Reviews

74 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Circle Canyon (1933)
2/10
Grade Z Clunker!
4 April 2022
This movie really has to be seen to be believed. Everything about it is low, low grade. It must have been made on a $50 budget, with change left over at the end. The acting is so wooden that it probably produced splinters in the cast. The actors frequently look as though they're reading their lines from an ancient type of autocue. Despite the fact that the story is simple, it still manages to turn into a mess. Production values, and camera work are zero. What a hoot!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Needs to be seen to be believed.
6 November 2020
In the realms of bad movies, this clunker sits in a prime spot. Pretty much everything about it is low level - the story, the acting, the production values, the script, the editing and the direction. In fact, it seems like a silent film with dialogue added in afterwards. The addition of regular blasts of third rate stock footage, detracts even further from the whole thing. The acting is so stilted and wooden, and the fight scene near the end is just plain laughable. The whole film reeks of amateurism in every possible aspect. Mercifully, it only runs for about one hour, although it seems longer. This film really needs to be seen to be believed!
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Memorable & Emotional Film.
4 April 2020
This is a quite magnificent film on so many counts. Inspired by true events, this story of the human spirit, overcoming all the odds, will remain long in the memory. Everything about it is top notch - direction, cinematography, script and, most of all, the acting. All play their parts exceptionally well, with Pierre Niney in the lead role being particularly outstanding. His range of emotions, in a difficult part, dominate the film, and he confirms the fact that he is a brilliant actor. This is a must see movie for anyone who appreciates film making at its best.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great Fun!
31 May 2017
If you enjoy British "b" movies from the 50s, try and catch this little effort. It's quite laughably bad, which makes it all the more entertaining. The basic plot, and the way it all pans out, is bargain basement stuff, and some of the acting is quite hilarious. The main character, Dr Galloway, played by John Witty sports the worst, and most inconsistent, scots accent you are ever likely to hear. Similarly, his co-star, Genine Graham's character is supposed to hail from Inverness, but sounds as though she's just left an English boarding school. The main baddie's henchmen are a real hoot - one is full of forced menace, and the other would have trouble scaring a three year old! The movie does move along briskly, and doesn't give the viewer time to become bored. In it's own amateurish, unsophisticated way it's got a certain charm and is harmless stuff. Just the thing to while away a quick hour for fans of such films.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Willow Creek (2013)
1/10
Absolute Drivel!!
30 September 2014
No two ways about it, this is an awful film. It has no saving graces whatsoever and, if I could've scored it "zero" I would have done so. From the opening scenes, it's difficult to escape the feeling that the film is going absolutely nowhere, and is going to be one massive letdown. There's no surprise then that it turns out exactly that way. The acting, if you can call it that, is basic in the extreme and there's a scene in the film where the two leads are sitting, supposedly petrified, in a tent in the middle of the forest, which is probably the most boring and inane scene ever committed to film. In fact, it's noticeable during the prolonged scene that the male lead is obviously finding it difficult to stop himself from bursting out in laughter. Do yourself a favour and avoid this dross like the plague!
7 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Thoroughly entertaining film.
16 February 2014
This is a cracking, lost gem of a film which features a screen stealing performance from the inimitable Terry-Thomas. The film manages to combine mystery and shards of comedy in equal measure, and the pace never flags from start to finish. In the lead role, Terry-Thomas is simply superb and produces a memorable performance. In fact, he demonstrates yet again that he was probably the most underrated comic actor in the movie business. In lesser hands, the lead character of Archie Bannister could have been a complete flop and the film wouldn't be anywhere near as good. However, with Terry-Thomas on absolutely top form, the film is a joy to watch. It's anyone's guess why it hasn't received a wider showing over the years. If you get a chance to catch it, then don't miss it. Heartily recommended!
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not amongst the best of the Edgar Wallace Series.
4 February 2014
Unfortunately "Never Back Losers" is one of the weaker efforts in the Edgar Wallace series of mysteries. Whilst most other entries feature solid acting performances, allied to a strong storyline, this film fails on both counts. The story is wayward, and doesn't really make a great deal of sense. Many of the situations depicted are simply difficult to believe, in the extreme, and the lack of progression becomes quite irritating at times. The film is also badly let down by the standard of acting. Apart from the always reliable Patrick Magee, the rest of the performances are patchy at best. Even amongst the leading players, the acting is pretty poor. Not a memorable contribution to the series at all, I'm afraid.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nightbeat (1947)
7/10
Entertaining British thriller from the 40's.
31 July 2012
In many ways this film is a clear attempt, by a British studio, to emulate the successful film noirs prevalent in the USA. To a great degree it achieves that objective, mainly through the lively cameo performances from Christine Norden, Maxwell Reed and Sidney James. The scenes containing those characters are among the best in the film. The story is lively-paced and passes the time quickly. However, where the film falls down is in its poor editing, and the lacklustre performances of the two leading males. In particular, Hector Ross displays about as much animation and personality as a glove puppet. His performance has to be seen to be believed. Overall though Nightbeat is an entertaining film.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great Fun!!
18 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This is a cracking film in every way. Taken in its own context, it's every bit as good as King Kong. Although made in 1949, it completely blows away the remake from 1999. That expert of special effects Ray Harryhausen does a brilliant job in so many memorable scenes in the film, probably the most famous of which is the rescuing of the trapped children from the burning building. Not far behind is the scene in the huge night club, when Mighty Joe goes berserk after being given alcohol. The pace of the film never slackens and the players all put in good performances, with the big star of the show.....Mighty Joe Young himself. Don't miss!!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointing.
19 August 2011
I had high hopes of this film, having heard several favourable opinions on it. Unfortunately, I was left disappointed and consider that the hype surrounding it is scarcely warranted. On a positive note there are some funny gags and lines in the film, but not enough to carry through the length of the film. It's humour is patchy, and there are more unfunny moments than comic moments. The two leads are good, as are the two youngsters, but some of the other acting is a bit dodgy. And, despite the fact that it is supposed to convey a balanced story of the two factions, it's very much apparent that it was scripted by a Liverpool fan. In fact, the additional material consisting of interviews with ex-players etc, is ultimately more enjoyable.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dated but still relevant today.
9 August 2011
Viewing this film nowadays, a lot of it appears quite dated. However, the message it tries to put across is still valid to this very day. The story centres around foster parents taking a very troubled 14-year old girl into their home. The trials and tribulations that follow are maybe somewhat predictable, but also realistic and valid. That very fine actress, the ill-fated Rachel Roberts, delivers yet another excellent performance in the lead role as the foster mother. Good support is offered by James Maxwell as her husband. The only jarring note is provided by Annette Whiteley, as the problem child. Hers is a patchy performance and doesn't really satisfactorily convince, unfortunately. Overall the film is absorbing and generally well presented.
15 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bizarre little film.
9 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
As "B" features go, this is quite a bizarre movie. It's plot is routine, whilst also convoluted, as are the characterizations. It switches from staginess in presentation, to quite pointed scenes of tension and menace. A lot of this is due to the acting, some of which is wooden in the extreme, particularly from Patricia Laffan who looks like she has simply wandered onto the film set and hasn't learnt her lines! The scene where she ends in an embrace with Griffith Jones is hilarious. The film is carried by James Kenney who, at least, imbues his characters with some style and sense of purpose. He was, of course, an actor who specialised in edgy, sinister type roles and he performs well in this film. It's quaint and dated now, and is very much a mixed bag.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A lively little "B" film.
6 July 2011
Touch of Death is certainly no epic but, given its "B" movie confines, it is quite a lively little film, which packs quite a bit into its under-60 minute running time. The story, which revolves around a safe-cracking job gone wrong, is quite different from the norm in that there is a novel twist to the condition of the proceeds bagged by the criminals. Stalwart of similar movies, William Lucas turns in an edgy performance as the leader of the crooks, whilst his cohort David Sumner's character is more sensitive and considerate. A typical bad crook, not-so-bad crook, situation in fact. Generally the performances, apart from Jan Waters' wooden portrayal, are good and the direction brisk, and the script lively. For fans of the genre, this movie is a worthwhile watch.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Cracking Comedy!
