Mary Miller

If I were to give a one word review, it would be this: Apathetic. I started watching the Bond films starting in 1960s with my father who adored the movies, the gadgets, the banter, and the way that 007 would get out of any sort of predicament with CLASS. Understanding that 007 represented the "best of the best" as licensed to kill, had a special class of MI services, he was supposed to be above all the other classification of MI. Iain Flemming was very aware of what a 007 was supposed to represent, as after all he himself was involved with MI during the War. Between Mr Flemming and Broccoli made darn sure that the films had the following: 1). A PLOT, 2). Continuity of subject with beautiful women (after all, Iain Flemming was known for his sexual escapades if nothing else), 3. 007 was supposed to be in a class by himself as pretty much understood by the English of how their stratus of classism separated people, and Grace was part of that "class" that 007 had. You see this through out the earlier Bond movies, it's almost a trademark of a "Bond Film". Bond is typically reserved. He has a role to get rid of the villains, and behind his reserve present involves his tongue and cheek (cheekiness is a part of the Bond Characterization) is part of the Bond charm. The song as another said, is FLAT. It reflects nothing of the film! It neither brings the audience "up" for the aspect of the movie, nor does it bring the audience along. It shows up 30 minutes into the show! It's a song, not reflecting Bond, nor the villains, or anything else really in the movie. The plot, if there really was one, is disorganized. The gadgets were recycled. The women while beautiful had no real connection to the story, other than woman who became 007, but poorly handled without following "normal 007 protocols. Lastly, what grace? The movie moves disjointedly, There is almost zero humor involved, and the cheekiness is gone. Honestly while we have had a variety of 007 actors (some more convincing than others), and I LIKE Daniel Craig as 007 but his material belays the franchise.

Being a Fan of ACGAS, having read all the books several times, my mom and I would laugh heartily about some of the fiascos that Jim, Sigfried, and Tristan got into. The books were rich tapestry written about the people that lived in the area that James Herriot (Alf Wight) and later his family dealt with living in the Yorkshire downs. This was nonfiction at its best, made fiction only by changing the names of the pet owners, livestock owners, and town names, period. Alf Wight (the Real James Herriot) didn't want the publicity of his books to overtake the area or have the those who lived on the downs affected by his books. He said this many times. Jim his son, even in his rendition of his father's life, echoed his father's concern. On to the new rendition of the 1978 BBC show. I was excited to get the story back having loved the books and the 1978 show; with Christopher Timothy, Peter Davidson, Robert Hardy, Carol Drinkwater, Linda Bellingham, Mary Hignett, and Margaretta Scott (Mrs Phumphries). I wanted to like it, and bring it into the house like a warm Blanket and with Dame Diana Rigg in the role of Mrs Phumphries, I thought this might be a good remake. I was wrong. I wanted to like it, I really did, instead I found myself yelling at the TV more than once, over gross misinterpretations that turns the cannon of both the books and the original show into a clear mess. As others have pointed out, clearly in the book Mrs Hall is over 60 years old. Her role in the household was to clean and cook. She answered the phone, but referred the messages to the Farnon's prior to James Herriot's arrival. She did not run the surgery, nor was she responsible to interfere in any capacity with the business. She did not run 'rough shot' over Sigfried or Tristan, she was hired as a housekeeper, and in the 1930's this is what housekeeper's did. They kept house. They did not have romantic trysts with their employers. And where are the darn dogs? They are part of the landscape of the household, all 5 of them! The fiascos I saw both with storyline problems (what exactly are they trying to do here?) Making James a simpering wimp of a guy, which he wasn't, Sigfried a tyrant, and Tristan is mean spirited. He's joie de vivre, his romantic crazy interludes, and his humor is clearly missing. He did not "hate" Tricky woo or Mrs Phumphries. And Tricky never tried to bite him either. Mrs Phumphries may well have been a clear eccentric, and at times forgetful. She was in NO way a tottering alcoholic, nor was she stupid. Let's not confuse age fragility here, showing her swimmingly drunk. She was in command of household, with a rich benefactors, who gave amazing parties, showered her friends with gifts because she cared, not because it was the only way for her to have friends. I am surprised that neither Rosie, or Jim (the children of Joan and Alf's children) are in some capacity overseeing this script in any manner. It makes the whole premise of the show (a vet show, remember?) an incompetent joke. The point is the interactions between the vets and their patients (animals), with their owners. It seems that the point of the "New All Creatures" no longer is concerned with showing animals, and when it does show Jim with them, shows him as unable to do a simple task without someone else doing most of the consulting for him, or worse, having Mrs Hall sort it all out (what?) The point of the show was to update some of the technology, maybe do a more direct job of showing life in the 1930's and 1940's in Yorkshire, but they miss on too many fronts and it is distracting to say the least.