Janet1612

A lovely if predictable plot- one for the ladies to weep to.

The actor who plays the son - why not James as the son? - is Neeson real son yet has a different name, his way of saying he doesn't want to hang on dad's coat tails? .Too late; a bit of nepotism methinks as the guy is one poor actor.

Neeson is his usual self, always watchable.

The story is written by James D'arcy who is a great actor who we need to see more often. Shame they didn't cast a more experienced and not one who happens to be related to the lead actor.

The scenery in Italy is wonderful and had there been a different actor I would have enjoyed it more.

This is a great series. There's also a radio series with the same cast - except the bookshop owner.

A funny and gentle series with the fantastic Prunella Scales (who I first thought overacted dreadfully, but she soon calmed down). There is no bad language, no annoying background music (which is usually blasting out over the dialogue nowadays). All in all great fun and great fashion of the 1980s. It also has a serious gay character which is highly unusual for the time - not a stereotypical gay character either. The series is currently being replayed on TV and what a welcome change. UK 'comedies' today start with foul language from the off nowadays.

The stars are for Matthew as Tom. It was hard at first to get used to his American accent. After Spooks and Pride and Prejudice (and many other great performances) the accent and acting was so different, but my goodness he nailed the character and was my favourite of an extremely bad bunch.

A friend recommend this to me and not being a fan of Brian Cox (the actor not the wonderful scientist) I avoided it. Nothing else to watch on TV so I gave it a go. The first scenes with the meeting were awful - I was so surprised that American TV would allow the foul language - thought they all despised it. As for the bedroom scenes (oral activities too) they were unnecessary. Don't we all know what goes on there.

Some of the characters are downright nasty (Roman - what a ridiculous name!) is such a nasty piece and shows what's wrong with the world today - portraying such vicious, nasty people, using foul language and being downright nasty makes their actions normal to warped viewers who will copy.

There are some great lines, it's a good story but the family members are flawed and just awful. The language and characters are not worth investing time in, and as Logan is a nasty piece of work, he deserves the family he has. I am shocked at how US viewers have accepted this.

If there's an award for over-acting and another for overdoing the (attempts at) comedy, the lead actress would win it. She'd also win for overdoing facial expressions. Honestly she was more annoying than entertaining.

Her facial expressions and attempts at comedy were just too annoying (the date with the vet was OTT). The 'funny' running and falling in the bushes- very Bridget Jones. Her voice annoyed us too- weak, high pitched, and little girly.

To the story......predictable with a few laughs, mainly the antics of the dog. Good to see Bernard Cribbins.

Silly to have her real mum in the film too - disguised with frightful hair and a fat suit. The 'I thought it was fancy dress' is another scene stolen from BJ. Wasn't anywhere near as funny. Poor Saunders probably thought she was giving a humorous performance.

An OK predictable film (the class and the odd pupil). A teacher wouldn't invigilate her class test/exam or interfere in a pupil's family life.

With a different actress or if this one had toned down her performance the film may have been enjoyable.

The locations were beautiful- Windsor I think.

NB one of the most annoying parts? The scene at the door with Ben- over the top. Too much. Please please someone tell her to stop the ridiculous facial expressions and attempts at comedy.

Why they changed the name of the film goodness knows. There are so many products and people whose names are misspelled, what's wrong with dropping the aitch?

Anyway Lesley Manville is miscast and I couldn't warm to her as I did Angela Lansbury when she played the part.

The acting wasn't too great with the exception of Jason Isaac and Anna Chancellor.

Great seeing shots of London and the great route master bus, but Manville just got on my nerves overdoing the Cockney accent.

Hilarious when she loans the rather large girl her dress and it fits her perfectly- Manville is HALF the size of the other actress

Paul Gallico's book (all his books) are wonderful and there was no need to remake this film after the original with Angela L.

What happened to the wonderful plots and script from Mr Fellows? What happened to the cast? They all looked odd and their acting was appalling. I hope there isn't anyone around from MGM to sue Mr F for stealing one of film plots.

