spanishflea50

Firstly I would like to say that i adore the way almost every aspect of this film. It is extremely witty (witness the oft quoted line from O'Toole about why he thinks he is God) and also very touching (Jack's joy when he marries his wife for example) and it's songs are great and very nicely integrated. The one area where I think it fails is as a satire against the ruling classes. The idea that the aristocracy is uncomfortable with non comformity or uncontrolled emotion is neither original nor reserved solely for that strata of society. This does not mean that the film lacks depth however and I found myself extremely troubled by the film's observation that the world is more tolerant of excessive coldness than excessive love. At times I feel that the film could work as a parable to the release of Barrabas and the crucifixtion of Christ. Perhaps this is to read too much into it but I urge everyone to watch the film and ponder it for themselves.

I went to see this film with my mum after a Christmas shopping trip and was amazed by how good it was. The problem with so many Christmas films is that the 'ideal Christmas' they end up presenting is American-centric and very materialistic, consequently it was very refreshing to watch a Christmas film about a non commercial British tradition. It was also a very sweet film that managed to stay the right side of saccharine, without giving away too much I liked how the film managed to be positive about all of it's characters and not just the obvious heroes. I also thought the film was genuinely funny and pitched at all levels well from the silly (the children's auditions) to the fairly witty ("Those who can't act, teach, and those who can't teach, teach primary school" isn't a line I'll be repeating to my teacher aunt). All in all this is a lovely Christmas film for the entire family!

I am an enormous fan of the BBC's Ghost Stories For Christmas but this is by far my favourite. It manages to pull off the seemingly impossible feet of being both very scary and also very amusing. Personally I love the antiquarian setting of this and most other M R James stories because it makes the following supernatural happenings all the more unexpected coming as they do into a world that deals with fact. The Stalls of Barchester has a wonderfully light touch as can be seen in how it illustrates the continued survival of the aged Archdeacon (much to his ambitious subordinate's chagrin) by the decreasing number of guests at his birthday drinks. The reason why this short film remains so scary is because right up until the last moment it's 'ghosts' come only in the form of noises and the odd movement out of the corner of the eye and have thus not aged at all. I cannot really do justice to the beauty of this programme's photography and production design and I urge everyone to see it and then write to the BBC and demand it's release on DVD.

Despite the fact that this film is very highly regarded my mood throughout much of the film was one of pleasant disappointment. I certainly enjoyed most of the stories but thought them too heavy handed to be truly scary, for example the mirror story could have been pretty creepy if done in the understated way of the BBC's adaptations of MR James but the swelling soundtrack was a bit of a mood killer. However the much commented upon Dummy story was truly frightening precisely because it was so understated. Overall then this film was an enjoyable collection of ghost stories to watch on a winters night but the only story to really chill the blood in my opinion was the last one featuring the ventriloquists Dummy

SPOILERS- My criticism of this drama involves the ending o I cannot really avoid giving it away- do not read if you haven't watched the drama first Having thoroughly enjoyed the book that this drama is based on i was delighted to be able to watch it for free on Channel 4's on demand service. This was a brilliant adaptation of an excellent book and even though the kind of government Perkins sets up is as distant now as Gladstones it still holds some pertinent lessons about the constraints that an elected leader operates under in this country. My only reservation about this drama is the ending which seems to imply a military coup against Perkins. This was changed from the book which ends about 15 minutes before the end of this drama with Perkins forced into retirement. The end scene is tense and brilliant in it's own right but it does rather undermine the whole premise of 'A very British coup' as this implies a coup behind the scenes with no bloodshed or public panic. This is in a sense a minor point as the drama is superb but it does make it more outlandish than the book

This production seems to have come under a lot of criticism but personally after listening to countless productions of The Mikado I found it actually to be rather good. Firstly I think that Clive Revill was an excellent Ko Ko as he managed to capture the sly yet pathetic nature of the character well and his delivery of the spoken parts is brilliant and really livens them up. Secondly Stafford Dean as Pooh-Bah was also top notch and his rendition of the dialogue describing all his roles was a scream. An Honourable mention must also go to the actors playing Pish-Tush who manages to flesh out a fairly insubstantial part effectively. I think it is also worth mentioning for G&S fans that this production has managed to avoid the temptation of fiddling around with the Little List song and the Mikado song and inserting topical references as so many theatre productions seem to do these days and the dialogue was commendably faithful (I'm enough of a nerd to compare the Libretto to my Annotated Gilbert and Sullivan). The only reason i'm not giving this full marks is because William Conrad's Mikado was a bit flat particularly in the Humane Mikado song which is after all one of the highlights. However Conrad was OK during the Mikado's dialogue (capturing the character's paradox of handing out bloodthirsty punishments in a kind manner) and the part isn't big enough for the slightly flat performance to affect the overall piece. In summary then a very good traditional production that is well worth seeing.

This film is absolutely hilarious but those who aren't into the detective genre might find their enjoyment diminished. I say this because if you have watched any films involving the characters that are being spoofed you will appreciate how dead on the satire is. Peter Sellers' Charlie Chan alike is particularly well observed and the host Lionel Twain's constant correction of his grammar really points out the terrible acting of the actual films. Having said this however much of the film is just out and out funny to almost anyone, I particularly liked the revelation of what motive Sam Diamond has for the murder. My one tiny criticism is that the scene where the murderer is revealed would have been much funnier if it had stopped 3 revelations earlier (you'll see what i mean when you watch it)! Overall i'd give it a 8 out of 10 generally and a 9 out of 10 if you're a detective fan.

I think that the general mood of criticism about this production of HMS Pinafore and of Frankie Howerd's performance in particular is very unfair indeed. Generally speaking this production is an excellent straight adaptation of Gilbert and Sullivan which is beyond reproach with regard to the various leads (I believe the actor playing th Captain was an American game show host but having no reference to this I just think he is a perfectly good singer) and on my DVD version the sound is super. Frankie Howerd in the role of Sir Joseph Porter has come in for a lot of criticism but having heard so many baritones sing the role from Henry Lytton onwards I absolutely loved the performance. I accept that he does not sing (he speaks with a good sense of rhythm) and that he injects his own mannerisms into the role but I personally think it riffs well with the tone and is very funny (watch his reaction when delivering the line about the common sailor being bulwarks of the empire). I think that G & S are treated with such (understandable) reverence that productions can sometimes become rather stilted and encased in aspic and that Howerd's performance whilst not to everyones taste at least constitutes a good attempt to inject a bit of personality into the role.

Firstly I ought to say that apart from me its hard to see who this film will appeal to. To really enjoy it i think that you have to love the real poet Mcgonagall (otherwise you will miss the hilarious fact that all the poetry read in the film is quite real and written seriously) and have to appreciate the very surreal pythonesque humor (such as Prince Albert being dressed as Hitler from the waist up). If your one of the dozen people who fit into both of these categories you will adore the film as I did. However I must say that the best part of it was just listening to Spike Milligan (and Queen Victoria!) reading Mcgonagall's poetry. Surprisingly given the absolute madness of the film the ending is actually very touching.

I think this film is absolutely wonderful and a very noble piece of film. The film shows the details of the Catholic conclave with an accuracy rarely seen in novels let alone films. The ceremonial elements are very well observed and very nicely shot, the transfer on the DVD is also very good. Apart from that the story is also very intelligent and touching. I like the fact that the faith of Father Tallymond and Pope Kiryl are discussed in such detail and I finished the film feeling very moved. However I would give the film 8 out of 10 because of two caveats. Firstly the story of the American TV reporter's love triangle which is already a bit underdeveloped in the book is rendered completely pointless here as he has virtually no impact on the rest of the story. This might be excusable if it were well done but it is very stilted and in my opinion is the only bit that seriously dates the film. Also the film is a little long and could probably be pruned of this storyline without much difficulty. My only other caveat is that if you aren't interested in religion, theology or philosophy there isn't really a lot going on in the film. this is not a criticism for me but just a warning.

