Film Reviews by CB

Extremely well made and paced gangster film from the 50s which sweeps from Milan to Ventimiglia to Menton to Nice to Paris, yet the principal character is permanently trapped by his circumstance. His relationship with his boys gives the film a wonderful human warmth in the midst of the prevailing seedy viciousness. Very well worth seeing.

Despite being graced by Donald Wolfit, Val Gielgud and Jack Hawkins this is a wooden story badly directed and with acting that is either melodramatically hammy or unbearably stiff. In 1934 radio was still glamourous so the star struck congregated outside Broadcasting House, and I didn't see the denouement coming, but there isn't much else of interest here.

There have been several versions of the Christie novel. This one was made in the 60s, and it really shows. The Rene Clair film of the same book is much better.

If you like Powell and Pressburger's work you will want to see this, but it isn't nearly as convincing and extraordinary as the Tales of Hoffmann. The sets are bright and vibrant but border on tacky. The dubbed opera singers on actors like Dennis Price is disconcerting.

Cheap, tacky sets, bad acting that degenerates into ridiculous ham at the end, a poorly worked out, insubstantial plot: these are the glaring elements of of this really poor film. The only interest is the early role for James Mason, who rises a bit about the general lack of quality. I can't understand why the BFI resurrected this film which has little even historical interest (though there is some). You wouldn't have known there was a war on during the events of the film apart from some oblique references by Mason's character. Don't bother with this film unless you have an interest in the meagre amount of social history.

Two feeble quota quickies from the late 1930s. Gordon Harker stars in one film but he is simply the same as in any other film, a one dimensional comic character, I can't think why these films would have been revived on DVD 70 years after their appearance.

J B Priestley is an underrated writer and whilst this concept isn't worked out to my entire satisfaction the basic notion is simple and subtly clever, so the film is a real find. Some of the acting is overly dramatic and the music sometimes too heavily obtrusive but still I am surprised this film isn't better known. There are more extras to the DVD than I have ever seen, all of which are very interesting at the very least. The film is loaded with scene selection capability but scene selection isn't listed on the opening menu. If you like old British films you should definitely watch this one and set aside the time to watch or listen to all the extras.

This film from 1949 is the worst image quality I have seen. It must have been one of the earliest colour films but the colour is drab and by now fuzzy. Charles Laughton is not an impressive Maigret; his menace should be brooding but instead is simply braggadocio. The city of Paris is listed as one of the stars, and at times the film looks like a tourist promotional film. This was the days before mass tourism allowed many Americans to see Paris so perhaps it kept some viewers' interest for that reason in the early 50s, but the views are of historic interest now. The plot and action aren't satisfactorily presented, so all in all there is not much to say in favour of the film. But it wasn't a complete waste of my time and if you like old films you will probably go for it.

Crow Hollow is a cliched horror film in which the acting, along with everything else, is unmemorably mediocre. Castle Sinister is a ghost horror film that is so badly acted and shot it is comically bad. It's only 45 minutes long so doesn't bore. The acting and enunciation is so wooden it's astonishing that the film was released. I laughed at the sheer ridiculousness of the whole ensemble, so if you want an unintended laught I recommend it, but it really is a poor film and I would be very surprised if anyone involved in the film worked in another film again.