adamjohns-42575

A Passage To India (1984) -

I had read and watched E. M. Forster's 'Howard's End' (1992) and not found it totally to my tastes so this telling of one of his books was actually quite a nice surprise, having a bit more substance and direction than the other.

It is difficult with these stories to discern whether the Author/Screenplay Writer/Director were trying to point out the hypocrisies and wrongs or whether they were just using them to tell a story.

This was almost a neutral view of the events that allowed Director David Lean to decide whether he wanted to play up the British prejudice or the Indian upset at the countries Brit rule. Neither seemed to be the prominent idea though, taking a back seat to the criminal accusations made as the focus instead.

There seem to be so many of these sorts of films out there, based in India and about the way that the natives were treated by the Empire when it was still a part of it and even after they'd left - Jai Bhim' (2021), 'Gandhi' (1982) and so many more - But I was glad that this one wasn't as harsh as those others, as although it did still express the nastier side of things, it made it a more comfortable experience, I'm still yet to finish 'Jai Bhim' because I found it so harrowing. There was definitely the potential for that here, but fortunately it was a much simpler story, if a bit lame with Adela (Judy Davis) just having a daft moment that caused a lot of upset that we were supposed to forgive, because what else can you expect from just a silly woman? But she's British so she must be believed! (My impression of the films attitude, not my own opinion of women)

It was also slow to start, with a lot of scene setting and prejudice establishment on both sides.

And it continued in that vein, but somehow and unusually for me I could cope with the slower pace because it was well filmed/edited/produced. My only criticisms would be that perhaps the colours of the scenery, clothes, etc which were a tad drab, even in the verdant jungles and spice filled marketplaces, but perhaps I have just been spoiled with the latest quality of cameras and lighting?

And one of the first things I noticed about it was that the soundtracks were out of sync. The train noises, among other things, overwhelmed that of the dialogue making it hard to hear and everything was such a hustle and bustle, oh so busy, that it was a tad cacophonous at times.

However, the cast, in general, did a good job. There was no one that stood out for an amazing performance and only one that stood out as not so great.

I just felt that it was an odd choice to cast Alec Guinness as Godbole, even in 1984. He was inappropriate not just because he wasn't Indian, but also because he didn't fit the part properly. He actually seemed to be quite a ridiculous character almost harking back to his Ealing Studio days and the comedy roles that made him famous.

It was unusual for James Fox as Mr Fielding to play a more heroic role for a change though. I could only recall him as a more snobby, arsey type in other films so it was nice to see him playing someone charming and pleasant here.

I did find the defense team at the trial to be farcical though. I'm a very open minded person, but even I would have thrown the case out of court for Ali's (Art Malik) shenanigans.

And who really won in the end? There was a lot of fuss made because of one "Silly Woman" that could have caused great damage specifically to Dr. Aziz (Victor Banerjee) and politically too.

I would say that the epilogue was slightly overlong, but it was nice to finish on something slightly less angry than it would have done otherwise.

After 'Howard's End' I would have avoided any other books by Forster, but having watched this version of his story I would definitely be intrigued to read it and make up my own mind about Adela based on his writing. I would also be happy to see this one again too, maybe just not that soon in the future.

It only scores so low because it isn't generally my favourite type of story (No robots or web slinging heroes). It did a good job of what it was trying to do though.

600.99/1000.

The Wolverine (2) (2013) -

This film takes a different tack to the previous X-Men films that were much more comic book based and instead takes on a more action and martial arts style. I really liked that and appreciated that it took Wolverine almost completely away from his X-Men storyline, with the exception of Famke Janssen reprising her role of Jean Grey, but only in a very small way.

The story was much more akin to the comic books that concentrated specifically on the titular character with only that slight tie in to what had gone before, so it could actually be watched without too much foreknowledge of the character, which was what made it just a great action film.

Hugh Jackman as that lead character not only looked gorgeous, but he really did nail the persona of the Wolf with Adamantium claws. I also liked how they used Jean, Mariko (Tao Okamoto) and even Kayla (Lynn Collins) from the previous Wolverine Origins film to show his vulnerability too. He had love to give and a need to protect that may have come from his experiences as shown before, but in theory, at this point of his life, he hadn't remembered that Kayla existed and couldn't really remember his past before that either.

As such, how did he remember Hal Yamanouchi as Yashida enough to attend his deathbed?

However if you ignore the semantics and the nerdy detail, as I've said, it's a great film and a showcase of what Hugh is capable of in the role. It was easy to see why the franchise has struggled to let him leave the character behind or to find someone else to fill his shoes.

The special effects had been improved upon since the last film and otherwise there was nothing to report about with regard to the general production of this one. None of the actors delivered a duff performance either.

Another fitting edition to the Marvel Universe, The X-Men franchise and Wolverine's story.

905.05/1000.

Cat On A Hot Tin Roof (1958) -

Right from the very beginning this was a very angry film, I could feel the tension between Brick (Paul Newman) and Maggie (Elizabeth Taylor) even though I didn't know where it had come from and that in itself made me want to find out more.

Then there was the introduction of the rest of the family, who were so obviously obnoxious that I mostly dismissed them as irrelevant until later on in the film when it all kicked off.

Burl Ives as Big Daddy did nothing to ease the mood upon his return from the clinic and his wife Ida (Judith Anderson) helped very little in calming things down too.

Aside from all the issues, the arguing and the noise from the undisciplined children, I did feel that I wanted to uncover what had lead to Brick's drinking and how things might be resolved should anything happen to Big Daddy.

I had previously been impressed with Tennessee Williams story 'A Streetcar Named Desire' (1951) both as a book and a film, so I may have put too much pressure on this one to wow me as that one had done, but although this wasn't outstanding I did still enjoy it.

