Reviews

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 (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 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) -

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) -

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) -

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.

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)

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) -

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) -

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) -

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.

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.

Frankie Howerd: Rather You Than Me (2008) -

I seemed to recall enjoying this biographic film a lot more the first time around. Maybe it was the titillating sexual bits that aroused my attention at the time, but I certainly felt that I would have given David Walliams awards for his role as the leading man Frankie Howerd back then, but actually on this second viewing I wasn't sure that he was actually all that amazing.

I've never really liked Dave as an artist anyway, but he made Frankie out to be a bit of a perve here, he was greasy and lecherous in a seedy way. I could however see that there were perhaps some blurred lines that had to be dealt with regarding his suppressed sexuality and feelings of shame, that could only have been done in that sort of way, but it didn't endear me to the real Frankie.

While David did achieve some of the mannerisms and the inflections of the 'Up Pompeii' (1969-70 & 1971) star, I didn't feel that he delivered his rendering of the comedian as well as many of the others that I've seen from the same biopic films - Michael Sheen as Kenneth Williams in 'Fantabulosa!' (2006) for one and Daniel Rigby & Bryan Dick as Morecambe and Wise in 'Eric & Ernie' for another.

Rafe Spall however certainly stood out as Howerd's Manager and life partner Dennis Heymer. I think this might have been the first thing that I saw him perform in and the one that made me appreciate him as an actor to the point where I watch almost everything that he turns up in.

In a lot of ways the film was more about Heymer than of Frankie, with the star used as a vehicle to tell Dennis' story instead, which I didn't mind, but felt it was off topic and not what I'd turned up for.

Unfortunately, because of Frankie's own personal issues with being gay and what seemed like a mental health issue of some sort, it made being a homosexual almost appear to be as dirty and wrong as Frankie thought it was, but I wasn't sure if that was deliberate. I supposed that because of the time the film was set, between the 1950's and the 1960's, there was a lot of seedy get togethers behind closed doors, but as the film was depicting what was most likely a loving relationship in reality, there wasn't a lot of the niceties of a romance. Maybe if it had been 15-20 minutes longer it could have included some light in their couples life as well as what seemed like a lot of dark. Surely Dennis didn't stay with him for all of those years without feeling some affection towards Frankie? And although his reasoning for that was shown in little bits, it was very subtle and I personally would have liked to have seen a lot more affection between them.

I still enjoyed the story and generally the artistic and sometimes thoughtful way that the film was made. As someone who longs to be a part of it all I've always appreciated tales of celebrity, so it was interesting to see how one of those that I've laughed at and enjoyed watching had made it through each day to keep entertaining, despite some low points in his career, that seemed to mar the high ones for him.

Not a bad film, but I thought that it could have been a really great one with a bit more attention.

699.02/1000.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022) -

They might have been able to sell this as a separate film, but I think that the existence of its predecessor'Top Gun' (1986) was probably necessary to make this one truly work and to give it some awesome marketing power. With that said, this was certainly the better of the two films in the franchise.

Yes, it was more of the same and pretty darn predictable, but I enjoyed it a lot more.

I really hadn't expected to like it, because having rewatched the first film recently I found that I couldn't understand why I had ever liked that one at all.

What I could appreciate about this film was the maturity of the story in comparison and Tom Cruise's improved performance as the titular character. It really helped that Maverick was more grown up too.

I always seem to point it out in my reviews of his films, but the new calmer, 21st Century version of Tom has far more going for him than any of his younger 1980's castings. In this film he returned to one of those previous shouty man roles, but with a more easy disposition and he had definitely improved with age, especially physically in my opinion, woof-woof, hubba-hubba.

The charm of Maverick was easier to see and so it made sense that Jennifer Connelly, who was just enough in the part of Penny would realise that he wasn't the same as he had been before. She wasn't playing Kelly McGillis' part from "TG", but another lover from an occasion in the interim. I liked the fact that they didn't fixate on this romance, but instead used it as a way for him to have at least someone on his side, as no one was particularly keen to learn flying and tactics from such a "Maverick".

The Admiral Beau "Cyclone" Simpson, played by Jon Hamm, definitely needed persuading of the benefits of Tom's rogue pilot ways, but he wasn't such an over the top hard ass that he was unbelievable or stereotypical and he was a very sexy beast too.

Playing the part of Mav's old wingman Goose's (Anthony Edwards) son "Rooster" was Miles Teller. I did feel that he had the right look for it and he seemed to have taken on some of the other actors mannerisms too, especially towards the end of the film.

It hadn't necessarily endeared me to him however, because he was still Miles Teller and I was frustrated that his character still held a grudge about his father's death, even though he was only about 3 at the time. And the backchat between him and Mav was quite cheesy at times.

For me there is just something so inherently unlikeable about Miles and the characters he plays. Maybe I'll meet him one day and he will show me that I'm wrong about him, but while I could appreciate how he played Rooster and his outstanding delivery of Andrew in 'Whiplash' (2014) too, both characters are essentially unpleasant to start with, semi-underdogs or not. I will say that he did grow on me by the end, but I will need to see something more than his 'Mr Fantastic'* to truly warm to him.

