Masterpiece account of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War, the best Australian military history book I have read. It covers all the boxes – history of Vietnam and the conflict, the reason behind Australia’s involvement, the anti-war movement, the role of the press, draft dodgers, the VC, the South Vietnamese government, the hearts and minds campaign, Australian political scene, the fall out.
Many, many vivid characters and stories: the shadowy anti-Commie fanatic Ted Serong (who became a trusted adviser but who remained, in the words of Ham, a better critic than player), the Australian officer who ended up leading his own private army in the hills a la Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, hijinks in Saigon, the excitement and epic that was Long Tan (please make this into a movie), the terror of mines, the ruthelessness of the communist foe. The North Vietnamese were clearly a government worth fighting against... but were the South Vietnamese worth fighting for? Not in its early 60s phase, certainly, with its oppressive police state and crappy army.
One or two places Ham really lets fly – he has particular spleen for the dopey American commanders with their stupid body count strategy and the new settlements scheme (which to be fair worked in Malaya during the emergency – but Vietnam War had two crucial differences: Vietnam’s population wasn’t split into Chinese and Malay like in Malaya, and the Malayan communists never had a North Vietnam to flee to). He also hates the stupider anti-war protestors, especially those who attacked the vets when they came back, accusing them of baby killing and child raping (some even rang up the rellies of a dead soldier and said “he got what he deserved” – unbelievable).
Ham takes on some of the powerful myths of Vietnam. There’s the baby boomer we-stopped-the-war myth, the press-as-moral conscience myth (Ham argues the media were mostly pro war until 1968 then jumped on the growing anti-war bandwagon, and that most journos in Vietnam were incompetent charlatans), the Australians-won-all-its-battles myth (Operation Bribie was arguably a defeat), the Australians-were-good-fighters myth (mostly true but they came up a dopey “impregnable line of mines” strategy which was disastrous).
Sometimes he’s a little unfair, I think – why shouldn’t the Allies drop South Vietnam like a hot potato in the 70s? They spent a lot of money and blood in the country – they weren’t wedded with them til death. And of course politicians shift with the wind, that’s what democracy is all about. But this is still a brilliant book.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Book review – “Khartoum” by Michael Asher
Excellent account of Britain’s imperial adventures in the Sudan. Like many people, I mostly know about it from the 1966 film Khartoum, which had Charlton Heston as the doomed General Gordon. (Lots of things are named after this era in Australia – there’s a General Gordon school, Khartoum St, etc) But there were a number of other battles, many of which were won by Mahdists - indeed, they broke the British square, and ruled Sudan for over a decade.
The most exciting segments include the murder of Colonel Stewart (who had left Khartoum), the final attack on Gordon (great disasters always make exciting reading), the battle scenes. Asher is a former soldier who has spent a lot of time in the Sudan and he has a gift for describing action and locale. He also spends a bit of time sketching the characters of the leading Mahdist fighters.
Occasionally it got a bit confusing who was who – not just the Arab names, but all the officers with the surname “Stewart”. Asher seems to have particular fondness for Kitchener and gets stuck in Woseley. Kitchener’s campaign is a bit of an anti-climax in the story - it's hard to top Gordon. (It's like reading about the Texas campaign - the Alamo is such a powerful story, San Jacinta seems anti-climactic).
The most exciting segments include the murder of Colonel Stewart (who had left Khartoum), the final attack on Gordon (great disasters always make exciting reading), the battle scenes. Asher is a former soldier who has spent a lot of time in the Sudan and he has a gift for describing action and locale. He also spends a bit of time sketching the characters of the leading Mahdist fighters.
Occasionally it got a bit confusing who was who – not just the Arab names, but all the officers with the surname “Stewart”. Asher seems to have particular fondness for Kitchener and gets stuck in Woseley. Kitchener’s campaign is a bit of an anti-climax in the story - it's hard to top Gordon. (It's like reading about the Texas campaign - the Alamo is such a powerful story, San Jacinta seems anti-climactic).
Book review – “Bob Hope: A Life in Jokes”
Hope was one of the great wise-crackers of the 20th century with an amazing career so it was a clever idea to have a book which tells a bit about his life and times through one liners. Not surprisingly not all of the jokes have worn well, and you have to imagine Hope’s delivery to get the full effect. Particular emphasis is on Hope’s friendships with various Presidents.
Movie review – “The Undying Monster” (1942) **1/2
Has this film been made by Universal Studios andor starred one of the horror holy trinity (Bela/Boris/Lon Jnr) I can imagine it would have entered th classic cannon – as it is, it’s reputation has increased in recently years, partly due to the rise in the reputation of its director, John Brahm.
It is a well-directed werewolf tale, with pleasing period detail (its set around the turn of the century) and excellent photography by Lucien Ballard. The actors lack a little in the charisma department – the biggest name is John Howard, of Bulldog Drummond fame – but they acquit themselves well enough and there are some lovely touches, such as the fact the scientific detective hero as a female sidekick (some sort of first in horror movies? – she cops a few sexist cracks from her hero boss but she’s still a key member of the team)
Unlike the best known werewolf films, the story is told from the point of view of detectives and victims – we’re not even sure it involves a werewolf until towards the end. This does mean that the feeling of tragedy found in most werewolf films is missing and there is only a limited amount of werewolf action (it's closer to Hound of the Baskervilles in that respect). Also the romantic plot is undeveloped. Still an engrossing film – and it runs just over an hour, too.
NB The original source material can be read here.
It is a well-directed werewolf tale, with pleasing period detail (its set around the turn of the century) and excellent photography by Lucien Ballard. The actors lack a little in the charisma department – the biggest name is John Howard, of Bulldog Drummond fame – but they acquit themselves well enough and there are some lovely touches, such as the fact the scientific detective hero as a female sidekick (some sort of first in horror movies? – she cops a few sexist cracks from her hero boss but she’s still a key member of the team)
Unlike the best known werewolf films, the story is told from the point of view of detectives and victims – we’re not even sure it involves a werewolf until towards the end. This does mean that the feeling of tragedy found in most werewolf films is missing and there is only a limited amount of werewolf action (it's closer to Hound of the Baskervilles in that respect). Also the romantic plot is undeveloped. Still an engrossing film – and it runs just over an hour, too.
NB The original source material can be read here.
Movie review – “Rocky Mountain” (1950) ***1/2
Errol Flynn often played Southerners in Westerns – Dodge City, Santa Fe Trail – so it’s no surprise to see him leading a rebel task force towards the end of the Civil War with the aim of starting an insurrection in California. It’s a strong situation and makes for a strong Western, with the small size of Errol’s patrol allows for a bit of character development.
Errol is in strong form as a tired, beaten down soldier, sick of war. The cast include a young Slim Pickens (if you can imaigine such a thing) and Patrice Wymore, who fell in love with Errol during the making of the movie and became his third (and from all accounts nicest) wife. To be honest, she’s not one of the great Errol Flynn co-stars on screen, though she’s pleasant enough. It makes a pleasing change that she doesn’t really romance Flynn – she’s got a sympathetic, brave finacee, a union officer (Scott Forbes).
William Keighley directs well, helped by an excellent location. There’s perhaps a bit too much chatting and not enough action, though there is a fair bit of suspense and a brilliant climax. It has all the Southerners waiting for help to arrive – they realise it’s not going to come, so decide to take on the Indians. There is something moving about the Southerners deciding to wear their colours as they go in for the final battle… and they all get killed! Because the story has similarities with Virginia City (north and south combine to fight Indians) you think the Union soldiers will come to the rescue but they don’t. And because we’ve gotten to know the Confederates quite well it packs a punch. Even if they are fighting for the right to own slaves (Errol owns a plantation) it’s quite touching.
This probably didn’t cost Warners a lot of money. Most of the action consists of a small group of cowboys on a mountain top (there are only a lot of extras at the end); the only star is Flynn. The part of Wymore’s fiancée would have seemed a natural for an up and coming Warners star – Steve Cochrane? – but they give it to Forbes (NB who it must be said acquits himself decently).
Still this is a pretty good Western, with a wonderful touch of melancholy about it. With a bit more care and star power it could have become a minor classic.
Errol is in strong form as a tired, beaten down soldier, sick of war. The cast include a young Slim Pickens (if you can imaigine such a thing) and Patrice Wymore, who fell in love with Errol during the making of the movie and became his third (and from all accounts nicest) wife. To be honest, she’s not one of the great Errol Flynn co-stars on screen, though she’s pleasant enough. It makes a pleasing change that she doesn’t really romance Flynn – she’s got a sympathetic, brave finacee, a union officer (Scott Forbes).
William Keighley directs well, helped by an excellent location. There’s perhaps a bit too much chatting and not enough action, though there is a fair bit of suspense and a brilliant climax. It has all the Southerners waiting for help to arrive – they realise it’s not going to come, so decide to take on the Indians. There is something moving about the Southerners deciding to wear their colours as they go in for the final battle… and they all get killed! Because the story has similarities with Virginia City (north and south combine to fight Indians) you think the Union soldiers will come to the rescue but they don’t. And because we’ve gotten to know the Confederates quite well it packs a punch. Even if they are fighting for the right to own slaves (Errol owns a plantation) it’s quite touching.
This probably didn’t cost Warners a lot of money. Most of the action consists of a small group of cowboys on a mountain top (there are only a lot of extras at the end); the only star is Flynn. The part of Wymore’s fiancée would have seemed a natural for an up and coming Warners star – Steve Cochrane? – but they give it to Forbes (NB who it must be said acquits himself decently).
Still this is a pretty good Western, with a wonderful touch of melancholy about it. With a bit more care and star power it could have become a minor classic.
Movie review – “Escape Me Never” (1947) **
Errol Flynn was supposed to star in The Constant Nymph for Warners but was ushered off into more stereotypical fare – but the film was a hit, so when Warners plumped for a sequel several years later he was allowed to star.
The plot has rich Eleanor Parker break it off with composer Gig Young because she thinks Young has been living with single mother Ida Lupino. Actually Lupino’s been living with Young’s brother, Errol Flynn – so when Parker heads off for the mountains, Flynn and Young accompany him along with Lupino. Flynn falls in love with Parker before finding out who she is – when he does he goes and marries Lupino and Young winds up with Parker. But Parker still loves Flynn.
At this point the film starts to go south – Errol writes a ballet, has a fling with Parker, Lupino’s child dies (a shock), then Errol realises he actually loves Lupino in a really contrived scene and gets back with her.
Errol is well cast as a bohemian composer, a free spirit who’s a bit selfish and a womaniser – though we never really see him be a real bastard. It might have been a better film if he had. He does take off with Parker towards the end and Lupino’s child dies, but if that’s anyone’s fault it’s Lupino’s (for not getting medical help earlier) – and Parker is hot and wants him. What do you expect him to do? But he's still effective, even though he's shaved off his moustache and wears little Austrian outfits when in the mountains. It's not his fault the movie doesn't work.
Ida Lupino is a bit too modern and American as the widowed mother. She is part independent - when Errol takes off, she insists on coming along – part door mat – she wants Errol no matter what. They throw in a few lines where Lupino says she and Flynn are just friends, to which you go “yeah right” – it’s fairly obvious they’re rooting (why else would he live with her? For friendship?)
Eleanor Parker is a stunner- I reckon she’s three times as good looking when she’s in period costume. She and Errol have a charming flirt scene (this was lacking in Never Say Goodbye since they were already married). Her scenes with Errol have genuine heat – so much so towards the end it’s not believable when they don’t get together. Errol and Lupino seem like friends with benefits but Errol and Parker are a hot fling.
It feels like it should be a musical – there are times when you swear the characters are about to sing, like when Errol and Young decide to leave, and when Lupino cuddles her baby after he goes. It's a heavily flawed movie in which the story and some of the casting doesn't work. I think Warners would have been able to pull it off during the studio's great days but they were coming to an end.
The plot has rich Eleanor Parker break it off with composer Gig Young because she thinks Young has been living with single mother Ida Lupino. Actually Lupino’s been living with Young’s brother, Errol Flynn – so when Parker heads off for the mountains, Flynn and Young accompany him along with Lupino. Flynn falls in love with Parker before finding out who she is – when he does he goes and marries Lupino and Young winds up with Parker. But Parker still loves Flynn.
At this point the film starts to go south – Errol writes a ballet, has a fling with Parker, Lupino’s child dies (a shock), then Errol realises he actually loves Lupino in a really contrived scene and gets back with her.
Errol is well cast as a bohemian composer, a free spirit who’s a bit selfish and a womaniser – though we never really see him be a real bastard. It might have been a better film if he had. He does take off with Parker towards the end and Lupino’s child dies, but if that’s anyone’s fault it’s Lupino’s (for not getting medical help earlier) – and Parker is hot and wants him. What do you expect him to do? But he's still effective, even though he's shaved off his moustache and wears little Austrian outfits when in the mountains. It's not his fault the movie doesn't work.
Ida Lupino is a bit too modern and American as the widowed mother. She is part independent - when Errol takes off, she insists on coming along – part door mat – she wants Errol no matter what. They throw in a few lines where Lupino says she and Flynn are just friends, to which you go “yeah right” – it’s fairly obvious they’re rooting (why else would he live with her? For friendship?)
Eleanor Parker is a stunner- I reckon she’s three times as good looking when she’s in period costume. She and Errol have a charming flirt scene (this was lacking in Never Say Goodbye since they were already married). Her scenes with Errol have genuine heat – so much so towards the end it’s not believable when they don’t get together. Errol and Lupino seem like friends with benefits but Errol and Parker are a hot fling.
It feels like it should be a musical – there are times when you swear the characters are about to sing, like when Errol and Young decide to leave, and when Lupino cuddles her baby after he goes. It's a heavily flawed movie in which the story and some of the casting doesn't work. I think Warners would have been able to pull it off during the studio's great days but they were coming to an end.
TV review – "Errol Flynn Theatre" - "Strange Auction" (1957) **1/2
The segment of Errol Flynn Theatre that seems to pop up most on anthologies because it features not only Patrice Wymore but Sean Flynn. Flynn Jnr was a very handsome lout who couldn’t act to save his life – his performance is amateurish with his clanging American accent. (Even though this is an Irish story, it's explained that Sean was educated in the US).
Patrice Wymore plays his mother, who hires hobo Errol Flynn to work as a labourer. Errol and Patrice fall in love – then Sean develops a man crush on Errol and wants to go hobo-ing with him. They do it but eventually come home.
I enjoyed this a lot – Errol is very well cast as the dishevelled, well-educated but ne’er-do-well hobo, and seems to be having the time of his life. The Irish atmosphere is quite good, supporting performances (apart from Sean) are strong, and it makes enjoyable light entertainment all round. A copy of the episode is available here.
Patrice Wymore plays his mother, who hires hobo Errol Flynn to work as a labourer. Errol and Patrice fall in love – then Sean develops a man crush on Errol and wants to go hobo-ing with him. They do it but eventually come home.
I enjoyed this a lot – Errol is very well cast as the dishevelled, well-educated but ne’er-do-well hobo, and seems to be having the time of his life. The Irish atmosphere is quite good, supporting performances (apart from Sean) are strong, and it makes enjoyable light entertainment all round. A copy of the episode is available here.
Movie review – “Another Dawn” (1937) ***
Odd combination of woman’s picture and British Imperial adventure. Ian Hunter and Errol Flynn are jolly decent British officers in a colony called “Dickit” or something – it’s a silly name and this is at times a silly movie, with it’s highly sympathetic depiction of the upper clsses, colourful cockneys and ripe dialogue (“pity a chap like that had to go west”).
Hunter is on leave for two months when he meets and falls for Kay Francis, who is mourning the loss of a dead pilot who she “loved” for “three ecstatic years” (outside of wedlock I presume which is a bit naughty).
I think this is the only Kay Francis movie I’ve ever seen – though I’m familiar with some aspects of her career: apparently she had trouble with her Ws and was a bit of a bitch, was very well paid but became less popular in films and Warners tried to get her to quit by putting her in increasingly humiliating films but she gutsed it out. She’s not bad here – pretty enough with a distinct throaty voice, even if she spends most of the movie delivering dialogue while looking off into the distance.
She plays an interesting character – an American independent woman of means, sexually active, a bit of a necrophiliac: she mainly falls for Errol because she reminds him of her ex, not because of anything special about him. They make eyes at each other but fight the attraction out of devotion to Hunter - fortunately some pesky Arabs come along to sort out people's problems.
There’s a fascinating scene where Errol’s sister admits she’s carried a torch for Ian Hunter for seven years – seven! – and tries to tells Errol about the benefits of such a one sided relationship – to look on wistfully enjoying their achievements, etc. Talk about promoting self-flagellating relationships.
(I made fun of the dialogue but at least it’s a film with a genuine philosophical theme – all about duty and love and making the most of each moment. Bill Collins is a booster of the film for this reason.)
Errol and Ian Hunter are decent chaps – Errol looks handsome and dashing, though there’s only one action sequence (an Arab ambush – we never see the climactic bombing raid). Hunter acquits himself quite well, with the professional aplomb of an actor who’s resigned to being accepted that Errol will out-charisma him (he doesn’t even get a death scene). Like Dawn Patrol this has a climax with two mates squabbling over who gets to go on a suicide mission - the two-British-soldiers-in-love-with-the-same-girl-in-the-middle-east plot also featured in the little remembered Cary Grant film The Last Outpost, a few years earlier.
Hunter is on leave for two months when he meets and falls for Kay Francis, who is mourning the loss of a dead pilot who she “loved” for “three ecstatic years” (outside of wedlock I presume which is a bit naughty).
I think this is the only Kay Francis movie I’ve ever seen – though I’m familiar with some aspects of her career: apparently she had trouble with her Ws and was a bit of a bitch, was very well paid but became less popular in films and Warners tried to get her to quit by putting her in increasingly humiliating films but she gutsed it out. She’s not bad here – pretty enough with a distinct throaty voice, even if she spends most of the movie delivering dialogue while looking off into the distance.
She plays an interesting character – an American independent woman of means, sexually active, a bit of a necrophiliac: she mainly falls for Errol because she reminds him of her ex, not because of anything special about him. They make eyes at each other but fight the attraction out of devotion to Hunter - fortunately some pesky Arabs come along to sort out people's problems.
There’s a fascinating scene where Errol’s sister admits she’s carried a torch for Ian Hunter for seven years – seven! – and tries to tells Errol about the benefits of such a one sided relationship – to look on wistfully enjoying their achievements, etc. Talk about promoting self-flagellating relationships.
(I made fun of the dialogue but at least it’s a film with a genuine philosophical theme – all about duty and love and making the most of each moment. Bill Collins is a booster of the film for this reason.)
Errol and Ian Hunter are decent chaps – Errol looks handsome and dashing, though there’s only one action sequence (an Arab ambush – we never see the climactic bombing raid). Hunter acquits himself quite well, with the professional aplomb of an actor who’s resigned to being accepted that Errol will out-charisma him (he doesn’t even get a death scene). Like Dawn Patrol this has a climax with two mates squabbling over who gets to go on a suicide mission - the two-British-soldiers-in-love-with-the-same-girl-in-the-middle-east plot also featured in the little remembered Cary Grant film The Last Outpost, a few years earlier.
Movie review – “King’s Rhapsody” (1955) **
Apparently Lilacs in the Spring was successful enough at the box office to inspire Herbert Wilcox to reunite Errol Flynn with Anna Neagle for another colourful musical. Whereas Lilacs was a Neagle vehicle, this one is more a vehicle for Errol, Neagle and Patrice Wymore (a mistake, since surely Lilac only made money on the back of Neagle's appeal).
It starts with Errol living it up as a playboy in Monte Cristo, recovering from a hang over, with his mistress (Anna Neagle). Mum rocks up, says that his father has died and that he is to marry Patrice Wymre. Wymore isn’t keen on an arranged marriage at first – until she finds out she’s marrying Errol, on whom she had a crush. Since by this stage Errol was looking his age you’re likely to think “yeah right”.
Actually there is something a little touching about Errol as this aging playboy prince, who has led this wastrel life but who loves his mistress, called to duty late in life. I kept thinking of Prince Edward and Queen Victoria. Just because he’s married though doesn’t mean he has to give up his mistress – indeed, he hangs on to Neagle through the birth of his son. Then Neagle leaves, telling Errol that he actually loves Wymore – and Errol goes “fair enough” and gives Wymore a pash.
But then there’s this third act where Errol is forced to abdicate in favour of his son by nasty politicians (well we assume they’re nasty but Errol clearly isn’t much of a king) – he goes into exile, levaes Wymore behind, runs into Neagle who encourages him to go back for his son’s coronation which he does and he seems to be reunited with Wymore… so what? Why do we care? It’s like this bit tacked on to a decent enough drama for the first hour.
It’s like an amateur theatre production, with the stars “acting” but with enthusiasm. I enjoyed the color photography and the impressive sets – and even Ivor Novello’s tunes. Patrice Wymore is pretty and likeable though no great shakes as an actor (at least not on evidence here); she’s a decent dancer though and gets an opportunity to show off her skills in that area.
Errol does a drunk scene with Wymore – a fore runner of the sorts of scenes he would play with increasing regularity over the next few years. It’s not a bad performance – he’s blotchy and sad and clearly has wasted his life. I don’t know if that’s the effect that was intended but it’s what comes across. Neagle is fine – she wears a really way out black dress in one scene that draws attention to her chest in a rather alarming way.
It starts with Errol living it up as a playboy in Monte Cristo, recovering from a hang over, with his mistress (Anna Neagle). Mum rocks up, says that his father has died and that he is to marry Patrice Wymre. Wymore isn’t keen on an arranged marriage at first – until she finds out she’s marrying Errol, on whom she had a crush. Since by this stage Errol was looking his age you’re likely to think “yeah right”.
Actually there is something a little touching about Errol as this aging playboy prince, who has led this wastrel life but who loves his mistress, called to duty late in life. I kept thinking of Prince Edward and Queen Victoria. Just because he’s married though doesn’t mean he has to give up his mistress – indeed, he hangs on to Neagle through the birth of his son. Then Neagle leaves, telling Errol that he actually loves Wymore – and Errol goes “fair enough” and gives Wymore a pash.
But then there’s this third act where Errol is forced to abdicate in favour of his son by nasty politicians (well we assume they’re nasty but Errol clearly isn’t much of a king) – he goes into exile, levaes Wymore behind, runs into Neagle who encourages him to go back for his son’s coronation which he does and he seems to be reunited with Wymore… so what? Why do we care? It’s like this bit tacked on to a decent enough drama for the first hour.
It’s like an amateur theatre production, with the stars “acting” but with enthusiasm. I enjoyed the color photography and the impressive sets – and even Ivor Novello’s tunes. Patrice Wymore is pretty and likeable though no great shakes as an actor (at least not on evidence here); she’s a decent dancer though and gets an opportunity to show off her skills in that area.
Errol does a drunk scene with Wymore – a fore runner of the sorts of scenes he would play with increasing regularity over the next few years. It’s not a bad performance – he’s blotchy and sad and clearly has wasted his life. I don’t know if that’s the effect that was intended but it’s what comes across. Neagle is fine – she wears a really way out black dress in one scene that draws attention to her chest in a rather alarming way.
Movie review – “The Perfect Specimen” (1937) **1/2
Years before Arnold Schwarzeneggar in Twins another tough guy actor made his comedy debut in a film as a person raised in isolation to be the perfect man. Instead of Danny de Vito to come along and teach him about life there’s Joan Blondell as a wise cracking dame who takes him out for the day – just like Gregory Peck did for Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday.