Crikey! The plot is predictable (the reason for the inheritance of the villa was obvious), The story of the silent film making is straight from Singing In The Rain. The cast look odd. Carson had heavy make up and a bronzed face (in England and as a butler!). Lord Grantham also has ridiculously bronzed features and looking peculiar- his acting is appalling (especially at 1:14 when he blubs). Mr Bates has lost his limp and looks like his huge head will explode as his collar is too tight. As for Daisy and the actress - oh dear.

It's such a poor film and I'd looked forward to seeing it. Honestly it was hilarious and more like a wonderful Victoria Wood parody. Even Maggie Smith's performance is below par. Poor Sue Johnson is a fright.

The music is OTT too: slushy and sentimental- I could picture the musician watching the film and putting the awful music to the scenes.

Victoria would have been proud NB the scene with Jim Carter and Imelda Staunton (real husband and wife) in the hat shop was very, very silly. An in joke that fell flat. Did Julien Fellows write the script? I can't believe he did.

So the fans were given fairy tale endings for each cast member and well publicised 'death' was of course the 150 year old dowager yet we a little story slipped in thinking it was someone else.

An absolutely terrible film.

There are some great lines and comic moments, Unfortunately the 'background' music is extremely annoying and distracting- who thinks the constant music is needed? Film and TV makers take note - we viewers want to HEAR the dialogue.

Anyway, first time around I liked Betty and was rooting for her. This time her high pitched voice is painful and the fact that three men (four) are falling over themselves to have a relationship with her is unbelievable. Her constant eating and taking the food from her her mouth actually made me feel sick

Justin is just too much and Hilda dressing like a (well, as she does) is just ridiculous. The introduction of the annoying French kid was something I decided to skip.

The saviour of the whole show is Vanessa Williams as Willa-MEAN -a.

Honestly who makes and watches these crap films.

Nothing new - close up shots of Halle Berry (did she order that in her contract?)perfect smile, hair, skin and make up.

Mike's mum needs to get ready for a wedding- does that include more facial work? Mike looks rough and has no money but mum has money for cosmetic work.

If only they made the characters look realistic. Sadly Hollywood looks kick in We settled down to watch but hated the smiley twee interactions between the two leads. Oh well back to choosing something else.

Sadly the Netflix offerings can be pretty bad and it's gets harder to choose anything decent.

I'm sure there's a good story there somewhere and I persevered for sometime. Lots of annoying features but mainly the acting.

Sadly Jennifer Grey's facial work is so severe she sadly looks very weird (a little similar to David Beckam's wife). I continued watching until she changed her hair (yikes) and was eating the cake- she could hardly open her moth to get the cake in! The reaction to it was OTT.

Why were the staff no eating the cake - did I miss something?

How I dislike the US show bizz churches with brainwashed followers. I wanted to carry on watching but the weird face was way too much.

A very watchable film. Fast moving and an interesting story. Although there are aliens, they aren't seen that often, thank goodness.

Good acting by some of the cast and great tensions at times.

It seemed to us viewers that the plot boiled down to the poor, against the rich. Same old story. The relentlessly put upon poor just moan about their circumstances whilst causing trouble and engaging in terrorism and upsetting the lives of hard working people wanting to get on with their lives. Sounds familiar? The 'aliens' in this case are of course those in power/government. Very subtle.

This IS life as we know it. Now and always. Nothing new to see here.

Sadly Crystal has done exactly what she set out to do. Be noticed!. Very hyper and she probably needs to cut down on the caffeine. She was shown how to bid discreetly, but no. She yelps as she waves her arm and card about, shrieks when she wins the bid. Giggles like a silly little girl. Jumps and bobs up and down with a chance of black eyes. She shouts out at the auctioneer with a suggested bid. Giggle, giggle, giggle. Shriek, shriek, shriek.

Even when patient Piers bids she's there looking up at him telling him (patronisingly well done you). Is she ever off camera??

If only Little Britain was still around - Matt would have played a great Crystal.

I watched this film as a young adult and again throughout the years. .Unlike modern films, there is actually a story and it keeps you gripped.

Do make sure you watch the UK Night of The Demon as it's far superior and unedited. Not the US version.

With a good quality picture it's worth settling down for a great watch. The story moves along quickly and creepy Carswell is pretty intimidating. The scene with the party scared me then and now.

Unlike annoying and loud music in current films, the score really fits the bill.

Dana Andrew's is great. Don't be put off by the date, the film is great, as is the story it's based on.

