JayDee's Movie Musings

Plot – A warrior by the name of Cord (Cooper) competes in a fighting competition for the right to go on a quest to find a warrior called Zetan; the holder of the Book of All Knowledge. He is disqualified for his rough actions but vows to find Zetan and the book anyway. Along the way he faces numerous challenges and tests, and meets a supremely skilled but blind man (Carradine) who takes him under his wing.

A warrior named Cord wanders the Earth seeking Zetan, the protector of a mystical book of enlightenment. He finds a man (Eli Wallach) in the middle of the desert, sitting in a cauldron of oil. He has been doing this for 10 straight years. Why is he doing this? To dissolve his penis in the ultimate vow of chastity! He wants to insure his celibacy. Seriously! Oh and David Carradine's blind man plays a flute in the background. And you know what is perhaps the weirdest thing about that? It doesn't seem all that weird here. If anything it feels rather run of the mill and normal.

As you will probably be able to gather from the scene I've described there this is an odd little film. The best way to describe it is probably as an existential martial arts flick; mixing martial arts with zen teachings, with a touch of fantasy thrown in for good measure. It is a true oddity. In a number of ways it actually reminded me of an episode of the classic, original series of Star Trek. The environment it takes place in feels suitably otherworldly (as the prologue tells us it takes place in a world that “never was, and always is”) and the costumes feel like those worn by alien civilisations. Except of course that all the aliens are humanoids for budgetary reasons! And as for our hero Cord he has the appearance of a barbarian from a Conan film, with the hair from an 80s heavy metal band!

You really can't take it seriously at all. Numerous sayings occur throughout which are just laughably bad. If you read them in a book of Buddhist sayings and Chinese proverbs or something you would go, 'that's beautiful.' However hearing them said aloud, and in such a serious manner they just sound ridiculous. A few favourites? “Tie two birds together, and even though they have four wings, they cannot fly.” / “You can’t step on the same piece of water twice.” / “Each morning when I awake like a scholar at his first class. I prepare a blank mind for the day, to write upon.” / “Buddha once sat before a wall, and when he arose he was enlightened.” ~ “Do you compare yourself with Buddha?” ~ “No, just the wall.”

The acting is well....I'll be kind and say it's enthusiastic. Jeff Cooper really is quite dreadful, some of the most wooden and cringeworthy acting I've seen in quite some time. Though to be fair David Carradine redeems it by being a bit of a treat to watch, as he usually tends to be. And there is quite a bit of fun to be had with some of the unusual cameo spots such as Roddy McDowall as the judge of the martial arts competition and Christopher Lee as Zetan.

And sadly the martial arts sequences don't excite as you would hope. They come across as stiff and lacklustre, very much cheap TV standards. Not close to what you'd expect had Bruce Lee been involved as originally intended.

I have to say I admire it's ambition. It aims to be a film of great profundity and enlightenment, but what emerges is really just a mess. Perhaps if you were to take something beforehand to, shall we say 'enhance' your viewing pleasure you may think this is wonderful. So all in all it really isn't a good film. Far, far from it. And yet, there's a little something about it. Something that kept me somewhat intrigued. I think a large degree of the enjoyment to be found here is just purely of curiosity value. While it's very corny, there is something sweetly goofy about it.

Conclusion – The acting is on the whole poor, the dialogue laughable in its self-importance and the martial arts action disappointing. And yet somehow the longer the film went on the more my heart began to soften to its unique charms.

__________________

Good god, it's been FOREVER since I've seen this movie. All I really remember is some fat guy inside of a big cast iron pot in the middle of the desert.

Oh no I don't like when people use my reviews for recommendations! I feel the pressure of it, fearing you'll be disappointed. Anyway I hope you enjoy it.

Yeah that's the moment I described at the start of my review. And I'm not surprised it stuck in your mind!

Wow, must be some kind of psychic link we've struck up.

Don't worry, I've already played down expectations for you.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

What are you talking about?

Plot - The notorious Alcatraz prison - a jail that is impossible to escape from; a fact that the prison's warden (McGoohan) enjoys to smugly boast of. One man does not believe it is impossible however - Frank Morris (Eastwood). A cunning bank robber who has escaped from prison before, he is determined to make it happen. Based on a true story

This is an exceptionally finely crafted effort from Don Siegel, even if I personally found it a tad lacking in actual thrills. It certainly doesn't proceed at a lightning pace, and has a noticeable lack of significant or exciting set-pieces, spending much more time on the little details both of prison life and the planned escape. So we don't have the action of fights and prison riots, or the inspirational take of a Shawshank Redemption. Instead it's more a study of how these characters try to stay sane in this hell. It takes a much more measured and meticulous approach, obsessing over all of the little details as opposed to descending into a more melodramatic affair. And does so while still remaining relatively tense. And Eastwood's restrained style just adds to the film's low key nature.

While I may have found it detrimental to my overall enjoyment of the film I do admire the approach that Siegel took. As opposed to an action-packed thriller it is more interested in presenting an austere depiction of the tedious routines and drudgery of jail time, and in this case it portrays several inmates as courageous and possessing of a strong spirit that is required to survive in such an environment surrounded by a harsh warden, vicious fellow prisoners and having to deal with a life sentence. It is a real tale of Frank Morris' determination and never surrender attitude. Siegel rarely relying on 'big' moments to move us along, instead building the tension slowly with small little incidents here and there. In a way it brought David Fincher's Zodiac to mind as Siegel approaches it with an almost procedural fashion, valuing character and story over cheap thrills.

My favourite stretch of the film is definitely when the ingenious plan starts to build and eventually comes together. So seeing all the little details - the soldering of a digging implement, the raincoat raft, the paper mache heads etc. Indeed even if their escape failed I think they should have been pardoned purely on the grounds of ingenuity.

I think a big problem for me was that I just felt I'd seen a lot of it all before as it hits on a number of prison drama clichés. Though to be fair at the time some of these touches may have been fresh back in 1979, maybe even original, and it's just that I've then seen them copied and aped in subsequent films. Though one major ace that the film does have up it's sleeve however is the location of Alcatraz prison itself. It's such a distinctive, recognisable location; brimming with a character all of its own.

After not having seen much of his work in my previous 25 years on this Earth I've now seen about 6 or 7 in the last few months and I've got to say I'm liking both him and the films he made. However, and I'm not sure how common this sentiment is, but from the work of his I've seen so far I don't think I'd say he's a 'great' actor. I certainly think he's good but for the most part it feels like the same character over and over; mostly a case of Clint playing Clint. While I may not feel he has tremendous acting ability what he does have however is an undeniable screen presence. He just exudes a power that I've rarely seen matched. And when the character fits his style it can work excellently. Here it does work and he is pretty first rate as Morris. His succinct and gruff style sees him being a great fit for Morris' quiet determination and strength of character.

While Eastwood and his partners in the breakout plan are fairly straightforward, the rest of the cast is filled out with a series of colourful characters; from the sadistic warden to Morris' fellow inmates such as Doc, a gifted painter with nothing to keep him going when his hobby is taken away from him; English, a bitter black librarian who becomes a friend and protector to Morris; Wolf, Morris' sadistic would-be 'suitor' and Litmus, a kindly old inmate who keeps his pet mouse with him at all times. And most of them are backed up by enjoyable and memorable performances.

You could accuse the film of painting a sympathetic picture of the inmates. It shows the inhumanity of the prison system. To help drive up our levels of sympathy Patrick McGoohan is very important in giving us a very hateful character in his smug, complete b***ard of a warden. His antagonist is vital if we are to root for Clint and his fellow prisoners. The moment were he takes away the painting privileges of Doc is highly successful in making us despise him. Painting was all that Doc had left in his life, such as it is in this prison. Such a cruel action means that afterwards we are now desperate to see his pride take a knock. Especially when it drives Doc to deliberately slice off his fingers in the carpentry room. And Siegel also chooses very wisely not to dwell on the actual crimes of the inmates whose stories we are following and are meant to sympathise with. He makes us experience the film from the prisoners' point of view.

Oddly after so much build-up the actual escape feels somewhat anticlimactic. It's not this great explosion of joy at the escape, something to get you excited. Indeed for a large degree of the escape it's actually tough to tell exactly what is going on as we see Eastwood and his cohorts shuffling in gloomy air ducts and along the rooftop drenched in the shadows of the night. And then they're just gone, away into the blackness of night. While it obviously makes sense for the escape and accurately depicts what really happened it's not the great rush you would usually envisage.

Conclusion – While undoubtedly a fine film, probably deserving of a slightly higher rating than I have awarded it, it just didn't grip and thrill me quite to the level I was expecting. Perhaps that's more my fault than the film's; my expectations weren't accurate going in.