A comedy starring Errol Flynn directed by Michael Curtiz backed with a strong supporting cast of stock players (including Allen Jenkins, everyone’s favourite 30s old lady May Robson, everyone’s favourite 30s old geezer Henry Davenport and everyone’s favourite 30s gay Edward Everett Horton), with the same basic idea as Twins, Roman Holiday… why isn’t this well known?
Mostly because the story isn’t strong – Errol and Blondell head out for a day, he winds up doing a bit of boxing, then he hooks up with a poet who I think is meant to be colourful, then he and Blondell have a quite romantic and sexy scene drying themselves off after the rain… All this while the nation thinks Errol has been kidnapped – which actually isn’t very funny, because cops are wasting time chasing after someone who isn’t in danger.
There needed to be a stronger reason why Blondell takes Errol out for the day – why didn’t they just make her a reporter like Gable in It Happened One Night (that means she would deceive Errol, creating extra drama). And the finale is far too easily resolved, with Blondell’s brother easily tracking down Errol and him conveniently wanting to marry Errol’s fiancée.
The film badly needs an antagonist, someone who is on Errol’s trail, like they had in Twins and Roman Holiday. It also needed some decent adventures on the road – it’s a long way from It Happened One Night (clearly an inspiration - based on a book by the same writer). There are not really any decent jokes, just high spirits. Curtiz was a great director when it came to pace and action, but he didn't have Frank Capra's skill at filming warm encounters with eccentrics.
Errol is very handsome and charming in his role. His inexperience in comedy actually suits the role as he is playing an inexperienced person. But he doesn’t have much of a character to play – there’s tremendous potential there, this perfect person who has been protected and is naïve then proceeds to have fish out of water adventures – but it isn’t really used.
Blondell is charming as his feisty love interest. Blondell often played comic relief best friends but she is given a bit of glamour treatment here, is photographed nicely and comes across pretty. Dick Foran is a bit smug and pleased with himself as Blondell’s brother who is in love with Errol’s arranged fiancée – to be honest, it doesn’t make sense that Errol would have one (maybe he should have played a royal or something.
OK, I’ve been very critical but I would say this film passes the time. Errol is having a fine old time, Blondell is enjoyable, as are the support cast except for Foran and his girlfriend. It skips along at a bright pace and has charm. There was real potential here but it quite takes off – a thing you could say about all Errol’s comedies.
A comedy starring Errol Flynn directed by Michael Curtiz backed with a strong supporting cast of stock players (including Allen Jenkins, everyone’s favourite 30s old lady May Robson, everyone’s favourite 30s old geezer Henry Davenport and everyone’s favourite 30s gay Edward Everett Horton), with the same basic idea as Twins, Roman Holiday… why isn’t this well known?
Mostly because the story isn’t strong – Errol and Blondell head out for a day, he winds up doing a bit of boxing, then he hooks up with a poet who I think is meant to be colourful, then he and Blondell have a quite romantic and sexy scene drying themselves off after the rain… All this while the nation thinks Errol has been kidnapped – which actually isn’t very funny, because cops are wasting time chasing after someone who isn’t in danger.
There needed to be a stronger reason why Blondell takes Errol out for the day – why didn’t they just make her a reporter like Gable in It Happened One Night (that means she would deceive Errol, creating extra drama). And the finale is far too easily resolved, with Blondell’s brother easily tracking down Errol and him conveniently wanting to marry Errol’s fiancée.
The film badly needs an antagonist, someone who is on Errol’s trail, like they had in Twins and Roman Holiday. It also needed some decent adventures on the road – it’s a long way from It Happened One Night (clearly an inspiration - based on a book by the same writer). There are not really any decent jokes, just high spirits. Curtiz was a great director when it came to pace and action, but he didn't have Frank Capra's skill at filming warm encounters with eccentrics.
Errol is very handsome and charming in his role. His inexperience in comedy actually suits the role as he is playing an inexperienced person. But he doesn’t have much of a character to play – there’s tremendous potential there, this perfect person who has been protected and is naïve then proceeds to have fish out of water adventures – but it isn’t really used.
Blondell is charming as his feisty love interest. Blondell often played comic relief best friends but she is given a bit of glamour treatment here, is photographed nicely and comes across pretty. Dick Foran is a bit smug and pleased with himself as Blondell’s brother who is in love with Errol’s arranged fiancée – to be honest, it doesn’t make sense that Errol would have one (maybe he should have played a royal or something.
OK, I’ve been very critical but I would say this film passes the time. Errol is having a fine old time, Blondell is enjoyable, as are the support cast except for Foran and his girlfriend. It skips along at a bright pace and has charm. There was real potential here but it quite takes off – a thing you could say about all Errol’s comedies.
TV review – “Goodyear Theatre - The Golden Shanty” (1959) **
Errol Flynn’s television performances are of varying quality but he’s quite happily cast here as a travelling salesman in the old west – the shonky nature of the character suits Errol’s dodgy persona. This has extra resonance in that it was his last on screen dramatic performance.
The plot has Errol once seeling a worthless gold mine to a poor sucker (Peter Hansen) –then discovers the sucker has build a saloon out of bricks which contain gold. This means he needs to smooth talk the man’s wife (Patricia Barry) in order to buy the saloon. Because he’s got no money he gets his offsider ro pinch bricks and melt down gold to raise enough money – while he buys time be sweet talking the wife.
Errol always made a good rogue and he’s fun here. Barry isn’t bad – perhaps a bit too pretty to be suckered in by Flynn’s antics (imagine say Marjorie Main or someone in the role). The script is fairly so-so. Arthur Hiller directed this.
The plot has Errol once seeling a worthless gold mine to a poor sucker (Peter Hansen) –then discovers the sucker has build a saloon out of bricks which contain gold. This means he needs to smooth talk the man’s wife (Patricia Barry) in order to buy the saloon. Because he’s got no money he gets his offsider ro pinch bricks and melt down gold to raise enough money – while he buys time be sweet talking the wife.
Errol always made a good rogue and he’s fun here. Barry isn’t bad – perhaps a bit too pretty to be suckered in by Flynn’s antics (imagine say Marjorie Main or someone in the role). The script is fairly so-so. Arthur Hiller directed this.
TV review – "Errol Flynn Theatre – Wife for a Czar” (1956)
Set in Russia 1670 with Errol Flynn as a widowed Russian Czar Alexis who goes looking for a wife. He has all the well-born virgins in the land to choose from and settles on Patrice Wymore. He romances Wymore as an ordinary noble and fall in love – so when he tries to marry her as ahe Czar she doesn’t want to because she doesn’t know who he really is. That’s not a bad story, the sort of thing Norman Krasna used to write all the time. The most interesting scene is where Wymore’s ward, Latvia, insists Flynn marry her the proper way or else his enemies will have her killed – maybe seeing one of the enemies and having some real stakes would have made it better (what's here is kind of a light drama).
There is lots of fun here for Flynn fans – Errol playing a czar, Errol demanding vodka, the Flynns playing love scenes opposite each other. Errol isn’t that well cast – watching this you get the sense of what some of his work for Northampton Rep must have been like. He seems to be having fun but the piece never quite gets its tone right – its not funny enough to be a comedy, or serious enough for a drama. Maybe had it been able to run longer than 30 minutes these problems would have been conquered.
There is lots of fun here for Flynn fans – Errol playing a czar, Errol demanding vodka, the Flynns playing love scenes opposite each other. Errol isn’t that well cast – watching this you get the sense of what some of his work for Northampton Rep must have been like. He seems to be having fun but the piece never quite gets its tone right – its not funny enough to be a comedy, or serious enough for a drama. Maybe had it been able to run longer than 30 minutes these problems would have been conquered.
TV series – “Mad Men” ***** (Season one and two)
Excellent series with a terrific idea – Madison Avenue ad exes in 1960. It takes a world we’re semi-familiar with due to movies and TV (Rock Huson in Lover Come Back, Darrin in Bewitched), then runs is through the filters of history (beatniks, Nixon’s campaign for the presidency) and the female gaze. The flashy roles are the guys – smoking, womanizing, brooding – but the girls are there too: the pretty but bland housewife, the nubile young secretary, the buxom sexually experienced secretary, the Greenwich Village artist.
Superbly cast. Two starts at least are launched: Joe Hamm as the handsome, enigmatic Don Draper, and Christina Hendricks as the curvey Helen Gurley Brown type. Jennifer Jones, a pretty blonde who is a little bit interesting, has found perhaps the most perfect role she will ever play. And there are also excellent performances from Elizabeth Moss (formely Zoe in the West Wing – how lucky can one actor who specialises in mousy types be?), the bloke who plays the creepy corporate climber. Actually everyone is good, right down to the smallest roles.
Some great lines – “this isn’t China there’s no money in virginity” and pretty much 70% of everything John Slattery says (I just plucked that figure out of the air but I hope it gives you a rough idea).
Season 2 isn’t as much fun to start off with mainly because the 60s start to be really felt –but still excellently made.
Superbly cast. Two starts at least are launched: Joe Hamm as the handsome, enigmatic Don Draper, and Christina Hendricks as the curvey Helen Gurley Brown type. Jennifer Jones, a pretty blonde who is a little bit interesting, has found perhaps the most perfect role she will ever play. And there are also excellent performances from Elizabeth Moss (formely Zoe in the West Wing – how lucky can one actor who specialises in mousy types be?), the bloke who plays the creepy corporate climber. Actually everyone is good, right down to the smallest roles.
Some great lines – “this isn’t China there’s no money in virginity” and pretty much 70% of everything John Slattery says (I just plucked that figure out of the air but I hope it gives you a rough idea).
Season 2 isn’t as much fun to start off with mainly because the 60s start to be really felt –but still excellently made.
Movie review – Beach Party #4 - “Pajama Party” (1964) ***1/2
Tommy Kirk’s homosexuality saw him fired from Disney but he was still offered work over at AIP, for whom he made this film – after which he was busted for drugs and they gave him the flick.
Here he steps into Frankie Avalon’s shoes as leading man in what became the fourth in the Beach Party series. Apparently this wasn’t originally envisioned as part of the series but was changed – so most of the action takes place as a mansion next to the beach rather than the beach, the hero of the plot is a martian rather than a teenager, Annette starts the film dating Jody McCrea rather than Frankie (actually this is a little stressful to watch) and winds up wth Tommy, there’s no John Ashley and Don Weis directs instead of William Asher; but they do have Donna Loren, Candy Johnson, Harvey Lembeck as Eric Von Zipper, plus a bunch of veteran stars, Don Rickles and Frankie Avalon in cameos, and plenty of groovy songs and dances.
I read an article about this film once that pointed out it was the only Beach Party movie that was done as a proper musical – the songs and routines are better integrated, there is a big well-choreographed dance number on the beach and at the pajama party (as well as the standard wiggling) and a really fun number performed by Dorothy Lamour in a dress shop (where the dancers include a young Terri Garr in a yellow dress – and if I’m not mistaken Toni Basil in a bikini).
Don Weis moves the camera more than William Asher and the songs are consistently strong. Also Funicello is actually allowed to sing and dance in a big production number – normally in Beach Party movies she was stuck singing ballads.
Kirk and Funicello have charming chemistry together, except in the scene where they ding a duet (if Kirk isn’t dubbed, he seems to be – and he does it poorly). And the story of their romance isn’t much – Beach Party movies were never that good at actually depicting couples fall in love (Frankie and Annette would break up and get back together) and the Annette-Kirk romance feels as though it needs another scene or beat or something – for instance, Annette’s got no real reason to be mad at Kirk for flirting with Bobbi Shaw… they’re not going out, and hello Annette is meant to be going out with Jody McCrea.
The film seems unable to make up its mind whether to concentrate on the martians-invading-earth story or the conmen-trying-to-rip-off-Elsa-Lanchester story. Eric Von Zipper and his cronies get involved too – they look hilarious in red pajamas at the end.
This is one of the sexiest movies in the series, with plenty of attractive women in bikinis and pajamas. Candy Johnson is in it but the role of woman-who-can-knock-men-over-with-a-shimmy is taken here by Susan Hart (who gets to dance in the end credits, another former place of Johnson’s – was she already seeing Jim Nicholson at this point?) She’s gorgeous but the real stunner is Bobbi Shaw, as a man-eating well-endowed Swede - if she’s not jumping out of the bathtub she’s in a bikini or rubbing Buster Keaton’s face in his breasts (this was one of Keaton’s last roles and even if AIP movies weren’t of the level of his silent classics, they were bright ad cheerful and gave him a pay cheque… and the chance to get up close and personal with Bobbi Shaw).
A really fun, bright movie.
Movie review – Mummy#4 - “The Mummy’s Ghost” (1944) **1/2
For those who came in late, audiences are brought up to date about the mummy history and the havoc it’s wrecked on various expeditions by a withered old George Zucco and then a university professor, Professor Norman. Both characters were in the previous film, giving the series a sort of continuity, though the roles of both men are small.
In this one Zucco sends off another minion – John Carradine – with the mission of bringing the mummy back to Egypt to guard the tomb of the dead princesss. He cooks up some leaves, which is apparently enough to get the mummy rising from the swamp… whereupon he promptly kills the professor (thereby continuing another tradition i.e. if you survive one mummy film, chances are you’ll be killed off in the next one).
The professor’s at a college where one of the students conveniently turns out to be a reincarnation of the princess. (This dodgy coincidence would be repeated in Hammer's 1959 Mummy.) Carradine ends up falling for her- which sets off the mummy – which is the most interesting thing about the movie, but that all takes place in one scene. The rest of it is just the mummy killing people and the reincarnated princess feeling weird.
Carradine always looked like a fire and brimstone preacher, so he’s well suited to play what essentially is an Ancient Egyptian version of the species, all lean fanaticism. His performance is the best thing apart from the movie, apart from the Universal black and white photography and the mummy mumbo-jumbo; Lon Chaney is the mummy but again it’s hard for him to show much character (though the mummy has more in this one, getting angry at Carradine… but as previously stated too little is made of this).
The male lead is a particularly wet college student complete with sweaters and one of those triangle flags on his wall, played by a 4F leading man; at least it’s a neat twist that he loses the girl in the end (no kidding – she winds up submerged in a swamp).
In this one Zucco sends off another minion – John Carradine – with the mission of bringing the mummy back to Egypt to guard the tomb of the dead princesss. He cooks up some leaves, which is apparently enough to get the mummy rising from the swamp… whereupon he promptly kills the professor (thereby continuing another tradition i.e. if you survive one mummy film, chances are you’ll be killed off in the next one).
The professor’s at a college where one of the students conveniently turns out to be a reincarnation of the princess. (This dodgy coincidence would be repeated in Hammer's 1959 Mummy.) Carradine ends up falling for her- which sets off the mummy – which is the most interesting thing about the movie, but that all takes place in one scene. The rest of it is just the mummy killing people and the reincarnated princess feeling weird.
Carradine always looked like a fire and brimstone preacher, so he’s well suited to play what essentially is an Ancient Egyptian version of the species, all lean fanaticism. His performance is the best thing apart from the movie, apart from the Universal black and white photography and the mummy mumbo-jumbo; Lon Chaney is the mummy but again it’s hard for him to show much character (though the mummy has more in this one, getting angry at Carradine… but as previously stated too little is made of this).
The male lead is a particularly wet college student complete with sweaters and one of those triangle flags on his wall, played by a 4F leading man; at least it’s a neat twist that he loses the girl in the end (no kidding – she winds up submerged in a swamp).
Movie review – “Tarzan Goes to India” (1962) ***
A new Tarzan – Jock Mahoney – and a new location – India. Tarzan is visiting to help out an old mate, an Indian ruler on whose land they are building a dam; this means a bunch of elephants are at risk of being killed and it’s up to Tarzan to save the day. The baddie is an engineer who also built a dam in Africa that killed elephants.
Mahoney was a former stuntman with extensive acting experience; he’s in good shape and is an excellent fighter, but he was over 40 when he took the role. In it’s way this is interesting, to have an elder Tarzan (though little is made of this).
It takes a while to get used to Tarzan running around India in his loincloth, but the Indian locations are one of the most attractive features of this film. There’s a lot of elephant action – the early Weismuller films were very elephant-heavy, but then the animal became less prevalent in Tarzan movies, usually reduced to just a rampaging cameo at the end. So it’s nice to see a bit of time devoted to elephants.
The story is a little wonky. First of all, it doesn’t feel quite right that Tarzan is mucking about in someone else’s patch, even when invited. Secondly, the whole saving-elephants-from-a-flooding-plain angle seems a bit too contrived; it’s a potentially interesting topic – the benefits of the dam vs the destruction caused by it – but they have to twist things in order to make the plot more exciting, eg by bringing in nasty engineers, and having crappy reasons why the elephants can’t be rescued. Also Tarzan is more effective when working on the outskirts of civilisation. Finally, it’s a mistake to knock off the best villain with thirty minutes still to do.
But sheer spectacle of it all, the terrific elephants, plus Mahoney’s impressive debut puts this over the line.
Mahoney was a former stuntman with extensive acting experience; he’s in good shape and is an excellent fighter, but he was over 40 when he took the role. In it’s way this is interesting, to have an elder Tarzan (though little is made of this).
It takes a while to get used to Tarzan running around India in his loincloth, but the Indian locations are one of the most attractive features of this film. There’s a lot of elephant action – the early Weismuller films were very elephant-heavy, but then the animal became less prevalent in Tarzan movies, usually reduced to just a rampaging cameo at the end. So it’s nice to see a bit of time devoted to elephants.
The story is a little wonky. First of all, it doesn’t feel quite right that Tarzan is mucking about in someone else’s patch, even when invited. Secondly, the whole saving-elephants-from-a-flooding-plain angle seems a bit too contrived; it’s a potentially interesting topic – the benefits of the dam vs the destruction caused by it – but they have to twist things in order to make the plot more exciting, eg by bringing in nasty engineers, and having crappy reasons why the elephants can’t be rescued. Also Tarzan is more effective when working on the outskirts of civilisation. Finally, it’s a mistake to knock off the best villain with thirty minutes still to do.
But sheer spectacle of it all, the terrific elephants, plus Mahoney’s impressive debut puts this over the line.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Movie review – “Black Friday” (1940) **1/2
The fifth teaming of Karloff and Lugosi might have been more remembered had Lugosi played a larger role, as was originally intended – but Boris Karloff didn’t think he could handle his role (a kindly professor who swaps brains with a dead criminal), so he pinched Lugosi’s (the professor’s doctor friend, who performs the operation).
Instead of Lugosi getting Karloff’s old role, it was given to character player Stanley Ridges – who, to be honest, steps up to the plate with an excellent performance. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine Bela or Boris doing better. I do think Bela would have been better in Boris’ role – Bela was a superior mad scientist, with that glint in his eye (for instance the scene where Boris browbeats gangster Ridges isn’t quite believable). And I think Boris could have pulled off Ridges’ part. Anyway, coulda-shoulda-woulda... Boris and Bela had plenty of juicy roles in their life and why shouldn’t Ridges have a moment in the sun?
And there is some fun to be had to see Bela absurdly miscast as a gangster – I think he could have played a gangster, but how about tweaking the role a little in order to account for his Hungarian-ness? He has a good death scene, cooked alive, and Karloff is smooth as ever (though why no scenes between the two stars?)
It’s enjoyable and director Arthur Lubin keeps things bustling along. We probably could have done without the spiralling newspapers and notebooks, they tend to be a bit silly. Writers have said this is a gangster drama rather than a horror film – while there is a lot of gangster stuff, it still involves a mad doctor and a brain transplant.
Instead of Lugosi getting Karloff’s old role, it was given to character player Stanley Ridges – who, to be honest, steps up to the plate with an excellent performance. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine Bela or Boris doing better. I do think Bela would have been better in Boris’ role – Bela was a superior mad scientist, with that glint in his eye (for instance the scene where Boris browbeats gangster Ridges isn’t quite believable). And I think Boris could have pulled off Ridges’ part. Anyway, coulda-shoulda-woulda... Boris and Bela had plenty of juicy roles in their life and why shouldn’t Ridges have a moment in the sun?
And there is some fun to be had to see Bela absurdly miscast as a gangster – I think he could have played a gangster, but how about tweaking the role a little in order to account for his Hungarian-ness? He has a good death scene, cooked alive, and Karloff is smooth as ever (though why no scenes between the two stars?)
It’s enjoyable and director Arthur Lubin keeps things bustling along. We probably could have done without the spiralling newspapers and notebooks, they tend to be a bit silly. Writers have said this is a gangster drama rather than a horror film – while there is a lot of gangster stuff, it still involves a mad doctor and a brain transplant.
George Hamilton
Vanity Fair published this extract from George Hamilton's memoirs. It's great to see Hamilton still up and about - he's been one of Hollywood's great survivors, has Hamilton. John Milius quoted him once as saying, "you all think I'm a second-rate actor when in fact I'm a first-rate conman".
Hamilton became famous in the early 60s as a ridiculously good looking tanned teen idol - he had those sort of pretty boy looks that really irritate men. His career got off to a terrific start with a meaty role in a solid, popular film, Home from the Hill (the movie that also helped launch George Peppard's career). This earned him a contract at MGM, for whom he played the romantic lead in Where the Boys Are. Such are the ways of popular culture, Where the Boys Are would be the better-remembered film today.
Hamilton became one of the bright lights of MGM during its Vogel-Siegel years. He turned in some good performances in strong movies - but unfortunately the public didn't really go for them: Light in the Piazza, Act One, Two Weeks in Another Town, Angel Heart. My Cheatin' Heart, in which Hamilton played Hank Williams, was another such film, perhaps the best he ever made.
His last big hit was The Victors (also with Peppard), although he popped up supporting Bardot and Moreau in Viva Maria and kept in the public eye by dating LBJ's daughter. His career as a movie star tapered off in the late 60s with some unsuccessful films for MGM such as Jack of Diamonds and The Power; he went into TV, tried producing (a film about Evil Kenevil written by Milius), hosting TV shows and went into real estate.
He made a comeback with a terrific performance in a popular film, Love At First Bite. A follow up, Zorro the Gay Blade didn't do as well but Hamilton has kept busy. He has been wonderful in small parts in Godfather 3, Doc Hollywood and Hollywood Ending, as well as his business interests and habits of dating high profile women.
Hamilton's current status is as a sort of camp/cool icon but you don't last as long as he did without hard work and some ability. It's a shame some of his early 60s performances aren't better known or at least appreciated - but everything has it's time and I think that day will come. Here's hoping Hamilton gets the chance to enjoy it before he dies.
There are some interviews with Hamilton are here and here.
Hamilton became famous in the early 60s as a ridiculously good looking tanned teen idol - he had those sort of pretty boy looks that really irritate men. His career got off to a terrific start with a meaty role in a solid, popular film, Home from the Hill (the movie that also helped launch George Peppard's career). This earned him a contract at MGM, for whom he played the romantic lead in Where the Boys Are. Such are the ways of popular culture, Where the Boys Are would be the better-remembered film today.
Hamilton became one of the bright lights of MGM during its Vogel-Siegel years. He turned in some good performances in strong movies - but unfortunately the public didn't really go for them: Light in the Piazza, Act One, Two Weeks in Another Town, Angel Heart. My Cheatin' Heart, in which Hamilton played Hank Williams, was another such film, perhaps the best he ever made.
His last big hit was The Victors (also with Peppard), although he popped up supporting Bardot and Moreau in Viva Maria and kept in the public eye by dating LBJ's daughter. His career as a movie star tapered off in the late 60s with some unsuccessful films for MGM such as Jack of Diamonds and The Power; he went into TV, tried producing (a film about Evil Kenevil written by Milius), hosting TV shows and went into real estate.
He made a comeback with a terrific performance in a popular film, Love At First Bite. A follow up, Zorro the Gay Blade didn't do as well but Hamilton has kept busy. He has been wonderful in small parts in Godfather 3, Doc Hollywood and Hollywood Ending, as well as his business interests and habits of dating high profile women.
Hamilton's current status is as a sort of camp/cool icon but you don't last as long as he did without hard work and some ability. It's a shame some of his early 60s performances aren't better known or at least appreciated - but everything has it's time and I think that day will come. Here's hoping Hamilton gets the chance to enjoy it before he dies.
There are some interviews with Hamilton are here and here.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Movie review – “The Proposition” (2004) ***1/2
Powerful, striking look at Queensland history from a script by Nick Cave and you can tell - lots of violence, brooding landscapes and tortured expressions... and even a Kylie Minogue surrogate (Emily Watson) - a breath of fresh air amidst the pain. Obviously made with great talent and skill and I was consistently jolted out of my chair. I couldn't say I actually liked it, but it's mightily impressive. Especially strong performances from Ray Winstone and Danny Huston.
Movie review – “Lords of Dogtown” (2005) ***1/2
Visually arresting look at the rise of skateboarding in the late 70s California. Combines elements of the sports movie with "rise and fall" sagas - early success, corruption in the Garden of Eden, redemption. Giving it extra weight is the character of the friend of theirs with brain cancer. Heath Ledger's flamboyant support performance as an early supporter of the skaters who didn't realise what he had is a forerunner in some ways to the flamboyance he would later bring to the Joker.
Book review – “Next” by Michael Crichton
We expect Crichton to tackle something “futuristic-only-really-it’s-not” and his topic matter here is genetics, which is fascinating and makes for some thought-provoking reading, esp the stuff on gene patents. Crichton's got his activist hat on again and includes a final chapter where he makes five recommendations about how genetics should be handled - they all sound reasonable to me, though I fully admit I don't know much about this area.
Crichton still takes out some time to make side swipes at some of his more usual targets - academia, the media, the way teenage women dress, environmental movement - but to compensate he does offer a fresh structure. The last few Crichton novels would establish some bland hero and basically follow him or her on their journey; here is has a wider canvas and introduces a whole bunch of characters and you're not sure who is going to be the hero (though when you see one is a single mother you get the feeling she'll get a lot of the action towards the end... and you'll be right.)
The tone feels a bit lighter here - there is peril, but it doesn't seem as deadly, and there is a bit more humour than usual. The stuff about the talking parrot and chimpanzee boy didn't quite 100% work. I'm not saying it's not true or won't happen soon, it just felt a little bit silly. On the other hand the stuff about bounty hunters trying to extract genes felt all too believable and was terrifying and exciting.
Crichton still takes out some time to make side swipes at some of his more usual targets - academia, the media, the way teenage women dress, environmental movement - but to compensate he does offer a fresh structure. The last few Crichton novels would establish some bland hero and basically follow him or her on their journey; here is has a wider canvas and introduces a whole bunch of characters and you're not sure who is going to be the hero (though when you see one is a single mother you get the feeling she'll get a lot of the action towards the end... and you'll be right.)
The tone feels a bit lighter here - there is peril, but it doesn't seem as deadly, and there is a bit more humour than usual. The stuff about the talking parrot and chimpanzee boy didn't quite 100% work. I'm not saying it's not true or won't happen soon, it just felt a little bit silly. On the other hand the stuff about bounty hunters trying to extract genes felt all too believable and was terrifying and exciting.
TV review – “The Abbott and Costello Show” (1952) ***1/2
There’s little doubt that the quality of Abbott and Costello’s movies slid during the 50s, so it came as a wonderful surprise to come across this sitcom they made in the 50s. For some reason I thought this was a dud – I read somewhere that they just rehashed old routines, and they faded compared to Martin and Lewis.
Well, there’s no doubt that the duo look old, but performing in a sitcom, where they only have to come up with only 20-odd minutes of material, seems to have rejuvenised them. They’re not hampered by the weak plots which dogged their films – a short running time enables them to keep things simple, concentrate on just being funny, emphasise verbal comedy as opposed to elaborate slapstick. They do rehash their routines but it’s still funny and it helps to have a regular support cast, to give it more of a family feel.
Jerry Seinfeld talked about the influence of Abbott and Costello on his sitcom; I always assumed he was talking about their movies, but from watching this it’s more likely it was the sitcom. The Abbott and Costello show feels like Seinfeld a lot – not the observational stuff, but the adventures to two misfits running around New York City having random adventures; like Seinfeld too there are surreal episodes, the lead uses his real name, and there is no hugging and no learning. Great fun.
Some specific notes:
Ep 3 – “Jail” Hilarious episode with all sorts of stuff happening but basically Costello winds up in gaol. The support cast really go gang-busters in this one. There’s yet another version of “Slowly I Turned”
Well, there’s no doubt that the duo look old, but performing in a sitcom, where they only have to come up with only 20-odd minutes of material, seems to have rejuvenised them. They’re not hampered by the weak plots which dogged their films – a short running time enables them to keep things simple, concentrate on just being funny, emphasise verbal comedy as opposed to elaborate slapstick. They do rehash their routines but it’s still funny and it helps to have a regular support cast, to give it more of a family feel.
Jerry Seinfeld talked about the influence of Abbott and Costello on his sitcom; I always assumed he was talking about their movies, but from watching this it’s more likely it was the sitcom. The Abbott and Costello show feels like Seinfeld a lot – not the observational stuff, but the adventures to two misfits running around New York City having random adventures; like Seinfeld too there are surreal episodes, the lead uses his real name, and there is no hugging and no learning. Great fun.
Some specific notes:
Ep 3 – “Jail” Hilarious episode with all sorts of stuff happening but basically Costello winds up in gaol. The support cast really go gang-busters in this one. There’s yet another version of “Slowly I Turned”
Vale Michael Pate
A real jolt to read today that Michael Pate had died. He was getting on in years but he always seemed so indestructible. And no kidding I had “call Michael Pate” on my “to do” list – I wanted to chat to him about an article I’m researching on Alec Coppel. Pate worked with Coppel – one of the many, many people Pate worked with. He had an amazingly long and varied career – not just an actor but also director, producer, writer, soldier. Enjoyed a prosperous career in Hollywood as a character actor, came home in the late 60s and continued to work solidly.
His looks typed him as a villain in Hollywood – I particularly remember his Indian in Hondo and his bitter white settler in Something of Value. Marvellous speaking voice, great presence.
A film writer once told me Pate “could talk the arm off a chair” – and he was dead right: I interviewed Pate about Rod Taylor a number of years ago and he certainly liked to tell his stories. But they were funny stories. He was still trying to get up projects too. Actors never retire!
His looks typed him as a villain in Hollywood – I particularly remember his Indian in Hondo and his bitter white settler in Something of Value. Marvellous speaking voice, great presence.
A film writer once told me Pate “could talk the arm off a chair” – and he was dead right: I interviewed Pate about Rod Taylor a number of years ago and he certainly liked to tell his stories. But they were funny stories. He was still trying to get up projects too. Actors never retire!
Movie review – Tarzan #22 - “Tarzan the Magnificent” (1960) ***1/2
Tarzan’s Greatest Adventure was such a terrific film producer Sy Weintraub promptly rehashed many of the same elements in this follow up: the opening sequence has a bunch of villains rob a township, Tarzan uses his bow and arrow and can still talk, the basic plot is a “chase” (only this time its Tarzan being pursued), a finale fight on top of a waterfall.
It starts with a robbery. A British colonial officer figures out whodunit, tracks them down and captures one (Jock Mahoney) – his family kill the colonial officer (who is depicted as a tough but smart type who could be a hero of his own movie… the first time that happened in a Tarzan) but then Tarzan captures Mahoney.
The story then turns into High Noon with Tarzan trying to get white colonials to watch Mahoney until the cops come and pick him up but they won’t do it out of fear of offending Mahoney’s nasty family.
For good reason too: the family (led by John Carradine) hold up a stage coach, oops I mean river boat, and kidnap the passengers – who include our own Charles Tingwell (just before he got chubby so still looking spunky). But then let them go and… anyway it gets complicated for a bit but then gets simple: Tarzan has to escort Mahoney to civilisation for arrest and trial across country with a bunch of civilians, followed by Mahoney’s family.
I never realised Tarzan had such devotion to law and order – old school Tarzan surely would have just killed Mahoney then knocked off his family one by one (like he did in Tarzan's Greatest Adventure). Actually, just thinking about it, a lot more could have been made of this – Tarzan having a dilemma whether to knock off Mahoney or see him trailed. It would have been a great Tarzan vs. Jane conflict – only there’s no Jane in this film (he doesn’t even get a love interest).
Marvellous location work and authentic Africans. Mahoney makes a superb villain, right up there with Anthony Quayle. I also enjoyed John Carradine as the paterfamilias – though I started thinking “how great would it have been if he’d three sons been played by David, Keith and Robert?” and once I started I couldn’t stop. Lionel Jeffries is also strong as a surprisingly sympathetic coward. Tingwell is fine; his role isn’t that much, he just is sort of sympathetic.
Occasionally the location stuff doesn’t quite cut together with studio, it has a nasty edge (the baddies shoot a doctor for no reason) and sometimes the squabbling amongst the travellers gets a bit tiresome, but it’s very entertaining and has some excellent, full-on action sequences: someone gets eaten by a lion, another person has their face blown off with a gun, the final fight between Scott and Mahoney is enthralling.
It starts with a robbery. A British colonial officer figures out whodunit, tracks them down and captures one (Jock Mahoney) – his family kill the colonial officer (who is depicted as a tough but smart type who could be a hero of his own movie… the first time that happened in a Tarzan) but then Tarzan captures Mahoney.
The story then turns into High Noon with Tarzan trying to get white colonials to watch Mahoney until the cops come and pick him up but they won’t do it out of fear of offending Mahoney’s nasty family.
For good reason too: the family (led by John Carradine) hold up a stage coach, oops I mean river boat, and kidnap the passengers – who include our own Charles Tingwell (just before he got chubby so still looking spunky). But then let them go and… anyway it gets complicated for a bit but then gets simple: Tarzan has to escort Mahoney to civilisation for arrest and trial across country with a bunch of civilians, followed by Mahoney’s family.
I never realised Tarzan had such devotion to law and order – old school Tarzan surely would have just killed Mahoney then knocked off his family one by one (like he did in Tarzan's Greatest Adventure). Actually, just thinking about it, a lot more could have been made of this – Tarzan having a dilemma whether to knock off Mahoney or see him trailed. It would have been a great Tarzan vs. Jane conflict – only there’s no Jane in this film (he doesn’t even get a love interest).
Marvellous location work and authentic Africans. Mahoney makes a superb villain, right up there with Anthony Quayle. I also enjoyed John Carradine as the paterfamilias – though I started thinking “how great would it have been if he’d three sons been played by David, Keith and Robert?” and once I started I couldn’t stop. Lionel Jeffries is also strong as a surprisingly sympathetic coward. Tingwell is fine; his role isn’t that much, he just is sort of sympathetic.
Occasionally the location stuff doesn’t quite cut together with studio, it has a nasty edge (the baddies shoot a doctor for no reason) and sometimes the squabbling amongst the travellers gets a bit tiresome, but it’s very entertaining and has some excellent, full-on action sequences: someone gets eaten by a lion, another person has their face blown off with a gun, the final fight between Scott and Mahoney is enthralling.
Movie review – Tarzan #21 – “Tarzan’s Greatest Adventure” (1959) ****
Talk about a transformation – under the stewardship of producer Sol Lesser the Tarzan films had become increasingly poor, boring and badly made. He sold the rights to a new producer, who actually put some effort into the thing, and the result is one of the best Tarzans ever. Great colour photography, top notch location work, strong story, excellent support cast, and a really good director – John Guillermin.
It’s still got Gordon Scott, star of four unremarkable Tarzan movies, but he’s allowed to speak in full sentences has a more sensible haircut, and uses his brains more instead of just going the biff and calling in an elephant stampede when things get too hard. We see him tracking the baddies, using a bow and arrow – it’s a tougher, more ruthless Tarzan. He’s motivated by anger but he’s steady and precise in his response (the whole film is really Tarzan on a hunt).
He’s given a proper female co-star too – not a Jane, but a feisty, flirty female pilot. She’s a bit of a dill (she crashes her plane and is a bit shallow and complains), but at least she’s sexually aggressive and allowed to get involved; she even saves Tarzan’s life towards the end. And they have sex (well, they kiss and fade out and in Tarzan land that’s always meant sex). Indeed, it’s actually a touching relationship – they come to admire each other but he’s a guy from the jungle and she’s a socialite and that’s the way it is.
She’s not the only tail on display – Anthony Quayle’s got this sexy European moll who at one point literally lures Quayle into the bushes, making this the most female-oriented Tarzan movies in ages.
There is a great “rogue’s gallery” of villains – admittedly, sometimes their squabbling amongst themselves seems contrived at times, but they are played by excellent actors. Sean Connery is very appealing and charismatic (as an Irishman with a Scots accent) – you know, he would have made a great Tarzan. (He and the others are blacked up for the opening sequence.)
But it’s Quayle who steals the show. He is superb as the scarred baddie with a history with Tarzan; he is intelligent, resourceful, ferocious and virile – the best Tarzan villain to date (and their fight on top of a cliff at the end is breathtaking).
The film was partly shot in Kenya, perhaps explaining why there’s a scene at the beginning where a British colonial officer brings Tarzan up to speed about what’s going on. Plenty of hard violent action – falling in a pit of sticks, crashing on rocks. Extremely well-made and enjoyable movie.
It’s still got Gordon Scott, star of four unremarkable Tarzan movies, but he’s allowed to speak in full sentences has a more sensible haircut, and uses his brains more instead of just going the biff and calling in an elephant stampede when things get too hard. We see him tracking the baddies, using a bow and arrow – it’s a tougher, more ruthless Tarzan. He’s motivated by anger but he’s steady and precise in his response (the whole film is really Tarzan on a hunt).
He’s given a proper female co-star too – not a Jane, but a feisty, flirty female pilot. She’s a bit of a dill (she crashes her plane and is a bit shallow and complains), but at least she’s sexually aggressive and allowed to get involved; she even saves Tarzan’s life towards the end. And they have sex (well, they kiss and fade out and in Tarzan land that’s always meant sex). Indeed, it’s actually a touching relationship – they come to admire each other but he’s a guy from the jungle and she’s a socialite and that’s the way it is.
She’s not the only tail on display – Anthony Quayle’s got this sexy European moll who at one point literally lures Quayle into the bushes, making this the most female-oriented Tarzan movies in ages.
There is a great “rogue’s gallery” of villains – admittedly, sometimes their squabbling amongst themselves seems contrived at times, but they are played by excellent actors. Sean Connery is very appealing and charismatic (as an Irishman with a Scots accent) – you know, he would have made a great Tarzan. (He and the others are blacked up for the opening sequence.)
But it’s Quayle who steals the show. He is superb as the scarred baddie with a history with Tarzan; he is intelligent, resourceful, ferocious and virile – the best Tarzan villain to date (and their fight on top of a cliff at the end is breathtaking).
The film was partly shot in Kenya, perhaps explaining why there’s a scene at the beginning where a British colonial officer brings Tarzan up to speed about what’s going on. Plenty of hard violent action – falling in a pit of sticks, crashing on rocks. Extremely well-made and enjoyable movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)