kevingrain

I'm not sure what people are finding to dislike in this but I suppose anything that isn't bland and doesn't conform to their pre-existing image is bound to divide opinion.

I was there first time round, not close to events nor in an extreme way, just reading about punk in the NME way back in 76, going to see a few early bands and being the first in my college to wear straight jeans whilst other shuffled around in flappy flares. Nothing dramatic though, I just liked the music and what they stood for. But even that small gesture offended some.

And now the Pistols are practically mainstream and with Rotten's drift to the right as both a Trump and Farage supporter they have rewritten a version of history in which Lydon was the only one that mattered and the others were just his backing group. Well, the whole point of this series is that is just one view of events, as is the concentration on Sid and Nancy, when Sid made virtually no contribution.

Jonesy and Cookie started the group and this series is based on a book by Jonesy. So let's not be surprised when the first episode is all about him. Where else do people expect the first episode to start? This series really recaptures the essence of the time and as has been pointed out, it's not a documentary. It draws inspiration from real life events, but it's not a Wikipedia account that needs the input of 20,000 know alls to correct the details.

A side note, the first episode put me in mind of Taxi Driver in a weird way in that it created a surreal atmosphere that is not of this time and place. I reckon Danny Boyle has done a great job.

This film is so very much less than it could have been, rushed out just because it WAS 1984, and because of that, reeking of the 80s. The awful music by the Eurythmics just emphasises the point. Sexcrime? Yes, that's mentioned in the book, but the book isn't about sex and this aspect is too prominent. It's more of a love story, if anything. And of course, it's about freedom, politics, language and the inability to say what you choose. Maybe today, these themes are more relevant and a much better movie could be made. As it is, Brazil was better at being 1984 than this, which explains why it scored higher. I would also give the film a special award for the most conspicious waste of John Hurt's talent.

The decision to use the original dialogue in a modernised (but now dated) version of the play was ridiculous and arrogant. It sounds forced and totally out of synch with the acting and the lightweight cast cannot pull it off, except maybe Pete Postlethwaite.

I have no objection to Shakespeare being rehashed, like West Side Story, and I even preferred Gnomeo and Juliet to this. Much more.