Reviews

I love time travel stories and this was a nice one.

Campbell Scott was wonderful as the leading man.

He is beautiful looking and in the part, plays a smart, considerate man. He clearly did not want to hurt his fiancee, but got swept away by an unexpected love.

But....in my opinion, Jennifer Jason Leigh was totally miscast. She never once felt like a 19th century woman. She always had messy hair and an odd coy expression on her face. She also , at times, seemed selfish and spoiled. In fact, the only time I liked her is when she showed up at the end as a modern woman.

As the latter, she loved comfortably in her skin and was suddenly likable.

All the actors were wonderful, especially Judi Dench and Maggie Smith, but there were too many loose ends. How did Andrea end up on their beach? Was Ursula's fantasy of making love with Andrea based on an actual incident: i.e did she have a love affair as a young woman? Also, what was the point of the creepy doctor? The year was not clearly stated, so his suspicions seem like paranoid hopes, not real possibilities. He was clearly jealous of Andrea and felt rejected by Olga, so sour grapes seems like his motivation.

By the way, I wish IMDB a more inclusive rating system as I would have given this film a 7 1/2 if it did.

This is a gentle and special romance that stands out by being different in one important way. This is that of the two men vying for Janet Leigh's affections, there is no villain, no idiot, no buffoon, no snob...etc. For once, the rivalry is between two decent likeable men and it's sad that one of them has to lose- but it's also realistic. One man is a tota!!y steady, reliable lawyer and the other is a dreamer with an ephemeral, uncertain future. At first, Leigh's character settles for the former out of what appears to be fear but is then drawn towards the latter for the rest of the film. She also has an adorable young son whose presence adds to the difficulty of her choice.

She ends up with the man who is the one us viewers think she'll choose, but the film lets us enjoy the ride.

First, I really wish that IMDB would have half votes for their numeric ratings. I would have given this and many more films a 7.5. So, this was good B movie with second rung actors and a decent plot. However, I had one big complaint. Brian Donlevy was 48 or 49 when he made this film, probably old enough to be Ella Raine's father and yet the script treats him as if he were a young man. Some actors might have been able to get away with this (i.e. Cary Grant), but not Mr. Donlevy. He truly looks like a 50 year old! He would have been more suited as a !ove interest for the mother of Raine's character than her.

The film also wraps up the "not guilty" verdict in about one minute. In a modern film, this would be ludicrous. Two or three incriminating pieces of evidence would not automatically point the guilt at a different person. Nor would the prosecutor drop the case in a few seconds. But I believe this has to do with a style of film-making. It allows for the suspension of belief in order to come up with a happy ending. This is actually fine with me. It makes for a tighter film.

I adore this film. I've watched it several times and enjoy it every time. It's hard to describe why it's so perfect, but I'll try.

I think this is a story that could have been maudlin and sentimental in the wrong hands. Instead it's actually both funny in part and life-affirming. Every character comes to life, even the minor ones and the more we get to know them, the more we like them. Now Emilia Clarke and Sam Claflin have wonderful chemistry and are both excellent actors, but I believe the stars here are the touching script and skilled direction.

It seems like we've seen a whole world in a ninety or so minute film. And the ending is perfect, and amazingly we realize that the film is more about the girl than it is about the man. It's as if the whole point of Will Traynor's life has been to awaken Lou to the possibilities in life. As Will shuts down, Lou becomes more and more alive! And this proves that even though he chooses to die, his life has truly meant somthing.

I really wanted to love this film and was intrigued by the premise. However the story played out in a mediocre way. Firstly, there were some fairly long boring stretches where nothing interesting happens. Also although, Sam Page is a good actor, somehow he didn't seem quite right for this part. I think someone with a lighter more charming quality would have worked better.

However, I did like the fact that people who might have been truly unlikable, such as the two other potential love interests, were actually decent people who get together in the end.

I really liked this story, but I confess that I'm a sucker for time travel plots. Anyway, this was a generally satisfying play on the theme of "a man out of his own time" with Ryan Paevey being a lovely romantic lead. Erin Cahill was fine as well, but being a woman, I'm always more drawn to the attractive male leads.

I do have one caveat. It's not really a criticism, but more a wish. I really thought this would have been more interesting (and believable) if Erin Cahill' s character could have somehow gone back with Charles to his time. Of course, there would have to have been script changes, so it would have been a different film. However, somehow I can't imagine a 19th century man so easily giving up his whole very successful life. Also, a small thing but how can Charles fit into a new life in the 21st century without any documentation (i.e social security number, birth certificate, et.al.)

I've enjoyed the show, but divergence from the books has gotten greater and greater as it continues and I personally think that the writing has deteriorated as well. It seems that writers just have to be creative, so they change things that shouldn't be changed! I think it takes a truly respectful and disciplined person to leave a written work alone and not destroy it. Some small scenes that to me seem really important were changed or totally left out.

For example: 1. In the wedding story, when Claire asks Jamie why he married her, in the book he says there are some reasons he can't yet tell her, which we know refers to his loving and wanting her from the first moment he saw her, but in the show all he says is he wanted to protect her.

2. The episode where Claire is brought to the Garrison and meets a whole table full of British officers and then after a long tedious interaction is left with Captsin Randall is a total waste of time and again rather unbelievable and boring. In the book she's taken to Randall only. I don't understand this kind of divergence from the book. The Outlander books are very long and filled with interesting happenings, so why is time wasted on something not in the book?

3. In the episode where Jamie escapes Ardsmuir, he gives his word to Lord John that the only thing in the box was one sapphire and we know that this is a blatent lie. It's totally out of character for Jamie to give his word and then lie. Almost the whole series is based on Jamie's honorable character, so this is a really an outrageous divergence.

4. In the book, Claire first meets Lord John on the plague ship and their interaction is wonderful. This was totally left out in the show. I kept expecting it to occur and was really upset when it didn't. It was an important moment in showing Claire's devotion to medicine and also the potential for the relationship between the the latter and Lord John.

5. In season four, Jamie kills a crazed man instead of the real bear that he kills in the book. This is so weird that after seeing this episode I stopped watching the show and only after more than a year did I look at it again. I think it was here that I feel the writers were really letting the fans down. O. K., they wanted an easy way to be able to call Jamie the "bear killer", but this was so lazy and unbelievable that I shut off the TV in disgust!

6. There's much too much time spent on Murtagh and the Regulators. I found most of these episodes tedious and unnecessary. For one thing, Murtagh should have been killed at Culloden and it's never explained how he survived - since it's clear that almost no Scottish soldier got away. Also Murtagh and Jocasta in bed. Come on! In the book, Jocasta had a long running relationship with Ulysses which made sense and also created an opportunity to reflect on slavery and racism.

There are more issues, but I'll end on for me a glaring and irritating feature. I know this show is filmed in Scotland but as an American it seems that the amazingly beautiful scenery in the Appalachians is deflated by the use of ONE picture to represent the view from Fraser's Ridge. The first time Jamie sees it, it is a mountain view with a waterfall to the left and a river with rapids to the right. But every time after this, the scene is a flat 2D picture with no movement whatsoever! What a cheap thing to do. Did anyone see the "Last of the Mohicans" which was actually fimed in the North Carolina wilderness and is heart-breakingly beautiful. Now I know that Outlander in general is not cheaply made, so come on and spend some money on thesettings!

This would have been so much better if it were done as a drama, but it couldn't make up it's mind as to tone. Katie Mcgrath and Sam Heughan were fine and played their parts seriously, but the servants, the titled friends and the Roger Moore character were all caricatures which I found more annoying than entertaining. In addition, the actor who played Milo was clearly a short man, not a teenager and he wasn't good enough to hide this fact!

Also, Katie McGrath has these awful unflattering dreadlock type curls and Roger Moore sports some phony auburn hair. The cheap touches were abundantly present in the so-called ball. For one thing, the supposedly special ball gown was incredibly ugly, didn't flatter Mcgrath at all and looked like something an 80 year-old woman would wear, not a beautiful young woman. In addition several of the other gowns were cheap looking and poorly fitting. And... there was a paucity of guests in the ball pointing out the cheap production.

The 5 rating is for Sam. If a different actor played the part, I probably wouldn't have even finished the film.