alanrhobson Reviews

Now and Forever (1956)

Underrated, Charming, Romantic - and Witty

[9/10 · 26 May 2020]

This is one of the most underrated films I've ever seen. The bulk of it is charming and romantic, with two very good leads (Janette Scott, of course, went on to be one of Britain's top female film stars for the next decade; very oddly, Vernon Grey never made it as a star). The story is engagingly told, and the viewer is really rooting for the young couple.

Very effectively, however, the film changes into a kind of black comedy thriller in the latter stages, as the couple flee to try to elope to Scotland. Various mishaps hinder both the couple and the pursuing police. Among other witty moments, policeman Brian Wilde is exasperatedly telling an impatient colleague over the radio that 'It is not as if they are going to drive past me right now!' - just as the couple's car zooms by in the background; and Wilde again, stopping a car which is identical to the couple's one, only to find a very angry woman (Hattie Jacques) in the driver's seat with a very large dog next to her in the passenger seat. 'How dare you accuse us of being an eloping couple!' thunders Jacques.

It is also moving how a series of people the couple encounter help them on their way rather than shop them, including a waiter (Ronald Squire), a lorry driver (Harold Goodwin) and a farmer (Charles Victor). Throw in very good cinematography, excellent location shots, and a really well done ending, and what's not to like? In fact, if it was not for one very stupid hole in the plot, I would have given it a 10.

Crossed Swords (1977)

Thoroughly Enjoyable

[9/10 · 18 February 2014]

This is one of my favourite historical romps. It is enormous fun, and has many virtues. These include wonderful music from Maurice Jarre, fine costumes and set design, and an excellent cast. The action scenes are well staged, the plot involving, and the script provides both moving and amusing moments along the way. Even the title credits at the start of the film are attractively done.

Yes, there are some historical inaccuracies, but not as many as might be expected. For example, the Duke of Norfolk (played extremely well by Rex Harrison at his most charming) really was sentenced to death in the last weeks of Henry VIII's reign, and really was reprieved by Edward VI just before his execution. The inaccuracy is that in the film Norfolk is restored to power, whereas in reality he was kept in prison, and only released by Mary I six years later, on her accession.

The cast is so impressive that even away down the cast list, there are still fine British character actors such as Harry Fowler, Dudley Sutton, Don Henderson and Michael Ripper. The billing is somewhat odd (Raquel Welch is billed second, but has only slightly more lines than Dudley Sutton, billed 25th, and Charlton Heston has a large number of scenes and lines as Henry VIII, but only gets guest star billing at the very end of the cast list), but this is hardly a major flaw. Most of the cast do well, whatever the size of their role, and collectively they add much to the quality of the film.

All in all, I found this thoroughly enjoyable the first time I saw it, and I continue to find it so every time I have seen it since.

Apache Drums (1951)

One of my Favourite B-Westerns

[10/10 · 17 August 2013]

This is an excellent B-Western. I first saw it as a child and found it hugely exciting and gripping - and I have seen no reason to change my mind in around four subsequent viewings!

I am puzzled when I hear people saying that they can't see the influence of producer Val Lewton in it. To me it is very clear. His expertise in building tension and providing visual shocks (from his many horror films) is clearly in evidence, especially in the climactic attack on the church. I bet he helped director Hugo Fregonese a fair bit!

The action scenes are all well shot and exciting, but one of the best bits doesn't have any action. It is the scene where Stephen McNally comes across the Indian massacre in the canyon. Now we've all seen many Westerns where someone, usually the leading man, comes across a massacre, whether by Indians or whites. Usually however, whilst they may look sad or occasionally even upset, they are completely blasé about any ongoing danger. This is always rather unrealistic: Who is to say that the perpetrators of the massacre aren't still around, just over the next ridge, or laying in wait behind a nearby group of rocks? However, here, McNally looks genuinely scared, looking nervously around him in case the Indians are still close by, and in case he's next. At last, some realism! It is also one of the many gripping moments.

The rousing singing of 'Men of Harlech' by the defenders of the church works well for me, despite the criticism by another reviewer. However, I agree with him that that is almost certainly where the makers of 'Zulu' got the idea from!

I gave 'Apache Drums' a 10, as it remains one of my very favourite B-Westerns.

Those Fantastic Flying Fools (1967)

Underrated and Good Fun

[7/10 · 17 August 2013]

This is a very underrated film. In Halliwell's Film Guide it gets no stars at all, and when it was shown recently on TV, the reviewer in the listings magazine I buy each week made no secret of how little he liked it.

However, this 'comedy fantasy' has a huge amount going for it. Although it is rarely hilarious, it is often funny and it is usually fun. The cast is terrific. The costumes and cinematography are also excellent, and the period feel is surprisingly good: we really feel that we are in the late 19th century. This is impressive given that many films with bigger budgets than this are not as successful in recreating a period atmosphere.

