Yeah BC is a great actor. I just didn't have a clue what relevance half the storylines had.
I found the acting and the music made it compelling. I was waiting for it to go full sci-fi after the revelation that he'd had a time travel moment. Now I need someone to explain it all to me, cos I haven't got a fucking clue what the point of those moments were.
Haven't read the book, but I'm guessing the point was to juxtapose actually losing a child with the idea of forgetting the value of childhood. The adviser figure seemed to have aspects of Alistair Campbell, but the book was written in 1987.
I thought it was rather good, but it helps having brought up children (with the thought that they can easily "get lost" and also getting divorced (which was where they were heading imo)
Completely uneccesary characters, additional story lines and plot holes you could fit a missing 5 year old in. You can get across an emotional message without losing the total sense of reality.
What relevance was the woman in his meetings? Or the parents pub?
I thought the school bit was excellent and when he cried in the school office on his own that got me a bit. Didn't need all the other 'seeing your child before they are born' crap or the PM's mate being a freak.
I believe Airman was right in saying it was juxtaposing the literal loss of a child and the notion of forgetting the value of childhood; something articulated by SC in his meeting with the education board. His MP friend - not the most subtle of character portrayals - reverted to childhood in fashion, but like any childhood it too ended albeit by his own hand. I didn't mind the preternatural pub scene; I think, but could be way off the mark, the intended import being that we are loved before we are even born, and that even in absence or death, we are still loved as suggested when SB had the conversation with his mother. Not everything in a film is 'literal', and sometimes you have to push the boundaries of your 'willing suspension of disbelief' to the full to stay with it. Or not.
This was a 'Have Your Say' subject on the BBC website yesterday and basically anyone who didn't like it, was shouted down as being unintelligent, unable to follow non linear story lines, a Brexiteer or a product of dumbed down reality TV....
I believe Airman was right in saying it was juxtaposing the literal loss of a child and the notion of forgetting the value of childhood; something articulated by SC in his meeting with the education board. His MP friend - not the most subtle of character portrayals - reverted to childhood in fashion, but like any childhood it too ended albeit by his own hand. I didn't mind the preternatural pub scene; I think, but could be way off the mark, the intended import being that we are loved before we are even born, and that even in absence or death, we are still loved as suggested when SB had the conversation with his mother. Not everything in a film is 'literal', and sometimes you have to push the boundaries of your 'willing suspension of disbelief' to the full to stay with it. Or not.
I like watching stuff I don't understand - there's plenty of exposition-heavy stuff out there to watch instead. I like it when I figure out, or find out, what it was all about after the event (like with Coen bros. movies). This is as close as I have come to finding an explanation, so thanks for that.
What relevance was the woman in his meetings? Or the parents pub?
I thought the school bit was excellent and when he cried in the school office on his own that got me a bit. Didn't need all the other 'seeing your child before they are born' crap or the PM's mate being a freak.
The parents pub was there just so that they could crow bar in the ridiculous notion that he somehow saw his mum in the pub (and she saw him) - while she was still pregnant with him.
This was then continued when his missus saw the little boy outside of the cottage window - and when Sherlock saw the same kid on the tube on the way to the hospital.
Comments
That's why when he first entered the room she said "we're having a baby"
I thought the program was going to focus on the break down of the couples relationship
Why the hell we had to put up with Peter Pan and his behavior to reach that point was something I didn't get
I thought the school bit was excellent and when he cried in the school office on his own that got me a bit. Didn't need all the other 'seeing your child before they are born' crap or the PM's mate being a freak.
His MP friend - not the most subtle of character portrayals - reverted to childhood in fashion, but like any childhood it too ended albeit by his own hand.
I didn't mind the preternatural pub scene; I think, but could be way off the mark, the intended import being that we are loved before we are even born, and that even in absence or death, we are still loved as suggested when SB had the conversation with his mother.
Not everything in a film is 'literal', and sometimes you have to push the boundaries of your 'willing suspension of disbelief' to the full to stay with it. Or not.
personally I thought it just a load of old tosh.
This was then continued when his missus saw the little boy outside of the cottage window - and when Sherlock saw the same kid on the tube on the way to the hospital.
Proper cobblers!
*Sorry @cabbles