I tracked this film down on VHS (probably the last time i'll ever buy a video) more because I'm interested in old footage than for its contemporary art house credentials.

The use of tinting, slow motion and minimalist music is certainly controversial when applied to such old footgae but I think it works very well. This is particularly the case with the slow motion, often in the film you see a slow motion focus on someones face and this really captures the humanity of the subject in a way that old footage or photography rarely do. For example in one shot of an African tribes woman you quite clearly see her (despite the obvious lack of sound) showing the camera man how she brushes her teeth.

From an historical point of view I think this footage is very important, not because it shows important historical events but because much of it is rather shocking to us today and reminds us of how social attitudes have changed. There are quite a few scenes of animals being rather callously killed and even an apparent death of someone engaged in a mock tribal battle and this is very at odds with the kind of jolly seaside footage that we are used to seeing from this period.

Overall this film is fascinating from an historical point of view and hypnotic from an artistic one. If this were ever out on DVD (which I doubt) then I would love to see a neat transcription of the original footage before it was tinted etc if that were possible.

I found this film disappointing almost purely because it had some excellent elements that were crowded out in an attempt to pack too much into to smaller space. Firstly what was good about the film. The opening sequence was excellent and really grabbed my attention with a black and white recreation of the famous sequence involving a mob of Villagers burning down a windmill with Frankenstein's Monster in it, this sequence was excellently filmed although this may be due to the strength of the source material rather than the director. Secondly the actor Richard Roxbrough who played Dracula was fantastic and gave across a fantastic air of charming evilness with a particularly good speech about the heartrates of victims as he is about to dispatch them. The settings were also excellent with plenty of nice touches such as a semi built Eifel Tower in the Paris sequence. However the film was spoilt for me by the music which was an inappropriate trance type selection and by the seemingly obilgatory comedy side kick monk who added nothing whatever to the plot. Lastly Hugh Jackman seemed to be struggling to add anything to Van helsing which wasn't his fault as his character was utterly one dimensional. The film wasn't bad exactly and filled a dull Sunday afternoon but it had to much chaff nd didn't develop its strong points. In fact a series might have been better with Van Helsing encountering each Monster in turn.

Having seen this film at the cinema and thoroughly enjoyed it I purchased it on DVD and then read the book so as to better judge whether the comments that the film was an exceedingly loose adaptation were true. It is certainly true that Fry hasn't stuck to the narrative strictly but the changes he made in the name of good cinema were overwhelmingly the right ones and he actually managed to bring forward some entertaining background characters and relegate some fairly tedious ones. For example Lord Monomark who is a Canadian Newspaper magnate shamelessly based on Lord Beverbrook is rairly mentioned in the book but is superbly played by Dan Ackroyd in the film whilst the PM Walter Outrage who features heavily in Waughs novel is barely mentioned in the film and rightly so as the character in the novel is a complicated amalgamation of contemporary politics (i.e Ramsay Mcdonald and Bonar Law)that even I having studied the period extensively found heavy going. Also whilst the ending is contrived to be too happy it is a marginal improvement on the novel in my opinion which doesn't seem to conclude the book very well. Overall a superb film with excellent production values and peerless period feel for which Stephen Fry should be commended. I just hope that he has a stab at at adapting Decline and Fall which is another excellent Waugh novel.

One can always tell an excellent film if the opening credits make one guffaw ("The British partitioned the Island and took for themselves the upstairs rooms, fighting soon broke out of several mezzanines")and although the film wasn't quite Python it certainly had moments that made me snort my drink. The film did have a tendency to feel like a series of sketches but none the less Peter Cook's insane (although rather charismatic) Prime Minister is worth the purchase price alone. It was also some of the minor characters that provided some of the best laughs such as the former US president (looking the spitting image of Donald Rumsfeld) turned convict who published his memoirs "Commie Bastards I knew".