24 September 2010
This really is an unsung little gem that is well worthy of general release. From start to finish, it is a fast paced film with some excellent scenes involving a superb cast. A feast of British comic actors with American star, Michael Callan, thrown in for good measure. Everyone performs well, and they look like they had a whale of a time making this movie. Special mention must go to the one and only Terry-Thomas as the army phsycologist, who even manages to reprise his famous "hard cheese" retort! Lionel Jeffries is outstanding too, and there's great support from Bernard Cribbins, Denholm Elliott and Wilfred Hyde-White. To anyone who enjoys fun-filled, brisk, British comedies, this is not to be missed.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Superb nostalgia
7 September 2010
Looking back on these episodes of the Sir Lancelot legend, it recalls fond memories of a more innocent age, when TV series such as this one, and Robin Hood, William Tell, the Buccaneers etc, etc were king. Nowadays, the obvious budget restrictions on the production are clearly apparent but hey, who cares, it is still a marvellous little series. It has lots of plus points - joyous and carefree adventure, authentic settings, neat story lines, strong ensemble cast, and a splendidly energetic Sir Lancelot, played by that fine actor William Russell. Highly recommended for children and adults alike, and in many ways makes one wish for the values of an age gone by to return.
17 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dark Floors (2008)
1/10
Do yourself a big favour.......
12 August 2010
.......................and give this awful movie a big miss! If you decide to watch it, you'll end up wasting 87 minutes of your life - it's frankly that BAD!! It's slow, ponderous, irritating, weakly scripted and acted, with a nonsensical storyline that simply goes nowhere, only not very fast. You keep waiting for a development in the story, but none ever arrives, and the film seems to drag interminably. In fact, the whole thing is a mess, and turns out to be one of the most unsatisfying experiences you will ever have in the world of movies. It's virtually impossible to find any redeeming features in this whole sorry effort. Avoid at all costs!!
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hero's Island (1962)
9/10
Unsung gem!
15 July 2010
It's difficult to fathom the minority negative reviews submitted for this film, as it really is a fine effort, which is certainly different from the run of the mill films of this type. The dialogue suits the period, and definitely lends an authentic touch to the proceedings. The ensemble cast is uniformly excellent, with particularly fine performances from James Mason, Warren Oates, and the ill-fated Kate Manx. The pace of the film is just right, and it proves to be an absorbing tale that retains the viewers attention throughout. Despite the fact that it is rarely seen, these days, it is well worth seeking out. An excellent and underrated film.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A confusing piece of nonsense.
9 July 2010
Poor Frank Ifield - in his one and only film appearance, he gets himself landed with this total load of tosh! No wonder his cinematic career was doomed before it even began, as this movie must have been some sort of curse. The whole thing is a slipshod, jumble of scenes which bear no semblance of continuity whatsoever. The story, if there is one, is so difficult to follow as to become downright irritating after a short while, and the film makes no sense at all. It's such a pity, in many ways, as Frank Ifield comes across as quite an engaging personality, with a more than pleasant singing voice. Unfortunately, he is totally hamstrung by the appalling material in a film that goes nowhere, not very fast. A big, big disappointment all round.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Strongroom (1962)
9/10
Overlooked Gem!!
8 June 2010
"Strongroom" is a classic example of how a supposedly insignificant "B" film, can catch the viewers attention, and hold onto it like a vice. Of many such films produced in the UK, during the mid-50's/early 60's, it is quite probably the best. The story, outlined by other reviewers, is quite novel and the acting is generally top notch, given the film's limited budget. The script, and more importantly the direction, is absolutely first class and Vernon Sewell does an excellent job in cranking up the tension throughout the film. The ending is hard-hitting and unexpected. All-in-all, a super little movie that won't disappoint anyone who seeks it out.
19 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hard Candy (2005)
5/10
Over-hyped.
16 April 2010
Opinions on this film do vary considerably which, given the subject matter, is probably inevitable. The subject matter itself is the main point which carries the film, and it really could have been a much better film if the length had been shortened, and the direction made much tighter. Plot descriptions have been explained in so much detail that there's nothing really to add, but on viewing the film it does become undeniably tedious and, in parts, frankly irritating. The denouement is weak and unsatisfactory, and the whole effort somewhat disappointing. It is undoubtedly a film with a reputation higher than its actual substance.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It's bad, but it's fun!
