quaesitrix

I had really hoped to like this film, but I just could not. It is one of those films trying to make a "dark and gritty" version of a story, but only succeed in omitting all that made the story good in the first place. At a quarter of the running time, I was already in despair. At half, I found that I could not force myself to endure any more of this crap. I never finished, and I don't think anything could induce me to waste my time with the second half.

There were a few things I liked :

* Harry, who was portrayed rather accurately. * Rockingham, same. It surprised me. I thought that if they would botch a character it would be him. After all, how can you compare to any of Basil Rathbone's villains ? Well, you just can't. (I know, I am very biased towards Basil Rathbone ^^). But you can come very close, and I liked this one well enough.

Otherwise, the negatives :

* All the political and religious stuff, which distract from the main story without improving it. * The Frenchman : I found him awful. Really awful. He's not an artist doodling birds anymore, except one in a book which looks terrible. He's not witty, he's not charming, he's just annoying and full of himself. I couldn't feel anything between him and Dona. I didn't watch the second half so it might chang later, but I doubt it. None of the interactions between him and Dona are memorable or witty, but just two unlikable people snapping at each other. * Dona : As another reviewer wrote, she feels more like a street tart than a lady. She too lost all the wit she had in the book, and is frequently rude and mean-spirited instead. The prime example being how she deals with unwanted attentions or people who annoy her : "If you come near Navron I'll set the dogs after you !". And basically every conversation she has with... mostly everyone. And although she talks about her children, it didn't feel as though she was very fond of them. * Henrietta : Oh dear, she was just terrible. In the book and 1944 version, she is too young to have much personality, and it's fine, because it is not her story. In this film, she just felt like she was written in order to make a point about religion making people worse. * William : Another character drained of charm and wit for this movie.

This is the only episode of this series that I have watched, and it didn't make me want to see more of the series or the recurring characters. It did make me want to see more of the non-recurring ones, though !

I found the main characters unremarkable, and their scenes not exactly boring but not especially interesting either : the good guys being the good guys, nothing we haven't already seen dozens of times.

By contrast, the villains are striking and memorable. They may not be the most complex characters in TV history (and how could they, in only one episode whose screentime must be shared with the main cast ?) but they don't need to be. I was actually surprised at the amount of screentime they get, which is much more than usual for one-time villains. This episode is centered around them, not around the main characters. Which is great, since they are wonderful to watch, much more than the main cast. I don't think this is the actors fault : the main characters are standard TV good guys doing standard TV good guys things, which I have seen so often than I was already sick of it by the time I was 12 years old. The villains have much more freedom, and when they are written by good writers and played by good actors they are especially great to watch... and here, they have one of the greatest. I will admit that I am totally biased when it comes to Jeremy Brett, and I can like even an awful film if he is in it (except Mad Dogs >_<). But his presence is not the only thing making this episode interesting, because the other two villains of the episode are also great. Their interactions together are what make this episode great, at least for me. The interactions always feel genuine : those between Jeff (Jeremy Brett) and Nancy (Hilary Tindall) are fascinating, like watching a train about to crash, and those between Jeff and the third villain (no, I won't spoil it ^^) were a big surprise the first time I watched it. Not the reveal itself, though it too was surprising, but the way the two characters interacted with each other : usually, if you see a manipulative character in TV or film, he will be manipulative with everyone (and a nice character will be nice with everyone, a sarcastic one will be sarcastic with everyone, etc) because of unimaginative writing and a tendency to oversimplify things. Therefore it is nice, for a change, to see the same character be remorselessly manipulative towards one lover whom he wants to use as a scapegoat, and yet also be totally genuine with his other lover. It makes for more depth, and Jeremy Brett is great at portraying it.