Reviews

Star Wars needs great story, intelligent writing and great imagination. These three things are what the original trilogy (IV, V, VI) were built on.

Episodes I, II, III also had these three factors, but they are delivered badly. Episode VII was so lacking in story, intelligence and imagination that I didn't even bother to watch the Last Jedi...Abrams had successfully managed to kill off any interest I had in the continuing of that story.

But I loved Rogue One and Solo. In fact, I was astonished. They had story, intelligence and imagination in abundance, plus they were delivered well, so I honestly don't understand why so many people were unhappy.

And so now we come to the Mandalorian. A TV series for Star Wars?! This already threatens the first of the three needed things: a great story. What weekly series has ever told as gripping a story as the original Star Wars trilogy? Having said that, if this proves to be only a mini series then there might still be some hope for it.

So far, the story presented in the first two episodes comes across like a typical western in some ways, and so it continues to worry me that this will become a pointless 'Days of Our Lives' look at the Star Wars universe.

I'm also sorry to say I really don't like the music, there's nothing special about it at all. And some reviewers here have commented on how interesting the main character is, which I find to be quite puzzling. We can't see his face, and he has hardly said anything riveting so far, so I don't really see anything interesting about him yet.

I'm also a bit worried about the intelligence of the script. Our hero is told he needs to learn to ride a particular beast in order to reach a certain place, but in the end we discover that he could just as easily have walked there. You then realise that the script writers were simply trying to fill out the show's run time and had nothing else to go with. This is what worries me.

So to sum up, the Mandelorian is nowhere near as good as Star Wars at its best but it's way better than Star Wars at its worst, so I'll give it a 7 and hope that they don't turn it into another 'Days of Our Lives' style series like Star Trek. If they keep it short, say...8 episodes maximum, it may deliver on one of the core requirements of any good Star Wars installment - a truly worthwhile story. But if it drags on and the overall story gets forgotten as we focus on the main character going from town to town shooting bad guys, then for me I think this will become another nail in the coffin of the franchise.

And why on earth is there only one review here for it?!?! Well, let me write a second one.

This series was released on DVD in 2012 (so the previous reviewer eventually got their wish), and I purchased it out of curiosity but left it unwatched until now, December of 2018. Let's not go into lengthy explanations of why, I just have a habit of doing such things - call it a busy life.

From the first episode this show struck me as very unusual, very well written, well acted, and of good length (48 min per episode). Some other good shows (such as M-Squad with Lee Marvin) suffer from a 25 min run time, which doesn't allow the script writer time to sink their teeth into the story.

Things that have been most notable about this series are that as it has gone on there have been many face to face confrontations that have been so well written and acted that you find yourself completely absorbed by the scene. Someone could smash into your parked car and you would shrug off being told, saying "not now, go away!" Peter Falk's performance was a particular highlight, with Robert Lansing carrying off his half equally well.

If I had to criticise anything it would be the opening credits: the music is fine, but the action-less station-room character intros just don't match. Something much more dramatic was needed here, although I doubt this was the reason for the show's early axing.

Oh, one last thing - check out Ron Harper who plays one of the four main characters...it wasn't apparent immediately but after a while all I could see or hear was Mickey Rourke! See if you agree.

I watched this tonight for the first time and I really feel the need to say something that is completely out of step with every other opinion I've read.

First, I should explain that I love movies from all periods and have bought over 1,500 films on DVD and Blu Ray, all ranging from 1920s releases right through to current day.

I have often been stunned by the acting performances of both main stars and supporting cast, and this film provides another few good examples of what must be considered masterful acting. Marlon Brando, Karl Malden and Kim Hunter all shine in this movie, and they deserve every accolade thrown their way. But Vivien Leigh?

There is not a single moment when I didn't find her acting to be completely over the top or lacking in authenticity. In fact, every scene of hers was painful, and the contrast it made with her co-stars was embarrassing to witness. I tried to remind myself that she was playing the part of someone who was going mad, but this fact provided no excuse for the shameful performance she gives here.

We've all seen people doing roles like this before, since portraying mental instability/illness is nothing new to the big screen, and there are many, many cases where it is handled superbly and the descent into insanity is made completely believable by the actor in question. But in 'Streetcar' Vivien handles it as if she's never even been in front of a camera before.

Watch her eyes, her reactions to people's comments and questions: there is not one second where she doesn't seem to be combining the automated recital of memorised dialogue with over-the-top emotion, and it was obvious to this viewer right from the start that she didn't understand how to portray authentic emotion/reaction at all.

Yeah, yeah, I've read the reviews that all gush over her performance, even the director's comment that she brought everything he wanted to the role and more. At first this fact puzzled me greatly, since I found her performance to be easily the worst I've seen out of tens of thousands of performances in perhaps 20,000 or more movies over the years. But then I discovered that she was married to Lawrence Olivier right throughout her career, and everything suddenly made sense.

How do you tell one of the greatest actors of all time that his wife reeks as an actress? Better yet, how do you cover for her awful performances when there is the possibility of a public backlash over her roles that could prove embarrassing for the great man? That's easily solved: just hand her an Academy Award and that will shut everyone up. "Oh, she got the Academy for that part?! Okay, then it must be good!"

It isn't, and it brings down what could have been a 9/10 for 'Streetcar' to a 7, in my opinion.

PS - I also found her acting to be just as painful in 'Gone With the Wind', and guess what?! She got the Academy Award for that part too!! Go figure.

It really annoys me when people give a film 1/10 based on the fact that it doesn't meet their expectations or that it deviates from factual history.

I have Bruce Lee's complete collection of films and every episode of the Green Hornet (including the two that he did for Batman), not to mention a dozen or so documentaries on the man. My last count of Jackie Chan's films that I have bought on DVD or Blu ray was at about 67, so I have acquired most of his body of work also. Besides all this, I have dozens of other martial arts films from various actors including Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao, to name a few. To sum up, I feel that I am fairly experienced when it comes to watching martial arts films.

So why did I title this review 'Unfairly Judged'? Because while 'Birth of the Dragon' may present Bruce Lee in an inaccurate way, and while it takes liberties with recorded history, there are several aspects that are well handled and deserving of more than a 1/10. Here's my top 3:

1) The story is easy to follow, and everything was filmed and edited well. Worth at least a 5/10.

2) The acting from everyone was very good, which is more than I can say for most of the films in my Bruce and Jackie collection. Again, this is worth at least a 5/10.

3) For me, this third one is the real sore point: that Philip Ng and Yu Xia went through probably months of hard work choreographing the two main fight scenes, and in my opinion the results are worthwhile and enjoyable, despite moments where wires were used and a few scenes that were weird and beyond belief. To give these two gentlemen a 1/10 for their efforts is a total insult and shows a fair degree of ignorance from any reviewer.

You may not be happy with the approach the director took (and I sure as hell know I wasn't), but by what right do you come here and trash the sweat and hard work the actors did in making it all come together? Considering the material they were given to work with, the actors did an excellent job all the way through - particularly with those lengthy fight scenes, and it is my opinion that anyone who would reward these efforts with a big fat 'F' does not deserve to be sitting in a cinema or in front of a TV.

6/10 overall.

Boy, the other reviews here are scathing, but as far as I'm concerned, this film ain't so bad.

From the opening credits I could see that this movie was extremely low budget and so I set my expectations equally low. In the end I was surprised on two counts: firstly, the film wasn't that bad; and secondly, that 4 of the other 5 reviewers here on IMDB rated it so badly.

The story is ridiculous. A dictator gets overthrown and flees to the US where he knows he can hide with a young girl who has chosen him to be her pen-pal and who he believes will protect him. Choosing Michael Caine for the role is equally ridiculous, as is the rest of the film's story line. But that's what I think the other reviewers here have missed: the whole story is so ridiculous that you cannot take any of it seriously, and it therefore becomes an amusing romp through a series of intentionally absurd scenarios.

