chris_myers90

When in 1992 the BBC decided it needed a second soap to relieve the burden on 'Eastenders' to be the networks solo rival to ITV'S 'Coronation Street' and 'Emmerdale' the novel idea of setting it in the sunnier climes of Spain amongst British ex-pats seemed to give the show a unique selling point. Many shows come and go but the fatal blow to this soap opera may have been the original fanfare with which it was launched. The BBC spent £10,000,000 on preliminary sets and production but upon first glance the hugely anticipated drama seemed to have little in the way of story lines or characterisation. There were production problems with the sound that made the show at times impossible to watch.

The hype that the show had been given and the fact that it was funded by the licence payer meant that the British press leapt upon it and it became a favourite object of derision. Initially encouraging viewing figures tumbled to only 3 million per episode and ten months after its fanfare debut the BBC pulled the plug and cancelled the show.

It is well known that the quality of the show and the viewing figures were climbing towards and the end and that perhaps the show was finally starting to catch on. However, the damage had long been done. The media had slated it and tainted it as a joke and from this there was no return for the BBC. The massively expensive sets were mothballed and are now a museum for intrepid tourists and curious TV fans. The shown came to an end satisfactorily and somewhat gracefully (for otherwise see Crossroads #3) but one can only imagine how devastating it was for the actors (other victims of the shows bad initial production) and we can only estimate how much money was poured down the drain on the massively hyped and massively expensive white elephant.

I saw this on Wednesday night, there is some very funny but terrible dialogue in it, Sophia Myles 'Do you know how much a manicure costs these days?' surely rivals Keira Knightley's 'Try wearing a corset' for cringeworthyness in POTC. Saying that though the original used to scare the hell out of me as a child so whilst this one is hugely different to the original TV series (and that is going to disappoint die-hard fans and it is a lightweight film) it is still quite enjoyable. I laughed through much of it,the only major problem with the film is the script which is very patchy and could have done with a re-write. However, it is a kids film and kids will enjoy it so it serves that purpose (plus the original series wasn't a big hit in the US so how much are comparisons going to matter in that market?). The major test is going to be in the USA so who knows what happens this weekend. Thunderbirds isn't really very good but it isn't half as bad as many would like to make it out to be. Impressive sets and the actors are competent. It is all rather sweet and very innocent.

I can't entirely hate this film because Julie Christie was in it.

This film really does deserve the criticism directed at it. Brad Pitt is as wooden as the horse itself. My friend and I were discussing how much difference it would have made if they had swapped him for the David Beckham gladiator in the British Pepsi adverts, they performed roughly the same. The supporting cast are not so bad, well maybe they are but they are not on screen for so long but almost all of the major characters are woefully two-dimensional. This allowed for no atmosphere and a forced sense of drama that you had to prod yourself into staying focused to and thus plodding along to a conclusion. What several people said on here about unbelievable characters is certainly true. It would appear that a few mis-castings took place. Certainly Brad Pitt was, he simply is too 'Hollywood' to carry off an epic role. On the other hand, Eric Bana is competent and Orlando Bloom carries Paris off well enough (even if Helen and Paris have no on screen chemistry) but both contributed to an overall underwhelming feeling. You know this when the first 35 minutes have felt like 2 hours.

The battle scenes are impressive as are all of the sets and infrastructure of the film but again this is nothing that hasn't been done in a bigger and better fashion by LOTR already. The film picks up into the final hour when the horse arrives and the final battle inside of Troy kept me focused and redeemed the previous 90 minutes to some extent.

Then the ending went and blew it all... I have laughed at how people have stated that the film is 'loosely' based on The Iliad. They want to try and have respect for the magnitude and endurance of the tale before being so dismissive. The ending is appalling.

Suprisingly, the eight o'clock showing of this was only about 25% full. It's not the worst film I've ever seen, far from it and I'm not necessarily right but it was a missed opportunity. Size is not everything and from the hype of the past few weeks, empty vessels clearly do make the loudest noise. 3/10.