Change Your Image
Who_remembers_Dogtanian
Reviews
Father Brown (2013)
Delightful nonsense
This is the perfect binge watch to watch just before bedtime. It's utter nonsense but you've got to admire the writers for coming up with so many stories - albeit the same story to make this whole series so thoroughly entertaining.
The fictional little village of Kembleford is quite unique in several respects. There are over eighty murders per year. There seem to be at least four hundred stately homes. The police arrest the wrong person every single time there's a crime yet the inspector still keeps his job. Apart from a few atheists, everyone is a Roman Catholic.
This nonsense however has a lovely warm and comfy atmosphere. The outrageously clichèd characters are familiar and charming and the stories are professionally presented. It's the perfect programme to wind down to.
Adventures of a Plumber's Mate (1978)
Nasty and unpleasant
Compared with the tacky 'Confessions of' series, the first two 'Adventures of' films felt a little more classy with actual plots. This however is horrible. It's a humourless, very poorly made crime film with an exceptionally unpleasant lead character.
Christopher Neil, who was the taxi driver in the first movie plays an absolutely detestable character. He's a cruel, spiteful and ignorant sexist yob. Sexist! OK, you wouldn't expect a film like this to be particularly woke but in a so-called comedy you wouldn't expect such aggressive misogyny - or for that to be a basis of humour. There's also a plot which is the dullest crime story imaginable. That introduces a series of unlikeable, unfunny boring characters. These help to drag the tedium out for what seems hours.
Is it worth watching for the sexy ladies? No. The progression of characterless one-dimensional naked cardboard cutouts are as erotic as Chinese shadow play. The knickerless girl on the motorcycle at the beginning however is pleasant but the rest of the supposed erotica is just crude, dirty and cheap looking.
I'm obviously not a prude or I wouldn't be watching this but this is a vile, shabby excuse for entertainment which makes you feel dirty and annoyed that you wasted an hour and a half on.
There's a Girl in My Soup (1970)
There is no meaning of life - and that's ok
I love the message in this film; that we don't need to conform to the norms of society to be happy. We don't need to search for life's purpose because there isn't one, we can just be ourselves.
This is a charming, beautifully made drama about an upper class man who thinks he might be envious of the lifestyle of those whom society hasn't moulded into what's expected. It's about a free-spirited girl who thinks she might be envious of being part of a world she finds stuffy and rather ridiculous. Both Peter Sellers and Goldie Hawn are perfect as the aging Lothario from a bygone age and the wild child of the sixties.
The story of mismatched lovers from different sides of the tracks is as old as Shakespeare and was used in what seemed to be about half of all the pre-code pictures of the early thirties. The society of the 1970s, when remnants of 1930s mindsets still ran through what is virtually 'modern times' with modern attitudes created two distinct societies happily existing side by side. Sellers' and Hawn's characters get together and embark as tourists in each other's lives. They're both cynical enough to know that this is just a holiday romance but they want to believe that their relationship can really work. Deep down however they're both too selfish to completely jettison their own ways of living and means of finding personal happiness.
Were this a 1930s film it would have either had a cheesy happy ending or a melodramatic tragic tear-jerking shocking denouement. Without giving anything away, the conclusion of this is much more like real life - it just goes on. That's not unsatisfying in fact it has quite a surprisingly optimistic feel.
Maybe because Peter Sellers is known for comedy this is wrongly assumed to be a comedy. Clearly it's not a comedy but despite its cynicism, it is uplifting. It's an intelligent and thoughtful study of an impossible relationship. Peter Sellers was a surprisingly good actor (with a surprisingly hairy back) but most impressive is Goldie Hawn who seems like she'd been acting for decades (with a reassuringly non-hairy back)
Au Pair Girls (1972)
The sexiest, most erotic film I've ever seen!
A man in in his sixties making a film about sexy young women in their twenties who keep losing their clothes simply to be ogled at might sound rather seedy. It's difficult to argue otherwise but somehow this picture has almost an innocent sweetness to it which you wouldn't expect. Admittedly it's virtually soft porn but it's also a well made little comedy with proper actors, a proper story and directed incredibly by the guy who wrote the Will Hay films in the 1930s. Will Hay was funnier but Gabrielle Drake is certainly prettier!
