The Wild Geese is a good looking standard competency actioner from one of the unsung masters of good looking standard competency actioners, Andrew V. McLaglen, famous mostly for a roster of good looking standard competency westerns starring John Wayne. Here, the Arizona desert is replaced by the savannah veldts of Southern Africa, the homesteaders by a motley tribe of mercenaries and the Native American savages by government forces intent on savagery. Loosely based on an unpublished novel by Daniel Carney, McLaglen does a fine job holding our attention despite a cliché ridden script and synopsis. The action when it comes is definitely worth the wait. The tension, palpable. A true life mercenary Michael ‘Mad Mike’ Hoare advised on the technical and military aspects of the movie and considered it a very genuine impersonation of the mercenary experience. In its day, The Wild Geese was a massive money spinner and it is easy to see why.
Richard Burton plays mercenary Colonel Allan Faulkner. Actually, he’s revisiting the role of Major John Smith from Where Eagles Dare, but we’ll put that aside. Faulkner has been employed by unscrupulous industrialist Stewart Granger to spring the imprisoned former president of Zembala Julius Limbane and set in motion a counter revolution; this so he can access on the cheap the country’s copper mines. Faulkner isn’t concerned with copper or politics, it is all money and adventure to him. Irishman Sean Flynn [Roger Moore, in a good support role that isn’t James Bond, nor is it Clint Eastwood] and Pieter Coetzee [Hardy Kruger, doing as Hardy Kruger does] both agree. However, Faulkner’s pal Rafer Janders [Richard Harris] doesn’t; being more socially inclined he’s searching for a cause and Limbane may just be it. The quartet recruit a gutsy gang of veterans and launch a suicidal mission to free Limbane. As with all these kind of stories, nothing goes according to plan and a simple three hour smash-and-grab operation turns into a day of blood, toil, tears and death.
With a game cast and decent production values, The Wild Geese doesn’t disappoint. It’s all most satisfactory, in a good looking standard competency actioner kind of fashion.
A few interesting points of order. Maurice Binder does the titles. Both John Glen and John Grover crop up on the editing team, so that’s three more of ours on the production list. Roy Budd composed a good score, but oddly his overture and end theme was replaced by a totally inappropriate sentimental song by Joan Armatrading. Like many seventies examples across all genres of action film, The Wild Geese looks and sounds a tad rough at the edges, but that’s part of the film’s and the era’s charm.
There was a sequel and both Burton and Moore were expected to repeat their roles, but Burton’s death made Moore reconsider. Pity as the result, from Bond director Peter Hunt, isn’t as bad as all that and would have benefitted immeasurably from the two big stars joining forces again.
I enjoy the film. I can watch it without paying much attention to it because I have seen it plenty. When The Wild Geese premiered on TV it was the talk of the school playground, although we all had to stay up late to watch it. Of it’s ilk, The Wild Geese is probably one of the best good looking standard competency actioners ever made.
American spy thriller directed by Fritz Lang, starring Gary Cooper, Lilli Palmer and Vladimir Sokoloff.
Towards the end of WW2, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) learns of Nazi Germany's research in atomic power. They dispatch Professor Alva Jesper (Gary Cooper) to neutral Switzerland to meet with an escaped Hungarian scientist Dr. Katerin Lodor. Lodor informs Jesper of an Italian physicist Dr. Polda (Sokoloff), who is currently working on the project under duress.
Jesper must now rescue Dr. Polda and help him in escaping the country.
---------
A very well made spy film, with great performances by Gary Cooper and Lilli Palmer, who plays a member of the Italian resistance front.
Aardman Animations stop motion techniques come to the big screen from the small with a full-length version of Shaun the Sheep, the children’s TV show, itself a spin off from Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave. Here, young Shaun gets all naughty sending the Farmer to sleep, but doesn’t bank on him vanishing into the Big City with memory loss. Chaos at the farm is replaced by chaos on the city streets and pursuit by an animal catcher. Tremendously funny, well-observed after an animal fashion, packed full of incidental detail – the blink and you miss it kind – a treat for kids and adults. I’m an adult [I think] and I certainly enjoyed it. So, baaaa...
Twentieth Century Fox’s successful adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles launched Basil Rathbone’s version of Sherlock Holmes onto the big screen. It was so successful, Fox followed it in the same year with this adaptation of William Gillette's play Sherlock Holmes, although little remains of the play other than the Holmes v Moriarty plotline. One can only assume this literary source was chosen because the filmmakers had difficulty procuring permission to use any more of Conan Doyle’s books. After this movie the Conan Doyle estate even banned Fox from using the character and creating original stories; so one must assume there was a financial imbalance somewhere along the way. All was not lost for Rathbone and Mr Holmes. The late 1930s and early 40s was a prime time for film detective series. Almost every major and minor studio had one: The Thin Man, Charlie Chan, Mr Moto, the Saint, the Falcon, etc. It wasn’t long before Universal, seeking a detective to add to its roster of horror characters, took up cinema’s Holmesian legacy. Starting with Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror in 1942, Universal made twelve films in five years starring Rathbone. The first three were contemporary wartime escapades. The remainder mixed modern and historical times with original stories and adaptations. Although the production values started high, the Universal cycle was always B-movie fare and as the returns dipped, so did the quality. However, the obvious contented familiarity between Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes’s sidekick Dr Watson always makes them watchable.
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes sees Professor Moriarty [George Zucco, always a decent villain] attempt to steal the Crown Jewels from the Tower of London using a scheme so convoluted it could only feature in a Sherlock Holmes adventure. Moriarty is foiled at the last. Getting to that point is 85 minutes of gleeful fun and games. Rathbone secures his place in movie history as the definitive Holmes [although many prefer Peter Cushing, still others Robert Stephens, but I hear few shouts for Robert Downey Jr] and Nigel Bruce is both charming and frustrating as the bumbling Watson. One of the movie’s best scenes has almost nothing to do with the story: Watson is impersonating a recent murder victim by lying in the road and a passer-by is concerned: “I say, are you alright, you look ill?” – “I’m worse than that. I’m dead.” – “Are you sure there’s nothing I can do for you?” – “No, just move along.” It transpires Holmes has sent Watson there to keep him out of the way of his investigations!
Nice support too from Ida Lupino as a woman in distress who believes first her brother, then herself are due to be murdered. Meanwhile, Moriarty plots away. The film has good production values, a decent enough script and an exciting ending. No complaints about it really and while it isn’t as invigorating as Baskervilles, it sets a good benchmark for the Universal series that eventually followed.
I should really watch all the Rathbone-Bruce movies sometime. They do have an endearing quality and do not tax the mind much.
Documented as the first ‘Sherlock Holmes’ movie, this is a curio from the early days of cinema. It isn’t so much a movie as a peep show flicker, using what was known as the Mutoscope machine, where you placed your eye to a lens and saw naughty goings on in the mistress’s cloakroom, or the master’s study, etc. Here, Sherlock, or whoever he is supposed to be, walks in on a burglar who is stealing some ornaments. Sherlock apprehends him, but the man mysteriously vanishes, leaving Holmes baffled. It happens twice more and eventually, Holmes resigns himself to losing his valuables and his first cinematic crime case. It is very rudimentary and lasts all of 36 seconds.
Arthur Marvin directed and filmed the silent snippet. The cast is unknown. The title was used as a calling card rather than any attempt to replicate a Sherlock Holmes mystery. What surprises, for such a short film, is that it has a narrative – a beginning, middle and end – and is a fictional story. At this time, most short films demonstrated real life places and people, like jugglers or cyclists. Marvin would go on to work with D.W. Griffith, the Granddaddy of American Cinema.
Very interesting.
Note: I had never come across this movie before and followed the links on Wiki. You can watch it online.
I suppose I will get in my review of The Man Who Would Be King before @ChrisNo1 - mind you, if he raves about it I feel a bit mean posting my more critical comments afterwards, as if it's some kind of 'corrective'.
The Man Who Would Be King - followed on BBC4 last night by a Talking Pictures edition on Connery and A Bridge Too Far are two of those Connery movies that didn't work at the box office but picked up a later following on TV viewings or on video; The First Great Train Robbery is another one - a highly enjoyable period yarn (Connery's done a few of those) that was a legend on the small screen only, and even if there are overall flaws the overall theme and in particular enjoyable moments (Lesley Ann Down acting the strumpet) are seared in the memory.
I thoroughly enjoyed King last night with my sister and a bottle of wine. I think it's flawed and that doesn't impede my enjoyment because after several views, it's all factored in. Connery didn't often pair up with a contemporary movie legend, so this is a treat.
What's wrong with it?
Well, the opening. So Caine's pickpocket is mortified to learn he's nicked a pocket watch off a fellow freemason and aims to retrieve the situation by returning it to him. Now, on first viewing it may not be obvious he has nicked anything, I know it may be to you but it took several viewings over the years to pick up on this and maybe I should have been paying attention. So instead you just wonder what Caine is up to boarding the train and his antics with the Indian native - is that meant to be funny? Or do you feel he had it coming, being fitted up and booted out of the train because he's a bit ingratiating and unsavoury? I don't know. Why is he lurking around Plummer - oh, it's to give the stolen item back... you later realise.
Then there's the freemasons aspect. People are in two factions, those who don't know about freemasonry and don't care, which may or may not be a bit naive; goodness knows they don't promote themselves, unless it's their charity fundraising in the Surrey Advertiser, so why should anyone know. The other faction is those who do know, and see them as the dark sinister Illuminati who secretly rule the world - along with the Jews, of course, and given they are mutually exclusive perhaps they run it on a timeshare basis, I don't know. I'm talking ironically.
