What was the last film you watched?

[Willie Oleson]

CRUISING (1980)



CRUISING succeeds where DRESSED TO KILL fails, despite the lack of detective mystery since there's no limited number of suspects. Even when the killer is caught it still feels a bit random since we know almost nothing about the many supporting characters except for Al Pacino's neighbour Ted Bailey.
But sometimes it is precisely the absolute unknown - except for the idea that "something is happening" - that makes it a mystery. In addition, the film's protagonist enters a world he knows nothing about.
Technically speaking, the film was released in 1980 but the filming itself happened in the seventies decade, and what this film does so well is to capture the mystery of the elusive year 1980, a year that is a time capsule and a mini-decade of itself.

The greatest odditiy is the moment when Al Pacino's character Steve Burns takes on the assignment of undercover cop because it may as well be a scene between director Friedkin and actor Pacino.
I once read that Pacino wasn't too eager to commit himself to DOG DAY AFTERNOON so soon after finishing THE GODFATHER II, and that one of the reasons he did it anyway was the fact (or rumour) that Dustin Hoffman was also considered for the role.
I'm not suggesting a kind of jealousy, but more like a fear of "missing out" on a potentially great project.
Richard Gere was Friedkin's first choice for the role of Detective Steve Burns and I'm not going to comment on that since we'll never know what that would have done for the film.
All I know is that CRUISING is Al Pacino because the ambiguities are perfectly in balance. The undercover job affects him but it's open to interpretation, although I understand that it may have been dissatisfactory to viewers who wanted a more clear insight into psyche of character Steve Burns.
The urban tribal ritual of disco dancing - see, there's nothing he won't do for a film - is really all I needed to know about his state of mind. It's almost like an exorcism of the things that shaped his life as he knew it.

Since I was already aware of the film's (then) controversy it kinda looked the way I expected it to be, nevertheless I was a little surprised by the generous amount of pretty skin. The big black cop in jockstrap and cowboy hat, seemingly coming out of nowhere, looked very "David Lynch".
The deleted scenes which no longer exist would have been a fabulous DVD special feature.
It is now my second favourite Pacino film but I haven't seen SERPICO yet.

This is from an interview Michelle Phillips did with Art Swift

You really have a gift for remembering the minutiae. Incidentally, we're still waiting for a detailed timeline of Gordon Hamilton's company (and how it changed from one thing to another without explanation).

The trailer gives a good indication of what's in store

Ah yes, the most interesting things can happen when an American actor wanders into wonders of European cinema.
It reminds me of Mel Ferrer in the Italian "The Exorcist" copycat THE ANTICHRIST (1974).

I'm sure it has a cult following and as a matter of fact it was recently released on Studiocanal's Cult Classics label (which I like to think of as a sub-label of the Vintage Classics).
Either way, I'm going to hunt down that Elizabeth Taylor film. Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[James from London]

CRUISING succeeds where DRESSED TO KILL fails, despite the lack of detective mystery since there's no limited number of suspects. Even when the killer is caught it still feels a bit random since we know almost nothing about the many supporting characters except for Al Pacino's neighbour Ted Bailey.
But sometimes it is precisely the absolute unknown - except for the idea that "something is happening" - that makes it a mystery. In addition, the film's protagonist enters a world he knows nothing about.
Technically speaking, the film was released in 1980 but the filming itself happened in the seventies decade, and what this film does so well is to capture the mystery of the elusive year 1980, a year that is a time capsule and a mini-decade of itself.

The greatest odditiy is the moment when Al Pacino's character Steve Burns takes on the assignment of undercover cop because it may as well be a scene between director Friedkin and actor Pacino.
I once read that Pacino wasn't too eager to commit himself to DOG DAY AFTERNOON so soon after finishing THE GODFATHER II, and that one of the reasons he did it anyway was the fact (or rumour) that Dustin Hoffman was also considered for the role.
I'm not suggesting a kind of jealousy, but more like a fear of "missing out" on a potentially great project.
Richard Gere was Friedkin's first choice for the role of Detective Steve Burns and I'm not going to comment on that since we'll never know what that would have done for the film.
All I know is that CRUISING is Al Pacino because the ambiguities are perfectly in balance. The undercover job affects him but it's open to interpretation, although I understand that it may have been dissatisfactory to viewers who wanted a more clear insight into psyche of character Steve Burns.
The urban tribal ritual of disco dancing - see, there's nothing he won't do for a film - is really all I needed to know about his state of mind. It's almost like an exorcism of the things that shaped his life as he knew it.