This in itself is not enough however, and the actors need to treat the film with just the right amount of enthusiasm to make it work. Caine's acting? He's long been one of my favourites, but in this he doesn't even bother to hide his cockney accent...but who cares! Brilliant acting is not what this film is about, so having Caine in the role becomes an amusement in itself (Caine not even remotely attempting to hide his cockney accent should have tipped off the other reviewers over the intentions of this film). I've never liked Katie Holmes, but in this I thought she was excellent. She had me totally believing in her selfish stupidity, and she appears to have treated this film to a fair degree of effort in bringing her desperate-for-a-man character to life. Odesya also handles herself well, as does Seth Green, and together the four of them manage to make this an entertaining low budget production.

What gets me though is that the other reviewers here seem to have been expecting something greater. Why? The poorly done backdrop of a crowd during Caine's speech made it clear that this film was meant to be a joke, as did his responses to her letters, and I found myself chuckling over the intentional ridiculousness of it all a number of times during the film.

The story is easy to follow, the editing is well handled, the casting was fine, the acting ranged from adequate to really good, so anybody who thinks this film is worth only 1/10 must have only just started watching movies yesterday, having started with Ben Hur. I have seen a hundred films way worse than this, and so I think these low ratings are missing the mark. Trust me, if you recognise the movie for what it's meant to be you should find it fun, and I personally give it a 6/10.

The film's main themes: digging up dinosaur bones, family issues, drug and money issues.

The story-line is reasonably well thought out, the casting is pretty good, the acting is basically good, and even the action is handled fairly well.

But there will be things that will bother you while viewing this film. Certain important people or events are passed over completely, and the ending is ruined by no less than three over-the-top scenes/moments. These were all completely unnecessary, and they placed a serious downer on the way I felt about the film as the credits began to roll.

So is it worth the time needed to have a look? Well, that depends on what kind of film you are looking for. If you like small, low budget productions then yeah, take a look, as I found it reasonably enjoyable to watch. But if you're with a couple of friends and you've just finished watching Gladiator and are wondering what to watch next, I really couldn't recommend this. At the very least, watch this one first and the blockbuster second.

The story is about a young guy who gets caught up in circumstances that make it appear as if he is a gunman holding hostages, when in fact he's completely innocent. And don't worry, that's not a spoiler, you find out he's innocent very early on in the film.

But the film has been written so badly it is actually painful to watch. All of the characters make bad decision after bad decision, and the thought goes through your mind while watching that if everyone was like that, humanity would have wiped itself out thousands of years ago.

The director obviously had an end goal in mind that he desperately wanted to arrive at, and so the film's characters are forced to steer the story towards this goal via extreme levels of mental incompetence.

Are there any pluses in the movie? Yes, the casting was generally very good and most of the acting was great, and the director's story is sequenced well so the movie is easy to follow as a result. But no town is full of people that are as stupid as these characters are, and this ruins all of those positives I just mentioned.

Apparently the film is supposed to be a comedy, but ironically I think the only time I laughed was when the FBI agent said something like "the whole nation has been watching the stupidity with which you've allowed this situation to unfold". I nodded in agreement and laughed out loud over what is possibly the most apt line in the film.

This is easily one of top 100 favourite films, and having just watched it again last night I felt compelled to finally write a review on it.

The casting is wonderful, the acting is superb, the script is involved but very well thought out and so it makes for an intelligent film, the scenery and camera work are excellent, the dialogue is subtlety written, and the film has a wonderful ending. So what's not to like?

For me this is one of those rare films where scene after scene is memorable, and each for their own reasons. My favourite scene is probably the one where Caine confronts his boss by the pool: the respect the two have for each other is wonderfully portrayed and presented, and Caine's look up to the sky immediately following the encounter shows the stress he was feeling during the confrontation - beautifully written, acted and shot!!

