It was without lasting regret and with deep satisfaction that, last night, I buried "One of the Hollywood Ten" to the innermost depths of my mind, hopefully never to see the light of consciousness again. I had followed the progress of this production for some time and was curious as to the outcome. I won't spoil the film for the uninitiated, who love to waste their time, by editorialising the film's content, for there is hardly any content!
I knew very well of the Hollywood Ten and their struggle. But after 50 years and a couple of infinitely more superior movies I feel this topic has had its day and should, like the negative of this movie, be buried deep, deep underground.
I have two reasons to gripe about "One of the Hollywood Ten". Firstly, it is hideously amateurish and fatally miscast with awful, cliched one liners that haven't been heard since Roosevelt was inaugurated President. There is little or no dramatic build up and some of the performances are so bad they have to be seen to be believed. My other reason for disliking this film is that it was made with money that could have gone into productions run by younger, newer and more competent people.
Shame, shame, shame on the British Lottery rep who green lit this film for financial consideration. It really makes me question who is in charge of dispersing "film" lottery money. Did the BBC or the Lottery seriously think they would make a profit with this mess?
Modern, "hip" producers I am sure love to make fun at the British film industry of yesterday for creating in the 40s, 50s and 60s so called "mass entertainment". But Arthur Rank, Lew Grade etc knew how to entertain an audience, and the BBC and the British lottery could well take a leaf from their books.
With public money being spent on this preachy rubbish we don't deserve a film industry anymore.
I knew very well of the Hollywood Ten and their struggle. But after 50 years and a couple of infinitely more superior movies I feel this topic has had its day and should, like the negative of this movie, be buried deep, deep underground.
I have two reasons to gripe about "One of the Hollywood Ten". Firstly, it is hideously amateurish and fatally miscast with awful, cliched one liners that haven't been heard since Roosevelt was inaugurated President. There is little or no dramatic build up and some of the performances are so bad they have to be seen to be believed. My other reason for disliking this film is that it was made with money that could have gone into productions run by younger, newer and more competent people.
Shame, shame, shame on the British Lottery rep who green lit this film for financial consideration. It really makes me question who is in charge of dispersing "film" lottery money. Did the BBC or the Lottery seriously think they would make a profit with this mess?
Modern, "hip" producers I am sure love to make fun at the British film industry of yesterday for creating in the 40s, 50s and 60s so called "mass entertainment". But Arthur Rank, Lew Grade etc knew how to entertain an audience, and the BBC and the British lottery could well take a leaf from their books.
With public money being spent on this preachy rubbish we don't deserve a film industry anymore.