Marco_Trevisiol

This romantic triangle comedy never reaches great heights but is enjoyable and pleasant most of the way. In one of her earliest roles, McClements is very good as the wife unaware of her husband's philandering and planning to leave her and largely carries the film.

The central premise isn't really convincing; would one of the biggest pop stars in the world who gets his every whim catered to be happy with a weekend away at a modest abode with only the rock promoter and his wife there to assist?

But it gets by with this iffy premise to be an entertaining timewaster... until the final 15 minutes when it goes off the rails once the husband's philandering is discovered by all.

Firstly, there's an extremely silly scene where the husband (in a desperate attempt to stop his wife running off with the pop star) manages to erect several painted signs for her on the road professing his love for her. Not only is it corny, but logistically impossible and takes the film down a notch.

As well the film misguidedly ends with the husband and wife reconciling. This 'happy ending' seems much too generous to the husband (played by Colin Friels) who is not only having an affair but is shown to be immature and self-absorbed and having little empathy for his wife. Clearly the filmmakers like this character more than audiences would have.

It's a shame the film ends on some dud notes as it's a pleasant throwaway for the most part.

One of Dean Martin's least-known films and while not a total success, it's fairly enjoyable.

The initial scenes feel like a fairly conventional romantic comedy but once Turner's plan to be Martin's secret bookie gets into full motion, it becomes a full blown farce.

And as a farce, it's a pretty good one. It develops some fine momentum with running gags (like the car collision scene or whenever Jack Albertson's policeman character appears) and revelling in the consequences and complications of when Turner's plan gets out of hand.

Alas, when the film tries to wrap up its convoluted goings on, it runs out of steam and the final 15-20 minutes are fairly cumbersome and unfunny.

The cast is stacked with talented performers; perhaps too stacked as several are underused. For example, Eddie Albert as Martin's friend and work colleague is funny and amusing but because of the plot goes missing for long stretches in the film's second half.

The one weakness in the cast is Lana Turner, someone who I never found to be a particularly interesting performer. She is competent in her role but doesn't have the same comedic mindset as the rest of the cast and as a result her character is easily the dullest in the film.

So while not what it could've been, this film is an amusing timewaster. It's certainly better than a lot of other films Martin made in the 1960s.

This biopic of legendary Australian swimmer Dawn Fraser sunk without trace when first released and everything I've read about it over the years has been negative.

I've been curious to view this film over the years to see what went wrong and after finally having watched it... it's actually not that bad.

To be sure there are significant flaws in it. The biggest problem is that it never answers the question of how someone as rebellious and defiant as Fraser was managed to obtain the relentless discipline and training to become a champion swimmer. We see her constantly flouting authority, struggling with the lack of financial incentive swimming had in that era (especially as she came from a working-class family) and yet she still becomes one of the greatest swimmers of the 20th century. Obviously she had considerable talent but something motivated her to put the work in to reach these heights and the film offers nothing in that regard.

Also, the film is rather shoddy at times for a technical perspective, especially when it comes to the Olympic events themselves. The final of Fraser's win at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics looks like it was filmed at a local suburban pool.

Where the film does work though as a characterisation of Fraser, especially after her swim career ends (roughly the last third of the film). We see someone not well-equipped to deal with real life after becoming a national icon; she has regular relationship troubles, caring for her child and finding a satisfying role in life post-swimming. It's not told melodramatically as standard biopics are but with realism; it's all the more interesting for it.

And the ending of this film sums it up. There's no grand finale - triumphant or disastrous. It just ends in a very matter-of-fact style with Fraser going to her local pub and catching up with friends. The film seems to be taking the perspective that while her life has been struggle post-swimming, she still has her health and friends and will always be revered as an Australian sporting legend. Life goes on from her. It's quite a mature viewpoint for the film to take.

A lot of the criticism for the film centred around the performance of Bronwyn Mackay-Payne that it wasn't up to standard (she never acted again). But in a funny way it suits the film well as this isn't a traditional biopic requiring an actor to convince in Hollywood-style melodramatic triumphs and failures. Her reserved, diffident performance feels like a convincing portrayal of how Fraser would've been in real life.

Overall, 'Dawn!' isn't a lost classic of any sort. It has lots of flaws and issues. But it's better than its reputation and worth seeking out for those interested in the first half of Fraser's life.

It's a pity 'A City's Child' has slipped into obscurity as it's notable not only as one of the very first films of the 1970s Australian film industry renaissance but on its own terms is quite a beguiling work.

It's a story deliberately lacking in detail - we never know any of the names of the characters in the film - and relies on the viewer to observe the central character to make their own interpretations. What is fantasy and what is reality? The revelation at the end makes this question even more complex.

The central character is a middle-aged woman (Monica Maughan) who lives with her mother and has clearly been treated horribly by her all her life. When the mother dies of a heart attack (all before the opening credits!) the film's central focus is how will this repressed woman who has been belittled and humiliated all her life handle the real world now that she has some relative freedom? Not surprisingly, it turns out to be quite a struggle.

The film isn't for all tastes as very little happens narratively and even at its short running time the film feels over-stretched, especially on its tiny budget.

But it's a surprisingly compelling study of a repressed middle-aged person dealing with her own wants and desires for the first time. The film is helped by Maughan's performance in the central role, one of the earliest in her distinguished and lengthy career.

Worth seeking out.

If you know anything about "The Concorde... Airport '79", you'll know it's an infamously terrible film that not only ended the Airport series but probably played a role in ending the disaster film craze.

There's no real point in going through all the things that are wrong with this film as they've been well-documented by other reviews on here. Instead I thought I'd focus on the good aspects of the film. Admittedly they're hard to find but they are there:

• Susan Blakely's performance is pretty good, especially considering how little she has to work with. While so many others in this film are just phoning it in like Robert Wagner or hamming it up, Blakely really seems to be taking her role seriously. It's wasted in a film like this, but I respect her for putting the effort in.

• The early scene where Blakely's character is chased by an assassin around her apartment and then on top of her greenhouse is quite well done and exciting. Especially compared with how shoddy all the action scenes on the Concorde itself are.

• A lengthy action scene at a Paris airport where a saboteur is being chased by security. It's excitingly done, well staged and makes good use of its airport location. Definitely the best segment of the film.

To be sure the film deserves its reputation as a trite dud... but even films as bad as this have their redeeming qualities.

Richard Todd was a notable acting figure in the British film industry for roughly 15 years. He was Oscar-nominated for his first major role and then had a starring role in an Alfred Hitchcock film. From then on he was a reliable acting presence in array of action and war films giving convincing performances.

But his acting persona and style had fallen out of favour by the mid-1960s as kitchen-sink dramas and 'Swinging London' type films became popular. The drying up of roles perhaps disorientated him as that's the only way one can explain his appearance in the American film 'The Love-Ins'.

The film is a cheap and tedious take on the counter-culture sweeping America at the time. What is surprising is for an exploitation picture, apart from an 'Alice In Wonderland' LSD sequence, it's not even entertaining as camp.

But the film's most dispiriting aspect is Todd's performance. In the central role of playing a supposedly Timothy Leary-like figure that captures the hearts and minds of San Francisco youth, Todd is totally unconvincing and displays none of the charisma or personality such a role required. His inability to even attempt to adjust his usual acting style just underlines how miscast he is.

In a career with many quality films and performances, this is a sad career low.

The comedy farce 'She'll Have To Go' about a pair of brothers who - when their indulgent lifestyle is threatened - plan murder, starts off quite brightly.

The dialogue between the brothers and their butler is fairly sharp and lively with some good chuckles to be had. Alas, director Asher doesn't seem to have confidence in the material as he inserts various 'wacky' visual tricks that are jarring and irritating.

In anycase the film gets weaker the longer it goes on. Notwithstanding Hattie Jaques' amusing performance, her journalist character could have easily been excised from the film without anything being lost. And the final 20 minutes or so are particularly tedious and dreary.

The film does gain an extra level of interest though with Anna Karina's presence and not just because she does well in her role. To see someone who is on the verge of becoming an icon of the cutting-edge French New Wave appear in an old-hat British stage farce mixed with a dollop of 'Carry On' style bawdy humour is curiously fascinating.

It's not surprising this crime melodrama reminds one of the series of 1960s Edgar Wallace 'B' movies as they're both made by the low-budget Merton Park Studios.

But while 'The Floating Dutchman' isn't inspired on any level, it's better than the typical Wallace series movie because (even at only an hour's length) they were so routine and dreary they were tedious to get through.

That's because veteran director Vernon Sewell has enough skill to make this conventional and thin story moderately enjoyable to watch. For example with great efficiency he manages to set up the entire plot within the first 5 minutes.

That's not to say the film is not without its problems. Even at a short 74 minute running time the story drags on occasion.

And there are numerous issues with the plot. Basic events in the narrative like what happened to Rose Reid's brother remain unanswered.

As well, it seems hard to believe that for such an experienced criminal that Skinner never considers the possibility Dermot Walsh's character is really a cop; even though he's constantly told by colleagues that he can't be trusted!

And the biggest problem occurs at the end: even though Skinner is a major criminal the police have been after for years, when he's finally apprehended he has barely any police protection and escapes with laughable ease.

Despite those issues and the very low budget, 'The Floating Dutchman' is a decent enough timewaster.

This film - a nostalgic look back at early 1960s America - initially has a lot going for it. The early scenes with single mother Kay Harris (Terri Garr) struggling with the pressures of troublemaking kids and an irascible aunt who leads the children into more mischief are amusing, fast-paced and generally engaging.

But once the plot switches to Kay inherting a rundown diner the film slowly goes downhill. The miracle narrative that takes over the film is predictable and uninteresting with an inept finale.

More significantly, too many new characters are introduced in the second half so that the film not only feels chaotic and messy, but that the central family we followed with interest in the first half feels like an afterthought. Especially so with Garr's character who becomes a supporting role in a film where she's supposedly the central character.

Overall, the film isn't too bad but should've been better than the afternoon TV timewaster that it is. Particularly so for the underrated Garr who after 15 years of impressive work saw her film career ebb away due to flops like this.

You would think a film with this cast, a promising plot and lots of action could be anything but one big yawn yet 'Avalanche Express' achieves it.

The death of director Mark Robson during production is often cited as a prime reason why this film misfired but - while obviously a tragic and difficult event for the film to deal with - Robson had directed several clunky & heavy-handed films in the previous decade and his best work was well behind him.

There's not much positive that can be said for the film, suffice to say that technically its use of real locations helps it a bit and the avalanche sequence is reasonably well done.

But apart from that the most notable feat of 'Avalanche Express' is that it somehow connives a dreary performance of the usually always compelling Lee Marvin.

'Memoirs of a Survivor' is a film that really can't be recommended. It's slow, obscure and poorly directed. One suspects that it would be a lot more interesting for people who've read the source novel but a film needs to exist on its own and the filmmaking isn't good enough to do it.

But despite it being largely tedious and dreary, in another way I found it mildly admirable. It makes no attempts to be a 'commercial' sci-fi film and wants to tell its odd story in its own way. While it isn't successful on that score, it maintains a sense of integrity.

I have similar feelings about Julie Christie and her performance. On one hand she plays such a passive, inert character that her significant talents are wasted. But in another way it's admirable that she decided to take such an unusual role in an ambitious film when she could've easily coasted along in Hollywood in bland big-budget blockbusters.

Overall, 'Memoirs of a Survivor' is a failure as a film, but its effort and ambition are to be admired.

This story of a suave ad exec (Roger Moore) getting caught up in an assassination plot never reaches great heights. As well, the film is blighted by cheap special effects, especially the regular use of obvious rear projection that makes scenes like the death of the chief villain in the action finale laughable instead of captivating.

Despite all that, the film is a fun timewaster. This is partly because the film's plot is fast-paced and inventive enough to keep one interested and the location footage of London (when they're not using rear projection) right at the end of the Swinging Sixties is fascinating to see.

But the film's main asset is Moore. While he was never perceived as a great actor, he always had plenty of charisma and charm and he utilises that to be a likable roguish hero who helps keep one interested throughout.

While no classic, 'Crossplot' is a pleasant diversion and especially interesting to see why the producers of James Bond thought Moore would be a good fit for the role.

It's hard to believe that a writer like David Williamson, who wrote terrific screenplays for films like "The Club" and "Don's Party" could make a dull film. It's hard to believe that director Tim Burstall, who'd collaborated with Williamson on the flawed but fascinating "Petersen", could make a dull film.

But unfortunately "Duet For Four" is a dull film.

This drama about a middle-aged businessman dealing with overseas takeover attempts, his ex-wife, troubled daughter and current partner seems potentially interesting but none of Williamson's usual incisiveness or Burstall's bluntness is on display.

It just ambles from one narrative incident to another without much passion or purpose. One suspects if DFF had been made in the mid-1970s it would've reflected the tumult, upheaval and radicalisation of that era and a more impassioned film would've resulted. But instead it feels complacent and safe.

That's not to say DFF is a horrible film. It's fairly easy to watch and has an interesting cast, including Diane Cilento in one of her rare post-1970 roles.

But overall this is a forgettable film and one of Williamson's weakest screenplays.

At surface level it would be easy to dismiss 'Night Of The Generals' because from a purely cinematic perspective it has a lot of flaws:

* Some rather stilted direction from Anatole Litvak * Flashbacks awkwardly and randomly inserted * Distraction of German characters speaking with a variety of non-German accents (including Gordon Jackson in his traditional Scottish accent!) * Unnecessary scenes (such as Christopher Plummer's cameo as Rommel) that could've easily been excised

But on a broader level, NOTG is quite a fascinating film. Its observations on the importance of pursuing criminal acts even in wartime, how even those who commit heinous acts in wartime will be forgiven if they live long enough and the impact on individuals and general society WW2 even a generation onwards are quite profound.

In a funny way, if NOTG had been a slicker, smoother film it might have been less effective. It's so ambitious in the territory it covers and how it covers it that you genuinely don't know where the film will go next. As a result, the scene where Colonel Grau is murdered comes out of the blue and is genuinely shocking like few deaths I can recall seeing in a film.

To be sure, 'Night Of The Generals' is a far from perfect film. But in terms of a commentary on WW2 and its ramifications, its one of the best I've seen.

Even though they have a lousy reputation I've generally been a fan of Elvis Presley films. Many of them provide breezy, painless fun with some good songs thrown in.

Unfortunately, there's precious little entertainment in 'Frankie And Johnny' which is especially frustrating as a lot of the elements are there for a satisfying film such as a workable plot, good supporting cast and colourful sets.

But this feels boring and lifeless from the word go. Elvis deserves some of the blame as - apart from 'The Trouble With Girls' - I can't recall him giving such a dull performance.

But the real culprit is Frederick De Cordova who directs the film so lifelessly and lazily that the film never has a chance.

Take for example the finale where it's been set up by a supporting character that in their staged musical number Frankie will shoot Johnnie with a real bullet instead of a blank. She does shoot him and appears to have killed him but through a stroke of remarkable luck he is unharmed. All this and the culprit is forgotten 15 seconds later for the upbeat closing musical number!

Even amongst his mid to late 1960s work, you can do much better if you're searching for an Elvis film to watch.

With an acclaimed murder-mystery novel that had a great subversive, twist ending as its source, "Trent's Last Case" should've been cracking entertainment.

Alas, the director is Herbert Wilcox who had a lengthy and largely successful career but even his popular films haven't aged well due to his pedestrian, uninventive style and he's a forgotten figure today.

His patented conservative, dreary direction largely sinks this film almost immediately. The early segment at the coroner's inquest is so boring one struggles to maintain interest. The film does improve a bit though once Trent begins to investigate and challenge the official version of events.

And there are some nice performances from a very good cast. Orson Welles displays another of his vivid characterisations in his brief role. John McCallum gives an impressive performance as someone with plenty to hide; his facial reactions when Trent reveals he knows most of his secrets makes the scene quite compelling.

However, overall this film is a major disappointment. The final scene which tries to be both a revelation of who the actual murderer was AND be a romantic ending is especially poorly handled.

A look at the credits for this film suggest that this should've been one of the prime British films of the decade. A quality cast led by Glynis Johns, Donald Sinden and Peter Finch, a screenwriter (Nigel Bachin) who had written the excellent drama 'Mandy' and helmed by the famed producer/director combo Boulting Brothers at the peak of their careers.

And yet, while 'Josephine And Men' should be an entertainingly light, frothy comedy, it turns out to be a stagy, silly, flat misfire.

A big problem seems to be that the Boulting brothers are atypically for this period aren't directing one of their own scripts. Their style of comedy was usually satirical and full of cartoonish characters; with a comic romantic script they seem totally lost and the film never comes to life.

