After two invisible man films, Universal decided to play it for comedy – this was based on a story by Kurt Siodmark and Joe May, but was rewritten by, among others, writers who later worked for Abbott and Costello.
The best known member of the cast is John Barrymore, who plays the professor who invents invisibility. Yet again Barrymore spoofs his boozing reputation – his first scene have him tippling in the lab - but he is fun to watch. Virgina Bruce plays the title role, a model who is dissatisfied with her humdrum life (1940s feminism!) who answers an ad to be invisible from Barrymore. She uses her powers to get revenge on her boss, and comes up against some comic gangsters.
The humour is quite risque – you never really think of Claude Rains and Price being naked in their invisible man movies (apart from references to being cold) but you’re very conscious Bruce is nude. She’s always stripping her clothes off, and she flirts with John Howard (fun as a playboy).
This movie is very similar to modern day fantasy romantic comedies like Just My Luck - likeable girl discovers something extraordinary and uses it to help beat baddies and get the man of her dreams. As such its one of Universal's most fascinating pictures. It's a bit creaky and perhaps there should have been at least one villain who was a serious threat rather than comic, but the cast give it there all and I enjoyed it a lot.
(NB Maria Montez is in it and has one line.)
Friday, October 31, 2008
Move review – Saint #8 - “The Saint Meets the Tiger” (1941) **
Hugh Sinclair’s second and final Saint is actually quite brisk and enjoyable in an unpretentious British way (where this was filmed – it was distributed by Republic). He visits a seaside town and gets involved in smugglers. The cast lacks potency but it’s brisk, Sinclair brings back the little dagger flick that George Sanders used, and he also gets fresh with a girl naturally who falls in love with him. Sinclair is an odd actor – kind of too skinny with a funny shaped head and moustache, but you do get used to him.
Movie review – Saint #7 - “The Saint’s Vacation” (1941) **1/2
George Sanders was the main reason for seeing the Saint movies, but after five entries he quit and was replaced by someone called Hugh Sinclair. He’s very English. Actually all the film’s English – instead of comic wiseguys he’s got a silly ass sidekick
Perhaps to compensate for its unknown star there’s a scene at the beginning with a whole bunch of journalists trying to see him. The plot involves the Saint trying to take a vacation without them harassing him – was this a problem for the Saint?
Most of this plays like a British B picture – once you get used to Sinclair its actually alright, with a pretty female lead and Cecil Parker as the villain (he’s the guy who played the adulterous coward in The Lady Vanishes – and in line with that film the plot if about agents chasing after a top secret Macguffin on a train). There are some massive plot holes – baddies search the Saint for the macguffin but don’t bother looking through his luggage – but it’s focused and fast paced. Surprisingly enjoyable.
Perhaps to compensate for its unknown star there’s a scene at the beginning with a whole bunch of journalists trying to see him. The plot involves the Saint trying to take a vacation without them harassing him – was this a problem for the Saint?
Most of this plays like a British B picture – once you get used to Sinclair its actually alright, with a pretty female lead and Cecil Parker as the villain (he’s the guy who played the adulterous coward in The Lady Vanishes – and in line with that film the plot if about agents chasing after a top secret Macguffin on a train). There are some massive plot holes – baddies search the Saint for the macguffin but don’t bother looking through his luggage – but it’s focused and fast paced. Surprisingly enjoyable.
Movie review – Kettle #2 - “Ma and Pa Kettle” (1949) **1/2
The Egg and I was a tremendous success and Universal gave Ma and Pa Kettle their own series. There is something very winning about the rumbustious Ma and her enormous brood (everyone knows or at least has seen poor white trash like them(, married to lazy, shiftless Pa Kettle (everyone’s got a relative like him).
This is set a few years after the Egg and I as Richard Long has just graduated from college. Several characters from that first film return, including the Indians, the local gossip and her mother, the woman who thinks her husband is dead, the medicine man salesman.
Not much of a plot – Pa wins a slogan contest and they move into a new fangled house. Pa may not have actually won the slogan and Richard Long romances a journalist. It’s a bit weak and doesn’t result in much fun, although the two stars are in fine form. The best gag is when Ma carries Pa over the threshold. It gets perhaps a bit too serious and dark when they think Pa is dead - this really isn't that funny.
This is set a few years after the Egg and I as Richard Long has just graduated from college. Several characters from that first film return, including the Indians, the local gossip and her mother, the woman who thinks her husband is dead, the medicine man salesman.
Not much of a plot – Pa wins a slogan contest and they move into a new fangled house. Pa may not have actually won the slogan and Richard Long romances a journalist. It’s a bit weak and doesn’t result in much fun, although the two stars are in fine form. The best gag is when Ma carries Pa over the threshold. It gets perhaps a bit too serious and dark when they think Pa is dead - this really isn't that funny.
Movie review – “The Lodger” (1927) ***
Clearly the work of an assured talent – and Hitch was only 27 when he made it. Beautifully shot and atmospheric, excellent visual story telling, pure cinema. In hindsight you can see some of the Hitch trademarks early up – an attraction to kindy sex (early shots of models and actresses in under-garments), tormenting of blondes (the Avenger likes to kill them)
Ivor Novello’s lead is very much a pretty boy, all nervous ticks and torment, like a ballet dancer. The film is full of gay moments – “don’t worry, he’s not interested in girls”, “I don’t care if he is queer”, Novello can’t get it up for Daisy. Even watching it when you know he’s innocent, he’s down right creepy, buying Daisy dresses and panting over her. Quite frankly mum and dad are right to be worried about him, even if he isn’t a killer.
Because we don’t know Novello’s innocent until towards the end, there’s no real hero, except for Daisy I guess, but we don’t focus on her point of view that much. Daisy’s boyfriend is a creepy middle aged man who really had no business going out with her in the first place. So it lacks the traditional Hitchcock hero.
Still worth watching. The best thing about it is the climax, with a mob chasing Novello, then attacking from on top and below has he’s hanging by his handcuffs off a fence.
Ivor Novello’s lead is very much a pretty boy, all nervous ticks and torment, like a ballet dancer. The film is full of gay moments – “don’t worry, he’s not interested in girls”, “I don’t care if he is queer”, Novello can’t get it up for Daisy. Even watching it when you know he’s innocent, he’s down right creepy, buying Daisy dresses and panting over her. Quite frankly mum and dad are right to be worried about him, even if he isn’t a killer.
Because we don’t know Novello’s innocent until towards the end, there’s no real hero, except for Daisy I guess, but we don’t focus on her point of view that much. Daisy’s boyfriend is a creepy middle aged man who really had no business going out with her in the first place. So it lacks the traditional Hitchcock hero.
Still worth watching. The best thing about it is the climax, with a mob chasing Novello, then attacking from on top and below has he’s hanging by his handcuffs off a fence.
Movie review – “She-Wolf of London” (1946) ** (warning: spoilers)
Reasonably enjoyable knock-off of Cat People and Gaslight, with June Lockhart (looking a lot like Anne) being convinced that she’s a werewolf and is killing people, so she doesn’t want to marry her nice fiancée (Don Porter). But it’s only a rellie trying to drive her insane , so there’s no werewolf action – which is a shame, since it would be great to see a female werewolf.
There’s a cute scene between Porter and Lochkart where the writer shows off his research by making reference to Plato and Shakespeare and societies who worshipped wolves. But the best bit is the end where Sara Haden has a knife and tells Lockhart she’s going to kill her – even though it’s silly Haden would confess, it’s fun to see the aunt from the Andy Hardy movies in psycho mode (she falls down the stairs and impales herself on the knife which is full on).
There’s a cute scene between Porter and Lochkart where the writer shows off his research by making reference to Plato and Shakespeare and societies who worshipped wolves. But the best bit is the end where Sara Haden has a knife and tells Lockhart she’s going to kill her – even though it’s silly Haden would confess, it’s fun to see the aunt from the Andy Hardy movies in psycho mode (she falls down the stairs and impales herself on the knife which is full on).
Book review – “Abbott and Costello in Hollywood” by Bob Furmaneck & Ron Palumbo
Book jackets always quote reviewers who say things like “a must for every fan” but this would definitely be a useful book for any Abbott and Costello fan. An excellent overview of all their films, including synopsis, budgets, interviews, reviews of early scripts and deleted scenes, details of specific Abbott and Costello routines in films. My only gripe is that although it gives budget details of all the films it gives the box office gross of only some.
A fairly strong picture of the boys at work emerges – basically professional, but a bit of a mad house, with lots of card games and practical jokes and an entourage (the duo even had their own court jester). Doesn’t seem to have been a lot of floozies running around. Some invaluable interviews with people like Bob Cummings, Alan Jones (who had all these creative controls on One Night in the Tropics and gripes that they stole the film from him – how about of gratitude for making a movie people actually remember?), Charles Lamont (who talks about himself like he was this name director, a new Capra when he started – wasn’t he just an efficient hack?), Charles Barton, Arthur Lubin, the producers, and screenwriters (a surprisingly large number of these winded up blacklisted – and disappointingly Costello was a bit of a McCarthy-ite.”)
My fave story was the making of Abbott and Costello meet Captain Kidd, which Charles Laughton did because he wanted to learn how to do a double take from Lou Costello. Their female co star knew she was going to have trouble being noticed on screen so she responded by padding her brassiere!
The book also explains why the quality of their films dropped in the early 50s – they became more interested in television (which becomes obvious when you see the TV shows, which I have to admit I’ve only recently discovered). Not overly critical of the films, though it picks on Meet the Killer Boris Karloff which I always really liked.
A fairly strong picture of the boys at work emerges – basically professional, but a bit of a mad house, with lots of card games and practical jokes and an entourage (the duo even had their own court jester). Doesn’t seem to have been a lot of floozies running around. Some invaluable interviews with people like Bob Cummings, Alan Jones (who had all these creative controls on One Night in the Tropics and gripes that they stole the film from him – how about of gratitude for making a movie people actually remember?), Charles Lamont (who talks about himself like he was this name director, a new Capra when he started – wasn’t he just an efficient hack?), Charles Barton, Arthur Lubin, the producers, and screenwriters (a surprisingly large number of these winded up blacklisted – and disappointingly Costello was a bit of a McCarthy-ite.”)
My fave story was the making of Abbott and Costello meet Captain Kidd, which Charles Laughton did because he wanted to learn how to do a double take from Lou Costello. Their female co star knew she was going to have trouble being noticed on screen so she responded by padding her brassiere!
The book also explains why the quality of their films dropped in the early 50s – they became more interested in television (which becomes obvious when you see the TV shows, which I have to admit I’ve only recently discovered). Not overly critical of the films, though it picks on Meet the Killer Boris Karloff which I always really liked.
Movie review – Invisible Man #2 – “The Invisible Man Returns” (1940) **1/2
The success of Son of Frankenstein saw sequels to all of Universal’s key monster series – Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolf Man, The Mummy and The Invisible Man. (No Murder at the Rue Morgue II, though).
This has the benefit of a strong cast of male actors – Cedric Hardwicke, Vincent Price, Cecil Kellaway, Alan Napier. Unfortunately there’s also the spectacularly wet John Sutton of Tower of London – but don’t worry, the time he spends on screen is kept to a minimum (and he’s hidden under glasses).
This is a genuine sequel – it’s set nine years after the events of the first one, Claude Rains’ character is specifically referred to (we even see his picture and Sutton plays his brother). Sutton injects Price with invisibility serum in order to help him escape from prison.
Price does go mad via invisibility in this one but he’s not the real villain – the real baddie is Cedric Hardwicke who did the murder for which Price has been accused (partly through jealousy over wanting Price’s girl). Hardwicke has a great death scene, including a terrific expression on his face as he expires. Cecil Kellaway is very strong as cop – he normally plays his roles for comedy but here he’s just a smart, no nonsense copper and you know he’s going to get his man. I also enjoyed Price’s invisible man – a worthy successor to Rains; he does the madness stuff well and he even gets a bit of poignancy. This is a decent, strong horror entry.
This has the benefit of a strong cast of male actors – Cedric Hardwicke, Vincent Price, Cecil Kellaway, Alan Napier. Unfortunately there’s also the spectacularly wet John Sutton of Tower of London – but don’t worry, the time he spends on screen is kept to a minimum (and he’s hidden under glasses).
This is a genuine sequel – it’s set nine years after the events of the first one, Claude Rains’ character is specifically referred to (we even see his picture and Sutton plays his brother). Sutton injects Price with invisibility serum in order to help him escape from prison.
Price does go mad via invisibility in this one but he’s not the real villain – the real baddie is Cedric Hardwicke who did the murder for which Price has been accused (partly through jealousy over wanting Price’s girl). Hardwicke has a great death scene, including a terrific expression on his face as he expires. Cecil Kellaway is very strong as cop – he normally plays his roles for comedy but here he’s just a smart, no nonsense copper and you know he’s going to get his man. I also enjoyed Price’s invisible man – a worthy successor to Rains; he does the madness stuff well and he even gets a bit of poignancy. This is a decent, strong horror entry.
Book review – ‘Dirk Bogarde” by John Coldstream
At the end of this book Coldstream writes that he hopes he “didn’t let Dirk down” with his biography. Certainly Borgarde couldn’t have wished for someone to put in more care and effort – at almost 700 pages this is an exhausting read. It’s very well written, impeccably researched, a work of great devotion and skill. I did found it a hard slog towards the end, particularly when covering the last twenty years or so of Bogarde’s life. But maybe the problem was me – I always find the stuff about movies most interesting when reading a movie star biography.
Bogarde had a really terrific career and an interesting life. Dutch ancestry, dad was an illustrator for the Times, mum was a frustrated actor; he was shunted off to high school in the accepted fashion, tried acting for a bit before going to war; had interesting war service (though he never saw action he saw the concentration camps and also did service during that odd campaign in Indonesia when Britain found herself fighting anti-colonial Indonesians), then a stage career and he got famous pretty quickly: a juicy role in a play saw him signed to a Rank contract, and his brooding dark looks saw him acclaimed as a star even before his first lead role hit the public. He achieved particular acclaim for being an early British juvenile delinquent in The Blue Lamp and Hunted, but achieved real fame in Doctor in the House.
The Doctor series was Bogarde’s franchise, his security blanket as a star. Surprisingly, when you look at the record, he doesn’t seem to have made too many other really popular films during the 50s despite his popularity – I’m sure they did okay, but nothing spectacular (eg Tale of Two Cities). He might have gone the way of Anthony Steel, Donald Sinden and Michael Craig when the local-consumption-only British film industry declined in the early 1960s (indeed, Bogarde starred in the film that was declared in Shepperton Babylon to have killed Rank, the camp classic The Singer Not the Song).
But he was smart and he could sniff out quality. So even as his matinee idol popularity faded, the quality of the films he appeared in shot up and he ended up having perhaps the most distinguished career of any Rank star – Victim, The Servant, Darling, Death in Venice, etc. Bogarde’s career goes to show as long as you keep working with good people, you’ll have a long career – eg Our Mother’s House may have flopped at the box office, but it got Bogarde cast in Death in Venice. It also goes to prove you don’t have to go to Hollywood (Bogarde was offered Gigi which he should have done, but he was also offered the un-memorable The Egyptian and Tobruk; I think he should, however, have taken up Olivier’s offer to work at the National).
\
In the 70s Bogarde then started writing, which became his main occupation. A series of autobiographies and novels turned him into a genuinely (though not massively) popular writer, then later on he dabbled in journalism. Accordingly, he never faced the faded star nightmare of being washed up and ignored – he remained in demand for work (writing, personal shows, even acting appearances) up until his death.
Bogarde must have been good company, he had lots of friends and seems witty, but he gets tiresome in this biography. Not a particularly nice person – sort of friend of whom you hang out with because he can be such an entertaining bitch, funny as everything, but of whom people are always saying “oh, Dirk was in one of his moods”, or “Dirk can be such a bastard at times”. His boyfriend seems to have been much nicer – he gave up smoking in the late 60s, but died painfully of Parkinson and cancer whereas Dirk puffed like a chimney forever and had good health apart from a stroke, and died quickly. Make of that what you will.
Inevitably Coldstream tackles Bogarde’s homosexuality; you can’t really look at Bogarde’s career without examining the gay stuff, because in hindsight it informs all his work – the reticence, the feeling he is keeping something a secret. But to give him credit he appeared in an amazing amount of gay roles, and what’s more important ones – Victim, Death in Venice, etc. (Perhaps more than any other star of the era? Certainly more than Rock Hudson).
I think to really enjoy this you have to be a fan of Bogarde’s writings. I’ve never read any – apparently he wrote about himself a lot, growing up, encounters with off people. Sometimes this is a hard slog, especially when it goes into long descriptions of the houses Bogarde lived, his dealings with the publishing world, his medical worries. This is easily definitive but it’s a hard slog at times.
Bogarde had a really terrific career and an interesting life. Dutch ancestry, dad was an illustrator for the Times, mum was a frustrated actor; he was shunted off to high school in the accepted fashion, tried acting for a bit before going to war; had interesting war service (though he never saw action he saw the concentration camps and also did service during that odd campaign in Indonesia when Britain found herself fighting anti-colonial Indonesians), then a stage career and he got famous pretty quickly: a juicy role in a play saw him signed to a Rank contract, and his brooding dark looks saw him acclaimed as a star even before his first lead role hit the public. He achieved particular acclaim for being an early British juvenile delinquent in The Blue Lamp and Hunted, but achieved real fame in Doctor in the House.
The Doctor series was Bogarde’s franchise, his security blanket as a star. Surprisingly, when you look at the record, he doesn’t seem to have made too many other really popular films during the 50s despite his popularity – I’m sure they did okay, but nothing spectacular (eg Tale of Two Cities). He might have gone the way of Anthony Steel, Donald Sinden and Michael Craig when the local-consumption-only British film industry declined in the early 1960s (indeed, Bogarde starred in the film that was declared in Shepperton Babylon to have killed Rank, the camp classic The Singer Not the Song).
But he was smart and he could sniff out quality. So even as his matinee idol popularity faded, the quality of the films he appeared in shot up and he ended up having perhaps the most distinguished career of any Rank star – Victim, The Servant, Darling, Death in Venice, etc. Bogarde’s career goes to show as long as you keep working with good people, you’ll have a long career – eg Our Mother’s House may have flopped at the box office, but it got Bogarde cast in Death in Venice. It also goes to prove you don’t have to go to Hollywood (Bogarde was offered Gigi which he should have done, but he was also offered the un-memorable The Egyptian and Tobruk; I think he should, however, have taken up Olivier’s offer to work at the National).
\
In the 70s Bogarde then started writing, which became his main occupation. A series of autobiographies and novels turned him into a genuinely (though not massively) popular writer, then later on he dabbled in journalism. Accordingly, he never faced the faded star nightmare of being washed up and ignored – he remained in demand for work (writing, personal shows, even acting appearances) up until his death.
Bogarde must have been good company, he had lots of friends and seems witty, but he gets tiresome in this biography. Not a particularly nice person – sort of friend of whom you hang out with because he can be such an entertaining bitch, funny as everything, but of whom people are always saying “oh, Dirk was in one of his moods”, or “Dirk can be such a bastard at times”. His boyfriend seems to have been much nicer – he gave up smoking in the late 60s, but died painfully of Parkinson and cancer whereas Dirk puffed like a chimney forever and had good health apart from a stroke, and died quickly. Make of that what you will.
Inevitably Coldstream tackles Bogarde’s homosexuality; you can’t really look at Bogarde’s career without examining the gay stuff, because in hindsight it informs all his work – the reticence, the feeling he is keeping something a secret. But to give him credit he appeared in an amazing amount of gay roles, and what’s more important ones – Victim, Death in Venice, etc. (Perhaps more than any other star of the era? Certainly more than Rock Hudson).
I think to really enjoy this you have to be a fan of Bogarde’s writings. I’ve never read any – apparently he wrote about himself a lot, growing up, encounters with off people. Sometimes this is a hard slog, especially when it goes into long descriptions of the houses Bogarde lived, his dealings with the publishing world, his medical worries. This is easily definitive but it’s a hard slog at times.
Book review – “Stanley Baker: A Life in Film” by Robert Shail
Baker was one of the most imposing actors in British cinema. Dark, brooding, intense, he was a natural for villainous parts. Indeed, this meant his rise to regular, well-paid work was quite rapid: he came out of the army in 1948, struggled for a year or so but then got a good part in a Chris Fry play which took him to Broadway, began to work steadily, made a terrific impression in The Cruel Sea, and then was being nasty to various stars in a series of Hollywood-financed films shot in Britain. Like Bogart, his bad guy performances were often the most striking thing about the movies he was in; also like Bogart, he was ambitious and intelligent and wanted to play better roles. Bogie had John Huston and High Sierra/Maltese Falcon, Baker had Cy Endfield (and later Joe Losey) and Hell Drivers.
By the late 50s he was established as a second-tier star as the tough guy hero of a series of thrillers and detective films which never seemed to be large hits and are little remembered today. (Hell Drivers seems to be the exception). By the very early 60s he was the third most popular British star after Sean Connery and Cliff Richard. He was able to use this popularity to produce and star in Zulu, which remains the film for which he is best remembered.
I’m surprised Baker never really recaptured the success of Zulu after he made it. Tough guy actors never really go out of fashion, he worked well with top directors like Losey and Robert Aldrich. But he followed up Zulu with the unpopular Sands of the Kalahari; he semi-bounced back with Robbery, and Accident for Losey, as well as producingThe Italian Job as well as being part of a consortium that set up Harlech Television. But he then went on to produce and co-star in a big flop, Where’s Jack?, and his career went into decline – he starred in a series of dud films that no one seems to care much about (even Shail has little good to say for them apart from Perfect Friday), and to make matters worse he lost a huge whack of his fortune in an ill-advised attempt to take over British Lion. (I know it’s all very well to be wise in hindsight but come on, Stanley, British Lion always lost money)
Maybe the problem was at the bottom of it Baker the film star hero never really graduated to the A league – he was an A-league villain, but he tended to be associated with B-picture heroics. Maybe B-picture isn’t the right word – but his leading man stardom was based on second-tier crime films, and those sort of pictures pretty much died out in Britain during the 60s (they were replaced by television). (I don’t understand why he didn’t do more action pictures in the wake of Zulu and Guns of Navarone – maybe they weren’t offered). Baker’s reluctance to work in America also may have hurt him – plus the fact that down deep I don’t think he really wanted to be a big star. He was obviously a smart cookie, but there was a limit to his ability as businessman, as exemplified by the British Lion experience. (Just because you are a good producer doesn’t mean you’re a good executive – just ask Bryan Forbes).
Baker continued to do good work on television and had he lived I think he would still be a major name today, probably as a television star who keeps featuring in the occasional juicy support role in a blockbuster and stealing the notices. Who knows, he could have even become a Welsh MP. But Baker was blessed with family genes that lacked longevity (his father died young) and the heavy drinking and chain smoking wouldn’t have helped – he died in his 40s.
Shail is an academic and at times you can tell. He has been careful to ensure his work is devoid of jargon, but it's heavily reliant on secondary sources and he doesn’t seem to have done many interviews (just Ellen Baker and a few locals; oddest anecdote: Lady Baker told Shail that after Baker would perform sexy love scenes with Ursula Andress in Perfect Friday he’d come home an act the town bull with his missus.) We get glimpses of the man - the fact he wore a toupee, his fondness of gambling and boozing, his early years as a lady killer - but not a thorough picture.
Shail is however excellent when analysing Baker’s acting and image and how it fit into British society and cinema at the time, and also in terms of Welsh nationality. He’s not as crash hot on the nuts and bolts of filmmaking, mostly drawing on the established histories like Alexander Walker’s and Sheldon Hall’s account of Zulu. Still, if you're interested in Baker definitely worth a read.
By the late 50s he was established as a second-tier star as the tough guy hero of a series of thrillers and detective films which never seemed to be large hits and are little remembered today. (Hell Drivers seems to be the exception). By the very early 60s he was the third most popular British star after Sean Connery and Cliff Richard. He was able to use this popularity to produce and star in Zulu, which remains the film for which he is best remembered.
I’m surprised Baker never really recaptured the success of Zulu after he made it. Tough guy actors never really go out of fashion, he worked well with top directors like Losey and Robert Aldrich. But he followed up Zulu with the unpopular Sands of the Kalahari; he semi-bounced back with Robbery, and Accident for Losey, as well as producingThe Italian Job as well as being part of a consortium that set up Harlech Television. But he then went on to produce and co-star in a big flop, Where’s Jack?, and his career went into decline – he starred in a series of dud films that no one seems to care much about (even Shail has little good to say for them apart from Perfect Friday), and to make matters worse he lost a huge whack of his fortune in an ill-advised attempt to take over British Lion. (I know it’s all very well to be wise in hindsight but come on, Stanley, British Lion always lost money)
Maybe the problem was at the bottom of it Baker the film star hero never really graduated to the A league – he was an A-league villain, but he tended to be associated with B-picture heroics. Maybe B-picture isn’t the right word – but his leading man stardom was based on second-tier crime films, and those sort of pictures pretty much died out in Britain during the 60s (they were replaced by television). (I don’t understand why he didn’t do more action pictures in the wake of Zulu and Guns of Navarone – maybe they weren’t offered). Baker’s reluctance to work in America also may have hurt him – plus the fact that down deep I don’t think he really wanted to be a big star. He was obviously a smart cookie, but there was a limit to his ability as businessman, as exemplified by the British Lion experience. (Just because you are a good producer doesn’t mean you’re a good executive – just ask Bryan Forbes).
Baker continued to do good work on television and had he lived I think he would still be a major name today, probably as a television star who keeps featuring in the occasional juicy support role in a blockbuster and stealing the notices. Who knows, he could have even become a Welsh MP. But Baker was blessed with family genes that lacked longevity (his father died young) and the heavy drinking and chain smoking wouldn’t have helped – he died in his 40s.
Shail is an academic and at times you can tell. He has been careful to ensure his work is devoid of jargon, but it's heavily reliant on secondary sources and he doesn’t seem to have done many interviews (just Ellen Baker and a few locals; oddest anecdote: Lady Baker told Shail that after Baker would perform sexy love scenes with Ursula Andress in Perfect Friday he’d come home an act the town bull with his missus.) We get glimpses of the man - the fact he wore a toupee, his fondness of gambling and boozing, his early years as a lady killer - but not a thorough picture.
Shail is however excellent when analysing Baker’s acting and image and how it fit into British society and cinema at the time, and also in terms of Welsh nationality. He’s not as crash hot on the nuts and bolts of filmmaking, mostly drawing on the established histories like Alexander Walker’s and Sheldon Hall’s account of Zulu. Still, if you're interested in Baker definitely worth a read.
Movie review – “Witness” (1985) ***1/2
So much holds up well – beautiful shots of the countryside, Maurice Jarre’s score, the images of the Amish along the highways, the murder sequence, Harrison Ford’s comforting masculinity, Kelly McGillis’ lovely performance (especially her standing there topless while bathing), Alexander Godunov’s striking debut, Lukas Haas’ terrified eyes, Ford beating up rednecks teasing Amish, Danny Glover getting blown away, death by wheat.
Some of it must have been clichés though even then, though – romance via dancing to an old song in the barn, barn building, corrupt cops, good black cop to balance out the bad black cop, good black cop partner being killed.
Also it drags in the middle when Ford just hangs out with the Amish and can’t think of anything to do. (They could have come up some goal for him to drive the action, eg arrange to meet an honest cop who has to come down from Washington, or something).
Some of it must have been clichés though even then, though – romance via dancing to an old song in the barn, barn building, corrupt cops, good black cop to balance out the bad black cop, good black cop partner being killed.
Also it drags in the middle when Ford just hangs out with the Amish and can’t think of anything to do. (They could have come up some goal for him to drive the action, eg arrange to meet an honest cop who has to come down from Washington, or something).
Movie review – “The General” (1927) ***
I’m always afraid to say I don’t really enjoy certain classic films – perhaps it’s a reaction to all that screen studies I did, or having read too much David Shipman growing up. “But it’s hilarious, Keaton is better than Chaplin, it’s perfect cinema”. I did find a lot to admire and enjoy about this film – Buster sitting on a wheel having lunch which then starts moving, Buster tossing a piece of wood to push another piece of wood off a train track, the final gag with Buster doing rapid saluting. I didn’t find that many laughs in it – things like Buster accidentally firing a canon which causes a dam to burst, flooding a river and presumably killing a lot of Union soldiers really isn’t that funny. This works better more as a light adventure film, with some spectacular stunts and thrilling action. The final battle scenes are beautifully composed, and you won’t see a better train crash than the one at the end of this.
I guess I also had troubles cheering on a Confederate hero – hooray, he’s helped strike a blow for slavery. And sometimes Buster’s behaviour is too silly to be funny eg tossing long pieces of wood on to a train instead of just placing them (ok yes then you get the gag of the wood bouncing off but it’s just silly). Also his girlfriend is a bit of a bitch for dumping him just because he can’t get into the army – wouldn’t she think that they might have rejected him because of his profession? Even if she didn’t, she’s still not very nice. (To be fair though, she does suffer later on in the film, being kidnapped and dunked in water, and she proves a useful ally for Buster during the chase).
I recognise there are some beautiful things here, and Keaton was an incredible talent (some of his balletics on the train has to be seen to be believed); I just didn’t find it that funny or thrilling. Sorry, David Shipman.
I guess I also had troubles cheering on a Confederate hero – hooray, he’s helped strike a blow for slavery. And sometimes Buster’s behaviour is too silly to be funny eg tossing long pieces of wood on to a train instead of just placing them (ok yes then you get the gag of the wood bouncing off but it’s just silly). Also his girlfriend is a bit of a bitch for dumping him just because he can’t get into the army – wouldn’t she think that they might have rejected him because of his profession? Even if she didn’t, she’s still not very nice. (To be fair though, she does suffer later on in the film, being kidnapped and dunked in water, and she proves a useful ally for Buster during the chase).
I recognise there are some beautiful things here, and Keaton was an incredible talent (some of his balletics on the train has to be seen to be believed); I just didn’t find it that funny or thrilling. Sorry, David Shipman.
Movie review – “Grease” (1978) *****
This movie was such a part of my growing up – I’ve seen it more times than I care to remember – but I hadn’t seen it for ages and was delighted to see how well it held together. Maybe that’s nostalgia talking, maybe also I’ve seen Grease 2 too many times in the interim and the original benefits from comparison.
But with as much objectivity I can bring to it, it seems to stand up: John Travolta is an amazing triple threat (who today comes close?), combining toughness with masculinity, skill on the dance floor, a singing voice, etc – no wonder at the time they thought he was going to be the biggest star ever. Olivia Newtown John wasn’t the best actor in the world, but she brings an incredible amount to the role – her prettiness and good cheer (could anyone else have pulled this off?), even the crappy Aussie accent is charming; she dances surprisingly well and belts out her tunes (they really suit her range, especially ‘Hopelessly Devoted to You’).
Jeff Conaway (whatever happened to him) is terrific as Kinicke, ditto Stockard Channing. And it’s great how in hindsight the film has something for everyone: good girls love the romance and Livvy, boys love car racing and the macho yet loving relationship between Conaway and Travolta, plus Livvy in a sexy outfit, bad girls love Stockard and Livvy turning sexy, there’s adult themes which kids won’t pick up (as I realised when watching the Kinicke condom scene with my parents and they started laughing); old school Hollywood fans will get a kick out of Joan Blondell and Eve Arden, for the boomers there’s Edd Byrnes and Frankie Avalon.
Standout set pieces, particularly the high school dance number and Thunder Road. There are still the songs you’d fast forward through – 'Beauty School Drop Out' and 'There Are Worse Things I could Do' (both good songs but just a bit stop-the-momentum). Well made expert entertainment that’s deserved its riches.
But with as much objectivity I can bring to it, it seems to stand up: John Travolta is an amazing triple threat (who today comes close?), combining toughness with masculinity, skill on the dance floor, a singing voice, etc – no wonder at the time they thought he was going to be the biggest star ever. Olivia Newtown John wasn’t the best actor in the world, but she brings an incredible amount to the role – her prettiness and good cheer (could anyone else have pulled this off?), even the crappy Aussie accent is charming; she dances surprisingly well and belts out her tunes (they really suit her range, especially ‘Hopelessly Devoted to You’).
