Movie review - "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" (1959) ***

If you're in the mood for some whimsy about leprechauns, this will tick your boxes: plenty of Irish scenery, accents, some old tales of fairies, a banchee, decent special effects, some frights and a satisfying ending. Most of the plot consists of a battle of wits between old Darby and the king of the leprechauns; there's also a bit of romance via Janet Munro (initially a bit awkward, just a winsome smile instead of a performance but she loosens up as the film goes on) and Sean Connery (in an early role - very handsome and charismatic in a Roland Lewis way - he even sings!). Occasionally the handling feels a bit TV - opening certainly has too much clunky exposition - and its a shame the 'villain' couldn't have been used a bit more, say something to do with leprechauns. But its full of life and charm and is a satisfying meal.

Book review - "Walt Disney" by Neal Gabler

Surely the definitive account of the director - its hard to imagine there could be a better one. Exhaustively researched, well written and a serious treatment of a man who in recent years has received too much press for being an anti-Semitic, commie-hating Nazi who is now frozen - I understand how people enjoy those rumours considering how he has been deified, but he was a genius.

If you made a film out of this life it might run along these sort of lines: Act 1: a struggling animator moving to Hollywood with his brother Roy, starts to make some money but is eventually kicked out of his business by the actual owner and vows never to be wronged again. Act 2: the creation of Mickey Mouse and his own studio, leading up to Steamboat Willie and maybe Three Little Pigs. Act 3: Disney's folly with Snow White and its incredible success. Act 4: Post Snow White dreams and a series of unprofitable cartoon masterpieces followed by war propaganda work and cartoon compilations which saved the studio but killed Disney's taste for animation. Act 5: Disney starts to muck around with trains just for fun - but following his passion gives him the idea for Disneyland. He's rewarded with a hot streak few others match in the 50s, being the first mogul to conquer television and theme parks - then also in the late 50s and 60s being the only studio with a really unique brand and making a pile out of live action films.

There is so much material here the book could have been longer. Gabler throws in a lot of analysis about Disney's life and work and how it fitted in with America. He does criticise Disney for lousy employee skills - why he paid them heaps in the 30s and made sure they were well trained up, he took his pound of flesh in time and energy from them and was anti-union, and when the unions flared up he called them all commies... in short he was a typical person who owned his own business (something which set him apart from all the other moguls). A wonderful book.

Movie review - JL#10 - "The Errand Boy" (1961) **

Jerry Lewis' third film as director mirrors the structure of his first, The Bellboy: a narrator introduces as to a specific "world", then we meet Jerry who proceeds to wreck havoc within that world in a series of set pieces, there is a moral, then the film ends.
This isn't as good as that first film though: this one has a plot about Jerry being sent to spy on the workers, but it is shamefully underused (why not give him a friend/love interest who is betrayed? why not have him uncover a plot? they just throw it away); also Jerry's character isn't as nice - whereas the Bellboy was at least always keen his errand boy just knocks things over, then turns around and has a chat to a puppet (actually an unexpectedly charming sequence) where he's revealed to be not that dumb - but we've just seen him be stupid, we know he is that dumb.
There are some pleasant things - some strong gags , decent satire esp involving a movie siren, a surprisingly worthwhile speech about the art of performing given by a director character towards the end of the movie. But considering the setting it is a bit of a miss.

Movie review - "Alex in Wonderland" (1951) ***1/2

Those who dismiss Disney's post-war output as bland whitebread Eisenhower-era sentimentality should check out this, an amazing trip. It's freewheeling, anarchic and totally insane - the original story provided a great source material which seems to have really inspired the filmmakers. This is not one of Disney's beloved cartoons, due perhaps to the character of Alice - although she starts off like a Disney heroine, singing in a field whiles birds come twittering to her, she's not as sympathetic as Cinderella or Snow (there is no real villain except for the Queen and she's not against Alice personally), and lacks heart. It's a shame the filmmakers couldn't have fixed up the first bit, which just has Alice following the white rabbit because she finds it interesting. She needed stronger motivation. Also there is little sense of danger and Alice's desparation to get home - it wouldn't have been hard to add that - and the scene towards the end where Alice realises she's been selfish or something doesn't have that much impact. And I loathed the ending where it was all a dream (don't care if its faithful to the source - if its a dream then we've been cheated). It's a shame because her adventures are wonderfully trippy and intense with a gallary of amazing characters: the rabbit, Tweedledum, the mad hatter, the queen, etc. If they'd fixde up the beginning and end a little this would have been a masterpiece. As it is, I think it deserves its cult.

Movie review - "Cinderella" (1950) **1/2

Opinion is split on this cartoon: some see it as part of the classic cannon, and its true that the film came along at a time when Disney badly needed it, helping save the studio (until Disneyland came along, Disney was always on the verge of going under). Others see it as greatly inferior to Disney's earlier work, and overly commercial. Why I do not consider myself part of the Disney-never-made-another-decent-cartoon-after-1942 brigade, I would attach myself to the latter camp. Why the animation isn't as good, it's good enough, that's not what bothers me - it's the calculation of the story. The fairy tale of Cinderella is a terrific one (why it's never gone out of popularity), with a beautiful underdog, expert combination of egalitarianism (Cinderella is a commoner and she earns her happiness) and royalty (the handsome prince), with iconic memorably fairy tale bits: turning into a pumpkin, the glass slipper. But the filmmakers here don't seem to have confidence in that, and seem determined to turn the story into a remake of Snow white with a bunch of mice instead of the seven dwarves: it starts like Snow White with Cinderella singing a song while birds watch, the step mother is a double for the evil queen (though not a deadly rival), and the mice are basically co-protagonists, whether building a dress or finding a key for Cinderella. Indeed, half the film seems to be taken up with the mice and the cat - far too much, especially that sequence at the beginning of the film before Cinderella is established. The handsome prince is even less a character than Prince Charming (at least he sang a song and went out looking for Snow White whereas this guy is forced to have the ball and sends the Duke out to look for who can fit the glass slipped - do it yourself, mate). On the positive side some of the jokes involving the cat pursuing mice are funny, and the romantic stuff works well, especially the long shots at the ball, and Prince and Cinderella dancing. Cinderella takes a shower and shows her bare back - a bit risque!

Movie review – Bond#8 - “Live and Let Die” (1973) ***1/2

Roger Moore’s first stint as Bond holds up surprisingly well – it’s not one of the classics, but there is a lot to enjoy and marked a wonderful return to form after Diamonds Are Forever. Unlike that movie it's got a James Bond who seems to be in shape and happy to be there, a logical story, a genuine exotic flavour and glamorous locations, and a very strong group of villains. Moore slips into the role straight away (as he should, after serving such a long apprenticeship on The Saint)

Although based on a source novel (not one of Ian Fleming's best) the script seems to be more inspired by Dr No - as in that film Bond is called in to investigate the death of a British agent in a Caribbean island (they also kill off British agents in New York and New Orleans to give it some difference). He is helped by Felix Leiter and Quarrell (son of the original Quarrell) and goes to visit a mysterious section of the island where native religion is used to mask a criminal enterprise; he beds two exotic girls, one of whom turns out to be treacherous tries to arrange for his death right after sex, the other a more innocent creature who becomes his ally. It's even got an opening sequence where Bond's mission interrupts him having sex with a hot woman (Madeleine Smith, a Hammer horror favourite) and a bit where the baddies try to kill Bond by sneaking a deadly animal into his hotel room (a snake here).

For all that this movie still has very much its own identity. For starters its got one of the best music scores in the series, especially the theme song. I also enjoyed the creepy voodoo-infested island on which most of the film is set; it had genuine atmosphere and colour, with deadly ceremonies, voodoo priests and graveyards, poppy fields, villain's lairs (you could imagine some great fan fiction set there).

Jane Seymour would be among the most beautiful Bond girls, almost achingly pretty at times, although her character is a whimp – she starts out so enigmatic and powerful with a spot on reading of cards (this is the most mystic of the Bond films) but then losing her virginity strips her of her power (gender studies writers would have a field day with this, particularly with Bond and the head villain arguing over ). The one positive of this is its dramatically interesting that Bond is so ruthless about seducing her for his own ends - he goes out of his way to use his sex appeal.

Yaphet Kotto’s Mr Big is not one of the most famous Bond villains but he’s pretty good - I've come to appreciate Kotto's skill as an actor more in recent years, he had tremendous presence and that great voice. (He is better as the politician than as Mr Big because he has that ridiculous make up... You're never fooled Mr Big and Kanaga are different people.)

He is also backed by one of the best line ups of henchmen in the whole series: the dancing Baron Samedi, one armed Teehee and fat deadly Whisper. Every single one of these is excellent; there is also a wide variety of sub-henchmen (eg the smiling cab driver, the fat assassin, the girl in the voodoo store in Harlem, the Voodoo priest, all those waiters who help Bond disappear at Fillet of Soul restaurants not once but twice). I don't think there's a Bond film where the baddies are so efficient; they always track down Bond relatively easily. Yes Kanaga does monologue and the killing of Bond is conveniently delayed a few occasions but its no way near as bad as Diamonds Are Forever. The baddies have the drop on Bond pretty much the whole film – it’s really only his ability to get Solitaire into bed which means he can save the day.

Writer Tom Mankiewicz redeems himself from Diamonds. He had a genuine gift of thinking up memorable "bits" – the double decker bus crashing on to the bridge, the escape from the crocodile farm (very clever), the tarot cards, killing the snake with a make shift blow torch, how Bond gets rid of Teehee. The film also offers a few interesting quirks for series fans – we see Bond’s apartment, the opening pre-credit sequence doesn’t involve Bond but the death of various agents around the world.

The film is a bit racist, even by Bond standards: white man beats black men by converting a white woman to the black cause – blaxploitation in reverse. The character of Rosie the traitor (the first African American to sleep with Bond) is also disappointingly whimpy and scared of voodoo, and it lacks black goodies (there are two small roles: Quarrell Jnr, who is basically a cab driver in this one, and Leiter's fellow agent Suttor who saves Bond's life and is later killed). In addition to that a redneck Southern sheriff who calls the black baddies "boy" is treated comically as opposed to villainous. (He's pretty dreadful as a character.)

