Bea says: The second of two films seen in Paris (on route to North Eastern France), we saw this at the equivalent of London's National Film Theatre (i.e. arty films, earnest, and sometimes downright odd, clientele). We knew nothing about it at all, so it was a surprise to see Wim Wenders was involved, and as we are both keen on Wenders we usually know most of his stuff. We were also pleased to note Jeanne Moroeau, who has featured in this blog before, had a role. We (or at least I) was less pleasantly surprised to find the film was mostly in French, as I speak little French. However, suffice to say that I followed the plot without a problem! This film specialised in long, languid shots of the four protagonists walking through forests and mountains, ducking through surreal doorways - council estate type flats in the middle of a forest etc - making a simple meal in a log cabin, having a feast in an old winery, searching, and driving a bus, celebrating on a beach.... It was kind of religious (a leader and his disciples, in the wilderness, last supper, leader vanishes, others search but do not find him, and I guess instead find stronger faith or part of themselves. I think in fact it was beneficial not to understand the dialogue (what there was of it) as instead I just watched the story the visuals gave me. I quite enjoyed it, in a chilled out, different kind of way.
** 1/2
Cecil says: The worst film I have seen in years. I almost joined the steady trickle of people who left before the end, but stuck it out partly because I hate to miss the end of a story, even if I haven't got a clue what is going on.
Fantastic cast with two of my favourite actors of the 70s/80s in Jeanne Moreau and Bruno Ganz. But, oh my God, what was it all about? Reminded me of my first experience of a Robert Bresson film: slow, no apparent continuity, surreal to the point of ridicule and utterly, utterly boring. Bea reckoned there may have been some biblical references in it: last supper, days in the wilderness etc etc, but for an old atheist like me with a comprehensive education in Hull where religious education was to learn about other religions rather than Christianity, any biblical references were totally lost on me. Honestly, I had not got a clue. I hate surrealism at the best of times, but when it's combined with pompous soliloquy, it is a recipe for a dire Sunday afternoon.
Maybe my observations of the audience before the film started should have been a warning. 25 people there, but all sitting alone apart from Bea and me; utter silence in the room (probably no surprise given that they were all sitting on their own) - the silence felt weird, but actually, given the film's content, maybe it was a sign...But then again, since half of them left before the end, maybe they also didn't like the sign...
One thing I have to say about Paris, though: you can see far more varied films in a weekend than you can in London, and at only €9 each for 2 films, tremendous value. Bea and I walked back into the Bercy streets and mingled with the rowdy basketball final fans, all waving their flags and banners for Cholet, wherever that may be in France. A bizarre day...
A star rating??? I can't even give it half a star, sorry.
Monday, 26 May 2008
Am Ende kommen Touristen...
Cecil say: A young German man is sent to Auschwitz for his national service (the civilian option, not the military!). It is present-day Poland, and the old concentration camp has been rebuilt as a museum and memorial - coach loads of Germans pass through every day and are encouraged to reflect on what the place means for them today. Our protagonist's main task is to look after an old inmate, Polish, who still gives talks to the visitor groups and repairs the old suitcases left behind by those who perished in the camp.
Bea and I had different views on what the point of the film was. I'm not actually sure the film had a point to make. It had an underlying feel of a road movie, but the movement was more through the camp (German tourists passing through in coaches; young German national service guy spending a few months there; the Polish tour guide he falls for is about to set off to a new career in Brussels...) - was that a reflection of the gruesome movement through the camp of the prisoners 60 years earlier?
The static character was the old Polish gent: so static that his methods of repairing suitcases were no longer up-to-scratch for the new museum curators; his talks about life in the camp apparently too static also for the entrepreneurial woman who sets up a new memorial in the next village. He even lives on the campsite still, but by the end of the film, it looks as though this too cannot continue.
But our young German protagonist, although despised by the locals, does come to some understanding and empathy for the old Polish guy. True, he dithers over commitment to the Polish woman, and she also appears uncertain of whether she wants to be involved with him - she must at all costs get out of the place... But, at the end of the film, our German national service character seems set on seeing out his time in Auschwitz. As with any person in the early 20s, life is a series of steps forward accompanied by dithering and uncertainty, and even some steps back to safety zones: I found his character very believable.
What was slightly annoying was the lack of research into just how an interpreter (or translator) goes about getting a job in Brussels. The Polish woman is called for interview 'at the Agriculture Commission in Brussels' and we learn that she is offered a job on-the-spot and should start almost immediately. If only it were so simple! The recruitment procedure for any EU officials is a good deal more convoluted and even if we allow for poetic (or cinematographic) licence with the timescales, why on earth refer to an 'Agriculture Commission' when no such thing exists in Brussels?
***
Bea says: Cecil makes some good points - there was certainly something about movement/arrival/departure in this film that seemed eerily reminiscent of the footage I have seen about the arrival and departure of people to and from Auschwitz during its darkest hour. This film had thought provoking moments; such as when the (local) young Polish woman who becomes involved with our protagonist talks about growing up and living in Auschwitz (the town) - "its just the place where I live"; and there were also interesting moments around language - what it means to locals to use the German language, although the elderly Polish survivor spoke German almost exclusively, and the young Polish woman enthused about the beauty of the German language. But after this film Cecil and I had a lively discussion about whether the purpose of narrative and story is to describe a transformation of some kind, and if so what kind of transformation occurred in "Am Ende kommen Touristen..." The answer is not clear to me.
***
Bea and I had different views on what the point of the film was. I'm not actually sure the film had a point to make. It had an underlying feel of a road movie, but the movement was more through the camp (German tourists passing through in coaches; young German national service guy spending a few months there; the Polish tour guide he falls for is about to set off to a new career in Brussels...) - was that a reflection of the gruesome movement through the camp of the prisoners 60 years earlier?
The static character was the old Polish gent: so static that his methods of repairing suitcases were no longer up-to-scratch for the new museum curators; his talks about life in the camp apparently too static also for the entrepreneurial woman who sets up a new memorial in the next village. He even lives on the campsite still, but by the end of the film, it looks as though this too cannot continue.
But our young German protagonist, although despised by the locals, does come to some understanding and empathy for the old Polish guy. True, he dithers over commitment to the Polish woman, and she also appears uncertain of whether she wants to be involved with him - she must at all costs get out of the place... But, at the end of the film, our German national service character seems set on seeing out his time in Auschwitz. As with any person in the early 20s, life is a series of steps forward accompanied by dithering and uncertainty, and even some steps back to safety zones: I found his character very believable.
What was slightly annoying was the lack of research into just how an interpreter (or translator) goes about getting a job in Brussels. The Polish woman is called for interview 'at the Agriculture Commission in Brussels' and we learn that she is offered a job on-the-spot and should start almost immediately. If only it were so simple! The recruitment procedure for any EU officials is a good deal more convoluted and even if we allow for poetic (or cinematographic) licence with the timescales, why on earth refer to an 'Agriculture Commission' when no such thing exists in Brussels?
***
Bea says: Cecil makes some good points - there was certainly something about movement/arrival/departure in this film that seemed eerily reminiscent of the footage I have seen about the arrival and departure of people to and from Auschwitz during its darkest hour. This film had thought provoking moments; such as when the (local) young Polish woman who becomes involved with our protagonist talks about growing up and living in Auschwitz (the town) - "its just the place where I live"; and there were also interesting moments around language - what it means to locals to use the German language, although the elderly Polish survivor spoke German almost exclusively, and the young Polish woman enthused about the beauty of the German language. But after this film Cecil and I had a lively discussion about whether the purpose of narrative and story is to describe a transformation of some kind, and if so what kind of transformation occurred in "Am Ende kommen Touristen..." The answer is not clear to me.
***
Monday, 5 May 2008
Happy-Go-Lucky
Bea says: Seen in Hull, always an appropriate setting for a Mike Leigh film. I've seen quite a bit of Mike Leigh over the years and don't actually find him as bleak as many say he is, although he is always thought-provoking, and Happy-Go-Lucky was no exception. I mulled it over for quite a while afterwards. I'd read a couple of reviews along the lines of "Mike Leigh does happy" etc etc, and afterwards wondered if the reviewers and I had actually watched the same film - I didn't think it was particularly "happy". The main character was fully drawn - there were many things I liked about her; I could imagine being her friend, meeting her for drinks or coffee, but she also got on my nerves. Her character mellows and deepens through the film as a series of events puts her "happy-go-lucky" nature to the test. However, it also felt like there was more than this to the character and film, something about a life we either do or don't face up to, and what that does to us.
