Reviews

The serious critics such as Halliwell didn't rate this movie very high, but I gave it 9/10 stars, first because it achieves exactly what it set out to be: a mindless screwball comedy - seven stars. An extra star for the song 'Cause I'm a blonde. And another star because the film actually has good production values. Watch the scene in which the alien ship lands: it is a perfect takeoff of every cheesy aliens-are-landing movie of the 1950s.

Someone once commented that most great books are either seminal or unique. The same applies to movies. 2001 is an example of a seminal movie; it gave a new start to the genre and spawned many good films that built both on its concepts and its effects techniques.

Blade Runner is unique. No-one has made a movie quite like it before or since. Although it has deep roots in film noir and early SF - as far back as "Metropolis" - and other movies such as the "Nineteen Eighty-four" of that year have used somewhat similar gritty near-future worlds, none have the breadth of vision and incredible, mesmerizing atmosphere of this movie.

I gave this film a '9' a couple of years ago, having recently read the Philip K. Dick book on which it is based; I felt at the time it departed too far from the book, and "docked" it one point in consequence. Watching the Final Cut with a longer perspective, I believe it deserves to be judged only as itself, a movie, and as such it gets one of my few 10's.

If that weren't enough, the remastering of the already brilliant sound track into Dolby 5.1 in the Final Cut would take it over the top; if I could give it an extra half-point for that alone, it would get a 10.5. Even with my bottom-of-the-line home theater equipment, at one point an air-car audibly travelled, I swear, 30 feet through the back wall of my apartment. This is almost the only movie I can think of that I listen to the complete soundtrack music - 2 CDs - for the sheer pleasure of the music and sound-scape.

The ambiguities and different versions and the extreme views expressed in the forums indicate clearly how deeply this movie affects people -- pro or sometimes con. It is not a movie that anyone can be indifferent to, unless perhaps they are totally uninterested in the genre. I see more in it every time I watch it.

Having seen (in very bad 3D) the remake House of Wax, I found this classic horror a delightful contrast. It is lifted out of the ordinary by good production values (including excellent early color), convincing performances, enough subplots to keep you glued to the screen, and the fast pace so characteristic of the best of the films of the 30's and early forties.

I am particular partial to horror that manages to blend comic vignettes and one-liners without losing the essential hair-raising suspense, and this film delvers both in full measure.

Particularly memorable is the early scene in which extremely lifelike wax figures melt and crumble. Almost-real human figures have a special twist of horror when they behave unexpectedly, and this scene exploits our reactions perfectly.

This film deserves to be better known and valued, especially in the context of its period, long before gushing blood and screaming teens became the hallmark of "horror". This film is more frightening than any modern slasher, and the comic relief, as it should, makes the horrific stand out more starkly.

A sleeper that evidently few have seen recently, this unpretentious comedy-drama can take an honorable mention in the long list of prison films. An early Stanley Kramer production, it received critical acclaim but was not a box-office success. Nevertheless, it has good character acting, some very amusing scenes, and enough dramatic tension to hold the attention and set off the comic moments.

Don't be put off by the overly earnest opening, as the new, wet-behind-the-ears psychiatrist arrives at the prison hoping to reform the penitentiary system single-handed. Although Kramer reportedly had prison reform in mind in making the film, this movie is not about psychological theories, which are lightly passed over with buzz-word gobbledygook. It's not even about the good doctor himself or his research so much as it's about the six cons of the title, as they become human beings to us.

Speaking of buzz-words, the genial Connie's psycho-babble malapropisms are among the best of the running gags. The many funny scenes stand out against the grim realism of the penitentiary, shot on location at San Quentin. The comedy also contrasts sharply with the dramatic dilemma the "doc" must face between gaining (and keeping) the confidence of his six cons and learning too much to be healthy in the deadly reality of prison life. But overall this is a human comedy more than an edge-of-your seat drama.

