Captain Clegg (1962)

 

A rather unusual and not particularly intimidating title for a horror picture. The alternate US title of 'Night Creatures' sounds better but doesn't really fit the bill. I was actually quite surprised to discover this rather tacky, so-called horror, is actually loosely based on a series of adventure books which in turn were loosely based on actual historical events of the 18th Century. Lots of smuggling going on along the South East coast of Kent back then it seems.

This creepy tale revolves around a Captain investigating a potential smuggling operation in and around a small coastal village that just so happens to have a supposed ghosty problem. The village is apparently run by the seemingly inconspicuous village parson (Peter Cushing) who, behind the scenes, does actually run the smuggling operation. The village's ghost problem appears to be a ruse in order to keep people away from their smuggling activities late at night. But does the parson hold a deep dark secret in his past?

Now I know I have given the entire game away with that little plot summary but trust me, it's all pretty easy to see right from the start. This is indeed what you might describe as a charming little British horror flick. I'm sure back in 1962 it was possibly seen as quite scary but these days it's an utterly harmless affair. Again the one thing that lured me into watching this was the usual Hammer casting of Cushing and Oliver Reed. Both actors aren't exactly rocking the boat in terms of range here but both deliver exactly what you would expect in a feature like this. Cushing of course being the highlight with his bony elongated figure and deliciously calm yet devious manner perfectly fitting the conniving parson. His hairstyle (wig) also gave the character a nice religiously eerie presence.

As with almost every Hammer film the visuals are gorgeous and really draw you in. All the sets, props, and costumes (which I'm sure are reused from other films) look wonderfully authentic although I'm also sure they're probably not entirely period-accurate. Like many Hammer productions it's all about the visuals and the thrills and not so much the historical accuracy. Nevertheless they all do the job, alas the same cannot be said for the various location shoots which border on comical at times. Clearly this wasn't filmed around Romney Marshes where the story is set and bizarrely most of the night scenes appeared to have been shot during the day and they've tried to alter the image after the fact. I guess there were issued shooting at night but boy does it detract from the atmosphere.

The ghosts or phantoms that haunt the area of actually the smugglers, and the parson, dressed in robes with skeletons painted on them with luminous paint apparently (would they have had luminous paint in the 18th Century?). These sequences reminded me very much of the silliness of 'Scooby Doo' and even an element of the Ku Klux Klan oddly enough. The scenes of these phantoms galloping across the countryside at night, their robes glowing, unfortunately looked pretty rough as the effects clearly weren't up to much. A nice idea but they weren't able to fully realise it.

Final thoughts? The film's poster is epic, it's literally the perfect hokey Halloween image for any kid's party. As for the feature itself, well I enjoyed it despite it not really living up to the creepiness the poster oh so promises. The actual story is kinda weak and you're not really sure who you should be rooting for. The big reveal surrounding the parson should have been easy to figure out within the first five minutes of the opening (making him the baddie); and the authorities investigating the town are also kinda made out to be baddies too. I guess some of the townsfolk are the goodies despite being smugglers. The atmosphere is certainly present but the final execution is lacking (along with the effects), which is a shame. The night scenes that were obviously shot during the day really spoil everything, or it did for me at least.

6/10

The 3 Worlds of Gulliver (1960)

 

Possibly the least known movie that contained stop-motion work by the legendary Ray Harryhausen, and that's probably mostly down to the fact his work doesn't feature a great deal within the story. This is more of a classical children's feature along the lines of 'Doctor Doolittle' (1967) where Harryhausen's animal effects are only showcased twice and not for that long.

Loosely based on a classic piece of English literature by Johnathan Swift that can both be for adults and children (although that was not the intention). As with many films like this the plot has been cut down quite a bit and focuses mostly on the first two parts of the original novel (which is made up of four parts). Having never read the original novel myself and not having any clues as to what actually happened plot-wise (although I have heard of Gulliver's travels), the fact that the film is obviously missing large sections of the original novel made no difference to me. And to be honest this fact shouldn't really affect anyone else's enjoyment either unless you know the original story well. But I think they made the right choice because you probably wouldn't be able to cram everything into one film.

The story of Gulliver's travels in this film sees him getting lost at sea and washing up on the island of Lilliput where he makes friends with the Lilliputians. Not long after he discovers he's also stumbled into a conflict between the Lilliputians and the next island of Blefuscu. Upon realising he can't handle the conflict between the two Gulliver escapes to the island of Brobdingnag, the island of giants. There with the help of a young girl, he wins over the King and his court but eventually falls afoul of the Prime Minister who accuses Gulliver of witchcraft.

The original story is supposed to be a satire on Human nature, religion, war etc...the usual stuff. In hindsight I can kinda see that now but whilst watching the movie I didn't really get that vibe. Overall the movie is definitely aimed more at the younger audience and more of a spirited boy's adventure yarn. The first part of the plot which sees Gulliver in Lilliput definitely has more iconic imagery that people will recognise from the original literature such as Gulliver being restrained with multiple ropes. There is some lovely over-the-top acting, great effects, great sets and costumes, and an engaging little plot focusing on the silly conflict between the two islands. The brief sequence where Gulliver steals the warships of Blefuscu gives us a glimpse of their people who appear to be based on Asians or Chinese people. The Lilliputians seem to have an Arabic styling about them and their dwellings which is in contrast to the more medieval look of the Brobdingnagians.

