This English-language, German-made film is based loosely around the life of Manfred von Richthofen. Very loosely. Very, very loosely. This review contains spoilers, something I normally try to avoid but as this storyline is so ridiculous there's nothing to spoil. Now there are certain things I've come to expect in bad movies, love interest (Hedley's nurse) whether it happened or not, that the characters with whom the audience is expected to empathise are drawn in an unrealistically favourable light so their opposites (here the Kaiser and Hindenburg) will be drawn in an unrealistically unfavourable light and that any combat scenes will be at least somewhat unrealistic. We get these in spades in this film. Par for the course for a sub-par film. I'm also unsatisfied with the portrayal of the central character. Von Richthofen comes across as closer to a social justice warrior than to a man who had a silver cup made up to commemorate each of his victories until they ran out of silver and had to use lead. Now I've no reason to believe that von Richthofen took pleasure in killing people as opposed to shooting down planes and I know that War Is Bad but I think we've a better chance of preventing it by understanding the mentality of people who engage in it rather than transplanting early 21st century sensibilities into an early 20th century character. I'm not happy with some of the things the film makers left out. We don't get his predecessor, under whom von Richthofen learnt to fight, the man who literally wrote the rules for air combat, the Dicta Boelcke. Nor do we get his successor, who served under von Richthofen, perhaps because he was named Hermann Göring. While Voss is a prominent character in the film (and played by an actor far too old for the part) we don't get Voss's last fight, arguably the most celebrated dogfight in aviation history. We also don't get von Richthofen's last fight but I've less of a problem with that as the ending is one of the better parts of this film. We do get to see von Richthofen shooting down Hawker (portrayed as a bearded maniac) but the CGI obviously didn't run to generating the obsolete "pusher" type plane Hawker had to fight in. But my real grip is with what they've put into the film. Early on von Richthofen shoots down Brown and helps rescues the wounded Brown from his plane. Now while this is ahistorical, I suppose a case could be made for it for dramatic purposes. But what follows is risible. After Brown somehow makes it back to the Allied side (the front line must have been very porous as later the nurse will make it through to meet Brown after von Richthofen's death) they have another aerial duel and both come down in No Man's Land. We know it's No Man's Land because a caption tells us it is. Otherwise, we might have thought they'd landed in the cover of a jigsaw puzzle or on the lid of a box of biscuits. No shell-holed hellhole here. No, in a scene of bucolic bliss they discuss the war with Brown listing off the countries whose royal families are all interconnected. These include France. The French Republic. The royal family of the French Republic. He doesn't mention the USA, which presumably was under the rule of King Woodrow the First of the House of Wilson. After their chat the two of them saunter off in opposite directions no doubt in search of the barbed wire and trenches over each horizon.
Reviews
19 Reviews
The Red Baron
(2008)
This Turkey Can't Fly or Why There's Nothing to Spoil.
6 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Flight of the Phoenix
(2004)
Not a Complete Plane Wreck
8 February 2021
As a fan of the original film, I approached this remake with some trepidation, having read some negative reviews. It wasn't quite as bad as I feared it might be. Its chief problem is that it isn't a patch on the original.
For one thing the cast in the remake can't compare with that of the original which contained four men who had or would win acting Oscars plus a fifth who was nominated for his performance in that original. Several of them had seen active service in WW2 so they knew about life and death situations. It in remake we get a larger cast including a token female and assorted ethnicities. They're younger and prettier and none of their skins or hands blister after days working in the Gobi sun.
In the original several of the characters have depth. In the remake they're one dimensional.
More seriously the plot isn't as well worked as in the original. In the original Dorfmann has a reason for being at the well. In the remake we're told Elliot just showed up at a test rig in the middle of Mongolia while hitchhiking around the world. They could have had him visiting a brother who got killed in the crash.
Much of the tension between the two central characters is diluted in the remake. At one point Elliot says that he's the only indispensable person bit, of course, Towns is also so we should have had the Dorfmann/Towns confrontation when Towns decides to bring back the man who's walked off.
For me the bests parts of the original are the twin scenes where we learn what Dorfmann didn't bother to tell Towns and the others and then his genuine anger at their anger. These scenes are beautifully and believably acted by Jimmy Stewart, Dicky Attenborough and Hardy Kruger. Stewart and Attenborough convincingly play men who think they're going to die. Kruger convincingly plays a man who's genuinely offended that his competence is questioned.
