Famous war film which, along with Red River, propelled John Wayne to the top rank of movie stardom. (He had been an important second-tier star since Stagecoach but didn’t make the box office top ten until 1948). Watching this made me reflect on Wayne’s appeal – although he plays a hard martinet, he never loses his sense of humour, and the smile is never far from his lips. I that is one of the reasons he was so popular for so long.
Wayne gives an excellent performance here as Sgt Stryker, who turns marine boys into men but who is also an alcoholic with a desperately unhappy home life. In later John Wayne films the conflict between Wayne and the other characters could get a bit tiring because you knew it was just a matter of time before they see things Wayne’s way – but every now and then you see a flaw in Stryker, which makes things a bit complex.
Also John Agar (who acquits himself well here) is allowed to make a few decent arguments against Wayne – that he wants his son to be raised intelligent rather than a military boofhead. He later apologises but it’s clear Agar doesn’t intend to be as neglectful as his own father was.
This film was made by Republic Studios, who specialised in B Westerns, but occasionally made more of an effort with the films of Wayne, who was their one big star. You can feel the extra effort – there are lots of cameos from real life heroes including the surviving Iwo Jima flag raising marines, plus newsreel footage.
I loved the foot note in the credits that this famous flag raising wasn’t technically the first American flag raised on Iwo Jima – off the top of my head I can’t think of any other film where the credits had footnotes.
Despite inevitable clichés (wacky comic relief soldiers, sweet faced yokels, good natured girls on shore leave), the film doesn’t paint a rosy picture of war – it’s a hard business where the enemy are good fighters (albeit referred to as “Nips” all the time) and decent men are killed, where seemingly small actions like stopping for a coffee lead to the death of your fellow soldiers and fighting sends you around the bend. Shame they had to have Wayne say “I never felt so good in my life” just before he was killed. And would all the soldiers sit around and have a chat afterwards with hostile Japanese about?
NB New Zealand viewers will enjoy the depiction of their native land in the first part of the film. Agar romances and marries a local Kiwi girl with a strong American accent, but there are few other locals.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Stanley Baker
Was doing a bit of casual internet research on Stanley Baker, as you do, and came across this fascinating interview from 1961 – just before Zulu but when Baker was already established as a semi-name in British cinema. Technically he was a star but somehow you don’t think of Baker as a star. I’d say he was the level of someone like James Woods, a very intense actor who lept to fame playing villains but moved over to heroic roles.
Baker’s unmistakable in his early British films, with his glowering scowl and brooding presence – he totally went against the mould of the Mills-Granger-More types. Actually maybe not entirely against type – he had some similarities to James Mason’s star person, with one key difference: Baker’s persona tended to be strongly working class. Baker worked his way up through the ranks, grabbing sympathetic roles whenever he could (Richard III was a turning point) before becoming a star in the 60s. He didn’t remain a star for long – partly because his energy was sapped through producing, partly because he starred in a couple of box office flops, partly because he simply lacked humour in many of his portrayals. But he was a talented actor with considerable behind the scenes nous and never seemed to lack work thanks to the thriving British television industry.
I’m surprised there isn’t more of a Baker cult out there – his tough image would be seem a natural in this Get Carter-loving New Lad era. There is one, and maybe it will grow in future years.
NB despite Baker's coal mining background, in this interview he still puts on that plummy BBC accent the Brits expected of their actors.
Baker’s unmistakable in his early British films, with his glowering scowl and brooding presence – he totally went against the mould of the Mills-Granger-More types. Actually maybe not entirely against type – he had some similarities to James Mason’s star person, with one key difference: Baker’s persona tended to be strongly working class. Baker worked his way up through the ranks, grabbing sympathetic roles whenever he could (Richard III was a turning point) before becoming a star in the 60s. He didn’t remain a star for long – partly because his energy was sapped through producing, partly because he starred in a couple of box office flops, partly because he simply lacked humour in many of his portrayals. But he was a talented actor with considerable behind the scenes nous and never seemed to lack work thanks to the thriving British television industry.
I’m surprised there isn’t more of a Baker cult out there – his tough image would be seem a natural in this Get Carter-loving New Lad era. There is one, and maybe it will grow in future years.
NB despite Baker's coal mining background, in this interview he still puts on that plummy BBC accent the Brits expected of their actors.
George Raft in “Bolero”
George Raft dancing in the film Bolero – very sexy with Carole Lombard, its like they’re making love, but a lot of the trick stuff is done in long shot so you’re not sure it’s him.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj0vRBL1wzA
William Goldman – “Word Into Image”
Terrific interview with Goldman which was printed in book form but is even better to watch because you get to see Goldman chatting. He’s animated and confident – his voice sounds less croaky than it would later.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AomMhv04whY
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uBC5ch6eMEA
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AomMhv04whY
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uBC5ch6eMEA
Movie review – “Vanilla Sky” (2000) **1/2
This Tom Cruise movie isn’t to everyone’s taste – actually, it isn’t really a “Tom Cruise movie” per se, but an admirable attempt by the Cruiser to evolve his usual “cocky kid gets redemption” persona into something more. It sort-of works – it isn’t a totally satisfying experience but you certainly keep watching and thinking the whole way through, and it has a lovely romantic flavour (which Crowe is good at). The main problem I had with the film is this awful scene where Cruise thinks he’s killed Penelope Cruz – even though it’s because he thinks she’s Cameron Diaz, that’s still not really an excuse to kill someone, and it tends to make Cruise a tad less sympathetic. Strong supporting cast, including Jason Lee and a brilliant performance from Cameron Diaz as a crazy ex of Cruiser’s. Cruz is very pretty but she’s not quite as captivating in English as she is in her native tongue.
NB an aside - I notice there’s a picture of Audrey Hepburn referenced in the film and Cruz was referred to as a “young Audrey Hepburn” around this time; I remember the “she’s a young Audrey Hepburn” thing was said about a number of other female actors – Julia Ormond, Gabrielle Anwar. Why is Hollywood so obsessed about her particularly? Weren't there other hot female actors around when all these guys were growing up? Or did she seem particularly desirable with all that class?
NB an aside - I notice there’s a picture of Audrey Hepburn referenced in the film and Cruz was referred to as a “young Audrey Hepburn” around this time; I remember the “she’s a young Audrey Hepburn” thing was said about a number of other female actors – Julia Ormond, Gabrielle Anwar. Why is Hollywood so obsessed about her particularly? Weren't there other hot female actors around when all these guys were growing up? Or did she seem particularly desirable with all that class?
Movie review – “Misery” (1990) ***
One of the best Steven King adaptations isn’t as impressive as when I first watched it but is still a very good movie with a stunning performance by Kathy Bates in the lead. James Caan is OK but once I read that the role was originally offered to William Hurt I kept wishing Hurt played the role – Caan doesn’t really look like a romantic book writer, and Hurt would have added the extra layer of having intellectual disdain for Bates. Richard Farnsworth offers bright support.
Movie review – “Juno” (2007) ****1/2
A film which could have taken so many wrong turns but works marvellously. The script is a marvel of rich characters, bright dialogues and a logical plot (there were two Hollywood endings that could have happened – two different couples winding up with the kid – and both are avoided). Every performance is faultless, not just Ellen Page (impossible to imagine anyone else in this role) but the girl who plays her best friend (so often this is throw-away casting), and Jennifer Garner’s touching portrayl as a girl who just wants to be a mother. Delightful music and design. Love how dad doesn’t notice the evolving attracting between Juno and Jason Bateman, but step mum Allison Janney is on it right away.
Movie review – “Charlie Wilson’s War” (2007) ***1/2
A fascinating episode of history, particularly in light of recent events, makes for an entertaining movie which is frustratingly never as good as if could have been. Tom Hanks is a fine actor and you can’t really fault his performance – but he’s just plain miscast. The role of Charlie Wilson is a gift, a womanizing hawkish good old boy who was nonetheless pro choice and ERA – a natural for, say, Tommy Lee Jones or John Travolta or someone like that. Tom Hanks simply struggles to convey amiable hedonism, and it makes the film frustrating. The other debit is Mike Nichol’s direction – it’s clean and precise, etc, but it felt as though it needed more energy: the camera to move around, or more music, or snappier editing or something.
Aaron Sorkin isn’t always the easiest writer to direct and his excellent script really isn’t given the treatment it deserves. Fine work from Julia Roberts and (especially) Philip Seymour Hoffman; Amy Adams is fun, too, as Hanks’ assistant (Sorkin loves writing scenes between men and their female secretaries) and Emily Blunt very sexy in a small role.
Play review – “Sunrise at Campobello” by Dore Schary
I have a lot of respect for Dore Schary, even if he did roll over to the nutters during the McCarthy era and wasn’t the best person to run MGM, because after his dumping from said studio he made a big come back writing this Broadway hit. He was helped by a terrific subject matter – FDR being struck down by polio and coming back to politics. There’s a lot of “FDR’s gotta do it” and “he’s the best progressive politician we’ve got” etc but its all good clunky stuff even if the characters seem a little white washed and Schary’s dialogue clunks at times.
Movie review – “Scott of the Antarctic” (1948) ***1/2
This was Ealing’s big prestige picture of its year, and you can tell – there is this feeling of weight about it, as if everyone concerned was going “this is a really important film about one of our beloved heroes so let’s try not to make any mistakes.” Unfortunately this risk-averse approach means we don’t really have a film about characters, just a bunch of actors portraying real people in the least offensive manner. (The humour comes from a colourful lower class type). By sticking to the facts, the film at least hints that Scott’s expedition was perhaps not the best organised in the world. (He doesn’t want to use dogs because for the English dogs “are like our friends” – and Amundsen is “damned unsporting” for going to the South Pole when he said he wouldn’t).
Fortunately, the picks up once they hit the Antarctic, with some terrific production design, and some incredible location work. The film is in colour but actually might have been better in black and white; still, it looks terrific, and the actors really seem as though they’re there (NB is this the influence of the British WW2 documentary movement?). And the last section is brilliant – it can’t help but be moving, one of the great losers of British history going down stoically but the handling is sensitive, it is very well done and it really packs a wallop.
Fortunately, the picks up once they hit the Antarctic, with some terrific production design, and some incredible location work. The film is in colour but actually might have been better in black and white; still, it looks terrific, and the actors really seem as though they’re there (NB is this the influence of the British WW2 documentary movement?). And the last section is brilliant – it can’t help but be moving, one of the great losers of British history going down stoically but the handling is sensitive, it is very well done and it really packs a wallop.
Movie review – “Hardcore” (1979) **
No one falls off the wagon like a Calvinist, which is what happened to Paul Schrader in the 70s. His upbringing stands as a prime warning not to be too restrictive when raising your kids, or else they’ll go a bit bonkers and go full on into drugs, sex and film theory. Still, it gave Schrader a rich reservoir of angst to tap, which he does in this drama/thriller.
It accesses one of the great paranoid fantasies of suburbia – to wit, that if your daughter ever goes missing she’ll wind up in a porn film. That’s what happens to George C Scott in this film, resulting in a famous scene where he screams at a projectionist “turn it off!” It’s a good idea, but the film never lives up to its potential.
It takes ages to get started – I get the idea that they’re establishing Scott’s world but it goes on too long. And Scott’s methods tracking down his daughter are way too costly and silly. Surely he could just door knock and say “I’m looking for my daughter”, instead of paying prostitutes for their time and going undercover as a porn producer (complete with fake moustache)? I mean he is the girl’s father, and she’s just a girl in a porn film not someone who witnessed a murder or something like that. I know Schrader was invoking The Searchers but in The Searchers the Indians stole the daughter and killed the family – they were obviously a threat from the beginning. Here the threat comes very late and seems tacked on. (Schrader would later demonstrate a similar failure to understand what made old classics tick when he remade Cat People). The film picks up when Season Hubley becomes involved; her humorous, likeable performance contrasts well with Scott and she should have been introduced earlier, really. Still you get to see a variety of kinky sex shops.
(NB You get the feeling Schrader’s relationship with the studios making this film was a little like the one between PI Peter Boyle and George C Scott on screen – Scott hires Boyle to do find his daughter, Boyle comes up with clues but costs a lot of money and takes forever; Scott tracks Boyle down and busts him on a couch with a hooker, pleading “I’m doing research”. Did Schrader claim all the money he spent on hookers and drugs on his tax?)
It accesses one of the great paranoid fantasies of suburbia – to wit, that if your daughter ever goes missing she’ll wind up in a porn film. That’s what happens to George C Scott in this film, resulting in a famous scene where he screams at a projectionist “turn it off!” It’s a good idea, but the film never lives up to its potential.
It takes ages to get started – I get the idea that they’re establishing Scott’s world but it goes on too long. And Scott’s methods tracking down his daughter are way too costly and silly. Surely he could just door knock and say “I’m looking for my daughter”, instead of paying prostitutes for their time and going undercover as a porn producer (complete with fake moustache)? I mean he is the girl’s father, and she’s just a girl in a porn film not someone who witnessed a murder or something like that. I know Schrader was invoking The Searchers but in The Searchers the Indians stole the daughter and killed the family – they were obviously a threat from the beginning. Here the threat comes very late and seems tacked on. (Schrader would later demonstrate a similar failure to understand what made old classics tick when he remade Cat People). The film picks up when Season Hubley becomes involved; her humorous, likeable performance contrasts well with Scott and she should have been introduced earlier, really. Still you get to see a variety of kinky sex shops.
(NB You get the feeling Schrader’s relationship with the studios making this film was a little like the one between PI Peter Boyle and George C Scott on screen – Scott hires Boyle to do find his daughter, Boyle comes up with clues but costs a lot of money and takes forever; Scott tracks Boyle down and busts him on a couch with a hooker, pleading “I’m doing research”. Did Schrader claim all the money he spent on hookers and drugs on his tax?)
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Movie review - "Not Another Teen Movie" (2001) **1/2
A film made by people of considerable talent, because there are some really funny lines and situations - making fun of the girl who comes in with hair flowing (a la Jennifer Love Hewitt in Can't Hardly Wait), the token black, the slow hand clap, the best friend who consistently suffers. There are three levels of humour - spoofs of the 90s teen films, of the 80s teen films (I remember watching this in the cinema - you'd have older people laughing during these bits) and (unfortunately) gross out humour (eg watching a girl urinate), which feels like was shoved in as a post-American Pie box office "guarantee". The plot is basically the same as She's All That and actually works better here. A surprising number of soon-to-be-well-known actors are in this including Jamie Pressley and Chris Evans.
Movie review - Corman #40 - "Masque of the Red Death" (1965) ***1/2
The first AIP/Corman/Poe cycle produced three different types: the straight up studio dramas, the comedies and the English productions, which comprised this and Tomb of Ligeia. Filming across the Atlantic enabled the production value to be improved no end - this film looks fantastic, with actually a decent number of supporting actors and quite a few extras. (Dan Haller was let loose on the set for Becket).Most of this is terrific - the opening sequence where we see the Red Death, Vincent Price's excellent performance in the lead, the awesome production design, all the stuff involving Hazel Court and satanic rituals, Corman's direction, the flowing camera work, the use of colour. Jane Asher is pretty but a little dull as the good girl who Price brings to his castle in order to molest (such roles are impossible to play, really, and Asher, though attractive, isn't quite enough to make you understand why Price wouldn't stick with Court).
This is the first really 100% villainous role Price played in a Poe film - normally his characters were just possessed or tricked - and he's excellent; so to is Court and Patrick Magee. Less good is the feisty male juvenile (though his part isn't very big).
The script is mostly effective but there is a middle section where it feels like nothing much is happening, just people walking around or Price taking a passive Asher around the castle. And sometimes you can't help but giggle at the orgy. Still, a marvellous work and an indicator of what Corman could do with time and money. He would soon show, however, that he basically was too impatient to go to the next level.
Movie review - Corman #45 - "Bloody Mama" (1970) *
Perhaps Roger Corman's least enjoyable film (and I'm not alone - his biographer Mark McGee hates it, too). It's a genuinely unpleasant tale of some genuinely unpleasant people, lacking vigour, humour and taste. Shelley Winters is ideal in the title role, Ma Barker, and the cast is impressive - Bruce Dern, Robert de Niro, Don Stroud, Diane Varsi, Pat Hingle. The acting is fine. And so are the production values. But the story... Urgh! Or rather, as McGee has pointed out, it's a collection of incidents which apart from the beginning and end could be put in any order.
It starts with seven year old Ma Barker being raped by her brothers and fathers, then Ma Barker grows up to sleep with her sons, and one of them winds up in prison where he's raped by Bruce Dern, who becomes Winter's lover, and this really nice girl is attracted to de Niro and she ends up raped and killed (a really horrible scene). Around this point I realised I disliked every character and wished they'll all die horribly. They can't even argue "gee it was the depression" because the film clearly establishes the Barkers as dead beats before the depression. And Corman throws in footage of the Klan and police shooting strikebreakers. "ooh, who's to say who's the bigger criminals". Well, get stuffed, these guys are sadistic psychos and their company is enjoyable.
There is good exploitation and bad exploitation. There is some good exploitation here - Winters' barmstorming performance, the incest (hey, it's between consensual parties), Winters blasting away with a tommy gun, Diana Varsi having sex with one of the Barker boys in the backseat of a car while the other two watch (Varsi also goes topless but it's not a very good performance - I don't think it was a great loss to cinema when she went walkabout in the early 60s). But this film is mostly full of bad exploitation - humourless characters, rape, poor structure.
It starts with seven year old Ma Barker being raped by her brothers and fathers, then Ma Barker grows up to sleep with her sons, and one of them winds up in prison where he's raped by Bruce Dern, who becomes Winter's lover, and this really nice girl is attracted to de Niro and she ends up raped and killed (a really horrible scene). Around this point I realised I disliked every character and wished they'll all die horribly. They can't even argue "gee it was the depression" because the film clearly establishes the Barkers as dead beats before the depression. And Corman throws in footage of the Klan and police shooting strikebreakers. "ooh, who's to say who's the bigger criminals". Well, get stuffed, these guys are sadistic psychos and their company is enjoyable.
There is good exploitation and bad exploitation. There is some good exploitation here - Winters' barmstorming performance, the incest (hey, it's between consensual parties), Winters blasting away with a tommy gun, Diana Varsi having sex with one of the Barker boys in the backseat of a car while the other two watch (Varsi also goes topless but it's not a very good performance - I don't think it was a great loss to cinema when she went walkabout in the early 60s). But this film is mostly full of bad exploitation - humourless characters, rape, poor structure.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Movie review - Corman #30 - "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1962) ***1/2
The second Corman/Poe/AIP film flirts with greatness, but doesn't quite make it. It definitely has a stronger story than The House of Usher (even though it reuses many of the same elements), with John Kerr arriving at a mysterious castle investigating the death of his sister. Vincent Price is the dead lady's husband and he also has a sister, a best friend and a butler. I think it's the addition of these extra characters that helps make this feel more like a genuine feature length film.
The acting here is very iffy - Price hams it up (during some of his early crying scenes you might get the giggles) and John Kerr and Luana Anders are strickly amateur hour... though you do get used to all three as the film goes on. The real star is Daniel Haller's art direction, which is superb - big spooky castles, a torture chamber down stairs, and a magnificent pendulum. Floyd Crosby's photography and Les Baxter's music is excellent as well, and Barbara Steele is electric in her appearances, sexy and terrifying: you wish she'd done more in the Poe cycle.
Richard Matheson's script isn't bad but it lacks a little here and there. For instance, it feels a bit lazy how Kerr winds up under the pendulum (Price gets him mixed up with someone else), and once he's there he is totally passive. I mean, yes, I know he's chained - but how about him try to scream or get one arm free or something? (As it is, the butler saves the day). They don't use the rats who are specified in the short story. And I think it was a mistake to have two flashbacks so close to each other. Generally, though, this is an enjoyable, polished work with some terrific things about it.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Book review – “High Concept”
Don Simpson was the most legendary of the 80s and 90s producers, partly because he had a high profile while alive, mostly now because he’s dead. (And Robert Evans is still alive – freaky.) This is a decent enough bio, which concentrates perhaps understandably on the cocaine and hookers. It is footnoted, which make a nice change but you can’t help wish there was a bit more analysis on Simpson’s skills as producer – people talk about it a lot but we don’t see a lot of it except for Officer and a Gentleman and The Rock. More memos or case studies I think would have been useful. And putting Simpson in the context of people like Charlie Sheen and Christian Slater – that seems a bit wrong, most people in Hollywood work very hard and are kind of dull.
Play review – “Caine Mutinty Court Martial” by Herman Wouk
Bang-up military courtroom drama which cleverly succeeds in having it both ways – defending a “mutiny” that happens on board a ship during WW2, but at the same time taking to task people who did that mutiny. While Captain Queeg is plainly a nutter apparently he’s not as bad as snotty nosed novelist (a marvellous character) or even the dim exec officer. You may not agree with this but it makes marvellous drama and Wouk gets points for creating a compelling third act after the courtroom climax where the lawyer tells off his client. Reading this you feel Aaron Sorkin must have studied it for A Few Good Men.
Movie review – Errol #12 - “Four’s a Crowd” (1938) ***
They didn’t have much of an idea for this film, which is really just about PR man Errol Flynn trying to nab rich Walter Connolly as a client (low stakes), but given that it’s as if the filmmakers then went “right, let’s make the best movie we can given that”, and they just went for it. So you have a silly, weak central idea done with tremendous vim and gusto. Errol Flynn has the time of his life as the unscrupulous PR man, and watching him here I think he could have even handled being in something like His Girl Friday - especially as he bounces so well off Rosalind Russell, who plays a reporter.
Russell is usually excellent playing snappy reporters and she is so here; so too is Olivia de Havilland as a slightly dim but energetic heiress, always up for a bit of fun. Indeed, this is surprisingly sexy, with couple swappings, Errol wooing both Olivia and Ros and both enjoying him, with a scene of the three of them running around the pool in their bathers. Patric Knowles is a bit of a drag as the fourth lead – he tries but it’s like three gold plated stars and poor old platinum Patric. But don’t worry, they shunt him out of the way for most the running time.
This script is really a collection of set pieces – there’s a sequence in a nightclub behind a coffin, one where Flynn breaks into Connolly’s house to sabotage a model train race (its that sort of script), the model train race, Errol having two dates for the night, the final wedding sequence. Michael Curtiz directs at a break neck speed, the cast are excellent (except Knowles), there’s even some believable softy spots where Flynn engineers Connolly to donate money to an infantile paralysis centre. Some silly bits, though - for instance, its not needed that Errol also be the former editor of Ros's newspaper - it's something that only exists so Errol can wage a campaign against Connolly then disappears.
Russell is usually excellent playing snappy reporters and she is so here; so too is Olivia de Havilland as a slightly dim but energetic heiress, always up for a bit of fun. Indeed, this is surprisingly sexy, with couple swappings, Errol wooing both Olivia and Ros and both enjoying him, with a scene of the three of them running around the pool in their bathers. Patric Knowles is a bit of a drag as the fourth lead – he tries but it’s like three gold plated stars and poor old platinum Patric. But don’t worry, they shunt him out of the way for most the running time.
This script is really a collection of set pieces – there’s a sequence in a nightclub behind a coffin, one where Flynn breaks into Connolly’s house to sabotage a model train race (its that sort of script), the model train race, Errol having two dates for the night, the final wedding sequence. Michael Curtiz directs at a break neck speed, the cast are excellent (except Knowles), there’s even some believable softy spots where Flynn engineers Connolly to donate money to an infantile paralysis centre. Some silly bits, though - for instance, its not needed that Errol also be the former editor of Ros's newspaper - it's something that only exists so Errol can wage a campaign against Connolly then disappears.
Movie review – Errol #36 - “Montana” (1950) **1/2
Most of us are familiar with the battle between cattlemen and poor-but-honest homesteaders. Less familiar is that between cattlemen and poor-but-honest sheep herders – mainly because, I guess, the sheep never took off in the US the way it did in Australia, and let’s face it the sheep is a pretty wimpy animal. Nonetheless, the clash formed the basis for a number of Westerns, including The Sheepman and this one.
Errol Flynn plays a sheepman, originally from the US who grew up in Australia (unreal!) after cattlemen shot his paw; now he’s back to the US to drive his sheep through Montana. This was one of a pair of Westerns Warners shunted Errol off into after two big budget films. It’s made with customary polish and vim and has the benefit of being in colour with some decent action sequences. Errol doesn’t seem that interested in the proceedings, which is a shame (though he does have a moment where he goes undercover as a peddler); neither, more surprisingly, does S K Sakall. Errol gets beaten up, thrown off a bull and even shot by his love interest here – he was showing his age.
The most interesting thing about the movie is the fact Errol plays an Aussie (disappointingly little is made of this) and the fact the theme of the movie seems to be about getting equal rights for sheep herders (a rare civil rights for animals movie?) Alexis Smith teamed magically with Errol in Gentleman Jim but never seemed to catch the same fire in subsequent teamings and that’s unfortunately true here – maybe she had to play a hoity-toity miss. Having said that, she and Errol sing a duet together which is a lot of fun. (NB just thinking about it, in the late 40s you get the feeling Warners tried to throw Errol a lot of bones here and there eg, “you can do comedy”, “you can do melodrama”, “OK its a Western but you can play an Aussie and have a scene where you sing”).
The villains and supporting players are undercast and after a while all the talk about “we’ve got to do it for the sheep and the rights of sheep herders everywhere” just gets silly; when Errol rides the sheep through town at the end it’s not exactly a great moment in Western history (especially when Smith then shoots him – and apologises straight away).
Errol Flynn plays a sheepman, originally from the US who grew up in Australia (unreal!) after cattlemen shot his paw; now he’s back to the US to drive his sheep through Montana. This was one of a pair of Westerns Warners shunted Errol off into after two big budget films. It’s made with customary polish and vim and has the benefit of being in colour with some decent action sequences. Errol doesn’t seem that interested in the proceedings, which is a shame (though he does have a moment where he goes undercover as a peddler); neither, more surprisingly, does S K Sakall. Errol gets beaten up, thrown off a bull and even shot by his love interest here – he was showing his age.
The most interesting thing about the movie is the fact Errol plays an Aussie (disappointingly little is made of this) and the fact the theme of the movie seems to be about getting equal rights for sheep herders (a rare civil rights for animals movie?) Alexis Smith teamed magically with Errol in Gentleman Jim but never seemed to catch the same fire in subsequent teamings and that’s unfortunately true here – maybe she had to play a hoity-toity miss. Having said that, she and Errol sing a duet together which is a lot of fun. (NB just thinking about it, in the late 40s you get the feeling Warners tried to throw Errol a lot of bones here and there eg, “you can do comedy”, “you can do melodrama”, “OK its a Western but you can play an Aussie and have a scene where you sing”).
The villains and supporting players are undercast and after a while all the talk about “we’ve got to do it for the sheep and the rights of sheep herders everywhere” just gets silly; when Errol rides the sheep through town at the end it’s not exactly a great moment in Western history (especially when Smith then shoots him – and apologises straight away).
Movie review – Corman #32 - “The Premature Burial” (1962) **1/2
This started out as a Poe movie made by Roger Corman for people other than AIP (which is why Vincent Price isn’t in it) but then Sam K Arkoff blackmailed the producers into giving distribution rights over to AIP. It is very similar to other the ones – essentially a bunch of people walking around a dark and murky house. Milland is a polished actor who gives a fine performance but less fun than Price, especially when he goes mad.
The plot has Milland terrified of premature burial to such an extent he doesn’t want to marry Hazel Court and he builds a super crypt that is premature burial-proof. Of course he ends up buried anyway. This is a pretty decent effort, and all the stuff about being buried prematurely is creepy. It’s not top-line Corman/Poe but it is fun.
Court is OK (a really top line actor could have knocked this out of the park but at least she was pretty). Richard Ney is really weak – is there ever a gothic type film where the character of the man-who-loves-the-insane-guy’s-wife is interesting? Is it the actor or do I just not like the type of person? I think here’s its Ney – he’s the kid from Mrs Miniver and if he was wet there he’s wet and older here.
Script wise I think it is a mistake to have Court’s villainy revealed at the very end and then by proxy – better to have shown it up front, or at the beginning of the third act, I feel. Also some lazy writing – if the sister knew all about it why didn’t she tell? “I knew you wouldn’t believe me” isn’t enough. And how did Milland figure it out?
Alan Napier and Dick Miller strengthen the support cast.
Movie review – Corman #33 - “Tales of Terror” (1962) ***
Edgar Allen Poe wrote so many short stories it wasn’t hard to make an anthology movie out of them, which is what Roger Corman did for the 4th in the Poe cycle. The first, serious tale, “Morella” is OK – like a redux lite version of Fall of the House of Usher, but that’s mainly due to an inadequate co star for Vincent Price. "The Black Cat" with Price and Peter Lorre both in terrific form is great (love the ending) as is "The Case of M Valdemar", where Price is helped out by Basil Rathbone. Very satisfying compendium.
Movie review – Errol #42 - “Against All Flags” (1952) ***1/2
Errol’s 50s swashbucklers are usually seen as sorry efforts from a once great star but this one at any rate remains colourful, escapist entertainment, with a strong script and top-notch cast. Sure, Errol looks dissolute and seedy but who cares? It’s Errol Flynn – he’s either going to be youthful and dashing or older and seedy yet still dashing with a twinkle in his eye.Undercover plots usually almost always work and it does here, with Errol trying to bust a pirate ring. The most fun in the film comes from gorgeous Maureen O’Hara as a feisty pirate, who falls in love with Errol, does a lot of swashbuckling and gets jealous of a (naive but very horny) princess in disguise – she was his best co-star in ages and its a shame they didn’t work together more often (Errol’s innate lechery teams well with O’Hara’s feisty hoity-toity-ness and the both seem to enjoy each other’s company).
O’Hara is a feisty independent woman, who runs her own pirate ship, is a dab hand at the sword and sits on the board of directors of the pirate community (there’s also a black pirate – progressive bunch, these pirates); while she’s comfortable in the masculine world, she hasn’t given up on her femininity – she kisses a tied-up Errol as a dare and later propositions him out-right (“get to it, Mr Hawke!” she demands); she likes to wear dresses and flash necklaces, but only in her down time.
There’s also Anthony Quinn as the villain (quite sympathetic - he's brave, on to Errol from the start and seems to genuinely like O'Hara - he does try to molest her at the end but that smacks of convenience so you don't mind that he gets killed at the end), Mildred Natwick as a Una O'Connor-style maid, floggings, duels, last-minute rescues, cast names fleeced from real pirates (eg Bart Roberts) and Errol almost eaten by crabs. Good stuff despite flabbish direction.
Movie review – Errol #33 - “Silver River” (1948) ***
After WW2 Warner Bros let Errol go into a few different sort of films – melodrama, comedy, film noir – before putting him in two big budget blockbusters, this and The Adventures of Don Juan. While the latter was soon realised as a classic this one didn’t recoup its budget, despite teaming him with Ann Sheridan, an ideal Errol co-star if there ever was one, full of booze and sass. It’s an enjoyable film, very well made with all of Raoul Walsh’s energy.
Its main problem with the public, I think, is it was a melodrama about the redemption of a scoundrel rather than an action movie – closer to The Sisters than San Antonio. And the public didn’t embrace it –maybe they would have with a few more gun fights or a more prominent villain (Barton MacLane is fine but he’s always a henceman).
Errol actually gives a good performance – he looks a bit more seedy than in his glory days but it totally suits his more unscrupulous character and he teams well with Ann Sheridan (you imagine they could go vodka for vodka). It’s an entertaining movie that should be better known – I think it would if it were made pre 1946. It seems to belong more to the Great Years of Hollywood, especially with Thomas Mitchell playing another drunk.
Its main problem with the public, I think, is it was a melodrama about the redemption of a scoundrel rather than an action movie – closer to The Sisters than San Antonio. And the public didn’t embrace it –maybe they would have with a few more gun fights or a more prominent villain (Barton MacLane is fine but he’s always a henceman).
Errol actually gives a good performance – he looks a bit more seedy than in his glory days but it totally suits his more unscrupulous character and he teams well with Ann Sheridan (you imagine they could go vodka for vodka). It’s an entertaining movie that should be better known – I think it would if it were made pre 1946. It seems to belong more to the Great Years of Hollywood, especially with Thomas Mitchell playing another drunk.
Movie review – “I Know Where I’m Going” (1945) *****
Every now and then you have the experience of just sitting down and discovering a film. It happened for me in the early 90s, sitting down and watching this on television. I knew nothing about it and the film just wrapped me up in its arms and embraced me. Years gone on and the affection I have for it remains undimmed: Wendy Hiller’s forthright protagonist, Roger Livesley’s decent lord, the supporting characters (eccentrics but without wacky-ness or twee-ness), the wonderful location photography, a genuinely thrilling boat-in-a-storm sequence (location footage intercut with studio stuff – certainly a lot more realistic than anything Hollywood was going at the time). My favourite bits: Livesley’s declaration that “I don’t mind”, Pamela Brown going “money isn’t everything”, the old couple who can’t say anything at the end just covered in love. Wonderful.
Movie review – “Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women” (1968) * 1/2
Another version of Planet of Storms but a lot more impressive than Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet mainly because Peter Bogdanovich is a better director than Curtis Harrington.For instance, although both films start with the same plot and have new sequences, Bogdanovich spends the first section of his film using voice over and stuffing in as many of the special effects as he could (the film’s real strength); whereas the Harrington version went to scenes of Rathbone at the beginning. OK yes Rathbone is a better actor than Mamie Van Doren but I think this shows a better appreciation for the film’s strengths and weaknesses.
It’s also a good idea to have one character narrate the whole thing (Bogdanovich does the job), making the story easy to follow, and to have humans on the planet – Mamie and a bunch of girls on the beach. But the film loses points by not doing anything much with them. Telepathy was clever I guess but mostly the girls are just rolling around in the water and sand and after a while it just gets boring.
Movie review – “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet” (1965) *
In the 50s it became popular to buy Japanese and Italian films and recut/dub them for US audiences, sometimes even throwing in some new footage. In the 60s the Cold War had cooled down sufficiently for Hollywood to turn its eye to Russia – the Soviets were churning out some space flicks with some pretty nifty effects, and the fact the lead characters spent a lot of time in space ships and space suits made dubbing a bit easier.
Writer director Pavel Klushantsev made a film in the early 60s called Planet of Storms which has been recut here. It’s about two rocket ships which crash on Venus and the attempts of the crew members to hook up, fighting various creatures (including dinosaurs) and the elements. The effects are fairly impressive; the rest of it isn’t too crash hot.
There was some formidable names on the film: Curtis Harrington was the new “director” (under a nom de plume); Stephanie Rothman worked as a producer and Roger Corman was involved in a producing capacity. In addition, Basil Rathbone and Faith Domerge appear in new (not very good) sequences – their acting isn’t much better than the dubbed Russians. Corman later used the footage on Queen of Blood (also directed by Harrington) and Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women.
Writer director Pavel Klushantsev made a film in the early 60s called Planet of Storms which has been recut here. It’s about two rocket ships which crash on Venus and the attempts of the crew members to hook up, fighting various creatures (including dinosaurs) and the elements. The effects are fairly impressive; the rest of it isn’t too crash hot.
There was some formidable names on the film: Curtis Harrington was the new “director” (under a nom de plume); Stephanie Rothman worked as a producer and Roger Corman was involved in a producing capacity. In addition, Basil Rathbone and Faith Domerge appear in new (not very good) sequences – their acting isn’t much better than the dubbed Russians. Corman later used the footage on Queen of Blood (also directed by Harrington) and Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women.
Movie review – “Eagh” (1962) *
The best known film from director Arch Hall, probably because of Richard Kiel’s presence in the title role. He’s a cave man who falls in love with a pretty girl and kidnaps her and her father (Hall), then has to fight off her boyfriend (Hall Jnr). The film has its charms: Kiel’s performance (he’s charismatic and quite touching), the fact Hall Snr cast his chubby cheeked son in the romantic lead role (he sings a few Ricky Nelson type songs), and there are some fun scenes like when Kiel tries shaving and dad tells his daughter “to go along with” the molesting cave man. But it goes on too long to be really entertaining; after a while it’s just plain inept.
Movie review – “The Invisible Ray” (1936) ***
Third of the Karloff-Lugosi teamings isn’t as highly regarded by buffs because it isn’t pure horror but it is definitely part horror with Boris Karloff going mad and on a killing rampage.He plays a scientist who becomes infected by a mineral obtained on an expedition to Africa – he starts killing off expedition members one by one and you realise the writers had the King Tut expedition curse very much in mind. Lugosi plays a good doctor who wants to use the mineral for the Right Reasons and he gives an accomplished performance – Lugosi always made an interesting hero because, with his dark looks and Hungarian accent, he looked evil. Karloff goes mad well and has an interesting relationship with his devoted mother.
A bit yucky is the subplot where Karloff’s much younger, prettier wife, Frances Drake, falls in love with a younger scientist (wimpy Frank Lawton) and ends up marrying him.
This is one of the most sympathetic treatments of a woman leaving her elderly husband while he’s still alive – I guess it was OK even under the Production Code because Karloff turns into a killer. But it doesn’t quite work because Drake looks like a bit of a tramp and Lawton comes across as a buck tooth loser. So you kind of wish either one of them bought the farm at the end instead of Lugosi. This is polished work, lacking the lunatic brilliance of Black Cat or Raven but a lot more logical than either (NB I admit I am talking relatively here).
Movie review – “Heathers” (1989) ****1/2
Most film goers first became familiar with Winona Ryder thought Beetlejuice but this was the film that indicated she was going to be around for a while. A stunningly brilliant black comedy which still holds up, regardless of the big hair and synthesizer score, with Ryder and Christian Slater perfect in their roles. The dialogue still dazzles, the sheer originality of the concept – students start killing bitches called Heather, make them suicides and suicide becomes popular – continues to impress, you keep being continually surprised by twists (eg “I don’t patronise bunny rabbits”, “I love my dead gay son”, Ryder and Slater laughing at a funeral for two football players then they cut to a shot of one of the player’s weeping little sister). The last section is admittedly not that strong – once Ryder breaks away from Slater she becomes passive, and the climax is dragged out with all those scenes of students clapping.
Movie review – “The Blair Witch Project” (1999) ****
There was a considerable backlash against this film – a poorly-received sequel, the lack of a significant post-film career from its key creatives, the large number of spoofs that leapt up almost immediately – but it remains a bloody scary brilliantly film, which turns its low budget to its advantage in a way few movies do. This demonstrates nothing is more creepy that the slightly odd – a couple of twigs wrapped up and lain outside your tent, laughter at night, sounds of sobbing at night, a deserted house. The actors are all fine – they wail and carry on but that would happen, and they have the film school types down pat: whiny soundie who pulls through at the end, bossy producer, showpony DOP. Excellent ending.
Movie review – Corman #4 - “The Day the World Ended” (1956) **
Post-apocalyptic films are ideal for low budget sci fi because you only need a couple of actors. Roger Corman made a few in this genre, of which I believe this is the first. It starts well, with a surprisingly cynical tone as a bunch of survivors and holed up at a house with a monster outside. That is always a decent enough premise for a film, but too much of this consists of squabbles inside a house which looks just like an everday Leave it to Beaver 50s house rather than a place that has survived a nuclear war – a Corman doesn’t help by staging a lot of this like a play. There’s a gangster and his moll (who sings an old song, Key Largo style), some squabbling over pretty Lori Nelson and a distinct homoerotic tinge to the relationship between Richard Denning and Paul Birch (Nelson’s father); there is a surprisingly lot of talk about God and a fun scene where Birch tells Denning the women have to start breeding. Right on! It moves along, is competently put together, with some decent acting.
Movie review – “Glen or Glenda” (1953) */****
For my mind a more entertaining picture than Plan Nine from Outer Space, a dazzlingly personal tale that pleas for understanding for men who dress in women’s clothing. This is ceaselessly fascinating, from the Bela Lugosi rants intercut with stock footage that doesn’t have anything to do with the film, the terrific moment where Dolores Fuller hands over her sweater to Ed Wood, Wood’s performance in the lead, elongated dream sequences, bits where scantily-clanted women twist and turn rather erotically on a couch, large slabs of narration. Far too much fun (and genuinely interesting) to be regarded as one of the worst films of all time – better to describe it as one of the most fascinating poorly made films of all time.
Movie review – “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” (1978) ***
Robert Zemeckis’ debut feature didn’t meet with public favour and when I first saw this I was a bit surprised – it was about four likeable teenagers, had plenty of plot and narrative drive, was well directed, etc. But watching it a second time the reasons seem a bit clearer – it’s a bit of a stressful experience to watch the movie, people are always having a bad time (getting kicked out of places, etc), the actors don’t really strike goals except for Wendie Jo Sperber, and there is a bewildering lack of romance (three of the four girls have opportunities for it – the fat chick doesn’t which is OK since it is hilarious and totally in character that Eddie Deezer would reject her because she said she’d wait for Paul and now goes back on it, but not the other two). Also some of it is uncomfortable – you keep waiting for the Bobby di Cicco character to do something nice but he keeps trying to trash the Beatles up to the end and isn’t very nice.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Movie review – “Muriel’s Wedding” (1994) ****1/2
The first third is close to perfection as such things get. The remaining two-thirds is less strong but still very enjoyable studded with genius. Toni Collette’s Muriel is one of the all time great cinematic characters with some amazing breakdowns. You think she’s going to be “cured” when she moves to Sydney but no, it takes forever.
Movie review – “Mark of the Vampire” (1935) **
Bela Lugosi and Todd Browning reunited for another vampire tell, with a decent budget and strong cast (Lionel Barrymore is an imposing if hammy Van Helsing, Lionel Atwill, Jean Hersholt). At first this starts off fine: suspicious villagers, a dead body, talk of vampires, Donald Meek providing some decent comic relief. Browning uses the camera here a lot better than in Dracula and when you see Lugosi going on the rampage with sexy goth Carroll Borland you think “this is going to be great”. But it gets bogged down and becomes progressively less interesting. At the end there is this climax where they are trying to get the killer to reveal he did it – but who cares? No one’s at stake, they know who the killer is, the killer is hypnotised so the girl isn’t in any danger. Yawn, snore. Then of course there is the revelation they’re not vampires. You know, there is a moment at the end when Lugosi and Borland are laughing about the roles they’ve played and Lugosi says something egotistical and its funny – and you think “that would have made a better movie – telling it from Lugosi’s POV as an actor playing a vampire.” The actor who plays the male juvenile is atrocious.
Serial review – “The Phantom Creeps” (1939) **
Bela Lugosi made a number of serials during the 1930s, perhaps more than any other star. This is a 12 part effort where Bela plays a mad scientist reluctant to give his cool invention over to the boring old US government. This was made by Universal so there is use of familiar music from horror films from that studio, plus stock footage from movies like The Invisible Ray. It’s glorious silly fun with Bela really letting rip and having a high old time. Last minute escapes, wisecracking heroes – why don’t they do these any more?
Play review – “The Country Girl” by Clifford Odets
Clifford Odets is famous (among writers at least) for being the playwright who sold out and went Hollywood, where he was destroyed. Most bios on him commented “he never lived up to his original promise” – which is a bit rich, since his later years produced works such as this, The Big Knife, and the screenplay for The Sweet Smell of Success. Thinking over it, though – most of the themes of those works deal with selling out, so Odets certainly encouraged the myth himself. This play is from 1950 is about the attempts of a theatre director to hire an alcoholic actor in his latest play; although there are supporting roles such as a ruthless producer and kindly playwright (way to go, Odets), the meat of the drama concerns the director, the actor and the latter’s wife – in particular the dysfunctional marriage of the last two. Three strong characters, in good conflict. Strong stuff, with some flowery dialogue. There’s a scene were we see the alcoholic actor actually act, and we’re supposed to be impressed by it – that’s risky (what if he sucks?). I remember Laura Brannigan in Backstage supposed to be a great actor, and you’re sort of willing to go with it... but then they show it. Likewise any actor who plays the Kate Hepburn part in Stage Door actually has to be good.
Play review – “Abe Lincoln in Illinois” by Robert Sherwood
I was under the impression this play centred around Abe’s debates with Douglas but while that is provides a scene its only one in a bio of America’s most famous president, covering early romance with Ann Rutledge to heading off to the White House. Its got a huge cast and Raymond Massey must have been brilliant in the role. Lincoln comes across as engaging and very human – the biggest surprise is his marriage with Mary Todd is shown to be not fulfilling, more a political arrangement which brought Todd nor Lincoln no happiness.
Play review – “The Glass Menagerie” by Tennessee Williams
I read this along with a bunch of other plays from the 40s which I think was a good idea because it helped me put it a bit more in context, how revolutionary Williams’ non-naturalistic approach was at the time. It’s a small but beautifully self-contained piece with a knock out role for the mother that builds to its climax of disillusion. The smashing of the menagerie seemed to owe a debt to Chekhov.
Movie review – “Bugsy Malone” (1976) ***1/2
Excellent fun which would remain one of Alan Parker’s and David Puttnam’s best film. Some excellent performances in the cast, including Scott Baio, Jodie Foster (who looks as though she could have played the role in a grown up’s film) and the bloke who plays Fat Sam; Blousy and Dandy Dan are less good (to be fair, Blousy isn’t much of a character). The structure for the story is very solid – some moments are genuinely scary (such as the elimination of Fat Sam’s men) and rousing (when Bugsy recruits men to fight against Dandy Dan). I love the finale where everyone becomes friends and then Blousy and Bugsy take off for Hollywood. I remember this was the film which educated me about the Depression – when Bugsy visits the soup kitchen I asked my mother what it was and she told me. There’s worse ways of learning about the world than the movies.
Book review – “All about ‘All About Eve’” by Sam Staggs
Enjoyable account behind the making of the famous film, gossipy but well researched. Because All About Eve was made when the studio system was still trundling along (albeit at the beginning of its decline), production was relatively painless. Joe Mankeiwicz was coming off A Letter from Three Wives so it’s not as though he had heaps of hassles getting financing. Even Bette Davis was relatively stress-free, recognising the quality of the role and also falling for her co-star Gary Merrill.
This is quite a long book, enabling Staggs to do a very thorough job – with one eye on the gay readership, he devotes chapters to the book’s gay following, the influence (or not) of Tallulah Bankhead, the production of the musical Applause (which sounds a lot more tortuous than making the movie), etc. His big triumph was tracking down the career of the original “Eve” – the stalker of Elisabeth Bergner who inspired the short story which led to the film. This is a great achievement and could probably inspire a movie on its own, or at least a play (the woman is a bit of a nutter). It’s a shame he couldn’t have devoted a bit more time to, say, a more thorough study of Mankeiwicz’s career (there is some, just felt it could use a bit more), or George Sanders. It would also have been great to have attached a copy of the short story or script (when the multimedia revolution finally kicks in, these sort of books should always be accompanied if possible by a DVD of the film). Staggs struggles to come up with much to say about Hugh Marlowe’s performance – but he’s no orphan on that score!
NB My own opinion on All About Eve – I was a bit disappointed when I first saw it, to be honest, but I was only young and as the years have gone on I appreciate it more and more, especially as I learned more about theatre (for instance, I love the way Eve can’t score the director – but the writer will sleep with her!). Some things about my opinion haven’t changed though – namely, while Bette Davis, Thelma Ritter and George Sanders were all magnificent and Gary Merrill and Celeste Holm extremely good, Hugh Marlowe is bland (and even though the character is bland the movie would have benefited from a better actor), and Anne Baxter, while a good actor giving a good performance, isn’t remotely believable as someone who could steal the stage from Davis. I believe Baxter as a crawler, a wannabe – but not a genuine star; that’s what’s stopped me from regarding this as really top rank.
This is quite a long book, enabling Staggs to do a very thorough job – with one eye on the gay readership, he devotes chapters to the book’s gay following, the influence (or not) of Tallulah Bankhead, the production of the musical Applause (which sounds a lot more tortuous than making the movie), etc. His big triumph was tracking down the career of the original “Eve” – the stalker of Elisabeth Bergner who inspired the short story which led to the film. This is a great achievement and could probably inspire a movie on its own, or at least a play (the woman is a bit of a nutter). It’s a shame he couldn’t have devoted a bit more time to, say, a more thorough study of Mankeiwicz’s career (there is some, just felt it could use a bit more), or George Sanders. It would also have been great to have attached a copy of the short story or script (when the multimedia revolution finally kicks in, these sort of books should always be accompanied if possible by a DVD of the film). Staggs struggles to come up with much to say about Hugh Marlowe’s performance – but he’s no orphan on that score!
NB My own opinion on All About Eve – I was a bit disappointed when I first saw it, to be honest, but I was only young and as the years have gone on I appreciate it more and more, especially as I learned more about theatre (for instance, I love the way Eve can’t score the director – but the writer will sleep with her!). Some things about my opinion haven’t changed though – namely, while Bette Davis, Thelma Ritter and George Sanders were all magnificent and Gary Merrill and Celeste Holm extremely good, Hugh Marlowe is bland (and even though the character is bland the movie would have benefited from a better actor), and Anne Baxter, while a good actor giving a good performance, isn’t remotely believable as someone who could steal the stage from Davis. I believe Baxter as a crawler, a wannabe – but not a genuine star; that’s what’s stopped me from regarding this as really top rank.
Movie review – “Jaws” (1975) *****
A monster film that looks even better 30 years on. Steven Spielberg’s direction remains a delight of mise-en-scene and depth of field, the acting is top notch, the story a marvel. They do so many things in this movie so well it makes you wonder “why don’t they do it again?” Not the vicious-creature-killing-people story, that’s been done to death, but other things – like have an interesting non-creature plot with an human antagonist (the mayor) who, while he is a baddie, is given a believable motivation (to keep the beaches open), make a film with three good actors rather than three stars (you you’re never sure who’s going to live); have a hero (Roy Schneider) who is a kindly family man not a superhero or a tormented divorcee/alcoholic (Schneider wasn’t a star at the time – if they made the film now you’d probably need one and he’d insist on some acting challenge like a tormented past so he could seek redemption eg Tom Cruise in War of the Worlds, as if it isn’t just as hard to play normal); spend some time with the characters (eg Robert Shaw’s marvellous monologue); make normal domestic scenes interesting (eg wonderful moment where Schneider’s son copies his gestures, vignettes of life on the island); develop the characters so they have camaraderie (e.g. the three guys on the water), warmth (Lorraine Gray and Schneider) and funny, believable conflict (e.g. Shaw vs Dreyfuss on the boat).
Occasionally the shark does look fake, but I’d prefer an honest fake shark to some dodgy CGI number. Schneider and Richard Dreyfuss are excellent, but Lorraine Gray is awkward (she was the studio boss’s wife so she earned her keep by ensuring Spielberg didn’t get fired) and Shaw’s performance is richly-cut ham – but admittedly it does work in the film. Shooting it at sea was a nightmare but pays off in spades. One of the best third acts ever.
Occasionally the shark does look fake, but I’d prefer an honest fake shark to some dodgy CGI number. Schneider and Richard Dreyfuss are excellent, but Lorraine Gray is awkward (she was the studio boss’s wife so she earned her keep by ensuring Spielberg didn’t get fired) and Shaw’s performance is richly-cut ham – but admittedly it does work in the film. Shooting it at sea was a nightmare but pays off in spades. One of the best third acts ever.
Movie review – “Return of the Vampire” (1944) ***
Although Bela Lugosi became famous playing Dracula, he actually played far more mad scientists during his career than vampires. Amazingly, this was only the second time he played a vampire on screen (in Mark of the Vampire he was only pretending). Its lovely to see him back in the fangs and cape again, kissing female hands – he’s getting on a bit, but he’s still Bela Lugosi.
Here he’s a vampire who rises in 1918 to attack an English family – they drive a stake through his heart, but he gets brought back to life in 1944 and goes looking for revenge... which is a bit rich in my book (he was trying to kill the family, he should have expected they’d try to kill him), but there you go.
The director of this opus is Lew Lander, who previously helmed Lugosi in The Raven, and he does a good job – the film is brisk, well shot and professional. While much of the plot is regurgitated Dracula/Universal stuff – vampires holding women in trances (beautiful Nina Foch is the object of his affection), doctors running sanatoriums – there are two fresh twists (well, fresh-ish): the vampire used to be a scientist who got interested in the occult (obviously so interested he turned vampire – a concept strong enough for its own film) and his sidekick is a werewolf.
It's also interesting that the Van Hesling part in the film is a woman (played by Frieda Inescort) and that the werewolf is so sympathetic (this is the werewolf’s story as much as anyone else’s – battle for his soul). But the film loses points for some laziness at the end with the deux ex machina of the Nazi bombing.
Movie review – “Murders in the Rue Morgue” (1932) ***
The film Bela Lugosi and director Robert Florey were assigned to make instead of Frankenstein is not one of the better known Universal horrors (there were no sequels) but is definitely worth watching. It has some beautiful photography and excellent sets, as well as a still-quite-powerful sense of sadism. Especially shocking is where Lugosi kidnaps a prostitute, chains her to a wall and cuts her, all the while she is screaming.Lugosi emotes all over the place in a fine old barnstorming performance. While Edgar Allan Poe’s original short story is famed for featuring supposedly the first detective in fiction, the emphasis on this one is on horror – indeed, it is as much influenced by The Cabinet of Dr Caligari as Poe, including a scene where Lugosi spruiks at a carnival (which I would have thought was unduly drawing attention to his activities, but there you go) and where a beast carries the female lead over the rooftops pursued by a mob.
Lugosi shares top billing with a girl, Sidney Fox, who went on to have an OK career before dying mysteriously of an overdose in 1942. Leon Ames, best known for playing elderly character roles like judges and generals, here pops up looking like a matinee idol as the dashing detective. Karl Freud’s photography is divine – there’s even one scene where he attaches the camera to a swing and we go up and down.
One area the movie is definitely lacking in is the monster – instead of coming up with a memorable creation like Frankenstein’s monster or the mummy, they have a combination of man in gorilla suit and monkey shots (that’s right – combining monkey with a gorilla). The result is a bit silly and the biggest reason, I believe, why this film doesn’t enjoy the reputation it otherwise might. (The fact that 20 minutes was lopped off the running time doesn’t help, or does the fact the opening two sequences were swapped around, but the film flows as it is).
Movie review – Corman #24 - “Little Shop of Horrors” (1960) ***1/2
Watched this after A Bucket of Blood and although this copies that movie’s structure (and reuses many of the cast) its a better movie. I think the main reason is the character of Audrey the blood loving plant – whereas Dick Miller in Bucket was just motivated by fame and a desire to impress a chick, Jonathan Haze is bullied into it by Audrey, which makes him more likeable. (Increasing the sympathy factor, too, is that Mushnick becomes a party to the crimes through greed, something which doesn’t happen in Bucket; and also here Haze has a decent romance not just a stalking one). The narration gives Little Shop a great deal more pace and it is bright fun, although like Bucket it runs out of puff lightly towards the end even with its short running time.
Movie review – “Heat” (1995) ****1/2
Ranks with Last of the Mohicians as Michael Mann’s masterpiece (to date), a powerful tale of the pursuit of Robert de Niro by Al Pacino. Like Point Break or Bad Boys II (or Hot Fuzz) there is a tang of homoeroticism about it – will Al and Bobby fall in love with each other so much that they can no longer do their jobs? It’s stunningly directed and extremely well acted, with some knock out action sequences (the opening robbery, the street shoot out, the final death) and an awesome movie score (this was Moby’s first really wide exposure to the punters).
In the DVD commentary Michael Mann describes de Niro’s character as a sociopath; I’d disagree – for all Mann’s research on the criminal world de Niro is very human and likeable: it’s not his fault the robbery goes wrong, he’s clearly superior to crooks like Waingro and Van Zandt, we never see him do anything really bad like the Tom Sizemore character does, he’s loyal to his friends and loves his partner, he’s very smart (only an overpowering desire for revenge stops him from getting away).
I also like how for the first half the film Mann keeps having to find cool things for Pacino to do until he can actually start kicking arse: root his hot (younger wife), bamboozle a witness, click his fingers and look cool. I originally preferred de Niro’s performance to Pacino’s because it was more contained, but now I’m used to Pacino’s and quite enjoy it. Magnificent final moments.
Movie review – “The Matrix” (1998) ****1/2
Saw this on pay TV recently and despite the crappy sequels and rip offs (did any recent film establish so many clichés so soon?) it holds up exceedingly well – a consistently imaginative, bold, emotional piece of work. OK, yes, it does borrow from a whole smorgasboard of inspirations (notably Star Wars) but combines it into something truly original. Keanu is, well, Keanu – but he looks good in the black outfits and his slightly dazed what-am-I-doing expression suits the role. Carrie Ann Moss is a knock out as the bad ass girl, and Laurence Fishburne handles one of the most difficult Basil Exposition roles in recent years with admirable aplomb. For all the gee whiz of the special effects (and they are gee-whiz here, with a particularly skilful use at using human creepy feelings towards bugs and babies), its the human element which made it strike such a chord. That and the cleverness of the central concept. So you don’t mind so much when watching Keanu and Hugo Weaving – perhaps two of the most whimpy action heroes in the past ten years – battle it out to the death.
Movie review – Corman #22 – “A Bucket of Blood” (1959) ***
One of the mysteries of the Roger Corman legacy – why did Little Shop of Horrors become such a cult sensation whereas this effort, from the same team with the same plot (indeed, the same structure) get ignored? Of course Little Shop had Jack Nicholson in it, which doesn’t hurt; it was shot in two days whereas Bucket took five; maybe also the fact that Bucket is a satire about beatniks hurts it with audiences unfamiliar with beatniks. Nonetheless Bucket’s reputation has shot up in recent years.Dick Miller is ideal as a whimpy assistant at a beatnik-infested cafe who inadvertently becomes a trendy artist by killing people then turning them into sculptures. The humour is a thick black hue – while Miller’s first “killings” are accidental by the time he kills a model (in the nude – with a bare back, too – pretty race for 1959) it’s totally cold blooded. Then he kills another one – the old sympathy factor for him isn’t that high.
Movie review – “Island of Lost Souls” (1933) ***1/2
Not as well known as the Universal horror films of the early 1930s this is nonetheless an excellent, scary tale, with some strong acting and creepy atmosphere.
Richard Arlen, a good looking competent actor who never had a big career, plays the shipwreck survivor who winds up on the island of Dr Moreau, expertly played by Charles Laughton, fresh off the boat. Laughton wants to put Arlen up for stud basically – he wants him to mate with the panther woman. Its touches like this that make this pre-Code film especially good (and twisted): the island of half men-half beasts, the house of pain, Laughton brandishing his whip, the animals turning on Laughton and operating him on the table at the end. Ouch!
There’s an early example of screen feminism, in a way: Arlen’s fiancée is no retiring violet but an active woman who tracks Arlen down to the island and comes to his rescue (also Arlen is treated as much as a sex object as the Panther Woman). Bela Lugosi (who could easily have played Moreau but to be honest probably wouldn’t have been as good as Laughton) is very effective in a small but important role as the leader of the animals (he leads the uprising at the end) and the director throws the camera around a bit in a way that puts shame to Todd Browning in Dracula.
NB one for Aussies – Moreau says he learned how to crack a whip growing up in Australia!
Movie review - Corman #25 – “The Last Woman on Earth” (1961) **
Robert Towne not only wrote the script for this film, but has one of the three main roles (he’s clean shaven). He plays the lawyer of a shonky businessman with a beautiful wife: the three of them go diving in Puerto Rico one day and when they come up it seems everyone has been wiped out.While Towne’s script isn’t quite Chinatown it’s still a pretty decent effort, full of conflict and interesting characters – for instance, the businessman is established as a bit of a scum bag but once they’re the last people on earth he’s the only one who has ant ideas about what to do.
Towne’s acting is more of a drawback – it’s not so much he’d bad just a bit too laid back for a role which could have done with more energy, or sexiness. (The sexiest thing about the film is the credits, slow panning over a naked shape of a woman). And while the three characterisations in this are strong there isn’t much of a story. One would think Corman would really get into the visuals of showing people-running-down-empty-streets but that only happens towards the end. And he doesn’t get into any end-of-the-world fantasy sequences eg ransacking shopping centres.
This film a bit more adult and sexy than Corman’s films to that date eg there’s no doubt Towne and Jones-Moreland have sex. Maybe this is why Corman was distracted from tackling other end of world issues eg there’s no mutants or other survivor – something which would have given the film a better third act than adultery. I also the film would have been sexier if Corman had cast his original choice in the female role, Alison Hayes, but he ended up seeing Jones-Moreland in a play and going with her instead.
This was issued on DVD with special features as part of the “Roger Corman Puerto Rico trilogy”. Until I saw the DVD I had no idea the film was shot in colour! (To be honest, colour doesn’t add super much to the film – there’s a lot of brown eg brown walls, brown shorts and the location isn’t really exploited; and besides black and white kind of suits apocalyptic tales anyway.)
There’s an entertaining commentary with Fred Olen Ray, some other dude and two of the actors (Olen Ray says Robert Towne was invited and the door was left open for him to turn up right until the last minute but he doesn’t show).
The actors continually refer to Corman’s cheapness, not really in an affectionate way - Jones-Moreland bitches about the lack of hairdressing, costume, stuntman, etc (one story – she was having trouble in the water and asked for rope and they threw the whole rope in.); although later on both say they admire him and pay tribute to his energy. The commentators poke some affectionate fun at the 60-ness of it all – dressing for dinner, drinking martinis, etc even after the apocalypse.
TV series review – “Sunset on Studio 60” ***
Entertaining and frustrating but I think this series was doomed from the outset. There’s no reason you couldn’t set a TV series behind the scenes of a comedy show (many TV series use TV as a background eg Frontline, Murphy Brown, Mary Tyler Moore) but Aaron Sorkin made the mistake of writing a show which was about putting on a comedy series, rather than characters who happen to work there. Why does this matter? Because the stakes are so low.
NB much has been written about how unfunny the comedy segments are. I would agree they are mostly unfunny, in some cases very unfunny – but its hard to be funny. As someone in one of William Froug’s books once pointed out, its easy to write to make people smile, very hard to make them laugh out loud – and Sorkin is more a smile writer than a hard gag writer. This isn’t the main problem with the show, though. What is bewildering is why they offer up so many of the sketches. We don’t have to see any of them (in Entourage we only get glimpses of Vinnie Chase’s acting abilities and movies – and to be honest, even the amount we do see is too much) but as the episodes go on, we get more and more. It’s like, stop it, Sorkin – no one can do everything.
Who cares if a comedy show goes on or not? Comedy shows are great, sure, but they don’t really matter – who cares if Ricky and Ron take over, or the jokes are stale, or the ratings are wonky, or they use a joke which turns out to be stolen, etc? It just doesn’t matter – at least, not enough to match up with the weight they are given here.
Sorkin falls back on Christians-getting-angry plots which were great on West Wing, but this is a TV show – if it gets axed, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter, to be honest, for the characters either – Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford are already fabulously successful and well paid, ditto Amanda Peet and the cast members. (It’s different, say, with Entourage, where we know if Vinnie Chase picks one wrong movie his whole career goes crashing down).
And this is heartbreaking because everything else in this series is pretty much spot on – the writing is divine, the dialogue snaps and crackles, the emotion is strong, the acting good (I felt Perry and Whitford were too old at first but they grew on me, Peet was a revelation, and there is sterling support work from the two leading male comedians and the chubby secretary; the exception is Sarah Paulson who is beautiful and likeable but not convincing as a great comic).
It’s just got this central issue which isn’t resolved. I think this would have worked a treat as a film – a romantic comedy between a feisty writer and a Christian star with a TV show background, that’s gold. Or as a TV series about something with weight - a current affairs show or a news program. But you keep going “aargh!”. Like when a comic’s brother is abducted in Afghanistan – that would be a horrible thing to happen, but who cares how it affects a TV comedy show?
NB much has been written about how unfunny the comedy segments are. I would agree they are mostly unfunny, in some cases very unfunny – but its hard to be funny. As someone in one of William Froug’s books once pointed out, its easy to write to make people smile, very hard to make them laugh out loud – and Sorkin is more a smile writer than a hard gag writer. This isn’t the main problem with the show, though. What is bewildering is why they offer up so many of the sketches. We don’t have to see any of them (in Entourage we only get glimpses of Vinnie Chase’s acting abilities and movies – and to be honest, even the amount we do see is too much) but as the episodes go on, we get more and more. It’s like, stop it, Sorkin – no one can do everything.
Movie review – Corman # 3 - “Swamp Woman” (1955) **
Corman’s early movies often featured tough women in the lead – he admitted this wasn’t so much because he was a feminist but because it was something a bit different. This low budget effort has a plot surprisingly close to the sort of thing New World would do in the 70s: a female cop goes undercover in prison and busts out with a bunch of Bad Girls so she can find some diamonds. Good trashy fun, with the girls in tight tops and skimpy shorts running around the Louisiana bayous; there are crocodiles and lots of scenes where the woman smack each other around; there’s also a scene where one of the girls feels up a man (Mike Connors) they kidnap on the way. The low budget jars at times (look at the shonky set of the police officer) but the large amount of location filming (swamps, mardi gras) means this isn’t as big a problem as it would normally be: an early example of Corman’s thriftiness. Another one is how he got movement in the credit sequence: he had names on a picture, but would move the camera around. The presence of Marie Windsor, Beverly Garland and Connors in the cast give this actual star power.
Movie review – “Pallindromes” (2007) ***1/2
Todd Solodz in freaky mode again, with another affectionate, loving look at the, er, slightly less conventional area of society. This is the tale of a young girl who wants to get pregnant and gets hooked up with abortionists. Very well made with some excellent acting – loved the “freedom toast” and the Jesus songs, the abortionist shooting sequence literally makes you gasp.
Movie review – “The Gorilla” (1939) **
The Ritz brothers were a popular comedy team who made a number of films in the 1930s; they are not well remembered today, with no real accepted classics on their resume, despite being favourites of Pauline Kael (she would invoke their name when showing off how non-elitist her taste in movies could be). Their vehicle here is the sort of thing Abbott and Costello would shortly be doing – to wit, detectives investigating mysterious shenanigans in a haunted house. Like A and C there is a strong support cast including Lionel Atwill (everyone’s favourite 30s perv), Patsy Kelly (everyone’s favourite 30s wise-cracking lesbian) and Bela Lugosi (everyone’s favourite 30s red herring butler), plus a pair of juveniles. There is a lot of running around (including antics involving gorillas, pretend and real) and Alan Dwan’s direction is as professional as always, but I prefer A and C films – mainly because with them there’s a contrast in characters so you have a bit of conflict, whereas the Ritzes all look alike. Lugosi enters into the spirit of things with aplomb and bounces off the boys well.
Movie review – “Impact” (1949) **1/2
Arthur Lubin isn’t a director much heralded by auteurists but he produced a consistently entertaining body of work over the years. He’s best known for his comedies but this enjoyable film noir showed he was a dab hand at other genres. It’s not one of the really black noirs along the lines of something like Detour and it lacks a name noir cast (it has Brian Donlevy, Helen Walker and Charles Coburn – oh, and a cameo from Sheilah Graham).
But it’s not bad – Donlevy is a businessman devoted to his wife who is having an affair and her boyfriend tries to kill him. The attempted murder sequence is particularly strong and Dovley gives a good performance, particularly when he realises his wife is a rat.
The main problem is overlength: it goes on for a bit too long – 111 minutes. Oh, and Anna May Wong is in it – playing a maid but a decent sized role and she looks pretty good.
Movie review – “White Zombie” (1932) ***1/2
Famous early zombie film holds up well today despite inevitable creakiness. It wasn’t made by one of the studios which is partly why, I think, it has such devoted cultists. It helps that Lugosi’s in it, too, of course - I think part of the appeal is “well, anyone can like Frankenstein and Karloff, but Lugosi and White Zombie... that’s special.”But that’s not enough on its own – this is a well made movie (making it mysterious why the Halperin brothers never went on to a more substantial career afterwards) with a very strong story, based partly one imagines on the Faust legend: a Caribbean businessman who covets a beautiful woman does a deal with devil-ish Bela Lugosi where Lugosi turns her into a zombie.
Despite the low budget Lugosi’s cliff top lair is impressive – there is some strong emotional stuff with the woman (a sexy one) going zombie and guys going crazy over her, and a climax with zombies going on the rampage and people falling off cliffs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)