The Terry Nation Estate REALLY needed a top up on their bank balance in the mid 60s it seems. With Terry seemingly doing EVERYTHING within his power short of ACTUAL deals with the devil (though that cant be scientifically ruled out) to try and get his creation, ‘The Daleks’, onto as many screens and into as many homes as possible.

in 1965 Nation sold the rights to the story elements of the first ‘Dalek’ serial to AARU films and the results were a strange hodge podge supercut of the key beats of the original BBC story, along with a load of random ‘lore’ that fundamentally seemed to misunderstand why people liked ‘Doctor Who’ in the first place.

Well! 12 months later they were back again! adapting the 1964 serial ‘The Daleks Invasion of Earth’ to the big screen with Peter Cushing returning as the DEFINITELY 100% human ‘Dr. Who’ along with his grandaughter ‘Suzy’, ‘Barbara’ his *other* daughter and…Ians paycheque must have bounced because he aint in this one. Instead; we have lovable Burnard Cribbins playing a local Bobby (policeman) called ‘Tom’…Who…isnt based on anything from the BBC series…they just wanted someone to act goofy.

Now, I do feel context is key here, as I think not only will it explain why this film wasnt *quite* as successful as it could have been, but also why I take grief with it in some ways.

So the film, as mentioned, is an adaptation of a serial from 1964. By 1966, ‘Doctor Who’ still wasnt *quite* as established in ‘lore’ as it would go on to be (the core foundations of the show wernt really, properly fleshed out until a five year gap occured between VERY late 1969 and early 1975. Where basically the show everyone knows and loves today took shape. In 1966; Time lords? Gallifrey? Regeneration? all still either non existent or very much in its infancy.

And yet, Where the show was in 1964, and where it was at the point that this film came out in 1966 couldnt have been MORE starkley different if it tried. 1964 ‘Who’ had William Hartnell at the healm, he was an irrasible, but ultimatley lovable grumpy grandfather figure, with a little bit of a ‘Daffy Duck’ twinkle in his eye at times for good measure. The show was still running 6 part serials as the standard, and they relished the opportunity to slow burn stories for as long as the budget could carry them. The companions were a little better established, and the format was just about taking shape. But the only solid confirmations by this point were that ‘The Doctor’ and susan were aliens whod decided to see the world via a time travel spaceship after fleeing from their own people for some unmentioned reason.

Why do I clarify this? Because by the time THIS film came out, the BBC version of the show was unrecognisable to what had come before it.

Doctor who was in the middle of a ‘brief’ pause as one of the shows biggest ‘lore’ moments had just happened (Regeneration) Patrick Troughton was now known as the face of the show, and in the previous 2 years we’d gone from 4-6 part stories (emphasis on 6 parts) that were either educational attempts at historicals, or alien planets that used a studio the size of a bedroom. to 4-6 part stories (emphasis on 4 parts) that were significantly lighter in tone (Daleks Masterplan omitted) faster paced, and striving to be more modern and to appeal to the mid 60s ‘kids of today’ rather than the early 60s ‘Kids being made to watch what their parents *think* is good for them’.

Television had moved on considerably in those 2 years, the culture had moved on significantly in those 2 years. When Troughtons era formally began in November 1966 the last of the ‘true’ historicals would go out, and from then on in it was fantasy and whimsy right the way up to the 70s…and I mention that because, amongst the many MANY reasons the show refreshed in 1966 WAS that the show had found itself in a bit of a rutt, where audiences thought the programme was a bit *too* uptight and needed to let its hair down a bit. Its the 60s MAAAAN (and…all that)

Its because of that, why ‘Invasion Earth 2150 ad’ is such a strange end product for the time. Because right as the public were banging the table for change, out pops one of THE most early 1960s style doctor who adventures you could ask for, with little more changed to it than a few more pratt falls and large chunks of wandering about cut out. Its a bit like answering the question ‘How do we make this show fresh again?’ with ‘Do the old stuff, but quicker.’

And thats basically all this is. an old story, dusted off, with an hour chopped out of it and some of the dialogue/characters rotated to make up for their absence in this film adaptation, or to remove any references to the doctor being an alien.

A good example? In the BBC serial theres a moment where the first doctor, Ian and a human survivor of the Dalek occupation are put into a cell with a logic test, the doctor solves it immediately (the humans had no idea) and the Daleks use this as an opportunity to PROVE the doctor is of a higher intelligence and suitable to become something of a stratagist.

In this film, Dr. Who, Tom and a human survivor of the Dalek occupation are put into a cell. And the doctor uses a comb to break the magnetic lock on the cell door, at which point the Daleks swoop in, announce that THAT was a logic test and send the whole gang off to become ‘Robomen’ (the Daleks ‘on the ground’ human converted slave drivers)

Its oversimplification to the point of daftness, and its prominent pretty much throughout the whole thing. Also the statement ‘The Daleks Swoop in’ could be used on any and every single page of the script for this thing. I think the only piece of feedback the production team took to heart was that in ‘Doctor Who and the Daleks’ the Daleks didnt turn up for a while (because they dont in the actual serial for 2 or so episodes) and so they decide to crash the daleks into every single scene in this thing, sometimes MULTIPLE times.

I cant particularly fault the direction, the scenes they do recreate from the original BBC serial look 100% better, grander and more detailed than the original broadcast version (they had a budget and a set space bigger than a shoebox though…So I cant exactly say its a fair comparison) But the majority of the movie itself is decent enough, super colourful and a clear line of thought has been put into exactly how this should look and feel. It would have been easy to just recreate how things looked from the TV version, but here it does have a grander and richer vibe to it, that I personally quite liked.

Cast direction is a bit of a flop on the other hand, with most of the cast looking lost when on set, and in some cases the ‘set’ itself is just a black curtain…Which doestn exactly give them a lot to work with in terms of hitting marks and utilising props.

Nevertheless, the cast do muddle on and there is some genuinely well handled moments here, though, most of them appear to be from Bernard Cribbins who was renowned for being a fairly solid physical performer.

The script itself, being an adaptation kind of lives and dies by that. and I do think they cut this thing a little too close to the bone, its supposed to show a dystopia. But all it really is, is a load of upbeat british folks wandering around a couple semi demolished buildings…Not exactly ‘end of the world’ vibes…Also; they decided for some reason to tone down certain KEY characters here. Susan (who…well basically this is her story! its the one where she leaves, finds love and starts trying to rebuild the planet) is snookered here. Suzy is 6 years old. So obviously love and philanthropy on a dystopic world is out. But rather than try to make her fit the plot, they take the kid (who was VERY vocal and precotious in the first film) and basically just, write her away here. She has VERY little dialogue and spends most of the film wandering around various bunkers and woodland until she’s reunited with Cushing.

But even more strangely, The Doctor himself is abscent for a decent chunk of the movie, and when he does turn up, he has minimal lines and largely just re-emphisises the plot as it stands. Its bizzare. This is a DOCTOR WHO movie, and DOCTOR WHO has barely anything really to do with it.

They seem to struggle a bit with tone, they want it dystopic, but not *too* dystopic. They want comedy, but not *TOO*much comedy, they want to remain faithful to Terry Nations vision. But this is a Gramaphone of a story in a ‘CD’ world. its…a square peg in a round hole honestly. I dont HATE it, but its weird to see why anyone would bother doing THIS, NOW.

The cine is fine, compositions about as good as it gets for these low budget runs. I adore the use of colour here and the Daleks shell colours are all utterly delightful honestly. its vivid and creative, maybe a *bit* safer than the first outing. But ultimately still solid enough.

The performances are largely sitting on Bernard Cribbins and Peter Cushing (whenever he ACTUALLY gets a chance to DO something) I also have to give a special shout out to ‘Philip Maddoc’ one of the few TV doctor who actors to somehow land a part in these films. And my favourite ‘person who gets blown up in a shed, when he thinks the daleks cant blow up sheds.’ delightful.

Also; on the soundtrack front, we’re still doing big band orchestral pieces, and this one sounds even MORE like some kind of strange ‘Showa’ era TOHO production. It…wasnt for me, and felt quite dated for the time it came out…but hey ho!…

Daleks: Invasion Earth 2150AD was a sequel noone really asked for, and that reflected in the box office. A third film adapting ‘The Daleks Masterplan’ was kicked around for years befor eventually being abandoned in 1970. and LORD knows what THAT would have looked like. To me? I kind of just put this film in a compartment of my brain that acknowledges it exists….But doesnt really know why. I dont hate it, but I certainly dont love it. It has its moments, but whenever the credits roll Im always just left with ‘why?’

I’d say if you like your low budget, cheesy 60s sci fi stuff, this is absolutely a curio not to be missed. But doctor who fans may see this more as an oddity than anything ACTUALLY worth their time, and I personally will probably leave it a bit before revisiting this one.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/daleks-invasion-earth-2150-ad/

I missed my chance catching this in the cinema, and trying to find a copy of this film on physical or even digital that wasnt stupidly expensive was problematic to say the least. Mercifully ‘Channel 4’ appear to have screened it over the new years, and they’ve JUST by chance got their streaming app back up and working on google and android systems. So I grasped at the chance to catch this one while there was still a window to do it legally for free…and I was NOT dissapointed.

The film is essentially one giant spoiler. So I cant really go into any kind of detail without ruining the experience. Suffice to say, I went into this largely blind with only the knowledge that it involved jumping around in multiverses in some way, and that apparently it was a bit weird (my kind of remit). But I dont think I was prepared for the subtext of this piece to really smack the audience across the face in the 2nd and 3rd acts.

The universe hopping is really just window dressing, the framework from which the main plot is draped, which is predominantly around finding and accepting your place in the world, working through trauma and acknowledging when that trauma is influencing your life and your decisions to both yours and the people around you’s detriment. and learning to continue growing, learning acceptance and actually striving to evolve, rather than shutting down and just accepting your lot in life.

This film is basically a ‘growth’ story, but it does the wonderful thing of not just making it a lone persons growth story, much like the multiverse plot thats being thrust to the forefront of the pictures marketing. this film is about the growth of a family, the development of a family, and how one small change can create unexpected bigger ripples (something the film cleverly talks about literally with the multiverse elements, while doing it metaphorically with the characters themselves.)

I really quite enjoyed this one. I felt the script was refreshing, ran at a clip and structured itself remarkably well while spinning so many plates. I always say the sign of a great movie is when you become so wrapped up in the world the films building that you end up having a a shock realisation of the logistics it would have taken to handle some of the themes, elements, shots or direction choices the film made. and I found myself constantly having to pause the film to catch my breath at some of the shot choices, thematic choices and effects utilised. Its honestly a remarkable work, with influences stretching from anime titles like ‘Paprika’. ‘Perfect Blue’ and ‘Ghost in the shell’, to surreal Japanese cinema offerings like ‘House’ to Western influences ranging from ‘Monty Python’, to Disney right through to the 1964 film ‘L’Enfer’

It casts its net into so many genres, movies, fields and thoughts it can quite quickly become a rather overwhelming experience (Lord knows how it felt to watch this thing in Imax, im sure ushers had to scrape peoples brains off the ceiling).

The script itself is charming, interesting and relentless baraging the audience with philosophical concepts and ideas from start to finish. the act structuring is solid, the decision to split the film into 3 parts I thought worked well and the ideas coming off this script are astounding, its a firework of a film honestly shedding sparkles of genius with ever throb.

While I do think the film starts to slow a little in the back half of the 2nd act as it gets bogged down with the concepts the films trying to present. I think i’d find it hard to get this movie down to sub 2 hours. Im almost always an advocate that your film could be 10-15 minutes shorter and twice better for it. This film is no exception, but it really becomes a case of ‘where to cut?’ because even the small moments, are nice and add subtle additional layers to the storytelling.

The direction and cine are both exemplary, theres a reason this film did well during awards season with ultra creative directoral visions beautifully captured in razor sharp cinemetographic choices. I do think it relies on CGI a little *too* much at times, and at times it does feel like it prioritizes the visuals over the vision. But I can forgive it that given how folks quite often will remember an image over an idea.

The colour use is superb, the shot variety and edit are astounding, clear, precise works that honestly delighted. with humour being gently sprinkled across the runtime, in ways that CAN be up front, but are often quite subtle.

The performances are equally astounding. Of course, the centerpiece of the whole thing has to be the frankly genius acting of Michelle Yeoh and Stephanie Hsu as Mother and Daughter Evelyn and Joy. Delivering an astounding range over 150 minutes from genuine gut punches to solid laughter and everything in between, the film would have been a poorer experience without their sincerity and genuiness oozing out of the screen.

Of course, thats not to ignore Ke Huy Quan here as Waymond, who gets a split personality role ranging from a suave action type, to a soul crushed gent who ‘missed an opportunity’ to a doting husband on both sides of a divorce. he too gives an astounding range of performances and his charm really does help pull the audience in and bring them along for every bump of the ride.

That of course isnt to play down the supporting cast, in particular James Hong and Jamie Lee Curtis as ‘Gong Gong’ and ‘Deirdre’ respectfully…who do a fine turn in their respective roles. They fully capture the parts they’re playing and seem to be having a lot of fun doing so. Put it this way, when JAMES HONG…AND JAMIE LEE CURTIS…ARE BOTH…Starring in your film, and they’re great, but arnt a patch on your leading cast. My god, you’re cooking with something special.

Throw in a solid soundtrack that really helps punctuate key moments and is used almost a layering tool to help further pull you into the situation, and I think you have a real winner on your hands here honestly.

I didnt really know what to expect from ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ going in. I was just hoping what i’d heard was done effectively. And I really wasnt dissapointed. an astounding journey of a movie with a unique flare and style that was MORE than deserving of the praise the academy gave it at the time. I highly recommend checking this one out. But my advise is to make sure you have the time to catch it all in one sitting, uninterrupted. I struggle to find 2+ hours free a day, and I feel being pulled in and out of the action didnt solidly help me. But if you can stay in that world, it’s a rich and rewarding experience.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/everything-everywhere-all-at-once/

The last film on the ‘Short Sharp Shocks: Volume 2’ set I had yet to watch. ‘Hangman’ is a ‘Safety at Work’ film aimed at helping building site workers not die by drinking 16 largers and doing a bit of scaffolding.

Incredibly campy, it sounds like the whole film was narrated by Mike Reid, as he cheekily narrates the pitfalls ans follies that could lead to your demise.

I’m a sucker for PIF’s and this one’s great fun. Little on the more violent side than most. And I do feel the structure of the film (which is essentially a ‘guess what happens’ piece) is undermined by the opening 3 minutes in which they show basically all the accidents nastiest bits.

But hey, this is probably one of the more fun films on these sets, and arguably in the top 3 I’ve seen so far. I’d say if you enjoy public information films, you’ll probably get a kick out of this one.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/hangman-1986/

Well, I figured i’d kick start the new year with a bit of cheer and merryment, and they seldom get as cheery or merry as ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ the unholy union of the guy who wrote the ‘James Bond’ books, teaming up with the guy who wrote ‘The Witches’ and ‘James and the Giant Peach’ to create simulatneously the most delriously eccentric and terrifying work the 60s had to offer.

Its a bit of a nationwide staple is ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ around this time of year, some watch it around christmas time, others prefer to have it on in that weird gap between the 27th of December and New years (I fall into this camp) but in the UK its usually playing somewhere and is something of a festive favourite alongside similarly bizarre and troubling films like ‘Oliver!’ and ‘Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’.

The plot?..Thats a loaded question. But i’ll give it a go. Its 1911, and Two kids find a rundown car in a junk yard thats alledged to have been a world champion racer for 3 years on the bounce. The kids love the car, but a scrap merchent threatens to buy it and melt it down…Unless of course the kids can cough up 30 shillings (approximately £155 in todays money, or nearly $200 American).

They head home and tell their dad, who reveals (to the audience) they are in fact poor…SO very poor, and they dont have that kind of money just lying around to buy broken cars with. It turns out the dad is an eccentric inventor whos inventions almost never work, who’s also taking care of his aging father, who’s also an eccentric, who believes he’s still in the military (whether he ever actually was to begin with is up for debate).

Anyway a chance encounter with a lady called ‘Truely’ sets our inventor up with a meeting at a sweet factory to try and sell his latest invention, the ‘Toot Sweet’ a sugar stick you can blow like a whistle. it passes the audition, but an EQUALLY chance encounter at a fair ground with a man who gets a particularly bad hair cut from our inventors ‘automatic haircut’ machine ends in greater success, when he joins in on a random carnie side show and makes the 30 shillings for a 3-5 minute performance all in one go.

Anyway; they buy the car, they do it up, they take it out for a ride (along with Truely) and while spending the day at the beach, the dad recalls a tall tale about a group of nasty folks from a faraway european country called ‘Vulgaria’ who’ve heard about the car, and its supposed magic ability to fly and float on water…and they want it. Cue a madcap adventure to Vulgaria complete with Elder-napping, Noncery and traumatising visuals, guarenteed to ensure your kids wont WANT to see January 2nd.

It’s got to be *AT LEAST* 13 years since I last watched this film all the way through, I remembered always having a quite sincere soft spot for its whimsical nature. But the curse of media literacy, and 7.5 years of film journalism (not to mention the 20+ years of film making) has had devestating consiquences on my ability to enjoy movies…So much so that rewatching this now, I had to deal with my nostalgia trying to overlook simply unforgivable things about this film.

For a starters, I completely forgot that this film is nearly two and a half hours long. HOW?! How is this movie nearly 150 minutes long?! It absolutely doesnt warrent it. it has NO business being this length. and that factor alone has a devestating impact on the scripting.

The first act, CRAWLS. It CRAWLS…to get to a place where it starts picking up steam. I had completely forgotten most of the first act going into this, I had always just assumed the film started with Carattacus Potts bringing the car into the workshop and slowly working to get it up to speed.

I’d COMPLETELY forgotten about the extended race car intro that goes on for approximately 25 years, the kids arguing with the scrap man, the family finance issue plotline, the first meeting with Truely, a good 2-3 of the musical numbers in that opening half hour. and its PAINFUL waiting for this thing to ACTUALLY kick in and BE the movie I want it to be.

It isnt really till around the half way point that we actually get into the more fantastical elements of the production, and they’re fun, dark at times, but largely in a way that invites the audience to laugh along, rather than recoil (child catcher aside of course.) But by that point i’d felt like i’d been waiting in an airport departure lounge for a week.

And I think thats a core issue with this script, the characters are great, when they’re doing whimsy and charismatic things…But when that isnt happening, its like their entire personalities fall off. they just become exposition spreaders and not much else really…and because the whimsy doesnt really begin till the 2nd half (with the fair ground and the sweet factory sequences as VERY notable exceptions) I found myself getting impatient for the actual film to start proper.

From there the second and third act are largely fine, charming, witty, genuinely funny in places. But because of the ‘epic’ runtime, it has a real problem trying to establish and stick with tone. on one side of the see-saw you have Potts and Truely doing pratt falls, physical comedy and funny faces. On the other, you have the baron trying to kill his wife, the child catcher leering on children and questionable language choices such as ‘Fuzzy Wuzzies’. its disorienting. My understanding is that the brief was to try and make a film with a plot that replicated the Grimms fairytale type structure…and on that front they do succeed…But at what cost I ask you?

I dunno, Im conflicted on this rewatch about the structural integrity of the script. I feel like had it been 90-100 minutes and it had binned off most of the opening act, alongside tightening up the tone to help (if nothing else) make the contrasts a bit more consistent, it could have been absolutely perfect. As it stands, I feel most people forget the *thud* that lands with this film when the hit play.

The direction and cine are probably the films 2nd strongest elements honestly (outside of the performances) we have creative direction and cinematography a-plenty here, its exploding with possibilities, unusual decisions that just somehow work and fantastical visions that make it stand out as a film that has clearly lasted the test of time. Only matched by some superb cast direction that delivers moments that are burned into the minds of the nation. perfect set placements, perfect designs. I LOVE the look and feel of this film visually and its probably one of the sole reasons the film is remebered so fondly. Because while the scripts a bit of a mes, the ‘feel’ this film has is frankly unmistakable.

Easily however, the thing that saves this film and probably the best aspect is the casting. From the top; Dick Van Dyke, Sally Ann Howes, Lionel Jeffreys, Gert Frobe, Anna Quale, Robert Helpmann and Benny Hill? No notes. Perfection. Its a remarkable thing to get THAT MANY folks who just so perfectly personify the characters they’re being asked ot play. its frankly insane to have so many bottles of lightning all in one movie, but they somehow do. Its incredible.

Thats not to do a disservice to the rest of the cast however, who also all deliver remarkably good performances that mix high energy with some genuine feeling and deliver an outcome that manages to really get things over the line and cooking. I wont go as far as to say their isnt a BAD performance here…Just that I cant recall any.

And tying it all together is the soundtrack, which is best described as ‘A third of tracks I dont remember at all, that are utterly forgettable. A third of tracks that I vaguely remembered, but largely didnt care for. and a third of tracks that absolutely blow me away and are some of the finest musical numbers ever composed.’ the films that fractured. Truleys song lamenting Caratticus was NOT my cup of tea at all, but an addled ex-army general singing about being carried off to ‘the posh life’ while being kidnapped in his shed by a blip, while ALSO getting dunked like a biscuit! YES PLEASE!

Hits include ‘Me old bamboo’, ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’, ‘The posh posh travelling life’, ‘Doll on a music Box’, ‘Choochie face’ and much…MUCH…MUCH MUCH more. go nuts. you’ll find at least half a dozen you like.

Having given it time between rewatches, i’ve found with this instance that ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ frustrated me, I really wanted to like it like I used to, I wanted to enjoy it the same way I recalled enjoying it in my memories. But the reality is, its overlong, tonally all over the place and a big chunk of the songs are just flatlining.

There is an incredible movie in here, and I think with some re-editing I could love it a HELL of a lot more than I did with this watch…But for now, I think im going to need a bit of time before I give this one another spin.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/chitty-chitty-bang-bang/

Watched on Wednesday January 1, 2025.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/bloody-new-year/4/

For my 300th (and final!) movie of 2024, I decided to go out on a high, with what a vast majority of critics (inlcuding Siskel and Ebert) alongside multiple online aggregate sites list as ‘The Greatest Musical Ever Made!’ Yep, I sat down in the middle of a severe weather warning for wind and rain on New Years Eve with my partner, and together in the warm glow of the christmas lights, we watched ‘Singing in the Rain’ for the first time ever. And we had a pretty great time.

The films set in the 1920s and follows Silent film lethario ‘Don Lockwood’ (Played by Gene Kelly) and his malicious co-star Lina Lamont (Jean Hagan) Linas maliciousness is spurred by the fact that Don really just, isnt that into her, despite her being MASSIVELY into him. The pair are icons of California appearing as THE romantic pairing in all of the major films of the day.

But one fateful night, two incidents will set in motion events that will change the face of Hollywood forever. The first is Don, while being hoarded by fans, tries to escape by jumping into the car of one ‘Kathy Selden’ (Debbie Reynolds) at first the pair cant stand each other, with Kathy insulting Dons acting ability and Don swiping at Kathy for being a lower rung on the actors ladder than he is. But after another encounter later at a party being held by the head of ‘Monumental Pictures’ (R.F Simpson) Don is left swooning by Kathys attitude and way of being…which only upsets Lina even more when she clearly sees he’s more interested in Kathy than her AND during the party Kathy accidentally sends an entire birthday cake into linas face.

The other incident is that, while at the party, R.F Announces a special treat, revealing a new revolution in moviemaking…Sound. specifically they cite that warner brothers is soon to release the first fully talking picture ‘The Jazz Singer’…They’re not worried though as, at this point, its just being seen as a gimmick…That is until ‘The Jazz Singer’ does gangbusters at the box office, leading ‘Monumental’ to urgently rework all their ‘in production’ silent films into ‘talkies’.

For Don, thats not a problem, he’s maybe a little stiff on delivery and line memory, but he’s fine…But Lina? she has a voice that could cut a two by four in half. She cant remember lines, she has trouble pronouncing words…She isnt built for the ‘Talkies’…But you know who is? Kathy. And when Don and Kathy are reunited. the pair along with Dons lifetime friend Cosmo hatch a scheme to put Kathy on the map, while also keeping Lina from stirring up trouble…IF they can pull it off that is.

And y’know what? I think ‘Greatest Musical Ever’ is *probably* an overstatement. But I’ll tell you what, this is a MORE than fantastic little musical that had me grinning for most of the runtime.

In an era where musicals were often a little…’rigid’. Where they basically came in three flavours, ‘Very serious and dower’, ‘Farsical comedies’, or ‘Opera’. ‘Singing in the Rain’ breaks new ground by looking at the framework of the ‘muscial’ genre up to that point and remodelling it with the slightly more swinging and hip sensibilities of the 1950s.

Its a musical that inherently takes itself VERY seriously, with careful consideration put into every dance routine, line delivery and musical number. and BECAUSE it spends so much time trying to master the hard stuff to the point it looks effortless, it grants them the tremendous fortune of being able to actually PLAY the film as a bit self aware, a bit laid back. a more natural happening, rather than an almost pained movie of routine after routine.

And everyone in this film quite literally put their blood sweat and tears into the production (I lost a lot of respect for Kelly over this film) but it cant be denied the end result is a masterwork. A film that from top to bottom feels like its been optimised almost to the point of perfection for the genre at that time.

For a starters the script is a VERY pacy hour and 42 minutes long, the tone is easy going, playing for laughs, but not to TOO much of an obnoxious degree. he cast are charming, charismatic and entertaining throughout. I had a warm smile for most of the runtime on this thing just watching the antics go down, and there are some really solid laughs in this to boot too!

The songs are well paced out, not *too* often, but plentiful enough (and consistent with hits) to keep you engaged. I feel its biggest triumph is taking an element of movie history (the jump to the talkie) and actually managing to translate it not only into a successful musical, but an entertaining and well played one at that. It could have been SO easy to mess this up, and wind up with an insincere piece that felt flat and too tied to the time to be fun. But they relish every scene their in with quirky dialogue and *just* the right amount of snark as and when required to just about keep the production afloat for the whole runtime.

In fact my only criticism is the somewhat surreal ‘Gotta Dance’ sequence in the 3rd act…Which for me? while VERY nicely handled, did feel out of place with the rest of the movie and seemed to go on for an AGE. I understand why its there because it helps to further work on Don as a character a bit. But I think it could have been cut, or at the very least trimmed a fair bit and this would have been even better still.

Direction is frankly superb, the dance numbers are cited as some of the most difficult routines in musical history, Debbie Reynolds hadnt done anything like this before and somehow, via supernatural powers or the pure wrath of Gene Kelly, they managed to pull off some of the most memorable, creative and interesting direction that i’ve seen in a movie in a good while, constantly shapeshifting and evolving, theres sequences in this film that feel 30 years fresher than they actually are. It honestly blew my mind to find out this was 1952, as i’d have had it as a late 50s film truthfully.

Direction of the cast is extroadinary as well, again these were NOT easy routines to learn and Kelly, Reynolds and O’Connor MASTER them. I dont think i’ve ever seen footwork and intensity in a performance anywhere quite like whats shown here. its truely remarkable. Concerning…But remarkable.

As for the cine, its beautiful, intense and creative sequences flow beautifully from one scene to the next, theres room for creative compositions that most all land, sequence building is a little stiff in places (but it is 1952) and I think a little more B-roll would have got it over the line fully for me…But its a minor grumble, this thing looks fantastic, its vivid, colourful, engaging, SHOWS more than it tells and the edit is seamless, equally smooth and frankly an utter delight.

Performance wise, Debbie Reynolds and Gene Kelly are astounding. Given what we know Kelly did to Reynolds through this production I almost feel perverse praising him here. But the pair really do have a strong on screen chemestry, they both astound in their roles delivering fantastic performances that largely (and successfully) carry the film from start to finish.

Donald O’Connor and Jean Hagan as Cosmo and Lina equally delight as comedy foils for the production, with O’Connor *maybe* just about pushing the comedy foil a bit *too* far for my taste. But never full crossing the line. and Hagan is just perfect as Lina, giving a performance thats rich, multi layered and varied. I laughed at her when we found out her voice was a dud for ‘talkies’ I winced when she started flexing her stranglehold on the studios when she found out they were employing Kathy. It takes a strong performance to be able to play both the victim of comedy, the comic foil AND the villainess all at the same time, all in one movie. But she really truely nails it delivering a memorable performance that helps tie the whole thing together.

And as if I could review this without talking about the soundtrack. the titular ‘Singing in the Rain’ is a wonderful classic, but ‘Good Morning (to you)’, ‘Gotta Dance’, ‘Make ’em Laugh’ and ‘Moses’ are all show stoppers in their own right and really showcase the talent both on screen and the crew behind it. I was beyond impressed and was in awe of the craftsmanship behind it.

Is ‘Singing in the Rain’ the greatest musical ever made? In my opinion? im not fully convinced. I could easily see a point where, through re-watches, this becomes one of my favourite musicals. In terms of technical ability it almost certainly is in the top 3. But for me? this is just a really solid, charming and astounding work that is guarenteed to raise even the sourest of moods and was a fantastic way for me to see out 2024. The only thing better than finishing ‘Singing in the Rain’ is knowing a next time will always be on the cards.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/singin-in-the-rain/

youtu.be/iQamw4xxxHY?si=dF5bpIz9hpfWBfHS

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-mark-of-lilith/

Probably the best entry so far that I’ve seen in all of the ‘Short Sharp Shock’ boxsets. ‘The Dumb Waiter’ is a simple stalked/home Invasion piece in which a woman is contacted by a man claiming to be following her, and from there the action and tension just keeps getting ratcheted higher and higher.

I’m going to keep my thoughts on the script to a minimum because, it is a quite short film and I don’t want to spoil it. But the direction and cine are really rock solid, reminding me very strongly of the sense of isolation and creativity seen in Bob Clarkes ‘Black Christmas’…which I’m sure is probably one of the higher honours I can bestow a short like this.

Tense, creative and the first film in ANY of these sets to genuinely have me on the edge of my seat, ‘The Dumb Waiter’ is a fine fine movie. And one I can definitely recommend.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-dumb-waiter-1979/

A real shame honestly. What we have here is a pretty decent idea, a nasty racist politician ressurects an occultism from the 15th century to aid him in passing what (at the time) was heavily draconian legislation…but by modern standards is par of the course seemingly…Only to wind up biting off more than he could chew.

It’s a simple idea with scope to be really effective…and the film looks great with some pretty solid performances to boot!

The problem is this movie is just shy of an hour…and the idea can seemingly only really sustain 25 minutes…meaning at least half the movie feels like padding…and not particularly interesting padding at that.

Not helping matters either, the actual plot beyond that initial pitch gets VERY contrived and confusing fairly quickly making a film that was already a bit of a drag, even harder to stay invested in even as the final minutes drew in.

I ultimately started clock watching by the 35 minute mark, and was checking my phone by 50 minutes…its a shame really, as I think had this been 30 minutes, it’d probably have been at least a star and a half higher for me…ah well, can’t be lucky every time.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-face-of-darkness/

A somewhat rarely seen music video for Screaming Lord Suches novelty hit ‘Jack The Ripper’ as produced by Joe Meek.

A little basic, but some interesting cine choices and it’s nice to see a music video getting the full colour film treatment, when generally most of these kind of promo films would have been shot on B&W tape.

Looks good, sounds good, I got no issues.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/screaming-lord-sutch-jack-the-ripper/