Reviews

I started out liking this series when it had some interesting story lines and interesting characters. Over the seasons I've watched it they have managed to completely turn me off to the series. The death of Jon Snow was the last in a long string of disappointments. Just when you start to get into the possibility of a good story they kill or maim the main likable characters. It's happened over and over again. Starting with Ned Stark. What's left is a story line for sicko's and teenagers. Let's kill all the Starks, lets kill the Lanisters too. Lets see: We can burn a little girl so her father can be king (but no let's kill him too). Let's cut off Jamie's hand and kill his daughter. Let's rape Sansa and put the sicko who did it in power. Let's blind her sister (after all she's a Stark too). Let's make Cersei lose her power and beg for forgiveness to the fanatical priest. Next they will kill Daenerys for she's the only one left of any interest.

As for this episode, it was terribly written, nothing of interest happened other than killing the only hero left on the show. All the story lines left up in the air, perhaps that way maybe we can take time to decide what to do next and maybe someone will tune back in to see what actually happened (don't count on it). Let's see we can have Sansa try to escape, fall and jump off the wall of the Castle into oblivion with the twit we castrated. We can blind her sister, kill her half brother.

Gads this story is just getting so stupid, I don't even want to watch it anymore, I suggest you tune into something more interesting too.

They really out did themselves with episode 115. The acting was superb by all seriously Tobias, Sam, Caitriona, Duncan, Stephan, Grant, Finn, Douglas & Brian all at their best. Sam and Tobias should be nominated as best male actor, and male supporting actor respectively for their performances in this episode and Caitriona for best female actress in a TV series in the next Emmy awards.

I don't know who wrote this script but whoever wrote this script also did an excellent job with the adaptation from the book and the directing by Anna Foerster was the best to date. I'd also nominate both of them for best adaptation and director for this episode. They totally exceeded my expectation so much so I didn't even miss the wolves (that is hard to do as a book reader my expectation are very high). So this is a great compliment to the caste and crew.

This episode it was excellent. Jamie waiting to be hanged, his initial pride and rejection of Black Jack advances, his fighting off BJR and killing his accomplice, then his ultimate capitulation to BJR save Claire's life. Sam Heughan acting was perfect. He actually becomes the Jamie of the book. The torture of Jamie was hard to watch had to look away when BJR nailed Jamie's hand to the table. But it was so well done, the acting the directing. Sam Heughan and Tobias Mendez were at their best here, tough scenes to make real and they made it real for me. Tobias plays BJR to a tee, I can't imagine a better BJR. His ability to go dark and sadistic makes you wonder is that acting or a part of him that stays dormant until needed. And what can I say about Caitriona, she is such an amazing actress from no where to A-list actress overnight. In this whole series she has totally amazed me with her ability to carry any scene she's given. A totally amazing actress and a great choice for our Claire.

My only concern (which has nothing to do with this episode) is that they made the same mistake they did in the 1st half of season one. Wasting time on earlier episodes (some of which were boring like the Search) leaving too many important parts to be covered in the final episode. I suspect we will continue to see Jamie's rape & torture in the next episode and then they will have to cut scenes from the rescue and recovery at the Abbey each of which should have been episodes on their own. They are being hurt by their initial decision to run only 8 episodes instead of a more realistic number like 10. I'm sure the last episode will be either too crammed or too much cut from the most important parts of the book to accommodate the lesser aspects that should have been cut from the start if they wanted to fit it into 8 sessions.

I hope they learn from season one and make season 2 even better! Starz take note and up their funding so they can do 10 episodes instead of 8. Really Starz is becoming my favorite pay channel on TV.

I very much like episodes that gives us insight into the lives and challenges of our favorite characters (Claire and Jamie). This episode capitalized on that, it was fast paced and poignant.

The opening scene blew me away. Sam Heughan and Caitriona Balfe sure know how to act explicitly sensuous sex scenes. But it's not just sex for the sake of sex, it's sex that lets the viewers into the growing love relationship of Claire and Jamie and I like that. From virgin to expert lover in 3 episodes, Jamie's surely is a quick learner. Claire seems to be enjoying her new husband's talents. The show doesn't over do the sex, it's just the right amount, then on with the story of the lives of the character. The sex fits into the story line and thus has more meaning to this viewer.

