One of Luis Bunuel's most popular films, due in part to it's star - Catherine Deneuve, one of the most beautiful movie stars of all time - and kinky subject matter - bored rich housewife goes to work in a high class brothel. Denueve gets to wear some sexy outfits, is frequently in her underwear and taking off her bra, showing her bare back, having lots of kinky sex. There are also some other prostitutes wearing exotic underwear and a lesbian kiss with the madam (Genevieve Page).
To explain her mind set we get lots of flashbacks - including Deneuve molested (well, kissed) by a dirty old man when she was a child, which is a jolt - as well as fantasy sequences, often involving sado masochism. Sometimes the line between the two is blurred, especially as the film goes on, and we are not sure what is real and what is reality.
This sort of material and approach has been much copied since then so this piece doesn't have the impact it must have had at the time. I always hate criticising films that are acclaimed as materipieces because I don't want to look dim but I didn't think this was amazing. Deneuve, for all her stunning beauty, is a bit bland at times - I get what the character was going through, the fact she can't do it for her husband but can for clients, that she's dangerously attracted to the gangster... but I can't help feeling a better actor would have been able to convey more emotion and complexity.
I also felt the second half was overly familiar of Breatheless - a newspaper seller yelling out in English about the Tribune, a cocky gangster who commits random crimes, the gangster being shot down in the street.
Jean Sorel was effective as the husband; ditto madam Page, sleazy Michel Piccoli and the gangster kid Pierre Clementi (memorable teeth).
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Movie review - "Mardi Gras" (1958) **1/2
Pat Boone's first two movies were straight up star vehicles - this is more of an ensemble piece in the vein of On the Town, with Pat sharing the load with an interesting bunch: Tommy Sands, Christine Carere, Sheree North, Dick Sergeant, Barrie Chase, Gary Crosby and others. Pat does carry the main plot but the others get their own little story - and also the songs are distributed among the support cast: North and Sands in particular get their own numbers.
Boone, Crosby and Sands are military cadets who visit New Orleans in Mardi Gras and get up to hijinks. The main plot also borrows from Roman Holiday and The Fleet's In: Boone wins a date with Hollywood star Carare, but she absconds to enjoy life as a normal person. She meets up with Boone, who doesn't recognise her, she pretends to be normal, and they fall in love.
That's an irritatingly implausible story. Boone's best friends Sands and Crosby are obsessed with Carare - yet Boone doesn't recognise her? And she is able to walk around incognito? Also Carare isn't believable for one second as a star who is big in Hollywood - she has this stunned bug-eyed look as if she's frightened of the camera and struggles to get out her lines. She also can't convey a character - she seems like this girl toying with old Pat, like a robot constructed like a china doll. On the plus side, she does have a nice figure. The logic of her romance with Pat Boone and her performance are the biggest problems with this movie.
The subplots are easier to swallow - Crosby romances Sheree North (Carare's assistant), Sands falls for a studious glasses wearing Barrie Chase who turns out to be a stripper, Sergeant goes off with Jennifer West. There are some bright songs and the film has a fun sense of camraderie amongst young people mucking around and having a good time. Director Edmund Goulding stages one song number with Sands, Crosby and Boone taking off their clothes and singing together naked in a shower - make of that what you will.
Crosby - who, like most of the lead cast was under long term contract to Fox at the time - imitates his dad a lot, who he does looks like - admittedly a blonder chunkier version. Sands isn't bad in a support role - he's a bit sleazy, but it suits his character and bounces off well against squeaky clean Boone. Boone remains stiff, struggles with Carare, and works well with his male co stars.
There is a hilariously shameless plug from Jerry Wald where a producer character announces he's brought the film rights to The Best of Everything, which Wald had done. There are also some cameos from Fox stars Jeffrey Hunter and Robert Wagner.
Boone, Crosby and Sands are military cadets who visit New Orleans in Mardi Gras and get up to hijinks. The main plot also borrows from Roman Holiday and The Fleet's In: Boone wins a date with Hollywood star Carare, but she absconds to enjoy life as a normal person. She meets up with Boone, who doesn't recognise her, she pretends to be normal, and they fall in love.
That's an irritatingly implausible story. Boone's best friends Sands and Crosby are obsessed with Carare - yet Boone doesn't recognise her? And she is able to walk around incognito? Also Carare isn't believable for one second as a star who is big in Hollywood - she has this stunned bug-eyed look as if she's frightened of the camera and struggles to get out her lines. She also can't convey a character - she seems like this girl toying with old Pat, like a robot constructed like a china doll. On the plus side, she does have a nice figure. The logic of her romance with Pat Boone and her performance are the biggest problems with this movie.
The subplots are easier to swallow - Crosby romances Sheree North (Carare's assistant), Sands falls for a studious glasses wearing Barrie Chase who turns out to be a stripper, Sergeant goes off with Jennifer West. There are some bright songs and the film has a fun sense of camraderie amongst young people mucking around and having a good time. Director Edmund Goulding stages one song number with Sands, Crosby and Boone taking off their clothes and singing together naked in a shower - make of that what you will.
Crosby - who, like most of the lead cast was under long term contract to Fox at the time - imitates his dad a lot, who he does looks like - admittedly a blonder chunkier version. Sands isn't bad in a support role - he's a bit sleazy, but it suits his character and bounces off well against squeaky clean Boone. Boone remains stiff, struggles with Carare, and works well with his male co stars.
There is a hilariously shameless plug from Jerry Wald where a producer character announces he's brought the film rights to The Best of Everything, which Wald had done. There are also some cameos from Fox stars Jeffrey Hunter and Robert Wagner.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Movie review - "April Love" (1957) **
Although filming on this started before Bernadine had even hit cinema screens, 20th Century Fox must have been pretty confident in the appeal of Pat Boone because they have him the deluxe treatment for his sophomore effort - colour, Cinemascope, a name co-star in Shirley Jones, whose girl next door persona and peachy keen beauty matches perfectly with Boone. She's a feisty horse loving girl living in the country, a tomboy type, who falls for Pat, who's been shunted off to his uncle's farm as part of a parole for joyriding in a stolen car.
We never see Pat joyride in that stolen car, despite the clear opportunities for excitement - maybe Pat was worried about being seen do something so bad. We don't see him kiss Jones - she goes in for a kiss but he pushes her away (this is motivated by story at the time), and at the end he goes to kiss her but they are interrupted. It feels odd - these sort of movies are so wholesome you need a kiss as a form of release and you don't get it.
It also felt weird to see so many scenes were Boone is driven around by people, especially girls; this is motivated by plot (he's lost his licence), and I know it's because of my societal conditioning - but there you go.
The storyline was used by Fox before as Home in Indiana, which explains why the subplot involves Boone learning to harness race - yep, that's right, a film with a pop idol around harness racing. But the public liked it - this was a hit. It's often forgotten the clean teen pics of Boone were as big as Elvis for a while there.
As an entertainment, this isn't much chop. Jones is good, as is Arthur O'Connell as his cranky uncle; there's a sweet moment at a country dance where guests have to show off a talent and this chubby lady plays the trumpet (Boone sings the title song); I also enjoyed the musical number at a picnic where Boone, Jones and two of their friends are mucking around singing a number. The story is super light but there are pretty pictures and horses, and Boone is handsome and engaging enough, although his inexperience does show. He wasn't as natural a screen performer as Elvis.
We never see Pat joyride in that stolen car, despite the clear opportunities for excitement - maybe Pat was worried about being seen do something so bad. We don't see him kiss Jones - she goes in for a kiss but he pushes her away (this is motivated by story at the time), and at the end he goes to kiss her but they are interrupted. It feels odd - these sort of movies are so wholesome you need a kiss as a form of release and you don't get it.
It also felt weird to see so many scenes were Boone is driven around by people, especially girls; this is motivated by plot (he's lost his licence), and I know it's because of my societal conditioning - but there you go.
The storyline was used by Fox before as Home in Indiana, which explains why the subplot involves Boone learning to harness race - yep, that's right, a film with a pop idol around harness racing. But the public liked it - this was a hit. It's often forgotten the clean teen pics of Boone were as big as Elvis for a while there.
As an entertainment, this isn't much chop. Jones is good, as is Arthur O'Connell as his cranky uncle; there's a sweet moment at a country dance where guests have to show off a talent and this chubby lady plays the trumpet (Boone sings the title song); I also enjoyed the musical number at a picnic where Boone, Jones and two of their friends are mucking around singing a number. The story is super light but there are pretty pictures and horses, and Boone is handsome and engaging enough, although his inexperience does show. He wasn't as natural a screen performer as Elvis.
Movie review - "Tammy and the Doctor" (1963) **
Props to Ross Hunter for ensuring the Tammy series maintained continuity - this one picks up with Tammy still at college looking over the little old lady from the second film. Said old lady gets sick and so a handsome older doctor (Macdonald Carey) suggests she go to the hospital for an operation. This entails a move to Los Angeles where Tammy charms yet another grumpy old person, annoys some more stuck up bitches (nurses) who eventually sees what a sweetheart she is, encourages another aging woman devoted to her career to find love, is eyed by a lech (Adam West) and finds romance with a handsome young man (Peter Fona).
I normally like Dee but she's irritating for the most part as Tammy, mugging and overacting. In one or two places she pulls back on the hayseed and is a lot more effective.
Peter Fonda is very gawky and young as the doctor with whom she romances; it's not much of a love story - unlike Debbie Reynolds and Leslie Neilsen in the first movie there's no inherent conflict, he's just a anxious young man, not particularly handsome, who is into his career. He doesn't seem that smarter or more wordly than Tammy and they don't have much charisma. I wish more was made of the love triangle between Adam West, Fonda and Dee - but all that really happens is West makes some lecherous eyes at her and Dee figures out he's no good.
Also this is the third time Tammy has fallen in love and she's beginning to feel flippant - the second film they got away with John Gavin being her love interest because we'd think "oh well Leslie Nielsen was just a puppy love" but then when she bats her eyes at Fonda... how are we meant to think about Gavin? It's as if she's not capable of true love, she's just up for whatever handsome man she comes across when she moves to a new place. Which is an interesting character trait but tends to reduce the stakes of their romance.
They're still making jokes about Tammy's father being in gaol for moonshining; Tammy manages to turn around some bitchy nurses and make them feel ashamed of themselves with one (badly written) monologue. There is more religion in this one - Tammy quotes the Bible a lot, prays to God to help her old lady friend recover.
In fairness, the script has some bright lines and at least Tammy has a job, working hard at the hospital. Dee sings "Tammy's in Love".
I normally like Dee but she's irritating for the most part as Tammy, mugging and overacting. In one or two places she pulls back on the hayseed and is a lot more effective.
Peter Fonda is very gawky and young as the doctor with whom she romances; it's not much of a love story - unlike Debbie Reynolds and Leslie Neilsen in the first movie there's no inherent conflict, he's just a anxious young man, not particularly handsome, who is into his career. He doesn't seem that smarter or more wordly than Tammy and they don't have much charisma. I wish more was made of the love triangle between Adam West, Fonda and Dee - but all that really happens is West makes some lecherous eyes at her and Dee figures out he's no good.
Also this is the third time Tammy has fallen in love and she's beginning to feel flippant - the second film they got away with John Gavin being her love interest because we'd think "oh well Leslie Nielsen was just a puppy love" but then when she bats her eyes at Fonda... how are we meant to think about Gavin? It's as if she's not capable of true love, she's just up for whatever handsome man she comes across when she moves to a new place. Which is an interesting character trait but tends to reduce the stakes of their romance.
They're still making jokes about Tammy's father being in gaol for moonshining; Tammy manages to turn around some bitchy nurses and make them feel ashamed of themselves with one (badly written) monologue. There is more religion in this one - Tammy quotes the Bible a lot, prays to God to help her old lady friend recover.
In fairness, the script has some bright lines and at least Tammy has a job, working hard at the hospital. Dee sings "Tammy's in Love".
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Movie review - "Look Who's Talking" (1989) ***
I still remember the trailer for this movie in the cinema - every gag greeted with massive laughter. It helped propel a low budget comedy to massive success. It does have one of the great basic ideas of all time - a baby who talks, helped by the baby's voice being wise cracking Bruce Willis. It's so brilliantly universal - who hasn't been around a baby and wondered what they are really thinking?
Rewatching it I was surprised how little time baby comments take up - far more is on John Travolta's romance with Kirstie Alley, which is really well done. How thin they both were! And genuinely warm, likeable comic actors. There's also lots of time involving Alley's relationship with baby's father George Segal and the running time is further padded with dance montages and fantasy sequences. There are some very funny lines.
Rewatching it I was surprised how little time baby comments take up - far more is on John Travolta's romance with Kirstie Alley, which is really well done. How thin they both were! And genuinely warm, likeable comic actors. There's also lots of time involving Alley's relationship with baby's father George Segal and the running time is further padded with dance montages and fantasy sequences. There are some very funny lines.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Book review - "The Revenge of Frankenstein" (1958) (warning: spoilers)
Another in Bear Manor Media's excellent series of re-printed novelisations, this is a reminder of what a first-rate sequel Jimmy Sangster penned. It picks up right on the end of the first Frankenstein, tracks the action logically and pays due attention to continuity (something definitely not apparent in later entries in the series), really fleshes out the character of Dr Frankenstein, has a strong supporting casting including a devoted supporting doctor Hans, a female lead with a bit of spunk (though it's a shame there's no romance between her and either Frankenstein or Hans) and most of all a completely sympathetic monster - Karl, the hunchback who just wants a normal life. This is what gives the story real heart and emotion.
There are lots of effective moments - Frankenstein's lab of bits and pieces, the inner monologues of Karl - and a very satisfying conclusion, with Hans performing some deft work on his old mentor to keep him going.
There are lots of effective moments - Frankenstein's lab of bits and pieces, the inner monologues of Karl - and a very satisfying conclusion, with Hans performing some deft work on his old mentor to keep him going.
Movie review - "The Crowded Hour" (1960) *** (warning: spoilers)
Warner Bros entry into the airplane disaster movie lacks a bit in the star power department - it's full of familiar faces but no big names, people like Dana Andrews, Effrem Zimablist Jnr, John Kerr, Troy Donahue, Anne Francis. Much of it is hokey, full of cliched characters and scenes with characters thinking aloud to themselves.
But you know what? I kind of liked it. There's always something happening, and it's handled professionally enough. Effrem worries about trashy wife Rhonda Fleming who sleeps with everything that moves (kind of like Jessica Lange in Blue Sky), John Kerr disapproves of co pilot Dana Andrews' bad parenting of Andrews' son, Troy Donahue worries about being married and training to be a pilot, the navigator comes in for comic relief, two geeky passengers find each other attractive but can't admit it, a old flame of Keenan Wynn's sits next to him but he doesn't recognise her, some passengers have a terminal illness, John Kerr is romancing air stewardess Anne Francis who is a reformed slut with a long lost baby, Kerr wants to be a painter and had a famous painter father. Plot, plot, plot, plot, plot.
Then in the last 15 minutes it gets awesome - Zimbalist crashes into Andrews' plane... and Zimbalist and Donahue die when their jet blows up! Then the wisecracking engineer gets sucked out and dies and some of the passengers die. Everyone else gets home alright but it's a great shock and worth the film.
Dana Andrews is a perfect pilot, John Kerr far too smug, Donahue alright, Zimbalist all craggy integrity, Fleming is OTT, Anne Francis very likeable. There are lots of character actors, some crappy model work for the crash, too much characters listening to their own thoughts, a lot of the characters seem to repeat the same tropes (there's several show biz plots - painting, actor, producer; several tramps; several bad parents). Briskly directed.
But you know what? I kind of liked it. There's always something happening, and it's handled professionally enough. Effrem worries about trashy wife Rhonda Fleming who sleeps with everything that moves (kind of like Jessica Lange in Blue Sky), John Kerr disapproves of co pilot Dana Andrews' bad parenting of Andrews' son, Troy Donahue worries about being married and training to be a pilot, the navigator comes in for comic relief, two geeky passengers find each other attractive but can't admit it, a old flame of Keenan Wynn's sits next to him but he doesn't recognise her, some passengers have a terminal illness, John Kerr is romancing air stewardess Anne Francis who is a reformed slut with a long lost baby, Kerr wants to be a painter and had a famous painter father. Plot, plot, plot, plot, plot.
Then in the last 15 minutes it gets awesome - Zimbalist crashes into Andrews' plane... and Zimbalist and Donahue die when their jet blows up! Then the wisecracking engineer gets sucked out and dies and some of the passengers die. Everyone else gets home alright but it's a great shock and worth the film.
Dana Andrews is a perfect pilot, John Kerr far too smug, Donahue alright, Zimbalist all craggy integrity, Fleming is OTT, Anne Francis very likeable. There are lots of character actors, some crappy model work for the crash, too much characters listening to their own thoughts, a lot of the characters seem to repeat the same tropes (there's several show biz plots - painting, actor, producer; several tramps; several bad parents). Briskly directed.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Movie review - "Tammy Tell Me True" (1961) **
Universal contract darling Sandra Dee steps into the role originated by Debbie Reynolds and handles it well - she's got the perkiness and girl next door factor down to a tee. The material isn't as strong - Dee gets sick of waiting for her boyfriend from the first film, who is off at college, and decides to educate herself at college. Cue snobbish students and a crusty little old lady for Tammy's heart to melt.
The film does get points for continuity with the first movie, though it's not entirely consistent - she made such a lovely difference to that first film's family's life, you would think they would put in some appearance here.
And too many of Tammy II's adventures feel as if by rote: melting the heart of a curmudgeon old lady takes about five minutes (she used to grow up on the river, Tammy takes her out on the river, problem solved), the romance with the public speaking professor (John Gavin doesn't have especially good chemistry with Dee) is perfunctory (I got why Leslie Nielsen's character liked Reynolds in the first - she was deep whereas his crowd was shallow - but why does Gavin like Dee here?), the subplot where Tammy baby sits a horrid little boy is thrown in too late (Billy Mumy is the kid - a role he often played in the 60s), it's never entirely believable that the college let Tammy attend in the first place (would have been easier if she'd just been an employee there who they let attend occasional classes), and there's a horrid subplot where Tammy encourages a college teacher to quit and adopt kids so the teacher's painter husband won't be so threatened that he earns less money. Yuck.
On the bright side, there is a good villain in the niece of the old lady who wants her money and is anti-Tammy, some decent support cast and production values, and Dee sings a song.
The film does get points for continuity with the first movie, though it's not entirely consistent - she made such a lovely difference to that first film's family's life, you would think they would put in some appearance here.
And too many of Tammy II's adventures feel as if by rote: melting the heart of a curmudgeon old lady takes about five minutes (she used to grow up on the river, Tammy takes her out on the river, problem solved), the romance with the public speaking professor (John Gavin doesn't have especially good chemistry with Dee) is perfunctory (I got why Leslie Nielsen's character liked Reynolds in the first - she was deep whereas his crowd was shallow - but why does Gavin like Dee here?), the subplot where Tammy baby sits a horrid little boy is thrown in too late (Billy Mumy is the kid - a role he often played in the 60s), it's never entirely believable that the college let Tammy attend in the first place (would have been easier if she'd just been an employee there who they let attend occasional classes), and there's a horrid subplot where Tammy encourages a college teacher to quit and adopt kids so the teacher's painter husband won't be so threatened that he earns less money. Yuck.
On the bright side, there is a good villain in the niece of the old lady who wants her money and is anti-Tammy, some decent support cast and production values, and Dee sings a song.
Movie review - "For a Good Time Call" (2012) **1/2
Cheerful enough "womantic" comedy has a bright central idea - two young girls on the make in New York City run a phone sex line together - and strong lead performances. But it never gets it's tone entirely right, being unable to resist going for broad comedy bits which don't feel realistic (eg Kevin Smith wanking in a cab with a passenger in the back, Seth Rogen going for it on the toilet).
There's also a lack in plot development - it needed a baddie, or a complication. One of them has parents who don't approve but since she's living in New York away from them that doesn't mean much. Maybe this should have been set in a small town, and/or about middle aged people with kids... something to give it some more stakes.
Ari Graynor and Lauren Miller have good chemistry, and I love the depiction of female friendship. There are some funny jokes, plenty of heart and plenty of cameos from famous people but it felt as though the script needed another couple of drafts,
There's also a lack in plot development - it needed a baddie, or a complication. One of them has parents who don't approve but since she's living in New York away from them that doesn't mean much. Maybe this should have been set in a small town, and/or about middle aged people with kids... something to give it some more stakes.
Ari Graynor and Lauren Miller have good chemistry, and I love the depiction of female friendship. There are some funny jokes, plenty of heart and plenty of cameos from famous people but it felt as though the script needed another couple of drafts,
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Movie review - "Romanoff and Juliet" (1961) **
A Cold War satire in the vein of The Mouse That Roared - in a tiny European country, whose UN vote is being fought over (should have been something more tangible, like the rights for a missile base), the daughter of the US ambassador romances the son of the Russian ambassador. She is played by Sandra Dee and he by John Gavin, both of whom were under contract to Universal, who distributed - but the actual star is Peter Ustinov, who also wrote, produced, directed and wrote the original play.
Ustinov's performance is, as always, excellent and his script has some bright, if occasionally over obvious lines. (It's cute how no one can find the country on the map and forget it exists.) His direction is pedestrian, lacking charm and pace - it's a leaden film, which feels as though it gets slower the longer it goes for.
Dee isn't as likeable as I normally found her - maybe due to the fact her character's so passive. The fact Gavin plays a Russian means his limitations are protected but he's not very interesting either. There's shenanigans involving Ustinov acting as cupid for these two but their romance isn't involving, the two of them are clearly stupid. Despite the fact it was shot in Italy there's not even compensating pretty pictures of Europe, which is inexcusable - the action is dark and murky, DOP Robert Krasker still too much in Third Man mode.
This should be a bright fun little picture but after a while it just became annoying, silly and dull.
Ustinov's performance is, as always, excellent and his script has some bright, if occasionally over obvious lines. (It's cute how no one can find the country on the map and forget it exists.) His direction is pedestrian, lacking charm and pace - it's a leaden film, which feels as though it gets slower the longer it goes for.
Dee isn't as likeable as I normally found her - maybe due to the fact her character's so passive. The fact Gavin plays a Russian means his limitations are protected but he's not very interesting either. There's shenanigans involving Ustinov acting as cupid for these two but their romance isn't involving, the two of them are clearly stupid. Despite the fact it was shot in Italy there's not even compensating pretty pictures of Europe, which is inexcusable - the action is dark and murky, DOP Robert Krasker still too much in Third Man mode.
This should be a bright fun little picture but after a while it just became annoying, silly and dull.
Book review - "The Brides of Dracula" by Dean Owen (1960)
Novelisation of the script to the Hammer classic - actually I should say earlier script, because a number of things were changed for the final movie that pop up in the book, notably:
- a greater role of Baron's servant, Latour, who here threatens Marianne, kills Van Helsing's servant Jacques, and tries to kill Van Helsing but is killed by him.
- Van Helsing falls in love with Marianne... after rescuing her from a night out with the Baron, where the Baron had stripped her clothes off and was about to have his way with her (this is a raunchy hot book), Van Helsing takes her back to an inn, and winds up having sex with Marianne. Marianne is tempted under the sway of the Baron but it's her love for Van Helsing that keeps her from going completely over to the dark side.
- The climax involves the Baron being destroyed by Van Helsing invoking an old curse - where the Barton is punished by the dark side
It was a real jolt to read about Van Helsing having sex with the nubile Marianne (whose beauty is frequently commented upon) - mostly I guess because I pictured Peter Cushing and Yvonne Monlaur going for it. I struggled with the logic of some of it i.e. why the Barton didn't kill Van Helsing when he had the chance, why he kept Marianne alive. But there's plenty of atmosphere, violence (gorged necks, the Baron being attacked by bats), sex (lots of descriptions of Marianne and Greta's naked form, which was pretty racy) and it was an entertaining read.
- a greater role of Baron's servant, Latour, who here threatens Marianne, kills Van Helsing's servant Jacques, and tries to kill Van Helsing but is killed by him.
- Van Helsing falls in love with Marianne... after rescuing her from a night out with the Baron, where the Baron had stripped her clothes off and was about to have his way with her (this is a raunchy hot book), Van Helsing takes her back to an inn, and winds up having sex with Marianne. Marianne is tempted under the sway of the Baron but it's her love for Van Helsing that keeps her from going completely over to the dark side.
- The climax involves the Baron being destroyed by Van Helsing invoking an old curse - where the Barton is punished by the dark side
It was a real jolt to read about Van Helsing having sex with the nubile Marianne (whose beauty is frequently commented upon) - mostly I guess because I pictured Peter Cushing and Yvonne Monlaur going for it. I struggled with the logic of some of it i.e. why the Barton didn't kill Van Helsing when he had the chance, why he kept Marianne alive. But there's plenty of atmosphere, violence (gorged necks, the Baron being attacked by bats), sex (lots of descriptions of Marianne and Greta's naked form, which was pretty racy) and it was an entertaining read.
Book review - "Masque of the Red Death" by Elise Lee (1964)
I'm really loving this series of film novelisations that Bear Manor Media are republishing - like their one on The Raven this comes with a sort of DVD extras equivalent, an interview with Roger Corman on the making of the film, which I found very interesting: he says he wanted to make Masque from the beginning but was worried about similarities with The Seventh Seal. Hence, it was not made until towards the end of the cycle - however this did mean it could be shot in England with greater production value, and also Corman's skills as a director were reaching its peak.
Corman had a deal of trouble getting a script he was happy with and numerous writers worked on Masque - end credit goes to Charles Beaumont and William Campbell. Truth be told, the script is a bit messy with a lot of repetition and sketchy characters: Gino and his father are just bland hot headed idiots (though supposed to be the hero), Francesca is just a hot girl who is kidnapped, Gino escapes and is recaptured, there's a lot of tap dancing dramatically until the deux ex machina of the red-clad visitor. It's not as well structured as say Richard Matheson's Poe scripts.
However, when it's good it's excellent, with some captivating atmosphere, and a stunningly good line up of bad characters: satanist Prospero, jealous Juliana, determined to be married to Satan, Hop Toad the dwarf, Alfredo the duke. It's a bleak world of death, injustice, pain, sex, religious devotion and superstition. It's a flawed script but the novelisation captures the atmosphere and is consistently interesting.
Corman had a deal of trouble getting a script he was happy with and numerous writers worked on Masque - end credit goes to Charles Beaumont and William Campbell. Truth be told, the script is a bit messy with a lot of repetition and sketchy characters: Gino and his father are just bland hot headed idiots (though supposed to be the hero), Francesca is just a hot girl who is kidnapped, Gino escapes and is recaptured, there's a lot of tap dancing dramatically until the deux ex machina of the red-clad visitor. It's not as well structured as say Richard Matheson's Poe scripts.
However, when it's good it's excellent, with some captivating atmosphere, and a stunningly good line up of bad characters: satanist Prospero, jealous Juliana, determined to be married to Satan, Hop Toad the dwarf, Alfredo the duke. It's a bleak world of death, injustice, pain, sex, religious devotion and superstition. It's a flawed script but the novelisation captures the atmosphere and is consistently interesting.
Movie reviw - "The Birdcage" (1996) **1/2
There are a plenty of really funny lines in this film - "the money's on the counter, chocolate", "that's why I'm packing light", "I made you short?" - and excellent performances from all the cast. The Miami setting works a treat, it's full of colour and the concept of Nathan Lane as Barbara Bush is wonderful.
But it has a central flaw which brings the whole thing down - it's so horrible for son Dan Futterman to want his father to go through with the deception, that we never care for him or his bride, and the whole thing doesn't have stakes. Because it was the 90s everyone acknowledges that it's a horrible thing he's asked them to do, but this doesn't fix the problem, it just draws more attention to it, and slows the action down because everyone keeps changing their mind about whether to do through with the farce. Which means it takes forever for the farce - the fun and games - to get going.
This could have easily been fixed by having it be Nathan Lane who is the one pushing the deception - they are the ones with the power. You wouldn't feel so sorry for him and Robin Williams and you wouldn't resent their bratty son and fiancee (Calista Flockhart, just before fame). But you do, and it makes the movie drag and unpleasant.
But it has a central flaw which brings the whole thing down - it's so horrible for son Dan Futterman to want his father to go through with the deception, that we never care for him or his bride, and the whole thing doesn't have stakes. Because it was the 90s everyone acknowledges that it's a horrible thing he's asked them to do, but this doesn't fix the problem, it just draws more attention to it, and slows the action down because everyone keeps changing their mind about whether to do through with the farce. Which means it takes forever for the farce - the fun and games - to get going.
This could have easily been fixed by having it be Nathan Lane who is the one pushing the deception - they are the ones with the power. You wouldn't feel so sorry for him and Robin Williams and you wouldn't resent their bratty son and fiancee (Calista Flockhart, just before fame). But you do, and it makes the movie drag and unpleasant.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Book review - "Singapore Burning" by Colin Smith
I really enjoyed this book - it lacked the novelty of Smith's earlier work on England vs Vichy France but remains gripping reading, although hard to take at times if you're an Aussie. Australians are brought up on the story of British incompetence at Singapore - guns facing the wrong way, refusal to build defences, and so on. But it seems fairly clear a big reason behind the disaster of the campaign was Australian troops cracking under pressure, particularly on the battle on Singapore Island itself.
It wasn't the only one of course; from reading this the key mistakes appear to have been:
1) Failure to launch the pre-emptive strike Operation Matador which would have secured Thai beach heads and possibly meant the invasion fleet could have been sunk;
2) Failure of Admiral Tom Phillips to call in air support for Force Z even though the element of surprise had been lost;
3) The tendency of Allied forces to retreat rather than make a stand;
4) Failure to build defences on Singapore on the north shore;
5) Inadequate preparation for northern defences;
6) Bad leadership especially of Australians and Indians.
The campaign wasn't a complete disaster for the Allies - they managed to inflict some bloody noses on the Japanese - but they lost all the key battles. We should be grown up enough as a nation to consistently study this campaign and learn from it instead of seeking solace in myth.
It wasn't the only one of course; from reading this the key mistakes appear to have been:
1) Failure to launch the pre-emptive strike Operation Matador which would have secured Thai beach heads and possibly meant the invasion fleet could have been sunk;
2) Failure of Admiral Tom Phillips to call in air support for Force Z even though the element of surprise had been lost;
3) The tendency of Allied forces to retreat rather than make a stand;
4) Failure to build defences on Singapore on the north shore;
5) Inadequate preparation for northern defences;
6) Bad leadership especially of Australians and Indians.
The campaign wasn't a complete disaster for the Allies - they managed to inflict some bloody noses on the Japanese - but they lost all the key battles. We should be grown up enough as a nation to consistently study this campaign and learn from it instead of seeking solace in myth.
Movie review - "A Distant Trumpet" (1964) **
This was based on Paul Horgan's novel about fighting Apaches in the southwest in the 1880s (inspired by the Geronimo War), which had been snapped up for filming very quickly, but took a couple of years to be made. It is best remembered today for being the last film of Raoul Walsh, who is not in good form - the direction is a flabby - but far more problematic is the script and acting.
I got the feeling the script and story was meant to have depth and be a character study but that didn't come across - there was a lot of angsting and scenes of people talking about not much, and the set up to the fighting was clunky. It felt like a project that had been tinkered with far too much for its own good.
Warners assigned lead roles to a bunch of their contract stars - Troy Donahue, Diane McBain, Suzanne Pleshette. It was a change of pace for Donahue, who had worked in melodramas for the studio up until then; he looks uncomfortable in Western garb, being particularly lunky and awkward. He is most relaxed in his love scenes with Pleshette - who is sexy and seems very at home in a Western, particularly in a hot moment where they do it in a cave. But generally he's out of his element as a cavalry officer.
He doesn't give the worst performance though - that honour goes to James Gregory, as Donahue's commanding officer; he's got these fake whiskers and he struts around taking forever to get his (admittedly pompous) dialogue out. It was painful, as if he's sending the whole thing up. And unforgiveable, really - aren't these roles super easy to play? Or at least to get reliable supporting actors to do?
The love triangle between McBain, Donahue and Pleshette didn't work for me: Pleshette is married, but her husband is rarely around, so isn't a threat; I wasn't sure what the point of McBain was - to do her normal rich bitch thing? She's dismissed easily at the end and then Pleshette and Donahue are married because, um, her husband's dead and... anyway it was confusing. This was badly handled with major dramatic pieces missing.
There's some lovely pictures and images, great location work, some pretty battles (it sounds odd but it's true - most of the battles are filmed in long shot, so you are distanced from them). Claude Akins livens things up as a person who sells guns to the Indians. Under all the bad acting and cliched scripting there's an interesting story - Indians fighting for freedom, unsure whether to trust the cavalry, the US government willing to betray them... it is interesting because it's based on truth. But the handling does it in.
I got the feeling the script and story was meant to have depth and be a character study but that didn't come across - there was a lot of angsting and scenes of people talking about not much, and the set up to the fighting was clunky. It felt like a project that had been tinkered with far too much for its own good.
Warners assigned lead roles to a bunch of their contract stars - Troy Donahue, Diane McBain, Suzanne Pleshette. It was a change of pace for Donahue, who had worked in melodramas for the studio up until then; he looks uncomfortable in Western garb, being particularly lunky and awkward. He is most relaxed in his love scenes with Pleshette - who is sexy and seems very at home in a Western, particularly in a hot moment where they do it in a cave. But generally he's out of his element as a cavalry officer.
He doesn't give the worst performance though - that honour goes to James Gregory, as Donahue's commanding officer; he's got these fake whiskers and he struts around taking forever to get his (admittedly pompous) dialogue out. It was painful, as if he's sending the whole thing up. And unforgiveable, really - aren't these roles super easy to play? Or at least to get reliable supporting actors to do?
The love triangle between McBain, Donahue and Pleshette didn't work for me: Pleshette is married, but her husband is rarely around, so isn't a threat; I wasn't sure what the point of McBain was - to do her normal rich bitch thing? She's dismissed easily at the end and then Pleshette and Donahue are married because, um, her husband's dead and... anyway it was confusing. This was badly handled with major dramatic pieces missing.
There's some lovely pictures and images, great location work, some pretty battles (it sounds odd but it's true - most of the battles are filmed in long shot, so you are distanced from them). Claude Akins livens things up as a person who sells guns to the Indians. Under all the bad acting and cliched scripting there's an interesting story - Indians fighting for freedom, unsure whether to trust the cavalry, the US government willing to betray them... it is interesting because it's based on truth. But the handling does it in.
Theatre review - "Showboat" (2014 The Production Company 16 August 2014)
Showboat isn't the easiest show to do in the world but the production I saw made a mistake casting actors with great voices who couldn't get the subtext of the characters. Gaylord is meant to be a charming gambling addict - someone who loves his wife, but doesn't like acting, who can't resist the lure of the cards. Magnolia is meant to be a naive, romantic idiot who falls in love with an idea of a man rather than the real man. Julie is meant to be warm, tragic and impulsive. Capn Andy and Parthy should be memorable character actor turns. Frank and Ellie should be obviously comic-only actors.
I guess the show couldn't help the limited budget, which meant a limit on the spectacle, or the flaws of the book (would Steve have really bailed on Julie after such a display of love for her? Why not have him killed? There's two scenes of Julie stepping aside for Magnolia). Still, some great songs, and memorable bits such as Steve cutting Julie's skin and taking in her blood.
I guess the show couldn't help the limited budget, which meant a limit on the spectacle, or the flaws of the book (would Steve have really bailed on Julie after such a display of love for her? Why not have him killed? There's two scenes of Julie stepping aside for Magnolia). Still, some great songs, and memorable bits such as Steve cutting Julie's skin and taking in her blood.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Movie review - "Susan Slade" (1961) **1/2
Troy Donahue is top billed in this Delmer Daves melodrama but the star is actually Connie Stevens, quite good in a part that was probably offered to Sandra Dee. She plays the title role, a young naïve 17 year old who has spent the past decade living in Chile with her mother (Dorothy McGuire) and mining engineer father (Lloyd Nolan). He decides to retire and on the cruise back home she is romanced by a wealthy mountaineer (Guy Williams) who knocks her up and then falls off a mountain. The family decide to raise her illegitimate daughter as McGuire's.
I know illegitimacy was a bigger deal in 1961 than it is today, and this is no doubt my modern morality talking, but the central concept of the film didn't ring true for me. Maybe if the family had been aristocrats, or politicians, or it had been set 50 years ago, I would have gone for it. But the Slades have spent ten years in the desert - they hardly know anyone except Nolan's boss (Brian Ahern as one of the most kindly tycoons ever depicted on screen), his wife and kids. They live out in an impressive isolated house by the lake so rarely deal with gossips. I didn't feel there was a reason to maintain the deception - at least not one strong enough to sustain a film. Yes, Stevens is wooed by stuff Bert Convy, Ahern's son - but she doesn't really love him so there are no stakes there either... especially with kindly aspiring writer Troy Donahue waiting in the wings to love her.
If Nolan had political aspirations I would have bought it. Ditto if he and McGuire had been controlling psychopaths - but they are depicted as loving, caring parents and the family very close. Or maybe if William's family threatened to take the kid away (as it is they do disappointingly little with that side of the story... we meet William's dad in one scene and that's it).
It's a shame because apart from that (admittedly big) problem, this was an entertaining film. It's a simple story cleanly told (unlike Parrish which was all over the shop), Delmer Daves handles it with aplomb, there are some impressive visuals (the lake house, the mines), Stevens is good enough to carry the film on her shoulders, Troy Donahue is well protected (despite a few laughable lines of dialogue where Stevens compares him with Robert Louis Stevenson and a moment where he cries out in pain about his father's death), there is solid support from McGuire and Nolan, especially the latter (he makes several difficult scenes work, such as Nolan thanking God for his life). Mrs Howell from Gilligan's Island appears as a Mrs Howell type and there's a lush music score, including a reprise of the theme from A Summer Place.
I know illegitimacy was a bigger deal in 1961 than it is today, and this is no doubt my modern morality talking, but the central concept of the film didn't ring true for me. Maybe if the family had been aristocrats, or politicians, or it had been set 50 years ago, I would have gone for it. But the Slades have spent ten years in the desert - they hardly know anyone except Nolan's boss (Brian Ahern as one of the most kindly tycoons ever depicted on screen), his wife and kids. They live out in an impressive isolated house by the lake so rarely deal with gossips. I didn't feel there was a reason to maintain the deception - at least not one strong enough to sustain a film. Yes, Stevens is wooed by stuff Bert Convy, Ahern's son - but she doesn't really love him so there are no stakes there either... especially with kindly aspiring writer Troy Donahue waiting in the wings to love her.
If Nolan had political aspirations I would have bought it. Ditto if he and McGuire had been controlling psychopaths - but they are depicted as loving, caring parents and the family very close. Or maybe if William's family threatened to take the kid away (as it is they do disappointingly little with that side of the story... we meet William's dad in one scene and that's it).
It's a shame because apart from that (admittedly big) problem, this was an entertaining film. It's a simple story cleanly told (unlike Parrish which was all over the shop), Delmer Daves handles it with aplomb, there are some impressive visuals (the lake house, the mines), Stevens is good enough to carry the film on her shoulders, Troy Donahue is well protected (despite a few laughable lines of dialogue where Stevens compares him with Robert Louis Stevenson and a moment where he cries out in pain about his father's death), there is solid support from McGuire and Nolan, especially the latter (he makes several difficult scenes work, such as Nolan thanking God for his life). Mrs Howell from Gilligan's Island appears as a Mrs Howell type and there's a lush music score, including a reprise of the theme from A Summer Place.
Movie review - "A Summer Place" (1959) ***
A lesson to filmmakers - in the late 50s there were a number of popular hit melodrama films which produced teen stars... but the adult characters were prominent as well - Imitation of Life, Peyton Place, this. This one has a great set up: millionaire Richard Egan holidays at the island where he used to life guard when a poor teen, and rekindles a romance with Dorothy McGuire, despite the fact both are married. But it's okay because his wife is a bitch (Constance Ford) and her husband a pathetic drunken failure (Arthur Kennedy). Adding to their complications is the fact their kids fall in love: Sandra Dee and Troy Donahue.
This lays it on with a trowel and is gloriously crappy but it at least goes for it. There is some pretty scenery, a catch theme song, colour photography, and intense melodrama, with everyone obsessed by sex, particularly Ford (who has her daughter inspected for virginity after she's stuck out on a yacht with Donahue). It's not hard to see why the kids went for it - the poor things, with hormones throbbing and being misunderstood, and parents who are either neglectful (Kennedy), damaging (Ford) or loving but full of guilt (Egan, McGuire) and premarital sex leading to pregnancy but with the possibility of true love following.
Ford and Kennedy camp it up something chronic - Kennedy practically twirls his moustache. Dee and Donahue play in a totally appropriate manner; Dee is very good, depicting sexual confusion and lust, and having an effective hysteria scene. Donahue is stiff and awkward but has a good intense look and deep speaking voice; he's also got this scene where he makes some dim pronouncement in class about not wanting to follow orders and everyone claps. But he and Dee are an ideal team - it's a shame they didn't work with together more often. They have genuine chemistry.
Egan and McGuire offer sensible support - after act one, when their characters jump into bed (50s Hollywood style) pretty much straight away, they drop out of the action, which then concentrates on the kids. Egan does have some awful dialogue talking about the naturalness of sex and Dee's delightful figure. Good, junky fun.
This lays it on with a trowel and is gloriously crappy but it at least goes for it. There is some pretty scenery, a catch theme song, colour photography, and intense melodrama, with everyone obsessed by sex, particularly Ford (who has her daughter inspected for virginity after she's stuck out on a yacht with Donahue). It's not hard to see why the kids went for it - the poor things, with hormones throbbing and being misunderstood, and parents who are either neglectful (Kennedy), damaging (Ford) or loving but full of guilt (Egan, McGuire) and premarital sex leading to pregnancy but with the possibility of true love following.
Ford and Kennedy camp it up something chronic - Kennedy practically twirls his moustache. Dee and Donahue play in a totally appropriate manner; Dee is very good, depicting sexual confusion and lust, and having an effective hysteria scene. Donahue is stiff and awkward but has a good intense look and deep speaking voice; he's also got this scene where he makes some dim pronouncement in class about not wanting to follow orders and everyone claps. But he and Dee are an ideal team - it's a shame they didn't work with together more often. They have genuine chemistry.
Egan and McGuire offer sensible support - after act one, when their characters jump into bed (50s Hollywood style) pretty much straight away, they drop out of the action, which then concentrates on the kids. Egan does have some awful dialogue talking about the naturalness of sex and Dee's delightful figure. Good, junky fun.
Movie review - "Parrish" (1961) *1/2
Having enjoyed a big hit with a wide-screen colourful adaptation of a melodramatic best seller in A Summer Place, Delmer Daves and Warner Bros went back to the well again with this sudser. Having turned Troy Donahue into a star with that first film, Daves used him again, putting him front and center this time, but ensuring he was surrounded by a very strong support cast.
This isn't as good as A Summer Place, which was no masterpiece but worked as a drama. It had integrity, if that's the right word - a solid concept around which you could construct a film. Parrish is far less focused or satisfactory.
Donahue just got over the line in the first film because he was a supporting actor, he was propped up by Sandra Dee, and had a simple character: not too bright boy, basically good, in love with Dee. Here he flounders a lot more; he has a good look, deep voice, and some presence (laugh, but he did) but doesn't have the chops to pull it off. Far too frequently he's awkward, dim, and in some big emoting scenes he's downright laughable.
He's not helped by a stupid character. Everyone pants over Parrish in this film: his mother adores him, step dad prefers him to the latter's biological children, women get the hots for him at the drop of a hat... but why? He's handsome, sure, but there are other handsome guys in this film. He's not particularly bright - Karl Malden (step dad) gives him a leg up and admittedly yells at him a lot but Donahue keeps making mistakes and looking like an idiot. His step brothers call his mother (Claudette Colbert) a lower class tramp and he doesn't thump them until the end of the film. He sticks up for a trampy girl (Connie Stevens) - who he's slept with incidentally - but blackmails the guy who impregnated her, not into helping out the girl or the kid, but to be nice to his mother. When he declares independence from Malden, he doesn't strike out on his own, he goes into the navy. And when he tries to make a go of it as a tobacco farmer, he only succeeds because he's bailed out by his girlfriend.
Delmer Daves handles it all in the incredibly serious method of A Summer Place although it lacks the universal appeal of thwarted love. Donahue's Parrish is basically a whiny brat who can't stick at a relationship - he's meant to fall in love with good girl Sharon Hugueny, but there's no real reason given other than she's a good girl (and Hugueny is far too inexperienced; she and Donahue collapse against each other). He lacks backbone and purpose.
The supporting characters are pure stereotypes: Malden's yelling, obnoxious tycoon; cat on a hot tin roof Connie Stevens, straight off the set of God's Little Acre (complete with yokel overacting family); trampy rich girl Diane McBain (a performance full of life and zest, the best one in the movie); virginal Hugueny; evil step brothers; kindly decent Dean Jagger. Claudette Colbert starts off with what seems to be a decent role but she's sidelined after the first act (like Dorothy McGuire was in A Summer Place come to think of it).
Dramatically the piece suffers from poor construction. Nothing seems to drive Parrish - he hooks up with Stevens, then with McBain... but doesn't seem to feel too bad when they break up, then goes for Hugueny. He doesn't seem to have a goal - he says he wants to be a tobacco farmer, but only after Malden offers to show him the business... then when they doesn't turn out he goes off to the Navy. Then comes back and farms. Also there doesn't seem to be an ending - he thumps his brother. Big deal. That should have happened in Act One - the climax should have been he beats up Karl Malden.
Visually it's handsome, Colbert and Malden are pros, and it does look visually interesting with all that tobacco farming.
This isn't as good as A Summer Place, which was no masterpiece but worked as a drama. It had integrity, if that's the right word - a solid concept around which you could construct a film. Parrish is far less focused or satisfactory.
Donahue just got over the line in the first film because he was a supporting actor, he was propped up by Sandra Dee, and had a simple character: not too bright boy, basically good, in love with Dee. Here he flounders a lot more; he has a good look, deep voice, and some presence (laugh, but he did) but doesn't have the chops to pull it off. Far too frequently he's awkward, dim, and in some big emoting scenes he's downright laughable.
He's not helped by a stupid character. Everyone pants over Parrish in this film: his mother adores him, step dad prefers him to the latter's biological children, women get the hots for him at the drop of a hat... but why? He's handsome, sure, but there are other handsome guys in this film. He's not particularly bright - Karl Malden (step dad) gives him a leg up and admittedly yells at him a lot but Donahue keeps making mistakes and looking like an idiot. His step brothers call his mother (Claudette Colbert) a lower class tramp and he doesn't thump them until the end of the film. He sticks up for a trampy girl (Connie Stevens) - who he's slept with incidentally - but blackmails the guy who impregnated her, not into helping out the girl or the kid, but to be nice to his mother. When he declares independence from Malden, he doesn't strike out on his own, he goes into the navy. And when he tries to make a go of it as a tobacco farmer, he only succeeds because he's bailed out by his girlfriend.
Delmer Daves handles it all in the incredibly serious method of A Summer Place although it lacks the universal appeal of thwarted love. Donahue's Parrish is basically a whiny brat who can't stick at a relationship - he's meant to fall in love with good girl Sharon Hugueny, but there's no real reason given other than she's a good girl (and Hugueny is far too inexperienced; she and Donahue collapse against each other). He lacks backbone and purpose.
The supporting characters are pure stereotypes: Malden's yelling, obnoxious tycoon; cat on a hot tin roof Connie Stevens, straight off the set of God's Little Acre (complete with yokel overacting family); trampy rich girl Diane McBain (a performance full of life and zest, the best one in the movie); virginal Hugueny; evil step brothers; kindly decent Dean Jagger. Claudette Colbert starts off with what seems to be a decent role but she's sidelined after the first act (like Dorothy McGuire was in A Summer Place come to think of it).
Dramatically the piece suffers from poor construction. Nothing seems to drive Parrish - he hooks up with Stevens, then with McBain... but doesn't seem to feel too bad when they break up, then goes for Hugueny. He doesn't seem to have a goal - he says he wants to be a tobacco farmer, but only after Malden offers to show him the business... then when they doesn't turn out he goes off to the Navy. Then comes back and farms. Also there doesn't seem to be an ending - he thumps his brother. Big deal. That should have happened in Act One - the climax should have been he beats up Karl Malden.
Visually it's handsome, Colbert and Malden are pros, and it does look visually interesting with all that tobacco farming.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Movie review - "My Mistress" (2014) **1/2
A 16 year old boy recovers from witnessing his father's suicide by forming a relationship with the French lady down the road, who happens to be an S and M mistress. This film benefits from two superb performances from the lead - the young Harrison Gilbertson is a name to watch and Emmanuelle Beart is captivating. It also has a strong sense of place.
It does feel like a 30 minute film stretched out to feature length - subplots involving Socratis Otto and Rachel Blake felt poorly developed. And the construction of some scenes felt awkward. Still, an interesting and different film which should make a nice earner on the art house market.
It does feel like a 30 minute film stretched out to feature length - subplots involving Socratis Otto and Rachel Blake felt poorly developed. And the construction of some scenes felt awkward. Still, an interesting and different film which should make a nice earner on the art house market.
Theatre review - "Guys and Dolls" (Performing Arts 20 July 2014)
The classical musical received a not very good production - the urst between bad boy Skye and good girl Sarah (the crux of the piece) was completely underdone and they missed the fun and poignancy of Nathan and Adelaide. The supporting cast lacked colour. This piece needs to be carefully cast at the top level - or else be played by enthusiastic amateurs (it suits ham). Can't see yet why it's regarded as one of the great musicals.
Movie review - "Palm Springs Weekend" (1963) **1/2
Jack Warner looked at the grosses of Where the Boys Are and all the young actors he had under contract making TV shows and thought he would have a crack at the teen market. It was the last of the clean teen pics from the studios in the 60s and was not a big success at the box office, though it's cheerful enough - director Norman Taurog was a dab hand at this sort of thing, and ensures plenty of pretty people and colour.
The script follows the Where the Boys Are template quite closely - there's a goofy guy a la Frank Gorshin (Jerry Van Dyke), cocky rich kid in the vein of George Hamilton (Robert Conrad), kookie girl unlucky in love like Paul Prentiss (Zeme North, the least well known of the main players but quite good), a naive innocent like Yvette Mimieux who winds up in a sexually precarious position (Connie Stevens), a sensible good girl like Dolores Hart (Stefanie Powers), a more comical nice guy like Jim Hutton (Ty Hardin). There's also a sequence which involves our leads being hauled into the local police station, and a climax involving an attempted date rape.
The cast seem very old - Troy Donahue, Ty Hardin and Robert Conrad especially. Much of the playing feels laboured as does the comic set ups, and Jerry Van Dyke's performance. But it is bright and colourful with moments of sweetness.
I really liked Stefanie Powers - she's a sweetheart - even if her character does talk marriage with Donahue within the first five minutes. Conrad makes an effective bad boy; Donahue looks awkward, with that deep voice and blonde fringe; Stevens is fine and Hardin engaging. There's a strong support cast including Jack Weston (basketball coach who seeks his own romance), and Billy Mumy as a bratty boy. It is weird that this is basically a beach party movie but it's set in the desert.
The script follows the Where the Boys Are template quite closely - there's a goofy guy a la Frank Gorshin (Jerry Van Dyke), cocky rich kid in the vein of George Hamilton (Robert Conrad), kookie girl unlucky in love like Paul Prentiss (Zeme North, the least well known of the main players but quite good), a naive innocent like Yvette Mimieux who winds up in a sexually precarious position (Connie Stevens), a sensible good girl like Dolores Hart (Stefanie Powers), a more comical nice guy like Jim Hutton (Ty Hardin). There's also a sequence which involves our leads being hauled into the local police station, and a climax involving an attempted date rape.
The cast seem very old - Troy Donahue, Ty Hardin and Robert Conrad especially. Much of the playing feels laboured as does the comic set ups, and Jerry Van Dyke's performance. But it is bright and colourful with moments of sweetness.
I really liked Stefanie Powers - she's a sweetheart - even if her character does talk marriage with Donahue within the first five minutes. Conrad makes an effective bad boy; Donahue looks awkward, with that deep voice and blonde fringe; Stevens is fine and Hardin engaging. There's a strong support cast including Jack Weston (basketball coach who seeks his own romance), and Billy Mumy as a bratty boy. It is weird that this is basically a beach party movie but it's set in the desert.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Book review - "Mr Towers of London" by Harry Alan Towers
The memoirs of Harry Allan Towers, who has a very long list of credits as a producer and writer, many of whom are not good - but the occasional classy pic snuck through (eg The Face of Fu Manchu). He is one of those filmmakers who have an aura of improbability about them - he's forever flying off to some exotic local to do a deal, make a movie; he also got involved in some weird case where he was charged by US police of living off his girlfriend's earnings as a prostitute. Towers writes about this in his book - he says he had no idea about his girlfriend's activities but then goes on to talk about prostitutes and madams with great familiarity in other chapters so maybe there was something to it.
Towers is one of those people who while reading their book you keep going "really? Is that the way it really happened?" Not to say he isn't telling the truth but he just feels like a slippery customer - I hope someone does a well researched biography on him one day. His films may have been mostly garbage but it was a colourful career and he worked with people such as Don Sharp and Orson Welles; he also produced an impressive number of radio shows, including the highly enjoyable Third Man spin off.
It's an entertaining, if odd, read - Towers skips over bits, launches into jokes, pitches current projects (including turning Detroit into a movie making mecca). Not bad.
Towers is one of those people who while reading their book you keep going "really? Is that the way it really happened?" Not to say he isn't telling the truth but he just feels like a slippery customer - I hope someone does a well researched biography on him one day. His films may have been mostly garbage but it was a colourful career and he worked with people such as Don Sharp and Orson Welles; he also produced an impressive number of radio shows, including the highly enjoyable Third Man spin off.
It's an entertaining, if odd, read - Towers skips over bits, launches into jokes, pitches current projects (including turning Detroit into a movie making mecca). Not bad.
Book review - "Elvis' Favorite Director: The Career of Norman Taurog" by Michael Hoey
A book on Norman Taurog? Well, when you think about it, why not? There was a period there when he seemed to have directed every second film that screened on Saturday afternoon TV - MGM musicals, Martin and Lewis, Elvis flicks, AIP comedies - in part because he specialised in easy-to-watch fare: colourful comedies with musical numbers. His career went back even further than that: he won an Oscar in 1931 for Skippy, and he made his name directing comic silents.
Taurog started out as a child actor, went into props, and in the wild and woolly days of early silent cinema found himself a director, working with some dude called Larry Sermon. He worked his way up to longer movies and from then on was never out of work: a man who worked hard, wore his authority easily, and thrived in the studio system; who was particularly good with comics and children.
Taurog was a fatty, which no doubt contributed to the diabetes which led to him losing sight in one eye for the latter part of his career; eventually the other eye went to, and he became completely blind - this was the only thing that stopped him making movies. (I imagine he would have kept going into the 70s otherwise, maybe for TV.)
His personal life wasn't without incident: he had a messy divorce, remarried one of Louis B. Mayer's secretaries, who was a big noise in the Republican Party, and who encouraged Taurog's own political involvement: he was part of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals or whatever it was caused, the right wing group at the time of McCarthyism. He was the uncle by marriage to Jackie Cooper, who accused him of being abusive on set (though Hoey casts doubt on this, in a convincing way, pointing out Taurog often helped him later in life).
This book benefits considerably from the fact that Hoey knew Taurog well - he produced Palm Springs Weekend, which Taurog directed, then went to work for him as an assistant on several of his Elvis movies. So there's lots of little personal touches and insights, such as giving a full account of the death on the set of Dr Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine, the antics of the Elvis mafia on his movies, the fact Taurog liked Elvis but grew to loathe Jerry Lewis. Hoey has done his research too on other movies although at times I felt he got sidetracked giving mini-bios of other people Taurog worked with.
But it's a very easy read, which consistently surprised me (Taurog was pall bearer for Virginia Rappe, of Fatty Arbuckle fame, the sheer cheapness of Colonel Tom Parker) and I liked this a lot.
Taurog started out as a child actor, went into props, and in the wild and woolly days of early silent cinema found himself a director, working with some dude called Larry Sermon. He worked his way up to longer movies and from then on was never out of work: a man who worked hard, wore his authority easily, and thrived in the studio system; who was particularly good with comics and children.
Taurog was a fatty, which no doubt contributed to the diabetes which led to him losing sight in one eye for the latter part of his career; eventually the other eye went to, and he became completely blind - this was the only thing that stopped him making movies. (I imagine he would have kept going into the 70s otherwise, maybe for TV.)
His personal life wasn't without incident: he had a messy divorce, remarried one of Louis B. Mayer's secretaries, who was a big noise in the Republican Party, and who encouraged Taurog's own political involvement: he was part of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals or whatever it was caused, the right wing group at the time of McCarthyism. He was the uncle by marriage to Jackie Cooper, who accused him of being abusive on set (though Hoey casts doubt on this, in a convincing way, pointing out Taurog often helped him later in life).
This book benefits considerably from the fact that Hoey knew Taurog well - he produced Palm Springs Weekend, which Taurog directed, then went to work for him as an assistant on several of his Elvis movies. So there's lots of little personal touches and insights, such as giving a full account of the death on the set of Dr Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine, the antics of the Elvis mafia on his movies, the fact Taurog liked Elvis but grew to loathe Jerry Lewis. Hoey has done his research too on other movies although at times I felt he got sidetracked giving mini-bios of other people Taurog worked with.
But it's a very easy read, which consistently surprised me (Taurog was pall bearer for Virginia Rappe, of Fatty Arbuckle fame, the sheer cheapness of Colonel Tom Parker) and I liked this a lot.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Movie review - "The Uninvited" (1944) **1/2
Paramount has a go at an old dark story but gives it first-rate treatment, with a decent budget and Ray Milland as star. This has a strong reputation and is certainly classy but it isn't that scary - certainly nowhere near the best of Val Lewton, or Universal around this time. So much of the script involves backstory of events that happened years ago which aren't really dramatised - most of the finale involves four actors sitting around chatting.
There are some effective moments, such as hearing the sobbing of the ghost, and Gail Russell's performance - all wide eyes and nerves. Cornelia Otis Skinner is fun as the creepy local shrink who has more than a whiff of a Mrs Danvers/Rebecca/lesbian type attachment to the ghost.
Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey are the the super close brother and sister who decide to buy the house; Hussey's character isn't really needed in the film when you think about it - her role could have been carried by Ray Milland. At least there is a strong female to counter balance nasty Skinner, the comic maid and helpless Russell. The doctor she romances is Alan Napier.
There are some interesting personal relationships, one or two effective moments, decent acting, but it was underwhelming.
There are some effective moments, such as hearing the sobbing of the ghost, and Gail Russell's performance - all wide eyes and nerves. Cornelia Otis Skinner is fun as the creepy local shrink who has more than a whiff of a Mrs Danvers/Rebecca/lesbian type attachment to the ghost.
Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey are the the super close brother and sister who decide to buy the house; Hussey's character isn't really needed in the film when you think about it - her role could have been carried by Ray Milland. At least there is a strong female to counter balance nasty Skinner, the comic maid and helpless Russell. The doctor she romances is Alan Napier.
There are some interesting personal relationships, one or two effective moments, decent acting, but it was underwhelming.
Book review - "The Raven" Ed Philip Ridley (2012)
A novelisation of Richard Matheson's script for the AIP cult favourite, which was fun to read because it shone a light on Matheson's work, often overlooked in discussing this film. People praise (deservedly) the work of Price, Corman, Lorre, etc, not to mention Dan Haller, and chat of Lorre's improvisation - but it's a strong story too.
It's not one of Matheson's classics, but the structure is solid, the action is always moving forward, there is a decent twist every 20 minutes or so (Lenore is still alive, Lorre is in cahoots with the baddies, Lorre dies then comes back), the characters are well defined (even Price's pretty daughter has a bit of spunk, insisting on going on the trip), it build to a clever magic duel. And the touch is just right - it's light, but the stakes are always high. The only real debit are there are two "people being possessed by baddies" scenes, right after each other (Price's servant and then Jack Nicholson).
As an extra treat there is a terrific collection of interviews at the end about the making of the film - with Matheson, Karloff, Price and Corman. There are some funny stories, as well as some conflict between Karloff and Corman (Karloff didn't like the physical trials the director would put him through). A lot of fun.
It's not one of Matheson's classics, but the structure is solid, the action is always moving forward, there is a decent twist every 20 minutes or so (Lenore is still alive, Lorre is in cahoots with the baddies, Lorre dies then comes back), the characters are well defined (even Price's pretty daughter has a bit of spunk, insisting on going on the trip), it build to a clever magic duel. And the touch is just right - it's light, but the stakes are always high. The only real debit are there are two "people being possessed by baddies" scenes, right after each other (Price's servant and then Jack Nicholson).
As an extra treat there is a terrific collection of interviews at the end about the making of the film - with Matheson, Karloff, Price and Corman. There are some funny stories, as well as some conflict between Karloff and Corman (Karloff didn't like the physical trials the director would put him through). A lot of fun.
Friday, August 08, 2014
Book review - "Films of the French Foreign Legion" by Philip Leibfriend (2011)
Enjoyable overview of a lively genre of movies, a genre dominated by adaptations/rip-offs of two main works, Under Two Flags and Beau Geste (even if as pointed out here the former isn't technically set in the French foreign legions). The book offers synopsis and credit listings for major film works; I would have liked more history about the legion and the making of the books. However it is strong on areas not always touched on in Hollywood histories, such as non English movies about the legion, silent films and play adaptations.
Movie review - "The Deep" (1977) **
This was one of the first movies I ever saw at the drive in, and I have strong memories of visual images from it: scuba divers lurking around underwater wrecks, moray eels chomping on people black men scaring white people, people getting air in air pockets.
Looking at it over 30 years later and that's pretty much all the movie is. Jacqueline Bisset and Nick Nolte are the tourists who stumble upon and old wreck that contains morphine and treasure.
Bisset looks splendid in those opening sequences where she scuba dives without a bra - a poster of this helped the movie make a fortune. But while at first she's part of the action, doing the diving, once Robert Shaw becomes involved it's more of a boys own adventure with Nolte and Shaw going underwater and Bissett being tormented on dry land. She does get to spear one guy and discover a key clue by identifying an old parchment as a female's shopping list.
I think Nolte and Bisset's relationship is meant to be more interesting than it comes across - there's all this allusion to their backstory. But really they just look like two good looking people with money. Robert Shaw adds some crusty gravitas (he was in an awful lot of 70s action films, wasn't he?), and Lou Gossett Jnr has charisma as the baddy and a good death scene... even if it is a bit yuck that all the goodies are white and the baddies black.
Stunning locations, the novelty of a cricket game, a decent amount of adventure.
Looking at it over 30 years later and that's pretty much all the movie is. Jacqueline Bisset and Nick Nolte are the tourists who stumble upon and old wreck that contains morphine and treasure.
Bisset looks splendid in those opening sequences where she scuba dives without a bra - a poster of this helped the movie make a fortune. But while at first she's part of the action, doing the diving, once Robert Shaw becomes involved it's more of a boys own adventure with Nolte and Shaw going underwater and Bissett being tormented on dry land. She does get to spear one guy and discover a key clue by identifying an old parchment as a female's shopping list.
I think Nolte and Bisset's relationship is meant to be more interesting than it comes across - there's all this allusion to their backstory. But really they just look like two good looking people with money. Robert Shaw adds some crusty gravitas (he was in an awful lot of 70s action films, wasn't he?), and Lou Gossett Jnr has charisma as the baddy and a good death scene... even if it is a bit yuck that all the goodies are white and the baddies black.
Stunning locations, the novelty of a cricket game, a decent amount of adventure.
Movie review - "Francis in the Navy" (1955) **
The last Francis film from Arthur Lubin and Donald O'Connor is chiefly memorable for two things: the first sizeable screen role for Clint Eastwood and the fact that Francis is barely in it.
Tacking Clint first - he pops up in a bunch of Universal movies around this time, normally as a pilot, science assistant or random guard but here he actually has some lines. It's not much of a part - he's one of several navy friends of a womanising guy - and could technically have been cut out of the film but he does have something to do. (Universal must have wanted to trial several newcomers in this movie - also appearing is David Janssen and Martin Milner, with Martha Hyer as the starlet.)
The second issue is more glaring and problematic. The story starts with O'Connor trying to rescue Francis from being auctioned off, which is a good, solid starting basis for a Francis picture... then becomes about O'Connor being confused for a lookalike, a womanising war hero navy guy called Slicker, whose name is said far too often. Everyone thinks O'Connor is Slicker including his mates (such as Eastwood), sister (Hyer) and officer (Jim Backus).
While it's fun to see O'Connor play a different role, they don't do enough with the identical twins thing - this is no Prisoner of Zenda with baddies out to kill one of the, and ensuring excitement/plot development, there's just a series of adventures. Slicker encourages the swap, but not out of desire to do anything bad, just make mischief, and good O'Connor goes along with it to be a nice guy - which completely robs the piece of any stakes. (Why not get enemy agents involved? Or gangsters?)
It also shamefully repeats gags of O'Connor being whisked off to see shrinks because people think he's crazy... only hear it's not because of Francis, it's since he insists he's not Slicker. Which just isn't funny since it's so easy to prove.
Francis does hardly anything - he helps O'Connor win a boxing match and periodically pops in, but could have been cut out of the whole movie.
Tacking Clint first - he pops up in a bunch of Universal movies around this time, normally as a pilot, science assistant or random guard but here he actually has some lines. It's not much of a part - he's one of several navy friends of a womanising guy - and could technically have been cut out of the film but he does have something to do. (Universal must have wanted to trial several newcomers in this movie - also appearing is David Janssen and Martin Milner, with Martha Hyer as the starlet.)
The second issue is more glaring and problematic. The story starts with O'Connor trying to rescue Francis from being auctioned off, which is a good, solid starting basis for a Francis picture... then becomes about O'Connor being confused for a lookalike, a womanising war hero navy guy called Slicker, whose name is said far too often. Everyone thinks O'Connor is Slicker including his mates (such as Eastwood), sister (Hyer) and officer (Jim Backus).
While it's fun to see O'Connor play a different role, they don't do enough with the identical twins thing - this is no Prisoner of Zenda with baddies out to kill one of the, and ensuring excitement/plot development, there's just a series of adventures. Slicker encourages the swap, but not out of desire to do anything bad, just make mischief, and good O'Connor goes along with it to be a nice guy - which completely robs the piece of any stakes. (Why not get enemy agents involved? Or gangsters?)
It also shamefully repeats gags of O'Connor being whisked off to see shrinks because people think he's crazy... only hear it's not because of Francis, it's since he insists he's not Slicker. Which just isn't funny since it's so easy to prove.
Francis does hardly anything - he helps O'Connor win a boxing match and periodically pops in, but could have been cut out of the whole movie.
Movie review - "The Philadelphia Story" (1984) **
Enjoyable, unpretentious sci fi movie based on the urban legend of World War Two. Michael Pare and Bobby diCicco are two sailors on board a ship on which a radar-avoidance experiment is performed - they jump overboard and wind up in 1984... cue comic reactions to modern fashion, music, etc.
They eventually get rid of di Cicco and have Pare head off on the road with Nancy Allen, where it becomes cute It Happened One Night stuff - although it would have been better if Allen had a stronger character and/or was more involved in the plot in a way other than pretty-girl-who-happens-to-be-there, and she and Pare had stronger chemistry.
Pare is really good - he's a likeable hero, handsome and brave, and seems as if he could come from 1943. There is an awful lot of exposition in the last 15 minutes or so which was too late in the day (all of a sudden, cute time travel stuff becomes 'we must save the entire earth'), a bunch of Coke product placement, an excitingly shot car chase scene in the desert. The basic idea was so good I wish this had been better. John Carpenter was executive producer.
They eventually get rid of di Cicco and have Pare head off on the road with Nancy Allen, where it becomes cute It Happened One Night stuff - although it would have been better if Allen had a stronger character and/or was more involved in the plot in a way other than pretty-girl-who-happens-to-be-there, and she and Pare had stronger chemistry.
Pare is really good - he's a likeable hero, handsome and brave, and seems as if he could come from 1943. There is an awful lot of exposition in the last 15 minutes or so which was too late in the day (all of a sudden, cute time travel stuff becomes 'we must save the entire earth'), a bunch of Coke product placement, an excitingly shot car chase scene in the desert. The basic idea was so good I wish this had been better. John Carpenter was executive producer.
Book review - "Alamein: War without Hate" by John Bierman & Colin Smith
Strong overview of the Desert Campaign, which pays most attention (fairly enough) to the big clash at El Alamein. There are a number of neat vignettes - I particularly enjoyed (if that's the right word) stories of British troops dolling out Benzedrine tablets to soldiers, some of whom went ga ga and shot their own men. The book could have done with more of these.
Aussies get a decent depiction - Morshead, the Rats of Tobruk - as to Kiwis (the cautious General Freyberg). The Afrika Korps receive attention too. It's well done but it is a bit overly familiar (not the fault of the writers: there's just been so much done on this theatre, which the British love writing books about because they love Rommel).
Aussies get a decent depiction - Morshead, the Rats of Tobruk - as to Kiwis (the cautious General Freyberg). The Afrika Korps receive attention too. It's well done but it is a bit overly familiar (not the fault of the writers: there's just been so much done on this theatre, which the British love writing books about because they love Rommel).
Saturday, August 02, 2014
Movie review - "Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films" (2014) ****1/2
Joyous documentary from the man who made Not Quite Hollywood - and actually much better than that film, because it is more focused (centering on two principals), has a stronger narrative drive (being a rise and fall) and more critical. There are some excellent interviewees - not just the usual actors, actresses and directors, but also writers, editors and music supervisors... which means the comments are more varied, interesting and (to be blunt) smarter (editors especially always seem to have super insightful things to say about films and studios, but they get overlooked in favour of the more glamorous directors and stars).
Like all Mark Hartley movies it looks great and bangs along at a fair clip. His sense of story is improving too - he's not as distracted by anecdotes as in Not Quite Hollywood - helped by the fact Golan and Globas are such engaging protagonists, even if they didn't appear in the film: hucksters who adored movies and making deals, with a great flair for getting money out of banks and distributors but with nil taste.
Their passion and skills saw them explode in Hollywood in the early 80s, helped by the VHS revolution which saw a market for their movies and their general lack of shame. I don't think Cannon pioneered pre-selling off the poster - wasn't AIP doing that in the 50s? - but they perfected it to an artform.
In a weird way, Cannon's taste was ahead of the curve of some issues - they made films out of toys (eg Masters of the Universe) and were big on super heroes and comic book franchises (eg King Solomon's Mines, Superman IV, they had the rights to Spiderman and Captain America) but could never crack a big hit because the films were made ineptly. They made a mistake reaching for the big leagues and overreaching themselves in terms of budget and stars (eg Over the Top), like many a feisty independent, and went bust. Golan and Globas broke up, competed with lambada films, then retreated to Israel. (Both are still wheeling and dealing but are no longer the international players they were; neither wanted to participate in this film)
What to make of Cannon's legacy? A lot of violence, sex, and misogyny, and awful lot of crud. But they were no orphans on that score during that decade: Frank Yablans is bitter about the junk they foisted on MGM in the 80s, but Metro was hardly kicking goals around this time; Bo Derek's recollections on how they ruined Bolero is laughable (in an enjoyable way).
And the fact is Cannon did make a bunch of good films - 52 Pick Up, Barfly, Otello, Runaway Train - as well as some first rate exploitation flicks - Breakin', Missing in Action, Delta Force - plus others which were engagingly bad - Lifeforce, King Solomon's Mines, The Wicked Lady. They made a stars of Chuck Norris, Michael Dudikoff and Jean Claude Van Damme, gave regular employment to Charles Bronson, perhaps unwisely extended the career of Michael Winner, financed works by Cassevetes and Goddard.
What they seemed to lack was an ability to make solid, mainstream, commercial movies - they knew there was a market for a new Superman movie, or a film based on a popular toy line, but couldn't satisfy it due to their lack of talent. Roger Corman managed to keep going all this time by keeping his costs super low and not getting into areas he couldn't control.
It makes for highly entertaining viewing and a fun film. Not sure if the Australian tax payer should have funded it, but it is better than most recent Aussie films.
Like all Mark Hartley movies it looks great and bangs along at a fair clip. His sense of story is improving too - he's not as distracted by anecdotes as in Not Quite Hollywood - helped by the fact Golan and Globas are such engaging protagonists, even if they didn't appear in the film: hucksters who adored movies and making deals, with a great flair for getting money out of banks and distributors but with nil taste.
Their passion and skills saw them explode in Hollywood in the early 80s, helped by the VHS revolution which saw a market for their movies and their general lack of shame. I don't think Cannon pioneered pre-selling off the poster - wasn't AIP doing that in the 50s? - but they perfected it to an artform.
In a weird way, Cannon's taste was ahead of the curve of some issues - they made films out of toys (eg Masters of the Universe) and were big on super heroes and comic book franchises (eg King Solomon's Mines, Superman IV, they had the rights to Spiderman and Captain America) but could never crack a big hit because the films were made ineptly. They made a mistake reaching for the big leagues and overreaching themselves in terms of budget and stars (eg Over the Top), like many a feisty independent, and went bust. Golan and Globas broke up, competed with lambada films, then retreated to Israel. (Both are still wheeling and dealing but are no longer the international players they were; neither wanted to participate in this film)
What to make of Cannon's legacy? A lot of violence, sex, and misogyny, and awful lot of crud. But they were no orphans on that score during that decade: Frank Yablans is bitter about the junk they foisted on MGM in the 80s, but Metro was hardly kicking goals around this time; Bo Derek's recollections on how they ruined Bolero is laughable (in an enjoyable way).
And the fact is Cannon did make a bunch of good films - 52 Pick Up, Barfly, Otello, Runaway Train - as well as some first rate exploitation flicks - Breakin', Missing in Action, Delta Force - plus others which were engagingly bad - Lifeforce, King Solomon's Mines, The Wicked Lady. They made a stars of Chuck Norris, Michael Dudikoff and Jean Claude Van Damme, gave regular employment to Charles Bronson, perhaps unwisely extended the career of Michael Winner, financed works by Cassevetes and Goddard.
What they seemed to lack was an ability to make solid, mainstream, commercial movies - they knew there was a market for a new Superman movie, or a film based on a popular toy line, but couldn't satisfy it due to their lack of talent. Roger Corman managed to keep going all this time by keeping his costs super low and not getting into areas he couldn't control.
It makes for highly entertaining viewing and a fun film. Not sure if the Australian tax payer should have funded it, but it is better than most recent Aussie films.
Movie review - "The First Man into Space" (1959) **1/2
Enjoyable Richard Gordon-produced knock off of The Quatermass Experiment, revolving around a test pilot who goes into space, comes back a mutant and goes on a rampage. Marshall Thompson, as the pilot's brother, is a little dull but the sibling connection gives this some surprising emotional resonance, particularly at the end as he talks to his brother.
It is directed with customary professionalism by Robert Day, who was becoming known for his "neat" horror/sci fi flicks around this time (eg The Haunted Strangler). There's a decent amount of intelligence on display, though it does lack some powerhouse moments which could have made this a classic. Marla Landi is wasted in a support role as the girl.
It is directed with customary professionalism by Robert Day, who was becoming known for his "neat" horror/sci fi flicks around this time (eg The Haunted Strangler). There's a decent amount of intelligence on display, though it does lack some powerhouse moments which could have made this a classic. Marla Landi is wasted in a support role as the girl.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)