Reviews

"A Man Called Shenandoah" is unjustly overlooked, amongst the Western shows made during the 1960s. One interesting aspect, is the way the protagonist is presented as vulnerable. The episode "Run Killer Run" is typical of this. Shenandoah (Robert Horton) works as a foreman at a wharf, whilst trying to trace his real identity. Unknown to him, there's a bounty on his head. A professional gunslinger (Leonard Nimoy) has come to collect. The writing and acting are great. We have more idea what Shenandoah was like, via a flashback scene based before the attack that rendered him amnesic. Sally Kellerman is on hand as the love interest, hoping this man with a mysterious past shall stay and settle down. For a 30 minute show, there's plenty going on. This isn't one of your usual gunfighting, horse chasing productions. The emphasis is on character and drama.

There are plenty of one-season TV shows that deserved more episodes. "Shane" isn't one of them, alas. Take the above episode, for example: the story isn't detailed enough to last the hour. As such, 30 minutes per episode would have been preferable. The production values are amateurish! The set representing the saloon, resembled a gigantic doll's house. Simply not good enough. The whole production is too small in scale, everything looking boxed in. Not a lot happens, except for the customary showdown at the end. Watching it, I've never seen so many lousy shots! The cast is okay, with Warren Oates coming off best. He was great at playing villains or the gritty anti-hero. It's unfortunate he couldn't have been given a worthwhile script. As the title character, David Carradine is tolerable but I still prefer Alan Ladd. For the rest, we have that beautiful, non actress Jill Ireland. Whoever told her she could act, needed their head examining. Ireland doesn't convince me, no matter how hard she tries. I doubt "Gunsmoke" had much to worry about, when it came to the television ratings. "Shane" couldn't attract the viewers, so cancellation was imminent.

I wasn't expecting this comedy Western to be great and it sure wasn't. To be fair, combining humour with an Old West scenario rarely works. "Lightning Jack" is the classic example that overshadows every other! Paul Hogan proves he can not write a whole screenplay by himself. The dialogue is dreadful. Cuba Gooding Jr. Having no dialogue, makes him the envy of everyone else in my opinion. With his biggest hit "Crocodile Dundee," Hogan wrote the story but he needed help from other writers with the screenplay. A pity the same couldn't have happened with "Lightning Jack." The plot is boring and the narrative has no point to it. Veteran actors Pat Hingle and L. Q. Jones must have wished they were elsewhere. Their salary couldn't have been worth it. This is on my list of "Worst Westerns in history." Have a watch - if you feel brave or have a drink standing by.

In this episode, Steve McQueen made his debut as the bounty hunter Josh Randall. The story has McQueen tracking and catching a couple of brother outlaws. To my horror and disappointment, one of the guest stars was that horrible Michael Landon! I can't stand that irritating, arrogant, ego-driven little s***. Watching the episode, I did my very best to ignore him! Steve McQueen's charisma was on full display, oozing coolness in droves. He was the right choice for a role which didn't require much acting ability - just as well really. The rest of the show featured the same scenario, near enough. Josh Randall employed by a sheriff to locate and captured wanted outlaws. The entertainment value is pretty high but don't expect anything original.

I have vague memories of watching the original film trailer for "Pale Rider." As a 5 year old boy, I was captivated watching Clint Eastwood dealing with the bad guys yet again. I feel "Pale Rider" has become a lesser-known Eastwood Western. The film is overshadowed by masterpieces like "High Plains Drifter," "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and "Unforgiven." On its own merits, "Pale Rider" is a solid, entertaining film. The plot has Clint Eastwood being sent from somewhere unseen, to help some settlers in their fight against greedy, corrupt property developers. Eastwood's character has no name, so everyone calls him "Preacher." There are some effective action sequences, the one involving baseball bats being my favourite.

