Change Your Image
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
adamjohns-42575
Reviews
Bambi II (2006)
Daddy Issues 2!
Bambi II: The Great Prince Of The Forest (2006) -
If I hadn't been compiling a list of my top films and decided that I needed to watch all of the Disney efforts I probably would never have voluntarily watched this one. The idea of a sequel made so many years later and with only one actor (Patrick Stewart) who was even alive at the time of the first film's release (1942), not to mention a history of sequels not being so good, really put me off. That and the fact that after watching Bambi for the second time, as part of the same challenge, I still couldn't see the point in it.
However, I have to say that I was actually pleasantly surprised by this effort.
In the same way that the film 'Beauty And The Beast: The Enchanted Christmas' (1997) was a tale shoehorned to fit in to the original (1991) but released later, this one was not strictly a sequel, slotting in somewhere between Bambi's Mother's death and the growth of his antlers in the first instalment and I felt that it was a far better, more coherent story with much better content and a more determined journey.
It had a lot more dialogue than the first and certainly it was more modern in its language and behaviours, but that was always going to have been the case over 60 years later. It did however still manage to combine the beauty of the original by utilising some of the background images as part of the newer animation process.
The story followed the young deers attempts to get his Fathers approval, continuing the theme of the Prince's absence in his earlier life, while he was left to be tended to by his Mother until her untimely demise. This one picked up from that point as The Prince Of The Forest had to own up to his responsibilities and raise Bambi properly.
Because it was a film centred around the middle of the last one it did take away some of the jeopardy. I knew that no one would die, because I'd seen them at the end of the previous story.
And although it was probably a stronger, more well conceived story than the original, it was still a tad twee and I just didn't quite feel that it was so similar enough to the first to be its sequel specifically, but that's probably just me looking for faults. The story of a Father having to raise a child that had predominantly been looked after by its Mother had obviously been done before too. They did do a good job of that trope here though and nothing about the voice acting or production values could be criticised either. I did think both of these films lacked that fun musical element that most of the other Disney's had. The songs in this one were just a bit lame and forgettable.
The only thing I would say that let it down was that they dumbed down the spikes on the porcupine so much that he looked more like a beaver, especially as he was living in a log. I could only assume that this was to make it less scary, but just made things confusing, especially as the dog's teeth were still just as sharp.
Unlike with the original, I would gladly watch this one again and I would be more inclined to show it to my own children, when the magical stork finally finds me one day, than I would the 1942 original. It just had more heart and better presentation.
639.99/1000.
Dumbo (1941)
"When I see an Elephant fly!"
Dumbo (1941) -
Right from the start the film was so wonderfully colourful and full of cute animals, but the animation wasn't quite as skilled as that of 'Snow White And The Seven Dwarves' (1937) and 'Pinocchio' (1940). It seemed less thoughtful with more basic background designs and the secondary characters less well drawn too.
I have always said that I didn't like this one and I think that was because it was quite mean and perhaps my biggest issue with it was the injustice of it all and the pompous horrible attitudes of the other Elephants. I also had to question what the writers/creators were smoking when they came up with the idea for the "Pink Elephants On Parade", apart from something to fill out the story, which was really quite short even with their inclusion.
As with 'Pinocchio', this one wasn't quite as bad as I had remembered it, although I still wouldn't necessarily put it that high on my list.
Perhaps because Dumbo didn't talk and there wasn't exactly a lot of content it just didn't impress, but it certainly didn't give me the aggro vibes that I had felt for it before. Maybe coming off of my Anti depressants has changed my way of looking at things or maybe I was just in a really bad mood when I last watched it?
After his Mother was locked up for protecting her child from a nasty boy visiting the circus, Dumbo had to learn to accept his big ears and prove that being different didn't make him a freak, it just made him unique and original. Along the way he had help from Timothy Q. Mouse (Edward Brophy), who I believe is due to have his own film - Something where he is the successful Manager of animal entertainers, but craves the easier days of stealing peanuts at the circus maybe?
Anyway Tim helped him to see that he could fly along with some crows who gave him a "Magic" feather, which enabled Dumbo to prove to the audiences that he was not to be laughed at but revered.
Of course the crows weren't exactly honest about their feather, but it didn't matter in the end.
What I couldn't understand about them, and I would be happy to be corrected, was how they have been seen to be a racist depiction.
I have always seen them just as inclusion within the predominantly white production. I'd love to be enlightened if I have missed something, but I've just never looked at them in a way that showed them as bad or stupid black people so much as fun characters that could be construed as men of colour being represented in cartoon form in exactly the same way that my Gollywog soft toys were just a way to have black representation in my teddy bear collection. I liked them being there for their diversity.
But I digress.
The end of the film came around a bit quick for me and I thought that it needed more of an epilogue. Preferably something where the other elephants could have got some sort of comeuppance to show that horrible people should never prosper.
It may be that the live action/CGI remake might include a better finale and might polish some of the rougher elements of this first attempt. Where I wouldn't have entertained watching that new version before, my revisit to this one has made me curious to see how good it might be, having decided that this one really wasn't so bad after all.
605.06/1000.
Fantasia (1940)
Not for the easily bored.
Fantasia (1940) -
I've just never been abled to get excited about this film. I remember watching it in a Music class at school once and even the Disney loving teacher forward wound through the talking composer and orchestral bits. I also recall watching it again years later and still not being impressed. However, having recently found that 'Pinocchio' (1940) and 'Dumbo' (1941) weren't quite as bad as I'd remembered I thought that I would give it another chance.
The only bit that the film will ever really be famous for though was the Mickey Mouse as The Sorcerer's Apprentice piece, it really was the only bit that stood out. Obviously the music was all very nice - A collection of lovely "Classical" pieces, but I wasn't sure that they were performed brilliantly and certainly not enough to have kept the five year old me from fidgeting if my Mother had taken me to watch this in a cinema. And my Niece and Nephews would never have sat still for very long if I'd put a VHS tape of it on for them to watch when they were younger either. As such it was difficult to see what Walt was going for. Was it more aimed at adults who could appreciate the art of the studio?
I'm sure that the colourful overlaid images of the orchestra were probably clever for the time, but as a starting point it didn't exactly grip my interest to watch.
Perhaps if I were inclined to smoke a certain kind of cigarette or take a specific medication for recreational uses I might have found the combination of colours and patterns along with the music "Far Out", but instead I personally found it all a bit dull.
A good way in to it when it got to the 'Nutcracker' piece it did at least have a visual element that was finally worth watching. That part did have a magic that leant itself to the musical piece with its various fairy, plant and fish characters and The Nutcracker score has always been a favourite of mine, but I still couldn't really see the point of it.
It was followed by the 'Sorcerer's Apprentice' which was an interesting story and worked very well with the music. Perhaps these two pieces should have been released as separate individual cartoons that would have had more impact on their own, because even the next segment full of the origins of life and Dinosaurs was quite boring until the T-Rex turned up.
After that was a whole intermission thing which I thought was pointless. Relevant at the time of the cinema release perhaps, but not necessary for the Download/Streaming version where it just became a waste of time and gimmicky.
Then came a sound track bit, which was also pretty uninteresting, although I could at least see what they were trying to do with that.
It started to round things up with a mythological section which I also found lacking in the wonder of Disney, the humour and the heart. And it was a bit confusing, because I believed Zeus to be Greek and Bacchus to be Roman - His Greek counterpart being Dionysus, but I might be wrong? I think I was just looking for faults at this point, because it wasn't giving me anything else to enjoy, but it did feel that it had lacked research in that respect.
Next was a ballet performed by Hippopotamus' and other animals that was also very tame as well.
It was like the difference between watching Agnes, Margot and Edith versus the 'Minions' performing their ballets in the first 'Despicable Me' (2010) film.
The girls were just performing a serious ballet dance, because that was all it needed to be, but which couldn't compare to how the little yellow guys went at the same task, purely because of their comic appearance and general behaviour.
So although these oversized hippos in tutus should have been funny they lacked the entertaining factor that the Minions had brought and thats partly why this collection of skits felt more adult than for kids. It was too safe and definitely lacking the more zany elements from Walt's previous films.
Also, in the final segment I did feel that I had heard better versions of Ave Maria.
Unlike with my other recent Disney viewings I can't say that I felt particularly inspired to now watch 'Fantasia 2000' (1999) to see what changes might have been made, although they must surely have been only an improvement.
426.28/1000.
Le bleu du caftan (2022)
Quite charming.
The Blue Caftan (La Bleu Du Caftan) (2022) -
I like the artistry and pauses that you get with cinema from around the world. For the most part the mass produced British and American efforts just don't deliver that because they have had to edit down so many additional scenes to start with and they can become cluttered and overly fast in pacing as a result. I can't imagine that films like this one are ever left with too much on the cutting room floor at the end of the day. They seem as if they have been planned more thoroughly beforehand to avoid wasting film or people's time in recording superfluous content. I like that I'm able to take things in more for that care and attention too.
