thespeos

A loose boxer bio that's OK, but eventually becomes redundant.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: I'm not a huge fan of bio-based film, and this represents why (perhaps).

The story appears cobbled together and doesn't introduce or resolve things as it should have.

It has some endearing qualities, but that may just be the period and geography portrayed here.

Not a bad film, just dry when it's trying hard not to be.

ACTING: The acting here is fine, but the more of Flynn I watch, the more I lean toward him being a tool and icon for others. In other words, while Flynn was a solid actor, his roles invariably seem to fade into one persona, e.g. Cary Grant was an American equivalent (sans the athletic skill).

I strongly prefer actors capable of stretching outside, and even breaking out of a role.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low to moderate value

TEMPO: OK, but it bounces around a lot

CINEMATOGRAPHY: OK, but the sets looked cheap

MUSIC / SOUND: Fine

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Walsh was a machine with 140 films directed. Phew! As is often the case in life, quality and volume don't wed well. His work is professional, just rather mechanical.

Writers: Lawrence and McCoy were quite prolific writers, but I recognize only a little of their work, and none I'd recommend.

Is it a good film? It's OK, but just that

Should you watch this once? If you like old school and boxing

Rating: 6.0.

I watched this largely because I'm a huge Huston fan (father and son), but this doesn't do Walter justice.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: This is a propaganda film, and it shows.

Nazi Germany occupies Holland in an area of resistance.

And the usual drama ensues.

That's all folks.

ACTING: I was very disappointed how Huston was folded into this film. Flynn and Sheridan are fine actors, but neither are / were at Huston's level. It's not him playing "2nd fiddle" or such, no, it was the handling of his skill in context.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low value (unless you love propaganda)

TEMPO: Pace was actually OK

CINEMATOGRAPHY: The sets were so cheap it was awful

MUSIC / SOUND: OK

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: I've seen a few of Milestone's films and the only one I'd recommend is "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962), but that was also supported by Carol Reed (outstanding director).

Writers: Rossen wrote 28 screenplays to film and I've seen a few, most recently before this: "The Sea Wolf" (1941) and "Billy Budd" (1962). None of these films are especially good IMO, but certainly watchable.

Is it a good film? Maybe

Should you watch this once? Don't bother, they're are much better

Rating: 5.0 (for the acting)

I watched this because British acting is innately superb, and Alastair Sim is an actor I enjoy watching.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: The story is interesting and somewhat creative, and includes many of the salacious ingredients for a murder mystery.

The trouble with the story, as with most British stories, is the lumbering pace and the emphasis on long winded dialogue.

It still has some nice twists, but the time and script to get to those is long and tedious.

My only story misfire was the manner and timing of the inspector's arrival. Maybe you won't mind.

ACTING: Historically, British acting trounces all others, and the whole cast here demonstrates why I stand on that statement. They were believable, professional, and they ensured viewer immersion even when directing or story failed to rise to the acting talent.

While there are excellent performances, it's Sim that drew me to the film and he didn't disappoint. Sim tended to play out the same persona repeatedly, but his range capacity was wide and quick when required (even mid-story). Yes, it's likely that casting directors probably sought him out for roles that fit his persona (what in America we call "acting"). But if you follow his films you can see his ability to swing his character wherever required, e.g. "A Christmas Carol" (1951).

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate value if you have the patience

TEMPO: Slow

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Not great, and the "outdoor" sets are glaring obvious ... this is one of the film's weakest traits

MUSIC / SOUND: OK

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Gilliat was a writer first (78) and a director second (14), and he co-wrote this screenplay. Of his combined works, this was just OK. It's better than his "Jamaica Inn" (1939) but doesn't hold a candle to "The Lady Vanishes" (1938), both directed by Hitchcock.

Writers: Gurney, the co-writer, only wrote two screenplays. This was his 2nd and the year he died, so it's very hard to assess from only two films.

Is it a good film? Yes, but slow

Should you watch this once? Yes

Rating: 7.3.