Reviews

CONTAINS SPOILERS.

Having seen the original series when it was first aired as a small child, and watched reruns on and off ever since, I went into the threatre with an open mind and came out very happy with what I had seen. I found it fun, exciting and imaginative, with great arcs in the stories of the main characters, and I obviously wasn't the only one who felt this way because the audience in the theatre I attended clapped enthusiastically at the end.

I have come to realize over the last forty years that with Star Trek anything can happen, including black holes behaving like worm holes, and the shift in the space-time continuum did not bother me at all, though I was surprised as anyone else at the destruction of Vulcan and the tragic death of Spock's mother. Still I accepted right away that this was opening new roads for ideas as much as Spock and Uhura being a number is, or Scotty being given the equation for trans warp beaming by a Spock from the future.

I truly liked getting to see a young Spock's vulnerable human side a bit more than we did in the original series. Then again in the original series episode, The Menagerie, we do see a younger Spock showing this by smiling in a certain scene, and a few other episodes have him expressing some emotions as well. I am very curious to see more of him in what I expect will be future films. I was also glad to see Ben Cross as the choice for Sarek, and found him touching as Spock's logical father who admits he has felt emotions like love.

So for those who aren't happy with this new look to Star Trek, I suggest you maybe try to see it as a parallel universe to the original series, where both slight and great differences can exist. Also keep in mind that just because time has been tinkered with doesn't mean the characters from STNG etc. won't exist on this time plane in the future. They just may have some changes in their lives, positive or negative, minor or extreme. Just be imaginative: maybe Jean-Luc Picard will captain the future Enterprise, he'll just have married and divorced, having fathered some children in that time. Maybe Tuvok of STVG - who'd be a child when this story is told - was not on Vulcan when it was destroyed. The same might be said for Ensign Vorek's parents, and they will meet at the Vulcan colony that the elder Spock plans to help build. Maybe Seven of Nine's family will never be assimilated by the Borg, she'll end up joining the Maquee and meet Seska, as well as Chekotay and Bh'lana, that way, and they'll all meet Captain Janeway and the USS Voyager the way the rebel group did in the series. Who can say?

As one film reviewer here in Vancouver said, he'd been waiting for this for forty years, and I couldn't agree more; I'm going to see it a second time!

This is a very engrossing interpretation of the famous string quartet Death and the Maiden, by German romantic composer Franz Schubert. I came across it one morning after just waking up and turning on my TV to watch the Bejing Olympics, found this story being told of a young maiden being visited by a handsome man who is actually the Angel of Death, and who has come to take her away, much to her distress. Done to the music of the quartet, with only the movements and gestures of the actors' bodies telling the story, I found myself quite caught up in the very European flavour of this CBC production, and curious as I watched Death fall in love with the maiden so that he ends up not taking her after all, but seduces her, leaving her bearing his child. An interesting twist to a character we so often see portrayed as ugly and frightening, a bringer of only sadness. A must see for lovers of quality performing arts dramas, and those who love Schubert's beautiful quartet.

I just watched this episode last night, and found it to be the best of the three so far. I found the plot very complicated, so I had to keep concentrating on the screen and not let my mind wander: this is something I expect a good mystery drama to do with me. I found myself having to think through each character very carefully to come up with whodunit, but the one I thought most likely wasn't, so it satisfied me there as well by tricking my own deductions as well. That and the fact that after the show, which I had be watching in bed, I had a very stiff neck; a sign that I was taut all through the show as it kept me on edge. My parents phoned me after wards and both said that they really enjoyed it as well. So that is the opinion of three people!

Like a kid of eleven I counted the days till this film came out, and walked into the threatre expecting an action picture, and got just what I expected and more. This was an even better film than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - some of the wrinkles in the CGI in the first ironed out, and chock-a-block-full of exciting and emotional scenes. I think the producer, director, film and CGI crews did a terrific job, and that the cast really put their hearts into making their characters believable; I look forward to seeing Ben Barnes play Caspian again, while Georgie Henley and Skandar Keynes will be a delight to watch once more. I will definitely miss Anna Popplewell and William Moseley, but expect we will see them again if The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle are made in a few years time.

People should also be aware that Lewis's stepson, Douglas Gresham, was co-producer of this film as well as the last one. The Chronicles were amongst his favourite books when he was a child, and I have no doubt he had a say in what his stepfather would and wouldn't have liked done to the storyline in the film.

Since the book (which I first read 34 years ago) is a bit slow in places (my friend's daughter found it a bit boring when she had it read to her), so I expected the story would have to be filled out, which it was, but the original storyline was kept to faithfully. I think my favourite scene in the whole film was at the beginning at the Tube station, when the Pevensie children are drawn back into Narnia. Wonderfully awe-inspiring and magical even for a 45 year old!

The book is about the fight to reclaim Narnia from the Telmarines, so I was rather surprised at some film critic's reviews I read which said that there were too many battle scenes. Others bemoaned how it was too much like Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. Did they not know that Rowling was greatly influenced by Lewis's writing? Who came first? Also Tolkien was a very close friend and contemporary of Lewis's, and attended Oxford with him. I got a very strong impression that many critics have never read the books, haven't learned anything about the writer, or maybe even saw the film. The latter conclusion is from seeing so many borrowed sentences and paragraphs from others in their reviews, that it gave me the feeling that they have a hard job doing what they're supposed to do: write an independent opinion on a film. Why did they go to journalism school in the first place? I was also wondering why they were disappointed in the darker and more violent side in some of the scenes in this film. Here's something from the book, Prince Caspian:

A dull, grey voice at which Peter's flesh crept replied, "I'm hunger. I'm thirst. Where I bite, I hold till I die, and even after death they must cut out my mouthful from my enemy's body and bury it with me. I can fast a hundred years and not die. I can lie a hundred nights on the ice and not freeze. I can drink a river of blood and not burst. Show me your enemies."

That line was used in the most frightening scene, I thought, in the film. Here's another:

Peter swung to face Sopesian, slashed his legs from under him and, with the back-cut of the same stroke, walloped off his head.

I think a book with a graphic scene - for children's literature - like that in it can only be expected to have a darker tone to it when made into a film. Actually in the film they deleted that scene and replace it with Sopesian being snatched away by the root of one of the trees that arrived late at the battle to save the day.

So many simple lines were brought to life in this film such as:

And imagine that the wood, instead of being fixed to one place, was rushing at you; and no longer trees but huge people; yet still trees because their long arms waved like branches and their heads tossed and leaves fell round them in showers.

A masterpiece! I am looking forward to seeing The Voyage of the Dawn Treader in 2010.

When Tommy Douglas, the man who introduced social health care to Canada, was mentioned by the golfer friend of Michael Moore's Canadian relatives, I wish more had been said about him. Canadians did vote for him as the greatest Canadian when the CBC held a nation wide contest on that subject in 2005, and I think Americans should understand why he even beat Wayne Gretzky in that competition.

Our health care system has taken a beating in recent years, but what we do have we cherish, even though some Canadians will whine about it and think privatization is the answer to waiting in line for an operation. I have had epilepsy since I was a child and I'm able to go specialist doctor appointments without having to pay a fee, I've had more than one EEG, MRI, CAT Scan and other tests without having to pay for them. If I were to have an operation, I wouldn't need to pay for it either. Now we do pay taxes for our health care system, but you just don't think of that. We are just glad to have it. The only thing I pay for his the health insurance I get through my employers (Pacific Blue Cross) so that I can pay for my medications and dental appointments. I only pay about 72 dollars Canadian a month, my employers pay the rest.

Some Americans will probably be immediately interested to know that Kiefer Sutherland is Tommy Douglas's grandson, and that Kiefer and his mother Sheila Douglas are avid supporters and defenders of the health care system here in Canada, taking part on certain occasions in protecting it from privatization.

If you want to learn more about Tommy Douglas go to:

www.cbc.ca/greatest/top-ten/nominee/douglas-tommy.html

The statue of the Hindu goddess Kali coming to life, the fight between the centaur and the gryphon, the wooden creaking of the ship's figurehead as she fights Sinbad and his sailors, Caroline Munro saying "Hwhy Sinbad, hwhy?; there's something for everyone in this delightful piece of escapism. I think it's Harryhausen's best film of the 1970s and anyone who loves fantasy or mythology will get a kick out of it. I also liked the sets, especially the places where the well of the Oracle of all Knowledge (just loves Robert Shaw's Shakespearean performance as the Oracle) presides and the temple of Kali too. I must for my growing collection of beloved films.

This taut, engrossing and exciting war drama is more a fascinating character study than just another WWII film. Made in the sweltering heat of the northern Sahara Desert of Libya, I found myself sitting up until 2 am to see it through to the end, enjoying every minute of it, feeling like I was experiencing every task of the events in the story along with the characters.

The story tells of ambulance corps officer played by John Mills named Captain Anson, whom the war has driven to drink, who is unwillingly ordered to leave besieged Tobruk before the Germans break through and take the strategically important town over. In his ambulance he takes with him two young nurses, along with the stalwart Sergeant Major Tom Pugh played by Harry Andrews, and heads out across the desert for Alexandria in Egypt. Their journey leads them through many obstacles, and along the way they pick up the enigmatic South African army officer, Captain van der Poel (van-der-POO-el he corrects them in his distinctly Afrikaner accent) played by Anthony Quayle, who has become detached from his unit and is looking for a lift. Can they beat the elements of the desert and make it to Alexandria, where Anson knows of a certain bar that serves the ice cold lager he so longs for and promises the others?

In height and build Mills is a much smaller next to big men like Andrews and Quayle, but I was very impressed with how his strong acting and personal inner character make him seem as tall and broad shouldered as the other two. I also admired how the whole cast put their all into the many no doubt very difficult scenes, obviously having to deal with the physically exhaustive work that was asked of them, the tortuous heat and sand fleas nipping at their legs. I could see they were feeling the affects and that adds to the realism of the whole film. Note even the lovely Sylvia Syms as the seemingly unshakable nurse Sister Diana Murdoch, didn't avoid having to look hot, sweaty and bothered like her male co-stars, unlike some Hollywood actresses of that time who I will not even mention. That and the ambulance must have been an oven during the whole shoot.! A truly unique film and worth the whole gripping two hours.

This taut film noir when compared to Carol Reed's masterpieces of that genre, Odd Man Out and The Third Man, is a flawed gem, but still that - a gem.

Filmed in Berlin just eight years after WWII ended, and eight years before the Wall went up, it stars James Mason and Claire Bloom as star-crossed lovers in a city still digging itself out of the rubble made by Allied bombs, and still taking refugees from the east of Europe. The story tells of Susanne Mallison, a young Englishwoman who has arrived in Berlin to visit her older brother Martin, an army physician in the British sector of the city, and his German wife Bettina. It is while Susanne and Bettina are spending a day in the eastern sector, that Bettina finds herself reluctantly introducing Susanne to an old friend, the suave and handsome Ivo Kern. Susanne doesn't like Ivo at first -the audience isn't supposed to either - and she immediately becomes suspicious that he and Bettina are having a clandestine affair. She is curious though about the man, but will she learn the truth about Ivo and his mysterious background?

Meanwhile off the set of the film there was more going on behind the scenes between the two stars. From the book 'James Mason - A Personal Biography', by Mason's former sister-in-law and life long friend, Diana de Rosso: "I was to observe another side of his character, rarely disclosed, when he came to London to finish filming The Man Between. He was a frequent visitor to our London home and he began to bring with him increasingly, his ethereally lovely co-star Claire Bloom...He showed a marked interest in the young actress. There was a quality about her, a stillness and tranquillity which set her apart from most artists her age, yet she had a pointed wit and a fine intelligence, virtues which appealed to James - and it was quite apparent that he was in danger of losing his heart. In truth I believe his heart was lost...His attachment to Claire was purely romantic. They used to sit on the floor together in our house, hand in hand, plainly adoring each other..."

But as with Ivo and Susanne, it was the same with James and Claire. Mason did not divorce his estranged wife Pamela Kellino, and de Rosso was surprised that he didn't, but she has some theories. When he finally did get his divorce a few years later, Claire had moved on to other things in her career and private life. Still, when they met again several years later, it was clear that Mason still was very fond of her and she likewise.

When I first saw this film I questioned whether Mason's German accent was very good, but when I lent it to a pair of friends who are German, they said that he did a good job. As for the German supporting cast, it is the best, especially the lovely Hildegard Neff, and the hauntingly beautiful musical score catches the bleak feeling of the city during a cold winter. They are also reasons I list this as one of my favourite film noir productions.

It should be pointed out that not all royal parents are depicted as showing lack of affection in this very touching production. Edward VII is depicted as a very affectionate grandfather who gets right down on his hands and knees to play with his grandsons and their tin soldiers, silently shaming his son, the Prince of Wales, into doing the same. He also races buttered toast down his pant legs, much to the delight of his grandchildren. His wife, Queen Alexandra, is also supposed to have been a very affectionate mother and grandmother, and is depicted as such in this production in the few scenes she is in, being the first to laugh at Prince John's cute behaviour in front of the royal family and their guests at the picnic the have in the palace gardens. King George V's early enrollment in the navy is supposed to have turned him into the gruff father he was, while Queen Mary's cold behaviour is shown in this series to have been from her sad shame in her obese and eccentric mother, not wanting to be like her. As for George and Mary's children, I think we must also put to mind that since most of their time was spent with their nannies, they were they people who had the greatest influence on their personalities. The later King George VI is supposed to have been abused by his nanny, which is why he developed a severe stutter. I do think George V and Mary should have been more affectionate parents; why George didn't benefit from his parents affection, I'll never understand, but then I have know overly affectionate parents whose children have grown to be selfish adults.

Having read the book many years ago, my memory of the story wasn't at it's best when I started to watch this adaption. Still, I found it hard to feel much empathy for the heroine, Lady Dona, her behaviour being totally selfish. No wonder her daughter was willing to betray her mother's French lover and his cohorts. After all the woman did rip the highly religious little girl's crucifix from around her neck and toss it out the carriage window! Also her husband may be not as exciting as her French lover, but he obvious adores her and has more balls than she gives him credit for.

I was disappointed with the feeling this production gave me in general. Being a English history buff, I must admit my political support was with Dutch King William of Orange and Queen Mary (King James' eldest daughter and heir) and his Protestant supporters, as Catholic James II was a pig-headed, stubborn man, unlike his brother Charles II, and didn't know when to keep his religious beliefs to himself in such religiously turbulent times. Maybe those unaware of politics of that time will enjoy it more. Don't if you are aware of the consequences of James II's foolishness. One should also be aware that the people of Cornwall and Devon bore a grudge against James II because he slaughtered many of their men who rose in support of Charles II illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, who tried to claim the throne from his uncle in an uprising. Watch the 2000 BBC adaption Lorna Doone, which takes place at the same time. A much better production.

That horrific day I was staying at a B&B in my hometown while visiting my parents. I had just gotten up and dressed, walked into the kitchen where my hosts were with thoughts on my mind of local politics, when I saw the image of the burning towers on their TV set. It was hard to take in at first, it was so like something out of a disaster movie. When it finally did hit me I was immediately in tears and wanted to get on the phone to my brother-in-law in San Francisco. With the reporters talking about other airliners missing and that they were headed for other possible targets, I immediately thought of the Trans-America building in San Fransisco, a familiar part of that city's sky-line, which Dave's office building is right next door too. Thank God he was all right and San Francisco wasn't under any immediate danger. The rest of that day was like walking in a dream - a nightmare - and I suddenly realised how people like my parents (my mum was pregnant with me at the time) had felt when the Cuban Missile Crisis took place in 1962. I mentioned that to some other younger people who had never even heard of that event which nearly lead to a nuclear war. I wonder if their grandchildren will hear of this one? This documentary made me take a very hard look at the people who were there and had to make a choice that many of us hope we never have to - jumping to our deaths to save ourselves from a more horrible one. Everyone should take a look at this program because these people deserve to be remembered for their heroism as much as the firefighters, police and ambulance workers who lost their lives that day. It will truly make a person look deep inside themselves and ask what they would have done.

Having seen this film once before - when it first came out on video after it was shown on the screen - I decided to give it a second go to see what my opinion would be of it now. I find it hasn't changed any. Just as before I found myself much more caught up in the story of Christabel and Randolph than of Maud and Roland. The story of the Victorian lovers is so much better told than the present day one of the couple trying to uncover the long-kept secret of Maud's distant ancestor. I think it would have been better if Maud and Roland's story had been dropped all together, and we'd been given a more complete story about Christabel and Randolph. Of course, I haven't read the book, so I don't know just how important the modern story is to the readers in this film, but I think the screenplay, acting and direction in the period piece is just more intriguing and much, much better done.

I listened to a bit of the director's commentary, and he mentioned taking a screenwriter's license to changing the original story so it would work the way he wanted it to, which I think is a shame, because I have heard the book is such a good read. Perhaps letting Roland remain British instead of making him American would also have been better. After all, I understand the British class system is partly what the book was about. Did many realize that Christabel's lesbian lover Blanche was from a lower class than her? I noticed the class accent difference.

I'm sure there are many women who saw the film who wouldn't mind being whisked away for a weekend in Whitby by Aaron Eckhart's Roland, but personally I'd rather find Jeremy Northam's Randolph Ash waiting outside my apartment door!

Based on the novel The Memoirs of Cleopatra by Margaret George, this mini-series is an okay adaption of a truly fascinating piece of literature. I think that it gives a fairer portrayal of Cleopatra is important, though Leonor Varela isn't that good an actress. I found her acting so amateurish next to that of Timothy Dalton and Billy Zane; at least she was better than Kassandra Voyagis was as Arsinoe. Also she made Cleopatra seem very childish and whiny at times, which was annoying.

Otherwise I liked this story, Timothy Dalton as Julius Caesar was fine in the role, though too dark and good looking (someone tell Daniel Craig please play Caesar sometime in his career!) and Billy Zane did a good job as Marc Antony. The sets lived up to what Alexandria probably looked like, except there was little sign of the Greek influence on the city. The costumes were lovely and the supporting cast were some of the best (though I could have changed some of their lines for them), and I was able to overlook historical inaccuracies, such as Arsinoe being murdered in the dungeons of the palace of Alexandria under Cleopatra's orders. Arsinoe appeared as a prisoner in Caesar's Triumph, and since the public showed sympathy for her, Caesar allowed her to be released. They also didn't explain at the end that Caesarion was executed under Octavian's orders, but I guess they wanted to leave the audience with a bit of hope. Fine to watch on a wet or snowy afternoon.

I enjoyed watching this series very much, willing to overlook any historical inaccuracies despite my being one for giving the correct story. Then along came the episode Caesarion, which I think was a big let down. Why was Caesar's time in Egypt portrayed as a joke, and why did the director and writer portray Cleopatra as her enemies would have wanted her to be: the stereotype image that was created about her by them - and worse? And why is it that the only positive complete writings about the story of Caesar and Cleopatra - and Cleopatra in particular - have been written by women? Go figure. You can read my review of that episode if you wish on the web page containing the episode titles. Otherwise I thought a few of the more accurate historical depictions very well constructed, especially Caesar's assassination, which is the best recreation I've ever see. Ciaran Hinds death scene was one of the most believable, with no over-acting, or "Et tu Brute"s; very moving.

I really enjoyed watching Ciaran Hinds, James Purefoy and Kenneth Cranham as Caesar, Marc Antony and Gnaeus Quintus Pompey. I think they did an excellent job in portraying those men as the people they probably truly were. As for some of the other historical figures, I think they were completely fictionalized, especially Servilia, Octavia and Atia. That I willingly overlooked as the actresses playing them were very good at breathing life into them.

I'm looking forward to what the second season has to present. Hopefully this series has encouraged many people who have never looked into Roman history to start to read up on it now.

I had truly been looking forward to this episode because up until this time I was still waiting to see a screen adaption of the story of Caesar and Cleopatra that could stand up to the true story. Unfortunately this turned out to be the worst version I've ever seen. For some reason the producers, director and writer of the episode had decided to turn the story of Caesar's time in Egypt into a parody. First they decided to portray Cleopatra as how her enemies, Octavian, Cicero, Virgil and Horace, would have wanted them to; misrepresenting her as a self-indulgent, nymphomaniac addicted to what looked like opium was a travesty. She was a brilliant woman: a warrior, politician, scholar and a person who truly cared for the country she ruled. Plutarch describes her as "her actual beauty, it is said, was not in itself so remarkable that none could be compare with her", which I think says she was still pleasing to the male eye. The worst insult was going on to suggest that Titus Pullo fathered Caesarion! By Jupiter, sacrilege! What were they thinking? To take a person who did exist and fictionalize him, then have him be the cause of a particularly important event in Roman history was ridiculous. Also at this time opium was only being eaten or drunk; it wasn't being smoked on a pipe until the 19th century A.D. Any idea they had that Caesar wasn't able to father a son is also a lie his enemies spread around, supported later by Octavian, who felt threatened by Caesarion. He did father a daughter, Julia, and some think that Servilia bore him a daughter when she was still married to Brutus' father. A historic claim says that a man turned up in Octavian's Rome from Roman Gaul claiming to be Caesar's son. Since the Roman general spent eight years there, he no doubt had his mistress(es) who may have born him children. Witnesses say that when Caesarion was older he bore a striking likeness to Caesar, especially in his walk and movements. Note also that like daughters of Egyptian Pharaohs, Cleopatra believed her mother the goddess Isis; her father the god Amun. To her Caesar was probably another form of Amun, and since he believed himself descended from the goddess Venus, she thought him the man to father her child. At this point in her life she was still virgin, having grown up in a palace full of eunuchs. Everything that goes against this - the sets and costumes also being so bizarre and ugly - just didn't hold a candle up to what the real palace, Alexandria and Alexandrians were like; showing none of the Greek influence on the diamond city of the ancient Mediterranean. The other Egyptian historical figures were lampoon caricatures of who they really were.

The widely accepted story goes like this:

