It looks incredible, with some funky 70s visuals, first rate car race sequences (every one different, the way Ron Howard differentiated his fights in Cinderella Man), is set in a different "world" and has a decent story and thumping Hans Zimmer score.
But Chris Hemsworth is miscast in the lead - he's got the looks and physique, but lacks genuine glamour and charisma; it would be a hard role to cast but it needed someone with a touch of the Errol Flynns (and an English accent which didn't seem to tacked on).
The other big problem is the script - I love Peter Morgan's other work but far too much of it is overwritten with characters spelling out the subtext when it wasn't needed (eg Hemsworths courtship with Olivia Wilde, the final scene between Hemsworth and his rival).
Monday, July 28, 2014
Book review - "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (1999) by JK Rowling
Decent third installment in the series benefits from the addition to the series of Sirius Black, a very solid character. There are also a lot of shenanigans involving animals. Reading these I'm surprised how relatively little Ron and Hermione actually do.
Book review - "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" (2001) by JK Rowling
This was heavy going - it felt badly needed of an edit and while reading it I felt it would never end. The stuff about the Quidditch World Cup is interesting, the Goblet if Fire tasks are dull, as are the digs at the News of the World. However there is a fantastic finale with the revival of Voldermort.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Movie review - "Love in a Goldfish Bowl" (1961) **
Paramount's attempt to jump on the clean teen bandwagon did not result in one of the classics of the era (it's no Gidget, no Beach Party) but is bright enough. Tommy Sands (distracting dyed blonde) and Toby Michaels are two platonic best friends from college who decide to spend the Easter break together at Sands' mother's beach pad, playing house together (because it's 1961 this means she agrees to do all the cooking).
Michaels' character is a little sweetheart; Sands' character is an intellectual, pompous individual who seems very old fashioned in his view of the sexes (expecting Michaels to cook and clean) - and has nil sexual interest in Michaels... at least until Fabian rocks up, as a member of the coast guard. And even then he's more protective in a fatherly way most off the time.
Very possible to do a gay reading of this film, particularly when Fabian brings over a floozy for Sands and he displays no interest in her either. Or maybe that's too limiting: because when Fabian puts the hard word on Michaels she is very coy and not keen at all, despite flirting heavily throughout the movie until then. So maybe it's more accurate to describe this movie as being about two people with low sex drives who find each other; at the end they do kiss, but when they're together at the very end they are chatting away as per normal.
There are some unexpected surprises here: a catchy theme song sung by Sands (written by the team of David and Bacharach), poignancy in the last act where parents Edward Andrews and Jan Sterling realise they've been neglecting their kids. Of the three leads, Michaels (billed as "the new kid" but didn't have much of a career) and Fabian come off best; Sands has the showier role but lacked the chops to pull it off (he's not a believable intellectual). Fabian was still inexperienced but is more comfortable in a straightforward part: all American (Italian-American, rather) coast guard. (He sings a song too.) There's strong veteran support from Andrews, Sterling and John McGiver.
Michaels' character is a little sweetheart; Sands' character is an intellectual, pompous individual who seems very old fashioned in his view of the sexes (expecting Michaels to cook and clean) - and has nil sexual interest in Michaels... at least until Fabian rocks up, as a member of the coast guard. And even then he's more protective in a fatherly way most off the time.
Very possible to do a gay reading of this film, particularly when Fabian brings over a floozy for Sands and he displays no interest in her either. Or maybe that's too limiting: because when Fabian puts the hard word on Michaels she is very coy and not keen at all, despite flirting heavily throughout the movie until then. So maybe it's more accurate to describe this movie as being about two people with low sex drives who find each other; at the end they do kiss, but when they're together at the very end they are chatting away as per normal.
There are some unexpected surprises here: a catchy theme song sung by Sands (written by the team of David and Bacharach), poignancy in the last act where parents Edward Andrews and Jan Sterling realise they've been neglecting their kids. Of the three leads, Michaels (billed as "the new kid" but didn't have much of a career) and Fabian come off best; Sands has the showier role but lacked the chops to pull it off (he's not a believable intellectual). Fabian was still inexperienced but is more comfortable in a straightforward part: all American (Italian-American, rather) coast guard. (He sings a song too.) There's strong veteran support from Andrews, Sterling and John McGiver.
Movie review - "Swing Time" (1936) ***1/2
Some believe this is the best of the Astaire-Rogers musical - I saw it on a double bill with Top Hat and actually preferred that, because it had a stronger story and support cast. Yes, okay, laugh at me enjoying it because of the story, but that's the truth. The plot is convoluted and involves Astaire having to raise $25,000 so his fiancee will agree to marry him; the shenanigans where Fred meets Ginger involving trying to retrieve Fred's lucky penny was confusing and weak. I also found Victor Moore, as Fred's friend irritating - he took forever to spit out his lines.
However Fred and Ginger are in magnificent form; the director was George Stevens, and his influence can be felt on the scenes which seem as though they've had all this work done on them and are full of naturalistic touches and bits of warmth.
There are three classic songs: "The Way You Look Tonight", "Pick Yourself Up" and "A Fine Romance" and some typically brilliant dance numbers.
However Fred and Ginger are in magnificent form; the director was George Stevens, and his influence can be felt on the scenes which seem as though they've had all this work done on them and are full of naturalistic touches and bits of warmth.
