Movie review – “Harper” (1966) *** (warning: spoilers)

A 60s version of the private eye genre – instead of disheveled Bogart we have Paul Newman in a jacket and tie, constantly putting his feet up on furniture and acting casual (insolent may be more appropriate). He has an ex-wife, a smart mouth, and a code of honour, so you kind of know his mate is going to betray him, even if then it was new. 

William Goldman wrote the screenplay which bears his marks: flip dialogue, lots of sarcasm, use of reversals (eg Bob Wagner tries to burst in the door which Newman then opens), solid structure, wacky characters, sexpot women. Strong support cast, with Lauren Bacall in a wheelchair, Julie Harris as a drug addict, Shelley Winters as an alcoholic, Robert Webber as a prick, Pamela Tiffin (gorgeous, big hair) does a shimmy dance in a bikini on a diving board (she’s pretty good in the role – what happened to her?). Best of all is Robert Wagner as the cheerful, boyish secretary keen to help Harper investigate – he has a big secret. Has that great 60s colour photography and slightly arty violent scenes. A bit smart-arsey at times and it seems to run out of steam when Wagner dies, but watchable regardless.

Movie review – “Billy the Kid vs Dracula” (1968) *

The film isn’t as good as its wonderfully crappy title. The idea of a vampire out west is not a bad one at all, John Carradine is always fun and some of the older support actors are fine. The plot has Dracula pretend to be a man he has killed in order to get close to a beautiful woman he wants to seduce – that’s not a bad idea, it’s got a three act structure and all that. Billy the Kid is the hero (he’s reformed apparently) - it might have been better had evil Billy gone up against Drac. It is a bit too cheap and crummy, with lacklustre staging and some irritating bits: what’s the deal with the bat flying off at the end even though Drac’s had a stake through the heart? And do rocks in the head work where bullets can’t? And doesn’t he walk around in daylight?

Movie review – “Attack of the 50 Foot Woman” (1958) **1/2

Beloved sci-fi classic remembered for its campy title and big paper mache hands. It also has strong performances from Alison Hayes in the title role, a recovering alcoholic rich unhappily married woman who has an unfortunate encounter with a space ship, and Yvette Vickers, as the saucy no-good tramp who takes Hayes’ husband.
The three leads are all cynical and sick – Vickers and the hubby are into cash. There are no bland likeable characters so the non sci fi stuff in this film holds up surprisingly well.
I wish Hayes had gone on a bit more of a rampage, but I’m guessing the budget didn’t extend for it. She does appear in a very fetching bra top and short skirt when she is fifty feet tall – the inherent (unexplored) possibilities in this are presumably another reason while the film is constantly revived when other, better films are forgotten.

Movie review – “The Prince and Me” (2005) **

The Yanks stole our story! Actually this is more a rip off of The Student Prince, with Prince of Denmark going incognito and romancing Julia Stiles. Stiles is an accomplished actor who seems to have been waylaid into making a lot of crap (A Guy Thing, Down to Love); she’s professional here, too, but seems to be going through the motions – she lacks the high spirits that made her so enjoyable in 10 Things I Hate About You. It is nicely done, individual scenes are given spark and shine, some strong support cast (particularly Miranda Richardson) – but can’t escape the lack of a third act. Once she finds out he’s the prince of Denmark and realises she loves him… where’s it going to go? Maybe they needed an assassination plot or something. Either that or end the film when she greets him in Denmark.

Movie review – Ladd #37 - “The Deep Six” (1958) **

One of a series of films Alan Ladd for his own company at Jaguar, all of them second-tier action dramas reusing many of the same crew such as writer Martin Rackin and DOP John Seitz. This one has an intriguing premise, being about a Quaker called up in WW2.

For an action film, there is quite a long section at the beginning where Ladd romances his Madison Avenue boss (Diane Foster) – his Long Island beach house is identical to the one Michael Mancini lived in Melrose Place. This goes on for a while and is quite interesting, some strong dialogue, but you can’t help wondering “why is this in the film, especially at the beginning? Isn’t this about a Quaker?” Then it switches into war mode with cliches to match – horny sailors, wise captain, ambitious executive officer, calm doctor.

It’s wonderful to watch Ladd in scenes with his old costar William Bendix (you can see how they got along from the film, Bendix blathers away while Ladd listens, enjoying the other man’s liveliness.) The Quaker stuff is weirdly dealt with – Keenan Wynn is a bigot towards Ladd’s Quaker upbringing, Ladd denies he lives by Quaker rules, but then when a plane attacks he can’t give the order to fire (something that turns out to be correct luckily – but clearly even if he was wrong he wouldn’t have fired; Ladd’s face was lined and alcohol ravaged by this stage, giving extra dimension to his agony). The crew don’t like Ladd – but then he proves his bravery disposing of a bomb. OK, right so you’d think that’s the end of the film – but then there’s a scene where Ladd gets in a fist fight in an Alaskan port, then leads a mission to the Aleutian Islands, suffers “I can’t kill impotence” again – but recovers to mow down some Japanese. Hooray!

Ladd films often dealt with a man overcoming pesky pacifist principals and learn how to kill – Thunder in the East and Shane are two examples. They drop the Wynn-mean-to-Ladd plot then Wynn turns out to be a morphine addict.

As you might gather, the film feels like a television series with the storylines of various episodes all thrown in – one about Ladd romancing his boss, his boss leaving her previous fiancée, bigotry from Wynn, Wynn’s addiction, Ladd being brave, Ladd learning to punch people, Ladd learning to kill. Potentially a lot stronger film if they’d just sorted it out. Ladd was looking his age, and he isn’t the most expressive actor in the world, but he tries.

Movie review – Hitchcock #48 - “North by Northwest” (1959) ****1/2

Few moments in cinema are more thrilling that the opening to this film – Bernard Herrmann’s glorious theme music creeping up slowly and Saul Bass’s titles stalking across the screen, then the fly into it with that wonderful credit sequence. Then its off and running with Cary Grant as an ad man sucked into some adventures. It does lose momentum when he hands himself in to the CIA (it has to start up all over again) but I enjoyed Mt Rushmore. Hitch at the peak of his powers – love the look of this film, with its grey suits, martinis, trains, hair, black shoes, wood paneling, new televisions, theatre tickets for mother, country estates (one at Mount Rushmore), day for night, crop dusting. It’s a lovely looking film. Grant is in his element and James Mason and Martin Landau a perfect pair of villains; Eva Marie Saint is lovely, even though you can’t help wishing Grace Kelly played the role. (NB how did they know what train Grant would be on?)

Play review – “The Iceman Cometh” by Eugene O'Neill

No one was better than Eugene O’Neill when it came to bums and low lives who hung around bars and this was one of his bums-in-bars masterpieces. It remains a powerful work, full of etched characters: the bar owner using his wife’s death as an excuse to hide from the world, the African-American former gambling hall owner, the former anarchist trying to deny his still-latent idealism, the young man who sold out his movement, the whores, the squabbling former soldiers. Hickey who arrives seems to be the hero, the man who is all smiles and smarts going to shake them out of their topor, chasing for pipe dreams – but we soon find out he’s not entirely innocent either. You can smell the bourbon and dirt and anarchism, even if it does go on a while. I think I’d prefer to read O’Neil than watch him.

Play review – “Away” by Michael Gow

When I first read this I was a little disappointed – this was a great classic, a part of the cannon? I enjoyed it, to be sure, it was sweet and moving and full of charm and obviously would work well on stage. 24 hours on and I can see more why I liked it – some of the images and characters even on the page have been hard to shake: the headmaster telling his wife he’ll lock her up, Coral and Tom finding each other and putting on a show, the scenes at the beach. Wistful and poignant piece of work.

Movie review – M&L#6 - “Jumping Jacks” (1952) **1/2

You couldn’t go wrong with a service comedy in the fifties, with a generation of Americans having served in the army during the war (and the next generation also serving with the draft). Jerry Lewis tries to help out old mate Dean Martin who is in the army by performing at a show (where the number is the incredibly tacky ‘Parachute Jump’ and there are a few other numbers like it) but through his own big mouth finds himself permanently in the army.

I remember thinking this film was funny when watching it as a kid but it hasn’t worn that well (Lewis a bit too much of a retard), although there are some laugh out loud moments. It is funny in that no matter what Lewis does his star in the army rises while Martin suffers – even more could have been made of this. Lewis does a fair amount of schtick, there is a bullying sergeant, a climax involving maneuvers, etc. Made with army co-operation, even though Lewis basically pretends to be a soldier and they decide at the end to cover it up. Maybe they figure its worth it to make the army seem like fin, which it does.

Movie review – “Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith” (2005) ***1/2

I would classify this as the third best in the six movies, better than Jedi because of its powerful finale when the sh_t goes down: Anakin goes evil and kills Samuel L Jackson then all the young Jedi (but stop saying “younglings”), the Jedi are wiped out, democracy ends, Obi Wan has to kill (or nearly kill) his apprentice. It is great stuff, even if Hayden Christensen’s acting remains crappy, Natalie Portman is rendered a wimpering cipher (watch the thing that covers her up when she gives birth – there are no vaginas in space). Ian McDairmind is very good, Christopher Lee probably should have been killed off in the previous film and the gimmick of Yoda fighting is a bit tired second time round.

Movie review – Jungle Jim #1 - “Jungle Jim” (1948) **

When Johnny Weismuller got too old and fat to fit into Tarzan’s loin cloth he managed to prolong his career by putting on khakis and becoming Jungle Jim. In the first few minutes of this he dives off a cliff into the water and fights and kills a leopard – only now he does it with clothes on. It’s weird hearing him talk in full sentences.
There’s a lost civilization and an expedition which includes a rutheless exploiter (George Reeves). Virginia Grey, looking very fetching in slacks and glasses, plays a professor who is feisty and feminist when we meet her, then promptly pays: she runs out of puff on the march, forcing litter bearers to carry her; a crocodile attacks her, forcing Jim to come to the rescue; rocks fall on her, forcing Jim to come to the rescue goes for a swim and is almost eating, forcing Jim to come to a rescue.
There’s no chimp, but there is a cute dog (but who wants them in an Africa movie?), a tribe who try to sacrifice our hero. There is a decent moment where Jim hangs off a cliff, and the final battle at the end is pretty good, but its all a bit uninspired and cheap.

