ARABELLA (US/Italy 1968) movie ** score ***

Likeable sex comedy starring Terry-Thomas playing four characters, each of whom is conned by a gorgeous Virna Lisi to pay off her grandmother's back taxes. Dame Margaret Rutherford makes her final movie appearance (along with real-life husband Stringer Davis) as Lisi's bankrupt grandma, and James Fox also has a notable role. ARABELLA is never hilarious, but is always interesting, thanks to Lisi's beauty, Terry-Thomas's effortlessly natural comic presence, the sumptuous photography and a sparkling '20s-styled score complete with twangy banjo. The movie's crammed full of amusing English and Italian stereotypes, and there's some very insightful observation of Anglo-Italian cultural similarities and differences - a fun movie if you're in the mood, but it won't appeal to everyone - ARABELLA's definitely one of a kind..

CAVE OF OUTLAWS (US 1951) movie ** score **1/2

Just wanted to say how much I appreciate you creating this monthly 'what have you seen? thread. Not only do I enjoy reading your's, Lou's and others' opinions, I am relishing the opportunity to comment on the movies I view, particularly since I have been banned from the FSM Messageboard and am unable to post at vulcantouch's popular movie-review thread 'what we partook of over the hump'.

Indeed, the entire 'Just Movies' section of the MovieMusic Messageboard always provides an interesting read, particularly some of the John C Winfrey's knowledgeable contributions.

THE CANTERVILLE GHOST (US 1944) movie ** score ***

Loose adaptation of Oscar Wilde's classic tale starring Charles Laughton as Sir Simon De Canterville - England's most fearsome ghost - who's been terrorizing the ancestral castle for centuries before a group of American soldiers stationed in England during WWII (led by Robert Young) decide to turn the tables. After a bright start, the movie gradually descends into tedium and silliness. Still, this Hollywood version of THE CANTERVILLE GHOST does have its compensations. There's a decent score from George Bassman, a few funny moments (mostly at the start of the movie) and a fine supporting cast that includes Reginald Owen, Margaret O'Brien, Lumsden Hare and Una O'Connor.

PLAYERS (US 1979) movie *** score ***1/2

Well-crafted, multi-faceted and entertaining tennis drama from British director Anthony Harvey. The movie’s story unfolds during a Wimbledon tennis final interspersed with lengthy flashbacks in which we learn of finalist Dean-Paul Martin’s life and loves. And yes folks, this is the movie in which Dan Maskell has a major role - not only does he commentate on the match itself, we even get to see him in his commentary position. For anyone who isn’t aware, Dan Maskell was the British “Voice of Wimbledon” for what seemed like centuries until his sad death a few years ago. Curiously enough, he was never quite as loquacious during real matches as he is during this movie.

Anyway, during the cleverly incorporated flashbacks we learn of how a young hustling Dean-Paul Martin met and fell in love with Ali MacGraw whilst travelling through Mexico. Gradually MacGraw persuades Martin to drop his hustling ways and take up tennis as a legitimate player. However, their romance is tempestuous, especially since MacGraw keeps slipping off to meet billionaire lover Maximilian Schell on his helicopter-festooned yacht off Monte Carlo. Meanwhile, after months of rigorous training, Martin impresses top coach Pancho Gonzalez - a truly fine Anthony Quinn-like performance as himself. We even get to see John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, John Lloyd and a whole raft of other famous tennis players playing themselves, as well as Liv Ullmann and Wimbledon regular Peter Ustinov in the crowd.

PLAYERS is a very interesting movie for a variety of reasons. There’s some juicy drama provided by the leading actors, there’s plenty of interesting and authentic tennis coaching scenes, there’s the exciting tennis final itself, and some beautifully captured locations, including Monte Carlo, Mexico and the streets of Wimbledon, England - all of these elements are expertly woven together by the director, and admirably complemented by Jerry Goldsmith’s expert scoring.

Goldsmith's score can be broken down into three distinctive elements. There’s a remarkably energetic orchestral thematic strand that perfectly captures the flavour of Wimbledon, the English locations and the excitement of the contest - there’s a vivacity and pugnacious quality that mirrors the Centre Court action, combined with a very ‘English’ sound that evokes the frequently heard cry of, ‘strawberries, lovely strawberries’ - this theme gets an extended workout over the movie’s closing credits, and is very much in the mould of THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY and THE SWARM in its hyperactivity.

The second distinct area of the score is characterized by a bright and optimistic string, piano and woodwind take on the main thematic material to accompany the love scenes - it’s often very evocative of some of Goldsmith’s more romantic ‘90s work, such as the gentle parts of ANGIE, RUDY and FOREVER YOUNG etc, except with PLAYERS, this part of the score is distinguished by some deft acoustic guitar accompaniment, very much in-keeping with the Mexican locations. During the lengthy sex scenes, this element of the score can get a little banal, but considering the success of Goldsmith’s work in general on this movie, such a criticism is hardly worth mentioning.

The third and most interesting element of the score is the classy and very romantic music used to score the MacGraw’s enigmatic character and her affair with Schell. A beautifully haunting variation of the main thematic material combines with the most dramatic elements of the movie. A lonely trumpet and the flexible acoustic guitar lead the orchestra through a series of increasingly intense passages that manage to perfectly characterize the mystery and anguish surrounding MacGraw's character, and the growing sense of impending tragedy. This part of the score is heard at its most powerful and moving late in the movie, as MacGraw approaches Schell’s yacht for perhaps the last time. Here, the fragile elegance of the theme is further emphasized by massed violas and cellos, very reminiscent of the 'love-theme' from STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE.

El Bulto, (Excess baggage) Mexico '91: ironic picture of mexican revolution "veterans". good characters and dialogues.

Pane e tulipani (maybe Bread and Tulips), Italy '00: the director is Silvio Soldini but his view is gently feminine. A story of redemption, with Bruno Ganz as a beautiful silent-hero.

Lista de espera (The waiting list), Cuba '99:
a tale of daily life in Cuba. Nice dream-story based on a strange happening.

PLAYING BY HEART (US 1998) movie * score **

Bland and conventional, PLAYING BY HEART spools like a nauseatingly gutless compendium of banal ‘soap opera’ clichés. A proficient cast of well-known second-string actors and actresses, including Madeline Stowe, Dennis Quaid and Gillian Anderson, is significantly buoyed by Sir Sean Connery’s monumental presence, although his natural magnetism and superstar status does tend to overwhelm many of the less talented cast members, especially a poor Gena Rowlands. Well-intentioned though it may be, PLAYING BY HEART fails to convince on any level, and rarely has such a maudlin and emotionally fake movie been made without Robin Williams being somehow involved.

KILLERS IN THE HOUSE (US 1998) tv-movie * score **1/2

Resolutely routine thriller. Mario Van Peebles inherits a manor house that is taken over by a group of desperate bank robbers. Hal Linden has a small role, but that’s about the only interesting thing about this uninspired and listless exercise in moviemaking mediocrity.

SHALL WE DANCE (US 1937) movie ** score ***

UNTIL THEY SAIL (US 1957) movie **1/2 score **1/2

During WWII, whilst their husbands and boyfriends are fighting with the British in North Africa, four New Zealand sisters become romantically involved with various American soldiers posted to Christchurch and Wellington. British Hollywood leading ladies Jean Simmons and Joan Fontaine star as two of the sisters who fall for gentlemanly American officers Charles Drake and Paul Newman in this entertaining melodrama competently directed by Robert Wise and adequately scored by David Raksin. UNTIL THEY SAIL begins and ends in a post-war Wellington courtroom, whilst the rest of the movie plays in flashback, being set during the preceding war years, and depicts the sisters’ various romantic entanglements that lead to misery and tragedy.

Although UNTIL THEY SAIL is far from being a movie classic, it does give a very good impression of the impact many American soldiers had on the people of the British Empire, including the very ‘English’ New Zealanders, during WWII. From my own wartime experiences, it is quite true that the American troops arriving in England and the British Empire did make a lasting impression. Ever since that time, British culture has been overwhelmingly and increasingly influenced by American attitude, behaviour and philosophy, and though such a cultural progression was initially met with resistance and disdain from certain conservative elements of society, Great Britain has now embraced many American ideals of tolerance, liberalism and freedom of expression with great eagerness - and a good thing too, American is best. This is not to say that the British are becoming American, only that the peoples and sub-cultures of the English-speaking world continue to evolve, develop and progress together, rather than growing apart - that's the beauty of globalization.

Nowhere is the ongoing strengthening of Anglo-American ties more evident than in the proliferation and success of Anglo-American movie ventures, such as NOTTING HILL and the forthcoming BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY, to name but a very few. Not only do such movies involve British and American talent in front of and behind the camera, but many are set in the UK itself, and whilst they may demonstrate the remaining differences between British and American culture, they also serve to underline how slight and unimportant those differences really are. Alternatively, some recent Anglo-American movies, including the recently discussed RAVENOUS, released in 1999 and not 1997 as I wrongly indicated above, are set in the United States.

In many ways things have come full circle; the British people once colonized North America, now the Americans are colonizing mother-England, through neo-colonialism. - but the important thing is, not only are the bonds between the nations of the English-speaking world being maintained, they continue to grow ever-stronger. One feels, however, that those far-flung and once great bastions of British colonialism, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, would be far better served by embracing republicanism. After all, there is a gathering republican movement in England itself, and Charles III may well be the last British monarch. The removal of the British Crown from these nations would I believe strengthen further our relationships, simply because the existing monarchical set-up, symbolic though it may be, does tend to engender resentment amongst some Australians in particular…..they want a true feeling of nationhood, something that can only be fully achieved when all monarchical ties are finally cut. Once this happens, we will have taken another important step towards HG Wells’ dream of a world state.

This is such a gem. I am not gonna say much because I cannot remmeber much of the actors, director, etc., but it did a great job in showing Japanese society and how they "keep feelings in." Repressed buisnessmen go against the grain and learn how to ballroom dance. Japanese culture looks down at this with shame, so the men doing this are very,very,very,very, very, very secretive about it, not telling their wives, friends, anybody. All they wanna do is dance, dance, dance! This film is hillarious for one single reason, the boss. A cowardly little human with slumped shoulders and big glasses(not to mention bald head) who stops in the direction he was goin, then turns at a 90 degree to the direction he is going to go with his head following. It has to be seen. Hillarious.

Film ***.5/****

Score, what score? Just cheasy Japanese rip off of Ballroom music.

THE RED VIOLIN (Canada/Italy 1998) movie ** score **1/2

THE RED VIOLIN is beautifully photographed and pleasingly scored, but that's about it. This insubstantial tale of a cursed violin and the effect it seemingly has on its various owners, during the course of 300 years, is dramatically hollow and sadly uninvolving. THE RED VIOLIN is really for fans of superficially impressive and simplistic children's fantasies.

STRATEGIC COMMAND (US 1998) tv-movie * score **

Unintentionally hilarious tripe about a gang of 'vicious' criminals who abduct the Vice-President. Coincidences, contrivances and clichés turn up with monotonous regularity, and mixed with some particularly laboured bouts of action, all-too-obviously choreographed fist fights and pyrotechnics, the obese and misshapen Paul Winfield's involvement in several action sequences, and a trance-like performance from fish-eyed star Michael Dudikoff, STRATEGIC COMMAND provides a dozen guffaws per minute. Only the movie's occasional attempts at intentional humour, such as pulling the colonel's eye out for the retinal scan, leave one unamused. STRATEGIC COMMAND is yet another so-bad-it's-good tv-movie classic, though not in the same league as such 'risible cinematic classics' as REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE, FIGHT CLUB, QUEST FOR LOVE, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (both versions), BODY OF EVIDENCE and CALIGULA, etc, for sheer mirth-inducing moviemaking ineptitude.

TODAY WE LIVE (US 1933) movie *1/2 score n/a

A neutral American travels to England during WWI, and quickly comes to realize the justification for British action against the German offensive. Gary Cooper stars as the American, and Joan Crawford is the Englishwoman with whom he falls in love. The superb cast also includes Franchot Tone as Crawford's brother, and Robert Young as Cooper's rival for Crawford's hand - all end up at the Western Front, not all return.

Despite the captivating and moving subject matter, TODAY WE LIVE is extremely stilted. Every scene and every line is delivered in such a deliberate mono-paced style as to render the entire movie dramatically impotent. Fortunately, there are many other far better Hollywood movies that accurately depict the unimaginable suffering and sacrifice made by the British (and her allies) during WWI, such as THE DAWN PATROL, THE EAGLE AND THE HAWK and RANDOM HARVEST, to name but a very few.

One aspect of the Great War that TODAY WE LIVE interestingly touches on, is initial American incomprehension at the reasons for the war starting in the first place. This incomprehension was quite understandable at the time, considering the complicated processes that led to the outbreak of hostilities, and the fact that America took so long to join WWI can now be easily forgiven.

The outbreak of WWI in August 1914 was, first and foremost, the product of a German bid for world power. Despite the immense growth of German industrial and military might since 1871, the global domination of the British Empire, and of her navy, and of her total control of world trade and the international capital market, was bitterly resented by the Germans.

The ultimate aim of the German government, by means of war, was to establish the Reich as a super-power on a par with the British Empire. Whereas the British Empire had been gradually constructed over the past three hundred years, as much through diplomacy and colonialism as conquest, the Germans intended to gain equal, if not greater power, within a few short years.

By 1914, the Germans were desperate to start a war, and with Russia rapidly modernizing its armed forces, it was 'now or never'. The opportunity came in June, with the assassination by the Serbs of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Under German pressure, Austria declared war on Serbia, thus the Germans were not only able to start the world conflict, but were able to concentrate their warmongering on the hated Slavs.

Britain joined the Russians and French against the Germans and their puppet allies Austria when Belgian neutrality was violated. Within a year, Japan and Italy had joined Britain and her allies against the German war machine, but it wasn't until April 1917 that the USA joined in the struggle against the Hun. And this only after several American merchant vessels had been sunk by German U-boats.

The First World War was more catastrophic in its impact on every sphere of human existence than any previous war, this was total war. The supremacy of defensive over offensive techniques made the Great War one of very little movement, but enormous casualties. Engaging armies far larger than the sum of all previous human conflict, the Great War also involved the civilian populations of those warring nations to an unprecedented degree.

Following the Americans entry into the WWI in 1917, the tide of the war irrevocably turned against Germany, just as it did in WWII, and although no British or American armies set foot on German soil, an armistice took effect November 11th 1918.

World War I had a more devastating effect on global development than any other single conflict. Its aftermath saw the modern world take shape, and left the British Empire in tatters. What was worse, Britain also lost its global pre-eminence as a trading, producing and investing centre.

I didn't recognize anybody who worked on SHALL WE DANCE except the male lead Koji Yakusho, one of Japan's biggest stars, and one of the better actors in his age group -- the younger generation tends not to be as well-trained as its forebears, but Yakusho fortunately is a natural. He also played the white-suited gangster in TAMPOPO, which is one of the VERY funniest films of ALL time, if you (or anyone) haven't caught it. And no, you don't have to understand anything about Japan or its culture to laugh at that one -- it's director Juzo Itami's most accessible film, I think (and, paradoxically, the least successful at the Japanese boxoffice of any of the few pictures he did write and direct -- perhaps because it's the only one that isn't overtly a social satire).

MURDER, SHE SAID (UK 1961) movie **1/2 score ***

Jane Marple witnesses a murder by strangulation on a speeding locomotive, but nobody takes her seriously. The first, and easily the best of Margaret Rutherford's Miss Marple movies, MURDER, SHE SAID provides 90 minutes of easy entertainment. Though miscast, Rutherford's extraordinary on-screen presence ensures a rich characterization, and she is ably backed up by a fine supporting cast, including Arthur Kennedy, Charles Tingwell, Conrad Phillips, Thorley Walters, Ronald Howard and James Robertson-Justice. And even the future television Miss Marple, Joan Hickson, has a small, but effective role. MURDER, SHE SAID is also distinguished by a memorable score from Ron Goodwin. A dextrous mixture of harpsichord, guitar and orchestra presents a superbly versatile score, incorporating pop, jazz and classical stylistics seamlessly. The elegant effervescence of the flexible main theme is one of Goodwin's most enduring contributions to cinema.

AMERICAN PIE (US 1999) movie **1/2 score ***

Modest, old-fashioned and likeable high school comedy. Perhaps some of the younger teenagers will find the movie's coy, self-conscious, juvenile, innocent and restrained approach to depicting sex rather amusing - I must admit, I find it hard to believe that American high school kids are really as naive about sex as those portrayed in this movie. Anyway, although AMERICAN PIE's nothing special, it's an easygoing crowd-pleaser.

EVERY DAY'S A HOLIDAY (UK 1965) movie * score **

Almost forgotten pop stars Mike Sarne and John Leyton star as nighclub singers who put on a musical at a holiday camp. Faded swingin' sixties British pop musical distinguished only by Nicholas Roeg's superb Technicolor photography. There's good support from Michael Ripper and Ron Moody, but these days, innocent movies like this merely provide a nostalgic trip down memory lane for the older generation.

LORNA DOONE (US 1950) movie ** score **1/2

Being a native of Somerset, here in the heart of the English West Country, R D Blackmore's Lorna Doone has always been a very special book to me. Sadly, despite all of the familiar character names being present, such as Carver Doone, Walt Snowe, Calvin Oates, Baron de Wichehalse, Todd Darcy, and so on, this Hollywood version of the classic story bears very little relation to the book, although it does give a good impression of the rigours and excitement of life in 17th century Somerset.

British Hollywood leading man Richard Greene stars as John Ridd, a Somerset farmer who falls in love with the daughter of the local land baron, Lorna Doone (poorly played by Barbara 'Della Street' Hale). However, all is not well at the Doone castle, and the evil Carver Doone usurps the power of his uncle Sir Ensor Doone, and promptly raises taxes by an inordinate degree. The farmers appeal to the local sheriff, played by John Dehner, but he's in Carver's pocket. Lorna finally comes to the aid of the beleaguered farmers by appealing to King Charles II himself to intervene in the affairs of County Somerset.

British character actor Malcolm Keen (Geoffrey Keen's father), plays Lord Lorne, but the presence of Carl Benton Reid, Onslow Stevens and a whole raft of familiar faces from '50s westerns in the cast, helps to give this version of Lorna Doone the appearance of a 'British Western', complete with gunfights, outlaws, highwaymen, stage coaches, cowboys and Stetsons. But, it is easy to forget these days that that's what life was like in England's 17th century 'wild west'.

Last week, I was fortunate enough to meet the Right Hon. Lord Biffen (a Burtle lad and past Leader of the House of Commons) at the launch of the new book, "Gie I Burtle", a truly wonderful chronicle of the history and peoples of my home village of Burtle. Nestled on the oft-flooded heathlands of Sedgemoor, the isolated village of Burtle is still a distinctly Somerset community.

I asked Lord Biffen how he arrived at the book's title. He responded enthusiastically, by saying that many years ago, when he first left Somerset for London, on his return to Somerset, during a holiday, the villagers asked him what life was like in the 'big city'. His response, in broad 'West Country' accent was thus -

"Oh Lunnon be alright", he said, "But gie I Burtle".

County Somerset, so well known to the world as the home of cider and Cheddar cheese, offers a greater variety of countryside than any other county in the British Isles, from the mountainous acid uplands of Exmoor, the sandstone of the Quantock Hills, and the limestone of the Mendip Hills, to large lowland areas of alluvial clay and peat. Notable are the caves and caverns of Cheddar and Wookey, and the ravines, creeks and chines of the Mendip Hills and rugged coastline. Indeed, Burrington Combe is the site at which the Rev. Toplady sheltered from the thunderstorm and was moved to write the world-famous hymn 'Rock of Ages'.

During the 'Ice Age' 15,000 years ago, the whole of Somerset was covered by a deep layer of ice and snow, and when the ice began to melt 10,000 years ago, the lowlands of Somerset were infiltrated by the Atlantic Ocean. Gradually, alluvial silts were built up by the tides, and huge reed-beds flourished in the shallow waters. By 5,000 BC, the tidal salt waters were replaced by freshwater as rivers flowed into the Somerset lowlands. At last, the Somerset Levels became habitable, and the heavily-forested surrounding countryside provided ample timber for the development of marshland communities on the occasional raised areas and knolls. Since that time, very little has changed on the Somerset Levels.

The Somerset Levels, in which my village of Burtle is situated, is famous for its frequent mists, dense fogs and frosts, and when the climate was colder, before WWII, people used to come to Somerset from London and Birmingham to skate on the frozen flooded fields. Looking down from the hills, the mists give the Somerset Levels the appearance of a huge island sea with the trees protruding above the mist and knolls resembling small islands. Another interesting phenomenon is when a very thin layer of mist forms, as shallow as three feet. It can be possible to see a mile or more at ground level under the mist with the bases of trees and even cattle's legs without bodies in clear view. Upon standing upright, vision can again be unrestricted with the bushes and the odd cow's head rising above it. When accompanied by some of the bird and animal calls it truly can be a spine-tingling experience.

Traces of human habitation in and around Burtle date back to 4000 BC, and clear evidence remains of the 'men of the mists' intricate network of raised timber tracks. But it wasn't until the Romans arrived in Britain 2,000 years ago that the first serious attempts were made to drain the Levels. Development of the drainage system continued for the next 1,500 years before the Black Death decimated the population and interrupted work for several centuries. Today, a vast network of pumps, the largest and most powerful in the world, continually control the water level, allowing for people to engage in dairy, sheep and beef farming. The recent increase in heavy rains, gale force winds and storms has put a severe strain on the pumping stations, and many homes are now flooded on a regular basis.

The true beauty of the Somerset Levels and Moorlands can best be appreciated on clear and warm summer days. There is no more wonderful experience than rising at 6am on a beautifully clear and dewy morning in late May. I remember one such morning last year. The heat of the sun was already dissipating what remained of the morning mists. The moors at this time of day have a mystical quality, sounds carry for great distances, and yet one feels a sense of intimacy with the natural world. The whole place is alive with the songs of an amazing range of birds of woodland, water and the open moors. Deer dart in amongst the grazing sheep and clusters of beautiful meadow flowers. Dragonflies, damselflies, croaking frogs, and leaping fish add to the symphony of sound and visual splendour. Many a townsman would be enraptured by an experience that countrymen take for granted. The cadence of the willow warbler, the trill of the moorhen, and above all, the fluting call of the curlew create a magical atmosphere.

Burtle is well-known for its colourful characters and long-standing families. The Hennikers, Jeffersons, Whitcombes, Kellys and Moxeys of Burtle can be traced back several hundred years. And the infamous highwaymen, Brett Sumner, Budge Evans and Quirt Johnson reputedly came from Burtle. Burtle and the surrounding villages and hamlets have also maintained longstanding folk music and dance traditions. Not only are the English folk dances and songs still kept alive, but many of the Irish and other Celtic folksongs and dances brought to the West Country by Irish, Cornish, Welsh and Scottish immigrants are still enjoyed at regular barn dances and summer fayres.

Somerset was of course a hotbed of rebellion back in the 1685 'Pitchfork Rebellion', just three years prior to the Glorious Revolution, in which Great Britain finally removed Roman Catholicism from the British Crown. In 1685, just a couple of years after the setting of Lorna Doone, the Battle of Sedgemoor took place, just a couple of miles from where I live. Many of the farmers and ranchers of Somerset joined the Duke of Monmouth in his revolution against the Catholic King James II of England (who, as the Duke of York, took New Amsterdam from the Dutch in 1664, after which it was named New York in his honour). The Pitchfork Rebellion was a hard-fought and bloody revolution climaxing in the defeat of Monmouth by the forces of James II. The term 'pitchfork' came into being, because that is all many of the Somerset farmers were armed with. Many sons of Burtle were lost during the battle, and with the battle won, the King's retribution was brutal. The trees lining the road from Gloucester, through Bristol and on to Bridgwater, were festooned with sometimes up to four hanged rebels on a single branch.

It was at this time that many Somerset and West Countrymen fled to the colonies, most notably New England. It is quite clear the impact the English West Country accent had on the development of the American accent. Of course, many West Countrymen in the subsequent three hundred years have emigrated to the colonies, and the town of Birtle in Canada was named for Burtle, Somerset.

Such history.....only the other day I was talking to one of my neighbours, Hal Whitcombe, about the history of my farm. He said -

"Ol' Gilb and Ag Grant lived 'un fifty years ago. T'wer pillow makers. Perce Drake (the Baker from nearby Blackford) used to take goose, duck 'un chicken feathers home and put 'em in the oven overnight to bake 'em so Gilb and Ag could use 'em in pillows and mattresses."

"I remember we used to go down to Met Watts for a haircut. 'mongst all the spar shavings which he used to keep the vire warm wi'. Ol' Lennie Buttle, the blacksmith, and Coulty Lee, the railwayman, used 'un collect feather 'un shaving 'inall."

"T'wer Gurney Siskin's place 'til thirty year ago. 'Twere difficult to talk to 'em. There were Daisy, Liz, Mabel, Ern and Frank. Ern were the most chatty, you dint see Frank a lot, you 'ad to corner 'un to talk to 'un, he were all right though y'did."

As far as the history of my farm goes, I'm still none the wiser! 'Twas, hrummph, I mean, it was an interesting conversation nevertheless.

THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER (US 1999) movie *1/2 score **1/2

Dismally formulaic murder mystery set at a drearily-photographed Georgia army base. John Travolta (who's okay, after a bad start) investigates the brutal slaying of a general's daughter. He's aided by CID investigator Madeleine Stowe - a very limited actress who's simply not up to being a leading lady.

THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER provides a perfect example of a movie in which all of the characters are all-too-obviously driven by the plot, rather than giving the impression they are real people with at least a modicum of self-motivation - in other words, THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER is totally unconvincing. It's all so excruciatingly pedestrian, and the rape/murder flashbacks that everyone seems to be blathering about are merely laughably transparent (and wholly ineffectual) attempts to gain the film notoriety, and don't add anything to the movie's purpose whatsoever. Indeed, such scenes are rendered entirely obsolete, impotent, and tame by the need to conform to the censor, and more closely resemble a tediously tame soft-core flick that some sticky-fingered twelve-year-old might drool over for five minutes, before moving on to much more explicit material, such as sumo wrestling or ballroom dancing. In fact, the unconvincing nature of the rape/murder scenes enacted during THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER detracts from the intended impact - for such scenes of rape and torture to be truly effective, the filmmakers would have had to go a lot further than the censor would allow.

Further, the movie seems to suggest that any deviation from straightforward, one-foot-touching-the-floor, lights-off, pyjamas-on, under the bedsheets, two-minutes-and-your-time's-up coital sex is somehow perverse - some people actually enjoy using handcuffs, whips and dressing up - it doesn't mean they're barking. Indeed, the moviemakers' moralistic approach is hypocritical, to say the least. On the one hand, the movie's heroes (and agenda) are shown to be on the side of decency, whilst on the other the filmmakers include wannabe-shocking scenes of sex and bondage purely designed to titillate, and yet, the amusing thing is such scenes wouldn't even make your maiden aunt blush.

I really don't know why filmmakers bother. Anyone can easily get hold of an S&M video that leaves nothing to the imagination. With THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER, the filmmakers should have left the rape/murder scenes almost entirely to the imagination - the impact would've been far greater if the filmmakers had judiciously suggested the horror of the woman's murder, instead of attempting (and failing) to portray the actual event convincingly. As it is, the filmmakers have fallen between two stools. The scene isn't explicit enough to be convincing, thus, what we do see in the movie is so lame as to trivialize the murder.

