Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965)

 

A long time ago in an era far far removed from the present-day shenanigans of Dr. Who there were two movies. Two movies that have been long forgotten about despite them starring the mighty Peter Cushing as the Doctor and the feverish devotion you get with modern fanbases.

At first glance I found this hard to believe, I am not a fan of Dr. Who in any way but I was surprised to find out that these two movies were kinda ignored by the fanbase. I just assumed they fit into the lore or timeline at some point back in the early days. Upon further reading I discovered that both movies are actually entirely separate from the TV series and are simply stand-alone remakes (of early series) that are not very popular with the fanbase.

Why are these movies not very popular? Well it seems parts of the Dr. Who canon has been changed. They don't fit into the TV series timeline and unfortunately they aren't seen as being very good. I can understand this as this first adventure is pretty basic. The plot centres around Dr. Who and co accidentally getting transported to another planet somewhere, accidentally getting captured by Daleks, and having to defeat them with the help of friendlier aliens.

Right from the get-go, despite my lack of Whovian knowledge, I could tell this wasn't the same as the famous BBC show. As already mentioned Peter Cushing is the Doctor here, which is inspired casting no doubt, but you don't really get the quirky eccentric Doctor we are all used to. What we get is essentially Peter Cushing doing his usual polite and charming kooky scientist/inventor routine which doesn't really fit the bill and plays out more like a Doug McClure adventure. The plot also puts the Doctor at a point where he's just invented the Tardis so everything, again, feels closer to any manner of classic adventure flicks involving crazy machines going to outlandish places like the moon, centre of the Earth, bottom of the sea etc...Loved the huge red lever to activate the Tardis.

Another huge problem for this movie is the lack of scope (probably down to budget). I'm sure back in the day this may have looked impressive but looking back...not so much. The main issue being the sets, the obvious sets. Everything looks so confined with no depth or scale. This feels like a very small planet and limited adventure. All the props look flimsy and horribly fake. The costumes are typically dated and very drab-looking. The action is hokey as hell, and the Humanoid alien race known as 'Thals' look like the worst type of original Star Trek alien ever. And what was that big frozen dinosaur type thing that appeared to be frozen in place? That went nowhere.

The highlight (other than Roy Castle's hilariously cringeworthy performance) is of course the Daleks themselves. These extremely popular robotic trolleys have somehow become feared and loved by children and adults for as far back as I can remember, and I just don't know why. I can't deny they are a unique and original design and I have always liked the idea of a small alien creature having to exist inside its own little tank, but in this they are bad (not in a good way). What we really have are ropey-looking bumper cars trundling around very slowly firing bursts of fire extinguisher foam at actors that are trying to escape slowly to give the Daleks an impression of some speed, aggression, and intimidation. The result is often a giggle-inducing scene where a Dalek will attack and go after someone very very slowly whilst trying not to bump into props and scenery.

I think the real crime here is the movie is boring, nothing really exciting happens, nothing keeps you on the edge of your seat. Another glaring crime is the fact the Daleks aren't threatening at all. Sure they may have been back in the day but now? Forget about it. There is never any real peril because everything looks like a Blue Peter set with the odd nice prop and one nice matte painting. Heck they even chuck in some lava lamps as set decor for flip's sake. And lastly, the main man, the Doctor, doesn't really do anything either. Cushing certainly looks the part but they give him nothing to do! Criminal! I think anyone who is unaware of Dr. Who and likes old hammy sci-fi will get a kick outta this, but in all honesty, who is in that boat being unaware of Dr. Who? 

4/10

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021)

 

As we entered phase four of the MCU and started getting second (third?) tier superheroes that the majority have never heard of, both Marvel and Disney still managed to conjure up yet another overblown obvious CGI/bluescreen filled hodgepodge that felt no different from most of their other offerings. I was shocked! (I wasn't shocked).

So Shaun leads a secret double life if you will, as beneath his humble geeky exterior lies the son of a powerful overlord with God-like powers who runs the Ten Rings organisation. Said God-like powers come from the mysterious ten rings which bestow all the usual stuff like immortality on whoever owns them. Where do the rings come from? Don't know. Who made them? Don't know. Where do their powers come from? Don't know. How has no other Avenger thought to find these up till now? Don't know. How have these things not been mentioned until now? Don't know. Cue lots of family angst, mcguffins aplenty, a generic stage-by-stage mission leading to the big CGI finale, and of course lots of martial arts...because Chinese people!

Yep, for a movie made in this politically correct era I was actually pretty surprised at how many stereotypical Far Eastern tropes there were here. They're all here, dragons, Chinese lions, every single person being able to do martial arts, primitive rural little villages that seemingly spend all day training in martial arts, temples, wise old male Mr. Miyagi type characters etc...I mean I get it's supposed to be based around ancient Chinese culture so that kinda means you gotta have things like I guess, but I'm still surprised that it wasn't picked up on considering when this was made.

But whilst this movie did look admittedly sumptuous, it also looked like every other mystical fantasy historical flick based in Asia that I've ever seen and offered nothing new at all. The whole thing was so visually predictable and cliche Jesus! The entire thing was just a big trope, I felt like I was watching a PG version of Mortal Kombat it was so cheesy. And despite everything generally looking very nice, you still can't escape the nasty obvious looking CGI that we've come to expect within Marvel movies. These effects can range from grounded and cool-looking to plastic and fake-looking in the blink of an eye.

Another problem with these Marvel movies is the fact there doesn't really seem to be any actual stakes at hand. There is never a time when I actually felt worried or on the edge of my seat because I know very well no one of importance will die (and even if they do chances are they'll come back anyway). The whole thing feels so very safe, devoid of any real grit. Case in point, the forest that contained the maze to the entrance Ta Lo which supposedly ''eats people'', well it doesn't. In fact I'm not really sure what the threat was there, the trees just moved and covered your tracks so you would get lost? In the end the heroes just drove through the trees so it didn't seem like they were much of a threat after all.

Basically, for a movie that was supposed to be a kind of break from the norm offering muh diversity and a fresh outlook, it all seemed very by the numbers to me. The main character is of course perfect and invincible offering more powers that seemingly can't be matched by anyone else (especially characters like Black Widow who is merely a regular woman with no powers at all). Not sure how Simu Liu got the part seeing as he's the most generic looking guy I've seen in a blockbuster for some time. Cut n paste Asian guy number #5. ''Aquafina'' or whatever her stupid chosen name is, is predictably annoying and merely offers up stupid lines of so-called comedy. Tony Leung as Wenwu, the main antagonist, looked more like a mild-mannered middle-aged CEO than the leader of a massive criminal organisation. I also found his conflict between finding his wife (known to be dead) in Ta Lo, which is obviously a ruse, and his children rather tepid and forced . A lame attempt at some real emotion within this rather silly and childish comicbook flick.

There are lots of fisticuffs involving throwing people around a lot and getting slammed into the ground which usually gets zero results for anyone. And of course there are plenty of hideous hip-hop tunes because of course there is, modern youth culture. I'm still not sure why the character of Trevor returned here either. What was the point of that? He literally did nothing and offered nothing other than a small moment of continuity from the 'Iron Man' movies. 

Heck, this could have been a neat 'Big Trouble in Little China' type adventure, especially given all the Marvel quirks and comedy that has been its staple for some time now. But alas this is just another limp bland Marvel action & magic flick that feels like a generic brand action figure run at this point. Yes it looks pretty but that's it! There is nothing much here that I really haven't seen before in a multitude of other similar romps (including John Carpenter's 'Big Trouble' which is infinitely better in every aspect). This is the epitome of cookie-cutter or factory product line entertainment.

5/10

The Island at the Top of the World (1974)

 

The cool Disney adventure you probably never heard of (because it was essentially a '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' clone that failed at the box office).

Yes another literary adaptation surrounding a tale that is very much in the same realm as Jules Verne. Initially set in England 1907, wealthy aristocrat Sir Anthony Ross sets out to find his long lost son who went off into the wild blue yonder of the Artic searching for a mystical fabled island. He hires the help of a French aeronaut who has recently invented and built a dirigible and off they sail! Destination: The Unknown! 

Classic boys own adventure type stuff I'm sure you'll agree. Very much in the same vein as many many other adventure yarns that involve mysterious islands or lands lost to time that are either underground or beneath the sea or in a specific location etc...And in all honesty I'm sure you've all seen this type of thing before many many times. As mentioned this does indeed feel very much like a 'Leagues' clone and that is ultimately its downfall for me. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy it but it plays out predictably with all your typical cliches, tropes, and results. It feels a bit too ''off the fantasy production line'' if you get me. A bit too generic despite being a big Disney project.

I think the one thing this movie offers originality wise is the fact the lost land and people are Norsemen. An artic island hidden by convenient clouds that in turn also hides a lush Nordic town with lots of blonde Vikings complete with long boats and horned helmets. Usually these flicks offer prehistoric tribes or made-up barbarian-type folk with the odd monsters. Nope, this time it's legit based on real people with real references to their culture and Gods etc...No monsters or oversized lizards this time. Heck the main antagonist is merely the local witch hunter-type fella, a religious zealot.

With '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' the main hook or merchandise factor was the Nautilus submarine, with this movie it was the Hyperion dirigible. The latter was intended to become the next big thing for Disney, an iconic symbol they would use to across all their gear including their famous parks. Can't say I blamed them either, wicked design, striking with a nice realistic x steampunk vibe. This thing dominates the early part of the movie and should have had more screen time for in-depth exploration. Alas this dirigible is all this movie offers really, at least in terms of appealing fantasy visuals. Don't get me wrong the rest of the movie is packed with effects but they're all your standard generic rear screen projection type affairs (that have aged really badly) with the odd glorious matte painting (but so glorious!).

The casting says it all really, if you ask me. Just look at the lead, Donald Sinden as Sir Anthony Ross. Now I know nothing of this actor and nothing against him but this was clearly a James Mason wannabe for Disney. The similarities are hilariously blatantly obvious from his beard, his elocution, right down to his attire. The rest of the team are actors I haven't really heard of apart from Mako and Jacques Marin who popped up in a few other lower-tier Disney kid's flicks. I think that was a big problem for Disney with this movie, no big stars, or at least no big star for either the main role or villain role. And that's it in a nutshell really, a nice family adventure, perfectly fine, nice and safe, but no where near as good as 'Leagues'. A poor mans 'Leagues' if I'm gonna be really truthful, but still worth seeing if you're into this type of fantasy yarn.

 

6/10

The Flash (2023)

 

So I dunno if it's because I'm getting old and whatnot but this has to be one of the most confusing convoluted messes I've had the misfortune to sit through since the last Marvel multiverse mess. Seriously what did I just watch? The current trend of having a ''multiverse'' is way way WAY out of hand geez! This all reminds me of the old days watching 'Red Dwarf' on BBC2 which would often have plots involving different versions of characters and time or dimension jumping etc...And even back then I didn't really like a lot of it as it all becomes too messy and the stakes go out the window. Well low and behold that's essentially what we have now, no-stakes movies where anything and anyone goes because it doesn't matter anymore because muh multiverse.

The start of this movie was just bad, so so bad! The Flash has gotta save all these babies that have just been flung out of a skyscraper in the most epic case of bad CGI I have seen since the last DC CGI mess. I mean was it supposed to be dramatic? Surely you'd think it would be but apparently not judging by the crap visual gags and stupid faces the Flash is making. It's also the start of many many different cameos from many many different versions of characters with Ben Affleck as Batman (in the worst Batsuit ever) and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman.

From there I just felt like I was being pummeled with a never-ending stream of more and more elaborate machinations to show Barry's past, present, and his inevitable insertion into another timeline which leads to so much multiverse madness. Honestly the sheer amount of exposition crammed into this movie is insane. But this all leads to the main reason why I watched this movie (along with the majority of people my age), Michael Keaton as Batman and all his Batman stuff. Did this suffice? Well yeah it kinda did. It satisfied me to some degree. The fact they recreated various rooms in the Wayne mansion from back in the original movies was impressive. The Batcave, a glimpse of the Batmobile, the greater use of the Batwing, a very little nod to the 89 version of the Joker, and of course more Batman 89 kickassery was all pleasing to an aging warhorse such as myself.

But that's as far as it went for me, the brief scenes of Batman 89 goodness were lovely and I found myself simply wanting to see more of just that. I wanted more nods and winks, I was wondering why Batman 89 didn't call up other characters from his timeline to help, Catwoman? I found myself also liking the various other brief alternate universe cameos we get in the big finale too. But here lies the problem. I enjoyed all these little cameos and was interested to see more of them, but I was completely uninterested in the actual main story surrounding the Flash. The entire Supergirl angle merely offered the worst CGI of the feature and I can't remember if that battle was in the original Henry Cavill movies or not (it's all one superhero blur to me).

But yeah the entire sequence where one version of Barry Allen is going back in time over and over to try and get a result where Supergirl and Batman 89 survive is pretty much a good summation of this entire multiverse craziness frankly. No stakes, and even when it appears there might be some consequences, chances are they can always multiverse their way out of it somewhere along the line. Most of this movie is a huge bad-looking CGI blur with some of the worst fight sequences I have ever seen. I know it sounds cliche to say the effects were ''like a videogame'' or ''in-game videogame sequence'' but oh boy do these fit the bill here. The movie looks truly terrible half the time with obvious CGI humans being thrown all over the gaff like obvious CGI ragdolls. Everything has that horrible plastic CGI sheen to it. The effects used to paste Michael Shannon's head into his Kryptonian battle suit were laughably bad, I could go on.

This just felt overwhelming...in a bad way. It looks like there's been a lot of thought and imagination put into the feature but that's an illusion. Essentially it's a headache of a plot trying to cover lots of bases whilst sticking lots of nostalgia and nerd treasure into the fold seemingly in an attempt to please everyone. In the end this just doesn't work, or it didn't work for me. I just didn't care, I no longer care about these superhero flicks and their hyper CGI noise. Why do the effects look worse now than they did back in 2008 with the original Marvel movies? Explain this to me. And who else was more into the Nic Cage Superman universe than everything else? All this movie did was show me how much I wanted a Nic Cage Superman/Michael Keaton Batman team-up flick, and what we missed with a Nic Cage Superman franchise.

4.5/10

A Challenge for Robin Hood (1967)

 

The third and final movie from Hammer Productions based on the legendary folk hero of Nottinghamshire, Robin Hood. As said before these movies are not connected, no story arc is contained within this trilogy. Thing is, there is no Robin Hood in this feature, so why does the title contain the name? (obviously name recognition).

In this film we are actually given more of an origin tale. Things are changed up a bit to offer a more fresh approach and this is admittedly a welcome angle as there are only so many times you can tell the same old story which everyone knows by heart. In this take Robin Hood is called Robin De Courtenay, the cousin of Henry (somewhat good) and Roger (downright evil) De Courtenay whose dying elderly father Sir John is a wealthy Norman nobleman. Upon his death bed Sir John divides his castle and wealth between the three men which unsurprisingly pisses off the dastardly Roger. Roger proceeds to murder Henry using Robin's knife in order to lay the blame on Robin. Robin thusly flees into the forest and joins up with a band of Saxons whom he had helped earlier on at the start of the film.

There are mentions of Richard the Lionheart, there is no Prince John. Robin is part of a wealthy Norman family. Will Scarlet and Little John appear to be servants or retainers of Sir John and not part of the merry men. Robin's main enemies are Roger De Courtenay and the Sheriff of Nottingham. And Maid Marian has a slight name alteration and initially isn't the object of Robin's affection! Marian's own maid appears to take that role. Other characters such as Much, Tuck, and Alan-a-Dale are present and correct.

So they take some liberties with the story which is fine, but what about everything else? Well firstly casting for me was a bit of a mixed bag really. Barrie Ingham as Robin visually speaking was way off for me. This guy looked more like a smooth 60's lounge singer and far too clean-cut for the role. Sure I get he's supposed to be a nobleman here but the hair, sideburns etc...it all looked too modern-day (for the time). Obviously Friar Tuck's gonna Friar Tuck and Marion isn't hard to get right, but the rest of the gang all looked pretty generic to me, nothing really unique going on here. Don't get me wrong I'm not expecting 'Mad Max' in Sherwood but maybe something to distinguish the odd outlaw. Villain wise again it's pretty standard fair but with Peter Blythe looking a bit Freddie Mercury-esque as Roger De Courtenay but suitably dastardly. This was always one of Hammer's problems in my opinion, the era tended to shine through too much in their casting. You could easily guess this was probably made in the 60's down to the way the cast looks, a major negative for any historical feature.

There is swashbuckling aplenty for sure but it certainly lacks the spritely gloss of the famous Errol Flynn picture and their own second feature 'Sword of Sherwood Forest'; but it does easily defeat their first foray into the woods with the weak 'Men of Sherwood Forest'. The film starts off quite dark with Roger evilly shooting a man in the back with an arrow and then his servant trying to murder the child witness, but it all quickly devolves into the inevitable hammy affair you'd come to expect. Not much blood (if any) and plenty of fake-looking swords, heck they even battle it out with a pie fight in one scene! Don't get me wrong it all looks terrific as Hammer features often did, very reliable on that front, but boy are some of those Norman troops useless.

I think the one thing that kinda threw me here was the altering of the classic folklore. I get the need for a change as you can't remake the same old Robin Hood story every time but there was something about this that felt off, like a poor man's equivalent that didn't have the full rights to the story. A lot of it for me was the casting which I just didn't really connect with. They also take the odd bit of classic lore and just give it a spin such as Robin's fight against Little John now takes place inside the castle. There is also no archery tournament here but a similar setup (a fair) which sees said Robin fight against Little John, whereupon he collects a prize (not a golden arrow). They also give a small bit of backstory for how they all end up wearing green (as up until then they are all wearing various period attire) which was cool. Shame all their attire is always spotlessly clean, ugh! 

Well they're definitely men in green tights that's for sure, but there isn't a great deal of robbing from the rich to give to the poor this time. A dash of period-era political intrigue and a whole lot of Robin's gang versus Roger's gang. The bad guys are easily the more interesting whilst lounge lizard Robin's boys are all a bit cookie-cutter. I didn't hate this but I didn't really like it either. It just didn't really feel like Robin Hood. I should also point out that they appeared to film outdoor locations at Bodiam Castle, the same as they did for 'The Men of Sherwood Forest'. A bit silly as you can clearly tell it's the same location and this might fool some into thinking the films are connected. Oh well.

5/10

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