Distracted by the strange looking cast. I don't know Zak Efron but this bloke has the strangest looks- I don't think his face even moved. Are they contacts making his eyes look alien? Acting ability isn't too great either. Kidman looks even odder. How we laughed when his character says to hers 'gee whizz you're her mum? When did you have her, in kindergarten??' No just several face jobs so that I'm barely recognisable and the lines on my face have been been s tr e c h e d.

The actress playing the daughter was just as odd, although her acting was better (a little over the top ).

Wooden acting,, strange faces, Kidman acting like a teenager (I can't get over her poor face). Stale and predictable script. The scene with her trying on the dresses was just to show us how stick thin she still is.

Honestly how was film even made yet alone shown to the public? Did anyone check the rushes first. How long can Kidman take on roles with that face - her acting had gone downhill as well as her looks. I forgot what the film was about I kept wondering about her decision to have work and how she must think she looks fine. It's a sad world when women do this to themselves.

I'm surprised at the positive reviews as this was so bad and Sheridan's acting extremely annoying. I am a fan of hers but she seems to lately choose some daft projects (like the recent collaboration with Rufus Wainwright)). Anyway - first of all her poor face makes viewing difficult as she looks so different and odd; bloated and what's with the pouting? The friend Jess seems to think that acting is about making as many facial expressions as she can. She also exaggerates every movement and gesture. She is very annoying to watch.

Sheridan's character gambles and is in debt (despite being able to afford her many tattoos) . We then see her attempting Insider Trading. She can't afford to feed her family because of the gambling and that seemed even harder to believe. Fake tan, false eyelashes, her kids have smart phones. False/ manicured nails; for a cleaner, hard to believe. Sheridan is a good actress and needs to make better choices, and put a stop to facial work. I also came to hate the winking (something she does on stage) and her doe-eyed looks and smirks are overplayed. They make you want to slap her face.

I wanted to give ten but had to drop a few because the awful actress playing the sister (she's the same in all her roles). I like Stephen Fry - even more now that he's not all over the TV and news. Anyway it's a lovely, gentle series with great plots and wonderful scenery. I watched it when it was first aired and again recently. I was thoroughly enjoying it UNTIL the actress playing the sister appeared. I'd forgotten all about her. She is miscast and difficult to watch as despite her extremely strange features is referred to as 'beautiful'

Stephen Fry is great as Kingdom and a natural actor. His assistant is good too - when he's not overacting (which is most of the time) . I'm currently watching via streaming and thank goodness I can fast forward the silly and irrelevant scenes showing his sister. The male characters all fall over themselves for her, she acts as though she's a great beauty (double yikes) and the episode where she gets her kit off for an art class is plain daft and a waste of screen time. Why on earth is that character even included?

An enjoyable watch especially as the team are solving old crimes. We see the start of the set up of UCOS and choosing ex Old Bill to work on it.

There are some great stories and some not so great but the characters are relatable and well known English actors (in the early series)

My gripe (and that of most people I know) is the actress playing the boss. She's a good actress but when her character eats, she's no lady. One of the early episodes has her stuffing her face in an Indian restaurant and eating the leftovers of others. OK no big deal but the expressions on her face are ridiculous, as is the scene- she also ordered many dishes that probably do no exist. She actually made me feel ill. We then have her eating again staring at the camera making the most stupid of faces- why? The scenes are irrelevant and bring nowt to the story. The other issue with her is when she smiles- goodness it's strange. Thankfully her character doesn't do it too often.

For a woman in a men's environment she wears clothes that show a lot of cleavage - why?

Brian is my favourite character- but not when he eats. Gerry, played by the late great Dennis Waterman is a great character who says it how it is.

Another gripes ,and an odd issue, is that for a cold case team they often investigated their own choice of case, not those brought from their seniors. How was the team kept on if they had no official cases to solve- an oversight by the writers.

The series changed cast members as time went on and the standard went gradually down - Nicholas Lyndhurst was sorely miscast.

This was OK. A bit of a daft story with stereotypical characters, a baddie with a gun, a dumb drug runner and a dumber school kid. Single mum, short of money, kid somehow gets involved with drug baddies, mum now owes money. Luckily she works in a bank!!!.