Nice review mate... haven't seen Escape From Alcatraz for years.

__________________

Thanks Rodent. Next review will be another Eastwood film, though it may be a couple of days before I'm able to get it up.

I like "Escape from Alcatraz". Quite a bleak film but I suppose Alcatraz was a fairly bleak place.

I would give it a solid 4/5.

Another update of the rankings for my 70s thriller season. This time links to the reviews are included (just click on the film title)


The Warriors -

+

Plot – In New Orleans a serial killer is on the loose. All the victims are young, attractive women who end up raped and murdered. Leading the investigation is Detective Wes Block (Eastwood), a single parent taking care of two young girls. And yet as they are contrasted we see just how close they actually are to each other. The investigation leads Block into New Orlean's seedier side, a part of town he is all too familiar with through his own personal dealings. While on the case Block meets rape counsellor Beryl Thibodeaux (Bujold), and a relationship of a sort (a much more normal sort) begins to develop.

Oh this is a very dark and grimy little film. One of the bleaker and grubbier thrillers I've seen for a while. It's really atmospheric and gloomy, both in appearance and tone. Much of the film takes place at night and in darkness, very much fitting with the story and its characters. And like the killer Eastwood is often obscured by shadows. It really does delve into darker psycho-sexual territory than you would usually see from your typical mainstream detective film starring such a major star. As the setting for this dark tale cinematographer Bruce Surtees delivers a terrifically atmospheric vision of New Orleans; a truly sleazy and seedy depiction. And this is topped off with an appropriately dirty, bluesy soundtrack.

In my last review (Escape from Alcatraz) I noted how I felt Clint Eastwood played relatively the same character again and again. Well while Wes Block may be in the same ballpark as many of his previous creations it's a much more layered and interesting character. The character is both more sensitive and feeling in his dealings with his daughters and Genevieve Bujold's Beryl Thibodeaux; but at the same time Eastwood plumbs much darker depths with regards to Block's sexual predilections. On the outside he may still project the macho badassery of Harry Callahan, but on the inside we discover a tortured mess of an individual. While it may not have the iconic power of Dirty Harry (my favourite role/character of his so far), for me this is perhaps his most 'impressive' performance that I've seen so far. And I give him credit for daring to take on such a character; many major stars would not have done so.

His character is a homicide detective who discovers that his own sexual deviancy mirrors that of the serial killer that he is chasing. They are like two sides of the same very creepy coin. The man he is chasing is a serial killer motivated by a depraved sexual drive, and yet he's so close to this cop and family man that it's terrifying. The grisly murders just serve to highlight his own perversions and dark traits. This duality is without a doubt the film's most interesting element. Block is a good man, father and cop but with a very dark side. The character feels quite reminiscent of the kind commonly found in film noir flicks of the 40s and 50s where even the hero of the story has a dark and disturbing edge to him. While he may have blurred the line between cop and vigilante in the Dirty Harry series this time he goes a lot further in exploring the perversity of his tortured character's mind. Block is into such extremes of sex that only visiting prostitutes can satisfy his needs. As a result the serial killer is on the same path as Block in terms of the places they frequent – the massage parlours, S&M hangouts and brothels of New Olreans.

Alongside her father also due credit must be Clint's real life daughter, Alison Eastwood. She turns in a very natural, affecting performance And following her wonderfully engaging turn in Coma it's a treat to again see the lovely Genevieve Bujold. And once again she delivers an excellent performance as a strong and intelligent woman who both attracts and challenges Eastwood's Block. She spots Block's misogynist tendencies very early on and makes it clear that she will be no conquest for him, she demands of him to treat her as an equal. Their relationship which grows throughout the film is a fairly complicated one; at one point she even seems to offer Block the chance to handcuff her but he isn't able to bring himself to do it. And it's interesting and refreshing that in order to 'get' the girl Eastwood's tough, hard nosed cop has to change and learn to respect a woman; he doesn't get her purely because he saves her life at the climax or anything.

This feels like it could so easily be an entry in the Dirty Harry series, albeit a more savage and lurid variation. It's a gritty and slick neo-noir. As a psychological thriller it is well paced with a good deal of suspense to be found throughout. What works particularly well is how the brutal scenes of sexually driven murders are contrasted strikingly with the more affectionate scenes that occur between Block and his daughters, and the caring he shows for the horde of stray dogs that they have adopted.

