Change Your Image
highstreet28
Reviews
The Larkins (2021)
It's a piece of fiction, enjoy it as such!
What an interesting load of responses to a bit of light entertainment! I fear that the general viewing public are unable to move on from the TV of their childhood, and accept that this is yet another screen adaptation of a light and humorous novel. To suggest that HE Bates would be turning in his grave misses the whole point of fiction - he wrote it, we read it, we put our own experiences and background into our reading, and somewhere there might be a match with what the author had in mind and what we imagine, but it makes no differences if there isn't. But nonetheless it is still a piece of fiction.
Those who claim to know Bate's intentions clearly don't - I grew up a few streets away from Bates, I have walked the streets, towns, villages and countryside that he did, as my mother pointed out the parks, churches, rivers, and fields that feature in his works. My aunt was a friend of his mother; I have a signed copy of his autobiography. But that does not me put to any advantage in reading his novels, it just adds to my pleasure to see familiar places in his works.
For all of those complaining about historical inaccuracies, let's dispel that first. The novel was published in 1958, and the first screen adaptation was by MGM in 1959, 'The Mating Game'. The whole story is transposed to the USA, and Mariette was played by Debbie Reynolds. Do you think Bates cried that his lovely Kent village became a town in America? Of course not, he took the royalties and would have been so pleased to have reached a wider audience. It is a piece of fiction, not a history book - the persons adapting it now can do so how they want to, and meet the new audience. Art, and Bates was certainly an artist even if not very profound in this light novella, can be interpreted by new readers, and new directors.
If you are unable to get an ITV series from 1991 out of your head, nor the theme tune, then why even bother watching this. Buy the DVD and be happy, but appreciate that audiences have moved on, grown up, and new ones born. We might be fed up with entirely white casts portraying what was then rapidly becoming a multi-ethnic society
And finally, if you are giving this programme one star because you saw a person of colour in a supposedly Kent village of the fifties, then you seem to have a very restricted approach to pleasure - this is light entertainment for a Sunday evening on a popular channel. Why not watch it as such? As I said, I grew up in the same town as Bates, in the decade in which this work is set, and we were not at all surprised to see people of colour, indeed all nationalities. Does it make a difference to you if a character first played by an American actor, then a white British actor, is now played by a black actor? Forget the history, history doesn't dictate fiction - fiction is for your own imagination, not your indignation.
Charade (1963)
Thoroughly disappointing
I am quite appreciate that I am in a minority, but I found this film hugely disappointing. I'm sure I saw it years ago when we were confined to TV with one or two channels, but with the online choices we have now I can't believe I watched it to the end. The plot was easy to follow, the 'twists' were all predictable, and in the end I just didn't give a toss. The 'romance' was one of the most ridiculous I've ever seen - a relationship between a 60 year old man, who never was that attractive, and a supposed crush from Audrey Hepburn, about half his age and one of the most appealing women in movies. Nah, toe-curling stuff. Much idiocy thrown in, and much of which one would now find quite repulsive - the crass joke about rolling an orange over the breasts of a woman who was actually around the same age as Grant, and the utterly stupid shower shot. The rest of the cast can hang their heads, or just take the money and run, apart from Matthau, who was passable. I'm so glad we've graduated from nonsense like this.
Bridge of Spies (2015)
God bless America as we show justice to the world.
Predictable stuff from Hollywood - shallow and very disappointing. Spielberg doing a kids version of a spy story. Poor Tom Hanks goes to Berlin to save the world from communism, and rescues the youth of America. And all he gets is the sniffles. Violins on the bridge, before dawn, for goodness sake. Given the accolades, I was hoping for something more suited for an adult audience. Rylance is a good actor, but that doesn't make it a good film, just watchable when he is in the scene. And those poor kids of Hank's - subject to such hatred because big daddy stood up for justice and the American flag. It isn't even interesting from the historic recreation of New York - just a demonstration of how much money can be spent on a movie that really doesn't tell much of a story. There could have been more depth, and less devotion to period drama. And the script was pretty dire at many points - dialogue when no words were needed at all.
The Sheltering Sky (1990)
Super story beautifully filmed.
I discovered this film very recently and very soon after my first reading of the book. The book impressed me greatly, and the film too in other ways. The beautiful prose of the book is replaced by the beautiful cinematography, and wonderful soundtrack. The scenery is some of the most impressive I've seen, and authenticity appears in every shot. Acting is superb throughout, and all nicely controlled and even understated. From a fairly dense book there is of course there is a great deal to condense and there is much omitted, which might make it difficult for people who have not read the book to follow the progress of the central pair of characters. On the other hand, if you have read the book, you might be disappointed that many of the significant points are missing. But if you know the story and are prepared to accept this, you might be in for a real treat.
The Sapphires (2012)
A man's view of what women should do.
I had to check that this was directed by a man, just to confirm what seemed blatantly obvious. The women appear to make choices, but all as a direct result of what the men want them to do - manager, lover, boyfriends, soldiers. Every female action seems to be as a response to the men. The film seemed to me to lack charm or interest. It started off beautifully with a super rendering of Mockingbird, but nothing better than that later. The scenes jumped improbably, and I kept asking myself why? What happened then? How did we get here? And the music I found quite insipid, having seen most of the original artists themselves when I was but a youngster. Try this one - MLK has been shot, so go and shake your hips for those poor black boys. It might be true, but it don't make it smell nice. Sorry folks - nice try, but I didn't like it at all.