There are three classic songs: "The Way You Look Tonight", "Pick Yourself Up" and "A Fine Romance" and some typically brilliant dance numbers.
Movie review - "Top Hat" (1935) ****
The most profitable of the Astaire-Rogers RKO musicals is terrific fun, with a plot that, while admittedly contrived as hell, is very bright and full of good lines. The whole conceit is that Ginger Rogers thinks Fred Astaire is a married noble (Edward Everett Horton) - adding to the complications are Horton's nonsense wife (Helen Broderick, who steals the show) and butler (Eric Blore, who is in fine form too).
Fred looks awkward, sings some classic songs in that weird-but-curiously-engaging voice he has (this one includes the title song and "Cheek to Cheek") and dances sublimely. He works so well with Ginger, who was a warmer personality, better actor, and could match him on the dance floor; though she didn't have his genius, she did have sex appeal - dancing in this movie is the equivalent sex, and makes the emotional stakes clear.
As a piece of drama, the action does drag once Rogers knows Astaire's true identity - at this point I wanted the action to wrap up. Plenty of scintillating dances - but the material and players are strong enough (especially the support cast) that I think this could have worked without it. Not as well, of corse.
Fred looks awkward, sings some classic songs in that weird-but-curiously-engaging voice he has (this one includes the title song and "Cheek to Cheek") and dances sublimely. He works so well with Ginger, who was a warmer personality, better actor, and could match him on the dance floor; though she didn't have his genius, she did have sex appeal - dancing in this movie is the equivalent sex, and makes the emotional stakes clear.
As a piece of drama, the action does drag once Rogers knows Astaire's true identity - at this point I wanted the action to wrap up. Plenty of scintillating dances - but the material and players are strong enough (especially the support cast) that I think this could have worked without it. Not as well, of corse.
Friday, July 25, 2014
Movie review - "Diary of a Madman" (1963) **1/2
Vincent Price's success with the AIP Poe films made it inevitable that other studios would come calling: here is Edward Small's Admiral Pictures, adapting not Poe but Guy de Massaupant, but it's still period horror with some sumptuous photography and art direction (Corman regular Dan Haller) and Price going insane, as he usually did in the Poes.
The plot has Price as French magistrate who gets possessed by an evil spirit. There are some pretty girls and it looks great, with Price ideally cast, but goes on too long and Reginald le Borg isn't as good as that by Roger Corman. Also the fact he's a magistrate and a sculptor feels like two stories uneasily combined.
The plot has Price as French magistrate who gets possessed by an evil spirit. There are some pretty girls and it looks great, with Price ideally cast, but goes on too long and Reginald le Borg isn't as good as that by Roger Corman. Also the fact he's a magistrate and a sculptor feels like two stories uneasily combined.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Movie review - "Gorgo" (1961) **1/2
Impossible to dislike a British Godzilla knock off - a creature is awakened from the sea, gets captured, busts free and goes rampaging through the city. The quality of the cinematography is surprisingly high as are the production values. The casting of former MGM name Bill Travers gives the cast some quality too (although he disappears in the second half of the movie a lot).
The monster is admittedly laughable, but the climax has plenty of explosions, army officers barking orders, extras screaming and monsters knocking over buildings. And I liked the way it's about mum coming to rescue her son. This is good, dumb fun and I'm surprised there's not a bigger cult for it.
The monster is admittedly laughable, but the climax has plenty of explosions, army officers barking orders, extras screaming and monsters knocking over buildings. And I liked the way it's about mum coming to rescue her son. This is good, dumb fun and I'm surprised there's not a bigger cult for it.
Book review - "William Goldman: The Reluctant Storyteller" by Sean Egan (2014)
A frustrating book, especially since Goldman is one of my favourite writers, and there hasn't been an in-depth critical analysis of his work since Richard Andersen's in 1978. Egan puts in all this time and effort into analysing Goldman's novels, short stories and non fiction... but when it comes to the screenplays he goes off the finished film, which is unfair, and criticises the acting and direction, which shouldn't be the scope of this book.
It feels very under-researched - he refers constantly to Goldman's papers at Columbia Uni but doesn't seem to have accessed them, or read early drafts of screenplays, or his unfilmed screenplays and unproduced plays. He's only done a couple of interviews, too, and barely seems to have glanced at any newspaper archives.
It's annoying because what he did find out was fascinating (eg how A Family Affair got produced, John Brady's involvement in Adventures of the Screen Trade) - I just wish he'd put in more effort. And while I appreciate the effort Egan puts into looking at the novels, and some of his criticisms were first rate (eg Goldman's over use of sports metaphors, appreciation for his skill as a journalist), other bits of it seem narky and mean. Of course, this judgement is no doubt influenced by the fact that I disagreed with his criticisms, but too many of them had a touch of the "nyah nyah nyah"s.
I enjoyed it, I'm glad it exists, I just wish the author had put in more effort.
It feels very under-researched - he refers constantly to Goldman's papers at Columbia Uni but doesn't seem to have accessed them, or read early drafts of screenplays, or his unfilmed screenplays and unproduced plays. He's only done a couple of interviews, too, and barely seems to have glanced at any newspaper archives.