Jeff Conaway (whatever happened to him) is terrific as Kinicke, ditto Stockard Channing. And it’s great how in hindsight the film has something for everyone: good girls love the romance and Livvy, boys love car racing and the macho yet loving relationship between Conaway and Travolta, plus Livvy in a sexy outfit, bad girls love Stockard and Livvy turning sexy, there’s adult themes which kids won’t pick up (as I realised when watching the Kinicke condom scene with my parents and they started laughing); old school Hollywood fans will get a kick out of Joan Blondell and Eve Arden, for the boomers there’s Edd Byrnes and Frankie Avalon.
Standout set pieces, particularly the high school dance number and Thunder Road. There are still the songs you’d fast forward through – 'Beauty School Drop Out' and 'There Are Worse Things I could Do' (both good songs but just a bit stop-the-momentum). Well made expert entertainment that’s deserved its riches.
Movie review – “Tower of London” (1939) ***
Shakespeare’s genius is such that is that his work is adaptable into all sorts of cinema genres – they’ve been turned into teen films, soggy family melodramas, gangster epics. Here Richard III becomes a medieval horror film. It starts with a bang – impressive production values of castles and a terrific dungeon, Boris Karloff as a bald menacing hangman, blubbering Henry VI, a pike duel between Richard and his brother (Ian Hunter).
The cast is mostly top notch – in Rathbone, Karloff and Price, the film has one of the three top horror stars of all time. There’s also Ian Hunter and Leo G Carroll in support. The exception is John Sutton as the romantic male lead – extremely wet and every time he speaks a line of dialogue you want to laugh. Ralph Forbes is pretty laughable too as Henry Tudor and the woman who plays Edward IV’s queen really falters in the second half of the film.
.
As long as the film focuses on its excellent actors this is entertaining. Rathbone has dash and drive, if not a lot of depth or complexity (or even much of a hunchback), and he gets to fence a few times. Price is whiny fun, Hunter makes a shrewd monarch, and Karloff is brilliant. Karloff’s known for his gentle monsters but there’s nothing too gentle about Mord here – he’s a complete badass, fanatically devoted to Rathbone’s king, desperate to fight in battle, happy to nail Price into a vat of wine or to arrange the murder of the two princes (quite a startling scene – a gang of cut throats ascend on two whining brats and Karloff throws a blanket over them).
However there’s no denying it gets flat in places, particularly whenever we cross to Sutton or the Queen. At least Sutton is captured and tortured – he’s so annoying this is an enjoyable sequence – but then he escapes. Presumably this is meant to make us happy, as is when he fights and kills Karloff at Bosworth; it’s a shame he couldn’t be a martyr to the cause.
But many enjoyable sequences: Karloff telling Rathbone how much he loves him, the murder of Price, the killing of the princes, (actually everything involving Karloff is memorable), the fencing scenes, the marriage of the five year old prince, Sutton’s girlfriend coming to rescue him disguised as a chimney sweep and showing a lot of leg as she climbs up the chimney. Good fun.
The cast is mostly top notch – in Rathbone, Karloff and Price, the film has one of the three top horror stars of all time. There’s also Ian Hunter and Leo G Carroll in support. The exception is John Sutton as the romantic male lead – extremely wet and every time he speaks a line of dialogue you want to laugh. Ralph Forbes is pretty laughable too as Henry Tudor and the woman who plays Edward IV’s queen really falters in the second half of the film.
.
As long as the film focuses on its excellent actors this is entertaining. Rathbone has dash and drive, if not a lot of depth or complexity (or even much of a hunchback), and he gets to fence a few times. Price is whiny fun, Hunter makes a shrewd monarch, and Karloff is brilliant. Karloff’s known for his gentle monsters but there’s nothing too gentle about Mord here – he’s a complete badass, fanatically devoted to Rathbone’s king, desperate to fight in battle, happy to nail Price into a vat of wine or to arrange the murder of the two princes (quite a startling scene – a gang of cut throats ascend on two whining brats and Karloff throws a blanket over them).
However there’s no denying it gets flat in places, particularly whenever we cross to Sutton or the Queen. At least Sutton is captured and tortured – he’s so annoying this is an enjoyable sequence – but then he escapes. Presumably this is meant to make us happy, as is when he fights and kills Karloff at Bosworth; it’s a shame he couldn’t be a martyr to the cause.
But many enjoyable sequences: Karloff telling Rathbone how much he loves him, the murder of Price, the killing of the princes, (actually everything involving Karloff is memorable), the fencing scenes, the marriage of the five year old prince, Sutton’s girlfriend coming to rescue him disguised as a chimney sweep and showing a lot of leg as she climbs up the chimney. Good fun.
Movie review – Kettle #1 - “The Egg and I” (1947) ***
Rehashes the same basic situation as George Washington Slept Here, but a much bigger success – partly, I think, because the whole let’s move out to the country thing had more resonance after the war. Fred MacMurray tells Colbert without even asking that he’s quit his job and bought a farm – thanks Fred! But this is Claudette’s movie – she falls off a roof into a bucket of water, falls into mud chasing a pig, has soot fly on her kitchen, another woman chases after her husband, her husband basically ignores her and calls her an idiot for most of the film.
The script’s pretty good – there’s a terrific star turn by Ma and Pa Kettle, who steal the film, plus a decent love triangle involving a glamorous single girl farmer who sets her cap at MacMurray (though this goes on too far long at the end), and then handsome lunk Richard Long takes care of the teen girl interest as the eldest Kettle. (You don’t believe he’s related – Ma makes a joke along these lines)
Claudette Colbert’s little ticks and stuff kept reminding me of my grandmother. MacMurray does his amiable absent-minded schtick well. But Marjorie Main and Percy Kilbridge are fantastic.
There’s some schmaltz that works genuinely well, such as Claudette and Fred dressing up in formal wear, and the town rallying around when their barn burns down (although there’s this subtext that the mayor forces them to participate – and speaking of that mayor character, I kind of got the feeling he was like those pseudo-fascists who always make sure everything runs nice and smooth, so he’d run any trouble makers out of town).
The script’s pretty good – there’s a terrific star turn by Ma and Pa Kettle, who steal the film, plus a decent love triangle involving a glamorous single girl farmer who sets her cap at MacMurray (though this goes on too far long at the end), and then handsome lunk Richard Long takes care of the teen girl interest as the eldest Kettle. (You don’t believe he’s related – Ma makes a joke along these lines)
Claudette Colbert’s little ticks and stuff kept reminding me of my grandmother. MacMurray does his amiable absent-minded schtick well. But Marjorie Main and Percy Kilbridge are fantastic.
There’s some schmaltz that works genuinely well, such as Claudette and Fred dressing up in formal wear, and the town rallying around when their barn burns down (although there’s this subtext that the mayor forces them to participate – and speaking of that mayor character, I kind of got the feeling he was like those pseudo-fascists who always make sure everything runs nice and smooth, so he’d run any trouble makers out of town).
Movie review – Saint #6 – “The Saint in Palm Springs” (1941) **1/2
A brighter Saint entry. Despite the high body count at least it takes place in an interesting locale, Palm Springs, meaning there’s horse rides, tennis courts, bars and girls by the swimming pool. It has a lighter touch with works well – Sanders is in good form, hitting on two different women. The macguffin here is some stamps that are important. Wendy Barrie is back again (why?), as a different character, a girl who wants the stamps. Sanders pretty much molests her straight away – then backs off. Aggressive chap this Saint. It repeats the climax of The Saint Takes Over by getting the bad guys to confess all with the cops listening.
Movie review – Saint #5 – “The Saint Takes Over” (1940) **
Sanders, Wendy Barrie and Jonathan Hale are back for another adventure. It starts well with Sanders saving a pretty lady from card sharks – who he then goes the grope on deck. But it’s ok since he sends her a corsage afterwards, and besides she’s looking for the Saint. Both Barrie and Sanders are interested in wiping out some gangsters – then it gets bogged down and the result is a flat entry. The one decent thing is the ending - Barrie actually kills some, which means she’s going to have to die herself – actually quite a moving moment. That still doesn’t change the fact that they should have cast a better actor than Barrie. Badly needed to be set in an interesting location or something. No names in the support cast, either.
Movie review – Saint #4 – “The Saint’s Double Trouble” (1940) **
The third George Sanders Saint film would seem to offers two great delights – Sanders in a double role and Bela Lugosi in the support cast. But Lugosi’s role is tiny (he plays a gangster mate of the baddy Sanders), and the fun is mild. There’s not that much difference in personality between the two characters played by Sanders, and so where’s the fun in that? Also the plot isn’t very interesting, despite the addition of a mummy from Egypt, a decent sequence where the Saint escapes from a motor boat, and a fun bit where Sanders dresses up as a widow – if I get this right the good Sanders is going around killing people who deserve it, then the bad Sanders kills a nice guy who doesn’t deserve it and the Saint gets blamed.
There are too many scenes of Sanders breaking into a room, it gets monotonous after a while. And it was awfully risky of the Saint to allow himself to be knocked out by the baddy at the end – what if the baddy killed him? (NB The baddie dies with six minutes still to go – this drags). The female lead isn’t bad; she and Sanders have a pleasing wistful romantic relationship (she’s an old flame).
There are too many scenes of Sanders breaking into a room, it gets monotonous after a while. And it was awfully risky of the Saint to allow himself to be knocked out by the baddy at the end – what if the baddy killed him? (NB The baddie dies with six minutes still to go – this drags). The female lead isn’t bad; she and Sanders have a pleasing wistful romantic relationship (she’s an old flame).
Book review – “Errol Flynn: The Spy Who Never Was” by Tony Thomas
Thomas, co-writer of the first important book about Flynn (by someone other than Flynn himself), The Films of Errol Flynn, wrote this in response to Charles Higham’s famous 1980 hatchet job on Errol. The Higham book was notorious for claiming that Errol was a sexual deviate and a Nazi spy to boot, claims which have forever got the tits of Errol fans in a tizz.
Alright, for what it’s worth here’s my take on the Higham factor – even Higham’s most fervent critics don’t deny that Errol’s mate Erben was a Nazi spy, so Higham uncovering this (I understand he was the first) was a major score. Ditto his reports on Errol trying to get a visa for a German who was suspected by the FBI of being a spy and being tailed by the FBI.
But it was extremely naughty of Higham to distort the reports the way he did. Thomas is on solid ground with these criticisms, going through the papers from which Higham draws his conclusions. (eg On reports about Erben and Flynn in Spain the original refers to Erben spying, saying “he” – Higham changed his to “they” to imply Erben and Flynn, which is shocking). He also deservedly takes Higham to task for major errors like saying Errol never did USO shows, proving Errol couldn’t be in places alleged by Higham, and interviews people like Olivia de Havilland and Nora Eddington, who point out how Higham distorted their interviews with him.
There’s material there for a really good strong paper, if maybe not an entire book. (Even though this book is only short it feels padded at times, complete with a chapter by Patric Knowles). Thomas occasionally resorts to refuting Higham’s allegations by saying things like “that’s unlikely” instead of actually providing evidence to disprove them, but just when you’re worried he’s starting to coast, he comes up with a well-researched point about something.
I get the feeling that when Higham uncovered all the Erben stuff and FBI files on Errol Flynn he got over excited and ran with it too far. For biographers those sort of discoveries are the mother lode – Higham presumably knew that this discovery could ensure his immortality. (I bet when Higham dies the Errol-as-Nazi stuff will be in the first paragraph of any obit). I think Higham wanted to believe Errol was a Nazi – he had some proof and went a bit gag a over it, leading him whether intentionally or not, to distort the evidence. But when all is said and done, Higham did uncover that stuff about Erben, and even Thomas acknowledges that Errol was capable of casual racism and anti-Semitism very common from people of his class during the era.
Alright, for what it’s worth here’s my take on the Higham factor – even Higham’s most fervent critics don’t deny that Errol’s mate Erben was a Nazi spy, so Higham uncovering this (I understand he was the first) was a major score. Ditto his reports on Errol trying to get a visa for a German who was suspected by the FBI of being a spy and being tailed by the FBI.
But it was extremely naughty of Higham to distort the reports the way he did. Thomas is on solid ground with these criticisms, going through the papers from which Higham draws his conclusions. (eg On reports about Erben and Flynn in Spain the original refers to Erben spying, saying “he” – Higham changed his to “they” to imply Erben and Flynn, which is shocking). He also deservedly takes Higham to task for major errors like saying Errol never did USO shows, proving Errol couldn’t be in places alleged by Higham, and interviews people like Olivia de Havilland and Nora Eddington, who point out how Higham distorted their interviews with him.
There’s material there for a really good strong paper, if maybe not an entire book. (Even though this book is only short it feels padded at times, complete with a chapter by Patric Knowles). Thomas occasionally resorts to refuting Higham’s allegations by saying things like “that’s unlikely” instead of actually providing evidence to disprove them, but just when you’re worried he’s starting to coast, he comes up with a well-researched point about something.
I get the feeling that when Higham uncovered all the Erben stuff and FBI files on Errol Flynn he got over excited and ran with it too far. For biographers those sort of discoveries are the mother lode – Higham presumably knew that this discovery could ensure his immortality. (I bet when Higham dies the Errol-as-Nazi stuff will be in the first paragraph of any obit). I think Higham wanted to believe Errol was a Nazi – he had some proof and went a bit gag a over it, leading him whether intentionally or not, to distort the evidence. But when all is said and done, Higham did uncover that stuff about Erben, and even Thomas acknowledges that Errol was capable of casual racism and anti-Semitism very common from people of his class during the era.
Book review – “Errol Flynn” by Thomas McNulty
This bio of the famous star has been well received in web reviews I have read. It’s probably the best book on Flynn’s entire career to date – admittedly this not that hard a thing to achieve. It gets off to an irritating start by declaring that Tasmania was settled by convicts (rather than aboriginals), and seems to derive most of its information about Flynn’s early life from John Hammond Moore’s book Young Flynn. McNulty also seems to give up when it comes to certain periods in Flynn’s life – New Guinea and his schoolboy English sojourn.
However in other areas the book is strong – especially Flynn’s writings (a topic on which McNulty is particularly skilled), travels and television work. It’s also good on his life during the 1950s. The most unexpectedly moving section was a visit Flynn made to Pompeii.
McNulty perhaps over relies on secondary sources – a mystery, since there are plenty of primary sources available that should have been relatively easy to access, such as files on his Warners movies. The definitive Flynn book remains to be written (perhaps still by McNulty, although my preference is for Patrick McGilligan) but this is still pretty good and will do until then.
However in other areas the book is strong – especially Flynn’s writings (a topic on which McNulty is particularly skilled), travels and television work. It’s also good on his life during the 1950s. The most unexpectedly moving section was a visit Flynn made to Pompeii.
McNulty perhaps over relies on secondary sources – a mystery, since there are plenty of primary sources available that should have been relatively easy to access, such as files on his Warners movies. The definitive Flynn book remains to be written (perhaps still by McNulty, although my preference is for Patrick McGilligan) but this is still pretty good and will do until then.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Movie review – “Night Key” (1937) **1/2
Boris Karloff is an inventor who was ripped off years ago by a business associate – twenty years later he gets ripped off again. And this time it’s payback. A later Bela Lugosi movie used the same plot. And to be fair, it’s not a bad plot and this is quite and enjoyable movie. Not a horror flick; it’s a gangster movie if anything else (some gangsters want what Errol’s got).
Boris is very engaging in a heroic old person role. There are other stock elements like the comic wisecracking sidekick, the beautiful daughter, a handsome man who works for the semi-baddy but falls for the daughter, some nasty gangsters. But it's enjoyable, beautifully shot, and quite satisfying (although you can't help wishing Boris' boss got a bit more of a come-uppance).
The performance of the guy who plays the lead gangster is interesting. He's kind of awful in this flat monotone, but its oddness and the youth of the actor playing him makes it watchable.
Boris is very engaging in a heroic old person role. There are other stock elements like the comic wisecracking sidekick, the beautiful daughter, a handsome man who works for the semi-baddy but falls for the daughter, some nasty gangsters. But it's enjoyable, beautifully shot, and quite satisfying (although you can't help wishing Boris' boss got a bit more of a come-uppance).
The performance of the guy who plays the lead gangster is interesting. He's kind of awful in this flat monotone, but its oddness and the youth of the actor playing him makes it watchable.
Movie review – “Werewolf of London” (1935) **1/2
The best known werewolf classic is The Wolf Man, but several years earlier Universal had a stab at the genre. It starts with an expedition in Tibet, led by two white men. They come across an isolated cave, out of which jymps a werewolf who bites on of the men. This triggers werewolf shenanigans, with the joker in the pack being a special flower which stops werewolves killing people.
The lead is played by Henry Hull, an actor whose bombastic style makes him hard to forget and often saw him cast as loud newspapermen (eg Jesse James, Objective Burma). Lon Chaney Jnr’s Wolfman was a genuinely tragic figure – he only got bitten because he was trying to help out. And this is what strikes a chord in the character. But no one really cares about Hull’s driven, nasty botanist. He’s more like Dr Jekyll or Dr Frankenstein – indeed like Colin Clive in the first Frankenstein, Hull is such a devoted scientist he neglects his wife, so she flirts with a childhood friend. (Indeed, his wife is played by Valerie Hobson who played Mrs F in Bride of Frankenstein – she’s really wet, though not as wet as the senior citizen who plays her childhood sweetheart).
Hull clearly doesn’t think much of his wife – he neglects her for long periods of time, and during the opening scene in Tibet has a pal who seems to be his boyfriend. So you don’t really care later in the film when there’s all this stuff about “the werewolf always tries to kill the person he loves”. Especially as the wife doesn’t seem to particularly like him, but is more interested in flirting with her ex. You’re not likely to care about these two either – indeed the only character in the whole film who’s really sympathetic is Warner Oland (in a role surely meant for Bela Lugosi) who plays a fellow werewolf. Also Hull is a pretty whimpy werewolf – even when he gets his hands on his wife while in wolf-mode he fails to kill her… then her boyfriend actually knocks him out.
There is fun stuff though – the werewolf make up is fascinating, Spring Byington adds a dash of class as a silly society lady, the two old boozing crones who are Hull’s landlady are a hoot. And it's quite touching at the end when Hull thanks the cops for shooting him. Flawed, but enjoyable.
The lead is played by Henry Hull, an actor whose bombastic style makes him hard to forget and often saw him cast as loud newspapermen (eg Jesse James, Objective Burma). Lon Chaney Jnr’s Wolfman was a genuinely tragic figure – he only got bitten because he was trying to help out. And this is what strikes a chord in the character. But no one really cares about Hull’s driven, nasty botanist. He’s more like Dr Jekyll or Dr Frankenstein – indeed like Colin Clive in the first Frankenstein, Hull is such a devoted scientist he neglects his wife, so she flirts with a childhood friend. (Indeed, his wife is played by Valerie Hobson who played Mrs F in Bride of Frankenstein – she’s really wet, though not as wet as the senior citizen who plays her childhood sweetheart).
Hull clearly doesn’t think much of his wife – he neglects her for long periods of time, and during the opening scene in Tibet has a pal who seems to be his boyfriend. So you don’t really care later in the film when there’s all this stuff about “the werewolf always tries to kill the person he loves”. Especially as the wife doesn’t seem to particularly like him, but is more interested in flirting with her ex. You’re not likely to care about these two either – indeed the only character in the whole film who’s really sympathetic is Warner Oland (in a role surely meant for Bela Lugosi) who plays a fellow werewolf. Also Hull is a pretty whimpy werewolf – even when he gets his hands on his wife while in wolf-mode he fails to kill her… then her boyfriend actually knocks him out.
There is fun stuff though – the werewolf make up is fascinating, Spring Byington adds a dash of class as a silly society lady, the two old boozing crones who are Hull’s landlady are a hoot. And it's quite touching at the end when Hull thanks the cops for shooting him. Flawed, but enjoyable.
Movie review – Saint#3 – “The Saint in London” (1939) **1/2
Another good director, John Paddy Carstairs, ensures a superior Saint entry – indeed, some believe this is the best of the lot. The Saint is fighting crims in London where he has two main friends – a very pretty engaging girl (Sally Grey) and a wacky hoodlum sidekick (a character type that appeared in almost every B film detective series in the 30s). He is helped by one copper and hindered by another.
Sanders isn’t as funny as he was in The Saint Strikes Back, but he’s still highly enjoyable. He and Grey have lovely chemistry (although in one scene he accidentally punches her out!) There are some excellent villains – humourous, smart, ruthless. The Saint only gets away with it via some sneaky business with a switchblade (he flicks it backwards – it’s quite clever).
Sanders isn’t as funny as he was in The Saint Strikes Back, but he’s still highly enjoyable. He and Grey have lovely chemistry (although in one scene he accidentally punches her out!) There are some excellent villains – humourous, smart, ruthless. The Saint only gets away with it via some sneaky business with a switchblade (he flicks it backwards – it’s quite clever).
Movie review – Saint #2 - “The Saint Strikes Back” (1938) ***
From the opening sequence – a murder at a dance on New Years Eve – it’s apparent this is going to be a superior Saint entry: a moving camera, rapid cuts, a number of characters, a room plunged into darkness, a shot rings out. It’s not Hitchcock at its peak but for a B picture it’s pretty good - so it’s no surprise when John Farrow’s name appears on the credits as director.
It also helps that the lead role is now played by George Sanders. Sanders normally specialised in silky villainy and is so ideal as the operating-just-outside-the-law Simon Templar. (One of the nicest things about B movie series was that actors who usually played villains got to be heroes eg Peter Lorre).
Sanders is enormous fun in the role, bringing great humour and style to the part. (He tells a girl that he loves her, “but don’t worry – I’m shallow”). There’s no doubt that he’s dangerous though, and is a dab hand with his fists, knives and a gun; he also turns a neat card trick.
This one takes place in Sain Francisco, a city not mentioned in the title unlike London or New York (maybe RKO figured it wasn’t box office). Vigilante Saint comes up against another vigilante, Wendy Barrie, who is trying to avenge her dead father against corrupt cops. (NB Hays Code or not, corrupt cops were always popping up in Saint movies).
The support cast includes Barry Fitzgerald (who is a lot of fun) and Neil Hamilton (later Police Commissioner Gordon in the Batman TV series) as a middle aged man touchingly in love with a younger woman. Plenty of plot; the main debit is Wendy Barrie, who is very bland and not a worthy love interest for Sanders.
It also helps that the lead role is now played by George Sanders. Sanders normally specialised in silky villainy and is so ideal as the operating-just-outside-the-law Simon Templar. (One of the nicest things about B movie series was that actors who usually played villains got to be heroes eg Peter Lorre).
Sanders is enormous fun in the role, bringing great humour and style to the part. (He tells a girl that he loves her, “but don’t worry – I’m shallow”). There’s no doubt that he’s dangerous though, and is a dab hand with his fists, knives and a gun; he also turns a neat card trick.
This one takes place in Sain Francisco, a city not mentioned in the title unlike London or New York (maybe RKO figured it wasn’t box office). Vigilante Saint comes up against another vigilante, Wendy Barrie, who is trying to avenge her dead father against corrupt cops. (NB Hays Code or not, corrupt cops were always popping up in Saint movies).
The support cast includes Barry Fitzgerald (who is a lot of fun) and Neil Hamilton (later Police Commissioner Gordon in the Batman TV series) as a middle aged man touchingly in love with a younger woman. Plenty of plot; the main debit is Wendy Barrie, who is very bland and not a worthy love interest for Sanders.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Movie review – Saint #1 - “The Saint in New York” (1938) **1/2
New York is in the grip of a crime spree – apparently the problem isn’t so much catching the crooks as getting them convicted. That darn legal system! So politicians decide to ask for the assistance of a vigilante – a man outside the law, feared by crooks, loved by the innocent. It’s not the Dark Knight, or Charles Bronson – it’s the gentleman adventurer Simon Templar, the Saint.
He’s played by Louis Hayward, a slightly cherubic faced actor who although South African performs with an American accent. They ask the Saint to kill six gangsters, promising to keep it all secret and the support of the police. The Saint agrees – secret police of dictatorships would have loved him. He shoots one while dressed as a nun and gradually starts working his way through the criminal world.
This is not really comfortable stuff, especially with Hayward being so smug and cocky, so it’s not particularly exciting. But about half way through it starts to improve, when Hayward recsues a child from a kidnapping and strikes up a relationship with a beautiful enigmatic girl. It gets a bit darker and more film noir-esque and there’s a scene where the Saint is actually going to be killed by two hoodlums and is saved by the girl… who is on his list.
It’s quite brooding stuff and you can’t help wishing a darker, more complex actor that Hayward was playing the Saint. (Turner Classic Movies called Hayward a poor man’s Orson Welles – and you know Welles would have been perfect). The idea that the Saint is used by the head baddy to knock of the latter’s rivals is a terrific one (and a great way to take the sting out of the vigilante stuff), but the potential of this is not really exploited.
Interesting names often pop up in B movie series and this one has a young Jack Carson (as one of the two hoodlums mentioned above), plus Sig Rumann (who surely appeared in every B picture series of the time).
He’s played by Louis Hayward, a slightly cherubic faced actor who although South African performs with an American accent. They ask the Saint to kill six gangsters, promising to keep it all secret and the support of the police. The Saint agrees – secret police of dictatorships would have loved him. He shoots one while dressed as a nun and gradually starts working his way through the criminal world.
This is not really comfortable stuff, especially with Hayward being so smug and cocky, so it’s not particularly exciting. But about half way through it starts to improve, when Hayward recsues a child from a kidnapping and strikes up a relationship with a beautiful enigmatic girl. It gets a bit darker and more film noir-esque and there’s a scene where the Saint is actually going to be killed by two hoodlums and is saved by the girl… who is on his list.
It’s quite brooding stuff and you can’t help wishing a darker, more complex actor that Hayward was playing the Saint. (Turner Classic Movies called Hayward a poor man’s Orson Welles – and you know Welles would have been perfect). The idea that the Saint is used by the head baddy to knock of the latter’s rivals is a terrific one (and a great way to take the sting out of the vigilante stuff), but the potential of this is not really exploited.
Interesting names often pop up in B movie series and this one has a young Jack Carson (as one of the two hoodlums mentioned above), plus Sig Rumann (who surely appeared in every B picture series of the time).
Movie review – Mummy #5 - “The Mummy’s Curse” (1945) **1/2
The last of Universal’s mummy films – at least, until Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy. It takes place a number of years after the last one, with engineers wanting to drain the swamp in which the mummy and his girlfriend disappeared last into. (For anyone who came in late, there are flashbacks to bring you up to speed). The mummy turns out to be not in the swamp but in another tomb, and the girl comes back to life via the sun. Of course there is another villainous Egyptian priest along to help keep things mischevious.
The addition of this girl (Princess Ananka played by Virigina Christine, a different actor from the girl who played the role in The Mummy’s Ghost) to the action adds freshness to the series – it’s like a new character. (She doesn’t seem to have suffered too much from being decomposed all that time).
Unfortunately, they don’t exploit the potential of this as much as they might eg why not have the archaeology guy fall in love with her or something? What does the archaeology guy’s girlfriend think of it? (A great potential love triangle and they ignore it).
By the end the story turns into the regular mummy kidnapping the girl and shenanigans with tanna leaves and humans trying to save the day, with a mob of people running up a hill. There’s also a bit where one of the mummy priest’s servants gets hot for a girl and tries to have his way with her, resulting in him killing the priest (something similar happened in The Mummy’s Ghost).
The film lacks star power – there’s Lon Chaney Jnr but no George Zucco, John Carradine or even Turhan Bey (Peter Coe steps in instead). Dennis Moore, the unmemorable male lead, makes you long for Dick Foran. There is a comic lawdy-lawdy black American (who says things like “the mummy’s on the loose and he’s dancing with the devil”).
But there are some fun things. I really enjoyed the mummy tearing apart a gaol to get at a baddie and having it collapse on him, as always the photography and sets are enjoyable, and the non-Ananka female lead is quite sprightly and engaging.
Movie review – “The Badlanders” (1958) ***
An unexpected surprise – the quality of Alan Ladd’s films dropped off during the 50s but this one, made over at MGM, was produced with a bit more care and effort, seemingly with the desire to actually make a good film. It’s in colour and cinemascope, has a strong story – The Asphalt Jungle, transformed into a Western setting… but not a traditional Western (Arizona 1898).There is also a good ticking clock (Ladd has to make the robbery before sundown), strong characters, impressive production value. It helps the director was Delmer Daves and Ladd doesn’t have to carry for the whole film himself – equal hero is Ernest Borgnine, as a former prison mate of Ladd’s who gets involved in the robbery.
The story does gets bogged around the half way mark, a few too many mawkish scenes between Borgnine and Kate Juarando and the robbery is a bit dull (lots of digging and collapsing rocks). Another debit is, it must be said, Ladd himself. By this stage he was deteriorating physically quite markedly, with a puffy face and pale hair. Sometimes an actor’s descent into alcoholism and seediness to work in the right role eg Errol Flynn in one of his drunk parts. But Ladd hasn’t disintegrated in an interesting way – when he flirts with the baddy’s mistress, you don’t believe she’s genuinely attracted to him for a second.
Still, its one of the best films from the later period of his career. There are an imposing array of villains (some corrupt lawmen) and a pleasing liberal tone to the story, with a very sympathetic depiction of Mexicans (who come to the rescue at the end). Extra fun is from seeing Borgnine do love scene with Kate Juarando, who became one of his wives.
Movie review – “Chicago Deadline” (1949) **
Alan Ladd stars as a tough talking reporter who comes across a dead girl while on another case. (He’s tracking down a runaway girl – he makes the girl look at the corpse to warn her that “she could have ended up like this” – nice, Alan!) Real life journos will no doubt laugh at the amount of spare time Ladd has to make his investigations.It’s a little like Laura, with its tough guy hero investigating the death of a woman, and sort of falling in love with her from hearing about her from other people. Of course, this structure is also a bit similar to Citizen Kane, in which Ladd had a small role. And as in The Glass Key, Ladd uses his sex appeal to get information, in this case from a blonde.
However it’s not as good as either of those three movies. The plot is confusing and it’s hard to care (the stakes are low - the girl is dead so it’s not a race against time to save her life, Ladd doesn’t really have to solve the mystery). The support cast is under-cast with the exception of Arthur Kennedy as the dead girl’s brother; Donna Reed, who plays the dead girl in flashback, is pretty, but lacks the charisma and intrigue of a Gene Tierney to make the role something special.
Ladd plays his role in his tough-talking tough guy style that can be so effective. Here it’s annoying. There’s something downright kinky in his obsession with Reed but this is never really explored. A disappointment.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Movie review – “The Hunt for Red October” (1990) *** 1/2
Confident big budget version of Tom Clancy’s best seller done in the style of classical Hollywood – plenty of stars, strong story. Sean Connery plays his Russian with a wig and Scottish accent but he has plenty of authority; also strong are Sam Neill, Richard Jordon, Joss Ackland, Scott Glenn. Alec Baldwin is fine as Jack Ryan – it’s not much of a role here (he plays a nerd, basically), but he’s believably intelligent and better than Ben Affleck.
John Milius apparently worked on some of the Russian scenes and the dialogue has a Milius-esque flavour (in hindsight). My favourite bit though is during the final attack with Connery has made this big decision and a missile is on its way and he starts a casual chat with Alec Baldwin – I enjoyed this display of how some people keep relaxed under pressure.
The twists and turns keep you watching, though surprisingly the final explosion/shoot out is a bit of a damp squid. As an aside, I always loved the Mad magazine version of this story where Jack Ryan explains he knows all about Ramius from one meeting “because you can learn a lot about someone when you dance with them until dawn”.
John Milius apparently worked on some of the Russian scenes and the dialogue has a Milius-esque flavour (in hindsight). My favourite bit though is during the final attack with Connery has made this big decision and a missile is on its way and he starts a casual chat with Alec Baldwin – I enjoyed this display of how some people keep relaxed under pressure.
The twists and turns keep you watching, though surprisingly the final explosion/shoot out is a bit of a damp squid. As an aside, I always loved the Mad magazine version of this story where Jack Ryan explains he knows all about Ramius from one meeting “because you can learn a lot about someone when you dance with them until dawn”.
