Reviews

I'm Canadian so don't fire off insulting replies about Americans. This movie and almost all others being filmed in Canada has many faults. They are all easily spotted by their trademark signatures. They are cheaply made. The actors generally have less skill, that's first. The writing is weak and they don't consult experts for the story line. For example: "I'm Detective Miller and I'm arresting you because I think you've been engaged in illegal activity." Five-year-olds can point out the legal weakness in that stupidity. The director does not do establishing shots - too cheap to get permissions, so they zoom in on a corner of a house instead of a neighbourhood establishing shot. The music is weak, none of it requiring permissions, all original and weak. The editing is weak - scenes with no emotional punch drag on and on. Child actors with minimal experience. LIghting is crap, sets are crap, costumes are crap, locations are crap, and on and on.

These faults and many more help identify the source immediately to viewers. Where in hell does the money come from to pay for these poorly executed stories. The Cdn government pays for them to be made. That's right - money from satellite & cable subscribers gets forwarded (mandated by the CRTC) to film producers for Canadian content. It dies on the vine. The finished product goes back to the service providers - no first run in theatres, no sales on DVDs.

The people making this dogcrap need to know the truth about their product so they can change. Canada is making movies much the way a communist country would, and the result is just as watchable. And it's why anyone in Canada with real talent has to haul ass south of the border.

The portrayal of the American flyers bombing the sub was over the top. Some Germans like to say 'You had your murderers too' which seems to assuage guilt for them for their ancestors' crimes against humanity. Unless one cannot see the difference between the two sides, let me state it clearly - The Germans had institutionalized murder from the very top to the bottom, with the occasional protesting humanitarian below, their opponents were institutionalized humanitarians with the occasional murderer in the ranks. I'm sorry, but having American flyers laughing after the bombing and saying "Let's go back and strafe them", that ranks in my book as propaganda and if it were more truthful it's probably something a German flyer would have said, since it was part of all their campaigns to strafe civilians fleeing the fighting. They strafed, in order, Polish, Belgians, Parisians, and Russians to clog the roads with panicked civilians, and to force them in a given direction to block advancing armies, much like a sheepdog biting at the heels of animals. It's not possible to enjoy this movie while knowing the facts of how the Germans behaved in WWII. Also not historically accurate is the fact that an odd triangular cross exists in place of the Nazi swastika, and the Kapitaen gives a traditional instead of the 'Heil Hitler' salute while receiving a medal from Doenitz, due to the fact that both are illegal to portray in Germany today. With good reason.

Rubbish! Shock value high, with human feces top of the list. Dead baby, toilets, fingers in anuses, 345 uses of the c**t word, homicidal maniac with a knife but no known motive. You get the picture. It's got a high rating, don't be fooled; that's probably from all the scat-fetish people. Excessive, boring and unnecessary over-narration during the film attempts to shed light on this waste of celluloid and give it some meaning, but that fails too. Perhaps the editor got it backwards and all the good bits went into the bin and the rest became Toiletspotting. They succeeded if the attempt was to portray the effects of a drug addiction gone bad, waiting for the end to come to our suffering, even if that means death, because that's what you'll be wishing before this movie is over. Please God, kill me now. What amazes me is how trash like this gets funding! If this is the best Scotland has to offer...Choose life, choose a movie with a story and some redeeming social value. By the way, principal narrator, it's 'three piece suit' not 'three piece suite',(Soot not sweet). The fact that there wasn't a re-take to get that right should tell you loads about the production values.

This movie has everything!!! I was disappointed at the end because I didn't see Hitler fly into Paris on a Zeppelin balloon, jump on a bicycle and win the Tour de France, bribing the officials with stolen jewels from murdered Jews. But other than that, it simply has everything. Every single plot twist ever shown on the screen before, or to be found in pulp fiction smut magazines of the Forties. Naked sexy chicks? Got it. Mean Nazis whipping and having sex with said naked sexy chicks? Got it. Nazis shooting double-crossed innocents? Yup, got that, times three or four! I must correct other reviewers who seem to think this movie was based on fact. The titles actually say that it was inspired by true events. It was also inspired by the cigarettes they smoke in Holland that are not legally available elsewhere. I will give the writers some credit – there actually was a second world war, but that's about as far as the movie parallels reality.

There are, in point of fact, about twenty betrayals and double-crosses in the plot, and a few false double-crosses where the lead character is thought to be a double-crosser but isn't really and she must prove her innocence before she can be killed. So on that score, this film wins on sheer volume and repetition of a plot mechanism. It becomes somewhat difficult to bear when we see Canadian soldiers hand out rifles to captured Germans after the war so they can shoot one of their own, a gentle, kind-hearted, sweetheart of a man who's in charge of the Gestapo and secretly saving the lives of guilty resistance fighters.

The film also can win the Most Implausible Coincidences award for all the incidents that it uses to move a sluggish plot forward. For instance, how did the evil Dutch doctor (muahahaha) know that our intrepid Jewish heroine would convulse in uncontrollable grief upon hearing of the death of her Gestapo-boss lover? So that he could inject her with a 'sedative'. (muahahaha!!!) And why did the after-war prisoners (collaborators) haul up a cauldron of sewage twenty feet into the air? Is that what you do with sewage? Haul it up in the air? Just so it could be poured by the gang of haters onto our heroine? Did they know she'd be there? The worst of the implausible events is when the resistance fighters try to kidnap a double-crosser who leads Jews to their deaths in order to steal their wealth. The evil-doer (muahahaha) puts up a struggle and gets the upper hand, and a religious zealot has the only working gun, but he can't shoot because he'd be taking a life. The heroine is being strangled to death but the Christian can't kill to save her. The villain calls her a 'damn' whore and the Christian is so overcome with anger at the swearing that he is now able to start shooting the evil swearing man. He fills him with bullets and his friends have to pull him away from shooting more, not for choking a woman mind you, but for blaspheming. Only gold leaf can be stretched this far, but credulity, mmmm, not so much.

Here is some truth about Holland's contribution to the war. It had a popular Nazi party. It fielded more than 25,000 soldiers to fight along side the Germans in Dutch SS divisions on the Russian front. This film about intense underground warfare, a complete myth, is nothing more than an attempt to firmly lock the closets, paper over the wall, and hide the skeletons of a not-so-glorious past. That can be the only explanation why such a fantasy could receive government funding. Blackbook is a brilliant example of inept writing, re-using plot twists and double-crosses, sex and violence ad nauseum, not until the story had come to a logical end, but until the funding ran out. Unfortunately, it also succeeds in draining one's patience, and I apologize to the actors. It must have required extreme professionalism to give top notch performances without bursting into laughter after each take, and to their credit they did not.

I rarely give out praise for a film, but here is one that I have enjoyed watching the second and third time. Excellent story, rooted in reality, well crafted, great acting by the world's best, great and accurate costumes, comportment, sets, historical accuracy.

The story guides you to the seminal moment when George is reading King Lear with the Minister from government and regains his sanity in one of the finest moments in cinematography, which could only have been portrayed, ironically enough, by elite stage acting. Why is this so? Because the Royal Family would have carried themselves like stage actors back in the 18th century. Whether the directors and actors knew this or it simply came together, it's absolutely brilliant.

In short, kudos. I give only 9 out of 10, because I thought the machinations portrayed in Parliament and of the Prince were a little exaggerated.

The BBC must be full of clunk-heads to remake a film-school-classic- that-worked into something that is a disjointed series of random plot points full of anachronisms. It was painful to watch this, even though the acting is very good and the scenery and sets are exquisite. Hannay, a bored ex-pat mining engineer, too easily jumps into the role of a heroic swashbuckler saving the country with very flimsy motivation. The rest of the plot, equally severely disjointed, is an homage to a great film where things DID work organically.

Here are a few problems with the script. The plane that shoots through the propellers wasn't invented until two years after WWI began. Airplanes in 1914 weren't even equipped with guns of any kind, the pilots shot with pistols. Any self-respecting writer would have checked that with a little cross-town trip to the Imperial War Museum. Maybe the director put it in the film against objections. Doofus! When Hannay runs across the moors and tumbles on the ground in front of the lady's car, why does she jump out and assume his name and that he's the liberal MP from London? This isn't a comedy but that scene makes it one. Was she expecting to meet an MP cowering in the moors rolling in crap? Yes, very well done.

The sexual innuendo worked very well in the original film because it was germane to the era. Handcuffed together and sharing a bedroom was a bit of juicy no-no in 1935. Showing a bit of stocking here and there was racy for the time. In this film, they decided to modernize the love affair but it doesn't work because the writer through confusion or a series of script meetings with executives forgot that we were trying to portray that era, not the current one.

The writer cannot take any credit for a job well done here because he borrowed from something that already worked and meddled. Is that thunder I hear or Hitchcock's spirit growling in the wind? Hey BBC execs, why not re-make Gone With the Wind or Casablanca?

This movie should be watched by anyone who wishes to learn from bad examples. God, it was a struggle to watch this. When the end came, it was a mercy, like the end to a long bout of cancer. This is a murder alright, but the script is the victim.

Let's get into the problems. As a Canadian, I could spot this piece of trash as from Canada right away. I was standing in line at the bank once, a long while ago and this guy in line behind me starts talking about the government grants he was receiving to make a film. "Doesn't matter what trash we make, so long as it's Canadian." As a taxpayer, it gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling.