The quality cast is largely left floundering with their characters and a silly plot. Peter Finch (who would do much better in 'Simon And Laura' from the same year) is especially wasted.

Only some nicely delivered one-liners from Jack Buchanan deliver any spark.

This tense drama - about a disturbed man locked in his apartment room wanted by the police and seemingly in an untenable situation - is quite unusual in its structure.

Apart from the studio and title of the film, there are no opening credits. There is no background music and the film takes place in 'real time'. These are challenging restrictions for a film but director Don Chaffey does a largely splendid job.

The secret to the film's success is that it doesn't excessively focus on the central character (played by Richard Attenborough in his typically intense, brooding style) but places him in the context of the law, support organisations and ordinary citizens (represented by other tenants of the building).

The film deftly creates a range of characterisations who either want to help or apprehend 'the man upstairs' or just have him out of their way for their own personal reasons. It highlights how a character in the plight that Attenborough's is in is reliant on sensible, selfless and practical measures by those around him to not potentially ruin his life.

While not a classic, 'The Man Upstairs' is a fine film, worth seeking out.

In many ways, watching "Percy's Progress" is a depressing experience.

Not only because it was a failure as a comedy, but that the quality cast it assembled and capable director/producer team had seen much better days and illustrated how much of a rut the UK film industry was in the mid-1970s

The film's humour, a predictably endless series of double-entendres, is generally tedious.

Having said that, it could've been worse and is a slight improvement on the original 1971 film, "Percy".

This is because "Percy" tried to have it's cake and eat it too; be both a low-brow sex comedy and a serious analysis of the central character's predicament (and unsuccessful on both counts). This resulted in star Hywel Bennett's sad sack performance which belonged in another film.

At least "Percy's Progress" doesn't pretend it's anything other than a bawdy sex comedy and is a bit livelier than it's predecessor. It's farcical elements aren't particularly funny, but at least it's trying.

And there are minor pleasures in the performances. As the central character (although actually playing a different person from the first film technically), Leigh Lawson is an improvement on Bennett and is a fairly amiable rogue of a character.

And there are inevitable minor pleasures from a strong cast, including Corbett in an enjoyable performance as a Harold Wilson- type PM. And any film that has Vincent Price in it is always raised a level or two.

But overall, apart from being curio of 1970s UK cinema, this is a film not worth seeking out.

It's a pity 'The Passionate Stranger' isn't better as - by the standards of English 1950's mainstream cinema - it has some interesting and daring ideas.

Having a fantasy sequence (based on a manuscript written by the lead female character) takes up virtually half the film; quite a bold move when the easy option would be to devote 10-15 minutes to it. The fantasy sequence is filmed in colour while the 'real' sequence is in black & white - it's very rare to find a film from any era split in this format.

And the attempts to say something on the contrast between the florid melodrama in romantic literature and how the subtleties of real married life are potentially much richer have great potential.

Alas, 'The Passionate Stranger' doesn't really work. The sluggish fantasy sequence in particular is a weakness as it could've been told in half the time.

And there are too many sloppy & unconvincing aspects to the narrative. Considering he has limited English skills, how is Carlo (Carlo Giustini) able to read an entire novel manuscript so quickly and ably? Why couldn't Judith (Margaret Leighton) put even a slight effort to not make her 'Mario' character somewhat different from Carlo?

Weakest of all, the entire post-fantasy closing segment is reliant on the Carlo completely changing his personality on the basis of a fiction manuscript. His going from a sincere, well-meaning personality to a lecherous and idiotic fool doesn't convince on any level; it also shows the film to have a rather patronising attitude to its 'foreign' character.

While not a success, 'The Passionate Stranger' isn't without its pleasures, in particular the performances of Leighton and Richardson (underused in this film), who create such an enjoyable dynamic as a couple in the 'real' section you wish there had been more of it.

When 'Emerald City' was released, expectations on it would presumably have been high. A quality cast including the underrated John Hargreaves, then young rising star Nicole Kidman and solid acting talent in Robyn Nevin and Chris Haywood.

But even more significant for that was that David Williamson had written it, based on his own play. And Williamson had as much box-office clout as anyone in the Oz film industry at the time, having helmed numerous successful films (sometimes based on his own plays) ranging from Don's Party to Phar Lap.

Alas, when released in 1988 the film was a disappointment as it received little critical praise, minimal box office and was quickly forgotten. Why was this?

What lets it down is that instead of feeling like a film on its own terms, it feels like a filmed version of the play. The theatrical style comes through in the overacting and the lack of a cinematic feel, so therefore it feels like actors acting instead of characters behaving and interacting. As a result the potential impact is muted.

The blame for this is largely at director Michael Jenkins, whose career was largely in TV and it shows. His efforts here pale in comparison to that of Bruce Beresford, who made excellent films out of two David Williamson plays in Don's Party & The Club.

Despite that, the film is worth a look. Being a Williamson play, there are plenty of good lines and scenes with some occasional incisiveness at the artistic milieu the film concentrates on.

The four main actors are all entertaining to watch (although Hargreaves is a bit over-the-top at times), with probably the best performance by Robyn Nevin who makes her character multi-faceted and surprising and convincing.

Overall, a missed opportunity but not bad.

'The Frightened City' stars both Sean Connery and Herbert Lom just before their iconic appearances in the Bond & Pink Panther series respectively (although Lom already had a substantial film career before The Pink Panther series).

But it wasn't the first time they appeared together, having appeared in 1957's 'Hell Drivers'. And it's this comparison that weakens TFC as while both films are similarly hard-nosed, rough-edged action films, HD is superior more interesting characters, compelling drama and more vivid action scenes.

That isn't to say TFC is a bad film - it's solidly entertaining with a good atmosphere and Connery displaying the charisma that was about to make him a major star (plus a nicely underplayed turn from Lom as the villain). But it's too conventional in its plotting and lacking great action scenes to be up to HD's level.

Still, TFC is a decent film and worth a look

It's somewhat strange how this cheery and pleasing film has been almost totally forgotten today - perhaps in part despite its 'Swinging London' ethos that it was filmed in black & white?

Michael Winner's 1960s films were noted for their vivid and lively style, and it's a pity that when he moved to Hollywood in the early 1970s he seemed to lose that style and his films became defined by being dour, downbeat and often quite nasty.

Back to YMBJ, acting standouts include Lionel Jeffries who steals the film with his funny performance just as he did a few years previously with 'The Wrong Arm of the Law' and Terry-Thomas in a small but typically very amusing performance.

The film's finale is a bit messy and incoherent, but otherwise the film is full of good fun and laughs.

'The Oracle' is a frustrating film as the potential for a charming fantasy/comedy is there, but because of some odd narrative choices the film never really delivers.

The first half of the film is centred on a struggling newspaperman (Michael Medwin), whom on an holiday in a remote Irish town discovers it contains an oracle located down a well that is used by locals to solve everyday problems. Inevitably he begins using it to develop his own career.

Then, the second half of the film is largely based around the newspaper and its brash editor (Robert Beatty) dealing with the moral implications of providing information to the general public, especially when it comes to the question of whether another world war will result.

Both halves have some value. The first half has some charm with likable characters and picturesque Irish seaside setting. The second half deals with the moral and social implications of knowing the future in a relatively intelligent and serious manner.

But the two halves don't really mesh - the first half is focused on Medwin's character yet he's largely an afterthought in the second half. The film's genial, light-hearted atmosphere in the Irish segment awkwardly contrasts with the increasingly dour segment in the English newspaper office where the topic of the future of humanity even comes up.

As well, the film probably lacks the panache to be a really successful light comedy. For example, the film has the original idea of the voice of the Oracle complains about the opening and ending credits but it isn't as funny as it should be.

Still, it's not a bad film and worth seeking out for seeing the likes of Medwin and Virginia McKenna at the start of their careers.

Carl Reiner's debut feature 'Enter Laughing' deserves to be better known than it is. Very sweet, likable and often funny, it almost makes you wish a TV series had resulted from this where you could follow the further adventures of David Kolowitz as he continues his acting pursuits.

There are many fine performances from a standout cast but the highlight is Elaine May who is funny, sexy and charming as David's acting counterpart. Michael J. Pollard is also impressive in his too brief role.

The film has some minor flaws. It struggles to escape its stage origins and at times feels like a recording of a play instead of fully cinematic piece. It doesn't have a great 1930s feel to it, partly because of budget constraints and partly because several of the actors (especially Nancy Kovack) have 1960s hairstyles.

But overall, 'Enter Laughing' is a charming film, well worth seeking out.