I watched the 1990s BBC two-part version of David Copperfield with none other than Potter-to-be Daniel Radcliffe as the titular character for the first half. Shown probably as another tribute to Dame Maggie Smith though it's hard to say cos she really was in a lot of stuff, wasn't she? I mean, some of it would have been in the schedules anyway. Some of the actors had passed away - Bob Hoskins, playing against type as a well-spoken Micawber and very good, Michael Elphicke as Barckus, for instance, but a good many still going strong such as Trevor Eve, Zoe Wanamaker, Nicholas Lyndhurst (who is a brilliant Uriah Heep even if he is channelling the quiet menace of Groutie in Porridge, you realise), Pauline Quirke from Birds of a Feather, Alan Armstrong of New Tricks and Get Carter, I enjoyed this but it has to circumvent the novel a bit to cram it in and that does come across, as someone on imdb points out, it tells you what is going on sometimes but you don't always feel it.
Nothing will stop me watching Carry On Camping if I start, it is an absolute classic albeit let down by it's deeply odd ending in which a mean-spirited Sid James and Bernard Bresslaw mess up the festival of some hippies who descend on the next-door field, it's too left field really and presents an external unexpected threat that is out of keeping with the usual Carry On third act. The hippies are playing beatnik music from 65, nothing Woodstock here despite how they're dressed. The attitudes lift the lid on the idea that everyone was behind the swinging scene of peace and love, like Brexit if you'd put it to the vote you might have got a very different result to the one promoted by the press, certainly subsequently.
But I have somehow missed the boat on a lot of Christmas telly fare such as Murder on the Orient Express. Casablanca seemed a bit pointless - this is not the first Christmas without both my parents but it certainly feels that way, without even the ghosts at your shoulder as I put it a year ago - but I watched it anyway and it is so very good, the one-liners make it for me. The Bond films just don't have those anymore, do they, it makes all the difference. Some old films, you feel you own them a bit when your elderly parent is alive even if you weren't alive when they came out, but once they're gone they are in danger of feeling like relics, a bit of life goes out of them.
That Great Adventure 1930s film that @chrisno1 reviewed a while back was on London Live in a good print. What's the point of that channel? It never promotes itself, I would have like to have seen that but you only see it's on by accident.
Another Xmas telly problem is late-night movies like Streisand and O'Neal screwball comedy What's Up Doc which I would have liked to have seen again. By that time of night I am ready to turn in, having had a fair bit of food and grog!
I don't know about "good" - I have been watching ARCHIE an ITVX series proporting to be a biographical tale about the actor Cary Grant. Jason Isaacs is fine as the older Grant, attempting to woo Laura Aikman's Dyan Cannon. It is mostly based on Cannon's book DEAR CARY, MY LIFE WITH CARY GRANT. This throws up immediate problems of bias. While I do not have reason to doubt Ms Cannon's version of events, I do feel we only receive one side of the story. The interesting periods of Grant's life - such as the 1920s and 30s rise to fame, his bisexual affairs with Orry-Kelly and Randolph Scott, his lack of award recognition and subsequent shunning of the Academy, two attempted retirements - are washed over in mere sentences or never breathed at all. Cannon can only describe what she partook in, or what was related to her, and the screenwriters are unable to fill in the gaps or reluctant to research corroborating alternate evidence. Hence the viewpoint remains onesided. It doesn't help that one of the earliest scenes is set in 1961 and Grant is shown discussing the forthcoming project North By Northwest. As that film was made in 1958 and released in 1959, I immediately smelled an unauthentic rat. Some quick research showed me that the death of Grant's brother occurred when the young Archie Leach - as he was then - was one year old, not 6 or 7 as shown here as well as numerous other glossy alterations, such as his first theatre role being a success [it wasn't, he made a dozen theatre appearances before being teamed with Fay Wray in Nikki]. Sadly throughout, there was a constant juggling and misalignment of the historical timelines to suit the purposes of the story. ARCHIE therefore becomes more faction than fact. Ultimately disappointing.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 28,075Chief of Staff
I watched this some months ago and really enjoyed it…yes, it’s one sided and doesn’t show him in the best light…I had no idea it was THAT inaccurate with regards the timeline - which is a disappointment but ultimately this happens far too often nowadays.
This TV-series is a re-imagining of jules Verne's novel "20 000 leagues under the sea". Among the changes are are making Nemo (Shazad Latif) a mysterious man from India, making the east India Company the main enemy and starting the story with Nemo and a small group of very different people whom escape from the EIC penal prison with the Nautilus, a submarine the company built in secret. Nemo is the constructor of the amazing vessel. I think this works well. In an episode or two it steps too close to Xena - warrior princess territory and the "choosing sides" scene is a bit too one the nose, but mostly I thin the series hits the right notes. I like the steampunk genere, and it has lots of action, spectacle and drama. I also think Shazad Latif is worth a screentest as the next James Bond.
A six episode spy show with a deep, black, humorous undercurrent to it.
The premise: Knightley is an embedded spy in the British government. Married (with two kids) to one of the secretaries, she works for an organization that sells information to 'the highest bidder', regardless of national interests. Whishaw is a triggerman who is kinda subcontracting for this organization. The plot gets set into motion right away when three people are killed who would otherwise seem unconnected, one of whom is a man that Knightley is having an affair with.
That's the first 10 minutes of episode 1. Things take off from there.
Running a pretty lean and mean 6 episodes, this is 'all killer, no filler'...no unnecessary padding present. The direction is crisp, the acting is extremely strong from everyone, and the writing is fairly sharp and surprisingly character driven. Filled with interesting characters, a couple of solid plot machinations, and some decent action scenes, there's a lot to recommend here.
Comments
I finished this show a couple of days ago too…I’m with you - an unexpected ending…very entertaining throughout…and good casting…🙂
I watched the 1990s BBC two-part version of David Copperfield with none other than Potter-to-be Daniel Radcliffe as the titular character for the first half. Shown probably as another tribute to Dame Maggie Smith though it's hard to say cos she really was in a lot of stuff, wasn't she? I mean, some of it would have been in the schedules anyway. Some of the actors had passed away - Bob Hoskins, playing against type as a well-spoken Micawber and very good, Michael Elphicke as Barckus, for instance, but a good many still going strong such as Trevor Eve, Zoe Wanamaker, Nicholas Lyndhurst (who is a brilliant Uriah Heep even if he is channelling the quiet menace of Groutie in Porridge, you realise), Pauline Quirke from Birds of a Feather, Alan Armstrong of New Tricks and Get Carter, I enjoyed this but it has to circumvent the novel a bit to cram it in and that does come across, as someone on imdb points out, it tells you what is going on sometimes but you don't always feel it.
Nothing will stop me watching Carry On Camping if I start, it is an absolute classic albeit let down by it's deeply odd ending in which a mean-spirited Sid James and Bernard Bresslaw mess up the festival of some hippies who descend on the next-door field, it's too left field really and presents an external unexpected threat that is out of keeping with the usual Carry On third act. The hippies are playing beatnik music from 65, nothing Woodstock here despite how they're dressed. The attitudes lift the lid on the idea that everyone was behind the swinging scene of peace and love, like Brexit if you'd put it to the vote you might have got a very different result to the one promoted by the press, certainly subsequently.
But I have somehow missed the boat on a lot of Christmas telly fare such as Murder on the Orient Express. Casablanca seemed a bit pointless - this is not the first Christmas without both my parents but it certainly feels that way, without even the ghosts at your shoulder as I put it a year ago - but I watched it anyway and it is so very good, the one-liners make it for me. The Bond films just don't have those anymore, do they, it makes all the difference. Some old films, you feel you own them a bit when your elderly parent is alive even if you weren't alive when they came out, but once they're gone they are in danger of feeling like relics, a bit of life goes out of them.
That Great Adventure 1930s film that @chrisno1 reviewed a while back was on London Live in a good print. What's the point of that channel? It never promotes itself, I would have like to have seen that but you only see it's on by accident.
Another Xmas telly problem is late-night movies like Streisand and O'Neal screwball comedy What's Up Doc which I would have liked to have seen again. By that time of night I am ready to turn in, having had a fair bit of food and grog!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I don't know about "good" - I have been watching ARCHIE an ITVX series proporting to be a biographical tale about the actor Cary Grant. Jason Isaacs is fine as the older Grant, attempting to woo Laura Aikman's Dyan Cannon. It is mostly based on Cannon's book DEAR CARY, MY LIFE WITH CARY GRANT. This throws up immediate problems of bias. While I do not have reason to doubt Ms Cannon's version of events, I do feel we only receive one side of the story. The interesting periods of Grant's life - such as the 1920s and 30s rise to fame, his bisexual affairs with Orry-Kelly and Randolph Scott, his lack of award recognition and subsequent shunning of the Academy, two attempted retirements - are washed over in mere sentences or never breathed at all. Cannon can only describe what she partook in, or what was related to her, and the screenwriters are unable to fill in the gaps or reluctant to research corroborating alternate evidence. Hence the viewpoint remains onesided. It doesn't help that one of the earliest scenes is set in 1961 and Grant is shown discussing the forthcoming project North By Northwest. As that film was made in 1958 and released in 1959, I immediately smelled an unauthentic rat. Some quick research showed me that the death of Grant's brother occurred when the young Archie Leach - as he was then - was one year old, not 6 or 7 as shown here as well as numerous other glossy alterations, such as his first theatre role being a success [it wasn't, he made a dozen theatre appearances before being teamed with Fay Wray in Nikki]. Sadly throughout, there was a constant juggling and misalignment of the historical timelines to suit the purposes of the story. ARCHIE therefore becomes more faction than fact. Ultimately disappointing.
I watched this some months ago and really enjoyed it…yes, it’s one sided and doesn’t show him in the best light…I had no idea it was THAT inaccurate with regards the timeline - which is a disappointment but ultimately this happens far too often nowadays.
Nautilus (2024)
This TV-series is a re-imagining of jules Verne's novel "20 000 leagues under the sea". Among the changes are are making Nemo (Shazad Latif) a mysterious man from India, making the east India Company the main enemy and starting the story with Nemo and a small group of very different people whom escape from the EIC penal prison with the Nautilus, a submarine the company built in secret. Nemo is the constructor of the amazing vessel. I think this works well. In an episode or two it steps too close to Xena - warrior princess territory and the "choosing sides" scene is a bit too one the nose, but mostly I thin the series hits the right notes. I like the steampunk genere, and it has lots of action, spectacle and drama. I also think Shazad Latif is worth a screentest as the next James Bond.
BLACK DOVES with Keira Knightley and Ben Whishaw.
A six episode spy show with a deep, black, humorous undercurrent to it.
The premise: Knightley is an embedded spy in the British government. Married (with two kids) to one of the secretaries, she works for an organization that sells information to 'the highest bidder', regardless of national interests. Whishaw is a triggerman who is kinda subcontracting for this organization. The plot gets set into motion right away when three people are killed who would otherwise seem unconnected, one of whom is a man that Knightley is having an affair with.
That's the first 10 minutes of episode 1. Things take off from there.
Running a pretty lean and mean 6 episodes, this is 'all killer, no filler'...no unnecessary padding present. The direction is crisp, the acting is extremely strong from everyone, and the writing is fairly sharp and surprisingly character driven. Filled with interesting characters, a couple of solid plot machinations, and some decent action scenes, there's a lot to recommend here.
Bring on Season 2!
I’ve put BLACK DOVES onto my watchlist, I can always rely on a HarryCanyon recommendation 🍸
It’s totally implausible, but very entertaining 🙂
🤣
Another recommendation from a trusted source 😁👍🏻
If you enjoyed Ludwig have a look at this on ITVX . Patience English language remake of the French Astrid .
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31495377/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_5_nm_3_in_0_q_patience