Bad points? Honestly, there ain't many that this reviewer can find. I guess Shephard's character may seem over the top, but she would have charmed me every bit as much as she did Caine, and so his interest in her feels completely authentic.

Another issue for some viewers may be the subtle dialogue and involved plot, but that's always going to be an issue with an intelligent film.

So why would I not give this film a 10 like I would Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, My Fair Lady, Charade, Lord of the Rings, or other classic masterpieces? Because those films all have some magic in them, and that's the one thing that Silver Bears lacks. It is superb in almost every way, but it lacks magic.

To sum up, I regard Silver Bears as a highly underrated film, and if you appreciate great acting and intelligent plots, I reckon you'll really enjoy it.

If, like me, you've been an obsessed Beatle fan all of your life, watching Ron Howard's Eight Days A Week may be a slightly strange experience.

For the casual fan it should, for the most part, be a fun 2 1/4 hours packed with lots of interesting footage and interviews. But for myself, who has virtually every bit of video footage and audio tape that fans can get their hands on, there isn't much that's new and you may be left wondering why Howard would take the brave step of releasing nostalgic stuff like this on the big screen. "Ah, let's see, we can watch Jason Bourne or Suicide Squad...I know, let's watch old footage of the Beatles!" But I cannot deny that the audience that shared my viewing was reasonably large in numbers, and they seemed to appreciate the experience, so I guess its a case of "well done, Ron Howard".

If I had to complain about a few things, it would be the cropped footage converting 4:3 to 16:9, or having BW turned to colour in a lot of cases. I prefer historical things to not be messed with. Having said that, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the full concert they show at the end of the film was uncropped, and the picture quality was excellent!

So was it worth this very experienced Beatle fan's while to see Eight Days A Week in the cinema and not just wait for the Blu-ray? Yes, it was worthwhile, and I think my lasting memories will be the rest of the audience snickering every time the footage jumped to another hysterical fan screaming out for one of the four. It made the viewing more fun.

There is only one other review on this page currently (dated 7 Aug 2016) but I think it sums things up nicely, and I find myself almost completely in agreement with it. There are, however, a few things I would like to add.

I don't feel like I have wasted my time if the film has managed to maintain a smile on my face, and I can learn a few things along the way. In this case, the film definitely informs the viewer of several interesting things regarding the modern sex industry, while at the same time making a study of the struggling middle class and its increasing crossover into taking more desperate measures in order to get by.

If I had to point out faults it would be that there are a few issues/sub plots the director raises but then doesn't fully address, and in fact just completely brushes them aside in order to provide the film with the desired ending.

But to sum up, as long as you watch this film in a situation where sex topics are not going to cause embarrassment, I regard it as worth watching and a bit of fun.

Oh, and I'll disagree with the other reviewer and say that Ashley Tisdale would by my pick. ;)

I saw The Preppie Connection tonight, and found myself enjoying every bit of it. The fact that it was a true story made it an easy sell for me, but I particularly appreciate that the film makers didn't present anything fantastic or over the top. Instead, you really feel that what you are watching is probably what actually took place, no more, no less. In short, the risk the main character takes in traveling abroad for the purpose of drug trafficking is presented clearly and thoroughly for the viewer, and this serves to make the film engaging.

I've read a review elsewhere that regards the acting in this film as weak. I don't agree at all. I thought the acting was great, the kids were believable, and I especially liked the soundtrack.

To sum up, I probably wouldn't go handing out Oscars to the actors and crew, but in my opinion the film entertains all the way through, and is definitely worthwhile watching.

I am a big Keanu Reeves fan. I was looking forward to this movie and for the most part I was watching it with a huge smile on my face.

The action is brilliant. Reeves does some original stuff in his fight sequences and makes them look believable.

