Reviews

It can be interesting to look at films from years ago and see how one's views have changed. I saw this when it came out in 1965, and again when it was revived a few years later. I quite enjoyed it then, although the critics were not impressed, however it must be fifty years since I last saw it, so when I saw that Talking Pictures TV were showing it, I set my TV to record it so that I could watch it at my leisure. Looked at today, my impression is that it has not aged at all well. There seems to be a lot of energy expended to little effect. At times, it resembles a Carry-on movie, and it hardly helps that Kim Novak seems to be miscast. However credit is due to Leo McKern playing Richard Johnson's sidekick, who adds some much needed fun to the proceedings. It has a good supporting cast, but I can't help but feel that with this cast, it really should have been a lot better.

I view this film with some affection. I first saw it in 1966 in the 70mm version, and I found it to be hilarious. I also recall being impressed by the stereo sound. There were three of these big budget movies that came out in the sixties, but for me, this was the best, it seems a more likeable film than It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Looking back on it now more than fifty years later, one thing that strikes me as a bit odd is that a film running over two and a half hours should be dedicated to those masters of the short film format, Laurel and Hardy. However, I think it stands the test of time pretty well, and is still great fun to watch. Jack Lemmon's performance as the dastardly Professor Fate was wildly over the top, but I'm sure that plenty in the audience were cheering him on rather than the rather boring hero played by Tony Curtis.

This was originally shown on the Cinerama screen (in Newcastle, it ran for two months at the Queens Cinerama) but I did not see it until it was revived a few years later, when it was shown on normal sized screens. What I do remember was the poor state of the film, some of the scenes were like watching through a blizzard, but this was all too typical of the film industry in the seventies. As regards the film itself, it seems to have been made by people with no sense of comic timing. It does have some good ideas in it, but they are done to death. If only someone had taken a pair of scissors and drastically cut it down. There are some talented people in this movie, such a pity that they don't get to properly show off their skills. However, I do have a soft spot for the delightful Dorothy Provine, even if she has hardly anything to do in the movie except act as a counterpoint to a rather over-the-top Ethel Merman.

Objectively, this movie should be terrible. It has an insane plotline, horrible special effects, and no real ending. But, if you are in the right mood, then it is actually quite entertaining. Fortunately, the actors play it fairly straight and don't try to camp it up, so we can enjoy it for what it is, rather than laughing at it.

I read the Dennis Wheatley novel and thought it was dreadful - long and tedious with the occasional exciting bit. Despite this, when I saw that it had been made into a film, I decided to go and see it anyway, to see what they made of the book. I found that the film was vastly superior to the book. It boasts an excellent screenplay by Richard Mattheson, the author of the classic Sci-fi/horror novel I am Legend, which condenses the book to it's essentials, cutting out all the boring bits. The film also has a nice period (thirties?) atmosphere. Special effects are a bit ropy, but it must be remembered that this is a fifty year old movie made on a limited budget. Certainly one of the better films to be produced by Hammer.

I watched this because I was curious to know whether it was really as bad as it was made out be. At the end, I found myself puzzled. Sure, it's not the greatest ever - there are obvious problems with plotting and characterisation, and Catwoman's outfit is clearly absurd. But, I wasn't bored by it - in fact I quite enjoyed it. If people really think that this is one of the worst movies ever, then all I can say is that they have been fortunate enough to avoid seeing a lot of really bad movies. Over the years, I have seen some excruciatingly bad films, but this isn't one of them. In fact it is well above that level. It does not set out to be anything profound. It is simply a lightweight fun movie.

This completes the filming of the Millennium trilogy. Although I would regard it is a fairly efficient version of the book, the problem is that there is a lot of material in the book, and even though the film runs for two and a half hours, it is not possible to get everything in. Cuts from the book have therefore had to be made. In fact, at one point, two entirely separate plotlines have been conflated. The film therefore has a rushed feel to it with characters being introduced without a proper introduction as to who they were. I am glad that I read the book before seeing the film so that I had a clearer idea what was going on. This is the problem with all three films. However if you are going to watch them, then make sure that you see all three, otherwise you will miss important plot points. I was left with the feeling that although they do work as films, that I preferred reading the books.

This takes the story of Lisbeth Salander forward while also telling us more about her back story. Unfortunately, it also takes her indestructability to absurd levels, which is unfortunate, as she is an interesting character. If the first part was a locked room mystery, then the book functions as a police procedural in the investigation of the murders. The film, however almost entirely discards that element. Of course, that part was not essential to the books plot, but I thought it added interest to it, so I regret it's loss. Apart from that, the film broadly follows the plot of the book . Unfortunately, neither book nor film have a proper ending - you have to watch the third part to out how things are resolved.

I watched this after seeing Catwoman, however while that is a piece of meaningless fluff, this purports to be something with more serious intent. The trouble is, I don't find Lisbeth Salander much more credible than Catwonan. She seems to be just about as indestructible. The basic story involves a journalist who is asked by an aging industrialist to investigate the disappearance of his niece some forty years ago. However, the investigation throws up something much darker - that there has been a serial killer who is in some way involved. The disappearance of the girl is a kind of locked room mystery, or rather an island cut off from the mainland by a blocked bridge. The film basically follows the plot of the book, with just a few changes which seem to be to fit it into the film's running time, although it still runs for two and a half hours. Does it work? On the whole I think it does, if you can accept the more improbable aspects of the plot, and credit must be given to Noomi Rapace for her portrayal of Lisbeth Salander. I found the film to be alternately gripping and repellant. I found myself wondering whether the film was condemning violence against women, or exploiting it. It seem to be a thin line there, which the film occasionally strays to the wrong side of. So a good effort, but flawed.

I saw this when it was first shown in cinemas, although about the only thing that stuck in my memory was the hysterical performance by Lionel Jeffries as the tyrannical prison officer. Looking at it today, what stands out is that although Peter Sellers is the nominal star, it is really in the nature of an ensemble piece. The British film industry produced a few films like this - unpretentious fun movies with short running times, and with excellent supporting casts of comedy actors who all contribute to the enjoyment. I thoroughly recommend it.

This film was of interest to me because it was the first horror film that I ever saw. At the time, I was attending college in Newcastle, and one day on leaving college, I passed the Essoldo, Westgate Road which was showing this film. On a whim, I decided to go in and see it. With the X certificate, I was expecting that my blood would be well and truly curdled, but it did not turn out that way. In fact, I found it rather dull. Looking at the DVD today, it all seems rather tame. Perhaps it's interest lies in that for cinemas like the Essoldo with little access to the major new releases, this was the sort of thing that they had to show.

This is the old fish-out-of-water plotline, in this case a tramp steamer captain is made temporary captain of a passenger liner after the regular captain becomes ill. The star, John Gregson had, a few years earlier, been in the sublime Genevieve, however this is nowhere near that level. It follows a fairly predictable path and is hardly innovative. Still, I found it fairly amusing, and a relatively painless way of spending an hour and a half. Looking at the DVD (incidentally, why is the DVD in 4:3 format when surely it would have been made in wide screen format) I was interested to note that it was produced by Joseph Janni , who in the sixties would go on to produce such films as A Kind of Loving, Billy Liar and Darling. Evidently, he had his finger on the pulse of evolving tastes.

This film from 1956 has been described as a black comedy, although it seems to me to be more farce than black comedy. It was the first film to be directed by Robert Day, who a few years later would direct the hilarious Two Way Stretch starring Peter Sellers. Although I wouldn't put this in the top echelon of British comedies, it is still great fun with an excellent cast including the incomparable Alastair Sim. This is one of several terrific comedies that the British film industry produced in the fifties.

This has to be one of the best ever British comedies. At it's heart is a clash between two titans of comedy acting - Margaret Rutherford and Alastair Sim, but it is not just a vehicle for them. What is also notable about this film is the contribution made by supporting actors such as Richard Wattis and Joyce Grenfell. I should say that the school portrayed in this film is nothing like the one that I attended on industrial Tyneside, but that in no way detracts from the humour. Terrific stuff.

I first saw this film on it's release in 1966, when it played as support to a Tony Randall comedy-thriller, Our Man in Marrakesh, however I thought that Invasion was much the more interesting of the two films. It is made on a minimal budget, with almost no special effects, but is, nevertheless well-directed and succeeds in putting it's story across. It just shows what can be done with a little imagination.

Amid the sea of mediocrity produced by the Rank Organization, this comic gem stood out. I first saw it in the mid-sixties in a double-bill with Doctor in the House, which I was less impressed by. Genevieve, however, I thought was brilliant. I have seen it countless times since then, but it is something that continues to give me pleasure whenever I see it. This must be put in the top tier of British comedies.

This was the last of the three films that television comedians Morecambe & Wise made for the Rank Organisation. I saw all three when they came out and thought at the time that this was the best of the three.. Looked at today, more than fifty years on, although I still find it enjoyable, it seems rather more problematic. It seems to be unsure which direction it is going in. On the one hand, with this basic story-line, you could make a much darker film, but that would require different leads, but if judged purely as a vehicle for Morecambe & Wise, then it seems unnecessarily violent. On a positive note, I did rather like the performance of Margit Saad as General Carla, the leader of the women's revolutionary army. In a film like this, it would be easy to make her a ridiculous figure, but in fact, she plays the part for the most part fairly straight in an under-stated manner which I found quite effective, although at times she seems to be in a different film to the two leads. In conclusion, I have seen much worse films starring TV comedians, eg Mr. Ten Per Cent starring Charlie Drake which came out at about the same time.. If you can cut this film some slack, then you may find things about this film that you can enjoy.

Having revived the Bulldog Drummond character in Deadlier Than the Male, Rank made a further film Some Girls Do. It basically follows the plot of the first film, however where that, though at best mediocre was not unwatchable, this is unspeakably, mind-numbingly bad. Absolutely excruciating.

In 1967, the Rank Organisation saw fit to revive the pre-war character Bulldog Drummond, updated to Hugh Drummond in this glossy but empty thriller. The first half, despite several murders and some torture scenes, I frankly found boring, although it does improve in the second half when we get to the villain's lair. This is frustrating, because it does have all the ingredients for a good thriller, it's just that they never come together properly. The film just trundles through it's paces without flair or imagination. Really should have been much better.

When Eunice Gayson died, obituaries noted that she had been the first Bond girl, but otherwise tended to draw a veil over the rest of her career. Some years before Dr. No, she had a supporting role in this mediocre naval farce. An unlikely tale of confused identities, it is quite amusing in parts, but is really not that good. The best that can be said of it is that it passes the time in an inoffensive manner. The real enjoyment of something like this is spotting all those character actors who were once a staple of British films and television

This was, I believe, the last film to be made by the old Associated British Picture Corporation before they were acquired by EMI. ABPC, like their rivals Rank, made films to be shown in their own cinemas. While Rank operated the Odeon chain of cinemas, ABPC for their part operated the ABC cinema chain, so in theory it should have been guaranteed a widespread release. In fact, it performed so appallingly badly when first shown that it was pulled from most ABC cinemas. I saw it at the New Coliseum, Whitley Bay, one of the few ABC cinemas to have actually shown it, although it was relegated to the bottom half of a double-bill with a revival of the Dam Busters, also made by ABPC but a much better film. Mr. Ten Per Cent, I thought was awful, not at all funny, so it's failure was hardly a surprise. By that time, ABPC had largely abandoned film making, however under EMI, Brian Forbes was installed at Elstree Studios to oversee a revival of film production there, but Mr. Ten Per Cent was the last gasp of the old regime.

I did not see the first series , but being from Tyneside myself, this was a must watch. I am glad I did watch it, as I found it absolutely fascinating. Tracing the history of one house through the lives of it's residents is a simple idea brilliantly executed. I cannot recommend this program enough.

Circuit judge rides into town and finds that a killing has taken place that no-one wants to investigate. He soon finds that the killer is the son of the local landowner who basically owns the town. The film relates the story of the judge's attempts to bring him to justice. Although this is a fairly cliched story, it is made with panache, and with a running time of a little over an hour, it does not outstay it's welcome. Miroslava, with her eastern European looks and accent, is a striking presence in the film. Her tragic death after the film was completed was a sad loss. I saw this movie on Movies4Men and wouldn't mind having a DVD of it, and having found that it is available as part of a box set called Darn Good Westerns 1 I have ordered it through amazon.

For a film with a running time of just over an hour and a half, this contains a lot of filler. It takes an eternity to set up the basic situation, and doesn't do a lot with it when it eventually does. When it does gets going, it does contain some laughs, but not as many as one would expect. Not a total waste of time, but I was left with the feeling that television today would deal with this far more effectively and do it in about half the time.

I am no opera fan. I first saw this years ago, simply because I was dating someone at the time who enjoyed opera, so we went to a local cinema which was showing it, and I instantly fell in love with it. As others have pointed out, it has it's flaws, but so what? To me it is absolutely gorgeous, and it's plus points more than make up for it's flaws. When I had the opportunity to do so, I bought a VHS tape of it (which I recall was a lot more expensive than your run of the mill VHS tape), and I have it now on DVD (which was a good deal cheaper). I still enjoy watching it now and again.