***1/2
Cecil says: 15 minutes into this film, I was bored. I hadn't seen a Mike Leigh film for years and had forgotten how mind-numbingly mundane the setting of his films can be. Did I really want to sit through over two hours of the sort of conversation I might have had 25 years ago and with a main character who had the most annoying, nervous giggle. Funnily enough, the Hull cinema advertised this film as 2h20 long, whereas the newspaper reviews say it's 1h58 (did the Hull cinema get a special un-cut version??) - no matter: by 30 minutes in, I was riveted and the time flew by for the rest of the film.
As Bea says, the characters slowly grew - on us as film-goers and in themselves. There was a strange scene with a tramp which left me rather non-plussed (and actually made me wonder if the Hull cinema had received a 'cut' version, with the bit taken out which would have made sense of the tramp episode); I can't believe anybody would stay with such a mad driving instructor as long as she did; and the poor, pregnant and boringly suburban sister seemed a bit of a cartoon character (I mean, not everybody in the suburbs spends all their time looking after their hydrangeas, and just because Bea and I have done this Bank Holiday does NOT make us a boring, suburban couple...or does it? - answers on a postcard, please to Mike Leigh...)
***
***1/2
Cecil says: 15 minutes into this film, I was bored. I hadn't seen a Mike Leigh film for years and had forgotten how mind-numbingly mundane the setting of his films can be. Did I really want to sit through over two hours of the sort of conversation I might have had 25 years ago and with a main character who had the most annoying, nervous giggle. Funnily enough, the Hull cinema advertised this film as 2h20 long, whereas the newspaper reviews say it's 1h58 (did the Hull cinema get a special un-cut version??) - no matter: by 30 minutes in, I was riveted and the time flew by for the rest of the film.
As Bea says, the characters slowly grew - on us as film-goers and in themselves. There was a strange scene with a tramp which left me rather non-plussed (and actually made me wonder if the Hull cinema had received a 'cut' version, with the bit taken out which would have made sense of the tramp episode); I can't believe anybody would stay with such a mad driving instructor as long as she did; and the poor, pregnant and boringly suburban sister seemed a bit of a cartoon character (I mean, not everybody in the suburbs spends all their time looking after their hydrangeas, and just because Bea and I have done this Bank Holiday does NOT make us a boring, suburban couple...or does it? - answers on a postcard, please to Mike Leigh...)
***
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Lights in the Dark (Laitakaupungin Valot)
Bea says: Helsinki looked bleak, grey and made of concrete. Cafes and bars looked functional, rather than comfortable. Everyone was taciturn, and the plot - a "loser" whose life spirals quickly downward after a misguided liaison with a conwoman - not at all cheery. Except that next to me were two Finns who found the whole thing hilarious. Somewhat nonplussed, I listened to them laugh at the misfortunes of this sorry character. And it kind of rubbed off, and I found myself chuckling as our unfortunate hero is rejected by women, ignored by society, beaten up and imprisoned, and winds up living in a shelter, washing dishes for a living and sitting in bars listening to the depressing lyrics of Finnish tango (yes, that's right, Finnish tango - the Argentinian kind but with Finnish lyrics). I really enjoyed this film. The lead is perhaps just a little too good-looking to be truly a loser, but it works.
****
Cecil says: I saw my first Kaurismaki film 12 years ago in Brussels - I was taken by a Finnish colleague and the cinema was full of Finns falling about in the aisles as they watched an equally dismal plot develop ("Drifting Clouds"). So, I was ready for the style of film. What struck me was the total silence in the NFT (I didn't hear Bea's laughing Finns or even Bea's own chuckles) and all I could think was: there aren't many Finns among us tonight...
As I say, having seen the previous Kaurismaki film, I found it easier to relax and begin to see through the apparent hopelessness of the main character's life. There is something wonderful about the male characters in this film - a rough lot to say the least, but something strangely fascinating, even about the three buffoons in the bar who beat up our poor hero (my Finnish is pretty rubbish, but even I could see that they are just given the title 'gorillas' in the credits) - but why does everyone in the film smoke (is this some subliminal message from Kaurismaki or is it a true reflection of Helsinki working life?). There are only two female characters: one is the woman who cons the main man into falling for her (and who is then seen simply vacuuming while the male gangsters play cards); the other is the grilled sausage seller who is always there to listen, to help and to support. At the end, it is their holding hands which leaves us with a message of hope in spite of all that society can throw at us. Now, when is the next Kaurismaki coming out...
