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.

Matt McCoy is in this.

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.