The second part sees Gulliver trapped on the island of giants, Brobdingnag. The whole Lilliput saga fades away into memory as Gulliver must now try to win the favor of the rather childish King Brob. Once again the effects, sets, costumes, and acting are all top-notch. In fact the over-the-top acting is probably the highlight of the movie. Grégoire Aslan is fantastic as King Brob, his bizarre infantile portrayal is most enjoyable with his mood swings. He kinda reminded me of Richard Lewis in 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights'. This is also the part of the movie where we see Ray Harryhausen's work with a squirrel and crocodile, the crocodile obviously being the more exciting. Despite being his early work what you get is still top quality, the surrounding sets and props all adding to the illusion perfectly.

Effects wise this film obviously is showing its age. The majority of the giant effects are simple rear projection or bluescreen effects that do admittedly look pretty ugly these days. On the other hand there is a lot of clever camera trickery being utilised to sell the illusion of size. The most obvious trick is the use of angles and positioning cameras at various heights to give the perspective of looking up or down at different scales. Surprisingly this does work a treat and with the inclusion of various props at various sizes, you have a nice overall effect. 

Despite the literature this movie is based on what we get isn't really that original truth be told. The entire notion of adults acting childishly, being over-emotional and erratic, and prone to violence or anger; whilst the children in the story are much more level-headed is a somewhat common fairytale trope. Indeed this does come across much more like a classic fairytale than a sly attack on Human nature of the time, which Swift originally intended. One could argue there are offensive stereotypes within this tale but I'm guessing that was kinda the point of the original satire. It all looks like something out of a child's mind in this feature, a cobbled-together fusion of everything that almost seems LEGO-like in appearance. It all adds to the charm for sure, resulting in a very pleasant, relaxing story that's easy on the eyes and the perfect little piece of old-fashioned escapism.

6/10

The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023)

 

Okay so we finally have a Super Mario movie. Nintendo has finally allowed Hollywood to try again after the complete sh*tshow that was the 1993 attempt. The big question is, did they succeed this time? Yes, I think they did! 

The Mario franchise has spanned decades so who is the target audience now? Well it's kids and rightfully so, but naturally they have included lots of little hidden gems throughout for people who grew up with this classic plumbing duo (old folks like me). This was definitely a good move as the plot is pretty darn thin on the ground let me tell you. I mean what are we looking at here? It's a movie of the Mario games, so obviously it involves Mario and Luigi having to defeat Bowser with the help of Princess Peach and Toad, game over.

One of the main issues I had with this movie was the fact I felt like I had seen it all before...via videogames obviously. Personally I felt like many of the sequences could have easily been lifted from in-game videogame sequences or simple trailers for the games. The movie looks fantastic no doubt, but that isn't really a big deal anymore, in this day and age. We come to expect stunning animation and vibrant visuals so despite it looking spot on in every sense, that fact isn't really enough anymore. Videogames these days can look just as good as movies (especially animated movies) so it didn't feel overall especially mind-blowing or original. But yeah it did kinda feel a bit like a highlights reel from various sections of various games, but hey what did I expect right?

That being said, I did find myself questioning how certain things were missed (yes I'm contradicting myself now). When Mario has to fight Donkey Kong I couldn't help but think that director Aaron Horvath missed a trick by not utilising the classic 1981 'barrels and girders' arcade classic. There also seemed to be a lack of actual classic block platforming-type action sequences for the boys, strange decision. But on the plus side, the (Mario) kart sequence was good. I liked the brief appearance of Yoshi's, obviously being held back for the sequel. The brief sequence showing kiddie versions of Mario and Luigi harked back to the game 'Yoshi's Island'. 

I loved how back in Brooklyn there was another local neighbourhood character who looked and sounded exactly like the original Mario character (Jump Man) way back when; and he was playing 'Jump Man' on the arcade machine! And did anyone notice the use of the 'Super Mario Bros Super Show' opening intro song being used for the Mario Bros TV advert at the start? Gotta be a certain age kids. Of course there are many other little tit bits such as various Nintendo character portraits on the Mario family house walls, and Mario actually playing on a NES! (why not a SNES?).

Few things that griped me. Firstly, the inclusion of real-world pop songs, why??!! That completely pulled me out of the movie, a horrendous choice. Who in their right mind thought it would be a good idea to stick an A-ha tune over an action sequence? Ugh!!! Secondly, the overall score was so loud in general you couldn't really hear all those classic Nintendo videogame sound effects. All those epic little power-up, coin, 1-Up, stomp, kick, pipe etc...sound bites that are the heart and soul of the game. They got lost in the background. 

I also didn't like having to listen to Bowser singing which I thought was only a thing simply because Jack Black (who voiced Bowser) is a singer, sheesh! Speaking of voice acting, yeah everyone was fine, no probs for me. Sure like everyone else I thought the casting of Chris Pratt was an odd choice but yeah...he was fine. Not tooooo sure how Brooklyn didn't get completely wiped out in the big finale sequence what with Bowser's castle landing on it and the huge explosion etc...I guess I'm looking too much into it now.

Can't deny I was expecting more. For all the hype and money made, I was kinda expecting one of the greatest animated movies of all time, up there with 'Toy Story'. Yeah I know I'm stupid, should never let myself get carried away like that because you know it won't end well. Obviously if you know Nintendo and Mario then you should enjoy. If you don't know Nintendo and Mario then, where have you been? And obviously you'll probably be quite lost. Anyway, I wouldn't say it's a homerun but considering the garbage we're getting these days it's definitely a big improvement.

7/10

Sword of Sherwood Forest (1960)

 

Unbeknownst to me Hammer Productions made three movies based on the legend of Robin Hood. They are all separate from each other (not connected, not sequels) but this particular movie does have some connections with the TV series 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' which came a few years prior. But it's the cast in this movie that grabbed my attention.

The plot is a bit wishy washy it must be said, tends to roam about somewhat. Essentially, the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham along with the help of the Duke of Newark, wants to steal the land of a nobleman who has recently died in the Crusades. The Archbishop of Canterbury is against this move which results in him becoming the target of assassination by the Sheriff. Oddly enough the Duke of Newark stumbles upon Robin Hood (who he doesn't recognise) and upon being impressed with his archery skills asks Robin to carry out the assassination. Naturally, once Robin realises what's going on he decides to help the Archbishop.

That is the main crux of the plot but there are some drawbacks. Firstly, the nobleman whose land is so precious to the Sheriff and Duke is unknown, we don't get any information on him other than he was the Lord of Bawtry (a small market town in the north of England). I should also point out that the Duke of Newark, as far as I'm aware, is a fictitious character for this movie which is disappointing considering all the real people they could have used. Secondly, it's weird how the Duke doesn't recognise Robin (the notorious outlaw of the time) immediately or at least suspect anything. It has to be pointed out to him by the Sheriff after the Duke hires him. Its also quite amusing how the Duke puts Robin through some trials to test his archery skills, hires him, and then puts him through yet more trials because apparently he wasn't entirely convinced the first time; and he still doesn't realise its Robin Hood!

Oliver Reed plays Lord Melton (fictitious again), a promising evil-looking character with a glorious slimy voice who doesn't really do anything, a wasted character. And lastly, one of Robin's men is murdered by the Sheriff. So Maid Marian desperately wants to get the Archbishop to grant freedom to his family, which kinda feels superfluous really considering men on both sides probably got killed quite often.

It's an odd entry really, no mentions of Prince John, no mentions of Richard the Lionheart except for the Crusades. I'm not sure when this story is supposed to have been set timeline-wise or if it's just meant to be a random adventure. I can't deny it looks great though. Really rich vibrant settings that admittedly don't look anything like Nottinghamshire or Yorkshire or Derbyshire but they are attractive and green. It's the usual thing really, some shots look like they could be in the correct location, others look completely ridiculous. The movie was actually shot in Ireland but honestly I wouldn't have guessed that. Still, I enjoyed the visuals very much, the interiors of castles, places of worship, grand halls etc...all looked really nice and quite authentic. Hammer sets always looked good, especially inside rustic castles.

As I said originally it was the cast that piqued my interest here. As said there is Oliver Reed playing a great but underutilised baddie. Next to him you have Richard Pasco stealing every scene with bold overacting and amusing bowl haircut. Nigel Green once again plays the strongman character in Little John with that trademark hairstyle and beard of his. Richard Greene continues his role as Robin Hood from the TV series (much of the cast also starred in that series). Definitely some curious casting for me because he looked like a clean-cut middle-aged bank manager rather than a medieval outlaw. And of course Peter Cushing can simply do no wrong. I expected a stereotypical moustache-twirling villain but I was genuinely surprised at how good his Sheriff was here. I should also add that the costumes all round were really good and authentic looking. Again I expected cliched costumes in big bold colours but no! Characters have various outfits and they mostly look suitably rough, worn, and handmade.

I'll be honest here, I fully expected this to be a horrendous fake-looking cliched mess with corny-as-hell acting, but I was wrong! Yes the story is kinda weak and I have no idea how it fits into the lore of Robin Hood (or if it even does, probably doesn't). I'm guessing it's just a story someone made up for the movie and not based on any historical events or folklore. That aside, the visuals overall are very pleasing from the costumes to the locations and the wonderful interior sets. This movie looks far better than most other Robin Hood movies and, dare I say, more authentic than the classic Errol Flynn adventure. Don't go expecting top-notch action of course but what you get is perfectly acceptable. Overall this is a thoroughly enjoyable romp of the Middle Ages. Look out for 007's Desmond Llewellyn as the bloke getting shot in the back with an arrow at the start. 

7/10