The_Invisible_Dog's reviews

Barry Lyndon, The Golden Coach and The Red Shoes are three of my favourite movies despite being more memorable for sumptuous visuals than human drama. Lola Montes is in the same category yet with even more emotional distance.

The spine of the movie is her life story being presented as a circus act, narrated by ringmaster Ustinov (I understood his French clearer than anyone's). Lola is there like some mystical princess doll in a jewelled cage, the ring is alive with circus folk in a whirl of moving colour. The whole thing circles like a zoetrope and thus the movie of her life unfolds. Well, not really her life but choice fragments, namely her encounters with certain significant males from soldier boy to King. We voyage to Paris, Bavaria etc, all bursting with glorious period details and playfully shot as you'd expect from Ophuls.

Trouble is, you don't really remember the romances. There are more impressionable moments of tenderness or passion in Lyndon/Coach/Shoes but not so much here. It's not bad but somehow you never quite get close enough to feel what's going on. Nevertheless, the film is a beautiful breeze that blows through you and leaves the impression of having been to the theatre to see something ornate that you may have dozed off to and dreamt about while you were sitting there watching. It ends by illustrating the effects of capitalism in entertainment and fame, in a cartoonish way much like Chaplin or Buster Keaton.

I already want another viewing and although I just watched the restored edition DVD, the quality wasn't great. It deserves at least Blu-Ray quality to be properly immersed. It's also a good Christmas film: snowy, pretty, balletic, epic, sleepy and, thankfully, never nasty.

Hang on, did I just list seven dwarves?

What a drinking game that would be - one for every time they say Brian. You'll be out cold in minutes.

Currently, this has a 1 star review on imdb. Other 'bad' movies such as Manos: Hands of Fate, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians and Plan 9 From Outer Space have become beloved cult favourites due to certain qualities of 'badness'. Stargames is certainly full of such qualities but is not quite in that category.

There is plenty to 'enjoy' here: Tony Curtis laden with space robes in a galaxy far, far away and speaking in his thick Bronx accent; costumes and FX in the manner of Star Wars knock-offs like Starcrash; bulky, robot-troopers in the woods (reminded me of old Doctor Who); there are even some holographic Harryhausen-style dinosaurs that get summoned for a bit of cringey play-fighting between the two boys. Talking of cringe - wait til you meet Happy the holographic helper - a kraazy clown who's clearly been told 'do a Robin Williams!'.

The basic premise of this movie is an adventure of two boys lost together in the woods (one from earth, one from space) and both sought by their respective authorities. These types of 'kid in the wilderness' movies are almost a genre of their own. Disney made loads in the 60s/70s and they are cosy, Saturday morning viewing. This feels like those with a heavy dose of budget sci-fi. It is far more watchable than the vast majority of similar movies to found lurking on free movie apps.

For all its flaws it has a positive nature, is inventive and well paced and if you enjoy 'bad' movies - this is a very watchable one.

It was also one of Kubrick's favourite films of 1997 (not Stanley Kubrick but little Jimmy Kubrick, the 12 year old son of a bloke my Dad knew from a pub he used work in.)

Firstly, this is wonderful to look at: the location setting, props and costumes, colour and photography are all a pleasure. What a shame then that the rest of this film is so one-dimensional.

The film's general sweep is the story of a missionary (with his wife) in an attempt to convert Hawaiian natives to Christianity. And boy, don't we know it. Pretty much every scene is dominated by Preacher Abner (Max Von Sydow)'s fanatic religious outpourings. No matter what is happening, it always comes back to him talking about religion in the same rigid ways. It is such a dominating factor that any further, deeper characterisation or even drama within the movie is simply not spared the time or oxygen to develop. There is barely a scene or moment without him in it, preaching away.

When Richard Harris and the sailors arrive it promises some dramatic relief, but again there is no development to justify the passions on display. Sparks are presented but they are not earned. I was curious to see Gene Hackman but his role was so undemanding and simple, it could have been played by anybody. Like I say, no time is given to develop anyone or any other story outside of the preacher. It's a pretty world, but of cardboard cut-out people.

