Reviews

"She's With Me" is a TV pilot which was never approved by any of the networks. As such, it is possible the show MIGHT have improved if it had been picked up and hit its stride. But as it is, it's a show that isn't terrible but also isn't all that great either.

Edie (Dinah Minof) is a door to door cosmetics salesman who hates her job and isn't all that good at it. One day, she comes to the apartment of Maria (Jerry Hall), the pretty girlfriend of a Mick Jagger-like rock star (wow...what a huge stretch!). The two soon strike up a friendship as they commiserate about how much guys are awful...in particular, Maria's current rock star boyfriend. Later, they go on a double date with a couple jerks.

This show was just okay....at best. Most of the jokes fell flat and the overuse of a laugh track made it more obvious. I also didn't love the ugly girl/pretty girl dynamic...especially since Edie isn't ugly at all and all the ugly jokes just seemed cruel.

Wow....did Marie Osmond luck out when "Marie" was not approved as a weekly series. Instead, it only aired once and I hope no one watched it because it was that bad!

Marie stars as a very naive Midwesterner who has moved to New York City and now lives with kooky roommates. Again and again, Marie gets robbed...mostly because she is too trusting as well as a bit dim.

So why was this such a bad show? Well, the show simply tried TOO hard. It had a louder than usual laughtrack, supporting characters who shouted their lines (as well as being caricatures), Marie occasionally shouting her lines, as well as one who was a nasty racist...not 'cute' like Fred Sanford, George Jefferson or Archie Bunker...just a racist with nasty things to say.

The only reason I don't score it lower is that I actually laughed once. I am not sure why...but it couldn't be 100% bad.

"Sirens" is a very wrong-headed TV show pilot that was not accepted by the networks...presumably because they weren't insane! While I think TV often appeals to some of our lowest instincts, even this show is just too dumb and offensive to make it as a regular series!

The show is about two female cops who are partners. And, to show you how kooky it is to have women cops, the intro shows one of the women driving through a pile of trashcans because, ha ha, women are stoopid drivers (or so the terrible stereotype goes). And, once at work, the women are attacked by other women at work and make fun of each other's hair...making it a bit like "Mean Girls"...but not a cop show, that's for sure.

The humorous (I think the writers wanted 'humorless') plot involves one of the women's mothers showing up and telling the pair that ONE of them was going to die because she had a dream about it (again, ha ha, women are so stoopid).

The bottom line is that the sit-com was about as funny as watching paint dry AND it was very offensive and treated women like bad stereotypes. I am so happy the series was never approved, otherwise they might have had episodes where both cops were having PMS and simply arrested everyone! It's hard to imagine this dreck came from Stephen J. Cannell...but, somehow it did!

I am happy we live in a world where women are given a fairer shake than they got from this pilot. Plus, I love my wife and daughters and hate this sort of sexism disguised as comedy.

Apparently, "Black Bart" was shown once on TV and, fortunately, that was it....no TV series followed this pilot. I can see why, as there are two glaring problems. First, even in the same time period as "All in the Family", the prolific use of various racial slurs sets this one apart from any other show of the era. Even compared to "All in the Family", this is very excessive. And, had they okayed the series, its value in syndication would have been nil. Second, and more importantly, the show is NOT funny and the spirit of it seems very different and more sit-com like than the movie.

Overall, while Lou Gossett and the rest try hard, this show was doomed from the outset. I just cannot see how any show like "Blazing Saddles" could have aired then, as it certainly was not family friendly and was written rather poorly to boot.

"Dream Wife" is a failed pilot episode for a TV series that never was bought by the networks. Despite the same name, it has no relationship with the Cary Grant film.

The show stars Shirley Jones as a wife who can read minds...yes, read minds. While this might sound kind of goofy, remember that the 1960s had a lot of shows with strange gimmicks....such as "I Dream of Jeanie", "Bewitched", "My Favorite Martian", "Mr. Ed", and "My Mother the Car".

While she does have ESP, there are two problems. Her friend, the Professor, is apparently the only one who knows the wife has ESP...and he strongly advises her not to tell her husband. The other is that she cannot control the ESP...and sometimes it leads her on kooky adventures and this doesn't help the marriage any. But it also CAN come in handy....as you'll see near the end of the show.

The first thing I noticed about the show, and it's a personal pet peeve, is the brashness and poor use of a laughtrack....a big strike against it. On the other hand, it was at times clever and well made. I particularly liked John Abbott playing an uncharacteristically funny role as well as Jones, who is a joy in pretty much everything. Sadly, however, Ted Bissell's supporting character is a mess and is easy to hate...thanks to the writing. He just could have been decent had the guy been subtle.

So is this a show that could have worked on TV? Probably. The silliness of the shows I mentioned above abounds...yet they were mostly very successful. And, while I wonder how the show could have maintained fun episodes after a while, the above shows somehow managed.

The bottom line is that I didn't love the show...but seeing it is interesting and it's not terrible.

Ronald Colman plays Michel, a career thief who is sent to Devil's Island when the story begins. He has no complaints, as he did commit the crimes and he accepts his punishment. Perhaps this is why he was soon picked to be the Commandant's house boy. However, over time, he and the Commandant's wife become friendly....and neighbors begin talking about them and making all sorts of insinuations. When her husband hears about it, he decides to use his position to make Michel's life hell. Not surprisingly, this helps Michel to eventually try to escape.

This is a very good film with an exciting plot and neat sets. My only complaint is a small one...no one seems to have a French accent. The only one who tried an accent was Colman, though soon after he gave up and just sounded the way he normally does. Still, this is a minor quibble and the film is well worth seeing. One of the better ones of the year and this isn't much of a surprise considering Colman was such a fine actor.

Jim, Wahoo and Polka Dot (Fred MacMurray, Jack Oakie, Lloyd Nolan) have a scam in this unusual western. Wahoo works as a stage coach driver and his pals rob his stage after he lets them know that they are coming! However, inexplicably, Jim and Wahoo do something you'd never expect...they join the Texas Rangers (the law enforcement group...not the baseball team). While the plan originally is to use this organization to do more crooked business, eventually something weird happens...Wahoo in particular likes being respectable and the pair decide to actually go straight. But what about Polka Dot? How's he going to react to this?

This film certainly did have an unusual plot and the casting of Oakie in particular was odd. This isn't to say it's bad...but very strange. It also is strange when it comes to names.... Wahoo and Polka Dot???!

So despite this, is the film any good? Yes. Now I am not saying it's great art or something that will change your life, but it is entertaining and the film is never dull.

"The Come On" is a film from Allied Artists...the company that formerly was known as Monogram Studios. Both outfits were mostly known for lower budgeted B-pictures (particularly Monogram) and so when I saw the company logo, I adjusted my expectations a bit lower.

Rita (Anne Baxter) and Dave (Sterling Hayden) meet on a beach in Mexico and the chemistry is certainly there. After a long lip-lock, Rita rushes off...to see the man who poses as her husband. The pair are a couple of grifters who make a good living cheating people. So how does Dave come into all this? Well, when Rita threatens to leave her partner and run off with Dave, all sorts of bad things start happening...and guns start blazing.

While the story is exciting, sometimes a film has too many twists...so many that everything seems a bit contrived...contrived, but still pretty good. Not bad...but I think it could have been better...especially at the end.

Despite being one of Dan Dailey's lesser known films, I also think "Meet Me at the Fair" is one of his better films for this song and dance man. It features much better music than normal, a sweet story and a nice supporting cast. I consider it a must-see for Dailey fans.

'Doc' Tilby (Dailey) and Enoch (Scatman Crothers) travel the country putting on shows in order to sell their patent medicine. One wet day, they see a runaway orphan and invite him to travel with them to the next town. As for the boy, he's run away from the local orphan asylum, as the place is a dump and all the money tax payers paid to improve the place has just 'disappeared'...thanks to the crook politicians responsible for the place. So, Doc cannot bring himself to send the boy back and soon the local political bosses are running about trying to find the kid because an election is coming up and they don't want word of their malfeasance to surface. But Doc is determined to help the boy...even if he seems powerless against this political machine.

As I mentioned above, the story is excellent and instead of the musical numbers being a distraction (as they often were during this era and in many of Dailey's other films), here they are just fun and well worth your time.

Sometimes you see a film and wonder why it was even made in the first place. A great example is "The Gun Runners". It's based on a Hemingway story and was already made a couple times before this...and the most famous is "To Have and Have Not"...one of Humphrey Bogart's better films. Now I have nothing against Audie Murphy, but I would never imagine wanting to see him starring in a movie instead of Bogart. After all, this IS Bogart...one of the finest actors who ever lived. The only big difference is that the film is partially set in Cuba, as the Cuban Revolution was in full swing.

Sam Martin (Murphy) is in dire straights. His boat charter business is having a slow patch and creditors are threatening to seize his boat. Because he is so desperate, various crooks try to get him to agree to some illegal activities...such as running guns. But Sam is ademant...at least for a while. But when some rich guy (Eddie Albert) charters his boat and then asks him to take a side trip to Cuba, he's so desperate that he'll do it. What's next? See the film...or not!

So how is this film different from the Bogie version? Well, apart from the Cuban angle, the changes are minor...such as Sam having a wife. As a result, the story is interesting like the original but not especially so. The basic story is still quite good. My advice is to watch one or the other....not both. And, of them, I'd pick the Bogart one simply because he was pretty amazing in the lead.

I have no idea why but somehow my original review for "West Side Story" has disappeared. I assume because I was the odd man out who DIDN'T like the movie made someone mad and complained. Perhaps I was too vocal about my dislike of the plot. Who knows.

The story is a reworking of "Romeo & Juliet" set in 1961. Instead of Montagues and Capulets fighting, the story involves two rival gangs...one Puerto Rican and the other very white. In the midst of this, a member of each group falls for the other...with expected results.

So why didn't I like the film? After all, it is well made and the music is mostly very nice. Well, the central idea of gang warfare set to singing and dancing just seems pretty ludicrous despite the gloss. Plus, it's a story where EVERYONE knows how it all will end. Overall, worth watching, I suppose, but not a movie I really liked.

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.