Initially I'd thought that the obnoxious machismo still needed calming down a tad, but after a while it seemed to be more realistic and less about banging on their chests and pissing contests, although I did like seeing all of their gorgeous glistening, sweaty pectorals on the beach in an homage to the volleyball scene from the 1986 instalment. And actually that wasn't the only example where they repeated certain scenes and even specific shots from that one, but it was all done in a way that was kind of clever and enjoyable, definitely with an eye for the fans that would appreciate the nods they had made.

In fact there were a lot of moments that could have been straight out of George Lucas' 'Star Wars' (1977) saga too, because, although it wasn't the only bit or even dialogue that they seemed to steal from that film, the bombing run scene was almost as if they had extended the drama of the last 30 minutes of it and set it in a real world situation. I thought that made it a more interesting finale than I'd got from "TG" though and there was an extra feeling of threat. I certainly felt the tension of what they were going through, possibly because I was more interested in the characters this time, due to better acting performances, or because the directors and writers had done their job well in the first place, probably both.

I was genuinely emotional by the end of the film, but I was having withdrawals from years of taking anti-depressants at the time, which could have been a factor of that too.

I had expected more of the same and that was essentially what I got, but this one certainly had more polish to it, mostly because of Tom's more mature performance and I would imagine that he had a lot more say in how things were done this time around too.

It was actually a very appropriate sequel and one that worked better for the distance inbetween, a more grown up storyline, structure and better acting. Obviously it also had an interesting display of aerial acrobatics and what could be done, with the right pilots, akin to 'The Red Arrows' I suppose. That wasn't something I had remembered from the original and I hate to keep referring back to that one, but that was always going to be the case from any film critic, even Barry Norman would find it hard not to at least reference the OG TG.

Unlike that first one, I would definitely sit down to watch this one again. It lost points for not being the most original storyline, but gained some for doing it so well.

840.97/1000.

*Fantastic Four (2015)

Judgment At Nuremberg (1961) -

Considering the sensitive nature of this film's topic, I was surprised that it had been released when it was and I would go so far as to say that it might have been the 'Schindler's List' (1993) of its day.

I don't wish to diminish the films of the early to mid 20th century, but in general I had found them to be slightly tamer in what they delivered, especially with the censorship of the period, so the content of this one was certainly more than I had expected.

I had thought to find a boring black and white war film set in a court, but what I saw instead was a complicated and interesting exploration of the Nuremberg Trials that followed the horrors of WWII. A sensitive look at more than just the viewpoint of the U. S. A. And its representatives, but also a cross section of those others affected by the well known events that occurred as port of Hitler's "Solution".

The perspectives included German and Jewish witnesses, the everyday German, in the form of the household staff, Mr & Mrs Halbestadt (Ben Wright & Virginia Christine) and of course the difficult duty of Chief Judge Dan Haywood, skilfully played by Spencer Tracy. Not to forget the view of Mrs Bertholt (Marlene Dietrich) who was trying to rebuild a broken country after the bombings and cultural ransacking and her own husband had been tried and hung for his "War Crimes".

In general it was a horrible subject matter for a film and a terrible task to ask of any Judge to preside over. I had to think that it must have been almost as difficult to act these parts as it would have been for those Solicitors/Lawyers that had to represent the various people accused at the time of the real trials, although the defence attorney may have been read to be a supporter of what the accused had done and of the regime so recently fallen.

In that role I could appreciate Maximilian Schell's passionate delivery as Hans Rolfe and agreed that he had deserved his Oscar for it. He was a bit shouty at times that seemed unnecessary, but I found myself buying what he was selling as he defended what the four men had done in accordance with the laws of the country at the time. By logic and the standard rules of law they were innocent, but not by the greater laws of morality and ethics.

I did find it a curious touch that I wasn't exactly endeared to Richard Widmark as U. S. Colonel Lawson however, because his character, one from the winning and "Right Side" of things was a bit abrasive, but perhaps he was just a tired victim of his time involved in the various trials he had taken part in and could no longer see that things were not always cut and dry, right or wrong.

That's how much the story affected me, those on trial set in to motion the end of so many lives and yet I'm still on the fence as to whether they were acting in what they had thought were the best interests of their country and to some degree the world.

I actually hadn't even recognised Burt Lancaster in his role, his delivery was so good that I felt I was seeing a real Dr. Janning and I wasn't actually sure if I was supposed to know the names of those on trial or if they were fictional, because my knowledge of World War II didn't stretch to more than the most well known, but having read the IMDB trivia to find out that Burt as Dr. Ernst Janning and Werner Klemperer in his role of Emil Hahn were likely to be representing the real life Franz Schlegelberger and Oswald Rothaug it somehow seemed to drive home the heinousness of the "Characters"contribution to the War that little bit more, although Rolfe did do well to defend their actions, making some very valid points that got me thinking.

Although I obviously knew of the atrocities of the holocaust, regarding the camps, I hadn't known or certainly couldn't recall that people had also been sterilised by the Nazi's too (And I definitely didn't know that the U. S. had a similar policy), so that element of the trial was new and another horrifying thing to discover.

It was also really something when the film used genuine Concentration Camp footage. I could only imagine how difficult and uncomfortable that must have been for the cinema audiences to watch in 1961, just 15 years after the events depicted. Even in 2024 it made me feel not only nauseous, but tearful and so very angry. I actually had to lower my eyes to only listen to the speech being delivered by Lawson during those moments.