At least it is less racist than the book (which contains the line "I like blacks… except when they’ve had a bit too much to drink of course") and does allow Quarrell to live at the end of the film – something which wouldn’t happen in Dr No and Licence to Kill. I think some of the criticism might have been lessened had they cast a black actor as Felix Leiter. Having said that, David Hedison is that rarest of beasts - an engaging, likeable Leiter; easily the best to date (not a very prestigious honour). I also think that Solitaire was meant to be played by a black actress (they might have figured Bond sleeping with one black girl was enough).

Two of the best scenes from the book weren’t used here for some reason, but popped up in later films – Felix Leiter’s torture (used in Licence to Kill) and Bond and Solitaire being dragged over rocks (later used in For Your Eyes Only).

Movie review – Bond#16 - “Licence to Kill” (1989) ***1/2

A film whose flat box office performance partly explains why the Bond films went into hibernation for six years. It doesn’t have much of a reputation but I’ve always liked it – I do recognise that it seems to take a while to get going, and never reaches top-flight Bond (it doesn't feel like a Bond movie so much as a Sly/Arnie revenge flick a lot of the time), but once it gets into gear its very enjoyable.

Various reasons have been floated for the film’s underwhelming reception by the American public – lots of competition at the time (eg Die Hard 2), a harder edged ‘darker’ Bond, Bond being a bit more PC. I don’t think the harder edged Bond matters – he’s not that hard edged anyway (one villain does get minced up another one explodes, but both things had happened before in previous Bonds), and it’s a good think he avenges Felix Leiter, particularly as they re-use Leiter’s injury from the book Live and Let Die (I’m surprised they waited that long to use it – not as surprised, though, as waiting until Die Another Day to use the brilliant opening from the Man with the Golden Gun book. I like how the also re-use some stuff from the short story The Hildebrand Rarity). Casino Royale showed that audiences could take a darker Bond.

Bond isn’t particularly PC here, either – he smokes, and sleeps with girls very quickly after meeting them. I think the main reason was the story – going undercover to bust a drug lord simply didn’t sound very exciting or exotic, and had been done to death throughout the 80s on TV shows like Miami Vice and Wiseguy. We expect Bond villains to be a bit more unusual. (Robert Davi gives an excellent performance by the way, and has a neat way with a funny line, but his character feels a bit too straight to video – you know he could pop up easily in too many other films). I also think Americans didn’t particularly like Timothy Dalton.

Some of the things I really liked about this one were: the scene where Bond attacks a boat full of enemies (a piece of business involving a spear gun and water skiing is a genuine classic), Benito del Torro’s henchman (his acting is a bit rough but the charisma is there, particularly with that tooth), the set up of the drug country based on Panama with the drug lord pretty much running everything, the use of a religious organisation as a front, Wayne Newton as a reverend who keeps a smile on his face even after he loses, the Alex P Keaton type character who is Davi’s financial adviser (not needed plot wise but an interesting twist), the fact that Q joins in the fun and becomes a field operative (presumably one of the reasons why Desmond Llewellyn said Dalton was his fave Bond – although Bond tells him to get back on a plane one too many times). They could have used the "rogue agent" stuff a bit more - the subplot of Bond having his licence revoked and the British secret service actually shooting at him had real potential but isn't used.

I remember at school the consensus was that Talia Soto should have been the proper Bond girl instead of Carey Lowell; watching it again, Soto seems to belong in the Bond universe more and has the right look, but she’s a pretty awful actress and a weak character whereas Lowell grows on you – she’s quite pretty and her character is a fighter. I still think they could have cast this with someone better, or at least not American (Americans seem to make the least effective Bond girls – Pussy Galore was good in Goldfinger but she was played by a Pom playing American; think of Lois Chiles in Moonraker, Tanya Roberts in View to a Kill, Denise Richards in The World is Not Enough, Halle Berry in Die Another Day).

NB this was the last Bond written by Richard Maibaum, who worked on scripts for pretty much all the Bonds up until then – he was very much an unsung hero of the series.

Movie review – “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves” (1937) *****

Still magical after all these years: the quality of the story helps, with some brilliant conceits (the mirror that tells you the truth - there's a whole new film in that, the huntsman swapping hearts, the seven dwarves looking after you, the poisoned apple), lots of romance, cuteness and comic relief, and pure evil from the Queen. The opening stuff with Snow and Prince Charming is a bit syrupy a la Nelson Eddy, but everything with the Queen is brilliant - the transformation scene is genuinely frightening as is when Snow gets lost in the forest. There are some super cute animals as well as the dwarves. I didn’t realise that here basically the dwarves kill the Queen by forcing her off the cliff top (vultures watch her fall then swoop down after – a neat touch) – way to go dwarves! Memorable songs, as well.

Movie review – “Dumbo” (1942) *****

The last of the films from Disney’s "classic" age, a group that started with Snow White and is meant to represent the best in Disney animation before it supposedly all went downhill (just like AC/DC with Bon Scott, The West Wing with Aaron Sorkin as head writer, James Bond with Sean Connery, etc) – interesting how no one seems to talk about The Reluctant Dragon when discussing this age.

This one was done on the cheap, has the less detailed animation and only runs 61 minutes. Nonetheless, it’s a masterpiece, chiefly because the story is so simple yet so strong. Dumbo is incredibly appealing, a silent likeable baby elephant who just wants to be loved. So, too, is Dumbo’s mother – you’ll break your heart when the bitchy elephants tease her about the baby and when she goes berserk to protect him later against humans. Few scenes are more satisfying, too, than when Dumbo flies. Timothy the mouse at first seems a bit flat but he grows on you. 

Many memorable moments: the antics of the clow, the gorilla who fixes up the broken bar on his cage, the drunken sequence (which at first I thought was padding put turns out to be crucial to the plot). On the issue of racial sensitivity: the men building the circus are faceless black people, and the crows who befriend Dumbo seem to be black stereotypes – but they are lively, independent creatures, good friends and full of sass, and identical to the sort of characters played by Chris Rock and Chris Tucker today.

Movie review - "Pinocchio" (1941) ****

Classic Disney cartoon made with love evident in every frame and contains two of the scariest sequences in cinema: the scene on Pleasure Island where boys turn into donkeys, and the bit inside the whale. Talk about an intense film - when people poo-poo kiddies films they should watch this. Just because a film is rated G doesn't mean it can't be a rollercoaster - this is a world where foxes lure little boys away to slavery, where actor managers kidnap their stars, where boys turn into donkeys and whales are really mean. Pinocchio has to save his father from drowning and he even drowns himself at the end. Some people find Pinocchio not that likeable - I didn't mind him but admit he's a bit dim and not given the chance to really earn Gipetto's devotion (Gipetto is a very sympathetic character), and it was probably a mistake to have Honest John waylay him twice.

Movie review - "Bambi" (1942) ***1/2

Fascinating to see down the years how much this influenced The Lion King - it starts with the birth of a prince, follows his adventures with some other cute animals including his future wife, involves loss against a foe, then a comeback. It some ways Bambi is a more grown up than less satisying film than The Lion King, which has a specific villain - the villain here in unseen Man. This is a pretty full on film, with man shooting down a bird, then Bambi's mum, then unleashing hounds on Bambi and causing a fire which destroys a forest. Would such a film get past the more politicised NRA today? These sequences give the film its' power - the moments of Bambi's mother's death and the final fire and dog sequence are deserved classics. For the rest, despite loving animation, it gets a bit weary at times - as Neal Gabler pointed out, there is not so much a story as a cycle. Its pretty and beautiful and all that, Thumber is engaging as is Flower. Mostly dated in the songs on the soundtrack in that early 40s harmony style. I like the way Bambi's dad has nothing to do with his son while he's growing up - when Bambi is born, dad is just standing on the cliff top looking studly.

Movie review - Tarzan #6 - "Tarzan's New York Adventure" (1942) ***

The final Weissmuller MGM Tarzan film sends things out on a high note. Tarzan in New York is a terrific idea, and the series receives a massive boost of energy with the new setting, which means that there is a decent size support cast for a change, lots of comedy and pleasing New York locations.

As usual the film starts with a safari (this time by plane) comprised with good and evil people - even Tarzan's getting used to it by now, he spots it straight away. The opening action sequence is pretty spectacular - the local natives who just want to kill white people have figured out Tarzan's trick's too and cut his rope! Then the action switches to the Big Apple - firstly its mostly comedy courtesy of Tarzan and Cheetah, then its action, including a dive from the Brooklyn Bridge and elephants coming to the rescue, at the circus.

Script problem: it isn't believable that the baddies are that keen on getting their hands on Boy (why didn't they reuse the Boy-is-from-a-rich-family stuff from Tarzan Finds A Son). The film has two awful, awful scenes: one where Cheetah is on the phone to a black New York man and the black man understands him (this was reused with Nazis in the Tarzan Triumphs but I'm sorry it's funny with Nazis but not black people - this scene is sometimes cut out), and one where Jane admits to Tarzan that she is wrong (just like she did in Tarzan Finds A Son - like that film she is "wrong" about something actually right, in this case for insisting Tarzan try to get Boy back through legal means.)

Movie review - Tarzan # 5 - "Tarzan's Secret Adventure" (1941) ***

Kind of the odd film out in the six Weismuller MGM Tarzan films: no introduction of major characters, no major location difference, no nudity, no legendary behind the scenes kerfuffle. Just all the familiar ingredients expertly rehashed: a safari comprised of good people and nasty people, a few swims, some romantic interludes between Tarzan and Jane (NB these two had the best sex life of any cinema couple - and the strongest relationship, too), Boy gets up to escapades involving wildlife (how cool would it have been as a kid to have your own elephant), the natives try to kill people and Tarzan comes to the rescue.

One gets the feeling the filmmaker's tongue was in their cheek a bit more: there's a scene were Jane tells Boy he doesn't need civilisation then tells him to get the caviar out of the fridge.

Tom Conway is silkily villainous, Barry Fitzgerald's stock stage Irish performance is surprisingly welcome in darkest Africa, and there is a spectacular climax - elephants to the rescue as usual, but in this case they attack natives in canoes.

The little black boy who Boy saves is about the closest thing the series comes to a positive black character - he's scared and a bit useless and needs the brave Boy to save him, but at least he's allowed to be friends with the family (cf all the porters who are either scared or being killed, or the natives who are vicious superstitious killers - mind you the argument could be made that they are simply being militant).

O'Sullivan is a bit perkier in this one than the last time. Watching it one is struck by the genuine warmth between the three leads, especially Weismuller-Sheffield and Weissmuller-O'Sullivan (O'Sullivan-Sheffield is less strong mainly because Jane really just stops Boy's fun) - it is a lovely family feeling. Oh, and Cheetah, too, of course.

Movie review - Tarzan # 4 - "Tarzan Finds a Son" (1939) ***

MGM still kept the quality of their Tarzan films high at this stage, and fresh blood was pumped in film no. 4 in the form of "Boy", the orphaned survivor of a plane crash who is raised by Tarzan and Jane. Some chuckle at the prospect of a boy appearing out of nowhere and think that it was to avoid the concept of the dynamic duo conceiving a child out of wedlock (though Jane says at one point she's married to him), but this device not only gives the story an exciting opening (Laraine Day registers strongly as the boy's real mother) but triggers the plot - we jump to three years later and the kid's rellies turn up looking for him (if I heard right he was a Greystoke, which is interesting).

The story does recycle several Tarzan elements: there's an expedition which is attacked by natives, the natives attack a group at the end and Tarzan has to save the day, there are swimming sequences, animals attack people for no real reason other than to liven up the plot. But it is fast paced and at least this film starts with Tarzan and Jane earlier.

If the first two films were fantasies for women (run off to the jungle, have wild sex with a hunk who you can boss around), this one is a fantasy for kids - lose your dull parents and be raised in a treehouse by two cool parents and play with wildlife - if it gets hairy Tarzan will rescue you. Johnny Sheffield is marvellous as Boy, a real charismatic feral child; he and Weismuller have great chemistry together. Maureen O'Sullivan isn't on top form here; she was pregnant and wanted out of the series (she was supposed to die at the end) and looks tired. Its a shame since there are some powerful dramatic scenes in the middle, with Tarzan and Jane arguing over what should happen to Boy (shame about the end where Jane tearfully admits that Tarzan was right).

The supporting cast is the strongest for a Tarzan film yet, with Ian Hunter, Frieda Insecort, Henry Stephenson and Henry Wilcoxon forming the key members of the safari - all turn in solid efforts (why was Inescort and Wilcoxon allowed to live? Amd why didn't they get together with Tarzan and Jane and say 'we don't want him alive you don't want to lose him let's make an arrangement'?)

Book review - "The Lion of Hollywood" by Scott Eyleman

One of the great "what if"s of Hollywood history - what if Louis B Mayer had not resigned in 1951, how would MGM have fared? The studio was on the slide before Dore Schary came to the studio, and Mayer lacked the ability to produce film's on an individual basis so might not have been able to adapt to the changing environment. But surely MGM would have had better years up until Mayer's death in 1957 - at the very least their record at recruiting stars would have been better. But maybe Mayer would have been dead against any change and avoided some of their co-production successes, so...

Mayer really should have died in 1946 - Hollywood at its peak, MGM at the peak of Hollywood. He lived another 11 years, the first of the moguls to die, which meant his reputation has suffered. Everyone who worked or almost worked for MGM has an LB Mayer story, mostly making fun of him or getting one over him. Eyleman adds that Mayer didn't like writers and writers write memoirs - he also copped the blame for destroying two of Hollywood's favourite martyrs: Judy Garland and Irving Thalberg. Eyleman seems to have been motivated to write this book partly by a desire to rehabilitate Mayer - something Charles Higham did in his 1992 biography. Eyleman seems to make a habit out of going over well covered topics eg John Ford - but he still manages to find something new - this is an excellent book.

I think he's a little hard on Dore Schary - Schary cops it from people but he came up with some excellent films eg Bad Day at Black Rock. He should have been an MGM producer, headed up a unit or something, not run the whole show - wrong person to handle the MGM gloss. (A big thing in Schary's favour is he was the first mogul to make a great success after he left movie making - he wrote a hit play and directed two others).

Could anyone have taken Mayer's place successfully? Lew Wasserman is the most likely - Mayer tried to entice him over to MGM in the late 1940s but Wasserman was happily ensconsed at MCA at that stage where he was pretty much top dog and he would have clashed with Mayer. Still, just as Mayer was Hollywood's leader in the 40s and 30s, so was Wasserman in the 60s and 70s - like Mayer, Wasserman knew how to schmooze politicians, took a long range view (also like Mayer his time would come, he ran out of vision and he found himself on the outer, a sad albeit rich man). Who else? Selznick's best days were behind him, ditto Wagner (though both would have been better than Schary). My own pick is Irene Selznick, Mayer's daughter - I think she would have been brilliant.

Mayer was a tyrant, but a very human one - he had rages, he'd cry, develop crushes, love movies. Capable of ruthlessness - the fact that his last few years were hard and his reputation suffered shouldn't fool everyone into thinking he was a lovable teddy bear. Much of the nostalgia for him is more nostalgia for the old ways. But he build a tremendous studio, and many stars owe their careers to him: Greer Garson, Garbo, etc. This book does him justice - I really liked it.

Movie review - Tarzan # 3 - "Tarzan Escapes" (1936) ***

The third MGM Tarzan is famous for being the one where the series became more family orientated in a post-production code way, and certainly there is evidence: Maureen O'Sullivan covers up her body, there is a domestic treehouse (a marvellous construct with various gadgets and what-not), Jane goes for a swim with her clothes on this time, there is more comic relief (more Cheetah and Herbert Mundin as a wacky porter). Also the film was totally re shot after audiences complained about graphicness of violence.

It's still not a G rated experience, though - the death toll remains high, Tarzan's troublesome neighbouring natives (who are always up for killing anyone who passes by) knock off a few porters by tying them to trees and ripping them apart, Porter is killed. As for sex, well Tarzan still wears next to nothing and there's a scene where he and Jane go away to a favourite lagoon and he literally deflowers her (its surprisingly explicit).

Parts of this film are quite tired - it takes Tarzan and Jane around 25 minutes to appear, and the adventures of the usual safari (some of Janes vanilla boring relatives - one of whom is played by Benita Hume, who was married to Ronald Colman and George Sanders - and a nasty game hunter) are too similar to the previous films (I'm positive that footage of battles is re-used). The original story sounds better: the Benita Hume character is a bit of a man eater and thus more interesting, the ghost bat sequence sounds spectacular as does the whirlpool (better than the ho-hum elephants coming to the rescue stuff here).

But there are still good things here: the tree house is a lot of fun, the comedy sequences work, the deaths by trees and whirlpools spectacular; most impressive is Johnny Weismuller's performance, as he gets to do some real emoting here, especially when he thinks Jane will leave him. He handles it very well.

Movie review - "Smash Palace" (1981) **

GGGDrama about the break up of a family - a popular genre in the late 70s and 80s, not just because of Kramer vs Kramer but because so many directors get divorced (Shooting the Moon, Jenny Kissed Me). Bruno Lawrence turns in a charismatic portrait of a mechanic and racing driver who is a bit of a loser, unable to communicate - no wonder his wife gets annoyed and has an affair. Lawrence isn't best at processing his feelings so he explodes into violence. The film is watchable, Roger Donaldson is a talented filmmaker, but it got a bit boring after a while, to be honest. Best scene was where Lawrence has sex with his wife after a big argument - trying to hump some life back into their relationship.

The DVD contains a doco on the making of the film. Very much a passion project of Donaldson, who seemed to sweep everyone up in his enthusiasm.

Movie review - Tarzan #2 - "Tarzan and His Mate" (1934) *** 1/2

Surprisingly adult considering it is (a) a Tarzan film and (b) from MGM - but then it was before the production code. Not really much of a story (searching for the elephant graveyard), it follows the same structure as the first film - setting out on the expedition which is almost wiped out, then Tarzan and Jane fluff around, then the expedition is almost wiped out again. In this case, though, the whole expedition is killed (there was one survivor before - this one has none, and throws in an earlier expedition to be wiped out as well).

The violence is very adult: the body count would be well over a hundred and the deaths are quite horrible, with stabbings and maulings, etc. Even more adult are Tarzan and Jane, living in sin in very skimpy costumes (Maureen O'Sullivan's shows nothing on the side); there's no doubt they are sleeping together, and a typical day seems to go like this: wake up, Tarzan tells Jane "I love you" (no wonder the films have appeal to women - move to Africa, live with a hunk who you can train up and have visiting men fight over you), go for a nude swim, be threatened with death by animals three times and have Tarzan save you (the film got a bit repetitive around this point), meet some ivory traders, have sex. Not a bad life provided you don't get eaten!

Despite the lack of story the action is spectacular and well done and the sex stuff fascinating. The two white men who lead the ivory hunting aren't very nice at all, continually sacrificing up their carriers and shooting elephants (Neil Hamilton is supposed to be a "nice" one because he isn't as bad but he still goes along with everything bad his mate does) - it's good that they both die. If there is an emotional through line its that Jane, who was all gung-ho about inviting Hamilton back to raid the elephant grave yard at the end of the first film, learns why Tarzan is upset about and decides to stay in Africa for good. Still has some wonky men in gorilla outfits but still a top notch adventure film.

