morpheusatloppers

"Survivor" is a classic "wrong man" movie – a wrongly-accused hero, generally being chased and/or shot at for most of the movie – Hitchcock made a number of them.

This particular genre of suspenser is hard to bring off successfully, as it requires the actor, director and writer(s) to develop a central character with whom ALL audience members will empathise, regardless of their individual personalities – and sexes.

In the case of "Survivor" the sex is female; Milla Jovovich. Although many release posters suggest the psychotic hit-man who spends most of the film chasing and shooting at her – Pierce Brosnan – is actually the central character. I wonder why – NOT.

But apart from a minor editing screwup in the final dénouement (which I cannot describe, as it will constitute a "spoiler") this was the only cloud over a hugely entertaining film.

Although if you read the critiques – both professional and amateur – of this piece, you could be forgiven for thinking it a major turkey. Which it certainly is not. Perhaps a diet of comic-book movies has softened the brains of said critics.

However, I must mention a CURIOUS thing about this film – its GROSS.

After more than half-an-hour of exhaustive research on the Interweb, I could NOT find the movie's "domestic" (American) or most of the Rest Of The World's BOX-OFFICE (half of which ends up as the net).

All I know is that despite most of the film being shot in London (by whom gawdnose – the film's credits gloss OVER those details) with exteriors in New York and interiors in Bulgaria, the budget was surprisingly small for such a production – just 20 million USD.

And that it took half a mill in China, a few grand elsewhere and a couple of mill from DVDs, TV and so on. In fact, I myself saw it on HBO, screened just six months after its theatrical release.

But of its all-important US and UK gross, I could find ZIP (and believe me, I tried). Those figures are being kept as secret as the formula for Coke.

The only clue came from Wiki, who said the movie had been released in both markets – but in The States, only as a LIMITED release. HOW limited? Five hundred screens? Just FIVE? We do not know.

Furthermore, after the critical mauling it received, it appears to have had NO backing from its distributors.

Which is sad, because an INVOLVING film like "Survivor" is RARE these days, in a business now geared primarily for mindless CGI blockbusters for KIDS.

Also sad is the fact that Welsh actor Roger Rees made this film while suffering from brain cancer – he died shortly after.

I am only glad that I discovered all of the above AFTER I had watched this EXCELLENT film. Catch it if you can.

The Theatre Of The Absurd evolved during the middle years of the last century – and Reeves and Mortimer have been attempting to adapt it for TV for the past twenty-five.

First they tried the variety format; "Vic Reeves' Big Night Out" ('90-1) then the game-show format; "Shooting Stars" ('93-'11, on and off) and have now tackled sitcom; "House Of Fools" ('14-?) And along the way, they have dabbled with popular drama, sketch-shows and just about everything.

But it is with "House Of Fools" that they have finally found their calling.

The tone is set by a Keith Mansfield KPM (library) number, accompanying a Seventies sitcom pastiche title sequence – then the characters enter, one at a time, singing their introductions to the tune of "Day Trip To Bangor" (didn't we have a lov-er-ly time…) Released from any obligation to establish realistic narrative, the absurdist "plot" develops, with Reeves and Mortimer employing their usual cartoonish, surreal devices.

And they are in no small way aided by a superb supporting cast which includes the luscious Morgana Robinson (I would) and in particular Matt Berry; his appearances on "The IT Crowd" were just plain weird, with him delivering his lines like they were on cue-cards he was seeing for the first time – but on this show, the style is perfect.

A second series of "House Of Fools" has recently been commissioned. I for one cannot wait

If you are a Jerry Lewis fan, you have probably heard that this film – made in the Golden Year of 1967 – is the biggest pile of poop he ever made (although we have yet to see his "The Day The Clown Cried" and it is unlikely we will – at least, while Jerry lives). And that would be a fair description of this turkey.

However, it is still worth a look – for three reasons.

First and most important, he re-creates his Nerd character (Professor Julius Kelp) from "The Nutty Professor" – imagine a DVD of deleted scenes from THAT – you would pay money to see those, would you not? This is the next best thing.

Second comes an extended shot of the late Charlie Callas (no relation to Maria) doing his "manic twitch" routine – it is almost worth watching this abomination for that alone. This was Charlie's ONLY film appearance and came about after they met on the Merv Griffin Show and he impressed Jerry so much, the latter promised to use him in his next project. Sadly, it turned out to be THIS.

Last is a bizarre, two-minute cameo from Harland Sanders – yes, the old cross-eyed "colonel" himself. Many people today are unaware that the character on the KFC logo was once actually a REAL PERSON and he makes a fleeting appearance in this dross.

Why? Well, perhaps HE was a fan of Jerry Lewis' movies – although it is unfortunate that he chose THIS one to make his film debut in

You could be forgiven for believing Elaine May's "Ishtar" was one of the five biggest financial disasters in Hollywood – the others being Michael Cimino's "Heaven's Gate", "Waterworld" with Kevin Costner, "Gigli" with Ben Affleck and "The Bonfire Of The Vanities" with Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis and others.

But you would be WRONG. These five films are merely the most FAMOUS fiscal flops (alliteration!)

There are DOZENS that equal and even surpass them. Ever heard of "Mars Needs Moms"? Precisely.

Released (or more properly – escaped) just three years ago, THAT box-office bomb barely clawed back twenty of the one hundred and fifty big ones it cost to make.

And back in the days of the Studio System, the number of films that are considered to be classics today – is equalled by those that just DISAPPEARED.

The studios figured that releasing them would cost more in DAMAGE to their studio and stars than the bombs would net – so cut as much usable material (like battle scenes which could be used as stock footage) from them as possible and BURNED the rest.

However now that the Studio System is long gone, EVERYTHING gets SOME sort of release.

Thus "Ishtar", which cost $55M to make (a big budget in 1987) was eventually released, netting just $7M at the US box office.

But this does not tell the whole story. The worldwide figures are unavailable – then you have to factor in video, TV and latterly, DVD rights. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that overall, the movie is still a long way short of covering its production costs.

These were worsened by the studio's insistence on giving the film high production values. The reason being that having heavyweights like Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty (who had championed Elaine May in the first place) on board, they were not about to scrimp it.

Which is the film's first problem. Elaine had envisioned it as a "Road To…" movie (although it comes across more like those Sixties Bond spoofs – like "Danger Route" and "Our Man In Marrakesh") with a modest budget, shot locally – not an epic, part-made in Morocco.

Furthermore, the studio insisted on paying both its lead actors a fortune – while both would have been happy with far less.

To make things worse, the political situation in North Africa at the time was TENSE.

Then to cap it all, just as the film was nearing completion, David Puttnam (now LORD Puttnam) was brought in as the studio's new head of production. He hated Beatty, Hoffman and production cost waste in equal measure – and publicly condemned the movie on the basis of all three.

And all along the way, there had been a plethora of problems and fallouts too numerous to mention here – all of which conspired to CAPSIZE the film before it had a chance.

So what is "Ishtar" actually LIKE? Well, most of those who decried it never even SAW it. It is actually not that bad.

Beatty and Hoffman's chemistry is pretty good, Charles Grodin is as funny as ever – and the "blind" camel steals every scene he is in (the camel originally "signed" for the part got eaten instead).

Plus Paul Williams' songs are realistically awful (Beatty and Hoffman play bad singer-songwriters) Dave Grusin's score is fine, May's script and direction is okay (although after "Ishtar", she never got to direct another movie) and altogether the film lopes along agreeably, never becoming boring (which is more than can be said for the other four films listed above).

So if you find this piece in your DVD hire shop or it turns up on your TV schedules – give it a try.

It may not be in my All Time Top Ten Movie list – or even my top hundred – but it is NOT as bad as many would have you believe.

On its original release, it was well received at its three premieres, hit Number One at the box office during its opening week – and almost all of IMDb's 121 reviews (written by actual PEOPLE) are POSITIVE.

And it is now available on Blu-Ray.

I finally saw it a few days ago on DiggerMovie HD and LOLed many times (particularly during the scenes involving that camel). And as Elaine herself once said, "If all of the people who hate "Ishtar" had SEEN it – I would be a rich woman today."

Thirty years ago, Jim Abrahams and David and Jerry Zucker created a spoof genre that has often been imitated, but never equalled - until now.

"Airplane!" and "Police Squad!" heralded a new style of comedy, which mixed sight-gags - some in the background - with dead-pan delivery of absurd cliché lines by famous, serious actors.

The sheer number of jokes often required several viewings to get them all.

And now, Charlie Brooker has taken that formula to the max. "A Touch Of Cloth" - a reference to the popular but tedious police procedural, "A Touch Of Frost" - crossed with what happens to people who do not make it to the bathroom in time - does to Brit cop shows what "Police Squad!" did to Quinn Martin productions.

