Change Your Image
caitriona-shanahan
Reviews
Grey's Anatomy: We've Only Just Begun (2024)
They're back baby! As goofy and gorgeous as always!
Lookit, if after 19 seasons you are coming to Grey's Anatomy for a reality based drama about surgeons, you need to consider your life choices.
Interns running rampant and uncontrolled! Not a nurse to be seen in an ICU room. Professions of love, hate, love-hate delivered by beautiful looking people in either life or death hospital areas, or gorgeously decorated homes.
And robo cars running amok, threatening lives and limbs. It wouldn't be Greys without something seriously out of left field, providing an opportunity for a very quick discussion on the role of AI devices in society.
This is why we watch it. The acting is fantastic- the actors absolutely are committed to the insane story lines. And by trusting the writers, many of the characters have been given opportunities to truly change and grow organically. Richard's latest brush with losing his sobriety reminds us all of the daily struggle for addicts. Greys has stayed true to that story for 2 decades.
Anyway, it was alway for far too long and I'm delighted they haven't messed with the format.
Franklin (2024)
About 2 episodes too long, but so many choices were the right ones
I'm a European (Irish), so my knowledge of the American Revolutionary War is piecemeal at best. So much in this beautiful drama series helped me to understand what happened, and its impact on European history.
One could imagine an alternative history where France did not bankrupt itself in helping the USA achieve independence. Would there have been a French Revolution? And if no Revolution, would there have been Napoleon? Would the expansion of the Britain's Empire been kept in check by a long and expensive war in the American colonies?
And so we come to the place of Benjamin Franklin in world history. This series deftly displays the talent, skill and luck he had. I thought Michael Douglas was marvellous, played the weary cynic, daring himself to believe and hope in his dream.
The supporting cast was also superb, as is to be expected when you have the cream of French acting at your disposal (along with all those real life locations). To ask such a cast to speak in English (as Apple did recently in the much weaker series on Dior) is ridiculous. They delivered in spades, and it wasn't always necessary to understand the words being spoken to grasp the emotions.
Individuals have complained about having to read subtitles. I feel the separation that subtitles cause is a fantastic reminder of what Franklin, Adams & Jay faced. They were fighting for their country's life, but constantly hindered by the language differences.
My real problem with the series is with the time given to Temple Franklin. Yes, it is an important part of Benjamin Franklin's personal story, along with his romances. But I felt the telling of Benjamin Franklin's personal life interfered far too much with the main, historical story. And it seems (well according to Wikipedia anyway) the series completely misleads us as to what happened to the young man when his grandfather returned to the USA. I think this was done to make a heavy handed contrast with another young man. A poor choice, and now has me wondering about the overall historical accuracy of the series.
I believe Episode 6(?) was pretty much about Temple, and it really uninteresting. If the producers were determined to add personal colour about Benjamin Franklin, could we not have seen him working with other scientists, or working to improve religious tolerance?
I was glad that having painted John Adams as such an asshat, we got a chance to see that he was actually a good and decent (if Judgey!!) person. To see Comte de Vergennes as a living person rather than a name in history books, who made big bets that lost in the end.
Yes, definitely worth the watch although I'd prefer an abridged version with the Temple byline.
Slow Horses: Boardroom Politics (2022)
Most of the episode was just treading water ...
The problem for this episode was the finishing twist of the previous one: River Cartwright is not getting killed, so clearly it's a big old bluff with the plane. Once you realise that, you spend the episode being irritated by the slow rate of exposition. Yes, I understand the mechanics of the plot, and why River had to take the bait, but could they not have moved the whole thing along? 5 episodes, rather than 6?
I understand that the conniving and venal Home Secretary Peter Judd is based on one B. Johnson (Samuel West being obviously much slimmer than the original on which he is modelled), and he is a deliciously awful human, played with gusto. Hat tip to Ms Scott Thomas who delivers a cold, calculating player who, one suspects, is merely toying with Judd like a cat playing with a mouse.
Atlantic Crossing (2020)
Such a lost opportunity!