This fundamental moviemaking flaw afflicts many movies made within the past thirty years or so, and often, a rather more abstemious approach from filmmakers to scenes of sex and violence would generate a far greater effect. Certainly, in a movie like THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER, which takes an obviously po-faced and moralistic view towards sexual deviancy, a more subtle approach was necessary. In any case, any movie in which the central 'crime' involves a brutal murder should necessarily take a more circumspect approach to depicting the actual event. After all, a documentary about a murderer or serial killer does not attempt to re-enact the actual crime in every detail. Not only would it be unnecessary, but it would cheapen the entire purpose of the documentary. The same is largely true of a movie. Only recently, I viewed an excellent documentary on the British serial killer Neville Heath. His methods of torture and murder, often involving the mutilation of the genitals and the biting off of the victims' nipples, were far more horrific and harrowing than even the death of Captain Campbell in THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER. The makers of the Heath documentary did not seek to cheapen the programme with sordid attempts to re-enact the crimes, a dispassionate description of the murderer's modus operandi was quite sufficient. Obviously, in a movie, the filmmakers should seek to heighten the drama, by making some attempt to portray the crime, but the old adage, less is more, often becomes wholly appropriate when a filmmaker seeks to create maximum impact.

Anyway, THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER provides only paltry entertainment. Although James Woods gives an effective performance, James Cromwell, as the general, is miscast, and Timothy Hutton is a waste of space. Carter Burwell's manful attempt to provide an effective score is completely undone by the movie's abject failure to entertain.

STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE (US 1999) movie ** score **1/2

That Episode IV impacted popular culture so profoundly whilst redefining the sci-fi genre and literally reinventing cinema itself on its release in 1977, makes this belated prequel all the more disappointing. Episode I must have been a great disappointment to fans of the original trilogy, to anyone else, THE PHANTOM MENACE is a garbled mess of extraordinary special effects, one-dimensional characterizations, wooden performances, banal dialogue and obtuse plot development. At best, Episode I can be described as an accomplished kiddie movie.

Episode IV, and even the slightly less impressive Episodes V and VI were accomplished kiddie movies too, but they were so much more beside. Apart from a fun Whacky Races-styled 'pod' race and an imaginative underwater sequence near the beginning of the movie, Episode I is singularly lacking in imagination, invention, wit, energy and timing - all of the qualities that distinguished Episode IV.

The dramatic shallowness of THE PHANTOM MENACE is all the more surprising considering the unusually high proportion of accomplished British acting talent on show. Paradoxically, at first, I repeatedly kept telling myself this movie needed a Harrison Ford character, someone with those gratifying American qualities of rebelliousness, a sense of humour, and an easygoing nature to inject some much needed life into the characterizations. But it didn't take long for me to realize that the woodenness of the performances from Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor were not so much their fault, as the effect of the unforgivably bland scripting. However, serious demerits for Natalie Portman's insipid performance, and to Jake Lloyd's pathetic Anakin - one feels that no amount of inventive scripting could have salvaged these two inept performances. And, Jar Jar Binks was a serious mistake.

Episode IV was a phenomenal movie, although with hindsight, the movie is not quite as good as its reputation might suggest. Nevertheless, it appealed to an enormous audience by combining all of those elements that make movie-going such a stimulating experience to great effect. A strong storyline, vivid (and varied) characterizations, never-seen-before special effects, a magical score from John Williams and bags of invention created one of cinema's most popular movies.

Excepting the extraordinary (but generally unimaginative) special effects, all of the above qualities were absent from Episode I. What's worse, the story unfolded in such a deliberate manner, with each character seemingly aquaplaning through the movie without really interacting with the plot, other characters and settings, that, as a viewer, one felt detached from the movie, as if one was viewing a visually stunning but empty computer game, with every action preordained and predictable.

Because of this, one never senses a feeling of danger. As the characters lurch from one scene to the next, with little more fluidity than a stage-play, and engage in some particularly redundant and repetitive laser-beam battles, one begins to feel the movie has been monotonously paced to metronomic precision.

Much has been of the supposed racial stereotypes portrayed in Episode I. Most of the aliens, stupid or 'orrible, had Japanese, West Indian, Chinese, Italian or Arabic accents, whereas the more human and nobler the character, the more 'English' his accent became. At first glance, this appears to be true, but when one views the entire movie one realizes that many of the so-called stupid non-English aliens, like Jar Jar Binks, are just as heroic as anyone else. Not only that, C-3PO, perhaps the stupidest character in history, has an English accent, and most of the top baddies, such as Ian McDiarmid, have resonant British accents. In actual fact, to have so many Brits playing the good guys, including the two leading characters, is quite the reverse from the norm, isn't it?

Just as the Star Trek movies so utterly failed to rekindle the spirit of adventure and freshness that made the television series so popular, so THE PHANTOM MENACE fails to reignite the sense of wonder that characterized episodes IV through VI.

A little while ago, at this message board, I wrote of my disappointment at McGregor's obvious disdain for STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE. Having seen the movie for myself, I can only conclude, he had a point.

DAVID COPPERFIELD (US 1934) movie ***** score *****

Absolutely wonderful Hollywood treatment of the Dickens classic. Director George Cukor faultlessly recreates the atmosphere of a vibrant Victorian England, Sir Hugh Walpole’s screenplay almost miraculously compresses the novel without losing any of its importance or nuance, and Herbert Stothart’s score is an evocative masterwork of dramatic reinforcement, mood enhancement, and seamless fusion of well known British songs and Christmas carols.

However, this movie’s greatest strength is in the casting. The characters found on the written page are magically brought to life by a peerless cast of British and American Hollywood greats. Freddie Bartholomew is perfect as the young David, Basil Rathbone is the epitome of menace as Mr Murdstone, Lionel Barrymore simply is Dan Peggoty, Roland Young is the best Uriah Heep I’ve seen, Jessie Ralph is endearing as Pegotty, and WC Fields gives a definitive performance as the loveable rogue Micawber.

Though filmed in California, judicious use of locations and some magnificently rendered sets brings the unique charm, and the severe hardships of existence in Victorian England vividly to life. The various Dickens classics provide a valuable record and commentary on life in mother-England during the second half of the 19th century, particularly the effect the Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions, that originated in England during the previous century, had on the social framework of Britain. Indeed, the modern mechanized world began in England, with a whole series of pioneering British inventions, such as the steam locomotive, but, for many years, only a very few of the inhabitants of the British Isles benefited from such technological advances.

The Industrial Revolution drew more and more people to the cities, and Britain naturally became the first nation in the world in which the majority of the population lived in towns and cities. Great Britain invented the urban sprawl, smog, ghettos, crime syndicates, crammed workhouses, and all those other things that have in the past, and often continue in the present, to blight metropolitan life - this is what Dickins so successfully evokes in his work, whilst also characterizing the irrepressible good-humour and unbreakable spirit of the English people. Although Great Britain commanded the largest and most powerful empire in the history of the world (this despite the loss of its 13 American colonies in 1783) during the 19th century, mainly because of the ‘class system’, life for the vast majority of Englishmen was desperately harsh.

The British Empire extended across one third of the globe, and its influence well beyond that. Furthermore, Britain dominated trade and financial institutions in every part of the world, and, by 1900, more than half the ships on the world’s oceans were British or from within the British Empire. Because of the hardships at home and the opportunities abroad in the British colonies, millions upon millions of Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen left the British Isles is search of a new life in the British colonies away from the smog-choked and poverty-stricken industrial cities of Great Britain, in such places as Australia, Canada, the British West Indies, South Africa, New Zealand, India, as well as the former British territory of the USA.

For those left at home in mother-England, indeed, "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times".

This Hollywood version of DAVID COPPERFIELD provides a fittingly magnificent tribute to Charles Dickens, a literary giant who continues to be one of the world’s most popular and best loved writers more than one hundred and thirty years after his death.

THE BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE STREET (UK/US 1956) movie * score ***

Elizabeth Barrett plans to marry the English poet Robert Browning, but her tyrannical father has other ideas. Awful remake of the fondly remembered 1934 Hollywood original, which starred the superb Norma Shearer, Fredric March and Charles Laughton in the three lead-roles. Although every effort is made to recreate the atmospherically snowy streets of Victorian London, this 1956 version of the famous romance suffers from a multitude of afflictions, not least the muddy colour and all-too-obviously-fake sets.

Worst of all is the casting. Jennifer Jones is hopeless as the ailing Elizabeth, and despite Sir John Gielgud's valiant efforts to transcend the appalling script, even he fails to impress as the obsessive father. The other big mistake that undermines this inferior British remake is that the emphasis is shifted away from the touching romance between Elizabeth and Robert and concentrates more on the Freudian father-daughter relationship.

REUNION IN FRANCE (US 1942) movie ***1/2 score ***1/2

Hugely entertaining and uplifting wartime propaganda starring Joan Crawford, who’s a tower of strength, as a wealthy Parisian who loses everything during the German occupation of the French capital in WWII. Philip Dorn co-stars as her French industrialist quisling fiancé, and John Wayne’s heroic RAF flyer rounds off the on-form leading players. There are notable performances also from the talented supporting cast, including Reginald Owen (a wonderful role), John Carradine, Albert Basserman, Howard Da Silva and Henry Daniell. Even Ava Gardner pops up in a bit part. The story provides a wonderful mixture of action, romance, thriller and soap opera, with a refreshing absence of cynicism and moralizing. Having said that, none of the movie’s trivialities and frivolities are allowed to undermine the deadly serious nature of the story, and as the movie progresses and the German stranglehold on France tightens, Crawford is seen to sacrifice her own freedom in an attempt to help Wayne escape back to London.

REUNION IN FRANCE is a superbly made and heartfelt Hollywood tribute to the courage and determination of the French and British people in their efforts to repel the German invader. Franz Waxman’s energizing score strikes the perfect note throughout the movie. The French national anthem forms the basis of the opening credits sequence as Waxman cleverly manipulates the famous theme - by turns the music is stirring, foreboding, tragic and passionate. Not only that, later on in the movie, Waxman underscores the heroic actions of the British agents with exciting variations on The British Grenadiers. When Waxman isn’t incorporating the well known anthems, his score is moody, exciting and atmospheric, just like the movie itself.

The great thing about REUNION IN FRANCE is its unflagging pace, constant shift in mood, ever-present fluidity, and satisfying plot twists and development. During most movies, there are usually varying periods of less interest, and sometimes one can be quite relieved when the final credits begin to roll. REUNION IN FRANCE isn’t like that. It’s one of those movies that you really don’t want to end, and not once did my interest in the proceedings begin to wane.

This really was wartime propaganda moviemaking at its best, and though such a story may seem utterly ridiculous from today’s perspective, at the time it provided just the right tonic for an apprehensive and war-weary public. The value of propaganda movies during the war cannot be over-emphasized, but morale-boosting propaganda wasn’t just restricted to movies and radio broadcasts. For instance, although the famous RAF dambuster raid, involving Barnes Wallis’s bouncing bomb, was of little practical importance and did little to damage the German war machine, the real value of the raid was in its massive morale-boosting effect on the peoples of Britain, nazi-occupied Europe and North America. The dambuster raid was seen as a moral victory, and did as much to lift the spirits of the British people as any other single action during WWII, apart from the Battle of Britain of course.

Anyway, whatever your taste in movies, I can thoroughly recommend REUNION IN FRANCE.

Mindless(?) fun. Probably the best film of the year (until LOTR)

THE GREAT ST TRINIANS TRAIN ROBBERY (UK 1966) movie *1/2 score **1/2

The anarchistic pupils of the infamous girls' school become involved with train robbers. Thanks to the large cast of excellent British comedy talent, headed by Frankie Howard and Dora Bryan, this fourth entry in the St Trinians series of movies is perhaps the least cringemaking of them all. Sir Malcolm Arnold supplies the efficient score.

MARY REILLY (US 1996) movie *1/2 score **1/2

Dull and uninspired version of Stevenson's classic 'Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde', which attempts to tell the story from the point of view of Jekyll's chambermaid. In its unsuccessful effort to 'modernize' the sensibilities of the characterizations and agenda, the story is starved of virtually every quality that made Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde a world-renowned parable of good versus evil, light versus dark and civility versus barbarism in the foggy streets of Victorian London.

Legendary British author Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is all about contrast, a vital quality that the Fredric March and Spencer Tracey Hollywood versions of the oft-told story loyally adhere to. MARY REILLY, however, is very much a movie of a single mood, that mood being down-beat. Although the intention of British director Stephen Frears may have been to create an atmosphere of bleakness and perhaps menace, the resulting 'feel' of the movie is merely one of blandness and unrelenting tedium.

Having said that, the foggy streets of Victorian London are atmospherically brought to life, and George Fenton's elegiac score is certainly in keeping with the movie's agenda. George Cole and Kathy Staff (Nora Batty from British television's Last of the Summer Wine) are certainly well-cast as the butler and cook, and Michael Gambon is appropriately menacing as Mary's drunken and violent father. But those are about the only good things you can say about this movie.

John Malkovich makes for a particularly insipid and listless Jeykll, and Julia Roberts is an irksome Mary Reilly. Not only is her Irish accent laughably inept, but her performance ranges from being inappropriate to wholly incompetent. Considering the 'horrific' nature of the Jekyll/Hyde story, it is a measure of the movie's failure to evoke the true nature of the tale when one considers that the only remotely frightening element of MARY REILLY is Glenn Close's madam, who's even less feminine than Lily Savage, and closely resembles an inebriated Charlton Heston in drag.

MARY REILLY would be quite amusing as a so-bad-it's-good movie if it wasn't so deadly dull, ponderously scripted, and soporifically slow. Indeed, the only good reason to watch MARY REILLY is to see Kathy Staff's expert practical demonstration of how to butcher and prepare a writhing 30-inch-long eel for the table - some very handy culinary hints there.

THE BARKLEYS OF BROADWAY (US 1949) movie *** score ***

Fred Astaire gives a remarkably accomplished light-comedy performance in this otherwise satisfactory musical, in which husband and wife Broadway musical stars bicker and quarrel at every turn, but love each other really. After a ten year hiatus, a rather past-it Ginger Rogers teams up with Astaire for the last time. In fact, Rogers was second choice to Judy Garland, who had to pull-out early on because of illness, a shame that, because Garland would probably have been far better playing Fred's obstreperous other 'arf.

Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy in this deft mixture of comedy, romance and music, not least Oscar Levant's wittily acerbic co-starring role as a Broadway musical composer. Not only does he turn in a fine 'comic' performance, he also gets to brilliantly perform on the piano, playing Khachaturian's Sabre Dance and Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1.

BONNIE SCOTLAND (US 1935) movie **1/2 score n/a

Following the death of Stan's grandfather, McLaurel and Hardy travel to Scotland to claim the former's inheritance, but end up joining the British Army and being stationed with a Scottish regiment at a remote fort on India's war-ravaged North-West Frontier. Although this is nowhere near Stan and Ollie's best, there are still some hilarious moments as the incompetent twosome help to foil an Indian uprising and become heroes of the British Empire.

CARVE HER NAME WITH PRIDE (UK 1958) movie *** score ***1/2

Viriginia McKenna stars as a British Secret Servicewoman posted to German-occupied France during WWII. Paul Scofield co-stars as a fellow British spy, and there is the usual roster of reliable British character actors in support, most notably Jack Warner as McKenna's understanding father, Sidney Taffler as her British Intelligence boss, Noel Willman as the sadistic nazi interrogator, Bill Owen, Victor Maddern and William Mervyn (for some reason dubbed with Geoffrey Keen's voice). Look out for Michael Caine and Nigel Hawthorne in bit-parts. William Alwyn supplies an emotionally fulfilling score.

It was quite refreshing to see Scofield cast in the male leading role. Much as I admire the work of John Mills, Denholm Elliot, Jack Hawkins, Trevor Howard, Dirk Bogarde and so on and on, they often tended to be a little too 'stiff upper lip' and stereotypically 'British'. Scofield's is a far more natural characterization, and is much more in keeping with the reality of the British people. Yes, there were many officers and men with cut-glass British accents and ramrod straight backbones, but there were just as many ordinary Joes who took life as it came, and yet were just as heroic as any 'dialectically superior officer'. I think this overwhelmingly 'stiff upper lip' characterization of the British in wartime movies has done much to colour the overseas audience's perception of the British people, and this is quite understandable.

Though CARVE HER NAME WITH PRIDE is one of hundreds of well-made British wartime dramas and action movies, as far as I'm concerned you can't get enough of them, for such movies provide a 'living' reminder of the supreme sacrifice that so many Britons (and the people of occupied Europe, the British Empire and the USA) made to protect the free world from the German aggressor.

And, just as importantly, this movie, much like 1950's similar ODETTE, highlights the commonplace use of humiliation, torture, mutilation and agonizingly slow murder of captured British and Allied intelligence men, European resistance fighters, and general prisoners of war, by the Germans, especially the Gestapo - this is to say nothing of the German persecution of its own Jewish and Roman Catholic populations. The same is true of the Japanese, but in a slightly differing way. Although both the German and Japanese use of torture and murder of prisoners was state-sanctioned and part of their 'make-up', many Japanese officers were especially sadistic in the way they violated and tortured tens of thousands of British and American POWs. Of course, there were many German and Japanese officers who were fair-minded and behaved honourably toward their POWs, but this went against the grain, and was certainly out of kilter with Hitler's blatant disregard of human rights and active support of the use of torture.

Ever since WWII, I have heard many people defend German and Japanese sadism and use of torture during WWII by saying that the British, Americans and French have also carried out numerous wartime atrocities and acts of brutality during their histories. To this I say, yes, there are British sadists, just as there are American, Russian and French sadists, but they are very much the exception. Although there were isolated incidents of sadism and barbarism carried out by British and American forces during WWII, German and Japanese atrocities were not only sanctioned by the state but were actively encouraged by their leaders.

To all those who are quick to attack the British Empire for being a genocidal mass-murder-machine, I say, yes, judging it with modern sensibilities, the British Empire was wrong. But, think how much worse it would have been if the Germans or Japanese had come to dominate the world as the British did in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Not only that, owing to Dutch decadence, French incompetence and Spanish disregard for the rights of the individual, almost any alternatiev to the British Empire would have been far worse in its consequence. Although the British were brutal in their use of scorched-earth tactics to overwhelm the Dutch during the South African Boer War (1899-1902), and were unbelievably savage and sadistic in their retribution after the Indian Mutiny (1857), and have often been foul and murderous in their persecution of the Irish, these instances are not the norm, and considering the scope of British global prominence during the past four hundred years, it is surprising that there were not many, many more instances of savagery than there actually are.

One only has to ask oneself why the Germans and Japanese provoked WWII. The simple answer is, they wanted to take over the world, and in doing so displace the cultures of existing nations and massacre or enslave those people they considered were inferior. And what of the British, our European allies and the Americans? One only has to consider how quickly we were willing to forgive the Germans and Japanese their warmongering ways. Even when the Germans and Japanese were defeated during WWII, the British and Americans didn't march into Germany, Austria, Finland and Japan and 'take over'. Yes, our forces occupied these nations for a time, but only to administer aid, by providing food, clothing and law enforcement. We didn't annihilate civilians, burn books, loot, rape, pillage and impose our culture as the Germans did, no, we helped restore the dignity and strength of the German people and indicted and fairly tried the perpetrators of war crimes in international courts. And further, the Western World ploughed money into Germany and Japan until they were back up on their feet again, thus Germany and Japan have once again become flourishing and successful independent nations.

Now, think of all of the innocent French, Dutch and British men, women and children who were killed or injured or lost loved ones during WWII. Think of how quickly they forgave their German cousins, that takes a special kind of courage.

EL CID (US/Spain 1961) movie *1/2 score **1/2

Moribund and interminable medieval epic starring Charlton Heston as a Spanish warrior who helps repel the Arabs from Iberia during the 11th century. Sophia Loren provides the love interest, Herbert Lom the villainy and Miklos Rozsa the customarily cumbersome 'epic' score. The movie is also burdened by extreme over-length and a cliché-ridden script weighed-down with juvenile profundity.

The largely British supporting cast performs adequately, especially Andrew Cruickshank, and, amusingly, not only does Sir Michael Hordern appear in the movie, but he also dubs the voice of another character. However, although the real Hordern and the Hordern-voiced character do appear in the same scene, they don't actually converse - would have been a bit confusing.

THE HAUNTING (US 1999) movie *1/2 score ***1/2

After a fairly promising opening fifteen, THE HAUNTING tends to fall apart at the seams. This movie's glaring faults are all the more obvious when the movie is compared with the seminal 1963 British original, a far superior movie.

Northern Irishman Liam Neeson stars as a psychologist who invites various human guinea pigs to an imposing New England mansion to study how they cope with fear. Considering the Neeson chatacter's expertise in the field of understanding fear, it is ironic that the filmmakers singularly failed to create one moment of spookiness during the movie's entire runtime. Catherine Zeta-Jones, Lili Taylor and Owen Wilson round off the main cast, with only the beautiful Welsh leading actress Zeta-Jones making any impact (before her character sinks into the background with the rest of the movie's potential interest). Neeson starts off okay, but he too quickly succumbs to the movie's lack of depth. Indeed, watching THE HAUNTING ends up being no more stimulating than watching someone play a computer game, such as 'Resident Evil'.

The movie does have a splendid 'look' however. Some extravagant sets complement the excellent exterior location work at Nottinghamshire's Harlaxton Manor, here in England. However, the initially impressive visual and sound effects are applied with a complete lack of imagination, and fail to merge properly with the live action. At one point, Neeson was stood six inches away from a giant animated eagle's talon, but looked as though he was casually staring through a window - that was typical of most of the scenes involving special effects.

Certainly, as the movie progressed, it simply got worse and worse with increasingly risible dialogue, wooden acting and some particularly inane plot development. And, most importantly, at no point was the movie in the least bit eerie.

Apart from Zeta-Jones, the best part of the movie was Jerry Goldsmith's score. Though hardly original, and dubbed-in at an unusually low level, Goldsmith's work easily transcended the material. With his work on THE HAUNTING the veteran composer was at last tapping some of the more successful elements of his repertoire, rather than repeating the stale and banal musical trademarks he seemed to be recycling endlessly during the period 1993 through 1998.

Goldsmith's main 'House' theme to the HAUNTING is an absolute gem, and successfully combines the ethereal warmth of the 'Cloud' music from STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE with the searing intensity of the main theme to BASIC INSTINCT – a nicely off-kilter calliope/fairground theme adds to the interest and diversity of the score's character. The rest of the score is almost invariably successful in its aims. Rumbling electronic ambience, romantic splendour, innocent string and woodwind segments, unearthly instrumental combinations (including celeste) all combine to create a richly romantic score that oozes with depth, subtlety, nuance and emotion. At times, the strings almost sing.

MR IMPERIUM (US 1951) movie * score **1/2

The pleasant baritone voice of Ezio Pinza is not enough to sustain this stilted and ponderous romantic musical. Lana Turner co-stars as the object of Pinza's desire, and there's a good supporting cast, including Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Debbie Reynolds and Barry Sullivan, but it's deadly.

ZIEGFELD FOLLIES (US 1946) movie *1/2 score **1/2

Considering the talent assembled for this lushly-produced compendium of music and comedy, ZIEGFELD FOLLIES is a surprisingly poor effort. Following his wonderful performance as Ziegfeld in 1936's superb THE GREAT ZIEGFELD, William Powell introduces this follow-up movie from 'heaven'. Unfortunately, such legends as Judy Garland, Lena Horne, Kathryn Grayson and Esther Williams are not seen (or heard) at anywhere near their best, and all of the comedy sketches are pretty dire; this despite some very talented performers, including Edward Arnold, Victor Moore, Red Skelton, Fanny Brice, Keenan Wynn, and Hume Cronyn. Still, this movie predates the Goons - so what do you expect?

Having said all of that, ZIEGFELD FOLLIES is somewhat redeemed by the presence of Fred Astaire. He appears in the three best song and dance segments - including his marvellous (and historic) teaming with Gene Kelly. Another excellent Astaire segment recreates London's Chinatown on a massive and intricate stage-set, complete with Bobbies, sailors, pearly kings, hookers and Limehouse taverns - oh, and fog, of course.

All in all though, ZIEGFELD FOLLIES is a resounding disappointment.

Speaking of The Goons, I just wanted to thank Howard for his nice little tribute to Sir Harry Secombe, who passed away April 12th, at his latest FSM 'Templeton' thread.

Apart from being a world-famous and versatile entertainer, Harry was also a genuinely nice bloke, and worked tirelessly promoting his charities right up 'til the dreaded C caught up with him a couple of years ago.

Personally speaking, despite all his work on stage and screen, I'll remember him best for his hilarious work on radio's pioneering Goon Show back in the '50s, along with Peter Sellers, Michael Bentine and Spike Milligan KBE. The Goon Show's anarchic and surrealist humour wasn't just usually very funny, it was also very influential. Indeed, up until that time, there'd been nothing quite like it.

MICHAEL COLLINS (US/UK/Ireland 1996) movie ***1/2 score ****1/2

This movie did not start promisingly. The opening statement, setting the time (1916) and place (Dublin) of the movie, described the British Empire as covering two-thirds of the globe. Now, although the British Empire was the largest and most powerful empire in the world's history, it wasn't that big, in actual fact it covered one-third of the globe, although its influence extended well beyond its borders, and the Royal Navy dominated all the world's oceans.

After this opening factual error, one could expect the rest of the movie to contain a vast catalogue of historical travesties. And, sure enough, we had the inclusion of a fictionally embellished love interest, played by Julia Roberts, we had car bombs before they had been invented, we had one of the IRA's leading protagonists being tortured and murdered by the British when in actuality he died peacefully in his bed in 1972, we had the British opening fire on hundreds of innocent football spectators when no such event occured, and we had distorted characterizations of the movie's central characters, Michael Collins (the founder of the IRA) and Eamon De Valera (the Spanish-American who would figure so prominently in Republican politics later in the century).

It always amuses me when people talk of BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT as being historically distorted pantomimes (which is of course true), but then claim MICHAEL COLLINS is pure historical fact. First of all, hard though it may be to believe, many people actually took BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT seriously. Secondly, just because MICHAEL COLLINS has the look of authenticity, it doesn't mean to say it is authentic. In fact, MICHAEL COLLINS contained just about as many historical inaccuracies as BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT, but MICHAEL COLLINS was a more serious movie. Whereas THE PATRIOT and BRAVEHEART were made for the sole purpose of entertaining, MICHAEL COLLINS went further, it was entertaining, but it also successfully conveyed a sense of time and place, motivation and emotion.

And that's where MICHAEL COLLINS succeeds, not in its fictional portrayal of actual events, but in the genuineness of its agenda and in its unromantic depiction of the terrorists and the Irish people as a whole. Any movie that depicts the events surrounding the Easter Uprising of 1916, and the events leading to the formation of the Republic of Ireland, is bound to show the British in a bad light. But, Neil Jordan's MICHAEL COLLINS, despite the liberties taken with fact, is about as even-handed as it can be.

Because of this, many IRA sympathisers have denounced Jordan's MICHAEL COLLINS, simply because it demonstrated that the civil war in Ireland was mainly fought between Irish Republicans and Irish Loyalists (Irishmen and Irish G-Men, most of whom were Catholic, commanded by British officers), and also that once the Irish Free State came into being in 1921, Ireland then saw the most fearsome battles and severe bloodshed in its history as Irishman fought Irishman over the republican issue.

Anyway, MICHAEL COLLINS is a very good movie. The photography is breathtaking, and the rain-soaked streets of early-20th century Dublin are beautifully recreated. The story is told with great efficiency, and no little style, and there are plenty of memorable performances along the way. Although Julia Roberts was rather poor in the invented love-interest role, Liam Neeson excels as Collins. Having been disappointed with most of his movie performances up to now, here he displays all those qualities that seemed to be lacking in ROB ROY, THE PHANTOM MENACE and THE HAUNTING, those qualities being charisma, strength of character, good humour, and believability. Alan Rickman steals the movie, however, as the duplicitous De Valera, Stephen Rea is impressive as a double-agent and Charles Dance is dominant in a small, but important role, as a doomed British Secret Service chief.

Many have not only criticised Roberts' weak performance as Kitty, but also the inclusion of her character in the movie, because they believe it was superfluous. I disagree with this criticism. Yes, Roberts was miscast, and her Irish accent was no better than it was in MARY REILLY, but the part of Kitty, although largely fictional, gave the movie a warm heart, and helped reinforce the fact that Collins wasn't a heartless killer, but a complex character driven by his desire to see a 'free Ireland'.

Another of MICHAEL COLLINS' assets, is its fabulous score, provided by Eliot Goldenthal. Instead of merely churning out clichéd pseudo-Irish folk music, he provided a stunning score, usually universal in sound and texture. However, he also judiciously incorporates Irish folk music elements, that help to draw the audience deep into the movie's agenda. This is movie-scoring of the first order, and, although the likes of Horner, Zimmer, Williams and Elfman would probably have provided excellent scores, I can't imagine them bettering Goldenthal's artistically genuine and expertly-complementary effort here. What is almost a given, is the likely inappropriateness of Jerry Goldsmith's work on projects such as these. Time and time again during the '90s, Goldsmith has proved himself to be a proficient scorer of simplistic and/or childish movies. Perhaps his work on the upcoming LAST ORDERS, set in London's East End, will prove me wrong. I sincerely hope so, but I'm not exactly optimistic. I await further Goldsmith developments with grim anticipation.

Another aspect to MICHAEL COLLINS that has come under fire, is the supposedly rather unsympathetic portrayal of Eamon De Valera. De Valera was born in 1882 New York to a Spanish father and an Irish mother. He went on to become the principle player in Irish politics during the 20th century. However, his portrayal in MICHAEL COLLINS was pretty much spot on. He was duplicitous and he was self-serving, and he had a burning desire to become Ireland's president, at any cost. The fact is, De Valera is quite deserving of scorn, not only from the British, but also from the Irish themselves.

During WWII, De Valera officially declared Ireland neutral - he even rejected Churchill's offer of unifying all Ireland as an independent country in return for Ireland's support for Britain and her allies against the German aggressor. Indeed, behind the scenes De Valera was a nazi sympathizer, and even invited Hitler to use Ireland to build up arms and bases. The Germans declined, knowing that at the time, British forces would have easily occupied Ireland. What's worse, Sinn Fein and the IRA are infamous for their anti-Semitism, and Judaism was not even recognized in Ireland until 1937. And, during WWII, De Valera allowed only 60 Jewish refugees into Ireland, compared with the tens of thousands that Britain welcomed. To rub salt in the wound, at the end of WWII, De Valera paid his respects to Hitler's memory, three days after the dictator's suicide.

Having said all that, 'Irish' neutrality was no reflection of the general attitude of the Irish people during the war, and, indeed, to present day. Apart from the fact that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain with Britain, at the time of southern Ireland's independence, most of the Irish people south of the border were quite content with British rule. Although Ireland's leaders may have remained 'neutral' during WWII, many, many Irishmen joined the British Army against Germany. Indeed, right up to present day, many Irishmen of the republic serve in the British Army....and let's not forget, there are more Irishmen living in England than there are in the Republic of Ireland itself, including myself. Whilst we love Ireland dearly, we are also proud to be part of Great Britain - to any true Irishman, the two go hand in hand.

MICHAEL COLLINS was a box office flop, which is disappointing considering the movie's many outstanding qualities. Interestingly, whilst many IRA sympathizers couldn't bear to see such an even-handed reconstruction of Collins' story, some British people viewed the movie as being anti-British. I don't think it was actively anti-British at all. As I said before, any accurate representation of the events surrounding the Easter Uprising would be necessarily anti-British to a certain extent - MICHAEL COLLINS wasn't gratuitously so.

Having said that, one can be forgiven for thinking that there is an ant-British slant in Hollywood movies today - this despite the increasing amount of British talent working in Hollywood. Furthermore, I think it is true that the only acceptable racism today is to be anti-British, or, more specifically, anti-English. This is understandable, considering England's world-dominance over the past four hundred years. Not only has English influence extended to all parts of the globe via the British Empire, but most of the great political philosophies and technological advances that have shaped the modern world originated here in England. You often find that anti-English sentiment is born out of 'sour grapes' and is merely a form of envy of Britain's historic achievements. Indeed, especially Irish anti-English sentiment, is due to an inferiority complex on behalf of the Irish. Because of all these factors, the English are quite comfortable with the fact that it is 'okay' to be anti-British - indeed, such anti-English feeling is commonly viewed as a compliment.

Certainly, in recent years, Hollywood has made an increasing number of movies that actively distort history to the disadvantage of the British. THE PATRIOT is perhaps the most obvious example, which told the fictional anti-British story of an American officer in the War of Independence, Francis Marion, who fights a 'brilliant' guerilla war against the 'evil' British 'invaders'. When the movie's historians discovered that in real life Marion raped his slaves and hunted North American Indians for sport they changed his name to Benjamin Martin. In any case, the vast majority of 'Americans' at that time, including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and so on, were British anyway.

To many people living in the UK, the list of films depicting the British as villains is now so long as to amount to a virtual declaration of war on England by the geographically small but globally powerful Los Angeles suburb of Hollywood.

I must say that, although the toffee-nosed Brits in such movies as Pocohontas are harmless caricatures, the British officers in TITANIC are portrayed as battening down the steerage class hatches, thereby deliberately trying to murder the happy, 'jig-dancing' Irish folk below - some of these patronising Irish characterizations were an insult to my countrymen. In much the same way, many Scotsmen were repulsed by BRAVEHEART.

Of course, British actors love playing the 'bad guy'; they know that the bad guys often have the best parts, but many ask, is this not an insidious form of genuine racism at work here, something that Britons have hitherto been far too indulgent to complain about?

Larry Mark, producer of Jerry Maguire, is explicit about what is going on. "The villains used to be the Germans, the Japanese or the Russians", he admits, "but they protested. If the English get a bad rap they can take it." - and I think that reflects my own opinion perfectly.

Anyway, there are plenty of heroic roles for British actors these days, Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman, Daniel Day-Lewis, Ewan McGregor and many other British actors seem to be doing just fine, and get to play a wide range of characters, villainous and heroic.

Nevertheless, when movies such as THE DEVILS OWN provoke comments from some naive Americans on leaving the cinema, such as, "Those fu*kin' British. I do hate them a lot." "God, I hate Thatcher." "The way they speak, the way they act - I hate the British", I believe a line must be drawn somewhere. Of course, anyone who actually lives in Great Britain and Ireland will know that the situation is far more complex than such movies as THE DEVILS OWN would have the audience believe, and any naiveté on behalf of American audiences is largely understandable and to be expected. However, in Britain and America incitement to racial hatred is illegal, but that does not seem to apply to movies such as THE DEVILS OWN that are ludicrously biased against the British. Still, the catalogue of inaccuracies and sheer invention of events in THE DEVILS OWN even had co-star Brad Pitt denouncing its pro-IRA bias. Indeed, the New York Post described the film as 'an eloquent apology for murderous terrorism', and the former Irish foreign minister, Conor Cruise O'Brien explained how such a distorted film could have been released by saying, "In the structure of the American movie industry there is a large Irish-American lobby which is basically pro-IRA. Any film which depicted the IRA overall unfavourably would run into trouble at the box office."

Part of the reason for much of the perceived anti-British bias in American movies is that although America has its vocal and politically-motivated minority racial groups - Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Native-Americans, Hispanics, the term British-American is not in use, even though the vast majority of Americans are just that - it's a given, but is taken so much for granted that people tend to lose sight of the fact.

It is easy to explain psychologically why in film after film the British Empire is depicted as genocidal and grossly exploitative, when in fact it was neither. It is partly because with their own record of killing 12 million American Indians and supporting slavery for four decades after the British abolished it, some American filmmakers wish to project their own historical guilt onto someone else. In the process they also try to grab the glory for British Second World War triumphs, with such movies as U-571 which deliberately denies the British role in crucial theatres of the war.

With the tremendous boom at the cinema, British and American schoolchildren learn a greater and greater proportion of history from movies. Yet most of the ones Hollywood currently produces seriously misrepresent the motivations and achievements of our British forefathers.

Fifty years ago, George Orwell wrote, "England is the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality." In a few years time, if these Hollywood bastardizations of history continue to be made, many believe it will not just be intellectuals but ordinary Britons (and Americans) who will have been conned into feeling entirely unwarranted shame about Britain's past.
After seeing Neeson turn in a fine performance as Michael Collins, I'm very much looking forward to his next big movie, Martin Scorsese's GANGS OF NEW YORK, which stars Leonardo DiCaprio, with Neeson playing an Irish priest (shades of Pat O'Brien perhaps?). The story is set in the mid-1800s, and involves the native white Anglo-Saxon New Yorkers conflicting with the newly arriving Italian immigrants. It's great to see so many fine British actors in the cast list that will help give the 19th Century New York setting some authenticity. It will be interesting to see how biased the movie will be against the British-American New Yorkers, considering DiCaprio is the hero of the movie. Despite what the movie's tag-lines might be trying to tell us, New York was not the most violent place in the world in the mid-19th century, not by a long chalk.

One of the excellent English cast members of GANGS OF NEW YORK is Jim Broadbent, who really is carving out a fine niche for himself in Hollywood, and back home in England at the moment. He also appears in the critically acclaimed BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY, yet another Anglo-American co-production that is expected to do very well on both sides of the Atlantic.

Based on all of this evidence, I believe any notion that Hollywood is generally anti-British is somewhat misplaced. But, if one does feel somewhat aggrieved at any perceived anti-English sentiment in Hollywood movies, my best advice is, take it on the chin. And remember, no matter how hard some Hollywood producers may try to diminish British achievement in their movies, they can't change history.

THE SANDPIPER (US 1965) movie **1/2 score ****

British Hollywood superstars Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton team up for the umpteenth time in this initially engaging, but ultimately disappointing, 'symbolic drama'. Set in California, Taylor tries to shield her ten-year-old son from civilization, but is forced to send him to Burton's reform school. After some initial antagonism, the two engage in a passionate affair, and it's only a matter of time before Burton's wife, played by Eva Marie Saint finds out.

The problem with THE SANDPIPER is, it almost grinds to a halt during its final third. However, although Taylor is, as usual, only mediocre, Burton turns in a wonderfully sensitive performance, very much in the same mould as Sir Anthony Hopkins. Most of the rest of the cast is great too, particularly Robert Webber and Torin Thatcher, but Charles Bronson is somewhat miscast as a beatnik.

THE SANDPIPER's symbolic story and scripting is interesting, up to a point. But, apart from Burton's marvellously understated performance, the movie's best attributes are the superb Californian locations, and Johnny Mandell's wonderful scoring. The famous theme-song, 'The Shadow of Your Smile', won an Oscar.

Watched the DVD letterboxed Jet Pilot. Absolutely stunning visuals of 50s jets in flight & Bronislau Kaper scoring as well. The young Janet Leigh all breasts and legs is HOT! Unfortunately, the script and the chemistry between Leigh and John Wayne is not.

DEADFALL (UK 1968) movie * score *

Comically inept thriller starring Sir Michael Caine as a cat burglar who falls for the wife of his homosexual partner (Eric Portman). DEADFALL is unrelentingly dull, thanks largely to the childishly pretentious scripting, John Barry's tediously derivative and intrusive scoring, and Bryan Forbes' painfully gimmicky direction.

Apart from Caine's mildly amusing presence, this film offers not one good reason to watch it. It is very unfortunate that Portman's wonderful screen career should end with this barrel-scraping rubbish. If anyone is still wondering why the British Film Industry declined so precipitously during the late-'60s, DEADFALL provides a compelling reason.

April 18th (midnight)(2001)

WHAT LIES BENEATH?(2000)
Movie ***1/2 Score ***1/2
Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer
Music: Alan Silvestri
Director: Robert Zemekis

Phew!! Just watched this movie last night for the first time on DVD, and boy did it give me the creeps!! I made the big mistake of watching this on a 6 x 6 feet (2 x 2m) screen, on my own and at midnight! I have to say that I dont think I've jumped out of my skin so many times in the first hour of any movie as much as this one and also have a feeling of such tension building up...it got to the stage where I was looking behind me nervously at any strange creak or sound in the room. I have to say Silvestri's score was incredibly chilling in the film and also gave me quite a few shocks when it suddenly came in full blast in 5:1 Dolby (I was wearing headphones too!!) The music was used in a similar style to "The Sixth Sense" in my opinion and both films had the same feeling and atmosphere in them. The End Titles music was also very similar to the "Prelude" music of "Psycho" which seemed to be a bit of an homage in some way...also there was the bath/shower connection to both movies. The great thing about this film is that it didn't rely too heavily on the usual CGI effects and was all the better for it....the suspense and fear of most of the film was in the viewer's imagination. Anyway, after feeling for a long time that horror films dont scare me anymore, I take my words back after seeing this movie...it gave me the creeps like nothing else recently. Well done Silvestri for writing such a chilling score and Zemekis for being such a great director. Gae NP Legends of the Fall

The one star is for the great camera shots and photo.

So basically Kross, if when you read the above elements (particular to me and my viewing of this movie) and you can understand a bit better my feelings for the film, then great! If not, and you still dont understand my reaction then I feel sorry for some-one who is so de-sensitized to things around him and cant experience the kind of feelings that obviously this movie was meant to evoke. I mean, come on, it sure isn't a romantic comedy or a cuddly-wuddly family drama is it? Gae

I also live in the countryside, kind of.

I saw the film in the theater with my girlfriend when it first came out, I did not want to see it, but she did, and we had to be gone for a few hours since the car was being worked on so we saw it. We both hated it. She liked the simple shocks like any other film of its kind, but we both agreed that it was completely lame. I also find ghost stories to be the scariest form of anything out there. Yet WLB was not even a scary ghost story. I knew the ghost was not hostile, the world knew. The ghost was a joke! 6th, was not scary at all. What is scary, a jump? Or a thought that creeps into your mind and will not let you go? 6th and WLB are neither mental nor physical masterpieces, but rather mainstream SHOCK films that make for silly fun, although I tend to hate them now.

WLB was an obvious film. What is scary about it when you know something is going to happen? With obvious plot, and obvious everything, WLB is not truly a psycho thriller, rather a dull simple yet another addition to the every few month shock films that hollywood spits out.

A good ghost story, one in a normal home. Not a rich house where there seems to be stupid ties between the ghost and the people, but when in a simple home. Poltergiest is a great example. I do not find those films scary...but THEY COULD BE. I guess I will have to make the ultimate ghost story and put all of this crap to shame in the future. I am just sick of films like WLB. Nothing new, everything old. What's new? Nothing.

There was a great tv movie on fox back in the early 90s that had great potential but turned out rather cheasy. That film being The Haunted I believe it was called. Where a simple family of four is being terrorized by a number of ghosts, and a demon in their new home. It was good for what it was. If it was done right, as a film, with the right people, it could have been great. It freaked me out, seeing that black ball sounding like a vacum from hell floating through the walls, and evil wispering at the ears of sleeping normal folk. It seemed real enough, and could have been great. WLB was a joke. It was only decent because a man with an eye for good camera angles was behind the camera, not a man with an eye for good films. Zemeckis has gone straight down to 0 in my eyes.

MEN OF HONOR it had to be. This is the true story of Carl Braesher, the first Afro-American to triumph as a diver in the Marines, despite his colour and a later crippling accident.

I found it certainly watchable in an old-fashioned kind of way, but its oh-so-noble jaw-jutting scenes are dangerously close to parody. You Brits will probably remember "The Comic Strip Presents...", and if so, you get an idea of what MEN OF HONOR feels like.

Cuba Gooding Jr is the star, but I imagine that most people will go to see Robert De Niro. Is De Niro making too many films? He's fast running out of new faces to put on, and if he continues like this we won't be able to call him "chamelionic" for much longer. As for Charleze Theron, she has a bit of a thankless role as De Niro's chain-smoking, hard-drinking wife. Poor Charleze: she can look sweet and lovely, but increasingly less so these days.

It's a fair enough film, but, as I said, the heroic aspects are sometimes embarrassing, and the complexity of the De Niro character is a shade underdeveloped. Nice parallels made between the two main roles though.

WHITE MISCHIEF (UK/Kenya 1987) movie **** score ****1/2

The wild sexual and political shenanigans of the infamous ranch-owning 'happy valley' set are brought vividly to life in this thoroughly successful screen adaptation of James Fox's excellent novel. Set in British East Africa during WWII, WHITE MISCHIEF succeeds as a movie for a variety of reasons, not least as an appropriate symbol of the British Empire's general decline during the late 1930's and 1940's.

Unlike most movies dealing with the British colonial era, WHITE MISCHIEF is an authentic representation of life within the British Empire.....the drugs, booze, orgies, greed, promiscuity, lust, jealousies, decadence, revenge and the exploitation of the indigenous peoples are uncompromisingly depicted, and, quite properly, the jingoistic and heroic myths that usually bedeck such movies are refreshingly absent. And, most importantly, the depiction of the British people themselves is far more accurate.....the foppish, crypto-homosexual Englishman of American movie-making fantasy is replaced by the driven, tough and often cynical Briton that is reality. The women too, are depicted as hard-as-nails and intelligent manipulators, rather than the pale-faced shrinking violets of Hollywood make-believe.

The story itself, based on fact, focuses on the philandering of a British officer, Lord Erroll (superbly played by Charles Dance), and his subsequent murder......in reality his slaying became one of the most famous crimes of the British Empire. The movie is crammed full of incident, as well as being tremendously involving, you really feel drawn into the movie, thanks largely to the authenticity of the characters and scripting. A superb cast brings each character to life, Joss Ackland is at his best as the distraught husband who agonisingly watches his young wife (a gorgeous Greta Scacchi) fall for the charms of Lord Erroll. John Hurt, Trevor Howard, Hugh Grant, Geraldine Chaplin are also notable amongst the strong British supporting cast. Sarah Miles is particularly impressive as a promiscuous 'former-love' of the recently deceased Erroll. One particularly moving and poignant scene has many of Erroll's female conquests congregating around his dead body in the mortuary. Overcome with grief, Miles rubs her quim and then places her fingers on the rigor mortised Erroll's lips....a tremendously powerful symbol of grief and yearning.

George Fenton's wonderful score successfully mirrors the wistful 'End of Empire' atmosphere of the movie, indeed, one can point to Fenton's 'period jazz' score as being instrumental in creating WHITE MISCHIEF's mood and character. And, for once, the movie maintains its mesmerizing and haunting ambience right up to the devastating climax.

THE 13TH WARRIOR (US 1999) movie * score ****

THE TRUTH ABOUT SPRING (UK 1964) movie * score *1/2

THE ALPHABET MURDERS (UK 1965) movie **1/2 score ***

THE IRON GIANT (US 1999) movie **1/2 score **1/2

POSTMAN'S KNOCK (UK 1962) movie ½ score *