Netflix And Chill: Mr. Harrigan's Phone (2022)

Written and directed by John Lee Hancock, adapting a short story by Stephen King, Mr. Harrigan's Phone feels like the kind of film that would result from, well, John Lee Hancock adapting a short story by Stephen King. He is helped by excellent casting, and I have seen many people already happy with what they view as a fairly faithful adaptation of the story (I haven't yet read that short story collection, "If It Bleeds", yet, despite my love of King's work), but it's a thriller/horror movie that is best described as perfunctory.

Jaeden Martell plays Craig, a young man who ends up making some pocket money by reading books to the titular Mr. Harrigan (played by Donald Sutherland). Mr. Harrigan is a rich businessman, with a potentially murky past that is only hinted at, and he enjoys the company of Craig. The two become friends, and when a scratchcard gift from Mr. Harrigan gives Craig a windfall of $3000, he decides to treat the older man to a mobile phone. Although he isn't initially thrilled by the device, Mr. Harrigan soon learns to appreciate his phone, for the information it can supply him and the "hotline" to Craig. It becomes such a prized possession that, during the sad time when Mr. Harrigan dies, Craig slips the phone into his inside pocket during the wake. And then Craig starts to receive text messages from . . . Mr. Harrigan.

I'll start discussing more about the film by praising the cast. Martell is very good, believably sweet without seeming overly precious, and Sutherland has one of his best roles in some time. Joe Tippet is a decent movie dad, Kirby Howell-Baptiste is a kind teacher, Ms. Hart, who becomes another friend to Craig, and Cyrus Arnold is entertainingly unpleasant as a towering school bully. The cast are really the best thing about this.

Aside from assembling a great cast, the other good thing that Hancock does is present a tale that you can tell contains the voice of King running through it. The dead parent, the magical bond of friendship shown, the school bully, the coming-of-age aspect, these are all elements that King often uses in a very King way, and there's a comforting familiarity here that you often feel when reading his work. That also works against it though, because this is too nice to be scary or upsetting. Hancock seems to be unwilling to make any artistic choice that could improve the material from the page to the screen, which is a shame. This could have been turned into something more impactful, a story that shows Craig struggling to get the genie back in the bottle or struggling even more to just let go/deal with loss. The latter is the focus of the film, but that's easy to forget as it spends the second half dealing with the fact that Craig realises he has access to a power that can help him get revenge on people who have spent too much of their life avoiding punishment for their misdeeds.

Although supernatural, and with scenes that touch on a backstory that is never fully explored (disappointingly), Mr. Harrigan's Phone is much more in line with the more emotionally-affecting works from Stephen King than any of his scarefests. It's about dealing with grief, Craig and his father are on their own after the untimely the death of his mother, and about the good consequences that can come from people who have done bad things. While others suffer, Craig has his life inexorably changed for the better by his friendship with Mr. Harrigan. Despite some interesting elements, it falls between two stools, failing to be enjoyably spooky while subsequently also failing to be as moving as any of King's better work.

This isn't bad. I've already seen comments from many people who enjoyed it more than I did. I just didn't think it was very good.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Puppet Masters (1994)

Although very similar to The Body Snatchers, The Puppet Masters is actually based on a Robert A. Heinlein book that came along a few years before Jack Finney's seminal work. It's a fun film, but also one that is very much a product of its time, that being the early to mid-'90s, when The X-Files had made us all aware of how government agencies move in and deal with potential alien threats.

Things start moving pretty quickly, with head guy Andrew Nivens (Donald Sutherland), and agents Sam, who is also his son (played by Eric Thal), Mary (Julie Warner), and Jarvis (Richard Belzer) among the first to investigate some strange events in a small town. It's an alien invasion, with the little parasitic creatures attaching themselves to people and controlling them, making them part of a hive mind. In a race to stop the little buggers from taking over the world, Andrew and co. have to find out exactly how they work, and find out what is the most effective weapon against them. Because once they attach to a host, removing them can be a very tricky, and life-threatening, operation.

Written by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, a successful writing duo who went on to craft a number of massive box office hits, The Puppet Masters also had many other people trying to help finalise the script, including director Stuart Orme and David S. Goyer. The script remains weak, certainly in a middle act that moves between familiar “body hopping” moments and attempts to explain the full M. O. of the creatures, but it still has enough fun contained within it to keep things just about entertaining enough in between the more exciting story beats.

