Movie review – “Spooks Run Wild” (1941) **

If the major studios could make all-star films, why not Monogram Studios? Here producer Sam Katzman teamed the two big attractions at the poverty row – the East Side Kids (formerly the Dead End Kids) and Bela Lugosi.

The kids are on their way to summer camp when they wind up in a haunted house – cue appearance by Bela Lugosi, playing it straight to a team of comedians years before Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein.

This is the first East Side Kids movie I’d ever seen (I’d seen Dead End and Angels with Dirty Faces) – they’re high spirited, fast paced fun, like a well done Saturday morning cartoon show along the lines of Scooby Doo, complete with lots of running around a creepy house getting scared. There’s no girls, and the black East End Kid is a lawdy lawdy black comic type – but fix up those two things maybe you could remake them today. The kids think Bela is nasty but he turns out to be a harmless magician – Lugosi would be a red herring so often that a two part article was written on the topic. He is supported in this film by a midget, a combination which would later appear in The Corpse Vanishes and Scared to Death.

Book review – “Washington DC” by Gore Vidal

Fast paced engrossing best seller in which Vidal showed his mastery of American politics. Its not the significant work that Vidal claims it is but it is very enjoyable. The depictions of sex where a bit racy at the time but have since become common place. It’s fun to spot who Vidal has based his characters on – the JFK surrogate, etc

Movie review – “Black Dragons” (1942) **

Shonky but fun WW2 propaganda effort with Bela Lugosi has a doctor who is killing off a bunch of American fifth columnists helping the Japanese. So Bela is a goodie? No he isn’t, really, because he’s a Nazi. It’s just those Axis allies don’t get along. Bela is in strong form - he is a very smart villain, who can hypnotise his enemies, is a brilliant surgeon and who is cunning enough to make two victims shoot each other. You’re glad he’s spending all his energy on attacking his own allies rather than against us. I love the idea of these all American businessmen actually being Japanese agents after plastic surgery (we see how this happened in a hilarious flashback at the end to Japan – it might have been better to put this at the beginning of the film). Also funny that plastic surgeon Lugosi is thrown in gaol along with a Lugosi lookalike. Clayton Moore plays the male juvenile who asks the ingénue if he’ll marry him “so I can beat you up”. Ah, sweet banter.

NB this was one of a number of war films around this time obssessed with fifth columnists eg Sabotage - though when one considers what happened in Norway and France, that's perhaps not surprising.

Movie review – “Invincible” (2006) **1/2

Inspirational sports movie about a bar tender who makes it in the big leagues. Sweet movie with some impressive art direction. It tries to convey the things-were-tough-but-this-guy-had-heart-helped-them-through angle, but doesn’t quite (to be fair, I don’t know how else you’d do it). Mark Wahlberg is OK as the bartender (at least he looks like he could play football) and there a sweet (fictitious?) romance.

Movie review – “Coach Carter” (2005) **1/2

Sam Jackson as a bad ass – only this time a bad ass in a suit who wants to emphasise the importance of a good education. He coaches a high school basketball team to victories but shuts them out when his grades fall. Apparently the real Coach Carter was supported by the headmaster but here there is some movie-ish conflict put it; I also didn’t buy the parents throwing bricks through windows (I mean, Carter’s coaching is what turned the team around – and he is pushing for an education). It would have been more believable if, say, he got opposition from coaches or teachers who are threatened by Carter’s actions (NB something along this line is shown but not really gone into). The most interesting thing about the movie is a subplot where one of the player’s girlfriends gets pregnant and wants to have a baby; I was watching “this film is shoving the pro-life message down our throats a bit strong”... but then she has an abortion. And isn’t punished for doing so. There are some nice flashy visuals and Jackson is in strong form; interesting subplot with his son one of the players.

Movie review – “Murder by Television” (1936) * (warning: spoilers)

Very ordinary low budget melodrama which has a decent enough premise – inventor of a television set is found murdered – but sinks in a confusing, uninteresting plot and too many scenes of suspects being cross examined. Among the suspects are comic black servants, Irishman, etc. Bela Lugosi is on hand as a scientist – the best thing about the film is the revelation at the end that Bela is playing a dual role, with Bela as an investigating FBI agent. Bela Lugosi as twins – that’s a great idea for a film. Ditto the concept of Bela Lugosi as an investigating agent. But here we only find out about it at the end.

Movie reviews - "Reservoir Dogs" (1993) **** / "Pulp Fiction" (1994) *****

Reviewed both of these together because have some interconnected comments to make - to wit, they both follow the same structure. Both have a wacky intro, then cut to violence, then act one about one character (Harvey Keitel, Travolta), then act two about another (Michael Madsen, Bruce Willis) then act three about another (Tim Roth, Sam Jackson). 

The performances are consistently brilliant, the emergence of stars a delight (has any pair of movies in recent years launched/re-launched so many careers: Jackson, Keitel, Travolta, Roth, Jackson, Buscemi), the violence explosive, the chats generally all too long, both stories are rollercoasters. 

I'm aware of the Reservoir-Dogs-is-better faction but would argue Pulp Fiction is the better movie because its a movie whereas Dogs is really a filmed play (budget reasons I know but look at it again and see if you know what I mean). 

Some irritating bits - as if John Travolta doesn't have a television, and couldn't Harvey Keitel in Pulp have come up with something cleverer?

Book review – “Making Waves” by David Hasslehoff

The Hoff’s career is a testament to the power of endurance – if you do something, do it wholeheartedly and well and you can have a career that makes you a fortune and a household name. And play a role in the Berlin Wall coming down. It helps to be good looking, of course, but there’s been a lot of good looking actors in Hollywood.
I think the secret to the Hoff’s success is he has a go, regardless. Even when he’d made it as a soapie star he thought “right, I’ll try singing” – when that flopped he didn’t give up but tried it in Europe... he became a star there, and it paid off when looking to raise money for Baywatch.
 Hasslehoff’s memoirs are mostly positive and up beat – he did battle a few demons notably some dodgy relationships and alcoholism (I can understand that – he was Mr Nice Guy then go back to the hotel and hit the mini bar). He is up front too about the various problems on Baywatch (even he admits he couldn’t tell who was who among the support cast at the end). I’ve always thought the Hoff was a better light comedian than he got credit for – he’s not much of an actor, though.
 Aussie readers will enjoy the Aussie content eg battle for Avalon.

Book review – “The Studio” by John Gregory Dunne

One of the best books ever written on Hollywood, a fly on the wall account of 20th Century Fox in 1968. At that time Fox was going through a “great romantic story” phase – the studio almost went under due to Cleopatra, but then Zanuck came back and turned it around with The Sound of Music. This, however, turned out to probably hurt the studio in the long run: they greenlighted a rash of expensive musicals, such as Dr Doolittle, Star and Hello Dolly (an original one, Tom Swift, was in planning), which almost drove the studio bankrupt again and saw the Zanucks kicked out, for good this time. 

Nonetheless, I think the Zanuck II regime was a pretty good one – anyone would have greenlighted those movies, and they picked some left-field winners, like Planet of the Apes and Patton. (David Brown, Dick Zanuck’s offsider, always thought it wasn’t the musicals which killed him and Dick Zanuck at Fox – it was a trilogy of “dirty” movies: Myra Breckinridge, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and Portnoy’s Complaint.) 

So Dunne’s account makes an engrossing reading – it was more dramatic a year or two later but he probably wouldn’t have gotten the access then. He focuses on sections – the marketing of Dr Doolittle, filming Star, pre production on Hello Dolly, shooting The Sweet Ride, activities at the acting school, Irwin Allen shooting a TV series. Dunne is a little unfair I think on producers – he pokes gentle fun at Paul Monash and Ernest Lehmann, focusing on their little egotisms. Monash I don’t know about but surely Lehmann deserved more respect. But an excellent book overall.

Book review – “Monster” by John Gregory Dunne

An account of the writing of the "whatever" movie Up Close and Personal. Reviews have called this a caustic tale, but actually it’s far from – there is some eccentric behaviour but it’s clear people are trying to make a decent movie and they’re being smart about it. Would the Jessica Savtich story have made a decent movie anyway? There is almost always a good reason for execs to do what they do and Dunne is fair on reporting it. 

I’m not sold on Dunne’s ability as a screenwriter but he does a great non fiction book. It’s also clear that scriptwriting is a pretty great cushy gig – many of the problems Dunne writes about are along the lines of “it was hard for us to concentrate on getting the script done so we flew to Hawaii to work at a hotel there”. Nice work if you can get it!

Movie review – “30 Days of Night” (2007) ***

Terrific idea for a movie – vampires attack a down having 30 days of night – but it bogs down once the vampires get there, as after they’ve over taken the town they just sort of hang around, with a few humans stuck in the attack and days clicking by. It feels like a film where they never licked the second act troubles. But it has a smash finale and some flashy direction; its very slick. Josh Hartnett is wooden (I kept thinking “this is a Vinnie Chase movie”)

Movie review – “The High and the Mighty” (1954) **

Lovers of bad exposition will rejoice in this airline-disaster flick, which features numerous scenes of supporting actors going “see that person over there? That’s Benny. His wife died two years ago in suspicious circumstances” etc. Ernest Gann adapted his own novel and perhaps wasn’t the best choice for screenwriter.
 John Wayne is in confident form – I love the way he walks into his films he’s like “right, I’m John Wayne who am I playing in this one?” There is a cross section of passengers on a plane (much of their background is provided by the booking clerk), none of whom are that interesting.
There are two good bits – one when Wayne has to prepare the passengers for crashing in the ocean, and when Robert Stack cracks up. And an interesting moment when a honeymooning couple have a “we’re going to die aren’t we” chat and start kissing – and then really start going for it, you wonder if they had sex!
But they never lick the problem of integrating all the plots in a visual way, as say Airport did. It was very popular though – watching it I could hear the chomp of pop corn and slurp of coke from war veterans and boomers gasping at the technicolor adventures on the big screen.

Book review – “Bachelor Kisses” by Nick Earls

Written with Earls’ customary skill and insight but despite some god bits I didn’t like it as much as Zig Zag St. There is a sort of interesting central situation – a never-too-popular-with-chicks doctor suddenly finds himself in the middle of a hot streak, mainly because he roots nurses at work – but it's not really explored, and way too much time is spent on blow jobs and the doctor’s research project.

Movie review – “Scared to Death” (1947) *

This starts promisingly – the story is narrated by a corpse on whom an autopsy is about to be performed, there’s George Zucco as a nasty doctor and Bela Lugosi turns up as a hypnotist accompanied by a dwarf. But there’s not enough Lugosi (or Zucco), too much comic cops and newsreporters and then the girl turns out have a Nazi past. Boring! Lugosi is a red herring, there is crappy colour photography when black and white would have been better, and the film gets more dull as it goes on.

Movie review – “Space Cowboys” (2000) **1/2

This has one of the all time great ideas for an action film, at least one with older stars – a satellite breaks down and only some old codgers can fix it. As my mate Jed said when we saw it “Every 50 year old bloke in the world who sees this is going to go ‘Yep. I could do that.’” And enough did for it to be a hit. Its a fantastic idea and Clint Eastwood and Donald Sutherland come to the party; I wish James Garner had been given more to do (its not his fault) and Tommy Lee Jones is too young (surely they could have gotten some other old guy acceptable to the financiers... Paul Newman, Gene Hackman?). Like many Clint movies it could do with a bit of fat trimming – some if it is downright lazy like when William Devane talks about the hero’s chances of getting back as being nil... when we know they’re going to get back OK, they’re the heroes. Why “nil”? Why not “ten percent”? But the central idea is strong and the romanticism of space travel is well evoked.

Movie review - "The Great Caruso” (1951) ***1/2

One of the great "what if"s of the Golden Years of Hollywood: what if Leo B Mayer hadn't stormed out of the studio in 1951? Could he have made the studio stronger and turned around his decline? We'll never know and just because people don't like Dore Schary doesn't mean that Mayer's genius would have survived through the 50s - but this was made as late as 1951 and was a massive, massive hit, and has Mayer's fingerprints all over it. He still did have, at times, a genuine feel for what America wanted and they gobbled down the Mayer MGM formula here: glossy sets, charismatic and beautiful stars, wall to wall music, mother love (the young Caruso blubs over his mother when she's sick just like Andy Hardy), America love, wholesome entertainment, unpleasantness is hinted at rather than shown.

The story isn't much, just another rise-to-riches tale, really - but Mario Lanza is perfect in the lead and certainly has charisma. I'd never seen him in anything else - he was very impressive, although you can see him struggling with his weight. When Caruso is not singing - which is often, and this film includes some incredibly well done recreation of famous opera tunes - most of the "plot" involves Lanza romancing a winsome Ann Blyth who has this smile permanently fixed on her face. He becomes famous, gets her, overcomes some light opposition. It's a bit of a shock when Caruso dies (he has a few coughs, people discuss that he's sick, he sings while ill then - pow - that's it, he's gone).

Why don't people make opera films any more? I think they would work. Maybe they need a Lanza to work.

Movie review – “Battle of the Bulge” (1965) **1/2

Many of the same elements of the Saturday night television 60s action epics – well known cast (albeit solidly B list), washed colour, Germans, action. But this falls into the secondary category along with Bridges of Remagen – Phil Yordan scripts of this time often just missed eg 55 Days at Peking and this is no exception. 

 It’s a decent enough account of the battle – it gets off to a sluggish start with some very bland scenes, such as soldiers going “oh it’ll all be over by Xmas” and Henry Fonda going “no it won’t” and Dana Andrews continually to the point of contrivance; Telly Savalas is a wacky corrupt sergeant and there is some boring hey-I’m-a-writer-I’ll-put-in-conflict between a lieutenant and a sergeant, but 50 minutes or so in the battle gets going and its particularly exciting when the Germans pretend to be Yanks and when the Germans shoot a bunch of Americans who’ve surrendered.

Robert Shaw is effective as an imposing Nazi; Ty Hardin is good, too, as a German. I always liked George Montgomery and he pops up and does well as a sergeant. Pier Angeli is one of two poorly incorporated love interests.

Movie review – “Blue Collar” (1978) ****

Paul Schrader cuts a somewhat pathetic figure in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls – a Calvinist who fell off the wagon in a big way, who was too busy snorting coke and banging Natassa Kinski on Cat People to notice he was making a crap movie, who took credit for work done by his brother, who tried to be gay, etc. But you watch the films and there’s no doubt he had tremendous talent, at least until the coke got away with him.

This was his directorial debut, and its tough, gritty, uncompromising and exciting – real 70s adult filmmaking. It helps there are three leads, its not obvious who the hero is, though even then Richard Pryor was the bigger name.

Pryor was always at his best angry and he is here; Yaphet Kotto never gets much of a wrap but he’s always done what’s required (I loved his FBI man in Midnight Run) and he’s very good here. Harvey Keitel is a bit more restrained but mixes in well with the rest; watching this I was struck by how many “first films” Harve has been in – Scorsese, Tobak, Schrader, Tarantino.

This really delves into the milieu – it seems very accurate, with its dingy offices and fluro lights (neo noir?) and dead end bars. Scharder is, like a lot of 70s filmmakers, not very strong with women (the girls here are either nagging wives or whores) but he is great on men. As pointed out by Danny Peary the action scenes are very exciting. Wonderful theme music (was this the first to use it? If so its been much copied eg George Thoroughgood)

Play review – “The Browning Version/”Harlequinade” by Terrence Rattigan

William Goldman in The Season once listed a number of features of the "homosexual mystique"including (1) all husbands are panderers (2) all wives are whores (3) the only wisdom lies in bachelors and young boys. All three are on display in The Browning Version, with the weak failed teacher and his man hungry bitch of a wife who is having an affair with a young bachelor teacher who actually is a decent chap and there is a young sage. This piece still deserves is reputation for the character of Croker-Harris and his plight is exquisitely evoked.

Harlequinade is a jaunty companion piece about the adventures of a travelling group of players. A bit familiar but this sort of thing is always fun if written with skill and affection and it is here.

Play review – “The Deep Blue Sea” by Terence Rattigan

Immaculate first two acts but drops away a little in the third – mainly, I think, because there’s no need for the third. The bloke’s shot through, the girl’s done her dash – what’s left. So it’s repetition. But the first two thirds is a masterpiece, with Rattigan’s three strongly etched characters – the dutiful husband who partly enjoys his suffering, the dowdy woman swept up in romance (Vivien Leigh even old Vivien Leigh was poorly cast – this is a Maggie Smith type role), and the chipper womaniser who loves the girl but doesn’t. It’s powerful, marvellous stuff.

Play review – “The Royal Hunt of the Sun” by Peter Schaffer

Ten years or so before “Amadeus”, Schaffer came up with another clash between two real life figures – the emperor of Peru and a conquistador. Powerful drama, though when you read it you’re always going “I wish I could see this on stage so I could see all the cool Inca costumes”.

Movie review – Errol #26 - Northern Pursuit (1943) **1/2

Any movie where Errol Flynn plays a mountie fighting Nazis in snowy Canada during WW2 is automatically going to be fun but this would be one of Errol’s lesser war films. It is closer to the silliness of Desperate Journey rather than his more serious pieces. Julie Bishop is a pretty bland leading lady but the main problem is the script, which takes forever to get going (Nazis land in Canada, Errol busts them, Errol pretends to be a Nazi to find out what Nazis are up to). It makes Errol passive most of the time – even when he goes undercover the Nazis are never really fooled by him, and he spends most of the film just watching what the Nazis did. Only at the end does he kick butt.

This is one of those war films were the most interesting and compelling characters are the Nazis – Helmut Dantine and brave and clever and runs around enemy territory doing his mission. That’s like the Errol Flynn role. It’s clear from this movie the only reason we beat the Nazis was that they kept shooting their own men all the time.

Movie review – “Rogue” (2007) **1/2 (NB warning – spoilers)

The success of Wolf Creek earned Greg McLean $20 million to spend on a killer croc film, but its really a low budget big budget movie – to wit, despite location filming, its basically about a bunch of people on an island being picked off one by one, with a last act about one person battling the crocodile alone. The crocodile effects are very special and McLean gets points for not killing off people in predictable ways (there’s a woman dying of cancer who survives, ditto an annoying American). It lacks the characterisation to make a Jaws or Wolf Creek – they try but it doesn’t come off. And the script was a bit wonky in places – it didn’t make sense Michael Vartan would follow a dog through a swamp when there’s a crocodile about (OK yes he promised Radha Mitchell he’d take care of the dog but c’mon – there’s a massive croc around). Also its a debit to have vanilla ice, aka Michael Vartain as the lead. There’s nothing wrong with an American in this sort of movie, but vanilla Vartan is only good in things where he’s a handsome prop for the leading lady – but here the last third is about Vartan battling the croc to save Radha Mitchell. Had it been the other way round this might have been the big hit everyone was hoping it would be.

