greens-10 Reviews

Royal Flash (1975)

This film is nothing like the Flashman in the books - too silly and dopey.

[1/10 · 4 February 2011]

The first few Flashman books were just marvelous, then they started to lose their spontaneity and they became as if written to a formula. However they were still pretty good and it wasn't until the very last couple that it was obvious that George McDonald Fraser had really lost his touch. He could still write wonderful books however (The Border Reivers, The Candlemas Road, his Burma book) it was just with Flashman that he became stale. After having said that he had a strange inclination to write slapstick books such as The Pyrates, which were truly dreadful and practically unreadable. His talent for slapstick however proved worthwhile with the scripts of the first two of the three The Three Musketeer films, the last of the three being not up to the standard of the first two, but still, he basically provided scripts that were funny and clever. So he was unpredictable in terms of quality, especially as he got older. But overall he was one of the best novelists and writers of all time. Which makes it hard to understand how he got it so terribly wrong with this movie. This strange inclination to turn to slapstick which sometimes worked out and at other times didn't brought this film completely undone. He was at the height of his powers when he wrote the script and yet he presented a Flashman that was not the Flashman of the books. It was cornball and silly and so dependent on puerile slapstick humor that if fails completely. The choice of Roddy McDowall as Flashman was disastrous. McDowall was/is a small man whereas Flashman was big, strong and assertive and he used his strength to pander to his particularly liking of being a bully. He was cunning and could appear to be likable and admirable if it suited him. As a result he was popular and respected by those who had never seen his real side, that of a coward, cruel and vicious. Mcdowall just comes across as a contemptible poltroon right from the start, snivelling and whining whereas the Flashman of the book hid his cowardice as much as he could. There is still a film to be made of Flashman and if true to the behavior of Flashman as his devotees would have it, it could be a great movie. This film is a travesty of the Flashman we all know and appreciate.

The King's Speech (2010)

Just marvelous

[10/10 · 16 January 2011]

How good it is to go to see a movie, enjoy it from the moment it starts until the moment it finishes and then go on enjoying it as you excitedly discuss it with your partner on the way home. No ludicrous nonsensical screenplay, no boring predictability, no ancient clichés, no inane posturing such as you would get from someone like Michael May, just quality entertainment with everything tight as a drum. Why can't there be numerous films like this? Why does it have to be that only occasionally a movie turns up that is an absolute delight. So, go and see The King's Message, enjoy every last second of it - as you will - and bear in mind that heaven only knows when something as good as this comes along.

Morning Glory (2010)

Boring

[3/10 · 14 January 2011]

It just went on and on and on and Harrison Ford had to play the part of a pain in the neck, to which he is admirably suited and what it was all about I couldn't work out, suffice to say, it wouldn't have mattered anyway as it was all a load of garbage. I think it was supposed to be a comedy but whether it was or not I don't know and don't care. Trying to fill out 10 lines is difficult because I can't recall much of this film. My attention was wandering all over the place: why were the seats so shabby, how come most latecomers are old ladies who so frequently fall down the steps.

The alternative to this film was 'Unstoppable" but no we had to see this load of crud.

Shane (1953)

Marvellous

[10/10 · 8 January 2011]

The final gun fight is just outstanding. Everyone is trying to avoid a fight except Jack Wilson, an imported gunfighter who kills the southerner. But then Shane decides to bring it all to a head and goes into town to finish it off. He drives the action towards finally shooting Palance/Wilson and the cattle ranchers. The final few words are designed to provoke the fight..."So your Jack Wilson. I've heard about you." "What have you heard Shane?" "That your a low down Yankee liar" - the same words used by the southerner before he was shot. "Prove it" whispers Palance and so finally gets his just desserts.

It is just magical film making.