From the TV guide synopsis I had expected something a bit more lighthearted for some reason, but the story was lovely nonetheless.
Because of the differences to my own culture and an absence of Mobile Phones or Laptops (Not even a TV) it was difficult to distinguish a specific time frame from it, which in some ways made Yousef's (Ayoub Missioui) attraction to Halim (Saleh Bakri) seem even more risky for an older fashioned time period and at other times it seemed that it was modern enough that it might be somewhat accepted or at least just happily ignored.
I did wonder, as I have with so many other films from around the world, whether something was lost in the translated dialogue, whether some of the heart or subtleties were missing in those carefully typed white words across the bottom of the screen, because the conversation all felt a tad matter of fact at times. I couldn't judge the intonations that well.
Regardless of that I did find the relationship between Halim and his wife Mina (Lubna Azabal) to be cute, even though there was an obvious disparity there. Their love was glaringly apparent, but their passion and sexual desire for each other was clearly gone.
I could also appreciate the building tension from Yousef and Halim. Those tender moments, the brush of their hands made it clear that there was more to their relationship than just a boss and his newly hired assistant, which quite frankly was what I had tuned in for.
Because of his tache I did think that Halim was going to burst out with a rendition of 'You Make My Dreams Come True' or 'I Can't Go For That'* or that he might advertise 118 - "To me! To you!"**.
Although in a large part the film was about the relationship between the two men, Mina rightly took the role of leading lady because the drama and heart all seemed to come from her story. I supposed that it took some of the strength out of the boys story too, in a way that made it slightly more connectable for those that might consider homosexual love wrong.
I believe that the delivery of the story was thoughtfully done and careful with its content to not make things too sordid. However, I just don't get Turkish baths? For somewhere to wash they always look so dirty and seem so impractical compared to an actual shower or bath, but I'm probably missing something about it making them closer to God? They also seem like a very homoerotic place to be. Even without the sneaking off to private rooms, which considering the disregard that I believe their religion has for the LGBTQ community makes the baths seem to be in contrast to those beliefs, but I'm not fully informed of the culture or the religion that these characters were practising.
The juxtaposition between the beautifully made dresses and caftans and the plainer clothes that the leads actually wore, along with their old fashioned house and the rather tatty back of the shop spoke volumes in many ways about the differences between the common man and those with the money to buy the clothes, the position in society that Mina, Halim and Yousef held and how precarious it might be.
It was a slow burner and while the ending burnt out with a fizzle rather than a bang it was appropriate and well done.
And I did twig the fate of the titular "Blue Caftan" about half way through.
It may have scored higher if I could have felt it all in my own language, to truly understand the nuances, but I would definitely watch this one again and recommend it to those in my circle with an eye for the artistic and beautiful.
812.13/1000.
*Hall And Oates Songs
**The Chuckle Brothers.
The Erotic Adventures of Anais Nin (2015)
Poor effort.
Erotic Adventures Of Anais Nin (2015) -
I'm interested in writers and I would have liked to know more about Anais, but this was just too poorly made to represent her well. As such I had to turn it off less than half way through so I'll have to read her works and find her for myself.
It seemed intent on exploring the more sordid side of sex, because it didn't explore the sexuality in an artistic appreciative way so much as just showing it as dirty. Porn not erotica. Which I would imagine was not what Ms Nin was going for.
The production values were cheap and the interruptions of those discussing it just got in the way.
Unscored as Unfinished.
The BBC Television Shakespeare: As You Like It (1978)
"That's the way ah ha ah ha!"
(BBC) As You Like It By William Shakespeare (1978) -
This version of 'As You Like It' was my first experience of the story by Shakespeare. Overall I enjoyed it, although at times I did feel that the location settings seemed a bit too vast to lend themselves to something written for a usually more compact stage and it was certainly hard to imagine that it was Winter in the very green wood surrounded by sunshine. It also affected the sound too, because the individual actors weren't mic'd and often walked away from the sound man, quieting their delivery.
I would say however that as the exiled lovers, both Helen Mirren as Rosalind and Brian Stirner in his role of Orlando seemed to deliver what I expected from Shakespearean leading stars.
I could also appreciate Richard Pasco playing Jaques, another banished gentlemen and I liked James Bolam as Touchstone, Duke Senior's Jester/Fool who fled with Rosey and her cousin Celia, played by Angharad Rees who was also good. In fact it was only really David Prowse who stood out as a bit out of place, despite his role of a wrestler. His broad accent was obviously the reason he didn't voice Darth Vader when he embodied him in 'Star Wars: A New Hope' (1977), but it was also a bit basic here too.
Having watched a number of Will's plays now, I would say that he does seem to struggle to go five minutes without dressing one sex in the other's clothes for one ploy or another. And with the lack of disguises that they actually employ it is a wonder that they have never been seen right through. Helen Mirren dressed in her male attire was quite clearly still Rosalind in a less ostentatious headdress. I suppose that we are meant to go on faith that they have made slightly more of an effort in reality, but as this was more of a fully formed film, it was somewhat harder to buy.
That note aside, I liked the banter and interaction that she had with Orlando that ultimately helped them to come together, although it was just another one of Shakey's tropes to have her play him along instead of just owning up to her identity.
And the ending of her Uncle Duke Senior's (Tony Church) tyranny towards the finale was all very convenient, but I didn't feel that this story was meant to be too taxing compared to some of the others like Hamlet or Henry V and Richard III.
Along with all of the other exiles banished to the forest by Uncle Duke the lovers somehow still found each other and resolved all of their issues, engineered love for others and lived happily ever after, much like those characters from 'A Midsomer Night's Dream', but in a slightly different way that was still a pleasure to watch.
Aside from that the musical and dancing interludes were quite twee to watch nearly 50 years later and I had to wonder if they were a part of the original story or if they had been added/tweaked to fit this particular interpretation. When I do get around to reading it, I can make up my own mind.
Generally I liked it and I would watch not only this story again, but also this specific version too. The only reason that it didn't score higher was because of the production values, sound, etc.
Time for a remake though methinks.
619.77/1000.
Pinocchio (1940)
A real life boy!
Pinocchio (1940) -
I watched this as part of my journey to watch all the "Great" films. At this time I'm specifically watching the biggest Disney hits, which had to include this one, despite having been disappointed with it beforehand.
Previously I had just never really liked it, finding it too dark and a bit creepy at times, so I don't know if the Disney streaming service had tampered with it to reduce some of that or if I had obviously remembered it wrongly, but I found that on this occasion it was better than I had recalled.
I suppose that my biggest issue had always been that the story was a tad horrible for a little boy to endure and I'd always found the title character himself to be a bit of a brat.
This time I could see that the decisions that he made were never based out of malice or a need to be naughty, but that his conscience was slacking off and that the poor lad just didn't know any better, which could probably be said for a lot of children. There was that whole lying thing, but he was an inherently bad child.
Despite his lax efforts here, I have always liked Jiminy Cricket. Personally I feel that he'd be a great character to reoccur in other films, not necessarily in the same capacity, although that could be good, but maybe just as a 'Stan Lee' type cameo. He would be the perfect fit for something like that or a series of his own where he moves from one kid in need of a conscience to another and for different reasons each week.
The basic concept of this story started Geppetto wishing for a child of his own, akin to that of the puppet he had created was sweet to start and the scary journey that followed for them both was certainly an adventure, although the chronology was a tad unclear at times making it hard to see how many days had actually passed. As such it also felt a bit rushed too, especially towards the end and bearing in mind how much slower it had been to start, as it eased me in to the tale gently and thoughtfully.
I also found that the story was filled with great characterisations and interesting personalities throughout that made it worth watching. Even the smaller role of Figaro the Cat was cute.
As Pinocchio started to gain some maturity and sought out to find his creator, the story came to a sweet conclusion and they all lived happily ever after, which quite honestly is how I like my films to go.
As with 'Snow White And The Seven Dwarves' (1937) the animation of this film was charming and warm, characterful, detailed and well done. Along with the lovely accompanying music it delivered the magic
I did find that there were a few scientific issues along the way. Jim breathing under water, Pinocchio dragging a rock to keep him from floating, but able to walk among many others things, least of all a magic beer that turns boys in to Donkeys, but it was after all supposed to be a break from reality.
Revisiting it on this occasion I have to say that I have definitely been giving it a bad rap for a long time and unjustifiably so. I will gladly come back to this one again and refrain from telling others to shun it too. I might even watch the remake with Tom Hanks as the puppet maker.
It's not quite 'Snow White' or 'The Jungle Book' (1967), but as one of the earlier feature length Disney cartoons it delivered Carlo Collodi's story nicely.
