lea tay

You know how with modern art there can be a single spot painted on a canvas, meant to represent something deep and meaningful, to mask the artists lack of talent? This is that, but in movie form. To anyone who has experienced real-life financial or familial problems, this movie has about as much tension as a flat tyre. The conflicts that are meant to be so meaningful and "psychologically thrilling" are not only incredibly simple, but the depth of these domestic "horrors" do not even have their surface scratched by this milk-toast drivel. This criticism is not for the acting, it's not for the production value, it is aimed at the writers who appear to have experienced very little real struggle in their lives but are under the impression that they've delved into the depths of the human psyche. They try so hard to inject meaning into meaningless things, they push the message too hard without any complexity... it's a complete lack of real-world experience. So much so that I wonder how many nepo-babies were involved in the production. There are a lot of "professional reviews" raving about the intelligence of this film, and I cannot help but wonder if those mesmerised by some mild family conflict, some medium financial difficulties, and a dead horse, are people who also have very little experience in life and are quite keen to consider themselves to be "intellectual", and so have piled onto a bandwagon. Because this movie was so bad, so intellectually basic, so conceptually unoriginal, that I cannot believe that this movie actually in truth thrilled anyone except the very sheltered. This is my least favourite movie, it has excellent actors, looks beautiful, but is still my least favourite movie. That's how bored I was. It feels like a group of people of average intelligence, who consider themselves geniuses, pulled every trick in the modern-cinema-handbook to attempt to create something artistic, however they all lack depth and insight. I felt genuinely angry to have wasted my time on such bland nonsense. I felt cheated by the genre, "psychological thriller", and was tricked by the cast who I knew to be talented. However, acting talent can't trump dreadful writing and conception. Don't waste your time.

Just very disappointing, at points I even felt a bit embarrassed for the people who created it. The 1992 version of Dracula was an art piece, something beautiful and worthy to stand beside the book as a classic though altered version. The only semi-redeemable part of this version is the comedy of Agatha Van Helsing, otherwise it is quite lame, and an utter waste of funding. Also, whoever decided to make Dracula sassy... what on Earth were you think? Go out and get some real life experiences with people, because it's obviously lacking, your scope of personalities and the depth in others is incredibly shallow, and frankly boring to experience.

A generic modern style hero-story, more suited to the comic based franchises than an epic classic. It feels like the writers, actors and directors all collectively underestimated and misunderstood what makes Lord of the Rings a work of genius. It felt trivial, flat, empty... it's an insult that it can boast being a part of LOTR. Tolkien and Jackson both created something so passionate, moving, wise and awe inspiring. This "addition" is utterly pathetic by comparison. I felt like concepts of strength, bravery, sacrifice, survival, loyalty, comradery, yearning, loss, despair were all represented in a painfully cheap, tacky, empty, generic-hero-movie way. It's as if absolutely no one involved in the creation of this series has ever been pushed to really feel the depths of any one of these concepts, so the execution of expressing them ended up being genuinely comical at times, if not quite heartbreaking when thinking about the shallow emotional climate of our culture. And I have to say... as a woman I found the original Galadriel so inspiring, she wasn't strong just because she showed masculine traits, she was strong while also having a feminine grace, a feminine and wise gravity, a dignity all her own. This new Galadriel is an utter embarrassment. In the scenes where she shows "strength" they just have her mimic masculine traits in a cheap way, like punching down a stone wall with a sassy, dismissive one-liner. No grace, no gravity, no integrity or dignity. The original Galadriel manages to be so complex, she has this beautiful vulnerability, this emotive passion and morality, yet she can also be truly terrifying in her power without resorting to "me strong, me punchy-punch" cheap acts of brutally simplified masculinity. Whoever wrote her character has no idea, no appreciation for, feminine strength. They assume femininity is weak, and it's absolutely insulting. My cheeks actually went red with shame and disappointment when she punched that damn wall. To the writers of Galadriel: There are powerful traits of strength that have nothing to do with physical acts of violence, sassy indifference, underhanded cruelty, ego protecting... In fact none of those traits denote true core strength. Galadriel is fiercely intelligent, she's passionate, she's wise, moral and brave with her power, she's also strong enough to show vulnerability, caution, fear and uncertainty without losing an ounce of her power. Feminine strength is real and powerful, there was no need to make her into a punching-warrior-ninja with attitude, you stripped her of all her powerful qualities, all of her grace. It was sickening and truly insulting to all feminine people with true strength. What a waste of resources, a massive let down to fans of LOTR (both the Tolkien or Jackson leaning crowds), a gross display of the shallow understanding and expression of emotion we see as normal now when compared to older works. But, most of all, what an insult to a work of complex, timeless genius that has moved and inspired so many people. I'd be ashamed to have been a part of such a huge insult to something so wonderful.

I would have given a higher review, being a fan of the original work, however, the amount of actresses and actors who have mistaken characteristics like 'goodness' or 'under pressure' 'dignity' for...'stupid' 'sulky' or 'jerk'... was disappointing. The characters depths were reduced to one dimensional cartoons and destroyed the entire thing for me. We are supposed to witness the heroine having insight and curiosity, yet she acts the majority of the time, not with the naivety that hope can sometimes bring, but with empty-eyed, slack-jawed grinning. It is as if the actress couldn't fathom what a person with a kind, exuberant nature who is also intelligent might look like, and so decided to just empty her eyes and grin thoughtlessly. It's disappointing. Then the actress playing Lady Babington seems to have just had one word for acting direction... and it was the C word. Then we get to Sidney, who has no pain, or defensiveness borne from pain, in his eyes, just frustration and he too seems to have just had the C word in his direction instead of a fully formed character who has incurred a pain in his life that he find intolerable. Miss Lambe, who could have had much depth, impact and wittiness, does discredit to her role by just behaving like she has no sense or personality, instead of being a full, experienced person in a very precarious and often difficult position fighting to retain her dignity and independence. Miss H (heroine's little sister)... has got to be one of the least convincing, patronising actresses I've ever seen. It was bad. It was first year college performance bad. It mocks youth and innocence, it mocks young women and those who hope despite difficulties, her expression was bordering on ludicrous. I'm just so disappointed that such a budget, such quality, was spent in this way. Especially when Jane Austen's magic is the depth of her characters, her shrewd insights into people. Either whoever directed this lacks depth, or else most of the actors are without it. Either way, it wasted a budget and discredited a great work of fiction for the most part. I'll add a side gripe about the costumes, hair and makeup being tailored to please the modern eye instead of respecting the times, supposing the audience is too vapid to appreciate the different types of beauty that can coexistence when considering history. If you are going to change an entire eras wardrobe to please modern eyes, at least have some flair about it, that is how I think of the unfortunate lack of true-to-era fashion representation. If your intended audience is likely history fans then perhaps true-to-era clothing might be a good thing. Every time I see a historical show I get so excited that maybe, just maybe, an historically set show will take the time and effort to stay true to the elements involved in the era, or pay proper respect to the original author's vision. But... still waiting for that show. Where we don't need to unnecessarily change vital things for the "modern eye", where we don't reshape the truth of things to be more admirable, but instead let historical/literary fans have something, ONE thing, true to what actually inspires the passion of history lovers. Too disappointed, I had very high hopes!

Great acting and great storylines. It has depth, is totally compelling... so disappointed Netflix cancelled season 4! Best show I've found on Netflix in a long time.