Ned Kelly (2003)

Dreadful

[1/10 · 2 January 2011]

Why does everyone who takes on the English establishment have to be hard done by, be decent, lovable and good natured at heart and freedom loving but oppressed and thus driven to fight back against tyranny and injustice. The fact is that the Kelly gang were the local thieves and rogues who were forever in trouble with the police. They were of Irish descent but so were the police at all levels of rank and so was the Judge who had Ned Kelly hung. When four police tried to arrest the gang three policemen were shot dead, one as he lay wounded at Ned Kelly's feet, and one escaped. The Kelly gang was now a bunch of murderers who eventually got what they deserved. After having said that it must be accepted that Ned was brave in that, dressed in his suit of armor, he came back to fight the police face to face in the final shoot-out. But he was no folk hero, just a pitiless criminal. He was a hard man and if only the film makers showed him as he was with emphasis on him being such a tough character and as such a menace to the community even though he was personally courageous. Being as brave as he was should not make us naturally assumes that he must be an admirable personality.

The film is not a documentary but how refreshing and honest it would be if the Kelly gang had been shown in their true light. That might have made it a great movie instead of being forgetful rubbish.

Australia (2008)

One of the top 10 worst movies ever made.

[1/10 · 14 December 2010]

Truly awful. An insult to anyone with half a brain. Pretentious, posturing and ridiculous it is just embarrassing tosh. I can't even begin to explain why it is such rubbish, I could go on for hours. I am ashamed that some Australians actually said that they liked it. What is it about some Australians that they must pretend to be such peasants - it is as if it is a character defect to speak well, know things, behave properly, act thoughtfully, be courteous, read books, display leadership, accept responsibility and not carry on as crude and impolite twerps like Russell Crowe, Paul Hogan, Bryan Brown, Jack Thompson and all of those other ocker morons that infest Australian show business.

If you want to know how to behave model yourself on Don Bradman, Rod Laver, Jack Brabham, Margaret Court, Yvonne Goolagong, Herb Elliott etc., all modest and yet all admirable.

Flyboys (2006)

Truly awful

[1/10 · 14 December 2010]

This is like watching a very old TV cartoon in the very early hours of the morning. It defies understanding that someone could spend real money in making this trash. An example: A pilot gets shot down and crashes between the trenches. German soldiers are about 25 meters away and have clear line of sight to the pilot who is pinned down by the wing resting on his hand. But although they are firing repeatedly they can't hit him. Another pilot then lands his plane alongside, cuts off the hand with a bayonet, carries the now disabled pilot into his aircraft and takes off. I wouldn't imagine that no-mans-land would be smooth enough for a landing and takeoff. The scenes show that it is a wasteland full of craters. The range is virtually point blank but the German's can't hit the plane. A bayonet wouldn't have the mass to sever a hand from the arm with just one downward lunge. Why didn't he use it to dig away the dirt from under the wing, or use it to hack away at the fabric covering of the wing and so free the hand? Also it is said that the Americans only had one machine gun with 47 bullets. The Germans have 2 belt fed MGs with 1000 rounds. Obviously the American MG is a magazine fed Lewis gun. The mag on a Lewis holds 47 rounds. What actually happened is that the pilots carried extra mags in the cockpit and changed to a full mag when necessary. They could have up to 5 or 6 extra mags. But no, in the movie it is said very exact that the Yanks only had 47 rounds for their machine guns. This would allow about 4 or 5 10 round bursts whereas the Germans would have about 100 10 round bursts. Yet the Americans win. It is an insult to the viewer to have to watch this rubbish.

Von Richthofen and Brown (1971)

Rubbish

[1/10 · 10 December 2010]

A film of rubbish. Take the ending for example. It simply didn't happen that way. Brown has been thoroughly discredited as being the one who shot down the Red Baron. There is little doubt that Von Richthofen was was shot down by Australian ground troops. Brown attempted to take the credit and is held in contempt as a result. Just watch this film only if you are interested in WW1 aircraft. The rest is as I say just pure rubbish.