Having not heard much about this one previously and despite the fact that it featured on IMDB's 250 films to watch list (I haven't really trusted those lists having watched so many films that haven't done anything for me), I was actually shocked by how good this one was.

Initially I hadn't thought that I was in the right frame of mind to watch it, because it was going to be too necessary to use my brain, which hadn't been working at full capacity, but I had also felt that at the very beginning there had been a lot of key points missed out, disconnections that made it harder to follow and upset the flow of the trial and in an order that was not easy to follow.

By the time I reached the end however, I was incredibly engaged with it and felt that they had put it together very well after all.

I felt it was obvious that the Producers, Writers & Directors were trying not to paint any party as perfect, or without fault in order to avoid showing or stirring up any specific prejudices, which I commended.

There were also many clever little aspects of things that must have been true of the original case - A journalist who couldn't see that there was a story for him about what was happening, because of a lack of interest from the readers back home who had grown bored of it all and just wanted to forget all of the troubles and the upset caused by those that they had lost.

And of course the general obscurity of trying to put these overwhelming crimes on trial had to be carefully handled and thoughtful in its depictions.

I also liked the fact that the actors used accents, instead of just expecting the audience to believe that they were German, as so many other films have done and in my opinion wrongly. And the clever way that I was shown how they all understood each other through their headphones, to make it clear that when they did speak English, that's how we were understanding them was a nice touch too. It meant that the whole thing wasn't stilted with constant translation. That element reminded me of Captain Kirk and Dr McCoy's (DeForest Kelley) trial in 'Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country' (1991), perhaps William Shatner had suggested it to the sci-fi writers, remembering it from his role of Captain Harrison Byers in this film, which was probably the least hammy performance I've ever seen from him, although I do love him for his cheesey ways.

So, yeah, that's my review? I really appreciated the delivery of the concept and the sensitivity shown. I would definitely recommend it.

733.11/1000.

The 40 Year-Old Virgin (2005) -

Yes, the scene in which Andy's new found friends take him to get waxed to improve his chances with women was funny, but honestly, who could believe that leading man Steve Carell's chest hair really stopped so perfectly at his shoulder line and hadn't previously been shaped somehow? And does anyone else think that Steve is actually really sexy, because I definitely do.

I could easily associate with his character, technically I am still a 43 year old virgin, but that's only because I haven't slept with any women (I like men), but that wasn't why I felt I could understand him. I've always been a bit of a nerd myself, my 'Star Wars' (1977) figure collection had to be sold so I could move for a job I got and my current obsession is with Lego. It's nice to get lost in a hobby and partners can potentially get in the way of that. I could see how his focus just hadn't gone down that route yet.

I recognised his life as it was before and as it developed throughout the film from my own dating/sexual experiences and, not wanting to have too serious a moment, wondered whether we put too much pressure not only on sex, but on being in a relationship as well.

Andy was sweet and harming no one until his work colleagues took it upon themselves to get him laid, giving him all sorts of bad advice and "Support". If these films have taught us anything it would be not to listen to a word of it, but then the shenanigans and jokes wouldn't happen and the film would be 25 minutes long.

Sadly I couldn't tell what sort of character David, played by Paul Rudd, was meant to be. There was no real depth or shape to the role, which may sound like "Critic" syndrome or something, but it really does help to add more enjoyment to a film when the characters are well rounded, even if it is just meant to be frivolous fun. It was definitely not Paul's best character.

I also struggled to understand most of what Romany Malco as Jay was saying at all. It was like he was talking a different language entirely at some points.

So Seth Rogen in the role of Cal was the easiest one to connect with and the nicest of the bunch really. I've never been his biggest fan actually, but he delivered his part quite well.

The film also featured a lot of celebrities that weren't necessarily big at the time, but have since turned up everywhere. It was quite fun to play spot the cameo. I thought that Jonah Hill's was the best.

The story unfolded as I had expected with various dating mishaps and a genuine love interest that would potentially go wrong, because of all the bad advice.

Essentially the humour was quite vulgar and derogatory, showing up the idiocy of the stereotypical heterosexual man, but there were some other cute, funny and silly moments that shouldn't really be offensive to anyone. It seems strange to say it was "Of its time" only 20 years later, but I would hope that we really have come a long way since then. Even with that in mind I didn't feel that they were trying to be sexist and cause offence, but actually trying to show up those behaviours, so if you can just go with it, without taking it too seriously or melting like a snowflake, it wasn't so bad. One of those that will just take you away from reality for a while and it ended superbly with a great musical moment that should be the blueprint for the end of all films forever in my honest opinion.

It wasn't the sort of film that I could compare to other great cinematic experiences or comment on the outstanding lighting or scenery, because it wasn't trying to do that, but it made me laugh out loud more than once, which was nice.

703.01/1000.

The Simpson's Movie (2007) -

I went in to this film with an idea that I'd heard it wasn't that good and that based on the few clips I had seen of it, that I hadn't expected much more from it than any of the TV series episodes.

In fairness they didn't really stretch the story too far from the usual, but actually I thought that what they did do with it was literally a laugh a minute. There were even moments when I found myself laughing with a physical clap because it was such a great joke or piece of witty, observational hilarity.