This script was not reviewed by seasoned professionals. It's got too many clichés in it that are obvious. For example - the cop with mental problems. This cliché is done so badly, we only find much later why he suffers from guilt that drives him to drink. When we do, it's hard to imagine all that self-destructing behaviour coming from such a complicated set of circumstances. I'm self-destructive because my mother baked a vanilla cake on a Wednesday and I like chocolate on Thursdays. The cause and effect are so disjointed in time we wonder, "Why are they telling us this?" The conflict cliché. The Captain of the MPs claims jurisdiction in a murder case. I was half expecting the newspaper boy to rush in and claim jurisdiction. "I delivered newspapers on this base for years buddy, so that corpse is my responsibility. Back off!" The love interest cliché. The woman MP quickly jumps into the sack with a stranger she just met. Now I ask you, is that love? Why not insert a porno movie at this point for two minutes and then go to commercial. It would make as much sense.

Overacting: Okay, lots of it here, from the MP Captain to the mother-in-law, it's hot and heavy coming from the lesser roles, playing for the cheap seats. If you want to be noticed, why not be noticed for doing a good job instead of hamming up the role. It's level jumping, and it's not permitted.

Miscasting: Jason Priestley is cast in a very minor role here wearing his Perry Como smoking jacket. Sound the trumpets, a star has arrived. I kept expecting something to happen. He must be in this for a reason. Nope. Hoping for more, like a hanging participle, it simply was an incorrectly cast.

Also, while we're on the subject, that danged Texas sheriff warnt from nowhars near the Lone Star boy. To my ear, he hails from somewhar up in Wisconsin. Might as well have cast a London Bobby in this role.

Factual Errors: Hire a goddamn technical consultant, you cheap pigs. Soldiers shave, they wear the correct cap badges and don't call non-coms "Sir". If you can't afford one, watch another film where they do! I'm surprised you didn't have World War Two Shermans driving around in the background. People watch LAW AND ORDER for 20 years because it's technically well written. Lawyers write for the show. Take a page from their notebook. At least do some fact checking.

Crap Cinematography. Filmed using 70's vintage video instead of film , obviously not quality digital when witnessing the colour bleeds, faded backgrounds and motion blur. The director was doing the "you-are-there" jiggle cam for the first 10 or 20 minutes of the film and gave up on it. You can't do Jiggle Cam with cheap video. The executives probably had to have their eyes checked after watching the daily rushes. Lot of HDTV's probably get returned to the store after watching this.

Believability. Nothing kills a story molecule quicker and deader than the .44 Magnum Bullshitter. It's a huge cannon of a gun that shoots blobs of diarrhea onto the pages of the script. The smell can repel you for several pages of story and take your mind away from what's happening on the current page. The sheriff in Texas picked up the phone and called San Francisco based on a badly drawn composite. "Yeah, we've got your guy. I was picking my ass looking for something to do and I noticed the striking similarity between one of our rape suspects and your stick-man drawing here and I thought, what the hell, let's call up the Presidio for a laugh." Also, don't sheriffs in Texas talk with a drawl. Why not cast Tevia from fiddler on the roof. Ah, but I repeat myself.

And finally, I'm bringing this critique to a close not because I have run out of things to say, but because I'm tired. If you feel exhausted too, then you know what this film has in store for you. Lou, you hitched a ride on a wild turkey here, son. At least that part of it was entertaining.

This film leaves me with an odd feeling, probably because of the many incongruities portrayed. For instance, we are introduced to a mining village where grimy, underpaid wretches, some of them too old or too young, all sing happily on their way to deadly work! The story relies on many tragedies, some that occur at the mine on a regular basis. There are strikes that last a year, dust explosions, accidents and lay-offs that cause half the family to move to another country. How can the narrator then introduce the story about a happy valley in Wales? It's a story about religious hypocrisy and a cruel persecution of a pregnant woman by church deacons, teachers that cane their students until the bone is exposed, a mine that causes the town to become without colour, consuming their native sons in accidents at regular intervals. It's about a union that smashes windows in the house where the union leader lives with his father who is not a member of the union. It's about a father who did not permit his adult sons to speak at the dinner table! Make up your mind, either it was a happy little valley or it wasn't.

It tries too hard at tragedy and fails miserably in its repeated attempts. First there is the union which divides the family, then there is the daughter who marries the mine owner's son she doesn't love but has a flame for the preacher, then there are the sons that are torn away from their mother, then there is the son who loses his ability to walk due to a spill in cold water, then there is a cruel teacher who beats students senseless, then there is the mine which randomly consumes the father. If you were to write this today it would be rejected. Readers wouldn't get through this work without filing it under G. Pick a tragedy, one only please, and use some writing skill to develop that properly.

This film is typical of the sagas of the era, like GWTW et al, which struggles to create an irony that might have existed only in the minds of those who lived back then, and because of this flaw is quite dated and irrelevant.