Ptolemy Auletes left the throne to his eighteen year old daughter Cleopatra VI and his twelve year old son Ptolemy XIII. A couple of years later Ptolemy drove Cleopatra out with the support of their sister Arsinoe, and Egypt was governed by Ptolemy's eunuch guardian, Pothinus, and his tutor, Theodotus. In the desert Cleopatra gathered her own army and waited to pounce. Caesar arrived in Egypt in pursuit of Pompey in 48 B.C. with 4,000 men. After learning of Pompey's horrific demise, he set himself up in the royal palace and began to govern like a conqueror. He sent word he wished to meet Cleopatra, and with the help of her faithful servant Apollodorus, she was smuggled into the palace in a rug. She and Caesar became lovers that same night and Caesar, concerned that civil war in Egypt would upset Romes supply of grain, decided that Cleopatra and Ptolemy were to wed, as was common in Egyptian royalty, and rule together. Of course, shortly afterword's Ptolemy and his councilors fled Alexandria and began to raise a huge army to try to repulse Caesar's. The city was under siege for weeks and Caesar and his men fought in the street of Alexandria against Ptolemy and the Alexandrians. In the end Caesar was victor, Ptolemy having drowned when a boat he was in sank, and by this time Cleopatra was well into her pregnancy with Caesar's child. Cleopatra and Caesar then spent two months on a royal barge traveling the Nile River; no doubt a needed respite for the exhausted general. When Caesar returned to Alexandria he received word of trouble in Asia Minor and he took his army to quell it. Caesar had spent ten months in Egypt. A month after in left Cleopatra gave birth to a son she named Ptolemy, whom the Alexandrians nicknamed Caesarion - little Caesar. A year later Caesar sent for Cleopatra to come to Rome with their child to take part in his Triumph. He set her up in his private villa across the Tiber River, she and Caesarion remaining there for two years until Caesar's assassination. It should be mentioned that in front of a large audience of Roman nobles and senators Caesar recognized Caesarion as his son, giving him the name of Ptolemy Caesar.

That Caesar loved Cleopatra there is no doubt. What do you call a man's raising of a statue of Cleopatra in the Rome's Temple of Venus Genetrix but an act of love? As for Cleopatra? They were so much alike in personality and ambition, and he being such a powerful and confident man, I think she did. One writer has called Caesar "her lover, her father, her brother". So producers and directors, get with it and write a story that holds water next to the true story for once.

I watched this outstanding four hour epic for the umpteenth time yesterday evening and found I still was drawn to it as I was the first time I saw it. I agree with another viewer's comment that it isn't to be used for historical reference, but what it does with 12th century English history can be overlooked because of the way it makes you feel you are witnessing what life was truly like in the 1190s.

Ciaran Hinds and Susan Lynch sizzle as Brian de Bois Guilbert and Rebecca; I particularly find fascinating the way Hinds is able to transform Bois Guilbert from a deeply embittered, ruthless man into one who finds his own soul in searching for Rebecca's as he tries to woo her. After he has learned that the Grand Master of the Templars has demanded that she be tried as a witch, he immediately goes to warn her and tells her that "I haven't felt fear in 20 years, but I feel it now!", and you truly believe him. That and his final line as he lies beneath Ivanhoe's sword after he has fallen defeated in their Trial by Combat to decide whether Rebecca is to be burned as a witch: "In Austria I was not brave enough to die for (King) Richard...But for her...Do it!" A true anti-hero.

This drama has dozens of wonderful lines, but I think my favourite is when Sian Philips, in a very impressive brief role as the Dowager Queen Eleanor, comments to her lady-in-waiting in reference to her late husband King Henry II and her sons Richard and John: "Beware of powerful men, Bernice. They spawn unspeakable whelps!" It makes me smile every time.

Ralph Brown is deliciously wicked as Prince John, and I think his is the first accurate portrayal of the man destined to be King of England that I have ever seen, showing him as a scheming usurper, devious at statecraft, a womaniser and murderer. The way he subtly makes a joke at Rebecca's trial as he questions the claim by a dog's owner of Rebecca using magic to kill the animal. John says with a smirk he doesn't try to hide from the Grand Master, that the present panting, healthy hound "looks just find to me." He shows boredom and almost rolls his eyes at certain points of Rebecca's trial at what her accusers say, a sign of his defiance of the Church he will show later in his life.

I think Sir Walter Scott himself would be pleased with adaptation of his novel, which follows most of the story very closely while filling out certain characters that are more three dimensional in this film than they were in the classic novel. A true BBC masterpiece!