MovieChat Forums > National Treasure (2017) Discussion > Excellent reviews but...

Excellent reviews but...

posted 8 years ago by fn-sj
16 replies | jump to latest

I read excellent reviews on this so was looking forward to watching it which I did a couple of days ago. This is just my personal take on it but I didn't feel the same excitement as the reviewer.

I can't work out if Coltrane s character is supposed to be played with some ambiguity but I found him utterly repellant. This may be the desired effect, in which case it was masterly done. I found Julie Walters character overly pinched with excessive tension through her whole body...but then again this may be the desired affect. Andrea 's portrayal of the daughter I thought was masterful and refreshingly unpredictable and non - formulaic in her characterization of a damaged woman.

The script though I found unedessarily obtuse and refracted at times and the episode as a whole quite fragmented.

The whole thing has an uneasy air of unnecessary 'sleeziness ' for want of a better word which I don't think affords this production the light and shade I think it needed to hold its own and give the viewer some reason for investment in the main character.

The cast is excellent and I would expect great things from them all but Andrea's portrayal of the daughter is the highlight for me and one thing on which I would agree with the review I read.

But looking at Coltane especially, i would have to say the word 'damaged' seems to be the filter through which every scene is played...is he playing it too heavy with undertones that are just too dark??

I would be interested to know other's opinions...constructive and polite comments only please.

[–] starvb083 8 years ago

I agree about the daughter. I thought the scene with her and Robbie Coltrane when he went to visit her at the halfway house was excellent. She plays her character perfectly.
My thoughts after watching Ep1 twice now are that he will turn out to be guilty. I also think that his wife knows a lot about what he has been up to in the past and has turned a blind eye to it - to save the marriage and keep her comfortably well off where she is.
I noticed the words she used when he said to her that to defend the case will cost a fortune. She replied 'whatever it costs to get you off' rather than 'whatever it costs to clear your name' which I felt implied that he had actually done something to be ashamed of rather than being a wrongly accused innocent man and those were just the words of a supportive wife that he needed to hear.
Also the daughter, although she is supposed to be not in a good place with her own mind at the moment recalled a dream where her father (Coltrane's character) stared at her bare breasts. Perhaps that was a suggestion of a recollection hidden away in her past that he had acted inappropriately with her as she was growing up? She also made a comment that he had skinny girls and women on his mind when he spoke about the physique of her and her own daughter.
Another observation is the accused's reaction to having these allegations made about him.
Surely if he was innocent would he not be absolutely livid whilst maintaining his assertiveness with dignity? Instead he met the press and mumbled the predictable words of denial from a scrap of paper. His whole demeanour is of a man who has gone into his shell to lick his wounds, feel sorry for himself and expect those around him to say 'you've been a naughty boy but it'll be ok, never mind'. Even during the visit to his daughter it was hinted that he rarely goes to see her and was seeking her support at an awkward time for both when it was likely that she had been denied support from him.
Finally regarding the scene where the comedy partner (who had received the award earlier) came to visit Coltrane's character there was a tearful show of mutual support between the two and there seemed to be an air of 'Oh well I've been caught out and what I got away with in the 70s and 80s is no longer acceptable, what a shame how the world has changed'.
And then there was the meeting at the end at the tv channel where it was revealed that a further seven women had come forward to add to the accusations about him...

[–] ATurtle05-1 8 years ago

As "Paul" says in the first episode, "If I protest they'll just say "he's protesting cos he did it", if I say nothing, "He's not denying he did it""

I feel this is a dig at the media, ignoring the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" rule that the UK and many other countries abide by. Remember the Cliff Richard case, the media got wind of the raid and plastered it all over. They were hounding him at every turn, "did you do it?" What happened? Nothing, the police either had no proof of his guilt or proof of his innocence and it all blew over.

Is this what is going to happen to Paul, is he being hounded by people who want to get back at him for not doing what they wanted, is he going to lose the audiences for being blacked by the press?

[–] eddie052010 8 years ago

From watching the first episode, I agree. It seems alright, but there's nothing that sticks out. I didn't really care for Coltrane's character, and he sounded bored throughout. Walters & Tim McInnerny are given nothing to do, and I found Andrea's character extremely annoying. I also didn't like all the arty parts of it. The close up shots, lens flares & credits scene don't add much and feel out of place. When it gets on with it, it does it's job fine, but nothing sticks out as great as of yet. Hopefully it'll improve.

[–] Marlburian 8 years ago

Robbie Coltrane and Tim McInnerny are very good actors, but here in "NT" neither of their characters come across as very charismatic, and I can't see much in Paul to merit his being a "national treasure". And Karl is actually a bit creepy to be part of a popular double act.

But then think of Jimmy Savile who, in his lifetime, came over as a bit weird; now, viewing old clips of him on Top of the Pops and with the benefit of hindsight, he also looks creepy.

[–] laurendorward-990-190608 8 years ago

There's another Louis Theroux doc on Sunday about Saville if you're interested. BBC 2

[–] Prismark10 8 years ago

Both Karl and Paul do not come across as national treasures.

It's that man again!!

[–] eddie052010 8 years ago

I agree. For me, I also don't like how (in the first episode at least) we are given very little information to Coltrane's character, and therefore don't understand why people love him so much. We see many characters describe him as brilliant, but we see no evidence for it, and we understand very little about him. For me, a major failing for this show is that it feels that it starts halfway through, and gives you very little to go on. I don't understand much about the main character, so I therefore don't empathise with him. Hell, it's quite the opposite. He's unfaithful, rude and cares little for his wife. I don't care for him, so why am I watching? I feel that the show tries to have character depth in a subtle way, in the way the scenes are shot and stuff but it still doesn't make him, or many of the other characters, that likeable. Only Walters is slightly sympathetic, but that's more to do with her performance than her character.

[–] debbieblackman17 8 years ago

I was intrigued by the impressive actors and awful subject matter in this and knew it had "glowing reviews" so was looking forward to it, but, I have to say I can barely make it through it. It's kinda ...... boring for want of a better word

There's no spark and no likeable characters to keep you invested. But great acting from Andrew

[–] Midgegirl 8 years ago

...the light and shade I think it needed to hold its own and give the viewer some reason for investment in the main character.

I think the series gambled on the viewer sticking with the show long enough to finally see something in Paul Finchley to empathise with. Personally I was happy to "invest" in Paul because Robbie Coltrane was playing him so compellingly, even when he was being repellant, and then in episode 3 we finally saw him being completely open and vulnerable with his daughter as he explained how much he loves her, and -without any self pity- describe how his own father had abused him.
It's arguably a long time to wait to see the human side of him, but for me the script had been so intelligently written up until then that I trusted the writers to show eventually that -even if he was guilty-he wasn't a total monster.

[–] fn-sj 8 years ago

I actually read the scene with his daughter as quite duplicitous. .. notice how he never let's her speak...to me, a form of control which he's probably used for years. It's his presence that makes her more jittery thus hinting at subliminal reasons. No, haven't seen any 'human side' to the character yet, just a man who permanently scowls his way through each episode, a trait that would cause most viewers not to invest in him which is fatal for the main character in a drama. Sorry, still not sold on this one!

[–] Midgegirl 8 years ago

No, haven't seen any 'human side' to the character yet,

I agree that he's still being egotistical and manipulative, but even total monsters have a glimmer of humanity about them (Hitler liked children & dogs, etc etc, yawn, I know) and for me- that scene conveyed it. I think that's the genius of the writing -that so many different legitimate responses can be found.

[–] Gwasgray 8 years ago

One thing that gets me is it isn't at all believable that Paul would still be married to Marie. Someone like him would have left her ages ago for someone younger and more attractive (and let's be honest, Julie Walters was never attractive). A lot of male celebrities do this.

[–] Prismark10 8 years ago

Actually I thought Walters was rather attractive in her Educating Rita days.

It's that man again!!

[–] rosemaryandthyme 8 years ago

Julie Walters was extremely attractive in Car Trouble, great movie if you can find it, hilarious for it's time.

[–] Gwasgray 8 years ago

I've seen Car Trouble, it's one of the worst movies I've seen.

[–] Midgegirl 8 years ago

There are many examples of serially unfaithful, successful men remaining married to their first wife (and I daresay that by its very nature, there are even more that we don't know about) and I began to write down some names here, but I then deleted it because it felt pretty unpleasant to do so, but they really do exist -sadly.