But there were several scenes which took the movie down a few pegs in my opinion. Keanu's super tough character John Wick struggling to take down a girl who looks more like she should be selling perfume than she would be capable of fighting and killing? Sorry, this is not remotely believable.

John Wick getting caught and needing to be saved time and again throughout the film? How amateurish. Watch the Bourne trilogy instead. Bourne never made the mistake of letting anyone know where he was, which is why he was always a step ahead of his pursuers. If he ever got picked up he'd planned it in advance so as to attain information. By contrast John Wick continually blundered into situations that would have seen his end in an even half way real world.

But the fight scenes were original and awesome. Oh yeah, and regarding Keanu's acting being terrible, which is what I've read from others here on the discussion board and in reviews: he cries when he reads his wife's letter and he makes it look more believable than most actors I've seen dealing with similar emotional scenes. His acting was great.

So, will you walk away from this film considering it a masterpiece? Not if you like a decent amount of believability and logic in your story lines.

But is John Wick worth watching? Yes, if only for the fight scenes...I may even buy it on Blu Ray just for those moments.

Okay, okay, this is as most other people here have described it - a fairly lame episode. I won't argue...apart from the fact that everyone has apparently missed the brilliance of the episode's fight scene.

Now let me explain: I have a complete Bruce Lee collection including every one of his Green Hornet episodes, and I own over 60 of Jackie Chan's movies, and I regard the fight scene in the Big Blackout to be HIGHLY IMPRESSIVE!! It is clumsy and realistic, making it the most authentic scene in the episode, but most importantly - and amazingly - it was done in one shot! I can't think of another fight scene that was done without at least a couple of breaks in the film, so this one stands on its own.

The episode itself might be lame, but this is one of the most important episodes in the Thriller series for me simply because of the fight scene. You won't get any Chan or Lee style high kicks, but I'm sure both of those guys would have appreciated the achievement of completing the whole fight sequence without needing a cut in the film. Watch it!!

I have seen all of Jessie's movies that have been restored to DVD, but as Sailing Along was the last one I happened to view I cannot help but to compare it with the rest of her catalogue rather than review it on its own merits. I should also point out that I have long considered Jessie to be one of the most beautiful and charming women to have ever been on screen, so the objectivity of my views will no doubt be compromised by this aspect.

With that having been said, I found Sailing Along to be an odd mix of character inconsistency and absurd story lines, balanced by wonderful comedic moments and bursting with charm from several leading players.

Roland Young provides much of the comedy and he had me laughing out loud more than once, but he is well supported in this venture by the always great Alastair Sim. But his obsession with discovering 'genius' makes him too big a twit for any of the other characters to take seriously, and this makes the basis of the story seem more improbable.

His wife's character - played by Athene Seyler - is unfathomably inconsistent as she is prepared to leave the house one minute when Jessie is presented as the next 'genius', but then a moment later becomes Jessie's strongest supporter after a predictably miserable failed audition.

Another strange aspect of this movie is the way in which the marriage between Jack Whiting and Margaret Vyner is presented. It is apparently completely acceptable for each to declare love for other people, and at a moment's notice. This aspect is so odd that it provided this viewer with confusion over the story-line on a few occasions, and seemed out of place with 1930s attitudes.

But the film is swooped up from these potentially damaging issues by the irresistibly charming Jessie Matthews, who shines throughout every scene. She dances, dives, pouts, cries, punches, head-butts, ballets, flirts, sings and laughs her way through a totally captivating performance incomparable with any of her other films. If she once said that making this movie was very difficult, it certainly does not show on the evidence the footage presents. In fact, her dance scene for a trio of male milk-drinkers is so full of flirtatious fun that she appears to be enjoying her role more than usual. Their mesmerized attentions to her performance seem silly at first, but by the end of the two or three minutes I could only imagine myself sitting right along side them, every bit as enchanted as they were.

Perhaps my score of 6 is a little harsh and it may actually deserve a 7, but then again I am comparing it with other favourites like Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia or My Fair Lady, so with that in mind I think a 6 is actually a pretty good score.

To sum up, if you like old movies then this one is well worth watching, but if you are a fan of Jessie Matthews herself, Sailing Along is positively indispensable!

I knew nothing about this film when we sat down in the cinema tonight to see it, so I had no expectations. But from the opening moments I found myself completely engaged by the acting, and interested in the characters straight away.

Christian Bale has not done much for me in recent years, but he was captivating in this, and in every single scene. His physical transformation into a slightly overweight conman with a bad comb-over was enhanced by his believable character portrayal, and I have renewed respect for him now as an actor that can be damn interesting to watch.

Bradley Cooper was brilliant, as was Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Jennifer Lawrence, and Louis C.K.. There wasn't a single person that didn't pull their weight, and it makes the film's more-than-2-hour-length fly by.

There's not much in the way of physical action...in fact, I can't think of anything any action at all really...but the drama of the film is so well handled that action simply isn't necessary. Even the comedic moments were handled superbly.

I'd love to criticise something, cos no film is perfect, but this is a tough one to find fault with...maybe I would have left out Lawrence's dance scene when she mimed to Live and Let Die, cos it felt slightly at odds with the rest of the film in my opinion, but that's being seriously harsh.

So, to sum up, if you want a movie with top acting, big stars, brilliant dialogue, no over-the-top action and a well thought out story (with some historical truth mixed in), then this one is for you.

Trust me, you won't be sorry!

Blitz is not getting much respect from reviewers on IMDb, and I'm very surprised by this. I loved it from the first minute to the last and ordered the Blu-Ray on line before the credits had even finished.

Statham plays an aggressive cop with an attitude, and if he's got a weapon in his hands (like a hockey stick) he'll wield it like a pro.

Paddy Considine plays a gay cop who's capable of taking the law into his own hands, and this allows him to work with Statham just beautifully.

Aidan Gillen plays a fabulous psycho with a thing for killing cops, and he's been one of my favourite British actors for the past 10 years anyway, so it would have been hard for him to screw this one up.

The action from the opening scene is great, Statham's lines are terrific stuff and had me laughing hard more than once, the odd-team Statham and Considine create is brilliant, the story doesn't get bogged down in personal problems, there are no annoying girlfriends, wives or kids to pull the actors and audience sideways away from the story (some directors seem to love putting that type of stuff in), the continuity issues others have mentioned are so minor they don't matter, the soundtrack was perfect, and the ending was everything I hoped it would be.

This film is never going to make the 'Greatest Films Ever Made' list, but its sure as hell fun to watch as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't beat around the bush getting started, doesn't waste time during the film, keeps up the fun, and what more do you want from Statham and an action film? To the film's detractors I say 'lighten up'! It's obvious from the first 10 minutes the film's creators weren't chasing Academy Awards, so why knock it so hard? It's meant to entertain for 90 minutes, and it does just that.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes puts a fresh twist on the original storyline, and sets the path nicely for a sequel.

Rather than follow the previous versions where a journey through space sees the ship's occupants arrive back on earth only to find that in their long absence apes have taken over, this version deals with a scientific experiment gone wrong.

This new storyline is handled decently enough, and although the actors involved are outshone by the apes, nobody seems out of place in their roles.

The apes themselves are superb. I consider myself to be quite the fusspot when it comes to CGI, but in this film I find myself watching real apes doing very intelligent things, which means the special effects fooled me completely.

If I had to criticize this film anywhere, it would be the apes apparent 'super' strength, speed and ability to smash through endless plate glass windows without a scratch.

But that's a minor point overall, and I think I can safely say you won't take your eyes off this film, and before you know it you'll be reaching the finale with the feeling that you've only just sat down.

Highly recommended!

This is a good B-Grade film, and there are many reasons to watch it.

First, and the reason I watched it: Debi Mazar is gorgeous and gets plenty of quality screen time.

