ObeseManWatching's Reviews

Chloe (2022)

3/10

25 April 2022

I hated this.

Not often I would be as strong as that is a review but I hated almost every minute of this drama.

Let me explain, the script was okay, the production was superb, it had a very fine cast and the acting was fantastic with not a dud performance amongst them. The story line was also okay.

This was all-in-all a very good, much-better-than-average drama.

But I hated it.

Let me explain, It was tense.

Now tension is dramas is a very good thing, indeed one could argue that in order to be a "drama" it needs to have some tension at some points. However this was tension dialled up to 11.

Almost from the off we had tension, Becky/Sasha create her own tense moments almost at every turn and then did not stop. There must have been 15-20 EastEnders duff-duff moments per episode. It was TOO much.

I tried to binge-watch this (as indeed I do with ALL series now even when stripped across a 6-8 week schedule) but six 55 minute ish episodes LITERALLY took me three weeks to watch. Or rather NOT watch.

There was so much tension in each episode that I had to keep stopping watching.

Maybe just me, but I WAS one of the kids who used to hide behind the sofa when watching Doctor Who as a kid (indeed so much so that in our council flat I genuinely befriends a mouse - different story, I digress sorry).

Believe me when I say I literally had to hit pause and have a break - at least a dozen times per episode and sometimes as little as 30 seconds apart. I really really hated it. I watched it to the end as it was otherwise a good production but for me it was just too unbearable.

Conversely my wife loved it. She apparently likes being tense!

So this may not bother you and if you are like her you will really really enjoy this show. I think it is safe to say I didn't.

There were a couple of other minor gripes I had, lighting was very dark and in the interior night- time shots (there were a LOT of these) at times I found it very difficult to actually SEE what was going on. This obviously didn't help.

And the other thing that really really began to bug me was the main character of Becky/Sasha. Her eyes were almost always set to about-to-cry or actually-crying mode. To top it off, it was so clearly "tear-stick" crying with the tears coming out of the centre of the eyes instead of from the corner. It might seem a little thing but once you get bugged by that you cannot UNsee it. Shame because the actor's performance was otherwise extremely good.

Overall I suspect this is going to be a bit of Marmite series. You will either love it or like me, hate it.

For the reasons given I would have given zero stars but felt I owed it to give it something for the actor's and scriptwriters performances but I would never ever want to see this ever, EVER again. Ever.

Conversely, I would see someone else giving this a 9 or 10 and could not argue with their score. Just not for me.

Ever.

EVER.

3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fleabag (2016–2019)

10/10

Comedy Gold (en Statue)

3 October 2020

This is simply the finest six hours of TV you will find anywhere.

Personally I love stuff that breaks the fourth wall and Phoebe Waller-Bridge does it to perfection with impeccable timing and the exact expression. Every. Single. Time

Not a wrong step by any member of the cast at any point and the script is sharp, witty and heart-breaking all at the same time.

I think we are" supposed" to dislike or disapprove of Fleabag but I have to admit fell for her character hook, line and sinker! I "love her" too!*

* not "a spoiler" but watch it and you'll get the reference! .

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Big Game (2014)

2/10

Cliffhanger without the snow

23 January 2020

What do you get if you merge Cliffhanger without the snow, Escape from New York without New York and add a Hans Gruber look-a-like? You get 110 minutes of dross.

A truly awful movie. Only saving grace is the kid (who earnt the two stars on his own) Even Samuel L Jackson phoned it in on this one. Comic-book baddies and a plot line that was obvious within the first 15 minutes. A few nice shot of Finland but if that's what you want there must be a good travel doc out there somewhere. Avoid it.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Line of Duty (2012–2021)

7/10

The Jury is out on Series 4

4 May 2017

Good as ever, but this time around I'm not sure if it has been deliberately dumbed-down for BBC1, John Strickland is just not as good a director as Douglas Mackinnon or if Jed Mercurio is deliberately trying to give us red herrings?

Overall it was anyway much less subtle than the first three series,with some of the "points" almost hitting you around the face with a huge wet fish, with blatant sexism from Hastings - almost as if they have to make it so obvious for a BBC1 audience and in the last ten minutes of the last episode it was virtually moustache-twirling, "mou-ha-ha" acting with furtive looks and "too-long" camera-shots to make us think that Hastings might be "dodgy" for the next series.

Adrian Dunbar is a better actor than that and Mercurio is a better writer so I suspect (hope) that we are all thinking the wrong thing and it will all become clearer in series 5 and 6. However there is a lingering doubt as all of the nearly all of the twists and turns this time around were "telegraphed in advance" and I constantly upset my wife by saying "this is going to happen" or "that is going to happen" and being right every time so much so that in the end she insisted on watching it at a different time to me! (Can see the headline in one of those scandal mags now "Line of Duty Wrecked my Marriage and Made Me Kill My Husband")

On the positive side, the ending of the series was better written and acted than the ridiculous running scene at the end of Series 3 and it the show is still ONE of the best things on TV - although it is like one of Sir Alex Ferguson's last couple of Manchester United teams; still good enough but not QUITE what was in its heyday. At the moment it is looking a bit like "The Fall" in that it should have stopped after the first or second series.

Still, they have apparently signed up for two more series so what do I know?

3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Banished (2015)

4/10

Dear rest of the world we are SO sorry!

16 March 2015

Dear America (and anywhere else that Auntie Beeb tries to sell it)

Sorry.

Our BBC normally produces better than this. This time it failed and on behalf of Britain I apologise.

I can allow for "bending" of the facts to help a better drama but historical inaccuracies in an "Historical Drama" are just not acceptable.

As well as these glaringly obvious errors, victims of floggings recover amazingly quickly, others are "starving" because they have not eaten since breakfast and the female lead has such perfect teeth. Most of us in the UK in 2015 still don't have teeth as good as this let alone in 1788!

As for us Brits. This is being on BBC2 - BE WARNED it is NOT a BBC TWO drama! At best this is BBC1 fare but more likely this would be something that you would find on "the other side" (and I don't mean Channel 4).

It is a reasonable yarn and the idea is a good one (and why I have given it as high as 4/10).

Admittedly my opinion is based on the evidence of the first episode only but so far it is soap-opera tosh. I WILL give the second episode a chance in the hope it is improves but for me this show is very much living on borrowed time.

Sorry, we are so sorry.

36 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Deadwood (2004–2006)

10/10

Superb!

16 March 2015

This is simply the best Television drama I have ever seen.

There is not a single character in the whole series that one should like (they are all horrible people in some way or another) and yet I love them all. There is not one single bad (or even mediocre) performance from anyone. it is truly remarkable.

I have only just watched this (in 2015) but it is by far and away the best thing I have EVER seen (in 50+ years of watching TV shows and movies). It is so good that I watched the first series straight off the bat in one hit and since then I have been rationing myself to one episode a day - just because I know there is a finite number and little chance of ever seeing any more. (Or the mythical final two specials).

Wonderful stuff.

7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Lost and Delirious (2001)

3/10

A drama by numbers which we have all seen before

3 March 2015

I am really not sure who this film's target audience is supposed to be.

If you take out the bare flesh parts, I would have put this as one of those made-for-TV movies that would be shown on one of those small film channels whose number is way, way down on the PVR. It is Mills and Boon romance that deals with "issues" with a bit of nakedness thrown in for good measure.

However if it IS aimed at the teenage boy market, there are going to be a lot of very disappointed young men out there. Whilst all three of the girls are clearly ideally attractive, young, fit people with just-washed hair and white straight teeth, a quick search on the internet is going to be far more fruitful for any voyeurs. The nakedness is not really needed and indeed probably would have been a better film had it not been there.

My biggest gripe however is that this has all been done before. The coming- of-age through discovery of one's sexuality and or first love was handled far better more than 25 years earlier in Bilitis and as for the using an animal to compensate for lack of human closeness has been done a thousand times from Kes to Lassie and Flipper! They even throw a bit of "Seize The Day" in there!

All very nicely shot but the plot and dialogue is often so clichéd that you are left feeling that someone has just slapped you in the face with a fish to get the point across. REPEATEDLY. Even the ending is predictable.

Overall I really felt this was a bit of a waste of both mine and the actor's time.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Great Fire (2014)

2/10

Pretty poor

17 November 2014

This is drama by numbers.

A great idea for a script but unfortunately the writing, the directing and most of the acting fails to deliver. There is one character in particular (Hannah)that had I been there I would have thrown her ON To the fire. Constantly whining and nagging and the poor actress was so miscast as a 13 year-old - maybe her agent misheard and thought it was for a 30 year old!

The cast contains some quality actors particularly Daniel Mays and Charles Dance but they are directed so badly that at one point I really thought Dance was going to twirl his moustache and utter "Mou-ha-hah".

Mays also fails to deliver anything much more than a caricature of Pepys and in the first episode the whinging boatman (read cab driver for modern day equivalent) is so clichéd that I thought he was going to say "You know 'oo I 'ad in the back of my boat the other day?"

Indeed the only actor who showed any depth was Rose Leslie as the sister-in-law but think in future years she may be embarrassed to have this one on her CV.

ITV dramas have shown a massive improvement in quality in recent years but sadly this does not fall into that category and is more typical of their output that graced our screens in the late 1990s and early noughties. It is more suited to soap opera than serious drama and is an opportunity missed.

27 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Gundown (2011)

2/10

Truly Awful

23 August 2014

The storyline itself was not bad - although quite a lot of the lead's back story seems to have been lifted straight from the Hell on Wheels series and the script itself was really poor. Two different characters separately wishing him "Godspeed" in the space of a minute for example!

The direction and large parts of the acting however were so clunky that it was verging on spoof - even the worst of the Spaghetti Westerns were not as bad as this and they were made forty years earlier!

In the almost obligatory chase scene near the end of the movie the two protagonists seemed to constantly switch between cantering and trotting on their horses and that's not to mention the fact that bullets took an age to reach their target after being fired!

After watching this I had to check out the director's CV and could not believe that anyone ever sanctioned him to make a second film let alone the couple of dozen that he has done.

Not even a turkey - this was so bad that even "Colonel Sanders" would have rejected it!

2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Medieval Dead (2013–2016)

4/10

Time Team without Results

29 November 2013

Warning: Spoilers

I so much wanted to like this programme because of the subject matter but having now watched five episodes - I missed the second one (well four and a half to be precise as I am half-way through this one) I am beginning to see the flaws - and there are a lot of them!

The first episode I watched was about the Wars of The Roses' battle at Towton and not knowing much about this (other than having my interest piqued with the BBC Drama "The White Queen") was pretty impressed Especially with the experts Tim Sutherland who had spent 25 years researching this particular site (impressive) and the chap who did the "underground radar" (which after nearly two decades of "Time Team" we ALL know this as "geophys") who also happened to hail from Yorkshire - A nice touch to see locals being used. However I was a bit surprised when the show's conclusion was they pretty much didn't know any more than they did when they started!

Well I thought that maybe that could be refreshing - an honest programme that didn't try and FORCE a result upon us so I sat down and started to watch the second episode. This one was about Agincourt or Azincourt and looked to be just as interesting as the first show apart from the woman author who kept referring to it as AgincourT (with a hard T at the end). Well even my basic history knowledge has taught me that this is WRONG! Still, SHE was the expert in the matter so I let her attempt to Anglicise it go.

So off we go to the site itself and who should pop up as the "expert in the field" non other than Tim Sutherland again and alongside him his faithful Yorkshire companion on the "underground radar" (For the last time, it's GEOPHYS)! Apparently Tim has specialised on this battle for en years (not quite the 25 years as an expert at Towton but still impressive nonetheless and what a co-incidence that he is an expert in both). Another co-incidence was that at the end of this episode they knew nothing more either! Shame.

Episode three (four) and off to Masterby and guess who is there? Hello Tim, nice to see you! Fancy you being over here in Gotland, Well I guess Masterby does sound a bit like it could be a Yorkshire town, Well now you are here would you mind doing the honours. Oh and Richard the radar man is here as well. What new information did you find? Oh. Nothing? Nothing at all? Oh well.

My episode four (and in reality five) and we are back to Yorkshire. Home turf and in the case of Radar Richard - almost literally. A field where aged 11 he discovered his love for battlefields and he and Tim were able to reminisce about how they clear away the overgrowth years ago. Oh yes and let's go and see the our friends at York University to analyse things. ( Id I mention a that Tim Sutherland is from York University - no - how remiss of me? Guess what we found out at the end? Yes, you are beginning to get the picture.

Tim is now appearing as the expert so often that I has convinced myself that he was also the narrator; he wasn't, that is Jeremy Freeston! Phew so it is not that nepotistic then after all! (Well actually a quick scan down the list of cameramen etc will see that it is but I'll leave you discover that for yourself)

So onto the final episode and no Tim or Richard yet but we are back to York University!

This time looking at disease and pestilence and we are seeing lots of very impressive people (they are all "Doctors" you know). Impressive that is until one of them refers to A bacteriA. Again, my grammar school education did not extend to Latin but even I know the difference between single and plural! Suddenly I lost all faith in the programme.

I still have the final 30 minutes to go but I am going out on a limb here and guessing that they do not actually find out anything! Call me a cynic but hey.

This programme held my interest for the subject matter but the presentation was poor and amateurish. The presenters/contributors repeated the same bit of information two or three times and the whole thing felt like it was made on an incredibly low budget. It just felt like a show produced by students!

Does the University of York have a course in media studies? Anyone know?

9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Robin Hood (2010)

4/10

Dire.

5 April 2013

Please, if you have not already done so, PLEASE do not waste your time on this. PLEASE!

It is the singularly worst Robin Hood film of all time (and I think I have probably seen them all now).

Bring back, Kevin Costner (yes really) or Sean Connery or even that dreadful "Robin Hoody" BBC version but I urge you dear friends find something else to do with two hours of your life rather than watch this "dire-fest".

There is so much wrong with this film but I will say just one thing. It actually really does, honestly, really really contain the line "an Englishman's home is his castle" and this is said in all earnest!

And as for Crowe's accent. What was he Irish, Scots? At one point he sounded like he was doing a John Lennon impression in best Scouse!

I have given it has high as a four just because it contains some quality actors such as Matthew Macfadyen, Mark Strong and Cate Blanchett (and the guy who played King John looked a bit like the old painting of the Real King)!

Okay so in the end I said more than one thing but overall though, just do yourself a favour and avoid this. PLEASE.

12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The IT Crowd: The Work Outing (2007)

Season 2, Episode 1

10/10

Pure Gold

25 December 2012

This is simply the best episode of the funniest programme on TV for decades. One of the things that British comedy does best is the "awkward situation" and this episode takes it to a new level only touched upon by programmes such as Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses and The Office in the past. The comic-timing from all of the main characters but especially Moss is something that should be preserved in aspic for future generations of comedians to study.

The criticism from one of the other reviewers on here seems to mix-up bad-taste and homophobic humour with humour directed at those people who perpetuate such views. The jokes are not anti-gay but anti-bigot or anti-awkwardness.

I am not going to say anything about the "situation" of this comedy but just to say, if you want 20 odd minutes of literally tears-running-down- the-cheek joy then watch this.

68 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sus (I) (2010)

10/10

Quite possibly the best film you will ever see

11 February 2012

WARNING. This is not an easy film to watch.

Not that is if you have any sense whatsoever of the concept of right or wrong.

Basically as the blurb will tell you, it is the story of a black man who on the night that Thatcher is first elected is taken into custody and questioned by two white police officers after his wife has been found dead.

Watching this movie, you are immediately aware that this is not going to be a fluffy Sandra Bullock type film and that opening scenes of the stark set is indicative of what you are about to watch.

Throughout the next 90 minutes my emotions then went from being really, really scared to being incandescent with rage and then with upset, disbelief and being completely overwhelmed being thrown in for good measure along the way.

Rafe Spall is getting a reputation for quality performances and here is no exception. His portrayal of the bullying D.C. is scary but at least you have an idea of what he is going to do next. The stand-out performance for me however is Ralph Brown as the D.S. where I felt the hairs on the back of my neck go into over-drive whenever he looked at the suspect also played (almost under-played) superbly by Clint Dyer. It was as if Brown was going to literally explode at any moment! After this I genuinely this I would be reluctant to meet Brown the actor let alone D S Karn the police man.

This was originally a play apparently written at the time of the '79 election but I think the film which came out in 2010 now probably has even more resonance for anyone who has lived through the past 20 years in the UK with the real-life horror in the way in which the Police have treated black people (including victims) after the Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor murder cases.

It may be because of these terrible real-life events that right at the start of the film as soon as suspect Leon Delroy is brought in, one feels that there is a sense of injustice about this. There is however also a feeling of there being a "twist" at the end; it has that kind of "feel" about it. However I would have to say that even I could not have predicted what happens as this film progresses and nor guessed its conclusion.

It basically takes us through the interview process but is much, much more than that. It is also indicative of a whole nation's attitude towards race, society, politics, the police etc at the late '70s in microcosm. I normally hate juxtapositions but this is done so cleverly and is integral as to why this film is just so good. The joy of the bigoted police officers over their prospective new and glorious leader is done with fine touch of subtlety and is in sharp contrast to the tension in that interview room. It just works so well.

My only slight criticism of this film was the interview room itself. Not that I have a great deal of experience of them personally but I could not quite get over how large the room was as I always imagine these rooms to have just about enough room to fit a table and four chairs (based I must admit on episodes of "The Bill and those snippets of real-life interviews that you see on the news after someone is convicted) but this was more sports hall than interview room. However this really is a very very minor quibble and does nothing to detract from this fantastic film.

It is clearly no blockbuster, it is often very uncomfortable to watch, but it is simply just a good story-line with three of the best examples of the craft of acting (four if you count Anjela Smith as the dead wife - which she did well enough) you will ever see.

I have watched many thousands of films in my life and would even admit to being one of those "they-don't-make-them-like-they-used-to-do" snobs but I would put this in my top ten and very possibly even the best film I ever seen.

Don't miss it.

11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sherlock (2010–2017)

9/10

Pretty good stuff

23 January 2012

Simply some of the best television that you will ever see.

A stylish and clever updating of the Sherlock Holmes plots with a crisp, modern edge.

Some elements have been borrowed form other "TV classics" and you wonder as each episode starts whether this week will be the "Harry Potter" week or the "Dr Who" week but there is enough originality (in each of the first nine episodes at least) to forgive this and sometimes it really enhances the show for example with the Stanley Kubrick Clockwork Orange treatment with Moriarty in the Crown Jewels scene.

A very good cast with Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes probably at his peak (also catch him as Steven Hawking in "Hawking" for another astonishing performance) and Martin Freeman who can sometimes be a bit "hit or miss" is definitely firing on all cylinders as Doctor Watson.

Clever updating of Holmes' addiction, questions over the true "relationship" between Holmes and Watson and the "Deerstalker" plus production elements such as the overlaying of text to point out the clues add to the mix to make this a real quality show.

Sadly only three episodes are made in each series but it is clear to see why given how much skill and effort has clearly gone in to make this series. The end product however is what all shows should aspire to!

The gorgeous Una Stubbs and Rupert Graves also provide first-class support and why on earth the latter is not a huge Hollywood heart-throb by now heaven only knows! I also pondered on the question as to why given her huge variety of real top-quality (and usually underplayed) performances over the years why we are not referring to the former as Dame Una!

Remember this is the same actress who was with Cliff Richard in Summer Holiday, Aunt Sally in Worzel Gummidge and entertained us with a show about the game of charades (CHARADES!!) for nearly ten years as well as the long-suffering daughter of Johnny Speight's classic 'Til Death us do part! Kids will also know her as Miss Bat in the Worst Witch. Over 50 years of appearing on our screens has not dimmed her performances and which in this is as good as ever. I think we would all like a landlady/housekeeper like Mrs Hudson!

Series' writer Mark Gattiss plays Sherlock's brother Mycroft well but in my opinion would have been better cast as Moriarty as for me Andrew Scott has yet to totally convince me but this is just a very very minor criticism and certainly does nothing to detract from the whole.

Every episode contains at least one or two other very good actors and if you have not watched it yet, I would urge you to do so.

Obviously it is a bit of cliché to say so but this REALLY IS the kind of TV for which we pay our Licence!

Top Stuff.

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Badlanders (1958)

6/10

Solid Western Fare

23 January 2012

This is the kind of film that you want to find when you sit down on a Sunday afternoon to have some "TV time".

Alad Ladd is as solid and dependable as ever with his usual "cool and unruffled" persona and is probably the least effective of all of the leads!

Ernest Borgnine and Katy Jurado initially look like an unlikely pairing but as the film progresses they "gel" more and more. It would also appear to have been an inspired piece of casting as the actors themselves "paired up" during this film and married the following year of its release! For me the two are the real stand-out performers in this film.

I don't want to say too much more on the other characters for fear of giving plot away but suffice to say there is not a stinker amongst them although I have to say that I felt Claire Smith as Ada Winton was a bit invisible to the point where I actually thought a the end of the film "Oh, is she back then; where did she come from?"

One thing that has puzzled me however is who was the actress that played Vincente's wife? It looked as if it could have been a young Natalie Wood but despite a speaking role (of sorts), there is no credit for her. Whoever it was she has some of the most expressive eyes seen since the silent days!

Overall however and enjoyable yarn with a good solid cast providing a good solid performance.

9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Custer of the West (1967)

5/10

Too long, Not historically accurate but worth a look

20 January 2012

Warning: Spoilers

I really was not sure whether to watch this one.

Robert Shaw has never really impressed me as an actor (with the exception of The Sting) and was not totally convinced that he could pull of the role of Custer.

Five minutes in however and I knew I was wrong. Although still a bit "wooden", I felt that this was part of the part he was playing instead of his shortcomings in acting talent and could see (in a totally heterosexual way) that Robert Shaw actually made a very beautiful looking Custer.

However that may well part of the problem of this film. Whilst it touched on the character traits that many of us know about with Custer, this was pretty much a hero worship film.

It was also of its time with many "nods" to what was happening in Vietnam at the time and sadly this somehow degenerates by using some of the terms prevalent at that time "The old good Indian is a dead Indian" (replace Indian with "Commie" for 60s update), "bleeding heart liberals" (did they REALLY use this phrase in 1865? Did they REALLY?)

Mary Ure as Custer's wife Libby is just as gorgeous as Robert Shaw but woefully underused but I guess this is a film about her husband after all!

As for the historically accuracy, I am no scholar of the US Civil War but what I do know of the Battle Of Little Big Horn, Benteen and Reno etc this is way-off. I don't think it is a spoiler to say that Custer still dies at the end at Little Big Horn but that is about as close to the truth as it gets and even someone who knows NOTHING about how he died will find the final scenes at LBH just a touch over the top.

There are also some REALLY annoying goofs, why did the stars and stripes have 44 stars on it in 1863 but by 1865 this was down to 35 (the correct number)?

However this was still 35 on the flag at the battle of Little big Horn (when there would have been 37 had they taken "full" flag at all into battle)! As a Brit this annoys me but to any American (whose flag is often so important) seems like a real insult.

There is also no mention of Custer's brothers who also died at the battle and the film certainly bends/merges the truth around the actions of Benteen and Reno.

Overall if you can forgive the hero worship of Custer and lack of any real history it's an enjoyable film.

It could benefit from some more stringent editing by about 40 minutes but preferably by someone other than Peter Parasheles or Maurice Rootes whose efforts on the rest of the film look like they were wearing boxing gloves at the time!

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gunfight in Abilene (1967)

5/10

A good film but pointless re-make

20 January 2012

I spent and enjoyable 90 minutes or so watching this film a few months ago and I would have summed this up as a good film and probably given it a higher rating (6-7).

However yesterday I sat down to watch the earlier made "Showdown at Abilene" and for the first 20 minutes had this feeling of "deja-vu". It was then I realised that this was an almost identical re-make of a film that was only 11 years old and wondered why on earth they bothered.

The lead in "Gunfight" is hopelessly miscast; Bobby Darin always seems to come across as a poor-man's Dean Martin and seems to have a constant grin on his face throughout. I am also of the generation that can no longer take Leslie Nielson seriously in ANY film which is a shame as he makes quite a good fist of this role. I am also always uncomfortable watching Michael Sarrazin (although that is an entirely personal thing and admit that this probably has more to do with his "intensity" as an actor than any lack of skill in his trade). Even in this, his first role, he is the stand-out act.

One thing on which I must comment however is Darin's Confederate uniform however is laughable (more Las Vegas than Civil War) and is so tight, he dare not bend over at any time!

To be fair to Gunfight however I thought I should give this another go and then watched the pair back to back.

The original (Showdown) is a much better and much more subtle in its approach to the reasons why he will not carry a gun (I'll say no more for fear of it being a "spoiler"). Had I not seen the earlier film, I would have been quite happy with this version but it is not really a patch on the first one and seems a pointless re-make.

If you have time and love Westerns as much as I do give this a go but if you can only watch one watch the original.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Apache Drums (1951)

2/10

Don't bother.

20 January 2012

This really is a poor film.

Whilst the basic story is a typical good old yarn, the performances (with the exception of James Griffith as the Army commander) are very one-dimensional and the characters are hackneyed and do not develop.

The production values are also very low and make-up on some of the "Apaches" in the title are more akin to a horror movie than a western, consequently one's mind starts to wander which is not helped by such a pedestrian-paced storyline.

And as for direction, there is a literally-laugh-out-loud scene when they sing where you can not only tell that everyone singing is from the Welsh valleys that even the main character does not lip-synch in time.

Although there is a slight raising of tension towards the latter parts of the film it is only slight and not really enough to make you have any doubt about the ending.

I love westerns and am trying to see as many as I can at the moment but this is one of which I wish I had not bothered wasting an hour and a half of my time.

3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

North to Alaska (1960)

5/10

The Ingredients are all okay but it must be something in the baking...

29 November 2011

Henry Hathaway is one of Hollywood's most experience and distinguished directors but for me personally this simply did not work.

Both the storyline itself (is okay) and the cast cannot really be faulted. Both Wayne and Granger's body of work speaks for itself. Capucine plays the female lead well and even Fabian as the interest for younger people does what is required. However I have never felt comfortable with John Wayne as a "romantic lead" (and clearly neither had he) but the storyline does (quite cleverly) take that into account. Even Granger's attempt at an American accent is okay (certainly to my British ears and nowhere near the Dick van Dyke region).

The highlight however was Ernie Kovacs who for me, stole the show and acted Wayne, Granger and Capucine off the park in every scene and had he not been killed so young, would surely have gone onto to become one of the finest film/TV comedians that America had ever produced.

But...

The whole is not good.

Maybe, it's because I am now looking at this 50 years on from when it was made or maybe because I have watched too many how-they-made-the- movies type TV shows or done one too many "studio tours" but I thought it was clunky.

Clearly Hathaway wanted to create a light-hearted atmosphere and does this reasonably well. However the fight scenes are laughable for all the wrong reasons. We can almost see the strings as the barrels roll, windows fall out, and stunt men fall over. In fact this was so poor that I was more grateful for the man who invented the fast-forward button than the man who gave us True Grit!

Much of it seemed to be directed at the level of a silent movie and ironically immediately after watching this, I turned the TV channel over and watched a documentary on the birth of Hollywood which was much better!

As for the music, It would be churlish to complain about a western featuring the female lead singing a song in a saloon (and indeed it is almost obligatory) but the Fabian solo felt forced and only included because the actor could sing rather than any addition to the plot.

It could have been so much better but wasn't a complete waste of my time and reasonably enjoyable but not one I would rush to watch again. For that reason I can only give it 4 out 10 although will give another one for the wonderful Mr Kovacs!

4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Rooster Cogburn (1975)

4/10

Past Their Prime (Sadly)

24 November 2011

Looking at some of the other reviews on here I am prone to thinking that I must have watched a different film!

Others have criticised the plot but I thought that this was actually one of the best parts of the film! It is no worse than many other Westerns made in the previous 40 years and certainly feasible and not BADLY written(although no "High Noon", or "Destry").

The sad thing for me however was watching the two main stars who appeared to be both well past their prime. Although in the case of Wayne the script eludes to this with the Cogburn character being described as "having let himself" and being "old" in no way am I saying that we should not have "old" actors on screen. Indeed I would welcome it. Morgan Freeman, Anthony Hopkins, Clint Eastwood to name but three have all improved with age but both Wayne and Hepburn did not with this one.

For large parts of the film it looked like they were simply reading the script and both of them were clearly having difficulty in merely getting up and walking. (Yet miraculously could ride their horses at break-neck speed and operate a raft with amazing dexterity).

On top of this there were some really gaping holes in credulity: Hepburn was 68 when this film was made but one of the main elements of the storyline is that her father is killed (played by Jon Lormer who was actually only a year older than she was)! The average life expectancy for white males in the 1880s in America was under 40! (Even less in "The West") and whilst people did live into old-age, they certainly would not have been as "nimble" as Lormer was (in comparison to the leads).

I thought that both of the main stars were wooden and overall film was rather "clunky". Anthony Zerbe played his part well but even here was let down but the fact that every time I looked at him I just thought of Clint Eastwood due to the laziness of the costume department!

Do yourself a favour and give this one a miss. If you do want to see these stars at their best, watch Wayne in "True Grit" and Hepburn in the "African Queen" instead.

6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Four Minutes (2005 TV Movie)

Chariots of Fire Lite

5 October 2011

Not a bad TV movie and based on a true story but cannot help wonder that it has been considerably "embellished".

There is a lot of "Chariots of Fire" in here. From the opening sequence running along the beach to the coach who can save minutes/seconds, the "reluctant" hero, the Oxbridge setting (I suppose this last bit can't be helped as both films used factual locations) but you get my drift.

Saying that, an enjoyable hour and a half of anyone's time but particularly sports fans or people who respect Sir Roger Bannister's achievements.

Although a very British subject there is not a British feel to the film and being a US TV movie it is also "sanitised" (probably a bit too much for my personal liking) but therefore suitable for a family audience.

I think the subject matter probably earns it an extra point or two in the rating as it is a great story.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

ObeseManWatching

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed