heebie_jeebies Reviews

Top Gear Australia (2008–2012)

A Complete Write-Off

[1/10 · 29 September 2008]

Gad, what an abomination. They hold an open casting call, creating the impression they're actually looking for good presenters, and instead they overlook all presenting ability and go for 3 dreary motoring columnists with all the wit and charm of Peter Lorre and all the dashing good looks of George Formby. Where was the humour? All we got was three ill-at-ease middle aged twits with no personality hooning around on some sand dunes, pretending to enjoy themselves and guffawing hysterically at every whimsical comment. How about Charlie explaining the technical details of a car's transmission by doodling a diagram in the dirt? I mean really, does your average Top Gear fan give a Peter Luck how the car works? And what exactly was the point of the shark stunt, and what did it have to do with cars?? About the only joke I can recall from the entire show was some nauseatingly unfunny quip about Victoria Police "busting a cap in someone's ass", which was followed by a round of self-congratulation and an appeal to the bemused audience for applause. Oh and of course there was the obligatory attempt to imitate some of Clarkson's outspokenness, by taking a cheap and unfunny shot at the government over their luxury car tax.

Maybe if they'd tried to do something a bit different, rather than just imitating all the personality traits of the original hosts, it might not have looked so bad. As it is, they look like really bad Cliff Richard impersonators in an Elvis impersonator's competition. The bloke who plays Richard Hammond, Steve Pizzati, got on my nerves too. I can only imagine how grating that whiny soprano and irritating cackle will be by the end of the series.

I was actually considering auditioning for the James May role when they had the casting call, but I wouldn't have gotten it as I'm way too funny.

I'm sure the BBC execs are sharpening their axe as I type. It's rather amusing that the only original segment was titled What Were They Thinking, as it summed up my reaction to the BBC's decision to commission this steaming pile.

Of Human Bondage (1934)

To Call This 'Drivel' is to Give Undue Praise

[1/10 · 4 April 2007]

Two of the most unattractive stars of Hollywood 30s team up to give 'life' to a poor conversion of what was already a pulpy novel to begin with. It's no exaggeration to say that this Mills and Boon reject could easily have been the product of some 16 year old schoolgirl's frustrations of unrequited love. Practically anyone who can work a typewriter can write a story like this. It's akin to sitting in front of a piano, randomly making pleasant sounding harmonies using the white keys, then claiming you've written a symphony. Whilst it may sound pleasant enough, it would exhibit none of the skill and brilliance that would make it true art. So it is with this – anyone can imagine a series of events and write them down, then claim they have written a screenplay. But it takes knowledge of story construction and a great deal of skill to create gripping, emotionally involving drama. The only emotions created by this dog of a story are frustration and bemusement as to how anyone could think this was a good idea for a film.

The screenwriter doesn't appear to have a grasp of the basic structure of drama. For example, all the setbacks are resolved within minutes of screen time. That's not drama! That's like television, where everything has to be resolved quickly to fit within a 22 minute episode. True drama is about struggle – the protagonist rising up and using all his strength to attain the central goal. In this movie, a setback occurs, and then like clockwork, its resolution conveniently appears out of the blue in the next scene.

This pattern of wasted opportunities continues until towards the end, when Mildred is about to do something that would have created real tension and interest – I found myself thinking "oh no, Mildred! Don't do that!" And what do you know? She didn't do it. Another opportunity wasted. So much for drama! Perhaps the single biggest problem with the story is that the central concept – a man's obsession with a woman – is ridiculously unbelievable. Howard's character, Phillip Carey, is a semi-respectable gentleman, and yet he somehow manages to fall head-over for a vulgar wench of a woman who is completely devoid of all charm. A few insulting words from her at a café and suddenly he's on cloud nine. She continues to abuse him and treat him like an automatic teller machine; she still has absolutely no charm and nothing in common with him, and yet he still feels compelled to leave a much more attractive and charming woman for her, and even fantasises about her to the point of distraction during his medical exam. This particular sequence was so ridiculous that I almost laughed out loud. It was rather like seeing Phillip fantasise about John Cleese in a dress, doing his 'handbag lady' character. That anyone could possibly find Mildred attractive is well beyond my ability to suspend my disbelief and this is a fatal flaw given that Phillip's obsession is the central theme of the film. The ability of the audience to identify with the protagonist is a crucial element of successful drama and it is sorely lacking here.

The fact that Bette Davis was nominated for an Oscar for this performance really shows just how meaningless an accolade they truly are. Had she portrayed Mildred with initial charm and attractiveness, then little by little revealed her corrupt, selfish interior, then perhaps the performance would have been something to admire. Instead, she portrayed Mildred as the ghastly, vulgar gold-digger she was right from the beginning and destroyed any concept of how Phillip could possibly have fallen for her. They might as well have cast some vulgar cockney waitress off the street in the role, for all Davis brought to it. Similarly, Howard displays the same adequate but charmless, boring mediocrity he brought to every role he ever played.

