Reviews

I don't know the Stoke Newington of the late 1940s, but my parents do. The director creates a very closed and claustrophobic setting: all the scenes take place indoors aside from the fruit & veg market stall. In this setting we see a fascinating short story about a group of people who jump to an outlandish and almost paranoid conclusion about a newcomer to their world. The confusion is well set-up by the writers, and plays out well, albeit in a rather concise form. To be fair to them, nobody had certain proof whether Hitler lived or died until the Berlin Wall came down, and many writers have played with this idea over the years.

The characters are very credible - I know people like all of these figures, and couldn't help but sympathise with them. I was amused by the Rabbi's management style, but I must say that a Sanhedrin could not be convened by such a small number of people, and in order to pass a death sentence, you'd need 70 members of the court. In conclusion, I'd add that according to the Talmud, a Sanhedrin which executed somebody once in 7 years was called a "murderous Sanhedrin". Another opinion is then cited that even once in 70 years was too often. This drama is a nice whimsy, but cannot be taken as a serious statement of Jewish law. Just enjoy the idea, and then you'll smile along with it, as I did.

Alexi Sayle's style is extremely political, and if you listen to his audio-book of early comedy club recordings, you'll hear the prototypes for many of the gags which appear in Stuff. Marshall & Renwick have a distinctly different style - they came from the world of radio comedy - "The Burkis Way to Dynamic Living" was one of theirs (that mutated into a short-lived TV version on ITV with the same cast, but it was too surreal to last on the low-brow ITV). They also wrote the extremely funny "Whoops, Apocalypse!" (the TV version), and the famous "One Foot In the Grave". They also spoofed Lord of the Rings in the year that the epic BBC Radio 4 production aired, with "Hordes of the Things", a wickedly observed lampoon with first rate cast and writing. This is a very strong pedigree.

If you want to "spot" which is Marshall and Renwick, and which is Sayle, it isn't hard to do. The more Pythonesque it gets, the less likely it is to be Sayle, and the more political it is, the more likely it is him.

If you want some great examples of sketches which other reviewers haven't mentioned, I'd put the extended sketch/concept episode "Seal of the Soothsayer" as one of my favourites. The Mickey Mouse/Steamboat Fatty spoof is also priceless. One of my personal favourites is the "Who's a Jew?" sketch, where a businessman discovers that not only is HE Jewish, but so is Thomas the Tank Engine (original name: Thomasovitch Tankenstein)! The School Outfitter sketch rings true to anybody buying school uniform, even today. There are so many treasures in this series that it is a crime to be selective. I am glad that the BBC have finally allowed/negotiated rights/whatever to get this out on DVD in the UK - the whole series as opposed to the original compilation shown on the title page for this entry.

The "All New Alexi Sayle Show" appeared after a few years off, and Alexi had mellowed - no more ranting, but it just felt that he had lost his sharp comic edge. Most of the material revolved around perhaps 6 characters whom you would see in every episode in the same predictable order (Harry Enfield fell into the same trap, as does "Little Britain" today), and if the joke wasn't really funny once, it certainly wasn't funny twice, or six times, and when the series ended, I recycled the VHS recordings I'd made from the TV immediately rather than saving them. Stick to "Stuff", and you're in safer, if stranger territory, and it's much funnier there.

Why is this so much better than the recent offering? I'd like to say it's because it looks, feels, sounds, tastes, and smells like the original, but not all of those senses apply to a movie.

Eric Thompson was involved, so it is the same humour and wit. Dougal is the hero whom nobody believes when a real threat to peace in the garden arrives. Sounds just like the times we live in now (2005)! The garden is still the garden, but the new settings (including the Moon!) still look like they belong in the same universe. My favourite part is Fenella Fielding, but then she's related to me, so I admit to bias. I liked the Blue Cat too - he behaves as you would expect of him (without wishing to say what he does...), and it's interesting that there was no need to add new characters aside from the Blue Cat and the Blue Voice. No change of visual style. That's what I call a Real movie adaptation - it really is just like the TV series, but longer. My junior critics (aged 3 and 5) love both the Blue Cat and the 2005 Magic Roundabout movies, but when offered, they still watch the Blue Cat and old TV series...

