Movie review - "Cromwell" (1970) **

It's Richard Harris vs Alec Guinness and Guiness wins by a knock out. The English Civil War has always been problematic in the movies - because Parliament was obviously the right side, but they were dull Puritans with funny hats who hated sex and theatre, whereas the Royalists were dashing and romantic but at heart violent dictators.

Cromwell was a fascinating man, a sort of suburban Rotary Club manager who due to history discovered a genius for military and political leadership. Harris is not only miscast he is extremely irritating - every time the camera goes on him he goes "Great! I get to act!" and sets about yelling and chewing the furniture. You are enjoying the film then they cut to him and its like "oh shut up". Contrast with Guiness' Charles I - Chuckie was an amiable idiot, a lousy king and despot but Guiness gives him shades and dimensions and you feel sorry for him having his head chopped off even if it was the right thing to do. 

Some decent enough supporting performances. The direction is OK and it covers the Civil War basics but it is a bit dull.

Opening of MIFF

I went to this last week - the opening night film was 2:37. They kept everyone in suspense, didn't let us know til the last minute what the actual film was. I thought it went down pretty well. It was the last festival for the director James Hewison who seems to have inspired genuine respect and affection. Geoffrey Rush gave a lovely speech - what elocution.

The film was a bit full on, incest and the like - I mean the Premier was there - but to shy away from that and you wind up with Royal Film Command Performance stuff. Afterwards the director gave a lovely speech, took a photo of the crowd (nice touch). Went to the after party, though not really dressed for it. Saw various celebs: Bud Tingwell. several former Love My Way-ers and Secret Life of Us-ers, Mr Rush, and so on.

Book review - "Open Wide"

A fascinating and depressing book about modern marketing in Hollywood, especially the blockbuster films. It follows the marketing path of three films that opened over the same weekend in 2003, all shockers - Terminator 3, Legally Blonde 2 and Sinbad. Yuck! But this is kind of good since the films were all made without passion, just to make money, so you can concentrate on the business side of things. The two writers, both for Variety, have done their work. They put things in a historical perspective, paying tribute to the work of men like Joe Levine and Billy Laughlin. The numbers stuff is fascinating - Hollywood loves certainty, but can still never quite achieve it.

Book review - "Loyalists" by Peter Taylor

As a protestant I admit I felt a kinship for protestants in Northern Ireland - the Catholic Irish got a lot of sympathy and good press over the recent decade, often through Hollywood, where the battle is often portrayed as "oppressive English - poor Catholics". The problems and fears of protestant Irish never seemed to get a decent look in.

But reading this book one thing becomes clear - they are all nutters.

Actually that's not fair - only some of them are nutters. But enough to have caused unneccessary destruction and misery for 25 years.

And the Catholics are nutters, too.

From this book which is written by a journo with experience of over 20 yrs in that troublesome part of the world it seems it went like this: protestants planted in Northern Ireland fiercely attached themselves to England, had a justifiable fear of Catholics which has never gone away. They had success cutting out their slice of the world in the 1910s under the indomitable Edward Carson - another successful "siege" to follow the siege of Derry. This perhaps unduly encouraged them to "hold out". So when in the 1960s civil rights workers and Catholics justifiably complained about the gerrymander and inherent legal persecutions against Catholics, the Proddies dug their heels in, viciously and even to the point of violence. So in a way the Proddies started it (or at least accelerated it first) - but when the IRA and co got going they really got going and overtook it. Then the Proddies started up their own terrorist groups, the UDA and UVF, who never really got the PR of the IRA probably because they concentrated on Northern Ireland whereas the IRA went off shore and blew up things in England and killed people in Europe.

They were nutters - they were all nutters. Horrible thing was in the 70s the IRA would kill some innocent person, then to get revenge the Proddie nutters would go kill a Catholic - not an IRA person just any Catholic they could get their hands on. Then to geet revenge the IRA would kill any proddie they could get their hands on. They were lazy. That's why it was so horrible, many people just wanted to go along their own way but couldn't because of lazy terrorists. By the late 80s and early 90s the info of the terrorists improved (the IRA claimed British intelligence were leaking stuff to the proddies to help wipe out the IRA and it seems the proddies regained the upper hand in the first bit of the 90s) but innocent people are still being killed. Finally they seem to have calmed down.

How could it have been avoided? Knowing less about history would have helped - Ireland is a terrific example for those who think history shouldn't be taught in schools. You could force mixing. Certainly marches that inflame clashes could have been stopped. People get so hot and bothered. They all needed to take a cold shower.

I always thought the best thing to do would be have a federated Ireland, with all the rights of both parties constitutionally protected. This was floated in the 70s and 80s but was knocked back.

I can't believe they allowed all those terrorist prisoners to be kept up like prisoners of war (on both sides) AND let them out of gaol - what happened to the rule of law? But if that's what it took to get peace done, then, well... It also seems silly to go on about disarmament. The British government seems to have been justified to treat the whole damn place like a pack of children in the 70s.

Because the protestant side often doesn't get much of a guernsey here but is very much the root of the problem this is an endlessly fascinating book. Well researched, it seems to be fair, so accordingly is frustrating and heartbreaking to read. So many people didn't want peace - there wasn't an urgency for violence, it wasn't a matter of survival. So many of the killers convinced themselves they'd be normal if they didn't live there in that time - wasn't anyone teaching them that there were other ways? So pointless. Such a waste.

Book review - "Winner Takes All" by Michael Winner

Memoirs of the British director Michael Winner who was loathed as few directors have been in his home country. Looking back on his career you wonder why - probably too many crappy action films in the 70s many with Charles Bronson. I say crappy while admitting I haven't seen too many - the first Death Wish which he directed was very good. Winner was a lively precious person, the sort of person who would be annoying, but he was productive, very pro active and has done very well for himself. Nowadays he keeps busy from ads and his journalism.

His 70s Hollywood films seem to have lost him the strong critical reception he obtained in the 60s with his London films (none of which I've seen - this made me want to check them out). His first feature was a nudie, then he made a Billy Fury rock and roll film, then a kitchen sink drama, then some swinging London films. He was attached to the big budget epic William the Conqueror which was never made (Oliver Reed would have been terrific in the lead - Rod Taylor was attached to it for a while). 

