movie review – Page 2 – The Magnificent 60s

Run Wild, Run Free (1969) ****

Surprisingly absorbing, precisely because of the distinct lack of the soppiness or mawkishness associated with the genre. Nature “red in tooth and claw” scarcely puts in an appearance and even then is a good bit less dangerous than a wanton child unable to understand or control his emotions. Parents are very well-drawn, too, in an era that scarcely ran to much comprehension about child psychology, a mother rejecting her son because she is convinced he has rejected her, a traditional father who lacks the skills to convey his love for his son. And you wouldn’t get away these days with an old fellow taking more than a passing interest in a small bewildered boy with the audience immediately conjuring up images of abuse.

The film also prefigures the Gaia movement. Both the old fellow and his young charge are given to lying prostate on the grass, the better to listen to the beating heart of the Earth. And you wouldn’t think of pinning this one on director Richard C. Sarafian, best known for his biker epic Vanishing Point (1971). Far less imagine how you’d get a whole stack of actors to spend a great deal of time wading through a swamp “in camera” rather than utilizing some form of CGI or to volunteer their fingers to be bitten by a predatory bird.

If you’re searching for the kind of twist that’s so common these days, look no further than the location. Those wild moors look fantastic in the sunshine, especially for compositions that outline characters against the sky, but they’re treacherous too, when the fog comes down and you’re trapped without a signpost home, and they’re not all hard grass or spurs or rock but conceal sections of perilous swamp.

Living on the edge of the moors, small wonder Philip (Mark Lester) is attracted, even as a toddler, to the wilderness. That’s exacerbated when he’s afflicted by muteness after developing a stammer around the age of four. It’s assumed there’s a psychosomatic cause, but we’ve got no time and the parents no inclination to dwell upon that.

He develops an obsession with a wild white pony, one of a herd that runs free on the moors, and spends most of his time out trying to find it. Col Ransome (John Mills), nature lover and amateur ornithologist, befriends Philip, helping him to understand nature, and teaching him to ride – bareback – the pony. Ransome also shows him to manage a kestrel.

Scenes of characters working with horses or other animals are usually limited to bit of nose stroking or whispering to calm said animal down, but here we go into a lot more intricate detail of how to win the cooperation of a horse, the kind of lore that nobody’s got much time for these days. So if you want to ride a horse bareback first off you need to just lie on top across its back and stroke its sides. And for a predator, you have to be willing to accept the occasional peck on your fingers while, again, you evoke a stroking mechanism. You might also be surprised to learn that the easiest way to mend a broken wing is by the use of glue.

While Philip and the Colonel and a young girl Diana (Fiona Fullerton) are happily communing with nature, Mr Ransome (Gordon Jackson) and wife (Sylvia Syms) are scarcely able to work out their feelings at being abandoned by their child. The mother tends to get angry, the father, in a very touching scene, is left desolate after Philip ignores a present the father believes would have brought more solidity to their relationship, and in another effective scene it’s the Colonel who explains that it doesn’t take much for a child to understand how devoted an apparently distant father can be.

Any potential soppiness is killed off when Philip in a wild fit of obsession nearly kills the kestrel and in another sequence of disregard almost kills the horse. Occasionally, Philip speaks a few words to the old man but refuses to express himself in front of the parents. So it will come as little surprise that when the parents finally hear the son speak it’s at the quite gripping climax when all the adults have failed to rescue the white horse from a swamp.

And anyone expecting that cute kid from Oliver! (1968) would have their hopes dashed when Mark Lester displays all the natural truculence and wantonness of a child. He’s pretty good, I have to say, in being forced to confine his emotions to facial expression.

John Mills (Guns at Batasi, 1964) is excellent and Sylvia Syms (East of Sudan, 1964), shorn of glamor, and Gordon Jackson (The Ipcress File, 1965) as her emotionally inarticulate husband, both dump their screen personas in favor of highly believable characters. Fiona Fullerton makes her screen debut.

Richard C. Sarafian does a splendid job. Screenplay by David Rook based on his novel.

Emotionally true.

Zulu Dawn (1979) ****

You’d wonder why anyone would want to make a film about this calamitous military disaster, the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879. Yet, such subjects have always attracted Hollywood, especially if some kind of triumph can be snatched from defeat – Dunkirk (1958 and 2017) – or some charismatic figure of the order of General Custer is involved – They Died With Their Boots On (1941), Custer of the West (1967). Or you can make something mythical such as The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936) and with the assistance of the screen presence of Errol Flynn tilt it towards glory or you can take the same subject (the 1968 version) and make merry with satire should you wish to poke fun at the British Empire.

The latter could easily have been the starting point for Zulu Dawn, a prequel to the majestic Zulu (1964). However, although the Brits were outthought, out-maneuvered and outnumbered, the errors made on the battlefield were generally not through hubris or commanders competing for glory. And you would have to assume that no matter what the British Army could do, in terms of size it was minute compared to the Zulus, and even armed with rifles and artillery was hardly going to withstand a sustained attack.

So it’s fairly solid stuff, buoyed up by decent performances, though Burt Lancaster playing an Irishman seems tacked on to increase marquee appeal. The final shot of the eyes of Peter O’Toole would easily stand in the annals of war pictures as one of the best testaments to the horror of defeat and impending humiliation.

There is certainly some unsavory business at the start as British commander Lord Chelmsford (Peter O’Toole) and diplomat Sir Henry Bartle Frere (John Mills) unwittingly poke the lion of Zulu King Cetawayo whose rising strength they perceive as a threat to the British colonies in the southern regions of Africa. Chelmsford makes the mistake of invading Zululand.

Hoping to pin down the enemy to the traditional pitched battle on territory that would give him an advantage, he finds he’s chasing ghosts. They can’t locate the Zulus until the enemy wants to be found. And in an echo of the later Lawrence of Arabia, Cetawayo does the impossible and leads his troops on what was considered an unlikely line of attack.

The British strategy of lining up troops in two lines and shooting alternately certainly reduces the oncoming force, but four times the amount of firepower would still have had trouble preventing the onslaught. Critically, in search of more favorable ground, Chelmsford splits his forces, but, again, even had the British been one unit, it would have made little difference.

I’m not sure how true is the portrayal of the officious quartermaster Bloomfield (Peter Vaughn) who, even in the heat of battle, demands soldiers form an orderly queue to receive a supply of bullets, and that may just be a potshot at overbearing bureaucracy.

The narrative flits from various characters, dashing cavalry types like Col Durnford (Burt Lancaster) and Lt Vereker (Simon Ward), commanders Chelmsford and Col Pulleine (Denholm Elliott), those representing different points of view such as Col Hamilton-Brown (Nigel Davenport) and Col Crealock (Michael Jayston), and lowly grunts in the form of Colour Sergeant Williams (Bob Hoskins) and Boy Pullen (Phil Daniels).

There’s certainly a sense of the higher-ups still enjoying the pleasures of life, wine served at dinner, plated service, but the lesser ranks still have largely an easy time of it, when they are not marching spending most of the time in idleness. It’s a very civil environment. Commands aren’t barked out. “I say, would you mind…” is the tone.

But it’s the marching that’s the killer. The heat’s not as bad as in Crimea and there’s no disease decimating the ranks but they still have to do a lot of walking on uneven terrain. There’s enough difference of opinion at all levels of the Army to keep tensions high.

And there’s more of a focus on the brutality of war – Lt Vereker laments the death of a Zulu child, you can easily be killed by your own troops and truth is viciously beaten out captives (who, as it happens, have been sent to become captives and mislead the Brits.) I was wondering if audiences had come to expect a scene with native girls dancing half-naked, as had occurred in the sequel, and the censor turned a blind eye to.

Peter O’Toole (The Lion in Winter, 1968) has the best role, especially when he counts the cost of defeat. Burt Lancaster (Valdez Is Coming, 1971) offers some star power but little else and the rest of the cast is virtually a roll-call of Who’s Who in British acting.

Luckily, the picture is more than even-handed and while not pillorying the Army and the Establishment in the manner of The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968) plays fair with the circumstances and exalts Zulu victory as much as British defeat.

Directed by Douglas Hickox (Les Bicyclettes de Belsize, 1968) with perhaps overmuch concentration on marching. Zulu director Cy Endfield had shot his bolt by this point and wasn’t invited back except in the capacity of screenwriter along with Anthony Storey making his movie debut.

Much better than I expected.

If you fancy checking out how it compares to Zulu (1964), you can check out my review on the Blog.

Countess Dracula (1971) ****

You wouldn’t go looking to British studio Hammer for a subtle treatise on the perils of ageing. Nor might you expect a predator to be so cruelly, and consistently, punished. Nor, for that matter, for a mirror to provide revelation given that in the traditional vampire movie one of the signs you have a bloodsucker in your midst is that a mirror does not show their reflection.

The title is something of a misnomer: while there’s bloodletting aplenty there’s zero actual bloodsucking. Hammer had taken a sideways shift into female empowerment and more obvious sexuality and gender twist with the introduction of the female vampire – beginning with The Vampire Lovers (1970), sequel Lust for a Vampire (1971) and, completing the trilogy, Twins of Evil (1972). For that matter it also pre-empted, in perverse fashion, the body swap genre of Freaky Friday (1976 etc.).

These days this would be termed the expansion of a “horrorverse” or a “Hammerverse” as the studio developed its IP since it had not abandoned the traditional Christopher Lee version, doubling down in 1970 with Taste the Blood of Dracula and The Scars of Dracula and following up with Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972).

While Countess Dracula doesn’t fall into the vampiric category, neither does it so obviously exploit the sexuality and rampant nudity of the female vampire trinity. But there are other shocks in store. Be prepared for emotional punch, not something normally associated with Hammer.

The ageing beauty had been a 1960s trope as Hollywood had come to terms with finding starring roles for 1940s/1950s stars past their box office best but names – Lana Turner and Vivien Leigh among others- with still some marquee lure. And this follows a similar trajectory, older woman falling in love with younger man.

Set in Hungary in the seventeenth century, widowed Countess Elisabeth Bathory (Ingrid Pitt) discovers by accident that a touch of virgin blood rejuvenates her skin and tempts her into stealing the suitor Toth (Sandor Eles) of her 19-year-old daughter Ilona (Lesley-Anne Down). But that means kidnapping Ilona and keeping her imprisoned so Bathory can impersonate her, finding a ready supply of virgins to murder and exsanguinate, enlisting in her scheme lover Capt Dobi (Nigel Green) and maid Julie (Patience Collier).

The ruse appears to work well – at first. Believing Bathory is actually her daughter, Toth is easily seduced. But there’s a downside which is quickly apparent. What spell blood casts, it doesn’t last long. And there’s a sting in the tail. Having acted as a rejuvenating agent, when the virgin blood has run its course transformation goes the other way and turns her into an old crone.

So now, Bathory and her team enter serial killer territory, the disappearances and deaths arousing suspicion among the locals and historian Fabio (Maurice Denham), and her daughter threatening at any minute to escape her captor and turn up at the castle. And Bathory cannot give up the fantasy, not least because when the blood runs out, she’ll be unrecognizable as an old crone.

You can see where this is headed, so that’s not much of a surprise. What is astonishing is how well director Peter Sasdy (Taste the Blood of Dracula) handles the emotion. You might think the special effects do all the work that’s required, but that’s not the case. It’s Bathory’s eyes not her crumpled skin that make these scenes so powerful and in between, apart from the initial transformation, Bathory shifts uneasily between exultation that she is living the fantasy and terror that it will come to a sudden end.

Ingrid Pitt (The Vampire Lovers, 1970) has the role of her career, superbly playing a woman bewitched by her fantasy and the prospect of literally turning back the years. None of the ageing actresses that I previously mentioned manage to so well to portray that specific female agony of a beauty losing her looks. Sandor Eles (The Kremlin Letter, 1970) looks the part and Nigel Green (Fraulein Doktor, 1968), while shiftier than usual, also has to scale more emotional heights than normal, in not just having to countenance his lover going off with another man but helping her to do so. Lesley-Anne Down (The First Great Train Robbery, 1978) makes a splash.

More than ably directed by Sasdy, from a screenplay by Jeremy Paul in his debut based on the book by Valentine Penrose.

I’m not sure how well this went down with vampire aficionados and suspect there was audience disappointment, but there is more than enough depth to make up.

Shelter (2026) **

Even though it’s easily one of the worst in the Jason Statham canon, I feel duty bound to review this because a) it’s set in a remote Scottish location, the Outer Hebrides, famed for the likes of Whisky Galore (1949) and its sequel and b) because I’ve been a paid-up member (possibly one of the few) of The Stath Fan Club. So I was half-expecting to see the imprimatur of Creative Scotland on the credits, but when I checked it out, realized I’d been sold a dummy and that for “tax reasons” it had been filmed in Ireland with an occasional sign slotted in to suggest it was set in Stornoway.

But I’m afraid our Jason has fallen victim to the Dwayne Johnson affliction, whereby the successful action hero believes he has to show he can “act.” In this case, Jason is saddled with a young girl which means, by virtue of Sergei Eisenstein’s dictat, every time he glowers the hostility is softened because the camera cuts to the girl.

The reasons this falls down is not so much that very little makes sense in the first place (even though that’s a very low bar anyway) but that the director loses faith in the original idea and having set up the notion of former Government gun for hire recluse Mason (Jason Statham) battling through the wilderness of the land and seas around the Sottish Western Isles to safeguard his unwelcome charge, the orphan Jesse (Bodhi Rae Breathnach), that’s suddenly abandoned and we are relocated to London for a shoot-out in a nightclub.

The screenplay draws extensively on the Bourne films. Mason has been hiding out in a lighthouse on a remote island, quietly drinking himself to death, because principles got the better of him a decade past and he refused to kill an innocent man so when he is discovered alive when the records have been rigged to show he is dead, MI5 (or MI6) chief Manafort (Bill Nighy) wants him exterminated so, as in the Bourne series, some other assassin’s phone lights up and the hunt is on.

Logic is in complete absence. Mason’s been off the grid for a decade. Give him a few more years and he’d be dead from alcohol poisoning. And if you wanted to eliminate him, all you’d have to do is cut off his weekly supply of food and booze and wait for him to starve to death or sit in ambush till he leaves the island in his tiny boat.

Instead, some unknown person for no apparent reason has fitted (technology-wise) Mason up as a terrorist so MI5 (or MI6) go in all guns blazing only to discover he has an effective web of Rambo-style defences. He’s got a tech buddy (Daniel Mays) on Stornoway who can fix the tech problem but he’s dying of cancer so in no fit state to look after a, no matter how meek, teenager. So after more bloodshed, they’re off to London apparently secure in the knowledge that in the small matter of getting on and off the ferry required to take them to the mainland they can move unseen and that’s despite the fact that he’s been tracked using the tiniest available access points on all sorts of mobile phones and cameras on Stornoway.

Naturally, the only person who can get Jesse to safety in London is a drug trafficker and her freedom is complicated by the arrival of the same shady MI5 (or MI6) guys and genuine MI5 (or MI6) guys who couldn’t spot them traveling on any of the 400-odd miles it took to get them to the capital.

It’s not just Jason Statham going all gooey Dwayne Johnson that doesn’t make it work but the girl is a refugee from The Pony Club or National Velvet, a posh lassie who looks as though she’s had every inch of teenage-ness surgically removed and as if she’s never heard of Home Alone and hardly aware that you’ve got to show some spunk not mooch around complaining you’re going to be left alone while wanting (apparently) to be liked the murdering varmint accompanying you.

So with that relationship in screen terms dead in the water, the movie has to fall back on some garbled secret system called T.H.E.A. and an incredibly young incoming head of MI5 (or MI6) Roberta (Naomi Ackie) who looks young enough to be Jesse’s big sister (Ackie is only 35) whose job is to sort out the resultant mess.

I mentioned in a previous article how some careers were sustained by the overseas market rather than their box office returns in the U.S. and that’s been largely the case with Statham. Shelter stiffed on opening weekend in the U.S. taking just $5.5 million though it’s knocked up another $7.7 million worldwide.

Although Statham has had an unlikely hand up the Hollywood tree by being parachuted into the Fast and Furious franchise and being the leading man (or last man standing) for The Meg duo, his fortunes otherwise at the box office have been variable. The Beekeeper (2024) hit an unexpected $162 million worldwide ($66 million Stateside) and A Working Man (2025) delivered a tolerable $89 million worldwide ($37 million domestic) and even Wrath of Man, despite a poor $27 million in the U.S. crossed the $100 million mark when all other markets were taken into account.

Even so, I doubt if worldwide will redeem this one. I had thought after such a run of duds in January (and you can add Primate to the list) I could depend on Statham to redeem a poor month. Alas, no.

Directed by Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen, 2019) from a screenplay by Ward Parry (The Shattering, 2015).

Saltburn (2023) **

With the arrival of Emerald Fennell’s latest epic Wuthering Heights (or to give it it’s full title “Wuthering Heights” – yes, don’t ask me!) imminent I thought I’d go back to Saltburn and see if my second impression was any better than my first.

Alas, I was right first time. Another “visionary” director disappearing up their own backside, despite having a superb cast at their disposal including Oscar-nominated Jacob Elordi (Frankenstein, 2025, and now Wuthering Heights), Oscar-nominated Barry Keoghan (The Banshees of Inisherin, 2022) and Oscar-nominated Rosamund Pike (Now You See Me: Now You Don’t, 2025).

There wasn’t enough in a second viewing to convince me to spend a whole lot of my time revising my original review, so what follows is an expanded version of my first attempt.

Brideshead Revisited Meets Carry On Downton Abbey. Wouldn’t surprise me if that’s the way it was actually pitched, it’s just so uneven, veering through several different styles without ever finding a target. The shock elements are, unfortunately, just risible. Via the trailer this appeared to be a moody, atmospheric picture about entitlement, the downside, if you like, of Downton Abbey.

Instead, it’s just plain barmy, which might well have worked if its take on the bizarre had been consistent, but, really it’s a contender for the coveted So-Bad-It’s-Good Award with Rosamund Pike odds-on to nab the award for the best Maggie Smith impression. .

Oliver (Barry Keoghan) is supposedly a scholarship student at Oxford, coming from a sinkhole estate in Liverpool, parents drug dealers etc etc. Out of his depth, by chance he latches on to sex god Felix (Jacob Elordi) and is invited to spend the summer at the latter’s stately home complete with sneering butlers and demonic family, all graduates of the Over-Acting Academy.

Turns out we’ve not been watching Downton Abbey at all, but The Usual Suspects, Oliver not an innocent little bookworm after all but an extremely malevolent character who manages – in the absence (luckily) of post-mortem or any forensic examination– to bump off the entire family in order to inherit (don’t ask!) Saltburn in order to, in a bizarre nod to Risky Business, dance naked through it.

The only reason it gets any points at all is Jacob Elordi, who exhibits tremendous screen charisma, and because the barmy extremely self-centred and out-of-it Rosamund Pike does elicit a few laughs and maybe, courtesy of Richard E. Grant, has a haircut to enter some kind of Hall of Fame.

The shock elements are hilarious as though someone of school age has decided they are really going to shock mummy and daddy. So we’ve got Oliver licking up Felix’s leftover sperm in the bath, the various deaths and the stark naked (are you shocked now?) Risky Business homage.

Jacob Elordi has since come good. He was a believable Elvis in Priscilla (2023), excellent in On Swift Horses (2024) and superb as Frankenstein and possibly still in with a shout of becoming our next James Bond. Barry Keoghan hasn’t come good, at least in the commercial sense, second-billed in Bird (2024) and Bring Them Down (2024) and third-billed in Hurry Up, Tomorrow (2025). For all I know he may be content to plough the arthouse furrow but given his presence – and third-billed again – in the forthcoming big-budget Crime 101 that doesn’t seem to be the case, though it is true it sometimes takes a while for new faces to find a way to fit in.

It’s a shame really because spoofing Downton Abbey or Brideshead Revisited for that matter can be done with considerable ease as the recent Fackham Hall has proved.

Witchfinder General / The Conqueror Worm (1968) ****

For 250 years Europe and America was in the grip of a man-made plague. Ever since Pope Innocent VIII declared war on supposed witches in 1584, tens of thousands were arrested, tortured and hung or burned to death. Although Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible is considered the last word on the subject, in fact it treats very lightly the physical degradation visited upon victims and the corruption that was at the heart of the disaster. And sure, cinema has poked its nose into the area of possession, most recently with the supposed final act of the The Conjuring series, and while items like The Immaculate (2024) and The Handmaid’s Tale series focus on female subjugation, none of these exposes the full horror of witchcraft accusation.

The British censor bristled at the violence depicted in this film, and the picture was censored to a degree, while movie critics howled at the film’s “sadism.” Yet though the film is a raw depiction of the terrors inflicted on the innocent – male and female – by a corrupt male hierarchy, it scarcely touches the surface of the tsunami of wanton killing and terror.

So this serves as a welcome reminder of that awful age. While romantic leads Richard (Ian Ogilvy) and Sarah (Hilary Dwyer) are insipid, Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price), the self-appointed Witchfinder General, and his gang of thugs led by John Stearne (Robert Russell) are not, and the enormous delight they take in torturing the innocent is what drives the picture. Set in an England in 1645 riven by civil war, where the forces of law and order are in disarray, Hopkins takes delight in profiting from the lack of opposition to his reign of terror.

While Vincent Price (The Oblong Box, 1969) manages to resist the temptation to be overblown and his subdued performance carries ominous weight, it’s the unusual approach of director Matthew Reeves (The Sorcerers, 1967) that makes this a standout. He’s not making a horror picture, but a historical one. Not just are their nods to a specific time period, he bypasses the Gothic, the movie taking place mostly in daylight rather than nighttime, and his visual composition stands comparison with the best of the 1960s roadshows rather than standard Hammer or AIP offerings.

Hopkins delegates the actual torture to his underlings, retaining for himself the more subtle pleasure of blackmailing women into providing him with sex and walking off with a fat purse from local dignitaries for his troubles.

When he descends on any town or village, there will be a price to pay in human ruin. He picks on the village of Brandstone in Sussex and begins to torture local priest John Lowes (Rupert Davies), driving him to exhaustion by endlessly racing him up and down a room before his accomplices can get down to the serious business of plunging long needles into his naked body. Virtually all the weapons in the witch hunter’s armory are of the Catch 22 category. Nothing you do will present as innocent and then you are headed for the gallows or lowered alive into a bonfire.

Luckily for Lowes, his niece Sarah is sweet on Roundhead officer Richard, applauded for his courage in battle, and he attempts to come to her rescue. Unfortunately for her, he is called back to duty before he can save anybody and it’s only by sacrificing herself to Hopkins that Sarah believes she can save her uncle. That turns out to be the worst of the calumnies Hopkins visits upon the innocent, as once he has had his fun he just condemns the old man anyway, and the daughter to boot. And although audiences might wince at the torture it was only fraction of the pain inflicted on the victims who might well end up confessing to witchcraft just to get the agony over with. In my hometown of Paisley, seven witches were executed a few years after Salem on the accusations of an 11-year-old girl – The Renfrewshire Witch Trials has just been published on Amazon should you be interested – which shows the absolute contrivance of the authorities in ruthlessly hunting out victims on the slightest pretense.

It’s a shame that neither Ian Ogilvy (The Sorcerers) nor Hilary Dwyer (The Oblong Box) are equipped to show the depths of despair of their characters, but in some sense this is not their story, except as examples of victims, and the tale really belongs to the venal butchers who took advantage of a climate of fear. These days, it shows up almost as a quasi-documentary and that’s to its benefit.

Written by the director and Tom Baker (The Sorcerers) based on the bestseller by Ronald Bassett. For its U.S. release, AIP snuck in a poem by Edgar Allan Poe which explains the U.S. title The Conqueror Worm.

Interest in this movie is unfairly attributed to the cult status it acquired after the premature death of the director – this was the last of his three films – but in fact it sits easily in the well-wrought historical movies of the period, handsomely mounted and unflinching.

Matchless / Mission Top Secret / The Invisible Spy (1967) ***

Alberto Lattuada is the big attraction for me here, being the director of World War One spy drama Fraulein Doktor (1968) starring Suzy Kendall and which has become a standout, in terms of views, on the Blog. Conversely, you might be swayed by the undoubted physical attributes of Ira von Furstenberg (The Vatican Affair), a real-life princess to boot, or perhaps by the under-rated Patrick O’Neal (Stiletto, 1969) enjoying a rare foray as the top-billed star.

While the U.S. title is a tad opaque – our journalist hero Perry Liston (Patrick O’Neal) uses that by-line – the foreign title gives the game away. While imprisoned in China, Perry is handed a ring with magical powers by a Chinese prisoner in gratitude for helping him out. The ring permits a brief snatch of invisibility every ten hours, resulting in the screenwriters having to ration its appearance. As with any such charm, it provides opportunity for tension, humor and sexual frisson.

Another inmate Hank (Henry Silva) wants the ring for himself so spends a lot of the movie chasing, catching and losing Perry. The U.S. Government reckons a touch of invisibilkity will come in handy when dealing with arch-villain Georges Andreanu (Donald Pleasance) who has the usual arch-villain’s penchant for world domination. If it’s not enough that people are hunting him for the magic ring, Perry has others on his trail once he steals Andreanu’s secret serum. (Sensibly, the screenwriters shy away from what actually the serum does in the way of helping the arch-villain along in his quest for world domination – all that detail never did much to enhance the Bond/Flint/Helm stories.)

And like any decent spy of the era, Perry has women throwing themselves at him, some just for the hell of it but others who use sex to their advantage. O’Lan (Elisabeth Wu) falls into the first category, Tipsy (Nicolatta Machiavelli), a henchwoman of Andreanu, into the second, while artist Arabella (Ira von Furstenburg) has him guessing, Instead of a girl in every port, Perry has a girl in every country, China, Britain and Germany.

Perry isn’t a superhuman spy in the James Bond mold, and he’s not forced to keep it going with spoofery of the Derek Flint/Matt Helm variety, and he’s often at a disadvantage, caught naked, for example, when the invisibility spell wears off, and allowing Arabella to generally outwit him.

The central conceit works well in the context of the movie, helping and hindering Perry in equal measure. But there are also plenty other original touches: a car chase where the vehicles end up on top of a train, Hank watching a Man from Auntie series on television, tension racked up when villains come inadvertently close to the ring, hypnotism to fix boxing matches, torture by spinning, facial transformation, an amphibious car, a set-piece in a bank.

There’s more serious intent than you might expect, a satirical view of good guys and bad guys. Americans and Chinese apply the same kind of torture to Perry and employ the same plastic surgery method to send spies in undercover. While Perry is at his most powerful – i.e when invisible – he is also at his weakest by being naked.

Patrick O’Neal and Donald Pleasance (who appeared as Blofeld the same year in You Only Live Twice) have a ball though Ira von Furstenberg steals every scene she’s in. Henry Silva has the opportunity to try out his comedy acting chops.

Not in the same vein as Fraulein Doktor but generally consistently holding the interest.

Dingaka (1964) ****

Whether you appreciate this will depend on whether you were attracted by the prospect of an early offering by South African writer-director Jamie Uys (The Gods Must Be Crazy, 1980) or by the star wattage of Stanley Baker (Sands of the Kalahari, 1965) or perhaps by the promise of the salacious. Hopefully, it was the first, because you would be disappointed on the other two counts, Baker not making an entrance until halfway through the picture and not much of an impact thereafter.

Surprisingly relevant due to its depiction of people in the thrall of a higher power – whether you take that in a religious or political context makes little difference – and in the cultural conflict between an indigenous tribe and the “civilized” white man. But there’s also a noir tone here, the fatalism that often prevents the “good criminal” in a noir picture from escaping the judicial consequence of an action that could be seen as moral.

And if you think you know your African music through interpretations by the likes of Neil Diamond and Paul Simon, then here’s a far better introduction. Song is a constant whether for ceremonial purpose, worship, entertainment and work or for making more bearable time spent in jail or hard labor.

And though it’s not spelled out there’s a Biblical element, the old “eye for an eye,” done away with in modern civilization through courtrooms, juries and due process whereby the act of killing is carried out remotely by the state rather than the victim’ relatives.

An African tribesman Masaba (Paul Makgopa), furious at being dethroned after a six-year reign as the local fighting champion, seeks a cure for the loss of prowess from a witch doctor (John Sithebe). He is told to eat the heart of a small child. Soon after the daughter of Nkutu (Ken Gampu) is found dead. The distraught father beats the witch doctor until he points to Masaba. In revenge for Nkutu assaulting the witch doctor, revered as a local god, Nkutu is cursed, resulting in the almost immediate death of his wife.

Nkutu pursues Masaba to the city and strangles him to death. He is taken aback to be arrested since, according to tribal law, he is well within his rights. Of course, that’s at odds with civilized law. When the judge learns of the murder of Nkutu’s daughter and advises that the state would take care of any killing in the way of punishment that had to be done, Nkutu is puzzled. “You must not hang him. He did not kill your child. I must kill him. It is the law.”

It turns out Masaba has survived, giving Nkutu, on meeting him in court, a second chance to kill him, which fails.

“Big hard cynical lawyer” Tom (Stanley Baker), grudgingly doing pro bono work, has his work cut out since Nkutu refuses to give him instruction, is defiantly unremorseful, and can’t provide any proof that Masaba murdered his daughter beyond that “his eyes told me that he killed her.”

But since Nkutu only attempted murder then he gets off with a relatively light sentence, though it still involves back-breaking work. But at least it’s outside, providing the opportunity to escape and go home and kill Masaba properly. Meanwhile, Tom has chanted his tune and tries to help Nkutu by confronting the witch doctor.

Eventually, Nkutu learns the witch doctor was the murderer and despite fear of being eternally cursed challenges the witch doctor’s authority and kills him. And given this takes place away from civilization it’s unlikely that anyone’s going to come asking questions.

Outside of the drama and the culture clash, the director keeps this perpetually interesting by adding in authentic aspects of local life. There’s a milk tree, a man cures hides by spinning them on a rock that dangles from a tree on a rope, access to the otherwise inaccessible witch doctor’s lair on a mountaintop is via a series of vertigo-inducing ladders, prison guards have spears not guns. The use of music adds atmosphere.

And the acting is good, and as a consequence of this Ken Gampu enjoyed a Hollywood career in such films as The Wild Geese (1974) and ended up with over 80 film credits. Stanley Baker’s character is well drawn, exchanging barbs with his wife (Juliet Prowse) his cynicism in part due to the couple’s fertility problems.

Now warned about the limitation of Baker’s involvement, if you are happy to examine the tale as presented – one of struggle against both malicious and just authority – you will be rewarded.

YouTube has a decent print and not one marred with advertisements.

Guns at Batasi (1964) ****

In the same year as the Brits were turning whopping defeat into marginal victory in Zulu (1964) a more complex version of imperialism reflecting modern times (i.e. the 1960s) was being spelled out here and magnified by the performance of Richard Attenborough’s career. The British, as has been their wont, while no longer in complete control of this anonymous African country, have left behind a military operation in theory to support whoever is in power but in reality to safeguard their own commercial interests.

Every side of the coin is shown, from the old school soldiers to raw recruits scarcely able to work a rifle, to the pragmatic politicians and Africans with loyalties split between the mother country and the new regime. There’s a feisty British MP Miss Barker-Wise (Flora Robson) on the side of equality who is given a rude awakening on realpolitik and the well-spoken African, educated in Britain, exalting in throwing off decades of being patronized.

Just as the Africans are in revolt against the existing corrupt regime, so, in his own way, is Regimental Sergeant-Major Lauderdale (Richard Attenborough) who, secretly, refuses to obey the orders of his superior, Lt Boniface (John Errol). Most of the confrontation is distinctly old school, depending on the power of personality, in the best scene in the movie Lauderdale forcing his superior to accept the inferior’s authority. In another scene, the ambushed Col Deal (Jack Hawkins), with considerable British sang-froid, talks his way out of trouble.

The British are caught out by the sudden insurgency and almost certainly would not have become actively involved on the losing side had it not been for trying to save the life of wounded African Capt. Abraham (Earl Cameron) condemned by Boniface as a traitor. It should have been a Mexican stand-off until rebel ire was tamped down and a new kind of status quo – either the Brits tossed out or kept on supporting the new regime – was constituted. No need for violence or action, just keeping your nerve, a quality which Lauderdale has in spades.

Except that the sergeant-major has lied to the African commander, pretending Abraham is dead and not merely being hidden. When the Africans literally bring up the big guns, prepared to blast out the Brits, Lauderdale determines to spike the guns.

Except for the spit-and-polish, in military terms this is a very rusty British unit. You expect that Lauderdale will turn out to be all bluster. But he switches into commander instantly, holds (verbally) the enemy at bay, rallies the troops, leads by example and carries out a clever attack. But it’s a hollow victory. Politics works against him and he is humiliated at the end.

A good chunk of time is spent putting the British in their place.

Although the narrative appears to take time out to indulge the visiting MP and to tee up a piece of romance between raw recruit Pvt Wilkes (John Leyton) and stranded tourist Karen (Mia Farrow), both tales are soon subsumed into the action, the soldier forced into action, the politician forced to confront how little her principles count and how ineffective her authority in a war zone. There is some decent humor, the snarkiness between the soldiers, and Wilkes romantic clumsiness.

Richard Attenborough (Only When I Larf, 1968) is easily the pick as he presents various elements of a complicated character, the dedicated career soldier at the mercy of an inexperienced superior, questioning just what he has devoted his life to, straining to hold up his stiff upper lip, the butt of jokes, boring all with tales of long vanished glory, eventually revealing that he is much more than bluster, taking effective command, but then paying the price as the political scapegoat. Jack Hawkins (Zulu, 1964) has a smaller role than you’d expect from the billing and Flora Robson (7 Women, 1965) weighs in with another battleaxe. In her debut Mia Farrow (Secret Ceremony, 1968) demonstrates ample promise and Errol John (Man in the Middle, 1964) has a peach of a role.

Directed with some distinction by John Guillermin (The Bridge at Remagen, 1968), demonstrating a gift for both action and emotion, from a screenplay by Robert Holles based on his novel.

Although ignored by the Oscars, Attenborough won the Bafta Best Actor Award.

Thoroughly involving.

The Best of Enemies (1961) ***

When we talk about realistic war movies, we generally mean ones chock-full of brutality and violence. But there was another reality rarely touched upon, and that was guys to trying to get through the whole shooting match without getting killed. Not cowards, necessarily, but people unwilling to take stupid action in the guise of blind obedience.

This ends up being a highly unusual and hence highly original take on the war picture. Where, in another film, enemies might duel fiercely to the death, attempting to outwit each other at every turn, this delivers on a more emotional, thoughtful, and human, level.

You wouldn’t have thought, either, that the combination of two wildly different humor codes, the more overt Italian and the laid-back British, would work. So in subject matter and style, this takes a helluva risk. Much of the effect rides on exposing as misleading the standard tropes regarding the different countries – that the Italians are weak and that Brits, feelings numbed by stiff upper lip and upbringing, never complain.

Major Richardson (David Niven), reconnaissance plane shot down in Italian-held Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1941 in World War Two, is captured in the desert by a unit led by Captain Blasio (Alberto Sordi). Blasio doesn’t want the responsibility of prisoners and encourages Richardson to escape, hoping that the Brit, taking note of how weak the Italian unit was, would leave them alone.

The opposite is true. The Brits would like nothing better than to capture a weak section of the Italian Army. So Richardson, leading a stronger unit with tanks and stuff, confronts the Italian who is furious that the man he let go has somehow reneged on an unwritten code of honor and come back. Using a simple ruse, the Italians escape.

The Brits nearly catch up with them several times but incompetence gets in the way. Then Blasio gets annoyed with some of his natives and cuts them loose and in revenge they start a fire that drives both Brits and Italians together. Blasio is happy to surrender since that means the Brits, devoid of transport after the fire, have to holster Italian rifles and carry on a stretcher any Italian, such as Blasio himself, who falls ill.

The enemies unite to escape an interfering native tribe but then Blasio gets the hump at Richardson once again, returning the Italians to prisoner status once they are free. Hiding out in an abandoned village, the Italians are put to work building latrines – and according to the British class system different ones for officers and soldiers. A bid by Blasio to put Richardson in his place misfires. The two units bond again over a game of football and when the tribesmen return Richardson breaks the rules by handing back the Italians their rifles. Only thanks to British incompetence there’s no Italian ammo.

So then, weapon-less, and nobody apt to take sides, they stagger over the desert, directed by Richardson to safety. Richardson and Blasio bond over wives and family. But when they reach a proper road, Richardson reverts to the status quo and insists the prisoners form up at the rear. Except, he’s got it all wrong and they have ended up in the Italian-controlled zone. Blasio can’t contain his delight, mocking the Brits, but not taking them prisoner. Except he’s got it wrong, too, as the desert campaign is over and the Brits are victorious.

It doesn’t end well for either officer. Richardson is threatened with being put in the catering corps, Blasio a bedraggled prisoner. But it finishes on an uplifting moment, Richardson instructs his men to present arms to the prisoners, indicating their mutual respect.

So, as I said, nothing like your usual war movie. Both commanders are incompetent. Richardson despises Blasio for not “putting any effort” into his job. Blasio can’t understand why Richardson takes the job so seriously. Even if it marked him down as a coward, Blasio’s wife just wants him home safe. Incompetence rules, mistakes are legion, and pettiness guides the action of the officers. Movie makers of the period tended to concentrate on the heroism of war, but there must have been a ton of expeditions like this that went awry.

The script allows both David Niven (Bedtime Story, 1964) and Alberto Sordi (Anzio, 1968) considerable latitude, the Englishman afforded a wider range than usual, the Italian encouraged to tone down the over-acting, so each turns in a more measured performance. Sordi was nominated for a Golden Globe and the movie was nominated for two other Globes including Best Foreign Film.

The supporting cast includes Michael Wilding (The Sweet Ride, 1968), Harry Andrews (The Hill, 1965) and David Opatoshu (Guns of Darkness, 1962).

Directed by Guy Hamilton (Battle of Britain, 1969) from a screenplay by Jack Pulman (The Executioner, 1970).

More rewarding and emotionally satisfying than I expected.