Dozens of pitiful so-called 'sex-comedies' followed in the wake of this which although generally had much less nudity than this looked cheap, smutty and tacky and they weren't funny. Unlike in those 'Confessions Of...' films and similar, where there's some sleazy guy encountering and then undressing numerous non-entities, the leads in this are the girls themselves so it's the girls who have had their characters written as people not just as objects and so it's these whom we get to know. It would be stretching credibility to say that they're written from a woman's perspective, they're clearly from the perspective of what a man would think his sexual fantasy figure's perspective would be but even so it's better than them just being sex objects. Of course they're not written with particularly deep complex personalities but because you learn enough about them and because you start to think you can relate to them, they become real people and consequently a million times more sexy than the parade of faceless naked bodies you get in those other films.
What's interesting about this is that it's four separate stories with four different moods based around the four girls so it packs a lot of story into its hour and a half. There's quite a sweet story with the Chinese girl and a simple child-like man. Another story that's more effective than you'd expect in something like this is about the German girl, Christa who discovers that the groovy London scene isn't as groovy as she thought. In this story the naïve unsuspecting young German is essentially abused and realises that if you don't want to play the game, the permissive society can be cruel, exploitative and unpleasant. In her exaggerated version of 1971 normal everyday girls like her go to bars wearing tiny skirts without knickers and as they'd walk past men they'd feel sweaty hands casually groping their bare bottoms. The men would carry on drinking and chatting with their mates and the girls would nonchalantly carry on walking. Neither the men nor the girls in this exaggerated 1971 think this is unusual about this, this is just normal. Nobody objects, nobody is offended, nobody is hurt, and everyone is happy. This environment however escalates to a place where 'Christa' doesn't want to be anymore and needs to get out. By integrating this bit of social commentary into the other lighter stories makes for quite an effective jolt of electricity which shakes you from your complacency.
The other two stories are have no deep meaning, they are just sexy and feature Astrid Frank as the sexiest Swede in the universe and Gabrielle Drake as the sexiest Dane in the universe. Miss Frank's character is the epitome of every male fantasy: a sexy gorgeous blonde in a tiny skirt with no knickers and a see through top which tends to fall off whilst also having a propensity to walk around completely naked. Her 'airhead' role isn't going to win any prizes at a feminist convention but I thought she was very funny.
Gabrielle Drake's character however is completely different. She's the epitome of every male fantasy: a sexy gorgeous brunette in a tiny skirt with no knickers and a see through top which tends to fall off whilst also having a propensity to walk around completely naked. She also spends quite some time stark naked in a Rolls Royce which was clearly a personal fantasy of the writer and from this moment on, of mine as well! It's hard to explain but as smutty as this all sounds it's not smutty at all. It doesn't feel like you're watching a dirty movie, it's just naughty. Both these girls come across as sweet and lovely which is maybe what makes them so appealing, they're not the sort of girls who would ever watch something like this!
And just one last time, because what better thought is there to end on: Gabrielle Drake naked in a Rolls Royce!
Carry on at Your Convenience (1971)
Joint worst Carry On film - or HOW NOT TO READ YOUR AUDIENCE
RANKING: When people, me included, rate these films they do so on how funny they are, inevitably putting EMMANUEL at the bottom. We forget about this nasty-minded, unpleasant party political broadcast on behalf of 'our betters.' Just who did they think their audience was? Did they think that ridiculing trade unions and laughing at how stupid factory workers are was a suitable theme for a Carry On film? Did they not know what year it was? 1971 was a terrible year for industrial disputes - strikes were widespread; after the optimism of the sixties, reality had kicked in and people were suffering - so this film laughs at them!
It leaves a slightly unpleasant taste in the mouth to see these actors were so familiar with degraded by their involvement with this totally misguided non-comedy.
TYPICAL: It hard to believe that this was filmed just a few months after CARRY ON HENRY since this looks so tacky, shabby and cheap by comparison. It feels like you're looking at an episode of an old TV programme from the seventies: looking like it was filmed in a garden shed by someone who had just found an old tv camera.
