qrt7

This film certainly has gained cult status for me and my friends. Yes it's puerile, tasteless and VERY 80's but that's what makes it worthwhile.

Don't bother with the first half of the film (it's pants). Have something beforehand to make you laugh, read the DVD box and get straight to the beach and a dead Bernie and watch from there. The physical humour is excellent. You'll have tears in your eyes.

So bad it's almost great.

3/10 for the first half. 9/10 for the second half. 6/10 overall.

Film and TV students, use this as a case study of why the British film industry was internationally sniggered at for years until Four Weddings & a Funeral came out.

Trials and tribulations of smart-mouthed Middle class idiot-boy and upper crust stuck-up American girlie getting it together. Predictably implausable plot. Going through the motions acting. Extended naked writhing to make up for it. The UK's version of Ferris Bueller? That's desperate. No brass in this muck.

Only Jonathan Pryce comes out with some credit. Spader is barely utilised. God knows what he thought of all this. I wonder if he has a copy at his house? Perhaps this and Crash for a James Spader double header at the local Blockbuster? Now there's a thought...

3/10

Vaguely amusing comedy. Hanks is alright, quite a good comedy actor (although he was better in Batchelor Party), as is Dern.

The plot and script are nothing special and the picture passes you by.

They would have been better off hiring Ackroyd or Candy for the part of Art and REALLY gone for it. Instead in potters in like like an athlete in 16th place in the 10,000m.

Good to see the Tom Hanks Appreciation Society so active.

5/10

Lets make no bones about it, Dambusters is a film stuck in its time - just a look at some of the 'special effects' is enough to prove that, which is a shame, as a bit more care and attention would have at least removed the cringe factor. The editing and direction of some of the film also leaves a lot to be desired at times, the tension should be at level 8 for most of the film and at 11 for the last quarter, but barely manages to get near seven until the last 15 minutes. The lack of focus on individuals (with the exception of Wallis and maybe Gibson) is also a bit of a problem - who is who during the raid? The switching from Lancaster to Lancaster is pointless unless the viewer has at least some idea of who is in it! I'm not asking for awful Hollywood character-driven filming, just a little more focus.

There are some good points though, especially Redgraves cracking portrayal of Barnes Wallis and the use of real Lancasters instead of the usual airfix on piece of string. The bombing of the dams is also well executed (except the terrible explosions). The last 15 minutes is pretty good, especially post raid - showing tiredness in every sense of the word. None of the Pearl Harbour histrionics.

The dog - well, that was its name. Whether Gibson used the name for its Latin meaning or just plain offensiveness I don't know. But it's historical fact. And it was upper-middle class Britain the 1940's. Take it as a lesson in hindsight rather than a terrible problem.

Essentially, this film feels perfunctory - tell the story, put in some FX and finish. If this film was remade lovingly with a director who could keep within history it would be corking, but I doubt in this day and age that will happen.

6

I wasn't expecting much from this film, but I was pretty surprised at the laughs it got from me. The film is quite dated in a 70's sex farce way, but that also works well in its favour for retro buffs and Carry On fans. The pace is a little plodding to begin with, but picks up well after 20 minutes and really carries a fast pace through to the end.

The plot (like it's important) centres around dodgy pornography being sent to a bank by accident with predictably hilarious consequences...

British viewers will also have fun spotting the large amount of well known names in the film (Ronnie Corbett, Arthur Lowe, David Swift, Frank Thornton, A bloke from On the Buses etc), who all put in good comedy turns. Plus, being a sex farce, you also get to see Valerie Leon and Margeret Nolan running round in their smalls. Bonus!

Definately one to watch with a beer on a bank holiday monday...

A good 7.

Not much to say about this. Except that it's terrible. This film seemed to be trying (and utterly failing) to be 'knowing' (the portrayal of Peel and Steed, throwing sarcastic one liners at each other - but ending up simply appearing to talk to camera), and more camp than a weekend at Butlins (Izzard, Peel again). It made me wish this was a stage show so I could pelt the actors with rotten fruit.

One to prove that Charles Darwin's theory hasn't affected the output of the film industry.

Get this rubbish off my telly.

1/10

***Teensie Spoliers!***

This is a film of two halves.

The first half is fairly standard story of little boy makes good in big city and catching a laydee along the way, spiced up by some fairly memorable scenes (i.e. stripping in the lift, the four mains running around trying to get into each others beds).

The second half is the grossout of these ideas into a big-haired shoulder-padded 80's slick. This young man liked the company so much, he did a Remington. Yeah! 30,000 employees! Big bucks! Woah Momma!!! Perhaps if the ending hadn't been so mega, I might have liked it more. Most over the top. But it's a feel-good movie I guess, so it's not a huge blow.

It's an O.K. film, quite enjoyable nonetheless. Although I found MJF's mono-acting a bit on the dreary side. In the 80's he only had three facial expressions.

6.5/10.

Herman Munster Rocks!!!!

The trailers for this movie indicated a Blair Witch rip-off. In actual fact the movie was far removed from the trailers implications. Although this has been criticised, I thought it was a strength as the actual plot is significantly different to what is being expected. That keeps you in the cinema and fixed to the screen which I feel is a strength.

I would agree with other reviewers that the opening sequence is really good, dramatic opener especially the fantastic scream. I then found the movie went in fits and starts rather than a sustained assault on the senses. The retelling of the story from the different characters angles added a lot and kept the suspense side up quite well, although I found that the direction was not tight enough in many places and the tension dissipated as a result.

I also felt that there was little interaction with their surroundings and the movie suffered as a result. There was little feeling of a claustrophobic atmosphere and so the ensuing mentalness did come a bit quick.

I was disappointed with Thora Birch, her accent visited most of the old British Empire and at times I just didn't find her too convincing. Her obsession with Mike, the whole basis for the movie did not seem convincing enough which undermined the whole thing to an extent. Her motivation did not seem ‘real' enough. Excellent performances though by Daniel Brocklebank and Kiera Knightley, these two should have a bright future ahead.

The movie picked up again in the last 20 minutes as the emphasis shifted, although the circumstances surrounding the eventual outcome I found a little implausable.

Still, fairly good.

7/10

This is a modern version of Carry-On and I thought it worked pretty well. It didn't promise much apart from a lot of smut and sex. And it delivered it fairly well. Although a bit too stretched out in places the film certainly wasn't dull. There's very little story, but why should there be? It's just a vehicle for over-exaggerrated comic acting and knob gags...if that's what you like, you'll enjoy. If not, don't bother.

I don't get why so many have written to slag the movie, but only along the lines of: "I don't like Harry Enfield, or these kinds of film, so I went to see this movie and it was rubbish, see I knew it would be!" Arrrrghh! What did you bloody go for then? If you've got nothing CONSTRUCTIVE to say, then don't say it all!

Anyway, a respectable,

7/10

So much better in fact, that I was compelled to laugh and enjoy a romantic comedy. Now for a male, that's quite something.

Opinion seems to be divided, but the haters of this film seem to have half-a-dozen main gripes:

1) That Julia Roberts doesn't know whether to do comedy or melodrama. Well, I think she needs to do both. She's not a particularly nice character remember - quite a selfish b*tch.

2) But I want Julia to be lovely and the other one to be horrid! Oh, and fall into the biggest cliché ever? Get a life! Can't you handle unconventional characterization? That's why Jules grows up during the course of the film - normally she's a hard-nose but really can't sustain it against someone who is so nice and emotionally vulnerable!

3) The portrayal of Kimberly is sexist. Yes, but she has squillions of dollars, so does it really matter so much? If I had a squillion dollars, I would probably do the same! She doesn't need to work and she knows it.

4) Dermott Mulroney was a plank. I agree.

5) I couldn't spot the plot coming. Well go watch a Disney movie fool!

6) I didn't like the ending. So? Do you think real life always has a sugary ending? The ending itself is reflective of the whole film. I mean did she actually deserve to have a man? No! Cos she has to go through the film to grow up. That's the point. She's now a more mature person who will get her reward in good time. That's the happy ending. She's become nice and considerate.

So as you can guess, I found the film bright and smart, not too mired in the woman-only scmaltz that surrounds these types of film and in fact subtly exhibited a darker side to the lead heroine that you wouldn't normally be allowed to see.

Rupert Everett puts in a good performance, but the 'gay friend' thing is becoming as stereotyped as the 'high-fiving cra-zeee black man'.

I would recommend this for men. It's pretty watchable without falling into puke-inducing cliché to often. And remember, take it at face value - 'it's just entertainment!'

8.5/10.

Despite having a story that you couldn't make up, this film fails on number of levels.

The acting is duff. Terrible. You need to see it to believe it. No-one comes out of this with any credit to my mind.

There are so many technical flaws, mainly centring around the breathing. Now, it's cold on dem mountains. Yet only occasionally do we see 'white breath'. Mostly its in the same scene when one person has cold breath, yet the guy next to him doesn't! Sometimes, the same guy can have white breath in one line, the camera pans away, then when it comes back the breath has gone!!! How lame is this? Half the time during the night they didn't act like they were cold when they were speaking. When they were just huddled they were fine, but when it was their turn to say something, out it came without a chatter of teeth or anything. I don't know if they used a refrigeration unit on this film, but it's a failure. The Exorcist (made 20 years earlier) did a better job than this on old technology.

The use of crappy metaphors didn't help either. Especially the agnostic. Oh god, save me! Arrgghhhh!

The crash itself is very well done. In parts this film is pretty good, but in others it's just plain rubbish. A far better job could have been done with, what is essentially one of the best stories a director is likely to find.

Unlike some others I refuse to give this sympathy votes because it's based on true story. It only gets a five because the actual event is riveting and even duff film-making can't detract from it. But the rest is a film, a dramatization of events, and not a very good one. Simple.

5/10

A great film this, and a shame that it will receive little attention outside of arthouse circles and students who stay up until two in the morning to watch it on Channel Four.

The plot is a simple one but works very effectively, the blurring between child-like fantasy and hard-hitting nightmare is very well blurred. The budget looks pretty low, but to the credit of those involved it doesn't show too often. It also hasn't dated that much either.

I was lucky enough to tape this off the telly when it was on a few years ago, and it has withstood half-a-dozen viewings. It's one of those films that won't appeal to all; though as usual, those with a more thoughtful approach to cinema would get a lot out of this.

Charlotte Buerke puts in a good performance as Anna, the spoilt brat and it is a shame she seems to have gone from the acting scene. Cross is also very good, carrying the stature of his character very well within the context of the picture.

There are some genuinely (and I don't say that lightly) disturbing moments in this film, both half-second shockers and more drawn-out tensions. Watch it with the lights out!

Highly recommended.

9/10

An absolutely fantastic film that should appeal to anybody. Great, solid acting all round especially by Kline. The comic turns are done to perfection.

The intense cultural divisions between the Brits and the Yanks are played out superbly. It's pretty fast paced, but does not suffer for it as everything is just 'long-enough'. A credit to the direction.

Ken's repeated attempts to kill the old lady by means of a heart attack are some of the funniest in cinema. God help you if you've had some laughter-inducing substance during these scenes. Good comedy is timeless and this a case in point. It has hardly aged.

I'm not too sure about the ending though.

9.5/10

For it's time, this film deals with some pretty advanced stuff, namely computer AI. It's a fairly well executed and quite convincing psychological thriller. Although the computer equipment in the film looks incredibly dated (big chunky TV and lots of flashing primary-colours).

At times I found the movie had a few holes in it, and i'm amazed that Christies character was unable to escape. It only took a bit of nous, but then again, the female character is a bit stereotyped. From that point of view things are a bit predictable. However, once the inevitability of the story is accepted, the dramatic tension as the computer reveals its desire to take human form via Christie is pretty gripping and quite atmospheric, turning bleaker as it the picture progresses.

I'm not sure about the ending though, but I guess it's intended to make the viewer think, so that's fair enough.

Pretty good for a one-off viewing.

7/10

This film is fantastic. Period. The plot and characteristics have been explained quite lucidly elsewhere. So all I want to say is...

The acting, writing, score and direction are first rate. This makes Snatch and Lock Stock look feeble in comparison. This film is truly HARD and takes no prisoners. Caine is fantastic.

I guess that it will not suit everyone's taste. Some will say it is too slow, to British, too laddish, too bleak, outdated scenery etc etc. Minor drawbacks that prevent a perfect 10.

But if you are capable of going into a picture without prejudice, have a concentration span and take things as you find them in an intelligent manner, then I recommend this wholeheartedly. Unforgettable stuff and can withstand repeat viewings.

9.5/10

Ahhh, the 80's. From what I remember of them they were naff. Naff but cool.

True, this film's a marketing exercise in nostalgia but it is funny and charming enough on it's own to stand up regardless of the setting. The old lady rapping was a masterpiece that'll be remembered for a long time.

7.5/10.

This is simply a vehicle for Morgan Freeman's 'brow-furrowing' method of acting. He needs to be pushed a lot more than this murder-by-numbers. Miss bloody Marple could have dealt with this one.

While Freeman struck his usual collection of 'deep-thought' poses I guessed the outcome of the plot halfway through the film.

Avoid.

3/10

Rubbish. Along with Carry on Emmanuelle this is the worst of the series. I've got a lot of time for these films, but this was inexcusable. By this time (1976) the joke was no longer funny and the juice had run dry, as Sid James might have put it.

Only two of the Carry On regulars are in this and even they look bored. The jokes are staid and formulaic, delivered with the speed and panache of a postman. The budget for the film appeared to be £2.50.

Even Windsor Davies' Sergeant's bellowing couldn't save this.

1.5/10

I usually enjoy Michael Caine's stuff, but this one left me feeling quite unfulfilled.

I didn't think he carried the part particularly well, the acting and dialogue did not seem to be flowing naturally which I felt led to a quite stilted film.

The story itself I also found a bit a grinding and monotonous...seeing as it was adapted from a play it may not have made the transition too well. The tale of non-commital, sleeping around and not taking responsibilities for your actions may have been quite riveting and fresh on the cinema screen in 1966 for a British audience, but now it just leaves one feeling cold.

Maybe the movies biggest problem is simply that it has not aged well, both in style and structure.

3.5/10

***Some Spoilers***

I never planned to watch this initially, but when I did I was glad of it.

This is a classy picture, focusing on Stephen Fermoyle, a young Catholic who enters into the priesthood and charts his life and fortunes up until the outbreak of World War II. This makes for a long movie!

However, I feel that the length of the film in no way detracts from the enjoyment. The story is crafted with care and I became very involved with the film and it's characters fates. Granted, Fermoyle does, shall we say, ‘get around a bit' but it's a lot more believable and shows far more intellectual edge than the Gump.

The film raises a number of ‘big' questions along the way that challenge not only Fermoyle's faith, but ask questions of the watcher – what is your view? - what would you have done in that situation? An example of this is when Fermoyle has to choose between the life of his sister or her unborn baby, a very agonising choice, well portrayed by Tryon. And to the film's credit it generally shows both sides of the argument in good debate with little or no patronising overtones. Any film that attempts to entertain and challenge the viewer and succeeds – such as this – should be applauded. After the end credits rolled I was still thinking about a number of things contained within the movie.

My only problem with the movie was that the sound quality was awful and it's a bit difficult to hear what's being said. A technohead with some flash equipment to clean up the movie is badly needed.

You certainly don't need to be a Catholic, or even religious (I'm not) to get a lot out of the film. Just a concentration span and a willingness to think! To echo another reviewer, please watch this - it's well worth your time.

8.5/10

Yep, pretty similar to Outbreak, but it does a fairly good job.

The usual American TVM stuff; naff cliches, overacting, lots of hairspray, the usual TVM faces, a happy ending and a soft picture finish.

Best bit is when Sheridan whacks fatty doctor round the chops with a spade - made me laugh out loud...

The plot isn't bad too, which rises this above the normal 2/3/4's that yer average TVM gets. But not that much!

5/10

Contrary to other reviews on here, I felt this movie was little better than a TVM. The plot was weak, the dialogue thin and the characters...well, downright boring.

What was the ultimate point of it all, I ask myself. Annoying FBI woman pursues another annoying woman who murders wealthy men of stupid families in very plush surroundings. Why should I care? Frankly, I didn't! I found nothing here to compel me to pay attention.

The direction was also a bit duff, I personally found a lot of scenes were skimmed over with little depth, whilst others were trawled over too long. This simply exacerbated the tedium I felt.

The double plot twist at the end redeemed the film somewhat, although it wasn't exactly an intellectual one was it? I could have thought of that over a beer without too much trouble.

In conclusion, an unfulfilling film, which is a shame, as I felt a lot more could have been done with it. Maybe rent it out, read the plot description on the box and then watch the last twenty minutes.

3/10.

P.S. By the way, I watched this with my girlfriend and she didn't think much of it either so it's not just me being easily-bored male!

Taking a step back from the intellectual surmising involving Godfather, Goodfellas et al., I thought this was an enjoyable film, 'a live action cartoon' as it was put.

Yep, sure it was a tad formulaic with characters going about their predetermined business and the armchair historians knew the conclusion of the film before it happened. I accept this as valid criticism, but I would stress more that it is supposed to be a quasi-documentary, with the solemn narrator venting sparse mechanical facts about each character and their relevance to the bigger picture as they were introduced. The film itself wasn't trying (I felt) to make a big artistic or intellectual statement, just an enjoyable and disposable piece of cinema. I think that it would be worse if it had been trying top make a 'big point' but fell on its arse, which a number of mobster-related films are guilty of.

As an enjoyable 'get on and enjoy the ride' movie I think it succeeded very well. Having only a basic knowledge of prohibition gangsterland, I found it quite gripping and that the documentary style enhance my enjoyment of an otherwise complex background. The set was also very well done, though Capone was miscast.

I would recommend this to most, unless they are Godfather fans!

8/10

But apart from having a great title, the movie itself is a standard TVM. I was hoping for a great camp movie, but instead it tries to take itself seriously which it doesn't quite pull off.

Also classically riddled with cliches of the highest order (ie Mommy smokes, so we know she's a bad mother and potential murderer). She acted it quite well though, and I was actually rooting for her by the end of the film, hoping the two dopey hitmen actually did a killing of one of the nanny and hubby. But the plot was so obvious I knew my wish would not come true...

5/10

I had hazy memories of seeing this as a kid, but given the general dodgy 80's-ness of the film and Paul Hogan's decline into cliche I was expecting this to be fairly poor viewing.

But I was quite pleasantly surprised, it was charming, engaging and quite funny. The knife scene, the beday, and Dundee greeting everyone he sees in the city with a smile and tipped hat were really good.

I was also most impressed by the inclusion of an Aborigine as a normal(ish!) fun guy - they are a much maligned and downtrodden social group in Australia and normally make absolutely no political or media impact in a white-dominated country.

Sure, the movie does have its faults and in plot and metaphor you'll have seen it many times before. But I liked it, and it's suitable for a broad spectrum of folk. The films re-branding of Australia to the rest of the world still exists (albeit in a modified form) today, so that says a lot in its favour.

7/10