greenjackjc

This was not Agatha Christie by any stretch of the imagination.

Christie gave us sharp wit, intriguing - if sometimes predictable - plots, and interesting characters.

This dull effort plodded interminably - I was relieved when a murder took place!

Kim Kattrel's "acting" was actually laughable, but aside from this the whole thing exuded and unpleasant and grim atmosphere that left me feeling physically nauseous.

And to top it all, it was filmed in a weird green colour...why??? All this did was to darken the mood, making it oppressive and nasty.

If the director was aiming for "gritty", they nailed it, and then some, but it is not Agatha Christie and far from entertaining. Again the reviews amaze me - 9s and 10s, seriously?? I give this 3 stars maximum and that's only because it starred the brilliant Toby Jones, who was utterly wasted on this garbage.

Something bad happens. Woman writes a book about it years later. People fall out, then make up and life goes on. And that's it! Nothing new to offer (except a "modern" family with two mothers), no mystery, bad acting (and severe overacting!), bad editing. I felt no empathy for any of the characters, mainly as they were so unlikable (with the exception of the dad with dementia) or unbelievable. The dialogue was stilted, like the actors had forgotten or missed their lines. The best thing about it was the camera work and scenery, but ultimately, it really wasn't compelling enough to keep me interested.

Not sure why anyone thought it was worthy of a 10!

Anyone who gave this movie less than 8 stars either missed the point or has no soul.

This was perfectly casted and acted, telling the story of author PL Travers and her battle with Walt Disney over the filming rights to Mary Poppins.

I'll admit, when my wife suggested watching this, I was less than enthusiastic. But within minutes, the quality of the acting won me over, along with the compelling storyline. I had no idea who Travers was, nor of the hardship she faced as a child. While I'm guessing it was somewhat embellished for the film, there's enough truth in those frequent flashbacks to give an idea of what could have happened. Emma Thompson brought real energy to the role, playing the part with passion and gravitas, but to real comic effect. Tom Hanks was brilliant as Disney, and even Colin Farrel surprised us with his excellent portrayal of the author's alcoholic but loving and devoted father.

The film adds another dimension to the timeless classic that is Mary Poppins, and I'll never think of it in the same way.

It was equally moving, funny and thought-provoking, and well-worth watching for the performances alone.

How anyone thought this excrescence was worth anything over 3 stars is staggering. It's further proof that humanity is doomed. Yes, the movie's from 1996, so I expected the 'special effects' to be lacking (which they really, really were) but it fell down on so many levels. Some reviewers saw a hidden meaning - perhaps it was so well hidden that anyone with an ounce of taste and discernment missed it. Others say it was satire. Again, they are seeing something that simply wasn't there. This was garbage from beginning to end; the acting quality from almost every member of the cast was cringeworthy, and the plot was cliched and ridiculously far-fetched.

In fairness, the first half was bearable (just), with a few laughs. However, it rapidly went downhill with 'humour' that few people over 7 years of age would find funny.

Basically, it showed American capitalism and consumerism at its worst, along with stereotypes about race, single parents and working-class people.

Want a good Christmas film? Watch something like Mrs Miracle or The Preacher's Wife.

While it wasn't the most original plot and was fairly predictable throughout, this was a pleasure to watch. The acting, direction and editing were spot- on, and it didn't pretend to be anything other than what it was.

There were a few good laughs and some moments of pathos, with a feel-good ending that lifted the heart. What it didn't have is any of the lame attempts at "inclusivity" that you find in so many movies these days, and was all the better for it. It wasn't modern or trendy, it was a simple, old-fashioned rom com without vulgarness, cheap laughs, lame characters or excessive profanity. They need to make more films like this.

All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't pay to see this at a cinema! The first 20 minutes were dull, followed by an overlong sequence of bizarre aliens and CGI, punctuated by awkward silence. The plot was surely written by 10 year olds and the acting was pretty lame at times, particularly 'Kang' (which made me think of the Simpsons - Kang & Kodos!) Paul Rudd was good, as always, and there were a few laughs, but even he seemed fed up with the whole thing. But the whole thing was a mess and the editing sucked. Was this aimed at kids? I'm not even sure - it was really that bad. MCU has lost the plot, big time, and it needs to stop.

I'm puzzled by the relatively low score for this film on IMDb. Anyone who was expecting a fast-paced blockbuster 'whodunnit' obviously didn't do their homework beforehand.

Yes, it takes a while to warm up, but it's never boring (unless you're lacking in intelligence) and is great fun to watch. The humour varies between subtle, dark and slapstick/farce, but there's a subtext of emotion and tragedy in the main character's back stories.

Okay, so the plot is a little predictable at times, but the fun comes in the form of the 'real' people, like Dickie (Richard, not David!) Attenborough and Agatha Christie etc, and the interaction between Constable Stalker and Inspector Stoppard.

It's not meant to be taken too seriously, it's just an hour and a half of old-fashioned fun. And Saoirse Ronan steals the show with her portrayal of an enthusiastic but inexperienced police constable.

The direction is fairly slick, with 'Hot Fuzz' style cut scenes and maybe the split-screen was overused a touch, but for me it didn't detract from the enjoyment. There's also a lot of flashbacks, and this method is even commented on by one of the characters!

In the end, this is self-parody at its best, a gentle poke at the classic whodunnit that we know and love, with all its failings, plot holes and repeated themes.

So, ignore the haters and indulge yourself!

First, this could have been great fun. It's fiction, so the directors/producers can be forgiven for messing about with the narrative to make things more 'inclusive' and give the film a different feel.

However, this oddity couldn't make up its mind if it was a comedy or a serious adaptation of DC.

Even the star cast couldn't save it: Peter Capaldi fell woefully short as Mr Micawber, and some of the other performances were seriously lacking (Anna Maxwell, David Boyd and Paul Whitehouse in particular). But my main problem with this film is that all the major events in Copperfield's life were unaccountably mixed up. Anyone who knows and loves Dicken's story well (as I do) will be left scratching their head as each perplexing scene unfolds out of sequence and characters appear where they shouldn't. I really wanted to enjoy this - the trailers promised a unique and quirky romp through DC's life with a wonderful cast and sparkling, witty script. Instead, we had weirdly mixed up chronology, quips inserted unnecessarily, and some questionable acting. Very disappointing.

The title of this review is a line from the series uttered by Jeff rawle's character, 'Bluey', the Duke of Stilton.

It pretty much sums up this series, as it was, in fact, tripe.

It's a shame, really, as we were looking forward to this, but suffered through about 25 minutes of this garbage before switching off.

Aside from the appalling American accents, the main protagonists were painfully bad and the whole thing played to the US myth that all Brits live in stately homes (or Romany Gypsy caravans?!). Some of the better-known cast members (Hadyn Gwynne, Jeff Rawle, Anthony Head & Jonty Stephens) should have known better and avoided this travesty. And it's for them that I gave it three stars. All of the cast below 30 need acting lessons.

Dated, low-budget, and "acting" that will make you squirm.

After watching Goosebumps 1 & 2 with my boys, we thought we'd give this a try because of the relatively high rating. However, most of the high scores seem to be based on nostalgia rather than any true reflection of quality or content.

Yes, it's from the 90s, and we expected it to feel dated, but this was painful.

We switched off after less than five minutes, mostly because of the abysmal acting from every character.

Be warned- it's seriously bad. Watch the highly - entertaining Jack Black movies instead if you enjoy a few scares and a good laugh.

Well, that was a train wreck, wasn't it?

Look, over the years, Bond films have evolved and we get that. Daniel Craig elevated the role and made it his own. But this went too far, and it was a mess.

The action was typical Bond stuff but there wasn't much of it, punctuated with long periods of heavy emotional stuff that was just too much, and the entire film was depressing. The new 007 was seriously irritating and Q was unconvincing. Even DC himself seemed tired of the whole thing We expect some cheesy one-liners, cool gadgets, lots of action and explosions, and the villain to die a horrible death. What we don't expect (or want) is a lesson in wokeness and soul-searching.

Finally, whoever cast Lea Seydoux as Madelaine Swann was on drugs or was bribed. Rami Malek was wasted on this film and was probably the best thing in it.

I don't often give one-star reviews, but this thoroughly deserves it.

From the outset, the lead actor overplays the role of Diana to almost comedic effect. The score is discordant and grating, the script is stilted, and the whole thing moves at the speed of continental drift. Yes, there are some famous names, but each one is hopelessly miscast. And as for 'Sandringham', it looked nothing like the real place! At least make an effort to find something similar? Sandringham is nowhere near as grand as this place (a German castle) and does not have a moat.

I gave it about 33 minutes and that was all I could stomach. The only positive note is that I didn't pay to see it, like some poor souls.

Seriously, if you're going to remake a classic whodunnit, at least try to get the story to resemble the book!

First, it's not a Marple story, and this showed, as her character barely had a scene. She appeared now and then, smiling benignly with a twinkle in her eye, but always just for a little too long. It was weird, like she'd taken drugs or something.

As for the rest, it failed on every level. The storyline, scenes and characters were changed beyond recognition from the book.

The plot was weak, the acting sub-par (Matthew Kelly thought he was in a comedy) and some of the scenery (I mean, the crescent moon looked like something off of a cheap stage show) was laughable. The whole thing took far too long to get going because of some nonsensical subplot about the murder victim possibly being the next PM. And was it really necessary to have Winston Churchill in it? We actually exclaimed in relief when someone finally got murdered!

Overall it was poorly directed and acted, there was no suspense, and it was a massive disappointment.

A gripping tale from the start: planet earth is entering its last days due to the selfishness of humans. As they seek a way for humanity to continue, a 'time fracture' is discovered allowing them to go back millions of years, but to a different timeline. Effectively, it's a way to start over and do things differently.

However, all is not as it seems... This series deserves a much higher star rating! Well made, well acted and a great storyline. Every character is cast perfectly. Is it far-fetched? Yes, it's supposed to be. Are the special effects a bit naff? Definitely, but it was made in 2011.

Anyone who thinks it was boring must have been watching the wrong program.

The only negative point is that it never got the second series that it set us up for and thoroughly deserved.

See those 10star reviews? It's a sign that the human race is doomed.

This show is utter garbage. It's so bad it's not worth the effort of reviewing further.

All I'll say is if you enjoy this you must possess the kind of mentally that would laugh at a spoon.

I mean, who uses canned laughter these days? And don't get me started on the "acting" or cheap sets. This is dumber than TBBT, and that's saying something.

Yes, I knew it was a kid's show, my own kids were watching it on BBC iPlayer (CBBC).

They gave up after 2 episodes.

This is yet another show that promised a lot and failed miserably.

The plot seemed okay, but it was let down by astonishingly bad acting. The dialogue was confusingly modern, though the characters were in 'period' costume. Characters used terms like 'hey guys' and 'woah!' and I'm pretty sure one even mentioned Flickr! The obligatory 'diversity' was painfully obvious and the main characters were unlikable and two-dimensional. Another swing and a miss, I'm afraid.

I have delayed watching this movie for many, many years as I guessed it would bear little relation to the book, as happened with the so-called 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein'. I guessed correctly. I caved in recently and actually bought the DVD, for £2.98, and frankly I feel robbed. Oldman was excellent, but the rest of the cast were dire and the storyline deviated so far from the book, with salacious and unnecessary sex/nudity etc, that I laughed out loud in several places. Whitby was not mentioned once, Lucy was pathetic and irritating, Jonathan Harker...well the less said about Mr Reeves 'acting' the better, and even Anthony Hopkins gave a half-hearted and inconsistent performance. Disappointed in the extreme. I would give the DVD to charity but don't want to inflict this travesty on anyone else. My advice? Read the book, forget the movie.