700.65/1000.
Boogie Nights (1997)
"This is imported Italian Nylon!"
Boogie Nights (1997) -
The story was slow to actually get started. The production team probably didn't care about that because they knew that people would stick around for the rumoured potential nudity, but it really wasn't worth it.
The first time I tried to watch this film, many years ago, I turned it off pretty early on and on this second viewing I could see why it hadn't appealed to me then. I did decide to stick with it this time because it turned up on one of the lists of top films that I'm currently crossing off, which made me assume that it must have some merit? However, right from the beginning I couldn't imagine that it would ever feature very high on my own list, as it just wasn't my thing or well put together enough for me to see any excellence in it, although I did make it all the way through this time.
The first positive that I did find was the absolutely cracking soundtrack and that was definitely true throughout. Sadly that's where the positives ended, because although I would say that the parts of Dirk Diggler and Jack Horner were almost written for Mark Wahlberg and Burt Reynolds, as the two leading stars they didn't get enough screen time.
The story really should have focussed on them instead of being such an ensemble piece. It didn't need Reid (John C. Reilly) or Roller-girl (Heather Graham) or Buck (Don Cheadle), whose antics only really detracted from the main story of Dirk's rise and fall. They were all kind of silly characters anyway.
I'm not a huge fan of either of the leads generally, but Burt certainly had the charisma for his part and Mark was the right type to play a dumb porn star and with the body for it too. Neither had a chance to shine though because of the mess of everyone else's business.
Philip Seymour Hoffman's character of Scotty was so gross he made my skin crawl. I really didn't like his desperate and creepy gay thing, which did not represent homosexuality very well at all.
The ensemble element meant that it dragged on.
I'm also not a fan of John C or Don Cheeto and Heather Graham's part could just have been set dressing using an extra.
Although the film wasn't classed as a comedy on IMDB, it was hard not to find a lot of humour in it, because a lot of the "Bad porn acting" and Dirk's idiotic character was so tongue in cheek and cheesy that I couldn't help but at least smirk along in those moments. In others it just felt embarrassingly bad to watch.
It got stupidly extreme towards the end and while the use of drugs was obviously going to be a part of this storyline, it once again showed the side of it that just makes me so angry to watch, as it lead to such bizarre circumstances.
Drugs don't need to be such a feature in everything, some people do go their whole lives without needing or using them at all and the story here was about Dirk getting too big for his boots, not just a drug habit.
I felt that the story would have had more depth if it had explored Dirk and Jack's relationship as manger and star, but what it did instead was put on a show of 1970's seedy parties and naff porn produced by a lot of brainless people.
The prosthetic wasn't worth the wait when his "Extra long" member was finally seen. It was obviously fake and not attractive.
Wasted potential for something that could have bridged the gap between mainstream films and the adult industry if it had just been more artistically produced and thoughtful.
530.12/1000.
Funny Pages (2022)
Welcome to the freak show?
Funny Pages (2022) -
My subtitle for this film might sound cruel, but I was pretty sure that they were deliberately aiming for a production filled with odd "Freaky" characters. It was certainly populated with actors of a certain type. They wouldn't have traditionally fit in with most films, let's put it that way. And the supporting characters, basically those that weren't Robert (Daniel Zolghadri) and his family, were all more than a little bit pervy, which felt like it was just for the sake of it. How did he keep meeting these strange men?
Robert himself wasn't actually a nice person anyway. He was selfish and ignorant among many other flaws and his behaviour was just rude as he obsessed over his art and comic book creation.
And Wallace (Matthew Maher) was clearly unstable and needed mental health support, but his anger throughout the film, although he wasn't the only one, was draining.
As for the depiction of the story overall, it was like they were trying to show the absolute grottiest parts of America and the worst of people. The story didn't warrant telling as anything more than a short episode of a crap TV series, to be shown as an example of what to be afraid of, as if New Girl, Chandler Bing or David Rose had gone to the wrong part of town and forgotten how to make something watchable.
By the end of it I was just embarrassed that this film existed and if it had been longer than one and a half hours I would never have stuck with it. And if it hadn't have been about art and creativity I probably wouldn't have got past the first ten minutes. I really wish that I hadn't even given it 5.
I don't know who it was that gave it a 3 minute standing ovation at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival, but I wonder if they weren't just in a hurry to leave the cinema and got stuck, because I couldn't see anything about this one that made it specifically good, well made, performed or that the story was clever.
299.88/1000.
The Leather Boys (1964)
Queer in all the wrong ways.
The Leather Boys (1964) -
This film really wasn't that gay at all, so if you're tuning in to see an early example of homo-loving on screen, don't waste your time.
Apart from the subtle homoerotic undertones, which were far too subtle for my tastes, the story wasn't actually that good and the way that it was produced didn't work for me either. And I also couldn't imagine that petrol heads would have found much to enjoy in it, because the bikes weren't exactly a star feature to claim that was the point of the film either.
It was clear to see that a lot of the dialogue had been improvised, because at times they were just talking all over each other and it was a bit cacophonous as a result, not to mention that the banter was all a bit amateur and lame as well.
For some reason Reg and Dot had a weird way of talking through their teeth in a nasally way that was off putting too.
Initially it appeared that Reg (Colin Campbell) had only married Dot (Rita Tushingham) for one thing and once he'd got that he'd lost interest. Perhaps he realised that she did nothing for him, because she certainly didn't do anything for me. Even if I was straight I'd find it hard to be attracted to her brattish, over the top and selfish behaviour.
With that said he wasn't exactly Prince Charming, but I did think that she was the worst, with her big ideas and no contribution to the marriage except a tin of beans every night. With that dodgy haircut she also looked like Big Bird from 'Sesame Street' (1969-) and actually it felt a bit like Susan Boyle in the 'I Know Him So Well' comic relief music video where Subo's hair just got bigger and bigger throughout.
Donald Sutton as Pete was incredibly weird as well. I couldn't tell what he was trying to achieve with his performance, whether he was trying to be American, gay, on drugs or just a bit psychotic? There were times when he was clearly a bit camp too, although I'm not sure that was deliberate. I knew what he was hoping for from Reg, because that's what I'd actually tuned in to see, but the still from the production where the two men are sharing a bed was just that. It was purely that they both needed somewhere to sleep and Reg at least had no thoughts that it might lead to something more.
Perhaps I expected too much from a film of the 1960's?
The characters in general were all a bit affected and that freedom of speech that they had didn't help to give any of them definition, but actually made it feel very unprofessional, as if it was utilising the worst of the D, E or F list celebrities.
I did think that it was almost as if they were trying to say that Pete had come between Reg and Dot, with his evil homo ways, but I firmly believed that their marriage was doomed before that and was never going to last. I defy anyone to say that they fancied Dot and would have wanted to spend their "Til Death Do They Part" with her.
I was convinced that Reg would have been better off as a permanent bachelor living with his Nan.
Not a well put together film and it didn't really push the boundaries enough to make it an important piece in the annuls of queer cinema for me. Maybe if I had been around in 1964 I would have appreciated the minimal referencing to my lifestyle, but even then the guys they showed in the pub at the end wouldn't have been my thing.
Promise and premise undelivered.
359.79/1000.
Free Guy (2021)
"Mum, do not touch that sock!"
Free Guy (2021) -
This film may have been an amalgam of many others, as it started off very similarly to 'The LEGO Movie' (2014) - Emmett getting up to the same routine every day, only to have his life changed by Wildchild and there were also obvious nods to 'The Truman Show' (1998) with Guy's (Ryan Reynolds) growing sentience and awareness of a world that was bigger than his own. AND there were hints of 'Ready Player One' (2018) as well, but it was all compiled in a joyful way that brought together a lot of what was great about those previous envisionings.
It was also an excuse for the cast and crew to blow stuff up and film all sorts of chaotic scenes, which were a great send up of and/or homage to computer gaming.
And although it has been a while since I played any games myself, throwing back to the likes of 'Super Mario All Stars' or 'Golden Axe', I could still appreciate all the various parodies of other game franchises and I loved them all.
The story though was nothing like I was expecting and it even managed to Jimmy in some metaphors for the way we live in our "Real" world, some moral messages and a substantial amount of heart too.
I would bet that Ryan Reynolds in the leading titular role, had a great time creating and making this film. I absolutely loved him in this part, which like 'Deadpool' (2016) was basically made for the way he delivers his comedy performances.
I also enjoyed how Channing Tatum took the Mickey out of himself with his character, Revenjamin Buttons too.
And the brilliant if incredibly brief cameo by Chris Evans.
Taika Waititi in his role of Antwan was awful though. The more I see of him in various things, the more I never want to see him again. Don't get me started on 'Jojo Rabbit' (2019) or 'What We Do In The Shadows' (2014). The man seems to think being an idiot is funny? Add to that a nasty and unstable streak and his character in this film is positively unbearable to watch, almost like something from a reality TV show.
I did however like the character of Dude, who was a great way to show code building and how it's created in layman's terms.
The action mostly took place in "Free City" where Guy was essentially a background, everyday character that worked in a bank. His day to day story, like Emmet from 'LEGO', was a repeat of the same thing, the same bank robberies and the same coffee every single day, until suddenly his programming was awakened by MolotovGirl/Millie (Jodie Comer) singing a Mariah Carey song. He gradually learned what his world was, because of his need to talk to Molotov, who was trying to get access to hidden files within the software and eventually he lent her a hand. What followed was a mixture of some quite hilarious comedy, a dab of romance and of course a mass of shootouts, car chases and all the things that can be found in most popular video games, all with a cracking soundtrack.
I thought that although the formula was quite basic and simple escapism it was actually quite a brilliant film - sweet and thoughtful, charming and really quite a pleasure to watch.
There were no funny bits after the end credits though, which I thought was a missed trick.
I will definitely recommend it and revisit on wet bank holiday weekends, food coma Boxing Days and Saturdays throughout the rest of the year that aren't special at all, because it was one of those that really worked as just a good film with no complicated feelings to consider, no sadness and no spoilers from knowing how it ended. In fact it will be great to watch again and look out for things that I might have missed this first time around.
775.68/1000.
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)
It worked for me.
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (1) (2001) -
I don't think that I've ever really heard anyone talk about this film or its sequel, which I find odd, no criticisms and no praise of any sort, but I think that they're good.
I'm not saying that they were cult classics that should be worshipped or on the TV every weekend, but I actually really like them both for their easy accessibility and they're certainly better than the 2017 remake starring Alicia Vikander. I don't know what X factor Angelina Jolie had, but for me she really embodied the titular character and owned the film, leading the rest of the cast. It was easy to focus solely on her.
This instalment in particular had a camp and cheesiness about it that, although the story was more akin to the 'Indiana Jones' (1981-2023) franchise, was somewhat similar to the way 'Flash Gordon' (1980) was delivered. Lara Croft, more than ably played by Angelina Jolie, was a bit over the top and larger than life like Flash, but in a cool, rock and roll, badass kind of way that Sam J. Jones didn't quite nail down.
I don't know, the film just had the same vibe for me.
The fantasy concept for the story added further elements that were a stretch of the imagination too. However, that was what I wanted from the film. I specifically tuned in for the escapism that this, Flash and Indy have always provided.
As Lara discovered a clock and received a letter that set her on her way, it was clear to see some of the computer game elements brought over from the source material, with chases, levels to complete, fights and "Boss" characters to defeat, but it was also a good archaeological story that took her to various interesting and sometimes beautiful places. Along that path she had some obvious pushback from others on the trail of the same artefact, including an old acquaintance, Alex West, played by Daniel Craig.
As Lara stated it is "Always a pleasure" to see him, especially in the buff.
I did feel that it was difficult to tell if he was supposed to be playing a drunk sometimes though. Perhaps it was a character trait from the game or scenes that were cut, but occasionally he seemed to show an incompetence that might have been a result of substance abuse, like he was a bit of a dude and not actually that capable a tomb raider himself. I also thought that the relationship between him and Lara should have been a bit more serious though, or at least their past explained, to make the ending more potent and likely.
Visually it was good, the CGI and special effects were actually very effective for the time and the locations well chosen for the best effect.
The vocal track and the music track were different volumes however which made it tricky to hear at times and too loud at others. The actual musical tracks were all good choices though and added to her mystique, because of their more feisty appeal.
I enjoyed the supporting parts of Chris Barrie as Hillary and Noah Taylor in his role of Bryce, but I thought that Mr Pimms played by Julian Rhind-Tutt was superfluous to the film, as if he'd been given the part because he was a friend (Also see "Slept With") of the producer or something similar. An unnecessary idiot that got in the way.
In general I liked the Ham, Cheese and Corn factors. It is the type of film that is perfect for a Sunday afternoon to chill out watching after a big lunch and in all seasons.
Things like 'The Lord Of The Rings' (2001-3) or 'Harry Potter' (2001-11) seem to be most enjoyable in the Winter, while The Marvel Universe films are more of a Summer watch, but this one works all year round for me. It's odd how a film can be that way and definitely strange that more people don't talk about this one at all.
793.44/1000.
42nd Street: The Musical (2019)
Needed a bit more clarity.
42nd Street (2019) -
Despite finding numerous flaws in this production I still came away from it feeling that I'd enjoyed myself. There was no denying that the show was upbeat, but I did find that it took a long time to get going with any real sort of narrative. The musical numbers, while largely enjoyable didn't seem to be following any structure and even as they took their bows I was still at a loss as to what the show within a show, "Pretty Lady" was actually supposed to be about.
As such the songs were all a bit disjointed and not necessarily about anything in particular, although the big numbers were visually spectacular.
I wasn't sure if it was because it was so brassy, so fast and so loud, but it felt really obvious that the performers were all British putting on American accents too.
Their vocal ranges all seemed to be tenor and soprano which made it all feel like the buzzing of flies or bees, all on the same level and pitch which was sometimes hard to listen to, and it was a struggle to follow everything they said or sang because of the speed that it was delivered. I wondered if the conductor kicked the tempo up a notch because he was in a hurry to get to the bar afterwards to see the friends he had in that night?
The dancing however was insanely good and I was very jealous of even the smallest player for their stupendous ability. I could only dream of dancing like that.
It never appeared to calm down so I felt that it could have used some moments of lightness to balance that out. My sad little tap shoes have been relegated to the loft for many years and didn't get much of an outing even before then.
I also thought that the whole cast were all a bit plastic and fake. And I don't just mean the fact that they were obviously acting up for stage, but none of them had shabbier outfits to signify that they were poor actors/dancers for instance and there was very little indication of that via props or the sets either. Also because of a lack of pauses or quiet moments it was hard to see the heart of the characters. They were always "On" so I never really got to know what they were thinking and therefore had very little chance to associate with them very much.
As for the main cast, Bonnie Langford in the role of Dorothy had a cracking pair of lungs to deliver her songs and stood out for being too much, but in a calmer more controlled and deliberate way than the other shrill girls AND she had a fantastic wardrobe.
The character of Peggy played by Clare Halse unfortunately didn't stand out among the rest of the girls, except for being a little bit short and stocky, not the typical dancer or iconic leading lady shape that the role required. As a result she appeared to be so generic that during one of the numbers, where Peg was still a chorus girl, it was hard to tell which one was her. Some of the others were far more defined and easier to identify.
She also came across as rushed and more like 'Calamity Jane' than one of Ziegfeld's follies. Despite the effort that she clearly put in to each number she just didn't deliver the performance of a stage star that was supposed to be better than Bonnie's Dorothy. I still thought that she was an eager and new chorus girl right until the end of the show.
The mirror effect in "Keep Young And Beautiful" was good, but Billy's (Philip Bertioli) singing voice wasn't strong enough in it to compete with the band. He was fairly effortless otherwise though, if a bit brash and full of himself, but I felt that most of that was the character. The confident ones really are those that get noticed and succeed.
Producer Maggie's (Jasna Ivir) accent came and went, which was tough to ignore at the start, but at least she could deliver the boldness of her character well and had a good singing voice, because her partner Bert's (Christopher Howell) performance was highly questionable. He was surely the weakest link in the whole thing and his inclusion in the "Wedding Number" felt inappropriate and only done to flesh out his characters part.
In the end I thought that the pleasure I came away with had been mostly due to Tom Lister in his role of Julian Marsh, "Pretty Lady's" Director and the one I felt was the most understandable character. I understood his motives at least.
I hadn't imagined that I would enjoy his performance, because he was one of the shouty ones initially, but although his character was as fickle as a pickle he was at least talented and fit his role well. After his rendition of 'Lullaby Of Broadway' I was actually quite attracted to him partly because, for me, he had the best voice in the cast along with Bonnie. He definitely grew in to his part and won me over in the end.
The story, while not really an A to B kind of journey was simplistic and easy at least and all the way through I couldn't tell if Peggy was supposed to get together with Julian, Billy or Dorothy's lover Pat (Matthew Goodgame) which in the end I realised was probably deliberate, but earlier on it somehow appeared unplanned, as if the director wasn't really sure whether they wanted to muddy the waters of the stories leading romance or give too much away. Either way I would have liked it to have been a bit more obvious that there were attractions at all and I certainly wanted a more definitive resolution to it all than the finale gave me, although that would probably be the fault of the writer not the specific production.
It really did finish with a super powered number for the encore though leaving the audience on a high.
