carol_laidlaw Reviews

Passport to China (1960)

Lacks suspense but enjoyable

[6/10 · 7 March 2024]

This film is in the spy-espionage genre but it is wrong to compare it with the James Bond films. It doesn't have the budget, the.gadgets, the suspense, the level of violence and the locations don't wander all round the world. Think more of the Harry Palmer spy films, except that this one is located in Hong Kong not Britain.

The lead character, (played by Richard Basehart), is Don Benton, a former World War II pilot who runs a travel agency in Hong Kong. He has a close relationship with his adopted Chinese family, who hid him from the Japanese during the war. The first scenes portray his travel agency and set him up as a man with wide contacts and somewhat loose scruples. When two customers complain about having difficulty getting a visa to visit the Phillipines he knows exactly who to ask and which official to bribe to get the visas .expedited. He is visited in his office by a US agent called Johnson who clearly wants him to get involved in working for the US government but Benton refuses because he doesn't want to get tangled in politics and orders him out of his office. But another agent later catches up with him and explains that the US government is interested in finding out the whereabouts of several passengers on a plane that crashed in China during a typhoon. Benton's adopted brother Jimmy (played by Bert Kwouk) was the pilot. He survived the crash but is now trapped over the Chinese border. Benton goes looking for Jimmy and brings him back. Jimmy reveals that his plane was decoyed off course over Chinese territory and shot down by two Chinese MiG fighter planes. .Back in Hong Kong the police arrest Jimmy because they believe the plane was intercepted with the connivance of the pilot. Jimmy cannot prove he isn't an agent of the Chinese government because all his identity documents are at the bottom of a river with the wreckage of his plane. Benton then uses one of his contacts to get a visa to Canton so that he can investigate what happened and prove Jimmy's identity.

People who like their spy films with lots of action and suspense are likely to find this one disappointing. There is very little suspense and the plot is largely dialogue-driven but it moves along at a good enough pace to maintain a viewer's interest. Benton's close relationship with his adopted Chinese family adds a warm and pleasing element to the story and the film has a satisfactory ending. It's an average film that is pleasantly watchable.

I always take films in their context and so I'm not generally put off by women (In this film, Benton's sisters) being given limited, stereotyped roles. That was typical of films made in the sixties. And I can put up with white European actors playing Asian characters. But I don't like it when that turns into caricature. The big jarring note in this film is the white actress who plays the Chinese family's matriarch. She is badly miscast. She doesn't look remotely oriental, speaks a cringeworthy version of pidgin English and her acting is more at the level of a pantomime than a film. It's a pity the film makers didn't find a Chinese actress for the role.

The Old Oak (2023)

Spoiled by miscast actors and unfocused script

[4/10 · 30 September 2023]

The story is about people in a former mining village that died economically and perhaps spiritually when the coal mines closed in the 1980s.. The one pub left in the village, the Old Oak of the title, run by TJ, is just about hanging on. There is little work, the people are poor and a lot of the houses are empty because nobody wants to buy them. The powers-that-be then move a number of Syrian asylum seeking families into some of the empty houses. Inevitably the locals are suspicious and resentful of having foreigners imposed on them who they believe are a drain on the resources of their schools and remaining public services and who appear to be getting free resources that are not available to the local people. Then a support worker persuades TJ to help start a community initiative that benefits both the asylum seekers and the poorest local people. They gain a greater knowledge and understanding of each other's situation. But there is a small hard core of racists who would dearly like to see the initiative fail.

Apparently director Ken Loach has said this will be his last film (he's in his eighties.) If so it's a disappointing one to go out on. He frequently uses amateur actors in his films and has a way of drawing good performances from them but he has failed to do that here. The conversations between the pub regulars are mostly wooden and unconvincing and the actors who play the lead roles of TJ and Yara simply don't have the acting ability to carry the film. In the most dramatic and what should be moving scenes they sound as though they are reciting their lines off a page instead of acting them.

There is a good story somewhere in this film about ordinary people coping with change imposed by external forces, finding the strength to stay on their feet and the power of solidarity but the script doesn't do it justice. It meanders along with no apparent purpose or point until the last few scenes. Those last few scenes almost redeem it by being very moving and convincing though that is down to the direction not the acting.

The scene right at the end perhaps needs more explanation than it gets. It was not invented for the film but is a representation. Of the Durham Miners Gala that has been held annually in that town in north east England since 1871, and which has a mile-long procession of trade union banners and brass bands.

What is convincing in this film is the expression of ignorant, commonplace racism by some of the locals against the Syrian asylum seekers, something which these days is often pursued and magnified online where people can hide their identities. The question why people who are impoverished and under pressure don't look upwards to find the source of their problems but look downwards and stamp on the people below them who are worse off is asked in this film, but late and with not enough prominence. Though I don't think it's a question anybody has been able to answer.. Ken Loach and Paul Laverty fans will like this film. Those who are not fans might want to wait for the DVD.

Vasil (2022)

Quietly engaging

[7/10 · 23 February 2023]

If you like films with action, spectacle and high drama then this is probably not going to be a film you'd like. Nothing much seems to happen. The characters spend their time drinking coffee, playing chess and playing bridge. Most of them are retired and live to a small, fixed routine.

Vasil is a Bulgarian who has left Bulgaria for Spain. It is never made entirely clear why he has done this, though it seems he is looking for a better life. Maureen, an Irish woman who has settled in Spain, asks her friend a retired professor to put Vasil up until he can get a job and get settled, as a favour to her. The professor agrees but takes no interest in Vasil and finds out nothing about him. His daughter berates him for being unfriendly and self-centred and demands that he arranges for her to meet Vasil so she can get to know him. She is about the only open-minded character in the film, apart from Vasil himself. Vasil turns out to be an unassuming, likeable man with a few interesting talents but, except right at the end of the film, we only see him from the other characters point of view and they never engage with him fully. The film turns into a representation of how people generally are ungenerous, suspicious and judgemental towards "foreigners" and "immigrants" and can't handle people with different lifestyles and dreams to their own. Maureen is broader minded than the rest of them because she was married to an embassador and has lived in a few different countries. But she is unable to prevail against the others' narrowness.

This film is in no way boring and repays close watching. I said nothing much seems to happen but you realise that what is happening is an interplay of rivalries, jealousies and relationship failures between the characters, some of which subtly change as a result of their meeting Vasil.

I saw this film (Spanish dialogue with English subtitles) at a private showing for staff of GMAC in Manchester. I don't know where, or whether, it is being shown anywhere else.

Belfast (2021)

Belfast

[7/10 · 24 January 2022]

Maybe it's a bit of a cliche, that a location can become one of the characters in a story, but Belfast the city is a character in this film. It starts with aerial footage of the modern city at dawn, in colour, starting at the docks, moving over the town and heading inland. This sequence went on almost too long, it started to feel like a tourism advert. Then the film changed to black-and-white and the scene changed to Belfast, 1969. And a few minutes later, a sectarian riot kicked off.

What's very engaging about the film is that it is told from the perspective of a small boy, Buddy, who doesn't quite know what to make of the rioting, or the barricades that follow it, and certainly has no interest in the sectarian divisions that are growing in his neighbourhood. As small children are, he is largely insulated from adult problems, his main concerns being how to do well in his school work, and how to talk to a girl in his class who he has taken a fancy to, The scenes where his parents quarrel over their various problems, including the increasing threat of the family being drawn into direct involvement in the sectarian violence, are shown at a slight distance, from the viewpoint of the child eavesdropping on them without fully understanding their seriousness.

What's heartwarming, and heartbreaking, is how the whole family tries to hold it together and maintain some version of normality in the middle of a war, unwilling to realise that the neighbourhood they belonged to and that was unfailingly friendly and safe, is disintegrating. They do eventually win through. Sort of.

The story is perfectly paced and all the performances are excellent, especially from the child actor, Jude Hill, who has the lead role.

Spearhead (1978–1981)

Excellent historic drama, realistic and engaging

[7/10 · 12 March 2021]

I've called it a historic drama because from the perspective of the 2020s, that's how it looks; it is not a criticism. It is set in the Seventies and early Eighties and social attitudes and living conditions were very different then, and so was Britain's political situation. But it is engaging and realistic, well worth watching by a current audience and it's a pity it seems to have been forgotten.

It is very realistic and tells the story very much from the soldiers' point of view. The first series in particular shows them 'peacekeeping' in Northern Ireland in a political situation they didn't fully understand and where keeping the peace was next to impossible. The second series has 6 Platoon doing a tour of duty near the East German border during the Cold War. The third series shows the British army having to do a thankless policing role in Hong Kong, Of course, Britain's relationship to all three places has changed considerably since the late Seventies. In all three series the stories show how the demands of their work affect the soldiers' personal and family lives: some families eventually resent being forced to move with their fathers/husbands every time they get posted somewhere new; there are misunderstandings between the soldiers and civilian friends who don't appreciate the nature of military work; one soldier takes to beating his wife and thinks the nature of his army job is what has brought out a violent streak in him, and ultimately has to decide between his family and staying in the army. These various sources of conflict and how the characters - or the army - resolves them make for an excellent drama. It is very character driven, and in spite of a few of them having unsympathetic traits, I found myself rooting for them through their various difficulties. The acting is good, with the exception of one or two minor characters and Lorna Heilbron, in series three,who simply isn't convincing as Lt. Pickering's femme fatale girlfriend.

Series one is probably the best of the three for being the only one with a continuous theme: In it, Colour Sergeant Jackson is given command of B Platoon, although the senior officers have doubts that a non-commissioned officer is capable of leadership and they disapprove of his appointment and expect - or hope - he will fail. Meanwhile his success as a leader is constantly under threat by issues that arise within his platoon - men going AWOL, having personal and family issues that undermine their efficiency and army discipline. In series two, Colour Sergeant Jackson has moved on, and is replaced by an upper class Lieutenant Pickering, straight out of Sandhurst with no practical military experience. The platoon he is given to command, on the other hand, have done tours of duty in Northern Ireland and on the East German border and have been under fire several times. The platoon sergeant and sergeant major agree that they will need to "show him the ropes", but subsequently little is made of this initial premise, that the platoon might have an incompetent commanding officer. The rest of the episodes in series two are stand alone stories. Lt Pickering causes trouble only once, when he breaks East German law and in doing so tests the loyalty of his men. Similarly, series three consists mostly of stand alone stories. In this the soldiers are in Hong Kong, at a time when Britain still 'owned', or at least, administered it and was responsible for its security. For the soldiers, this means they are employed on night work patrolling the swamps round the border, finding and arresting illegal immigrants who try to cross into Hong Kong from China, in the hope of finding work and better money. It is thankless, dirty work (often literally so since the soldiers regularly have to wade through swamp mud to arrest people), more a policing than a military job. But the soldiers are in potential danger from the people smuggling gangs who run a lucrative business taking money from the illegals to get them into Hong Kong, a business they are prepared to defend with murder and blackmail.

I'm one of the reviewers who is old enough to have seen this when it was first broadcast and, I wouldn't call it a nostalgia trip, but for me it is an interesting reminder of what the Seventies were like: flared trousers, wind-up alarm clocks, dinky television sets with no such thing as a remote control, static telephones, computerless offices. And male chauvinism and casual racism. The last two things don't date the series much because they are in the context of their time, and I didn't find them uncomfortable. But some people might. In particular, there are two scenes in which characters use the N word and I can't see those scenes being broadcast on a mainstream platform now without them being edited or over-dubbed. The word is just too offensive.

To answer comments by a few other reviewers, all three series have been issued on DVD, apparently around 2007-2008, but they don't seem to have been reissued since then and it is getting difficult to get new copies. I got a new DVD for series 3 but had to wait to get used copies of series 1 and 2. A few people who left reviews on the website of a certain well-known online retailer of books and DVDs, complained about the picture quality. It's true the DVDs don't look like they were remastered, they have the picture quality typical of Seventies/early Eighties broadcasts, the picture isn't perfectly sharp and some of the outdoor scenes are a bit dark. But since I was brought up when all television was in black and white, and can remember home viewing on VHS tapes, I'm not too fussy about picture quality as long as I can see what I'm looking at. The DVDs of the series are perfectly watchable.

By the way, Spearhead bears no comparison with Soldier, Soldier. Soldier, Soldier is bland. This is not.

As I Am (2019)

Engaging story, perfectly cast

[7/10 · 4 November 2020]

I got to see this film almost by accident. I wanted to see one more film before they close down cinemas in England again, and this one sounded the least worst of an uninspiring bunch of films that were showing this week. I'm glad I chose it. It was unexpectedly good. It has the kind of character-driven plot I like most and the story is slow moving but it draws you in and holds your attention through all the turns of the plot, right to the end.

It's probably difficult to put anything really new into a coming of age film, and this has a few familiar tropes - the love triangle, lads doing reckless stunts, discovering sex, the end of school prank . What distinguishes it is that it is perfectly cast and the actors' performances are exactly right. Also that it well conveys the separateness of the teenage world. The adults have little to do with the young character's lives and none of them seem to have fathers still living at home. It's also very cinematic and makes good use of the landscape in the Five Valleys area of the Cotswolds, where it wasfiled.. It was only subsequently that I found out that this is the director's first film. I also found that it has had a few dismissive reviews in the mainstream press, including one in The Guardian that was frankly rude. It deserves better. A pity that the cinemas are being closed again only a week after it was first released. Maybe it will get another run after the 2nd December, if the British government doesn't extend the lockdown.

KGB: The Secret War (1985)

Watchable

[6/10 · 29 October 2020]

The main character in this film, Peter Hubbard (played by Michael Billington), is a KGB 'sleeper' agent who has been living in Los Angeles under an assumed identity for many years. His KGB handlers want him to steal computer microchips, in an operation that will inevitably expose his cover, and then return to Moscow. He believes he won't reach Moscow alive and so aims to defect, offering the CIA information about KGB operations as a bargaining point. He then has to play both sides in order to survive.

This film has a complex but not too complex plot, an unpredictable ending, exciting action scenes in all the right places, competent acting and a tight script. I liked it better on watching it for the second time. The first time, I was more struck by its flaws, it felt a little unsatisfactory. The biggest flaw is that Peter Hubbard's girlfriend, Adele Martin, is given no background and her character is underwritten, and so it is impossible to figure out why she agrees to stay with him at all after she finds out he is not what he seemed and his actions have put her in terrible danger. As a character, she seems empty. The other major flaw is that the information about what happened to Peter Hubbard's Russian family should have been revealed earlier in the film to be most effective. Placed quite late in the film, it derails the plot slightly and seems too convenient a plot device. If it was revealed earlier it would have made Peter Hubbard a more believable and relatable character.

The script, too, is a little uneven. In a lot of the scenes, the sparse dialogue is exactly right. In others, it isn't quite enough to drive the plot or make the characters relatable. But there is nothing wrong with the quality of the acting.. Michael Billington is perfectly suited to the "action hero" lead role. Sally Waterman (claim to fame: she was Major "Hot Lips" Hoolihan in M. A. S. H.) is good as a hard-nosed, wise-cracking CIA agent.

This is worth a watch if you like spy films - and if you can find it. It seems to have only ever been released on VHS; I've seen the odd copy appear on ebay. Myself, I got it on DVD from an American company that specialises in copying obscure films for film collectors.

The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019)

Delightful comedy, perfectly cast

[7/10 · 28 January 2020]

I saw this film at the HOME arts centre in Manchester on 26th January. I would first like to say to all the reviewers who have a problem with the multi ethnic casting - lighten up and catch up. It might not be too common yet in period films but this kind of colour blind casting is hardly unheard of on 21st century TV, and as the director pointed out in an interview on the Today programme this morning (Radio 4, 28th January) it has been used in theatre for the past 10-15 years. The director explained his choice of actors as, he had always thought Dev Patel would be ideal for the role of David Copperfield because he portrays the right combination of naivety, strength and intelligence for the character. Following that he wanted to cast the significant roles in the film equally well and to give it a slightly modern feel, and that meant looking at actors of all ethnic backgrounds. The BAME actors who play the significant supporting roles of Ham, Markham, Mrs Steerforth, Dr Chillip, Mr Wickfield and Agnes Wickfield are exactly right for those roles and I found nothing jarring in it their presence at all. Likewise the Caucasian actors (let's not forget them) who play Dora, Mr Dick, Mr and Mrs Micawber, Aunt Betsy Trotwood, are perfectly cast. It is inevitable that a film adaptation is going to miss out some of what is in the original novel. Film is a different medium and isn't going to have space for all the subplots or all of the characters. But this adaptation is faithful to Dickens's main characters and plot developments, and it brings out all the comic elements in both. To take a familiar example, there is something hilariously absurd in Betsy Trotwood's obsession with keeping people from riding donkeys over her lawn. This makes the film a delight to watch, and if it skates over the more tragic elements of the story, this isn't a fault. It is also visually enjoyable due to the imaginative direction. This draws the audience in from the start. The opening scene has David Copperfield starting to read his own story on stage in front of an audience, and soon after he begins, he turns and walks through the backdrop into the real Norfolk countryside and walks the viewer to the house where he is being born. There are several such surreal scene changes throughout, which are both unexpected and pleasing to watch. This isn't a classic film but it is a respectful adaptation, very funny and entertaining, and well worth watching.

Sorry We Missed You (2019)

Authentic, well written and gripping

[9/10 · 14 October 2019]

I saw a preview of this film at HOME in Manchester on 1st October. Yet again Ken Loch and scriptwriter Paul Laverty have told the kind of story about working class life that nobody else thinks important enough to tell. It follows a family with the conventional ambition of wanting to buy their own house. But for this they need to earn more. The husband Ricky buys into what he thinks is an opportunity to become self employed as a delivery driver and be his own boss. But he asks his wife Abby to make a sacrifice to enable him to afford his own van and this reduces her own scope for getting work. He soon finds that the opportuity is really a trap. He has entered the gig economy where there is no guarantee of work, people who take sick leave get fined, and the delivery company drives its staff into the ground in order to stay ahead in a cut throat world of competition with its competitors. The relentless nature of the work has a damaging effect on the family's relationships. There is no happy ending - what Ken Loach film ever has one? - but there is nothing predictable in the story and the dramatic pace doesn't flag. As he often does, the director has used new actors and at a few points early on in the film their lack of experience jars just a little. But overall the performances are convincing. The film makers clearly did their research into the gig economy and its vicious and ultimately unsustainable working environment, and what happens to the family in the story is completely believable, and disturbing. My main criticism is that, in Ken Loach's most recent films, none of his characters show any agency. It would have been heartening, just for once if his characters had shown some of the initiative of the real life Deliveroo and Uber drivers, who formed workplace unions and wrung fairer treatment and conditions out of their employers.

Peterloo (2018)

A (partly) Left wing view

[4/10 · 14 November 2018]

This kind of political drama, about working class history, is a must-see for everybody of left wing persuasion - half the people I know queued up to get tickets for the preview in Manchester in October. For other people, who may prefer their films to include some element of entertainment as well as a history lesson, it will prove disappointing. I would like to be able to give this film a great review, but there are just too many flaws. It seems that in his anxiety to present an accurate history lesson, the writer/director forgot to also present a story. There is no continuous narrative, no central character, nor even a set of a few central characters. There are far too many characters, so many that the viewer learns very little about them.. They fail to draw the audience into the story or make them care about their plight, so much so that when one gets killed by a British soldier at the mass rally it evoked little reaction. This film would have worked so much better if it had focussed on a few of the real-life characters who were most heavily involved in the radical campaigns of the time. As some letter-writers in the Guardian pointed out in the week of the film's release, there were a few other demonstrations in the 19th century where the authorities killed more people than at Peterloo. But the authorities were able to cover these up. They were not able to to do the same with the murders at Peterloo, because the radical journalists who founded the Manchester Guardian made sure it got fast and widespread publicity; and risked imprisonment for doing so. But the film tells us nothing about these journalists except their names. Likewise it tells us almost nothing about Samuel Bamford, one of the most prominent political activists of his time. He was put on trial for treason twice, for activities that would now be considered lawful and constitutional, and he is still so well known in his home town, Middleton, that they run a guided history tour about his life and times. This film reduces him to almost a bit-player. Another inevitable problem with a film that portrays political events is that the only way to explain the politics is by presenting the characters having a political debate. If these are not carefully placed and kept no longer than necessary, they can become very, very tedious. "Land and Freedom" gives a good example of how to do this kind of political debate scene well. Unfortunately, Peterloo has several debate scenes, and they are mostly examples of how to handle such scenes badly. They hold up the action enough for the viewer to get fidgety. I didn't consider the film to be overlong but it ends far too abruptly. It badly needs some form of epilogue to show the aftermath of the massacre. I also think it a serious omission that the fifteen people who were killed are not named. They could - should - have been listed in the end credits. So, what's good about this film? The cinematography is excellent. The period details are exact, the contrast between the bare environment of the working people and the luxurious homes of the upper classes is deftly handled. The scenes seem to use only natural daylight or candle light, (the only form of lighting people had at the time) which gives them extra authenticity. And the scene of the military attacking the peaceful demonstrators at St Peter's Field is staggering. I won't describe it, so as not to spoil the climax of the film, but it's fist-clenching stuff.

Crown Court: Incorrigible Rogue: Part 1 (1976) Season 5, Episode 33

Wrong Writer

[6/10 · 6 August 2018]

I came to be watching "Incorrigible Rogue" in the Crown Court series because I was looking for TV episodes written by Jim Allen. However, according to the opening credits, this episode was written by Frank Norman, not Jim Allen. I had always assumed that IMDB was accurate in its attributions, but from now on I'll have to cross check. That apart, this series has dated very little considering it was produced from 45 to 34 years ago. The Vagrancy Act 1824, which the defendant in this story was charged with, was used for a long time by the police to 'stitch up' people they wanted to remove from the streets. I was an observer at Chester magistrates court in the 1990s when the police were using it to harass buskers and beggars. I was told by the local journalist I was with that the police made use of the Vagrancy Act every spring to clear the streets in advance of the main tourist season. Plus ca change and all that. In this episode, the Vagrancy Act is used as a plot device because it allowed the prosecution to recount a defendant's criminal record to the jury, something not normally allowed, and it paints a comprehensive picture of the defendant's character and background, which is essential to the story. It's used for exposition in a way that is natural to the setting. The acting quality is variable, but the story is interesting enough and the defendant a funny and engaging enough character to hold the attention (and the verdict is satisfactory).

Play for Today: United Kingdom (1981) Season 12, Episode 7

History Repeats

[8/10 · 31 January 2016]

This was Jim Allen's last broadcast television play, it featured in the Jim Allen retrospective at Manchester Home this month (January 2016). It has a familiar ring to it, because it features a central government hell bent on cutting funding for public services and the effects this has on a particular town. Unlike any council in the present austerity-infected era, though, this town's council refuses to implement the cuts. Every councillor then gets barred from holding office and a central government-appointed commissioner is sent in to run the town. Meanwhile, the local politicians form a council-in-exile and with the help of council tenants and trade unionists, set out to obstruct and oppose the commissioner. This ultimately leads to central government trying to criminalise them, and open warfare with the police. This play has resonance for me because it foreshadows what nearly happened in Liverpool a few years later, when Militant Tendency took over the city council, refused to set a rate that would have involved spending cuts, and 47 of their councillors were barred from office; and there was talk of sending in a commissioner to run the city. As a depiction of small people battling for the things important to them against those in power, and nearly succeeding, this play is inspiring. And there are comic scenes where the ordinary people use their ingenuity to foil those in power. But from the perspective of 2016, the politics are wishful thinking. The few councillors who have actively opposed spending cuts in the present era have had their Labour Party membership revoked, and the chances of large numbers of public housing estate residents manning the barricades is remote. But if you prefer to set aside the politics, this TV play is worth watching for its authentic dialogue and characters and the careful plotting that builds steadily to a gripping climax.

The Wednesday Play: The Lump (1967) Season 6, Episode 13

Shamefully, still relevant

[9/10 · 31 January 2016]

This was Jim Allen's first script for the Play For Today series, it was shown this month (January 2016) in a retrospective at Manchester Home. The story features Mike, a student working on a building site temporarily during the summer holidays, and Yorkie, a bricklayer and old trade unionist, who is becoming disillusioned by his failure to make any headway in getting other building workers to unionise against the exploitation in the trade. This includes frequently employing workers 'on the lump', that is, off the books and paid cash. Yorkie gets blacklisted for his activities and has to work on the lump himself using a false name. The play is still relevant because the same conditions still exist in the building trade, with the same non-existent safety standards. The only difference is, the trade now mostly exploits East Europeans instead of Irish. (This I gleaned in the after-show discussion, which included some recently retired building workers.)The political discussions between Mike and Yorkie might be a little dense for some, and take careful listening, but the development of the characters is intriguing, with Mike and Yorkie moving in different political directions from their starting point. The authentic setting and intensity of the action makes up for the slight lack of polish in the acting. Catch this if you can, and don't be put off by it being a black-and-white low budget 'old' TV programme. I was biting my nails as the action progressed towards its tragic end. Jim Allen deserves to be better known. Few script writers can entertain and also say something meaningful about the contemporary world.