Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Doctor Jekyll (2023)
8/10
Great return to form
8 November 2023
While those audience members expecting full-blown Gothic horror may be disappointed, older viewers who remember the Hammer studio's psychological thrillers, particularly Fear in the Night, Fanatic, Crescendo and Paranoiac, may feel more well-disposed to this thrilling film.

This film niftily straddles the Gothic horrors of Terence Fisher and the studio's so-called mini-Hitchcocks from the likes of Freddie Francis and Val Guest. The latter films often took place in enclosed setting and have a claustrophobic feel, and either sculptured b/w or highly stylised colour photography, and this film neatly reflects that style, while the music score delivers the required feel.

Izzard gives a great performance that rivals the scenery-chewing performances of the stars of Hammer's previous grands guinols, Bette Davis, Tallulah Bankhead and Margaurite Scott.

Yes, there are a few plot flaws, and yes, the dénoûment is signalled at the start, but unlike the previous attemps to reboot Hammer, this feels right and not like an Amicus spin-off, so let's be thankful for this effort and enjoy it.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A reminder of summer movies past...
24 June 2019
Love this undemanding kids' fantasy. The least of the John Dark-Kevin Connor films, it's still a fun reminder of summer holidays spent watching such stuff.

Great to see Lee and Cushing in any film, if not on screen at the same time, and Ken Thorne's score sets the whole thing off nicely.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Omega Man (1971)
10/10
Best version of I Am Legend
30 June 2014
It's easy to pick holes in this great action flick (are there cars moving in the background, where did the sausages come from, is there a man walking down the post-holocaust street with a package, why are the stunt doubles so obvious?) but these are piffling when taking in the package as a whole.

The whole vampire thing of the original Matheson book was so passé even when it was written that the screen writers' germ-war revamping cleverly suited the Cold War times the film was made in (and got around the now over-done and inaccurate zombie thang -- it's ghouls who come back from the dead and eat people, not zombies, but the whole moronic zombie genre and its fans obviously have never heard of a dictionary, but then this is Generation Y we're talking about here -- why can't they bother looking in a dictionary perhaps?).

Heston and the cast perform well, the action sequences are of a high standard, Ron Grainer's music is superb and Anthony Zerbe is a marvellous mystic leader of the post- apocalyptic, Spanish Inquisition-like Family. There are also overtones of the Nazi era, as the Family destroy everything from books to machines they don't agree with.

The original Vincent Price version, The Last Man on Earth, is closer to the book, but this is miles ahead of the dreadful zombie flicks of recent years, and the unworthy I Am Legend 2007 remake, and is worthy of higher ratings than it's been given here.

And please, someone in Hollywood, look up the difference between zombies and ghouls... Though the quality of the scripts the studios are turning out these days probably means they probably don't know how...
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Marlowe (1969)
10/10
Should be hailed as a classic...
11 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Much as I like Robert Altman's 1973 riff on Chandler's The Long Goodbye, I find it strange this James Garner/Paul Bogart take on The Little Sister, made four years earlier, is often overlooked, and that many critics consider Garner miscast as hardboiled Philip Marlowe.

There are so many similarities between the two films, it seems impossible to think Altman was not influenced by this earlier effort.

As with Chandler's novels, the thread of familial relationships runs strongly in the background of both movies. Marlowe helmer Paul Bogart's daughter Jennifer was married to The Long Goodbye's star Elliot Gould during this period. As if that isn't co-incidence enough, the father and daughter share the same surname as Humphrey Bogart, who is held by many (though not me) to be the ideal Marlowe in the 1946 The Big Sleep.

There are further co-incidences of an almost familial nature. Gayle Hunnicut, female star of Marlowe, reappears as a femme fatale in the Powers Boothe Marlowe series of the 1980s, while the apartment Gould uses in The Long Goodbye also makes a guest appearance in the Boothe episodes. Also The Long Goodbye's script writer Leigh Brackett co-wrote the screenplay to the Bogie The Big Sleep almost three decades earlier. The coincidences just keep mounting up...

But let's just look at the similarities now between Marlowe and The Long Goodbye.

* Both tales are updated from their 1940s settings, but in both Marlowe is obviously a man out of his time. His ethics, dress and moral code are at odds with everyone else around him. In both films, Marlowe could easily be a figure from the '40s instead of the updated setting he finds himself in.

* The hippy, drug culture of the 1960s and 1970s is visible it the background of both films. This counterculture only goes to underscore how Marlowe is entirely out of step with the times he finds himself in.

* In both films, Marlowe is closer to Chandler's errant knight, going down mean streets while himself being mean, than the two-fisted Humphrey Bogart of Howard Hawks's The Big Sleep.

* Both films have enigmatic endings, and leave Marlowe walking away from crime scenes in a way he did not in the novels; it is almost as if the 1940s morals make Marlowe so sick to the stomach he can't be bother with clearing the modern messes he finds himself in any more.

* Both films have music scores that consist of different versions of the same tune being played over and over, though sadly the score to the 1969 film never seems to have been released.