Episode 1 is absolutely cracking - taut, real historical drama acted wonderfully in beautiful period costume and settings. While ep 2 & 3 lack the same sense of the ticking clock, they move along at a good pace, and we begin to familiarise ourselves with all the complexities of this world (Sweden's position in the war being one). However, it missed out the opportunity of filling us in on what happened at Narvik, and the impact of the British decision is not addressed at all - I didn't know about it at all, and it explains the Norwegian anxiety to get the USA on board.
And then we get into the sludge that is the rest of the series. It is a historical fact that FDR and Crown Princess Martha enjoyed each other's company during impossibly hard times. It also seems that the Norwegians (government? Royal family?) encouraged Martha to use the relationship with FDR to further their cause, and that may have helped a little. But FDR alone did not have in his power the gifting of a battleship to one country. And Martha did a lot more for the Norwegian cause in the USA than rest her troubled head on FDRs shoulder.
There were really interesting sub stories that were handled well - the developing friendship between Eleanor and Martha; Martha discovering her strengths and abilities; the attempts by Olaf to have General Fleischer treated more fairly, not to mention sympathy for Germany & the Nazis in American-Norwegian community.
But they were rushed and always placed in the context of the FDR-Martha-Olaf story which frankly just a lot of angsty non action.
Could have been brought in as a 6 hour series, with a flirtatious relationship to leaven a serious look at the efforts of a small country to stay afloat in the evil malstroms of a global war.
What a pity.
Modern Love: Strangers on a (Dublin) Train (2021)
A bit of magic, really.
Catches the way we speak in Ireland perfectly. The accents of the predominantly non-Irish cast were impeccable. Light, funny and yet reminds us of those desperate days in March 2020 as the reality of the Covid pandemic set in. Particular kudos for the Ban Garda (female police officer). Smiled all the way through, and left smiling at the end. Do we get to see the perfect reunion? Who needs to? It was all pre-ordained.
Noah (2014)
Three potentially interesting movies struggling to escape one almighty mess
The starting point for this movie was the original story in Genesis, including elements that are not particularly well known e.g. Noah's drunkenness. Aronofsky and Handel added in details from apocrypha, such as Watchers, and then threw out parts of the Genesis tale that interfered with the story he wanted to tell - which seems to have been a morality play about man's impact on the environment and the threat of global warming. And that would have been a worthy movie, but - maybe it was not the story that the screenwriters wished to examine.
Stories similar to the Great Flood of Genesis are found in the mythology of many cultures. All involve the destruction of the human race, caused by the creator's despair at our wickedness and cruelty. Only one man and his family are chosen to survive this trial, and to recreate humanity. The man chosen must hold onto his faith and innate goodness while letting all others - including innocents - die. There is an enormous cost to him and his family. Was this an examination of the cost of belief? The thin line that people of faith must walk between trust and extremism?
Or maybe I'm over-thinking it. Maybe Aronofsky and Handel saw Roland Emmerich's "2012" and figured they could totally top it? They'd have an ark, and frightened mobs attempting to get on board, but they'd throw in stone transformers and a Gandalf/Galadrial-type character on the mountain to conjure up insight and the odd miracle.
Whatever the intention was, it was never clarified, and consequently, the movie lurches clumsily in narrative and style from one perspective to another.
It's a great cast, who signed on I suspect for different stories - so their performances are at odds.
So much promise, so little delivered.
Grace of Monaco (2014)
What a mess!
Take a 20th century attempt by a royal to usurp the rightful throne of a sibling. Add a border dispute (admittedly, one that happened a decade later, but entwine them for added palace intrigue and international diplomacy). Throw in a glamorous location and people it with 1960s icons (Onassis! Callas! Hitchcock! de Gaulle!). Bring to a simmering bubbling brew. Now leaven with a prince, earnest to do the right thing for his people, but torn by his love of his all- American, free- talking princess; and a down-to-earth priest to act as a worthy confessor and father-figure to these two young lovers. Finally, take Nicole Kidman, the 21st Century actor with the acting chops, blonde hair and icy poise necessary to inhabit the persona of Grace Kelly, encase her in the mixture for 100 minutes and allow the audience to stew happily in the resulting confection.
I figure that (or something with more brevity) was the original pitch for "Grace of Monaco". And it was a great idea for a movie. There are some slim historical facts to build this movie on. But between commissioning the movie and releasing it, things went badly awry.
