Reviews

A fantastic Aussie show that has not been given the merit it deserves. The characters are each unique and hilarious.

Feels very Australian in a very good way, and I would recommend it to anyone.

I can start off by saying that the plot makes absolutely no sense if you think about it for more than a millisecond. That being said, there is the obvious response that the film is really about the dialogue and the characters. Are these characters and their inflated utterances from reality or are they clones of Tarantino in various moods? You decide: I resign. I give three stars for performances. Some might weigh performances higher than I; but I prefer solid, disciplined, *actual* writing and plot. I don't care for fluff disguised as something higher.

Probably the best drama I have seen this decade. Fantastic perfomances all round, except for maybe Adelaide Clemens who nevertheless looks very much the part. Good production value. I think it was made accidentally with HBO support since they were looking for the next Downton, and instead made something far more intelligent, far better. It is quite different to the book, which uses a disorganised chronology and difficult style; by contrast this is very rationalised, though in this case I don't think it is necessarily for the worse. It works in its own right. I have not seen any series more times than this one; it not only survives repeat viewing but in many ways improves.

When this aired I saw a few minutes and turned it off. I thought it looked lame and cliched. I decided to see a full episode this year and thought it was outstanding, and the other epis followed in quick succession. Yes, the characters are a bit shallow and it leans heavily on its good production value, which is strong for an Australian produced TV series. But the characters are never cliched excepted in isolated moments. I can see the temptation for Australian productions to slam the Brits as dummies in the WWI context, but ironically Sir Ian Hamilton to probably the most sympathetic and well-rounded character in the series. There is great attention to historical accuracy, and the broad scope of events is very informative to the layman, and full of neat surprises of historical details for those who appreciate it. Maybe it is patriotism calling that I give it 10/10, but Anzac history is of personal interest to me and I find it a shame the show bombed. It's not often we see quality Aussie stuff unfortunately.

I will start positive and say that the battle scene was unhistorical but v good in its own right. Clearly inspired by the Game of Thrones battle, it gives us the brutal grappling style of warfare of this period. EDIT: I should also add that the score is excellent.

Now to the negative:

This movie is boring and spineless. Apparently based not on history but the plays of Shakespeare, the screenplay is utterly uninspired by both. It consists of people sitting in small rooms mumbling modernist platitudes in faux-shakespearean - shot, reverse-shot. Why is Falstaff, one of the most celebrated jovial, care-free characters in literature, a mopey, mumbling, shell-shocked, bearded hipster? When they are not in rooms (or tents) King Henry is at the head of his slate-faced zombie army of Englishmen without personality. Where is Fluellen and Pistol? Where is the conversations with the soldiers the night before the battle? We do, however, get a terrible attempt at a speech - but I will get to the performances later. The film is spineless in its portrayal of Henry V. How do you give this rather bloodthirsty historical figure a character sympathetic to modern sensibilities? Why, make up a conspiracy behind his invasion of France. This is not Shakespeare's Henry either. It seems the writers only made it based on the plays rather than history so they could include an unhistorical riotous youth, and can add Falstaff - in this version, a man of the people who can spout both philosophy and battle-winning strategies. It is certainly not history, but it is not Shakespeare either: it is a painfully dull plot languishing in abject fantasy. While Timothee Chalamet's perfomance occasionally rises to mediocrity, his best attribute is that he looks almost identical to Henry's famous portrait. However for most of the screening time they would have benefited from just using the king's funerary effigy. His performance is risible, and his accent embarrassing. While Robert Pattinson's performance made my skin crawl (I think this had more to do with direction than ability, which is usually strong), he was at least charismatic, unlike everybody else in this film.

It is clear nobody knew what they were making with this film. Rather than draw from Shakespeare they came up with their own witless banter that occasionally struggles into archaic form, then plummets into anachronism (Thomas of Clarence refers to Hotspur's head as the 'prize scalp'; obviously not an English cultural notion until encounters with the Native Americans some centuries thence). I won't even mention the historical liberalities in the plot, since it is basically all of it.

If you love history or Shakespeare, stay far, far away from this mess.

I was extremely sceptical of this film. I thought the series ended perfectly and that anywhere they did would detract from the series. No, I did not like Better Call Saul. This felt like a Breaking Bad nostalgia trip and not in a bad way. The cameos seemed well-timed and well thought out. The clever set-pieces are back, so are the intelligent character moments. Aaron Paul gives his usual strong performance, and Jesse was given his due send off. One might argue it was ultimately unnecessary and that may be true - the series ended strong after all. But as a welcome good trip down memory lane, it landed happily and never lagged and was never predictable. For what it was it could not have been better. However, I cannot give a 10/10 for something that could do no more that round off an already rounded off TV series. Maybe some will point out that it is just an anthology of every major BB character dragged onto set for their five minutes of "remember this guy" and then disappear. I agree, but personally I cannot fault it for its execution.

Excellent television, of a type they will never make again. Unlike the tedious backdrops and effects of today, the sets are built like a play; whimsical and appreciative; nothing to detract from the extraordinary performances on display. Brian Cox plays a convincing Henry II - tough, outrageous, red-haired; he betrays Henry's viking roots. Jane Lapotaire plays his wife and Michael Byrne their son Richard - both are stand-outs, as are their characters. The writing is v remarkable. As memory serves, it is more about clever dialogue set-pieces more than narrative thrust (much like a play). The story is of the three Angevin Kings of England - Henry, Richard and John - and their domestic altercations that leads inevitably and casually into endemic armed conflict. They fact we never see these battles, and only a few of its participants, makes it feel even more fittingly morbid. Many of the nuances of feudalism are present: all the England crown's lands in France are under the overlordship of the 'King of the Franks' whose alternating friendship and hostility with these Norman kings and counts adds another layer of historical social structure to the scenario. It seems to be very risque for the era, though this may be my limited experience with series from that time, what with being born a latter day millennial. There is a fair amount of nudity and sexual references.

Impossible to imagine being made now, The Shadow of the Tower is a deep and insightful look at the Tudor era's least remembered ruler and its founder: Henry VII. The writing is always engaging even in the weaker episodes and there is a great eye for historical detail. Some episodes rise even higher than the rest, particulary those written by Hugh Whitemore. I see many reviewers here accuse the show of bad acting. I cannot understand that. Some minor roles are of course, but then I can't imagine what these people would make of more recent shows like the Tudors. I am sure nobody thinks that of James Maxwell who is obviously the stand out in portraying a compassionate, fair ruler who is occasionally conflicted but is also highly intelligent. Where it works in history it perhaps fails in drama. It is really a dramatised documentary though probably more accurate than most. I think a lot of people would find it dull. The history is what it is interested in, however, and there is not a wasted word as far as I am concerned. Henry's reign may not on the surface be especially dramatic compared to others but it was actually poised on a very interesting turning point in the shift from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age.

I would recommend to anyone interested in history and the episode "The Serpent and the Comforter" works great as a standalone.

I was introduced to the eponymous family from its feature on TV Heaven Telly Hell, where it was recommended by Johnny Vegas. The reality show depicts the classic English tale of the impoverished gentry family but in the modern era and through the antics of a certain Francis Fulford - an insane and profane man with a risible accent and prejudices who is in some ways a modern Lord Alconleigh. The ancestral home is Tudor but the roots go all the way back to Richard the Lionheart; and just to think of this esteemed lineage, stately home and 3,000 acres of farmland arriving at the doorstep of somebody so gormless as Francis "The F****er" Fulford Esq. is reason enough to watch the show.