Ok so there were many of the same messages we've seen before - Marge (Julie Kavner) questioning her marriage to selfish Homer (Dan Castellaneta), Lisa (Yeardley Smith) falling for a lad who fights for the environment and Bart (Nancy Cartwright) turning to Flanders as a father figure better than his own, but combined it all made one hilarious extra long episode.

Over the course of 35 seasons, although I'm still on 21 watching it from the beginning, I have seen the same stories time and again, because there isn't really a way to invent new situations after so long and in some ways that has always been the beauty of the series, because it's been able to tell the same story in a new way that takes in to account the technological revolution since 1989 and the changing views of the world, as well as the chance to poke fun more and more at the recently appointed politicians and celebrities, as their antics constantly give the writers something new to work with, but still with that basic family value that the show has always lead with. I felt that this film encapsulated all of that and really nailed it.

Homer's shenanigans caused Springfield to be encased in a giant dome, and the titular family then had to make some serious decisions. Every step of their way was paved with witty one liners, funny moments of general brilliance and easy satire, as well as the laugh out loud's, to tickle even the grumpiest of Gus'.

I've actually grown so fond of these guys over 21 series and very used to their antics, so it was hard not to enjoy this feature length escapade. I even cried at one point, because they managed to get some real heart in to it too, which might not have been apt for the shorter episodic format, but seemed to hit harder here.

I also liked the better quality and more detailed animation that the bigger budget allowed and I appreciated the fact that they didn't decide to saturate it with famous names just to be gimmicky. The cameo that did appear was enough, appropriate and they by no means stole the show from the regular voice actors who really had earned their kudos after all these years to be the stars of their own film, without an overpaid day player stealing the thunder.

Stick with the credits, even when it seems like there's nothing more, because they also made an effort to add to them, which poked fun through the fourth wall at times, as did the superb opening of the film.

I would be surprised if there was ever a sequel to this one, because I can't possibly imagine a story that couldn't be done as an episode or any episode that already exists that hasn't covered even the most extreme of topics already. Maybe they could do a Christmas or Halloween film?

I regularly say that I would like to see the characters all start to age in order to freshen up the format, but if the next 14 seasons that I've still got left to watch are anywhere near as good as this film, then I'd say leave it alone, because it worked brilliantly.

841.33/1000.

The Kid (1921) -

I had been waiting ages for this film to come on TV, because I didn't want to spend a fortune on the DVD or Streaming Services to watch it in case I really didn't like it. While I still won't be spending any money on it in the foreseeable future, I am very glad that I've seen it. Mostly to see how far film has come in the last 100 years but also to see why everyone talks about Charlie Chaplin as such a legend. My only other reference to his work being the Robert Downey Jr. Film 'Chaplin' (1992).

I could appreciate Chuck in his role of "The Tramp" and there were definitely some very clever moments, some witty and thoughtful elements dotted throughout his script and performance, but I felt that Buster Keaton had delivered better in his films 'The Frozen North' (1922) and 'Go West' (1925) with deliveries that seemed much more polished and subtle. I know I shouldn't base a review on comparison alone, but Buster's works were the only others of the silent film genre that I'd seen, so they were bound to largely inform my opinion of any others I might watch and actually the style really was very similar.

As the Chaplin season continues on TV I'm sure that I will grow to truly appreciate Charles wicked humour and the various stories in his repertoire, as I did in the end with this one, but perhaps Buster will always be my favourite silent star?

The truth be told, the actual STAR of this show was the titular "Kid". Even at such a young age Jackie Coogan, who went on to be 'The Addams Family's' (1964-6) Uncle Fester, delivered a cracking performance as the rascally child adopted by our flat footed hobo hero after the babes abandonment by a lost and scared Mother and a series of unfortunate circumstances.

What followed was a tale of love and companionship, regardless of blood ties, that showed how you don't have to have a lot of money to be rich (but it helps), as long as you have someone who loves you unconditionally.

Scuffles with the law, going on the run and the various other shenanigans were a tad pantomime like in their sped up and exaggerated way, with oversized muscles, five o'clock shadows that were clearly drawn on with heavy pencils and a dream sequence that wasn't really needed, but it was a sweet and fun film.

I did read in the IMDB credits that there was a wedding scene, but I couldn't remember seeing that bit, so maybe it was cut later due to damage or I blinked and missed it.

As someone that enjoys watching films for the interesting differences between them as much as any storyline or outstanding performances, that is in a way more like a hobby than anything else, I could see passed what the current generation might find hard to believe about this one, because some bits were definitely of their time, but I'm not sure that my nephew, who also has an interest in films, would be able to pay it the attention that it needed as a visual only piece. Even I found it difficult not to have my phone in my hand the whole way through, because it would have meant missing everything, but I did manage it.

Production wise, it was clearly filmed in a very windy studio/set, without the option to re-film things, because there was an obvious breeze that blew inside the police station and the hostel. And as I've already stated, there were times when it moved too fast to make it completely credible, but aside from that it was well put together.

A newer version with vocalisation, an indoor set and digital film might be quite successful, but I can think of a few films that have already tackled similar subject matters since this films release already, so a direct copy might not have the impact that this one would have had in 1921.

A good one to start my Chaplin journey, that has certainly piqued my curiosity enough to look forward to the rest. It's hard to give it a high score though, because films have obviously come so far and more modern efforts easily outshine with their production values, but only thanks to films like these leading the way. In the 1920's I would probably have given it 10/10.