In the remake we get the reveal and the reaction in one scene which isn't handled nearly as well.
If you haven't seen the original do yourself a favour and don't watch the remake first. The only good reason I could give for watching the remake is to see how the same story can be told well and badly.
Mary Queen of Scots
(2018)
Josie, Princess of PC
27 July 2020
While I did know the basic history of Mary and Elizabeth, I knew little about this film before watching it so I was surprised to see a black actor playing a Tudor lord to be followed by an ethnically Chinese Bess of Hardwick. After that it was hard to take what followed seriously, not that it particularly deserves to be.
Director Josie Rourke stated that: "I was really clear, I would not direct an all-white period drama." In which case, why bother? Suppose she'd been offered the greatest script in history, covering the Nazi inner circle. Would she have turned it down unless she could have a Haitian Hess and a Ghanaian Göring? Somehow, I doubt it. I suspect she'd be happy with all-white baddies, provided they were white and heterosexual and cis. Now there were some Africans in Tudor England but they were servants or tradespeople not lords or ladies.
In a sense the director didn't make a period drama. It's ahistorical and not very dramatic, given a very dramatic subject.
Mary' life can be divided into three acts. Her first 19 years before she returns from France, her 6 tumultuous years as reigning queen and her final 19 years as Elizabeth's prisoner. The film basically covers only those middle 6 years.
A problem anyone telling Mary's story is the same as that facing a film about the Third Crusade. The two central protagonists never met. So, the movie's makers invent a farcically filmed one. Josie Rourke is a stage director and the scene which might have worked in a theatre struck me as ham-fisted on film.
Then the movie skips over the next 19 years to a rushed ending. It's a bit like a Hitler movie showing the run up to WW2 then skipping from the invasion of Poland straight to the bunker. I suspect the filmmakers were less interested in telling Mary's true tale than in getting two woke women together.
Trumbo
(2015)
Ironically it needed a Braver Writer
27 July 2020
Dalton Trumbo was both a highly talented and a highly successful Hollywood screenwriter and a communist who was jailed for not cooperating with the House Un-American Activities Committee during the early years of the Cold War and was blacklisted throughout the 1950s. This film tells his story - or rather part of it - through a sympathetic lens.
My criticism of the film is not so much what it contains as what it leaves out.
In 1938 Trumbo wrote an anti-war novel Johnny Got His Gun and serialized it in the communist paper, The Daily Worker, while the Hitler-Stalin Pact was in effect and while Trumbo adopted an isolationist policy. All this changed when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Not only did Trumbo prevent the book being reprinted during the war but he reported to the FBI some correspondents who used the horrors of Johnny to argue for peace with Nazi Germany.
Now this is a film about a man who in public refused to name names and argued against the state being able to inquire into people's unpopular but legitimate views but who had in private volunteered names of people with whose views he disagreed.
None of this is shown or even hinted at in this film.
We get a lot of clips of actual newsreels to place things in context but none about the horrors of communism. (Early on we get Trumbo explaining to his young daughter that communism is about sharing). I've read that Trumbo left the Communist Party in 1956, the year Stalin's successor admitted to some of Stalin's crimes and also the year Soviet tanks crushed the Hungarian Uprising.
Again, none of this is shown or even hinted at in this film.
There was a far better, more subtle, less hagiographical film to be made about Trumbo. Would the filmmakers have made a film about Washington or Jefferson without reminding us that they were slaveholders? I doubt it.
After a very weak opening 40 minutes - at which point I was wondering if I should consider continue watching it - the quality of the film improves beginning with the scene showing Trumbo's imprisonment.
The film is competently made and well-acted with Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje giving a particularly fine turn in a brief role.
If this was a work of fiction, I'd probably have given it a seven.
The Pacific War in Color
(2018)
Plenty of Colour but not Always a Clear Picture
24 July 2019
This 8-part series tries to cover the experience of the fighting man while giving an overall picture of the progress of the war.
It uses real colour film with only a tiny amount of colourized footage. This naturally limits what can be shown. But it shouldn't limit the accuracy of the narration and it's here that the series falls down.
