Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: I gave it a 10, since everyone else seemed to like it and it would have been churlish not to. The reason I'm troubling you is to add a personal observation on Castle's work.

I've seen "Homicidal" and "The Tingler" (the version with the clever colour sequence where everything except the blood is in black and white) a few times and "The House On Haunted Hill" many times.

Even I am not old enough to have seen them when Castle was up to his showman tricks, thus I can appreciate them for their own merit. And while most pass him off as second-rate, schlocky, hammy, etc., I believe they do him a disservice.

The end sequence of "Homicidal" is GENUINELY shocking and works today - and the premise of "The Tingler" while silly, was highly original.

But "The House On Haunted Hill" was a TRIUMPH. Having used that Frank Lloyd Wright house as its exterior, the great Vincent Price and a solid cast, plus a good score and production values - when I first saw it at a packed late-night showing in the late Sixties, it produced an audience reaction I'd not seen before and have not seen since.

It was the bit where the heroine is alone in the basement (if you've not seen the film, stop reading NOW) and we are waiting to hear the hero on the other side of the wall.

With NO telegraphing of what is coming, the camera slowly pulls back, forcing the AUDIENCE to switch their gaze to... I'm saying no more (my "spoiler" declaration above only covers THIS movie).

The point is, I believe this ploy was DELIBERATE - not accidental - and when it happened, the WHOLE AUDIENCE SCREAMED (including most of the men!) It took the audience about TEN MINUTES to calm down.

Now THAT is superior film-making. A flamboyant showman he might have been, but "House" and the other two films I've mentioned were GOOD MOVIES. Castle may not have been a Hitchcock, but he was no Ed Wood, either.

It's easy to concentrate on someone's quirks and forget to examine their TALENT. So I hope this documentary acknowledged that. I look forward to seeing it.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: The summary line above, spoken by James Cloud (Robert Preston) to his brother Tom (Robert Sterling) just about says it all. Jim, AKA Kid Wichita, has a way of making things happen, only trouble is, he usually leaves dead bodies where he's been. Not the sort of mentoring Tom envisions for younger brother Jeff, who likes what he sees in Jim, especially when defending their ranch against local Texas cattlemen.

The opening credits state 'Introducing John Barrymore Jr. as the Younger Brother', in this his very first screen appearance. That seemed rather odd to me, particularly since he was addressed as Jeff almost immediately into the story. Approximately eighteen at the time of this movie, he bears a passing resemblance to Sean Penn. No stranger to personal and legal problems throughout his career as well as estrangement from his family, I was left wondering if his daughter Drew Barrymore might have ever seen this picture. I'm inclined to think not.

On the subject of resemblances, I was also struck by the thought that the young Robert Sterling looked a bit like Roy Rogers early in his career. Knowing Sterling previously only from his role as George Kerby in the early 1950's TV series 'Topper', I thought he looked out of place in a Western, but that might just be me. His character becomes emboldened by his brother's resourcefulness at creating trouble, and provides some of the edginess to this not so typical story. Minor subplots abound, including the relationship rancher John Gall (John Litel) has with his son the Sheriff (who Kid Wichita kills), and the troubled marriage between Kathleen Boyce (Cathy Downs) and her husband Earl (who Kid Wichita kills). Chill Wills rounds out the main cast as one of Tom Cloud's hired hands, and figures in the somewhat predictable finale.

What's not quite predictable is how things eventually wind up there, and for that reason, this Western earns points for following a less traveled, hence not quite as formulaic a plot as a lot of good brother/bad brother Westerns do. Combined with the eclectic casting of the principals, it's one I'd recommend, even if you have to endure some of the jump cuts and sloppy editing that I experienced with my copy.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
Eytan Fox, whilst generally leaning on the apologist side of Israeli politics, has made several quite interesting films in the past such as "Walk on Water" and the simply wonderful film, "Yossi & Jagger". In "The Bubble", however, he has taken this illogical and unfair approach to the extreme.

Far from giving this film a standing ovation, the people at the screening I attended quietly got up and left. I also quietly left, fuming with anger at such a ridiculously one-sided film that translates self-preservation as racist bullying, and racist bullying (and terrorism) as outbursts of justified anger; which implies that Arabs are so wronged by the evil Israelis that they react in anger to a constant stream of one-sided Israeli aggression against them, and that they, therefore, should not be held responsible for their actions.

This film wasn't worth the money I paid for the ticket (indeed, I considered demanding my money back), and was basically an Israeli apeing of the Palestinian film "Paradise Now". If you want to be an anti-Israeli, then by all means watch this film, as it really justifies just such a belief system. The fact that this film was made by an Israeli director and, even worse, such a talented Israeli director, is a crying shame. Indeed, just how Israel can be surprised to be regarded as a pariah State when Israelis themselves make such anti-Israel propaganda, beggars belief.

What a shameful, horrid little film!