Manhandled could so easily have become a servicable slice of film noir, but instead only gives us a few references to that genre, opting instead to bursts of tongue-in-cheek humor and ham-fisted crime investigations. The film opens with a tasty murder sequence, as a writer (Alan Napier) is explaining to his psychiatrist that this is a recurring dream that has been troubling him. Even in 1949, one would know better than to reveal such a dream to anyone, let alone a shrink with his new secretary (Dorothy Lamour) standing by jotting down notes of the session. That is typical of the implausibility that routinely plagues the storyline. Later, a detective and insurance investigator casually pop pills to test a suspect's story, that taking amphetamines before barbituates will counteract the effect. According to the script, it does. Many lame plot devices later, it's still a fairly entertaining b-movie that doesn't even try to rise any higher than pulp fluff.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Really enjoyable movie...

...As opposed to either, the usual over-wrought DC Zach Snyder style, made for adolescent-teen sludge, or the once in a blue moon Nolan ones or the recent brilliance of Joker.

A nice, lighter tone that doesn't require a degree in comic book lore, and is actually entertaining.

Great opening sequence, once again Zimmer delivers a knockout score, and a very playful, humorous tone mocking (or satirising) some aspects of the eighties, while acknowledging some of the darker cold war aspects.

An eighties style millionaire (?)...

(modelled on nobody in particular I'm sure ...ahem)

... Is up to something, with a too good to be true business empire punted constantly on TV, and an interest in a particular object which has found it's way via the FBI, into the museum where Wonder Woman works, alongside Kristen Wiig's rather downtrodden low self esteemed multi- ologist.

Dreams are offered, but perhaps at cost... or maybe it's all fake news? :)

If there are a few downsides to this, it's that maybe there are too many strong ideas competing in here, each of which, might have been worthy of it's own film... female empowerment in the face of antiquated sexual predation (Metoo), and where that goes, amongst other things...

...And also, the effects, with regards fight / action sequences, which in interior settings, are quite brilliantly done, but look pretty shoddy, unrealistic, and preposterous in exterior locations for some reason.,,, the physics of it all, especially outside doesn't really work at all, especially as it has that contrast of the realistic interior work to underline just how bogus it looks.

But minor quibbles, really, in an otherwise excellent, entertaining film.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Violent, grim, disturbing, but really quite brilliant.

This is one that has you sitting mesmerised and mostly open mouthed, unable to take your eyes away from the screen as this deeply atmospheric journey into darkness sets out apparently as one kind of film, but gradually mutates into an altogether different movie over is duration.

In the face of it, it's about a man struggling to deal with the aftermath of having shot an intruder in his own home while his family slept... So you think it's going to be an anti gun meditation piece... But then it shifts into a kind stalker horror revenge movie, as someone was clearly but happy with him for his actions, before shifting even more, by turns, into a conspiracy mystery, then finally an all out revenge movie, with savage twists that are not for the feint hearted.

I sat and watched it first time round having known nothing about it going in, but found it a brutally refreshing, and compelling watch.

Strange that more was not made of it at the time, but in time, I think this will be considered an absolute classic of its era.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

I've often wondered how the fall of Communism in the USSR really came about, having read a number of accountings which differ greatly. Me personally, I'd like to think a copy of Roller Boogie leaked into the red zone. After seeing that opening sequence, those people KNEW they had to have freedom if they were ever going to enjoy life the way the USA did on that jaunt down the Venice Beach Walk. It wasn't going to happen by disarmament but disco. Several years later, well, you know how this story ended.

All the suggestions about the late 70s and L.A. being a shallow nest of superficial excess can be put to rest. Like the kid's t-shirt says, Heaven. Deep stuff here. And completely ignored by the Academy.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

This film famously made stars of the director (Stephen Frears - Philomena, Dirty Pretty Things, The Grifters) , writer (Hanif Kureshi - although I think his later Buddha of Suburbia was better), Hans Zimmer did the score (Inception, The Dark Knight, Interstellar) and actor Daniel Day-Lewis (My Left Foot, In The Name Of The Father, Gangs Of New York).

The film was produced for the Channel 4 TV station in the UK, but it ended up playing the Edinburgh Film Festival and later art cinemas in New York to critical acclaim. It benefited hugely from being shot on 16mm which has meant the film looks good today; films that were shot on video in the 80s largely look bad even when remastered.

The film is a fairly simple story about two young men, one an Indian, the other a white racist who end up forming a romantic,sexual relationship while working in a laundrette in London. Hanif Kureshi creates a lot of social commentary woven into the script. It's worth noting at the time homosexuality was still illegal for men under 21 in the UK and interracial relationships weren't as accepted as they are now. The film is a bit of a time capsule and I think some viewers will wonder what the fuss is about (a bit like watching Guess Who's Coming To Dinner today). It's brightly photographed and quite a bitter-sweet film, but it's not the masterpiece it is made out to be in my opinion.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Ricky Gervais brings back his David Brent character after he said he wouldn't do a sequel to The Office (2001) TV series. Admittedly it is only the character he brought back and it is more a companion piece than a sequel. The character was much loved and appeared in many best comedy characters lists.

This is a mockumentary with Brent and other characters addressing camera. It is also "cringe comedy" which is also used in The Inbetweeners, Peep Show, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Alan Partridge and to an extent in Friday Night Dinner and shows no signs of stopping. I think Mockumentary films are out of fashion with big budget, high production values often being favoured with the Corneto Trilogy from Edgar Wright or even something like Four Lions. This could change when the new Borat film is released though.

The film follows David Brent as he uses his money to go on tour with his band "Foregone Conclusion" with the hope of getting signed. I'm not the biggest Gervais fan and really how much you like this film depends on how much you like his humour. BBC Films have put a fair bit of money into this and it does "feel" like a film rather than a TV episode, but in my opinion it just isn't funny or relevant enough; it's a shame it didn't come out after Extras around 2010-ish. I know Gervais was doing projects in America at the time though. There's a great performance by stand-up comedian Doc Brown who I think steals most scenes. I think it's an OK film and an easy watch.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Disturbing in so many ways. Probably a better film than my grade suggests, but it just sickened me and I couldn't enjoy it, nor be entertained.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

A Nineties masterpiece, later ruined by a "Director's Cut".

Now I understand why this has not been getting any shows on terrestrial TV...

...Having come across the "Director's Cut" DVD that I had been so determined to avoid, for fear of ruining the experience of the original theatrical (US and elsewhere) version I was familiar with, I finally decided to bite the bullet, and see what was up with it...

...And it only served to confirm my worst fears.

Leon, the story of a ruthless, yet lonely hitman with a very childish naivety, who crosses paths with an intelligent, yet overly precocious 12 year old girl, Mathilda, when her crappy family are killed by a truly terrifying, corrupt, psychotic DEA agent and his crew...

(Gary Oldman in his scariest ever role (makes Dracula look like a swell guy!))

...Leon takes her in, and a friendship begins to develop between them.

Already, you can see the problematic nature of this arrangement, in that it gets you shifting uncomfortably in your seat, but that's OK, it's supposed to, as it plays on the audience's natural scepticism and cynicism in order to undermine it, as this, at it's heart, is really is a story about the recovery, and preservation of innocence in a corrupt and horrific world... both Leon and Mathilda finding in each other, the companionship that would provide this, all the while trying to evade Oldman's nutcase, hunting Mathilda in order to tie up the loose ends of his dodgy dealings...

...In the end, a kind of redemption is sought by both, and you find yourself sitting a little easier in your chair....

...Until, that is, you see this "Director's Cut", which adds quarter of an hour or so of footage which completely torpedoes this fragile knife edge innocence, as Mathilda accompanies Leon on a few "hits" in order to learn how to become a "cleaner" like him, and the nature of their relationship goes a little too far the wrong way because of a couple of, admittedly dramatic scenes between them, and the Innocent nature of these characters is shattered from that moment on...effectively yanking the heart out of the movie, and making you feel grubby watching it.

The other thing is, that by adding those extra minutes right in the middle of things, it's a while before you see Gary Oldman again, and his large, looming presence begins to slip from your mind, so his character is less menacing through having his impact diluted... and as for the ever brilliant Danny Aiello, his character is all but pushed out to the edges through this.

In this day and age, This Director's Cut would never make it on to the TV, and rightly so.

You are better off getting a masterpiece of cinema in the shape of the original theatrical cut on DVD, and chucking the tainted "Director's Cut" in the bin.

Sometimes the Director himself does not know best.

[YouTube Video]

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Yet another White House-ordered propaganda film created to appease Americans who were at odds with the USA allying with the USSR. Again, FDR's favorite actor Walter Huston steps up to the microphone to help with the sales pitch. Our Russian Front (what a title!) didn't create the controversy that the major studio productions did, even though it's the same message, cobbling together a bunch of Soviet-shot battle footage. Perhaps not as funny as the 'Duck and Cover'-era propaganda, but every bit as entertaining, assuming you have any historical knowledge to balance against the fictionalized accountings of these films.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Excessive melodrama, but I loved it anyway. Everyone looks great and Karl Malden, in particular, turns in a fevered performance as the unrelenting, hard-driving tobacco baron. Claudette Colbert's return to the big screen is also her last feature film -- and she is in top form, as well.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Imagine how amazing it would be for moviegoers of, say the 1970's, to see such a slick, technolgically whiplash-inducing film as Revolver, then marvel at the heap of contempt such an effort ultimately generated. The bells and whistles that over-populate director Guy Ritchie's fifth film are simply not enough to carry it past the finish line. Pretentious, comic-book level philosophy beats the viewer over the head amidst a cascade of edgy editing (the first cut of the elevator scene took a MONTH to edit, then several months more work before settling on the version used in the final cut...sheesh!) The cinematography and lighting -- while precision perfect -- add yet more pompous embellishment. Ironically, the dogma Revolver seems to be lecturing to the audience is precisely what drags the film into its own lucid quagmire.

I almost bought into it. I was hoping for something fresh and original, but the more I watched, the more polish chipped away and revealed the shoddy foundation underneath. Allusions (or obstacles) to other cinema auteurs (Lynch, Tarantino, Bergman...to name a few) are painfully within arm's reach throughout.

Most viewers love or hate Revolver, with few riding the center point. The haters have great points to make, but ignore some of the film's qualities. It's not the total catastrophe some may lead you to believe; it begins with the pace of a caper film, a good mystery lurks about, and some of the performances are often compelling. Those characteristics wither, however, and the more light is shed on them, the weaker they get. For added fun, watch the extended / deleted scenes on the DVD for more signs of an already problematic production.

Disciples of Revolver dismiss non-believers of the film's spiritual ideology by stating that it was too deep, and that old chestnut: they "didn't get it". I got it. Guy Ritchie's ego is his own worst enemy.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

WARNING: This review contains a Spoiler Alert!!!

With thousands of films in my film library, this ranks as one of my top ten favorites, with dozens of viewings over the past 45 years. What makes this film so interesting is how sexist it is, appealing perhaps to ONLY males, while not a single female Ive ever met even liked it, mostly hating it. As a man, I automatically enjoy things that are specifically FOR men, and I enjoy it even more when women HATE it. So clearly this is "a guy movie," depicting women (in general) as manipulative liars, whores, and selfish bitches. Sounds familiar? Yes, the greatness of this film is in its depiction of sexual honesty. Just how stupid can a man be when in love? So fascinating upon initial viewing, I wasn't even able to see its comedic value, mesmerized by how realistic it seemed to have a theoretical futuristic society such as the one depicted in the film. Let's be honest, there's nothing funny about extracting men's semen from them against their will - what films do we have in our society that humorously depicts female rapes? Answer: None. So this film crosses all boundaries of drama and humor into uncharted territories which are still relevant today. Personally, I find this film fascinating and worthy of MANY multiple viewings and has always been a required viewing in all film classes I've hosted. Despite its title, this is definitely NOT a kiddie movie! Don't waste your time trying to get your girlfriend to watch it - she will never like this film. Strictly 100% guy flick, perhaps the strongest guy flick of all time.
Tony

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Very intresting film, can be found on youtube, its like a pranormal film similar too paranormal activity however this was more budgt though Stefano still deliverd the shocks & jumpscares, it was also filmd in an old creepy mansion, overall i would give it a watch if your intrested in low budget horror mysterys.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Around the World in Eighty Days was, no doubt, a spectacle to behold on the big screen in it's full 70mm glory. The cinematography, music, costumes, locations...everything is cultured to a perfect sheen. Then there's the cast, which includes a harvest of uncredited cameos, which also serves to enhance the six million dollar adaptation of Jules Verne's literary classic. Unfortunately, the wonderment that once enthralled movie audiences has dulled with the passage of time and technology. If you're not watching on a big screen, it all looks like just another product of a bygone era, losing all of the scope and magnitude in the translation. As for time considerations, you'll need to block out 3+ hours to view the film, which seems unnecessary when you strip away the event gimmickry, with entirely too much of the story coasting along at a decidedly non-pithy pace. And let's be honest, at least half the film is actually a late 19th century travelogue, even though most of it was indeed shot in Hollywood.

As an interesting sidenote, the film was shot in just under eighty days. I have to wonder if maybe producer Michael Todd wagered money on the duration of principal photography...

If you like the oldschool, grand scale adventure epics, this is the one that swept up 5 Academy Awards for 1956, including Best Picture.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

The funniest nightmare on elmstreet of all out of freddy krueger that still crack me up til this day !

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Good old fashioned body horror / mind scrambler horror movie!

Based on an H. P. Lovecraft story, and starring Nicolas Cage...

(Each of these two names is probably a genre in themselves, over and above author and actor respectively)

...So that should tell you what you're in for to some extent!

Basically, a glowing meteor falls from space, and lands on Nicolas Cage's rural farm, then weird colours begin to manifest all over the place, and some increasingly bizarre events start occurring, culminating in some gruesome body horror and psychedelic mind warping sequences.

Fans of David Cronenberg movies will probably love it, as will John Carpenter fans (especially: "The Thing"), as this has that kind of good old fashioned horror movie effects thing going on that we all know and love, as opposed to too much CGI... and it has the look and feel of a Carpenter movie, only perhaps... more colourful!.

Suspenseful, spooky and unsettling when it needs to be, mildly disturbing, and plenty of gross-out effects... everything you want from a sci-fi / horror movie basically! :)

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Roland Emmerich... eurgh!

..,conspiracy theory movie......Eurgh!

.....Actually a well crafted movie, that's probably among Emmerich's best.

(I lost interest after Stargate)

It's about whether William Of Shakespeare was the real author of some plays that some of you may have heard of, or some other dude.... and it's about him.

Just don't expect Independence Day style popcorn fare... this is Shakespearian wordiness and drama (with some light comedic moments from Rafe Spall).

More like... Ivory Merchant of Venice or summat, :)

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

You get those movies sometimes that give the wrong impression of themselves in the ad campaign and marketing, and this is one of those.

I think the reason I didn't look any further into it at the time is that it just felt like a band-wagon movie, cashing in on other recent war movies made to "commemorate" (not cash in on.. ahem) notable anniversaries regarding the two world wars.

I just got the impression it was a paint by numbers war flick that someone at studio HQ said: "We need another one of those war movies to sell!"

...But thankfully, it's not.

It's more than that, by being, in a very particular way.... less.

As Henry's comment tells you, if you are expecting a massive epic scale set piece with thousands of extras fighting on the beaches across multiple story threads, then you will be disappointed, because this is instead, more of an Odyssey type of movie...

... or perhaps, an ordeal movie about two soldiers trying to get through to a front line position by morning, to deliver an order to stop an attack that would see swathes of British soldiers walk into certain death resulting from an enemy trap designed for this purpose.

(Sounds a bit like Gallipoli doesn't it?)

As such, it follows just these two as they go through all manner of horrors to get where they need to go...

And it really follows them!

The first twenty minutes are presented as one single shot close up to them as if from just one single, floating camera, and it barely changes camera angles after that... so you're right therewith them in "real time" (some liberties are taken with time, but most are accounted for with some plot devices) from field to front line.

It feels, therefore, less epic, and more personal.

More sweary, gruesome, and shocking in places than your average WW1 film (War Horse it ain't!)

But certainly worth watching.. excellent film.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

There's a lot of good images on the screen, much of it brought to life by a vivid cast, but there's just too much going on. Literary sources are tricky and you can't keep every side story. 2 hours and 15 minutes is just not enough to get the full story in. The Chase uses action sparsely and tries to cram in the expansive array of characters, the inhabitants of a small town in Texas whose paths interconnect after the prison escape of wrongly-convicted Bubber (Robert Redford). Much of the goings-on plays like a soap opera (although not melodrama), but none of the characters are allowed to sink in, and thus there's little emotional investment.

So much talent in front of and behind the cameras, which appears to compete with the flow one might expect from an Arthur Penn film. Despite the internal flaws, it's fairly compelling, there's some great players on screen, and the cinematography is a treat.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Dizzying array of images, incomprehensible speeches and bombastic acting (and let's be honest, filmmaking) that tries unsuccessfully to spin history by twisting the truth and often, outright fabrication. Despite the comic book screenplay, it's still a fantastic rollercoaster ride...just make sure you know that rides are all about illusion and fun, not reality.

The best part of the whole film is sitting through Donald Sutherland's explanation to Kevin Costner of what the whole conspiracy entails. Good grief, he deserved an Oscar for memorizing (and smirking through!) all that text.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

This gets a meagre 3.2/10 on IMBb and I have to agree.

This is one stinker of a film.

Ostensibly it's a sex comedy but in manages to fail on either count and given that Imogen Hassall and David Jason are the two main actors that's quite a non achievement!

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

For anyone who hasn't seen this, and knows nothing about it, it's difficult to talk about without offering a spoiler...

(Probably pointless not to mention the twist, as the follow up film to this kind of unequivocally spoils it itself by virtue of it's very existence!)

...But at a time when some felt M. Night Shyamalan's powers were ebbing (I may be alone in loving everything he does!), this had no real expectation around it, but is an absolute return to form, and in territory fans of his movies will love.

It is his inimitable take on the origins of a super-villain... maybe (?)

For the story centres around a man apparently suffering from a pronounced multiple-personality disorder... but the question lingers throughout he film, is it just that, or is there something more... supernatural about it?

(Sound familiar... ? :)

He abducts three teenage schoolgirls, for creepy reasons that leave you fearing the worst for what you are maybe about to watch... but needless to say, it gets stranger as it goes than that, as the story moves into bizarre territory.

James McAvoy gives a career best performance(s) in a film that most actors might have failed to be convincing in, and ruined the whole premise, and Anya Taylor Joy is very strong as the hero / heroine of the film.

The soundtrack is the last element which pushes the whole film up a notch or five... it is phenomenal!

Overall, it's a great addition to a... larger picture, which meant it has a lot to live up to... and does, but by being entirely it's own brand of brilliant.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Pretty good,though not as good as the first... bit flat, and the plot not so tight to me.

Zoey Deutch (daughter of Lea Thompson) plays an "bimbo airhead" (archaic term) to comic perfection, and steals every scene she's in... and virtually the whole movie on the strength of it.

Worth watching just for her performance - she should be cast in everything immediately!

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

A polished, stylized hit piece in reverse. "Client-9" is a documentary weighed down by its flattering, apologetic gloss that spends the majority of its screen time doting over its idol.

The focus rests on explaining to us why specific crimes are so bad. Of course, these were the crimes that Eliot Spitzer made a name for himself taking down...since we probably can't deduce on our own that Wall Street sharks manipulating mutual funds is evil. No hard questions, no opposing perspectives...I don't even recall any heroes aside from Spitzer. I have little doubt that the financial cannibals depicted are the evildoers they appear to be, but how can I trust a presentation which resembles those extended campaign ads shown at political conventions before the star candidate makes a grand entrance? Campaign ads for Spitzer are indeed interjected with continued bias and lack of objectivity.

Nary a slick production affectation is spared. Woke hip-hop music is strategically placed, in addition to emotional piano cues during confessional spiels. An onslaught of over-saturated primary colors, strategic ersatz cinéma vérité elements, merged with still images unfolding via slow pedestal / truck pans and rack focus montages. A virtual overdose of approval propaganda porn.

The final reels ask why Spitzer was targeted for his sex crimes -- in this case, violation of the Mann Act (interstate transport for prostitution). Comparisons are routinely made to his opposing party's faults which help reveal the core of the film's problem, and that is painting all of his detractors as the cause of his downfall. "It's just sex..." one interviewee states. In actuality, the financial transactions paid for the pricey trysts were going to a pair of offshore shell companies, a front for the Emperors Club (details ignored by the film.) When the club owners were raided, feds found a safe housing a million dollars in cash! For an escort service? Some sex acts have legal complications and consequences. If you enter politics and play cowboy, it's probably a good idea to veer away from committing federal crimes in your spare time; it's not "just sex".

Addressing the March 2008 US Federal Court affidavit, narrator (and director) Alex Gibney:
"The list of charges against the Emperors Club, the affidavit, was surprisingly detailed; as a piece of writing it was crafted like a mystery story -- full of clues -- it teased the reader with a few sentences each with Clients 1 to 8, and then five riveting pages on Client number 9....The affidavit was full of steamy sexual banter...was the writing meant to convict the accused or embarrass the client?".

The emphases in that quote cluster are not mine and are spoken with a mix of disdain and taunt. During those descriptions, words / phrases from the affidavit are highlighted like "pay for wire transfer", "collect the fee", and "private location". Subjects describe intruding questions from the FBI, as if their doing so was unusual and proof that the target of this inquiry was wronged by investigators probing for details. Gibney is upset at descriptions and details in an affidavit because it makes the subject of an investigation look bad?!?

My beef with Spitzer is not partisan, nor based on his sex scandal. In July 2005, during his tenure as attorney general, I followed a case which appealed to my interest in the music industry - a shakedown on payola operations from major labels. I read multiple articles on the topic with vested interest. Sony was the target corporation in the investigation and "takedown" and found guilty of a catalog of state and federal crimes, resulting in praise from folks like Don Henley. Our AG is the hero, right? Wrong. As punishment, an Assurance of Discontinuance was issued in which Sony-BMG agreed to donate $10 million to a New York-based philanthropy group that funds music appreciation programs for N.Y. Further, a statement was released by Sony admitting they did wrong, accompanied by a "pledge" to do better in the future. Oh, and they agreed to stop the payoffs-for-airplay, reforms when problems are identified, and my favorite: hiring a compliance officer responsible for monitoring promotion practices, and to develop an internal accounting system to detect future abuses. Internal! In other words, monitor yourself. Where was this mentioned in our love letter to Spitzer?

This film is pitched as a tale of "betrayal", but who betrayed him? Eliot Spitzer was a charismatic, talented politician and you really want to rally around him and to his defense; it's easy to be seduced by his combination of communication skills, assured dynamism, presence. and the sense that we all want a superhero to come along and put away bad guys. None of those skills excuses his crimes, hubris, or other issues the way his career is whitewashed in this celluloid slop. The producers appear to be bought off by their own idealism.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

An ultra low budget science fiction film.

It's a competition between the script and the 'special' effects as to which is the clunkiest.

By far the best thing about this film is the drifty Moogy soundtrack.

This film has a certain cult appeal partly due to Electronica artist Boards Of Canada using an image from it for their Twoism EP

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Tomorrow At Ten - full film 77 minutes
11-Jan-2020 film taken off of youtube

....I thought I'd seen this film recently on freeview TalkingPics which shows a lot of John Gregson films (15 March 1919 – 8 January 1975), and I have, so here it is in full.

Robert Shaw plays a psychopath who kidnaps a young boy and threatens to blow him up with a bomb placed in a child's doll that replicates Shaw's characters' (George Marlow) doll from his own unhappy childhood......I cannot mention the type of doll due to current sensitivity over racial prejudice stereotypes. It's a race against time to find the bomb which will explode "tomorrow at ten"....that's in the a.m.

Film regulars William Hartnell, Harry Fowler, Renee Houston, Kenneth Cope and Ray Smith also appear in the film............enjoy.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Reissuers have played havoc with the shape of this movie (aspect ratio). The screenshots here are from current videos that make it 2.0. There has never been such a thing as a 2.0 ratio. Some people have been overthinking themselves into a ditch. Hammer and UK filmmakers typically used the 1.66 shape, and America went a bit farther and used 1.85. Blurays are made for 16:9 screens (1.77) so they could just as well have made it 1.77 without black bars. If you don't know what in the world this means, you are losing image at the top and bottom.
As for the film content, I can't figure out what I think of it. I can't recall if I saw it in 1962. When I saw a video in the 1990s, it made no impression on me. I can't understand this.
But compared to other filmings I give it credit for keeping the phantom a mystery until the end. Hard to believe how others tell the whole story of his origins right at the start of the movies.
The film length was 1:24. Then in the US to fit a two hour TV slot, Universal filmed 14 minutes of extra footage involving two detectives investigating the situation.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Yeah, not baaaad...

Kevin Hart is always watchable but this lacks a certain something. It definitely requires a wishful suspension of disbelief (loads of "Yeah, right!" moments) but there are some good set pieces separated by bits which seem to fall flat by comparison (mentally picturing tumbleweed blowing across the screen).

Worth a watch.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

One of the most quotable films in history! Although I slightly prefer Holy Grail, this is still a wonderful... piece of art, really!

This is more grown-up than Grail and touches on topics with a more mature attitude, I believe. Hence the partially successful attempts to ban it! Of course, the church didn't get it! Or maybe they did, as the satire was aimed directly at them and not Christianity as they bleated on and on about!

Oh and it had nudity! And Spike!

:happy:

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

After only just scraping through the Police Academy, and being assigned to the worst precinct in Paris, the blundering son of a heroic inspector tries to make his own mark, with disastrous and hilarious results. Additional problems arrive via a muck-racking journalist daughter of a millionaire, who, when also insulting a crime lord gets kidnapped as a consequence. Can the inspector save the day and uphold the reputation of the dismal police force?

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?