Change Your Image
Roger-Shallot
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Shardlake (2024)
21st Century Fantasy Set in the 16th
The late C. J. Sansom's Shardlake series is without doubt my favourite historical crime series. Within reading a few pages of the first book ("Dissolution", on which this Disney adaptation is based) I was immersed in the 1530s. Meticulous research, skilful characterisation and atmospheric prose had me hooked right from the very start.
With a total running time of just over three hours, spread over four episodes, I didn't expect this series to be entirely faithful to its source material, yet hoped that some degree of that - for me , vital - immersiveness might be retained.
Disappointingly, that did not turn out to be the case.
'Shardlake' turned out to be a modern fantasy view of a fascinating period in English history. Matthew Shardlake is played well by Arthur Hughes, but this somewhat peevish, occasionally ranting version of the character is not particularly recognisable from the books. Anthony Boyle's Jack Barak is interesting, but again is not much like the written-word character - especially in one episode when he becomes a cold-blooded murderer. Sean Bean does his best as Thomas Cromwell, yet seems miscast.
With the quest for immersion and believability in mind, the apparent colour-blind casting cannot be ignored. Anybody with a working knowledge of 16th Century England knows that the country was overwhelmingly 'white' at the time, yet here black and Asian characters abound. On one hand I can understand the intention to open acting opportunities on an inclusive basis (and to be fair, the quality of performance from the supporting cast is uniformly good), but populating Tudor England so diversely has the unfortunate effect of catapulting me back to the current century. Any pretence that we are seeing a realistic version of the 1530s is entirely dissipated. That there were black people in England at the time is indisputable, but they certainly were not abbots and probably rare enough in most places to be notable.
In the books Brother Guy of Malton, the infirmarian, is a dark-skinned "Moor", and like Shardlake is an intelligent, competent professional man held back in his ambitions due to his appearance and the very real prejudices of the time. The pair become friends partly due to them both being partial social outcasts and their relationships underpins much of the series here. Guy's backstory is very plausible too.
In "Shardlake" Guy is just another character from a diverse background and should a second series be commissioned it'll be difficult to bring the former monk and the lawyer together.
It's perhaps surprising that a production that sacrifices believability for inclusiveness, ageism seems to rear its head here. Shardlake seems younger than his literary equivalent, as are the abbot, Laurence Goodhap, Brother Gabriel and Brother Guy. Are modern viewers unwilling to watch older characters? I suspect not, but this does seem to be a modern casting strategy.
Some of the costumes appeared a little bit "Hollywood view of history" too, and during the brief scenes set in London the viewer might be forgiven for thinking that citizens at that time made their way around via a system of torchlit stone passageways. Budgetary constraints perhaps, but in subsequent books the city of London - and others - are as much characters as the humans. The occasional bit of dodgy CGI here does not augur well for any future episodes.
History drama for the 2020s, yet I feel a real opportunity has been missed to turn high quality source material into the classic television series it might have been. I always feel that presenting as accurate a picture of a historical setting is preferable to imposing modern sensibilities on it.
Initial reviews appear to have been positive, so my view might be a minority one, but if series two does pop up, I doubt I'll be tuning in.
That's a shame - I've been looking forward to a possible film/TV dramatisation since reading the first book 20 years ago.
No Time to Die (2021)
Unacceptable
I watched my first Bond film - it was "Live and Let Die" - as a nipper and have loved the series ever since. I've enjoyed every single film to various extents, and have seen them all several times. I won't watch "No Time to Die" again. Why? Simple. You can't kill Bond - only Ian Fleming had the right to do that, and he chose not to. At their basic level, the Bond films are escapism - larger than life characters, plots, stunts and gadgets. We could accept that the passage of time would necessitate changing the lead actor now and again, and not think too hard about continuity - it didn't really matter. The Bond films came out every 2 or 3 years, entertained the public royally and wrote themselves into film folklore.
Daniel Craig took the role over and despite some early doubts became a great Bond. Casino Royale was jaw-dropping at the time and Skyfall almost as good. Quantum of Solace and Spectre were a little less impressive but still entirely worthy entries.
Then up pops "No Time to Die". A maudlin Bond, estranged from MI6 abandons his apparently treacherous wife and sets off to tackle another mission, initially with Felix Leiter for company. Not a bad development that - unlike the chemistry between Bond and Vesper - which was intense and believable - there was none between Bond and Madeleine. Neither actor's fault really, but it was a mystery why Bond would fall so deeply for this woman and make the decision at the end that entirely wrecks the film.
Bond is soon back in the MI6 fold, don't worry, but now we have another 007. This was a real chance for some sparks to fly but - crucially - Lashana Lynch wasn't a good fit. Her time on screen is underwhelming and by the end she's been shifted into the background. Lynch's shortcomings in this role are exacerbated by Ana de Armas' excellent turn as Paloma - just the sort we needed to be the successor to 007-hood.
The plot chugs along and Bond fights his way through a mass of enemies after foiling a slightly underwhelming plot and surprising wooden super villain towards inevitable nick-of-time escape. Except he doesn't escape. He is blown to bits by the barrage of missiles launched by a Royal Navy ship to ensure that the super villain's afterthought of a plan is well and truly foiled.
Apparently, infected by biological nanobots programmed to kill his wife (Madeleine) and the daughter he never knew he had, Bond decides to THROW IN THE TOWEL. He stands there watching the missiles descend and is indisputably atomised. Bond is dead, when he might have got away, because he can't stand living without Madeleine (who he'd manage to live without for 5 years) or his daughter (that he'd only just met).
Unacceptable. I could have lived with 'Q' finds a remedy and the three of them return to Bond's Jamaican bolthole, with the great man smiling contentedly at his good fortune and happy retirement. I could have lived with a final scene of him watching his wife and daughter from a distance before moving off into the future alone, but alive.
I cannot accept Bond dying. My response will be to not purchase the Blu Ray when it it released and not to pay to watch the next Bond film when it is released. They can give the role to Bugs Bunny for all I care - that would be more believable than the ultimate tough-guy survivor throwing his life away for one of his more underwhelming 'girls'.
Bond 25? Never happened. The series stops at 24.
Grumpy old man? Absolutely!
Armageddon Gospels (2019)
Pretentious and Ultimately Empty
An ambitious effort that falls spectacularly flat. It seems that the acting was deliberately theatrical, but most local amateur groups could do it a lot better than this. The script is intended - I suspect - to be endlessly discussed by devotees, but in the end is such a tangled mess that its worthy - if a trifle preachy - message is almost entirely obscured. One reviewer here awards 10 out of 10, but seriously, I can only assume it was written by somebody involved in the making of the film, or a very close friend/relation of somebody who was. I am also growing wary of reviews that resort to the use of 'Juxtapose' in order to sound more profound than they really are.
Two stars for the ambition, but I'm not sure multiple viewings would enhance the experience. Comparisons to Penda's Fen are amusingly misleading.
At a pinch, might be worth a single viewing, but only if you have a high tolerance for pretension.
It Chapter Two (2019)
It's Dull...
I wasn't too impressed with this one, unfortunately. It felt stretched out and could easily lose at least half-an-hour of its run time. The adult characters were nowhere near as well written or - surprisingly - portrayed as their junior equivalents and the CGI was often a wee bit shaky. I understand that there was meant to be a sort of twisted 'circus' quality about some of the monsters but even so some of them were rather unconvincing.
The first film wasn't particularly scary but there was a pervading sense of menace - that seemed to dissipate this time and the first hour or so began to drag. The chap a few seats down from me was snoring from pretty early on and I cannot really blame him.
The second half of the original TV mini-series was weaker than the first (as was the book, to be fair) but this second chapter of the new film failed to avoid the same fate.
A very big missed opportunity, but that goes for quite a few adaptations of Stephen King's deceptively hard to film work. He creates character and scenarios then describes them at length, somehow without overdoing it. It's a trick that some of the directors/writers of the cinematic/TV versions need to learn.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)
Forget the Legend...
Anybody hoping for a traditional re-telling of the King Arthur legend is in for a disappointment - this is a 'blockbuster' film using a vague Arthurian theme.
There's nothing at all wrong with that idea but Guy Ritchie's film is hampered by some very uneven performances. As Arthur, Charlie Hunman never seems quite convincing, wavering between noble and a not-quite-right cockney geezer. The weakness is highlighted by very competent turns from Jude Law and Eric Bana on one hand and those who do 'geezer' a bit better, such as Neil Maskell and Geoff Bell - both good value as always.
Then there's the ladies, none of whom manage to muster a convincing showing. Mostly they're a little bland but as the Mage Astrid Bergès-Frisbey fails to engage at all. Maybe it's the fault of the direction but I've rarely come across such a dull performance in what could have been a very memorable role.
It's a shame as there's a fair amount of heart about this film - some funny moments, a little bit of genuine poignancy and some scenes that work very well.
Some good ideas but it's neither a compelling working of the legend nor as smart as the writers probably thought it would be.
A lot of people love the film and I can understand that but I can also see why it's bombed so badly at the box office. The definitive 'Arthur' film is still to be made (and to be fair, this one probably never intended to be that) but with 'Sharpe' and the 'Last Kingdom' under his belt I don't understand why nobody has brought an adaptation of Bernard Cornwell's version to our screens.
A brave stab but 'Legend of the Sword' never cuts the mustard.