Change Your Image
sarah-fiddlesticks
Reviews
A Christmas Carol (2000)
Give this version time to brew.
Heart. This version has heart. Which is more than I can say for the latest Jim Carrey one. But I've opinionated about that elsewhere. When I first watched it in 2000, as a die-in-the-wool Dickens fan and this particular story, I was not impressed. But I will admit, in my immaturity, my displeasure had a great deal to do with Ross Kemp whom I didn't (and still don't) consider an actor worthy of the story. But here I am in 2009 and as it was on, I watched it, and this time I was impressed by the fact that it remained true to the spirit of the story if not to the story itself. In fact, I'll blaspheme a little; I thought parts of exceeded the original story. Especially the ghost of Christmas yet to come. But I do wish an actor of better calibre had been chosen for the part of Scrooge. Dear old Mr Kemp, let him stay in his soap where he belongs. The music was easily forgotten, the lighting or sound was not celebratory. The director will not have a memorial placed after her. But full marks to Peter Bowker, the screenwriter. A dark version children can watch. And it is interesting I found; if this happened in real life, the people whom Scrooge had wronged, would not immediately forgive him for all the pain he had inflicted upon them as has happened in all the other versions. This is a true to life fantasy. Top marks. Molly Cutpurse.
A Christmas Carol (2009)
I will buy the DVD
I'm the worst kind of critic. Because I love, A Christmas Carol. I was brought up on it and understand it well. Therefore, I shall write that I thoroughly enjoyed this version. The opening sequences of Victorian London are breathtaking. I could have watched those for an hour and a half! The story remained true to Dickens' vision (should he have chosen to use that word) I am very glad to say. It is one of the very few films in which I did not feel sleepy during recent visits to the cinema and that's a joy to write. Yes, Dickens' message arrives loud and clear. Now we arrive at the deficit side of the argument. Jim Carry is fantastic...normally. Nevertheless, he occasionally slipped into the realms of Mary Poppins; Dick Van Dyke territory and it's so noticeable. Enough to produce a little smile of embarrassment. An Englishwoman notices these things. More has to be written. There was little emotion. It was bland and the film had no heart. The artwork, animation and presentation was flawless, except a little more work needs to be put in on producing flames. Haven't quite got there yet. But let's give it a resounding yes for FX! Well done all. It's not easy getting me to cry over a drawing, but I will admit to producing two tears during the performance. (But only because the music moved me) Please, please, watch Alistair Sim's version from 1951. Now that will move you. Molly Cutpurse
10 Rillington Place (1971)
Just understandingly magnificent
When watching this experience, try and look at the nuances and the gaps between the high points. The so-called lows that bridge everything together. This is a gruesome movie but not physically. You won't see any blood. It offers you a true glimpse into the madness, greed and selfishness of a murderer. And there are parts of it that are truly horrifying in as much as one feels the terror in the victim's faces. The period details are accurate. The acting just fantastic. The colours muted and realistic. The direction is nothing to write home about, being all pretty standard fare. But as mentioned, art direction and location is first rate. The story-line is utterly horrific, the outcome, equally so. Especially for Timothy John Evan. Thank God for his posthumous pardon. I and others, are still trying to procure one for Edith Thompson. www.mollycutpurse.com
Demons (2009)
Thank you!
I have to take offence with the opinion that British science-fiction writers suck. We do not! What sucks is the financial sectors of the media who wish to make a buck whatever the consequences. Honour, decency, truthfulness and integrity have fled the buildings they occupy. Hence, shows like Demons are born. All other negative (and therefore positive) reviews are correct. This is just awful. The UK media do get it right sometimes. Take Afterlife for instance. Just about perfect. So much can be achieved without constant special effects. But hey! Now that we can do 'em, someone has to keep the nurds in work. Perhaps those responsible for the creation of these misfit shows believe that the intelligentsia out here won't bother to watch anyway. Perhaps they believe that, 'well, its just for kids so who cares?' 'Its just about silly supernatural stuff so why bother putting any originality into it at all?' I cannot, and therefore will not, begin to describe why this program is at the nadir of entertainment. I'm not going to waste the use of my keyboard. Why then am I thankful in the summary? Because, when the pendulum of rubbish begins to swing into the positive, I will be there. Armed to the teeth and bursting with originality. I do not suck. I blow! Nevertheless, the industry are not keen on writers such as myself. The status quo is the preferred condition. I have, as I type, an original story-line with a terror that has never been imagined let alone placed on screen, complete with an original villain, but they may as well be phantoms and demons themselves in as much as the interest the media companies has shown them. Kudos though must be given to those who make a living producing this hell. This waste of time, money, energy and space. Note, I did not include talent because none was needed to make it. Demons is like a skin sore. One just wishes to scratch it. Its a pleasure to scratch! I've watched episode two and I'll probably watch three. Like scratching, I know its bad for me but I'll keep on doing it. And I have such long red nails that I will end up as deformed and as ugly as Demons is. Molly Cutpurse
Another Life (2001)
Could have been a lot better.
First, a comment. Edith was the eldest sister in the family. Let's start with a truth. So, finally I got around to watching this film and it took me quite by surprise. For I had previously read some reviews which were, perhaps not necessarily positive. However, I had reservations, mostly about the many technical inaccuracies of so many parts of it. (Far too many to go into) However, bringing the immensely sad story of Edith, Percy and Freddy to the big screen was done with sensitivity.
I am pleased to count as one of my friends, Professor Rene Weis, who wrote Criminal Justice, Edith's life history, and our aim is one of justice, to eventually force the government to offer a posthumous pardon to Edith. To this end, we work very hard. Even eighty-five years after her death.
It therefore quite astonished me that Rene was not mentioned or thanked in the end titles. Certain details in the film clearly showed that the writer/director had read his book and that saddened me.
However, I have to thank him for bringing this subject to a wider audience. If you seen, Let him have it or Dance with a Stranger, similar types of British film (an execution at the end) they were done so much better. Better actors I think. And music. And screenplay. Anyway, seen it at last. I think it must be very difficult to write a great screenplay.
Molly Cutpurse