TV review - "Entourage" Season3 Part 2 and Season 4 ***/*****

Entourage came dangerously close to jumping the shark in the second half of season 3, partly because of the uninteresting character of Vinnie’s new agent and too much time on Ari’s home life, but mostly because there was a lack of high stakes movie plot going on and because they messed with the Vinnie-E dynamic – by making Vinnie more forceful they gave all his lines over to E, and E had nothing to do. As a result many episodes were flat and flabby.
Things picked up towards the end of the season as the boys turned producer, and the ground work was laid for many of the things that made Season 4 so brilliant: E turns into a producer and gets serious about management, giving him lots of scope for conflict with Vinnie and Ari (different sorts of conflict, too, which is great), Johnny Drama finally has some success but they totally make it work by having him be anal and annoying, the character of Billy Flynn has major “legs”, ditto Adam Goldberg’s cocaine sniffing trust fund baby. The only person who doesn’t get to join in on the fun is Turtle – they get up a girlfriend for him in season 3 but then dropped it.
The women are even more stunning and objectified in this one – apart from Dana Gordon, it’s all pretty much boobs and buts (including some from our own Sophie Monk and Emma Lung, playing Poms). But the scripts are consistently funny and inventive and the Cannes finale is a knock out.

Movie –Francis # 1 - “Francis the talking mule” (1950) **1/2

I know it’s wrong but I can’t help it – I find talking mules really, really funny, and always loved the Francis series as a kid. Watching the movies again, they weren’t quite as good – not really suited for movies, more as a tv series. The structure was the same – first half hour everyone thinks Donald O’Connor is mad then Francis talks to someone, another half hour of people thinking they’re mad, then Francis talks to a few more people, then another half hour and more allegations of madness, the Francis talks to everyone.

Donald O’Connor is very engaging as the nebbish person who Francis presumably talks to because he’s the sort of person who would be bullied by a mule. Chill Wills’ voice is hilarious as Francis. Patricia Medina is a mata hari type and Tony Curtis makes an early appearance, but the majority of support acting is done by a variety of character types playing flustered military men. Arthur Lubin directs with typically unshowy professionalism – he was as good director Lubin, made a lot of enjoyable films without ever getting the kudos.

There's a lot of gags about shrinks. A lot. And there would be a lot more for the coming series.

Movie – Francis # 2 – “Francis Goes to the Races” (1951) **1/2

This has an advantage in that Francis’ relationship with Donald O’Connor is established from the get-go and its a bright idea that Francis gives his mate the inside dope on horse racing. So it’s a bit disappointing the film follows the they-think-he’s-mad-then-Francis-speaks-so-they-don’t structure of the previous film. The romance subplot with Piper Laurie is also undeveloped. 

Cecil Kellaway pops up in support and I was delighted to hear his Aussie twang in bits. There’s a great scene when Francis gets drunk and where he has an argument with O’Connor – this is comedy gold and better than people thinking O’Connor is mad.

Francis # 3 – "Francis at West Point” (1952) **

Thanks to a tip off from Francis, Donald O’Connor helps baddies (communists?) from blowing up a factory, enabling O’Connor to go to West Point. It’s a weak basis of a film, a very convoluted way to get O’Connor to West Point. (NB is this a prequel to the first film?) 

It is fun to have Francis tutor O’Connor – but really O’Connor is too dim to be an army officer, so you don’t really hope he gets through. Like most Universal films of this period, familiar faces pop up in the support cast – in this case, Lori Nelson and David Janssen. 

Far too much time is spent on a couple of boring juveniles (one’s got a pressuring father – zzz... the influence of Buck Privates?) – not only is this dull, O’Connor is just a passive participant for a lot of it. I liked it how he was put in peril by not dobbing at the end, but then to have the star footballer not able to play well because O’Connor gets expelled… what sort of elite athlete is that? There is a bright moment where Francis talks football strategy with the coach and also delivers a before the match address to the team – this is funny. And Leonard Nimoy pops up as a young football player.

Movie review – “No Country for Old Men” (2007) ***1/2

I couldn’t say I had fun watching this but its an excellently made movie, jam packed with heart thumping suspense and unexpected twists. The Coens do desolate bad lands very well – there are strong echoes of Fargo and Blood Simple here. They also do violence exceptionally well. Josh Brolin comes out of nowhere (seemingly) to carry his role – it’s always great when an 80s teen star survives. Javier Barderm makes one of the most terrifying villains in cinema history and Tommy Lee Jones’ history is used very well. You keep thinking the film is going to end a certain way, but they pull the rug out from under your feet – and, after you think about it, it is very satisfying.

Movie review – “Million Dollar Baby” (2005) ****

Three cheers for the Hollywood press for mostly keeping the last act of this film a secret. It packs a real wallop – none too soon, to be honest, because I found the first 90 minutes a bit of a drag, a bit too much crusty Clint and feisty Swank. Most of Clint’s films go on too long and this is no exception; the film also would have benefited from a better actor than Clint in the lead. But Swank is fine (a very convincing boxer) as is Morgan Freeman and the actors who play Swank’s dreadful family. Achingly beautiful final moments.

Play review – “The Hasty Heart” by John Patrick

This has a hokey set up and situation – in a hospital in wartime Burma, an Englishman (“Tommy”), an Australian (“Digger”), a Yank (“Yank”), a New Zealander (“Kiwi”) and a Black African (a moron called “Blossom”) are told to be nice to a Scot because he’s got six weeks to live. Problem is the Scot is a rude bugger. The play is stuffed with clichés and caricatures – dour Scott (cue bagpipes and jokes about kilts), dumb African, fat Pommy – but it is surprisingly effective, especially the thawing of the lonely Scot. Great structure, too – intro, Scot arrives and is rude, act two is thawing and has romance with nurse, act three he finds out. It really works: a genuine guy cry play.

Play review – “The Home of the Brave” by Arthur Laurents

The work that launched Laurents' career it was at the forefront of the post war interest in psychology – a soldier has had a breakdown, and it turns out the reason was anti-Semitism. Act one and two deals with the soldier’s breakdown including flashbacks to a fatal mission to a Pacific island, and a climax where the doctor gets the patient to walk by calling him a dirty Jew (oh those tough love shrinks). So act three feels a bit anti-climactic – its about the Jewish guy learning its OK to feel guilty that he’s like anyone else – though there is a satisfying moment where he punches out a bigot and its nice he and the one armed man go off to set up a bar together. OK maybe to neat but after all the death and stuff a bit of neatness isn’t amiss.

Movie review – Bela – “The Phantom Ship” (1936) **1/2 (warning – spoilers)

From time to time Bela Lugosi ducked over to England to make a film and this was one of the better efforts of his career. It has a strong story, being based on the mystery of the Marie Celeste, the ghost ship found in the Atlantic in the 19th century. Some of the acting is creaky but there is a satisfying amount of subplots going on to keep the viewer interested – Bela is a bitter one armed sailor with his own reasons for going on the ship, the captain has pinched his wife from his former best friend, a sailor (Dennis Hoey) is a deranged rapist. The crew are knocked off one by one and in the end... none are left. That’s right - none (well, Bela running around on an empty deck going mad in the film’s most visually striking sequence). Its a shame we don’t get the scene where Bela cuts off the captain and his wife on a lifeboat (presumably for censorship reasons - or the copy I saw may have been one of the edited ones floating around) but is still a surprisingly satisfying effort.

Movie review – “The Invisible Ghost” (1941) **

Bela Lugosi Monogram film is full of surprising touches. It was directed by Joe Lewis who later did Gun Crazy and while I’m trying not to be wise in hindsight here it certainly appears as though Lewis did really try. There’s a great opening scene where Bela is having dinner with his “wife” (an empty chair) – and a decent plot where Bela starts killing people in trances. It is shonky and low budget but there are plenty of good bits to keep you interested – the scene where one of the servants discovers a dead body (silence then a slow pan), a murder scene by Bela (POV of Bela, then cut to POV of the victim of Bela), the dignified performance by Clarence Muse as Bela’s servant, the revelation that the wife is being kept by the gardener in his house, the death of the male juvenile half way through (you think the whole story is going to be trying to save him – but he actually gets executed, forcing his twin to take over male juvenile duties), Bela’s expression of horror on realising that he committed the crimes.

Movie review - "Deathproof" (2007) **

Its disconcerting when you realise a filmmaker doesn't appreciate his own strengths. Quentin Tarantino can write bright dialogue, but when his characters talk about nothing its only effective when something really important is going to happen, eg Pulp Fiction they chat about big kahuna burgers then go kill someone. He takes that to the nth degree with this film, which would have made a terrific 30 minute subject but has been expanded unmercifully to two hours. After a great opening sequence to the theme from Valley of the Giants it gets bogged down with around 40 minutes or so of a bunch of girls talking about going out and hanging at a bar and talking about a lap dance and drinking beer and listening to records and drinking beer and listening to more records and one of them sends a text, then gets a text then sends another text. Why include all this stuff Quentin?

