Reviews

(Apologies in advance for bad spelling) Mel Brooks had long since lost his touch by the time he embarked on what looks like his final movie. It was certainly a wise move to use subject matter famous the world over and simply begging for parody after the hugely pretentious "Bram Stoker's Dracula". So how did he cock it right up? Like all Mel Brooks failures it starts with the script. Mel and co. didn't even try this time. Whole stretches of the film take place without even an attempt at comedy. There are some dim in-jokes for those only familiar with previous Dracula movies and then there are the very, very rare moments when someone says or does something that looks almost like it was intended to be funny. Out of this barren waste land of a "comedy" there are some gags that do amuse. Hardly a great selling point though is it? "Come see Dracula: Dead And Loving It and very nearly crack a smile once or twice!" It's difficult to be objective about a film made by the man who was once king of parody. However, taken on its own terms, without any knowledge of the director's awesomely surperior previous movies this movie would still tank big time.

Leslie Nielson gave a brilliantly dead-pan performance in Airplane! and the Naked Gun trilogy. He had become famous for his association with movies that specialised in zany spoofs. I can understand, then, why an Executive Producer with no artistic sense would think casting Mr. Nielson as the lead in a Mel Brooks movie would be perfect. Mel should have known better. Nielson can do goofy pratfalls wonderfully as a Detective because he looks the part. But when it's Dracula ... This is how I see it. The art of spoof is to undermine the serious elements of the subject matter you are mocking. For that to work everyone you see in the cast must look like they have walked off the set of a serious movie. If you were making a serious adaptation of Dracula, would you ever think of casting Leslie Nielson? For the pratfalls to work, the film must LOOK genuine for the comedy. Casting someone who could be cast for real as Dracula who then slips on bat s*** and falls down the stairs would be funny!

Didn't mean to moan for as long as that. Anyway Dracula : Dead And Loving It does have some funny bits which is why I recommend you watch the trailer rather than the movie itself.

TV to Film adaptations are notorious for their failure to transfer any of the winning elements that made the show popular. I can't think of a worse proposition than to make a motion picture of the great sitcom Rising Damp. A sublime series that worked for it's performers, scripts and just as importantly it's claustrophobic setting. Even episodes that ventured outside the dingy house in which the characters share, it was often to a single set location for the whole of the second act. In a twenty five minute sitcom, those restrictions can be played up to create some magnificent comedy. On film however, the effect is quite the reverse.

Also Richard Berkinsale had tragically passed away by the time came to make the movie. The fourth and final series had been without him due to contractual obligations elsewhere and it left the final run of episodes wanting (though two or three shows still managed to be perfect).

Yet despite this Rising Damp the movie was by far and away the finest film adaptation of all time. While not capturing the sheer brilliance of the series, there were plenty of hysterical moments littered throughout the film.

First off the three remaining performers are in perfect form. Infact the film was worth making simply as a reason for Lennerd Rossiter to be given an Oscar. Something he was inexplicably denied! His total mastery of the screen as Rigsby is breathtaking.

The script is mostly TV episodes mashed together into an episodic structure. Considering the enormous success of these scripts, it would seem a perfectly good idea. However, anyone familiar with the series will notice how must funnier it was on TV and will be wanting to see something new. Eric Chappell's scripts does contain some new material and it is these moments that distinguish the film as superior to other adaptations. The Rugby scene is a particularly brilliant example.

10/10

Go West continues M-G-M's conventionalising the Marx Brother's once spectacular brand of zany humour into dull pratfalls and tired dialogue. Everything the Marx Brothers thrive on is taken away for this sub-standard movie. No Margarat Dumont (or anyone even remotely pompous enough for Groucho to play against) and a location that offers nothing for the brothers to satirize. Denied these two crucial ingredients the Marx's could never have hoped to make this anything than inferior to the films that preceded them.

However, amongst the long stretches of dull, witless mugging that occurs in the main body of the film, there are flashes of the Marx's former brilliance. Their opening scene together is wonderful. There are then the very, very brief flashes of the brother's past zest and that's about it.

The rousing finale nearly makes the turgid bulk of this film worth the wait, as a speeding train is dismantled for fuel in a frenzied remake of every silent movie gag ever to feature a train.

