alembic Reviews

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)

Now available as "special edition" DVD ... go get it.

[7/10 · 5 June 2004]

Well it's been 2 years since I last posted a review for this movie... I have just purchased the "Special Edition" version mainly because at last there is a wide-screen DVD version now available! This was one movie that suffered very greatly from a standard T.V format transfer ..... Now in wide-screen,it is possible to see the cinematography as it was intended to be viewed from the original Super Panavision format,even though there is still some "enhanced" format alteration to bring it into line with 16:9 ratio and luckily it was shot in Technicolor,which was easily the best analogue colour system around. Perspectives can now be seen as intended and the beautiful sets and the dance routines look vastly better... you can actually see all the dancers ! Take for instance one scene in Caractacus Potts windmill laboratory,where he shows Truly Scrumptious one of his inventions with which he intends to transmit "pictures and sound".....in the standard format half of the shot is missing so the machine cannot be fully seen and it makes no sense.. however in wide-screen you can see the "picture" and also the whole machine; so now you can enjoy one of Emmet Rolands fantasy machine creations in full. All through the movie the scenery and sets are set up framed with objects in the foreground and back ground which lend to perspective and depth of the image. The sound track seems also to have been worked on .. in previous releases the children's voices seemed to "squeak" but now they sound much more natural. You can see how much we have been missing with previous releases and it is a lot. The Special Edition also has some featurettes on the making of the movie and other related information plus a lovely booklet as well.

As to the movie itself .... it has never lost it's magic for me. I see reviews which pan the musical numbers or say it's too long or that

after seeing it as an adult they were disappointed from what they remember as a child ... but is that not the point ? It is a movie for children and/or those adults who can still view it remembering the child in themselves. It has no coarse language , no mindless violence (except the pantomime variety).. no cynicism ...just fun. In short it is a type of movie that Hollywood can no longer make because they no longer know how ... so it should be treasured more for it. People criticize Dick Van Dykes "American" accent but I find it not intrusive at all ... in fact he would probably have been better off using his normal voice in "Mary Poppins" than attempting the cockney accent which he obviously had some difficulty with.

Kids love this movie .. let them be the judges.

Thank-you Cubby Broccoli ..we miss you. Thank-you Ian Fleming / Roald Dahl / Richard Maibaum and Ken Hughes. Thank-you Ken Adam ... a genius in design for Chitty.

The Alamo (1960)

Great ! See it and then judge. Not 100% historically accurate.

[14 August 2003]

I'll come clean.. I really liked this movie.... O.K there will be those who decry it for historical accuracy and some of the liberties taken with the depiction of some of the characters etc...... but at the end of the day this movie is entertainment and I have sure seen movies a lot worse than this. Likely if all the events and persons were accurately presented , the result might well have been a boring lecture/travelogue. Instead there is the "Duke" John Wayne in true John Wayne style and his able cast giving us a rousing movie and with loosely enough facts to make it believable. Imagine the reaction of moviegoers of the day, if John Wayne was not the larger than life John Wayne in turn playing the even more larger than life Davy Crockett ! Movie-goers of the time who expected to see the style of John Wayne got exactly that. Likely in America where "remember the Alamo" is of much importance, any movie-maker would have his work cut out to please everyone - Wayne's effort should be judged on the attitudes of the time and his personal battle to get the movie made at all.

As purely entertainment in the western/action style this movie stacks up. There are those who mention the "slow" segments ... what do you want 167 minutes of cannon fodder and gore ? True the movie portrays events from the American viewpoint, yet Wayne does pay homage to the gallantry of the Mexican forces.

The musical score is also very memorable with a haunting main theme.

Big mythical heroes, big scenes, and big fun .. enjoy .

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Better than Episode 1

[8/10 · 26 July 2003]

Sometimes it's hard to realise that "American Graffiti" was directed by the same George Lucas who is now serving up Star Wars. There's a sort of corporate feel about him these days .. lot's of young eager computer jocky's under his leadership but turning out a product that does not seem to really grab you such as in the "hands on" days of the original Star Wars. Maybe George will give us this last movie , close the book and heave a sigh of relief that he will not be expected to produce any more Star Wars episodes.. likely 6 movies is enough to make any person to want to move on.

