churwinj Reviews

Fortunes of War (1987)

disappointing

[3/10 · 21 July 2007]

The three points are for the splendid production values. I have not read the novels but offer this point of view based solely on the TV series. Well acted by all means, but Fortunes of War is ultimately tedious and horrendously disjointed. It is like watching a Play for Today that goes on and on and on. While Plater's terse and character-obsessed style no doubt works for short TV drama and the stage, it is out of place in a lavish and lengthy production such as this. In the end there was no plot to speak of. I kept waiting for something to happen, but it never did. I kept waiting for some drama, some explosion of conflict between the seemingly endless numbers of characters but again there was nothing. Yes, we had a snapshot of Europe on the brink of war, of the British ex-pat community at play, desperately trying to ignore the gathering storm and looking to their own self interest. But so what? This theme has been done to death. The characters were quirky in some cases (and then only in an irritating way) but mostly they were extremely dull. I was unable to care about any of them. We are told that the story is about the break up of the Pringle marriage as it faces the stresses and strains of impending war. But the impending war never seemed to really threaten and the British ex-pats seemed almost unconcerned about it. The Thompson- Branagh relationship- if relationship is the right word- lacked any passion and from the start they seemed to be two dull people ideally suited to each other. There was never ever a 'relationship' to break up and so when it 'started' I really didn't feel anything at all. Branagh's character was the most disappointing, almost soporifically so. We are told he was a communist, feverishly against war, yet he expresses little outrage at the collapse of civilization (apart from the odd and very unconvincing 'war is an outrage' uttered over yet another glass of wine). Not such an outrage that it should interrupt his frankly absurd obsession with Shakespeare et al at a time when everything Shakespeare stood for was crashing down on his head. All the characters seemed to be thoroughly amoral. The only one I frankly cared for was the old man and the toy dog he dragged around. In the end that summed up this failed production for me. Nothing but a drag.

Hustle (2004–2012)

Hustle- BBC drama

[7/10 · 26 August 2006]

A British show about a group of lovable con people, this is just another caper series. Kudos, the production company, raves about the originality of it (perhaps the biggest con of all?) for there is little that is original. The characters are engaging but all stereotypes that we have seen many times before. The scripts are among the weakest part of the show- the writer Tony Jordan obviously took The Sting apart before 'creating' this show. The Adrian Lester and Marc Warren characters are clearly versions of Newman and Redford. Identical scenes from The Sting appear in the first two episodes of the first series (plus a line lifted directly out of Robert De Niro's mouth in Heat!). The concept of these engaging con men who are really nice guys screwing some really nasty people is also taken from that movie. The Sting itself probably owes more than a little to the excellent USA 60s TV series The Rogues which also boasted the idea of lovable types doing society a favor. Production company Kudos claims that the freeze frame special effect is another original first, but this type of nonsense was pioneered in The Man from Uncle (and really makes that show look dated now) and must have been consciously employed because Robert Vaughn appears in both shows. Hustle also has a great similarity with the UK 60's hit show The Avengers in both ethos and production values. Other criticisms of the screenplay evolves around getting from A to B in the plot. This is often disposed of in gratuitous fashion so when the ingenuity of the con is finally revealed to us we find ourselves saying "hang on, how did they manage to do X when Y was...etc." If the ingenuity of the plot isn't entirely transparent we end up thinking that we have been... well... conned! Screenplay apart, the series does have great production values. London looks good. The acting is great. Even Robert Vaughn isn't bad- though I suggest his inclusion is only to make people think of Hustle as the new Man from Uncle (and also to make the show sell in the States; some of the script actually uses American English which is bizarre for a BBC show!). A younger more energetic performer than Vaughn would surely have added more? Jamie Murray is eye candy and Adrian Lester is adequate- a kind of smooth British version of Blair Underwood- but rather wooden. The two real stars are Robert Glenister and Marc Warren. Most of the humor comes from them and they both play 'wide' infectious street types barely on the right side of the law. Marc (Band of Brothers) Warren is probably going to be a superstar. He has the face of a psychopath that looks not unlike the young Malcolm McDowell. Warren has it all- a great acting range, comic timing and spine-chilling evil when he wants to turn it on. So yes- the show is fun and worth watching. But original? Kudos- do me a favor!