A fascinating movie, sort of Faust goes film noir, which gives a rare lead role to Thomas Mitchell as an honest DA tempted by devilish Ray Milland. You'd normally expect the roles to be played the other way around but this gives the film an air of real difference. Mitchell oozes age and experience and you can understand why someone like him would be tempted into a dalliance with a trashy blonde thing sent to him by Milland. And Milland is a perfect devil.
Director John Farrow was famous for this Catholicism - I wonder if he helped initiate this, with it's issues of guilt, torment, conscience, temptation, adultery, a long-suffering and forgiving wife, etc. There's a friendly man of God who helps Mitchell (likeable priests were always popping up in Farrow movies), in part by telling him that a confession has wiped out all his sins.
Mitchell and Milland are very good. Audrey Trotter isn't that great as the femme fetale, not very pretty - but this is at least different. The guy who plays the priest is creepy and the woman who plays Mitchell's wife is very bland.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Movie review - "A Bill of Divorcement" (1940) **
Maureen O'Hara became so well known at playing spitfire heroines and little else it's a real shock to see her stepping into the shoes of Katherine Hepburn. Good on RKO for giving her a go, but there's no denying she's a little outclassed. John Farrow was a good director but maybe she could have used someone better with inexperienced actresses. It's also a very stagy adaptation.
The cast is loaded with names - Adolphe Menjou plays her dad as a complete nutter, Fay Bainter flutters around as mum, Herbert Marshall does his propping-up-the-ladies act, Patric Knowles plays an Australian from near Wagga Wagga who is in love with O'Hara. A plot line about inherited insanity was always doing to date badly; there isn't the acting and handling to compensate.
The cast is loaded with names - Adolphe Menjou plays her dad as a complete nutter, Fay Bainter flutters around as mum, Herbert Marshall does his propping-up-the-ladies act, Patric Knowles plays an Australian from near Wagga Wagga who is in love with O'Hara. A plot line about inherited insanity was always doing to date badly; there isn't the acting and handling to compensate.
Movie review - "Blaze of Noon" (1947) **
A movie full of legends, in their own way - directed by Aussie John Farrow, co-written by Spig Wead (the paraplegic former naval aviator whose life was immortalised by John Ford), from a novel by Ernest Gann (perhaps the most famous aeroplane author of all time), a cast including William Holden, Sonny Tufts, Anne Baxter and Sterling Hayden. Imagine the stories around the commissary during lunchtime.
Holden, Tufts, Hayden and Johnny someone are brothers who go from barnstorming in the 1920s to an airmail service. Much story time is taken up with Holden's pursuit of Anne Baxter, which leads to inevitable "why are you never home" scenes. Because it's a John Farrow film there's a likeable priest, who encourages Anne Baxter to marry William Holden.
It's not terribly interesting drama, very much overshadowed by Only Angels Have Wings - Baxter feels neglected, various brothers crash, terrible risks are taken. You'd think four brothers would be enough for drama but they add William Bendix as another flier (why not make him one of the brothers?). William Holden is okay but probably not experienced enough in a role seemingly meant for Alan Ladd. Hayden does okay as a tough guy who falls for Baxter and Sonny Tufts gets to play a big drunk scene after one of his brothers dies and doesn't do too badly.
Holden, Tufts, Hayden and Johnny someone are brothers who go from barnstorming in the 1920s to an airmail service. Much story time is taken up with Holden's pursuit of Anne Baxter, which leads to inevitable "why are you never home" scenes. Because it's a John Farrow film there's a likeable priest, who encourages Anne Baxter to marry William Holden.
It's not terribly interesting drama, very much overshadowed by Only Angels Have Wings - Baxter feels neglected, various brothers crash, terrible risks are taken. You'd think four brothers would be enough for drama but they add William Bendix as another flier (why not make him one of the brothers?). William Holden is okay but probably not experienced enough in a role seemingly meant for Alan Ladd. Hayden does okay as a tough guy who falls for Baxter and Sonny Tufts gets to play a big drunk scene after one of his brothers dies and doesn't do too badly.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Movie review - "Slumdog Millionaire" (2008) ****
The influence of Charles Dickens hangs over this tale with it's orphans, rumbustious kids, mother dying young, extremes of poverty and wealth, corrupt officials, vicious crooks, childhood true loves, impossible dreams and plucky heroes. It's done with verve and energy, and it's a tribute to all those who championed it.
The device of the quiz show works very well as a way to flashback - even if the questions are kind of easy. Dev Patel is a likeable enough hero, but the kid who plays him as a little one is amazing. Freida Pinto is beautiful in a role that requires her to be beautiful, and there are some excellent support performances from the guys who play the cops, gangsters and game show host.
It's quite a harsh look at Indian society - the cops torture (and they're not bad cops), the host is a bit nasty, the gangsters are really mean. There's no kindly middle class characters who pop up in Dickens - the universe is a harsh place. But there is energy and laughter and it's a truly epic saga that the cinema doesn't often tackle any more.
The device of the quiz show works very well as a way to flashback - even if the questions are kind of easy. Dev Patel is a likeable enough hero, but the kid who plays him as a little one is amazing. Freida Pinto is beautiful in a role that requires her to be beautiful, and there are some excellent support performances from the guys who play the cops, gangsters and game show host.
It's quite a harsh look at Indian society - the cops torture (and they're not bad cops), the host is a bit nasty, the gangsters are really mean. There's no kindly middle class characters who pop up in Dickens - the universe is a harsh place. But there is energy and laughter and it's a truly epic saga that the cinema doesn't often tackle any more.
Movie review - "Lost Horizon" (1973) *
Original film musicals rarely work, and this was a notorious flop despite the music of Burt Bacharach and Hal David. I wonder if they considered cutting the numbers out because it wouldn't have been hard to do - they don't really add anything except laughter. The songs aren't so bad by themselves, but they don't really work in the context of the film.
The script seems to follow the Frank Capra original, with a few dud tweaks (e.g. making one of the characters a stand up comic). But things that worked in 1937, don't translate very well - whites being Asians, the whole mystic aspect of it, the romanticism of Peter Finch's character. Also what was mysterious and strange in 1937 was a lot more familiar by 1973 - maybe this was impossible to do. Or maybe it was just ineptly executed.
Peter Finch does what he can in the role - it's a tricky part (who else could have played it?) and he doesn't suit it as well as Ronald Colman but he handles it well enough. Michael York is effective, Sally Kellerman gets on the nerves (part of it is due to her bad dialogue), Olivia Hussey is very pretty, George Kennedy is fine, John Gielgud and Charles Boyer bring on a few laughs pretending to be Asian. Liv Ullman just looks plain darned uncomfortable.
It didn't have the budget to blow the audience away with its sets and production design, like the 1937 film did, or the conviction. Could this have ever worked? Maybe with a cast with actual experience in musicals (none of them are known as musical comedy stars), a better script that tries to update the story while keeping its essence, stronger handling. Or maybe it was just impossible.
The script seems to follow the Frank Capra original, with a few dud tweaks (e.g. making one of the characters a stand up comic). But things that worked in 1937, don't translate very well - whites being Asians, the whole mystic aspect of it, the romanticism of Peter Finch's character. Also what was mysterious and strange in 1937 was a lot more familiar by 1973 - maybe this was impossible to do. Or maybe it was just ineptly executed.
Peter Finch does what he can in the role - it's a tricky part (who else could have played it?) and he doesn't suit it as well as Ronald Colman but he handles it well enough. Michael York is effective, Sally Kellerman gets on the nerves (part of it is due to her bad dialogue), Olivia Hussey is very pretty, George Kennedy is fine, John Gielgud and Charles Boyer bring on a few laughs pretending to be Asian. Liv Ullman just looks plain darned uncomfortable.
It didn't have the budget to blow the audience away with its sets and production design, like the 1937 film did, or the conviction. Could this have ever worked? Maybe with a cast with actual experience in musicals (none of them are known as musical comedy stars), a better script that tries to update the story while keeping its essence, stronger handling. Or maybe it was just impossible.
Movie review - "Battleship" (2012) ** (warning: spoilers)
Not as appalling as I feared it would be, and probably great if you are a 12 year old boy. It is clunky in spots, Taylor Kitsch is not a movie star, Liam Neeson is barely in the movie, the special effects aren't very good (it feels like a cartoon), there are dumb lines and scenes (e.g. the soccer game), some of it is achingly predictable (e.g. knowing that brother is going to be a dead duck).
But there are effective moments, which really work - the redemption of a crippled veteran, Taylor realising he's in charge of the whole show, co-operation with the Japanese (they probably could have done another nationality here), the friendship between the American and the Japanese captain, the battleship sequence (only a small section of the film), and most of all using the USS Missouri to take on the aliens, manned by veterans (NB why not make one of them a character).
This isn't a good movie, but once things start blowing up I did keep watching, which is a lot more than I expected.
But there are effective moments, which really work - the redemption of a crippled veteran, Taylor realising he's in charge of the whole show, co-operation with the Japanese (they probably could have done another nationality here), the friendship between the American and the Japanese captain, the battleship sequence (only a small section of the film), and most of all using the USS Missouri to take on the aliens, manned by veterans (NB why not make one of them a character).
This isn't a good movie, but once things start blowing up I did keep watching, which is a lot more than I expected.
Movie review - "Captain America" (2011) *** (warning: spoilers)
It was a challenge to bring Captain America into the 21st century because he's so, well, comic book-y - old fashioned comic book-y, not brooding, dark, gothic novel comic book-y. But they've pulled it off here, treating the character and story with respect.
It starts off well and the special effects used to create Chris Evans' "before" persona are remarkable - one of the best examples to date of effects servicing the story. Evans is an amiable actor - he's not allowed to show the humour that makes him different but he works well enough. He's outshone by flashier support roles - Tommy Lee Jones (adding an air of army authenticity), Stanley Tucci (hitting just the right tone short of sending it up), Hugo Weaving (ditto) and Dominic Cooper (lots of fun). Hayley Atwell is pretty in a rather thankless Smurfette role - at least she gets to shoot a gun and run around, which is more than women often get to do in this film.
As it goes on though I found it increasingly loud and uninvolving - crash boom bang followed by crash boom bang, and decreasingly emotionally involving (e.g. the death of his best friend felt like nothing). I will admit that I have this with most of the big tent pole movies these days.
Good ending, though.
It starts off well and the special effects used to create Chris Evans' "before" persona are remarkable - one of the best examples to date of effects servicing the story. Evans is an amiable actor - he's not allowed to show the humour that makes him different but he works well enough. He's outshone by flashier support roles - Tommy Lee Jones (adding an air of army authenticity), Stanley Tucci (hitting just the right tone short of sending it up), Hugo Weaving (ditto) and Dominic Cooper (lots of fun). Hayley Atwell is pretty in a rather thankless Smurfette role - at least she gets to shoot a gun and run around, which is more than women often get to do in this film.
As it goes on though I found it increasingly loud and uninvolving - crash boom bang followed by crash boom bang, and decreasingly emotionally involving (e.g. the death of his best friend felt like nothing). I will admit that I have this with most of the big tent pole movies these days.
Good ending, though.
Movie review - "California" (1947) **
Ray Milland isn't one of the first actors you think of as a Western star, but after World War Two all males had to appear on them. He's never quite comfortable in a part that cries out for John Wayne or at least Alan Ladd (who was cast but turned it down over money) - as a tough trail guide with a past leading a group to California, just at the beginning of the Gold Rush.
A lot of this is very familiar: there's a woman with a shady past (Barbara Stanwyck, too old really), a comic but decent Irishman (Barry Fitzgerald). There are some strong anti-slavery sentiments (although the film of course is free of any black people), the villain (George Colouris) has a decent goal (to make California an independent country) and a great characterisation (he's a former slaver tormented by the horrors he's done and is genuinely in love with Stanwyck).
Colouris is the best thing about the film, which has a surprising lack of action, a very pretentious introductory sequence talking about California, and some pretty technicolour photography. It doesn't feel historically accurate and none of the ingredients or the story quite gel. Anthony Quinn pops up in support.
A lot of this is very familiar: there's a woman with a shady past (Barbara Stanwyck, too old really), a comic but decent Irishman (Barry Fitzgerald). There are some strong anti-slavery sentiments (although the film of course is free of any black people), the villain (George Colouris) has a decent goal (to make California an independent country) and a great characterisation (he's a former slaver tormented by the horrors he's done and is genuinely in love with Stanwyck).
Colouris is the best thing about the film, which has a surprising lack of action, a very pretentious introductory sequence talking about California, and some pretty technicolour photography. It doesn't feel historically accurate and none of the ingredients or the story quite gel. Anthony Quinn pops up in support.
Movie review - "The Vow" (2012) **
Dopey treatment of a strong idea - Rachel McAdams loses her memory in a car accident and hubby Channing Tatum has to make her fall in love with him again. Tatum went up a lot in my estimation with 21 Jump Street - his limitations are exposed here, but I guess commercially it was a good decision.
This is firmly made for the female audience - Tatum shows his butt, looks sensitive, sleeps with a cat on his chest, pines, plays guitar, wears a cuddle jumper, is incredibly devoted; Rachel McAdams has several men in love with her (the other is Scott Speedman), is an artist, wears a variety of clothes.
This pulls its punches constantly - the secret about her dad is undercooked; the false love interest (Scott Speedman) is shamefully underused; Sam Neill and Jessica Lange are wasted; the characters of the couples' best friends are amazingly irritating and poorly used (what's with that friend with the nose? and the guy with the porkpie hat?).
It does achieve what it sets out to do, you just wish it was done better.
This is firmly made for the female audience - Tatum shows his butt, looks sensitive, sleeps with a cat on his chest, pines, plays guitar, wears a cuddle jumper, is incredibly devoted; Rachel McAdams has several men in love with her (the other is Scott Speedman), is an artist, wears a variety of clothes.
This pulls its punches constantly - the secret about her dad is undercooked; the false love interest (Scott Speedman) is shamefully underused; Sam Neill and Jessica Lange are wasted; the characters of the couples' best friends are amazingly irritating and poorly used (what's with that friend with the nose? and the guy with the porkpie hat?).
It does achieve what it sets out to do, you just wish it was done better.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Movie review - Chan#14 - "Charlie Chan at the Olympics" (1937) **1/2
Charlie's son is competing at the 1936 Berlin Olympics which gives this an incredible amount of novelty. The Germans aren't depicted nastily although there is a sinister foreign power at work; local German cops wear old style hats with a spike on top; there's documentary footage from the real games including Jess Owens winning a race.
Charlie is investigating a mystery at the Olympics - fortunately his his son has been picked to represent America in the swimming. It's a big of a coincidence that the mystery that gets the story running (which has to do with a missing plane) ties up with the Olympics and Number One Son starts investigating it on board ship before his dad even rocks up. But this is quite enjoyable, mostly due to the Olympics setting, but also brisk handling. Charlie Chan and his son have real warmth and it's a pretty good mystery. There's a good character in an obviously villainous character, complete with slimy moustache, who actually isn't that villainous.
Charlie is investigating a mystery at the Olympics - fortunately his his son has been picked to represent America in the swimming. It's a big of a coincidence that the mystery that gets the story running (which has to do with a missing plane) ties up with the Olympics and Number One Son starts investigating it on board ship before his dad even rocks up. But this is quite enjoyable, mostly due to the Olympics setting, but also brisk handling. Charlie Chan and his son have real warmth and it's a pretty good mystery. There's a good character in an obviously villainous character, complete with slimy moustache, who actually isn't that villainous.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Movie review - "Ride Vaquero" (1953) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Robert Taylor in his anti-hero mode - he's a dangerous gunfighter aligned with a coarse, ruthless Mexican bandit (Anthony Quinn hamming it up in fine style). It's set in New Mexico, where the Mexicans are getting annoyed at the whites moving into their territory after the Civil War - as led by settler Howard Keel and his wife. So the Mexicans are the baddies, really - rather like the cattlemen in Shane, standing in the way of progress, which is a bit dodgy. They are loud, rumbustious thieves partial to using the gun. The Anglos are victims and on the side of law and order - there's none of the complexity of, say, Broken Arrow.
Taylor kind of gets the hots for Ava Gardner but the love triangle here is really between Keel, Taylor and Quinn, with Quinn and Keel battling over Taylor. Quinn goes into a big sook when he thinks Taylor has changed sides - he's like a lover scorned. Taylor talks about how he and Quinn used to share a bed growing up. Both men end up killing each other. Gardner does kiss Taylor - but then he slaps her. Because you know, that's not on. The Western has to be the most homoerotic genre in the history of American cinema.
Taylor is quite effective wearing a bit of stubble and glowering in black, even if he doesn't really look like someone who's lived among Mexicans his whole life. Quinn channels the ghost of Wallace Beery and has a good old time, and Keel is solid in a role that isn't that big (it would have been a better film if there had been more shades to his character - or if they had combined the characters of Gardner and Keel into one). Ava Gardner is wasted. Jack Elam is fun. There is a wise Mexican Catholic priest who hangs around being the conscience for everyone, who gets on the nerves and smacks of the influence of John Farrow.
Taylor kind of gets the hots for Ava Gardner but the love triangle here is really between Keel, Taylor and Quinn, with Quinn and Keel battling over Taylor. Quinn goes into a big sook when he thinks Taylor has changed sides - he's like a lover scorned. Taylor talks about how he and Quinn used to share a bed growing up. Both men end up killing each other. Gardner does kiss Taylor - but then he slaps her. Because you know, that's not on. The Western has to be the most homoerotic genre in the history of American cinema.
Taylor is quite effective wearing a bit of stubble and glowering in black, even if he doesn't really look like someone who's lived among Mexicans his whole life. Quinn channels the ghost of Wallace Beery and has a good old time, and Keel is solid in a role that isn't that big (it would have been a better film if there had been more shades to his character - or if they had combined the characters of Gardner and Keel into one). Ava Gardner is wasted. Jack Elam is fun. There is a wise Mexican Catholic priest who hangs around being the conscience for everyone, who gets on the nerves and smacks of the influence of John Farrow.
Movie review - Chan#6 - "Charlie Chan in London" (1934) **1/2
Early Charlie Chan epic with Warner Oland - this is the first one to survive after The Black Camel... there are four missing. It's still a bit creaky with some emotive acting but it's fun to see familiar names like Allan Mowbray, Mona Barrie and a young Ray Milland. A wet Pom is on death row and his sister is determined to rescue him. There are suspects like the sister's fiancee and mysterious butlers and bad cops and military intelligence - it's kind of like Gosford Park played straight. Well, as straight as a Charlie Chan movie can be. There's even a finale with Chan rounding up all the suspects and doing the big reveal at the end.
It does feel like a bit of a damp squid to have this military intelligence agent pop up at the end - it's like "why didn't you help solve the murder before someone went on death row, you clown?"
It does feel like a bit of a damp squid to have this military intelligence agent pop up at the end - it's like "why didn't you help solve the murder before someone went on death row, you clown?"
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Movie review - "Plunder of the Sun" (1953) ***
A concoction of familiar ingredients entertainingly mixed up and reheated - tough hero; hired to do a job by a man in a wheel chair with a sexy nurse; exotic and seedy locations; voice over and black and white photography; slutty women on board ship; Mexico locations. It's kind of a film noir take on a buried treasure film in Mexico - so while it's mostly moody and noir-y there's also dashes of the Maltese Falcoln, Indiana Jones and even Westerns (the final confrontation where Ford tracks down the bad guy is straight out of a Western).
Glenn Ford is fine in a role that, to be honest, could have been played by Alan Ladd, Bob Mitchum, or practically any tough guy star. Ditto Patricia Medina in another. Neither of them had that individual a star personas. Still they're reminders of a time gone by and it's fun to see them running around.
There's some great supporting turns from Francis Sullivan as a creepy guy in a wheelchair (echoing Sydney Greenstreet) and especially Sean McClory as an even creepier mystery man (echoing Peter Lorre). Diana Lynn hams it up as a slutty alcoholic and there's some location work in Mexico.
Maybe two and a half stars is a better indication but John Farrow keeps it moving at a fair clip and it's professional lack of prevention comes as a relief to the modern film fan.
Glenn Ford is fine in a role that, to be honest, could have been played by Alan Ladd, Bob Mitchum, or practically any tough guy star. Ditto Patricia Medina in another. Neither of them had that individual a star personas. Still they're reminders of a time gone by and it's fun to see them running around.
There's some great supporting turns from Francis Sullivan as a creepy guy in a wheelchair (echoing Sydney Greenstreet) and especially Sean McClory as an even creepier mystery man (echoing Peter Lorre). Diana Lynn hams it up as a slutty alcoholic and there's some location work in Mexico.
Maybe two and a half stars is a better indication but John Farrow keeps it moving at a fair clip and it's professional lack of prevention comes as a relief to the modern film fan.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Movie review - "The Singer Not the Song" (1961) **1/2
Dirk Bogarde's leather pants have ensured this movie was/is much mocked but playing his character as gay works for the drama. John Mills doesn't quite get the ambiguities that say Marlon Brando, Peter Finch or Alec Guinness might have but it's clear he has strong feelings for Bogarde's bandit character - and Bogarde is clearly in love with Mills.
Homoeroticism isn't uncommon in male adventure films e.g. Point Break, Howard Hawks' output - it's heightened here because one is a priest and Bogarde is cast. Also I guess because the story wouldn't make any sense otherwise. Bogarde isn't the first actor you think to play a Bandit, and his leather pants are a bit camp, but the whole cocked eyebrow sardonic thing he's got going on works.
No one looks remotely Spanish or Mexican, and it goes for too long, but this is consistently interesting - watching it I couldn't help thinking "the British film industry made this??" Myleen Demongeot is incredibly cute, with those bee stung lips, as a girl in love with Mills.
Homoeroticism isn't uncommon in male adventure films e.g. Point Break, Howard Hawks' output - it's heightened here because one is a priest and Bogarde is cast. Also I guess because the story wouldn't make any sense otherwise. Bogarde isn't the first actor you think to play a Bandit, and his leather pants are a bit camp, but the whole cocked eyebrow sardonic thing he's got going on works.
No one looks remotely Spanish or Mexican, and it goes for too long, but this is consistently interesting - watching it I couldn't help thinking "the British film industry made this??" Myleen Demongeot is incredibly cute, with those bee stung lips, as a girl in love with Mills.
Movie review - "The Sapphires" (2012) ****
Joyous Aussie semi musical with a big heart. It's a got a great set up - based on a true story - about aboriginal women singing Motown in Vietnam in the 1960s. You've got soul, land rights, Australia-America relations, race, urst, beehive hair, flashy dances, explosions. The cast is terrific - Jess Mauboy confirms she is a star, Deb Mailman is good as always, the two newbies are terrific (the hot one and the funny one), Connor McPherson has an awesome role and knocks it out of the park.
It's definitely not perfect - there are some odd scripting choices, like the reveal that one of them has a letter from an ex until immediately before an audition when there is plenty of chances to tell beforehand; Jessica Mauboy's plot seems truncated (what happened to her desire to make it big?); ditto a big blow up at the end. Also sometimes the studio setting is distracting (budget, I know, but that's how it is) and some scenes which you think would be easy ones to nail aren't e.g. an encounter with some VC which isn't very scary.
But the positives easily outweigh the virtues - it's bright and poppy with a big heart and talks about serious issues.
It's definitely not perfect - there are some odd scripting choices, like the reveal that one of them has a letter from an ex until immediately before an audition when there is plenty of chances to tell beforehand; Jessica Mauboy's plot seems truncated (what happened to her desire to make it big?); ditto a big blow up at the end. Also sometimes the studio setting is distracting (budget, I know, but that's how it is) and some scenes which you think would be easy ones to nail aren't e.g. an encounter with some VC which isn't very scary.
But the positives easily outweigh the virtues - it's bright and poppy with a big heart and talks about serious issues.
Movie review - "Iceland" (1942) **
20th Century Fox had a big hit with Sun
Valley Serenade so they re-teamed Sonja Henie and John Payne in another musical
set in a winter wonderland – in this case, Iceland under military occupation.
There’s not a lot of war, everyone has plenty of time to go ice skating and
attend concerts (at times it’s like Iceland has been occupied by concert
musicians).
The plot is idiotic even by Henie’s low
standards – she likes Payne, pretends to her family they are getting married so
she doesn’t have to marry a local suitor and so her sister can get married, I
think. He’s got sort of an ex-girlfriend (the Lynn Bari part – and Lynn Bari is
badly missed), a wacky best friend, he likes Henie but doesn’t want to marry
her but then does… It was hard to follow at times because it was so think.
Jack Oakie cracks wise, Icelanders with a
sense of humour will get a kick out of the toy town depiction of their country,
there are several quite flashy numbers albeit not of the standard of Sun Valley
Serenade. There’s an appearance from a band but they are not incorporated into
the plot like they were in that film. Unfortunately so because it means this is
more reliant on the charms of Henie who looks more than ever like a smug Nazi
determined to grab Payne no matter what. It’s a matter of personal taste of
course.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Movie review - "Ramrod" (1947) **1/2
Veronica Lake's career never really recovered from getting her hair cut off, so it's said - other influencing factors may be her difficult temperament, some poor films and a persona that wasn't always easily castable. But she was still busy at this stage - she'd just come off The Blue Dahlia and apparently this Western was quite popular.
Ronnie is a tough woman living on the range who is picked on by nasty tycoon Preston Foster. Her useless fiancee takes off so she hires Joel McCrea as her "ramrod". But McCrea isn't the only hero - that duty is split with Don De Fore as a ruthless, enigmatic drifter who also fights on Lake's side, and overshadows McCrea's character (even if they do make McCrea an alcoholic).
This is a story full of shades and moral ambiguities - I guess it's pretty clear that Preston Foster is a baddie but Lake isn't necessarily a goodie. She's keen to flirt with men to get them to do what she wants and gets De Fore to create a stampede so McCrea will be more on her side. She genuinely falls for McCrea but he ends up dumping her because she's a bad girl. Well, she's not really bad, I felt she just did what she had to do - but that was Hollywood during the post war years, women had to be put in their place (something similar happened in Forever Amber). As a result the movie is a bit out of kilter - you have more sympathy for Lake, who has more at stake, than McCrea, who is just a hired hand. It also might have more impact if McCrea had genuine feelings for Lake but he seems quite happy to go off with bland Arleen Whelan.
And De Fore has a great character - he's on the side of the "goodies" but he quite sadisitically goads a baddie into drawing so he can kill him. He also seems to fall in love with McCrea, as a lot of anti heroes do in Westerns, and there's a triangle with Lake. It probably would have been a better movie if they'd gotten rid of McCrea's character.
The film was directed by Andre de Toth who has a bit of a critical reputation - as a lot of B western directors seemed to at one time. This isn't perfect but it is interesting and it's fun to see Lake even if she isn't that sexy in Western garb. Great support cast too including Donald Crisp and Lloyd Bridges.
Ronnie is a tough woman living on the range who is picked on by nasty tycoon Preston Foster. Her useless fiancee takes off so she hires Joel McCrea as her "ramrod". But McCrea isn't the only hero - that duty is split with Don De Fore as a ruthless, enigmatic drifter who also fights on Lake's side, and overshadows McCrea's character (even if they do make McCrea an alcoholic).
This is a story full of shades and moral ambiguities - I guess it's pretty clear that Preston Foster is a baddie but Lake isn't necessarily a goodie. She's keen to flirt with men to get them to do what she wants and gets De Fore to create a stampede so McCrea will be more on her side. She genuinely falls for McCrea but he ends up dumping her because she's a bad girl. Well, she's not really bad, I felt she just did what she had to do - but that was Hollywood during the post war years, women had to be put in their place (something similar happened in Forever Amber). As a result the movie is a bit out of kilter - you have more sympathy for Lake, who has more at stake, than McCrea, who is just a hired hand. It also might have more impact if McCrea had genuine feelings for Lake but he seems quite happy to go off with bland Arleen Whelan.
And De Fore has a great character - he's on the side of the "goodies" but he quite sadisitically goads a baddie into drawing so he can kill him. He also seems to fall in love with McCrea, as a lot of anti heroes do in Westerns, and there's a triangle with Lake. It probably would have been a better movie if they'd gotten rid of McCrea's character.
The film was directed by Andre de Toth who has a bit of a critical reputation - as a lot of B western directors seemed to at one time. This isn't perfect but it is interesting and it's fun to see Lake even if she isn't that sexy in Western garb. Great support cast too including Donald Crisp and Lloyd Bridges.
Script review - "Tootsie"
Such a marvellous script - the magic is there on the page. Some scenes didn't make the final cut - an encounter with his wife and her new husband, a sleazy doctor gives Dorothy a physical, Sandy brings him some food. Also the bits in the film which I felt didn't quite work don't work on the page either e.g. the farm sequence which feels it goes on too long. Lots of montages, a few farcical set pieces. But terrific first half and solid ending, great characters. Not a perfect script but pretty awesome and obviously written by people who really know and love actors.
Movie review - "Seven Women" (1966) **1/2
John Ford's last feature film is generally considered a dud except by hard-core auteurists such as Andrew Sarris. It's a spectacularly untypical work, being about a group of women in 1935 China. Anne Bancroft is an atheist, chain-smoking, pants wearing doctor, a part clearly intended for Katherine Hepburn but she does well with it.
I guess the Ford films it's closest to that I can think of is Drums Along the Mohawk and Stagecoach - an outpost of civilisation in a hostile part of the world that comes under siege. But it's so different - it's in China, the Irish quotient is low, it's about mostly women, there are no comic drunks and/or blacks, it lacks the poetry, there's no worshipped military.
Really this should have been made in the 1930s when Yellow Peril cinema was very popular. The studio setting would have suited it more then, so too would the non Asians pretending to be Asians (e.g. Woody Strode) and it's more melodramatic aspects such as Bancroft giving up her loving to a Chinese warlord to save her colleagues, then killing herself. That feels more 19th century. And there were some things that really got on my nerves - that whining character played by Betty Field and Bancroft's incessant smoking.
But it's consistently interesting - Margaret Leighton's head missionary has clearly lustful designs on Sue Lyon (she's a cutey - it's a shame she didn't have more of a solid career), Bancroft is very funny, several of the characters are three-dimensional, the acting is pretty good, the sheer novelty of it (Ford's last film, all women, etc etc) keep you watching. Also the last third when the warlords move in is quite exciting - the action is quick and ruthless, you really feel the girls are in danger. Not bad just a film out of its time.
I guess the Ford films it's closest to that I can think of is Drums Along the Mohawk and Stagecoach - an outpost of civilisation in a hostile part of the world that comes under siege. But it's so different - it's in China, the Irish quotient is low, it's about mostly women, there are no comic drunks and/or blacks, it lacks the poetry, there's no worshipped military.
Really this should have been made in the 1930s when Yellow Peril cinema was very popular. The studio setting would have suited it more then, so too would the non Asians pretending to be Asians (e.g. Woody Strode) and it's more melodramatic aspects such as Bancroft giving up her loving to a Chinese warlord to save her colleagues, then killing herself. That feels more 19th century. And there were some things that really got on my nerves - that whining character played by Betty Field and Bancroft's incessant smoking.
But it's consistently interesting - Margaret Leighton's head missionary has clearly lustful designs on Sue Lyon (she's a cutey - it's a shame she didn't have more of a solid career), Bancroft is very funny, several of the characters are three-dimensional, the acting is pretty good, the sheer novelty of it (Ford's last film, all women, etc etc) keep you watching. Also the last third when the warlords move in is quite exciting - the action is quick and ruthless, you really feel the girls are in danger. Not bad just a film out of its time.
Movie review - "Contraband" (2012) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Dull action movie which never seems to rise above its stock situations: Mark Wahlberg is an ex smuggler so you know he's going to be dragged back in; he's got a best mate since he was kids Ben Foster who hangs around and doesn't pull his weight story-wise to start off with so you know he's going to turn out to be traitor; there's a long explanation about a smuggling technique at the beginning so you know it's going to pop up at the end; he loves his wife so you know the baddies are going to go after them; you know Kate Beckingsale isn't really going to die.
Look, I don't mind a predictable action film, sometimes it's part of the charm, but this feels lethargic - there's none of the coarse base pleasures of say a piece of Liam Neeson schlock. There's a bit of action and suspense but not much, mostly just a lot of running around and yelling. There's a lot of repetition (Beckingsale and her kids are threatened twice) and coincidence (e.g. the day Wahlberg tracks down Beckingsale).
The best thing about it was all the characters lived in scuzzy houses and never seemed to have any money -this felt realistic. It has a good sort of look, too.
Look, I don't mind a predictable action film, sometimes it's part of the charm, but this feels lethargic - there's none of the coarse base pleasures of say a piece of Liam Neeson schlock. There's a bit of action and suspense but not much, mostly just a lot of running around and yelling. There's a lot of repetition (Beckingsale and her kids are threatened twice) and coincidence (e.g. the day Wahlberg tracks down Beckingsale).
The best thing about it was all the characters lived in scuzzy houses and never seemed to have any money -this felt realistic. It has a good sort of look, too.
Movie review - "The Night the Hunter" (1957) ****1/2
Stunning directorial debut from Charles Laughton which ranks up there with Citizen Kane and American Beauty has great first-time-at-the-bat level. You expect good acting but not the feel for Southern atmosphere, or artistic boldness. It starts with a bang with Lillian Gish's head telling a story then proceeds with constant striking visuals and flamboyance. It's very theatrical in that lots of characters talk to themselves - Robert Mitchum (well, he's talking to God) and Peter Graves and the women. But it all works.
Mitchum has rarely been better in a role he clearly understands - ruthless, charming, insane, charlatan. Shelley Winters is perfect in one of her sad-sack-who-gets-killed parts, and Lilian Gish is very good too. Kudos to the excellent script and source material, plus the divine photography - this definitely wasn't all Laughton but he was obviously a great ring master. The kids are terrific, it's truly horrific, the digs at hypocrisy of the south are enormously effective (e.g. Mitchum's biggest boosters are his most vehement critics at the end) as are those at adults (e.g. none of them believe the kids that this guy is trying to kill them).
The ending was a little odd with a riot in the hardware store and setting up shop in a new town. A gothic fairytale nightmare.
Mitchum has rarely been better in a role he clearly understands - ruthless, charming, insane, charlatan. Shelley Winters is perfect in one of her sad-sack-who-gets-killed parts, and Lilian Gish is very good too. Kudos to the excellent script and source material, plus the divine photography - this definitely wasn't all Laughton but he was obviously a great ring master. The kids are terrific, it's truly horrific, the digs at hypocrisy of the south are enormously effective (e.g. Mitchum's biggest boosters are his most vehement critics at the end) as are those at adults (e.g. none of them believe the kids that this guy is trying to kill them).
The ending was a little odd with a riot in the hardware store and setting up shop in a new town. A gothic fairytale nightmare.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Movie review - "Siren of Atlantis" (1949) **1/2
Supposedly based on a novel but it feels very much influenced by H Rider Haggard's She. This was the first movie made by Maria Montez after she left Universal, and is pretty much like the sort of film she made for them - with the crucial difference of it not being in colour. This is extremely frustrating.
Still, it's enjoyable in that junky way. Her real life husband Jean Pierre Aumont, who isn't very charismatic, is a French Foreign Legion officer who is discovered in the desert. He talks about Atlantis and killing his friend. It turns out he was lured to a lost kingdom of Atlantis ruled by a beautiful queen who has a liking for hunky men - she uses them and spits them out, with Henry Daniell as her pimp.
That's a campy set up and to add to the fun there's some exotic dances and scenes of Montez playing chess, and men being tormented by desire. Plus there's some stylish shots such as Aumont being covered in sand. Maria isn't very good - she's looking a bit old to be honest - but she does add to this piece's charm.
Still, it's enjoyable in that junky way. Her real life husband Jean Pierre Aumont, who isn't very charismatic, is a French Foreign Legion officer who is discovered in the desert. He talks about Atlantis and killing his friend. It turns out he was lured to a lost kingdom of Atlantis ruled by a beautiful queen who has a liking for hunky men - she uses them and spits them out, with Henry Daniell as her pimp.
That's a campy set up and to add to the fun there's some exotic dances and scenes of Montez playing chess, and men being tormented by desire. Plus there's some stylish shots such as Aumont being covered in sand. Maria isn't very good - she's looking a bit old to be honest - but she does add to this piece's charm.
Movie review - "Thunder in the Sun" (1959) **
There were so many Westerns in the 1950s that I guess they tried to do anything to come up with a gimmick - this one is about some French Basque exiles trying to set up a new life in California so they travel across country in a wagon train. Jeff Chandler is a hard drinking guide who goes with them.
That's not a bad gimmick - hey why not give the Basques a film. There's a lot of talk about Napoleon, far too much of that yell they're supposed to do, some talk of customs which all feels phoney - maybe it isn't I don't know but none of it comes across well.
Major debit - a horrible romance where Chandler (not charming here) forces himself upon fiery Susan Hayward (doing a poor Maureen O'Hara). And of course she falls in love but he really manhandles her, so it's kind of yuck. Make that very yuck.
It's a shame because the story isn't bad - it at least tries to be different, and it builds logically to a climax where the Basques and Chandler take on the Indians in the hills. But the handling is poor - very little of it is memorable. This was one of the first movies from the newly formed Seven Arts Productions.
That's not a bad gimmick - hey why not give the Basques a film. There's a lot of talk about Napoleon, far too much of that yell they're supposed to do, some talk of customs which all feels phoney - maybe it isn't I don't know but none of it comes across well.
Major debit - a horrible romance where Chandler (not charming here) forces himself upon fiery Susan Hayward (doing a poor Maureen O'Hara). And of course she falls in love but he really manhandles her, so it's kind of yuck. Make that very yuck.
It's a shame because the story isn't bad - it at least tries to be different, and it builds logically to a climax where the Basques and Chandler take on the Indians in the hills. But the handling is poor - very little of it is memorable. This was one of the first movies from the newly formed Seven Arts Productions.
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
Movie review - "Forever Amber" (1947) **
Based on the 50 Shades of Grey of it's time - a racy bestseller about life in restoration England that became a phenomenon with its spirited heroine (Linda Darnell) who sleeps her way to the top of English society. She has a true love, a dashing sailor (Cornel Wilde) who she does it all for, which is reminiscent of Scarlett O'Hara's pursuit of Ashley Wilkes in Gone with the Wind, something I'm sure was intentional. But there's no Rhett Butler who chases after her, giving this movie a hollow core.
And it's a major problem. While Darnell loves Wilde, even saving his life, he doesn't seem particularly interested in her apart from the occasional root. Every time another guy turns up saying "she's mine" he goes "well fair enough" and takes off (he does kill a person in a duel over her but only very reluctantly and he tries to get out of it a lot), and then at the end he comes along to take away his son... and I think we're supposed to feel that's a good thing, because Wilde has married a nice girl. (She looks prim and stuck up to me but she's virtuous and so therefore good.) Wilde asks the kid if he wants to go to Virginia, he says sure, if mum coming, mum says no, and he takes the kid. What the...?
This is mean - it's a mean spirited movie. Darnell keeps having to suffer for crimes like not wanting to be poor, bored or stuck in a Puritan marriage. So she sleeps around, big deal. Good for her. She's far more sympathetic than Scarlett O'Hara, who was genuinely selfish and self centred - which means you feel bad because she suffers.
There are other problems too. I can't recall a movie that was so undercast - Cornel Wilde is fine in other movies but seems out of his element here and badly lacking in charisma in a role that cries out for, say, Stewart Granger. I hated his character too - he's a selfish prick. Linda Darnell can be wonderful but doesn't have what it takes to make Amber come alive - she loses her power as a red head. I wonder why Maureen O'Hara wasn't cast?
The support cast is full of people like Richard Greene, Glenn Langan and Richard Haydn - dull wallpaper actors and hard to tell apart amidst all the ruffles. The only one to stand out is George Sanders - although Jessica Tandy and Ann Revere are alright. Daryl Zanuck was one of the great Hollywood producers and normally the studios were great at this stuff but they missed the boat with this one.
And it's a major problem. While Darnell loves Wilde, even saving his life, he doesn't seem particularly interested in her apart from the occasional root. Every time another guy turns up saying "she's mine" he goes "well fair enough" and takes off (he does kill a person in a duel over her but only very reluctantly and he tries to get out of it a lot), and then at the end he comes along to take away his son... and I think we're supposed to feel that's a good thing, because Wilde has married a nice girl. (She looks prim and stuck up to me but she's virtuous and so therefore good.) Wilde asks the kid if he wants to go to Virginia, he says sure, if mum coming, mum says no, and he takes the kid. What the...?
This is mean - it's a mean spirited movie. Darnell keeps having to suffer for crimes like not wanting to be poor, bored or stuck in a Puritan marriage. So she sleeps around, big deal. Good for her. She's far more sympathetic than Scarlett O'Hara, who was genuinely selfish and self centred - which means you feel bad because she suffers.
There are other problems too. I can't recall a movie that was so undercast - Cornel Wilde is fine in other movies but seems out of his element here and badly lacking in charisma in a role that cries out for, say, Stewart Granger. I hated his character too - he's a selfish prick. Linda Darnell can be wonderful but doesn't have what it takes to make Amber come alive - she loses her power as a red head. I wonder why Maureen O'Hara wasn't cast?
The support cast is full of people like Richard Greene, Glenn Langan and Richard Haydn - dull wallpaper actors and hard to tell apart amidst all the ruffles. The only one to stand out is George Sanders - although Jessica Tandy and Ann Revere are alright. Daryl Zanuck was one of the great Hollywood producers and normally the studios were great at this stuff but they missed the boat with this one.
Movie review - "Josephine and Men" (1955) **
Silly British comedy - Glynis Johns is engaged to Donald Sinden then decides to marry his best friend, playwright Peter Finch. Then Sinden is accused of embezzling a lot of money and hides out with Johns. This is just dumb - why did they make it? I guess it's a kind of character study watching Johns be attracted to men who need her - but the censor was never going to allow them to have much fun.
Finch's comedy playing isn't too bad - he's a lot better than Simon and Laura and it's fun to hear his Aussie accent slip through. Johns' voice did get on my nerves and for someone who is meant to be the lead her character was passive a lot - Sinden does more in this film. Why didn't they have Johns drive the action? As a farce this is poorly structured. And why is Jack Buchanan in this film? You think he's going to do something but he never does.
It's bright and colourful and everyone tries but the Boulting brothers were out of their element with this one.
Finch's comedy playing isn't too bad - he's a lot better than Simon and Laura and it's fun to hear his Aussie accent slip through. Johns' voice did get on my nerves and for someone who is meant to be the lead her character was passive a lot - Sinden does more in this film. Why didn't they have Johns drive the action? As a farce this is poorly structured. And why is Jack Buchanan in this film? You think he's going to do something but he never does.
It's bright and colourful and everyone tries but the Boulting brothers were out of their element with this one.
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Movie review - "Jet Pilot" (1957) **1/2
The quintessential Howard Hughes movie: boobs, anti-Communism, wacky humour, planes, and extensive post production tinkering. Russian pilot Janet Leigh defects to the West to avoid being shot at home and is romanced by John Wayne, who is trying to get information out of her.
Leigh is about as Russian as, well, John Wayne, but she is very fresh faced and pretty and the boobs do hold up (there's a camp classic scene where she takes off her coat and thrusts out her chest as the sound of a jet roars by outside). This was shot in 1950 so she seems very young. She's a real Howard Hughes kind of gal - beautiful; well endowed; has her own career that is very glamorous, skilled and hard to do (flying a jet); feisty; loves nice dresses and sex. He must have been thinking of Ava, Kate, Kathryn, Terry and all the others when making this. There are several scenes where the spy agencies tape her conversations, too!
The jets are lovingly shot and make great sounds, although there's too many scenes of them zipping around in long or mid shot and Wayne and Leigh talking. The story is confusing - I kept losing track of when they were really in love or pretending or being spies. They seem to benefit an awfully lot from luck and the film lacks a real villain.
It's a mad mess, and you're not likely to enjoy it unless you know a bit about Howard Hughes, but if you do, you'll have a great time.
Leigh is about as Russian as, well, John Wayne, but she is very fresh faced and pretty and the boobs do hold up (there's a camp classic scene where she takes off her coat and thrusts out her chest as the sound of a jet roars by outside). This was shot in 1950 so she seems very young. She's a real Howard Hughes kind of gal - beautiful; well endowed; has her own career that is very glamorous, skilled and hard to do (flying a jet); feisty; loves nice dresses and sex. He must have been thinking of Ava, Kate, Kathryn, Terry and all the others when making this. There are several scenes where the spy agencies tape her conversations, too!
The jets are lovingly shot and make great sounds, although there's too many scenes of them zipping around in long or mid shot and Wayne and Leigh talking. The story is confusing - I kept losing track of when they were really in love or pretending or being spies. They seem to benefit an awfully lot from luck and the film lacks a real villain.
It's a mad mess, and you're not likely to enjoy it unless you know a bit about Howard Hughes, but if you do, you'll have a great time.
Movie review - "The Tattered Dress" (1957) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
As Man in the Shadow begat Touch of Evil so did this beget Man in the Shadow - it's another black and white Universal neo noir about a murder and police corruption in a small town starring Jeff Chandler, produced by Albert Zugsmith and directed by Jack Arnold. Chandler is a ruthless lawyer defending someone for murder - he gets the wrong people off side and finds himself on trial. There's lots of jazzy music and a slutty blonde dancing in a tight evening dress while sipping on alcohol - the sort of image you always saw in Zugsmith films.
This wasn't bad - it moves crisply enough and has an interesting cast: Chandler is forceful as a lawyer not a million miles from Don Draper (that terrific voice is well used in several speeches); Jeanne Crain pops up in a rather thankless role as his estranged, forgiving wife; Jack Carson is superb as a nasty sheriff; poor old Gail Russell pops up and is effective as a sad, broken woman.
I didn't quite buy the story - Carson goes to an awful lot of trouble to made life hard for Chandler; it sets up this murder story in the first third then becomes about something entirely different (i.e Chandler on trial for bribery); Chandler's summing up at the end doesn't make sense (he's saying he went after money and made a lot of mistakes and justice is important... what does that have to do with being not guilty?)
But Carson is a terrific antagonist - smart, ruthless - and Chandler gets to play one of his most flawed heroes: ambitious, unfaithful, a gambling addict. It's an erratic but interesting mystery.
This wasn't bad - it moves crisply enough and has an interesting cast: Chandler is forceful as a lawyer not a million miles from Don Draper (that terrific voice is well used in several speeches); Jeanne Crain pops up in a rather thankless role as his estranged, forgiving wife; Jack Carson is superb as a nasty sheriff; poor old Gail Russell pops up and is effective as a sad, broken woman.
I didn't quite buy the story - Carson goes to an awful lot of trouble to made life hard for Chandler; it sets up this murder story in the first third then becomes about something entirely different (i.e Chandler on trial for bribery); Chandler's summing up at the end doesn't make sense (he's saying he went after money and made a lot of mistakes and justice is important... what does that have to do with being not guilty?)
But Carson is a terrific antagonist - smart, ruthless - and Chandler gets to play one of his most flawed heroes: ambitious, unfaithful, a gambling addict. It's an erratic but interesting mystery.
Movie review - "Back from Eternity" (1956) ***
There was a bit of a fad in the 1950s where directors remade their earlier hits - John Ford and Frank Capra did it, and here it's John Farrow's turn, having another go at his 1939 B picture classic, Five Came Back. This is commonly talked about as not being as good as the original, but while it's longer, it still has basically the same story, and I liked it. Some things I liked more than the original.
It has more star power - Robert Ryan is the craggy, boozy captain who falls for Anita Ekberg, sexy as hell and a lot more believable as a shady lady turned Earth mother than Lucille Ball, even if not as good an actor. Rod Steiger is methody (complete with sing-song delivery) as the condemned prisoner, but his performance works. Fred Clark shows his versatility by being a dodgy cop, Jesse White looks like he strolled straight out of the 1939 film, Gene Barry and Phyllis Kirk are the eloping couple. Keith Andes is a bit bland as the other pilot.
Farrow kept all the good stuff from the original: the unexpectedly moving bit where a gangster says goodbye to his son and is later killed; the philosophical killer; the throbbing drums whose silence indicates an attack; the really touching sacrifice of the old married couple. You never really believe everyone will go along with Steiger's judgement but it's not a bad dramatic device. They cut out the semi-commie dialogue from the original where the killer talked about how happy everyone was living in the socialist utopia under a benevolent dictator, and added a long scene where the little kid does the lord's prayer (was this Farrow's influence?), padded it out probably unnecessarily. The natives aren't that scary in this version either but it's still enjoyable.
It has more star power - Robert Ryan is the craggy, boozy captain who falls for Anita Ekberg, sexy as hell and a lot more believable as a shady lady turned Earth mother than Lucille Ball, even if not as good an actor. Rod Steiger is methody (complete with sing-song delivery) as the condemned prisoner, but his performance works. Fred Clark shows his versatility by being a dodgy cop, Jesse White looks like he strolled straight out of the 1939 film, Gene Barry and Phyllis Kirk are the eloping couple. Keith Andes is a bit bland as the other pilot.
Farrow kept all the good stuff from the original: the unexpectedly moving bit where a gangster says goodbye to his son and is later killed; the philosophical killer; the throbbing drums whose silence indicates an attack; the really touching sacrifice of the old married couple. You never really believe everyone will go along with Steiger's judgement but it's not a bad dramatic device. They cut out the semi-commie dialogue from the original where the killer talked about how happy everyone was living in the socialist utopia under a benevolent dictator, and added a long scene where the little kid does the lord's prayer (was this Farrow's influence?), padded it out probably unnecessarily. The natives aren't that scary in this version either but it's still enjoyable.
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Movie review - "Red Ball Express" (1952) **1/2
It was a little much to expect Hollywood to come up with an overly accurate version of the Red Ball Express - the predominantly African American soldiers who made up the famous trucking run have been reduced to only a few - but at least they are there, and they all get to play different characters. In particular Sidney Poiter gets to glower in an early role - his fellow blacks are more amiable, but Sidney is angry. (Only until he learns the valuable lesson that he shouldn't be prejudice - yep, the prejudice in this comes from the black character. So no NAACP awards but at least it's something.) There's some weird scenes of a black soldier leading the others in a spiritual as they unload trucks - the whites join in which has to be some sort of first.
Jeff Chandler has the lead role although this is more of an ensemble piece. He's stuck with the worst plot - his sergeant hates Chandler for causing his brother's death in civvie street. It's boring because you know the sergeant is going to realise that Chandler isn't really responsible and Chandler will redeem himself in the guy's eyes some way. There's also a lot of dud conflict e.g. Chandler being a task master (it's war time what do they expect), soldiers acting stupidly. And Charles Drake is irritating as a soldier who wants to write a novel and romances a French girl.
Those criticisms aside, I quite enjoyed it. It's briskly handled by the director, the subject matter and presence of black soldiers ensures that it's different, there's also some tough but sexy Red Cross workers who are dab hands with a wrench, and Chandler suits his role.
Jeff Chandler has the lead role although this is more of an ensemble piece. He's stuck with the worst plot - his sergeant hates Chandler for causing his brother's death in civvie street. It's boring because you know the sergeant is going to realise that Chandler isn't really responsible and Chandler will redeem himself in the guy's eyes some way. There's also a lot of dud conflict e.g. Chandler being a task master (it's war time what do they expect), soldiers acting stupidly. And Charles Drake is irritating as a soldier who wants to write a novel and romances a French girl.
Those criticisms aside, I quite enjoyed it. It's briskly handled by the director, the subject matter and presence of black soldiers ensures that it's different, there's also some tough but sexy Red Cross workers who are dab hands with a wrench, and Chandler suits his role.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Movie review - "Two Flags West" (1950) **1/2
The Civil War ground was fertile ground for Westerns - the 1950s in particular seemed to have a bunch of them featuring Northerners and Southerners squabbling amongst themselves before taking on the Indians e.g. Rocky Mountain, Column South, Escape from Fort Bravo (few of them ever had any black people in them).
This was one, which has the same plot as the later Major Dundee: captured Confederate POW Joseph Cotten is asked by injured Cornel Wilde to help fight Injuns at a fort run by bitter Jeff Chander. That's a pretty good set up - thrown in the fact that Chandler's brother died at a battle in which Cotten took part, Linda Darnell as the woman at the fort, the widow of Chandler's brother.
Unfortunately after that things get more conventional and dull - Chandler is so bitter and twisted that he's no sexual threat to Cotten; Cornel Wilde is wasted - he starts off looking interesting with an eye patch, but that soon goes and he's just this "hey-the-South-aren't-all-bad" character; Darnell, who just showed how good she could be in Letter to Three Wives is also wasted in a nothing part. It's also got that irritating bias towards the South which always seemed to exist in these stories - Cotten is a gentleman, cultured and brave, the Union soldiers are nasty.
It's stylishly directed by Robert Wise, Cotten is perfectly cast and Chandler gets the chance to show something different in a rare character role, channelling Henry Fonda in Fort Apache (he's got a moustache and is made to look older). He's got a fantastic last scene, bravely walking off to his death, and there's some good siege action at the end when the Indians take on the soldiers. Not bad - you just wish it was better.
Friday, August 03, 2012
Movie review - "Haywire" (2011) **1/2
This would have been more fun if it was trashier - good on Steven Soderbergh for trying to make a commercial action thriller with a female lead, and attempting to launch a new star in Gina Carano, but the plot will be familiar to anyone who watched a lot of action movies in the 80s. Carano is a kind-of government agent who is set up by - gasp - her own organisation and who try to kill her.
They try to jazz it up a little with some non-linear structuring but that doesn't help. Nor does shying away from fully embracing the cliches to give cheesy emotion - at least that would be something. It all feels a bit flat.
Carano is cute and a terrific fighter, though clearly inexperienced as an actor. There's a divine cast, but Michael Fassbender and Ewan McGregor are called upon to do fight scenes and don't do them that well - Channing Tatum is very believable though. Michael Douglas and Antonio Banderas look old, and Michael Angarano seems as though he's going to have a big part but then kind of disappears.
Some of the fight scenes are very well done but a lot of the excitement feels drained out of this movie. Carano would have been better off making her star debut in some straight to DVD action trash.
They try to jazz it up a little with some non-linear structuring but that doesn't help. Nor does shying away from fully embracing the cliches to give cheesy emotion - at least that would be something. It all feels a bit flat.
Carano is cute and a terrific fighter, though clearly inexperienced as an actor. There's a divine cast, but Michael Fassbender and Ewan McGregor are called upon to do fight scenes and don't do them that well - Channing Tatum is very believable though. Michael Douglas and Antonio Banderas look old, and Michael Angarano seems as though he's going to have a big part but then kind of disappears.
Some of the fight scenes are very well done but a lot of the excitement feels drained out of this movie. Carano would have been better off making her star debut in some straight to DVD action trash.
Movie review - "Dick Barton at Bay" (1950) **
Number three of the Dick Barton series - made second but released third. There would have been four but the lead Don Stannard was killed in a car accident. (I'm surprised Hammer, always keen to do a remake and follow a trend, didn't revive the character in the wake of 60s Bond mania). Just as the second Dick Barton film had this annoying climax involving a siren sound, this has one involving a lighthouse light that goes on and off during the final scenes and is incredibly irritating.
This starts briskly enough with the murder of another agent just after having phoned Barton (played by Patrick MacNee!) - I hope someone does an article one day on fellow secret agents who are killed at the beginning of films e.g. all those guys in the Bond movies. The action soon gets very familiar and conventional - Barton pretends to be dead to investigate, a scientist who has invented a ray gun is kidnapped by baddies, the scientist has a hot daughter, etc. It's fairly ordinary with that annoying light at the end.
This starts briskly enough with the murder of another agent just after having phoned Barton (played by Patrick MacNee!) - I hope someone does an article one day on fellow secret agents who are killed at the beginning of films e.g. all those guys in the Bond movies. The action soon gets very familiar and conventional - Barton pretends to be dead to investigate, a scientist who has invented a ray gun is kidnapped by baddies, the scientist has a hot daughter, etc. It's fairly ordinary with that annoying light at the end.
Movie review - "The Jayhawkers" (1959) **
There's a terrific movie to be had in the jayhawkers of Bloody Kansas but it's not to be found here, which ducks the issue of slavery pretty much entirely - indeed, I don't think there's one black actor in the whole movie and slavery is barely mentioned, if it all - and turns them into just another gang. Actually that's not exactly true - Jayhawker Jeff Chandler wants to "take over" Kansas and defend it. So he's leading a civil insurrection as opposed to trying to kill slavers and/or let slaves go. How he plans to hang on to Kansas against the entire US army isn't really explained but that's only one of many confusing things about this movie.
The plot has Fess Parker infiltrate Chandler's gang. Parker's character is a peace-living Southerner who went on raids and killed people but only to protect his home (why would the Jayhawkers be keen to take on someone who led raids against the North...? If that's what happened, I wasn't sure). Chandler basically falls in love with Parker in that homoerotic way so common in 50s Westerns but Parker prefers Nicole Muary.
Parker proves he is basically only a TV star in this, ambling his way through the movie. It's full of odd moments and inconsistencies: Parker sings a song, and teaches Nicole Maurey's French kids how to speak his distorted English; Maurey's French husband apparently loved Freedom and was killed by Redleggers because he didn't answer if he was a slaver or not quick enough (or did he just say "yes"?); the evil Governor who blackmails Parker into going undercover and destroying the Jayhawkers, is a northerner; I couldn't figure out the final plan for the life of me. I think we're meant to dislike the Jayhawkers though because Chandler's 2IC Henry Silva tries to rape Maurey but like Chandler. But I wasn't sure - I wasn't sure a lot about this.
Chandler easily gives the best performance. It's not hard with waffling Parker, out of place Maury and her atrociously bad children, and over acting Silva. Still it's good to see him play someone a bit messiah-like and crazy - he's not the best actor in the world, Chandler, but he had authority and presence, and that counts.
The plot has Fess Parker infiltrate Chandler's gang. Parker's character is a peace-living Southerner who went on raids and killed people but only to protect his home (why would the Jayhawkers be keen to take on someone who led raids against the North...? If that's what happened, I wasn't sure). Chandler basically falls in love with Parker in that homoerotic way so common in 50s Westerns but Parker prefers Nicole Muary.
Parker proves he is basically only a TV star in this, ambling his way through the movie. It's full of odd moments and inconsistencies: Parker sings a song, and teaches Nicole Maurey's French kids how to speak his distorted English; Maurey's French husband apparently loved Freedom and was killed by Redleggers because he didn't answer if he was a slaver or not quick enough (or did he just say "yes"?); the evil Governor who blackmails Parker into going undercover and destroying the Jayhawkers, is a northerner; I couldn't figure out the final plan for the life of me. I think we're meant to dislike the Jayhawkers though because Chandler's 2IC Henry Silva tries to rape Maurey but like Chandler. But I wasn't sure - I wasn't sure a lot about this.
Chandler easily gives the best performance. It's not hard with waffling Parker, out of place Maury and her atrociously bad children, and over acting Silva. Still it's good to see him play someone a bit messiah-like and crazy - he's not the best actor in the world, Chandler, but he had authority and presence, and that counts.
Movie review - "Prisoner of Shark Island" (1936) ***
On the Pritzker Military Library podcast I listened to a historian who wrote a book on the Lincoln assassination who got very heated on the topic of Dr Mudd - apparently Mudd's family have run a very effective campaign to clear the name of their most notorious ancestor which annoyed this historian, who thinks not only was Mudd rightly arrested, he should have been hung. You won't get that impression from this film which is firmly in the Mudd-was-innocent camp. All he does here is help fix up a man's broken leg on a rainy night - unaware that the man was John Wilkes Booth, who has just shot Lincoln.
There is no mention of Mudd having met Booth several times prior or other evidence he was in on the conspiracy to kidnap Lincoln or the fact he hated Lincoln instead of admiring him. But the filmmakers had their take on the story, which they wanted to follow through (writer Nunally Johnson was a Southerner), and they did. Fair enough, I guess - they had a vision, everyone in the movie was pretty much dead when they made it, and that is their right.
Less defendable are some other scenes: such as one where a white trouble maker goes on Mudd's farm to tell his former slaves they are as good as white men, and the former slaves chase the troublemaker off with joyous, savage screams; Mudd's loyal black, who adores him so much when he gets sent off to a Florida prison, enlists in the army to look after him (can you arrange that, can you?); Mudd's "cute" crotchety pro-secession father in law, threatening to re-fight the war; the soldiers in the prison who get the most upset are all black; the union soldiers are unkept, scruffy and mean; Northern politicians are manipulative and corrupt (except for martyred Abe). It's racist pro-Southern propaganda, like a lot of Hollywood movies of the 1930s, and it got on my nerves.
Okay, trying to be more objective: it's beautifully shot, at least it acknowledges that there were such things as black soldiers, the story is strong (it has a great three act structure), there are excellent support performances from John Carradine (Lincoln worshipping sadistic guard) and Harry Carey (matter-of-fact warden), the pace is fast. I just don't think it's a classic and feel it's got too much of a free ride from critics defending Ford.
There is no mention of Mudd having met Booth several times prior or other evidence he was in on the conspiracy to kidnap Lincoln or the fact he hated Lincoln instead of admiring him. But the filmmakers had their take on the story, which they wanted to follow through (writer Nunally Johnson was a Southerner), and they did. Fair enough, I guess - they had a vision, everyone in the movie was pretty much dead when they made it, and that is their right.
Less defendable are some other scenes: such as one where a white trouble maker goes on Mudd's farm to tell his former slaves they are as good as white men, and the former slaves chase the troublemaker off with joyous, savage screams; Mudd's loyal black, who adores him so much when he gets sent off to a Florida prison, enlists in the army to look after him (can you arrange that, can you?); Mudd's "cute" crotchety pro-secession father in law, threatening to re-fight the war; the soldiers in the prison who get the most upset are all black; the union soldiers are unkept, scruffy and mean; Northern politicians are manipulative and corrupt (except for martyred Abe). It's racist pro-Southern propaganda, like a lot of Hollywood movies of the 1930s, and it got on my nerves.
Okay, trying to be more objective: it's beautifully shot, at least it acknowledges that there were such things as black soldiers, the story is strong (it has a great three act structure), there are excellent support performances from John Carradine (Lincoln worshipping sadistic guard) and Harry Carey (matter-of-fact warden), the pace is fast. I just don't think it's a classic and feel it's got too much of a free ride from critics defending Ford.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Movie review - "Jeanne Eagles" (1957) ***
It's a matter of taste of course but while Kim Novak could be effective in some roles, and she has her moments here, she's mostly pretty dreadful, indicating all over the place and never being remotely convincing as a great actress, which Eagles was meant to be. She does have a sort of charisma, a lovely figure which is shown off during early dancing scenes, and does okay with some of the breakdowns - but has laughably bad drunk scenes, emotes are too much and is generally out of her league.
I didn't know much about Eagles career apart from the fact she died young and was in Rain on stage. I gather a lot of this is fictionalised, including Jeff Chandler's character - he's a carny operator who was Eagles' first love.
Chandler is more animated than we usually find him, sparked off by a different sort of role. He and Novak are well matched physically, though neither is up to the acting talent of Agnes Moorehead. It's quite and adult, serious tale (there's heroin, per-marital cohabitation and rape), well directed by George Sidney, and despite Novak's limitations I enjoyed it.
I didn't know much about Eagles career apart from the fact she died young and was in Rain on stage. I gather a lot of this is fictionalised, including Jeff Chandler's character - he's a carny operator who was Eagles' first love.
Chandler is more animated than we usually find him, sparked off by a different sort of role. He and Novak are well matched physically, though neither is up to the acting talent of Agnes Moorehead. It's quite and adult, serious tale (there's heroin, per-marital cohabitation and rape), well directed by George Sidney, and despite Novak's limitations I enjoyed it.
Book review - "Allan and the Holy Flower" (1915) by H Rider Haggard
You get the feeling Haggard wrote this for money because it's basically rehashed ingredients from earlier Allan Quatermain adventures: an expedition to the interior with two other white men (one an aristocrat the other an eccentric) plus a really tough native with an exotic past; one of the other white men is looking for a long lost relative; visiting a mysterious civilisation; white queens (well, priestesses); brave natives giving up their lives for the whites; villainous rulers, secret caverns, treasure (in this case a flower).
For all that I still enjoyed it - the action moves along at a fair clip, there are some exciting bits and sequences (such as Hans revealing he had the gun). It's minor Haggard and he's a bit lazy but it has pace.
For all that I still enjoyed it - the action moves along at a fair clip, there are some exciting bits and sequences (such as Hans revealing he had the gun). It's minor Haggard and he's a bit lazy but it has pace.
Movie review - "Midnight" (1939) ***1/2
One of those movies that are highly regarded, and you can certainly see the care that's gone into it, but I felt it was over-rated. Maybe I'm just resistant to the charms of Claudette Colbert - oh she's okay, capable and sort of charming and all that, she's just not my cup of tea. Neither particularly is Don Ameche. She's a chorus girl on the make in Paris and he's an impoverished taxi driver. Her mercenary nature and his impoverished aristocratic background bear the unmistakeable mark of Billy Wilder, who co-wrote the script.
This has a nice ensemble feel - Colbert is the leads, but there's also John Barrymore on hand as an ally, plus Mary Astor and Frances Lederer. Lederer has quite a big role - I didn't recognise him from anywhere before. He falls in love with Colbert, which annoys Astor who is his lover despite being married to Barrymore. I kind of felt sorry for Lederer - I mean, he seems to really like her and he seems like a nice guy. The romance between Colbert and Ameche also seemed a little undercooked, although I loved the scene where she convinces the others she's insane.
It's a silly story with a light touch and playing - if you're into that whole Lubitsch school you'll probably love it. I enjoyed the movie just not wild about it.
This has a nice ensemble feel - Colbert is the leads, but there's also John Barrymore on hand as an ally, plus Mary Astor and Frances Lederer. Lederer has quite a big role - I didn't recognise him from anywhere before. He falls in love with Colbert, which annoys Astor who is his lover despite being married to Barrymore. I kind of felt sorry for Lederer - I mean, he seems to really like her and he seems like a nice guy. The romance between Colbert and Ameche also seemed a little undercooked, although I loved the scene where she convinces the others she's insane.
It's a silly story with a light touch and playing - if you're into that whole Lubitsch school you'll probably love it. I enjoyed the movie just not wild about it.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Script review – “Baby It’s You” by John Sayles
John Sayles does a 60s teen movie but being Sayles it's not a typical teen movie - a coming of age story about a Jewish girl and her Italian-American admirer. He's a bit of a loser, loud and dumb, not cool and criminal, but he's into her and he kidnaps her one night (in a rom com way) - so although they've got no hope as a couple (she's too sensible) and she doesn't love him - and her own college life isn't a great success, with dud boyfriends and bad acting classes - she can't stop thinking about him because no one else cared about her as much. Two great character studies, sensitively depicted. It's the sort of movie where you can understand why it wasn't a hit (too sad, too honest) but you can also see why some people really love it.
Play review - "Pork Stiletto" by Allsop and Henderson July 2012
Witty, funny and very sick - performed by the two playwrights and two others. It is episodic and maybe could have done with more of a story, or a few of the scenes dropped, but it's bright and fun. Maybe "fun" isn't the right word but it's enjoyably perverted as we run through a list of different philias.
Movie review - "Man in the Shadow" (1957) ** (warning: spoilers)
The movie Orson Welles appeared in for Universal just prior to making Touch of Evil, so it's something of a footnote in movie history. Just a footnote, despite being directed by Jack Arnold who has some pretty nifty credits, and produced by Albert Zugsmith, who was then at his peak. Maybe it's because it starred Jeff Chandler who has never been a critic's darling.
Having said that, this had a surprisingly large amount of similarities with Evil beyond Orson, Zugsmith and Universal - it's a thriller shot in black and white, a neo-noir feel, small town setting in the present day, an honest cop investigating a murder, racial conflict, a leering villain, corruption oozing from every pore. Chandler isn't bad, all craggy integrity.
The main problem is the story is a bit one note - he figures out pretty quickly that Orson Welles is behind the murder, and the rest of the film is just him resisting pressure to call off the investigation. It lacks a subplot - I expected him to romance Welles' daughter but no, Chandler is happily married (to a woman in a nothing part).
Orson has presence, and it's fun to see him in a neo Western saying things like "get off my ranch", although he is a little hammy. The best scene is where Chandler is dragged behind a car through the streets of the town.
Having said that, this had a surprisingly large amount of similarities with Evil beyond Orson, Zugsmith and Universal - it's a thriller shot in black and white, a neo-noir feel, small town setting in the present day, an honest cop investigating a murder, racial conflict, a leering villain, corruption oozing from every pore. Chandler isn't bad, all craggy integrity.
The main problem is the story is a bit one note - he figures out pretty quickly that Orson Welles is behind the murder, and the rest of the film is just him resisting pressure to call off the investigation. It lacks a subplot - I expected him to romance Welles' daughter but no, Chandler is happily married (to a woman in a nothing part).
Orson has presence, and it's fun to see him in a neo Western saying things like "get off my ranch", although he is a little hammy. The best scene is where Chandler is dragged behind a car through the streets of the town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)