Movie review – “Branded” (1950) **1/2
Alan Ladd’s first Western, Whispering Smith, had him play a conventional detective but this one is more suited to Ladd’s baddy image. He’s a tough talking bitter anti-hero cowboy, who ain’t got no friends ‘cept his guns – he could be the great grandfather of Raven in This Gun for Hire. A dodgy cowboy convinces him to impersonate the long lost son of Charles Bickford. Of course, there's a heart of gold beneath that rough exterior and he ends up being touched by his new family, in particular getting hot for his “sister” (Mona Freeman).
The tough guy personas of Ladd and especially Bickford are ideal to work against the sentimentality of the central conceit. But I think it goes off the boil in the second half after Ladd gives up the deception and goes looking for the real son. The film loses the tension inherent in the central concept; Bickford and Freeman disappear and it becomes about Ladd kidnapping the guy (he’s the son of a Mexican bandit) and trying to take him back to Bickford, chased by step dad. It’s kind of off that Ladd kidnaps this guy, even if it is for a good reason
Bickford, Joseph Calleila (Mexican step dad) and Robert Keith (guy who comes up with the plan) offer excellent support. Bickford should have had more screen time. Mona Freeman is a bit wet but she doesn’t have much of a character to play. When Ladd comes along Bickford goes "geez it's great to finally have someone I can give the ranch to and to get to do stuff" - ignoring his poor old daughter. (She doesn't seem to mind.)
Paramount splurged for colour on this one meaning its one of Ladd’s best looking movies. There are some decent action sequences – shoot outs and fist fights – to spark up what at it’s heart is a family drama.
The tough guy personas of Ladd and especially Bickford are ideal to work against the sentimentality of the central conceit. But I think it goes off the boil in the second half after Ladd gives up the deception and goes looking for the real son. The film loses the tension inherent in the central concept; Bickford and Freeman disappear and it becomes about Ladd kidnapping the guy (he’s the son of a Mexican bandit) and trying to take him back to Bickford, chased by step dad. It’s kind of off that Ladd kidnaps this guy, even if it is for a good reason
Bickford, Joseph Calleila (Mexican step dad) and Robert Keith (guy who comes up with the plan) offer excellent support. Bickford should have had more screen time. Mona Freeman is a bit wet but she doesn’t have much of a character to play. When Ladd comes along Bickford goes "geez it's great to finally have someone I can give the ranch to and to get to do stuff" - ignoring his poor old daughter. (She doesn't seem to mind.)
Paramount splurged for colour on this one meaning its one of Ladd’s best looking movies. There are some decent action sequences – shoot outs and fist fights – to spark up what at it’s heart is a family drama.
Movie review – “Appointment with Danger” (1951) ***
Alan Ladd melodramas sometimes had a sameness about them but this one has the benefit to of two fresh angles – the hero is a postal inspector and the chief witness to a murder is a nun. The result is Ladd’s most solid movies.
There’s a laughable serious, Eisenhower Era-style introduction about the post office and some cute nun shenanigans (she goes to a pool hall, Ladd gives her a gun). But it’s taunt and pacy entertainment, with Ladd is in very good form – he seems to be having particular fun in his scenes with Calvert. He even takes off his shirt (in a good scene where he knocks out Jack Webb on a handball court), something he would soon grow too fat to do.
Structure-wise, the script probably waits too long to get going on the Ladd-goes-undercover story, around half an hour. Before then the film is set up as a Ladd-does-witness-protection-on-a-nun story, but then Calvert drops out of the picture for most of the middle section. It’s like they couldn’t realise what sort of film they were making – it’s a shame they couldn’t have incorporated the nun in the action a bit more (though Calvert’s performance is a bit annoying – it’s hard to play a nun well).
The chief baddie is Paul Stewart, who I couldn’t quite place until I googled him – he’s the butler, Raymond, in Citizen Kane. His henchman are Jack Webb and Henry Morgan, who later became cops together on Dragnet – so Dragnet fans will love (or be distressed by) the scene where Webb kills Morgan. (Morgan’s fate is sealed when he delivers a monologue about his kid – can’t be a henchman with weaknesses and survive. You can’t be a ruthless henchman and survive for that matter, but at least in that case you normally get to make it until the end of the film.)
Director Lewis Allen does a pretty decent job. It inspired me to look him up on the internet and he has a fair few films I enjoy on his resume, including The Uninvited and At Sword’s Point. Another unheralded helmer during Hollywood’s Golden Age.
There’s a laughable serious, Eisenhower Era-style introduction about the post office and some cute nun shenanigans (she goes to a pool hall, Ladd gives her a gun). But it’s taunt and pacy entertainment, with Ladd is in very good form – he seems to be having particular fun in his scenes with Calvert. He even takes off his shirt (in a good scene where he knocks out Jack Webb on a handball court), something he would soon grow too fat to do.
Structure-wise, the script probably waits too long to get going on the Ladd-goes-undercover story, around half an hour. Before then the film is set up as a Ladd-does-witness-protection-on-a-nun story, but then Calvert drops out of the picture for most of the middle section. It’s like they couldn’t realise what sort of film they were making – it’s a shame they couldn’t have incorporated the nun in the action a bit more (though Calvert’s performance is a bit annoying – it’s hard to play a nun well).
The chief baddie is Paul Stewart, who I couldn’t quite place until I googled him – he’s the butler, Raymond, in Citizen Kane. His henchman are Jack Webb and Henry Morgan, who later became cops together on Dragnet – so Dragnet fans will love (or be distressed by) the scene where Webb kills Morgan. (Morgan’s fate is sealed when he delivers a monologue about his kid – can’t be a henchman with weaknesses and survive. You can’t be a ruthless henchman and survive for that matter, but at least in that case you normally get to make it until the end of the film.)
Director Lewis Allen does a pretty decent job. It inspired me to look him up on the internet and he has a fair few films I enjoy on his resume, including The Uninvited and At Sword’s Point. Another unheralded helmer during Hollywood’s Golden Age.
Movie review – “Scarface” (1932) ****
The cult for the Al Pacino version grows from strength to strength, mainly among Gen X men, but this version holds up very well, partly because the script is so strong, partly because Howard Hawk’s direction keeps things fresh. It remains a very adult gangster movie - the incestuous feelings Paul Muni has for sister Anne Dvorak give this a kinky edge, and George Raft, Karen Morley and Dvorak are very sexy (Dvorak hits on Raft, eyes on fire, saying “I’m eighteen”.)
Martin Scorsese once wrote that the real acting in this film was done by George Raft – certainly Raft is incredibly effective, dark, sleek and flipping his coin (though give him too much dialogue – more than a word or two - and he falls in a heap eg when he says sweet nothings to Anne Dvorak). I think he’s a little unfair on Paul Muni, though (maybe it was a pro-Italian thing) – Muni’s cocky, swaggering gangster is a singular creation. Scarface is like a supporting gangster who’s found himself the lead and can’t stop acting like a thug. (NB I will admit that Muni does go slightly overboard on Dvorak’s death.)
Strong performances from the leads, plus Osgood Perkins as Scarface’s boss. It’s fun to see Boris Karloff as a gangster but he does come across as a little odd – I know there were English gangsters around at the time, but Karloff doesn’t seem quite right (cf Bob Hoskins in The Cotton Club). As in Little Caesar, the portrayal of policemen is utterly unsympathetic – not that they’re corrupt or anything, they just appear brutal, ugly and nasty.
There’s a scene where Perkins gets together all the leading gangsters in town and tries to tell them what to do; one of them wants to pull out and Scarface kills him. This scene has become standard in gangster movies – it even appeared in Goldfinger and fanboys-greatest-movie-ever-made The Dark Knight. I wonder if this was first time it appeared on screen?
Martin Scorsese once wrote that the real acting in this film was done by George Raft – certainly Raft is incredibly effective, dark, sleek and flipping his coin (though give him too much dialogue – more than a word or two - and he falls in a heap eg when he says sweet nothings to Anne Dvorak). I think he’s a little unfair on Paul Muni, though (maybe it was a pro-Italian thing) – Muni’s cocky, swaggering gangster is a singular creation. Scarface is like a supporting gangster who’s found himself the lead and can’t stop acting like a thug. (NB I will admit that Muni does go slightly overboard on Dvorak’s death.)
Strong performances from the leads, plus Osgood Perkins as Scarface’s boss. It’s fun to see Boris Karloff as a gangster but he does come across as a little odd – I know there were English gangsters around at the time, but Karloff doesn’t seem quite right (cf Bob Hoskins in The Cotton Club). As in Little Caesar, the portrayal of policemen is utterly unsympathetic – not that they’re corrupt or anything, they just appear brutal, ugly and nasty.
There’s a scene where Perkins gets together all the leading gangsters in town and tries to tell them what to do; one of them wants to pull out and Scarface kills him. This scene has become standard in gangster movies – it even appeared in Goldfinger and fanboys-greatest-movie-ever-made The Dark Knight. I wonder if this was first time it appeared on screen?
Movie review – Corman #1 - “Five Guns West” (1955) **
The first film Roger Corman actually directed is a Western, one of his first as director, was one of two films he made with Dorothy Malone. It’s got a set up similar to The Dirty Dozen – a bunch of outlaws are pardoned by the Confederate Army during the last days of the Civil War so the can go on a mission. That's a terrific idea - indeed, Corman and the writer later rehashed it as Secret Invasion - and there is a decent cast (John Lund, Mike Connors, Bill Campbell, Jonathan Haze, Malone).
However, this isn’t much of a movie. There’s a lot of standing around and arguing, it’s hard to get a fix on the characters – or, rather, it’s hard to care. Malone doesn’t appear until half an hour which was probably a mistake – nominal hero Lund is very bland.
This film lacks the energy that Corman would later bring to his movies – the action isn’t involving or exciting, the romance between Lund and Malone is uninspiring. The ending is a damp squib (I had to rewind it to check that the old prospector rode away - he just leaves without even a close up).
And why are we meant to feel good that Lund succeeds in his mission for the Confederacy? So he can help propagate the slave trade? And what's with the open ending - why don't we find out what happened to the mission?
NB It just occurred to me - just thinking about it, Corman was never much of a top action director. I mean he could when he needed to, but his strength was more in mood and pace rather than the he-man stuff.
NNB This was one of the first films from the "American Releasing Company" which soon became AIP.
Documentary review – “Fibros vs Silvertails” (2008) ***
Entertaining look at the famed Manly vs Wests rivalry of 1978 – which Roy Masters fully admits he whipped up to get his team going. He also points out it seemed to strike a chord with players and fans. Predictably the Manly players say it was hog wash – but what would they say?
The more serious allegation - was Greg Hartley biased towards Manly? Hartley is interviewed here and seems a dodgy guy now as he did then. (It’s fairly clear from the replays here that Hartley made bad decisions – if he was biased he was probably unaware of it, like Ricky Ponting is with claimed catches).
There is some great footage and some of the players remain excellent talent, especially Tommy Raudanikis and Les Boyd. But it’s frustratingly incomplete. Didn’t the Hartley decisions result in the Four Corners investigation which sent Kevin Humphries to gaol? Why isn’t that mentioned? And Les Boyd later went to Manly – surely that was worth a mention? Ditto the “everyone hating Manly” factor. Still, what’s there is pretty enjoyable.
The more serious allegation - was Greg Hartley biased towards Manly? Hartley is interviewed here and seems a dodgy guy now as he did then. (It’s fairly clear from the replays here that Hartley made bad decisions – if he was biased he was probably unaware of it, like Ricky Ponting is with claimed catches).
There is some great footage and some of the players remain excellent talent, especially Tommy Raudanikis and Les Boyd. But it’s frustratingly incomplete. Didn’t the Hartley decisions result in the Four Corners investigation which sent Kevin Humphries to gaol? Why isn’t that mentioned? And Les Boyd later went to Manly – surely that was worth a mention? Ditto the “everyone hating Manly” factor. Still, what’s there is pretty enjoyable.
Movie review – “Khartoum” (1966) ***
After Ben Hur proved such a hit, producers fairly fell over themselves in trying to get Charlton Heston to star in big budget historical epics. Over the next decade he took on the Moors, Boxers, Popes, Frisians and (in this one) the Mahdists. It’s ironic that his biggest success came when he took on Apes in the future.
Gordon’s siege at Khartoum was one of Imperial Britain’s favourite stories, all noble sacrifice and unsuccessful last ditch relief expeditions. Of course it ended in defeat, which is presumably why it took so long to be filmed. (But Rorke’s Drift wasn’t dramatised until 1963 and that was a great victory, so there you go. Maybe producers were turned off a siege story with no obvious female interest – even though in the original draft of Zulu there was a bit more of a romance with the reverend’s daughter. Anyway, what am I talking about Zulu for, back to Khartoum.)
It’s a handsome movie which opens with a spectacular battle sequence, the defeat of Hicks. Zulu only showed a glimpse of Isandlhwana but we get a couple of minutes here. It looks terrific with gorgeous costumes and photography and lots of teaming extras dressed in white against a desert back drop.
Apart from students of British Imperial history in Africa, the people who will get most out of this movie would be fans of Charlton Heston. Heston had this odd thing about his acting at times – a sort of stiff arrogance, if that makes sense. (Remember his swaggering and chatting away to Linda Hamilton in Planet of the Apes). And this totally suits Gordon, who seems to have been this odd combination of visionary, fighting man, honourable politician and Christian nutter.
I found Laurence Olivier a little odd as the Mahdi, but can understand why he was cast. (There was no black Africa with his marquee value – it’s kind of a shame, since it was a terrific role for a black actor to have. Imagine Paul Robeson!).
Heston wrote in his diaries that the script was the best he had ever read, and one of the only ones that didn’t need work on it before going into production. It’s certainly intelligent work, with history skilfully “telescoped” – the clash between Stewart and Gordon was fictional, but works in the movie because someone’s got to stick it to Gordon; ditto the meetings between Gordon and the Mahdi. (George MacDonald Fraser argued this didn’t involve the distortion of history of, say, Elizabeth I meeting Mary Queen of Scots because Gordon and the Mahdi corresponded during the siege). I don’t think it’s that awesome, though. Maybe Heston was swept up in enthusiasm for the work of Robert Ardrey, who held a bit of cache in Hollywood with his dual anthropological career.
The conflict is necessarily simplified, though in favour of Gordon who in real life dithered a bit more – Gordon turns up, the Mahdi says he intends to kill everyone, Gordon wants to take all the Egyptians out of there. The film bogs down around the middle mark – it all becomes about Johnson running off to London to get help then coming back again, and then leaving again… and can’t come up with anything for Gordon to do in Khartoum apart from some chats with Johnny Sekka’s comic servant. Why not invent a love interest? Gordon is far too passive.
As even Heston himself pointed out, the film isn’t particularly well directed. It’s not badly directed - Basil Dearden does a competent job - but the terrific possibilities inherent in a siege story – getting weaker, cut off, surrounded by hostile forces… these are missed. It’s all too tranquil in Khartoum; none of the Egyptians or Sudanese who live there are given any personality. (The only scene of real excitement is when Stewart’s boat is ambushed.)
Occasionally there are some allusions to Lawrence of Arabia – scenes of Gordon travelling across the desert with his servant, Gordon having to execute a friend – but Dearden is no Lean.
Movie review – “Heaven Can Wait” (1943) ****
Audiences understandably had death a lot on the mind during the early 1940s, hence the unusually large number of fantasies produced by Hollywood which had reassuring visions of the afterlife: The Horn Blows at Midnight, Here Comes Mr Jordan, Between Two Worlds, and this one.
Surprisingly, this film is most effective in its dramatic moments – Don Ameche finds his true love in Gene Tierney but is unable to remain faithful to her. This is true, honest depiction of a character – he’s the sort of romantic that would encourage Tierney to elope, and would love her madly, and cheat on her at the same time. (NB when later on Tierney tells Ameche she learned to relax about his infidelities after he got a bit of a gut you can’t help thinking “hmmm, that’s not necessarily going to stop him.”) It’s also very moving when Tierney gets ill.
Because it covers such a long time span and is narrated by a dead person, it has a feeling of wistful sadness. I started getting a little teary in places. Indeed, when the film ended I actually started crying something which hardly ever happens (I think the last time was United 93). Maybe the central concept resonated with me on a level – man loves his wife, but still neglects her at times; and it’s all fleeting and sad.
Once Tierney dies though, the film becomes less interesting – although it had a moving last scene between Ameche and the Devil (I did like the idea that there is a small annexe to Heaven as well as actual Heaven NB though it’s never clear that Ameche manages to get in).
Beautiful colour photography and some excellent aging make up (among the best I've ever seen in a movie). Excellent performances from a stunning cast. Ameche was fine, though his all-so-careful elocution got on my nerves every now and then (it’s like taste overload – too much deftness and light touch or something). Eugene Pallette and Marjorie Main are hilarious as Tierney’s sparring rich Kansas meat packing parents and Laird Cregar s a stylish devil. I loved the little girl who cons the young Henry out of a beetle. The guy who plays Ameche’s son isn’t much.
Surprisingly, this film is most effective in its dramatic moments – Don Ameche finds his true love in Gene Tierney but is unable to remain faithful to her. This is true, honest depiction of a character – he’s the sort of romantic that would encourage Tierney to elope, and would love her madly, and cheat on her at the same time. (NB when later on Tierney tells Ameche she learned to relax about his infidelities after he got a bit of a gut you can’t help thinking “hmmm, that’s not necessarily going to stop him.”) It’s also very moving when Tierney gets ill.
Because it covers such a long time span and is narrated by a dead person, it has a feeling of wistful sadness. I started getting a little teary in places. Indeed, when the film ended I actually started crying something which hardly ever happens (I think the last time was United 93). Maybe the central concept resonated with me on a level – man loves his wife, but still neglects her at times; and it’s all fleeting and sad.
Once Tierney dies though, the film becomes less interesting – although it had a moving last scene between Ameche and the Devil (I did like the idea that there is a small annexe to Heaven as well as actual Heaven NB though it’s never clear that Ameche manages to get in).
Beautiful colour photography and some excellent aging make up (among the best I've ever seen in a movie). Excellent performances from a stunning cast. Ameche was fine, though his all-so-careful elocution got on my nerves every now and then (it’s like taste overload – too much deftness and light touch or something). Eugene Pallette and Marjorie Main are hilarious as Tierney’s sparring rich Kansas meat packing parents and Laird Cregar s a stylish devil. I loved the little girl who cons the young Henry out of a beetle. The guy who plays Ameche’s son isn’t much.
Movie review – “Sun Valley Serenade” (1941) ***
MGM have the reputation for producing the best musicals but for cheerful bright entertainments, 20th Century Fox were pretty sharp in the 1940s. They became especially skilled at creating star vehicles for their contract talent – Betty Grable, Alice Faye, Sonja Henie. This is probably Henie’s best known film, due mostly to the setting and the appearance in the support cast of Glen Miller and his band, the Nicholas Brothers and Dorothy Dandridge and Milton Berle. Not only that by Miller’s band plays ‘Moonlight Serenade’, ‘In the Mood’ and ‘Chattanooga Choo Choo’.
This has a bright central idea – John Payne, pianist for Miller’s orchestra, finds out that manager Milton Berle has gotten him to sponsor a war orphan… who turns out to be Sonja Henie. Then Henie instantly falls in love with Payne a la Daryl Hannah in Splash and the film becomes less fun. Well, the “book” section of it, that is – the musical numbers remain of a very high quality, with the Nicholas Brothers and Dandridge in particular taking your breath away. It’s a shame it isn’t in Technicolour but maybe that would have been difficult shooting in snow.
Back to the story – Henie’s chirpy little blonde is way too driven and selfish to be likeable. Why are we meant to hope that she winds up with Payne? When Payne asks Henie if she’s going to get a job she says no she just wants to look after a man (admittedly Payne only asks if she wants to work as a typist or something but he’s more of a feminist than or Sonja). Then she goes about wooing Payne by stalking him and knocking him over on the ski slopes – then contriving it so she and Payne spend some time together in a ski.
You can’t help feeling sympathy for Payne’s girlfriend, poor old singer Lyn Bari, who is meant to be a bitch – but she at least as a job. And she never does anything too terrible – okay yes she fires a few bands but at least that’s honest emotion, not like conniving little Sonja. And why’s it so bad she fires Miller’s band because Payne wants to go off with Sonja? Why’s that so much better than Miller and Berle happily getting the gig in the first place because Payne flirts with Bari.
You keep waiting for the writers to give Sonja a pat the dog moment, to be nice to another orphan or something, but they don’t. The only real thing Sonja and Payne seem to have in common is that they both like to ski. When Payne finally dumps Bari Sonja has this horrible little smug look of triumph on her pro-Nazi face.
But when all is said and done, it’s just the book. There is much fun to be had – Payne is handsome and engaging, Bari and Berle are fun, Miller is stiff (he has a few lines of dialogue) but his band is terrific, the setting is charming, the tunes are wonderful. Good fun.
This has a bright central idea – John Payne, pianist for Miller’s orchestra, finds out that manager Milton Berle has gotten him to sponsor a war orphan… who turns out to be Sonja Henie. Then Henie instantly falls in love with Payne a la Daryl Hannah in Splash and the film becomes less fun. Well, the “book” section of it, that is – the musical numbers remain of a very high quality, with the Nicholas Brothers and Dandridge in particular taking your breath away. It’s a shame it isn’t in Technicolour but maybe that would have been difficult shooting in snow.
Back to the story – Henie’s chirpy little blonde is way too driven and selfish to be likeable. Why are we meant to hope that she winds up with Payne? When Payne asks Henie if she’s going to get a job she says no she just wants to look after a man (admittedly Payne only asks if she wants to work as a typist or something but he’s more of a feminist than or Sonja). Then she goes about wooing Payne by stalking him and knocking him over on the ski slopes – then contriving it so she and Payne spend some time together in a ski.
You can’t help feeling sympathy for Payne’s girlfriend, poor old singer Lyn Bari, who is meant to be a bitch – but she at least as a job. And she never does anything too terrible – okay yes she fires a few bands but at least that’s honest emotion, not like conniving little Sonja. And why’s it so bad she fires Miller’s band because Payne wants to go off with Sonja? Why’s that so much better than Miller and Berle happily getting the gig in the first place because Payne flirts with Bari.
You keep waiting for the writers to give Sonja a pat the dog moment, to be nice to another orphan or something, but they don’t. The only real thing Sonja and Payne seem to have in common is that they both like to ski. When Payne finally dumps Bari Sonja has this horrible little smug look of triumph on her pro-Nazi face.
But when all is said and done, it’s just the book. There is much fun to be had – Payne is handsome and engaging, Bari and Berle are fun, Miller is stiff (he has a few lines of dialogue) but his band is terrific, the setting is charming, the tunes are wonderful. Good fun.
Book review – “I Thought We Were Making Movies Not History” by Walter Mirisch
During the 1960s the Mirisch Corporation seemed to have the Midas touch, producing a staggering array of films that combined critical acclaim with commercial success and artistic freedom. Even their failures were always interesting. The Mirisch brothers were lucky in some regards, teaming up with Billy Wilder and Norman Jewison during the peak years of those directors – but the harder you work the better your luck and the Mirisischs worked hard. Walter got his start managing theatres, went to Harvard, joined an engineering firm (Lockheed) to develop systems, joined Monogram and worked his way up to head of production via producing the Bomba Boy series, then branching out into independent production. The relationship at UA soured after a series of flops and a change in studio management, but Mirisch then had a profitable association with Universal.
It’s an amazing career but this book is surprisingly dull. It seems as though it wasn’t ghost written and maybe that was the problem. Mirisch plots through his career with a sort of workmanlike prose that must have gone down a treat at Lockheed – “then I bought the rights to the book, then I hired the director, then I found a star”. He shows little flair for a decent anecdote or human weakness. Only one story from producing an Errol Flynn film (The Warriors)? And it was “Flynn was drunk”. Come on, Walter.
There are hardly any decent stories from the Bomba the Jungle Boy series either, or any of the other Monogram/Allied Artist films, which surely must have featured colourful characters and interesting anecdotes. Also far too much time is spent on the workings of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Who cares?
Inevitably some snipits sneak through: William Wyler had major second thoughts about Dorothy McGuire in Friendly Persuasion (he wanted Kate Hepburn) and Shirley Maclaine in The Children’s Hour. Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster were originally considered for the Steve McQueen and James Garner roles in The Great Escape. Mirisch decided to sack George Roy Hill from Hawaii and hired Arthur Hiller to replace him but then the natives and Hawaiian actors rose in revolt. The minor British war film Flight 633 with American star Cliff Robertson was popular enough to inspire a rash of British war films with American stars. Friendly Persuasion lost money but Midway was one of the most popular films of 1976.
Chapters are devoted to the troublesome productions of Moby Dick and Hawaii. It’s interesting when he talks about failures, the importance of luck, etc – but too often you get the feeling he’s being diplomatic, pulling his punches. Which makes him a gentleman but means the film is less fun to read.
It’s a real shame. Mirisch made great films, worked with terrific personalities. Maybe it just wasn’t in his nature to write a gossipy, informative tome. More’s the pity.
It’s an amazing career but this book is surprisingly dull. It seems as though it wasn’t ghost written and maybe that was the problem. Mirisch plots through his career with a sort of workmanlike prose that must have gone down a treat at Lockheed – “then I bought the rights to the book, then I hired the director, then I found a star”. He shows little flair for a decent anecdote or human weakness. Only one story from producing an Errol Flynn film (The Warriors)? And it was “Flynn was drunk”. Come on, Walter.
There are hardly any decent stories from the Bomba the Jungle Boy series either, or any of the other Monogram/Allied Artist films, which surely must have featured colourful characters and interesting anecdotes. Also far too much time is spent on the workings of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Who cares?
Inevitably some snipits sneak through: William Wyler had major second thoughts about Dorothy McGuire in Friendly Persuasion (he wanted Kate Hepburn) and Shirley Maclaine in The Children’s Hour. Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster were originally considered for the Steve McQueen and James Garner roles in The Great Escape. Mirisch decided to sack George Roy Hill from Hawaii and hired Arthur Hiller to replace him but then the natives and Hawaiian actors rose in revolt. The minor British war film Flight 633 with American star Cliff Robertson was popular enough to inspire a rash of British war films with American stars. Friendly Persuasion lost money but Midway was one of the most popular films of 1976.
Chapters are devoted to the troublesome productions of Moby Dick and Hawaii. It’s interesting when he talks about failures, the importance of luck, etc – but too often you get the feeling he’s being diplomatic, pulling his punches. Which makes him a gentleman but means the film is less fun to read.
It’s a real shame. Mirisch made great films, worked with terrific personalities. Maybe it just wasn’t in his nature to write a gossipy, informative tome. More’s the pity.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Movie review – Elvis#10 - “Kid Galahad” (1962) ***
Elvis’ first remake. Elvis is, as usual, just out of the army – he moves back to the country region where he grew up, with the goal of becoming a mechanic. The big business in the area is a boxing training camp. Elvis gets work as a sparring partner and is revealed to be a top boxer. Luckily it’s a singing boxing camp (no kidding – the boxers sing in the evening) so he fits in.
There are familiar Elvis movie elements: he flirts with an elder woman, gets involved in fist fights, sings a song while driving (forcing Charles Bronson and Gig Young to listen – they do try to respond to this more than your usual Elvis-singing passenger) and becomes a boxer.
Elvis starts off playing a different sort of character in this – although a nice guy, Galahad is a fairly dumb country hick, open to exploitation. (Even Young’s nice sister, his romantic interest, seems mostly interested in him for sexual reasons rather than his brain.) But disappointingly this is not followed up on – Elvis becomes too confident and competent, which is great for the character but not so good for drama. I think they should have made up their mind – was Galahad meant to be naïve, or should he be Elvis’ normal snarly juvenile.
The film is set in a pine forest where people live in smart wooden houses – like the one James Mason had in North by Northwest. There is a touching scene when locals get proud of Elvis – although there’s always been a boxing camp in the area, he’s their first local champ, and it means a lot, which is sweet. Aussie viewers will enjoy the bit where Young tries to hype Elvis by lying that he won 17 knockouts in Australia.
This has one of Elvis’ strongest support cast - the line up including Gig Young (who I swear slurs his lines every now and then), Lola Albright, Ed Asner and Charles Bronson. It was great that Bronson became a film star but when he did Hollywood lost one of its best supporting actor, and he’s very good here – all craggy faced integrity. Some of the minor hoodlum parts are undercast.
The drama in this is pretty good and director Phil Karlson has flair for the violent bits, such as boxing sequences (especially the early ones with Elvis being pummeled) and when gangsters smash Bronson’s hands. Perhaps not coincidentally the musical numbers feel poorly integrated. Like Wild in the Country this didn’t actually need to be a musical. Entertaining film.
There are familiar Elvis movie elements: he flirts with an elder woman, gets involved in fist fights, sings a song while driving (forcing Charles Bronson and Gig Young to listen – they do try to respond to this more than your usual Elvis-singing passenger) and becomes a boxer.
Elvis starts off playing a different sort of character in this – although a nice guy, Galahad is a fairly dumb country hick, open to exploitation. (Even Young’s nice sister, his romantic interest, seems mostly interested in him for sexual reasons rather than his brain.) But disappointingly this is not followed up on – Elvis becomes too confident and competent, which is great for the character but not so good for drama. I think they should have made up their mind – was Galahad meant to be naïve, or should he be Elvis’ normal snarly juvenile.
The film is set in a pine forest where people live in smart wooden houses – like the one James Mason had in North by Northwest. There is a touching scene when locals get proud of Elvis – although there’s always been a boxing camp in the area, he’s their first local champ, and it means a lot, which is sweet. Aussie viewers will enjoy the bit where Young tries to hype Elvis by lying that he won 17 knockouts in Australia.
This has one of Elvis’ strongest support cast - the line up including Gig Young (who I swear slurs his lines every now and then), Lola Albright, Ed Asner and Charles Bronson. It was great that Bronson became a film star but when he did Hollywood lost one of its best supporting actor, and he’s very good here – all craggy faced integrity. Some of the minor hoodlum parts are undercast.
The drama in this is pretty good and director Phil Karlson has flair for the violent bits, such as boxing sequences (especially the early ones with Elvis being pummeled) and when gangsters smash Bronson’s hands. Perhaps not coincidentally the musical numbers feel poorly integrated. Like Wild in the Country this didn’t actually need to be a musical. Entertaining film.
Book review – “Ready, Steady Go” by Shawn Levy
Levy wrote an excellent book on Jerry Lewis but this account about 60s London isn’t up to that one. The main reason I think is unavoidable – reading about swinging London you can’t help wanting to see the photographs and the movies, hear the music, see the fashions, listen to talking heads. It focuses on some key people – David Bailey, Terence Stamp – but never seems to really dig deep into them – or at least not to the depth of other books on them (eg Stamp’s own writings). Maybe another problem I had with this was that I felt some of the work done by the people profiled here weren’t that important. OK setting style and fashion yeah yeah but at the end of the day Jean Shrimpton was just a model, Stamp only made a few movies as a star, and we're already familiar with the Beatles and the Stones.
Movie review – “House Bunny” (2008) **
Terrific idea undone by inept execution. Ana Faris is perfect in a Marilyn Monroe type role as the playboy bunny who heads to a sorority and there are some terrific moments and bits. But even these are either not developed enough (eg the feminist who agrees to become a ditz for research – a great idea thrown away, the sexual politics), or repeated too often (eg Faris speaking in a deep voice to help her memorise). The romantic sub plot with Colin Hanks starts promisingly but then goes off the rails when you realise it’s not believable he would be attracted to her apart from shallow physical reasons, and Hanks seems to be channelling his dad’s everyman persona without his dad’s skill. The male characters are weak and poorly developed, the climax is contrived and it is very bad directed (pacing, blocking, etc). Also the filmmakers often go for unrealistic gags, eg the tall geek character who tells guys that she wants to take a dump. It feels like a hastily written first draft of a quite detailed scene breakdown. On the sunny side, the set design is gorgeous – love that Aztec Party - and the scenes in the Playboy Mansion are fun.
Seeing Television
This seems obvious, I know, but it’s something that only really sank in in recent months that if you only see the movie performances of certain movie stars you will only know a portion of what they have to offer. You have to see them on television and listen to them on radio. Two big examples are the comedy teams of Abbott and Costello and Martin and Lewis – movies only give a partial impression of what both teams are like. It’s worth seeking out Colgate Comedy Hour and Abbott and Costello’s sitcom
Later Errol Flynn
It’s customary to regard the last decade or so of Errol Flynn’s career as this sad anti-climax – poor Errol, wasting it all away, The Adventures of Don Juan being his last classic-that-everyone-can-agree-on. And there’s certainly something to that – years of hard living visibly caught up with him, his material got worse once he left Warners.