So at once you have two main things going on where a lot of the audience is not picking up on any of it and a bit in the dark, a bit mystified. Maybe the masons were more known in the early 70s when this was filmed, and seen as a sort of Boys' Club with a bit of mystery thrown in, secrets for the sake of secrets, and of course we see Connery and Elliot's character perform their ritual greeting when they meet in the Middle East in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, just public schoolboy stuff then, but ramped up a bit.
They you have Christoper Plummer as Kipling, the author. Is that normal? Is it like having Ian Fleming pop up in a James Bond story? It feels odd. It would work if you had Plummer's VoiceOver narrate the film at the start, explain how he encountered Caine and got lifted. But then would you be stuck with Plummer's narrative for the rest of the film, instead of Caine, who is telling the story to a shocked Plummer in his office.
In any event, it feels like Plummer's Kipling is a sideshow in his own tale. Either have his as Kipling introducing the story, or don't call him Kipling. And it doesn't make narrative sense, even if they're all freemasons, to have him continuing his association with them, as he and Connery come off as uncharming ruffians, it would make sense if it was made clear as a writer he was bored and thought he would get a story out of them, that he found them diverting.
Plummer is very good as Kipling, however, and you just don't see him as Captain von Trapp in this. That said - maybe it's not a star performance quite, Plummer is a self-possessed actor, it's not quite the right fit here. An actor with the aura of Richard Dreyfuss might work better - and of course he did that kind of role in Stand By Me. Maybe Plummer could come across like the schoolteacher indulging two errant school kids - and maybe he does. But I'd almost prefer his character was not named Kipling.
Next. Huston's direction is on point, it works, it's not very cinematic but at least the cinema doesn't get in the way. It tells the story and he lets the actors get on with it (there's an amusing tale in one of Caine's memoirs about how Sly Stallone took issue with this style when filming Escape to Victory with Huston). But the cinematography is of the early 70s - realistic, gritty, a bit grim. There is nothing mystical or magical about the look of the film - despite the astonishing scenery. Movies were getting away from the epic Dr Zhivago treatment at this time, but I think this film would have greatly benefitted from it because there is nothing otherworldly looking about it, say, like Black Narcissus which arguably has a somewhat similar theme of English folk getting in over their heads.
Next. Connery and Caine are miscast.
They are meant to be charming Cockney chancers who take a chance too far and actually look like pulling it off. The England football team. Caine in The Italian Job. But neither quite look like this type. Not Caine, shorn of his likely lad hoodlums, nor Connery who never looks wily. Mates in real life, for me it doesn't quite work, when I know it should. Both are a shade too old for this, maybe back in 65 they would have been the right age. But it's not just that, both their demeanour is that of two self-assured actors who have made their pile and are not so young, experienced and naive to take on an enterprise of the kind they hope to pull off.
On top of which, Danny and Peachy should imo exude a kind of chemistry that is beyond friendship and is more a kind of marriage. I'm thinking of Curtis and Lemon in Some Like It Hot, Laurel and Hardy, Lennon and McCartney, Bob and Terry in WHT The Likely Lads. Or even, if you like, Ford and Connery in The Last Crusade, where Jones Snr has a slightly boyish, unknowing air about him in contrast to his son's occasional dourness. Mates in real life, Caine and Connery don't do this. A TVTimes reviewer said the roles might be better reversed, and you can see this, Caine the actor having the reputation for going for the gold, while Connery spurning the riches of Bond. Maybe. But if younger, Connery getting too big for his boots and making a play for Roxanne, one of the native girls (played by Caine's wife Shakira) would be more forgivable, but being older he just comes across as a lecherous bore.
In a way, Connery did this kind of thing better with Alfred Lynch in On The Fiddle a decade or so earlier, an army yarn in which you could sort of see what the two characters got from each other. But here, the sense of betrayal doesn't quite come across because they are just two mates on a mission, it doesn't feel bitter like the Lennon-McCartney or Martin-Lewis split, it doesn't feel like a marriage between two men that is fated to run its course once sex or avarice or jealousy intervene.
On top of this, Caine and Connery can be hollow actors - they tend to work best when surrounded by lots of other actors and each is the star of his movie, be it Bond or Palmer or most of their films. Here, they don't quite cancel each out, but the star dynamic is not as usual, there actually isn't much of a supporting cast here; it's just the two of them with either Plummer of Saeed Jeffery as a third wheel. Anything else? Rightly or wrongly, we don't get away from the pair of them, we are stuck with them for the duration, then again it is Caine's character who is relating it, so it makes sense. The dialogue is often comic, but Huston isn't a comic director quite - he doesn't kill the jokes, they do work, but the film doesn't quite have the funny bones it maybe ought to have to get you to happily suspend disbelief.
Some scenes anticipate the Indiana Jones movies - which were lensed more appropriately - and in particular it's pleasing to contrast Connery's avarice in this, when presented with a treasure trove of jewels, with his restraint as Dr Henry Jones in Last Crusade, advising his son re the Holy Grail to 'Let it go...'
The ending is a tear-jerker. But why cut the bridge, how long would that take to construct again? I'm not saying, devise another ending. It works. Just... explain they have another bridge, or it's a despised symbol of British construction, or something, somewhere in the narrative. The bridge isn't foreshadowed in any way, either.
With Connery, Plummer and Saeed Jeffrey (Billy the Fish) now gone, it's only Michael Caine and his wife Shakira who survive this movie. In a similar way, Connery was the last man standing from Robin and Marion, another 1970s film of his that didn't do great box office, and I can see why, and yet it has some great moments in it, and which I found incredibly affecting to watch while tending to my mother in a Kingston nursing home all those years ago, in particular the closing scene and closing shot, along with John Barry's score, which had me in bits when I caught on telly the other week, it brought it all back.
Anyway, that all said I did enjoy this, without ad breaks, on BBC4 last night and on semi-widescreen, and both Connery and Caine put in fine performances, and deliver the excellent dialogue well.
It was followed by Talking Pictures' edition on Connery. It was surprising to see him in interviews explain that he had a shaky recall of time and years gone by - I thought this was something he experienced plus 70 years due to a spot of dementia but not necessarily, it seems he had it in much of his life, even aged 40 (though he looked a full-on 40 even with his toupee, talking on set for Diamonds are Forever).
Bond was used as the thread, there were also on-set interviews for Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice and an interview with the ever cheerful and affable Barry Norman on his film show for Never Say Never Again - Film 83, I suppose.
Michael Caine told an amusing story about a Hollywood actress 'who I shan't name' who asked the pair of them round 'they tend to do that, they invite both of us because with me they know they can get Sean; he won't come on his own' expressly to ask if he'd be in a film directed by her. Connery was quite unfazed about saying no, 'why should I? I've been in more films than you - would you agree to be in a film directed by me? No? Well, there you are then.' whereas Caine jokingly said he would have waffled his way out of it, being more agreeable. I suppose the female director in question could only have been Barbara Streisand, I can't think who else it would be, nor who else might elicit what might be seen as - favourably or unfavourably - a justifiably brusque response.
While Roger Moore was starring in the YOLT remake The Spy Who Loved Me, Connery - having foregone his chance of reappearing as Bond in Warhead, gives us a tantalising idea of what his Bond would have been like around this time. He looks great in this - but is that a thinning toupee he wears, given that he was bald in The Man Who Would Be King a few years earlier?
It emphasises what a great actor Caine is/was to see him also in this, filmed but a few years later than King - because as the responsible and decent Army sergeant he looks like a completely different person from the long-haired low-life soldier he was in that.
ChrisNo1 did a review on this on the previous page.
What you find watching these movies is that your perspective can change over the years, you find different layers to it. So it's a question of, are you watching the events of Arnham in 1944, does the movie actually live? Or are you watching and enjoying the actors in it, having seen them in other films, and seeing them do their thing? Or are you enjoying linking it to the memoirs of Caine and his own observations making it? Or your knowledge of Attenborough the director, and how this film was used as a sort of audition piece for his dream project, Gandhi? Just how the hell does a director who hadn't done a whole load of films until that point (though he'd appeared in dozens) get offered the keys to a vehicle like this, and to be fair, he stages some brilliant action set pieces here.
Or do watch remembering how you saw the film on telly years ago, and the observations of family members back then, they all emerge from the mists of time. Or is it all of the above?
In his first memoirs, Caine reveals that he thought the subject matter would be daunting for audiences given Operation Market Garden was a disaster - so it proved. And he told how the director pulled a dirty trick on him, filming him on a tank and then - without forewarning - setting off a huge explosion behind him, to catch a look of genuine surprise on the actor's face. (I'd have thought that a risky strategy unless you have a back-up explosion, it's just as likely the actor might pull a comical or inappropriate expression). Naturally, I was keen to anticipate this scene, and just as naturally, you can guess which scene I missed when I nipped out to the loo for just 30 seconds in a 3 hour film.
The array of famous actors in this are the draw, though as one critic observes on Rotten Tomatoes, if you checked in to catch your fave actor you might feel cheated as they won't be in it much. I'm not saying it's Casino Royale from 10 years earlier! But while all those faces are the draw, they also prevent you from believing it - they all have to have some juicy bit of dialogue or humour, in particular Caine and Elliot Gould. The movie is caught out slightly - it's not the realism of Saving Private Ryan - though after the opening, I didn't find that so realistic, it went a bit Hollywood - and it's shot in the 1970s where fashions were at odds; I think the earlier Battle of Britain had the same problem.