I did feel that despite the changes to the story that excluded a homosexual connection, which I can only assume was between Brick and his old friend Skipper, it still felt as if Paul was trying to subtly imply it, because his emotions regarding the situation seemed heightened otherwise. I read in the trivia that he hadn't been happy that those elements had been removed.

I do look forward to reading this one to find out just how things should have gone down.

None of them were particularly nice people, but I did have to feel for Liz Taylor as Maggie. Nobody would give her a chance to talk, because she was allegedly in the wrong and of course in those times, just a woman that should heed her husband's wishes.

And to a degree I could understand Brick's feelings, especially knowing that he was supposed to be a bit homosexual in the book. I suppose that I could relate to his turmoil in a small way.

Of course with it being set in the mid 20th century it looked at alcoholism and depression in a very different way to how we do now. Much less sympathetic and also therefore without help available so freely as it is supposed to be now. Maggie seemed to be the only one sympathetic to Brick, which made his animosity towards her even harsher.

I felt that at the time it was written these might have been the issues that Tennessee was trying to raise awareness of.

I have to say that despite those beautiful blue eyes of his it wasn't actually Paul's best role for me, although I did think that Liz did well.

There was nothing else to say about any of the others specifically and nothing of note regarding the production itself, but overall I enjoyed it, look forward to reading it and would be interested to see it on stage too.

669.55/1000.

(Monty Python's) The Meaning Of Life (1983) -

The film started with a short, 'The Crimson Permanent' which was not just silly, but overly long too. Certainly not how I would have started it if I wanted people to keep watching, but then I didn't feel that what followed was much cop either.

I loved the Monty Python crew in 'Life Of Brian' (1979) and 'The Holy Grail' (1975), but with this effort they were just trying too hard to be too clever about religion and the corporate world. Taking a stab at them in ridicule, but without saying anything worthwhile or even getting any really good digs in. As a result it came off childish and actually quite dull.

I only got as far as the Sex Education segment before I felt that I could cringe no more, so I turned it off with no intention of returning to it ever again.

And some might say that I was having a sense of humour failure, but I saw nothing to laugh about throughout the entire first half of the film and I'm pretty sure that would have been the case on any given day.

Unscored as unfinished.

A Bridge Too Far (1977) -

As with 'The Longest Day' (1962) I appreciated the fact that everyone spoke the correct language or at least had the right accent. It really just made it feel more real.

It could very much be considered an equivalent of that film, but instead of being based on the D Day landings this one covered an attack that came shortly afterwards. An attempt to take control of a number of important bridges. Like that other film this one contained an all star cast and initially worked well for its epic depiction, although at times I did feel that it could have been edited down somewhat.

The cast generally all delivered suitable performances, with no one trying to hog the limelight or being too over the top.

For a change I felt that Burk Dogarde (Dirk Bogarde) was actually quite good in his role of Lieutenant General Browning. He's always generally annoyed me in his other films, but he felt right here.

It was also very easy to feel that I was able to get behind Michael Caine's character Lieutenant Colonel Vandeleur, because he played it so well as he always does. I might have liked to have seen more from him though.

However, Ryan O'Neal was incredibly cheesey, not the best of the bunch by a long shot. With that said I didn't even recognise Laurence Olivier without his usual slice of ham, so kudos to him too.

I didn't however feel that it was Anthony Hopkins best role. I thought that it was the character, Lieutenant Colonel Frost, more than his delivery, but something definitely irked me about it.

I liked the occasional first person perspectives of the parachuters, but it was a bit tough to tell who was who at times during the fighting, because one uniform looked much like the others when they're all covered in muck and it's all smokey.

And it was hard to believe that the Allies would ever win. They didn't seem to progress towards the various bridges because of any skill, but purely on flukey luck, when they did make any headway that was. It made me wonder how they ever won the war? I did feel that as war films go the Producers could have chosen a mission that was more successful. Although D-Day was a disaster, there was at least some success, but I didn't feel that this story was worth remembering for its terrible losses and lack of gain.

As with every other War film I couldn't help but think that it was all such a senseless waste of life and resources and ultimately what was the point? Pure War Games without any consideration for the consequences and collateral damage.

It was another one that could be used as a drinking game to take a shot every time you spot a famous face and perhaps being drunk might have made the ending more palatable.

So in summary, apart from the flat ending it was well put together and generally the acting was good, but I think that I'd rather watch 'The Longest Day', 'Bridge Over The River Kwai' (1957) or '1917' (2019) if I'm in the mood for a War story with a point and some heart.

646.15/1000.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) -

I really can't see why this film only has a 6.5 rating on IMDB. Yeah there were a few issues for the die hard fans and a few production issues, but the story was great and the action exciting. And Hugh Jackman was born to play this role. Also, you get to see his bum!

Of all the X-Men characters Wolverine has the most interesting origin story, so this was the right choice to start with.

And it wasn't just a generic slice of his life, it was a proper delivery from when his mutation first manifested almost all the way through to when we first met him in 'X-Men' (2000).

A montage over the beginning credits covered the periods that weren't necessarily as exciting or could be explored in more depth at another time, so that the story could kick start with a more mutant heavy period of his life.

I got to see why he has such animosity towards Sabretooth (Liev Schrieber) which again took me right up to their meeting in the first X film.

What followed was emotional and packed with great fights and tension and although some of the characters they introduced were not as strong as they should have been, those issues were later rectified in other films.

One of those being Gambit (Taylor Kitsch) who was wrongly cast here, especially as Channing Tatum fit so perfectly in the role for 'Deadpool & Wolverine' (2024).

One of the issues I did have with this one was the CGI which was not always that good and actually it was often used at times when a real shot would have worked far better too.

In particular when Wolverine stares at his claws in the mirror, it was a bit like trying to put 'Roger Rabbit' (1988) in to the real life scenes with Bob Hoskins. It looked so much like a cartoon.