***
****
Cecil says: I saw my first Kaurismaki film 12 years ago in Brussels - I was taken by a Finnish colleague and the cinema was full of Finns falling about in the aisles as they watched an equally dismal plot develop ("Drifting Clouds"). So, I was ready for the style of film. What struck me was the total silence in the NFT (I didn't hear Bea's laughing Finns or even Bea's own chuckles) and all I could think was: there aren't many Finns among us tonight...
As I say, having seen the previous Kaurismaki film, I found it easier to relax and begin to see through the apparent hopelessness of the main character's life. There is something wonderful about the male characters in this film - a rough lot to say the least, but something strangely fascinating, even about the three buffoons in the bar who beat up our poor hero (my Finnish is pretty rubbish, but even I could see that they are just given the title 'gorillas' in the credits) - but why does everyone in the film smoke (is this some subliminal message from Kaurismaki or is it a true reflection of Helsinki working life?). There are only two female characters: one is the woman who cons the main man into falling for her (and who is then seen simply vacuuming while the male gangsters play cards); the other is the grilled sausage seller who is always there to listen, to help and to support. At the end, it is their holding hands which leaves us with a message of hope in spite of all that society can throw at us. Now, when is the next Kaurismaki coming out...
***
Monday, 24 March 2008
Lift to the Scaffold (Ascenseur pour l'echafaud)
Cecil says: Part of the film noir series at the NFT, this 1958 classic with Jeanne Moreau is full of passion, romance, intrigue and a double murder...But actually, what's fascinating seeing this film 50 years on is to look at some of the context of the film: we are close enough to the Second World War for the German 'tourists' to order lots of champagne and then say jokingly how fortunate 'we' didn't drink all of the stuff during the occupation; the main male lead had fought in Indo-China and had subsequently spent time in Algeria (and of course the film is made right in between these two milestones in French history); and we are led to believe that Mr Carala, the all-powerful businessman, had made his fortune either in armaments or oil linked to both Vietnam and Algeria.
But Jeanne Moreau is the star. Apparently her first big film (having already made it big on the stage), she oozes sensuality throughout - in fact, all the female actors have something of the alluring, pouting femme fatale about them: were all French women like that or is it the image the big screen liked to use to portray them, or just a quirk of the director Louis Malle, who was only 24 when he made this film? And how on earth did Moreau get across the busy Champs Elysees without looking at the traffic once (or is that in fact the best way to get across roads in France?)
Wonderful camera work and use of light. And silence is so powerful, with no soundtrack for long periods, especially when our main man is trying to get himself out of the lift that got stuck - you could almost hear his brain clicking over, as he looks for some options for getting out of his predicament.
Of course France is (or was?) the country of the 'crime of passion' (when did they drop that law?) - why, an English audience might ask, does the murderer only get 10 years (and out in 5) whereas his accomplice would get 20?? This is certainly a very French film, but one note of connection to British cinema - the young couple who get so involved in the story are so reminiscent of Pinky and the young waitress in Brighton Rock and this film was made 11 years after Brighton Rock, so was a young Louis Malle actually influenced by Graham Greene?
****
Bea says: A strong storyline (with plot and subplots to maintain interest) and beautiful cinematography - they don't make them like this anymore. Moreau walks the streets of Paris at night, lit only by streetlighting and isn't afraid to look tired and wan. Producers, directors and actors of today, take note - there are many different kinds of beauty. Cecil has said enough - I loved the costuming (Veronique's outfit would look modern today), and the showcasing of all the 1950s inventions - a kind of early product placement (luxurious new cars, electric pencil sharpeners, miniature cameras and express developing of film, motels!).
***1/2
But Jeanne Moreau is the star. Apparently her first big film (having already made it big on the stage), she oozes sensuality throughout - in fact, all the female actors have something of the alluring, pouting femme fatale about them: were all French women like that or is it the image the big screen liked to use to portray them, or just a quirk of the director Louis Malle, who was only 24 when he made this film? And how on earth did Moreau get across the busy Champs Elysees without looking at the traffic once (or is that in fact the best way to get across roads in France?)
Wonderful camera work and use of light. And silence is so powerful, with no soundtrack for long periods, especially when our main man is trying to get himself out of the lift that got stuck - you could almost hear his brain clicking over, as he looks for some options for getting out of his predicament.
Of course France is (or was?) the country of the 'crime of passion' (when did they drop that law?) - why, an English audience might ask, does the murderer only get 10 years (and out in 5) whereas his accomplice would get 20?? This is certainly a very French film, but one note of connection to British cinema - the young couple who get so involved in the story are so reminiscent of Pinky and the young waitress in Brighton Rock and this film was made 11 years after Brighton Rock, so was a young Louis Malle actually influenced by Graham Greene?
****
Bea says: A strong storyline (with plot and subplots to maintain interest) and beautiful cinematography - they don't make them like this anymore. Moreau walks the streets of Paris at night, lit only by streetlighting and isn't afraid to look tired and wan. Producers, directors and actors of today, take note - there are many different kinds of beauty. Cecil has said enough - I loved the costuming (Veronique's outfit would look modern today), and the showcasing of all the 1950s inventions - a kind of early product placement (luxurious new cars, electric pencil sharpeners, miniature cameras and express developing of film, motels!).
***1/2
Friday, 29 February 2008
No Country for Old Men
Bea says: I loved this film. Seen in Hull, at the new St Stephen's Centre, it was my father-in-law's choice. He didn't like it, and I think Cecil could take it or leave it, but I really, really liked it. The last Coen brothers film I saw was probably Fargo, and I used to see a lot of their films when I was hanging with a hipper crowd than I do now - I'd forgotten just how good they are. I also didn't realise until the closing credits that the film is based on a Cormac McCarthy book - I went straight to the library on getting back to London and borrowed everything of his I could lay my hands on (only The Road actually). I've thought about reading his books for a long time but they always seemed really male. They are, and yet they're not.
The bleak, seemingly empty Texan landscape of the film reminded me of home, and of all the books I've read and films I've seen that use the landscape of Australia, North America, Canada, New Zealand as symbols of foreboding, fear, death and ancientness. The film follows Tommy Lee Jones (a mature sheriff) through a hunt for a serial killer, and increasingly we get Jones's sense that the world is changing fast, and not for the better. The early 80s setting serves to reinforce this - we know what's about to happen (Thatcher springs to mind - there is no society, only the individual...). Performances are superb, direction amazing. Only one thing didn't sit well with me: it's my usual complaint I'm afraid. The only main female character, who supposedly works at Wal-Mart and lives in a trailer in 1981, had collagen enhanced lips - not likely! The only blot on an otherwise perfect copybook.
Cecil says: Bea is wrong. I did like the film. What I'm not sure I liked was the constant sense of foreboding throughout the film and the feeling that around the next corner there would be yet another violent act filmed in such a matter-of-fact way. The story-line is gripping, certainly. But maybe where my perceptions differ from Bea's is in the overall feeling of how alien those vast expanses of almost lifeless land feel (I love the feel of Australia, but America could be on the other side of the Moon for me and I am just conscious that nothing close to home anywhere in Europe is comparable). And I could not identify with any of the characters - that doesn't matter in itself but it added to my sense of observing something happening a long way away. Oh, and I can't say I noticed the collagen lips, but hey, I'm not looking. I did notice Javier Bardem's hair cut, though, which seems to be the thing all the fashion and style pages are talking about.
And one final comment: just to reassure our blog readers, Bea and I are NOT chasing prize-winning films. We didn't even realise that The Edge of Heaven (now on release in the UK) had won the Prix Lux until the credits at the end of the film. And No Country for Old Men only won its Oscars AFTER we saw it Hull. Honest!
The bleak, seemingly empty Texan landscape of the film reminded me of home, and of all the books I've read and films I've seen that use the landscape of Australia, North America, Canada, New Zealand as symbols of foreboding, fear, death and ancientness. The film follows Tommy Lee Jones (a mature sheriff) through a hunt for a serial killer, and increasingly we get Jones's sense that the world is changing fast, and not for the better. The early 80s setting serves to reinforce this - we know what's about to happen (Thatcher springs to mind - there is no society, only the individual...). Performances are superb, direction amazing. Only one thing didn't sit well with me: it's my usual complaint I'm afraid. The only main female character, who supposedly works at Wal-Mart and lives in a trailer in 1981, had collagen enhanced lips - not likely! The only blot on an otherwise perfect copybook.
Cecil says: Bea is wrong. I did like the film. What I'm not sure I liked was the constant sense of foreboding throughout the film and the feeling that around the next corner there would be yet another violent act filmed in such a matter-of-fact way. The story-line is gripping, certainly. But maybe where my perceptions differ from Bea's is in the overall feeling of how alien those vast expanses of almost lifeless land feel (I love the feel of Australia, but America could be on the other side of the Moon for me and I am just conscious that nothing close to home anywhere in Europe is comparable). And I could not identify with any of the characters - that doesn't matter in itself but it added to my sense of observing something happening a long way away. Oh, and I can't say I noticed the collagen lips, but hey, I'm not looking. I did notice Javier Bardem's hair cut, though, which seems to be the thing all the fashion and style pages are talking about.
And one final comment: just to reassure our blog readers, Bea and I are NOT chasing prize-winning films. We didn't even realise that The Edge of Heaven (now on release in the UK) had won the Prix Lux until the credits at the end of the film. And No Country for Old Men only won its Oscars AFTER we saw it Hull. Honest!
Saturday, 19 January 2008
Cast a Dark Shadow
Bea says: Part of the current Margaret Lockwood series at the NFT, we had the added treat of listening to the film's costume designer's reminiscences before the show - and I paid extra attention to the beautiful 1950s suits and coats as a result. Cast a Dark Shadow felt strangely modern to me, and I suspect this is because it is not dissimilar to a much more recent film - "The Talented Mr Ripley". Dirk Bogarde plays a suave, charming golddigger who marries a wealthy widow, and then craftily does away with her. He does not, however, inherit her fortune as he had hoped, and soon he is in search of another victim (Lockwood), whilst also scheming against his inital wife's sister (who did inherit her fortune). Lockwood gives an excellent performance of a sharp, working class woman made good, and Bogarde is creepily believable as the attractive yet pathetic "Teddy Bear" - I don't remember "The Talented Mr Ripley" particularly well (I fell asleep watching it) but wasn't Di Caprio's character even called something similar?? The film's ending reminded me why car crash scenes are in films - these days they usually make me switch off, but in this film the final scenes had real effect; perhaps because the noise and drama were in such opposition to the buttoned-up repression of 1950s Britain otherwise portrayed. An interesting film, sadly rarely shown.
Cecil says: At one point early on in the film Dirk Bogarde is reprimanded by his (older) wife for not standing up as someone leaves the room - this reminder of etiquette gave me some flash-backs of living in Brussels among the many nationalities of Europe where such niceties are still adhered to: I'm thinking of my former Austrian and German colleagues in particular who (I'm sure) thought me very badly-educated for taking my jacket off without permission, for leaving a lift ahead a lady and, indeed, not standing up when somebody enters or leaves a room. Why do those other European countries think of England as the home of such fine upstanding behaviour, when actually it feels so outdated - so 1950s - when you see it in front of you on the screen.
Dirk Bogarde is, as Bea says, very believable and a tad scary; I'm not convinced Lockwood was the best person for her role, though. The NFT programme notes said people thought it more suited to Diana Dors, but for me it would have been better played by someone like Elsie Tanner (sorry - forgot the actress' name - and Bea has just revealed her very youthful age by saying she's never heard of Elsie Tanner...). Very enjoyable film though - and didn't they get through a lot in 80 minutes in those days?
Rating: ***
Cecil says: At one point early on in the film Dirk Bogarde is reprimanded by his (older) wife for not standing up as someone leaves the room - this reminder of etiquette gave me some flash-backs of living in Brussels among the many nationalities of Europe where such niceties are still adhered to: I'm thinking of my former Austrian and German colleagues in particular who (I'm sure) thought me very badly-educated for taking my jacket off without permission, for leaving a lift ahead a lady and, indeed, not standing up when somebody enters or leaves a room. Why do those other European countries think of England as the home of such fine upstanding behaviour, when actually it feels so outdated - so 1950s - when you see it in front of you on the screen.
Dirk Bogarde is, as Bea says, very believable and a tad scary; I'm not convinced Lockwood was the best person for her role, though. The NFT programme notes said people thought it more suited to Diana Dors, but for me it would have been better played by someone like Elsie Tanner (sorry - forgot the actress' name - and Bea has just revealed her very youthful age by saying she's never heard of Elsie Tanner...). Very enjoyable film though - and didn't they get through a lot in 80 minutes in those days?
Rating: ***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)