Movie review – “Horror of Frankenstein” (1970) *1/2

Looking for different ways to get extra juice out of the Frankenstein story, Hammer came up with a solid idea – reboot the franchise, tell the story of Young Frankenstein (i.e. the doctor at school) – but once this is introduced, it’s thrown away almost as quickly, and the rest of the action is a retread of the same material as Curse of Frankenstein, i.e. Frankenstein and his mate mess around in a lab, they collect body parts, build a creature, bring it to life, creature goes on rampage, etc.

 

Ralph Bates replaces Peter Cushing in the lead role and makes a fair fist of it – he’s got the right looks and sense of “bigness”. But it’s a fuzzy role – we never see why Frankenstein is so driven, or what made him is, or any formative experiences, for that matter. He’s simply a younger version of the established character. And he’s required to drive too much of the action – this badly needed a subplot driven by another character. Also, said character is confused by the fact Frankenstein has this horny side – on one hand he’s driven to bring creatures back from the dead, so much so he’ll commit murder, but on the other he takes time out to bang the (admittedly hot) maid (Kate O’Mara), and make this silly comments.

 

Indeed, there’s an element of silliness throughout the whole film – lots of throwaway gags, double entendres – which robs the story of any emotional point. There’s no pathos about the monster (David Prowse, running around bare chested and in long pants), or Frankenstein’s friend or lady friends (Veronica Carlson is given nothing to do except show her cleavage, which is great, but the purpose of a girl in a Frankenstein film is to love Frankenstein). So for most of the time this drags. It doesn’t look good either – the photography and art design, normally delights of Hammer films, is third rate. Jimmy Sangster wrote and directed this but despite his fine record he doesn't do well in either category here.

Movie review – “Fear in the Night” (1972) ** (warning: spoilers)

Jimmy Sangster’s third film as director for Hammer, and his last for the studio, saw him return to the psycho thriller genre, where he had enjoyed much success in the 60s. Once again, there’s a young woman with a history of mental instability (Judy Geeson), who is slowly been driven mad in a creepy setting (Taste of Fear, Nightmare, Paranoiac); the action shifts in the last act away from the protagonist to two baddies, who have the tables turned on them (Maniac, Taste of Fear); they can’t find a corpse (Taste of Fear); there’s a big secret about the past (all of them); the male baddie accidentally kills his fellow female baddie (Taste of Fear).

Well, the above things may be reheated ingredients but they worked for the first time, so why not a second (or third), and there’s a very strong cast, including Ralph Bates, Peter Cushing, and Joan Collins. Geeson doesn’t really convey descent into insanity, but at least she’s pretty and likeable. 

 

Sangster the director doesn’t do full justice to Sangster the writer – you feel Seth Holt or Freddie Francis would have extracted more juice and suspense out of the creepy school (although he does do something interesting things with editing). Sangster says in the commentary that he let some scenes drag on extra long in order to extend the running time – well, you can tell. I could have done with an extra scene at the end, wrapping up the fate of Geeson and Cushing a bit more.

Movie review – “Frankenstein Created Woman” (1967) ***

After the odd detour that was Evil of Frankenstein, Hammer came up with a more traditional gothic here. Even though I say “traditional”, this has an unusual concept – after an arresting opening (Frankenstein has himself revived after being dead for an hour), the doctor is determined to prove that the soul can be captured and transferred after death. He gets his chance to experiment when his assistant, Hans (yes, another Hans) is executed for a crime he didn’t convict – which gives Frankenstein a soul to play with. Then Hans’ girlfriend kills herself in grief – giving doc a body.

This is a surprisingly complex set up for writer John Elder, considering his history of not-very-good screenplays, but having done this, he doesn’t do much with the result. All that happens is the girl is revived and starts taking orders from Hans’ preserved head to kill the people actually responsible for the crime. She kills them one by one giving this a slasher film feel – or perhaps more accurately, a female vampire film feel. It’s a shame since the idea of a female Frankenstein’s monster had real appeal; ditto all that stuff about souls.

Peter Cushing is in good form as Frankenstein and Terence Young’s direction is dynamic. Susan Denberg is pretty as the girl monster – although there’s this hot publicity shot of her standing in the lab in a bikini but she doesn’t wear one in the film. The supporting cast isn’t the strongest – Thorley Walters is too fuddy duddy and comic as Frankenstein’s elder assistant, and Derek Fowlds, Bernard from Yes Minister, isn’t believable as a decadent aristocrat (the main blonde one kept reminding me of Monty Python’s Graeme Chapman). Solid guillotine action and impressive production design – a bit more “realistic” than early 60s Hammer.

Movie review – “Never Take Candy From a Stranger” (1959) ****

Being a big Hammer movie fan, I’ve heard about most of the good films from the studio – but knew absolutely nothing about this. I only watched it because it was on a DVD collection but gave it priority after hearing Marcus Hearn talk about it on the DVD commentary for Pirates of Blood River (the films share a screenwriter). The result is a startling movie, about child abuse of all things.

Although shot at Bray Studios, it’s set in Canada, and is about a family of Brits who’ve recently moved there so dad can take up a position as high school principal. The nine year old daughter visits an old man who gives her and friend candy… in exchange for taking off all her clothes and dancing. The rest of the film deals with the fall out, particularly the fact the old man is from a powerful family in the town.

Very well written, directed and acted (I didn’t recognise any of the cast except for the prosecutor and the dirty old man [Felix Aylmer], and the kid actors are good), this has special power from being made in the late 50s. You watch it and it’s hard to believe you’re actually watching it. Despite that, the film pulls few punches – it’s always clear what’s happened, what characters are afraid of happening, and the ending doesn’t cop out. Also the fact this is set during a time when child abuse was less discussed than it is now, more swept under the carpet, and it was less socially acceptable to hate pedophiles. (Love how mum is sedated by the doctor at the end). It tackles different points of view to dealing with the problems – hush it up, be careful, deny it, tell the truth. Well worth seeking out.

Movie review – “Inglorious Basterds” (2009) ****1/2

A great return to form for Quentin Tarantino after Deathproof – a marvellous pot pourri of war films, hot chicks, Jews, cinema, violence, accents, acting, and Westerns. It has real emotion and heart behind it, and there’s genuine menace underlying every scene, which means you don’t mind the talking stuff as much. Brad Pitt gives an excellent character performance, heading a wonderful cast – everyone is good, even Diane Kruger… except maybe Mike Myers who is far too comic (he distracts from poor old Rod Taylor, making his first appearance in a major film in ages as Churchill). 

 

Tarantino is sometimes accused of making films without heart but this isn’t the case – especially since it has the weight of history on it’s side. You really feel the deaths of the characters in this one. Having said that there’s plenty of humour and shocks too.

Play review – “Misalliance” by G B Shaw

I wanted to read this because Rod Taylor starred in two productions, one for the John Alden Company on stage in Sydney, the other an adaptation for Playhouse 90 in 1959. It’s a comedy of manners set at a house, centered around the upcoming marriage of the daughter of an underwear manufacturer to the son of a lord. There is lots of funny talk and bantering – but it doesn’t have a strong plot. Three people drop in – two of them literally, in a plane – and there are various proposals and lots of talk about marriage and family. Great female characters – and other characters too, but it does drag.

Book review – “Amicus: The House that Dripped Blood”

Reading this was an odd experience – a book about a studio, none of whose films I’ve seen so far. Well, that’s not entirely true – I have seen the Doug McClure actioners they made towards the end of Amicus’ existence, but nothing else. Amicus are often mentioned in conjunction with Hammer as they were a British studio best known for horror films, often starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. They flowered during the late 60s and early 70s, when Hammer was in decline; their films were slightly different from Hammer – in particular, they developed their own sort of sub-genre, the horror anthology film. Inspired by Dead of Night, these proved surprisingly lucrative for Amicus, and gave the studio's output a real point of difference. They also made a few Dr Who films, some sci-fi, even a few art house pieces like The Birthday Party. Eventually like most independent production companies they went bust, albeit after one of their biggest hits, The Land that Time Forgot.

This is a terrific book, full of wonderful pictures and interviews, useful synopsis of the films, behind the scenes stories, etc. It doesn't view the studio output through rose coloured glasses and has a solid look at the characters of Rosenberg and Subotsky, who were the powers behind the throne. And it's not too long, either. Really worth getting if you're interested in Amicus - or just Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.

Book review – “The Big Picture” by William Goldman

Entertaining collection of essays by William Goldman on the screen trade of the 1990s. Most of them are excellent, even if too many are about the Oscars. The best bits are the quotes from anonymous studio execs about Hollywood films – they are funny, pungent and all worth reading. I also liked the longer reviews of films, like Saving Private Ryan and Shakespeare in Love.

Movie review – “The Long Riders” (1980) ***

I had good memories of the film but it’s better than the film – which is a collection of scenes and moments rather than a cohesive story. The gimmick of having brothers plays brothers works beautifully, helped by the fact the brothers are so different – older killer David Carradine, laidback lady’s man Keith, little kid Bobby; odd, bug eyed James Keach, classically handsome charismatic Stanley; fat Randy Quaid and skinny Dennis.

TV review – “The Hollowmen” (2009) ****

This series wasn’t very well reviewed when it came out but I found it a hilarious and often pertinent look at government in the early 21st century. So many parallels with Kevin Rudd’s government it isn’t funny – the desperation to be on the front page, the changing of policy according to the polls. It doesn’t feel as spot on as Frontline and it also lacks a moral core which Frontline had in the form of the Emma character – Lachy Hume occasionally has outbursts of decency but they pass very quickly; I think the blonde girl Nikki would have been ideal for this, but maybe they didn’t want to repeat themselves. It would have given the show more conflict; as it is, most of the time the political advisers find themselves trying to sneak things past the public servants… who, while depicted as pompous and a bit silly, also come across very well. They’re pretty much always interested in doing what’s best for the country, whether it’s improving arts, maintaining defence standards, reducing welfare rip offs. Like all Working Dog productions, the casting is excellent – familiar faces like Merrick Watts, Hume and the bald public service guy are used in new ways brilliantly. The only real exception is Graeme Blundell who is too Graeme Blundell-y to be a scary Labor Party hack.

