If I'm not mistaken that's the film where Kubrick first discovered McDowell and thus a big reason why he was cast for Clockwork Orange. McDowell did a really great audio commentary for the DVD release of "A Clockwork Orange" and he discusses "IF" quite a bit.

When I first saw IF it had a familiar feel to it. It was partly filmed at Cheltenham College (not a million miles away from me) and it had the look and feel of my old Grammar School, including the armoury (this was back in the early 70's).

The bit where they were carrying out military exercises is more or less exactly what we got up to but without the live rounds in our .303's trying to shoot the reverend

You roused my curiosity so I looked up the cast list for this movie and found out that a very young Alan Hale Jr. (Gilligan's Island) and Harry Morgan (MASH) were in this film.

I always viewed If as a sort of upper-class version of the dreary kitchen-sink dramas that were released around, or just before, this time. That's social strata's version of social angst kind of thing Been a long time since I saw it though, I might have a different perspective today.

I was unsatisfied with the movies I watched this weekend:

1) "Valerian" -- Things happened, then more things happened, then lots of action, and more action, and action, and action... and then some stuff and then... click. I waited a while to watch this Luc Besson movie, hoping like many other films he has made that it would be great. The production values are first rate while the writing department was non-existent. At best, the film felt like your typical sugar-rush kids movie of non-sensical madness that kept their candy-fueled skittle brains occupied for a couple of hours. Not mine. I turned this one off and went to bed. * 1/2 out of **** stars.

2) "Through the Glass Darkly" -- I often pick movies based on a description and genre and nothing else. This thriller seemed interesting enough, but slightly like "Valerian," the writers decided to take a vacation here or there. This was much better, by the way, but still wasn't great. I'm not deducting any points for the political propaganda in the film because of the female protagonist and her partner, although I will admit had I known it had a spin on relationships and families in the way that it does I likely would have avoided, as often films that play these sorts of angles lean on this as a crutch to prop up the rest of the film. This one certainly did. While the protagonist actually had some character development, unlike Valerian which had none at all, the antagonist had little beyond rich, white, business bad guy. Sad, but true. This movie road the PC river with a serviceable plot. A reasonable late night movie but basically fair at best. ** out of **** stars.


I'm bummed out now. I want to see a short, hour and a half to hour and three quarters post 2015 movie. Very few films can justify being two hours long or longer. There's just no reason for it. Not even big Hollywood budgets are reason enough. "Valerian" is testament to this. I turned it off about an hour and a half in but fell asleep after maybe only an hour. Think about this--over two hours of film and maybe five minutes of plot. I realize the movie bombed and avoided it for years because of this, but not even Luc Besson's knack for editing could save this. Someone should buy him a set of pens. And some mentats. Maybe even clone Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Faulkner for him and throw in some Twain, Asimov and Clarke for good measure. Give him something. Douglas Adams could have saved "Valerian." "Hitchhiker," as little liked by the novel fans as it was, was a significantly better picture because it was chock full of story and character development.

I passed on "Valerian" due to the overwhelming bad reviews but I did at least watch a couple of the trailers. Even from the trailer it was clear to me that the male and female leads had ZERO chemistry.

They were just too young. Should've revived the Willis/Jovovich combo, would have worked.

A Clockwork Orange was a disturbing movie. I watched it well over 30 years ago, but I remember I wish I didn't watch it. Mostly due to the rape scene.

Chemistry had nothing to do with why the film was bad, though. There wasn't any story. Imagine a rollercoaster ride without the long buildup of anticipation during the slow climb up the hill. There was no hill. The moment you sat down on this theme park ride the floor dropped out beneath you and you spent the entire time racing around in the dark without any lights on. You couldn't even see the tracks or even the car you were sitting in.

That's the kind of movie this was.

A blur of nonsense strung together by the fact that the characters must "survive" for a macguffin.

Yes, the rape scene was quite compelling and masterfully convincing. That's Kubrick for you.

It just goes to show that you can create a very disturbing scene with minimal nudity and profanity.

I have seen "Clockwork" once in its entirety and that was enough, although I have caught bits and pieces through the years as well. This was an important film, nonetheless and worth watching for any adult. One thing Kubrick did well is he filmed his pictures honestly and cuts no corners for characters and pulls no punches. He kept things real for the audience for maximum impact.

Any adult who doesn't mind a little rape in their entertainment.

And how is that any different or worse than seeing children being poisoned by their own mother as in "Downfall" or seeing victims being gassed at an extermination camp as in "Schindler's List" or POW''s being bayoneted as in "Letters from Iwo Jima"?

If serious/dark films shouldn't be labelled "entertainment" however I can see a valid point in that.

Basil Rathbone in "Sherlock Holmes and The Scarlet Claw" (1944). A standard Sherlock mystery set in WW2 rural Canada. No reference to WW2 or Nazi's. A good film -- worth the time to see.

The bad guy remained a mystery until virtually the end (I like that). I had my suspicions towards the last 1/4 of the movie. Nice ending -- bad guy dead.

As in some other Sherlock films/episodes the bad guy was killed by an honest person he had greatly wronged. The honest person wanted to kill the bad guy and said he would -- and did in nominal self defense (killing was in presence of Law and not strictly necessary). The honest person having been a victim of the bad guy, Sherlock and the Law smiled (figuratively) and "forgot about it" -- no recriminations (I like that about Sherlock episodes old and new, when it happens).

By comparison, the Sherlock Holmes of the "Elementary" series set in circa 2015 New York City was too much a stickler for unwavering strict law enforcement -- regardless of who it hurt.

I'm uncomfortable with rape. I'm weird. I guess I have a "line" It's why I have never seen I Spit On Your Grave (the modern version) I did see the original as a teenager, low budget, urban legend is it is a snuff film. One of the murders is suppose to be real. Or was at the time. Probably debunked by now. My friends Mother rented it for us. Bizarre now that I look back. Mid 80's.
I never implied such films as A Clockwork Orange should not exist, or not be labelled entertainment.

I do like knowing some of the plot going in, I did not with ACO, which I watched with my girlfriend at the time. I knew John Bonham wore a bowler hat because of the movie. That was good enough for me back then.
I've never watch Brokeback Mountain, why ? I heard enough of the plot to know I don't want to waste an evening on watching something like that. Yes, I know, that makes me a horrible intolerant old man. I don't care.

Hey, don't watch stuff you aren't into. I haven't seen that 'Mountain film either, nor do I want to or anything similar. Doesn't mean we're intolerant. Nor does stopping "Black Sails" mid season 2 because of the con job they pulled on the audience. If you don't want to see something, you shouldn't have to.


I don't like rape either, btw. I think it worse than murder, actually.

Agreed Blastman, all of us are consumers when it comes down to it and we all have the choice to watch something or not watch something for whatever reason without needing to justify it to others.

Basil Rathbone in "Sherlock Holmes and The Pearl of Death" (1944). Another normal Sherlock set in the 1940s not directly associated with WW2. We enjoyed it.

It was based on "The Six Napoleons" by Doyle.

We had already seen the "The Six Napoleons" as part of the Sherlock Holmes TV series we're watching (made circa 1990) -- we enjoyed it. The subject movie we just watched was different in many details.

Basil Rathbone in "Sherlock Holmes and The House of Fear" (1944). Another normal Sherlock set in the 1940s not associated with WW2. We enjoyed it. We're obviously binge watching "who done it"s lately.

Watson and the lead Scotland Yard detective he and Sherlock often work with continue to be cast as folks too stupid to be real. Detracts/subtracts from the story quality. I'm not the only one noticing that (I read on-line),

This one I had "smelled out" relatively early. I wasn't sure until the last scene.

Firefox. Clint Eastwood still Da Man!

https://www.amazon.com/Firefox-Clint-Eastwood/dp/B001N8Q6V0