Also, not withstanding the great scenes it it, some war films are easier to grasp visually or thematically- obviously The Dam Busters is one, The Longest Day is another. By the time Robert Redford appears (conjuring up memories of Connery demanding to renegogiate his fee upon hearing how much Redford was being paid, to be fair why should they, Redford was the golden boy of cinema then while Connery was frankly a has been 'It's not my fault you've got a lousy agent!' retorted the producer), anyway by this time the unrelenting misery of the movie and the fact it was 1am sent me off to bed, I felt I'd got the idea. There are other niggles, and I feel mean given the composer actually served in Arnham; it's just the way the theme splices I'm Getting Married In The Morning from My Fair Lady into the Theme from Cagney and Lacey, I don't know, maybe that came afterwards, but it's just little things that are a bit off - despite the brilliant staging of it all. The lensing was great, incidentally. Geoffrey Unsworth, apparently.
As some of the crazy political and possible war threats continue on in this world, this only seemed right. What can I say that hasn’t been said before? A great late night movie with my dad. My favorite Stanley Kubrick movie. It’s truly the definition of how to portray dark humor in film.
After rebels take seige of the Russian state and acquire control of its strategic weapons, an American submarine (USS Alabama) is dispatched to the Pacific for a first strike option. During a skirmish with a Russian submarine, a situation occurs where the final launch authorization for a tactical strike cannot be received by the submarine's radio system, triggering a standoff between the XO of the ship, Lieutenant Commander Hunter (Denzel Washington) and the commanding officer Captain Ramsey (Gene Hackman).
Both are equally right and wrong in their appreciations, but the ramifications of their actions might trigger the end of the world.
Featuring powerhouse performances by its lead actors, Crimson Tide is a very tense thriller. And even though the scenario shown in the film is highly unlikely, it remains a very entertaining film to the present day.
Bava was (is) better known as a horror director, and this is as much a horror film as a sci-fi one. A spaceship intercepts what appears to be a distress call from an unknown planet. They land to investigate. The planet is supposedly uninhabited, but they find that isn’t true… As they explore the surface they find a huge ship which has been there for centuries, discovering the skeleton of one of the giant-sized crew (? The captain) long dead at the controls. Back at their ship, they find that something unknown and terrifying has come aboard with them and the crew now start getting picked off, one by one.
Sound familiar? I kept waiting for Sigourney Weaver to come walking round a corner. As well as the general plot some of the artwork is strikingly similar to “Alien”, too.
This is only about half of the plotline, but it's the half that resembles “Alien” the most. The other half of the plot of “Alien” strongly resembles another old sci-fi movie “It! The Terror From Beyond Space” (1958). Watch both of these old movies then watch “Alien”. You might be surprised- or rather, you won’t be.
Anyway, “Planet” is a good little B-movie, and Bava works wonders with a budget that might have covered the tea/coffee budget of “Alien”.
PlanetOfTheVampires and It!TheTerrorFromBeyondSpace are two excellent movies, much better than the vastly overrated Alien. My love for 50’s and 60’s pulp movies may be an influence on that opinion 😁
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Arnold Schwartzneggar plays against type in this family friendly comedy-thriller as a policeman who impersonates a reception class school teacher in a bid to track down a villain. Mildly amusing for the most part, the scenes with Arnie and a classroom full of tots are surprisingly charming. The rough stuff is elementary entry level. There is even time for a spot of low-level romance. It was a groundbreaking film for the big muscular man, following on from the similar fish-out-ot-water Twins, very successful and still a relaxing, no frills, no surprises and no stress watch. I only had half an eye on it while I was prepping dinner, but that half-eye was mightily pleased.
Now I've seen The Frogmen too thanks to this review. I found it very interesting since I've never seen any movie before about US WWII frogmen before. (fun fact: the Danish navy special forces unit is stil called frogmen or Frogman Corps -"Frømandskorpset"). At times the diving scenes seem almost like a documentary and to someone who doesn't dive at all it looks very convincing. I'd even say the diving scenes in this movie are more exciting and tense than the ones in TB. The acting and the drama is less impressive. Other than the missions the main plot is a new commander struggling toget accepted by his team of UDT divers. Maybe the best scene is when a torpedo hits a US navy ship, but it's a dud. The tip of the torpedo breached the sick bay. An injured diver who can't be moved watches nervously as the room is getting flooded while two other UDT-men are trying to disable the warhead. I recommend the movie, but mostly because of historical interest.
As the title suggests this is a movie about Oliver Cromwell and the English civil war between the king and the parliament, including the prelude. Richard Harris plays Cromwell, Alec Guinness plays the king and one Timothy Dalton in an early role as a foppish prince. Cromwell and the civil war is a good topic for a film, with many important issues and lots of drama. In many ways this is an old-fashioned film that could've been made in the 50s, 60s or even the 40s. This is seen in the conservative camera movements and actors declaring their lines, but also scenes that are well shot showing everything in long takes.We also see something we rarely see today: characters dressed in period movies in colourful clothes as they really did back then instead of the black leather clothes we usually see in modern movies. We also get big battle scenes, something rare in modern British films.
I would've liked to see a more complex Cromwell, because here he's mostly a hero. I don't know this part of British history very well, but a more morally complex Oliver Cromwell would be more interesting to watch and probably truer to history too.
Getting Dumbledore, Obi-Wan Kenobi and James Bond in the same film is a treat, and they all do a good job. In most of the film Dalton is very foppish nobleman with a high-pitched voice and carrying a poodle with him to the battlefield. Very much against type. Only a couple of years earlier he was considered for OHMSS, but this isn't the film to see to get an idea how he would've been as 007 nearly 20 years before it happened. Good, solid historical film.
@Barbel Thank you for the recommendation. I enjoyed Planet of the Vampires.
JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN (1969)
The European Space Exploration Council (EURSEC) discovers a planet behind the sun.
American astronaut Glenn Ross (Roy Thinnes) and British scientist John Kane (Ian Hendry) are sent via spaceship to explore this new planet, only to crash land on it.
Once back to his senses Ross soon realizes that he has stepped into a very odd situation.
Counter-reality, doppelgangers and parallel worlds...
A true sci-fi gem, which did not get the appreciation it deserved.
Sinners (2025) is not strictly speaking the Last Film I Saw - I saw it a week ago - but I have cleared it with Barbel and he says it's okay to go ahead.
I saw this multi-Oscar nominated film at the Prince Charles cinema in London but while I enjoyed it, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would.
Note: There is a coda into the end credits that you should wait for - it's not just a quirky 10 second thing, it's a full scene important to the movie, and it's a good minute or two into the credits before it stars; a good few of the audience were on their way out before it kicked in, I don't know why the film did it that way.
Unable to check before I left home, I found the cinema was almost sold out by the time I got there, and I got a seat to the right of the auditorium - now full disclosure I did get my ears syringed at the GP later in the week but that not withstanding, the audio did seem off - with no sound from the right speaker. It's a dialogue heavy film - and from what I could make out it was good dialogue - but I could only make out half of it. To be clear, when I commented on it to the woman at the till afterwards, I could hear what she said, ditto everything I watch on telly.
One reason I have held off posting this is because I come across as thick - Michael B Jordan, of the Creed boxing franchise, stars in this; it's set in the mid 1930s and it's about twin brothers who relocate from Chicago, with suits and a lot of cash to flash - to the Deep South where they grew up to set up a jive nightspot for just black folk. The two actors who play the twins put in a good performance - one is harder, slick and ungenerous, the other bearded one is more magnanimous. I wondered if both of them would be getting the Oscar nod - should have known really, but it's the same actor, Michael B Jordan. What happens - he can't get nominated for two roles, well he could but it would split the vote, and he can't just get nominated for a film, so I would have to check to see which role he gets the nod for but if he wins you could argue it's not quite fair - it's the dual role that bags the nomination.
The cinematography sets this apart from the opening, rather like that Zone of Interest, set not long after, reviewed upstream, it just conjurs up the time exactly, though the look is softer and less contrasty.
I liked the interaction between the two men and the rest of the townfolk, and how it plays out.
That said, for a vampire flick it takes a while for the main event to get going and it's not foreshadowed much. At times I was reminded of Harrison Ford's disparaging comment about Cowboys and Aliens before he signed on - 'Why do you want to mess up a good Western by having these aliens appear?' In a way, we have one kind of threat for the first part of the movie and it's largely unrelated to what later follows; I know you could say the same about Psycho - but at least the about turn occurs maybe 20-25 mins into the movie, you don't start thinking, hey I was really interested in that woman escaping with her cash, what happened to that?
I will sound unfortunate now but there's a lot of oral sex in the latter half of the film - perhaps to suggest that sex and sin have now raised their heads and evil is about to enter. It's men going down on women and it seems a bit performative - can't say if this was on the sexual playlist in the 1930s Deep South but it seems a bit of a cliche, just as women dropping to their knees was the in-thing in American movies from the 1990s onwards; this even happened to John Lennon in Nowhere Boy and I'm not sure that was a popular option for a schoolboy in 1950s suburban Liverpool. It becomes a cliche.
One snag is that the Vampire lore in this wasn't consistent in terms of how long it took between getting bitten and becoming full vampire, either a couple of minutes or maybe a few hours. One character had a dust-up with a vampire, plenty of blood, and I was waiting for them to transform but it didn't happen, so what gives?
It's not really believable that the fellows could set up such a jiving nightclub in a barn in just a day but the film is stuck with it because the whole thing follows the opening scene that concludes with '24 hours earlier', to explain how it got to that point.
Our own Jack O'Connell impresses as an unsympathetic character, with a Deep South accent - I didn't recognise him. The whole thing works well as an allegory of white-black relations, rather like Get Out, and for the most part the surface meaning makes sense too.
Sinners is showing at the Epsom Picturehouse this week, on Wednesday I think, if anyone local to the area wants to catch it. The sound is good there.
Highly enjoyable comedy thriller, perhaps in the same vein as the big hit The Housemaid, still at cinemas two months after its release. Like Housemaid, it stars one of the original Mean Girls, this time Rachel McAdams - I only realised this from imdb, she's a more sympathetic character here, in complete contrast you might say. McAdams plays a frumpy office worker who does the donkey work in compiling reports but is all set to get passed over for the promised vice-principal job when an obnoxious young buck (Dylan O'Brien) takes control of the firm following the death of his father. So it's all set up to be a bit Working Girl but then a shocking event sees the two stranded on a desert island, reliant on each other for survival.
This is a Sam Raimi film and if you're of a certain age you feel in safe hands; like he's of the same generation more or less. Mind you, the same could be said of Housemaid which had a 60-year-old director. It follows the tropes but you're not meant to take it too seriously, and when it becomes implausible it has the get-out that you're here to have a laugh anyway, like a Roger Moore Bond film.
It becomes a bit Lord of the Flies, but even when there are shocking moments there is a sense of comedy that makes it okay, it's a good film to blow away the cobwebs. It was shown in the large Screen 1 of the Epsom Picturehouse, with just two others in the cinema for an early evening showing; they just don't promote their films well enough.
I walked out with a spring in my step and was half-way home before I realised that the ending doesn't really stack up, it wouldn't have played out that way.
I saw this on the plane when flying back home to Canada…a very good friend of mine - back in the UK - told me to watch it as he thought it a tremendous film…it is, I really enjoyed it…unlike @Napoleon Plural I didn’t notice the non-consistency, I guess I was just enjoying it too much to care…I also thought Jack O’Connell was fabulous too 😁
YNWA 97
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,872Chief of Staff
I watched the first 45 mins of Queer with Daniel Craig last night.
He kept on at me throughout, kept interjecting like a director's commentary, then demanding I get in more beer. 'Daniel,' I said. 'Bring your own beer, I never wanted to watch it!'
Sorry, old panto joke.
I watched it by myself. The cinematography or look or the film was very good - I think it is hard to make places like New Mexico look good on screen.
As if to balance out the oral sex in Sinners, there's blow jobs aplenty in this film and it's as well Craig sports a horrible haircut in this so memories of him kneeling down are less likely to plague your next viewing of Casino Royale or whatever. I will notice that the sex in this is more convincing than the sex in any of Craig's Bond films, where it is all a bit choreographed and frantic.
Craig doesn't quite nail the American accent in this, and from what I saw delivers a somewhat mannered performance - I'm not sure he's the kind of guy to carry a film by himself, he doesn't enjoy the camera's attention; like Hugh Grant he needs people to bounce off. Also, from what I saw, I didn't quite see the point of the film - there is no exact drama to it; it's maybe a Death in Venice type thing where the older man is smitten with the younger man.
Alice, Darling with Anna Kendrick.
'I didn't expect you over,' I said. 'Daniel Craig is coming later, make sure you're gone by the time he arrives.' Ms Kendrick huffed.
Anyway, this was a decent, understated film about coercive control, Kendrick playing the victim. A scene where her boyfriend sneaks up on her in the shower for sex and her reaction put in its place Craig's similar move in Skyfall, especially given in that they'd only just met.
Two friends invite her to a week away in the woods by a lake to celebrate a birthday; the onscreen blurb called it an intervention but I'm not sure that is in the script, it just pans out that way as they're already concerned about her boyfriend's controlling manner and the fact he's 37 - not sure how much younger Kendrick is meant to be, it's not quite Epstein Island (though that Skyfall scene comes close, eh?)
Horror movie tropes are foreshadowed - it's in a cabin near a lake, a axe or thereabouts is wielded to cut wood, a young woman has gone missing locally, and so on but these don't pan out the way you might expect. It does a good job of conveying menace by having Kendrick switch off her mobile phone for a day or so, it actually builds tension in the viewer. Pretty good.
Are we inhabiting some strange other-world @Napoleon Plural where we keep watching the same late night movies?
ALICE DARLING (2022)
I like Anna Kendrick, I really do.
Anna burst onto the scene in the brilliant George Clooney flick Up In The Air (2009) as a breezy but insecure HR representative. She was playing her age, twenty-three, and displayed an astute sense of keenness, intelligence and naivety rarely seen in a young actress. Oscar nominations followed. Then it was animated trolls and wannabe acapella singers – what went wrong? I kept asking myself as insignificant movie followed insignificant movie. Alice, Darling goes someway to remind us that she can act forcefully and convincingly. Here, her character, the titular Alice, is under strain as her seemingly perfect relationship implodes under a boyfriend’s coercive behaviour which veers ever more controlling and abusive. While stopping short of physical assault, the film ventures into tough territory and Kendrick well presents the confusion, panic and incongruity of a successful, intelligent woman caught in an intimidating, wickedly twisted atmosphere. It isn’t only her boyfriend’s attitude she has struggles with, but a pair of unsuitable best friends display an equal lack of tact and integrity. Unfortunately, the film steps into daftness when Alice sneaks away for a week to celebrate Tess’s 40th birthday. My eyebrows raised – a whole week? Goodness. Well, she goes and it is a grim old affair in a cabin in the woods where the hunt for a missing teenager becomes a metaphor for Alice’s stolen life. When her boyfriend arrives unannounced, having tracked her down by seeking out her mate’s Instagram feed, Alice’s friends rally round. While there is a healthy dose of tension, the resolution is too easy, uncomplicating a difficult situation with the ease of a swiftly swung axe [oh, sorry, it’s a ‘maul’]. I enjoyed Kendrick’s performance and the film is under-directed, in that it isn’t flashy or provocative, but I was disappointed the low-key atmosphere never steamed up. Disappointed too that the cliched tropes of singalong capers and late night drinks seem to be all it takes to reaffirm female fraternity. Surely, women can talk can’t they? The film did the festival circuit but only earned a measly $250k at the box office.
I like Anna Kendrink, I really do, and she deserves more, she really does.
SILENT NIGHT DEADLY NIGHT (2025) Dull remake of a killer dressed as Santa. 1.5/5
HUMANOIDS FROM THE DEEP (1980) (aka MONSTER!) Doug McClure and Ann Turkel battle Black Lagoon style creatures in a Roger Corman produced gore fest. Totally absurd but strangely watchable. 2.5/5
EARTH Vs THE FLYING SAUCERS (1956) Early Ray Harryhausen stop-motion sci-fi actioner. The special effects add a star. 2.5/5
THE WRECKING CREW (2026) Not the Matt Helm one. Jason Mamoa and Dave Bautista as half-brothers getting revenge for their father. The action is fine, but they can’t act, so the smart-arse dialogue sounds stilted. Quite good fun, nonetheless. 2.5/5
CARRIE (1976) Brian de Palma’s horror classic taken from Stephen King’s debut novel. Bullied Carrie takes terrible revenge. I enjoyed watching this again after many, many years. 4/5
BEYOND ATLANTIS (1973) Filmed in the Philippines this has John Wayne’s son Patrick leading a bunch of opportunists on a treasure hunt. It’s a pity Patrick has no charisma but our own Sid Haig is really good in this and raises the enjoyment immensely. The natives with halved ping pong balls as eyes are hilarious. Also the News At Ten theme played during a fight scene creates a lot of laughter. 2/5 (because of Sid).
THE FINAL RUN (2025) Certainly a contender for most boring film of all time. A former drug runner has to do one more run to save the family farm. The brilliant Jeff Fahey adds half a point. 1/5
BEARS ON A SHIP (2025) The title says it all. A declaration at the end tells us that the film was financed by crowdfunding. Any potential thoughts of me investing in a crowdfunded movie have been put to rest. Inept is being kind. 0.5/5
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
The space ship Ikarie XB-1 is sent on an exploratory mission to the star Alpha Centauri, to investigate any signs of life in exoplanets residing in its eco-sphere. During the course of the journey, the crew come across a derelict space ship from the 20th century and a mysterious radio-nebula, whose ionizing radiations have a severe affect on their physical and mental health.
A unique and well-made Czechoslovak science fiction film, which was also one of the inspirations behind Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey.
More Next Film Seen really, but if you were interested in the recent Bridge Too Far reviews, there's an earlier depiction of the Battle of Arnhem on Talking Pictures TV this Sat afternoon, don't have the exact time, around 4.30pm but double check.
Comments
THE WILD GEESE (1978)
The Wild Geese is a good looking standard competency actioner from one of the unsung masters of good looking standard competency actioners, Andrew V. McLaglen, famous mostly for a roster of good looking standard competency westerns starring John Wayne. Here, the Arizona desert is replaced by the savannah veldts of Southern Africa, the homesteaders by a motley tribe of mercenaries and the Native American savages by government forces intent on savagery. Loosely based on an unpublished novel by Daniel Carney, McLaglen does a fine job holding our attention despite a cliché ridden script and synopsis. The action when it comes is definitely worth the wait. The tension, palpable. A true life mercenary Michael ‘Mad Mike’ Hoare advised on the technical and military aspects of the movie and considered it a very genuine impersonation of the mercenary experience. In its day, The Wild Geese was a massive money spinner and it is easy to see why.