Aside from the title and the names of the characters, this movie has nothing really in common with the charming TV series which I grew up with, and which my two boys (aged 5 and 3) love on video. The characters have all been "re-imagined" as is the current trend, and re-voiced, as one might expect in the absence of Eric Thompson.

But why does the Magic Roundabout have to change so much? Dougal and the Blue Cat was still a "real" MR movie, complete with all the charm (and, it just so happens, the voice of my 2nd cousin, Fenella Fielding). It was as long as the new movie, but it still looked and felt like the real McCoy! The white abstract background of the "Magic Garden" is gone, replaced by pretty but not very original CGI which actually took away more than it added. I don't know why they had to introduce the Magic Village, which makes it obviously French - the old garden was no particular place except in the imagination. And as for the new use the Magic Roundabout is put to at the start of the movie, why oh why oh why? It was just a magic roundabout, why did it need to be anything else??? I think that Mr. Rusty must be turning in his grave (storage box/display case?) at the very thought of it.

My greatest complaint is that the whole thing has lost the wonderful innocence of the original. Yes, it contained much political satire and social comment, but there was no need to refer to smutty or sexual innuendo. Why did Ermintrude's concert have to include a song with the lyric "girl, you really got me going..." which is obvious as to what it means. There are plenty of other rock songs they could have used.

The best part of the movie was Tom Baker's characterisation of Zeebad, who is the best over-the-top villain of recent years. He has all the best lines, and his sense of irony is wonderful.

I bought the special edition DVD (British, zone 2) and loved the extras, but I wouldn't have bought it at all if I'd seen the movie first. If I could have given a negative number of stars, I would have!

I have seen the first episode, and there is too much atmospheric sound and music, too many weird camera angles and short shots. This is a "grunge" TV horror, and you'd be better off with the 1985 adaptation with Diana Rigg et al. I felt uncomfortable watching it because the wretched cameraman seemed to have ants in his pants, and wouldn't stay still! You can't do a jump-cut from a face to a closer-up close-up of the same face without doing a cut to a different view. Doesn't anybody come out of film school with a basic understanding of how to make TV/film any more??? It might seem to be faithful to the book so far (whether that remains true has yet to be seen), but I doubt that I can bear to sit in front of all 15 episodes!

I watched with increasing disbelief as the narrative invented entire portions of the life of Moses, whilst distorting the Biblical story almost beyond recognition.

Why waste more than 30 minutes on invented back-story when the time would have been better spent on the Plagues, or the revelation at Mt. Sinai? Cecil B. de Mille probably didn't read the original before making this film, and it shows. Nice performances by Yul Brynner and Charlton Heston at times, and the best parts are certainly the plagues: the darkness and the Death of the Firstborn being the most effective. In truth, Pharoah's own magicians would have made better FX than Hollywood, since Egypt was to magic and sorcery what Broadway is to Musicals. Talking of which, I think that what I have seen of Dreamworks' "Prince of Egypt" did the Biblical epic more justice. So let it be written, so let it be done!

As utterly formulaic as any episode of "Scooby Doo" I have ever cringed through (my son watches it...), this movie had some interesting performances, but little else to recommend it. All the "shock moments" were utterly predictable, clearly advertised far in advance, and if you couldn't see them coming, you were probably asleep at the time - probably because you were watching this movie! And just *what* was that deputy supposed to be all about? I was convinced that he was so obviously not a deputy by his weird behaviour (my wife was convinced that at age 15, he was too young to be a cop...), and I was amazed when he turned out to be even more absurd.

If you want to see a more shocking movie, try "Resident Evil" (and don't forget to keep a tally of the number of times you see the mike in shot - it almost deserves star billing!) which I didn't like either, but was much harder to outguess.

Somebody else mentioned the shocking level of product placement for Longines watches (and we thought that placement was new in the movie "2001"). What nobody else here has touched on is that dreadful loooooonnnnngggg scene in the observatory in England near the start of the movie where the secretary spends about 20 minutes (well, almost) just walking down the long stairs to bring a report to the chief astronomer, and then spends almost as long going back up (including opening and shutting the safety gate on the stairs...) Yes, truly a movie in which the concept of editing was only a slogan!

The rest of the comments above by previous commentators say it all, but I must point out that in the early days of analogue ship controls, all piloting functions appear to be digital, carried out by switching the positions of just two levers (in binary sequence?) to do everything - take off, land, dodge meteors, change course, etc... Even better, when the crew report in after quite a long flight, we cut back to the control centre on Earth, and yes, nobody has moved from their pre-launch positions! (Were their shoes nailed to the floor?)

In Britain, we don't get to see MST3K, so I watched this as a late-night stinker, and loved it. I shared the movie with friends on tape, and still feel that it's amongst the funniest B movies I have ever seen, right down there with Plan 9, and without the excuse that it was made by Ed Wood Jr!

It is interesting that Pal felt the first astronauts would be like navy crews - I don't think that NASA ever sent NCOs into space, only the best qualified scientists and pilots. The age of the commander would have disqualified him as well, and as it turns out, that would have been better for the expedition. I found the Irish "tag-along" character deeply annoying, and I am not sure how he could have managed to sneak on board.

All that aside, this was Hollywood's first serious attempt to reach Mars, and considering that Viking hadn't been there yet, it's not too bad. Shame about the blue skies...

Most interesting for me was that the futuristic "minimalist" fittings and fixtures on the space wheel look like nothing other than the style of the sets for the really up-to-date Star Trek: Enterprise.

Yes, just like the present, it's going to be a retro future, folks!

This film is great movie because it pulls at the heartstrings and brings forth real emotion in the viewer. As somebody who has recently moved away from a war-zone, the sense of loss of the innocent at the hands of a heartless and remorseless enemy actually moved me to tears.

I can see why the movie won so many Oscars - the performances are far above the standards of many of today's "greats", and the longer shots (unlike today's "grunge" editing or excessive camera movements) give the cast a chance to act out scenes in depth instead of doing one line at a time as is the current vogue. In one scene between the young Belden and Miniver, all the dialogue is conveyed by subtle body language. We don't see that from most modern films - cheap dialogue substitutes for communication. Less really is more.

I have one niggle - every single visual detail is wrong - it was filmed in America, where everything looks different. The train was not a Southern Region train, the garden fence wasn't British, and the interiors were like nothing you'd seen in English villages. And some of the accents were uncomfortably like products from "Dick Van Dyke's School of Bad Cockney" - a dialect only spoken in the East End of London!!!

Other than that, this film was a great, and I await the DVD eagerly.

The essential message - one which Miller would have surely intended after seeing Vichy war crimes trials - is that hatred of somebody without rational basis is a waste of life. Meat Loaf's character, Fred, has known Lawrence for many years, and yet when the time comes, at the bidding of his fanatical supporters, he allows them to attack a man who is not part of their "target" group. For me, this is the crucial message - it doesn't matter what Lawrence and his wife do from this point onwards - they are marked, and have chance to save themselves by using reason. Animal aggression and anger have blinded Fred's Union thugs to reality.

A friend of mine suggested I should see "The Wave" to study how irrational hatred and evil ideology can take over people without them realising it. I once conducted an experiment in a role-playing game, and was shocked to see how normal and level-headed people welcomed the creation of an oppressive police state - which would ultimate threaten them all - because it crept in in stages.

Fred is the start, his LA friends and preacher idol are the catalyst which pushes his neighbours over the edge into violence without stopping to think that what they are doing in wrong.

The relationship between Lawrence and Finkelstein, the Jewish shopkeeper is a fascinating one, because Lawrence misses the point almost until the end: if the bigots force Finkelstein out, where is he to go? If his family have fled the Nazis, what an irony to be tormented again in the land of "freedom".

That big poster (it's a fairly famous propaganda piece) about American families enjoying the highest standard of living in the world is a very important detail. When you see this film, watch for the grafitti on the subway train, and all the little posters. The message lurks there too.

This movie should be on the curriculum of every school, especially in our time when baseless hatred is being promoted so widely by "reasonable" people who are just extremists in thin disguises.

A deliciously silly film full of cleverly hidden "in" jokes - the sad woman who loses relatives every day is called Siddie Shiva - that's a reference to the Jewish custom to sit "Shiva" (to sit in mourning for 7 days).

The malapropisms are wonderful, but much of the humour is hidden in the small details which must have been either very lucky accidents or cunningly planned (the policeman has an almost surreal appearance because of his strangely over-sized glasses).

The setting is skid row, and all the characters are clearly speaking Immigrant English, replete with malapropisms, hence Audry's reference to "Cesarian Salad", and somehow all the characters seemed to be a bit "comic book" rather than aiming for realistic performances.

Nicholson's role is hilarious, if a bit short. You can see that was destined to play some unsettling roles in future...

I felt that the copy I saw looked like broadcast TV rather than film, but it was clean and sharp, unlike US TV images quality from 1960. The sets were cheap and it really felt like watching an extended Twilight Zone episode but on a higher budget and with humour added.

But that all made the film better rather than worse. If you want a good laugh, this original version knocks the spots (or buds!) off the 1986 remake!

When I found this extremely rare video in a shop, I grabbed it. It's a rare treat for somebody who loves Israel, and knows many of the locations.

But like my wife, and most other reviewers, I think that the casting was a horrible mistake. "Sabra" Israelis are not generally blond and blue eyed!

The story has been mangled - the Irgun were the real freedom fighters whilst the Hagannah were puppets (read Menachem Begin's "The Revolt" for the true story), and they rarely worked together. The bombing of the King David Hotel was well-handled, but the jailbreak is mostly fiction.

Wonderful scenery, just pretend the actors and director didn't happen.

This film is a vehicle for the comedic talents of Frankie Howerd, and if you like his style of humour, the plot is irrelevant. This is a curiously popular movie (it's almost always available on VHS or DVD) considering that there was no TV series to go with it. It was really an extension of Up Pompeii (many of the same people were involved), and feels like it (Lurcio Lurkalot). Frankie's less well-known "Up the Front" (set in WW1) is hardly ever shown or on tape to buy, and the TV show "Whoops, Bagdad" is all but forgotten (possibly with good reason).

Some of the jokes require a knowledge of the state of Britain in the early 1970s, and even if it isn't politically correct by modern standards, most of the audience will be laughing out of nostalgia rather than the freshness of the material, IMHO. When Howerd turns to camera and says "oh, you know this one, don't you", you know that they are going to do the classic open the door in front of the battering ram joke anyway, even though we're all expecting it by then. Many comedians couldn't have carried it off, but that was the age of "camp" comedy. Today, audiences aren't into "camp", which is why so many younger reviewers on this site fail to understand why these films were meant to be funny. (That's why the movie of "The Avengers" was such a horrible failure.)

It is very much a product of its period, but still worth watching today - if you know how to appreciate it.

Yes, it's credited to Hammer, who gave us all those wonderfully poor horror movies made on a budget of three shillings tuppence happenny back in the 1960s. It's not meant to be Star Wars, and it isn't. But for its time (and we have to kind about such films) it's actually technically very accurate (no sound in space, etc.) and if you can ignore the kitsch design and costumes, it's actually quite good fun. I can imagine that the Moon of Moon Zero Two was a realistic and plausible view of human colonies on the Moon as seen from 1969, and why it might be a lot like the wild west. Every plot element of the film is lifted from cheap westerns, but it's a favourite of mine, perhaps because I was a child when I first saw it.

Just remember, it's actually more intelligent than many of the brainless (and plotless) movies which people seem to accept today without question!