My only other notes were that the set in general was good, because the various tricks and mechanics used really were outstanding, and also that the ensemble were spot on with their timings and synchronicity, which made the dances quite mesmerising.
I'm not sure that I'd rush back to watch it again soon, but I will look out for things starring Tom Lister and I have a new appreciation for Bonnie as well as a new and revived desire to find some Tap Dancing lessons.
531.44/1000.
Richard III (1955)
"Do you bite your thumb at me Sir?"
Richard III (Laurence Olivier) (1955) -
This film came across as if it had been created to make Shakespeare more accessible and easier for kids to understand, except they forgot to dumb down the language as well as everything else for that to work. At times they spoke so fast that even thespian's that know the prose off by heart would have struggled to recognise it. And I, the Layman, really found it hard to keep up and of course to follow the Shakespearean language, which let's face it was so far from how people talk in 2024, that I feel I can be forgiven. I was fortunate that I did at least have a rough idea of how the story goes from watching another version previously.
It all seemed a bit Disney as it started out and Laurence Olivier came over more like 'Chitty's' Childcatcher* than the future King, Richard the third. In fact compared to John Gielgud's superb performance as the Duke of Clarence there was nothing very serious about Larry's Dick at all, as if he might be playing the part of 'Hans Christian Andersen' (1952) or some other such narrator of a child's story instead.
He was camp and hammy and his voice was so obviously put on.
A character so far over the top that he was coming back around again. Other than his performance in 'Rebecca' (1940) I honestly can't see why he has always been revered so much as an actor. Although I wouldn't exactly refer to my Shakespearean education as in depth, I feel confident to say that combined with his production values and direction his corn fed performance ruined a good historic tale.
I also didn't like the way that Lord Farquaad**, I mean Larry, kept looking straight down the camera. I know that during a stage production of the Bards works the cast are known to speak to the audiences directly on occasion, but this felt really wrong and more than a bit creepy, as if I didn't want to associate with him, so his acknowledgment of my presence as a viewer made me feel dirty for observing him. I thought that it might be because of the intense staring he did.
I assumed that in many ways the production was trying to bring the atmosphere and style of the stage show to the screen, but it just looked low budget and cartoon like.
For instance - Why was Cedric Hardwicke as King Edward IV dressed as a Christmas Tree? And he wasn't the only one with some questionable wardrobe choices.
Lord Dorset played by Douglas Wilmer was in a costume akin to Pierrot the clown and acted as equally comedic, like a camp old Queen.
It looked as if they had spent a lot of money on the costumes, but they had somehow made them caricature in their style.
And the whole cast were caked in make up and dressed in wigs like pantomime dames.
The setting too was like they had filmed it at Porth Merrion or somewhere either equally quirky architecture that used exaggerated colours and was spotlessly clean and unrealistically uncluttered. Although Porth Merrion has always appeared to have more life to it.
As Richard plotted to take over the throne from first his father, whilst also planning his next steps to diminish others claims to it, I felt that I'd gathered a far better understanding of Will's work and the ancient British Royalty depicted from the BBC 'The Wars Of The Roses' adaptations featuring Ian Holm and David Warner (1965-6). Apart from the fact that it also helped to see the build up to this story, via Henry VI, the TV series was far clearer and less ridiculous and also performed with a much greater skill by most. Not that the rest of the cast of this one were that bad, but the cheese that Sir Laurence delivered tainted them all too or overshadowed anything good that they may have done because he was soooo awful. I don't think I've ever cringed so much as I did watching Dick 3's comeuppance.
And actually the battle scenes were all terribly unrealistic with comical helmets that blinded all who wore them very obviously and I was wholly embarrassed on behalf of the complete production for how poorly the fighting was acted out, edited and directed.
I couldn't even lay the fault with this film that it was "Of its time" because it would have been bad even then. The stripped back stage performances that have lately been recorded and shown on SkyArts have provided me with far more of an education in to the world of Mr Shakespeare and with far less effort. Maybe all the bells and whistles of this one were part of the problem, but I just didn't think that it worked and I don't know about Richard, but I certainly had the hump by the end of it. It only scored so highly for the rest of the cast who had to put up with him.
337.58/1000.
*Robert Helpmann - Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)
**The bad guy in 'Shrek' (2001)
And Now for Something Completely Different (1971)
Not really that different and maybe just too odd?
And Now For Something Completely Different (Monty Python) (1971) -
I feel I'm being controversial when I say that the Python sense of humour, at this point of their career, was just something that I couldn't understand or appreciate, because they are of course so well revered by so many, but while I tittered at the odd moment within this film, I couldn't exactly say that their more surreal or silly sketches hit my funny bones with any great force.
That's not to say that I hated it or that it fell completely flat, because there were definitely some moments that in my mind were quite clever, but I thought that there better works were 'Life Of Brian' (1979) and 'The Holy Grail' (1975) which were still quirky and on topic, but also far more accessible to the masses. I was glad that they had refined their jokes and style by the time they got to those two awesome films, because even from watching this one it was clear that the group had potential.
Some of the sketches here were, as Graham Chapman, depicting an army Colonel stated, just plain silly, while other elements had a bit more care and thought spent on them and deliberately delivered something that was far from what had been expected, therein lying some of the best punchlines. Other parts of it though were just downright obscure, especially the animations, except a few of those worked better because cartoons can generally be more readily forgiven for being strange, but still odd to find in the middle of a standard film. Perhaps the point was that it wasn't a "standard" film?
There were also skits that could have been so very clever, but were taken too far. For instance the Granny's beating up men instead of the other way around was funny, but quickly became too extreme.
In most things I've always enjoyed watching Michael Palin's work and Eric Idle has played a number of fun roles too, but I've never really been exposed to the rest of the cast very much to say which one might be the influence that grated on me, except for John Cleese. I've never really liked watching 'Fawlty Towers' (1975-79) and his cameos in various TV series and films have never done anything for me either. I didn't mind him in 'A Fish Called Wanda' (1988), but he's always had what seemed to be a quick anger and an aggressive line of characters that have never endeared him to me, so perhaps his contribution to this film was part of why I didn't rate it very highly, but it might have been one of the Terry's or even Graham, except I did love him as Brian.
Personally the idea of a clip show as a feature film was an odd concept anyway, regardless of the recurring or connecting themes that ran through a semi structured narrative. Maybe that's why 'Brian' and 'Grail' worked better for there more fixed and chronological storyline.
I can't imagine that I'll revisit this one though.
415.11/1000.
City Lights (1931)
I've run out of words of praise!
City Lights (1931) -
I've finally stopped crying with joyous laughter from watching this film and even now I'm having flashbacks that make me giggle to myself. Why didn't I bring Charlie Chaplin in to my life sooner? He fills my heart with such a pleasure that would be a struggle to get from many others.
In the review I wrote for the first film I saw him in (The Kid - 1921) I stated that he was fun, but not a patch on Buster Keaton, but having since watched 2 or 3 more of his works and especially this one, I feel that I have to put Chuck up on the same pedestal. They were both the same, but somehow different and while obviously comparable, Charlie became the better known of the two, but Buster appeared to have been the one that lead the way.
This instalment of Mr Chaplin's Tramps adventures was hilarious from the off, which might have been something to do with the fact that the film that I'd just turned off was so horrible and upsetting, but was most likely because of the Star/Producer/Writer/Director's genius.
It was so wonderfully and innocently silly and in some ways so simple, but delivered with such wit and happiness.
I could easily see why this one in particular features on four of the top films lists that I'm slowly crossing off. I just didn't stop laughing.
As "The Tramp" strolled through his daily life he found a purpose in a beautiful blind flower girl who he was determined to help. Sometimes but not always he was aided by a rich fellow that couldn't always remember who Charlie was. The struggles that he went through to get money for the blind girl to have an operation were fraught with shenanigans of all sorts of fun and the boxing match especially is the reason that I'm still tittering away to myself hours later. I could imagine my late Grandad, a boxer in his younger days, laughing as hysterically as I was and that too brought joy to me.
None of Chuck's films are really an ensemble piece, although they do feature many other actors, so it was hard to recognise anyone else's efforts in the film. Chaplin stole all of the limelight and rightly so, I didn't dare take my eyes off him in case I missed one his quirky little traits that made his character so adorable. He was so good hearted and it was only apt that his way of spreading joy and love was the central theme throughout his films, with the rest of the cast being there just for him to bounce off.
In this one, at times he was quite an effeminate and gay lil chap, which was a surprise to find such suggestion in a film from 1931 when values were so very different to those of 2024, but even that element worked inoffensively and was actually very cute.
And I know that it was sped up, but how did he move so fast even before that process? He must have been incredibly fit and also wonderfully trained to deliver such perfect timings, especially with the rope on the riverside scene, which could have been a tragic accident if he hadn't played it just right.
