Reviews

22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Humans (2015–2018)
7/10
Political background confusing
10 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I was a little confused by the political background in series 3. The Dryden Commission is just a royal commission isn't it - like the ones we have had on Grenfell and the press following all the phone hacking? Yet here the Commission can recommend a change in the law - its now a criminal offence to kill a green-eyed synth - and it seems to be enacted overnight without going through parliament or any due process or anything like that (in reality this would take at least six months to happen and probably never happen anyway). Further, the head of this commission is personally responsible for the operation to kill all the synths - rather than this being done separately and secretly by the government. Is England now some form of dictatorship - have I missed that. I didn't miss the fact that everyone seemed to have some very old-fashioned transistor radios in their houses as well as robots. I had to laugh when the commission members all went into the top secret building to observe the secret operation starting and Katherine Parkinson (known subversive) was sitting in her car watching them about 20 yards away in plain sight. Surely not!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chuka (1967)
4/10
Naval gazing, cheap-looking western with an odd cast
2 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Chuka is a strangely written film with some strange characters, all of whom need to have some tedious expository background scene whilst the audience twiddles its thumbs waiting for the Indians to attack (that they win is revealed in the opening scene so there's no suspense here).

Writer Richard Jassup creates some bizarre people who are unlikely to have existed in real life. His army fort is populated by a collection of what is described as the 'scum of the Earth'. As if a USA army fort in Indian territory would ever be (or ever could be) populated with 'disgraced' people. The officer in charge is a disgraced (and, it is implied, castrated) former British officer who, for reasons understandably unexplained, is now a colonel in the USA army. Not only that, but his German sergeant who served with him in the British army in the Sudan (?!) is also with him at the fort. Another character explains that he hates battles because horses get killed (!). With such bizarre creations as these, there is little one can do really but sit it out for the full 105m whilst these people all reveal something 'significant' about their backgrounds and hope that the end action justifies the wait (even know you know it won't).

The real star of the film is not Rod Taylor but the most unconvincing fort set that I have ever seen (and I must have watched over 400 westerns including all 13 of AC Lyles' films). It is so small you only ever get to see one small part of the wall. The inhabitants must number about 30 at most - only about 20 can fit in the non-existent 'parade ground' - and there is room in the stable for about 10 horses. Apart from Taylor, none of the main actors seem to have left this set for the duration. Consequently, the film has a cramped, claustrophobic, artificial look throughout and I was half expecting the source material to be a stage play. The constricted set causes several Indian arrows to defy the laws of physics and gravity - one army officer gets one in the back when his back was up against a wooden wall ! Other highlights include a long fight between Taylor and Ernest Borgnine which ends, following kidney punches and the banging of Taylor's head against a wooden post, with the two simply laughing and seemingly unharmed. Plus a somewhat incomprehensible ending that tries to strain for significance (would a grave really not be dug-up due to 'sacrilege' if a relative was after the body?).
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Big budget liberal message movie is a mess
28 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Cheyenne Autumn was intended as the big-budget western release of 1964, the follow-up to How the West Was Won with several of the same cast members and one of that film's directors. For a movie made in 1963, the theme is a bold one about the White man's ill-treatment of the Cheyenne (actually the North Cheyenne tribe) and their 1878 journey back north to their homeland.

Unfortunately, the film is a mess and for a movie made by a top 'A' director, it is surprisingly incompetently directed. Some comments:

  • the Dodge City sequence. I would have liked to see this expanded to a feature length film and released separately. It is very funny. However, it doesn't belong in this film. What was Ford smoking when he put this in?


  • Karl Malden's prototype Nazi officer who has "Orders, orders zat must be OBEYED". "I HAF ORDERS". Malden seems to think he is auditioning for John Cleese's role in The Germans episode of Fawlty Towers. Couldn't someone keep him under control? And what about that huge pipe he pulls out of his coat at one point and then exits stage left after blowing out the sergeant's offered match? That made me laugh. A touch worthy of Peter Sellers. One can see the point being made but the execution is ridiculous. It was also amusing to see the German name of Edward G Robinson's character being downplayed presumably because the writers had forgotten that one of the major 'good guys' was also of German ancestry when they created the Nazi character. (interesting historical footnote - the real Carl Schurz spoke with a thick German accent whereas the real Cpt Wessels was born in New York and likely didn't - he certainly was never a Prussian officer)


  • in the first encounter between the cavalry and the Indians, Richard Widmark is summarily court martialled and put under arrest for reasons not apparent to this viewer (was something cut out?). Later Widmark goes up to a soldier and asks where the major is only for the soldier to point to a body which is virtually lying at Widmark's feet being attended to by a physician. This is like something out of The Naked Gun. I had to rewind here to check I hadn't missed anything as it looked so stupid.


