vogun-17563 Reviews

Piccadilly (1929)

If You Like Silent Films - This Is A Must See

[10/10 · 6 April 2024]

This is one excellent film and not to be missed.

What makes the film is the director, as it is a dazzling display of cinematography, pulling out numerous tricks, and to me, it's comparable with Citizen Kane in what Ewald André Dupont achieves.

It shows London as it's last roar of the 1920's with the nightlife high life and low life. Whether it is in a posh club (The Piccadilly) or a seedy East End pub in Limehouse and must admit I thoroughly enjoyed the pub scene. The film also shows the difference between the have and have nots including ethnic people (in the East End). It even touches upon the race situation at the time, with Chinese in Limehouse and in a pub, where a happy black man enjoying himself is thrown out for dancing with a white woman and the woman is castigated.

This is not one of those clunky silent films, and although the plot is now a familiar one, but don't let that put anyone off, as it is shown with such style that it rolls along very nicely. There are even humorous moments as well.

The director lingers on faces and the actors are very comfortable with this and there are not the "silent film eye rolls", but plenty of subtle expression provided by the very competent actors.

Obviously Anna May Wong is the story, and she also gives a terrific performance which is very steamy at times. I thought Gilda Gray was also very good (one scene could have been cut or shorter, but that's splitting hairs). Jameson Thomas played the slightly sleazy owner of the Piccadilly with aplomb.

The copy I saw was a tinted version, which did not detract and maybe have added something. I still would have liked to have seen a black & white version though.

Finally, there was a soundtrack to the version I saw, and it was jazz, and not that old, but sympathetic to the jazz age setting (thankfully not trad jazz), which must have been written specifically, as I spotted top UK session player Henry Lowther on Trumpet.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film and f you like Silent Films this is a must see.

Mirage (1965)

Nearly Very Good, But..........

[6/10 · 15 November 2022]

It has all the ingredients here with the main actor and supporting players, the director and writer too, but falls down on plot.

I liked the idea it was ultimately about peace versus non peace, but that large point is hardly promoted. It also indulges in matters of the mind being manipulated (or not). This was the 60's after all, and I like films that reflect the times they were filmed in, as they often document the mood at the time, and this is no different.

Where it ultimately falls down (for it does) is when they expect us to believe that the characters here are all falling into line very quickly (without consultation it seems) with a premise that is hard to swallow. For this viewer anyway.

Gregory Peck, as usual, is understated when he could have eaten the scenery, and is enjoyable, if you like that (I do).

The director Dmytryk is again on superb form with this black and white film and filming on location in the streets of New York at times, and the switching of current and earlier times.

I really enjoyed whenever Walter Matthau is on the screen. Very amusing. George Kennedy is being the usual George Kennedy for which he carved his niche. Dianne Baker is somewhat lightweight I thought, but she was the bridge between "before and after" and I didn't think she was very supportive to Gregory Peck in his predicament. Jack Weston was entertaining enough, as was Kevin McCarthy (both creepy, but dissimilar). There is even a great scene with Hari Rhodes turning in a succinct performance as a policeman to keep us entertained. He's only 2 minutes on the screen (if that), but I enjoyed it. The doctor scene was also another good diversion.

All in all, an entertaining film, but missing a main ingredient of a tighter plot without holes.

The Big Cube (1968)

If 60's Psychedelia Is What You're After. Then This Has It.

[8/10 · 6 February 2022]

It's not high art, and yes, it does lack pace in parts, but makes up for it, in the whacky visual effects.

Lana Turner has given better performances for sure, but she is a pro here, amongst some, that are not, and gels the film together. She also is looking good.

The plot is not so bad either, although it has similarities to others, but then again, what was I expecting, it's not an expensive production, and is riding on the back of the counter culture.

Pamela Rogers is so bad, that I love her, as she takes the film to new lows when she's on screen. George Chakiris is suitably creepy, and it's no surprise that this was Karin Mossberg's last film.

I suspect the low rating is from disappointed Lana fans. So, why the high rating from me then? Because I adore these type of films, and they are a time capsule from a certain period of time, which will never be relived (and thank goodness, say some).

If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium (1969)

Great Title - Entertaining Film

[7/10 · 25 March 2021]

The film is not a cinematic gem, but a bit of enjoyable 60's fluff.

It rolls along at a pace and doesn't let up, much like the tour party visiting the European cities. Unfortunately there is not too much about the actual places, but that's not why we are watching this film.

The ensemble of actors all work well, although I'm not too sure about the cameo roles. For example, blink and you'll miss Senta Berger, Joan Collins, John Cassavetes, Ben Gazarra and so on, but then again, that's the fun perhaps.. As the for the main parts, I thought Suzanne Pleshette was the best, trying to resist the attention of the tour guide (Ian McShane), who has a "girl in every port" but others actors were worthy contributors too.

If you want a 60's film then this just about hits most bases, with clothes (Carnaby Street), Music (including Donovan for one tune), light heartedness, a few hippies (sharing a smoke), love interest (without nudity), old vehicles etc. Your choice. Me? I enjoyed the ride/tour, and was exactly what I was looking for.

On the Double (1961)

This Hits A Few and Misses Some Too

[8/10 · 26 August 2020]

I stopped being a Danny Kaye fan several years ago which probably coincided with my teenage years. This came up on TV and I decided to give it a little time, as reviews were half decent. It was also a 1960's film which I often "like the feel of". Perhaps reminiscing, I admit.

You know the plot line from elsewhere on this page, and I wanted to add, that from the first few minuted it had me laughing out aloud at the humour, and I knew this was going to have something here that I would like. I can't say that laughter was sustained continually throughout, but there is certainly more than enough to keep you amused through.

There is even one excellent scene, which was pure Danny Kaye, and then I remembered why I use to like him (who can forget the "The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle, the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true from the Court Jester? - Danny Kaye could!).

The brand of humour put me in mind of It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World and even the MAD Magazine from the 60's. Yes, it's zany, unrealistic, but being Danny Kaye that's what you can can expect.

On the other side there were some moments where the target was missed entirely. But overall there were more good things in this movie than bad and certainly worth a watch. Even the obligatory love interest is sensitively handled and my toes never curled up once.

For the British connection it has Wilfred Hyde-White (more voice than character), Diana Dors (not enough seen of her!), Margaret Rutherford (a cameo role really, but fell a little flat).

At the end of it, I'm glad I stayed and indulged.

The Pleasure Seekers (1964)

3 Women in Madrid Looking For Men!

[7/10 · 5 April 2020]

3 very attractive American women in Madrid looking for love, is the plot. This is a classic 60's film with the fashions and colours (much pink). The music is also of the time of big bands,who provide the soundtrack and sounding sumptuous too (which was all soon to go). People have provided the finer plot details in their reviews, and I can add as well, that the 3 women are a pleasure to look at (well, 2 of them more so).

The first half hour was a sheer delight, and the highlight of the remainder of the film, for me, and probably many guys, was Ann Margaret doing her beach number (I did say it was a typical 60's film) in a bikini. Who cares if the song is never one you are going to want to hear again, but the routine is one I could see over and over again.

Gene Tierney does not have a large part, but she does steal the acting credits, and it only took one scene to do that.

Some of this was actually filmed in Spain, and is pretty good on authenticity therefore, including some Spanish being spoken with no subtitle (not needed). We are given a small promo of Madrid and even taken to the Prado to see a few of Valazquez's pictures.

There is music/songs being performed here too by Ann Margret, including an excellent authentic flamenco routine included which I enjoyed. This Spanish promo also takes us for a short while to Toledo to appreciate the view. I also like that they steal the Picasso line to the German's when looking at his now famous Guernica picture of Germany bombing Spain (as a favour to Franco), they asked him,, "Who did this?", and he replied "You did"! A nice touch.

A typical 60's candy floss film, but certainly is watchable, although don't expect too much, and you'll enjoy. The women are worth the price of admission alone and probably the males are too for those who like men.

The Quiller Memorandum (1966)

What's Not To Like?

[9/10 · 19 March 2020]

I was not expecting much, but what I got was real 1960's story with some superior acting and location shots. Yes, it's a spy saga involving underground Nazi's, but George Segal gives a slightly humorous performance whilst not making it a comedy.

Alec Guinness is used sparingly and the scene with him explaining George Segal's position in between both sides ends wonderfully, and to be savoured. Max von Sydow is always good value, and as for Senta Berger, I've now found a new obsession, she is delicious. George Sanders is there, but not quite sure why.

Script is by Harold Pinter and he doesn't let us down, and keeps this moving along at a pace. I've never read the book, nor am I going to, and in nay event this is a film not a book.

For a fun filled ride go with it and remember the hangover from the war with the Nazi's was still relatively fresh in the memory to many, but mostly it's the 1960's and soak it up, cars/suits/spys/woman/Bond influence.

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)

What Am I Missing Here?

[6/10 · 10 February 2020]

The film and colours look superb, the acting is also good, but something I felt was missing here for me.

You've read what it's all about by now, and the story for me was just meandering around. It's more a reflection of what life was about in New York for a reasonably well heeled family and their life dilemmas/struggles (work/relationships etc).

I like Michael Caine very much and see he won an Oscar, but for me he has acted much better in other films and not received even a nomination, not that he's poor here, he isn't. Other actors are worthwhile of course, but lacking something I thought (a better script?).

I found I could not become absorbed in the delicate relationship balance or unbalance. The film therefore dragged a little too much for me. The humour provided by Allen was needed, but a little below par for him I thought. but I liked the parents of the sisters probably the most.

Not up there for me as a Woody Allen must see, I'm sorry to say. I saw this when it came out and thought it's about time I revisited it, and sad to say, I feel about the same way. My time could have been better spent watching another movie.

Unearthly Stranger (1963)

A Sci Fi Noir?

[8/10 · 1 March 2019]

It starts much like a Film Noir may begin, and plays out much the same, only it doesn't have guns, not even ray guns. If you can imagine a film like that with a definite early 1960 feel to it, think the Avengers, without the flippancy/whimsy, then you have an idea of what kind of a movie this is, although it does have some style, is not pursued over substance.

It's B movie gold to me, relying on story and acting, which is of a high grade, and works around the lack of special effects, with a plausible plot. It would not be fair to single out which actor excels, but the 3/4 main leads all put in top performances.

It's shot in Black and White, and has some active angled camera work, and plenty of good images are to be seen on the screen, which I enjoyed. There is also much 1960's decor around for those who want to recall their youth.

Its also a well paced film, with a good mixture of plot development and action, all making up for good solid entertainment that I was engrossed with. The story may have chimes of other Sci Fi films from this period for sure, but it all didn't matter for me, for this is a worthy film to watch and enjoy, with even a surprise or two in store.

Not a classic, and maybe not even a cult film, but if you enjoy a classy B/W, 60's, Sci Fi thriller, then this could be for you.

Hangman's Wharf (1950)

They Don't Make Them Like This Anymore (Thank Goodness?)

[7/10 · 3 February 2019]

Please read other reviews for plot etc. In short, it's a Hitchcockian type thriller.

I did enjoy this, and here are my reasons. The shooting is all done outside (to save studio costs), it is a grainy film with shadows doing the best acting and there is a scratchy sound track. The dialogue probably took less time then I did to write this review, and it has a plot that became lost halfway through the film, and has to be explained in the wrap up. The plot still has more holes than Swiss cheese, and the film must have been knocked out by the studio in "no time" at all. What's not to like here? My type of "bad" movie.

It's a slow burner thriller that fortunately takes off and doesn't hang about. A good job really as 90 minutes of this would be too much to bear.

If you want nostalgia, then this is for you, although there is nothing cool here. If there is any chance a sub standard B movie is your worst nightmare, then stay away.

I did find it entertaining myself, but couldn't watch these type of movies more than a few times a year. I gave a 7 score, but wouldn't argue if others gave it a 5 or less.

Eye of the Devil (1966)

Falls Short Of A Classic

[7/10 · 25 September 2018]

It certainly has all the ingredients to make this a classic, but fails to make it through for me, despite the pretty impressive cast.

It does bring to mind the Deborah Kerr cult movie The Innocents, but doesn't quite get there. All the components are here, but I thought the lack of pacing of the film made this less effective entertainment.

It is interesting nonetheless if you can take the slower pace. The outside shots mostly take advantage of the set location in France in a castle or chateau, which adds to the atmosphere quite well. The film does have the feel though of being filmed the earlier 1960's, rather than in the second half, with the camera angles etc i.e. close up of the actor to the side of the shot with the action/plot developing in the distance. It's shot in black and white which works very well, just at this time in cinema, there was the colour explosion going on.

The two "youngsters" here, David Hemmings (died blond hair) and Sharon Tate certainly look good, which is handy, as they do not appear to have many lines. They mostly go for the quiet manacing look school of acting here.

For those who like a bit of S&M, Sharon Tate gets a whipping and seems to like it, but don't expect too much, and that includes any erotic scenes or nudity. Just as well, as they are not needed, although it may have made the film slightly more interesting if tastefully done.

Sharon goes through the film looking like a model here in nearly all of her screen time. Donald Pleasance is Donald Pleasance who gives most of his best acting with his eyes, and does not have the lines or role to make his performance more memorable, which is a shame. As to David Niven's performance, it was good enough, but no particular plaudits from me (or criticism). Deborah Kerr is quite good, and is trying reasonably hard I thought, as did Flora Robson.

It's a 60's, B/W film, driven by a pagan plot with the usual accoutrement's (monks in hoods etc), and if that is your thing then give it a go. Not an out and out classic, but is worthy of being mentioned with the best of this genre, and more as an interesting flawed cult movie for horror fans.

Just Like a Woman (1967)

A Triumph of Style Over Substance?

[8/10 · 20 September 2018]

I found this visually entertaining throughout and has all what you may expect in a swinging 60's film in colour with some soft lenses camera work and arty framed shots. A jazz music soundtrack, which works well for me, not obtrusive and not out of place, and cool. Here, I discovered the jazz singer Mark Murphy, and the film, for me, was worth watching for that alone. Fortunately there is plenty else to entertain one here, but a plot is not one of them.

It's basically a film by people in Showbiz, about people in Showbiz, and is not unlike a British version of what you may see in Italian films from this era. Gone is the gritty realism of the early 60's and people from outside of London with accents. It's giltz and glamour, and all the sets are highly stylised, as are the clothes people wear. Delightful.

From the first frame you know what you are in for visually, then after a few minutes the credits roll, which reflect the Pop Art world of the time, wonderful. As highlighted elsewhere, in a review, it's not the kids going wild taking drugs, but more of the previous generation having a (mid?) life crisis with their marriage/drink. After the busy beginning, it then sagged with an overlong telephone conversation involving John Wood, (whose character seemed to be gay, but never declared), but the plot then picked up and the film was eminently watchable for it's remainder.

Thrown into the mix, there are comic moments, and Barry Fantoni excels in his role as a spaced out pop star on another planet. Then there was the interlude of the German (?) architect played by Clive Dunn with his troupe of assistants, who were wonderfully absurd (do I see the hand of Bruce Lacey somewhere here?). The remainder of the cast do their job.

Not a 60's classic, but very enjoyable nonetheless, especially considering the shoestring budget. Worth watching if this is your thing. It is mine.

There's a Girl in My Soup (1970)

Worth Watching

[8/10 · 1 September 2018]

I enjoyed this film and am surprised at the low rating (at time of writing).

It's really a Rom-Com of two people totally unsuited to each other, and the rest of the story people have already commented about.

Peter Sellers in this film, oozes smarminess, as the philanderer and gives a very strong performance. There are some excellent scenes here including a pure Inspector Clouseau moment, where Peter Sellers picks up the cases to take them out of the flat/house - hilarious, and worth the watch alone.

I liked the very late 1960's vibe to the picture, but the music/soundtrack missed the mark I thought (who was listening to this type of music in 1970?). Poor Mike d'Abo sings well enough but he can't turn an average tune into Handbags and Gladrags sadly.