It's annoying because what he did find out was fascinating (eg how A Family Affair got produced, John Brady's involvement in Adventures of the Screen Trade) - I just wish he'd put in more effort. And while I appreciate the effort Egan puts into looking at the novels, and some of his criticisms were first rate (eg Goldman's over use of sports metaphors, appreciation for his skill as a journalist), other bits of it seem narky and mean. Of course, this judgement is no doubt influenced by the fact that I disagreed with his criticisms, but too many of them had a touch of the "nyah nyah nyah"s.
I enjoyed it, I'm glad it exists, I just wish the author had put in more effort.
Movie review - "Dark Places" (1973) *
Little known "old dark house" horror flick from the early 70s, with a cast that is way too good for it. Various people try to get their hands on some money at an old estate (which has a shameful lack of decent production value); the novelty of Joan Collins and Christopher Lee as sister and brother is fun for a while, especially with the incestuous longings, but eventually wears off. Robert Hardy is miscast as a leading man, Herbert Lom under-used as a lawyer. Jane Birkin is pretty as a femme fetale and Jean Marsh adds some class as a housekeeper, but both their parts are too small.
It lacks suspense, it's an ugly looking movie (as so many 70s horror flicks were, whereas they weren't in the 60s), it feels as though it's shot like an episode of a crappy 70s TV show, and the script is dumb.
It lacks suspense, it's an ugly looking movie (as so many 70s horror flicks were, whereas they weren't in the 60s), it feels as though it's shot like an episode of a crappy 70s TV show, and the script is dumb.
Movie review - "The Curse of the Fly" (1965) **
Third in The Fly franchise owes more to Jane Eyre than it's two predecessors with a disappointing lack of fly action. It's set in Canada, where a young scientist (okay maybe George Baker isn't that young) comes across a woman in her underwear (Carole Gray). They fall in love and get married - he doesn't tell her he's descended from the family of the original fly, and has relatives who are still performing operations (including Brian Donlevy, acting as if he's drunk most of the time). She doesn't tell him she's been married before and escaped from an insane asylum.
There are a bunch of badly-transported people locked up in various stables and rooms, plus a nasty housekeeper and some murders with an axe. The acting varies wildly - Gray is pretty but not very good, Baker alright, Burt Kwouk pops up in a support role.
Don Sharp's direction gives some occasional flourishes (I enjoyed the opening with Baker running around in her underwear in slow motion, and some of the killings and poking around at nightare effective). But there's only so much he can do with a silly script.
There are a bunch of badly-transported people locked up in various stables and rooms, plus a nasty housekeeper and some murders with an axe. The acting varies wildly - Gray is pretty but not very good, Baker alright, Burt Kwouk pops up in a support role.
Don Sharp's direction gives some occasional flourishes (I enjoyed the opening with Baker running around in her underwear in slow motion, and some of the killings and poking around at nightare effective). But there's only so much he can do with a silly script.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Movie review - "Dear Brigitte" (1965) **
20th Century Fox had a big hit with Mr Hobbs Takes a Vacation and Take Her She's Mine so tried to get lightning to strike for a third time with another family comedy courtesy of Henry Koster and James Stewart. It didn't do as well - something I think partly explained via the premise. While there's universality in the premise of a family going on holiday, or worried that your daughter is getting too racy at college, there's not so much with your young son turning out to be a maths genius. That's the guts of the plot - they pad it out with some extra, dull conflict with arts professor Stewart being concerned that the humanities is being swamped by sciences, and the kid having a crush on Brigitte Bardot.
Fabian is second billed but his role is very small - the boyfriend of Stewart's daughter, whiny Cindy Carol (a one time Gidget), who gets Stewart Jnr (Billy Mumy) to bet at the track.... only he acts as a conduit for another guy so he actually doesn't even have ownership over that plot. His performance is professional and perfectly fine - more so than Carol, or Glynis Johns, whose Englishness jars in an admittedly thankless role (mostly going "there there" to Stewart and making food).
Billy Mumy is outstanding as the kid - this is the second biggest role. (I got the feeling scenes were dropped/cut in favour of Stewart-Mumy stuff eg there's a bit where the two of them go to buy a dress which feels padded.) Brigitte Bardot is winning her her cameo, and John Williams and Alice Pearce offer some good support.
But it's an unpleasant movie at heart - I didn't like Stewart's constant wailing about the importance of poetry, and being annoyed at his son's gift (which he exploits for his own ends), and the sexism (the female characters are all drags except Bardot). Structurally it felt wonky with the John Williams plot shoved in at the end, and Fabian's character under-utilised. There is bright colour and it's easy to watch but not up to Mr Hobbs.
Fabian is second billed but his role is very small - the boyfriend of Stewart's daughter, whiny Cindy Carol (a one time Gidget), who gets Stewart Jnr (Billy Mumy) to bet at the track.... only he acts as a conduit for another guy so he actually doesn't even have ownership over that plot. His performance is professional and perfectly fine - more so than Carol, or Glynis Johns, whose Englishness jars in an admittedly thankless role (mostly going "there there" to Stewart and making food).
Billy Mumy is outstanding as the kid - this is the second biggest role. (I got the feeling scenes were dropped/cut in favour of Stewart-Mumy stuff eg there's a bit where the two of them go to buy a dress which feels padded.) Brigitte Bardot is winning her her cameo, and John Williams and Alice Pearce offer some good support.