  • the second skirmish with the Indians is appallingly choreographed and edited. After establishing that we are in some kind of shrub/semi-desert area, when Pat Wayne leads a cavalry charge, the cavalry are shown charging over some flat sandy area which is obviously a completely different location. Then, the Indians set fire to a few fake-looking shrubs and about five seconds later, the cavalry's wagons and cannon are enveloped in flames despite being at least several hundred yards away. Richard Widmark and the rest of his command appear to be doing nothing whilst this happens although Wayne's men seem to be close enough for Widmark to be shouting at them. A quick cut and Widmark is personally helping save the cannon - what has happened to the hundred odd men in his command. Why aren't they helping? Who knows.


  • Ricardo Montalban and Gilbert Roland's mullets. Very silly and must have given the set hairdresser lots of chuckles. Didn't anyone look at any pictures of the real Dull Knife and Little Wolf? Still, at least even they don't look as ridiculous as Sal Mineo.


  • Surely someone must have realised that it sounded stupid to constantly refer to a major character as "Spanish Woman" rather than give her a proper name? There is no excuse for this as it's not even a real historical name.


  • What did make me laugh was that most of the time it looked as if Little Wolf and Dull Knife's orders to the tribe were having to be translated for them by the elderly unnamed Cheyenne who was standing next to them in many scenes and was a real Indian (a senior Navajo I'm guessing). Almost every time they said something in Cheyenne, this guy would then turn round and repeat it to the other Indians. This again looked ridiculous


  • Matters being brought to what seemed a premature conclusion by Edward G Robinson standing infront of an appallingly unconvincing piece of back-projection, not even pointed in the right direction, and mouthing a few platitudes. Had the money run out at this point? (the Robinson scene is completely fictitious by the way).


In short, worthy in intent but incompetent in execution and in places mind-numbingly bad for an expensive film made by a talented director.
18 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Sub-par western with a miscast leading man and plenty of stock footage
7 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
A lot of 1960s B westerns turned out to be remakes of 1950s B films - especially those starring Audie Murphy - and this is no exception. Its a remake of Showdown in Abilene starring Jock Mahoney. This is so close to the original that the original writer of Showdown, Berne Giler, gets a 'screenplay' credit although I suspect that means Giler's original script was handed to the other credited writer, John Black, who made a few nominal changes to update it for the budget and to try and disguise that this was a remake by changing the character names.

Looking suspiciously as if it was intended originally as a Murphy vehicle, this humdrum affair features singer Bobby Darin as a gunfighter who can't put on a gun again after accidentally killing his best friend but naturally is forced to do so at the end. Darin struggles in the acting stakes - someone must have told him to wear black gloves as a symbol of being psychologically disturbed (maybe he saw Kirk Douglas in The Last Sunset - of which more later) although no-one comments on this even when he wears them indoors - and bites his lips a lot. He's also too slight to be a feared gunman and looks faintly ridiculous in nicely pressed tight beige trousers.

The background plot is a range war between cattlemen and sodbusters. However, being that this is a cheap film, all of the shots of cattle herds and civil war fighting are taken from other films shot on different film stock and it shows. This being a Universal release the production has been allowed to raid the Universal library and che civil war shots are from Shenandoah and many, if not all of the shots of cattle herds are from aforementioned The Last Sunset including shots of a cattle herd crossing a river into a town and being put into a cattle corral. So, instead of seeing any cattle everything is largely confined to the standing Universal western town set and a few indoor sets.

The film is lamentable short on much action until the end. Further Darin's character came across to me as a complete cad. Darin's chopped off Leslie Neilson's arm, killed his brother and then tomcatted his fiancée(whom Darin also humiliates by being blatantly unfaithful too by screwing another woman virtually infront of her and then dumping this other gal when the ex-financee changes her mind). Neilsen should have shot Darin dead.

I thought Don Galloway came off best as the laid back deputy quite happy to serve any sheriff, no matter how corrupt.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Waco (1966)
3/10
Awful AC Lyles production
31 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Waco is a typically terrible AC Lyles production full of ageing alcoholic actors struggling to read their lines, incompetent choreography where actors hold their hats as they fall over whilst the main plot (recycled the following year in Arizona Bushwackers) consists of a sheriff failing to arrest those who keep trying to kill him.

The budget must have been especially low since this one features no outdoor location shots at all (those that exist are obvious bits of stock footage) but does include a pathetically unconvincing sagebrush backcloth which doubles as both a cemetery and a ranch corral.

Laugh as director RG Springsteen repeats the same footage every time we see a raucous outside the saloon, John Agar tells Ben Cooper that his girlfriend will get over being raped "in a few days", Wendell Corey slurs his lines and is so visibly drunk that even Springsteen has to cut away before the man starts to topple over after being shot and a film whose morality is such that a man of God has to be killed for no good reason than that the hero wants to cop off with his wife without offending the Hays Code.

This was De Forest Kelley's last film before being snapped up for Star Trek and immortality as Dr McCoy. Billed 12th, but with a much bigger part than several of those listed above him (Brian Donlevy gets third place for a five minute cameo), he's actually pretty good as the saloon 'bouncer' who keeps smirking behind Howard Keel's back. Kelley seemed to have done nothing but westerns in the 5-6 years before Star Trek and made a pretty good B western villain. In these movies he stood out possibly because he was one of the few actors sober on set and capable of doing more than read his cue cards !
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Awful film with ham acting and dreadful direction. Also heavily censored.
12 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The Desperados is obviously an attempt to up the ante in the violence stakes to rival that of the spaghetti western genre. It was filmed in 1968 in Spain with an American and British cast and an American director. However, the hysterical approach to the material proves counter-productive and the film is appallingly directed and choreographed with actors falling over for no obvious reason or otherwise standing still and waiting for things to happen to them.

An example of director Levin's ineptitude is when Palance and his gang raid a Texas town in order to rob the bank. After shooting up the place a while, some of the gang members dismount and enter the bank to rob it. Inside the bank, people are still at tills being served by cashiers as if nothing is happening! The same thing happens in the opening massacre when the Union soldiers are still emerging from their tents (to be easily shot) several minutes after wholesale gunfire has been raging nearby.

Matters are not helped by the fact that all prints are heavily censored. The opening massacre (based on Quantrill's massacre of Lawrence, Kansas) suffers from several obvious censor cuts - for example, as Palance is about to shoot a group of men lined up against a building there is an abrupt cutaway and we hear only a single shot dubbed over the face of Vince Edwards - and is extremely choppy as a result. A scene towards the end between Palance and Kate O'Mara is also heavily cut.

In the face of this ineptitude, some ripe overacting by Palance and the actor who plays his youngest son is the only thing left to enjoy.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Johnny Reno (1966)
3/10
Awful AC Lyles production
11 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This film is poor even by the standards of an AC Lyles 'old geezer' western. Audiences back when this was released must have realised that it was bottom of the barrel schlock and laughed throughout. Anachronistic songs and music, old rheumatic actors in need of doubles, pathetic choreography; anyone seeing this in 1966 must have felt that they had gone through a timewarp and re-emerged in the 1950s.

The highlight has to be the saloon fight between Dana Andrews and Lyle Bettger or, rather, the fight between their stunt doubles since the faces of the stuntmen are visible throughout and Bettger's has a different hair colour. I also laughed out loud when a rubber dummy was catapaulted into the air after an explosion and when a character was all smiles about 10 seconds after being told that her father was dead.

RG Springsteen was a hack but had directed a relatively competent film (Bullet for a Badman) only a little while previously so it is not clear why, other than cheap budget and rushed shooting schedule, he is so slapdash here. Note also that Andrews' ride to Jane Russell's house is conveyed by using footage recycled from earlier in the film.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Quick Gun (1964)
3/10
Routine and inept B filler western
31 January 2014
Dating from 1964, the latter Audie Murphy western is a routine B filler littered with continuity errors (most notably, the church building in which all the windows are dark from the outside but inside the lights are on full pelt), stunt doubles and poor tactics (when attacking the town the villains don't decide to use dynamite to destroy the barricade until about half of them have been killed in a pointless full-frontal attack). It does have a high body count and Ted De Corsia overacts enjoyably in a role he previously played only 4 years before in Noose for a Gunman. (this film is a remake of that from the same production company).

With these 1960s colour B westerns it is noticeable how ridiculously clean everything is. One guesses the film was shot on standard TV sets during the season break.

I was intrigued by the member of outlaw De Corsia's band who seemed to be at least 70 years old. This guy says nothing the whole time and must have been cast because he was a friend or relation of someone. His moment of fame comes when the outlaws lay siege to Murphy who is in a hotel. Throughout the sequence, this OAP stands next to De Corsia gurning, looking around for no obvious reason and pointing his gun at his boss.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Overwrought film with some daft casting
27 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It is not clear to me why this film is so highly rated on the board. I saw it recently and it was incredible overwrought and full of bizarre casting decisions. Plus the central premise suffers from a critical design flaw.

Firstly, we're in the wild west circa 1870 or 1880 (I guess) so what is a rich landowner doing with 3 unmarried children well over the age of 30? It simply wouldn't happen back then. Halliday keeps ranting on about wanting to keep his 'brand' pure but he's not going to have a brand because his kids are all childless. Maybe this is intended to be an irony of the script but if so everyone keeps very quiet about it.

Secondly, how old is Joesph Cotten's character supposed to be? 25-30? Cotten doesn't look as old as 51 (his real age) but does look at least 40. A bit old to have a rebellion and certainly it's not really plausible that he goes from mild mannered sop to a virtually superhuman avenger whom no posse can catch.

A Swedish Indian? That's original at least.

Janette Nolan caked up in some ridiculous make-up and overacting like mad as usual.

Bond pulls a gun on Cotten - which he presumably got from somewhere and hadn't hidden in his bed for several months - and is disarmed by Blair. Rather than take the gun away and put it somewhere safe, she then sticks it in the drawer next to his bed within easy reach! Dumb or what? I tried to like this one but it just had some many ridiculous characters and situations I couldn't. Director Lewis tries with what he has but the money obviously went on the stars here since make of the scene are filmed in a single take with obviously no time to reshoot even if Betsy Blair cannot act.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boring and pretentious though Finney chews the scenery to some effect
25 July 2011
This project was done in a hurry when a proposal to make a film of Ned Kelly was axed by MGM due to budget worries (at this time Tom Jones had been filmed but not released).

It is not clear why Riesz decided to make a film of this play. Clearly, the part of Danny is tailor made for some show-off acting and Finney grabs the bull by the horns here. His only real mistake is to put on a silly 'boyo Welsh accent. True, the character was Welsh in the play but that's because the part was written by the playwright to play himself. Otherwise, there is no dramatic need for Danny to have a Welsh accent and Robert Montgomery didn't bother in the 1937 version.

The main difference between the film and the play is that the film reveals its hand in the first minute that Danny is a psycho killer. In the play, its not clear until near the end and much of the dialogue are cat n'mouse exchanges between Danny and Olivia.

The result of this is to create a somewhat boring film; you know who the killer is and thus spend an hour and a hour waiting for him to explode. When he does, it has little logic and, to an audience used to the likes of Psycho and its rip-offs like Homicidal, seeing Finney deliver one blow to an off-screen body that you never get to see was always going to be a serious let-down. His retreat into gibberish at the end I thought was uncharacteristic and a cop-out. You never find out who the real Danny is and why he has acted like he has done. I did enjoy the 'hangbags' between Sheila Hancock and Susan Hampshire on the high street of an authentically 60s wet Hertfordshire town.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the all time worst
30 June 2008
OK this is supposed to be a kiddie matinée flick but its appallingly bad, even for medieval sword movies. Apart from the obvious anachronisms which one can probably accept in a fantasy (a saracen at king arthur's court and a viking/druid/saracen alliance) we have two things that lift it to the very highest of bad movie standards: (a) an awful lot of the action scenes appear to be stock footage from another film, possibly a Spanish one given that the backgrounds don't look like England at all. It looks as if the plot was fitted around this hence the whole druid sacrifice scene which makes no sense at all in the film's context. All of the shoddy action staging commented upon by other reviewers seems to result from trying to fit new footage to this stock footage. As a result, much of the action makes no sense at all and there are continuity errors galore. The brunette Medina gets fitted with a blonde wig in her druid sacrifice scene so that she'll match with the long shots of the stock footage (obviously a male stunt man in drag)!! (b) Alan Ladd's performance is simply abysmal. He can't act at all and for many scenes he is obviously doubled and you see his double's face several times. Ladd can't even convincingly cut a presence here and just looks awkward - the pint sized star just doesn't have the physical presence that the likes of Errols Flynn (or even Tony Curtis) could give to a role like this.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Jack the Ripper Versions
20 March 2007
There appear to be two versions of this film so beware. The colourised ending with the blood seeping out seems to have been done especially as a gimmick for the USA market.

In the UK version there is no colorised ending (it's all in black and white) and it also looks as if the ending has suffered from censor cuts.

Hopefully, one day we will see a DVD release with both endings included. All screenings in the UK (on TV) have been of the UK version with the black and white ending.

Those interested in this film may also care to check out A Study In Terror in which Sherlock Holmes tackles Jack the Ripper in a hammer forror-ish style.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Panic Room (2002)
Simply awful film from talented people
2 February 2004
I watched this at home with 3 other people and we all agreed it was terrible. A routine thriller with predictable and cliched plot twists which is filled with inconsistencies. It lost us all from the beginning when Jodie Foster and her transsexual-looking daughter move into the largest apartment house in the entire Manhatten area. It's absolutely vast, could house about fifty people and must cost a fortune to rent - yet here we have a single mom and her kid snapping it up without a blink of an eye. Like, yeah!! Then, when the burglars arrive and Foster and child hide in the panic room the idiots tell her what they want is in the room - why didn't they simply go away and come back later when she had left the mansion to go to work (?). And then Foster is in the panic room and they are all two flights of stairs down arguing and she can see them on a close circuit monitor but doesn't quickly pop out to pick up her mobile phone in the bedroom to call the police (oh, she remembers to do this half an hour later when they are closer to the bedroom and conveniently knocks over a lamp while looking for the phone...). The villians keep using the F word to no apparent purpose and then helpfully all shoot each other whilst a SWAT team randomly appears at the end when it is all too late. Absolute awful screenwriting credited to at least 4 people. All concerned have done far better and you wonder what attracted them to this mediocre story in the first place.
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lots of explosions and a terrible script
26 August 2003
Not bothering with even basic credibility, this CGI-heavy extravaganza crams in hundreds of explosions and shoot-outs into its relatively brief running time. Suspending disbelieve by having vampires and motor cars in 1899 is one thing but having, as others have pointed out, a ship the size of the Titanic subsequently going down the narrow canals of Venice or a naked man happily walking miles through the Siberian snow is another. Only one character was supposed to be indestructable but in reality they all seemed to be. And what about those thousands of bats that appeared from nowehere to accompany the vampire woman? And why did the villan's Mongolian lair seem to be full of old library books ?

The villan's neferious plot (and his identity) made no logical sense at all and seems to have been thought up afterwards in order to string together the visual mayhem of each spectacular (but often none-too-convincing) CGI set-piece. It was interesting to see that the appearance of the Dorian Gray character was so clearly modelled on Johnny Depp (did he turn the part down?) I also liked the idea of Jekyll & Hyde taunting each other via mirroir reflections but the Hyde creature itself was a woefully unconvincing special effect in a bloated rubber monster suit. Did I mention the explosions....
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Black Dragons (1942)
More Monogram tripe with some hilariously daft plot twists
18 May 2003
This piece of tacky WW2 propaganda has Bela Lugosi kill off various fith columnists and leave their corpses outside the Japanese embassy in Washington (with a prominently placed "Closed" sign on its door). Most of the film has Bela darting in and out of various "hidden" rooms in his main foe's rather small house and sneaking up on people from behind them. For example, everyone enters the cellar by going round the side of the house and through some front doors above the cellar; Bela, however, appears to get in via some inside door (so he doesn't have to leave the house). In a scene near the end he drags one of his victims through a previously unseen curtain in the living room and into some huge, medieval-type room with a long table that had previously not featured in the house at all and had somehow been missed by the large contingent of FBI men. Another scene has him sneak into a small room below the stairs, as hero and heroine ascent the stairs, so he can somehow get into the upstairs room of his Doctor victim before the others. These momentary pleasures, though, are outweighed by the ludicrous climatic flashback plot revelation in which it is revealed that Lugosi is a Nazi plastic surgeon who has transformed Japanese agents into these American-looking fifth columnists. The daftest moment, in a thoroughly daft film, comes when Lugosi is double-crossed by the fiendish Orientals and thrown into a cell into which, conveniently, is another prisoner who looks exactly like him (but sans beard) and is about to be released. The Great Man gives a chuckle and takes out his beard-trimming kit (that the Japanese have helpfully left him with). Welcome to Monogram; a Universe all of its own. See also The Ape Man and The Corpse Vanished for more of the same.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Looks pretty but ultimately disappoints
11 May 2003
Johnny Depp plays a rare books detective who has to investigate the authenticity of a book on the black arts for a mysterious client (Frank Langella). Various people he encounters, who own other copies of the book, end up dead. It looks very nice, and is carefully paced (no CGI-heavy effects or gory murders), but ulitmately falls flat. Why? Well, the plot revelations are exactly what they seem on the surface and the ending, as many have commented, is a big letdown. I had to listen to Polanski's commentary on the DVD to get a better handle on it because the narrative simply hadn't prepared one for the volte-face that Depp's character undergoes in the final shot of the movie. And since the Devil's messenger hands him all the clues on a plate anyway he doesn't even discover the secret of the book himself.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pretty feeble
2 December 2002
This film is another low budget version of Bram Stoker's Jewel of the Seven Stars previously filmed as Blood From The Mummy's Tomb by Hammer in 1971. Trivia fans will care to note that deranged character actor Aubrey Morris, who appears as the doctor, played exactly the same role in the Hammer version.

It's pretty poorly acted and scripted and Amy Locaine can't hold a handle to the wonderful Valerie Leon in terms of physical presence. The ending is extremely confused and very bathetic - just as you are waiting for a climax, it finishes and we fast forward to a limp postscript. Generally, the second half of the film is a mess.
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Devil Doll (1964)
Alternate Continental version
30 September 2002
The Image DVD of this film includes both the original release and an alternate Continental version. There are the following differences in the film.

(a) the initial opening credits are slightly different. The original print has a separate starring credit for Bryant Haliday "as the Great Vorelli" but the continental print credits William Sylvester above Bryant Halliday (sic). There are also some differences in the production company credits with an "Anglo-Amalgamated" credit missing from the Continental print.

(b) 41m14s to 44m40s

The scene between Haliday and Sandra Dorne in Haliday's dressing room (a fairly important scene in establishing Dorne's character and providing a motive for her later murder) which ends with them going into a side room for some (off-screen) sex is missing from the Continental print. Instead, an entirely new scene has been substituted (16s longer in total) which shows Haliday's stage act once more. In this new scene (which does not appear in the original version and was especially filmed for the Continental print) he invites a woman on stage and hypnotizes her into performing a striptease which continues at length until the woman is topless.

(c) 48m15s

A shot of Dorne turning in her sleep is filmed in an alternate cut in the Continental print to show more of her exposed breast.

(d) 48m54s

In the follow-up shot of Hugo approaching to stab Dorne the Continental print has an alternate take in which you see her exposed breast.

(e) 49m47s to 51m07s

Sylvester has a phone conversation with an American colleague in Berlin. This man is accompanied by a young woman who fiddles with her hair and sits on his bed. In the theatrical print she is wearing a bikini and a see-through negligee. The Continental print is an alternate take in which she (the same actress) is topless.

In my view the original cut is definitely superior because the deletion of the dressing room scene from the Continental print (and its replacement by the gratuitous striptease) makes Dorne's subsequent murder abrupt and seemingly arbitrary - the character had also been hanging around the periphery of the action waiting for an appropriate exposition scene to explain her that, in this version, never comes.
45 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Feeble remake of the original Howling
10 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Howling IV is essentially a remake of the original Howling but makes the big mistake of keeping the werewolves off screen until well over an hour of the film has gone. When a film is called The Howling IV you know it's about werewolves so why make the characters take so much screen footage to find this out ?

The plot has numerous unresolved subplots - the heroine has all of these dreams and visions but why is never explained and none of the "visions" ever take an active role in the film. The effects are variable at the long awaited climax with the creatures sometimes humans merely wearing vampire teeth, are other times actual dogs are used and then there is full werewolf make-up as well - simply no consistency at all. When the heroine's husband changes into a werewolf he first completely disintegrates into a pile of goo - then he is reconstructed as a werewolf from this goo. All very interesting but totally inconsistent from the other werewolf transformations. The climax, in which the wolves all hurriedly rush into this church like lemmings to their death, as soon as a bell is rung, is feeble in the extreme.

The film has an interesting production history. Produced by legendary low budget schlockmeister Harry Alan Towers, (a man who has boasted that he could set up a co-production deal within 24 hours of arriving in any city) and directed by John Hough (Watcher in the Woods, Twins of Evil) it was actually filmed as a cheap sanctions breaking exercise in Apartheid South Africa. Several reviewers have commented on the "poor" performances and dialogue - well that's because most of the cast are South Africans and they've been dubbed into American in post production. Listen to the voices - many of them sound odd and are clearly not the original voices of the performers. For another of Towers' Apartheid horrors - see Buried Alive with Robert Vaughn.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A word on the appearance of the boom mike
12 July 2002
At least two people below comment on the frequent appearance of the boom mike in this film. To clarify, that is the fault of the TV company / Video company for screening the film in the wrong aspect ratio. It is not the fault of the filmmakers. If you saw this film in the cinema there would be no boom mike since the top of the frame would be masked off by the lens gate. The TV company is showing you the full frame of the picture which should not be all visible to the audience.
63 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Forsaken (2001)
OK but forgettable desert vampire flick
23 June 2002
With a plot heavily indebted to John Carpenter's Vampires and also Kathryn Bigelow's Near Dark this is an OK desert vampire movie aimed squarely at the teen market. Surprisingly amount of nudity for an American horror film of this period but all the racy gore scenes are toned down by the use of rapid editing so you can't make out what is going on properly. Vampirism is explicitly associated with AIDS as characters are infected and have to take drugs to delay the "full blown" effects of their bites. Various plot holes abound and some of the exposition is simply laughable - especially a rapid-fire dialogue scene in which the origin of vampirism as deriving from 8 knights in the crusades is explained; the filmmakers would have been better excising this. But, with the vampires just nasty cyphers who kill and be killed (rather than in Near Dark where they were just as nasty but at least properly characterised) and sulky heros who hide their emotions behind their dark glasses (I agree with one of the other posters that there is a hidden subtext that the Kerr Smith character is gay) this is a bit of a bore and I found myself hitting the fast forward button somewhere around the half way mark.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
High camp garbage
12 June 2002
A pretty hilarious piece of trash in which Lon Chaney plays an executed murderer called "Butcher" Benton who goes on the rampage after being revived from the dead by a scientist trying to cure cancer. Seemingly cobbled together in the editing room from a half finished production it is unremittingly cheap and grotty. High camp is provided by Casey Adams as a police detective who romances Chaney's stripper girlfriend in his spare time by taking her on a series of dates to a drive-in MacDonalds (conveyed by a shot of them in the car with a black background). Adams also provides the unintentionally amusing pseudo-Dragnet narration to explain all of the narrative exposition that was never filmed (or maybe lost in the processing laboratory). Note also the various dialogue in some scenes that is dubbed over characters when their back is turned. Apart from the first scene in the movie Chaney has no dialogue at all but numerous close-ups of his mad, twitching eyes are spliced-in randomly during the rest of his footage. Somehow, receiving a huge electrical discharge has brought Chaney back to life as a superhuman, indestructible madman, impervious to bullets, and he goes around looking for the three fellow crooks who betrayed him. He only ever catches up with two of them ( dialogue references to the heroine having been in hospital, as other posters have pointed out, seem to indicate that he did try to get the third at the police station but this footage was either excised before release, lost, or never filmed) and then end it in a "spectacular" suicide electrocution. Casey gets his stripper and a 48 hour vacation. Phew !
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed