|
Post by roverpup on May 9, 2018 17:47:33 GMT
While I want to fully appreciate this writers praise of the “compulsive watchability” of Ben, this somehow sounds way more insulting to Edward St. Aubyn than complimentary to BC to me. Not that I think praise of BC should be muted, but honestly having read the books (without the presence of BC in them) I didn’t find the material a “terribly depressing slog” at all. So where is that coming from? That comment almost rivals the dribble from the Star! :-))
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on May 9, 2018 18:37:21 GMT
Although it's not necessary to have read the books first, it's nice to hear that they've been faithful to the novels by giving each episode a different style. I'm looking forward to seeing how they do it!
Some of the things I've read in the reviews have bothered me!
The Roger Ebert reviewer names Sherlock and The Imitation Game as good roles for Benedict, but seems unaware of all the other wonderful and varied characters he has played. The idea that we're still waiting for him to get a good part is ridiculous to me!
Another review I read said that one of the themes dealt with in Patrick Melrose is incest. Incest?? Incest implies that if they weren't blood relatives it would be acceptable. They need to call it what it is: child abuse/rape/molestation.
A few reviews have suggested that audiences might not feel much sympathy for an upper-class drug addict. So overdosing in a fancy hotel room isn't as tragic as being homeless and overdosing in a back alley somewhere.
I think they need to keep reminding viewers that the story is mostly autobiographical!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on May 9, 2018 18:44:38 GMT
I’m really getting excited for this! The reviews have been incredibly positive, overall, with one or two ho hums, which is to be expected. And of course they’re going to miss some things, not be precise on his other roles, compare it to Sherlock, etc. Nobody else knows his work as well as we Cumbercookies do. ☺️
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on May 9, 2018 19:05:37 GMT
Yes, of course! I usually expect reviewers to only know Sherlock! But I mentioned this particular reviewer because he made a point of saying he was a fan and knew a lot of his work. A regular (non-Cumbercookie) person would read that and think "This guy has done his research and if he says that Benedict Cumberbatch has only played two good roles, I will believe him." Or maybe I'm reading too much into it!
One of the sillier reviews has been from sheknows.com, which begins with something like : "Ready to watch Benedict Cumberbatch's comeback to tv? We are, just because it's Benedict Cumberbatch. Yum!" It's something I might have written! Ha!
|
|
|
Reviews
May 9, 2018 19:10:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 19:10:16 GMT
|
|
|
Reviews
May 9, 2018 20:05:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 20:05:21 GMT
|
|
|
Reviews
May 9, 2018 20:39:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 20:39:55 GMT
The Roger Ebert reviewer names Sherlock and The Imitation Game as good roles for Benedict, but seems unaware of all the other wonderful and varied characters he has played. The idea that we're still waiting for him to get a good part is ridiculous to me! Agreed but at the same time I understand what he is saying. I'm not a huge Sherlock fan so that wouldn't be an example for me (and I actually enjoyed his Dr. Strange! So in general I don't agreed with his examples!) but I feel he haven't had too many roles that equal to his talents on cinema. He forgets a lot of great performances for TV, some of them much better than Sherlock: Parade's End, The Hollow Crown and The Child in Time but in movies, it's a shame that great Hollywood directors haven't hire him for challenging roles. I think Anthony Lane once wrote something similar in a New Yorker article.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 23:14:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on May 9, 2018 23:44:45 GMT
As much as I love Little Women, I have no plans to watch the new version. Nothing can beat the 1949 film!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 10, 2018 0:29:53 GMT
|
|