Richard Burton plays mercenary Colonel Allan Faulkner. Actually, he’s revisiting the role of Major John Smith from Where Eagles Dare, but we’ll put that aside. Faulkner has been employed by unscrupulous industrialist Stewart Granger to spring the imprisoned former president of Zembala Julius Limbane and set in motion a counter revolution; this so he can access on the cheap the country’s copper mines. Faulkner isn’t concerned with copper or politics, it is all money and adventure to him. Irishman Sean Flynn [Roger Moore, in a good support role that isn’t James Bond, nor is it Clint Eastwood] and Pieter Coetzee [Hardy Kruger, doing as Hardy Kruger does] both agree. However, Faulkner’s pal Rafer Janders [Richard Harris] doesn’t; being more socially inclined he’s searching for a cause and Limbane may just be it. The quartet recruit a gutsy gang of veterans and launch a suicidal mission to free Limbane. As with all these kind of stories, nothing goes according to plan and a simple three hour smash-and-grab operation turns into a day of blood, toil, tears and death.
With a game cast and decent production values, The Wild Geese doesn’t disappoint. It’s all most satisfactory, in a good looking standard competency actioner kind of fashion.
A few interesting points of order. Maurice Binder does the titles. Both John Glen and John Grover crop up on the editing team, so that’s three more of ours on the production list. Roy Budd composed a good score, but oddly his overture and end theme was replaced by a totally inappropriate sentimental song by Joan Armatrading. Like many seventies examples across all genres of action film, The Wild Geese looks and sounds a tad rough at the edges, but that’s part of the film’s and the era’s charm.
There was a sequel and both Burton and Moore were expected to repeat their roles, but Burton’s death made Moore reconsider. Pity as the result, from Bond director Peter Hunt, isn’t as bad as all that and would have benefitted immeasurably from the two big stars joining forces again.
I enjoy the film. I can watch it without paying much attention to it because I have seen it plenty. When The Wild Geese premiered on TV it was the talk of the school playground, although we all had to stay up late to watch it. Of it’s ilk, The Wild Geese is probably one of the best good looking standard competency actioners ever made.
CLOAK AND DAGGER (1946)
American spy thriller directed by Fritz Lang, starring Gary Cooper, Lilli Palmer and Vladimir Sokoloff.
Towards the end of WW2, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) learns of Nazi Germany's research in atomic power. They dispatch Professor Alva Jesper (Gary Cooper) to neutral Switzerland to meet with an escaped Hungarian scientist Dr. Katerin Lodor. Lodor informs Jesper of an Italian physicist Dr. Polda (Sokoloff), who is currently working on the project under duress.
Jesper must now rescue Dr. Polda and help him in escaping the country.
---------
A very well made spy film, with great performances by Gary Cooper and Lilli Palmer, who plays a member of the Italian resistance front.
Recommended.
(106 minutes)
THE SHAUN THE SHEEP MOVIE (2015)
Aardman Animations stop motion techniques come to the big screen from the small with a full-length version of Shaun the Sheep, the children’s TV show, itself a spin off from Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave. Here, young Shaun gets all naughty sending the Farmer to sleep, but doesn’t bank on him vanishing into the Big City with memory loss. Chaos at the farm is replaced by chaos on the city streets and pursuit by an animal catcher. Tremendously funny, well-observed after an animal fashion, packed full of incidental detail – the blink and you miss it kind – a treat for kids and adults. I’m an adult [I think] and I certainly enjoyed it. So, baaaa...
THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1939)
Twentieth Century Fox’s successful adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles launched Basil Rathbone’s version of Sherlock Holmes onto the big screen. It was so successful, Fox followed it in the same year with this adaptation of William Gillette's play Sherlock Holmes, although little remains of the play other than the Holmes v Moriarty plotline. One can only assume this literary source was chosen because the filmmakers had difficulty procuring permission to use any more of Conan Doyle’s books. After this movie the Conan Doyle estate even banned Fox from using the character and creating original stories; so one must assume there was a financial imbalance somewhere along the way. All was not lost for Rathbone and Mr Holmes. The late 1930s and early 40s was a prime time for film detective series. Almost every major and minor studio had one: The Thin Man, Charlie Chan, Mr Moto, the Saint, the Falcon, etc. It wasn’t long before Universal, seeking a detective to add to its roster of horror characters, took up cinema’s Holmesian legacy. Starting with Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror in 1942, Universal made twelve films in five years starring Rathbone. The first three were contemporary wartime escapades. The remainder mixed modern and historical times with original stories and adaptations. Although the production values started high, the Universal cycle was always B-movie fare and as the returns dipped, so did the quality. However, the obvious contented familiarity between Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes’s sidekick Dr Watson always makes them watchable.
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes sees Professor Moriarty [George Zucco, always a decent villain] attempt to steal the Crown Jewels from the Tower of London using a scheme so convoluted it could only feature in a Sherlock Holmes adventure. Moriarty is foiled at the last. Getting to that point is 85 minutes of gleeful fun and games. Rathbone secures his place in movie history as the definitive Holmes [although many prefer Peter Cushing, still others Robert Stephens, but I hear few shouts for Robert Downey Jr] and Nigel Bruce is both charming and frustrating as the bumbling Watson. One of the movie’s best scenes has almost nothing to do with the story: Watson is impersonating a recent murder victim by lying in the road and a passer-by is concerned: “I say, are you alright, you look ill?” – “I’m worse than that. I’m dead.” – “Are you sure there’s nothing I can do for you?” – “No, just move along.” It transpires Holmes has sent Watson there to keep him out of the way of his investigations!
Nice support too from Ida Lupino as a woman in distress who believes first her brother, then herself are due to be murdered. Meanwhile, Moriarty plots away. The film has good production values, a decent enough script and an exciting ending. No complaints about it really and while it isn’t as invigorating as Baskervilles, it sets a good benchmark for the Universal series that eventually followed.
I should really watch all the Rathbone-Bruce movies sometime. They do have an endearing quality and do not tax the mind much.
Very good.
SHERLOCK HOLMES BAFFLED (1900)
Documented as the first ‘Sherlock Holmes’ movie, this is a curio from the early days of cinema. It isn’t so much a movie as a peep show flicker, using what was known as the Mutoscope machine, where you placed your eye to a lens and saw naughty goings on in the mistress’s cloakroom, or the master’s study, etc. Here, Sherlock, or whoever he is supposed to be, walks in on a burglar who is stealing some ornaments. Sherlock apprehends him, but the man mysteriously vanishes, leaving Holmes baffled. It happens twice more and eventually, Holmes resigns himself to losing his valuables and his first cinematic crime case. It is very rudimentary and lasts all of 36 seconds.
Arthur Marvin directed and filmed the silent snippet. The cast is unknown. The title was used as a calling card rather than any attempt to replicate a Sherlock Holmes mystery. What surprises, for such a short film, is that it has a narrative – a beginning, middle and end – and is a fictional story. At this time, most short films demonstrated real life places and people, like jugglers or cyclists. Marvin would go on to work with D.W. Griffith, the Granddaddy of American Cinema.
Very interesting.
Note: I had never come across this movie before and followed the links on Wiki. You can watch it online.
Thanks for sharing that @chrisno1
I think Rathbone IS Holmes for me…and I thoroughly enjoy all his Sherlock Holmes movies…
The Best Holmes I've seen so far is Jeremy Brett.
I suppose I will get in my review of The Man Who Would Be King before @ChrisNo1 - mind you, if he raves about it I feel a bit mean posting my more critical comments afterwards, as if it's some kind of 'corrective'.
The Man Who Would Be King - followed on BBC4 last night by a Talking Pictures edition on Connery and A Bridge Too Far are two of those Connery movies that didn't work at the box office but picked up a later following on TV viewings or on video; The First Great Train Robbery is another one - a highly enjoyable period yarn (Connery's done a few of those) that was a legend on the small screen only, and even if there are overall flaws the overall theme and in particular enjoyable moments (Lesley Ann Down acting the strumpet) are seared in the memory.
I thoroughly enjoyed King last night with my sister and a bottle of wine. I think it's flawed and that doesn't impede my enjoyment because after several views, it's all factored in. Connery didn't often pair up with a contemporary movie legend, so this is a treat.
What's wrong with it?
Well, the opening. So Caine's pickpocket is mortified to learn he's nicked a pocket watch off a fellow freemason and aims to retrieve the situation by returning it to him. Now, on first viewing it may not be obvious he has nicked anything, I know it may be to you but it took several viewings over the years to pick up on this and maybe I should have been paying attention. So instead you just wonder what Caine is up to boarding the train and his antics with the Indian native - is that meant to be funny? Or do you feel he had it coming, being fitted up and booted out of the train because he's a bit ingratiating and unsavoury? I don't know. Why is he lurking around Plummer - oh, it's to give the stolen item back... you later realise.
Then there's the freemasons aspect. People are in two factions, those who don't know about freemasonry and don't care, which may or may not be a bit naive; goodness knows they don't promote themselves, unless it's their charity fundraising in the Surrey Advertiser, so why should anyone know. The other faction is those who do know, and see them as the dark sinister Illuminati who secretly rule the world - along with the Jews, of course, and given they are mutually exclusive perhaps they run it on a timeshare basis, I don't know. I'm talking ironically.