617.98/1000.

The Firm (1993) -

When something seems too good to be true, it probably is!!! However, I was really surprised by how much I enjoyed this film. It seemed that I had confused it with 'A Few Good Men' (1992) and therefore based on the clips/trailers I'd seen of that film I had expected it to be a lawyer story wholly based in the courtroom, some sort of in depth trial, instead of the intriguing corruption within a law firm tale that this turned out to be. As such it had more action and thrills than I had thought to find which helped to keep my interest away from playing on my phone too much and actually the story line all seemed more believable for it, despite perhaps the essentially extreme nature of its characters' dilemma.

Tom Cruise in his role of Mitch McDeere moved himself and his wife Abby (Jeanne Triplehorn) to Memphis to work with "The Firm" that had worked hard to obtain him as an employee, before any other company took him on and initially I'd thought that Mitch would be the one tricking them into believing that he was a better lawyer than he was or even wasn't in some way akin to 'Catch Me If You Can' (2002). Tom's character had that cocky edge of Maverick still hanging over from 'Top Gun' (1986) at that point.

He was still playing a part similar to a lot of his other previous 1980's characters as well, but I could tell that he was trying to stretch his range and push for something more sophisticated. There was less of "Shouty Man" Cruise and that made him far easier to watch and to get behind his character. I did feel that he was a bit too young seeming to be a lawyer though, but then he has always been baby faced.

I would say that it was definitely one his better earlier performances, along with 'Mission Impossible' (1996), long before his really best work - 'Oblivion' (2013), 'Edge Of Tomorrow' (2014), 'Valkyrie' (2008) and the more recent of the 'Mission Impossible' series (2011-), not to mention his cameos in 'Austin Powers In Goldmember' (2002) and 'Tropic Thunder' (2008), but now I'm just listing films.

Gene Hackman on the other hand didn't seem to have stretched himself since 'The Poseidon Adventure' (1972). And why do all of these women find him so attractive and people in general rate him so highly as an actor?

He actually didn't offend me in his part of Avery Tolar though. He had repeatedly aggravated me as Lex Luthor in the 'Superman' series (1978 - 1987) and been no less annoying in "Poseidon" or 'French Connection' (1971), 'Birdcage' (1996) and so many others. Maybe I just have a beef with the man, but either way this performance was a pleasant change if nothing outstanding in my mind.

The supporting cast all delivered their roles sufficiently too. They didn't need to be overly amazing, because it really was all about Tom and Jeanne for the acting. There was also nothing to pick up on with regard to the film quality, lighting, direction and so on. The only thing that I might criticise was that the piano music soundtrack, while mostly appropriate, was a bit much during some of the more dramatic times, as if the player was trying to make sure they were using every note in case they'd missed one earlier on.

With more the just a court case to deal with, including the Mafia and the FBI this wasn't just a run of the mill, boring, bureaucratic, crime on paper film and it was a good vehicle for both of the leading couple and Gene. Ed Harris wasn't bad as Wayne Tarrance either.

But who knew that a law firm could be so interesting/dangerous? I really liked this story and its delivery way more than I thought I would.

761.91/1000.

The Lobster (2015) -

What on Earth, literally, happened to society for it to become the dystopian world portrayed in this film?

What events lead to the human race becoming so devoid of emotion and so very "Special"? People who were personally invasive and matter of fact, forthright to a fault, quizzical like children and irritating in many ways to watch on screen.

In some ways I felt that the assorted characters behaviour was like the 'Haribo' adverts in which adults are voiced over by children, because the dialogue was so basic and naive, almost innocent and without feeling or heart of any sort. That sort of delivery that 'French & Saunders' (1987-2017) might give whilst playing kids in one of their sketches.

The focus in this odd future was David, played by Colin Farrell had the choice to be turned in to an animal (I assumed that they had started to all become extinct and this was mankind's way of making up for it) or pair up with someone as part of a strange 45 day dating programme in a regimented hotel, almost akin to a mash up of 'Love Island' (2015-), 'Big Brother' (2000-) and an army boot camp.

I had to wonder if the creators of 'Andor' (2022-) had modeled their prison scenes on the hotel shown here, because it was all very robotic and their were punishments to be suffered for infractions of the rules.

I wasn't sure of the message that the creators of the film were trying to express. Was it showing up the world of today, with the pressure on all of us to get married, have kids, etc and with our disregard for other animal life, or was it suggesting a potential future that we might end up living in, because of HOW we are living today, a future where we have to behave so abnormally to make up for our actions in our current present? Without knowing any sort of scientific reason for the depicted change to our world it was hard to tell. Maybe there was no message at all and it was just an excuse for the studio to make something extreme and very, very out there? A way to put ideas on screen that wouldn't normally be seen?

It seemed to be mocking the traditional idea of soulmates and marriage, as it stands today and it suggested that the characters must only pair up with those of a similar situation to their own to an extreme degree - A limping man should try to find a connection with a woman who had a prosthetic leg/A short-sighted Man with a woman who wears contact lenses, that sort of thing, as if that was how relationships would work in this odd future.

It was these strange elements that made me feel there was a bit too much information missing for me to understand how our society had somehow reached this weird future.

