Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

blanche-2 "The Great Train Robbery" is a miniseries in two parts. The first part focuses on mid-range crooks, led by Bruce Reynolds (Luke Evans) who decide to rob a train carrying a fortune in money. The second is about the police investigation and search for them.I really enjoyed the first part, but the second part for me was a let- down. The criminals were more interesting than the police, led by DI Frank Williams (Robert Glenister) for some reason. And I sort of wanted them to get away with it. I'm sure that sounds terrible.The acting is very good, and since it's based on a true story, it was interesting to see how the police picked up the trail of the crooks and to read at the end what happened to them.I do recommend it, but you'll find the second part less compelling.

vitabrevis-219-530758 Part One was mildly interesting. One is always curious to learn how a particularly complicated operation is carried out. As to the solving of the crime in Part Two, I was expecting Tommy Butler to be a detective. He wasn't. He was basically a dour, obsessive project manager who had little or no special insight into who the perps might be. He simply put together a team of men who had a lot of connections in the underworld plus one competent forensic expert, and flogged them until they brought him the names of the gang members. Then Butler would drive somewhere in his special car, arrest the unlucky chump and remove one more photo from the board. I suppose that's how the investigation was in fact carried out, but there was something unsatisfying about the whole episode. Strip out the period clothing, cars and music and what you're left with is a fairly bland and uninteresting narrative.

Alan Baker The dramatic elements of this production were not to bad but it was spoilt by the lack of attention to period detail right from the start. We are shown a robbery in November 1962 at a fairly unconvincing London Airport (complete with CGI piston engined airliner taking off, most airlines were using jets by that time). Unfortunately, both getaway cars have "A" suffix registration plates, not introduced until January 1963. Scenes in London show Ford Zephyrs being used as police cars whereas the Met used Wolseley 6/110s almost exclusively. A senior Detecive Chief Superintendent would not be driven around in an old Mk.1 Jaguar, more likely to have had a Humber Super Snipe. When Reynolds is arrested at the end of part 2, he is taken away in a white Jaguar Mk.2 which has a Webasto sun roof, hardly likely on a police car! The railway aspects of the production are particularly poor. For a start, the locomotive used is a Class 37, not a class 40 (painting the correct number on the side does not make it a convincing stand in). The production was clearly using a preserved railway which obviously could not provide the correct four track main line (let alone electrification masts and catenary which had been installed but were not yet in use in 1963). The train is shown on what appears to be a two track railway, but is running on the wrong track, in Britain trains run on the left hand line. The ground level signal shown is a shunting signal and would not be found out on the main line. The station sign at "Glasgow" should read Glasgow Central as there were at the time three other Glasgow Termini (St. Enoch, Buchanan Street and Queen Street).No doubt others might be able to add to the list.

nic-874-218324 I enjoyed this first episode although of course we all know the story. And an important part of the story is that it all happened in August of 1963. Now I was only 4 years old that year so cant quite remember what the summer of '63 was like but I would bet a large amount of money (maybe even 2.1 million pounds)on a couple of things...first there were probably leaves on the trees and secondly it is doubtful that there was snow on the ground and indeed falling in London...in the middle of August!!! What were the producers thinking? During the episode there are several captions giving the date...including the 8th August 1963. Why or why did they create a setting that looked like January or February! There wasn't even any attempt to produce a blue sky! A good film, well acted and written but ruined by the weather! Only in England!!!