Helped by a cast that also includes Keith David, Yaphet Kotto, Will Patton, and some other familiar faces, Orme gives viewers something that absolutely, for better or worse, plays out like a feature-length TV episode of something from this time (as well as The X-Files, you also had Dark Skies and First Wave, the latter two shows coming along after this film). Basically, if you like that aesthetic then you will find enough to like here. The look of the whole thing is quite flat, but there are some decent practical effects, although some aren’t so decent, and plenty of people in suits looking serious and commanding soldiers to contain/destroy a major threat. 

Sutherland is very good in his role, and he provides a connective tissue between this and a previous incarnation of Finney’s tale (thanks to his work in the ‘70s version, consciously or subconsciously helping people to forget THIS is actually Heinlein’s story), but he’s left a little bit out on his own in scenes that have him working with Thal and Warner. It isn’t that Thal and Warner are terrible, although they are sorely hampered by the script here, but they don’t have an ounce of Sutherland’s charisma and presence.

One of many films that fares better in your memory than it does on a full rewatch, The Puppet Masters is a lightweight bit of sci-fi horror entertainment. It just isn’t half as good as most of the films that adapt this kind of material.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Ad Astra (2019)

Is it sheer coincidence that exactly twenty years ago Brad Pitt played a man who commanded an army of "space monkeys"and now, in Ad Astra, he has a moment in which he actually encounters a space monkey? It probably is, but I like to think not. Because while Fight Club (which featured Pitt as Tyler Durden and his space monkeys) delved into the recesses of a dangerous and destructive mind, Ad Astra takes viewers on a journey that shows part of what it takes to keep exploring the further outreaches of our universe. Captain Marvel may have been sold with the tagline "Higher. Further. Faster." but the same applies here.

Pitt is an astronaut named Roy McBride, and a damn fine one at that. Nothing really phases him, as we hear near the start of the movie when those appraising his health comment on how low his heart rate remains, even in more stressful times. He's divorced, explaining this to others with a resigned acknowledgement that his job is not an easy one on anyone who would be waiting at home for him, and has no strong connection to anyone, so it would seem, which makes him an ideal candidate for a mission that involves him travelling to try and contact his father (Tommy Lee Jones), an astronaut assumed dead many years ago when no further communication was received from him.

Starting with a huge power surge, the main event that serves as the motivator for the main mission, Ad Astra then settles in to what it ultimately is. It's the thoughts of a man pushing himself, both physically and mentally, in order to discover what else lies out there in our universe, be that answers we have been seeking for centuries or nothing. There's a possibility that the only thing beyond the stars is more space. A void. Which would then serve as a reminder that there are many journeys we can all make on our home planet, within our own minds and bodies.

Director James Gray, who also co-wrote the script with Ethan Gross, wants to deliberately slow things down. Space travel, especially over the kind of distances shown here, is often imagined as sleek and quick and easy. But it's really not. It's a long time spent waiting, often alone with your thoughts and the vastness of space around you. Moments of crisis may punctuate the relative monotony, but even those aren't film-friendly crescendos. They are emergencies only until things are stabilised, and then it's business as usual. The film reflects this, locking viewers in with Pitt's character, he is still for many sections of the film and we hear his thoughts in voiceover narration, but it also realises the environments with some top-notch CGI.

Although you get decent supporting turns from Ruth Negga, Donald Sutherland, and Jones, of course, this film rests very much on the shoulders of Pitt and, in much the same way he has been stealthily and steadily improving with almost every movie he's done in his career, it's a superb central performance. The film may still be too slow and ponderous for some, and perhaps Gray realised that such a different look at the stars would need a major star at the centre of everything. What better surface to show reflected starlight on than a different kind of starlight.

Two main sequences disappoint, one at the halfway mark and some beats during the third act, but, overall, Ad Astra is a welcome slice of intelligent sci-fi that shows how much outer space can relate to our deepest inner space.

7/10

You will be able to buy the movie here.
And American sci-fi fans may enjoy this book.

Filmstruck Friday: Klute (1971)

Donald Sutherland plays John Klute, a detective who is hired to try and trace the whereabouts of a missing man. The only clue he has are some rude letters to a New York prostitute (Bree Daniels, played by Jane Fonda). As Klute tries to make progress with the case, he becomes more closely connected to Bree, wandering further into her world and finding out more about a woman who has spent most of her time maintaining a barrier between herself and anyone around her.

Written by Andy and Dave Lewis, this is a film that is part detective story and part character study. Despite the main character, and some enjoyably frank conversations about sex and why people shouldn't feel asahmed about doing something they enjoy so much, it's not made to be any kind of erotic thriller. It's simply a detective story that looks at some very different attiitudes to sex while bringing together two main characters who seem to be polar opposites of one another. That's not to say that the content lacks any kind of sexual frisson, not at all. Every time Fonda is onscreen there's an aura emanating from her frankness and confidence that perfectly shows why her character would be so greatly desired by her clientele.

Director Alan J. Pakula, a man with one hell of an impressive directorial filmography to check out, allows viewers to get lost in the midst of this potential blossoming relationship. We spend an awful lot of time watching Fonda go about her day, either speaking to her therapist or shopping or being with clients, and then see the immediate comparison to Sutherland's much quieter character. Despite his name being used as the title of the movie, Klute is always secondary to Bree, and the main detective strand is always secondary to the exploration of the different attitudes of the leads.

In case you couldn't tell already, both Sutherland and Fonda are fantastic. The latter is the definite highlight but it's unfair to completely overlook how well Sutherland does in an atypically understated performance. Elsewhere, Charles Cioffi does okay in a small role and Roy Scheider adds another great role to his roster (I am slightly embarrassed that I only ever knew him from the masterpiece that is Jaws for a number of decades).

Falling slightly between the likes of Chinatown and Blow Up, with a dash of onscreen self-awareness and self-analysis that would suit a character in a Woody Allen movie, Klute is not a film you should be overly concerned with categorising. You should just seek it out and find out why so many others have already heaped lots of praise upon it. Disappointing finale aside, this is well worth your time.

8/10

Klute can be bought here.
And I am sure other places have it, but I don't see many opportunities. Click the link and buy whatever you like, it all works for me.

Don't Look Now (1973)

Don't Look Now has always been THAT film for me. A much-loved classic that I just don't get. Yet, unlike some other movies that I disagree with people on, this is a film that contains many individual aspects that impress me. It just, somehow, doesn't come together in a way that makes it the modern classic many others view it as.

Most people are familiar with the plot, and many will already know the ending, but I'll still try to keep things as spoiler-free as possible. Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie play John and Laura Baxter, a couple who spend the majority of the movie in shock and prolonged mourning after the sudden death of their young daughter, Christine. In Venice, because that's where John's work has taken them, they start to experience some strange visions, perhaps portents or perhaps messages from the spirit of Christine.

Based on a story by Daphne Du Maurier, Don't Look Now may have a decent script by Alan Scott and Chris Bryant, but it's very much a film with the fingerprints of director Nicolas Roeg all over it. That's unsurprising, considering what a unique and daring artist Roeg is. All of his movies tend to benefit from masterful editing, unflinching observation of people in bad situations, and scenes that mix grit and darkness with a strange beauty. All of these things are present and correct here.

The editing, in particular, needs to be mentioned again while praising the many plus points that the movie has. One of the most famous sex scenes in cinema history is contained in this film, and it's made all the more brilliant because of the intercutting between the actual lovemaking and the afterglow present in the characters as we watch them getting ready for an evening out. The same technique is used in other sequences, always allowing the events unfolding onscreen to have a bit more impact, thanks to the juxtaposition of imagery and/or excess of visual stimuli being put forward for the viewer.

Sutherland and Christie are both good enough in their lead roles, with the latter being the more believable and enjoyable of the two. Sutherland is saddled with more of the histrionics, and I won't blame him for some of the problems with the script (his overreaction to certain events, for example). Hilary Mason and Clelia Matania certainly spice up the proceedings, playing two elderly sisters who could have wandered straight in from any Lucio Fulci movie. There are many other supporting players, including Massimo Serato, Renato Scarpa and Adelina Perio, but few make much of an impression (except the latter).

See? I can't put my finger on too much that I really want to criticise. The film manages to capture a sense of grief and loss that practically emanates from every frame, and at the same time it reminds viewers of how much worse a situation can seem when you're in a foreign country without the language knowledge required to understand most conversations. And there's another great score from Pino Donaggio. It's a very good film, in many ways, but then it just has so much that doesn't feel either relevant, effective or tense, including a number of scenes in the final third. While it may be unfair to label it in such a way, it has never fully worked for me as a horror movie. I've never found it to be all that atmospheric or unnerving.

Certainly worth your time, and you may well find yourself agreeing with the many people who LOVE it. But it will never be one of my favourites.

7/10

Get this version, for the best picture and sound (to my knowledge) - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dont-Look-Now-Special-Blu-ray/dp/B004EMS034/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1411735005&sr=1-2&keywords=don%27t+look+now

Sci-Fi September: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978)

There are lots of people who love Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. They will tell you that it's one of the best remakes ever. I am not one of those people, although I DO really like the film.

Taking the classic plot, adapted from the book by Jack Finney, this interpretation of the material stars Brooke Adams and Donald Sutherland as the two main humans who stumble upon a subtle alien invasion. People are being copied, with bodies born and developed while the original human being sleeps, and the only indication that anything is majorly different comes from a lack of emotion. Can these two people, accompanied by some scared friends, inform the general public and put a stop to everything before it's too late? Or will they witness the development of a very different kind of i-Pod generation?

Directed by Philip Kaufman, there's no denying that this version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers mixes the familiar elements of the plot with a number of touches that cement it firmly in the time it was made, the late '70s. Paranoia and cynicism were both running rife at this point. It was, in many ways, similar to the atmosphere of the '50s, which is probably why both versions work so well as two movies that are the same but different (if you know what I mean).

The screenplay by W. D. Richter doesn't waste much time, and builds everything beautifully towards a tense finale. Details are sprinkled liberally throughout every major scene that shows just how the invasion is supposed to move forward, and the science of the process feels much more scarily realistic, and visceral, than it did in the original movie. It's just a shame, however, that a lot seems to happen in such a short space of time, making the third act something of a foregone conclusion once viewers see the rapid exponential growth of the problem.

Adams and Sutherland are both excellent in their lead roles, with both offering believable performances as they stumble upon one oddity after another and eventually piece everything together. They're joined, for part of the movie, by Veronica Cartwright and Jeff Goldblum, who also do some great work. And then there's Leonard Nimoy, a suitable inclusion for two main reasons. One, he's a sci-fi icon. Two, he's best known for playing a character who doesn't show any emotion, making his role both ironic and nicely ambiguous (because it's hard to watch Nimoy onscreen and not still think of him as Spock, a character he will always be so thoroughly intertwined with). Art Hindle plays Adams' husband, and does solid work with his relatively small role.

While the special effects may not be up there with the likes of The Thing, The Fly and other great sci-fi horrors that would appear in the next decade, they're quite impressive. Used sparingly, the practical work is as life-like as it needs to be, without ever being given too much time in the spotlight. This isn't an FX showcase - they serve the story, and that's all (although, for those who have already seen it, there's one detail in the final half hour that remains one of the most enjoyably bizarre ever included in any version of the material).

There's so much to like here that I feel slightly guilty for not liking it quite as much as most sci-fi horror fans. Hell, the Kevin McCarthy cameo alone gives it a bonus point. Yet I just can't help yearning for the simpler, more streamlined execution of the story that we got with the original version. This film doesn't necessarily feel bloated, but the layering added throughout detracts slightly from the beautiful simplicity of the core premise.

Already enjoyed by so many, be sure to give this one a watch if you've missed it up until now. Or people may point at you and make strange noises.

8/10

http://www.amazon.com/Invasion-Snatchers-Collectors-Donald-Sutherland/dp/B000QQJ3Q0/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1410500929&sr=1-3&keywords=invasion+of+the+body+snatchers

Although anyone with multi-region capabilities should really go with the Arrow Bluray release.

You know what you can do if you liked this review, or any of the other reviews here at For It Is Man's Number? Yes, you can buy my e-book, that has almost every review I've written over the past 5 years. It's packed full of gems (the movies, not the actual writing - hey, I know my limits) and very reasonably priced for the sheer amount of content.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

Die! Die! My Darling! AKA Fanatic (1965)

One of the more bizarre, and therefore more interesting, movies to be released under the Hammer name, Die! Die! My Darling! feels a bit like something you'd expect to see if Pete Walker and Sergio Martino decided to work together on a movie that then had all of the nudity and bloodshed removed. It's often very stylish, it contains a roster of strange and memorable characters, and most of the highlights revolve around aspects of passion, be it severely repressed or bubbling up to the surface.

Stefanie Powers plays Patricia, a young woman who sets out to visit the mother (Mrs. Trefoile, played by Tallulah Bankhead) of her deceased fiance. When she gets there, she finds a very strange household where no condiments are added to the food, no mirrors are used and make-up is not allowed. Even the colour red is frowned upon. Patricia soon finds herself in trouble, upsetting Mrs. Trefoile and unable to get away as quickly as she would like to.

Written by Richard Matheson, based on the novel by Anne Blaisdell, this is a film more about characters and mood than snappy dialogue. There may not be many memorable lines, but there is great pains taken to develop both the characters and situation.

Powers makes for an appealing lead, her character puts up with a LOT before standing up for herself, and Bankhead is very good as the strict, cold Mrs. Trefoile. Peter Vaughan is good as the lusty Harry, Yootha Joyce does well in the role of Anna and Donald Sutherland puts in an appropriate, but strange, performance as Joseph, a mentally handicapped young man. Maurice Kaufmann may not be onscreen much, as Alan (the current beau of Patricia), but he does just fine.

Director Silvio Narizzano does a good job with the material, keeping everything interesting and entertaining without ever filling out sequences with cheap shocks or gratuitous excesses. The movie walks a fine line between the eerie and the laughably bonkers, and it's to Narizzano's credit that once the film ends it stays in your memory for all the right reasons.

All in all, this is a very good film for fans of the slightly bizarre.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Die-My-Darling-DVD/dp/B000DN6DFU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376817786&sr=8-1&keywords=die+die+my+darling

Backdraft (1991)

As a tribute to firefighters everywhere, Backdraft works. As a piece of fluff that will appeal to any youngster who always wanted to be a firefighter, Backdraft works. As an entertaining and involving movie, Backdraft just doesn't cut it. After a decent run at the box office, this movie exploded (no pun intended) on home video. Well, I can't tell you if it was popular everywhere, but it certainly quickly became the must-see movie at my high school. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, that this may have been due in no small part to the reduction (removal?) of the rental windows that I remember being brought about by Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves. I am only going by personal recollection here so may be completely incorrect. What is definitely correct is that this particular movie was very popular on video at Liberton High School (which, ironically, still hasn't burned to the ground, despite my fervent prayers).

The plot is standard melodrama, directed by Ron Howard and written by an ex-firefighter named Gregory Widen (who witnessed someone killed by the titular occurrence). William Baldwin (one of the many lesser talents in the Baldwin brood) plays Brian McCaffrey, a young man who finally passes the test to become a firefighter and ends up stationed alongside his big brother, Stephen 'Bull' McCaffrey (Kurt Russell). Big brother wants to look after him and he does that by working him harder than anybody else. Scott Glenn is another one of the old hands while Jason Gedrick plays the other new recruit, a young man lucky enough to not have any older brother on HIS case. On top of the tension between the two brothers there are also a worrying number of fires that seem to have been engineered, possibly, to kill certain people. Robert De Niro plays the investigator trying to find out how the fires started.

Apparently, when she read the script Jennifer Jason Leigh (who plays Jennifer Vaitkus, Brian's old flame who may be reignited) said that she wished she could play the fire because it's the best part and that really tells you all that you need to know about the movie. The fire IS the best part. When the flames are billowing around the screen the movie gets interesting. At all other times it's just a messy mix of horrible, super-cheesy lines and completely uninteresting personal drama that is all underlined by a manipulative score from Hans Zimmer.

Kurt Russell is always good to watch, as far as I'm concerned, and there's also a lot of fun to be had when De Niro is onscreen. There's also a lot of fun to be had in the moments featuring Donald Sutherland, as an imprisoned arsonist, and the always-great J. T. Walsh plays a slippery politician and is . . . . . . . . . . . . great, as always. Scott Glenn is alright, Clint Howard has a tiny, but enjoyable, role and Jennifer Jason Leigh and Rebecca De Mornay both do okay with what they're given. Jason Gedrick may not be great, but the weakest link in the cast is bland, talentless William Baldwin who drags the film down with his weak "talent". A better leading man MIGHT have improved the movie ever so slightly, but it's hard to say. As the saying goes: "you can't polish a turd".

Ron Howard isn't a consistently great director, but he has made many very good movies (personally, I love Apollo 13, Parenthood and Frost/Nixon, among others) and I haven't seen a movie from him that I have completely hated. Having said that, this one is the worst I've seen from him so far.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Backdraft-Blu-ray-Kurt-Russell/dp/B004GCK6W0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1361296523&sr=8-2

Heaven Help Us AKA Catholic Boys (1985)

Set in a Catholic Boys' School in Brookly in the 1960s, Heaven Help Us takes the standard elements of any "coming of age" movie and bakes it in the greenhouse effect created by teenage rebellion coming up against overly strict monks. It benefits from a nice sense of time and place, an enjoyable soundtrack and a cast of '80s favourites.

Andrew McCarthy plays Michael Dunn, the new boy at the school who quickly has to learn how to fit in. He befriends Caesar (Malcolm Danare) and that seems to be his first mistake when he sees how Caesar is treated by the bullying Rooney (Kevin Dillon). Thankfully, the boys don't stay enemies for too long because they have a common foe in the shape of the monks running the school. Brother Thaddeus (Donald Sutherland) seems a bit strict when speaking to the boys, but isn't all that bad, and Brother Timothy (John Heard) is new to the school and pretty damn cool for a monk, but Brother Constance (Jay Patterson) is a real nasty piece of work, always ready to dish out punishments far outweighing any perceived crime. When out of school, the boys try to relax and enjoy time at a local hangout, where Michael meets Dani (Mary Stuart Masterson), but the hangout is not safe from the monks, who often raid the building as they attempt to catch wrongdoers.

Michael Dinner directs this charming slice of teenage turbulence, from a script by Charles Purpura, and he takes the standard storyline and mix of characters and elevates them with a superb cast. As well as those already mentioned there are roles for Shawn Wallace, Yeardley Smith, Patrick Dempsey and Stephen Geoffreys (stealing the show as a young man addicted to onanism).

Kevin Dillon may not be the best of the leading players, but his slightly weaker performance is compensated for by the work from everyone else involved. McCarthy is in great form here, especially during the powerful and pleasing final act, and Mary Stuart Masterson is wonderful, as usual (okay, I had a crush on her in the '80s, so sue me). Malcolm Danare is fine in his role while John Heard does such good work that it's a shame he didn't get more screen-time. Indeed, it's a shame that he didn't get many more roles like this one to remind people of how good he could be.

It's a tricky film to track down on this side of the pond (but it's also on YouTube in sections for those who cannot afford, or are unable, to get the DVD) but it's one worth trying to get hold of, even for just the one viewing to see if you agree or disagree with those who really like it.

8/10

http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Help-Us-Patrick-Dempsey/dp/B0007TKNEC/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1357052451&sr=1-1&keywords=heaven+help+us

Kelly's Heroes (1970)

I can't start a review of Kelly's Heroes without first relating a memory. A memory that goes all the way back to my early teens when the home entertainment market was still lorded over by the wonder of VHS. In my home we had a copy of Kelly's Heroes. It was quite a good movie but back then I felt it was a bit long and it didn't hold my attention from start to finish in the same way as, for instance, Stir Crazy did.
One of my best mates, Robbie, loved it. Absolutely loved it. But he didn't have it in his house. He only had access to my copy (well, not MINE but you know what I mean). This meant that during our school holidays, when the Scottish weather was predictably dire, I watched a lot of Kelly's Heroes. As did Robbie. In fact, he even borrowed it for a few months and tried to watch it every day while he had it. Which tells you that this movie is one that some people just absolutely love.

For anyone who has seen Three Kings, this is a definite forerunner to that movie. Clint Eastwood plays Kelly, a soldier who luckily happens on some information regarding of a LARGE stash of gold being held behind enemy lines. Instead of the American soldiers fighting Germans without respite just because they're ordered to do so it becomes easier to motivate themselves when they know that they can make themselves rich. But it's obviously not going to be easy.

Written by Troy Kennedy-Martin (and, believe it or not, this wild ride has a basis in truth) and directed by Brian G. Hutton, Kelly's Heroes is a great mix of war movie, heist movie and standard comedy. There are, as my mate Robbie will testify, many quotable lines from the variety of characters onscreen. And what a collection of folk we have.

Eastwood is still at his squinty best, even if he is wearing military garb as opposed to a poncho or NY detective badge, while I just have to namecheck the rest of my favourites now so that I don't miss anyone out. Telly Savalas - brash and very likeable as Big Joe. Don Rickles - great fun as a man interested in making money who resents having to do some work for it. Donald Sutherland - stealing every scene that he's in as Oddball. Stuart Margolin - highly entertaining as Little Joe. There are also great turns from Carroll O'Connor, Gavin MacLeod, Hal Buckley, Jeff Morris and Harry Dean Stanton (billed here as just Dean Stanton). The more eagle-eyed viewers can also try spotting John Landis in an uncredited cameo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as a nun.

Watching Kelly's Heroes nowadays is a bit of a frustrating experience because I have to admit that, all those years ago, Robbie was right. He may have gone overboard with his love for the movie but it's a movie that deserves at least a bit of love and recognition. Give it a try and see how much you end up loving it.

8/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kellys-Heroes-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B0030A0ZE8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333809424&sr=8-1