But this is probably my favourite of the X-Men films. I'd always liked how they focussed on Wolvie even in the group efforts so a whole film dedicated to him was always going to tick my box.

909.11/1000.

Monsieur Verdoux (1947) -

Of the Charlie Chaplin spoken films that I've seen I would say that this was the best so far. Mostly because the story was clever, but also because it was probably the least reminiscent of his earlier silent films.

Don't get me wrong I really enjoyed his unspoken efforts, but I felt that the slapstick style, his expressions and affected ways worked better when they had to be so exaggerated to get the point across. There were a couple of times when that pantomime was still a bit too present here, but not to the degree that they were in 'The Great Dictator' (1940) and 'Limelight' (1952).

I'm pretty sure that I've seen a similar story done before, although I can't put my finger on what that was, but I did enjoy this telling of the trope as it followed Chuck in the lead role of Henri Verdoux, swindling every woman he came across in order to support the wife and child he loved. I also liked the moment where he chose to show kindness to Marilyn Nash in her role of The Girl as well, proving that he wasn't all bad.

There was nothing to mention regarding the production values or even the performances really. As a film of its time it was all delivered in a competent way that wasn't gruesome despite its subject matter.

I did miss The Tramp, but Henri was an interesting character, although I did feel that Mr. C was trying to get a bit too political towards the end, comparing Verdoux's crimes to the travesties of World War II. I wasn't sure that was necessary or comparable really.

I'd definitely watch it again, but I would probably be more inclined to tune in to his earlier works first.

604.85/1000.

Iris Prize: Best British Shorts - Ticker (2023) -

Well, regardless of the fact that the film was well edited, filmed and performed, I felt that it was pretty pointless in general.

It didn't really show the love between the two leading characters and actually seemed to suggest that they weren't that close at all. I supposed that the idea was that they had fallen in to a rut, but if you're taking a loved one to hospital you get over it all, do what needs to be done and show them how much they mean to you.

I did appreciate the fact that it was an LGBTQ representation of two older men who weren't taking drugs and clubbing every night for a change. Almost a suggestion of 'God's Own Country' (2017) what if, 40 years later.

As a fan of 'Queer As Folk' (1999) I did appreciate the casting of Howard played by Paul Copley because he had been such a homophobe in that series that it was almost as if he had redeemed himself in this one and again it could have been his character of Nathan's Dad years later after realising that it was okay to be gay himself.

I wouldn't rush back to see this one again or be able to recommend it because there just wasn't enough to it.

449.89/1000.

Cinderella (1) (1950) -

As I continue my journey to watch all of the Disney films in order I have to wonder what foul misery had taken over me when I last watched some of them, because this was the third film that I felt I had done wrong in my previous assessment of it.

It was sweet, very fairytale and full of that magic that only Disney can deliver, although I still thought that it was a bit too simplistic and definitely had some elements that were more of the time, including the mice that didn't talk properly, their broken English was really annoying. Either have them speak a specific language or squeak, but don't have them bumbling through with the odd understandable word and the rest spoken like a deaf person trying out new words for the first time, because for children and adults alike these films need to be clearer than that.

I have also found that the story itself has always been a bit flawed - Why didn't Cinderella's (Ilene Woods) glass slippers disappear at midnight? How come Prince Charming (William Phipps/Mike Douglas) was so in love, but he couldn't recognise the woman of his dreams without trying her shoe on? Why didn't the Stepmother (Eleanor Audley) and Evil Sisters (Rhoda Williams & Lucille Bliss) recognise Cinders at the ball, a haircut and pretty dress don't change you that much? And so on.

Also, what was wrong with every other girl in the city? And by today's standards how dare the Prince judge Cinderella purely on how she looked?

I did still feel that the ending happened too quickly and that I wanted to know more about the Prince, whether he was worthy of Cinderella or whether he was just some shallow 'Love Island' reject living on Daddy's wealth who only cared about appearances for one thing.

I also wanted more of an epilogue. The build up to show Cinders as a put upon Sister who was made to do all of the chores, but who still managed to have a heart of gold, had been quite long so I felt that she deserved a bigger, more spectacular wedding and finale to round things off. It needed to show that her hardships were over in a way that would balance the struggles out with joy.

Something to show her horrible "Family"getting their comeuppance would have been good too.

Other than that and if you don't take it so seriously it was a pleasant way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

It really didn't compare to my favourite 'Beauty And The Beast' (1991) but it did have a charm. I do still feel that the Live Action remake (2015) delivered the story better and made the romance more obvious between both Cinderella and the Prince though. It was the best of the remakes too in my opinion.

An enjoyable enough watch that didn't require too much brain power and will entertain the Disney Princess in everyone.

629.23/1000.

The Wrong Man (1956) -

I could see why this film was added to Stephen Schneider's Top 1001 Films To Watch list, because the story definitely brought something a bit different to the screen. Overall I liked it and the message it was sending. The way that it depicted how a false accusation could cause so much trouble for an innocent man and how "Innocent until proven guilty" didn't seem to be in every policeman's vocabulary.

As it was based on a true story I did have to wonder if the procedures used to determine his innocence or guilt and how he was treated in general were the way that the police did things back in 1953, because it all seemed very peculiar, even by the different standards of that time that I was aware of.

And even though there was something creepy about Manny (Henry Fonda) that made me wonder if it actually was him that had robbed the places and whether he might not be "The Right Man" I couldn't help but feel sorry for him. Perhaps it was the fact that Henry was quite wooden in his performance that made him a bit odd, but even though I could feel the tension for the poor man and his distress at the lack of interest and support that he received once the trial started, it was mostly through the direction and editing rather than Mr. Fonda's acting that I could sympathise with, because there was very little emotion portrayed by him.

I was also reminded of 'Witness For The Prosecution' (1957) where the defendant wasn't as pure in his intentions as I was lead to believe at the beginning of that film. That put a doubt in my mind about Manny as well. Although the title itself essentially proclaimed his position before I even started watching.

There was nothing in the construction of this film to report on for good or bad regarding lighting, sound, costume, location, set and so on. It did what it needed to without exceeding expectations or missing the mark entirely.

How do you prove your innocence in a world that's already condemned you and when your wife cannot be with you to support you? Watch this film and you might see.

I'd like to see a remake, because I really believed that the story had something to it and deserves another try, but if not this one will do nicely enough.

645.82/1000.

The Long Goodbye (1973) -

While I could appreciate that they were trying to set up what sort of character Philip Marlowe (Elliott Gould) was going to be, I did feel that the opening "Cat Food" scene went on a bit too long.

And apart from the extra long time it took to finally get started, I also didn't like the way that the back and forth with the police went when Marlowe was arrested. It was all over the top of each other and chaotic with the sound in general being cacophonous and unclear. There were too many overlapping noises. This was a problem throughout.

I wasn't overly impressed with John Williams out of tune and shrill musical tracks either. Using the titular song repeatedly seemed clever to start with, but then it got to be annoying and by the time the film got half way through I was sick of it.

IMDB has this one down as a comedy, but I definitely didn't feel that. It seemed to be more that Marlowe had a dry sense of humour and that was just his character, not that any jokes had been written in to the script, which for me is what a comedy is.

With a different Director he might have worked in the role, but it was just a bit all over the place for the story to flow properly and for his wit to translate.

I couldn't understand why Marlowe wouldn't just be honest with everyone. It would have made a lot more sense and have been easier on poor Jo-Ann (Jo Ann Brody).

And how did he come to his decisions about what was actually going on, because they definitely didn't show his thought processes or Detective work in any constructive way.

He could have stood to smoke less too, because it almost came across as if they were trying to show how many things you could light a match from.

His investigation of Roger Wade's (Sterling Hayden) disappearance, whilst also trying to work out why his own best friend, Jim Bouton as Terry Lennox, had murdered his wife and then killed himself was a jumble that involved some very shady people.

Henry Gibson had always seemed to play some weird and evil characters in other films, but his Dr Verringer in this one was really creepy and not that necessary, except perhaps as a Red Herring.

And when Mark Rydell as Augustine the gangster arrived the story got really irritating, especially when Phil wouldn't tell him what he knew, even to save his own skin. It wasn't bravado, it was stupid and others suffered the consequences.

Even Sterling Hayden couldn't save the film in his role of Roger Wade. I hadn't realised that he was so tall.

And to start with I couldn't tell if Nina Van Pallandt as Eileen Wade was an incredibly natural actor or really wooden, but I did decide shortly after that she was just bad. I certainly didn't feel that she was overly concerned about her missing Husband Roger.

It was such a typically 1970's production, but with all the bits that made films from that decade bad and with none of the bits that made some of them good. The dialogue was terrible and almost felt ad-libbed at times, but not well.

To be honest and especially after the first ten minutes, all I really cared about was whether the Cat (Morris The Cat) was okay.

I was so close to turning it off halfway through that I even came right out of it, back to the Home Screen. I stuck with it to find out how it all connected, but I really wished that I hadn't. However, by then there wasn't long enough left to bother turning it off.

Sadly it really wasn't worth it. What a terrible ending and then a really unlikely conclusion after that.

Sometimes I wonder what Stephen Schneider was thinking when he wrote his list of 1001 Films To Watch, because I've been unimpressed by quite a significant amount of them. This one was another disappointment, because although I generally love Mr. Gould the treatment here just didn't work.

Give me Bogart's Marlowe instead.

278.91/1000.

Last Tango In Paris (Ultimo Tango A Parigi)(1972/3) -

I can't be the only person who spent the first twenty minutes of this film trying to get the subtitles to come up for the French spoken dialogue? I just couldn't imagine that it was actually supposed to be like that and how was I supposed to enjoy it when I couldn't understand half of it? I felt that I was losing so much of the tension building and thought provocation without that knowledge of what was being said between them. Was it a chance encounter or had they arranged for these strange meetings?

Because of that I was frustrated by everything else too. The previously sexy Marlon Brando in his role of Paul was pretty gross as well.

This may have been a groundbreaking film for the perverts who needed to get their rocks off without going to one of "Those" cinemas, but for me it just felt cheap and sordid, an attempt to push boundaries that I may have found revolutionary or titillating back in 1972 (If I'd been born), but I certainly didn't think that it had stood the test of time, especially when considering films like 'Shame' (2011) and even the TV series 'Queer As Folk' (1999), both of which pushed boundaries whilst also having a story and graspability.

Overall it annoyed me so much that I turned it off. That and I felt that it really wasn't going to be my type of thing anyway. Maybe the good stuff happened after the first hour, but I couldn't wait that long.

Unscored as Unfinished.

Gilda (1946) -

Ooh what a temptress Rita Hayworth was in her titular role of Gilda. Although her charms have never really had that much effect on me, I actually really enjoyed her performance in this one. She played Glen Ford in his role of Johnny like a fiddle and didn't care when any of the strings snapped. Meanwhile her Husband Balin (George Macready) had his own secrets and while he knew that there was something in Johnny and Gilda's past he let it play out.

Actually I felt that there was a lot of tension built because everyone knew that something was going on with each of the others in the love V (Not a triangle, because that implies it's complete on all 3 sides), but no one would admit to anything or even be truthful about the simplest things for that matter. And while that would normally have annoyed me, have me screaming at the TV "Just tell them", it didn't in this one for some reason.

Some of them had more secrets than others which certainly kept it interesting and I was keen to find out what they all were.

And there were so many other suspicious characters creating intrigue too. Why are there German's in the casino so soon after World War II and how come that little man always wins at roulette when he bets on number two?

I liked the narrative, it wasn't too over complicated despite all of the side stories and seemed to answer most of the questions raised by the conclusion of it.

Their ending together was a bit too convenient, but that was all.

This would be a great film to remake now, set at the same time or modernised, but I wonder whether you would get someone to play the parts so well. George wasn't overly amazing, but Glen did a good job, just not as good as Rita.

628.21/1000.

Things To Come (1936) -

It was startling to think that H. G. Wells could see our future even back then and despite his almost ridicule of what he depicted we still didn't learn anything.

Wars and plagues ravaged the planet, but those that remained still found a need to fight instead of learn from the mistakes and rebuild.

Eventually it came to be that society did learn and built a brighter better world for everyone and yet there was still one idiot that stirred up trouble.

I did feel that it was a shame that our future/present didn't become the ideal depicted here, because the film did kind of show that we could do it if we put our minds to it. Perhaps we need to face near extinction for it to happen, oh wait, aren't we on the brink of that anyway?

In general some of the acting was pretty bad even for 1936. Surprisingly Ralph Richardson wasn't exactly on top form in his role of The Boss while some of the others didn't even seem to be trying, but the story saved it regardless.

Funnily enough for a film from 1936 the special effects were really quite good. I certainly would have believed them if I'd been around back then.

The montage of building the new world, showing clean factories and "Futuristic" looking buildings was a bit long though, but not so bad that it was unbearable.

As it came to an end there was a sense of balance as it suggested that advancement for the sake of it could also be damaging, although my gut still told me to stick with Raymond Massey as Cabal.

I supposed that you could say it was a sort of precursor to 'Cloud Atlas' (2012), especially with its repeated use of the same actors as descendants of their first depictions and the similar themes.

I was surprised to see that the only attempts to make it again were a futuristic effort with Jack Pallance* and a dodgy 70's porn looking thing, but it is definitely due for a remake. It's too scary to think how true the subject matter is in our current time of uncertainty though, with floppy blonde haired idiots gaining support overseas while a Napoleon complexed man in mid Europe is determined to have war and I can't even remember which Prime Minister we're on in this country.

As for this film though, it actually wasn't a bad little effort. I will definitely look out for the book now.

619.05/1000.

*The Shape Of Things To Come (1979)

Modern Times (1936) -

It was an odd combination of sound and silence but I liked it.

An early commentary on the abuses of power in industry and the treatment of the common worker, Charlie was once again standing up for the little man and in a way that I felt was more appropriate than some of his other attempts - The Great Dictator (1940) & Monsieur Verdoux )1947).

I liked that Chuck was still not really very talkative and that most of his comedy was physical, while the others delivered the lines to go with his shenanigans. In my opinion this balance worked where his later efforts to include the slapstick and cutesieness in his talkies didn't.

The Tramp being shy and almost mute was one of his endearing qualities.

As the story developed and The Tramp moved on to other jobs, met a girl (Paulette Goddard) and went roller skating, there was plenty of fun to be had.

I didn't know why Sammy Stein as the Turbine Operator at the first factory was topless all the time though, but I enjoyed it and I also liked the clever effects that, for the time were very well done and some of the mechanisms were very interesting too.

It wasn't the best of his silent movies - I still giggle at the boxing scene in my favourite of his films 'City Lights' (1931) as and when it strays back in to my thoughts - but this was definitely a valiant effort and one to be enjoyed again and again. I'm so pleased that I bothered to invest my time with these films, because it really wasn't a waste at all.

666.77/1000.

John Malkovich: Just Call Me God (A Dictator's Final Speech)(2017) -

My first reaction to this work was that I hoped the organ music sounded better in the actual theatre, because it sounded awful on TV.

And then just like that I thought Wow, because I couldn't believe how quickly I decided that I couldn't watch any more of it. I had expected it to be slightly odd, because and I mean no offence to him, but John Malkovich has always played some quirky interesting characters, but this was childish, silly and his dictator character was sooo angry it was almost uncomfortable to watch.

Perhaps if I'd put up with it longer I would have been surprised by some fantastic ending, but I prefer my films, TV programmes and stage plays to keep me entertained all the way through, not just at the end.

Unscored as Unfinished.

The Jesus Rolls (2019) -

I only watched this film because of the cult status of 'The Big Lebowski' (1998), which contained the character of Jesus played by John Turturro and reprised here. I liked that film, but this one probably wouldn't have been something that I would have bothered about otherwise, purely based on the synopsis.

Sadly my initial idea that it wouldn't be something I liked was confirmed within minutes, because it was all just nonsense and the characters were idiots. As such I just couldn't dedicate my time to it when there are so many other great films and shows to watch.

Even though I love Bobby Cannavale, he just wasn't enough in his role of Petey to keep me watching.

Unscored as Unfinished.

The Three Caballeros (2) (1944) -

As this cartoon started out I felt that it was definitely better than its predecessor 'Saludos Amigos' (1942). It seemed to have more structure and in general a bit more fun that was still as enjoyable today. It didn't seem to be trying to force the geography lesson as much as the first attempt, but let it flow more organically.

I did still feel that it would have been better broken in to three smaller stories though, because it was a lot to take in one go. These sorts of things are cute for fifteen minutes, but lumped together they can be a bit same old, same old.

I liked the animation, although there were many times where I felt that it could be something for stoners to watch when they're on a trip, because it was a bit bright and psychedelic in some moments.

One of the positives I thought was that it would be good for kids who spoke the other languages depicted, although I was quite lost not knowing the languages at all. I know if I was a kid watching Disney films, I wouldn't want it all to be dubbed or subtitled, so it seemed inclusive to a degree at least.

The live action bits however went on a bit too long for me, especially as it got closer to the end of the film when I started to feel that I was ready for Donald (Clarence Nash), José (José Oliveira) and Panchito's (Joaquin Garay) journey to come to an end.

And actually the last five minutes or so of the Mexican bit was really trippy and a bit rapey too, with Donald lecherously chasing women around.

Generally it was not the worst cartoon I've seen and I thought that kids would enjoy the bright colours and cheerful characters, but I felt that if I was watching it with a child that I would have to tell them what a naughty Duck Donald was for being so pervy.

563.52/1000.

Gandhi (1982) -

I came to this one quite a long time after its initial release and so I had seen many other films that had covered the same sort of topics. As such I am now quite frankly sick and tired of films about inequality, whether that be in the form of racism, sexism, homophobia or discrimination of any sort, not because the subject is boring or necessarily makes a bad film, but purely because it still exists and has ever existed. I am so exhausted of this world full of hate and I felt that I might have enjoyed this film more if I could have looked back on the need for Gandhi's actions as something that is no longer necessary, something that was a thing of the long gone past, but I just know that we're still not really much further on from where we were as a species when he left us in 1948.

A few months ago I started watching a film, that was set much more recently, called 'Jai Bhim' (2021) in which a caste system in India was very much still in place. The violence shown in much more detail than in this film was so intense that I had to stop it half way through to watch the rest when I can endure the hate and evil with more strength, because it physically upsets me and messes with me mentally that these behaviours have ever been acceptable, let alone are still considered acceptable by some today. But essentially it's still the same problem in a different time. In fact, from what I could tell, the storyline of 'Jai Bhim' bore a strong similarity to storyline in this film.

I'd been holding on to 'Gandhi' for a while, but I finally had enough time and felt ready to watch it in its epic length. I might have been put off by the more recent rumours of Gandhi not actually being as holy and nice as he was depicted in this film by Ben Kingsley, no matter how well he did in the role. I certainly didn't see Ben as an actor, I only saw Gandhi so that said a lot about his performance

I really hate discrimination of any kind, so I didn't enjoy the theme of this film right from the beginning. I've never understood how anyone could look at another person and think them unworthy of the same rights, let alone governments doing it.

How is the message still not clear? It really shouldn't be so hard to love one another. I'm a British white man so I have never really faced any racism except that of my Welsh and Scottish friends deliberately supporting any sports teams except the English, but I have felt adversity in the form of homophobia and again it just doesn't make sense to me.

That feeling of fighting that was so obvious and ultimately the drive of this film made it a bit draining. Who really needs to see people having to fight over and over again for their freedoms and even sometimes just fighting? The world has enough of that in real life, just watch the news.

I could however see why this effort by Richard Attenborough was so successful and so well revered at its time of release and why it has remained a classic that appears on no less than 3 of the top films lists that I am crossing off, but because I was watching it for the first time over 40 years later and because it wasn't a story that I enjoyed as such, I can't say that it would be a film that I would return to in any great hurry.

It was only a bit dated by today's standards so I couldn't really say that there was anything at fault with it except for the very subject of it and that itself was possibly for only me personally. I just don't like to see such nastiness in the world, although I could only imagine how horrifically realistic it would be if his story was made today. Would it perhaps include Ghandi's own alleged racism though and the servants he was alleged to have had too?

General Dyer's (Edward Fox) part in it made me incredibly nauseous and even more angry. I am sad to say that until I read the IMDB Trivia I hadn't known whether it was an event that had really happened or not. To find out it was filled me with bile.

I did feel that it must have been hard for the British actors to play the pompous asses that were so ignorant to what they were doing, but I also felt a great shame that citizens of my country or the world had ever acted like that. It was all depicted as so matter of fact, like "We have conquered you so you will do what we say even in your own country!". Grrr!

And the way that the people's minds changed so easily with every slight just proved that we are all just inherently evil and that there is no hope for the human race. The atrocities depicted in Calcutta were no different to those that are happening in the world now.

As a biopic of such an historically important man I felt that it covered all that it needed to of his life, even without any information about his time as a child and younger man. And of course it included the momentous events that he brought to be as well making it a double edged story with a good balance of the man and the achievements felt globally because of his actions/inaction.

Based on this depiction I might consider him to be a logical man probably more than spiritual, because it didn't harp on about his religious beliefs too much, but instead showed that he was trying to change the politics of the world while being as peaceful about it as he could, which to me just made sense.

If it wasn't such a long film, watching it would make a good drinking game. Every time someone really famous appears you take a shot. There were lots of them so I'd be sloshed within the first hour and dead before the end of the second, but it might make it more bearable?

It does score higher for being a well made film and despite my dislike for the subject matter, but I have had to take that in to account. Perhaps with a bit more light to balance the dark I might have given it an extra point.

769.29/1000.

Close (2022) -

It's definitely better that we live in a world where people stop to think about what they should actually say, although it is a miracle that we as a race ever survived this far without a mindset along those lines until recently. But what this film did in abundance and probably primarily above all else was to show the spiral and the awful things that can come from carelessly spoken words, what they can do to a friendship and how easily the innocence of youth can be lost, just like that.

It started with the two leading boys playing happily and without care about what others thought of them or how they interacted, because no seed of doubt had been planted. Perhaps an experienced adult might look at their relationship and see something more than friendship, but that wasn't essentially explored and I felt that the whole emotion of the story was better for that not knowing either way whether they loved each other like that or not. It wasn't the point that the film was trying to make.

With the start of secondary school things progressed and the tension in their friendship developed. Poor Remi played very well by Gustav De Waele made me so sad, because I really felt what he was going through.

As things moved on further and Leo took the spotlight more I could clearly feel with him too. Eden Dambrine in that role, who had apparently been spotted on a train by the Director, should go far as an actor, because I couldn't help but get sucked in to what was going on his life, by his actions, inactions and what he did or didn't say. Clearly he has a natural talent for acting.

When the TV synopsis said that the film would contain scenes that some might find upsetting I thought that there might be bullying, rape or bloody violence. I didn't think that it would be something so soul crushing.

It kept the pain going so that just when I thought I'd stopped crying and things were going to get better I found that I was reaching for the tissues to blow my nose again, but in a way that was pure and necessary, perhaps even cleansing to a certain degree.

It was a real close up of grief and depression under a microscope. It washed me out a bit, but I didn't feel as if it had been a bad experience at all. Some might say that it was cathartic.

I did get the impression that the translated subtitles weren't always giving me an accurate reading of what was being said and as such I thought that I might have been missing even more substance.

My only other criticism was that there was a bit too much of the Ice Hockey moments, but that's just nitpicking to give some balance to a review that really is only complimentary

It was so naturally filmed and simply acted, slow, but thoughtful and very engaging. A few days later and I'm still feeling the sadness of it, but I would definitely recommend it and although I wouldn't want to watch it every week like 'Star Wars' (1977) or 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show' (1975) it had its own appeal that perhaps only needs to be seen every ten years or so.

909.15/1000.

The Boston Strangler (1968) -

This film didn't feel as threatening as a piece about a serial killer should.

I didn't feel the danger at all, although the women who opened their doors to the murderer really got on my nerves, as if the reports about them hadn't been all over the news and surely discussed amongst the masses. People across the globe probably took precautions against the danger, reminded that these people are out there everywhere so that depiction made it hard to feel sorry for them and with the exception of Dianne (Sally Kellerman) they didn't really explore the women in any detail to really feel anything for them at all, except as supporting artists that moved the story on. It didn't seem to be focussed enough on any person or group of people to see whose perspective it was supposed to be from. It was very bitty and as such a bit inconclusive for everyone, with no one to specifically get behind as the champion of the piece.

It was also annoying to know in advance who the "Strangler" was played by, because there was no excitement then regarding those interviewed in the investigations during the build up. I knew which actor I was looking out for and what the murderers actual name was, so I would advise those coming to it fresh not to read anything more about this film or the strangler before you start.

It did seem to show that the detectives on the case were doing all they could to find the killer and that was probably the clearest part of the film, but even then, because of the script and terrible sound quality it was difficult to follow.

Even from the beginning the split screen idea was really quite distracting and combined with George Kennedy, famous for his role in the 'Naked Gun' (1988/91&94) films, here playing one of the Detectives tracking the strangler it made things seem a bit comedic too.

As the film progressed the messing with the multiple pictures actually became very irritating and artsy fartsy just for the sake of it. I couldn't tell why people weren't reacting to someone else suddenly being in the same room, because it wasn't actually the case, but just the way the two camera views blended together, especially difficult to distinguish due to the late 1960's dark filming style and filters.

I felt that the whole film was actually a bit unclear and even the dialogue was jumbled at times. Overall it was just not that well made. Some of the acting was bad, some seemed indifferent, but nobody stood out as delivering something special.

I was also annoyed that the Psychic, Hurkos' (George Voskovec) error was never explained, which was very frustrating. It was another thing that just wasn't wrapped up.

I didn't and still don't know the full extent of the stranglers mental health issues, but I did feel that they were perhaps a tad too sympathetic towards them in this telling of the story. I know I would have been pissed with this depiction if one of my family had been killed by them only a few years before the film was made.

In modern terms I supposed that you could compare him to 'Moon Knight' (2022) if Oscar Isaac's characters had a thing for strangling people.

My only other note was that after a while it became really obvious that they'd doctored the nose of the killer to make them look different and to distinguish them from their previous mostly comedic characters.

I might be tempted to watch one of the Made For TV interpretations of the story to see if they did it more justice and offered a clearer explanation of the events, but I'm certainly not in any hurry to do so. However I doubt that I will watch this one again.

475.69/1000.

The Far Country (1954) -

This definitely wasn't my favourite James Stewart film. His performance as Jeff was fine, but the character really wasn't very likeable which made it hard to take an interest in him. I'm not saying that Jim should only have ever played nice guys, but this one wasn't even a loveable rogue type, he was just indifferent and selfish and even his redemption arc was based purely on revenge and not because he wanted to be a better person.

His cattle herding and gold panning partner Ben was played by Walter Brennan who was done, but really didn't deliver anything new either.

And Corinne Calvet as Renee was really quite annoying too, more like a panto character than a screen actor.

As for Jeff's alleged romance with Ruth Roman in the role of Ronda I just couldn't see it. There was no depth, no passion and no apparent interest on Jeff's part, because he was so self centred that she seemed to be just another thing that existed in the world to be used by him like a shovel or a coffee pot.

The whole film was just a bit of a jumble, one minute cow herding, the next murder, then gold hunting. Nothing really made sense, because the script was a bit lame and it didn't have a clear path. When something finally did happen, it was over quickly and that was the end of the film.

I usually love James, but this story of the Wild West, the gold rush and corrupt law enforcers just didn't have the excitement that it needed and the direction seemed a bit wishy washy.

466.75/1000.

Eric And Ernie (2011) -

I remembered enjoying this greatly when I first saw it, for its strong castings and wonderful humour, but I had begun to doubt myself after rewatching 'Rather You Than Me' (2008), the similar Frankie Howerd BBC biopic, which didn't resound as well as I had recalled.

My fears were needless though because I thoroughly loved this exploration of Morecambe & Wise's early years.

The script and direction cleverly sculpted the path to define where and how some of the humour might have been formed and used suggestions to represent what I knew that the two jokers became.

Vic Reeves (Jim Moir) and Victoria Wood worked really well as Eric's parents and again I could see how they shaped Eric's onstage persona. I didn't think that the smoking suited her though, looking as if she was an actor with a prop and that she didn't really like it. It sounds nitpicky, but it really jarred for me. I was surprised to see very little about Ernie's parents though.

As for Daniel Rigby as Eric himself, he absolutely stole the show. He had clearly studied the man to get all of his inflections and mannerisms. It was hard to remember that he wasn't the actual comedian in question.

Bryan Dick in the role of Ernie was good too, but he didn't quite pack the same punch. The younger incarnation played by Josh Benson could have been something from an old Wise family home movie though, because he nailed Little Ern.

Overall I felt that the casting was spot on, they all looked and acted like they belonged in that era. I never once thought that I wasn't watching something from that time. The sets, costumes etc were all appropriate too.

Although it was essentially a very well done drama I also loved the humour throughout. I could absolutely see those kids growing into those teens in to those men that I've laughed at for years and how the jokes and affectations matured into their acts.

From their earliest days of pageantry to their first appearance on BBC, It was a very worthwhile piece about a pair of comic geniuses that was highly entertaining. A masterpiece in how to do a biopic properly and one that I would have liked to have seen a sequel to.

919.81/1000.

The Amityville Horror (1) (1979) -

As someone who's not a horror fan I made it through this one without ever feeling particularly scared, because 45 years after its original release it just didn't have the fright factor that it might have done at the time and it didn't help that I couldn't really get that invested in the story either.

While it didn't give me anywhere near enough enjoyment to warrant me sitting through the 100 sequels that followed, I might be tempted to sit through the 2005 remake, mostly for sexy Ryan Reynolds, but perhaps also to see if they did a better job with the effects and the tension of the drama that was missing in this one.

The horror itself was all too subtle really, even for me. And it was still all just a bit tame at the end when the ghostly, demonic occupants of the house really went for it to get the new residents out. Also the weird pig thing was just a very odd choice and had no place in the story as far as I could tell, not being set on a pig farm, focussed on a possessed stuffed toy or something similar.

I felt that it took them an inordinate amount of time to empty their boxes and fully move in too. Whether that was a metaphor for how they subconsciously didn't actually want to live there who knows, but it just seemed like the set dressers and continuity people had forgotten how much time was supposed to have passed.

I also couldn't work out why the Police Sergeant Gionfriddo (Val Avery) was keeping an eye on their house or why he then followed the priest? Although Father Richard Bolen (Don Stroud) did come across as if he should be on a register somewhere?

That whole investigative side of the story was very vague and without enough other context or a resolution felt irrelevant to the rest of the tale.

Other than that I thought that there were some interesting costume and hair choices for Margot Kidder as Kathy Lutz. Were they going for a catholic school girl vibe? Those pigtails? That skirt? Very peculiar.

And I can't be the only one that thinks James Brolin, who played George Lutz, looked like Christian Bale or vice versa? Someone should do a DNA test.

For me a horror film needs to have a good storyline and then be backed up with good performances direction and special effects to keep my interest. This one should have been a good story and for the late 1970's the acting abilities, of the adults at least, weren't that bad but somehow nothing really gelled together.

Maybe it was based too much on the book which was allegedly a fabrication by the Lutz family who were living in the house when these things supposedly took place, but it definitely needed some refinement for the screen and a better screenplay/script in general. Perhaps the weird pig would have made more sense and I'll find out why if I ever read the novel? I also think it needed more interaction with the kids to really drive the fear.

Not one for my rewatch list but maybe the remake will get a try?

516.17/1000.

Limelight (1952) -

I still titter to myself when I think of the boxing match in 'City Lights' (1931) and I was surprised in general to find out just how much I enjoyed the silent films made and performed by Charlie Chaplin, but I don't think that his spoken word efforts have been quite as enjoyable.

Maybe his style of slightly exaggerated actions and his affectations just didn't translate across to the speaky, but in this particular one I didn't really rate his performance at all. His character of Calvero was wooden at times and his delivery was a bit paint by numbers, without any real heart to it. Going through the motions and lacking E-motion.

The production was all very twee and basic and certainly seemed to have been made with a budget much smaller than his previous efforts.

The fake Thames backgrounds for instance were so badly done and not even necessary for the story to work.

And Chuck looked really creepy as the clown in the Columbine ballet scenes.

I did think that the story of a fading clown helping a damaged ballerina back in to the world of entertainment, whilst also trying to get back on his own feet had potential, but the delivery was just not there. The comedy elements that the Tramp like clown performed were just not funny, as if Charles had tried so hard to make this story serious that he'd forgotten that the comedic moments should still be hilarious to balance that out.

The flea circus dream bit was quite embarrassing to watch, especially when I considered the genius comedy that had come from him before. In fact the next flashback/dream was daft too and even his "Final Act" with another Hollywood icon Buster Keaton was just not worthy of their genius.

I also felt that the timing was odd for them to be putting on shows and touring Europe in 1914, while a war, which they even acknowledged, was raging, unless I missed the point where it said "4 Years Later" or something?

I could absolutely see this working if it was remade today with a few tweaks, because the story was sweet and worthwhile, but I do feel that a new version would have to acknowledge Calvero's own real feelings towards Terry The Ballerina (Claire Bloom) to show how hard it was to set her free, which was one of the huge things that let it down on Calvero's part for me.

Maybe Chuck should have stuck to making silent films, even after they'd gone out of fashion or at least the Tramp's shenanigans could have all been treated that way to keep them relevant, while the supporting cast maybe did the talking. Its too late now I suppose, but I do know that I will probably not look to see this one again, while I will definitely search out 'City Lights', 'The Kid' (1921) and 'The Circus' (1928).

447.45/1000.