wilkinsonalan-19160

I looked at the IMDb reviews for the first time today, and can only agree with so much of the prose regarding the acknowledgement of the incredible technical achievement of the series to date, but the lackluster characterisation and development.

Maybe the series is something new to younger viewers. However, to those of us a tad older, it feels like we have seen this story so many times in previous films dating back decades.

I have listened to John Orloff on a couple of podcasts before the series started. He made it very clear that the series was epic and was going to be painstaking in following the evidence available. In consequence, I was very much looking forward to the series.

Conceivably, it is the scale that has something to do with the lack of character development. Reflecting on 'Memphis Belle', I actually prefer the latter to the tv series to date. Again, maybe it is the scale that is the key differentiator?

I will, nevertheless, stay with 'Masters...' and hope I am able to appreciate more than the dated tropes I feel I have seen to date. Nevertheless, we are three episodes in and truly wish I could generate more enthusiasm for the coming episode.

Conceivably, this is something you need to stick with to appreciate just how wonderful it is. Also - some elements are harrowing - hence, conceivably, it could have a detrimental effect on a watcher whose spirits are not in the best place.

I thought this was a wonderful drama. After the first episode, I was moved at different points during all the resulting episodes. Wonderful...

Phenomenal performances by the entire cast - but especial plaudits go to Thomasin McKenzie, who played versions of the adult protagonist, persistently maintaining a sense of stoicism combined with vulnerability - yet also incorporated differing characteristics in accordance with the experiences she had endured,.

A remarkable piece of television - if only there were more of this calibre...

Appreciate the attempt to be Hitchcockian. Great to see a movie in Greece - certainly gives the film distinct personality. There are points where the script is cleverer than I, as I believe I missed the pre-logic to what subsequently occurred in some scenes. Quite probably paints a picture of Greece that may be off-putting to tourists once the world gets back to a semblance of normality.

Others have already asked why the film has not received more positive reviews... I loved it - so beautifully shot with a sweet storyline - in fact, two. Director - thank you - wonderful movie.

No doubt there were some immediate challenges for somebody making this movie. The original was sublime and managed to muster a cadre of actors who were individually unique and complementary. This movie was a brave attempt, but would have needed to be incredible to stand up to the stature of the original.

We know the story or something thereabouts. We pretty much know what is going to happen. Therefore, the script needed to be something that could 'stand on its own two legs' whilst the characterisations needed to be extraordinary to hold our interest.

The movie ended up being pale beside its predecessor. It felt like a movie that could have been made in the 1960s. We needed something to sizzle, but it just didn't.

Possibly, this is a salutary lesson in illustrating that we should leave the great movies alone and invest in something new - and make great, new movies?

Maybe it was the first two episodes - but, I wasn't really hooked by them. I came back to the series - and it turned into one of the funniest series I have ever seen. There are some cameo performances by the likes of Don Johnson, Matthew MaConaughey and Sacha Baron-Cohen. It is ironic that SBC was in this series - as he appeared to do something similar with Brothers Grimsby in a British context, but fell so short, sadly, of the standards achieved in E&D.

Stick with E&D - it is remarkable - crass, but laugh-out-loud funny and still manages to be endearing. Kenny Powers' utterings are so politically incorrect it is more of a lens on the kind of folk who genuinely come out with such cringe-making observations.

This series deserves much wider appreciation as it is a stand-out piece of work that amazingly gets better and better./

Whilst the movie concept is dated and extremely ironic, this is an enjoyable thriller.

There is much media speculation regarding Idris Elba becoming the next Bond, possibly this was a pseudo-showcase of his potential? It is hard to see why he would otherwsie have taken on this project?

Idris is a talented and charismatic actor. However, why become Bond? There must be a plethora of scripts for him to undertake similar characterisations to greater effect?

The Bond movie franchise is something of a dinosaur, I would urge Idris Elba to create something different - he is a huge, trans-Atlantic star that does not require the Bond franchise to propel him. The Bond movies err toward big budget action, sacrificing a really well-crafted story. I would encourage Idris to ditch the action hero and look toward something more sentient like a Le Carre movie, with greater depth and longevity. Also, would like to see those novels remain within the time they were written - as they make so much more sense. Bond would be so much better if it had remained in the early 60s era...

Idris dealing with a 60s world could also, potentially, involve some political statement?

Bastille Day has a couple of plot twists, appears to have been budget-conscious and for the most part is predictable. It harks toward thrillers of the past. Nevertheless, it is enjoyable, but ultimately - forgettable.