MovieChat Forums > Zelator49 > Replies
Zelator49's Replies
Interesting. It was a year ago now, but as it was recorded I was able to re-run it from the start to check. As different versions of films are released to different markets I assume the version I saw is not the one on Youtube. Such things do happen, either as mischief or mistake. I have a copy of a book that has on the cover HMS Flexible, and on the title page HMS Inflexible, the correct title. In my experience management are liable to sign off things without checking they are correct
Can't trace that, either. IMDB comes up with "Everything for Sale", why I don't know. It is a silent film from 1921, now lost. So not the one. Can you recall any of the actors in "Forever King"? The title is feasible, the man who appeared to drop dead at the end looked fairly delusional.
Can't trace it. Anyway, no apes in it that I could see, of any size or duration.
The end sequence fits with all that we saw after he fell asleep the first night being a dream. When he awakes he knows he can't let this chance slip away. The other interpretation is that the end sequence is how he now wishes he had handled things. I tend to go for the dream as the events are too "over the top" to be convincing.
I'm not sure the attitude is lagging, it is more that the media does not report the cases, unless there is something they deem "newsworthy" about them. Maybe they are so obviously open-and-shut domestic violence that there is no investigation to report. But when they smell a story, the Aussie media go for it.
This must be one of my favourite episodes, thanks to Emily Woof and the rapport she builds with Gently. Lee Ingleby is so good at being an obnoxious prat you can't help feeling sorry for.
it was only a few words, but it seems they did pay out, but to a trust fund in her son's name. A good reason for Nick to hang onto the boy instead of blowing him up along with Angela.
Very much a matter of opinion. One of our digital channels is showing Morse once a week, and apart from the 4:3 format I feel it stands up well. I would agree that production values for Lewis and Endeavour are higher, that's down to money and technology, but dramatically they are of similar standard.
I used to enjoy Porridge when it came out, but unlike lilactime2014 when it came back on the other month I couldn't get past the first ad break. And Ronnie Barker was such a talent, why didn't it work for me any more?
I did a bit of work as an extra a few years ago, and the beer used in a party scene was actual beer, but ultra low alcohol, and warm at that. We were asked to avoid drinking much of it to avoid continuity problems. I believe that whisky is usually cold tea.
You will notice that on TV people rarely get to actually eat on camera, or drink visible amounts of anything. Obviously there will be exceptions where the script demands it.
Thanks, that fits. He was rather keen to obscure his background, which must have been pretty seedy if he felt he had to disguise such a distinguished name.
I assume they read either the book or a summary of it. As Le Carre was involved the differences from the book do not surprise me. Le Carre, judging by his recent work, has changed direction significantly since 1974 and may well have re-imagined the story accordingly.
The problem facing the writers would have been that there is far too much book for an eighty-seven minute film. As a result characters become paper thin or absent, and the plot, far from thickening, congeals.
Someone, possibly Le Carre, has taken the opportunity to saddle some characters with "issues" that have no dramatic value and only add to the sticky mess. Perhaps it is meant to be a sticky mess, a parable of our, or somebody's, times.
The actors did their best, the cinematography is excellent, the direction seems fine to me, but the tale is a dud, and that dooms the film.