alexanderdavies-99382

The character of Mike Hammer from Mickey Spillane's novels, is nothing like the way he's portrayed in this film. He doesn't spend his time pursuing the bad guys with a gun, he employed a bit more discretion. The whole film is sleazy throughout and it didn't impress me. The story is drawn out and the running time should have been reduced by at least 15 minutes. Geoffrey Lewis and Paul Sorvino (R. I. P) were talented, solid character actors, they should have had more to do in the story. There are a few half decent action scenes but little else to make the film remotely memorable. No wonder "I, the Jury" quickly vanished without a trace!

"Munster, Go Home!" was made at the right time, whilst the TV show was fresh in everyone's mind. The format is intact and it's great to see the Munster family in full technicolour. The story isn't exactly original but it works well enough, although the running time is quite long. About 10 minutes should have been edited, hence the reason for the occasional boring moment. It makes sense to have Terry-Thomas involved in the film - with the plot being set in England and he being popular in Hollywood. Fred Gwynne and Al Lewis do their thing as usual! One of the best scenes, is the one when they explore the underground passageways of Munster Hall. The climatic car race is exciting, especially as we see Herman as one of the drivers! We have the usual cringeworthy attempts from Americans trying to mimic an English accent. It is embarrassing to say the least. However, I certainly don't allow that to discourage my viewing pleasure.

"The Nutty Professor" was the first Jerry Lewis film I ever saw, back in the mid 1990s on TV. Then I saw it again on DVD last year. My opinion hasn't changed. Once you've seen Jerry Lewis in action, you never forget it. He is one of these comedians who you either like or loathe. His style is of an aquired taste and "The Nutty Professor" is no exception. I had a hard time maintaining interest in the film. At a 107 minutes, the story isn't strong enough to last that long. At least 20 minutes should have been edited. Lewis can be incredibly irritating with all his mugging and childish performing. His role as the professor bears this out. As the alter ego Buddy Love, he isn't much better. There are a few positive things: Kathleen Freeman does well, even though she hasn't a lot of screen time. A couple of classroom scenes and the one at the gymnasium are okay but that's about all. At his worst, Jerry Lewis is about as amusing as having a bad cold while stuck in a traffic jam in the middle of a heatwave!

I came across this particular interview with John Le Carre by chance, where he discusses the making of "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold," makes a few references to his novel of the same name. I was fascinated by everything Le Carre said, his being a natural raconteur. He doesn't shy away from discussing some of the things that occur within the film industry and on this particular film set: the difficulties he and director Martin Ritt had with leading actor Richard Burton, the general paraphernalia that goes with being around a film star etc. I can imagine the writer's frustration at being used as a peace negotiator between actor and director, being flown all the way to Ireland where filming took place and all because Burton wasn't happy with his dialogue and wanted it rewritten! I saw this as an example of a once promising actor, merely exploiting his own star status (whatever that is worth) and not being stimulated enough to make the effort to actually act. There are other things that the writer discusses during the interview but I won't say what they are. John Le Carre himself, comes across as an elegant, highly intelligent and insightful individual and not without a sense of humour. I enjoy listening to people who have a similar command of the English language, compared to the way our language has become something of a joke in the modern world.

Don't miss out on seeing this interview!

Richard Barthelmess isn't the kind of film star people tend to remember these days, although he made a few good movies. "Central Airport" was made the year before Barthelmess was fired from "Warner Bros." and is a reasonably entertaining yarn. It's the flying sequences that are the main highlight, rather than the pointless, predictable romantic subplot. The film becomes turgid and dull but the climax is exciting enough.

George Arliss cast as a classical pianist, had potential of making for a good film. I felt the whole thing had lost momentum and direction after the opening 20 minutes. The story became too stagey and talky for my liking. Bette Davis is billed second, even though she's off-screen for quite a while. Arliss gave a good performance which offered some compensation but that is about all.

I didn't expect much from this film and my instincts were right. The plot is uninteresting and confusing, with little happening in the process.

Edward G. Robinson was only months away from becoming a big star at "Warner Bros." when he was making "Widow from Chicago." His gangster character is okay but he hasn't a lot to do.

With a running time of just over an hour, I'd have preferred the pace to have been quicker. Instead, it was cumbersome.

Look out for a young Neil Hamilton - the future Commissioner Gordon of the 1960s "Batman" TV show.

If you can, avoid this film.

Regular "Warner Bros." actor Warren William is on fine form as the tough, uncompromising and unethical manager of a New York City department store. He delivers his lines with relish and makes his character unforgettable.

The story is confined to the sets that represent the said department store but it's ideal for the film, what with there being a hive of activity in every scene.

It's nothing short of deplorable in the way William treats his employees: most of his conversations tend to finish with expressions like "get out" and "you're through." Only once do we catch a glimpse of the man underneath his gruff exterior, in which he cuts a rather tragic figure.

The supporting cast are overshadowed by the leading man but Wallace Ford and Loretta Young are pretty good.