Claire is coping with living in a world she doesn't really understand. This episode is very much about that realization. She has one female friend (Geillis played by Lotte Verbeek) and that friend is challenging to say the least. When Claire discovers Geillis sold an evil charm to Laoghaire (played by Nell Hudson), she goes to confront Geillis and finds her dancing naked in the woods, realizes she's pregnant and learns of her lover. (Nice scene by the way and Lotte plays Geillis to perfection.) Geillis and Claire's relationship is a mystery of sorts. Claire is good vs Geillis the wicked yet they get along because they are both outsiders to the world they find themselves in. Later in the episode, Geillis murders her old rich husband and Claire knows it yet she still wants to protect her because she is her only friend.

Geillis, on the other hand, is all about herself; she thinks she's moving up in the power structure of the clan by having an affair with Dougal (war chief of the Clan, brother to the Laird). After Colum learns of the affair and he suspect's Geillis has other motives, he forbids his brother from marrying her and banishes him from the castle (not in the book). She thinks he will protect her for the sake of his child. She will do anything to gain more power (marrying an old obnoxious man for his money, murdering him, having an affair with a married man, using witchcraft and spells). I like the role of Geillis she's an interesting character and I think Lotte is superb in the role.

As for Jamie, we see him trying to get back his estates and his life as Laird in his own right. Now a wanted murder because of BJR he is stuck hiding in the lands of his uncle. But longs to return to his own home. In order to do this he bargains with the Duke of Sandringham to be his second in a duel with the McDonald clan. Well, the after duel deteriorates into a fight where Jamie fends off 3 of the McDonalds and in the process gets himself wounded again. Not a scene in the book but it worked OK. It adds a bit of male sword play for the men in the audience, not to mention, Sam finally gets to display his sword skills which I'm sure made him happy.

We also have Claire going behind Jamie's back to bribe the Duke into helping Jamie with her knowledge of his relationship to the Jacobites (again not in the book and this was a bit unrealistic). A powerful man of those times would have just had her killed without a second thought for threatening him. So I'm not sure why they put that in. In the books, the Duke alliance to the Jacobites wasn't explicitly defined until the second book. I think it would have been better to keep this a mystery and build up more character suspense using his duel loyalties like Diana did.

The one scene I did not like was Dougal out of control after his wife's death threatening all his own men in a drunken rage. I don't see this as Dougal's character at all. Also Colum banishing Jamie for his fight with the McDonalds (none of this was in the book and it doesn't make sense with what is to come). Dougal and Colum should be deviously collaborating on the clan's future not fighting with each other.

What I liked about the series is that it does try, for the most part, to go to the depth of the characters thoughts and feelings much like the book did. I think there is a wide discrepancy in the scriptwriting (some good like this episode, some not as good like the last one). I think the production team should be working on improving that. Better internal reviews, perhaps sharing dailies with more people who know the books well before the episode is finalized to check for inconsistencies in the story lines and quality of production (especially where the scriptwriting/editing is concerned).

The acting is always good, I love the facial expressions by Caitriona and Sam. Nell and Lotte do a great job as well. I do not like some of the scenes with Colum, too stiffly acted by Gary Lewis. I've seen him in other productions and I think he can do better. In contrast, I do like Graham's acting manner. I think he carries Dougal's power, and deviousness well.

This episode was pretty good for the most part. The series still has my interest.

I might feel differently had I never read the book, but like 90% of the viewing public, I did. I think it's probably challenging living up to the great writing of Diana Gabaldon. I miss some of her great scenes like the ring scene, the Claire's anger over Laohaire scene. Even though, I try to view the show as presented I can't quite get the book out of my mind.

That being said I actually liked most of the episode. I wish they had done a few things differently but most of it was done well. The acting was superb in most of the scenes.

I thought the Jamie Claire anger scene coming back from Ft. Williams was the best scene in the episode. The acting was great by both Sam and Caitriona. It was dramatically written and pretty much followed the anger exchange in the book.

As for Jamie going into get Claire with an empty gun, in the book he shot and killed a man on the way into the Ft. Williams, which was why his gun was empty. He rushed to her when he heard her scream. Why the writers changed that to some stupid line about "Ned telling him not to kill anyone so he left his gun empty" was just bad screen writing. Especially after they put in a scene to blow-up and killed 5 soldiers during the escape. Come on guys at least be consistent to what you wrote! Also the reason Jamie didn't kill Randall was because he heard the soldiers coming and wanted to get Claire out of there quickly; that voice over explanation they gave in the show was unnecessary and a bit lame. The jump into the water was also ridiculous on so many levels, 1st the line "I don't know if there is water down there?" and then they jump (the clothes & arms alone would of drowned them, even if they were stupid enough to jump into a dark abyss not know if it contained water). This segment should be high on the list of how to screw up a good scene with bad writing/directing.

I know some of the scenes were challenging, especially the spanking scene. That was a scene in the book and it had to be in the show even if it offends the modern women. It is what would have happened in 1744. I felt the writers could of included a bit more in the to explain why Jamie had to punish Claire. No it was not because he's a masochistic wife beater! In the book, he sits down and explains to her that if he didn't punish her the men of the clan would and it might be worse than a spanking. Highland justice for putting the men in danger is why he felt he must spank her.

I also did not like the music they played during the spanking scene, nor Jamie smiling as he spanked her (so distracting to what should have been a serious angry exchange). In the book, Jamie lost control got angry punishing her more because she tried to fight back. The dramatic emphasis of this scene did not come across because of that music and smile.

After the spanking, the book had a part where Jamie tries to make up with Claire on his ride back to the Castle by bearing his past, letting her into his inner feelings (something women can't resist). They cut that part out too. They should have left some of that as it was originally written. Especially the knife to Jamie's throat, which took place on the ride back. It is what caused Jamie to make the vow to Claire. The writers should have left that scene on the ride back, not switched the order and make it part of a sex scene in the castle. They diminished the meaning of the vow scene turning into a quasi masochistic sex scene on Claire's part. The sex scene was supposed to be a passionate sex scene because Jamie wanted to "own her body and soul" and Claire too felt this after she accepted his love and the wedding ring (another scene they changed to the detriment of the show). Did the writer not understand love or good passionate sex? or was it just bad directing? I don't know it didn't work except of exploitation and yes, the book was way better.

In the additional scenes added not in the book, I did liked the Jamie Laoghaire scene by the river. Nell Hudson did some fine acting here. I also liked the Dougal/Colum exchange about his Jacobite gold. I did not like the entrance back to the castle. This scene should have been done as it was in the book with Jamie carrying Claire into the Castle, Laohaire and Colum seeing them and everyone wondering why he's carrying her. Instead, they turned this into an unnecessary welcoming extravaganza. Not as dramatic, requires a lot more resources in staging it, and just didn't work as well. In addition, I thought there was way too many scenes with Colum in them; time wasted that could have been used better by including the things cut which would have made this episode better.

The show seems to make the same mistakes repeatedly. Perhaps it's ego wanting to do their own writing or a lack of understanding of the book on the part the production team, if so someone needs to take a look at the effect of that on the show's quality. I know Diana Gabaldon is a consultant on the show. She should be pointing out these discrepancies to them, if not then they need to hire someone who would or they need to listen to her. The episode was good it could of been better.

The final episode of this ½ season was interesting. The acting was very well done by all involved. I like the TV series; The series is trying to bring the books to life and I get it that that is a challenging thing to do with so many fans of the show avid book fans. These fans know Diana Gabaldon's books; know what is important to them. As a producer and director of the show I would be trying to keep those fans happy. Will there be differences from the books, yes we all expect that, some changes deletions are required to make the show TV friendly. As a fan of the books the thing I have a problem with is when changes/additions are made that jeopardizes some of the things I love best about the books. To me those producing/directing the show's episodes should know the entire Outlander book series, as well as Diana Gabaldon; know what pieces are important to the fans and what might not be.

This is a great adventure story but the focus of the adventure is the lives of Jamie and Claire. My list is of what is important in order of their importance is: 1) Jamie and Claire's romance both the explicit sexual element and the eternally endearing romance 2) The adventures they take in Scotland, France, the Caribbean and America. 3) The characters that support their stories. There are many characters that will come and go as the adventure continues from book to book (Dougal & Colum, Murtagh, Frank/Jack Randall, Geillis Duncan, Jamie and Claire's daughter: Brianna, her husband Rodger, Jamie's sister Jenny and her husband Ian, their son Ian and his wives, Jamie's son adopted son Fergus, Fergus' family and Jamie's illegitimate son William, Lord John, his Aunt Jocasta, the residents of Fraser's ridge, the famous people they meet along the way like Bonnie Prince Charlie and the King of France, etc.). These character give the story it richness. However the only thing constant in all these books is "Jamie and Claire" and their love which is the driving force for every adventure in the series.

I'm saying this because I and other fans were quite upset that the producers/writers and directors all seem to be pushing other things at us and minimizing the romantic aspect of the Jamie and Claire love story that we care about most.

I think they cut too much of the book out to accommodate the Frank/Jack scenes in this episode just so they could end the half- season finale with the attempted rape of Claire by Black Jack. Black Jack's attempted rape is a story that should have come long down the road not in this episode but obviously it was put here so we could have that cliché cliff hanger ending. This rush to crush may be indicative with having only 8 episodes before a break rather than the 16 one would expect in a full season so now we have to have a cliff hanger ending when the series is on its 6 month hiatus, verses when the season is actually over.

I would have liked more of Claire and Jamie's relationship and less of Frank and Claire relationship. I really don't care what Frank was doing when Claire was gone from 1947 yet we spend half of this episode with Frank and or Jack. It's not that the scene wasn't well done; it's just something I do not care about. To include this extra we miss the whole part of Claire getting accustomed to Jamie and falling in love with him. So that when she is finally taken back to the stones "by Jamie by the way" there is a real reason why she wants to stay with the man she has come to love, her protector and lover Jamie. Rather than that we get a whirl wind wedding night romance (a one night stand) followed by Claire finding herself magically at the stones where Frank and Claire's voice has traveled thru the centuries like Frank was her soul mate. He isn't, she leaves him because he's self- centered, boring and not a very good lover. So can we finally refocus this series to the wonderful adventures that were in the book surrounding Jamie and Claire please! They are much better than the ones we are seeing on screen and let's not cut out significant sexual encounters between Jamie and Claire just to give Frank some new additions that have no basis in original story. We don't care about Frank, we care about Jamie!

What else do I miss? I miss the shyness of Jamie as he woo's Claire to win her affections and her increasing responsiveness to him; the honeymoon days when they are alone for 3 days, the part about Claire learning to live outdoors. The lovely scene of them making love in the ferns and the fishing scene. The whole month they are married and on the road with Dougal and the gang was compressed into a day. We don't see Claire's reluctance to make love to Jamie sleeping next to the men and realizing she lost 20 years of taught propriety. The fight with the Grants was so compressed you lost most of the action. We don't get to see the whole water horse segment down by the Loch when one of the men assumes she's a witch because she's not afraid of the monster; something that has significance when it comes to the witch's trial. Then we miss the after rape sex Jamie and Claire had to overcome the shock they were both in and make them feel one again. Nor do we see Jamie leaving her alone in the glen and the important conversation Jamie had with Claire when he tells her what he will do to her if she leaves the glen before he returns. All compressed so we can end the ½ season with the rape.

So how was it? I guess that depends on whether or not you've read the book version or not. As one of the 25 million who have, I'd say this was a great episode one of the best in the series so far; however it was also one of the best parts of the 1st book so a high bar has been set. Honestly, it was great seeing the wedding night on screen. I thought the acting by Sam and Caitriona was fabulously sensitive, seductive and very well acted. As a book reader however, I thought the script lacked many things I thought was important to the story. I don't know why the screen writers think that they can write lines better than Diana Gabaldon (they can't). They missed important lines and nuances that the book had in it and seemed to make scene changes for no good reason.

The changes the screen-writers made to the original story turned the wedding night scene into a series of flashbacks. I have to ask why this approach? I guess to break up the sex scenes into 3 separate scenes instead of one long one. But does that format work? I have to say not as well as the book's version. In the book they make love 3 times in one night; each time it builds increasing on the passion they feel as Jamie (a virgin) learns more and more about love making from Claire. It all happens in one scene, where they are becoming more intimate with each other as the scene progresses. The flashback version breaks this up and loses that aspect of the wedding night. So although I did love the sex scenes in the show honestly listening to the audio book was better.

The flashbacks broke up the entire wedding and they missed quite a lot of things the book had that makes a difference to the way the viewer understands the story. Below are some examples of the scenes from the book that were either changed or omitted.

1. Walking to the church, Claire realized it was the same church she had married Frank in 200 years later; Instead of this church scene they have a flashback scene of Claire and Frank in front of a registry office (why a registry office and not the church?).

2. When Jamie and Claire are talking on the wedding night and she asks him why he married her. In the book Jamie said "Before I tell you Claire there is one thing I ask of you … honesty and I'll promise you that as well, We have nothing now between us save respect perhaps and I think that respect has room for secretes but not for lies. Do you agree? And she agrees". This is very important speech in the book that was totally omitted from the screen version. That speech sets up the basis for Jamie and Claire's relationship in their marriage and has implications further on in the book

3. When they are making love Jamie asks her "Did you like it?" She says "yes". Then he says "Murtagh had told me that women generally do not care for it so I should finish as soon as I could" and Claire says "What would Murtagh know about it, for most women the slower the better". Or when Jamie thinks he's hurting Claire. The script-writers left out the part where Claire explains that women have orgasms too and that's why she's groaning, not in pain but in ecstasy. These are really important lines showing how Claire helps Jamie on that night to becoming a better lover and it also helps to explain why the 1st time was such a quickie. Breaking that whole night up into a mired of flashbacks in my opinion was a mistake.

4. In this episode they have Rupert and Angus going out to buy a ring for Claire. In the book Rupert forgets to get a wedding ring and Jamie takes his father's "ruby ring" off his hand and gives it to Claire to use as her wedding ring. He then promises to get her one as soon as possible. Why is this important? Well, further down the road there is a big scene in the book when Jamie goes out to get that special wedding ring for Claire. So what do they plan on doing down the road cut another great scenes from the book.

5. Then we have Rupert and Angus charging into the honeymoon room to see if the marriage had been consummated making some ridiculous gestures to Jamie about it. The book has a rather tender scene where Jamie tells Claire that the wedding would not be legally binding until they consummated the marriage. So instead of seeing a touching scene with Jamie and Claire we get this clown scene with Rupert and Angus.

Don't tell me they did this because of time, I don't buy that. They added new scenes that would take way longer. Did we really need seeing Ned buy the wedding dress in a whore house? Sure we get a few more flashes of bare breasted women but totally unnecessary to the wedding preparations. There were many more instances I couldn't fit in this review but the bottom line is yes, I loved the wedding episode but I also feel if they had followed the book's version it could have been better.

This episode was very well done, even if a bit disturbing in its content. It's different than the book, yet follows the main plot of the book, it just has different people doing some of the same things in different ways (i.e., it has Black Jack Randall telling the story of Jamie's flogging instead of Dougal). The changes made seem to be for visual effects, to see the story rather than tell it. However, it does miss some important things, like Jamie's father looking on and dying while Jamie was being flogged. That has ramifications down the road as to why Jamie hates Randall as much as he does, and why he has such guilt over the incident. I suppose if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't know all this but a large percentage of the 25 million fans view's tuning in do. So deviations are bound to cause comparisons.

Claire is taken to the British headquarters to explain how she came to be the guest of the MacKenzie clan. At first she feels this is her chance to get back to the stones, and feels some affinity to the British officers she meets. But as she realizes just how arrogant they are, she begins to feels loyalty to Dougal and his people as well. She defends the Scots in front of the Garrison commander (a British General) and thus brings doubt as to her loyalty to the King.

In this scene I didn't like how the British officers treated Dougal (not in the book and not something I think Dougal would of put up with in real life). I liked the book version better than this scene. In the book version, it was Dougal who left Claire with Black Jack Randall as a way to see if she was a British spy. Dougal's status a clan chief to be feared and respected, as someone important to the British was more evident in the book than the show. I think that was an important piece missing from the TV version which made Dougal seem like an ignorant heathen and subservient to the British (not something I think Dougal would ever be; cunning yes, duplicitous yes, but never subservient). I think that's the only part of this episode that I really had a serious problem with.

The episode shows Jamie's brutal flogging by Randall, as a flashback in Randall's mind, as he describes it to Claire. This was quite a powerful scene and well acted. Even though it deviated from the book version, I found that to be an interesting way to show just how sick Jack Randall character is. Claire's reaction was sympathy (really for the man who tried to rape her but what the heck), followed by a rude awaking that he really is the sicko he describes himself to be. (Ok, none of this is in the book but it does allow the viewer an insight into just how twisted a mind the man has.)

The end of the episode basically follows the book. Dougal rescues Claire. He begins to believe Claire is not a British spy and tells her she must marry a Scot to stay out of Randall's hands. The scene ends with Claire and Jamie, discussing the idea of them marrying. Of course this was my favorite part of the episode (I love Jamie and Claire), even though they do not spend much time on it in this episode hopefully the next episode will be all about that.

I know the men out there do not want this to be a love story and I even heard Sam Heughan say it's not a love story (but really, it was!) and I hope they are not changing that aspect of the story as that's one of the main reason most of its fan base are staying glued to the show..(hint, hint).

I think there is a pattern here, where each episode seems to concentrate on one of the actor's characters interfacing with Claire this time it was mostly about Jack Randall, last time it was about Dougal, etc. I'm not sure I like that approach, even though it does give all the actors their chance at a bit of screen time, I'd much rather have a mixed focus. In this episode, less with the British Officers, and more with Dougal, Jamie, and Claire and the guys at the end would of worked better for me, and would have been more in line with the book.

Now I know I've talked a bit about the things I didn't like but really it was a well done episode with lots of tension, insight into the characters, and great acting by Caitriona Balfe, Tobias Menzies, Graham McTavish, and Sam Heughan. I think if you are new to the story you'll probably like it a lot, but if you're devoted fan you may notice some of the things I did.

I really liked this episode, especially the Claire and Jamie infatuation parts. Both Sam and Caitriona ware great choices for their respective roles. I loved Sams acting when he was describing his scars. And his gentleness with Claire when she's crying. He really has all the qualities I'd expect in Jamie (those twinkling eyes, and shy smile). And Cait is so beautiful, and strong as a character I can totally see her as Claire. Tobias also hit the mark as the sadistic Black Jack Randall. I also liked the part when Jamie and Claire were talking in the barn. To me there relationship is primary to the story, and I'm enjoying those parts a lot. I think the Scottish history is interesting too. Keep it coming.. especially the Claire and Jamie love story..

The story continues and stays close to the book with difference to make it more screen friendly. I admit I keep wanting more of the love story to start with Jamie and Claire, and this is all building up to it much as it did in the book. We get looks acknowledging the budding interest, but I think they should have Jamie defending Claire more than they did, after all he promised her no one would hurt her in the 1st episode, and yet he lets Angus put a knife to her throat in this episode.. I feel too much of the boys and not enough love for me in this episode. So come on guys get it on!! Claire tells Dougal about the future demise of the Clans (Claire never would of done that in the books, she might tell Jamie, but Dougal??) really. Why would she warn Dougal, when she's trying to convince him she's not a spy. Just didn't make sense.