Kenneth Williams is quite amusing although not very original and appears to be bored doing the same old character for the umpteenth time. And that is what's wrong with this - everyone is just so ordinary and everything looks dull and ordinary. There's no memorable characters and nothing happens. Not only is the overall premise distasteful but doesn't actually have a story. Instead we get unrelated snippets of the everyday, uneventful lives of these unlikeable, boring ordinary people. Were these disjointed scenes amusing comedy sketches it might be worth watching but they're not just unrelated but unfunny.
SEXY LADIES: The other essential of Carry On films are saucy, sexy ladies and to satisfy that requirement we have sweet, lovely Jacki Piper but for a change, she's relatively covered up. Our kind filmmakers however have compensated us for Miss Piper's modest attire with some absolutely utter gratuitous boobery from this magical combination: 1) Margaret Nolan, 2) a very low cut top, 3) a very bumpy, bouncy bus journey. That is quite a magnificent experience - but not enough of a reason to sit through this garbage.
And seriously though - what is so funny about a bidet?
Love & Death (2023)
Addictive viewing
This beautiful period production instantly engages you and puts you into Candy's world. The characters feel so real that you're not watching a tv show, you're watching people you know and care about.
Being a true story, most of these people are still alive today so it treats everyone with respect and handles the story very sensitively. Despite the outrage the story engendered, the show is not sensationalised, there's no gratuitous violence or salaciousness, there's just good drama.
Each of its eight episodes are sleepwalk you through the story at a perfect pace. Moments of comedy easily blend into tragedy allowing you to really get to know these people and to understand what's going on in their heads. It's not just the outstanding acting which is so captivating - the 1980 design looks gorgeous .....and of course so does Elizabeth Olsen, who's not just a pretty face - she's absolutely brilliant in this.
After.Life (2009)
But Christina Ricci is naked
That headline might attract the teenage boys and the teenage boy within us but that nudity is absolutely fundamental to our understanding of this intriguing and engrossing story.
With most of the action happening in a very claustrophobic set, this has the feeling of an intimate and intense stage play. It speaks to you personally very much on a one to one basis and what it's saying is: is she dead or is she alive? As you'll know, the film itself doesn't explicitly answer this question. There's no SIXTH SENSE revelation - the answer is for you to decide.
And that's what the nudity is for! Whether you accept by Liam Neeson's logical point of view that she's dead or Christina Ricci's protestations that she's alive is dependent on how you relate to these two characters. Miss Volsoo, the avant-garde filmmaker of this said she deliberately made this ambiguous so we could engage our own minds and find out which point of view fits into our own values and attitudes.
POV 1 posits that Liam Neeson can either communicate with the dead which will strike a chord with some of us or on a more prosaic level, simply thinks he can.
POV 2 is that Christina Ricci, despite the obvious, despite what we see with our own eyes is inexplicably alive. The only way anyone could possibly accept that utterly ridiculous proposition is by the persuasion of Miss Ricci's performance. Miss Volsoo has reported that reviews have shown that about half of us will!
Her film isn't just entertaining but also a clever psychological experiment. I suspect that women might be more likely to believe the logical conclusion that all of this is happening in Liam Neeson's mind whereas men, because they're men will easily be persuaded by a very beautiful young lady without any clothes on.
The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water (2015)
If The Marx Brothers were around today...
OK, I know it's a kid's film but it's still absolutely hilarious. If The Marx Brothers and Laurel and Hardy ever made you laugh, if you watch Monty Python over and over again, you'll laugh your head off at this.
I was a little worried when I heard that this featured a 'live action' section but I needn't have been concerned. The well developed characters are strong enough to be exactly the same throughout the whole two hours of this - even on land. They're just the same, as consistently funny as they are in the crazy ten minute tv episodes.
With the exception of SHREK, I cannot stand all the hundreds of virtually identical children's movies which the studios churn out these days. They're either patronising or horribly sweet and childish.....ok, they're childish because they're made for children but SpongeBob is different - no morals or deep life-affirming message with this. It's genuine pure comedy with the anarchy of The Marx Brothers and the surrealism of Monty Python.
The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977)
Rehearsal tape for AIRPLANE
If you think AIRPLANE is the funniest film ever (which it is) you've got a watch this. It feels more like Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker were just trying out some ideas rather than an actual film but it's got moments of brilliance.
This contains the funniest joke in any film ever! In the courthouse sketch a lawyer, presenting evidence invites the jury to hear a tape. And if you're familiar with AIRPLANE humour you'll know what's coming next..... he unwinds a roll of sellotape..... well I thought it was funny.
About half of this is pretty awful but that's all encased within the tedious Kung Fu section so you fast forward over that. The rest is just silly stupid tasteless raw fun. It's completely amateurish but so what.
This inspired me to watch Jim Abraham's AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON he made a decade later - wish I hadn't bothered - that was utterly, utterly awful.
The Night Caller (2024)
Miserable unrealistic tedious drivel
If you fancy hours and hours and hours of unrelenting misery then this is for you! There's absolutely nothing positive, nothing uplifting about this. The moral of the story is we're all horrible, the world is horrible, life is horrible.
Writer Nick Saltrese is clearly talented and has put together a well scripted and tense story but why! Why impose this unnecessarily negative reflection of humanity upon us? You can't trust anyone, your friends will betray you seems to be the message.
Set in Liverpool, focussing on night workers it's clearly been inspired by the wonderful THE RESPONDER but lacks that excellent series' depth of emotion and dark humour. What it also lacks is any believability. Mr Saltrese may have based this story of events he is familiar with but I just couldn't believe it. Even as a completely broken man, that the teacher/taxi driver would invest all his trust in the radio DJ seems impossible.
Thunder Rock (1942)
Peter Gabriel's song sums this up.
DON'T GIVE UP, 'CAUSE YOU HAVE FRIENDS
Even if, in as this clever psychological drama about disillusionment the friends are inside your head.
DON'T GIVE UP, YOU'RE NOT BEATEN YET. Even if you've withdrawn from the real world because you think it's a terrible place and despite you trying all your life to make it better you now think it's a place without hope.
DON'T GIVE UP, I KNOW YOU CAN MAKE IT GOOD. Those imaginary people telling you that you can make a difference aren't strangers, they're yourself.
This could have been a dry worthy call to arms but instead it's a clever grown up and uplifting celebration of humanity. It's lively, fast moving and emotionally moving.
The Outlaws (2021)
Breaking Bad - Bristol style.
I never expected this to be so great. If you've recently enjoyed the BBC's THE TOURIST and BOAT STORY then this series will be right up your street. Whereas they're gritty crime thrillers with dark comedy this is a dark comedy with a lot of gritty crime drama. Another thing I recently watched with a similar feel was Guy Ritchie's THE GENTLEMEN - I think this is actually slightly better.
Besides Stephen Merchant's excellent edge-of-the-seat writing, what makes this so watchable is the likeability of all, yes all the characters - again that's down to the writing but also to the really engaging acting. We have a wonderful selection of diverse characters who are turned into genuinely believable people by the cast. Each character is purposely a complete stereotype but the trick is that each person is then made real and someone you care about. Even the stereotypical drug dealers and their gang members are made into actual real people with their own problems and personal issues. They're not just the bad guys - nothing is black or white in this.
It's one of those series which you've just got to keep watching the next episode to see what happens next. You can keep doing that because although it's far from lightweight, it's not too heavy either. With all its intense drama and delving into so many issues however, it is still very, very funny. What more can you possibly want?
Carry on Cowboy (1965)
The sixth best Carry On film
RANKING: This one often gets overlooked since it's grouped with the "classic" era of CLEO and SCREAMING, indeed it was the entry made between those two. Whilst not quite as good as those (which are the best two anyway), if that's your type of Carry On film rather than the bawdier ones which came later, then you'll like this. It is a proper comedy with a proper plot and is superbly childishly funny.
TYPICAL: This follows on from the fabulous CARRY ON CLEO and in many ways it's the same story with the same cast in virtually the same roles. So yes, it's very typical of their mid to late sixties films.
It takes a little while to get going possibly because the "American" accents make the familiar characters slightly less familiar to start with but after half an hour it gets into full swing.
SEXY LADIES: The other essential of Carry On films are saucy, sexy ladies and there's no one more saucy and sexy as gorgeous Angela Douglas. As Annie Oakley, she's an absolute dream in this. Her introduction to Sid James' character in a bubble bath - Angela not Sid, is jaw dropping!
Carry on Spying (1964)
The Eighth Best Carry On Film
RANKING: The only "old style" black and white one to be in the top ten. What makes this stand out is it's got an actual plot. Unlike the later ones which relyied on our familiarity with the characters so much so that they could be just a series of smutty jokes, this one has a proper story - albeit a very, very silly one. Although it is a black and white one, it is NOT from the early batch of Norman Hudis films (which are not funny). No, this is a proper Talbot Rothwell picture who wrote virtually all of them from 1963 onwards...and being one of his first, the jokes are fresh!
TYPICAL: Kenneth Williams plays the role Kenneth Williams always played in the early sixties whether in film, TV or radio, particularly in HANCOCK'S HALF HOUR - and he's never been better or funnier than in this.
But is it a typical Carry On Film? No, definitely not. This is more of a James Bond spoof than what people would consider to be a Carry On film. The humour isn't that bawdy seaside postcard style which developed later on but there are a few saucy double entendres to give us a taste of things to come. The humour in this is more akin to the type of silly schoolboy humour you would have heard in the radio comedies of the late fifties and early sixties so if you're a fan of Hancock, Round The Horn and all that sort of stuff, you will definitely love this.
Don't however expect a parody in the classy style of CASINO ROYALE (1967) or AUSTIN POWERS, this makes AUSTIN POWERS seem like Chekhov.
SEXY LADIES: This was made before that factor became an absolute essential ingredient. Nevertheless, Barbara Windsor is quite cute and it doesn't matter in something like this that she hadn't really learned how to act yet.
Carry on Henry (1971)
The tenth best Carry On film
RANKING: Just in the top ten but lacks some of the originality and sparkle the better ones have. Unlike the ones which followed, this one had actually had a budget and looks pretty polished.
TYPICAL: Perhaps this one is too typical. It's one of the later historical pictures and it does feel a little like they're doing the same thing as before but this time with different costumes on.....but the same old thing is still funny! Sid James is fabulous as King Henry - giving possibly one of the greatest portrayals of Henry in movie history (who are we to know?). Whether or not this is a classic Carry On, it's certainly classic Sid James.
Apart from Jim Dale, who'd left the team by now, virtually everyone else is in this all playing their expected roles. As for the story - it's pretty weak but because they all seem to be enjoying themselves, we do too.
SEXY LADIES: That essential Carry On ingredient in this is provided by Barbara Windsor who is pretty sweet and cute in this one.
The Red King (2024)
Proper Tasty Vintage Cheese
Who needs originality! This has every cliché known to man - accept that and just enjoy this near fabulous entertainment.
The plot isn't too dissimilar to HOT FUZZ - a strait laced, by-the-book police officer is posted to an idyllic yet decidedly weird isolated community. It's populated by a collection of marvellously over the top stereotypes who seemingly all hate the new arrival. There's weird rituals, lots of thunder and lightning, the predictable sound of crows squawking in the fog and then we get the murder.
It's a complete rip-off of every spooky police story from WICKER MAN to SCOOBY DOO but it does it so well it's almost fabulous. The team behind this really know what they're doing and have essentially made "a best of" every quirky suspense tv show in the last twenty years.
Once you've finished moaning about the utter unoriginality of this you'll probably love it. Although completely formulaic, it's really professionally made to be entertaining. The acting is spot on and very naturalistic making this nonsense seem entirely believable. Super-gorgeous Anjli Mohindra plays the Simon Pegg type up tight police officer complete with the usual issues all police detectives seem to have in every other tv show. She tackles her crazily over complicated character with gusto and although she's a real pain in the bum, she's such a superb actress that you're immediately on her side.
Game Night (2018)
Gets better by the minute!
I was surprised how good this was. I must admit, when it began I wasn't actually too sure that I'd see it through but its clever twisting plot, its genuinely funny humour and its very likeable characters quickly won me over. I almost felt like clapping at the end!
It has a similar structure to those old American 1930s screwball comedies with a multitude of twists and turns so you're never quite sure what's going to happen next. Were Howard Hawks around today, this is the kind of thing he's be doing. It's not however just the clever script which keeps you smiling or the dynamic direction which at times really mounts up the tension to keep you on the edge of your seat, it's the characters. They're just so naturally likeable. As you'd expect Rachel McAdams is brilliant and so is someone I've never heard of before called Jason Bateman - I realised about halfway through that he wasn't Mark Wahlberg!
The Regime (2024)
Just gets better and better
Absolutely engrossing and enjoyable series. It begins as a quirky dark comedy then when you've got to know the characters it evolves into one of the tensest, edge of the seat thrillers.
Kate Winslet is phenomenal as the utterly awful, seriously awful president. She's the most over-entitled, spoilt, obnoxious person imaginable with no awareness of her own inadequacies. She's an amalgam of every evil dictator blended with a bit of Liz Truss and Princess Margaret. Weirdly she somehow manages to make this monster the sexiest character I've seen on tv in years. You know you shouldn't be on her side but as the revolution ensues, you feel like if you were there, you'd do anything to help her.
It's superbly written, perfectly acted and that you're still laughing at the same time you're sweating with fear makes this something special.
....and Hugh Grant is, as always, brilliant too.
Ripley (2024)
The best cinematography I've ever seen
Although an utterly engrossing and fascinating story, what is so memorable about this is how it looks. Over the years films and TV shows have often tried to be arty, frequently resulting in pompous and cringy pretentiousness. Without wanting to sound pretentious myself, this is the truest most beautiful piece of art I've seen for many a year. It gives you that same awe inspiring feeling of amazement as when you walk into St Vitus Cathedral or see the Taj Mahal for the first time.
This is as close to perfection as you can get but to be critical and needlessly picky, I suppose it could be said that it feels a little slow at times. Audiences used to fast moving, all-action dramas might not appreciate this as much as some of us. That pace which gradually ramps up is necessary. It allows you not just to get to know Ripley (played brilliantly by Andrew Scott) but to get to know exactly how he feels and what he's thinking. The genius of this production is that we find ourselves rooting for Ripley, a thoroughly detestable human being. He's got no redeeming features whatsoever yet as much as we grow to passionately detest him, we find ourselves hoping against hope that he's going to get away with it all. It's so exceptionally well written that we're taken on the journey with him and all of his emotional experiences and anxieties.
Is it right to enjoy such unpleasantness?
Adventures of a Taxi Driver (1976)
Art flourishes in times of economic adversity.
This isn't as good as ...OF A PRIVATE EYE which isn't saying much but it's watchable and although 'a 70s sex comedy' it isn't offensive, sexist or vulgar - well it's a bit vulgar but not sordid and seedy. If you can accept that there's lots of bare breasts, this is almost good clean fun....well, 'fun' might be an exaggeration.
The seventies gave us Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, Bertolucci... in England however one of our most popular filmmakers was Stanley Long! This sort of puerile drivel was bizarrely what normal people liked to see. This was considered main-stream entertainment in the 70s.
The growth in popularity of these ultra-cheap 'sex comedies' seemed to mirror the plummet of the economy. Like the growth of escapist films in the 1930s depression, these naff comedies were what England wanted to take their mind off the sorry state of the country. To be fair, they seemed to do the job at the time but for us today, other than nostalgia value, they're like taking a vaccine for an illness you haven't got.
The problem with this film, like most of these is that it simply isn't funny. The ADVENTURES OF series were not as bad as the pitiful CONFESSIONS OF series. These at least had stories (of a sort) and likeable characters. Barry Evans, Robert Lindsay and Judy Geeson were talented actors which give this the edge over those awful Robin Askwith films.
Mary & George (2024)
A worthy sequel to THE TUDORS
This is a very enjoyable and enlightening drama about relationships, ambition and power. The story could be set in Wall Street, Dallas or modern day London but it's in the fascinating and dynamic days of the early 1600s.
It's told totally through the life and experience of Mary Beaumont so don't expect a history of King James. So there's no commissioning of the Bible, nothing about how he skilfully avoided getting involved in the 30 years war or his penchant for killing witches. The James in this story is just the James who becomes enamoured with young men. Although not everything we see is based on fact, the basic history hasn't been altered too much which makes a nice change to a lot of what's made these days.
Similarly, seen through the eyes of Mary, George isn't the atrocious and incompetent member of the government responsible for countless disasters he was in reality. He was in truth promoted way above his skill grade and indeed in this story he's unaware of his own inadequacies - which was one of his biggest character flaws so it's a pretty accurate representation of him.
This offers very much a 2024 perspective on the story. In twenty years time or so this will probably look as dated as those period dramas made in the 1970s but for now it really works. Some people have criticised the accents and the 'modern' manners of speech. Since the English spoken back then probably sounded more American than modern English does, that's a pointless criticism but there does seem to be a lot of gratuitous swearing.
What makes this different to the historical dramas were used to that profundity of swearing and quite a lot of sex. That might put a few people off but its bawdy script does capture a certain mood which was a characteristic of James' court. It is therefore a refreshingly accurate depiction of England at the start of the seventeenth century and good fun.
Confessions of a Pop Performer (1975)
Candidate for the worst film ever!
This can be summed up in three words: It's not funny.
The first of this series, WINDOW CLEANER was pretty atrocious but had a sort of cheeky originality to it. If you could barely tolerate that first one, avoid this, somehow they made it ten times worse. Whereas the first one was directed by Val Guest, someone who, having been involved with comedy from the days of Will Hay at least knew what comedy was. This one wasn't only not directed by him but seemingly not directed at all.
It is just staggeringly unfunny. Gormless Robin Askwith unconvincingly tripping up and dropping things does not constitute comedy. Slapstick, which is what I think this tries to convey requires acting not just messing about. Comedy requires either jokes, humour, amusing characters and a script, this drivel doesn't even have a story which can hold your attention for more than a couple of minutes. How it compensates for being extraordinarily boring is to have lots of naked ladies usually inexplicably cavorting with Robin Askwith. Amazingly the producers have managed to do the impossible: take a dozen stark naked attractive young ladies and make the most unsexy, unerotic and un-titillating film you're ever likely to see - and I'm including OPPENHEIMER in that. Without getting to know who they are first, however attractive they are, these girls you just come onto the screen, take off their clothes and ...come on the screen is not sexy. This feels as though it was made by a group of thirteen year old boys who had only just discovered that girls had strange wobbly bits that they didn't. The producers would probably argue that the tiresome inclusion of the wobbly bits wasn't meant to be sexy, it was meant to be funny. Well, it's not - for all their flaws, nudity in the CARRY ON FILMS was used for comedic effect.
It annoys me that some people describe these CONFESSIONS OF films as raunchier versions of the CARRY ON films. Although the CARRY ON films became tacky towards the end at least they were still sort of funny. They were proper films featuring professional comedy actors and were written by comedy scriptwriters. This waste of 8,000 feet of celluloid should not even be mentioned in the same breath as the CARRY ON films, which is saying something since a lot of them were dreadful.
And as for that so-called band - what the hell are they supposed to be doing? That's insulting to musicians.
Steptoe and Son Ride Again (1973)
STEPTOE AND SON and STEPTOE AND SON RIDE AGAIN
If you're a fan of the original TV series then you'll enjoy both of these films although they are both very different. That series was of course one of the first comedy-dramas seen on TV seamlessly blending slapstick with biting social commentary and sometimes tragedy. Not wanting just to be a long TV episode, the first film tries to be a little more serious, a little more drama than comedy. Some people fund that a bit unpalatable at the time so the second film goes the other way being more of a traditional comedy film.