Since I was already aware of the film's (then) controversy it kinda looked the way I expected it to be, nevertheless I was a little surprised by the generous amount of pretty skin. The big black cop in jockstrap and cowboy hat, seemingly coming out of nowhere, looked very "David Lynch".
The deleted scenes which no longer exist would have been a fabulous DVD special feature.
It is now my second favourite Pacino film but I haven't seen SERPICO yet.

Fascinating.

You really have a gift for remembering the minutiae. Incidentally, we're still waiting for a detailed timeline of Gordon Hamilton's company (and how it changed from one thing to another without explanation).

Ha ha!

Ah yes, the most interesting things can happen when an American actor wanders into wonders of European cinema.

Ooh yes - that could be a mini-genre of its own. Burt Lancaster in The Leopard is another one that springs to mind.

It reminds me of Mel Ferrer in the Italian "The Exorcist" copycat THE ANTICHRIST (1974).

Oh. My. God. We're definitely not at Lorimar anymore,

I'm going to hunt down that Elizabeth Taylor film.

It's on YouTube, but the quality isn't the greatest. The ratio's a bit off so everything looks kind of stretched. Still watchable though.

 

[Angela Channing]

I've watched two whole films so far this week: Killers of the Flower Moon, which is absolutely stunning

I agree with your opinion of Killers of The Flower Moon. The film was probably a bit too long but my word, what a compelling story and beautifully acted, directed and shot.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Burt Lancaster in The Leopard is another one that springs to mind

Funnily enough, I watched the German film THE AMERICAN FRIEND (1977) starring Dennis Hopper, before watching CRUISING.
I dozed off twice and then when I had to rewind it for the second time I couldn't even remember the last scenes I had it watched; consequently, I couldn't be bothered anymore.
Apart from being lethally boring - not what one would expect from a Tom Ripley story - the combination of English and German language annoyed me from the very beginning.

Oh. My. God. We're definitely not at Lorimar anymore,

Not even Melissa in her last seasons in Falcon Crest?

the quality isn't the greatest

To put it mildly



JEANNE DIELMAN, 23, QUAI DU COMMERCE, 1080 BRUXELLES



It's not so long ago that this film came to my attention. Several online sources list it as one of the "best films of all time" and even though there were others I had never heard of before, it was JEANNE DIELMAN that piqued my curiosity. That feeling became stronger after watching some clips on youtube.

There's a lot you could say about this film and (apparently) a lot has been said about it. Perhaps that itself warrants the inclusion in those "best of" lists.
Understandably, lots of people hate it, and an IMDB reviewer says it lacks proper editing. I guess he/she doesn't understand that that would completely undermine the purpose of this experimental film. There's nothing extravagant about its 3 hours and 20 minutes running time when the filmmaker wants to show the endless mundanity in the life of Jeanne Dielman.

I loved it for different reasons. It's so mesmerizing that I couldn't look away even if I wanted to, and simply the very idea that her routine would be disrupted by anything or anyone creates sufficient tension. And that's exactly what happens in the second half of the film when little irregularities start creeping in, kinda like an upgraded Stepford wife who starts to show minor malfunctions.

There's no point in denying that I got a lot of pleasure from watching the elaborate manual work needed to get things done, the way it was in those days.
Putting money in the bank could be very time-consuming, not to mention the ridiculous amount of paperwork. It was one of the scenes that made me laugh out loud, not because it looked silly but because I know that's how it was done.
And saving on electricity by switching the lights on and off, emphasized in this film by characters constantly walking in and out of rooms.

Is it a feminist or anti-feminist film? Widow Jeanne Dielman doesn't want to remarry because she likes her independence (which could also be a make-believe excuse for feeling lonely) and yet she has to rely on men in order to make life a little more comfortable - if not for herself then at least for her son.
Son Sylvain, such a lovely name, gets some interesting dialogue except that he recites it in a bizarre an monotonous way. But it's obvious that's how it was meant to be delivered.

Even if I didn't like this film I would still appreciate it for its uniqueness, although some parts reminded me of Judi Dench's role in FOUR IN THE MORNING (1965).
I was tempted to watch the second disc with the special easter eggs but I was afraid they were going to explain the film so I decided not to do it.
Maybe later.