The end: Von Richthofen's guns had jammed. He could only fire short bursts of a few round at a time. He was chasing a Sopwith Camel piloted by a novice. Brown had fired a burst but some time before and had turned away. Von Richthofen disobeyed his hard and fast rule of never flying low over British lines. He ran into a torrent of machine gun and rifle fire. He suddenly pulled up and half landed and half crashed and died as an English soldier arrived on the scene.

The Phantom (1996)

How come it explodes/

[30 September 2010]

The plane crashes into a cliff and explodes in a great ball of fire. The only problem is that the reason it crashes is because it has run out of fuel. So what caused the fire? This about sums up the movie. There has to be some credibility in even fantasy movies such as this. The Phantom is an eerie, brooding and pitiless character who has such strange and dreadful powers that he is literally a supernatural being and one who is essentially so unearthly that mere human beings would be transfixed with terror in his presence. Yet in this movie he comes across as being a bit of a numbskull - the lights are on but there is no one home.

Battle of Britain (1969)

Air fighting not dramatic enough

[1/10 · 21 August 2010]

Spitfires and ME109s were hot aircraft. They had large and powerful supercharged engines stressed to the utmost. When they were in a dogfight or were attacking bombers they didn't just stooge around in graceful turns they were whipped around in a tight vicious manner with engines screaming on full power and they would be jinking about constantly, zooming up, banking and diving and all in all it was an intense affair. You don't get any sense of this at all in the movie. Apparently the Spanish pilots of the ME109 were reluctant to impose any stress on their aircraft and so we only see them being flown gently. The whole effect is as if the viewer is watching a genteel display of preserved aircraft. Also the bombs exploding on the airfields didn't explode as bombs do with a devastating horizontal blast effect but were obviously just charges in a pit resulting in a puny upwards explosion with inexplicably applied flame effect. It is hard too imagine that such a subject could be rendered so boring but this film is just that.

The Visitors (1993)

Very, very funny

[10/10 · 7 August 2010]

Although it is mainly slapstick humor to non French speakers I guess it is in the nuance of the dialog that the French find it so funny. What I liked about it was Jean Reno when playing it straight - there was real menace and one could imagine a medieval knight in today's society coming across as being psychopathic as life was cheap in mediaeval times and to kill a social inferior was as nothing. I also liked the scene not long after the start when the French King, although short and portly had a convincing regal air about him, darting keen shrewd glances about him as he walked through the camp. And the knights looked like real men at arms, a very tough bunch of warriors. If you stay through the titles at the end you will get a wave from a knight in armor who happens to be wearing sun glasses. The version I saw had sub-titles that were in keeping with the ambiance of the screenplay - slightly quaint and old fashioned. They were perfect in their intent of conveying the meaning of the clever and understated French dialog. These sub-titles were for the showing of the movie on Australian SBS channel. No advertisements either, it ran straight through non-stop. Reno plays it as a buffoon for much of the time but underpins his role with occasional deadly serious approaches to his plight and never hesitates to resort to violence to get his way. He presents an unshakeable determination to resolve the matter of being transported in time, resulting in a portrayal of a French knight of old which is very convincing. You would not want to cross this guy. I have watched this movie a number of times and can assure potential viewers that it is truly a very funny movie. Disregard the criticisms of those who didn't like it, they must be pathetically and pathologically humourless.

Kim (1950)

Kim is not half Indian

[19 July 2010]

A reviewer says that Kim is half Indian. That is not the case, he is wholly British.

The ending of the Kipling's novel is ambiguous - does Kim go fully "native" and live an Indian spiritual life or does he become fully a Briton or does he continue moving to and fro in both worlds? The general feeling is that Kipling infers that he permanently becomes as an Indian. He remains a disciple of the Lama and continues on immersed in a spiritual life on the lama's death. There is a great opportunity for a sequel here, both as a novel and as a film.

Generally the reviewers get it right. The movie is tedious and although much of the film was shot in India it fails to capture the excitement and action of India, especially when depicting life on the road, which is one of the most intriguing elements of the book.