I don't know... but I kind of feel that George is too wrapped up in the CGI.. ILM world ... and has forgotten to step outside once in a while and see real people and real objects. Lucas and ILM undoubtably produce the best GGI work that is around these days and the technology continually improves .. but it does not substitute for the real thing in my view. It used to be that CGI was used in a supporting role where physical limitations or situations made it impossible to film in any other way. These days it seems soon that entire movies will be made using CGI only , with the actors subjegated to studio blue screen type inserts. Sure, you get total control but isn't it like processed food where the flavour is lost ? Not to say that Attack Of The Clones is bad..... in fact I rate it much better than Phantom Menace. Perhaps I long for the old "real" sets and clunky props..... the original Star Wars has not yet been bettered by other offerings in the series.. Maybe because of the chaos of production and uncharted waters in those days where filming processes/techniques had to be invented more or less on the spot to bring the ideas to the screen... they still look good today. Somewhere the old chemistry/fun vapourised in favour of slick CGI. The only real blunder in the new Episodes in the introduction of "Midichlorians" as little bugs that float around in your bloodstream... if you have lot's of these little mites you become great Jedi. Gone is the mysticism and good vs evil in the universe and personal challenge.. now bug squatt. Still if Espisode 3 is as much improved as 2 was from 1 then we will be in for a treat. Hopefully George Lucas will give us something special for the Star Wars swan song.

Die Another Day (2002)

Beats "On her Majesties Secret Service" for worst Bond ever.

[2/10 · 1 July 2003]

I felt moved to add some more comments. I wondered what it was about this movie that I really hated ( I tried to like it ) : At first I wondered whether it was the awful plot ? The incredibly BAD CGI effects ? The stupid amateurish and abysmally horrid editing ? Lack of feeling for the franchise by the producers? Was there a script around anywhere someplace ? The "let's get as much product-placement time and ram the inevitable PC game down their throats while we've got 'em trapped " mentality ?

I am certain that if Cubby Brocolli were still around he would have made damn sure that none of those who made this trash would have got within 500 miles of one of his pictures. Cubby actually had some personal interest in what he was making .... what has happened ? Remember the days when you had true film-makers ? Those folks who made a lot of money , sure..... but BOY did you get a great ride...and you wanted to go back and see the movie all over again.

Then I realised that now all has been surrendered to $$$$ ... the "keep feeding them bland and boring until they think the rubbish we serve up is actually good " syndrome.

Look at how many attempts to re-make classic 60's/70's and the occasional 80's into movies that have ended in efforts that would make a home video producer think he was Cecil B DeMille.... soul-less inane lazy film-making with total lack of respect to the poor sods who end up watching and worse paying $$ for their tripe.

Star Wars for example did far better with the old blue screen , bad contrast and rubber puppets than the later slick CGI... sure you can go places with CGI that you can't with analogue.... trouble is that you KNOW it's CGI....and bad CGI is always worse than bad analogue. Star War seems more REAL due to the lack of CGI..they actually had to work HARD to deliver that classic movie. Perhaps the producers of CGI figure that they don't have to bother with set design and maybe extra $$ are saved in payment/insurance to stunt people etc. Perhaps they delude themselves that we don't notice ?? The movie industry wonders why movie patronage is falling ... well when you target ONLY the teen/ween market with rip-off product then you get what you give.

Back to the subject .. Bond was always that rare thing.. a character with very wide age appeal ( albiet biased to male ).... at this rate Bond will be even a rarer thing..... still around after DAD. It is incredible to see the producers allowing the huge Bond franchise to be mauled and trashed in this way. Sadly Bond may not survive this.

Producers this is your wake-up call.

2 out of ten. Only gets 2 because of moneypennies scene at the end..... thankfully there was an end.

Where Eagles Dare (1968)

A great ride, fun,great visuals.

[8/10 · 1 July 2003]

To all the critics..... O.K if you want Shakespeare, go find some. This movie does not pretend to be anything else other than a great adventure romp. All-right, so there are more and bigger holes in the plot than the holes in General Carnabie's Mosquito plane....but to quote Richard Burton..." a hole is a hole is a hole as they say". Get over the cranial whinging and sit back and enjoy for heaven's sake. Having got that off my chest the main reason for this review is that at last this movie is to be released in DVD format and wide-screen no less ( only region 1 it seems ). This is cause for joy since those lucky enough to own BIG BIG screen systems will enjoy the great shots of the Bavarian (supposedly )Alps and the terrific opening sequence of flying through the mountains.

All these shots suffered of course on most tiny T.V screens in normal format. A YOUNG Clint Eastwood get's nice screen time and works well with Richard Burton ( who by the way "sure has a lot of women stashed around this country " according to Eastwood ). There are no obscenities nor close-up shots of entrails.... not needed.. the movie stands by itself. Yes, yes of course only 4 allies can beat 1 million Germans, etc but who cares ? Get the goodies out of the fridge and wind the volume up and be swept along. Some call this movie a "cult movie " .. if so, well OK but it's a pretty big cult. Enjoy

Die Another Day (2002)

Disappointing - messing with the formula. Some spoilers.

[2/10 · 28 June 2003]

A disappointing effort - like eating a big meal but being left unsatisfied at the end of it. Using the same analogy , it's like certain fast food chains trying to dish up new twists and neglecting the tried and true main menu. I think perhaps the director who best understood what the James Bond formula/franchise was all about was Guy Hamilton who's general attitude was; let's have action, let's have girls, let's have gadgets and let's have FUN. Perhaps Lee Tamahori was stuck with material over which he had no control and had to make do with what he was given , but the result for Die Another Day is an uneven and at times just plain silly movie. I love Bond movies and I tried hard to like this one but I was left disappointed. Perhaps the problem with producing a Bond movie lies with the character himself ; Bond has to be believable but not too real ; he has to be an expert spy but not a super-hero ; he has to have girls but not be a selfish womaniser ; he has to be above all a loyal agent..it's a fine line ,not to be crossed over. Pierce Brosnan is by far the best actor around these days to play the role of Bond but I wonder if he himself will be having doubts about further outings as Bond ? Brosnan seems to be very sincere to the Bond character but given what has been presented this time he might be weighing up the risks to his career if another example such as this is offered up to long time Bond fans. I suspect that another poor example could spell the end of the Bond saga.

Summary : Stunning opening scenes of surfing , beautifully filmed leads to silly Everglades type hover-craft being used as military vehicles by some cardboard cut-out Korean bad guys. Bond is captured and supposedly tortured for months by the Koreans but is then released on a prisoner exchange - strangely suffering no long term ill effects except a long beard. Then we find that Bond is now considered useless and to have cracked under torture. M ( the incredibly under-used Judi Dench ) then coldly tells Bond that he is no longer a double 00 . Of course we are expected to appreciate that M expects Bond to go maverick and uncover what is going really going on. Trouble is that it's been done before - didn't work very well then and doesn't work very well now either. Next we are presented with some hot diamonds and an orbiting laser satellite - gosh where have I seen that before ? Q now played by John Cleese ( again shamefully under-used in a tiny role ) presents Bond with an INVISIBLE Jaguar.... oh dear. I wonder if Jaguar are wondering if this product placement will lose sales due to the laughably clumsy handling of their product. Instead of exciting scenes with Bond in a great car we get bad CG effects and no feel of the car at all... Of course the special Bond wristwatch is presented , but in such a ho-hum way with a flippant line by Q " bring this one back unlike the other 20 ".. problem is that in this movie it REALLY is ho-hum..... Maybe that's what the problem is .... were the makers of this movie just plain bored ? Pierce Brosnan does his best and tries to bring credibility. Halle Berry is beautiful but is given nothing to work with .. her charm and comic talent are just wasted. Judi Dench .. squandered. John Cleese may as well have stayed home.. squandered. Rosamund Pike has genuine screen presence but seems she can't be fitted in to give her a chance. Toby Stephens has great snarling charm but his scenes are overwhelmed by the background noise.. he could have been used much more effectively. Actors need to be given room to act.. here they are steamrollered.

