Artivels Undescribable Perfection

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Chris I grew up as a massive fan of Jonathan Creek. The first three series of the show are unbeatable TV and there has been nothing like it since they were created. The cast, story lines and mysteries in each episode are genius. I would definitely recommend the first 3 series and rate them as 10/10.Series 4 is similarly good although not quite the same without Caroline Quentin. Perhaps series 4 is a 9/10.I cannot be as positive about episodes beyond series 4. In some episodes there is practically no mystery or intrigue at all. Jonathan Creek himself is a changed character and has lost all the enigmatic aura that first drawn me to him as the main protagonist. I was shocked at times at how poor some of the most recent episodes were.So what would have been a 10/10 review has become a 7 due to woeful recent episodes. Such a shame!

blanche-2 How I love this show, and how excited I am to find there are other programs in this series beyond the original four years. I have only come across the four years on rental disc but have just ordered the rest. I was attracted originally to "Jonathan Creek" because of the description and put it on my lists of films to see. It is fabulous. Jonathan (Alan Davies) is, of course, the genius behind the illusions of a womanizing magician, Adam Klaus.He teams up with Madeline Magellan (Carolyn Quentin), an investigative reporter, who originally is looking into a cold case. She sort of falls for Jonathan -- to be honest, I thought the two made a great team but were unsuited for one another, and I couldn't see bringing any suggestion of romance to the team.The two work on lots of cases together, with Jonathan coming up with some ingenious ways these seemingly impossible, locked-room mysteries could have happened, as well as the way they really did.In season 4, Quentin left the series and Jonathan winds up working with an old girlfriend (Julia Sawalha), to me almost totally unrecognizable as a blond, who is a television reporter, now married. Quentin was better as Jonathan's sidekick, whose personality is showier and more fun than what is written for Sawalha.The mysteries are so clever, so fresh, so well done - I watch these episodes absolutely glued. Alan Davies underplays, showing the thoughtful, cerebral side of his character. He was a nice juxtaposition to Quentin, who plays a nosy, direct, and somewhat flamboyant woman.I hope this series continues to do specials (as they have announced a new one with Joanna Lumley), but I also would like to see it come back, as Alan Davies has hinted it might. That would be incredibly fantastic.

jonfrum2000 I imagine the people most likely to write out a review are fans, but the adulation for this series here is far over the top. The series - at least the first season of it - is nice entertainment. I am currently working my way through them, and I've enjoyed them enough to keep at it. That being said, the series is not brilliant, or excellent or the best TV mystery ever. The plots and solutions are full of holes, to the point where obvious errors and implausible events can't be ignored. And the 'sexual tension' business between the two main characters? 'Will they or won't they' got old twenty years ago in such series. Apparently it appeals to women, so I'm not the intended audience for that trope, but it weighs down the series every time they pull it out of the hat. The idea of an illusion designer as crime solver is a perfectly good one, but actually writing locked room mysteries that work is an art that these television writers have not mastered. Example: in The House of Monkeys, the solution to the mystery involves the habit of a gorilla who lives in a house with his owner(!) to chew up envelopes. C'mon now! This series is more along the lines of Angela Lansbury's Murder She Wrote. Perfectly entertaining for some, as long as you don't take it seriously. And very far from good mysteries, like the Chrisite series like Miss Marple and Poirot.

merlin-105 Reading all the raves about this series makes me feel like I dropped into the Twilight Zone. My husband and I watched a couple of episodes, an early one and then, just for the benefit of doubt, a later one. Both episodes felt like a high school production, only less creative. There were some occasionally witty lines in in the otherwise amateurish dialogue, but the actors inevitably drop the few funny bits like so much litter. The lead actor has moments here and there where one senses he could actually be a character, but there is zero chemistry between him and the woman "investigative journalist", who has no credibility from her very first line. But I blame the director who seems to have a negative sense of comedic timing. As for the plots, "laughable" doesn't apply, because they are just not funny. It's not that the style is crude -- crude, taken far enough, would have been more interesting! So why do apparently so many people -- Brits! -- think this series is the best thing since Starbucks Eggnog Latte? Am I blind to the Zeitgeist? Am I taking the wrong drugs? Am I stuck too far in the past? Or did I indeed stumble into the Twilight Zone?