What was the last film you watched?

[Mel O'Drama]

Snow White & The Huntsman (2012)

It's a day and a half since I watched this, and I'm still not sure quite what to make of it. It's fine, I suppose. I didn't dislike it, but the film's look and tone also felt very of its time, with all the dark fairytale remakes and Game Of Thrones and even the MCU.

In fact, as I got halfway through the film, I decided it felt rather like a sub-par MCU origin film: watchable enough, and not an entire waste of time, but there's still a sense that it's not the best. It looks very early 21st Century, with an abundance of CGI that's not badly done but at the same time never feels quite real in the way that practical effects will. Feeling a little unreal isn't necessarily a bad thing, though, when it comes to fairytales, so I can live with it.

There are some familiar faces. I got mixed messages from seeing Ian McShane and Bob Hoskins since they were playing dwarves so I found myself convinced it was them, while simultaneously wondering if there could be small actors who happened to look and sounds like these familiar faces. But it was the real thing (through more computer-generated cleverness, of course). In fact this was Bob's last film il health forced his retirement. Ray Winstone was in the mix as well. Charlize Theron is fine for this role. Impressive performance in Monster aside, the only roles in which I've seen her are playing stunning icy cold blondes, and this runs true to type. Kristen Stewart is more impressive than I anticipated. I was surprised to find that she wasn't actually British. And I think she was the only character who attempted to speak properly, without any of the anachronistic T-glottalisation that was abundant everywhere else (in language terms, the contractions irritated me as well. Using "I am" instead of "I'm" or "she is" instead of "she's" would have made it sound more "proper"and traditional instead of Pret chatter).

My least favourite casting was Chris Hemsworth. The performance just feels too similar to Thor to me (early Thor, that is. Before he became the MCU's jester) and the film, too, has a similar tone, which makes him feel like a one-trick pony. I haven't really seen him in anything else, besides playing a himbo in that horrible Ghostbusters remake and adverts for aftershave, neither of which persuades me he's a great actor. His accent in this film is atrocious. It kept changing region from line to line. I looked it up afterwards and apparently it's supposed to be Scottish, but he also visited Wales, Ireland and Newcastle.

Funnily enough, I had no idea he was in this and he didn't appear for the best part of an hour, but when I heard the opening narration, I immediately thought it sounded like Hemsworth when he attempts to sound posh in Thor.

There are no big shocks or surprises. This one does what it says on the tin, so I can't really complain, apart from the 2+ hour running length which should only really be reserved for really good films (and even then, only when necessary). Despite myself, I fear the prequel might end up on the screen at some point in the next week or so. The little I've read tells me there's an even more offensive Scottish accent than Hemsworth's in the sequel which should at least add some unintended entertainment value.​

 

[Rove]

My least favourite casting was Chris Hemsworth. The performance just feels too similar to Thor to me (early Thor, that is. Before he became the MCU's jester) and the film, too, has a similar tone, which makes him feel like a one-trick pony.

Funny you write about that. His name came up in discussion in our tea room today and I mentioned Chris Hemsworth is a one trick pony. A few agreed he is simply known for his role as Thor and his physique will pigeon hole him to certain roles...namely Thor.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

A few agreed he is simply known for his role as Thor and his physique will pigeon hole him to certain roles...namely Thor.

For me it doesn't help that he doesn't even seem to take that role seriously. The bombastic nature of the character was very quickly turned into a big joke, with the character an object of ridicule for the audience. It's difficult not to attribute at least a good part of this to Hemsworth.

 

[Angela Channing]

THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE & HER LOVER (1989)

View attachment 55037

An excess in food, vulgarity and sensuality presented in various breathtaking sets, and it's precisely the combinations of havoc & ceremony and glamour & kink that I love in Ken Russell's films.
Michael Gambon is wonderfully entertaining as the opinionated villain and Helen Mirren plays it fearless like she always does. Several characters get shoved around or worse and there were many moments that made me laugh out loud.
This is the third Peter Greenaway film I've seen and I also love The Baby Of Mâcon that tackles the theme of cult and religion in mind-bogglingly gorgeous sets and mixes film, play and quasi-reality in a most bizarre way.
I thought The Draughtsman's Contract was so-so but maybe I'll rewatch it sometime, and I don't know much about the other films so that could be hit or miss.

One of my all time favourite films. This is what I posted the last time I watched it:

It's been almost 30 years since I last saw this film and it's every bit as good as I remember it. Peter Greenaway's films often divides opinions but I think this is one of his most accessible films and his best. It's a superb piece of storytelling that's intriguing, dramatic, mysterious, horrific, funny, shocking and like no other film I've seen. The direction is imaginative, as is usually the case with Peter Greenaway films, the use of colour is inventive, the cinematography and set design are stunning, the score is a work of genius and the acting is first class, especially by Sir Michael Gambon. There isn't a weak link in this film and I think it's a masterpiece of British cinema.

 

[Willie Oleson]

My to-watch list is empty and I this is a good opportunity to tackle a few mega-popular films I have not seen before.
First but not least...

GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)



I finished the film exactly one minute before the video rental expired - it was quite nerve-racking - and my first thoughts are a) this film is preposterous and b) why wasn't it shot in widescreen.
I didn't know anything about the story but I had an idea what it was going to be, but it wasn't that plantation drama that ended with the war.
And the plantation drama I got is probably the weakest part of the film. It looks irritatingly frivolous and musical-esque and I started to regret my ambitious mini-project.
There's a lot of effort to make her look like the "bad girl" while simultaneously signalling a more fierce and feminist tone. In other words it shouldn't be taken too seriously because "this is going to be our protagonist".
The film never completely loses its light-heartedness but what really surprised me is how seriously unlikeable she became towards the end of the film, those moments that are supposed to be about character redemption.
It is exactly like Clark Gable's last and very iconic line "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".
And this brings me to Melanie who sort of acts like Scarlett's conscience and has manipulated the viewer from the very beginning that Scarlett's story deserved to be told, and when she dies that whole reason disappears. But then the film is almost over and it doesn't matter anymore.

Yes, soft-spoken Olivia DeHavilland with her scheming poker face.

The film becomes considerably more watchable when the war breaks out, obviously because the melodramatic acting seems more justified in this setting, and also because I hadn't expected this to happen so early on in the story. I became intrigued to see where the story would take me.
The sound is impressive and even startling sometimes.
Overall, it's nicely paced, but seriously, no film deserves to be this long. It completely ignores the standard human attention span. I've treated it like the mini-series it really is and watched it three parts (and almost didn't have enough time to finish it).

And so, eventually - blablabla - they end up in the house with THE staircase.

It looks gorgeous but I'd think twice before I'd climb that monster.
A little girl dies and you have the perfect set for a haunted house movie.

Scarlett as a ruthless business woman and Rhett Butler as the super-wealthy backup man (often a sheik in soap series) pre-echoes the sensibilities of the 1980s new wave feminism.
On the surface, Rhett's dilemma is about being in love with a woman he can't have, but I also sensed a little inferiority complex because he's not a true Southerner. It's almost as if Rhett represents America - "my dollars, my pony, my stained glass" - and the South (or the mystique thereof) represents Europe.
And there's always a hierarchy within a hierarcy as we hear Mammy calling everybody who doesn't belong to the upper class "white trash".
My favourite character is Prissy, she's funny and very untrustworthy (I'm not buying the "she's slow" comment).

For the most part I found it very enjoyable trash but I wouldn't brag about it in front of intellectual people. Reputation is everything.

 

[Seaviewer]

​

Perhaps I'm becoming bored with the whole Alien Universe...much like Marvel. How many more times are we going to be submitted to brain dead humans up against a killer species. My only enjoyment from Alien Romulus was watching teenagers receive their comeuppance. For that?

6/10
​

Aliens is an excellent sequel but even that is really only a disguised remake with the stakes upped.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Meet Me In St. Louis (1944)

I've never watched this, and my main reason for wanting to view it now was to get the full context of the song Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas, which was written for this film. It's one of those songs that was long-established as a Christmas standard by the time I was born and to my mind it feels as though it simply always was. It's difficult for me to comprehend a world in which it wasn't heard in some variation each December (and it's a little depressing to consider that Gen Z and even younger Millennials probably feel this way about Mariah Carey's All I Want For Christmas Is You).

Anyway, I had no idea what the film would be about, other than it involves sisters who each find romance only to find they might have to up sticks and leave their home town. And it turns out that there's not a whole lot more to the main plot than this. There is plenty going on, though, with the focus on the two romances, plus the younger daughter trying to win friends and the house filled with characters such as the forceful cook and the wise old grandad. The little girl becomes borderline cloying at times, but it's all balanced by the ensemble.

There are lots of gorgeous people in this. The women are true Southern belles, corseted and with Vivienne Leigh hair and gorgeous white teeth (with the era in which the film was made, the Southern locale and the turn of the century period setting I thought of Gone With The Wind several times. How spooky considering Willie was watching that film at the same time). Tom Drake is pushed in some posters as the film's heartthrob discovery, and he is very dashing. Even the parents are most photogenic. Watching Leon Ames as the father was a slightly disturbing experience because he looks for all the world here like a good looking version of Arthur Brownlow from Crossroads. Incidentally, he's also the future big screen Leslie Harrington. Which is even odder since Garland's character kept making me think of a proto Allison Mackenzie.

Judy Garland herself is truly captivating to watch. It's easy to see why she's as big a leading lady as she was, since I found my eyes on her during any scene in which she appeared. I'm not really a musicals person, but the songs all have charm. The Boy Next Door won me over with a line that changed rhythm in order to squeeze in the characters' home address. The Trolley Song is one of those songs I've heard snippets from but have never really heard in full, and it's a nice moment.

Which brings me to Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas. I have seen a video of this scene out of context, but seeing it within the film deepens its meaning. I know the original lyrics were tweaked during production because they were viewed to be too depressing. I like them - they're an antidote for all the festive saccharine, but now I understand even those lyrics more deeply. I've always assumed the original intended line "next year we may all be living in New York" was just a randomly-chosen place to fit the rhyme, but no - it gets to the very heart of the story since that's exactly what they're all fearing. The final song may have pulled its punches a bit, but at least it still maintains that the present is a bit grim and "we'll have to muddle through somehow".

Yikes - it's Eighty years old:

Overall, it's nicely paced, but seriously, no film deserves to be this long. It completely ignores the standard human attention span. I've treated it like the mini-series it really is and watched it three parts (and almost didn't have enough time to finish it).

The first time I watched this was a TV airing for its 50th anniversary. It was shown over two consecutive nights at 6pm. This cemented the mini-series feeling in my mind.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Judy Garland herself is truly captivating to watch. It's easy to see why she's as big a leading lady as she was, since I found my eyes on her during any scene in which she appeared.

I have only recently "discovered" her in Judgment At Nuremberg and I had planned to check out her filmography - and then forgot to do so.
Ta for the reminder.




(At the risk of coming across as predictable, I have a campy dance remix of the Trolley Song, including Judy's original vocals)

 

[Willie Oleson]

Continuing the "I no longer want say I haven't seen that film" project

STAR WARS (1977)



I may have been too young to notice the hype at the time of release (if there was a hype in the Netherlands) but I've had the opportunity to watch it on VHS or DVD 10 years later, or at least long before the year 2024.
I don't recall actively avoiding it, the desire simply wasn't there and still wasn't there when I clicked "play" today. From that point of view the film couldn't disappoint, and it didn't.
What I've seen is a film that wasn't made for me and therefore I have nothing to say about it, positively or negatively. During the first 45 minutes I tried very hard to focus on what was happening but eventually I gave up and watched the rest of the film staring at the screen with dead eyes.

Nobody's going to accuse me of not-watching Star Wars ever again. Mission accomplished.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

What I've seen is a film that wasn't made for me and therefore I have nothing to say about it, positively or negatively. During the first 45 minutes I tried very hard to focus on what was happening but eventually I gave up and watched the rest of the film staring at the screen with dead eyes.

Nobody's going to accuse me of not-watching Star Wars ever again. Mission accomplished.

Well, since you gave it a shot and persevered till the end, I just want to paraphrase what you said after I (re)watched it as I dived into the full Star Wars saga for the very first time:

I applaud you for giving it a fresh, new chance to see what you like - or still don't like.

 

[Willie Oleson]

My third and last assignment was A Star Is Born, an extremely popular story that has created a fanbase for each incarnation.
The mention of Judy Garland in previous comments made the choice very easy but still I had no idea what I was going to watch.



It's amazing that this very simple story, which could have been one of several plotlines in Valley Of The Dolls, doesn't outstay its impressive 3 hours running time.
Naturally, quite a bit is covered by musical numbers but these are also very watchable. The slow ballads are less enjoyable because without the cowbell and horn of, say, John Barrymore, these songs don't go anywhere (imo).

I guess it's only proper that the main attraction in A Star Is Born are the stars themselves, Judy Garland and James Mason, and I could easily have watched an additional hour of their on-screen drama.
The internet says this was sort of a comeback for Judy and I think it also has the hallmarks of a comeback: the feel of a "greatest hits" and the bravery of criticising the star's beauty flaws before she's catapulted into showbiz heaven. Demolition before the re-building, no one does that at the beginning of a career.

There's also the novelty of film being replaced with still images because some parts of the film are permanently lost.
Not only have I enjoyed this film very much, I'm curious to see what the other versions have to offer.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl (2024)

It's mind-boggling to think that, despite their 35 years on-screen, this is only the duo's second full-length feature.

While a new W&G film is always highly anticipated, I began watching with some trepidation knowing that this is the first proper film since Peter Sallis's death back in 2019. His voice is very distinctive, but Ben Whitehead does an admirable job of replicating his familiar tones. It's a while since I've watched any W&G, so I'm not sure if it would stand up to direct, back-to-back comparison, but the recast works perfectly in isolation. And it's certainly a far preferable solution to any lazy AI-type replication.

There are lots of familiar voices such as Peter Kay (a returnee) and series newcomers Diane Morgan and Reece Shearsmith (not that he's easily recognisable here). But it's the clay that's the star, which is why the show is well and truly stolen by two familiar non-speaking characters: Feathers McGraw and Gromit. Both are a testament to the skill of Aardman's animators, with Gromit in particular so wonderfully expressive (it's all in the eyes, eyebrows and ears) it's easy to forget he doesn't speak a word. As always, it's through his eyes that we see much of the story, and he continues to be the most intelligent, resilient and resourceful character present.

The in-jokes and visual gags are present and gave me many a little chortle. Gromit reads a book (A Bone Of One's Own, if memory serves) by Virginia Woof, and - in a gag that wouldn't work with subtitles - an announcer hands us over to a newscaster named "Anton Dec", moments before we see his name on screen.

The instalment's Achilles' heel for me is its modernity. The world of Wallace & Gromit has always felt as though it was set in the mid-Twentieth century. Nick Park has alluded to 1950s Wigan, and it's also been likened to vintage Beanotown. This instalment has (for me) noticeably more contemporary speech-patterns at times with a couple of newer expressions, and one character (the young Asian policewoman) ending a sentence with "right?" as though she's a California teen. In addition, the locale has become far more ethnically diverse. Overnight. This is a consequence of the length between instalments. It's over a decade and a half since the last proper W&G, and I feel that if watching the series back-to-back, this one would leap out as being "the one with mid-Twenties sensibilities" rather than a timeless period piece. And since timelessness is this series' main appeal, that's a shame. It's made in collaboration with Netflix, so perhaps this film has suffered from American studio interference. It later emerged that this was the case with The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit (with Dreamworks), but in spite of everything, that film still retained its timeless appeal in a way that this one doesn't.

Still, the beating Aardman heart is still here. I chortled quite a lot, which is no mean feat. There's plenty of familiarity and the vast majority of sequences work well. It may be a flawed gem, but it's still a gem. And a very rewatchable one, at that.​

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I also had a quadruple helping of Raymond Briggs.

The Snowman (1982) / Father Christmas (1991) / The Bear (1998) / The Snowman and The Snowdog (2012)

I think The Bear is new to me, and I probably haven't watched Father Christmas since around the time of its original airing.

I watched in chronological order by film (but not book, since Father Christmas was published years before The Snowman) and this gratified with a few little crossovers. In The Bear, the family watched The Snowman. During The Snowman and The Snowdog, I think we spotted the broken gate at the park, damaged by the titular bear in the earlier film. Father Christmas had, of course, already appeared in The Snowman, and in his own film we see the snowman and the boy from the earlier film. I was completely on board with this crossover until some dialogue suggested that this wasn't actually the same night as seen in The Snowman, but another later date. Which took away the poignant power of The Snowman's ending.

This is, in fact, my biggest gripe with all the later films. Both Father Christmas and The Snowdog dilute The Snowman's strong ending, while The Bear recognises The Snowman as a work of fiction, and so is meta in a bad way. The Bear and The Snowdog also feel like a retelling of the same story already seen in The Snowman. The Bear does it more effectively, while The Snowdog feels like a lazy cash-in. It even has the same ending, but with a 21st Century twist that softens the blow.

But that's just being pernickety. The fact is that each of these films looks beautiful and tells a magical story that captivates. Father Christmas feels like the odd one out since it's dialogue-heavy and has more of a comical tone, but it's none the worse for it and this gives it a USP. It's incredibly refreshing not only to have him named Father Christmas ("Santa" would have sounded very alien to British ears forty years ago, and I can hear my parents drawing their breath at the Americanisation of our nation's version of Saint Nicholas), but also that he's portrayed as a grouchy old bugger, weary at the whole Christmas business which, as he says, arrives earlier each year. Mel Smith does the voice, but I did wonder as I watched if it was Warren Mitchell as he was very Alf Garnett in tone.

The Bear is a touching little film, that has a worthy ecological message. The titular polar bear has been taken from his family and placed in a zoo, and it took me back to visiting zoos when I was young and registering on some level how sad and tired the polar bears appeared in their concrete pit. Interestingly, a similar message was in last night's Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl, where the "gag" was that Feathers McGraw's prison turned out to be a zoo.

The Snowdog might be The Snowman Redux, but there are still rewards from watching as it subtly touches on overdevelopment of precious green spaces (which is the only really interesting aspect of this film for me). In the original film, the boy lives in a house that is clearly isolated and surrounded by land and fields. The Snowdog sees a new family move into the same distinctive house, only this time it's simply one house surrounded by others on a housing development. I also liked the idea of the new boy finding the snowman's hat and scarf under the floorboards, along with a photo that prompted him to do the same thing. Somehow the main character borrowing someone else's idea went a little way towards excusing the film's creators doing the same thing. It must be said, though, that the pop music section are horribly jarring, and the diction is so poor that the lyrics are quite indistinguishable, which makes for quite an unpleasant contrast to Peter Auty's crisp, clear, traditional rendition of Walking In The Air. Adding insult to injury, thesinger affects an American accent, further detracting from the film's British charm. The Snowdog looks very nice and cosy and it's a well-made film. Really, though, it adds very little to the original.

In almost all things, it's true that the original is always best. The Snowman isn't perfect (it actually felt longer than its 26 minute running time, and could have done with being 5-10 minutes shorter in my opinion), but on reflection it certainly feels perfect. The version I watched on Channel 4's player included a live introduction from David Bowie playing a grown-up version of the boy, which I felt bad for not remembering... until I read it was shot for the American audience.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

A HAUNTING IN VENICE (2023)



No spoilers in this post.

Let's start with the good: the satisfying conclusion.
But to get there...oh boy!

Personally, I think these eventful whodunits get the best results with a healthy dose of exaggeration, humour, flamboyance and bitchiness.
Haunting does the opposite.
The characters are almost uniform in looks and performance: the serious-whispery speech delivery, hair and makeup, wardrobe, and anything else that could give a character a distinctive place in the story.
This results in a bland pap to look at, but it also affects the story because it made me realise almost from the very beginning that there would be little excitement in the big reveal because all these characters are kind of interchangeable.

You'd think that a place like Venice adds a lot of atmosphere - it doesn't.
"Going gothic" doesn't mean that darkness needs to obscure all sense of place. It happens in a big house but I couldn't see where-was-what, therefore the alibi thing doesn't work here at all.
The camera work does not help to enhance this film, in fact it's pretty bad.
I usually love strange angles but not when it happens with a lot of movement simultaneously. Presumably it is done to create a disorientating effect, but the "dis" part only works when there's a sense of orientation to begin with.
Furthermore, instead of beautiful mise en scène full-room shots almost all dialogue is shot in close-up. I love to watch actors who are not the focus in a scene to stay in character, but there's none of that here.
If the film had a score then I haven't noticed it.

I find A Haunting In Venice shockingly bad.
The only interesting thing that happens has more to do with this forum. Marley Drama was thinking of Gone With The Wind while I was watching it.
This film mentions Meet Me In St. Louis and the Trolley Song, and for a very short moment I was seriously entertained.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The only interesting thing that happens has more to do with this forum. Marley Drama was thinking of Gone With The Wind while I was watching it.
This film mentions Meet Me In St. Louis and the Trolley Song, and for a very short moment I was seriously entertained.

This could be a new criterion for film enjoyment: how does it connect to the forum? Or Six Degrees Of Telly Talk.

From the sound of it, the only thing spooky about the film was this coincidence.

 

[Willie Oleson]

INSIDE MAN (2006)



All the star power that was sorely lacking in A Hauning In Venice (still hating it) is ensembled in this peculiar heist/hostage movie.
Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster, Christopher Plummer, Willem Dafoe - and Clive Owen but I didn't recognise him. According to his IMDB profile he's been in everything I've never watched.
The narrative is constructed in an intricately way with flashforwards and stuff and this gives the viewer some reveals about the outcome and at the same time it raises some doubts.
The story isn't that great and the police procedures look downright bizarre, but they've managed to make it look good on film. And sometimes that's the only thing that matters.

 

[Rove]

For the most part I found it very enjoyable trash but I wouldn't brag about it in front of intellectual people. Reputation is everything.

My favourite quote of the week.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Yesterdays matinée was:

Ethel & Ernest (2016)

I was unaware this film existed until shortly before watching. Off the back of the four Raymond Briggs shorts I watched the day before yesterday I'd did a little searching to see if there were any other films of his material. This one stood out firstly for being the only feature-length film, secondly for being based on a graphic novel rather than a book, and finally for being biographical (well, autobiographical really, since we learn a lot about Raymond himself and he is a character in it).

As Briggs himself explains in his introduction to the film:​

There was nothing extraordinary about my Mum and Dad. Nothing dramatic. No divorce or anything. But they were my parents and I wanted to remember them by doing a picture book. It's a bit odd, really, having a book about my parents up there in the bestseller lists, above all the football heroes and cookbooks. They'd be proud of that, I suppose, but probably rather embarrassed, too. I imagine they'd say "It wasn't like that", or "How can you talk about that?". Well, I have. And this is their story.​

This is exactly why the film is so wonderful. It's simple and it's very human. You could call it kitchen sink drama, or soap opera, but it only has these elements because such is life. Ethel and Ernest met in 1928 in a sequence that reminded me of Upstairs, Downstairs (Ethel was a lady's maid), before living through the Second World War in observational scenes which made me think of Victoria Wood's portrayal of Nella Last in Housewife, 49. There's a great sequence of a doodlebug attack on the very allotments where Ernest and Raymond are spending father/son time, and what really grabbed me was the silence as the doodlebug glided immediately overhead before hitting the ground. This was used to good effect in another scene shortly afterwards, where just hearing the sound cut out, we knew another was about to land.

We see Raymond evacuated to Dorset. His parents' horrified reactions to him dropping out of grammar school to become an art student. Then comes his National Service. And his wife...

The film perfectly captures the changing eras. The wartime announcements. Television. The Telephone. Motor cars. The freer Sixties. Along with that comes ageing with its ailments and the realisation that life is short.

There's something very factual about the film that means there's never any question of indulgence on the part of the author. He is simply telling a truthful story. That lack of manipulation is exactly why it carries such power. I came away realising that Raymond himself had quite a tragic life in many ways (and some of this only became really clear after reading up on his life, and particularly his first marriage).

Ultimately, its humanity is what makes this film very touching. It helps that it looks beautiful, is nicely performed (Brenda Blethyn and Jim Broadbent are always reliable and note-perfect) and has a very nice score. It would take a very hard heart not to be moved by the story of this ordinary couple simply living a life and doing the best they can.

It's up there with the best of the films I've watched this year.​

 

[Seaviewer]

Meet Me In St. Louis (1944)

Easter Parade is one of my traditions. I should find the time to bookend it with this one at Christmas.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

And the evening film was...

Appointment With Death (1988)

Since I remember owning a boxset of Ustinov's Poirot films I feel reasonably sure I've watched this before. Typically, I can't remember watching it at all. Blessed as I am with a terrible memory for films, I can endlessly re-watch and re-read most Agatha Christie mysteries without knowing whodunnit (for obvious reasons, Murder On The Orient Express is the main exception, though it's still nothing but enjoyable to re-watch).

Poirot seems to be a character who translates to American adaptions far better than others (unlike poor Jane Marple). I'm sure the globe-trotting nature helps, and this one looks wonderfully glossy and expansive. As always in these films, the cast helps, packed to the rafters as it is with big names. At this point, David Suchet is so indelibly associated with the role it's always a little strange to see anyone else playing Hercule Poirot. Ustinov's portrayal loses a lot of the character's preciseness and quirkiness, but is so easy and enjoyable to watch that it's no hardship to simply view this as a non-canon, alternative universe adventure.

There's really little to say about this. It does exactly what is required and it does so in an accessible and charming way.

Incidentally, the poster is very spoiler-ish.​