I enjoyed this movie in my home town Rasht, Iran when I was very young . It was a very enjoyable and adventurous movie w/o any computer tricks. I was able to get a copy of the movies few years ago and watch it more than dozen times. The story is fascinating, the actors played superbly and the scenes are great. Each person delivered a masterpiece. I could not truly understand the context of your review . You keep jumping left or right w/o giving the viewers any clue about your feelings. Overall your review was worless.
Glad to watch your review Oliver. Good job overall. However, how is the title "Ice Cold in Alex" not a great title? This was made in the 1950s when most films were titled like "When Vicar put the kettle on for tea" Seriously, its a cool title and sums up the essence of the movie objective....motivation to get to Alex (Alexandria) at all costs. I first saw this film when i was a teenager and its always had a lasting impression on me.
I adore this movie and your review was perfectly on the money as I just watched this today for the first time in a bout 15 years, didn't know it was on Blue Ray so totally off to bag it.
***** Yeah it can be surprising what is/isn't on blu ray sometimes, but glad this one was and proud to add it to the library! Very happy you like the film :)
One of my favourite films - spoiled by a little problem of continuity - count the differentials on Katy the K2 ambulance! (and a Land Rover in Alexandria)
When you say 'they are trying to get away from war", it is misleading. It makes them sound like refugees. Which they are not. They are part of a retreating army. They are not fleeing from a war, they are simply fleeing the enemy.It is a military retreat, or part of one.The war will still be waiting for them at destination. Sigh. Things we have to explain to contemporary teenagers...too many Marxist school-teachers.
Yeah you are most likely right, it is easy to imply things totally accidentally, especially considering those words have different meanings yet are somewhat closely linked. It's something I'll take on board though, thank you!
I love the old 1950's British war films. Low budget, good story and actors. Believable situations and scenarios. So much better than the " Lets bomb the hell out of everybody" American war films . And even today's war films are missing the same endearing qualities that these ones had. A product of their time I guess.
Should definitely do some more reviews mate, really easy to listen to. I watched Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove for the first time last night, obviously you have to understand the Cold War context but maybe one to think about reviewing - considered a masterpiece of cinema.
Strangelove is a masterpiece, no doubt about that. Maybe one day I will but at the moment I just don't have the time to watch movies let alone review them. Dr. Strangelove though... What a great film. (and I do have an understanding of the cold war, so that helps haha)
My take was about how to value the pleasure of an ice cold beer or 2 after a perilous journey through the blistering heat of the Sahara desert for several days. And how much more satisfying that is when it has actually been earnt a thousand times over.
I think this a very poor review of the film. Out of context of the time it was made and who made it. Too simplistic yet too involved in its analysis from a perspective which is 50 years on. It's a great British film. But the 8/10 is spot on.
Philip Curnow I'm sorry :'( tried my best, this was two years ago after all, I'm at university now and still learning and improving. Going to be writing a paper on this soon so let's hope I'm a bit better than I was in this!
Tobruk, not "Trobruk"! Come on, if you're gonna do a review, especially of a great movie such as this, at least get a well-known place name right! Sheesh!
Good Review??? I personally think b/w is better. One thing, you should have mentioned: it is a true story and the whole film is about morals/values and personal courage and determination. Great movies existed long before Hollywood bullshit and CGI.
A jumped-up kid trying to be a film critic! If he knew what he was talking about it could have been interesting (maybe). Sadly, he keeps referring to Anthony Quayle's character as "a South African soldier," when in fact he was a German soldier masquerading as a S A soldier. He says that the John Mills character "resorted to alcoholism;" what a load of tosh; nobody "resorts" to alcoholism; that element would have come about as a result of the drink problem. The character wasn't trying to get to Alex "for the beer," he was trying get back to his Military HQ. The beer aspect was in part to emphasise the heat of the desert, while it reinforced the character's reaction to war-weariness. Our critic refers to the "they" (the other characters) not condemning the Captain for his drinking problem. It shows that he knows nothing of military exactitude; He was the senior officer, while his two British subordinates were a Sgt Major and a Lieutenant - neither of whom had the rank - hence the authority - to reprimand him. After that, our critic goes into airy-fairyland, spouting another load of pseudo psycho-babble that is pure nonsense. Throughout his stupid monologue, he missed the whole theme entirely - the fact that the third character was a German Spy, but who actually saved their lives, and they saved his (one expects) in response. Finally, he refers to the film Paths of Glory, which as war films go was probably the worst ever made - not for the storyline, which was brilliant - but for the main character (played by Kirk Douglas) an all-American actor, with an all-American accent, playing a French Officer during WW1. It was diabolical. So I'm afraid I didn't understand our critic's comparisons or parallels. I think he should stick to higher education before pontificating about things of which he know nothing. S
Charles Griffiths it’s commercial criticism not intellectual criticism, whilst what you point out are undoubtedly factual errors, it doesn’t mean I can’t comment on the quality of the film. Also my main objective with this series was to spread these lesser known movies to those who may not usually venture into this territory. My admittedly simplistic view of the historical context aside, I accomplished what I set out to do. All that aside, I’ve genuinely taken your criticism on board.
Movie Moore. Oh come on! Commercial criticism (paid work) is all the more important when you're trying to influence someone; but you're now playing at semantics. Your so-called "simplistic view" is based on the false information you've given, simply because - as I've intimated - you're not old enough or well-enough educated to talk about adult behaviour, never mind the film content. The picture you paint is so far removed from the base storyline, as to make it worthless. If you're going to comment on what you call "the quality of the film," the least you can do is try to understand what the film is about - and in this instance it is so obvious that you've missed it completely. All this high-blown intellectual garbage that you've invented just does not exist, so you've invented a load of BS in the hope that people will take you seriously. I do so hope that you've taken my criticisms (and the others below) on board, because you're just making yourself out to be a bit of an idiot rather than a credible reviewer, and certainly not of an intellectual level to accomplish whatever it is you set out to achieve. That said, I will give you credit for one thing: You responded and tried to explain yourself, so well done on that. Now have another viewing of the film, and see if you can improve your terms of critique.
Charles Griffiths I don’t need to be paid to provide commercial criticism. I never claimed to be a professional and I never claimed to be intellectual. I’m trying to get people to watch a film I enjoy and it’s part of my journey to learn more about film, I didn’t say I was perfect and in fact I have said on a few occasions that I realise my content is not yet of a high quality. Failure is a learning process I value and accept wholeheartedly. Like I say, I gave people my opinion and even at this age I appreciated the film besides some semantics in what I chose to say. Claiming I am pretending to be a professional critic is ridiculous. If I got anyone to watch a film they wouldn’t normally consider then that’s all I really care about. I’ve watched the film again for a university project, it holds up even better with a better grasp on human nature and cinematic technique. I think you’re attitude will only serve to drive young people away from becoming cine-literate in the future. Something you should probably consider.
i know how to suspend disbelief but with this film constantly exhibited the most ridiculous scenarios caused me to turn if off half way through, which pained me because i love old WW2 films and the cast in their other works. but this one just didn't do it for me, hate to say it but wouldn't waste my time even finishing it.
Dear oh dear....I really think you should stick to reviewing present day CGI Blockbuster type movies as you're far too young to appreciate the subtle characterization in a British classic war film such as this. Very Very Poor Review!!!
I enjoyed this movie in my home town Rasht, Iran when I was very young . It was a very enjoyable and adventurous movie w/o any computer tricks. I was able to get a copy of the movies few years ago and watch it more than dozen times.
The story is fascinating, the actors played superbly and the scenes are great. Each person delivered a masterpiece.
I could not truly understand the context of your review . You keep jumping left or right w/o giving the viewers any clue about your feelings. Overall your review was worless.
a great film one of the best
Glad to watch your review Oliver. Good job overall. However, how is the title "Ice Cold in Alex" not a great title? This was made in the 1950s when most films were titled like "When Vicar put the kettle on for tea" Seriously, its a cool title and sums up the essence of the movie objective....motivation to get to Alex (Alexandria) at all costs. I first saw this film when i was a teenager and its always had a lasting impression on me.
I think I was just making a bad joke about the title i have no problems with it really
I adore this movie and your review was perfectly on the money as I just watched this today for the first time in a bout 15 years, didn't know it was on Blue Ray so totally off to bag it.
***** Yeah it can be surprising what is/isn't on blu ray sometimes, but glad this one was and proud to add it to the library! Very happy you like the film :)
One of my favourite films - spoiled by a little problem of continuity - count the differentials on Katy the K2 ambulance! (and a Land Rover in Alexandria)
When you say 'they are trying to get away from war", it is misleading. It makes them sound like refugees. Which they are not. They are part of a retreating army. They are not fleeing from a war, they are simply fleeing the enemy.It is a military retreat, or part of one.The war will still be waiting for them at destination. Sigh. Things we have to explain to contemporary teenagers...too many Marxist school-teachers.
Yeah you are most likely right, it is easy to imply things totally accidentally, especially considering those words have different meanings yet are somewhat closely linked. It's something I'll take on board though, thank you!
I love the old 1950's British war films. Low budget, good story and actors. Believable situations and scenarios. So much better than the " Lets bomb the hell out of everybody" American war films . And even today's war films are missing the same endearing qualities that these ones had. A product of their time I guess.
They are getting away from Tobruk not Trobuk!
Should definitely do some more reviews mate, really easy to listen to. I watched Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove for the first time last night, obviously you have to understand the Cold War context but maybe one to think about reviewing - considered a masterpiece of cinema.
Strangelove is a masterpiece, no doubt about that. Maybe one day I will but at the moment I just don't have the time to watch movies let alone review them. Dr. Strangelove though... What a great film. (and I do have an understanding of the cold war, so that helps haha)
The film is in essence about people lying to themselves and others
My take was about how to value the pleasure of an ice cold beer or 2 after a perilous journey through the blistering heat of the Sahara desert for several days. And how much more satisfying that is when it has actually been earnt a thousand times over.
Well done.
I think this a very poor review of the film. Out of context of the time it was made and who made it. Too simplistic yet too involved in its analysis from a perspective which is 50 years on. It's a great British film. But the 8/10 is spot on.
Philip Curnow I'm sorry :'( tried my best, this was two years ago after all, I'm at university now and still learning and improving. Going to be writing a paper on this soon so let's hope I'm a bit better than I was in this!
Don't wish to put you down buddy but you're not really mature enough to appreciate the qualities of this film .
Tobruk, not "Trobruk"! Come on, if you're gonna do a review, especially of a great movie such as this, at least get a well-known place name right! Sheesh!
Very sorry to have disappointed you sire 😣 but yes you are right, that was a mistake on my part, sorry!
Lol.Ok, but you know the proper word is syre! Only kidding! Good review by the way......;)
lol...did you say "Trobruk"? sigh...kids.
Good Review??? I personally think b/w is better. One thing, you should have mentioned: it is a true story and the whole film is about morals/values and personal courage and determination. Great movies existed long before Hollywood bullshit and CGI.
It isn't a true story even though Harry Andrews says it is at the beginning - the opening credits show that it was adapted from a novel.
A jumped-up kid trying to be a film critic! If he knew what he was talking about it could have been interesting (maybe). Sadly, he keeps referring to Anthony Quayle's character as "a South African soldier," when in fact he was a German soldier masquerading as a S A soldier. He says that the John Mills character "resorted to alcoholism;" what a load of tosh; nobody "resorts" to alcoholism; that element would have come about as a result of the drink problem. The character wasn't trying to get to Alex "for the beer," he was trying get back to his Military HQ. The beer aspect was in part to emphasise the heat of the desert, while it reinforced the character's reaction to war-weariness. Our critic refers to the "they" (the other characters) not condemning the Captain for his drinking problem. It shows that he knows nothing of military exactitude; He was the senior officer, while his two British subordinates were a Sgt Major and a Lieutenant - neither of whom had the rank - hence the authority - to reprimand him. After that, our critic goes into airy-fairyland, spouting another load of pseudo psycho-babble that is pure nonsense.
Throughout his stupid monologue, he missed the whole theme entirely - the fact that the third character was a German Spy, but who actually saved their lives, and they saved his (one expects) in response.
Finally, he refers to the film Paths of Glory, which as war films go was probably the worst ever made - not for the storyline, which was brilliant - but for the main character (played by Kirk Douglas) an all-American actor, with an all-American accent, playing a French Officer during WW1. It was diabolical. So I'm afraid I didn't understand our critic's comparisons or parallels. I think he should stick to higher education before pontificating about things of which he know nothing.
S
Charles Griffiths it’s commercial criticism not intellectual criticism, whilst what you point out are undoubtedly factual errors, it doesn’t mean I can’t comment on the quality of the film.
Also my main objective with this series was to spread these lesser known movies to those who may not usually venture into this territory. My admittedly simplistic view of the historical context aside, I accomplished what I set out to do.
All that aside, I’ve genuinely taken your criticism on board.
Movie Moore. Oh come on! Commercial criticism (paid work) is all the more important when you're trying to influence someone; but you're now playing at semantics. Your so-called "simplistic view" is based on the false information you've given, simply because - as I've intimated - you're not old enough or well-enough educated to talk about adult behaviour, never mind the film content. The picture you paint is so far removed from the base storyline, as to make it worthless. If you're going to comment on what you call "the quality of the film," the least you can do is try to understand what the film is about - and in this instance it is so obvious that you've missed it completely. All this high-blown intellectual garbage that you've invented just does not exist, so you've invented a load of BS in the hope that people will take you seriously. I do so hope that you've taken my criticisms (and the others below) on board, because you're just making yourself out to be a bit of an idiot rather than a credible reviewer, and certainly not of an intellectual level to accomplish whatever it is you set out to achieve. That said, I will give you credit for one thing: You responded and tried to explain yourself, so well done on that. Now have another viewing of the film, and see if you can improve your terms of critique.
Charles Griffiths I don’t need to be paid to provide commercial criticism. I never claimed to be a professional and I never claimed to be intellectual. I’m trying to get people to watch a film I enjoy and it’s part of my journey to learn more about film, I didn’t say I was perfect and in fact I have said on a few occasions that I realise my content is not yet of a high quality. Failure is a learning process I value and accept wholeheartedly. Like I say, I gave people my opinion and even at this age I appreciated the film besides some semantics in what I chose to say.
Claiming I am pretending to be a professional critic is ridiculous. If I got anyone to watch a film they wouldn’t normally consider then that’s all I really care about.
I’ve watched the film again for a university project, it holds up even better with a better grasp on human nature and cinematic technique. I think you’re attitude will only serve to drive young people away from becoming cine-literate in the future. Something you should probably consider.
i know how to suspend disbelief but with this film constantly exhibited the most ridiculous scenarios caused me to turn if off half way through, which pained me because i love old WW2 films and the cast in their other works. but this one just didn't do it for me, hate to say it but wouldn't waste my time even finishing it.
What did you spend an hour doing instead which was so gripping?
@@crose7412 Have you seen his wife?
Dear oh dear....I really think you should stick to reviewing present day CGI Blockbuster type movies as you're far too young to appreciate the subtle characterization in a British classic war film such as this. Very Very Poor Review!!!
He liked it and gave it 8 out of 10.