However, even if Errol’s looks faded his acting ability didn’t – indeed, in some ways it improved. Errol was particularly effective when he was well cast as a person who had done a lot of living. They could be sad (Rocky Mountain, Roots of Heaven, Too Much Too Soon), or simply roguish (Against All Flags, Master of Ballantrae, The Golden Shanty). At least he remained in demand turning out varied work.
However, even if Errol’s looks faded his acting ability didn’t – indeed, in some ways it improved. Errol was particularly effective when he was well cast as a person who had done a lot of living. They could be sad (Rocky Mountain, Roots of Heaven, Too Much Too Soon), or simply roguish (Against All Flags, Master of Ballantrae, The Golden Shanty). At least he remained in demand turning out varied work.
Movie review – “Playhouse 90 – Without Incident” (1957) **1/2
This has a terrific opening sequence, with Errol as the head of a group of cavalry waiting for the Indians to attack while a woman (Ann Sheridan) sings 'Greensleaves'. And it’s a pretty good story - the Indians are after one of Errol’s prisoners, an Indian whom he’s escorting across country. Errol also faces local white settlers who aren’t keen on him stirring up trouble with the natives, a pair of sisters who were kidnapped by Indians (Sheridan and her nympho sister Julie London), and a mutinous bunch of soldiers (led by John Ireland, in his Red River type role performance as troublesome lieutenant).
Errol doesn’t look too crash hot – weather beaten and, surprisingly, a bit pudgy (something that tended to be disguised in his later movies because he usually wore suits all the time). It’s a different sort of character for him – a hated martinet who is willing to sacrifice the life of his men if it means keeping the Apaches at bay (the theme of the movie is sort of “we can’t back down to terrorists”.) He’s not bad – it’s not one of his best performances.
This is far from perfect – there is lots of Acting and Over Acting (especially by London and the bald guy who gets a crush on said nympho – he’s awful). Sheridan isn’t bad in a not-much role, but the role of the widowed leader of the townsfolk is quite good.
It suffers definitely from a low budget, which presumably hampered the ability to shoot decent action scenes – the quality of these is about on par of most 50s television. It’s quite mature that Flynn fails in his mission but there’s an awful scene at the end where Sheridan takes the blame for turning her sister into a woman of easy victue (Sheridan was a former dance hall girl aka hooker whose sister looked up to her). Also the Indians deciding not to attack at the end whiffs of deux ex machina and the ending is a bit irritating – Errol says he’s going to say in his report the trip was made “without incident”… but didn’t several of his soldiers die? How’s he going to explain that?
But you could count on Playhouse 90 to at least try to turn out something of quality, and they have a go. This is definitely Errol’s best television production – though not his best small screen performance, that would be The Golden Shanty.
Errol doesn’t look too crash hot – weather beaten and, surprisingly, a bit pudgy (something that tended to be disguised in his later movies because he usually wore suits all the time). It’s a different sort of character for him – a hated martinet who is willing to sacrifice the life of his men if it means keeping the Apaches at bay (the theme of the movie is sort of “we can’t back down to terrorists”.) He’s not bad – it’s not one of his best performances.
This is far from perfect – there is lots of Acting and Over Acting (especially by London and the bald guy who gets a crush on said nympho – he’s awful). Sheridan isn’t bad in a not-much role, but the role of the widowed leader of the townsfolk is quite good.
It suffers definitely from a low budget, which presumably hampered the ability to shoot decent action scenes – the quality of these is about on par of most 50s television. It’s quite mature that Flynn fails in his mission but there’s an awful scene at the end where Sheridan takes the blame for turning her sister into a woman of easy victue (Sheridan was a former dance hall girl aka hooker whose sister looked up to her). Also the Indians deciding not to attack at the end whiffs of deux ex machina and the ending is a bit irritating – Errol says he’s going to say in his report the trip was made “without incident”… but didn’t several of his soldiers die? How’s he going to explain that?
But you could count on Playhouse 90 to at least try to turn out something of quality, and they have a go. This is definitely Errol’s best television production – though not his best small screen performance, that would be The Golden Shanty.
TV review – “Errol Flynn Theatre – The Duel” (1957) **
Errol Flynn didn’t often play villains during his career – the closest he got was something like That Forsyth Woman or Master of Ballantrae – so it’s fascinating to see him as an out-and-out black hat in this episode of his own television anthology.
He plays an English lord, a skilled duellist and scoundrel. He’s short of money so he plans to marry his ward – despite the fact his ward wants to marry an officer. The officer would challenge Errol to a duel but the ward is scared of Errol’s ability. Eventually the duel happens… but Errol freaks out and dies of apoplexy.
It’s a rather intriguing ending to an intriguing episode. The period detail is pleasing for a low budget, but the acting is poor; Errol is the best, but even he is a bit too obviously “acting – still, he’s better than the ward and her boyfriend, both of whom are atrocious.
Movie review – “Not Quite Hollywood” (2008) ****
Half a masterpiece. I love it because I’m a big fan of the era, ozploitation, Ginnane and Trenchard Smith, Richard Franklin, etc. The film is full of energy and colour and pretty much uses the majority of nude scenes from those films, if you’re so interested, so that they’re located in the one convenient locations. It also has Quentin Tarantino talking about the films with a lot more insight than most of our critics (eg pointing out that no one shoots cars better than an Aussie).
It has flaws, though. For one thing it’s too much of a celebration – it doesn’t really deal with the criticisms of the movies in enough detail – in particular the misogyny inherent in a lot of them (there are an awful lot of tits and bush – and the cocks of John Holmes and Graeme Blundell as well, admittedly but more tits and bush; and the female point of view is limited to actors who appeared in them).
Also the issue of how these films fit in our national consciousness isn’t really dealt with - something important since many of them were financed using government tax breaks and direct funding. Alvin Purple made a lot of money, fine – but can you justify government money in Pacific Banana? Was Ginnane entitled to import all those overseas actors for his movies? (You don’t have to say he was wrong, but I think the other point of view needs to be better elucidated.)
It also doesn’t dig into the characters enough. There are key figures throughout – Trenchard-Smith, Grant Page, Ginnane, Everett de Roche – but we never really get to known what makes them tick, or go with them on any sort of emotional journey. Didn’t Ginnane go bankrupt? What’s the real reason why Sandy Harbutt never made another film?
(NB I also would quibble though that these films have been ignored over the years – David Stratton devoted many pages to them in his two books on the Australian film industry.)
It has flaws, though. For one thing it’s too much of a celebration – it doesn’t really deal with the criticisms of the movies in enough detail – in particular the misogyny inherent in a lot of them (there are an awful lot of tits and bush – and the cocks of John Holmes and Graeme Blundell as well, admittedly but more tits and bush; and the female point of view is limited to actors who appeared in them).
Also the issue of how these films fit in our national consciousness isn’t really dealt with - something important since many of them were financed using government tax breaks and direct funding. Alvin Purple made a lot of money, fine – but can you justify government money in Pacific Banana? Was Ginnane entitled to import all those overseas actors for his movies? (You don’t have to say he was wrong, but I think the other point of view needs to be better elucidated.)
It also doesn’t dig into the characters enough. There are key figures throughout – Trenchard-Smith, Grant Page, Ginnane, Everett de Roche – but we never really get to known what makes them tick, or go with them on any sort of emotional journey. Didn’t Ginnane go bankrupt? What’s the real reason why Sandy Harbutt never made another film?
(NB I also would quibble though that these films have been ignored over the years – David Stratton devoted many pages to them in his two books on the Australian film industry.)
TV review – “Colgate Comedy Hour – Abbott and Costello – Guest Starring Errol Flynn” (1952)
Abbott and Costello had their own sitcom but they also occasionally hosted the popular variety show Colgate Comedy Hour. This was a combination of routines, patter, sketches, songs and dances, not all of which involved the star duo. Martin and Lewis also hosted the show and to be honest they were a lot better than Abbott and Costello – more energy, fresher routines. Still, it’s good to see the boys doing their schtick.
The main reason I watched this episode was to see Errol Flynn, who was a special guest star. Apparently he was friendly with the boys - he mentions playing practical jokes on them in My Wicked, Wicked Ways.
He only appears in two sketches, and one of those he pops in and out – but in the other one he gets to perform the old classic (aka thoroughly road-tested) sketch, “Slowly I Turned”. This popped up in several Abbott and Costello movies. Flynn performs it with enthusiasm – to be honest, too much enthusiasm, he goes overboard and doesn’t quite have his on stage timing (it is performed live in front of a crowd). I’m a big fan of Errol’s comic abilities and am convinced that with a big more practice in front of a live crowd he could have given a knock-out performance. Here though – not so good.
The main reason I watched this episode was to see Errol Flynn, who was a special guest star. Apparently he was friendly with the boys - he mentions playing practical jokes on them in My Wicked, Wicked Ways.
He only appears in two sketches, and one of those he pops in and out – but in the other one he gets to perform the old classic (aka thoroughly road-tested) sketch, “Slowly I Turned”. This popped up in several Abbott and Costello movies. Flynn performs it with enthusiasm – to be honest, too much enthusiasm, he goes overboard and doesn’t quite have his on stage timing (it is performed live in front of a crowd). I’m a big fan of Errol’s comic abilities and am convinced that with a big more practice in front of a live crowd he could have given a knock-out performance. Here though – not so good.
Movie review – “San Antonio” (1945) ***
As the war came to an end, Errol Flynn found himself back in Technicolor for this popular reprise of Dodge City – it even reuses the theme music. Errol plays a cattle rancher whose stock has been run off by baddies so he heads back from San Antonio to get revenge. On the way he runs into Alexis Smith, a snooty saloon singer (who has a sort of chaperone, Florence Bates, performing the same role as Una Merkel did in Robin Hood)
Smith was a terrific foil for Errol in Gentleman Jim but she isn’t here. I couldn’t put my finger on it why – maybe in Gentleman Jim Errol was such an egotist it was easier for her to bounce of him or something. I don’t know why they didn’t repeat it – they start doing it, then stop not long into the relationship. And Smith spends half the film whining to Errol that she didn’t have anything to do with his mate’s death, which is boring.
The script is from two top writers, Alan Le May and W R Burnett and is okay, though it goes on too long. The director was David Butler, who has a list of unmremarkable credits but does a competent job. Certainly it’s a colourful movie with plenty of extras and elaborate sets; it has more of a musical flavour: in addition to Smith’s numbers (some of which are, to be honest bland), Errol is first seen strumming the guitar and he does a little waltz with Smith.
The support cast lacks a bit of power – when the bloke who plays Errol’s best friend dies, you don’t really feel anything (where’s Alan Hale?). There is S K Sakall, but the film makes the mistake of turning this comic souffle into a plot important character by having him witness the murder. The two villains aren’t bad, though there is not really enough action apart from a spectacular final shoot out in the saloon (and a fight in the church). But they even stuff this up by having Errol not get one of the baddies, and there’s this tacked on climax where he fights the baddy on another day. Bad structure.
Some bright lines of dialogue: “Is it a Western custom to push yourself on other people?” “Yes ma’m, that’s how the West was settled”. Also Errol tells Alexis Smith “we don’t see pretty girls like you down that often – I guess that’s why we have to pay for it” – surely this is a refence to prostitution?
Smith was a terrific foil for Errol in Gentleman Jim but she isn’t here. I couldn’t put my finger on it why – maybe in Gentleman Jim Errol was such an egotist it was easier for her to bounce of him or something. I don’t know why they didn’t repeat it – they start doing it, then stop not long into the relationship. And Smith spends half the film whining to Errol that she didn’t have anything to do with his mate’s death, which is boring.
The script is from two top writers, Alan Le May and W R Burnett and is okay, though it goes on too long. The director was David Butler, who has a list of unmremarkable credits but does a competent job. Certainly it’s a colourful movie with plenty of extras and elaborate sets; it has more of a musical flavour: in addition to Smith’s numbers (some of which are, to be honest bland), Errol is first seen strumming the guitar and he does a little waltz with Smith.
The support cast lacks a bit of power – when the bloke who plays Errol’s best friend dies, you don’t really feel anything (where’s Alan Hale?). There is S K Sakall, but the film makes the mistake of turning this comic souffle into a plot important character by having him witness the murder. The two villains aren’t bad, though there is not really enough action apart from a spectacular final shoot out in the saloon (and a fight in the church). But they even stuff this up by having Errol not get one of the baddies, and there’s this tacked on climax where he fights the baddy on another day. Bad structure.
Some bright lines of dialogue: “Is it a Western custom to push yourself on other people?” “Yes ma’m, that’s how the West was settled”. Also Errol tells Alexis Smith “we don’t see pretty girls like you down that often – I guess that’s why we have to pay for it” – surely this is a refence to prostitution?
Movie review – “Don’t Bet On Blondes” (1935) **
Warner Bros were known for their fast-talking tough guy stars: Lee Tracey, Robinson, Bogart, Pat O’Brien. The smooth-talking Warren William doesn’t quite seem to fit, though he tries. Although a B picture (running under 60 minutes) it was directed by Robert Florey and has Guy Kibee in the cast.
Williams plays a Broadway bookie who moves into the insurance business. He takes an insurance policy from an eccentric Southerner (Guy Kibee) against said Southern’ers daughter (Claire Dodds) from being married – the sort of silly plot that works well enough to pass the time, eg One Night in the Tropics. But they stuff it – they don’t get Williams to romance her until the film is half way over; Claire finds out about it and romances Williams back – but she tells Kibee? How come? Who cares?
The film is best known (if it is known at all) for featuring Errol Flynn in a support role as one of Dodd’s suitors. He’s handsome though moustache-less and is a lot more comfortable in front of the camera than he was during In the Wake of the Bounty – though of course he’d been to Northampton Rep during the mean time. He has two scenes, one chatting with Dodd at a golf course, and another one out to dinner with William’s minions trying to stuff up his romance with Dodd.
The main faults of the film are the wonky structure, William’s flat performance in the lead, and the lack of chemistry between Williams and Dodd. It’s an okay idea for a screwball comedy – it’s kind of a shame in a way that Errol Flynn didn’t get the chance to play the lead, he would have been a lot better.
Williams plays a Broadway bookie who moves into the insurance business. He takes an insurance policy from an eccentric Southerner (Guy Kibee) against said Southern’ers daughter (Claire Dodds) from being married – the sort of silly plot that works well enough to pass the time, eg One Night in the Tropics. But they stuff it – they don’t get Williams to romance her until the film is half way over; Claire finds out about it and romances Williams back – but she tells Kibee? How come? Who cares?
The film is best known (if it is known at all) for featuring Errol Flynn in a support role as one of Dodd’s suitors. He’s handsome though moustache-less and is a lot more comfortable in front of the camera than he was during In the Wake of the Bounty – though of course he’d been to Northampton Rep during the mean time. He has two scenes, one chatting with Dodd at a golf course, and another one out to dinner with William’s minions trying to stuff up his romance with Dodd.
The main faults of the film are the wonky structure, William’s flat performance in the lead, and the lack of chemistry between Williams and Dodd. It’s an okay idea for a screwball comedy – it’s kind of a shame in a way that Errol Flynn didn’t get the chance to play the lead, he would have been a lot better.
Play review – “Stallion of Death” by Drew Fairley
Enormously enjoyable romp, a sort of pastiche of Aussie bush melodramas that flourished 1890s-1910 eg Squatter’s Daughter, Breaking of the Drought. It has a little something to say too about armband history, though that is not belaboured. Excellent performances: Gibson Nolte is a name to watch.
Movie review – “Istanbul” (1957) **
Errol Flynn’s first Hollywood film for a while starts promisingly with some gorgeous technicolour shots of Istanbul from a plane as Errol flies into town. He meets some old friends – a suspicious police detective and a black nightclub singer (Nat King Col, singing ‘When I Fall In Love”) – and when the song triggers a flashback you’ll start thinking “that’s a bit like Casablanca”… a comparison only reinforced when the flashback reveals he romanced a Ingrid Bergman-like German (Cornell Borchers), and Errol plays an adventurer (a pilot)
Errol wants to marry Boucher and gets involved in some shady jewel shenanigans – then he thinks that the girl is dead. Then she turns up with a new husband and amnesia – at which point the film goes off the rails. It’s far too much of a coincidence for the girl to turn up at the same time, and there’s not a lot of emotional power in the scenes between Errol and the girl (because she doesn’t remember him) and the stolen jewels plot gets dull. The writers commit the unforgivable script flaw of actually resolve the jewel plot and killing the baddie with ten minutes to go… leaving ten minutes of boring amnesia stuff. The girl gets her memory back and races to the airport… but Errol has gotten the plane. But then the plane goes back. Like who cares?
