molly-cutpurse

One, I've never read the book, so I could not follow it. When one is watching a film, one ought not to guess. I need to be told the story. Two, it was too dark for me. As in, there was not enough illumination. Three, use a tripod! At the very least, use a steady cam. Four, watching out of focus images does nothing for me. Five, close ups of insects and other unimportant stuff does not drive the story forward. And what's with the 4:3 aspect ratio?!! All else is forgiven. Nice countryside. Good accents. I closed my eyes at the animal slaughter because I am squeamish.. Unnecessary. Now I shall read the book. And maybe look at other versions.

This series is trapped by the morality and technicality of the time. I watched it when it was broadcast, and as a young woman who enjoyed programmes that were a little out of the ordinary, at the time, I enjoyed it. But that was a long time ago! I now remember very little about the story- lines, but do remember the station episode. The second. Now I am over sixty, and apart from being thankful because it helped kick-start my own career, I cannot recommend it. The script has too much exposition, and the sounds and effects are terribly dated. However, one has to admire the imaginative efforts for producing it at the time. I have never been keen on critique. One man's meat, etc, etc. Nevertheless, I have to say that I prefer stories that are complete, and that are logical. Constructing stories leaving huge gaps, inviting the viewers imagination to interpret the empty space, does little for me. In this regard, I made little headway with the first story. I was simply confused. The fact is, it is far easier, from a writer's point of view, to leave things to the viewer's imagination rather than take the hard road of constructing a logical storyline. And I fear, that that is what the writers have done here. Nevertheless, watch it out of sentimentality and nostalgia, and you probably will not be disappointed.

I remember seeing a preview for this in the theatre. And when the big ball rolled down, two middle-aged men began laughing. But at it, not with it. Bet they are not laughing now, considering how famous it's become. I like this movie. In fact, I'm watching it as I type. I certainly think that it is the best out of the four. It has a rawness about it, and a lovely lack of CGI of course, it being 1981. In reading the, 'reviews', I noticed a lot of comments about CGI. But here's the thing. That department is so well established in film studios now, that it would almost be disrespectful not to include them in the 'family of film-makers'. This is on the same principle as writing in scenes that involve snow and rain. It passes the money around and keeps people employed. That's why many films have CGI. I think they have their place, but come on guys. Put creativity first, not finance. The trouble is, it's all getting cheaper to do and solves big production problems. Back to the film. Yes, never a dull moment, plenty of humour, great music and high adventure. It's a film, guys. Get over yourselves, you critics. There are no black holes here. Dr Jones obeys the rules of the universe. No deus ex machina here! Anybody notice how perfect the scene in Nepal was? So well planned and choreographed. As was the plane blowing up sequence. Not to mention the lorry sequence! The film does not require me to think. Perfect viewing for the end of the day and a glass of wine!