When discussing Tarawa, we're told that Shermans had a 37mm gun. It didn't, they had 75's. It was the Stuarts, which were also used at Tarawa, that had 37's. When discussing the arrival of the Hellcat we're shown footage of a Corsair. (Once we're shown footage of a Corsair when discussing the Superfortress!) We're told Nimitz sent 4 carriers towards the Coral Sea but not that only 2 got there in time for the battle. In covering Midway, the attack on the Yorktown is shown before the American attacks on the Japanese carriers. These slips show a carelessness that sadly is all to frequent in documentaries that don't properly check their own documents.
On the plus side I though the maps illustrated the conditions facing the fighting men nicely.
Not exactly Herodotus or Thucydides
21 June 2019
Fathom
(1967)
Not as deep as Raquel's cleavage - but what is?
16 June 2019
It's difficult to summarize the story-line without either being misleading or giving away the plot. Either it's a spoof spy romp or a comedy crime caper. Raquel Welch plays an American skydiver in Spain who gets roped into international intrigue centering on an object known as the "Fire Dragon" and finds herself having to figure out whom to trust among those trying to get their hands on it - and on her.
While the plot mightn't be as deep as Raquel's cleavage there are enough twists and turns to keep the viewer interested. However, for many male viewers the chief attraction of the film is the sight of Ms Welch at her beautiful bikinied best.
The rest of the cast - who may be playing heroes or villains - provide solid support (no pun intended).
This is a light, likeable, of-its-time entertainment.
The Southern Star
(1969)
This Star Doesn't Shine
16 June 2019
The Southern Star in question is the world's biggest diamond found in 1912 in French West Africa in a mine owned by Kramer (Andrews), whose daughter Erica (Andress) is engaged to Dan (Segal). The diamond is stolen and the chief suspect Matakit (played engagingly by Johnny Sekka), Dan's klepotomanic African friend, takes off. Dan and Erika take off after Matakit and the diamond. Karl, Kramer's security chief (Hendry), takes off after Dan, Erika Matakit and the diamond, hoping to win Erica in the process. To get to his home Matakit must cross territory controlled by Plankett (Welles), Karl's renegade predecessor.
We get to see lots and lots of sixties stock footage of African animals, we get to Andress topless, we get to see Welles ham it up. What we don't get is a good film. If you've nothing better to do for two hours on a wet afternoon you could do worse but you really should have something better to do.
Versailles
(2015–2018)
At Least the Set was Nice
22 August 2018
Knowing there wasn't going to be a fourth series I stuck with Versailles through to its conclusion just to see how it would end though had it gone on to another series I'd have given up after Series Two. Mock spoiler alert, it ends not with a bang but with a whimper as though its makers gave up and went through the motions like a team that knows its beaten and is just waiting for the final whistle.
Versailles covers a roughly 20 year period of Louis XIV's reign but the actors don't age. Not a grey hair in sight. The acting is of a good-to-high standard, particularly given the level of some dialogue.
The quality deteriorates as the series progresses - or perhaps I should say regresses. At least early on there were sexual shenanigans to distract the viewer.
Not surprisingly the writers opt for the more sensational stories relating to the period such as that of the pious queen allegedly giving birth to a black baby by a court dwarf. Needless to say we get The Man in Iron Mask. Now there was a real life man in a velvet mask, though there's no evidence of him interacting with the royal family. But since we don't know for certain who he was, why he was imprisoned, and why he was masked the writers were free to come up with their own story about him. It's just a pity they didn't come up with a more credible or at least an entertaining one.
History goes out the window. The queen died of natural causes, she wasn't murdered. The man in the velvet mask died in prison of natural causes long after the events portrayed. In the series Colbert opposes the revocation of The Edict of Nantes. In fact he was long dead when the Edict was revoked. A totally fictitious back story is invented for the devout Madame de Maintenon as a prostitute but her interesting mixed Protestant-Catholic upbringing was ignored.
For me the nadir was reached in the penultimate episode in an exchange between Louis and Bossuet. When Louis says it was man who based the church in Rome Bossuet replies, "Saint Paul himself..."! You'd think the man the Catholic Encyclopedia considered as perhaps the greatest pulpit preacher of all time might know the line, "you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."
For me these inaccuracies wouldn't grate so much if there were good storylines. I enjoy Vikings even though its historical elements are greatly compressed in time. It has credible narratives and, while Versailles had some storylines to begin with, by the end the writers having abandon history seemed to run out of interesting plots.
