Category: 1957

Barnacle Bill (1957)

The captain preferred the merry times on land to the mermaids at sea!

Rating U
Length 1h27
Release 17.12.1957
Director Charles Freed
About Captain William Ambrose purchases a devastated amusement pier after retirement. He comes up with various business ideas, but in vain. Soon, he must deal with a man who wants to demolish the pier.
Moon: full moon seen
Where to Watch: 4OD
Trailer:

No trailer for Barnacle Bill

The Good

Alec Guinness is a delight, as always. There’s just something so endearingly charming about him, even when he is playing someone with the quirks of Captain Ambrose.

The bookend storytelling device, one that I mostly associate with Hammer Horror, works well here. I adore the opening in which the pub closes much, MUCH, earlier than we would expect and Ambrose takes the reporter to the bank over the road.

It’s funny, charming and full to the brim of everything that makes Ealing Comedy great. In fact, this film reads like a Carry On… film, without the over zealous and salacious double entendre.

The Bad

This film has a most excellent ‘bad guy’ in which Ambrose and his associates go up against. It makes for a wonderful underdog story that you will want to see out to the end.
Partly I think because nothing has changed and this local council is much more representative of our government today. It’s nigh impossible for us to get a win and our government have done way more egregious things as embezzlement. However, there’s something cathartic about the underdog getting a win.

The Ugly

Poor Mrs Barrington. She’s a force to be reckoned with and there’s even a hint of a romance with Captain Ambrose. However it all falls by the wayside for the second half of the movie and she becomes a mere ornament for the final act.
I wish they had her as strong throughout; giving her something to do or achieve that wasn’t directly linked to Ambrose.

The opening, and some of the scenes in Ambrose’s cabin, didn’t half make me sea sick. I guess that’s one way to have you empathise with the main character, but I would have preferred a less interactive and visceral way.

Final Thoughts

A charming snapshot of years long past. I do wonder if a remake could be made around the currently closed, and condemned, Southport Pier. It would be a novel way to raise the funds for its reparations.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957) Film Review

Rating U
Length 1h56
Release 30.01.1957
Director Billy Wilder
About A lawyer is troubled when a supposedly conscientious woman testifies against her husband. However, the motives behind her testimony put him in an ethical dilemma.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: BBC IPlayer
Trailer:

The Good

Charles Laughton, best known to me as Henry Hobson in Hobson’s Choice, is an absolute cantankerous delight as barrister Sir Wilfred Robards, pulled into a court case against Doctor’s orders when his nurse confiscates his cigars.
It’s very rare to have the gravitas Laughton has, and give the range of humour, vulnerability and anger that he does. He’s perfectly cast and carries this film, from start to finish.

Elsa Lanchester, Laughton’s real life wife, as Miss Plimsoll is the perfect addition to the original Agatha Christie plot. The chemistry and bickering between the two is some of the bests scenes in the film and I do actually wish she was in more.

There’s some beautiful shots in the film, particularly the Oxford Street establishing shot in which the reflection of the road, the bus and the crowd is seen while Mrs French is trying on hats in the shop.

The Bad

I disliked the Vole flashback showing how he met Christine. There’s no chemistry between them and the scene is rather clunky. After also having such extensive flashbacks with Mrs French, it may have been better to have Vole in the present relay the information.

The Ugly

The decoration of Mrs French’s living room with African art gives away more about her than perhaps we would like? It’s established that she’s wealthy; that’s the motive for murder. However, the African art could indicate a source of her money. It’s hard to not think this when appropriated art hangs like animal heads in a hunting lodge. It sucks.

By extension the anti-foreign sentiment is a painful reminder that xenophobia today is nothing new. Not only is it presented by many characters as a personal view “we should have an embargo on foreign wives,”, it’s expressed within the courtroom too.

Final Thoughts

An incredible film, and one all must watch but pales in comparison to another law-based Oscar contender for 1967: 12 Angry Men (1967).

The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

Rating: X/ 12

Length: 1Hr 22

Release: 2.5.1957

About: Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) is a brilliant scientist willing to stop at nothing in his quest to reanimate a deceased body. After alienating his longtime friend and partner, Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart), with his extreme methods, Frankenstein assembles a hideous creature (Christopher Lee) out of dead body parts and succeeds in bringing it to life. But the monster is not as obedient or docile as Frankenstein expected, and it runs amok, resulting in murder and mayhem.

The Good

  • The film has an interesting narrative framing in which we meet Victor Frankenstein after the events. It’s not something you see often in modern films and it was a refreshing change.
  • There are some incredible shots in what is largely a play-like adaptation. One particular scene in which Victor goes to purchase eyes for his creature is filmed from the neck down.
  • Peter Cushing is fantastic as Victor Frankenstein. His acting is best scene in some of the subtle movements he makes, like when he is discussing the need for a brain with Paul. Cushing’s eyes at one point flicker to Paul’s forehead and it put me on edge for the rest of the film.

The Bad

  • The commentary of women within the film pissed me off. Not because I’m some snowflake who can’t see it as a product of its time. No, I’m pissed off about Victor’s “I’ll introduce Elizabeth to Science” was used as a threat to Paul and that Paul spent a lot of the film ‘mansplaining’ to Elizabeth. I’m pissed off not for some feminist ‘women can Science too’, but because the source material was written by a woman!

The Ugly

  • It’s the problem of it being an adaptation. While it is an incredibly well made film, I found that the core elements and themes from the book did not make an appearance. It doesn’t make it bad, per say, I’m just disappointed.
  • The biggest theme/plot point that defines Frankenstein is Victor’s revulsion of his own creation and the eventual abandonment. I know this is to do with film rights and n avoidance of a law suit, but it just didn’t meet my expectations.