Blue Ice

I try to be respectful of others opinions as everyone is entitled to one, but, as an actor and a producer who has been the recipient of ignorant comments, I have to respond to some of the comments regarding BLUE ICE. For the person who chastises Michal Cain for doing this picture and suggesting he did it for the pay check, It was his company that produced it. It was supposed to be the first in a line of quarterly pictures for TV with the same character. His partner died and that ended that.

Regarding Bob Hoskins small role...he and Caine have been lifelong friends and this is just one more of a number of pictures they have done together and to suggest that Hoskins has "ruined" his career is just ludicrous.The man continues to turn in outstanding performances in A-list films and top of the line independents. See MRS. HENDERSON PRESNETS.

The name "Harry" is a staple of Noir through both film, novels and TV-to wit "Harry O" on TV with David Janson in the 70's. "Harry" in Heminghway's TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT, and yes, the "Harry Palmer" stories of Len Deighton but that does not mean BLUE ICE is a rip off of those stories. And to suggest that Michal Caine does not do well in action films is ridiculous. See ZULU, BATTLE OF BRITIAN, A BRIDGE TO FAR, and a host of others.

I found BLUE ICE to be intelligent, well done, well acted picture with a good script. I do agree that the ending is not up to snuff but the rest of the film, especially the "Jazz" sections, is not something one sees often and it added a measure of quality to the picture.

A lot of people seem to 'pan' this film, and although it is not the best it is certainly not as bad as the current 5.2 rating on here.

The acting is ok, the best are the supporting actors who only get a cameo role, Jack Shepherd, Ian Holm, Alun Armstrong and Bob Hoskins (the best), Michael Caine does as well as he can with the script and Sean Young plays a slightly sleazy vamp type quite well, an underrated performance I feel.

The film is set in London and that is where it was filmed but the weather seems to be overcast and dreary in every scene, it would have been nice to have some scenes when the sun is out, also it seems to be filmed in a sort of 1970's style rather than the 90's when it was filmed, again making it more grim, although it seems like it is intended as a kind of 'film noir', unfortunately it was making it look grimmer than it needed to have been, and this did not help. It could have been a bit more stylish.

The story is Ok but the script, music score and editing did not help, it seemed a kind of hotch potch, it would have helped with better continuity and longer/more of a story-line, with a better script and direction and with a bit more style and content this could have been a classic similar to the Harry Palmer films Michael Caine made previously.

So although not as good as those it is not as bad as some people make it out to be, with all the remakes/sequels being churned out in the film industry it would be interesting if someone would remake this one, I'm sure with a bit more style and substance it could be a good movie.

Here's another film that one might label a neo-noir. It's film noir in story, attitude and camera-work but it's color and it's a 1992 film, not one from the late 1940s or early '50s.

The story is set in England and is a good mixture of suspense, action and romance. It's nicely filmed with a lot of night shots featuring some cool neon signs of London streets and pubs. Looks-wise, this film reminded me a lot of "Stormy Monday."

There is some good jazz in here, too. The action picks up much more in the second half of the film, capped off by a unique huge transformer-like vehicle chasing Michael Caine. The ending was a bit weak and hokey but overall, the film was entertaining and good stuff if you're a noir buff.

Yes, it's a British action film and Sir Michael is rather too old and although he's a big man etc etc (see "Get Carter") to credibly do "action" in all its established forms including deeply impress hot chick (Sean Young) which by custom he is supposed to do. Reaction to it seems to be generous condemnation from domestic reviewers and moderate enjoyment elsewhere.

The film itself rather resembles its own torture scene - a series of flash-backs but in this case of a dozen and more earlier movies some of which starred Caine or Bob Hoskins (one with the torture scene starred Dick Powell). That is a mixed blessing - on the down side it has all been done and seen before, some as has been noted, in British budget made-for-TV series - themselves lifted and downsized from big screen originals. This though is where all resemblances to the likes of "The Sweeney" and "The Professionals" ends.

Here there's stars a-plenty, and a good British cast. Added to which is the lovely cinematography particularly of Soho night exteriors. Caine and Hoskins are inescapably stars and watchable whatever they do, this time they reprise some of their famous roles - Hoskins his star turn in "Long Good Friday." Caine "The Ipcress File and "Get Carter". Even Alun Armstrong gets it a second time doing a Caine a favour - thought he might have learnt by now. But audiences had left cinemas wanting more and here we have more. And no bad thing at all. Oh, one other thing, Harry Palmer didn't smile, Caine here does too much. Perhaps he was having too much fun and lacked a director willing to tell him. Remember what Roman Polanski is said to have said on the subject.

I saw this because of Michael Caine, Bob Hoskins and Ian Holm star in it, although Bob Hoskins has a very small part. In the beginning the Sean Young character is receiving a message on her car phone from somebody who is probably an American spy. It is not clear why she is receiving the message apart ffrom the fact that the spy is her boyfriend. She is not in the spy business. Surely a spy would have a more suitable contact than his girlfriend. It is true her husband is the American ambassador in London but she does not tell him. She keeps it secret until she eventually meets Michael Caine's character. So she has nobody in the spy business to give it to. Later on we meet a man who introduces himself to Michael Caine as somebody who sees music as a form of code and that messages can be coded in music scores. What this has to do with anything is not made clear, although he is killed by the British head of one of the intelligence agencies, and we are not told what he knows, if anything. This head of intelligence lives in an expensive London house, wears expensive clothes, drives an upmarket car, belongs to an expensive private Gentlemans Club in central London and complains "What have they done for us?" as his excuse for cheating the British Government out of a large sum of money and killing whoever gets in his way. Strange journey of Sean Stacy driven by an American Embassy driver and followed by American intelligence operatives, and not clear why the driver and operatives have different objectives or even why they are concerned with her. Michael Caine does a good job of finding his way through a murky logic-less story. Good scenes of London in the 1980's, and many exciting fights etc (nothing really nasty apart from the occasional death). Watch it for Michael Caine and the other top actors, as well as the Jazz and Boby Short and Charlie Watts, but don't expect to learn anything about the spy business. Generally I liked it and the acting was believable.