JBall75487

I tuned in to 'Martial law' a few days ago on UK satellite TV. Well, I've never seen a 'police' series quite like it - it makes Hawaii 5-0 look positively archaic by comparison, Sammo,Grace and Company combine to offer a beautifully choreographed and seemingly non-stop sequence of action packed episodes (aided by some dazzling stunts and clever camerawork ) One can forgive the fact that the rest of the city police force appear to be surplus to requirements and that the plots are sparkling gems of improbability - the whole programme is propelled forward by an irresistible combination of incandescent martial arts skills, transcendental displays of the powers of deduction,coupled with what appears to be an undercurrent of good humour which is never far from the surface.This is a programme which is a fine example of the type of professionalism which maintains credibility but doesn't take itself too seriously.A first class example of comedy/action which is a sheer joy to watch, and mercifully free from cliches and stereotypes.Strongly recommended to those who want to enjoy themselves !

This film is,of course, a mirror image of 'Fistful of Dollars', without the style. Generous helpings of bad acting, character stereotypes,poor storyline and improbable scenarios are cleverly woven into a virtually non-stop fusillade of gunfire, remarkable for the quantity of ammunition expended and an incredibly high bullet to body ratio ! Add to this the unlikely prospect of a derelict town with, apparently, only two inhabitants, located in a desert, being terrorised by two gangs, each vying with the other for both the accolade of sartorial excellence and the profits from various nefarious activities, but who are, apparently, out-thought and out-gunned by a stranger in a ramshackle old car, who needs to fire about 30 bullets to see off one man, perhaps leading one to believe that an eye-test, followed by a course in the effective use of fire-arms, might not go amiss ? Nevertheless, our hero, by adhering closely to the script, triumphs after all, and is, as far as can be ascertained, left as the 'Last Man Standing' At the end, you might be forgiven for asking what it was all about, as this film contains lots of action, but little else.

A fatuous plot, wooden acting, stereotyped characters, dialogue noteworthy only for its predictability, littered with set-piece cliches, this film combines all these defects into a unique representation of cinematic dysfunction which is symptomatic of the dearth of film making talent in contemporary cinema. This one makes the typical 1930's Three Stooges offerings look like epics ! My advice to prospective viewers is 'Don't waste your time (and money) on this insult to the intelligence.

Seeing an excerpt from 'Untouchables' on satellite TV recently brought back some memories of forty years ago, when I looked forward in eager anticipation to seeing the weekly appearance of Eliot Ness and his associates. To see them again was to see characters apparently frozen in time, operating in a mythical world where the differences between good and evil were clearly delineated and the 'bad guys' got their just deserts. Notwithstanding the fact that Capone and Ness never met, that Ness had little, if anything, to do with putting Capone behind bars, the programmes were quite well directed and acted, even though some of the supporting characters had little,if anything, to say - I can remember often waiting for some considerable time for 'Rico' (Georgiade)to say his only line ! Enjoyable,nevertheless, as cinematic curiosities, well crafted, but so far removed from historical reality as to be a rather threadbare tapestry of the events which the series purported to represent.

One looks in vain for adjectives which can adequately express the qualities of this masterpiece. I have seen it many times since I first saw it in 1939, and it merely confirms my opinion, which seems to be shared by 99 percent. of the other commentators, that this is the supreme adventure film, par excellence. The litany of praise bestowed upon this epic,is, I am certain, a reflection of the opinion of all those fortunate enough to have seen it, during the 64, yes 64 years since it was made. One may well ask how many of our present day adventure films, with their heavy reliance on computer technology and their emphasis on gratuitous sex and extreme violence, will meet the test of time as successfully ? Can the current generation of dubious talents, who receive grotesquely disproportionate financial rewards, come close to matching the incandescent appeal of Flynn, or the acting skills and sheer professionalism of Rathbone and Rains ? I consider myself privileged to have seen a film the like of which we will never see again. If you seek proof, read the other comments !

I was guilty of a gross error of judgement when I tuned in to 'Gargantua' (on satellite television) in an unguarded moment. I viewed with increasing disbelief as this cinematic aberration unfolded, unmatched in sheer awfulness by any contemporary sci-fi film which I have seen over the last two years. The 'design' of the 'monsters' must surely have been the product of individuals who suffered from a combination of colour-blindess and acute myopia and were in obvious need of psychiatric help. Add to this a generous helping of acting in a style which would make a cigar-store Indian seem animated,a storyline consisting of sentimentalised nonsense, a script which gives a whole new meaning to the word 'mediocre', together with special effects which appeared to pre-date Harryhausen on a bad day, then the sum total constitutes an experience never to be repeated ! I cannot believe that any rational person would be prepared to pay money to see this junk - certainly this is one to miss.