He then made his 70s films which appear to have been variable - he finds positive crits to say about all of them but for his Big Sleep remake he has to resort to crappy radio critics. He seems touchingly keen to re-address his critical reputation, and includes a chapter of quotes about him - most of the quotes from movie stars need to be taken with a grain of salt because they are taken during production of the film on which they work with Winner (Michael Caine says some nice things from 2001 - but he does own restaurants and Winner is a restaurant critic). Nonetheless he made several films with Reed, Lancaster and Bronson, and Brando did genuinely like him so he must have something. The lucky bastard also enjoyed a six year affair with Jenny Seagrove, so...

Winner writes with a bright entertaining style and tells some wonderful stories - his mother ("mumsy") is a terrific character, and the vignettes about Marlon Brando and Burt Lancaster are wonderful, ditto OJ, Sophia Loren and the rest. He even throws in some philosophy about life and his life towards the end. I enjoyed the book very much.

Movie review - "2:37: (2006) ***1/2

Incredibly impressive debut film from some South Australian filmmakers - it has been dubbed Baby Elephant - I haven't seen Elephant but Gus Van Sant is thanked in the credits. If it is based on it then it at least makes the genius behind the film a little more comprehensive. Regardless, this is a powerful and moving film. Around an hour or so in I was going 'yeah oh, Larry Clark lite ' - it had two twists which were OK. But it had a final ace in the hole which was breathtaking - couldn't pick it was knocked out by it. Superb.

Book review - "In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great"

Alexander the Great seems to have this great reputation - a hundred years ago or so it was mainly because he was a white guy who conquered a lot of Asians, Arabs and Indians and because he was a military genius and edcuated and died young. He still seems to have street cred today because he was probably bisexual and he died young. But reading this book it seems he was a sulky bloodthirsty tyrant who was responsible for the death of millions just because he wanted it. He felt like taking over the world so fought battle after battle... and for what. The author makes some claim how he changed the course of history and promoted cross cultural fertilisation. You could make the same argument for Stalin. There are other ways to promote intercultural exchange apart from invasion. A horrible person who when he didn't get his own way would go and massacre someone then go on a drinking binge. So he was respectful of a few local gods, so he had a philosopher teaching him, so what? He didn't make the world a better place he made it worse. He was a dictator and he can get stuffed. That's why films about his life will always flop. This book follows Alexander's destructive path; it was enjoyable although I was always wishing I could watch the tv show to see the places - written descriptions weren't as evocative.

Book review - "Tarzan, My Father" by Johnny Weissmuller Jnr

Fascinating book written by the son of the most famous actor to play Tarzan. It's not a "my father was horrible" book or a "Dear Dad these are my theories" book like the one on Yul Brynner. Its a fascinating look at the man from a son who grew up away from him for a long time, who wears his heart on his sleeve.

John Snr was actually born in Romania but moved to the US when he was around one. He swapped birth certificates with his US born brother so he could compete in the Olympics. He was the best swimmer in the world for a number of years. He eventually turned pro and started flogging swimming costumes, then Hollywood came calling. He stayed with Tarzan movies for over a decade - he never made any others during that time, though one would think he might try to vary his work, in say a Western. Then he went into Jungle Jims then swimming pools. It should have been a prosperous career, it was prosperous - but either he spent more than he earned or was ripped off by his manager (to his credit John Jnr tells both sides of the story - it seems unclear, but he seems to side with his dad being a bit of a financial dolt). John Snrs last two decades were unhappy - drinking, a pregnant daughter died in a car accident, hard to find work, married for 21 years to an apparent bitch with a daughter, mental disintegration, dying destitute in Mexico.

John Jnr certainly goes for it - he is affectionate at a distance at dad's second wife, the hilarious but ultimately tragic Lupe Valez (a first wife left when John became a film star with no apparent hard feelings on either side), he hates his mother who was the third wife (claims she only had him and his sisters to get a healthy divorce settlement, slags her off for her infidelities and being a bitch, criticises her gay rich uncle who he says was behind it and says he'll get revenge on him in another book he wants to write after he dies), really loves the fourth wife, hates the fifth wife (says her daughter gave beach boys in Acapulco the clap). He is generally affectionate towards his father, but doesn't hide his faults such as money management and drinking. I remember seeing John Jnr play a small role in the final Andy Hardy film - he got married a few times, finally permanently, and became a longshoreman in San Francisco! Bizarre!

It's a weird book, endlessly fascinating - even when it gets sad about his dad's final years (I hate reading about movie stars who go broke), it remains interesting because of John Jnr constantly venting spleen and/or affection. He goes into a lot of detail about all the research he did, too, and criticises other accounts of his father's life. Made me wish there was a similar tome by Bela Lugosi Jnr who surely would have a similar story to tell.

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

Minor Val Lewton but still watchable. A press agent uses a leopard during a nightclub act (smart move - and he's supposed to be the hero); the leopard escapes and people wind up dying. Some effective moments - the murder of the girl, a killing in a cemetry (they love that wind machine). You can't escape the feeling it's something thrown together by intelligent people. 

Some interesting chats about fate and what not; the two leads have some intense emoting to do which works quite well but it doesn't change the fact at least one death was really their fault and they're not very sympathetic.. 

It is set in New Mexico, and the film emphasises the multicultural side of things which gives it freshness. But it's not much of a story.

Book review - "Gregory Peck" by Gary Fishgall

Good solid bio of the star, very similiar in thorough research and writing to the one Fishgall did on Burt Lancaster. Much better than the previous bio on Peck I'd read but still has the same problem - Peck wasn't that interesting. Broken home, well liked at college, Broadway work (attention without being in hits), then movie stardom. Peck was in many ways lucky - dodgy back kept him out of the army during the war when there was a shortage of leading men - also blessed with a handsome face and deep voice. He was a stiff actor and remained stiff but was ideal in the serious post war world; he worked hard and had good taste, picking some excellent films. Unhappy first marriage, son who killed himself, a brief drinking problem before a happy second marriage - but one gets the feeling that even Fishgall finds his story a bit dull at times.

Book review - "When the Snow Melts" by Cubby Broccoli

Growing up a film fan Cubbi Broccoli was one of the few producers I was familiar with because he and Harry Saltzman's names appeared in the opening credits of the James Bond films, which I adored and saw each one at least 5-6 times. Because "Broccoli" was such an unusual surname, I noticed it on other productions such as Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and wondered about the man. I subsequently found out more in all those docos that accompany the James Bond films on DVD but had no idea he'd written an autobiography.

It doesn't seem to be a very well known book - maybe because it was published two years after Broccoli died. He'd been working on it just before he died - at the end of the book the narrative stops, Cubby goes off to have heart surgery, then comes back to write a conclusion, then dies. Its always kind of weird reading an autobiography of someone who finishes it then dies - Richard Wherrett's was similiar. At least it means nothing is left out!

Reading the book is slightly disconcerting at times. Because Cubby wasn't around for the final edits and additions and what-not, one gets the feeling of a little tampering. His rellies seem to be behind this big "isn't Cubby Broccoli great" push that was all through the docos on the DVDs.

I'm sure he was a nice guy, he seems like a sweetheart and socially so well connected he must have been able to charm. Wasn't there a little darkness or harshness in there somewhere? There are large slabs of the book dedicated to how great his wife Dana is, which is lovely, and also how wonderful his son in law Michael is (who now runs the franchise), which is also lovely, but you can't help fight the feeling that during editing the family were going "oh you can leave that bit in". This also may explain why we get four pages dedicated to a not particularly interesting Grace Jones anecdote from Barbara Broccoli.

OK, having said that - Broccoli is an interesting guy. He came from immigrant stock, and the early pages are dedicated to his family's struggle which seems to have been rough (I did get the names confused for a bit). They saved enough for a farm, Cubby worked like a dog farming here and there. Then it gets kind of interesting - he had a rich cousin who went to work in LA, Pat di Ciccio, who seemed to know everyone. He called Cubby to join him and soon Cubby knew everyone, too. Cubby was extremely well connected socially, friends with Cary Grant, Howard Hughes (who gets a lot of mentions here - understandably so, I guess), Sidney Kroshak, Greg Bautzer. Must have been a fun fun guy, because he was only doing odd jobs here and there - selling Christmas trees, a bit of agency work, working in the studios. But all the time developing people skills.

Like all producers he had an eye for the main chance, and despite being American Cubby moved to England to become a producer, using an American star (Alan Ladd). His partnership with Irwin Allen, Warwick films, became quite prosperous with unpretentious action and adventure movies which were highly successful in Britain and did OK in America. Cubby writes amusing sketches of Alan Ladd and his dominating wife Sue Carol, and confessed coward Victor Mature - this is the funniest section of the book.

Eventually Warwick wound up and Cubby got in on the option of the Bond books with Harry Saltzmann, another person with a strong track record in British films. The result were a phenomenon.

You wouldn't say Cubby was lucky, he had drive and passion and a gambler's instinct that producers must have. The Gods did smile on that first film, with Terence Young being the ideal director (he brought a lot of smooth sophistication), Peter Hunt editor, Maurice Binder going titles, Richard Maibaum on script (the unsung hero of the Bond films, Maibaum worked on most of them up to Licence to Kill - Cubby pays him deep tribute), Cubby and Saltzman and Connery in the lead and Ursula Andress, Monty Norman theme and John Barry music. It was a magical combination of talent that came out at the right time and create history.

That was the break - Cubby knew this was It and only made two non Bond films (I would have liked to have heard a bit more about the making of Chiity Chitty Bang Bang). It didn't mean it would be easy, every film would bring new problems - fighting regime changes at studios, fighting off Bond imitations, fighting with sulky stars, fighting his partner. Saltzmann had dreams of global world domination, but after hitting paydirt with the Harry Palmer series almost went bankrupt, initiating a big fight in the mid 70s which gets an airing here. The other big fight came in the late 80s and early 90s, when Bond went into hiatus. You have to say the Broccolis have looked after the franchise and Michael Wilson seems to be an incredible guy - lawyer, executive, producer and screenwriter.

Some random thoughts on the book

- Cubby sledges both his partners, Allen mainly for his extravagance, Saltzmann for his excesses - he says nice things too but always makes himself sound more sensible and correct - the prerogative of the person writing I guess!

- Cubby advises against going into a movie partnership, citing troubles he had with Allen and Saltzman - yet he clearly thrived with both, and never operated without a partner (later on he partnered Barbara and Wilson)

- the stuff on Warwick films is very interesting, they were a real success story in England in the 1950s and should be better known - I only wish there was more

- Cubby does not go into too much detail about the personality of his second wife, who had a tragic life - her first husband killed their child then died, her second husband died in an accident, her other child died in an accident, she died of cancer... bloody Hell!

- George Lazenby episode scores four pages - loved it, he had a big head of course

- I always thought Roger Moore quit on his own accord (he was always threatening to go) but this says he was pushed to leave, which makes total sense when you think about it

- Cubby also sledges Connery and Moore, pointing out how he made both of them rich - I was surprised Moore was a sook, apparently it was only around the time of A View to a Kill and was only brief - Connery was a notoriously tight bastard and is known for complaining about money - but would any other actor in the world made the series the success it was?

- Saltzman's front runner for Bond pre Connerywas Richard Johnson (who was in some 60s Bulldog Drummond films). Person signed post Lazenby paid paid off when Connery came back - John Gavin (urgh!). Some alt choices post Moore pre Dalton - Cubby wanted Lambert Wilson, but Michael Wilson, Barb Broccoli and John Glenn wanted Sam Neill, so Pierce Brosnan was a compromise candidate - then when he couldn't do it, Dalton stepped in.

- Also around this time Barb Broccoli went to Australia where "there'd been an explosion of exciting young talent" to talent search - she came back with videos of 12 actors "none was the idea Bond, but two had great looks and personality. We decided to test them" - but head of MGM UA Jerry Weintraub hated them. Who were they? Andrew Clarke one but who was the other? Anthony Hamilton was a contender, ditto Finlay Light (I remember a news announcement actually said this Finlay Light bloke got the role). Neill? MGM wanted Mel Gibson but he was too expensive and Cubby wasn't keen.

- They're keen to take credit for Spy Who Loved Me but brush over Moonraker - as they should!

Terrific read.

Movie review - "The Bank" (2001) **

Unsatisfying thriller which feels too familiar. David Wenham joins a bank as a computer whiz to help beat the stock market - an element used in Pi. There is a final reveal a la Once Upon a Time in the West (farm suicide in the woolshed... come on), and a subplot involving the Swiss francs case that they used in The Farm. The film feels like lazy populism. Wenham's enigmatic character is necessitated by the plot but means we have no one to invest emotion in. The couple whose kid dies are more effective, and well acted - but did the bank have to be so evil? I mean, they act like Dr Evil, with glowering Anthony La Paglia being totally evil - he and his henchmen laughing about sacking people and dead children, evil process server Vincent Ward. Banks can be pricks but their evil happens in broad daylight in front of everyone. The film looks a treat, though - incredibly stylish. Sybilla Budd is gorgeous as the love interest.

Movie review - "Grand Theft Auto" (1977) ** 1/2

Ron Howard made his feature directorial debut for Roger Corman in this follow up to Eat My Dust (he plays a different character). He's a guy who wants to marry Nancy Morgan but her rich daddy opposes it so they take off to Vegas to elope. A $25,000 reward sees them chased by various odds and sodds, including detectives, her rich supposed fiancee, his mother, and others.

Good natured, unpretentious, with plenty of car crashes. Once the cars start running it doesn't really stop, except for a decent scene where Ron and Morgan have a domestic. They are an engaging couple - interestingly, she does most of the driving while Ron sits there looking concerned. Not quite as off the wall as Eat My Dust (the music doesn't have as much energy) but the car chase here at least as a decent motivation.
There are plenty of bright touches, such as the couple driving a Rolls Royce and the pursuing radio commentator, and strong acting. Full of familiar faces, including Marion Potts (Ron's mom from Happy Days who says a few swear words and gives the finger to cops - its that sort of humour), Paul Bartel, Dan Steele (the DJ from Death Race 2000 who plays a DJ here), Clint and Rance Howard. Alan Arkush directed some second unit.

Movie review - "Lianna" (1983) ***1/2

Thoughtful, intelligent and well-written drama of a married mother of two who falls in love with another woman. Not a very common topic at the time, at least not outside the exploitation genre, this takes the dilemma seriously, but still laced with humour. It is not a "worthy" film, but a good, solid drama which is very believable. The stifling academic community of the town is well evoked and there is a brilliant characterisation in the film studies academic husband (Jon de Vries), stuffy, pompous, unfaithful, but not a dyed in the wool villain, just a prick. There are some sex scenes, which are done with tenderness and eroticism. The acting is solid, except by John Sayles who plays a slightly sleazy friend of Lianna - John, you're a terrific writer and director, but he's always stiff in his acting portrayls. He plays an interesting character, though - actually all the characters are strongly etched. The main problem with the film is it goes on too long - the last 30 minutes or so drag especially. Once Lianna comes out and goes through her turmoil and comes through it, it's like "right... wrap it up" - there is the relationship with her friend to resolve (a lovely way to end the film incidentally) but it takes too long to get there. It occasionally falls into 1983 dagginess, such as that scene at the lesbian bar where Lianna dances to some awful psuedo-disco song about women. This goes on for far too long time. (All the women at the bar look like members of the Australian Democrats.) The kids who play Lianna's children are pretty good, although her son looks a bit Spanish.

Movie review - "Shadows and Fog" (1992) ****

This Woody Allen film doesn't seem to have much of a reputation but I've always loved it - a creepy and funny tribute to German expressionism and Kafka. Set in an unnamed European town in the 20s, shot in black and white with lots of shadows and fog, it all takes place over one night. Woody is in good form as the coward forced to join a vigilante. Woody skillfully mixes the high brow stuff (discussions about god, existence, sex, beauty) in with the low (the warm friendly brothel, the circus), with some lovely Kurt Weill songs. Woody makes an ideal team with Mia - I love it that they instantly become best friends but don't become romantically involved.

Many fine sequences: John Malkovich's tormented clown, his love scene with Madonna, John Cusack as a wanker student, Donald Pleasance as a creepy doctor, the finale where Woody takes on the killer (I only wish they'd let him actually capture him - though they make up for it by having him run off to join the circus), Woody running into old lover Julie Kavner who hasn't forgiven him. The killer is genuinely scary, the atmosphere wonderful.

Book review - "Ken Branaugh" by Mark White

Like a lot of people I occasionally found Ken B irriating in the 90s - not a lot but a little. He certainly didn't deserve the shellacking the Pommy press gave him - I mean they really poured it on. They should be ashamed. Ken sort of came out of nowhere on an international scale with Henry V; I first heard of him when I saw him on the cover of Time. Henry V, Dead Again and Much Ado About Nothing got his career off to a flying star; there was also a lot of affection for Peter's Friends though there was that awful long tracking shot near the end which made me realise that he mightn't be my favourite director. That was confirmed by the enormously disappointing Frankenstein - what we hoped at last would be a faithful adaptation of the novel sunk into irritatingness with all that swooping camerawork and buffed up Ken. But no one deserves what he went through - divorce, ridicule, even dud films for Altman and Woody Allen.

He kept his head down and is still turning out good work. Hopefully he will continue to be able to make Shakespeare films. And he shouldn't give up on the acting. This is a well-written and researched biography, very enjoyable - I read it almost straight through.

White makes a strong argument, well supported with facts, of Branagh's shabby treatment at the hands of the English press. My own addition to why the press hated him so: he had the field of genius to himself. Olivier had Richardson and Gielgud running around, Ken B had the young genius field to himself.