Conclusion – A dark and depraved, but completely compelling thriller which goes to places with its story and characters that isn't seen all that often. Of the Eastwood flicks I've seen so far I'd put this alongside The Enforcer as being the most under-rated. Definitely worth a watch.

I really like this. Just the kind of sleazy, grubby little movies I like. I don't know if I recommended this to you or not, but I'm glad you saw and liked it, anyway.

Well, it's probably the "sleaziest" movie Eastwood made aside from The Rookie and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, but those are for two "different" reasons. HA!

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

No you didn't directly recommend it. I noticed it on TV a month or two back and when I'm not familiar with a film I'll look online to see the general feeling on it and will sometimes search these forums. I think I remember spotting a post by you listing it as Clint's most underrated film, so I thought that if you like it it must be worth a shot. So you did recommend it in a way

Plot – Peter Parker (Garfield) is your typical high school nerd, a teenager struggling to find his place in the world; all the while trying to deal with his big high school crush on Gwen Stacey (Stone) and still haunted by the mysterious disappearance of his parents. When Peter discovers a briefcase that belonged to his father he begins a quest which takes him to Oscorp and Dr Curt Connors (Ifans), the former partner of his father. While at his lab Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider and begins a transformation that leads to his eventual rise as the amazing Spider-Man.

This is a great Peter Parker movie. Unfortunately it's merely a good/very good Spider-Man movie

Just as I did with my Avengers review I think I should start with a disclaimer. As I said back then I am a massive comic book geek, and nothing gets my inner fanboy more excited than Spider-Man. He is far and away my favourite superhero so any chance to see him swinging on the big screen is always going to be a treat for me. As a result I'm probably not the most impartial reviewer you're going to find. I'm likely to love a good Spider-Man movie more than a stunning Superman movie for example.

Just as with some previous efforts of the genre it's the moments were our hero suits up that are actually the least interesting and compelling. The film's greatest strength for me is clearly the handling of the 'normal' life of Peter Parker, particularly Peter's relationship with Gwen Stacey. While you could argue that it feels a touch forced as to how easy Gwen falls for Peter their scenes together are just delightful; not coming across as overwritten, pretentious and Dawsons Creek-ish but instead very natural. They really do come across as awkward teens when they are attempting to converse in the school's corridors, stuttering and stumbling over their words. Very endearing. When Joss Whedon was announced as the writer/director of The Avengers I assumed we would get fun interaction and character moments between the large ensemble, and we did. Given Marc Webb's previous form (500 Days of Summer) then it should come as no surprise at how successful he is in the romantic aspect.

The film is blessed with two fine performances from its young leads, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone cementing their place amongst the most exciting young actors in Hollywood right now. Garfield makes for an excellent Peter Parker, capturing both his awkward geekiness but also the darker, tortured side to his soul as a result of the disappearance of his parents and the death of his Uncle Ben. He is instantly likeable. However for me it was arguably Emma Stone who stole the show as Gwen Stacey. She is just adorable throughout and I like Peter found myself quickly falling in love with her. She comes across as strong, likeable and intelligent. And it's all the more impressive when you take into account the fact that her character is rather under served by the script; she certainly rises above it. Martin Sheen makes for a strong, winning Uncle Ben; so much so that it's a real shame we know he's not long for this world, or this film. The only real disappointment in terms of the cast would have to be Sally Field as Aunt May. She comes across very bland, and completely lacking in the warmth and endearing quality that Rosemary Harris brought to the role in Raimi's trilogy.

Now onto some little elements that will concern Spidey fanboys such as myself. There are some cons and some pros. On the pro side Spidey has his mechanical shooters back after the organic webbing of the Raimi films. And for the first time on the big screen Spidey is portrayed as he is in the comics in terms of wisecracking during his fights; so we get cheesy one-liners, little quips and silly puns – one of the many things that makes Spider-Man such an endearing and lovebale character. As for things I wasn't too keen on; the new costume didn't quite work for me, it worked fine as a general costume but didn't feel right for a Spider-Man suit. I was also disappointed at the lack of J Jonah Jameson in any context, though given how tremendous JK Simmon's was in the role perhaps it was wise; could anyone have lived up to his showing? Though in a way he is replaced by Dennis Leary's Captain Stacey who takes on the role of gruff critic of Spider-Man, citing him as a public menace. Think J Jonah Jameson with a badge. And more worryingly a gun! And Leary does a great job, emulating Emma Stone in the fact that he also overcomes a fairly standard and uninspired character.

The largest deviation from canon is most certainly the demise of Uncle Ben. I don't have a problem with them trying to reinvent it and present a fresh take on the origin given how often it has now been portrayed on film, TV and in comic book form. It's just that it didn't entirely work for me, even if it was fairly well done. The incident does not feel as visceral in terms of its guilt impact on Peter as the story we all know, and for Peter it appears to set him off more on a revenge trip, rather than one of guilt. It's only an incident on a bridge when he saves a young boy that really seems to turn him 'hero.' My biggest complaint regarding this episode however is definitely the fact that Uncle Ben is robbed of the chance to say the line “With great power comes great responsibility.” I mean how can you not include one of the most iconic elements in comic book history? Though at least the film retains a small knowing wink to Spidey's wrestling escapade.

Sadly the villain of the piece is slightly underwhelming and one-note. While the Lizard is impressively realised (for the most part, the odd CGI misstep here and there) in a visual sense I personally dislike the character design they went with. They appear to have tried to keep the character more grounded (well as grounded as a giant lizard can be! ) as opposed to going full-on comic book and replicating how we see him on the page. The film also rather sidesteps using the character to subtly raise questions about the ethics of genetic mutation as was referenced in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Rhys Ifans does a fine job as Dr Connors, proving rather likeable before his transformation, and then attempts to take on the Lizard with gusto. However the story doesn't really back him up with a strong arc, and he becomes the villain we've seen countless times before – a well intentioned scientist who overreaches himself and inadvertently becomes a psychotic supervillain with an evil plot that feels very familiar. And for such an imposing looking foe I felt he lacked the level of threat he should have had.

Similarly the film's action is decent but a touch insipid. It doesn't deliver any large set-pieces that really amazed or came close to matching the train battle with Doc Ock in the second film for example. However in terms of small moments I liked the style Spidey employed, greatly highlighting the character's agility. When he's fighting the criminals in the back alleys he is very much like a parkour master, using his environment to the best of his abilities to take them down. And then when battling the Lizard I like the way he employs his webbing just for little touches such as firing them at the floor so he can pull himself and slide along under the Lizard.

This time around Spider-Man's world feels a bit of a darker and grittier environment. With much of the action taking place at night there are an abundance of dark streets and alleyways just teaming with lowlife scum. Indeed when Spider-Man is on the trail of his uncle's killer and confronting the city's goons in these grimy locations it actually feels a touch as if we have strayed off into Gotham city. While there is still quite a bit of humour to be found on the whole it is a lot less prone to cheesiness than Raimi's efforts. The only moment really being the scene with the cranes which really is quite hokey, but it comes towards the film's climax and by then I felt it had just about earned it.

And lastly another few little thoughts. I enjoyed the Flash Tompson character a lot more this time out, he was more fleshed out with a better realised arc. The way that Peter begins to discover his powers is a great mix of delight and paranoia as he fears what is happening to him. Oh and Stan Lee's customary cameo is probably the most entertaining so far.

Conclusion – A highly enjoyable film to reignite the Spider-Man series. A film told with a lot of heart and warmth, led by two great showings from Stone and Garfield. I'm now greatly looking forward to see how they both grow into the roles over the next two (at least) films.

What a truely amazing, well-written The Amazing Spiderman review! I mean- your reviews are always great- but I completely loved what you had to say in the review. I cant wait for its sequals!! Expecting the next in 2014 seems too far away! But worth the wait indeed.

__________________

Thank you very much Lundy. I think that's the nicest thing anyone's had to say about my reviews so far.

Plot - Corky Withers (Hopkins) is a skilled magician, but about as far from a natural showman as you could possibly get. When he gets on stage no-one gives him any notice; that is until he turns the piece into a double act - Corky the magician and his sidekick Fats, a foul-mouthed and abusive ventriliquist dummy. So successful is he that a TV offer comes his way, but Corky refuses to go through with the required physical, much to the consternation of his agent (Meredith). Trying to escape the growing pressure Corky takes off to a secluded cabin in the Catskills, run by a former high school classmate (Ann-Margret) that Corky always had a crush on. This time the relationship may actually happen, except for the fact that it's no longer clear exactly who is in control - Corky or Fats.

This isn't quite the film I was expecting, but it was all the better for it. I was bracing myself for a trashier, schlockier affair and was surprised to find a more understated and intriguing effort which eventually reaches a place of sadness and poignancy. Perhaps going by the DVD cover art I was expecting a supernatural killer doll movie where the dummy comes alive. Instead it's the story of a man losing his sanity and his identity as his release, the ventriloquist dummy, begins to take over and dominate the relationship. The film is different from many films of its type in that it's not scary because of its dummy, it's scary because of the ventriloquist. The fact that the film (and the original novel) refuse to take the obvious route of making Fats an object of supernatural evil is to be commended. By making the focus of the film Corky's mental state, and relegating the dummy to a device with which to express it, is a very successful move as it avoids the anticipated easy scares.

There are a lot of little elements which add up to create the film's especially creepy tone but for me there are two which stand out head and shoulders above the rest. The first and main ingredient is Anthony Hopkins' wonderful performance as Corky. He delivers a truly chilling portrayal but shows so vividly just how vulnerable and disturbed the character is that he is also able to elicit a degree of sympathy. We see just how troubled he is as it becomes evident that Corky has two personalities. His mental state begins to crumble more and more to the point where he is having full blown conversations with his dummy Fats; he is no longer in control. Though it's not just as Corky that Hopkins excels; as the voice and personality of Fats he comes across as an unbelievable douche as he is given free reign to say whatever horrible thing he wants, no matter how offensive or inappropriate. I know I might be in the minority but I would place this performance ahead of his Silence of the Lambs showing. However running Hopkins a very close second is Jerry Goldsmith's deliciously eerie score. I can just picture it as the music emerging from some freaky backwater carnival.

Film trivia - Despite his terrific performance Hopkins was not the first choice for the role. Jack Nicholson declined an offer when he was told he would have to wear a hairpiece, and Laurence Olivier had to drop out due to ill health.

Though to be honest for me personally it didn't really have to try very hard to achieve a level of creepiness. I've always found dolls with realistic features and ventriloquist dummies to be very unnerving. Not a full blown fear but let's just say that if I were staying in a room where one was sitting I'd make sure to get it out of there before going to sleep! And Fats is one creepy dummy! And the way that we frequently see him sinisterly lurking in the background of shots? Shivers down the spine! And it seems I wasn't the only one who was a little disconcerted by it; take a look at the piece of trivia below.

In addition to Hopkins' wonderful showing there are some other fine performances to be found here. In particular Burgess Meredith is just terrific as Corky's manager Ben Greene (or Gangrene as Fats refers to him) and for me the best scenes throughout the film are those which feature Fats, Corky and Greene. Outside of the Rocky series, The Penguin in Batman and the classic Twilight Zone episode “Time Enough at Last” I think this is actually the first thing I've seen him in and he's excellent. And as Corky's love interest Ann-Margret is lovely, sexy and strong
It's quite a slow burn in terms of its terror quotient, but maintains a nice degree of suspense throughout. There are a number of scenes which build the tension, scenes worthy of the master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock himself. In particular the moment where Corky and 'Gangrene' sit across from each other after Greene has challenged Corky to keep Fats quiet for just minutes. It's just so unbearably tense. In addition an attempted body dump in a lake has a nice twist when the apparently dead person regains consciousness, and there is a terrifically nervy moment where a fishing expedition comes close to unearthing the body, while the killer sits on the boat behind him ready to strike. There are also moments were I was thinking to myself that what I was watching was daft and should be somewhat laughable, but Hopkins' mesmerising and genuine performance just drew me in so much that I completely went with it

While I enjoyed the lack of schlock I do feel there were moments were the film could have used a bit more energy; just to bring more life to some of it's proceedings. Attenborough's direction is fine but certainly on the staid side. That direction along with the film's lack of locations (often sparsely decorated) means that the film can have a bit of a stagey feel at times. Though credit has to go to the Catskills location where much of the film takes place; it's wintry, desolate and harsh environment proving a perfect place for Corky's sad and lonely mind.

Conclusion - A highly entertaining little film led by a terrific performance from Hopkins. It's a chiller, a love story, a psychlogical thriller and a dark comedy all rolled into one successful package.

OMG I'd completely forgotten about Magic. Been that long since I've seen it.

I enjoyed it though from what I can remember.

BAH!

*runs away, never returns to evil thread*