This movie will stand as a functional litmus test for years to come. People will be able to see how others react and measure them by their reaction.
For there is no doubt that this is one of the worst movies ever made. It could be signed Ed Wood but it's too poor for even that - it's more like artificial wood.
It's always hard to single out one culprit when a movie is so painfully embarrassingly poor as this one, and to concoct a product in this extreme category takes the contributions and lack of talent of thousands. Was it the writer? Undoubtedly. Was it the idiot who came up with this idiotic story line? Assuredly? Was it the direction? What direction? Was it the editor? Yes - but what material did the editor Julian Rodd have to work with? And so forth. Everyone can be blamed, and anyone can point a finger at someone else - and they should have been doing a lot of that by now.
You will search long and hard for a movie as amateurish as this. Not only is there no continuity in the storytelling, the editing looks like it's been done by an orangutan drunk on absinthe. And when I say bad, you're probably thinking, 'oh that bad is it?' but you would have missed the point. For it's worse. Whatever you're thinking or imagining, think and imagine worse - far worse - and still you won't be close. Did they ever get away with things like this in your kindergarten film school? Nope - kids this bad, be they only 3 - 5 years old, were sent home to their parents and put on bread and water. Get the picture now?
In fact the only redeeming feature of this movie - and the only reason we were able to view it and thus review it - was the head of the cast Natasha Wightman. You might recognise her from that horrible adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express from a few years back. The one where Hercule plays with a laptop computer for hours without a battery, without any physical connection to anything, and still basically gets flash-class graphics back that explain the entire story to him. Even Google can't do that. At any rate, Natasha was Mary Debenham, the part played by Vanessa Redgrave in the original (and far better) movie, and she's a lot easier to look at. In fact, Natasha is a 'dish' and the people behind the camera really know how to make her look good - and she really does look good. Of course you'll find her coiffures absolutely impossible given the circumstances she's supposed to be in, but that's the kind of movie you made the mistake of renting. Caveat emptor.
PS. You'll find another reviewer here who says the movie was 'well researched'. Remember: it's a 'litmus test'. And that reviewer's test came out the wrong.
