Movie review - "Elf" (2003) ***1/2

Walt Disney once remarked that the surest way to go broke (and he would know) would be to make films just for children.
Comparing this with a later Will Ferrell "kid's" film, Kicking and Screaming, it would seem to best way to make kids movies for adults as well is to do something a bit fantastical, as opposed to naturalistic - the big popular successes nowadays seem to be cartoons or fantasies. This enables the filmmakers to go off on weird and wonderful tangents, especially useful when you've got a star who excels in portraying madness.
This has a high concept - human raised by elves goes to find his father - and could have done with a bit more old fashioned narrative drive, i.e. a ticking clock or something - it sort of ambles along from one encounter to another. The calculation and machinery is too obvious and not skillful enough on the let's-sing-along finale; and the bit where they're all pitching ideas for kids books is a bit too hey-we're-filmmakers-this-is-all-we-know-about-real-life-so-let's-make-the-film-about-that (and is that how the kid book industry works?).
I normally like James Caan in drama and admit he's the right age and type of hair (i.e. curly) to be Ferrell's estranged dad, but he doesn't quite work here - he's maybe a bit too a method actor to do comedy, i.e. all passions and hesitations.
But it's a sweet film, with a lovely heart and full of moments of brilliance, mostly from everything Ferrell does -quizzical expressions, his enthusiasms, sly humour.
Many wonderful scenes which make you laugh out loud, like taking out the final kid in the snow ball fight (surely a Magnificent Seven homage), Ferrell testing the toys, the attack of the Central Park Rangers, Ferrell's comment about a dwarf being a "South Pole elf" (a concept strong enough to support a sequel).
The supporting actors really get the tone right, more so than Caan - Ed Asner, Bob Newheart, Zoey Deschenaal. The scene where Ferrell sings along with Zoey in a shower is a bit adult for a kid's film - but good on them, I reckon.

Book review - "Who Killed Channel Nine" by Gerald Stone

Could be subtitled: "Fings aren't what they used to be" for this is Stone's lament on the travails of Channel Nine over the past few years. Because its Stone it is very entertainingly written and bangs along, a real page turner.
But it's incomplete and comes with this agenda to bag the Alexander administration. To be fair Alexander seems to have made a hash of things - but that's what happens in the last days of a dictator. Sometimes you do need to break eggs to make an omelet (I'm thinking when Fred Silverman axed much of CBS's top rating line up in 1971 - and it worked).
And although Stone frequently halls back to the good old days - the good old days are gone, its not just Alexander, there's no way they're coming back with internet and pay TV. Stone admits this but points to Channel Seven - but surely Channel Seven have kind of fluked their rise in ratings, due to a combination of getting two miracle shows (Desperate Housewives, Lost), the highly popular Dancing with the Stars and Today Tonight benefiting from A Current Affair's midlife crisis and the news benefiting from Brian Henderson's retirement.
Seven made plenty of gaffs themselves - luring over Dicko, anyone? My Restaurant Rules? Perfect Match? Popstars? Reading this one is struck how in the noughties execs went for people who'd worked in the past - Ian Ross to read Sydney news, Ray Martin to do A Current Affair, Jana Wendt back for Sunday, Leckie to run Seven, Sam Chisolm to run Nine, Meakin to run Seven news, Stephens to program Seven. Maybe this had something to do with the fall in television ratings as well?
Stone doesn't seem too keen to bag his old mates (I mean, is Leckie worth his massive salary either?? Didn't he inherit a healthy Nine from Sam Chisolm?).
It's especially problematic when many of the successes of the new century seem to be due to new up and comers - the producers of The Block, Sunrise, McLeod's - but when Nine brings in Mark Ferguson to read Sydney news, Stone accuses them of thinking short term... whereas surely Ferguson is the longer term option rather than Jim Whaley?
 And Stone is weak on the chapter on Channel Nine drama - he talks about the duel between Posie Graeme Evans and Susan Bower to get the job of head of drama (gripping reading), but does little on what Posie did once she got there (it wouldn't have been hard to find out). Didn't The Alice and Twisted Tales rate lowly? And what about Nine's dabble in the filmmaking world? (Dirty Deeds, but also You and Your Stupid Mate, Under the Radar). He doesn't mention the role Young Lions played in Kris Noble's demise - he doesn't mention the show at all.
 Many of Stone's criticisms do strike home, such as Alexander and his cohorts looking down on television, and while it was admirable they tried to do some decent stories on A Current Affair they probably would have been better off strengthening Sunday and A Current Affair instead. Once again, the best lines and moments come from Kerry Packer, though Eddie McGuire offers some gold (Footy Show being a worldwide hit, indeed)

Movie review - "The Paper" (1994) ***1/2

Most of Ron Howard's films seem to find favour with the public, but this one didn't, despite the all star cast, which is a shame since its bright, entertaining and very well done. Maybe simply too many people like in a one paper city now, or don't read the paper (eg the 90s ABC TV series Mercury was annoying to people who didn't live in Melbourne); the same story about television journalism might have found more favour.
There are many delights - Michael Keaton is excellent as the perennially edgy editor (who even takes time out from an argument with his wife to nod "hello" to a passerby, a lovely touch) with an annoyingly product-placement-friendly taste for soft drink; Marissa Tomei is charming as his ex journo pregnant wife who misses the smell of the hunt; Spalding Grey a delight as the pretentious NY Times-like editor; Randy Quaid is hilarious as a rock'n'roll columnist (the film's digs at columnists are a highlight). Robert Duvall and Glenn Close have played these sort of roles a lot, but they still do so here with elan.
The ending probably goes on too long, with all the stopping the presses, and changing minds, and going to hospital - and they try to make it work but a fist fight between Michael Keaton and Glenn Close is still inherently dodgy - and it's a bit ho-hum to have the big case of the day be about some poor little black kids who are wrongly arrested.

Movie review - "Sliding Doors" (1997) ***

A terrific idea, very well executed - high concept, an emerging star,low budget, very commercial... why did it take so long for this to get funded? Its amazing. I know girls who just watch this again and again -I'm not that into it, it's a bit too rote (the lead loses her boyfriend/job/apartment all in the same day; she has a wisecracking,devoted but not-as-pretty best friend; she works in PR; two spunky boys chase after her, the nicest of one whom has a good job) but there is something undeniably appealing about the central idea ("what if...").John Lynch has a great character - a Lothario who is a bit hopeless and useless, just likes to sponge off his women and can never make up his mind, a far more accurate depiction of what lady killers are like rather than the smooth talking suave Bond figure of popular myth. Neither Lynch nor John Hannah are exactly film stars but Gwyneth Paltrow is and her English accent is convincing.

Movie review - "55 Days at Peking" (1963) **1/2

Very much falls into the "one that got away" category, since the siege of the foreign legation during the Boxer Rebellion is a terrific subject, ripe for epic but self contained enough to do cheap sequences, full of glamour, exotic action and political drama (a dying empire, new nations asserting themselves for money, international co-operation, etc)- not to mention great opportunities for an international cast. This is presumably how the film got funded in the first place - it's a shame they couldn't come up with a script to match it (Phil Yordan did come up with the evocative title).

The elements sound good - Charlton Heston as a US marine, David Niven as the British ambassador, Ava Gardner as a shady Russian aristocrat - it sets up all the stuff: surrounded by Chinese, hostile Empress, the siege starts, the Empress backs it, goes on... But never really catches fire.

You never get the sense our heroes are under much threat; the whole rebellion must have been a terrifying time - in a hostile country - but you never get the sense of fear they way you do in, say, Zulu. Maybe this is because the key Chinese are played by English and Australian actors (good ones and well cast, admittedly, but still not Chinese) - Leo Genn, Flora Robson and our own Robert Helpmann.

Also the film wastes too much time - there are all these scenes which go nowhere, like Ava Gardner tending this British soldier who get, like who cares; and the one where David Niven lies on a couch wondering to his wife whether he's done the right thing - again,who cares? (And this is one scene after Niven's son as been shot - the biggest surprise in the film, incidentally, and the most effective... until they ruin it by having the son recover and thereby rob the incident of its point - but my point is, the wife was mad in the previous scene then is no longer mad, how about a scene that progresses the story?)