It's like someone was let loose in the effects room but no-one was checking the product. Silly forward repetitious rushing camera shots...... Some really bad CG effects... this is a movie not a PC game. Bond comes off as a bad super-hero rather than "our man". The result is that the movie-goer is left detached , uninvolved. It's like a series of clips glued together but not a coherent whole. Some VERY good moments do not save the rest - my favourite is the scene with Moneypenny and her virtual James Bond realising her fantasies .. genuinely funny. Sorry guys better luck next time.

The Iron Giant (1999)

Excellent film.

[8/10 · 5 April 2002]

Cleverly made animation feature film. A nice balance is made between the "cutesy warm fuzzies" and the more serious "message" aspects of the film. Neither aspect is allowed to overwhelm the film. This excellent offering is enjoyable by all ages (a hard thing to accomplish these days ). A clever mix of C-G animation and traditional Warner Bros style animation makes for an impressive look on screen. Great voice characters by all the cast ( but I think Harry Connick Jr steals the show as "Mr Cool" Dean McCoppin ). Best of all it has a great story-line and snappy dialogue. The DVD version includes behind the scenes material for the buffs. Fresh , snappy , cool - what more could you ask for ? Enjoy !

X-Men (2000)

A pleasant surprise !

[10/10 · 3 April 2002]

I really had no expectations that this film would be even be modestly good, so it was a pleasant surprise to see a very well made film unfold. Perhaps some fans of the comic strip may find too many variables, however as cinema entertainment it hits the spot. With inevitable comparison, to some of the Batman offerings, I tend to like X-Men better. The Batman offerings seem more ponderous and overblown compared to X-Men, and somehow despite it's comic-strip origin X-Men seems to appeal on a more adult level. Much of this is due to the deftness and light touch of the Director. Great C-G work ( this is one genre where C-G really works well ) alongside very good "real" sets makes for an excellent looking film. Patrick Stewart at last gets a chance for once to unleash his screen presence ( shamefully squandered by the Star Trek folks ) and does a great job. Teamed against the awesome Ian McKellen these two add the sinister darker aspect of the film. Hugh Jackman (looking eerily like a young Clint Eastwood in many shots) and the rest of the cast very ably fill the young cast roles. Oddly I had heard very little about X-men and it would seem it has been greatly underrated. From the look of things, it appears that this was intended to be the first in a series of X-Men films. I hope this team gets a chance to bring us some more good fare. Enjoy !

Battle of the Bulge (1965)

Not a total waste but could have been much better.

[5/10 · 26 January 2002]

I am a fan of the big action war film that used to be made in this era , (I do not condone nor promote war - but these films do depict great and spectacular moments of world events - as entertainment). I have a seldom watched copy of this offering in my library. Overall I am left with the feeling of being short-changed, as I am sure many of the cast may have felt as well. Since this film is based on actual events , it would be expected that much more attention would have been paid to climate/battle ground and realism etc. This film cannot seem to decide what genre it is. As a result it sprawls and much dramatic tension is lost. With the opportunity provided by a big budget and very experienced cast a much grander spectacle should have been the result. It's not all bad and many portions of the film stack up with the best but it's very patchy indeed. The script leaves mighty slim pickings all round and even an actor of the calibre of Henry Fonda can't do much with it. Everyone seems a cartoon cut-out. The closest to anything of real dramatic depth is the relationship between fanatic Colonel Hessler ( the normally excellent Robert Shaw who tries hard here with what he's given ) and Corporal Conrad ( Hans Christian Blech who somehow manages to pull off a very good performance ).

It's just plain sloppy and a waste of good talent and money. What a true shame. However it is saved somewhat by its visual size so it is not a total waste of time. I cannot recommend it as a great film but it is one of those that if you enjoy the genre, you must see even if only once.

Das Boot (1981)

Very realistic excellent film. Get the directors cut.

