Change Your Image
dizzy-b
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (2021)
Absolute Waste
So full disclusure: The Winter Soldier/Bucky Barnes is my favourite character in the MCU.
His story arc in the movies before this series is absolutely marvellous (did you get the pun?). When I saw there was a standalone series about him and Sam I was *really* excited, but watched the movies and all beforehand for context.
This series had so much promise. I was also totally on board with the idea of Sam being the new Captain America but I wanted to see him struggling with the expectations and responsibilities of the role before fully embracing it. That would have done Sam justice, it would have been a great broadening of his character arc.
The first Episode also teased us with the possibility that the series would seriously examine poor Bucky's PTSD and trauma from the years of torture and brainwashing he endured during his time as the Winter Soldier, and how he was trying to come to terms with everything. I wanted that, I trusted them to do it.... and they let us down on both counts.
By Episode 3 it became obvious: the heavy-handed political messaging was more important than the plot, or developing and continuing the story of such beloved characters as Bucky and Sam.
I already said that I was happy with the idea of Sam becoming the new Captain America- and I am. Steve passed him the shield, but I expected self-doubt and Sam being hesitant to take up the role. I wanted soul searching. That's fine. What we got instead was a plot centred around racial injustice.
Sam is told he can't be Captain America because *oppression of Black people* and he will be aligning with the "enemy". Yeah- basically doing what Steve, one of his best and closest friends entrusted him to do will make same a certified race traitor.
I seem to recall the role had *nothing* to do with race, and that Steve was picked because the man who developed the original Super Soldier foruma saw the goodness and kindness of his heart. He saw a man who would not be corrupted by power. THAT was the core message, its a universal one: those are are not corrupted by power and do not abuse power are the ones who deserve to wield it most.
Not according to Disney. Now its your skin colour. That''s literally all that matters.
This in turn leads to what in my mind is the most offensive line in the entire series, when Isaiah basicallly tells Bucky that he is not a victim. I get that Isaiah is bitter about what happened to him. He had reason to be: but Bucky was NOT the cause of that. They were both victims.
Bucky was captured, tortured and brainwashed to make him a slave of HYDRA and a mindless killing machine: like Isaiah he had the Super- Soldier serum put into him without his consent or even knowledge.
Unlike Isaiah though, Bucky was not able to return to what was left of his family. He had nobody left because he had been enslaved for twice as long, and during his time as the WS was entirely stripped of his agency and personhood, even his very identity.
This could have been us two trauma victims and former servicemen who had both been betrayed by the very regimes which they had once served struggling to come to terms with their pain and brokenness. Isaiah and Bucky could actually have worked very well together, just because of their similar experiences.
However, the writers made their meeting into an excrucuating forced speech about racial injustice. We're told that Bucky bascially can't be a victim because he's white, and that Isaiah has more in common with Sam (they have literally NOTHING in common) because they are both black.
Then, just to make it even more painful, the police turn up when the two are bickering in the street outside Isaiah's house and engage in some profiling of Sam. We're led to believe that Sam is going to get into trouble for being black--- not Bucky though he's clearly recognizable as the former assassin with the conspicious metal arm.
REALLY?
So the cops are going to arrest Sam for being black and not the dude who literally went on a killing spree last him he was out loose in the streets of a major city before effectively disappearing for 7 years?
Yup: the political messaging bludgeons you harder than being smacked with Bucky's Vibranium fist.
I finished the series because..... 5 hours of Sebastian Stan and Anthony Mackie with banter, but it was such a huge disappointment in all areas.
I absolutely hated what the writers did to Bucky in so many ways, and how they either forgot about his PTSD or failed to address it after Episode 1. The conclusion of that story arc was covered as an afterthought in like 30 seconds, when it deserved much longer.
That is not representation of people with PTSD which one of the showrunners talked about. That is the worst kind of tokenism. The same showrunner also tried to suggest that Bucky's traumatic background, brainwashing and torture were some kind of "excuse"- which is just... not what someone says when they're trying to be sensitive about mental health issues.
