Reviews

I am usually a sucker for British period dramas. I am a romance fool. I love to love/hate really well-developed villains. I love a sentimental story that rips my guts out. I love all the usual tropes that fill these types of dramas (enemies-to-lovers, some event keeps lovers apart, etc.), and sometimes the right ending is not the glowing, happy one, but this movie didn't deliver any of those things with satisfaction.

I appreciate artsy academy-bait films when they deliver all that is promised. I hate them when they are artsy for the sake of being artsy or edgy. That just makes them pretentious. This is probably the most overrated film I have ever seen.

Here are my top issues: 1. Costumes: gorgeous but historically inaccurate. It felt like they blurred the style lines between WW1 and WW2 on purpose. You've got Edwardian-dressed nurses in WW2 and a modern bias-cut 30's throwback dress that would have gotten you arrested in the actual 30's. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy period pieces will know better?

2. Keira Knightley: gorgeous but historically inaccurate. She is Modern Gorgeous, but she is not a Classic Beauty. She would have been straight-up body-shamed in all the eras of every period drama she has acted in. The men of that era would not have found her build appealing. Why do they keep trying to pass her off as the female archetype for eras that would have dismissed her as underfed and yes, ugly. They can't even make her look historically "right" with the hair and make-up. And don't think I'm a KK hater. I adore her and think she's stunning--just not right for costume roles. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy costume dramas will know better?

3. War scenes: gorgeous but historically inaccurate. Many examples have been given in other reviews. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy war movies will know better? And also, the barrage of scenes of McAvoy tromping through various settings to really get the point across that war sucks and to remind us his life was ruined and he shouldn't have been in those circumstances, etc., were totally unnecessary and tedious. Reminded me of that Peanuts cartoon special where Snoopy's Red Baron plane got shot down and he had to make his way back to Charlie Brown through all kinds of different settings and backdrops, and you're 8 and like, "OMG is Snoopy going to make it home?" Literally, could have been taken from the same storyboard, only you don't care if McAvoy makes it home.

4. Pacing: good God, this made me angry. There's scenes that replay themselves immediately right after we just saw it, as when the younger sister walks in on . We're supposed to be seeing this through Brionny's "fanciful" perception but when it's replayed, it's exactly the same with no nuance or other person's differing perception, like with The Last Duel.

5. Chemistry: I saw zero reason why the two main characters would be so in love it would endure through a scandal and years of separation. Cecelia seemed to be more into her brother than Robby, based on their flirty scenes. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy romance will know better?

6. Disappointing Twist #1: Were we supposed to seriously not be able to guess the rapist was Benedict Cumberbatch? They didn't show his face as if it was supposed to be some mystery but there was clear foreshadowing that he was a perv and making designs on the redhead girl. Also, that sure was a garbage investigation. They must have known that since they didn't show hardly any of it or the prosecution. None of the other men were considered and interrogated? Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy crime dramas will know better?

7. Disappointing Twist #2: So half the trash you made us sit through didn't even happen and was just the product of Old Brionny's writing? This is not a twist, it's a lie.

8. "Atonement": I don't think that means what you think it does. No atonement can be made when the injured parties are already dead.

9. Brionny: I hated her as a kid. I hated her as an adult. The writers couldn't even keep her story straight. She later blames what happened on not understanding what she saw, but we knew the whole time she clearly lied. Good villains have at least one thing that makes them sympathetic or redeemable or ambiguous. I think they tried to make her ambiguous with the whole WAS IT A CHILD'S MISUNDERSTANDING OR IS SHE JUST A MANIPULATIVE LIAR? But they failed.

10. Consequences: Remember when the old movie censorship codes required people who did something wrong to face consequences on screen? Not here. The liar who ruined people's lives is free to die at an old age, presumably after becoming a successful writer. And the rapist? He gets to marry his victim (we assume, unless Old Brionny made that up too). We suffer from bad people not being punished in real life every day. We want some satisfactory resolution in our movies to have hope.

So yeah, I'd say this was an ambitious movie that tried a fresh, edgy take on old tropes but would have been better off embracing them. I don't see how everyone loved this movie, but after seeing all the glowing reviews for Sanditon, which is clearly a trash retake on old tropes and fails under the weight of modern sensibilities, I am not surprised.

I usually love aristocratic period pieces and was drawn in early with its Howard's End/Remains of the Day feel; however, it went off the rails after the initial scenes offering us a glimpse into the main couple's world. I understand movie adaptations can't usually fit all the nuances and details that propel the characters' motives, but one minute, Brenda seems content with her life, if not a little bored, and the next, she's not shy about chasing a bland young man (Beaver) with whom she'd barely spent any time and had zero chemistry. The viewer gets zero build or indication she is falling in love/infatuated/connected with him in any way. Then, she's spending all her time away from her husband and talks about Beaver as if he's the love of her life--yet we don't see why any of this is driving her. Her son dies in a tragic accident and then she reveals she wants a divorce and to be free to marry Beaver. The husband sucks it up and attempts to absorb the role as the bad guy by allowing himself to be sued as the defendant and goes as far as to fake proof he had an affair. Brenda, who originally only wanted to be free to marry another man then starts bickering over the proposed settlement out of nowhere. Yes, this was supposed to indicate she was being manipulated by Beaver over money, but there aren't any supporting scenes building to that, leading you to wonder if some key scenes were cut during editing. But then the husband gets tough and cuts Brenda off and for some inexplicable reason, follows an obvious crack-pot explorer to Brazil where he is abandoned by guides, dying-then-saved, and then kidnapped in a truly bizarre segue and presumed dead. He is the only character who represents "good" and this is how it ends for him? I wasn't just disappointed; I was mad.

It was hard to believe that the movie I was watching at the end was the same one I'd started with. It was like 5 different script writers were tasked with different parts of the story, and none of the spans joined seamlessly. The background music was at times out of place in a 1930's piece and the lighting indoors was cheap and harsh, almost like a soap-opera. I still haven't figured out why Angelica Houston's character was even there. They could've cut every scene she was in and knocked 10 minutes off this mess with no effect on the plot or outcome. The only highlight for me was James Wilby's performance.

SPOILERS! After Paula sleeps with the hot handyman, she says, "I never do this. For all I know, you could be a psycho." And he replies, "You could be a psycho." And that pretty much poignantly sums it up. At first, I thought this had some really big plot holes but then I wondered whether this ambiguity was on purpose to lead us down the wrong path. You're told up front the handyman (James) is the bad guy, and he does become a jealous, stalkery killer with a trashy home life and messed up childhood. What you learn as time goes on is that Paula (sociopath) is more "psycho" than James (psychopath) is. At least we know why he's screwed up, leading us to have at least some sympathy for him; we never know what has made her so and it makes her the real bad guy.

For example: we see James kill Phillip when he fights back while being blackmailed and can assume James didn't go there to kill him (he didn't even bring a weapon, he just uses an errant brick at the scene). James is blamed for the fire that maimed Paula's brother but we never see him do it. Could Paula have done it and used James as a convenient patsy? Her brother was an exhausting source of stress and she did kill him later (looks like a mercy killing, or was she finishing the job?). Maybe not, but something to consider once you have the hindsight of the ending. Also, when James tries to attack her in a restaurant bathroom and she empties a magazine at him at close range and doesn't hit him once, could this be on purpose so she can trap him on her terms later? She shoots up drugs at one point and you're like, why would she do this? Then you later wonder if it's because she's testing how much she needed to knock James out, showing how calculating she is.

My theory could be wrong but to me, it actually is a more enjoyable story this way than to sit there questioning all the plot holes the straight way. One thing is for sure, every scene with Tom Hughes is pure candy. I'm pretty sure it's illegal in most places for one man to be so gorgeous. That aside, his performance was raw and vulnerable and you felt more sorry for him in the end than her.

The series builds to the point that, once you learn there is a mole within the unit, you have reason to suspect it could be any of the principal characters. You're not sure who you can trust, even among the protagonists, so the writing was very careful not to give anything away. For example, in the scene when they finally trap the mole, it was cleverly scripted with a whirlwind of confusion until you finally see who it is. I can usually predict where things are going but there were a couple of times I was truly surprised by a character's actions, so I'm always happy when I can be fooled by good writing.