It was such a shame that Abington felt the need to overact with the constant ridiculous facial expressions and her over the top touchy/feely actions and baby references to her teenage son. Actually he lapped it up which is odd - usually it'd be a 'gerrof' if mum tries to cuddle a teenage lad, and call him darling. She was always cupping his face in her hands and hugging him tightly. Too much. In most scenes she was putting all she learned in acting school into her performance - it makes it so unnatural, forced and a 'look at me, I'm acting'. She's a good actress and doesn't need to do thiis.

The outstanding actor in this series was Sunetra - playing Abington's work colleague . An understated, natural performance. No over acting, Nothing to annoy viewers.

Despite the appalling acting of the son (can't recall his name) and the ridiculous baddie, this it was watchable, if daft. Abington needs to curb her annoying facial expressions as they were a distraction.

An absolutely delight of a film. So much humour and wonderful lines and acting. I'd watched Little Women before it, with the smarmy, sickly sweet March girls and needed something realistic.

The bickering sisters, the horrible and comical dad and the absolutely wonderful Will Mossop played by the great John Mills.

There are so many wonderful scenes. I love it when Mr Hobson is sharpening his carving knife awaiting his dinner - hidden under a serving dome, only to be shown 'jellied tongue'. Maggie is great and I just love her and her brash but caring ways.

It's such a great film and a shame that classics like this are no longer made.

The series was good to start with. Two part stories that actually seemed to go on forever. Good storylines but so many longwinded, unnecessary scenes.

Sadly Mike is still around, hands in pockets playing the tough but short cop. This episode was very convoluted with some poor acting by the Belkin family. Sally Alexander (had to look her name up from the cast) is playing the stereotypical matriarch of the thug family. Chewing whatever it is she is chewing and speaking with an accent that seems like she's auditioning for Eastenders. Every scene she overacts and towards the end we all burst out laughing.

To be honest we lost interest as the the story was so unbelievable it was laughable.

I came across this by chance and never thought I'd be watching a documentary about a fishing town and its people. After the first scenes and the wonderful voice of Kenneth Cranham, I was hooked.

The couple who run the fish restaurant/cafe and who have their children helping out are great. Their children have instilled in them a sense of earning money, and the value of it. A great thing to have - also gaining confidence in interacting with the adults they serve. Another reviewer unfairly states the dad sounds 'like a woman'. He doesn't, he has a hoarse voice like the brilliant actor Con (something or other). They seem such a great couple, although I wouldn't want to be served by kids when I eat out.

Logan Suddick - what a wonderful name! He needs to be a pirate. I hope he does well, although why he decided to get tattoos on his neck and ruin his changes with the navy/marines was pretty daft (and they look awful). He's 17 and his girlfriend is pregnant - not a good start in life.

In all, the series is wonderful and extremely interesting, looking a life in a world famous very busy Devon fishing port. The town looks (and is, we've visited) wonderful and the Pirate Festival scenes had the sun spreading a deep red glow over the goings on. We're due for another visit.

The fisherman throwing out coins as good luck - you give back to the sea what you take out - was very moving.

I'd suggest people watch this and see that you can have a great life, despite the hard work, if you are dedicated, good and want to do something with yourself.

A lovely, quirky film with a wonderful Anna Chacellor as the wild haired strict librarian and as great as ever.

Andrew Scott is his brilliant set and plays a great part. I ust love hearing his voice and watching how he portrays his given character.

There isn't much to the story only that Bella is lonely and has a grumpy neighbour. She's instructed to sort out her garden or face eviction. She works in the library where she meets Billy. Things progress from there.

There's a lot of humour and quirkiness and I sat and thoroughly enjoyed every minute. Ann Chancellor is so funny as the librarian.

We should have had a great tale of a great a warrior, her life, battles and death. Instead we were given a muddled tale with hard to hear dialogue and diabolical acting from mum and her daughters - those girls were wooden and monotone. I'm sure one of them referred to mum as 'muvver'. Cringeworthy.

It would have helped to have a bit of history, a map of where the King and Queen were located in Britain and where the battles were and where the tribes were from.. We were given nothing as though we were supposed to know the history.

The battles were gory - as expected, and too much time was spent on them. Too much time was also spent on the King and Queen kissing and cuddling and thankfully stopping before things went further - I couldn't wait for him to die. The traitor was obvious from the start.

Anyway, extremely disappointing that they couldn't find an actress that could manage a decent accent - I'm sure Boudica wasn't French.

A missed opportunity.

I loved the deer with their 'Paddington' stares. Loathed the product placement and lack of editing.

Family book a holiday rental for a short break. In the dead of night a couple turn up on the doorstep purporting to be owners. They give a vague/lame excuse about why they are there despite the house being rented out. Everyone, including viewers are suspicious. It turns out the couple (dad and angry daughter- arms folded emitting hate, and prejudice) are the owners. Though we all still need convincing.

Satellite black out, no devices working. What's going on? We spend forever watching to find out and aren't told. Instead the writers show us us pointless images. They drip fed us info on people wanting to withdraw their money from banks and get away, also the bunker in the neighbouring house. Yes we get it!.

The beached boat would have been steered by its crew. So that was pointless. The drone full of leaflets wasn't explained: terrorism or flyers for a video game?. The radio told us the blackout effect on animal migration, so that explained five flamingos and a herd of deer with threatening 'Paddington' stares. No other creatures- CGI budget ran out?

Angry tattooed woman- soo subtle. Her chilled out chat with Clay had her later telling dad he wanted to bed her. I'm paraphrasing! She also questioned why the family were sleeping upstairs whilst she/dad were sleeping in 'the basement' - albeit a designer furnished basement. Yeah we know what she was implying in both comments. Subtle eh? How did she forget the family upstairs were paying good money for the privilege of staying in her family's holiday home? Someone please explain

Visit to neighbour for help/medication. In the real world this would have been: Hello, sick boy with teeth falling out, do you have any painkillers? Response: sorry mate no. I stocked up on food etc but can't help.

In film world we have tension, mistrust, anger and.....guns! Remember GH's house was his second home. He also states they hardly visit it, therefore neighbour isn't his great pal; he hardly knows him. Attempting to show how people can easily turn on friends seems pretty pointless. Plus holiday rentals usually supply a first aid kit.

Until the boredom set in the film was going well - despite angry tattooed woman. Mum and angry woman staying in shed forgetting they were supposed to be worried and searching for missing girl. Yet another scene just to waste time. GH and Amanda dancing- another time waster. Would her character have chosen that awful album? I suppose the excuse was she was drunk!

NB Reason to suspect the couple on the doorstep was their inability to explain convincingly why they were there. Angry wife (as we thought) arms folded across chest and emitting hate, anger and prejudice.. Anyone would be suspicious.

The constant references to Friends (subtle eh) and evidence of mistrust and 'I hate people' just assume the viewer is an imbecile. A film trying to be clever and failing. Remake the latter half. Instead of being lazy, give us a story. Oh and change the awful soundtrack.

Premise sounded good. The weird looking kid added a bit fun (MAD magazine?) .

Sadly it the same old stuff- nothing new to see here!

After all Jerry went through and being up against time, he still had time to swap clothes with a security guard he'd beaten up - and the clothes were a perfect fit Amazing These little things make films more believable 😀😀😂😂😂.

If the film had been set in the future- 2050 maybe- it would have been a little better with the computer and Big Brother nonsense.. I was praying for Jerry to save the day. Would he or wouldn't he? Would we have a predictable ending. Nail biting stuff. Not.

Too many ridiculous car chases and not the best acting performances.

I recognised Adam but not his co-star and then I realised who it was. Yikes!

I thought Racheal- oops I mean Jennifer as she's playing Racheal - wanted to be in movies and I assumed good movies. This is dire. The script is awful with maybe one or two funny lines. One that isn't and is typically juvenile is: "I need my vape, it's in my pocket". "Oh there it is, oh no that's your penis". Tee her. You can hear the ten year olds giggling.

Mark Strong and Adeel Akhtar are wasted here. But hey ho Netflix must be paying mega bucks to attract them. What's the excuse for Jenifer and Adam! I suppose as Jenifer is ageing pretty badly she needs to earn as much as she can.

Nothing to see here- silly jokes, a kidnapping where everyone is a suspect. Some bad acting. Cue an English special ops investigator. Note this: he is English.