To balance all that, the scenery was luscious and riding through the hills, the action was good, and the village women were interesting. So no matter what, I'm going to love Outlander but I really want to get to the Jamie Claire relationship.

I really like Clive Owen, so when I saw he was staring in the Knick I did want to watch it. I found the show much darker than I expected. The show is definitely unique (I've not seen anything like it on the screen to date) for that I give it a good rating. Clive doesn't disappoint he carries any role he's given to play. I didn't like the first couple of story-lines for the show, too gruesome for my taste but I can see others might like it. I'm still watching it, out of curiosity as to where they are heading with this show concept.. But the x- girlfriend without the nose was really too much for me. Anyway, make up your own mind, it is unique.

The movie, is a well done historical drama. The character of Belle is played excellently by new comer Gugu Mbatha-Raw and the strong supporting cast: Sarah Gadon as Elizabeth, Sam Reid as John Davinier, Tom Wilkinson as Lord Mansfield, Emily Watson as Lady Mansfield, Penelope Wilton as the maiden aunt, and Matthew Goode as her father; In the suitors family: James Norton as Oliver Ashford and Tom Felton as his older brother James, and Miranda Richardson as Lady Ashford. Through this movie people get to see the injustices of 1700 England, both for woman, the poor, and people of color. It's a story of love between people of different classes and races. It shows both the cruelty of the era, and the passions of those who try to change the status-quo. I highly recommend the film, which has a well-defined story-line, great acting and lovely sets.

(spoilers may be ahead)

Belle is a fascinating true story of a young illegitimate mulatto girl, brought to England by her father (a sea captain) to be raised by her father's family under the protection of her great uncle William Murray, Earl of Mansfield who was the Lord Chief Justice for the courts of England in the 1700's. At first the Uncle doesn't want to take the child because of the color of her skin, and his perception of how society would view his raising his niece. However, her father and her great aunt convince the uncle to accept the child and raise her until he can return from his duty as ship captain. Lord Mansfield is also raising his white niece who was also left in his care by her father.

The story follows the lives of the family as Dido Belle (excellently played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and her cousin Elizabeth Murray (Sarah Gadon) grow up. Both girls are bought up together, educated, and in wealth and privilege. Although, the Uncle learns to love both girls, he treats them differently in social situations when outsiders are brought to the house; Belle is required to stay out of sight, not allowed to eat dinner with the family, and expected to stay out of sight. Belle's uncle thinks he is protecting her from the racism of the day.

One day Belle meets a young white man John Davinier (Sam Reid), who is the son of a local clergyman, poor but ambitious who is brought to the estate as to apprentice with her uncle and learn the law. At first Bell and John have a contentious relationship. Until, Belle (who helps her uncle with paper work) discovers information regarding incident on a slave ship where sick slaves were thrown overboard and killed to collect the cargo insurance. Belle asks John more about the incident, and John explains the injustice he feels about the case. Belle admires him for his honesty and compassion for the fate of the slaves. This makes her see John in a new light. However, when she tells her Uncle how she feels about the case the Uncle is furious that John shared this information with his niece (who he sees as vulnerable to his influence) and dismisses him from his service, forbidding him from ever seeing his niece again.

Even though Belle's father left her a large fortune, Belle's family fully expects that no one of rank equal to the family would be willing to marry her as a person of color and they do not want marrying someone below their rank. So her Uncle suggests she follow in the footsteps of her maiden aunt, who looks after the family estate and household staff. In contrast, her cousin Elizabeth is told she is to come out in society, with the purpose of finding a husband to support her (as her father is leaving her no inheritance). When the young suitors come to the house to meet Elizabeth, Belle is told she is not allowed to join the dinner party where Elizabeth is to meet two brothers. She is allowed however, to come to the after dinner social gathering, where she eventually meets the brothers. The older brother is attracted to Elizabeth, and the younger brother seems to be attracted to Belle (to his brother's disapproval).

It seems like Elizabeth has all the advantages, until the suitor's family finds out that she has no inheritance and that Belle does. Then they make an arrangement with the Uncle to marry Belle off to the younger brother for her inheritance. Elizabeth is in love with the older brother but when he learns she has no inheritance, she is thrown over for someone who has money. At first Belle is happy that she will be permitted to marry. However when her finance's brother takes liberties with her, she realizes she can never marry into a family that would view her color negatively and breaks off the engagement.

All the while Belle is meeting secretly with John and falling in love with him, knowing full well her uncle will never approve of her marring someone below the family's social status.

Belle's uncle is torn between his love for his niece, and doing what is expected of him by the government and business owners of the day in the ruling on the slave ship case.

When he finds out Belle and John are still meeting, he tries to split them up again. But John accuses him of siding with the slave ship owners because he is embarrassed about his niece's color, while he loves her and sees her as his equal. He urges the chief justice to rule for equality, if just for the sake of his niece's future.

This is a movie that had great potential, great actors, a decent concept, (however you feel about the topic of the Bush initiated wars). My problem with the movie is that it seemed to end halfway through the story. Just when you start to get engaged in the characters story the movie ends with no conclusion as to why any thing you've been watching has happened.

(spoiler may be ahead)

We have an anti-war college professor (Robert Redford), engaging a bright student who hasn't been coming to class about his potential and the reasons why he seems to have dropped out of life. To do this he relates a story of his two students (one Latino, the other Black) who against his advice joined the military to get money to go to grad school. He tells this student that he admires them for their willingness to engage in life even though he thinks they made the wrong decision.

Next we have a reporter (Meryl Streep) talking to a Republican senator (Tom Cruise) about a new government initiative to do anything necessary to win the "War on Terror". The report challenges the Republican parties lies that got the US into the war in the 1st place, and questions the new senator about publishing this latest escalation initiative. He retorts back that basically it was the compliance of the press that allow them to get away with it, and she agree's to her paper's part in all of that. Saying news is no longer about investigating facts it's about ratings, and she's not responsible for that. Through their talking, you get to feel that the new senator wants to run for President soon, and he want's the media to view him as a warrior who will end this "War on Terror" war by "Doing whatever it takes" (Bomb civilians, torture innocent people, kill more soldiers).

Then we see glimpses of the two soldiers on a frozen mountain (one wounded) fighting off a brigade of Taliban soldiers with the mighty American military sitting behind a drone screen debating how to rescue them. They drop bombs that don't kill the Taliban soldiers but make them angry enough to advance the attack. The bombing run does however convince the two American soldiers (who just happen to be the college students the professor was talking about) to commit suicide by standing up and firing at this whole brigade of angry Taliban soldiers knowing they can not win. Only to be killed minutes before another drone strike, and a helicopter can reach them.

OK, now that you're engaged in the 3 story-lines, what happens? How do they all connect? Well actually they don't. The story ends with the reporter going back to her paper saying she doesn't want to publish the exclusive story she just was offered by the senator and her boss threaten her job if she chooses not to. (Does she or doesn't she, we never find out). How about the professor's student, does he now engage in life after hearing this story (well, we just hope so, but it ends before we know if he comes to the next class or not.) The two students who joined the military are dead. Does the professor know this and is this part of a campaign to dissuade others from joining the military to get into grad school (well, we just don't know). Does the senator run for president are more lies published (well, we just don't know)..

The movie ends and you have no story connections to the 3 story-lines, no conclusions (other than the 2 dead soldiers).

This is a movie that needs an ending... How the script writers, director and actors all missed that is beyond me.

Yes, I get the moral implication and statements being made here: The young (minority) men with potential who are dying in a war that was built on a lie just to get money to go to graduate school. Other wealthy white students that do not engage with politics and the world around them, but exist for their own pleasure. An American press that is no longer investigating and reporting news but rather is run by big business interested only in money and ratings. And crazy dangerous (mostly Republican) politicians who do not care about people, especially those being killed in the wars they started.

But really does this make for a good movie? Well perhaps, if it had a decent script and story-line that was somehow connected, however this movie does not!

This is not a reflection on the actors, who all did their part; This is a reflection on the script writers, producers, and directors who all should of known how to make a better movie about this subject.