Movie review - "Sleeping Dogs" (1977) **1/2

Historically important New Zealand film as it was the first big feature made there for ages, and it certainly launched several careers - director Roger Donaldson, star Sam Neill, writer/actor Ian Hume. All turn in strong efforts - Neil has charisma stamped all over him, the film moves along at a fair clip, production values are high (partly shot on the Coromandel Peninsula), there is action. The story has that 70s boomer sensibility: oppressive government, revolutionaries - it actually is quite believable, especially as the revolutionaries are shown to be quite ruthless, too - and we saw how hot things could get in New Zealand with the South African protests. The film is slightly hollow at the core - we don't know what the political context is (the government are just nasty), and since Neill doesn't want to get involved with anyone it makes it hard to care (he doesn't even want to clear his name or get into bed with a blonde like in a Hitchcock film - anyhow its a bit too dragged out for that sort of pacing and lacks a clear villain).

The DVD has a charming featurette on the making of the film - everyone was so keen to make it work, and they did. They wanted Jack Thompson to play a role but couldn't afford him - but they could get Warren Oates because he liked to fish in New Zealand!

Movie review - Tarzan #1 - "Tarzan the Ape Man" (1932) ***1/2

Not the first Tarzan film but many think of it as so because it was the first time Johnny Weismuller played that role. Weismuller is extremely good - physically right, charismatic, genuinely strange, a mixture of innocence and violence. Maureen O'Sullivan's Jane is also ideal: beautiful, handy with a gun, an adventurous spirit (she goes to Africa, unlike the books where Tarzan went to her in England), and an eye for flesh - there's little doubt what her attraction to Tarzan is based on and it's not conversation. Cheetah is also good - he is another improvement from the books.

While the story revolves around the non-PC search for an elephant graveyard, it should be pointed out that the expedition suffer constantly - losing carriers, falling off mountains, attacked by hippos (an excellent sequence with the hippos very well incorporated) and pygmies. Actually I think all but two members of the expedition die (all the blacks die, naturally).

Some laughable back projection at times and some of the monkey make up isn't the best, but the chemistry between the stars is very hot, the sexual politics fascinating, and it is full of adventure. There is some superb action, particularly the final fight with the pygmies throwing people into a pit and Tarzan coming to the rescue.

Movie review - "The Good Girl" (2004) **

The sort of movie a section of Hollywood has always enjoyed making about poor people - lots of accents, working class boredom and misery, making fun of religion and daggy fashion, sex. Jennifer Aniston is fine but this sort of role is not hard - put away some make up, do an accent and look miserable. Jake Gyllenhaul is allowed to be a bit more unusual, not much, but at least he can be manic. Strong cast - just an unremarkable film.

Movie review - "Hairpray" (1988) ***1/2

John Waters joyous valentine to Baltimore in the early 60s - hairspray, dancing, integration. I'm trying not to be smart in hindsight but it seems perfect fodder to turn into musical - an interesting setting, logical format for songs to start, serious subplot a la Rodgers and Hammerstein. I've only listened to the songs in the musical but it seems the musical is a bit more fun - more spectacular numbers, a larger climax - but this one is full of strengths: the sets, colour, period detail, casting (Ricki Lake was discovered and launched here - she was a big girl), songs on the soundtrack, wit.

The DVD has a commentary from Waters (funny - apparently there was no integration in real life) and Lake (a bit more irritating - why she recognises the film launched her whole career, she still whines about having to dye her hair blonde and have cockroaches in her hair, and mentions several times she was a virgin during making of the film and didn't lose it til she made Cry Baby - did we need to know this?). Possibly Pia Zadora's best film - she's a hoot.

Play review - "Holding the Man" (2006)

Tommy Murphy's brilliant adaptation of Tim Conigrave's memoir about love and AIDs. Points to the fact that Conigrave isn't an especially likeable character - selfish and self-centred, not half the person his lover is. A moving and touching tale with a powerful wallop. Points lost to the lesbian caricature but the rest is perfect.

Movie review - JL#7 - "The Bellboy" (1960) **1/2

People make fun of the French for 'worshipping' Jerry Lewis, but there's no denying he is a talented man and certainly this was a remarkable directing debut - he wrote, produced, directed and acted in this within a six month period in order to fill a gap in Paramount's schedule; he also financed it! No real story (it sort of builds towards a possible bell boy strike), just gags - which makes it a bit tiring at times, even at only a little over 70 minutes. It would have helped also if the film had been in colour. Some of the gags are very funny, though, and the film is consistently inventive and "far out" and actually filming it in Miami helps. Lewis was obviously inspired by Frank Tashlin but its still a bold debut.

(The DVD has some top extras with a handsome and confident Lewis looking confident on the set, and Jerry doing with DVD commentary for some reason with singer Steve Lawrence.)

Book review - "King of Comedy: Jerry Lewis" by Shawn Levy

Loved this book. Levy tackles the erratic genius Jerry Lewis, who owned the 50s (and its sibling, the early 60s) as few other entertainters before him. After a few years of struggle and a horrible childhood (had no idea his parents were in the biz) he teamed with Dean Martin and became a smash - they rode post war America and became a sensation on film, radio, TV and stage.
Levy offers some excellent analysis of the appeal of their humour and their talents, putting it in context of the time. He also places as much emphasis on tv and stage as the films, which is important since the former are more ephemeral. (It seems TV captured their appeal better, in a way).
The duo blasted their way through a series of hugely popular films, none of which really is regarded as anything near a classic. Eventually they split, something which seems inevitable considering their differing abilities and fact that they didn't really need each other. Lewis continued his amazing popularity, and branched into directing - some of those films are regarded as classics - well The Nutty Professor anyway and bits of the others.
Levy correctly pinpoints the turn of the tide for Lewis around 1963 with the high water mark of The Nutty Professor followed by the failure of his TV show. 1963 was kind of the real dawn of the "60s" (the official end of the 1950s) and Lewis soon found himself on the downward slope - he did try to change his image but the public never really bought it. This combined with a large ego and a back injury which saw him develop problems.
Lewis was so admirable in many ways - brilliant comic, started directing when people treated him as a joke, practically inventing the video assist, writing a very good book on directing - but such a prick as well - an uncontrollable monster, too often settled for good enough, horrible to his family - it's hard to admire him. He is fascinating.
The 1970s to 90s make depressing reading at times - he even copped it for his charity work (an ethically fascinating topic in the book) - but he had enough good moments to make it not too wrist slashing: a fine performance in King of Comedy and Wise guy (Lewis didn't work nearly enough with other top line talent), a Broadway hit in Damn Yankees (something that fortunately allows the book to end on something of a high). Rich material for several films: Jerry and Dean, Jerry and Patti (his first wife), Jerry and the MDA. Marvellous.

Movie review - "Wimbledon" (2004) ***

Not many people like this film but I really enjoyed it - combining two of my favourite genres, sports movie and romantic comedy. The direction keeps it lively and the film's basic concept has the charm of the improbable - namely, a Pom winning Wimbledon. Kirsten Dunst is perfectly cast as the bratty American pro; I wasn't totally sold on Paul Bettany but he's quite likeable. Some of the supporting characters really hit the mark: the squabbling parents, the ball boy who becomes Bettany's good luck charm, his German training partner. But it throws some opportunities away wholesale - not using Sam Neill father character enough (this cries out to be turned into Damir Dokic) or the agent, the irritating brother character, the under-developed American pro rival (was the film reluctant to go for the jugular against Americans?) I note howeven though Bettany is supposed to be poor he can still afford to stayat the Dorchester (the Dorchester plugs are a little annoying)

Movie review - "The Prestige" (2006) ***1/2

Bit of a story to watching this: went to the cinema to watch something, anything - ended up going to Eragon, couldn't go past 15 minutes (Girl Zone hero who can't act, dragons, important stone, evil king - it was like something written and made by a computer), so decided to see something else. It was George St in Sydney - 16 theatres so could find something, right? Well, we'd seen Casino Royale and The Departed, couldn't face A Scanner Darkly or Saw III. Eventually picked this and didn't regret it.

Chris Nolan is a top director even when not at the exact top of his game - the film has a beautiful look, and fairly spanks along with some non-linear editing. Chris Bale and Michael Caine come off best from the cast - Hugh Jackman is a bit too naturally nice, and Scarlett Johannson, while looking splendid in a series of outfits, still comes across a bit high school musical. I kept wishing that Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff played the leads. You'll probably spot the twist but I still found it satisfying.

Book review - "The Sewing Circle" by Axel Madsen

Another look at lesbians in Hollywood. Same stars as the McClelland book, with a bit more Barbara Stanwyck, and contextualising about homosexuality at the time. Enjoyable peering behind doors but still suffers a similar problem, relying on unreliable memoirs and hearsay.

Book review - "The Girls: Sappho Goes to Hollywood" by Diana McLellan

A look at lesbians in Hollywood, with focus on the usual suspects: Mercedes de Acosta, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich. Marlene apparently was quite nice (just totally uninhibited), Greta a bitch - both of which is believable. This book has a political dimension, with Marlene being best friends with a commie spy, which takes up a bit of space in the book.

Movie review - "Anchorman: the Ron Burgundy Story" (2004) ***1/2

Will Ferrell and friends take on 70s newsreading, with a serious subtext (the arrival of a female newsreader) beautifully integrated. Ferrell is in fine form and goes off on some wonderful tangents when he talks - every line seems fresh and new (I particularly liked his exclamations). The support actors are very fine as well, with a stand out turn from Steve Carrell and the dog.

My favourite moment is the newsreader rumble, a moment of pure comic genius, complete with severed arms and assassinations with tridents (I'm from Brisbane, and I couldn't help imagine Bruce Paige doing it with Frank Warrick and company). The cameos are enjoyable, including Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughan, Tim Robbins and Luke Wilson (remember when he was famous enough to make cameos?). Occasionally it goes a bit overboard and gets too mean.

Movie review - "Casino Royale" (2006) *****

Stunningly good Bond film, the best in a long time. It starts with a bang: some black and white photography, as if to say "wake up and pay attention... we know what we're doing". So you do wakeup and are rewarded with a great movie.

The one it reminds me of most is my favourite, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, for a number of reasons: it has an odd structure (lots of explosive action set pieces, then settles into drama - kind of the opposite of OHMSS), it is quite faithful to the source material (the most since OHMSS), has a first-time Bond who excels in fight scenes, Bond genuinely falls in love and loses that love.