But it's an unpleasant movie at heart - I didn't like Stewart's constant wailing about the importance of poetry, and being annoyed at his son's gift (which he exploits for his own ends), and the sexism (the female characters are all drags except Bardot). Structurally it felt wonky with the John Williams plot shoved in at the end, and Fabian's character under-utilised. There is bright colour and it's easy to watch but not up to Mr Hobbs.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Book review - "Selective Memory: A Life in Film" by Sue Milliken (2013)
Most writing on Australian film tends to concentrate on stars and directors, so its good to see producers putting in their ten cents. Milliken was more than that of course - also a production manager, bureaucrat, continuity person, film finance guarantor. It was an entirely decent, honorable career with some very impressive films on the CV (The Odd Angry Shot, Black Robe, Dating the Enemy, Sirens).
Milliken came up the hard way, learning her trade at the ABC (where bludging was an option - the section of the book on this is very funny), eventually breaking into the commercial industry via Skippy but also working on classic ABC stuff like Pastures of the Blue Crane. She married director Tom Jeffreys and I got the feeling Milliken pulled her punches when writing about him and their relationship (no doubt because he's still alive). They made a number of movies together but she is probably best known for her collaborations with Bruce Beresford. She was smart enough to diversify - also working as a film finance guarantor and bureaucrat to supplement those erratic film fees.
Lots of interesting trivia, stories and observations such as Richard Franklin being a bit free and easy with his hands on the set of Roadgames, the saga of setting up Total Recall on the Gold Coast, the mess that was Les Patterson Saves the World, the director's ego on Burke and Wills, incompetence on We of the Never Never, Rod Taylor being a handful on The Picture Show Man, lots of people announcing loudly that they'll cover the cost of a crew dinner but adding it to the film's budget.
There's perhaps too much time dedicated to the making of Paradise Road, but I guess it is the film of which she's most proud so that's understandable. She makes some first rate comments/critics on current funding which all make sense and would be cheap and easy to introduce.
Milliken came up the hard way, learning her trade at the ABC (where bludging was an option - the section of the book on this is very funny), eventually breaking into the commercial industry via Skippy but also working on classic ABC stuff like Pastures of the Blue Crane. She married director Tom Jeffreys and I got the feeling Milliken pulled her punches when writing about him and their relationship (no doubt because he's still alive). They made a number of movies together but she is probably best known for her collaborations with Bruce Beresford. She was smart enough to diversify - also working as a film finance guarantor and bureaucrat to supplement those erratic film fees.
Lots of interesting trivia, stories and observations such as Richard Franklin being a bit free and easy with his hands on the set of Roadgames, the saga of setting up Total Recall on the Gold Coast, the mess that was Les Patterson Saves the World, the director's ego on Burke and Wills, incompetence on We of the Never Never, Rod Taylor being a handful on The Picture Show Man, lots of people announcing loudly that they'll cover the cost of a crew dinner but adding it to the film's budget.
There's perhaps too much time dedicated to the making of Paradise Road, but I guess it is the film of which she's most proud so that's understandable. She makes some first rate comments/critics on current funding which all make sense and would be cheap and easy to introduce.
Movie review - "47 Ronin" (2013) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
I can think of a lot of worse films which deserved to lose more money for there are a lot of good things about it: the production design, special effects, performances from Hiroyuki Sanada (hero) and Rinko Kikuchi. Keanu Reeves admittedly is Keanu Reeves but he can act well enough and his looks fit in with the time setting. And even though I'm not Japanese and don't have the cultural connection to this story, surely there's nothing wrong with adding a little fantasy (i.e. huge creatures, witches and serpents) to it?
Compounding this is the fact Reeve's character doesn't have the emotional stakes of Sanada's - at the end when he joins in the mass suicide with all the others, it doesn't make sense (he's not Japanese, it doesn't mean as much to him; he was never a samurai; why wouldn't he go and hang out with the hot daughter?) They compound it by giving screen time to Sanada's son, but no other Ronin except a really fat one.
They only should have made this film had they centered it around Reeves - make him responsible for the death of the lord, or his illegitimate son, or have him organise the 47 Ronin. I'm sure this was considered but they got cold feet. Well, they ended up with something that pleased no one, so the good work from a lot of the cast and the production design and other tech people will go mostly unseen.
It's not helped by the fact Game of Thrones has showed how you can combine fantasy, history and war along with three dimensional characters and complex plots - this is far too simplistic, and its characters too dull (especially the leading love interest who is a nothing, and the head villain is bland... outshone by the witch).
Rinko Kikuc
The main problem is Keanu plays the lead and his character could have been cut out of the entire movie without much impact on the story. He doesn't start the action, or complicate it, or affect it - everything would have happened without him. The hero is Sanada.Compounding this is the fact Reeve's character doesn't have the emotional stakes of Sanada's - at the end when he joins in the mass suicide with all the others, it doesn't make sense (he's not Japanese, it doesn't mean as much to him; he was never a samurai; why wouldn't he go and hang out with the hot daughter?) They compound it by giving screen time to Sanada's son, but no other Ronin except a really fat one.