It's tempting to say this movie is a rare insight into Hawaiian culture and while it is beautiful to behold here in many ways I'm not sure how accurate it is, given the film being generally so shallow. There are some dramatic scenes such as fires, births, death and people being ill but with exception of one quite moving scene, the drama tends to occur quite matter of fact-ly, observed rather than felt.

With little to no time spent pursuing other plot lines or personalities, the scenes tend to drag and the film feels claustrophobic, despite many decades passing by. I enjoy a good, long 1950s/60s epic to wallow in and I had been looking forward to this for some time. But for me, this was a bit of a slog with not enough reward.

Despite a central role for Dick Emery, this is not so much a crime-comedy (as billed) but more of a crime-drama. The 'comedy' that does exist here is not in the form of jokes or slapstick but more in the general spectacle of this unassuming old lady who, at the cusp of her retirement, decides to mastermind a robbery.

Her early scene in the sleazy, den-of-thieves nightclub where she drinks three zombies (cocktails) is comic enough without needing jokes. It's played straight and is the better for it. Dick Emery also plays his gangster role straight which works well, he could easily have played more roles like this.

The ensuing crime as it unfolds is engaging to watch, despite having obvious cracks and flaws that the viewer can see coming a mile off, this is no Agatha Christie. But it's a cut above the usual fodder that the Danziger brothers churned out in this period and made even more watchable for being in technicolor.

It also boasts the introduction of Christine Gregg who's character courts that of actor Pete Murray (who just turned 100). Also features an early appearance from actor Anton Rodgers.

Overall it is a fairly basic crime plot, more like a TV episode than a feature film but there is an extra quality to it - almost like an episode of Tales of the Unexpected. To see this old lady so steeped in the unlikely criminal underworld gives it a feel of The Ladykillers, albeit from a near opposite angle.

If you enjoyed that or, say, the 1966 movie 'Who Killed the Cat' then you would most likely enjoy this too.

Not a biopic. It's barely an interview. Yet it is still compelling. Mainly because Mitchum is compelling. We get to watch the watchman.

But being watched so directly obviously makes Mitchum uncomfortable. He clearly doesn't like being interviewed in vacuous or nervous ways and when fans pour praise on him, that can be equally as tiresome for him. He's heard it all a million times, every compliment, every question.

Bruce Webber had to pretty much grind Mitchum down to make this documentary and as such has shot it in a way that befits his detached manner. So he hangs out with Mitchum who is usually among friends and smoking away, firing off the occasional classic anecdote. HIs storytelling is as lean and quietly punchy as his acting.

Surrounding this are conversations with a number of others - friends, family of Mitchum as well as other actors, each relaying stories etc about the big man (some great stuff in there too). The whole thing fits together well and makes for a good overall portrait. The making of it is timely, as he did not live many more years. But here he is, in his late Autumn but very much alive, even singing with a jazz orchestra - it's genuinely good music too.

The footage is mostly in hard-rendered, grainy, black and white and edited in a style that is artistically edgy. Some may not like it but I think it works well, especially the way it blends into old footage of Mitchum movies.

If you like Mitchum, I'd say this was a must see.

George Cole's Flash Harry (of St Trinian's movies) is often seen as the forerunner for his iconic Arthur Daley character, but his role here seems even more so: the quick banter, the sly penny-pinching with a wink etc.

Generally, the film feels like a stage play. Once the 'townies go rural' joke has been established (rocky ride to the farm, sleep on straw beds etc) the rest of it mainly concerns who owns the right to the place. It's 3 against 1 in the family as they all want to sell it but patriarch Leslie Dwyer wants to stay there, to farm and to escape life in the big smoke. It's a good central role for him and a sweet bit of romance with long-term housekeeper Kathleen Harrison. Dandy Nichols is reliably enjoyable and watch for a young Edward Woodward - i actually didn't realise it was him until the end credits!

Overall, it's no classic Ealing satire nor is it a Will Hay style romp yet despite the characters being fairly typical (and the script a bit over-wordy) it is still quite a cosy kind of film; a rainy afternoon watch.