The quality of 'Summer Wine' is reflected in its longevity and ongoing popularity.I consider myself fortunate that, having once lived near Holmfirth, the small Yorkshire town where the action was set, during the 1980's,I had the opportunity to sample at first hand, the various locations and was fortunate in seeing the filming of some of the earlier episodes. There may be some support for my view that the earlier episodes, which featured 'Blamire'( Michael Bates)as one of the three leading characters, were characterised by the interplay between these three characters,expressed in terms of dialogue rather than the 'comic' situations which became a feature of later episodes, coupled with the development of other characters who played little or no part in the first series. I consider that the quality of the scripwriting suffered as a result of the changes, particularly when the focus moved away from the central trio. Nevertheless, the programme maintained its popularity over many years and developed almost a cult following. Curiously, though, this popularity was not wholly shared by the population of Holmfirth, who saw the programme as a mixed blessing when the interest generated by the programme resulted in an influx of sightseers into their small, quiet narrow streeted town, with predictable results. Suffice it to say that while one or two enterprising people benefitted from the publicity, the sightseer were, it must be said, disappointed with the fact that there was very little to see of real interest and, of course, the 'characters' were nowhere to be seen. That the programme retained its popularity for so long can only be explained by how well the characters created the illusion of three eccentric old men enjoying their freedom in nostalgic adventures in beautiful surroundings where the sun always appeared to smile on them (the grim reality of the harsh Holmfirth climate being conspicuous by its absence) The secondary characters were always believable and the humour was, by and large, unsophisticated and free from innuendo, reasons, perhaps, for its acceptance in the context it was presented. It may be that the reason for the success of the programme is that it presents a world that no longer exists, a set of endearing characters,lost in their own little world, steeped in a kind of rural simplicity from which the harsh values and events of the real world are permanently excluded,playing the sort of schoolboy adventures in which we may, at one time, have all shared. Their hopes and doubts, dreams and uncertainties running through the tapestry of their lives, played out for us with a skill which belies the simplicity of the message that the programme conveys.

I was fortunate enough to obtain a video of 'Four Horsemen ' recently and having read about it many years ago, I was intrigued to see whether it lived up to the legend. Considering it was made 80 years ago, I was quite astonished at the quality of this film, in terms of acting,direction and photography.To our modern eyes, the 'special effects'may,of course, seem a little quaint, but there is no denying that as an anti-war film, it stands alongside 'All Quiet on the Western Front' and 'Grande Illusion', and it has lost little of its power to move. The development of the character of Julio is a 'tour de force' of acting by Valentino and his celebrated tango in one of the murkier establishments of Buenos Aires realistically conveys the dissolute atmosphere of the cafe society of the period. My copy of the film was the tinted version with a (non-vocal) soundtrack added, which included tango music played by an apparently unsynchronised band ! To keen students of cinematic history, this film is a 'must-see'- indeed,I know of no contemporary films which comes close to matching it.

Browsing idly among the movie list on satellite TV I happened on this gem, of which I had no previous knowledge. I watched it through to the bitter end, wondering all the time whether it would lapse into reality, or continue to provide yet another surprise. Suffice it to say that, with the labyrinthine windings of the plot, the intercutting of scenes, the wonderful stereotypes effortlessly portrayed together with the sheer improbability of the story, placed this film in a class of its own for entertainment value (in the fullest sense of the word) and I would recommend it as a good way to pass an hour or two. One mystery, however, remains unsolved - why are all these highly trained people such bad shots and why do they have weapons which rarely, if ever, require reloading ? I was, incidentally,much taken with Iris, the Chinese undercover agent (Korean actress, actually)- she deserves better parts in better films !

One looks in vain for a gangster film better than 'White Heat' Brilliant direction, allied to atmospheric photography, are the canvas on which Cagney, in his finest performance ever, has painted a spine-chilling portrait of a mother-fixated psychopath, a character for whom one can feel no sympathy.The story is of little consequence, being merely the vehicle for a virtuoso display of acting talent, exceptional in its range and depth. The film does not attempt to get over a 'message' or offer pseudo-psychological explanations for the actions of Cody Jarrett (Cagney) It does, however, demonstrate that there are forces within the human psyche which are, whatever some may claim, beyond our comprehension, inexplicable within any framework of rationality. The story is, indeed, unexceptional and rather prosaic, but Cagney's performance blazes from the screen, making the story seem almost irrelevant.Full marks to the quality of the supporting cast who, one suspects, realised their good fortune in being able to witness a master at work. Don't miss this one - as near perfection as you'll ever see in this particular genre.

Don't look for historical accuracy in 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' Some may wonder how an encounter lasting less than a minute can be expanded into a two hour film ? Not that important in the context of the portrayal of two legends of the Old West by two legends of the screen. Virtuoso performances from Douglas and Lancaster, set against the background of the Earps versus the Clantons and McLowery's feud in 1881. Lancaster gives us a figure of authority, vested with a presence that Earp never had, hiding the less than pleasing aspects of Earp's personality and his interest in somewhat shady activities. 'Doc' Holliday, described by his contemporaries as a man with an 'ungovernable temper' is played by Douglas with restraint and in consequence, presents a certain loss of credibility. Some small anachronisms and inaccuracies tend to detract from the otherwise credible picture of the events of that time - one notices a cleanliness and smartness of dress which is rarely apparent in period photographs of the participants.The interplay between Earp and Holliday highlights their differences as well as the shared common ground, and Lancaster and Douglas project this with great skill, avoiding the traps of cliche and exagerration. Of the legendary gunfight itself, it represents a well planned operation, and is choreographed to maximum effect, as an entertaining conclusion to a good, but not outstanding Western film. Well worth seeing if only to fill in two leisurely hours on a Sunday afternoon. Incidentally, 'Ringo' was not involved at the OK Corral gunfight - he was, however,a reference to one Jimmy Ringo who was killed (allegedly by Wyatt Earp) some time later. Holliday died (aged 35)in a sanatarium in Colorado in 1886. Wyatt Earp died peacefully in 1929.

I have seen this film several times over the last forty years. It never fails to make me wonder at the genius who produced this masterpiece, fit to rank alongside 'All Quiet on the Western Front' as the greatest anti-war films ever made.Like a polished gem, every facet reflects an aspect worthy of examination - the affinity between professional antagonists,the class distinctions,the camaraderie,the code of chivalry soon to be abandoned,the conflicts of duty,loyalty and friendship. Those who feel that the film has 'dated' and that the moral values portrayed have lost their meaning and relevance in the age of technological warfare, overlook the fact of the unchanging nature of the human spirit, particularly in adversity. Perhaps the message of this film has still something to say to our troubled world ?

One runs out of superlatives to describe this flawless representation of Trollope's masterpieces of ecclesiastical fiction. Against the sumptuous background of Peterborough Cathedral and its environs, one is carried into Trollope's world of the intriguing machinations of the clerical establishment of Barchester. Backed by the authenticity of the period detail, the portrayal of all the characters accurately conveys the whole range of human emotions within the stories,without a weak link amongst the members of the cast. In would be invidious to name particular names as meriting special attention, when even the smallest cameo stands comparison with the principals, but I would select Geraldine McEwen, Alan Rickman and Nigel Hawthorne for special commendation - their performances being of the type where the actors disappear and the characters come to life !I was particularly impressed by the clarity of diction and the beautiful,expressive language in this film A 'must see' not only for lovers of Trollope, but anyone interested in seeing character acting at its very best !

I first saw this film some ten years ago.Time is a great healer,but old wounds were opened when I inadvertently tuned into it on television a few days ago.Seeing it again confirmed my opinion that many great acting talents (leading man excepted) were wasted in this confusing melange of mythological events.Potential audiences might have been better served if Medusa had cast her stony gaze upon the entire cast immediately after the opening credits.That the film companies waste time and money on this kind of nonsense is quite beyond belief !

Short but cleverly directed variation on the 'good versus evil' theme.Psychopathic gunfighter terrorising a town meets his nemesis in the shape of mild-mannered storekeeper with incredible gunfighting skills.Don't miss this,sadly, under-rated gem of a film.

In a confused welter of artistic licence, this is the classical music biopic which makes 'Song to Remember'look like a masterpiece. Bogarde succeeds in diminishing the reputation of the musical colossus who spanned European music for most of the 19th Century. The absurdities of the plot, the sequoia-like quality of the acting and the prevalence of historical,musical and linguistic anachronisms combine to elevate this offering to the status of an A1 turkey.How a pianist of the stature of Bolet came to be mixed up in this fiasco can only be guessed at. The characterisation of Liszt fails to convey even a minute impression of his magnetic personality and the overwhelming effect that he had on not only his audiences, but also his pianistic rivals.Clara Schumann herself said that 'we toil over that which Liszt reads at sight!' Whilst the emphasis seems to focus on his romantic prowess,rather than his status as the greatest pianist of the century or,arguably, of all time, one feels,nevertheless, that this was an opportunity lost.

Yes,we can ignore the opinions of the pedantic musical historians who belittle this film, because this is one for anyone with a love of music ! In essence, historically accurate - Brahms was a friend of the Schumanns, Robert did suffer from a brain disorder which drove him to attempt suicide and caused his early death, Brahms undoubtedly loved Clara, but she remained faithful to Robert for the rest of her life, whilst she pursued the career of a piano virtuoso (which she was).All of this adds up to a romantic story with all the necessary ingredients plus the music of Schumann and Brahms,(played with customary brilliance by Artur Rubinstein) surely a guarantee of success. The three principal characters are played with a reasonable degree of authenticity, indeed, Robert Walker bears such an uncanny resemblance to Brahms as a young man that one suspects he may be a descendent ! And what a tour-de -force is Miss Hepburns characterisation of Clara Schumann, a woman, by all accounts, possessed of steely resolve and immense courage. The only relatively weak link is Paul Henried, who bears not the slightest resemblance to Schumann, and fails to convey Schumann's determination and musical genius - perhaps a little pedestrian and lacking conviction. The performance of Henry Daniell as Franz Liszt is superb, projecting the personality of 'the Master' to perfection, and particularly worthy of note is his 'performance' of Schumann's 'Widmung', where his simulated pianistic technique is incredibly accurate, indeed, one suspects that he may well be a competent pianist in his own right. The whole essence of this drama is conveyed with a flair and a grasp of the subtle nuances of the various relationships which generates an astonishing degree of authenticity, almost as if we are seeing the events as they actually happened. Add to this the music, the pianism of the incomparable Rubinstein, and a classic has been born to stand the test of time ! As a matter of interest, Schumann composed the song 'Widmung' (Devotion) at the time of his marriage to Clara - the music 'played' by Henry Daniell is,in fact, not the original song, but an arrangement by Franz Liszt.

Leoncavallo's miniature masterpiece, immortalised by the incomparable Enrico Caruso, transfers badly to the cinema screen. Even allowing for the technical limitations of the period, the dramatic effect of the staged original never materialises, the essential drama and passion of the story, simple as it is, being lost in the deficiencies of this film, particularly in respect of staging,costume and sound.A very good, if not great, tenor, Richard Tauber seems unsure and out of his depth in his interpretation of the principal character. Tauber had, of course, enjoyed the benefit of his professional liaison with Lehar, and the consumate artistry so evident in his performance of Lehar's songs, together with his affinity with things Schubertian only serve to suggest that in 'Pagliacci' he was, in terms of interpretation, at the limit of his capabilities. Nevertheless, the film is an interesting piece of cinematic history and is, even given its limitations, quite enjoyable.As a matter of interest, although Caruso certainly helped to 'launch 'the phonograph in the early years of the 20th century, and recorded copiously, it is posterity's loss that, as far as is known, he never appeared in a sound film using electrical recording.

As an (English) Western enthusiast with an interest in the real characters and events durng the years 1865 to 1900 and Western films going back to Tyrone Power in 'Jesse James'(1939), I looked forward to seeing ' The Shootist' having previously read the book. Words can hardly convey the elegiac quality of this beautifully acted mini-masterpiece, with John Wayne playing a part that was surely meant only for him.The whole effect enhanced by superbly filmed locations,authentic period detail (forget the car!) and strong supporting performances from the rest of the cast.It would be pedantic for me to point out that very few Western gunfighters reached the seniority typified by Wayne's character (Wyatt Earp and Frank James excepted) but J B Books apparently survived presumably because of his unrivalled skills in his chosen profession, as demonstrated at the beginning of the film. A special word for the cameo performances of Richard Boone and Hugh O'Brian, whose characters could have stepped from the pages of history of the Old West. Enjoyable,believable and one for the admirers of a perennial Western hero who will surely never be forgotten !

As one with an abiding interest in the war in the air in the 1914-18 Great War,I looked forward to seeing 'The Blue Max'I was, to say the least, disappointed to see that the 'romantic' interest elements predominated, the characters merely stereotypes and the authenticity questionable in certain matters of period detail. The well-nourished and unstressed appearance of the pilots (Kemp and Peppard) contrasted sharply with the haunted and exhausted features of the real aces, Boelcke,Guynemer and many others, who figure in photographs of the period. Richtofen himself, in his letters home, talked of the stress and the hopelessness of their cause, Albert Ball VC spoke of his hope for an end to the killing. In 'Blue Max' the atmosphere seemed to be more of a gentlemans club, where the immaculately clad participants indulged themselves with ladies to pass their spare time. Although the 'Blue Max' (Ordern pour le Merite) was never solely an air force decoration for merit, or excellence (not valour), the competitiveness implied in the film was very much the exception - the pilots of that era were too much concerned with staying alive in a very hostile environment. Whilst the storyline was thin, the dialogue predictable and stilted, this film was never going to live up to expectations. All in all, a film to while away an hour or two, but not one which will be readily recalled to mind. As a matter of curiosity, the Blue Max was never awarded after the end of World War I, although Hermann Goering, who assumed command after the death of Richtofen, and who was himself a WWI fighter ace, wore his Pour le Merite during WW II.as head of the Luftwaffe.

An opportunity lost for two great acting talents, burdened with serious historical inaccuracies,a host of anachronisms,'modern' dialogue and a grotesque misrepresentation of Canterbury Cathedral in the twelfth century.There are those who will say that these inconsistencies don't matter,but the credibility of the story is,nevertheless, undermined. Having said that, I pay tribute to the ability of the principal actors and their development of the characters of Becket and Henry, tracing the shift in their relationship and its consequences, notwithstanding the fact that both appear to be more 'friendly' than contemporary accounts would have us believe.Nevertheless, as a good, rousing semi-historical drama, it always makes compulsive viewing.

To see Olivier in Richard III is to see those dry pages of Shakespeare come to life.Although Richard III has, perhaps, been unfairly treated by some historians, no one can deny the sheer magnetism of the character as portrayed by Olivier's unforgettable representation. The interplay between the principal characters is never anything other than a superb and sharply coloured series of episodes characterised by an unequalled use of language as the vehicle for conveying the full range of the dark forces of ambition and treachery,deception and betrayal. The classic example, for me, is the consistency of Richard's consistency in maintaining the momentum of events almost from his first appearance, and his controlled and methodical planning his bloody path to the Crown.

I first saw 'Dead of Night' 55 years ago. Even now, thinking of it sends a cold chill down my spine.I have never forgotten the 'mirror' story, nor the blood-curdling story of the ventriloquist and his dummy - a masterpiece of acting by Redgrave, surely one of his finest performances ? Other film-makers have paid tribute to this film by virtue of imitation - some have come close, but no-one, surely, has surpassed its unique quality of demonstrating the indefinable boundaries between sanity and madness or the real and imagined. Seeing the film again a few years ago with some of the younger members of my family, I was surprised to observe their reactions and their observation that, without the assistance of blood,violence or special effects in colour, this short,simple black and white film had (and I quote) 'scared the daylights' out of them, particularly the 'mirror' episode.One wonders why they don't make them like this anymore ?

I saw 'Went the Day Well' in 1943, as a 12 year old in war-time England.What I remember most about the film is that it was utterly convincing, both in the authenticity of the setting and the quality of the acting,My friends and I were, of course, perhaps less sophisticated and streetwise than the 12 year olds of today, nevertheless, the film left a lasting impression and I, at least, can remember it in a fair amount of detail, even after the passage of nearly sixty years. The least convincing part to us was the fight between the soldiers,English and German, towards the end of the film,located in and around the church - perhaps this was because we had watched too many carefully staged propanganda epics belittling the ability of the Germans ! All in all,though, a film which brought home the fact that the freedom we take for granted can so easily be lost unless we are eternally vigilant.