karen_taylor-41677 Utterly diabolical!!! I love John Hannah and Rupert Everett (hate what he's done to his face mind you) but honest to goodness, wooden acting, parts obviously dubbed with professional audio actors.. I could go on but as I've just wasted a few hours of my life in the vain hope of it getting half watchable, I wont!

shumba01 Sorry I know you shouldn't do a review without seeing the whole show; but I turned on the TV and saw 10 minutes of this randomly.. When I saw there was a named actor, I assumed it would be at least a professional production.. but I was amazed; the acting is so wooden; utterly terrible.. I thought it must be a parody; so went to IMDb to confirm this was a subtle comedy; and it appears not.. but really surprised to see the positive ratings.. Honestly every one involved in this should really consider if they are in the right career..

Little_Tyke I gave this movie quite a high rating because I rather enjoyed it. It was very, very bad in the characters, the plot lines, the direction, in pretty much everything. But the movie was one you could watch with granny or teenage offspring without feeling embarrassed. How many movies can one say that about nowadays? Now, while the characters were nearly all wooden, almost catatonic, they looked pretty enough or sinister enough, almost like a parody of TV movie-making. There were great gaps in which nothing much happened, when the stars (I use the term advisedly) seemed to have forgotten their lines or the director had perhaps popped out for a coffee (or ring his agent). Nevertheless, it was the equivalent of the endless "Schlager" (German pop songs) I used to hear (but not listen to) when I was a guest worker in 1970s West Germany. And I think, if I recall rightly, it didn't rain once throughout the whole three hours of the movie! What's not to like about such a nice, fluffy puppy of a movie that just wants its tummy tickled?

Jiji-3 I'm translating this for TV (have not finished yet) and although the story is OK, the acting is remarkably dull and uninspired - with the exception of 2 (two) actors. Even Rupert Everett exudes NO emotion whatsoever but at least he's off screen most of the time, and doesn't come off completely rookie when he does make an appearance. Pretty much everyone else sounds like this is their very first acting job so they're just petrified, and deal with their stage fright by reciting their lines with the enthusiasm of a terminally depressed Dalek. The German actress playing Gemma (the younger daughter) clearly put a lot of effort into the accent. Sadly she overdid it, so more often than not, its preciousness was grating. Natalia Worner did a better job in that regard (and I can't fault a German actress playing a German character for sounding German once in a while). The thing is, acting that's so profoundly dead simply wouldn't allow for any preciousness.I suspect that in the book, Rebeca Kendall (her character) is meant to be a dignified woman, calm and collected. Sadly, Worner's Rebeca comes across emotionally stunted instead, and that's only if you decide to force yourself to see her monotonous droning as realistic, and try to figure out what sort of state a human being must be in to behave like that. (Worner looks and sounds the same whether Rebeca's giving advice to her daughters, flirting with her husband, mourning his death, OR raging at his infidelity). Even if Rosamunde Pilcher did write the character as incapable of expressing emotion (it's quite possible), what's the excuse for what amounts to over 80% of the rest of the cast?I have never seen Worner in anything else but I HAVE seen Everett and Hannah, and they are both perfectly good actors. I'm forced to assume the director had some really strange ideas s/he projected onto the whole cast, and I sympathize with them enormously. The only ones who appear to have resisted are the actors playing George and Anne Meriot, but that's only 2 out of too many.2 stars for story, 0 stars for everything else.