14 April 2010
The Alien Factor - well, from the opening sequences, you get the distinct feeling that this movie is going to be a shoestring effort, produced over a free weekend by a bunch of people who have never seen a camera before, let alone checked up on the word "act" in the dictionary. Your worst fears are soon realised, although credit must be given for a very early appearance of one of the "monsters." Otherwise, I'm afraid, credit is in pretty short supply. Looking at the film in 2010, the striking thing about the characters are the bad haircuts - the sheriff with the Barry Gibb-style mane is a hoot! The mayor looks as though he's wearing a frozen headscarf, tucked behind his ears. The other striking aspect is the pitifully poor acting - they are clearly all amateurs who must have embarked on film careers during a few hours away from their regular jobs. However, there are some positives - the basic premise of alien zoological specimens, escaping on earth, is quite novel. Same for one of the aliens - the satyr-like creature - which is well presented and out of the ordinary. And, the amateurish direction and script does hold a certain basic charm. As far as bad sci-fi movies go, this one has to be up there with the best!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Don't be fooled.....!
27 January 2010
Don't be fooled by the scary and impressive opening sequence which promises much, but delivers very little as this film proceeds. In so many ways this is a typical Italian "horror" effort of its time. The performances are patchy, at best, and the direction is ham-fisted and laborious. In fact, the pace of the film is so slow that the viewer is impelled to almost mentally wind the thing on fast forward. There are far too many po-faced, lingering glances that simply serve to become quite hilarious after a time. I've rarely seen a film that constantly shows the main characters staring silently at one another. One gets the odd feeling of it being a silent movie, with a dubbed dialogue thrown in as an afterthought! On the plus side, it does have one or two interesting scenes which provide a bit of a creepy atmosphere, but these are not sustained in any positive way, and this is to the detriment of the whole film. Fans of the genre will be severely disappointed by this mediocre effort.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
SOS Pacific (1959)
10/10
Very under-rated movie.
25 January 2010
This is a very under-rated film which sets off at a good pace, and gathers momentum as the story progresses. As suspense thrillers go, it's hard to beat, and is helped in no small way by terrific playing from a top class ensemble cast. Special mention must go to Richard Attenborough as the oily, sly grass. Attenborough simply oozes slime in the role, and demonstrates yet again what a very fine actor he is. Pier Angeli, Eddie Constantine and John Gregson are all uniformly excellent as well. It's a film that never seems to receive regular airings, which is a pity as it is well worth seeing and is highly recommended. The location scenes are good, and the direction and cinematography are first rate too. The film really is a long lost gem!
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Interesting Curiosity Piece.
13 December 2009
This movie hasn't seen the light of day for many, many years but is now available on DVD. It is also dubbed into English, from its original Italian dialogue, although it has to be said that the print isn't exactly top quality. As for the film itself, it was awarded an "X" certificate in the UK upon its original release in the 1950's. Its central theme involves the main character (Eleanora Rossi Drago) attempting to seek out her missing sister (Liliana Gerace) in the cities of Turin and Genoa. It tackles the subject of prostitution, without actually using the word, and that is obviously why it was given an adults only rating, upon its release. Watching "Behind Closed Shuters" now, there's no getting away from the fact that it is rather dated, and its pace is quite labourious. However, the most memorable features involve the characterisations, as the people you will see in this movie are amongst the strangest looking individuals ever consigned to film. It also manages to convey an atmosphere of foreboding befitting its storyline, which is also helped along by fine performances from Drago and Gerace. Overall, it is quite a striking film despite its obvious flaws.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Night of Fear (1973)
2/10
Grade Z Clunker!
18 July 2009
Just when you're thinking of the worst movies you've ever seen, along comes this grade Z clunker zooming into the frame! Anyone who is aware of this Aussie film will know that it was banned by the censors for a long time. It's a pity, in many ways, that the censors eventually relented, as depriving viewers of catching up with this dross would have been something of a bonus. In reality, it has very little in its favour. Okay, it may well be the first Australian horror movie, and a pre-runner of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but it doesn't take very long to become monotonous and downright irritating. The actors couldn't have been too concerned about learning their lines, as there simply arn't any. It's probably the horror equivalent of "The Plank"!! Put simply, this is a total waste of time.
8 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed