One of the anthology movies popular in Britain around this time (Dead of Night, Quartet, etc) this combines three suspernaturalistic tales. Orson Welles is top billed but only in one, the last.
The first one has a decent set up - a guide at an art gallery is invited inside a painting by a mysterious figure (Alan Badel) - and some trippy visuals (tilted cameras etc), but is far too talky, doesn't have much of a story beyond the set up, and got dull very quickly.
The second one feels a lot better paced, though a lot more familiar, being a film noir-ish tale about two best mates (one of them alcoholic, John Gregson) who fall for the same woman (Elizabeth Sellars, the resident femme fetale of British movies of the 50s).
Orson Welles stars in the third as an MP whose dreams are invaded by an opposition MP (Badel again) whose career he has ruined, supposedly from what seems to be a rather tame speech. Orson has a high old time, especially in the dream sequences - it was like a film version of some roles which he played on radio - and I wasn't surprised to hear he had directed some of it (the carnival-like nightclub sequence feels especially his). I found this the most enjoyable, mainly because of Orson's presence (it's a shame he couldn't have appeared in the other two segments); it was based on a story by Somerset Maugham.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Movie review - "Sweethearts" (1938) ***
Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald had by this stage made a lot of money for MGM so the studio were willing to pony up for Technicolour for this effort. It actually wasn't really worth it - I mean, it's nice, but colour would have been better in their previous movies - Naughty Marietta took place in colonial Louisiana, Rosie Maria in mountainous Canada, Maytime in wherever the hell that was set, The Girl of the Golden West in the old west. Sweethearts is a screwball comedy which mostly takes place in the world of nightclubs, backstage dressing rooms, radio studios, swish New York apartments and the like. Yes there are some elaborate numbers on stage but it's all pretty much indoors.
All the MacDonald-Eddy films to this date had varied: pure silly operetta, heightened melodrama, road movie. This one is a screwball comedy, written by Dorothy Parker and Alan Campbell, full of sparky one liners and frantic situations. It's not much of a story - vested interests try to break up a beloved stage star couple (kind of like a singing version of the Lunts) in order to prevent them running off to the movies. A secretary is used to make Jeannette jealous, and that's about it. Things are resolved very quickly.
But it's very bright and funny, with a strong support cast, including Frank Morgan, Mischa Auer and Reginald Gardiner; Eddy wasn't great at comedy but he can be a straight man and Jeannette is lively and sexy - she was very talented.
All the MacDonald-Eddy films to this date had varied: pure silly operetta, heightened melodrama, road movie. This one is a screwball comedy, written by Dorothy Parker and Alan Campbell, full of sparky one liners and frantic situations. It's not much of a story - vested interests try to break up a beloved stage star couple (kind of like a singing version of the Lunts) in order to prevent them running off to the movies. A secretary is used to make Jeannette jealous, and that's about it. Things are resolved very quickly.
But it's very bright and funny, with a strong support cast, including Frank Morgan, Mischa Auer and Reginald Gardiner; Eddy wasn't great at comedy but he can be a straight man and Jeannette is lively and sexy - she was very talented.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Movie review - "Maytime" (1937) *** (warning: spoilers)
Nelson Eddy and Jeannette MacDonald at their MGM peak, in an entertaining melodrama musical which takes place in never never land on the studio backlot. It starts with an aged MacDonald giving a young couple some relationship advice then flashes back to her own operatic career. She is loved by her manipulative manager (John Barrymore) and decides to marry him for the sake of fame and her career.... despite falling in love with another singer (Nelson). She and Nelson are reunited but Barrymore gets out his gun... Poor Jeanette is left to mourn him and to wait until death.
In other words it's the same plot in a way as Barry Manilow's Copacabana or even James Cameron's Titanic. It worked then and it works here, with plenty of songs. I'm really starting to like MacDonald - she had spark and flair, a sense of naughtiness as well as class; Nelson Eddy is bland lunk but he does work well with MacDonald. Plenty of production values, including an elaborate re-creating of small town America (which tended to be MGM's specialty).
In other words it's the same plot in a way as Barry Manilow's Copacabana or even James Cameron's Titanic. It worked then and it works here, with plenty of songs. I'm really starting to like MacDonald - she had spark and flair, a sense of naughtiness as well as class; Nelson Eddy is bland lunk but he does work well with MacDonald. Plenty of production values, including an elaborate re-creating of small town America (which tended to be MGM's specialty).
Friday, January 24, 2014
Movie review - "Halloween" (1978) ***1/2
This has been so imitated that many scenes/moments induce laughter: teenagers asking "who's there" when a killer is loose; Jamie Lee Curtis thinking she's killed Michael Myers twice then not checking; horny teenagers easily exposed; a conveniently incompetent police force; absent parents.
But a lot of it maintains it's power too: hearing the opening theme song still sends chills down my spine; John Carpenter's direction is excellent; the story is superb and Michael one of the great villains. As Danny Peary pointed out he's really just a child who never grew up - he delights in playing games, teasing and hiding and being naughty to teenagers; he never hurts other kids.
There's other things too that list this above standard horror fare: the high quality of the acting, not just Donald Pleasance as a slightly deranged shrink (he's much more fun than Chris Lee would have been), but also likeable newcomer Jamie Lee Curtis (who I should point out is never specified a virgin, she just doesn't have a date that night) and PJ Soles and Nancy Loomis who are who friends - they have actual specific characters to play and seem realistic, which I attribute to Debra Hill's influence on the script. It's also scary rather than gory.
But a lot of it maintains it's power too: hearing the opening theme song still sends chills down my spine; John Carpenter's direction is excellent; the story is superb and Michael one of the great villains. As Danny Peary pointed out he's really just a child who never grew up - he delights in playing games, teasing and hiding and being naughty to teenagers; he never hurts other kids.
There's other things too that list this above standard horror fare: the high quality of the acting, not just Donald Pleasance as a slightly deranged shrink (he's much more fun than Chris Lee would have been), but also likeable newcomer Jamie Lee Curtis (who I should point out is never specified a virgin, she just doesn't have a date that night) and PJ Soles and Nancy Loomis who are who friends - they have actual specific characters to play and seem realistic, which I attribute to Debra Hill's influence on the script. It's also scary rather than gory.
Book review - "Lion of Hollywood: The Life and Legend of Louis B Mayer" by Scott Eyman (2005)
Eyman is one of the best film biographers going around and Mayer deserved reappraisal - he's been long mocked/pillored in Hollywood history because of his behaviour: attacking the writers guild and communists, sobbing and wailing to actors and talking about family values and mother worship and wholesome pictures, terrorising poor little Irving Thalberg and Dore Schary, punching out John Gilbert.
There was more to him than that. Mayer was a genius filmmaker in his way - not a writer, director or even producer, but a great manager of MGM at it's peak. He set up a small, struggling operation, merged it with others and created a colossus which led Hollywood. It was an amazing achievement, even by the mogul standards, and deserves to be acknowledged and praised.
A great "what if" of Hollywood history: what if Mayer hadn't quit MGM in a huff in 1951 over fighting with Dore Schary? Could he have kept the studio up with the times? Who knows... MGM struggled before Schary's arrival when it was just Mayer. But Mayer had management genius that eluded Schary, and his taste was in greater line with that of the American public than Schary - for instance, The Great Caruso was a Mayer pet project. And that Andy Hardy type wholesome picture continued to be very popular on TV (Father Knows Best, etc) - I think Mayer could have come up with great TV ideas.
Schary gets a fair bollocking in this book, a little unfairly, I think: Schary was no Mayer, or Thalberg, and in hindsight was the wrong person to run MGM; he should have joined them as a unit producer, where he could have concentrated on turning out film noirs and hard hitting dramas, instead of expanding into areas where he had no idea, like musicals, comedies and discovering and dealing with stars (all the things Mayer was good at in other words, and which made MGM). But he was a talented man and one of the few moguls who had a decent career after being a mogul.
Anyway Schary is only one character in this book. There's plenty of others, notably his duelling daughters Edie and Irene (who would have been a great movie producer but instead worked on the stage), his poor first wife who was dumped and basically driven ga ga, a nice enough second wife (Mayer had a mid life crisis), the enigmatic Thalberg, the feuding Nick Schenck, the movie stars who were forever traipsing into Mayer's office with their problems (Greer Garson and Jeannette MacDonald could wrap him around their little finger, he was distant from Clark Gable, liked Kate Hepburn's class, didn't know what on earth to do with Judy Garland, dealt with Van Johnson's homosexuality in a matter of fact "fixer" way).
It's all deftly handled by Eyman who combines scholarship with entertaining gossip. He probably over-quotes Esther Williams and doesn't get into the dark side of the MGM vision (eg in the Andy Hardy films, it's not just about Andy's high spirits and the judge being sensible, it's also about the mother being a blithering idiot and the daughter having her spirit crushed), but its still a great book.
There was more to him than that. Mayer was a genius filmmaker in his way - not a writer, director or even producer, but a great manager of MGM at it's peak. He set up a small, struggling operation, merged it with others and created a colossus which led Hollywood. It was an amazing achievement, even by the mogul standards, and deserves to be acknowledged and praised.
A great "what if" of Hollywood history: what if Mayer hadn't quit MGM in a huff in 1951 over fighting with Dore Schary? Could he have kept the studio up with the times? Who knows... MGM struggled before Schary's arrival when it was just Mayer. But Mayer had management genius that eluded Schary, and his taste was in greater line with that of the American public than Schary - for instance, The Great Caruso was a Mayer pet project. And that Andy Hardy type wholesome picture continued to be very popular on TV (Father Knows Best, etc) - I think Mayer could have come up with great TV ideas.
Schary gets a fair bollocking in this book, a little unfairly, I think: Schary was no Mayer, or Thalberg, and in hindsight was the wrong person to run MGM; he should have joined them as a unit producer, where he could have concentrated on turning out film noirs and hard hitting dramas, instead of expanding into areas where he had no idea, like musicals, comedies and discovering and dealing with stars (all the things Mayer was good at in other words, and which made MGM). But he was a talented man and one of the few moguls who had a decent career after being a mogul.
Anyway Schary is only one character in this book. There's plenty of others, notably his duelling daughters Edie and Irene (who would have been a great movie producer but instead worked on the stage), his poor first wife who was dumped and basically driven ga ga, a nice enough second wife (Mayer had a mid life crisis), the enigmatic Thalberg, the feuding Nick Schenck, the movie stars who were forever traipsing into Mayer's office with their problems (Greer Garson and Jeannette MacDonald could wrap him around their little finger, he was distant from Clark Gable, liked Kate Hepburn's class, didn't know what on earth to do with Judy Garland, dealt with Van Johnson's homosexuality in a matter of fact "fixer" way).
It's all deftly handled by Eyman who combines scholarship with entertaining gossip. He probably over-quotes Esther Williams and doesn't get into the dark side of the MGM vision (eg in the Andy Hardy films, it's not just about Andy's high spirits and the judge being sensible, it's also about the mother being a blithering idiot and the daughter having her spirit crushed), but its still a great book.
Book review - "Paul Newman" by Shawn Levy
Was there a luckier film star than Paul Newman? Born to a reasonably well off family in Cleveland (dad ran a successful sports store); he was genetically blessed with his looks and metabolism; he kept all his hair whereas other males in his family went bald; dad was a bit distant but taught him a good work ethic, joined the navy during the war but didn't really see hard service (he was on a crew to a pilot who got an earache one day meaning Newman missed a devastating kamikaze attack) and meant he could afford to attend college where he developed an interest in acting; he arrived in New York in 1952 just as live TV was booming and Broadway was peaking, so there was plenty of work around... and within two years was starring in a Hollywood blockbuster; he was a good looking masculine guy at a time when Hollywood was looking for such actors (the established Hollywood stars were aging and the studios weren't developing talent the same way); he inherited several roles meant for James Dean; he met and married his soulmate, who happened to be one of the most talented actresses of her generation; his passion for making tomato sauce led to a multi million dollar business; a passion for alcohol and partying (he's an alcoholic basically, which was news to me) was always managed to be kept under control.
There was tragedy and loss along the way - he had to leave his wife and kids to marry that soulmate, Joanne Woodward; a son died of a drug overdose; he cheated in the early 70s (I had no idea of this). But on the whole it was a remarkable run of luck. To his credit, Newman's always acknowledged this, working very hard, consistently seeking out the best material (support actors, writers, directors), always pushing himself into new areas (directing, producing, racing), returning to the stage as often as possible, being politically involved, having a sense of humour about himself, getting heavily involved in charity (he gives away a lot), trying to keep the size of his head under control, working at his craft.
As a result he enjoyed a remarkable career and remained one of the most highly regarded, loved and respected stars of all time. He took so many chances and risks - I'd forgotten just how many flops he'd made - but he always manged to come up with a hit in time to maintain his fame.
Levy has done an excellent job of research and writing, full of top notch analysis of Newman's performances and persona in particular. However as the book went on something kept nagging at me and eventually I figured out what it was: I found Newman, for all his fine qualities, irritating. The beer, the boorishness, the practical jokes and hamburgers and being a regular guy and into the Actors Studio. Sometimes his performances grate on me too with their 60s knowingness. Maybe I'm simply just not a fan. Not Levy's fault's he's done a great job, just how I feel.
There was tragedy and loss along the way - he had to leave his wife and kids to marry that soulmate, Joanne Woodward; a son died of a drug overdose; he cheated in the early 70s (I had no idea of this). But on the whole it was a remarkable run of luck. To his credit, Newman's always acknowledged this, working very hard, consistently seeking out the best material (support actors, writers, directors), always pushing himself into new areas (directing, producing, racing), returning to the stage as often as possible, being politically involved, having a sense of humour about himself, getting heavily involved in charity (he gives away a lot), trying to keep the size of his head under control, working at his craft.
As a result he enjoyed a remarkable career and remained one of the most highly regarded, loved and respected stars of all time. He took so many chances and risks - I'd forgotten just how many flops he'd made - but he always manged to come up with a hit in time to maintain his fame.
Levy has done an excellent job of research and writing, full of top notch analysis of Newman's performances and persona in particular. However as the book went on something kept nagging at me and eventually I figured out what it was: I found Newman, for all his fine qualities, irritating. The beer, the boorishness, the practical jokes and hamburgers and being a regular guy and into the Actors Studio. Sometimes his performances grate on me too with their 60s knowingness. Maybe I'm simply just not a fan. Not Levy's fault's he's done a great job, just how I feel.
Movie review - "Birdemic: Shock and Terror" (2010) *
It's pleasing to know that Hollywood can still turn out "so bad it's good" classics up there with Robot Monster or Glen or Glenda? This is one of a recent rash of crap cult classics which also include The Room and has to be seen to be believed.
It's consistently bad, with some new craziness thrown in every couple of minutes to keep us interested: the awful cinematography, the dialogue, the Victoria's Secret model heroine (actually not a bad performance) looking for love and her seemingly gold digging mother, the endless monologues, the software programming background of the hero, the performance of the hero, the special effects, the structure pinched off The Birds, Tippi Hedren's third billed role (she's not in the film it's just a clip of her is seen), the global warming propaganda that happens at the end, action sequences of characters with guns shooting at birds, bad music.
Really, it's terrific fun, and a great night out.
It's consistently bad, with some new craziness thrown in every couple of minutes to keep us interested: the awful cinematography, the dialogue, the Victoria's Secret model heroine (actually not a bad performance) looking for love and her seemingly gold digging mother, the endless monologues, the software programming background of the hero, the performance of the hero, the special effects, the structure pinched off The Birds, Tippi Hedren's third billed role (she's not in the film it's just a clip of her is seen), the global warming propaganda that happens at the end, action sequences of characters with guns shooting at birds, bad music.
Really, it's terrific fun, and a great night out.
Movie review - "The Way Ahead" (1944) *****
I was looking forward to seeing this because of its high reputation and wasn't disappointed - an excellent, moving account of a platoon of conscripts in Britain during the early (ish) days of the war. It feels so real and authentic - the un-selfconscious "jolly good" dialogue, the faces of real people (yes, played by actors, I know, but they seem real), the semi-documentary presentation (differing attitudes towards the war, training, leave, concerts, drills).
David Niven gained stardom in Hollywood as a Ronald Colman substitute, a sort of dashing young man - but in English films in the 40s he mostly played a nice young man, someone who had seen death and destruction (his character was at Dunkirk) but who is trying to move past it and do the best he can. It's one of his best performances.
There's an excellent cast of support actors: James Donald (as a torn, resentful soldier), Stanley Holloway (cheerful old sort), James Lauren, Peter Ustinov (funny as an Arab). There are some effective action sequences - a fire on board ship, the final attack on a bunker - but you're more likely to remember the quiet moments: farewell at a train station, visiting a little old lady's house to have a bath. I could have done without the Greek chorus of old soldiers but it's extremely effective propaganda.
David Niven gained stardom in Hollywood as a Ronald Colman substitute, a sort of dashing young man - but in English films in the 40s he mostly played a nice young man, someone who had seen death and destruction (his character was at Dunkirk) but who is trying to move past it and do the best he can. It's one of his best performances.
There's an excellent cast of support actors: James Donald (as a torn, resentful soldier), Stanley Holloway (cheerful old sort), James Lauren, Peter Ustinov (funny as an Arab). There are some effective action sequences - a fire on board ship, the final attack on a bunker - but you're more likely to remember the quiet moments: farewell at a train station, visiting a little old lady's house to have a bath. I could have done without the Greek chorus of old soldiers but it's extremely effective propaganda.
Book review - "England's Last War Against France: Fighting Vichy 1940-42" by Colin Smith (2009)
Would any country other than France have the gall (pardon the pun) to name so many things in Paris after people and battles from World War Two, as if they'd actually pulled their weight during that conflict? I grew up on movie and TV tales of the French resistance, the brave Free French, Vichy soldiers who inevitably changed sides... we didn't get a lot of Laval, and Darlan, and the anti-Semites and Anglophobes who made things so difficult for the Allies.
This book tells, and tells well, an important story of two year plus period where Vichy France were not only of poor help to the Allies, but a borderline ally of the fascists. British (and Australian and American and others) troops clashed with the French often, notably in Somalia, Dakar, Morocco, Lebannon, Syria, Algeria, Iran and Madagascar. These are not campaigns particularly well known, despite the casualties involved: Australia's participation in the Syria-Lebannon campaign was one of our biggest fights in the war but it was completely played down at the time out of political necessity (no one wanted to advertise the fact we were fighting our former allies). That attitude seems to have lingered - no one really wants to talk about it.
Well Smith did, and he's researched the book superbly. He's not anti French either, frequently praising French generals and leaders (the Vichy defence of Syria and Lebannon was particularly inspired, apparently) and taking umbrage with Allied Franco-phobia.
However reading the book I felt angry because so many of the fighting was pointless. The French seemed to display far more enthusiasm defending their colonies from the Allies than their homeland from the Germans. So many of the battles weren't justified on any political or military grounds, it was just for "honour". When going from the battle I kept thinking "if only" and "why couldn't they have sucked it up". I can kind of understand why Darlan didn't flee with the French Navy and continue the fight against the Nazis - his country was occupied - but the others: the stupid French submarine officer who defended his sub against occupying Britishers, killing some of them (the officer lived, and was unrepentant); the skillful defence of Syria against the Allies so that.... what? the Nazis would have better access to the Middle East?; the pointless defiance of the French admiral at Mers-el-Kebir; the equally pointless resistance in Madagascar. So often people died because the French couldn't suck it up and remember what the war was about.
Plenty of incidents and anecdotes; I could have done with more maps though (there were plenty, but so many exotic places and names I needed more). An excellent book.
This book tells, and tells well, an important story of two year plus period where Vichy France were not only of poor help to the Allies, but a borderline ally of the fascists. British (and Australian and American and others) troops clashed with the French often, notably in Somalia, Dakar, Morocco, Lebannon, Syria, Algeria, Iran and Madagascar. These are not campaigns particularly well known, despite the casualties involved: Australia's participation in the Syria-Lebannon campaign was one of our biggest fights in the war but it was completely played down at the time out of political necessity (no one wanted to advertise the fact we were fighting our former allies). That attitude seems to have lingered - no one really wants to talk about it.
Well Smith did, and he's researched the book superbly. He's not anti French either, frequently praising French generals and leaders (the Vichy defence of Syria and Lebannon was particularly inspired, apparently) and taking umbrage with Allied Franco-phobia.
However reading the book I felt angry because so many of the fighting was pointless. The French seemed to display far more enthusiasm defending their colonies from the Allies than their homeland from the Germans. So many of the battles weren't justified on any political or military grounds, it was just for "honour". When going from the battle I kept thinking "if only" and "why couldn't they have sucked it up". I can kind of understand why Darlan didn't flee with the French Navy and continue the fight against the Nazis - his country was occupied - but the others: the stupid French submarine officer who defended his sub against occupying Britishers, killing some of them (the officer lived, and was unrepentant); the skillful defence of Syria against the Allies so that.... what? the Nazis would have better access to the Middle East?; the pointless defiance of the French admiral at Mers-el-Kebir; the equally pointless resistance in Madagascar. So often people died because the French couldn't suck it up and remember what the war was about.
Plenty of incidents and anecdotes; I could have done with more maps though (there were plenty, but so many exotic places and names I needed more). An excellent book.
Movie review - "This is Spinal Tap" (1984) ****1/2
A wonderful movie made with such love, skill and affection that it has aged extremely well. I've seen it a bunch of times now and always enjoy it - the quality of the performers (who can sing and play instruments), the accuracy of the world it conveys, the beautiful satire, the genuine emotional depth of it (its genuinely sad when Nigel and David break up and moving when they reunite). I even found some of the songs catchy.
Some minor criticisms: the characters of the main three players are so strong they completely overpower the other two in the band (I always forget the keyboardist character); I would have liked to have seen an interview with one of the groupies who are always with the band, and maybe a bit more characterisation in Justine, the Yoko Ono figure (she's completely without any virtues).
But there's no denying it's quality and it's status as a cult classic is well deserved.
Some minor criticisms: the characters of the main three players are so strong they completely overpower the other two in the band (I always forget the keyboardist character); I would have liked to have seen an interview with one of the groupies who are always with the band, and maybe a bit more characterisation in Justine, the Yoko Ono figure (she's completely without any virtues).
But there's no denying it's quality and it's status as a cult classic is well deserved.
Book review - "Sam Fuller: Film is a Battleground" by Lee Server (1994)
Server later wrote some superb bios of Bob Mitchum and Ava Gardner which is why I sought this out. It's not an in-depth study, consisting of a long interview with Fuller, a list of unmade projects, and a list of interviews with his various collaborators. The latter is particularly interesting - Richard Widmark didn't seem to be much of a fan - and Fuller is always lively company. An entertaining volume, no way near exhaustive (there's no mention of the debacle making Riata which became The Deadly Trackers, for instance), and not as good as Server's better known bios, but a enjoyable read.
Movie review - "Naughty Marietta" (1935) ***
Historically important in its own way because it was the first of the Jeanette MacDonald-Nelson Eddy teamings which earnt so much money for MGM. And while they're a team that's easy to mock there's no denying they work well together and had genuine chemistry, no doubt assisted by the fact they would occasionally sleep with each other in real life.
This has a solid, simple story which serves its purpose of going from song to song with a little romance: Jeannette runs away from France to escape a loveless marriage, pretends to be a maid and winds up in New Orleans (when it was still owned by France) where she is romanced by a rough soldier played by Nelson.
There are plenty of tunes including the undeniably catchy and much spoofed "Ah Sweet Mystery of Life", plus an excellent line up of support characters: Douglas Dumbrille (an imposing villain, as the person insisting Jeanette get married), Frank Morgan and Elsa Lanchester. Maybe I'm being over generous with the three star ratings I'm giving this films, but they achieve perfectly what they set out to do.
This has a solid, simple story which serves its purpose of going from song to song with a little romance: Jeannette runs away from France to escape a loveless marriage, pretends to be a maid and winds up in New Orleans (when it was still owned by France) where she is romanced by a rough soldier played by Nelson.
There are plenty of tunes including the undeniably catchy and much spoofed "Ah Sweet Mystery of Life", plus an excellent line up of support characters: Douglas Dumbrille (an imposing villain, as the person insisting Jeanette get married), Frank Morgan and Elsa Lanchester. Maybe I'm being over generous with the three star ratings I'm giving this films, but they achieve perfectly what they set out to do.
Movie review - "Rose Marie" (1936) ***
I didn't mind this Nelson Eddy-Jeanette MacDonald starrer, once I got used to the ridiculous of the concept. It helped this had a solid simple basic story full of conflict: opera star Jeanette heads off for the Canadian wilds in order to rescue her criminal brother and is accompanied by mountie Nelson Eddy.
Most of the running time consists of a road trip (well, mountain trip) between Eddy and MacDonald, leading to expected adventures: falling in the river, singing, squabbling, fish out of water comedy, him handing her clothes in her tent when she's had a bath and is flashing bare shoulders (an unexpectedly hot scene).
