Reviews written by registered user
ronevickers

Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
71 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Great Fun!, 31 May 2017
7/10

If you enjoy British "b" movies from the 50s, try and catch this little effort. It's quite laughably bad, which makes it all the more entertaining. The basic plot, and the way it all pans out, is bargain basement stuff, and some of the acting is quite hilarious. The main character, Dr Galloway, played by John Witty sports the worst, and most inconsistent, scots accent you are ever likely to hear. Similarly, his co-star, Genine Graham's character is supposed to hail from Inverness, but sounds as though she's just left an English boarding school. The main baddie's henchmen are a real hoot - one is full of forced menace, and the other would have trouble scaring a three year old! The movie does move along briskly, and doesn't give the viewer time to become bored. In it's own amateurish, unsophisticated way it's got a certain charm and is harmless stuff. Just the thing to while away a quick hour for fans of such films.

5 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Absolute Drivel!!, 30 September 2014
1/10

No two ways about it, this is an awful film. It has no saving graces whatsoever and, if I could've scored it "zero" I would have done so. From the opening scenes, it's difficult to escape the feeling that the film is going absolutely nowhere, and is going to be one massive letdown. There's no surprise then that it turns out exactly that way. The acting, if you can call it that, is basic in the extreme and there's a scene in the film where the two leads are sitting, supposedly petrified, in a tent in the middle of the forest, which is probably the most boring and inane scene ever committed to film. In fact, it's noticeable during the prolonged scene that the male lead is obviously finding it difficult to stop himself from bursting out in laughter. Do yourself a favour and avoid this dross like the plague!

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Thoroughly entertaining film., 16 February 2014
10/10

This is a cracking, lost gem of a film which features a screen stealing performance from the inimitable Terry-Thomas. The film manages to combine mystery and shards of comedy in equal measure, and the pace never flags from start to finish. In the lead role, Terry-Thomas is simply superb and produces a memorable performance. In fact, he demonstrates yet again that he was probably the most underrated comic actor in the movie business. In lesser hands, the lead character of Archie Bannister could have been a complete flop and the film wouldn't be anywhere near as good. However, with Terry-Thomas on absolutely top form, the film is a joy to watch. It's anyone's guess why it hasn't received a wider showing over the years. If you get a chance to catch it, then don't miss it. Heartily recommended!

Not amongst the best of the Edgar Wallace Series., 4 February 2014
4/10

Unfortunately "Never Back Losers" is one of the weaker efforts in the Edgar Wallace series of mysteries. Whilst most other entries feature solid acting performances, allied to a strong storyline, this film fails on both counts. The story is wayward, and doesn't really make a great deal of sense. Many of the situations depicted are simply difficult to believe, in the extreme, and the lack of progression becomes quite irritating at times. The film is also badly let down by the standard of acting. Apart from the always reliable Patrick Magee, the rest of the performances are patchy at best. Even amongst the leading players, the acting is pretty poor. Not a memorable contribution to the series at all, I'm afraid.

Nightbeat (1947)
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Entertaining British thriller from the 40's., 31 July 2012
7/10

In many ways this film is a clear attempt, by a British studio, to emulate the successful film noirs prevalent in the USA. To a great degree it achieves that objective, mainly through the lively cameo performances from Christine Norden, Maxwell Reed and Sidney James. The scenes containing those characters are among the best in the film. The story is lively-paced and passes the time quickly. However, where the film falls down is in its poor editing, and the lacklustre performances of the two leading males. In particular, Hector Ross displays about as much animation and personality as a glove puppet. His performance has to be seen to be believed. Overall though Nightbeat is an entertaining film.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Great Fun!!, 18 June 2012
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a cracking film in every way. Taken in its own context, it's every bit as good as King Kong. Although made in 1949, it completely blows away the remake from 1999. That expert of special effects Ray Harryhausen does a brilliant job in so many memorable scenes in the film, probably the most famous of which is the rescuing of the trapped children from the burning building. Not far behind is the scene in the huge night club, when Mighty Joe goes berserk after being given alcohol. The pace of the film never slackens and the players all put in good performances, with the big star of the show.....Mighty Joe Young himself. Don't miss!!

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Disappointing., 19 August 2011
4/10

I had high hopes of this film, having heard several favourable opinions on it. Unfortunately, I was left disappointed and consider that the hype surrounding it is scarcely warranted. On a positive note there are some funny gags and lines in the film, but not enough to carry through the length of the film. It's humour is patchy, and there are more unfunny moments than comic moments. The two leads are good, as are the two youngsters, but some of the other acting is a bit dodgy. And, despite the fact that it is supposed to convey a balanced story of the two factions, it's very much apparent that it was scripted by a Liverpool fan. In fact, the additional material consisting of interviews with ex-players etc, is ultimately more enjoyable.

8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Dated but still relevant today., 9 August 2011

Viewing this film nowadays, a lot of it appears quite dated. However, the message it tries to put across is still valid to this very day. The story centres around foster parents taking a very troubled 14-year old girl into their home. The trials and tribulations that follow are maybe somewhat predictable, but also realistic and valid. That very fine actress, the ill-fated Rachel Roberts, delivers yet another excellent performance in the lead role as the foster mother. Good support is offered by James Maxwell as her husband. The only jarring note is provided by Annette Whiteley, as the problem child. Hers is a patchy performance and doesn't really satisfactorily convince, unfortunately. Overall the film is absorbing and generally well presented.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Bizarre little film., 9 August 2011
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As "B" features go, this is quite a bizarre movie. It's plot is routine, whilst also convoluted, as are the characterizations. It switches from staginess in presentation, to quite pointed scenes of tension and menace. A lot of this is due to the acting, some of which is wooden in the extreme, particularly from Patricia Laffan who looks like she has simply wandered onto the film set and hasn't learnt her lines! The scene where she ends in an embrace with Griffith Jones is hilarious. The film is carried by James Kenney who, at least, imbues his characters with some style and sense of purpose. He was, of course, an actor who specialised in edgy, sinister type roles and he performs well in this film. It's quaint and dated now, and is very much a mixed bag.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A lively little "B" film., 6 July 2011
7/10

Touch of Death is certainly no epic but, given its "B" movie confines, it is quite a lively little film, which packs quite a bit into its under-60 minute running time. The story, which revolves around a safe-cracking job gone wrong, is quite different from the norm in that there is a novel twist to the condition of the proceeds bagged by the criminals. Stalwart of similar movies, William Lucas turns in an edgy performance as the leader of the crooks, whilst his cohort David Sumner's character is more sensitive and considerate. A typical bad crook, not-so-bad crook, situation in fact. Generally the performances, apart from Jan Waters' wooden portrayal, are good and the direction brisk, and the script lively. For fans of the genre, this movie is a worthwhile watch.


Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]