Book review – “William Goldman” by Richard Andersen

A critical appraisal of Goldman’s work from the late 70s (it goes up until Magic) and as such well worth reading for Goldman fans. Well, fans of his novels at any rate – his plays, short stories, screenplays and non-fiction don’t get much of a look-in, except for the Butch Cassidy script. I think this is a shame since some of this is his best work, especially The Season. But still there’s some first rate analysis of the novels as well as an illuminating interview with Goldman himself. One quote in particular I found striking – Goldman says he always knows which character he is going to kill, and makes that character as likeable as possible. It’s a shame there isn’t an updated version of this book, which covers his novels of the 80s (after which he stopped writing them).

Movie review – “Marathon Man” (1976) ***

William Goldman’s novel was compulsive reading and this film version is certainly watchable… although I also admit it’s not exactly fun. New York is particularly dirty and dingy here, full of muggers, and secret agents, and nasty Puerto Ricans who sit on the front steps and hassle Dustin Hoffman. There’s an underlying feeling of unpleasantness throughout the whole thing – even Hoffman’s relationship with his brother, which is meant to be the heart of the film, is full of betrayal and lies.

Hoffman is in very good shape but he runs weirdly – it’s a shame all his method preparation didn’t involve some coaching from a proper runner. Hoffman isn’t too old to play someone doing their thesis but they should have covered his age somehow (eg he stuffed around for ten years d or so before deciding to go back to college – something that happens all the tie). Laurence Olivier is effective, as is William Devane; Roy Scheider’s performance was superb, but I didn’t think much of Marte Keller.

The twists remain great if you haven’t read it already; there are some bravura sequences – the dentist torture still packs a punch, and it’s done mostly through sound. Some logic problems – Hoffman staying in his apartment after Devane’s told him that the people who killed his brother will come after him; Hoffman taking out three hired killers. I agree with Goldman that Babe should have shot Szell in cold blood at the end – if anyone deserved it, the Nazi did. (Robert Towne wrote the ending that was used.)

NB If you’re a fan of this film, try to catch the special features on the DVD. There’s two making-of featurettes, one contemporary – introduced by Richard Evans in his prime, one thirty years on. Many of the same anecdotes are trotted out; Hoffman makes an unconvincing rebuttal to the famous “try acting” story involving him and Oliver (he doesn’t say it didn’t happen, but says Olivier then added “of course I’m one to talk”; he also claims the reason he didn’t go to sleep for three days was partly because he liked to party).

Movie review – “The Witches” (1966) **

In the mid 60s, Hammer tried to expand their roster of monsters beyond Dracula and Frankenstein – they tried zombies, Rasputin, the Gorgon, snake creatures, dinosaurs and, here, devil worshippers. This is the weakest of all those films- indeed, it’s one of Hammer’s poorest efforts of the decade. It needn’t have been; the script was from Quatermass writer Nigel Kneale, and is a decent enough story: a school teacher takes a job in a quaint, pretty English village, only to discover that there’s a bit of devil worshipping going on.

But it just doesn’t work – maybe it was in the script, but it doesn’t help either that the handling is flabby, or Joan Fontaine is poor in the lead. The school teacher is recovering from a nervous break down in Africa brought on by witch doctors, and presumably the producers thought “Joan Fontaine played a scaredy cat role in Rebecca, conquering her demons to save the day, she’ll be good” – but Fontaine is just all wrong. She occasionally tries to be scared but generally she’s too composed and coiffured, pulling her acting punches – Bette Davis could have played the hell out of this, but not Fontaine. (She would have been better cast in the role played by Kay Walsh, the village lady who turns out to be the head devil worshipper.)

There are some effective bits – a striking opening, the creepy use of little dolls, a nice build up of paranoia, the sexy devil possession by that girl at the end. But more often than not it’s silly – Fontaine being knocked over by some stampeding sheep; the ridiculous devil ceremonies (its possible to do these and make them scary, as Hammer’s second bash at the genre, The Devil’s Ride, proved); the fact that Walsh assumes Fontaine will be part of her plans even those she’s clearly not; the flat finale.

Movie review – “X the Unknown” (1956) ***

Hammer wanted to make another Quatermass movie but Nigel Kneale refused to give over the rights to his character, so they just ripped it off. Instead of Brian Donlevy we have Dean Jagger, an even less charismatic American actor playing a scientist investigating a mystery. This one involves a creature coming out of a crack in the earth.

Apparently Joe Losey was slated to direct by Dean Jagger nixed him on the grounds that he didn’t like Losey’s left-leaning politics. Imagine – Dean Jagger powerful enough to protest who directed the film! (To be fair Hammer’s US co-financiers probably had a greater say.) Leslie Norman took over instead and does a workman-like job. The support cast includes some familiar faces: Leo McKern is a journalist who seems to have an awful lot of authority (he bosses the scientists around) and Anthony Newley a soldier. A good thing too since Jagger isn’t very inspiring.

There are some excellent special effects – I love the two head-melting scenes – although when the creature grows at the end and we get a good look at it, it’s just the blob (I wonder if the makers of The Blob were inspired by this?).

Radio review – Suspense – “Passage to Beneris” (1942) **** (warning: spoilers)

Excellent episode starring Mercury Theatre alumni Paul Stewart as an American psychology academic who is on sabbatical in Trinidad and gets involved in a murder of a Hindu. Extremely well done, strongly acted by an unknown cast. Great motive for killing – done by a Hindu in order to get into heaven, with the extra twist of the fact the narrator only figures it out after he’s been wrongly executed for the crime.

Radio review – Suspense – Othello (1953) ***1/2

I get the sense Richard Widmark always tried to push himself as an actor – he sought out working for John Ford, made films with Kazan, etc – so it wasn’t such a shock to hear him take a bash at Iago. It’s a very good bash, too – he’s excellent, and outshines his costars. (The piece is less effective in the last act when Iago’s role becomes smaller.) This is a strong adaptation, that fits surprisingly well into the Suspense format over two episodes – actually, come to think of it, why should that be surprising? There were many Suspense episodes that centered around jealousy and husbands murdering wives. They could have also adapted Macbeth and Hamlet.

Movie review – “Star Wars” (1977) *****

I’ve seen this way too many times to be healthy but a recent re-viewing some things struck me in particular. For starters it’s very well structured – there’s not an ounce of fat on it as we go from opening ambush, to pod escaping, etc, etc. It’s a very good script – Lucas was right to make the original cuts and make a mistake putting them back in for the re-release; having a scene with Han and Jabba reduced the tension, because it meant Han had more time to pay him back; introducing Luke’s mate from his home planet

Secondly, Luke’s whining really does grate on the nerves (there’s a lot of it). And I found myself laughing at Princess Leia’s hair every time I saw it. But the two of them and Han Solo make a wonderful trio – a very juvenile trio, with some flirting but innocence behind it, kind of the main three out of BMX Bandits. (The Han Solo and Leia of this film seem like they’d never actually have sex, but the Han and Leia of Empire Strikes Back would.)

Thirdly, it was remarkable how much I found myself sympathising with Darth Vader. From the beginning the poor guy has to deal with hassle – Leia lies to him constantly; his officers let the escape pod go with droids; they let Luke escape on Tatooine; the Imperial generals are too cocky and refuse to believe in the power of the force; dodgy work from the pilots means he has to get out and shoot down ships himself. No wonder he’s so stressed.

This remains a marvellously entertaining film, full of action, drama, twists and turns. Alec Guinness, James Earl Jones and Peter Cushing give the film gravitas; Anthony Daniels, Harrison Ford and Kenny Baker bring the humour. Stunning art direction and costumes, it still seems a realistic depiction of how an inter-planetary world could operate, with droids and admin problems and different species. And every single time I watch it I forget that Han Solo is going to come to the rescue, and it remains a wonderful surprise when he does.

Play review – “King John” by William Shakespeare

Often invoked as one of Shakespeare’s worst plays. It’s about French claiming the English throne in the name of Arthur, song of John’s now-dead brother Geoffrey. They’d probably win too if it wasn’t for the illegitimate son of John’s other dead brother, Richard, who is the hero of this play more than John. Indeed it’s a mystery why Shakespeare couldn’t have done more with John, surely one of the most memorably slimy British monarchs.

It rambles a bit and lacks focus but isn’t dreadful. There is plenty of action and plot but it’s not terribly deep and they can never get a fx on John. Some good moments – a catfight between Elinor(John’s mum) and Constance (Geoffrey’s wife), a scene where Hubert tries to kill little Arthur and can’t, where John tries to deny he asked Hubert to kill Arthur, where the nobles realise they're going to be betrayed. Arthur’s death scene is hilariously convenient; John’s death seems to come out of nowhere. And it does compare badly to the Henry IV series.

Movie review – “Get him to the Greek” (2010) ***

Sequel to Forgetting Sarah Marshall has a similar loose structure, unremarkable premise (here very reminiscent of My Favourite Year), strong star performances and support cast, a mixtures raunch with sweetness. Jonah Hill (some how a bit less funny with close-cropper hair) and Russell Brand are excellent in the leads; there’s very strong support from Elizabeth Moss (who gives the film real heart) and Rose Byrne as a Lily Allen type. I didn’t mind Sean Combs either, although he wasn’t sensational and the role could have used someone sensational. Much of the story is repetitive – eg Hill getting trashed, Brand doing something outrageous – causing the film to feel over-long (the Vegas sojourn in particular felt dragged out), but there are many laugh-out-loud moments, and a fair few touching ones too. Brand handles the dramatic scenes very well and the Hill-Moss couple scenes are really spot on.

Movie review – “Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell” (1974) **

The final Hammer Frankenstein film – as well as being the last work from director Terence Fisher. Shane Briant’s romantic, androgynous good looks are well put to use as a young scientist who is a fan of Dr Frankenstein (although his acting ability was still a little raw at this stage). He is busted in a room full of body parts and is shunted off to a lunatic asylum – where the resident doctor is none other than the doctor himself.  

 

The idea of Frankenstein in hiding, and an admiring younger doctor “fan” who becomes his assistant was used in Revenge of Frankenstein, but since that was a pretty good film so what? John Elder/Tony Hinds was never the most original writer in the world, but he was better ripping stuff off than going his own way (eg Kiss of the Vampire script rips off The Black Cat and is better than his new take on Phantom of the Opera). Other elements re-heated include a mute servant girl (the pretty Madeleine Smith – Elder also used a mute girl in Evil of Frankenstein), a body snatcher (Patrick Troughton takes a break from his work as Dracula’s assistant)

 

There are some new ideas – at least, I think they’re new: the asylum setting; Frankenstein’s hands are disfigured, making it impossible for him to operate; the creature in this case is a Neanderthal man; Cushing accidentally steps on a brain during an operation; gory brain surgery footage.

 

But the film is most notable for the opportunities it throws away eg Briant’s initial arrest could have been exciting but is very flat; ditto his arrival at the asylum; Smith is shamefully under-used (and over-dressed) – she spends most of the film just staring at things like an idiot; the revival of the creature (why doesn’t Frankenstein ever have a contingency plan for the monster reviving and going nuts? You’d think by now surely he’d expect that to happen); the rising of the inmates; a flat ending. It remains watchable enough, though – the creature is touching, the structure solid. It could have been a lot better though – more vigorous handling and it could been quite good.

Play review – “Henry V” by William Shakespeare

Henry IV advised his son to solve his domestic problems with an invasion of a foreign country – so here he’s looking hungrily at France. He’s accompanied by some of Falstaff’s old cronies – Falstaff dies off stage in this one. Unlike Henry IV Part Two the action is simple – invasion of France, battle, victory at Agincourt. There is a scene entirely in French, some repetition (eg French nobles being cocky), stirring battle speeches. An example of Shakespeare’s genius – he writes scenes that tug on the heart strings about the English (eg the killing of the boy) but doesn’t hide the fact that Henry orders killing of prisoners, and it was a massacre of the French The final wooing scene might seem tacked on – a bit of romance after all the war – but it does work, because it’s a political wooing brings an end to Henry’s invasion.

Movie review – “The Mummy’s Shroud” (1967) **

The third of Hammer’s mummy cycle starts with an eight minute prologue – mummy movies love their exposition – then kicks into a standard story: expedition pokes around studio set substituting for Egypt; discover a tomb despite native opposition and warnings; members of the expedition start dying. Unfortunately the expedition hole up a hotel and basically hang around to be killed off one by one – this gives the story a static quality. Most of the drama in between killings is handled by the ruthless head of the expedition (John Phillips). The cast lacks star power – it includes Andre Morrell and Michael Ripper – and the low budget hurts. It cries out for some old style gorgeous set design or photography but that isn’t the case. The mummy doesn’t even look like a traditional mummy. Having said that director John Gilling has fun with deaths –and the mummy is more active and virile here than usual. The female lead (Maggie Kimberley) isn’t the best actor in the world but she has a striking, unusual beauty.

Movie review – “These Are the Damned” (1963) **** (warning: spoilers)

Dennis Meikle claims in his book on Hammer that this is the best film made by the studio – a massive call. But it’s an arguable one – this is a masterpiece, even if I feel it’s a heavily flawed, like many works from director Joe Losey. 

 

For starters this feels like two movies sewn together rather than one: the first forty minutes is a sort of creepy social commentary thriller, not too far from Losey’s The Servant. Middle aged American Macdonald Carey tries to pick up a girl (Shirley Ann Field) in a seaside town, and is beaten up by a bunch of teddy boys, who dress in leather and sing along to a song written for the film called ‘Black Leather', and are led by Field’s brother (Oliver Reed). Reed is obsessive about protecting Field’s honour to the point of incestuousness – so when Field hooks up with Carey again, says sorry, and they take of on his boat together, Reed and his gang follow in hot pursuit.  

 

So far so slightly weird – Field is giving a flat performance but Carey is okay and Reed is excellent. Then they stumble upon this top secret government camp where there are nine little kids living in seclusion. It turns out they are radioactive, being raised by the government to live in a post-nuclear world… which is a fantastic idea for a science fiction movie, but we don’t find out until the last twenty minutes. I think we should have become aware earlier. 

 

Also it slightly jars that this odd trio of Carey, Field and Reed are the one who stumble upon the kids – their plot line is too interesting an unusual, if that makes sense – a more “normal” (okay yes predictable) plot and characters who have really highlighted the contrast with these weird kids. I recognise the need to set up some other conflict and clash but I think something less dysfunctional eg a more regulation love triangle, or something involving gangsters on the run. As it currently stands when Reed, Carey and Field stand around the kids going “this is strange”, you can’t help thinking “pot calling kettle” – Reed with his incest hang up, Field being locked away from all men for most of her life, Carey running after this girl much too young for him, etc.

 

Okay that was main gripe – but its still a powerful, moving film. The premise is really strong, three’s a brilliant character in the scientist who runs the project (Alexander Knox), who is convinced there’s going to be nuclear war; I also enjoyed Viveca Lindfors as his ex-girlfriend, an artist living in a cottage who operates as his conscience. (Although there were a few too many scenes with her.) The dilemma of the kids is well conveyed and most of all it’s got this amazing ending, where all the kids try to escape but are recaptured, Knox shoots Lindfors so she won’t tell, Reed dies in a crash, and Carey and Field sail off together, dying of radiation poisoning, tracked by a helicopter. It packs a complete wallop. 

 

I don’t know if this was the best Hammer, but I think it’s the Hammer film I’ve found the most emotionally moving.

Play review – “Pygmalion” by GB Shaw

Shaw wrote his plays for publication as well as performance, and there are charming asides (eg stopping writing Eliza’s dialogue phonetically). Superb characters – thoughtless driven Higgins; touchy, likeable Eliza (“I’m a good girl”); mercenary Doolittle. Even smaller parts like Mrs Pearce are memorable (I think Shaw really admired and enjoyed women; it comes across.) The comic set pieces remain first rate – Doolittle trying to get money off Higgins and complaining about middle class morality; Eliza’s first appearance in front of the ladies and Freddy; Eliza blowing up at Higgins. The lines are hilarious too (“the word ‘bridegroom’… it makes you realise your place, doesn’t it?”). We never see the garden party scene where Eliza wins the bet, and the romance between Eliza and Higgins is expressly denied by Shaw – but you can’t help reading it into the text. There’s a brilliant, hilarious prose epilogue from Shaw.

Play review – “Henry IV Part 2” by William Shakespeare

Similar in many ways to Part 1 – there’s trouble in the kingdom (this time from Hotspur’s dad, Northumberland), people praise Hotspur, Henry IV has doubts, Hal gallivants with Falstaff, the king’s enemies worry about what they’re doing, Falstaff does something comical, a noble tries to talk the rebels into peace, the royal family win at the end, with Hal becoming part of the establishment.

But it’s a lot more deeper, shaded, and complex than Part 1 – almost as if Shakespeare had it re-written down the track. (Theres a quantum leap with every new instalment in this series - Richard II to Henry IV Part 1 to Part 2.) Hal’s journey isn’t as big in Part One – he doesn’t have as many bad ways to give up (he’s already established his bravery), he doesn’t kick arse (his brother is the one who smart talks the rebels). So the supporting cast have more of a chance to shine. Characters like the Chief Justice, Mowbray, Bardolph are really fleshed out – Prince’s mate Poins, the idiotic Ancient Pistol, the saucy Doll. Even Falstaff has more flesh – okay bad pun I admit, but a lot more people in the play are aware of Falstaff than in Part 1 – princes and so on. He must have been such a hit; the focus is more on him, even if he doesn’t actually do that much.

The structure is less pure than Part 1, which built neatly to the Battle of Shrewsbury. There is a song, less action, more soliloquies; Northfolk set up as big character then dismissed; there’s No real sense of friendship between Hal and Flastaff so final change doesn’t have same impact. But it’s still full of stunningly rich characters and moments. You wonder if Shakespeare didn’t wish he could have told simply the one story – Part 1, up to the Battle of Shrewsbury, with Hals maturity being the centerpiece – incorporating all the stuff from Part Two throughout it. (For instance, Henry IV’s sleep monologue could easily slip in Part 1.) Okay, I'm script editing Shakespeare... I'll stop now.

Movie review – “Night Creatures” (1963) ***1/2 aka Captain Clegg

Marvellously enjoyable Hammer swashbuckler, I guess you’d call it, set in the late 18th century about smugglers in a coastal village. Some British sailors turn up hoping to bust them – at first you think the captain (Patrick Allen) is the hero and the smugglers (led by Peter Cushing as a pastor/smuggler, and including Michael Ripper) are the baddies, who kill those who betray them… but the officials are shown to be pretty ruthless (Allen resorts to torture), and the smugglers become increasingly sympathetic.

Excellent cast – Cushing is superb (this ranks with Frankenstein and Van Helsing as his greatest Hammer performances), there is brilliant support from Ripper, Allen, a brooding Oliver Reed (the romantic lead) and the others; Yvonne Ronian adds glamour and cleavage. Great spooky stuff in the marshes with scarecrows and skeletons; gorgeous production design and photography; it’s full of atmosphere and the direction is energetic (there’s some things not typical of Hammer, like moving the camera quickly to close up, the using speeded up editing during fight scenes).

I do admit that from time to time the action dragged a bit for me. Also the marriage ceremony at the end seems to take up a lot of time when the characters would want to get out of dodge. But one of Hammer's best non-horror.

NB Trivia note – Night Creatures was going to be the title of Hammer’s adaptation of I Am Legend, cruelly nixed by the censors (for my money the best film the studio never made).

Movie review – “Stop Me Before I Kill” (1960) ** (warning: spoilers)

Scream of Fear kicked off the Hammer psycho thriller cycle proper in 1963 – but a couple of years earlier Hammer invested in this film, which is also a black and white thriller, set partly in the south of France, about centered around a person worried about going insane. This was too early to be rip off of Psycho, but like Scream of Fear was presumably influenced by Diabolique. 

The plot concerns racing driver Roland Lewis (who was in Scream of Fear), who gets in a car crash (a striking opening sequence), and worries about wanting to kill his wife (Diane Cilento, attractive but her Italian accent grates after a while). He sees a shrink (Claude Dauphine) who seems to cure him… but does he have the hots for Cilento?

There are some effective moments – Lewis gives a strong performance – but this isn’t very good. It goes for far too long, 107 minutes, and lacks the shocks, twists and atmosphere you’d find in the Jimmy Sangster-written psycho thrillers. 

It takes far too long to get going and Dauphine isn’t nasty enough; it isn’t particularly logical (the Sangster ones weren’t as well but you didn’t mind because of their other attributes)’ and I hated the reveal that Lewis’ guilt was caused by driving on the wrong side of the road and killing a truck driver… he’s supposed to be our hero and we’re supposed to feel better because he doesn’t want to kill his wife!? How about killing the bloody truck driver! There’s also three action sequences – two car crashes, a cable car collapse – too cheaply put together without doing a stunt – a few close ups, a loud sound effect, cut to the crash site. One or two you don’t mind but three and you really wish they’d ponied up for a stunt. Val Guest’s direction has it’s vigorous moments (he always starts his films with a bang) but he co-wrote this, he’s got to take blame for it’s flaws.

Movie review – Scars of Dracula” (1970) *

The worst of Hammer’s Dracula series – and frustratingly it contains some of the best moments: the opening shots of the castle; the beginning sequence where townsfolk burn down said castle – only to come home and find their families have been wiped out; Chris Lee climbing the walls; a genuinely creepy sense of mystery in some shots; an added dash of sensuality (Chris Matthews actually gets to root a female vampire - such things are normally only promised to the victim); Jenny Hanley’s cleavage. But these are few and far between. 

 

Things get off to a bad start with one of the least convincing bats around – accompanied by an irritating music sting – which is repeated ad-nauseum throughout the film; much of the action is repetitive – people are continually leaving the castle and going back to it, Dracula’s coach is forever arriving and taking off; the suspicious townsfolk (led by Hammer yeoman Michael Ripper) are laughable; Dracula’s death at the hands of a bolt of lightning is ridiculous (it’s as if John Elder – never the best writer – finally gave up). 

 

Lee is tired; Dennis Waterman pops up as the male lead, although he’s overshadowed by chirpy Chris Matthews as his womanising brother; Hanley is pretty but bland.

Play review – “Henry IV Part 1” by William Shakespeare

A sequel to Richard II sees his usurper Henry IV sitting uneasily on this throne, worried about his useless son, and unaware Hotspur, who I thought was a fan of Henry in the previous play, actually hates him and wants to lead a rebellion. This has more heart than Richard II because it’s about relationships – Henry and his wastrel son Hal, Hal and Falstaff, Hotspur and his fellow rebels.

This s from Shakespeare’s more muscular phase – there’s minimal female involvement (Hotspur’s nagging wife, the women at the tavern) – although there is a song. Mostly though it’s boys stuff – fighting, brawling, fathers and sons, treachery, double cross, honour. Heaps of action – more than any Shakespeare I’ve read; several duels and the second half builds around the Battle of Shrewsbury. But it also touches on some great emotional themes – fathers worried about their wastrel children, unsure if they can take over the family business, wishing their rivals were their kids instead; sons rallying around when the pressure is on; the desire to be a coward, drink and eat. People talk about how great Hotspur is a lot – is he praised in the plays more than any other character? Ripping stuff.

Movie review – “Brides of Dracula” (1960) ***

Christopher Lee wasn’t keen to reprise the role that made him an international film star (he eventually gave in for Dracula – Prince of Darkness) so Hammer came up with a Dracula sequel without Dracula. Which makes sense since he did die in the previous film – and they could get Peter Cushing back as Van Hesling. Cushing is terrific once more, seemingly smart as a whip, agile and very physical, forever leaping around the place. I say “seemingly smart” because if truth be told Van Helsing isn’t a terribly successful vampire hunter for most of this movie; he spends a lot of the running time just sort of moving in and out of rooms fast, warning people that something bad is coming, without doing much good. The only vampire he kills is one who offers herself up to him.

This is a beautiful looking film – stunning art direction, lovely costumes, etc – and has that great early period Hammer feel. It’s also very disjointed though; the first third concerns the adventure of a lovely, if quite stupid student teacher (Yvonne Monlaur) stuck in vampire land who accepts an invitation by an old lady (Martita Hunt, looking like a man in drag – I’m sorry if that sounds mean but it’s true) to spend a night at her castle. In doing so she finds Hunt’s spunky son (David Peel) locked up – so she lets him out not knowing he’s a vampire. Then down the track she leaves the castle, the son runs amok, Van Helsing turns up, Monlaur doesn’t realise what’s going on until Peel’s killed a bunch of people and shown fangs.

Monlaur’s character has to be really dumb for the plot to work; it’s a shame since she’s a major point of difference to women in Hammer films – most of them are in sexual thrall to vampires, but she’s in romantic thrall as well, she wants to marry him. Peel’s motivation was a bit murky as well – did he just want to marry Monlaur or have other things in mind? Three different writers worked on the script and you can tell.

Play review – “Richard II” by William Shakespeare

Less well known than it’s sequels, Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 and Henry V. It plunges straight into the story, with Dick II referring a squabble between Bolingbrooke and Mowbray, which results in both being exiled. Dick isn’t one of the great Shakespeare villains but he pinches the estate of Bolingbroke’s dad, which results in a rebellion and his overthrow. Before he dies, dad (John of Gaunt) has a great speech – the one that includes “this happy breed, this demi-paradise, etc”.

The first half of this story has a lot of pace and energy but the first bit lacks something – heart, a point of view, a truly memorable character. Bolingbroke comes across as a ruthless opportunist – not a goodie or a baddie, really. Then the second half – when the rebellion is basically over and Richard II is stuffed – things change. It becomes less about story and more about character – well, about Richard II. He wails and whines and stamps his feet, it’s not fair, and does a long dummy spit. (If the play had to be summarised in one sentence it might be like this: king makes bad tactical decision, gets overthrown and whinges about it until he’s killed.) Then at the end he disappears and there’s this long section about whether Bolingbroke should pardon this noble – the noble’s mum wants the pardon, dad wants him dead. But Richard comes back to be murdered – an excellent scene. Not a masterpiece but a very good play.

Movie review – “Cat Women of the Moon” (1954) **

Famously bad 50s sci fi, using a plot that was too commonly found in that decade: an intrepid bunch of explorers (in this case, astronauts to the moon) discover an all-female society who pant over the hunky newcomers. (Other examples include World Without End and Queen of Outer Space.) At least this one varies the formula a little by having a woman (Marie Windsor) among the explorers. It’s also got a strong cast for this kind of thing – along with Windsor there’s Victor Jory and Sonny Tufts. Okay it’s not exactly Oscar time, but at least they’re well known.

Some wonderful camp moments – a ridiculous looking giant spider; the layout of the rocket; the splendid cat women themselves, with their history and manipulation of men (“you’re too smart for me baby,” says one astronaut. “I like ‘em stupid”); the cat women dance; astronauts bringing cigarettes and a gun when they go walking on the moon... and both turn out to be useful. 

Incredibly sexist – the cat women want to move back to Earth in order to take over the world with the help of the women there, but one of their number ruins it by falling in love with an astronaut (you can’t have power and love you see).
You know something? There is a possible sequel in what would happen on earth had the women been successful in their mission, overthrowing the patriarchy.

On the technical side of things, this is full of more scientific errors than you'd care to think. It's not particularly well directed, although some suspense is created by delaying the appearance of the cat women. Sonny Tufts is ostensibly the hero but the real he man is Victor Jory who gets the girl (Windsor only likes Tufts because she's brainwashed) and is the one man who doesn't fall for the cat women's act. I liked the character stuff of the astronaut who wanted to make a quick buck and was determined to accumulate as many souvenirs as he could. Good, silly fun.

Book review – “The Life and Death of Harold Holt”

Harold Holt is best known for his interesting death – Joseph Lyons and John Curtain just dropped dead, but Holt vanished, which is a lot cooler – not to mention opens up a lot more possibilities for conspiracy theorists. Having read this biography, I’d still claim that Holt’s death was the most interesting thing about him. He seems to have been a good number two to Menzies, which is damning with faint praise – diligent, hard working, smooth talking, got along with everyone, good dresser, etc. He was elected to parliament at a very young age, elevated to the ministry also quite young; he joined the army while still an MP but quit in the wake of the death of all those politicians in that 1941 plane crash. When Labor came to power he didn’t go that much during the war to be honest – Eddie Ward used to sledge him that he should have re-enlisted, which annoyed Holt, but you know something? Ward was right, he should have.

Although Holt sided against Menzies back in 1941 (prompting Fadden to become PM), Menzies recognised his ability, not to mention lack of threat as a potential leader, and Holt became a key member of his team. He seems to have done good work as Minister for Labor and Immigration, mostly due to his ability to get along with everyone and make sure everything ran smoothly. It’s an important skill for politicians to have – doesn’t make you a great or memorable statesman though. In his first year as treasurer he almost caused a recession and for the Liberals to lose the 1961 election (I think the country would have been better off if they had – it’s not healthy for the one party to be in power too long), but then he got better… although how hard is it to be treasurer during a boom time, honestly?

Anyway, Holt hung in there as treasurer and eventually found himself elected to follow Menzies, mainly by virtue of the fact there were no other great alternatives. He won the 1966 election by a record amount but struggled during his second year, at the end of which he went missing, the achievement for which he is best remembered.

This is a decent, thorough biography, lacking a little in flair (I kept feeling a Bob Ellis review of the book would be more entertaining); sometimes you feel the author gets a little bored with his subject, who could be boring. In his professional life, that is – there’s some juicy stuff about Holt’s private life: his parents were divorced when Holt was young and Holt grew up with minimal family contact (he was a boarder at Wesley); Holt’s dad went from school teaching to running a pub to being JC Williamson’s agent in Australia! (he was even friends with Bob Cummings); Holt and Zara had a fling but then she married some English officer, divorced him then remarried Holt – her kids was ostensibly the kids of the officer but rumour was they were Holt’s, conceived while she was married to this other guy; Zara was a successful businesswoman, far richer than Holt; Holt had numerous affairs during his marriage.

The best bit in the book is the section on Holt’s death – not just the circumstances leading up to his disappearance, the possible explanations and conspiracy theories, but also the fighting that went on in the Liberal Party (Jack McEwan used his powers as temporary PM to get ASIO to look into Fig Newtown, whom Bill McMahon would feed information.) An important book - not sensational, but the author was battling up against it with this subject.

Movie review – “The Wild Ride” (1960) *1/2

A second lead role for Jack Nicholson, following Cry Baby Killer. He plays a bad boy, a leader of a gang of teens – the sort of role John Ashley would play for AIP. The plot has one of his gang involved in a goody-two-shoes girl and Nicholson doesn’t like it; he wants his mate to break it off with her but the mate is reluctant to do so.

Nicholson fans will find this interesting – he’s still Jack, just a young version, with the same voice and sardonic smile, a bit more hair. His acting is a bit awkward but he does have a charisma. There is some fun dialogue (“she doesn’t dig our way”, “you start talking like that and the next thing you know you’ll be sitting on a sofa watching TV and you’ll be dead”), but the production values are low (the film looks cheap), the story not particularly compelling, and the acting apart from Nicholson is bad. The story was by Burton Topper, who later became the director Burt Topper.

Movie review – “Pirates of Blood River” (1962) **1/2

Many of Hammer’s films had their origins in other mediums – at first radio, then television. This proved to be a successful formula for them throughout their existence – indeed, among the last hits of the company were big screen versions of Man About the House and On the Buses. Anyway in the early 60s they enjoyed success with an adaptation of the Robin Hood series, Sword of Sherwood Forest. It prompted a swashbuckler series from the studio, including this, Devil Ship Pirates, Night Creatures, The Scarlet Blade, A Challenge for Robin Hood and The Brigand of Kandahar (although the latter could also be said to fall into their “Imperial adventure” cycle, which included The Stranglers of Bombay, The Terror of the Tongs and She).  

 

Christopher Lee was born to play a pirate and he looks terrific here as one, dressed in black and an eye patch, glowering into the camera. Unfortunately the actual lead is bland Kerwin Matthews, who is meant to be a Hugenought; he’s tried for having an affair with a married woman (who has been eaten by a group of piranhas – blood river!) and sent to gaol, but escapes, falls in with pirates who hear about his homeland (on an island in the Caribbean) and think there is treasure there and set about trying to capture it. That’s quite a complex story – a hero being falsely imprisoned by his own community, which was originally set up to celebrate religious freedom but turned oppressive, then setting pirates on them, then defending it.

 

The action is very landlocked for a pirate movie but there’s plenty of it – not just swordfights, but shoot outs, sieges, and ambushes. While Matthews and some of the other leads have irritating American accents (matched with their bland acting), the support cast is strong – it includes Oliver Reed, Michael Ripper and Andrew Keir (plus a 12 year old Denis Waterman!). Bright, colourful and for the most part an enjoyable pirate movie.

Book review – “Dazzler: The Life of Moss Hart” by Steven Bach

This is the bio of Hart to read – splendidly written, diligently researched, a lot of fun. Hart had one of those careers you simply can’t have any more – stage struck as a child, he broke into the business as an office boy; he managed to get a debut play onto Broadway but it sank like a stone; he perfected his talent in the Catskills; achieved fame with George Kaufman in Once in a Lifetime; worked on many now-forgotten revues with major talents like Irving Berlin and Cole Porter; hit a golden streak with Kaufman and a series of classic plays; then became an accomplished director.

Lots of things I didn’t realise – he was really good mates with Dore Schary (the two corresponded throughout Hart’s life); the struggles behind almost all Hart’s hits (even My Fair Lady); the contribution of Pascal to My Fair Lady via the changes he made to the script of the 1938 film of Pygmalion (I was totally unaware of this); the influence of psychoanalysis on his work. I love how they tried to solve the problems of Once in a Lifetime by adding more comedy and more spectacle – then going the other way and adding more drama, which ultimately worked; it’s a golden lesson for all comedy writers.

Movie review – “TNT Jackson” (1972) **

The perfect title for this combination of blaxploitation and chop-socky. Jeanne Belle plays the title role, arriving in Hong Kong to look for her brother. There is some good fighting – okay yes there’s a not-so-convincing kung fu battle between two girls (surely Quentin Tarantino had this in mind when making Kill Bill – “I’ve got to make it better than this”) but there’s a fabulous scene where a topless Belle beats up a room full of guys. And lots of moments where Belle and Pat Anderson take on the guys, not evil henchwomen whose sole purpose is to fight other women – 70s exploitation TNA feminism par excellance (apart from a bit of toplessness there’s surprisingly little nudity). Bell is a strong star and Anderson very pretty and engaging as the mistress who turns out to be an undercover cop (her death at the end was the biggest surprise of the film). The film was co-written by the actor Dick Miller.

Play review – “Midsummer Night’s Dream” by William Shakespeare

Did Shakespeare write for a great “female” star during the early part of his career? There were some strong female leads around this time – Juliet, Julia, Katherine, and with this one, not only the beautiful Hermia but her wise cracking Bridget Jones-esque best friend Helena.

Midsummer Night’s Dream is one of those actor and director proof plays – like Importance of Being Earnest or Dracula, the structure and charm are so strong it can survive even an awful production. It shows Shakespeare’s growing power and confidence – although a whimsical piece it juggles several plots and an armful of characters with great adroitness. Blackadder was right – there are no jokes in this but some of it is hilarious, particularly the scene where the guys are both in love with Helena and she freaks out. The play has a lovely captivating aura about it that makes it timeless. Having said that, the play within a play towards the end of the running time feels like a bridge too far, even with a dance number thrown in.

Play review – “Romeo and Juliet” by William Shakespeare

Shakespeare in Love (and presumably lots of other scholars I haven’t read) picks this play as the moment when Shakespeare’s talent really began to flower – his first fully-fledged masterpiece. And while it’s hard to tell the exact order in which Shakespeare wrote his plays there’s definitely something to it. It’s an excellent story, with fleshed out characters that makes total sense. All the time and effort he spent on the love dialogues in Loves Labor Lost, Two Gentlemen of Verona and Taming of the Shrew, means he handles the romances here effortlessly; the tragedy of his historicals means the story is strong.

I studied this at high school but hadn’t read it since then. Some things leaps out at me – the part of Benlovio is actually quite big in the play (they give a lot of his lines to Mercutio in adaptations); how young and silly the lead couple are (which makes the whole plot make a lot more sense); Romeo’s fickleness – one minute Rosalind, the next the barely-legal Juliet (NB this play has a sex scene and since Juliet is fourteen that makes it child pornography); Juliet’s sulky teen defiance, including threats of suicide (a scene right out of Summer Heights High); a bad taste scene involving wacky servants after Juliet fakes her death (this even involves a song – it’s almost always cut from productions); the presence of songs in the play (Shakespeare couldn’t help himself around this time, they were everywhere); Romeo kills Paris at the end (he’s loitering around the tomb); the fact the Friar arrives in between Rome’s death and Juliet’s (it’s one crowded tomb); the finale where the entire story is recapped. When all’s said and done this remains a wonderful play, passionate, melancholic and vibrant.

Play review – “Two Gentlemen of Verona” by William Shakespeare

Shakespeare helped popularise tragedies and romantic comedies – why not buddy comedies? For that’s what this is – two mates from Verona who double cross and support each other according to how the whim takes them, centuries before Bing and Bob did the Road movies. Indeed, when Proteus falls in love with his mate’s girl and promptly sets about doubt crossing him – it could be directly out of Road to Morocco, right down to Valentine becoming the leader of a group of bandits (there’s a reference to “Robin Hood’s fat friar”).

This is simple, fun Shakespeare – romance, comic servants, cross-dressing. The plot and language are easy to follow, the scenes are short, the cast is small. It’s a good way to be introduced to the Shakespeare – if you’re not put off by some of the character’s casual anti-Semitism (“a Jew would have wept”) and misogyny (“to be slow in words is a woman’s only virtue”). Okay yes it goes seem that Proteus wants to rape Silvia and then gets redeemed almost immediately – but you could argue he doesn’t want to rape her and it was the heat of the moment and… alright, it is offensive. But at least the female characters are spirited – Julia who dresses as a boy, Silvia who doesn’t trust Proteus. (Thurio, the comic rival, refers to him having a black face – there are more black characters in Shakespeare than I realised.)

Script review – “The Right Stuff” by William Goldman

In Adventures of the Screen Trade, Goldman says the hardest chapter to write in the book was the one on The Right Stuff. He was hired to adapt Tom Wolfe’s classic non-fiction tale by the producers Chartoff and Winkler; Goldman’s version was well-received and the film was green-lit, but then the producers hired director Phil Kaufman, who disagreed with Goldman’s interpretation, and subsequently made his own. Kaufman’s film was a highly-regarded box office disappointment, particularly notable for a sensational cast – early-in-their-careers Sam Shepherd, Scott Glenn, Ed Harris, Dennis Quaid, Fred Ward (it was like The Godfather or The Outsiders).

As Goldman told it, the main difference between his and Kaufman’s version was that Goldman disposed of Chuck Yaegar and concentrated on the astronauts – in particular, Shepherd, Grissom and Glenn. Kaufman included Yaegar – and also went right up until Gordo Cooper’s flight. It’s always been a great Hollywood “what if” of mine about this film – what if they’d gone with Goldman’s version? Would it have been a hit? Yeah, yeah, I know – nobody knows anything. Still it’s interesting to wonder and great to read the copy of Goldman’s script that is floating out there on the internet.