In general the film reminded me of those really bizarre weddings that have sometimes been depicted in other films and TV series, because of the hotel set up, meeting strangers in a really awkward fashion and essentially trying to hook up with someone before going home, because you don't want to end up with cousin Greg again, whose been giving you the eye all day.

And the hunting of those who refused to be paired up OR turned in to animals (Loners) felt like a weird stag party activity, that not everyone was that in to. A camping trip, but the best man thought it would be interesting to go the whole weekend without booze and sex, so it's just a trip to the woods, despite the weather.

I also felt that the hunting aspect and the way that the "Loners" lived presented an element of 'The Hunger Games' (2012).

As such, it was all very juxtaposed with too many elements and there were times that I found it to be quite psychotic and inappropriate, with moments of absolute disgusting sickness. Clearly the writers and directors were disturbed and were just trying to find a way to stand out.

I definitely didn't need to see the bits where animals were mistreated. They were shown far more often than necessary, if needed at all.

I did however appreciate the use of the other random animals dotted throughout the background of the shots to show the people that had not managed to find a partner during the 45 day process and the obviously strange choices of animals that they had opted for.

Colin Farrell's role reminded me of Dougal (Ardal O'Hanlon) from 'Father Ted' (1995-8), because of the strange, childish and comedic way he had to act. Obviously his accent contributed to that too.

Other than that it would be hard to say how well the cast performed, because of their monotone and obscure delivery, but nobody amongst them seemed to stick out as wrong, even the Limping Man played by Ben Whishaw who normally irritates me.

The film clearly made an impression on me, whether for good or for bad because I've had so much to say in this review. I could see that there was a place in the world for it to a degree, but it wasn't a type that I need to see a lot of or regularly. It was definitely an odd, but very interesting concept, but it was also terrifying, cringey and absurd.

569.88/1000.

Salinger (2013) -

Usually when I watch documentaries like these I fall in love with the art of writing, the idea of the book in question and of course the author themselves all over again.

While this film did relight my desires to get writing my own work, it didn't exactly endear the writer J. D. Salinger to me, because he came across as a very unpleasant and unlikeable character.

I did however find myself more inclined than ever to read the book 'Catcher In The Rye', because I've just got to find out what all the hype was about and why this documentary that clearly declared Salinger's faults and quirky personality traits as less than pleasant, was still full of people that seemed to worship and adore him. Surely then it must be one powerful story to be worthy of such reverence? I only hope that when I do finally get around to reading it that it isn't too American-centric and that it doesn't lose anything on this side of the pond or so many years after its initial release.

I did find that John Steinbeck's 'Of Mice And Men' book was highly enjoyable as a piece of work that transcended both continents, so I'm sure at the very least I will appreciate the basic story of "Catcher" and based on those interviewed here I will be impressed by Salinger's writing style.

Documentary films of this sort, which hadn't been my go to thing until recently, make me feel guilty about my lack of discipline when it comes to my own writing and leave me in awe of the authors portrayed, even though most of them were more than a little bit "Quirky" to say the least - Isn't that what makes so many of them worth reading? It's those special minds that pick up on the behaviours of others in the world and get them down on paper to deliver such great stories. Otherwise they'd be writing about the everyday man for TV soaps or disposable fiction.

I've always been an avid reader and more recently a writer and I can only dream of leaving a legacy like those of Steinbeck, Harper Lee and of course J. D. I long to read every good book ever written and this famous work is definitely on my list, so I was a bit disappointed to find that the author was seemingly such an ass.

I did find the history and the experiences of the author to be interesting to start with as it showed how he had become who he was and a bit about what he was writing.

However, because it was American based, I did struggle to recognise all of the people and sources that were referenced. It may not have been produced for my benefit, and more likely for those that have read and loved the book or maybe even been around for the time setting of the narrative. That might have been part of what I struggled with.

I certainly didn't like some of the editing choices of this piece, as it jumped about all over the place and as a result I couldn't necessarily believe that all of the content was used in the correct context. The timeline jumped around a bit too much as well, making the titular man's chronology hard to follow.

And it was a shame that they repeated the use of so many of the photos/video they had found as well, as once again it seemed to suggest that the context could have been relevant to a number of subjects and not necessarily used wholly accurately.

I also hadn't been expecting it to be such a war feature either. There was a lot that I didn't need to see regarding World War II and his involvement in it. Parts that actually upset me. I had to pause the whole film to come back to at another time, because I'd found the internment camp scenes so unsettling. However I was determined to come back to it to see if the rest of the film delivered anything else closer in interest to my own, because I really had enjoyed programmes about writers for the most part beforehand.

Coming back to it and as the film progressed I struggled to work out what sort of a man he was and found myself wanting to turn the film off even more often (I wish I had). It didn't seem to be delivering what I wanted or expected for a documentary about a writer, but was more about a crazy marriage to a German and his time recovering from a nervous breakdown after WWII and all of his other strange, almost paedophilic relationships and the other foibles that made him more than a bit anti social.

I had to question his personality further, when I discovered that he had married a Nazi (Sylvia Salinger) and then went after a 14 year old girl (Jean Miller). In fact by the time I got to half way through this production J. D. actually came across as a bit of a psycho. It made me question whether I might enjoy "Catcher" at all, when I do get around to reading it.

