Reviews

I'll cut straight to the chase. Most animation in the 60s, 70s and into the 80s was bad. Instead of using the old cel counts (about 24 frames per second) and exhibiting high quality animation and backgrounds, studios found they could drastically cut costs. Sure, many would not bother watching these cheap cartoons...but they figured enough still would that making second or third-rate cartoons would pay...and they did. I mention this because although the animation in "The Last Unicorn" isn't 100% awful, it is pretty typical for that period and for Rankin-Bass Studio...and that is bad. This means no matter how good the story or voice acting is, the animation of this feature film is poor. It' colorful but cheap looking.

The story is about the final unicorn...which, isn't much of a surprised based on the film's title! It has a variety of adventures with her bumbling friend, Schmendrick, a lousy magician. They escape the evil Fortuna, who has imprisoned the unicorn to make it part of her traveling show, they meet up with thieves, see King Haggard as well as Schmendrick accidentally turning the unicorn into a girl!

This is an odd cartoon. I cannot imagine it appealing to young kids, as the content is a bit more adult. Further, some parents might object to the language and dark plot. But I also cannot see this appealing to older audiences as well. The age for this one is probably 8-11...making its appeal pretty narrow.

Overall, poor animation, nice voice acting and a story that is okay but not offering wide appeal.

The story begins in Boston in 1924. Hannah (Anne Baxter) is quite taken with a handsome hoofer in a local show. Tim O'Connor (Dan Dailey) and Hannah see each other quite and it's not surprising that the two are soon married.

One day, Tim is offered a chance to do a screen test in Hollywood. But, surprisingly, they end up signing Hannah to the contract...while Tim continues his stage career. Soon she is a top star and the pair are separated much of the time...and you wonder how long their marriage can take this. However, this is NOT the direction the story goes. Instead, after being a star in silents, Hannah retires on top when talkies become the rage. And, since Tim is a song and dance man, he, too, has a period where for a few years he's a star as well. But the big problem (and there always needs to be one in this sort of movie) is with their daughter...a Shirley Temple-like kid who wants to be in movies as well. Mom's against it...Dad's all in favor of it.

Dan Dailey's singing and dancing are very nice...and look very natural. There is, however, a blackface scene...which is unfortunate and a bit embarrassing.

As for Baxter, her lot isn't as good in the movie. Up until she becomes a star in the movie, she is amazingly flat. And, her reaction to her daughter's stardom seems...well...bizarre and from out of left field. It just felt contrived...as did the whole break up near the end.

Overall, this is a good movie...at least for the first 3/4. The final portion, while not terrible, is a disappointment. Still, it's worth watching despite its problems.

During his movie career, Audie Murphy made 45 films...and nearly all of them were westerns. A few of them were really, really good...such as "Drums Along the River" and "Apache Rifles". Many were just ordinary programmers....westerns with little to distinguish them. Sadly, "Cast a Long Shadow" isn't one of the better westerns...mostly due to the way his character was written.

When the story begins, Chip Donahue (John Dehner) finds Matt Brown (Murphy) doing what he loves to do these days...hanging out in a saloon, drink and gambling. Brown is pretty much a bum...which makes Donahue's visit an important one. It seems that Chip doesn't realize it, but he's the heir to a large cattle ranch and Donahue wants to buy it from him now that the owner has died and left it to Brown.

Brown agrees to sell the ranch but soon after arriving at the place, he realizes that it would provide him with something important...and he decides to keep it for himself. However, there's a mortgage overdue on the place and unless he drives a mess of cattle to market as soon as possible, he'll lose the place.

But there is a HUGE problem with this plan.... Brown is a nasty jerk and he's excellent at driving away people around him. Soon, it appears he'll practically have to do the cattle drive himself since he's now such a hated man...and rightfully so.

The surliness of Murphy's character is THE major problem with the film. Had he evolved into a better person through the course of the story (as in the two excellent films I mentioned above), it might have worked. Here, on the other hand, he just seems like a jerk with severe constipation or migraine! It does abate a bit through the course of the story...just not enough to make you care about him and his ranch.

During the 1930s-50s, there were tons of westerns which brought actual living characters from the old west to the big screen. The problem, however, is that about 90% of what you see in these films has very little to do with the real life exploits of these minor characters. In many cases, sociopathic jerks like Jesse James, Butch Cassidy and Billy the Kid are elevated to almost heroic status...while in real life they were simply murderers and thieves...the type you really want in prison, not marrying your sister!

This film is Audie Murphy's chance to play one of these highly fictionalized real life people. He was not a bad choice, as Murphy was still young and short...and so playing a guy dubbed 'the Kid' was a good fit. He's good in it and the movie is entertaining.

The story follows the events, somewhat, from the so-called 'Lincoln County War'...a series of fights between wealthy ranchers in the New Mexico Territory. Mostly, it was one thug shooting another...no glory and if they could shoot you in the back, so much the better. But because they want to make Billy more likeable, the shooting unarmed folks and the like are eliminated and each of the MANY murders he commits seems reasonably justified.

Overall, a decent film but one you'd best see as fiction and not the real old west in any way. And, oddly, if you want to see Billy the Kid's grave, there are TWO of them in New Mexico today...something that confuses me!

I am very surprised by the reviews for "The Return of October", as they are mostly positive. None of them really say that it's a bad movie...and i sure feel it really is pretty bad and embarrassing to watch!

Terry (Terry Moore) is a young woman being raised by her uncle who loves horses and horse racing. The old guy is pretty sick, however, and soon dies. As for Terry, she soon sees a horse at an auction and almost immediately assumes it's her uncle....reincarnated as a horse!

Now this is NOT the only strange things about Terry. When she meets up with Professor Bassett (Glenn Ford), their 'meet cute' is pretty awful...with Terry accusing him of stealing $5 from her and calling a cop on him AND getting him a speeding ticket...both of which are HER fault. In fact, every time he's around Terry, the poor Professor ends up having his life disrupted...including getting him to buy that race horse. She promises to repay him but can't...and to recoup the university's money he spent on the 'uncle', the university agrees to not fire him IF he writes a paper about this kooky young woman. What no one knows is that Terry's extended family are crooks and they're going to use her delusion to have her institutionalized.

This film makes "Mr. Ed" seem like an episode of "Masterpiece Theatre"! Why? Well, the film is so frequently kooky and utterly ridiculous by comparison. I just cannot believe the folks in the movie could do this without feeling a LOT of embarrassment.

Now I am NOT saying this story might not have been able to work. Heck, I enjoy the Francis the Talking Mule movies...and they are pretty silly. But the writing for Moore's character, in particular, makes her seem less kooky and cute and more just annoying and obnoxious. Her delivery throughout the story sure didn't help either. Overall, a film just too silly for me to take seriously in any way...and one of Glenn Ford's films I am pretty sure he regretted making. How could he be proud of this...and, especially, his courtroom theatrics towards the end of the movie!

Leslie (Maureen O'Hara) seems to have a good life. She's rich, pretty and has a fiance who is a diplomat. However, when Jock (Cornel Wilde) enters her life, she throws away common sense and marries him instead...without really knowing him all that well. At first, everything seems okay but over time, it becomes obvious that Jock is a man-child...an irresponsible guy who is interested in buying racing horses but isn't so concerned whether he can afford them and their extravagant lifestyle. This worries Leslie and Jock promises to change, though being a man-child, Jock doesn't change in the least. Eventually, she gets sick of his irresponsible ways and leaves him. But there's something about the racing and the horses that Leslie cannot completely give up this life.

"The Homestretch" has a fatal flaw...that characters are difficult to care for and I found myself not caring if they grew up or not. Plus, the chemistry between Wilde and O'Hara certainly wasn't enough to overcome this plot problem. The film seems to want the audience to root for them...I certainly didn't.

By the way, there were two small things that annoyed me in this one. First, casting Henry Stephenson as a South American was ridiculous and his 'accent' was pretty limp. Second, considering the film is about horse racing, you'd think they'd pronounce the name of the race track 'Bowie' correctly. A bit of research and that couldn't have happened.

The bottom line is that this is a nice looking film with really superficial characters and plot. It's very watchable but really pretty shallow and predictable.

Hopefully, when people went to see "Ten Gentlemen from West Point" they weren't expecting a history lesson, as the plot is, for the most part, fiction...and rather silly fiction. According to this film, the US Congress was not particularly excited about starting the military school at West Point, New York and the film shows that the school's commandant, Major Carter (Laird Cregar) does his best to make the cadets hate the school and want to go back home. So, for much of the film, he has the cadets treated poorly though, unexpectedly, the men somehow prove themselves.

The problem with this movie isn't just that it's poor history but the dialog and music are, well, pretty dumb. Again and again and again, you hear strains of "Yankee Doodle"...and the band at West Point only seems to play this tune! I can only assume no other songs were written at the time! And, the dialog and characters just seem a bit cartoony and unreal. Overall, a rather silly film and by the end I still had no idea WHAT Maureen O'Hara was doing in the middle of all this. Easy to skip and just plain silly.

By the way, towards the end you see natives from the Indiana/Ohio area all hanging out in tipis. This was NOT how they lived and such dwellings were used much further west by nations like the Sioux.

