An example of a movie review. positive.

A: For years I thought this knockabout service comedy was a product of John Ford, especially with Victor McLaglen as one of the leads. It certainly has the same rough house humor that Ford laces his films with.

To my surprise I learned it was George Stevens who actually directed it. Still I refuse to believe that this film wasn't offered to John Ford, but he was probably off in Monument Valley making Stagecoach.

Victor McLaglen along with Cary Grant and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., play three sergeants in the Indian Army who have a nice buddy/buddy/buddy camaraderie going. But the old gang is breaking up because Fairbanks is engaged to marry Joan Fontaine. Not if his two pals can help it, aided and abetted by regimental beastie Gunga Din as played by Sam Jaffe.

The Rudyard Kipling poem served as the inspiration for this RKO film about barracks life in the British Raj. The comic playing of the leads is so good that it does overshadow the incredibly racist message of the film. Not that the makers were racist, but this was the assumption of the British there at the time, including our leads and Gunga Din shows this most effectively.

The British took India by increments, making deals here and there with local rulers under a weak Mogul emperor who was done away with in the middle of the 19th century. They ruled very little of India outright, that would have been impossible. Their rule depended on the native troops you see here. Note that the soldiers cannot rise above the rank of corporal and Gunga Din is considerably lower in status than that.

Note here that the rebels in fact are Hindu, not Moslem. There are as many strains of that religion as there are Christian sects and this strangling cult was quite real. Of course to those being strangled they might not have the same view of them as liberators. But until India organized its independence movement, until the Congress Party came into being, these people were the voice of a free India.

But however you slice it, strangling people isn't a nice thing to do and the British had their point here also. When I watch Gunga Din, I think of Star Trek and the reason the prime directive came into being.

Cary Grant got to play his real cockney self here instead of the urbane Cary we're used to seeing. Fairbanks and McLaglen do very well with roles completely suited to their personalities.

Best acting role in the film however is Eduard Ciannelli as the guru, the head of the strangler cult. Note the fire and passion in his performance, he blows everyone else off the screen when he's on.

Favorite scene in Gunga Din is Ciannelli exhorting his troops in their mountain temple. Note how Stevens progressively darkens the background around Ciannelli until all you see are eyes and teeth like a ghoulish Halloween mask. Haunting, frightening and very effective.

It was right after the action of this film in the late nineteenth century that more and more of the British public started to question the underlying assumptions justifying the Raj. But that's the subject of Gandhi.

Gunga Din is still a great film, entertaining and funny. It should be shown with A Passage to India and Gandhi and you can chart how the Indian independence movement evolved.

An example of a movie review. positive.

A: Grand epic as it is, Kenneth Branagh's monumental rendering of what is perhaps William Shakespeare's most popular tragedy suffers under the weight of its four hour playing time and certainly takes some real staying power. Two entirely separate sittings would most likely be better in order to fully appreciate what is certainly high class film making. While I absolutely acknowledge this masterpiece as such, I must confess to a lack of enthusiasm for the old bards flamboyance, his rhetoric (and he sends himself up so well) and his many flourishes. Thus "Hamlet" loses its impact as it loses its grip.

From Patrick Doyle's music to Alex Thomson's cinematography to Tim Harvey's exquisite sets, the movie is a feast of visual and aural delights, which compliments a fine cast. Branagh has taken on three huge mantels, adapting, directing and playing. His adaptation is superb, his direction strong, but by the time he got to the role of Hamlet, the strain seemed to be showing; yet still he does a fine job in what is an incredibly taxing role. Derek Jacobi gobbles up the sinister Claudius with glee, and Julie Christie is most dramatic as his queen, Gertrude. Richard Briers is marvellous as Polonius, and Charlton Heston is once again a strong screen influence as the player King. Many others drop by, including Jack Lemmon (superb in a very small role), Billy Crystal, Dame Judi Dench, Sir John Mills, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Richard Attenborough and Gerard Depardieu. The acting prize though must go to one of the great thespian discoveries of recent years, Kate Winslet. Hers is a moving portrayal of the most tragic figure in this whole affair, Ophelia.

To finish (before this review goes on longer than the film), I must say it is the length that really tests the viewer in this movie. Branagh has directed with purpose, giving many important, impacting scenes. Too many of them outstay their welcome. Watching this film holds a fantastic reminder of the many pearls of wisdom we have garnered from it. "Neither a lender nor a borrower be" or "Be true to thyself". And of course: "To be or not to be".

The opening two hours does take some perseverance, but if you do manage to stay tuned you are sure to be treated to a rousing finale which gathers momentum from the tragic funeral onward.

Monday, June 8, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon

An example of a movie review. negative.

A:
They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged.

So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel "The True History of the Kelly Gang" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.

Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.