Jigsaw
(1962)
The Pieces Make for an Interesting Picture
10 August 2018
A woman tells her lover - whose voice we don't hear and whose face we don't see - that she's pregnant. She seems happy hoping that he will the right thing. Then a look of horror comes over her face.
An estate agent (realtor) reports a burglary in which the only things that were taken were some leases. The only reason the detectives (lead by Jack Warner, though the film's tone is darker than Dixon of Dock Green) investigating the case - robberies were treated seriously back then - can think of why someone would steal a lease was that it contained a sample of the thief's handwriting.
They start by checking out the only short-term lease stolen. They find partial remains of a dismembered woman. This leads to further puzzles. Who was the dead woman? Why did the killer, who had been systematically destroying evidence, stop doing so before he was finished? I won't say any more to avoid spoilers.
Jigsaw is a well-made police procedural that today would be a two-hour TV movie of the Morse/Maigret variety. There a number of satisfying false leads with a nice twist towards the end, though the very last piece of the puzzle I found a bit obvious. Most of the acting is fine with the leads seemingly effortlessly believable but when some of the supports have to show emotion they go a bit over the top.
Mackenna's Gold
(1969)
More Like Fool's Gold
9 August 2018
Mackenna's Gold has a stellar cast led by a leading man who could act and who was at home in Westerns (e.g. the far more modest and far superior The Gunfighter and The Stalking Moon) and some wonderful scenery and action photography. But that's about as good as it gets.
Marshall MacKenna (Peck) kills an old Apache who had ambushed him. The Apache had been carrying a map to a hidden seam of gold (the Lost Adams). MacKenna, who'd spent 3 years looking for the gold, burns the map. He is then captured by a gang led by his old Mexican enemy Colorado (Sharif) who had been hunting for the map. The fact that MacKenna has the map in his head is the only thing keeping him alive. Colorado's gang (including MacKenna's old lover played by Newmar as an Apache) have taken a captive, Inga, (Sparv) to provide some protection against the pursuing cavalry (including Savalas who's more interested in the gold than the gang). The gang is forced to join forces with a group of gold-hungry townsmen (including Robinson as Adams who'd been blinded by the Apaches decades before so he could never find his way back to the hidden canyon. You'd think he could still remember the features we see later in the movie but who cares).
They all set off in search of gold. They'd have been better served looking for a screenplay and a director.
A voiceover fills in the gaps in the storyline, often a bad sign.
Some shots are obviously done in a studio. They don't match well with the location shots.
The special effects haven't aged well (and I'm not talking about a shadow lengthening as the sunrises!), nor have the racial stereotypes.
Some actors (Sharif, Wynn) ham it up. Most go through the motions.
This is a film out of time. It looks like a studio thought if it threw enough money and enough names at a project it would suffice. It was released in 1969, a year that saw a good traditional Western (True Grit), a very good comedy Western (Support Your Local Sheriff!), a great revisionist Western (The Wild Bunch) and a hugely enjoyable one-off Western (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid). Mackenna's Gold is none of these.
Love Is a Woman
(1966)
Nice Views, Pity There's Little to Watch
26 June 2018
Dennis (Mark Burns), a British agent of some sort, is on "the island" (Malta but it's not named) to carry out an undercover investigation of two crooked casino owners. The suspicion is that they get guests who run up gambling debts to become the sort of smuggler Customs won't suspect. Dennis runs up a debt in the hope he'll be induced into the racket.
The film opens with the murder of one of owners by Francesca (Patsy Ann Noble), a femme very fatale indeed, and her lover Joe (Shaun Curry ), who want all the ill-gotten gains for themselves.
The other owner, Malo, is found dead just after he'd given Dennis an advance in return for his passport. The local police naturally suspect Dennis. The thing is Malo was found in a locked room, seven floors up with no sign of the murder weapon. The solution to this locked-room mystery is about as good as this film gets.
Priscilla (Wanda Ventham) is sent out from the UK to help Dennis while posing as his fiancé. So far, so good. But that's as good as it gets. We get to see sunny skies and sparkling seas, we get to see another of Joe's girls topless in a scene that seems to be included because they'd an actress who'd go topless back in 1966 or maybe to get a 1960's X rating, we get to see the good girl and the bad girl in their bikinis, and - not much else. The film is padded out to barely feature length with Anita Harris singing a song, multiple sequences of our hero darting down side streets trying to dodge the most visible police tail in history and of our villainess swimming underwater.