Like all Goldman scripts, this reads very well – it’s done in that compulsive Goldman style, full of hype (“the biggest shot in the movie”, “the most glorious day you ever saw”) and asides. He’s hamstrung by the fact most of the characters were real people, and still alive at the time – but Grissom and Glenn are a bit different at least. I wasn’t wild about the device of the wise-cracking seen-it-all journo; this Greek chorus device had been used too many times.

It’s got one of those tricky beginnings Goldman likes – we meet a dog astronaut, then there’s a disastrous lift off from an American rocket. The first three characters we meet are Grissom, Schirra and Shepherd - none of them are really the hero, or is Glenn, but he’s the most vivid character (all-American, ambitious, stuttering wife). The structure really works with it going intro-selection-training-Shepherd-Grissom-Glenn (these “acts” get shorter and shorter as the script goes on). Sometimes characters seemed to come in just to make a speech (eg the colonel who accuses them of not having the right stuff). Lots of exposition and description of technical stuff.

Movie review – “Jennifer’s Body” (2009) **1/2

Sounds like it couldn’t miss – Diablo Cody does a zombie film, with a cast including Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried (who even make out in one scene) – but it does. The main reason I think is it’s a mean spirited movie – Fox’s character is very likable, a bit trampy but good fun, and she’s tortured and murdered in an unpleasant sequence by some characters who then disappear from the film until they get their comeuppance… in a coda. Most of the action concerns Fox tormenting Seyfriend or a variety of other people, none of whom deserve it. So despite bright performances and traditionally zany Cody dialogue, the whole thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

TV review - “Underbelly 2: A Tale of Two Cities” (2009) ***

This isn’t as good as the first one, as was widely reported at the time, but there’s still lots of great stuff. You just wish it was better because it could have been – there’s great material with Donald Mackay, Terry Clark, Bob Trimbole, the Kane brothers, etc. But they seem too obsessed with finding links for things, having cause and effect, planting characters earlier - leading to them making stuff up when they didn’t have to. Like having Clark meet Trimbole before the Mackay stuff, distorting the Great Bookie Robbery.

I think they also made the mistake of placing too much importance on nudity; some of it is fine, it is part of the series’ appeal, but they went overboard here and it distorts the end product. For instance, Alison Dine is exploited so much it becomes irritating after a while (life drawing?); and Chris Flannery was meant to be a devoted family man under the thumb of his wife – a really interesting dramatic situation, but instead they show him in bed with two bimbos or at strip clubs.

The most effective stuff is the true stuff – the shooting of Don Mackay, the corruption of the NSW cops, the Kane feud with Ray Chuck, the murder of Les Kane the capture of Terry Clark in the UK (why leave out the fact Clark induced his own heart attack to move to a hospital as park of an escape attempt but ended up dying accidentally?). It is a genuinely interesting story – a lot more so than the third installment.

It does clunk when it comes up against other tv shows and movies which have handled this material. For instance Dustin Claire’s Chris Flannery, with his giggle and speech impediment, compares poorly to Gary Sweet’s work in Blue Murder (Claire is agonisingly irritating in the last two eps); the guy who mimics Eric Bana as Chopper just makes you aware he isn’t as good as Eric Bana; the stuff about the green light and the depiction of Brian Alexander’s murder at the hands of the cops only makes you appreciate how better Blue Murder did it (why not avoid this, omit mention of Blue Murder altogether and show an alternative theory of how Alexander died, i.e. by killing himself.)

Acting-wise there is some superb work from Nathan Page (Ray Chuck), Tim McGann (Brian Kane), Kate Ritchie (who really looks like a crim’s wife), Scott Burgess (terrifying as a very Aussie assassin, always whingeing and devoted to his dogs) – and pretty good work from Asher Keddie, Martin Dingle-Wall and yes Matt Newton (lots of people bagged him but I thought he was fine – and besides who else would you have cast?). Roy Billing is a debit – I know why he was cast (who else would look as close) but he’s too lightweight. (The scenes with him and his Sydney mistress are dull and go on and on.)

Book review – “Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast” by Patrick McGilligan

Superb bio of the famous director, perhaps McGilligan’s masterpiece, well-written, brilliantly-researched. He’s got a great protagonist in Lang, the brilliant director who could also be one of the biggest pricks around – bullying cast, crew and executives – while still being gentlemanly and charming; he practically invented the cliché of the mad German artistic type, with his monocle and manner, but could also be capable of great kindness and courtesy.

Lang was one of those people who just when you’re prepared to write them off as awful will do something nice – but just when you start liking them they’ll do something obnoxious. Bad with producers, surprisingly good with writers, up and down with cast, elegant with women – he possibly murdered his first wife, left his second (who became a Nazi), made a series of masterpieces in Germany (silent and sound), France and Germany. Absolutely recommended.

Play review – “The Letter” by Somerset Maugham

One of Maugham’s best known short stories became a famous play and film. And why not, since it was such a terrific central situation – a prim and proper Englishwoman, wife of a planter, shoots another Englishman dead in Malaya. She claims he tried to rape her and it seems to be open and shut; the only thing is, she shot him six times.

No one did smouldering sexual desire amongst whites in the tropics quite like Maugham and he’s in his element here. From memory, the character of the lawyer, who agrees to pay blackmail for his client, was more vivid in the film than the play (in the play he’s motivated by his affection – love? – for the planter husband, his old friend; in the film it was his attraction to the wife). Also the character of the husband is different to Herbert Marshall’s interpretation – here he is a rugged, simple, soft-hearted man of his hands.

The version of this I read included Maugham’s original draft, where the true story of the shooting of Hammond was conveyed by reportage; I think it works better in flashback on stage.

Movie review – “The Damned United” (2009) ****

Excellent bromance set in the world of 70s British soccer – because at it’s heart that’s what this film is, a platonic romance between two men, the big-mouthed brilliant coach played by Michael Sheen, and his quiet off-sider Timothy Spall. Apparently the people concerned are legendary in England, and the events notorious; it was all totally unfamiliar to me but I found it enthralling. Cocky Sheen, determined to make his mark on a new club, struggling to change the culture and his own big mouth. Plenty of wonderful scenes and moments, but the key to it lies with the wonderful characters. I loved how they mocked up the big games by putting dummies in the stands.

Play review – “Angel Street” by Patrick Hamilton (warning: spoilers)

I thought this was a play about a man who tries to drive his wife insane, and it is to a degree – but that’s only the first part of the first act. In reality the husband is more interested in trying to find jewels upstairs – it’s taking him a long time to go about it. But there are some great moments here – the driving insane stuff, the wife realising she’s been duped, the sluttish maid, the wife trying to lie to her husband, the finale where the wife appears to have really gone made. The detective character is a bit corny – they make him older, presumably to remove a chance of romance.

Movie review – “Maniac” (1964) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Kerwin Matthews was a bland American actor who achieved enough of a name in the 50s as Sinbad, to be signed by Hammer to make two films for them, this and Pirates of Blood River. He’s as bland here as he was in that, although both films he made have something to offer them.

In this one, Matthews plays an American artist travelling through France who gets involved with a mother and daughter. He flirts with both – they look around the same age – before finally banging mum (Nadia Grey). Mum says she can be with him, but needs a divorce from her husband, who is in a lunatic asylum for killing the daughter’s rapist with a blow torch a few years ago. The husband agrees provided Matthews and Grey bust him out of the asylum… and Matthews goes along with it! Even if it’s silly, at this point (the half hour mark) the film starts to pick up; until then it had been a lot of dull hanging around in the south of France.

The twists start to pile up – they bust out the hubby, hubby goes missing, there’s a dead body in the trunk!, mysterious sightings of a blow torch working at night, hubby appears, he’s in cahoots with the wife… but he’s not the real hubby but the nurse who we thought was dead! It’s only after a while you start to realise it doesn’t make sense – actually no that’s not true, I thought that at the time (namely – why does the wife go to all this trouble?), but I enjoyed it more than I thought I would after the slow first half hour. The setting at the end, the marble ruins or whatever it was, was great.

Movie review – “Nightmare” (1964) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Jimmy Sangster was running out of plot twists for his psycho thrillers by this time. Once again some nasty types are driving to drive a girl insane – in this case, a teenager (Jennie Linden) who saw mum kill dad years ago. Of course she’s in line to inherit money and of course there’s an executor who’s dodgy and in cahoots with a lover. As in Taste of Fear, Sangster switches the protagonist for the last act, removing Linden and centering on baddies Moira Redmond and David Knight.

Story-wise this doesn’t have a lot to recommend it; the last lacks star power and presence (though everyone does a professional job, particularly Linden). It does have a lot of visual flourish, however – lots of poking around a house at night-time – with some jolts (mostly involving stabbing). I’m correct in that Linden actually kills someone, aren’t I? And she’s meant to get out of hospital in a couple of months at the end because she’s better?

Movie review – “The Girl in Lover’s Lane” (1959) *

Roger Corman’s short lived distribution company, Filmgroup, was associated with some remarkable films, including Little Shop of Horrors, and the debut features of Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Towne, Peter Bogdanovich, Jack Nicholson and Curtis Harrington. This is one of the least distinguished.

It’s about two guys who meet riding a train together (one of them the son of a rich man) who wind up in a small town, where they romance some women and get in fights. Jack Elam turns up to rape and kill a girl – one of the guys is blamed. That’s the plot but it doesn’t start until the running time is almost over. Some of the local boys start smacking the guy around then Elam confesses incredibly unconvincingly.

This is a dull film – uninteresting characters, little action, slack handling. There’s a few camp moments, like the hot Mamie Van Doren-type blonde stepping out of the bath, and the hinted attraction between the two male leads – but not nearly enough. Brett Halsey and Elam are the only cast members you’re like to have heard of.

Play review – “Loves Labor Lost” by William Shakespeare

Taming of the Shrew has a great premise. This had a silly one – the King of Navarre and his mates agree to take a couple of years off so they can study. Of course this is harder than it proves to be, especially when the princess of France and her mates rock into town. That’s about it, really – there’s not much story, which is really weird for Shakespeare. He throws in “subplots” about a flighty Spaniard, a clown, a uni tutor and a play-within-a-play – but they’re just extra things, really.

