Reviews

So I've given it two stars, because to be honest there is a bit of enjoyment at look at all the familiar faces in the extras in this film, its like a who's who of British stage and screen actors/actresses from the 60-70s.

However that was as far as any enjoyment went. The four leads were all a long way from their best (which in fairness probably isn't saying much for most of them). There was absolute no enjoyment in the storyline, the comedy was rushed and simply not funny and the only reason I stick with it to the end was because I wanted to see if Judi Dench pitched up again. At the end I wasn't left feeling angry or upset, just simply bewildered how in this day and age anyone can make such a bad feature film.

In essence unless you don't have to pay to watch it AND you like actor spotting, don't bother wasting your time!

I pondered for a long time about whether or not I should watch this sequel (or prequel, or whatever it is). My problem was that I had read the book and loved it, seen the original TV series and liked that, and having read its mixed (mostly bad) reviews and a little bit about the story I wondered whether this show would firstly be any good, and secondly alter my perception of the original and the book. In the end I gave in and decided to watch it.

Viewed on its own, this show is okay. Without knowing the back story it may well be hard to pick up large chunks of the storyline but I suspect with no previous knowledge of the original or book, the story, characters and acting are all reasonable. The production although (with nothing to compare to) is also reasonable, with the end result being a reasonable flashy and slightly over sentimental melodrama that was indicative of American television in the mid nineties. Indeed the only real drawback to this for a first timer would be the somewhat unsatisfying end.

However compared to the original and the book at first glance it falls flat on its face. It is a complete fabrication and alteration of the original story. It takes most of the original relationships between the different characters, rips them up and makes completely different ones (in doing so making many of the characters look stupid and spineless). The beautifully simple original score has a vulgar nineties up date. And the original sets and location that were so really and simplistic (in the way the arid Drogheda of the novel is meant to be) are replaced by cardboard looking sets and glitzy looking locations that remind me of something out of Dr Quinn Medicine Woman, not the original novel! And to top it off the scene when Dan is surrounded by all the animals and birds at the watering hole looks so fake that it could have been taken form a Disney cartoon!

Rather ironically though none of the above really matter, because at the end of the day the whole thing really boils down to Richard Chamberlain's part it in all. In a strange way he is both the show's saviour and its undoing at the same time. The original TV series was brought out so soon after the book and as a consequence their fates and memories kind of got all mixed together. Unlike other historical novels or classics whose stories and characters where known in their own right before TV and film producers started to implant visual images of them into the public conscious, with the Thorn Birds the TV show created indelible visual realisations of the story's places and characters in Colleen McCullough's novel. Mr Darcys, Robin Hoods and Sherlock Holmes may come and go, but to many Ralph De Bricassart is Richard Chamberlain. The fact than that despite all the other mediocre things mentioned above that this show had him resume his role no doubt saved it from utter panning. However, having said all of that him being their causes three large problems: Firstly it highlights the absent of pretty much all of the rest of the original cast. Secondly it asks viewers to tear up the chemistry that was built up between the two leads over seven and a bit hours in the original and replace it with a totally different one. Finally, and for me most importantly, it asks you change that imagine of Ralph that you have in your head, because although it is still Richard Chamberlain, it is not the same Richard Chamberlain. In truth he was probably not ridiculously far of the age that Ralph was meant to be in 1942/3 when they filmed this, but the problem is that he aged naturally totally differently to how he was aged artificially in the original, the end result being in this show a rather older a fuller figured looking Ralph than what the original suggests turns up on Drogheda a decade after this show is meant to be set.

So do I regret watching it. No. Because despite all its pitfalls and tackiness (and out and out crimes against the book) this adaption offers (with a little stretch of the imagination and tinkering with the ending) something that neither the novel of original series does. An option of a happy ending. The beautiful novel despite all the surroundings of Drogheda, the Clearys and the Roman Catholic Church is essentially about a man's struggles against himself and coming to terms with them too late. This adaptation offers a conduit to the answer to that age old question, what if.

Just come back from watching this at the cinema, and I was pleasantly surprised. For a child of the nineties who grew up on watching Prince of Thieves I was hoping for something completely different, and I was disappointed.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this film is it predecessors, because together with it they provide an interesting chronicle into the development of film over the last 70 odd years. Indeed Hollywood has come a long way within the last 20 years alone. This film may lack a lot of that nineties over sentimentality, an evil witch, half buttoned pristine white shirts, a cameo from the then god Sean Connery and a Canadian with and electric guitar in the credits, but that doesn't mean it is better or indeed worse.

What this film provides for me is a more realistic and in many ways subtler feel to this very English legend. I think the casting of such an internationally flavoured cast with a sprinkling of some genuine English talent was a master stroke. I liked the cinematography, especially the battle scenes which seemed chaotic and rushed, which to me makes for a more realistic experience. The script was a script but did not drop the ball, and the sets and locations were all very convincing.

Most importantly though I think that Crowe pulls of Robin. Unlike KC attempt he does and gets the English accent well. He brings just the right levels of drama and humour to the role and most important of all, and perhaps something the previous occupants of the metaphorical green tights did not have, he looks like the sort of chap who would have been on and survived the crusades, could command a group of unruly men, and doesn't mind slumming it in a forest for a bit. It is strange because I never use to rate him that highly, but I think that this and some of his other recent work is starting to really show how he is maturing into one of the bes actors of his generation.

In summary then this is a good film, definitely warranting the price of the cinema ticket. I look forward to a sequel, if there is one which the end would suggest there might. But don't try and compare it to Prince of Thieves because they're two different genres of film. At its heart this film is an action drama, but a small sprinkling of romantic and comedy sub plots turns it away from a Gladiatoresk hard core mans man film into something that everyone (over 12) can enjoy.

N.B. just as an aside he may have only had a small role but once again Douglas Hodge really shone out for me in this film, it amazes me why he does not get more film roles, perhaps he is too busy with theatre?

This film in many ways is a wonderful little gem. The two leads were two of the most underrated actors of their time in my view. I want so much to love it, and in many ways I do, it is just such a shame that the end is so uninspiring.

I'm not saying that i would have preferred the characters to end up together at the end (I think that would have slightly missed the point of the film!) but a little more closure would not have hurt!

All in all though definitely worth a watch, especially if like me you think that film history has somewhat unfairly passed over Robert Mitchum.

I know very few (intellengent) people who do not rate the West Wing, it is an excellent program that not only gave an insight into politics but also showed the world's leaders how it should be done. Great story lines after another, wonderful acting, i can think of many shows that can equal this let alone beat it. Its a wonderful way to spend an hour (or more) the journey you take through the series with the characters is wonderful. But for my money it will always be the end of series three that stays with me. Perhaps it is Jeff Buckley in the back ground that sends me over but i cry every time i see it, and it is that that i think back to when i watch CJ walk off from the white house st the end of season 7, only a truly great show can have that longevity!

This is a great film. Two things though: 1. Surely this should not have been classified as a 12a. There was a group of seven year olds sitting in front of me in the cinema (with their adults) and surely they shouldn't have been allowed to see the film (I'm thinking particularly of the torture and fight scenes).

2. This is a great film, but it isn't a Bond film. Not because of the story line, the action sequences or Craig's acting ability (he is superb), but because he isn't 007. It's not the new emotional side (I think that's good) or indeed any part of Craig's interpretation of the role, it is simply that he lacks the X (or if you like 007) factor. This might sound stupid, but I think the best way to sum it up is that Bond should make the suite look good, not the other way around!

I brought this film to see Peter Finch's performance with the idea that if James Stewart was starring it couldn't be all that bad. I was right it isn't all that bad, parts of it are even quite good, but there is something about the whole thing that I'm just not all that comfortable with.

Performance wise the four stars are fine, Stewart is obviously in his element, and Attenborough, Finch and Kruger all put in good efforts. Visually it is all fine, and well shot, although all the sand started to annoy me after a bit (but hey it is set in the desert).

The story however is were it starts to get slightly unstuck, the plane crashes, and we know Stewart at lest is going to get out of it somehow, so for the movie to excel the in between part was going to have to be great. As it turned out it was reasonable, but no cigar. Through out the whole thing I couldn't help but wishing they would get on with it a bit quicker so I could go and do something else.

This film didn't make me smile, the only time it crabbed my attention was when Finch and the doctor guy got their throats slit, and the only time I started to enjoy it was when the plane managed to fly again because it meant I'd almost reached the end. However the reasons for my apathy to this film are more due to personal taste than it being a bad production, so perhaps watch it yourself and make your own mind up.