Reviews

78 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
It looks awful.
12 January 2024
Yesterday I read the novel, the 200 pages in one afternoon. It is intriguing, it has atmosphere, it entertains. It just feels like a classic Henry James ghost story from Victorian/Edwardian times.

Now I've just seen the trailer of the film here, and what a disappointment. It looks terrible. They tried to do a horror period piece by recurring to every cliché from a modern horror film. It sucks, really. Daniel Radcliffe looks totally miscast, I guess they meant to make him look like an adult Harry Potter. And why do they insist on using trendy camera shots -tilts, zooms, exaggerated tracking shots- to film a period story like it is a modern one instead? I had enough. Thank god for the movie trailers, because sometimes they save you precious time.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
My favourite anime series of the 70s.
15 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This series, I used to watch it in Spain on its debut, back in the years 79/80, when I was a small child. A few days ago I watched all 52 episodes again in YouTube, in a three-day marathon.

The story is far longer and complex than it is in the book, which I read a few years ago. Of course it had to be, in order to fill 52 episodes. There are a lot of invented characters and situations, some of them more interesting than others. But we learn that poor people are always suffering, and if they enjoy a little moment of happiness, is only to be spoilt by something unfair and nasty happening to them at the end of the day. Poor people can never win.

They couldn't make this series today, in this era of politically correct nanny culture. The associations of parents and of the protection of children would scream murder in capital letters. Nello gets beaten, the dog Patrash gets flogged, Nello is exploited by heartless adults now and again, then Granddad dies, Nello is falsely accused of arson, then he is evicted from his hut because he lost his job and can not pay the rent. And when you thought than nothing worse can happen now, we reach the disastrous ending. No, definitely this would be considered "unnaceptable" by today's crystal cannons.

But back then kids were shown the injustices of life, and even their cartoon heroes suffered the harshness and evil of this world, and even died because of it. Real life is hard, and bad things always happen to good people. We learnt this from a very early age, and perhaps it helped us to grow stronger for what we would have to face in the future.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good try to make a horror film that was different, but...
18 September 2022
I learnt of this film because of the tragic death of his director, and all the dark reputation it got as a result of that. Also, the fact that was shot in Galicia and only about 100 kilometres from where I was born, and in the year I was born, were also reasons enough to interest me. I downloaded it from YouTube and watched it last night.

It starts with the main character being discharged from a psychiatric hospital and returning home. We soon learn that he plans revenge on his aunt and his cousins, who arranged it to have him put away in the first place. It is a promising idea, but as the film progresses things happen very slowly and we are getting nowhere. Eventually, when he has the women at his mercy he can not bring himself to hurt them, he breaks and sudenly the plot has a twist: from executioner he turns into victim. Or, Doesn't he? The ending is an absolute surprise, I shall not spoil it for you if you haven't seen the film, because I think it is the best moment of it. But then, something has not been resolved after all.

The good aspects of this film are the cinematography and the use of the locations. Galicia has a long tradition of being a land of the supernatural, due to the usually foggy and rainy climate and the rural landscapes of mysterious forests, isolated villages, ancient Celtic ruins, and stormy, wild seashores, that brew legends of witches, werewolves, ghosts and the lot. And the film uses this effectively, in the sequence where the main character plays a prank on the old man who comes to see his aunt for business.

It has its good moments, and we have to credit the director with being able to build a horror story that does not fall in the usual cliches of tons of lurid scenes, gore and a girl screaming every five minutes. It is a pity that Guerin could not edit the film himself the way he had envisioned it in his head, because it probably would have been very different.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Vanishing (II) (2018)
6/10
Spectacular landscapes, but awful cinematography.
4 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this because I am fascinated by the real mystery involving the disappearance of three lighthouse keepers without a trace in 1900 in a remote Scottish island. To this day it remains an inexplicable enigma, though there are many theories trying to explain it, going from a supernatural event to an attack by a gang of pirates or to an extraterrestrial abduction. This movie presents a theory that is not impossible, but has many implausibilities.

The most annoying thing for me is the constant hand held camera, unstable, trembling, even in long, static shots. It can't stay still? It ruins completely an otherwise fantastic location cinematography.

Another thing is the number of anachronisms. Wireless radio was still experimental in 1900, there's no way they would have one fully available on the island. Also the lighthouse is fully electrified by generators. This could be possible, but it would require huge amounts of fuel to be transported regularly to such a remote location. It would be very costly, and would have to be delivered very frequently. The problem is that winters are very harsh in that part of Scotland, and very often they would get cut off from the mainland for weeks at a time. And finally, the boat of the intruders looks too modern to me. It seems to work with diesel fuel rather than steam.

Also there are plot holes. Who are the intruders and what were they doing with the gold? They seem to be Nordic; how did they get there across the North Sea in such a small boat? When Donald is killed at the end, his colleagues take his body to dump into the open sea. Why not bury him on the island and explain his death later as an unfortunate accident? After all, he had a good reason to be there. It would look perfectly logical. Finally, the dog keeps disappearing and appearing again throughout the movie, and at the end supposedly is the only living being left on the rock. Still, there's no mention of a dog being found alive in the real story. Let us suppose they included it in the story just to fill the space.

Entertaining enough for a night of adventure and mystery. Great locations marred by murderous camerawork. Turn a blind eye on the obvious anachronisms and it keeps you guessing till the end.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Masquerade (1965)
3/10
A mess.
19 April 2022
I watched it to see Robertson, Hawkins and Mell in a thriller, directed by Basil Dearden, and was very disappointed.

The story gets confused, you don't understand what is going on, on which side everyone is.

The kid is a bloody pain in the arse, an arrogant brat who thinks he owns everybody. I would give him a jolly good spanking.

Spain is portrayed as a third world country.

The baddies are a bunch of weirdos; what is a dwarf doing there?

A total misfire. It's hard to believe that this was made by the same man who directed "Victim", presenting gays as normal human beings in a time when homosexuality was a crime.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
U.S. propaganda, as expected.
13 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this the other night because there was nothing else that caught my eye, and being set in London, where I live, I was curious.

I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, for sure, but I was expecting at least a minimum of suspense, a passable thriller that could sustain your interest for two hours. Instead there are millions of fireworks, hundreds of corpses all over town, explosions galore, some nasty S. O. B. Arab terrorists, an American president who sticks to his guns -literally-, and a predictable ending.

The thing that killed me is when the Presidential helicopter gets shot down by a bazooka or whatever it is, falls in a field, bounces, spins over, pieces fly all over the place, it breaks in two, bounces again... and yet both the President and his aide came out of it looking only a bit scruffy, with the tie knot undone, but otherwise with no broken heads, limbs, haemorrhages, etc. And, unusually, the helicopter doesn't explode, which is the norm in these cases.

But I saw it till the end because I wanted to see those terrorist b****** being dealt with, and it is surprising that in these times of Political Correctness dictatorship they are wiped out mercilessly and in every nasty way possible. Blimey, that bodyguard to the president makes Stallone, Arnie and Bruce Willis look like schoolboys playing with water pistols!

Another gun-ho propaganda in which the U. S. saves the day.

Easily forgettable.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Psycho (1998)
1/10
This movie stinks more than its corpses.
25 March 2022
Was it necessary to make it in the first place? The acting is atrocious. Anne Heche looks like a transvestite, Vince Vaughn is a weirdo whom you can tell there is something creepy about him from a mile away, William H. Macey plays Arbogast for the laughs, and Viggo Mortensen merely occupies space. One can not sympathise with the caste. What a waste of money and time. I cannot say that there is a waste of talent, because there is no any.

A piece of turd.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Brannigan (1975)
6/10
The wild west in Piccadilly.
20 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know how many times I have seen this film, and it always makes me smile. Get a wild west lawman and set him loose in London to deal with a few baddies, and if that lawman is John Wayne then you know he is going to cause a bit of damage before the movie is over.

The idea is exciting, but it came ten years too late. At 68 Wayne was way too old to play a cop, too overweight, too slow. And that shows.

The Duke arrives in London in pursuit of nasty gangster John Vernon, who is showing off staying at The Dorchester, strolling openly around town and visiting an exclusive gentlemen's club at Mayfair. Ten years earlier he would have been a dear guest of the Krays.

The British police know who he is, but you know how things are done here: he hasn't done anything wrong yet, so the extradition process is painfully slow and in the main time he may fled to South America, so hopefully we get a thorn off our back without intervening, and remain buddies with our Yank friends. And God save the Queen.

But with Wayne being Wayne, that is not going to be. Cultural stereotype clashes are inevitable, with the very toff and politically correct Attenborough chastising Wayne for carrying a gun and, worst of all, shooting it, "we don't do this things in here, we're British!"; cars driving on the "other" side of the road; villains dressed in Savile Row suits and driving Jaguars, and, of course, a bar brawl. Could you imagine a John Wayne movie without one? And when he gets a confession out of Brian Glover, he says to Judy Geeson "I didn't understand his accent".

Certainly not one of the best Wayne movies, but decent enough and with a few laughs.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bullitt (1968)
5/10
10 minutes of car chase for 100 minutes of boredom.
17 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I saw "Bullitt" many years ago and I liked it. But I saw it again last night and this time I really wondered what all the raving is about. It looks like an overlong episode of a TV cop series rather than a film. The car chase is well-staged, but that is all. It became a cult classic because of cool McQueen, a cool Ford Mustang, a cool score by Lalo Schiffring and the iconic streets of San Francisco. But there is nothing more.

I nearly fell asleep with McQueen pursuing the guy across the airport runaways while dodging the planes. It seems to go on and on and on for ages, and they end up back in the terminal!... Give me "Dirty Harry" anytime. It has lots of action, moments of humour, a psycho you want to douse in petrol and strike a match, and it denounces the flaws of the US judicial system.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Monument of Boredom
15 March 2022
Sunday lunchtime, with nothing better to see, I decanted for this Ford last work. God, this movie can bore the cows! Halfway through it I just gave it up. Boring, tedious, slow-paced, recurring to old cliches, big actors in uninteresting roles... What went wrong with Ford in his last movies? Seeing Donovan's Reef and now this, it seems a good thing that he retired when he did.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A good treat for a Friday night.
29 January 2022
I never had seen this movie but I like to see every horror piece that Vincent Price is in, and once again the most English of all American Actors with a unique voice shows his class in a role created for him. Dr. Phibes is a variation of "The Phantom of the Opera" in the 1930s, and looks like "Theatre of Blood" with his arty and very imaginative ways of killing, each one more fantastic and nastier as the plot progresses. It has the great cameos of Terry-Thomas and Hugh Griffith, and an absolutely fantastic art-deco settings and murderous stagings that give it an Avengers feel. Vincent Price maybe be the dastardly villain, but you feel like rooting for him.

An excellent classical horror piece of cake. They don't do them like this any more.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WarGames (1983)
7/10
Popcorn cinema with Coca-Cola, Mars bars and disco music. Welcome back to the Eighties.
14 January 2022
I first watched this film back in Eighties and long before I had any idea about computers and the things they can do. Back then I thought it was pure fantasy, but the cases of computer hacking throughout the years since have showed the opposite. I. T. Technology is far from perfect, still at this time and age, and in many cases hackers will find a backdoor entry somehow. Also, computer systems often screw up by themselves due to a faulty design or other nonsense. How many times I received an e-mail several days after it was actually sent. Also, many times human incompetence or sheer stupidity are the agent. What they promise us to be the latest technology to prevent identity fraud can backfire, and in this fully computerised age anyone with the knowledge and the skills can become a new Jackal with many identities in his sleeve to carry out his bulletproof plan.

War Games is an exciting and very entertaining film, despite a few implausibilities in the plot (David using a tape recorder to open an electronic lock, using a piece of metal to activate a payphone and make a free call) we still believe it. Also it remains as an amusing document of how computer technology has evolved in forty years since, and kids of today will probably laugh at the computers their daddies had, with those bulky monitors and those floppy disks big as a LP.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Packed with action, suspense, great locations and a marvellous cast.
9 January 2022
Although the 1935 Hitchcock version is undoubtedly the best of them all in terms of camerawork, editing and building the suspense, this version here is almost equally entertaining, and much favoured by the stunning Highlands scenery and a top-class cast. Also it is very faithful to John Buchan's 1915 novel, which is a rather short one and slow-paced and with little action. This film sticks to the novel's setting of 1914, and the art direction is fantastic with period motorcars and pre-World War I atmosphere. Robert Powell is quite good as the engineer turned overnight into amateur secret agent running for his life to reveal a gang of foreign spies set to carry out a political assassination in London. Sir John Mills is the real secret service man that gets Powell mixed up in this mess in the first place, Eric Porter plays a government high official and the excellent David Warner is, of course, the mastermind villain. The final sequence in the Big Ben is probably one of the greatest action moments in British cinema, worthy of Sir Alfred himself.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Boooooring, totally dumb and full of unrealistic stereotypes.
6 January 2022
I like some film musicals that adapt stage hits (Oliver, Camelot, My Fair Lady), but this one I couldn't bear it for more than twenty minutes. The finger snapping thing got in my teeth, I would love to smash those precious fingers with a hammer. The gangs theme is a decaffeinated version of "Rebel without a cause" and the characters suck. They want to play tough and cool, but they look and sound most stupid and unrealistic. The tomboy is most annoying, you want to give her a jolly good spanking and send her to school where she should be. Do these youngsters do anything decent for a living anyway besides killing hours hanging about the alleys snapping fingers, swaggering and pulling out switchblades every time?

And yet this crap won TEN Oscars.

I don't give it a 0 only because it is not possible.
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
They should have left it at the Last Crusade
4 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Although this is an entertaining piece of escapism to kill a couple of hours once, it doesn't add nothing new to the saga but it just relies on the old cliched gags once more involving insects, snakes, cartoon-like villains, the old Roadrunner-Coyote chases, etc. Only that this time CGI rules, killing the old beautiful magic of matte effects, background projections and so. One thing I did like was the element of the Area 51 at the beginning of the film. That infamous military base really exists in the Nevada desert and it is the most secretive place in the US, guarding what many people say is the Roswell stuff that the US government doesn't want civilians to know. Also the colossal scenery of the Iguazu Falls in the Brazil-Argentina border is most spectacular and the film-makers used it for one of the most preposterous action sequences I have ever seen, defying all logic and belief. Not to mention the nuclear fart early in the film. I'll say no more.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A total waste
29 December 2021
What it necessary to remake the old-time 1974 classic once more? What for? Just to have an excuse to bombard the spectator with dreadful CGI effects you can spot a mile away, terrible acting and a total retelling of the story to conform with the rules of political correctness? This is a piece of garbage totally unworthy of Brannagh's talent. I digested some fifteen minutes of it and I had enough. It was an infamous ending to an otherwise great Agatha Christie's afternoon-evening session with "Evil under the sun" and "Death on the Nile" and UIstinov as his best. Fortunately today will be the good old Orient Express with Finney and all the classy top-noch cast, to wash away and forget that turd of last night.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Is this really a Ford movie?
14 December 2021
Just a nonsensical pile-up of cliches, stereotypes, overdone acting and irritating characters.

Ford wanted to give himself and his cronies a lavish vacation in the South Seas, so he concocted a film that was supposed to repeat the humour and success of "The Quiet Man" a decade earlier. But the result was a total misfire.

Wayne was too old to look credible in his role, Marvin overacts and falls into self-parody and he certainly is no match for Victor McLaglen in "Quiet", the kids are most irritating, the natives are portrayed as happy fools, the Japanese look like a bunch of robots in starched suits and awful trifocals, Wayne's tavern gets trashed so many times that it becomes a routine that is anything but funny any more. The film feels like three hours long, tedious, full of absurd situations that mean to be funny but are embarrassing instead.

The worst John Ford film I have ever seen. Even masters can make mistakes sometimes.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful.
2 July 2018
Don't waste your time watching this. The script is full of India-seen-from-a-western-POW-clichés, the camerawork is murderous, and the child actors are a total pain in the a***. I gave up after just 40 minutes, couldn't take any more of it. Back in the mid-90s a very well known and respected Spanish film critic, Carlos Pumares, once said: Cinema has only 25 years of life left. And he was right. The illustrious members of the Academy who awarded this piece of trash with EIGHT Oscars either are PC crusaders looking for a few medals or a bunch of morons who spend all day sitting on their brains.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
George & Mildred (1976–1979)
10/10
One of the finest British sitcoms of all time.
7 June 2018
This series was a huge success in Spain in the early 80s, following the equal success of Man About The House. Then it was screened again on Saturday nights in 1989, and at my family home we all loved it. I have been able now to see it again last month, and I laughed my head off. I managed to get also the first four episodes of Man About The House, but sadly I didn't find it half as funny as G&M. The lovable Yoota Joyce was a formidable comedian, the way she scolds George, flirts with Fourmile and sends Jerry off (a wonderful role by the great bumbling idiot Roy Kinnear). The kid steals every scene he is in with his direct and uncomfortable questions to his parents about where babies come from, the Tories, the working class... Boy, I laughed so much with him. He is too smart for his years. And Norman Eshley as the snobbish ass Fourmile -no wonder, with a name like that- always hating the sight of George: "Good lord! He is vulgar, dirty, scratches himself, picks his nose, belches and can't speak properly!" And the kid says with a smirk "He is working-class, and bloody proud of it". That line was pure gold. And my other favourite character and another great scene stealer is Mildred's posh sister Ethel. "We were just passing by in our brand new XJ6... our brand new MG... look at my brand new vicuna coat, dear... my brand new diamond ring..." and on and on and on, always showing off. It is a pity that Yoota Joyce died after the fifth season, because G&M could have enjoyed a few more years of brilliant success.
13 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Just one word: TRASH
17 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
When I first saw this pile of crap in the cinema I realised it's wasn't a real story at all but pure fiction, and I came out of the theatre feeling I had been cheated. Three well-fed, full grown-up healthy Americans get lost in a forest known to be the home of a witch, then they go hysterical the moment night comes up and they can't get out of there because they lost their bearings?... They are living in the 20th century, not in the Middle Ages! And also because they are investigating the ancient legend they start panicking and screaming at each other and breaking down? What are they made of? What a bunch of sissies. The characters are so irritating -I hate that girl, I could strangle her- and look so lousy, scruffy, smelly, just like a bunch of homeless lice-ridden dope-smoking addicts... I didn't feel sorry for them at all. I actually enjoyed their suffering, honest. I wonder when was the last time those pigs took a shower before going out into the forest.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hidden Away (2014)
7/10
An interesting little film
6 December 2017
I began watching this little known film only because of its gay love story, not expecting it to be anything remarkable. It is not, but I was quite surprised to find a decently good story with a handful of talented young debuting actors that made a great impression on me and left me rooting for the two main characters. Being shot in a semi-documentary style and entirely on location, it gives the story a feel of authenticity, and the youngsters are so natural before the camera, so Spanish-teenage in the way they speak, joke, horseplay, swear, talk dirty and quarrel that it took me back to my own teenage years. The only fault that I find is that the two main characters are supposed to be 14-16 years old, but it is pretty obvious that the actors are at least 18-19 and that can't fool anyone, come on. The age of consent in Spain currently is 14 years both for straight and gay sex, but it looks like the filmmaker was afraid of stepping over the PC-crap line or something had he used actors of that age. There is no sex scenes at all in this film, only a few harmless kiss shots. In the 1964 French film "Les Amities Particulieres" (This Special Friendship), a 17-18 year-old boarding school senior pupil falls in love with a cherubic 12-year-old junior. And Didier Haudepin was only 13 when he made the film. We are moving backwards.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It could have been a lot better if only it were made a few years later.
24 September 2016
The Spanish board of censorship certainly ruined the infinite possibilities of this film. Just think of what it would have looked like if it had been made in Italy, France or Germany, or even in Spain once democracy was restored and censorship abolished: the lesbian pseudo-relationship between Ruth and Chris, the wild eroticism exuded by Barney, the hot scenes with the guy seducing both women by turns, and the gore of the serial killings in the background. Director J.A.Bardem had no choice but to keep the sex and gory elements within the limits imposed by the censors, and that is the reason why this film looks so tame and decaffeinated. Still, it manages to look interesting and keeps a decent degree of suspense. I first saw it when I was 12 or 13, and the multiple murder sequence scared the s*** out of me: the thunderstorm night, the lonely farmhouse, the killer in a black hooded raincoat, the ominous music... Seeing it now in my 40s it looks anything but scary, but when you are a kid... I now was able to watch the English-speaking version, which has a different ending than the Spanish version, and the film sounds a lot better. In the Spanish version the dubbing of Jean Seberg and Barry Stokes is lame, while in the English version the Spanish actress Marisol speaks her lines in perfect English with her real voice, no dubbing involved. Great settings, locations, camera-work, music and an interesting story. Like I said before: if only Bardem had had complete freedom to exploit the story's full potential... A real shame. That is why I am giving it only 7 points.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I would like to see the entire series again
28 August 2016
I first saw this in Argentina in 1984, and watched every episode of it and loved it. Of course it was dubbed into Argentinian Spanish and the title of the series was different, I can't even now remember it. But what always remained on my memory was the image of Nobody pulling his tie to disappear every time he didn't want to be seen by the adults.

Then a few years ago just by pure chance I found the series on IMDb. I can't remember how I actually came across it since I didn't have a clue as to the series' original title or the names in the cast. Anyway, I found it and I began to do a thorough research, and discovered that the first two episodes were posted in YouTube. Watching them again after nearly thirty years was an unforgettable experience.

2022 I am glad to say that now I was able to watch the whole series again at last, thirty-eight years after I saw it for the first time. I liked it, but the effect it caused on me now it is not the same, obviously. Still, I think is a good series and the special effects are quite good for 1976.

It leaves an ambiguous finale, with the door open for a second series that never materialized. But perhaps it was better this way, because having the same storyline over and over again it would eventually have become boring.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Famous Five (1978–1979)
9/10
They are part of my childhood
24 July 2016
I was 9 when I read my first Famous Five book, which I borrowed from a friend. It was "Five have a Wonderful Time", the adventure of the scientist being held kidnapped in the old castle and the Five's troubles with the fairground people. From that day on I became an addict. Enid Blyton certainly had the knack for creating interesting stories with a great deal of suspense that kept you in tenterhooks. In a little over four years I managed to gather the entire collection of the FF books, 1980s hardback Spanish editions which I still own today. This series was first broadcast in Spain in 1978 -I was too young at that time but I remember it-, and then again in the summer-autumn of 1987, when I was 14 and had read all of the books many times. I loved it right away, although I found the original 1940s and 50s settings converted into contemporary 1970's with bottom-bell trousers, long-haired boys and the Ford Fiestas and Cortinas a little funny. Still, the kids' acting is all right, and they had talent: George is the always stubborn tomboy but quite likable, Anne is a lot more mature than in the original stories and a lot less whining -fortunately!-, Julian is the same I-know-everything bossy type but fine and always in charge as expected, and Dick -always my favourite- is very much like in the books too, mostly in the background and always under Julian's authority, but always gentle, very smart, and he saves the day quite a few times. Also, the adults are very well played. German actor Michael Hinz makes an excellent Uncle Quentin, since he brings to the character a maturity he very seldom has in the books where he is prone to sudden tantrums, is always absent-minded and also bit of a fool. Sue Best is also very good as Aunt Fanny, very much like in the books. And then we have Rogers, the gardener, instead of Joan the cook as a servant, but I like him all right and his scenes are often comical, like rolling his eyes every time the Five come home for holidays -oh blimey, tranquility is over!- and chasing Timmy out of his beloved flower beds. And then what a cast of guest actors to play the baddies: Ronald Fraser, Peter Jeffrey, David Rappaport, Patrick Troughton, Brian Glover, the always posh James Villiers... You will never see a cast like this in a children's series nowadays.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Titanic (1997)
3/10
Titanic: the parody
11 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This film is so full of absurdities and clichés that it is to all the previous Titanic films what "Airplane" is to the "Airport" saga and "Blazing Saddles" is to the Western genre. The unhappy high society girl goes down to third-class deck although it is out of bounds for her. She wants to jump overboard, but she is stopped by a happy-go-lucky nobody with no future and with nothing to his name but the clothes he is wearing on. As a reward he is invited by Hockley to dine fist-class with the jet-set so they can make fun of his lack of education and manners. But he gets along without making too much of a fool of himself, and charms everyone around the table but stiff Hockley and Rose's toff horrid mother. But bored to death from so many starched collars, small talk and no being able to scratch his bum,belch or pick his nose, Jack eventually sneaks away with Rose to a merry party down in third-class where one can swear, spit, get plastered on cheap beer, belch, fart and throw up until they fall flat on their faces. The next day a self-confident and jolly Jack enters the out-of-bounds territory of first class again looking for Rose, greets Mr Andrews like and old mate and trots along without being bothered at all. Although he sticks out like a sore thumb no one seems to notice him. Feel yourself at home, laddie, just don't take a leak in the flower vases, that's all. He is only stopped when he tries to disrupt a solemn religious service. That is the only one thing that cannot be tolerated by any means. Randy Rose asks Jack to draw her naked, and he does so while maintaining his coolness and concentrating seriously on his work as she lies there displaying all her jewels. But instead of banging her in the luxurious comfort of her private chamber they go down to the hull???... Meanwhile Hockley the Wally finally realises that his girl is bending over for that miserable third-class gutter rat, and boy, that drives him bananas. Then the ship bumps into an iceberg because the two idiotic sailors on watch duty are far more interested on the antics of the two horny kids rather than on doing the job they are being paid for in the first place. Here we go then: the unsinkable Titanic commences to sink and the movie finally takes off after 90 minutes of utter boredom. Mr Andrews rushes to the officers' room to deliver his diagnosis, and now there comes the most hilarious scene in the film. As Andrews states that the ship is already dead, company president Ismail almost has an apoplexy. You see his face, with his eyes almost popping out, his choking cry of "But that is impossible! This ship cannot sink!!" He is babbling in disbelief, his blood pressure rocketing up to the verge of a coronary, spit flying out of his mouth… And Andrews turns to him -you can almost see his eyes rolling "I built her, sir. She's made of iron. It can sink, and I assure you it will" And that shuts Ismail up for good. So, now they've got just two hours to get out of there. First-class people go first, of course, since they are the ones who paid more for being here in the first place. Second-class will go after if still there is time. As to third-class… well, we just learn now that the lifeboats have a full capacity for only half of the people on board, 700 of which are third-class rubble. Well, officers, you know the procedures: women and children first, and no paupers jumping the queue or you'll be fired. And then, if there is still time and a few empty places left, well… just chuck a few ragamuffins into the boats and then save yourselves. And good luck. A third-class ticket for the Titanic did cost the equivalent to 1,500 euros in today's money, and a first-class cost 115,000. So you were treated accordingly to what you paid for, as simple as that. Although time is running out Hockley keeps his hair on, confident that he will buy his way out with a thick wad of notes in the last minute, but meanwhile he is about to play his last villainy: accusing poor old Jack of stealing the mother of all diamonds, and to do that he relies on the faithful assistance of his devoted butler. Nasty Lovejoy frames Jack and has him handcuffed deep below so that he will drown quicker. But stubborn Rose, in an almost superhuman feat that will have feminist radicals raving, sets him free, they get back to deck and try to board a boat. The outraged Hockley, now on the verge of an apoplexy,chases them with a gun in a comical sequence that culminates with another ridiculous line "I put the diamond in the coat and I put the coat on her!" The ship finally sinks into history, but the pair of randy doves manage to stay afloat. Now, the water is freezing and no one can survive in it for more than half an hour at the most. Yet Jack seems to last for hours long after everyone else floating around have succumbed to hypothermia. But eventually he dies too, because the story was meant to be a tearjerker in the first place. Miraculously enough, Rose, despite wearing her soaking clothes on all night, survives without even getting a cough (!!!)
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed