chrissso
Aficionados of WW2 films take note
this series was not written for you and you will be disappointed! Indeed this series was produced for BBC Daytime broadcast and received several "daytime" TV awards.That said I watched anyway and was surprisingly disappointed! Why surprisingly? Well I knew it would be soapy. I knew it would be overly dramatic and shallow. What I didn't expect was to find a very well-produced and "somewhat" informative production. In short this series could have been a great WW2 series as opposed to an interesting daytime soap opera and that was disappointing!The biggest problem is that the series suffers from an extremely inconsistent story line AKA bad writing. One moment it's compelling, dramatic and informative (great to learn about the Women's Land Army or the politics of the day), the next it's totally sophomoric, over-dramatic and unbelievable. More so the non-stop clichés make it a tough row to hoe (get it?) On the other hand it is a great period piece that seems to capture the Britain's WW2 experience well. Particularly pleasing were the solid actors
decent CGI
and exceptional cinematography, locations, sets and soundtrack (excepting S2 theme song)In the end I enjoyed the series despite the fact I often found myself rolling my eyes. Most importantly I learned a few things. 7 of 10 stars
cheers! POST: Shame on the BBC for releasing this without subtitles! In this day and age there is no excuse for this
especially if you plan to sell in Australia and America.
douglasscarol123
I've watched Land Girls to the bitter end, and feel several IQ points less intelligent now. Really, as other reviewers have said, the series is rife with historical inaccuracies. But as one BBC spokesman said, period pieces don't have to be accurate. Really?Most annoying to me, though, were the episodes in which Martin, the young boy, gets hit in the face by a barn door. He gets up and walks home, with a bit of a headache. But later, he mentions that he "can't see" a page of writing, although somehow he has no problem getting about.Some days, or weeks? later, he goes to the doctor and finds out he has "detached retinas" (although he can still see), which means he'll go blind without an operation.Apparently no one did a blind bit of research on this: In order to have both retinas detach, you'd have to be hit extremely hard on the back of the head, and would have not been trotting around soon after. Also, if your retinas are detached, you simply would not be able to see, and after waiting for weeks for the "operation" it's unlikely that there would still be any viable tissue left. 20 years after this period piece, retinal surgery was still in its infancy, with low rates of success.Of course the "operation" was a plot device that had consequences that took the series through several episodes.But really, is it that difficult for script writers to do a bit of research? I think they must count on people being so ignorant about history and other facts that they don't notice glaring errors. Perhaps they think we all have retinal detachments.
knella1
Well, despite what has been written I thought this was a smashing little series, or three. It is a bit 'soapy' but I don't like soaps yet I like this. It does lean on sentimentality, but in my opinion not too much. More than anything it's a character study, where few characters are either all good or all bad. Mark Benton provides the comic relief and it's something he expertise's in. It does stand as a drama though, the trials and tribulations of a set of decent women in an harrowing time. I've just watched it daily on bbc, and have felt cheer for the characters at a personal time where I need something to believe in. The acting is excellent, the story lines strong. It can be disappointing when characters or actors drop out between series'. But I presume that's a testament in itself. As with all wartime dramas (as opposed to war dramas) it shows the best of British resolve. All I know is, when good things happen to the main characters I feel glad, and when bad things happen I feel sad. And if a drama manages that, it's more than halfway home.
didi-5
Riddled with clichés, this daytime drama about the land girls (women conscripted to work on the land during World War II) is in five parts and boasts a competent cast in a sanitised script - a very PC and simplistic view of a country under siege.We first meet the four new land girls at the start of the first episode - snooty Nancy (Summer Strallen) who wears high heels and expects a soldier to carry her luggage from the station, sisters Annie (Christine Bottomley) and Bea (Jo Woodcock) - one bitter, one naive, and salt of the earth Joyce (Becci Gemmell) whose family were wiped out in the Coventry bombings. We also meet Esther (Susan Cookson), who keeps the girls in order, black-marketeer and farmer Finch (Mark Benton), and the Lord and Lady of the House (Nathaniel Parker and Sophie Ward).There's also a Home Guard Sergeant, Tucker (Danny Webb) who likes the feeling of being in charge, and in town there's a group of GIs.From here it is very much ticking the boxes - there's an illicit affair, a soldier going AWOL, suspected collaborators, a marriage based on hate, and a bit of political correctness about black GIs and segregation. It's watchable enough but somehow I was expecting a bit more.Although it looks great and as if a bit of money has been thrown at it, Land Girls is historically shaky and very much has the air of 'we've seen all this before'. A bit of a missed opportunity.
AD
