Movie review – Perry Mason #1 – “The Case of the Howling Dog” (1934) **1/2

Before the Perry Mason novels were the subject of an enormously popular television series, Warner Bros used them as the basis of a B movie series starring Warren William. William was a suave type with a John Barrymore profile who was coming off successful supporting roles to female stars in Cleopatra and Imitation of Life. Although he’s got looks and voice he’s a bit stiff and awkward here – also I could swear in some scenes he was slurring (maybe resembled John Barrymore in other areas). He is very flirty with his secretary and isn’t above using some ruthless and unethical tactics to help his client. Also if I’m not mistaken in this film his client is guilty and he helps her get away - was this allowed under the Production Code?

Mary Astor adds star quality as Mason’s eventual client and there is plenty of plot and it’s pretty good, too, with abundant twists and turns. In contrast to Astor’s professional performance there are two poor efforts from the other lead females in the cast – watch how Helen Trenholme who plays Della strangles her words in a weird attempt at received pronunciation; and also the “acting” of Dorothy Tree on the stand at the end.

Movie review – Mummy #3 - “The Mummy’s Tomb” (1942) **1/2

The mummy’s back and he’s not happy. This is a real sequel in that it is very heavily influenced by The Mummy’s Hand, including an extensive opening flashback to that film (the first ten minutes of the movie – and it’s only a 60 minute movie) and starring Dick Foran as the same character 30 years on. 

This is a better movie because the story is cleaner and gets going earlier – the mummy is out for revenge against Foran and his family for what they did in the previous movie. This has shades of Dracula at first, with Turhan Bey as a sort of suave Renfield escorting the mummy in a coffin across the seas, but then the film more turns into Frankenstein, with the monster roaming the countryside and abducting a girl and the townsfolk getting whipped up into a frenzy, lighting up the torches and turning into a mob to save the day. 

There are two great shocks – major characters from the earlier film are both killed, even though they're old (they survived the first one through being a romantic male lead and comic sidekick respectfully; but here they’re old men and thus at risk – the romantic male lead here survives). While the two romantic leads are bland (the leading man is a classic wartime 4F star and it isn't helped that he leads the mob at the end - mob leaders aren't terribly sympathetic), Bey shines in a silky youthful villain turn (like Zucco in the first film he falls in love with the leading lady a bit too conveniently); also it’s great to see George Zucco again, and there’s the bonus of Lon Chaney Jnr playing the mummy (though to be fair it is hard to tell he’s there under that make up). 

Mummy movies lack the humanity of vampire or Frankenstein films – since you don’t really see the mummy’s face there’s not the same emotion. The big advantage they do have is the ancient Egyptian connection, with ensuing atmospheric mumbo-jumbo.

Movie review – Mummy #2 - “The Mummy’s Hand” (1940) **

Son of Frankenstein brought the horror film back in a big way so it was only natural that Universal decided to resurrect the mummy franchise (and the Invisible Man franchise, and the Dracula franchise, etc, etc). A semi-remake of the 1932 Mummy as opposed to a sequel, it starts out with a huge whack of surprisingly violent exposition – a lot of stuff about the priest tormented by love for a princess whose tongue is cut out and who is buried alive and slaves were killed and there is a curse etc etc. (Bonus points if you can understand all the rules involving the mummies.) George Zucco is meant to guard the tomb but lunkish Dick Foran (an unconvincing archaeologist and odd romantic lead) and his wacky Brooklyn sidekick get on the case.

The film is almost 50% over before the tomb is dug up and the mummy goes on a rampage; before then there is a lot of comedy (Cecil Kellaway adds some into the mix as a magician who backs the expedition – indeed once the rampage is on most of the tension comes from wondering whether one of the comic relief will die, since you know Foran and the love interest won’t).

This has a jokey swashbuckling tone – the 1999 remake took its cue from this rather than the Karloff Mummy. The sense of love across the ages isn’t as strong – the mummy and Egyptians are a lot less sympathetic. Zucco adds class as a villainous priest and the photography is as always in Universal horrors a delight but it’s a bit undercooked as a film – Zucco sacrificing the love interest at the end feels a bit rushed, the finale is flatly staged.

Movie review – “Magic” (1978) **

Anthony Hopkins isn’t very believable as either an American or a magician ventriloquist but he’s great with the dramatic stuff in this adaptation of William Goldman’s creepy novel. There are some typical Goldman themes here – showbiz, a wisened old teacher (in this case Burgess Meredith as an agent), a dark subject matter, and a desire to pork the hot girl from school (Ann Margaret). Goldman’s novel was more effective, chiefly because it was more internal, could go into the head of the lead. Here it’s a bit more obvious that there’s not that much story. And Richard Attenborough is okay but not great with the suspense stuff. Some clever moments, though, such as the flashback sequences and the scene where Meredith sees if Hopkins can talk without a dummy for longer than five minutes.

Movie review – Ladd #23 - “Botany Bay” (1953) **1/2

While the Australian film industry was virtually non-existent during the 1950s, Hollywood and Britain occasionally paid it a bit of attention. This was Hollywood’s attempt to illustrate early Australian history, based on a novel by Nordoff and Hall, the team responsible for the Mutiny on the Bounty books and The Hurricane.

It starts in a Newgate Prison in 1787 where a bunch of inmates find out that their death sentences have been commuted to transportation to New South Wales. Among them are Alan Ladd, as an American falsely accused of highway robbery – actually, come to think of it, he was guilty it’s just that he had the right to commit the robbery. Most of the story concerns the trip out; among the other passengers are a dodgy highwayman (Jonathan Harris), an actress who always seems to have plenty of lipstick and mascara (Patricia Medina), a sympathetic parson (Murray Matheson), a whiny child and his mother, and a top criminal (Hugh Pryse). There’s also a tyrannical captain (James Mason, in excellent form).

Once on board Medina gets a hard time from some cackling old crones. Just before the ship sails (it’s going out on it’s own, just after the first fleet) Ladd finds out from Pryse that he’s been given a pardon but Mason won’t let him go, Mason offers Medina special treatment if she “behaves”. Ladd tries to escape but is caught and flogged and plots to escape.

The parson has a scene with Medina where he tells her the prisoners are mostly “Unfortunates who’ve fall foul of unjust and harsh laws” who mostly stole loaf of bread and tries to cheer Medina up saying in Sydney she will “be given a wonderful chance – cooking, washing, making clothes”. And if she’s married she’ll get land. So she sets her cap at Ladd, gets him appointed ship’s surgeon, he makes a crack about her relationship with Mason so she slaps his face. Then there’s an almight cat fight on the deck between Medina and a bunch of crones (Mason orders floggings and head shavings as a result – but he had to do something).

Mason tries to seduce Medina but she blackmails into him leaving her alone (she knows his relatives). Ladd tries to escape again but is recaptured again, and is keel-hauled. The young child is busted trying to take a compass back into Mason’s room and is thrown in gaol where he dies, whining incessantly.

Then the ship arrives in a studio backlot Sydney – cue the odd koala and sounds of cockatoos. Gov Phillip gives a speech to Ladd saying how Australia is full of fertile soil waiting to be tamed, etc, but can’t intervene when Mason arranges to take Ladd back to Australia. Ladd tries to escape, Mason catches him, then some deux ex machine aboriginals intervene and kill Mason. Ladd spots an outbreak of scurvy just in time, is given a pardon… and elects to stay in Australia with Medina. Why? Australia was a hole in 1788 – better to go back to London.

The film is fascinating viewing for Aussies but doesn’t really work as a drama –the story is far too “bitsy” (another escape, another punishment). I’m sympathetic to Mason’s “villain” – sure he’s a bit tough, but he’s trying to keep order and most of the convicts are nothing but trouble (and they over act to boot). Ladd is alright – his hair is a bit bouffant – and Medina not very good, though it’s a decent enough role. Still you can't help wondering why they just didn't make a version of For the Term of His Natural Life instead.

Movie review – Errol # 43 - “The Master of Ballantrae” (1953) ***

The problem with adapting the Master of Ballantrae is that it’s the villain who gets all the action – fighting in the ’45, getting involved with pirates, running off to India then America – while the “good” brother just stays at home and has people be mean to him including his own wife (who loves the bad brother). If you were to Hollywood-ise it the way to have done it I guess would be to made the bad brother into the goodie and the good brother into the villain, which does admittedly rob the novel of its point (i.e. that people prefer a glamorous star to a dull decent person). This adaptation tries to have it both ways – the bad brother (Errol Flynn) is selfish and mean and cheats on his fiancée with a local tramp, and the good brother (Anthony Steele) is still worthy and dull and unfairly accused of betraying his brother. But then Errol becomes… well, not really good – which means he’s not that sympathetic, though he’s not as nasty as he is in the book. Which means that the story has no real villain.

The first third of this makes some stab at following the novel; the second third is more a reprise of Captain Blood, with Errol becoming a pirate and even killing a suave French pirate in a duel. Then he returns home to get revenge on his brother and it becomes a weird sort of concoction: Errol is about to get revenge on Steele then the redcoats arrest him and sentence him to death, then Steele helps Errol escape. The only baddies are the red coats – who when all is said and done are only trying to keep order (the film goes out of its way to show that Britain and Scotland are co-existing well after 1745). Also, why should we care if Errol Flynn gets away? He hasn’t done anything heroic. Neither does Anthony Steele, either.

Errol’s performance is okay – he’s a bit too old really and has clearly done a lot of hard living (this doesn’t matter so much once he comes back from his travels but is annoying at the beginning) but he’s still Errol; Beatrice Campbell is bland as his love interest, but Roger Livesy is a delight as Errol’s sidekick. There is some loving colour photography from Jack Cardiff, bright production design (kilts, etc), and some good action. I enjoyed it I just wish there’d been a proper villain.

Movie review – “Om Shanti Om” (2007) ***

A Bollywood film to out-Bollywood Bollywood films, complete with a plot that revolves around filmmaking and a cast that features several Indian stars in cameos. It’s bright and cheerful with some terrific production numbers (often very poorly motivated plot wise), a good heart and a good knack for emotion. It goes on for almost three hours and the last bit – the Hamlet-esque “let’s send them mad” section – goes on far too long. Also some of the songs could have been better placed eg the title track really belongs at the end.

Movie review – Errol #27 - “Uncertain Glory” (1944) **1/2

A film made for Errol Flynn’s production company though still under the Warners umbrella – hence the presence of Raoul Walsh behind the camera and Paul Lukas in front of it. Errol is excellently cast as a career criminal who pretends to seek redemption during World War Two before becoming (inevitably) a genuine hero.

The story gets off to a terrific start: Errol refusing to have his neck shaved at the guillotine, escaping due to a bombing raid, being recaptured by Lukas, coming up with the idea to pretend to sacrifice himself on behalf of the resistance in order to buy more time, the complicating factor of the village dowager determined to have someone swing in order to save her son. Then about a third of the way in it all goes haywire – Errol becomes passive and just sort of hangs around romancing a local girl (Jean Sullivan, very bland and a bit too uncomfortably young) waiting for stuff to happen and the plots involving the local dowager and Germans don’t really go anywhere. Passive hero then Lukas gets sick and becomes passive too and the romance between Errol and Sullivan is dull. 

So despite some typical vigorous Raoul Walsh direction it isn’t interesting at all til the end, which is actually quite emotional. If they’d nutted out the script problems a bit more this could have been something really special.

Movie review - Errol #41 - "Mara Maru" (1952) **

One of the last films Errol Flynn made under his contract with Warner Bros is a soggy melodrama which is kind of a throwback to the sort of thing Humphrey Bogart used to make - double crossing and dirty dealings in an exotic port (in this case, Manilla) populated by a galaxy of support actors: there are constant echoes of Casablanca (semi-villain who keeps changing sides), To Have and Have Not (rough sailor captain hero gets involved in shady dealings), and even The Maltese Falcon (man has a thing with the wife of his dead partner).

But this was 1952 and instead of Bogie we have Errol, who should have been ideal (especially playing a sailor) but here seems disinterested and is in poor form; also instead of Lauren Bacall we have Ruth Roman, a contract player of whom Warners had hopes but who never caught fire, instead of Sydney Greenstreet there's Dan Seymour (the poor man's Sydney Greenstreet) instead of Claude Rains there's Paul Picerni and instead of a Raoul Walsh or Michael Curtiz there's Gordon Douglas' slack handling.

To be fair there's also Raymond Burr, who could have held his own with the great Warners villains, plus a decent storm sequence and a final chase in catacombs. But there is too much talk, flabby handling, and a star off form. Also - who really cares that the Phillipine Catholic Church get its cross back? Probably made with gold pinched off the Incas. The probably needed to be in colour and with some location footage to really work.

Book review – “Dogs of War” by Frederick Forsyth

The third and last of Forsyth’s series of classic novels. This one has the bonus of a fascinating behind the scenes story – its based on a real life attempted coup on Equitorial Guinea in the early 70s in which Forsyth was meant to have involvement. Certainly this is one of his more personal works, there being allusions to the Biafran War which Forsyth covered (he wrote a book about it and was sympathetic to the Biafran cause): the story starts with a thinly-disguised depiction of the Biafran War, the character of the general is supposedly based on a Biafran leader, and Cat Shannon’s passionate speech at the end against corporate meddling in African seems to come direct from Forsyth (this book seems to support colonisation, albeit from a black population). This bit doesn’t work 100% - the plan to knock off the African republic is so audacious and the mining company goes to such trouble and expense it seems a little, well, rude for Shannon to do a double cross at the end. I mean, they did pay for the coup. (It wouldn’t have felt this way had we seen the mining company do something particularly ruthless or mean, but we don’t really). There isn't much action but that there is is choice.

Book review – “Nazi Games”

Those of us who think the IOC is comprised of a bunch of whores determined to do whatever it takes to exploit their own power, will find great comfort in this book, which deals with the 1936 Berlin Games. Although the games were given to Germany before Hitler came to power, there were plenty of people saying the games should be boycotted or abandoned, but the IOC pushed on, with brave men like Avery Brundage determined to overlook all those Nazi flaws and ignore the Jewish conspiracy to stop them.

Full of great trivia: the creation of Nazi jazz (Nazi approved jazz after the original was thought to be decadent), the way the Nazis relaxed prohibitions on homosexuality for the out of towners… and also provided female sex volunteers (good wholesome German girls) to root the white athletes; the arts festival which accompanied the games; internal Nazi bickering just like something out of Grass Roots (only with massive consequences as we later saw); the large number of genuinely principled athletes who boycotted the games; the fact Jesse Owens campaigned for Republicans in 1936 and spoke up for Hitler. Terrific book.

Movie review – “Sitar Sings the Blues” (2007) ***

Really charming animated version of a famous Indian story, mixing in a modern day tale about a filmmaker whose marriage broke up (the autobiographical element behind the movie), and songs from the 20s.

Movie review – “Emmanuelle” (1974) **

Danny Peary did an excellent review of this film most of which I pretty much agree with – Sylvia Kristel is what makes it work, with this incredible innocent-yet-sensual-and-unaware-of-her-own-nudity appeal; there are genuinely erotic scenes involving other women. But then towards the end Emmanuelle must be tamed by men, and Alan Cuny’s character is uncomfortably dodgy. (To be fair, the third one in the series, Goodbye Emmanuelle, did attempt to tackle the difficulties of an “open marriage”)

Movie review – “Hunting for Emmanuelle” (2007) ***

Fascinating doco about one of the great zeitgeist films of the 70s – Emmanuelle did not invent soft core porn as someone in this incorrectly claims (Russ Meyer was churning it out for years beforehand) but it was one of those films where all the elements just came together to create a sensation: based on a racy book, the fact it was French and therefore a bit foreign but not too foreign, Columbia Pictures got behind it for their US launch, the (first time) director was a fashion photographer who gave the film a beautiful exotic-yet-safe look, location filming in Thailand (making the behaviour seem more realistic), etc. Most of all there was the performance of Sylvia Kristel in the lead – very few actors, if ever, combined sensuality and innocence so well; throw in her looks and body and you have a genuine superstar. I was surprised Kristel didn’t have a bigger career – seeing this explains why she didn’t (got hooked on coke big time, refused to audition). As it is she had a pretty good run, though she blew most of her money (I hate it when they do that); she still looks pretty stylish and good for her age.

This doco talks about the Emmanuelle series which followed: Kristel only did two more, but it’s gone on forever despite (as the producer admits) being unable to find anyone as good (he also admits that one day he hopes to be able to make a good one); they interview the current Emmanuelle, who seems like a nice enough person but demonstrates that the producer doesn’t get it – he says Emmanuelle can’t give the impression of being a whore, but that’s just the impression that this new girl gives. I would have liked to hear a bit more about other members of the cast of the original film (wasn’t Alan Cluny a respected name at the time?) but I guess they didn’t have time. Still, an engrossing tale.

Movie review – “Cassandra’s Dream” (2008) **1/2

Woody Allen revitalised his career by switching to London and rehashing the plot for Crimes and Misdemeanours with Match Point; here he does the same thing again. Come on, Woody! At least he isn’t in it romancing someone young enough to be his daughter. Colin Farrell and Ewan McGregor are top actors and both have their moments, though they’re both up against that clunky modern day Woody style with awful dialogue and exposition. Emily Atwell impresses as yet another Woody slightly mad vixenish actress and Tom Wilkinson is great as a shady businessman. The moments leading up to the murder are suspenseful and parts of this are engrossing; also the quality of the cast is high and you never know how the story will end (and Philip Glass does the music). It’s still a bit flabby and unoriginal.

Movie review – “I am Legend” (2007) ***

They still haven’t done justice to the novel, which is bewildering since it could be filmed so cheaply. This one cost a fortune, though to be fair a lot of it’s up on screen, with spectacular sets and heaps of extras during flashback sequences. But after a powerhouse first third it’s like the filmmakers lost their nerve or something and the film is closer to The Omega Man than the novel. On one level I guess I can understand – The Omega Man is a perfectly sound structure and offers greater hope at the end. It’s just a shame they haven’t used the “man killing vampires then realising he’s the vampire” option in the novel, which is really clever. Will Smith gives a good performance in a role which requires a decent actor (Arnie was connected with this project for a while and I wonder what he would have done with it).

Movie review – “Atonement” (2007) ****

Keira Knightly used very well – an object of desire, not an overly difficult part of play but she does it well and she’s definitely a star. So, too, is James McAvoy – and that terrific girl who plays the intense Briony. Romola Gorai plays Briony later on, and she’s totally fine – but she’s blown away by her younger sister. A clever and moving story; you get angry and sad and surprised (Christopher Hampton wrote the script). The tracking shot during the Dunkirk sequence was a little show off-y.

Movie review – “Jihad for Love” (2007) ***1/2

The concept of this documentary is incredibly powerful – can you be gay and a Muslim at the same time (as in a real Muslim, who prays and believes and everything) – and there are some great characters: an Egyptian who was thrown in gaol in an anti-gay purge, a Moroccan lesbian who even now thinks she has a problem that needs to be overcome, some Iranian refugees, etc. It feels at times more like a collection of snap shots though than a series of stories. Still, very well made and moving.

Movie review – “27 Dresses” (2007) **1/2

All a rom com needs is a slightly different concept and the right star and it’ll make money, which this one did. I really liked Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up – didn’t warm to her as much here. Maybe her character was a bit too creepily familiar for comfort – the professional bridesmaid, the person who rejoices in being a slave. (It’s a strong concept, indeed one strong enough to explore in a darker film.) Enjoyable froth, a bit lazy in its casting: Judy Greer as yet another best friend, Ed Burns as yet another false love interest, Malin Ackerman as yet another man eater, James Marsden as yet another handsome lunk (and never remotely believable as an even-vaguely-hard-bitten reporter - and it’s creepy that he rifles through her filofax), Marsden’s best friend is played by an Indian actor as if to compensate for the fact it’s a nothing part with nothing to do. But there are some funny moments and the central idea is a strong one.

Movie review –“Enchanted” (2007) ***

Clever Disney tale in the vein of The Princess Bride - isn’t quite as clever as that film but is still very enjoyable, helped by a top notch performance by Amy Adams who gets it just right in what is a difficult role to play (cf James Marsden, who is alright but he goes the more obvious route). Patrick Dempsey is a bit bland as the male lead – is this the bloke all those Grey’s Anatomy fans swoon over? (but, then, as a friend pointed out to me “anyone could play that role on Grey’s Anatomy”); it’s a shame we couldn’t have seen more of Susan Sarandon, and Timothy Spall does his Timothy Spall thing with chubby aplomb.
 Some lazy plotting – a lot of people running into each other, the role of Dempsey’s fiancée is seriously underused, and did it have to turn into a sfx blockbuster at the end - but there’s a great deal of charm and several laugh out loud moments.

Movie review – Ladd #29 - “The Black Knight” (1954) **

Alan Ladd was never more spectacularly miscast than in the title role of this unpretentious medieval swashbuckler – around the one-hour mark a henchman laughs at Ladd when he reveals himself to be the Black Knight and you can’t help thinking he’s right to laugh. Not only is Ladd too American, his too old, too puffy looking, too obviously trying a role where his heart’s not in it, too silly in armour, and with too bad a haircut (it’s a shocking poncy number). He’s easily outshone by Peter Cushing, a strong villain, and Harry Andrews, but Patricia Medina’s female lead is poor.

Decent enough story – the usual someone-trying-to-knock-off-the-legitimate-king, with the twist the baddies are blaming everything on the Vikings - but is poorly structured: in the middle when Patricia Medina gets abducted and Ladd has to come to the rescue twice in the space of ten minutes (surely there should be one abduction, at the end – but then he’s got to go on a whole new mission).

There is plenty of action, some of it done well, the pace is fact and there’s a fun over the top scene where pagans are about to sacrifice Medina at Stonehenge and some girls do an exotic pagan dance – Ladd and King Arthur’s men come to the rescue, and respond by pulling Stonehenge down. Christian wrath! But just when you’re having fun Ladd does something silly and ruins it.

TV review – “Rome” season 2

The old gang are back for another round of fun and games – excepting of course Ciarin Hinds’ Julius Caesar, who’s bought the farm. He’s missed, actually, but there is plenty to keep you interested, as Octavian and Marc Anthony battle over Rome. Ray Stevenson is a bit softer and more human in this version – he only does one really mean thing (strangling someone) and even then the person deserves it. OK, two (an execution) but that person deserves it too. Kevin McKidd’s character is a bit tougher – he goes through a bad patch and is a really neglectful father. I didn’t find the story lines between these two as involving in the second series: watching soldiers adapt to peace time was interesting in season one, but here they’re basically a band of thugs running the water front, which does give plenty of opp for sex and violence, but gets a bit wearying. (These two characters aren’t “ordinary people” or even Rosencrantz and Guilderstern – they’re super heroes.) Far more interesting are the shenanigans at the palace: Octavian growing into a leader (I like the way he grows up weird, cold and a bit unco), Marc Anthony getting out of control, Brutus going through a mid life crisis, Atia and Servilla still engaging in their cat fight to beat all cat fights, Octavia still the dopey rich girl experimenting with everything under the sun (in this series it’s drugs, orgies, flings with her brother’s est friend, then arranged marriage and motherhood).

Maybe I’m just getting used to the tone of the series, but it seemed Season 2 was a bit softer. There’s more humour, Atia is a lot more sympathetic (she gets her heart broken), there’s actually a decent upright character who has an important role (Agrippa, Octavian’s best friend). There was only two really gut wrenching OMG moments – finding out the fate of McKidd’s children at the end of Ep 1, and the execution of Cicero. That doesn’t say the rest of it lacks power, though – there are some awesome scenes such as the last moment of Marc Anthony (James Purefoy really steps up to the plate and marks himself as a possible star), Ray Stevenson doing a tending-a-death bed scene (the first one, not the second or third – two too many). Some odd detours here and there – why all the time spent on the plot about Timon, and why not clarify what McKidd’s fate was (perhaps to keep it open for a possible Season 3?).

Interesting responses to the challenges set up by Shakespeare – Brutus and Marc Anthony’s funeral orations are not shown, the Battle of Philippi is shown (in expensive glory) but Brutus and Cassius do not kill themselves they are killed instead), Cleopatra is a coked up sensual creature who is still quite cluey. Makes you wonder if they’d done a Season 3 how they’d go up against Robert Graves.

Movie review – Corman #34 - “The Tower of London” (1962) **1/2

Decent version of the Richard III story, provided you can take Vincent Price’s hammy Richard. Borrows heavily from Shakespeare, with the king definitely the villain. It’s a pretty gory film – Clarence is stabbed, a pretty girl is flogged then racked to death, the two princes are smothered, Richard impales himself on an axe. Michael Pate offers strong support as Dick’s henchman number one and there are some pretty girls but the male juvenile (as usual in Corman-Price collaborations) weak.

Low budget, but as most of the film is set in a castle and Dan Haller was the art director that doesn’t matter; it only strains at the final battle of Bosworth Field where the lack of extras hurts – but it’s not as bad as the sight of Vincent Price in armour. The main regret you have about the film is that it wasn’t shot in colour, but it races by and is quite fun to watch.

Movie review – “Zulu” (1963) *****

Classic guys movie, about a bunch of guys fightin’ off a massive swarm of black people. This film’s been accused of racism and it you can see that point of view – the Zulus are mostly a face-less personality-less mass. But that contributes a great deal to the effectiveness of the movie – apart from the opening scene at Isandlwhana, it’s all from the POV of British soldiers, for whom the Zulus were a face-less personality-less mass. And to cut away form this POV, to have scenes showing the Zulu’s side, would have detracted a great deal from the appeal of the film.

Also, this is a 60s Imperial film, which means the emphasis is on the soldiers not on any British-Empire-is-the-greatest messages like in the 30s films. The Zulus are shown to be brave, clever fighters, just ones without rifles. Indeed, the 60s liberalism strikes a bit of a bung note at the end with Stanley Baker and Michael Caine surveying the battle scene saying they feel ashamed, and talking about their first time of battle like its their virginity. (I get the point, but it doesn’t ring true.)

Very strong cast; Baker is an imposing presence, though he’s overshadowed by Michael Caine because Caine’s (a) blonde and (b) more likeable. However the flashiest role in the movie is that of James Booth who plays the coward-who-comes-good Hooke (a total distortion of history and utterly justifiable historically). Nigel Green also shines as the sergeant.

Many great moments: the opening scenes at Isandahlwana, the leisurely build up, Hooke coming good, the duelling singing, the final amazing battle at the redoubt. A big success by Cy Endfield never came close to it again – why?