I do take exception to the way the dog is treated at the film's conclusion - a case of blatant cruelty if ever I saw it.

Personally, I regard Warren William as an underrated leading man. He had good diction and delivery as an actor and made a few good films. "The Dragon Murder Case" is not one of them, alas.

The whole plot is quite unbelievable from the beginning and I dismissed it as being a lot of howling nonsense. The cast are completely wasted and the dialogue is unimaginative.

It takes an actor of James Cagney's entertainment value and charisma, in order to make these low budget movies remotely memorable. His early work at "Warner Bros." doesn't have the variety of his later films at the studio but are great fun all the same!

"Hard to Handle" sums up Cagney to a tee! His seemingly unlimited energy helps him throughout the various complicated situations in which he finds himself. He's a lovable small time con artist who tries his luck with different "get rich quick" schemes. As in other films, he survives on his wits and determination.

The story is fairly loose but that isn't a problem. The humourous antics come thick and fast, leaving one overwhelmed by it all. Apart from James Cagney, it is Ruth Donnell who really shines as the wise-cracking mother of the decidedly dull leading lady.

See this film and have a ball.

Paul Muni was in a privileged position for an actor in Hollywood, in that he could select his own films. That couldn't have been the case with the above production - it's unworthy of Muni's talent and the rest of the cast.

"Hi Nellie" borders on the ridiculous a lot of the time. The opening 15 minutes are okay and then the plot becomes confusing and contrived. Nothing improves the film henceforth, although Paul Muni and Glenda Farrell do their best!

Luckily, brighter prospects were just around the corner for Muni.

One of MANY programmers from "Warner Bros." during the 1930s, there's nothing that makes "From Headquarters" distinguished in any way.

The cast is fairly good, especially Eugene Pallette as the gruff city cop. George Brent seems out of his comfort zone as the investigating police officer. Margaret Lindsay hasn't much to do, considering she's the film's leading lady. The annoying Hugh Herbert is doing his usual cringeworthy attempts at humour. How he ever gained employment in Hollywood is beyond me!

The brief running time is a good thing, considering that the entire story revolves around the police department. That reduces the scale of the film and its impact.

With the majority of giant monster films, you take everything at face value. You know exactly what you're in for and enjoy the ride.

"King Kong vs Godzilla" is no different. I remember spending a small fortune on ebay, having found the rare British video release. It was certainly worth it. We have some ridiculous effects, terrible attempts at acting by the cast and a plot that is hardly original. There are some good action scenes along the way but the climatic duel between the two monsters is the big highlight. They really duke it out, just the two of them. I'm not saying who wins!

For some reason, the re-edited version with the American newsreader footage is the only one available. Personally, I'm not too bothered but it would be interesting to see the Japanese version.

I must admit to not having high expectations when I saw this 1976 "King Kong" remake. Sure enough, I was right. For me, the 1933 original is in a league of greatness all by itself.

Regardless of the budget, the sight of seeing a man in an ape suit and makeup was never going to win me over. It looks artificial and downright absurd. The Kong character has no depth or dimension of any kind.

I regard Jeff Bridges as a good actor and who has acted in a variety of roles. With "King Kong," he does his best to give the film a much needed boost. He is the only reason I saw the whole thing.

The story is so drawn out, including several irrelevant angles that don't belong. The running time could have been reduced by at least 20 minutes.

The climax was about as dramatically flat as one could wish for. It had none of the moving tragedy that the 1933 film provided.

It's never easy to adapt an H. P Lovecraft story for cinema or TV. His narratives and characters were always rather unconventional and unpredictable. "The Dunwich Horror" is no exception but this 1969 effort is worth seeing.

Sandra Dee being considered too old for her role, I find an unfair comment. She was only 27 at the time of production and still looked pretty youthful! Dean Stockwell has the right quirky, offbeat quality for his role of Wilbur Whateley, even if he overdoes it on occasion. If it hadn't been him, I can imagine someone like Bruce Dern, Anthony Perkins or Donald Sutherland being cast.

Character actors Ed Begley Sr, Lloyd Bochner and Sam Jaffe are on hand to give the film a bit of class and some gravitas. Sadly, Ed Begley Sr passed away three months after the film was released. A fine actor was lost.

Being a typically low budget affair, the climax where the said horror is finally unleashed on the town was bound to be technically limited. "A. I. P" was never going to provide the necessary expenditure, in producing half convincing special effects.

The film has a pretty good narrative on the whole, although a few changes had to be made from the Lovecraft story. Given that Wilbur Whateley is killed about half-way, that wouldn't have worked for the film. It works well enough that he succeeds in stealing the Necronomicon book from the Arkham library, rather than being murdered by the ancient horror.

It is imaginative how the sets are created, especially the one representing the Whateley household. It gives off an eerie vibe!

I don't particularly care for all the irritating flash photography and the rush of colours. Audiences from the times may have tolerated it but I find it artificial.

I reckon "The Dunwich Horror" would have benefitted from being set during the 1920s - as when H. P Lovecraft wrote the original story. However, I can overlook that minor quibble.

I'm slightly surprised at the less than positive reviews of this particular episode. While the plot isn't exactly original, it rattles along quite agreeably and Dean Jagger is brilliant in the leading role. The setting is - yet again - that of a small town but that's better than a big city.

I like the way the plot shows Jagger struggling with his own conscience, given the crime he commits and that an innocent suspect is on trial... After the said innocent suspect is exonerated, the local townsfolk resort to bigotry and prejudice by making the man's a misery. Dean Jagger is equally vilified, for wanting to do the right thing - if only to avoid being caught!

The ending is quite ridiculous but that's the idea. Jagger makes a full confession of the murder and of allowing an innocent man to be charged. Unfortunately, the rather dumb sheriff dismisses all of this, on the grounds that Jagger's character wouldn't harm a flea!

I recommend this episode.

Anyone who is introduced to "Alfred Hitchcock Presents," would do well to see the above episode. It is a tense, exciting story with a chilling twist at the end.

Solid character actor John Feidler is given the leading role and he doesn't disappoint.

It's the final 10 minutes where the suspense is cranked up a notch, what with the ugly mob gathering outside the jail... Don't miss this one!

Apart from the unnecessary story angle of the jilted ex lover, this episode provides entertainment. It's quite a rarity to have a cast of completely unknown faces - given the roster of acting talent on display throughout the show.

I found the latter half of "Victim Four" to be more enjoyable as the intrigue increased. The twist to the tale is a bit obvious perhaps but still effective.

John Feidler is very good in the leading role, he was a rock-solid character actor. He's having to carry this episode, the story being rambling and uninspired.

Feidler is a mortician who has struggled to make any money with his own funeral business. Following an unexpected development with the cause of death of his latest client, he attempts to profit by it... I couldn't quite follow the events in the plot and the final twist to the tale didn't rectify this.

Jeremy Vine is a better host for his live Channel 5, his successor Matthew Wright being quite rude and ill-tempered most of the time.

Sometimes, some of the debates can be mildly interesting but some of the panellists really get on my nerves!! That arrogant "I'm think I'm so wonderful" Nicole Mclane is one of the worst. Apart from keeping her nose permanently up the @#$% of those attention-seeking, hypocrites Harry and Meghan, I find Mclane comes across as unpleasant, pompous possessing zero intelligence. Yasmin Brown makes a habit of constantly interrupting the other panellists whilst they are talking, especially if someone is disagreeing with her opinions. I laughed out loud when she caused herself some grief, courtesy of her making those potentially libellous comments! The idiot!

Most of the time, the programme provides entertainment value for all the wrong reasons.

Bud and Lou were beginning to show their age when making "Lost in Alaska." The slapstick performed by Lou tends to look laboured and at a time when he shouldn't have taxed his heart.

"Universal-International" certainly won't going to spend much money on the budget and it clearly shows! Bud and Lou had long ceased being a box office success and their former glory only shows itself sporadically in this comedy.

The scene where the boys try to cheer up the gold prospector is quite amusing but other highlights are scarce.

I'm not sure why this Abbott and Costello comedy is well liked.

In my opinion, "The Time of Their Lives" shouldn't have been made, considering that Bud and Lou weren't on speaking terms at the time of production.

The screenplay doesn't work for the most part. Neither comedian can succeed as a solo performer, they are sorely missed as a team!

The film provides a few chuckles along the way and the sense of atmosphere isn't out of place. The opening 15 minutes is okay but then it is all downhill.

Filmed back-to-back with the superior film "Dracula, Prince of Darkness," the above production suffers from a script devoid of any imagination and a plot that borders on wafer thin. Christopher Lee is given the chance to play a role that actually allows him to act and to take centre stage. Being a bit "larger-than-life" was the right approach in my opinion. Barbara Shelley and Richard Pasco are also very good in their respective roles. I can't help but chuckle every time I see the build-up to the climax. Christopher Lee's reaction to the poisoned wine and chocolate, is something you have to see!

"The Man Who Cheated Death" didn't receive the acclaim it deserved, when it was released in 1959. I consider the film something of an unsung hero among "Hammer" horror. Anton Diffring makes for a good leading man and Christopher Lee provides some solid support. There are some genuinely creepy moments, not least during when Diffring's face changes colour as he rapidly ages. Worth seeing.

It is only right (or charitable) to credit Peter Cushing with being the professional actor that he was, judging by the woeful script he was given for this film. The film suffers from a stupid plot. Being a fugitive from the authorities, why on earth would Baron Frankenstein risk being seen among large crowds?? Surely, he would do the usual by maintaining a low profile. Kiwi Kingston (who was he again?) confirms from the outset that he is no actor! The Frankenstein creature makeup - executed to perfection from the 1931 movie - is laughable here! The way the artificial forehead sticks out, I thought I was looking at a lump of French cheese! Simply terrible. It is only Peter Cushing that kept me watching "The Evil of Frankenstein." He has my sympathy.