Cut out the padding and the topless scene and you'd have had a good hour-long episode of a Sixties TV series.
Pool of London
(1951)
At Least a Semiprecious Stone
15 June 2018
This is a well-made movie that satisfactorily and seamlessly combines a crime drama with some social commentary and characters that aren't just cardboard cutouts.
The story takes place from a Friday to a Sunday in London.
Dan (Bonar Colleano), a sailor on the Rotterdam to London route, engages in petty smuggling to get the money to impress the sort of girlfriend (Moira Lister) who's impressed by having money spent on her.
On this trip he's going to make some real money (a hundred quid!) by smuggling out a package and deliver it unsealed in Rotterdam, no questions asked.
A gang is going to use the skills of an aging acrobat (Max Adrian) and inside info from the acrobat's pensioned-off brother to commit a jewel robbery. The plan is to carry out the robbery on a Sunday, give the package to Dan who sails that afternoon.
A bottle of milk upsets the masterplan and things start to go wrong all around.
Not knowing this Dan, because he's known to Customs, plans to get his pal, the more straight-laced Johnny (Earl Cameron), to bring it aboard ship. Johnny is black. Over his weekend he encounters both racism and a naïve "nice girl" (Susan Shaw) who seems oblivious to the problems an inter-racial couple would experience in 1950's London. I've read that this was the first British film to have a black man-white woman love story.
To tell more would be a spoiler particularly as you don't know how certain of the characters will react when things don't go as they wished.
This isn't a masterpiece of world cinema but it doesn't pretend to be one. It is, as I say, a well-made piece. If imDb let you do fractions I'd give it seven and a half.
The Big Job
(1965)
Not a Big Laugh
7 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Self-styled criminal mastermind George Brain (Sid James) and his gang (Emery as Binns and Percival as Day) somehow manage to rob a bank, only to be caught by the police. Just before he's caught Brain manages to hide the loot in a hollow in a tree trunk.
Because they won't tell where the money is the gang get fifteen years. After their release they determine to recover the money, with the aid of Brain's long suffering girlfriend Myrtle (played by the beautiful Sylvia Syms), only to find that a housing estate has been built on the farmland where the tree was. The tree still stands - behind the wall of the new police station.
Mildred (Joan Sims), a widow with a grown daughter has two double rooms to let in a house opposite the station. Myrtle uses the double rooms and the 'respectable' widow to trick Brain into marrying her, though he's more interested in the money than consummating the marriage.
Two further complications hinder their efforts. One is that the other lodger is an enthusiastic young policeman. The other is that they learn the tree is due to be cut down.
The rest of the movie is taken up with the gang's increasingly elaborate efforts to recover the money. This cross-plays with the male-female relationships. The hapless Day has his eye on the daughter while the desperate widow has her eye on Binns. All the while the despairing Myrtle just wants Brain to spend the night with her instead of on his latest 'brilliant' idea.
The film is unexceptional being neither particularly good nor particularly bad. What might have made a decent two part episode of a half-hour comedy show is drawn out to make a feature film. Some of the humour has dated badly. A mildly risqué remark that might have drawn a titter half a century ago won't do so now. The acting is as solid as the cast suggests with Emery, Syms and Sims the pick.
Sea Fury
(1958)
Victor's Last Voyage
2 June 2018
This film's sole claim to fame is as the last big screen appearance of veteran actor Victor McLaglen. His character, Bellew, is an aging tugboat captain working out of a Spanish port on the Bay of Biscay.
His eye is taken - and who could blame him - by the beautiful young Josita (Lucianna Paluzzi). Her father - whom the value-system of her time and place tells her she must obey - wants her to encourage him. When she objects to the idea of marrying an old man he tells her that, because he's old, Bellew won't last long. When she inherits his wealth she can provide her father with a small pension, take the rest and go to live in Madrid or Barcelona and marry for love.
Unsurprisingly Josita is more taken with Abel (Stanley Baker), a young sailor whom Bellew had taken under his wing.
Much of the film is taken up with this unremarkable love/lust triangle. By far the best part is a well-done action sequence where the tugboat's crew try to salvage a ship carrying a dangerous cargo.
A solid cast includes such future stars as Barry Foster, Robert Shaw, Rupert Davies.
The World Wars
(2014)
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
23 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Spoiler Alert
The idea behind this series - to show how for a number of key figures (Roosevelt, Hitler, Patton, Mussolini, Churchill, Tojo, De Gaulle and MacArthur) their experiences in WW1 influenced the actions in WW2 - is worthwhile. Unfortunately it's about the only thing in this series that is. Here I refer to the six one-hour episodes shown in Europe as opposed to the three two-hour shows shown originally in the US. In fairness it signals its awfulness from the start. We see the British launching a night attack with gas on 16th October 1914! A German soldier can't get his gas mask to seal because of his handlebar moustache! After surviving by holding his breath he uses a knife or bayonet to shave the bars off leaving a toothbrush moustache. He looks up at the camera to show us the face of a young Hitler. It's a spot-the-deliberate-error competition. Apart from the fact that attacks tended to occur in daylight and that Hitler didn't change his moustache style until recovering from a wound in 1916 the real howler is that neither side used poison gas in 1914 though the Germans and French did use tear gas. Later in the episode the Hitler/Tand(e)y story which may or may not be an urban legend - Hitler may not, as he claimed, by the soldier whose life was spared by Tand(e)y - is presented unequivocally as a fact. In part 4 we have both Churchill giving part of the 'finest hour' speech (which actually occurred on 18th June 1940) and being brought back into the cabinet (which actually occurred on 3rd September 1939) before the war started on 1st September 1939. They have him giving the 'we shall fight' speech after the fall of France rather than after Dunkirk but before the fall of France. Then they put the Blitz before the Battle of Britain. In part 5 we have the Battle of Moscow starting after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war on the US! These are just a sample of the numerous factually inaccuracies inflicted on the viewer. Basically they're putting carts before horses to suit their narrative. At times this got so painful to watch that more than once I considered stopping watching but I decided to stick it out so I could give a review based on the whole series and to see if it has any redeeming feature. It hasn't. Why did I give it one out of ten? Because imdb won't let you give zero.
The idea behind this series - to show how for a number of key figures (Roosevelt, Hitler, Patton, Mussolini, Churchill, Tojo, De Gaulle and MacArthur) their experiences in WW1 influenced the actions in WW2 - is worthwhile. Unfortunately it's about the only thing in this series that is. Here I refer to the six one-hour episodes shown in Europe as opposed to the three two-hour shows shown originally in the US. In fairness it signals its awfulness from the start. We see the British launching a night attack with gas on 16th October 1914! A German soldier can't get his gas mask to seal because of his handlebar moustache! After surviving by holding his breath he uses a knife or bayonet to shave the bars off leaving a toothbrush moustache. He looks up at the camera to show us the face of a young Hitler. It's a spot-the-deliberate-error competition. Apart from the fact that attacks tended to occur in daylight and that Hitler didn't change his moustache style until recovering from a wound in 1916 the real howler is that neither side used poison gas in 1914 though the Germans and French did use tear gas. Later in the episode the Hitler/Tand(e)y story which may or may not be an urban legend - Hitler may not, as he claimed, by the soldier whose life was spared by Tand(e)y - is presented unequivocally as a fact. In part 4 we have both Churchill giving part of the 'finest hour' speech (which actually occurred on 18th June 1940) and being brought back into the cabinet (which actually occurred on 3rd September 1939) before the war started on 1st September 1939. They have him giving the 'we shall fight' speech after the fall of France rather than after Dunkirk but before the fall of France. Then they put the Blitz before the Battle of Britain. In part 5 we have the Battle of Moscow starting after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war on the US! These are just a sample of the numerous factually inaccuracies inflicted on the viewer. Basically they're putting carts before horses to suit their narrative. At times this got so painful to watch that more than once I considered stopping watching but I decided to stick it out so I could give a review based on the whole series and to see if it has any redeeming feature. It hasn't. Why did I give it one out of ten? Because imdb won't let you give zero.
Satan in High Heels
(1962)
Not Satan but Definitely a Fallen Angel
1 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
*Borderline Spoiler* Stacey (Meg Myles) works as a burlesque dancer in a carnival. When her ex-con, (ex?)junkie, ex tries to reunite with her and start anew she tricks him out of his money and flies to New York, wearing a trench coat over her burlesque outfit. She picks up another man on the plane. Hoping to become a nightclub singer at Pepe's she is willing to use and be used by such men (and women?) to do so. Pepe (Grayson Hall), the manageress who grooms her, is portrayed as a then-stereotypical lesbian, just as the piano player is shown as effete. Arnold (Mike Keene), the club's crooked owner, has paid off his last mistress (played with some dignity by Nolia Chapman) and sees Stacey as her replacement. Laurence (Robert Yuro), his Fredo-like son, falls for her. She tries to juggle the two.
When the ex, high, knife in hand and initially intent on revenge, finds her she sees the chance to play him for a sap yet again. Get him to kill the father supposedly so they can be together, then get the son, the father's money and the ex back in jail. Why a six? This is a competently made, if unexceptional, low-budget film with a noir feel to it. The characters are sordid but not portrayed in a sleazy fashion. There are elements of titillation, the femme fatale spends a lot of time in lingerie and/or leather and the British actress Sabrina, famed in her day for her natural Barbie-like figure, appears as herself as Stacey's rival in a series of glamorous outfits.
When the ex, high, knife in hand and initially intent on revenge, finds her she sees the chance to play him for a sap yet again. Get him to kill the father supposedly so they can be together, then get the son, the father's money and the ex back in jail. Why a six? This is a competently made, if unexceptional, low-budget film with a noir feel to it. The characters are sordid but not portrayed in a sleazy fashion. There are elements of titillation, the femme fatale spends a lot of time in lingerie and/or leather and the British actress Sabrina, famed in her day for her natural Barbie-like figure, appears as herself as Stacey's rival in a series of glamorous outfits.
The American West
(2016)
Makes Butch and Sundance look like a documentary
30 August 2017
This review is based on the version shown in Europe under the title "Robert Redford's The West". I'm not aware of any differences apart from the title and I'd be surprised if there were given the skimpy production values of the series. The series of eight one-hour shows sets out to tell the tale of the West through six lives Custer, Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, Jesse James, Billy the Kid and Wyatt Earp. We get a narrative over reenactments interspersed with to-camera pieces from lots of actors who appeared in Westerns and some actual historians. I found the series very disappointing. The recreation of the Little Big Horn would embarrass a troop of amateur re-enactors. More substantial is the myriad inaccuracies and omissions. In telling the tale of the James brothers I don't recall a mention of the Younger Brothers. We're shown a map of the Battle of the Little Big Horn that shows Reno's and Custer's advances but doesn't show Benteen's nor is he mentioned in the narrative. Billy the Kid's escape all happens on the ground floor. There's no Pete Maxwell in Pete Maxwell's bedroom when Billy is shot. The viewer is given no context as to why either man was in the room (the link being Maxwell). As presented Morgan and Virgil Earp are shot on the same night. Others more knowledgeably than myself have and could point out many more flaws in the series. Did I learn anything? Yes. A young John Wayne met an elderly Wyatt Earp.
Smokescreen
(1964)
Above average, low-budget fare
5 June 2017
A blazing car crashes over a cliff. No body is found. It belonged to a co-owner of a business. Both owners had recently taken out large insurance policies. The insurance company is naturally suspicious and send an agent (Peter Vaughn) to investigate. The time frame of the accident adds to his suspicions. To complicate matters it turns out that there was an offer to buy the business that the missing man rejected but which his partner wanted to accept. To further complicate matters the local insurer (John Carson) who sold the policies loves the missing man's wife (the beautiful Yvonne Romain).
The film has a bit more depth than normal B-movie fare. Throughout there is a running theme about Vaughan's expenses. This seems to be for low comedic effect but later we learn why he is so tight with money. Similarly with the denouement we learn why the film's title is appropriate.
This is a pleasant, undemanding little B-movie for all the family. I give it a 7 because it's a well-made, well-written, well-acted low budget film lacking star names. Had it had an A-list budget I'd have given it a 6.
The film has a bit more depth than normal B-movie fare. Throughout there is a running theme about Vaughan's expenses. This seems to be for low comedic effect but later we learn why he is so tight with money. Similarly with the denouement we learn why the film's title is appropriate.
This is a pleasant, undemanding little B-movie for all the family. I give it a 7 because it's a well-made, well-written, well-acted low budget film lacking star names. Had it had an A-list budget I'd have given it a 6.
Tell Your Friends