Commentaires de trevorwomble

This film has an interesting story but suffers from very average direction and a badly miscast Dirk Bogarde and Denholm Elliott.

The great Lewis Milestone just seemed to be going through the motions as director here, with some poor model work and effects shots. It doesn't help that the script is as flat as a pancake and that Dirk Bogarde is badly cast and just doesn't cut it as a heroic action star, having little of the charisma he would later find in roles better suited to his talents. The wonderful Denholm Elliott doesn't have much to do other than argue with people and the supporting cast are little better than cardboard cut outs. Elliott was always great value as a slightly slimy or nervous down on his luck toff but he gets lost in this film, coming fairly early in his career when he hadn't really found his on screen personality.

This film comes across as a dummy run for the far superior The Guns of Navarone, a film that has parallels to this but bigger budgeted, better scripted, edited and with a cast that seems more engaging in a war film. In comparison this is relatively dull and lacking in excitement.

This film is a logical sequel to the 1984 classic, catching up with the band 41 years later during a one off reunion gig.

Whilst it falls a little short of the absurdity and satire of it's famous predecessor it's still very funny with Paul McCartney and Elton John both game to send themselves up too. It lacks the freshness and set pieces of the original but the dialogue still crackles and is where most of the belly laughs are located.

Personally I really enjoyed it although I noticed several scenes in the trailer did not make the final cut (and will probably be included on the dvd release). And although the main cast has obviously aged, Rob Reiner's Martin DiBergi curiously looks pretty much as he did back in 1984 (including the same hat!). And considering the songs the band sings are deliberately twee or pompous and hilarious, they are so well performed you just get caught up in the whole thing.

A worthy sequel to a stone cold classic that made the audience laugh out loud at least every two minutes (which is more than the Naked Gun reboot did) and is probably best enjoyed on the big screen.

I' will confess that I was slightly underwhelmed by this film but nonetheless I still enjoyed it. Although the basis is based on real events there are no great surprises and this kind of thing has been seen before in other films in recent years such as A Walk In the Woods or The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry.but

That being said, Jason Isaacs and Gillian Anderson are both excellent and hold the slight story together very well. Anderson has never looked less glamorous as she does here and is almost unrecognisable putting in an understated but believable performance. Isaac's similarly looked different to what we've seen him in before and shows us all that given a good script he is actually a surprisingly deep actor. The two of them work very well together and you really do feel their despair and believe their love for each other keeps them strangely optimistic, dignified and grateful for small mercies.

The film does sag a little bit in places and doesn't really expand much on what led to their bankruptcy. That said though the film is a small scale effort held together by some big performances. Perhaps not essential viewing but a rewarding one nonetheless.

Where do I start with this film. The near non-existent script perhaps? The total lack of characterisation ? The truly terrible story? Or the criminal waste of on-screen talent?

The script is bad...and I do mean really bad. With cringeworthy dialogue delivered by otherwise good actors (who seem to know how bad it is). None of the characters are given any fleshing out. It's like a whole backstory is missing from all the major characters, as if the film is missing the first twenty minutes to explain why people are they way they are. For example why does Selina (Faye Dunaway) want to rule the world? And how incredibly convenient that she is in the right place at the right time to end up with the incredible power source that has been lost from Kara-El's world. And how has Selina ended up with a boyfriend like Nigel (Peter Cook)? The whole story just doesn't hang together and is preposterous.

The film just seems like they gathered together a good cast and then realised they needed to give them something to do. The story is more akin to an episode of the Adam West Batman TV series than a $35 million film.

To me it's a toss up as to if this film is worse than Superman IV. At least that film had a coherent if silly story. However that film was made on half the budget of this film. Supergirl does at least have some interesting visuals and well executed effects. It's just a shame its so boring with the talent at its disposal.

I saw this yesterday and still haven't made up my mind about it and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because Kieran Culkin's character of Benji doesn't quite ring true to me, although there is one particular scene in it where he is excellent. Or maybe it's because of the ridiculous over use of the F word in a film that is trying very hard to be an honest drama.

It is well enough filmed and edited and the cast try really hard but I think my issue is that the script somehow needed a bit more work to feel less contrived. However Culkin and Jesse Eisenberg don't ever quite convince as cousins. Eisenberg is as reliable as ever but something tells me he would have been a better fit as a more restrained version of Benji (which i felt would have improved it) and maybe Jake Gylenhaal would have been a good fit for the role of David.

Admittedly Culkin has the harder job here, portraying someone who is probably on the autistic spectrum and struggling with his life, and he acquits himself well enough, especially in the scenes after the visit to the concentration camp. And considering the small budget, it's a solid achievement of a movie. It's not got the gravitas of something like The Pianist but as a small scale drama it is fine, but something seems to be missing and I can't quite put my finger on it.

Overall I am glad I saw it. It's quite original with a decent cast and I must admit I didn't even recognize Jennifer Grey at first as to me she will always be Ferris Bueller's sister. As I said though, I think the problem is with the character of Benji, who swears constantly, smokes dope and yet flips personality on a dime. Of course, maybe I've missed the point and the fact he is the odd one out in this film is the whole point of him being there. But try as Culkin might, the character feels a bit shallow and underdeveloped. Having said that it was still a worthwhile film but it also feels like a missed opportunity too. And whilst I'm no prude, the over use of profanity really grated and spoiled what could have been a more earnest human drama.

This is better than I was expecting. I thought it would be dull drama about the inner workings of the papacy but instead there was a touch of a classic thriller in this too. When Dean Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) is asked by a dying pope to oversee the Conclave (the procedure to elect the next pope), little does he know the skulduggery that will follow. What should be a straightforward process gets very complicated and he uncovers some revealing secrets. He even finds himself dragged onto the shortlist much to his displeasure.

The film has its twists and turns and many of the pious candidates turn out to be harbouring deep secrets. Yet this is also a fascinating look at the inner processes of the Catholic church. As others have said, perhaps there is one twist too many in the story yet ironically it isn't entirely without precedent in the history of the papacy.

Good solid performances all round, especially Stanley Tucci as an earnest character who seems strangely reluctant to be nominated and Isabella Rosselin in a small but important i as a nun who helps shed light on the corruption Lawrence starts to uncover.

Quite gripping in places and whilst a bit slow in parts it's running time is about right, not outstaying it's welcome but you don't feel short-changed either.

I have to admit that I went into the cinema (Everyman in Crystal Palace) not really knowing what to expect. It had been hard for me to track this film down as I'd never heard of it and it had only selected showings in arthouse cinemas.

As someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s I was familiar with Wings and Band on the Run is one of my favourite albums from that era and this shortish film, originally released in 1975, hit the spot, with it's terrific music.

Macca does a modern introduction to the film, explains how it came about and soberly reminds us that three of the band have now passed away (Denny Laine being the most recent in 2023). Then once you realise you are looking at a time capsule, the music kicks in fairly quickly and are transported back to simpler times, before streaming and when rock music ruled the radio and vinyl was king. To me it was like being a kid again seeing all the terrible fashions and haircuts and people smoking before it all became terribly unfashionable.

As others have pointed out, the video quality of the era was a bit rough but the songs more than make up for it. And then the 82 year old Paul comes on to ask us to stay for a few minutes more whilst the 'backyard session' is played...ten minutes of him on acoustic guitar playing Buddy Holly and other early rock and roll songs.

Maybe not everyone's cup of tea but I thought it was well worth the effort.

This is a way better film than its reputation gives it. It is a fun, if slightly silly premise but there's some real entertainment here. It's well cast, with the late Richard Jordan looking the part of the suave Dirk Pitt, David Selby as Dr Seagram, the ever reliable Jason Robards and an early film appearance for Anne Archer. Alec Guinness really has only a cameo role, appearing in just two scenes but I guess he was cast in order to give the film a famous name to attract interest it.

The underwater scenes, especially the scenes involving the search and locating of the wreck are well done and might have been an inspiration for James Cameron nearly a decade later when he was making The Abyss. There's also a stirring soundtrack by John Barry that helps to add atmosphere and the film is actually pretty well directed by Jerry Jameson, who directed Airport 77.

The film does have its problems I admit in that it does drag in places (something which should have been sorted within the screenplay before filming began). The quality of the model work is also uneven throughout the film (sometimes it is convincing and sometimes it just looks like a model) and some of the dialogue is a little clunky. But on the whole I found it quite watchable family movie and undeserving of its reputation as a terrible film. There are a lot worse films that have been successful so I feel this particular movie has been harshly treated since its release 44 years ago. It deserves a little more appreciation in my view. So sure, it's no Lawrence of Arabia or even as good as The Towering Inferno but it's reputation as a total turkey is undeserved either. It's just two hours of solid entertainment that has some flaws.

Garfield works great as a comic strip. His witty put downs, lazy selfish behaviour and eating obsession make him totally loveable as is his sarcasm and attitude to Odie and Jon. I even once had a loveable Marmalade cat who had Garfield's love of food, love of all areas where he could sit and make himself comfortable and his 'I'm not moving from this spot for anyone, especially you' attitude.

So obviously I was hoping that this film would resonate a little bit or at least be entertaining. Unfortunately I just found it okay at best. The two previous films were pretty awful and this was perhaps a tiny step up but not by much. The story was pretty threadbare although Samuel L Jackson has a surprisingly good voice for animation. Chris Pratt was a decent fit for the voice too, conveying the general lethargy of our ginger hero and his disdain for those around him. But whilst the film had shreds of wit in the script, it didn't seem quite enough. I also took exception to the design of our rotund hero. His face appeared to have some kind of horrible moustache that ruined his cute look. Odie was pretty spot on with his look though.

The Lorenzo Music voiced animated cartoons of the 1980s were pretty much spot on and perhaps Garfield works better in animated shorts than as a feature film. I also found the humour in this film extremely hit and miss (more miss than hit to be honest) with only about three or four laugh out loud moments. As an origins film it was okay but if there is to be a sequel more work needs to be done on tightening up the storylines and please get rid of that moustache looking face of our sardonic hero. Having said that it is ultimately a kids film but to me it still lacks the depth or charm of something like 'The Peanuts Movie' from a few years back.

This is a terrible effort from the writers of On the Buses. John Inman had become famous for his character of Mr Humphreys in the BBC sitcom Are You Being Served?, which was coming towards the end of its run and this feeble effort to give him his own starring sitcom on rival network.

The simple concept was to take a simple concept of a male boss and female secretary and reverse the roles with the boss being female (played by dramatic actress Rula Lenska) and have Inman as the male secretary. Sound hilarious? Of course it isn't. Despite Inman trying his best, the scripts are truly awful and this should never have got past the pilot stage. But Southern Television thought that there was enough there to commission six episodes. Unsurprisingly it never made it to a second series.

So what is wrong with it? Where do I begin. How about the horrible theme music for one. It's supposed to be futuristic sounding synth sounding but it just grates and dates it horribly. Then there's the cheesy introduction. John Inman walks into the office halfway through someone's conversation and the audience clap his appearance like it's some awful American sitcom from the 1970s. Then there's the dreadful film set of '8 Star', the company where he works. It makes the set of Grace Brothers look positively epic in comparison. And then the show limps along until the commercial break with some feeble plot point.

That this show has been forgotten about for 40 years until TPTV started reshowing it speaks volumes. Remember that this was showing in the same year as Only Fools and Horses made it's TV debut, a show superior to it in every way possible. And the following year we would have the Young Ones, a sitcom that was designed to rebel against shows like this. But even in 1981 this show must have looked pretty awful as much better sitcoms like The Good Life had already come and gone.

John Inman was a one trick pony in some ways but he deserved a better star vehicle than this load of rubbish. Worth watching just to see how NOT to make a comedy show.

This is actually one of Statham's better films of the last few years. An original story about a mysterious agent seeking revenge on the despicable con men who indirectly caused the death of his friend and neighbor starts a chain of events that spiral out of control.

This is pretty standard stuff for Statham but it's very well directed by David Ayer and has a good solid cast. Statham was never particularly good at accents but at least his weird hybrid is explained in the story. However as expected he excels at the well filmed action sequences, and although there is a certain preposterousnesd that someone as distinctive looking as him can somehow keep evading capture without a disguise, his coolness in a gunfight is part of his charm. It's just the Stath doing what he does best, beating people up who step in the way of his retribution for an evil act.

There's blood, gore and violence as well as bad language (although he rarely swears here) and the film is a great popcorn movie providing you don't mind that sort of thing. Statham may not be the worlds greatest actor but he's not terrible either. He knows what he's doing in films like this and does it very well, especially with a solid director like Ayer behind the camera.

I am a big fan of early science fiction films (i.e. Pre-1960s) and this is considered the first Hollywood attempt at a serious sci-fi drama.

The film has its flaws. Just ten years after it was released it looked hopelessly out of date with the design of the rocket looking all wrong, the spacesuits bearing almost no resemblance to reality and the technology involved being wide of the mark. The story is total hokum too, bearing more resemblance to something HG Wells might have dreamt up but it also has its charms.

The first half of the film is almost propaganda, explaining the virtues of a capitalist society being the only realistic way to get to the moon. Yet bizarrely that is how things are going what with the likes of NASA turning to the likes of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk to develop spaceflight vehicles. In a way this film is a clumsy and dated yet ironically logical way to explain it. However the second half of the film, from the actual moon landing to the end is by far the more interesting. The props may look fake and the effects crude but this is one of the first serious attempts to explain how a moon landing may occur. It's not really the film makers fault that they had no idea what a genuine landing would look like twenty years after the film was made. Some of the science is actually spot on even if the dialogue occasionally grates but the matte shots of the moon surface look great and the moon landing sequence (seen through the porthole) look like genuine Apollo footage. Kudos to the script for forseeing the landing overshooting the planned landing spot and almost running out of fuel, eerily foreseeing what would happen when Apollo 11 landed in July 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had only a few seconds left of fuel when the landed on the surface having also overshot their planned spot,

As a very early effort shot in Technicolor there is much to appreciate here. You will have to forgive the fact that it is nearly three quarters of a century old and the film makers didn't have a crystal ball plus some obvious script errors (just look in the goofs section of the IMDB entry). It may not have the polished look of Forbidden Planet )possibly one of the best sci-fi movies ever made) made just 5 years later but then again that film had twice the budget of this. If you compare this film to the primarily B movies of the 1940s that dealt with space exploration you can see a definite jump in quality when you view this movie.

I came out of this movie with a huge smile on my face. After the sterile Tim Burton directed film of 2005 (a technically accomplished but soulless film) I never thought anyone would get anywhere near the warmth of the 1971 film. However Timothee Chalamet is just so likeable in this film and sings and dances very well. The music has some really wonderful songs too and they add to the overall fun of the film. Adults as well as children in the audience were visibly enjoying this movie.

The supporting cast help add to the warmth of the story, even the villains. Hugh Grant is wonderfully droll as well and provides some terrific dry humour. His Oompah Loompah make-up is so well done he actually genuinely looks like he walked off the set of Gene Wilder's 1971 classic.

My only grumble is that the film drags in a couple of places and probably needed a slightly tighter script. There are also a couple of horrible Americanisms in this film which feel out of place amongst a mostly British cast. However the cast give it their all (Olivia Colman and Tom Davis are in full on pantomime mode and enjoying themselves), and some terrific trick photography. The film also has some subtle and not so subtle nods to the 1971 Gene Wilder film which will appease a lot of older viewers.

Alongside the surprisingly excellent Puss in Boots: The Last Wish and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse that came earlier this year, this is one of the most entertaining movies of 2023. It doesn't quite hit the heights of the same director's Paddington movies but it's still a huge amount of fun and easily the best film out this Christmas. Thoroughly recommended family viewing.

Had this film been made by another animation studio I'm sure people would be a little more accepting. Unfortunately for a film marking such an important milestone not just in Disney's history but in the history of movies, the film doesn't quite hit the mark.

It's difficult to exactly define the problem. It's nicely animated, has a typical Disney cute animal (the goat Valentino) and a fairly easy to follow story. However with the exception of a couple of songs, none of the music is terribly memorable and will be forgotten quite quickly, unlike Disneys previous animated film, Encanto from just two years previously. Also the heroine. Asha, is physically reminiscent of the character of Pocahontas from the 1995 Disney animated film of the same name.

The animation is pretty standard as is the script, with moments of humour spread throughout. But something is lacking that prevents the film from being memorable. Everything is so by the numbers as if a tick box check list was used. The script isn't sharp enough, the songs don't shine and even Chris Pine's voicing of the villain tries hard to keep the film alive but its not enough. Perhaps its because the film lacks surprises or truly memorable moments or perhaps its trying too hard to be self referential to the Disney legacy.

I was going to say that if this was say, a Dreamworks film then this would be more acceptable but even Dreamworks can come up with mini masterpieces like this years Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, a film that manages to be both more original and witty than this.

The Disney company, including Pixar and Marvel, have been knocking out some lacklustre films over the past couple of years, in fact too many. To make it worse they have also been expensive to make and the public have been indifferent about them leaving them to flounder at the box office. This is going to be yet another $200 million film that may barely scrape back its outlay. The aforementioned Puss in Boots sequel cost about half the budget of this film and was a better film. Encanto was less expensive than this film and had the benefit of great songs and a stronger story that allowed for repeated viewing. Disney have got to realise that throwing money at a production is no guarantee it will turn out to be great. Maybe they should try making a film with a reduced budget but a script that has fresh ideas and more wit and humour than we have here. It gives me no pleasure in saying that but on the evidence on display here is one of concern. The film is not a disaster but this is no classic either, just very average.

The dancing girls are the only polished act in this whole movie. Even the goons themselves were embarrassed about the final film (it was filmed at breakneck speed due to an extremely short filming schedule forcing them to improvise).

The only reason to watch this film is out of historical interest. It's amazing to see a then 27 year old Peter Sellers showing early signs of his incredible character range, something which would stand him in good stead in the years to come. Spike Milligan (who I once met) looks so young in this but is his usual zany self. Harry Secombe often seems a bit lost in this film, not having a proper script to follow and not knowing how to react to the improvisations going on around him. In some ways he was the most professional of the Goons.

And finally we see Michael Bentine, a man I associate with zany children's comedy from the 1970s. A unique looking individual who's appearance changed quite dramatically once he cut his hair and lost the beard ,Bentine left the goons soon after this movie was made so this film is a unique insight into the group before they became a trio.

It's a shame this film is almost unwatchable and not representative of the fledgling talent within. It tries to play out like a Marx brothers comedy, but contains none of the polish or acerbic wit of those films. However as a snapshot of what was to come it's an interesting curiosity.

This heartwarming but stirring film is a million miles away from some of blockbuster hits that Michael Caine has done in the past but it's deeply personal story shines through one of his best performances. Both him and Glenda Jackson were always watchable, even in films that weren't necessarily very good. They bring gravitas to a film including this one, and it takes this out of its television movie feel (well it was part financed by the BBC) and sets it up as a small scale but big hearted view of a true story.

Both Caine and Jackson show their acting chops and help propel this film into a film that really deserved it's critical praise and help to disguise it's modest budget. An excellent supporting cast of mostly unknowns do good work as well plus John Standing's wonderful performance as an RAF veteran wrestling with his own demons gives the film an extra dimension.

The direction is unshowy but perfectly fine for a film of this scale, with some very nice visual flourishes every now and again. The music blends seemlessly into the film and it's not over edited so quite a few tracking shots to give everything a sense of the unhurried. The film crams a lot into its 90 minutes but that works in it's favour as it is never boring. It's also thought provoking, deeper than you might think but for every tear-jerking scene there some dark humour woven into the script that had the audience laughing.

This is a terrific final film for Glenda Jackson to be remembered for and should Michael decide to retire from acting as he hinted at during its premiere, then the same would go for him and be an excellent finale to a 60 year movie career that has encompassed the good (Zulu, The Italian Job, Get Carter, Ipcress File, Educating Rita, Muppet Christmas Carol and many more), the bad (Jaws the Revenge, the Poseidon adventure sequel, Bullseye, Blue Ice and many more) and the indifferent (A shock to the system, The Honorary consul and many more). This definitely falls into the good. Having fallen into doing ensemble films like the Dark Knight trilogy and Now You See me 1&2, it's great to see him (possibly) finish his film career on a high and back as a leading man in a humble but worthy modern British film like this.

This mix of Joe 90 type special agents being shrunk to six inch high puppets in the real world and fighting crime is not of one Gerry Andersons finest hours. A not disiimilar idea had been tried out in the US TV show 'Land of the Giants' a few years previously, of which this feels like a pale variation. This has a hurried feel to it and the idea is not just silly but also makes almost no sense. Fortunately Anderson abandoned the idea after this pilot as I suspect the scriptwiters would have run out of ideas quite quickly. I think Anderson dodged a bullet here when this didn't go beyond this expensively made pilot episode.

This film was a bit of a surprise as I actually quite liked it.

2023 has been a year of disappointment from both DC and Marvel with only Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and parts of The Flash redeeming either of the respective studios. Perhaps superhero fatigue is setting in or perhaps the studios are running out of ideas but with the bar set so low this film is actually quite entertaining.

Coming across as a more comedic mash-up of Iron Man and Venom, it certainly isn't flawless as it is guilty of some shonky digital effects in a few places and is a little bit predictable too but it has a big heart, an unknown but charismatic lead, an engaging turn from. Susan Sarandon as the villain and a nice family orientated plot.

The film is nicely plotted and doesn't feel overly long either, which makes a nice change in a film of this type. It very loosely connects with the DCEU, making a fleeting reference to Superman and Gotham City. There is no brooding of the main character and the plot doesn't feel particularly flabby. There is a touch absurdity but it's generally for comic effect and most of the gags work. Seeing as the DCEU era is coming to an end, this is actually a decent effort to go out on. It may not be a classic of its kind but it hasn't been massively hyped either, making it a pleasant and fun surprise.

I was expecting this little film to be a superficial hero worship of a man that made entertainment for kids worldwide for quite a few years, especially as it was produced by his youngest son, Jamie.

However to my surprise, Jamie (who is presenter and co-producer) allows this interesting documentary to get quite dark. He is more interested in the man behind the legendary productions like Thunderbirds, Stingray, Space:1999, Joe 90 and Captain Scarlet than the actual productions themselves. It is a calculated gamble that the audience would be too but it pays off in spades.

We learn another side to his father, some of which we already knew, some of which we didn't. The driving force behind his incredible imagination, his miserable childhood of near poverty, a manipulative and bitter mother, his sadness at how it affected his relationship with his father, a terrible family tragedy in WWII, being a victim of anti-semitic bullying at school and how it affected his education and how he struggled with his relationships with women and his deep regrets at the carnage of his first two marriages. Whilst Gerry portrayed a fun world for children in his legendary television series, he himself had a childhood to forget.

This film pulls no punches, with Jamie's own memories of his father (Gerry was 57 when Jamie was born) being a mixture of fun but also sadness as he saw his own dad fall victim to dementia and robbing him of his own memories to a point where he didn't recognize people anymore. There are also archive clips from people who worked with Gerry who are openly critical of Gerry's personality and what they thought of him. Much like Willie Wonka in Roald Dahl's book, beneath the fun surface of the man there lurks a deeply troubled person.

It can't have been easy for Jamie to learn that not everyone thought his father was wonderful but fair play to him for sharing it with us. If anything it humanizes him . We learn that although Gerry was a very innovative, forward thinking and creative man, he was also a lousy businessman. He got lucky in that he made his biggest shows for impressario Lew Grade and his ITC company. Grade cut Anderson a lot of slack and showed faith in him but even then he would pull him up if he wasn't happy over some of Andersons decisions. Anderson also had a nasty, expensive and vicious divorce from Sylvia that dragged on for years. That too is addressed here and this is one of the few flaws in this film as I felt it a little bit one sided. As Sylvia died in 2016 and her daughter from her first marriage refused to be interviewed it obviously wasn't possible to obtain her perspective but I would have liked to have heard more from someone who knew her as there are always two sides to an argument.

The documentary uses A I generated scenes to animate audio taped interviews that Anderson had recorded a few years before his death. This is the other issue I had with the documentary as although the filmmakers tried to do something different in order to use these recordings, I felt that the A I was a bit obvious, despite them trying to disguise it. However that was a minor quibble in comparison to the mine of information in this documentary.

All in all this is a warts and all film that fleshes the man out and shows he was actually a far more complicated man than I guess most fans realised. He as both a pioneer but also very naive too. He had huge success but then lost it all. Jamie addresses the fact that the successful 'Terrahawks' TV series (1983) led to a resurgement of interest in the man and his back catalogue and he was able to get his life back on track after a decade where the offers had dried up. Anderson wasn't a big fan of Terrahawks but it did his career a power of good.

All in all, a bold but worthy watch with a very moving last half hour.

I saw this rather dull and odd drama when it was shown 15 years ago on BBC4 and had, unsurprisingly, forgotten all about it. But in 2023 the BBC showed it again and I can see why I had forgotten it.

Frankie Howerd was a British comedy legend, a master raconteur and a complicated man. However very little of what made him popular comes across in this rather boring tv movie. The film seems to be obsessed by his closet homosexuality and relationship with Dennis Haymer. It also finishes in the early 1970s, just as . About twenty years before he died, missing out a large chunk of his later career.

David Walliams may have been a huge fan of Howerd but he gives a strange interpretation of the character, lacking in conviction and a bit bland, whilst Rafe Spall and the late Dilys Laye seem very underused. Out of all the 'comedy greats' season TV movies that were shown on BBC4 in 2008, this is by far the least interesting and adds very little to the Howerd legend. Walliams seems a bit out of his depth too and the dullness of the script really doesn't help. And the way the film ends is what inspired me to say 'Is that it?' as the title of this review, because that genuinely was my reaction.

Somehow I had never seen this film until recently, despite being 50 years of age. However I happened to catch this film one afternoon on tv and seeing as I had never read the book I decided to give it a watch.

Most 'social issue' films of the past lose their edge over time, but this is one of those rare films that packs a punch. It boldly addresses poverty, crime, injustice, alcoholism, exploitation of the common man, corporate greed, the good and bad side of workers unions and so much more. No wonder this film was so divisive and controversial. Powerful performances all round the lack of a happy ending. The journey of the Joad family from the poverty of the mid-west to being sold the dream in California only to be exploited is a tough story to absorb but this film does it.

It also doesn't shy away from subjects such as death, Police brutality and mistreatment of the poor by the wealthy. If anything this film bursts the balloon of the American dream. Henry Fonda is totally relatable as Tom Joad, the everyman from a simple sharecropping family who lives through and witnesses all this. No angel himself, he refuses to give up trying despite obstacle after obstacle. He meets good people and bad along the way. He sees his childhood friend turn to drink, he sees people in his family die and has to bury them because he cannot afford a funeral, he sees an innocent woman die from the bullet of an incompetent Policeman aiming at someone else. Yet he also meets a straight up government landowner who offers him and his family a fair deal, a policemen from the same county as him offering him sound advice and charity from a cafe owner who sympathises with his plight. The film is unsurprisingly short on laughs but there is some dark humour. The film also boasts some admittedly dated but still strong acting.

It's easy to see how this film might be viewed as 'Un-American' as it tells of a life without wealth or comfort. Whilst films like 'The Wizard of Oz' showed a humble existence on a farm, the folk were still happy and content. None of that is in evidence here, just a harsh life firstly a s poor farmers and then on the road as itinerant workers. The film also goes some way to justifying why unionisation occurs and the underhand practices being used to stop it by those who see it as a hindrance to their business practice.

Don't let the fact this film was made in black and white put you off. This is a powerful story well told by John Ford. It was also quite brave of Twentieth Century Fox to let him make it, knowing it was bound to be controversial (and apparently the script toned down some parts of the book to appease the censors). Definitely worth watching in my opinion.

What I like about Wes Anderson is he's an original storyteller and has a unique style. He gets good casts in his film and they are usually a feast for the artistic eye, with an amazing color palette and unusual framing. They also tend to have a wry sense of humour along with strangely written but snappy dialogue.

Unfortunately I took a huge dislike to this film. I felt it over indulged and a great cast was wasted on an original but badly written storyline. Whilst the visuals and photography are again excellent, there just seemed to be something missing (as well as Bill Murray). The story didn't gel, his use of CGI was quite obvious and although his films do test the grey cells, this was one step too far. It also had a fragmented narrative style and although Scarlett Johanson was the standout actor in it, you know something isn't right when. Jeff Goldblum is barely in it and has almost nothing to do. Deep in this mess of a film is a really good idea but the implementation is uneven. The script should have been so much sharper (like it was in Anderson's excellent Grand Budapest Hotel) but it feels overcooked and pretentious.

I'm sure this film will have it's fans who will disagree with my thoughts but I was hugely disappointed and it is primarily down to the screenplay and the script. The colour palette is a riot for the eyes as usual and the soundtrack unusual but not unpleasant, yet I found Anderson's previous effort, The French Dispatch (a film that has its flaws) easier to watch.

Sorry but I'm not a fan of this effort. I hope his next effort recaptures the magic that WA is known for.

I'm not the world's greatest Take That fan but even them I'm familiar enough with some of their songs to have enjoyed this moderately budgeted but fun if cheesey juke box musical.l based on the stage musical of the same name.

The plot follows a gang of teenage girls and how their friendship is tested over a quarter of a century, with the music of Take That (here just referred to as 'The Boys') becoming almost the only thing holding them together. When one wins tickets to see The Boys at a reunion concert in Greece she has to awkwardly contact her old friends who she hasn't seen for years to ask them to go. Old wounds are opened and arguments happen as they find their friendship tested, all the while dealing with the shadow of a tragedy from years ago.

The film isn't exactly deep but the acting is fine (comedienne Aisling Bea being surprisingly good). Obviously the music is the real draw and it's used well enough although the hit song song 'Shine' is wasted in the film and really should have been used for the finale.

The product placement for easyJet grates a bit but is probably a result of the production budget and small scale of the film. However if you can overlook this then this is a harmless if predictable film that won't change your world but might bring a smile to your face.

The story of Harold Fry's 500 mile walk from Devon to the English border with Scotland is well translated to the big screen by director Hettie MacDonald in this low key but very watchable film. When retired Brewery manager Harold (Jim Broadbent) receives a letter from an old work colleague that she is dying in a hospice at the the other end of the country in Berwick-upon-Tweed, he writes a letter. However feeling it is not enough, he cannot bring himself to post it and, after talking to a shopgirl in a petrol station, decides on the spot to walk to see her, leaving his wife Maureen (Penelope Wilton) sick with worry and frantic about being on her own. As Harold makes his way up north his 'Pilgrimage' starts to become public knowledge and he soon attracts a following on both social media and then the headline news. On the journey he meets an assortment of characters, from a well meaning and helpful Slovakian woman, a woman on a farm, a stranger at a railway station, a pill popping confused 18 year old, a stray dog and a small following of people who want to join his pilgrimage. And as Harold makes his journey we start to learn that his life and relationship with Maureen is not as boring as it seems, for beneath the surface he is masking a terrible tragedy and a fractured relationship.

The story might be slight but I found it nonetheless compelling. Both Broadbent and Wilton produce powerful performances and as the film progresses their characters personalities start to make sense. The film is also well made and full of good performances and doesn't feel overlong.

If you've seen the Timothy Spall film 'The Last Bus' (2021), the Robert Redford film 'A Walk in the Woods' (2015) or the Emilio Estevez/Martin Sheen film 'The Way' (2010) then some of this may seem vaguely familiar to you as, like them, this is a gentle road movie that is in part, about using the journey as a way of self discovery and confronting ones own emotional issues that will appeal to older viewers in particular. It is a well acted drama with a ring of truth to it that should appeal to those enjoy gentle drama.