They only should have made this film had they centered it around Reeves - make him responsible for the death of the lord, or his illegitimate son, or have him organise the 47 Ronin. I'm sure this was considered but they got cold feet. Well, they ended up with something that pleased no one, so the good work from a lot of the cast and the production design and other tech people will go mostly unseen.
It's not helped by the fact Game of Thrones has showed how you can combine fantasy, history and war along with three dimensional characters and complex plots - this is far too simplistic, and its characters too dull (especially the leading love interest who is a nothing, and the head villain is bland... outshone by the witch).
Movie review - "Number 96" (1974) ***
Most of the early episodes of Number 96 were wiped but we do have this quickie film knock off of the show, which proved enormously popular at the box office. Big screen spin offs of TV shows were popular in Britain in the early 70s - it's entirely appropriate that 96 followed suit since (for all the claims it reflected multicultural Australia with it's Hungarian Jew) it was a very British soap, full of blustering character actors doing vaudeville turns, half of whom seemed more English than Australian: Vera and Maggie seem English, Les was, ditto Alf and Lucy; Jack, Dorrie and Herb played types who could easily have slotted into a British soap.
But having said all that this is still a lot of fun, and you can see (admittedly with the benefit of hindsight) why it was so successful: there is some riotously over the top melodrama (gang rapes by bikies, two people scheming to drive a new bride insane a la Rebecca complete with a climax where they try to persuade her to jump out a window), nudity courtesy of Rebecca Gilling (and Tom Oliver in underwear), a gay love affair (John Orsick can't get it up for Elaine Lee but finds satisfaction in the arms of Joe Hasham), but lots and lots of comedy. Pat McDonald and Ron Shand play it up to the back rows, ditto Bunny Brooke - there's wacky antics with a secret marriage, slapstick at the bowls club, a sauna in the cellar and fancy dress party to wind things up. The cast act with complete and utter commitment and the action spanks along. This holds up a hell of a lot better than many old Aussie films.
But having said all that this is still a lot of fun, and you can see (admittedly with the benefit of hindsight) why it was so successful: there is some riotously over the top melodrama (gang rapes by bikies, two people scheming to drive a new bride insane a la Rebecca complete with a climax where they try to persuade her to jump out a window), nudity courtesy of Rebecca Gilling (and Tom Oliver in underwear), a gay love affair (John Orsick can't get it up for Elaine Lee but finds satisfaction in the arms of Joe Hasham), but lots and lots of comedy. Pat McDonald and Ron Shand play it up to the back rows, ditto Bunny Brooke - there's wacky antics with a secret marriage, slapstick at the bowls club, a sauna in the cellar and fancy dress party to wind things up. The cast act with complete and utter commitment and the action spanks along. This holds up a hell of a lot better than many old Aussie films.
Movie review - "Modern Times" (1936) ***1/2
By 1936 sound in movies was completely entrenched but Charlie Chaplin still fought against it by making this mostly silent film (he does sing and there are some sound effects). The plot is mostly a series of comic set pieces, centering around the adventures of the Tramp in the modern world: working on the factory, arrested out of belief he is a communist, accidentally ingesting cocaine (this was a shock to see!), escaping from jail, working in a department store, etc etc.
Chaplin's physical prowess is a delight to watch but for mine he was outshone by Paulette Goddard, who is gorgeous and a lot of fun as the Gamin; other parts aren't that large. It's sweet, occasionally funny and felt long.
Chaplin's physical prowess is a delight to watch but for mine he was outshone by Paulette Goddard, who is gorgeous and a lot of fun as the Gamin; other parts aren't that large. It's sweet, occasionally funny and felt long.
Movie review - "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" (2014) ***1/2
Watching this I kept wishing that they'd make a cable TV Game of Thrones style version of the Apes story because there's so much complexity and depth you could go into which this film skims over - in part because they're making something that's feature length, but also because the complexity (I couldn't help feeling) was outside what they were willing to go into.
This movie get big points for not selling out on some key issues - the human race has been mostly wiped out, the apes are very sympathetic, it's not easy goodies-and-baddies, the most fanatical people on each side (Koba and Gary Oldman) are given entirely understandable motives, the effects are truly magnificent (as are the locations and scenes such as the apes galloping on horseback), it has some interesting things to say on guns/violence/war/interspecies trust, it's not dumb.
But it fumbles in other areas - the depiction of females (they just breed and that's it in ape land, and Kerri Russell is a smurfette character for the humans); the lack of complexity amongst the human characters (why was Kodi Smitt-McPhee in this film? What purpose did he serve? Could Jason Clarke and Russell not have been given something more meaty to play than "decent everyman"?); the fact the climax came down to not the first, or the second but the third fight between Caesar and Koba; the convenient stupidity of the human strategy which has them store the armoury outside their defensive walls and not put up any guards.
The acting for the most part is competent rather than inspired but Andy Serkis is magnificent.
This movie get big points for not selling out on some key issues - the human race has been mostly wiped out, the apes are very sympathetic, it's not easy goodies-and-baddies, the most fanatical people on each side (Koba and Gary Oldman) are given entirely understandable motives, the effects are truly magnificent (as are the locations and scenes such as the apes galloping on horseback), it has some interesting things to say on guns/violence/war/interspecies trust, it's not dumb.