In some ways I was disappointed that there weren't spoilers for the story, because it focussed too much on the author and his war time, rather than really giving me any hint of the brilliance of the actual story.

Apparently it was a story that inspired idiots to be violent causing three, not one, but three people to kill/attempt to kill because of it. That's a quote for the bookcover.

I did have to wonder if the producers had realised the way that they were portraying their leading man. Was he supposed to be a hero or an anti hero or perhaps just a person of interest?

For me though, it wasn't just that Salinger had obvious mental health issues, but he was also an unpleasant character in general, based on this depiction and the snippets of his letters, etc. I felt sorry for the people in his life, especially those that still worshipped him and were treated badly by him. He could probably have been the next James Jones if he'd wanted to go that way, because they idolised him so much. Admittedly a lot of those interviewed seemed strange choices, including some of the celebrities that were actually known to me. For example, why would Edward Norton's opinion be specifically valid in this instance?

I was surprised that I did persevere all the way to the end of the film, because I really couldn't imagine that I would ever feel anything positive towards the man. He seemed like a perverted, mean and someone nutty, dirty old so and so.

I was obviously engaged quite substantially by the film though, because I wrote so many notes about it. A spark ignited within that felt the need to get my point over in this review, probably because it had angered and upset me. I found it hard to find any positives, which I always search for.

I did finish watching with the desire to read his book and those others of his works, which are now alleged to be available since his death. Mostly to try and see what all the fuss was about, but definitely NOT because of its writer, who I had never felt less enamoured with.

Reading this review back it felt a bit confused and mixed up, but that was also how I felt about the film and the subject matter. It's not one that I will rewatch or recommend, even and especially to J. D. Salinger's fans.

393.11/1000.

Death On The Nile (Agatha Christie's Poirot) (Peter Ustinov) (1978) -

David Suchet will forever be my Hercule Poirot, but Peter Ustinov also does a fantastic job in the role. Don't ask for my opinion on Kenneth Brannagh's version though and I really didn't like Albert Finney as the annoying little Belgian he played in the alleged predecessor to this film 'Murder On The Orient Express' (1974).

I know this story so well after so many years and so many viewings, but it still entertained this time. And while it was a shame that, because of that knowledge the surprise element was lost (Because I could tell you who did it and how right from the off), it was however enjoyable to spot the various clues as they were presented to the pinickity detective, before the murder even took place.

In particular I liked the vignettes of the alleged events as each motive and potential order of events was presented by Hercule during his interrogations. Often the usual way of doing it is to talk of these things, rather than showing a fantasised idea on screen and thus potentially confuse the facts for the viewer, but it really worked here, so that the audience might easily believe that any of them could have done it and not know right up until the big reveal at the end.

The one thing that did bug me about the story was how so many people that were annoyed with the murdered Linnette (Lois Chiles), for whatever reason, had all ended up on the same boat travelling down the Nile and with the same intention of confronting her about one issue or another. It seemed highly unlikely that they'd all had the same idea to deliberately holiday in Egypt just to have the chance to address their problems. She seemed to have pissed off just about everybody she'd had a connection to. Having since watched this film's "Sequel", it appeared to be a regular thing for Agatha Christie's great investigator, as I remember the travelers on the Orient Express having a similar idea too.

I did like the clever way that the filmmaker's used quiet moments to build tension and backing tracks to alleviate those same tensions somewhat and there was also a quaint essence of humour as well. There was also a wonderfully seductive early 20th century appearance to the film that was gloriously exciting and glamorous.

I also really liked Simon Macorkindale in his role of Simon Doyle, Linnette's new husband, because he was so very handsome.

Maggie Smith was genius in her role of Bowers too, but I did wonder how she got away with her treatment of her boss, Bette Davies as Mrs Van Schuyler, but then again Agatha always did seem to write extreme characters.

David Niven was superb as always, effortless and elegantly suave playing his part of Poirot's ally Colonel Race and Angela Lansbury, although her performance was larger than life, was great in her nutty role of Madame Salome Otterbourne.

They all delivered really, but I supposed that some might say there was a cheesy or hammy 1970's acting style delivered by some.

Overall I thought that it was a timeless and beautiful interpretation of the source novel that was as valid to watch in 2024 as it would have been in 1978 and that Ken B should retire his novelty, oversize, moustachioed version of the greatest sleuth (Shouldn't have even made the first), because David and Peter have already given us the best versions.

It really was just such a shame that once you've seen it the ending will never be the same again.

839.75/1000.

Willow (1988) -

Although Willow himself, played by Warwick Davis, was quite annoying the film as a whole was fantastic fun to watch. In fairness he was very young, perhaps not really old enough to even be the father character that he played, regardless of that I'm not sure that I could imagine anyone else in the role.

The film also had my favourite Val Kilmer performance in his role of Madmartigan. He was really quite sexy and very funny. I certainly wouldn't have minded lying down in the grass with him, but I'm also sure that it would take magic dust for him to fall in love with me. Not only was he great at delivering his comedy moments and hunky topless shots, but his character was brilliantly cool and fierce too.

Having rescued a prophesied baby from the river, Willow embarked on a journey to return her to her own people, which was a dangerous path full of rogues, cruelty, magic and critters, akin perhaps to Dorothy's wander along the Yellow Brick Road* and many other stories. It was done in such an exciting way, with a great build up to a superb climax that made it easily accessible for the whole family to sit down and watch together, having something for everyone.

