Reviews

I didn't expect to enjoy this film. I did, and I'm still thinking about it. It was moving, emotional, sensitive and brilliantly crafted.

I know little about Stephen Hawking, and the subjects of physics and cosmology are completely over my head. I think it is a testament to the script and performances that this film made such subject matter appealing and engaging. Don't think the film is for science geeks - it is an uplifting story full of courage and hope and is thoroughly rewarding.

Benedict Cumberbatch is quite simply brilliant in this film. He is without doubt one of the finest actors in Britain.

Game of Thrones offers an epic on the scale of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings and doesn't dumb-down the subject matter; this is fantasy for grown-ups.

Visually this is on a par with many a cinematic effort. The effects which create castles and cities are of a high standard and the opening scene involving a foreboding, snow-covered wood was hauntingly beautiful. The costumes are superb; very original, with unusual and authentic-looking hair and makeup designs. The cinematography is simply beautiful, with some amazing wide shots (courtesy of the special effects) of the interesting landscapes on display, ranging from damp, Gothic castles to sweeping seascapes and deserts.

This episode offered the perfect balance of dark scares, humour, drama and character-building. I'd heard beforehand it would be full of sex, violence and swearing. I thought the amount of each was entirely in proportion with the type of series this is and didn't find it gratuitous at all. I have never read the books but despite the complexity, with many families introduced and their myriad connections to each other unclear at this early stage, I didn't find the content overly complex or hard to follow.

The acting was good - not excellent but easily of the standard required. The impression created is that this will improve as the series progresses. All in all this was an excellent opening episode and I look forward to more.

I really wish people would stop comparing this Bond film to all the others. No, that's a bit hasty... there needs to be some comparison but it ought not to be judged on its relationship to the other films. Let's face it, the books were all written by the same guy but the films are comprised of different actors, directors and crew and are made in different eras for different audiences with each new reinvention. I wasn't expecting this film to be much like the others and it's all the better for it.

I quite liked Peirce Brosnan as Bond and Goldeneye was until now, for me, the best of the bunch. Like many I was sceptical about Daniel Craig but his gritty, dryly humorous and vulnerable Bond was a joy to behold. He's very different to the other Bonds and that's as it should be. This film stands alone largely on the back of his performance.

It opens with dark and unexpectedly gritty scenes and it's obvious from the beginning that this is a Bond in his infancy, so to speak... he has not yet earned his 00 status and his exchanges with M (brilliantly portrayed as always by the excellent Judi Dench) are electric and fascinating. When we charge through a building site with a very energetic Mr Craig in the pursuit of a villain the pace quickens and the film really shows us where it's going. These early scenes had me gripped despite the fact that this really wouldn't be my sort of film normally. The stunt work is incredible and somehow so much more realistic than the norm for Hollywood action scenes - hard to explain but the action is decidedly more raw and immediate than I have ever seen.

One thing I really love about the film is the way it combines this larger-than-life action with a script that is clever without ever trying too hard; the one-liners are just sublime but it never descends into the faintly farcical pseudo-comedy of some of its predecessors. The humour is there, and much needed, but never pantomimic or distracting. There is room in this script for so much to happen without bogging the audience down with detail, confusing red herrings and pointless plot twists. Indeed, there are actually few twists and turns and not very many characters, which is further testament to the skill on display - a simple concept is transformed into an engrossing film.

A movie that is largely about a small group of men playing poker really shouldn't be exciting and I expected the actual casino scenes, of which there are several, to be the most boring. Far from it; these were easily the mot enjoyable for me, providing a real opportunity to learn a bit about the characters, see their vulnerabilities and strengths and watch a contest unfold that is much deeper than fisticuffs can portray. Watching Mads Mikklesen as bad guy Le Chiffre and Daniel Craig in these exchanges is, for me, what cinema really is all about. Both men bring the right amount of intensity to their roles in these shots without hamming them up or playing them down. These powerful scenes are interspersed with some genuinely breathtaking set pieces and make the film canter along at a great pace; I certainly didn't feel it was too long.

Ultimately the best thing about this movie is the acting. Craig is spot-on in a role that has clearly been well crafted and thought out to suit his style and the wishes of the new film makers. Mikklesen is simply superb as a truly sadistic villain, managing to make him thoroughly dislikeable but altogether more human (and hence more scary) than any other Bond villain. One small complaint I have (and it is very small) is that he was not given enough screen time, although his ability to move from edgy, silent card shark to sadistic torturer is a work of genius and he therefore makes up the lack of screen time by putting in a performance of pure, solid quality. Eva Green is so much more than the token helpless female and the integrity she brought to the part was touching. She could easily have been a dislikeable character but Green's depiction of her vulnerability clashing with her harder edge made her so believable. The chemistry between her and Craig was palpable and their relationship was very believable.

Given that this movie had just over two hours to make it's point I think it did so remarkably well, allowing the characters to be introduced and then unfold in ways that most films don't find the time to do. The plot is fairly simple and bounces along at an agreeable pace but the characterisation and relationships unfolding around it are the film's true gems. Definitely one of the highlights of the year and a welcome break from the mould. Brilliant.

I was really rather stunned after watching this film. An avid fan of the book and the 1995 BBC adaptation starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, I went along with an equally P&P mad friend and settled down for a treat. What we got was not the gently romantic comedy of manners we were expecting but bosom-heaving, rain-soaked 'damsel-on-the-moors'-style melodrama. Now I know the film-makers didn't have nearly six hours to play with (unlike the BBC) but, with a mega-budget and a shed load of talent, they had every other opportunity to create something masterful. Shame they failed.

Why oh why did Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy continually bump into each other on wild, rain-drenched moorland, a la Cathy and Heithcliff? This WOULD NEVER have happened and, even allowing for the need for cinema to be somewhat more melodramatic than TV, was unnecessary.

Why in the name of Jane Austen was poor Mr Bingley reduced to the status of buffoon? Did no one else hear his goofy laugh? (When I say goofy, I mean the actor actually did sound exactly like the floppy-eared cartoon character). I reckon the film makers must have thought more comedy value was needed when thy scripted this part.

Why did the Bennetts live on a farm? The hazy, golden sunshine that seemed to permanently drench the place reminded me of nothing so much as one of those Hallmark dramas... all wrong for this film.

Why was Keira Knightley chosen for the role? I like the actress but she played this part with too much pout and too many modern, cocky tilts of the head. Elizabeth was strong, independent and, for a woman of her time, outspoken but she also lived over 200 years ago; women simply didn't behave the way Knightley's Elizabeth did.

But the question that baffles me most is this: why in God's name was the dialogue so rushed, to the extent that you are in great danger of missing entire scenes if you blink for too long? I am at a loss; Emma Thompson managed to cram an Austen novel into just over two hours of film when she wrote the screenplay for the excellent Sense & Sensibility. What was wrong with the scriptwriters of this ridiculous charade of a film? But on two positive notes, Rosamund Pike was the best bit about this film, perfectly cast and actually upstaging the Susannah Harker role of the 1995 TV version (though she was the ONLY thing that was better about this film than the BBC adaptation). Secondly, if you haven't read the book or seen any of the TV adaptations then you'll have nothing to compare it to and may agree that it looks very lovely and has one or two touching and original scenes.

Overall, extremely disappointing.

I was never much of a Clive Owen fan before but his performance here was truly phenomenal. His portrayal of the reluctant hero type is perfect and he has soared in my estimation.

This film left my husband and I talking for longer than usual on the way home from the cinema. I defy you not to ask yourself the 'what ifs' raised in this movie and the parallels that can be drawn with present-day society make it all the more thought-provoking. However, the poignancy of this movie does not detract from its other superb qualities; moving performances, perfectly timed and well-balanced humour, incredible cinematography and plenty of action made this film an unexpected treat.