 

[Seaviewer]

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
Described as a mock rock documentary, or mock rockumentary, or simply a mockumentary.
Catching up with another so-called classic that I've never seen before.
I don't think I've been missing much. I'd put in the "more clever than funny" category.

 

[Willie Oleson]

BARBARIAN (2022)



Since I don't expect a lot from modern horror movies anymore I figured I could kill 10 minutes before going to bed and then remove it from my watchlist. When I browse prime I usually add everything spontaneously, only to remove it later before or during the play.
However-the-pever, I instantly noticed something different about this horror film. Characters have normal conversations and the actors play them very well, was this really going to be a horror film?
Now that I've seen it I think it's the best "classic" horror film of the last...10...15? years. It's like "American Horror Story - THE MOVIE", but without the camp and silliness.
When it's funny it really is funny because of the situation, not because they're doing funny.
BARBARIAN is gory, suspenseful and twisty, and the title can be read...no. stop. No more. You must know absolutely nothing about it, no trailers, nothing.
What a surprise, what a gem.

 

[Seaviewer]

Seberg (2019)
Based on the life of the actress Jean Seberg, who it seems was surveilled and harassed by the FBI after she became involved the Black civil rights movement in the 60s.
I really only know her from the film Paint Your Wagon, so scenes of her rehearsing for that were of special interest.
Kristen Stewart is very good, and Vince Vaughn is appropriately despicable as a callous FBI agent.

 

[Biggie]

The Bodyguard. 1993.

After doing his bit to fight the futile war on man's and that getting mash-up, him that, Wolf Dancer is hired to protect the Queen Of The Night from a flasher and a dude planning to gun hole her at the Oscars with million's man's and that watching.

This was quite an enjoyable movie overall, with a first rate soundtrack. Costner and Huston delivered reasonable performances and the supporting cast stepped up and did their bit. The plot seemed a bit silly, as the shooter would have been better off finding some high vantage point around her home and with a hype rifle with scope put enough holes in her back. But otherwise a fairly decent movie.

The star of the show... our man that only done and gone defiled Whitney.

 

[Karin]

Priscilla (2023)
It was okay but I liked the mini tv-series version from 1988 that had Priscilla do her own voice over better.

Despite using music that really fits with the time this new version is a product of it's time that view Elvis & Priscilla's relationship from a modern POV.

Also the actors cast doesn't reflect the actual age gap as they are just one year apart.

 

[Willie Oleson]

SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS (1948)



A very, very beautiful film about romance, drama and intrigue in the House of Hanover at the end of the 17th century.
It is old-fashioned, mostly in speech, but the way the characters are portrayed leaves very little to the imagination.
With its filming technique so picturesque perhaps it could be seen as a pre-Barry Lyndon.

 

[Seaviewer]

Queen of Hearts (2019)
Award-winning Danish film about a successful lawyer who risks her marriage and career when she seduces her underage stepson.
It's unclear why it's called Queen of Hearts when there's no apparent romance involved. She seems to act from simple lust. There are repeated quotes made from Alice in Wonderland so perhaps we're supposed to infer that she's fallen down a metaphorical rabbit hole, but if the gender roles were reversed, I doubt that a male protagonist would have been treated so sympathetically.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Tonight was a "schoolkids in trouble" double feature.


THE WINSLOW BOY (1948)



The alleged forgery and theft by young naval student Ronnie Winslow becomes the cataclysm in a nationwide sensation about fighting the double standard juridical system. To disagree with the navy means to disagree with the Crown, something that needs to be prevented at all costs in order to keep the system work.
Ronnie maintains his innocence and his father decides to settle the matter. This becomes a long, uphill battle that puts a lot of strain on the family - financially, physically and emotionally.
I find it a very interesting story and the film has lots of witty and sarcastic dialogue. It features a marriage proposal that can only happen in a British film.
I don't mind that the courtroom climax happened off-screen, but since the verdict in favour of Boy Winslow was so specifically mentioned I really wanted to know why and how they reached that verdict.
But the serious downside of the film is the only character who's allowed to let her emotions run wild, maid Violet, and she does it in a way that reminded me why I decided not to watch Upstairs Downstairs.



THE CHILDREN'S HOUR (1961)



What happens when you put closeted lesbianism and BAD SEED Rhoda Penmark's little bitch cousin in the same film? Big, BIG drama.
I love it, love it, love it. It's just so wonderful to see how the truth and the lie meet each other in the last part of the film. It's pleasantly confusing because it raises all kinds of questions. Was it meant to end that way, regardless of the lie? Was the lie an unintentional good thing, despite its tragic ending?
It's also interesting that it was released in the same year as Dirk Bogarde's VICTIM.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

St. Elmo's Fire (1985)

It's only taken me four decades to get around to this one.

To start out, the character-driven naturalism put me in mind of early Knots Landing. But then I realised it reminded me even more strongly of pre-Locklear Melrose Place with its group of bright-eyed, attractive young people learning life lessons as they adjust to entering adulthood. I suppose it bridges the gap nicely between the two, having Melrose's earnestness paired with Knots's emotional intelligence.

Having watched The Breakfast Club last year for the first time, I believe this is my second Brat Pack film. I'd always assumed this to be another John Hughes vehicle so was a little surprised to find that this is Joel Schumacher. It seems JH did have some input with casting suggestions, though.
​

Like Fame (which I love) and American Graffiti (which I may also never have seen), this conjures up an image of hormonal teens thrust into an intense situation leading to deep discussions and possibly high emotions. I craved a journey into that world, and to be reminded of some of the extremes of feeling that come with being in one's late teens.

While I wasn't seeking it out, I'd say I was in a similar place last night, and this film is a logical next step from The Breakfast Club on this level. We've moved from school to college, which comes with its own extremes.

It missed the mark for me slightly when it came to getting me to feel something. It didn't successfully get me to empathise with the kids and their feelings. In fact I found myself watching their tearful confessions with almost complete objectivity. I could see that the heart was there, but personally I never quite got to it.

And here's where I found St. Elmo's Fire more of a hit. Perhaps it was related to my own mood when watching, but something about this one made me reflective and almost melancholy, thinking about who I was when I was this age. Seeing the youthful joy emanating from them at the beginning was almost too painful and it felt like a relief when things inevitably began souring.


Casting is terrific, and the chemistry is terrific. I'd say this film is an example of the whole being far greater than the sum of its parts. Demi Moore isn't an actress I'd care to watch for too long. As with The Breakfast Club, I found Emilio Estevez underwhelming to the point I felt I was missing something that everyone else seems to see. But put any combination of the seven leads together and it's magic.

SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS (1948)

A very, very beautiful film about romance, drama and intrigue in the House of Hanover at the end of the 17th century.
It is old-fashioned, mostly in speech, but the way the characters are portrayed leaves very little to the imagination.
With its filming technique so picturesque perhaps it could be seen as a pre-Barry Lyndon.

Even though I have some of the score in my music collection I don't think I've actually seen this one, but you've certainly bumped it up my bucket list. One of these days I hope to delve into more Ealings, as well as rewatching some old favourites (which I haven't done since around 150 pages ago ).

 

[Willie Oleson]

YIELD TO THE NIGHT (1956)



If the comparison to/with/between Marilyn Monroe has to be made then I guess this was Diana's NIAGARA, and therefore it's not surprising that the fabulous Vintage Classics decided to give YIELD a "stunning new restoration" make-over.
The story has a somewhat "cold" approach and for a while I didn't know what to make of it, almost as if it refused to offer a dramatic angle.
However, this allowed the film to creep up on me and I was kind of surprised to realise how much I liked it.
I think it's mostly about hope, in both the flashback and prison scenes, and the unforgiveness when that hope ceases.
Whereas other dramas create something big from something small, YIELD takes the worst-case scenario and compresses it with a restraint that's almost torturous.
The look on main character Mary Hilton's face when the prison governess informs her of the inevitable is the big payoff.

Coincidentally, the lover's "betrayal in death" is quite similar to the one in SARABAND.

I wonder what other Diana Dors movies Studiocanal/Vintage Classics has in store for us. I like to keep supporting the stunning new restorations especially when they're released on DVD. It looks like BFI is going to follow Criterion and focus on bluray-only releases. And that ain't cool.
Another issue - completely unrelated to this film - is that amazon UK has tripled its shipping costs for no apparent reason and without giving a heads-up.
For many years it's been my "Poland" for DVD shopping but it looks like those days are gone now.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Today it was a "the trouble with brothers" double feature.

THE FINAL PROGRAMME (1973)



Protagonist Jerry Cornelius is the cocky dandy who also happens to be a renowned scientist, just like his father, the Nobel Prize winner who has developed a formula for some kind of immortality (I think). The formula, or programme, appears to be more topical than ever because the world is starting to crash under the pressure of WWIII. In fact, the world is about to end.
Not much attempt has been made to make it look that way and overall there's no sense of dread or a high-stakes situation at all.

A group of scientists contact Jerry in order to obtain a microfilm hidden in the Cornelius family mansion. The microfilm is needed to complete the Final Programme - the creation of a self-replicating hermaphrodite human being.
Jerry is more interested in settling the score with his evil and deranged brother Frank who has entrenched himself in the mansion together with their sister Catherine.
Catherine (played by Sarah Douglas) is constantly drugged by brother Frank and the whole situation kinda conjures up the idea of the Dragon who guards the princess in the castle.

So, yes, it is beyond stupid (and to think that this was based on a novel) but I can't say that it's badly made. The actors play it as if they believe to be in that world, there's enough attention to dialogue and it just doesn't look as if it failed in whatever it attempted to be.
Besides, I wasn't looking for a great story when I picked this film, I just wanted to be enterainingly outraged by something very cult-y. But I'm afraid that didn't happen.
The few cool set designs are most unfortunately overshadowed by lots of tacky and unimaginative location scenes, the violence is almost non-existent and I also think there should have been much more nudity in it.
Jerry wants to buy napalm from a man called Shades and this Shades thinks that pinball machines are part of a conspiracy. It's probably the best scene in the whole film and it also made me wonder what a filmmaker like Ken Russell would have done with The Final Programme.
I'm glad I've watched it and I think it's memorable enough, but it wasn't the leave-no-stone-unturned cult extravaganza I had hoped for.


PARANOIAC (1963)



The title shown in the film itself doesn't have the exclamation mark.
This story starts with a memorial service instead of a funeral, and it turns out that the wealthy Ashbys were also survived by two sons and one daughter (who also spends a lot of time in her bedroom).
The cruel and alcoholic son Simon Ashby (Oliver Reed) lives with his sister Eleanor and aunt Harriet in the family mansion and he's only three weeks away from coming into his inheritance. An inheritance he's reluctant to share with his sister but she's one of those frail types who could be institutionalized.
The other brother has been dead for eight years, a suicide, so that wasn't going to be an issue.

Until that very brother returns from the dead in a Philip Colby fashion (the church, Eleanor faints).
Simon and Harriet think he's an impostor and that's true, he is an impostor who's in cahoots with the son of the family notary.
Later it is revealed that Simon and Harriet knew he was an impostor because they knew what really happened to son Anthony Ashby.
The film feels a bit rushed and it also suffers from that typical Hammer hysterical melodrama, and I think this could have been a great story if they had focused on one particular angle rather than throwing everything into the mix.
The characters are one-dimensional and only defined by what they say or do, and it strongly undermines the tragedy of the family secret.
The PSYCHO style skeleton in the closet looks unintentionally hilarious.

It's a good one for a remake and I would rewrite it as a whodunnit murder mystery, with some additional family members or associates.
The only person who (pretends to) believe the impostor is the one who knows for sure that the original is dead, died by his or her hands.
But when the body of the impostor turns up dead does that mean we're dealing with one and the same killer? Etc.

 

[James from London]

St. Elmo's Fire (1985)

It's only taken me four decades to get around to this one.

I've still never actually seen this one (although I do really like The Breakfast Club), but just by chance my journey through Stereogum's 'America's Number Ones' series has just reached the fortnight the St Elmo's theme hit the top spot. So this might possibly be of interest:

The Number Ones: John Parr’s “St. Elmo’s Fire (Man In Motion)”

In The Number Ones, I’m reviewing every single #1 single in the history of the Billboard Hot 100, starting with the chart’s beginning, in 1958, and working my way up into the present.

www.stereogum.com

 

[Willie Oleson]

AN INSPECTOR CALLS (1954)



For once, I'm glad they ignored the original film poster for the DVD artwork.

I think I would describe it as A Place To Call Home meets A Christmas Carol, or a moral whodunnit mystery.
I loved every minute of it and I think it was the first time I heard someone saying "ne'er-do-well".

 

[darkshadows38]

i watched a really bad one called "The Retirement Plan (2023) with Nicolas Cage who in this one made me think of Jimmy Stewart! i had no idea it even was him at first i got it out from the Library & i had to read the billing first but he's completely gray in it and has long gray hair it looks nothing like him at all. the film had it's moments the humor worked at least i think so Ron Perlman had these scenes with this little girl and their chemistry if that's the word i'm looking for? it was really good they played off each other well. she was a decent little actress & he was one of the as he said one of the bad guys and you never see him even attack anyone but that was written really well i think. their scenes were written well but the rest was a mess i think. Jackie Earle Haley who can be good was i think terrible in this film maybe it was only a paycheck i dunno or maybe it was the direction it was given or a movie he just didn't give a damn about? i dunno but he's been better in other things.

Ernie Hudson got shot in it at one point and to me it really looked like an effect a really low B movie would have and by low budget i mean something that you'd do with your friends it was pretty bad the way it looked. the ending was a WTF ending as it had.... i dunno how to explain it without ruining the ending but than to be fair i don't really remember much about it that's how forgettable this movie was. i've seen far Worse films that Nick Cage was in to be fair but i give this one 5/10

 

[Ome]

it's a favourite of our @Ome's which is a good enough reason to delve into this one.

Oh, how these moments give me palpitations.


It’s a while since I’ve watched the film, so reading your comments have been like a little refresher for me.

It missed the mark for me slightly when it came to getting me to feel something. It didn't successfully get me to empathise with the kids and their feelings. In fact I found myself watching their tearful confessions with almost complete objectivity. I could see that the heart was there, but personally I never quite got to it.

This took me back to my first watch and I totally get your reaction at not feeling it. I felt a little underwhelmed by it too and it wasn’t until I finished it that it clicked with me. I watched it again a few days later and I felt I had a better understanding, having seen a snippet of each of their lives and getting more of a grasp. It’s that second watch that made me realise what a gem of a movie it is.


Not, that I am suggesting you need to watch it again. I don’t think I would care about it much if I was to watch it for the first time at my age today.

I didn’t really understand the different classes in life back then as all my surroundings were pretty much equal. There was no rich kids at my school, no one stood out at being the best of anything, which made this film like a mini educational experience. It also highlights the big differences between schools in the UK compared to the US.

40 years later and the thread of this film will have played a part in many films and TV series we have seen between the mid eighties and now. There’s nothing wrong in that, I think it will harm the film to new viewers, but hopefully not taint it to those who watched it at the time


We (me and wifey) have been watching some of our favourite movies with our daughter and THE BREAKFAST CLUB has been on my mind with mixed feelings. Would my daughter get the film, or will she find it completely boring comparing it with some of her favourite ‘coming of age’ dramas.

Having watched 13 REASONS WHY, it clear to see how drama and storytelling has evolved over the years.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

just by chance my journey through Stereogum's 'America's Number Ones' series has just reached the fortnight the St Elmo's theme hit the top spot. So this might possibly be of interest

Thanks for this. A very nice read and, as you said, very perfectly timed.

The movie is about a bunch of uncertain and frequently stupid young people getting into romantic entanglements with each other. The song is a grandly motivational you-can-do-anything rocker. Maybe that’s why the song broke through in ways that the movie didn’t.

That sums it up perfectly. And the video for the song takes it to another level again since it's a pseudo-sequel.

This took me back to my first watch and I totally get your reaction at not feeling it. I felt a little underwhelmed by it too and it wasn’t until I finished it that it clicked with me. I watched it again a few days later and I felt I had a better understanding, having seen a snippet of each of their lives and getting more of a grasp. It’s that second watch that made me realise what a gem of a movie it is.

Yes - I can imagine it The Breakfast Club would be a film that looks quite different the second time around. I certainly wouldn't rule out watching it again sometime, and hope I would remember just enough to view it differently.

We (me and wifey) have been watching some of our favourite movies with our daughter and THE BREAKFAST CLUB has been on my mind with mixed feelings. Would my daughter get the film, or will she find it completely boring comparing it with some of her favourite ‘coming of age’ dramas.

What a great experience to pass on your favourite stuff to a younger generation like this. I'm sure it must be fascinating to see how it's viewed through your daughter's eyes.

The Breakfast Club certainly has heart to it, so it would be interesting to know how it's received. I hope you'll let us know if and when you watch it together.

I think I would describe it as A Place To Call Home meets A Christmas Carol, or a moral whodunnit mystery.

Wow. I like the sound of that.

I can't actually remember if I've watched this one. I don't think I have, but I do remember something about it really grabbed me when we studied the playbook as part of the Drama curriculum back in secondary school.