I think the main reason Shakespeare wrote this was he wanted to have characters engage in verbal duels and wordplay – there are some charming dialogues on the nature of love, for instance - and the play is just something he thought up to go along with it. (This is one of the few Shakespeare’s without a known original story source.) It shows – this was boring to read. Why did Ken Branaugh decide to adapt this? Didn’t he realise there was no story or interesting characters?

Book review – “Roman Candle: The Life of Bobby Darin” by David Evanier

Bobby Darin seems to be having a late-posthumous career renaissance, with his songs popping up in various movies and Kevin Spacey’s 2004 biopic Under the Sea. As Evanier points out, his image today is less strong than Dino or Sinatra because Darin kept changing his image – he was a rock and roll star, then a Vegas swinger, then a movie star, a music publisher, a folk singer, a film director (!), a TV variety show host.

He was a man full of contradictions – a contemporary of Fabian’s who was more at home doing standards; a genuine Civil Rights supporter (he took part in the March on Washington) who treated his own family horribly; a supposed great business brain who lost most of his money in bad investments and divorce; someone who liked to go their own way and made a big deal of being independent but ended up crawling back to his Vegas fans; who married a woman who adored him (the one after Sandra Dee) – but then divorced her a couple of months later.

To be frank, Darin comes across in this book as a bit of a wanker – up himself, showered with devotion from a family who he treated like dirt (okay, later on he discovered his sister was his mother but that just gave him an excuse for more bad behaviour). There are too many quotes from people that go on about how tough Darin was, or they were, or which compare him to other singers from the time (eg Sinatra, Johnny Mercer).

Evanier is however very good on Darin’s music – not just the famous stuff, but he’s also slogged his way through the protest music phase. There’s also lots of interesting tidbits – Darin was so involved during his act that he would ejaculate (his assistant had to lay out condoms for him before a night); Darin took part in orgies and wife-swapping; he directed, wrote, starred in and financed a film towards the end of this life which was never distributed. I would have liked a bit more about the films (there’s hardly anything on The Happy Ending, for instance) but I admit my interest lies more in that direction.

Movie review – “The Two Faces of Dr Jekyll” (1961) **1/2

Hammer remake another classic but the result was not a popular hit. This is slower and more thoughtful than their previous shockers – I’ve read a bit about how gee whiz the twist writer Wolf Mankowtiz came up with... but was it that great to have Jekyll as a nerd and Hyde as suave? One scratches one's head as to why Christopher Lee wasn’t given the lead role – although he’s in the film as the scoundrel having it off with Jekyll’s wife. Apparently producer Michael Carreras didn’t want to keep using Lee and Cushing in all Hammer’s films; he went instead with some guy called Paul Massey, who gives a pretty good performance, but he lacks the charisma of Lee.

It looks sumptuous (I loved the brothel/nightclub, The Sphinx), the acting is solid, Dawn Addams is pretty, there are some interesting ideas floating around. It could have done with more excitement. In his excellent book on Hammer, Denis Meikle devotes pages upon pages to discussing this movie; I’ve read the pages, seen the movie and still can’t understand why. I know Wolf Mankowitz wasn’t happy with Terence Fisher’s direction but I can’t think of this as a lost masterpiece – the ideas aren’t that clever.

Radio review – Suspense - “Donovan’s Brain” (1943) ***1/2

One of the most enjoyable things Orson Welles ever did, regardless of medium, and he proves himself once again (Dracula already established it) a great lost horror movie star. Here he plays a scientist operating on brains in his lab; in true Frankenstein style he is criticised for playing God, and of course gets his come-uppance when he becomes possessed by one brain, that belonging to Donovan. I’ve never seen a film version of Curt Siodmak’s famous book – I get the feeling it would look just plain silly, talking to brains, but it works fine on radio, and Welles has a high old time. Great fun. This was the first time Suspense did a two-parter and the first time they did something science fiction-ish, and it was worth it. For copies see here.

Radio review – Suspense - “Dark Tower” (1944) **

Based on a little-regarded play by George Kaufman and Alexander Woolcott, you get the feeling they only adapted this because the lead role – a hammy actor – was a natural for Orson Welles. Welles huffs and puffs his way through the story, and he’s okay but it’s not much of a story.

Play review – “Witness for the Prosecution” by Agatha Christie (warning: spoilers)

Christie wrote some first rate plays in her career as well as novels; this is probably the best known. The character of the defending barrister isn’t as impressive on the page as I remember it from the film version; I think Billy Wilder and Charles Laughton helped beef that up. But the characters of Leonard Vole and his wife come across very vividly. There is some clever courtroom stuff but all murder mysteries need a decent twist to justify their existence and this one has one with the wife – no one would believe her testimony supporting her husband so she concocts it to lie then be deliberately found out! Wonderful.

Play review – “Dial M for Murder” by Frederick Knott (warning: spoilers)

Hitchcock was known for “owning” his material – transforming novels and plays into real Hitchcock films. This was one of the exceptions – he didn’t tamper with it too much, resulting in one of his stagier works (although it has it’s fans such as Martin Scorsese). The source material is impressive; it’s a complex, clever piece – I wrote an article on the career of Alec Coppel, and I feel that this is the sort of play Coppel tried to write all his life but never quite succeeded.

It has hall marks of some of Coppel’s work – it involves a love triangle, about a ruthless English husband tries to bump off his cheating wife, who has been having an affair with an American (it’s the set up of Coppel’s A Man About a Dog – although here the lover and wife are quite sympathetic). The American is a TV writer who works in the crime genre, and characters make comments like “the perfect murder does X”, which Coppel had characters do all the time.

But the plot of this feels worked out more thoroughly than anything Coppel managed to achieve. It is very clever, with the ex-tennis pro husband going about his murder in a smart fashion. Some great twists – the murder falls through, but then the husband sees his chance to frame the wife anyway… only to fail because of stuff involving a key (it gets very complex with detail but the main thing is the husband thought the supposed killer had his key on him but it was actually the supposed killer’s own key!)

Play review – “Middle of the Night” by Paddy Chayefsky

Back in the 50s, television plays were occasionally adapted for the movies and Broadway. Chayefsky’s Marty became an Oscar-winning film; Middle of the Night was turned into a play, then became a feature. Marty was the story of a romance between two “uglies”; this is about a love affair between a middle aged widower and a young girl. It copies Marty’s structure quite closely – we meet the two separately, their relationship flowers to the surprise of all around them, family opposition sees them split up, they get back together. It’s written with heart and is effective – lonely people meeting each other, etc etc. Not quite as good as Marty because you get the feeling the two lovers here would have another chance of a drink at the last chance saloon whereas the Marty duo only had one shot at the title.

Movie review – “Paranoiac” (1964) *** (warning: spoilers)

The success of Taste of Fear saw a number of follow ups from Hammer, most written as well by Jimmy Sangster, who liked to re-use the same elements. Here we have another decadently rich family who live in a mansion that is by the sea (enabling characters to stare out over the crashing waves and threaten to plunge to their death on the rocks below); one of the family is trying to drive another insane; a family member who hasn’t been seen for a while turns out to be an impersonator; two members of the group are having an affair; there is a family assistant (in this case a lawyer) who is a goodie and a corpse in a pond; someone thought to be dead isn’t; the macguffin of family inheritance.

 

For all that I really enjoyed the film – you know what the ingredients are going to be but you don’t know how Sangster is going to mix them up. Oliver Reed is terrific as a nasty member of the family – his character is a big drinker, and it’s poignant to see Reed walk into a scene announcing he’s going to write himself off. David Shipman once wrote about Reed that when he started out in films you knew he would make it – he simply looked dynamic, imposing, and he does so here. He’s a genuine unsettling presence all the way through the film and goes mad very well at the end.

 

I really liked Janette Scott too as the member of the family worried about going insane – she’s very pretty and does a good hysteria scene. I wonder what happened to her? Liliane Brousse is pretty but not that good as a nurse; Alex Davion is effective as the long lost son. 

 

It’s stylishly directed by Freddie Francis, who makes the most of some sure-fire scenes eg a person in creepy clown make up, waves crashing against rocks, a bricked up skeleton in the family crypt. Sangster liked to give his films short, sharp endings – for instance he complained about the extra scene forced on him to wrap up The Nanny by US investors – but in this case I felt the finale is a little abrupt; I would have liked to have known what happened to the aunt and the dodgy son of the lawyer, and whether Scott got over the incest hang ups about Davion.

Movie review – “Plague of the Zombies” (1965) ***

Made at the same time as The Reptile, using the same sets, crew, supporting cast and plot ideas. This is the better movie – perhaps not as good as it’s supporters say (well, that’s my opinion anyway) but it’s still effective. It helps in that most of us know what zombies are, so the filmmakers don’t waste time on a silly build up as to what the Creature is, which The Reptile did.

Like that movie, this has some newcomers to town investigate shady goings on. The person behind it all lives in a house and keeps the creature in the basement – although instead of just a house with a snake and sulphur pits, there’s a big estate with a whole bunch of zombies working down in the mines… with room for religious ceremonies by voodoo priests. The climax is more believably spectacular too.

Andre Morrell plays the investigating lead – although I was expecting him to be more of an expert in voodoo than he is (he basically brushes up with an afternoon’s reading). There’s some amateur hour acting from the support cast, although John Carson is a decent villainous squire and Jacqueline Pearce is pretty in a Mina role (i.e. the first female victim, the one who dies in the first act so her friend, the Lucy character – here played by Diane Clare – can eventually live).

Apparently this did quite well at the box office, going out on a double bill with Dracula - Prince of Darkness. However, it’s not as famous as Night of the Living Dead, despite superior production values. I think part of this is because the zombies here are quite benign – they are innocent victims of the nasty squire. Only in one scene are they a real threat – a zombie attack in a cemetery, which is the scariest in the movie… and it turns out to be (boo hiss) a dream sequence. The film thus has more in common with White Zombie (which also had the baddie use zombies as cheap labour; although that also had a love story which gave things greater emotional pull than the events here).

Movie review – Bond#12 - “For Your Eyes Only” (1981) ***1/2

Until Casino Royale this was perhaps the best known “re-calibration” of the James Bond series – a conscious decision on the filmmakers to calm down after the spectacle of Moonraker, and this movie set the tone for 80s Bond (John Glenn director, Michael Wilson and Richard Maibaum writing). I remembered this being a better film than I thought it was on re-viewing – there’s lots of good things, but a lot not so good. Watching this was a schizophrenic experience for me - it was refreshing to have a more realistic approach to set design and so on (a cramped spy ship as opposed to a massive interior, no threat of nuclear annihilation, a more ruthless Bond) plus the nod to Bond continuity, but there are flaws and overall it lacks a little magic: it's not hard to understand why the film has never really been a big fan favourite.

I quite liked the script – it’s a lot more believable story than say Moonraker (the Macguffin is a top-secret piece of machinery which could stuff the British defense system), logically worked out, some funny lines, emotional stakes. Well, for the most part – I didn’t believe Topol’s smuggler would smuggle everything except heroin. I also hated the Lynne Holly-Johnson character – this barely legal ice skater character who tries to bed James Bond. What was the point of her? To make Roger Moore seem less like a dirty old man? To give villain Julian Glover (who is her mentor) some humanity? I didn't get it. The whole thing was a bit off.

I really liked Carole Bouquet’s character – she actually has a decent motivation which ties in with the film’s theme (that’s right – this movie has a theme; it’s about revenge. The film kind of makes the point that you shouldn’t go overboard with revenge, and Bond encourages Bouquet not to shoot the baddie – but then the baddie tries to shoot them, so someone shoots the baddie, which is a typical Hollywood cop out... Besides it's confusing because Bond commits revenge against the assassin who killed his colleagues and Blofeld, who killed his wife. and Topol commits revenge against Glover, and that's all shown to be a good thing... maybe the point is don't commit revenge if you're a girl? This movie does my head in.)

However, I didn’t like Bouquet’s performance – she’s beautiful, with great legs, but has dead eyes, zero chemistry with Roger Moore and can't act to save her life. It's a pity because it is such a good character.

Roger Moore is called upon to do a lot of helter skelter action in this one (clambering up rocks, outside helicopters) – or rather his doubles are, and his doubles are particularly noticeable in this one. Moore’s lack of physicality as Bond is shown up in this harder-edged entry. Having said that (see what I mean about liking and disliking a lot of things), he handles the action chores quite well. Moore could act, and act a lot better than many people gave him credit for (including himself); he doesn’t get much of a chance to act here, John Glenn cuts away from him a lot, but he has some effective moments – particularly talking to Bouquet in a sled, and when he kills an assassin in cold blood.

Okay let’s cover some other positive things: Cassandra Harris is lovely in an all-too-brief role as a woman who seduces Bond then is killed; all the actors who play assassins are great (I liked Michael Grourard in particular, and Charles Dance makes his debut here); Topol’s character is one of the best Bond allies since OHMSS (even if he’s introduced into the film too late); Julian Glover is a decent villain; there are some tremendous stunts (the opening helicopter stuff, climbing up that cliff at the end); that Margaret Thatcher gag at the end is corny but funny.

Most of all, I really liked the sense of history, raiding the film series and the Fleming novels – the story is taken from two short stories; it also uses bits from the novels that hadn’t been exploited yet (eg dragging Bond along the coral a la Live and Let Die) and ties up some series continuity (eg killing off Blofeld once and for all, having Bond visit Tracey’s grave, referring to M not being around).

Some less positive things: the big ski chase, which I remember being enthralled by as a kid, came across a bit flat; the long underwater sequence where they look at the boat was dull; some of the action is repetitive; the blond East German henchman is dull (why did they insist on repeating the blond henchman archetype after Robert Shaw? They never came up with a good one); the climax feels a bit underwhelming; Bill Conti’s score is among the worst in the series (by way of contrast, his theme song is one of the series’ best). I would still rank this in Moore’s top three as Bonds, though, after The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy.

Movie review – “The Phantom of the Opera” (1962) **

A big budget disappointment for Hammer films, despite sumptuous art direction and the presence of Terence Fisher. The main reason would have to be the script, which shows a remarkable inclination for making the wrong choices. 

It’s set in London rather than Paris; the bulk of the villainy is given to a nasty aristocrat rather than the Phantom; that villain is ignored pretty much for the last third of the film (he turns up to be scared - he isn't even killed on screen); the last act consists primarily of a flashback to how the Phantom got injured (taken from the 1943 film) and an opera; the Phantom’s love for Christine is totally downplayed - I don't think it exists at all (all he seems to care about is his music – there’s no jealousy, for instance, for her suitor); the Phantom has little mystery or menace; the chandelier fall happens at the very end of the film… and it’s not because of the Phantom indeed the Phantom throws himself under it to save the day (and it just falls because of an accident too - not anyone being bad).

Let's take a walk on the sunny side for a moment – it looks great, the opera is fine, Heather Sears is pretty and likeable as Christine, Herbert Lom is effective as the phantom (though Christopher Lee was entitled to be annoyed at being overlooked); I didn’t mind Edward de Souza as the romantic lead; Michael Gough offers decent villainy. You just wished they let Jimmy Sangster write it. Or someone who understood dramatic structure.

Movie review – “The Invention of Lying” (2009) **1/2

A funny idea – Ricky Gervais lives in a world without lies and discovers how to lie. But it doesn’t quite last the full distance. It changes gears in act three, pulling punches with the religion satire and becoming more of a film about how you should be nice to fat people. (Which is kind of hypocritical because the love interest is pretty Jennifer Garner.) The endless cameos get irritating after a while although Jennifer Garner is very pleasant – she joins a long noble line of leading ladies required to fall in love with unattractive stars.

Movie review – Animal Kingdom (2010) ***1/2

A lesson to emerging screenwriters – don’t always draw on your own experience, adapt something. If you can’t afford the rights to a book, try real life – in this case the Walsh St killings, which I admit to being unfamiliar with. But it provides a potent second act (and thus the third) for this crime saga.

There’s some excellent acting on display here – Jackie Weaver is superb as creepy mum, kissing her kids on the lips. Ben Mendelson is wonderful – I got the feeling Luke Ford, Guy Pearce and Sullivan Stapleton were Acting from time to time, but Ben M inhabits his part. He plays it like someone who really knows pain and darkness. The kid who played the teen was a debit – just a bland nothing. I know that was the point – there’s a lot of kids like out there, someone always seems to have a cousin like him – but making him the centre of the film sapped the movie of its energy. It’s hard to build a story around a bland, dull, passive protagonist. (It wouldn’t have been too hard to make him a bit more interesting.)

The low budget is well used and there’s a fabulous atmosphere throughout the film. It seemed to run out of puff around the witness protection program mark but there is so much other excellent stuff on display that you forgive it.

Movie review – “Crush” (2009) ** (warning: spoilers)

You normally can’t go wrong with a film about a guy who cheats on his girlfriend with a psycho chick who then makes his life a living hell. There’s something inherently powerful in the DNA of that story – girls like seeing a sleaze get his come-uppance, guys like seeing films where women try to kill them. This tries to add a twist on to things by having the psycho be a ghost, which at first makes you go “oh that’s an interesting twist” but then you realise it doesn’t work because it tampers with the DNA, reducing the emotional impact of the piece. There’s also no third act because traditionally in these things the psycho goes after the girlfriend/friends – but because she’s a ghost she can’t. So they’ve stitched themselves up.

It’s a handsome film – I liked the inside of the house but it’s a shame it couldn’t have been in a more impressive street or location. Chris Egan is an effective lead and Emma Lung an ideal psycho; the supporting cast is underused and the stuff about kick boxing feels under-developed. I loved the variation of the old looking-up-old-newspaper-files-in-the-library scene – now you just look up google!

Movie review – “Mysterious Skin” (2006) **1/2

Pretty full on film about the effect a molesting baseball coach has on two of his charges. There’s a sex scene involving an eight year old boy! (I’ve got to say this is handled quite well.) There’s stuff about warped sexuality, teen hustlers, forbidden secrets. It’s not exactly a barrel of laughs but it has strong moments. Good cast - Joseph Gordon-Levitt is going to have a long, long career (he’s already been around for almost 20 years).

Movie review – “Four Holidays” (2009) ***1/2

I came into this with low expectations and was surprised – it’s a genuinely funny comedy which manages to be schmaltzy without selling out. Of course Vince Vaughan and Reese Witherspoon are going to learn the value of family – just not their own because they are annoying, really. There is an irritating over-reliance on slapstick gags to get jokes, but when this is on target it really flies. Vaughan and Witherspoon make a great time, and the support cast is excellent - Jon Voight, Jon Favreau, etc.

Movie review – “Topaz” (1969) **

All that admiration from French critics during the 60s must have made adapting Leon Uris’ best seller a great idea. It’s not a bad story, although it has a major problem: it’s basically two films, one about shenanigans in Cuba, the other about a French traitor. This isn’t brought up at all the Leonard Maltin-hosted documentary about the film (a special feature on the DVD) as a reason for the under-performance at the box office. (Ninety minutes in and we meet all these new characters.) 

Maltin also claims that Stafford is a good actor – he’s dreadful, the most stiff, awkward leading man in Hitchcock’s career – was on Earth possessed Hitch to cast him? He makes you long for John Gavin.

The other lead Frenchies aren’t much chop either – Dany Robin is a major drag as Stafford’s wife, and Claude Jade does nothing as his daughter. (She doesn’t even look that beautiful – you could have cut her out of the whole film). 

However, the supporting French cast is excellent, especially Philippe Noiret. John Forsythe is strong in as the American and there is superb work from Karin Dor as a tragic Cuban (sexy, sad and sympathetic) and John Vernon as a Castro henchmen (ruthless, intelligent, in love). These two give the film it’s best emotional moments – torturing the help, Vernon shooting Dor. There are some other effective bits too where Hitchcock wakes up – the initial defection, Roscoe Lee Browne (also good) doing some spying. But then it bogs down in that last bit with all those French people we don’t particularly care about. See the cut version if you can. The duel finale looks absolutely ridiculous.