The Wes Anderson link is obvious, it's less refined than his movies but in a strange way it also feels less constricted and therefore more free to go wild. Sure, it is self-consciously over-styled but it opened with a spirit that reminded me of late 60s movies like Head (The Monkees) or the kind of 'wry portrait of a groovy guy' movie that Peter Sellers could have starred in. The opening scene with Terry Gilliam style animation was promising. I was prepared to over-ride the cheese factor and enjoy an immersive ride into the quirky.

But for all the promise of ideas - it just wasn't fun enough.

The bulk of the movie (from about 20mins onwards) was basically a vague saunter through Charles breaking up with his girlfriend and thinking about making an album cover for his client/friend. Odd how the movie's initial wild spirit seemed to dry up.

Characters such as Bill Murray, Patricia Arquette, Aubrey Plaza and Jason S dip in and out of his life, all having boring conversations with him. None of them lifted it, Sheen was the best of a dull bunch. Even as you watch, so many scenes just slip through your fingers.

It feels mostly like a filmed rehearsal of a half-baked script, made using movie-world connections as if they were there as a favour to a friend. The only thing that stands out is the general plastic look and certain details (egg and bacon stickers on his car etc).

For a short movie, it really dragged. Falls uneasily between 'try hard' and 'didn't try hard enough'. Doesn't even qualify as a 'so bad it's good movie'.

And it's not even a glimpse into Swan's mind - he is impenetrable behind his permanent sunglasses - it's more of a glimpse into the mind of a movie-maker with money and connections who thought 'looking cool' was more important than deeper levels of development.

.. Sounds like quite a challenge when playing 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' yet here there they are, in the same movie. There's also plenty of other random and classic faces, inc Donovan performing a surprisingly delicate, strange ballad for a film such as this.

The movie is about American tourists on a whistle-stop coach tour of Europe and despite being rather light on both comedy and drama - it is quietly enjoyable. It's pleasing to see all those destinations and fashions, especially now with the added bonus of it being a time capsule picture of 50yrs+.

At the film's heart is the unfolding relationship between Ian MacShane and Suzanne Pleshette - two unusual leads and, as such, quite fresh to see. There's some splashes of crazy editing (very late 60s) but nothing too intrusive.

The tourists themselves are a fairly weak bunch (man who steals things, man who was in WW2, man visiting his Italian relatives, a couple and their teenage daughter etc) but if they and their stories were stronger and more dominating it would have overdone and toppled the movie. As it is, they play a more supporting role around the love affair and the visual pleasures of the tour itself which leaves the viewer to relax like a tourist on (ahem) a couch trip. 6.5/10.

It's easy to think that the mainstream British comedy scene was a pretty barren affair during these years. There were, of course, plenty of funny people making funny things - Peter Serafinowicz for example and the world of Alan Partridge which managed to survive, adapting well to the fragmenting, digital age. But such comedy seemed more like the exception rather than the rule in a comic landscape that tended towards the safer 'one size fits all' humour of panel shows or sketch shows and sit-coms that felt guided more by a fear of causing offence, rather than taking risks. However, Harry and Paul's later work, which occurred in this era, was pretty much overlooked then and has been ever since. But it shouldn't be - it's actually some of the best stuff either of them ever did. In the 90s, I was never a big fan of The Fast Show or Harry Enfield and Chums. Being so catchphrase-orientated they quickly became over-quoted and thus annoying, a plight well demonstrated in Ricky Gervais' 'Extras' (another good comedy of the 2010s). The four series of the 'Harry and Paul' sketch shows contains some of the funniest comedy of this period. One thing they do very well is lampoon British television and film institutions (Mike Leigh, Ealing etc) mixing satire with soft-surrealism in a very palatable way. So a TV movie such as this plays perfectly to that strength, allowing them to tell the (selected) story of BBC2 through a series of brilliantly inventive skits mocking not just celebrities but the way that telly works. There are impressions of people here that you never normally see, including many fellow comedians such as Rowan Atkinson, John Cleese and Stephen Fry. Pretty much all hilariously spot-on, well-observed, silly and a bit different. It's not done with negativity, it's more of an exorcism - or re-processing - of the unchallenged grease that TV fills our heads with. Full of laugh out loud moments and nicely-refined, wild ideas. They capture an impressionistic essence of things unlike anyone else. Definitely deserving of more appreciation. Ps - also check out 'Norbert Smith: a Life' which is another great comic-documentary Harry and co made in about 1989.

Futurama meets Yellow Submarine? All of that in ways, but this is certainly unique, while also having that distinctly Russian blend of colourful fantasy laced with sweet melancholy (toska?). The plot is of a scientist and his peppy daughter, together with a bearded pilot, on a quest to preserve rare animals from across the universe and, in so doing, encounter bandits. In many ways, like a Studio Ghibli adventure movie. It's good guys vs bad but I kept zoning out on plot details beyond that - it's hard not to among such luscious, analogue visuals and music. It's the kind of thoughtful psychedelia befitting of 1981-era with its inventive array of landscapes, characters and ideas, all backed by some wonderful soviet-era synth sounds and electric folk music. Compared with similar animation, it's not as dark as, say, Fantastic Planet (Le Planete Sauvage, 1973) but is equally as interesting to look at and groove along to. At 48m, I wished this was twice as long.

Better - and tougher - than expected. Usually, Western villains are motivated by greed for land or gold, but this gang are basically a bunch of serial killers. Suitably ruthless though is expert tracker (persuaded out of retirement) Kris Kristofferson, in pursuit and taking no baloney. His detached steel is perfect for this role, plus having his long-lost son along for the ride brings drama and coaxes depth from his character, making this perhaps one of his best performances. Alongside them is David Huddlestone, it's a fine role and performance from him too. Director John Guillermin knows how to artfully balance human stories with action, pace and edge and it all works here. All location shot and engaging throughout. I also enjoyed the soundtrack's combination of synths with drawling slide guitar. Violent but a man's man's film and in many ways among the best Westerns of the 1980s.

After years of searching, when I finally got a copy I was almost nervous that I wouldn't like it, but I was not disappointed. OK - it's flawed: some scenes run on too long, there is a lack of overall refinement, Beethoven's 5th pops up in some odd places (why would you, when you have Frances Lai making the soundtrack?) but even these flaws somehow add to its overall unique, slightly odd flavour. The tone is of elegiac 1970s Westerns but it's more of a historical romantic drama than that. Westerns-wise, it feels somewhere between Heartland and Heaven's Gate with a touch of The Grey Fox (there is even a small but pleasing turn from Richard Farnsworth). However, you can tell it is European - and not American - made. It's not quite as artistic as some people make it out to be, it's more naturalistic, casual even, with some scenes and dialogue occurring in the unvarnished manner of Mike Leigh films. I loved seeing the American west from the French perspective and how the movie showed the immigrant experience. Respect is given to working class struggles in a way that you'd expect from such European cinema. I loved too how the story built, watching their two lives in separate countries (and cultures) gradually circle inwards towards their inevitable meeting. Through all the hardships of that era and in life in general, love blooms in a relatable way. And just when you'd decided this was a romance drama after all, it finally reminds you that 'this IS a Western' with an ending scene that satisfies as much as any decent revenge Western. In all - a quiet epic.

It's a good idea/set-up but this movie is really not handled well. Direction and pace are stodgy. Alec G is on oddball mode, grinning and emotionally remote with a clip-on German accent. Redford and Connors are very typical GI types who don't even look dirty, let alone age, despite years held in captivity. There is no further character development, but neither is there enough tension or decent humour to keep it all going, I was looking at my watch throughout. I baffled constantly at the lack of clear motive as to why the captive situation continued to exist. Equally as frustrating was how the two, fit young GI's made practically no attempt to out-fox or overpower their elderly captor. It's all very shallow, passive and careless. Even more annoying was the lack of satisfying pay-off at the end. We were not shown any scenes of the two captive's reactions upon realising the truth, which at least could have redeemed something of the movie. Instead we get a bizarre final scene that left me scratching my head, spluttering as to why and how THIS was happening now! Lots of classic Alec G movies out there, but this aint one.

