wekirch
Joined Oct 2007
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see ratings breakdowns and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews23
wekirch's rating
One of the worst movies ever to make to the bottom half of a double bill. Extremely low-budget, and it shows. Lame script (loosely based on Stagecoach), acting varying from firmly stereotypical to "what am I doing here" painful, narrative consisting of a string of set pieces with little attempt to tie them to the story line, in which the train has to "get through", and there's a plot to steal a whack of gold.
Most of the action is shot on a single set, the interior of a passenger coach. Almost all external shots are either rear projection or stock footage, chosen with scant regard for authenticity and still less for continuity. I watched this mess because it has a railroad setting. The train includes a mid 20th century baggage car on a supposedly mid- to late 19th century run to Tombstone. There's a lot of shooting, with dramatic falling off screen when wounded, etc. One of the characters is shot in the left shoulder, and receives a bandage around his middle.
That may stand as the level of writing and editing of this waste of celluloid. Well, maybe not a total waste. It could be used in a film studies course as an example of how not do it. Recommended as just such an example, if you're in the mood for it.
Most of the action is shot on a single set, the interior of a passenger coach. Almost all external shots are either rear projection or stock footage, chosen with scant regard for authenticity and still less for continuity. I watched this mess because it has a railroad setting. The train includes a mid 20th century baggage car on a supposedly mid- to late 19th century run to Tombstone. There's a lot of shooting, with dramatic falling off screen when wounded, etc. One of the characters is shot in the left shoulder, and receives a bandage around his middle.
That may stand as the level of writing and editing of this waste of celluloid. Well, maybe not a total waste. It could be used in a film studies course as an example of how not do it. Recommended as just such an example, if you're in the mood for it.
Several murders of prostitutes almost lead to major miscarriage of justice, on grounds of National Security. Dr Collins, the new young forensic pathologist at first antagonises the police because he's aware of current methods, unlike his boss, the previous pathologist. He hires Molly Cooper, a reporter eager to participate in order to get ideas for detective stories, to be his assistant because she doesn't flinch when he asks her to help out on the first autopsy.
False leads and three more murders complicate the plot. As a murder puzzle this movie is very good. As a story about the effects of crime on people and their relationships, it's merely average: Collins and Cooper are clearly attracted to each other, but either he's too bashful or too aware of how romance might compromise their professional relationship. As an evocation of wartime London, the movie's better than most. The director wanted a claustrophobic effect, of being hemmed in and navigating through a perilous labyrinth. This not only set the ambience of hidden dangers and treachery, it also made it easier to give us the flavour of wartime grunge. As an exploration of the necessary evils of war the movie fails. It presents the ethical dilemma, but solves it rather too neatly. Maybe it was solved that neatly in real life.
We enjoyed this movie. Above average.
False leads and three more murders complicate the plot. As a murder puzzle this movie is very good. As a story about the effects of crime on people and their relationships, it's merely average: Collins and Cooper are clearly attracted to each other, but either he's too bashful or too aware of how romance might compromise their professional relationship. As an evocation of wartime London, the movie's better than most. The director wanted a claustrophobic effect, of being hemmed in and navigating through a perilous labyrinth. This not only set the ambience of hidden dangers and treachery, it also made it easier to give us the flavour of wartime grunge. As an exploration of the necessary evils of war the movie fails. It presents the ethical dilemma, but solves it rather too neatly. Maybe it was solved that neatly in real life.
We enjoyed this movie. Above average.
An overrated film. The satire works very well, especially since Chaplin has sussed that Hynkel-Hitler was the empty puppet of his impulses. But Chaplin can't resist inserting slapstick and farce, which interferes with the developing terror. The Brown Shirts may have been buffoons, but their buffoonery killed people. Chaplin shies away from following the logic of his plot to its dark conclusion. The final scene, obviously meant to be a stirring call to arms against tyranny, turns the plot into sentimental farce. Satire is allied to tragedy, and doesn't need a happy ending to make its point. But perhaps the American audiences of 1940 preferred to laugh at slapdash tyrant instead of considering the moral imperative laid on them by recognising evil.
I watched this movie because of its reputation. It's become a curio, important for its historical significance. It did help mobilise American opinion against Hitler. But it's also an example of the muddled mess that Chaplin was capable of producing when not restrained by a strong director. A mixture of inspired satire, slapstick, and comedy, but that's all, a mixture. The movie doesn't have the structure that I expected. It's a series of set pieces loosely strung on an underdeveloped plot line. Too often, I got the impression that Chaplin was showing off, or relying on his audience recognising a shtick he'd used many, many times before.
Worth watching if you're a Chaplin fan, or if you want to understand how old movies coudl affect public opinion.
I watched this movie because of its reputation. It's become a curio, important for its historical significance. It did help mobilise American opinion against Hitler. But it's also an example of the muddled mess that Chaplin was capable of producing when not restrained by a strong director. A mixture of inspired satire, slapstick, and comedy, but that's all, a mixture. The movie doesn't have the structure that I expected. It's a series of set pieces loosely strung on an underdeveloped plot line. Too often, I got the impression that Chaplin was showing off, or relying on his audience recognising a shtick he'd used many, many times before.
Worth watching if you're a Chaplin fan, or if you want to understand how old movies coudl affect public opinion.