[9/10 · 7 January 2002]

For those of us ( majority ) who have never set foot on a modern submarine let alone a World War 2 SUBMERSIBLE it is not possible to comprehend the living hell these U-Boat crews endured - ( U-Boats had to surface frequently to replenish air, and use diesel engines to surface patrol and recharge batteries, therefore were not true submarines such as a modern nuclear sub today ). This film comes closest of all offerings lately to show what it was really like. Horrific depth charging, poor food and air, were a U-Boats mans lot during the closing stages of the war in the Atlantic. The "Happy Time" was definitely over for U-Boats as Allied warships employed ASDIC underwater sonar and new depth charge techniques to inflict terrible losses on the U-Boat forces. Director Wolfgang Peterson went to great lengths to ensure as accurate as possible portrayal of the lives these men lived and it was a demanding if ultimately rewarding shoot for the cast. All the cast members do a fine job. If you thought U-571 was good (and it's not too bad )stack it up next to Das Boot and see just how good Das Boot really is. See the extended Directors Cut with re-mastered audio , and preferably on DVD. If you like this film genre you will not be disappointed.

Above Us the Waves (1955)

Probably the best depiction of mini subs of its era.

[7/10 · 7 January 2002]

One or two spoilers : Another reasonably true to life British film depicting the daring, skillful and often claustrophobic conditions that the British mini-sub crews endured to attack the large German battleship Tirpitz ( sister ship to the great Bismark ) which was hidden deep in Norwegian fjords. With the Tirpitz lurking in Norway, the British were forced to keep a substantial force of ships in readiness in case she broke out to attack convoys. If she could be disabled or destroyed, this would free up the badly needed British warships for other duties. A daring plan was devised to pilot miniature submarines into the fjord where Tirpitz lay and deposit large underwater mines beneath her,timed to go off after the sub crews hopefully escaped. Well shot in B&W and starring competent actors John Mills and John Gregson the background of training and the eventual attack is very absorbing. Well worth a look.

Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 Hours 11 Minutes (1965)

A big fun film.

[7/10 · 6 January 2002]

One or two spoilers: I have to confess a slight forgiving fondness for this type of big 60's comedy film. Sometimes this one is downright corny and in places it wears a bit thin but somehow it manages to capture your affection. Sure most of the characters are one-dimensional stereotypical cartoon cutouts , but the film never pretends to be anything deep and meaningful. It pokes fun at the "stiff upperlipped British" , the "formal and pompous Germans" and the "amorous French" etc with a few crazy Italians thrown in and no-one is else spared either. This is how it plays on your preconceived ideas of those "blasted foreigners". Part slapstick with Benny Hill's Keystone Cop like firemen and part heroic adventure with Stuart Whitmans good-guy cowboy role to save the day and everyone a good sport except the fabulously funny villain Terry Thomas. The thing to remember is that they just don't make films like this anymore. Watch a parade of notable English comics pass by intermingled with the other international cast members. English M'Lord Rawnsley of a very large English newspaper is inspired ( of course it was his idea or so he claims ) by his liberated and unruly daughter to put up ten thousand pounds in prize money for the first pilot to fly the English channel , because "Brittania rules the waves so by George she ought to rule the skies as well ". So the scene is set for a motley crew to fly their vintage and unreliable and downright dangerous aircraft across the channel. Along the way, nasty Sir Percy ( Terry Thomas ) aided by slightly sneaky and not too loyal Courtney ( Eric Sykes ) does his villainous best to sabotage the other aircraft but he gets his comeuppance in the end. Stuart Whitman in Levis gets to challenge James Fox the very sportsmanlike Englishman for Sarah Miles affections. A lot of fun and great to look at. Enjoy.

Pursuit of the Graf Spee (1956)

Entertaining if a bit patchy. Some spoilers.

[5 January 2002]