What makes this film so sad is seeing the once indestructible Marx's get bullied, abused and out witted in almost every scene. Their gradual change from anarchic crusaders to pathetic jesters is heartbreaking. And while they eventually win in the end, the battering they receive throughout the film outweighs the ending's supposedly happy triumph.

Also, with an over reliance on slapstick, it is Groucho who suffers the most. Not only has he no passable foil to unleash his barbed wit upon, the said wit is a string of exhausted and limp insults and banal ramblings. At one point, while gagging a train driver, Groucho looks to the camera and declares "This is the best gag in the picture." Sadly, he's right.

So despite a great opening and good ending, Go West is just another nail in the Marx's coffin.

"High Anxiety" had so much going for it. Mel Brooks was riding high on the crest of a multi million dollar wave of success, he was taking on subject matter that was familiar the world over and he had an almost perfect cast. What could go wrong?

First the script. Lazy, drawn out gags are smugly paraded on screen as if to be this inept at parodying was some kind of achievement. And most of the cast seem to subscribe to this idea as they continually radiate arrogance and misplaced confidence in themselves and the script. It's bad enough that Mel Brooks and his co - writers have managed to ruin every opportunity they get to deliver a decent joke, but then we are subjected to the cast shouting the sickeningly bad dialogue at us with a wink and a cheesy grin.

Exactly what Mel Brooks and co were thinking when they wrote this script in the first place I can't imagine.

The film opens and all ready Mel has made a fatal flaw in film parody. Something which Mel never did before but here he totally fails to recreate the feel of a Hitchcock film. Instead we have this sickening photography that saps the energy before a single gag has managed to limp into view.

Then, as we see Mel mugging through the window of an airplane, we are given our second fatal flaw. Mel Brooks has cast himself as the lead. Why? He must know he can't act. He's a funny comic but in a film you have to be able to play a part without diving into full blown self indulgent over acting. Once the plane has landed and the passengers leave, Mel hands an air stewardess and full sick bag. Not very funny but I was just pleased he managed to get out of shot before he broke out his bucked tooth grin at the audience.

Then there is a series of gags in the airport which make you wonder if you are actually watching a Mel Brooks movie. Is this the same man who showed so much perceptive lampooning of movie genres before and delivered them with such directorial restrain and style?

"What a dramatic airport!" Mel says and waits for what he probably expected to be a round of applause from the audience. Then the biggest waste of cellulide in living memory staggers into view and begins taking pictures of Mel. This character is written to be annoying but the actor playing him makes him horrifically repulsive. The whole "I got it, I got it, I don't got it" gag will make you cry tears of blood.

As we get a hint of a plot, out of nowhere we get a solid gold Mel Brooks stroke of divine comic lunacy. As dramatic music crashes into the scene, Mel looks around him stunned. We see a coach drive by carrying an orchastra and you thank God that Mel has regained his comic senses.

That's basically how the film plays. For every ten minutes of agonising mugging and rotting corpse of a gag that is violently forced down our throats repeatedly, there is one single lightning strike of brilliant comedy.

The film was a box office smash hit when originally released.

The list of writers who supplied material for this series should give you an instant idea as to how brilliant this overlooked gem was. Apart from Feldman himself there was the Monty Python team and a handful of other now legendary comics. The result was one of the funniest TV shows in history. Marty Feldman was the perfect looking ringmaster for the distinctively no-holds-barred and aggresively zany humour. Each show was a stream of great sketches that didn't show the slightest weakness. It is a pitty that few shows were made, but also a blessing that they were made at all. Marty Feldman went onto international superstardom in the USA with a further, though slightly inferior, TV series and a load of smash hit movies. But this series is Marty Feldman at his performing, writing peak.

A tragically overlooked series that broke all the rules of standard comedy and opened the flood gates to a wave of new anarchic TV comics. All too often are Monty Python hailed as the creators of anarchic, surreal comedy on television. This is not the case. There is no doubting that Monty Python's Flying Circus contributed some of the finest sketches in the genre, but they were pipped to the post by the grand master of comedy, Spike Milligan. While Milligan's stream of consciousness style proved to be far more hit and miss than Python's organised comic offerings, that only added to the shows raw energy. Spike Milligan was a true surrealist and amazingly funny. Some of the material did fall flat and was sometimes charmlessly corny, but this is because we are viewing a show that knows no bounds and is aimlessly sprawling through locations and ideas at a far greater rate than Python's overly structured shows could ever concieve of doing. It is doubtful the Q... series will ever be recognised for its worth by the masses. I strongly recommend you find a tape of this series and see just how great it was. And if that doesn't convince you, listen to a tape of the legendary Goon Shows also written by Milligan. A radio series that went further and funnier than Python ever could almost twenty years before them!

At The Circus has its fair share of funny dialogue but not as sharp as previous films. It has a lot of slapstick, but far from the anarchic quality of before. This film dwindles with a few shreds of wit and the odd spark of original comic turn from Harpo. It does not compare well to any of the films that came before but is still superior to films which followed. Nothing new is added to the mix and what remains are a collection of tired routines. The piano solo for Chico and harp solo for Harpo are less engaging and the usual high point of their films; the Chico/ Groucho, Groucho/ Dummont dialogues are just as weary. There is a wonderfully sustained moment of comic lunacy towards the end which includes an orchastra playing on a band stand that is drifting off to sea. An overall unbalanced picture that will satisfy Marxist fans and be regarded as top of the range light entertainment by others. It only suffers because it follows so many comic masterpieces from the Marx Brothers.

Mel Brook's biggest indulgance as a film maker was also his biggest flop. There are several possible reasons ... The seminal and hysterical "Airplane!" had been released a couple of years previous to this. "Airplane!" is generally considered to have done to film parody what "Star Wars" did to sci-fi. In contrast, Mel's vaudavillian style burlesque humour may have been too old fashioned (despite the littering of swear words and dirty jokes). However, I'm afraid there is only one real reason this filmed failed to make any money. It wasn't funny. Attacking history with his shop worn comic shtick may have been too great a task. Also, Mel is credited as writing, producing and directing this picture single handedly. Perhaps he spread himself too thin this time. The film gets off to a funny enough start with a lampooning of Kubrick's ultra dull epic "2001: A Space Odessy" by having a load of primates masterbating. We are then given a narrated documentary of stone age man. There are some gags, but nothing great. Then there is a wonderfull Brooks moment as he plays Moses, dropping one of the stone tablets with the 15 commandments on it. Then there is a long sketch about the Roman Empire and things get deeply dull. Despite Madline Khan, this section has few laughs. If there were any, the atmosphere is murdered by a repulsive performance by the ever unfunny Dom De Luise. Never funny, but here he manages to be stomach churningly awful. Because you can see it in his eyes. He THINKS HE'S FUNNY!!!! The Spanish Inquisition suffers for the same reason. Mel is in the full grip of meglomaniac narcasism. You think he's parodying big show tunes and dance numbers with that cheesy grin? He's trying not to laugh at his own comic genious, leaving the rest of the audience out of the joke. On the plus side we get a hysterically funny snippet of two imprisoned Jews relating their woes in the form of song. The French Revolution segmant is the most consistantly funny. Harvey Korman makes a brilliant appearance with a great character name. There are a load of great gags. You get the impression that the cast, including Brooks, have finally got the balance needed to make the oddball script work. The legendary Spike Milligan upstages Brooks with his small role in the film. Mel, however, is in much better form and as the film comes to an end some will feel not totally cheated. There is a trailer for the film's sequal with probably the best gags.

The film is episodic, which is fine. But too often, Mel Brooks streches what is nothing more than a funny three minute sketch into a feeble twenty minutes. Mel Brooks fans will manage to watch the film and be amused. I'm a fan, however, and thought it a supreme waste fo time.

This film is one of a rare breed of movies that sets itself a small scale ambition and concerntrates more on the characters than the gloss. It's aim is to be nothing more than entertaining. There are hints and illusions to having a message about the reasons the main characters lose their sanity, but it's not heavy handed. There is a thin streak of wit throughout the film, but it is hardly hysterical. There is a streak of drama throughout the film, but it is hardly melodramatic. The performances are all fine. Keaton, Boyle and Lloyd are, however, exceptional in their roles. They maintain a constantly funny/ sad performance all the way through the film. This is an above average film. The wit is a little sparse in places and some scenes are dull. 7/10. See it for the great acting on display.

A Day At The Races was probably the Marx brothers' last wholly brilliant movie. After this they made more films which had some outstanding comic moments, but were on the whole lesser efforts. This movie doesn't compare too well against "Duck Soup" or any of their previous movies, but it had a lot of brilliant moments. Chico conning Groucho, Harpo destroying a piano and removing a harp from the wreckage, the climactic horse race and best of all is the scene where Groucho, Harpo and Chico are dressed as doctors and are about to examine Margaret Dumont. This is their longest film and unfortunately the extra time is not devoted to the comedy. Allen Jones is given too much screen time and his songs are painfull intrusions on the comedy. MGM's persistance in including romantic sublots may have been a wise financial move when it was made, but now I have to fast forward through every one of Allen Jones's scenes for fear of dying of boredom. 8 out of 10.

The production values are amazing, the performances are superb, the camera technique is great. And yet this is totaly empty. A run-around where the conclusion is it never happened is not a way to relaunch a sci-fi series. Perhaps that's why it shouldn't be left in the hands of American production companies. Gloss and no substance. Does it really need to be this glossy? Any series that requires five million dollars worth of CGI is a series without interesting characters and with no story to tell. That is not the case with Doctor Who. It's proven how good it can be on a micro-budget so if that's what it needs to be good then cut the production values and pay good writers!

Jeremy Brett is as ever perfect as Holmes, so it's a shame he's not in it as much as I'd like. Edward Hardwick as Watson is his usual reliable self and manages to hold the viewer's attention. Some great scenes and first class acting aside, the production is a little slow. This will not bother anyone who has watched the Granada productions of Holmes stories before, but should be pointed out that this is a faithful retelling of Conan Doyles' original and not a fast paced, inaccurate Hollywood version. Overall the feature length episodes have never been as entertaining as the shorter series episodes, but this is still far more enjoyable than any other adaptation.

Wilder's only film he directed in a contemporary setting is by far his most successful effort. His other films (most notably "The Adventure Of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother" 9/10) have had higher levels of zany gags in them, but here he has crafted a down to Earth domestic comedy and it is very funny. His performance is, as usual, superb and he is surrounded by well chosen actors who also provide laughs. The ending leans a bit too close to whimsical, but it hardly deters the viewer's enjoyment. Scenes involving Wilder's character and his friends jokingly discussing each other's affairs is equal to the perfectly written exchanges of a Woody Allen movie. Also worth noting is Gilda Radner's brilliant love lorn and scorned office colleague. Her presence on screen is a real high point.

I know it must have been hard to cope with the pressure of following the legendary previous Star Wars films, but I think Georgie could have at least have attempted to make the film indurable to an adult audience. The first three films were all classified as Universal for family viewing, yet it neatly avoided talking down to its audience. The Phantom Menace is like a Diseney version of Star Wars with so much animation on screen as to make it impossible to allow it to be escapism for anyone over the age of six. Cartoon effects are not impressive compared to the model work of the first three. However, I hasten to add, there is still a lot in the film worth watching. The light-saber battles are outstanding.

The Man Who Knew Too Little may have a contrived premise, but this hardly matters as once the plot gets going it is very very funny.Bill Murray has yet to give anything less than a hysterically funny performance in a film and although no-one comes close to providing as many laughs than he, Richard Wilson makes a very funny villain. It is sad that this film wasn't a big success because it deserves to be.

It is a pity that some people can't view this funny little movie without comparing it to the classic "Wanda". It was probably a mistake to have used the exact same cast and have near identical advertising photos done for the films' release too. Viewed free of comparisons this film holds up really well. Kevin Kline and Michael Palin come off as funniest, given the most extreme characters. The ending is terrific.

After some painfully uninteresting and dull feature length episodes, this great series returns to its high standards. The episodes have a shorter running time and are far more enjoyable for it. With less padding and greater concentration on the mystery and Holmes' method of investigation, "Memoirs" is first class entertainment. Jeremy Brett plays his part with awesome ability. In my opinion, no other actor (not even the legendary Basil Rathbone) has been Holmes' so completely.

This dramatization of a short story is stretched past breaking point. Far, far, far too much padding takes place before the story gets started. Even when it does, every scene is dragged out to painful length with no explanatory dialogue so as to make it impossible to comprehend nor actually care for any of the characters. Only Jeremy Brett's usual excellence as Holmes makes this awful mess even slightly worth watching.