Film Reviews by MR

Somehow this film does not hit the spot. Jim Broadbent is excellent, but the whole thing just does not engage you for some reason. Some of the direction is too tricksy, and the dialogue is hard to catch. It all seems to be rushed through. Worth a look for the amusing court scene.

The copy I received was good quality. The story is simple and totally depressing. Acting and atmosphere great.

Totally agree with the long review near-by. There seem to be three intentions to the film - 1 - show Jane Russell off as much as possible (in gorgeous dresses), 2- show Robert Mitchum being Robert Mitchum off as much as possible, he does look delicious, there's a touch of pointless sadism in the beating up he gets, and 3 - confuse things by letting Vincent Price take over the film as an silly Shakespearian ham actor who shows unexpected heroism. If you like him which I do, he is terrific. The gangsters are hopeless, although Raymond Burr glowers a lot. Wierd.

A charming film, very sensitively acted. After watching it, it is well worth viewing the two lots of 'extras' - interviews with many of the people involved in the making of the film, who are full of fascinating information, and which will definitely enhance your appreciation. How handsome is Vittorio de Sica, and how beautiful is the art and costume design.

Tried to give this two and a half stars but there don't seem to be halves. The film is pretty lame, with some poor acting and some over-acting. It is simply a showcase for Jean Louis Barrault to play the two different characters. He is interesting, if you just like to watch this actor, but although the bad character is supposedly a 'demon', there is little horror or tension generated in the film about the degenerate things that he gets up to, it is more hinted at genteely.

Terrific, I have only just seen this for the first time. Such uncomfortable atmospheres created, wonderful subtle acting by everybody, the world of the house all seemed so plausible. Anthony Hopkins amazing as someone who is hopelessly repressed.

I rented this to see Maggie Smith's section, and she is indeed wonderful, but the rest of it is all very wordy and boring. I couldn't get interested in the farcical scenes, stagey acting and endless wordy chat between the other characters.

Halliwell calls this film 'ponderous', which I think is unfair, I thought it sustained the excitement all through. It is basically just suspense for 2 hours plus, as we wonder whether the police will figure out where the criminals are, and wait to see if one of the family or the criminals will do anything rash.

The two leads are very good, especially perhaps Fredric March, who was a great actor. Highly recommended for a high quality,entertaining film.

I'm not particularly a Tarentino fan, but I went with the flow and found this engrossing and enjoyable, the time passed quickly. As everyon else says it's a 'hommage to old Hollywood' and I probably didn't notice all sorts of references. I loved the Sharon Tate character's joy at watching her film, and the atmosphere at the Playboy party, and at the Manson ranch, where I thought everyone's acting was terrific. It raised my opinion of Brad Pitt, such a cool screen personality, if not particularly of Leonardo di Caprio. The lead-up to the violence was terrific, and the final over the top violence wasn't done very realistically, so not a problem..

Thoroughly enjoyed this, mainly because of the uniformly terrific acting. It feels a bit stagey now and then, I believe it was made for tv, and it is divided up into 5 episodes. Very interesting to see David Morrissey's acting in 1987, he is very subtle and impressive, as an impulsive and movie-addicted character. Helen Mirren is extremely impressive as a rash and emotional character. Also wonderful to see David Suchet not being Poirot.

Rather a clunky, coarse film, but well worth watching to see Fredric March at work, a great subtle actor.

This film is visually wonderful, many striking images. The two lead actors are terrific, perhaps the priest most of all, so subtle, as is the woman at the inn. There are less convincing elements, the yokels don't entirely convince, and the possessed nuns are more of a dance troupe. The story is simple and moving. Really enjoyed it.

This film version doesn't do it for me, although everyone tries exhaustingly hard, and there are a lot of really funny moments and jokes. I would imagine that live on stage it could be truly hysterical. I don't think any of the cast has mastered the exact slightly arch style that's needed for farce - they all just seem desperate.

Must admit I've never seen any Horrible Histories on TV, but the actors sounded impressive in this one, and I love Lee Mack and Rupert Graves, so I thought I'd have a look. I thought it just not at all funny, and loathed the musical sections. If children are likely to enjoy it, then it's a harmless piece of work, because there was a lot of interesting Roman history thrown in.

The film grows on you. Story is good, framing of shots is fantastic, and so is Mifune. It is worth watching once, then watching again with the commentary which is included in the extras, as there is interesting information about Kurosawa's liking of the wide screen format.