Movie review – “Operation Crossbow” (1965) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

One of the lesser known guys-on-a-mission-to-blow-something-up movies of the 60s, despite having an all star cast and being based on a true story. Indeed, it’s box office reception was a bit of a disappointment to MGM, who were , understandably, expecting a block buster. 

Part of the trouble is the structure, I think – the first 26 minutes has nothing really to do with the mission to blow up the underground factory, it’s all about blowing up an above ground factory, with the Brits figuring it out something is going on, and the Germans perfecting their technology, then the British blowing up the factory. Then the film really starts with John Mills and Richard Johnson discussing the underground rocket factory followed by George Peppard’s arrival. (I don’t know why that first bit is there - you’d think they’d cut it but the scenes include Trevor Howard, Richard Todd, Paul Henreid and Helmut Dantine so presumably they didn’t want to lose any stars from their all-star cast).

Once the mission gets underway it’s really exciting, with a very strong story. There are constant surprises: Sophia Loren being killed off when we think she’s going to be okay, Tom Counrtney getting in trouble then getting out of trouble then back in trouble again (his scene with Anthony Quayle is the best in the movie), the finale with George Peppard and Jeremy Kemp desperately trying to open the hatches in time while trying to evade detection… and they all die! Full on!

Some clunky bits: Trevor Howard’s character is a wearisome antagonist (“that’s silly”, “that wouldn’t happen”, “don’t be ridiculous”), Loren’s drunk scene goes on too long and she says the words “my children” too many times. But the cast are all pretty good – Quayle is a formidable opponent, Lili Palmer a scary resistance fighter, Peppard a sturdy hero, Richard Johnson making the role of a paper pusher actually interesting. And the underground chasm is an impressive set worthy of James Bond.

Movie review – “Dingaka” (1965) **1/2

The success of Zulu saw a rash of films made in Africa, of which this was one. Like Zulu, it stars Stanley Baker (though was not produced by him) and was made for Embassy Pictures. While Baker is top billed along with Juliet Prowse (best known for being an Elvis co star though a natural South African), the lead role really belongs to Ken Gampu (who is still billed above the credits, though third), as a black tribesman who goes to the city in order to avenge his daugher’s murder. Indeed, Baker doesn’t even appear until around 40 minutes or so into the story. Then when Gampu gets sent to gaol, Baker takes over and he drives the story more.

It’s an interesting movie, although with not really enough story for a full length feature (it’s the sort of thing that might make, say, a good strong episode of Boston Legal). Because it was made by the South African film industry under apartheid its inevitably problematic, especially as it deals with notions of justice and so on. 

But it is interesting, the notions of contrasting methods of justice (the Australian film and play Dead Heart dealt with similar themes). It feels a bit wonky in places – the early scenes in tribal Africa feel weird with the actors talking in English, there are a surprising number of song and dance routines in the first half of the film and at the end, the marriage plot between Prowse and Baker is a bit dull (they can’t have a baby). Baker is convincing as a lawyer and it’s nice to see Prowse playing in her native tongue.

Movie review – “The Wild Bunch” (1969) *****

Sam Peckinpah’s masterpiece – a cast full of boozy, grizzled actors, plenty of gunfights and boozy, lyrical interludes, action south of the border down Mexico way, most of the female characters are whores, there’s talk of honour and comrades and a shot of a baby sucking on its mother’s tit. Every action sequence is memorable, there are countless classic lines (“why not?”, “it’s not whether you give your word it’s who you give it to”, “I wish to God I was with them”). Few moments in cinema history strike the chord (in men, anyway) than the climax: Holden looking to his last drink and last women, then marching with his mates to their death. The directors cut introduced flashback footage – the film would have been better off without it.

Book review – “With some guts behind it: the Making of Zulu” by Sheldon Hall

Excellent book on the making of one of my favourite action movies. Incredibly thorough – Hall goes through bios of all the main players, the different drafts of the scripts, production, promotion, etc. I was surprised the film wasn’t more successful in the US – can only surmise it was due to lack of American friendly names (Michael Caine wasn’t Caine yet and Stanley Baker was never a big star). Perhaps a bit too much detail at times (eg interviews with small bit part actors) but much of it fascinating eg only 250 Zulu extras were used, the fact that the role of the reverend’s daughter was larger in the original cut and there’s a scene where she came back at the end (hinting at a romance with Baker)

Movie review – “A Hill in Korea” (1956) **1/2

Years before Zulu, Stanley Baker and Michael Caine fought on screen for the British army in another siege film, this one set during the Korean War. Neither one is the star, though (Caine is actually billed last – it was his movie role – and Baker is a support). That honour goes to a chap called George Baker, who had a so-so career, and plays the lieutenant of a platoon that’s cut off by the enemy while on patrol and find themselves holed up at a temple. 

Most of the story consists of squabbling in the ranks (the radio operator’s a coward and the men hate him), or a series of attacks by basically faceless Chinese troops (referred to as “chinks” or “Kim”) – it’s just like Zulu, but without that film’s skill.

It’s not bad, though – some of the action is quite exciting, and it gets points for the sheer novelty of being a British film about Korea (even if you get the feeling at times they could have called the enemy Japanese and set it in World War Two). Also it has an incredible cast of stars-to-be: Caine (very small and unememorable role), Stanley Baker, and Robert Shaw, plus quasi names like George Baker, Roland Lewis and Steve Boyd.

Book review – “Red Carpets and Banana Skins” by Rupert Everett

Shakespeare in Love is a wonderful movie but it’s never really believable that Joe Fiennes is a writer – he plays Shakespeare like an actor, all hot pants and running around like an idiot. However Rupert Everett’s Marlowe in the same movie did seem like a real writer – watchful, disdainful, smart. But it still comes as a surprise that Everett’s memoirs would be so well written – not that an actor can’t be a brilliant writer (Simon Callow leaps to mind) but Everett’s not been known for his writings til now.
It’s a marvellous book, written in a style consistent with Everett’s on screen persona: lush, educated, decadent, witty, brilliant. (Everett complains that his homosexuality saw him not cast in About a Boy, but he would have been wrong in that part – the lead in About a Boy is essentially a hopeless person, and Everett is too strong, too confident to convey hopelessness).
 He luxuriates in words, as he seems to have done in life: affairs with Ian McKellan, but also Paula Yates (his portrait of Yates and Bob Geldorf is a classic), Susan Sarandon and Beatrice Dalle; he also has spent lots of time in Miami and Europe rather than London, has had an erratic but long career. He really should have been in better movies, had at least Jude Law’s career (maybe he was too metrosexual too soon) but he still did pretty well; anyway as he himself admits he was a prat. Great writer, though.

Book review – “Pig City” by Andrew Stafford

Terrific history of the Brisbane music scene, from the Saints to Savage Garden. Bright, colourful and well researched, it’s a very entertaining read. It helps of course, being a Brisbane-ite myself: I remember Rocking Horse and Skinnys, and listening to 4ZZZ during the Victoria Brazil debacle (whatever happened to Brazil? She could have been a Minister), and going to the Funkyard and seeing early Powderfinger performances at Metropolis and actually being one of the uni students recruited by Jim Beaton to work at ZZZ (I didn’t last long – soon went to the Movie Show), etc. Made me wish I’d paid a little bit more attention to what was going around – but then, that’s what books like Stafford’s are for.

Movie review – “Sands of the Kalahari” (1965) **1/2

Cy Endfield and Stanley Baker earned a lot of brownie points with Zulu, many of which they blew on this film, their next one together (and, as it turned out, last). The behind the scenes story of the film – George Peppard left during filming, Enfield was almost killed in an accident and fell out with the crew – is more interesting than what’s on screen, which is another crashed-plane-in-the-desert story (coming out the same year as Flight of the Phoenix).

I’d been led to believe that baboons played a bigger part in the story than they turned out to – at first I thought “baboons, how weird” but there’s not a lot of baboon stuff and in fact more baboons would have made the film a bit more interesting. Instead you’ve got Stuart Whitman running around in shorts going a bit bonkers, awful scenes where Susannah York throws herself at Whitman (“do you love me”), Stanley Baker’s undeveloped role.

There’s a decent cast, an exciting plane crash, splendid locations, and a fascinating finale with Whitman taking on a baboon then the baboons going in for the kill. But you can’t help wish Baker and Endfield had adapted Wilbur Smith’s When the Lion Feeds, like they were going to.

Movie Review - “We Own The Night” (2007) **1/2

Not really much of a story but made by people of great talent. You can’t help thinking “why isn’t the story better” then you see why on the final credits – it was made by a writer director. Then you think “how did this film get funded” and you see why on the next credit – it was produced by the two stars. I can’t think of any other reason why Mark Wahlberg agreed to be in this, it’s not a very big part (three cheers for him, though, for agreeing to play a character who ultimately whimps out at the end). Apparently it took ages to persuade Eva Mendes to appear in this and I can understand that, too – when all is said and done it is just a girlfriend part, and the opening sex scene is gratuitous (albeit entertaining). The main reason to watch the film is for three terrific set pieces, all of them entirely fresh and brilliantly done takes on scenes we’ve seen a million times before – an undercover guy gets busted, a car chase in the rain, and the final shoot out. You wish the rest of it was as good and that the very talented James Gray got himself a co-writer.

Movie review – “Escape from New York” (1980) ****

Love this movie too much to do a sensible review of it. It’s a classic from the opening credits, with John Carpenter’s thumping score among his best, and a terrific opening sequence which sets up one of the best ideas for an action movie. Kurt Russell’s Snake Plissken is a cack (male actors love playing those roles – bad asses in tight leather pants, an eye patch and an implied massive dick) and there is good support from Donald Pleasance as the president (a concept so random it works brilliantly), Harry Dean Stanton, Isaac Hayes, Lee Van Cleef, etc. Stunning production design which artfully exploits the low budget.

TV review – "Sports Night" (1999-2000) *****

Have a new favourite show – the terrific Aaron Sorkin comedy-drama, Sports Night, a little known show which aired before West Wing.

Why Sports Night is better than Studio 60 on Sunset:

a) the two lead guys actually have a genuine friendship that we see in action all the time whereas on Studio 60 after the pilot we hardly saw Bradley Whitford and Matthew Perry be mates
b) they work harder – sure its hard to do an hour of live comedy but not as hard to do an hour of sports five nights a week – so they are genuinely busier (a lot of the trouble on Studio 60 seemed to be due to Matthew Perry’s inefficient work methods)
c) the stakes are bigger – even though a sports show is only a sports show it can still genuinely make or break someone’s career eg false reporting – whereas a comedy show if it doesn’t go on, really, so what?
d) Its half an hour so it feels less weighty and the tone feels right whereas it never did for Studio 60
e) The two lead males seem the right age (Matt Perry and Bradley Whitford are both excellent actors but a bit too old)
f) It didn’t run out of storylines too early and have to fall back on flash back episodes in the first season
g) It wasn’t obsessed with bagging Christians (NB admittedly Sports Night was pre Bush and Sept 11)
h) Its feeling of family and support feels more genuine

Sports Night isn’t flawless – Peter Karuse smiles a bit too much, it does get a bit too self righteous at times (eg the homeless man episode), there’s the erratic laugh track. Some of the flaws are the same of both shows – in both every now and then you feel Sorkin should really be making a show about a hard news show, and in both shows the urst between the lead couple is dragged out to a really contrived degree. But they are both brilliantly written, entertaining shows, extremely well directed.