"Gunpoint" is one of Audie Murphy's later films and his last for Universal Studios. And, while some of his universal westerns were very good, this one is, at best, just average.

When the story begins, Sheriff Chad Lucas (Murphy) and his Deputy, Chad (Denver Pyle), see that a spectacular train robbery is about to occur by Drago's gang. However, what Chad doesn't realize is that his Deputy is in on the robbery. And later, when he goes off to capture the gang, his double-dealing Deputy is in tow. But to make it much worse, Chad's being helped by a thoroughly disreputable character he knows he cannot trust, Nate Harlan (Warren Stevens). Nate's reason for coming is that Drago (Morgan Woodard) has kidnapped his fiancee, Uvalde (Joan Staley). What will ultimately happen?

The story suffered from some big problems. First, it seemed that everybody had some bad story secret...EVERYBODY. That got very old with all these surprise reveals. Second, early in the film, the Sheriff is nearly blinded and his vision is a mess...but it magically seems normal until the big ending...when it suddenly returns. Not good writing, that's for sure. But the third problem really annoyed me...Morgan Woodward was barely in the film. He was a GREAT bad guy...but you barely get to see any of his usual menacing manner...which is a waste.

Now if you can look past this, the story isn't bad and it's an okay western...one which seems almost as if it could use a bit of a re-write.

The WWII hero, Audie Murphy, was soon recruited by Hollywood and became a minor star. However, nearly all of his 45 films were westerns...meaning he was definitely type cast. I've recently seen several of them. A couple were really top-notch films, such as "Drums Across the River" and "Apache Rifles". But most were pretty ordinary westerns...and "Arizona Raiders", despite being in color, is pretty ordinary.

The film begins just after the Civil War and for a couple months, Quantrell and his bloody Raiders refuse to accept that the war is over and they continue robbing and killing. However, after Quantrell and many of his gang are killed, two of the band's former members are recruited to go into Arizona and capture or kill them, as they definitely are no longer fighting for any cause...apart from murder! Clint (Audie Murphy) is one of these new Rangers out to stop his old gang.

There are a few problems with the film. First, tons of westerns have featured Quantrell's Raiders...so the folks in it are practically cliches. Second, the film begins with a very long introduction by some guy who lectures about Quantrell...followed by even more narration. I don't think I've ever seen a movie with more exposition than this one! Third, the story and Murphy's characters never really take off and the story tends to be rather talky. Fourth, Gloria Talbot sounded NOTHING like a Yaqui Indian...and although the dark paint made her look Indian-like, she was a poor choice to play such a part.

What's to like? Well, the color footage is nice. But that's really about it and it's nothing more than an okay time-passer.

When the story began, I saw that Lyle Bettger was in the movie. I immediately turned to my wife and said "He'll being playing the big bad guy who is behind all sorts of evil" and, sure enough, this was the case. Bettger nearly always played slimy jerks in westerns...and it seems back in the day, audiences liked such type casting. However, this isn't always the case, as Morris Ankrum is also in the film. He mostly played the same sorts of roles though occasionally he DID play good guys, like judges. Here he plays an Indian chief. And, although I prefer such roles being played by Indian actors for realism sake, at least his son in the film, Jay Silverheels, was a real life Indian and he later played the chief.

As for the film, like many westerns mostly of the 1950s and 60s, it takes a more positive view of the various Indian nations. Like Audie Murphy's later film, "Apache Rifles", it has a rather sympathetic view of these people and also has Murphy evolve through the course of the story. At first, he sees these people as the enemy but over time he recognizes their plight and works to stop the jerks from starting a war with the Ute just in order to rob their land of gold. Their reasoning is that a war would force the US government to take action...hopefully displacing the tribe from their land. Stuck in the middle are Murphy and his father, played by Walter Brennan.

So is the film any good? Well, it's probably one of Murphy's best westerns...and he mostly made westerns. It helped that the cast was so good. In addition to the folks I already mentioned, Hugh O'Brian (in his first film) plays a real psycho gunslinger. Bob Steele (who used to star in B-westerns in the 1930s) plays a supporting role as does, of all people, Howard McNear...'Floyd' from "The Andy Griffith Show"! McNear plays a rather pusillanimous character early in the story.

By the way, after seeing the film, my wife asked me "Was that an A-list film". Well, I'd say A- (if there is such a thing). It has a great supporting cast, is in color and is an excellent story. It's just that Murphy, though popular, was not John Wayne nor Jimmy Stewart when it came to westerns.

I am very surprised that Audie Murphy agreed to star in "Battle at Bloody Beach", as he had a very bad case of PTSD after fighting in WWII. Sure, he earned more medals than any other American in the war, but he also paid a huge price...and his PTSD was so bad it contributed to his first marriage dissolving. So, in light of his mental illness, it's not 100% surprising that he had a few other troubles in life...including many financial ones. It was so bad that after a while, he went from making relatively high budgeted films (mostly westerns) to making cheaper and cheaper movies. "Battle at Bloody Beach" is certainly one of the cheaper ones.

A few signs this is a very cheap movie is that instead of filming it in the Philippines, they chose nearby Catalina Island...just a short distance from Hollywood. Another is that the women in the movie all sport 1961 hair (particularly the lead) and they made little attempt to make it look like a period piece. Additionally, Murphy is given little in the way of support...with mostly unknowns and Gary Crosby, who, at the time, wasn't exactly a star.

The story is set around late 1943-sometime in 1944. Craig Benson (Murphy) is on a mission where he is going island to island recruiting the locals for the insurgency against the Japanese. At the same time, and a VERY weak part of the film, is that he's also looking for his wife who got separated from him at Manila at the beginning of the war. And, naturally, he finds her here...which seems pretty ridiculous. But there are problems...and the mission ends with a bloody battle on the beach...hence the film's title.

I agree with the one review that describe this as a stiff and talky picture--it is. I think a bit more action might have helped and less of the love story as well. Still, it's not a terrible low budget film...just one that's easy to skip.

By the way, two bad things that stood out where the scene was when one of the insurgents yells out "NO!! Blanco ends here" as he pretty much throws away his life instead of getting on the boat with everyone else. The other, and I'm surprised that Murphy didn't complain about this, is that they are fighting the Japanese with Browning Automatic Rifles...a sort of rifle/submachine gun hybrid. It could fire, at most, 20 rounds...but here you never see anyone reloading and they are firing it on full automatic most of the time instead of in single-shot mode. I'm not a big expert on guns but have fired the BAR and know the film didn't seem to care if it was being used realistically or not. Of course, perhaps Murphy DID say something but the director simply didn't care. Who knows?

"Malaga" is a film with a very poor overall score of 4.9. I don't think it's a great film but I think it's a tad better than that.

The film is set in Morocco and is one of those tough as nails roles for Maureen O'Hara. I think generally these roles aren't very good...with Maureen being too tough yet too quick to succumb to a handsome man by the end. The worst of these were the pirate and harem films...where she just seemed completely out of place. But the studios loved putting her in such fluff and apparently she enjoy making them...and cashing the studio checks.

The prevalence and deadliness of the smuggling business in Tangier is alarming various agencies of various nations with interests there. However, each time they send in an agent to investigate, they end up assuming room temperature very quickly. So they decide to bring in a female James Bond-type sexy lady to infiltrate and apparently Joanna (O'Hara) is this sort of lady. She's hot, she's tough and she's a former OSS agent (the precursor to the CIA). And, when she arrives, she's about as subtle as a nudist at a Baptist barbecue! Soon her sexy ways draw the attention of several slavering men and it's always questionable who works on whose side. Will our pretty and very well-coiffed lady manage to bring down this criminal syndicate?

The film has the phrase 'time-passer' written all over it. It's enjoyable and with plenty of action...even if O'Hara, once again, is miscast. Instead of coming off as deadly, she comes off as a bit silly. But the rest of the film isn't bad and you could easily do worse. Plus the film has some lovely locations and moves at a brisk pace.

In the late 1950s, American studios discovered a new style film...those set in post-war Japan. Suddenly, in a period of only a couple years, LOTS of these films came out and they ranged from excellent to embarrassing. The excellent films were so good because they were timeless and chose to have Japanese actors play the Japanese, such as with "Sayonara" and "The Geisha Boy". The embarrassing ones were the ones where the studios unwisely chose to cast American actors as these Japanese and their 'interpretation' is pretty awful. These lacky-type characters were greatly exaggerated Japanese stereotypes. People at the time liked the films but today they just haven't aged very well. Imagine Marlon Brando as an Okinawan in "The Teahouse of the August Moon" and here, in "Joe Butterfly", Burgess Meredith playing an oily black marketeer! Uggh. While I am not the most PC sort of guy, seeing Americans overdoing it is just embarrassing and sad...especially when great Japanese actors could have used the work.

The story begins with the first ships entering Japan to being the occupation in late 1945. For some inexplicable reason, some military higher-up has decided that the Army's "Stars & Stripes"-style magazine will bring out an occupation edition...in three days! Why three days? Who knows. But the problem is Tokyo has been firebombed and there is little left...little room for offices, no equipment and no resources. So the men must either NOT produce the magazine and face the consequences OR work with the local black market to get what they need. That is where Joe Butterfly comes into the story and he's assisted by the similarly inclined Private Woodley (Audie Murphy) to get things done.

Although the casting of Meredith is embarrassing, it didn't apparently hurt his career and you don't usually hear folks talking about how bad it was. But the film does excel with the rest of its casting...a fine group of mostly supporting actors who are very familiar faces. The film features George Nader in the lead along with the likes of Charles McGraw, Keenan Wynn, Fred Clark, Eddie Firestone, John Agar, and Herbert Anderson and all are excellent.

So despite the 'squirm factor' of seeing Meredith overdoing it as Joe, is the film worth seeing? Well, yes. The film is quite entertaining and generally treats the Japanese well (apart from Joe Butterfly). The script is very good and the dialog excels. I just can't score it any higher due to Joe Butterfly.

By the way, although the film did talk about food and housing shortages, the reality was much worse and this is a highly sanitized version of Japan circa 1945. A major percentage of Tokyo was literally leveled by carpet bombing and the destruction is something difficult to repeat in 1957. The best film to show this sort of post-WWII destruction might just be "Germany Year Zero" and I cannot think of any set in Japan that so well capture the post-war horror.

I noticed something unusual tonight. Although I have seen most of the films of most of the most famous American actors of the 1930s-50s, I actually have seen very few of Audie Murphy movies. Because of this, I really have no idea if he was a good actor or not or whether or not I'd enjoy his movies. I have seen a few westerns as well as "The Red Badge of Courage"....but not in many years. So, I searched YouTube and found his film...one of Murphy's later outings.

When the story begins, Captain Stanton (Audie Murphy) is given command of a company of Cavalry soldiers to capture a group of renegade Apache who, for some odd reason, don't want to live on a crappy reservation. However, to capture these men, the Captain orders his men to live much like Indians...eating what they find as they travel, going without sleep and being just as dedicated as the Apache. They eventually catch up with them...but the Apache voice their gripes to him...that gold prospectors were invading their reservation lands (which really did happen in the 1870s)! What's to come of this fragile peace? And, what is to become of the Captain and his less than enlightened views of the natives?

Like too many westerns of the 1950s and 60s, the major Indian characters are all played by white guys in makeup. I don't hate this so much for politically correct reasons as realism reasons....they just don't look like Apaches. I did appreciate, however, how they had the Apache leader speak Spanish instead of English, as the Apache often spent much of their lives in Mexico...not just the US. This is just a nice touch of realism. Plus, throughout the movie, the Mescalero Apache are actually the heroes.

So is the movie any good? Yes, though I was surprised that the story made the Captain a rather stereotypical 'Indian hating' guy. Fortunately, and what made the film so good, is that over time, the Captain did change his views...especially as he saw those in charge cheat the Mescalero AND the local miners did much to stir up the war...something that actually happened in real life, especially in the Dakotas when gold was discovered on Indian territory.

Overall, a most unusual film...and a movie that seemed very ordinary but improved as I watched. It's actually an excellent film and portrays the natives in a much better way than they'd generally been shown before this.

"The Green Buddha" was a film made for the British division of Republic Pictures. Because the British had a law at that time mandating a certain percentage of films shown in theaters MUST have been made in the UK, American film studios stated British branches...and so Republic sent Morris (who was under contract with them) to Britain to make the movie.

The story begins with a pair of crooks robbing an art exhibit of a valuable statue called 'The Green Buddha'. Soon, however, one crook double-crosses his friend and his plan is to sell it and keep all the profits. But he has to get to Glasgow and he commandeers an airplane and makes poor Gary (Morris) to fly him at gunpoint. Later, during the flight, they struggle and the plane crashes and evil Gary then goes to Glasgow following Frees death. Why? Because the plane was from his small airline and losing it will put him out of business...so, if he can retrieve the Buddha, he'll be able to use the reward to save his company. And, someone in Glasgow knows all about the theft.

This is a decent but not especially great film...pretty much what I'd call a time-passer. Morris is an interesting hero type, as he meets up with a lovely girl and she keeps thinking he'll hit on her...but all he really is interesting in his airline! I do appreciate how he isn't so stereotypical! Overall, a competent and reasonably interesting film...and not much more.

"Planet of the Apes" (2001), despite its title, is not exactly a remake or sequel to the old ape movies from the 1960s-70s. So much of the plot is different, I see it more as a reimagining of the story.

As far as this film goes, it isn't rated all that well. Additionally, the star, Mark Wahlberg, made public statements about how the studio ruined this film...mostly by giving the director Tim Burton impossible to meet deadlines...resulting in a rushed movie. You might want to know that I am a big fan of the original series...so impressing me won't be easy.

Speaking of impressing....the ape costumes and makeup are insanely good. I thought they were CGI but when I read Rick Baker actually used practical effects to make the apes, I was shocked. It is really amazing...and it makes we wonder how the newer ape movies could be better...that is, for the male apes. The female apes look creepy and almost like an entirely different species. They could have used some work.

The story is very different. It begins in 2029 on a space station. Captain Davidson (Wahlberg) goes out in a space craft during some weird space storm to retrieve a chimp astronaut (a 'normal' Earth-type chimp...not a scary one like you'll later see in the film). His ship goes out of control...flying through space and crashing on some planet controlled by apes.

These apes manage to be even crueler and meaner than those in the original films...as well as acting more ape-like. Among them, the most ardently anti-human and evil is Thade...and after the Captain an some other humans escape from their incarceration, he's excited about how to use this not only to kill humans but gain power.

So is this any good? Well, it's a heck of a lot better than the paltry 5.7 score it now has. It would have you think the film is very poor...and it certainly isn't. While I hate remakes and reimaginations, this one kept my interest and I enjoyed it very much. And, since the newer reboot is supposed to be better, the film has me wanting to see more.

By the way, the very end scene is neat...and makes no sense whatsoever...one of the weakest parts of the story, actually.

The plot to "Do You Love Me" is awfully ridiculous. When the story begins, you learn that Katharine Hilliard (Maureen O'Hara) is a band leader and teacher at a stuffy music school. As for Hilliard, she's supposed to be unattractive and one day, after being insulted on a train, she decides to take off her glasses and let down her hair and suddenly everyone notices she's beautiful! How ridiculous. The bulk of the film consists of Hilliard going out into the real world and discovering love....and very soon you realize it's with talented Jimmy Hale (Dick Haymes), a band leader of a swing band as well as a crooner. What's next as Hilliard and two other men discover her obvious sex appeal.

Maureen O'Hara playing a plain woman and instantly transforming into a beauty is much like Clark Kent taking off his glasses and suddenly everyone recognizes he's Superman! It's a silly cliche, that's for sure. But I also know that back in the day, this was one of many cliches and the audiences generally forgot about it and just went with them...which is what I recommend you do.

Overall, despite a silly plot, the film is modestly entertaining. Not at all a must-see but enjoyable.

"The Lady Vanishes" (1979) is a remake of a famous Alfred Hitchcock movie of the same name. I really enjoyed the original film and cannot imagine needing to remake it. And, because of this, i felt a bit sorry for director Anthony Page...a real no-win situation because no matter how well he and the cast did, they'd always be compared to the original and come up short.

Because this is a remake, the film is naturally different in a few ways. As the original was set in 1938, just before WWII, the British were not too keen on having 'the enemy' in the film be German...and the British were trying to keep relationships going well with the Germans (a futile attempt, I know). But the remake came out long after the war and it made sense to be more honest and instead of calling the country by a fictitious name (like they did in the 1938 film), the film clearly is set in Bavaria, Germany. Another difference is that the two leads were no longer played by Brits but by Americans Cybill Shepherd and Elliott Gould...with Shepherd playing a kooky heiress and Gould playing a reporter.

Interestingly, Charters and Caldicott, two relatively minor characters who were twits in the original film who did nothing but talk about sports, DO appear in the remake as well. I think this is because these two goofy characters who debuted in the 1938 film...and were so popular that they were soon featured in other directors' movies as well as having their own TV series! They are, not surprisingly, played by different actors in the remake.

Amanda (Shepherd) is on a train going through Bavaria and one of the people who share the same compartment is an English governess, Miss Froy (Angela Lansbury). The pair strike up a friendship and share drinks together in the lounge. However, after falling asleep, when Amanda awakens, suddenly everyone in the same compartment tell her they have no idea WHO she is talking about when she askes about Miss Froy! And, Miss Froy is apparently gone. But others on the train also seem to be in on this conspiracy and they agree...there was no Miss Froy on the train and she and Amanda did NOT spend time together!! Obviously they are gaslighting Amanda...but why? And, where is the real Miss Froy? Out to help her in this quest is Robert Condon (Gould)...but folks keep insisting that there is no mystery and Amanda is just 'mistaken'!

Aside from Shepherd occasionally overplaying her character a tad (especially after the confrontation scene with the doctor), I found nothing to dislike about the movie. It's a very good remake, just not a necessary one. I still think you should instead see the 1938 version, though you couldn't do wrong seeing this 1979 one instead.

I read through the reviews for "The Company of Wolves" and the vast majority were extremely positive...so positive that I was looking forward to the movie. Sadly, I wasn't bowled over by it at all and wish I'd tried something else.

There are some big problems with this film. One problem isn't necessarily the fault of the filmmakers and special effects artists. This is the dog transformation scenes which might have been decent by the standards of the time but which look hokey and very dated when you see them today. The other problem is that instead of telling a few short stories well, I found it very confusing and often the stories seemed chopped to tiny pieces. I think, in hindsight, telling one or two or even three short stories would have worked better. But intertwining them and having the strange mood they invoke just bored me. I also didn't like how the lead, a 12 year-old, seemed to be sexualized at times...making me very uncomfortable towards the end.

"The Pirates of Penzance" is a very faithful adaptation of the Broadway performance of this Gilbert & Sullivan operetta. The sets look a lot like sets on stage (though a bit nicer) and the company performing it (apart from one actress) were used to performing it on stage before they made this film version a short time later. Whether or not you like it will naturally depend on what you think of the Gilbert & Sullivan style...you'll probably adore it or hate it.

Sadly, when the film debuted, it bombed but NOT for the usual reason. It seems folks who saw it DID like it but its distribution was screwed up and only a tiny number of theaters actually ended up carrying the film...so it hadn't a prayer of being a financial success.

The story is about some VERY strange and non-traditional pirates. It seems they have an apprentice program and 21 year-old Frederic is ready for something else out of life. So he leaves the pirates and soon realizes Ruth (Angela Lansbury) is not the beauty she claimed to be...as Frederic sees a group of pretty young women on the beach and chases after them.

As I mentioned above, these are NOT traditional pirates. In addition to having an apprentice program, these pirates are all orphans and refuse to do violence of any type with other orphans. So, their victims have learned...tell these wimpy pirates you are an orphan and they'll let you go!

There turns out to be a problem, however, with Frederic's plan to leave the pirates. Through a technicality, he isn't actually 21 years-old, as he was born on February 29th and only have a birthday every four years...meaning he'll have to be 84 when he actually finishes up his service! Considering that he has now fallen in love with Mabel (Linda Ronstadt), how can they possibly be together??

If you are wanting to see a serious pirate film, remember...this is a comic operetta and NOT a documentary! The pirates are even less scary than the Aardman variety ("The Pirates")!

So is it any good? Well, if you love Gilbert & Sullivan, than you're going to have a great time, as the film is based on a super-successful 1980 revival and is apparently first class. I'm not particularly a fan but appreciate the effort and quality of the film.

The story is a fantasy tale about the possible destruction of this world and a fight between good and evil. I noticed some reviewers glow about this film and give it scores of 8, 9 or even 10. I have a seriously hard time understanding it, as the film was one of the most amateurish looking movies I've seen...especially when it comes to the acting. The actors look much more like some friends who got together to make a film, not a serious production.

The only reason I watched the film is because it was one of Charlton Heston's final movies. However, it turns out that he only narrates and if you are watching for Olivia Hussey, she only is used as a voice actor as well. The rest...well, I just hope that they worked hard and have improved their skills since making this movie.

"Mr. Popper's Penguins" is a great example of what is wrong with many family movies in recent years. It takes a sweet children's picture book and manages to stretch it out to over an hour and a half. How? Well, mostly by ignoring the original story and the things that made it charming. Sadly, like another Jim Carrey 'classic', "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", this STILL managed to make money despite pretty much ignoring the source material...though it did manage, somehow, to keep the title. I at least prefer this film to "How the Grinch", as it managed to preserve a tiny bit more of the original story.

The original picture book was about a poor painter who lives in a small town with his loving family. In the film, Popper is a rich attorney with no soul who lives in New York City and is estranged from his ex-wife and children because he's a jerk. See?! The film ignores the source material, even though the book was an award-winning classic. And, somehow these penguins manage to restore his relationship with his family. I is rather sad how so many Hollywood films seem down on families and divorces and dysfunctional relationships seem the norm. Perhaps this is how it is in Hollywood...but I'd rather my kids see something a bit more uplifting.

It's odd. In recent years, Carrey has stopped making films and has talked about how soulless the film industry is. He's right...but he made those two soulless abominations based VERY LIBERALLY on classic children's stories.

The bottom line is that if you love the book, avoid the film. Or, realize the two have little to do with each other. Otherwise, you'll be in for a tough ride. It's more a Jim Carrey film than a film about a classic book.

"Apartment for Peggy" is one of the stranger films I've seen from the late 1940s. This is because it's a mixture of very dark, existential themes AND light comedy! Both aspects of the film work...but not necessarily together in the same movie. This does NOT mean it's a bad film...but choosing one or the other would have probably made for a better film.

Professor Barnes (Edmund Gwenn) is an aging professor who has come to realize his best days are long behind him. As a result, he's considering killing himself...a very dark plot point that is surprising considering the Production Code which normally wouldn't allow this sort of thing.

Around this same time, the Professor meets a very vivacious woman...sort of a force of nature that no one can resist! Peggy (Jeanne Crain) likes the old man and decides to help him...whether he wants it or not. So, she bullies him into renting his attic out to her and her husband (William Holden). After all, they can keep an eye on him AND they can find a nicer place to live. You see, following WWII and the G. I. Bill, vets were given incentives to go to college...but the infrastructure (such as dorms) weren't always available.

Not surprisingly, after a while, Peggy's winning ways manage to get the Professor to care about life once again. But, surprisingly, after it all gets to be 'nice', the story soon turns very dark. How dark? Black hole dark!

As I already said, the film is a comedy AND a dark film about death! Weird is certainly a good way to describe the film...but Crain and Gwenn are so nice in the story that it is well worth watching. Oddly, Holden isn't given all that much to do.

"Buffalo Gun" is a film that sat on the shelf for four years before it was finally released. In most cases, this is because the film is assumed to be a real dog...a movie that will lose a lot of money. While I cannot say this is the reason, it's likely...and as I watched "Buffalo Gun" I noticed it sure wasn't a very good western compared to most made during this era.

So why did I bother watching this movie? Well, two reasons. First, one of the supporting actors is Wayne Morris...and he was a fine actor and I like his films. Second, the country western singer Marty Robbins (famous for the great song "El Paso") is one of the stars...and there aren't that many chances to watch this famous singer act. I really am not a huge fan of the genre...though Robbins sure could deliver a beautiful tune.

The story starts out with one of the worst filmed gunfights in western history. A cattle drive is attacked but in so many of the scenes, the actors are shown in close-ups...a most peculiar choice and one that made it look as if they pieced together many separate clips to make the 'gun fight'. Regardless, it left me thinking that bad acting is not the only problem with the movie...the direction left a lot to be desired.

At the same time, the local Indian tribe is angry. Their government rations which were promised them haven't been delivered...and you wonder if the jerks who tried to steal the herd are also responsible for this Indian problem.

The direction isn't very good. The acting is not particularly good and the most experienced actors (Morris and Red Barry among others) are reduced to supporting three completely inexperienced and dull non-actors who were in the leads. Carl Smith, Webb Pierce and Marty Robbins all were famous country music stars and the film rests on their shoulders...a big mistake. The bottom line is having one country music star in the lead might have worked if he was paired up with a strong lead...such as when Fabian was cast in a film with John Wayne in the lead. But here, the heroes are inexperienced and bland actors...and it makes you wonder who thought this was a smart idea. In hindsight...it wasn't.

Finally, although three country music stars starred in the movie, oddly, the song they were given to sing were pretty bland...so it isn't even worth seeing in order to hear them sing.

Alan Hale Jr. Is known to most as 'Skipper' from "Gilligan's Island"...a nice, likable sort of character. But in "Arctic Flight", Hale plays a communist agent who is trying to get secrets to his evil overlords in the Soviet Union!! Normally, I don't mention important plot points like this, but since IMDB already divulges what sort of character Hale plays, then mentioning how against type this is for him is certainly in order.

Now the communist agent is not the only plot. In fact, this character doesn't come into the story until about the midway point. The first portion is devoted to an annoying woman (due to bad writing) and her really annoying meet cute with Mike Wien...the man who is a bush pilot who operates the only airline in the area. She is a school teacher who wants him to take her to an island...but he doesn't want to since it's on the US-Soviet border and he doesn't want to get shot down by mistake. Well, he relents and takes her...though she is annoying and cliched and should have been written better.

After completing this task, he's offered a huge amount of money to fly a millionaire on a polar bear hunt. But John Wetherby isn't interested in bears...but poses as a nice rich guy in order to make his nefarious plan hard to anticipate. Eventually, he's going to force Mike to take him to Russian airspace....like it or not!

This film is a definite sign of its times. The Cold War (no pun intended) was at its hottest and US-Soviet relations were at their lowest point. As a result, many Hollywood pictures were about communist spies and the like...and I can only assume the Soviet film industry was doing films about the wicked West.

So is this any good? Yes and no. Morris is very good...with a nice, casual sort of performance. The school teacher, as I mentioned, was not written well and eliminating this plot completely would have made for a better film. Well worth seeing despite its faults...plus, I did like the exciting finale.