Movie review - "Flight Plan" (2005) **1/2

For a while this is a passable thriller, aided by some flashy direction and ever-reliable Jodie Foster in the lead (looking even more stressed out and miserable than usual). It felt a bit too familiar to Red Eye and The Lady Vanishes but had some creepy moments. Then the mystery is solved and its half an hour or so of a ticking clock and Jodie punching out the villain and an overlong climax. Might have been better if they'd increased the "other-ness" of other people on the plane a la Lady Vanishes. Too many people can speak English. Could have used some humour.

Movie review - "Igby Goes Down" (2001) **1/2

A sort of modern day Catcher in the Rye about the adventures of poor little rich Igby (Kieran Culkin) living in New York. Funny and moving with some excellent moments but also at times extremely irritating. Amanda Peet and Ryan Philippe are in the all-star cast - are they in every film with an all-star cast? Igby is a bit of a brat and gets to go to bed with Peet and Clare Danes - how tough can things be? Writer director Burr Steers is a bit of a New York aristocrat, and the film feels like it was made by one.

10 Commandments for Val Lewton

1) Thous shalt start and end thy films with a literary quote.
2) Thou shalt have stories involving some obscure moment/country/movement in history.
3) Thou shalt use actors from thy stock company - mostly RKO B film types who will never be seen again.
4) Thou shalt use literary scripts.
5) Thou shalt feature scenes where a character walks in some spooky location at night time with wind blowing through the trees.
6) Thou shalt not make a successful non-horror film.
7) Thou shalt use a schlocky title.
8) Thou shalt create horror by implication rather than actually showing something.
9) Thou shalt make thy audiences pay attention to what is going on.
10) Thou shalt have a rich parade of supporting characters.

Movie review - "The Curse of the Cat People" (1944) ** 1/2

Sequel to the horror classic isn't really a horror film but more of a "children's gothic" - the child of the couple from the first film has no friends, so she gets an imaginary one (Simone Simon, the same character from the first film). I enjoyed it, competently made, with some creepy moments. Might have been better if the neglected daughter was crazier and thus more of a threat at the end. The stuff about the headless horseman seems tacked on. 

The chief problem of the film is the acting: Kent Smith and Jane Rudolph were fine in the first one but their limitations are exposed here (their characters aren't as likeable - he in particular is a smug suburban prick); Ann Carter isn't much as the kid either (crucial since most of the film is through her eyes) though I liked her character. I didn't believe the singer Sir Lancelot as a servant.

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

Astonishingly good Val Lewton film, perhaps the pinnacle of the series achievement. Kim Hunter is a little bland but in a way very well cast as the young innocent who goes to New York to find her sister. The result is a rich, complex work with much to admire: the apperance of creepy shrink Tom Conway (good or evil?), his relationship with the balding skinny poet guy, the boyfriend of her sister, her wild sister who has bitten off more than she can chew, the seeming lesbian relationship with one of the devil worshippers, the calm devil worshippers who are anti-violence yet encourage traitors to kill themselves, the shock ending (which seems a bit abrupt - pay attention). 

Many fine sequences: the creepy room with the noose, the murder of the detective, the meetings of the society, the shower scene (years before Psycho). It feels a little cut-about (the original script is here) but a wonderful film.

Movie review - "The Body Snatcher" (1945) ****

The first of three films Boris Karloff made for Val Lewton and they were three of his best roles. He is terrific here - he wasn't the best actor in the world, Karloff, but he did have charisma and style. He plays a cab driver who moonlights as a grave robber for Henry Daniell (also very good).

There is a wet ingenue doctor character whose scruples about grave robbing crumble in the face of a cute crippled orphan and her widowed mother, a scullery maid who turns out to be married to the doctor, a dopey servant (played by Bela Lugosi in an effective scene) who tries to blackmail Karloff. This scene could act as a metaphor for Karloff and Lugosi's professional standing: poor old Lugosi, drug wracked and over the hill, trying to match it with Karloff only to be over powered and killed.

Spooky finale - Lewton again employs wind and rain, and throws in a literary quote at the end, enjoyable period flavour (despite the English accents for 19th century Edinburgh), intriguing relationship between Karloff and Daniell (heavily influenced by class structure). Wonderful. 

Followed by Isle of the Dead.

Movie review - "The Most Dangerous Game" (1932) ***1/2

Richard Connell's short story is a masterpiece of imagination and invention - he never seemed to match it - one I have always loved. This first version is for me the best, even though films have remade it (ripped it off?) ad nuseum.

It is a bit creaky, the filmmakers miss opportunities - but there is so much right. It's set on a creepy island with swamps and huge trees, there's a big castle, and the villainous count and his henchmen and dogs. The photography is beautiful.

It was a good addition to have a brother and sister on the island as well as Rainsford (played likeably by Joel McCrea - not a gentleman like in the story but very effective). The brother soon buys the farm (why don't we see it though? Would have been a terrific sequence), enabling Fay Wray to run through the island and be partially disrobed like she would later in King Kong. Leslie Banks is fine as the villainous count though it does feel like an opportunity missed for one of the all-time great villains - I started imagining Bela Lugosi in the role and when I started couldn't stop.

So many great moments - heads in jars, the hounds, the final thrilling chase through the island. King Kong fans with enjoy spotting the same set as Skull Island eg the log over the crevasse, the waterfall.

Book review - "Kiss Me Like a Stranger" by Gene WIlder

In the 1970s and 1980s Gene Wilder was a genuine box office force, particularly when teamed with Mel Brooks or Richard Pryor - though he could get on fine without either (Woman in Red). He was an odd sort of star Wilder, with a touch of madness about him - that pointy noises, those bulging eyes and frizzy hair, a voice that could shoot high very quickly, specialising in romantic nerds with a healthy sexy drive. It becomes apparent from this book that a lot of that came from Wilder himself.