Goldie Hawn turns in a decent performance as the young blond air head. This also looks like this was her first major role in a film, and she does get to do her trademark giggle, which fortunately, was limited to just a couple of times. She did go on subsequently, to make many other films. Perhaps her most funniest moment on screen here, was in the lift.

The support cast were adequate, and the boyfriend (Nicky Henson) puts in a decent turn. An actor who I was impressed with, was Peter Sellers's friend Andrew, played by Tony Britton, who with a small part, played it so well.

Whilst here, another very good moment to look out for is when Sellers's character is on television giving his cooking instructions, which is full of double entendre's, not unlike the TV cooks I see nowadays.

Overall a good entertaining movie, and I'll certainly watch it again.

Agent 8 3/4 (1964)

Production Values Win the Accolades Here

[5/10 · 22 August 2018]

The story is somewhat weak and it falls between two stalls of not being funny or being an entertaining or intriguing film. It's no Charade.

There are actors here who can offer very good support, but they were let down by the script unfortunately. It also has the 1960's obligatory foreign actor/actress in to appeal to the foreign market, and Sylvia Koscina fills that role.

For me, the film also suffered with the miscasting of the leading man, and a plot which is not sure which way to go (comedy or spy). Into the mix, it also tries to be a romantic film, and I'm sorry, Dirk Bogarde doesn't convice me on that front here.

I wanted to like this film and I only stayed as there were some encouraging reviews on IMDB. If you are not a Dirk Bogarde fan then you may wish to move on to something else.

I like 1960's movies and this did not even entertain me on that front, although it has a "good look" in that it has not dated in particular, and it's also in colour! I also just about stayed the distance without resorting to finding something else to watch or do. Those are about the best thing I can say about the film. A piece of fluff too far for me. Others like it here, so you may too.

Man in the Moon (1960)

Just About Worth Watching

[6/10 · 21 August 2018]

I always have time to watch a Basil Deardon film, and this is an unusual film in his oeuvre, as it's a comedy. It starts with a delightful eccentric opening scene and I was fired up, from then on, particularly with Shirley Ann Field's entrance.

After the wonderful start I then had to persevere, as Kenneth More was starting to grate on me, as there was too much dialogue from him. I'm pleased to say it was worth it, as there are some good visual gags, some pure slapstick, and I particularly liked the windy Common Cold Research Station.

There are a couple of interesting scenes when Keneth More dons his space suit and goes through the process of entering the space ship. The other was in the immersion/flotation tank, where they are tryng to change Charles Gray's bad attitude, with mind control (?).

There is a belter of a line in the film when they ask about the potential astronault's politics, that made me crease up with laughter, but I will not spoil it for you.

It's all ridiculous of course, and the only other actor worth mentioning (other than Shirley Ann Field) is Michael Horden, who plays it generally straight, which was needed. Back to Shirley Ann Field, and she steams through this film and is as sultry as they come (it was 1960 after all). Each moment she is on screen is worthwhile, just a shame that we do not see enough of her, but then again, I wouldn't want more.

Whether to watch or pass? If you can sit through cheaply made black & white British films from 1960 (before the 60's swung), that are playful with some worthwhile moments, then I'd say yes. Not high art, but I'm glad I watched it, and it did make me laugh at times.

You Must Be Joking! (1965)

It Reeks Of The 1960's And A Bygone Era

[7/10 · 20 August 2018]

The film begins with the superb opening credits by Bob Godfrey, and a Mona Lisa start which is not unlike (and predates) Terry Gilliam, and sets one up for a light hearted typical British affair. It frequently uses the streets of London as a backdrop and is filled with some marvellous cameo roles by numerous character actors. They seem to be all here.

There are quite a few memorable roles but accolades go to Terry Thomas, Lionel Jeffries (that's a first for me), and Denholm Elliot glides through his performance with aplomb. Of course the plot is ridiculous, and the film is not a gem, but I was delighted to catch this film. I even laughed during the film. There's a little bit of 60's saucyness, pop references (The Cavemen), sending up of the upper classes, the obligatory (largely unknown) Amercan actor and cuts that are pure 1960's.

It's not a Carry On film, it's much better, and if you like black & white British 1960's movies and the (now lost) actors from then, you will not be disappointed.

Orders to Kill (1958)

A Different Slant on WWII Movies

[8/10 · 12 April 2018]

Worth a look at, as it is interesting all the way through with the plot and the acting. Not the usual war film, and raises some questions for those who are unappreciative (me) of the dilemmas of going to war. The protagonist starts off all confident in this assignment, and when confronted with the realities of war, he has serious misgivings.

The film begins with a terrific opening scene, which gripped me from the start (would have been better in colour), and then moves along to develop the plot. Mention must be made that Irene Worth, is very good in this movie, and the look of horror on her face when disclosed information she does not want to know is well delivered. I must also mention that she also cuts a very fine shape, and shows that a woman can be sexy with her clothes on.

The other main actors are also very good, although I did wonder about James Robertson Justice being included, and there are one or two questionable scenes, which reminded me a little of John Cleese and Monty Python's - "Attack me with a banana sketch", but he does have one particular scene which I am prepared to forgive any others for.

If you like the sound of this and wondering if to view or not, then I would say yes, it's worth it. If 1950's black and white movies about war are not for you, then skip it, although it's not the usual type of war film.

Hideout in the Alps (1936)

It Certainly Had it's Moments

[7/10 · 22 March 2018]

Most of the best parts are in the second half (as another reviewer states). It opens well, which includes a great exchange at the prison gates. It then settles into an English 1930's type film that is slightly askew, in that the crook is accepted back into the Middle Class family fold, and not much is said about the miscreant.

The plot develops, and could be quicker, but then by half way through the film, it takes off in style. It involves counterfeiting, mountain scenery, a love interest and general chicanery. It must be important case I thought, as there were undercover policemen operating in the UK as well as in Switzerland.

The Swiss scenes fooled me, as it looked like most of them were shot on location in Switzerland (?). Yes, there were backdrops but there were none for the marvellous ski chase scene, which was very realistic in that skiers fell over, unlike the Olympic skiers in Jame's Bond's OHMSS.

It all moved along at a very entertaining pace in the second half and for me was worth the first half. It must be said that the acting is staid in parts (it is the 1930's after all), and very warm in others thank goodness.

For me? I like this kind of film, and my time was not wasted here, as it unlike other movies of this period. I hope that I have given you an idea whether to view or not (I leave the finer details to others to identify).

To Rome with Love (2012)

Carry On Woody

[9/10 · 11 March 2018]

A sophisticated Carry On romp? Which may mean more to UK readers? Others outline the plot and actors etc. and this is for those who want an opinion of, if to watch it or not. I say yes, Woody's in top form here.

It was all going on here at an active pace, with bedroom farce and gags coming thick and fast. Sure, it's not plausible (neither were Marx Brothers films) but that didn't matter to me, I was laughing out aloud in an empty room, which is usually a good sign of a good movie.

I remember when people used to say something like "Where's the old Woody Allen, when he used to be funny?" well here he is. He's used the backdrop of Rome and his love of Italian movies to hang his usual incisive observations, absurdity and irreverence, all combined with his comedic skills as a performer and writer. There really are some great lines and visual gags.

A small example: there is one scene where Roberto Benigni, catapulted into celebrity status, is caught by the papparazi (a familiar theme in films about Rome) with a pretty woman, who is not his wife, and runs off to seek refuge and runs directly into a Church Procession, which blocks his escape. A nice touch I thought.

Woody Allen must have the pick of talent from where ever he wants, and he has certainly chosen wisely with a rich array of actors, all going along for the craziness. Rome is the backdrop and is looking good.

If you want the finer detail about the film read others worthy reviews (I can't understand the bad ones of course), but if you want an opinion as to if you should watch, then I thought it's up there with Woody Allen's best, but may not be high art, just great fun. Go along with it and you just may enjoy the ride.

Invasion (1966)

A Low Budget Sci-Fi Film With Style

[8/10 · 3 March 2018]

This could very well have been shorter and appeared as a television production, but instead probably put out as a B movie, as it was worth the elevated status with the extra minutes. It came as no surprise to me to learn that the writer Robert Holmes was a prolific writer for British Television, including Dr Who.

This came out in 1966 and reminded me of the better television from that era, but do not let that put you off. Me? I can't get enough of it. What it doesn't have in budget, it makes up for, with style. I cite the doll's head in the doll's house with the rocking horse in the background as an example of style (pure 1960's).

Think of The Avengers in the black and white era without John Steed and Emma Peel and you will have an idea of the feel of the film, and enjoyment, although it's not lighthearted, only well intentioned.

It may not have Diana Rigg in, but it does have Tsai Chin, playing a small part as a nurse (maybe it's the uniform). She has had quite a career, which included You Only Live Twice and Casino Royale. In a film that curiously used Chinese looking aliens, Tsai Chin is a human nurse (she is Chinese by birth).

The main lead man Edward Judd puts in a solid performance as does the main lead woman Valerie Gearon (appropriate name for the 60's?), who starts off being very sexy then in the next scene goes into just a little bit too much over (re)acting for me, but comes back down to earth, and settles into her part. She has great hair by the way.

This is an intelligent Sci-Fi film with lofty intentions with a limited bank account available, and that is where I think it benefits. More money spent would not make this much more enjoyable for me, I'm thinking Close Encounters. They had to use their ideas and expertise to make this work instead of money. For example there are some good black and white scenes, such as when the woman gets out of the car at night in a white coat into the headlights.

I feel I must mention that I liked the way they learnt the language by "downloading" from the source, a nice touch (pun intended).

Sure, there are some questions to be asked about the space ship and the armies and policeman's attitude to an alien landing (not an invasion). They should have learnt from watching the films from the 1950's (The Day The Earth Stood Still etc) that it is quite a big deal.

If you also can get over all of this and that the aliens look like Chinese people, then the film has a good heart and well intentioned which may certainly win you over, as it did me, and one I will remember (for the right reasons). A sign of a good movie.

The Miracle of the Bells (1948)

A Religious Film Dressed Up As Film Blanc?

[4/10 · 1 March 2018]

The clue is in the title, this is a religious movie, and I half expected Pat O'Brien, Bing Crosby or Spencer Tracey to turn up. I watched, as I read some glowing reviews here, and about half way through I realised that the people who liked this so much were probably church goers. If that's you or what you like then please watch, you will enjoy I suspect.

This had all the feel of a film noir movie but all was white where there is normally black. The story unfolds as the film develops and is told in retrospect. Instead of bad things happening, good things occurred, except that a character develops what MAD magazine once called old movie disease (in their pastiche on Love Story), which turns it into a weepie (or a cringefest). This is the type of film they were referring to.

There were unintended laughable moments such as when Frank Sinatra starts to sing. You can't have him in your movie and not get him to warble something surely? There was also a courting scene where they spend Christmas Eve in a Chinese Restaurant, with no other customers or staff other than the owner, who interloped with them on their date. The Asian man came out with some zen type wisdom, then was given a St Michael charm.

Another amusing unintended amusing moment was when the temperamental actress playing Joan of Arc storms out and within seconds the wannabe turns up with exactly the same hair as the Joan of Arc actress and I did a double take and had to check that the two parts were not played by the same actress. Uncanny? The film did have enough tact to not immediately suggest that they play the role, and gave it a few minutes before the dots were joined up when the actress just happened to know the JofA soliloquy, which I must say Alida Valli delivers with aplomb.

I've never been convinced by Fred MacMurray, and it's the same here for me, he really is too nice. Perfect casting then perhaps, for this film? Double Indemnity was his zenith (where he just about didn't spoil the film for me). Lee J Cobb gives another sterling performance, and shows us some real acting, thank goodness.

Production levels are good here, but this really is a Hollywood movie about the Hollywood industry, in a rag to (not quite?) riches way, in that a girl from the sticks makes good, with all the rough edges rounded off.

Mine Own Executioner (1947)

That Made A Pleasant Change

[8/10 · 28 February 2018]

All rather refreshing for me. The subject has been done before of course, but I can't recall it being too often and not with as much class as this, at least in the UK, at that time.

I can't really add to the reviews on the plot and subject matter, only that I thought Burgess Meredith played his part very well in this, and gave us a complex character with his own questions. A shout for the other actors as well, who all put in strong performances with their characterisations too, regardless of the amount of screen time. There is even an uncredited appearance of Michael Horden in this, and I also had sympathy for the kid who briefly opens and closes the film really, with his two contrasting appearances.

The general look of this B/W film and feel of the film is also very good, with a well written script all combining to give this film an entertaining atmosphere about it. I particular liked the scene where there's some subtle frisson going on in the room, and there is the most minimal of eye movement happening between the actors, bar one, that say it all.

About two thirds of the way through, I thought where is it all going, as it didn't seem to be going anywhere in particular, then I thought, so what, I'm enjoying the ride. It was a good ride too, as the strands came together and the pace picked up, with a well done tension highlight (Hitchcockian, some say, and I agree) in a rescue scene.

Surprised to see that Director, Anthony Kimmin's previous films included quite a few George Formby films filmed prior to the war. This was his first after the war, and bears no relation whatsoever to the Formby films.

If you have the time, and enjoy old B/W movies, this very well may be for you.

Love Is a Woman (1966)

High Art, It's Not, Just Good Viewing

[8/10 · 23 February 2018]

Just a 1960's movie, with plenty of colour, action, cars, fashions (love the shirts guys), a soundtrack with bongos, killings, drug smuggling, secret agents, cheesy lines and girls in bikinis. What's not to like?

The 1960's was when they could now make cheap movies in colour, and the censorship laws were slowly being eroded, and this unashamedly cashes in on it, but not overdone.

Filmed in Malta (I understand) with much water involved. Patsy Ann Noble is looking good here as well as Wanda Ventham, who reveals all (the hussy). She also happens to be Benedict Cumberbatch's (born 10 years later) mother.

Other reviewers explain the plot adequately, and called it a second rate spy drama, and maybe that is why I like it. Frivolous fun, and if that's what you like, then watch it and enjoy. If you want a deep convoluted plot with tip top direction and acting then stay away. It's down to personal choice here.

Portrait of a Sinner (1959)

Well, I Enjoyed It

[8/10 · 21 February 2018]

I only watched this for Robert Siodmak, and would have left it alone if I had relied on the reviews here. Others supply the plot and actors well enough, but neglect to mention that Nadja Tiller steals the film. It really is her film.

I thought Tony Britton just about pulled his performance off (although could have been younger), and William Bendix earned his working holiday in London for his short performance here, particularly his second appearance in this film. All the other actors give fine support, and in particular the bit parts such as the waiter/taxi driver/landlady, make this enjoyable.

I have to warn you that there is pre-marital sex in 1959 (heaven forbid) going on here. There is also stockings, suspender belts, and underwear on show here. It doesn't stop there either, it goes much deeper with the characterisations, whom, it seems to me, that they like the pain that they inflict or are going through, not least the femme fatale, who is also in to her S&M. Blue Velvet it's not, but then what is?

I must also say that I was not disappointed with Richard Siodmak's direction either, which was top class, including the lighting etc. (learnt his trade in the German Expressionism great days I beleive). It all looked very good to me, which included the 1950's sets and pub scenes, usually best observed by a foreigner.

Mention must be made about the wardrobe department. Nadja Tiller was great in her underwear etc, there were trench coats, but as for William Bendix, what were they thinking of dressing him in a heavy striped shirt with a diamond patterned tie, underneath a chequered waist coat (ouch!).

I wouldn't call this film noir (no guns, deaths or a beginning reflecting on previous events etc), but the subject matter is certainly parallel to some I've seen. The ending is perhaps unresolved, but did it matter? Not for me.

When viewing, I suggest you look at this through 'B' movie glasses, and although lacking in (deep) plot, it certainly had enough to entertain me for the 96 (?) minutes. Overall, a good solid adult English/London 'B' movie for me.