I'm not sure that I will ever get the vision of Charlie in his baggy shorts, bouncing around the boxing ring and eliciting such genius and joyful chaos out of my head and I'm not sure that I want to. In fact I might use it to cheer myself up on down days, because ultimately that's what these films are there for, what they were made for, to bring laughter to the masses in times of need and not.
I might actually have to watch it again tomorrow, because I haven't scored anything else so highly in ages. Superb!
959.81/1000.
The History Boys (2006)
"Silly Old Hector!"
The History Boys (2006) -
I'd forgotten how entertaining this film was. Aside from the nostalgia, it was just a good story and so well delivered by the majority of the cast.
Even despite some of its more questionable elements I could find nothing offensive about it, because of its context and the general fun of the piece that came across in the joy that the cast were all obviously having while making it.
In the past month or so I seem to have found a new appreciation for Alan Bennett's works, having watched a rare interview with him and also a number of his 'Talking Heads' (1988 & 1998) monologues. The man has written some fantastic and genius observational pieces. Either for one person, or as plays for a whole cast, his works have easily recognisable settings and happenings from real life and have generally always been populated by the best actors for the roles. This production was no different
It was easy to see that the cast had all been around each other for a long time and that they clearly knew the script well from their time on Broadway in the stage version. Their performances flowed with such great ease that it was obviously something that was inside of them all, as if their characters were a piece of each of them.
Although some of the lads performances were a tad more for stage rather than screen at times, with everything enunciated, projected and articulated too clearly, mostly they delivered exactly what their characters needed. They might be ridiculed today for being men of their mid 20's playing boys of 17/18, but I didn't seem to notice as I watched.
From the adult cast it was only really Felix (Clive Merrison) who was a bit of a caricature, especially compared to the others who were just giving great and subtle performances, because Frances de la tour as Mrs. Lintott (Totty), Stephen Campbell Moore in his role of Irwin and Hector, played by Richard Griffiths all nailed it, Griffiths especially.
I did find it funny as I watched that I could find a love for Richard Griffiths in this and also some of his characters from other films and TV series, despite my hate for him as the horrible Vernon Dursley in the 'Harry Potter' (2001-11) series of films, but I couldn't say the same for Imelda Staunton, who I thought even played The Queen a bit like Dolores Umbridge*. She wasn't in this film, but I felt it was a testament to Richard's acting abilities that he could play a pervy old teacher and still be a loveable character by comparison, while I may never forgive Imelda for how her character treated Harry.
But I digress.
I did find that the consideration of the homosexual attitudes on show were a tad blazé at times. I liked that the boys didn't pick on Posner (Samuel Barnett) for being obviously gay - Bullies picking on gay kids at school has well and truly been covered in TV and film, literature, theatre and of course ACTUAL schools - but with Dakin's (Dominic Cooper) interest in Irwin, I thought that there should have been more of an explanation as to why the essentially straight boy had grown to fancy his teacher. I felt that it was because he had fallen for his intellect and that he believed that attraction to Irwin's mind needed a sexual response, maybe due to Dakin's adolescence, but I didn't feel that there were enough quiet moments of contemplation by any of the characters individually to really establish their specific motives for anything that they were doing, in any really obvious respect. I wondered if there was more of that, perhaps via monologue, in the stage version.
I also sort of felt that Scripps (Jamie Parker) might have been jealous of Posner's attraction to Dakin, because he was actually in love with Posner himself, but that he might have been repressing it, because of his devout religious leanings. The way they all so casually talked about male for male attraction was just a bit too free and easy for a group of laddy A-Level aged students in the early 1980's and again I felt that I needed to know more about them all individually or how and why they had become that close knit group.
I did find it interesting to explore the forbidden attraction that Irwin, as the teacher had towards Dakin however. It's so easy to condemn that sort of thing, but in fact, as established in the film, Irwin wasn't actually much older than Dakin, having only recently graduated from his own college experience. After a few years no one would have questioned it, but because they were pupil and teacher it was frowned upon. It was an element of the plot that I felt sympathised with love's that must not be named or acted upon. It's not always easy to choose who we fall for, although I by no means condone paedophilia of course. There are age limits for very good reasons. Horny teens throwing themselves at their teachers can't be an easy thing to deal with though.
As the story progressed through the trials of the small group of Yorkshire lads and their attempts to get their applications for Oxford University to stand out, with the various help from their three main teachers, it did make me wish that I'd personally had a better education, because I'd give real money for the philosophical and emotional way that history and the written word in general were being studied in this film.
I didn't know what I wanted to do back in secondary school, but I don't feel that any one teacher in particular had the chance to engage my interest in a subject that might have made me want to explore it further.
I couldn't wait to escape from school, so I left as soon as I could, but I don't think that another two years of the same teachers and curriculum, in a sixth form, would have helped me to understand my future any better at that time (There is a point to this, I promise). I am who I am today, because of the choices I made and the experiences I have had, both vocationally and in general life. I therefore don't blame any of my teachers for not taking a personal interest in my studies, because I could easily have made the decision to study harder and of my own volition too, but it would have been great to have had an Irwin be really honest with me about how dull my essay was and what I could do to spice it up or a Hector who might have engaged me through media and silly ways of memorising beautiful poetry or kindled my interest in fictional writing sooner rather than later. My life could have been a lot different and these people given charge of our kids for 7 hours a day should have more freedom to make that difference and send all of their students away to a brighter future where they might just improve the world for everyone as a result of a better education and understanding of life. (Steps down from soapbox)
I love a film that can really get me passionate about its content and how I see my life because of it and this film did that in spades. It certainly got me thinking, which I supposed was the whole point of the boys lessons too.
Also I could fortunately just about understand the French scene, so that was good as well.
I mustn't leave it so long before I watch this one again, although it was nice to almost find it anew. A real joy and cleverly written.
868.02/1000.
*The Crown' (2016-3)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
Worth Witnessing.
Witness For The Prosecution (1957) -
In the beginning it was hard to like Sir Wilfrid Robarts having seen Charles Laughton play so many hateable characters in films like 'Mutiny On The Bounty' (1935), 'Jamaica Inn' (1939) and 'Spartacus' (1960), but he easily delivered the wit of Agatha Christie's Barrister (Lawyer not Coffee Maker) character in a funny and damnably good way that had me routing for him.
In fact Agatha's wit was obvious throughout the production as it always has been. I really liked the quirks of the various characters that gave them all a much more rounded persona and made them easy to connect with even if they weren't all very nice people.
It was an enjoyable mystery that kept me guessing all the way along, partly because there weren't a huge amount of clues to piece together either to prove innocence or guilt, so neither the defence or the prosecution really delivered any prosecutable evidence. But it was also fair to say that I got a bit wrapped up in the more emotional and personal drama that was going on that distracted slightly from the courtly affair.
The production values were not noticeably bad and it seemed to have been edited well to keep the pace going. The cast in general were all very good, but I really don't know how Marlene Dietrich ever got work as a singer and I didn't actually think that her acting was up to much in this film either. It wasn't her supposed duplicity, but more a case that she was a bit wooden and in one scene incredibly over the top.
None of that spoiled this one for me though, because Charles in the central role was so superb and the story was brilliantly clever and interesting.
I would recommend this to any crime film fans and I would love to see it again in a few years, when I would have hopefully forgotten whodunnit.
723.88/1000.
The Commitments (1991)
Not taxing, but joyful.
The Commitments (1991) -
I'm not saying that when I first watched this film I realised that I loved soul music, because I had known all the songs beforehand or had at least heard them at some point in my life, but I think that it would be fair to say that this film and its leading actors, with their outstanding vocal deliveries, went some way towards my finding soul in a more permanent way, not just as an occasional song on the radio that I recognised from a Bounty advert, but as an absolute pleasure to listen to and a joyous combination of music.
Years later I would seek out the majority of the songs featured on CD's and many of them have remained staples on my iTunes playlist.
So no matter what could be said about some of the production values, lighting, sound or the odd bad line delivery by a supporting artist, there was no way that anyone could deny that right from the start the film had chosen the best songs to provide a cracking soundtrack.
What heightened that was the group of actors/singers that they got to perform in the passionate and fun roles.
Another thing that couldn't be denied was Deco's (Andrew Strong) outstanding voice. It just fit so well with the music and in some ways it was a joy to watch him perform the songs with such obvious relish and enthusiasm. It was just a shame that he had a touch of the Rik Waller's about him, with very little 'X Factor (2004-24) and his general persona was not so appealing.
The girls had great voices too and nobody in the cast really played a bad part. I loved the attitudes of them all with their dry wit and sarcastic ways, but in particular I liked Jimmy (Robert Arkins). Although he was a bit of a caricature of an Irish lad, in a way that might have been seen on an advert for milk or something similar, I really enjoyed his role and the way that he delivered it with humour that wasn't forced, but was very dry.
