File Comparison Movie Reviews

I got this film with memories of the tight plot and the cataclysmic twist at the end. Thirty years has dulled considerably the enjoyment I once felt.

Everyone else finds Caine's performance riveting. I found it silly and stilted. I never bought in, never experienced anything other than an actor saying his lines, and not especially good lines at that. The other characters are all minor actors who fulfilled the stereotypes required for this film.

But spy films live and die on plot, and this one is pretty lame. The ease with which Palmer locates his prey, and the anvil like clues about who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, did a good job at diminishing whatever suspense it created. The big conclusion left me laughing....was I really supposed to see a choice here? Never doubted for a moment. Anti-climax implies climax. This was just silly.

This was not bad, but an uncharismatic Caine and a predictable plot combined to create a mediocre experience. And DVD extras were quite nominal.

Michael Caine's Harry Palmer -- the character is nameless in the Len Deighton novels; as he is also the first-person narrator, this works, but for this film, (third-person all the way) it was felt that he needed a name -- is just as escapist a fantasy as Connery's Bond, but in a different manner. Deliberately deglamorised and *presented* as just a relatively ordinary man, if of a somewhat dubious moral character, doing his best to keep out of trouble, Palmer nonetheless is, underneath, a bit more.

Blackmailed into espionage with the threat of well-earned prison time, Palmer is a useful foot-soldier in the sordid, quiet war of espionage and counter-espionage, set to unmask a traitor -- but who *is* the traitor -- is there anyone at all that he can trust?

Michael Caine (this was the first film in which i had seen him) inhabits the role of Harry Palmer and makes it totally his, a man of contradictions -- a working class man, but one who genuinely loves and appreciates the finer things, unlike Fleming's (and, to some extent, the Bond movies') Bond, an amoral thug who apes the manners and tastes of his betters.

The apparently-realistic dreary grey London streets and settings add to this film's apparently-realistic approach, all the better to persuade the viewer to suspend his disbelief and accept the rather complex plot, especially when we get to the brainwashing parts...

First of three films, this was a series that *could* have rivalled Bond but fizzled out in the end.

All three, however, are well worth your time.

The Ipcress File is without a doubt the best of the Hollywood action spy thrillers of the 60's. It is what the James Bond series started out to be and never quite became. Michael Cane in neither a tough guy nor a slick CIA/KGB type. He is a foot soldier, literally in this case, in the cold war. His opinions are neither sought nor listened too. He is only sent in when the situation becomes too clouded for the professional intelligence officers to unravel. An army sergeant convicted of shady dealings and condemned to one prison or the other, Harry Palmer (Michael Cane) chooses the one without walls, but great danger. The problem for Harry isn't to solve the mystery; it is to figure out just what the mystery is. Everyone about him is so stiff upper lipped and bowler-hated that it is difficult to see any movement, and as a good foot soldier, Harry Palmer knows that you can't shoot until someone moves and gives away their position. Finally the story plays out in a London back-alley where the street savvy, uneducated but intelligent Palmer is called upon to make the right choice. With a plot that is slightly too fanciful and a hero slightly too suave for reality, this is none the less a very believable film, beautifully photographed and edited. Watch The IPCRESS File in a triple bill with the much grittier and more realistic 1965 B/W film, The Spy Who Came In Form The Cold starring Richard Burton and the 1962 B/W film The Manchurian Candidate starring Frank Sinatra and Lawrence Harvey if you want to know what Hollywood's view of the Cold War was at the dawn of the Viet Man War.

This is solid entertainment for kids and anime fans alike, especially those interested in the works of master anime director Hayao Miyazaki (Princess Mononoke, My Neighbor Totoro, Castle of Cagliostro). He directed three of the five episodes (A Small Client, Mrs. Hudson is Taken Hostage, and The Blue Carbuncle)and his flair for great action and pacing (see Castle of Cagliostro) is especially evident in these episodes. The other two unfortunately lack that kind of energy and invention but are still fun. Sure the animation is a bit dated but the story, characterizatons and humor are still top quality. I personally prefer the Japanese language with English subtitles(you get the Japanese vocals for the opening and closing themes to boot) but the English dub is certainly decent in of itself.

Overall, a must have for Miyazaki fans and for parents who want their children to watch wholesome yet inventive anime that's not the usual Pokemon-derived dreck.

This DVD was great! I watched Sherlock Hound as a kid, and had only good memories about it. I'm happy it came out on DVD! The only thing bothering me is the English version, which is very bad in my opinion. The actors are just plain, and the English accent, although a nice touch, doesn't add up to the whole thing. Better to watch it in Japanese! I know though that there is a French version which is excellent, and although there's probably not a very big market for anime in French, would it be so much trouble adding one more track on the DVD? Still, I recommend this cartoon to any Sherlock Homes fan, and any nostalgic young adults like me :)

I have been a fan of Sherlock Holmes all of my life. I am not locked into tradition as some Sherlockians. I am open to new and different interpretations of the Great Detective. This DVD is a delight. True it takes several big liberties with Holmes, but that's OK. It is not intended to be a straight retelling of the Canon. The stories are well told and the Anime is very good. This disk can serve as an introduction to Sherlock Holmes for young children and as a pleasant variation on a theme for older Sherlock Holmes fans.

'The Odessa File' is one of those speculative fantasies for which Frederick Forsyth is famous, alternative scenarios inserted into history and tricked out with so much 'factual' detail as to seem convincing. Well, that's the idea anyway. This film makes much of its basis in fact and plausible hypothesis - it opens with a Forsyth-signed prologue averring the 'documentary research' behind the work; celebrated Nazi- hunter Simon Wiesenthal has a credit as consultant, and even has a cameo as himself (and, significantly, considering the talent on display, turns in the one natural performance of the film). Documents themselves play a vital role - the titular file is the Maguffin that records a major conspiracy; a diary found with the remains of a Jewish suicide prompts the film's action. The film's setting is precise and meaningful - the day and aftermath of JFK's assassination; the Israeli-Egyptian war. Experts are wheeled in within the film to explain to the hero (and us) the minutae of various crises.

All this counts for nothing. Jon Voight is a German journalist whose family has a Nazi past and who, after reading the diary of a Riga concentration camp survivor, decides to uncover the commandant long missing, presumed dead. His investigative progress is hampered by a supposedly democratic system (police, judiciary, big business etc.), that seems crammed with senior ex-Nazis.

Reasons for the film's failure are legion, but the fatal one is the sacrificing of the 'documentary' angle in favour of a bogus, typically Hollywood personal quest. For all its flaws, Fred Zinneman's 'The Day Of the Jackal' worked because of its distanced style and its refusal to 'psychologise' (sic?) its anti-hero; the various Hollywood cliches used to 'humanise' the hero (secret in family past that must be exorcised; relationship difficulties; sense of personal failure blahblah) remind us we're watching a contrived fiction, and not even a passable simulacra of a documentary. But we didn't really need reminding - the intrusive music (by Andrew Lloyd Webber!), the aforementioned poor thesping (complete with annoying 'international cast' dubbing), perfunctory direction and dreary script has already done this for us.

Worse, for a film made in the mid-70s, when even major Hollywood studios were experimenting in realism, the look of 'File' is laughably dated (over-lit, over-composed, stagy), with even real locations looking like flat studio sets. Its pseudo-Melvillean pretensions recall ersatz big-budget follies like 'Night Of The Generals' and 'Funeral In Berlin' rather than the real thing. When you think Fassbinder was writing his sour postcards from the post-Nazi FDR at the same time, this film's dinosaur status becomes lumberingly apparent.

The book is better (it usually is) but the movie stays true to it and is a pretty decent one overall. Absolutely nothing fancy about it; no exotic sets and no dazzling special effects or stunts. This isn't an action movie, so there's not any real action sequences either. What it is is a suspense tale, a story of one man's quest for the truth. A nice blend of history and current events, which derives from the book the movie is based on; its author, Frederick Forsyth, is one of the best storytellers around. If you like the movie, you'll definitely enjoy his books.

I really enjoyed the book. And i was hoping that the movie would stay true to the book - and it did. Jon Voight has been perfectly cast. This movie travels at a livley pace and never fails to entertain. I thoroughly recommend it.

Kim Basinger, who has been sprung out of prison after six years, realizes she has to go on one last heist to save her son from kidnappers. What could have been a competent, exciting actioner (with such such a good cast and occassionally interesting intentions) is just a substandard mystery-drama that most people won't like.

Kim Basinger plays Karen McCoy, a solo bank robber who gets caught one night while 'on the job'. After six years she's out on parole and rushes to see her beloved son, Patrick (Zach English). Much to her dismay and anger, she finds out that not only had her ex-husband Roy (Nick Searcy) been burning her letters to her son, he also told Patrick that his mother was dead! Karen must now work to make her life 'straight' as she tries to get custody to see her kid. But things start to get worse when former boss and gangster Jack Schmidt (Terrence Stamp) kidnaps her son and blackmails her to do one last bank heist. With the help of rookie criminal J.T. Barker (Val Kilmer), Karen must make sure she can get her son and herself out of this mess alive.

The idea is good, the cast is good, it's such a shame that "The Real McCoy" turns out to be a mediocre film floundering in a badly written script. Once again, I will say that the whole idea behind the movie is great, what if a ex-bank robber is blackmailed and must pull the most elaborate and difficult bank robbery? Unfortunately, whoever wrote the script had either no clue how to fill out the story or was in a rush to get it finished. The movie begins with Karen getting caught then we are brought to six years after the event. The next 40 minutes are dull as we are dragged through events that really didn't have to happen. Finally though, after trudging through the first 50 minutes, we get to see some action. The bank robbery is well done and loads of fun, up there with the first "Mission Impossible" movie. But after the climax bank heist, the ending feels a bit cut short. In my opinion, the first 40 minutes could have been compressed into half the time, then lengthened the ending by adding some more twists and turns.

Then we have the acting. Some of the reviewers complained about Kim Basinger. All I can say is that I feel very bad for her. I bet her character was really hard to act out since the director/writer duo couldn't seem to make up what kind of person they wanted! Did they want a frail woman to be pitied upon because of her constant clashes with overbearing males? Or did they want a strong woman with plenty of smarts to be able to be an expert robber? Karen McCoy has too many mixed up personalities to be able to really like, though Kim Basinger at times gives a good performance. Terrence Stamp is just completely wasted on, there's nothing special about his bad-guy role. On the good side, we have the young and talented actor Val Kilmer as Karen's sidekick. I've always thought of him as a very versatile actor, I mean he's acted out so many different roles (a spy in "The Saint", a superhero in "Batman Forever", a warrior in "Willow", a legend in "Tombstone", etc.). Seeing him play J.T. Barker was a lot fun, backwards baseball cap, Southern accent, and all! He got all the best lines in the film and played his role with the greatest of ease. It's too bad we didn't get to see more of him.

There are some great action scenes, including of course the climax bank heist. Val Kilmer gets to drive a VERY cool car (can't really see if it's a Camarro or a Firebird since they were very similar looking cars). Though it's kind of weird to hear screeching tires in the pouring rain, for car lovers it's absolutely wonderful to hear the car's nice engine!

So, here's a summary: It's too bad the script couldn't have been worked out better since we have three such great stars acting in the movie. But if you are a Val Kilmer, Kim Basinger, or Terrence Stamp fan and loves a good caper, check this film out.

Director Russell Mulcahy's action heist doesn't reveal as much bank theft hardware as Jon Amiel's 1999 Entrapment, nor allows for the star power that Catherine Zeta-Jones and Sean Connery provided for the later film. As the protagonist, a reknown bank robber out on parole after 6 years in a Georgia jail (which allows for her accent) and blackmailed into doing another bank, Kim Basinger is limited by the genre's stereotype of a woman in an action movie and the mysogynistic screenplay by William Davies and William Osborne. We know things are off when Mulcahy doesn't give Basinger the coverage to confirm the Who is That? response of Val Kilmer as someone vaguely connected to her parole officer and a rookie criminal. Basinger's self-conscious beauty is seen to attract constant sexual harassment by men far less appealing than her - just note the repeated "you've kept your figure" observation - but then Mulcahy has a queasy scene where she is beaten and offers no self defence when she has already demonstrated she possesses some skill in that area. Why? Does Basinger being so beautiful mean she must pay for it? When she is first released from prison a man comes on to her on a train, but he is inexplicably repelled when she tells him she robs bank. There is also an implication that she is a bad mother for abandoning her child in favour of a life of crime. We're never told why she started robbing banks, though considering what her ex-husband is like, it may have been just to get away from her life with him, if you can believe she would have ever been interested in him in the first place. Mulcahy doesn't have the comic skill to give Basinger in a black wig any payoff (though Basinger in a black wig is still recognisably Kim), and he even scores points off her by having her not wear gloves when she breaks into someone's house. We get the hackneyed stalled car when the driver is in pursuit, rain during the bank heist, and a very MTV image of someone pouring a bottle of water over their face, which can only be partly contextualised by the apparent heat of the vault drilling and the matching sweat on Basinger's face. Mulcahy cleverly provides cross cuts to security police racing to the bank during the heist to create suspense, since the mechanics of the heist itself are lacking in detail, but Kilmer's timing of the security route from their base to the bank is merely an excuse for an extended stunt driving sequence. Kilmer doesn't make much of an impression here, and doesn't even get to touch Basinger, but Terence Stamp as the head of the bad guys gets a good yell in closeup.

Though you'll find some naked beautiful women here, this DVD is NOT a cheap porn film. It's hard to tell how good this film in words. You have to see it: A good mixed composition of nudity and (a litle) art.