Reviews

Cary Grant, who lived with Randolph Scott for twelve years from 1932 to 1944, was far too old at 55 to be playing the romantic lead. It's hilarious that he looks the same age as the actress playing his mother - horrendously bad casting. This movie is a slow, overlong, dated and boring and it certainly cannot be compared to any of the Bond movies. In contrast to what some other reviewers here have claimed, Grant was never offered the Bond role, because he was far too old at 58. If this rubbish had been half an hour shorter, filmed on location instead of on fake-looking studio sets, and if it hadn't been so slow then maybe it would be watchable. William Holden would have been far better as Roger Thornhill.

A deadly boring, badly acted movie that has not stood the test of time at all - although it probably wasn't that good when it was made over sixty years ago. Robert Newton overacts as Long John Silver and Bobby Driscoll was badly miscast as Jim Hawkins. His American accent was totally out of place, an English boy should have been cast. Most of the movie takes place in the studio even when they're supposed to be at sea. The worst part of all was a completely unfunny and embarrassing Ben Gunn - thankfully, he wasn't in the film for very long.

The 1972 version with Orson Welles is far better, despite the dubbing of the international cast.

The DNA database has existed for criminal investigations since 1984, and DNA evidence alone was used to jail Colin Pitchfork for murder in 1988. This film was set in 1992, the year of its release, and completely ignores DNA. If Catherine had really killed Johnny Boz while they were having sex then her DNA would have been all over the bed. Since she was the last person seen with Boz before he was murdered, the police would have simply got the court to demand her DNA sample. If she had refused, then she would have been arrested and charged with obstruction of justice. DNA would have proved that Catherine was with Boz at the time of his death.

This is just an overlong, badly written, trashily risible porn movie with Michael Douglas far too old to play Nick and Sharon Stone displaying plenty of skin but no acting ability. It's hardly surprising that her career did not take off after this, with "Total Recall" being her only other hit. Stone never was an actress and she only became famous in her mid-30s by revealing her silicone implants and shaved crotch for the whole world to see. Aside from the terrible acting, vile dialogue and boring car chases this is just a stupid film with nothing to recommend it. Nobody would have gone to see it at all without the exploitive sex scenes.

Douglas was clearly too old and ugly for a film like this. It is too far-fetched that a multi-millionairess would have fallen for a heavily-lined, 50-year-old chain smoking alcoholic drug addict. His sagging buttocks are simply too funny. Wearing tight jeans was a big mistake as his sagging behind is still very noticeable. A younger actor should have been cast as Nick.

A film like this would never be made now because the Internet has killed off sex and nudity in films. With so much real sex available for free online people don't need to pay to watch simulated sex in movies. "Showgirls", an even worse film, flopped at the cinema partly because porn was widely available on video by the mid-1990s.

SPOILER: Perhaps if they wanted a mystery they should not have used Sharon Stone in the opening sequence?

0/10.

Michael Douglas looks and sounds absolutely nothing like Liberace, not to mention that he is too thin for the role. In any case he is too old for the part as he was actually older at the time of filming than Liberace was when he died. However far worse is the ridiculous miscasting of a 42-year-old Matt Damon as his teenage lover! Damon cannot pass for any younger than mid-30s so it doesn't make sense that he is still supposed to be living with his foster parents in the film. They should have cast an actor in his mid-20s and then it might have been believable. Scott was only 23 when his relationship with Liberace ended, yet they cast an actor two decades older which doesn't make any sense and completely changes the dynamics of the relationship.

The whole production is tacky and low-budget. I'm amazed this got a cinema release in the UK, it should have been shown on television like in the US.

0/10.

It is impossible to take this awful, badly acted rubbish seriously in any way, not least because Colin Firth looks and sounds absolutely NOTHING like King George VI at all. In any case the story is completely unimportant since George VI was just an irrelevant figurehead without any power at all, very much like every British monarch since William IV.

By starting World War II the UK destroyed itself and became an American satellite, as the Suez Crisis proved. Funny how the UK only declared war on Germany in 1939 - even though Germany and the Soviet Union both invaded Poland at the same time! Everybody knew this had been arranged in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August.

If they were going to make this film they should have at least cast somebody who even vaguely resembled the actual monarch. Hugh Grant turned this film down, with make up he could have been made to resemble George - unlike Colin Firth who is horrendously miscast and gives his usual talentless performance. Michael Gambon is much too heavy to play his father King George V, but at least he isn't as badly cast as the lead.

It was really worth the UK starting World War II, just so it would bankrupt itself and hand over all of eastern Europe - including Poland - to the Soviets for the next 50 years. It's funny how people don't seem to realise that the Blitz happened because the RAF was bombing civilian cities in Germany.

0/10.

Stallone never could act at all but he comes off pretty well in this trashily risible flick alongside a hammy and ancient-looking Rod Steiger, a truly dreadful Eric Roberts, and the King of Hammy Overacting himself James Woods. However Sharon Stone is badly miscast as May Munro. Stone was never much of an actress and she only became famous by taking all her clothes off for a very exploitative piece of garbage called "Basic Instinct", when she was already in her mid-thirties. In this film she was 36, yet we are supposed to believe that as a child she witnessed her parents get killed by Eric Roberts. That is just laughable, when Stone and Roberts are clearly the same age. It would have been more believable if Woods had played the Roberts role. Eric Roberts is not even remotely believable as a mobster.

It's hard to believe this movie had a cinema release. Nowadays it would just go straight to DVD.

0/10.

A bad, low budget B western by routine director Budd Boetticher sees a far too old Randolph Scott at his most wooden. Typically cast as a sheriff hunting a group of outlaws, at nearly 60 Scott was simply too old and laid back to be believable. It doesn't help that Gail Russell (who?) looks about twenty years older than her guessed at age of 25 or 26. About the only thing that saves this potboiler from being a complete loss is a young Lee Marvin's charismatic performance as the villain. Marvin pretty much acts everybody off the screen, particularly Scott. If only this film had starred John Wayne in Scott's role then the film might have worked. As it is it was too miscast and boring. Robert Mitchum was interested in starring in this film, he would have been the right age and much better than Scott.

This slow, dated and boring film is just a poor variation on earlier films like "North by Northwest". Cary Grant was far too old and paunchy (he had to try to disguise his age and excess weight by taking a shower fully dressed in a stupid, unfunny sequence). Hepburn could never act and her awful overacting quickly becomes very annoying. Probably the worst thing however is the fact that the story is so obvious and contrived. It is so obvious who the villain is from the very beginning of the movie. Grant should have retired before this rubbish. Both stars were too old for their parts, the film should have been made with Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood, as was originally intended.

0/10.

The talentless overacting ham Richard Burton just shouts his way through the entire film, just as he always did. Montgomery Clift was right, Burton couldn't act at all, he just recited the lines in that horrid gravelly chain smoker's voice. As if that were not bad enough he didn't even attempt an American accent, even though George was supposed to be an American. It was probably the worst casting ever. Taylor was clearly too young to play Martha, was she really given an undeserved Oscar just for looking fat? The film is far too long drawn out and boring and at the end of the day who cares about these stupid, pointless characters and their silly little lives. There's no way a highly educated character like the one played by George Segal would have put up with any of that nonsense.

0/10.

The use of colour is probably the only good thing about this slow and boring, overlong, dated film. The first half is much too long and slow and the repetitive driving scenes quickly become very tiresome. Kim Novak was always a poor actress, and looks ridiculous with her bleached platinum blond hair and thick dark eyebrows. Far too many scenes take place in the studio on very fake looking sets with painted backdrops. The opening scene is ruined because it is so fake, not that cops would be chasing a criminal over rooftops anyway. By far the worst thing however is the dreadful miscasting of Grandfather Stewart as Scottie. Stewart was clearly far too old to be playing romantic leads at this point in his career and he was actually more than twice Kim Novak's age (she was 24 and he was 49, though he looked at least 55). His grey wig is laughably bad and he just looks like an ugly old man chasing after his granddaughter. With a younger, better looking actor like Marlon Brando the film might have at least been watchable.

Richard Burton was a talentless wooden film actor who couldn't act at all and only got into the business by having sex with Philip Burton (the teacher who adopted him) and Emlyn Williams. He was just an overacting ham who only copied Laurence Olivier. Here in this awful, crappy television-like movie he is badly miscast as a Cockney gangster, complete with an utterly terrible attempt at an accent that is even worse than Dick Van Dyke in "Mary Poppins". The film is just a dated, overlong, boring piece of rubbish, an obvious rip-off of the infinitely superior "White Heat" which starred natural film actor James Cagney. The film pretty much ended Burton's viability at the box office.

Just an overlong, dated, horribly studio-bound old movie. The acting is very bad and Julie Andrews certainly didn't deserve an Oscar for her "performance". Dick Van Dyke's attempt at Cockney is truly terrible. The whole film goes on for far too long and everything is filmed on very cheap, fake-looking studio sets under horribly bright lighting. Van Dyke, David Tomlinson and Glynis Johns couldn't sing so the only decent musical numbers are provided by Andrews. I would only recommend this dated, boring, ridiculously long drawn out movie as a sure way to put children to sleep at night. One of the worst films ever made, to be avoided at all costs.

Elizabeth Taylor never could act at all and she was just her usual annoying, untalented self in this film. This was before she got so fat but she still looked very short and dumpy. Rock Hudson was OK as Bick Benedict but clearly an actor with more range like William Holden would have been better. James Dean certainly proved he knew how to mumble his way through a movie. The whole film is incredibly slow and goes on for far too long. The actors were all too young and lightweight and none of them aged convincingly due to the poor make-up. Hudson looked ridiculous just being padded out and Dean and Carroll Baker were obviously the same age.

0/10.

Bronson was a joke by the early Eighties and just looked way too old and puffy to be playing police detectives. All the films he made with director J. Lee Thompson were crap but this piece of garbage was by far the sickest and most evil. This horrid film is pure rubbish and should be banned. Gene Davis was incredibly wooden as the murderer, I can't believe he agreed to repeatedly take off all his clothes for such a stupid, worthless film like this. The actress playing Bronson's daughter (shopuld have been his granddaughter) was both ugly and talentless. You know there is something wrong when Andrew Stevens gives the best performance. Too many plot holes and sick scenes.

Bronson's character would have been arrested and sent to prison for faking evidence in a major murder trial.

0/10.

Julie Andrews, realising the movie would be terrible, rightly turned it down and so Sally Ann Howes was cast instead. Howes looked very nice and younger than her 37 years, but unfortunately she couldn't act at all. In fact, her "acting" made Dick Van Dyke look like Laurence Olivier. Van Dyke wisely only accepted the lead role of an eccentric inventor on the basis that he would not have to attempt an English accent, following all the criticism of his God-awful "Cockney" accent in Mary Poppins. Van Dyke is likable enough here but he couldn't sing - unsurprisingly since he was an alcoholic at the time and smoked 60 cigarettes a day. James Robertson Justice, the poor man's Peter Ustinov, wisely doesn't take it seriously. The whole movie goes on for far too long and most of the songs are completely forgettable. The song by the two annoying children should have been cut, since neither of them could sing. The "Lovely Lonely Man" number should have been cut as well because it completely slows down the film. Perhaps worst of all though, the flying sequences are very poor (especially by today's standards) so the audience never gets transported at all. Lionel Jeffries comes off best as the grandfather.

Richard Burton, the worst actor of all time, overacts like never before in this dated crapfest. Burton, a wooden film actor who just copied Laurence Olivier, shouts his way through the entire film as he always did. Despite being from a working class background he could never portray working class characters convincingly. As if that were not bad enough, at 33 he was far too old to play Jimmy Porter. They mention that Jimmy is only 25, well Burton looked early 40s due to his alcoholism and chain smoking. Such a pity that they had to cast a far too old Burton, a graduate of the shouting school of acting, instead of Kenneth Haigh, star of the original acclaimed West End version. At least Haigh would only have been 27 at the time of filming, easily able to pass for 25. The whole story is uninteresting, dated and irrelevant.

Just a dated old western which should have been filmed in colour and goes on for far too long. John Wayne never could act at all and just looks ridiculous with his grey wig and heavy make up. The scenes with the Native American Indians are certainly very racist. Montgomery Clift gives the best performance by far but has no chemistry with the talentless Joanne Dru. The other woman, Colleen Gray, was very over the top but was thankfully only in one scene. It would have been much better if Gary Cooper had played Dunson, as was originally intended. Overall just a slow, dated, overlong and boring old racist western with the racist McCarthyite Republicans Wayne and Walter Brennan doing their usual bad "acting". The homosexual subtext is the only interesting thing about it.

Gregory Peck, who dodged the draft in World War II, was far too old for this film and not at all believable as an English officer (complete with an American accent!). Anthony Quinn and Anthony Qualye were also too old, but David Niven was totally miscast as a 50-year-old corporal. It's a problem with many of the old war movies that the actors are usually far too old for their characters, and this is one of the worst examples. Written by blacklisted left-wing screenwriter Carl Foreman (High Noon, The Bridge on the River Kwai), the film is only notable today for its anti-war message which was fairly new for a Hollywood movie made in 1960. The film is far too long-drawn out and boring, with too many very fake studio sets (even for exteriors) and very dated special effects and action scenes. A much better movie could have been made with Stanley Baker as Mallory and young British actors like Peter O'Toole, Michael Caine and Robert Shaw playing the other parts.

0/10.

John Wayne was far too old to play John Bernard Books who was supposed to die on his 58th birthday. The idea of a 70-year-old gunfighter was ridiculous. A much better actor like George C. Scott should have been cast, and the character Books should have been in his late forties. Lauren Bacall looked 60 and was far too old to play the mother of a teenage son in 1901. It's hilarious when she says her husband died only recently at 41. James Stewart looked about 80 and was far too old to play a man who had only been working as a doctor for 29 years. Aside from the entire cast being far too old for their parts, the film itself is just a slow, boring, low budget, made-for-TV effort. Watch the much better "The Gunfighter" (1950) with a 34-year-old Gregory Peck instead. Wayne was not dying when he made this film, contrary to popular belief, and if he had gone on to star in another five films then nobody would remember this oversentimental snoozefest.

0/10.

This movie is so overlong and boring I almost fell asleep several times. Of course it was never going to be good anyway because all the actors are far too old. I just don't understand why they cast an ugly 46-year-old fat thug like Crowe with his huge beer gut and horrid gravel voice as Robin Hood. Errol Flynn will always be the best, at least he was only 28, athletic and actually sounded English. 41-year-old Cate Blanchett looks as ugly as sin, is far too old to play "Maid" Marian, and unsurprisingly has zero chemistry with Crowe. It would have been so much better if they had cast younger, British actors like Christian Bale and Robin and Keira Knightley as Marian instead of a far too old Crowe and Blanchett.

0/10. Don't bother, just buy the Errol Flynn masterpiece.

The entire cast manage to give their worst-ever performances in this slow and boring, dated old film. Lewis Gilbert was a competent director who never reached the front rank, unsurprisingly judging from this effort. Richard Basehart and John Ireland always were mediocre actors at best but the normally good Gloria Grahame is just awful. Laurence Harvey, one of the most wooden actors imaginable, badly overplays his part. It's truly amazing that he got so many major roles in British and American films. The only actor who even tries to give a decent performance is the forgotten Welsh actor Stanley Baker. The sets look like they're made from paper mache. Worth watching only for the final chase at the end, or as a look back on life in England in the early 1950s.

Joshua Logan only managed to ruin three musical film adaptations starting with South Pacific and finishing with Paint Your Wagon. This however is the worst of all. Horribly studio-bound for the most part, the film goes on for far too long and is unbelievably boring. The worst thing about it though is the casting. Richard Harris was ugly, hammy and looked ridiculous as King Arthur (complete with heavy make-up, a bad wig and heavy eye shadow). Maybe if he hadn't been a raging alcoholic who smoked three packs of cigarettes a day then he might have been able to sing a note? As it is, his "singing" is absolutely dreadful. Vanessa Redgrave, also a chain smoker, is ugly, too old and annoying as Guinevere. Her singing is almost as bad, particularly her ghastly rendition of "The Simple Joys of Maidenhood". Franco Nero certainly looked good as Lancelot, it's just a shame they couldn't dub his wooden acting. It was a strange idea anyway, casting an Italian man as a Frenchman. The difference between his real speaking voice and his dubbed singing voice is very funny. David Hemmings and Lionel Jeffries come off best, but aren't in the film very much. Jack Warner was an idiot not to cast Julie Andrews as Guinevere, and Eliza Dolittle.

An absolutely awful rip-off of "Oliver!" with a talentless and unattractive girl in the title role, wearing an horrific ginger wig. I'm not surprised she went on to do absolutely nothing else. I have always liked Albert Finney and he manages to turn in the only good performance in the entire movie. It's no surprise that this awful crapfest flopped at the box office, and that the leading "actress" was deservedly nominated for a Razzie award. Skip this horrid, badly acted garbage and watch the vastly superior "Oliver!" instead. No wonder musicals had died out if this was the best they could come up with. I would never have guessed this was directed by John Huston, he had fallen a very long way since "Moulin Rouge".

Having read Hermann Melville's brilliant novel when I was fourteen I was naturally hoping for great things from this movie. Unfortunately, it does not deliver on any level. The film is too slow and takes too long to get going, while the script should have been shorn of some of the novel's prose to give it some life. However, what really lets it down is the complete miscasting of the two leads. Richard Basehart, aged 40 but looking older, was clearly far too old to play the youngster Ishmael. An actor under thirty like Stanley Baker would have made an excellent choice. Far worse though is the casting of Gregory Peck as Ahab. Not only was Peck much too young for the part (Ahab was 58 in the novel), he simply didn't have the requisite talent to play a deranged villain convincingly. If only a better, older actor had been cast like Fredric March, Spencer Tracy or even the director John Huston himself. Orson Welles comes of best in the cameo role of Father Mapple.

Worth watching, but certainly no classic.

Seriously, they gave John Wayne an Oscar for this? His performance was so over the top and hammy, it is truly one of the worst performances I have ever seen. Clearly the new young stars must have hoped that he would retire along with the old studio system and westerns in general. Although he kept making films in the first half of the 1970s, they were all crap and he was way past his best. Glen Campbell gives one of the most wooden performances ever, was he only cast to make Wayne look better? Kim Darby was annoying from the very beginning and far too old to play a 14-year-old. I mean, she had already had her first child for God's sake! The film is slow and boring, it's 45 minutes before they even leave to go on the mission. Robert Duvall is good as the villain but doesn't appear until the end. Wayne's Oscar should have gone to Dustin Hoffman for "Midnight Cowboy", an infinitely better movie which has stood the test of time, unlike this dated crap.