I didn't think much of this movie when I first saw it at the movies, despite normally loving flicks from the Saturday Night Live crowd. However a lot of people love it so I thought I'd give it another go and... nope, still don't find it very funny. There are some great bits - the title tune, the concept, the dance, the setting - but all three amigos are annoyingly similar, the tone of the movie goes all over the shop (it's about movie stars in the real world but the real world features invisible swordsmen and singing bushes), and there weren't enough stand out gags. I found Patrice Martinez dull. Alfonso Arau was excellent - he has some great scenes
.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Movie review - "Hustle" (1975) *** (warning: spoilers)
After a long series of flops, director Robert Aldrich revised his career box office-wise with a pair of Burt Reynolds hits The Longest Yard and this. The Longest Yard is remembered with great fondness and was remade but no one talks about Hustle much anymore.
And for a lot of watching this that didn't surprise me - far too much of it felt 70s cop show, and gimmicky (eg cop Burt Reynolds dating hooker Catherine Deneuve), and needlessly sleezy, tramping over area that has since been much covered by NYPD Blue and the cable shows.
Yet I got into this as it went on - and it went on for a while (like a lot of Aldrich flicks it's probably too long). It kept surprising me - it's focused around the mysterious death of a young girl who washed up on the beach who turns out to have been involved in sordid sexual shenanigans amongst the rich and famous (did Lethal Weapon rip this off?). Burt Reynolds is the cop on the case.... but instead of investigating he goes "it's an accident" and it's the girls' father (Ben Johnson) who does the investigating. And he starts poking around into the seedy underworld of LA and the movie turns into Hardcore and then spins off into this weird family drama with Johnson and wife Eileen Brennan (who's excellent), and Johnson having an unnatural attraction to his dead daughter and going all vigilante.
Then it turns out actually Reynolds was right all along - it was an accident, not a murder. But Johnson's knocked over a hornets nest of trouble, including dodgy corrupt Eddie Albert who is banging Deneuve. There's also a bunch of bit part crazies who parade through the film to cackle maniacally on drugs and commit crime - including shooting Reynolds dead at the end (by Robert Englund, no less!).
While this may have seemed at the time a safe, commercial filmmaking choice from Aldrich it's actually a bit mad and insane by today's Sid Field screenplay standards - plots and characters come and go, there's a nihilist feel to the city, Reynolds has this longing for the 1930s. There's also an unpleasant strand of misogyny - all the women are pretty much hookers or sluts, Reynolds smacks Denueve around but it's meant to be from love.
Reynolds is excellent - melancholic and battered - I'd forgotten what a strong dramatic actor he could be even at this stage of his career. Deneuve is more lively than she can be in her French films but is still a bit flat. Excellent gallery of Aldrich stock company support players including Paul Winfield and Ernest Borgnine.
And for a lot of watching this that didn't surprise me - far too much of it felt 70s cop show, and gimmicky (eg cop Burt Reynolds dating hooker Catherine Deneuve), and needlessly sleezy, tramping over area that has since been much covered by NYPD Blue and the cable shows.
Yet I got into this as it went on - and it went on for a while (like a lot of Aldrich flicks it's probably too long). It kept surprising me - it's focused around the mysterious death of a young girl who washed up on the beach who turns out to have been involved in sordid sexual shenanigans amongst the rich and famous (did Lethal Weapon rip this off?). Burt Reynolds is the cop on the case.... but instead of investigating he goes "it's an accident" and it's the girls' father (Ben Johnson) who does the investigating. And he starts poking around into the seedy underworld of LA and the movie turns into Hardcore and then spins off into this weird family drama with Johnson and wife Eileen Brennan (who's excellent), and Johnson having an unnatural attraction to his dead daughter and going all vigilante.
Then it turns out actually Reynolds was right all along - it was an accident, not a murder. But Johnson's knocked over a hornets nest of trouble, including dodgy corrupt Eddie Albert who is banging Deneuve. There's also a bunch of bit part crazies who parade through the film to cackle maniacally on drugs and commit crime - including shooting Reynolds dead at the end (by Robert Englund, no less!).
While this may have seemed at the time a safe, commercial filmmaking choice from Aldrich it's actually a bit mad and insane by today's Sid Field screenplay standards - plots and characters come and go, there's a nihilist feel to the city, Reynolds has this longing for the 1930s. There's also an unpleasant strand of misogyny - all the women are pretty much hookers or sluts, Reynolds smacks Denueve around but it's meant to be from love.
Reynolds is excellent - melancholic and battered - I'd forgotten what a strong dramatic actor he could be even at this stage of his career. Deneuve is more lively than she can be in her French films but is still a bit flat. Excellent gallery of Aldrich stock company support players including Paul Winfield and Ernest Borgnine.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Movie review - "Le Sauvage" (1975) **
Catherine Deneuve films always seem to repeat their set ups - in the late 60s she always seemed to be playing ice princesses torn between a wealthy older lover and an improverished younger one; in the 70s she was stuck on an island with a seemingly-rough-but-actually cultured man. In Liza it was Marcello Mastroianni - here it's Yves Montand.
The plot seems inspired by 30s Hollywood screwball comedies with Deneuve channelling the spirit of Carole Lombard - she runs away from a marriage and winds up on a tropical island with grizzly Montand. The set up to get them there is contrived and it's a contrived film. Deneuve runs around and acts madcap a lot but is not a natural at it - she tries but simply doesn't have the spark.
She does look pretty though and Montand is good value, and both stars fully commit. Plus there is some pretty views on the tropical island, a decent maguffin in a painting by Tolouse Lautrec, and Hollywood faces Dana Wynter and Tony Roberts (speaking what seems to me at least to be passable French).
The plot seems inspired by 30s Hollywood screwball comedies with Deneuve channelling the spirit of Carole Lombard - she runs away from a marriage and winds up on a tropical island with grizzly Montand. The set up to get them there is contrived and it's a contrived film. Deneuve runs around and acts madcap a lot but is not a natural at it - she tries but simply doesn't have the spark.
She does look pretty though and Montand is good value, and both stars fully commit. Plus there is some pretty views on the tropical island, a decent maguffin in a painting by Tolouse Lautrec, and Hollywood faces Dana Wynter and Tony Roberts (speaking what seems to me at least to be passable French).
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Movie review - "The April Fools" (1969) **
Catherine Deneuve's first Hollywood movie sees her miscast as the wife of an executive (Peter Lawford) who has an affair with an unhappily married man (Jack Lemmon). Apparently Shirley Maclaine was originally considered for Deneuve's role and they really should have gone with her - or another more expressive actress. Her beauty and aristocratic manner can work well on film but not here when the role requires some life.
The longer this movie went on the more it annoyed me. Cinema screens and theatres in the late 60s were full of these sort of middle-aged-men-wish-fulfillment stories about disaffected middle aged men who threw off their inhibitions and ran away from their nagging bitch wives to find happiness with hot dream girls. Lemmon's wife Sally Kellerman is a materialistic ball breaker (he doesn't seem to be responsible for any of the problems in the marriage), his male friends are lecherous and drunken but basically supportive (Jack Weston, Harvey Korman), the female roles are caricatures: blank dream girls (Deneuve), greedy bitches (Kellerman) or wacky hipsters (Myrna Loy).
It is fun to see Myrna Loy and Charles Boyer as free spirited old people, but even they can't transcend cliche. Lemmon and Deneuve have zero chemistry, their dilemmas have no stakes (he doesn't like his wife and job and she doesn't like her husband and neither have kids... so what's the issue?), the final rush to the airport takes something like over half an hour of on screen time (and involves "hilarious" drunk driving), there's too much talk about princes turning into frogs and vice versa plus endless scenes of people dancing at parties (this was a feature of some of Deneuve's French films around this time - maybe director Stuart Rosenberg was trying to make her feel at home).
On the sunny side, Lemmon is perfectly cast and never phones it in; there are some funny line; the support cast is impressive; and the music score very good, including the title track and "Say a Little Prayer".
The longer this movie went on the more it annoyed me. Cinema screens and theatres in the late 60s were full of these sort of middle-aged-men-wish-fulfillment stories about disaffected middle aged men who threw off their inhibitions and ran away from their nagging bitch wives to find happiness with hot dream girls. Lemmon's wife Sally Kellerman is a materialistic ball breaker (he doesn't seem to be responsible for any of the problems in the marriage), his male friends are lecherous and drunken but basically supportive (Jack Weston, Harvey Korman), the female roles are caricatures: blank dream girls (Deneuve), greedy bitches (Kellerman) or wacky hipsters (Myrna Loy).
It is fun to see Myrna Loy and Charles Boyer as free spirited old people, but even they can't transcend cliche. Lemmon and Deneuve have zero chemistry, their dilemmas have no stakes (he doesn't like his wife and job and she doesn't like her husband and neither have kids... so what's the issue?), the final rush to the airport takes something like over half an hour of on screen time (and involves "hilarious" drunk driving), there's too much talk about princes turning into frogs and vice versa plus endless scenes of people dancing at parties (this was a feature of some of Deneuve's French films around this time - maybe director Stuart Rosenberg was trying to make her feel at home).
On the sunny side, Lemmon is perfectly cast and never phones it in; there are some funny line; the support cast is impressive; and the music score very good, including the title track and "Say a Little Prayer".
Book review - "Stirling Silliphant: The Fingers of God" by Nat Segaloff (2014)
Good to see more and more screenwriters getting biographies and Silliphant deserved one - a big name in TV (he wrote truckloads of Naked City and Route 66 eps) as well as films, where his credits include In the Heat of the Night and lots of 70s disaster films. Segloff interviewed Silliphant for an installment of the excellent Backstory series of books and he's fleshed it out for a full length book.
I enjoyed reading this a lot - Silliphant had a hell of a career, working his way up from publicity flak to top screenwriter in Hollywood, and has a bunch of impressive credits (The Village of the Damned, Charly), as well as standard embarrassments all long term screenwriters enjoy (The Killer Elite, Over the Top). His personal life was full of incident and tragedy - several marriages, a son was murdered - and took many unusual detours - for instance, he was an early champion of Bruce Lee, was genuinely interested in South East Asia and tried to promote the Thai film industry.
There were two main drawbacks to the book for me - one, I would have preferred it had Segaloff analysed Silliphant's writing more. To be fair, he says upfront in the introduction he didn't want to do that, but I think was an opportunity missed - while Silliphant did a lot of hack-for-hire work, he also wrote plenty that went as intended to the screen (especially his early TV work and novels) and I would have liked to here Segaloff's take on his themes and so on. (Some of this is there - I just would have preferred more).
Secondly - and I'm being very blunt here - Silliphant was a bit of a dickhead. It's an extremely sympathetic biography and Silliphant is allowed to speak for himself extensively, but the more I got to know him, the less I liked him. Notwithstanding the tragedy of losing a child it's clear he was a lousy father, particularly to his daughter; he wasn't much as a husband either - he was closer to his last wife, but still ended up separated from her during the last few years of his life, living with mistresses; he idiotically refused cancer treatments which could have saved/prolonged his life because he didn't want to lose his sexual potency; he got hooked on big salaries and blew a lot of it; when he wrote something personal towards the end of his life, he wrote junky adventure novels (I think Silliphant's problem was he'd told all the personal stories he wanted to tell by the 60s after Route 66; then it was about getting hold of the money); he lacked a sense of humour (there are no comedies in the Sillphant canon).
Segaloff extensively quotes his last wife, Tiana, a lot and speaks highly of her, but she doesn't come out of this that great either, constantly whining that she didn't become a movie star.
Still, he was clearly a man of great talent whose achievements are worth recording and celebrating. Segaloff has done that here.
I enjoyed reading this a lot - Silliphant had a hell of a career, working his way up from publicity flak to top screenwriter in Hollywood, and has a bunch of impressive credits (The Village of the Damned, Charly), as well as standard embarrassments all long term screenwriters enjoy (The Killer Elite, Over the Top). His personal life was full of incident and tragedy - several marriages, a son was murdered - and took many unusual detours - for instance, he was an early champion of Bruce Lee, was genuinely interested in South East Asia and tried to promote the Thai film industry.
There were two main drawbacks to the book for me - one, I would have preferred it had Segaloff analysed Silliphant's writing more. To be fair, he says upfront in the introduction he didn't want to do that, but I think was an opportunity missed - while Silliphant did a lot of hack-for-hire work, he also wrote plenty that went as intended to the screen (especially his early TV work and novels) and I would have liked to here Segaloff's take on his themes and so on. (Some of this is there - I just would have preferred more).
Secondly - and I'm being very blunt here - Silliphant was a bit of a dickhead. It's an extremely sympathetic biography and Silliphant is allowed to speak for himself extensively, but the more I got to know him, the less I liked him. Notwithstanding the tragedy of losing a child it's clear he was a lousy father, particularly to his daughter; he wasn't much as a husband either - he was closer to his last wife, but still ended up separated from her during the last few years of his life, living with mistresses; he idiotically refused cancer treatments which could have saved/prolonged his life because he didn't want to lose his sexual potency; he got hooked on big salaries and blew a lot of it; when he wrote something personal towards the end of his life, he wrote junky adventure novels (I think Silliphant's problem was he'd told all the personal stories he wanted to tell by the 60s after Route 66; then it was about getting hold of the money); he lacked a sense of humour (there are no comedies in the Sillphant canon).
Segaloff extensively quotes his last wife, Tiana, a lot and speaks highly of her, but she doesn't come out of this that great either, constantly whining that she didn't become a movie star.
Still, he was clearly a man of great talent whose achievements are worth recording and celebrating. Segaloff has done that here.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Movie review - "La Chamade" (1968) **
Catherine Deneuve once again as a beautiful woman torn between a rich older man and handsome poor younger one. Adding to the sense of familiarity is the fact the man is played by Michel Piccoli, who played this sort of role against Denueve before (as her aspirational lover in Belle de Jour and real lover in Benjamin), and her younger lover is a journalist, as he was in Manon 70.
This movie is boring. It goes on forever with far too many scenes of people just hanging out and talking. Occasionally they go to a bar or lounge about in bed for something different. Deneuve is pretty but also blank faced and unable to convey much of a character - which mightn't matter so much if the people around her weren't as dull.
This movie is boring. It goes on forever with far too many scenes of people just hanging out and talking. Occasionally they go to a bar or lounge about in bed for something different. Deneuve is pretty but also blank faced and unable to convey much of a character - which mightn't matter so much if the people around her weren't as dull.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Movie review - "Manon 70" (1968) ** (warning: spoilers)
Catherine Deneuve at her late 60s best, looking like an ice queen with her sexual flame burning underneath. She plays a sort of Holly Golightly character - although not strictly a hooker, her brother pimps her out to rich men, but she falls for journalist Sami Frey. She keeps going back and forth with Frey thinking he's enough for her, and Deneuve being unable to resist the blandishments of her no good brother and the wealthy men said brother lines her up with.
Deneuve is really gorgeous in this film - I think she was better looking in contemporary films. Frey is handsome but is character is a chauvinistic dick. There's lots of really dull talk about fidelity with Frey being possessive and Deneuve tempted to want to run off with rich guys (one played by American actor Robert Webber), plus scenes of cars driving and groovy fashions and late 60s hipsters hanging out in bars dancing, talking and smoking.
The story is so repetitive - Frey chases after Deneuve, who goes for him... but can't resist the lure of rich man. Then Frey gets jealous, dumps her, she goes after him again... It goes on and on and is a very dull film.
It's based on an old novel which had far more story and made more sense, i.e. it showed that Manon didn't want to live in poverty and needed wealth (there's no poverty here, nothing to motivate Manon's activities really - I think Frey is supposed to be less rich than her lovers but he has a good job and can afford upgrades to first class airfairs), and one of Manon's rich lovers wound up having a duel with her boyfriend (I kept expecting Robert Webber and Sami Frey to come to blows but it never happens), and Manon dies after she goes on the lam (giving the ending some kick - here she just runs off into the sunset, going hitchhiking with Frey). It is livened by the star's considerable beauty, who wears a variety of interesting outfits including swimsuits, takes a bath, lounges around in bed and on yachts, etc.
Deneuve is really gorgeous in this film - I think she was better looking in contemporary films. Frey is handsome but is character is a chauvinistic dick. There's lots of really dull talk about fidelity with Frey being possessive and Deneuve tempted to want to run off with rich guys (one played by American actor Robert Webber), plus scenes of cars driving and groovy fashions and late 60s hipsters hanging out in bars dancing, talking and smoking.
The story is so repetitive - Frey chases after Deneuve, who goes for him... but can't resist the lure of rich man. Then Frey gets jealous, dumps her, she goes after him again... It goes on and on and is a very dull film.
It's based on an old novel which had far more story and made more sense, i.e. it showed that Manon didn't want to live in poverty and needed wealth (there's no poverty here, nothing to motivate Manon's activities really - I think Frey is supposed to be less rich than her lovers but he has a good job and can afford upgrades to first class airfairs), and one of Manon's rich lovers wound up having a duel with her boyfriend (I kept expecting Robert Webber and Sami Frey to come to blows but it never happens), and Manon dies after she goes on the lam (giving the ending some kick - here she just runs off into the sunset, going hitchhiking with Frey). It is livened by the star's considerable beauty, who wears a variety of interesting outfits including swimsuits, takes a bath, lounges around in bed and on yachts, etc.
Movie review - "A Man and a Woman" (1966) **
One of the most internationally successful French films of all time and you can't help wonder why. I guess it had a simple premise - boy meets girl - with two perfectly cast stars (Anouk Aimee, Jean Louis Trintignant), a memorable theme tune and lots of jazzy bits: the photography jumps in between black and white and colour, he's a racing car driver and she does continuity for the movies.
The influence of the film on advertisements is clear to see - the photography, shots on a deserted beach, at a train station, a couple making love. Visually very stylish and the two stars have charisma, especially Anouk Aimee.
But it was dull. There's hardly any story - they get together, she freaks out, they get back together. Lots of driving around and hanging out. There's naturalistic acting and pretty tunes.
The influence of the film on advertisements is clear to see - the photography, shots on a deserted beach, at a train station, a couple making love. Visually very stylish and the two stars have charisma, especially Anouk Aimee.
But it was dull. There's hardly any story - they get together, she freaks out, they get back together. Lots of driving around and hanging out. There's naturalistic acting and pretty tunes.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Movie review - "Model Shop" (1969) **
Jacques Demy made a couple of musicals which were popular art house hits in the US so it's not surprising that Hollywood came calling. This is not a musical, though it does deal with the nature of love. It's a laid back "mood piece" (yep, narrative is for squares) about 24 hours in the life of young (well, meant to be, anyway) photographer Gary Lockwood.
This has a great feel for the city of Los Angeles - planes flying overhead, the dingy diners, time spent on the freeway, the scattered pockets of culture in amidst the oil pumps and gas stations. There's some evocative music on the soundtrack and plenty of atmosphere - I was reminded at times of the images in Zabriskie Point. Unfortunately there are some other things reminiscent of that movie - lack of story, some awkward depictions of the counter-culture, and really bad acting.
Chief culprit of the latter is Alexandra Hay as Lockwood's girlfriend but Anouk Aimee is awful too. She's good looking and all that but I couldn't stand her. Lockwood - not the most charismatic actor in the world - is alright, being effective simply by underplaying... although he's probably too old for his role and its a dull character ("I don't know if I want to settle down", "I don't know if I want to be an architect").
There is definite novelty value to be had watching this, and its amazing to think there was a time when Hollywood studios financed such films, but really, this is only for Demy completists or people into movies about LA.
This has a great feel for the city of Los Angeles - planes flying overhead, the dingy diners, time spent on the freeway, the scattered pockets of culture in amidst the oil pumps and gas stations. There's some evocative music on the soundtrack and plenty of atmosphere - I was reminded at times of the images in Zabriskie Point. Unfortunately there are some other things reminiscent of that movie - lack of story, some awkward depictions of the counter-culture, and really bad acting.
Chief culprit of the latter is Alexandra Hay as Lockwood's girlfriend but Anouk Aimee is awful too. She's good looking and all that but I couldn't stand her. Lockwood - not the most charismatic actor in the world - is alright, being effective simply by underplaying... although he's probably too old for his role and its a dull character ("I don't know if I want to settle down", "I don't know if I want to be an architect").
There is definite novelty value to be had watching this, and its amazing to think there was a time when Hollywood studios financed such films, but really, this is only for Demy completists or people into movies about LA.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Movie review - "Beverly Hills Cop" (1984) ***1/2
Not as amazing on re-watching as when I first saw it, but then that was when I was eleven. Eddie Murphy remains electric and I was knocked out by the support cast: Ronnie Cox and John Ashton have real gravitas as cops, Judge Reinhold is marvellous, Steven Berkoff and Jonathan Adams are first rate villains, plus lovely comic cameos from Bronson Pinchot and Damon Wayans. The only real dud is Lisa Eilbacher, who lacks chemistry with Murphy and just laughs a lot - but her character is a lot more spunky than I remembered (she insists on driving the car, she goes along on the adventures including breaking in, it's she who punches Berkoff at the end enabling her to get away).
John Landis once described the original script as one of the worst he'd ever read; it can't have been that bad - the basic set up is a very strong one, and there's a decent structure which builds stakes (friend turns up, gets killed, Axel starts investigating, cops get on his tail etc etc). Some of the confrontation scenes don't make logical sense (far better to poke around quietly but Murphy confronts Berkoff twice)... however they provide strong comic set piece opportunities. Many of these are structured like improvisation exercises - Eddie Murphy has to get into an office/warehouse/restaurant/hotel; Reinhold and Ashton are killing time in a car.
Martin Brest gives scenes time to breathe which does mean this drags every now and then but also allows the actors to do their stuff. And he keeps plenty of suspense and action in there - this does work as a straight up thriller as well (just not as well as a comedy-thriller).
John Landis once described the original script as one of the worst he'd ever read; it can't have been that bad - the basic set up is a very strong one, and there's a decent structure which builds stakes (friend turns up, gets killed, Axel starts investigating, cops get on his tail etc etc). Some of the confrontation scenes don't make logical sense (far better to poke around quietly but Murphy confronts Berkoff twice)... however they provide strong comic set piece opportunities. Many of these are structured like improvisation exercises - Eddie Murphy has to get into an office/warehouse/restaurant/hotel; Reinhold and Ashton are killing time in a car.
Martin Brest gives scenes time to breathe which does mean this drags every now and then but also allows the actors to do their stuff. And he keeps plenty of suspense and action in there - this does work as a straight up thriller as well (just not as well as a comedy-thriller).
Movie review - "Mississip Mermaid" (1969) *** (warning: spoilers)
Catherine Deneuve was a natural Hitchcock blonde - icy beauty and suggested sensuality underneath; she never made a movie for him but Hitchcock fan Francois Truffaut was the next best thing and certainly she's very well cast as a mystery brie in this movie. Reunion Island planter Jean Paul Belmondo has fallen in love with her via letters - she rocks up, he marries her, but she's not who she appears to be.
Belmondo has great star charisma but his casting does throw the movie off - he's a handsome, virile guy, I didn't quite believe he would need to resort to a mail order bride, even on Reunion... the movie is set in the present day. I also didn't quite buy he would become so obsessed with Deneuve he would overlook all the lying and deception. (There's nothing wrong with his performance, it just took a stretch.) Mind you, Deneuve is very hot.
The first half is a decent mystery - Belmondo falling for Denueve, then trying to find her; very Hitchcock. The second half is more warped this-love-thing-is-crazy stuff, which feels more typically Truffaut. (Though this is influential in it's way - the ending of this isn't that far away from Basic Instinct.) Bizarre scripting decision - Deneuve's actions are motivated by this evil gangster called Richard who we barely see.
There's beautiful locations - Reunion Island, the Alps, Lyon. The stars look stunning.
Belmondo has great star charisma but his casting does throw the movie off - he's a handsome, virile guy, I didn't quite believe he would need to resort to a mail order bride, even on Reunion... the movie is set in the present day. I also didn't quite buy he would become so obsessed with Deneuve he would overlook all the lying and deception. (There's nothing wrong with his performance, it just took a stretch.) Mind you, Deneuve is very hot.
The first half is a decent mystery - Belmondo falling for Denueve, then trying to find her; very Hitchcock. The second half is more warped this-love-thing-is-crazy stuff, which feels more typically Truffaut. (Though this is influential in it's way - the ending of this isn't that far away from Basic Instinct.) Bizarre scripting decision - Deneuve's actions are motivated by this evil gangster called Richard who we barely see.
There's beautiful locations - Reunion Island, the Alps, Lyon. The stars look stunning.
Movie review - "Benjamin" (1968) ***
Pierre Clementi, the young gangster obsessed with Catherine Deneuve in Belle de Jour, is again teamed with her in this comedy - a period romp about a 17 year old virgin in rural France who goes to visit his rich aunt (Michele Morgan) - whose lover is played by Michael Piccoli, another alumni from Belle de Jour.
Many critics said this was like the Albert Finney Tom Jones (and the filmmakers surely saw Smiles of a Summer Night too) but I actually felt it was closer to Dangerous Liasions - The plot isn't the same but the character types feel similar (I'm using the actors in the 1988 film for reference): Michele Morgan as Glenn Close, Piccoli as John Malkovich and Deneuve as a more messed up Michelle Pfeiffer... Clementi's Benjamin is passive a lot of the time, reacting to things, and never being able to go through with sex despite all the maids who appear keen to deflower him. (Seriously it happens about four times.) In the end Deneuve seduces him in order to attract Piccoli.
Michele Morgan is very good as the manipulative, yet sympathetic countess, and Piccoli adds world weary decadence as the aristocrat. Deneuve's part is surprisingly small; she is pretty as usual. Clementi is alright, I guess- far less impressive than in Belle de Jour.
Many critics said this was like the Albert Finney Tom Jones (and the filmmakers surely saw Smiles of a Summer Night too) but I actually felt it was closer to Dangerous Liasions - The plot isn't the same but the character types feel similar (I'm using the actors in the 1988 film for reference): Michele Morgan as Glenn Close, Piccoli as John Malkovich and Deneuve as a more messed up Michelle Pfeiffer... Clementi's Benjamin is passive a lot of the time, reacting to things, and never being able to go through with sex despite all the maids who appear keen to deflower him. (Seriously it happens about four times.) In the end Deneuve seduces him in order to attract Piccoli.
Michele Morgan is very good as the manipulative, yet sympathetic countess, and Piccoli adds world weary decadence as the aristocrat. Deneuve's part is surprisingly small; she is pretty as usual. Clementi is alright, I guess- far less impressive than in Belle de Jour.
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
Movie review - "Moment to Moment" (1966) **
Mervyn Le Roy's last movie as a director is a fairly unmemorable affair with some promising material badly executed. It is based on a story by Alec Coppel, and features many elements familiar from Coppel's work: a crime of passion, adultery, a shooting of a cad, disposing of the body, the body goes missing (Mr Denning Goes North in particular). The basic story of a neglected glamorous housewife who has a fling and goes on to regret it when the fling-ee turns psycho is solid: it worked in Fatal Attraction.
It's let down by Le Roy's uninspiring direction and the casting: Jean Seberg is pretty but completely bland in the lead role, one that required a Grace Kelly (Seberg can act well but her eyes are dead here, and she can't convey hidden passion). Honor Blackman overacts outrageously as her best friend. Arthur Hiller is accomplished as the husband but the role would have been better played by a star. Sean Garrison is alright as the passionate naval officer with whom Seberg has a one night stand.
The movie felt as though it needed 15 minutes cut out of it. Despite location filming it couldn't help appearing a bit bland and ugly - many Universal films of the 60s were like this, lacking genuine glamour. The handling needed to be more vigorous - Le Roy's output could be very ordinary and this falls in the debit column.
It's let down by Le Roy's uninspiring direction and the casting: Jean Seberg is pretty but completely bland in the lead role, one that required a Grace Kelly (Seberg can act well but her eyes are dead here, and she can't convey hidden passion). Honor Blackman overacts outrageously as her best friend. Arthur Hiller is accomplished as the husband but the role would have been better played by a star. Sean Garrison is alright as the passionate naval officer with whom Seberg has a one night stand.
The movie felt as though it needed 15 minutes cut out of it. Despite location filming it couldn't help appearing a bit bland and ugly - many Universal films of the 60s were like this, lacking genuine glamour. The handling needed to be more vigorous - Le Roy's output could be very ordinary and this falls in the debit column.
Script review - "The Horror of Dracula" by Jimmy Sangster (1958)
Publication of the beautiful script by Jimmy Sanger - elegant, simple and scary even to read. The character of Arthur remains a big dill, and that of Dracula genuinely terrifying. Sangster did have Stoker to draw on but he has changed a fair bit.
Book review - "The History of Britain" by Simon Schama
Three books incorporating the history of Britain from, well, the beginning up until Winston Churchill and George Orwell (there is a brief bit bringing it up to date in the 90s but that's more epilogue-y). Schama is an excellent writer with a great gift for juicy story. Some things are really zipped over eg War of the Roses.
There was probably too much talk about buildings and the publication of books (do historians place undue emphasis on the power of books because they themselves are writers?). But a gripping, enthralling read.
There was probably too much talk about buildings and the publication of books (do historians place undue emphasis on the power of books because they themselves are writers?). But a gripping, enthralling read.
Book review - "Square Jaw and Big Heart" by Charles Napier
Charles Napier is a big, square jawed actor best known for being a favourite of Russ Meyer and Jonathan Demme, and playing opposite Sylvester Stallone in Rambo: First Blood Part 2. That latter movie was his big break - it didn't seem to kick on to bigger roles, though he appears to have enjoyed steady employment.
In his memoirs he talks an awful lot about drinking and getting into escapades with police - like, all the time. Maybe that's what held his career back. Or maybe there was a limit to what his talent could achieve. Still, it was a decent enough resume at the end of the day.
This book was quite enjoyable. My favourite was his story about showing up a snobby Gregory Peck (Napier was mobbed by kids because of his BJ and the Bear fame, to Peck's annoyance). There's also tales of being hired by Alfred Hitchcock, working with Russ Meyer and Demme, lobbying ferociously to beat out an already cast Lee Marvin in Rambo, growing up a redneck in Kentucky, boozing it up with Rod Taylor, paying bills working as a trucking journalist. He's vague on his romantic/family life - it was a surprise to read that he was married and had kids.
In his memoirs he talks an awful lot about drinking and getting into escapades with police - like, all the time. Maybe that's what held his career back. Or maybe there was a limit to what his talent could achieve. Still, it was a decent enough resume at the end of the day.
This book was quite enjoyable. My favourite was his story about showing up a snobby Gregory Peck (Napier was mobbed by kids because of his BJ and the Bear fame, to Peck's annoyance). There's also tales of being hired by Alfred Hitchcock, working with Russ Meyer and Demme, lobbying ferociously to beat out an already cast Lee Marvin in Rambo, growing up a redneck in Kentucky, boozing it up with Rod Taylor, paying bills working as a trucking journalist. He's vague on his romantic/family life - it was a surprise to read that he was married and had kids.
Movie review - "The Young Girls of Rochefort" (1967) **1/2
Whatever happened to George Chakiris, Oscar winning star (well, support name) of West Side Story? He popped up in a few odd things during the 60s - Kings of the Sun, 633 Squadron - got booted off The Wild Angels because he couldn't ride a motorbike... and turns up in this Jacques Demy film, a follow up to The Umbrellas of Cherbourgh.
That had been a big hit - popular enough to enable Demy to nab not only Chakiris for this one but Gene Kelly, who has a decent sized role as a visiting American. Once again there's very bright colours and Catherine Deneuve, only a lot more dancing and also Deneuve's real life sister, Francoise Dorleac.
It's all cute, and looks good, with some fun tunes and dance numbers. It's not as good as Umbrellas though - that focused on a simple story (the relationship between the two leads), this one pops all over the place. Deneunve isn't as good as her sister - her ice maiden-y thing doesn't work as well here - but Dorleac is excellent and its entertaining to see Kelly. Chakiris actually doesn't get a chance to do much, he mostly hangs out with Grover Dale.
There's added subplots about the girl's mother, Danielle Darrieux, her long lost ex (Michel Piccoli who popped up in every second French film of this time), a serial killer.
That had been a big hit - popular enough to enable Demy to nab not only Chakiris for this one but Gene Kelly, who has a decent sized role as a visiting American. Once again there's very bright colours and Catherine Deneuve, only a lot more dancing and also Deneuve's real life sister, Francoise Dorleac.
It's all cute, and looks good, with some fun tunes and dance numbers. It's not as good as Umbrellas though - that focused on a simple story (the relationship between the two leads), this one pops all over the place. Deneunve isn't as good as her sister - her ice maiden-y thing doesn't work as well here - but Dorleac is excellent and its entertaining to see Kelly. Chakiris actually doesn't get a chance to do much, he mostly hangs out with Grover Dale.
There's added subplots about the girl's mother, Danielle Darrieux, her long lost ex (Michel Piccoli who popped up in every second French film of this time), a serial killer.
Book review - "Beau Sabreur" by PC Wren (1917) (warning: spoilers)
A kind of sequel to Beau Geste which features several characters from that film: Major Beaujolais, the French officer who discovered Fort Zinderneuf, plus Buddy and Hank, the two Americans who fell in with the Geste brothers, and the trouble maker Restignac. The first half concentrates on the adventures of Beaujolias, from enlistment in the French foreign legion, to becoming a legend (he constantly refers to other exciting adventures he's had but skips over them), to going on a top secret mission with two women in hand.
The second half has a great twist - two Arabs are revealed to be Buddy and Hank, who have gotten well off the beaten track since Beau Geste. That's a fun concept for a book but Wren isn't that good creating male characters - Buddy and Hank are hard to tell apart, Beaujolias is a bore. The two females are much more interesting - Mary, the vivacious, spirited American, who has excellent urst with Beaujolias, and Maudie, her made.
There's plenty of action and seemingly authentic details about Foreign Legion training and Arab trials plus an awful lot of song/poem lyrics, and coincidences in the plot. It reminded me of the Flashman novels in some way - a hero, some outlandish twists, period detail, action in the desert, some haughty women - though it lacked Flashy's humour and verve.
The second half has a great twist - two Arabs are revealed to be Buddy and Hank, who have gotten well off the beaten track since Beau Geste. That's a fun concept for a book but Wren isn't that good creating male characters - Buddy and Hank are hard to tell apart, Beaujolias is a bore. The two females are much more interesting - Mary, the vivacious, spirited American, who has excellent urst with Beaujolias, and Maudie, her made.
There's plenty of action and seemingly authentic details about Foreign Legion training and Arab trials plus an awful lot of song/poem lyrics, and coincidences in the plot. It reminded me of the Flashman novels in some way - a hero, some outlandish twists, period detail, action in the desert, some haughty women - though it lacked Flashy's humour and verve.
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
Movie review - "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" (1964) ***1/2
The film that made Catherine Deneuve a star, in part because every line in the movie is sung. It also has some gorgeous colour - which reminded me of early 60s Cliff Richard and Elvis Presley movies. Critics have loved this - it won first prize at Cannes - which made me suspicious (one never knows with those 60s film buff favourites) but it does work.
The story is simple and very effective: Deneuve and Nino Castelnuovo are young and in love but he has to go off to war (Algeria); she's knocked up and when he doesn't return her letters, mum suggests she marry a rich man; he comes back, goes off the rails, and hooks up with the faithful pretty thing who has long adored him from afar; years later the two lovers meet again.
It's a similar structure to Splendour in the Grass done with lyrics that are simple but occasionally very clever, and some nice tunes. It looks beautiful, with all those primary colours, and was very effective.
The story is simple and very effective: Deneuve and Nino Castelnuovo are young and in love but he has to go off to war (Algeria); she's knocked up and when he doesn't return her letters, mum suggests she marry a rich man; he comes back, goes off the rails, and hooks up with the faithful pretty thing who has long adored him from afar; years later the two lovers meet again.
It's a similar structure to Splendour in the Grass done with lyrics that are simple but occasionally very clever, and some nice tunes. It looks beautiful, with all those primary colours, and was very effective.
Tuesday, September 02, 2014
Movie review - "Machete Maidens Unleashed" (2010) ***1/2
Mark Hartley's second feature documentary following Not Quite Hollywood uses mainly of the same crew and techniques as that film - split screen, quit cuts, clever use of titles, even font. It also shares similar virtues (energy, passion for film, shedding light on a rarely discussed section of cinema), and flaws (it tends to be a collection of anecdotes rather than a consistent narrative, there are plenty of talking heads but no characters to engage our attention).
The story starts off well enough - the Philippines had their own thriving industry for many years but then some expat Americans started making movies there aimed more an the international market. Initial war films did not do terribly well but they discovered horror and the boom was on - John Ashley (of Hemisphere) and Roger Corman (of New World) were two of the best known Americans working there, but the local filmmakers including Eddie Romeo, Buddy Suarez and Cirio Santiago (at times I felt the movie would be better off if they'd concentrated on them).
The main genres were women in prison, blaxploitation, horror and war - The Mad Doctor of Blood Island, The Big Doll House, The Hot Box. Later there was Apocalypse Now. American filmmakers escaped the censorship enjoyed by locals but in the 70s they got sick of making movies there and took off. It's an uninspiring ending and felt a bit flat.
Plenty of great stories - Hartley this time expands his ambit and has historians and non filmmakers talking (including the legendary Danny Peary) which puts the movies in context (something Not Quite Hollywood could have done with). The unpleasant nature of many of the movies isn't ignored, and their contradictions eg TNA feminism.
The story starts off well enough - the Philippines had their own thriving industry for many years but then some expat Americans started making movies there aimed more an the international market. Initial war films did not do terribly well but they discovered horror and the boom was on - John Ashley (of Hemisphere) and Roger Corman (of New World) were two of the best known Americans working there, but the local filmmakers including Eddie Romeo, Buddy Suarez and Cirio Santiago (at times I felt the movie would be better off if they'd concentrated on them).
The main genres were women in prison, blaxploitation, horror and war - The Mad Doctor of Blood Island, The Big Doll House, The Hot Box. Later there was Apocalypse Now. American filmmakers escaped the censorship enjoyed by locals but in the 70s they got sick of making movies there and took off. It's an uninspiring ending and felt a bit flat.
Plenty of great stories - Hartley this time expands his ambit and has historians and non filmmakers talking (including the legendary Danny Peary) which puts the movies in context (something Not Quite Hollywood could have done with). The unpleasant nature of many of the movies isn't ignored, and their contradictions eg TNA feminism.
Movie review - "All Hands on Deck" (1961) **
Pat Boone service comedy which must have seemed old fashioned even in 1961. There is however some novelty in the story - he's a naval officer whose main job is looking after one of his sailors, Buddy Hackett... who happens to be an oil rich Indian. Hackett's character has the maturity level of an eight year old and is forever getting into trouble but the navy protect him because they don't want to annoy his relatives. So it's patronising because Hackett is so childish - and the characters are constantly describing him in derogatory slang terms (even his superior officers) yet its one of the few Hollywood movies where the Indian character actually has a lot of status in the white man's world.
Gale Gordon does his thing as a commanding officer; there's also Dennis O'Keefe as another commanding officer, and Barbara Eden as the love interest. The first half of the film is basically about Boone trying to keep control of live wire Hackett - then the filmmakers seem to get bored with that and it becomes about a turkey who is on board ship and they want to kill, and Boone's romance with Eden, including her getting on board ship.
The movie really is a bit all over the shop - Indians, turkeys (played by a turkey who gets his own billing), women on board, blustering officers. All the normal things the navy get up to in peacetime, in other words.
This was Pat Boone's most relaxed performance yet - he's bright and energetic, and plays well off the cast (Eden is an ideal co star for him). It's a shame his material isn't stronger.
Gale Gordon does his thing as a commanding officer; there's also Dennis O'Keefe as another commanding officer, and Barbara Eden as the love interest. The first half of the film is basically about Boone trying to keep control of live wire Hackett - then the filmmakers seem to get bored with that and it becomes about a turkey who is on board ship and they want to kill, and Boone's romance with Eden, including her getting on board ship.
The movie really is a bit all over the shop - Indians, turkeys (played by a turkey who gets his own billing), women on board, blustering officers. All the normal things the navy get up to in peacetime, in other words.
This was Pat Boone's most relaxed performance yet - he's bright and energetic, and plays well off the cast (Eden is an ideal co star for him). It's a shame his material isn't stronger.
Movie review - "The Godfather" (1972) ***** (another viewing)
Maybe this has been overpraised but it remains a stunning achievement. Is there an epic more perfectly cast? Pretty much every role is perfect - from Brando and Pacino at the top (risky castings at the time), to James Caan and Robert Duvall (both Coppola favourites), down to the little kid playing with Brando when the latter dies of a heart attack, and the old man singing at the wedding.
The key to the success of this piece is its universality - everyone knows a family business where they're worried about staying current, where there's a hot head and a dopey son, and a daughter who marries a no good, and the young one who turns out to be smarted than any of them. Coppola focuses on family rituals - weddings, funerals, christenings, buying presents, cooking meals, courtships, wedding nights.
Full of so many touches - people singing at the wedding, Pacino's hand being still after facing an assassin, the sunken eyes of Pacino, the relative sprightliness of Marlon Brando's Godfather in the early bit of the film, Caan beating up his brother in law as water spurted around and his final death, Clemenza showing Michael how to cook. It's amazing.
The key to the success of this piece is its universality - everyone knows a family business where they're worried about staying current, where there's a hot head and a dopey son, and a daughter who marries a no good, and the young one who turns out to be smarted than any of them. Coppola focuses on family rituals - weddings, funerals, christenings, buying presents, cooking meals, courtships, wedding nights.
Full of so many touches - people singing at the wedding, Pacino's hand being still after facing an assassin, the sunken eyes of Pacino, the relative sprightliness of Marlon Brando's Godfather in the early bit of the film, Caan beating up his brother in law as water spurted around and his final death, Clemenza showing Michael how to cook. It's amazing.
Movie review - "The Godfather Part 2" (1974) ****
Does anyone really like this better than the first film? I mean, really? Notwithstanding what they say in Scream 2? Or is it just one of those things that get repeated by film buffs without thinking, like that directors cut versions are the best?
Francis Coppola certainly deserves points for boldness - a sequel which jumps forward and back in time, and where many of the characters speak Italian. The production design and cinematography are stunning - perhaps better than the first. It's a feast for the eyes.
There's also some superb acting. Pacino is magnificent - I'd forgotten how restrained he could be. (When did he jump the shark into becoming a ham forever? Was it Scarface?) He's like this vampire, a man who becomes the walking dead... when he smiles in a joking scene with his brother it's like his face cracks. Occasionally he yells and has explosions of temper, but it's like the last gasp of passion of a dying man.
Robert de Niro is also very impressive - lithe, watchful, smart - though truth be told he doesn't have the world's most complex character to play. Young Vito is intelligent, loyal, faithful, a good friend, wryly humorous, and the only people he's mean to are nasty mafia dons, mean landlords, cocky and smug representatives of the Black Hand. And he's doing it all for this family; he's got to be the most kindly mafia chieftan in film history. (Michael Corleone also only has to fight baddies - corrupt politicians, other gangsters, treacherous employees - but at least smacks his nice wife, is a lousy father and orders his brother to be killed).
There is excellent support from Robert Duvall and John Cazale again - the movie doesn't really know what to do with Duvall's character to be honest, but the Cazale-Pacino relationship is the guts of this movie. James Caan's cameo at the end points up the lack of someone with equivalent zest in this film but Lee Strasberg is stunningly good as the Jewish gangster Hyman Roth (he's very well presented, listening to baseball, complaining about his health(, and Talia Shire impresses again as the now-wastrel Connie. Good to see Ray Bright again as Al Neri (who has a much bigger role here) and Dominic Chianese.
And you know something, Troy Donahue is good in his part as her gigolo boyfriend (Donahue was at his best in short appearances - he was in Imitation of Life as well) and I liked seeing directors such as Roger Corman and Bill Bowers as the Senators.
I wasn't wild about Michael Gazzo's Frank Pentagelli - I really missed Clamenza, for whom the script was so obviously written ("oh he died") and thought Gazzo was irritating though I loved his taciturn brother from Sicily.
The film goes for far too long - it could easily have an hour cut out of it, and smacked of indulgence - especially the flashback stuff it was like Coppola was going "this is my once chance to recreate my family's history so I'm going to go for it". The whole opera sequence, the parade - there was just endless endless art design. So many scenes felt as though they went on loo long.
It also lacks iconic moments. There are some: Hyman Roth's speech about Moe Green (actually every bit involving Roth), Cazale's ranting about being overlooked, the Senate hearings. The murder of Roth at the end is too silly for a decent assassin, the "I had an abortion Michael" speech feels amateurish. It's worth seeing but is heavily flawed.
Francis Coppola certainly deserves points for boldness - a sequel which jumps forward and back in time, and where many of the characters speak Italian. The production design and cinematography are stunning - perhaps better than the first. It's a feast for the eyes.
There's also some superb acting. Pacino is magnificent - I'd forgotten how restrained he could be. (When did he jump the shark into becoming a ham forever? Was it Scarface?) He's like this vampire, a man who becomes the walking dead... when he smiles in a joking scene with his brother it's like his face cracks. Occasionally he yells and has explosions of temper, but it's like the last gasp of passion of a dying man.
Robert de Niro is also very impressive - lithe, watchful, smart - though truth be told he doesn't have the world's most complex character to play. Young Vito is intelligent, loyal, faithful, a good friend, wryly humorous, and the only people he's mean to are nasty mafia dons, mean landlords, cocky and smug representatives of the Black Hand. And he's doing it all for this family; he's got to be the most kindly mafia chieftan in film history. (Michael Corleone also only has to fight baddies - corrupt politicians, other gangsters, treacherous employees - but at least smacks his nice wife, is a lousy father and orders his brother to be killed).
There is excellent support from Robert Duvall and John Cazale again - the movie doesn't really know what to do with Duvall's character to be honest, but the Cazale-Pacino relationship is the guts of this movie. James Caan's cameo at the end points up the lack of someone with equivalent zest in this film but Lee Strasberg is stunningly good as the Jewish gangster Hyman Roth (he's very well presented, listening to baseball, complaining about his health(, and Talia Shire impresses again as the now-wastrel Connie. Good to see Ray Bright again as Al Neri (who has a much bigger role here) and Dominic Chianese.
And you know something, Troy Donahue is good in his part as her gigolo boyfriend (Donahue was at his best in short appearances - he was in Imitation of Life as well) and I liked seeing directors such as Roger Corman and Bill Bowers as the Senators.
I wasn't wild about Michael Gazzo's Frank Pentagelli - I really missed Clamenza, for whom the script was so obviously written ("oh he died") and thought Gazzo was irritating though I loved his taciturn brother from Sicily.
The film goes for far too long - it could easily have an hour cut out of it, and smacked of indulgence - especially the flashback stuff it was like Coppola was going "this is my once chance to recreate my family's history so I'm going to go for it". The whole opera sequence, the parade - there was just endless endless art design. So many scenes felt as though they went on loo long.
It also lacks iconic moments. There are some: Hyman Roth's speech about Moe Green (actually every bit involving Roth), Cazale's ranting about being overlooked, the Senate hearings. The murder of Roth at the end is too silly for a decent assassin, the "I had an abortion Michael" speech feels amateurish. It's worth seeing but is heavily flawed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)