Apparently, it has now been confirmed that Stan's character won't appear in the 4th Captain America movie at all, despite having been present in all of the previous 3, and despite the conclusion of the series suggesting that Bucky had formed a close bond of friendship not only Sam and Sam's family.
Hardly a suprise: they know that Bucky is as popular as ever, and they'e worried he'll overshadow the "first black Captain America"
The King (2019)
Which King? No really, who is this meant to be?
This movie was touted as an adaptation of Shakespeare's Henry V- but its not. Not in any way. Nor is it more of a historically accurate rendering of the reign of Henry V. If anything its less accurate than Shakespeare's version.
Warning: kist of inaccuracies to follow: Henry did have a brother called Thomas but that's where the resemblance to history pretty much ends.
Thomas Duke of Clarence did die before Henry but not fighting Henry Percy in the early 1400s. He'd have been barely a teenager then.
He died in France one year before his brother in 1421. Henry's other 2 brothers don't exist in this version- and Agincourt happened 2 years into Henry's reign, not a few months.
The whole storyline with him being duped into everything by the Chief Justice is just very odd- and Henry really wasn't as young as this movie tries to make him out to be. He was 26 when he became King. Not a "boy" even by Medieval Standards. In fact, already a seasoned warrior. Then there's English soldiers killing the Dauphin of France. Seriously? His ransom would have been far too valuable.
Everyone in his version seems to be trying too hard. Whispering in darkened corridors and trying to look very serious. The dialogue was clunky and ranges from trying to sound epic archaic and Shakespearean to something a frustrated 12-year-old might say when given a detention.
Repeating your sentence to include the f word whilst hitting stuff doesn't give more emphasis to what you are saying. It just made the King and his brother look like petulant teens throwing tantrums. So Henry V is now Kylo Ren? He just smashes stuff up and randomly stabbed people?
Every scene is poorly lit, the clothing dull (Medieval people loved colour) and dreary suiting the general tone of the movie. There's a lot of American accents being barely disguised as well: and Robert Pattison's French accent was a disgrace. He sounded like the British Airman posing as a French Policeman in the 1970s comedy "Allo, Allo". His French accent consisted of him saying "good moaning" in a hammy stage French accent.
Then there are the rather absurd insertions of modern ideals. Like a French princess saying "all monarchy is illegltimate". So a 15th century French King's daughter is a republican? Why? "He is mad but he is loved".
Nope.... erm here's a history lesson people. Charles VI of France suffered bouts of madness for most of his reign. This situation plunged France into chaos and decades of civil war as his brother and cousin vied for power in a bloody struggle which tore the country apart. He wasn't "loved" except insofar as people respected monarchs generaly. Most people though just wanted an end to the turmoil and violence in France.
Why precisely would the King have made a dissolute like Falstaff his commander in chief when he had seasoned soldiers all around him, and indeed was one himself?
Henry's comment "I will send you an advanced party to hell" to Cambridge and Grey tops it all. Totally contrary to everything the Medieval church taught and beliefs about the afterlife. Another example of dialgue that was meant to sound kind of Shakesperean but ends up sounding really awkward.
Also, though on one level I kind of liked the attempt to give Cambridge a bit more prominence.... it didn't work in the narrative and had no historical basis.
He wasn't raised with Henry and wasn't a surrogate brother to him. They barely knew each other, in fact. Give me a version which showcases the frustrated younger brother of the Duke of York who had a long-standing association with the Mortimer family who were the alternative heirs to the throne and it might have worked.
They even gave us a shot of Cambridge's son, the young boy who would one day become Richard Duke of York and yet he kid doesn't say a word the whole movie and instead just spends both his brief appearances lookng mildly startled. Why? Why rob us of such a fascinating historical cameo after teasing us with something extra?