This lacks a name support cast - though to be fair the bunch they’ve got acquit themselves pretty well, including Leif Erickson, Nat King Cole and Colonel Klink from Hogans Heroes. A more serious flaw is it doesn’t really exploit its location, either in terms of story or production value (most of it was shot in Hollywood; location footage is limited to a bit at the beginning). (cf The original version of this – the 1947 film Singapore – where the lead couple were torn apart via the invasion of Singapore.)
There’s also a not very funny subplot about an annoying American couple where the wife is a flirt – he winds up giving her a black eye at the end and we’re supposed to find it funny.
It’s a real shame since I’m partial to melodramas about pilots set in exotic corners of the globe. The script is based on a story by Seton I Miller who wrote some of Errol’s best movies (and also the Alan Ladd potboiler Calcutta, about a pilot in an exotic city) - but there are other names on the credits too so maybe the mess that is the script isn’t his fault. I enjoyed Errol’s performance. He’s obviously a fading beauty, and in some scenes slurs a little, but he’s also smooth and has sad eyes that give depth to his part.
Errol wants to marry Boucher and gets involved in some shady jewel shenanigans – then he thinks that the girl is dead. Then she turns up with a new husband and amnesia – at which point the film goes off the rails. It’s far too much of a coincidence for the girl to turn up at the same time, and there’s not a lot of emotional power in the scenes between Errol and the girl (because she doesn’t remember him) and the stolen jewels plot gets dull. The writers commit the unforgivable script flaw of actually resolve the jewel plot and killing the baddie with ten minutes to go… leaving ten minutes of boring amnesia stuff. The girl gets her memory back and races to the airport… but Errol has gotten the plane. But then the plane goes back. Like who cares?
This lacks a name support cast - though to be fair the bunch they’ve got acquit themselves pretty well, including Leif Erickson, Nat King Cole and Colonel Klink from Hogans Heroes. A more serious flaw is it doesn’t really exploit its location, either in terms of story or production value (most of it was shot in Hollywood; location footage is limited to a bit at the beginning). (cf The original version of this – the 1947 film Singapore – where the lead couple were torn apart via the invasion of Singapore.)
There’s also a not very funny subplot about an annoying American couple where the wife is a flirt – he winds up giving her a black eye at the end and we’re supposed to find it funny.
It’s a real shame since I’m partial to melodramas about pilots set in exotic corners of the globe. The script is based on a story by Seton I Miller who wrote some of Errol’s best movies (and also the Alan Ladd potboiler Calcutta, about a pilot in an exotic city) - but there are other names on the credits too so maybe the mess that is the script isn’t his fault. I enjoyed Errol’s performance. He’s obviously a fading beauty, and in some scenes slurs a little, but he’s also smooth and has sad eyes that give depth to his part.
Movie review – “Too Much Too Soon” (1958) ****
Dorothy Malone had been around for ages before nabbing an Oscar for a showy support role in Written on the Wind. This must have seemed life a sure-fire follow up, a biopic about a famous yet tragic female star…a reliable formula in the 50s (Interrupted Melody, Jeanne Eagles, I’ll Cry Tomorrow).
She gives a fine performance though she’s overshadowed by Errol Flynn in a role that was always going to steal the notices – John Barrymore, the real life Flynn’s old boozing partner. Flynn never had Barrymore’s reputation for a great actor but he’s perfectly cast – full of charisma, charm and sadness, with a beautiful speaking voice and fondness for the bottle.
Everything Flynn does is memorable – John Barrymore asking Diana to tell all about her life and him getting bored straight away, Flynn performing ‘once more into the breach’ soliloquy to a neighbouring yacht while a bit pissed and getting increasingly roused (he’s not magical but he does not disgrace himself) – then abandoning his daughter, showing his daughter around a near-empty mansion, going on a massive drunk leading to his minder having to tackle him, a scene where he makes eyes at a young starlet… played by Beverley Aadland, his fear at getting the lead in The Man Who Came to Dinner (one of the few films to use its actual name), a drunken phone call to his ex wife, his final plea for Diana to stay. One hour in he disappears.
It’s only after his death that Diana hits the bottle (out of guilt) – and starts rooting around too, seducing Effram Zimbalist Jnr. He married her but when he goes off to make a film, she starts becoming a real party girl, dancing at parties in her swimsuit, hooking up with tennis pro Ray Danton. He dumps her when mum cuts her off and she hooks up with a nice other actor who is revealed to be an alcoholic and they hit the booze together.
There are other good scenes too – Diana getting big applause on her first appearance on stage (and her mother saying – all too accurately – that she’s a second rate actor and is only getting applause for her name), sexy Malone dancing in her swimsuit at her party, Ray Danton abusing Diana while smacking a tennis ball off a wall near her head (and eventually smacking her in the face with that ball – great scene), Diana doing a nightclub act while trashed (she starts off doing impersonations and ends up stripping).
I’ve always remembered the ending where Diana is inspired to meet up with a publisher by an old boyfriend who turns out to be bald. She may be a drunk but she’s not bald! As a baldy I admit on one hand to be a little bit offended – but it’s also a warm, human, true and different end. “Once all I had was money. I’ve got something else now – I’m a real nice guy” – that’s a nice thing for baldy to say.
Malone isn’t quite convincing as the young Diana but once she grows up and gets to flash that lovely hair she improves. She’s particularly effective once she starts rooting – the Malone specialty.
One gripe – there’s too much music in the background during all the scenes. And there’s a strain of misogyny through it – Diana’s early boyfriend complains that because she’s rich he can’t surprise her with things and Zimbalist refuses to be a kept man, whereas Danton doesn’t.
It’s been a while since I read Diana Barrymore’s book but from memory they changed an awful lot. One memorable scene from the book which didn’t make it – John taking his daughter out while at school with one of her friends, and ending up making out with that friend – that’s enough to make you wish they’d make another version of this story. Also she was married to Bramwell Fletcher, a fellow alcoholic best remembered now for appearing in The Mummy, and had a fling with Victor Mature, was under contract to Walter Wagner.
Maybe this doesn’t deserve four stars – but I really liked it and loved certain scenes. Fun is muted with the knowledge that Barrymore killed herself soon after the book came out.
(Check out this fascinating interview between Mike Wallace and Barrymore shortly after the book came out. She says she can’t give up drinking just yet. Come on, Diana…)
She gives a fine performance though she’s overshadowed by Errol Flynn in a role that was always going to steal the notices – John Barrymore, the real life Flynn’s old boozing partner. Flynn never had Barrymore’s reputation for a great actor but he’s perfectly cast – full of charisma, charm and sadness, with a beautiful speaking voice and fondness for the bottle.
Everything Flynn does is memorable – John Barrymore asking Diana to tell all about her life and him getting bored straight away, Flynn performing ‘once more into the breach’ soliloquy to a neighbouring yacht while a bit pissed and getting increasingly roused (he’s not magical but he does not disgrace himself) – then abandoning his daughter, showing his daughter around a near-empty mansion, going on a massive drunk leading to his minder having to tackle him, a scene where he makes eyes at a young starlet… played by Beverley Aadland, his fear at getting the lead in The Man Who Came to Dinner (one of the few films to use its actual name), a drunken phone call to his ex wife, his final plea for Diana to stay. One hour in he disappears.
It’s only after his death that Diana hits the bottle (out of guilt) – and starts rooting around too, seducing Effram Zimbalist Jnr. He married her but when he goes off to make a film, she starts becoming a real party girl, dancing at parties in her swimsuit, hooking up with tennis pro Ray Danton. He dumps her when mum cuts her off and she hooks up with a nice other actor who is revealed to be an alcoholic and they hit the booze together.
There are other good scenes too – Diana getting big applause on her first appearance on stage (and her mother saying – all too accurately – that she’s a second rate actor and is only getting applause for her name), sexy Malone dancing in her swimsuit at her party, Ray Danton abusing Diana while smacking a tennis ball off a wall near her head (and eventually smacking her in the face with that ball – great scene), Diana doing a nightclub act while trashed (she starts off doing impersonations and ends up stripping).
I’ve always remembered the ending where Diana is inspired to meet up with a publisher by an old boyfriend who turns out to be bald. She may be a drunk but she’s not bald! As a baldy I admit on one hand to be a little bit offended – but it’s also a warm, human, true and different end. “Once all I had was money. I’ve got something else now – I’m a real nice guy” – that’s a nice thing for baldy to say.
Malone isn’t quite convincing as the young Diana but once she grows up and gets to flash that lovely hair she improves. She’s particularly effective once she starts rooting – the Malone specialty.
One gripe – there’s too much music in the background during all the scenes. And there’s a strain of misogyny through it – Diana’s early boyfriend complains that because she’s rich he can’t surprise her with things and Zimbalist refuses to be a kept man, whereas Danton doesn’t.
It’s been a while since I read Diana Barrymore’s book but from memory they changed an awful lot. One memorable scene from the book which didn’t make it – John taking his daughter out while at school with one of her friends, and ending up making out with that friend – that’s enough to make you wish they’d make another version of this story. Also she was married to Bramwell Fletcher, a fellow alcoholic best remembered now for appearing in The Mummy, and had a fling with Victor Mature, was under contract to Walter Wagner.
Maybe this doesn’t deserve four stars – but I really liked it and loved certain scenes. Fun is muted with the knowledge that Barrymore killed herself soon after the book came out.
(Check out this fascinating interview between Mike Wallace and Barrymore shortly after the book came out. She says she can’t give up drinking just yet. Come on, Diana…)
Movie review – “Hangover Square” (1945) ***1/2
The Lodger was such a hit that 20th Century-Fox promptly commissioned a follow up, with Laird Cregar as another homicidal maniac in period London from a script by Barre Lydon directed by John Brahm, with George Sanders co-starring.
It took a while to reveal The Lodger was a killer but Hangover Square doesn’t waste any such time, having Cregar stab someone to death in the first few seconds. However, Cregar’s performance is a lot more subtle and sensitive than his eyes-bulging work on that earlier film – indeed, you could say that about the whole movie. For one thing, Sanders is more convincing as a doctor here than a detective, as in the earlier film. Also Linda Darnell is much better than Merle Oberon – sexy, vivacious, beautiful (to be fair, she’s got a decent character – an ambitious singer – whereas Oberon was just this girl).
The structure of this one is reminiscent of a werewolf film – the killer is a sympathetic, sensitive soul who is unaware of the crimes he is committing. Cregar is very likeable and never kills someone who doesn’t deserve it –his initial victim is shown to be a crook, Darnell is a tramp, her lover is smarmy (he doesn’t kill Sanders, just imprisons him so he can play his symphony). Excellent climax with Cregar playing Bermard Herrmann’s theme music as the room goes up in flames.
It took a while to reveal The Lodger was a killer but Hangover Square doesn’t waste any such time, having Cregar stab someone to death in the first few seconds. However, Cregar’s performance is a lot more subtle and sensitive than his eyes-bulging work on that earlier film – indeed, you could say that about the whole movie. For one thing, Sanders is more convincing as a doctor here than a detective, as in the earlier film. Also Linda Darnell is much better than Merle Oberon – sexy, vivacious, beautiful (to be fair, she’s got a decent character – an ambitious singer – whereas Oberon was just this girl).
The structure of this one is reminiscent of a werewolf film – the killer is a sympathetic, sensitive soul who is unaware of the crimes he is committing. Cregar is very likeable and never kills someone who doesn’t deserve it –his initial victim is shown to be a crook, Darnell is a tramp, her lover is smarmy (he doesn’t kill Sanders, just imprisons him so he can play his symphony). Excellent climax with Cregar playing Bermard Herrmann’s theme music as the room goes up in flames.
Book review – “Just One More Thing” by Peter Falk
Different sort of autobiography – Falk tells his life story in terms of anecdotes, throwing in bits like his drawings, a scene he wrote for a movie he was in which wasn’t used, a photo of his wife in what looks like a showgirl outfit. A breezy, light read – Falk must be a lot of fun to be around. He seems to have been compensated for losing an eye at a young age (to cancer) by having health and a long running career.
I love it when top notch stage actors enjoy a hit tv show later on in their career, it seems so, how should I put it, fair: Angela Lansbury, Falk, Sam Waterston. Falk came to acting late, put in hard yards on theatre, before finding success as a supporting actor in movies then as a tv star. While he’s best known for Columbo he has some serious street cred in his career – The Iceman Cometh with Robards on off-Broadway, films with Cassavetes and Wim Wenders, two Oscar nominations (for his first two movies!) – as well as more commercial stuff – the lead in a Neil Simon hit, a movie with the Rat Pack. He has had a healthy thirst for knowledge and adventure, travelling behind the Iron Curtain several times.
I love it when top notch stage actors enjoy a hit tv show later on in their career, it seems so, how should I put it, fair: Angela Lansbury, Falk, Sam Waterston. Falk came to acting late, put in hard yards on theatre, before finding success as a supporting actor in movies then as a tv star. While he’s best known for Columbo he has some serious street cred in his career – The Iceman Cometh with Robards on off-Broadway, films with Cassavetes and Wim Wenders, two Oscar nominations (for his first two movies!) – as well as more commercial stuff – the lead in a Neil Simon hit, a movie with the Rat Pack. He has had a healthy thirst for knowledge and adventure, travelling behind the Iron Curtain several times.
Book review – “I Hate My Neck” by Nora Ephron
I’ll admit there are a lot of things I find irritating about Nora Ephron movies – all the emphasis on food and interior design and sentimentality. But she’s a great writer and some of the stuff here is terrific – advising parents of teenagers to buy a dog so someone will be glad to see them, doing aerobics to Chicago. I wasn’t so interested in the whining about the price of rent in New York and the state of her neck and aging, but it’s all well written and it is consistently smart and witty. There’s som unexpectedly moving stuff too when she talks about her friend who died young (age 66).
Movie review – “Emperor of the North” (1973) **1/2
Robert Aldrich didn’t have much luck with the Depression in The Grisson Gang, but he went back to that period just two years later, this time armed with two of his favourite actors, Lee Marvin and Ernest Brognine. It has an intriguing idea, with hobo Marvin betting he can ride on Borgnine’s train. It’s a simple story which could stand as a metaphor for all sorts of stuff they liked in the early 70s – freedom, authority, bucking the system, slang (eg Vanishing Point, Easy Rider). No doubt that’s the film’s backers were hoping the youth audience would enjoy that aspect.
However the only real young character is Keith Carradine as a bratty young hobo forever creating trouble. Although he’s got potential he’s never shown to really have the right stuff, even at the end - perhaps this was why the youth audience didn’t go for the movie.
The film is way too long at two hours. You could say that about a lot of Robert Aldrich films but this seems really padded because really it should be about one train journey but it takes all these side detours. Some of the battles on the train are really clever – I especially loved Borgnine’s little chain device that he uses to get at hobos sleeping under the carriage.
Borgnine, Marvin and Carradine are all effective and the support cast demonstrate Aldrich had not lost any of his skill for casting great “faces” – the agony, sweat and hard work of the Depression are etched on all of them. (The men that is – there are hardly any women in the film)
However the only real young character is Keith Carradine as a bratty young hobo forever creating trouble. Although he’s got potential he’s never shown to really have the right stuff, even at the end - perhaps this was why the youth audience didn’t go for the movie.
The film is way too long at two hours. You could say that about a lot of Robert Aldrich films but this seems really padded because really it should be about one train journey but it takes all these side detours. Some of the battles on the train are really clever – I especially loved Borgnine’s little chain device that he uses to get at hobos sleeping under the carriage.
Borgnine, Marvin and Carradine are all effective and the support cast demonstrate Aldrich had not lost any of his skill for casting great “faces” – the agony, sweat and hard work of the Depression are etched on all of them. (The men that is – there are hardly any women in the film)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)