john-ruffle Reviews

The Last Airbender (2010)

Actually, One of this summer's BETTER Films!

[8/10 · 19 August 2010]

I nearly skipped this film, it has almost universally bad reviews, but my 12 year old son and his friend really wanted to see it, we made a family outing of it, with me fearing the worst! I was very pleasantly surprised, and found the film a serious attempt to address a spirituality that is not widely understood in the west. Maybe this is one reason why the film has been panned. I then looked at audience reviews a little closer, and I realise that most of those who disliked it - no, HATED it - were already fans of the cartoon versions. It falls into place; having never seen any other versions I was coming to the film fresh. What I did recognise was the Dala Lama in the little boy Avator, and this lent the film authenticity.

As a Christian, it may seem strange that I am endorsing a film that is rooted in eastern mysticism. First of all, it is a worthy attempt at a challenging subject, and I found the performances - while approached with simplicity - quite in keeping with the mystical nature of the material. The second point is that it has a non-violence theme, and sends the message 5that some things in the realm of the spirit should not be manipulated by humans.

The musical score fitted the action seamlessly - so much so, I hope it gets an Oscar nomination; at one point, there is total silence as our heroes walk on ice... the silence is deafening and very dramatic.

The most mystical part of this production is WHY so many people have failed to connect with the film. The one down-side I have to agree with is that they really did not try with the 3D. But even this did not spoil the film for me. Yes, I will pay good money to see the sequel!

Millions Like Us (1943)

Brilliantly Executed and Historically Important: British Cinema at its Best

[10/10 · 1 April 2009]

This film, produced by Gainsborough Studios in London, (which was based in Islington, north London), was actually almost beyond reasonable doubt, made at Lime Grove Studios in Shepherd's Bush. This may help if any film buffs are interested in trying to recognise locations. (I live very close to where these old studios used to be, so you could say I have a vested interest!) "During World War II, the tall factory chimney on the (Islington) site was considered dangerous in the event of bombing, and Gainsborough Studios were evacuated to Lime Grove for the duration of the war." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gainsborough_Pictures

Back to the film however. This is a very important British film that should be watched be everyone with any interest at all in 20th Century British history and/or cultural influences. What makes this film special is that it was made and released actually during World War II, and it has an immediacy and impact that a retrospective war film simply cannot have. It is, therefore a historical document of great value. It is also a great film. Not simple "good", but "great". The plotting is good, the acting is good... but in particular, watch for the superb "montage" sequences that typify British cinema of the era, both dramatic works and documentary.

Fortunataely, the Daily Mail gave a DVD of the film away free in early 2009, so getting hold of a copy should not be too hard for folks in reach of a British charity shop. I don't know if the DVD is region-restricted, so readers in other parts of the world may have greater difficulty getting a copy if this.

The domestic sibling rivalry in the first act of the picture is particularly telling, and the banter reveals not ancient customs, but rather, reveals just how little has changed in teenage attitudes in over 65 years - an entire generation and a half ago! Look for the elder daughter painting her toe-nails. Attitudes toward the opposite sex also don't seem dated at all, despite the so-called (and largely very regrettable) "sexual revolution" of the 1960s and beyond.

Histroical dramas are such a popular genre today. However, they all have to re-create the past from a matrix formed from present perceptions. However well executed, they can never entirely reach beyond the auteurs' perceptions of the past. This film, however, is indeed a genuine time capsule. Yes, it was a contribution to the war effort, and so some would relegate it to propaganda. But look beyond that. These WERE the times they lived in! As has been noted by another writer, the reference to the "United Nations" in the film, several years before the creation of the "United Nations" cannot possibly be a historical "mistake" (If you want to find out HOW this reference ended up in the dialogue, read the "trivea" comments!) For those in USA and other parts of the world, from the boiling hot 1920s Morris "Bulnose" Oxford open tourer to the railway arches and dance halls... this WAS how we lived in Britain in that age!

Grey Owl (1999)

Bond in the Wilderness?

[3/10 · 5 November 2007]

James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.

The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.

But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.

I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.

William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.

Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.

Singin' in the Rain (1952)

Timeless Perfection from Hollywood's Studio System

[10/10 · 5 September 2007]

Up there with film classics such as 'Casablanca' and Orson Wells' groundbreaking 'Citizen Kane', 'Singin' in the Rain' is one of the all-time top films to come out of Hollywood. Considered by many (including the American Film Institute) to be the greatest film musical, 'Singin' in the Rain' , with its awesome production values, was made 12 years before the stunning 'West Side Story'.

When I first saw the film as a teenager, however, failing to see beyond its American sugar-floss sentimentality, I arrogantly despised it. Yet just one year later I sat through it again and instantly came under its spell, caught up in a magic that has never left me. 'Singin' in the Rain' is a riot of self-indulgent fun, studio skulduggery, romance and innocence of not just one, but two by-gone ages: and therein lieth part of its enduring magic. In rich Technicolor, with some of the finest and slickest visual stunts, (it all looks so effortless on screen) along with some of the greatest song and dance numbers, no one can really say they 'know Hollywood' until they've laughed and cried their way through this film. Parodying a Hollywood back in the days when sound was first coming to the silver screen, it simultaneously reflects the late 1920s, in which the film is set, and the early '50s, (the era in which it was produced). Thus, unwittingly encapsulating much of the entire golden age of Hollywood in one motion picture, like fine wine, it has simply matured with age. The production values are so flawlessly high that I sometimes have to pinch myself to remember that the film recreates in song and dance an era some 25 years earlier..

All the songs, including the famous title number, are revivals of numbers that appeared in early sound films, giving the film an air of authenticity. Donald O'Connor's 'Make 'Em Laugh' number is a particular highpoint to watch out for. The typically flamboyant Gene Kelly ballet sequence in the second half is slightly more controversial, with some viewers feeling that despite its brilliant choreography and staging, it slows the action and is out of touch with the naive innocence of the rest of the film, but others view it is the sequence that makes the movie, giving it balance.

It is worth noting that this ballet sequence probably would never have made it into the film at all has it not been for the stunning 1948 British film, 'The Red Shoes' (produced by Powell and Pressburger). The ballet sequence featuring Moira Shearer included 15 minutes of uninterrupted, dialogue-free screen time. Gene Kelly loved it, and thanks to the critical and popular success of 'The Red Shoes', (photographed by the legendary Jack Cardiff), Kelly convinced producer Arthur Freed that ballet on film was commercially viable.

Just five months before the 1952 premier of 'Singin' in the Rain', MGM had released another major Gene Kelly musical, 'An American in Paris', and initially, this was the film critics preferred. However, with audiences making 'Singin' in the Rain' a box-office hit from the very start, critical opinion began to change and it soon became clear that 'Singin' in the Rain' possessed a timeless quality approaching sheer perfection, revealing that the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. Overall, in a happy combination of chance and design, (not forgetting the chemistry a 19 year-old Debbie Reynolds brought to the screen and Adolph Green and Betty Comden's wonderful script), the production elements in 'Singin' in the Rain' flow together perfectly, revealing just how well the Hollywood studio system really could work at those special moments when everyone, craftsmen and artists alike, were on peak form.

Due to loving restoration and the marvels of modern digital transfers, we can now see the film as it originally looked, in all its brilliant colour saturation - a far cry from the washed out versions you may have seen as Christmas time TV fodder. If this is the fist time you've ever seen it, then I hope you are wiser than I was, and that you fall in love with this timeless picture first time around: it really is a cinema treat for all ages! C 2007 John Ruffle

Lady of Burlesque (1943)

"How would they have done it today?"