All in all- the King felt like a really bad fanfic written by a high school history student who read too many Horrible Histories books and so thinks the Medieval period consisted of nothing except decapitating people, mud and swearing.
Then you see who wrote and produced this it and things start to make sense. Joel Edgerton (who played Falstaff) and Brad Pitt.
Hardly classically trained Shakespearean actors with a stellar knowledge of European history.
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019)
Lots of Impressive CGI but the story makes no sense.
First of all, this movie confirmed what I suspected in the first movie: Maleficent is not a "loving" mother figure to Aurora. She is basically just an controlling and manipulative abuser.
This movie, albeit accidentally, underscores the selfish and possessive nature of what she feels for Aurora. It appears that she doesn't view Aurora as an autonomous being with her own inherent rights and dignity - but simply as an object who she owns. An extension of herself, basically.
In the movie, this manifests first as Maleficent refusing to allow Aurora to have a relationship (alarm bell one- something real life abusers do a lot) and then when she reluctantly agrees, throwing a tantrum because her soon to be in-laws justifiably expect young Aurora to leave home and build a new life with her betrothed.
Maleficent basically loses her mind over this because she doesn't want anyone to take "her" daughter away from "her".
That. Right there. Any parent who won't allow their child to leave home and build a life of their own is not a good parent: they are possessive and controlling. Both adjectives that fit Maleficent well.
This is consistently portrayed as Maleficent showing her "love" for Aurora- but its not. Its just controlling behaviour by an abuser- and there are some uncomfortable parallels with how abusers behave in real life.
Lets go on: the premise of both this and he last movie is that the Fairies and Dark Fey are fundamentally good-natured, harmless and innocent creatures who are being picked on by the evil humans for their own gain. Well, that might apply to most of the creatures in the Moor, but it does not apply to Maleficent and her fellow "Dark Fae". We've already shown how Maleficent's "love" is basically controlling behaviour and abuse, but this extends further.
Although we're supposed to see her people as innocent victims, the actions of Maleficent and her fellows throughout the two movies paints a very different picture. They are spiteful, cruel and fickle beings who are prone to outburts of rage over small slight or imagined insults. Because they are also so physically imposing an powerful, these bursts of rage almost always result in innocent bystanders getting hurt or killed. Their *revenge* is entirely out of proportion to what was done to them, and almost always targets innocents- cursing a baby to punish its father, anyone? King John was dead on point with that: what kind of monster would curse an innocent child.
Secondly, although we are supposed to see the humans as bad for casting covetous eyes on the Moors, it is the Fae who apparently make it a policy to kill anyone who happens to "trespass" in their realm. We're supposed to see this as them "protecting" themselves, but judging from the movies themselves they rarely take motives into account or bother to ask questions. This kill on sight policy apparently extends to killing any human child or unarmed peasant who is no threat whatsoever to the people of the Moors and would presumably also extend to people who stumbled accidentally into their realm. They even kill people who enter the Moors to negotiate peace with them or ask them for help- such as the Queens' brother. This also happens in peacetime when the place is ostensibly ruled by a human.
Its interesting to note that in most myths and for most of history fairies were not considered benevolent creatures. Its only because of Andersen, Disney and others that we consider them so. One is almost tempted to agree with the Queen about the Fey being dangerous and a threat.
This aside.... the movie is just rather choppy, silly and inconsistent. Aurora refuses to believe the Fey are capable of doing bad things like killing the Queen's brorther- yet she knows they are quite capable of placing deadly curses on people with very little provocation. This is presumably why she thinks Maleficent cursed the King: its her Modus Operandi after all.
Supposedly humans have all but wiped out Fae and driven them underground (literally) despite the fact that Fae are much larger and stronger than humans, and have magical abilities humans don't. Even equipped with the dreaded iron weapons, humans are no match for Fae who are shown decimating entire armies and are quite clearly capable of destroying castles and entire towns in minutes.
Also..... there's just no stakes. I think maybe one Fae is killed in the whole war and there's lots of impressive aerial shots but nobody is ever in any real danger. Even Maleficent's "sacrifice" is basically meaningless because she *spoiler alert* comes back 5 minutes later.
The only character with any real motivation is the antagonist: and she's almost almost symapthetic: but for her obsession with wiping out fairies. No, Maleficent doesn't have a motivation: somebody insulted her at dinner doesn't count.
Henry V (1989)
Something strange happened....
I have watched this movie dozens of times. I mean literally *dozens*. We first purchased it on VHS when I was like.... 11 or something and I lost count of how many times we have seen it since then.
It was- and will probably still remain one of my favourite movies of all time. My favourite version of my favourite Shakespeare play.
Yet last time I watched this movie... just over a week ago, something very strange happened. I suddenly saw its flaws in a way I had never done so before. I don't know what bought it on- just something clicked for the first time.
It is still a very good movie. Far superior to the 2010 Hollow Crown version starring Tom Hiddleston which was one butchery off the play too far.
That version replaced Henry V's brothers with the Duke of York - a character inexplicably recast and given a more prominent role for no discernable reason. Yet it was edited so poorly it had Henry once addressing him as "brother" in a line directed at one of said brothers.
That version also managed to have such a small cast it made the Battle of Agincourt look like a loud pub brawl between some Everton supporters. Stage productions can do large scale, but that version had 10 guys running around a field, basically.
Anyway, this isn't a review of the 2010 version- which should not have been so easy to better. Its the '89 version with Branagh.
There is a lot that is good about this movie- the stellar cast, and solid performances for much of it. Also, some scenes have an emotional poignancy which can still move the viewer to tears or feel the stirring and rousing speeches as they were intended.
This is also one of the *only* screen versions which features the Southampton Plot scene, a scene I consider important and intersesting at the same time. Both Oliver's version and the aforementioned BBC version cut that scene.
Yet... there are some parts where I really noticed hammy overacting in ways I had never done before. One scene especially stands out in which the king is shown running in slow motion with a grimace on his face.... its just painful.
Other additions made zero sense, as did some of the omissions. Then there was the treatment of the historical period and detail. It goes from the very very good to the frustratingly bad.
On the one hand, there was a meticulous attention to detail in regards to some of the armour and costumes. Characters actually had the correct heraldry for the characters they depicted. Now that might seen like a small thing, but it signifies.
(Compare that to the Hiddleston versoin, where almost *none* of the characters have any heraldry and wear blank armour and shields.... a big no-no in an actual Medieval battle in which you had to have some way of telling people apart.)
On the other hand.... the singular lack of plate armour was kind of annoying. It wasn't so much of a problem in the non-battle scenes as the 15th century styles and fashions were quite accurately showcased- but the only person wearing plate in battle was Brian Blessed. Pretty sure that was his personal suit of armour he keeps at home.
Also... there is an inexplicable scene when the English archers begin to loose their arrows *after* the main charge. That didn't happen. The archers always started first. The first salvo of the battle so to speak, before any charge.
They would never have loosed several volleys of arrows after the two armies had charged into one another because of the huge chance of killing thier own men. Arrows don't discriminate.
Finally, although the chemistry between Branagh and Emma Thompson (then a married couple IRL) was charming.... there's just something which doesn't work about her in the role. I think it might have been her age: a woman of 30 playing a Princess who was actually only 19. Don't get me wrong, actors can be made to look younger than their actual age: but I just didn't buy it with Thompson. She looked to old and worldly wise....
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)
A poor imitation
I've been a Tolkien fan for many years, and I've read not only The Lord of the Rings, but also The Silmarillion and Christopher Tolkien's edited volumes. I consider myself more than a casual Tolkien fan.
I'm also a great fan of the Peter Jackson movies, and don't consider my love of them to be incompatible with my love for the Professor's work. This series is to Jackson's movies what a cheap Chinese fake product is to the tech market. Poor quality, badly made, and will break or stop working in a short time. It is junk food to a gourmet meal.
The departures from the lore are really the least of all its problems: the main issues are
- Bad writing.
- Poor characterization
- Inconsistencies
- More interest in box ticking than storytelling
- Lack of originality
The Lord of the Rings, both books and movies, tell two basic stories. Frodo's quest to destroy the Ring, and Aragorn's path to the throne of Gondor.
This series could have done the same. As Tolkien said, there are only two major narratives in the Second Age: the forging of the Rings of Power, and the downfall of Numenor.
This series tries to do too much at once: tell 5 or 6 different stories, none of them connected and bring them together into a single narrative. 2 of these stories are not even needed. We don't need Harfoots or the Stranger/Wizard. They aren't necessary tot he great Tales of the 2nd Age. Both were included entirely as Fan Service or nostalgia bait.
That leads to the other problem of this series: they have so little to work with that most of what they have made is "padding" designed to fill up several episodes. None of it furthers the story or the plot. Mount Doom doesn't need an Origin Story, especially not the very silly one it got here.
The other problem is the lack of originality: 50% or more of the material in this series is lifted from the Jackson movies, even entire scenes and dialogue are just "reworked" with different characters, but are essentially the same. Halbrand is just discount Aragorn: Galadriel is basically just Eowyn and Arwen combined. Arondir is a ropoff of Legolas, and Elendil is anothor Aragorn clone. There's even a scene where he tries to tame a horse and lets it go just like Aragorn did wih Brogo.
The other material is just - bad. The characterization is lacking becaue the showrunners seem to be more interested in making some people heroes for what they are rather than what they do. Let me explain this: Bronwyn becomes de facto ruler of the Southlands on a very sketchy basis, she's then lauded as a great hero who saved her people: he she didn't. She literally did nothing. Her accolade is not earned, instead it feels forced.
Galadriel is meant to be a great commander, but all we see is her men mutity against her, and then she basically bullies a country in an uncessary war, and manipulates Halbrand into compliance. For what? Her personal quest for vengeance and who cares about the consequences and how many lives are lost.
Neither of these characters are heroes. Neither have earned their places, nor our respect, admiration and appreciation yet we are supposed to love them and root for them because they are "strong women" and Tolkien needs more "strong women", or there won't be anyone for young girls to root for. Or so we're told. I root for Aragorn, Pippin and Sam in the Jackson movies. They are true heroes: loyal, kind, brave, sacrificial, loving and noble of heart. They earned thier power, their position and our respect through struggle, war and sacrifice.
Finally: the writing sucks. The story is disjointed, context is often not given and chararacters have no motive for their actions. They know things without explanation, and succeed because of luck, co-incidence or Deux ex Machina. They have no real purpose and simply do the same things episode after episode. What serves for "character development" is them doing sudden u-turns without a logical reason, not learning growing, or changing.
Details are often illogical, and are done only to get the characters from A to B. Galadriel expects an injured man to travel thousands of miles for "Elvish medicine" when he could just be treated by a healer nearby, since his injury is not beyond the capability of humans to treat. He hasn't been stabbed with a Morgul blade.
Characters teleport over huge distances: compare this to Frodo and Sam who took months to walk to Mordor on foot. They survive volcanic eruptions (even when Tolkien's work proves that these kill Elves, men and all corporeal beings, and devestate the land) because there are no stakes and the showrunners cannot bear to kill off main characters.
The whole series just feels like an amateur production and a very poor imatation of something else. There are good points, but they're not enough to redeem the whole. Furthermore, it often looks and feels cheap: the armour is clearly fabric and plastic, making you ask were the huge budget went. Numenorians, supposed to the greatest warriors of their age living in the pinnacle of human civilization sending untrained teens into battle clad in polyester is just awful. At least in the PJ movies the Gondorians, their descendants, sported plate armour. They could easily afford it. So could Amazon.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Beautiful. A Myth bought to life for the modern age.
Note: I now only ever watch the Extended Editions of these movies, the only worthwhile versions as far as I am concerned.
I am a Tolkien fan, I've read LOTR, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion. I was, it must be admitted a movie fan first before I got into the books. Perhaps if it has bene the other way around I would see things differently, but I don't.
Tolkien wasn't just a fantasy writer, he was a craftsman: he crafted mythology and fairy tales for the modern age. Its possible to nitpick about some of the lore changes, but I firmly believe Jackson's Trilogy is faithful to the spirit and intent of J..R. R Tolkien's Magnum Opus.
It is a beautiful, reverent, epic retelling of the timeless tale of good vs evil. Of the story of the courageous Hobbit Frodo and his best friend Samwise Gamgee's quest to destroy the One Ring. Alongside, all the Free Peoples of Middle Earth unite in their fight against the Ring's Master, Sauron. A terrible and powerful supernatural being whose very being is tied to the Ring.
Jackson's stories are lovingly told, with the same attention to detail as a the Master Craftsman who wrote the books. The costumes, armour, sets and dialogue and all attest to the years of careful work put into these movies.
Every time I watch these movies (and I have nearly a dozen times) I notice some new detail which either ties back to the lore or the the Legends so beloved of Professor Tolkien. Unlike the Amazon adaptation, the lore is not just the odd Easter Egg, but carefully woven into the story.
Everyone should watch these movies at least once.
Spooks: Episode #9.8 (2010)
Lucas deserved better
The first 5-6 Episodes of the Season were actually OK, but the ending, and especially Episode 8 were a hot mess. Honestly, it is some of the worst writing I have ever seen in this series.
I can buy Lucas having a dark past, and even having done bad things which he was ashamed of and wanted to keep under wraps. That's credible, considering what has been established of his character in Seasons 7-8. I mean in the first couple of episodes of Season 7 it was seriously believed he could be a Russian double agent.
What we got instead was a hatchet job. Lucas character, arc, personality, experiences, everything about him was turned on his head, and he had no motivation for any of it.
So he wanted to be with Maya. OK, yet why not be with her as Lucas? He was proud of his stellar career in "5" and that would have provided a logical basis for his no longer using his birth name, and even his spell in prison. Just tell her from the start. She's have respected it and understood.
Instead he just came over as a slightly obsessed stalker who lied to his supposed soulmate for no reason.
There were plot holes one could drive a land rover through, and numerous inconsistencies. Just for example, in Episode 2 Lucas finds that MI-5 have a file on Vaughan which.is so senstiive that only the peopel at the top can access it.
That's should be a neon sign that this guy is not some random unknown conman. He's either considered to be dangerous.... or he's some high level "asset", or informatant.
Yet this detail is developed or mentioned again when it should have been key to the story. Surely if Vaughan was as thick as theives with the "Service", they'd have got suspicious about his sudden disappearance shortly after a bombing at at a British Embassy 15 years earlier, and then mysterious reapparance offering intel on said bombing? I'd have called him a liability that they'd rather be shot of, especially once they learned he was trying to blackmail one of their own, but maybe I'm overthinking this.
Even form a narrative standpoint, we have to reason to accept what Vaughan says at the end of Episode 7. He's not a trustworthy narrator or a reliable source. What he said could easily have just been one more lie. A final revenge before his demise.
The way that Lucas changed at the flick of a switch after Vaughan's death was the ridiculous "plot twist" ever. I mean again, I understand having something to hide, but people living a lie don't transform into an entirely different person in the space of a few minutes.
Unless Lucas was some kind of patholgical pyschopath and the whole Lucas North thing was soem kind of act, in which case poeple would have noticed, or he's got some form of schitzophrenia there's no explanation for him going from the flawed but brave, loyal and compassionate person we came to know and love in the first two Seasons, to a selfish and violent coward who would sell out his country at the drop of a hat.
In fact, Lucas was the last person you would expect. The idea that a person who didn't crack even after years of torture just going off like that because of - what? Someone manipulated him? Threatened his girlfriend? Nope not buying it.
His actions after Maya's death are even more inexplicable. Why even go on with the handover? How come Harry doesn't suffer some penalty for treason if handing over the file was such a henious act? Why do none of the team question his decision to exchange the file for Ruth, and how on earth are they so gullible on the "genetic weapon" thing.
PTSD and truama don't make people do that. This is the man who would place himself in front of armed terrorists to protect teenage girls. Who once singlehandedly faced off against a group of 6 armed Russian operatives just to buy Ros and Connie a little extra time to diffuse a bomb, and tried to run back into a building that was about to explode to save his boss.
Nor does "being bad" provide an adequate explanation for the total change in his character. I mean Harry, who is meant to be the moral compass of the whole series, is hardly the most squeaky clean. He gets away with outright murder several times in fact. Killing that Russian Ambassador wasn't for "Queen and Country", it was revenge.
Lucas final death is arguably the most ignomious in the entire series. Snivelling on top of a building because his girlfriend died and he didn't want to go back to prison? Had they literally forgotten the "survived 8 years of torture and solitary confinement in a Russian prison camp" bit?
Didn't get that memo? C'mon. Our Lucas came through that. Not unscatched, I grant you, but the idea that he'd be terrified of a cushy British prison was beyond absurd. The scene also makes Harry look like a hypocrite and a King size asshole. He presumes to lecture a despairing Lucas on why he allowed his girlfriend to be killed in tha name of duty to Queen and Country, when he'd handed over state secrets to save his lover. Nor was it the first time he'd compromised for personal reasons.
Nope. Lucas deserved either to go out in his epic, badass, "devil may care" way saving the day (and with a cheeky quip or two), or for there to be some ambiguity over what happened to him. To allow for the possibility of a later return, which Richard Armitage seemed to be keen on.
Even Connie James, who betrayed her country for years, and brutally murdered a fellow spy to avoid discovery was given a dignified exit with a chance to redeem herself. There was no reason whatsoever Lucas or John or whatever his name was could not have had the same.
What makes it worse is that the programme makers treated Lucas as shabbily after death as they do before. In Season 10 there's no memorial for him, Harry has no clue why we wanted him on top pf a building and they act as if he never existed. As if all the good he did was entirely meaningless and worthless.
Its kind of no wonder the show submarined with Series 10. That and the lackluster plots, repetitive storylines and the almost total lack of developed characters one could care about. Ruth was really the only one left, and look what they did to her.
Cadfael (1994)
Best Medieval series ever made. Well at least one of them.
People who have read the books might be a disappointed with the TV adaptations. Characters get missed out or changed, as do some incidents.
For example Aline Siward does not appear after Episode 1 in the series, and no mention is made of her marrying Hugh Beringar.
In the books she appears frequently as Hugh's wife and a close personal friend of Cadfael.
However, my inner Historian cannot help but love this series. Literally its my favourite Medieval series ever made.
What I really like about this series is that it was largely free of the lazy inaccuracies as well as the forced insertion of modern beliefs and political correctness you see in a lot of Medieval TV series today.
Although it was supposed to be a Whodunit, I find Cadfael to be one of those rare series I can watch over and over again. The production values and acting are excellent and it just gives a feel for the time I don't get with other period dramas.
Its probably also no coincidence that this is the show I refer people to if they actually want an accurate representation of the Medieval attitude to herbalism.
So many series rely on the worn out cliche that Medieval people were hopelessly ignorant, superstitious and believed anything to do with herbs or medicine was 'witchcraft'.
They didn't. Really, they did not at all. Watch Cadfael just for that, if nothing else.