Sunday, August 31, 2008
Movie review – “Love’s Brother” (2004) **
Sweet film with a central plot conceit similar to that in They Knew What They Wanted – mail order bride falls in love with a photo, but discovers her husband is not said photo. This is the sort of romance that really needs stars to put it over the line; Giovanni Ribisi holds his end up but the girl and Adam Garcia are weak.
Movie review – Creature #3 - “The Creature Walks Among Us” (1956) **
The third in the Creature trilogy has another expedition up the Amazon. Again, there are two guys who run around in tight shorts, and a sexy girl – only this time the girl is a bit of a good-time party girl, and she’s married to a mad scientist.
The second Creature film had a reason to exist, in that it came up with a fresh idea, i.e. the Creature visits America. This one just rehashes the plot of the first film, with the difference being they already know the Creature is going to be there.
The poor old creature – they capture him, he almost dies, so the mad doctor starts some Mengele-like operations on the poor thing (even our “hero” Rex Reason, who’s meant to disapprove, goes on along with it), they dress him in a weird suit… you can’t blame him for going on a rampage. Quite frankly, he was entitled to kill more people.
This one feels less like King Kong than Frankenstein, with the Creature as Frankenstein’s monster and Jeff Morrow as the mad doctor. At the final rampage he could easily be Boris Karloff, staggering around in his suit, looking overweight and going on his rampage.
Rex Reason is solid (as in wooden) as the good scientist, Jeff Morrow could have been madder, Leigh Snowden is Ok as the semi-slut (she kind of falls between two stools – too nasty to be a sympathetic heroine, not saucy or bad enough to be a proper villain). The other main problem with his movie is it doesn't have enough action. And the Creature spends too much time wearing that weird overcoat on dry land, and not enough in the water.
The second Creature film had a reason to exist, in that it came up with a fresh idea, i.e. the Creature visits America. This one just rehashes the plot of the first film, with the difference being they already know the Creature is going to be there.
The poor old creature – they capture him, he almost dies, so the mad doctor starts some Mengele-like operations on the poor thing (even our “hero” Rex Reason, who’s meant to disapprove, goes on along with it), they dress him in a weird suit… you can’t blame him for going on a rampage. Quite frankly, he was entitled to kill more people.
This one feels less like King Kong than Frankenstein, with the Creature as Frankenstein’s monster and Jeff Morrow as the mad doctor. At the final rampage he could easily be Boris Karloff, staggering around in his suit, looking overweight and going on his rampage.
Rex Reason is solid (as in wooden) as the good scientist, Jeff Morrow could have been madder, Leigh Snowden is Ok as the semi-slut (she kind of falls between two stools – too nasty to be a sympathetic heroine, not saucy or bad enough to be a proper villain). The other main problem with his movie is it doesn't have enough action. And the Creature spends too much time wearing that weird overcoat on dry land, and not enough in the water.
Movie review – Tarzan #20 - “Tarzan’s Fight for Life” (1958) **
“These savages don’t appreciate your effort” says the whiny big breasted daughter of a scientist; said scientist is determined to break the power of the witch doctors in the area. The racism in this one is really irritating – I know, I know, race is a problematic issue in Tarzan films full stop but this one is all about how ignorant black savages reject white doctors. And the whites aren’t even nice – the daughter of the doctor is a whiny bigot, her boyfriend is a beefy bigot. And since when has Tarzan been on the side of progress? He’s always been a “keep out whitey” kind of conservationist.
This is a shame since the support cast includes two of the best black movie actors of the period – Woody Strode and James Edwards – but they are reduced to mere villain roles. Nonetheless both are effective and make strong antagonists, especially Edwards who has a charismatic, intelligent, dangerous presence; he would have made a great blaxploitation hero fifteen years later but those aren’t qualities Hollywood particularly wanted out of its black actors in 1950s Hollywood.
Gordon Scott gets his first Jane (Eva Brent) – they have a pash and Jane asks if he recognises that she has a new skirt. Brent’s not a bad Jane, quite pretty and game – she also has warmth, a quality that many of the post-Maureen O’Sullivan Janes lacked. (In defence of these Janes, like Brent they’re often not given much to do – here Jane spends most of her time sick.) There’s also a Boy like character (Richie Sorensen) – both he and Brent were reunited in Tarzan and the Trappers.
There’s a scene where whiny big boobs goes to Jane that she hates the jungle, and Jan explains she just fears the jungle – which is a fair enough point, but then Jane tells whiny big boobs that her job is to stand by her fellah’s side while he tries to bring light into darkness, etc, etc. What would Jane know about that? Didn’t Jane go to the jungle for the sex and freedom?
The quality of colour photography and use of stock footage is superior to Tarzan’s Hidden Jungle (though it still jars eg when Tazan squats down and talks to a tribe of pygmies). There’s a decent finale with Tarzan chained in a dungeon with Strode about to cut out his heart and a man-eating lion running loose, then a poison-drinking witch doctor ceremony involving Edwards – Scott was a good on-screen fighter, who moved quickly, even if he did have the biggest breasts of anyone in a Tarzan film.
This was cinema feature made by producer Sol Lesser. He soon sold out his interest in the film to new producers and not before time.
This is a shame since the support cast includes two of the best black movie actors of the period – Woody Strode and James Edwards – but they are reduced to mere villain roles. Nonetheless both are effective and make strong antagonists, especially Edwards who has a charismatic, intelligent, dangerous presence; he would have made a great blaxploitation hero fifteen years later but those aren’t qualities Hollywood particularly wanted out of its black actors in 1950s Hollywood.
Gordon Scott gets his first Jane (Eva Brent) – they have a pash and Jane asks if he recognises that she has a new skirt. Brent’s not a bad Jane, quite pretty and game – she also has warmth, a quality that many of the post-Maureen O’Sullivan Janes lacked. (In defence of these Janes, like Brent they’re often not given much to do – here Jane spends most of her time sick.) There’s also a Boy like character (Richie Sorensen) – both he and Brent were reunited in Tarzan and the Trappers.
There’s a scene where whiny big boobs goes to Jane that she hates the jungle, and Jan explains she just fears the jungle – which is a fair enough point, but then Jane tells whiny big boobs that her job is to stand by her fellah’s side while he tries to bring light into darkness, etc, etc. What would Jane know about that? Didn’t Jane go to the jungle for the sex and freedom?
The quality of colour photography and use of stock footage is superior to Tarzan’s Hidden Jungle (though it still jars eg when Tazan squats down and talks to a tribe of pygmies). There’s a decent finale with Tarzan chained in a dungeon with Strode about to cut out his heart and a man-eating lion running loose, then a poison-drinking witch doctor ceremony involving Edwards – Scott was a good on-screen fighter, who moved quickly, even if he did have the biggest breasts of anyone in a Tarzan film.
This was cinema feature made by producer Sol Lesser. He soon sold out his interest in the film to new producers and not before time.
Movie review – Tarzan #21 – “Tarzan and the Trappers” (1958) *
Apparently this was meant to be a television series but the sponsors didn’t go for it – so Sol Lesser cobbled together the three episodes that had been made and released them as a feature. Jane (Eve Brent) and Boy equivalent have hardly anything to do. The plot is traditional: fighting trappers and someone looks for a lost city. Zzzzzz.
The only remotely interesting this about this film are when Tarzan rides a giraffe and the fact that Tarzan is helping out a black friend of his. Dull, badly acted and with low production values – and in black and white, too.
The only remotely interesting this about this film are when Tarzan rides a giraffe and the fact that Tarzan is helping out a black friend of his. Dull, badly acted and with low production values – and in black and white, too.
Movie review – Creature #2 - “Revenge of the Creature” (1955) **1/2
Pity the poor old Gill-man – minding his own business in the black lagoon when some grubby money-hungry scientists rock up and capture him. Then they spirit him away to a marina park where he’s prodded and poked and photographed and gawked at by whiny Americans. They chain him to the floor, electrocute the poor thing – who can blame him for going on a rampage?
But the thing is, it’s not a very sensible rampage – he kills a few people then goes missing. No one knows where he is, he could be anywhere on the east coast… but he manages to track down Lori Nelson, who he’s fallen in love with. And instead of trying to swim home or to safety he kidnaps Nelson. Then he leaves her by a riverbank and gets busted.
There is a lot of humour in this film. Much of it is likely to be unintentional – scientist John Agar tells Nelson that unlike her he doesn’t have to decide between a career and family because he’s a man. Some of it surely must have been intentional: the Gill man shoving his face in the window while Agar smooth talks Nelson, Agar grabs Nelson as he’s about to ask her out, Gill man perves into Nelson’s room just as she’s about to take her shower and sees her in her underwear, Gill man walks into a mid 50s groovy party.
Like the first film they set up this pseudo-love triangle between Agar (scientist who rocks up to investigate), Nelson (science student) and John Bromfield (the dude who actually captures the Gill man). But for some reason they don’t really do much with the Bromfield character, which is a pit – he had potential, to be a baddie or quasi-goodie or something, but they kill him off early and give the action to Agar, even though he’s not in the first bit of the movie.
Clint Eastwood fans will be delighted to see him playing a scientist in an early scene. Nelson is pretty, though she’s not as good as Julie Adams. It’s a pretty crappy movie, but enjoyable.
But the thing is, it’s not a very sensible rampage – he kills a few people then goes missing. No one knows where he is, he could be anywhere on the east coast… but he manages to track down Lori Nelson, who he’s fallen in love with. And instead of trying to swim home or to safety he kidnaps Nelson. Then he leaves her by a riverbank and gets busted.
There is a lot of humour in this film. Much of it is likely to be unintentional – scientist John Agar tells Nelson that unlike her he doesn’t have to decide between a career and family because he’s a man. Some of it surely must have been intentional: the Gill man shoving his face in the window while Agar smooth talks Nelson, Agar grabs Nelson as he’s about to ask her out, Gill man perves into Nelson’s room just as she’s about to take her shower and sees her in her underwear, Gill man walks into a mid 50s groovy party.
Like the first film they set up this pseudo-love triangle between Agar (scientist who rocks up to investigate), Nelson (science student) and John Bromfield (the dude who actually captures the Gill man). But for some reason they don’t really do much with the Bromfield character, which is a pit – he had potential, to be a baddie or quasi-goodie or something, but they kill him off early and give the action to Agar, even though he’s not in the first bit of the movie.
Clint Eastwood fans will be delighted to see him playing a scientist in an early scene. Nelson is pretty, though she’s not as good as Julie Adams. It’s a pretty crappy movie, but enjoyable.
Movie review – Creature #1 - “Creature from the Black Lagoon” (1954) ***
Famous Universal creature feature which owes more than a little debt to King Kong (and thus Beauty and the Beast). Like that film its about an expedition to a far flung corner of the globe (in this case, the Amazon) which stumbles upon a prehistoric creature who falls in love with a female member of the expedition. She is played by Julie Adams, an attractive vivacious brunette easily capable of holding her own with the fellers (indeed, to be honest she’s more sensible than most of the blokes). Her swim with the creature beneath her remains the most effective sequence.
The creature is a terrific monster, though sometimes he (she?) looks a bit silly running around – though not as silly as Richard Denning and Richard Carlson do running around in little shorts. (I’ve seen this movie a few times and always get these two mixed up). Beautiful underwater photography, entertaining story. Full confession: I’ve never been that wild about it, but recognise it’s qualities.
The creature is a terrific monster, though sometimes he (she?) looks a bit silly running around – though not as silly as Richard Denning and Richard Carlson do running around in little shorts. (I’ve seen this movie a few times and always get these two mixed up). Beautiful underwater photography, entertaining story. Full confession: I’ve never been that wild about it, but recognise it’s qualities.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Movie review – Tarzan #19 - “Tarzan and the Lost Safari” (1957) **
Colour finally hits the Tarzan film in this otherwise unmemorable entry. A plane load of squabbling white people crash in the jungle and Tarzan has to help them out. He’s hindered by a great white hunter who, while he pretends to help, is actually doing deals with the natives to offer the people up as sacrifices.
Most of the film is still shot in the studio, with some stock footage thrown in (love it when they’re in the plane and you see this massive close up of an elephant). There’s a lot of trudging along – through the jungle, then a swamp for variety – pursued by black warriors.
There’s a scene where two of the women ogle Tarzan as he goes for a swim – “I bet he does everything well” says one – but still no romance for Tarzan. There is some ok action, Tarzan chats about his origin in the jungle, and a climax which surely must have influenced Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom – the hero and lead baddie are on a bridge which collapses and they to climb to safety next to one another.
Scott is alright – he moves fast, and looks strong, but hasn’t made the role his own. Wilfrid Hyde White adds a spot of humour to the support cast.
Most of the film is still shot in the studio, with some stock footage thrown in (love it when they’re in the plane and you see this massive close up of an elephant). There’s a lot of trudging along – through the jungle, then a swamp for variety – pursued by black warriors.
There’s a scene where two of the women ogle Tarzan as he goes for a swim – “I bet he does everything well” says one – but still no romance for Tarzan. There is some ok action, Tarzan chats about his origin in the jungle, and a climax which surely must have influenced Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom – the hero and lead baddie are on a bridge which collapses and they to climb to safety next to one another.
Scott is alright – he moves fast, and looks strong, but hasn’t made the role his own. Wilfrid Hyde White adds a spot of humour to the support cast.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Michael Crichton Overview
Michael Crichton has been one of my favourite authors since the early 90s. I knew who he was before then because he was one of those authors who always seem to get a brief biological sketch whenever they are mentioned, eg “doctor turned writer turned film director”. In the 80s Crichton seemed to be associated with flops – the films Looker and Runaway (which I actually loved) in particular; his novels weren’t that well known in the reading lists of my circle (where Steven King reigned supreme), and his best known work at that stage - Westworld - was considered old hat.
But I gave Jurassic Park a read when the film came out and loved it and have tried to read everything else he’s done since then. I read a lot less fiction nowadays than I used to (due to a combination of lack of time and increasing obsessiveness with books about other topics) but I always try to read the new Crichton when it comes out.
Crichton’s first published novels were a series of pulp works, I guess you could call them, under a pseudonym. The best know of these is Binary, which I bought as one of those three-in-one volumes. It was an entertaining, fast-paced look at a threatened attack – what I remember most about it was the baddie dies a fair bit towards the end, and although there is still a threat, it doesn’t feel as severe as if the baddie was still alive (I felt a similar thing about the movie Blown Away).
I liked it just as much as The Andromeda Strain, also entertaining. This novel helped popularise the “10am San Francisco” method of science fiction writing, which was used on the X Files to such a degree. Thing I remember most about that book was the fact that the government save the day by refusing to blow up a contaminated site.
I still haven’t read Five Patients or Electronic Life but I really enjoyed The Terminal Man, a scary sort of version of the Frankenstein story. This demonstrates a Crichton technique: take a concept that’s normally only been done in a silly sci fi movie (dinosaurs come back to life, killer virus), treat it seriously and back it up with great research. This had a sympathetic female protagonist – something to keep in mind when Crichton copped all that sexism stuff around the time of Disclosure.
Westworld is a film with one of the great sci fi ideas of all time – so good Crichton himself later reused it in Jurassic Park and Timeframe. I always found the movie actually a bit slow – slow motion Western shoot outs, etc – but it was great to set up whimpy Richard Benjamin against Yul Brynner. And killing off the bold friend (James Brolin) is a terrific idea. They’re always remaking 70s films at the moment – why not do this one again, with faster pace and better special effects?
The Great Train Robbery was also enjoyable, though at times it felt Crichton was a bit weighed down by his period detail. I feel he’d loosen up and write more of a “romp” these days. Sean Connery was perfect for the lead in the film version.
Eaters of the Dead is an odd book – adventures among the Vikings. Crichton says in his introduction that there was something profoundly appealing about the viking lifestyle – I didn’t feel this came across, they seemed like a bunch of blood thirsty warriors who’d kill you as soon as look at you (admittedly they could navigate and paint).
Jasper Johns is a book about the artist. Crichton really stretches his wings here and the book is really good – I only read it because he wrote it, that’s how much of a fan I was. It has plenty of terrific pictures, and explains a number of complex concepts and thoughts in an easy-to-read style (he could do it for art as well as science).
Congo was a marvellous adventure romp in the vein of a H Rider Haggard novel. The talking apes worked fine in the book but came across a little silly in the movie. Sphere started off memorably, but the twist of the entity or whatever it is taking on aspects of the crew didn't quite work, something especially apparent when you watch the film version.
Travels is a wonderful book, Crichton’s most emotional and personal. Full of interesting stories, personal asides, and fascinating trips. It’s really fantastic and ranks as Crichton’s masterpiece along with Jurassic Park.
Crichton has long been a skilled essayist. I particularly love the introduction to his Westworld script, and this tribute to Conan Doyle’s Lost World. One essay I don’t like this one advising how to have an argument with your partner. Crichton’s been divorced like four times – I don’t necessarily think he should be giving advice on this stuff. (Mate, sometimes all they want to hear is “sorry”.) He’s also not too great on the battle of the sexes either - but no one can do everything.
Jurassic Park deserves all the acclaim that came it way bar one – it deserved a better movie. Spielberg hit goals with the dinosaur technology and the T-rex sequence is amazing, but the ending! Crichton wrote a great ending! Why didn't they use it? (David Koepp’s big budget scripts all seem the same – workmanlike pieces that seem to suck a lot of excitement out of it.) The Lost World isn’t anywhere near as good, seemingly made up of sequences that Crichton left out of the original (the movie version was far superior).
Rising Sun attracted controversy on its publication for perceived Jap-bashing. It wasn’t so shocking in the redneck wonderland of Queensland where I grew up - Japan-bashing was a common past time (especially around the period where they were buying up big slabs of the Gold Coast). This tended to obscure the fact that the book was also a first-rate whodunit.
Disclosure was also controversial, taking on sexual harassment in the early 90s. The two big sexual harassment pieces of the time – this and Oleanna by David Mamet – both centered around poor old men being falsely accused of sexual harassment (the much maligned David Williamson at least wrote a play where the guy actually did it). The book isn’t really about sexual harassment it’s about corporate politics – the sexual harassment stuff is a furphy. As a result it shouldn’t really be seen as a book about sexual harassment, but where that is a topic.
Twister made a so-so film, best remembered for its special effects and spinning cow – but Bill Paxton being able to “sense” tornadoes? And want to run into them, and evil corporate sponsored baddies… I know scripts are rewritten and will have to read Crichton’s original before passing judgement.
Airframe deals with airline safety. This seems to be a lower key book than his others mainly because the havoc wrecked feels relatively minor. Its mainly notable for the way Crichton gets stuck into the media, something that would become a particular preoccupation of his in recent years.
Timeline was much better, a thrilling time travel story whose main attraction was the marvellous “feel” for medieval life (smells, tastes, danger). These elements were all missing in the poor film adaptation, which lacked any feeling of authenticity, and was further hampered by Paul Walker’s “woah dude” quasi-naturalistic performance; also who wants to cheer the French on against the English?
I’ve read Prey but have a hard time recalling any of it, except a vague image of a bee swarm-like antagonist. Maybe I just don't find nanotechnology that exciting.
State of Fear is Crichton taking on the environmental movement, not very convincingly (not so much the arguments against global warning just the fact that I can’t see them being this well organised). Around this point I really felt Crichton should think about not living in California any more, I think it gets to him.
Still, marvellous writer and always worth reading - brisk style, ferociously intelligent. You might ask "what about the characters, huh?" and it's true some of Crichton's people can be a little on the dull side, especially the heroes. But the outlandish ones are vivid: the gunslinger in Westworld, the Terminal Man, the Arab in Eaters of the Dead, T-Rex. And that's not as easy as he appears. And how many novelists are still kicking goals after thirty years?
But I gave Jurassic Park a read when the film came out and loved it and have tried to read everything else he’s done since then. I read a lot less fiction nowadays than I used to (due to a combination of lack of time and increasing obsessiveness with books about other topics) but I always try to read the new Crichton when it comes out.
Crichton’s first published novels were a series of pulp works, I guess you could call them, under a pseudonym. The best know of these is Binary, which I bought as one of those three-in-one volumes. It was an entertaining, fast-paced look at a threatened attack – what I remember most about it was the baddie dies a fair bit towards the end, and although there is still a threat, it doesn’t feel as severe as if the baddie was still alive (I felt a similar thing about the movie Blown Away).
I liked it just as much as The Andromeda Strain, also entertaining. This novel helped popularise the “10am San Francisco” method of science fiction writing, which was used on the X Files to such a degree. Thing I remember most about that book was the fact that the government save the day by refusing to blow up a contaminated site.
I still haven’t read Five Patients or Electronic Life but I really enjoyed The Terminal Man, a scary sort of version of the Frankenstein story. This demonstrates a Crichton technique: take a concept that’s normally only been done in a silly sci fi movie (dinosaurs come back to life, killer virus), treat it seriously and back it up with great research. This had a sympathetic female protagonist – something to keep in mind when Crichton copped all that sexism stuff around the time of Disclosure.
Westworld is a film with one of the great sci fi ideas of all time – so good Crichton himself later reused it in Jurassic Park and Timeframe. I always found the movie actually a bit slow – slow motion Western shoot outs, etc – but it was great to set up whimpy Richard Benjamin against Yul Brynner. And killing off the bold friend (James Brolin) is a terrific idea. They’re always remaking 70s films at the moment – why not do this one again, with faster pace and better special effects?
The Great Train Robbery was also enjoyable, though at times it felt Crichton was a bit weighed down by his period detail. I feel he’d loosen up and write more of a “romp” these days. Sean Connery was perfect for the lead in the film version.
Eaters of the Dead is an odd book – adventures among the Vikings. Crichton says in his introduction that there was something profoundly appealing about the viking lifestyle – I didn’t feel this came across, they seemed like a bunch of blood thirsty warriors who’d kill you as soon as look at you (admittedly they could navigate and paint).
Jasper Johns is a book about the artist. Crichton really stretches his wings here and the book is really good – I only read it because he wrote it, that’s how much of a fan I was. It has plenty of terrific pictures, and explains a number of complex concepts and thoughts in an easy-to-read style (he could do it for art as well as science).
Congo was a marvellous adventure romp in the vein of a H Rider Haggard novel. The talking apes worked fine in the book but came across a little silly in the movie. Sphere started off memorably, but the twist of the entity or whatever it is taking on aspects of the crew didn't quite work, something especially apparent when you watch the film version.
Travels is a wonderful book, Crichton’s most emotional and personal. Full of interesting stories, personal asides, and fascinating trips. It’s really fantastic and ranks as Crichton’s masterpiece along with Jurassic Park.
Crichton has long been a skilled essayist. I particularly love the introduction to his Westworld script, and this tribute to Conan Doyle’s Lost World. One essay I don’t like this one advising how to have an argument with your partner. Crichton’s been divorced like four times – I don’t necessarily think he should be giving advice on this stuff. (Mate, sometimes all they want to hear is “sorry”.) He’s also not too great on the battle of the sexes either - but no one can do everything.
Jurassic Park deserves all the acclaim that came it way bar one – it deserved a better movie. Spielberg hit goals with the dinosaur technology and the T-rex sequence is amazing, but the ending! Crichton wrote a great ending! Why didn't they use it? (David Koepp’s big budget scripts all seem the same – workmanlike pieces that seem to suck a lot of excitement out of it.) The Lost World isn’t anywhere near as good, seemingly made up of sequences that Crichton left out of the original (the movie version was far superior).
Rising Sun attracted controversy on its publication for perceived Jap-bashing. It wasn’t so shocking in the redneck wonderland of Queensland where I grew up - Japan-bashing was a common past time (especially around the period where they were buying up big slabs of the Gold Coast). This tended to obscure the fact that the book was also a first-rate whodunit.
Disclosure was also controversial, taking on sexual harassment in the early 90s. The two big sexual harassment pieces of the time – this and Oleanna by David Mamet – both centered around poor old men being falsely accused of sexual harassment (the much maligned David Williamson at least wrote a play where the guy actually did it). The book isn’t really about sexual harassment it’s about corporate politics – the sexual harassment stuff is a furphy. As a result it shouldn’t really be seen as a book about sexual harassment, but where that is a topic.
Twister made a so-so film, best remembered for its special effects and spinning cow – but Bill Paxton being able to “sense” tornadoes? And want to run into them, and evil corporate sponsored baddies… I know scripts are rewritten and will have to read Crichton’s original before passing judgement.
Airframe deals with airline safety. This seems to be a lower key book than his others mainly because the havoc wrecked feels relatively minor. Its mainly notable for the way Crichton gets stuck into the media, something that would become a particular preoccupation of his in recent years.
Timeline was much better, a thrilling time travel story whose main attraction was the marvellous “feel” for medieval life (smells, tastes, danger). These elements were all missing in the poor film adaptation, which lacked any feeling of authenticity, and was further hampered by Paul Walker’s “woah dude” quasi-naturalistic performance; also who wants to cheer the French on against the English?
I’ve read Prey but have a hard time recalling any of it, except a vague image of a bee swarm-like antagonist. Maybe I just don't find nanotechnology that exciting.
State of Fear is Crichton taking on the environmental movement, not very convincingly (not so much the arguments against global warning just the fact that I can’t see them being this well organised). Around this point I really felt Crichton should think about not living in California any more, I think it gets to him.
Still, marvellous writer and always worth reading - brisk style, ferociously intelligent. You might ask "what about the characters, huh?" and it's true some of Crichton's people can be a little on the dull side, especially the heroes. But the outlandish ones are vivid: the gunslinger in Westworld, the Terminal Man, the Arab in Eaters of the Dead, T-Rex. And that's not as easy as he appears. And how many novelists are still kicking goals after thirty years?
Movie review – “Never Say Goodbye” (1946) **1/2
Warner Bros were emboldened by the box office success of San Antonio to try Errol Flynn in something different – to wit, a remarriage comedy. This is a subgenre of romantic comedy about two people who were married who get back together eg The Awful Truth, The Parent Trap. No doubt divorce was something very much on the mind of the audience with all those soldiers coming home from the war.
This is a fun movie which has a lot of charm and Errol in terrific form but has major story problems: Errol is celebrating a year’s divorce from the beautiful Eleanor Parker. They clearly love each other and only broke up because of Errol’s infidelity (go figure) and Parker’s nagging mother. But he wants her back and she wants him back… only then she busts him dining with a blonde.
They separate again over Christmas, Errol crashes Parker’s Christmas celebrations and wins her back over the attentions of a nerdy lawyer… only to have the blonde turn up again. The third act then kicks off with the arrival of a beefy soldier (Forrest Tucker) whom Errol’s daughter has been writing to under an assumed name – isn’t this the plot of Dear Ruth? Why wait til now to introduce him? So Errol gets jealous and blah blah… but isn’t the basic problem Errol’s infidelity? And does anyone think this is going to change after he and Parker get back together?
I think this film needed to have had Errol and Parker break up for a fixable reason i.e. a misunderstanding or Parker's conniving mother or something - otherwise it's a hollow victory when they get back together because the problems aren't going to go away. Also there's no "spine" to the story; most remarriage comedies use the same spine - one of them is getting married to an inapproriate partner (usually played by Ralph Bellamy) and the other has to stop it; I don't know why they didn't do that here. The Forrest Tucker plot doesn't really work this way because Forrest is a likeable guy but Parker clearly never really likes him romantically, she just uses him to make Errol jealous.
Errol is perfectly cast as the womanising artist, full of charm. He goes all-out in his performance: he does the “mirror routine” with another actor (both dressed as Santas), he sings, does backflips, makes bird sounds, cracks a joke about Robin Hood, impersonates Humphrey Bogart, acts with a child actor (this is one of the few times Errol played a “father” role). Just like Four’s a Crowd and Footsteps in the Dark, one just wishes the script had been better.
Parker is very pretty and charming as his ex-wife, though she doesn’t have much of a character: it is a bit spineless of her to keep going back to Errol. I would loved to have seen Parker as her Scaramouche character play opposite Errol – now that would have been something special. Nonetheless, a fun movie. Shame it isn't in colour.
This is a fun movie which has a lot of charm and Errol in terrific form but has major story problems: Errol is celebrating a year’s divorce from the beautiful Eleanor Parker. They clearly love each other and only broke up because of Errol’s infidelity (go figure) and Parker’s nagging mother. But he wants her back and she wants him back… only then she busts him dining with a blonde.
They separate again over Christmas, Errol crashes Parker’s Christmas celebrations and wins her back over the attentions of a nerdy lawyer… only to have the blonde turn up again. The third act then kicks off with the arrival of a beefy soldier (Forrest Tucker) whom Errol’s daughter has been writing to under an assumed name – isn’t this the plot of Dear Ruth? Why wait til now to introduce him? So Errol gets jealous and blah blah… but isn’t the basic problem Errol’s infidelity? And does anyone think this is going to change after he and Parker get back together?
I think this film needed to have had Errol and Parker break up for a fixable reason i.e. a misunderstanding or Parker's conniving mother or something - otherwise it's a hollow victory when they get back together because the problems aren't going to go away. Also there's no "spine" to the story; most remarriage comedies use the same spine - one of them is getting married to an inapproriate partner (usually played by Ralph Bellamy) and the other has to stop it; I don't know why they didn't do that here. The Forrest Tucker plot doesn't really work this way because Forrest is a likeable guy but Parker clearly never really likes him romantically, she just uses him to make Errol jealous.
Errol is perfectly cast as the womanising artist, full of charm. He goes all-out in his performance: he does the “mirror routine” with another actor (both dressed as Santas), he sings, does backflips, makes bird sounds, cracks a joke about Robin Hood, impersonates Humphrey Bogart, acts with a child actor (this is one of the few times Errol played a “father” role). Just like Four’s a Crowd and Footsteps in the Dark, one just wishes the script had been better.
Parker is very pretty and charming as his ex-wife, though she doesn’t have much of a character: it is a bit spineless of her to keep going back to Errol. I would loved to have seen Parker as her Scaramouche character play opposite Errol – now that would have been something special. Nonetheless, a fun movie. Shame it isn't in colour.
Movie review – Tarzan #18 – “Tarzan’s Hidden Jungle” (1955) **
After Lex Barker the male model, producer Sol Lesser decided to try a body builder, Gordon Scott, as Tarzan. Scott looks a bit more of a jungle wild man than Barker - though he’s not as genuinely strange as Johnny Weismuller.
The plot is a bit tired – unscrupulous hunters looking for ivory, lost kingdom, nice doctor, etc. For one exciting moment we are led to believe that Tarzan is going to have a romance - Vera Miles plays a nurse who goes for a nude swim, and later on Tarzan playfully throws her in the water. After sixteen films of Tarzan being married it’s good to see him in flirt mode again... but nothing more is made of this. She goes off with the doctor (Peter Van Eyck). Disappointing!
At one stage of the film the baddie ivory hunters pretend to be documentary filmmakers. Filmmakers and Tarzan would have been a fun plot - but that's not taken up here either.
It's a dull Tarzan entry, for completists only. Jack Elam plays a baddie, without a beard, and there's a decent sequence where some people get thrown into a pit of lions. This was the last Tarzan made at RKO.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Movie review – “Cry Wolf” (1947) *** (warning: spoilers)
An old dark house mystery with Errol Flynn in the Rochester-type role as a brooding aloof man mourning the death of his brother… when he’s surprised by the arrival of said brother’s widow (Barbra Stanwyck). There are spooky sounds coming from the lab, creepy servants, and Errol is trying to bust up the relationship involving his sister (Geraldine Brooks) and her boyfriend.
Structurally maybe the film needed an opening sequence where Stanwyck is shown to be courting the dead brother, just to establish her bona fides (though Babs is so straight up and down you tend to believe her straight away). And definitely the end is a bit of a damp squib. Not the story, the story’s great – hereditary insanity always works (Jane Eyre, The Old Dark House, the movie adaptation of King’s Row) – but the treatment here is a bit flat; it felt as though it needed something spectacular – thunder and lightning and a spiral staircase, or the building on fire or something. And why does Errol stand back passively holding Babs why a bit part actor does the heroic fighting of the baddie? This stops it from reaching the top rank, but I have to say I really enjoyed it.
Babs is very likeable and sensible; a weaker actor (or character), though, may have added to the tension eg Joan Fontaine in Rebecca. Errol is very effective in an atypical role – slightly aloof, cold, rather in the manner of his Soames in That Forsyte Woman. This was “a Thomson Production” – meaning it was made through Errol Flynn’s company.
Structurally maybe the film needed an opening sequence where Stanwyck is shown to be courting the dead brother, just to establish her bona fides (though Babs is so straight up and down you tend to believe her straight away). And definitely the end is a bit of a damp squib. Not the story, the story’s great – hereditary insanity always works (Jane Eyre, The Old Dark House, the movie adaptation of King’s Row) – but the treatment here is a bit flat; it felt as though it needed something spectacular – thunder and lightning and a spiral staircase, or the building on fire or something. And why does Errol stand back passively holding Babs why a bit part actor does the heroic fighting of the baddie? This stops it from reaching the top rank, but I have to say I really enjoyed it.
Babs is very likeable and sensible; a weaker actor (or character), though, may have added to the tension eg Joan Fontaine in Rebecca. Errol is very effective in an atypical role – slightly aloof, cold, rather in the manner of his Soames in That Forsyte Woman. This was “a Thomson Production” – meaning it was made through Errol Flynn’s company.
Movie review – “The Big Boodle” (1957) **1/2
You wouldn’t believe the handsome dashing Errol Flynn of the 30s and 40s had been reduced to being a croupier at a Havana casino – but you would the seedy Errol of the late 50s. His age and pain on his face tell the story of it all… a man who’s done a lot of living, with plenty of regret.
I was pleasantly surprised by this film at first – it has a pretty bad reputation but it starts off as an unpretentious, fast-paced programmer which benefits from a strong story. Within the first 15 minutes Errol has received some dodgy money at the casino, been robbed, interrogated by the police, fired from his job – good basic screenwriting.
Unfortunately things do slow down once Errol starts romancing a woman and it all gets a bit predictable. Things hinted at during the first part of the film with great potential – notably the corrupt atmosphere of Havana, and the character of dodgy Errol, with his mysterious past - but they’re not really used. And he has little chemistry with his female co-stars.
But there are still pleasures, notably some location filming in Havana just before Batista’s fall, the Cuban setting, Pedro Armendariz as a local police officer (who’d be presumably killed within a few years), a decent shoot out at El Morro castle at the end. Part of me wished this was shot in colour, mainly to see the Cuban locations, but I think overall it’s more effective in black and white.
I was pleasantly surprised by this film at first – it has a pretty bad reputation but it starts off as an unpretentious, fast-paced programmer which benefits from a strong story. Within the first 15 minutes Errol has received some dodgy money at the casino, been robbed, interrogated by the police, fired from his job – good basic screenwriting.
Unfortunately things do slow down once Errol starts romancing a woman and it all gets a bit predictable. Things hinted at during the first part of the film with great potential – notably the corrupt atmosphere of Havana, and the character of dodgy Errol, with his mysterious past - but they’re not really used. And he has little chemistry with his female co-stars.
But there are still pleasures, notably some location filming in Havana just before Batista’s fall, the Cuban setting, Pedro Armendariz as a local police officer (who’d be presumably killed within a few years), a decent shoot out at El Morro castle at the end. Part of me wished this was shot in colour, mainly to see the Cuban locations, but I think overall it’s more effective in black and white.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Movie review – “Thunder Alley” (1967) **1/2
Fireball 500 was popular enough for AIP to order a follow up, with Fabian and Annette Funicello back (though as different characters), and a lot of similar stock car gootage. For my money this is a better film, mostly because they get the tone right all the way through: it’s a more serious drama, with only one song (from Funicello). It has a decent plot: Fabian is a racer who blanks out during a race and causes the death of another driver, causing him to go into stock car racing. It’s a bit irresponsible for competing in a race knowing he's got a propensity to black out, but it provides good conflict.
Fabian isn't bad - maybe he could have been a bit more tormented (after all, he did cause the death of a driver). Annettee Funicello is really good - but then it's a strong role , perhaps her best ever for AIP, playing the daughter of the stock car operation. She gets to do a lot of racing herself, is funny and sexy, and quite aggressive – she falls for Fabian, and goes after him. Fabian has a girlfriend (Diane McBain) whom he sleeps with – the 60s were starting to swing at AIP. Funicello asks McBain's permission to go after Fabian, which is very polite of her - McBain says no, but Funicello still has a crack, which is perhaps less nice.
The cast lacks a bit of star power, but is still solid. Warren Berlinger turns in a strong performance as Funnicello’s boyfriend who is trained by Fabian and becomes his rival (wouldn’t be a stock car racing film without rivalry). Richard Rush's direction keeps things going at a fast pace. Enjoyable stock car stuff.
Fabian isn't bad - maybe he could have been a bit more tormented (after all, he did cause the death of a driver). Annettee Funicello is really good - but then it's a strong role , perhaps her best ever for AIP, playing the daughter of the stock car operation. She gets to do a lot of racing herself, is funny and sexy, and quite aggressive – she falls for Fabian, and goes after him. Fabian has a girlfriend (Diane McBain) whom he sleeps with – the 60s were starting to swing at AIP. Funicello asks McBain's permission to go after Fabian, which is very polite of her - McBain says no, but Funicello still has a crack, which is perhaps less nice.
The cast lacks a bit of star power, but is still solid. Warren Berlinger turns in a strong performance as Funnicello’s boyfriend who is trained by Fabian and becomes his rival (wouldn’t be a stock car racing film without rivalry). Richard Rush's direction keeps things going at a fast pace. Enjoyable stock car stuff.
Movie review – “Fireball 500” (1966) **
AIP can never be accused of giving up on a formula easy – worried about declining box office receipts for the beach party movies, they shifted Annette Funicello, Frankie Avalon and Harvey Lembeck (not to mention William Asher, Floyd Crosby, Dan Haller and Les Baxter) into stock car racing, throwing in Fabian as an extra box office lure. The result is initially light, frothy entertainment with a totally decent plot that centers around the rivalry between Fabian and Frankie - partly over Annette, partly over racing - and their involvement in moonshine running. But it soon gets a bit leaden and loses its way.
This is a bit more adult than the beach party movies: Avalon is busted in a hayloft with a farmer’s daughter, 50% of Julie Parrish’s dialogue is sexual innuendo, the plot deals with serious stakes and concerns the death of a driver.
Old habits die hard, though: there are some claymation credits, Frankie Avalon sings the title track while driving during the opening credits, Annette sings at a carnival sequence, Frankie does a double take to the camera, Frankie sings at a dance (an inappropriate sequence in the film, as he’s investigating a death), at the end of the film Frankie duets with Parrish. This means the film never quite gets its tone right – it starts of bright and poppy then gets serious. Indeed the ending is a bit depressing, with Fabian injured in a crash never able to drive again (but he gets Annette and presumably will give up his groupies… yippee). I think it would have been better off keeping things either less serious all the way through, or make it serious from the start.
Frankie is fine in a more challenging and dramatic role than he was normally required to play by AIP. Annette seems a little at sea - she really doesn’t have anything to do apart from watch anxiously from the side of the racetrack and harp about wanting her boyfriend to settle down, just like she’d do in Beach Party; though at least here the boyfriend is Fabian and she winds up with him at the end, giving things a bit of variety. Fabian gives a confident, pseudo-Elvis performance as a scoundrel Southerner; it was liked well enough to see him cast as a stock car racer in Thunder Alley and The Wild Racers – and he played a moonshine driver in The Devil’s Eight.
It’s great to see Harvey Lembeck play a more serious role and Chill Wills and Julie Parrish add class. Story-wise the moonshine plot is quite interesting, but the race stuff less so. The final race sequence is really just stock footage of a racing cars driving around in a circle, cutting away far too often to a commentator in sun glasses and not enough to close ups of our stars. Most racing car films have this problem – how to dramatise basically driving around in circles? Having solved it – make it about moonshine runners – they then ignore that towards the end and the film suffers. Who cares who wins the final race? (Especially as Fabian and Frankie are friends by then.)
This is a bit more adult than the beach party movies: Avalon is busted in a hayloft with a farmer’s daughter, 50% of Julie Parrish’s dialogue is sexual innuendo, the plot deals with serious stakes and concerns the death of a driver.
Old habits die hard, though: there are some claymation credits, Frankie Avalon sings the title track while driving during the opening credits, Annette sings at a carnival sequence, Frankie does a double take to the camera, Frankie sings at a dance (an inappropriate sequence in the film, as he’s investigating a death), at the end of the film Frankie duets with Parrish. This means the film never quite gets its tone right – it starts of bright and poppy then gets serious. Indeed the ending is a bit depressing, with Fabian injured in a crash never able to drive again (but he gets Annette and presumably will give up his groupies… yippee). I think it would have been better off keeping things either less serious all the way through, or make it serious from the start.
Frankie is fine in a more challenging and dramatic role than he was normally required to play by AIP. Annette seems a little at sea - she really doesn’t have anything to do apart from watch anxiously from the side of the racetrack and harp about wanting her boyfriend to settle down, just like she’d do in Beach Party; though at least here the boyfriend is Fabian and she winds up with him at the end, giving things a bit of variety. Fabian gives a confident, pseudo-Elvis performance as a scoundrel Southerner; it was liked well enough to see him cast as a stock car racer in Thunder Alley and The Wild Racers – and he played a moonshine driver in The Devil’s Eight.
It’s great to see Harvey Lembeck play a more serious role and Chill Wills and Julie Parrish add class. Story-wise the moonshine plot is quite interesting, but the race stuff less so. The final race sequence is really just stock footage of a racing cars driving around in a circle, cutting away far too often to a commentator in sun glasses and not enough to close ups of our stars. Most racing car films have this problem – how to dramatise basically driving around in circles? Having solved it – make it about moonshine runners – they then ignore that towards the end and the film suffers. Who cares who wins the final race? (Especially as Fabian and Frankie are friends by then.)
Movie review – “Background to Danger” (1943) **1/2
George Raft missed out on the chance to play Rick in Casablanca (though apparently it’s not sure that he was ever formally offered the role), but Warners came up with this for him, a tale of skull-duggery and spies in Turkey, with the Germans trying to engineer a fight between Russia and Turkey. There’s a trenchcoat-wearing hero, some shady ladies, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet, an opening montage, a finale with a plane flying off into the distance. Another film which must have influenced the makers was The 39 Steps, because it starts with our hero picked up by a sexy foreign female agent, who is then killed, and our hero finds himself blamed for her murder.
With Raft’s sinister dark looks I thought it was surprising he didn’t work more in the spy melodrama genre, until I saw this – because he plays his role pretty much like a gangster. I think he had it in him to stretch to play an agent, but he doesn’t here. Admittedly, he’s not helped by his character having slightly confused motivations (he’s an innocent, yet also an American agent). And there are some scenes which seem to come straight out of a gangster film, such as the final car chase.
Fortunately Lorre and Greenstreet are on hand. Brenda Marshall plays Lorre’s sister! The filmmakers seem to know her limitations as an actor and she never has to carry any of the scenes she is in – she doesn’t even have a love scene with Raft. This is decent exotic fun, very much B level, but lifted by the talents of the people involved. If Bogie had played Raft's role it might have been a minor classic.
NB There's a scene where Raft is pretending to be a baddie, and the baddies test his loyalty by getting him to shoot a friend (Lorre) - Raft pulls the trigger, only to find out that the gun is empty. They were just testing. And it turns out Raft knew the gun was empty from weighing it. This was later used in the Clint Eastwood movie In the Line of Fire.
With Raft’s sinister dark looks I thought it was surprising he didn’t work more in the spy melodrama genre, until I saw this – because he plays his role pretty much like a gangster. I think he had it in him to stretch to play an agent, but he doesn’t here. Admittedly, he’s not helped by his character having slightly confused motivations (he’s an innocent, yet also an American agent). And there are some scenes which seem to come straight out of a gangster film, such as the final car chase.
Fortunately Lorre and Greenstreet are on hand. Brenda Marshall plays Lorre’s sister! The filmmakers seem to know her limitations as an actor and she never has to carry any of the scenes she is in – she doesn’t even have a love scene with Raft. This is decent exotic fun, very much B level, but lifted by the talents of the people involved. If Bogie had played Raft's role it might have been a minor classic.
NB There's a scene where Raft is pretending to be a baddie, and the baddies test his loyalty by getting him to shoot a friend (Lorre) - Raft pulls the trigger, only to find out that the gun is empty. They were just testing. And it turns out Raft knew the gun was empty from weighing it. This was later used in the Clint Eastwood movie In the Line of Fire.
Movie review – “Ski Party” (1965) **1/2 (re-watching)
AIP do a twist on the Beach Party series by sending their equivalent of Bob Hope and Bing Crosby – Frankie Avalon and Dwayne Hickman – out to the snow. Frankie and Dwayne are two sexually frustrated college students who can’t get any action, even though it’s midway through the 60s. So when they go on a ski trip, they get into drag and try to find out what makes women tick – and naturally the class stud (Aron Kincaid) falls in love with Hickman.
The ski setting works well – it’s still an environment where kids can muck around, sing, dance and romance; the snow visuals are fresh; there’s still a pool enabling us to see some bikini action (and they wind up at the beach at the end, anyway –Walley’s bikini top almost falls off in the last shot). There are two great musical numbers – Lesley Gore sings “Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows” on a bus, and James Brown sings “I Feel Good”… in a winter sweater!
Annette Funicello makes a fun cameo, and the female leads are strong, Deborah Walley and Yvonne Craig. Also good is Bobbi Shaw who is very sweet as the Swede with a yen for Frankie; Eva Six played a sexually aggressive Swede after Frankie in Beach Party, but she was just up for rooting… whereas Shaw plays a very sexually experienced girl who would like a long courtship like American girls enjoy.
Like many cross-dressing movies, the sexual politics are interesting – girls don’t tell boys who to get girls interested in them, Deborah Walley denies girls are competitive with each other, Hickman asks Yvonne Craig “not to be funnier than he is”, girls laugh about tales where they hit boys, the hotel manager starts dressing as a woman, Kincaid is never shown to be really enthusiastic about any woman except Hickman in a dress, Hickman enjoys a romantic evening he spends with Kincaid (a direct rip off of the one in Some Like It Hot, with “I got pinned” instead of “I got engaged).
There’s also a scene where Frankie and Hickman are locked (as women) in the girls’ dorm; Hickman asks what to do next, and Frankie one asks how old their audience is – Hickman says “fifteen” so Frankie points to the window, as if to say “well, we leave the room instead of having sex.” So AIP bite the hand that feeds them. Maybe this slight contempt for the audience explains why the beach party genre soon ran out of steam. (The credits at the end tell the audience to watch out for Cruise Party – presumably Frankie and/or Annette on a cruse ship, had it ever been made.)
Acting students interested in an example of how actors lose focus may be interested in the sequence where Lesley Gore sings “Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows” – look how focused Frankie and Dwayne are, but Aron Kincaid drifts in and out of paying attention.
The ski setting works well – it’s still an environment where kids can muck around, sing, dance and romance; the snow visuals are fresh; there’s still a pool enabling us to see some bikini action (and they wind up at the beach at the end, anyway –Walley’s bikini top almost falls off in the last shot). There are two great musical numbers – Lesley Gore sings “Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows” on a bus, and James Brown sings “I Feel Good”… in a winter sweater!
Annette Funicello makes a fun cameo, and the female leads are strong, Deborah Walley and Yvonne Craig. Also good is Bobbi Shaw who is very sweet as the Swede with a yen for Frankie; Eva Six played a sexually aggressive Swede after Frankie in Beach Party, but she was just up for rooting… whereas Shaw plays a very sexually experienced girl who would like a long courtship like American girls enjoy.
Like many cross-dressing movies, the sexual politics are interesting – girls don’t tell boys who to get girls interested in them, Deborah Walley denies girls are competitive with each other, Hickman asks Yvonne Craig “not to be funnier than he is”, girls laugh about tales where they hit boys, the hotel manager starts dressing as a woman, Kincaid is never shown to be really enthusiastic about any woman except Hickman in a dress, Hickman enjoys a romantic evening he spends with Kincaid (a direct rip off of the one in Some Like It Hot, with “I got pinned” instead of “I got engaged).
There’s also a scene where Frankie and Hickman are locked (as women) in the girls’ dorm; Hickman asks what to do next, and Frankie one asks how old their audience is – Hickman says “fifteen” so Frankie points to the window, as if to say “well, we leave the room instead of having sex.” So AIP bite the hand that feeds them. Maybe this slight contempt for the audience explains why the beach party genre soon ran out of steam. (The credits at the end tell the audience to watch out for Cruise Party – presumably Frankie and/or Annette on a cruse ship, had it ever been made.)
Acting students interested in an example of how actors lose focus may be interested in the sequence where Lesley Gore sings “Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows” – look how focused Frankie and Dwayne are, but Aron Kincaid drifts in and out of paying attention.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Movie review – Beach Party #2 “Muscle Beach Party” (1964) **
After an interesting credit sequence (a bunch of drawings – a technique that Roger Corman used to employ for his credits), the gang arrive at the beach singing. It’s kind of a sluggish song, and the film doesn’t really get into top gear for a while. The girls are all mooning over Frankie, including Annette and “Animal” (who is implied to be the slut of the group). Frankie’s a free spirit who talks about the philosophy of surfing while Annette (whose breasts seem unusually emphasised in this film) rubs lotion into his back and talks about settling down.
Frankie’s not very likeable in this one, snapping at Annette and being up himself – actually none of our regulars are really likeable: Annette nags, John Ashley flirts with Annette and rejects Frankie just because he gets a recording contract (as do all the friends).
In contrast, Lucia Palluzzi is fun (and sympathetic) though as the stunning bored rich girl who first sets her eyes on a muscle man (Peter Lupus) then goes for Frankie. Paluzzi is so beautiful, rich and sexually available – she says she can offer him a wave that he can ride “as far as he wants” - you can’t believe Frankie wouldn’t have more of a fling with her. But the script has him turn her down because he might be a kept man. Get a real problem, Frankie!
(NB the women are a bit more sexually aggressive in this one, with man-hunting Paluzzi and the horny eyes of Animal – plus a woman body builder who bashes a man constantly in the stomach. Also Frankie has a cigarette after a night surf – naughty!)
Don Rickles is fine as the manager of the muscle men and Peter Lorre’s cameo is fun, but Buddy Hackett isn’t really used well as Paluzzi’s manager. There are musical appearances from Dick Dale, Donna Loren and Stevie Wonder, but this movie features some weaker songs in the series. (It should be said some of the numbers are good, though.)
There’s a lot of surfing metaphor going on in the dialogue – not only from Frankie, but also Paluzzi, and John Ashley (who has a meaty scene, effectively dumping Frankie from the group). There’s no Von Zipper in this one – the final battle is between the kids and the muscle men, who are a poor substitute. An all-round fairly average entry.
Frankie’s not very likeable in this one, snapping at Annette and being up himself – actually none of our regulars are really likeable: Annette nags, John Ashley flirts with Annette and rejects Frankie just because he gets a recording contract (as do all the friends).
In contrast, Lucia Palluzzi is fun (and sympathetic) though as the stunning bored rich girl who first sets her eyes on a muscle man (Peter Lupus) then goes for Frankie. Paluzzi is so beautiful, rich and sexually available – she says she can offer him a wave that he can ride “as far as he wants” - you can’t believe Frankie wouldn’t have more of a fling with her. But the script has him turn her down because he might be a kept man. Get a real problem, Frankie!
(NB the women are a bit more sexually aggressive in this one, with man-hunting Paluzzi and the horny eyes of Animal – plus a woman body builder who bashes a man constantly in the stomach. Also Frankie has a cigarette after a night surf – naughty!)
Don Rickles is fine as the manager of the muscle men and Peter Lorre’s cameo is fun, but Buddy Hackett isn’t really used well as Paluzzi’s manager. There are musical appearances from Dick Dale, Donna Loren and Stevie Wonder, but this movie features some weaker songs in the series. (It should be said some of the numbers are good, though.)
There’s a lot of surfing metaphor going on in the dialogue – not only from Frankie, but also Paluzzi, and John Ashley (who has a meaty scene, effectively dumping Frankie from the group). There’s no Von Zipper in this one – the final battle is between the kids and the muscle men, who are a poor substitute. An all-round fairly average entry.
Movie review – “Tropic Thunder” (2008) ***
One of the best ideas for a comedy in recent years doesn’t quite have the execution to match, though much of it is terrific. Certainly all the characters would seem to be there: fading action star, Russell Crowe type method actor, P Diddy style rap mogul, Chris Farley-esque comedian, sly agent, vicious mogul, etc etc. So many with such potential that it feels vaguely dissatisfying; you kept wanting to know more, whether a bit more about Ben Stiller’s background, or Robert Downey Jnr’s, or to have Jack Black given a bit more that relates to the story, or a bit more work on the Nick Nolte story. Maybe a bit less screentime given to that young kid – or deeper characterisation or something.
The film has a great look – lush green jungle, explosives – and the action scenes are done with flair (though the choreography can be a bit wonky). The acting is fine across the board; Tom Cruise is a lot of fun (perhaps his dancing at the end isn’t quite as funny to deserve this amount of screen time it’s given) but Matthew Mahoganey’s usual grinning idiot isn’t as good as Owen Wilson would have been. Downey Jnr is brilliant in a dicey role.
Some of the making-fun-of-the-retarded people is funny (esp the “don’t go full retard if you want to win an Oscar) – but there’s a moment between Stiller and Downey Jnr where they come up with slang terms for the mentally ill perhaps a bit too much. And every Asian character in the film is a dumb, vicious killer.
The film has a great look – lush green jungle, explosives – and the action scenes are done with flair (though the choreography can be a bit wonky). The acting is fine across the board; Tom Cruise is a lot of fun (perhaps his dancing at the end isn’t quite as funny to deserve this amount of screen time it’s given) but Matthew Mahoganey’s usual grinning idiot isn’t as good as Owen Wilson would have been. Downey Jnr is brilliant in a dicey role.
Some of the making-fun-of-the-retarded people is funny (esp the “don’t go full retard if you want to win an Oscar) – but there’s a moment between Stiller and Downey Jnr where they come up with slang terms for the mentally ill perhaps a bit too much. And every Asian character in the film is a dumb, vicious killer.
Movie review – “Semi Pro” (2008) **1/2
The Will Ferrell sports movie formula, normally so sure-fire, hit a bit of a snag with this film. So much of it is right – the period detail, the basketball, Ferrel’s performance – but it simply doesn’t have a very strong idea. Ferrell owning a team that needs to win games in order to get into the NBA… there’s not enough there cf the inherent conflict with Will teaming with John Heder in Blades of Glory, or breaking up with John Reilly in Talledega Nights. Maybe if Woody Harrelson had had a more interesting character.
There are many hilarious moments, Ferrel is divinely mad, the disco soundtrack is great, and I loved the bear and Will Arnett as a jaded sports commentator.
There are many hilarious moments, Ferrel is divinely mad, the disco soundtrack is great, and I loved the bear and Will Arnett as a jaded sports commentator.
Sorkin in the Onion
If you're an Aaron Sorkin fan, check out this brilliant piece in The Onion about a Sorkin convention - terrific, and could have only been written by a fan.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Movie review – Tarzan #17 - “Tarzan and the She-Devil” (1953) ***
After lost civilisations and commie agents, Tarzan turns his attention to something a bit more traditional: ivory hunters, who include Raymond Burr and Tom Conway. Part of their plan involves a slave raid on a local a native tribe played by predominantly white actors – a shame, as they were using black ones for a while. (Not only were decent roles for black actors in 1950s Hollywood few and far between, they often missed out on crappy roles in Tarzan films.) On the other hand, this film depicts the horridness of the slave trade for the first time in a Tarzan film (mainly because a white man, Tarzan, becomes a slave – but at least it’s something, and they are powerful sequences.)
The she-devil of the title is a femme fetale ivory dealer, another female lead in a Tarzan film competing against Jane… but for a change Jane isn’t outshone. This is partly due to the fact that a new actor is playing the part (Barker had a different one for each one of his outings as Tarzan), and she’s not bad. She’s helped by the fact that she gets to go the biff with a couple of baddies and she’s actually given a love scene with Tarzan, something that rarely happened in Barker movies. This is crucial to the story, which has the baddies kidnap Jane in order to force Tarzan to do their dirty work. (When Tarzan thinks Jane is dead he goes totally limp, which is interesting.) It also gives Barker a chance to do some acting and he handles it well.
Structurally the film has a slight problem in that Tarzan is passive for most of the second half. But to compensate for that we have a “Jane trying to find Tarzan” plot and a strong collection of villains to keep us interested. An above-average entry.
The she-devil of the title is a femme fetale ivory dealer, another female lead in a Tarzan film competing against Jane… but for a change Jane isn’t outshone. This is partly due to the fact that a new actor is playing the part (Barker had a different one for each one of his outings as Tarzan), and she’s not bad. She’s helped by the fact that she gets to go the biff with a couple of baddies and she’s actually given a love scene with Tarzan, something that rarely happened in Barker movies. This is crucial to the story, which has the baddies kidnap Jane in order to force Tarzan to do their dirty work. (When Tarzan thinks Jane is dead he goes totally limp, which is interesting.) It also gives Barker a chance to do some acting and he handles it well.
Structurally the film has a slight problem in that Tarzan is passive for most of the second half. But to compensate for that we have a “Jane trying to find Tarzan” plot and a strong collection of villains to keep us interested. An above-average entry.
Movie review – Tarzan #16 – “Tarzan’s Savage Fury” (1952) ***
In his excellent book on the cinema of the British Empire, Visions of Yesterday, Jeffrey Richards remarked in passing that Tarzan took on communists in Tarzan’s Peril and this film. You could argue the baddie in Tarzan’s Peril was a commie; the anti-commie slant is a little bit more obvious here, though you still have to look for it. Charles Korvin kills Tarzan’s cousin and gets Patrick Knowles to impersonate said cousin; Knowles admits to being a traitor to England, Korvin refers to Knowles being from the “bourgeois” and works for a fictitious European country that is an enemy of England.
Knowles and Korvin ask for Tarzan’s help in locating a source of diamonds; they claim they need them for England (where “the chips are down”) – which surely is going to raise Tarzan’s suspicions considering the number of greedy explorers who’ve trooped through his jungle over the years. But at least it’s a different sort of lie and Jane encourages him to go along with it.
The film benefits from the addition of a “Boy” character – Joey, an American, played by Tommy Carleton, an engaging child performer. He helps compensate for another bland Jane (Barker’s fourth in only his fourth movie). They could never get a right match for Barker - this one seems a lot older; to be fair, she’s not helped by the fact she’s shown to be pining for Tarzan while he’s away, implying that she spends a lot of time stuck at home – no wonder she gets so excited by the mention of diamonds, it’s like she can’t wait to get out of her tree house to do diamond shopping.
Some good action sequences: Tarzan rescuing Joey, crossing the desert, the expedition’s arrival at the native village to find that cannibals have attacked, Tarzan rescuing Jane from being sacrificed at the end. Barker acts with more authority and confidence than before. The villains are strong and its refreshing to have a plot that harks back to the history of Tarzan’s family.
On the downside there are some racially insensitive moments such as when Korvin distracts some natives with a few magic tricks. And the ending where Cheetah engineers a plane crash by the commie pilots (they misinterpret his chimp talk as their native language) is a bit full on – a reprise of the Tarzan Triumphs end gag, only with more violence.
NB the ending with the Africans giving Tarzan given half the diamonds – what exactly does he plan to do with them?
Knowles and Korvin ask for Tarzan’s help in locating a source of diamonds; they claim they need them for England (where “the chips are down”) – which surely is going to raise Tarzan’s suspicions considering the number of greedy explorers who’ve trooped through his jungle over the years. But at least it’s a different sort of lie and Jane encourages him to go along with it.
The film benefits from the addition of a “Boy” character – Joey, an American, played by Tommy Carleton, an engaging child performer. He helps compensate for another bland Jane (Barker’s fourth in only his fourth movie). They could never get a right match for Barker - this one seems a lot older; to be fair, she’s not helped by the fact she’s shown to be pining for Tarzan while he’s away, implying that she spends a lot of time stuck at home – no wonder she gets so excited by the mention of diamonds, it’s like she can’t wait to get out of her tree house to do diamond shopping.
Some good action sequences: Tarzan rescuing Joey, crossing the desert, the expedition’s arrival at the native village to find that cannibals have attacked, Tarzan rescuing Jane from being sacrificed at the end. Barker acts with more authority and confidence than before. The villains are strong and its refreshing to have a plot that harks back to the history of Tarzan’s family.
On the downside there are some racially insensitive moments such as when Korvin distracts some natives with a few magic tricks. And the ending where Cheetah engineers a plane crash by the commie pilots (they misinterpret his chimp talk as their native language) is a bit full on – a reprise of the Tarzan Triumphs end gag, only with more violence.
NB the ending with the Africans giving Tarzan given half the diamonds – what exactly does he plan to do with them?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Movie review – Errol #45 - “Lilacs in the Spring” (1954) **
The 50s was a decade of bizarre projects for Errol Flynn: abandoned swashbucklers, troubled French dramas, pro-Castro documentaries, epics shot in Africa, el cheapo B pictures, British musicals. This was one of two of the latter he made for the husband and wife team of Herbert Wilcox and Anna Neagle, who turned out a number of immensely popular films over the years, which they liked to rehash.
It’s a totally weird picture; to understand it you gave to appreciate it was based on a play, which in turn was constructed as a vehicle for Neagle that referenced much of Neagle’s career to that point. There’s a colour credit sequence, then it goes to black and white and is set in London 1944 with Neagle working for ENSA (which she did in real life) and being romanced by the director (which she did in real life); then she gets conked on the head during an air raid (which also featured her popular film Piccadilly Incident), and we flash back to Nell Gwynn in colour (which Neagle played in 1933), then we go back to the war only now we’re in colour and Neagle is being wooed by Peter Graves, then she dreams of being Queen Victoria (whom Neagle played twice to great popular effect), then we cut to a Hollywood star (Errol Flynn) who it turns out is Neagle’s father, and we flashback to when Flynn was a song and dance man just before World War I and courted Neagle’s mother (played by Neagle). They get married, he goes to war, she becomes a star, she dances in a Cochran show (just like the real Neagle), he feels emasculated, leaves her and becomes a Hollywood star, they get back together but she dies (just like in Picadilly Incident), leaving Flynn to inspire their daughter (Neagle) to follow her love (Farrar) to Burma. Got that? Right.
It’s a mess – fascinating, but a mess. Neagle was over 50, wasn’t much of a dancer and telegraphed everything but she was still pretty and game – you can tell she was a trooper. There are some alright numbers and I really liked the colour. I was most interested in the performance of Errol Flynn. He’s far too old for his role, especially around World War I, and isn’t believable as a song and dance man – in his 1950s films Errol was only really believable as a lecherous drunk. But you know it’s lovely to see him do a soft shoe number with Neagle; he’s not much of a singer, but he can move, and he seems to be having a fun time. And he even gets to do a bit of emotion: one bit, when he’s on a movie set thinking of his former wife, he’s actually quite touching. One of Farrar’s characters head off to Burma and a barmaid says “give my regards to Errol Flynn”
It’s a totally weird picture; to understand it you gave to appreciate it was based on a play, which in turn was constructed as a vehicle for Neagle that referenced much of Neagle’s career to that point. There’s a colour credit sequence, then it goes to black and white and is set in London 1944 with Neagle working for ENSA (which she did in real life) and being romanced by the director (which she did in real life); then she gets conked on the head during an air raid (which also featured her popular film Piccadilly Incident), and we flash back to Nell Gwynn in colour (which Neagle played in 1933), then we go back to the war only now we’re in colour and Neagle is being wooed by Peter Graves, then she dreams of being Queen Victoria (whom Neagle played twice to great popular effect), then we cut to a Hollywood star (Errol Flynn) who it turns out is Neagle’s father, and we flashback to when Flynn was a song and dance man just before World War I and courted Neagle’s mother (played by Neagle). They get married, he goes to war, she becomes a star, she dances in a Cochran show (just like the real Neagle), he feels emasculated, leaves her and becomes a Hollywood star, they get back together but she dies (just like in Picadilly Incident), leaving Flynn to inspire their daughter (Neagle) to follow her love (Farrar) to Burma. Got that? Right.
It’s a mess – fascinating, but a mess. Neagle was over 50, wasn’t much of a dancer and telegraphed everything but she was still pretty and game – you can tell she was a trooper. There are some alright numbers and I really liked the colour. I was most interested in the performance of Errol Flynn. He’s far too old for his role, especially around World War I, and isn’t believable as a song and dance man – in his 1950s films Errol was only really believable as a lecherous drunk. But you know it’s lovely to see him do a soft shoe number with Neagle; he’s not much of a singer, but he can move, and he seems to be having a fun time. And he even gets to do a bit of emotion: one bit, when he’s on a movie set thinking of his former wife, he’s actually quite touching. One of Farrar’s characters head off to Burma and a barmaid says “give my regards to Errol Flynn”
Movie review – Tarzan #15 – “Tarzan’s Peril” (1951) **1/2
Finally, a Tarzan movie actually shot on location in Africa – MGM’s King Solomon’s Mines had raised the bar… though I understand that technical problems meant a great deal of it had to be reshot in the studio. Perhaps not coincidentally, this film offers the most sympathetic depiction of colonialism in a Tarzan film to date; a bit late in the day you’d think, but there you go.
The opening sequence has the tribes are farewelling a devoted colonial official who is leaving Africa (Alan Napier) – “you are our father and our uncle” says the Queen (Dorothy Dandridge!), without irony – and the colonial regime is, on the whole, portrayed as hard working and efficient.
The plot concerns a former slaver trader who escapes from prison; he’s called Radijeck, so maybe he’s meant to be a communist (he spends the rest of the film trying to sell guns to the natives and whip up trouble, so you could definitely read it that way).
Tarzan is a lot more American in this one and speaks longer sentences; he has a new Jane, an older one with short hair who seems like an Eisenhower era housewife. There’s a scene where she serves him dinner at the dinner table while he asks her something like “I hope you don’t get bored while I’m out all day” – Maureen O’Sullivan never would have stayed at home all day, she was out with Tarzan, having sex and trying to avoid being eaten by crocodiles.
The scenes among the villains are well done, helped by George Macready playing Radijeck; it’s also a good idea that Radijeck has a history with Tarzan and Jane but this is disappointingly undeveloped (apparently Radijeck was “nursed back to health” by Jane… is that code for he raped her or something?)
Byron Haskin directed, and you can feel him making an effort to raise this above the usual Barker Tarzan opus. And for a lot of the running time he succeeds: the action scenes are well done, the villains very strong; the only thing that really drags it down are the Tarzan-Jane scenes (actually all the Jane scenes) and some poorly-integrated cheetah action.
The opening sequence has the tribes are farewelling a devoted colonial official who is leaving Africa (Alan Napier) – “you are our father and our uncle” says the Queen (Dorothy Dandridge!), without irony – and the colonial regime is, on the whole, portrayed as hard working and efficient.
The plot concerns a former slaver trader who escapes from prison; he’s called Radijeck, so maybe he’s meant to be a communist (he spends the rest of the film trying to sell guns to the natives and whip up trouble, so you could definitely read it that way).
Tarzan is a lot more American in this one and speaks longer sentences; he has a new Jane, an older one with short hair who seems like an Eisenhower era housewife. There’s a scene where she serves him dinner at the dinner table while he asks her something like “I hope you don’t get bored while I’m out all day” – Maureen O’Sullivan never would have stayed at home all day, she was out with Tarzan, having sex and trying to avoid being eaten by crocodiles.
The scenes among the villains are well done, helped by George Macready playing Radijeck; it’s also a good idea that Radijeck has a history with Tarzan and Jane but this is disappointingly undeveloped (apparently Radijeck was “nursed back to health” by Jane… is that code for he raped her or something?)
Byron Haskin directed, and you can feel him making an effort to raise this above the usual Barker Tarzan opus. And for a lot of the running time he succeeds: the action scenes are well done, the villains very strong; the only thing that really drags it down are the Tarzan-Jane scenes (actually all the Jane scenes) and some poorly-integrated cheetah action.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Book review – “Mad as Hell: The Life and Work of Paddy Chayefsky” by Shaun Considine
Excellent bio on one of the few screenwriters who deserve on: Chayefsky, superstar on the small screen (he really was, TV writers got all the publicity at that time), who became a popular playwright in the late 50s and early 60s before falling out of favour, then coming back as a screenwriter-producer in the 70s. Considine’s work benefits from the extensive Chayefsky papers available as well as co-operation from Chayefsky’s son (with whom he had a difficult relationship). It uses as its central theme there were two Chayefskys: calm “Sidney” and the outrageous “Paddy”.
It’s no wonder Chayefsky was a hero to so many writers (Joe Eszterhas for one) – he was extremely talented, worked hard, fought lots of battles, was smart, earned the devotion of other writers, conquered three mediums (he also published a novel, an early draft of Altered States), had a long career, served in the war and received a purple heart, had an affair with Kim Novak, became powerful enough to sack directors from his films (Michael Ritchie from Hospital and Arthur Penn from Altered States), won three Oscars, had manic depression, told Clive Barnes to not review his new play. It seems he could be a bit of a handful at times (rampaging ego, etc) but the good clearly outweighed the bad.
Many memorable segments: his bromance with Bob Fosse and Herb Gardner (Fosse danced a little tap dance at Chayefsky’s funeral), the tale of Chayefksy’s tortured marriage (have a theory: sometimes writers prefer unhappy marriages, it gives them material). I think Chayefksy had issues when it came to sex – the Novak affair seems to have been the exception rather than the rule and sex is often dysfunctional in his screenplays.
There are detailed accounts of the production of all of Chayefsky’s major works, including all his plays and major screenplays. I was surprised Chayefsky wrote so many unfilmed pilots for television – what a waste. Also can’t help wishing that Sidney Lumet directed Altered States and that they’d made a film of The Hannukak Conspiracy. But a marvellous life and career.
It’s no wonder Chayefsky was a hero to so many writers (Joe Eszterhas for one) – he was extremely talented, worked hard, fought lots of battles, was smart, earned the devotion of other writers, conquered three mediums (he also published a novel, an early draft of Altered States), had a long career, served in the war and received a purple heart, had an affair with Kim Novak, became powerful enough to sack directors from his films (Michael Ritchie from Hospital and Arthur Penn from Altered States), won three Oscars, had manic depression, told Clive Barnes to not review his new play. It seems he could be a bit of a handful at times (rampaging ego, etc) but the good clearly outweighed the bad.
Many memorable segments: his bromance with Bob Fosse and Herb Gardner (Fosse danced a little tap dance at Chayefsky’s funeral), the tale of Chayefksy’s tortured marriage (have a theory: sometimes writers prefer unhappy marriages, it gives them material). I think Chayefksy had issues when it came to sex – the Novak affair seems to have been the exception rather than the rule and sex is often dysfunctional in his screenplays.
There are detailed accounts of the production of all of Chayefsky’s major works, including all his plays and major screenplays. I was surprised Chayefsky wrote so many unfilmed pilots for television – what a waste. Also can’t help wishing that Sidney Lumet directed Altered States and that they’d made a film of The Hannukak Conspiracy. But a marvellous life and career.
Theatre review – “Camino Real” by Tennessee Williams
A bit of a cult fave amongst Williams admirers – it was one of the few non-hits during his “hot” period, despite being directed by Elia Kazan, who later blamed this partly on some miscasting. But even had it been cast properly surely it was a bit too trippy to work. Some vivid images and scenes and it’s never boring, and bits of it have lingered. But it feels at times like it was written after Tennessee had a few to drink and too many beans the night before. Apparently you can divide writers into Arthur Miller fans or Tennessee Williams fans (like you can Sunset Boulevard vs Casablanca) – I think I’m Arthur Miller.
Movie review – “Invisible Stripes” (1939) **1/2
I was encouraged to look at this film after a positive review in George Raft’s recent biography, but it’s pretty run of the mill stuff. Raft is an ex-con just out of gaol and trying to go straight – but society won’t let him. William Holden plays his younger brother and Bogie is his former cell mate. Holden hadn’t grown into his looks yet and isn’t as effective as he’d be when he hit middle age, but Bogart is very good – indeed, you kind of wish that he’d play Raft’s role. It needn’t have been that way, because Raft is actually okay and makes an interesting contrast with Bogart – smoother, better looking – but they down-play that for this film. There is a promising subplot where Bogart sticks up for Raft despite his gang’s dislike of Raft, but Bogie’s part is actually quite small; more screen time is given to Raft hoping Holden will stay on the straight and narrow, which isn’t nearly as interesting.
Jane Bryan, who specialised in dull characters in Warners movies, plays Holden’s dull fiancée. There’s one scene where she goes on and on about fancy stuff and overseas trips and Holden snaps at her; I think we’re meant to think “gee poor Jane being snapped at like that” but the way she craps on about it my sympathy’s all with Holden. Structurally I felt the main problem was it took too long for Raft to resort to a life of crime – you know this is what’s going to happen, so why not get there as soon as you can? Also Raft lacks a love interest; he spends too much time mooning over his mother (Flora Robson in makeup), which seems more at home in an MGM film. Still, it moves along and picks up towards the end when the bang-bang starts.
Jane Bryan, who specialised in dull characters in Warners movies, plays Holden’s dull fiancée. There’s one scene where she goes on and on about fancy stuff and overseas trips and Holden snaps at her; I think we’re meant to think “gee poor Jane being snapped at like that” but the way she craps on about it my sympathy’s all with Holden. Structurally I felt the main problem was it took too long for Raft to resort to a life of crime – you know this is what’s going to happen, so why not get there as soon as you can? Also Raft lacks a love interest; he spends too much time mooning over his mother (Flora Robson in makeup), which seems more at home in an MGM film. Still, it moves along and picks up towards the end when the bang-bang starts.
Movie review – Flynn #7 – “Green Light” (1937) **
Errol Flynn in “dreamy” mode, making a picture for the ladies – he plays a handsome doctor who takes the blame for the ineptitude of another doctor. Errol drives around in a sports car, smoking cigarettes and has women fall in love with him left right and centre – his nurse with unrequited love, his patient who subsequently dies, said patient’s daughter. Even then men seem to have crushes on him – the devoted research doctor who wants Errol to come with him to the mountains and find a cure for spotted fever, the dean who offers advice to all and sundry, the doctor whose negligence causes Errol’s disgrace. At the end of the film most of them are gathered round Errol’s bedside through ten minutes or so of “almost deathbed acting” as Errol fights spotted fever in order to test a serum.
This is based on a novel by Lloyd C Douglas, who wrote Magnificent Obsession and The Robe, so there’s a lot of non-ironic talk about God and love, plus some comic stuff with a dog called Sylvia (to whom Errol asks “what’s it all about?”). Actually, come to think of it, it’s more accurate to say there’s a comic moment – the rest of the film is deadly earnest, with violins constantly playing. Errol’s performance is fine – there’s not really much for him to do, his character doesn’t really go on any sort of journey: he’s a nice guy to start off with, he only gets in trouble because he does something noble; he hits the bottle one time and doesn’t believe in religion, but that’s about it. I remember Paramount tried out Alan Ladd as a doctor in a woman's picture soon after he discovered stardom too.
Cedric Hardwick plays a preacher who delivers a series of sermons about the importance of suffering and who the characters visit every now and then for pep talks. Margaret Lindsay is the pretty nurse who just doesn’t have a chance next to prettier (and richer) Anita Louise. Laugh if you will (and you should) but this sort of stuff was popular at the time. It’s a pretty awful sort of film, unvinvolving with dull characters – but its sheer oddness makes it watchable. There’s a very good analysis of the film at http://twtd.bluemountains.net.au/Rick/gl.htm.
This is based on a novel by Lloyd C Douglas, who wrote Magnificent Obsession and The Robe, so there’s a lot of non-ironic talk about God and love, plus some comic stuff with a dog called Sylvia (to whom Errol asks “what’s it all about?”). Actually, come to think of it, it’s more accurate to say there’s a comic moment – the rest of the film is deadly earnest, with violins constantly playing. Errol’s performance is fine – there’s not really much for him to do, his character doesn’t really go on any sort of journey: he’s a nice guy to start off with, he only gets in trouble because he does something noble; he hits the bottle one time and doesn’t believe in religion, but that’s about it. I remember Paramount tried out Alan Ladd as a doctor in a woman's picture soon after he discovered stardom too.
Cedric Hardwick plays a preacher who delivers a series of sermons about the importance of suffering and who the characters visit every now and then for pep talks. Margaret Lindsay is the pretty nurse who just doesn’t have a chance next to prettier (and richer) Anita Louise. Laugh if you will (and you should) but this sort of stuff was popular at the time. It’s a pretty awful sort of film, unvinvolving with dull characters – but its sheer oddness makes it watchable. There’s a very good analysis of the film at http://twtd.bluemountains.net.au/Rick/gl.htm.
Movie review – Tarzan #14 - “Tarzan and the Slave Girl” (1950) **
The Zoolander Tarzan, Lex Barker, is given a new Jane in Vanessa Brown – no real improvement on Brenda Joyce, she’s like Tarzan’s slightly underage girlfriend. (How come Tarzan got to strut around in a loincloth while Jane only showed a bit of midriff?). The plot of this one involves girls who are abducted by members of (yet another predominantly white) lost civilisation looking for a cure.
This is like the eighth film in a row which features a more interesting female character than Jane (even though the last six had Jane in them) – in this case a French nurse, Lola (Denise Darcel) who pants over Tarzan and winds up abducted with Jane. She’s a great character – wild, sexually uninhibited, spunky; Robert Alda is her love interest and you know he’ll have her hands full with her down the track.
Barker still looks like he’s on his way to a tanning session at a Paddington gym, but he’s a bit more comfortable in the role now – and he does give Tarzan a bit more intelligence than Weismuller did (Barker’s Tarzan is more of a grown up). Tarzan is treated as a sex object here for the first time in a while, with Lola panting over Tarzan at an infirmary – she and Jane even have a cat fight (Jane flips her – alright!).
The soldiers from the lost civilisation are dressed like Robin Hood’s merry men, complete with bows and arrows. Cheetah gets drunk, there is quite a suspenseful sequence where Tarzan is leading an expedition and it all goes silent (this lasts around five minutes. There’s also a decent finale where they’re going to throw a nice priest to the lions.
This is like the eighth film in a row which features a more interesting female character than Jane (even though the last six had Jane in them) – in this case a French nurse, Lola (Denise Darcel) who pants over Tarzan and winds up abducted with Jane. She’s a great character – wild, sexually uninhibited, spunky; Robert Alda is her love interest and you know he’ll have her hands full with her down the track.
Barker still looks like he’s on his way to a tanning session at a Paddington gym, but he’s a bit more comfortable in the role now – and he does give Tarzan a bit more intelligence than Weismuller did (Barker’s Tarzan is more of a grown up). Tarzan is treated as a sex object here for the first time in a while, with Lola panting over Tarzan at an infirmary – she and Jane even have a cat fight (Jane flips her – alright!).
The soldiers from the lost civilisation are dressed like Robin Hood’s merry men, complete with bows and arrows. Cheetah gets drunk, there is quite a suspenseful sequence where Tarzan is leading an expedition and it all goes silent (this lasts around five minutes. There’s also a decent finale where they’re going to throw a nice priest to the lions.
Movie review – Tarzan#13 – “Tarzan’s Magic Fountain” (1949) **
Johnny Weismuller finally grew too old to play the Lord of the Jungle (though it would be fun to see an elderly Tarzan in at least one film), so producer Sol Lesser went looking for a replacement. He came up with Lex Barker, a handsome model type who has the physique for the part but doesn’t quite work; Weismuller bought a real dimension to Tarzan, a sense of child-like wonder and savagery – Barker just looks like this male model with well-groomed hair. So in a way it’s kind of appropriate he co-stars with the unmemorable Brenda Joyce as Jane, who also looks like a model stuck in the studio jungle.
I understand they wanted to give the series some continuity but it’s a shame they didn’t grab the opportunity to introduce a new Jane. Joyce was always going to be up against it following Maureen O’Sullivan, and she faced competition in her films from more interesting female characters – Amazons, Huntress, Mermaids, and in this one a female aviatrix who has discovered the secret of youth. But the fact is she’s not very good; she’s bland and nagging, too contemporary, and wears lots of clothes all the time so she can’t distract with her body. (Is this why all those films had strong female characters? Because of Joyce?)
The plot is at least a bit different (Curt Siodmark was a co-writer); Tarzan discovers the diary of a lost Amelia Earhart-like flier – apparently a man was blamed for said flyer’s murder, but she’s alive and living in eternal youth land… looking like Evelyn Ankers. Tarzan knew where she was all this time, without telling Jane – which leads one to surmise that he ducked over for a bit of nooky (like he presumably did with the Amazons). Ankers comes back to society, meaning that she will age… which is quite an emotionally powerful story, when you think about it – it sets up a good conflict between Jane (who wants to escort her back to eternal youth land) and Tarzan (who has promised to keep the land secret). Of course baddies go about tracking down the fountain of eternal youth and Tarzan has to stop them – so it’s not super different but at least there’s that eternal youth twist.
There’s a decent action finale, with Tarzan and Jane ducking fire arrows set off by more militant members of the lost civilisation (who, you know something, are perfectly justified – Tarzan has told a whole heap of people about their wold). And there are some actual black people in this too, as opposed to Arabs or Puerto Ricans. (Not playing members of the lost youthful civilisation though – they’re all as whitebread as they come.)
I understand they wanted to give the series some continuity but it’s a shame they didn’t grab the opportunity to introduce a new Jane. Joyce was always going to be up against it following Maureen O’Sullivan, and she faced competition in her films from more interesting female characters – Amazons, Huntress, Mermaids, and in this one a female aviatrix who has discovered the secret of youth. But the fact is she’s not very good; she’s bland and nagging, too contemporary, and wears lots of clothes all the time so she can’t distract with her body. (Is this why all those films had strong female characters? Because of Joyce?)
The plot is at least a bit different (Curt Siodmark was a co-writer); Tarzan discovers the diary of a lost Amelia Earhart-like flier – apparently a man was blamed for said flyer’s murder, but she’s alive and living in eternal youth land… looking like Evelyn Ankers. Tarzan knew where she was all this time, without telling Jane – which leads one to surmise that he ducked over for a bit of nooky (like he presumably did with the Amazons). Ankers comes back to society, meaning that she will age… which is quite an emotionally powerful story, when you think about it – it sets up a good conflict between Jane (who wants to escort her back to eternal youth land) and Tarzan (who has promised to keep the land secret). Of course baddies go about tracking down the fountain of eternal youth and Tarzan has to stop them – so it’s not super different but at least there’s that eternal youth twist.
There’s a decent action finale, with Tarzan and Jane ducking fire arrows set off by more militant members of the lost civilisation (who, you know something, are perfectly justified – Tarzan has told a whole heap of people about their wold). And there are some actual black people in this too, as opposed to Arabs or Puerto Ricans. (Not playing members of the lost youthful civilisation though – they’re all as whitebread as they come.)
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Movie review – Errol #44 - “Crossed Swords” (1954) **
You’d expect the Italian film industry to embrace Errol the lover and party boy, and so they have: the rapidly-aging legend is extremely well cast as a Don Juan type, a lecherous Italian noble who gets involved in dukedom politics. Indeed, the film owes more than a debt to The Adventures of Don Juan, with lots of jokes about Errol being a womanizer yet at that same time being loyal to the government, and a subplot where the duchy tries to force the male population into matrimony (this is never quite integrated into the story as well as it could have).
Despite the great role for Errol, this is one of his lesser movies. Milton Krim’s script and direction lack spark, and the film is fatally undercast: Cesar Danova has no charisma as Errol’s partner in crime (oh, for Alan Hale or David Niven to have played this part), and the villains are weak; Gina Lollobrigida is beautiful as the female lead but she has little chemistry with Errol.
There are some impressive sets and costumes plus Jack Cardiff’s cinematography (though the print I saw was pretty crappy I’m guessing it was just the print) and some okay action. Errol gets to pretend to be a coward in one scene and is surprisingly convincing. He fights an above-average duel at the end.
Despite the great role for Errol, this is one of his lesser movies. Milton Krim’s script and direction lack spark, and the film is fatally undercast: Cesar Danova has no charisma as Errol’s partner in crime (oh, for Alan Hale or David Niven to have played this part), and the villains are weak; Gina Lollobrigida is beautiful as the female lead but she has little chemistry with Errol.
There are some impressive sets and costumes plus Jack Cardiff’s cinematography (though the print I saw was pretty crappy I’m guessing it was just the print) and some okay action. Errol gets to pretend to be a coward in one scene and is surprisingly convincing. He fights an above-average duel at the end.
Movie review – Errol #46 - “The Warriors” (1955) **
A meeting of two Aussie acting legends – Errol Flynn and Peter Finch, roisterers, lady-killers, Jamaican residents, heart attack victims. It’s set during the Hundred Years War when Edward III is trying to make the peace – which means the French recognising English sovereignty over Aquitaine. Finch is a French nobleman understandably reluctant to this, even though he’s supposed to be the baddy. Indeed, when Finch vows at the beginning of the film to continue the fight against the occupying invaders, you think that Finch is closer to Robin Hood than Errol, who plays the Black Prince.
The film tries to make up for it by having the French peasants complain to the English that the French nobles are taxing them… but it just doesn’t feel right. You can’t help but be on Finch’s side. It picks up after a bit when Errol gets cut off from his men and is forced to go undercover as the Black Knight – he even befriends Finch; now that’s a situation for a really strong movie, but it’s not really exploited the way it could have been.
This was Errol’s final big screen swashbuckler and looks surprisingly handsome (the film, not Errol). I’d been led to believe his mid 50s films were low budget works but there’s plenty of colour and impressive production values, with plenty of castles, knights on horseback, and fighting, plus Michael Hordern (as Errol’s dad!) and Finch in the support cast. (There’s also later sitcom star Richard O’Sullivan as a whiny noble, a role he also played in Cleopatra and Dangerous Exile).
Errol is too old and portly to play a dashing prince; also, he’s shaved his moustache off, which makes him look even older (though the fact that his character spends a bit of the movie’s running time in black knight get up mean presumably it was more schedule-friendly for him - just like Alan Ladd in The Black Knight). He has a wheezy sword fight with a very young Chris Lee, and kills Finch with an axe. But generally pretty bland stuff.
The film tries to make up for it by having the French peasants complain to the English that the French nobles are taxing them… but it just doesn’t feel right. You can’t help but be on Finch’s side. It picks up after a bit when Errol gets cut off from his men and is forced to go undercover as the Black Knight – he even befriends Finch; now that’s a situation for a really strong movie, but it’s not really exploited the way it could have been.
This was Errol’s final big screen swashbuckler and looks surprisingly handsome (the film, not Errol). I’d been led to believe his mid 50s films were low budget works but there’s plenty of colour and impressive production values, with plenty of castles, knights on horseback, and fighting, plus Michael Hordern (as Errol’s dad!) and Finch in the support cast. (There’s also later sitcom star Richard O’Sullivan as a whiny noble, a role he also played in Cleopatra and Dangerous Exile).
Errol is too old and portly to play a dashing prince; also, he’s shaved his moustache off, which makes him look even older (though the fact that his character spends a bit of the movie’s running time in black knight get up mean presumably it was more schedule-friendly for him - just like Alan Ladd in The Black Knight). He has a wheezy sword fight with a very young Chris Lee, and kills Finch with an axe. But generally pretty bland stuff.
Movie review – Tarzan #11 – “Tarzan and the Huntress” (1947) **
Brenda Joyce’s third film as Jane and she still hadn’t managed to get any chemistry going with Johnny Weismuller. By this stage also Johnny Sheffield’s balls had dropped, meaning that Boy should really be renamed “Young Man”. The three of them frolic in a pool and watch cheetah fly a sort of glider thing but it’s not the same as when O’Sullivan was there.
Tarzan’s neighbours around this time were normally colonial outposts or hidden kingdoms. This one has him dealing with a full fledged independent kingdom, run by a kindly native king – perhaps a sign of the post-war times.
This one has a very strong conservation theme, even more so than usual: some hunters arrive looking for animals to take back to zoos; the nice king allows them to take a restricted amount but they want more and so support a nasty usurper. “Animals belong in jungle not in cages” says Tarzan. As usual the expedition contains some a mixture of good people (pretty girl, comic servant) and nasty (Barton MacLane – who was a villain in Tarzan and the Amazons). Cheetah winds up in a cage, a lioness is shot trying to protect her cubs… it’s pretty traumatic.
But despite the interesting conservation angle, this is one of the duller Weismuller Tarzans. It lacks excitement – mainly because our lead trio are rarely in danger. Jane does hardly anything the whole film, and you expect Boy or Tarzan to get involved in the hunters but they don’t really. The main one in danger is Cheetah, but this promising aspect isn’t really developed (it doesn’t make sense that Cheetah should be imprisoned by the hunters, then later on help them… just so he can use a compact.)
As usual, the death toll is quite high: Tarzan spears one henchman and stabs another, various wildlife are killed, the king is shot in front of his own son, the son is thrown off a cliff, elephants trample over everyone, etc, etc.
NB the pretty girl and comic servant are allowed to live at the end – for no real reason other than they’re pretty and comic. But they still are all for taking in excess of their quota and don’t really protest when really bad stuff happens and are part of blazing guns at the wildlife.
Tarzan’s neighbours around this time were normally colonial outposts or hidden kingdoms. This one has him dealing with a full fledged independent kingdom, run by a kindly native king – perhaps a sign of the post-war times.
This one has a very strong conservation theme, even more so than usual: some hunters arrive looking for animals to take back to zoos; the nice king allows them to take a restricted amount but they want more and so support a nasty usurper. “Animals belong in jungle not in cages” says Tarzan. As usual the expedition contains some a mixture of good people (pretty girl, comic servant) and nasty (Barton MacLane – who was a villain in Tarzan and the Amazons). Cheetah winds up in a cage, a lioness is shot trying to protect her cubs… it’s pretty traumatic.
But despite the interesting conservation angle, this is one of the duller Weismuller Tarzans. It lacks excitement – mainly because our lead trio are rarely in danger. Jane does hardly anything the whole film, and you expect Boy or Tarzan to get involved in the hunters but they don’t really. The main one in danger is Cheetah, but this promising aspect isn’t really developed (it doesn’t make sense that Cheetah should be imprisoned by the hunters, then later on help them… just so he can use a compact.)
As usual, the death toll is quite high: Tarzan spears one henchman and stabs another, various wildlife are killed, the king is shot in front of his own son, the son is thrown off a cliff, elephants trample over everyone, etc, etc.
NB the pretty girl and comic servant are allowed to live at the end – for no real reason other than they’re pretty and comic. But they still are all for taking in excess of their quota and don’t really protest when really bad stuff happens and are part of blazing guns at the wildlife.
Movie review – Tarzan #8 – “Tarzan’s Desert Mystery” (1943) ***
Tarzan gets out of the house for a change and heads to the desert, where he’s to pick up some medicine for Jane, who is off in London nursing the troops. We don’t see her, but there is a female lead – Nancy Kelly, who’s a lot of fun as a spunky American chorus girl out in the desert to entertain the troops who winds up getting involved with Tarzan and his ensuring clashes with Arabs and assorted Nazis.
There’s no romance between Kelly and Tarzan – though, like Tarzan Triumphs, I think you could read one into it. (They set up this American educated Arab to be Kelly’s love interest… then kill him off). Come to think of it, you could have had a bit more emotion in the film if you had Kelly fall in love with Tarzan (they kind of imply it at the end that she’d like to stay in the jungle with Tarzan and Boy).
Weismuller was starting to look pretty flabby around now (you can see him suck in his gut in a few scenes), but there’s plenty of action: rescuing someone from being hanged, a stampede of horses, a sandstorm, Boy winds up in a spider web and is attacked by a huge spider, Tarzan is trapped by a plant.
The desert setting is refreshing but the last 15 minutes are still set back in the jungle. The anti-Nazi propaganda is less overt in this one – the baddies are just there
There’s no romance between Kelly and Tarzan – though, like Tarzan Triumphs, I think you could read one into it. (They set up this American educated Arab to be Kelly’s love interest… then kill him off). Come to think of it, you could have had a bit more emotion in the film if you had Kelly fall in love with Tarzan (they kind of imply it at the end that she’d like to stay in the jungle with Tarzan and Boy).
Weismuller was starting to look pretty flabby around now (you can see him suck in his gut in a few scenes), but there’s plenty of action: rescuing someone from being hanged, a stampede of horses, a sandstorm, Boy winds up in a spider web and is attacked by a huge spider, Tarzan is trapped by a plant.
The desert setting is refreshing but the last 15 minutes are still set back in the jungle. The anti-Nazi propaganda is less overt in this one – the baddies are just there
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
TV review – “Errol Flynn Theatre – Rescued” (1957) **
In the late 50s Errol Flynn hosted and co-produced his own anthology TV series, in which he occasionally appeared. This instalment has him in a swashbuckling role; he plays a Royalist during the English Civil War who tries to rescue a captured general from the Parliamentarians. Pro-royalist swashbucklers are always a bit wonky because even though the cavaliers had the glamour, they’re still fighting against democracy for a dictator.
This story tries to duck around it by having the villain be an ambitious soldier who wants to get on to Cromwell’s staff – but it still leaves a bit of a nasty taste in the mouth. Not much action – most of this has Errol running around taverns, getting up to spy escapades. Unlike Sword of Villon, Errol’s age and weeziness counts against him here; it’s alright, but really only for Errol completists.
Andrew Keir has a support role.
Theatre review – “39 Steps”
A fun romp, perhaps more fun if seen at a fringe revenue rather than the Opera House, where there seems to be less excuse for tattiness. But why no credit for Charles Bennett? The play is basically the film – Bennett deserves a credit as much as Hitchcock. Needs the cast to get into it - no room for passengers.
TV review – “Screen Directors Playhouse - Sword of Villon” (1956) **
When you look back an actually crunch the numbers, Errol Flynn only made a few swashbucklers in the 30s and 40s, but they were so definitive that they remain the genre for which he is best remembered. He actually made far more in the 1950s, few of which are remembered at all – especially the ones he made for television. This was Errol’s first small screen appearance, an episode of the anthology Screen Director’s Playhouse.
It was helmed by George Waggner, perhaps best remembered for the Wolfman, who actually introduces the episode, and only goes for 30 minutes.
Errol plays the true life French poet Villon, who apparently spent a lot of time in taverns and was a bit of a rogue, so the role suits Errol in this stage of his career. Villon is out to stop an assassination of the French king. There’s a sword fight, a masked ball, a bit of romance. It’s not great; not bad, though. More of interest as a curiosity piece than anything else but it’s not awful by any means.
Movie review – “The Bank Job” (2008) ***
Enjoyable British caper film, reminiscent in spirit to The Italian Job – indeed, it would have made a perfect vehicle for Michael Caine. Come to think of it, Caine at 70-odd would have made a more lively star than Jason Statham, the bald tough-talking former competitive diver who has nonetheless carved out an impressive career for himself as an action hero.
Statham’s alright, I suppose – he does at least look like a crim, and I have nothing but respect with how he’s managed his career (anyone not above playing a small role in Collateral just to work with Michael Mann is alright by me) – you just can’t help wishing for a more engaging lead, especially when the female star is the pretty-especially-in-the-early-70s-fashions-but-not-very-good-actor Saffrom Burrows.
But the period detail is enjoyable, especially that whole early 70s Britain-in-decline-lords-as-MPs-sex-clubs-porn-barons-black-power stuff. It was a time when the country was up the spout but when there was still enough concern about the royal family to stop the cops prosecuting villains and to have the intelligence services arrange an entire bank robbery in order to nab some incriminating photos. Good, solid script that really demonstrates the power of narrative (lots of story). Could have done with a bit more humour – I think it’s in the script but Roger Donaldson’s never been a light director (though he's an excellent one - just not Mr Comedy).
Statham’s alright, I suppose – he does at least look like a crim, and I have nothing but respect with how he’s managed his career (anyone not above playing a small role in Collateral just to work with Michael Mann is alright by me) – you just can’t help wishing for a more engaging lead, especially when the female star is the pretty-especially-in-the-early-70s-fashions-but-not-very-good-actor Saffrom Burrows.
But the period detail is enjoyable, especially that whole early 70s Britain-in-decline-lords-as-MPs-sex-clubs-porn-barons-black-power stuff. It was a time when the country was up the spout but when there was still enough concern about the royal family to stop the cops prosecuting villains and to have the intelligence services arrange an entire bank robbery in order to nab some incriminating photos. Good, solid script that really demonstrates the power of narrative (lots of story). Could have done with a bit more humour – I think it’s in the script but Roger Donaldson’s never been a light director (though he's an excellent one - just not Mr Comedy).
Book review – “George Raft: The Man Who Would be Bogart” by Stone Wallace
I thought Lewis Yablonsky’s biography had Raft covered but this is a decent addition to Raft-ology. It has the advantage of being written after Raft’s death, so can be a little more critical of the star, his performances, etc eg access to Raft’s (considerably large) FBI file. The author has affection for Raft, plus the inevitable frustration that he could be such a dufus with his career. Despite all Raft’s troubles towards the end of his life (tax, career), I was glad to hear he spent his last few years in some comfort – despite having little money he was able to rely on the kindness of strangers, i.e. gangsters.
Movie review – “Souls at Sea” (1937) ***
George Raft was a lot more effective when teamed with another tough guy actor – Bogie in They Drive By Night, Robinson in Manpower, Gary Copper in this. Indeed, he actually outshines Cooper here – this was a judgment of Raft biographer Stone Wallace and I was surprised to read it, but having actually seen the film, he’s dead right. Of course, he has the better role: Cooper is just his tight lipped honourable self (there’s even a scene where he sulks out of principle in a court room and won’t give evidence to get himself acquitted of a criminal charge, just like in Mr Deeds), whereas Raft gets to where an earring, be a scoundrel with a heart of gold, be unable to hack hanging by his thumbs, has a girlfriend who dies, etc.
The plot, if I get this right, has Cooper as a slaver who is anti slavery so he actually lets slaves go whenever he can. This is notice by British secret agent George Zucco, who gets Cooper to go undercover. Raft is Cooper’s mate. At times this seems a bit hacked-about-with, especially to start off with (the whole Cooper-as-amateur-anti-slaver thing – they should have stared with him as an agent). The story could have been stronger – would have been better Cooper undercover on an actual slave vessel, where the threat of exposure had greater stakes, instead of just on a transatlantic voyage, with the final fire due to slave stuff rather than an accident; maybe also better with a stronger villain than Henry Wilcoxon (his performance is fine, just the character could have been more evil).
But it’s enjoyable, the period setting is fun, there is a spectacular storm and fire sequence on the boat, Henry Hathaway directs in a robust, brisk fashion, and it’s great to see Raft really holding his own in something. Also, the climax of this is ethically fascinating: Cooper throws a bunch of people off a lifeboat so the boat won’t overload; I mean, he’s got an arguable case (the boat would likely sink), but he punches some of these guys out and shoots others… it’s odd behaviour for a Hollywood hero. Not surprisingly, he later goes on trial for this, which opens and ends the film – but it only ends with him getting a re-trial. He could still be hung. Bob Cummings has an early role as one of the people on the boat; Alan Ladd is supposed to be in it too, as a sailor.
The plot, if I get this right, has Cooper as a slaver who is anti slavery so he actually lets slaves go whenever he can. This is notice by British secret agent George Zucco, who gets Cooper to go undercover. Raft is Cooper’s mate. At times this seems a bit hacked-about-with, especially to start off with (the whole Cooper-as-amateur-anti-slaver thing – they should have stared with him as an agent). The story could have been stronger – would have been better Cooper undercover on an actual slave vessel, where the threat of exposure had greater stakes, instead of just on a transatlantic voyage, with the final fire due to slave stuff rather than an accident; maybe also better with a stronger villain than Henry Wilcoxon (his performance is fine, just the character could have been more evil).
But it’s enjoyable, the period setting is fun, there is a spectacular storm and fire sequence on the boat, Henry Hathaway directs in a robust, brisk fashion, and it’s great to see Raft really holding his own in something. Also, the climax of this is ethically fascinating: Cooper throws a bunch of people off a lifeboat so the boat won’t overload; I mean, he’s got an arguable case (the boat would likely sink), but he punches some of these guys out and shoots others… it’s odd behaviour for a Hollywood hero. Not surprisingly, he later goes on trial for this, which opens and ends the film – but it only ends with him getting a re-trial. He could still be hung. Bob Cummings has an early role as one of the people on the boat; Alan Ladd is supposed to be in it too, as a sailor.
Movie review – “Manpower” (1941) ***
George Raft is better remembered today for the roles he turned down while at Warners, but this is one he actually made, an excellent little tough melodrama reminiscent of They Drive By Night (apparently Bogart was meant to co-star but Raft put the kybosh on it). Actually come to think of it, it’s like most Warners melos, about two buddies and the dame that comes between them – apparently Tiger Shark was the first, of which this is pretty much a remake. Edgar G Robinson and Raft work on the powerlines – right on! – so they spend a lot of time clambering up in rain and getting electrocuted, working hard and playing hard. Marlene Dietrich is the daughter of a co-worker, who’s spent a year in the slammer. She marries Robinson but she really likes Raft – everyone’s well cast, Dietrich is fun, Robinson great, the support cast includes (of course) Alan Hale and Ward Bond, it was co-written by (of course) Jerry Wald, co-produced by (of course) Mark Hellinger, and directed by (of course) Raoul Walsh.
Raft is enjoyable (though when he talks about slapping Dietrich you can’t help thinking “Bogie would have played that better” – although Raft is more handsome so it is more believable Dietrich would go for him). John Flaus wrote this excellent analysis of Raft in his review of the film:
Raft was perfectly suited to the role of Johnny. Boyhood friend of hoodlums, gigolo (he worked the same beat as Rudolf Valentino), tango dancer (Fred Astaire said Raft was the best he had seen), and subsequent victim of the blacklist (on "moral", not political grounds), he was a narrow and inflexible actor, a rasping tightlipped steely icon whose definitive star quality was not stiffness (as he is often described) but stillness. With deftly judged lighting to catch the glitter in his eye he could do more with the slightest movement than anyone else in the business - male or female. And when the story called for rough stuff he could strike with the suddenness of a snake.
Well put, Flaus! They just don’t make tough films like this any more.
Raft is enjoyable (though when he talks about slapping Dietrich you can’t help thinking “Bogie would have played that better” – although Raft is more handsome so it is more believable Dietrich would go for him). John Flaus wrote this excellent analysis of Raft in his review of the film:
Raft was perfectly suited to the role of Johnny. Boyhood friend of hoodlums, gigolo (he worked the same beat as Rudolf Valentino), tango dancer (Fred Astaire said Raft was the best he had seen), and subsequent victim of the blacklist (on "moral", not political grounds), he was a narrow and inflexible actor, a rasping tightlipped steely icon whose definitive star quality was not stiffness (as he is often described) but stillness. With deftly judged lighting to catch the glitter in his eye he could do more with the slightest movement than anyone else in the business - male or female. And when the story called for rough stuff he could strike with the suddenness of a snake.
Well put, Flaus! They just don’t make tough films like this any more.
Movie review – Tarzan #7 - “Tarzan Triumphs” (1943) ***
For whatever reason MGM got sick of the Tarzan franchise so Johnny Weismuller, Johnny Sheffield and Cheetah moved over to RKO, where they found a welcome home for a number of years. (Eventually the series would wind up back at MGM). Maureen O’Sullivan was sick of Jane and didn’t come with them – apparently she wanted better roles or something, which of course she didn’t end up getting. In this film Jane’s absence is explained by saying she’s away in London. Tarzan is being an isolationist about the war, even when Nazis arrive in Africa with the aim of extracting oil from the secret civilisation next door. One of the Nazis tries to shoot Cheetah after Cheetah pinches a part from his radio, but after said Nazi is chucked off a cliff Tarzan refuses to go after his mates. It’s not until they shoot at Tarzan and Boy that he gets aggro: “Tarzan make war”. (NB You can’t help feeling glad that some nasty British soldier didn’t shoot Boy while on patrol, and turn Tarzan into an Axis ally).
There’s a very attractive jungle princess called Zandra, though apparently there’s no nookie going on between her and Tarzan. I liked the scene where Zandra makes Tarzan a home cooked meal to try to persuade him to fight Nazis (it doesn’t work – maybe she should have offered sex.) Violent albeit cartoonish finale, where Cheetah shoots a Nazi with a machine gun and Boy shoots a Nazi with a gun! (But then this is more of the war-is-fun Hollywood school with the Nazis as a joke eg Desperate Journey – the final gag has the Germans think Cheetah talks to them in German.) Good, silly Nazi-bashing fun.
There’s a very attractive jungle princess called Zandra, though apparently there’s no nookie going on between her and Tarzan. I liked the scene where Zandra makes Tarzan a home cooked meal to try to persuade him to fight Nazis (it doesn’t work – maybe she should have offered sex.) Violent albeit cartoonish finale, where Cheetah shoots a Nazi with a machine gun and Boy shoots a Nazi with a gun! (But then this is more of the war-is-fun Hollywood school with the Nazis as a joke eg Desperate Journey – the final gag has the Germans think Cheetah talks to them in German.) Good, silly Nazi-bashing fun.
Documentary review – “Inside the Marx Brothers” (1999) ***1/2
Enjoyable hour-long doco on the famous brothers. These films are always fun, done in a similar style – you don’t hear many new stories or discover much new information, but the vision is terrific: glimpses of the Harpo’s appearance in a silent film, home movies (a tanned Harpo, Groucho mucking around with his alcoholic wife), Harpo playing the harp in Soviet Russia, that terrific moment of Chico playing “Waltzing Matilda” to Aussie servicemen (used in Newsfront), Groucho and Carole Landis performing for the Marines, Harpo performing on stage in 1945, the pilot for the TV version of You Bet Your Life, Grouch on television with Tallulah Bankhead and Ethel Barrymore, a taped interview with Harpo, the final television pilot with the three brothers. Wonderful. Groucho married three alcoholics – c’mon, Groucho, to marry one may be unfortunate, to marry two looks like carelessness.
Movie review – “Action in Arabia” (1944) ***
One of my favourite books at high school (I fully realise this types me as a major film nerd) was The RKO Story, an excellent history of the most under-achieving major studio of them all. (There are a bunch of similar studio histories – The MGM Story, The Paramount Story, etc, and I’ve read them all… The RKO Story remains the best.) Ever since then I’ve had a soft spot for RKO movies – the slightly odd nature of them; they always seemed a bit less respectable or something than those made by the other majors: Bob Mitchum thrillers, Jane Russell musicals, Howard Hughes vanity projects, never-ending remakes of Seven Keys to Baldpate, Tim Holt Westerns. I always wanted to see Action in Arabia – it sounded so junky and exciting. Years later I got the chance to see it – and what do you know I was right.
The influence of Casablanca is all over the first half of this film, from its thumping opening montage (about the Arab world rather than Casablanca), it’s world weary hero, casino setting, Nazi agents, and dodgy French police. George Sanders is the smooth journo investigating a mystery in Damascus. He acts like the typical bored Sanders, full of dripping vowels and sophistication, but he’s also pretty handy with a bit of rough stuff.
Then in the second half Sanders goes out into the desert and this becomes more of an action movie: enemy camps, shoot outs, dressing up as Arabs, and a big finale. Good B movie fun. Virginia Bruce isn’t much as the femme fetale-or-is-she (if I’m not mistaken she kills a guard in cold blood and gets away with it) but Gene Lochardt is fun as a shonk and Alan Napier makes an enjoyable villain.
The influence of Casablanca is all over the first half of this film, from its thumping opening montage (about the Arab world rather than Casablanca), it’s world weary hero, casino setting, Nazi agents, and dodgy French police. George Sanders is the smooth journo investigating a mystery in Damascus. He acts like the typical bored Sanders, full of dripping vowels and sophistication, but he’s also pretty handy with a bit of rough stuff.
Then in the second half Sanders goes out into the desert and this becomes more of an action movie: enemy camps, shoot outs, dressing up as Arabs, and a big finale. Good B movie fun. Virginia Bruce isn’t much as the femme fetale-or-is-she (if I’m not mistaken she kills a guard in cold blood and gets away with it) but Gene Lochardt is fun as a shonk and Alan Napier makes an enjoyable villain.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Book review – "Television plays" by Reginald Rose
Rose was one of the big four of television writers in the 50s, so it is only appropriate he got a published collection of his work like the others. This includes the work for which Rose is best remembered, ‘Twelve Angry Men”, which made a terrific movie and play so I wasn’t surprised to see it just as effective as a teleplay – I mean, it’s all there. (It’s such a good idea no wonder it was expanded).
“The Remarkable Incident at Carson Corners” is a bold piece which surely owes a debt to Priestly’s “The Inspector Calls”, i.e. a who-dunnit that turns in a we-all-did-it-because-we-are-all-our-brothers-keeper. It has this great start: a bunch of parents attending a school play put on by their children – and it turns out the children are putting a janitor on trial for being responsible for the death of another child.
“Crime in the Streets” is a look at juvenile delinquents with a great role for John Cassevetes – I don’t have to see him to know he would have been awesome in this part. It’s pretty tough and full on piece, though the character of the social worker has become a cliché: he speaks the language of the streets (right on), and just wants to relate to the kids (yeah).
“Thunder on Sycamore Street” is a fascinating inside of suburban mob violence – an ex con has moved into the street and the neighbours plan together to kick him out. It’s in three parts – we see a different point of view each time, and muck around in time. The story was clearly inspired by a black family moving into a white street but changed to be about an ex con – though Rose writes in his essay about the play that this had unexpected an advantage, in that it meant everyone could tell the story wasn’t really about an ex-con… but people assumed it was about a variety of issues (not just black - Jewish, Catholic, etc).
Rose went on to have great success and prestige with his legal drama series, The Defenders. In an odd post script, he wound up writing a bunch of action films for producer Euan Lloyd including The Wild Geese. Which just goes to show you never can tell how anyone is going to wind up. (NB I am not bagging these films at all - just saying it's a bit odd.)
“The Remarkable Incident at Carson Corners” is a bold piece which surely owes a debt to Priestly’s “The Inspector Calls”, i.e. a who-dunnit that turns in a we-all-did-it-because-we-are-all-our-brothers-keeper. It has this great start: a bunch of parents attending a school play put on by their children – and it turns out the children are putting a janitor on trial for being responsible for the death of another child.
“Crime in the Streets” is a look at juvenile delinquents with a great role for John Cassevetes – I don’t have to see him to know he would have been awesome in this part. It’s pretty tough and full on piece, though the character of the social worker has become a cliché: he speaks the language of the streets (right on), and just wants to relate to the kids (yeah).
“Thunder on Sycamore Street” is a fascinating inside of suburban mob violence – an ex con has moved into the street and the neighbours plan together to kick him out. It’s in three parts – we see a different point of view each time, and muck around in time. The story was clearly inspired by a black family moving into a white street but changed to be about an ex con – though Rose writes in his essay about the play that this had unexpected an advantage, in that it meant everyone could tell the story wasn’t really about an ex-con… but people assumed it was about a variety of issues (not just black - Jewish, Catholic, etc).
Rose went on to have great success and prestige with his legal drama series, The Defenders. In an odd post script, he wound up writing a bunch of action films for producer Euan Lloyd including The Wild Geese. Which just goes to show you never can tell how anyone is going to wind up. (NB I am not bagging these films at all - just saying it's a bit odd.)
Movie review – Marx #13 - “Love Happy” (1949) **
Originally devised as a vehicle for Harpo Marx, which then had the other brothers shoved in. Chico at least gets to play some parts with his brother, but Groucho’s scenes operate as a sort of framing device: narration, opening the film, etc – indicating a troubled production. He’s not in the film very long, but he’s the best thing about it. For one thing Groucho seemed to age better than the others – a dirty young man simply became a dirty old man. (The others were still funny even when older, just less funny, whereas Groucho wasn’t, if that makes sense). Also Groucho gets the best scene – leering as a young Marilyn Monroe. You couldn’t say from seeing this that she was going to be one of the all time great stars, she walks self-consciously, but she looks a million bucks. Illona Massey is fun too as the villainess.Most of the action centers around Harpo. A film centered around the old manic Harpo might have worked. But the later, cute Harpo doesn’t. Actually, just thinking about it, that’s not fair – maybe it could have worked, if done with the right touch. But this vehicle – which involves Harpo helping out a struggling theatre show, and getting involved with gangsters and stolen diamonds - is bland. Harpo is in love for the first time in this movie, with Vera Ellen… who of course loves someone else. Chaplin’s disease strikes again! At least there’s no orphans.
The theatre plot isn’t particularly engaging, either; I did like Vera Ellen, who is pretty and an excellent dancer, but they have this bland ballet dancer romantic lead for her (he can really dance, don’t get me wrong, but his character is a bit of a nong). Is this why the plot disappears in the last half hour? A film really only for completists of the Marx Bros, Marilyn Monroe, or Frank Tashlin (who worked on the script).
Movie review – Marx #12 - “A Night in Casablanca” (1946) ***1/2
The Marx Brothers had retired from movie making for a number of years until enticed back to make this efforts (mostly due to Chico’s debts, I understand) – and the result was the best of their later movies. There are some strong gags, solid story, and a great setting for the Marx Brothers – Casablanca after the war (setting it during the war perhaps would have been too serious), full of ex-Nazis, treacherous singers, dodgy French, Arabs. Like the sappiest MGM films, the brothers are helping a romantic duo, but this story is interesting (the male romantic lead is a French officer – played by the very American Charles Drake) – and the brothers have their own plot line (an omission which hurt many of the MGM films) – to wit, Groucho is managing a café which contains stolen treasure.Harpo has one of his best roles in ages, getting to wreck some decent havoc instead of hanging around in kids, and Groucho is strong. There’s no Margaret Dumont but Sig Ruman from Night at the Opera plays a Nazi and there’s a femme fetale to seduce Groucho. Dan Seymour, the poor man’s Sydney Greenstreet (but for all that an effective performer) is also on hand. A fun movie.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Movie review – A&C #36 – “Dance with Me, Henry” (1956) **
The final Abbott and Costello film is one of their worst, with the guys showing their age: raspy voices, the delivery a lot slower. Abbott in particular seems like an old man, who slurs his words and moves around awkwardly. This is really a Lou Costello film with Abbott in a support role. Costello is a kind hearted idiot who owns an amusement park and looks after strays including orphans (I’m not kidding) and Abbott, who is a gambling addict. That point is the most interesting thing about the film – the power balance between the two has shifted: Costello is the powerful one and Abbott (though he tries to bluster) seems like an elderly, slightly absent minded uncle; he’s the one who gets in to trouble.
A sign of the times: Costello’s nephew plays a skiffle and sings rock and roll (esque) songs. More of this might have made the film more interesting. But most of it is devoted to gangsters trying to get money off the boys, and Costello being accused of murder and likeable priests. Director Charles Barton made some of the duo’s best movies, but also some of their worst of which this is one. The chase scene in the amusement park at the end is okay – but more could have been made of this, indeed of the amusement park setting. The end has Costello leading a bunch of orphans Pied Piper style: now that would have made a better movie. (NB I know this is PC of me to say but I can’t help thinking it’s a bit dodgy that a middle aged bachelor is so keen to adopt orphans).
A sign of the times: Costello’s nephew plays a skiffle and sings rock and roll (esque) songs. More of this might have made the film more interesting. But most of it is devoted to gangsters trying to get money off the boys, and Costello being accused of murder and likeable priests. Director Charles Barton made some of the duo’s best movies, but also some of their worst of which this is one. The chase scene in the amusement park at the end is okay – but more could have been made of this, indeed of the amusement park setting. The end has Costello leading a bunch of orphans Pied Piper style: now that would have made a better movie. (NB I know this is PC of me to say but I can’t help thinking it’s a bit dodgy that a middle aged bachelor is so keen to adopt orphans).
Movie review – “The Dark Knight” (2008) ****1/2
Spectacular action film with many tremendous sequences and a thumping score. It felt a bit bloated at times and went on and on, but the performances are excellent and there is much to admire. Christian Bale got to act in his first outing as batsman but here things revert more to type with the support characters stealing the show: Maggie Gyllenhaul plugs the Katie Holmes talent hole from the first movie, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine do their thing, Gary Oldman is excellent as the honest Gordon (hard to do those unshowy roles but Oldman rises to the challenge), Aaron Eckhardt is very good as Harvey Dent, in many ways equal protagonist to Batman, and Heath Ledger is superb as the Joker.
I’m not just saying the last bit because he’s dead; Ledger’s is a unique performance – he couldn’t rely on his bigness like Nicholson, Ledger’s more a brooding actor, but he is big and weird with this amazing voice. It’s really, really good work.
Thinking on it, this is very much a post Sept 11 action film – it deals with the problems of terrorism, the moral issues in how to respond, the importance of media manipulation, innocent people die, the tone is dark. One thing I would point out – for all the angsting that goes on in this film, the act by our heroes that seems to cause most damage is when Oldman and Batman don’t simply kill the Joker when they have the chance.
I’m not just saying the last bit because he’s dead; Ledger’s is a unique performance – he couldn’t rely on his bigness like Nicholson, Ledger’s more a brooding actor, but he is big and weird with this amazing voice. It’s really, really good work.
Thinking on it, this is very much a post Sept 11 action film – it deals with the problems of terrorism, the moral issues in how to respond, the importance of media manipulation, innocent people die, the tone is dark. One thing I would point out – for all the angsting that goes on in this film, the act by our heroes that seems to cause most damage is when Oldman and Batman don’t simply kill the Joker when they have the chance.
Movie review – Marx #11 - “The Big Store” (1941) ***
The Marx Bros had had their balls cut off well and truly by this stage, especially Harpo, but this is better than Go West for two reasons: it is set in a more interesting world, i.e. a department store (Marx Bros were at their best in a decent playground) and Margaret Dumont is back. The latter means Groucho has something to do – Harpo is his secretary; Chico is (yawn snore) helping out kids again, but he has a fun piano duet with his brother. The low light of this one is a ten minute musical number performed by Tony Martin, The Tenement Symphony.Although it’s boring that Martin wants to sell his share in a department store to help kids (yeah right), it’s a good idea to have gangsters want to stop him and have Dumont hire Groucho as Martin’s bodyguard and there is a high spirited chase at the end of the film. Virginia Grey is very pretty, Douglas Dumbrille a good villain (as always) and it’s cute to see some kids playing piano Chico-style (i.e. with a pointed finger).
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Movie review – “The Guardian” (2006) **1/2
Too well made to be a craptacular classic, but too full of clichés to be a fresh take on a tried and true genre. It has a slightly different setting – coast guard rescue teams – but the basic situations are too familiar: tortured instructor with a past, cocky young kid with a past, training montages, token black (Dulee Hill from West Wing), romance with a pretty girl who puts down the cocky kid at first, throaty supporting female actor, shots of spunks in uniform, a brawl in a bar, you just know the finale would have been screen tested within an inch of its life (should he live or die?).
But it's done in this restrained style which kind of kills the fun. Ashton Kutcher decides not to overdo cocky... but then he has nowhere else to go (he must be a smart funny guy in real life, Kutcher, but it doesn’t come across here).
Also there’s not enough humour, and the support cast lacks charisma (if this was a Bruckheimer film you’d have Steve Buscemi and William Fichtner and what not). There is some impressive action sequences and a lovely bit of writing from a support character (a bar maid) about getting old.
But it's done in this restrained style which kind of kills the fun. Ashton Kutcher decides not to overdo cocky... but then he has nowhere else to go (he must be a smart funny guy in real life, Kutcher, but it doesn’t come across here).
Also there’s not enough humour, and the support cast lacks charisma (if this was a Bruckheimer film you’d have Steve Buscemi and William Fichtner and what not). There is some impressive action sequences and a lovely bit of writing from a support character (a bar maid) about getting old.
Movie review – Marx #10 - “Go West” (1940) **1/2
Marx Brothers go period – it’s the 1850s and they’re heading out west. It starts quite brightly with the three brothers trying to get on a coach but soon tapers off. Like many Westerns, the plot involves a fight over land – John Carrol sells some land to a railroad in order to help his fiancee’s grandfather and various uninteresting machinations result. I always hate plots where the Marxes are only motivated to unite the lovers – surely they could have fixed it so they could do that and make money? Also it’s annoying they have to unite these lovers – I mean, they won’t get together because their families hate each other – that’s a reason to stay apart? Boring.There are some bright things in this: Harpo facing off against a gun slinger, the brothers running rampant in a stage coach, the boys singing a cowboy song, Harpo playing the harp in an Indian village, a decent chase on a train. But not nearly enough. And no Margaret Dumont! There was no reason why a Marx Brothers period film couldn't have worked - they just needed something decent to do (eg be appointed sherrif of a town or something).
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Bob Cummings
Reading a book of Reginald Rose’s TV plays I was surprised to see that Bob Cummings originally played the role of Juror 8 on television in Twelve Angry Men – the do-gooder juror. This role was so perfectly played by a perfectly cast Henry Fonda in the film that he always leaps to my mind when I read the play. I wonder what Cummings was like – apparently he won an Emmy for the part, so good on him.
It was odd to see him pop up in Twelve Angry Men – but then Cummings tended to pop up oddly in a lot of things throughout his career. He popped up Abbott and Costello’s first film, Ronald Reagan’s best movie, two Hitchcocks, the first Beach Party movie, George Peppard’s biggest hit, Frank Tashlin’s first film as director. His credits include a Betty Grable musical, a really good pro-union rom com (The Devil and Miss Jones), a drama co-written by Ayn Rand (!), a Douglas Sirk thriller – it’s quite an odds and sods collection of credits for someone who had a reputation for only excelling in one genre, i.e. light comedy.
A quick peruse of the net reveals Cummings had something of an interesting start to his career – he pretending to be British to get a break in Hollywood, then pretending to be a Texan in Hollywood. Dwayne Hickman’s memoirs paint a picture of an eccentric Cummings when they both appeared in the sitcom The Bob Cummings Show (apparently very well regarded); I remember reading things in Variety where he would talk about vitamins, pitch a movie project about himself, and get involved in a financial scandal. Clearly, an actor to whom there was more than meets the eye.
It was odd to see him pop up in Twelve Angry Men – but then Cummings tended to pop up oddly in a lot of things throughout his career. He popped up Abbott and Costello’s first film, Ronald Reagan’s best movie, two Hitchcocks, the first Beach Party movie, George Peppard’s biggest hit, Frank Tashlin’s first film as director. His credits include a Betty Grable musical, a really good pro-union rom com (The Devil and Miss Jones), a drama co-written by Ayn Rand (!), a Douglas Sirk thriller – it’s quite an odds and sods collection of credits for someone who had a reputation for only excelling in one genre, i.e. light comedy.
A quick peruse of the net reveals Cummings had something of an interesting start to his career – he pretending to be British to get a break in Hollywood, then pretending to be a Texan in Hollywood. Dwayne Hickman’s memoirs paint a picture of an eccentric Cummings when they both appeared in the sitcom The Bob Cummings Show (apparently very well regarded); I remember reading things in Variety where he would talk about vitamins, pitch a movie project about himself, and get involved in a financial scandal. Clearly, an actor to whom there was more than meets the eye.
Movie review – A&C #21 - “The Noose Hangs High” (1948) **
The duo shifted over to Eagle Lion for this one, which has them as cleaners who accidentally lose some gangster money and go looking for it before they are killed. The story premises of Charles Barton movies were always quite strong and this is no exception – it could work as a thriller (indeed, it was: Two Hands). The gangster who is going to kill them (Joseph Calleia, in good form) is actually quite sympathetic – he just has to repay the money himself, and he’s understandably annoyed that a woman who accidentally receives the money (Cathy Downs) has blown most of it in about a day.
A highlight is a scene where Abbott cons a dopey gangster and that gangster then tries to con Costello. And if I’m not mistaken Costello gets Downs at the end (perhaps his hottest chick of all). But this is not one of their better films. By this stage Abbott and Costello films often featured “wah wah wah…” music in the soundtrack, an irritating thing that wouldn’t be shaken for a while. There are too many rehashed routines: "you’re 40 she’s ten", Costello tries to get into gaol and keeps being thwarted, "mudda and fudda", "pack and unpack", "phone booth". There’s no romance – there is Downs but honestly she’s an idiot for wasting the money; they get out of trouble too easily.
A highlight is a scene where Abbott cons a dopey gangster and that gangster then tries to con Costello. And if I’m not mistaken Costello gets Downs at the end (perhaps his hottest chick of all). But this is not one of their better films. By this stage Abbott and Costello films often featured “wah wah wah…” music in the soundtrack, an irritating thing that wouldn’t be shaken for a while. There are too many rehashed routines: "you’re 40 she’s ten", Costello tries to get into gaol and keeps being thwarted, "mudda and fudda", "pack and unpack", "phone booth". There’s no romance – there is Downs but honestly she’s an idiot for wasting the money; they get out of trouble too easily.
Movie review – Marx #9 – “At the Circus” (1939) ****
The Marx Brothers never had the best of luck with their male juveniles – with the female ingénues tended to be quite engaging (Lillian Roth, Kitty Carlisle), the blokes they were forced to romance were generally wet. This one has youthful drip Kenny Baker as a kid from a rich family who tries to run a circus; he’s got a high pitched voice and looks around seventeen, but at least he can sing and he’s not as annoying as Frank Albertson in Room Service. It helps he’s got a more sympathetic character: unlike Albertson’s whiny playwright, Baker’s circus owner seems like a nice kid with a sympathetic goal (though he refuses to marry his girlfriend when he looks like not having a job; his girlfriend says “looks like Emily Post was right – a woman should never propose to a man”.)
The circus makes a magical setting for the movie, the best one since the opera in Night at the Opera: late night train rides moving from town to town; characters including strong men, tightrope walkers and midgets; Eve Arden walking on the ceiling. Highlights include Groucho singing his best song, ‘Lydia the Tattooed Lady’; the brothers interrogating a midget; Groucho is seduced by Eve Arden (and tells the audience “there must be some way of getting that money without getting in trouble with the Hays Office – an aside that ranks with “I’ve got to stay here but why don’t you go out for a smoke while this blows over”); Harpo sticking his head in the ground like an ostrich; Groucho walking on the ceiling; Groucho seducing Margaret Dumont (the twist in this one is that she doesn’t appear in the film for an hour and they’ve never met before); Groucho crashing a high society do with a whole circus; the orchestra floating away off to sea at the end; Margaret Dumont on the trapeze.
Harpo does another lavish production number with a bunch of black kids – what was the deal with this? And it’s not as well directed as the some of the best Marx Brothers film. But it has a lot of charm and is very enjoyable.
The circus makes a magical setting for the movie, the best one since the opera in Night at the Opera: late night train rides moving from town to town; characters including strong men, tightrope walkers and midgets; Eve Arden walking on the ceiling. Highlights include Groucho singing his best song, ‘Lydia the Tattooed Lady’; the brothers interrogating a midget; Groucho is seduced by Eve Arden (and tells the audience “there must be some way of getting that money without getting in trouble with the Hays Office – an aside that ranks with “I’ve got to stay here but why don’t you go out for a smoke while this blows over”); Harpo sticking his head in the ground like an ostrich; Groucho walking on the ceiling; Groucho seducing Margaret Dumont (the twist in this one is that she doesn’t appear in the film for an hour and they’ve never met before); Groucho crashing a high society do with a whole circus; the orchestra floating away off to sea at the end; Margaret Dumont on the trapeze.
Harpo does another lavish production number with a bunch of black kids – what was the deal with this? And it’s not as well directed as the some of the best Marx Brothers film. But it has a lot of charm and is very enjoyable.
Movie review – A&C #7 - “Rio Rita” (1942) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Abbott and Costello made most of their films for Universal but MGM asked them over for three during their first heyday. Their MGM movies have a little more gloss but are basically similar to their Universal movies. This has the duo wind up on a ranch in Texas, at which point you might think “didn’t they do the cowboy thing in Ride 'Em Cowboy… but actually apart from a song involving singing cowboys this is more a spy spoof, with the ranch being the base for some Nazi fifth columnists. To kill time before we find that out, Abbott and Costello are unconvincingly appointed house detectives by Kathryn Grayson, and they try to ensure Grayson winds up with John Carrol and not a femme fetale. It’s not a very strong story – actually, it’s really weak - but it serves to keep them busy in between routines and songs.
The boys are full of enthusiasm in this one, and I really liked the setting of the ranch, which is a resort with plenty of singing, floor shows and what-not. It’s fun that Abbott sends Costello to seduce the femme fetale, and it was also a good twist that the femme fetale is actually a secret agent, with Barry Nelson’s secret agent turning out to be a bit of a whimp (he winds up dead). Grayson is sweet but doesn’t have that much to do apart from be jealous and sing – the femme fetale character is far more interesting and Carrol would probably be better of with her. This is one of the more violent Abbott and Costello’s – people wind up dead, Costello knocks out a henchman deliberately, Costello even arranges for the baddies to be blown up at the end.
John Carrol plays the romantic lead, a Latin crooner. You know, just thinking about it MGM seemed to have a large number of positive Latino male characters over the years (often played by Fernando Lamas, Ricardo Montalban) – yes, they often played a stereotype but it was a positive stereotype. Tom Conway offers some icy villainy.
The boys are full of enthusiasm in this one, and I really liked the setting of the ranch, which is a resort with plenty of singing, floor shows and what-not. It’s fun that Abbott sends Costello to seduce the femme fetale, and it was also a good twist that the femme fetale is actually a secret agent, with Barry Nelson’s secret agent turning out to be a bit of a whimp (he winds up dead). Grayson is sweet but doesn’t have that much to do apart from be jealous and sing – the femme fetale character is far more interesting and Carrol would probably be better of with her. This is one of the more violent Abbott and Costello’s – people wind up dead, Costello knocks out a henchman deliberately, Costello even arranges for the baddies to be blown up at the end.
John Carrol plays the romantic lead, a Latin crooner. You know, just thinking about it MGM seemed to have a large number of positive Latino male characters over the years (often played by Fernando Lamas, Ricardo Montalban) – yes, they often played a stereotype but it was a positive stereotype. Tom Conway offers some icy villainy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)