ToneBalone60

Its a rags to riches Downton Abbey.

The new money story was indeed a widespread process resulting from the industrial revolution, the birth of capitalism and fast stock market winners.

Although lower working class elevations to such dizzying heights was rare indeed because they lacked initial capital to seed such fortune.

Nevertheless good acting, good comedic moments and plenty of upstairs downstairs skulduggery to satisfy anyone who likes English period drama.

There's a lot of silliness and behaviour that would never occur and sometimes the father's refusal to move up from his humble background starts to grate a bit as do the daughters persistent petulance with everything.

Then there's the housekeeper who seems to believe she's invincible.

The varied accents are inconsistent for such a tight nit family but lead to some great quotes such as

Her Ladyship: "What accent is that, I can't quite place it?" The mother-in-law "Its Yorkshire ma'am, it's where you're bloody living"

James Norton is better than this. I don't know why he's still clinging to lame ITV dramas when he's got proven world class cinema potential.

Is he really short of work? LP because these series are not doing his career any good.

The story is ludicrous and as unbelievable as the Instagram worthy shots and houses.

If its not the typical Harlan Coban Islington mansion its the south coast seaside "Malibu style home" for these series.

Never anywhere normal or average.

Then we have the ubiquitous Scottish and irish actors but the English lead is not allowed his normal English RP accent, he has to put on the barmy "Broadchurch" country bumpkin accent, which he keeps slipping in and out of.

Then even more diversity is ladled on where it isn't needed with superfluous black and gay extras which add nothing to the plot except 3 minute Tickbait.

Jessica Brown Findlay, a beautiful woman and a fine actress, hardly ever seen since she left Downton Abbey abruptly in the first series, is hardly given any lines in this nonsense. Why?

The lead female character is a highly annoying strong Irish woman feminist who it is stretching credibility to imagine that she even has kids or could possibly be interested in them. She's as badly cast in this role as Hayley Cropper as a DA victim in Broadchurch.

And talking about Broadchurch. This would appear to have been heavily influenced by that series.

James, stick to the baddy role. This weak stay at home dad role with the lisp doesn't suit you.

If you're looking for a rerun of the colorful Hollywood classic with Mat Damon and Jude law with its overtly contemporary feeling this isn't that style.

This is a slow burn introspective view as it would be from the eyes of a camera in 1940's/50's Italian Art Noir cinema with shades of neorealism in the cinematography and a distinct Hitchcock theme that is unapologetically European.

Heavy artistic symbolism features much more strongly than in the film version and there's less emphasis on the emotional attraction between Ripley and Greenleaf.

This series focuses from the get go of the manipulation, greed and cold disregard Ripley had for any of his "marks', to him Dicky is a mark from the start, and there is cynicism and avarice rather than love or admiration.

In the movie version, we only see Tom flip into psychopath mode on the boat trip when Dicky tells him in not too uncertain terms that his affections are not wanted and nor is his presence.

In this version however Tom has already decided Greenleaf's fate from his initial impression of Dicky's lifestyle, his laziness, privilege and his rather pathetic attempts at defining himself as an artist with a portfolio of mostly distained works.

This version is closer to the book and to the mood of Highsmith's imagination.

A highly evocative series that gets better by each episode, especially the intricate often repetitive shots and the focus on characters doing mundane things, slightly disconnected to the flow of the story but integral to the passions, the motives amd the overall atmosphere of the author's intentions

Its a long show as a consequence of that but doesn't disappoint as a result to anyone who enjoys a really technical, artistic, 20th century Italian film.

Ay first i didn't think it would work, the monochrome, the slow roll, the often still shots of buildings, artwork and characters melding into the surroundings, feels claustrophobic but after a fashion you understand that this captures the real feel and emotion of post war, post fascist Italy of the era. Resorts and tourist spots are drained of colour as was the epoch. This was before mass tourism and after the collapse of the Grand Tours of the Edwardian era. Beaches and cafes in small Italian resorts would not have been so populated and modernist as reproduced in the Hollywood movie version which is closer to the late 20th style of productions like "Call me by your name"

Andrew Scott gives one of his finest performances and more or less carries the show as he present in almost every shot.

The locations and costumes are sumptuous, real and critical to every scene Elliot Sumner is a fascinating character for Freddie Miles and plays a far more interesting and intellectual inquisitor than Philip Seymour Hoffman's Freddie. They full the screen witu their presence and smart, probing quips and I would like to see more of their work

This is a collectors item for those who appreciate landmark cinema. Or for those who need repeated viewings to fully appreciate the depth and beauty of the production.