The book is told in the form of a dialogue with a therapist, and certainly reads like someone who has spent a lot of time in therapy. He chats a lot about his sex life, when it worked, when it didn't; he also talks a lot about acting, and a little about show biz. He doesn't try to make him seem like a nice person - he walked out on two marriages (the second one had a daughter), writes about having sexual fantasies about the woman who became his fourth wife, while still married to his third who was dying (Gilda Radner, a comedian whose marriage seemed to make sense because she was funny looking too but she died not long after they were together), refuses to deify Radner.

The book is more about Wilder's life than his career - I wanted more about the films: there is some choice stuff about Richard Pryor, but I would have been interested to know a bit more about some of his directing efforts, and what he's been doing in the 1990s, and more of the films that he did. (The film that gets the longest spiels are The Producers and Young Frankenstein but I would have liked to heard more about the others.) 

Still, what is there is pretty interesting - Wilder developed a compulsion to pray, had rough working experiences with Carol Channing, had an affair with Terri Garr, lost Radner to cancer then developed cancer himself. He seems to love his fourth wife very much - but is still weird.

Movie review - "She" (1935) ***

Not a very well known film today - the Ursula Andress version is probably more seen - but I really enjoyed it. It was a big flop at the time - RKO spent a large sum on it, hoping for another King Kong. Several of the talent from that film worked on this film (writer, producer, art director) and the basic story adapted from Haggard follows Kong: a troupe of adventurers wind up in an exotic location where an ancient creature falls in love with one of the adventurers (although they have formed an attachment to someone else) and blood and destruction result.

Instead of Africa of the novel the film is set in the Arctic, which is actually a really interesting setting, complete with huskies and an avalanche scene (you can't go wrong with an avalanche scene), and mysterious fires to keep things warm. It sort of follows the book in other ways, certainly does more than the Andress film; they miss a few opportunities when you can't think of why. Why not emphasise the Holly character - the book's Holly is really memorable, an incredibly ugly man with a noble soul, who is also torn between Leo and She, but here as played by Nigel Bruce is just a "whatever" character (a little less buffoonish than Bruce usually plays). And why not have Job character?

Randolph Scott is handsome but a little wooden. Helen Gaghan - a Broadway star who married Melvyn Douglas, made only one movie (this) then went into politics before being defeated by Richard Nixon - doesn't quite have the star power or ker-pow factor to pull off the lead. Such a perfect role for some stunning European beauty (or American even) who couldn't act that well. Instead they gave it to someone who could act, but just didn't have the charisma. Despite that I really felt for She - even though she's an absolute despot at the end of the day she's just lonely and hungry for love. Scott would have been better off with her than the I-just-want-to-be-a-housewife character (Helen Mack) he hooks up with.

I liked a lot of this - the opening sequence, the Artic journey, the treacherous trader, arriving in the kingdom and the troublesome natives, She in love. The big dance ceremony at the end is a little silly and there is a bit too much chat (a Holly-She-Leo love triangle would have helped here), but it recovers for a fine disintegration. It isn't very well directed and the dialogue is poor.

Movie review - "I Walked with a Zombie" (1942) ****

Val Lewtown does Jane Eyre set on a terrifically atmospheric island. There is a catatonic wife, a brooding plantation owner, his alcoholic brother, seemingly normal mum, insolent locals, calypso, slave history and lots and lots of voodoo. Frances Dee goes for walks through the cane fields at night, with the wind blowing and stars lighting it up; is night time along deserted beaches, shanty townships. 

The performances are of a superior quality - B actors rising - and the technical qualities top notch. Tom Conway really sounds like his brother George Sanders here. And less than 70 minutes, too!

Movie review - "Cat People" (1942) ****

The first production from Val Lewton's famed unit at RKO which started the world because it was a horror film, but one which was heavily literary and relied on suggestion rather than effects to get results. 

It's also very adult: lonely Serbian Simone Simon (very winning, a cutey, but still lonely and scary) marries decent dull stick (Kent Smith) but won't sleep with him because she's afraid of turning into a cat and killing him. Full on! In 1942! 

The two stalking sequences are justly famous but there are other fine scenes, too, notably the love scenes between Smith and the other woman (Jane Randolph) and the ones involving the creepy shrink (Tom Conway). Extremely well directed, shot and written; the acting is fine, too. 

Followed by I Walked with a Zombie.

Movie review - "Thieves Like Us" (1974) ***1/2

Robert Aldrich is pretty good form, mainly because he's working from strong source material - thieves in the Depression era. Its fascinating to contrast this film with other depression gangster films that were popular at the time (Big Bad Mama) - Altman refuses to play by the rules which, to be honest, at times is irritating but is mostly refreshing and delightful. We rarely see the robberies, we don't see the death - but the two hang over the film constantly, the radio is always on (the film is very conscious of pop culture of the time, with cokes and magazines everywhere), it doesn't go for the aw-gee-poor-convicts argument (the three are obviously guilty and should be put behind bars; one of them is a psychopath). Keith Carradine is fresh faced and engaging as the young thief and Shelley Duvall simply enchanting as his lover.The film has a laid back tone which means the explosions of violence are disconcerting (but in a good way). John Schuck impresses as Carradine's nasty mate, ditto Bert Ramsen as his nice mate. Strong period detail, powerful ending. It goes for over two hours and is a little long - for instance, they could have had Carradine and Duvall meet up and get together, without that separation at the beginning. It took me a while to get into it, but once I did it was worth it.

Movie review - "Barcelona" (1994) ***1/2

Charming Whit Stillman comedy which looks even better now than it did then. Taylor Nichols (what happened to him?) and Chris Eigman are terrific as the Americans living in Spain at the end of the Cold War. The women are stunning, the city looks beautiful, the humour doll and still fresh. The undercurrent of violence help too.

Book review - "Despite the System: Orson Welles vs the Hollywood Studios" (2005) by Clinton Heylin

The sort of book is that is better bought than borrowed because it deals with Welles' films in such detail you can't remember all the points it refers to - it would be terrific to have around the house to pull out during or after watching one of the films. 

 

Heylin looks at Welles' experience in Hollywood - his attempt is to rectify the myth, or rather stick up for Orson whom Heylin thinks has gotten a bum deal lately. He's not happy with recent biographies, especially Simon Callow's and David Thomson's, both of whom he really gets stuck into.