Daniel Craig is terrific, best since Connery - I can't believe people were launching petitions against him, esp in favour of Vanilla Brosnan (poor Brosnan, he did a decent job but that seems forgotten now in all this panting over Craig). Craig is top notch in the fighting scenes and decent in the romance; not as strong in the quips department, yet, but pretty good first time out. He really seems like a killer - the haunted eyes, professional movies; Lewis Collins is the one who would have been closest to him.

The film also has a superb Bond girl in the stunning, sad-eyed Eva Green (so beautiful, so tragic), a worthy villain in Mads Mikkelsen (who cries blood) and not one but two brilliant sidekicks: Jeffrey Wright is the first strong Felix Leiter ever, and made me angry that this character had been basically thrown away for so long; it's also got Giancarlo Giannini as the weary Mathis.

The story is so powerful it didn't need the extra kick of being the story of how Bond got established - that is material, really for another film. But since it is there, who cares? The locations are pleasingly exotic, the action sequences breathtaking - fights in Africa, a car chase at Miami; there is also decent suspense when Bond is poisoned.

Some of it slightly jarred - in the terrific opening fight scene, did we have to keep cutting away from it; there was one ending too many; the theme song was uninspiring; I got confused by Vesper's acts at the end But the strengths are so strong: the acting, the genuine exotic flavour (scenes set in Africa, few American characters), sense of humour, the action, and most of all sense of romanticism and drama which powers it.

Movie review – “LA Confidential” (1997) ****1/2

Stunningly good adaptation of a very complex novel, which hits home runs across the board: from its production design (striking yet it feels real – often tricky with costume films), atmosphere, marvelous script, exciting action and top notch cast. Russell Crowe had “future star” stamped on his forehead since Romper Stomper but casting Guy Pearce was genius – he’s perfect as the smarmy goody two shoes cop. Aussies will feel patriotic when it’s left to these two to save the day. 

Kevin Spacey is also good as a glitzy cop who discovers his humanity; ditto James Cromwell. Actually everyone in this film is on target. You need to read the original novel to appreciate what a tremendous job the writers did – some brilliant screenwriting here, notably the use of “Rolo Timisi” (or whoever he is) three times, all in three different ways. 

William Goldman thought the ending was a bit Pollyanna, but honestly after all the characters have been through I didn’t mind. Did agree with him that the stuff about heroin was a bit confusing.

Movie review – “American Pie” (1997) ***1/2

Whoever would have thought in the late 90s they’d still be making films about four guys who make a pact to get paid by the end of the year? And that it would be a massive hit? Well, deservedly so, for the filmmakers had adroitly mixed gross humour (the pie scene), genuine sexiness (Shannon Elizabeth on the internet) and high school satire (one time at band camp) with unexpectedly daggy humour (Eugene Levy’s father) and pure sweet schmaltz (Chris Klein romancing Mena Survi). They were assisted by some incredibly astute casting: has any film in recent years launched this many (admittedly B-grade) careers? Elizabeth, Sean William Scott, Survi, Klein, Jason Biggs, Tara Reid, even Eugene Levy and Jennifer Coolidge (both known before but given a huge boost by the film); Alyson Hannigan and Natasha Lyonne were already reasonably well known. Certainly a film that hit the zeitgeist, and still funny.

Movie review – “The Castle” (1997) ****

Number 96 proved Australian films could look visually ugly and still be popular, and this film reinforced it over 20 years later. A simple concept, beautifully realized through the skill of the writing and the quality of the acting. Michael Caton is excellent in a difficult role, the support cast is a stand out (Working Dog have always been strong on casting – here they discovered Stephen Curry), Bud Tingwell lends some needed third act gravitas and humanity (one of the most touching moments in the film is when he and Caton genuinely become friends – the other concerns the brother in gaol), a simply warm and wonderful ending sequence. Occasionally the making fun of working class people becomes a little caricatured (Anne Tenney’s performance), and it’s a shame we couldn’t have heard more of Tingwell’s final speech instead of using voice over. But a marvelous film which deserved its success.

Movie review - The Black Dahlia (2006) **

James Ellroy isn’t the easiest writer to adapt but LA Confidential proved it can be done – that was superior in every way to this effort, which botches an atmospheric tale despite the talent of people involved. LA Confidential had vivid characters and a plot that, while tricky, could be followed – this should have both those things but has neither.

Casting doesn’t help – Josh Harnett is way too vanilla and lightweight for his role (crying out for Bob Mitchum, or a young Russell Crowe or even Heath Ledger); ditto Scarlett Johansen – the two of them seem like kids in a high school play. Even Hilary Swank falters, too, though she’s a bit better; Aaron Eckhardt is better as well, though his descent into obsession is poorly developed. 

There are far too many shots of people smoking (it just gets irritating) and people wear costumes and hairstyles like they’re costumes not clothes. Brian de Palma’s films often have a slightly operatic, non-realistic touch - sometimes it works, here it doesn’t. 

The supporting actors do not save the day, and many scenes are awfully staged (like the final denouement). The film looks handsome, there is some well staged action and a creepy sequence where Hartnett finds the murder sight. But the film is a bit of a mess and a big disappointment.

Movie review - Waiting (2004) ***

I approached this film with some trepidation – Clerks set in a restaurant – but was surprised to find it clever, warm and delightful. OK, maybe not “warm”, but a lot better than I thought it would be. Had a lovely feeling of reality and authenticity (that slightly hedonistic early 20s restaurant world of drugs, alcohol and sex), the cast had real camaraderie, the characters were recognizable (the girl who hates the world who works in hospitality, the lady killer with a taste for high school girls, the Lolita-like vixen at front counter, the two bus boys who slack off and want to be rap stars, the manic chefs), the running gag about showing genitals genuinely funny. 

There are flaws, which struck me more after seeing the film: the female characters are under-utilised (Anna Faris is wasted, in particular – you keep expecting her to do something but she only gets to have one monologue), Ryan Reynolds is a little too old for his role, the device of having a wise old black man as a yoda figure is irritating. It’s pleasing to see Justin Long playing slightly less wimpy than usual.

Movie review - Corman #6 - "Gunslinger" (1956) **1/2

Roger Corman is not known for his westerns, nor is writer Charles Griffith, but they teamed for this taunt early effort which holds up surprisingly well. It starts with a couple of socko moments: Beverly Garland takes her sheriff husband dinner only to see him shot – and she shoots one of the killers; then at the funeral she sees another of the killers and shoots him then and there! Then she goes and has a fist fight with the woman who runs the local saloon (Alison Hayes).

The film never quite recaptures the momentum of those three moments, although it has an energy and imagination that belies its low budget (which is painfully evident in the saloon sequences). The story turns into a sort of retread of Johnny Guitar, with Hayes hiring John Ireland to do away with Garland but falling for her. The film gets points by having us guess what Ireland will do right up to the end. With its strong female leads I thought the film might be better known as it is as a feminist piece (it does have some reputation). 

A debit perhaps might be Garland – she’s accomplished enough and she grew on me, its just that she doesn’t quite fill what is a terrific role. (Hayes is more charismatic) I got a kick out of the scene where the dance hall girls try to hang Garland.

Movie review – “Platinum High School” (1960) **

The rash of Albert Zugmsith films that followed at MGM in the wake of High School Confidential often had good ideas and interesting casts but tended to lack the care that could have made them special. This one has a terrific exploitation concept – a dad arrives at a military academy to investigate the death of his son. Said academy is located on an island surrounded by sharks and is run for trouble-making children, a ripe exploitation storyline if there was one.

But the filmmakers do very little with it. The death was mysterious, there’s bullying going on. Ho-hum. There’s no real sense of creepiness or unease or storyline apart from the dad asking questions and people taking pot shots at him. This is a film ripe for remake.

The other key flaw of the film is the casting of the father. Mickey Rooney is an actor of tremendous talent and energy and his performance here is accomplished and professional – but at the end of the day he’s still Mickey Rooney, and its no fun to see Mickey Rooney playing a hard-arse (particularly an ex-Marine capable of beating up other marines). It’s not his height, I would have bought Jimmy Cagney in this role, its his Mickey Rooney factor; they should have rewritten the part more to accommodate him.
Mamie Van Doren’s absence is felt, though Terry Moore tries her best in a Mamie Van Doren-like part she isn’t as good. Yvette Mimieux appears in her first role I believe; a thankless part in which she just rocks up to wear an (admittedly pleasing) bikini, and then to nearly get raped.

Oh, the bullying cadets are a bit vanilla, too, especially the blonde leader, and the music soundtrack a bit jarring.

To take a walk on the positive side, the acting is of strong standard (Dan Duryea plays head of the school, Elisha Cook Jnr is in there too) and the action sequences are well done and the film is done with some conviction. Like a lot of these Zugsmith films the son of a famous actor is in the cast, in this case Harold Lloyd Jnr.

Movie review - Corman #16 - "Sorority Girl" (1957) **

In the late 1950s Roger Corman was found directing "women stories" as much as sagas about aliens from outer space. This brisk number is about a bitchy college student (Susan Cabot) who causes trouble at a sorority, being mean and causing blackmail. Thing is, the bitch is a three dimensional character - not simply evil, but because she comes from a rich unloving family, is excluded and unpopular (the fact that Cabot looks older than the others contributes to this). She wrecks a bit of havoc, not as much as you'd like - slaps around one girl, encourages another to blackmail a person into thinking he's the father of her baby - but in its way the film was a bit of a trend setter, it was years before Heathers. Unfortunately its a man at the end who saves the day (Dick Miller as a student politician). Strong performance from Cabot and decent support from others; runs a little over an hour.

Movie review - "Girls Town" (1959) **

Kind of a remake of Boys Town with Mamie Van Doren instead of Mickey Rooney playing a delinquent sent away to a sort of reform school run by nuns (who drive around in a car with "girls town" written on the side).

That's a terrific idea, and certainly parts of this film is fun, particularly Van Doren in her tight pants and constantly looking for men the moment she gets there.
But it makes the crucial mistake of not concentrating on Van Doren and her conflict with the nuns (there needed to be a main nun who she really locked horns with) and instead spending too much time on musical acts (such as the Platters) and Paul Anka, who plays an underage pop star stalked by a Girls Town in-mate - instead of being annoyed and terrified by this Anka tries to help her out and ends up saving the day. 

There is a bit of girl power solidarity plus a drag race that's just like the one in Grease, Mel Torme as a hoodlum, Anka singing 'Ave Maria' to Van Doren in a church; Anka also sings 'Lonely Boy'.

Book review – “Million Dollar Mermaid” by Esther Williams

Million dollar whiner, more likely. This bio of the famous star, a genuine box office giant for a few years after World War Two with her aquatic musicals (considered the second if not third tier of the classic MGM musicals) is fascinating – the mere concept of Esther Williams alone is fascinating – but also reveals Esther to be a real whiner.

She whines her family didn’t love her enough, she missed out on the Olympics, she was sexually harassed by Johnny Weismuller (sounds believable), sexually harassed by just about everyone , had a lousy job, joined MGM who gave her a hard time, made films which was really really hard, never got respect from Louis B Mayer but he was better than Dore Schary who was awful (because he gave Athena to Jane Powell and tried to get Stanley Donen to direct a film with her – how evil!), had lousy plots, got a hard time from Debroah Kerr about her films, married a dull doctor who didn’t want kids, then married an alcoholic gambler, then married a former film star who wouldn’t let her see her kids, had directors who didn’t care, had agents who didn’t care, etc, etc.

Williams goes on and on about having to do everything for herself, as if the world owed her a living – she achieved so much on her own but doesn’t seem to take much enjoyment out of it, except when she talks about swimming, for which she seems to have had a genuine love. This book could have used a few more laughs. Instead we get lots of bitching and talks about erections, particularly Fernando Lamas’.

I mean, I liked it, particularly evocation of MGM at the time, portraits of directors like I-don’t-care Mervyn Le Roy, just-shoot-it Richard Thorpe (who Esther tries to slag but he comes across quite engaging, hating actors and asking Esther not to be too cheerful in the morning) and boozing Busby Berkeley (the one filmmaker she seemed to really respect), plus producers like Sam Katz (who tried to get her in to bed all the time but actually did a lot of good for her career) and the bland leading men she was saddled with including Peter Lawford and Ricardo Montalban. I just wished she took a walk on the sunny side every now and then – no one made her marry three duds (she stuck with number two and three a long time), or lose all her money (she could have kept an eye on it). How about a few laughs?

What makes her a bitch in particular is her reaction when she discovered Jeff Chandler was a cross dresser – although they’d gone out for years, he was a lovely guy, etc, he liked to wear a dress and Esther freaked out, told him to see a therapist. What a cow. Aussies will find interesting the section on making Million Dollar Mermaid (Annette Kellerman met her and said she wished Esther was Australian – good on you, Annette)

Movie review – “Whistle Stop” (1946) ***

Ava Gardner came to the movies via an MGM contract but despite her beauty and off-screen fame (she was married to Mickey Rooney and Artie Shaw), the studio used her for little more than walk ons. 

This film was crucial to her career because it gave her a decent role, one that eventually led to her casting in The Killers, which made her a star. Ava is stunning and already quite an accomplished actor playing a girl who returns to a small town to sell her house and see how she feels about her n’er-do-well former boyfriend (George Raft). 

It’s an entirely decent drama, with some interesting characters: Raft is a useless bum who still has tickets on himself, Tom Conway the smooth guy who wants Gardner and can’t stand how she loves Raft, Victor McLaglen as a bartender who suggests murder. The script was written by a superior talent, Philip Yordan, who knows how to convey a tale of small town seediness (bars, train stations, dance halls), laced with tough dialogue. Raft is quite good playing a loser.

Movie review – “High School Confidential” (1958) ***

A camp classic that remains heaps of fun to watch and is actually a well made film, as many efforts from director Jack Arnold were. Despite the “serious” narration at the end and some “serious” talks about the peril of drugs (which are never made fun of), you can’t help but feel the filmmakers had a tongue shoved in their cheek at times (I would love to read about the behind the scenes of this).
The two best things about the film are the dialogue (tonnes of slang, brilliantly beat-influenced – there is even a performance by an attractive female beat poet, and John Drew Barrymore does a slang version of the story of Columbus) and Mamie Van Doren as Russ Tamblyn’s horny large-breasted aunt.
The rest of the cast is fascinating: Barrymore (looking very much like a skinny version of his father) shows real talent in a sort of snarling sub-Elvis baddy performance, Diane Jurgens (sort of a poor man’s Anne Francis) scores strongly as a marijuana-addicted school girl (she has quite a hot scene where she tries to seduce Tamblyn), Jan Evans as the Eisenhower school teacher (who flirts with Tamblyn before its revealed he’s a cop – interesting sub-currents there), Jackie Coogan as the smart drug dealer (who won’t touch alcohol or drugs), a young Michael Landon as the leader of the decent kids, plus other sons of Hollywood royalty: Charles Chaplin Jnr and William Wellman Jnr.
It’s not a dumb movie either: although you may giggle at talk of the evils of marijuana, Tamblyn is also trying to stop the heroin trade; parents of school kids are shown to be ignorant of what their kids get up to.
There is a drag race, a performance from Jerry Lee Lewis, but the action highlight is an extremely well done climatic fight in a blacked out diner between Tamblyn and Coogan, with Landon and his pals helping out – they throw chairs and plates and tables, knives flash, guns fire, dancer Tamblyn leaps around athletically and it matched by a surprisingly nimble Coogan. It is a very well done sequence.
The skill of this is kind of ruined by then having a narrator talk about the school girl who has given up marijuana and “limits herself to normal cigarettes”.

Movie review – Errol #17 - “Virginia City” (1940) ***

Errol Flynn wasn’t the most obvious Western star in the world but Dodge City made buckets of dough, so Warners ushered him into this follow up. Its an odd sort of film – given a large budget and the A treatment (strong support cast, directed by Michael Curtiz, exec produced by Hal Wallis), it has an excellent central idea (during the Civil War, confederates try to smuggle $5 million out from Virginia City to help the war effort), but feels a little rushed in places: for instance, it’s a bit of a coincidence that Errol figures out about the shipment and takes off after his old gaoler Randolph Scott (why didn’t they just have Errol overhear it in prison?), Errol doesn’t really do much undercover work, the film goes on a bit too long.

There is also a major flaw in the casting of Miriam Hopkins as the love interest – she is given large billing, below Errol’s but just as big a font, she was a name at the time – but she is not very pretty, a poor actor and does not match well with Errol at all, who needs a bit of spunk in his female co-stars, not bland sandpaper. It’s a great role, you get to be a spy, act the Southern belle, sing in a dance hall, romance Errol Flynn and be pursued by Randolph Scott, shoot marauding bandits, plea to Abraham Lincoln – but Hopkins stuffs it. If only the other leading ladies at Warners had played it - Olivia de Havilland, Alexis Smith, Ann Sheridan, etc. Scenes which should have been winners – Hopkins being put in turmoil by conflicting loyalties, singing in a dance hall outfit – are sunk by her charisma and talent by-pass.

There is some compensatory emotional kick from Randolph Scott, who plays Errol’s adversary turned eventual ally (when northern and southerner realise that despite their differences they’re going to have to team up in order to beat off Mexicans). Humphrey Bogart is fun as said Mexican – he was only a year away from stardom, but still had to take assignments like these. The film has plenty of action and there is always something going on – Civil War history buffs will be intrigued by cameos from Lincoln and Jeff Davis, plus an early scene at Libby Prison.

Movie review – “The Beat Generation” (1959) **1/2

From the producer of High School Confidential which features many of the same cast and is set partly around the world of beatniks, but isn’t as nearly as much fun, mostly because the tone of the story is nasty and the ‘hero’ so unsympathetic. Ray Danton (very charismatic) is a rapist running loose, occasionally with best friend Jim Mitchum; Steve Cochran plays the investigating cop who is so misogynistic that he never believes the rapists victims – even when one of them turns out to be his wife.
Cochran is such a prick, nastily interrogating the victims (Danton frames them to make it seem like they ask for it) that it is uncomfortable – but the film doesn’t endorse his point of view (other, nicer characters call him on it), so in the end it makes the film more interesting, to have such a weird protagonist.
How weird? Instead of doing things like talking to witnesses and take fingerprints, he just follows the rape victims around because he “just knows” one will meet up with the rapist again. He turns out to be right – in this case the victim (or rather near victim) is Mamie Van Doren (who Jim Mitchum set out to rape but was held up by the fact Mamie was up for it).
It’s an intriguing story (Richard Matheson was one of the writers) on which the beat setting feels tacked on – Danton hangs out with beatniks but doesn’t really dig their scene. The finale has Cochran chasing Danton but they kept being interrupted by partying beatniks then they fight it out underwater.
To throw some extra stuff into the mix, Louis Armstrong sings the title song about beatniks and appears in a scene (Cochrane asks him to make a phone call for him – why don’t you do it yourself, Armstrong?), Cochrane’s wife gets pregnant to the rapist and we have a scene where a priest talks her out of getting an abortion, the cast includes Vampira as a poet. A bit of a mess, but for all that a watchable film, quite grown up and serious in places, particularly about men’s attitude to women and rape.

Movie review – “Lumumba” (1998) ***

Lumumba was the Congo politician who copped it from the Western press because of his anti-imperial comments and links to Russia, but he died early into the job and certainly couldn’t have been worse than Mobutu. Does anyone really think Lumumba would have been better? Probably not – but he couldn’t have been worse, and he didn’t deserve to be killed. Foolish superpowers, playing their cold war games in Africa, backing dictators if it meant the other side didn’t get in. This film treats him sympathetically, a kindly family man and loyal friend, although it doesn’t shy away from showing him to be a troublemaking firebrand. Tshombe comes out of it awfully, fully implicated in Lumumba’s murder; so, too, does the Belgian government and companies who thought they could rue the Congo by proxy. Like most Congo stories, ultimately depressing because you know it all ended badly. The budget is well used. The device of having the film narrated by the corpse works.

