Change Your Image
Yealander
Reviews
Dad's Army (2016)
If like me, you have a fond memory of Dad's Army, but haven't seen the endless re-runs for at least the last 20 years, you may just love this.
I liked this film. So who is it aimed at? Well, if you're a die-hard Dad's Army fan, I suspect there will be far too many reasons not to like this film. Lots of inconsistencies with the original characterisation, writing, format and style. Let's face it, the original casting and writing was iconic... You won't repeat or beat that. If you are a Dad's Army virgin, I find it hard to imagine you will get this film, unless you are totally fascinated by British culture in WW2. However, If like me, you have a fond memory of Dad's Army, but haven't seen the endless re-runs for at least the last 20 years, you may just love this. I did. It might help if u also like "Eye Of The Needle" (which overlaps the same real-life plot elements) and the film "Enigma" (etc), which I do. So, it's plot is derivative, and the visual style is totally cliché cinematic Teal and Orange (and out the other side) with narrow depth of field, but this is supposed to have a vintage comedy feel, so I let that go. What you get is a totally stellar cast, who really are channelling the original cast. Which is impressive as many of these guys are much more famous than some of the original cast. But the new cast know the originals where maybe not all famous but were all totally right for the part. The originals were all perfectly cast, defined the roles, even if they never to exceeded them in their careers. This is a marvellous and respectful comedy with some real comic moments, that will never exceed the original, buit I thinks it does work for those of us with warm childhood memories of the original series. And then there is the spot the original cast cameo moments... So lovely I can't understand the low rating and can only presume its because people revere the original version.
Round Ireland with a Fridge (2010)
Flawed but funny
I will be up front with you, I came to this film highly biased and expecting good things. Let's cover the good news first. I think Tony Hawks is a very endearing and clever comedian, who wrote a marvellous and successful book "Round Ireland with a Fridge". Ed Bye is an experienced TV director who has his name associated with some of the most successful British TV comedy output of the last three decades (including Red Dwarf). The cast contains some of my favourite entertainers. The sound track contains some charming music, co-written by TH, which usually fits the film (but maybe not always). For those who love watching films with a bit of scenery, the Irish countryside in this film is first rate and very well photographed – even when it is raining.
So it's a resounding success - yes? Errr – I am so sorry Tony, for me it is a flawed gem. Something went wrong that made a film with a potential 9 out of 10 ingredients into a one that even a TH fan could only give 7/10.
So what went wrong? Well I suspect some would say quite a lot – but I only found two aspects really affected my enjoyment.
Others have already commented about wooden acting. That was exactly how I interpreted the beginning of the film too. Tony sounds like he is reading the words rather than performing the part. Having just seen him live a few hours earlier, it was hard to reconcile that it was the same man. However, around 40 minutes into the film, Tony totally changes gear and we get a lot more of his usual whimsical style. At this point, the rest of the film follows TH in changing atmosphere – for the better. The Irish actors who are introduces from this point on are playing much more interesting characters than the dull people we have met so far and playing them with more comedy.
Then I realised – the wooden acting and dull English characters were all "sort of" deliberate. You see, I think the whole idea was that we are seeing a man who, despite a meteoric rise in his early career, has lost his way. Things are so bad he is now reduced to being daytime TV regular - a second rate one at that. What the portrayal is trying to communicate is that somewhere along the way in Ireland, the magic comes back into his life. I can only assume it's supposed to be the journey "back to the real Tony". Tony is coming back from the dead, so that MIGHT be the rationale behind the initial lifeless performance.
Deliberate though the inexpressive performance might be, I think the strategy was badly misjudged and formed the first big obstacle with this film is: was I prepared to sit through 40 minutes of watching a lifeless performance from someone who (at this stage) has lost the ability to be entertaining AND seems to be on a downward trajectory? Not everyone's cup of tea I suspect, but I had "faith in the fridge" and plenty of time on my hands, so luckily I persisted.
I have wondered if radical editing might have helped with the start of the film. Maybe a 50 minute TV special would have better matched the material.
Then we hit a second problem. There is not really enough content to show the magic of the middle part of the trip and the endearing characters Tony meets on his journey, before we rush into the charming love interest story. Not all is lost as there certainly are hints of the entertainingly off-beat (comic) experiences that are so well communicated in the book, but I felt that they were rushed, particularly having spent such a long time in the wilderness.
If you are a fan of (Radio 4 style) British / Irish humour and Tony Hawks then I think you will forgive these flaws and will still be glad you watched the film, like I did. Its just a pity it did not turn out to be the faultless classic it might have been.
Nosferatu - Phantom der Nacht (1979)
Flawed but compelling and refreshingly different from Hollywood.
Before I start, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed this film and was happy to watch it to the end. So let's get the bad stuff out of the way before I tell u why I recommend watching this film at least once in your life
The aspect that I found the most surprisingly disappointing is the sound. Here I am only commenting on the English version of the film and maybe the German version is much better. The sound just does not flow and this partly because the ADR and Foley jar as the acoustics never match what we see on screen. The dialogue always sounds like it was recorded in a sound proof booth and never on location. The sound track has poorly executed fade outs and jump cuts. The quality and insistent "hiss" are difficult to forgive, even for 1979. Think 1960s Spaghetti Western recorded on VHS. And yet, just like the Spag Westerns there are some great sound moments – much of the music is very atmospheric and I felt it actively advances the audiences understanding of what is being shown on the screen. It just needs a major remixing to flow.
The quality of the acting (with the exception of Klaus Kinski) was fairly mechanical. Maybe I was missing the point, but the way the reacted to the various events tended to be artificially late and over theatrical. Was this supposed to be reminiscent of the silent era or was it just poor – maybe you should decide for yourself. The English dialogue they had to work with was not well written and not well delivered. English would not have been the actor's mother tongue so maybe it works much better in the German version. And yet
and yet, all this odd acting
I cannot say it actually detracted as much as it should. In fact I found it gave the whole thing a strange atmosphere which may have even matched the mood of the film.
There visual side of the film is better, if occasionally inconsistent. Always visually interesting and unconventionally shot, it never loses interest. The historical anachronisms are so grating that I chose to consider them as part of the surreal texture of the film.
The way the film is edited did not really impress me. It gave me the impression of being assembled rather than cleverly edited. I generally like a occasional lingering shot of a beautifully / cleverly framed subject that give me time to ponder what the director is trying to communicate, but some shots lingered long, long, long after they had ceased to advance the plot or visually stimulate. For example, there is a shot of a wall where actors had exited stage left several seconds ago and a panning shot of a stage coach lasting 40 odd seconds before cutting to two more ponderous shot of the stage coach's stately procession. OK, I admit, it was a nice castle wall and beautifully framed stage coach set against stunning backgrounds
And yet despite what sounds like condemning criticisms, I did find the film compelling. I am not going to criticise the plot as although it is minimal, it is sufficient. Dracula films frequently avoid over elaborate plots as they don't seem to need to tell a long story to take us on a thrilling journey to the world of vampires. Despite the inconsistent editing, poor sound and "unusual" acting styles, for me it really did have a unique and compelling atmosphere.
Then there is Klaus Kinski. Dracula has been played by countless actors, but I think Klaus Kinski really succeeded in getting as close as possible to showing us something truly original while still being recognisably Dracula. This is a really creepy Dracula and while I found the persona revolting I did catch myself feeling some sympathy. Klaus played Dracula more like an instinctive creature than an evil human and so it is very impressive I could still identify with this ghastly wretch. There was never even the remotest chance of someone stealing the scene while Klaus is in shot. Maybe the so-so acting of the supporting cast serves the film well in making Klaus' brilliance all the more impressive?