Towards the end, I realised there was too much Maurice and not enough Jeanette, something I hadn't noticed earlier thanks to the amount of style and fun being had here. It's a treat from the start: some great photography as Paris chugs into life, the mosaic of sounds of the locals waking up and working, their combined rhythms resembling that of a steam engine or factory. The camera glides like Murnau or Max Ophuls' movies, the sets mix life with artifice reminding me of Wes Anderson, the comic tone resembles Lubitsch. Mix all that with a feel of early Disney classics (watch and imagine it animated!): the bustling townsfolk, the rhythm of song and speech, the sound of her singing and the overarching sense of a fairy tale (the princess and her 3 godmothers/witches seem surely an influence on the 1959 Sleeping Beauty). Songs by Rogers and Hart, though aside from 'Isn't it Romantic' they are not the best (MC's 'I'm an Apache' being the low-light of the film). There is not enough build-up to the inevitable coming together of our two stars, so romantic depth is a little lacking but the movie is so inventive (speeding up and slowing down film, audio overlays etc etc) and with laced with such infectious gaiety it is hard not to enjoy. Pretty amazing (and underrated) for 1932. Oh and a great cast too.

I don't know what movie monstrosity other reviewers here have seen but it sounds like an overdubbed mess. The original (in Russian with English subtitles) has now been restored and has become a bit more available, I can heartily recommend it. It sits well among any other Soviet folk-fantasy movies of that era. There are other Ptushko movies which are slightly better (eg Tale of Tsar Saltan and The Stone Flower for eg) but this is still made to his same flavour and high standard. Reminded me of Jason and the Argonauts or the classic Sinbad movies, with elements of Oliver Postgate's wonderful Noggin the Nog episodes. There is plenty of magic, madness and inventive special effects. If you like those old-style magical adventure movies then this is a must see. The final 'battle' scene is quite wonderful and unique.

Lukewarm compared to the non-stop heat of Black Dynamite, but there are still qualities and laughs (just) to be had. Has the same tongue-in-cheek, bawdy humour as BD - just not that much of it. There is barely a joke for the first 20mins (until we see his Wanted poster). Doesn't quite commit itself to being a full on comedy but neither is it a straight Western either, it kinda wanders between the two. Considering the Kung-Fu potential to hand, there is strangely little action but what there is - is fun all the same. The movie is perhaps over long and in some ways under developed, the pace picks up once Johnny meets 'Bullhorn'. Once I accepted this was to be no BD 2, then I could enjoy it for what it is - a leisurely comic Western in that low-key manner common to the 1970s. It's not a parody of Westerns (as Blazing Saddles is) more of a tribute with many moments that reference classic Westerns (Billy Jack, Joshua, Clint movies etc); the final lines given to Fred Williamson and Jim Brown (like Stadler and Waldorf) was a sweet touch. Movie as a whole had a good heart and some warm messaging. 6.5 to be honest, but I love these actors and their world so I'm bumping it up to 7/10.

This is 'guilty pleasure' territory, shallow and kitsch but still quite a lot of fun.

First off - the UK title 'Vampira' is way cooler, 'Old Dracula' sounds a bit dull and off-putting from the start. Vampira herself is certainly cool and hip so is the movie's very 1970s vibe, complete with disco dancefloor scene and funk soundtrack.

Being 1974, it's peak time for Blaxploitation movies, and this is a rare moment to see a UK film flirt with the fringes of that genre. It has a crude but tongue-in-cheek mixture of comedy, sex and violence which is typical of those movies yet overall it plays more like a parody of Hammer or Amicus horror films. Carry On Screaming would be a similar example (Bernard Bresslaw stars in both) although I actually think Vampira/Old Dracula is better paced and has a more engaging plot.

I enjoyed David Niven's approach to playing Dracula as a world-weary English gentleman staring on bemused at all this strange new groovy-ness unfolding around him. And there's a host of British faces to look out for including Nicky Henson and Luan Peters who, five years later, would both go on to star in the same Fawlty Towers episode 'The Psychiatrist'.