He can be quite a little bitch, Heylin, which upset me, because I really enjoyed Callow's book. He can also be unnecessarily crude, such as dismissing Robert Wise's body of work by saying things like "The Sound of Music for f...k's sake." Not necessary, but he's probably one of those English journos who get all tough talking about movies - you read them in The Guardian. 

 

OK, having said that I enjoyed most of the book.

This seemed to be well researched (I'm not getting involved in some how-well-researched-is-your-Welles-book catfight) and benefits from picking an approach and sticking to it - namely, looking at the making of the films, especially the Hollywood films. Part of the appeal of Welles is he is the greatest "if only" movie maker in history - starting out with Citizen Kane, the rest of his career were these terrific "if only"s, especially Magnificent Ambersons (if only we had the ending...), It's All True (if only he'd been able to finish the film), Lady from Shanhai (if only it hadn't been recut), Touch of Evil (if only it hadn't been recut). Second rank down would be the uncompleted Other Side of the Wind and Don Quixote (if only he'd been able to finish them) and the never filmed Heart of Darkness (Heydrick makes this sound really exciting). Lesser if only films include Othello and Chimes at Midnight (if only he'd had more money and better distribution). No one seems to get too "if only" about Mr Arakin or Macbeth or The Immortal Story or The Trial. Heylin doesn't mention the uncompleted The Deep but makes a case for how much better The Stranger could have been.

I think Welles was incredibly talented; even when not cut about though, his films were not commercial - Heylin points out around the 1960s Welles kind of went "stuff you" and just got artier and artier. He tried to make thrillers even when he didn't really want to because he thought they would be commercial - but they never really were. Citizen Kane, The Stranger and Touch of Evil all did pretty well eventually, the first and latter more from Welles' reputation than anything else (it was the failure of Ambersons and It's All True that stuffed him). But his films lacked emphathy - deliberately using distancing techniques.

Heylin makes a convincing case that the studios hated Wells - sometimes on Ambersons, Lady from Shanghai and Touch of Evil especially it seems they were determined to be pricks and I agree their changes never succeeded in making anything more commercial. I think they enjoyed taking the genius down a peg or two... and Welles probably encouraged it in a "me versus them" sort of way. Heylin is probably a little too pro-Welles for his arguments to be totally convincing; surely Welles made some errors, and the studios weren't all evil? After all, they did fund him - and honestly would you risk your own money on a Welles picture? I mean, it's terrific they exist but they did lose cash. And not everyone who cut up his films was evil. A little more objectivity (and less bitchiness towards other Welles books - he snipes like a bitter academic at times) would have made the arguments more convincing

My own "if only" for Welles is this... if only he'd made a horror film or two. I think Dracula directed by Orson Welles (he'd done it for radio) would have been a classic, but his style would have gone with any story. That might have given his career the safety net he needed. I also think he wasn't much of a writer - he was best working with another writer (eg Mankiewicz, Shakespeare) from a source material (eg novel, history). When left to his own devices it isn't too inspiring - Arakadin, The Big Brass Ring. But what a director! And terrific actor, too.

Movie review - "Tight Spot" (1955) ***

Bright unpretentious thriller which is kind of Born Yesterday if Judy Holliday decided to turn evidence against Broderick Crawford. Here Ginger Rogers is the not so dumb blonde, Lorne Greene the gangster and Brian Keith the cuddly hunk trying to make her do the Right Thing. Edward G Robinson plays the DA, but it isn't a very big role - the star is definitely Rogers, in a totally non-star, character acting performance - her character is trailer trash, good on ya Ginge (though ten years earlier she specialised in these girls in star performances, the difference now being she's a lot rougher around the edges). This was based on a stage play and you can tell, with lots of conversations in a hotel room, but it moves along, the writer and director are two old unpretentious pros (Bill Bowers and Phil Carlson), there is a neat twist and some beautifully clean black and white photography.

Movie review - "Isle of the Dead" (1945) ***1/2

The penultimate Val Lewtown horror film has a wonderful title and beautifully evocative setting: during the war of 1912 a Greek general (Boris Karloff) visits an island, where he gets stuck due to a plague outbreak. An old crone on the island blames the plague outbreak on a beautiful young woman, which provides most of the plot. 

It gets a little repetitive in around the middle - people die, girl wonders if she is responsible, Karloff goes madder - but was a wonderfully spooky finale (can't be wondering around islands at night time on your own with wind blowing and someone raised from the dead) and benefits from some strong characterisations: the best known is Karloff's general, ruthless with some well hidden nice parts who goes increasingly superstitious (or perhaps he's just trying to cover all his bases) but I also liked the Swiss man who lived on the island and embraced superstitions and the doctor who calmly accepts his death. 

Like Bedlam the film was partly based on a painting - a copy of which was on the wall in Hitler's bunker when Hitler died!

Movie review - "They All Laughed" (1981) ***

A flop on release but the reputation of this film has probably risen (proportionally) more than any Peter Bogdanovich film. Its not hard to see its appeal to auteurists as it has a very strong personality, a loose-limbed feeling trip around the island of Manhattan as various detectives chase various women. There is lots of scenes using subjective camera work and without dialogue, plenty of moving around - it's a chase film. It has a carefree air and the cast all seem like nice people who enjoy each others company - which helps douse the slightly nasty taste that results from the fact that on one level this is a film about stalking. There are other unique touches, too - all the country and western songs on the soundtrack despite the fact this is set in New York, the appearance of Dorothy Stratten, Audrey Hepburn's last lead performance, the fact that Bogdanovich bankrupted himself distributing this film. Colleen Camp loves Ben Gazzarra but he then hops in bed with a sexy cab driver (Patti Hansen - never seen a cab driver quite like her, a gorgeous thing keen for a role in the hay with customers but I guess this was before AIDS hit), then falls in love with Audrey Hepburn so Camp chases John Ritter but goes for Sean Ferrer when Ritter chases Dorothy Stratten.

A film long on atmosphere and charm (also long on long takes and POV shots), short on story and characterisation. A little bit more meat in the Gazzara-Hepburn story might have made their parting more moving - it also doesn't help that the supposedly heartbroken Gazzara then goes and hops in a cab with an ever-loving Hansen something like 20 seconds after Hepburn leaves.

Having the boss of the agency have an affair with his secretary was an OK idea but one elder man-younger woman romance too many for the film (Gazzara already has two in the film with Camp and Hansen) and I wasn't wild about the shaggy haired stud detective character (Blaine Novack) who all the women love despite wearing sunglasses and a cap all the time. Hepburn is enchanting despite some unfortunate 1981 sunglasses and curly hair; Gazzara not quite believable to be this irresistible to so many younger women (maybe he is to others - I guess I'm not used to seeing him in this sort of role); Stratten lights up the scene, and Ritter very engaging in the geek-with-glasses part usually played in Bogdanovich films by Ryan O'Neal. (NB later found out that Hansen in real life went on to marry Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones.)

10 Commandments for Robert Aldrich

1) Though shalt direct in a gritty, no-nonsense style.

2) Thou shalt use an unusually long pre-credit sequence and slightly over-long running time.

3) Thou shalt use actors from thy stock company.

4) Thou shalt emphasise sweat on actor's faces.

5) If thou makest a war film, thy troops should fight amongst themselves as much as they fight the enemy.

6) Thou shalt be cycnical about military glory.

7) Thou shalt have comedy scenes that involve characters laughing raucously.

8) Thou shalt have protagonists who are older and/or borderline psychopaths.

9) Thou shalt have characters with dysfunctional sex relationships.

10) Thou shalt constantly over-reach financially but demonstrate a tenacity and ability to "stay at the table" which ensures thy career shall endure.

Movie review - "Bedlam" (1946) ****

An utter gem from the Val Lewton stable, the last he made for RKO - intelligent, literate, suspenseful, with flavoured period dialogue, strong characterisation and a solid historical basis. Boris Karloff runs Bedlam, a notorious 18th century nuthouse whose patients would amuse anyone who wanted to visit. Some casual cruelty - a terrific sequence where a performing lunatic suffocates from having painted skin, years before Goldfinger - prompts the compassion of a feisty mistress (Anna Lee) of a lord.

Lee's is a great character - although the hero she never plays for sympathy, she's a smart arse bitch, even after she decides to be a nice person. Her vicious tongue and nasty actions see her wind up in the nuthouse. In a refreshing change the wimpy one is the male - a Quaker (Richard Fraser) - but even he's interesting. It's still Lee who has to get herself out of trouble - the man doesn't run to help.

So many lovely touches: the little black page boy, the woman/man servant, the dialogue (read the script here), the political background (Bedlam is part of the Whigs vs Tory fight), Karloff's literary aspirations, Karloff's gin-drinking "niece". Lewton co-wrote the script under a pseudonym with director Mark Robson and both should be proud. This isn't as highly regarded as some of the other "implied horror" Lewton films but it's terrific.

Movie review - "Killer's Kiss" (1955) ***

Stanley Kubrick's second feature clocks in at 67 minutes, has about 40 minutes worth of story and poor lead actors but his talent is all over it. Every frame is fresh, every scene uniquely handled. It's obvious Kubrick was a photographer - the way the shots are composed seem like they are straight out of Life magazine. Fresh touches especially the ballerina sequence; the atmosphere is brilliant, that 1950s New York feel of streets at night and rooftops, arcades and cheap restaurants; all the fights are interesting. Kubrick finances this with money borrowed from an uncle and it did well enough to get him The Killing.

Movie review - "Rasputin the Mad Monk" (1966) ***

An ideal topic for the Hammer treatment, and Christopher Lee is ideal in the lead role, all fire and brimstone, damning God, seducing women and climbing to power. Apparently he loved the part and no wonder - in the first 15 minutes he bursts into an inn, sculls a drink, brings someone back from the dead, gets drunk, does a dance, makes love to a busty wench, gets in a brawl.

The film isn't up to him, though, being way too English to be convincingly Russian, seriously lacking a decent co-star (the exception is Francis Matthews, who I always liked - his profile seems to suit Hammer movies, and Barbara Shelley as the aristocrat hungry for a bit of old Rasputin who is dumped by him - just like she would be by Dracula in Dracula - Prince of Darkness, which was made just before this using the same sets).

It's a poor script which should have borrowed from history more - though maybe the filmmakers were scared of lawsuits. Some good scenes: the tavern sequence at the beginning, Rasputin defying the Church, the scene in the Church when someone tries to kill Rasputin, and when they do kill Rasputin. Shelley is very sexy in that I'm-aloof-but-I-just-can't-help-myself-wanting-a-bit-of-rogering sort of way (she flashes some bare back) and the sets and costumes are stunning even by Hammer standards (love those jackets). And there's plenty of dialogue along the lines of "look into my eyes" and "you are falling into my power". But it isn't really much of a film - a disappointment, really, considering the subject matter.

Movie review - "School Daze" (1988) ** 1/2

Spike Lee's second film didn't see him back down from any risks - a musical drama at a black college might seem like a relatively commercial option but Lee refuses to pander to the audience. It's a weird sort of movie - there is meaty drama stuff there, the fight against apathy on campuses, racial differences between blacks - but this goes in fits and starts rather than a solid story. There are musical interludes, which seem inserted erratically. The first one is an MGM homage of girls dancing in a beauty salon which lacks something (the right sort of sound design or something) and the easy going jazz throughout the movie seems to help cause a lack of energy. But the more contemporary numbers have a lot more energy, especially in the second half - there are some interesting dance ones from the guys, and a climactic one where everyone dances in swimsuits and Lee films lots of shots of wiggling arses. The plot involves Laurence Fishburne (a little old to play a college student) trying to get the college to divest its interests from South Africa. There's a kind of yucky plot twist where Fishburne's nemesis gets his girlfriend to sleep with a guy. Interesting ending where Fishburne yells at everyone to "wake up. Many of the cast later went on to A Diff'rent World.