Movie review – “Sink the Bismark” (1960) ***

Most British war films of the 1950s were met with indifference by the American public but this one was an expected hit, despite being about an event with no American involvement. Ed Murrow provides some commentary, the film was given a PR push by 20th Century Fox, the Dana Wynter character receives an offer to work in America. Perhaps also audiences appreciated the no-nonsense presentation of an enthralling story – there is little comic relief apart from a few one liners from cockneys, little romance apart from Wynter making eyes at Kenneth More, little human drama apart from More (whose character is the most ficticious element in the film) becoming more human and fearing he’s lost his son. In a nice change the admiral of the Bismark is a psycho nazi rather than a good German – also there is still a good German character, the captain. The model work, and special effects are very well done and realistic. The events portrayed with general accuracy – for all the ship’s power, it was mostly undone by an old plane! (that wasn’t the whole story, of course, but it was crucial)

Book review – “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe”

Sequel to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy takes more time over its descriptions and gives practically all the action to Zaphod, with Douglas Adams figuring out he’s the most interesting character. Trillion does nothing, Arthur Dent hardly anything til the end, and Ford Prefect only a few things (he blossoms when Zaphord isn’t around). An excellent book nonetheless, with several stand out set pieces of dazzling brilliance: the restaurant, the perspective vortex, the country where its always sunset on a piece of tropical coastline, and most of all the ship containing management consultants at the like. This bit is best of all, and, once the ship lands on the planet, unexpectedly moving and poignant.

Movie review – “I Was a Teenage Werewolf” (1957) ***

The silly title caused this film to become a joke on its release (and helped it to a healthy box office gross, becoming I believe the first blockbuster of the newly-formed AIP) but its actually a superior 50s horror film. The story is intelligent and treated with seriousness: Michael Landon is strong as the tormented teen who becomes a werewolf through the efforts of an unscrupulous shrink (an appropriately chilly Whit Bissell). Adults are not to be trusted in this one, whether turning people into werewolves, hassling kids, or stopping Landon from dating their daughter – no wonder teenagers loved it. The cops are mostly sympathetic – men caught in a difficult situation. Werewolf transformation and make up often bring laughs (even as recent as Wolf) but its pretty good here. The first half is better than the second – the werewolf rampage is disappointingly limited, and the character of the girlfriend underused. But it is thoughtful and well done. Mike Nichols, director of Wolf, once argued that his film would have been more popular if it had deal with vampires, since vampires strike a chord with people that werewolves don’t. I disagree, and would argue that Wolf simply misunderstood the nature of the appeal of werewolf films – namely, that they are tragedies, with a decent person turned into a killer because of circumstances beyond his control. The classic werewolf films, like The Wolf Man, An American Werewolf in London and this one, understood that. Transcript is here.

Movie review – Borat (2006) ***1/2

In terms of pure laughs, the funniest film of the year so far, with Sacha Cohen in extremely good form as the unintentionally obnoxious TV reporter. The film is a bit mean when it comes to poor old Kazhakstan, portraying the country as full of prostitutes, rapists, anti-Semites and gypsies. It’s a tribute to Cohen that his character retains some endearing qualities – mainly because he has such a bad time. The core of the film follows the Ali G formula of having a person ask offensive questions to a nonplussed guest. No wonder this film is popular in America as Americans come out of it pretty well – most of the people in this multicultural society Borat meets are tolerant, polite and friendly (even Pamela Anderson). How real is the film? Are all the lawsuit stories real or plants? Many funny moments: the nude wrestling match, the posh dinner party, the rodeo. It could do with a little more story, though – the format (Borat meets someone) gets a little monotonous; the film needs a subplot (one is kind of provided with his producer character but this is not really developed enough to give it the weight of, say, Spinal Tap).

Book review - "Jonestown" by Chris Masters

Eagerly awaited bio of the broadcast which, like Jones himself, probably won't mean much to people outside of Sydney. Why is Jones so popular in Sydney but nowhere else? (cf John Laws) People turn off from Today when he appears on it. That issue really isn't dealt with in the book. A lot else is, though - Masters does a thorough job on Jones' background, his childhood in the Queensland country, school at Toowoomba, teachers education, working at Ironside then BGS, then Kings, Oxford and eventually rugby and radio. I listened to Jones' show a few times and I think the overall secret to his appeal is certainty - he is astonishingly and overwhemingly certain. I also think he's a bit mad - you can see it in the eyes, and its reinforced by the refusal to believe he's wrong. Masters points out the patterns in his life: hard work, causes, playing favourites, a tendency for favour handsome young men (something we shouldn't be surprised we see it all the time with elder men and pretty young women). It seems he has never ever had a long term romantic relationship, which is sad - and a shame because it might have made him calm down a little bit. Jones' campness and old country town manners/mother love is very Australian - as is his use of sport to fit in a boof head society.

The book has received flak from exploring Jones' homosexuality. I think its fair enough this be looked into - any look at Bob Hawke's life, say, would have to explore his drinking and womanizing - but sometimes it felt as though it went too far: such as an account from a male hooker about an encounter with Jones. I mean, it was interesting on one level, and does sketch a portrait of the man - as a portrait of anyone having sex would - but it felt this went a bit too far. I appreciate Masters’ argument that it is revealing to Jones’ personality how he deals with a male prostitute (or courtesan, or what you will) – but it feels a bit uncomfortable. That argument would apply for any figure you do a biography on, it would be uncomfortable in that case, too. (It’s a bit off how Masters gives Jones’ would-be lover some respectability by saying “Jones met his match” in him – I mean, the kid was basically a rent boy.) I found the stuff about rugby and radio the most interesting, also teaching being a BGS old boy; the stuff about NSW politics was a little duller, as stuff about NSW politics tends to be unless you're really into crime, traffic and corruption.

Movie review - "Dillinger" (1945) ***

Taunt, brisk gangster film with a young slim and with-hair Lawrence Tierney in the title role. It covers Dillinger's first foray into serious crime and goes up til his death - so there is a fair bit of re jigging of the facts. It includes the two most famous pieces: his escape from gaol with a wooden gun and the final shoot out outside the cinema. Dillinger's moll is reduced to one woman, but it moves briskly, Philip Yordan's script is laced with tough dialogue and memorable touches (such as the grape loving gangster); it also has a superior cast including Elisha Cook Jnr.

Movie review - "Robocop" (1987) ****

The memories of some poor sequels fade and this action film still stands up. Paul Verhoeven proved an inspired choice for this sort of satirical sort of promoting form of law and order. Very black and funny, yet with heart. Human work from Peter Weller and inspired villainous turns from Ronny Cox and Kurtwood Smith.

Movie review - "Kingdom of Heaven" (2005) **

After conquering Ancient Rome with Gladiator, Ridley Scott no doubt licked his lips at the idea of taking on the middle ages, but he drops it. There's plenty of stunning visuals, and the setting of the crusades makes it interesting, but the story has problems. Mostly in that the story is so fair to Muslims that they really should have been the heroes - these invades coming into their land and acting beastly, killing people, being treacherous, shouldn't have been there in the first place. Saladin is so nice that the big siege at the end is totally pointless. Orlando Bloom should have just surrendered, same result would have happened, more people would have lived. 

Orlando isn't an engaging hero - he's buffed up, tries hard, is conscientious... but is still too vanilla. Jeremy Irons, Brendon Gleeson and Liam Neeson are professional but we've seen them in these roles too often (Neeson played a similar role the same year in Batman Begins ditto Gleeson in Troy); Edward Norton however kicks a goal as the leper king, as does Eva Green as his tormented sister.

Movie review - "Troy" (2003) **

This is one that got away - there was plenty of money flying around, the film believably deals with the issue of Greek Gods by having characters act because of their faith rather than the fact that the Gods exist, and Brad Pitt's Achilles and the Greeks are often unsympathetic. But it blows it by changing the basics of the story - killing Agamemnon at Troy, Achilles surviving to the Wooden Horse having Paris kill Achilles... that's just cheating and does the story no service. Paris and Helen lack passion, though Peter O'Toole is ideal. Eric Bana is wooden, though all he's required to do is be decent; Brian Cox and Brendan Glesson add some spark and Sean Bean is a perfect Odysseus. This was one of those films I didn't mind at the time when watching it but as time has passed it has become more and more irritating in the mind.

Movie review - "Robot Monster" (1953) No stars... or ****

How good is this movie! Many films of the "so bad its good" school aren't that fun - for instance, I'm not the biggest fan of Plan 9 from Outer Space. But this is terrific - its got a confusing plot, which starts with a couple of kids running into scientists, then jumps to a post-apocalyptic world where there are only eight people left due to the efforts of Ro Man. Ro Man is the star of the film - a man in a gorilla suit and deep sea diver's helmet. And the filmmaker's don't hide it... they show him out in the open. That is the core of the film's genius but there is much else to admire: the fact that Ro Man has wiped out the world except for eight people but lives in a cave, the irritating kids, the soliloquies, Ro Man communicating to his boss back home via a television set, the male lead played by gay Rock Hudson wannabe George Nader (soon to be a bit of a name ), his squabbling sexual tension relationship with Selena Royle (the world's just ended but there's time for a squabble), the scenes where there is no sound (a love scene between Nader and Royle... where its implied they have some pre-maritial sex), Ro Man falling in love with Royle and the humans arguing over whether she should give up her body to him/it (!), the soliloquies by the humans, the fact the two women of the future wear matching outfits, Ro Man discovering his soul. For all the dodgy effects, poor acting, slightly bewildering plot and One Million Years BC stock footage, it's never totally dismissive: I mean, the whole world has been wiped out, Ro Man kills a young girl and almost kills a young boy, Ro Man's boss ends up killing Ro Man and the whole world gets wiped out... its full on (it turns out to be a dream). The film is fascinating and tremendous fun.

Movie review - "The Outlaw" (1943) **1/2

Bizarre Western famous for the censorship battle Howard Hughes fought over Jane Russell's cleavage. Russell's role actually very much fourth in importance in the film, most of which concerns Walter Huston and Thomas Mitchell squabbling over Jack Beutel. The film is laced with homosexual innuendo: the way the characters react to each other heavily implies it. The plot revolves around Huston's horse and the relationship between the three, with Russell being the wildcard.

Mitchell and Huston are professional, Beutel is pretty, Russell inexperienced but snarls and looks terrific - OK this is hindsight but she seems to have it whereas Buteul doesn't. Surprise ending, which builds to the death of Billy the Kid... only the amiable Doc Holliday dies and Billy rides off into the sunset. After an interesting beginning the film starts to slump and then is sporadically interesting: Hughes uses "wacky" music every time something funny happens. The last bit of the film throws in some Indians who we never see - production values aren't that high, apart from Jane Russell.

Book review - "Drew Barrymore" by Lucy Ellis

DB is barely 30 but she deserves a bio, having packed an awful lot of living into those years. Her rise to stardom was one of the unexpected delights of the late 90s, and it seems she's there to stay for a while. This bio isn't much of a book, being a cut and paste job complete with extensive quotes from press kits and use of hyperbole in the language (it was published in 2003 and ends with the prediction that 50 First Dates would be predictable, but Duplex sounded like a winner). But it holds interest because Drew is so fascinating. A scion of the notorious Barrymore family, Drew barely knew her father and was raised by her crazy mother. Her life fits into easy categories: (1) child star thanks to ET, followed by a series of vehicles (including Cat's Eye) (2) troubled adolesence, with declining roles and major off screen problems (mum would take her to nightclubs so they'd have something to do together, early boozing and cocaine use) (3) getting clean (4) come back as a vixen with Poison Ivy and some highly publicised off screen antics (esp bisexuality) that turned her into a Gex X poster girl (5) re-emergence as a sweet young thing(something which began when Woody Allen cast her in Everybody Says I Love You, and something Allen isn't given nearly enough credit for), rising to stardom with The Wedding Singer and a series of vehicles (6) becoming a real Hollywood player with Charlie's Angels. It's a tremendous rise - Drew's greatest achievement seems to be a gift for reinvention. This even encompasses her love life (every new one is "the first time I've ever felt this way".) She's great, a bit mad, but great and should be around for a while now.

Book review - "Laurence Olivier" by Melvyn Bragg

Short bio on the actor, coming out of a profile Bragg did on Olivier for television. So little in the way of new research, just an overview of career, but Bragg is a superb writer and details Oliver's life and achievements with skill and perception. Olivier's career falls into sections more than most: young actor in the provinces, growing reputation in London, Private Lives and West End fame, very brief run as Hollywood leading man, re-establishment of reputation in England, Shakespeare and the rise to greatness, the return to Hollywood and emergence as a film star, the war and becoming an English icon, the bold 1950s, divorce with Leigh and The Entertainer, work at the National, selling out in the 70s. Amazing career, worthy tribute.

Book review - "Vivien Leigh" by John Russell Taylor

Short bio on the famous star but very well written despite some jarring factual errors (eg they saw Peter Finch in Imaginary Invalid not Taurtuffe). Vivien Leigh is a fascinating person: born beautiful (there is a photo of her at three - she just seems to be saying "I get whatever I want"), grew up in convents and travelling outside of England, marriage to a doting barrister, then an acting career, growing fame, affair with Olivier, Gone with the Wind, marriage to Olivier... she never became the film star you would have thought, mainly because she kept trying to make it on stage, where she was constantly in the shadow of her husband. Apart from Streetcar Named Desire and The Hamilton Woman and Waterloo Bridge.... it wasn't much of a film career. But, then, that was surely enough - Scarlett O'Hara alone would have been enough. She paid for her beauty and her luck, though, she surely did.

Play review - "Operator" by David Williamson

Surprisingly strong late period Williamson - yes it does have a woman in her 20s who falls in love with a middle aged man, but the central situation is a strong one - a sociopathic career climber sets out to reach the top at a firm by any means necessary (the role was played by Rory Williamson on stage - I didn't see him but Rory was always good playing pricks eg his "I wouldn't do that if I were you" in the Bundy Rum ads).

It also helps that the firm makes exercise equipment, so not only does it provide a rich field for satire, Williamson is at home with the engineering background stuff. The young woman is a likeable character, notwithstanding her taste for aged tail, as is the slacker lesbian boss's niece. Funny, fast paced, poignant.

Play review – “Influence” by David Williamson (2005)

David Williamson takes on talk back radio, a meaty topic but which he only skims deep. It is funny to have his shock jock be a loud mouth on the mike but a victim at home, but this means the character becomes a little sketchy. 

There’s a classic Williamson bitch character – the DJ’s awful former ballerina wife (who does get a lot of funny lines) – and also a classic Williamson female saint character (he writes as many saints these days as bitches): in fact two, a middle aged psychologist and the Middle Eastern housekeeper. The manic teenage daughter is funny – but it never feels like a real family, or like a real man who works in radio. 

There are glimpses at a more interesting play: when the DJ worries about falling ratings, the fact the DJ’s income enables him to live in a world where his views are considered abhorrent. What’s left is a little sub-par.

Movie review – “Some Kind of Wonderful” (1987) ***

Last of the John Hughes films and perhaps the least known – it didn’t do as well at the box office, probably because the sensitive protagonist was a boy… although there are many girls who love the film for that reason, just not as many who love films about sensitive girls and handsome prince charmings.
The greatest strength of the film is Mary Stuart Masterton’s stand out star making performance as the tom boy drummer – it’s a terrific turn, one that looks even better now and makes one wish she had a bigger career.
Lea Thompson and Eric Stoltz are likeable in their roles, though Stoltz’s character becomes increasingly creepy as the film goes on: lecturing Thompson during his final date, blowing his college money on earrings (that plot development is really irritating), conveniently running after Masterton when Thompson essentially gives him the flick.
The plot of this is the weakest – a big date wasn’t enough, it needed to be the prom or something. Plenty of good things around, though: the support performances of Elias Koteas as a kindly skin-head, Candance Cameron as an annoying kid sister and Scott Coffey as a boy with a crush on Masterton, the music, any scene involving Masterton (particularly the practising kissing scene).

Movie review - "Four Brothers" (2005) **1/2

It was a bright idea to remake The Sons of Katie Elder in a modern day urban setting, especially with multi-racial brothers and John Singleton as director. It was also good to have the mother character be seen and be more of a presence, and have one of the sons involved in her death. But for all that the film is a bit disappointing: flat, sluggish, a bit too on the nose with the lyrics of some of the background songs, and do we have to have something with corrupt cops again? It brightens in places, especially the shoot out towards the end, and the way the film is shot is interesting. Why didn't they re-use John Wayne's great entrance in Katie Elder?

Movie review - "The Wrong Man" (2006) **1/2

Reasonably enjoyable thriller well plenty of plot, a strong cast and some top notch direction which handles the violent scenes with skill and always tries to ensure something different (brightly coloured doors, fresh settings). Doesn't quite compensate for a busy script that is a little too obviously written by a Gen X'er who has seen a LOT of films - references to Once Upon a Time in the West, Yojimbo, Pulp Fiction, North by Northwest (this is made explicitly). The length of the flashback at the beginning tips the film's hand a little too readily, and the wrap up at the end takes a little too long, but for all that I enjoyed it.

Movie review - "Village of the Giants" (1965) **1/2

Really fun, silly mixture of 60s teen film and sci-fi: little Ronny Howard (that Ron Howard) invents material which causes creatures to grow. Its stolen by some high spirited teens (led by Beau Bridges, that Beau Bridges) who take over the town. The classic sort of film which falls into the not-as-bad-as-you-think-but-not-as-good-as-it-could-have-been.
Positive virtues: the cast (also including Tommy Kirk in the lead, Johnny Crawford, Ron Howard’s dad Rance as deputy, Mickey Rooney’s son Tim – he looks like him - and Ann Sothern’s daughter Tisha Sterling), the performances, some social commentary (Bridges and company want to take over from the adults), the special effects, the music (including the groovy theme song and the Beau Brummels – the nightclub they perform at is actually the Whiskey a Go-Go).
There are two decent action sequences: one when Kirk and company use their cars to try and capture Bridges, and a replay of the David and Goliath battle when Kirk takes on Bridges with a slingshot, plus a pretty good fight where Kirk and his girlfriend kill a giant spider.
I also loved all the random moments – especially all the go-go dancing (there’s go-go dancing over the opening credits, then in the first sequence, then in the night club, then at a party, then when the kids become giants (when they realise they're giants and can do anything they want... the first thing they do is go-go dance) - and when the good kids have to distract the bad kids they send in Toni Basil to... you guessed it... go go dance); I love the way Kirk suddenly has two random dorky looking friends out of nowhere (one of them is fat and looks like Drew Carey) and how when giant geese go and dance in the club no one is really fazed; there's also plenty of giant cleavage, and a brunette member of the gang who seems to disappear for periods at a time.
There is also some pleasing clashes within Bridges' gang (Bridges isn't as keen as some others to take over).
Frustratingly under-developed in parts though - we could have seen more why Bridges clashes with the adults, more with the landslide (some adults are away others are around - but the town doesn't feel cut off), Bridges and his gang lack a plan (surely they would try to do something really cool being giants - knock over a building or something - but the filmmakers seem more interested in having characters hang off giant breasts), Kirk (whose character, while brave, is a bit of an Uncle Tom to be honest - and he was only interested in exploiting the formula for money not anything altruistic) runs around in little shorts a lot of the time; also the fight with the giant spider indicates a whole other, possibly more exciting direction the film could have gone in (but they probably blew their sfx money on the breasts).
There is a genuinely funny end gag.

Fansite for the film is here