[7/10 · 19 February 2007]

This Stanwick picture came up on late night BBC2, and I'm not too proud to admit that I was one of those who had been unaware of its existence. Not having a TV guide at hand, I logged onto IMDb to check the details - and failed to find it first time around. Reason? I only bothered checking the movies for the 1930s, so convinced was I that this film could not possibly have been made in the context of a 1940s Hollywood. How wrong I was!

Barbara Stanwyck shows a different - and wholly more enjoyable side - than one might usually ascribe to her screen performances. Her talent in this film showcases a breadth of performance art, if it is somewhat lacking on depth.

Just about every review of this picture has a line or two about Stanwyck's legs. They have been described as "...the primary attraction..." Yes, at 36 years old, I have to admit that her legs really are show stoppers, only adding to the fact that this motion picture is a Stanwyck vehicle. The same review mentions her "...sparkling eyes, world-weary intonations and exaggerated movements..." and I would add that she comes across rather Dietrich-like. Stanwyck always had a rather porcelain, fragile-feminine on-screen presence, however, even in her most robust parts. This tends to give her a rather artificial screen appearance, even at her finest acting moments. She never quite gets beyond what of course in reality she is doing: acting for the American mass audience (including many G.I.s no doubt around the world, since this was released after the USA entered the WWII.)

Another review mentions the similarities to "The Blue Angel", and it really is worth a comparison of these two pictures - especially the treatment of two lead female parts - even if the earlier "The Blue Angel" is by far the more commanding work. For a different reason, the film stands comparison to "Stage Door" but the Stanwyck picture looses out in the dialogue department - "Stage Door" - a much earlier film - crackles with dialogue, whereas this picture goes for the more visual approach to see just what it can pass by the Hayes Production code censors, it seems.

It really is this last point that made me convinced that this picture was 1930s Hollwood output, rather than from 1943. The censors must have been asleep during this picture, as I can't think of a picture from the same era, (despite Jane Russell), that gets away with showing so much girlie flesh. (Unfortunately, since the print was so poor, it also had the image quality of a 1930s release.)

In all, a fairly important, very interesting, under-viewed and useful picture for film historians and media students especially, even if, in the end, the work has little to offer by way of redeeming features. A good one to examine in the light of the studio system and the Production Code, also a great discussion starter for film students. For those considering the development of the soap opera genre, again this film is one of many that should be studied. When looking a film which, in this case, is well over sixty-years old, questions of social treatment and cultural context arise. With the overt sex-industry context of this film, the obvious question is: "How would Hollywood have had done it today?" My answer, "Without question, with a lot less taste, and with a far inferior end result.

---

A note - primarily to myself - about the Princess Nervina prima donna character. I have a hunch I know who the character may have been based upon, but I really need to read the book and do more research first. If I find any connections, I'll update this review accordingly or start a thread in the forum section.

Shall We Dance (1937)

Seventy Years and Still Shows Well!

[7/10 · 6 February 2007]

So much has already been written about the famous Astaire / Rogers movie couplings that I'll be brief and limit this review to notes which I can edit later to a more rounded overview at a later time. However, having just re-watched the picture after a gap of around ten years does help to make certain features stand out quite clearly, so here goes.

This is a formula picture; an unashamed vehicle for Astaire and Rogers. It is fluffy, lighthearted and short on characterisation. In-between the dance numbers, the pacing is slow and the storyline is trivial, with many of the gags coming across as bad high school pranks to modern audiences. But that is only half the story, because the film celebrates its 70th birthday this year, so we can forgive an awful lot -- indeed, while there is still a massive audience for mindless TV soaps around the world, we can forgive this RKO hit for literally everything, because its strengths far outweigh any of its weaknesses. Besides, along with the other eight Astaire/Rogers 1930s formula musicals, this is a vitally important film for the study of the musical film genre.

What is interesting is the use of cross cutting to single (or at least minimal) shot scenes that advance the story for each character - this is most evident on the sequences in the middle of the picture when they are all on board the ship crossing from Paris to New York. This pre-curses the style that soaps are shot in today, and is worth showing to film and drama students as an early development of the soap genre.

It has to be said that Ginger Rogers really does look bored during this picture, (legend has it that she really WAS bored by this time) except when she's dancing - and it has always been said that Ginger was a far lesser dancer than Fred. The difference in ability is very clear to see in this picture, and interestingly, Fred does a whole lot more hoofing than Ginger on this picture.

On the dance angle, there's an interesting mix of ballet and jazz - and this is the feature that perhaps makes this movie stand out from the other Astaire Rogers combos. It is also a feature that makes this film interesting for students of media history.

This is a backstage musical, and the "show within a show" theme here is strong, even if we do see more action on board the liner than behind the flats. The plot structure is very well crafted - structure being a very different issue from both pacing and story-line. So when we get the "Shall We Dance" show, (where all those Ginger look-a-likes appear), we do actually get to see some ballet. This pre-dates Powell and Pressburger's British post war picture, "The Red Shoes", (photographed in Technicolor by Jack Cardiff) by over ten years. This is more important than it may at first appear:

"The Red Shoes" was a surprise hit, in that the conventional wisdom of the time (aka the Moguls of Hollywood) said that a filmed 22 minute ballet sequence on film sans dialogue would send audiences to sleep and kill the box office. But the audiences loved it! So MGM responded with Gene Kelly dancing his way through "Singin' in the Rain" in 1952. And without THAT motion picture, we would be missing one of the Top Ten Movies of all time.

Ginger really comes to life toward the end of the movie, with a tantalisingly-short, yet superb, dance sequence, where she literally throws herself at Fred. Of special note here is the remarkable dolly-in shot that pre-shaddows "Singin' in the Rain" by around 15 years. Which again shows that motion picture making, like any activity in life, builds upon prior experience - it is not just down to genius. It is for that very reason that I encourage students to take history seriously.

Right then; we've not mentioned the George Gershwin score, which is right up there, as you would expect on an Astaire/Rogers vehicle. These, remember are the two BIG musical stars of the period. which brings us to wardrobe -- Ginger's wardrobe, since that was the only one that remotely mattered -- to Ginger and her mother, at any rate! Ginger is ALWAYS the star, and "Shall We Dance" reveals at least two of Ginger's best ever costumes -- two bold black and white florals -- watch her dress, not her feet in the roller-skate sequence -- and that black dress for "Shall We Dance" is just, well, a way-out classic!

Modern audiences might be a bit confused over the "shocking" bedroom talk - just remember the Hayes Code was in full force, and hard as it may be to believe, the film flies right on the edge of the Code right as it is! One of the rules was the 5-second limit on screen snoggs. Astaire and Rogers didn't have anything to worry about there, however: despite the audiences of the '30s desperately waiting for that magic moment, it never was to come: in all their movies together, Fred and Ginger never did kiss on screen!

Anne of the Thousand Days (1969)

A Sixties Classic Reveals a Rare Achievement

[8/10 · 5 January 2007]

With a surprisingly strong script and good performances, the film delivers as a late 1960s production that reveals a cinema that was in transition into the modern era. As a historical drama it deserved its one Oscar win and 9 other nominations. It avoids the plodding performances of most costume dramas of the time, while not quite delivering the stunning intimacy that was achieved by the BBC two years later in its landmark "Elizabeth R" mini-series 1971 - (achieved through micro-direction, dedication to detail and precision use of the small screen close-up - who ever said film is the same medium as broadcast television?)

Richard Burton turns in arguably the best performance of his career as Henry VIII. Had his performance revealed just a shade more gravitas and reflection, he surely would have picked up an Oscar.

I'm glad to say that British commercial TV managed to air a decent print of this picture over the Christmas season 2006, even though the cinema-scope frame edges were cut off. Well worth watching, but if you shop for a DVD, do make sure it is in the correct format so the full 35mm squeeze / 70mm letterbox frame is visible. A classic from the '60s and a rare achievement.

The Nativity Story (2006)

A Realistic Spin on a Timeless Story

[10/10 · 23 November 2006]

The Nativity Story: Don't miss it - its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses. Here's my 17 year-old daughter's review hot from a 23rd November 2006 London preview, so this is a typical teenage take on the new release. "The film has a realistic spin", she told me shortly after exiting the theatre, "but toward the end it got so overdone; like the old Christmas films with a star shining through a hole in the roof of the stable scenario. The wise men appear right there in the stable, on the same night Jesus was born, and lo and behold, there were three of them!" (Contrary to popular myth, the Bible never does mention the number of wise men.) "The film was well paced at the beginning," she agreed, "but toward the end, it seemed rushed, like they had to finish off the 100 minutes of screen time." This may reflect the tight production schedule – how many movies make it from a blank piece of paper to world-wide theatrical release in 12 months? An amazing accomplishment by any standard.

Asked about the humour angle, my daughter thinks that it "..could have done with a little humour; yes, the wise men did add some comedy flavour, but it wasn't that funny". Also, she didn't like the name, the title reminding her of "...every single nativity film you're ever likely to see." For me, however, the title is simple and straight-forward - just like the movie, which she rates at around 7/10. The IMDb rating linked to this piece reflects my own unashamedly generous rating (especially in light of the clear anti-Christian bias evident in some reviews of this production).

Interesting that I had to remind my daughter who Keisha Castle-Hughes is, (both these beautiful young women are around the same age as it happens), but she made the connection in the end, and thinks Keisha turned in a quite tidy, understated performance. For me, although the film does show evidence of being rushed through production, (especially the final act), I do take my hat off to Mike Rich, for turning out that screenplay in one month, start to finish, and to Catherine Hardwicke for actually getting this to the screen for Christmas 2006.

Regardless of how she rates the finished screen-time, at least my daughter got to see "The Nativity Story" several days earlier than Pope Benedict XVI and a theatre full of cardinals for its Vatican world premier. (Note: the pope was in Turkey at the time, so didn't actually see it at all!) My take on the film is that it brings us back to the time when one could openly be thankful for that quite amazing birth so long ago, and not have to make apologies to be politically correct. Whether one believes or not, certainly a history-changing event. I do hope that this rendition on the big screen does well at the box-office. It deserves to, because despite the title, and while it stays rooted to the ancient religious drama genre, it simply isn't like any other nativity film you're ever likely to see!

Julie (1956)

Entertaining, superbly edited and severely underrated mini-masterpiece

[8/10 · 25 July 2006]

a J.R. mini-review...

Some have commented that the film falls into three distinct parts - and I believe they are right. Although there are some classic film noir-ish moments earlier in the film, here I'm reviewing just the final act set on board a Douglas DC4 - great for plane buffs, by the way.

While some reviewers feel that it is unrealistic, I beg to disagree. The cockpit shots are as good as any flight sim, and the whole thing does have an authentic 'aviation' feel to it. The only part hard to swallow was how the husband managed to get aboard the flight with no ticket and no boarding pass.

Since 9/11, this third act is almost too close to life for comfort. Yes, the last half hour is an amazing piece of movie making, because although the plot does indeed turn mechanical rather than psychological at that point, it certainly does carry a tension all of it's own - very much worth studying from a film editor's point of view: observe and see just how they kept the adrenaline flowing during those last thirty minutes of screen time: Masterful!

Bend It Like Beckham (2002)

Yes, but where was Beckham?

[8/10 · 24 July 2006]

My comments about this film are prejudiced, I admit it. Reason? The majority of the location shoots were all around the neighbourhood where I lived as a teenager, and where I still teach teenagers today. This means the film immediately engages me on a personal and non-cinematic level.

One of the best British films of recent years, BILB manages to portray not only racial conflict, but also the tension that youth of all races have with traditional customs and parental expectations. With my familiarity of the area, and also its people, I can assure the viewer that on this level, the film works as accurately as a documentary might have, with the advantage that BILB is a whole lot more gripping.

In an age of mindless teenage screen fodder, this film is funny, touching and refreshingly reflective. For any audience, the film works - for a teenage audience, however, it deserves a 10/10. I've given it an eight because I'm not a teenager, and I try to make my scores reflect general, cinema-literate audiences.

A downside of the film structure is its pacing. It's a little uneven in its plot points, and worse still, I have yet to figure out the purpose or the plotting of the fight over the video camera. I saw it on first theatrical release, and perhaps I'm thick, but it simply made no sense at all even on re-play on video later.

But the film's most serious flaw is its casting - or rather, its lack of casting. Simply put, where was Beckham? Although, according to IMDb.com, he was represented by uncredited stock footage, the Beckham of the title simply did a no-show for the movie. An absolutely unforgivable omission, one that deserves my pulling the film rating down a notch. But I'll refrain, since it was almost certainly David Beckham's refusal to co-operate. The very least he could have done would have been a visit to the film shoot, so at least some actuality footage could have been run over the closing titles, instead of the obligatory teen-flick "goof" footage. If I could vote for Beckham, he'd get a zero for disappointing an otherwise very good (proud-to-be multi-cultural) British film comedy.

Raise the Red Lantern (1991)

An awesomely emotive and touching performance

[10/10 · 11 July 2006]

"Raise the Red Lantern" is a haunting study in oriental charm. The beautifully framed shots have a lingering, almost hypnotic quality as the household travels through the seasons in an endless journey that is guided by ancestor worship, protocol and "doing the right thing" even when it is bitterly, disastrously wrong. The pathos is etched in stark reality upon the face and graceful movements of Li Gong, who takes the lead as Songlian, the 'Fourth Wife'. One of the most emotive faces upon the cinema screen, she delivers an egg-shell-fine performance that is at the same time hardy, robust and wise.

The audience never gets to know the human face behind the husband. Maybe there is no face, no humanity there. It matters little, because this is indeed the only face his four wives and his carefully ordered household ever see. He is indeed, their captor, not suitor. The ageing male housekeeper maintains the order of the house, and in his hands, the raising, lowering and covering of the red lanterns becomes a symbol that stains the entire film red.

This picture needs to be understood to be appreciated. I can imagine that some will be frustrated by the apparent lack of action, the apparent lack of characterisation. But this is indeed the film's strength. We share in the pain and frustration of everything always being as it has been, yet nothing ever being really as it seems at all. The characters take on the mask-like appearance of ghosts, except that right in the middle of it all, living and breathing human beings are caught, stripped of their will, and subjugated beautifully; their sterile riches suffocating them.

In the VHS version I saw, the cover notes were very poorly written and misleading, hinting at a particular love interest that (fortunately, I can say) is not in the film, yet ignoring the symphony of clashing hearts and minds that are central to the wonderfully woven plot. If you have the same 1995 PAL UK widescreen release version that I viewed, my advice is read the IMDb summary on the film and don't take the sleeve notes too seriously.

Everything about this picture is superb. It is a two hour poem of finely balanced regret and retribution. Be fortified: and to really imbibe this at full strength, let the narrative disturb and move you. Let the pathos of the images wash over you, and be - just a little, perhaps - changed forever.

Kiss Me Deadly (1955)

Flawed plotting: but otherwise awesomely textbook Film Noir

[7/10 · 9 July 2006]

Wonderful, passionate acting! Crackling dialogue most the time! Tension like an overhead high voltage wire! The then brand-new Chevy Corvette never looked better nor so modern! Superbly atmospheric black and white cinematography with cant angle shots a la "The Third Man". A soundtrack that is an exemplar for how to do sound- it pushes the film forward in a naturalistic manner.

So why do I only rate "Kiss Me Deadly" seven out of ten? Because this film is a scriptwriting lesson in getting characterisation spot-on, getting dialogue spot on, and even getting the major plot points about okay, in a convoluted, film noir sort of way. But.. and it's a big but.. despite being at the height of the cold war, the plot is really just too far fetched, and worst of all, the ending just simply ends - right in the middle of the action. That's it. They couldn't wait to get the end-title up. I realise why they did it that way, but it defies all conventions of good plotting. Let the audience out of the picture; tie up the loose ends; get out gracefully. I guess there just was hardly anyone left alive to bother with loose ends - but this film, for all its strengths, marks a transition point in Hollywood between the classic "old" studio system pictures and the mess that the industry was to end up in, by the time the 1960s hit.

Nevertheless, "Kiss Me Deadly" has some of the most wonderful, spell-binding performances you're ever likely to see on the silver screen. Here is a film that everyone really tried to do something with (starting with opening credits that have to be read bottom up!) and in large measure they succeeded. Terrific! Just that there was nothing left (literally) to think about when the theatre lights went up after the end credit.

The Train Robbers (1973)

Seeking Wayne? Try Watching "The Searchers" instead.

[3/10 · 6 July 2006]

This 1972 CinemaScope production* should have been a thrilling ride. As it is, it comes across as cardboard people filmed in front of some fairly stunning scenery, on horseback, travelling right to left for the first part of the picture and then left to right later on for the home stretch.

It might have looked okay in a first run theatre, (let's face it, the picture was never intended to be shown on home video – the medium didn't exist in the early 1970s), but any film has to have more than dazzle to capture the imagination. In this case, we have a poorly plotted film featuring an ageing John Wayne doing what he does best: wandering about showing us when an all American male may and may not break the rules. He breaks no rules with his co-star, Ann-Margret. In fact there is no chemistry at work at all between them at all. The most stunning thing about Ann-Margret is the way she always has her hair and eyeliner perfect, regardless of how long she's been on the dusty trail. She never, apparently, needs to comb or wash it, and the one outfit she wears for most the movie never gets dirty. Nothing ever happens to make any of the characters come alive, despite some earnest "buddy talk" once in a while.

I'd wanted to like the film, but it is a caricature of John Wayne's true self. It's the type of sloppy and soppy movie that was somewhat of a hallmark in the late 1960s and 1970s. The music is diabolical – irritating to the point of wanting to turn the sound off altogether. The dialogue is little better – it might have been better being a silent movie.

Is it funny? Not when it is intended to be. The funniest part of the film is when the gang is searching for a rail-road track in a sand storm, and off to the right of the picture behind them, we get a clear view of the camera dolly track right out there in the desert! The director's signature, perhaps? More likely, just forgot just how wide widescreen can be!

The film is interesting only to see how John Wayne was milked mercilessly for his type-cast roles during his later career. He gives the appearance in this outing that he doesn't really care if the picture ever makes the big screen or not. It doesn't work as a "road" movie; it fails as a "quest" film, and it doesn't even get off the starting grid as a "buddie picture". It's a pity director Burt Kennedy didn't fire the scriptwriter – but then it was his own script. Producer was John Wayne's son, Michael Wayne - maybe as a living memorial to him. But it is a film that would have been better dead and buried before it ever got past the storyboarding stage.

It would stand up to a John Wayne retrospective if shown on a large-enough screen, although "Brannigan" (1975) is more interesting way of viewing an ageing Duke, since at least he ends up in London in that one. (I reserve further comment on "Branigan" as the first and only time I've watched it was on its first theatrical release. "The Train Robbers" I watched - on video widescreen - yesterday). But in any case, neither film comes near to a masterpiece such as "The Searchers" (1956).

My rating: 3 out of 10 – and that's generous. *Seems to be a difference of opinion regarding year of release.

The Jesus Film (1979)

Half-Way Between Love and Hate

[5/10 · 28 June 2006]

From a motion picture perspective, the "Jesus" film is primitive and flawed for audiences who are familiar with cinematic convention. From a biblical story-telling perspective however, it is brilliant. I'm therefore rating it at just "5" - half-way between love and hate, as I shall explain in this review.

That the producers achieved what they set out to do is indisputable: it's the most watched movie of all time. That the film is clear and truthful to the Gospel account of Luke is indisputable. That we need to consider the intended audience is also indisputable. Released just two years after Zeffirelli's magnificent masterpiece, "Jesus of Nazareth", this film comes across as is a lifeless clone... IF you've seen the Zeffirelli film, that is.

But what if you haven't -- what if you couldn't; maybe because you live in the jungle some place away from TV sets and westernised living? Then some chaps come into your village, set up a sheet between trees, wait for dark and then display these "magic pictures". NOW which film is the most powerful? The tables are turned, and all of a sudden, the "Jesus" film comes out tops. The film is not sophisticated, but it's not meant to be. Its power is not due to the imagery, but due to the Word of God that it illustrates.

Now, what about all the narration? It makes it sound like one of those old 16 mm "Fact and Faith" films that my maths teacher showed in school way back. Like an old newsreel. For a start, narration makes the translators' tasks much easier- it is, after all, the most translated film in history. However, during the climax, we actually loose the narrator altogether - a very unusual device, and I'm still not sure if it works that way or not. If I was cynical, I'd say the narrator went off for a coffee break, but I think they did it that way to help draw the audience, sitting spellbound on the hard earth, more into the story. The idea of any cinematic style has long left the screen, so it probably really doesn't matter, and on the primitive level, it certainly works.

Again, desperately failing not to be cynical, I see this film as perhaps the Protestant answer to the Catholic "Jesus of Nazareth" that it desperately tries to copy in part, and which was released just two years earlier. It reflects the fundamentalist ethos that it's okay to "use" film for religious purposes, but it is not okay to be absorbed by it. Art can be tolerated so long as the message is loud and clear. I don't mean to be cruel or mean; I admire and respect the folks who made this. However, I guess I just fail to understand why the producers were not able to get a few more talented people to guide the project to completion. It is a prime example of blinkered movie vision. In the end, it doesn't really matter, however, because the purpose of the film is to help non-Christians encounter Christ himself in his resurrection power - not to have a great night out.

As a side note, I have figured out a way to really enjoy this movie. Get something useful to do like washing the dishes or painting a wall. Then, put the movie on in the same room, and listen to the soundtrack as you work, and forget it even has moving pictures. The film makes excellent audio, and it has a wonderful added bonus: whenever you get really curious, all you need to do is take a peek at the screen, and low and behold, as if by magic, there's a moving picture of what you've just been listening to! A quite awesome way of listening to the Bible on tape. Because the visuals are almost entirely incidental, you can "listen" to the movie and not miss a thing!

On this film, I'm really sitting on the fence. For achieving what it set out to do, which is basically tell the story of Jesus to primitive audiences, I'd rate it 10 out of 10. As a film, with any depth of artistic talent, I have to be honest and give it a 1 out of 10. So I have to settle for a 5 rating. Which is one higher that the 4 that I hated myself for originally giving it, before writing this review and finding a valid reason to mark it up at least one notch.

Jesus of Nazareth (1977– )

Made for Television Masterpiece

[10/10 · 27 June 2006]

With Franco Zeffirelli's 1977 made for television masterpiece and Anthony Burgess' screenplay, religious film simply does not get any better than this. Much as I admire Mel Gibson's monumental depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life in "The Passion of the Christ", I still believe that the yardstick by which all 'passion play' genre films will be judged in future generations will be "Jesus of Nazareth".

After completing "Brother Son, Sister Moon", Zeffirelli turned (the Jewish) Sir Lew Grade down flat for this project, stubbornly refusing to engage on the project for a year and a half. As his other stage and screen projects turned to dust, however, he finally accepted the task. What finally convinced him was his conviction that the film could be compassionate towards the Jews, and thus could help undo some of the past hatred for which Christianity was renowned.

Burgess and Zeffirelli was a match made in heaven: Burgess turned in a script that took great liberties with the sacred text. Zeffirelli was uneasy with his liberalism, and sought to bring the script back to a more faithful rendition; yet Burgess' awesomely effective dramatic structure remains. Interestingly, Ingmar Bergman had already been asked to turn in a treatment, apparently before Zeffirelli was ever approached. However, the Roman Catholics who had been the original driving force for the project strongly objected to Bergman's idea of a series of mini lives of Jesus, as seen from the viewpoint of different characters.

Bergman was dismissive of the final Zeffirelli project, and it is certain that it would have been an entirely different film had he been asked to direct. While there is much to respect about Bergman, he would have been totally incapable of producing the beauty, purity and meaning in the hidden text that is so apparent in the final film.

Less than seven years later, Zeffirelli estimated that 750,000 people had seen the film. I saw the original transmission on American television in 1977, (it was aired nationwide at least twice in two years), and I also have an original and ageing VHS (PAL) copy. I plan a London revival of the series during Lent 2007, to mark the film's 30th anniversary. Back in 1977, it was the talk of the nation - in St. Louis, I heard of one lady who was instantly healed of cancer as she watched the crucifixion scene.

Interestingly, the resurrection scene nearly never got filmed. In fact, what we do see on screen is simply screen test material rescued from the editing bin at the final hour! The information above is documented in Franco Zeffirelli book, "Jesus: a Spiritual Diary" (1984: NY. Harper & Row) and Ingmar Bergman's "The Magic Lantern" (1988: London: Hamish Hamilton). However, there is no substitute for watching this masterpiece: in a word, it's awesome!

Something to Believe In (1998)

A Film to Believe in, Sadly Played for Laughs

[6/10 · 20 June 2006]

We all truly want something to believe in, and the concept of this film, dealing as it does with personal faith, miracles and the Catholic Church should have been a great one.

As it is, it is likely to be remembered as one of the films shot in MGM's Los Vegas Grand Hotel. In fact, it's really a "road" movie, with our intrepid travellers in a Herbie-like VW Beetle, which is really quite funny at times. Which is exactly where the film starts getting into trouble, because we have a quite serious theme – how do we cope with death and dying, and can we extend hope for the miraculous – overlaid with a patchy comedy that quite often seems to overtake the picture, putting the theme into suspended animation. We understand that Mike (William McNamara) is a religious sceptic, and that Maggie (Maria Pitillo) is a 'believer'. Well, sort of, because we never find out what it is she really does believe in, beyond the statue of the weeping Madonna, of course.

I'll get back to the plot in a minute, but first for the good points. I like John Hough for the MGM Grand sequences; I like him for the authenticity of really shooting in Italy, and I like him for the type casting, which works supremely well. The priests, the lady restoring religious art, even the car mechanic – all totally believable. Pitillo, in the central role of the weeks-to-live Maggie, I'm never quite sure about, however, for reasons I'll touch on below.

What lets the film down badly is that there simply is no character development in this story. How can a young woman search half of Europe for a miracle and not undergo an inner transformation? In real life, people often do not change on cue, but in the dramatic form, we need to make sense of life, and that means if people do not change in response to life's curves, then at least we have a right to know why they stay the same.

Then there is the theme. As the end credits rolled, I was still puzzling over what the film is trying to say about the Church and personal faith. It would be easy to say that there are no easy answers, but that is unacceptable and dishonest for a film that claims to tackle such issues head-on. The film shows piety, but why? Is it really mocking the faithful? Maggie is desperate to reach the weeping Madonna, yet in the midst of her pilgrimage, this does not give her qualms about having sex with someone she's known maybe two days. That's going to alienate a lot of Catholics who otherwise could be very sympathetic toward the film. If pre-marital sex was essential to the plot, fine. But we really, really could have lived without it, and more importantly, so could Maggie and Mike. Ultimately, then, what is this film really about? Maybe it's two films in one; two lives in one. Maggie's faith and Mike's music, but if so, where's the real connection? I acknowledge that I look at films more critically from the writing angle, as that is my area of expertise. That explains why, for instance, I'm entirely overlooking Tony Pierce Roberts' quite acceptable and neatly wrapped cinematography. It explains why I'm being a philistine and deliberately ignoring the classical pieces we see and hear beautifully performed, (I'm assuming McNamara really did perform those piano pieces, but the credits didn't make this clear). Nice as all this may be, we didn't actually need this for the plot.

What we did need was something to tie up all the plot lines into a nice, neat conclusion. And we didn't get it. We got surface gloss, which is fine for "Maid in Manhattan" but not here. What worries me is how such an obvious shortcoming managed to get overlooked in production.

This leads me to a pet theory: the most important part of the dramatic curve is the ending, not the climax. I'm not suggesting that a film with a well crafted ending will do any better at the box office, will have more depth, or will be transformed into a more meaningful film. But too many potentially good films have been ruined by skimpy endings; and it's the ending that theatre-goers leave their seats with.

The way for a script-writer to think about the ending should not be, "How am I going to get myself extricated from this mess in the least possible screen time," but rather: "Here's the place where I give my audience just that little but more: that added value. How can I surprise them; let them think I've forgotten about those few loose ends? Then I'll hit them with it; give them that little extra twist, that deeper insight, that warm feeling of completeness!" There's no room to elaborate, but you may wish to check my other published reviews. In each of them, I attempt to bring out a point we can all learn from, and here my bottom line is that John Hough (and John Goldsmith who collaborated on the script) were swimming out of their spiritual depth. Someone should have stepped in as a spiritual adviser on this project.. not to provide nice tidy answers to the way things ought to be, but to ask questions; to get this film working on a level that it utterly falls flat on.

"Something to Believe In" could and should have been a masterpiece of faith, hope and joy. It does not deliver, and for that I'm sorry: for this is a film that I really hoped would work; that so very nearly does work. But nearly is never enough. Ultimately, the script is just too shaky for this to become a satisfying or deeply moving cinematic experience. It was played for laughs and lost its meaning. The sad part is thinking what this film could have been.

Samson and Delilah (1949)

Bible-land Epic Voyeurism

[4/10 · 15 June 2006]

Even after considering that this Cecil B. DeMille Biblical epic was produced in 1949 and is therefore over fifty years old, this film works poorly from a dramatic sense. I've rated it a 4 out of 10: although the film falls short on many vitally important points, much of the fault lies within the conventions of the epic genre, rather than this specific film itself.

In context, this is one of DeMille's early attempts at the full colour sound spectacle picture. Three years later, he could have shot it in CinemaScope, so in some respects, this was a film before its time: widescreen would have added to the sense of spectacle, which is the main thing going for it, apart from a staged and frigid sex-appeal.

DeMille's silent "Ten Commandments", made nearly thirty years earlier, which intertwined both biblical story and modern narrative, holds up far better today than this poorly conceived outing into Bible-land voyeurism.

The script is the birth place of most pictures: here, the script is the film's death. It's overly melodramatic, with totally forgettable lines delivered with the dramatic tension of a Saturday afternoon visit to the local shopping mall. The film has no discernible sub-text; no inner tension. Victor Mature might be a good choice for an amateur passion play, but on film he looks and acts like a human ox. To say that he actually "acts" at all is an exaggeration. He plods through his allotted scenes in an emotionally wooden trance. John Wayne would have made a more convincing Sampson, with his American drawl adding spice. Hedy Lamarr does look good on screen, but there were plenty other Hollywood Female Philistines available, and her performance and screen presence is good, but not earth-shakingly so.

Most of the film is photographed in shadowless high contrast colour: the only relief we get is when the film is shot through gauze defusing screens and curtains, which Lamarr has to put in place herself, even the stagehands having presumably gotten bored of yet another scene of Lamarr's posturing by this time.

Most of all, one has to wonder if the film is somewhat hypocritical. Billed as a biblical epic, most of the film is comprised of full shots of the pair doting on each other with as much lasciviousness as was allowable in the period. DeMille does not want us to forget that he's got a Very Beautiful Woman signed for this picture, and shows her off to best effect whenever he can, in as many scanty costumes as possible, with the hint of nipples showing whenever he can. Yet, as is to be expected from DeMille, we aren't given close-ups; no reaction shots (there's pretty little to react to) and dramatic moments are lost. Example: the hair cutting scene simply does not exist. Instead, DeMille cuts to a five-second sunrise instead, and then, guess what, the Philistine's are upon a shawn Sampson! I can only think that when DeMille shouted, "The cut goes here", editor Anne Bauchens thought it was an instruction to her, not Delilah. As for Sampson, he is portrayed as witless rather than morally weak. There must have been more to this character – after all, he was a judge over Israel for twenty years.

The theme of 'power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely' could have made a relevant sub-text, but no, this is box-office entertainment sold on the back of a biblical narrative. This lack of depth - and not the acres of flesh - is what I question most about this film. DeMille has cloaked himself around religion, simply, in my opinion, in order to indulge his voyeuristic fantasies and still be called righteous.

There are lots of lessons to be learnt from this film. For all the tacky and unconvincing set design, (despite an Ocar); loud costumes (despite the other Oscar) and the ham acting, at least technically George Barnes' cinematography is very consistent and carefully controlled; and Bauchens' editing proficiently seamless (despite crossing the action line at least once) – but the entire production lacks creative imagination. There is no evidence that the idea of character development ever once crossed Cecil B. DeMille's mind. However, thinking back to 1949, the world was recovering from a savage war, and perhaps western audiences needed to be bathed in colourful escapism for two hours.

Although I've unashamedly panned this film, I still believe it should be watched and studied closely today. It is part of movie-making history, and deserves more analysis than these brief words can hope to achieve. If the film worked for audiences in its time, then we need to find out why and how, and learn from these lessons. On the plus-side, the unobtrusive, Oscar-nominated musical score by Victor Young and the Holy Land location shots by Dewey Wrigley, are both elements of the picture that work flawlessly well. Also, despite its ridiculously abrupt end, the film does improve toward the last act.

DeMille was, above all else, a consummate storyteller, and I'm aware of the need to see this picture on the big screen in a good print for it to be fully appreciated. I could even be persuaded to like it quite a lot more, once I see it as it was meant to be shown. With a supposed "adult" theme, is the picture suitable for children? It is the tamest thing going, but the real question is how any child would be persuaded to sit down to watch without walking out or falling asleep after ten minutes. For the rest of us, however, "Sampson and Delilah" did give the male population of its time a legitimate opportunity to watch a beautiful woman strut her stuff on the big screen in glorious Technicolor without risking the wrath of wives or girlfriends afterwards. On that level, perhaps this is the film's main redeeming feature. After all, who ever got told off for going to church?

Hoodlum & Son (2003)

Full of Hoodlum and Fun!

[10/10 · 13 June 2006]

An independent British production shot in South Africa with a lot of American acting talent, here's a classic kid-friendly family comedy. The storyline involves the shenanigans of rival gangs set in 1933 – toward the end of American's prohibition era. The plot is easy to follow thanks to a clear script, so youngsters won't be puzzling at who is gunning for whom, but can simply enjoy the colourful characters and fast action.

Despite some rather predictable plot points, the script (by Ashley Way, who also directed) is smoothly written, almost text-book perfect, with some really great dialogue. The only weakness for me was the ending. It works, (just) but I found it rather underdeveloped and abrupt: maybe the budget ran out. But it's the love interest that holds the film together, as Charlie (Ted King- a bit of a Mel Gibson look-alike) and small town girl Ellen (Mia Sara) avoid hitting it off most of the time. Will they, or won't they? Watch the film to find out, but if its voyeuristic bedroom scenes and breathless nights of passion you're after, be ready for a disappointment. It's refreshing to find a film that, while not disallowing sexual chemistry, keeps it from spilling over to a "mandatory" bedroom (read: box-office) scene. Despite the gangland-style shootouts, this really is as described on the box: "A Comedy for all the family." The photography (by South African cinematographer, "Buster" Reynolds) and production design (Burrie Van Zyl) both work seamlessly: effortlessly recreating an authentic 1930s "feel" to the film. In any movie, the designer and cinematographer play key roles in the final 'look' of the picture, but of course the best shot film in the world will fall sadly flat if the acting and direction fall short. Here we have some wonderful child performances: South African Charlotte Savage turns in a masterfully under-played, delightful performance as Virginia, who is just a little bit sweet on Archie, played by Hollywood's Myles Jeffrey who, amazingly, already had more than twenty screen credits to his name when he appeared in this role.

A word about plot: Arguably, there are just ten major dramatic themes that any film can be classified by – for instance, the 'quest' picture (which is where we could pigeon hole "The Da Vinci Code"). Another re-occurring theme is that of 'redemption', where the quest is revealed more from the inside of the character outward; often transformational. The "Shawshank Redemption" (definitely not for child viewing, by the way) is an outstanding example of this theme. When we discuss redemption in the movies, we are not taking about some dusty religiosity. It is about this journey of inner transformation. Much of the dramatic tension of such films comes from the inner conflict that the central character goes through in coming to terms with him or herself. But this movie has lots of fun action and snappy dialogue, too.

While the film can be viewed as pure escapist entertainment, there are also numerous mini-lessons to be learnt – and not just in the delightful school-room sequence, either – which incidentally, works as well as any part of the film, and was a definite highlight for me personally: just listen to the dialogue and enjoy the wonderful child performances! The film has a certain feel to it that tells me that this was somehow a cherished project for producers Paul and Elizabeth Matthews (Imdb have Elizabeth uncredited). It was a first time outing for Ashley Way in the director's chair, and it would be interesting to know how this UK movie got to be shot in South Africa. Whatever the story behind just how it made it to the big screen, it should be sufficient for most audiences simply to know that this is a cleanly entertaining film. There's no gratuitous violence; no blood and gore, and (amazingly!) no swearing. Somehow, most the time at least, most of the characters seem to emerge from the numerous shoot-outs still alive and breathing! In all, an eminently watchable film, one that I am glad to recommend without reservation.

The Bitter Tea of General Yen (1932)

An (Uneasy) Capra Masteriece

[8/10 · 3 June 2006]

It's a pity Barbara Stanwyck looks so much like a young Margaret Thatcher, Britain's 'Iron Lady' prime minister during the 1980s. Stanwyck's performance includes some of the self-righteous polemic that Thatcher was famous for, as well. Today's audiences will be forgiven for seeing Stanwyck as a rather prime and prissy Hollywood star, who never-the-less is quite alluring. Her performance here is no exception to that rule.

Straight off the ship in a pre-communist Shanghai, Megan Davis (played by Stanwyck) arrives in China to marry her missionary sweetheart and convert the heathen millions to Christianity. Will she succeed or fail at her quest, after the marriage is postponed due to civil war, and she is taken captive by the ruthless warlord, General Yen (Nils Asther)? Some have called this Frank Capra picture "disturbing", and it is certainly unusual. The plot, although including some well-filmed action sequences, (if you look beyond some of the rather flimsy low budget sets) is largely a psychological one, playing out relentlessly to the bitter end.

While the film stereotypes the Chinese, Mah-Li, (Yen's mistress), is played beautifully by the 21 year-old Japanese-American, Toshia Mori. She displays a timeless oriental beauty and economy on screen that has not aged at all in over seventy years. Indeed, Mori turns in arguably the best performance in the entire picture (although Stanwyck has a far harder role to play – which she does admirably.) Jones (Walter Connolly), as a mercenary American, in some respects pre-figures the Rick character in "Casablanca" some nine years later, sans (to all appearances anyhow) any moral scruples whatsoever.

It looks like Stanwyck used a stand-in for the nude bath sequence, but this is no flesh-pot picture: everything's filmed in a restrained style. However, it's doubtful that the theme could have been tackled quite this way even five years later, as it pre-dates the censorship clamp-down that was just around the corner, (which helped set in stone many Hollywood conventions).

As with any picture from this era, it is important to view it as a product of its age. In that context, the film still plays well. Its heavy-handed dealing with ethnicity might disturb some modern audiences: "You're dealing with a white woman here!" Jones advises Yen. Stanwyck is stunning – but paradoxically, not in the soft focus shots, finely made-up and in splendid costumes. Rather, she reveals a raw energy in the few sharp bold close-ups we get of her, scattered throughout the film.

Sure, its pure melodrama, (hence the soft focus 'weepy' shots); but it's played out on a psychological level. In this respect, the film is decades ahead of its time. Filmically, it was still close enough to the days of the golden silents to share many of the conventions of that age. An interesting exercise for anyone already familiar with the film is to watch with no sound. Does the film still work viewed that way? You decide!

That the sound gave some challenges can be evidenced. Take, for example, a relatively unimportant sequence where Stanwyck and Connolly walk from one room to another, deep in conversation. It appears to have been one long sound take, but half way through, someone perhaps missed a line, or a mic dropped into the frame. Whatever the reason, there's a jump-cut to a same-angle, slightly closer shot, mid-sentence, with perfect lip-sync. Then a little later, another cut back to what could well be the original tracking shot – although possibly it's three takes spliced together. Nevertheless, the sequence works, and although technically we are seeing visual jump cuts, the sound and action is matched so perfectly that they are not noticeable. Such quirks are well worth study by film students; one reason why I consider viewing early Hollywood is so vital.

Consider the moving-train sequence, which is carried-off excellently. We have the train sounds in the background, coming to the point where one wonders if there's a fault on the sound-track. It becomes rather irritating, which ironically is why it works so well. In later pictures, we get the 'clickity-clack' in the first shot, and then down and under once the dialogue starts. This was probably a 'live' effect, and not dubbed in later: it certainly would have been the easiest way to get it in the can once the sound levels were established.

This sequence is remarkable in another way as well. We actually have realistic movement on the set. Stanwyck's body, as she lies on a couch, is quite clearly quivering as the train races along the tracks. Why later films almost always show train carriages with everything bolted down solid and a slightly jumpy back projection is puzzling: certainly a Hollywood convention that never worked. Later directors should have paid closer attention to "Bitter Tea" on first release; but that might have been beneath their dignity, since it was produced by despised Columbia Pictures on a tight budget.

There's a religious context to the movie, although it is not altogether clearly thought-out or realised. There's a Buddhist temple sequence – a necessary plot-point - but none inside a church. Stanwyck, as the chain-smoking missionary, is not above preaching, and delivers some memorable lines: "You can always do so much more with mercy than you can with murder," she proclaims, following with an indirect reference to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for mankind. Later she pleads: "I want you to think of all those things, and then forgive…" But that's about as theological as the film gets. Can Megan Davis live up to the high ideals that she preaches? That's the big question the movie asks. And it's the crucial issue that General Yen stakes his life upon.

The Robe (1953)

The Passion of the Robe

[7/10 · 17 May 2006]

The Robe (1953) is interesting on at least two counts: (1) the film takes its place as the first ever CinemaScope theatrical release and is therefore worthy of close study by all motion picture students; and (2) the film depicts the Passion of Christ, (as the inciting action that triggers the subsequent plot development), and as such, threads that part of the storyline with a genre stretching back over 1,000 years, where we find the first extant Passion Play scripts (other than the Gospel records themselves, of course). This again makes the film worthy of study by film students and theologians alike.

The story of Christ on film is more important historically than may at first might appear. At either two or three reels, the first ever full "feature film" is arguably claimed to be the "The Passion Play" (1898), filmed in New York in 1897. The 'greatest story ever told' has hit the screen regularly thereafter, perhaps most famously in recent years with Mel Gibson's masterly personal tribute, "The Passion of the Christ" (2004).

I will now comment briefly on some of the technical and visual aspects of "The Robe". The camera work majors on long shots, and it is interesting to analyse how each shot is framed for all that width of screen. The camera is mostly static, and shots have longer than average duration; the compositions really are not designed for a lot of movement. This gives the film that famous "epic" style that goes for the grand sweep, both visually, musically and emotionally. There is not a lot of internalisation within the characterisation - it is the (literal) width and scope of the production that grabs attention. The filmic style is not very personal, however. It really is as if we have the best seats in an outdoor drama on a massive stage.

As you view, you may wish to make a note of the shots that seem to work best to the modern viewer. In the early part of the film, for instance, (just before the "Passion" sequence), Demetrius runs toward the camera in search of Jesus, after he's been beaten down by the Roman guards outside the gates of Jerusalem. An old lady sitting behind him on the cobbled pathway, has just finished tending his wounds. The shot is terrific, and works for modern audiences very well. Unlike a lot of the film, where much of the direction seems to be subjected to the demands of the CinemaScope process, this shot contains a dynamism that beguiles the film's age. Why? Because it uses the three dimensions of the set, along with arresting and dramatic movement, as Demetrius runs diagonally toward the camera and beyond us, toward the Crucifixion, which we see in the next sequence.

Another sequence that really works well is the chase in the second half. It is arguably the most dramatic sequence in the entire picture, and certainly uses CinemaScope to best effect, as the horses thunder toward the audience. Over fifty years later, and it would be hard to better.

By contrast, most of the film is played out in tableaux form, with action taking place across the width of the screen on lavish but shallow sets. The camera is a passive observer, unlike modern 'epics', which usually use very fluid camera set-ups along with computer-generated imagery (CGI). The actual crucifixion (masterful in what it does not show, by the way) is indeed an actual still life tableau, and could have easily been lifted straight out of the Oberammergau passion play. I do not say this to put the film down - this actually is a brilliant move, as it makes the action faithful to the genre of the passion play, which originally was played out exclusively through short tableaux.

In this writing, my aim has been simply to help you consider alternative ways of viewing this, and other, historic motion pictures. Particularly, you may wish to take note of the sometimes unusual way the film uses: (a) framing, (b) shot length, (c) staging, (d) camera movements, (e) the use (or rather, the almost total lack of use) of close ups and 'cut-away' shots, (f) lighting, and the (g) music score and dialogue. Of course, there is much more to note: the use of dissolves and fades, which helps underline the 'epic' grandeur of every sequence. And I've not even touched on the story line or the acting. (Question: how might it have played as a silent movie?)

In today's post-modernist society, the Passion play formula, with its emphasis on objective truth, may well gain renewed importance, since the narrative of Christ's passion may be in danger of becoming yet one more voice crying in a commercial wilderness devoid of ultimate human (and Godly) values of truth, goodness and conviction. The story of Jesus stands out as unique however it is viewed. The simple reason: the story of the Passion indeed IS unique! (Which is one reason why I consider it a 'genre' in its own right.) I contend, therefore, that "The Robe" is an important contribution to American cinema, both theologically and cinematographically; one among a select number of motion pictures, spanning over one hundred years of history, that every student should have opportunity to view and discuss at least once whilst still in full time education.

A sidebar: "The Robe" really needs to be watched in 'letterbox' (i.e. in the original format), which on a small display does not do the picture justice. With HDTV coming along, look out for a digital re-release that will restore the original to its pristine glory. (Also, a side-by-side comparison with the Academy format version - shot at the same time - would be beneficial.) Best of all, of course, arrange to get it screened in your local art house cinema, and see it as it is meant to be viewed: on the big screen.

Pastor Hall (1940)

A bold political statement from a Britain entering WWII

[10/10 · 23 October 2005]

"Pastor Hall" is a bold, very early attempt to expose the Nazi regime. Halliwell's Film Guide gives the film a measly one star rating, which only goes to prove one should not believe everything one reads in print. It is, as Halliwell says, a "courageous film of its time" but in direct opposition to Halliwell, it is VERY interesting dramatically. Cinematically, the film works and considering budget constraints, it is an admirable production for 1939 (released 1940). It is also a great example of British film making for the period.

It's greatest flaw is arguably the upper class English accents. An interesting thing happens once one is drawn into the film, however: because the accents are a constant, it becomes a dramatic convention that one accepts. In other words, it does not detract from the dramatic impact of the social statement that the film makes. It also lends the film a timeless quality to the moral values it underlines - making the film surprisingly relevant for the 21st century viewer.

Historically, it a very important film. Made before the full horrors of the concentration camps were known, "Pastor Hall" is the first film to deal with the issue of the Nazi concentration camps. Fortunatley, I have a copy that I taped off air several years ago, and the image quality is better than a lot of digital transfers I've seen.

This film should be revived. I'd run "Pastor Hall" as a main feature, and run Alain Resnais' stark 1955 documentary masterpiece, "Nuit Et Brouillard" (Night and Fog) right afterwards. Both films should be required viewing for the film student.

• If you found this 'mini-review' helpful, then please checkout my full length IMDb reviews, written for post-viewing discussion with live audiences. This postscript added 21st June 2006.

The Reluctant Dragon (I) (1941)

A Fabulous, absolute classic in its own unique way!

[8/10 · 6 December 2004]

"The Reluctant Dragon" is one of the most fascinating "one off", genre-bending children's films ever made. The historical aspect of the film, giving as it does, an insight into the 1940s Disney studio empire, sets it apart, with the actual appearance of Walt Disney himself really topping it off. The colour sequences are a (deliberately) totally stunning example of the Technicolor process.

I've seen it several times, normally with my young children as an early "rite of passage". This time, however, I'm digging it out to show my film students, who are looking at CGI. Not all things filmic change, as a side by side comparison of this film with "The Making of Ice Age" can verify, for instance. Maybe I'll make some more in-depth comments once I've seen the film again.

Meanwhile, all I have to do is actually locate my video copy of the film... lurking not too reluctantly, I hope, in the storage space under my stairs...

• Two years later, and I have finally located my VHS copy of this film! Now to watch it with my 8 year old son, and then maybe I'll add some insight from his perspective here in this review! If you found this 'mini-review' helpful, then please checkout my full length IMDb reviews, written for post-viewing discussion with live audiences. This postscript added 21st June 2006.

Intolerance (1916)

As Seen on the Big Screen

[10/10 · 22 November 2004]

There is not much that I can say that has not already been said about Griffith's 1916 masterpiece, Intolerance. I love to show clips to my students, as it establishes a sense of history and grandeur to even the casual study of film.

However, I was very privileged to see a brand-new print, with a live audience, in a large movie house.. (and I'm not THAT old!) when Kevin Browlow's Channel 4 silents sponsored the screening of the restored print at the Dominion Theatre, London. Carl Davis was conducting the orchestra from the pit. Two or more thousand people watched in rapt attention. It was an awesome experience.

Alas, silent film is very hard to see these days, and the saddest thing of all is that the Channel 4 silents got axed not long after. This is living history.. and possibly the greatest film of all time.

For the buffs out there, I can give you the Dominion screening dates from the programme I have at home. I'm in my office right now, so it is not to hand.

The Fighting Temptations (2003)

Insightful Take on Religious Hypocrisy

[9/10 · 22 November 2004]

Anyone wanting to know why so many people leave church and go where the high times (and big money) is, should see the movie. Especially all the self-righteous religious folk out there in movie land. The film really does depict the small minded, law-bound religious mind-set that lacks the compassion, mercy and caring that personifies Jesus Christ.

Sure, 'The Fighting Temptations' does smack a little of Sister Act, but its evangelical setting makes it far more comparable to Whitney Houston's performance in "The Preacher's Wife." Both films are thoughtful, compassionate studies of the human issues that religious, sometimes (and sometimes not) well meaning people face.

See the movie, and if you haven't already, also see "The Preacher's Wife." Both films are ideal discussion starters for student Christian unions, and of course, the soundtrack is terrific. Does the movie work? Yes. And technically, it is well put together. Is it a bit on the candy-floss side? Sure, a little, but at the same time, the film deals with issues of faith that we ignore at our peril. Verdict? Great entertainment: use with popcorn.

• If you found this 'mini-review' helpful, then please checkout my full length IMDb reviews, written for post-viewing discussion with live audiences. This postscript added 21st June 2006.

The White Rabbit (1967– )

"The White Rabbit": Our BBC Ealing Studios Quest

[9 January 2003]

I'm a college lecturer - and my office and classroom just happens to be the location used in "The White Rabbit" mini-series aired in 1967 on BBC2.

Our college location is less than a stone's throw from the historic "Ealing Studios". The room used as the Nazi HQ in the BBC production was, at that time, the library of "Ealing Grammar School for Boys". It is now an open access I.T. area in a college of further education, and most of the shelving has gone. However, I've managed to stop the last wall of the oak bookshelves featured in the drama from being ripped down; indeed, it is now the main feature in my individual learning area, which is in a part of the main room.

Alas, I've never seen the production, (which is either 5 episodes, 4 episodes or 4 + 1 pilot, depending who you believe). If anyone can help me in locating an archive copy, and getting us a dub, (or just some production stills that we can frame and put up "on location"), I'd be very grateful.

I personally believe that giving youth a sense of history and "connectedness" should be a core part of education. Our "White Rabbit" project is just one of the ways we are exploring the historic motion picture / media roots of our local Ealing community.