Eddy is - surprise - stiff and awkward but that suits playing a mountie and he teams well with Jeanette. (They apparently had an affair during production; if so it paid off because there's an earthiness to their chemistry.) There's a lot of warbling including the famous "Indian Love Call'.
James Stewart steals the film in a brief appearance as MacDonald's brother. His plot is resolved very abruptly - only two scenes really. But I guess what the public wanted was Jeanette and Nelson and that Canadian alpine scenery.
Most of the running time consists of a road trip (well, mountain trip) between Eddy and MacDonald, leading to expected adventures: falling in the river, singing, squabbling, fish out of water comedy, him handing her clothes in her tent when she's had a bath and is flashing bare shoulders (an unexpectedly hot scene).
Eddy is - surprise - stiff and awkward but that suits playing a mountie and he teams well with Jeanette. (They apparently had an affair during production; if so it paid off because there's an earthiness to their chemistry.) There's a lot of warbling including the famous "Indian Love Call'.
James Stewart steals the film in a brief appearance as MacDonald's brother. His plot is resolved very abruptly - only two scenes really. But I guess what the public wanted was Jeanette and Nelson and that Canadian alpine scenery.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Movie review - "The Vagabond King" (1956) **
MGM had some success with Mario Lanza opposite Kathryn Grayson in the late 1940s, so Paramount were presumably hoping some of that Grayson touch might rub off on Oreste, their new singing sensation who stars in this movie. It didn't work - the film was a flop - but then this is an idiotic musical.
It's set in the middle ages, with costumes from fairie tale theatre, and silly dances and lots of opera. The story is based on an old stage musical about Francois Villion, king of the beggars, appointed king for a day by Louis XI. He falls in love with a high born girl (Grayson) despite being loved by a tavern wench (Rita Moreno).
There's an awful lot of plot and action for a musical - it could work without it (and has - the original play was done a bunch of times). There's various escapes and action driven by characters making unrealistic wagers and bits (eg king for a day, people announcing their own death sentence) which smells like old Broadway, and songs and dances, and Leslie Nielsen as a Burgundian.
I was never sure why we were supposed to like Oreste, or hope he hooks up with Grayson when Moreno was so much braver and better suited (but in line with snobbishness of the time, Moreno cops a spear while Grayson gets the guy); it was also unclear which side was the goodies as Louis XI was such an obviously treacherous bloke but the Burgundians were little better, and no one was looking out much for the people.
Grayson doesn't look that interested in what's going on, or have much chemistry with her male lead, who looks like an idiot. Moreno gives it her all as does Walter Hampden as the king.
It's set in the middle ages, with costumes from fairie tale theatre, and silly dances and lots of opera. The story is based on an old stage musical about Francois Villion, king of the beggars, appointed king for a day by Louis XI. He falls in love with a high born girl (Grayson) despite being loved by a tavern wench (Rita Moreno).
There's an awful lot of plot and action for a musical - it could work without it (and has - the original play was done a bunch of times). There's various escapes and action driven by characters making unrealistic wagers and bits (eg king for a day, people announcing their own death sentence) which smells like old Broadway, and songs and dances, and Leslie Nielsen as a Burgundian.
I was never sure why we were supposed to like Oreste, or hope he hooks up with Grayson when Moreno was so much braver and better suited (but in line with snobbishness of the time, Moreno cops a spear while Grayson gets the guy); it was also unclear which side was the goodies as Louis XI was such an obviously treacherous bloke but the Burgundians were little better, and no one was looking out much for the people.
Grayson doesn't look that interested in what's going on, or have much chemistry with her male lead, who looks like an idiot. Moreno gives it her all as does Walter Hampden as the king.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Movie review - "That Hagen Girl" (1947) *1/2
During Ronald Reagan's presidency there were several movies that kept getting brought up again and again because of comic/novelty value: King's Row (considered his best work, where he lost his legs), Bedtime for Bonzo (playing opposite a chimp), Knute Rockne All American (the "win one for he Gipper" speech), Hellcats of the Navy (his one effort co-starring Nancy) and this.... where he co-starred with Shirley Temple. It's also got the yuck factor of a plot concerning small town rumours that Temple is Reagan's illegitimate daughter, yet they fall in love.
So this is melodrama - meaning at least there's novelty seeing Shirley Temple in a non-comedy. There's also Miss Moneypenny, Lois Maxwell, looking very young and beautiful as a teacher at Temple's school; a young and handsome Rory Calhoun, as Shirley's age appropriate love interest who winds up dumping her for someone of his own social class. I got a kick out of seeing Shirley do some Shakespeare, playing Juliet in Romeo and Juliet.
In fact the first two-thirds of this movie was enjoyable, which focuses on Shirley Temple and her stresses about her illegitimacy in town - it's vivid (if a tad cliched) depiction of a gossipy, small-minded town with its busy bodies and skeletons in the cupboard. I don't know much about Peter Godfrey, the director, but his handling was vigorous and strong, and it spanks along at a fair pace.
But then Ronald Reagan comes into the story (I was surprised how late his entrance is) and takes over and everything gets a bit yuck. Shirley confronts him, asks if he's her father, he says no, then they start hanging out together, along with Reagan's age appropriate girlfriend Lois Maxwell. There is gossip, Calhoun marries someone else other than Shirley, the town discover Ronnie is involved in the nuclear program and is a bit of a hero and start to love him, then Lois Maxwell leaves town telling him that he and Temple actually love each other.
Shirley has been expelled from school, and in a rainy, windy, well shot sequence (with the star looking beautiful) she goes to throw herself in the lake before being rescued by Reagan. Reagan then explains the girl the town think was Shirley's illegitimate mother was actually ga-ga and never had a baby - shades of King's Row (a much much times a hundred better film). Reagan teaches Shirley who you are is more important than where you came from and her adopted parents (whose importance is played down in the film - they hardly appear on screen) did a good job. Then Reagan and Shirley leave together on the train... it's hinted, though not clear, that they're a couple now.
This is too well directed to be a complete bomb but it's still pretty yuck. Poor Shirley Temple, she appeared in so many duds as a star around this time!
So this is melodrama - meaning at least there's novelty seeing Shirley Temple in a non-comedy. There's also Miss Moneypenny, Lois Maxwell, looking very young and beautiful as a teacher at Temple's school; a young and handsome Rory Calhoun, as Shirley's age appropriate love interest who winds up dumping her for someone of his own social class. I got a kick out of seeing Shirley do some Shakespeare, playing Juliet in Romeo and Juliet.
In fact the first two-thirds of this movie was enjoyable, which focuses on Shirley Temple and her stresses about her illegitimacy in town - it's vivid (if a tad cliched) depiction of a gossipy, small-minded town with its busy bodies and skeletons in the cupboard. I don't know much about Peter Godfrey, the director, but his handling was vigorous and strong, and it spanks along at a fair pace.
But then Ronald Reagan comes into the story (I was surprised how late his entrance is) and takes over and everything gets a bit yuck. Shirley confronts him, asks if he's her father, he says no, then they start hanging out together, along with Reagan's age appropriate girlfriend Lois Maxwell. There is gossip, Calhoun marries someone else other than Shirley, the town discover Ronnie is involved in the nuclear program and is a bit of a hero and start to love him, then Lois Maxwell leaves town telling him that he and Temple actually love each other.
Shirley has been expelled from school, and in a rainy, windy, well shot sequence (with the star looking beautiful) she goes to throw herself in the lake before being rescued by Reagan. Reagan then explains the girl the town think was Shirley's illegitimate mother was actually ga-ga and never had a baby - shades of King's Row (a much much times a hundred better film). Reagan teaches Shirley who you are is more important than where you came from and her adopted parents (whose importance is played down in the film - they hardly appear on screen) did a good job. Then Reagan and Shirley leave together on the train... it's hinted, though not clear, that they're a couple now.
This is too well directed to be a complete bomb but it's still pretty yuck. Poor Shirley Temple, she appeared in so many duds as a star around this time!
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Movie review - "Adventure in Baltimore" (1949) **
There's nothing wrong with trying to use movies to push a social message but I don't think Dore Schary every quite learned how to make them fun while doing so - which is why his output is strong in the areas of war films and film noir, but less so when it comes to comedies. Which is what this movie is meant to be (I think) when it's not pushing its message, but any sort of lightness seems to be beyond the filmmakers.
It's set in 1905 and has Shirley Temple as the daughter of a pastor (God was always popping up in Schary movies) who is expelled from her school for having feisty opinions: suggesting the amount of petticoats that are worn be reduced, and wanting to draw nude forms. She returns home, whereupon it becomes unclear what exactly the story is: I expected Shirley to fight for women's rights but she doesn't really, only joining in a suffragette march at the end to help some women under attack; she does write a pro-emancipation speech but never delivers it herself - she gives it to John Agar to speak on her behalf.
They throw in this plot about her being an artist - she sells paintings, gets Agar to pose for her which causes a scandal.... but then there's no more of that. So the female angle is unfocused, as is Shirley's character. It's probably best to approach it as standard small town Americana in the early 20th century with a vaguely "woman's right" slant.
At least that's a point of novelty, which the film needs. It doesn't do comedy, romance or charm particularly well. Shirley Temple and John Agar were a couple in real life but don't have much chemistry here; partly their fault, particularly the stiff and awkward Agar (this worked in action films, wasn't so good in rom coms), but also because their banter isn't well written. See what I mean about it not being fun? For instance when Agar gives a pro-suffragette speech that Temple is written it's meant to be funny, I think, but it just isn't because Agar is a lazy idiot for not writing is own speech and... it's also just not funny.
Also not fun is the fact Robert Young is a pastor and wants to be a bishop - I've no doubt pastors are ambitious to be bishops but its yuck watching him have these dreams on screen when, say, a blustery businessman whose business dealings are threatened by a suffragette daughter would be more entertaining. They try to jazz up Young's character by having him box and having wanted to be a ballroom dancer but he is basically a pompous bore, giving a long monologue about tolerance at the end that we're all supposed to admire. Dore Schary later had a major hard on for Spencer Tracy when he was at MGM and Young's performance seems to channel Tracy at times (even the fact he's a boxing pastor is reminiscent of Tracy in San Francisco).
Maybe if this was in colour and had songs it would have been more enjoyable, but I simply think the filmmakers were unable to pull off this sort of combination of social message, Americana and charm..
It's set in 1905 and has Shirley Temple as the daughter of a pastor (God was always popping up in Schary movies) who is expelled from her school for having feisty opinions: suggesting the amount of petticoats that are worn be reduced, and wanting to draw nude forms. She returns home, whereupon it becomes unclear what exactly the story is: I expected Shirley to fight for women's rights but she doesn't really, only joining in a suffragette march at the end to help some women under attack; she does write a pro-emancipation speech but never delivers it herself - she gives it to John Agar to speak on her behalf.
They throw in this plot about her being an artist - she sells paintings, gets Agar to pose for her which causes a scandal.... but then there's no more of that. So the female angle is unfocused, as is Shirley's character. It's probably best to approach it as standard small town Americana in the early 20th century with a vaguely "woman's right" slant.
At least that's a point of novelty, which the film needs. It doesn't do comedy, romance or charm particularly well. Shirley Temple and John Agar were a couple in real life but don't have much chemistry here; partly their fault, particularly the stiff and awkward Agar (this worked in action films, wasn't so good in rom coms), but also because their banter isn't well written. See what I mean about it not being fun? For instance when Agar gives a pro-suffragette speech that Temple is written it's meant to be funny, I think, but it just isn't because Agar is a lazy idiot for not writing is own speech and... it's also just not funny.
Also not fun is the fact Robert Young is a pastor and wants to be a bishop - I've no doubt pastors are ambitious to be bishops but its yuck watching him have these dreams on screen when, say, a blustery businessman whose business dealings are threatened by a suffragette daughter would be more entertaining. They try to jazz up Young's character by having him box and having wanted to be a ballroom dancer but he is basically a pompous bore, giving a long monologue about tolerance at the end that we're all supposed to admire. Dore Schary later had a major hard on for Spencer Tracy when he was at MGM and Young's performance seems to channel Tracy at times (even the fact he's a boxing pastor is reminiscent of Tracy in San Francisco).
Maybe if this was in colour and had songs it would have been more enjoyable, but I simply think the filmmakers were unable to pull off this sort of combination of social message, Americana and charm..
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Movie review - "Honeymoon" (1947) *1/2
Shirley Temple had a big hit in 1947 acting for RKO in a romantic comedy opposite an older male star... but that was Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer. This one, despite having all those elements, was a massive flop. Of course Bachelor also had Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and a decent script whereas this has Franchot Tone, Guy Madison and a silly script.
Tone actually gives a solid, professional performance as the American consulate in Mexico who gets roped in by Shirley Temple in her efforts to marry GI Guy Madison. Shirley does "indicate" occasionally and at times I felt that her lack of professional training (i.e. having to learn her trade on the job) hampered her performances at this stage of her career, but she's spirited and cute - it's not her fault the film is very good. That's due to the writers, who don't give her a character (is she madcap? a dreamer? a fantasist?) and never come up with a story that builds: it's just silly one thing after another stopping her and Madison from getting married (and no decent thing like a villainous gangster or an ex, but more things like a missing form, or indequate witnesses, or red tape).
And because Guy Madison is so awkward on screen, he and Shirley have no chemistry (they're also kept apart on screen for long periods of time... she easily shares more screen time with Franchot Tone), so you don't care if they get together or not. So much of the story is undeveloped - Tone has a financee who gets vaguely jealous but that's about it; his in laws hang around but don't do much; it's set in Mexico, but Mexico here just looks like an ugly backlot. In the last ten minutes Temple gets knocked on the head and momentarily thinks she's in love with Tone and you go "now that's a story" but it's in the last ten minutes and gets resolved very quickly.
It's the sort of story which might have been okay had they shot it in Technicolor and made it a musical, but they haven't so t drags. There's also an awful men-reasserting-themselves-over-spirited-women ending where Madison asserts himself over his "troublesome" fiancee by taking her up a diving board and throwing her into a pool fully clothed to teach her a lesson. No doubt this sort of thing was happening all over America at this time ("quit your job sweetheart, I'm back now") but it doesn't make it fun to watch.
Tone actually gives a solid, professional performance as the American consulate in Mexico who gets roped in by Shirley Temple in her efforts to marry GI Guy Madison. Shirley does "indicate" occasionally and at times I felt that her lack of professional training (i.e. having to learn her trade on the job) hampered her performances at this stage of her career, but she's spirited and cute - it's not her fault the film is very good. That's due to the writers, who don't give her a character (is she madcap? a dreamer? a fantasist?) and never come up with a story that builds: it's just silly one thing after another stopping her and Madison from getting married (and no decent thing like a villainous gangster or an ex, but more things like a missing form, or indequate witnesses, or red tape).
And because Guy Madison is so awkward on screen, he and Shirley have no chemistry (they're also kept apart on screen for long periods of time... she easily shares more screen time with Franchot Tone), so you don't care if they get together or not. So much of the story is undeveloped - Tone has a financee who gets vaguely jealous but that's about it; his in laws hang around but don't do much; it's set in Mexico, but Mexico here just looks like an ugly backlot. In the last ten minutes Temple gets knocked on the head and momentarily thinks she's in love with Tone and you go "now that's a story" but it's in the last ten minutes and gets resolved very quickly.
It's the sort of story which might have been okay had they shot it in Technicolor and made it a musical, but they haven't so t drags. There's also an awful men-reasserting-themselves-over-spirited-women ending where Madison asserts himself over his "troublesome" fiancee by taking her up a diving board and throwing her into a pool fully clothed to teach her a lesson. No doubt this sort of thing was happening all over America at this time ("quit your job sweetheart, I'm back now") but it doesn't make it fun to watch.
Movie review - "Almost a Bride" (1949) **
Also known as A Kiss for Corliss this was a sequel to Kiss and Tell a popular late period Shirley Temple ("late period" being when she was a teenager). She's boy-crazy and madcap yet again, getting a crush on a handsome man about town (David Niven) and making up fantasies about the two of them going out in her diary. Eventually this leaks and her parents and boyfriend think it's real.
That's not a bad concept for a comedy - indeed, Shirley had just enjoyed a big hit with that plotline in The Bachelor and the Bobbysoxer, although in that case there was another subplot around involving Myrna Loy in her sister. The most successful late period Shirley Temples didn't rely on her to drive the action but this one does - and not for the best.
The script is the undoing of this one. I went with the set up of why Shirley initially lied - it's simple sitcom stuff - but as the complications began to mount (Niven becoming involved, the press publicising it, a marriage ceremony starting) it simply didn't make sense for Shirley to keep lying, or for Niven to start and keep lying. At any stage of the action all she or he had to say "I made it up" and it would be over. So there were no real dramatic stakes.
Another problem is Shirley Temple was 21 by this stage and looks too old to be playing someone who's meant to be a teenager. By now she was an attractive young woman who could easily play a newlywed; maybe this is through my later generation eyes but I struggled to buy her as someone who would be so immature.
In a way it's a shame because her performance is fine - bright and sparky and all that - and there is decent support, including David Niven doing his David Niven thing. He's not in the movie that much, only really in the last third, and his career was in real trouble at this stage, but few people did light comedy better and he seems completely comfortable.
That's not a bad concept for a comedy - indeed, Shirley had just enjoyed a big hit with that plotline in The Bachelor and the Bobbysoxer, although in that case there was another subplot around involving Myrna Loy in her sister. The most successful late period Shirley Temples didn't rely on her to drive the action but this one does - and not for the best.
The script is the undoing of this one. I went with the set up of why Shirley initially lied - it's simple sitcom stuff - but as the complications began to mount (Niven becoming involved, the press publicising it, a marriage ceremony starting) it simply didn't make sense for Shirley to keep lying, or for Niven to start and keep lying. At any stage of the action all she or he had to say "I made it up" and it would be over. So there were no real dramatic stakes.
Another problem is Shirley Temple was 21 by this stage and looks too old to be playing someone who's meant to be a teenager. By now she was an attractive young woman who could easily play a newlywed; maybe this is through my later generation eyes but I struggled to buy her as someone who would be so immature.
In a way it's a shame because her performance is fine - bright and sparky and all that - and there is decent support, including David Niven doing his David Niven thing. He's not in the movie that much, only really in the last third, and his career was in real trouble at this stage, but few people did light comedy better and he seems completely comfortable.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Movie review - "Serenade" (1956) ***
After becoming a movie star at MGM with very MGM-type fare (gloriously inaccurate biopics, broad service comedies, sappy musicals) Mario Lanza then moved over to Warner Bros and made a very Warner Bros-type melodrama, the sort of thing which might have starred Ida Lupino in the 40s. It's jam packed full of story - indeed, it's got more plot than the rest of Lanza's fims together.
Lanza plays a nice grape picker with a glorious voice who is discovered by an impresario (Vincent Price) and his friend (Joan Fontaine). He trains up and becomes a star but gets brought into Fontaine's sexual thrall and goes ga-ga when she cheats on him. He runs away to Mexico and rediscovers his love for singing via a beautiful bullfighter's daughter. He returns to American with his new girl in tow but finds Fontaine wants him back... or at least to taunt him. There's a bull fight re-enactment at a party and someone gets hit by a bus.
It's all deliriously silly and over the top and quite fun if you're in the mood... and are willing to believe there's something about Fontaine that can make not just Lanza but a prize fighter go wild with jealousy and freak out when she doesn't turn up to watch people perform. (In the original novel she was a man who Lanza's character had an affair with). Plenty of great opera songs and Lanza gives, on the whole a strong performance - the guy could act as well as sing.
Lanza plays a nice grape picker with a glorious voice who is discovered by an impresario (Vincent Price) and his friend (Joan Fontaine). He trains up and becomes a star but gets brought into Fontaine's sexual thrall and goes ga-ga when she cheats on him. He runs away to Mexico and rediscovers his love for singing via a beautiful bullfighter's daughter. He returns to American with his new girl in tow but finds Fontaine wants him back... or at least to taunt him. There's a bull fight re-enactment at a party and someone gets hit by a bus.
It's all deliriously silly and over the top and quite fun if you're in the mood... and are willing to believe there's something about Fontaine that can make not just Lanza but a prize fighter go wild with jealousy and freak out when she doesn't turn up to watch people perform. (In the original novel she was a man who Lanza's character had an affair with). Plenty of great opera songs and Lanza gives, on the whole a strong performance - the guy could act as well as sing.
TV review - "New Girl: Season 2" (2013) ****
This show really is hitting its stride with some marvellous writing - funny, emotional, true. The actors are all in terrific form and they've figured out what to do with Winston. Hannah Simone who plays Cece has a rather limited range as an actor which becomes more obvious in this season, but everyone else is strong. The relationship between Nick and Jess is extremely well done although I'm nervous about what it will mean for the show long term.
Movie review - "Call of the Wild" (1935) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Jack London's classic tale about Buck the wonder dog has been completely turned on its head and become a Clark Gable vehicle - and you know something? It actually works. Gable is completely at home playing Jack Thornton in the snowy north with Jack Oakie doing some amiable sidekick stuff and Loretta Young being beautiful in her fur.
Gable and Young make a strong couple - him manly and she lady like - and of course there's the extra appeal knowing that in real life they did have an affair resulting in Young having a kid out of wedlock and covering it up as an "adopted" child. (Though apparently sexual assault was involved.)
I enjoyed Reginald Owen as the villain - a seemingly pompous English idiot who is actually quite scary - and the stuff from the novel that is used (eg Buck winning a dog sled competition) is effective.
The movie does lose points by having Gable so passive at the end when the baddies come in and try to take his gold (they leave him and Young there and only get their just desserts by capsizing in the canoe and drowning... which feels like deux ex machina cheating). But I liked it that Young's husband turns up at the end meaning she and Gable can't be together, which gives the movie romantic poignancy. It's good solid Clarke Gable-William Wellman stuff that holds up well.
Book review - "Roger Corman: Blood-Sucking Vampires, Flesh-Eating Cockroaches, and Driller Killers" by Beverly Gray (2013)
I've read pretty much every English language book on Roger Corman going and have enjoyed them all, but this one is easily the best. It's far and away the best researched and also the only one that takes a critical view. I love Roger Corman, Corman movies and books about both, but they all tend to tell the same stories and repeat the same myths. This one actually looks behind the myths and tries to get a better sense of the man, and as a result the most believable, complex picture of Corman is conveyed.
A lot of the myth was true of course - the drive, frugality, genuine directing talent, incredible ability to adapt and survive in a changing filmmaking environment (he continues to so do today even in the world of downloads and internet), an eye for young talent, awesome contribution to cinematic history, creation of genres, promotion of female filmmakers.
But there is other stuff here which has gotten far less publicity, although it feels true (and human, as opposed to the superman figure of the authorised books): a constant negative depiction of women in his recent movies (strippers and rape victims); Corman's health issues (back troubles and so on) and family crises (his daughters were good girls but his two sons would raise hell and wound up suing their parents to get information about the family trust); a sometimes difficult relationship with his wife; the drastic drop in quality in his cinematic output ever since the early 80s; lack of sense of humour (the greatness of his early comedies all came from Charles Griffith, with whom he had a major falling out); a sense of cheapness so ingrained it seems pathological, the manipulation of underlings, poor treatment of employees (firing them before the holidays so they don't get holiday pay), temper tantrums, homophobia.
Gray does have affection and admiration for Corman, often talks about his good points, and has spoken to lots of people about him, but there were times I thought she was a little unfair. For instance, can you really blame Corman for being stingy when so many people he'd done business with/competed with over the years have gone bust (eg AIP, Dimension, the people who bought New World off him). He really is last man standing from that era. Also some of the incidents that Gray refers to involving Roger and Julie Corman happened in her time when working for them - to then write about it without knowing she was going to use it for a future book feels like she's betraying their confidence or something.
I did only feel the above things once or twice. This is on the whole an excellent, enthralling work, about the only Corman book which places as much emphasis on his output from the 1980s to 2010s as his earlier stuff. By all means also read his book and the one by Ed Naha but if you're into Corman this is a must.
A lot of the myth was true of course - the drive, frugality, genuine directing talent, incredible ability to adapt and survive in a changing filmmaking environment (he continues to so do today even in the world of downloads and internet), an eye for young talent, awesome contribution to cinematic history, creation of genres, promotion of female filmmakers.
But there is other stuff here which has gotten far less publicity, although it feels true (and human, as opposed to the superman figure of the authorised books): a constant negative depiction of women in his recent movies (strippers and rape victims); Corman's health issues (back troubles and so on) and family crises (his daughters were good girls but his two sons would raise hell and wound up suing their parents to get information about the family trust); a sometimes difficult relationship with his wife; the drastic drop in quality in his cinematic output ever since the early 80s; lack of sense of humour (the greatness of his early comedies all came from Charles Griffith, with whom he had a major falling out); a sense of cheapness so ingrained it seems pathological, the manipulation of underlings, poor treatment of employees (firing them before the holidays so they don't get holiday pay), temper tantrums, homophobia.
Gray does have affection and admiration for Corman, often talks about his good points, and has spoken to lots of people about him, but there were times I thought she was a little unfair. For instance, can you really blame Corman for being stingy when so many people he'd done business with/competed with over the years have gone bust (eg AIP, Dimension, the people who bought New World off him). He really is last man standing from that era. Also some of the incidents that Gray refers to involving Roger and Julie Corman happened in her time when working for them - to then write about it without knowing she was going to use it for a future book feels like she's betraying their confidence or something.
I did only feel the above things once or twice. This is on the whole an excellent, enthralling work, about the only Corman book which places as much emphasis on his output from the 1980s to 2010s as his earlier stuff. By all means also read his book and the one by Ed Naha but if you're into Corman this is a must.
Movie review - "Miss Annie Rooney" (1942) *1/2
Someone ought to do a PhD or something on the role of Shirley Temple in helping develop the image of the American teenager - while we mainly associate teenagers in from the 1950s onwards, during the 1940s she personified the dreamy, boy crazy jitterbugger.... the short of girl who would swoon over Van Johnson and Frank Sinatra during the war.
Her best known performances in this mode were in Since You Went Away, I'll Be Seeing You and The Bachelor and the Bobbysoxer - but this really was the first of her teen efforts, as she gets her first proper kiss. This had been a big deal for Deanna Durbin in First Love and no doubt Edward Small, a producer who signed Temple for this film off the back of her flop effort in Kathleen, was hoping for a similar sort of splash. As insurance he threw in Shirley's old co star Guy Kibee to play gramps and used an old faithful story - young Irish girl being raised by widowed dad and grandad falls for a rich boy whose parents don't like her on principle. But it flopped.
Part of the reason, I think, is age. She was around 14 when she made this, and comes across very young - a real bobbysoxer. And all her friends and love interest seem young, too - her car crazy poor boyfriend and the new rich one in particular seem to be acting like they're in Bugsy Malone when they are driving around in cars. There was a line where one of the boys says he's sixteen but they all seem so juvenile there's no stakes.
But the biggest problem with this film isn't Shirl (there's nothing wrong with her performance by the way) it's the character of Shirley's dad, played by William Gargan - he's an irresponsible idiot, chasing mad dreams, making stupid financial decisions ("yeah yeah buy the dress, sky's the limit"), crashing a party his daughter's attending so he can push his rubber, stupidly sticking to his guns about not taking a good job so he can chase his dream.... and the film redeems him with this ridiculous deux ex machina where he becomes a millionaire overnight. It's offensive, dumb, unbelievable and painful to watch.
The dreadful script sets up that the movie is going to be about Shirley romancing rich boy Dickie Moore (the first screen kiss is a peck on the cheek) but then the last half hour or so completely forgets this and becomes about dad and rubber. Characters keep saying the word "rubber" again and again and it drove me nuts and Shirley Temple has every right to be annoyed she was cast in this.
Her best known performances in this mode were in Since You Went Away, I'll Be Seeing You and The Bachelor and the Bobbysoxer - but this really was the first of her teen efforts, as she gets her first proper kiss. This had been a big deal for Deanna Durbin in First Love and no doubt Edward Small, a producer who signed Temple for this film off the back of her flop effort in Kathleen, was hoping for a similar sort of splash. As insurance he threw in Shirley's old co star Guy Kibee to play gramps and used an old faithful story - young Irish girl being raised by widowed dad and grandad falls for a rich boy whose parents don't like her on principle. But it flopped.
Part of the reason, I think, is age. She was around 14 when she made this, and comes across very young - a real bobbysoxer. And all her friends and love interest seem young, too - her car crazy poor boyfriend and the new rich one in particular seem to be acting like they're in Bugsy Malone when they are driving around in cars. There was a line where one of the boys says he's sixteen but they all seem so juvenile there's no stakes.
But the biggest problem with this film isn't Shirl (there's nothing wrong with her performance by the way) it's the character of Shirley's dad, played by William Gargan - he's an irresponsible idiot, chasing mad dreams, making stupid financial decisions ("yeah yeah buy the dress, sky's the limit"), crashing a party his daughter's attending so he can push his rubber, stupidly sticking to his guns about not taking a good job so he can chase his dream.... and the film redeems him with this ridiculous deux ex machina where he becomes a millionaire overnight. It's offensive, dumb, unbelievable and painful to watch.
The dreadful script sets up that the movie is going to be about Shirley romancing rich boy Dickie Moore (the first screen kiss is a peck on the cheek) but then the last half hour or so completely forgets this and becomes about dad and rubber. Characters keep saying the word "rubber" again and again and it drove me nuts and Shirley Temple has every right to be annoyed she was cast in this.
Movie review - "Roadhouse" (1989) **
This has become a camp classic, with its high concept (an action film centering around a bouncer), late 80s fashion (mullets, high pants), 80s action tropes (women who strip for no good reason, smoking, best friends who die at the end of Act Two), Patrick Swayze in the lead role and delirious leaps of logic (where are the police)?
But you know something? The idea of updating the Western to nightclubs is a solid one - there is something very satisfactory about a bouncer coming in to town to clean things up. The scriptwriter (s?) make a mistake by not having Swayze either own the bar himself or have more a of connection with the owner - he's just this random guy (played by Kevin Tighe, an actor who normally plays villains). But Kelly Lynch is very beautiful and Sam Elliott and Ben Gazzara provide entertainingly campy support as chief friend and foe respectively. And I enjoyed the novelty of Jeff Healey popping up in quite a large role as the local singer at the bar and Swayze does great in the fight scenes.
This should have been better - the flaws in the script could have easily been fixed (eg cover the complete absence of police by establishing that they've been bought off by Gazzara, giving Swayze more of a stake in the business, varying the good townsfolk so that they're not all old white men who look like they'd be members of the Ku Klux Klan). But they haven't been so the movie is full of hilarious moments. Its silly, stupid and good fun.
NB A melancholy note - Swayze is in terrific shape but he's sucking down a cigarette almost every scene. You should have given them up, Swayze!
But you know something? The idea of updating the Western to nightclubs is a solid one - there is something very satisfactory about a bouncer coming in to town to clean things up. The scriptwriter (s?) make a mistake by not having Swayze either own the bar himself or have more a of connection with the owner - he's just this random guy (played by Kevin Tighe, an actor who normally plays villains). But Kelly Lynch is very beautiful and Sam Elliott and Ben Gazzara provide entertainingly campy support as chief friend and foe respectively. And I enjoyed the novelty of Jeff Healey popping up in quite a large role as the local singer at the bar and Swayze does great in the fight scenes.
This should have been better - the flaws in the script could have easily been fixed (eg cover the complete absence of police by establishing that they've been bought off by Gazzara, giving Swayze more of a stake in the business, varying the good townsfolk so that they're not all old white men who look like they'd be members of the Ku Klux Klan). But they haven't been so the movie is full of hilarious moments. Its silly, stupid and good fun.
NB A melancholy note - Swayze is in terrific shape but he's sucking down a cigarette almost every scene. You should have given them up, Swayze!
Monday, January 13, 2014
Movie review - "Your Cheatin' Heart" (1964) **1/2
Like a lot of old time movie fans I've got a residual affection for George Hamilton - he seems like such an engaging con man, so apparently honest in his pursuit of a tan, blondes and the finer things in life, plus he gave a great performance in Love at First Bite. So I'd love to report that he knocks this film - probably his one big "serious" role, playing Hank Williams - out of the park. But he doesn't, not really.
Oh he's not that bad and in some moments quite effective but he's not very good either. He's never convincing as a star, singer, writer or doomed person. Admittedly he's not helped by the slack direction or poor script, which consists of a lot of drunken acting and squabbles with his wife, played without much flair by Susan Oliver.
Maybe I'm just not into country music that much, or maybe it's the subject matter. Hank Williams was a great singer-songwriter and died at 29 so no doubt the movie makers thought "great - a natural subject for a film". But as depicted here he's such a douche, crapping on, boozing, and fighting with his pushy wife who just seems to want him to make money. The material defeats support players like Red Buttons and Arthur O'Connell (who made a career out of supporting 50s/60s teen heart-throbs - he also did stints with Elvis, Fabian and Pat O'Boone).
There are some good bits, though - like the songs sung by Hank Williams Jnr and the finale where the audience is told of Hank Williams' death.
Oh he's not that bad and in some moments quite effective but he's not very good either. He's never convincing as a star, singer, writer or doomed person. Admittedly he's not helped by the slack direction or poor script, which consists of a lot of drunken acting and squabbles with his wife, played without much flair by Susan Oliver.
Maybe I'm just not into country music that much, or maybe it's the subject matter. Hank Williams was a great singer-songwriter and died at 29 so no doubt the movie makers thought "great - a natural subject for a film". But as depicted here he's such a douche, crapping on, boozing, and fighting with his pushy wife who just seems to want him to make money. The material defeats support players like Red Buttons and Arthur O'Connell (who made a career out of supporting 50s/60s teen heart-throbs - he also did stints with Elvis, Fabian and Pat O'Boone).
There are some good bits, though - like the songs sung by Hank Williams Jnr and the finale where the audience is told of Hank Williams' death.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Movie review - "Because You're Mine" (1952) **1/2
Years before Elvis Presley was inducted to the army at the height of his fame comes this tale of a famous opera singer (Mario Lanza) who is drafted at the height of his fame. Service comedy hijinks ensue... presumably this was an attempt to expand Lanza's appeal, make him a more regular guy.
Most of the "plot" that follows involves Lanza pretending to romance the sister of his opera crazy sergeant (James Whitmore) so he can get more leave to go into town and make recordings to keep his career going. Which isn't a bad concept for a comedy - the only thing is, this film muffs it by having Whitmore suggest Lanza hang out with his sister to further his sister's singing career, and he's the one who tells Lanza to go on leave, so when the "deception" is uncovered (via stock character - Lanza's slutty ex) it's not much of a deception.
Still there are plenty of songs if you're into opera and its amusing to see Lanza's weight vary so wildly from shot to shot. Lanza has a mother who he adores, so the fingerprints of Louis B Mayer are all over this... yet it also has a touch of the Dore Schary's: the presence in the cast of Schary favourite, James Whitmore (a poor man's Spencer Tracy - he's a good actor but this would have worked with an actual pure comic in the role), and a much lower budget (fewer opera re-enactments, lots of cheap service comedy). There's a little bit of singing and dancing from other soldiers which feels thrown in as an afterthought. Not bad; fairly average stuff really but Lanza fans will find much to enjoy.
Most of the "plot" that follows involves Lanza pretending to romance the sister of his opera crazy sergeant (James Whitmore) so he can get more leave to go into town and make recordings to keep his career going. Which isn't a bad concept for a comedy - the only thing is, this film muffs it by having Whitmore suggest Lanza hang out with his sister to further his sister's singing career, and he's the one who tells Lanza to go on leave, so when the "deception" is uncovered (via stock character - Lanza's slutty ex) it's not much of a deception.
Still there are plenty of songs if you're into opera and its amusing to see Lanza's weight vary so wildly from shot to shot. Lanza has a mother who he adores, so the fingerprints of Louis B Mayer are all over this... yet it also has a touch of the Dore Schary's: the presence in the cast of Schary favourite, James Whitmore (a poor man's Spencer Tracy - he's a good actor but this would have worked with an actual pure comic in the role), and a much lower budget (fewer opera re-enactments, lots of cheap service comedy). There's a little bit of singing and dancing from other soldiers which feels thrown in as an afterthought. Not bad; fairly average stuff really but Lanza fans will find much to enjoy.
Movie review - "The Toast of New Orleans" (1950) **1/2
Mario Lanza's second movie has the benefit of David Niven playing third lead (after co-star Kathryn Grayson). This was a difficult time in Niven's career: he'd lost his first wife in an accident, had appeared in two expensive British flops (Bonnie Prince Charlie and The Elusive Pimpernel), was co-starring with Shirley Temple, and didn't seem to be able to find a hit to save his life... he didn't really come back until The Moon is Blue in 1953.
Nonetheless he gives his usual professional performance in a thankless role, a theatre impresario who, along with his top singer Kathryn Grayson, discovers singing fisherman Lanza down at the docks and determines to make him a star. Grayson is pretty and sings nicely, with her famously covered-up-by-MGM-chest, but both her and Niven are overshone by Lanza who is terrific. Okay he's not Clark Gable but he's full of bounce and energy and is remarkably relaxed for someone with limited acting experience - a tribute to the MGM training system (and Lanza's own talent). It helps that he has a definite character to play - cocky, earthy, unpretentious fisherman who goes on a real emotional journey.
The first half of this movie is the most enjoyable, with some elaborate production numbers on the docks of New Orleans as recreated in MGM land, with singing and dancing fisher folk, and then amusing antics with Niven and Grayson attempting a Pygmalion like transformation on rough Lanza (J Carroll Naish joins in the fun as Lanza's mate).
Things go wonky with the Lanza-Grayson romance - their bickering and sparring at first seems to have point but after a while their lack of chemistry got on my nerves. I was also confused of when Grayson liked him and why. And there's a yucky ending where Lanza learns the way to woo Grayson is to be tough and rough her up - so he manhandles her during a performance of Madame Butterfly. And it works. So there you go.
Plenty of singing and it was that great Joe Pasternak colour and look from MGM, which was taken for granted at the time but is now so much more appreciated because it'll never come back.
Nonetheless he gives his usual professional performance in a thankless role, a theatre impresario who, along with his top singer Kathryn Grayson, discovers singing fisherman Lanza down at the docks and determines to make him a star. Grayson is pretty and sings nicely, with her famously covered-up-by-MGM-chest, but both her and Niven are overshone by Lanza who is terrific. Okay he's not Clark Gable but he's full of bounce and energy and is remarkably relaxed for someone with limited acting experience - a tribute to the MGM training system (and Lanza's own talent). It helps that he has a definite character to play - cocky, earthy, unpretentious fisherman who goes on a real emotional journey.
The first half of this movie is the most enjoyable, with some elaborate production numbers on the docks of New Orleans as recreated in MGM land, with singing and dancing fisher folk, and then amusing antics with Niven and Grayson attempting a Pygmalion like transformation on rough Lanza (J Carroll Naish joins in the fun as Lanza's mate).
Things go wonky with the Lanza-Grayson romance - their bickering and sparring at first seems to have point but after a while their lack of chemistry got on my nerves. I was also confused of when Grayson liked him and why. And there's a yucky ending where Lanza learns the way to woo Grayson is to be tough and rough her up - so he manhandles her during a performance of Madame Butterfly. And it works. So there you go.
Plenty of singing and it was that great Joe Pasternak colour and look from MGM, which was taken for granted at the time but is now so much more appreciated because it'll never come back.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Movie review - "For the First Time" (1959) ***
Mario Lanza's last movie enjoyed a reasonable success at the box office and will be enjoyed by his fans. It starts on a high note, with that glorious late 50s Technicolour and pleasing Italian locations - and Mario, while a bit heavy, gives an accomplished performance. He was very comfortable in front of the camera by this stage, and is full of presence, charisma bounce and humour - if he'd lived longer and had wanted to branch out, I could see him easily becoming a character actor, playing lively uncles, gangsters, tycoons and the like. It helps that he plays a character close to how one imagines the real Mario was (through a late Hollywood filter, of course) - temperamental, loving, a bit of an ego, running around with flash women (Zsa Zsa Gabor), worried about his weight.
Where the movie runs into trouble is with its story: Lanza falls in love with a deaf girl (Johanna Van Kozian) who can't hear his voice. And that's about it, really: her family are concerned, he tries to raise money for an operation, squabbles with his manager. There's about the same amount of story as The Great Caruso, and like that movie the action time is continually interrupted with slabs of Lanza performing famous opera pieces.
If you can accept the movie on that level you'll have a good time. Lanza's voice remains (to my untrained ears at least) powerful. I wish Von Kozian had been a little less irritating.
Where the movie runs into trouble is with its story: Lanza falls in love with a deaf girl (Johanna Van Kozian) who can't hear his voice. And that's about it, really: her family are concerned, he tries to raise money for an operation, squabbles with his manager. There's about the same amount of story as The Great Caruso, and like that movie the action time is continually interrupted with slabs of Lanza performing famous opera pieces.
If you can accept the movie on that level you'll have a good time. Lanza's voice remains (to my untrained ears at least) powerful. I wish Von Kozian had been a little less irritating.
Movie review - "Malice" (1993) *** (warning: spoilers)
The sort of thriller they used to make a lot in the 90s which seem to have gone out of fashion now. Watching this I kept thinking "they're so young" - there's a super slim and darkly sexy Alex Baldwin (far more comfortably cast here as a egomaniacal bastard than he would be in his nice guy hero roles), emerging Hollywood name Nicole Kidman, baby faced Gwyneth Paltrow and still-looks-the-same Bill Pullman.
This goes on for too long, you'll probably pick the twists early, and it's been supplanted a lot by TV and other thrillers but it remains a decent thriller, with a strong story (even if there's an entirely jettison-able serial killer subplot). Nicker's American accent slips a bit but she is sexy and makes an ideal femme fetale, Bill Pullman does his dull hero thing well, Baldwin is outstanding, particularly kicking goals with his "I am God" speech which smacks of Aaron Sorkin, who worked on the script.
It's a shame there aren't more verbal flourishes in the script like this - but I guess Sorkin hadn't reached rock star status yet. It's also a shame Baldwin and Sorkin haven't combined more because Baldwin does his dialogue so well.
Excellent support cast including George C Scott, Anne Bancroft, Peter Gallaher and Bebe Neuwirth. Apparently William Goldman worked on the script.
Movie review - "Becket" (1964) ***
Two great roisterers of British acting from the 50s and 60s and 70s, Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton, give this potent star power - both have incredible voices but differing styles which mean they team well: glowering, watchful soulful Burton vs the more flamboyant, heightened campness of O'Toole.
This story is a bromance which goes sour - Henry II (O'Toole) and Becket (Burton) are in love with each other, so much so that Henry appoints Becket to be Archbishop of Canterbury. However Becket then actually finds God (Burton handles this difficult transformation well and I went with it - the soulful thing) and causes trouble: Henry reacts like a wounded lover, and indeed complains that Becket never loved Henry the way Henry loved him. To establish everyone's hetero credentials there are a few scenes of Henry bonking women (although they always seem to be women that Becket wants to bonk) but when you've got a film where the women are either sex objects or shrews (eg Henry's mother and wife) and there's a beautiful young man who adores Becket, then it's hard not to read gay subtext into the action.
A lot of scenes feel repetitive and O'Toole and Burton revert to their stock tricks (yelling and barking). But at heart it has a strong story with a solid emotional dilemma and there's good support from John Gielgud.
This story is a bromance which goes sour - Henry II (O'Toole) and Becket (Burton) are in love with each other, so much so that Henry appoints Becket to be Archbishop of Canterbury. However Becket then actually finds God (Burton handles this difficult transformation well and I went with it - the soulful thing) and causes trouble: Henry reacts like a wounded lover, and indeed complains that Becket never loved Henry the way Henry loved him. To establish everyone's hetero credentials there are a few scenes of Henry bonking women (although they always seem to be women that Becket wants to bonk) but when you've got a film where the women are either sex objects or shrews (eg Henry's mother and wife) and there's a beautiful young man who adores Becket, then it's hard not to read gay subtext into the action.
A lot of scenes feel repetitive and O'Toole and Burton revert to their stock tricks (yelling and barking). But at heart it has a strong story with a solid emotional dilemma and there's good support from John Gielgud.
Thursday, January 09, 2014
Movie review - "Pirates of Monterey" (1947) ** (warning: spoilers)
Despite the title, this isn't a pirate movie but rather a Western - set in Mexican California of the early 19th century, it's about the brave Mexicans fighting off the forces of "the royalists". I had to look it up: presumably this was in the Mexican War of Independence, or shortly thereafter. So this has novelty of historical background.
But just so it's not too Mexican, the hero is an American - tough Rod Cameron who is running guns to the Mexicans. He rescues a beautiful noblewoman, Maria Montez, and falls in love with her en route to Santa Barbara - only to find out, wouldn't you know it, she's engaged to his best friend, Phillip Reed. For a while it seemed that Montez might be in cahoots with the royalists, which would have given this movie a bit of kick, but no, she's pure and innocent.
Reed is a really wet drip of an actor, smiling goofily; Montez is appalling, not engaged in any of the drama and pure amateur-hour. Rod Cameron is a tough two fisted hero but he doesn't have much chemistry with Montez, and I was missing Jon Hall.
The support cast is better, though - Gilbert Roland is a strong villain (despite a laughable monologue of confession at the end) and the always reliable Gale Sondegaard is on hand in her The Mark of Zorro type part as a flirtatious noblewoman.
Beautiful Universal Technicolour carries this for a while and the basic story is okay, but there's too much poor acting and handling. And worse, no pirates!
Movie review - "Paradise" (1982) *1/2
The preview of this Blue Lagoon rip off could be seen constantly at the beginning of many a VHS rental back in the 80s - I assume it enjoyed a lot of popularity, with plenty of shots of its two handsome young stars, Willie Aames (fresh off Eight is Enough) and Phoebe Cates (pre- Fast Times at Ridgemount High but well known as a model) cavorting in an oasis.
Both of them look like they've stepped straight from the mall but it's actually set in 1823 (!). I think Cates at least is supposed to be English - she's a rich girl with a servant, he's the son of a missionary and his wife, who travel from Baghdad to Damascus. They are attacked on the way by men led by a sheik who wants Cates for his harem. In the 1920s the sheik would be the hero, and Cates would fall in love with him, but for now he's the baddy.
There's a comic chimp, Cates having nude showers, a mocked up house and which is a bit too close to The Blue Lagoon (as are the costumes Cates and Aames wear), the sheik rocks up at convenient points to be a threat (to kill off adults, to prompt Cates to sleep with Aames, to give the movie a climax).... although it's laughably easy for Aames to get rid of him at the end by firing off an arrow (what happened to his men?)
There's plenty of nudity - a body double was hired to add it for Cates, but she provides enough herself - and some Blue Lagoon style love-making. The locations are pleasing, the acting uniformly bad but Cates is pretty at least.
Both of them look like they've stepped straight from the mall but it's actually set in 1823 (!). I think Cates at least is supposed to be English - she's a rich girl with a servant, he's the son of a missionary and his wife, who travel from Baghdad to Damascus. They are attacked on the way by men led by a sheik who wants Cates for his harem. In the 1920s the sheik would be the hero, and Cates would fall in love with him, but for now he's the baddy.
There's a comic chimp, Cates having nude showers, a mocked up house and which is a bit too close to The Blue Lagoon (as are the costumes Cates and Aames wear), the sheik rocks up at convenient points to be a threat (to kill off adults, to prompt Cates to sleep with Aames, to give the movie a climax).... although it's laughably easy for Aames to get rid of him at the end by firing off an arrow (what happened to his men?)
There's plenty of nudity - a body double was hired to add it for Cates, but she provides enough herself - and some Blue Lagoon style love-making. The locations are pleasing, the acting uniformly bad but Cates is pretty at least.
Movie review - "That Night in Rio" (1941) **
Fun, silly, colourful 20th Century Fox musical which must have seemed just the thing after a hard day at the munition factory. It's set in Rio (well, Fox's Rio - a world of nightcubs and studio apartments) where entertainer Don Ameche is asked to impersonate a rich local (also played by Ameche) - much to the consternation of his girlfriend, Carmen Miranda, and the wife of the real guy, Alice Faye.
The three leads are in fine form, particularly Ameche, who is really the star (I had no idea he had such a good singing voice). Miranda makes a splashy impression, sings lots of songs and has a great old time, but doesn't drive the action. Alice Faye doesn't have much to do - she's passive for most of the running time, constantly playing catch up; she doesn't have many songs or much of a character, either: I got a strong sense of who Miranda was meant to be and the two Ameches, but not her.
The story also drags in the last third, with Ameche hopping from room to room. There's no real stakes in the impersonation because there's no baddie, or urgency; because Faye is married to the rich Ameche, she's not going to genuinely fall in love with the fake Ameche so there is no genuine emotion underpinning things. (It would have been better had Faye and real Ameche not been married and so she falls in love with fake Ameche). At the end the two couples who begin the film wind up with each other - and you're left thinking "so what"?
Still, plenty of colour and songs plus SZ Sakall, Leo Carillo and other character actors doing their thing. Maria Montez appears briefly.
The three leads are in fine form, particularly Ameche, who is really the star (I had no idea he had such a good singing voice). Miranda makes a splashy impression, sings lots of songs and has a great old time, but doesn't drive the action. Alice Faye doesn't have much to do - she's passive for most of the running time, constantly playing catch up; she doesn't have many songs or much of a character, either: I got a strong sense of who Miranda was meant to be and the two Ameches, but not her.
The story also drags in the last third, with Ameche hopping from room to room. There's no real stakes in the impersonation because there's no baddie, or urgency; because Faye is married to the rich Ameche, she's not going to genuinely fall in love with the fake Ameche so there is no genuine emotion underpinning things. (It would have been better had Faye and real Ameche not been married and so she falls in love with fake Ameche). At the end the two couples who begin the film wind up with each other - and you're left thinking "so what"?
Still, plenty of colour and songs plus SZ Sakall, Leo Carillo and other character actors doing their thing. Maria Montez appears briefly.
Wednesday, January 08, 2014
Movie review - "The Malta Story" (1953) *** (warning: spoilers)
The story of the siege of Malta is one of the great epics of World War Two - the plucky little item that was bombed near constantly, crucial to the victories in North Africa, which came so close on several occasions to being invaded. The Rank organisation pulled their finger out with this tribute, ponying up for some location shooting and not one, not two but three of their biggest box office stars: Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins and Anthony Steel.
Guinness I guess is the lead - he has the biggest part, and a romance. To be honest, I found him a little creepy - he's a sort of TE Lawrence type, an airy-fairy archeologist turned pilot who is trapped in Malta and gets in trouble with Hawkins because he likes to do his own thing on missions. He falls in love with a local girl, Muriel Pavlow... but because this is the early 1950s you know that means one of them will have to die.
Pavlow's "Maltese" family (mum is Flora Robson, brother is Nigel Stock) provides some more human drama when her brother is captured as a spy - he talks about Malta being his country not Britain's, so at least this film plays lip service to colonialism. Hawkins doesn't get the chance to do much apart from glower and worry about it all, which he does very well it must be admitted.
Steel has the smallest role of the three, getting to do some light romancing of Renee Asherson (both white people, so they can both live), but mostly walking around looking handsome and letting other actors carry the drama - that's how British audiences seemed to enjoy him most.
This gets off to a tremendous start with Guinness becoming stranded, and the island under constant attack, and documentary footage well integrated. It works less well in the second half as the movie tries to take on too much - being about the Allied fightback, which is too large to convey and has to be done via reportage - instead of concentrating on human drama. However Guinness' death, done in long shot, is very well done, and it's one of the better British war films from this period.
Guinness I guess is the lead - he has the biggest part, and a romance. To be honest, I found him a little creepy - he's a sort of TE Lawrence type, an airy-fairy archeologist turned pilot who is trapped in Malta and gets in trouble with Hawkins because he likes to do his own thing on missions. He falls in love with a local girl, Muriel Pavlow... but because this is the early 1950s you know that means one of them will have to die.
Pavlow's "Maltese" family (mum is Flora Robson, brother is Nigel Stock) provides some more human drama when her brother is captured as a spy - he talks about Malta being his country not Britain's, so at least this film plays lip service to colonialism. Hawkins doesn't get the chance to do much apart from glower and worry about it all, which he does very well it must be admitted.
Steel has the smallest role of the three, getting to do some light romancing of Renee Asherson (both white people, so they can both live), but mostly walking around looking handsome and letting other actors carry the drama - that's how British audiences seemed to enjoy him most.
This gets off to a tremendous start with Guinness becoming stranded, and the island under constant attack, and documentary footage well integrated. It works less well in the second half as the movie tries to take on too much - being about the Allied fightback, which is too large to convey and has to be done via reportage - instead of concentrating on human drama. However Guinness' death, done in long shot, is very well done, and it's one of the better British war films from this period.
Movie review - "Kiss Me Deadly" (1955) ****
For a while there watching this I was thinking "I reckon this is over-rated, like a lot of movies the French really get into" - but as the quirky bits kept piling up I got more and more into it. It's a film noir/private eye flick like no other, full of weird moments and with an atmosphere that's completely unique.
For starters there's Ralph Meeker's PI hero Mike Hammer - he's huge, like a prop forward, with bulky shoulders and close cropped hair cut; he's also mean, sadistic, selfish, hilariously irresistible to women (seriously - one in particular at a party just comes up and shoves her tongue down his throat), not particularly smart (his secretary does more hard detecting... he gets information mainly by beating people up), dedicated, compulsive.
There's also A.Z. Bezzerides' flowery dialogue with its Sam Fuller-esque feel and characters referencing the classics; not one but two overacting Italian support actors who talk to themselves; Gaby Rodgers' pixie-esque femme fetale (I always forget she's a baddie); the Pandora's box of the mystery brief case with an atomic bomb in it; decent roles for black actors; memorable little bits like the stoned phone operator with her cat, the massive answering machine on Hammer/Meeker's wall, the secretary (Maxine Cooper) doing a ballet work out, a surprisingly large amount of torture (depicted by off screen screams), the credits scrolling backwards.
This was an early Robert Aldrich work and in hindsight some signature elements can be noted - a slap up pre-credit sequence, tough violence, misogynistic characters (men are constantly telling women to shut up or go away), long takes. It's also, like many of his later films, terrific.
For starters there's Ralph Meeker's PI hero Mike Hammer - he's huge, like a prop forward, with bulky shoulders and close cropped hair cut; he's also mean, sadistic, selfish, hilariously irresistible to women (seriously - one in particular at a party just comes up and shoves her tongue down his throat), not particularly smart (his secretary does more hard detecting... he gets information mainly by beating people up), dedicated, compulsive.
There's also A.Z. Bezzerides' flowery dialogue with its Sam Fuller-esque feel and characters referencing the classics; not one but two overacting Italian support actors who talk to themselves; Gaby Rodgers' pixie-esque femme fetale (I always forget she's a baddie); the Pandora's box of the mystery brief case with an atomic bomb in it; decent roles for black actors; memorable little bits like the stoned phone operator with her cat, the massive answering machine on Hammer/Meeker's wall, the secretary (Maxine Cooper) doing a ballet work out, a surprisingly large amount of torture (depicted by off screen screams), the credits scrolling backwards.
This was an early Robert Aldrich work and in hindsight some signature elements can be noted - a slap up pre-credit sequence, tough violence, misogynistic characters (men are constantly telling women to shut up or go away), long takes. It's also, like many of his later films, terrific.
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
Movie review - "Jesus Christ Superstar" (1973) ***
The music remains terrific - I've always loved the album - the locations are fine and I soon got used to the central conceit (i.e. it's about some hippies putting on a show). But the acting is irritatingly bad - Ted Neeley is a passionateless pretty boy Jesus, not believable as the leader of a religious movement; Carl Anderson is okay as Judas (I wished Ben Vereen could have done it); Yvonne Elliman is cute and has a nice voice as Mary but her playing of it merely shows up the unfortunate water-carrier-nurse aspects of the role (she doesn't give the sense of being a former prostitute or anything). Barry Dennam though is very good as Pontious Pilate.
Some scintillating moments such as Judas' suicide and the crucifixion and I laughed at the end when the actors hopped on the bus and some lingered and looked over the sunset to get a bit of extra screen time. And the music is fantastic.
Some scintillating moments such as Judas' suicide and the crucifixion and I laughed at the end when the actors hopped on the bus and some lingered and looked over the sunset to get a bit of extra screen time. And the music is fantastic.
Movie review - "San Francisco" (1936) ***1/2
30s MGM at full throttle: San Francisco 1905; lots of extras, costumes and character actors; Clarke Gable punching lots of people out, running a saloon and saying "I don't get this love malarkey... I don't get this opera malarkey... I don't get this God malarkey"; Jeanette MacDonald being virginal yet lusting after Gable in between arias; Spencer Tracy being a priest and punching out Gable when he's not trying to cock-block him; lots of sin and God and singing of opera.
Tracey's role actually isn't very big - very much a support bit - with most of the attention on Gable and MacDonald. MacDonald's an acquired taste - I'm not that familiar with her work yet. Her singing really got on my nerves as did her I'm-a-scared-virgin routine early on which made it seem like Gable was sexually harassing her... but she's great when she's actually hot for Gable and trying to fight her attraction, panting away. I also really liked her singing that song 'San Francisco' on behalf of Gable's saloon at the end over the objections of her fiancee (Jack Holt).
The earthquake finale is very well done (as is the follow up city fire and looting). All the prayer and God at the end was a bit much with Gable praying and MacDonald getting hot for him while watching him. I laughed at how little Holt's mother is about her son's death ("oh well... God's will"). Done with conviction and passion and Gable in great form.
Tracey's role actually isn't very big - very much a support bit - with most of the attention on Gable and MacDonald. MacDonald's an acquired taste - I'm not that familiar with her work yet. Her singing really got on my nerves as did her I'm-a-scared-virgin routine early on which made it seem like Gable was sexually harassing her... but she's great when she's actually hot for Gable and trying to fight her attraction, panting away. I also really liked her singing that song 'San Francisco' on behalf of Gable's saloon at the end over the objections of her fiancee (Jack Holt).
The earthquake finale is very well done (as is the follow up city fire and looting). All the prayer and God at the end was a bit much with Gable praying and MacDonald getting hot for him while watching him. I laughed at how little Holt's mother is about her son's death ("oh well... God's will"). Done with conviction and passion and Gable in great form.
Movie review - "I Know Who Killed Me" (2007) * (warning:spoilers)
A curio of a movie, chiefly of interest because Lindsay Lohan trashes it up in the lead role, but also because of it's way out concept - a writing student (Lohan) is abducted and tortured by a serial killer, turns up in a ditch sometime later... claiming to be a stripper and not the student. What then follows doesn't lack imagination but it does lack logic, common sense and believability - there's long lost twins, stigmata, and angry music teachers.
Lindsay isn't exactly in good form - she's phoning it in a lot of the time, although it is fun to see her do a pole dance and sex scene with a bewildered boyfriend (she seems most relaxed on screen in bed having a cigarette after sex); there's no nudity here, though. She's backed by a surprisingly strong support cast including Julia Ormond and Neal McDonough.
There are also some interesting visual flourishes and use of lighting and at least it's entertainingly insane with its plotting. The torture made me uncomfortable though and meant this wasn't fun to watch all the time.
Lindsay isn't exactly in good form - she's phoning it in a lot of the time, although it is fun to see her do a pole dance and sex scene with a bewildered boyfriend (she seems most relaxed on screen in bed having a cigarette after sex); there's no nudity here, though. She's backed by a surprisingly strong support cast including Julia Ormond and Neal McDonough.
There are also some interesting visual flourishes and use of lighting and at least it's entertainingly insane with its plotting. The torture made me uncomfortable though and meant this wasn't fun to watch all the time.
Wednesday, January 01, 2014
Movie review - "Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol" (1987) **
Creaky as hell but you know something? Watching it at eleven at night it has its charms - the movie just wants to entertain, even if at a moronic level, and I guess I have a nostalgic attachment to the jokes: Tackleberry's violent in-laws, Hooks whimpering then yelling, Jones making noises, Mahoney sexually harassing women, Zed struggling to get out a sentence, Sweetchuck bumbling over things, visits to the Blue Oyster, Callaghan showing off her boobs, Hightower doing nothing much other than be tall, etc etc. They kept repeating those suckers with an intensity that would have put off writers of 70s British sitcoms.
This has perhaps the best cast of the series - in addition to the regulars (Steve Guttenberg, Bubba Smith, Michael Winslow, etc) there's the return of G W Bailey and early appearances from Sharon Stone, David Spade (along with Brian Backer, hilariously miscast as a juvenile delinquent) and Tony Hawk; Corinne Bohrer is very winning as Bobcat Goldthwait's new love interest. That gives it some novelty.
To be honest this is pretty bad, but it's better than the films in the series that followed.
This has perhaps the best cast of the series - in addition to the regulars (Steve Guttenberg, Bubba Smith, Michael Winslow, etc) there's the return of G W Bailey and early appearances from Sharon Stone, David Spade (along with Brian Backer, hilariously miscast as a juvenile delinquent) and Tony Hawk; Corinne Bohrer is very winning as Bobcat Goldthwait's new love interest. That gives it some novelty.
To be honest this is pretty bad, but it's better than the films in the series that followed.
Movie review - "The Guilt Trip" (2012) **
A great title and seemingly can't-miss idea - Barbra Streisand and Seth Rogen as mother and son taking a trip together - becomes dull and uninteresting. You know you're in trouble by the first ten minutes - the characters aren't set up beyond broad stereotypes (pushy Jewish mother! nervous Jewish schleb!) and the set up to the simple story is agonisizing amateurish. Dull and obvious.
Book review - "The Friedkin Connection" by William Friedkin (2013)
How good a director was/is William Friedkin? There was a moment there in the early 70s when he was one of the most sought-after in the business, coming off two big hits. He failed to repeat that success in any way shape or form - he's tried to make tough commercial films again (Sorcerer, To Live and Die in LA and Rules of Engagement were meant for broad audiences) but has failed.
I think part of the reason - and this is hindsight of course - is that he follows his instincts and his instincts are often bad. To his credit Friedkin freely admits this in the book - he turned down a chance to produce Star Wars, returned gifted art works from Basquiat, would have made a number of dumb decisions on both The French Connection and The Exorcist had he not been reigned in by his producers (Phil d'Antonioni who made the former really shot up in my estimation after reading this book).
Still he had passion and drive - as well as a quite amazing ability to get powerful people to sponsor/support him: he was picked up early as a star client by the William Morris Agency, benefited from the patronage of Sidney Korshak, was given some top rate early projects (eg The Night They Raided Minsky's) on the basis of what he admits was an undeserved reputation, had Phillip d'Antonioni champion him for The French Connection for no real god reason, then later in life managed to hook and marry Sherry Lansing, which helped get him big budget studio gigs in the 90s.
And lots of his movies do have energy and definitely move. They're also a really varied, interesting bunch, with some real stinkers (eg Deal of the Century), a lot of flawed cult classics (eg Sorcerer), gutsy play adaptations and in your face gay dramas.
Friedkin is pleasingly candid about his flaws - rampaging ego, megalomaniac tendencies, pushing the boundaries of occupational health and safety, intense passion. He is unfortunately coy about his private life which made his section of Easy Riders, Raging Bulls such fun to read - there is no mention of Kitty Hawks, Jennifer Nairn-Smith, Lesley Ann Downe, Kelly Lange or Jeanne Moreau ("the loves of William Friedkin" could be a book on his own).
Nonetheless this was a highly entertaining, fascinating book. It talks a lot about his two big hits but there's plenty of other stuff in there too - the hey-lets-just-make-it-up shenanigans of Good Times, the struggles of The Boys in the Band, the passion project that was The Birthday Party, the antics of Cruising, rediscovering joy of cinema by working with Tracy Letts. Friedkin seems like a bit of a dick but he has a go, and he's written a good memoir.
I think part of the reason - and this is hindsight of course - is that he follows his instincts and his instincts are often bad. To his credit Friedkin freely admits this in the book - he turned down a chance to produce Star Wars, returned gifted art works from Basquiat, would have made a number of dumb decisions on both The French Connection and The Exorcist had he not been reigned in by his producers (Phil d'Antonioni who made the former really shot up in my estimation after reading this book).
Still he had passion and drive - as well as a quite amazing ability to get powerful people to sponsor/support him: he was picked up early as a star client by the William Morris Agency, benefited from the patronage of Sidney Korshak, was given some top rate early projects (eg The Night They Raided Minsky's) on the basis of what he admits was an undeserved reputation, had Phillip d'Antonioni champion him for The French Connection for no real god reason, then later in life managed to hook and marry Sherry Lansing, which helped get him big budget studio gigs in the 90s.
And lots of his movies do have energy and definitely move. They're also a really varied, interesting bunch, with some real stinkers (eg Deal of the Century), a lot of flawed cult classics (eg Sorcerer), gutsy play adaptations and in your face gay dramas.
Friedkin is pleasingly candid about his flaws - rampaging ego, megalomaniac tendencies, pushing the boundaries of occupational health and safety, intense passion. He is unfortunately coy about his private life which made his section of Easy Riders, Raging Bulls such fun to read - there is no mention of Kitty Hawks, Jennifer Nairn-Smith, Lesley Ann Downe, Kelly Lange or Jeanne Moreau ("the loves of William Friedkin" could be a book on his own).
Nonetheless this was a highly entertaining, fascinating book. It talks a lot about his two big hits but there's plenty of other stuff in there too - the hey-lets-just-make-it-up shenanigans of Good Times, the struggles of The Boys in the Band, the passion project that was The Birthday Party, the antics of Cruising, rediscovering joy of cinema by working with Tracy Letts. Friedkin seems like a bit of a dick but he has a go, and he's written a good memoir.
Movie review - "The Spectacular Now" (2013) ***
A different sort of teen film - it takes teenagers more as they are (i.e. interested in sex, smoking, romance, worried about family and jobs and the future), presenting them in a non-judgemental way. It's beautifully shot and has a really unique feel, with long takes, quasi-rural setting, and scenes which (mostly) don't take the easy way out.
Miles Teller is an engaging lead and Shailene Woodley is sweet as the ugly duckling who falls for him. Actually all the actors are good: Brie Larson as Teller's ex, Kyle Chandler as his dad, the weedy guy who plays his best mate. The one exception was Jennifer Jason Leigh as his mother who has had so much botox or whatever done to her face she was barely recognisable - it's extremely distracting (even if the director doesn't give her a close up).
The other thing that got on my nerves was all the drinking. I don't mind films that show teenagers drink but Teller's character is a functioning alcoholic - he's constantly sipping on booze throughout the film (even at school and work), and does lots of drink driving. I know that's the point of the character but it was hard to watch again and again and again and I wish they'd conveyed it in a different way as it was uncomfortable (in a bad way) to watch.
It ambles a bit, lacks the focus of 500 Days of Summer (by the same screenwriters) and could have done with some more laughs but I liked it.
Miles Teller is an engaging lead and Shailene Woodley is sweet as the ugly duckling who falls for him. Actually all the actors are good: Brie Larson as Teller's ex, Kyle Chandler as his dad, the weedy guy who plays his best mate. The one exception was Jennifer Jason Leigh as his mother who has had so much botox or whatever done to her face she was barely recognisable - it's extremely distracting (even if the director doesn't give her a close up).
The other thing that got on my nerves was all the drinking. I don't mind films that show teenagers drink but Teller's character is a functioning alcoholic - he's constantly sipping on booze throughout the film (even at school and work), and does lots of drink driving. I know that's the point of the character but it was hard to watch again and again and again and I wish they'd conveyed it in a different way as it was uncomfortable (in a bad way) to watch.
It ambles a bit, lacks the focus of 500 Days of Summer (by the same screenwriters) and could have done with some more laughs but I liked it.
Movie review - "Delivery Man" (2013) **1/2
A genuine half good film - not bad, quite endearing, with a top premise and some great moments, but it doesn't come together. It doesn't help that Vince Vaughan, who should have been ideal casting, seems bored and uninterested in the lead, as if he's going through the motions - there's none of that classic spark.
Cobie Smudlers isI completely wasted in her nothing part - her whole relationship with Vaughan felt ill-defined and tacked on (what did they have in common? why were they together? I lost track of when they were going out and when they weren't). Chris Pratt scores some goals as Vaughan's friend but even this felt weak.
I haven't seen the Canadian original but have heard this is close - in which case that was a mistake; this could have done with some good old fashioned "punching up". Subplots come and go - like the money Vaughan owes to bookies, his cop girlfriend, the various children, the basketball team, allusions to Vaughan's past. Support characters feel undeveloped like Vaughan's brothers, and some are totally ignored - like we never see any of the mothers or foster/adoptive fathers - none. There were so many children that I know they couldn't devote much time, but why then so much to the unfunny Viggo (the gag is meant to be he was vegetarian, is that right? That's not worth all the screen time). You wish they'd done stuff like Vaughan seducing one of the mothers, or stopping siblings from hooking up
Still, it's heart was in the right place, it has a positive message of love and kindness, and I really liked the subplot of Vaughan finding out one of his children was severely handicapped.
Cobie Smudlers isI completely wasted in her nothing part - her whole relationship with Vaughan felt ill-defined and tacked on (what did they have in common? why were they together? I lost track of when they were going out and when they weren't). Chris Pratt scores some goals as Vaughan's friend but even this felt weak.
I haven't seen the Canadian original but have heard this is close - in which case that was a mistake; this could have done with some good old fashioned "punching up". Subplots come and go - like the money Vaughan owes to bookies, his cop girlfriend, the various children, the basketball team, allusions to Vaughan's past. Support characters feel undeveloped like Vaughan's brothers, and some are totally ignored - like we never see any of the mothers or foster/adoptive fathers - none. There were so many children that I know they couldn't devote much time, but why then so much to the unfunny Viggo (the gag is meant to be he was vegetarian, is that right? That's not worth all the screen time). You wish they'd done stuff like Vaughan seducing one of the mothers, or stopping siblings from hooking up
Still, it's heart was in the right place, it has a positive message of love and kindness, and I really liked the subplot of Vaughan finding out one of his children was severely handicapped.
Movie review - "Django Unchained" (2012) ****
Having done his re-imaginings of gangster movies, kung fu epics, and WWII guys on a mission flicks, Quentin Tarantino then turned his attention to the Western. He comes at it with a fresh (ish) angle, focusing on slavery - this is really more of a "southern" than a Western, being set in the south before the civil war. Just like Inglorious Basterds was a revenge fantasy for Jews, this is one for blacks, with Jamie Foxx released by bounty hunter Christoph Waltz to go around shooting slave owners.
It's very long, too long really, but there's plenty of interesting action and moments - the only time I really felt it dragged was the last bit when Django is captured and escapes again and in between meets a very fat Quentin in an Australian accent and an over-acting John Jarratt.
It helps that on the journey there are plenty of interesting cameos - Robert Forster, Zoe Bell (covered up), Don Johnson, James Remar, Tom Wopat, Franco Nero, Jonah Hill. I didn't think that much of Foxx's performance - it wasn't bad, just "whatever" - but Waltz is excellent, as is Leo di Caprio and Samuel L Jackson. Those looking for strong females in the vein of Kill Bill probably should try elsewhere - Kerry Washington is very much a damsel in distress and there aren't many other strong female roles either.
It's very long, too long really, but there's plenty of interesting action and moments - the only time I really felt it dragged was the last bit when Django is captured and escapes again and in between meets a very fat Quentin in an Australian accent and an over-acting John Jarratt.
It helps that on the journey there are plenty of interesting cameos - Robert Forster, Zoe Bell (covered up), Don Johnson, James Remar, Tom Wopat, Franco Nero, Jonah Hill. I didn't think that much of Foxx's performance - it wasn't bad, just "whatever" - but Waltz is excellent, as is Leo di Caprio and Samuel L Jackson. Those looking for strong females in the vein of Kill Bill probably should try elsewhere - Kerry Washington is very much a damsel in distress and there aren't many other strong female roles either.
Movie review - "Spaceballs" (1987) **1/2
Mel Brooks once mentioned in an interview that this was one of his most popular movies because it involved a fairtale and a romance. I think this popularity happened more on video and DVD because on initial release it wasn't that huge; I remember watching it when it came out and being underwhelmed, despite being the target market - Flying High had set a new bar for spoofs which this didn't match. Also in a weird way I feel it came along too soon - if it had arrived say a decade later it would have cashed in on the full Gen X nostalgia for the trilogy, whereas in 1987 Star Wars felt a little old hat.
Still, there's lots of fun here, in particular Rick Moranis as Darth Vader, and also Daphne Zuniga is once again a really pretty, winning heroine (ever since re-watching The Sure Thing my appreciation for Zuniga has shot up - she was excellent). John Candy, Joan Rivers and company aren't exactly of the level of Harvey Korman, Madeleine Kahn and co but show a lot of spirit.
Still, there's lots of fun here, in particular Rick Moranis as Darth Vader, and also Daphne Zuniga is once again a really pretty, winning heroine (ever since re-watching The Sure Thing my appreciation for Zuniga has shot up - she was excellent). John Candy, Joan Rivers and company aren't exactly of the level of Harvey Korman, Madeleine Kahn and co but show a lot of spirit.
Movie review - "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" (2013) ***
Sequel to the blockbuster isn't as good as the original, lacking focus and seemingly taking forever to get going, but has some good moments. Jennifer Lawrence remains a strong center for an action film - intelligent, brave, tough, stoic, dealing with all the men who fuss over her (around five in this one, by my count)... although I do admit having only just seen her in American Hustle there were one or two moments where I expected her to go nuts like in that film.
This is overlong, with a very extended first act, and I was impatient to get to the games. Once it did, that wasn't too exciting - they kept stopping the action so people can talk.
But there were effective bits - the death of the old black man, the final bow and arrow bit, the attack of the baboons. And the support cast is of incredible quality (one advantage to comic book movies being the only ones that make money these days is they are full of great actors): Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks, and Stanley Tucci return, with Jena Malone, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright being among the newcomers.
This is overlong, with a very extended first act, and I was impatient to get to the games. Once it did, that wasn't too exciting - they kept stopping the action so people can talk.
But there were effective bits - the death of the old black man, the final bow and arrow bit, the attack of the baboons. And the support cast is of incredible quality (one advantage to comic book movies being the only ones that make money these days is they are full of great actors): Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks, and Stanley Tucci return, with Jena Malone, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright being among the newcomers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)