I was glad that they didn't go for Bob Hoskins or any other big name to play the character of Joey "The Lips" (Johnny Murphy) as was stated in the IMDB trivia though, because, as much as I have loved Bob in everything he has done, I think his presence in that role would have overshadowed the rest of the cast, which really wasn't the point of it.
It was a simple good humoured film about putting a band together and the struggles that go with it all, but it was definitely an ensemble piece, that seemed to deliberately utilise fresh and slightly rough, unknown actors to get an interestingly brassy, but not too harsh result. Yes there were fallings out amongst the band, but it didn't delve too far in to the fractious relationships until the end really. They could have had secondary romances and financial trouble side stories that would have fleshed it out, but probably made it drag too, but they kept it succinct moving the main story of the bands progress along nicely. For me it was all about the band as a whole and using the story to showcase that great playlist.
Having been to many performances by a band called "Joey The Lips" I can safely say that it's almost impossible to not enjoy those soul songs and even harder not to at least tap your feet along with them.
I felt that this one could have been an inspiration for films like 'The Full Monty' (1997), 'Brassed Off' (1996), 'Billy Elliot' (2000) and even 'Four Weddings And A Funeral' (1994) for the way that they were all filmed with a hope and yet still quite gritty, before the more polished stories like 'Calendar Girls' (2003) and 'Fishermen's Friends' (2019) took over, set in posher, more friendly areas and atmospheres.
And possibly this film took its own inspiration from 'The Blues Brothers' (1980) although slightly toned down on the comedic car chase scenes.
Overall this was a highly enjoyable film to watch, almost more like a concert than a narrative story, but still with a tale that had more than a few laughs.
829.91/1000.
Invitation to a Murder (2023)
Oh, but why??
An Invitation To Murder (2023) -
I honestly don't know what it was that made me record this film, what little factor there was that made me think that I would give it a go. If I'd read the reviews on IMDB I can't think that I would have given it the time of day and even the eye candy wasn't exactly that tasty. There was certainly no sex or nudity, which has persuaded me to tune in to a film on more than one occasion. It also wasn't leading star Mischa Barton, as Miranda Green, because I don't like girls, I never watched 'The O. C.' (2003-7) and actually she was really frumpy in this one anyway, which I felt was semi deliberate, but mostly just made her seem to be a funny shape. Not the pin up girl that I'd come to expect. And I'm not saying that she shouldn't be any shape that she wants to be, but it came across as if they were trying to make a "Sexy" 'Miss Marple' type character and failed miserably by going too far with the old lady get up. She also didn't give a performance worthy of any praise and I didn't think that she had the presence to carry off the role, trying to be a person who took charge, but who actually came over far too timidly.
The general idea of the production was like a 'Murdoch Mystery' (2008-) got stuck to 'Aurora Teagarden's' (2015-22) shoe, which was wiped off on a few pages of an Agatha (Christie not Raisin - Although???) story, that was definitely missing the wit and the clever last pages of a 'Poirot' or 'Marple' escapade. It also had elements of Edgar Allan Poe in the way that the servants were all evasive and somewhat rude as if they had something creepy to hide too.
The fact that once someone was murdered they didn't immediately question the staff in more detail and that their reactions were so unrealistic didn't help. It was odd anyway that they hadn't bothered to ask why they had all been invited to the island in the first place, stealing ideas from Agatha's 'And Then There Were None' (1945, 1965 (Ten Little Indians) & 1974) or 'Evil Under The Sun' (1982) and with a slight idea of the comedy film 'Murder By Death' (1976) in which the best minds are gathered to solve a murder, because that's how it came across to start with, except it wasn't funny. With that said I did laugh at points. Not that I was supposed to, although scoff might be the more appropriate word for it.
I very nearly turned it off, because it was just sooo bad, but as with most mysteries, it's not easy to walk away without seeing just how the things are all wrapped up in the end. This was such a mess with far too much going on that it was impossible to see where it was trying to go. I also felt that it was unfair to let my Mother watch it until the end on her own to tell me what happened later.
The actual resolution of the story was a farce and far too easily uncovered by Miranda, with no real clues presented to explain how she got specifically to that point. It was followed by an epilogue that was positively twee. I sincerely hope that they do not decide to make this in to a series of films with Miranda, a florist by day with an interest in solving murders, taking on all sorts of new cases and being serialised, akin to 'Aurora', 'Murder She Baked' (2015-21), 'The Gourmet Detectives' (2015-20) and the others of the same genre, although it does have a sequel lined up according to IMDB.
For a French production with American values, set in England, but filmed in the US it was all very spiffing and stiff upper British lipped or brashly American. The actors were all very forced like Kenneth Branagh's version of 'Poirot'*. All far too much and over the top, without the skill to deliver those sorts of characters.
There were lots of stereotypes and most of the actors appeared to be trying to copy so many others that had gone before.
Armstrong (Giles Matthey), the "Doctor", I use quotations, because he was pretty bloody useless as any sort of medic, except when it was convenient for the story, reminded me of Roddy McDowell, someone whose characters I've never trusted.
In fact nobody stood out for performing well, but Gordon's (James Urbaniak) accent was terrible and all over the place.
Other than that it was obviously filmed with a dark filter to hide certain elements around the location/set that were probably too modern. Although I have to admit that a lot of the set, props and so on looked beautifully lavish and appropriately of the time.
There were lots of bits that annoyed me otherwise however - Gordon's really badly fitted suit, The sound of the power going off and some of the wardrobe choices to name but a few. It all just irked me.
It was flawed from the start. Why had they been brought there? What was with the rabbits? Why were the staff so creepy? I personally wouldn't have gone along with any of it without an explanation as to why I had been called out of the blue to go to a spooky recluse's island. It wouldn't have mattered if they'd been told a lie to start with to explain why they had agreed to turn up, but they all just paid their expensive travelling fares and went regardless of not knowing??
A typical mystery of the early 20th century, without any of the finesse or style of those that have gone before, in fact I've seen better episodes of 'Aurora' and 'Murdoch' and I can't stand those productions.
Just don't even entertain it, because you will feel the need to see what the awful ending turned out to be and then just be really disappointed that you wasted nearly two hours that could have been spent picking spots from someone's greasy back instead, which would have been a far better use of your time.
232.35/1000.
*Murder On The Orient Express (2017)
RSC Live: Othello (2015)
"Hubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble!"
Royal Shakespeare Company: Othello - (2015) -
To start with I couldn't work out if I liked the fact that there didn't seem to be a specific time setting for this piece, Although by the end I did think that I liked the treatment in general. I might have been happier without the video conference call, and the karaoke was a tad much too.
I also felt that the accompanying music might have been too loud and harsh if I'd been in the actual theatre as well.
I did appreciate the transitions from one scene to the next, which were done well to keep the pace up without overlong set changes and the smooth movement of the cleverly engineered set, with an actual water feature was good too.
My first thoughts as I watched the cast were that Brian Protheroe was very good in his role of Brabantio. He seemed at ease with the Shakespearean dialogue without stretching too hard to remember his lines or projecting too loudly.
As it progressed I grew to appreciate Hugh Quarshie in his titular part of Othello as well, it was clear to see how his countenance changed throughout as a result of Iago's malicious and manipulative whispering in his ear.
Iago (Lucian Msamati) himself was a bit of a fidget. At times it was like he had ants in his pants and wouldn't stand still. He seemed to be the only one of the cast that felt the need to express himself so physically, as well as vocally.
However, while I don't generally like it when the cast address the audience in their monologues and it didn't work for most of them, by the end I did feel that Iago had managed to include the viewers in a way that was apt.
And in fact the story probably should have been called Iago rather than Othello, because the focus really did seem to fall on him mostly and he was the one making the events all happen.
I couldn't help but feel that there were too many other people of colour in the production for Othello himself to stand out as THE "Moor" and I mostly felt that Iago was the worst culprit for this as someone that hated Othello, seemingly for his supposed racial difference. I'm all for diversity, but not at the cost of a point that the story was trying to make or when it blurs things too much. You couldn't have a man playing Elizabeth I, because the issue of her being a woman in power would be lost?
The whole cast actually delivered well, with no one person standing out as poor. Everyone projected their lines clearly and without shouting, which I have often found with these productions.
The female characters were all enjoyable in their roles, but Emilia (Ayesha Dharker) was actually superb. Her accent added to her performance and I wondered if her foreign heritage might also be why her husband, Iago, might have been so cruel to her too. His Afro accent did complicate his character further though.
