r96sk

'Cat & Mouse' isn't terrible, but it isn't anywhere near good either. Of course, there wasn't any big expectations that I held coming into it, but B movies can still offer entertainment. This Paul Rotha picture? Not so much, for me anyway. It's all rather dull.

Lee Patterson and Ann Sears play lead, both are alright. Patterson is the better, even if his character is more there for his style than any substance; looks straight out of 'Grease'. Hilton Edwards, despite chewing the heck outta the scenery, is my standout from this.

I did like seeing bits of 1950s London, mind you. I know it's only because I'm looking at it through modern eyes, but there is something about seeing this general era of England on film that I do enjoy. That's the only true positive I have, which probably says it all in regards to how I view this film.

'Love Is in the Air' is one I found to be surprisingly decent. Listen, it's cheesy/cliché and it's Hallmark-esque, but I actually minorly enjoyed watching it. The poster is a little misleading, it does feature a romance but I wouldn't say it's that type of romance; as in kissy/cuddly.

It's more a fish out of water sorta love story, where the leads gradually develop a bond; they don't even get romantic together until the very end. None of this is a spoiler by the way, you'd be able to tell within the first few scenes where the whole thing is heading - and that's OK, imo.

The main reason why I did like this is most certainly the cast. I wouldn't even say that they give major performances, but as a group I found them to be very likeable and I was happy to follow them onscreen. Delta Goodrem and Joshua Sasse have enough chemistry, to boot.

Roy Billing and Steph Tisdell offer pleasant support, elsewhere. Another positive is where the story takes place - coastal Queensland, Australia. All locations look nice, that and the aviation angle of the plot made it feel fresher than it would've otherwise been - in, say, a big city.

A pass in my books, for sure.

'Blazing Saddles' is fairly funny. The good intentions of this 1974 satire is clear to see, naturally it can come across as a bit on the nose at times but it does lead to some amusement. Cleavon Little & Gene Wilder give good performances; always nice to see the latter.

Harvey Korman is the one I probably found most amusing, for example the Hedy Lamarr running gag gave me a minor chuckle each time. In fact, that scene with him and Robert Ridgely (credit to him, also) is probably the one I'll remember most from this; that and the quicksand part.

Both of those aforementioned bits are at the beginning. It's certainly a film that I'd say starts stronger than it finishes. I don't mean that in a negative way, but if the run time was longer then it'll would've become an issue. The conclusion itself is bizarre, kinda a lacklustre end in truth.

Just like with when I watched 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights' earlier this month, I can see the general appeal for this Mel Brooks flick. I enjoyed both movies, with this one a notch above that one in my opinion. The two are equally worth watching, all the same.