gregory_quinn

Of the "dollar trilogy", this is the last, and for me, certainly not the best. The plot line is meandering and it's simply too long for the content. By the time that both Eastwood and Leoni had gotten this far, they had both "made it" in professional terms. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was the first studio (UA) financed film that Eastwood had starred in and Leoni had produced/directed. Eastwood's role as the man with no name was beginning to jump the shark in this movie and he correctly decided not to appear in Leoni's following movie, Once Upon A Time in the West. For sure it contains iconic scenes, which are often beautifully photographed, but also contains sadistic violence, which even now I find shocking. Part of great filmmaking is plotting an adventure that lasts mosts people's attention span of about 90-120 minutes. This is a 60 minute story in a 180 minute movie.

It's an unfortunate truism nowadays that any major film production in the UK must at least try to secure US funding, and failing that, aim in part at US audiences to have a hope of recouping production costs. The Imitation Game is a prime example of this phenomenon. The fact that this mess garnered an Oscar is testament to where the movie was aimed at, and apparently hit its target.

The British film industry and production talent is capable of creating exquisite productions and with great casting. UK hosts some of the best acting talent in the world. Combined with a usable screenplay, it can make compelling cinema. The screenplay for this effort uses the mechanism of three story lines of the principle character separated by time (schooldays, Bletchley days and final police investigation of homosexual activity). This could have been fine, except for the screenwriter's desire to overly write in melodrama where there was none, additional fictional characters as plot devices, etc.. the acting is good, Cumberbach does a good job of effecting Turing as he's been described in the past to me.

however...

The result is a movie that I had trouble watching. Not recommended, and I'm hoping for better stuff coming out of the UK.

Idling around a few weeks ago I searched for Ace of Wands online and found a short video clip. I was prompted to buy a region 0 DVD of the surviving episodes (I live in the US now). But in 1970/71 I was a spotty kid in a London, UK School not having such a good time, so escapism like this show was great. I never really did watch shows about kids, I wanted to see grown up situations, like Dr. Who and Ace of Wands.

What I noticed about the show after receiving the DVD was that Ace of Wands is actually still quite watchable - some shows from the early 1970's I certainly can't watch now. I guess they mixed it up for the kid audience, so it was never dull. For some reason, my memory of the show was that it had a lot of atmosphere, but the sets were bad and the acting dire. On re-seeing the shows, that's certainly not the case. All the acting is good, and the sets were perfectly good for what I'm sure was a low budget venture. Michael Mackenzie as Tarot is very good in the lead and in no small way carries the show; at 6'2" he towers over most of the relatively short UK cast, but isn't aloof in the way he plays the role. I'm puzzled why Mackenzie didn't achieve lead status in UK films or other TV shows. No one ever really knows the reason for why one actor become big and others languish.

The first two series were wiped, which is a shame because I preferred Judy Loe and Tony Selby. Nowadays, it's not that unusual to see a UK star do children's TV. In the 1970's, it wasn't exactly a mark of accomplishment, and perhaps both actors felt career-wise it wasn't a good idea to hang around. Petra Markham (sister-in-law of Vanessa Redgrave) and Roy Holder are good enough in their roles in the third series though.

The stories often used to hinge on telepathy between Tarot and his assistant (Loe or Markham) and some were quite inventive. The show was replaced on ITV by the "Tomorrow People", which can actually be streamed on Amazon (I'm sure this is due to their status of being shown in the US - Ace of Wands wasn't).

I'm hoping Thames sold the show to another European countries and that someday the wiped episodes will surface. In the meantime, what's available is a good idea of what the show brought to kids in the early 1970's.

For the life of me I can't understand why this movie receives favorable reviews. The basis of the movie is risible - truck drivers delivering gravel at break neck speeds (actually not break neck speeds, just speeded up movie footage) and pot boiler performances. Early appearances of Patrick McGoohan and Sean Connery sporting unibrows, and Stanley Baker as an ex con. I can imagine the trailer shown with the "exciting" movie title making this out to be LeMons for truck drivers, and the disappointed, disoriented movie goers wondering what they just watched. One of the last nails in the coffin of the UK movie industry, really awful.

Totally a question of my age (58), I'm sure. The episode went totally over my head, found it overwrought and incomprehensible. The production values are amazingly good as are the special effects (gone are the days of "Doctor Eyes" against a blue screen. I'm afraid I prefer drama that's vaguely comprehensible, and liked the old Hartnell, Troughton and Pertwee doctors. Sorry, didn't think much of Capaldi - I'm sure he's a great actor otherwise. Shows how out of touch I am with public thinking, but to me the show takes itself too seriously. Hoping there'll be a retro version of Doctor Who that I'll be able to relate to.

As Roger Ebert attested, this film is a production from someone at the peak of their powers. Spielberg really delivers; visually exquisite and with a tight script that has no discernible filler. Key scenes, such as where Anderton (Cruise) is cornered in an alley by the future crime cops is a lesson in how to make an action sequence. VFX are top notch, even though many of the techniques used are superseded now.

I saw this movie again just now after a gap of close to ten years, and it's lost nothing. Cruise shows why, even after a PR pummeling, he'll always be in work because he's a such a good actor. Supporting actors are top notch: Farrell in the only role I've liked in him is great and Max von Sydow is always good.

Happened on this TV movie by chance. It's extremely well produced, has some good casting and I found it riveting.

I am one of those who grew up hiding behind a couch watching Doctor Who. I can still remember watching the first episode. It's difficult to imagine Hartnell as frightening now, watching an rerun, but I can assure you he was scary to a lot of us. by my calculation, Hartnell would have been about 54 years old - but appeared more like ten years older than that. This is evident by the fact that he's played by a 71 year old David Bradley! Incidentally, my recollection is that the first show was repeated the following week was mainly because of a widespread electricity blackout in the UK, not because of JFK's assassination.

I believe this film is based on the written account of his granddaughter (though I could be wrong). The official story was that Hartnell left of his own volition, this film puts paid to that. I guess in any job that you're working for someone else you aren't really in control of your exit, and for 99% of actors that's probably especially so. It must have been a devastating blow to Hartnell.

Brian Cox is a scene-stealer, Jessica Raine does a very sympathetic Verity Lambert and David Bradley is good as Hartnell (though rather dower and without Hartnell's impressive voice). Aside from the fact that Bradley is 20 years older than the guy he's playing, he's also a good deal taller - Hartnell was 5'8" at best - William Russel towered over him, Bradley is a good 3 or 4 inches taller than Hartnell.

The ending of the film was surprisingly emotional (for me at least), and the director was creative in the way it was presented. The brief epilogue contains wonderful interviews with some of the real people involved.

All in all, a very good effort, had a good feel to it and a much-needed look at Hartnell's and Verity Lambert's contribution to Doctor Who.

I recall seeing this movie when it was released and generally speaking not liking it. It probably doesn't help that the neither of the leads (Benjamin or Brolin) comes off as especially likable or memorable, but that's likely partly due to Crichton's inability to flesh out characters for the screen. I rented this film through Amazon.com a few days ago, and I understand why I didn't think too much of it. Some of the imagery in it is fantastic and way ahead of its time; the lengthy introduction of vacationers entering the resort is great. Also, it's not difficult to see where Cameron got the kernel of an idea for the Terminator movies. But it's difficult to like this film. Large chunks of the movie are vacuously directed and you start loosing attention quickly. I don't know enough history about Michael Crichton to know if he was an experienced director at the time he made this movie, and maybe it's partly a 70's thing, but there seems to be a whole lot of dead space in the movie. Yul Brynner is very good indeed, and Victoria Shaw looks very pretty as the Queen.

Based on this film, he was clearly a great writer of interesting stories, but apparently less so the executor of them.

Something only the British could do: turn a national treasure into a boring, kitchen sink subject matter. I agree with what others have said; Raif Spall and David Walliams do a good acting job, but the story is hopelessly lackluster. I recently watched Howerd on some old Michael Parkinson interviews, and there's a day and night difference between what's depicted in this movie and what Howerd was actually like. He came over as an articulate, charming, open person who was remarkably frank (no pun intended). No wonder his sister didn't like this film. My recollection is that Haymer didn't like it either, even though it's essentially about him with Howerd tagged on. This is the sad fate that lies in store for successful Brit comedians: an inaccurate, depressing, posthumous biopic that misrepresents their life as if it were some kind of Greek tragedy that was doomed to failure from the start.