I was actually surprised that the story wasn't based on a novel, because it was so well constructed and full of detail and I felt that this should be the blueprint for all fantasy films, because I even put my phone down for most of it.

The sets were very good and some of the locations were beautiful. It was obvious that George Lucas and Ron Howard had put thought in to this film and not scrimped too much on its budget. A fantasy equivalent of George's 'Star Wars' (1977) with its epic trip centering on a group of interesting and mixed personalities, it didn't quite score as highly as the sci-fi classic, maybe because of its more lighterhearted side, but it's pretty close.

The only negative I could find was that it was a bit of a stretch to believe that Bavmorda's (Jean Marsh) ritual took so many frigging hours to perform, giving the good guys plenty of time to counter an offensive, but that could easily be forgiven.

Since seeing this film for the first time I have spent my life saying "Willow" with the vibrations of a Goat's bleating any time I hear the word mentioned, regardless of the the context, so I suppose you could say that it had an impact on me.

With a similar appeal to that of 'Flash Gordon' (1980), it was and still is great fun for all the family, but maybe not the really young ones, unless they're in to monsters and Pat Roach (Kael) being a big, scary bad guy again. I look forward to watching the recent series.

900.55/1000.

*The Wizard Of Oz (1939)

Hop (2011) -

I personally believe that James Marsden is underrated as a comic actor. In his role of Fred O'Hare he bounced brilliantly off the Easter Bunny heir apparent, E. B., skilfully voiced by Russell Brand, whom I also firmly believe has always given his best performances when he's scripted AND voicing a cartoon character.

As the two leading men, both avoiding their responsibilities they played great characters that worked well together. Finding themselves in a place where they needed to "Grow up", but in different ways that made the story great fun.

It had obvious similarities to 'Peter Rabbit' (2018) and small hints of 'Rise Of The Guardians' (2012) and all of the others films/stories ever made that have a son/daughter preparing for a role that they don't want or are struggling to find their place in the world, especially the seasonal ones.

And another similar film, 'Sonic The Hedgehog' (2020) would pair James with another chaos causing rodent. Add that to his role with a Wolverine* and he's nearly got the whole zoo.

While the gorgeous James (Cuter than the bunny) is always wonderful I also felt that the rest of the supporting cast were good too, although I have started to become a bit tired of Hugh Laurie voicing everything in exactly the same tone and way every time.

Hank Azaria deserves more recognition for his voice talents however, he was perfect as the plotting Carlos the chick.

I liked the action film/villain moments of the film, which would have been quite simplistic without them otherwise. It added excitement and danger, in its 'Austin Powers' (1997-2002) like delivery, as it could only be.

I also liked the idea of using the actual "Easter Island" (Rapa Nui) as the base of operations for the Easter Bunny. Not all of the kids watching will understand that it's a real place, but it will bring it to some as a new location to discover, so there was that educational element and aside from that it was clever touch.

And I enjoyed how they mentioned the fact that E. B. was a talking rabbit, but didn't actually make it problematic so that the flow of the film could just happen without that being an overwhelming element of the film.

The animation was wonderfully colourful and paired with a fantastic soundtrack that made it cute for kids and a pleasure to watch for the adults too, so a win-win.

Sadly, I don't think that I've ever participated in an egg hunt. That is something that I must rectify.

Overall I found this film joyful and entertaining and I will definitely add it to my list to watch more often.

810.11/1000.

*X-Men (2000)

The Beverly Hillbillies (1993) -

This film was basic harmless fun, but not particularly clever with its story. I would imagine that it was aimed more at the generation that watched the original TV series and maybe those that saw the repeats, but not really for a newer, fussier audience. Its was a simpler more innocent humour from before the technical revolution when jokes about road kill were satisfactory and the audience weren't looking for hidden "Easter Eggs" or "Da Vinci Codes" when not everything had to be complicated.

The Clampett's hit oil and got rich quick so they decided to move to Beverly Hills where there was no shortage of people that tried to take advantage of their kind and "Backwards" ways through corruption, extortion, exploitation and marriage and that's basically it. A theme similar to 'Addams Family Values' (1993) and many others before that.

It's naive and easy way, along with its standard traditional storyline certainly didn't have anything exciting going on to make it stand out separately from the original series it was remaking or have anything about it to compete with other films of its time, including 'Addams Family Values' and definitely not since, because of the every day comedy that it contained, but I actually loved watching the repeats of the TV series as a kid, so for me this was a pleasure to watch at the time of its release and actually on this more recent occasion coming at a time when I needed something simplistic and daft to counteract am odd mood, I could find joy and peace in the fact that it didn't require too much brain power, but it still had a warmth and enjoyability over 30 years on.

The actors all played what they've done before and in the case of some, many times after, but they did do it very well. The monkey was awesome too and I did like Jethro's (Diedrich Bader) muscles. It was also a genius touch to add Dolly Parton to the cast list for a cameo too.

So yeah, overall it could have done with a few more laugh out loud moments, some hysterically explosive outbursts, etc, but it really wasn't bad. Don't expect too much from it and you won't be disappointed.

612.18/1000.