It's all there - background gags like the poster showing items of fruit, with the title, "Fruits Which Are Not Oranges" (a reference to the controversial drama series, "Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit") and the "Now Wash Your Hands" sign in the toilet - featuring a silhouette wearing a police helmet.

And cliché lines like, "You can't go in there - it's impossible!" - but John Hannah opens the door anyway - to reveal a blank wall.

Hannah was the perfect choice to head up the cast. Like Leslie Nielsen and Lloyd Bridges before him, he has played his part for real.

Created as an 85 minute movie, "A Touch Of Cloth" is split into two TV episodes. And this is genius, because this formula really only works in 40 minute segments. Go for longer and "laughter fatigue" sets in - and the audience begins to anticipate the gags.

This is intended to be the first of three such forays - the second is already in production - and I think there are still plenty of "...-cloth" gags left...

This film was called "L'Etrangere" (The Stranger) in France, "Sex With A Stranger" in Britain and "Sin With A Stranger" in the States - which says a lot about attitudes to sex in those three countries, in 1968.

Of course, had the film been released just two years later, the story would have been very different.

But in '68, the British release of the film had its sex scene EVISCERATED by the British censor - perhaps if they had just called it "The Stranger" and argued its case...

Its star, Marie-France Boyer was an actress, singer and writer whose film career spanned the sixteen years between '59 and '76 - after which she concentrated on her writing.

Today, at 73, she still writes, but in 1968 she was a BABE - and "L'Etrangere" was her most memorable piece. It tells the story of a "mystery" - an ethereal girl who turns up at an idyllic farmhouse and seduces the young man who resides there.

Despite ticking the "spoiler" box, I'll not reveal more - suffice to say it does not end well.

But the most memorable aspect to this film is the music. Composer Romuald Figuier (here, just called Romuald) opened his long career with this film, giving it everything he had.

And the film is worth watching just for that...

Forget the reviews that harp on about "Casino Royale" - the fact that an important plot point was lifted from that book is IRRELEVANT to the enjoyment to be had from one of Britain's Best Sixties Movies.

And don't concern yourself with Warren Beatty either. Only hired to sell the movie Stateside, he sleep-walks through it, while awaiting fame as Clyde Barrow, George Roundy, et al.

Instead, delight in the performance of the lovely Susannah York (who sadly passed, earlier this year) who sparkles in this project - the sterling work by the bizarre Murray Melvin - the excellent wallow in Napoleonic evil, delivered with relish by the great Eric Porter - and above all, the outstanding turn from the incomparable Clive Revill (who, at 81, is still with us).

After memorable appearances in many British movies, Revill relocated to America in the early Seventies and squandered his talents as one of the great character actors on TV fare (although he did get to shine as Villain Of The Week in a Columbo).

But here, he excels as a quirky Scotland Yard detective, in possibly his best outing ever. Truly he was one of those rare actors who always gave more than was on the page.

Add to these a slew of Sixties kitsch - and not forgetting a literate script - and you have one of the Great British Sixties Movies. Enjoy!

In 1970, Richard Matheson wrote a short story called "Button, Button" (after the kids game - Button, Button - Who's Got The Button?) The plot involved a dilemma - would you kill a stranger for a large amount of money.

A woman is given a box containing a button - all she has to do is press it...

In 1986, the story was used as an episode of the revival of "The Twilight Zone".

In 2009, it was expanded to movie length, for a Cameron Diaz vehicle called "The Box".

Two years later, the idea resurfaced in "The Reckoning". This time, the woman was Ricky Gervais' little Scottish chum in "Extras".

The problem with all this is that the original source material was a SHORT STORY. And within those confines, it works fine.

But by trying to develop it to movie length, the idea becomes submerged.

And in "The Reckoning" it DROWNS. The improbabilities and illogicality of the development kill the spark of the original concept stone dead.

One to avoid.

I have often wondered what a movie peppered with sitcom stars (who work WAY harder than "serious" ones) would be like. Now I know. It's GREAT!

Containing stars from series like "Two And A Half Men" and "The New Adventures Of Old Christine" (and starring one of the snobby duo from the latter) this movie is better acted than most "rom-coms" that inhabit mainstream cinema today.

And while any movie that is written and directed by the same person should ring alarm bells - there are exceptions. And "Weather Girl" is definitely one of them.

It is a damn shame this movie got so little exposure in the theatres - but if it pops up on telly or you see it down at your local video-hire shop, check it out.

Okay, it's no "When Harry Met Sally" - but it will entertain you WAY more than a lot of the tosh that masquerades as cinematic entertainment these days.

The series was reaching its end when this offering was made (although the writers/cast may not have KNOWN that).

As usual, our twitchy hero acts everyone off the screen - but is let down by a major faux pas from the writers.

The plot involves a twist on the Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy which beggars belief, but is at least an ORIGINAL IDEA, which you will NOT see coming, I promise.

However, the writers failed to do their research. The devices the emergency services have, which trigger traffic signals to go green in front of them, only over-ride max times and computer instructions.

They DO NOT and CAN NOT over-ride the signals' basic safety protocols.

If, as shown in this episode, they caused green conflicts (greens in both directions) or even instant changes (no ambers or intergreens) the EMERGENCY vehicles would leave a series of COLLISIONS in their wake.

As you may have gathered, I am a retired traffic systems engineer.

However, that said, this episode is possibly the most exciting and unusual of the series. So WATCH it - but do not worry the next time you are driving.

If someone T-bones you at a signal-controlled crossing - they will merely be DRUNK.

I have given this a ten/ten - not because it is the best movie ever made - but because it is DIFFERENT. ORIGINAL. Two words that rarely grace write-ups of today's movies.

The premise is absurd (if it's an alternate world, how come Napoleon still invaded Russia in 1812?) so you will need to suspend disbelief.

As the late, great Don LaFontaine would have said, "in a world where..." - in this case, the filters between people's brains and their mouths are MISSING, so people constantly blurt out the first thing that comes into their heads, without any consideration for their fellow-humans' feelings.

It is thus a BLEAK world (which is cleverly in direct contrast to the beautiful locations the movie was filmed in).

However, along comes Ricky - who discovers fame and fortune when he begins to buck this trend. But it cannot win him what he ultimately wants - a pretty but self-obsessed American woman.

Oh, he could win her by lying - but he has too much integrity for that.

And although this writer has ticked the "spoiler" box - he is saying no more. You'll have to SEE the movie.

It is peppered with cameos and small roles being played by famous actors. They obviously wanted to come along on THIS ride - because they wanted to take part in something that was DIFFERENT. ORIGINAL.

Which is where this writer came in...

...at least, judging by the pilot.

As one who is well-stricken in years, I am old enough to remember the original series. And whilst I loathe remakes, I tend to give them a go when the original was less than brilliant.

And thus was the case here. Whilst Morty Stevens' theme tune was snappy, the original series was little more than a time-passer. A straight procedural, with a little local colour.

However, this new look hits all the right notes, retaining the original theme tune and a copy of the title sequence (I suspect many fans of the original would have turned OFF if they'd dumped THOSE) and they even managed to squeeze in a "Book 'em Danno!"

But from these threads, the series TOTALLY takes OFF. Danno is no longer a dopey sidekick, put there to explain the plot at the beginning of each episode ("Whatta we got, Danno?") and then schlep away the bad guys at the end ("Book 'em Danno") - he's a full-blown PARTNER.

This ramps up the dynamic TENFOLD. Jack Lord's domination was tedious in the original - but James Caan's son's version of Danno brings a whole new dynamic to the formula.

And the local talent isn't just there for colour, either. This time, instead of a couple of gophers, we have a guy who TALKS - and a kick-ass GIRL.

Plus this version has a BUDGET. Explosions and sweeping aerial shots abound. Okay it's all a bit silly, but then so was "Bad Boys" - and that did all right.

So I for one will be tuning in next week. Let's hope all concerned can keep it up!

(Update: episode 2 was even better!)

This movie is reminiscent of Carpenter's original "Halloween" - i.e., it's all in the last reel. Then again, that film was highly successful, so maybe this one was too (it took $76M - but its production cost is a mystery). However, before spending two hours of your life on it, consider the following...

We are asked to care about a cloying couple and their obnoxious kids. The apparent central character is the woman - a recovering alcoholic with an obsession for HAVING kids. She already has two - and when a third is still-born, she decides to adopt. Her dopey husband concurs.

Enter Esther - a nine-year-old Estonian girl, played by then-twelve-year-old Isabelle Fuhrman (who is the best thing IN this piece). Being "different", she is bullied at school and soon bumps heads with her new, adoptive brother - who is so objectionable, you can't WAIT for him to get his.

And in due course, he does - along with everyone else, in this predictable "evil child" shocker. The problem is, you don't much CARE (unless, like this writer, you only continued to watch to SEE same).

Thus, when the "big twist" DOES come, you are so bored, it barely registers. Which is a shame, because said twist is a really ORIGINAL one. However, despite ticking the spoiler box, this reviewer is not about to reveal it - as it is really the ONLY reason for watching this drivel.

This series definitely deserves a DVD release - particularly in the US, where it was axed after just three episodes. And where I believe it was ahead of its time.

I am British - and we got to see all eleven eps when it came up for syndication, the year after Tx in America. Granted it was shown at "kiddie hour" - but it quickly gained a cult audience, because of its star, Mr Elam.

Now I'm not saying it was a classic - but it was far better than many comedies that ran for years. The fact it only took up a total of four and a half hours of my life - thirty years ago - and I still recall it, says something.

After years of playing villains (although he had once had a comedic role, in "The Twilight Zone") Jack's talent for comedy first emerged in 1968, in "Once Upon A Time In The West" - a serious movie, but one in which Jack turned in a knowing performance.

This lead immediately to an all-out comedy turn in "Support Your Local Sheriff" - after which he increasingly turned to it. And his extraordinary visage was perfect for the monster in "Struck By Lightning" - for which he needed little makeup!

While much of the writing on "Struck By Lightning" was pedestrian, it had a number of good lines - and even when things flagged, Jack's gurning performance would still make you laugh.

So come on, Paramount/CBS - give us the box set (we'll settle for it on two disks) of "Struck By Lightning" - or Frank'll GET you!

An actioner with a brain, this series is one of the best: "Hustle" (U.K.) meets "The A-Team" (U.S.)

But this reporter (being British) was curious as to why Gina Bellman was almost written out of the show during series two - which was shot during 2009.

She mostly only appeared on computer-cam, being seen from the neck up. Suspecting the obvious, Your Humble Scribe looked her up. Yep - in late 2009, she gave birth to a daughter, Romy.

Sitting in for Gina, was Jeri Ryan - who had had HER daughter, Gisele, around eighteen months earlier (and thus regained her shape).

Gina finally returned in the season closer.

Season three begins soon and whilst Jeri has her good points (sorry, that was beneath me - as was that) I look forward to seeing Gina's return.

I love her awful campy acting in her "day job" - mediocre stage actress - even though it is incongruous, given her skills when grifting. And I look forward to SOME sort of resolution with her relationship with Nate.

Being a Brit, I have followed her career for YEARS - and can say without fear of contradiction that "Leverage" is her best gig EVER!

Although I have ticked "contains spoilers", I would reiterate that this review DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS (in fact, if you haven't seen the episode, it is POINTLESS!) So if you've not yet seen it, STOP READING NOW!!!

Okay. The thing is, "Monk" runs 40 mins 30 secs, including titles and credits - so they have to be CONCISE. And I get the impression that a couple of bits got CUT from this superior episode of this superior show.

First, early on, Gwen DeWitt (the killer's wife) informs us that her dog is an Australian Shepherd. This later becomes relevant when the victim's pups are born without tails - like HER dog.

But the dog belonging to Amanda Castle (the victim) was an Aussiedoodle - which is a cross between an Australian Shepherd and a Poodle (I know this because I HAVE one) which was ALSO relevant.

I mean, it CONNECTS the two dogs - but the fact was NEVER MENTIONED. You may say - so what? Well, if they did not intend to use this fact, why mention it in the first place?

Then there is the fact that Steve DeWitt wrapped the corpse in his carpet. AGAIN, the fact he has a NEW carpet is MENTIONED - but not followed up on. This despite the fact the corpse had by now turned up wrapped in a carpet (very Cleopatra).

Again, so what? Well, the fact that DeWitt was unwise enough to leave his carpet with the body is AGAIN RELEVANT. It MUST have held his DNA (hairs, etc.)

Now I do not know Californian Law - perhaps DNA evidence is inadmissible in court if the accused refuses to provide a sample (which DeWitt certainly WOULD have). But if that is the case, surely it should have been STATED?

All of which makes this writer think there MUST have been a longer version of this episode - or at least, the script. If so, it is a shame they couldn't have edited the show down to fit its slot, WITHOUT CUTTING the missing bits.

Shown as it was, it INFURIATED the observant viewer who DID notice these things - and expected them to LEAD somewhere.

Of course, Mr Monk's buttoned-up shirt and lack of tie has ALSO never been mentioned. But the fact Monk has OCD makes the reason OBVIOUS to anyone who has ever tied a tie - he'd never leave the HOUSE!

Therefore, one can forgive the writers THAT one - one presumes they are simply crediting the fans with INTELLIGENCE. But the failure to follow the Australian Shepherd and carpet connections HAS to have been forced on them by TIME constraints - which is SAD.

An open letter to ALL U.S. networks...

Too many potentially good fledgling drama series have bitten the dust recently (Standoff, Studio 60, Dirrt, Big Shots, Cupid, etc.) due to a variety of reasons (the writers' strike, the Wall Street meltdown and audiences turning to THIS medium).

While police procedurals and no-brain actioners grind on remorselessly, intelligently written, quirky series get CANNED unless they garner BIG numbers in just a few weeks.

The networks' PARANOIA is reducing TV to the lowest (very) common denominator, audience-wise. But we deserve BETTER - and unless you give it to us, you will see your ratings sinking even FASTER!

Even White Collar's start has been hesitant. According to IMDb, we are still in the middle of season one. But here in Thailand, we just got episode eight and having just checked the U.S. RELEASE dates - after having noted the "cliff-hanger" ending of episode seven, coupled with the new title-sequence on ep 8 - it doesn't take a genius to work out that eps1-7 were effectively season one and eps 8 onward are season TWO!

Obviously, the network wasn't prepared to commit to a FULL SEASON!!!

And after having stalled for six weeks after ep 7, the show has AGAIN stalled after ep 14. Come ON! I realize this is a Fox series, but surely you could have managed 16? Or did your stop-go, hesitant production of this series mean you ran out of TIME?

Back in the day, American series ran PILOTS - ONE episode, to introduce the format - and if it attracted enough interest, the network would green-light a FULL SEASON - 26 episodes. And the series had to totally TANK before they'd pull it mid-season.

So GROW a pair, Fox! AND A.B.C., N.B.C. and C.B.S.

Everyone claims to have been disappointed by this movie - and I cannot figure out why.

You have two of America's greatest actors working TOGETHER for (almost) the FIRST TIME ("Heat" really only gave them one - memorable - scene together, and in "The Godfather: Part 2" they were still kids - it was THIRTY-FIVE YEARS ago!) And you have a classic set-up. They play veteran cops, who've been partners for years - yet don't really know each other. And Brian Dennehy is their boss - what more could you WANT? Dialogue? Adequate - cops don't speak like Shakespeare. Plot? A GREAT one - with a huge twist THIS reporter didn't see coming (and as a writer, I usually do). And characterisation? They had ME.

Plus, the movie was well directed, pacey and consistent - like a "B" movie (although it was actually big-budget - but one suspects half of that went to the dynamic duo, since not too much of its $60M production money ended up on the screen - thus having grossed $40M US and $37M foreign, it must have lost a bundle, half the gross going to the theatres).

But it wasn't YOUR money - so ENJOY these giants of American cinema.

One last thing: IMDb's "goofs" section MISSED one - near the start, one of the murderer's poems is read out - the reading is obviously correct, but the card that's being read clearly has a word MISSING!

It's all been said. This movie was NOT made for TV - it was one of Hammer's many non-horror pictures (Hammer also made musicals, comedies and as here, psychological thrillers) and is totally devoid of Hammer's usual Gothic style.

The plot is derivative and given its year of production, contains obligatory nudity (thanfully, the UNCUT version was always shown on UK TV - Ms Powers - nice - moving on). But this film should be savoured for its MUSIC.

It has a great re-occurring track that features then-famous British jazz tenor-sax player, Tubby Hayes. He also turns up in Amicus' "Dr Terror's House Of Horrors" - he was booked to do the score - it never happened, but he does feature, blowing up a storm in a nightclub scene.

Anyhoo, while the man doesn't APPEAR in Crescendo, his music is all OVER it - reason enough to give it a look.

I wanted to hate this - and I was not disappointed.

"Arrival" dutifully trod the same ground as its illustrious predecessor. And while Pat hailed from Sixties London - the new guy was a contemporary New Yorker. However, in the original, The Village was then bang up to date, while this re-tread tried to set its Village in the Sixties.

They had HEAVILY restored Renault Dauphines (well - they ARE now fifty years old) standing in for the then-contemporary Mini-Moke taxis of the original - and I saw at least one Morris Minor.

And where the original's exteriors were filmed in the Italianate folly, Portmeirion - for this nightmare, they had built what looked like a bad Spanish holiday resort.

Even dear old Sir Ian McKellen - and a smattering of references to the original - the bang on the desk, making the tea-cup jump - the old man with the piped jacket - "Be seeing you" - the "keyhole" doorway - Rover (a larger model, of course) - and the bit where Number Six buys a map (a tiny piece of paper opens up into a six-foot square - I think SOMEONE was taking the mickey at this point) - could not save this TURKEY!

It was a U.K.-South African co-production, obviously aimed at the US mini-series market. But despite what you might have heard, Americans are not THAT dumb - many have seen the original.

THAT show had style, panache, sex, drugs and Rock 'N' Roll (okay - no sex - Pat did not approve of that sort of thing - which is why he turned down Bond) while this is like watching a bunch of people stuck in Tenerife during an airline strike!

Do yourself a favour and AVOID this dirity.

Period drama is hard enough (you get things like cobblestones on a parade ground being decidedly modern, in a film set in the Forties - a fact MISSED in the "goofs" section for THIS film).

And when the end result is known (like, "Titanic" SINKS) it is even harder.

But when it is set in a foreign country, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

One is reminded of Disney's 1960 cartoon of "101 Dalmations" - where everyone spoke with English accents, but the puppies all had American ones.

And in the British TV series "Van Der Valk" (set in Holland) everyone just used standard British accents - even when the characters visited Britain. But then, all but the OLDEST Dutch people speak FLUENT English - and German - and French. (I also remember being pleased they showed Britain as it was - an incompetent MESS, compared to the efficiency of the Dutch).

Then there is the British sitcom "Allo, Allo" where the French, German and British characters all spoke English - but with different accents. Great fun was had when they couldn't understand each other, since they were theoretically speaking different LANGUAGES! (Okay, you had to BE there - but WE laughed).

However, this was not a comedy - thus attention should have been PAID to this issue. This reporter found it DISTRACTING that most of the cast spoke with English accents (they were English ACTORS) while the main stars used American ones.

At times, Tom APPEARED to be trying to ape his English supporting cast - but the results were variable, to say the least.

And of course, Hitler HAD to speak with a German accent, or he wouldn't have been Hitler.

One cannot easily see how this problem could have been solved, short of having everyone speak German with subtitles throughout (yeah - audiences would have LOVED that) or having everyone re-voiced by actors capable of speaking English with German accents (and Tom's fans would not have stood for THAT).

Nevertheless, given the above problems, this was still a valiant effort at portraying a facet of WW2 that many are not aware of. In the early days, it is easy to see how the German people were swept along by the Nazi's promises. But when the full horror had been played out, there were many who realised the voyage begun was now a cruel folly and were eager to STOP it.

Although one had HEARD of the assassination attempts - and vaguely recalled the name Von Stauffenberg - this writer found this semi-documentary of the events fascinating.

And Cruise's performance wasn't bad either.

As a life-long film-fan of 57 summers, I should be whipped (preferably by Ms Loy) for having never seen this classic until TODAY. As a boy in the Sixties, I'd seen the Hammer remake (interesting that thanks to their HEIGHT, Mssrs Karloff and Lee both started their careers as Frankenstein's monster, then went on to play the Mummy and Fu Manchu) but this one slipped past me.

You've gotta LOVE the outrageous (and yeah I know, racist - but what do you want? - it was 1932) dialogue, the campiness, the drama-queen heroine and most of all Mr Karloff, getting his teeth into DIALOGUE, having previously had to put all of his expressiveness into physicality.

But my favourite bit is when the stunt-double HOPS over a bunch of crocodiles. There was no question of technique - he obviously just WENT for it!

My only quibble (a bit late NOW) is the AGE of the actor playing Nayland (pronounced NIEland, for some reason) Smith. In the Hammer version, Nigel Green - or Douglas Wilmer or Richard Greene in the sequels - COULD have leapt over crocodiles, but in this version, poor old Lewis Stone looks like he'd need help boarding a BUS!

I gave it a 10, since everyone else seemed to like it and it would have been churlish not to. The reason I'm troubling you is to add a personal observation on Castle's work.

I've seen "Homicidal" and "The Tingler" (the version with the clever colour sequence where everything except the blood is in black and white) a few times and "The House On Haunted Hill" many times.

Even I am not old enough to have seen them when Castle was up to his showman tricks, thus I can appreciate them for their own merit. And while most pass him off as second-rate, schlocky, hammy, etc., I believe they do him a disservice.

The end sequence of "Homicidal" is GENUINELY shocking and works today - and the premise of "The Tingler" while silly, was highly original.

But "The House On Haunted Hill" was a TRIUMPH. Having used that Frank Lloyd Wright house as its exterior, the great Vincent Price and a solid cast, plus a good score and production values - when I first saw it at a packed late-night showing in the late Sixties, it produced an audience reaction I'd not seen before and have not seen since.

It was the bit where the heroine is alone in the basement (if you've not seen the film, stop reading NOW) and we are waiting to hear the hero on the other side of the wall.

With NO telegraphing of what is coming, the camera slowly pulls back, forcing the AUDIENCE to switch their gaze to... I'm saying no more (my "spoiler" declaration above only covers THIS movie).

The point is, I believe this ploy was DELIBERATE - not accidental - and when it happened, the WHOLE AUDIENCE SCREAMED (including most of the men!) It took the audience about TEN MINUTES to calm down.

Now THAT is superior film-making. A flamboyant showman he might have been, but "House" and the other two films I've mentioned were GOOD MOVIES. Castle may not have been a Hitchcock, but he was no Ed Wood, either.

It's easy to concentrate on someone's quirks and forget to examine their TALENT. So I hope this documentary acknowledged that. I look forward to seeing it.

I bought this movie on DVD on the strength of the cast and was not disappointed. Maggie is brilliant and Rowan showed he is more than Bean.

Altogether, the kind of British black comedy they don't make anymore.

And like so many movies made in the Old Country these days - it almost made me pine for home - except I know that the bits they showed were the nice bits. The rest is... well, never mind. Anyhoo, although I enjoyed this romp immensely, it did leave some questions.

Like, I have seen it twice now and so much is unexplained. Particularly in regard to Maggie's appearance. We are told (obliquely) that she is the new housekeeper. And we learn that she is the birth-mother of the vicar's wife (having been pregnant when starting her term "away").

But since this cannot possibly be a coincidence, one assumes she has applied for the job to see her daughter (a la "Mrs Doubtfire").

However, tracking her daughter DOWN, in the first place - then discovering she was in the market for a housekeeper - then getting the job from the agency, without letting on about her reasons for wanting that specific post...

And what agency would employ a person for such a job without references (she'd just come out of BROADMOOR, for gawdsake!) Or did the family advertise? In which case, it would STILL have been a hell of a coincidence for her to have seen the ad...

This may all seem petty, but since the whole premise HINGES on her acquiring the job, without alerting the family to her identity...

Thus, one wonders if this was all explained in a sequence that was CUT OUT, in order to speed up what was a leisurely-paced film.

One last thing: the movie only grossed $18M5 (it BOMBED in The all-important States - maybe America does not GET British dark humour - sorry, humor). And while its production costs are a secret (Mojo doesn't know) - to have made a profit, it would have had to have cost less than $9M to make.

Which seems unlikely, given its production values and locations. And that is a damn shame, because it's really rather GOOD!

Morecombe and Wise only ever made three films. In the Eighties, they switched TV companies in order to make more - but sadly, Eric died before that could happen. Which leaves us with the three they made in the Sixties.

In reverse order, they are "The Magnificent Two" - a similar film to the contemporaneous Woody Allen piece, "Bananas." However, despite a good effort by the boys, it was a bomb.

Before that, they had had their greatest success with "That Riviera Touch", which many consider to be the best of the three. It had an original plot and Ernie got to sing.

But their first outing combined a feeble Bond-spoof plot with many of the boys' TV routines - and was the best thing they ever did. The inclusion of the routines makes it the definitive M & W work.

Despite being unfamiliar with working without an audience, the boys threw themselves into the piece, supported by some of Britain's finest comedy actors. The result was comedy magic.

A few footnotes. Tutte Lemkov, an actor/choreographer, gives HIS finest performance in the film, as the very definition of the word "sinister".

Sid Green and Dick Hills, then the boys' main TV writers, give a great cameo as two drunks in Eric's espresso bar.

Philip Green, who supplied the music for many classic British comedies, turns in a superb score.

And unusually, the film includes a snippet from another (named) movie - a Robert Mitchum oater. In those days, the clearance problems would normally have made this impossible. And whilst the clip is real, the music comes from Philip Green, replacing the original audio. Bizarre.

Anyhoo, that aside, grab this one if you can - and watch the finest double-act Britain (or America?) ever produced, in their finest hour (and a half).