The obligatory credit-where-it's-due part: at least the directing is slightly cinematic, rather than just being a filmed play, as many of these overly talky 30s films tend to be. With that aside this movie is, in a word, abysmal. In five words it is laughable, nauseating, boring, contrived and unwatchable. If it's pain you want, save yourself the 90 minutes by sticking your hand in a pasta maker instead.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)

Quintessential Capra Crap - Please End

[3/10 · 7 April 2006]

The film begins compellingly - wasting no time, the opening shot shows a car driving off a bridge and into a river. For me, this was the highlight of the movie, as Capra quickly kills all the suspense by immediately explaining exactly what the car crash was all about with his usual montage of dizzying newspapers piling up on the screen. Certainly this is not meant to be a suspense film, but it needn't go out of its way to kill all the suspense it has set up, either.

It should be said that this film didn't stand much of a chance with me to begin with, what with the lead role being played by Gary Cooper - an actor who, to my mind, possesses all the rugged good looks of George Formby and all the dashing charm of Boris Karloff. Capra's usual ensemble of characters are all there - Cooper plays the all-American small town everyman hero, there is a mystifyingly odd performance from Jean Arthur as the pithy love interest, Douglas Dumbrille is the fuddy-duddy clueless old gentleman and the always awful Lionel Stander is the sort of character he always plays. All that's missing is a character called "Mr Peabody". I award points for at least not making Stander a henchman called "Louie". However, there is scarcely a character in the entire film that's not a cliché - from the board members of the opera foundation, to the judge in the courtroom scene; Capra even sinks so low as to use a bespectacled, bearded German psychiatrist. To be fair, these characters may not have looked as clichéd when the film first came out, but still the film looks like it was made with the same movie template kit that all Capra's films come from. And it's not just the characters - there's also the too-familiar-for-my-liking marching band/tickertape parade, and of course the rapturous feel-good climax. And while I'm at it, I've had it up to here with 30s comedies about newspaper reporters looking for scoops about socialite gossip. As soon as I realise it's another newspaper reporter plot, the film has lost me.

Lack of originality aside, my main beef with this film is the major issue I have with most films - the plot is simply not compelling enough. It uses the same form of suspense that most of these meandering films use - the "what's going to happen next?" form. The story takes little twists and turns and little dramas pop up here and there and whenever they feel like it, but it's not tightly structured enough to be compelling. It's merely a series of events with no real driving force behind it; and the few unanswered questions likely to provide interest will be already answered in the minds of the viewers with knowledge of Capra's other equally predictable films.

It took this film to finally convince me that Capra is in no higher a league than Howard Hawks, George Cukor et. al. - i.e. a mediocre stage director who must have come into the possession of some compromising photos of a movie studio chief.

The montage of newspapers reappear several times throughout the film, interjecting to explain the bleeding obvious to the viewers, as though we need to be told that the trial is due to begin today because we can't deduce that from the fact that the scene is set in a courtroom. The courtroom scene, by the way, is nothing short of excruciating. I've never been one to value realism in films but there is a definite point beyond which I cannot suspend my disbelief. The threshold of disbelief is roughly about the point where you see a respectable, conservative looking and doubtless well-read court judge give credibility to an equally conservative in appearance team of lawyers, who are accusing Deeds of insanity based upon such clear acts of hysteria as feeding doughnuts to a horse and jumping aboard a moving fire engine. The fact that the judge allowed such preposterous charges to even be heard, let alone to conduct a full hearing and listen attentively to the evidence with a straight face, really made this scene unwatchably stupid. At any rate, ten minutes of ridiculous evidence and testimony "proving" Deed's insanity makes uninteresting viewing.

For one brief moment at the end, I took leave of my senses and thought that the film was going to finish with a non-predictable conclusion. All loose threads of storyline had been tied up and the curtain was ready to fall – I was about to award this film kudos for actually doing something different and out of tune with the Hollywood fairy-floss that makes up the rest of the story - then Capra spoils it all by tacking on a brief and unnecessary coda that makes it indistinguishable from every other bit of feel-good plop he ever excreted.

To briefly give some credit where it's due, at least the Mr Deeds character was not entirely as wholesome as Mr Smith, making him not an exact carbon copy – and I must confess that the first forty minutes of the film was mildly entertaining in its own way, although seldom funny. The less cynical viewers amongst us who don't notice every plot device, every stock character and every recycled storyline in a film like I do, may well be able to find some enjoyment in the rest of the film as well; though I struggle with the possibility of the courtroom scene being anything less than painful.

If one thing can be said for Capra, he was many years ahead of his time - he paved the way for many of today's clueless directors with no concept of the art of cinema. I'd sooner watch a Hitchcock home movie of his grandchildren playing in a wading pool than this boring bulldust. Other than that, I absolutely loved it.

Dai yûkai (1991)

Daiyukai Daisuki!

[11 December 2003]

A trio of recently released criminals, The Rainbow Kids as they call themselves, devise a plan to kidnap an extremely wealthy matriarch for a paltry sum. When the kidnapee discovers how much the Rainbow Kids intend to ask for her release, she is insulted and demands that they increase the ransom dramatically. This poses a problem for her children, who believe that the ransom is far beyond their means. The matriarch then devises an elaborate plan to hold a television broadcast at a secret location, in order to instruct her children on how to raise the funds needed for the ransom.

The film is slow to start, but once it gets going, it becomes highly compelling. The story is bizarre, and in some parts confusingly complicated, but still engrossing and mildly suspenseful in parts. The jokes are well executed, often visual and usually ridiculous. The characters are all superbly developed; some are cliches but this works extremely well. Most of the performances are very strong, even the minor roles such as the helicopter pilot are made hilarious by sound comic acting. The film is comparatively well directed for a modern film, which is not surprising given that the director is a living fossil (born in 1923).

My only real criticism is that the film goes on twenty minutes too long. It has plenty of perfect opportunities to end, but instead it drags on by attempting to explain why the matriarch demanded the Rainbow Kids charge a higher ransom. The explanation was so complicated that I found it difficult to understand, and it seemed unnecessary anyway since the story remains ridiculous even with the explanation added on.

Nevertheless, this is a minor criticism of what is a wonderfully funny and entertaining comedy, which mercifully does not contain any sex, language or violence.

Bees in Paradise (1944)

Dull Song-and-Dance Farce

[24 October 2003]

Val Guest has a unique and witty sense of humour, which can be hilarious when used to good effect. Bees in Paradise begins promisingly, as most of his comedies do. The idea is a typical piece of Guestian idiocy - a tropical island is inhabited entirely by women; the only means for the women to reproduce is for them to marry shipwrecked sailors who turn up on the island. After the two month honeymoon period, the men are required by law to commit suicide. It's not the greatest of his ideas, but neither is it a bad one. At any rate, the story is a complete dud. Some men turn up on the island after their plane crashes, they are pursued by the eager women, each of whom wants to find a husband without having to wait for the next boatload (or planeload) of arrivals. The men are taken aback by the predatory nature of the women on the island, but one of them is tricked into getting married. Meanwhile, the pilot of the plane has fallen madly in love with a dissident dame who has begun to see the injustice of the island's anti-male laws, and he wants to take her back to England with him. A boring, vacuous and predictable story which requires some pretty excellent comedy to redeem it. Sadly, there is none. Apart from a few mildly amusing lines, including some cheeky cracks about Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, nothing in this film made me laugh.

To make matters worse, the film is punctuated by frequent and extremely forgettable songs, which don't even have decent dance scenes to accompany them. The songs seem to be nothing more than compensation for the fact that the film isn't funny, as well as a means of filling up time, since there is so little story development.

Furthermore, it's difficult to like the characters because they're hardly developed at all. Instead, the film takes the easy way out by using cliched characters that we've all seen a hundred times before - the short, bespectacled bachelor and the balding, accented middle-aged guy being two examples.

To give credit where it's due, the film is directed well by Val Guest in his usual fun and playful style, but this time the material is far too weak to make the film watchable. Watch his excellent 1944 comedy "Give us the Moon" to see what he's capable of when in his element, but don't waste your time with this.

Departure (2001)

Formless, introspective cinema

[15 October 2003]

This film depicts the last night three High School graduate friends spend together before going their separate ways to continue their studies. One is going to London for two years, another is headed to Tokyo for four years to go to university, and the last is staying on the island of Okinawa, South of the Japanese mainland, where the three of them grew up. The film follows the movements of the three young men as they attempt to tie up the loose ends in their love lives while they have a chance.

The screenplay shows no regard for traditional storytelling; in fact there is really no story to speak of at all - the film is simply a fly-on-the-wall look at the events of one particular night. There is no drama, no suspense, no good characters and bad characters, no humour, little conflict, and little emotion. This makes the film refreshingly pleasant but ultimately boring. The lack of emotion was somewhat surprising considering the subject matter of the film - it seems to me that the director deliberately underplayed the emotion in order to avoid being emotionally manipulative - but she ends up going to the other extreme and creating a complete emotional vacuum. Given that the characters are all at crossroads in their lives, one would have expected some reminiscing, or speculation about the future, and at the very least some emotion at being separated, but this film has none of these things.

This is a perfect example of the sort of formless, introspective cinema that, sadly, give non-mainstream films a bad reputation. The film has that sense of poignant austerity about it that seems to characterise films of this type - the prolonged periods of silence and the long delays between the lines of dialogue give this film a profound air to it, which is not backed up by any substance. Get a subtitled version of this film and watch it in fast-forward; perhaps then it would run at a reasonable pace.

The austerity is punctuated by a couple of livelier scenes - one is a prolonged shot of the main character riding on his motorcycle accompanied by an absurd bouncy soundtrack, and another is a completely incomprehensible incident in which the main character is chased to a playground by two anonymous characters. These two unnamed young men are hardly more anonymous than the three main characters, however, since the film hardly gets a chance to develop them at all. Since we only see one night of their lives, at the end of the film one is left feeling as thought we hardly know them any better than when we first met them. The characters are likable nevertheless, and could have been interesting had they been developed properly.

For me the best part was the end section, which was set the following day - mainly because of the beautiful scenery. There is a prolonged scene showing the main character and some of the scenery, which is probably meant to have some profound meaning but which just ends up looking like a video clip for the music that goes over it. Seeing Okinawa in daylight made me curious about what life is like there, but the film gives few insights. The final scene is an utterly vacuous piece of symbolism involving a seashell that the main character retrieved from the sea in a flashback sequence at the beginning of the film. This utterly hollow and disappointing ending - which the film does not even attempt to explain the meaning of - is indicative of the pseudo-artistic nature of the film.

While the film cannot be recommended, somehow there was still something I liked about it. I liked the characters and the island and I wanted to know more about both. If the film had've simply been a study of the characters and their lifestyle then it may have worked in its own way, even without suspense, conflict, drama or humour. As it is, it simply does nothing. Films like this are to cinema what atonality is to music - both break all the well-established rules of their respective art forms in the guise of advancing art, when really all they do is subvert it.

The Road Home (1999)

Have a box of tissues ready

[12 October 2003]

This is a wonderful, moving film which tells, in flashback, the story of two young lovers, Changyu and Di, in a rural village in China. The film begins with the death of Changyu, and the grief of his now elderly widow. Di insists that Changyu's coffin be carried from the place of his death to the place of his burial, in accordance with now outmoded customs. The only child of Di and Changyu, Yusheng, then tells us the story of how his parents met over forty years ago. Di was only 18 when Changyu arrived in the village to take up the post of teacher in the schoolhouse, which had not even been built yet. The men worked on constructing the schoolhouse, and the women provided the men with bowls of food for lunch. Di instantly fell in love with Changyu, and with his voice, which she describes as the most beautiful voice she has ever heard. Di does her best cooking for the men, and devises a way to make sure it is Changyu who ends up with her bowl of food when the men stop work for lunch. This story of Di's indirect attempts at wooing Changyu, as well as their eventual meeting, make a wonderful love story, albeit a superficial one.

The most disappointing thing about the film is the abrupt ending to the flashback. Di and Changyu simply fall in love, and then the film returns to the present day, leaving the entire forty years of their married life a complete mystery. I think the film would have benefited a lot from a faster-paced story that gave us more detail about these two very likable young lovers. Perhaps some of the more symbolic details, such as the mending of the bowl which Changyu ate Di's cooking from, could have been omitted or dealt with quicker - for goodness' sake, it's just a bowl!

Although this film appears to be a love story, for me it's about the tragic reality that time passes so quickly and that all good things must come to an end. That is why I found the ending so moving - in fact no other film has ever left me completely in tears like this one! Although the central love story is too brief, this film is well worth watching for the beautiful scenery and the heart-wrenching ending. Have a box of tissues ready and watch this wonderfully moving story!

Army Daze (1996)

If this is the best Singapore has to offer...

[12 October 2003]

The film follows the lives of a small group of 18 year old conscripts from different classes and backgrounds, who are undergoing their basic military training in the Singaporean Army. The plot is as shallow as they come; in fact "plot" is perhaps the wrong word since the film is really just a series of events that occur, with a few loose threads of story included - such as the relationship between Krishna and his girlfriend and the mysterious absence of Kenny's family. These loose threads are unconvincingly tied up towards the end of the film, in a nauseatingly over-acted scene of contrived drama. As unsuccessful as it is, this drama is necessary in order to maintain the viewers' interest, because the rest of the film is so boring and unfunny. The film is mainly about the camaraderie between the group, and the idea that the army can be fun as well as difficult. I was tempted to not watch the final scene because I thought it'd be one of those nauseating "friends forever" endings. (Oh, I guess you could consider the following line a minor spoiler, not that anyone will care.) For some reason, I did see the film through, and indeed that's what it was - have your vomit bags handy.

The only shred of redemption in this film is the characters, all of whom are very likable - except for the irritating gay stereotype Kenny. The fact that the actor can't even make a simple gay stereotype funny shows just how little talent there is in this film.

Why oh why was this film commissioned? The only possible explanation I can come up with is that it is a piece of propaganda, intended to convince Singapore's young men that their National Service will be a hoot - but even that is no excuse for desecrating the art of cinema in this way. Army Daze might be a classic of Singaporean cinema, but unfortunately by any other standards it is appalling. It doesn't even fit into the "so bad it's good" category. Let it be known that I have no prejudice against non-western films; in fact some of my favourite films are from Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea and elsewhere. I even quite liked the Singaporean sitcom "Under One Roof" - but if this is the best Singapore can do in terms of cinema then I will be sure in the future to avoid watching any other films made there.

Il Mare (2000)

Beautiful; near flawless

[1 September 2003]

This is one of those rare films that is so close to being perfect that any criticism of it seems like nitpicking. It begins with a scene showing the female lead, Eunju, moving out of a lonely house by the sea called Il Mare. Eunju has written a letter to whoever rents out the house next, asking him or her to forward any mail addressed to her to her new apartment. She dates the letter late 1999 and puts it in the house's letterbox. We then see Sunghyon, Il Mare's original occupant, moving into the house two years earlier. Somehow, Eunju's letter from 1999 has turned up in his mailbox. The two begin to correspond, and the lonely Sunghyon and heartbroken Eunju find that they were made for each other - but can they ever be together?

The film focuses almost entirely on Eunju and Sunghyon's evolving relationship, and therefore there are only a handful of other characters in the film, none of whom have significant roles. The film spends such a long time developing the relationship between Eunju and Sunghyon that it becomes entirely believable and profound, unlike so many films where the two characters simply have to look into each other's eyes to fall in love. The two characters are so likable and so lonely that we hope terribly that their relationship will succeed.

Somehow, the fantastical element of the plot doesn't make it any less believable. Rather, it makes one reflect on how quickly time passes and how two years into the future can seem a long time but two years into the past can seem like no more than a few months. Nitpickers will criticise the film because of the inevitable anomalies that the concept of time travel causes, but it is easy to overlook these slight imperfections. Furthermore, the complete absence of sex, violence and language is a blessing.

It's a beautifully photographed film with a very beautiful story, which - as one reviewer suggested - should be seen with someone you love sitting beside you. It's one of those films that will stay with you for a while after you see it - I found I was still thinking about the characters days later. I confess, a tear came to my eye at the end. But was it a tear of joy or sorrow? Watch the film and find out for yourself. This is one of only four films I've ever given 10 out of 10.

Pot Luck (1936)

Watchable if there's nothing else on

[1 September 2003]

A priceless vase is stolen by a master thief, who uses a very silly and far-fetched plan to dupe a stupid attendant into handing the vase over to him. The attendant then attempts, with the help of an Irish sleuth, to retrieve the vase in time for its owner to collect it without any knowledge of the ordeal. It's a middle-of-the-road C-grade plot for a very middle-of-the-road C-grade film. The first half is watchable; neither good nor bad but a bit of a let-down after the compelling first scene. The second half, which involves the attempt to retrieve the vase, is more exciting. This daft little film is the 30s equivalent of one of those brainless, unoriginal films like Tomb Raider - only with a lot more class and charm. Its strength is its cast - the always wonderful Tom Walls is great as the Irish detective, and Ralph Lynn and Robertson Hare are good as - well, as the sort of twitty characters they always play. This is definitely one of the weaker films directed by Tom Walls, but the cast make it watchable.

The Man with 100 Faces (1938)

Worth watching...Mainly for Tom Walls

[14 August 2003]

The film begins with a scene in which a plane is hijacked by a gang of criminals and some precious diamonds are stolen. However it is not the gang that gets away with the loot but rather the master thief and modern day Robin Hood, Jack Drake, who has beaten the gang to it. Meanwhile, the latest craze in London is the memoirs of a thief, who goes by the pseudonym of "Crackerjack." When a string of precious pearls is stolen at a society party, Crackerjack is suspected, owning to a number of idiosyncrasies of the culprit, which are also mentioned in Crackerjack's book. But who is Crackerjack - is he Jack Drake? And will Jack get away with his philanthropic thieving?

This film is good entertainment but nothing special. The sort of story that the film uses involving gangs of criminals, stolen jewels and princesses (or a Baroness in this case) has been used so many times before - even by Tom Walls himself - that it needs something special to make it work. There are a few fairly uninventive twists in the plot - the people you least expect turn out to be criminals and so on. All of it leads to a rather formulaic showdown towards the end of the film. Nevertheless, there are a few good surprises which add interest to what would otherwise be a fairly average film. For me, the most disappointing thing is that we know who Crackerjack is for almost all of the film. I think it would've added a whole extra dimension to the film if the answer had've been denied us until the end - and it would've justified the existence of the "Crackerjack" book, which, as the film stood, was totally peripheral to the plot.

Tom Walls makes a wonderful gentleman criminal; almost as great as James Mason, but in a different, more old-world chivalrous way. His name on the bill was what made me decide to watch this film, and he is definitely its strongest link. The rest of the cast are nothing special and I found Lilli Palmer a tad annoying but an acceptable leading lady. Overall the story is sufficiently engrossing and consistent enough to make this reasonable viewing - but only slightly above average.

Me and Marlborough (1935)

Historical Screwball

[14 August 2003]

Set during the War of the Spanish Succession, this film is the story of newlyweds Kit Ross and Dick Welch, who are married at the beginning of the film. Immediately after the ceremony, Dick is forced to join the Queen's regiment of the army to help fight the French. Soon after Dick is whisked away, Kit follows him - posing as a young male soldier. Predictably, she turns out to be much more competent and intelligent than her male peers and often saves the day by her quick thinking. She eventually ends up in the company of the Duke of Marlborough himself, commander of the English forces, and finds favour with him because of her ingenuity - but all she wants is to be reunited with her husband Dick.

This is a silly film throughout - silly story, silly performances and silly situations. Really there's not much of a story until the last half an hour. I consider it a historical version of the screwball comedy, mainly because either the humour has dated or it was never funny in the first place. A few scenes are mildly amusing but most of the humour just doesn't work. I found Cicely Courtneidge quite irritating as the prototype-feminist heroine of the film. Perhaps liking the main character is the key to liking this film - I found her boisterous and somewhat absurd nature unappealing and so this tainted the film for me. Those who find the character funny might well find the rest of the film funny too. Tom Walls is good as the Duke of Marlborough but this film is hardly his finest hour - he is at his best when he is either stealing priceless diamonds or chasing diamond thieves.

A pretty average to boring comedy overall, with some nice bits but nothing to make it worthy of recommendation.

This Sporting Life (1963)

Boring and Unpleasant

[26 July 2003]

This is one of the most unpleasant films I've ever watched, owing mainly to the main character Frank - a disgusting, dimwitted rugby thug with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The unpleasantness of the film wouldn't bother me so much if the script was actually interesting - but unfortunately the first half an hour, which tells in flashback the story of the main character getting signed up to the rugby team, is by far the most interesting part - and even that is only mediocre. The second part of the film is nothing more than a series of redundant events that add nothing to the story - the wedding being a good example. It is only in the last section that the story really gets going.

The problem with this film is that until the last section, there is nothing to maintain the viewers' interest. One could switch the film off halfway through and there would be no questions left hanging, except for the rather uninteresting issue of whether or not Frank will have it off with Margaret. If the outcome of the story had been revealed earlier in the film then at least we would wonder what had happened to cause it. The script is less a story than a series of events in a man's life. You could skip the whole first hour of the film without missing anything important, and without any difficulty picking up what's happening - after all, what is the film about? It's about a rugby star's pursuit of a woman - nothing more.

There is some suggestion that there is more to Frank's character than meets the eye, and Frank himself says that he feels unwanted and unfulfilled, but I found it impossible to have any sympathy for this utter thug. Similarly, I found his supposed love for Margaret to be unconvincing - it seemed to me that he was simply after a sex toy; especially considering the scene in which he tried to take advantage of her. Thus I found the final drama completely unaffecting. Furthermore, the ending seemed tacked on, as though the writer didn't know where to end and needed a drama to finish the story off.

There are a few arty-farty flashback scenes which seem to suggest some deeper meaning, which are accompanied by the beating of a drum as if to make it clear to the audience that we are witnessing something poignant, but their meaning was lost on me - as was the whole film. This is an over-long, overrated and very unpleasant piece of cinema which tries - feebly - to compensate for its lack of a story by the use of meaningless flashbacks, dramatic orchestral stings and heated argument scenes. Just like its main character, the film has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Give Us the Moon (1944)

Eccentric, witty, original and hilarious

[26 July 2003]

Now here is a real obscure gem! This film is the story of Peter Pyke, the son of a wealthy hotel owner. Despite his father's insistence, Peter refuses to do anything resembling work, preferring instead to live a carefree life of extravagance, subsidised - of course - by his father. By chance, Peter finds himself in the company of a club of eccentric misfits known as the "White Elephants", whose common bond is their refusal to work, or to do anything that might make them a valuable member of society. The white elephants prefer to make a living by devising unusual and hilarious ways to rip off members of the public, or "suckers" as they are called within the club.

The script is as eccentric as they come, and the dialogue is very witty. It's nonsensical at times, but this only adds to the humour. The best part about this film though, is the wonderful characters. Nina's tall tales about her troubled childhood are hilarious, Sacha, the quintessential con-artist is great and Peter, a playboy with morals, is an excellent lead. For me though, the best character is the dry old fogey Ferdinand, who wouldn't look out of place as the professor of classics in a university, and whose whole life is dedicated to writing a thesis on jealousy. He never gets around to actually putting pen to paper, but he spends plenty of time doing research - by making love to married women and then observing their husbands' reactions. This habit results in him being challenged to a duel by one of his subjects' husbands, and the entire episode is hilarious.

The characters are very likable and I found myself empathising somewhat with their strange and sober logic. For example, Nina tells Peter that she wants her daughter to go to school, because school is where people are taught to be stupid. She wants her daughter to become stupid, she says, because only stupid people are happy. Thus the White Elephants provide an oblique and refreshing view of the world - a cynical picture of humanity from a fencesitter's perspective. The cares of the world do not bother this family of oddballs and by the end of the film, one almost feels as though there is something to be said for avoiding work and contributing nothing to society. The microcosm of the White Elephants Club seems like a much more pleasant place than the world around it. This weird and wonderful film, which is playfully directed, should not be missed!

Genevieve (1953)

Not a comedy at all

[1/10 · 23 July 2003]

This film is, in fact, not a comedy at all, but rather one of those light entertainment films which is classified as a comedy simply because it's not a drama. It's basically a road movie, since the vast majority of the film takes place during a classic car drive to and from Brighton in England. Two somewhat friendly rivals participating in the annual event, one of whom drives a car called Genevieve, decide to race each other there, taking their reluctant wives with them. Most of the purported humour in this film consists of each car taking turns to break down. As one car breaks down, the owner of the other car drives past and gloats, only to have his car break down soon after and the other car start up again. This happens many times during the race to Brighton, with the lead changing each time.

The highlight of the film is the night the couples spend in Brighton - more specifically, the mildly entertaining musical item performed by one of the wives, who turns out to be quite an accomplished trumpeter. During the stay, there is some suggestion that one of the wives has had an affair, but the characters are so entirely dull and the rest of the film is so shallow and plotless that this sub-plot fails to offer any redemption. After the night in Brighton, the couples simply race home again, making the second half of the film just as unfunny and boring as the first half.

I try to avoid vitriol in my reviews, but in this case I must make an exception for the sake of an accurate summation. This is one of the most appallingly unfunny, unendurable, pointless, excruciating pieces of cinema I have ever had to sit through. Every attempt at humour goes down like a lead balloon, there is hardly a story to speak of and all of the characters are cardboard cutouts. Clearly we are supposed to be on the side of the couple riding in Genevieve, and yet both of the couples are so intolerably immature and unlikable that it's impossible to care at all about who wins the race. If you like intelligent films, then avoid this at all costs. If you like mindless fluff, then there are still a hundred other pieces of mindless fluff you'd be better off watching than this rubbish. I tried to like this film, especially given all the positive reviews on this site, but save for the nice cars, I found nothing whatsoever to like about it.

Man of the Moment (1955)

Highly entertaining

[16 July 2003]

Norman, a well-intentioned but clumsy and simple filing clerk in the British Civil Service is taken to Geneva with the British delegation of an international conference. When one of the delegates falls ill, Norman stands in for him and accidentally vetos a British and US endorsed plan to set up an experimentation base near the unspoilt island of Tawaki. He is thrown off the delegation, but his move earns him the respect of the Queen of Tawaki, so when the British attempt to reopen negotiations with her, they must fawn over Norman in order to use him as an instrument of negotiation.

The first twenty minutes of this film are very funny - a mad mixture of misunderstandings, caricatures (including a camp photographer) and well executed visual humour. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is not as funny - once the delegation arrives in Geneva, the humour is subordinated to the plot. Nevertheless, the plot is sufficiently interesting and there are still enough jokes to make this film enjoyable throughout. The humour comes mostly from Norman's childishness and his tendency to cause disasters wherever he goes. It's good fun, even though most of the film is not laugh-out-loud funny. However, there are a few stand out scenes, including the very funny tailor scene. There are three songs in the film, which I thought were unnecessary.

Norman Wisdom gives a good performance as the naive simpleton Norman. It is his performance that makes the film - none of the other cast members particularly impressed me (perhaps because I'm not familiar with many of them.) They were all good nevertheless, but Wisdom is the definite star of this film. Charles Hawtrey's role is sadly only a cameo and isn't particularly funny. A highly entertaining film which ought to be more famous.

The Seventh Veil (1945)

Overrated performances and a mediochre story

[10 July 2003]

The film begins with a compelling scene in which the main character, concert pianist Francesca Cunningham, tries to take her own life. She is rescued and undergoes a psychological assessment from Dr. Larsen, who uses hypnosis to overcome her "seven veils" of inhibition and find out what drove her to that state. It's a promising introduction and sets the scene for what one might expect to be some heavy psychological thriller. Unfortunately however, once Dr. Larson begins prodding around in her subconscious, we realise that there isn't a whole lot there. Francesca retells the story of her life, from when at the age of fourteen, she was caned by her headmistress, to when she was sent to live with her "uncle" Nicholas, an abusive and domineering guardian who forced her to practice the piano for four or more hours a day. She tells Dr. Larsen the whole story of how she became a concert pianist and how it lead to her eventual breakdown, but her story is far less tragic than one imagined at the beginning of the film - the only real burden in her life being Nicholas. Her misery therefore seems exaggerated, and when she collapses after her concert debut, it seems like nothing more than a symbolic depiction of some unexplained, deep-seated torment. Therefore the story of her breakdown is wholly unsatisfying, although it is interesting nevertheless, but not the heavy psychological thriller the opening scenes promised. Dr. Larsen's assessment of Francesca is absurd, and his suggested remedy even more so. From that point, the film runs out steam and eventually becomes boring. Dr. Larsen has announced his remedy and one knows that all there is left to do is wait for it to work. Unfortunately there is a whole lot of nothing in particular to sit through until it finally does work, with only one question left hanging in the meantime - will Francesca choose to be with Peter or Max? It's not a particularly compelling question either, since both characters are hardly developed. The film attempts to persuade us to favour one of the candidates through a short scene in which the other candidate acts uncharacteristically abusive towards Dr. Larsen, but apart from this there is nothing to indicate who is more deserving of Francesca's hand in marriage, so for me the outcome hardly mattered. Ann Todd's performance is nothing special, and this film is hardly Mason's finest hour either. To me, he lacked the austerity the character needed to be sufficiently threatening. Herbert Lom is good, but the bespectacled, accented Freudian psychiatrist he plays seemed a bit of a cliche. There is some nice music, including the second Rachmaninov and the Grieg piano concertos, but the first half of the film is only average and the second half is dead boring.

Tiara Tahiti (1962)

A highly enjoyable film with a clever script

[23 June 2003]

The film begins in post war Germany, where John Mills demonstrates his talent for comedy characters in his role as Clifford Southey, a pompous, insecure caricature of a British Colonel, whose regiment is agitated by the arrival of a former business acquaintance, Captain Brett Aimsley. Aimsley, a charming rogue who's been selling stolen goods on the black market, throws Southey's over-regimented regiment into chaos by holding noisy gatherings involving gambling and lewd jokes - it's quite astonishing to hear the quintessential gentleman Mason's gag about the Frenchman who found happiness! The newcomer's gatherings have destroyed Southey's friendly games of bridge, by stealing away all but the most dedicated bridge players, and understandably, he's not standing for it. He calls Aimsley to his office with the intention of setting him straight, but Aimsley's charm wins him over and the pusillanimous Colonel lets his former friend off the hook, only to rat on him for his black market deals while he's on leave in London. Some years later, Aimsley has moved to Tahiti to escape his court martial. Coincidentally, Southey, who is now the director of a chain of hotels, comes to town to try to stitch up a deal for a new hotel.

Even though there are few laugh-out-loud jokes in this film, its strength lies in the fact that it is consistently entertaining, partly because of the topsy-turvy relationship between Southey and Aimsley, and also because of the constant deflating of Southey's ego. For example, just as Southey was making progress impressing two female tourists with his encyclopedic knowledge of wine, Aimsley arrives and takes away the bottle Southey has just analysed and praised, then says "We can do better than that in Tahiti. I'll get you something drinkable."

Mills' performance is quite hilarious - he creates one of those absurd characters that needs only to walk into a room for one to start laughing. The funniest scenes in the film involve Southey - who is alone apart from us - rehearsing how he is going to confront Aimsley. Despite his basically good moral character, he's one of those characters we love to hate because of his pomposity and his many unreasonable assumptions about Aimsley.

Mason was the perfect choice to play Aimsley, the charming, likable scoundrel. We remain on his side throughout the film because his charm wins us over, just as it won over Southey early in the film. There are adequate performances from Rosenda Monteros as Aimsley's love interest, the charming and flirty Belle and from Herbert Lom as Chong, the hilarious and politically incorrect caricature of a Chinese shopkeeper.

It is the characters that make this film, but the script is equally strong, save for the redundant sub-plot involving an American sailor who tries to steal Belle away from Aimsley. A dramatic twist towards the end of the film adds to what is a mostly engrossing story. We are left wondering until the end whether Southey will ever finally confront Aimsley, or whether the two will return to being friends, as well as whether or not Southey will get his hotel built. A highly enjoyable film with an excellent cast and a clever script.

The Gentle Sex (1943)

Women will enjoy it more than men

[6 June 2003]

This film follows the experiences of seven women who find themselves together in the Auxillary Territorial Services during the war. The film begins at a train station where the narrator picks out six young women at random. These six ladies - charming but indistinguishable to me - end up in the same carriage of a train on their way to their base. The seventh, Gwen Hayden, joins the others as the train is about to depart. It's a promising start - we eagerly anticipate what will happen to these seven ladies throughout the course of the war. We assume that they'll all end up going their separate ways, but will perhaps reunite at the end of the war, having each been through some unique and fascinating experiences.

Unfortunately, nothing much happens to any of them. They arrive at their base, engage in some vacuous conversation, and then it's on with the mundane duties of the Auxillary Territorial Services. The first fifteen minutes or so after they arrive is basically a montage of footage showing the ladies and their colleagues being regimented by their superiors, during marching practise and so on, and contains very little entertainment value, except for a couple of attempted visual jokes, including one lady soldier who turns the wrong way and ends up marching away from all the others.

Perhaps the problem with the rest of the film is that it's a little too honest. There's no drama and there are no complications - just a group of ladies fulfilling the mundane duties of lorry driving, drilling and manning ack-ack batteries, and prattling on in between. The almost complete lack of male characters makes the conversation even more intolerable. Occasionally the characters ponder the purpose of the war and what they're really fighting for, but their discourse fails to scale any great philosophical heights. There's a melodramatic spiel by a French woman in the middle of the film, in which she tells some of our British ladies about what the Nazis did to her father and brother, but it fails to stir us amidst the jollility of life in the Services. Rather, it seems like a contrived attempt by the scriptwriters to provide some semblance of drama.

The only other drama that occurs - in fact, one of the few events that occurs in this basically plotless film - happens towards the end of the film, but unfortunately it is too little too late. This film is nothing more than a slice of British life during the war. None of the seven ladies embark on any great adventures, they never experience the hardships of war and since the film only scratches the surface of its seven main characters, at the end one is left feeling as though we hardly know them any better than we did when we first met them at the train station. Women will probably enjoy this film more than men, but there is really nothing in it to make it worthy of recommendation.

The Astonished Heart (1950)

Flawed but worth watching

[4/10 · 18 May 2003]

This appears to be one of Noel Coward's lesser known films, and it is easy to understand why. Taken at face value it's not a bad film, but there's nothing terribly good about it either. Nothing much happens at all throughout the course of the film, it's simply the story of Chris and Leonora's ill-fated affair, and Barbara's reaction to it. The only thing that keeps the film interesting is the fact that we already know it's going to end badly for one reason or another, owing to the first scene. Oddly, there are many perfect opportunities in the story for conflict, and yet none of them are utilised. For example, it would've been much more interesting and believable if Barbara had've fallen out with Leonora, but instead the two remained on good terms throughout the film. The notion of Barbara having been betrayed by her friend was not explored at all - in fact she didn't even seem to feel betrayed by her husband; she even encourages him to go on a holiday with Leonora. Similarly, Chris' two secretaries at his practice, Susan Birch and Tim Verney, who also happen to be close friends of both Chris and Barbara, are never forced to take sides. In fact, Tim shies away from conflict by telling Chris that he's terribly fond of both him and Barbara. Despite the strange lack of conflict, the biggest flaw in the film is the fact that we don't care whether Chris ends up with Leonora or Barbara. The two womens' personalities are indistinguishable anyway so we don't know which of the two is better suited to be with Chris, and besides this, Barbara's permissiveness gives the impression that she hardly cares about the affair anyway. Furthermore, I found Chris and Leonora's relationship somewhat unconvincing. I can overlook the ridiculously short timeframe in which they fall for each other because that is so common in films of this era, but even then the relationship seemed shallow. Coward's character was too austere and cynical to be the object of Leonora's affections. He reminds me of the socially inept genius Sir Earnest Pease from the film "Very Important Person" - I'm sure the two would've gotten along well. Chris' coldness and austerity made his love for Leonora seem insincere. I think Coward should've sat this one out and given his part to a younger man - as it is, I was constantly wondering what this young beauty saw in such a sombre, mostly emotionless, balding middle aged man. Despite all my criticisms, the film still manages to be interesting - just not terribly compelling. The fact that none of the characters are particularly well developed gives them an enigmatic nature, which is somewhat intriguing. The Astonished Heart is certainly worth watching, but it is a flawed piece of cinema.