There are excellent photographic moments using long wide-angle shots to dramatize the starkness of the prison environment, which contrast well with the friendly intimacy gradually established in the psychiatrist's office. And the movie gets an extra star for the fine score by Dimitri Tiomkin, famous for many much better-known movies from "It's a Wonderful Life" to "The Guns of Navarone".

It's well worth watching for this to come around on television, as you are unlikely to find it at your corner video store -- not available on DVD or VHS at the time of writing.

Superficially just another Scandinavian twist on the teen coming-of-age sex movie, I think there is genuinely a deeper level of interpretation. This odd film reminded me inevitably a little of Sex, Lies and Videotape - but the subtext is a much more general social commentary on the issues of privacy and personal freedom. The larger cast expand the personal issues to the social context without losing intensity in individual performances.

As a North American, I feel slightly disconnected from the European society -- we do not (yet) have surveillance cameras on every street corner. Nevertheless many places from banks to 24-hour grocery stores already use video surveillance, most cell-phones now come with an integrated camera, the web-cam is a common household appliance, and sex has become a spectator sport perhaps more than at any time in previous history. It is easy to say that my freedom ends where your privacy and right to security begin -- but it is not always so easy to find that point in our complex, crowded, fearful 21st century society.

Be warned: The sex scenes are numerous, explicit, and grittily realistic -- a far cry from the blurred-lens romance of the soft porn of most North American or British adult movies, or the extreme absurdity of so-called hard porn. I found this verismo refreshing in an odd way, although many may find it disturbing, especially in a film about late teens or twenty-somethings.

My one regret is that one of the subtext messages seemed to be one common to many movies: Young people can have sex, but they will be punished for it. Whatever the truth of this philosophy, it is an older person's perspective, which to me jarred with the viewpoint of the film, told almost entirely from the teenagers POV.

Although no totally new ground is broken here, I think this film is worth at least a good first look and perhaps a second viewing.

I don't give many movies 10/10, but this black comedy-drama gets my vote, for fine acting, production values, and of course its place in movie history in the frank portrayal of lesbian relationships.

Others have & will comment on the latter, so I'll point out some of the other aspects of this fine film. The combination of comedy with personal tragedy poses difficult problems both for the writer & director; here they both succeed brilliantly.

The three principals' performances are riveting. I particularly liked the ambiguity of Coral Brown's portrayal of Mercy Croft; watch her carefully in the tight closeups in the gay club, and notice how the down-turned mouth at times hides a hint of a self-satisfied smile.

The cinematography deserves special mention. The use of colour is beautiful; I was reminded of "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg", but it never steps over the line into unreality. On the contrary, the alleys of London, the TV studio and above all the stairs and corridor of the flat are supremely realistic. Most unusual is the use of chiaroscuro, the interplay of light-and-shadow, seldom seen outside of black & white films. In so many colour films the light appears to come from some amorphous omnidirectional source out of science fiction; great for lighting everything and everybody evenly, but unrealistic and DULL. Look at the shadows as Beryl Reid ('George') enters the apartment building and climbs the stairs, or in some of the bedroom scenes. Apart from its other many virtues, this movie held my attention as a fine piece of film-making.

All in all, a masterpiece; my one regret is that it was shown on TV in pan-and-scan. It IS now available in DVD - in several formats & regions - so I look forward to watching it again in its original form.

This movie is like a dark reflection of some of Eastwood's earlier Westerns. I hadn't meant to watch it but was soon caught by the dark, complex atmosphere with its suggestion of the supernatural. The plot if summarized briefly would differ little from Shane or the Magnificent Seven (or even Cat Ballou!), but the devil, as they say, is in the details.

There is also, surprisingly, plenty of black humour here. While much of it depends on sight gags, there is also much subtle satire of Western clichés not excluding Eastwood's own performances. Some of the in-jokes are summarized in the trivia. The opening and closing scenes of a lone rider on a vast plain, shot with long telephoto so he hardly seems to move against the heat-shimmering foreground, is reminiscent of the famous scene in Lawrence of Arabia.

The characters are almost all "bad and ugly", including the anti-hero Stranger himself. However there is enough sense of appropriate retribution and redemption to keep the movie from descending into the merely negative and bizarre.

The chief danger of a movie directed by the star is self-indulgence. That was my first impression, and my initial rating reflected this; but on reflection I think Eastwood fully intended the irony of the classic poster-like Eastwoodian frames, and I raised it to an 8. I am not an Eastwood fan as such, but I believe he has made a fine contribution to the canon. Well worth watching.

Essentially this one of those whodunits where we're pretty sure who the criminal is early on, so the suspense arises from "will the detective catch him, and how". And the suspense is indeed well maintained by a top-notch cast.

The motive is also clear from the very start. Trivia: in the original novel, the motive was gay-bashing, but the producers felt -- likely correctly -- that America was not ready for that much controversy, and changed the issue to post-war anti-semitism.

It takes special expertise to maintain tension in this type of thriller, where killer and motive are essentially known from the beginning. Credit goes not just to the fine cast, and of of course the direction, but also to the exploration and believability of some of the minor characters such as "Miss Lewis (Marlo Dwyer).

I'd like to pick this opportunity to ride one of my hobbyhorses, the importance and uniqueness of Black-&-White filming. I won't say the film could not have been made in color, but it would have been a very different movie. As for colorizing, I shudder to think how much of the director's and cameraman's vision would have been lost. The B&W ambiance perfectly complements the seedy neighborhoods and the darkness of the plot. Now we're not talking a movie famous for its B&W symbolic effects (such as The Spiral Staircase or early Hitchcock). This really is just a B movie (though a good one) and the cinematographer makes his effects (what the Italians call by that wonderful word chiaroscuro) almost as a throw-away or matter of course. Watch the last minutes of the movie, the effects made by the shadows on the staircase, and ask yourself how that could possibly have been filmed in color? Watch this movie, not for its dated aspects, but the fine craftmanship and acting that truly make it work and raise it above the average.

I was not surprised to see that this movie was based on the black humour of Kingsley Amis. Do not expect from Sellers the slapstick farce of the Pink Panther days or the sparkling multiple personalities of the "Mouse that Roared" or the radio Goon shows. Instead, here is a believable person whose comedy arises from his all-too-human reaction to the situation in which he finds himself.

The "usual suspects" put up fine character performances, there are funny moments enough. If the movie is not quite the comic equal of "I'm All Right Jack", or other Sellers movies of the early 60s, perhaps it is because the comedy and its resolution are a little too conventional to show Sellers at his best. It is still worth watching to see Sellers at his best as a serious actor.

As another comment mentioned, the black-&-white filming is also just right for the subject.

This may not be the best version of the story (The Man in the Iron Mask), but its period production values, good pace and some of its top cast lift it above the "B" remake some would rate it.

It perhaps marks a minor renaissance of the unrepentant swashbuckler movie. Beautifully filmed on location (Vienna passing for Paris), it delights the eye. There is enough slapstick sword-fighting to please all but the absolute connoisseur; the tension of the plot is well maintained; it is simply fun to watch. Memorable performances by Rex Harrison as Colbert (in one of his last movie roles) and Ian McShane as Fouquet help to keep the viewer's attentions when others of the rather mixed cast falter.

Ursula Andress' (or "Ursula Undress" as she was somewhat unfairly nicknamed after a Playboy Magazine appearance) convincing portrayal of the King's mistress would undoubtedly have been enhanced (as other commentators have suggested) by the restoration of the nudity cut by the US censors (the American running time is 12 minutes shorter than the British).

All in all, not a movie to buy for one's DVD library, but to rent for a rainy day or watch on TV and appreciate for its fun.

I love the fast-paced, silly comedies of this period, but even more I value "serious" comedies such as this one, that present characters with depth and raise meaningful issues, yet nevertheless manage to be funny. This movie and Grant & Hepburn's "Bringing up Baby" provide ideal examples of the serious comedy and the silly nonsense types. It's hard to believe now that when these 2 movies were made Katherine Hepburn was not considered a prime Box Office draw even though she had a dozen or so movies behind her. She and Cary Grant were able to deliver 100% in both types.

In this film, the comedy arises from the characters and the issues they face, rather than the "situation comedy" and gags of Bringing up Baby. Now don't get me wrong, I love both movies - and it only depends on the mood I'm in which one I prefer. But "serious" comedy is harder to do successfully, and rarer, so I value it the more. Don't miss a chance to see this movie, it is a special gem. 9/10.

Not having seen the original "Rafter Romance" of which this was a remake, I can only compare it with the many other light comedies of the period. Taken for what it is, a "B" movie (or maybe even "C"), it doesn't do badly.

One of the great virtues of the 1930's and early 40's comedies is their fast-paced dialog, seldom heard today. I can imagine the director snapping his fingers to keep the actors racing along. Good pace and timing can cover a multitude of weaknesses in the script, and this movie rattles right along.

I wasn't rolling in the aisle, but this movie was worth a chuckle or three. If you've got nothing better planned, or you want some amusement on the box while you work on something else, curl up and enjoy -- I got lots of knitting done.

It's not often (especially these days) that a character actor or actress pulls a leading role. This movie rates my 8/10 vote mostly on the strength of the marvelous character performance of May Robson in the central role as Apple Annie, an elderly down-and-out who must somehow preserve the imaginary persona she has built for herself to her daughter, soon to arrive from Paris with a prospective husband in tow. Robson was nominated for an Oscar, as lead, and richly deserved it for her tragicomic characterization.

Frank Capra's excellent direction (also nominated for an Oscar) keeps the plot unfolding with the speed and apparently effortless fluidity so characteristic of the comedies of this period. Capra did not win the Oscar that year, but this film launched his series of feel-good dramas and sparkling comedies that netted him three subsequent Oscars.

But this is far more than a feel-good comedy/drama. It's an excellent movie that stands on its merits outside the genre, with a solid supporting cast. Capra's own remake (Pocketful of Miracles), doesn't meet the standard he himself set here. And although I have tremendous respect for Bette Davis, who played the lead in the remake, it is the difference between a good performance and an exceptional portrayal. Now that I've seen this version, May Robson simply IS Apple Annie.

I would be inclined to think Hitchcock made this corny film deliberately tongue-in-cheek if he had not all but disowned it in interview comments. Cheesy FX -- uneven performances -- but fine Gothic atmosphere and some great moments. Taken as it comes it is an enjoyable adventure a la Treasure Island -- except that Robert Newton plays the handsome hero!

Of course Laughton is over the top as others have said - but if you like Laughton you should see this film for his performance alone. Emlyn Williams also plays a delightfully sinister and menacing character -- I mistook him at first for Robert Newton (being prejudiced by the latter's subsequent typecasting).

Make sure you get the more recent Kino Video release (VHS or DVD) -- there was an earlier VHS version that was all but unwatchable.

This is a Gothic adaptation that emphasizes the horror and degradation rather than the mystery - there is little mystery about the murderer's identity by half way through.

I enjoyed it but had considerable reservations. The exposition is compressed to the point where it is hard to follow the plot at times, aggravated by some unnecessarily abrupt transitions and the similar appearance of the principal male characters (faithful to the period perhaps but still awkward for the viewer). Easier to follow for those who have read the book.

Several characters have been left out. Where is the mysterious Mr. Datchery? Surely Dickens intended him to step in at the end and solve the mystery!

This film doesn't try to be anything more than it is - a romantic comedy with just enough adventure and angst to keep you on the edge of your seat wondering how it can possibly end happily. And it succeeds brilliantly in achieving that goal. Jonathan Richman's live musical comments, a la Greek chorus (or Cat Ballou) set a charmingly whimsical tone from the start. This movie is fun!