Reviews

Perhaps too many years have passed since last I saw this film. As I recall, it's a good example of Demy's craft as a film maker, with a good performance from Gary Lockwood. Moreover, it captures the atmosphere of the late 1960s and is the sort of picture that doesn't disappoint the viewer on subsequent screenings.

It's almost sad to see dependable British comedy actors like Sid James and Terry Scott involved with such rubbish. Even they are just going through the motions. The Daleks must have been the highlight of Terry Nation's career; reckon he scribbled parts of this screenplay in his sleep.

The real star is the Phantom II? hearse, UW 3000, used in the filming. Where is she now - known to the RREC?

Very undemanding entertainment for the uncritical. Formula stuff, to be found within 10,001 "different" videocassettes at the local store. Maybe only the titles change. This time, it's Jack Palance as the heavy. Probably lower budget than the Die Hard series and not as well made.

Must confess, I have not read the book, although I have seen the film twice now. It's a pleasant enough picture to watch and remains quite exciting at the second viewing. The period props are OK although modern film makers, presumably when working on a limited budget, tend to make a film comprising fairly close shots - perhaps for rather obvious reasons. Regret, not sure about Davies' moustache and, in some scenes, the usually dependable Christopher Challis appears rather ill-served by the film editor. Some of that blame must lie with the director.

Have seen this film a few times, so I guess it is worth revisiting. Almost inevitably, perhaps, with films of this historical genre, one's sense of period tends to be more 20th century than 9th. Arguably compares favourably with the much later Braveheart - although, here again, some of the fighting scenes lacked conviction. Of course, always worth watching to see Edith (Sinead Cusack in her film debut).

I remember the erstwhile BBC reviewer, Barry Norman, opining that Anthony Quinn's portrayal of Theo (Ari?) had 'all the appeal of an armpit'. One or two other reviewers over the years have rather dismissed Quinn as 'overrated'. Be that as it may, I thought the great actor played his part, at times, both sensitively and sympathetically. And, of course, Jackie Bisset remains a good enough reason to watch a movie.

A 'Korda Collection' classic film and I shan't part with my videocassette - 'Tiger' comic script and stilted dialogue notwithstanding. Doesn't even matter that McVane appears to take off in a different airplane to that which is captured and seen in flight. Only trouble with Valerie Hobson is she retired too early.

Many reviewers have opined that Braveheart is overlong - it is. Unfortunately, the film is somewhat unatmospheric although there are some good scenes (eg. Patrick McGoohan is in fine form). The picture has more of a 1990s feel than 13th century, Calvin Klein boxer shorts and modern bridles notwithstanding. What had poor Ian Bannen done to deserve that amateurish make-up?

On M.Gibson's own admission,the blue face paint not the best researched piece of historical detail.

I remember seeing The Rebel, on general release, in Croydon - three or four miles from where the railway scenes were shot: a bygone branch line and now demolished station off Coombe Road. (We used to walk past it a couple of times each week in the 1950s in the Elmhurst 'crocodile' to play sports at Lloyd Park. Happy days, indeed.) Unfortunately, I have never been very comfortable with the film - and I have persevered with it over the years. The Hancock attitude quickly wears thin and the script is simply below par for these writers. Best scenes, apart from the nostalgia element, are those with Irene Handl; Margit Saad (best known to me from Magnificent Two)is easy on the eye, as ever, but must have been embarrassed with her banal Margot character.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the picture has its adherents. Where is Margit Saad today? A directorial credit around 1990 and seemingly nothing since.

Quite an enjoyable second feature, although the star actor was too old for the Colley Dawson role. Reliable support from character actors like Ernest Clark and Victor Maddern.

Regret can't really watch films about alcoholism, Angie Dickinson's presence notwithstanding. And poor David Janssen, long one of my favourite TV actors, looked old and tired by this time.

Nice to see that this movie has now acquired something of a cult following. Regret, I've never found it that entertaining. A film, perhaps, that doesn't amount to the sum of its parts. Does Ava Gardner reprise her Mogambo role in Night of the Iguana (1964) to some extent?

Quite a reasonable movie to surf the imdb to, and Ms Severance is easy enough on the eye. There is a genuinely tense scene shortly before the end of the film.

Malcolm McDowell is a very dependable actor but he could have been better directed in that particular scene.

Another reviewer might have said the Confessions films were cr*p. Driving Instructor is arguably the least worst of the series, but they are one star pictures - if not Bombs. I find this film worth a look for historical interest. Anthony Booth is always dreadful; Robin Askwith a bit more likeable.

Regret only read about 22 user comments. Just from those, most of my observations have already been written. One or two more things, for the sake of good order: much of the plot occurs through 'happenstance' not least the arrival of, and general area of the U.S. covered by, the alien craft. As I recall, Asia - the world's largest land mass - barely featured. I know the survivors were short of time, but it was a jolly good thing that the ergonomics of the alien craft suited the human pilots so well, and the seats looked virtually tailor made. (We viewers know, though, that the boffins in the underground centre had been modifying the craft over time for this very eventuality.) A high tech airplane - no need for such extraneities as pilots' headgear. Sadly, the human race is a bit more weathered today than it was in 1996 and, trivial though it may be, it would be something if our special effects aces worked on a bit more realism. With respect to their work, the fireballs replete with debris, the motor vehicles spinning in mid air and the seemingly total lack of dust when an entire city is being destroyed fail to convince people post 11 Sep 01 - if, indeed, they convinced before. Why are we given all these fireballs, anyway - are building materials so highly flammable? As mentioned elsewhere, the stereotypical characters were in place - in keeping with the quality of the script. Comforting, though, that Hollywood is STILL employing pseudo English actors to speak with caricature English accents. Many of these 1990s films seem to have a pre-packed video flavour to them, so formulaic are they. I genuinely like the national pride: 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' adorns the fuselage of Air Force One, and am minded to request Buck House to paint 'ENGLAND' on the side of the Queen's Flight aircraft. Well, they're doing a Jubilee rock concert at the Palace this year.

In final analysis, an entertaining picture but I wouldn't want to see it again just yet. Rating: 6.75 out of 10, some of that credit to Judd Hirsch.

I love British 'B' pictures of this period and watching them is invariably more fun than working. Wish they could attract half the comments (and viewers)that Mars Attacks or Independence Day receives. Unfortunately, British film makers in the 1950s and 60s often seemed careless over continuity. (I shall record the relative cock-up as a 'goof'.)

A number of sharp observations have already been made of this movie. Certainly, there do appear to have been two pictures which have been sliced in two and bonded together. I can't help wondering where the other film is - ie. the film which started out as a wartime RCAF flagwaver and ends as a mountains-and- lakes set movie with the love interest triangle, plus old Alan Hale.

As with so many old films, historical interest alone makes the picture worth seeing again and again; for its day, marks: 6.5 or 7 out of 10.

Certainly, there are one or two pretty corny scenes and fancy Michael Curtiz letting Cagney and D. Morgan get away with surely the least convincing fight ever filmed. He must have taken an early lunch that day.

Underrated film, starring Jack Hawkins - long one of my favourite actors. There are some great scenes, not least that at the farm when the Merton character appears with a container of water for his car, immediately defusing an awkward situation with his friend being interrogated by two detectives. Watch out for character actor Edward Chapman, in a nasty role as an abusing stepfather.

I thought the trailer looked rather good. Mind you, I was looking at it whilst surfing the imdb and responding to one or two board messages. This sort of film, made for about 5,000 quid, is unpretentious if nothing else, and there's no harm in lampooning martial arts films.

Must admit, one of the first in this screenplay's body count - the bearded drugs gang member - shouldn't have moved his eyelids when he was supposed to be dead but, then, these productions are expected to have reasonably competent directors.

But any TV movie with Lindsay is surely worth a look out of idle curiosity. Maybe she isn't the world's greatest actress and, doubtless, she could be more selective of material. I wouldn't mind having the opportunity to work with her.

As one re-run reviewer wrote, I think in 'The Daily Telegraph',

'Burton and Eastwood play the sort of super heroes who could have won WW11 in an afternoon off'.

Arthur Ibbetson's atmospheric cinematography keeps one looking at the film most times when it is rescreened.