Tom Hughes plays the lead with calculated reticence , leading you to wonder if he's screwed-up because of all the things he's seen at work or because of a screwed-up childhood, and this is hinted at in Episode 6. All of the MI5 characters have some serious dysfunction going on in their personal lives; it's rather poignant that the people who turn out to be the standout heroes are the "outsider" cop, DC Fenchurch, and the not-yet-jaded rookie Wendy. Fresh blood is sometimes the cure to the toxicity of the status quo.

It's a shame it was only one season; it would have been nice to see how the characters progressed. Definitely worth a watch.

Adam Driver's performance and the most satisfying slap in cinematic history are the only good things about this movie. The rest of it is on par with a film school project. Grade-school level use of symbolism and foreshadowing (she dreams about a deer getting shot and then--surprise--ends up getting killed by a lady using a deer-hunting rifle!), no chemistry between the two leads (like we're supposed to believe he loved this lady with no personality too much to let her go back to her home country so he got her pregnant to keep her?), and unbelievable situations (he didn't take serious steps to stop the abuse until long after he figured it out). The female lead showed signs of being mentally unstable and robotic even before she had the baby, so he didn't see any of it?

This is a serious question: was I supposed to hate Mina or have sympathy for her? Because I hated her. If this is what the director intended, then bravo, great job by the actress. If, however, if I was supposed to feel sorry for her, they failed and I was glad she died at the end. Plus the ending was a stupid cop-out; was that supposed to be a surprise ending? Because it was insultingly lame...I can hear them planning it out now: "Hey--and hear me out--let's just have Grandma shoot her! That'll tie up all the loose ends!"

If you're an Adam Driver fan, sure, watch it so you can appreciate his vulnerable performance. If you're looking for a movie to watch, find another one.

Like many reviewers said, the fact this is a foreign film that tries to pass for American is hugely distracting. I came for Tom Hughes and was not disappointed in his performance, which I found vulnerable and touching, and I thought he did a great job with his American accent (though I still don't know why the director had him use one).

Something is off with this writing/direction of this movie. Maybe some key scenes got cut or I missed some key nuances, but...there are some serious plot holes that I couldn't get past. The positive: the concept is thought-provoking. Instead of everyone being resurrected in their prime in a recognizable world with no problems (like people hope for), it shows (more realistically) that there are serious and grotesque complications from the process and that death would have been better for many. I enjoyed the main character's (Marc) narrative and flashbacks to his life. Hughes' performance was strong; I felt his vulnerability and his regret.

The negative: the terrible American accents by the supporting cast cheapened the experience. If everybody's European or French Canadian, why not just let them speak English with their regular accents? Uniformity? Because it's not uniform if some people can't pull it off and some can. Next, the full-service nurse was a stupid distraction. I get that she represents the cold, impersonal relationships of the future but at the end he says he was glad it did it because he got to meet her...why? She was a bump on a log. Did I miss a warm, personal connection here? Was that supposed to pass for one or did I miss the point? She was basically a robot. Maybe that was the point. Finally, the whole thing fell apart for me with Marc's original death, which should have been better thought out: (spoiler!) he dies at home after drinking "poison" so his body will be perfectly preserved for the cryo process. The problem? You do know the police aren't just going to let his body be turned over to the cryo company, right? He died at home not in the care of a physician or hospice, so there will be an investigation. They're going to do an autopsy to find out why he died and that is going to wreck the body, so the entire house of cards falls. Yes, I know this is a fictional (even fantasy) movie but if you're presenting it as real life in contemporary times, you need to not make stupid mistakes like this. The reanimation part was more realistic than the death that initiated it.

That said, I'm glad I saw it and continue to be impressed with Tom Hughes. I just wish he'd had a better supporting cast and script. It is a dark and depressing movie, and the image of Marc right before he takes the poison brought me to tears. Then I cried because we're all going to die and this movie reminded me of that. Not for the existentially conflicted.