6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 30, 2022 22:40:44 GMT
Saw it tonight and was a pleasant and enjoyable film and it's a decent follow up to the first film. Julian Fellowes clearly knows the audience for this will lap it up but it won't convert new fans. A few spoilery thoughts: Starting with Tom and Lucy's wedding and ending with Violet's death was a surprise, not that I was surprised that Violet was going to die as that was hinted in the last film but normally it's funeral first then wedding at the end but I suppose to signify the whole New Era that the Crawleys will live on even after Violet is gone. Have to say that Violet's final moments are both touching and hilarious, begrudgingly admitting she was wrong about Cora and her servant played by Sue Johnston starting crying, she tells her she can't hear herself dying!
Of the two plots in the film, the film crew at Downton is better than the Crawleys going to the South of France. It was obvious Cora wasn't going to be killed off and they weren't going to make Robert an illegitimate child so the revelation that Violet's brief encounter was just that wasn't a surprise. Julian Fellowes clearly watched Singin' in the Rain and My Fair Lady for the inspiration for Laura Haddock's character although it did explain why she never spoke in the trailers.
Barrow resigning to be essentially a kept man to Guy Dexter, I wasn't too sure about but it does provide an ending for his character. I know Matthew Goode is busy but I do wonder if perhaps if they need to kill off Henry Talbot or a divorce if he can't appear in the films although I'm not sure if Mary could go through with losing another husband. I wonder if there will be a third film, a Depression set film could be quite different plot wise or perhaps setting it after WWII with grown up version of the kids as the late 1940s and early 1950s would mean a different in style. |
|
865 posts
|
Post by karloscar on May 1, 2022 0:16:31 GMT
Isn't Dominic West far too old to play a 1920s matinee idol? Guys like Frederick March, Rudi Valentino,John Garfield and Leslie Howard were all born in the late 1890s and would only have been around 30 at the time Downton is set. Hollywood was even more youth obsessed than it is now!
|
|
3,474 posts
|
Post by showgirl on May 1, 2022 4:07:54 GMT
I enjoyed this yesterday evening despite only ever having seen the first film and none of the tv series. It was the perfect, escapist comfort watch - especially after a long day traipsing round London, including seeing the exhausting new Sickert exhibition and enduring the seemingly interminable matinee of The Fever Syndrome - and I liked the fact that once again, I could follow it with no prior knowledge and as a standalone.
On the matinee idol point, I have never seen Dominic West looking quite so hideous, with that awful little moustache, so I gave no thought to his age but instead was transfixed by his ghastly appearance - though I don't think that was a deliberate distraction device!
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on May 1, 2022 9:11:28 GMT
preposterous nonsense, with as usual, major plots coming and going so quickly, but i loved every absurd cliche ridden second of it - the Singin in the rain thread was so obvious but gave such pleasure, and our cinema loudly cheered the Guy/Barrow plot. i hope they will be happy.
|
|
1,265 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 1, 2022 10:32:49 GMT
I've never seen the tv series, thought the first film was badly-written, two-star rubbish. Am I likely to enjoy the new film?
It won't cost me anything at my local Odeon, but I'd rather not waste two hours unless someone can say it's definitely an improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagebyte on May 1, 2022 12:56:28 GMT
Was like pulling on a old warm jumper. I enjoyed it. A sentimental slice of nostalgia. Borrowed one of the plot points heavily from a musical (don’t know how to attach a spoiler so I’ll leave it that)
Costumes were gorgeous.
|
|
18,811 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 1, 2022 14:02:33 GMT
Julian Fellowes has form for “borrowing” plots from other works. Remember the old Downton storyline about the flower show that was a pretty direct rip off from wartime movie Mrs Minerva?
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 1, 2022 14:50:49 GMT
I found it completely absurd and delightful and perhaps inevitably, rather moving. Happy to keep visiting these characters every few years or so. if you're not a Downton fan, don't go. I f you - you'll have a good time.
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on May 1, 2022 16:32:42 GMT
I took my Mum to see it today. She is a fan but I've never watched it but I did enjoy it. It looks beautiful and there are some funny moments too.
|
|
874 posts
|
Post by daisy24601 on May 1, 2022 22:21:49 GMT
Soppy and convenient as the first film, but very enjoyable. A fitting ending too I'd say.
I wasn't sure what year it's supposed to be? I read online 1927 but that would make Sybie only 7 and she looked far older than that. Unless of course they've taken some liberties with the children's ages.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on May 2, 2022 16:50:08 GMT
Loved it. Does what it does well. Nostalgia.
|
|
186 posts
|
Post by demelza on May 4, 2022 13:41:10 GMT
Soppy and convenient as the first film, but very enjoyable. A fitting ending too I'd say. I wasn't sure what year it's supposed to be? I read online 1927 but that would make Sybie only 7 and she looked far older than that. Unless of course they've taken some liberties with the children's ages. I think they've probably taken some liberties with the ages - I thought Marigold also looked a bit older than she should have been at that point. Whilst talking to Jack Barber, Mary mentioned that Matthew's accident happened seven years earlier, which would put the film in summer 1928! But with Downton, unless it's referencing something that actually happened (titanic and the war) I tend to take the date as a bit fast and loose |
|
851 posts
|
Post by longinthetooth on May 4, 2022 14:56:33 GMT
It was like catching up with a group of old friends. I loved it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2022 18:24:47 GMT
I wondered what year it was set so thanks for those who said 1927/28. The first series started with the family in 1912 so they have moved on 15 or so years in about 11 or 12 years actual time so the cast can still play the same parts. If they did move it on a lot it would need recasting or you'd have to age the cast a lot.
Has it ever been proved Carson is Edith's father as they have similar side on profiles.
|
|
6,338 posts
|
Post by danb on May 5, 2022 6:33:06 GMT
Thought that this was just lovely. Undemanding, crowd pleasing fluff. Dame Maggies delivery of her line had me howling for several minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 6, 2022 0:38:47 GMT
Allen Leach in his bathing suit.
'nuff said
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on May 6, 2022 0:55:22 GMT
Allen Leach in his bathing suit. 'nuff said |
|
4,451 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Being Alive on May 6, 2022 13:16:03 GMT
I cant lie I thought this was dreadful.
It felt like 50 2 minutes films all sewn together as they all followed the same format (exterior pretty shot, characters say 4 lines, longing look, music swells, and repeat).
That said, laughed, smiled, shed a tear at the glory of Dame Mags, and will forever love Downton
|
|
6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 6, 2022 13:35:44 GMT
Allen Leach in his bathing suit. 'nuff said That's probably as much skin as you're allowed by Julian Fellowes! |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 6, 2022 13:47:04 GMT
Less is often more
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 21, 2022 12:46:41 GMT
I've never seen the tv series, thought the first film was badly-written, two-star rubbish. Am I likely to enjoy the new film? It won't cost me anything at my local Odeon, but I'd rather not waste two hours unless someone can say it's definitely an improvement. No you won’t enjoy it. It’s not a proper film, there’s no explanation of the backstory, no character development, and a load of subplots that don’t work at all as standalone plots. The whole thing only makes sense if you know all those things already. For me the Downtown highlight was that episode where someone turned up with his face all bandaged up like the invisible man and none of the family could work out if it was the dead brother who drowned in the Titanic. Genius. |
|
1,265 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 21, 2022 16:49:16 GMT
I've never seen the tv series, thought the first film was badly-written, two-star rubbish. Am I likely to enjoy the new film? It won't cost me anything at my local Odeon, but I'd rather not waste two hours unless someone can say it's definitely an improvement. No you won’t enjoy it. It’s not a proper film, there’s no explanation of the backstory, no character development, and a load of subplots that don’t work at all as standalone plots. The whole thing only makes sense if you know all those things already. Subsequent to my previous post, I did go and see A New Era, and actually quite enjoyed it. It was much better (writing, direction, acting, cinematography) than the previous effort, and quite good, if silly, fun. The lack of realism helped me to set aside my innate distaste for these Hooray Henrys and their forelock-tugging staff. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 21, 2022 17:48:09 GMT
No you won’t enjoy it. It’s not a proper film, there’s no explanation of the backstory, no character development, and a load of subplots that don’t work at all as standalone plots. The whole thing only makes sense if you know all those things already. Subsequent to my previous post, I did go and see A New Era, and actually quite enjoyed it. It was much better (writing, direction, acting, cinematography) than the previous effort, and quite good, if silly, fun. The lack of realism helped me to set aside my innate distaste for these Hooray Henrys and their forelock-tugging staff. What lack of realism ? I like the Earl of Grantham, the stupidest man in England. Not only did he lose all his money in a failed investment but like Boris he has no clue what's going on in his own house. One of his daughters disposed of a dead body in her bedroom and the other was pregnant, had a child, and handed that child over to one of his tenants without him having the slightest idea of what was going on. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 21, 2022 19:00:26 GMT
Does the film address how he has a tan before they get to the south of France?
|
|
3,070 posts
|
Post by Rory on May 21, 2022 21:32:12 GMT
I really enjoyed this, just sheer escapism.
|
|
|
|
Post by marob on May 21, 2022 22:40:45 GMT
Allen Leach in his bathing suit. 'nuff said That's probably as much skin as you're allowed by Julian Fellowes! I take it you haven’t seen the weirdly out of place nude scene in The Gilded Age then? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 22, 2022 12:10:31 GMT
Does the film address how he has a tan before they get to the south of France? Because as you will have noticed it is always nice sunny weather in their part of North Yorkshire except for the 30 seconds when they have to establish that the roof is leaking. |
|
195 posts
|
Post by Rozzi Rainbow on May 22, 2022 19:44:41 GMT
I loved the TV series and had high hopes for the previous film, but was left disappointed. I decided to give this one a go as I had nothing else on, so went with low expectations, and was pleasantly surprised. I actually really enjoyed it! A good bit of escapism, just what I needed.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 22, 2022 19:57:38 GMT
Does the film address how he has a tan before they get to the south of France? Because as you will have noticed it is always nice sunny weather in their part of North Yorkshire except for the 30 seconds when they have to establish that the roof is leaking. Of course, I over looked Downton had it's own micro climate! |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 29, 2022 6:18:05 GMT
I enjoyed it, despite thinking several times that the plot is full of first world problems. Rich people being rich people is generally obnoxious so it's testament to the cast that they're still so much fun to watch. Lovely to see real life husband and wife Jim Carter and Imelda Staunton share scenes together.
|
|