I don't know why, but I had always thought that 'Othello' was a comedy, so the drama of this was quite a surprise, but it was a good story overall and I enjoyed as much as I could understand with the poetic script being a tad tough to follow at times. Perhaps I might enjoy it even more when I do get around to reading it and I can digest the prose at my own pace, pause and return to it if necessary.
A story of a General of colour fighting for his place in society, whilst his Ensign's evil lies spread mischief and tragedy for the superiors marriage.
720.25/1000.
The Cat from Outer Space (1978)
Because sometimes it's fun to just watch something silly.
The Cat From Outer Space (1978) -
My niece and I have started a habit of watching any and all dodgy sounding "B" movies, so when 'The Cat From Outer Space' appeared on the TV listings I couldn't very easily not record it.
We sat down to watch it with no great expectations, but were actually both surprised to find that this wasn't a bad film at all.
Yes, it was still very much a "B" movie and definitely one of the dafter ones, but it still had the Disney magic that others from the era had, such as 'One Of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing' (1975) or adventures like Digby: The Biggest Dog In The World' (1973).
The title did give a lot away before it even started, so there was no surprise about what was in the spaceship, but the Cat in question, whilst obviously beautiful, was also a brilliant performer. The director got the best out of them and with clever editing it really did seem as though the cat was talking and reacting appropriately to the situations as they unfolded.
I wouldn't be surprised if Stephen Spielberg had based his film 'E. T. The Extraterrestrial' (1982) on this one, because it was certainly very similar, with a cat stranded on Earth and in need of the help of a bunch of scientist numpties, whilst also threatened by the military and in this instance the unsavoury character Stallwood played by Roddy McDowell and Mr Olympus (William Prince) as well. No flying bikes artfully passing by a bright full moon, but that didn't mean that things didn't fly.
By the standards of 2024 the film was obviously dated, but I did think that it was actually a very cute film and not just because of the adorable kitty.
A very simple and silly, but fun story that I'd gladly watch again, although I can't imagine that I'd ever feel the need to own it on DVD.
702.99/1000.
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)
"A man can't sleep, when he sleeps with sheep!"
Seven Brides For Seven Brothers (1954) -
I remember one year that I bought this film for my Mother, because she'd said it was her favourite and she proceeded to watch it almost weekly, sometimes two days in a row, so I got to know it very well.
Because of that I grew to love it too, so when I joined an amateur dramatic group years later I was always hopeful that they'd put this show on, but we could never get enough men to play all of the parts. I would have had to play Adam Pontipee, because my dancing has never been up to much, but I wouldn't have minded at all. Although he was a misguided and chauvinistic fella, there was a certain charm about him, especially played by Howard Keel, who was not only handsome, but also had a fantastically beautiful voice too (I would struggle to come anywhere close to it if I'm really honest with myself.
I've also always had a soft spot for Benjamin (Jeff Richards), even though he obviously couldn't dance.
But I've always had to feel sorry for Milly (Jane Powell) having to put up with Adam and his six brothers. In fairness she didn't have to marry him on the spare of the moment and move to his cabin in the middle of nowhere, without asking many questions.
I don't exactly say Grace and get the best silver out for every meal, but the boys she got lumbered with were pretty feral. No wonder she was keen to get them to a barn dance and pair them all off.
I suppose I've always enjoyed stories that involve building new lives and refining behaviours, etc so it was nice to see how Milly's influence brought an element of class to the Pontipee household.
Even from that very first time of watching it when I were nor but a lad I found it charming and a pleasure to watch. Yes it's offensive to women in so many ways and the men shouldn't really have got their rewards for their antique behaviour, but it did also show how they could change. It helped that they were easy on the eye as well.
The dances were superb, although not something to grace the dance floors of 2024 and the songs sweet and innocent.
The settings of the dances, even the bedroom had the look of pictures about them, as if the director was keen to capture a tableaux like those of 'Mrs Henderson Presents' (2005) or a print by Courier and Ives.
My only other note was "Mass Stockholm Syndrome!", but I'll let you discover that for yourself.
A lovely golden oldie.
840.11/1000.
The Circus (1928)
Charming Chaplin
The Circus (1928) -
This film surprised me, because of all the Charlie Chaplin films and all the greatest films to watch lists, it didn't appear on any, but I actually found that it was more enjoyable and better put together than 'The Kid' (1921) which was on a few of those lists.
It further surprised me, because I can't stand circuses and find clowns to be an absolute bore, but Chuck somehow seemed to even make his dealings with them funny too. Although their standard antics were still boring until "The Tramp" got mixed up in them.
Although in my review for 'The Kid' I stated that Buster Keaton will always be my silent Hero, and I stand by that, Mr Chaplin is definitely becoming a favourite too.
There was just something marvellously charming about The Tramp character and the way that the Producer, Director & Writer (All Charles) found ways for him to bring joy in the simplest of ways. He had an endearing quality that was hard to deny. I loved his odd little mannerisms and nuances, the way he cared about the dust on his hat for instance, despite essentially being a scruffy little man. The little moments added to it all and in some ways were what made the film stand out for those extra finesses. And his little walk was adorable.
The story of his employment at a circus and a rise to fame, whilst falling in love, was filled with a simple and innocent humour, but still worthy of a titter even in 2024. I almost wondered if it might be time to bring back the silent movie, as a way of rebooting the cinematic experience again, because it managed to tell the story without needing language, so everyone could enjoy it and understand what was going on and that in itself was an art form.
At times I definitely felt as if I was watching an early Warner Brothers cartoon, with shenanigans thst could be likened to Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck. There are probably very few people who can honestly say that they haven't enjoyed those animated shorts, so I firmly believe that this was a film for everybody, even 100 years later.
769.79/1000.
Pit and the Pendulum (1961)
"Where's your Mama gone, Little Baby Don?"
The Pit And The Pendulum (1961) -
As I started watching this film I assumed that my memory had failed me, because this was really quite far from the original source novel and in fact by the end of it I had felt that it touched on a number of the stories of writer Edgar Allan Poe, without actually doing this one justice.
It seemed to utilise large parts of 'The Premature Burial' with Nicholas' (Vincent Price) worries about his recently passed wife Elizabeth and I also felt that it had taken some of the themes from 'The Fall Of The House Of Usher' in the form of Francis Barnard's (John Kerr) visit to the house and his potential connection to Nick's sister Catherine (Luana Anders).
Sadly it didn't touch on the tension that I had recalled from the book that it was based on in which the leading character awakened in a dark chamber with a pendulum slowly swinging lower and lower towards him, with his only other escape being, yep you've guessed it, a pit.
I may still have remembered incorrectly, but I'm too lazy to go through the book again right now, however I'm sure that this was not the story that I had enjoyed when I did read it.
All of that aside, I didn't actually mind this broad interpretation, in which the pit and its partnered pendulum only appeared in a very minor way.
Francis' visit to the home of the Medina family in order to find out what had happened to his sister Lizzy (Barbara Steele), lead to a series of lies being found out (Who was really the bad guy?) and ultimately the possibly of a ghost seeking vengeance and retribution.
A sort of murder mystery not quite worthy of Poirot's little grey cells and set centuries before his time anyway, but certainly intriguing to see how it all came to be in the end.
For the most part it moved smoothly, the sets and costumes appeared to be appropriate to my lesser knowing eye (Not having a book on the fashions and decorating motifs of the time to hand). I did think that the red bricks of the vault might have been a bit modern for the 16th century and although it was a bit too dark at times, it still wasn't overly hard to see what was going on. In general most people wouldn't look to pick faults like I do.
I did think however that John Kerr had been miscast as Francis Barnard. He also seemed too modern for the classic role. Where the others all delivered an almost Shakespearean telling of their lines, he stood out as brash and with excess swagger, as if he should have been on the streets of New York and not 16th Century Spain. In my opinion he was too Frank Sinatra from 'Guys And Dolls' (1955) when he should have been more Patrick Stewart or Derek Jacobi.
Vincent Price was a bit corny as Don Nicholas Medina, but it worked in his creepy, slightly unhinged and delusional part. Having seen him in so many of these roles now he just seems to own them as his own and seem apt, despite the hamminess.
So it wasn't the story I remembered, I felt that Barnard had been investigating something else to do with the Spanish Inquisition and without there being any Sister's involved or the family's peculiar and tragic history either. I had certainly recalled more Pit and more Pendulum and much less dramatic, romantic goings on in a big scary house and that was actually a shame, because the tension of the lead character waking in that dark room below a massive pendulum with that pit was what had made the original tale so wonderfully tense in the first place. He hadn't known why he was there or what was happening, whereas this story seemed to just be shoehorning the titular items in to something much more contrived and had sucked some of the life out of Poe's work.
In itself it was fine if taken separately from that gothic piece and original idea, but I'm sure even in 1961 there were probably critics upset by its diverse turn. It certainly wasn't the worst film I've seen though.
701.01/1000.