But it fumbles in other areas - the depiction of females (they just breed and that's it in ape land, and Kerri Russell is a smurfette character for the humans); the lack of complexity amongst the human characters (why was Kodi Smitt-McPhee in this film? What purpose did he serve? Could Jason Clarke and Russell not have been given something more meaty to play than "decent everyman"?); the fact the climax came down to not the first, or the second but the third fight between Caesar and Koba; the convenient stupidity of the human strategy which has them store the armoury outside their defensive walls and not put up any guards.
The acting for the most part is competent rather than inspired but Andy Serkis is magnificent.
Book review - "The Fatal Shore" by Robert Hughes (1987)
I've owned a copy of this book but never actually read the whole thing from cover to cover for decades, but it's marvellous. Beautifully written, excellently researched, full of incident and drama. A masterpiece.
So many memorable sketches: First Fleet shore leave in Rio and Cape Town, tense run ins with La Perouse and the French (causing a semi comic quasi pile up of boats as they desperately tried to hot foot it to Port Jackson), the orgy on the night the women moved in, the escape of Alexander Pearce and his mates, the several mutinies on Norfolk Island.
Some of it made me angry, even after all these years - the fact they found such a workable system of using prisoners for the benefit of the colony and the prisoners (assignment labour) but stopped it because prisoners weren't suffering enough; the continuous setting up of "terrifying" penal settlements (Norfolk Island, Moreton Bay, Port Macquarie); the horrific treatment of the Tasmanian aboriginies; attitudes towards women; the fate of officials who actually tried to do the right thing.
Lots of great villains, although the sadistic prison guards/wardens do tend to blend into one; the Exclusives make a great snobbish prison class. Very few out and out heroes - maybe Macquarie, Gipps, and Maconochie, although it's clear Arthur Phillip was a complete pro... modern Australia thrived less because of the manic depressives who lit up other corners of the British Empire (Clive, Wolfe) but because of professional old hands and the hard work of the convicts. And the suffering of the local people and wildlife of course.
So many memorable sketches: First Fleet shore leave in Rio and Cape Town, tense run ins with La Perouse and the French (causing a semi comic quasi pile up of boats as they desperately tried to hot foot it to Port Jackson), the orgy on the night the women moved in, the escape of Alexander Pearce and his mates, the several mutinies on Norfolk Island.
Some of it made me angry, even after all these years - the fact they found such a workable system of using prisoners for the benefit of the colony and the prisoners (assignment labour) but stopped it because prisoners weren't suffering enough; the continuous setting up of "terrifying" penal settlements (Norfolk Island, Moreton Bay, Port Macquarie); the horrific treatment of the Tasmanian aboriginies; attitudes towards women; the fate of officials who actually tried to do the right thing.
Lots of great villains, although the sadistic prison guards/wardens do tend to blend into one; the Exclusives make a great snobbish prison class. Very few out and out heroes - maybe Macquarie, Gipps, and Maconochie, although it's clear Arthur Phillip was a complete pro... modern Australia thrived less because of the manic depressives who lit up other corners of the British Empire (Clive, Wolfe) but because of professional old hands and the hard work of the convicts. And the suffering of the local people and wildlife of course.
Movie review - "Die, Monster, Die!" (1965) **
Roger Corman's ability as a director sometimes gets seriously questioned - an understandable reaction to all the praise he's received over the years - but if you need proof of why he's more highly regarded than other B picture merchants, compare this effort from the 60s with his own Poe cycle films. It's not based on Poe but HP Lovecraft, so that's pretty good, and has many of the advantages of Corman's movies - an A list horror star (Boris Karloff), solid story (young man goes to haunted house and finds mayhem), same studio (AIP), entertaining credits, decent (for it's type) budget - but is no way near as good.
It's actually dumb and simplistic and remarkably lacking in atmosphere - I kept wanting this to be better than it was. Corman did have the advantage in his films of Dan Haller as art director; here Haller is director, but what he lacks is Corman's skills in pace, and tension. Nick Adams is a weak male lead but actors like Mark Damon and John Kerr were hardly strong; Suzan Farmer is bland in a role which requires more sexiness. Freda Jackson comes off best as the scary mother of Farmer, though Karloff is always entertaining.
It's actually dumb and simplistic and remarkably lacking in atmosphere - I kept wanting this to be better than it was. Corman did have the advantage in his films of Dan Haller as art director; here Haller is director, but what he lacks is Corman's skills in pace, and tension. Nick Adams is a weak male lead but actors like Mark Damon and John Kerr were hardly strong; Suzan Farmer is bland in a role which requires more sexiness. Freda Jackson comes off best as the scary mother of Farmer, though Karloff is always entertaining.
Monday, July 07, 2014
Movie review - "Chef" (2014) *** (warning: spoilers)
Entertaining quasi-indie film about a movie director (sorry, chef - Jon Favreau), who is frustrated that the studio (sorry, restaurant owner - Dustin Hoffman) won't let him make the films (sorry, food) the way he wants, preferring to use establish tropes and things that have worked before (sorry, dishes). He gets in a slanging match with a movie critic (sorry, food blogger), and gets inspired to make an independent movie (sorry, food truck) like he used to. He has a devoted film crew (sorry, chef crew) and despite being a tubby man he is able to bang the hot actress (sorry, waitress - Scarlett Johansson) and has to get backing from an independent movie financier (sorry, his ex wife's ex husband - Robert Downey Jnr).
Favreau has stated this isn't autobiographical because in real life he's not divorced or estranged from his child - but in this movie he actually gets along very well with his child (they keep throwing in lines of dialogue how they don't but in every scene they seem to get along great) and he has the best relationship with an ex wife I've ever seen in a movie - so much so that at the end of the movie they're back together, without even a real scene showing them reconnecting.
Okay I'm starting to sound mean and I didn't intend that. This is a sweet film - yes, about the struggles of a millionaire film director, and it goes on too long, and is strict wish fulfillment (eg "critics and the public will like you if you just follow your heart"), but there is lots to admire: a big heart, a star studded cast (Downey Jnr's turn is particularly hilarious), a heavily hispanic feel in terms of food and art direction (something still not common in Hollywood films), and some excellent food porn. It's one of the most cleverly made indi films I've seen - a personal movie but stuffed full of things to entertain you if you're not into that personal message: movie stars, good foods, and interesting visuals. Aussie filmmakers take note!
Favreau has stated this isn't autobiographical because in real life he's not divorced or estranged from his child - but in this movie he actually gets along very well with his child (they keep throwing in lines of dialogue how they don't but in every scene they seem to get along great) and he has the best relationship with an ex wife I've ever seen in a movie - so much so that at the end of the movie they're back together, without even a real scene showing them reconnecting.
Okay I'm starting to sound mean and I didn't intend that. This is a sweet film - yes, about the struggles of a millionaire film director, and it goes on too long, and is strict wish fulfillment (eg "critics and the public will like you if you just follow your heart"), but there is lots to admire: a big heart, a star studded cast (Downey Jnr's turn is particularly hilarious), a heavily hispanic feel in terms of food and art direction (something still not common in Hollywood films), and some excellent food porn. It's one of the most cleverly made indi films I've seen - a personal movie but stuffed full of things to entertain you if you're not into that personal message: movie stars, good foods, and interesting visuals. Aussie filmmakers take note!
Book review - "Beau Geste" by P.C. Wren (1924) (warning: spoilers)
The classic foreign legion tale remains a lot of fun to read if you can put aside some of the florid prose, stock standard racist description of Arabs and non-Anglo Europeans, and really vicious anti-Semitic episode where John Geste sells some good to a Jewish pawnbroker in London (really, why is in there?). There's also a surprisingly long epilogue about the adventures of John and Digby Geste, plus Hank and Buddy - who take over a year to get home and go through such complicated troubles. The whole time I kept thinking "why didn't you just hand yourself in at the fort? Come up with a cover story and be a hero?"
The structure of the novel revolves around some key mysteries: how did the bodies come to be guarding the fort? what happened at the fort? what happened to the Blue Water? how should the Gestes react to the proposed mutiny? Wren likes to have his characters sit around and analyse things from different points of view and offer up different hypothesis - he seems more reluctant to describe actual action. Which is a shame because when he does eg the Arab attack at the end - it's exciting.
There's plenty of action and adventure, I struggled to tell the three Geste brothers apart (or what made Beau so special - he doesn't do anything super heroic or even take out more Arabs or act as a leader... actually come to think of it he and his brothers really are idiots), the villainous sergeant was terrific, the descriptions of life in the legion felt accurate.
The structure of the novel revolves around some key mysteries: how did the bodies come to be guarding the fort? what happened at the fort? what happened to the Blue Water? how should the Gestes react to the proposed mutiny? Wren likes to have his characters sit around and analyse things from different points of view and offer up different hypothesis - he seems more reluctant to describe actual action. Which is a shame because when he does eg the Arab attack at the end - it's exciting.
There's plenty of action and adventure, I struggled to tell the three Geste brothers apart (or what made Beau so special - he doesn't do anything super heroic or even take out more Arabs or act as a leader... actually come to think of it he and his brothers really are idiots), the villainous sergeant was terrific, the descriptions of life in the legion felt accurate.
Movie review - "Jackie Brown" (1997) **1/2
This was politely reviewed when it came out and made a bit of money, but I do scratch my head at the thought that anyone really likes it. Scenes go on for far too long, endless slabs of dialogue about nothing - which wasn't true in QT's other better films, they would have this great violent tension or subtext going on.
The plot is alright, but not terribly gripping; the acting is excellent and it does have a good feel for the world of Elmore Leonard (though not as good as Out of Sight). By this stage QT's little indulgences were getting annoying (eg all the close ups of feet - it's like Death Proof).
Pam Grier has a formidable presence but isn't that awesome; Robert Foster is touching, Robert de Niro and Michael Keaton solid, Bridget Fonda lots of fun in the Candice Rialson part (though that's not too hard to play, surely), and Samuel L. Jackson great as always.
The plot is alright, but not terribly gripping; the acting is excellent and it does have a good feel for the world of Elmore Leonard (though not as good as Out of Sight). By this stage QT's little indulgences were getting annoying (eg all the close ups of feet - it's like Death Proof).
Pam Grier has a formidable presence but isn't that awesome; Robert Foster is touching, Robert de Niro and Michael Keaton solid, Bridget Fonda lots of fun in the Candice Rialson part (though that's not too hard to play, surely), and Samuel L. Jackson great as always.
Book review - "Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome" by Ian Hughes
I wasn't a big fan of Hughes' book on Belissarius but really liked this so it confirmed my suspicion it was the subject matter rather than anything Hughes did. His scholarship remains excellent, his writing easy to read but the tale of Stilicho is simply more interesting - the half Vandal Roman who was the last really outstanding Roman leader, fighting several successful campaigns (including several against nemesis Alaric) before being killed by... yep, you guessed it, Romans.
Rome fell for many reasons, but one of the major ones was they kept killing people who were actually good for Rome. Another one frequently mentioned here is the fact that the big time aristocrats and land owners assumed heaps of power, wouldn't pay tax or give up their workers to serve in the army, but were sniffy when Stilicho hired Germans (I kept thinking of the Koch brothers when reading about this). Of course there were also the civil wars and usurpers, of which Stilicho had to deal with a couple. (In fairness to his enemies, he should have paid more attention to North Gaul and Britain).
An exciting and moving story about one of the most interesting figures of the late Roman Empire.
Rome fell for many reasons, but one of the major ones was they kept killing people who were actually good for Rome. Another one frequently mentioned here is the fact that the big time aristocrats and land owners assumed heaps of power, wouldn't pay tax or give up their workers to serve in the army, but were sniffy when Stilicho hired Germans (I kept thinking of the Koch brothers when reading about this). Of course there were also the civil wars and usurpers, of which Stilicho had to deal with a couple. (In fairness to his enemies, he should have paid more attention to North Gaul and Britain).
An exciting and moving story about one of the most interesting figures of the late Roman Empire.
TV review - "A Lion Walks Among Us" from Bus Stop (1962) *** (warning: spoilers)
Little remembered now (despite being directed by Robert Altman) but highly controversial in its day, this remains a striking and well-made look at a teenage psychotic, played very well by Fabian in perhaps his best ever performance. He plays a drifter who rocks into the small town that provided the backdrop for plots on the series Bus Stop and soon makes waves: hitting on the middle aged drunken lady who gives him a lift, robbing and killing a grocer, singing without permission at a tavern, starting a brawl and pulling out a switchblade.
He's hauled into prison and is arrested but remains cocky, keeps singing to himself a lot and actually gets off the trial... whereupon he propositions a blonde groupie, kills his lawyer, then is killed in a murder-suicide by the drunken lady.
It's quite intense, which is presumably why it got poor Jack Gould of the New York Time whipped up in such a frenzy - not to mention the sponsors who refused to support it, the stations who wouldn't run it, the politicians who condemned it.
Part of the problem apparently was Fabian's presence - he's handsome, young, sings a few songs, is shown to be attractive, speaks a lot of groovy early 60s slang, and gets away with it (for the most part). This was very confronting, and came out at the wrong time, when Washington was going through one of its periodic bouts of concern about the influence of TV violence on kids.
To be fair, this is intense stuff, not really suitable for young kids, but it is worthy adult drama. Apparently Fox wanted to turn it into a feature but Fabian refused to shoot the necessary extra scenes - it's a shame, because then this would be better known, and his fine work more widely seen. Good acting from others in the cast too, especially Dianne Foster in the showy part of the drunken woman. Altman's direction is top rate.
He's hauled into prison and is arrested but remains cocky, keeps singing to himself a lot and actually gets off the trial... whereupon he propositions a blonde groupie, kills his lawyer, then is killed in a murder-suicide by the drunken lady.
It's quite intense, which is presumably why it got poor Jack Gould of the New York Time whipped up in such a frenzy - not to mention the sponsors who refused to support it, the stations who wouldn't run it, the politicians who condemned it.
Part of the problem apparently was Fabian's presence - he's handsome, young, sings a few songs, is shown to be attractive, speaks a lot of groovy early 60s slang, and gets away with it (for the most part). This was very confronting, and came out at the wrong time, when Washington was going through one of its periodic bouts of concern about the influence of TV violence on kids.
To be fair, this is intense stuff, not really suitable for young kids, but it is worthy adult drama. Apparently Fox wanted to turn it into a feature but Fabian refused to shoot the necessary extra scenes - it's a shame, because then this would be better known, and his fine work more widely seen. Good acting from others in the cast too, especially Dianne Foster in the showy part of the drunken woman. Altman's direction is top rate.
Friday, July 04, 2014
Movie review - "Devil Doll" (1964) ***
Fun ventriloquist tale which to be honest would have made a really strong short as part of an anthology instead of being dragged out over feature length. Still, there's a lot to enjoy, such as Bryant Halliday's performance as the (surprise) crazy ventriloquist, sexy Yvonne Romain as the rich girl who Halliday sets out to seduce, some groovy 60s direction and several genuinely creepy moments involving the doll.
William Sylvester is bland as the middle aged American hero - British horror films of the 60s were full of these, often played by Robert Hutton - determined to expose Halliday for his newspaper, and several parts the movie seems padded (eg Romain dancing the twist, long part scenes). But the final twist is good and there's a genuine sense of unease throughout.
William Sylvester is bland as the middle aged American hero - British horror films of the 60s were full of these, often played by Robert Hutton - determined to expose Halliday for his newspaper, and several parts the movie seems padded (eg Romain dancing the twist, long part scenes). But the final twist is good and there's a genuine sense of unease throughout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)