Some spoilers. If the real Graf Spee had left Monte Video and battled it out with the Allied warships waiting for her then this film could have had a tremendous ending rather than the somewhat sad scuttling of the great doomed ship by her own crew. Of course Captain Langsdorf was ordered to sink his own ship rather than face defeat , and also her Captain was influenced by his desire not to waste the lives of his crew, in a perceived no win situation for the ship. Langsdorf was by all accounts an honourable Captain who did not like the Nazi party. This side of his nature is actually portrayed well in the film by Peter Finch's compassionate portrayal. Anthony Quayle ( mysteriously always underrated as a film actor ) gives another good performance here. Unfortunately for the cast , they do have to put up with some quite substandard studio sets during the sequences on the ship bridges. Fall of shot looks like Dolphin sneezes not large shell splashes. Offsetting this is the use of the actual allied ships used in the battle with nice seagoing footage. An American heavy cruiser fills the role of the Graf Spee ( her number on her bow explained away as the Graf Spee masquerading as a U.S warship ) reasonably well. War buffs of course will notice a big difference in ships but the average filmgoer will be happy. the script is quite tight and holds the film together during the landbased scenes. Most of the cast do a great job in support. Here again is another rarer treatment of the Germans as opposing seamen rather than cardboard "Huns". As with many war films , unless they are deliberately semi-documentary, the real horrors of injuries and damages are toned down. Overall a very good film . One of the few sea battle genre.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Valiant attempt to film the unfilmable. No spoilers.

[5/10 · 4 January 2002]

It takes a brave person to attempt to direct such an epic as Lord of the rings , since many who cherish the book will point to any omission or alteration to Tolkiens masterwork as bordering on blasphemy. I have mixed feelings after seeing the movie, having read the book many times. I went to the screening with an open mind and of course realising that it is starkly impossible to accommodate all the detail and sequences from the book even spread over 3 separate films. I guess the problem is that with such an imaginative and descriptive book, each reader will visualise their own image of middle-earth and the sound,look and feel of the characters. This presents an immensely difficult job for any director to realise a version which will please all - simply not possible. I can say that many people at the screening were indeed "wowed" and "blown away" by the film. So perhaps , familiarity with the book is in this case a disadvantage. Ok so why mixed feelings ? On many levels the film is spectacularly successful - the sets ( in particular Bag End and Rivendell ) are superb. The computer graphics are top rate ( Sarumans tower Orthanc and the mines of Moria stand out ). The overall look of the film is terrific. It was also nice to have passages of dialogue lifted almost verbatim from the book. Generally the cast did a fine job. Christopher Lee is outstanding as Saruman and for my money stole the show. I think I would have preffered to have Sean Bean in the role of Aragorn/Strider since Aragorn is at first very menacing when initially encountered , and Sean is also capable of non-menacing acting as well. As Boromir he is still great. Viggo Mortnsen is great as Aragorn but to me the dynamic Sean Bean stole the screen. One thing I found wearisome was the seemingly never ending close ups on Elijah Wood ( not his fault ). Wood does a commendable job in a difficult role where he is expected to change from innocent carefree Frodo into world weary ring-bearer. For those familiar with the book the Icons such as Bilbo's Mithril coat he gives to Frodo , or the sword Narsil or the seeing stones etc will be easily recognisable but for those seeing only the film for the first time I suspect in places it may seem bewildering or these items may lose their significance. Again this is perhaps the problem .. how to do justice to it all. What to cut, what to leave in ? I cringed at the story alterations ( ommissions ok - alterations not ok ). A score out of 10 for having the guts to even attempt to film the book in the first place should be 10/10 so thanks Peter Jackson.

So how does it rate ? Perhaps like this : For those who have not read the book 8 out of 10. For those who have read the book 5 out of 10. Remembering that the book is split into 3 films ( I assume they follow basically the three books which comprise Lord of the Rings ) will explain the way the first film ended ( which seemed to puzzle some people ). Should you see it ? Yes ! One area where the film definately did score was broad appeal - enough drama and visuals for the buffs and plenty of action to keep the kids happy ( note: it is rather violent in places ). Go see it soon !

Where Eagles Dare (1968)

Terrific entertainment . No spoilers.

[8/10 · 4 January 2002]

One of my all time favourite war films. OK the good guys seem to be able to beat hundreds of bad guys, but the film is not meant as a true-life depiction of war events. Great opening shots of flying through the mountains ( which were VERY impressive on the big screen ). Some of the miniature/superimposed work was somewhat below standard but overall the film looks great. Action excitement and plenty of plot twists makes this a great ride. Richard Burton ( in my opinion one of the worlds greatest actors ) teams up with perfectly cast Clint Eastwood aided by a terrific supporting cast do a fine job. This was a 'big' film even in it's day , and one which would be too expensive to make now.