There's too much talking about how hard the siege is, instead of showing how hard it is. The scene where Heston and Niven dress up as Chinese and goon the attack isn't bad; ditto the use of fireworks at the end and Robson's scene at the end where she realises its all over; and it's certainly colourful. The influence of the Cold War can be felt: while the Germans and Japanese are loyal, good fighters albeit still following the orders of the British), the Russians are shown to be treacherous and wanting to get out of it, and the Boxer Chinese are pretty much a faceless mass.

Book review - "Showtune" by Jerry Herman

Herman's memoir is like his music - generally bright and happy, though not without shadows (his adored mother died of cancer when she was only young, a lover died of AIDS). He comes across as a very positive upbeat person, although the book ends with him contracting HIV; his first three musicals on Broadway were big hits, two of them "big enough to retire"sensations (Hello Dolly, Mame); he also wrote an off Broadway show which is little remembered.

The 70s were harder, with three flops -though one, Mack and Mabel, developed a strong cult and became a smash hit on revival in the 1990s (this seems to have been a trend with 70s musicals eg Chicago), but he came back strongly in the early 80s with La Cage Aux Folles (NB surely there's a musical which would be ripe for big screen treatment by now? And speaking of this, they could surely remake Mame and even Dolly, do them right this time).

Not that Herman seems to have been short of dough - in the 70s he moved to LA and took a break from writing, instead deciding to renovate and re-sell houses as a sideline, a very lucrative sideline.

Fans of Herman's shows and Broadway will find this an interesting read - the stories behind his key songs, feuds with David Merrick on Hello Dolly, the love fest that was Mame and La Cage (except when trying to persuade them to cast Judy Garland in the former), troubles on other shows, his 'feud' with Steven Sondheim in the early 80s.

Even Herman admits he probably couldn't be gayer if he tried: he's an only child, close to an adoring mum but distant from macho dad, works in musical theatre, worshipped Judy G, great pals with all the classic icon women (eg Carol Channing, Liza Minnelli), owned a place on Fire Island, lived for a time at Key West, had a boyfriend die of AIDS. 

Somehow this book - bright, enjoyable, easy to read - lacks a little something. Couldn't put my finger on it - maybe lack of top notch anecdotes (probably because Herman sounds like a good friend who keeps secrets), a little drama, or something.

Movie review - "Asterix and Cleopatra" (1969) **

It's a bizarre experience watching a beloved comic book on the big screen. The animation is based on the book itself so is of decent quality, even if the flow of the images isn't good. I had trouble with the voice work - I know that's always an issue with adapting comics, but while Cleopatra's voice seemed to fit and Getafix's, the Egyptian architect's seems too slow-witted; ditto Asterix (too high) and Obelix(too low). It lacks excitement and pace. This is for novelty more than anything else. The songs were dire, too, and poorly integrated.

Book review - "Plampiset" by Gore Vildal

Vidal is one of the best writers of the twentieth century and very witty and erudite on himself, so it's a lay down missaire that this autobiography is going to be a good one. Its familiar, though, if you've read his essays, where he often reminisces about his famous grandfather,the blind senator Gore, his semi relation Jacqui Bouvier Kennedy and acquaintance Jack. At times he even spills over to essay speak, like when talking about his friendship with Anais Nin. This isn't to say the book isn't enjoyable, just familiar.

Vidal's life falls into key chapters/encounters - his adored but distant dad, his hated mother, family weddings with JFK, romance with Jimmie, school, army, back in New York, notoriety with The City and the Pillar. Writers often deride the use of the "Rosebud" device, where a character is explained by one event from his or her childhood. But interestingly that's what Vidal offers for himself - the death of Jimmie, his childhood sweetheart, they meet as young teenagers, had one more encounter later on, then he died in World War Two (is this why Vidal is always so harsh on FDR for pushing America into war?)

My favourite sections were the ones concerning Vidal's time in Hollywood - where he obtained some decent credits, notably Suddenly Last Summer - and his political career in the early 60s. This book has been hailed as a classic but there are too many holes and irritations to fall into that category for me: for instance, Howard Austen, Vidal's life partner, is only mentioned every now and then; Vidal's inflated sense of his own importance gets wearisome at times (eg I made X author popular by recommending him to Y publisher), as does his attitude towards sex ("this is how I like to do it"); like Noel Coward, his good opinion clearly can be bought with flattery and/or a job offer (for instance, he's bitchy about so many writers and movies but Without Honour, a film in which he has a role, is described as a "charming fable"); At times it ambles, goes back in time for essay-like reminiscences, then forward in time to a sort of diary of what he's up to in the mid 90s, and it feels like a rush job.

Book review - "The Cowboy and the Seniorita: Roy Rogers and Dale Evans" by Chris Enss and Howard Kazanjian

Singing cowboy movies were a bizarre phenomenon that seem to have complete disappeared from our consciousness, at least in Australia: they aren't replayed on television, are hard to get on video and DVD, few people would know the songs, there's no real legacy today on our screens(unless you count country music). Yet they were once very popular here -my father in law admits to owning a Roy Rogers outfit when little, the films packed out cinemas in the 40s and 50s, the local film A Funny Thing Happens Down Under features a scene where the romantic hero sings while riding a horse. And even today most people know the name Roy Rogers, and that he was a singing cowboy. It is a very catchy name (not his real one) and for over a decade he was a major star - not the biggest star in the world, as this biography irritatingly claims, but certainly box office, churning out a couple of films a year (the only one which receives much airplay being Son of Paleface, a Bob Hope film) then a long running television series.

Rogers was a singer, a member of the group Sons of Pioneers (who later appeared without him in some John Ford Westerns) who was signed by Republic as a successor to Gene Autrey (who was so popular he was listed among the top ten box office stars in America at one stage); the public liked him,particularly when he combined with Dale Evans, and he had a long career.Like Autrey, Rogers was canny with his finances and ended up making a fortune north of $100 million, much of it due to merchandising; this book argues Rogers was blacklisted by the studios because he successfully sued Republic for the rights to his likeness, but did any studio other than Republic make singing cowboy films? And by the time Rogers left Republic, studios were winding up their B picture units.

However, it wasn't all beer and skittles for Rogers - his first wife died of a brain aneurysm, three of his children died - one, a Down syndrome child, only lasted two years; another choked to death on his own vomit after a drinking binge; another died in an accident. It's enough to make anyone go barmy, but Rogers and Evans found God in the40s.

Evans had a few hard knocks herself, too - she married at 16 and had a child but hubby shot through; she married again but split up after the war took it's toll; she dreamed of finding success away from Westerns but the films flopped (one moment in the book as Herbert Yates talk to Dale Evans about Oklahoma and then the writer goes something like "Dale excitedly thought that Yates had brought the movie rights so she could star in the film" - come on, this is Herbert Yates we're talking about). She married Rogers a year after his wife's death (no eyebrows raised, apparently) and they were married for 52 years, which is a long time in anyone's book. They never stopped working (once TV ended there were always concerts and personal appearances), were good Christians and parents, etc - in short, good Republican role models (not that their politics are ever really discussed here). While Rogers was ac anny businessman, Evans was no passenger - she wrote a number of books (one for each dead child, which sounds a tad ghoulish) and many songs, including 'Happy Trails'.

The topic alone ensures this is a fascinating book, though one wishes it were better - it appears well researched but we don't see enough of this research on the page; there is a lack of hard and fast facts and figures, eg how much did the film's make? How much was Rogers paid?, as well as an absence of contextualisation about how singing cowboy films fitted in to the industry and America at the time (why were they so popular? Why did they disappear?). It feels like a novelised version of a well researched script for a film on Rogers and Evans (according to the blurb, one is on its way) - whereas one is left wishing it were more of a "book" book, with sources and hard facts, etc.It has also been written with one eye very much on the Christian market- Rogers and Evans' religion was important to them, it deserves due consideration, but one can't help feel the very sympathetic depiction of Christianity is more with the potential readership in mind.

Movie review - A&C #22 - "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948) ****1/2

Probably the best A & C movie though not, funnily enough, the funniest - it has laughs, to be sure, but not as many as some of their other, hokier movies. The greatness in this one lies in the cast and performances, and atmosphere and story - you can watch it again and again and never get sick of it.

The quality of scripts used in A & C movies shot up markedly once Charles Barton started directing their films and its no surprise he's in charge here; the story is a very good one, and would be good enough on its own to serve as one of those Universal Dracula/Frankenstein/ Wolf Man sequels of the 40s (indeed, its a lot more logical and thought out than most of the later ones): Costello is being groomed by a femme fetale on behalf of Count Dracula,who wants to transplant his brain to Frankenstein's monster in order to make the latter more docile.

There are some lovely moments where Bela Lugosi lovingly taps Costello's head, and Costello gets strapped to the operating table; it's also hilarious to have all these women chasing after Costello, to Abbott's consternation. The film even skilfully incorporates a love interest subplot into the action - a female investigating insurance officer and a doctor who innocently works for Dracula (both serve the plot and add a little romance). The atmosphere is appropriately spooky - a chamber of horrors, Dracula's island, a laboratory.

Lugosi is in good form as Dracula, a very good straight man (he's so much more charismatic in the part than John Carradine, why didn't Universal give him another go in one of the sequels?); Lon Chaney is terrific as always as the tragic Wolf Man (one of the all-time great monster death scenes with him leaping out of the window grabbing Dracula in bat form); Glen Strange is fine as the Monster; all the support actors are good.

Movie review - "Blades of Glory" (2007) ***1/2

The one genre Hollywood has improved in in recent years is comedy, due mostly to the work of the Frat Pack, or whatever they're called: Will Ferrell, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, etc. This one has a $100 million concept: Will Ferrell and John Heder as Oscar and Felix contrasting ice skaters who team up and compete in doubles.
The standard sports movie template is followed, to wit - establish characters, give them trauma, team up, training montage (conflict interspersed with moments of working together), triumph, crisis to end second act, final triumph. Hey, this is a template because it works and it does here.
The great thing about comic sports movies is you can make fun of them but still take the benefit - when Heder and Ferrell do their routine to Aerosmith's 'I Wouldn't Change a Thing' its funny, and exciting.
There are some opportunities missed - they set up this great character, a billionaire who adopted Heder then dumped him when he was stripped off gold, but he disappears after the first 15 minutes; we only get to know one other pair of skaters (brilliant acting by both, esp the Arrested Development guy) when surely there was scope for satire with some other characters (esp when Ferrell talks about some of his ex girlfriends -you think they'll show up but they don't); they set up the fact both Ferrell and the girl opposing skater have similar dirty minds but this isn't paid off; and also it's a bit yucky to have the nice girl try to seduce Ferrell prior to the big match (she doesn't go through with it and they try to take the sting out of it by having them blackmail her, etc but its still a bit yucky - Heder could still have thought she slept with Ferrell by some other means i.e. maybe her sister pretended to be her, without actually her agreeing).
But there's lots of good stuff: choice of music (Flash Gordon for the final song!), Craig T Nelson having Matt Damon's photo on his fridge (it seems as though the filmmakers wanted to compensate for making Heder's character straight by"coding" Nelson as gay), some classic lines (eg Ferrell on being nine with a 35 year old girlfriend), the skating action (both actors can skate quite well), the performance. And it's good fun.

Movie review - "Love Story" (1944) ***

Leslie Arliss was a journeyman director who hit a gold streak in the mid 40s resulting in three all-time British craptacular classics - The Man in Grey, The Wicked Lady and this. He never produced anything remotely as well known ever again. Margaret Lockwood was in all three, and they were the peak of her career, too.

Here she's a goodie, a concert pianist who has only a short time to live. She flees to a coastal village, where there's a whole lot of stuff going on: snobby old ladies who Lockwood delights in making gasp by pretending to be racy, a salt of the earth Yorkshireman, a dashing local (Stewart Granger) who she romances, Granger's childhood friend (Pat Roc) who is always chain smoking and having her hair up; everyone thinks Granger's a coward but its only because he's going blind, Roc's putting on a production of a tempest, and there's a mine which collapses and Granger proves his bravery. 

 

Laugh if you will but its done with honesty and enthusiasm and the mood of living for today really struck the note of the public. 

 

 Sociologically and dramatically this is fascinating: Roc refers to Granger having "slept his way" though a number of affairs (she says "slept"!); the socialism of the war is shown in the character of the sympathetic Yorkshireman; Roc doesn't want Granger to get better so she can finally have him, leading to a brief cat fight between Lockwood and Roc (Roc slaps Maggie, she slaps back twice, then threatens that she'll go root Granger unless she persuades him to have the operation); Roc gives Granger a big dirty pash at the train station. 

 

As pointed out by Screenonline, the film combines the excess of costume melodrama with a slightly more realistic war setting. It's totally hokey and remains watchable today.

Roc normally played nice girls but here she's sort of nasty nice, i.e. willing to do whatever it takes to get Granger - but at heart you think she's decent. (Imagine if Lockwood played the role - the character would come across as evil and the film would be thrown off balance). 

 

Although Roc is pretty she doesn't have the charisma of Granger or Lockwood - all three of them, incidentally, are a bit amateurish when it comes to the old acting, but enthusiastic; watching them is like watching recent graduates from an acting school go at it.

TV review - "The Men from Shiloh" (1970) **

Watched a video with two episodes of The Men from Shiloh. This was a show which lasted a year and was a sequel/continuation/formerly-known-as The Virginian, a show which apparently revolved around ranch hands James Dury and Doug McClure, both whom are in this show - but there was a new boss, played by Stewart Granger. And another reason for the different title was the show was apparently a bit different - each episode concentrated solely on one character - so you wouldn't have them interacting.

 The first ep has McClure help a little girl find her mother (she's a con artist); the second one involves Granger and his 17 year old niece (played by a young Annette O'Toole, very pretty) save a man from hanging (Lee Majors who became a series regular).

 Granger was white haired and distinguished at this stage of his career; he's OK but its not much of a role. The opening credit sequence, with Ennio Morricone's booming score and whizzing around old style pictures is entertaining, but the show itself is tired, with that crappy Universal television washed over look, too contemporary clothes and feel.
 

Script wise there are too many repetitive scenes eg in the first one too many between McClure and the girl, in the second too many with O'Toole and Majors making goo-goo eyes at one other.

Movie review - Ladd #1 - "This Gun for Hire" (1942) ***1/2

Alan Ladd made one of the all time great star debuts with this film, up there with Errol Flynn in Captain Blood and Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate. He was only billed fourth but it really is the star role since he is the protagonist of the action - a hired killer who is doubled crossed by his boss (Laird Cregar) and goes looking for revenge. Ladd's character, Raven, is ruthless - in the second scene he shoots a man and his mistress, the latter just because she happens to be here; he later kills a cat so it won't give away his location and shoots a cop.

But the film is generally very sympathetic to him - he is only after revenge, after all, against people even worse than he (fifth columnists); the killings of innocent people (the girl, cat and cop) happen offscreen so we don't see it; he likes cats (apart from the one he killed); is nice to a little girl; has a bad childhood; his wrist is permanently damaged (though he doesn't have a hare lip like in Graham Greene's original novel); he kills enemies of America; and develops a soft spot for a girl (Veronica Lake) he comes into contact with.

Ladd is incredibly effective - angelic good looks with the personality of a killer; the only time he strikes a slight bung note is during a long monologue about his nightmares which he doesn't quite pull off. Lake wasn't the best actor in the world, either, but is very sexy and strikes charismatic sparks with Ladd (a great duo) - poor Robert Preston, who is billed second and plays her boyfriend, doesn't have a chance, constantly lagging behind, not doing much in the story, popping up at the end to shot Ladd but only being saved from being shot in turn by Lake's presence. (Preston's curly hair, moustache and slight aura of untrustworthiness made him better suited to play villains anyhow).

Laird Cregar is wonderful as the slimy villain; ditto Tully Marshall as Cregar's ancient boss (I remember a wonderful section from Greene's book describing how this character had a bath and went to sleep delighted to have lived for just one more day).

The story has script problems - its too much of a coincidence Preston is searching for Lake just as Lake is asked to spy on Cregar, who happens to run a nightclub (employing Lake) as well as sideline as an executive for a poisoned gas company. This means the film never quite reaches the top rank of noir - although it was very influential for that genre, for while Lake is motivated to act by patriotism and the baddies are dirty traitors, Ladd's fatalistic hero is very much in the noir tradition.

Well shot by John Seitz; director Frank Tuttle shows flair in some action sequences like Ladd jumping on to a train and the murder scene at the beginning; the ending is clunkily staged, though. Interestingly, like Sullivan's Travels there's a scene where Lake dons her male co-star's overcoat and hat (she does look like a cutie in them). It's not perfect - Ladd and Lake made better movies - but highly entertaining.

Movie review - "The Vikings" (1958) ****

As pointed out by George MacDonald Fraser in his book, Hollywood History of the World, Kirk Douglas was born to play a Viking - one can imagine the moment he became a star people would pitch viking stories to him.

Douglas also produced this and its a film he should be very proud of - historically authentic (seemingly so, anyway); beautifully shot; gorgeous locations; plenty of plot involving rape, long-lost princes, half brothers kidnapped princesses, treacherous kings, being eaten by wolves, having a hand chopped off.

It's pretty full on, the vikings are never actually very likeable or sympathetic - Ernest Borgnine rapes Tony Curtis' mother in the first minute, Kirk Douglas dreams of a life with Janet Leigh where he constantly rapes her, they pillage and plunder. But I think people can handle that provided they suffer - Borgnine is torn apart by dogs, Douglas loses an eye and is gutted by a sword, etc.The nicer characters are Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh - but even Curtis is bitter and intense because of his experiences with the vikings (understandably).

The film plays with sympathies by having the climactic raid involving vikings taking on the English - who, after all, are only defending their homeland (its not their fault Frank Thring is a bad king; and yes it's nasty of Thring to want to throw Borgnine to the dogs but Borgnine kind of deserved it). But it seems to work. (Maybe they could have had emphasised more Curtis trying to take over his kingdom, so he has to go into cahoots with the Vikings to overthrow Thring - so it's political as opposed to just fighting for Leigh. They could have used James Donald for this - as it is, he's just an English traitor who seems to get away with it.)

Douglas and Borgnine are terrific; Curtis is good, too - his Brooklyn accent is a little distracting but he compensates for it with intensity, a beard and having a hand chopped off (his tiny shorts are irritating - it's like "come on, Tony, put some clothes on"); Thring makes a superb evil monarch (this was the first of his four classic "spectacular villains" performances); Janet Leigh is lovely (is that a padded bra? in the final scene it's like she's about to topple over forwards).

The story does get a bit repetitive in shots (two scenes of returning viking raiders, two scenes of a banquet to celebrate); the final battle is very well done and the final duel between Douglas and Curtis is electric (on top of a castle with no back projection so we see all these cliffs and rocks in the background); the theme tune is memorable; it ends with a viking funeral (although those who've seen History of the World Part I can't help think of the vikings taking off their hats, with their horns left on).

It also features two great "macho tearful" scenes: (a) Borgnine is about to be thrown to the wolves and looks at Curtis pleading for a sword and Curtis gives to him enabling Borgnine to die with his boots on, and (b) when Douglas is about to kill Curtis at the end but hesitates... giving Curtis time to skewer him. Right up there with Richard Burton killing Richard Harris at the end of The Wild Geese. Sniff.

Movie review - Moto #5 - "The Mysterious Mr Moto" (1938) ***

If people had paid more attention to Mr Moto films they mightn't have been so surprised by the Japanese in WW1. Here Moto infiltrates a gang of assassins - he gets himself imprisoned in Devil's Island and escapes with one of their member (Leon Ames), which is going to an awful lot of trouble, though not for the movies (eg Nevada Smith). Then the action moves to London where, to be honest, it bogs down every now and then, despite a fair bit of acting - a brawl in a London pub especially feels to be like padding. And I wish this had been set in a French colony or somewhere more exotic rather than boring old London.

But it remains entertaining, the head baddie is the one you least suspect, and politically its fascinating: Moto gets some very rough racist treatment when he visits a pub, and also the head of Scotland Yard is suspicious of him because he's Japanese.

The cast is strong as are production values - Fox didn't stint on the Motos even though they were Bs (or else they had a particularly good production manager). Henry Wilcoxon - only a few years after starring in The Crusades - adds class as the object of the assassin's target, a Pacifist industrialist who won't sell to a totalitarian government. His character is a bit of a dick, being stupidly oblivious to assassination threats - I kept thinking "no loss, really") but Wilcoxon does what he can.

Aussie actor Mary Maguire (from Heritage) is very sweet and lovely as his secretary (she has the odd Aussie twang in her speaking voice; she went to LA after making The Flying Doctor and made some B movies, then going over to London). It's not much of a part - I was hoping she'd turn traitor or turn out to be an agent, but no she's just dull and loving. Erik Rhodes is Wilocxon's silly ass assistant who turns out to be the head baddie - Moto holds his hand and arranges for a chandelier to fall on his head. and kills him, which is full on - especially as at that stage of the movie we don't know he's bad.

Harold Hubert, who was Moto's detective friend in Mr Moto's Gamble, is a baddie here. Lorre and Ames' characters have a fantastic brawl with Moto's jiujitsu really coming to the fore. And there's a kind of quasi romance going on for Moto with that Chinese agent who seems to have a crush on him - I kept expecting her to die tragically but she doesn't.

Movie review - Moto #4 - "Mr Moto Takes a Chance" (1938) *** (warning: spoilers)

One of the features of Mr Moto films was you sometimes never knew what he was up to until the very end - you knew it was some good cause, but what exactly? Here he's at an archeologist site near Cambodia, a French territory but with a local prince and rebellious tribesmen. Into this drops (literally in her case) one of those woman aviatrixes of the 30s, plus a couple of newsreel cameramen.

The series is back to its exotic, action packed best, with forced marriages, sacrifices in ancient tombs, dagger-wielding assassins, and a glorious over the top siege at the end with Moto and his mates holed up with machine guns in a temple, blasting away.

Rochelle Hudson, plays the Amelia Earhardt style aviatrix who, in some deliriously over the top plotting, turns out to be an agent for British  intelligence. She is a good looking girl and appears in a series of fetchingly revealing outfits. J Edward Bromberg is good fun as the corrupt, funny-but-actually-ruthless local rajah, who is no one/s fool - the sort of part Walter Slezak would specialise in playing.

This was actually the second Moto filmed but the fourth shown - apparently due to poor quality. Some don't like it; I enjoyed it. There is strong action, several characters who are not what they appear to be.

I admit it's not a pure detective tale - it's more an imperial adventure, with Lorre and Hudson helping defend the white man's burden in Asia (both baddies - the priest and the rajah - want to kick out the French) It's ironic in a way that a Japanese man is so imperial but history shows plenty of times the Japanese would team up with European powers to put down the locals. (Also significant that the two American characters are mostly bewildered innocents.)

Movie review - Moto #3 - "Mr Moto's Gamble" (1938) ***

A less exotic Moto film - no international locales, it's all set in the one American city and involves boxers and gangsters (the plot is about a boxer who is killed), and has a lot more comedy.

This is explained by the fact the script was originally written to be a Charlie Chan film but Warner Oland left the series due to illness and soon died, so they reworked it for Moto. This means Keye Luke as Chan's son makes an appearance (as a student of Moto's), as does an Inspector played by Harold Huber, who used to work with Chan. This is kind of fun - it's like a cross over David E Kelly show.

Less forgiveable is the way Moto's character changed. In the first two movies he was this mysterious, rather ruthless figure - he could have easily been a baddie, he did a lot of fighting, and would kill people. Here it's clear he's a detective from the beginning (we meet him lecturing on crime), he only fights once, and spouts a lot of exposition. Also, there are slabs of comedy courtesy of Keye Luke and dumb boxer Maxie Rosenbloom which feels more like Chan. It's not directed by Norman Foster and lacks his pace.

However, once I got over the fact it wasn't a pure Moto and appreciated it on its own terms - as a curio in the series - I enjoyed it. The plot is fast moving as always, I genuinely couldn't pick the killer until the very end, the boxing scenes have real atmosphere and are very well done, there is some bright dialogue and entertaining low life characters, including Maxie Rosembloom as a kleptomaniac student of Moto's, the always likeable Lynn Bari as a wisecracking reporter, and Jayne Regan (who was in Thank You, Mr Moto - more actor recycling) as a rich girl with a taste for hunky boxers who she uses and disposes.

There's also some famous faces in the support cast (albet in small roles): Lon Chaney Jnr as a henchman, and Ward Bond as the boxer in the final fight. No classic but entertaining.

Movie review - "Mrs Miniver" (1942) ***1/2

You can often tell as much about a people and period of time but what they loved to see about themselves as opposed to more realistic representations - this was an enormously popular look at a British family at war, one of the biggest hits of all time in its day. It has dated a little, but still stands up as a work of enormous skill, as do many films from director William Wyler.
There are other reasons for its success: the reassuring picture of Britain with flower shows, friendly pubs, vicars and boats (not totally a white wash - the Dame May Whitty character is a snob - but she's a good egg underneath); Greer Garson's performance in the title role, with bewitching charm and humour (people have criticised her for being overly noble but she's not here); sterling support from Walter Pigeon (he and Garson have wonderful chemistry); a clever structure which emphasises and establishes the characters before bringing in the war, and which sets up audience expectations that the eldest son will be killed... then pulls a switcheroo by having his wife die instead; the beauty of Wright and the skilled performances from two little kids; many memorable scenes: the cute she-bought-a-hat-he-bought-a-car bit to open it, the stunning night time sequence when Pigeon goes off to Dunkirk, Garson stumbling upon a Nazi flyer in her garden (no wonder women loved this - "It's just like my life, the men think we do nothing but we have kids, food, downed Nazi airmen..."), the death sigh of Teresa Wright, the bomb shelter, the flower show ending with Dame May Whitty's shocked and touched expression when she realises the villagers actually like her, and most of all the ending scene in the Church - where Wyler holds off showing how damaged it is until towards the end and we find out nice old Henry Travers has been killed and Henry Wilcoxon gives her stirring speech.
There are flaws - Helmut Dantine overacts his Nazi, as he was want to do (or, more likely, encouraged to do); the village stereotypes do make you laugh (esp the maid with her fellow working class boyfriend - just like Alice and Sam the Butcher in The Brady Bunch); and most of Richard Ney's performance as the Miniver's eldest son is awful - he's this sort of skinny prancy thing with creamed hair who looks like a trout and every time he's on screen the fun screeches to a halt (cutting to him during the final church scene lessens its effectiveness). There is some fun to be had to seeing Garson kiss Ney on the mouth and give him loving looks - the two went on to be married.
 It remains a moving and watchable film in which everything actually happened to real people, however glossily presented here, regardless of Garson's five minute Oscar acceptance speech.

Movie review - "The Thing" (1951) ***1/2

Howard Hawks turns his recognisable style - a close knit bunch of professionals (including a woman who holds her own with the men) who talk in overlapping dialogue and a laid back manner deal very well with a stressful situation, in this case an alien who has crash landed in the arctic.

The cast consist entirely of unknowns who remained that way even after this film - but their performances are spot on, relaxed and confident, and stand as tribute as much as anything else to Hawk's skill with actors (and casting) (NB Christian Nyby is credited as director but I think everyone agrees it's a Hawks movie).

It treats the story logically and with intelligence (though even Gielgud would have been hard pressed to tackle the essential silliness of "an intellectual carrot? The mind boggles") and "watch the skies" is a great last line. But it's a bit too laid back and relaxed - a bunch of soldiers stuck in a frozen outpost is a terrific, inherently tense situation, but the film never becomes as exciting as you would think. We never get the sense our heroes are in any realy danger, they barely raise a sweat (everyone's a bit too competent and professional) - only the mad scientist has any flair.

Added to this is the fact there seems to be too many people in the cast - that isolated station is fairly overflowing with people. And the nominal hero, Kenneth Tobey, looks a bit too much like his 2-I-C. And does anyone else find it a bit creepy when his men try to badger him and Margaret Sheridan into marriage at the end? The much-maligned remake remedied these faults; its main problem was having a sequence which made us worry that Kurt Russell, the audience surrogate, might have been infected.

Movie review - "Barry McKenzie Holds His Own" (1974) ***

Reg Grundy is one of Australia's most successful showbiz entrepreneurs so it's a shame he hasn't dabbled more in filmmaking. He stumped up the cash for this film, a follow up to the ocker classic. 

This one has more of a "movie" plot - Edna is kidnapped by Transylvanians who think she's Queen Elizabeth II - but it's a movie movie plot, i.e. inherently silly one. Although the first Barry was episodic, it was based on a situation that was roughly realistic, i.e. an Aussie abroad in England. So it had a reality, a more solid foundation that this one. For instance, Barry and his mates are rooted in some kind of reality, whereas all the vampires aren't. You kind of wish for a plot they'd just have Barry do the tour of Europe, so he could have made fun of Germans, Italians, Greeks, etc. (You could have thrown in the Transyvlania stuff at the end if you'd really needed to.) 

But after starting the film hilariously in Paris the filmmakers flee back to the comfort and security of England, which we already saw in the first film, and then go on to Transylvania, which is funny, but not super funny because Australia doesn't have much of a connection with Transylvania.

The film is full of moments of brilliance, though: the opening spiel by Australia's Minister for Culture (holding a book, Venomous Toads of Australia), the expat commie Aussie (Dick Bentley), Ed Devereaux as Australia's high commissioner (in shorts and drinking fosters - Barry has more friends in this one), Clive James as a beer swilling film critic, Nell Campbell as a dancer on the Moulin Rogue (she later became Little Nell of Rocky Horror Picture Show fame), and Humphries lines are consistently dazzling.

Umbrella Entertainment did a typically brilliant DVD package - audio commentary from Barry Crocker, a good interview with Barry Humphries, trailers, a 50 minute 1974 doco done, as was the style at the time, by a pompous up himself reporter with too much hair and tight pants ("I'm reporting about a film and I'm on television - let's be superior"). In his interview Humphries claims that a producer ripped off his idea for a third Barry (i.e. Barry goes to America) for Crocodile Dundee, as if the fish out of water concept isn't the oldest one in Australian film comedy (eg Dad and Dave Come to Town): also McKenzie is an urban creature (though Humphries says his idea was to start with Bazza in the outback - which I think would have been strange), and based on his track record Humphries would have been totally withering of Americans and American culture, whereas the secret to the success of the Hogan movies lay in the underlying affection between Australian and America.

Apparently this made a profit - why no third? Well, Australia's preference for ocker sex comedies only lasted a short time - the first half of the 70s, really (it lasted a bit longer in England but here the pressure to end the genre earlier was greater due to the fact government money was involved - could you defend public money being spent on Alvin Purple?); like England, though, we got sick of it and there was a "period" backlash - out went bare breasts and lechery, in came long skirts and adaptations of coming of age novels (there were sporadic attempts to revive the genre, eg The Journalist, Pacific Banana, but they didn't last).

TV review - "Rome" episodes 11 & 12

This has a built-in great climax in the assassination of Julius Caesar,and the actor who plays Brutus is terrific, with just the right amount of weakness, moral self-indignation and angst. (Of course Ciarin Hinds is great at Caesar, too, all dignity, wisdom and apparent magnanimity -no wonder people followed him). Ep 11 sees the show turn intoGladiator - it was inevitable Titus would find himself in the arena, and he does so in a very bloody yet exciting (and ultimately moving) sequence. While the structure of the show has these two ordinary men at the outskirts of extraordinary events, Ray Stevenson and Kevin McKidd aren't really ordinary (cf R2D2 and C3PO in Star Wars and Claudius in I, Claudius), they are superheroes. Maybe this is what stopped the series from being a massive ratings success - it lacks someone ordinary for the audience to identify with (even nicer Kevin McKidd is still a superhero). The build up to the assassination is terrifically suspenseful and the event itself packs a wallop - so much so that it's annoying to cut away to McKidd's domestic shenanigans. Weren't these resolved in an earlier episode? But it definitely leads you wanting to know what happens next - especially when you see the conspirators being given the evil eye by Marc Anthony and Octavian. It's like, "you guys -you don't know what you've bought into."

Book review - "Alan J Pakula" by Jared Brown

We should all be blessed with an entry into the film industry like Alan J Pakula's: loving parents who send you to a liberal college, then fund you for a few years until you break into the industry and get you your first job through a family contact; then you go to work as an assistant for an agent, Don Hartman - who a year later is appointed head of production at Paramount. But to be fair, Pakula made the most of every opportunity - he worked very hard, seems to have been extremely easy to get along with (the accounts of how nice and gentlemanly he was get a bit wearying over time). It's no surprise he was a success as a producer- it's more surprising he did so well as a director, and became such a good one. Today the trend seems to be for directors to go into producing(eg Lucas, Spielberg, Pollack) - but there have been some people who went the other way: Joe Roth is a recent bad example, but there's also Joe Mankiewicz and Pakula.

I knew a little of Pakula's career (eg his tragic freakish death) but was surprised how much more to it there was:the Hartman connection, for example, his (mostly unsuccessful) forays into Broadway production, the fact To Kill a Mockingbird was only his second film as producer, he was married to Hope Lange for several years in the 60s, the different techniques he used for different actors (esp contrasting Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice with Liza Minnelli in Sterile Cuckoo and Jane Fonda in Klute). This may sound like a self-evident comment, but he really put a lot of care into his films (the good ones, anyway), esp Mockingbird, President's, Sophie's Choice. To make a masterpiece you have to work really, really hard! The care and effort put into these films were such it was no wonder they turned out well and makes you wonder if the real reason why so many films are bad isn't so much that executives are evil but that filmmakers aren't willing to go the extra mile. (Having said that I think a deal of this is because by the time the cameras roll, most filmmakers are usually exhausted with getting the film up in the first place).

Pakula made all sorts of films but for my money his real genius lay with conspiracy thrillers: Klute, The Parallax View, and All the President's Men (he was helped considerably on all three by Gordon Willis), plus to a lesser extent Presumed Innocent. The Pelican Brief was a half-successful attempt to recapture this (though it did well at the box office). The author makes the claim that his other great classic was Sophie's Choice, which I haven't seen - both this and President's Men get two chapters each. (The treatment given to Love and Pain and the Whole Damn Thing, Comes a Horseman and Rollover is a lot less.)

The author writes with a great deal of admiration for Pakula and for his films, though he allows a little criticism of the latter (esp Rollover, Dream On) - he makes an argument that Orphans is a bit of an undiscovered classic. He does allow for his subject to have some faults - particularly a fussy nature (seems to have been a bit of a primma donna at times - but what successful director isn't?). Never really went into decline - his last film was a big studio picture for which he was paid $5 million.

I would point out one thing about this book - the author seems overly willing to take people's word for who worked on particular scripts. I know from experience researching this stuff that people often don't realise what they contributed, or think they contributed more than they did. People who rewrite a scene, change a location, think they've made this big change when actually the basic structure hasn't altered. You actually have to read different drafts of the script to make a call. (eg Hitchcock biographer's taking Sam Taylor's word for it that Alec Coppel's script for Vertigo was 'unusable' - when in fact a lot of it was used in the final film). This is particularly noticeable when dealing with the section of the writing of All the President's Men -William Goldman wrote in his chapter on the book some critical comment son Pakula (mainly his inability to make up his mind) and Robert Redford,which seems to have prompted hostility from Robert Redford: Redford says that Goldman's script was trivial and hardly any of it was in the final film except for his decision to throw away the last half of the book and that he and Pakula rewrote it, and that Goldman had a lot of gall accepting his Oscar. Now I've read some early drafts of the script (one admittedly was on the net but it reads like Goldman, another is at AFTRS) and the film seems very close to it, at least the structure. Now Dexter does include a quote from Bob Woodward that he thought the structure of Goldman's script was attached, but he also quotes a lot of Goldman bashing especially on Goldman's overly "light hearted" approach (not seeming to allow that Goldman deliberately took this approach out of fear the audience would get bored). Surely it wouldn't have been too hard just to read a copy of early drafts and make his own judgement? OK,having said all that - Goldman's version of this episode has been allowed to dominate for the part twenty years maybe he was owed a little payback.

Another, more minor error, a related one, is being overly willing to uncritically quote the word of movie stars who have agreed to speak with him (eg Harrison Ford, Meryl Streep). This is particularly noticeable in regards to Robert Redford's comments on Inside Daisy Clover -Redford's character was changed from gay to bisexual with his collaboration, then changed back during filming to being gay, and Redford complains about this because it wasn't what agreed. Something which might have had a teensy-weensy bit to do with this is simply Redford's reluctance to play a homosexual ("does he have to be gay? Can't he be bisexual?") but this isn't mentioned.

I don't want to over emphasise the criticism. This is still a good book, a worthy tribute to a talented filmmaker

Book review - "Shepperton Babylon" by Matthew Sweet

A wonderful companion piece to histories of the British film industry -it shouldn't be taken as a "start text", but as a way of revisiting history its wonderful, full of fascinating characters and stories.

Sweet's mission seems to have been to reclaim the saga of British cinema from its established legends - to wit, that nothing much happened in British cinema until the 60s apart from a brief period during and after WW2, that Rank films were staid garbage, the 1927 quota act was really bad (cf the 1938 quota act), British silent cinema was a mess.

Sweet goes in through the back door (so to speak) on many things - he talks about Ealing, but focuses on non-comedy Ealing; he analyses Dirk Bogarde, but pre-Victim Bogarde; he looks at Gainsborough female stars, but instead of the usual suspect (Lockwood) his focus is on Phyllis Calvert, Pat Roc and Jean Kent; when he talks about Rank the film he gives most extensive appraisal to is the weird camp flop The Singer Not the Song; when dealing with horror in the 60s he is not so much interested in Hammer and Michael Reeves as Tony Tenser and Patrick Walker (a director of whom I was totally unaware - a big inspiration for Malcolm McLaren, apparently); he devotes a chapter to sexploitation and more pages to Penn Tennyson than Michael Reeves (surprisingly there isn't a section devoted to Tommy Steele).

Full of gossipy tidbits and accounts of interviews with aging film industry participants tend to be moving (a few turn out to have saved their money, thank goodness); it has a sort of Easy Riders Raging Bulls feel to it, but the scholarship is there. I admit I didn't find the stuff on the silent era that interesting (something about that time just doesn't do it for me, maybe because I didn't grow up seeing their films, and also if you don't hear them speak so they become less real - and as Sweet points out, nobody's more forgotten than a silent film star).

The stuff about sexploitation is absolutely fascinating - the 70s were an era when England's most popular films were spin offs of TV shows or comedies like Confessions of a Taxi Driver - depressing, but fascinating. The book has been made into a TV series.

Movie review - "House of Dracula" (1945) **1/2

Another day, another mad scientist - this time played by newcomer to the series, Onslow Stevens, who gives a strong performance, though he lacks a little in the charisma department and you can't help wish they'd gone with Lugosi.

He doesn't start mad, but when Lawrence Talbot turns up looking for a cure (all he wants to do is die - did these films ever cop it from Catholic film bodies?) and when Dracula turns up looking for a cure, too, you can bet it's not long before he's bending over the operating table swapping brains and waiting to bring Frankenstein's monster to life.

John Carradine is back as Dracula - he's a bit too smooth and normal in the part (it's impossible not to have affection for Carradine, he was so wonderfully undiscriminating in the movies in which he appears, but he lacks star quality), but Chaney is excellent as always as Talbot. Turning into a wolf seems to pull the chicks - another girl falls for him too. (Can't beat that sympathy factor - at least they give him a happy ending here).

Universal probably went a bridge too far with this one, though having said that it's still a lot of fun, with great spooky atmosphere. It helps, too, the doctor has a cliff top lair with caves and crashing waves and rocks and stuff. But when a mob get together and go on the rampage looking for blood, you can't help but wish Universal took a little more time and care over the script. Whereas Dracula monster felt tacked on in House of Frankenstein, Frankenstein's monster feels tacked on here. It's also not very enjoyable that the doctor has a hunchback assistant, a female, who is nice and pretty, who he promises to fix up - but then she's killed by the monster.

Movie review - "House of Frankenstein" (1944) ***

Karloff's back - only not as a monster, he plays a mad doctor, an admirer of Frankenstein who escapes with a trusty hunchback (J Carrol Naish, very good) and tries to track down Frankenstein's methods and tries to use it looking for revenge. There's no Frankenstein really here - obviously they decided they'd mined that particular seem dry.

The least convincing thing about this film is he happens to stumble upon a freak show containing the remains of Count Dracula (played by John Carradine, despite Lugosi being available - having said that Carradine is OK and probably closer to the description in Stoker's novel), who he gets to work on the revenge caper. Then Carradine disappears half way through the film and he turns to using the Wolf Man and the Monster.

The most touching aspect of the film is the love triangle that forms between the hunchback, a gypsy and Lawrence Talbot (Chaney) - Naish loves the gypsy (who is whipped in one scene), who loves Talbot, who just wants to die. It's all quite emotional.

And the film, for all its silliness, does have that wonderful evocative feel of Universal's horrors: late nights, spooky castle, deserted villages, and it motors along. They really didn't need the Dracula interlude, though - or at least should have used it better, i.e. incorporated it all the way through.

Movie review - Moto #1 - "Think Fast, Mr Moto" (1937) *** (warning: spoilers)

The first in 20th Century Fox's cheerful Charlie Chan knock off, Mr Moto, with Peter Lorre very effective in the title role. Within the first five minutes he's established himself - a master of disguise, cunning, the type of blends in with the crowd, clever, observant and a dab hand with the ju-jitsu (or at least his body double is). He then goes on a ship which takes him to Hawaii and he uncovers a smuggling racket.

It's a fairly routine plot, with a bland male lead who starts out interesting (the seemingly alcoholic son of the owner of the liner, spoilt and useless) who I was expecting to turn up dead and/or villain but  turns boringly decent, a supposed femme fetale who also whimps out and becomes a nice person. (Thomas Beck and Virginia Field aren't particularly memorable in these roles) However the story thumps along with plenty going on and I admit didn't pick the identity of the big boss.

Sig Rumann and J Carroll Naish add some experienced villainy. It's a B film but it was a studio B film which means the production values are high - San Francisco's Chinatown (where the film begins), the ship, a night club in Honolulu, rickshaw drivers, etc. Norman Foster directs with plenty of pace and Lorre completely commits to his role.

I also love how the way they show Moto you're never sure if he's a goodie or a baddie - I mean, because his name is in the credits you basically know he's going to be a goodie but they play him so enigmatically, never revealing his real role until the very end. (In the last five minutes he could still turn around and be bad, which I think is good writing and helps differentiate the character from Charlie Chan.) Gets the series off to a strong start - if you don't like it don't bother watching the rest.

Movie review - "The World of Henry Orient" (1964) ***

Charming, sweet film about two lonely 12 year old girls in New York who become obsessed with a concert pianist (Peter Sellers). This is a kids film that feels as though its made by smart New Yorkers - there's no pandering or mush or 12 year old male love interest, the support cast is full of actors then best known for stage work (eg Tom Bosley, Angela Lansbury), the mother characters are witty about modern music and attending psychiatrists, no cutes, Sellers was then a kind of trendy cache star coming off the Boutling brothers films and Lolita.
One wonders if these things contributed to the film's underwhelming box office performance, though it has a strong cult. I think perhaps the main reason was the lack of a strong story - the girls become friends, meet Sellers, follow him around, then one runs away from home.
Maybe if you had the mother (Lansbury) have an affair with Sellers as the second act - then something coming out of that for the third.
The two lead girls are excellent (what happened to them?) - they do overshadow the Sellers part, even though he's perfect (William Goldman in his book The Season writes about the difficulty of getting an actor to play in the musical version of this story because every male star knew he'd be overshadowed).
Tom Bosley is perhaps a bit too nice as the supposedly neglectful father of one of the girls - he's so cuddly and affectionate and understanding you don't believe he'd leave his daughter (it's a bit too convenient to have him as this suddenly perfect dad while Mom is still a dragon).

Why can't journos ask a proper question?

A departure from talks about movies but kind of related... on Tues night I was watching SBS news and a British reporter (working for CNN) had a great scoop - an intervew with the JI leader who masterminded the Bali bombings, among others. Great coup, right? Instead of just asking "what are your goals", "what do you want to achieve", "when will you stop" he would say things like "why do you hate Westerners", "am I a target" - the hysterical personalisation of news. It reminded me of an interview Peter Overton did on 60 Minutes with the family of convicted rapist Bilal Skaf - instead of asking "if he's innocent, why was he convicted", "why do you think the girls are lying", stuff like that, he made it hysterical. Surely this stuff would be more effective television if it was un-sensational. Not to mention be better journalism.

Book review - "Coloured Lights" by Kander and Ebb

I first became aware of Kander and Ebb because William Goldman writes in his memoirs how Kander was his best friend from childhood. Kander only mentions Goldman once in passing - the fact that he wrote a flop musical with the Goldmans, A Family Affair - this was before he teamed with Ebb. 

He and Ebb had a flop (well, not big flop, sort of flop) musical, Flora the Red Menace, then did Cabaret, then flop The Happy Time (the saga of which is told in Goldman's brilliant The Season), then 70, Zorba, Chicago, The Rink, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Steel Pier. Kander and Ebb seem to do better with their revivals than original productions - Chicago was far more successful revived than in its original production, ditto Spider Woman, Zorba (where Kander and Ebb admit they softened the material), one of their most successful productions was a juke box musical (i.e. a collection of their old songs), and even Cabaret which did well the first time did even better with the Sam Mendes revival. Even composers who are still writing have better luck with remakes!

This is a bright, lively memoir, a bit different because it is done in the form of a dialogue between the two, which is highly appropriate. It is a bit depressing at times to see how close musicals come to failure, how talented people need licence to fail (where they the last composers allowed something like Flora the Red Menace?). 

Some great stories - the get stuck into Frank Sinatra, we hear about Martin Scorsese's disastrous attempt to direct The Rink (of which I was unaware - he would film rehearsals go home and edit the rehearsals!!), their encounters with tricky stars including Bob Fosse on Chicago. 

These books always have an insoluble problem: you want to listen to the songs, so it's like it should be accompanied by a CD or something. And at times you want more eg how about a little more on why they thought Jill Haworth was OK in Cabaret, and thoughts on Judi Dench. Also with the recent death of Ebb it feels as though it needs another edition or something.

One thing I would add - when talking about the making of the film Chicago they get stuck into some young executive who was apparently suggesting to Larry Gelbart, who wrote an early draft of the script, that he insert a love interest for Roxie just like in the Ginger Rogers musical version of the same story, Roxie Hart. They go on and on about what a silly idea this was and how dare this young whippersnapper make this suggestion to Gelbart. But that's not such a dumb idea, it doesn't knock out its soul and it has been done before in the 1942 film - the young exec should have been given credit for at least speaking from an informed position. I know when you make a movie you get a lot of dumb comments but that's not one, as is question a scriptwriter should be able to answer other than with "I've been doing this a long time".

Movie review - "The Desert Rats" (1953) **1/2

Bob Larkin's biography of Chips Rafferty gives a full account of the making of this film, including the somewhat hostile it received in Australia. Hollywood traditionally has not shown much respect or care towards Australian culture and history over the years (cf English films like The Overlanders) - I suppose they figured we'd be grateful they'd even notice at that at all. 

Anyway, for the first third of this I was thinking "that judgement's a bit harsh" - yes it was annoying that Richard Burton played an English officer looking after Australian troops, but I guess the film needed a star and you'd rather Burton acted in English than attempt an Aussie accent (they try to take the sting out of it by commenting on the oddness of the fact twice - once, a digger asks "what's an Englishman doing being an officer to Australian troops anyway" or something [no one answers], and James Mason as Rommell remarks on it). 

And it is irritating that they use it to create some lame artificial conflict between Burton and the Aussies - it feels "writerly" as if the writer has gone "hey we can use this because drama is conflict" which it is but the conflict is boring; and there's an awful scene where one of the diggers even contemplates shooting Burton until Rafferty stops it (which happens every now and then I'm sure but Burton hasn't given them enough reason - just said he'll court martial Bud Tingwell).

OK, having said all that, the film is well directed by Robert Wise and also looks terrific - the visuals of Tobruk, the bare landscapes streaked by fire, the advancing troops, the incoming tanks... it's all just like the newsreels and the filmmakers deserve credit for it. So they do, too, for their portrayl of the initial German tanks with Gen Morshead (never named but quite a decent sized role played by Robert Douglas) allowing the Germans in to cut them off.

The middle section is less good - it has the Aussies and Burton go out on patrol to strike at the Germans, which they definitely did (Chips Rafferty does look a bit silly in black pajamas, like a ninja), though were they so successful? And then Burton is conveniently captured and escapes so he can have a quick scene with an overacting James Mason making a cameo as Rommell (apparently Mason didn't want to do the film, so his performance is harsh and nasty).

The last act is perhaps the weakest - Burton and his troops have to hold out a forward position, which sounds exciting, but we don't see any battles, just them sitting there being shelled, which must have been terrifying but having passive leads isn't that compelling to watch. 

 

The Robert Newton subplot is OK, a bit tired but Burton's consideration for his former teacher is touching and the two work well together. Chips Rafferty and Bud Tingwell have decent support roles and work very well in them, easily holding their own. The Tobruk siege story is problematic for film treatments - too much lying down in the desert, the Germans eventually won - but could have done better than this.

Movie review - "Bhowani Junction" (1956) ***1/2

When people talk about "ruined films" this one often doesn't get much of a guernsey (cf The Magnificent Ambersons) but I would love to see it in its original conception because what remains is fascinating. 

This is one of the few Hollywood movies to tackle Indian independence, and it was a gutsy call from MGM - it's not an inherently glamorous period in history, there was little American involvement. I got the feeling they picked it because its (a) a good story and (b) provides a wonderful role for Ava Gardner.

Ava plays a half-caste (as they were known then) Indian who arrives home after four years of war service and gets involved in various adventures at the time of Indian independence. She's loved by a fellow half caste (Bill Travers, a terrific role but he's not very good), a Sikh (Francis Matthews, very good) and local British officer (Stewart Granger, very effective - director George Cukor apparently wanted Trevor Howard but I think Granger works better than Howard would have, maybe not as good an actor admittedly but more charismatic).

She also has to ward off a lecherous British officer (Lionel Jeffries), political pressure from the Sikh's radical mother, and the abduction of an Indian communist - oh, and there's pressure from an English dad and Indian mother. The stereotypical image of Indians on screen is of lady like creatures but Ava's Ava - she's clearly done a bit of living, is comfortable in bars, shrieks and yells at people and sticks up for herself against all the boys (I would be interested to see a feminist reading of the film), all these blokes fall under her spell. She good be playing herself - it's a very effective performance.

The film falls into that brief-lived sub-genre, the cinema of decolonisation. There were a handful of these films in the late 50s and early 60s, most of which shared the same elements - large budget, based on a novel, set during the declining days of Britain's power, which all said the same thing: it's a good thing the British were leaving but the British were better than the communists who often hijack decent nationalists; there was a sympathetic white hero, who had a scene where he was superior to a racist white British supporting character (Something of Value, Exodus, The Seventh Dawn).

There is plenty of spectacle (teaming extras, etc), good meaty arguments, and a surprising amount of action (with George Cukor showing himself surprisingly apt at the bang-bang and suspense stuff, showing he was more versatile than his reputation).

Granger's narration is a bit clunky and I wish they'd re cut this and do a revised version (which apparently included some erotic scenes and which had Ava wind up with Travers - which you know considering Travers' poor performance wouldn't have worked either).

Movie review - "Captain Fury" (1939) **1/2

I remember reading something in Australian film trades where producer Hal Roach was going to make a film based on Robbery Under Arms and Ken G Hall threatened a law suit because he had the rights. This is what Roach came up with instead, an early example of the "meat pie" Western. 

Brian Aherne, a sort of poor man's Errol Flynn, the actor you'd cast when you couldn't get George Brent, Pat Knowles or Ian Hunter, plays the title role, an Irish convict sent to Australia who escapes to become a bushranger who helps the local settles fight against a villainous land owner (George Zucco).

The main strength of this, apart from the unusualness of the Australian setting (which is not really emphasised, its just the usual immigrant settlers and evil land baron that you'd see in the old West, although the Irish hero is a bit odd), is the cast: in addition to Ahern and Zucco, there's Victor McLaglen and John Carradine as members of Ahern's gang (McLaglen doesn't turn totally good which is a nice change), Paul Lukas as the heroine's religious father, and Douglas Dumbrille as one of Zucco's off siders: that's a very impressive line up, especially for a B picture. 

Zucco is never much of a threat - Ahern and his gang get the drop on them very early, and they need Lukas to betray him to kick things along in the third act. There is a fun bit at the end when the settlers go to Ahern's rescue and a woman goes "we can fight too" and grabs a rolling pin. There's a moment where a girl tries to kiss Ahern and he says "maybe we should return to the party" - is this censorship or something else? Despite the horses galloping, hold ups, etc it is a bit clunky at times - Roach wasn't much of a director of action, and some of the sequences are a bit awkward and clunky. Abroad with Two Yanks, say, is a much better directed film.

Movie review - "Abroad with Two Yanks" (1943) ***

During WW2, Australians and Britons (and presumably New Zealanders and other countries who acted as military launch pads) said of the Yanks that they were "over-sexed, over paid and over here" - well, that seems to be the impression the Yanks had of themselves, too, according to this film, which starts with a bunch of marines headed to Sydney lecherously imagining all the things they can get up to with local girls. (I wonder if they ever screened this in cinemas in Australia - it might have caused local press outrage).

Dennis O'Keefe and William Bendix are two mates whose friendship is constantly threatened by O'Keefe constantly cutting Bendix's lunch - O'Keefe is no oil painting but Bendix looks like, well, Bendix so you wonder why O'Keefe doesn't get his own women. He hears about a girl (Helen Walker) who is the sister of an Aussie (John Loder) whose life Bendix has saved - so O'Keefe pretends to be Bendix in order to crack on to her, which isn't very nice. He then keeps trying to go for her, even after Bendix falls for her himself, and then later on when Loder reveals he's not related to her and he loves her, too - Bendix steps aside, but not O'Keefe, so when you think about it he's the villain (or, at least, antagonist), which is kind of odd for a "buddy" comedy. This sort of loses a bit of momentum in the middle but recovers at the end when O'Keefe and Bendix wind up in drag and attend a party. It's a bit of a mess (there were something like five writers on it) but it is cheerful - you get the sense the cast would do anything for a joke.

From an Aussie point of view its fascinating to see a film set almost entirely in Sydney - Walker doesn't really try and Aussie accent but some of the other actors playing locals do and the results (eg Loder) are weird and wonderful. They make some attempts to be Aussie - names like Cyril and Joyce, some of the slang, there is affection for Aussies. And of course the final sequence has the two leads in drag - how Aussie can you get! I'm surprised this isn't better known - its one of a series of farces made by director Allan Dwan for producer Edward Small.