So at once you have two main things going on where a lot of the audience is not picking up on any of it and a bit in the dark, a bit mystified. Maybe the masons were more known in the early 70s when this was filmed, and seen as a sort of Boys' Club with a bit of mystery thrown in, secrets for the sake of secrets, and of course we see Connery and Elliot's character perform their ritual greeting when they meet in the Middle East in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, just public schoolboy stuff then, but ramped up a bit.
They you have Christoper Plummer as Kipling, the author. Is that normal? Is it like having Ian Fleming pop up in a James Bond story? It feels odd. It would work if you had Plummer's VoiceOver narrate the film at the start, explain how he encountered Caine and got lifted. But then would you be stuck with Plummer's narrative for the rest of the film, instead of Caine, who is telling the story to a shocked Plummer in his office.
In any event, it feels like Plummer's Kipling is a sideshow in his own tale. Either have his as Kipling introducing the story, or don't call him Kipling. And it doesn't make narrative sense, even if they're all freemasons, to have him continuing his association with them, as he and Connery come off as uncharming ruffians, it would make sense if it was made clear as a writer he was bored and thought he would get a story out of them, that he found them diverting.
Plummer is very good as Kipling, however, and you just don't see him as Captain von Trapp in this. That said - maybe it's not a star performance quite, Plummer is a self-possessed actor, it's not quite the right fit here. An actor with the aura of Richard Dreyfuss might work better - and of course he did that kind of role in Stand By Me. Maybe Plummer could come across like the schoolteacher indulging two errant school kids - and maybe he does. But I'd almost prefer his character was not named Kipling.
Next. Huston's direction is on point, it works, it's not very cinematic but at least the cinema doesn't get in the way. It tells the story and he lets the actors get on with it (there's an amusing tale in one of Caine's memoirs about how Sly Stallone took issue with this style when filming Escape to Victory with Huston). But the cinematography is of the early 70s - realistic, gritty, a bit grim. There is nothing mystical or magical about the look of the film - despite the astonishing scenery. Movies were getting away from the epic Dr Zhivago treatment at this time, but I think this film would have greatly benefitted from it because there is nothing otherworldly looking about it, say, like Black Narcissus which arguably has a somewhat similar theme of English folk getting in over their heads.
Next. Connery and Caine are miscast.
They are meant to be charming Cockney chancers who take a chance too far and actually look like pulling it off. The England football team. Caine in The Italian Job. But neither quite look like this type. Not Caine, shorn of his likely lad hoodlums, nor Connery who never looks wily. Mates in real life, for me it doesn't quite work, when I know it should. Both are a shade too old for this, maybe back in 65 they would have been the right age. But it's not just that, both their demeanour is that of two self-assured actors who have made their pile and are not so young, experienced and naive to take on an enterprise of the kind they hope to pull off.
On top of which, Danny and Peachy should imo exude a kind of chemistry that is beyond friendship and is more a kind of marriage. I'm thinking of Curtis and Lemon in Some Like It Hot, Laurel and Hardy, Lennon and McCartney, Bob and Terry in WHT The Likely Lads. Or even, if you like, Ford and Connery in The Last Crusade, where Jones Snr has a slightly boyish, unknowing air about him in contrast to his son's occasional dourness. Mates in real life, Caine and Connery don't do this. A TVTimes reviewer said the roles might be better reversed, and you can see this, Caine the actor having the reputation for going for the gold, while Connery spurning the riches of Bond. Maybe. But if younger, Connery getting too big for his boots and making a play for Roxanne, one of the native girls (played by Caine's wife Shakira) would be more forgivable, but being older he just comes across as a lecherous bore.
In a way, Connery did this kind of thing better with Alfred Lynch in On The Fiddle a decade or so earlier, an army yarn in which you could sort of see what the two characters got from each other. But here, the sense of betrayal doesn't quite come across because they are just two mates on a mission, it doesn't feel bitter like the Lennon-McCartney or Martin-Lewis split, it doesn't feel like a marriage between two men that is fated to run its course once sex or avarice or jealousy intervene.
On top of this, Caine and Connery can be hollow actors - they tend to work best when surrounded by lots of other actors and each is the star of his movie, be it Bond or Palmer or most of their films. Here, they don't quite cancel each out, but the star dynamic is not as usual, there actually isn't much of a supporting cast here; it's just the two of them with either Plummer of Saeed Jeffery as a third wheel. Anything else? Rightly or wrongly, we don't get away from the pair of them, we are stuck with them for the duration, then again it is Caine's character who is relating it, so it makes sense. The dialogue is often comic, but Huston isn't a comic director quite - he doesn't kill the jokes, they do work, but the film doesn't quite have the funny bones it maybe ought to have to get you to happily suspend disbelief.
Some scenes anticipate the Indiana Jones movies - which were lensed more appropriately - and in particular it's pleasing to contrast Connery's avarice in this, when presented with a treasure trove of jewels, with his restraint as Dr Henry Jones in Last Crusade, advising his son re the Holy Grail to 'Let it go...'
The ending is a tear-jerker. But why cut the bridge, how long would that take to construct again? I'm not saying, devise another ending. It works. Just... explain they have another bridge, or it's a despised symbol of British construction, or something, somewhere in the narrative. The bridge isn't foreshadowed in any way, either.
With Connery, Plummer and Saeed Jeffrey (Billy the Fish) now gone, it's only Michael Caine and his wife Shakira who survive this movie. In a similar way, Connery was the last man standing from Robin and Marion, another 1970s film of his that didn't do great box office, and I can see why, and yet it has some great moments in it, and which I found incredibly affecting to watch while tending to my mother in a Kingston nursing home all those years ago, in particular the closing scene and closing shot, along with John Barry's score, which had me in bits when I caught on telly the other week, it brought it all back.
Anyway, that all said I did enjoy this, without ad breaks, on BBC4 last night and on semi-widescreen, and both Connery and Caine put in fine performances, and deliver the excellent dialogue well.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Thanks for that review @Napoleon Plural saves me the trouble of watching it 😉
It was followed by Talking Pictures' edition on Connery. It was surprising to see him in interviews explain that he had a shaky recall of time and years gone by - I thought this was something he experienced plus 70 years due to a spot of dementia but not necessarily, it seems he had it in much of his life, even aged 40 (though he looked a full-on 40 even with his toupee, talking on set for Diamonds are Forever).
Bond was used as the thread, there were also on-set interviews for Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice and an interview with the ever cheerful and affable Barry Norman on his film show for Never Say Never Again - Film 83, I suppose.
Michael Caine told an amusing story about a Hollywood actress 'who I shan't name' who asked the pair of them round 'they tend to do that, they invite both of us because with me they know they can get Sean; he won't come on his own' expressly to ask if he'd be in a film directed by her. Connery was quite unfazed about saying no, 'why should I? I've been in more films than you - would you agree to be in a film directed by me? No? Well, there you are then.' whereas Caine jokingly said he would have waffled his way out of it, being more agreeable. I suppose the female director in question could only have been Barbara Streisand, I can't think who else it would be, nor who else might elicit what might be seen as - favourably or unfavourably - a justifiably brusque response.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A Bridge Too Far (1977)
While Roger Moore was starring in the YOLT remake The Spy Who Loved Me, Connery - having foregone his chance of reappearing as Bond in Warhead, gives us a tantalising idea of what his Bond would have been like around this time. He looks great in this - but is that a thinning toupee he wears, given that he was bald in The Man Who Would Be King a few years earlier?
It emphasises what a great actor Caine is/was to see him also in this, filmed but a few years later than King - because as the responsible and decent Army sergeant he looks like a completely different person from the long-haired low-life soldier he was in that.
ChrisNo1 did a review on this on the previous page.
What you find watching these movies is that your perspective can change over the years, you find different layers to it. So it's a question of, are you watching the events of Arnham in 1944, does the movie actually live? Or are you watching and enjoying the actors in it, having seen them in other films, and seeing them do their thing? Or are you enjoying linking it to the memoirs of Caine and his own observations making it? Or your knowledge of Attenborough the director, and how this film was used as a sort of audition piece for his dream project, Gandhi? Just how the hell does a director who hadn't done a whole load of films until that point (though he'd appeared in dozens) get offered the keys to a vehicle like this, and to be fair, he stages some brilliant action set pieces here.
Or do watch remembering how you saw the film on telly years ago, and the observations of family members back then, they all emerge from the mists of time. Or is it all of the above?
In his first memoirs, Caine reveals that he thought the subject matter would be daunting for audiences given Operation Market Garden was a disaster - so it proved. And he told how the director pulled a dirty trick on him, filming him on a tank and then - without forewarning - setting off a huge explosion behind him, to catch a look of genuine surprise on the actor's face. (I'd have thought that a risky strategy unless you have a back-up explosion, it's just as likely the actor might pull a comical or inappropriate expression). Naturally, I was keen to anticipate this scene, and just as naturally, you can guess which scene I missed when I nipped out to the loo for just 30 seconds in a 3 hour film.
The array of famous actors in this are the draw, though as one critic observes on Rotten Tomatoes, if you checked in to catch your fave actor you might feel cheated as they won't be in it much. I'm not saying it's Casino Royale from 10 years earlier! But while all those faces are the draw, they also prevent you from believing it - they all have to have some juicy bit of dialogue or humour, in particular Caine and Elliot Gould. The movie is caught out slightly - it's not the realism of Saving Private Ryan - though after the opening, I didn't find that so realistic, it went a bit Hollywood - and it's shot in the 1970s where fashions were at odds; I think the earlier Battle of Britain had the same problem.
Also, not withstanding the great scenes it it, some war films are easier to grasp visually or thematically- obviously The Dam Busters is one, The Longest Day is another. By the time Robert Redford appears (conjuring up memories of Connery demanding to renegogiate his fee upon hearing how much Redford was being paid, to be fair why should they, Redford was the golden boy of cinema then while Connery was frankly a has been 'It's not my fault you've got a lousy agent!' retorted the producer), anyway by this time the unrelenting misery of the movie and the fact it was 1am sent me off to bed, I felt I'd got the idea. There are other niggles, and I feel mean given the composer actually served in Arnham; it's just the way the theme splices I'm Getting Married In The Morning from My Fair Lady into the Theme from Cagney and Lacey, I don't know, maybe that came afterwards, but it's just little things that are a bit off - despite the brilliant staging of it all. The lensing was great, incidentally. Geoffrey Unsworth, apparently.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Dr Strangelove (1964).
As some of the crazy political and possible war threats continue on in this world, this only seemed right. What can I say that hasn’t been said before? A great late night movie with my dad. My favorite Stanley Kubrick movie. It’s truly the definition of how to portray dark humor in film.
CRIMSON TIDE (1995)
After rebels take seige of the Russian state and acquire control of its strategic weapons, an American submarine (USS Alabama) is dispatched to the Pacific for a first strike option. During a skirmish with a Russian submarine, a situation occurs where the final launch authorization for a tactical strike cannot be received by the submarine's radio system, triggering a standoff between the XO of the ship, Lieutenant Commander Hunter (Denzel Washington) and the commanding officer Captain Ramsey (Gene Hackman).
Both are equally right and wrong in their appreciations, but the ramifications of their actions might trigger the end of the world.
Featuring powerhouse performances by its lead actors, Crimson Tide is a very tense thriller. And even though the scenario shown in the film is highly unlikely, it remains a very entertaining film to the present day.
90's cinema at its best.
Recommended.
(Directed by Tony Scott - 116 minutes)
Planet Of The Vampires (1965) Dir: Mario Bava
Bava was (is) better known as a horror director, and this is as much a horror film as a sci-fi one. A spaceship intercepts what appears to be a distress call from an unknown planet. They land to investigate. The planet is supposedly uninhabited, but they find that isn’t true… As they explore the surface they find a huge ship which has been there for centuries, discovering the skeleton of one of the giant-sized crew (? The captain) long dead at the controls. Back at their ship, they find that something unknown and terrifying has come aboard with them and the crew now start getting picked off, one by one.
Sound familiar? I kept waiting for Sigourney Weaver to come walking round a corner. As well as the general plot some of the artwork is strikingly similar to “Alien”, too.
This is only about half of the plotline, but it's the half that resembles “Alien” the most. The other half of the plot of “Alien” strongly resembles another old sci-fi movie “It! The Terror From Beyond Space” (1958). Watch both of these old movies then watch “Alien”. You might be surprised- or rather, you won’t be.
Anyway, “Planet” is a good little B-movie, and Bava works wonders with a budget that might have covered the tea/coffee budget of “Alien”.
Planet Of The Vampires and It! The Terror From Beyond Space are two excellent movies, much better than the vastly overrated Alien. My love for 50’s and 60’s pulp movies may be an influence on that opinion 😁
KINDERGARTEN COP (1990)
Arnold Schwartzneggar plays against type in this family friendly comedy-thriller as a policeman who impersonates a reception class school teacher in a bid to track down a villain. Mildly amusing for the most part, the scenes with Arnie and a classroom full of tots are surprisingly charming. The rough stuff is elementary entry level. There is even time for a spot of low-level romance. It was a groundbreaking film for the big muscular man, following on from the similar fish-out-ot-water Twins, very successful and still a relaxing, no frills, no surprises and no stress watch. I only had half an eye on it while I was prepping dinner, but that half-eye was mightily pleased.
Now I've seen The Frogmen too thanks to this review. I found it very interesting since I've never seen any movie before about US WWII frogmen before. (fun fact: the Danish navy special forces unit is stil called frogmen or Frogman Corps -"Frømandskorpset"). At times the diving scenes seem almost like a documentary and to someone who doesn't dive at all it looks very convincing. I'd even say the diving scenes in this movie are more exciting and tense than the ones in TB. The acting and the drama is less impressive. Other than the missions the main plot is a new commander struggling toget accepted by his team of UDT divers. Maybe the best scene is when a torpedo hits a US navy ship, but it's a dud. The tip of the torpedo breached the sick bay. An injured diver who can't be moved watches nervously as the room is getting flooded while two other UDT-men are trying to disable the warhead. I recommend the movie, but mostly because of historical interest.
Cromwell (1970)
As the title suggests this is a movie about Oliver Cromwell and the English civil war between the king and the parliament, including the prelude. Richard Harris plays Cromwell, Alec Guinness plays the king and one Timothy Dalton in an early role as a foppish prince. Cromwell and the civil war is a good topic for a film, with many important issues and lots of drama. In many ways this is an old-fashioned film that could've been made in the 50s, 60s or even the 40s. This is seen in the conservative camera movements and actors declaring their lines, but also scenes that are well shot showing everything in long takes.We also see something we rarely see today: characters dressed in period movies in colourful clothes as they really did back then instead of the black leather clothes we usually see in modern movies. We also get big battle scenes, something rare in modern British films.
I would've liked to see a more complex Cromwell, because here he's mostly a hero. I don't know this part of British history very well, but a more morally complex Oliver Cromwell would be more interesting to watch and probably truer to history too.
Getting Dumbledore, Obi-Wan Kenobi and James Bond in the same film is a treat, and they all do a good job. In most of the film Dalton is very foppish nobleman with a high-pitched voice and carrying a poodle with him to the battlefield. Very much against type. Only a couple of years earlier he was considered for OHMSS, but this isn't the film to see to get an idea how he would've been as 007 nearly 20 years before it happened. Good, solid historical film.
@Barbel Thank you for the recommendation. I enjoyed Planet of the Vampires.
JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN (1969)
The European Space Exploration Council (EURSEC) discovers a planet behind the sun.
American astronaut Glenn Ross (Roy Thinnes) and British scientist John Kane (Ian Hendry) are sent via spaceship to explore this new planet, only to crash land on it.
Once back to his senses Ross soon realizes that he has stepped into a very odd situation.
Counter-reality, doppelgangers and parallel worlds...
A true sci-fi gem, which did not get the appreciation it deserved.
Highly recommended.
(Directed by Robert Parrish - 101 minutes)
Sinners (2025) is not strictly speaking the Last Film I Saw - I saw it a week ago - but I have cleared it with Barbel and he says it's okay to go ahead.
I saw this multi-Oscar nominated film at the Prince Charles cinema in London but while I enjoyed it, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would.
Note: There is a coda into the end credits that you should wait for - it's not just a quirky 10 second thing, it's a full scene important to the movie, and it's a good minute or two into the credits before it stars; a good few of the audience were on their way out before it kicked in, I don't know why the film did it that way.
Unable to check before I left home, I found the cinema was almost sold out by the time I got there, and I got a seat to the right of the auditorium - now full disclosure I did get my ears syringed at the GP later in the week but that not withstanding, the audio did seem off - with no sound from the right speaker. It's a dialogue heavy film - and from what I could make out it was good dialogue - but I could only make out half of it. To be clear, when I commented on it to the woman at the till afterwards, I could hear what she said, ditto everything I watch on telly.
One reason I have held off posting this is because I come across as thick - Michael B Jordan, of the Creed boxing franchise, stars in this; it's set in the mid 1930s and it's about twin brothers who relocate from Chicago, with suits and a lot of cash to flash - to the Deep South where they grew up to set up a jive nightspot for just black folk. The two actors who play the twins put in a good performance - one is harder, slick and ungenerous, the other bearded one is more magnanimous. I wondered if both of them would be getting the Oscar nod - should have known really, but it's the same actor, Michael B Jordan. What happens - he can't get nominated for two roles, well he could but it would split the vote, and he can't just get nominated for a film, so I would have to check to see which role he gets the nod for but if he wins you could argue it's not quite fair - it's the dual role that bags the nomination.
The cinematography sets this apart from the opening, rather like that Zone of Interest, set not long after, reviewed upstream, it just conjurs up the time exactly, though the look is softer and less contrasty.
I liked the interaction between the two men and the rest of the townfolk, and how it plays out.
That said, for a vampire flick it takes a while for the main event to get going and it's not foreshadowed much. At times I was reminded of Harrison Ford's disparaging comment about Cowboys and Aliens before he signed on - 'Why do you want to mess up a good Western by having these aliens appear?' In a way, we have one kind of threat for the first part of the movie and it's largely unrelated to what later follows; I know you could say the same about Psycho - but at least the about turn occurs maybe 20-25 mins into the movie, you don't start thinking, hey I was really interested in that woman escaping with her cash, what happened to that?
I will sound unfortunate now but there's a lot of oral sex in the latter half of the film - perhaps to suggest that sex and sin have now raised their heads and evil is about to enter. It's men going down on women and it seems a bit performative - can't say if this was on the sexual playlist in the 1930s Deep South but it seems a bit of a cliche, just as women dropping to their knees was the in-thing in American movies from the 1990s onwards; this even happened to John Lennon in Nowhere Boy and I'm not sure that was a popular option for a schoolboy in 1950s suburban Liverpool. It becomes a cliche.
One snag is that the Vampire lore in this wasn't consistent in terms of how long it took between getting bitten and becoming full vampire, either a couple of minutes or maybe a few hours. One character had a dust-up with a vampire, plenty of blood, and I was waiting for them to transform but it didn't happen, so what gives?
It's not really believable that the fellows could set up such a jiving nightclub in a barn in just a day but the film is stuck with it because the whole thing follows the opening scene that concludes with '24 hours earlier', to explain how it got to that point.
Our own Jack O'Connell impresses as an unsympathetic character, with a Deep South accent - I didn't recognise him. The whole thing works well as an allegory of white-black relations, rather like Get Out, and for the most part the surface meaning makes sense too.
Sinners is showing at the Epsom Picturehouse this week, on Wednesday I think, if anyone local to the area wants to catch it. The sound is good there.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Send Help (2026)
Highly enjoyable comedy thriller, perhaps in the same vein as the big hit The Housemaid, still at cinemas two months after its release. Like Housemaid, it stars one of the original Mean Girls, this time Rachel McAdams - I only realised this from imdb, she's a more sympathetic character here, in complete contrast you might say. McAdams plays a frumpy office worker who does the donkey work in compiling reports but is all set to get passed over for the promised vice-principal job when an obnoxious young buck (Dylan O'Brien) takes control of the firm following the death of his father. So it's all set up to be a bit Working Girl but then a shocking event sees the two stranded on a desert island, reliant on each other for survival.
This is a Sam Raimi film and if you're of a certain age you feel in safe hands; like he's of the same generation more or less. Mind you, the same could be said of Housemaid which had a 60-year-old director. It follows the tropes but you're not meant to take it too seriously, and when it becomes implausible it has the get-out that you're here to have a laugh anyway, like a Roger Moore Bond film.
It becomes a bit Lord of the Flies, but even when there are shocking moments there is a sense of comedy that makes it okay, it's a good film to blow away the cobwebs. It was shown in the large Screen 1 of the Epsom Picturehouse, with just two others in the cinema for an early evening showing; they just don't promote their films well enough.
I walked out with a spring in my step and was half-way home before I realised that the ending doesn't really stack up, it wouldn't have played out that way.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Daniel Craig's film Queer is on BBC2 tonight at 11pm, if anyone's interested.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I saw this on the plane when flying back home to Canada…a very good friend of mine - back in the UK - told me to watch it as he thought it a tremendous film…it is, I really enjoyed it…unlike @Napoleon Plural I didn’t notice the non-consistency, I guess I was just enjoying it too much to care…I also thought Jack O’Connell was fabulous too 😁
This is a very strange movie…as I’ve said before, not sure if I enjoyed it or endured it 😮
You could say it was rather queer. 😉
I watched the first 45 mins of Queer with Daniel Craig last night.
He kept on at me throughout, kept interjecting like a director's commentary, then demanding I get in more beer. 'Daniel,' I said. 'Bring your own beer, I never wanted to watch it!'
Sorry, old panto joke.
I watched it by myself. The cinematography or look or the film was very good - I think it is hard to make places like New Mexico look good on screen.
As if to balance out the oral sex in Sinners, there's blow jobs aplenty in this film and it's as well Craig sports a horrible haircut in this so memories of him kneeling down are less likely to plague your next viewing of Casino Royale or whatever. I will notice that the sex in this is more convincing than the sex in any of Craig's Bond films, where it is all a bit choreographed and frantic.
Craig doesn't quite nail the American accent in this, and from what I saw delivers a somewhat mannered performance - I'm not sure he's the kind of guy to carry a film by himself, he doesn't enjoy the camera's attention; like Hugh Grant he needs people to bounce off. Also, from what I saw, I didn't quite see the point of the film - there is no exact drama to it; it's maybe a Death in Venice type thing where the older man is smitten with the younger man.
Alice, Darling with Anna Kendrick.
'I didn't expect you over,' I said. 'Daniel Craig is coming later, make sure you're gone by the time he arrives.' Ms Kendrick huffed.
Anyway, this was a decent, understated film about coercive control, Kendrick playing the victim. A scene where her boyfriend sneaks up on her in the shower for sex and her reaction put in its place Craig's similar move in Skyfall, especially given in that they'd only just met.
Two friends invite her to a week away in the woods by a lake to celebrate a birthday; the onscreen blurb called it an intervention but I'm not sure that is in the script, it just pans out that way as they're already concerned about her boyfriend's controlling manner and the fact he's 37 - not sure how much younger Kendrick is meant to be, it's not quite Epstein Island (though that Skyfall scene comes close, eh?)
Horror movie tropes are foreshadowed - it's in a cabin near a lake, a axe or thereabouts is wielded to cut wood, a young woman has gone missing locally, and so on but these don't pan out the way you might expect. It does a good job of conveying menace by having Kendrick switch off her mobile phone for a day or so, it actually builds tension in the viewer. Pretty good.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Are we inhabiting some strange other-world @Napoleon Plural where we keep watching the same late night movies?
ALICE DARLING (2022)
I like Anna Kendrick, I really do.
Anna burst onto the scene in the brilliant George Clooney flick Up In The Air (2009) as a breezy but insecure HR representative. She was playing her age, twenty-three, and displayed an astute sense of keenness, intelligence and naivety rarely seen in a young actress. Oscar nominations followed. Then it was animated trolls and wannabe acapella singers – what went wrong? I kept asking myself as insignificant movie followed insignificant movie. Alice, Darling goes someway to remind us that she can act forcefully and convincingly. Here, her character, the titular Alice, is under strain as her seemingly perfect relationship implodes under a boyfriend’s coercive behaviour which veers ever more controlling and abusive. While stopping short of physical assault, the film ventures into tough territory and Kendrick well presents the confusion, panic and incongruity of a successful, intelligent woman caught in an intimidating, wickedly twisted atmosphere. It isn’t only her boyfriend’s attitude she has struggles with, but a pair of unsuitable best friends display an equal lack of tact and integrity. Unfortunately, the film steps into daftness when Alice sneaks away for a week to celebrate Tess’s 40th birthday. My eyebrows raised – a whole week? Goodness. Well, she goes and it is a grim old affair in a cabin in the woods where the hunt for a missing teenager becomes a metaphor for Alice’s stolen life. When her boyfriend arrives unannounced, having tracked her down by seeking out her mate’s Instagram feed, Alice’s friends rally round. While there is a healthy dose of tension, the resolution is too easy, uncomplicating a difficult situation with the ease of a swiftly swung axe [oh, sorry, it’s a ‘maul’]. I enjoyed Kendrick’s performance and the film is under-directed, in that it isn’t flashy or provocative, but I was disappointed the low-key atmosphere never steamed up. Disappointed too that the cliched tropes of singalong capers and late night drinks seem to be all it takes to reaffirm female fraternity. Surely, women can talk can’t they? The film did the festival circuit but only earned a measly $250k at the box office.
I like Anna Kendrink, I really do, and she deserves more, she really does.
My latest roundup of movies recently watched.
SILENT NIGHT DEADLY NIGHT (2025) Dull remake of a killer dressed as Santa. 1.5/5
HUMANOIDS FROM THE DEEP (1980) (aka MONSTER!) Doug McClure and Ann Turkel battle Black Lagoon style creatures in a Roger Corman produced gore fest. Totally absurd but strangely watchable. 2.5/5
EARTH Vs THE FLYING SAUCERS (1956) Early Ray Harryhausen stop-motion sci-fi actioner. The special effects add a star. 2.5/5
THE WRECKING CREW (2026) Not the Matt Helm one. Jason Mamoa and Dave Bautista as half-brothers getting revenge for their father. The action is fine, but they can’t act, so the smart-arse dialogue sounds stilted. Quite good fun, nonetheless. 2.5/5
CARRIE (1976) Brian de Palma’s horror classic taken from Stephen King’s debut novel. Bullied Carrie takes terrible revenge. I enjoyed watching this again after many, many years. 4/5
BEYOND ATLANTIS (1973) Filmed in the Philippines this has John Wayne’s son Patrick leading a bunch of opportunists on a treasure hunt. It’s a pity Patrick has no charisma but our own Sid Haig is really good in this and raises the enjoyment immensely. The natives with halved ping pong balls as eyes are hilarious. Also the News At Ten theme played during a fight scene creates a lot of laughter. 2/5 (because of Sid).
THE FINAL RUN (2025) Certainly a contender for most boring film of all time. A former drug runner has to do one more run to save the family farm. The brilliant Jeff Fahey adds half a point. 1/5
BEARS ON A SHIP (2025) The title says it all. A declaration at the end tells us that the film was financed by crowdfunding. Any potential thoughts of me investing in a crowdfunded movie have been put to rest. Inept is being kind. 0.5/5
IKARIE XB-1 (1963)
The space ship Ikarie XB-1 is sent on an exploratory mission to the star Alpha Centauri, to investigate any signs of life in exoplanets residing in its eco-sphere. During the course of the journey, the crew come across a derelict space ship from the 20th century and a mysterious radio-nebula, whose ionizing radiations have a severe affect on their physical and mental health.
A unique and well-made Czechoslovak science fiction film, which was also one of the inspirations behind Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Recommended.
(Directed by Jindřich Polák - 86 minutes)
More Next Film Seen really, but if you were interested in the recent Bridge Too Far reviews, there's an earlier depiction of the Battle of Arnhem on Talking Pictures TV this Sat afternoon, don't have the exact time, around 4.30pm but double check.
Roger Moore 1927-2017