Shot in 70mm it needs a big screen to fully appreciate it.

Note some plot/dialogue similarities to another MacLean creation 'The guns of Navarone'. A great film - see it.

Battle of Britain (1969)

Great film about great events. No spoilers.

[7/10 · 4 January 2002]

As a movie depicting mainly the British/Allied efforts during the air battles over Britain in World War 2 this is great entertainment - it does also score points for making an effort to show the German opposition in a more balanced light than mere "Huns in the sun" and the cost in German lives which is quite rare for films of this vintage. Also notable is the recognition given to pilots who were severely disfigured by burning/crashing aircraft or the female and civilian casualties during the war years. Mainly though it is a rousing adventure ( if a trifle " boys club" ) war film. The great Guy Hamilton has directorial honours and from frame 1 you know you are in for a terrific time. Wonderful cinematography and superb aerial sequences ( with plenty of real aircaft to add realism ). Michael Caine effortlessly steals the show but the remainder of the cast are in top form as well. It's a spectacle and an effort has been made to keep historical facts accurate which lends it an air of authenticity. Ron Goodwins rousing music adds the final touch to top entertainment. They can't afford to make films like this anymore..... DVD time please !

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)

Perfect example of it's type.

[7/10 · 4 January 2002]

Isn't it strange how movies critics hate are always loved by audiences ? I guess all of us who send in reviews to IMDB are actually critics but most reviews seen here from people who have seen it mention how they love this film - perhaps if for sentimental reasons. Maybe this is why Hollywood finds itself in troublesome times. Who is it that actually 'decides' what we want to see ? Ian Flemings imaginative story of a magical car is just that - magical. Perhaps the magic has left the minds of those who create volumes of B grade violent and uninspired offerings these days. Of course not all people will like this film but there are many who do. Maybe it is a bit long - but many films were during this era before such emphasis was placed on the 90 minute audience rotation factor. The longer format allows much more freedom to the director. How many films made today will still be remembered or commented on 30-40 years after their release ? This film was shot for a darkened theatre and a big screen for maximum viewing pleasure so it suffers from a small screen view. This film is as fresh today as at it's first screening. Enjoy.

The Great Race (1965)

How great movies used to be made. No spoilers.

[8/10 · 4 January 2002]

When you watch this film and find yourself laughing and marvelling at the beautiful look of it and the sense that the cast themselves are having a great time , it is with a pang of loss that you realise what "modern" films are often missing. How fortunate I now find myself to have been treated to "real" filmmaking over the years before computer graphics ( good as they are today ) took the place of real props and sets. I am fortunate also to have seen this film in it's original release and so can still remember my delight in it as a child. No swearing/cursing no jaded/cynical jokes .. just pure fun.

Hollywood these days seems to long for these types of film as witnessed by the endless 'remakes' of older films but usually the remakes fall short of the original. Perhaps this is because of the heavy reliance these days on 'special effects' or 'blockbuster explosions etc etc' has meant modern filmmakers have lost the focus of what makes good cinema. Of course new rare gems do surface these days occasionaly above the B grade pulp but they are becoming increasingly rare ( not to ignore the fact of course that there were plenty of B grade offerings from the past also ).

Treat yourself and see this film. Unfortunately STILL only available on VHS. Even so the film still looks great with beautiful cinematography and wonderful costumes. The look and feel of the film is perfect thanks to Blake Edwards and his team. A great cast - Jack Lemmon steals the show with two roles ( Professor Fate/Prince Hapnick ) but Tony Curtis gives a fine performance as Leslie in perhaps a slightly more difficult role as part comic/part straight man. Natalie Wood looks beautiful and must have spent most of her time changing the myriad costumes she wears. Peter Faulk as always is terrific - I can't imagine anyone else playing the 'Max' character. Keenan Wynn and a bevy of great character actors fill out the fine ensemble/supporting cast. A big rollercoaster fun ride with perhaps the biggest pie-fight ever filmed.

I wait for wide-screen DVD release - enjoy.

Mary Poppins (1964)

Almost "perfectly perfect".

[7/10 · 4 January 2002]

This was a big movie for Julie Andrews and also Dick Van Dyke. Much loved and well made - although I can't agree that it's "perfect". I loved this film when I first saw it in original release and remember the 'I love to laugh' floating in the air scene and also the "feed the birds" scenes of St Pauls which had a haunting quality. Seeing it again on DVD the film holds up well and my 10 year daughter loves it too so it still has the same appeal for todays kids. Again a movie which very much needs to be seen on a big screen to enjoy it the most. Disneys film version of Travers books does make some changes that the author did not necessarily like however film audiences have enjoyed it for many years so who cares. Likely to remain 'Perfectly popular' for many years yet. A great fun fantasy ride for everyone. I think Dick Van Dykes best scenes were playing Mr Dawes of the bank. Julie Andrews in her peak years .It won't come round again. Enjoy.

Reach for the Sky (1956)

Absorbing if re-written account of Douglas Bader.

[7/10 · 4 January 2002]

The credits advise that some events and depictions of people/events have been altered for story telling purposes , so this film is not a strictly accurate history of Douglas Bader. Also played down somewhat is Baders arrogance and foolhardiness which lead to his disability in the first place. Still as a inspiration for disabled people and as an almost factual account of Baders life and as film entertainment , it's pretty good. Made reasonably close to the war years it is able to capture the feeling of those years quite well. It is a trifle 'stiff upper lip - what ?' but Kenneth More as usual turns in a good performance. Focusing mainly on Baders attempts, and resulting achievements in war time flying, after a crash means both lower legs have to be amputated. Quite gritty and not too sentimental this offering from director Lewis Gilbert stacks up well against similar films of the time.

Bush Christmas (1947)

Unique Australian kids adventure.

[7/10 · 4 January 2002]

Interesting mainly ( for adults point of view ) for it's glimpse into a by-gone era of outback life in post-war Australia. We see the children on horseback being allowed to camp in the Australian bush by themselves with a high level of self-sufficiency. The Australian bush adds a splendid back-drop ( almost a "lost world" feel ) to the story.

Well acted by the young cast and supported by able adult actors as well. This original version shot in black and white has a unique quirky feel to it. For the kids it's a fun kids vs bad guys story too.

Ring of Bright Water (1969)

Wonderful film made with sensitivity and insight

[8 May 2001]

Like other reviewers, I first saw this film when I was a child. I was totally absorbed by the story and the antics of Mij the otter. I saw it again on video recently and it had lost none of it's charm. I remember the stunning cinematography of the wild country where it was filmed,best seen on a true big screen. Bill Travers and Virginnia McKenna ( Born Free - An Elephant called Slowly ) are well cast as Mij's friends. Any child with an interest in animals will enjoy this film , but there is enough adult interest to make it fun for all. The ending may seem somewhat brutal/bitterwseet ( although not shown in graphic detail ) but we often underestimate childrens abilities to understand what is happening around them and as I recall being a child when I saw it, the film was more memorable because it had a gritty ending and not a "warm fuzzy" throw away end. Enjoy !

The Great Race (1965)

Worthy of modern restoration and DVD issue.

[8/10 · 15 February 2001]

In the classic opening credit sequence just before where we are transported back to the days of the "Magic lamp" slide projection shows, we are given a hint of what is to come when a tribute salute " For Mr Laurel & Mr Hardy " appears on the screen. Yes this movie does owe something to the slapstick routines of those two gentlemen yet it has a life of it's own which in many ways far surpasses slapstick. For those people who can only see the sight gags then this movie will only provide mild appeal. Look deeper and appreciate the marvellous comedic talents of Jack Lemmon, Tony Curtis, Peter Falk, Keenan Wynn and Natalie Wood.

Comedy is always a thing of personal taste. I suspect that there will be those who will rave about how wonderful The Great Race is while others will call it a waste of time and money. There will be few in the middle ground. I fall into the rave category. To me this movie is sheer FUN.

The visuals are splendid and awesomly huge. The costumes fabulous and the location settings vast. Everything is over the top, yet there is still room for small subtleties and in-jokes. The actors have a ball. Jack Lemmon just sneaks in as the best scene stealer but the able cast hold their own too. The Great Race just cries out for a restoration job and a release on DVD - please !