The script is terrible. It can't decide if it is indeed a fairy story, or a clear eyed look at the way people will undertake to do anything for the sake of their family. The characters of Onassis and Callas were clearly created to allow the exploration of the alternative possible dynamics that exist within a power couple, and the sacrifices that female artists are asked to make. But it's handled so poorly that all we see are stereotypes acting out 1950s tropes. In places, Kidman sounds like a character from a movie aimed at 10 year old girls; in other places she just sounds like an actor reading her lines and working very hard to make them sound as if any person would say them.
Other choices made are equally baffling. The sound-track is overwrought and features many pieces of classical music that have become hackneyed by their inclusion in ad campaigns. The lighting is all over the place - I suspect there was a colour scheme tied to developments within the script, but damned if I could work it out. It was decided at some stage before filming began that the actors could forget about accents - so a Monegasque count is British, Rainier is American, and Grace is Australian. Finally, the directing is just dreadful, as there are alarming framing choices made, as the camera drifts on occasion from a close up of Kidman's eyes, to her mouth, back to her eyes, maybe a zoom. Tedious and pretentious, and not enough attention paid to crowd scenes, which invariably had the look and feel of a crowd scene being created for a TV show on a tight budget.
Tim Roth lacks that true leading man charm, charisma and beauty that made Rainier of Monaco the heart-throb that stole Grace Kelly from Hollywood. And Nicole Kidman, who should be luminous in the role does the best she can with her Australian accent. But when the events of this movie allegedly occurred, Her Serene Highness, Grace of Monaco was 31. Kidman was 45, and it makes a big difference. She lacks the bloom of those younger years, the curves that made Grace Kelly the movie icon she is, the youth that made her appear so young and vulnerable in those times. The Nicole Kidman who played Satine in Moulin Rouge approached the required physical requirements of the role as written. Kidman should have passed on this script, and waited for the script that looked at Grace in the time coming up to her untimely death. That would be a movie worth seeing.
Death Comes to Pemberley (2013)
Much better than the book
I am a Jane Austen fan. I also enjoy reading PD James, but in my opinion, her spare writing failed to make her sequel to "Pride and Prejudice" an enjoyable read. Surprisingly, and pleasingly, this adaptation is a great improvement on the book, and is an enjoyable piece of romantic drama.
The screenwriter moved Elizabeth and Darcy's relationship back to the core of this story, where it belongs. In fact, the screenwriter ensured that this entire story focused on the relationships between different couples, and the impact of societal norms, to great success. PD James, in contrast, focused on the actual crime, and individual characters such as Wickham and Col Fitzwilliam. The screenplay has a careful examination of the relationship between Darcy and his sister Georgiana, and the damage inflicted on that relationship by Wickham's original sin. Austen did not travel down this byway, but it is interesting.
The screenwriter also took the opportunity to add back in the characters of Mrs Bennett and Lady Catherine de Bourgh and to use their magnificent characters to create scenes that add little to the plot, but give us a chance to enjoy these legendary grands dames of literature. The comedy generated by Lydia and her mother is great fun, and adds some much needed levity.
The reveal of the instigator of Captain Denny's death is well handled, and the identity of the individual was a genuine surprise to someone watching with me, who had not read the book. But, in retrospect, it was not surprising - which is the hallmark of a good murder mystery.
As befits a BBC programme, the photography is beautiful, and the costumes and settings are gorgeous.
However, it's a long way from perfection. The screenwriter needlessly added some elements of overwrought drama - especially (spoiler alert) Elizabeth's overnight drive through the forest and dash to the gallows to save Wickham's life.
Others have commented on the use of contemporary language, which was disappointing, as so much effort was expended to have correct costumes and set design. However, the dialogue as not as grating as the casting of Elizabeth Bennett. Alone among the cast, she carries herself as a creature of the 21st century. Her walk and mannerisms are entirely inappropriate for the times. It should also be noted that she alone of the Bennett girls seems to have lost her bloom rather quickly. I understand that Darcy came to love Elizabeth for her fine mind and quick wit, but the book is clear that all the Bennett girls (with the exception of Mary) were English roses. This actress is more of a lily - striking and elegant, but lacking warmth.
Still, a pleasant experience and a far happier experience than reading the original book.