The Bridge On The River Kwai (1957)

Okay, look, hear me out. I know that I can't add much to the amount of praise already heaped upon The Bridge On The River Kwai. All I can do is agree that it's a masterpiece, praise the cast (especially Alec Guinness giving what I consider to be one of his very best performances), and remind everyone that it was based on a book by the same author who gave us Planet Of The Apes. So there you go. Job done.

Well . . . I guess I could say a bit more.

For those who have yet to experience the majesty of The Bridge On The River Kwai, it's essentially about a group of British POWs forced to build the titular bridge for their Japanese captors. Colonel Nicholson (Guinness) butts heads with Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa), who doesn't believe in abiding by the rules of the Geneva Convention, but he also believes in keeping his men busy, and giving them a sense of achievement. Meanwhile, a lone escapee (Shears, played by William Holden) is ordered to return with Major Warden (Jack Hawkins), and one or two others, on a mission to destroy the bridge.

I loved this movie the first time I saw it, and that love has never diminished with any subsequent viewings. It's a masterpiece. You can feel the heat and the dirt on the POWs, and the battle of wills between Nicholson and Saito is legendary. This puts human nature under a microscope while maintaining an epic backdrop, paying very careful attention to the world-renowned stiff upper lip that seems to be a vital component of the British army. The screenplay by Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson is wonderful, Michael Arnold's score equally so (even if it is incorporating the very familiar "Colonel Bogey March), and Jack Hildyard's cinematography is, while not on a par with the visuals delivered when Freddie Young was working with director David Lean, at least as lush and expansive as you could hope for. Especially in the astounding final sequence.

If you haven't seen this already then you should really make time for it ASAP. There's a decent smattering of humour throughout (particularly in the scenes involving Holden trying to enjoy his freedom, but also in the wry exchanges between Guinness and Hayakawa), there's not one mis-step in the lead performances, and the 161-minute runtime moves by far quicker than expected.  

You should also watch many other Lean movies though, and this is what prompted me to take the plunge and review The Bridge On The River Kwai here. Feel free to argue the point, but I find myself worrying that Lean seems to be at risk of being forgotten nowadays. People will still take time to discuss the Ealing films, there's always room for Powell & Pressburger to be included in conversations, and we've seen a very talented crop of British directors gain prominence and platitudes throughout the past few decades, but Lean seems to have fallen slightly out of fashion. Perhaps it's the epic runtimes of his most well-known movies. Perhaps it's the fact that they're not being put front and centre on any of the major streaming platforms (let's face it, Netflix is as likely to promote Lawrence Of Arabia as it is to ask you to turn your phone off while you watch their content). Whatever the reason, or maybe it's just me missing/forgetting some obvious celebrations of his work, Lean deserves his flowers. And he may as well get them for The Bridge On The River Kwai as for anything else he did. It's glorious cinema.

10/10

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Noir-vember: Fortune Is A Woman (1957)

A film noir that focuses on an insurance investigator who has his head turned by a beautiful woman. I must admit that I thought I knew how everything would play out when I pressed play on Fortune Is A Woman. It's not hard to predict the beats when a noir sets itself up in ways that lead to comparisons with one or two of the all-time greats. Surprisingly, things didn't play out exactly as I thought they would, although I did start to get in step with everything as the second half unfolded.

Jack Hawkins is Oliver Branwell, the aforementioned insurance investigator. When sent to deal with one Mr. Tracey Moreton (Dennis Price) he encounters an old flame, now married, Sarah Moreton (Arlene Dahl). After some conversation that includes some talk about arson, Oliver moves on to other work, although he enjoys being reconnected with Sarah. Things sadly get a bit too coincidental when Oliver spots a painting elsewhere that he believes belongs to the Moretons, just before there's some arson and a death, leading to a large windfall for Sarah.

There are a number of reasons to watch, and enjoy, Fortune Is A Woman, with the dialogue and plotting being quite an obvious draw. Adapted by Val Valentine from a novel by Winston Graham, the screenplay written by director Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder maintains a great feeling of fun and a frisson of danger for the majority of the runtime. A big plus, however, is the inherent British politeness of the character played by Hawkins. There are at least two occasions that have him ready to fall on a sword that hasn't necessarily been placed directly in front of him.

Aside from Hawkins, who is a delight in his role, Dahl is also very good, and is allowed to work within an area of pleasing ambiguity while viewers try to figure out who is the real villain of the piece. Price is fine in his small role, Violet Farebrother is very good as his mother, and there are enjoyable performances from Ian Hunter, Geoffrey Keen, Bernard Miles, John Phillips, Greta Gynt (a scene-stealer), and even Christopher Lee, sadly only in the film for a couple of minutes.

There's a comforting cosiness to this. It's not one of those many noirs that will have you awaiting the ending with dread. It does still have stakes for the main characters though, and there's at least one corpse thrown into the mix. I had a great time with it, and the pacing of the 95-minute runtime is helped by the way in which the plot is almost broken up into a number of mini-vignettes (the set-up, the crime, and some investigative work only takes you to just over the halfway point, there is a bit more bobbing and weaving on the way to the end credits). The very last scenes may feel a bit underwhelming, but they don't do enough to spoil everything that came along before them.

7/10

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Shudder Saturday: Tales That Witness Madness (1973)

If you can't settle on what one movie to watch at any time then you may as well pick an anthology movie. That is my motto . . . that I just made up for the sake of starting this review with some kind of justification for my choice here. But there's some truth to it. I always tend to enjoy anthology horrors whenever I stumble across one that I have yet to see, and the format allows me to remain optimistic even if one segment isn't working for me. Not every anthology is a winner though, and Tales That Witness Madness is one of the bad ones, which perhaps explains why I never made time for it before now.

The framing device may sound familiar to those who are fans of a certain other, much more celebrated, anthology horror film from the mighty Amicus (and it should be noted that this is decidedly NOT an Amicus film, despite sharing certain qualities). A psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) is guiding a new colleague (Jack Hawkins) around the Asylum he is due to work in, and tales are told that show a number of key patients being housed there after incidents that would appear to feature the supernatural.

Although I was unfamiliar with writer Jennifer Jayne (credited here as Jay Fairbank), I was very familiar with director Freddie Francis, a legendary figure in British cinema who worked well as a director on films of highly varying quality, but who is also celebrated for his cinematography in films he didn't helm (perhaps most notably on The Elephant Man). Francis did some of his best work throughout the 1960s, especially when working with Hammer or Amicus, and initially seemed as if he was going to do just as well throughout the 1970s, but 1973 feels like the starting point for a downward slide. This may have been due to a lack of the right material, or it may have been the case that Francis was floundering, alongside many colleagues from the big British studios that he worked with, as great changes in the tastes and limits of acceptability rippled throughout the average horror movie viewers.

Aside from Jayne and Francis, this suffers from having a cast that just doesn't have enough star power to make up for the quartet of weak tales. Hawkins and Pleasence are very good, but sadly not onscreen enough, and other positives are Suzy Kendall, Joan Collins (hampered by the fact that she's in what is surely one of the most bonkers horror anthology segments ever), Kim Novak, and Leon Lissek. I am not saying everyone else is awful, although one or two are, but they're generally just there, unable to do anything to distract from the poor writing.

I was hoping that I would watch this and then be able to recommend it as a bit of a forgotten gem, but that was not to be. This is dire, although the first tale did remind me of a short story by Ray Bradbury, which gave me a glimmer of hope that was soon dashed, and the third tale (that one featuring Collins) is memorable for the hilarious lunacy of the central concept. Nothing here is really worth witnessing, sadly.

3/10

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Angels One Five (1952)

I'll admit that when Angels One Five started I was all ready to tolerate the film with a smirk on my face throughout. The first act, showing a newcomer at a RAF fighter station making a bad impression when he has to hop his aircraft over another that is crossing his path, just felt a bit too jolly spiffing and quick to paint every character as a shining example of the stiff upper-lipped Brits who won the war for us. But, despite the 21st century seeming to increase our sense of cynicism on a daily basis, that's sort of, well, based in truth. Showing fantastic mettle in the face of a fearsome enemy, Great Britain really WAS great when it was needed most.

But let me get back to the actual film.

Pilot Officer T. B. 'Septic' Baird (John Gregson) is the poor sod who has to face his fellow airmen after that embarrassing near-miss. He's a rigid follower of the rules, and keen to get back in the cockpit. Unfortunately, he's forced to stay grounded for a while, to allow a minor neck injury to fully heal. While working on the ground, in the operations center, Baird begins to see why the chain of command needs every link to be in strong, working order. But that doesn't stop him from running to the planes when the opportunity arises. While Baird tries to do right by the men alongside him, Group Captain 'Tiger' Small (Jack Hawkins) empathises, Michael Denison, Andrew Osborn and Cyril Raymond portray various Squadron Leaders, and Dulcie Gray and Veronica Hurst ensure that the proceedings aren't completely male-dominated. Hawkins and Gray, in particular, stand out as two determined individuals who somehow manage to lead and motivate others even when admitting to their own failings.

Here's an interesting point that someone has placed on the IMDb Trivia page for this movie: "The film was used as part of the RAF Initial Officer Training at RAF Cranwell (at least until the 1990s), as it deals with the conflict of man-management of others versus having to perform the task as well, whilst put in a setting that would be relevant to future officers." I'm not sure if that's true, but if it is then a) it helps to explain what the movie provides to viewers much better than my jumbled plot precis above and b) many thanks to the user who submitted that information.

With major input from writers Pelham Groom, Derek N. Twist and director George More O'Ferrall, Angels One Five feels steeped in an authenticity that all of the cliched bantering and "by jove, skipper" statements can't destroy.The performances may not be the best, in terms of great acting, but they're absolutely in line with how the characters need to be, and what the storyline demands. As is the script, and the pacing (which starts to ratchet up the tension in the final third).

And that is, ironically, how to best view the movie. Everyone, and every thing, is there to best service a story that celebrates the men and women who helped defeat Germany in a battlefield surrounded by clouds. As the end credits roll, you will remember just how much they all deserve celebrating. Which makes Angels One Five a success.

7/10

Angels One Five has been given a top notch re-release to coincide with the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. The disc itself may not be packed full of extras, but a restoration featurette shows how much work has gone in to sprucing the film up, and "Max Arthur on the Battle Of Britain" allows viewers to receive an interesting, and highly informative, summary of the war up to that point, in approximately 11 minutes.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00U8RHBUC?keywords=angels%20one%20five&qid=1439915968&ref_=sr_1_2&s=dvd&sr=1-2