Reviews

Some decent performances here, including Paul McGann and the excellent Philip Davis . But what hopeless miscasting, it was embarrassing watching Dawn French, she was less convincing in her role in this as she is when doing one of her French & Saunders spoofs. What were the casting people thinking of? "Fill it with stars to get the viewers in"? No disrespect, but how on earth are we to believe she was the femme fatale to get all the men buzzing around her? Although I like Geraldine McKewen, she just isn't Marple, she does not think, deduce, rationalise and have hidden sceptism and knowledge of human nature. She just potters about grinning. Could be poor direction but Joan Hickson must have turned in her grave Although I usually get exasperated by unnecessary plot changes in dramatising books, here I can understand it, if you've seen a few Agatha Christies, at least a few plot changes keep you guessing a bit.

Overall this was a shallow, and in places, amateur effort, best avoided.

Well the Oscar crew went wild for it because it was a bit different and a bit more thoughtful. Bill Murray and the cast do a great job, there are lots of clever moments and funny ones too. American Beauty seems to have kicked off a trend for more meaningful films from Uncle Sam but the probability is that Big Business in movies will always want "blockbusters" with "stars" to get maximum profits. So this type of film will always be a quirky minority film which the Oscars will flirt with now and again, but not too often.

A pretty good film but there are loads of good films being made all the time outside Hollywood that are just ignored, this film was fêted because it was American.

The Good: Robert Duvall, a fine measured performance as the tough old cattleman. Duvall acts IN the film WITH his fellow cast and in context.

Scenery: beautiful landscapes to gorge your eyes on.

The Bad: Costner: he refused to acknowledge the presence of his fellow cast many times by acting somewhere else. He was constantly squinting his eyes and looking off camera somewhere trying to look tough and weather-beaten and going on about his bad past and what a good feller his was now. Boring and vain, and a waste of money and others' talent. He was utterly unconvincing in his role and clearly directed and edited the film to promote himself.

Editing: we got shot around in the early part of the film and left to guess how on earth we had got from scene to scene. However at the end of the film we got endless shots of Costner going on and on and on after he decides his future. Clichés: Just about all over the place, in the end a source of humour as we went from improbable in the shoot out, to impossible and then hilariously ludicrous. If French and Saunders want to do one of their movie spoofs on the shoot out, all they need to do is read the original script. Its all there, how can Costner shoot four men before they can draw and then miss Michael Gambon from ten yards with two pistols firing continuously. (What was the massive talent of Gambon doing in this?)

Screenplay: who wrote this daft nonsense? Millions and millions of dollars to make this film and they can't even get even a halfway decent screenplay and script. What a waste. What Hollywood executive authorised this one, someone had their eye way off the ball.

Characters: Where were they? The filmed lacked real characters, we saw far too much of Costner and precious little of anyone else except Duvall. All far two one-dimensional even for the genre. Plot: So Duvall's character announces to his enemies where they can find his injured and helpless friend? (Why?) And erm, the bad guys don't actually go and get him? I don't think so. The Heroine rushing in between the bullets for no apparent reason so the plot can have her held hostage by a bad guy? Just betrays lack of thought on making the plot realistic and interesting. Of course we had the now obligatory gunshot graze on the leg to the good guy so he can hobble a bit and hide. Oh dear. So it goes on.

The Ugly: I wanted to see a good old-fashioned western done with modern filming. We got all the bad bits of old westerns, tacky scripts and impossible situations and none of the old charm and adventure. This is a much underdone and potentially popular genre and they really missed an opportunity here. Don't let male directors cast themselves in heroic leads, only the Horse Whisperer was worse in this respect, at least Costner didn't keep flashing cheesy grins at the camera in soft focus.

The earlier series were great, including the ones with Uncle Albert. David Jason is a superb character actor. Nicholas Lyndhurst is a bit of plonker anyway so he works quite well. However the key to great comedy is the support cast and here they are really well written and cast. from dopey Trigger, oily Boycie and luckless Denzil etc. A treat to see the episodes with the masterful Jim Broadbent as the bent copper Slater.

But you can have too much of a good thing and the endless Christams specials peaked about 6-7 years ago with the Batman and Robin bit. Then it got tired, the actors had aged too far and the contortions in the plots too ridiculous even for a comedy. The style got alternately cloyish and then repetitive. It became very very stale. How many laughs can you get out of mis-spelt T-shirts and dolls that speak in Chinese?

As for it being the best comedy ever, no, not by long long way. Blackadder and Fawlty Towers had the sense to distill their excellence into a few series and stay fresh. Dads Army is funnier and often more subtle, despite its occasional slapstick. Last of the Summer wine is warmer and funnier.

I guess it stayed a big money-spinner for the BBC and the actors but the later specials should never have been done. We would have left with infinitely better memories of a once fine series.

Not too sure what the previous reviewer was watching.

Apart from the mildly irritating liberties the writer took with historical accuracy here and there, this is one of the best historical series I've seen for a long time and kept me intrigued for all four episodes. Perhaps the approach was too subtle for some, we had one or two small bits of gore, you could say just enough to convey the brutality of the era.

This however was more about the contradictory elements of Charles's character and how he chose to deal with the constant political threats he lived through which could have swallowed him up at any time. His compassion, tolerance,lust, his fine political judgement, his mixed feelings as he tried to stabilize his country, promote religious tolerance, resist parliament, balance the books and have a good time when he could. The principal players dance around him but do they control him or is he carefully playing them off? It is not about battles, blood or explosive action. It is nevertheless tense and dynamic as friendships, loyalties and political passions spark off each other.

And then, we have Rufus Sewell, seldom has more skilled and effective portrayal of an historical figure been offered. He burns, he frets, he soothes, he controls, he accedes. He acting of great loyalty against all pressures to some and abandonment of allies for political expediency with others, is performed with equally high credibility. He has more character in a few facial movements than many actors could deliver in a hundred lines. A complete and consummate character performance and assimilation of Charles II's persona. The other cast do not fail to provide full but studied portrayals to complete the drama.

The thoughtful mix of setting, inside and out and usual top quality costume etc do not let the production fall below the highest standards. Yet there is no over the top kitch clichéd stuff that many period dramas throw in.

Watch out for any award for Rufus Sewell.

A huge success.

This is a one-idea weak comedy based around Nicholas Lyndhurst who is wooden throughout. A decent support cast including the friendly bobby can't rescue a predictable and painful series of slight variations on the same old plot. Not funny and could have been written by ten year old.

No credibility even for a "fantasy" style plot.