Had read the book and a lot of history surrounding the subject matter but the movie was one BIG disappointment. Emily Watson (who I previously liked) seems like she was half asleep and walked through her performance like a corpse. She always has a kind of smirky look around her eyes and that doesn't help when you're supposed to be acting out a character who's sympathetic and crusading. Many scenes seemed contrived and lacked honest emotion. You never felt remotely sympathetic to the characters' stories as they were so under-developed.
Always been a big fan of Ken Loach - Kes and Ladybird, Ladybird are up there with some of the best film-making in British history. Ken's son Len, the director, has used the same writer Rona Munro to adapt the story as a screenplay. What went wrong this time? Viewers will have been puzzled as to which country the action was happening in as the location switched from Oz to England in the blink of the eye. The only clue given was the slight increase in sunlight or an obviously non-British beach-side location. Overall the film stock used must have been ancient. All scenes were murky and dark - even when it was apparently sunny in Oz.
Amongst scenes which particularly stood out was the half-hearted 'love scene' between the Margaret Humphreys (Watson) character and her husband. It was plonked into the film like a gatecrasher at a wedding - a gap-filler with no relevance to the story.
Another scene saw Humphreys attending what appeared to be some sort of Sunday-school picnic type of event (presumably a gathering of people who had been sent over to Oz as children by the British government/social work department). Humphreys stood on a small stage in a field and made a short speech, addressing an audience of attendees who appeared to be largely ignoring her - asking anyone who had a story to tell or questions regarding their childhood 'kidnapping' to contact her. She sat down in said field and was ignored until one man approached her and started to tell his tale. This appeared to be a catalyst for a large crowd to suddenly take it upon themselves to walk over like a bunch of zombies and join the discussion. It was like a scene out of a horror movie.
Another turgid scene saw Humphreys driving around Oz(?) streets for no apparent reason with one of the grown-up victims and suddenly joining in singing along to Cat Steven's on the car radio singing "Wild World".
Love scene - check!
Singing scene - check!
When in England, the director seemed to have no clue how to convey a 1980s feel other than to stick old-style metal dustbins in front of homes or use the same half dozen 80's vintage cars parked strategically whenever they were forced to film outside. Bizarrely, the one scene where a grown-up Oz emigrant is re-united with a parent, they choose to film it on a suburban street full of homes with brand new white uPVC doors which would have been rare if not non-existent at that period in time.
Towards the end, one of the now-grown child refugees drove Humphreys into the wilderness where the 'brothers' lived in a large mansion-like building miles from civilization. Apparently this is where much of the sexual and physical abuse took place when the victims were children. There was never any real analysis of the 'brothers' story. The mansion was obviously their religious HQ. A stupid scene where Humphreys and a former victim strolled into the mansion and sat like wallies whilst the dreaded 'brothers' sat eating and ignoring them (speaking not one word) was comical in its complete and utter lack of drama. It seemed that the director was more immersed in setting up camera angles to film the vast dining hall where they all sat, than actually telling us a story. Words fail me! Honestly, there were so many holes in the story - it was like a sieve of vague facts. If you hadn't read the book or followed the historical fact through news sources, you wouldn't have had a clue what the hell was going on.
The real Margaret Humphreys must be SO disappointed. I'm sure she's a great person but this film made her look cold and morose.
Can't understand the largely positive reviews given by the media.
Len Roach needs to take some big lessons from his father's film history. Now that's a guy who deserves praise!
Always been a big fan of Ken Loach - Kes and Ladybird, Ladybird are up there with some of the best film-making in British history. Ken's son Len, the director, has used the same writer Rona Munro to adapt the story as a screenplay. What went wrong this time? Viewers will have been puzzled as to which country the action was happening in as the location switched from Oz to England in the blink of the eye. The only clue given was the slight increase in sunlight or an obviously non-British beach-side location. Overall the film stock used must have been ancient. All scenes were murky and dark - even when it was apparently sunny in Oz.
Amongst scenes which particularly stood out was the half-hearted 'love scene' between the Margaret Humphreys (Watson) character and her husband. It was plonked into the film like a gatecrasher at a wedding - a gap-filler with no relevance to the story.
Another scene saw Humphreys attending what appeared to be some sort of Sunday-school picnic type of event (presumably a gathering of people who had been sent over to Oz as children by the British government/social work department). Humphreys stood on a small stage in a field and made a short speech, addressing an audience of attendees who appeared to be largely ignoring her - asking anyone who had a story to tell or questions regarding their childhood 'kidnapping' to contact her. She sat down in said field and was ignored until one man approached her and started to tell his tale. This appeared to be a catalyst for a large crowd to suddenly take it upon themselves to walk over like a bunch of zombies and join the discussion. It was like a scene out of a horror movie.
Another turgid scene saw Humphreys driving around Oz(?) streets for no apparent reason with one of the grown-up victims and suddenly joining in singing along to Cat Steven's on the car radio singing "Wild World".
Love scene - check!
Singing scene - check!
When in England, the director seemed to have no clue how to convey a 1980s feel other than to stick old-style metal dustbins in front of homes or use the same half dozen 80's vintage cars parked strategically whenever they were forced to film outside. Bizarrely, the one scene where a grown-up Oz emigrant is re-united with a parent, they choose to film it on a suburban street full of homes with brand new white uPVC doors which would have been rare if not non-existent at that period in time.
Towards the end, one of the now-grown child refugees drove Humphreys into the wilderness where the 'brothers' lived in a large mansion-like building miles from civilization. Apparently this is where much of the sexual and physical abuse took place when the victims were children. There was never any real analysis of the 'brothers' story. The mansion was obviously their religious HQ. A stupid scene where Humphreys and a former victim strolled into the mansion and sat like wallies whilst the dreaded 'brothers' sat eating and ignoring them (speaking not one word) was comical in its complete and utter lack of drama. It seemed that the director was more immersed in setting up camera angles to film the vast dining hall where they all sat, than actually telling us a story. Words fail me! Honestly, there were so many holes in the story - it was like a sieve of vague facts. If you hadn't read the book or followed the historical fact through news sources, you wouldn't have had a clue what the hell was going on.
The real Margaret Humphreys must be SO disappointed. I'm sure she's a great person but this film made her look cold and morose.
Can't understand the largely positive reviews given by the media.
Len Roach needs to take some big lessons from his father's film history. Now that's a guy who deserves praise!