Second: the story line is interesting and imaginative.

Third: the special effects are more than decent when one considers the mid-range success this film's creators would have been aiming for.

Fourth: the acting from the main pair (Charles Dance & Dennis Hopper) was spot on - considering this film was meant to be a space adventure/comedy.

Fifth: the design of ships and cargo carriers was very good.

Sixth: almost all of the dialogue was well written.

Seventh: the film should provide many laughs all the way through.

So why the terrible 4.9 rating? Is the film badly edited and hard to follow? Absolutely not. On the contrary this side of things was very well handled, and the film is very easy to follow with no errors of continuance.

Did the film suffer from bad casting? Definitely not, and both Charles and Dennis would be irreplaceable in my opinion. Remember Dennis Hopper's terrific one liners in Water World? Well, he repeats that performance here in Space Truckers. Besides, we get to see Dennis play a heroic character for a change!

Does the film suffer from a lack of character development like some reviewers have said? Utter rubbish! I can't say much here that would not give elements of the outcome of the story away, but I will say that if you miss character development in this movie then you didn't watch it properly.

And one last thing; this movie is close to the mark as far as the reality of our world is concerned. Technology has created power for some people that we should all be very concerned about, and while Space Truckers is a comedy, I felt it hit very close to home on a few fronts.

Being a completest and a major fan of Errol Flynn's I bought this movie on DVD about 5 years ago, but allowed myself to be swayed by public opinion (describing it as the worst movie ever made) and promptly sat it on the shelf unwatched.

The other night however I finally decided to dust it down and pop the disc in the player for the very first time, and my end verdict? I have seen far worse films than this.

Firstly, the film is well narrated by Flynn and the story is easy to follow. I have seen many movies where the editing and story-telling is so badly handled that you haven't got a clue what's going on. Cuban Rebel Girls is very easy to follow, so there's no problem there.

And about Flynn's narration: It is my understanding that more than anything else Flynn wanted to be taken seriously as a war correspondent. He didn't care about acting, but he did want to be a writer. Well this side of him shines through with this film. Right from the start it feels less like a movie and more like a typical documentary of the period. Some recognition of this from other reviewers would have been nice.

Another aspect of the film that gets savaged by reviewers is the picture quality. I have a brand new Panasonic 50 inch TV that shows up bad picture immediately, and the picture quality in this movie is just fine!

People also maintain that all the acting is abysmal. Well, once again I feel that this is unfair. I've seen far worse acting on a hundred occasions, and in particular the guy playing Aadland's boyfriend happens to say his lines very well!

But there is no doubt that this film is an amateurish effort. Flynn's role is almost pointless - apart from the well handled narration, and he does indeed appear to be inebriated for at least the last scene he's in. To be fair again though; Flynn was drunk through most of The Sun Also Rises, and horrible in The Roots Of Heaven. He was noticeably drunk all the way through that movie, whereas in Cuban Rebel Girls his narration is sober, and so are his first few scenes. Considering this was made in the year he died, and of how much pain I was in watching him in Roots Of Heaven, I was pleasantly surprised by his efforts in this film.

The aspect of this film that I find the hardest to handle is Flynn's seeming obsession with young girls! Of all the things to criticize I would have thought someone would mention this, since it makes him sound every bit like a one-track-minded dirty old man.

One last point to make: before having watched this film I knew nothing about the Cuban Revolution. After having watched it I had at least a small appreciation for the type of things that went on, and the effort the people went through to support it. To say this film is a waste of time and not worth watching is both ignorant and unfair...in my opinion.

If you were to rate a film on all of it's components individually, then El Cid would be a winner in most respects. The casting was great, the acting was fine, dialogue was good, the locations were terrific, the music was all class, and the effort and expense on uniforms, etc must have been huge. In fact, it is only in two areas that I can find fault, but they are big ones.