Movie review – “Footy Legends” (2006) **

Wanted so much to like this more than I did because its heart is so evidently in the right place. And there is much to like: Anh Do is a genuine leading man (looking quite buff in some scenes), and the film is mostly well cast: all the blokes who make up the footy team are striking, the little girl is great as are the old people; Claudia Karvan is way too likeable to play the social worker (maybe they didn’t want to go with cliché and make this character evil – but it’s a cliché movie, they should have made her evil, it would have given a needed antagonist). Peter Phelps’ baddy comes into the piece way too late. The film comes alive in scenes between Ahn Do and his Vietnamese family – it would have been a better movie if they’d concentrated on that. Instead they go for the inspirational sports movie template without understanding what makes it tick – you need baddies, a gun player brought back into the fold, an old coach who helps you, and most of all, lots of montages to music. The music budget on this obviously went too quickly – we get grabs of songs, “Shine” and “What’s My Scene” – but in sports movies you need to coat the sports sequences with music. Some bits don’t have music at all. The speeches and editing clunk a little bit, too.

Play review – “Perfect Skin” by Janis Baldois based on a novel by Nick Earls

Anyone who thinks adapting books into plays is easy should look at this version of Nick Earls novel. Its fourth time unlucky, with Phil Dean opting out from the job and the play paying the price. The result is clunky, leaden, and repetitive (stop mentioning the cat Flap, please), with seeming great slabs of novel dialogue simply shoved in the script. Earls’ novel mightn’t have been a masterpiece (grieving widow finds new love, not the most original idea – the “twist” of him not actually liking his dead wife that much isn’t much of a twist, it only makes things easier for the couple) but it deserved better than this.

Play review – “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” by Eugene O'Neill

One that separates the men from the boys. Powerful masterpiece from Eugene O’Neill – goes for a long time, but not that long, and fairly scorches off the page. Continually defies expectation, as great work often does: dad is an actor, but a busy one, determined not to be poor so buys lots of land, yet mortgages it and often buys poorly; mum is a drug addict, blames it on dad; the two sons blame their problems on dad, and he was cheap – yet they are clearly at fault, too. Jaimie the eldest drinks and lounges to hide his guilt; Edmund (the young O’Neill) has consumption. The play is set in 1912, the year O’Neill tried to kill himself – he went to the sanatorium and got better. Incredible piece of work.

Movie review – JL#8 - “Cinderfella” (1962) **1/2

Plots were never the strongest feature of Jerry Lewis films, so this has an advantage using the famous fairy tale. Cinderella stories almost always work and it does here – even if you can’t help thinking it works better when its about a woman. Paramount threw a fair bit of money at this one: there are spectacular sets, loving colour, plenty of extras in the ball scenes.

Ed Wynn is great fun: the scene where he talks about men complaining about the Cinderella myth so they got Lewis in to be one is hilarious and the highlight of the movie (even if it kind of cheapens the romance between Fella and the princess). That moment also provides some choice Frank Tashlin satire – although most of the rest of the film is pretty much just for kids. Probably a mistake to have Fella meet the princess at a ball twice instead of once.

The musical treatment is tentative – for instance, Lewis has some numbers where he partly hears himself singing, then actually sings. Why not just make it a proper musical? The princess is a bit of a nothing, although pretty – it’s not believable how she falls for Lewis (not an impossible task – look at Shirley MacLaine in Artists and Models and Stella Stevens in The Nutty Professor.) Didn’t believe at the and where he gives the money to his step brothers (why?) then his stepmother says “no – the money belongs to Fella”. Yeah, right. Aussie Judith Anderson plays stepmum.

Movie review – “Five Weeks in a Balloon” (1962) **1/2

A film that helped put at end to the Jules Verne craze that flourished on screens in the 50s and early 60s – that, and the fact that most of the best known Verne’s had already been filmed. On a children’s film level this isn’t bad, with its colourful Arabs, dancing girls, rescues and romantic sweep of a balloon of travelers crossing Africa to claim land for Britain before slavers happened (a big thing the British used as justification for their African colonialism, which is here unquestioned as a good thing).
Adding to the fun is Peter Lorre as a cuddly slave trader (he comes in a bit too late in the day), a cute chimp and Richard Haydn as a pompous British solider (unexpectedly the second best performance in the film). Cedric Hardwicke is non-descript and uncolourful as the professor (a waste of this role, it needed someone a bit mad). Second billed Fabian mostly grins in a not very exciting role as Hardwicke’s assistant; he also sings snatches of the title tune and romances a slave girl (Barbara Luna).
Red Buttons is not ideally cast as the romantic lead – he’s meant to be a swashbuckling, two fisted yet sophisticated journo, the sort of role played by a young Clarke Gable or who could have easily been portrayed by one of the young males under contract to Fox (Stuart Whitman, David Hedison). But it’s Red Buttons, for crying out loud. A talented actor in comic support parts, he’s irritating and lacks the necessary charisma to be a hero.
The film starts a big sluggishly but gets better as it goes in, particularly once Lorre and Barbara Eden join the gang; Henry Daniell pops up as a shiek. (All three were also in Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.) They probably should have personalized the slavers racing them on the ground a bit more, and it hurts that the main actors aren’t actually in Africa, just cut in among stock footage.

Play review – “The Vagina Monologues” by Eve Ensler

Brilliant collection of views about the vagina – hilarious, poignant, moving, etc. There’s a black child rape victim who discovers lesbian love, an old lady who discovers the orgasm, a rape victim in the former Yugoslavia. It’s all very well written and put together, although I admit probably women will get more into it.

Movie review - "The Sweet Smell of Success" (1957) ****

OK maybe HHL were pretentious and silly at times, but they are badly missed because they made films like these. The public didn't like it but deservedly its reputation is strong today - a powerful look at the power pushed by a gossip columnist and the people who suck up to him. Burt Lancaster is very strong as the egomaniacal writer, full of himself but with strong feelings for his sister (the Borgias and Scarface showed you can't go past a bit of cloest incest in a character to make them interesting). But the film is stolen by Tony Curtis in an electrifying performance as the weasly press agent prepared to do anything to get ahead. Wonderful dialogue - why do people whine about Clifford Odets never living up to his potential when he had credits that included this towards the end of his life? The juvenile couple are a little on the "wet" side.

Movie review - "Aliens" (1986) *****

A sequel even better than the original, with James Cameron in his element. It's an entirely different movie from the first one, which was basically a haunted house film in space - this one is mostly an action film. I always read this film as an indictment of American soldiers in Vietnam (or really any over confident world power in the third world): a bunch of cocky, gung-ho, heavily supplied soldiers get in totally over their heads in a hostile environment and get wiped out. The army here really aren't very good - they lack discipline, are poorly led, panic, and overly trigger happy. The film doesn't endorse these qualities (except maybe the "kill them all mentality" as it is espoused by Ripley) which is what makes it so entertaining (a sensibly led proper army surely would have found it easier to deal with the aliens - actually maybe I'm being a bit harsh: they do the right thing after the initial attack, they just have to deal with a traitor).

There is some excellent acting: Sigourney Weaver confirms she's a star with her lead performance (she's maybe not the best actor in the world, with some lines of dialogue she's a bit wooden, but she is charismatic and a half). Top support cast, too: Michael Biehn as the sensible Hicks, the dynamic Vasquez (a real find and its disappointing her subsequent career didn't come to much - one would have thought she'd at least made a solid made-for-video star), Paul Reiser in perhaps his best big screen performance as a slimy corporate yuppie (though not one without courage - no one credits him for that, he does show bravery at times), Lance Henrickson as the decent, kindly Bishop (a superb example of sympathetic underplaying) and most of all Bill Paxton as the quintessential 80s gung ho coward. Thrilling, explosive and logical. Maybe the final fight between the alien and Ripley in the loader is one too many.

NB the director's cut put back some scenes which I think was a mistake. I know the whole Ripley-finds-out-her-daughter-is-dead scene gives some extra resonance to her being asleep for so long and finding a new daughter in the form of Newt, etc but it wasn't really needed - the audience reads those things in anyway. Secondly the scene on the planet where we see Newt and her family first isn't really necessary either - it's a lot more effective to just land on the planet without knowing what or who is down there.

Movie review - Hitchcock #39 - "Strangers on a Train" (1951) ****1/2

A brilliant film, which ushered in Hitchcock's perhaps greatest decade after slipping a little bit in the late 40s. Hitchcock is known as a visual director, but note how the first segment of the film is all talk - excellent talk, too, though, important exposition, how else would you do it, put over by some top dialogue and the top notch acting of Robert Walker. Walker was so good in this film, one wonders what his next ten years would have been like as an actor, playing villains (he wasn't bad in My Son John either) - he's like Fred MacMurray, likeable enough as the boy next door but on a whole other level playing evil. Farley Granger is good, too - Granger doesn't get much good press probably because he was built up a fair bit when launched and didn't come through, but as David Shipman said he had a neat line in wealthy weaklings, and his weakness works here - Walker always seems on top of him. Pat Hitchcock adds spice as Ruth Roman's sister - note the use of her as an exposition device, spelling out the situation by making it humourous. The murder sequence of Granger's wife is thrilling, ditto the climax on the merry go round. The end is unbearably suspenseful: the lighter in the drain, the tennis match. My main gripe - if Granger has to finish the game early, why doesn't he throw it instead of trying to win quickly?

Movie review - "Alien" (1979) ****

Brilliantly made sci fi horror which perhaps doesn't have the impact it once did because it has been copied so often. While the idea of a monster on board running amok was a great one even then, it is a great monster (totally soulless, a perfect killing machine), beautifully designed. The film also was one of the first to introduce a more believable "messy" vision of sci fi future, with the heroes not being explorers but tough union workers worried about contracts and pay rates. Memorable scenes - the chest opening, the revelation of the droid, "Mother" - and some expert actors doing their thing. Sigourney Weaver is a spectacular find. Some of the killings are a bit ho-hum eg Yaphet Kotto's. Stunning design.

Early "Star Wars" = "The Hidden Fortress"

Just came across an original treatment for Star Wars on the net - interesting to read, especially to see what a rip off of Hidden Fortress it was, even down to Luke Skywalker being Toshiro Mifune.

Movie review - "The African Queen" (1951) *****

Deservedly beloved classic with two stars in fine form - though really I think a lot of other stars could have played the part (even Cary Grant made a believable bum in Father Goose). Maybe that's unfair; it's hard to imagine anyone more apt than Katie Hepburn in particular. I love how she goes about killing Germans in the same no-nonsense way she looked after her flock. The film improves on the novel by having them take on the Germans at the end and cleverly winning.

Movie review – Corman #13 - “Thunder Over Hawaii” (1957) **

One of those films you watch going “that must have been fun to make” but then think and go “but it must have been logistically hard”. It’s shot in Hawaii and the main feature of the movie is beautiful scenery, lovingly shot in colour. Usually in such a setting you have comedy and romance – here there is a gangster melodrama, with a yacht carrying a bunch of holidaying crooks, some of whom knock over a plantation.

It’s not much of a story, Dead Calm lite, but surprisingly well constructed, dialogue, etc (Charles Griffith was one of the writers). Beverly Garland is pretty and makes an interesting character, a drunken moll who is a nice person. Richard Denning’s hero ship captain is a little dull. Dick Miller is one of the crooks. People get knocked out, shot, there are punches. It isn’t very inspired, it lacks humour (apart from a scene where a dopey gangster attempts to pick up a Hawaiian girl in his thick gangster accent and his mate goes “sorry mate but she only speaks English”). Sam Arkoff has a small role - one line, and he's dubbed!

Movie review – “Café Flesh” (1982) **

The golden age of porn officially ended with the boom in VHS but this was a late attempt to do something decent with the genre. It is a fascinating porn film, with its provactive premise – in the future only 1% of the population can have sex so the others go to clubs and watch. The male lead is one of the 99% and it sends him bonkers – he spends the film worried about his girlfriend getting serviced by this stud, and she gets serviced by him and… that’s it. (There is a section of erotica about men who watch better lovers have their way with their women – it’s painful to watch here). There are some porn standbys: a woman who secretly wants it, a farm girl virgin who turns out she loves sex and a masturbation scene, but none of it is erotic. Most of it is filmed in on take long shot, no close ups or shots of people groaning, with cuts to the dopey expressions of the watchers (it is slightly reminiscent of the sex in A Clockwork Orange). When it’s not filmed like that it is done sort of like a New Romantic video with nudity – cutting between different tableu shots. The sex scene at the end isn’t bad, but even the impact of that is limited through repetitive use of shots. Lots of potentially intriguing themes, like a women who keeps secret her negative status so as to keep her boyfriend, and the government forcing positives to perform sex, none of which are really developed.

Movie review – “Raintree County” (1956) **

Big budget MGM attempt to duplicate the success of Gone with the Wind was ridiculously expensive but surprisingly successful at the box office – it cost $6 million and earned that at the box office. Both things make you ask “why?” For all that money the film lacks production values – there’s a 4th of July Day, a crappy ball, a crappy battle, a crappy train, an unexciting swamp, only two real stars then (Liz Taylor who was under contract and Monty Clift). It must have been all the filming on location in America, with locals fleecing the studio. It wasn’t worth it.

Indeed, I’m surprised audiences went to it – Liz is beautiful and has lots of Acting chances, going mad and dying in a swamp, as if she’s getting ready for all those Tennessee Williams roles she played afterwards, but she’s not very good. Clift is erratic – it’s a whimpy part playing this dreamer whom all these women pant over (it’s a little like Dr Zhivago complete with getting caught up in war). Nigel Patrick and Lee Marvin are lively in their roles; Rod Taylor is OK. Eva Marie Saint kind of hangs around and waits for Liz to die. 

Maybe people just love Civil War romance, maybe they liked the drama – there is some good juicy stuff, a man trapped into marriage and in love with a crazy woman. Maybe they wanted to see if they could spot scenes before and after Clift’s accident.

The film encapsulates most of the problems of post-Mayer MGM: an attempt to duplicate an earlier success made by talented people who aren’t really into it.

Movie review – M&L#14 - “Artists and Models” (1956) ***1/2

One of the best, if not the best, Martin Lewis films, full of tremendous energy and good cheer. Both stars are in top form, even if they are separated for much of the running time, but when they are together its gold. It’s gold when they’re apart too. Many of their films involved them struggling to make it in the big city, and getting involved with friends (usually two love interests) – I think this family feeling was and unsung reason behind their film’s success.

Two main reasons this is better than their usual output: first, Frank Tashlin directed, giving the film life and energy and gorgeous colour (the musical numbers are all well done, particularly the finale); there is lots of his sly humour and satire, like the Rear Window gag, the spy satire and the comic book author who just wants blood and guts.

The second, the female actors are top notch. Dorothy Malone is spirited as Dean’s girl, Shirley MacLaine steals the show as the “bat girl” desperate to seduce Lewis (there is some hilarious scenes when she does this); there’s also Anita Ekberg in the perfect Anita Ekberg role, i.e. playing a model, looking great and not saying much, and Eva Gabor as a mata hari type. The women are frequently wearing not much: Malone walks around in a towel, she and Maclaine show off their legs, Ekberg and Gabor wear low cut dresses, etc. Structure-wise it’s a shame the spy stuff wasn’t introduced earlier, it has real meat. Affectionate and good natured movie.

Movie review – M&L#1 - “My Friend Irma” (1949) **1/2

Hal Wallis cleverly tested the waters for Martin and Lewis by incorporating them into a property that was already pre-sold, but within which they could fit easily: an adaptation of a radio show about a gold digging secretary who wants to marry a rich man (Diana Lynn) and her wacky roommate (Marie Wilson). 

That in itself is fine enough, shenanigans in NYC a la My Sister Eileen with Irma’s no good boyfriend (John Lund, trying hard but not quite there) – but when Martin and Lewis team its like a jolt of electricity on the screen. Both are naturals, Martin young, relaxed, handsome and a smooth singer, Lewis hyperactive and full of energy. Lewis is extraneous to the plot but he gives the film tremendous energy.

Lynn is pretty but allowed to be a bit too obnoxious at times – she’s not really worth everyone squabbling over her (they needed to give her a pat the dog scene somewhere). An unexpected bonus to the film is a warm feeling of camaraderie among the characters – friends trying to make a go of it in the big apple after WW2, no matter how odd (the fact they adopt Lewis adds to this). The scene where Martin tries to persuade Lynn that a life of Coney Island is better than Park Ave is an excellent example of the sort of lying schmaltzy pap used to imprison women with dud hubbies. Romance, they call it!

 

George Marshall directed.

Movie review - "Switchblade Sisters" (1975) ***1/2

How good is this film? Not originally one of the more famous 70s exploitation films (it lacks stars, was not produced by Roger Corman and director Jack Hill never left the exploitation genre), it has recently been championed by Quentin T (who else?) and for good reason - it still holds up brilliantly, mostly because of its top story: the sisters of the title are a tough high school girl gang, associated with the boys.

It starts like a woman in prison film, specifically Hill’s The Big Doll House with Joannie Nail as the new innocent who isn’t so innocent and joins the gang, led by Robbie Lee (the funny-voiced hellcat from Big Bad Mama). They wind up in the reform house but soon get out and back to school where the fun begins. The boy gang gets into a fight with another boy gang which results in the girl gang having to learn their independence – they get into cahoots with a female black revolutionary gang (no Pam Grier unfortunately). There are subplots about Lee’s boyfriend falling for Nail (after raping her – the most unpleasant aspect of the film ), a traitor in the gang.

This film keeps delivering knock out punches – the girls attacking a debt collector in an elevator, the riot at reform school, the shoot out at the roller rink (a wonderful set piece), the shoot em up finale with tanks and guns, the final switch blade fight, Nail’s monologue delivered with a snarl despite her face being bloody and cut up – it’s wonderful.

Is this a feminist movie? Well, Nail is raped and doesn’t seem that bothered, indeed its implied she’d go out with the guy if he wasn’t already with Lee – though she does threaten the guy with a knife if he does it again. (Jack Hill in his DVD commentary with Quentin Tarantino says he was inspired by the rape scene in The Fountainhead; he also admits he regrets the rapes.) The females learn to stand on their feet, they grow increasingly political, one of the girls whose bloke makes money by getting her to take her clothes off dumps the bloke, the girls beat the boy gang and kick some serious butt.

Robbie Lee’s character is fascinating – she talks in a little girl voice and looks young but is the evident leader, though in love with her guy so much she causes his death. Monica Gayle plays a gang member with a patch over her eye, an evident inspiration for Daryl Hannah in Kill Bill. The finale is deliriously over the top and quite wonderful.

Book review – “Jean Arthur: the Actress Nobody Knew” by John Oller

Being a recluse seemed to suit Greta Garbo – she was so enigmatic on screen, so “foreign”. It didn’t seem to suit Jean Arthur – she always seemed so warm and friendly, one couldn’t help assume that she was happily married and lived in a country town. Well, she was happily married for a time, and did live in a country town (Carmel), but then she got divorced and lived as a recluse, and often was a nervous wreck..

Oller was faced with a difficult task, writing about Arthur, as she rarely spoke to the press once she had the power not to. But he succeeds magnificently, a combination of solid research (for instance, clarifying that she was born in 1900 – she was amazingly well preserved, doing a swimsuit photo in 1941), and analysis, looking at what she studied when she went back to school at the height of her fame, and the various comments she’s given in interviews. Arthur has been called a lesbian in recent years, for a few reasons (passionate friendship with Mary Martin, preference of manly roles such as Peter Pan) but nothing conclusive – Oller sort of sits on the fence on that one, doesn’t accept it but doesn’t discard it either. Often with eccentric people sexuality can be used as an easy explanation – “ah, she was gay, that’s why” – but I think Arthur’s personality was more shaped by other things, a desire to hide despite being an actor (something not that rare), her adoration of an alcoholic father, insecurity about her intelligence, her desire for women to be treated the same as men. Arthur sort of drifted into acting, it doesn’t seem to have been a grand passion with her (she started young at her parent’s prompting and put in about a decade in thankless roles before becoming a star); her passion was for ideals. I also got the impression Arthur used her nervousness as “fuel” for her performing energy – but sometimes the fuel exploded, especially when working on a play and/or with a director she didn’t trust.

The structure of the book is slightly odd – by the half way mark we’re already at the year 1943, when Arthur pretty much gave up film acting, and the whole second half of the book is dedicated to Arthur’s studies, theatre experiences and television work, with the odd film, plus her life as a recluse. I would have preferred more on the films, but this is a very good book.

Movie review – “Dangerous Exile” (1957) ***

Rank films of the 50s, which play so often on ABC television in the early hours of the morning, have a very strong uniform "feel": the interchangeable brylcreamed male leads (Ronald Lewis, Anthony Steele) and statuesque pretty females who lacked decent roles to play (Belinda Lee, Sylvia Syms, Mary Ure, etc), shot in that lovely colour and usually with some strong older actors in support and about some exotic subject matter (eg Mau Mau, communists, the Pacific) or else were gentle comedies with some star (eg Norman Wisdom). I enjoy many of the films: even if the results were often mediocre, they were usually pleasantly so.

This is one of Rank’s better efforts at the time, starting with a strong central idea: Louis XVII arrives in balloon and is held up in a castle in the Welsh coast. That’s a terrific basis for a movie and there’s plenty of plots: local French revolutionary spies, splits within the royalist factions, splits with the revolutionaries, etc. There are also an intriguing pair of adversaries: Louis Jourdan, so devoted to the king he gives up his own son in the king’s place, and Keith Michell as the revolutionary unhappy with how bloody his reforms have begun.

At first it seems the film is going to be a bit challenging: Jourdan in his first scene is shown to be a fanatic, but disappointingly this is never developed; when he and female lead Belinda Lee starts making eyes at each other you know Jourdan’s meant to be the hero and Michell’s doomed for a skewered ending. (Someone really should have called Jourdan on being a fanatic a bit more – I mean Louise XVI was a dictator, for crying out loud).

Lee  (beautiful and engaging but a little low on the charisma side) starts off an intriguing character, an American who befriends the boy – but then she just becomes a thing to worry about Jourdan and be brave for the boy. They could have made more with her, especially the whole republican-being-confused-by-feelings-to-royalty thing (casting an American actor would have held).

It’s a shame also there isn’t more action, because when it comes it’s pretty good. But the story is strong, the décor sumptuous, there are some avant garde dream sequences, and Louis XVII (a whiny little squirt, clearly not worthy of anyone’s devotion) is played by a young Richard O’Sullivan, who would grow up to play a series of lecherous doctors/cooks/ad men in British sitcoms.

Movie review – Corman #39 - “The Secret Invasion” (1964) **

Three years before The Dirty Dozen came out there was this Roger Corman war film about a bunch of prisoners who are offered their freedom if they undertake a dangerous mission. It’s a fantastic idea for an action film, why wasn’t this as successful?

Firstly, the budget was lower – there are only five of the gang instead of a dozen, there are lots of shots were the gang are herded in small rooms and stay there for ages (although there a couple of hundred extras for the final battle – it’s like they only had them for the day or something).

Secondly, it’s not as well made – it feels chopped about a bit. It is definitely not as well cast: instead of memorable faces like Marvin, Cassevetes and Bronson (yes, OK, and Trini Lopez), you have an over-age Mickey Rooney (as an Irish terrorist), a far too kindly Raf Vallone (always a pleasing actor but too sympathetic here to be believable as a prisoner), a very 60s Bill Campbell and Edd Byrne (the latter looking with a quizzical eyebrow and his brylcreamed hair all the time just like Vince Fontaine in Grease).

Stewart Granger lends authority as the leader of the mission and Henry Silva does look like a crook (even he’s a bit too modern looking though – look at the skinny tie he’s wearing at the beginning, it’s like he’s come off the set of a Rat Pack film). Mia Massini makes a terrific impression as a partisan.

The third reason this film didn’t do as well as the Dirty Dozen involves the treatment of the story – while this film has the concept of crims on a mission, they don’t really use it, they go straight to the mission and make scant use of the crims (apart from Byrnes trying to make a few getaways and Campbell whingeing); in the Dirty Dozen the first two acts were devoted to forming the bonds of the team, there was real character development and by-play.

After a sluggish beginning, this film does improve: there is a powerful scene where Silva has to silence Massini’s baby and ends up accidentally smothering it; an exciting escape sequence; a cool double twist ending; spectacular deaths for most of the main cast, including Campbell (jumping off a rope to catch a grenade and exploding in mid-air) and Silva (pretending to be a German, killing a traitor then doing a heil Hitler and being shot down by vengeful troops) – actually come to think of it, the last half hour is so good it makes you wish the first hour was better. There’s a moment where we see Massini breast feed her baby – we see her nipple and everything, which seems odd for 1964.

Movie review – “North Sea Hijack” (1980) **1/2

Always had fond memories of this film from watching it on video. It holds up pretty well, if you’re into films about hijacking oil rigs. Actually they take over a boat rather than an oil rig, but it’s still a more interesting target than a bus or something.

The other big plus of the film is Roger Moore’s performance as the sabotage expert – woman-hating, eccentric, lives in a castle, loves cats and stitchwork. Moore is clearly having the time of his life in the part – presumably he knew a lot of similar nutters like him, and the change from James Bond does him the world of good, he seems really animated and into the role. I also enjoyed Anthony Perkins as the leader of the hijackers, though part of me couldn’t help wishing that James Mason (who plays an admiral) played his part and Perkins played a second in command or something – Mason is kind of wasted and the villains could have used a bit more weight in the acting department.

The film does have a central flaw, in common with other films where baddies take over a small area (eg a plane in Executive Decision) – there’s not a lot of room to move, so the scriptwriter has to juggle a bit to find things for people to do, and there’s not a lot of action until the final charge. 

In something like Die Hard it’s not as much a problem because they take over a big room and there’s ventilator shafts and stuff to fight in; in Speed they fixed it by having a big opening sequence, setting it on a bus which is speeding all the time, and having an extra action scene at the end on a train (which was actually one too many). So it does slow up in the middle.

Also, Moore has it over Perkins a bit too easily – a major reversal would have helped.

The film features a female British Prime Minster who doesn’t look like Maggie Thatcher but who provides an amusing clash with woman-hating Moore.

Movie review – “Blood Diamond” (2006) **1/2 (warning - spoilers)

Surely one of the most frustrating films of the year, because it has so much going for it: money, location shooting, stars, a fascinating subject matter and a terrific story. Leo di Caprio as a Zimbabwean mercenary – great. OK, maybe ten years too young in a role that really needed Russell Crowe (something which could be said about Ed Zwick’s last film, The Last Samuari), but his accent is pretty good and it’s a tremendous character. Djmon thingo as a Sierra Leonean cut off from his family and trying to find them – great. Jennifer Connelly as a journo – great. The macguffin of a pink diamond – great. Setting it during Sierra Leone’s civil war – great. Involvement of diamond companies and mercenary companies in said war – great.

It’s all set up for a wonderful film – and things get off to a flying start with the opening horrific sequence of an attack by rebels on a village. Limbs chopped off, people killed at random, it is all too believable. (Indeed, I thought at this stage that the reason behind the film’s mixed critical reception was liberal reviewers were uncomfortable with the truth of what is happening in Africa.)

We meet Leo, establish his character, he’s thrown in gaol – all good. Problems then start with the structure. Even after Leo finds out about the diamond, he gets Djmon out of gaol – but doesn’t approach him, he makes this side detour to South Africa. Now we need to know the information about Leo needing money to pay back his debts, but that could have been done in the scene with Leo meeting up with his old mate in Freetown. It’s more logical that after Leo busts this guy out of gaol, he would get into contact with him straight away. But they have several meetings before this happens. This doubling up of scenes is a theme through the film. Then there are two scenes where Leo meets Jennifer Connelly – why not one? And they should have met beforehand to give them some history, would have saved time.

Leo and the black guy then go looking for the diamond as a duo, then Jen comes along for a bit, then they go off as a duo again – at which point then there is a ten minute bonding sequence, which starts with them arguing, fighting then becoming friends. This is too late in the film – they should have gone through this sort of character development when they first got together, before Jen came along. When it happens its after Jen and Leo say a big teary farewell, and it doesn’t feel right; it’s too late in the film.

Speaking of the top of Leo and Jen farewells, there are too many of them, too – they say goodbye, then she does her bit with the solider and Leo leaves… then she sees him and says goodbye again. Then later in the film Leo gives Djmon Jen’s card and tells him to say goodbye – then Leo goes and calls her on the phone. And at the end when Djmon meets the banker guy, he gets shown the money while Jen secretly takes photos of it – then Djmon asks for his family as well. So we have another scene where Djmon meets the banker and gets the money and his family while Jen secretly takes photos of it. Why not just have the second scene, especially as it’s the end?

The film also has this awful “tsk tsk tsk” tone at times. It’s like the filmmakers went “OK let’s get our point across by just telling a story” but then spontaneously combusted and went “what if they don’t get it? We’re white people making a film about Africa no one cares about Africa this may be the only chance we have to get our point across!!” So we Jennifer Connelly getting on the soap box, visiting the refugee camp and going “one million refugees – that’ll be one minute on CNN between the weather and sports.” Get stuffed, Jen. She also keeps lecturing Leo’s character about his complicity. Thing is, her character has a totally decent motivation – to get a story. But that’s not enough – it feels as though this character was rewritten, they were scared of making her seem greedy and so a layer of sanctimoniousness was poured over it. It didn’t have to be that way – she would have still done the right thing, they just would have cut out the fat. It doesn’t help that her and Leo don’t have much chemistry (some history between them would have helped).

There’s also the stuff about the South African mercenaries. All through the film we are shown how awful the rebels are, right? And the mercenaries are employed by the government to fight them – isn’t that a good thing? OK they go in shooting – but we’ve seen how nasty the rebels are, they’d be silly to go in any other way. Yes, they should lose points for selling guns to the rebels, but at least they do things professionally, they don’t go around torturing and killing indiscriminately. Yet they’re supposed to be the bad guys – after Leo negotiates a deal with them for the diamond, 60-40, why does he then kill them? He can cut Djmon into a share, and be evacuated home. Are we meant to go, “no that’s not right, Djmon is entitled to all the proceeds of a diamond he just happened to find in a river?” Does he really need a couple of million pounds? He wants to get his family back, by that stage he has. (He doesn’t seem to offer to give the money to the poor at the end or anything.) It’s certainly not worth Leo dying for. It turns Leo into a welsher, too – he breaks his promise to his old boss; Djmon betrays the people he sells the diamond, too, as well – gets his money and his family, then lets them get all the bad PR. This is supposed to be the moral high ground?

I think they were just determined to have some white villains. Then there’s the spiel at the end: “it’s up to the consumer to buy conflict free diamonds”. Give us a lecture, why don’t you? Why not say “hey, you can get a certificate to buy it conflict free” instead of treating the audience like they’re school children. This is the worst sort of Hollywood knee jerk liberalism, the kind Spielberg likes to put at the end of his films (eg “I could have done more” in Schindler’s List, “earn this” in Saving Private Ryan, “let’s set all the murderers free” in Minority Report).

African political films are problematic because they are inherently depressing. This needn’t have been that way – they did sign a convention against blood diamonds, the civil war is over now. But, no, we have to pay – well, Leo does anyway (in a For Whom The Bell Tolls moment), while the black man and his family are the face of the future. (This differs from old movies about Africa such as Simba and Something of Value where the black man wound up dead and the white man was left to raise the black child. That’s progress.)

The irritating thing is Hollywood needs more intelligent action films and the under-performance of this at the box office will hurt it, when the real problem is simply structure. Oh, and sanctimoniousness.

Play review - "Blurred" by Stephen Davis

Far superior to the movie, as the characters have time to talk and when you read it some of the film's miscasting isn't so obvious. The plot about the girl whose boyfriend dumps her so she can have sex is particularly better than the film. This doesn't have all that drunken and irresponsible driving that made the film so uncomfortable. There is also a moment of tragedy. Well written.

Movie review - "John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars" (2001) ***1/2

I'm the only person in the world I know who loves this movie. Don't know what it is about it - probably that first third with a bunch of cops arriving at the deserted mining station wondering what is going on, with all that funny non-linear editing. Creepy atmosphere, genuinely scary - though the creatures are more effective from a distance than close up. Didn't like the rock music (why didn't Carpenter just keep his thumping musical rhythms?).

Some bright tough talking dialogue, enjoyed Ice Cube, loved Pam Grier as a big lesbian officer (things haven't changed much from the 70s - just less nudity) and didn't mind Natasha Hestridge - until I found out her role was meant to be played by Courtney Love, who would have been perfect, and ever since then I've thought Natasha's performance was really bad... well maybe not bad, it's just she isn't a star, and the role needed one. It's a fantastic role: she's a real kick arse heroine, with a drug habit and nice line in sass, plus a neat buddy relationship with Ice Cube. Hestridge tries her hearts out, is cute and all that... but it needed someone with real bad-ass-ness.

The story is this wonderfully weird compendium of things - part siege, part journey, ghost zombies who seem to be semi inspired by The Thing and Indians from old Westerns. They are baddies you shouldn't kill really because their ghost spirit then runs riot... but the goodies still try to kill them. People say "let's get out of here" an awful lot.

Jason Statham's character is a bit of a lech, but he has presence; Clea duVall's idiotic lesbian rookie has a decent journey from fool to tough gal; Robert Carradine pops up as a train driver, and Joanna Cassidy adds gravitas as a scientist.

Most annoying thing about the movie is the ending - the lead characters have been so smart, then they decide to blow up the whole plant without knowing that it's going to do any good, in fact they have reason to know it's going to make things worse, an endangering everyone's life - this is extremely irritating, and I wish they'd not put it in the film. Also it's annoying that our heroes figure out they shouldn't kill the creatures but still do - and how to repel the spirit (by taking drugs and throwing it up) but never repeat it.

Actually the more I think about this film the more obvious are its flaws - but I can't help it, I love it still. Just got a great feel. And I love the idea of Hestridge and Ice Cube going off into the sunset together as part of a never-ending battle against the ghost creatures.

Movie review - "Colour Me Kubrick" (2005) **

The central concept of this film is clever enough - based on the true story of the man who impersonated Stanley Kubrick - but after a while it gets repetitive: John Malkovich being Kubrick again and again. It really needed something to impact Kubrick, have him as a character or for the impersonations to build in someway or something. Without that it should have remained a short.

Movie review - "The Affairs of Annabel" (1938) **

Of historical interest because it was an early lead vehicle for Lucille Ball and helped establish the madcap persona she would use on television. RKO hoped to turn this into a series, but they only made one more. They should have been able to - it was a top idea (crazy actress gets up to schemes), very well cast (Ball on expert form and Jack Oakie as a publicist; all the support actors are top notch, too), some lovely dialogue and digs at movie making (Ball signs an autograph during a shoot out, bagging out a script Ball says "that has to be rewritten before moths would eat it").
But the film is a classic example of poor story construction. For starters they never quite get the character of Annabel - OK she's mad, but she's famous... why does she have to go through all these schemes if she's a top $5,000 a week star? (They should have made her an up and coming star.) What does she want? Is she a bitch, a snob, an artiste... what? It's never clear.
Also the story is a bit of a mess - there is a 10 minute scene where Annabel goes to gaol but it's never really paid off again - there is a moment where she gives counterfeit money and the press refer to her prison record, but that's not used. You could have easily exploited it again, have her run into someone she met in prison or something. And when she becomes a maid, they hardly use it - she doesn't get anything out of being a maid, there is no love subplot or urgency, no stakes - they just sort of kill time until the kidnappers conveniently arrive.
It's frustrating because so much of the film is right - bright, fast paced,, well acted. There are good ideas, too - like the movie studio sending actors dressed as police to rescue Ball. But the structure is wonky.

Book review - "Bright Boulevards, Bold Dreams: Black Hollywood" by Donald Bogle

Bogle is probably the expert on African-Americans in Hollywood, with a number of excellent books. I thought he would have gone over all the ground already but no, there is plenty new here in another excellent book, an overall history of blacks in Hollywood, with a focus on the achievers - not just people like Dorothy Dandridge and Stepin Fetchit but Noble Johnson the first black star, Madame Sul-Te-Wan the never-day-day old actor, and Clarence Muse the grand old man plus architects and lawyers prominent in the community, and Phil Moore, a leading composer at MGM, and the choreographer Marie Bryan. He also places emphasis on people's wives in the black community, such as Nat King Cole's wife and Fraya Nicholas' wife, plus black suburbs and hotels. He stays away from people who were more visitors to LA from the coast like Paul Robeson and Sidney Poitier, concentrating more on the ones who lived there. I found it particularly interesting the stuff about the black nightclub scene, which really jumped, and the role of status within the black community. Bogle writes about what blacks achieved not what they didn't achieve - and as a result instead of reading about marginalised people for whom it was all too hard and poor them he creates a living vibrant sketch of a real community. (One that inevitably disappeared with civil rights - there are still black communities but not the cohesive ones they had before). Bogle gives them humanity: Madame Sul-Te-Wan who never stopped thinking there was stardom arond the corner, James Edwards for whom it was all too hard, smart as a whip Geri Nicholas (the women on the whole seemed to turn out better than the men). It doesn't mention Tallulah Bankhead's supposed lesbian affair with Hattie McDaniel, which I would have thought too good to miss whether verifiable or not (hey it was in Hollywood Babylon isn't that enough).

A thought - one of the things that kept blacks back was they lacked a steady money making genre. Just like female star power in Hollywood declined in the 70s and 80s when the stopped making traditional female star genres such as melodramas, romantic comedies and musicals - black stars lacked a consistent genre in which studios would put them - apart from being maids and so on. I think more low budget musicals would have been the way to go, like Stormy Weather - surely they would have turned a profit and they would have had the talent.

One thing, though: Bogle does spend a bit too much time on Dorothy Dandridge. I know the power of her myth among female black stars and Bogle wrote her bio and all that but at the end of the day she only starred in two films and doesn't quite deserve the space she gets here, esp with people going on about how hot she was. Methinks Bogle had a bit of a crush.

Movie review - Tarzan #12 - "Tarzan and the Mermaids" (1948) **

Johnny Weismuller was getting on a bit now and looking a bit flabby in the old loin cloth - although in a way this does bring an extra element of realism. This was his last Tarzan film and its a decent enough effort, helped by some location filming in Mexico, most notably some spectacular cliffs. (The film starts with a documentary like montage about the ficticious civilisation). Linda Christian, who later married Tyrone Power, is the damsel in distress - why didn't Tarzan have a crack, he didn't seem that interested in Jane? (As played by Joyce its like she's his second wife who he doesn't like as much as the first).

There's no Boy here, he'd left the series, so instead there is a singing mailman to give some comic relief. The local District Commissioner is sympathetically portrayed - the most sympathetic in a Tarzan film yet (although the film's endorse protective colonialism at this stage, usually officials are shown to be buffoons). Despite lots of cliff dives and sacrifices and a fight with an Octopus, there is a lack of excitement. It's all a bit too easy for Tarzan.

Movie review - Tarzan #9 - "Tarzan and the Amazons" (1945) **1/2

After two films without Jane the producers of Tarzan figured it was safe enough to trial a new actor in the part, and introduced Brenda Joyce, who is a cheerful blonde thing, little like a slightly older bobbysoxer, very chirpy and American but she lacks Maureen O'Sullivan's class, and sensuality. It was clear why O'Sullivan was with Tarzan (sex and affection) - she had real chemistry with Weismuller. Joyce just feels like his girlfriend.

Joyce isn't helped by the fact that the plot is such a retread of the O'Sullivan films: she arrives in Africa with an expedition (a la Tarzan the Ape Man), on which there is one good person (Henry Stephenson who played the same role as C Aubrey Smith in Tarzan Finds a Son) and the rest evil, boy is involved in betraying Tarzan (like in Tarzan's New York Adventure). Couldn't they have thought up something more original?

The best bit about the film are the Amazons, a women-only society led by Maria Ouspensaka. They are a bunch of hard-core men haters, although they don't mind Tarzan because he keeps their existence secret. Although they are a tough albeit mostly sexy bunch of cookies, they are not really the villains - they aren't punished at the end for killing most of the expedition they are just considered vicious and to be kept at a distance. Is this feminist? I'm sure someone's done a paper on it. (They are certainly interesting enough characters to make you wish that the film had a more interesting Jane than Joyce.)

Tarzan and Boy have a big argument in this one, a bit of sulky teen drama. Tarzan also stands there while two villains die in quicksand without offering to help.

Book review - "My Hollywood" by Sheilah Graham

Graham was a Hollywood columnist, not as famous as Hedda Hopper or Louella Parsons (she didn't stick her nose in as much) but still widely read. She is probably best known today for her affair with F Scott Fitzgerald which she wrote the book Beloved Infidel (among others). It is surprising this overview of her life is so un-interesting - she certainly had a fascinating childhood, being orphaned and living in great povery. Graham skims over that here, saying it was covered in other books, and concentrates on her adventures in the screen trade. Couldn't she have come up with better gossip than what's here, though? It was written in 1982, many people in it were dead - but obviously not enough. She sort of gives rough sketches about various movie stars and writers (Graham preferred the company of writers). She goes into some detail about the making of the movie of Beloved Infidel, slags off Marilyn Monroe, talks a lot about how pretty she was and how people thought she was pretty, gets misty over Fitzgerald, slags off Hedda Hopper but quite likes Louella Parsons. It's a bit flat.

Movie review - Tarzan #10 - "Tarzan and the Leopard Woman" (1946) **1/2

Pretty good B-Tarzan where the gang take on a cult who kill people while disguised as leopards. There are lots of strong features here: the leopard cult are interesting and do cool dances in their underground lairs; the leopard woman (Acquanetta) is a splendid creature, very sexy; there is a full-on leopard attack done quite well; one of the baddies is a ten year old boy who wants to cut out Jane's heart - and he doesn't turn good in the end, so meets a grisly death; the baddies are more complex than usual, with a clash between the smart evil doctor and his lover the leopard woman and her hot tempered brother; there is an attempted sacrifice of four young women; the baddies are also quite formidable, and would haved knocked off Tarzan and co if not for Cheetah.

The main thing ruining the fun is, I admit it, PC factor (hey I'm Gen X what can I say). The doctor is a half caste who has the gall to want to fight the British who are to take over a native territory - he is a typical villain of the time, an educated half native who hates the British and wants to kick them out so the locals can have resources. They do try to emphasize the villain's evil-ness by having them try to kill four local girls who are to be teachers. But it doesn't help that the representative of the British here is a buffoonish commissioner, played by Denis Hoey (who played the idiot cop in the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films). This does lead a slightly negative taste in the mouth. It could be interpreted as being some anti-Commie propaganda.

Movie review - "She's All That" (1999) *1/2

In Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back the title characters are informed their likeness will be used in a film made by Miramax. Jay expresses surprise - don't they make classy films like The Piano? Ben Affleck nods but then adds "then they made She's All That and it all changed."

This film was a surprise hit, maybe because it came out at the right time, just when teen movies were back in a big way. The core story has always been popular: cool guy pretends to like geeky girl for a bet. Audiences were evidently willing to overlook the fact that Rachel Leigh Cook is a stunner even with glasses and Freddy Prinze Jnr is a nerd. There is a support cast to die for: Kevin Pollack (genuinely funny as Cook's dad), Anna Paquin, Matthew Lilliard, Charlie from The West Wing as the token black, Paul Walker. 

I always enjoy this plot but the film throws away things wholesale: Prinze Jnrs dilemma is poorly developed, they set up an interesting plot twist when Walker seems to genuinely like Cook but then he doesn't (a similar thing happened in Whatever It Takes), the climax is a fizz (what's so evil about Walker wanting to have sex with Cook), the female bitch is a caricature.

The film bears the imprint of its studio, Miramax, more than any movie I can remember in recent years, complete with in house "stars" such as Lilliard and Prinze Jnr. This made Prinze Jnr a star for a short period of time until he fixed it with in Wing Commander, Down to You, Boys and Girls, Head Over Heels and Summer Catch: getting away with one crap movie he tried to repeat it five times and kept getting caught out.

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

Half a masterpiece – so much of this film is brilliant: the costumes, sets, feel of it, casting, acting; it captures the sense of Versailles more than any film I’ve seen - Coppola’s approach of making it like a high school for rich bitches seems totally appropriate, with du Barry the slutty girlfriend of the most popular person, Rose Byrne the wild party girl the most popular in school, etc. 

But when I say half a masterpiece I mean that literally- the film should be cut in half. There is so much repetition and scenes go on too long it eventually gets wearying (I know Coppola wants to show it is wearying but you can make wearying-ness interesting). For instance there are two scenes where the Austrian ambassador tells Marie she has to talk to du Barry, and about four scenes of Louis XVI not wanting to have sex with his wife when one would have done and about four scenes of the two of them making stilted conversation at the table when again one or two would have done. 

And Coppola misses the great opportunity of the final months at Versailles – I don’t mind so much she left out Marie’s escape and execution (the two things most people who tell stories of her life normally fix on, especially as the escape was masterminded by her lover Fersen) because that’s the story she chose to tell, but there could have been more of the creepiness and violence of the revolution affecting life at Versailles – it’s like Coppola is skilled at the school stuff but not when the school comes under attack. 

She also kind of cheats – having made the decision to tell it from Marie’s POV she then cuts away a few times to scenes without her (she did the same thing in The Virgin Suicides). 

OK to take a walk on the sunny side, Kirsten Dunst is perfect as the princess, not a bad person, someone who tries her best, but a bit of an idiot (by the end of the film she’s a more mature idiot but still an idiot), would have made a great powerless monarch (it’s as if Posh Spice was made queen of France) but probably deserved to have her head chopped off. Rose Byrne, who normally I’m not a fan of and who seems to get work mostly because directors become enamoured of her, is perfect as Marie’s party girl friend, just like a dopey immensely pleased with her self Bondi idiot (which from all accounts Rose is not but she’d certainly know a bunch – this is her best ever work, maybe she needs to make more movies with people who don’t fall in love with her); she also gets the film’s two best lines, “your hair what’s happening with that” and “I love the country” – both of which convey why the French revolution happened as much as any other lines. 

Asia Argento is great as the trashy du Barry as is Marianne Faithfull as the done-a-lot-of-living Empress, Rip Torn as the lecherous king, Jason Schwarztmann as the nerdy totally unqualified Louis, Danny Huston as the virile brother, the girl who played Marie’s dopey friend, Judy Davis as the I-really-don’t-like-doing-this-job noblewoman, Steve Coogan as the ambassador. So much of this film is wonderful – if only the writer-director had used a co-writer.

Book review – “Bela Lugosi” by Arthur Lennig

Impossible to imagine a more definitive account of the actor’s career, or one written with more love and affection. Lennig has really gone the hard yards here, doing some excellent research, particularly about the more obscure Hungarian phase of Lugosi’s career (he served bravely in the war – onya Bela!), not to mention his theatre work. He also gets in the ring, so to speak, talking about his own encounters with the actor, and he takes Lugosi’s son to task for trying to cash in on dad. Lennig devotes pages to most individual movies – he must have seen an awful lot of schlock, and sometimes he doesn’t have much to say other than recounting the plot and offering and analysis, but if you like Lugosi it is all interesting.

And depressing. For Lugosi was one of the luckiest and unluckiest stars in Hollywood history – despite being a hammy Hungarian with a thick accent he was perfect for Dracula and became a star. But he was awful at following it up, could never manage his money, got addicted to drugs, ended up broke and dying alone… I can’t believe Universal didn’t use Lugosi better as an asset – although they had Karloff as well (it seems clear Lugosi didn’t turn down the part of Frankenstein’s monster, but he grumbled about it, and director James Whale preferred Karloff), surely two stars is better than none? Its amazing that they created a star, then threw him away, especially one that was so easily castable. Lugosi kept coming back – in the mid 30s, then the late 30s – but never really consolidated his place. He kept making too many bad films, kept getting overlooked (Universal preferred Lon Chaney Jnr to him in the 40s); only at Monogram in the early 40s did he get a run of star vehicles (many of whom are widely available on DVD – admittedly they are out of copyright but still Lugosi would be one of the most popular stars from that era with today’s DVD buyers).

It’s also frustrating Lugosi couldn’t have been in better non-horror films – he could have played more Nazis, etc in classier films.

It’s kind of heartbreaking. Lugosi wasn’t the best actor in the world, but he had presence, and no one did a mad scientist better. I don’t think it was a loss that he missed out on Frankenstein to Karloff – Lugosi later got a chance to play the monster and it wasn’t particularly memorable, and honestly I think Colin Clive would have been better as the doctor – but I would have liked to have seen him as Dr Pretorious in Bride of Frankenstein. It’s also surprising Universal didn’t use him for some more Dracula franchise films in the 40s. (Lennig makes a convincing case the studio may have been afraid of offending Karloff, a gentleman but who had a streak of cattiness, esp about Lugosi eg got him miscast in Black Friday). But that is part of the appeal of Lugosi – the tragedy of him, the what might have been, with that final act of involvement in Ed Wood films.

For what it’s worth, my own top ten Lugosi

1) Dracula
2) White Zombie
3) The Black Cat
4) The Raven
5) The Mark of the Vampire
6) Son of Frankenstein
7) The Wolf Man
8) Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein
9) Plan Nine from Outer Space
10) Island of Lost Souls

Book review – “Rebels on the backlot” by Sharon Waxman

Waxman tries to do an “Easy Riders Raging Bulls” for Gen X, concentrating on six hot directors of the 90s: Tarantino, David O Russell, Fincher, PTA, Sodebergh, Spike Jonze, with emphasis on the director’s personalities and love lives. Problem is, its too soon to get a real idea of the impact of these directors and rather than concentrating on their careers Waxman instead rather gives case studies of specific films – a lot of time is taking up on the making of Boogie Nights, Being John Malkovich, Three Kings and Fight Club, for instance, whereas other movies from the directors are passed by quickly (why not tell us a bit more about Se7en or Adaptation or Kill Bill?). Those are good films and the book is worth reading from that point of view.

There was a fair bit I didn’t know – Clooney and Russell came to blows making Three Kings, Jonze got John Malkovich to appear in his film by calling on father in law Francis Ford Coppola to make a phone call, Sodebergh had an erratic love life, Aussie producer Ross Bell got Fight Club optioned by having actors read a copy of the book, taping that and playing it to a producer, Russell Crowe was interested in the project and had a bigger fan club so probably would have made the film a bigger hit, Tarantino spent a lot of the late 90s smoking cones watching crappy old movies. And its always worth being reminded how hard it is to get a good movie through the Hollywood system.

But the book is full of irritating inaccuracies (Peter Jackson is not Australia) and hyperbole (there was such a thing as independent film before the 80s – heard of John Cassavetes?). Waxam also takes an annoying narky tone towards her subjects, tsk tsking Tarantino for snubbing his former video mates (maybe they were losers – although it was mean to dump his manager), creating the “myth” of his poor upbringing and not giving his mother lots of money (OK he hyped it a little and his mum was an achiever – but he still had no father, his mother went through several relationships, he was raised by his grandma for a few years when mum couldn’t hack it, and went away for a year to Tennessee – it wasn’t the most stable upbringing), and for crying out loud – this goes for most writers on Hollywood – stop taking writers claims “I wrote most of that script” at face value, you have to actually read the different versions.

She also takes PTA to task for being an egomaniac (which sounds very believable – his films do need cutting) and Clooney for continually going on about the fight with Russell and Russell for hiring a publicist. She seems to like Sodebergh, Jonze and Fincher. There is a lot better book to be written about this period.

Book review – “Rita Hayworth” by Barbara Leaming

A book that leaps out and says “it’s a movie”. The story of Hayworth’s life is a tragic and moving one, well told by Leaming. It breaks down comfortably into acts, each determined by the most influential man of Hayworth’s life.

Act one would be her father, a Spanish dancer who made her daughter dance with him, playing the casinos, forcing her to fish for food when he’d gamble away the money and hitting her if she didn’t come home with any, possibly sleeping with her (Leaming makes a very strong case for it), turning her into a girl who when she’d go home would stand around and say nothing.

Act two would be her first husband, an older con man who took her away from her father and paid for electrolysis on her face (helping create the Rita look), building her profile by cultivating publicists and getting her picture in the paper, possibly even pimping her, cheating on her physically and financially.

Act three would be husband number two, Orson Welles, who decided to marry her after seeing her photo while stuck in South America then dazzled her with his charisma, intellect (she was self conscious about hers) and extended family; for a year or so they were happy, he helped her get away from husband one, but he was an egomaniac unable to resist women (I had no idea Orson was such a stud muffin), and she was needy – the marriage ended, though Rita kept trying to get back together. Chapter four is Aly Khan, the playboy religious leader who wooed her with planes and attention. Then Dick Haymes, who landed her in a hell of a mess, and Jim Hill, who treated her like garbage. Finally Rita’s last horrible decade (two decades, really) of alcoholism and alzheimers.

There are supporting characters, too – Howard Hughes (whom everyone had a fling with), Harry Cohn, who was obsessed with her, David Niven, with whom she had an affair after the death of his first wife. It really is a natural film or play, complete with ready made scenes. Doesn't talk that much about her films, though - that is another book.

Movie review - "Airport" (1970) ***

There is a special place in Heaven for extras in airplane disaster movies - sitting in their chairs, acting feverishgly, being "ordinary", trying to be realistic, then acting scared when the disaster strikes. The extras are in fine form in this film, in their crappy way - but then so is everyone else, from Dean Martin as a quizzical pilot to Jacqueline Bisset as the stewardess, to Barry Nelson as a co-pilot (when I saw Barry Nelson in this, it was like "everyone is in this movie"). Maureen Stapleton has a breakdown, Helen Hayes does cutsie stuff with cutsie music, Van Heflin has nervous ticks, everyone is having an affair, there's not one but two cuckolded housewives in mink coats (Dana Wynter and Barbara Hale). George Kennedy smokes his cigar and attacks his role with the aplomb of someone who knows that no one could be better in that role (the perfect D plot actor was Kennedy). Someone should do a study one day on the portrayl of stewardesses in films - they all come across as hookers/waitresses. The design usually consists of horrible garish yellows and panelling - the 60s morphing into the 70s before your eyes. The handling seems to be crappy flat television style in that Universal studios specialised in. Great story though.

Movie review - "The Last Samurai" (2004) ***

Decent epic done which after an awkward start (flashbacks too soon) gets into is stride and provides satisfactory spectacle. The Japanese setting gives it freshness and the battle scenes are well done. I thought Tom Cruise was miscast in the role - this sort of brooding tormented boozer seeking redemption stuff is better played by Russell Crowe or Brad Pitt; Crusiers only really good playing arrogant yuppies who seek redemption (his acting is fine but he doesn't get all that money to act, he gets it to be a movie star). Also the theme of the movie is a bit creepy - it seems to celebrate militarism, and our hero contributes to the rise in it following the Meiji Restoration.

Book review - "The White Devil" by Stephen Brumner

Interesting account of the legendary raid by Robert Rogers during the French Indian Wars. Rogers has a mixed legacy to Americans, who have the Rangers military group named after him and who was immortalised on screen in Northwest Passage, but whose name is a bit on the nose because he sided with the British during the Revolution. This book centres around the famous raid of Rogers that featured in this film, but adds lots of context and side detail. The central raid is thrilling reading, a real time of endurance, though it was a time when you had to endure. I couldn't get over how many white people lived with Indians quite happily, and how multi cultural the Indians were. The Indians were a complex, mixed breed - they seemed nice and kind on one hand (even the most bloodthirsty), but then would turn around and burn people alive or torture them to death. Well researched book which occasionally gets bogged down in detail but is full of memorable moments and seems to be fair. Poor Rogers had a hard time of it in later life, becoming an alcoholic and dying penniless. It seems the French were actually better soliders and fighters in this war - but the Brits had more money and good men when it was needed (eg Wolfe, Rogers).

Movie review - "Land of the Dead" (2005) ***

I love it how movie makers always throw this left wing propaganda into zombie movies in an attempt to cover up how they are the biggest right wing fantasies - you get to shoot an inexhaustible supply of easy targets, loot shopping malls, drink beer and have a great time with your mates, don't have to answer to any government authority.

This one has the advantage of an excellent idea: the zombies pretty much rule outside world, forcing humans behind compounds (though again, the big irritant of zombie movies - zombies are so easy to kill the humans should have been able to knock the problem on the head ages ago; I'll just assume there was some extra social problem of which we're unaware which let things get out of control, eg break down of society, and go with it).

The film has a bigger budget than most Romero zombie films and looks handsome, with plenty of action and a decent cast. Simon Baker is a likeable hero; Asia Argento looks spectacular in her first appearance but is frustratingly restrained after that. There is some of the usual lazy social satire - the rich live in a luxury complex, the poor are on the ground, Dennis Hopper says we don't negotiate with terrorists - and Romero loses points by giving Baker a mentally challenged friend (have you no shame Romero?) but the zombie action is good.

Movie review - "Cry Baby" (1990) ***1/2

I have the most incredible affection for this film - mostly I guess because watching it I totally get what John Waters was going for, and he nailed it: the use of the old time Universal logo, the late 50s American high school with its inoculations and class distinction, the greaser hero who rides a bike and cries and sings rockabilly, the square girl who wants to be bad, the "coloured music". 

The first 30 minutes or so are close to perfection: everyone is cast right, it moves along at a fair clip, is stuffed with music, beatiful Amy Locane's doe-eyed looks of adoration are perfect, the recreation is so right, and it leads to a stirring knock out production of the song 'King Cry Baby'. 

Only problem is, after that where can the film go? The couple are together - the try to keep them apart with a false pregnancy allegation and putting him in gaol and have more songs but it seems to run out of puff a bit. Still, it's heaps of fun and there's a chicken run at the end. The support cast is stellar, with Patty Hearst and David Nelson particularly good as Traci Lord's sweet parents.

The DVD is a worthwhile purchase for fans of the film, with a decent making of doco (including Johnny Depp being interviewed – still looking as young as he did in the film [somewhere out there has to be a portrait of him getting old in an attic]; I like it when mega stars appear in docos for their old films like Sean Penn did for Fast Times at Ridgemount High – but then Depp credits this film getting him cast in Edward Scissorhands). Amy Locane also appears – she’s very well preserved too, and comes across as someone not that different from her character, i.e. a bubbly, charming, not very bright (during rehearsals she had to practice kissing with Johnny Depp with her chaperone mother watching).

Heaps of interesting anecdotes: the success of Hairspray saw studios bidding on the film for the first and only time in Waters’ career; the budget was $12 million (compared to Hairspray’s $2.5 million); Traci Lords was constantly being subpoenaed by Federal agents during filming; to make her feel better everyone in the crew confessed to whether they’d been arrested; several numbers and scenes were cut out (good story choices as they came towards the end of the film; they probably would have stayed had the been in the first half); Polly Bergen would play poker with the teamsters during breaks. No anecdotes concerning Troy Donahue, oddly enough.

Book review - "American Rhapsody" by Joe Eszterhas

A weird kind of book - Joe's retelling of the Clinton Lewinksy scandal, done in a racy fashion, interspersed with occasional imaginings from other people's POV about the story (eg Clinton) then taking detours to chatting about Hollywood, himself and a few other topics. It was enjoyable, it seemed to be well researched, and while I was familiar with the basis of the story there was lots of stuff I didn't know. Eszterhas is really into Clinton, really gets him, the whole southern governor sex maniac thing, and there are entertaining riffs on Clinton being black and masturbation (he argues masturbators like jogging and jacuzzis - which when you think about it is right). His takes on the supporting characters are especially interesting: Vernon, Carville, Linda Tripp, etc.

The style did feel familiar and I couldn't figure out why til it hit me - Bob Ellis' books on politics are like this. Ellis wrote this way before Eszterhas - it must be that form of new journalism the boomers are hung up on. I don't mind it if the writer is skilled enough and Eszterhas is. Like Ellis he is very obssessed with sex and himself but he lacks Ellis' idealism. Eszterhas craps on again how he slept with Sharon Stone - I bet Shaz regrets ever throwing him that bone. There were some film anecdotes surprisingly not covered in his later books, like a film that was going to be made by Gina Gershon and Nick Broomfield.

As with his other books, I couldn't help thinking how much Joe E is in love with his rock and roll former life - easy sex at Rolling Stone magazine and in Hollywood, hanging out with rock stars in bars. If I was his second wife, I would keep a fierce eye on it.

Movie review - "Mission Impossible" (1996) **1/2

Paramount spared no expense in ensuring this Tom Cruise film became an above average flick: hiring Brian de Palma to direct and Robert Towne and Steve Zaillian to write the script, using a top notch support cast - for Gen X'ers there's Emilio Estevez, for lovers of class there's Kristin Scott Thomas and Vanessa Redgrave, for French there's Jean Reno and Emmanuelle Beart, for Quentin Tarantino fans there's Ving Rhames. 

Something for everyone, and it must be said that there are two memorable moments: Cruiser almost falling into the security system and being held up by ropes, and the helicopter in the tunnel. Redgrave brings some delightful spice to her crooked character.

But it's not a really first rate action film. Certainly no Aliens or Die Hard. De Palma is off form and blows it in a few places you think would be easy - like when Cruise's team being wiped out, it's not that exciting or even moving. 

Cruise is solid enough but anyone could have played this, he doesn't bring his patented cockiness, looking-for-mother-love redeemed yuppie schtick. The format doesn't work as well as a star vehicle - Mission Impossible is about teamwork. The sequels didn't make things better, either. (The first two anyway).

Movie review - Elvis #22 - "Spin Out" (1966) *

Should have had all the ingredients of pleasantly mindless entertainment: Elvis in the lead, playing a singer/car driver, three woman who chase him all who are experts in this sort of thing (the very pretty Shelley Fabares, Deb Walley and Diane McBaine), produced by the expert in bright escapist colour froth Joe Pasternak, directed by Norman Taurog, Cecil Kellaway in the support cast, Jack Mullaley (from Dr Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine) playing Elvis' best friend...

But it's a dud.

All the ingredients are there, but it's so, so tired. Elvis looks really bored, the film feels like it was made by old men at the end of their careers (which in Pasternak's and Taurog's case is true). The story is flawed, too: not just the idiotic device of a millionaire who insists Elvis drive his car, but the fact that three women chase him and none end up with him - there is no core relationship so the film feels hollow.

Book review - "Francis Ford Coppola" by Peter Cowie

Brisk, decent bio of the director which goes up to the making of Godfather III. Plenty of interesting stuff up til then: the death of his son, collapse of Zeotrope, shennanigans of The Cotton Club, the dramas of Godfather and Apocalpyse Now. You've gotta respect Coppola, not only because of his talent but because he broke into movies by making nudie films then worked for Coppola.

Movie review - "Lethal Weapon 4" (1998) **

Peter Bart's book "The Gross" on the Hollywood summer of 1998 goes into some detail the depressing behind the scenes machinations of making this unwanted sequel - depressing because it was so driven by cash and "slots" and all that stuff.
The actual film isn't as offensive as the reasoning behind its existence, mainly because all the cast and crew seem to genuinely enjoy each other's company - it feels like wearing a comfortable shoe.
The plot is a sort of grab bag of various plots which might have done service as C stories for episodes of a drama series - no one seems to overly care, no one seems overly stressed. Jet Li is the only member of the cast who seems determined to put in a real effort - the time when he threatens Danny Glover's pregnant daughter is the only time the film has a sense of threat (cf Lethal Weapon 2 where the baddies killed Mel's wife and new love interest and threatened Glover's family). It's as though the filmmakers were afraid to put their characters through too much stress.

Movie review - "Too Late the Hero" (1970) ***

How could a full blooded action film made by the director of The Dirty Dozen only a few years after that movie and with two then popular actors (Cliff Robertson, fresh off Charly, and Michael Caine) lose so much money? There is action, spectacle, cynicism, plus a strong support cast. There's a memorable climax, too, where Caine and Robertson have to zig zag their way back to freedom past a bunch of machine-gunning Japanese. Surely a hit!

The main problem I think is the tone: its so cynical and anti-war and why-do-we-have-to-fight... and it was fighting the Japanese in World War Two. That was a good war. Set it in Vietnam, or the Philippines War, or even Korea towards the end and all the attitudes would have made sense. (The Dirty Dozen was different because they were all on death row.) Also the ending is infuriating - they have to rush back to pass on the message before the boat sails... they rush back... don't pass on the message... why?... then the surviving character walks back into the fire zone! Huh? What? I think around this point in Hollywood filmmakers were too obsessed with making statements.

Still many positives: a tough male cast (who in Aldrich style spend more time fighting each other than the enemy), a rousing theme song, full on atmosphere.

Movie review - "Tootsie" (1982) ****

Didn't especially love this when I saw it as a young un, probably because my taste was more along the lines of Flying High, but isn't it a wonderful film that has aged brilliantly? Dustin Hoffman is perfect as the obnoxious actor who dresses as a woman to get work and (brilliant, brilliant concept) becomes a feminist because he doesn't want to kiss men. OK, maybe there's something a bit wrong with a man showing women how to react, but it totally works in this scene.
So many wonderful moments: Terri Garr locking herself in a bathroom and no one noticing (actually every second of her performance is cherishable), Jessica Lange's sweetness, Bill Murray's pretentious playwright (who only wants an audience of 40 people trying to get out of the rain), Dabney Coleman's incompetent director, wonderful George Gizzard as the lecherous soap star (every pore of him oozing of years in front of the camera), Sydney Pollack as the agent.
The film is a little harsh on soapie writers, and a bit too pro actors re-writing stuff in the moment: plotting soaps are very hard (as Pollack should have known, having gone through so many writers on this film).

Movie review - "Deconstructing Harry" (1998) ***

A weird sort of vomit of a movie - all sorts of ideas and bits thrown cobbled together with the unifying device of Woody playing an author who drives north to accept an award. You can't help think at times he's just gotten together left over bits from other films - I know for a fact the scene in Hell was used in an early draft of Annie Hall - but it does have a sort of point, i.e. the importance of an artist using real life in his work and how it the work is often better than real life.

The ending is surprisingly moving; the stuff about Woody making caricatures of other people then somehow making up for it by having characters call on him making them caricatures during the movie beginning to get a little tired (David Williamson uses the same tactic).

The cast is another one of Allen's all star efforts but everyone suits their roles, from a young Jennifer Garner in the elevator to hilarious Kirstie Alley and Judy Davis as shrews, Tobey Maguire as a young Woody. 

One clunky bit was Elisabeth Shue: I know the point was she's young, but she's a bit too young and beautiful for Woody who was starting to look a bit old by now. (This was during that period in Woody's films that he seemed unable to act unless it was opposite a younger co-star: from the time of Husbands and Wives [when the Soo Yi stuff broke] until the present, he played against someone his own age in Manhattan Murder Mystery and Small Time Crooks but against an ingenue in Mighty Aphrodite, Everyone Says I Love You, this one, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, and Hollywood Ending.)  

It might have been better with Dustin Hoffman in the lead, maybe Elliot Gould. Still, for all its flaws, this is a film that has some meat on its bones, and that's something you couldn't really say about any of Woody's films for around the next decade.

Movie review - "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" (1985) ***

Impossible film to dislike, especially if you are a child of the 80s. One wonders why better use wasn't made of the title fun, but it has a cast to die for: Sarah Jessica Parker shows years before Sex in the City that she had what it took to be a strong lead, and Helen Hunt fits in well as does Shannen Doherty. Lee Montgomery is a perfectly acceptable hunk (even if like Parker all his dancing is done by doubles in long shot), I wonder what happened to him. Breezy, good natured and totally predictable - what is surprising it that the plot for this is almost identical to that used in the first act of Hairspray: girl wants to dance, falls for hunk, has crazy best friend, battles bitch. It's a bit too much to claim originality though - I think that both screenwriters were drinking from the same well, that's all.

Movie review - "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992) ***1/2

A film of many flaws - particularly some wonky acting - but half a masterpiece. It starts off with a massive advantage in that this is the first English speaking version of the novel that is actually faithful. I can't believe it took so long - the novel is filmic, with its different POVs and action packed finale. I guess the influence of the Balderstone play was simply too strong.

I also liked the emphasis on love and religion and history (Dracula here is linked to Vlad the Imaler), plus Coppola's expressionistic tricks: false backgrounds, trippy visuals, non realistic special effects. It is also incredibly sexy, especially the stuff where Keanu Reeves is set about by Dracula's brides including Monica Bellucini. Most of Sadie Frost's possession scenes result in her having a tit pop out.

Mina being a reincarnation of Dracula's wife was not in the novel (though it was in The Mummy) and I have mixed feelings about it - it does propel the plot, but when you kind of feel bad about Mina and poor old Jonathan Harker.

Some people hate Winona in this role; I didn't mind her, she does quite well in a role for which she isn't naturally cast (when the big moments come she's there - she's just not exceptional). Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins make strong adversaries. Poor Keanu is a bit of a joke, though he tries. Sadie Frost is effective, and the small roles well cast (esp Tom Waits as Renfield).

A surprise bit that doesn't work are Sadie Frost's three suitors: none of them really emerge as having personalities despite being played by reasonably well known actors; I know they don't have much time and aren't the focus of the story, but Coppola showed in The Godfather how skilled he was with getting maximum impact from a large cast, and it doesn't happen here.