All in all an underrated classic

I am Historian by profession and whilst I readily concede that there are aspects of this superb drama that play fast and loose with historical fact those that cannot see beyond this simply have no heart. The film primarily exists to portray Churchill's private life and emotions rather than the real politik of the time and it does this wodnerfully. Churchills relationship with 'Clemmy' (or indeed Mrs Pussycat as TGS puts it)is so touching and sweet, Churchill was never a classic romantic and to see his relationship with his wife is so rare. Needless to say the acting is superb and Finny is utterly convincing as Churchill so much so it becomes increasingly difficult to watch him in any other role. The only part of this drama I regret is its portrayal of Stanely Baldwin who was by accounts a thoroughly decent chap. However the drama is magnificent and those who cannot see beyond its inaccuracies perhaps miss the point of the show somewhat

This film is one of the most touching and lovely films that I have seen in many years. Its gaggle of actresses are second to none and turn out excellant performance, Joan Plowright in particular brings an irresistable sweetness to the role. People who have commented on the film so far seem to have neglected to mention the soundtrack which is beautiful and inspiring with a wonderful piano piece. Criticism that the film is too old fashioned or that the characters are unappealing and pompous seems to miss the point, the very charm of Hester (Maggie Smith in particular)is how she overcomes her snobbery at the end and realises how much Elsa (Cher, who in any other film would doubtless be misplaced but in this case fits the role like a glove) has done for the Scorpioni. In short the film is a relic of a gentler age and is simultaniously uplifting, upsetting and relaxing. I implore everyone to hunt down the soundtrack on CD to the ends of the earth if necissary.

I caught the film on the Studio channel after setting my TiVo to record anything with Alastair Sim in. As the film progressed I went from smiling at it's old-fashioned mannerisms to a real enjoyment of the storyline and the characterisation. Edgar Wallace crime novels sold in their millions in the thirties and forties and would have guarenteed a healthy audience at the cinema. The plot is quite simple: a 'fence' is operating in London and covering his tracks by framing his criminal associates ('squeaking' on them). A sacked detective with a drinking problem is given a chance to redeem himself by exposing 'The Squeaker'. Of course he falls in love with the scoundrel's respectable and innocent fiance in the process. Alastair Sim, one of my favourite actors of this era, plays an investigative reporter with a rather over the top scottish accent. Also of interest are what appear to be a music hall double act (sadly uncredited) as bell-boys in the numerous club scenes. The club scenes are an excuse to show off the minor plot character Tamara; a chanteuse in love the the squeaker's last victim. The dramatic denouement is The Squeaker's confession following unendurable psychological pressure applied by the suave, dapper Inspector Barrabel(played by Edmund Lowe - he looks rather like a poor man's Errol Flynn). Produced by the great Alexander Korda, this is highly entertaining.

I bought this series very cheap on DVD and it has got to be one of the best things I have ever watched. Most notable in my opinion is the soundtrack which is a fantastic piece of cod choral music and would be worth an entire album to it'self. The acting is also excellant with David Jason bringing remarkable energy to the role. Also amid all the social satire it is deeply amusing with one of the lead characters (Zipser, played wonderfuly by John Sessions) being killed by 4 gross of hydrogen filled condoms. Also notable is the great photography in and around Cambridge making it staple viewing for inhabitants of the city. This is in short a masterpiece and has lead me to read all of Tom Sharpe's books. All I can say is to any film maker PLEASE PLEASE FILM TOM SHARPE'S SEQUEL GRANCHESTER GRIND

I wouldn't say this is an excellant film but it is a solid British comedy and a perfect example of a now extinct genre. Terry Thomas is a wonderful British stereotype with some funny dialogue and a wonderful accent. The sound track is also mildly effective in a cheesy sort of way. This film has a lot to reccomend it but it is also a very standard example of the 1950/60's British comedy genre