Maybe the title misled people into thinking that it was going to be an exciting science-fiction adventure, and so their expectations were raised too high. However, with slightly lower expectations, it can be enjoyed rather a lot.

Bugles in the Afternoon (1952)

Enjoyable, Underrated 'B' Western

[9/10 · 31 July 2013]

This is one of my favourite 'B' Westerns. It is highly enjoyable and very underrated (for example, in Halliwell's Film Guide, it gets no stars at all!).

The cinematography and location filming are very impressive and evocative. The action scenes are exciting and well staged. The scene compositions are particularly well done. For example, in the confrontations and battles between cavalry and Indians, we often see both sides at once, in one shot, making it a lot more realistic and engrossing than cross-cutting between one side and the other.

Sometimes there are moments that are gripping and even spine-tingling, such as the remorseless advance of the Indians up the cliff towards Forrest Tucker as he makes his heroic last stand.

Some of the other reviewers complained about character actor heavies such as Tucker, Barton MacLane and James Millican playing good guys, but actually it is a pleasant change seeing them in sympathetic roles.

There are many effective moments, even in brief shots, such as the ironic one when General Custer, on his way to the Little Big Horn, gives a sweeping, nonchalant bow to the woman who asks him to bring all the men home alive.

I've seen this film about five times over the last few decades, and it is still just as good!

The Cross of Lorraine (1943)

Mostly impressive - but also flawed

[24 November 2012]

The Cross of Lorraine has many virtues - but also some serious flaws.

It is gripping and involving, and has excellent performances and characterisations. Gene Kelly's excellent performance gives the lie to the claims by most of the leading film critics (eg. Leslie Halliwell, David Quinlan) that he couldn't really act (Halliwell said that his acting ability was 'minimal', whilst Quinlan said that he 'never convinced' as an actor). Had they forgotten his terrific performance here? As another reviewer has also said, the half-forgotten German character actor Tonio Selwart is also very good as the German commandant, as is Jean-Pierre Aumont as the hero.

The film is also very well directed, for the most part, and has many good scenes.

However, there are some disturbing aspects, partly due to the presence as co-scriptwriter of Ring Lardner Jr. Lardner was a member of the American Communist Party, despite the fact that Communism had been responsible for millions of deaths in Russia in the 1920s and 1930s. His sympathies can be seen in the film in a number of ways. The traitor, Duval, played by Hume Cronyn, is shown as a capitalist wine merchant who puts business above loyalty. The traitor could have been given any occupation at all by the scriptwriters (French collaborators were from all sorts of occupations in real life) but Lardner had to make a heavy-handed swipe at capitalism.

Similarly, the Spanish republican, Rodriguez (Joseph Calleia), is shown as as a heroic figure even though this charming character's aim in life is to kill as many fascists as possible. His positive portrayal is despite the fact that Spanish republicans were responsible for the murder of thousands of priests, nuns, middle class figures and other 'enemies of the state' in republican-controlled areas of Spain in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39).

There is also another uncomfortable aspect to the film, due presumably to a combination of script and direction. The film positively revels in the slaughter of German soldiers in the climatic battle - even though in actual fact those particular Germans hadn't killed anyone in the village at the point when the insurrection starts. The film gleefully shows German soldiers being burnt alive, bludgeoned to death, and so on, seeming to take pride in allocating them grisly deaths.

So, although this is a high quality film in most respects, it is also deeply flawed.

Springfield Rifle (1952)

Superb Cinematography

[25 August 2011]

This is an enjoyable and underrated Western, but one aspect of it is particularly enjoyable and particularly underrated: the magnificent cinematography.

Edwin DuPar's cinematography is excellent in every respect: the framing, the colour, the texture, the lighting and the location filming. He should have been nominated for an Oscar for it, which may have led to his filming top movies. Instead, he wasn't nominated, and he spent virtually his entire career in B movies and TV episodes - a sad loss to A movies.

The film is underrated generally. Disgracefully, it doesn't even get a single star in Halliwell's Film Guide - it should have had at least one for the cinematography alone! Equally disgracefully, Edwin DuPar doesn't even get a mention in Halliwell's Who's Who in Films (at least, not in my edition).

The cast of 'Springfield Rifle' is very good, the action scenes effective, and the plot works well, by and large. Well worth watching.

Sharpe: Sharpe's Company (1994) Season 2, Episode 1

Aspects are Overrated

[7/10 · 18 February 2011]

I regret that I must strike a discordant note here. All the other reviews of 'Sharpe's Company' are highly positive, but the film left me feeling uneasy.

It certainly has many strengths. The photography is good, as are the action scenes. The period feel is effective, and the history accurate. Sean Bean provides an impressive screen presence, ably supported by a good cast.

And yet...Several things stick in the gullet. How does the evil Sgt Hakeswill character get away with so much? Sharpe is an officer, and so can outrank him at every turn, but he only seeks to thwart Hakeswill from time to time, when it suits him. This allows Hakeswill to get away with - literally - murder, several times.

Why didn't Sharpe make more effort to protect the charming and likable Sally Clayton (Louise Germaine)? Hakeswill made his designs on her clear from an early stage, but no-one stopped him raping and murdering her at the end.

I realise that it is only fiction. Nonetheless, drama like this requires belief, empathy with the characters and a sense of poetic justice - and none of this was fulfilled by the Hakeswill parts of the plot.

Allowing Hakeswill to get away with so much also resulted in enormous holes in the plot. Why was Hakeswill not punished for shooting the boy ensign in the back? There were no French around at the time whom he could have claimed to be shooting at, and the weapon used could be easily traced to him, as it was an unusual weapon used by very few.

How did Hakeswill manage to rape and murder Sally Clayton when the camp would be full of other camp followers and sentries? Why didn't Sharpe chase after him after their fight in the city house at the end? (and thus prevent him from going on to commit the rape and murder). The film shows Sharpe giving up because a few redcoats were in the way - but they didn't stop him racing up to save his 'wife' moments before. He just barged them out of the way then - why not again?.

Since Hakeswill was shot and wounded by Harper, why did the last scene of him by Sally Clayton's body - chronologically very shortly after - show him fully fit and unwounded? And so on.

These aspects could easily have been resolved with a bit more thought and attention to detail - and a bit more compassion and desire for poetic justice from the writers.

It may not have spoilt the film for the other reviewers - but it did for me.

The Master of Ballantrae (1953)

Impressive Sense of History

[8/10 · 28 May 2010]

One of the things that most struck me about this film was the intelligent and interesting things it has to say about the 1745 Jacobite rising.

One of the opening scenes, with the Jacobite Highlander whipping up support for the cause with eloquent argument in the market place, is very well thought out and conveys a sense of the issues and the period with interest and brevity. The scriptwriters obviously thought it through well.

The director adds to this impressive sense of period and place with useful little scenes added such as the contingent from Ballantrae marching off through the glen with bagpipes playing and banners flying to join the army of Prince Charles Edward Stuart.

This Jacobite element is only one plot strand amongst many, but it works very well. There is much else in the film to enjoy, such as Jack Cardiff's cinematography (mentioned by nearly every reviewer), but the impressive handling of the Jacobite theme and the good sense of period and place (the lack of Scottish accents aside!) deserves to be stressed too.

Whisky Galore! (1949)

One of the most overrated films ever?

[1/10 · 23 February 2010]

I regret to say that this is one of the most overrated films I have ever seen. This is the only negative review I have ever done for IMDb, but enough is enough - someone has to stand up against the tide of praise this film has inexplicably attracted for decades.

If ever there was an example of a film playing the part of the emperor in the Emperor's New Clothes fable, it is this one. There are virtually no laughs - and yet it is an acclaimed comedy. It is at times cruel and unpleasant - and yet it has a reputation for being gentle and whimsical.

There are genuinely classic comedies from the 1940s, so I have nothing against 40s comedies as such. An example is fellow Ealing comedy 'Kind Hearts and Coronets' (1948), which is both clever and genuinely witty, and at the same time doesn't pretend to be gentle and whimsical.

However, 'Whisky Galore' is neither clever nor witty. And, as mentioned above, it is at times cruel. The army captain (Basil Radford) is only trying to do his job, yet is driven to the edge of a nervous breakdown by the malice of the islanders. In the end, the captain gets into trouble with his superiors because of the deceit of the islanders. How gentle, whimsical and amusing - not.

I realise that such films were popular at the time because they tapped into the prevailing anti-establishment feeling of the immediate post-war years. However, in the cold light of the 21st century we need to be honest. There are many 1940s films which stand up extremely well even today. 'Whisky Galore' is not one of them.

Rancho Notorious (1952)

Excellent and Underrated

[9/10 · 11 September 2009]

An excellent Western, tense, powerful and moving. There is an air of tragedy and regret pervading the atmosphere, which makes it all the more highly charged. It also contains a number of fine set-pieces.

Of the cast, Mel Ferrer is very good indeed as the stylish, charming gentleman-gunman, and Arthur Kennedy gives his usual fine performance (full of fevered intensity) as the hero.

The film is often underrated (one of the leading film books in the UK, Halliwell's Film Guide, gives it no stars at all) which is why I have left this comment. It is a first rate, highly enjoyable Western, and thoroughly recommended.

3:10 to Yuma (1957)

Lack of Justice - or even Poetic Justice

[8/10 · 25 March 2008]

Obviously in many ways this is a classic Western, just as its high reputation suggests. It is very well shot, and it is one of those films where every scene is well done. It is also gripping and full of interest, and well acted.

However, in some ways it leaves a sour tastes in the mouth for me. The director, Delmer Davies, had strongly liberal political views, which he incorporated into his films. One of those views was a dislike of too much retribution or justice. So, for example, in his film 'The Last Wagon' (1956), the Indians/Native Americans massacre a whole wagon train full of whites early in the film, but only two of those Indians subsequently die in the whole of the rest of the film. The rest escape scot free.

The same principle is true here in '3:10 to Yuma'. The whole of Glenn Ford's gang of nearly a dozen (in the first scene) is responsible for the events leading to the gunning down of the stagecoach driver, yet only three die during the film, and one more ends up in prison. The rest get away with it.

Even worse, the brave town drunk, played by Henry Jones, is strung up and murdered by two of the gang, albeit on Richard Jaeckel's orders - but only Jaeckel dies at the end. The other two get away with it entirely. Is this justice? It's not even poetic justice.

Master Spy (1963)

Underrated spy drama

[8/10 · 12 February 2008]

I have just seen this film, and I thought it was rather sad that it got such a low vote score (3.9 as a "weighted average", at the time of writing) and a negative review as the only review it has on IMDb.

The film is obviously low budget and no classic. Having said that it has many plus points. It is well plotted and clever, with twists and turns (especially towards the end) and it sustains the interest well. It makes all the characters interesting, even the supporting ones, such as Peter Gilmore's flippant scientist. It makes a wise move in having June Thorburn - much underused by the British cinema - as its leading lady. There is also a surprisingly good supporting cast considering it is so low budget. And so on...

At an hour and ten minutes, the film is long enough to tell a proper story well, and short enough not to outstay its welcome. It provided me with an enjoyable time viewing it.

The Angel Wore Red (1960)

Politically Daring

[8/10 · 26 October 2007]

This film has an abiding place in my film canon, for one very good reason.

It isn't a great film, as both the other IMDb reviewers have gone out of their way to stress (although some of their criticisms were a little unfair. I thought, for example, that Joseph Cotten fared better than they say). However, it is virtually the only entertainment vehicle I have ever seen - including film, TV, radio, newspaper, magazine - that dares to show the truth about the left-wing Republicans/anti-Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War.

The Spanish Republicans have been lionised for decades for their allegedly heroic struggle against fascism (although it is actually a moot point to what extent Franco's Nationalists were fascist). However, this film is brave enough to show the truth - that the Spanish Republicans singled out religious targets and many harmless middle class targets and killed or persecuted them. It also dares to show the truth that the Republicans ran the areas they controlled along Stalinist lines. Which is not surprising, given the links with Communists and Stalinist Russia that some of them had.

The file deserves enormous credit for showing this, and it is a shame that no-one has pointed this out on IMDb - until now.

Thunder in the Sun (1959)

A Highly Underrated Western

[10/10 · 4 October 2007]

This is one of the most underrated Westerns I have ever seen. I first saw it as a child and found it hugely exciting - and I have seen no reason to change my mind in subsequent viewings.

It is an enjoyable wagon-train Western, with new angles (the Basque element, the emphasis on the importance of the vines, etc.). I'm sure the representation of the Basques isn't entirely accurate, as another reviewer complains. However, crucially, it increases the viewer's interest in and sympathy for the Basques - isn't that ultimately more important? There isn't a single dull scene in the entire film, and it is involving enough to make us care what happens to the wagon train. It is moving at times too - especially the death of the elderly Basque near the end. The underrated Jeff Chandler is excellent, as usual, as the wagon train guide/leader. The action scenes are well shot and exciting, whether it be the raging fire or the climatic Indian attack. The cinematography is also first rate.

I gave it a 10, as it remains one of my very favourite B-Westerns.

They Died with Their Boots On (1941)

Errol Flynn's performance

[10/10 · 2 October 2007]

The film is excellent. One of the most noteworthy things about it is that Flynn's performance is superb. This is worth stressing, as he was often derided as an actor by Bette Davis et al.

I remember the scene where Flynn gets Arthur Kennedy drunk in order to take him to his doom at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The cold, calculating look on Flynn's face as he does so is extraordinary - much better than the much vaunted Spencer Tracy or many other stars could have done.

The other thing to note is the excellent performance by George P. Huntley Jr as Lt "Queen's Own" Butler. It is baffling why he stopped making films shortly afterwards - one would have thought that he would have been set up for years after as a character actor.