When you watch the first film you might wonder how on earth this is classed as a comedy because it is very dark. It does have its funny moments but overall it is quite emotionally draining as we're witness to Harold's life falling apart aided by his father's pretty horrible cruelty and mental torture. Besides YES releasing CLOSE TO THE EDGE, 1972 was not a happy year for the UK and this film gives us a voyeuristic insight into how depressing things were back then for the majority of people. Although it's heavy going at times and you're more likely to cry than laugh, it is enjoyable and satisfying. What makes this extra special is Carolyn Seymour as the girl who captures Harold's heart. She plays a stripper in a seedy club and as someone who takes her clothes off for a living she is of course very attractive but because she's such a great actress, she's also instantly likeable even though she's actually not that nice. Her character is just so real so much so that you can perhaps empathise with her most of all.
As a result of the negative backlash against the first film, the next one, in my opinion went too far the other way. Although maintaining the spirit of the original show this one decides to be a comedy and indeed it is a very funny comedy. If you're a Steptoe fan then this will make you laugh but maybe because I'm a miserable old git, I prefer the first one.
Steptoe & Son (1972)
STEPTOE AND SON and STEPTOE AND SON RIDE AGAIN
If you're a fan of the original TV series then you'll enjoy both of these films although they are both very different. That series was of course one of the first comedy-dramas seen on TV seamlessly blending slapstick with biting social commentary and sometimes tragedy. Not wanting just to be a long TV episode, the first film tries to be a little more serious, a little more drama than comedy. Some people fund that a bit unpalatable at the time so the second film goes the other way being more of a traditional comedy film.
When you watch the first film you might wonder how on earth this is classed as a comedy because it is very dark. It does have its funny moments but overall it is quite emotionally draining as we're witness to Harold's life falling apart aided by his father's pretty horrible cruelty and mental torture. Besides YES releasing CLOSE TO THE EDGE, 1972 was not a happy year for the UK and this film gives us a voyeuristic insight into how depressing things were back then for the majority of people. Although it's heavy going at times and you're more likely to cry than laugh, it is enjoyable and satisfying. What makes this extra special is Carolyn Seymour as the girl who captures Harold's heart. She plays a stripper in a seedy club and as someone who takes her clothes off for a living she is of course very attractive but because she's such a great actress, she's also instantly likeable even though she's actually not that nice. Her character is just so real so much so that you can perhaps empathise with her most of all.
As a result of the negative backlash against the first film, the next one, in my opinion went too far the other way. Although maintaining the spirit of the original show this one decides to be a comedy and indeed it is a very funny comedy. If you're a Steptoe fan then this will make you laugh but maybe because I'm a miserable old git, I prefer the first one.
Adventures of a Private Eye (1977)
Don't expect Fawlty Towers
This reminds me of what I think TV comedies were like in the 1970s - not the good programmes which get repeated but rather the hundreds of other ones which we've successfully purged from our collective memories. It's not the funniest comedy but it's by no means the worst. There's a fair bit of nudity but nothing you couldn't watch with your mother in the room.
The last two Carry On films from the 1970s were rightly criticised for becoming seedy, sordid and smutty - not in keeping the traditional Carry On saucy seaside postcard spirit. Their slide into the gutter was because they were competing with the so-called sex-comedies such as the 'Confessions of' and 'Adventures of' series which unapologetically set out to give the audience daft childish humour and lots of lovely, luscious topless ladies! This film actually feels more innocent, more cosy .....almost more family friendly than the last two Carry On films! Unlike the Confessions films or the dire Carry On England, this one's got a proper story, a reasonably clever script, proper stars doing proper acting playing proper characters - some quite funny and even some of the jokes are funny. Also Christopher Neil is pretty good. He's likeable which is important in a weak film like this, he keeps you watching. Unlike the stereotypical working class cheeky chappie caricature Robin Askwith played in the Confessions films, you can relate to Christopher Neil.
As a comedy, you don't need to take precautions against the possibility of your sides splitting. As a smutty movie you don't need to worry about your grandma turning up - she'd might even enjoy it more than you! It's called a 'sex-comedy' but it's very tame, the sex scenes are there for comedic purposes only and the nudity isn't much more explicit than you'd see queuing up outside your local nightclub these days. How strange that not too long ago this was what couples would go the cinema to see. Innocent naivety!