BenignPillows Reviews

Robin Hood: Alan a Dale (1984) Season 1, Episode 4

"Rub me dry, Gisburne. HARDER!"

[7/10 · 14 July 2023]

This one seems to be taken from the legends more than Richard Carpenter's mind: Pagan and occult elements are taking a break, while you recognize the name Alan-a-Dale and the story of Robin Hood uniting two young lovers by saving the girl from a forced marriage.

It's a fun, solid (and slightly homoerotic!) episode, if nothing very special.

The older groom separating the lovers is in this case the Sheriff himself. Yes, our mustache-twirling villain is getting married, but to climb the social ladder only, because he HATES. WOMEN. Indeed, the impending exchange of vows seems to depress him almost as much as it does the bride.

Meanwhile, the bride's true love, drama queen/minstrel Alan-a-Dale, befriends Robin Hood's gang. The Merries are only too happy to help him out, as that would also mean stealing money from the Sheriff.

The trivia section claims Alan was intended to be a permanent cast member, but the plans were cancelled because the actor was too incompetent! Now, that's good PR for the episode. Honestly he didn't seem all that bad to me, but then I found out he was completely dubbed, both singing and speaking voice.

The episode also finds some time to focus on Little John, and while it's not much, I love Clive Mantle getting a chance to shine. Speaking of competence, he was one of the series' best actors to me. Look out for a certain logfight scene illustrating John's bear-like strength, as well as being generally priceless.

Little John has got himself a girlfriend. The problem is that visits from an outlaw puts her whole village in danger. Robin furiously scolds John over this, and he takes it, not pointing out that that's easy for Robin to say, who has a wife living with him in the woods. What are the other poor lads to do??

Well, certainly not turn to each other! This was the 1980s, after all. In a later episode ("Lord of the Trees") the show seems to go out of its way to shoot down any viewer suspicion of homosexuality, as it sees absolutely every Merry Man, even Friar Tuck, flirting with one or more women.

As for Gisburne, he's practically a ladies' man, if only they'd want him.

To be fair, Richard Carpenter stated that the two original band members who are killed in the beginning of the series, were meant to be a gay couple. I don't think they show any signs of that in the actual episodes, though. Maybe they weren't allowed to, or maybe it was a retcon.

In this episode, however! Now, I swear I'm not one to see homoerotic undertones or overtones every time males get chummy. Close platonic friendships are a thing, and a lengthy mudfight doesn't have to be more than a lengthy mudfight.

(Incidentally, said mudfight between Robin and Gisburne had to be filmed twice due to technical problems, resulting in Michael Praed being so exhausted he almost drowned as he was supposed to swim away.)

But then you have the misogynist Sheriff's requesting Gisburne's assistance for bodily tasks, like rubbing him dry after his bath. Harder!

And there's the ending, which features a wedding and lots of romantic smooching and happiness between the new couples (highlighting, as always, the lack of chemistry between Robin and Marion).

This is intercut with a scene of the Sheriff and Gisburne, now *both* naked in the bath after they got stung by bees. Gisburne is yet again tasked with rubbing, the back this time, and the Sheriff asks him to go "lower"??

I mean. Come ON.

Random thoughts/obs:

-This is the first of many appearances of the village of Wickham, I think. Boba Fett lived there.

-This might also be the only reference to Marion's pre-Sherwood beekeeping, probably because they couldn't get those weaponized bees to look even close to real. Hey, it was 1984.

Robin Hood: Seven Poor Knights from Acre (1984) Season 1, Episode 3

Very Poor Templars

[7/10 · 18 May 2023]

The outlaws are attacked by a group of Knights Templar, returning from the Middle East, who think they have stolen their golden seal.

This is one of the better episodes, with some tense action and powerful visuals, especially an atmospheric funeral ceremony. On the downside, the characters make some strange decisions.

I like the Merries' early archery training scene - elegant way to combine exposition (Robin and Will discussing) with character establishment. Will trained Robin in swordfighting, but can't rival his boss' skills with the bow. Marion is actually the one who comes closest to Robin in that respect.

...and then, without warning, they're attacked. By masked men on horseback.

It's a great scene that effectively conveys the Templars' brutality and arrogance (a point Carpenter clearly wanted to make), as well as the terror and confusion of their victims. Now that's an achievement in a show where you can neither show graphic violence nor kill off main characters.

Take the "Helmet Cam POV" for example, complete with Darth Vader-ish breathing. Pretty eerie.

And there *are* stakes - each side loses a man - due to the Merries having stacked up on redshirts. That said, they could have grieved a little bit more for "James", poor sod. As if it wasn't enough that the viewers have no idea who he is.

Much is important, though, and Much has been captured. In order to rescue him, Robin, for some reason, decides to sneak into the Templars' camp in full daylight - shielded only by their funeral pyre. He is OF COURSE captured.

So, the Templars are desperate to get their seal back, and think the outlaws know where it is. Do they then interrogate Robin and Much?

No, they don't. Instead, they place Robin in a "Trial of Combat" with one of their champions. Why..? I get that the writers would prefer a cool fight scene to one of questioning and torture of beloved characters, but come up with a good excuse then, guys!

Having won the duel, Robin runs for it, and.. the Templars let him get away..?

Sure, they're arrogant and know the outlaws will come back for Much - hopefully bringing the seal to be able to bargain. And yeah, I know, they chase them later. Still, are these the ruthless soldiers that the Sheriff claimed wouldn't rest until they had hunted each and everyone down?

Anyway. The rest of the episode is more standard fare. The Merries' hunt for the seal takes them to Leaford, surprisingly - Marion's family estate, that the church confiscated. Turns out, though, that Leaford here just stands in for another generic dungeon the band have to break into.

I will say it's satisfying to see the Templars' asses thoroughly kicked, and ending up in line with the vow of poverty they took. You know, before they became bankers.

Random thoughts/obs:

-Robin and Marion don't... really have that much chemistry. Since the start of the show it's kind of dissipated. To be fair, Judi Trott seems to try, but Michael hardly ever throws her a glance. Judging by this episode, I never would have thought he was in love with her. Despite lots of sweet scenes written for them across the series, this Robin comes off more like Marion's boss.

Robin Hood: The Witch of Elsdon (1984) Season 1, Episode 2

Good episode, great Merriness

[7/10 · 17 April 2023]

A woman is accused of being a witch. The Sheriff uses this to blackmail her to infiltrate Robin Hood's band in Sherwood, holding her husband as hostage.

This is perhaps not the most exciting episode story-wise. It doesn't have the epic scope of the two-parter that kicked off the series - few of them do, but this one gets the ungrateful task of following directly, so it's inevitably a step down. I still think it's pretty good, and a lot of fun.

Lady Marion, the Sherwood version (all deglamorized and realistically dressed, which I love) is trying to find her place among the Merries. Feeling taken for granted doing traditionally female chores, she instead wants to accompany the men on their raids and adventures. Robin thinks that's too dangerous, and so she has to prove her worth.

With a little help from Herne, but hey, Robin gets that all the time. Must be quite nice to have a god on your side like that!

When Marion argues that she wouldn't want to go on living anyway, if anything happened to Robin, it's impossible not to think about how things will eventually turn out for him. I guess he didn't agree that "Our fate must be shared"..

And ah, the age-old gender debate... At the moment (2023) so polarized you really want to avoid it like the plague. Even back in 1984, they were very keen to emphasize that this Maid Marion would be "one of the boys and do everything the men do". The idea of the "strong" and "independent" female character isn't new in any way. Since at least the 1970s, that's been the ideal and the thing to strive for in western culture.

Personally (and as a woman myself), I think they struck a reasonably good balance with Judi Trott's Marion. While not having the forceful personality of, say, Carrie Fisher, this former ballet dancer is still so light-footed, quick, and brave you easily believe she could hold her own in the action. Better than Tuck and Much, as a matter of fact.

Except in swordfighting and other kinds of close combat. Today, they might well have her do stuff like that (don't get me started...), but she IS petite. Hence the female antagonist in this episode, I suppose.

Either way, the bow is as important as the sword on this show.

What sticks out the most to me about this episode, is actually Ian Sharp's way of composing shots. I don't really know the technical terms, but instead of using the "over the shoulder back and forth" editing technique when people are talking, he seems to have filmed several scenes with just one long take. Check out the early scene in which they are discussing Robin's dream. Simple scene, beautifully composed. Or even choreographed. Must have taken some time to plan.

The other thing that sticks out is the chemistry among the guys. It's often been said that they had a genuine cameraderie that translated on screen, and that is the way it comes off. Take the scene when they are celebrating the successful robbery. It doesn't even seem like a scene, it just seems like real buddies chillin' and winding down. Wouldn't be surprised if they improvised all the lines!

7/10

Best moment: Tuck forgetting Gisburne under water. Not being real life (where he'd be, y'know, dead ages ago), it's hilarious.

Worst moment: That kiss from Robin. Really, that peck was the best you could do, especially with the other couple going at it right beside you? Did you *want* an unfavourable comparison?

Random thoughts/obs:

-Robin Hood gives to the poor in this episode. Don't remember seeing them do that much. RoS seemed more interested in the fights, sorcery, and paganism, than in the justice part.

-Apparently it's also the only time Robin fights the Sheriff of Nottingham in person. The reason being, as stated by Nickolas Grace himself, that he was bad with the sword :)

-Wonder if they ever considered having Marion get pregnant? I doubt it, but it's what would realistically happen, given how early they get married in this version. Any basis in the legends for Robin and Marian having children..? I suppose there she's the eternal Maid.

Robin Hood: The King's Fool (1984) Season 1, Episode 5

Excellent. But Marion shot first!

[8/10 · 31 March 2023]

Robin and his men saves the life of a knight who greatly impresses them. When he turns out to be none other than King Richard Lionheart, released from captivity abroad, the outlaws' dreams seem to come true. He's the True King, he pardons them, and they can walk freely into town and stay at Nottingham Castle under his protection. He promises them power and land. Can they really trust him, though?

This is my second favorite episode (after The Greatest Enemy). It's less black-and-white when it comes to good and bad guys. I love that they dare to depart from the usual portrayal of Richard as the noble and just King who makes everything right, in favour of a more historically correct one.

Robin also shows weaknesses as he taken in by the promises of a King who really only sees the men as the 13th century version of cannon fodder. It's not hard to understand at all - which hunted outlaw wouldn't be intoxicated in a situation like this? Okay. Scarlet, that's who. Robin's men - not exposed to quite as much flattery - realize the real deal quicker. Their leader has become the King's Fool, so they leave him: Scarlet, Nasir, Little John, and...a blonde guy (Martin?)

When Robin finally stands up to the King, the latter simply orders Gisburne to kill him, effectively leaving the rest of the Merries trapped.

Gisburne is able to sneak up on them in their sleep. He brings a spear, as would be logical, and that's it, sadly, for our friends.

Nooo. They have plot armour, of course.

Gisburne insists on waking them up to be properly taken prisoner (and presumably killed somewhere.. else?) This enables them to get away, and leads to a nice fight scene in a burning barn.

There's a neat dramatic symmetry in that Marion shoots Gisburne in the back with a crossbow - then later, he manages to do the same to her. That's something you learn from this show, btw: If you're two on a horse when escaping, you don't want to be the one sitting in the back.

Et voila! We've reached the episode's increasingly surreal ending, which takes place at their Stonehenge-like sacred place (I can never make out what they call it). Questions arise, like Was the editor high? Did Ian Sharp at one point put vaseline on the lense?

It's undeniably beautiful, though, and personally I love it when scenes make do without much dialogue and without explaining everything.

Marion's mortally wounded, which makes for some great acting by Michael Praed. Compare him to the others in that scene. The guy was more than a pretty face.

When Marion finds out where they are, she wants them to pull the arrow out. They look at her like "WTH woman, can't you just realize you're dying? We're grieving here!" However, Herne appears, to confirm the order and perform his magic.

Robin pulling out the arrow does not immediately help (is she supposed to be dead at this point? No idea), but then Robin's estranged men suddenly arrive - Nasir, Little John, Scarlet, The Blonde Guy - wordlessly approaching in slow motion. Dreamlike, poetic almost, and those shots are some of my favorites of the whole show.

Robin greets them with great affection, and only then is Marion...what? Resurrected? (Guess she was dead, then.) The implication being that to get Marion back, Robin first had to reconcile with and/or show appreciation for his men...maybe? Who knows.

Anyway, everyone's back together, and so the season can end.

Best thing: Slow motion Merries, with the color grading and sound design.

Worst thing: Not a big deal, but I wish it was Robin's own thoughts and observations only that led him to see through King Richard, and not a sign from his god, Herne.

8/10

Hm? What happened to Gisburne, you ask? Didn't he get an arrow in the back just like Marion did? Only at a closer range, so probably even worse a wound? And Marion needed frickin' *resurrection* by Herne ex machina, really hitting home the point that this isn't something you just survive. Right? So what consequences did it have for Gisburne?

Well, none. In the next episode, they simply act like it never happened.

What, were they hoping enough time had passed between the seasons to make people forget it? They didn't have DVDs and streaming back then..

Now, this is more than plot armour. I can accept plot armour, and I can accept unlikely stuff like Gisburne - on fire - surviving long enough to shoot Marion. But not this. A huge continuity error, is what this is.

However, that's a criticism of the show, more than this episode.

Robin Hood: The Greatest Enemy (1985) Season 2, Episode 6

Exquisite Heartbreak

[9/10 · 18 March 2023]

The Sheriff gets an ultimatum, to kill Robin or lose his position. He decides to use ambush and bloodhounds, as well as more men than ever, and so the outlaws are pushed to the brink.

Leave it to Kip Carpenter to know how to break all our hearts. No, really - all hoods off to him. In very short notice he managed to turn out a masterpiece.

I don't want to think too much about *why* it was necessary for Carpenter to do it. That sort of takes away from it a little. However, it led to The Greatest Episode, which I'd say holds up almost 40 years later.

Visually, they outdid themselves. Remember, they had to do all effects in camera.

The actors do some of their best work.

The budget must have been higher for this one? There seems to be a ton of extras, probably to remove all doubt that the outlaws are facing overwhelming odds this time.

The dialogue is perfect.

The action is so well-constructed and memorable. Look at the epic capture of Little John and Will Scarlet. The equally epic almost-rescue by Nasir.

The last fight between Robin and the Sheriff being framed as a battle, beautifully located. Three outlaws on a battlefield, only two of whom are firing, against dozens of men.

That redscreen shot of Robin, all alone, getting the Sheriff's row of soldiers to pull back, is unforgettable. Somehow you believe that he could do that.

This is the only episode that's been able to make me tear up. It has many of the elements I've missed in the rest of the series, like real stakes. The good guys still have plot armour - except one - but they have a much harder time than usual.

Time and time again my insides are ripped out:

-Robin persuading Marion to allow him to sacrifice himself for her and Much. Note the difference in him as he's walking over to her, dreading what he's about to do, versus the strong face he puts on when he starts talking to her.

-Marion then being forced to break Much's heart, because Robin had promised him to join them later. And Much, of course, always trusted Robin 100%. It's possibly the most heartbreaking scene of all, with some great acting by Peter Llewellyn Williams.

-Gisburne assuming Robin got away, as usual. Funny. And crushing.

-The Merries getting their hopes up that Robin might still be alive, when they are rescued by the new Hooded Man. When even Will Scarlet believes it, and starts smiling.. Carpenter, you sadist :'(

-Finally, the beautiful shooting of fire arrows into the pond. We know for a fact that none of them, behind or in front of the camera, thought they'd being doing this ceremony for ROBIN.

The new Hooded Man is introduced, in just the right dream-like, mysterious manner. Not that it was enough to get me to watch series 3. There's only one Robin Hood!

The hood itself is used to great effect, to trick both the outlaws and the Sheriff's soldies to think this might be Robin of Loxley. The soldies think he's a ghost, and don't dare shoot at him. Thus he gets away, and the legend continues.

9/10

Best part: Redscreen Robin with the bow. No contest. That's the most epic end I think I've ever seen.

Worst part: Now this is nitpicking:

*What's Marion doing wielding a sword during the ambush? Close combat isn't her skill. Makes no sense that she gets away, while Scarlet and Little-John are captured.

*I would have liked a teeny, tiny bit more inner conflict and vulnerability from Robin. He just accepts what Herne says, without question. And dude, I know you're badass-ness personified, and you "found your power", but come on! Your line is "There are so many things I want to say to you, but time has caught me up and now I'll never say them" - and your voice isn't even strained??

Random thoughts/obs: -The Sheriff blackmails Edward by threatening to hurt his son, nice and scary touch, but we never actually see the boy deliver the message to the Merries. Not enough time?

-Did they really use bloodhounds in the 13th century?

That Marion is too easily manipulated. Yes, the plot required it, but what if she had said "Oh, so the courageous thing is to go on living? Why don't you do that, then? I'm almost as good an archer as you. You and Much can get away, while I cover you. You're Robin Hood, you're more important to the people, you should be the one to survive. Nothing is meant to be!"

Yep, would have liked to see him get out of that one!

Robin Hood (1984–1986)

Will Stay With Me A Long Time

[7/10 · 5 March 2023]

This review is based on the first two seasons (series) only.

Robin of Sherwood is an old series, and it shows, but there's still no denying the excellent cinematography and music.

You can often recognize early 1980s music by a "brittle" sound quality (from the then newly invented synthesizer), and hearing the title track, I admit my heart sank. From the "Strange Land" theme onward, though, I realized this might be something special. Now I'm playing "Legend" 24/7, and will be checking out Clannad's other material. Never too late!

The technical DVD quality notwithstanding (I should have bought the blu-ray) - the cinematograhy really is top notch, too. Lots of visual inventiveness, and the shots are so carefully composed it's a joy to watch. I love all the lush greenery, birdsong etc, making the forest almost a character of it's own. In line with its romantic and religious view of nature, this Sherwood has no days of that famous English rain, and certainly none of those winters Lady Marion worried about, when Robin was trying to persuade her to live in the woods with him.

It's generally an unapologetically romantic show, which you don't see much these days, while also challenging common perceptions of King Richard and the Templars. I love that.

Michael Praed is a huge asset. An idealistic and unfIinchingly brave Robin, with a tender side. I actually found him a bit stiff at first, probably because he was used to stage acting (that might also explain his beautiful enunciation!) But yeah, then I fell for him, just like everybody else.. He seems to give it his all, and those looks? Christ. Especially in the first season. Second season it seemed like they were trying to transform him into that guy from Modern Talking. Maybe that's why he jumped ship. 1980s fashion... Anyway, he comes very close to perfect.

I also really like Judi Trott as Marion. Refined, beautiful, graceful. She had some spirit and spark in the first few episodes that I missed in the later ones, and lacks the insane charisma of her co-star, but she's a good actress. The way she's written is a good balance between tough and vulnerable. She was a dancer, and I love that she's so agile and light-footed - it makes her believable as a good runner, horsewoman, and archer. As such, she really holds her own as part of the "Merries". ( Apparently the actress struggled with the bow at first, but she was still believable with it.)

The acting is generally good, but the actors don't get that much to work with, other than fighting, planning, and scheming. No wait, the good guys also have fun. An effort must have been made for them to become friends in real life, because the band members have such great chemistry between them, and are truly "merry". They still play types, though. I know it's to be expected from an action-adventure show, but I got a bit tired of Will Scarlet's only characteristic being "hothead". His character had seemed so promising.

The "bad guys" don't work for me. I'm sorry, because I know a lot of people love the campiness of the Sheriff and Guy of Gisburne, but to me it gets boring when you realize there's not going to be any backstory, nuance, development... No sides to them, really, but smart/evil and stupid/evil, and if the Sheriff's mustache had been longer he would have been twirling it, the way he overacts. One of the reasons I'm not watching season 3, is I can't take more of those two repeating themselves. (Another reason being the whole idea of Marion being "handed down" to the next Robin).

Aside from that, I find the quality of episodes surprisingly uneven. The two-parters and season finales are by far the best, and I don't think that's a coincidence. Honestly, I think the show was hampered by the convention of the day of "stand alone" episodes, able to be aired in any order (and indeed, the order was changed). This means everything has to be established, developed, and solved within one episode. Little time for build-up of conflict, no stakes or lasting consequences, no referring to events of previous episodes, and sometimes continuity issues. So when, for example, Will Scarlet challenges Robin's leadership, it comes out of nowhere, and then is never mentioned again. A character's father, thought to be dead, turns up alive, but is then immediately whisked away, not seen again, and in a later episode is once more referred to as dead. Guy of Gisburne gets shot in the back by a crossbow at close range, yet in the following episode walks around like he only got a little burnt!

Yeah, that kind of thing does nothing for your suspension of disbelief. "The Greatest Enemy" is an exception to all of this, and I love it all the more for it.

I think this is one reason why I'm not too keen on Herne the Hunter, although I generally like fantasy. For one thing, I'd prefer a Robin Hood who comes up with the ideas of freedom and justice on his own, and considers his life his own, not one who does a god's bidding. More importantly, though, they seemed to bring Herne and his magic out whenever they were about to run out of time, and needed to solve everything before the episode was over. Like a (literal) deus ex machina.

It just got too easy. I know it's an unfair criticism, because everyone did it like that back then. The divide between series and "mini series" (who told continuing stories) was much sharper. I think Buffy The Vampire Slayer was one of the first "Mission Of The Week" shows that also did overarching storylines, and that was more than I decade later. I can't help wondering, though, what this show might have been with a few longer storylines and character arcs. I think it would have reached its (considerable) potential more.

At its best, the writing, the acting, the Praed, photo, and music still combine to form something very special and memorable. There are images - especially from The King's Fool, The Swords of Wayland, and The Greatest Enemy, that will stay with me for a very long time.

And now, back to Clannad.

The Crown: Coup (2019) Season 3, Episode 5

Exquisite

[10/10 · 25 November 2019]

What a series The Crown has become! This may have been its best episode so far, although I was disappointed (but also very relieved) to find that they twisted the truth with regards to the coup plans. In reality Mountbatten rejected Cecil King. ( I'm not British, so I had to resort to Trivia.) The temptation for dramatic license was cleary too high, maybe because they had hired "Tywin Lannister" and felt they couldn't waste him. But there's no excuse for smearing the name of a historical person like that. Still, what an episode. Poignant in so many ways in its theme of what you make of your life, how your life turns out, by choice or not. Not a boring moment. Peter Morgan (and the directors) knows exactly when to stop a scene. After he's given us the thoughtful gems that are his lines, but always before things become melodramatic. Then you have the production design and the level of acting to go with it. It's exquisite. And this episode even contained humorous (but still to the point) moments from Philip and adorable Princess Alice ("What??"). All I feel like now is get Tywin Lannister away from poor Charles. No wonder Charles got messed up!

Pirates (1986)

Uneven, but kind of fun

[5/10 · 7 February 2019]

Back when I was a kid, this was one of the movies we taped from TV and watched several times. Turns out it's so obscure the imdb search function doesn't even turn it up when you write the exact title..

As an adult, I learned that the critics hated it for being messy, jumbled, and for Polanski's morbid sense of humor. This didn't really surprise me - as a kid I could never get a grasp of the plot, but I remembered the rat dinner scene *very* well, and I didn't laugh.

Rewatching it as an adult, I agree it's messy and has tonal issues. Is it an action/adventure movie, a light comedy, or a black comedy? There's a kind of nihilism to it, but then there's also a lot of innocent slapstick. Either way the sets and costumes remain fantastic, the acting is uniformly excellent (with one important exception), and there are a lot of great details, especially in the Captain's interaction with other characters, that I didn't discover before. I also enjoy the score.

However, another thing that strikes me as an adult, is exactly how terrible Cris Campion's performance as the Frog is. The man doesn't act. He has this sad-eyed/gloomy/tired look that you sometimes think is his acting, but then you realize he has that same expression all throughout the movie! And with his role being so central, and the others acting so well, he really stands out. And it really hurts the movie, not least the love story. (Except the moment when they kiss under that bed. I...like that moment.) I realize it was Campion's first movie, and that's probably why, but what was Polanski thinking, casting a newcomer in a lead role like that?

Come to think of it, it reminds me of Orlando Bloom's casting in the equivalent "passionate lover" role in Pirates of the Caribbean. They hadn't realized yet what a terrible actor he is, because as Legolas he was meant to be stone-faced. I'm not sure who was worse... Maybe Campion.

One more thing: Anyone else find the "eating the Frog" scene ridiculous? Yes you'd feel thirsty, but the hunger dulls after a while of starving, and even if you felt the hunger, there's no way you'd have the energy to chase someone like that after days (weeks?) on a raft. You'd be exhausted from the sun.

Oh well. It was fun to see the movie again.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)

Unexpected delight!

[8/10 · 20 February 2018]

I finally got around to watching this, and laughed my head off, and I actually think Jane Austen would have as well. I'm not even a zombie horror fan, but this is such a great comedy, while retaining the power of the love story, that I still loved it.

I don't feel it disrespects Pride and Prejudice; it's a homage more than a parody. It can't be denied that the story is made less character-driven - to put it that way, it's not INNER demons Elizabeth and Darcy are fighting anymore. However, it's still clear that the movie endeavours to take the novel's themes and love story seriously, and the actors, especially Lily James, play it straight and give it their all. I found the constantly leather-clad Sam Riley a bit lacking as Darcy, but Lily James would be a good Lizzy in any version of P&P. It's just, in this one, she is a martial arts champion as well.

Another aspect that prevents this from seeming trashy, is that the production values and cinematography are surprisingly good. Apparently it was mostly filmed on location, and that shows.

This also may contain the best Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennet I have seen - though, granted, that may be because they are made more sympathetic than in the novel. Matt Smith is priceless and Sally Phillips hasn't got enough credit for her hilarious Mrs Bennet.

The script and comedic timing are what make this an excellent comedy. I loved the historical revision that explains the invasion of period zombies in England - blamed on the French, of course. I loved how Darcy is recast as a zombie hunter and Lady Catherine as a warrior legend (Lena Headey was underused, though). I love the girl power element inherent in the fact that instead of embroidering, the Bennet sisters polish their weapons in their free time, and their deep conversations of love are had whilst doing combat training. I loved small directorial touches like the camera staying with Mr Collins after his unsuccessful proposal; we hear Mrs Bennet screeching off-screen followed by a quiet "Bugger" from Collins.

I didn't see this in a theatre, but if I had, the scene where Elizabeth responds to Darcy's first proposal by *kicking him in the stomach* would have been worth the ticket price entirely!

The Crown: Paterfamilias (2017) Season 2, Episode 9

At least as good as the rest

[9/10 · 19 January 2018]

This season has been one episode more excellent than the last, but I dreaded this particular episode. Knowing what it was about, I expected endless scenes of bullying and child abuse. Leave it to The Crown, however, to craft something as un-melodramatic as it gets, something not only original, but beautiful, moving, and tragic. It avoids absolutely all cliches, and the cinematography, exquisite so far in the series, is simply out of this world in this episode. All of this serves to give a clear understanding of how the Scottish boarding school Gordonstoun represented something totally different to Prince Phillip than to Prince Charles. It's hard to understand why Phillip insisted on such a brutal school for his son - while not excusing it, this goes some way to explain it. The scenes with Teen Philip are especially good, but I found the most poignant one to be one of the few featuring the Queen herself. It's the closing scene, but doesn't really contain spoilers: Elizabeth watches Charles arrive home from Gordonstoun on holiday - from a window. She sees him being greeted and hugged (by a nanny, presumably) but stays away herself. Even when he comes inside, she doesn't go to meet him, but walks in a different direction. You expect the episode to be about Charles' relationship with his father, and it is, but this one wordless scene spoke volumes about the relationship with his mother. It's been puzzling that the children have played such small parts in the series so far, and that almost every time we've actually seen them, the Queen is shown viewing them from a distance. Now I realize this hasn't been a coincidence. It hasn't been because of bad child actors or because other stories have been preferred. It's reflected the kids' actual relative part in Elizabeth's life. And who knows what's more damaging for children - bullying, a harsh father, or a cold, distant mother?

Jane Eyre (2006)

Beautiful, but characters are watered down

[6/10 · 5 October 2017]

There's no denying that this miniseries is beautifully filmed, with exquisite production values. It's too traditionally filmed to beat the cinematography of the 2011 movie, but it comes pretty close.

I also agree with most reviewers that the two leads had great chemistry. The Gothic horror parts were well done, the music was great (especially at the moor sequences), and the ending/reunion scenes were probably the best I've seen in any Jane Eyre version. That's the good.

Ultimately, this version was still a disappointment to me, because of the script and the interpretation of the characters. I actually don't mind shortening or modernizing of the dialogue to a degree. I get it: it makes it easier for us to relate to the characters. As brilliant as Timothy Dalton (1983) was, for example, his lengthy monologues at times threatened to take me out of the story, because it is simply hard to imagine real people talking like that. And I suppose screenwriter Sandy Welch avoided blatant anachronisms (except for "Young-ish". Really??) but it still wasn't worth it in this case. Not only were the new lines of much less originality and beauty, but the script was annoyingly dumbed down. Everything seemed to get spoon fed to us, then repeated to make sure we got the point. For example, Eshton's theory about twins, an obvious foreshadowing for Jane and Rochester's later telepathic connection. I think it was repeated three times! Also, the beyond stupid Ouija board scene, clearly meant to cement the fact that Blanche was bad. You know, in case we'd missed it. Actually, this was a general tendency when it came to Blanche and her mother. It was like there was a man standing with a megaphone, yelling THESE ARE THE VILLAINS OF THE STORY. SEE HOW THEY HAVE ALL KINDS OF BAD ATTITUDES, ESPECIALLY FROM A MODERN POINT OF VIEW? IT'S TO SPARE YOU ANY DOUBT AS TO WHOM TO ROOT FOR. NO THINKING REQUIRED!

In the same vein, they removed much of the complexity of Jane and Rochester's characters, and that is my single biggest issue with this adaptation. Jane and Rochester seemed reduced to a conventional Hero and Heroine: Likable, with correct attitudes, having mostly to overcome external obstacles, not internal. Of course, Jane always was strong and deeply moral, but she was also emotionally closed off. Ruth Wilson is an excellent actress, but she (or her director/screenwriter) didn't seem to get this important aspect of the character, unlike Mia Wasikowska (2011), who portrayed it beautifully. Jane isn't reserved just because Rochester is her employer! If you haven't been loved, you protect yourself by not showing feelings. This is why Rochester dangles Blanche in Jane's face, and even goes to the length of impersonating (hiring) a fortune teller: He's trying to provoke a response from her, because it's so hard to get any clue as to how she really feels. In this version, all he would have had to to was stay home after the night of the fire, and she might have thrown herself in his arms.

Removing this part of Jane may have made her more relatable to the audience and easier to understand, but it's not true to the book, nor does it make sense psychologically for someone with her upbringing to be so open, calm and carefree. It also as good as removes the impact of her famous line: "Do you think that because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, that I am soulless and heartless?" Nobody would ever think Wilson's Jane was either of these things, except poor. These are the words of someone who has been on her guard, but finally cracks. Wilson's Jane had at this point been chummy and flirty with Rochester for quite a while already, when really she should have shown her feelings (to the viewers) only when she was alone.

Then there's Rochester, who seems very hard to get right, as you have to portray a Byronic, melodramatic (anti-)hero and at the same time make him feel real. Rochester is also full of contradictions. Toby Stephens had no easy task, and could have been worse, but again, he was mostly the conventional hero. Too nice and good-humoured, sometimes depressed and "changeable" (talked of, but rarely seen), but not nearly intense, ill-tempered, selfish or tormented enough. The post-wedding departure scene between him and Jane.. There is no excuse for that, and I don't mean the fact that they make out, though it's weird that Jane would allow it (not because she's Victorian, but because of what she just found out), I mean the lack of urgency. This is the story's most important turning point, yet it's clumsily told in split-up flashback, and it lacks temperature and urgency. Rochester is meant to be desperate, attempting every trick in the book to get Jane to stay. (I guess that's why he first thoroughly smooches her, then promises he won't touch her if they live together? What?!) Jane is meant to steel herself, making him even more desperate. The only reason I can think of for this scene being so unforgivably subdued, is that Rochester manages to make himself believe that she will not really leave. Because she doesn't make a clean break, she tricks him into thinking she might consider the Mediterranean villa. (Now, is that something Jane Eyre would do??)

They almost made up for this with the moving reunion scenes - almost - and I loved that Jane finally got her family portrait. I just wish she and the other characters had been less black-and-white.

The Phantom of the Opera (1990– )

A Hidden Gem

[9/10 · 8 April 2017]

Short version of this review (which won't contain any plot summary): **This isn't horror, more drama/Gothic romance. Great writing and acting, gorgeous music even though it isn't a musical, and filmed at the REAL opera house in Paris. See it - if you're able to get it.**

I recently rediscovered this 2-part mini series, on YouTube of all places. It doesn't seem to have been shown much on TV, and one has to make an effort to track down DVDs as well. Generally, this has never been distributed the way it should have been IMO, which is a disgrace. We taped it from a Norwegian TV airing when I was a kid and watched it time and time again, yet sometimes it's like it exists in a vacuum.

This version might well have the best Phantom of them all, played by Charles Dance of recent Tywin Lannister fame. Wonderfully written and acted, he's pretty different from other versions; a sardonic British gentleman (in manners if not accent), yet passionate and vulnerable. Not insane as much as unstable, and much more sympathetic (and boy did the teen girls on YouTube notice that! Well, at least I hope they're teens..). This Phantom is like if you provided Gerard Butler (2004) with more dignity, less selfishness and a sense of humor. And he STILL comes off more threatening.

Christine is played by a young Teri Polo, she's pretty good, but a bit overwrought, and annoyingly naive.

Poor Adam Storke gets the ungrateful task of playing Raoul, or Phillipe, as he's called here (his brother's name in the novel). Everybody always hates Raoul, because he gets the girl over the main character even though he's not a traditional hero (in other aspects his characterization varies). However, he remains Christine's childhood sweetheart, and the one who offers her a normal, healthy life, something the Phantom wants to deny her. And Christine does not love the Phantom in a romantic way; she loves Raoul. Storke does a good job if you can look beyond his blonde tresses and raspy voice (was he trying to sound French or what??) His version of Raoul is less condescending to Christine than Andrew Lloyd Webber's.

Others worth mentioning are Burt Lancaster in key role and Andrea Ferreol as a very evil AND very funny Carlotta.

For a TV movie with presumably restricted budget the production values are truly outstanding. The movie was filmed in the real Opera house Palais Garnier in Paris, apparently as the only Phantom version so far. The sets are very atmospheric and a welcome relief from the kitschy production values of the 2004 movie.

The music needs to be mentioned. This is no musical (though was later made into one, very confusing), but uses real operas combined with a haunting original score by John Addison. Christine and the Phantom have opera singing doubles, but believe me, this is one instance where that works, as the voices chosen (Michele Lagrange and Gerard Carino) are exquisite. I love Lloyd Webber's music, but this is just as good if not better.

The only problem I can think of with this mini is some pacing issues in Part 2, where it slows down a bit, which makes it all the more annoying that it was never cut down to movie length and released in cinemas. Well, I guess DVDs and Youtube are better than nothing. Unless you loathe romances (this is deeply romantic in an old-fashioned, Gothic way) - see it.

Outlander: Through a Glass, Darkly (2016) Season 2, Episode 1

Surprising, confusing, and good

[8/10 · 5 November 2016]

This marked a welcome return to the show after a long break, though it was also extremely confusing! I had never expected it to start the way it did. Episode spoilers follow!

Basically, Claire is suddenly back in 1940s England, having gone through the stones. Little background is given, but it clearly is a "flashforward", possibly to the end of the season. (I am now two-thirds through it btw, and still don't know why they chose to possibly spoil the whole thing like this). Anyway, it is interesting to see Claire deal with coming back, and not least Frank. Unlike many book fans, it would seem, I love the way the showrunners have fleshed out his perspective. How does Frank react to his wife not only telling an unbelievable story, but being pregnant with another man? Tobias Menzies portrays this in a moving and captivating way. What an actor that man is. He truly inhabits his characters. I was almost disappointed when the episode finally jumped back to where we left Jamie and Claire, arriving in France. It made it hard not to notice what a much more limited actor Sam Heughan is, unfair though it is to compare him to Menzies, who's in a league of his own on this show. However I really liked the transition, which played on the "outstretched hand" symbolism from the S1 posters. All in all, good episode.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)

Underrated

[7/10 · 15 September 2016]

Finally got around to watching this after Netflix just released it. I always heard it was the worst of the three, but I was pleasantly surprised! Of course, that might be because it doesn't take much to be better than the BBC version I grew up with - and that's coming from someone who loved "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" from back in 1988. Richard Dempsey is still my definitive King Peter and Sophie Wilcox my Lucy. It's when making the sequels that BBC just seemed to stop caring, and turned out one awful series after another (don't even get me started on The Silver Chair, the new movie is bound to seem like a masterpiece in comparison).

There's also the fact that the book Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which this is based on, is somewhat flawed, especially in dramatic structure. It's very episodic, like many small stories instead of one unified, which isn't good for a movie. Something had to be done, and I actually think they solved it well for this movie, by moving some of the events around, and by inventing a sort of consistent leitmotif; the evil mist. While a poorly developed "villain", it created a better focus and raised the stakes from the beginning. I also think the themes were better developed, for example Lucy being tempted by vanity. "When you grow up, you should be just like YOU" is actually a pretty important message to little girls. And Caspian seemed more like a human being than the cardboard cut-out from the BBC version (and maybe the book). Further, compared to said version, the special effects were of course infinitely better, and the script was also much better, though, as with this whole franchise, I would have liked the language less modernized.

The most important thing, the acting, was generally good. Skandar Keynes needs to be mentioned - he has this weird staring look, like he's very nearsighted or something - but he's a great actor. He gave the movie emotional resonance in a way that Georgie Henley couldn't. Sorry, but despite Lucy's vanity arc, I felt Henley was mostly there to look cute and smile in wonder over the magic. That worked when she was little, but in this movie her lack of range and depth showed. Will Poulter, though. What a talent! The guy's a comedic genius! He *was* Eustace, acting not only with his face, but with his whole body. He gave Eustace his own, very geeky way of moving and walking. I do wish they had made him less of a comic relief and more outright mean, so that there would have been more to redeem (like, actually stealing water when there was lack of it), but I like that they moved the sea-serpent to the end battle and let Eustace The Dragon redeem himself through the role he played there. It's too bad Will Poulter is too old to play Eustace now, but I hope he keeps acting.

In conclusion - maybe not a great movie, but definitely a decent one, watchable for the whole family.

The Wave (2015)

A Movie About Nothing

[4/10 · 10 September 2015]

This is a movie about fighting to survive, and some cool effects, and that's it.

There is no human conflict at all. No character development at all: The characters are exactly the same before and after the disaster. Nothing in any relationship between ANYONE changes either. The main characters, a family, have good, uncomplicated relationships before the disaster. After the disaster, they have exactly the same relationships.

Why am I talking about relationships when it's a disaster movie, you ask? Well, because most movies have them, EVEN disaster movies. Typically it's an estranged couple/siblings/father-son that the disaster brings together. They fight before, and are friends after, or maybe a person who starts out unlikable, ends up sacrificing his/her life. Often it's something clichéd, something you've seen 100 times before. You know, they realize how much they mean to each other, blah blah blah. But at least that's *something*. Here, there's nothing (And no, I'm not counting that meek little fight between the parents, you never got the feeling that put anything at risk.) Even "2012" had an estranged couple who got close again through the disaster, and 2012 was an AWFUL movie.

Plot: A loving, resourceful family gets separated when an avalanche and a tsunami hits Geiranger, Norway. SPOILERS The heroic father goes back for his wife and son, even though he, as he should, expects them to have perished. But, since this is a movie, they are still alive. And through ridiculously unlikely circumstances, he manages to find them. BIG SPOILERS Together, they manage to survive and reunite with the daughter. The end.

*End spoilers*

Obvious foreshadowing (the mother being skilled at plumbing) and contrived plot (the son goes skating in the basement of the hotel? Seriously? Then doesn't even notice when the ground starts shaking?) aside. I didn't expect depth, but maybe some half-hearted attempts at it. Instead I got a movie where the drama is 100% external. I'm not even sure if I've seen that before. There's not even anyone falling in love (the son checking out the hotel worker doesn't count, as that never has any payoff). What blockbuster doesn't have that? Even that huge cliché would have created some tension, and I would have preferred it to NOTHING.

I give it 4 instead of 0 for cool effects, decent acting and, refreshingly, the mother in the family acting like an adult instead of leaving all the saving to the Man Of The House (Yay Scandinavia).

Godzilla (2014)

Flawed. Very.

[5/10 · 18 October 2014]

My advice for this movie is: 1. Watch the first half hour, which is when it seems promising. Bryan Cranston being one of the reasons. After that, simply fast forward through all the scenes that have humans only, but watch the monster scenes.

2. Turn off your brain.

The special effects here are GORGEOUS. Godzilla is beautifully brought to life, the Mutos, well, less so, but the monster interaction is actually kind of interesting. So is some of the monster-human scenes. A certain lying-on-train-tracks scene comes to mind. Scene has no logic, sure, but it's memorable (see point 2).

The human interaction, on the other hand, is completely uninteresting. I seriously wonder if the director/screenwriters know the meaning of the word character development?? I mean, no character has any arc. Cranston may be the exception, but sadly leaves the movie early. Him aside, they are all clichés. Good actors, mostly, wasted. As characters, the monsters are more interesting!

The storyline is riddled with plot holes and just...jumbled. Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) tells his wife (Elizabeth Olsen) to stay put in the city. A big mistake, apparently. Then she basically has no purpose for the rest of the movie. We get quick glimpses of her now and then, roaming around the city. She doesn't even motivate the hero's actions in any way. He doesn't look for her or anything. She does nothing and nothing is done to her.

The nuclear warhead is put on a.. train. Okay. Then nobody considers the idea that maybe the nuke might serve as bait *before* they reached the ship? And get the MUTOs to attack the train??

Later Ford Brody comes in as "the only one who can serve the day" and disarm the bomb. Aha. So that's why they made him a bomb specialist. But no! Because the lid is jammed! They can't open the bomb! Sorry, Ford, plan B. I get that they wanted to unconventionally make Godzilla the saviour instead of "one man", but lets at least have a good reason to leave a plot point like this in a split second.

Last but not least, Aaron Taylor-Johnson is miscast. I don't know what happened. He was okay in Kickass. Watching him opposite Bryan Cranston, though, I felt sorry for him. He was left to carry the movie, and couldn't do it in any way, shape or form. Enough said.

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Profoundly Second Class

[4/10 · 25 May 2014]

If you like X1 and X2, you might like this, but if you are a big fan of X-Men First Class, like I am - you should be warned that this is a different animal. I was quite disappointed in this one.

The point is: One of Matthew Vaughn's biggest strengths is pacing. Say what you will about him; his movies have a great flow. The same thing, however, seems to be a weakness with Singer. Compared to First Class, this movie was SOOO SLOW. It was badly paced, and it was also heavy-handed, repetitive and sentimental. Not emotional, I like emotional - it was sentimental. Singer is too fond of these characters, especially the old X-men (everything to bring them back!) plus the Charles-Raven-Erik conflict. God, that conflict got tiring! I loved Xavier as the brilliant, funny, warm teacher in First Class. Now he was suddenly ALL ABOUT Raven/Mystique. Ugh! Kill your darlings, Singer! You've lost your critical sense!

Quicksilver was one of the few good things about this movie, but he was gone too fast.

This movie had some good action scenes and glimpses of humour. And nostalgia, I guess, if you're a big X-men fan. First Class, however, had better pacing, script, score, was much more fun and also more poignant.