falconer99

The setting is rather uninspiring and the special effects mainly someone with an oversized puppet head ... except for when the rats are put on screen together with the humans, when, especially considering the age of the film and the budget, the effects are pretty good. But the trivia says that the film is based on Jules Verne's 'Mysterious Island,' not Wells' 'Food of the Gods.' This is not so. The premise (not the setting) is much like Wells' oeuvre, but the concept of the oversized animals was grafted onto the film of Verne's novel. Or so I remember. It's a while since I read Wells. But I agree that the film is fun and enjoyable and, well, Big.

I hadn't seen this film for many years, but I managed to find it again on Film 4 a few nights ago. I fondly remember the sixties when BBC2 showed many fine (and, unlike today, well chosen) films from around Europe (Forman, Polanski, et cetera) and other non-mainstream films regularly. So I was pleased to find this. Yes, it is superbly-cast, with Guinness and Kovacs in particular standing out. But I remember the music as being by Chico Hamilton and whatever his band was called. I was not impressed during my first viewing, as I would have preferred the music to have been scored by someone more professionally associated with film scoring, but clearly Reed was trying to emulate the success of the "local scoring" as in 'The Third Man.' But that's not my point. When watching tonight, the opening titles, which showed an amorous couple with the film frozen at one point, suddenly shifted slightly, and what I consider to be a new credit inserted, that of "Music played by Frank and Laurence Deniz," or that's what I assume the title read, as I have copied this from the IMDB site, and there it is marked as "uncredited." There is mention of their being 'The Hermanos Deniz Cuban Rhythm Band' in the IMDB credits, but there is no mention of a composer in sight. So, was there ever a composer credit (as I seem to remember)? Was Chico Hamilton wiped from the credits? I can't find a reference to this anywhere ...

I remember having seen this around when it was first shown on British television. I must have been about 12. I remember I was very impressed by the writing (Richard Alan Simmons), and it may have been this episode that made me want to write (my third book is just out). The direction (painfully at night), the score (Leith Stevens), and Falk and Stevens are all brilliant, and the whole thing just, well, comes together superbly. Nobody ever seems to mention Le Salaire de la Peur (Henri-Georges Clouzot), which must have been at the back of Simmons' mind when he wrote this! I assume the title is an homage. But there was quite a lot of quality pioneering television being made back then, even in America. i suppose it's just that they've run out of ideas now.

I agree with most of the positive reviews above. But nobody mentioned the superb cinematography. It's so crisp, so clear, so focused … Which is a pity as the blurred footage inserted from other films therefore sticks out like a sore thumb. The film reminds me of "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid," in so far as the actors are obviously garbed in costumes that will match those we see later in this inserted footage. And half the fun is trying to identify from where the inserts come: Alan Ladd fighting at Castell Coch in Cardiff is the most obvious. But if you're a student of architecture, you'd better avoid this, as there are so many styles all mixed up, but all post-1066. And all this and Laurie Johnson too!

Well, firstly I didn't think the film was that bad, and, no, I haven't read the book yet.

I am sure the book is better (isn't it always), but even the (apparently) pared-down version failed in what it was advertised as trying to achieve.

We were meant to see Susie's reaction to finding herself dead and how she helps those back on earth to find her killer.

But there is hardly any interaction between Susie and her family after her death. The only evidence I saw was how she influenced her father to try and attack Stanley Tucci's character, which scene did not fit in well with the characters nor the film.

In fact what we were watching appeared to be two separate films interlaced: in one, we have a travelogue documentary about one's travels after one is dead, and, in the other, we see how a grief-stricken family deals with the unthinkable.

The police work is a bolt-on necessity, and nothing more, and nobody even has the closure (what an awful word) of knowing what happened to the murderer (the audience do though, and apparently, the extra scene where Tucci's character graphically – and noisily - falls down the cliff at the end was only added to satisfy public feeling).

Also, on a few occasions, you can see the way the film is going, and then it veers off in another direction. Examples are when Susie's sister finds the book and then delays in handing it over, or when, despite finally knowing who the murderer is, the Police seem incapable of finding and apprehending him, or when Susie appears to be about to stop the safe being dumped at the end of the film, but doesn't seem to care. OK, having a film that surprises one is fine, but not when it seems unlikely or wrong.

So, the film might have been better-received had it not largely changed the book, not been overlong for its content, and been more true to its announced story-line.

As it is, it's two fairly interesting films that could have been one superb film.

I have very fond memories of this film, having seen it first in the 1960's. I read the book afterwards, and found that surprisingly inferior. However, I have now learned (from the IMDb) that all the films were based on Miss Christie's play, not her book, so the "improvements" are hers anyway. A superb cast, even after sixty years or so, and wittily written, the film benefits from Rene Clair's direction, despite the poor exterior sets. But the ending .... my memory of it was much better. As the last two meet on the gloriously-sunny beach for a confrontation, the camera pulls back into the room. In my memory, a hand lets the curtain drop. Well, I prefer it that way.

People seem really divided by this film.

The acting is fine and the characters may be real, but they're not the sort of people I want to see on screen ... and especially not in real life. And I'm certainly surprised any of the reviewers here are happy to identify with them. Watching the film, I begin to agree more and more with Aldous Huxley in "Brave New World." This film is full of bad language, features stupid and repulsive people, and is not remotely funny. The basic concept is fine (why my family decided to watch it in the first place), but it's badly-planned, and poorly executed (rather like Grounds' "The Dinner Party" for television).

All four of us (aged 55, 42, 16 and 15) gave up after thirty minutes and didn't want to watch any more.

It's hardly fair to compare this to the Hitchcock version (which was made when Buchan was not yet a well-known author). I think the Hitchcock film is the better as a film, although there are a few stodgy moments (with the crofter, for instance), but lots of lovely visual ideas to compensate (the Bridge scene, the missing digit, and the ending). But Hitchcock's is not a filming of Buchan's novel. It's something quite different. The first remake (with Kenneth More) was a remake of the Hitchcock film, not the book. With this version, we were told it would be faithful to the original, but, yes, the ending is stolen from an old Will Hay film (which was very much before its time, with its black humour). So this is not really a remake of the Hitchcock film, but neither is it faithful to Buchan (which I must re-read). But it is enjoyable, the period feel is good, and I personally like Ed Welch's concerto score.

I love French films (my wife is French). And many of the user comments here are from people who seem to hate everything French, and yet still adore this film. I have rarely been so bored and irritated with a film. There's a superb cast, and the original play (the film is almost 100% a filmed play) appears to have been a great idea. But the numerous songs (although well-performed by the cast) are so disturbing and irrelevant and unlikely, I just couldn't stomach the film. It's very surreal in an unjustifiable way. Luckily I saw it on video and fast-forwarded the later songs, but, had I seen it in the cinema, I doubt I could have feigned sufficient toilet visits to have tolerated the film.

To summarise, let's just say this is over two hours long and yet seems to last only minutes. You just wish it were longer.

And all the clichés in it were there for the first time: we've just seen them so many times since. I think it was in his conversations with Truffaut that Hitchcock said that, when a character is on the run in a film, he is always shown as walking down rain-washed cobbled streets, hiding in the night, but Hitchcock wanted to change all that and make it as light as possible, hence the crop-duster scene ... as every director has done ever since.

Back-projection has never been that good in Hitchcock's films, I'm sorry to say. I think that film-goers were just expected to accept it at the time. But I think the special effects in the finale (now where was it set?) are superb, and I really feel that the actors and stand-ins are really there (I was surprised it wasn't actually filmed there) ... apart from the studio inserts, that is.

But the plot is entirely original (or so I believe, but you always find something in the archives ...); Lehman's lines are very witty (and sexy!); the casting is superb (Grant never turned in a bad performance, and Landau, Mason and, especially, Carroll, setting himself up for his long-term role in his later acting career, are outstanding); and, like all Hitchcock's films, it's a fine comedy (and Psycho is the biggest joke of all). So why do all the critics always favour Vertigo, Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, The Trouble with Harry or Psycho?

Well, North by Northwest is my favourite Hitchcock anyway.

And I'm sure I don't have to mention Herrmann's massive contribution.

In fact, my only objection is James Mason's cardigan. I find that so irritating!

I remember seeing this as one of the (always carefully selected) films in one of those series of Continental films they used to show on BBC2, but no channel seems to show nowadays. If I have the right film, that is, as there's no plot detail given here, and I am certain it was translated as 'Crooks and Philanthropists' when I saw it (and it is also listed as 'Mobs and Philanthropists' elsewhere). The film is very much in two halves, and the first half is very original and very funny, as a chemist loses his job and doesn't want his wife to find out. The second half is not so good (and I can't even remember anything about it). But, with the sort of comedies coming out of the studios these days, anything with even the slightest element of humour has to be cherished.

Looking through the readers' comments, nobody seems to like this film very much. OK, so it is gimmicky, but that was the trend in the early sixties. I failed to spot most of the made-up stars as I assumed they would have been central to the plot, which most aren't. But the plot is unusual and interesting, and the film really shows what it's like to be in love when it seems unreturned (few others might describe this film as romantic, and yet it is one of the most realistically romantic films I've seen - one can really identify with the French "hero" on seeing his apparently superior rival). Also, Jerry Goldsmith's score is phenomenal. And, in his final "unmasking," is Kirk Douglas trying to suggest he was the George C. Scott character too? The resemblance is quite strong.

Before seeing the film, I'd read some comments about the two main characters being in love, but being unable to do anything as they're married and middle-class in 1940's England.

However, rather than being an outdated film, the situation they allow themselves to fall into is exactly the same today, and, for people around that class level, the morals and constraints are exactly the same.

I found the two main characters very unsympathetic, selfish, and weak-minded, and found the prostitution of using Rachmaninov's Concerto totally inappropriate, from the moral and musical point of view.

The only interest in the film is sociological and seeing how life was in Britain in the 1940's.

I know the film is much-loved, but I found it rather immoral. Their problem is resolved, not by a return to moral conscientiousness, but by a need to emigrate.

And Dr. Alec Harvey can't be much of a doctor either, judging by the number of cigarettes he smokes.

After the tedium of queuing and occasionally doing something in Eurodisney (or whatever it calls itself now) - and I like theme parks - this was at first just an interesting short film, but the finale, with an aerial tour of France under Broughton's superb score, had me in tears and made up completely for every other indignity the park could throw at one. It's just magnificent.

I like the film, but I don't think it's the best. Kneale's series actually seemed to get better as it went on (forgetting about the fourth, a television serial made with John Mills in the Quatermass role some decades later). The first seemed a little low-key for consumption later in the century, although it certainly held television viewers' attention when it was first screened (it was the reason most pubs were empty when it was being transmitted). The second was much better, although I feel it might be a little incomprehensible unless one realises the power of and secrecy surrounding Government scientific projects in the years immediately after the War. But the third (... and the Pit) is stunningly created and visualised, mixing horror, science-fiction, religion, psychic phenomena and even the meaning of life ! The budget for special effects was always low (but good value in terms of the results), but it would be nice to see how the BBC (always good at this sort of thing) fared on even less !

Myself and my children (10 and 12) enjoyed watching it, although Keaton is over the top. But I disagree with so many of the comments. I've never thought that much of Winona Ryder, but here she's good and her dance at the end is a wonderful way of finishing the film, especially as it got a bit muddled (perhaps) in the final few minutes. Again, we all liked the dancing around the table. But hardly anyone mentioned Elfman's strange score (remember he did Burton's Peewee films, but, like Keaton, would change direction drastically for Batman). I can't imagine anyone turning in a score as lop-sided, off-beat, and crazy (and sometimes lyrical) as Elfman has here.

I've never quite realised why this film seems so reviled. At the time of its release, I thought the plot rather ludicrous, although, as I've become older, I've begun to realise just how plausible it really was. Also, it looks really good, and Richard Rodney Bennett's score is magnificent. However, neither the direction nor the music are typical of the genre, so perhaps this is what people object to. Also, the cast is unusually good. But perhaps the film also makes you think more than the average spy film. Look, try it and see what you think.

It doesn't matter if you're British, not French : all the holidays of our childhoods were like this. Clear, unbroken skies, relatively empty beaches, chaos at the railway station, half the people acting strangely, the other half unyieldingly the same. There are two points where I laughed uncontrollably for several minutes, and that's more than in most films these days ! The rest is beautifully observed and more quietly funny, although Tati's use of sound can get a little irritating. And, yes, there were a number of versions of the film as Tati added bits over the years : for instance, the 'Jaws' sequence was added after Spielberg's film was released.

I don't normally like Peter Richardson's Comic Strip films, so why I watched this I don't know. However, it was much better than I expected, and, despite a few expletives, I thought it quite subtle in places. It's not very original in plot (which takes in rather too much), but the cast is quite good (Coltrane, Lom, Rocco), and the only people who might object are those who think it's anti-religious, which I feel it turns out not to be. I'm not a crackpot or a religious fanatic, although I don't think the film would appeal to the latter group !

Someone once wrote that the thing most people remember from the film is the scene where Omar Sharif first approaches Lawrence across the desert. For me, it is the stunning drum introduction in the overture to the film. And yes, the film is brilliant, but the fact that Bolt and Lean merge two separate characters in the film (the man Lawrence rescues from the desert and the one he has to shoot) makes one mistrustful of the film afterwards.