I gave this a 7 rating, because it was Sharpe, but I really have to wonder why they bothered to make the last two films. Sharpe went out with a glorious bang in Sharpe's Waterloo, and it should have remained that way. Instead, two films set 3 years after Waterloo were made about 10 years after, with a dashingly athletic star showing the ravages of a cigarettes and beer diet. To add insult to injury, whereas the younger Sharpe was usually clean shaven and his hair while tousled, was relatively shiny,the 'three years older' Sharpe was unkempt, unshaven and his hair looked like a badly hacked horse hair wig. Gone was the virile handsome superstud who made the ladie's hearts beat faster. We are asked to accept that three years later was a middle aged man resembling a has-been pugilist with a drinking problem.
OK, that is a petty quibble, but it does lead to more questions. As the India films were not from the books but independently scripted based on earlier Sharpe novels, and given the actors natural aging, why did they not set them at least 10 to 15 years after Waterloo? The British were still in India and Sharpe by then would be in his late 40's or early 50's.
Another point to ponder from watching the 'making of' documentary, was why did they film it in such a dreary part of India which they kept telling us was in the middle of nowhere, with the scorching temperatures of March/April causing the actors to suffer in their heavy woolen costumes. Why then did they not find a location in the hills where it would have been cooler and the scenery more attractive? British India was concentrated in the North West region which borders modern Pakistan. Why have the actors dressed in heavy wool uniforms when they could have been made from brushed cotton, which would have been more comfortable and would have looked authentic on film? I grant that the outdoor scenes would have been uncomfortable, but surely the indoor scenes could have been filmed in an air-conditioned studio in Mumbai.
I could go on picking apart the decisions, but overall, I feel that Sharpe's Challenge and Sharpe's Peril were an attempt to milk the the cow until it ran dry, and an unforgettable series should have been left to stand alone.
OK, that is a petty quibble, but it does lead to more questions. As the India films were not from the books but independently scripted based on earlier Sharpe novels, and given the actors natural aging, why did they not set them at least 10 to 15 years after Waterloo? The British were still in India and Sharpe by then would be in his late 40's or early 50's.
Another point to ponder from watching the 'making of' documentary, was why did they film it in such a dreary part of India which they kept telling us was in the middle of nowhere, with the scorching temperatures of March/April causing the actors to suffer in their heavy woolen costumes. Why then did they not find a location in the hills where it would have been cooler and the scenery more attractive? British India was concentrated in the North West region which borders modern Pakistan. Why have the actors dressed in heavy wool uniforms when they could have been made from brushed cotton, which would have been more comfortable and would have looked authentic on film? I grant that the outdoor scenes would have been uncomfortable, but surely the indoor scenes could have been filmed in an air-conditioned studio in Mumbai.
I could go on picking apart the decisions, but overall, I feel that Sharpe's Challenge and Sharpe's Peril were an attempt to milk the the cow until it ran dry, and an unforgettable series should have been left to stand alone.