It perks up for around five minutes when there's some car action. (Although even this is a bit mean - we've grown to like these girls. I mean one even gave Kurt Russell a lap dance). Then after a long chat from a detective that doesn't pay off there's another sequence with girls talking - they chat about old movies and who they're going out with and then talk about doing something with a car and they decide to do it then another girl wants to come along so they talk about doing it with her and blah blah blah. Then there's a terrific final car sequence. So there's bright spots just not a lot of them. This wouldn't have held up at 80 minutes either - please cut, Quentin!

I couldn't help feeling at times Quentin made the film to get laid or at least perv. Lots of hot chicks and plenty of shots and comments about feet and foot massages - and arses too. (No nudity, unlike 70s drive in fare). The actors are fine - Zoe Bell is a bit of a star but the others are good too and Kurt Russell is excellent value.

Movie review - "Bride of the Monster" (1951) ** 1/2

Curt Siodmark stepped behind the camera to direct this decent piece of jungle schlock, which seems to draw inspiration from The Letter and also Val Lewton films in that there may not be a monster.. Raymond Burr lusts after Barbara Payton so kills her husband after which he turns into a gorilla. Right on! Its silly but proceeds logically, the cast is a never ending delight - in addition to Burr there's Payton, who later became a hooker in real life and died mysteriousy, plus Lon Chaney as a native South American (!) and Tom Conway as a copper.

Book review - "Julian" by Gore Vidal

After a long break, Vidal returned to novels with a bang with this assured work that deservedly became a big best-seller. It takes a look at the life of Julian, Roman Emperor for a short time in the 3rd century when the Roman Empire was declining and becoming Christian; Julian tried to restore worship of all the Gods but died before he had the chance.The later Roman Empire is a period I'm not that familiar with - like most people vaguely interested in history, I guess, my knowledge of Rome pretty much focuses on the Julius Caesar-to-Nero period; as George MacDonald Fraser once pointed out, who knows anything about the later emperors apart from the fact that Hadrian built a wall and Trajan a column. Since Gladiator I would argue that a few more people are familiar with Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, but not of the others since then. Why has cinema and popular fiction shied away from the later emperors, the Christian ones? My guess its because (a) the empire was in decline, and declines are sad, and (b) Christian audiences perhaps didn't like to realise that once their religion became top dog, the persecutions started - it was easier to write tales about them being eaten by lions.

Vidal, through Julian and his supporters, makes a compelling case against Christianity - though I don't believe that Christians are the best in the world at suppressing other religions. Surely there are people in every religion who want their religion to be top dog? The book is unavoidably reminiscent of I, Claudius - even Vidal acknowledges this in the introduction - with its tale of a studious, bookish person becoming an emperor. Julian isn't as likable as Claudius, who was so sympathetic, but that's more history's fault than Vidal's.

The book did inspire me to read up about the Roman Emperors more. No wonder it's a period that continues to fascinate - there was such a variety: gay, straight, bi (most of them), elderly, teenage, fat, thin,black (if I wasn't mistaken), smart, dumb. By favourite was Honorius,one of the last - whereas most of the Emperors towards the end only managed a couple of years at most, Honorius reigned for over 20, despite overseeing the near collapse of the whole empire.

Movie review - "Michael Clayton" (2007) ***

Tony Gilroy is one of my favourite screenwriters and its great to see him making an assured directorial debut. George Clooney is the title character, a "fixer" at a law firm. He hates it, but you know having worked in a law firm I'd have thought being a fixer was a pretty interesting job - every day a bit different, full of unusual challenges,and you'd have a dirt file that would ensure you had a healthy retirement fund. But Cloons becomes disillusioned, though not as disillusioned as Tom Wilkinson, who flips out in one of those "movie cases" (big evil law firm representing chemical company being sued by poor-and-dying-but-honest farmers) making Cloons re-evaluate life. Very strong performances, including Tilda Swinton as a sympathetic baddie(maybe that should be "empathetic"), Wilkinson (what a great post-Full Monty career he's having), and Sydney Pollack (no wonder Pollack is such a good director he has such presence you'd do whatever he tells you to do).

You know how in conspiracy movies they don't normally show how people are killed so their dead body turns up mysteriously as a supposed suicide? Well, this film shows how you go about it - contacting the necessary men, giving the orders, how the break in and kill someone to make it look like suicide. Its very educational. In fact, the two hired goons in this film are a lot more effective "fixers" than Clooney, who in his two big fixing scenes is pretty useless (to a client who's run over someone he says "get a lawyer"; sent to get Wilkinson, Wilkinson escapes). Around the two-thirds mark this started to lose its way,mostly I'm guessing because Clooney becomes passively caught up in events. I think the final shot, holding on Clooney over the end credits, works.

TV review - "Bastard Boys" (2007) ***1/2

Intelligent adaptation of the wharfie dispute isn't particularly well directed (it feels as though it needs more music in the background or something) but is engrossing, once you get used to the actors, who at first seem to be a little bit "I'm an actor and I'm playing a wharfie"but then after a while are fine. The least actory is the guy who plays Greg Combes, though Jack Thompson was born to play a wharfie. The script could have done with a little more context of the history of the WWF and exactly why they were so despised by the conservatives and farmers - an opening epilogue touching on the Pig Iron dispute, all the strikes in the 70s, etc. The talking heads are a mistake - they never add anything to the drama you don't get from the action, and in some cases they distract from it eg when talking about big confrontation where violence was averted when another union showe up - why cut away to these talking heads? Why not show it? Also I think punches are pulled at the end when the union really sold its members short.

The mini series id quite fair to Chris Corrigan - but of course he whined about it. We all like to think we're the hero of our own drama.

Movie review - "The Four Feathers" (1939) ***1/2

For an action film this has a marvellous complex central dilemma - John Clements is from a military family; he is called off on duty to the Sudan but resigns his commission, claiming that his estates need looking after and it's a silly war - but in fact it's because he's a coward. Since this is an adventure movie, he goes off to war and proves his bravery through two effective set pieces - rescuing Ralph Richardson,who's been blinded in the sun fighting fuzzie-wuzzies, and saving two mates from a gaol.

I've often thought you could have made just a compelling drama out of Clements ducking war service because he genuinely thought the Sudan war was silly - being given four feathers,facing disgrace, etc on a matter of principle. The film (in the form of the doctor character) seems to say this would be noble thing - but it's not the real reason, its just plain cowardice, so having raised the issue they duck it. Which is a shame since the beginning of the movie is quite an effective critique of blind militarism - Clements' awful father, the lust for glory.

The film does not show these things in a glowing light - but cowardice is bad, so there's no doubt about that, so when Clements proves his bravery he serves the system and at the end of the film becomes part of the establishment again, even joking around with bloodthirsty C Aubrey Smith.

It's a shame they couldn't have done something like - and I know this is my PC-ness coming through - explored the notions of different sort of bravery, such as have another character who is a genuine conscientious objector, and Clements tries to make friends with him to cover his cowardice; or have Clements prove his bravery then come back and criticise the establishment. Those are things the Heath Ledger remake should have done - but that film couldn't deal with the concept of a white hero in Imperial times and introduced this black character who ran around saving Heath Ledger's life all the time. (I think they should have set that film during the Vietnam War).

Of the acting, two stand out - Richardson in what is the best role,really, and Aubrey Smith, who plays it like to the manor born, which he was. Clements doesn't really do justice to the potential of his role but he's OK; ditto June Duprez as the love interest. The two things that help this piece leap the years: the spectacle, with gorgeous colour photography and spectacular battle sequences (subsequently re-used in many other films), and the feeling of satisfaction that comes with Clements completing his mission of returning the white feathers.

Movie review - "Out of Sight" (1998) ****

A fascinating case study - a movie where they made all the right decisions, brought back Steven Sodebergh from Hollywood exile I guess you could call it, had two exciting new stars in career-defining performances, a rich galaxy of support actors, an excellent script from a "hot" novelist, romance and action, etc - but the public didn't come.Well, that's not the whole story - they came, but not in large numbers,and the film has remained an audience favourite ever since, not to mention providing a massive boost to the careers of Sodebergh, Clooney,Lopez, etc. So quality in the long run does out. The only reason I can think of why this didn't attract bigger audiences on initial release was that Clooney and Lopez weren't as big stars then - make it with them no wand it would go gangbusters. Or maybe the essentially sad nature of the romance counted against it. Anyway it's a marvellous piece of entertainment, a tribute to everyone who made it.

Movie review - Elvis #13 - "Fun in Acapulco" (1963) ***

A bright fun Elvis travelogue movie with the advantage of an interesting location (complete with location photography though Elvis never went there), a strong female co-star (the stunning Ursula Andress - though the ending its not clear if he winds up with her or the female bull fighter), perhaps a few too many songs, but some excellent handling.

Costumes by Edith Head, direction from Richard Thorpe and star who is on fire, shaking his tail feather, etc - there are some terrific numbers.

Andress wasn't the best actor in the world but she had charisma and looked great in a swimsuit - it was always a good idea for Elvis to have a decent co-star.

This is another Elvis movie where his manager (in this case a little kid) shown to be a positive influence.

Movie review - Elvis #28 - "Live a Little Love a Little" (1968) **

The swinging 60s infiltrated even Elvis movies - he wears what looks to be mascara and Norman Taurog's direction throws in a few New Wave-esque freeze frames. Confused story with Elvis losing his job and going to work as a photographer for an ad agency and a girlie magazine. And the stakes are? (Micki and Maude a person had to live two lives for strong reasons - not here.) Why didn't they spend a little time and effort on these stories?

Michelle Carey is one of Elvis' better co-stars - her sing song voice does get on the nerves every now and then but she's very fresh and pretty. It is a bit more adult - Elvis and she go to bed together, and he is a photographer for a girlie magazine. And the film features two very strong songs, 'A Little Less Conversation' and 'Edge of Reality'. But its generally a weak and lazy film with that pathetic paper thin story.

Movie review - "Streets of Fire" (1984) ****

Cult film which marked something of a pinnacle for Walter Hill movies. It's a real one of a kind experience, though full of clichéd situations. Set in a weird sort of 50s rock and roll world, shot on a soundstage, Diane Lane lip synchs to Jim Steidman films in MTV snazzy rock video montage performances (very well done with excellent editing and carefully composed frames), then is kidnapped by bikie Willem da foe and ex-boyfriend Michael Pare comes to the rescue.
I love so much of this - the opening attack scene, then Pare's arrival with Ry Cooder's thumping guitar, the jagged editing/jump cuts as the credits go past, arriving in a café and a random gang appear to be beaten up (but why do they change the music), meeting Rick Moranis and Amy Madigan, going into the Battery, rescuing Lane.
After that the story becomes less sure - did we really need that blonde girl with unmistakably 80s hair joining the group? What does she add?
And then at the end it makes sense the bikies would go after them - but sitting around watching while da foe and Pare fight it out doesn't make sense. It needed to be something more spectacular.
I think it was a mistake to have da foe kidnap Lane just for a couple of weeks to have fun - he should have wanted money as well. And the stuff about "the town" that Pare and company are from is undeveloped. Still, love that romantic ending, Lane is beautiful, Pare a charismatic star like a young Bob Mitchum (he had a decent career Pare, but never became a big name), Madigan and Moranis offer excellent support

Movie review - "Hotel de Love" (1996) **

A film that holds a special place in my heart, because I saw it in an odd time, newly single and just about to start articles. Apparently this brought the house down at the Toronto Festival, a screening that helped ensure the film got a US release but it chalked up under a million at the box office. The film has a lot going for it but never quite seems to work.

The opening sequence is promising, establishing the rivalry between two brothers over a girl, plus some pleasant albeit gratuitous n*dity from Raelee Hill, then going to the hotel... whereupon it starts to run out of puff. 

There's no real drive and the tone doesn't seem to work - Simon Bossell is established as this kind of hard working romantic but then goes over the top mad stalking Saffron Burrowes; there's scenes like where Saffron Burrowes is reading on a bench and a couple is kissing - Aden Young sits down right in the middle of the couple and they touch his face, etc - which is funny but not realistic at all, he wouldn't have sat down there. 

None of the three leads is quite right - Aden Young is charismatic but has never been that good with straight man comedy (he was good in Cosi), Bossell goes over the top and Burrowes is wooden (not a terribly likeable character either); Peter O'Brien occasionally overdoes his Ralph Bellamy part, too. 

The stand out is Pippa Grandison, who is totally spot on and very winning; her scenes with Bossell are genuinely charming and the ending is lovely; Ray Barrett and Julia Blake are strong too and the film looks good. I liked the twist with the secret of the party revealed.

Movie review - "Strummer: The Future is Unwritten" (2007) ***

People who become rebel heroes tend to be wankers: Che Guevera, Joe Strummer. I think a lack of sense of humour and bloated feeling of self-importance help you spread the gospel. Strummer is an all too familiar type - public school educated, spent time as a kid in exotic countries (dad was a diplomat), went to art school and became too cool for school, was in a punk band which he dropped at the request of a manager and joined the clash.

Strummer was a charismatic fella - he looks like a tough prick and was imposing, especially when he had a mohawk. His politics and beliefs seem to be mainly "stuff youse all" rather than a definite philosophy - even later on in life when he matured you still feel as though it was a lot of hot air being pumped out. So his company gets a bit wearying at times - there were more laughs with the Sex Pistols. The footage assembled is amazing - on stage, home movies all through his life, audio interviews. It's a bit annoying to have people around the campfire talk about Strummer who are not identified - it just would have been a bit easier to follow.

The actors who talk about Strummer are the ones you'd expect - the studious, smart, serious ones like John Cusack, Johnny Depp and Steve Buscemi (no Ethan Hawke though, surprisingly - maybe because he, unlike the others, hasn't yet made a film for Jerry Bruckheimer). And it goes on too long - the stuff about his 90s band isn't that interesting. But visually dynamic, with that Julien Temple thing of raiding other films for inspiration (If, Animal Farm, Cushing's 1984), and all the old aging rockers are good talent.

Movie review - Elvis #26 - "Stay Away Joe" (1968) **

Elvis turned in an excellent performance as an Indian in Flaming Star but his return to that race in this film didn't seem to please anyone. It's an odd piece which falls within the "hillbilly comedy" genre of Elvis films. It's a knockabout tale of a modern day Indian family in Arizona who are always short of money. On screen depictions of Indians had shifted over the years - from savages to noble persecuted creatures, etc - but their depiction here remains an anomaly. The Indians are all basically lazy and untrustworthy, keen to brawl and hop into each other's beds, high spirited and raucous, with strong family bonds. They are the main characters of the film - the Indians aren't shoved to the side in supporting roles, it's an Indian story. I don't think there is anything wrong with these sort of films - I've no doubt there are Indians like this, and why shouldn't they make comedies along this line? (If it was about white hillbillies it would pass the PC test). I think the main problem people would have with it is there aren't many other sort of films with Indians as main characters to counterbalance it. Also the Indians here are played by white actors - Elvis you can understand because he was a star, but also Burgess Meredith, Katy Juarando, Thomas Gomez... 1968 was too late to have everyone black up. Having said that I enjoyed the film a lot more on second viewing, once I knew what it was. Elvis is perfectly at home playing a yokel with a taste for brawling, fast cars and women - his performance is energetic, the title song is catchy. He doesn't have a love interest in this one, really - he tangles with an underage girl (who, in typically hillbilly comedy style, wants it badly) and also her mother (Joan Blondell - a return to the "older women" characters who populated earlier Elvis movies). There's lots of brawls, a house that collapses, over-frantic direction, not much plot, plenty of frantic movement. It's a real "yee haw" sort of movie where actors often go over the top - I was reminded of the super broad comedies John Wayne sometimes made e.g. McLintock. You just wish they had some actual Indian actors in it.

Movie review - Elvis# 20 - "Frankie and Johnny" (1966) **1/2

An unexpected delight. A bit of an oddity from the King - it doesn't fall into one of Elvis' usual categories (e.g. crappy musical where he plays a speed car racer, a hillbilly comedy, a JD film). It's a period movie, with Elvis as a gambler on the riverboat who gets caught between two women.

Its stressful watching Elvis play a compulsive gambler because you know it's an illness and one that will cause him pain down the track even if its treated comically here (normally in his movies it was his best friends who were the gamblers) and the story could have done with a bit more plot - its mostly a catfight between two women over Elvis. That's not a story without its charms, especially as Elvis is faced with the same perennial Betty vs. Veronica dilemma as Archie in the "Archie" comics - to wit, to chose between loyal Donna Douglas and enticing Nancy Kovacs. Depends on your taste, really (of course the solution is to have both - you could cheat on Betty til your heart's content, she'd always take you back).

Douglas, who looked so fetching in jeans in The Beverly Hillbillies, loses a little something when dolled up; Kovacs is quite captivating as the liberated Nelly Bly. There is a strong support cast, really excellent colourful production values and some bright numbers, not typically Elvis (including "When the Saints Go Marching In" - appropriate for Elvis because his common method of singing in his films was to walk up and down on the spot with shoulders slightly hunched). Edward Small's B movies often had a bit of extra sparkle in them and this is no exception.

But the lack of story is frustrating - the real Frankie and Johnny song was about a cheating man who was shot to death, but they don't follow that here. I can understand why (its an Elvis film after all) but what they use instead is a bit lame - Elvis' rival gets jealous, but not really jealous, and its only misunderstanding which means he gets shot at the end and blah blah blah.

Movie review - "Hairspray" (2007) ****1/2

Sometimes they just do it right: brilliantly entertaining adaptation of the stage musical, in turn based on the 1988 John Waters film. The property was strong: a solid book which combined wit, romance, satire and a point (integration and discrimination against fat people), but you could say the same thing about The Producers and that didn't work. Final credit must go to the director/choreographer who makes a movie out of the story - dance numbers use cinematic devices e.g. singing posters, cuts to different locations - but he keeps the camera still most of the time, enabling the dancers to actually do their stuff.

The wonderful thing about this film is it is so inclusive - it's all about "hey, you can join in, too" - the daughter of a manic Catholic can come out of the house and date a black boy, the chubby girl can be a dancing star and get a dreamboat boyfriend, the dreamboat boyfriend can discover his courage, the fat mother can step out of the house, the father can declare love for his wife, the little black girl can get on television, more black people can get on television. Its summed up by the final number where everyone takes their turn at doing a piece on television - and also by including cameos from John Waters, Rikki Lake, the composer, etc. When John Travolta talks about not wanting to get out of the house it's really touching.

The best numbers in the show - "You Can't Stop the Beat", "Good Morning Baltimore", "Welcome to the 60s" - are the best in the film (though why no background dancing in "Good Morning Baltimore"?). Around the two thirds mark this slowed a little, I couldn't figure out why (why so long with Michelle Pfeiffer in the joke shop?), but it recovers for a marvellous finale. James Marsden is a bit of a nothing in an admittedly nothing part - but why not give it to someone who at least is interesting just standing there, e.g. a SNL comedian or something?

Movie review - Elvis #6 - "Flaming Star" (1960) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers in review)

Elvis has a decent director (Don Siegel) and screenwriter (Nunally Johnson) and rises to the occasion, delivering a very strong performance. The role was originally intended for Marlon Brando - who would have loved acting in it, as he gets to play an Indian half breed and the film is about racial prejudice - but Presley does very well, and makes one genuinely wish he'd done a bit more drama in his movie career.

It helps that his character is not that far from the types he played in Jailhouse Rock and his other JD films - to wit, a snarling sexy youngster, pining after a girl, devoted to his mother but who goes off the rails when she's not around (the difference is in the JD films mom is dead before the story starts), but who at bottom is a decent person who turns good when it counts.

The story pulls no punches when it comes to racial prejudice, and its equal opportunity stuff, too - the Indians are no shrinking violets, led by a fanatic warrior (the opening massacre sequence is reminiscent of the one in The Searchers and doesn't suffer in comparison), but the whites are little better, full of bigots and hate, driving Elvis to extremism. 

 

The film has a lot of similarities with Love Me Tender - Elvis has an elder brother (Steve Forrest, who isn't that much - it would have been a better movie with a stronger actor, at times you almost long for Richard Egan) who has captured the heart of the woman Elvis loves (Barbara Eden - this subplot could have developed more), Elvis kicks the bucket at the end (sorry half-breed but you have to die tragically).

Dolores Del Rio adds charisma if not necessarily a great performance as Elvis' Indian mother; the scenes involving her husband and Elvis' dad, who acknowledges their family is different and will got its own way if need be, are really touching. Some good action sequences and its an all-round very solid film.

Movie review - Elvis #12 - "It Happened at the World's Fair" (1963) **

Elvis visiting the 1962 Seattle Fair sounds like a really fun idea, but this is a flat Elvis movie. Expos don't really have the production value of somewhere like Hawaii - when you think about it, its mostly just a lot of queues, really, though the final bit with Elvis walking in front of a marching band is effective, as is a romantic sequence on top of the tower.

This film is certainly a long way from State Fair or Meet Me in St Louis which used fairs very well - it probably helped those films being more ensemble pieces about families, so you could go to a variety of different locations with a variety of characters, whereas here we're stuck with Elvis most of the time.

The weak story has Elvis as a pilot trying to raise money to get his plane back - only the filmmakers dump that plot for large slabs of time, instead having our star romance a nurse and look after a Chinese orphan.

The main debit of the film is Joan O'Brien who is the female lead - its an easy role, a haughty ice maiden who melts under the withering glare of the star's charms, but she muffs it; O'Brien played the big boobed girl in Operation Petticoat and without her boobs emphasised here, she's a nothing.

The best bit is when Elvis pays a kid (a young Kurt Russell) to kick him; the finale, singing "Happy Ending", isn't bad either. Gary Lockwood, who played a villain in Wild in the Country is Elvis' best friend here; later on, Bill Bixby played a villain in Clambake and a best friend in Speedway.

Movie review - Elvis #27 - "Speedway" (1968) **1/2

The common perception is that the quality of Elvis movies really dropped away in the second half of the sixties - I'd agree that that's true as an overall average, because he stopped making the odd really good movie after 1965, but the standards of his staple picture (i.e. the crappy musical) never really dipped.

I watched this just after It Happened at the World's Fair which was made five years earlier and thought the later film had far more energy and life - even if, surprisingly, it had a similar plot: Elvis gets into financial hock because of the gambling problems of his best friend (Bill Bixby), looks after some cute kids (a whole tribe here instead of just one), and romances a haughty dame.

Nancy Sinatra is the love interest; she's a bit awkward on camera, but has a charisma and gets to sing a song; she also looks cute, especially at the end when she puts on some nifty boots.

Elvis plays a speed car driver and there is some decent car racing vision; more fun, though, is the groovy night club pad - with its bright colours and go-go dancers it looks like something out of an Austin Powers movie.

The story does sag in spots (we don't find out Sinatra works for the tax office until way too late, they pull back on the conflict, there's no decent villain, no pay off with all those kids), and there are uncomfortable scenes of Bixby forcing himself upon women.

But there are strong moments, too, including an unexpectedly witty number about paying taxes complete with middle aged male dancers ("he's your uncle/ not your dad") and Elvis is having fun (he came a father is Lisa Marie during filming which might explain it). The producer was formerly director of entertainment at a hotel in Las Vegas and sometimes it shows, e.g. the old Borscht Belt comedian. I always get this confused with Spin Out but its far superior.

Movie review - Elvis #25 - "Clambake" (1967) **1/2

A frustrating movie which I kept wanting to be better than it was. The story is perfect for Elvis, a variation on the sort of scripts Norman Krasna used to write - he's a millionaire's son who wants to find a girl who loves him for him so pretends to be poor and falls for a girl who wants to marry a rich man. Will Hutchins is fun as the guy who takes his place and suddenly starts acting like he's really rich, and Bill Bixby is good as the slimy villain - but Shelley Fabares, so good and likeable in Girl Happy is weak here. I don't know what it is - maybe the black wig that they put her in, but she's off form. Elvis doesn't seem too interested in his role.

 

The script is at fault, too - they undevelop the attraction between Fabares and Elvis, so when he proposes at the end we don't get the impression that she really likes him (she should break it off with Bixby partly because she loves Elvis - but as it is she only does it because she decides not to be a gold digger). Also they could have used Hutchins more as a plot wild card - they don't do anything with him.

 

On the sunny side some of the tunes are catchy like the title one - there's a song which Elvis sings to kids called "Confidence" which sounds like a fairly brazen rip off of "High Hopes"; Gary Merrill adds solid support as a sort of father figure (whose belief in Elvis contrasts with Elvis' actual father - more could have been made of this). If Fabares and Elvis had been in better form (strong character, more lively performance, etc) this could have ranked with Girl Happy, but as it is, it's just below.

Movie review - Elvis #14 - "Kissin' Cousins" (1964) **1/2

The one where Elvis plays a double role - an army officer and a hill billy relative. This was produced by notorious cheapskate Sam Katzman (indicating the Colonel was more interested in short term profits than in prolonging Elvis' career by associating him with the best talent), but is actually a lot of fun - the double role thing works (the two Elvises even fight with one another), the star is having a high old time, totally at home with this sort of cracker humour, the script is fairly packed with jokes and yokels and innuendoes about horny hillbilly girls: for a time its implied Elvis is having a comfortable ménage a trois with two cute girls (he even sings a song about being unable to make up his mind between them, kissing them both - eventually he settles for Yvonne Craig) and there are a pack of women called the kitty hawks who run around like bitches on heat and just wanted to be serviced.

The 60s was the golden age of hillbilly comedy - CBS based its ratings dominance on such shows as Green Acres, Beverly Hillbillies and Petticoat Junction - and Elvis made his own contribution to the genre with this and Follow That Dream. Arthur O'Connell, another hillbilly staple (he played a paterfamilias in Hound Dog Man and April Love), turns up here. In the final number, check out how gay the dancing male soldiers look.

The jokes are obvious, the tunes average, and you wish there was a bit more story (it seems mostly to consist of people running around and Elvis trying to get O'Connell to OK construction of a missile base by buying the women folk nice things) but its bright and utterly lacking in pretension, Elvis is having fun and the motto of "get the most out of life" (as espoused by O'Connell and which results in the finale) is still pertinent. (Indeed they could have made a bit more of this - say, have Elvis' army character as an uptight person who learns to loosen up by being around hillbillies).

NB one of Elvis' numbers is done with him driving a vehicle while someone sits next to him listening - this happened a lot in Elvis movies (off the top of my head I can think of times in Wild in the Country and Blue Hawaii). What sort of direction did the actors get? "Just sit there and listen."

Book review - Television plays of Paddy Chayefsky

In the 50s Chayefsky was the Man - the person who took a medium that wasn't highly regarded, with quiz shows and what-not, and showed what you could do with it, the first acknowledged great writer of television (though Rod Serling and company soon followed). Its ironic looking back that he only considered television a way of making money before he returned to theatre - just goes to show you never know when you find your medium. Chayefsky's inclination towards small stories and working class characters perfectly suited the small screen, as did his flair for dialogue and construction.

"The Holiday Song" is the play that launched him, apparently became something of a sensation in 1952. I'm surprised so Jewish a work made such an impact - but then I suppose in 1952 television wasn't as widely available as it became, and in the US at the time if you took New York you had a big impact. (Or maybe there had been so much crud on, it was great to see something that was fresh and new with quality.)

As an added bonus there is an essay on writing the script, which includes Chayefsky's thought process, how he went about construction the story, problems of adaptations, his thoughts on writing for television, and drama, etc. This alone is worth reading.

"Printer's Measure" is a bit more familiar seeming, though as Chayefsky himself points out it is structurally very sound - a printer mourns the passing of his trade, and there is a battle over the future of a young apprentice. Its well done, though feels as though you've seen it before - the passing of the old days, even the destruction of the new machine. The most effective moment was the scene where the young man's mother tells him he must work so his sister can go to college because its important that women go to college not just get married - something so feminist took me aback (especially as it was the 50s and Hollywood movies of the time are all about shoving women into the kitchen). Again its accompanied by another essay which includes some great concepts

"The Big Deal" is a third tale about an older man in crisis (Chayefsky was only around 30 when he wrote this but obviously he had a great feeling for the generation above him) - a former real estate developer who went broke but who won't accept it and keeps thinking he's in the game. I kept thinking of Alan Bond. Perhaps could have done with a bit more humour. It is still effective. Chayefsky expresses dissatisfaction with the piece in an accompanying essay - says it was "too powerful" for television, which is an interesting concept (not without truth - television's strength is dealing in depth with the everyday, which is why Chayefsky was so good at it - maybe that's the problem people have with shows like Rome and Deadwood, they're too intense)

"Marty" is for my mind the most powerful of the scripts. I am trying not to be too wise after the event but it is easy in hindsight to see why it made a popular film - it's a simple love story, with a genuinely heart warming ending. Some of it is so beautiful - notably the scene where the "dog" girl is left behind and Marty asks her to dance. What a chord. The subplots aren't really gone into in much detail esp. the bit about mom being opposed - meaning this was ideal for expansion. A real classic.

"The Mother" is about a 60-something woman determined to keep working, despite her inexperience and the opposition from her smother-with-love daughter. What drove Chayefsky to such feeling for the stories of the older generation? A powerful tale with the mother-daughter dynamic very interesting and a vital topic - to wit, the importance of dignity. This play is accompanied by a piece where Chayefsky talks about the latent homos*xuality of many men, quoting Kinsey - for all this tales of middle aged men finding love with younger women he was a forward thinking person, old Paddy.

"The Bachelor Party" - when turned into a film by HHL in 1957 this piece didn't take the public's fancy, and I think you can tell why from reading it: there is no real story. Man is dissatisfied with life and wife, goes to bachelor party, realises everything's OK. Even Chayefsky admits it wasn't strong on story (his essay for this piece is a loving tribute to actor Eddie Albert and director Delbert Mann, whom he said pushed this piece over the line). The real story I guess is when the groom drunkenly dumps his bride. Could have done maybe with a bit more humour.

Chayefsky's basic rules of drama

Main one - a drama can have only one story. It can have only one leading character.

All other stories and all other characters are used in the script only as they facilitate the main story.
- dramatic construction is a search for reasons (justifying moment of crisis) e.g. given the second act curtain incident, find reasons why characters involved in incident act as they do
- each reason dramatised by one scene and scenes must be laid out as they grow into crisis May start with character or setting
- then go to dramatic significance
- then figure out moment of crisis
- then work back

All you need for good drama is
- good character
- good emotional relationship
- good crisis in that relationship

A standard Chayefsky technique was to always show the motivation for the antagonist by a scene illustrating what the antagonist fears, e.g. "Marty" show why Marty's mother is opposed to him dating by having a scene where mum chats to a woman who was abandoned by her son.

Play review - "Romulus" by Gore Vidal

A bright, witty look at the last days of the last Roman Emperor, a terrific subject with an ideal writer, Vidal liking tales of kings and so on, and at the time had been writing Julian. It didn't meet with public favour - Vidal argues in the intro that this was because the humour contained too many digs at the audience i.e. middle class types; I'd rather think it was because the story's going to have an unhappy ending (Rome will fall - and Romulus's wife, daughter and son-in-law all die after he thinks they've gone off to safety), but also that New York audiences weren't that interested in Rome. I think this would have been a hit in London - the British seem to have a strong connection to Rome, with its monarchs, empire, ruling class, slaves, etc. Strong story and entertaining with an interesting central conceit, i.e. Romulus became Emperor to bring the whole thing crashing down, that reminded me of Messiah at times.

Book review - "Gore Vidal" by Fred Kaplan

Because Vidal writes about himself all the time you might feel "why a bio?" - but on the other hand you also feel, "well, I'd like to know what the untold story is". He deserves a big serious bio and Kaplan does an admirable job. Although drawing heavily on Vidal's own writings and interviews with the subject, this is very well researched and well written, too. It certainly doesn't lack for colourful characters - Vidal's father (though perhaps a bit bland as a person) was a top athlete, aviation pioneer, on the cover of Time, etc; his mother was a beautiful, funny, enigmatic pain (the classic mother-of-a-gay-son, to be honest); grand-dad was a blind Senator (conservative, isolationist, populist, honest, anti-welfare - continually defies "left wing" and "right wing" categorisation); step dad was an amiable wealthy idiot who later became Jackie Kennedy's step dad.

All these are familiar from Vidal's writings but Kaplan's more objective account is great to read. So are stories of the time at school (where Kaplan correctly devotes considerable chunks to the time Vidal spend honing his debating skills - something which contributed to his later genius as an essayist and skill as a television pundit). He was surprisingly straight as a younger man - had a full on and apparently satisfactory relationship with a girl called Rosalind (surely the basis for "Kit" in A Season of Comfort), then later on with Anais Nin before making the switch full time. After the war he was part of what was a pink mafia - running around Europe going cruising with other gay writers like Tennessee Williams and Isherwood, feuding with Truman Capote, etc (William Goldman is right - talent tends to cluster - sometimes the clustering can get really specific, e.g. Vidal went to bed with Jack Kerouac). Had enough cash to live this really nice lifestyle until declining sales of his novels forced him to look elsewhere to make money - an early attempt to write paperbacks didn't hit paydirt, but a move into television did. Then it was Broadway and movies, all of which Gore made a success at, then politics, at which he nearly made a success at, then back to novels, with a string of best sellers. No wonder he was confident and cocky.

The book becomes less interesting once Vidal gets his life in order. I would have liked more on his post 60s adventures in the screen trade, eg Caligula instead of all the pages devoted to his feuds with Buckley and Mailer - in the scheme of things surely they weren't that important. The book ends in the 1990s, before Vidal had what is maybe his final (?) chapter as a public figure: involvement with Tim McVeigh, opponent of Bush and the post Sept 2001 world. Not Kaplan's fault but you feel the book needs another edition.

Book review - Vidal novel #7 - "Messiah" by Gore Vidal

Vidal's last completed published novel before a considerable hiatus is a spoof on religion - specifically, the Jesus Christ story. Once it started in that I was fine with it, but it took a while to get going - excessively wordy at the start, too, as opposed to the relatively uncomplicated prose of his earlier novels, and with all these segues like a person ravishing a garden. But once the character of John Cave came along it was fine, and kept getting better and better. The satire is sharp and believable - I agree with the writer that it would make a good movie (A Face in the Crowd wasn't dissimilar). It remains clever until the end - the philosophy of Cave is kind of like a warped version of Vidal's own philosophy, the idea of having it told from a POV of Cave's ghost writer is a good one, there is excitement, the scene of Cave's death is well done, there is an unexpected twist in the battle within the religion following Cave's death. Vidal could have gotten a bit more excitement over his character fleeing into exile at the end (I guess he figured that there wasn't much point since we know from the beginning he got out OK), and also, again, he falls a bit short in the emotional stakes - his narrator is so superior and detached we never really feel he's in love with Iris... or Cave, for that matter. But a very strong book. Some of the dialogues are reminiscent of the best of G B Shaw.

Movie review - "Moonlighting - the Pilot" (1986) ****

One of the delights of television in the 80s, brilliantly updating screwball comedy using The Main Event device of a rich woman whose accountant has taken all her money, leaving her with some assets, including a detective agency that was a tax write off.

Cybil Shepherd's career received a major leap from playing the lead- her specialty had been playing sullen eyed stunners in Last Picture Show and Heartbreak Kid then she became something of a joke as Peter Bogdanovich tried to build her into a star with Daisy Miller and At Long Last Love. By the early 80s she must have been washed up - in the pilot for Masquerade she has dull eyes, the sign of a nothing. But here she sparkles and shines, and finally became the star (albeit a small screen one) that Bogdanovich always thought. (She's still very good looking too and in the opening scene flashes a lot of leg).

She's perfectly matched by Bruce Willis' star making turn as the naughty boy David Addison -while in some spots he's a bit rough in this episode he's charismatic and full of energy and life - so funny (he's stopped being funny now,hasn't he, Bruce Willis?). The plot is effective with a memorable assassination sequence involving a jogger, guns and a Mohawk.
Bright, tangy dialogue. They really did it right with this one.

Book review - "Whatever Happened to Orson Welles" by Joe McBride

Another book on Welles? At this stage in the game? But one pauses -McBride is one of the best movie biographers ever, he wouldn't waste our time. And so it proves. This is an unusual sort of book - I'd call it a "personal biography", because it is very much based on McBride's experience as a young writer doing pieces on Welles and working with him on The Other Side of the Wind.

The first section of the book covers Welles' career up to that movie - radio, Kane, Rita, Chimes etc. It is brightly done, but familiar and McBride's tendency to criticise writers who are critical of Welles (e.g. David Thomson, Charles Higham) gets a bit irritating at times - its like being caught in a vicious academic debate about post-modernism. But when he gets on to Other Side of the Wind and Welles's last decade and a half its really interesting; McBride offers a fascinating sketch of Welles and his methods, his collaborators in the last years of his life (especially Gary Graver and his mistress), how his methods changed (a younger mistress = more sexy topics), the staggering array of unfinished projects, his endless struggles to make films, his at times difficult relationship with Peter Bogdanovich and with McBride (despite the young man's passion for Welles' work the director was a real prat at times).

Because Welles' final years were full of so many "if only"s and "wouldn't have been good if he'd been given the support to finish X"s (one of the reasons that he will always be fascinating to film buffs, because his career is so rich in hypotheticals), it can't help but being sad. But there are moments of triumph, too - his various friendships, making F For Fake, his continual ability to remain at the cutting edge with creative powers undimmed, his lust for life.

I was also delighted to read that his final decade was among his most rewarding financially - voice over and commercials work kept him in cigars and food, so he wasn't poor. (NB good on McBride for chiding those who point to his 70s wine ads as some sort of low point in his career - he points out that Welles did heaps of ads back in his 30s glory days, he was always a bit of a huckster). Even better is the fact that Welles at one stage EDITED A PORN MOVIE - Graver worked on the less glamorous fringes of the film industry from time to time, and Welles one day asked if he could help out on something his DOP was doing... hence a Welles touch where you least expect it? (Wonder if they'll start showing it in retrospectives).

The book is (unavoidably) frustrating in one respect in that McBride describes so many of Welles' films from this time but you know its nothing quite like the experience of watching the movie - you kept wishing you could click on a link to watch what he was talking about.(I'd love to watch the Orson Welles talk show). For all the status of The Other Side of the Wind as a lost masterpiece, the story doesn't sound very interesting - I'm sure it would be visually dazzling but Welles running loose without the structure of either a strong co-writer or source material often resulted in a bit of a mess. The heart doesn't beat too fast at the thought of Cradle Will Rock or Big Brass Ring either. However, King Lear - that would have been magnificent, and the fact that didn't get made really upsets me.

The quality slips away in the last bit of the book, as McBride starts to get stuck into other people over Welles - daughter Beatrice for stopping people seeing his father's work (though Beatrice does sound like again), Bogdanovich for wanting money to complete projects, George Lucas and Henry Jaglom for not financing Welles restoration projects out of their personal fortunes (which is a bit unfair, it is their money), slagging off Tim Robbins for Cradle Will Rock.

But on the whole this is a passionate, personal book about Orson Welles, well work reading and invaluable on the last decade and a half of his life.

Book review - "Lugosi" by Gary Rhodes

If you thought previous books on Lugosi were definitive, well guess again -Rhodes has come up with a true "must" for a Lugosi fan. It's a great idea - a sort of encyclopedia on Lugosi with different chapters a bio, film descriptions, stage appearances, vaudeville, television,quotes by Lugosi, quotes about him. It allowed Rhodes to shove in heaps of information without the confines of a narrative bio and it works brilliantly - they should do it for every movie star. I was especially impressed with the emphasis on stage and vaudeville - these were major components of Lugosi's career but are often treated as mere lead-up-to-becoming-a-movie-star; here they get appropriate weight. And its wonderful to hear Lugosi in his own words. Rhodes also pays tribute to Lugosi's status as a cult icon, and the great urban legends of his career (i.e. missing Frankenstein test footage, lost White Zombie footage). The essential tragedy of Lugosi's life is still evoked - one of the most appealing things about him for film fans, I've always thought - but he still had an amazingly rich, diverse life.

Movie review - "Dark Eyes of London" (1939) **

Bela Lugosi made a few films in England, including this enjoyable minor piece based on an Edgar Wallace story. Insurance investigators, bodies in the Thames and Bela as a mad doctor, mad assistants, a damsel in distress, plus an American detective included for the American market (obviously Bela was not enough). A bit more polished than Bela's later films for Monogram, less tacky.

Movie review - "Girl on a Motorcycle" (1968) **

This piece of late 60s groovy cinema has its pleasures, chiefly Marianne Faithful getting up with no clothes on and putting on a leather outfit and driving around to visit Alain Delon. We flashback to their relationship and get Faithful in a variety of stages of undress, plus a lot of interior monologuing.
Despite pleasing shots of a motorbike driving across the roads, one gets the feeling that this would work better as a novel than a movie. Or better in French where some of the dialogue might seem less laughable. It is nice to see a film which deals with the sexual obsession of a woman rather than a man.

Movie review - "Lagaan" (2001) ****

Bollywood movies really are the modern day equivalent to 60s beach party films - wholesome, predictable musicals that are a lot of fun. Curiously, both genres place a lot of emphasis on the group, though they have heroes. This goes for three and a half hours though it didn't need to be. It has a strong Syd Field plot, with its set up, hero, overcoming obstacles, complications etc. The hero has a great intro scene trying tosave deer from hunting Britishers; the baddy gets to show how evil he is forcing a vegetarian Raja to eat meat and also killing a bunny rabbit.Although the baddy is really evil his sister is nice - she falls in love with the Indian and teaches him cricket. Jolly good. And the head Britishers aren't bad, even though many of the Indian cricket team are very anti-British (the British umpires make several decisions in favour of the Indians - there's no implication of bias).
What's nicest about the movie is its sense of inclusion - the Indian team comprises of a crazy fortune teller (the most Aussie of the cricketers, like a cross between Rod Hogg, Dennis Lille and Ian Callen - I love his send offs of the British players), an older doctor, a Muslim, a combative fast bowler, and most touching of all an untouchable with a withered arm who is a hopeless batter and fielder but an at times unplayable spin bowler(what makes it especially moving is that there was a player like that,Chandra - only I don't think he was an untouchable).
The final cricket game is a joy, very gripping, and shows how well cricket adapts to cinema - there is sledging, a beamer, dropped catches, fours and sixes,a dramatic last wicket stand, a runner (NB who is Mankadded and because he's a small boy I think we're supposed to feel sorry for him - but he deserved it, really, he was out of his crease a long way, its cheating),he's and hitting a six off the last ball. Entertaining tunes and production numbers.

Movie review - "The Kingdom" (2007) ** (warning: spoilers)

So wanted this thriller to be better than it was because the trailer was so good and it's a great idea for a film: an FBI team investigating a bombing of a US compound in Saudi Arabia. Great format to explore Middle East-West relations.

But they muff it with far too many "movie scenes" that feel as though they've been "punched up" by script doctor hacks. Like introducing Jamie Foxx talking to a group of kindergarten kids where he talks about his son's birth ("you know, we need a scene where we establish what a good dad Jamie is" - but would kids care?); and these awful scenes where the FBI agents are in Saudi Arabia swearing and carrying on and being frustrated ("like, we need a scene to show them butting heads so then we can have a HERO'S JOURNEY where they come to respect the Saudis"). The sheer fact Americans are in Saudi Arabia is conflict enough without shoving in this crappy 90s cop movie garbage about "hey man let us do our job". They're in Saudi Arabia and they're being obnoxious. To make matters worse they bring a woman, Jennifer Garner, without even the courtesy of an explanatory line like "she's the only person we can get at short notice" - and she wears T shirts and singlet tops. I kept thinking, "cover up, Jen".

The film picks up once everyone starts co-operating and there's a nice scene between Foxx and the nice Arab (a like able character and the best performance in the film) and you think "that's what this movie should have been - a buddy flick in Saudi Arabia, instead of having these four not very likeable or -even less forgivable - different characters".

Why are all the FBI agent characters the same? Why not have one have a romance, or another be very anti-US in Saudi Arabia, or very proper, or extremely apathetic or whatever. The complexities of the US-Saudi alliance - our military propping up a dictatorship, moderate opposition forces with Saudi Arabia being pushed towards extremism, religious vs. secular - are raised briefly then mostly ignored. (It's a shame we couldn't have seen more of the Jeremy Piven character - Piven plays him like Ari Gold but you can imagine that's what would be needed out there).

Then there's that awful scene where the husband of a woman killed by terrorists attacks the nearest Muslim - OK, you're upset, but he's in Saudi Arabia and has worked there for a period of time, one would assume he knew there would be some risks or at least learn not to blame people just because they are Muslims, and anyway the fifty worder who plays him isn't much of an actor. (This isn't like the Sept 11 attacks - these Americans are on foreign soil.)

There is a pretty good ambush and race-against-time sequence at the end - even if you think would terrorists really stop to pull out the camera and film Jason Bateman getting his head chopped off with a bunch of Americans in hot pursuit. This sequence is done well.

But then they ruin it with the worst possible choice of endings - making the final battle unrealistic "Hollywood" (no innocent people hit despite being fought in a crowded urban area, no Americans killed, Bateman saved just in time)... but the nice Arab (Ashraf Barhoum) is there blasting away with Foxx kicking butt and taking names and you think "OK its an Arnie movie but at least a positive Arab is joining in the carnage" - then they kill him. The one nice lead character, four irritating Americans - the Americans live and the nice guy dies. So not only is it unrealistic, it's a downer. I ended up leaving the cinema just mad.