From what I've gathered, it's a miracle "Ghost Town" wasn't cancelled during production. The fact that the film was exhibited in only eight theatres, tells me a lot. So low is the budget, the whole thing feels like an extended episode of the classic "Tales from the Crypt" show. The story is wafer-thin and the running time is about 10 minutes too long. It's nothing original: a modern day deputy sheriff is searching for a missing woman who's a prisoner of the spirits of the local ghost town. He soon finds himself up against a deadly kind of adversary and has limited resources at his disposal. The script can hardly be described as subtle. The main ghostly villain has the surname Devlin, I ask you! Still, at least it's a name suited to the character. There is one scene combining sex with violence - in typical poor taste I might add. I simply don't care for that kind of content. The cast is a bunch of nobodies, except for an actor called Bruce Glover. He's been in such films like "Chinatown," "Diamonds Are Forever," "The Streetfighter" etc. Usually a bad guy, Bruce Glover plays a more benevolent character this time. For all of the film's weaknesses, there is something undeniably atmospheric. The scenes of the mist and the wind howling through the deserted town is the best example. The action set-pieces aren't bad, being quite capably staged. I remember over 20 years ago, an old acquaintance sold me "Ghost Town" on VHS video (it was that long ago). Then I got the DVD a few years ago and the film was just as I remember.

I'm not quite sure why there was another "Wyatt Earp" film, when "Tombstone" was released only the previous year. In any case, it hardly matters. I was hoping the above film would be a sensation - this wasn't the case, alas! First of all, having a 3 hour plus running time doesn't ensure excellent results. With "Wyatt Earp," the pace is positively sluggish at times and makes the long length a hindrance. The casting ranges from very good to poor. As for the positives: Dennis Quaid is on top form as the sickly Doc Holliday. He's particularly effective in his scenes where a more tragic side to the character emerges. I was unhappy at the absence of a proper exit scene for the Holliday character. Despite not having a lot of screen-time, Gene Hackman makes for an effective Nicholas Earp. His natural, commanding presence is there for all to see. There is just one scene with Kevin Costner and Gene Hackman - with the latter dwarfing the former. Now the negatives: Kevin Costner is miscast in the title role. I've never been a huge fan, because I find he's merely a pretty boy that got lucky and has no gravitas to offer. Such is the case here. A big mistake was Costner playing the legend, rather than the real man. For example: portraying Wyatt Earp as some kind of moral saint (he wasn't in real life), as an abstainer from alcohol (not true either) and other inaccuracies. Whoever thought Tom Sizemore would make a good Bat Masterson, must have been asleep at the wheel! He is hopeless in the part. To me, Sizemore looks like some burke in a fancy dress costume and can't find his way to the party. The characters of the Clanton gang and the McClaury brothers had no shading of any kind. They were presented as simple, one-dimensional movie villains. As for the rest of the cast, the less said the better. The film has stunning location photography - whatever the hell you think that's worth. The set for the town of Tombstone wasn't suitable at all. It just didn't feel like an Old West town. So artificial did I find it, I expected the facades to come down from a powerful gust of wind! The shoot-out scenes were okay, to be fair. The whole film was a wasted opportunity.

There's a reason for "Spy Story" being a cinematic obscurity - it is not a good film by any stretch of the imagination! In all honesty, I wasn't expecting a minor masterpiece and the final results prove it. "Spy Story" is an adaptation of a novel by Len Deighton - the author behind "The IPCRESS File." He created another nameless protagonist, eventually becoming Patrick Armstrong. It's that name which is used for the screenplay. The cast includes Philip Latham, Michael Gwynn, Don Fellows and Derren Nesbitt. The leading man is totally unknown - Michael Petrovich. Judging by his attempts at acting, it's fortunate the supporting cast is of a high calibre. As for the rest, the plot makes no damn sense and the storytelling angle is woefully lacking. As a lifelong film buff if a film doesn't gain my interest within the first 10 minutes, chances are it never shall. "Spy Story" lacks any kind of continuity and the plot details are vague. British Intelligence agent Armstrong is supposedly used as a political pawn, by becoming framed by the KGB. But the screenplay hardly makes any mention of it. I was hoping Derren Nesbitt would have had more screen-time. Alas, no. He has one brief scene with a few lines of dialogue, then an even briefer one at the end with no dialogue! To top it all off, the conclusion is rather downbeat and feels pointless. I haven't read or seen any comments from Len Deighton, regarding this adaptation. I'll wager he isn't too fussed over it!

Michael Caine was appearing in many poor films during the 1980s, mostly forgettable trash. However, "The Fourth Protocol" is one of his better ventures from the decade. He plays a British spy who's on the hunt for a KGB operative (Pierce Brosnan), who plans to detonate an atomic bomb near an American airbase in Suffolk, England. The film feels a bit like a showdown between Harry Palmer and a future James Bond. Indeed Caine and Brosnan have a little skirmish at the end. There's a stella cast, including Julian Glover, Ian Richardson, Michael Gough, Ned Beatty, Anton Rogers and others. The narrative isn't as good as it could be, rendering the film hard to follow at times. Also, the whole production seems rather old-fashioned and very much of its time. But "The Fourth Protocol" is still worth watching and I usually root for Michael Caine!

