CindyH's reviews

I'll admit that the end has two incredible gotcha moments. However, There is no reason why this should have been 8 episodes long. From episode 2 through 7, it is mostly just run around. You get about 55 minutes of show with a result of maybe one small piece of information.

Most of the time I fought to stay awake and just sat there rather bored until the one piece of information was finally given.

I was not at all impressed with Michelle Keegan's acting skills. Anyone could have played that part. I also tired quickly of constant perfect make-up and her ridiculous filler-filled lips. (Credential: I am a retired plastic surgery nurse.) I mean no offense here, I am simply saying how I personally felt. You may feel differently and that's fine by me.

If you're an Armitage fan, don't expect to see much of him at all. I think he had maybe 3 minutes screen time (but really is probably much less) and most of it was repeats. The same thing over and over again.

This inserts annoying flashbacks that I'm pretty sure can cause seizures in some the way its done. Unfortunately, they do it over and over and over again. Once was enough, thanks.

Joanna Lumley though is great in this, she is always lovely. I would like to have seen a bit more of her, but alas, this was not to be.

Adeel Akhtar's brilliant acting skills in this is what made the show more interesting. I understand that the book doesn't really offer as much of Kierce's backstory as we see here. I think his whole story could have been a miniseries in itself. What a story!

While I really love Hattie Morahan's acting, I think her entire character and story was completely useless. They could have just ditched the Caroline character and no one would have even noticed.

All in all, this could have been a great production, but it really wasn't. I normally would not recommend it to friends, except for the shining Kierce story and the two big reveals at the end.

I think this could have been told in perhaps 3 parts instead of 8 and it would have been much better.

What can I say that hasn't already been said in a review of this delightful film? It's great? It's passionate? It's kindness versus cruelty? All of this has already been said. I suppose I can look at it from its artistic value.

Most every actor was already known for their impressive work. This was not a film that was just pasting actors into their parts. Nor is it a simple production.

This film is somewhat loosely based on the novel by Rumer Godden, called [ASIN:B01M5D8G71 A Fugue in Time]. I have not read the book, but only know that there were many other siblings there. It is common for films to reduce the number of characters, due to time. You cannot tell all of those characters' stories in a film, but at least you can tell the story of the main characters.

David Niven at the time was perfect for his part. His wife had died by falling down the stairs of another actor, two and a half years earlier. He was all too familiar with the feeling of tender love and profound loss. Yet, by the time this film was made, he had fallen in love again and had married. He had enough time to grieve and yet start a new beginning. That experience no doubt affected his acting in this film, and what an effect it was! He was superb as Rollo. Though it is hard to see his face behind all that make-up, I doubt another actor at that time could have achieved the acting in this role as Mr. Niven did.

Theresa Wright is always a delight to watch. She had fallen into parts that were the epitome of the "nice girl next door," but usually as a troubled one. Known for being the only actor nominated for an Oscar for her first three films is all we need to know about her acting. If you like her in this film, try also watching [ASIN:B0093QE06M Mrs. Miniver], [ASIN:B002RXS1VS Shadow of a Doubt], and [ASIN:B00AOORDJS The Best Years of our Lives]. She is always captivating to watch.

The rest of the cast was also superb, but Jayne Meadows' Selina is very much worth noting here. This was a great part for her, as she had only filmed four movies prior to this one. Among those were an interesting version of [ASIN:B07573CDXR a Phillip Marlowe film] and even a [ASIN:B018GTVB4K Thin Man] film. She shined in both of those and I am almost certain this is why she got the part.

Production-wise, the cinematography is a story of its own. The art of filming in black and white is the use of light and dark. Here we see dark moments and by lowering the light during those moments, the viewer can actually "feel" the darkness with the characters. Gregg Toland is a master of this type of drama, after all, he did do [ASIN:B00GJBCMB4 Citizen Kane] which is exceptionally famous for its photography, among everything else.

Just one little note here. I've seen reviews mentioning a plot hole about Lark having a nephew, even though she had no siblings. Many large and close families consider aunts and uncles by marriage a true uncle. My family does too, in fact. We have a sort of hierarchy. As close as we are, we take care of each other and my uncle by marriage makes most of the decisions for us. It's not enforced, mind you, he is kind and offers his help and he's just the best one in the family for advice on everything. I think of him as a real by-blood uncle, even though he isn't.

For this reason, I see no plot hole. I am certain Pax Masterson is not only a nephew by marriage, but his relationship was through his mother. In other words, Marchese Del Laudi's sister married a Mr. Masterson and Pax was their son. It's really that simple.

This film has a great team and feels very much like a play. I just love this film and I think any "old movie" lover would find this truly enchanting. Its title suits it well, even if it is different from its original title.

Think of this as Rear Window meets The Flight Attendant, but isn't as good.

I like Kristen Bell (Anna) and she can be so cute and funny. With a title like that, I really did expect a black comedy. There are hints throughout the show, but I did figure it out. There is one tiny scene that gives it away but its easily missed. I just happened to catch it, so it was luck.

Her past is rather absurd and I wish I could talk about it but it would be a spoiler. I guess its supposed to be funny but it really wasn't.

It's great for when you're at home on a rainy night. Grab a glass of wine, kick back, and enjoy this guilty pleasure.

The book is fabulous, but I would really like to finally see a movie that was actually true to the book. Many characters are eliminated and all have changed. If Agatha were alive, she would probably sue. I love Kenneth Branagh and have enjoyed most of his films, but this and the Orient Express are duds. Come on man, give Agatha credit for one of the best stories ever written. No, Ken can't.

Not a great film, sadly. It has a lot of potential, such as a fantastic cast, a great director and an excellent production studio but it was not only Crawford's performance that caused her to be listed as "box office poison" but the writing did not help either.

Changes made to the original story were incomplete and by so doing Anni becomes a condescending and pretentious twit. The hero(ine) of the story should at least be liked. You should be able to identify with her and cheer her on but I found myself hoping that she would fall flat on her face, in shame.

Her childish behavior simply ruins the entire film. As it ended, I felt like someone else deserved better.

In reality, at the time of production Crawford's life was very tumultuous and perhaps that tight migraine look she carries through the film was no acting. I'm reminded of Bacall's scene in Marlowe's vehicle when he breaks up with her. Bogart had just informed Bacall that he was going to get back with his wife. The resulting scene was a tender moment that felt genuine. However in this film, it's more like irritation and not tender at all.

It's okay though. Crawford made plenty of other films to choose from and not all have to be Grade A.

It is true that there are militant conservatives in this country but not all are militant. I take issue with the word "Patriot" becoming the left's target as the bad guy. A Patriot is simply the lover of a country, nothing more than that. There are patriots all over the world. There were French patriots in WWII and many of those were leftists. I love Fred Dalton Thompson and so I am a bit surprised he did not rebut the falsehood of what an American Patriot is. For this reason this episode really disappointed me. Call it anything but don't incorrectly stereotype a patriot.

The reviews here speak of this episode as sub-par. Well, perhaps. Ed Gwynn is always fun to watch and his versatility always amazes me. From hit man to Santa, he can do it all.

I think what everyone is forgetting is the social aspect of the day in America, where the series was being originally aired. This was mid-1957. Children during WWII were becoming adults. They were not aware of the hardships their parents went through here (and England for that matter). First was the crash of 1929, unemployment soared then add to that the midwestern Dust Bowl which reduced farmland to wasteland. Not only did they become unemployed but now fresh food was no longer affordable. To add insult to injury, they next had to deal with an atrocious war and raise kids to boot.

These kids were raised outside of hardship, or had very little of it. A 2-year-old in 1941 would be 18. These kids needed to learn to be responsible for themselves and not rely on others. It's a lesson this generation needs too, for that matter.

The end shows us that he really does love his son, even after what the young man had done. I think for this reason it's a very good episode. It's just surprising because when we hear Hitchcock, we expect suspense. As long as you go into this knowing this episode hasn't any suspense, then you'll be good to go.

This is the most brilliant adaptation of the famed Jane Austen book ever made. It is long, but true to the book. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was criticized widely for staying true to the book, but P&P has escaped such criticism. Perhaps because of the creative nature of the actors and obviously, the director.

Colin Firth became an overnight heartthrob through his very absorbing, as well as attractive, portrayal of Mr. Darcy. Jennifer Ehle's performance was quite memorable as well as much of the cast. The film doesn't highlight any one character, outside of the leading Mr. Darcy and Miss Eliza Bennet, over any other. What makes a great film is when you try to imagine a film without other characters. If you find yourself saying something along the lines of `it just wouldn't be the same without ____ (naming nearly every character),' then you must admit that everyone in the film has succeeded.

Each actor portrayed each character perfectly. Mrs. Bennet was very loud and obnoxious. Lydia was childish and embarrassing. Miss Caroline Bingley was elegant but spiteful. Miss Georgiana Darcy was kind and gentle. Mr. Collins was sickening. Lady Catherine was not only frightening, but certainly condescending. It doesn't matter which actor or character you look at, they were all very believable.

Cinematography could have been better. It does well enough but many shots could be better imagined with a great cinematographer. However, this was a miniseries and not an actual feature film so the flaw is certainly excusable. Costumes and sets were beautiful. The grandness of Pemberley was exciting to see.

The most interesting aspect of the film was its influence on its viewers. P&P led to a sudden Jane Austen revival. Suddenly, more Jane Austen books were being sold, more Jane Austen movies were being made. It was referred to as ‘the Jane Austen bug' and the credit for the biting went to this film. P&P was enjoyed by all genders, ages and cultures. Fan fiction, from modern to regency, began to pop up on the net everywhere (usually fiction relating to Mr. Darcy's feelings, which is interesting). Some fan fiction even made it to a publisher, became a bestseller, then was made into a film with the very same Colin Firth playing Mr. Darcy in the fan fiction known as Bridget Jones's Diary!

So to say the least this film is indeed a classic. It has had a great influence in the lives of its viewers. It is well worth your precious time to sit and watch it in its entirety. You won't find that it was a waste. In fact, I'm sure you'll find yourself watching it over and over again.

I give it a whopping 10 out of 10. If I could, I'd give it a 20 out of 10. It deserves no less.