dartmoor itself, but that is true of most versions which exist.

A superb film set in the Orthodox Jewish community, about freedom and choice. The film finds a way to reconcile those with religious values, although it is unlikely that everyone would agree with its conclusion. Although the community and its life is depicted in detail, there are only three main roles, and the feelings and tensions between them are very well conveyed by all the actors. Wonderful photography of the north London suburban settings in winter adds to the closed-in atmosphere.

Although it has all the limitations of its age, being made in the late seventies, this is a good series. Peter Egan conveys all the charm mixed with over-weening vanity and egotism of the central role, and there is good support especially from Nigel Davenport as a tortured but noble George III and Dinah Stabb as the wild Princess Caroline. Although most settings are indoors with very little external filming, it is fairly appropriate for the story of this lover of art and buildings. With eight episodes there is room for decent treatment of key episodes - although there is relatively little on the period after George became a (very undistinguished) king.

This film sets out to be a love story set against the 'tulipmania' of 17th century Netherlands. The basic plot (woman sold into arranged marriage, has affair with artist hired to do portrait) is hardly original, and the mainspring of the action involving a baby is scarcely credible. There are lots of scenes of tulip selling but the mechanics are not well explained and the result is often confusing. But perhaps the worst part of the film is that none of the characters, except perhaps Judi Dench's acerbic abbess, seem to be real three dimensional people. The end is very predictable. The period settings, which concentrate on the contrast between private comfort and public squalor, are okay. The film was apparently mangled by the studio after it was made, but would perhaps have been best not started at all.

This BBC drama series on the Pre-Raphaelites concentrates on three major artists - Millais, Hunt and Rossetti, and uses a fourth member of the Brotherhood, critic Fred Stephens, as narrator and fall guy. On the whole the drama works well, with a humorous edge designed to illustrate the somewhat chaotic circumstances of the artists' lives. The character of the artists is well differentiated; perhaps understandably, there is not much about the differences in their art. In fact the series concentrates on personal lives rather than art. Plenty is seen of their various women, both literally and in terms of screen time, and those who are averse to lusty sex scenes will need to fast forward sometimes. The stand-out performances are perhaps Tom Hollander as the art critic Ruskin, and Amy Manson as the tragically ill-used Lizzie Siddal. The period settings are well done.

This tale of a London hotel beset by the blitz in 1940 does not have much originality - all of the characters are pretty much stock figures, although they naturally have their little secrets. There is plenty of sentiment, and tension wound up by dramatic devices you can see coming a mile off. On the whole it is saved mostly by the cast, whose performances are pretty good, especially Steven Mackintosh as the manager, Hermione Corfield as his daughter/assistant, and Kara Tointon as the flighty singer with a heart of gold. Not filmed in London, and some of the trappings of war are a bit feeble. But worth watching even though the last episode is unsatisfactory because a second series was anticipated but never materialised.

The second series continues the story into the time of Octavian. Although some episodes are strong there is also evidence of a good deal of padding, particularly towards the end. A lot of sex and violence, but no more so than in the first series. The sub-plot concerning Vorenus' children becomes tedious. The cast no doubt had a lot of fun. It's a bit disconcerting finding the chauffeur from Downton Abbey up to no good with Octavia.

Blood and guts version of the Scottish play. The best features are visual, with good use made of the lowering Scottish countryside (though some scenes are filmed in Northern England). Fassbender is a suitably macho Macbeth, but handles the introspection well. Marion Cotillard does well enough but does not dominate the film enough - probably not her fault.

The witches, all too easily a laughable aspect, are presented effectively with the addition of an eerie child. Difficult to understand large parts of the text due to the large variety of accents and intonations on display. The final scenes are well staged, and the interpolated opening scene helps makes sense of the rest of the story. Worth watching as an adaptation, but there are better ones available on film.