Firstly, the director fails to impress upon the viewer the reason for El Cid's greatness and the loyalty of his followers. Yes, early on he defeated the king's champion, and yes, he defeated another lord's champion soon after, but beyond that I am at a loss to understand why the man El Cid would be worthy of a movie (or a book). I can only assume that this is where the director failed in his duty, and yet these are the things the viewer must be left in no doubt about by the time the credits roll. It is the director's job in such a film to impress upon his audience the unquestionable greatness of the main character, but instead I am left wondering what scenes I must have missed that would have validated his claim to so much glory and adulation.

Secondly, the story appears to jump or skip large sections several times, once again leaving the viewer wondering what vital moments were missed that would better explain the chain of events captured on film.

All this is a great pity, since in every other respect El Cid is a giant of a film.

Most of the reviews on this page seem to be coming from experienced viewers of the period with much broader knowledge of 30s musicals than I have. My viewing experience of the 30s doesn't extend out much past Errol Flynn, and while his swashbuckling style bears a vague resemblance to more recent times, I can assuredly say that this movie is of a completely different style to anything else I've ever seen. I suspect that modern audiences will have trouble appreciating the songs and dance routines, as the world has moved on several times over since then and these days expects something quite different for it's entertainment. I would like to think however, that any person born of a more recent generation (I'm 37 at the time of writing) viewing a movie from this period would have respect for the historical importance of such an opportunity. At the very least it is a glimpse at our world dating back 75 years, and very recently restored and transferred to DVD by Network media (25 May 2009). So what is my interest in this particular film? Quite simply; Jessie Matthews. I regard her as the most beautiful and charming woman I have ever seen on screen, and that is taking into account all modern day actresses. She is a complete natural with comedy, and despite a large portion of Evergreen's 90 minutes being devoted to singing and dancing, Jessie's comedic ability still gets a chance to shine through. Furthermore, while I find it difficult to appreciate the musical side of the production, I can safely say that there is never a moment when Jessie does not look perfectly suited to the task of both singer and dancer. I found the plot to be a little silly but still entertaining, and in fact the 90 minutes run time felt more like 60 by the time the film had come to an end. I would dearly love to see all of Jessie's films released on DVD, and can only hope that the company decides to do so, and I also hope that there is a large audience out there that can still appreciate a glimpse of a different world.

Boy, this movie seems to be highly over-rated by practically everyone who sees it! I just watched it tonight for the first time and I was quite disappointed. The DVD cover described it as one of the greatest films of all time, so I sat down with this thought in mind. Because of the period in history it represented and the main actor involved I was expecting something on the grand scale of Ben Hur - which I do regard as one of the best films of all time - but instead I found this film to be substandard in several areas. Firstly the acting is melodramatic, and while it appears to be a purposeful style that Cecil has applied, it unfortunately comes off looking too comical to be taken seriously. Anne Baxter was unable to get into the role correctly at all, and she looks and sounds more like she's playing the part of some smug gangster's broad in a 1950's flick starring Humphrey Bogart. The next most irritating aspect was the constant use of a superimposed back drop in scenes clearly performed on stage. Sorry, but I've been spoiled by the wonderful production of Ben Hur, where the only obvious scene using superimposition or models was during the sea battle. Every other part of Ben Hur was done on enormous outdoor sets that were simply breathtaking to behold, where as with the 10 Commandments I found myself constantly listening to studio echo during conversations taking place in a desert setting, or backdrops of massive stone structures that looked too perfect and smooth to be anything other than small scale models. The river scenes suffered from the enclosed feel of a studio in both sound and appearance; Moses stumbling upon a sheep-herding group of beautiful young women was ridiculous (not one of these women was even remotely plain); and the music was totally unsuitable for the period or the importance of the story. I could mention a hundred other things but I'm beginning to feel bad about the negativity of my review. There were things that I did like however. The parting of the ocean was particularly well done, and Moses spewed out classic one liners for the first half of the film like I've never heard anyone do in a movie before. 6 stars, just slightly above average.