Young Frankenstein is an all-time classic and this is just a disposable, silly comedy, but as its accompanying B-movie I'd say this works pretty well. It certainly doesn't take itself too seriously, keeps a decent momentum and would warm you up nicely for the main feature.

If you want a bit of daft, cheap, very 1970s fluff and nonsense at Hallowe'en - then this aint a bad shout, my dears.

I'm torn on this one. I love fantasy movies and the escapism they provide, so i'm always willing to overlook their flaws for the sheer pleasure of being transported to another world. However the weak script and school-production acting of this movie make it hard to melt into, you are always reminded that this is a movie. There are plenty of memorable moments and aspects - the floating head with a beard for example, and notable now is a young Christian Bale who's acting far outshines that of the lead. The theme song is sweet and stirring (written by ABBA's benny and bjorn) but the incidental music is often very repetitive and unimaginative (especially in the castle). Famous faces - Christopher Lee, Timothy Bottoms and Susannah York are unable to lift this beyond the confines of a routine script and luke-warm direction. . . If you like 80s fantasy movies then you'll probably want to check this out, but don't expect much. Kinda like a poor man's Neverending Story.

Those with ultra-high expectations will of course be disappointed (some crazily over-reactive reviews on this page), but it's basically what you'd expect it to be - a fairly typical, historical/action TV movie made in the late 1990s.

The good sides include the novelty value of a Western-style cattle drive story set in Napoleonic-era Wales; the costumes, location and photography all look good too. There is also some pleasure to be had, albeit a guilty pleasure, in the trashy/camp acting and general feel of it all. Theresa Russell's breathy pouting and eyebrow dynamics reminded me of, say, an episode of Dynasty, with an accent that is sometimes Welsh but mostly an odd hybrid of a leprechaun and Groundskeeper Willie. The plot is the usual stuff - she has a 'quarrelsome-but-lustful' dynamic with her tough-guy ramrod while his brother (the Sheriff) is mad with unrequited love for her, prompting further drama.

It's a bit formulaic and doesn't really engage you emotionally but it flows well enough, as an adventure if nothing else. The fight scenes certainly supply tension. So if light escapism into worlds of historical-action-drama is your thing, then you could do a lot worse than this. Not amazing sure, but watchable.

Surprisingly good, lingers in the mind. In some ways it is like a Hitchcock movie, not least for its focus on the dark side of authority but also for being a lean, well-crafted story. The film inhabits a tight, claustrophobic world but within that there is a full and satisfying spectrum of events which move comfortably from stuffiness to subtle comedy to psychological drama to action and ultimately to something quite moving. The characters and tension between them are more realistic, subtle and complex than are often found in movies of this era. Perrin's awkwardness in pursuit of love, for example, is performed as hilariously as it is heartbreaking. His repressed jealousy and affronted relationship with Mr Traill reminded me of David Brent and Neil Godwin in 'The Office', or Martin and Paul in 'Ever Decreasing Circles', darkly funny, very watchable. The film is well-paced, intelligent, even a little shocking at times, and just gets better as it goes along. Fast becoming one of my favourite films of the 1940s. A minor but rather powerful gem.

A private detective is killed, then comes back to earth, as a dog, in order to solve his own murder. Yet, with the murder and all, it's not really a children's film despite starring Benji (and having the same director as the Benji movies). Apart from the fact he's now a dog, the rest is played curiously straight. Lots of time spent with Benji searching for clues and piecing it all together (Chevy Chase narrates his thoughts). So it's a comedy then? Not especially. There are comic moments, more silly than funny, but the scenes and pace are generally long and spacious. It's basically a rather pedestrian murder-mystery story that just happens to have a dog at the centre. So who is the movie aimed at? I don't really know. Too adult for most children, yet too childish for most adults. I guess Generation-X-ers like myself who like 80s nostalgia and are generally happy to watch Chevy Chase would enjoy it, but that's a small audience. Best thing about it is marvelling at the training, intelligence and capability of Benji the dog. The opening song is also quite cool in an off-beat yacht rock kind of way. Kind of guilty pleasure movie. I enjoyed it more than I probably should have.