I don't know why this episode receives negative reviews on this site. The premise is rather daft but it's much fun all the same. Peter Wyngarde shines as the villain of the piece: he has a Julius Caesar complex (with other people it's Napoleon). He wants to become the emperor of contemporary Rome etc etc. The episode includes lions, tigers, swords and pretty women. What more could one require? Wyngarde was blessed with a distinctive voice and he puts it to effective use - as always. In all honesty, Roger Moore can't hold a candle to Peter Wyngarde in the acting department. He's out of his depth but I wouldn't want anyone else as the Saint. Look out for a pre "UFO" Ed Bishop in a small role, getting killed at the beginning as he informs Templar of his grave concerns.

One of the more outlandish "Saint" episodes, if not downright ridiculous! With giant ants, secret laboratories, a mad scientist - Simon Templar must have felt he was in Doctor Who's territory. He becomes drawn into the mysterious events taking place in a Welsh village. People disappear without explanation and the evidence leads to an ominous house on the rocky hills. There's entertainment value, so long as you take everything at face point. I'm surprised Roger Moore could keep a straight face when making "The House on Dragon's Rock." The story is a departure from the more traditional ones. Annette Andre makes another appearance in the series - and is as wooden as a bloody plank!

The character of Mike Hammer from Mickey Spillane's novels, is nothing like the way he's portrayed in this film. He doesn't spend his time pursuing the bad guys with a gun, he employed a bit more discretion. The whole film is sleazy throughout and it didn't impress me. The story is drawn out and the running time should have been reduced by at least 15 minutes. Geoffrey Lewis and Paul Sorvino (R. I. P) were talented, solid character actors, they should have had more to do in the story. There are a few half decent action scenes but little else to make the film remotely memorable. No wonder "I, the Jury" quickly vanished without a trace!

"The Nutty Professor" was the first Jerry Lewis film I ever saw, back in the mid 1990s on TV. Then I saw it again on DVD last year. My opinion hasn't changed. Once you've seen Jerry Lewis in action, you never forget it. He is one of these comedians who you either like or loathe. His style is of an aquired taste and "The Nutty Professor" is no exception. I had a hard time maintaining interest in the film. At a 107 minutes, the story isn't strong enough to last that long. At least 20 minutes should have been edited. Lewis can be incredibly irritating with all his mugging and childish performing. His role as the professor bears this out. As the alter ego Buddy Love, he isn't much better. There are a few positive things: Kathleen Freeman does well, even though she hasn't a lot of screen time. A couple of classroom scenes and the one at the gymnasium are okay but that's about all. At his worst, Jerry Lewis is about as amusing as having a bad cold while stuck in a traffic jam in the middle of a heatwave!

I came across this particular interview with John Le Carre by chance, where he discusses the making of "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold," makes a few references to his novel of the same name. I was fascinated by everything Le Carre said, his being a natural raconteur. He doesn't shy away from discussing some of the things that occur within the film industry and on this particular film set: the difficulties he and director Martin Ritt had with leading actor Richard Burton, the general paraphernalia that goes with being around a film star etc. I can imagine the writer's frustration at being used as a peace negotiator between actor and director, being flown all the way to Ireland where filming took place and all because Burton wasn't happy with his dialogue and wanted it rewritten! I saw this as an example of a once promising actor, merely exploiting his own star status (whatever that is worth) and not being stimulated enough to make the effort to actually act. There are other things that the writer discusses during the interview but I won't say what they are. John Le Carre himself, comes across as an elegant, highly intelligent and insightful individual and not without a sense of humour. I enjoy listening to people who have a similar command of the English language, compared to the way our language has become something of a joke in the modern world.

Don't miss out on seeing this interview!

Richard Barthelmess isn't the kind of film star people tend to remember these days, although he made a few good movies. "Central Airport" was made the year before Barthelmess was fired from "Warner Bros." and is a reasonably entertaining yarn. It's the flying sequences that are the main highlight, rather than the pointless, predictable romantic subplot. The film becomes turgid and dull but the climax is exciting enough.

I didn't expect much from this film and my instincts were right. The plot is uninteresting and confusing, with little happening in the process.

Edward G. Robinson was only months away from becoming a big star at "Warner Bros." when he was making "Widow from Chicago." His gangster character is okay but he hasn't a lot to do.

With a running time of just over an hour, I'd have preferred the pace to have been quicker. Instead, it was cumbersome.

Look out for a young Neil Hamilton - the future Commissioner Gordon of the 1960s "Batman" TV show.

If you can, avoid this film.

Regular "Warner Bros." actor Warren William is on fine form as the tough, uncompromising and unethical manager of a New York City department store. He delivers his lines with relish and makes his character unforgettable.

The story is confined to the sets that represent the said department store but it's ideal for the film, what with there being a hive of activity in every scene.

It's nothing short of deplorable in the way William treats his employees: most of his conversations tend to finish with expressions like "get out" and "you're through." Only once do we catch a glimpse of the man underneath his gruff exterior, in which he cuts a rather tragic figure.

The supporting cast are overshadowed by the leading man but Wallace Ford and Loretta Young are pretty good.

I do take exception to the way the dog is treated at the film's conclusion - a case of blatant cruelty if ever I saw it.

Personally, I regard Warren William as an underrated leading man. He had good diction and delivery as an actor and made a few good films. "The Dragon Murder Case" is not one of them, alas.

The whole plot is quite unbelievable from the beginning and I dismissed it as being a lot of howling nonsense. The cast are completely wasted and the dialogue is unimaginative.

It takes an actor of James Cagney's entertainment value and charisma, in order to make these low budget movies remotely memorable. His early work at "Warner Bros." doesn't have the variety of his later films at the studio but are great fun all the same!

"Hard to Handle" sums up Cagney to a tee! His seemingly unlimited energy helps him throughout the various complicated situations in which he finds himself. He's a lovable small time con artist who tries his luck with different "get rich quick" schemes. As in other films, he survives on his wits and determination.

The story is fairly loose but that isn't a problem. The humourous antics come thick and fast, leaving one overwhelmed by it all. Apart from James Cagney, it is Ruth Donnell who really shines as the wise-cracking mother of the decidedly dull leading lady.

See this film and have a ball.

Paul Muni was in a privileged position for an actor in Hollywood, in that he could select his own films. That couldn't have been the case with the above production - it's unworthy of Muni's talent and the rest of the cast.

"Hi Nellie" borders on the ridiculous a lot of the time. The opening 15 minutes are okay and then the plot becomes confusing and contrived. Nothing improves the film henceforth, although Paul Muni and Glenda Farrell do their best!

Luckily, brighter prospects were just around the corner for Muni.

One of MANY programmers from "Warner Bros." during the 1930s, there's nothing that makes "From Headquarters" distinguished in any way.

The cast is fairly good, especially Eugene Pallette as the gruff city cop. George Brent seems out of his comfort zone as the investigating police officer. Margaret Lindsay hasn't much to do, considering she's the film's leading lady. The annoying Hugh Herbert is doing his usual cringeworthy attempts at humour. How he ever gained employment in Hollywood is beyond me!

The brief running time is a good thing, considering that the entire story revolves around the police department. That reduces the scale of the film and its impact.

With the majority of giant monster films, you take everything at face value. You know exactly what you're in for and enjoy the ride.

"King Kong vs Godzilla" is no different. I remember spending a small fortune on ebay, having found the rare British video release. It was certainly worth it. We have some ridiculous effects, terrible attempts at acting by the cast and a plot that is hardly original. There are some good action scenes along the way but the climatic duel between the two monsters is the big highlight. They really duke it out, just the two of them. I'm not saying who wins!

For some reason, the re-edited version with the American newsreader footage is the only one available. Personally, I'm not too bothered but it would be interesting to see the Japanese version.

I must admit to not having high expectations when I saw this 1976 "King Kong" remake. Sure enough, I was right. For me, the 1933 original is in a league of greatness all by itself.

Regardless of the budget, the sight of seeing a man in an ape suit and makeup was never going to win me over. It looks artificial and downright absurd. The Kong character has no depth or dimension of any kind.

I regard Jeff Bridges as a good actor and who has acted in a variety of roles. With "King Kong," he does his best to give the film a much needed boost. He is the only reason I saw the whole thing.

The story is so drawn out, including several irrelevant angles that don't belong. The running time could have been reduced by at least 20 minutes.

The climax was about as dramatically flat as one could wish for. It had none of the moving tragedy that the 1933 film provided.