gainsbarre

The only thing I can really praise about this film is that for a feature film made with a $3,000 budget, it's a respectable achievement that should inspire other film makers that it is possible to make a film on a practically non-existent budget. And the type of film that Scott Ryan has made is perfect for a low budget film, a gritty documentary style. Its a style that suits the budget and available equipment. Other than that, however, there's not much else.

This film tries to give the impression that it is a documentary following in the footsteps of a Melbourne hit man named Ray Shoesmith as he goes about his business: killing people. The documentary maker Massimo Totti follows Shoesmith around asking question and filming murders.

In one key scene that typifies the whole movie, Shoesmith and Totti are driving in a car at night through the Victorian countryside with a drug dealer in handcuffs locked in the boot of the car. Shoesmith and Totti are arguing about whether or not Clint Eastwood was in The Dirty Dozen. Shoesmith stops the car, opens the boot with gun in hand and asks the captive in the boot if Clint Eastwood is in the movie. This is basically what the entire film is about: showing a hit-man and his victims casually talking and discussing pointless and irreverent topics like their favourite cars, football players and what they want on their hamburgers. Other glib scenes involve Shoesmith telling Totti that he's not going to share a bed with him in a motel if he takes his pants off. Scenes like this, of meandering vacant ramblings, are given a large amount of time in the movie, and my guess is they're supposed to be funny scenes. Other lengthy scenes involve Totti asking Shoesmith how much money would he have to be paid before he would eat human excrement and why has he never been to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. 85% of the film is made up of scenes like this and frankly it gets really boring.

Scott Ryan gives a decent performance as Ray Shoesmith, but there is a problem which affects the whole movie. There are no characters or characterisations in this film. The characters are portrayed as superficially and rather clichéd. There is no depth in this film whatsoever. In this "documentary" we never learn why Shoesmith is a hit-man, we never learn who he kills and why or how he feels about it, we never learn who he works for and we certainly never learn what makes him tick. All we get to find out about him is that he hasn't the slightest conscience of killing people (in fact the whole thing means very little to him) and he thinks he's rather funny. He indulges in inane chit chat about pointless topics. I think what Scott Ryan is trying to do here is make a joke, the one joke this film is about: a hit-man who is an average bloke who talks about mundane things.

Unfortunately it fails on almost all fronts. In fact, its the worst aspects of 3 different types of cinema. It's not particularly funny, it doesn't work as a 'documentary' because you learn nothing slightly interesting or fascinating about the characters nor do you gain any insight when you see them or him in action, and the acting is so unnatural that it comes across in some parts as a bad improvisation game, it doesn't work as a gangster film because the majority of the film is spent on dull conversation.

This film is called the Magician because obviously like Shoesmith's dead bodies (which you never see but he does talk about) he makes things disappear, however a Hit Man knows how to hit his target, something this film certainly failed to do.

What I find interesting about this rather domestic small budget film (made at a time when Sellers's box office clout was at its lowest) is the fact that, yes Sellers plays six different characters, however the film is not saturated with him. In fact Sellers blends in remarkably to the rest of the film.

Although I wouldn't necessarily call this film a comedy, there are some funny little bits in it, its strikes me more as a delightful war-time adventure story.

In my opinion, the main focal point of this film is brothel owner Madame Grenier and her girls and their work for the French Resistance in occupied France. Sellers plays a whole host of characters around this central plot point and comes across far more as a counter-point to the action of Mme Grenier and her girls instead of screaming "Peter Sellers film Peter Selers film!" In his roles, he's also playing rather straight, not pushing for laughs, unlike his rather outrageous and dominating roles in the Pink Panther films.

All in all, this British-made film is rather domestic in feel, not a big budget, and while it's enjoyable if you happen to come across it on cable one day, but don't be prepared to be knocked out.

Well, judging by the other comments people have written about Putting It Together, there's nothing I can say that is anything different. As the blurb outside the Ethel Barrymore said this is a "Galaxy of Broadway Brilliance".

I first caught this programme on cable, and I thought it was just incredible, the next time it was on I taped it, and showed it to a few people who are also in the theatre business. And they loved it as well and all ordered copies of it. It is probably the best filmed staged production I have seen.

But why is it so good I hear you beg and plead?? Well Stephen Sondheim's songs are deeply moving, hilariously funny, warm, witty, intelligent. He ranks, in my mind, as one of the best lyricists of all time. His songs strike a deep personal chord. His songs are also excellent and challenging to perform. The cast in this production are brilliant as well. Carol Burnett handles the emotional range of Sondheim's music superbly. In the humorous numbers, she gets laughs with incredible ease, a veteran comedy performer, however as the intro for the next song starts, she will display an emotional performance of resounding sadness and bitterness, that breaking tinge that always is the basis of a Sondheim song. George Hearn is also magnificent, performing his role with a cool aloofness and casualness before sinking down into heartfelt soul-searching. However it does have to be said that I feel in a Sondheim production it is slightly more difficult for the men, because the Women end up with the slightly better material. John Barroman is an incredible singer, dancer and the love songs he sings in the show are very moving. However he has been kind of lumped with the straight man role in this show, but he does a beautiful job. Bronson Pinchot is excellent as well, providing the role of the narrator and the singer of the bits and pieces, but he too performances his numbers with comedic brilliance and excellent emotion. His number "Buddy's Blues" is a stand out. And finally, Ruthie Henshall is simply amazing: her stage presence, her singing, dancing, is all fantastic. She projects incredible meaning into songs and is a true stage star. He rendition of "More" is particularly exceptional.

The direction, the musical direction, lighting, choreography: everything in this show is brilliant, and simply done. This show is the living proof that with simplicity you can put on a brilliant show. There's is basically no set, except for strategically raised boxes, no costume changes, simple but effective lighting, chamber-size orchestra, and yet it all works so perfectly and amazingly. It really is brilliant.