Reviews

... then you might justify watching this. That's the only reason I have gotten past a couple of episodes. The strange thing that I cannot quite reconcile is that this has been recommended to me by a few of my friends. I now think slightly less of them than I do of this. The first and most important point is that this is pretty unsophisticated. One character is a dead ringer for one of the more nutty characters from Harry Potter. It is as if the writers/producers have followed the recipe for called 'binge-worthy' TV, but then aimed it at the serious end of the appetites of relatively uneducated and undiscriminating people. I mean, this is largely drivel. ... However, whilst it might induce a fair bit of eye-rolling, and the occasional shout towards the telly, it is oddly watchable nevertheless. Though I do fear for humanity if the bar of programming is now set this low.

Mick Herron's writing is world class. However, for my taste the writing is just that little bit drawn out - a bit too descriptive. I can imagine others liking that slow burn and change of pace but it is not for me. This adaptation, which wraps up long descriptions so that they are absorbed quickly through imagery; with many pictures each cutting thousands of words from my life without loss of story-telling power, should be great. Moreover, Gary Oldman, who plays the Lamb character so well, should also server make this absurdly great. And it would be great if it wasn't for a single ingredient that didn't need to be added but has an old school chap like me screaming at disgust at the TV. Increasingly - and by season three I am actively cringing - there is too much in the way of "Reaching out" and "Can I get ..." and "I feel like..." modern Americanisms that make the stories, which are set in the MI5 world, a little less British and a whole lot more cloying and less believable. The characters seem to become childlike spys, who are not always in keeping with the character writing, at least not by my interpretation. Also the 'writer'-producers seem to think they can improve on Herron and so change the story in ways that seem ... silly. Presumably this is to attract new audiences. However, to my mind it risks putting current ones off.

This is everything that you might have come to expect from a relatively recent (released 2019; reviewed 2023) film. It is ageist, unsophisticated in every way other than emotionally, and all the diversity check boxes ticked. So much so, in the latter point, that it has the feeling of being quite contrived and in no way an organically driven work, other than that there might have been a writer who had a dream but that it was tempered into this vanilla piece of passable family entertainment. Nevertheless, it is reasonably entertaining by the standards of the day, if you are not likely to be irritated by the above mentioned things. I found the ending quite poor.

My view on this aligns with a question posed by Antony Beevor - why do people think that they can improve on history? Either tell fiction, or tell a true story, but don't try to pass off fiction as a 'nearly' true story. This is particularly dangerous as a high proportion of people may after watching believe this to be an accurate account of what actually happened when in fact it the story has been twisted to serve what has, in this case, been called (in a disclaimer at the start) 'dramatic effect'. If the particular line of the 'dramatic effect' suits or serves to underpin a particular political narrative or world view then that is clearly problematic.

It's a rare thing, a good, credible, yet modern WWII film. This film is both 'educational and entertaining'. This is a phrase that used to be a maxim of the BBC ... Alas, this long since been forgotten for the sake of drawing in higher viewing figures with dumbed-down, modernised content. With this film, you can be assured of a good solid account, void of wokeism and the abominable 'cancel culture'. For serious history buffs, I would also seek the views of educated Norwegian natives. I work there yet I am British (Gen X with an interest in WWII). Nevertheless, for my vote I give this film top marks.

Most modern WWII films are abominations in one way or another; either overly dramatising violence to fuel blood lust in an audience who should not be their target (surely, leave this for Game of Thrones and the like - rather educate an audience who wants to learn about WWII rather than exploiting a dark period in history...), or misrepresenting key historical points. After watching the trailer, this I thought this film might avoid those common pitfalls. However, I did trip up in the trailer over one you actress, who ended up being the reason I could not watch the whole film. Juliette, or rather the actress Greer Grammer, ruins this film. Her acting is so anachronistic, and she is so out of place with otherwise good actors, apparently an otherwise good plot, that I could not bear to watch the whole thing. I was surprised to see that she is the daughter of Kelsey Grammer, an actor I do respect and whose work I have enjoyed. Little of his ability appears to have rubbed-off on her. Maybe he helped open some doors, as I cannot believe she was given the opportunity on ability alone. Why on earth does her character have an American accent? Daughter of a French man, this is not at all clear in the plot, unless I have missed something by not watching to the end... Apart from this, her acting is plainly awful. She portrays no sense of the time, place, or how people behaved in this period. If producers need actors from this generation, surely they could find someone with skill or who could research, or at least listen to good direction?

Nice to see Mira Furlan again. What a shame such a skilled actress had such a small part while a main character was given a large and ruining rôle.

The Mandolorian was a refreshing thing to see: post Lucas Star Wars that's actually good. For me, what set it apart from the Abrams nonsense was that it was not written for a young audienc; c.f Abrams, where Jedi become Jedi without actually having to do any work or critical self-reflection. ... Pathetic.

The Book of Boba Fett started off well, OK a slow burner compared to the Mandolorian, but I can live with that. Where it has lost me, to the point that I am now reluctant to continue, is having the 'kiddie gang' in it. This I thought this very unfortunate and it just puts me off. It has the same unrealistic pathetic overtones of Abrams work, designed to appeal to... well no one from my population. Just as I started to have confidence in Favreau's work, and thinking that he was writing for a thinking audience, the pathetic kiddie gang pops up and it really spoils the effect for me. There is enough rubbish out there for kids, what a shame this couldn't have been a spin-off for the people who the Mandolorian attracted without needing such 'novelties' (sic). Hope this isn't a portent of what might come in the Mandolorian, which for me had actually revived sci-fi after a good decade or so of kiddie nonsense.

What a refreshing thing to see: post Lucas Star Wars that's actually good. Each and every Abrams piece has been an abomination as far as I am concerned and made me think it was very sad that they had the licence to produce such rubbish; all written for a young woke audience, void of intelligence, and nothing thought-provoking on a serious level. Apparently, a trainee Jedi just needs to close his/her eyes now rather than actually 'do' anything. I can see why that appeals to the target audience ...

There are a few 'creatures' in Favreau's work, but they are few and far between and do not spoil the overall effect. I am looking forward to more from Favreau. However, must admit that the spin-off series ,The Book of Boba Fett, in my view was not all that it could or should have been.

Somehow I either missed this at the time, or possibly more likely, watched it and found it relatively mediocre when held up against other sci-fi of the day. It has some pretty big holes in it. That said, given that every new sci-fi in the past several years has been a woke abomination, this series looks pretty good now. Highly watchable & written at a time before Facebook had had the chance to seed and spread ridiculous, which saw sci-fi become a casualty as younger appetites were affected.

I had high hopes for this one but find I am struggling to make it through the first episode. The Sarah character and that character's interaction with the plot makes the whole thing painful to watch. Seems to be written for the appetites of kid and I am surprised Pegg would want to have any truck with this.

Everything about this is exceptionally good and really captured the nostalgia of development, back when development really was development. I was bereft when it was cancelled.

Great to see Mackenzie Davis again after the wonder that was Halt and Catch Fire. Such an improvement over the rubbish with Emilia Clarke. Arne is as good as ever.

Just awful. I was trying to watch all the Terminators in succession but I tripped up here, finding that I hate Emilia Clarke acting Sarah O'Connor. An angsty teenager, who used phrases that would never have past muster in 1984 and calling Schwarzenegger 'Popps' - it's pathetic. I liked her in GoT, but it is essentially the same character, isn't it? Schwarzenegger is the only good person in the film as far as I can tell. I don't think I can make it past 60 mins, and whatever the final anachronism was that was the straw that broke this camel's back.

I have a love/hate relationship with this one. I am currently going through the box set and on series six only at the moment. I must admit to being biased as I have ignored it for years. However, as there seems to be a drought of good comedy at the moment, on a recommendation I thought I would give it another go.

It does makes me laugh, and I even look forward to watching it, but I would think a lot more of it, bearing in mind it is a UK sitcom, if it didn't come across so 'wannabe American'. It is as if it has been designed to look and feel American - with the opening scene, style, fake laugh track, and the 'written by committee' feel; Lee even says 'pop the hood' in one of the recent episodes I watched. Don't get me wrong, I love American sitcoms, but watching a UK sitcom apparently trying to mimic one is irritating at times.

This period is in living memory (for me anyway). It is almost good/funny. The casting/directing lets it down - a lot. A modern day Essex accent, and some of personalities, and the phrases used, do not pass muster as authentic east-end 80s (especially one of the main characters with the moustache - looks the part but that is where it ends). Rewriting history seems to be the in thing nowadays. I find it intensely irritating & misleading. Surely there is enough genuine 80s material still being shown on Gold for people to see how unauthentic this is being in parts. It is full of anachronisms. Apart from the accent and personality issues, in the 80s, people didn't say "really?" in that stupidly sardonic way they only started to do, all of a sudden, about a decade ago. There was even a 'same' with the here following much later, rather than 'same here' as might just have passed (though more 93 than 83). It's inane. Right - had to get it off my chest. Will go & try to finish it if I can. ...