OK, so some of things elements are implicit in the books. Marlowe's morality was as probably as outdated in 1940s Hollywood as it was in the same town 30 years later, and the ending of Chandler's novel The High Window is at least as enigmatic as the endings of these two films, in the fact that the true guilty parties are never punished.

Also, both films are in keeping with their era. A trait they share with another underrated Marlowe film, the 1978 remake of The Big Sleep with Robert Mitchum (which for my money is better than the Bogart/Hawks version any day for being much closer to the book, despite being directed by perennial journeyman Michael Winner) is that of being updated to the-then present day. However, Winner goes a step further than Bogart or Altman by moving the action to Britain -- a glossy, glamorous London, unrecognisable as such to those who lived there at the time, to be sure, and as much a fantasy as Bay City in Chandler country -- but this change in locale underscores the universality of the world Chandler had created.

The crimes in all these stories would not be out of place today and had their equivalent in the times of that other great Marlowe, Christopher, and his contemporary, Shakespeare. The small, mucky, grubby crimes of the Quests, the Wades/Lennoxes and the Sternwoods, as well as the perpetually corrupt police and double-dealing officials, small-time reporters and shiftless grifters, are as true of the real underworld today as they were when Chandler wrote his stories, or even a thousand years before that.

In Marlowe, it is human nature that is on display, and the themes of the story -- family breakdown, blackmail, murder and someone with the courage to stand up against such human excrescence -- would work as well in the internet age as the did in 1969. Perhaps even better.

It's true this film has faded more than The Long Goodbye. Its obvious back projection and TV-style photography sometimes let it down and the fashions look more dated than in the other Marlowe films of the same era, despite being only a little older than them. (Indeed, it plays as trail-run for Garner's later TV success, The Rockford Files.) But for all that, it is as entertaining and as thought-provoking as Altman's film, and Garner's performance carries the whole thing effortlessly along. It is an unjustly ignored treasure rather than a guilty pleasure.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Give it a chance
11 March 2014
Reading the reviews of this made me feel as if I'd been in a completely different film from everyone else.

This is not a bad film at all, but it is not a rip-roaring auctioneer for the brain dead either, thank goodness. It puts most modern action films to shame.

Good ensemble cast, good story and I thought a decent script. Certainly not the catastrophe many others here say. Give it a go, it's worth watching.

Reading the reviews, I can only think other people were seeking the boys' own heroics of Kelly's Heroes or The Guns of Navarone. If that's what you're expecting, you may well be disappointed, but if you're looking for something more sensitive and less fantastic, then this will do more than entertain.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Hi, ho, Silver, away!
10 August 2013
What are the critics on? I do not understand their reaction to this film. It's a great mix of spaghetti and classic western influences (see if you can spot For a Few Dollars More, Once Upon A Time in the West and Little Big Man references, not to mention True Grit, to name a few), Indiana Jones and, oh yes, the Lone Ranger! My one criticism is it's too long, but a rip roaring finale and the William Tell Overture more than make up for it! I hope Disney is not put off from doing a sequel, as the studio was with last year's equally under-rated John Carter of Mars effort. I say hi-ho, Silver, as far as a follow-up is concerned! Wreck the critics' day and give it a try.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Intelligent Sci-fi from a past age
2 October 2004
I'm fed up with reading about how bad the spfx are supposed to be in this film. Personally, I blame Christopher Lee for saying bad things about them in his biography. Actually, this film is not bad. It is a story about ordinary people in an extra-ordinary situation (an alien invasion). The people are stuck in a claustrophobic setting (a pub on an island) and it's about how they confront what's facing them. This is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book it is based on. It's more character than spfx lead, and I suppose this is the problem for modern audiences who have short attention spans and lack the ability to follow a scene that lasts for more than 3 seconds. Still, if you like sci-fi from an age when people had brain cells (ie, HG Wells, Jules Verne, John Wyndham, etc...) and don't mind spfx that could have come from the early Dr Who serials and the original Star Trek series, then you may well enjoy this film. If you happen to think Star Wars was the greatest film ever made, then don't bother -- it'll be way above your head.
52 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What's the difference between a Ghoul and Zombie?
25 July 2004
I have to say I have never read such ill-informed postings anywhere in my life as I have from those people who dislike this film. Normally, if people don't like films I like I don't care much. But your lack of knowledge has got to me and I have to let you know.

To start with – those people who complain the zombies in this film don't eat people. Well, I'm afraid you're confusing ZOMBIES with GHOULS. Don't worry, you are in good company. George A Romero is apparently equally as stupid, because he doesn't know the difference either. GHOULS eat the flesh of human beings. ZOMBIES do not.

ZOMBIES are people who have been put into a death-like state in order to fulfil the role of slave to those who have mastery over them. Here is the second mistake of the ill-informed – the George A Romero films and their ilk aren't really about ZOMBIES at all, but about GHOULS. OK, he doesn't know the difference and neither did you, but maybe you do now.

I could go on (does anyone really think that `Night of the Living Dead' is superior to `Plague of the Zombies'? If so, they must be the kinds of people who find Ewok movies emotionally satisfying). However, I will just finish by advising anyone who has been stimulated to anything like a moment of would-be intellectualism to take a look into the religion of Voodoo. They will find a fascinating mixture of Catholic and ancient African religions. They may also realise that zombie-ism is merely a metaphor. A zombie has been buried in the ground, and dug up again and their soul now belongs to their new master.

Zombie-ism is a metaphor for the slavery that turned Voodoo into a religion in the first place. The slaves who practised it had been buried (in the holds of ships) and when they emerged they were under the control of new masters and their soul was not their own. Voodoo emerges as a way the slaves explained (to themselves) what had happened to them and coped with their new state.

People comparing this film with Romero's rubbish are not comparing like with like. There are few real `zombie' films. `I Walked with a Zombie', `White Zombie', and `The Plague of the Zombies' are three rare films that do explore the meanings and background of zombie-ism. "Plague" is thoughtful, intelligent and well acted and does not make an elementary confusion between GHOUL and ZOMBIE. Hooray, at least, for that.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
He Knew it was a good TV series
9 May 2004
Brilliant adapatation of Trollope's long novel. The actress playing Dorothy is particularly luminous, although all the cast perform well (especially Palmer and James as parents of poor Emily). The social norms and rules may seem strange to a modern audience, but this sort of thing kept Victorian readers on the edge of the seats. The setting was moved from Exeter to Wells for the serial as Wells is more unspoilt (a beautiful Cathedral City in Somerset for those unfamiliar with the UK). Vicars' Close, unchanged since Victorian times, and the Cathedral Close are used particularly well by the production crew.

Trollope wrote some 49 novels, although few would adapt as well as this to the small screen. Hopefully the DVD release will follow soon.
27 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All Gas and Gaiters (1966–1971)
"Another sherry, Bishop?"
22 February 2004
This is a wonderful TV series. In reality, there are 33 episodes (including the pilot in the BBC's Comedy Playhouse series), although only 11 have survived the massive destruction of video and film material that took place at the BEEB in the early 70s.

The wonderful cast play members of a cathedral ecclesiastical community, who constantly in-fight amongst themselves. There is the Bishop (Mervyn), the Archdeacon (Hare) and the chaplain, Noote (Nimmo), who are lazy, ineffectual and enjoy life's pleasures. This triumvirate is engaged in a constant battle of wits against the reforming and high-church Dean (Baron, sadly the two seasons with Clark in the role have not survived).

It's not always about big belly laughs, but it's more gentle and enjoyable than the sickly sweet `Vicar of Dibley'. In fact, it owes much to Anthony Trollope's Barchester Cathedral series of novels. The humour is more akin to that of the Will Hay films or Capt. Mainwearing in `Dad's Army', where the joy is in watching incompetent people tackle tasks beyond their scope.

I loved this series as a child.

For real buffs, there was also a BBC radio series with Baron, Mervyn and Hare in their original roles, although Nimmo only appeared in 13 of the 33 episodes, being replaced by his friend Jonathan Cecil (who also wrote his obit in "The Times") for the remainder.

Sadly, another BBC series, "Oh, Brother!", in a similar vein, made at the same time and also starring Nimmo, also seems to have similarly suffered as reportedly only 9 of the original 19 episodes have survived.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All Gas and Gaiters (1966–1971)
"More sherry, Bishop?"
19 February 2004
This is a wonderful TV series. In reality, there are 33 episodes (including the pilot in the BBC's Comedy Playhouse series), although only 11 have survived the massive destruction of material that took place at the BEEB in the early 70s.

The wonderful cast play members of a cathedral ecclesiastical community, who constantly in-fight amongst themselves. There is the Bishop (Mervyn), the Archdeacon (Hare) and the chaplain, Noote (Nimmo), who are lazy, ineffectual and enjoy life's pleasures. This triumvirate is engaged in a constant battle of wits against the reforming and high-church Dean (Baron, sadly the two seasons with Clark in the role have not survived).

It's not always about big belly laughs. The humour is more akin to that of the Will Hay films or Capt. Mainwearing in `Dad's Army', where the joy is in watching incompetent people tackle tasks beyond their scope.

I loved this series as a child and the BBC, under licence, has recently released the surviving episodes, which are fortunately available on Amazon.co.uk.

For real buffs, there was also a BBC radio series with Baron, Mervyn and Hare in their original roles, although Nimmo only appeared in 13 of the 33 episodes, being replaced by his friend Jonathan Cecil. Many of these are available on OTR sites in the US (that's Old Time Radio) in MP3 format. The BEEB would have a little treasure trove on its hands if it would release these on CD, I'm sure.

Sadly, another BBC series, "Oh, Brother!", in a similar vein, made at the same time and also starring Nimmo, also seems to have suffered as reportedly only 9 of the original 19 episodes have survived.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed