Films about rugby league are so rare that it's a shame this one - which I think is the only rugby league biopic (I could be wrong) - isn't better. It's about the first tour of an Australian team in Britain, which took place in 1908 - a difficult trip, from all accounts, with players having to work as stokers to pay their way, but it helped establish the international bona fides of the game and saw some marvellous work from Dally Messenger.
The best thing about this movie is they've cast actors who actually look like they could play rugby league - Dominic Sweeney, Tony Martin, Dennis Waterman. And I always enjoy Chris Haywood, who's the manager.
But it's dull. The director is slow paced and plodding the script bland and amateurish - scenes feel as though they drag on forever. The challenge of filming the matches in an interesting way is not met, there's little complexity, gags are repeated incessantly. The novelty of the concept meant I made it through to the end but it was very hard going.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Movie review - "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" (2014) **
Really, really annoying movie because once upon a time I was into Jack Ryan novels in a big way and I've always enjoyed the movie adaptations, but they completely stuffed it. There was nothing wrong with the idea of doing a Ryan origin story - sure, they'd already turned the movie of The Sum of All Fears into one, but why not do it again? But instead of using one of the best selling source novels, several of which remain unfilmed, they thought they'd come up with an original story - and it's a crap one.
It feels as though this was done on the cheap, too. I guess Chris Pine isn't that cheap, and Ken Branagh could probably charge a little more after Thor, and Keira Knightley must have been paid something to hold her nose - but surely Kevin Costner doesn't cost that much? There's not really many other prominent characters in the movie. Spectacle is thin on the ground - there is a decent chase through the streets of Moscow and later one through New York, but in general television does this a lot better.
TV does story telling better too - which here is noticeably poor. The biggest flaw more me is the character of Ryan. The whole point of Jack Ryan was that he was a guy next door, a pencil pusher and family man who occasionally got caught in amazing adventures - an antidote to James Bond. He wanted to be a soldier but couldn't after being injured - he went into finance and made a quick fortune, then turned to academia, which led to a career in the CIA. He had a bad back, a fear of flying, a strong Irish Catholic influence, a keenly developed sense of intelligence and history - it's an interesting character. He's not gung ho Mr Macho killer - that job is given to John Clarke.
And the movies had done a decent enough job of depicting that until now - he wasn't really an ordinary guy but he was an action movie genre's version of an ordinary guy. (This is why Harrison Ford was so good).
Here Jack Ryan is just another super hero. Which might have worked (though what's the point?) but the filmmakers try to have their cake and eat it too by having him say "I'm just an analyst" and "I'm just an ordinary person" a few times. Well he isn't. For starters he enlists in the army after September 11, which makes him a moron and not true to character. Then he finishes his PhD and joins Wall Street and becomes part of the CIA because of his ability to... read patterns? Then he's sent on a mission to Russia and someone tries to kill him only Ryan gets in first in a ridiculous Daniel Craig James Bond type sequence.
This for me was the turning point of the film - when it showed that the filmmakers didn't have a vision. Because after that Pine/Ryan meets mentor Kevin Costner (played someone called Thomas Harper not in the novels... why not use John Clarke? Or Admiral Greer?) and goes on about how hard it was to kill someone the first time, you think "that's not true you found it easy, you looked like a bad ass". Then there's this horrible bit where Costner talks about his first time killing someone, an innocent bystander, and you're wondering how you're meant to take that character, who is a mentor but also distant, and there's no warmth (nothing to compare to what James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman brought).
Then we see Ryan "analyse" stuff - he really seems to brain storm and kick ideas around and guess what the baddies are up to without much proof, but he always guesses right. And for all his inexperience he manages to rescue Keira from assassins and then later on stop a terrorist by engaging in a motorbike chase and a fight on a moving truck. It's ridiculous.
So much of this is dumb. Keira Knightley looks beautiful but her role is horrible; they don't even show a courtship, just them meeting and bang they're in love - and she thinks he's having an affair (he ducks away to see Sorry Wrong Number at a revival house... way to go with updating the character), then she follows him to Moscow so she can be kidnapped (the best sequence in the movie to be fair) then she is rescued and doesn't do anything in the last third.
The action stuff lacks balls. Clancy never did - he set off an atomic bomb in the US in Sum of All Fears and had a plane crash into the White House in Debt of Honour (predicting September 11) and killed off leading characters. This is all tentative - all the goodies live the baddies die Wall Street is saved. No big stakes no nothing. It's annoying - because Ryan is such a good character who's had interesting adventures. But they completely stuffed it.
It feels as though this was done on the cheap, too. I guess Chris Pine isn't that cheap, and Ken Branagh could probably charge a little more after Thor, and Keira Knightley must have been paid something to hold her nose - but surely Kevin Costner doesn't cost that much? There's not really many other prominent characters in the movie. Spectacle is thin on the ground - there is a decent chase through the streets of Moscow and later one through New York, but in general television does this a lot better.
TV does story telling better too - which here is noticeably poor. The biggest flaw more me is the character of Ryan. The whole point of Jack Ryan was that he was a guy next door, a pencil pusher and family man who occasionally got caught in amazing adventures - an antidote to James Bond. He wanted to be a soldier but couldn't after being injured - he went into finance and made a quick fortune, then turned to academia, which led to a career in the CIA. He had a bad back, a fear of flying, a strong Irish Catholic influence, a keenly developed sense of intelligence and history - it's an interesting character. He's not gung ho Mr Macho killer - that job is given to John Clarke.
And the movies had done a decent enough job of depicting that until now - he wasn't really an ordinary guy but he was an action movie genre's version of an ordinary guy. (This is why Harrison Ford was so good).
Here Jack Ryan is just another super hero. Which might have worked (though what's the point?) but the filmmakers try to have their cake and eat it too by having him say "I'm just an analyst" and "I'm just an ordinary person" a few times. Well he isn't. For starters he enlists in the army after September 11, which makes him a moron and not true to character. Then he finishes his PhD and joins Wall Street and becomes part of the CIA because of his ability to... read patterns? Then he's sent on a mission to Russia and someone tries to kill him only Ryan gets in first in a ridiculous Daniel Craig James Bond type sequence.
This for me was the turning point of the film - when it showed that the filmmakers didn't have a vision. Because after that Pine/Ryan meets mentor Kevin Costner (played someone called Thomas Harper not in the novels... why not use John Clarke? Or Admiral Greer?) and goes on about how hard it was to kill someone the first time, you think "that's not true you found it easy, you looked like a bad ass". Then there's this horrible bit where Costner talks about his first time killing someone, an innocent bystander, and you're wondering how you're meant to take that character, who is a mentor but also distant, and there's no warmth (nothing to compare to what James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman brought).
Then we see Ryan "analyse" stuff - he really seems to brain storm and kick ideas around and guess what the baddies are up to without much proof, but he always guesses right. And for all his inexperience he manages to rescue Keira from assassins and then later on stop a terrorist by engaging in a motorbike chase and a fight on a moving truck. It's ridiculous.
So much of this is dumb. Keira Knightley looks beautiful but her role is horrible; they don't even show a courtship, just them meeting and bang they're in love - and she thinks he's having an affair (he ducks away to see Sorry Wrong Number at a revival house... way to go with updating the character), then she follows him to Moscow so she can be kidnapped (the best sequence in the movie to be fair) then she is rescued and doesn't do anything in the last third.
The action stuff lacks balls. Clancy never did - he set off an atomic bomb in the US in Sum of All Fears and had a plane crash into the White House in Debt of Honour (predicting September 11) and killed off leading characters. This is all tentative - all the goodies live the baddies die Wall Street is saved. No big stakes no nothing. It's annoying - because Ryan is such a good character who's had interesting adventures. But they completely stuffed it.
Monday, May 25, 2015
Movie review - "Rocky III" (1983) ***
I loved this when I saw it as a kid - thought the fight between Rocky and Hulk Hogan was one of the funniest sequences in Hollywood history. On rewatching it years down the track I wasn't as enamoured but it remains slick, enjoyable entertainment and indicative of Sylvester Stallone's considerable ability to put a new twist on an old twist.
It helps that he's come up with a decent story - Rocky gets cocky and lazy and it clobbered by a young boxer; his trainer dies, but Rocky gets his act together with the help of his former adversary. That's a strong basic plot - and the film has two other ace in the holes: the thumping rock anthem "Eye of the Tiger", used with brilliant effectiveness, and the star making performance of Mr T as Rocky's nemesis. Carl Weathers, Burt Young, Burgess Meredith (ham alert!) and Talia Shire all add their patented bits, as do the extras.
It's very 80s - check out Stallone's physique and hair, plus the music - but enjoyably so.
It helps that he's come up with a decent story - Rocky gets cocky and lazy and it clobbered by a young boxer; his trainer dies, but Rocky gets his act together with the help of his former adversary. That's a strong basic plot - and the film has two other ace in the holes: the thumping rock anthem "Eye of the Tiger", used with brilliant effectiveness, and the star making performance of Mr T as Rocky's nemesis. Carl Weathers, Burt Young, Burgess Meredith (ham alert!) and Talia Shire all add their patented bits, as do the extras.
It's very 80s - check out Stallone's physique and hair, plus the music - but enjoyably so.
Movie review - "Incubus" (1966) ***
This movie is best remembered for two things, both of which made me love it before even seeing it, a) the fact it was shot in Esperanto, and b) the curse associated with it - several people who worked on the film have had tragic ends.
It's a surprise to find that it's actually a decent movie - ambitious, genuinely creepy and unsettling. I don't want to over praise it or anything but the atmosphere is very effective, heavily influenced by Ingmar Bergman. Conrad Hall was the cinematographer so it looks beautiful. And all the Esperanto does create an off-kilther, otherworldly feeling.
The story was a little confusing in places but basically effective: an evil creature (Allyson Ames) who lures men to their deaths surprises herself by falling in love. The rape and murder of Ann Atmar is genuinely unsettling and probably the movie's most powerful sequence. (At heart it's about an independent woman who turns "good" via the love of a good man, which will offend some). William Shatner is the guy Aymes falls in love with.
It's a surprise to find that it's actually a decent movie - ambitious, genuinely creepy and unsettling. I don't want to over praise it or anything but the atmosphere is very effective, heavily influenced by Ingmar Bergman. Conrad Hall was the cinematographer so it looks beautiful. And all the Esperanto does create an off-kilther, otherworldly feeling.
The story was a little confusing in places but basically effective: an evil creature (Allyson Ames) who lures men to their deaths surprises herself by falling in love. The rape and murder of Ann Atmar is genuinely unsettling and probably the movie's most powerful sequence. (At heart it's about an independent woman who turns "good" via the love of a good man, which will offend some). William Shatner is the guy Aymes falls in love with.
Movie review - "Top Secret!" (1984) ****
Loved this as a kid and it still holds up well with about ten times the genuine laughs as modern day spoofs - I must sound so old saying something like that but if you don't believe me check it out. It's bewildering to think this wasn't a hit - apparently it did okay but was a disappointment considering the budget and expectations.
I think maybe they spoofed a genre too far. There is a good basic premise here - rock star gets involved in the Cold War busting a scientist out of prison - with a strong basic dramatic arc (cocky kid grows up and finds love) but the film constantly veers between World War Two and the Cold War. I think it needed to pick one - probably the Cold War, and just set it in the sixties. That would have meant losing all the French resistance and Nazi stuff but it could be done. As it is, I think it was too much of a mixture.
Anyway, that's hindsight. To praise the good thinks: there's the song 'Skeet Surfing', so many classic lines ("truck load of dead rats in a tampon factory", "I just can't bring my wife to orgasm"), the names of the resistance (Montage, Mise-en-scene, Deja Vu, Latrine), the slapstick battles, the villain who only knows what he reads in the New York Post, the Blue Lagoon flashbacks.
This was a great way for Val Kilmer to start off his career, and Lucy Gutteridge does a great Ingrid Bergman impression. Some fun cameos by Peter Cushing and Omar Sharif - I wish there'd been more of them a la Flying High. But it's wonderful.
I think maybe they spoofed a genre too far. There is a good basic premise here - rock star gets involved in the Cold War busting a scientist out of prison - with a strong basic dramatic arc (cocky kid grows up and finds love) but the film constantly veers between World War Two and the Cold War. I think it needed to pick one - probably the Cold War, and just set it in the sixties. That would have meant losing all the French resistance and Nazi stuff but it could be done. As it is, I think it was too much of a mixture.
Anyway, that's hindsight. To praise the good thinks: there's the song 'Skeet Surfing', so many classic lines ("truck load of dead rats in a tampon factory", "I just can't bring my wife to orgasm"), the names of the resistance (Montage, Mise-en-scene, Deja Vu, Latrine), the slapstick battles, the villain who only knows what he reads in the New York Post, the Blue Lagoon flashbacks.
This was a great way for Val Kilmer to start off his career, and Lucy Gutteridge does a great Ingrid Bergman impression. Some fun cameos by Peter Cushing and Omar Sharif - I wish there'd been more of them a la Flying High. But it's wonderful.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Movie review - "Wherever She Goes" (1951) **1/2
Very few films were made in Australia in the 1950s - this was one of them, and it doesn't enjoy much of a reputation, even among Aussie film buffs. But I was surprised - it's definitely no classic, and I doubt I'd ever want to pay money to see it, but it's a sweet little movie.
Its about the early years in the life of Eileen Joyce, little remembered today but in the 30s, 40s and 50s one of the most famous pianists in the world, and she was an Aussie. Apparently the film is heavily fictionalised, although she was definitely poor as a kid.
What's here is entertaining enough in an ambling way - little Eileen is living in rural Tasmania when she discovers music via the harmonica of a passing swagman. When she visits Hobart she sees a piano for the first time and becomes hooked. Then her family move to Kalgoorlie where dad (Nigel Lovell) has rotten luck on the goldfields but Eileen manages to find a way to practice the piano and becomes very good. It's cute how the miners chip in to hep and the neighbours grumble about her but support her.
Suzanne Parrett is winning as the young Eileen, running around barefoot and getting into adventures. She doesn't come across as a genius but she's got a lot of spunk. I also enjoyed Tommy Drysdale as her brother. Both have natural chemistry and presence. Nigel Lovell and Muriel Steinbeck offer solid support as mum and dad. George Wallace has a small role as the manager of a talent competition - it was a shock to see him, he looks so old and fat. Joyce appears at herself at the beginning and ending.
This is definitely no classic but it's got good child actors, location filming of Tasmania and Western Australia, plenty of music and a good heart.
Its about the early years in the life of Eileen Joyce, little remembered today but in the 30s, 40s and 50s one of the most famous pianists in the world, and she was an Aussie. Apparently the film is heavily fictionalised, although she was definitely poor as a kid.
What's here is entertaining enough in an ambling way - little Eileen is living in rural Tasmania when she discovers music via the harmonica of a passing swagman. When she visits Hobart she sees a piano for the first time and becomes hooked. Then her family move to Kalgoorlie where dad (Nigel Lovell) has rotten luck on the goldfields but Eileen manages to find a way to practice the piano and becomes very good. It's cute how the miners chip in to hep and the neighbours grumble about her but support her.
Suzanne Parrett is winning as the young Eileen, running around barefoot and getting into adventures. She doesn't come across as a genius but she's got a lot of spunk. I also enjoyed Tommy Drysdale as her brother. Both have natural chemistry and presence. Nigel Lovell and Muriel Steinbeck offer solid support as mum and dad. George Wallace has a small role as the manager of a talent competition - it was a shock to see him, he looks so old and fat. Joyce appears at herself at the beginning and ending.
This is definitely no classic but it's got good child actors, location filming of Tasmania and Western Australia, plenty of music and a good heart.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Book review - "The Master of Ballantrae" by Robert Louis Stevenson (1889)
Everyone knows the classic Stevenson tales - Jekyll and Hyde, Kidnapped, Treasure Island - but this would rank on the second level, probably along with The Black Arrow. It's a surprisingly dark and bleak tale with a strong central idea - a Scottish lord has two sons, a wastrel and a more reliable type, and during the 1745 rebellion it's decided one should remain loyal while the other joins Bonnie Prince Charlie; they flip a coin and the wastrel gets to go Jacobite. Everyone misses him and thinks he's the better brother, and when he comes back he sets about psychologically torturing the "good" brother.
If this were an everyday tale it would be clear-cut good and evil and for a long time it seems to be that, with the Master (the wastrel, Jamie) behaving appallingly - but when the bad brother chases the good to the American colonies, the good brother snaps and starts taunting, tormenting the bad brother.
This might have been a better book had the brother (Henry) snapped earlier. Because for a lot of it he is frustratingly passive, paying off Jamie's mistress, and taking a lot of crap, including from his dad and wife who both adore Jamie. Also passive are their father, the steward who narrates the tail, and even the wife.
However Jamie is a bright, vivacious character - an evil little turd to be sure, but he's always doing something, turning pirate, or setting up business in India, or trying to blackmail his brother, who he becomes obssessed with. A very strong villain who has interesting adventures (piracy, burying treasure in America etc). It's a genuinely different sort of adventure tale, very different in tone to the 1953 Errol Flynn version.
If this were an everyday tale it would be clear-cut good and evil and for a long time it seems to be that, with the Master (the wastrel, Jamie) behaving appallingly - but when the bad brother chases the good to the American colonies, the good brother snaps and starts taunting, tormenting the bad brother.
This might have been a better book had the brother (Henry) snapped earlier. Because for a lot of it he is frustratingly passive, paying off Jamie's mistress, and taking a lot of crap, including from his dad and wife who both adore Jamie. Also passive are their father, the steward who narrates the tail, and even the wife.
However Jamie is a bright, vivacious character - an evil little turd to be sure, but he's always doing something, turning pirate, or setting up business in India, or trying to blackmail his brother, who he becomes obssessed with. A very strong villain who has interesting adventures (piracy, burying treasure in America etc). It's a genuinely different sort of adventure tale, very different in tone to the 1953 Errol Flynn version.
Movie review - "El Dorado" (1967) ***1/2
I've always loved this movie, more so than Rio Bravo, which it shamelessly copies. It has this lovely old fashioned vibe and feel, plus a better cast and tighter pacing than Rio Bravo. The one deficit is that Bravo had Walter Brennan whereas here we have Arthur Hunnicut who simply isn't as good.
However John Wayne is back playing John Wayne and this time he has more to work with character-wise - a bullet in the spine, a sense of guilt and obligation because he shot a teenage boy who was trying to kill him. Robert Mitchum is also on hand as a drunk (though his character fell awfully fast and hard) - Dean Martin gets more praise because I think it was more of a surprise seeing him do so well, but Mitchum is as good an actor, has more gravitas and sense of history with Wayne.
Charlene Holt is as good as Angie Dickinson - perhaps more age appropriate. Ed Asner is a little lightweight as the baddie but Christopher George very strong as the head gungslinger who seems to have a man crush on Wayne - though I wish they've given him some bad ass stuff to do on screen rather than just have other characters to talk about. I liked cute Michelle Carey with her sing song voice and feisty late 60s hair, despite her odd running action as she goes down a hill side.
The real stand out here for me is James Caan, he's excellent, so superior to Ricky Nelson it's not funny - eager, warm, unique (with his odd hat and poor shooting skills). The only real dud note is that awful moment where he impersonates a Chinaman (though it also is a little un-PC to have him slap Carey after he slaps her).
Story wise it feels as though this goes on an act too long - when that random guy who we've never met gets kidnapped forcing a final confrontation (why not have Carey be kidnapped?). But the final shoot out is pretty good with George realising that basically Wayne had to cheat to beat him, and there are many memorable moments: Wayne shooting the kid and bringing him to his father, Caan's introduction, the by-play between Caan and Wayne, Mitchum's drunken shoot out, the fight in the Church. Good late-entry Hawks.
However John Wayne is back playing John Wayne and this time he has more to work with character-wise - a bullet in the spine, a sense of guilt and obligation because he shot a teenage boy who was trying to kill him. Robert Mitchum is also on hand as a drunk (though his character fell awfully fast and hard) - Dean Martin gets more praise because I think it was more of a surprise seeing him do so well, but Mitchum is as good an actor, has more gravitas and sense of history with Wayne.
Charlene Holt is as good as Angie Dickinson - perhaps more age appropriate. Ed Asner is a little lightweight as the baddie but Christopher George very strong as the head gungslinger who seems to have a man crush on Wayne - though I wish they've given him some bad ass stuff to do on screen rather than just have other characters to talk about. I liked cute Michelle Carey with her sing song voice and feisty late 60s hair, despite her odd running action as she goes down a hill side.
The real stand out here for me is James Caan, he's excellent, so superior to Ricky Nelson it's not funny - eager, warm, unique (with his odd hat and poor shooting skills). The only real dud note is that awful moment where he impersonates a Chinaman (though it also is a little un-PC to have him slap Carey after he slaps her).
Story wise it feels as though this goes on an act too long - when that random guy who we've never met gets kidnapped forcing a final confrontation (why not have Carey be kidnapped?). But the final shoot out is pretty good with George realising that basically Wayne had to cheat to beat him, and there are many memorable moments: Wayne shooting the kid and bringing him to his father, Caan's introduction, the by-play between Caan and Wayne, Mitchum's drunken shoot out, the fight in the Church. Good late-entry Hawks.
Book review - "Vespasian 2: Rome's Executioner" by Robert Fabbri (2011)
Vespasian goes on a mission and takes part in the fall of Sejanus, which involves a trip out to the island of Capri to meet Tiberius. There are some fantastic characters here, and decent action. Vespesian does authorise the rape and then murder of Sejanus' daughter at the end which is a bit full on.
TV review - "Mad Men - Season 7 Part 2" (2015) *** (warning: spoilers)
The second half of season seven did not thrill me on the whole. There was really no new development that outstanding - I was expecting Don to completely flame out and/or die but they didn't go there, more just repeated another crisis where he went off driving through the country.
Nothing really that awesome for a lot of it - I was hoping for more nervous breakdowns, deaths and flame outs. Betty's cancer story was awesome, I always enjoy Roger, I was good that Harry Crane tried to hump dull-but-hot Megan. Sometimes it slipped into wish fulfilment eg Bruce Greenwood as Joan's perfect suitor, Peggy's romance - but these characters deserved it (Pete's character - who I was sure was doing to die/flame out - didn't, though I did like seeing Alison Brie again).
The last ep was pretty good though - it tried something new and for me pulled it out, with perhaps the best ever real life commercial integrated. I also loved Don's three phone calls to Sally, Peggy and Betty - especially the one to Peggy where it seemed like he was going to kill himself. It's lingered with me. So it was worth it for that last episode.
Nothing really that awesome for a lot of it - I was hoping for more nervous breakdowns, deaths and flame outs. Betty's cancer story was awesome, I always enjoy Roger, I was good that Harry Crane tried to hump dull-but-hot Megan. Sometimes it slipped into wish fulfilment eg Bruce Greenwood as Joan's perfect suitor, Peggy's romance - but these characters deserved it (Pete's character - who I was sure was doing to die/flame out - didn't, though I did like seeing Alison Brie again).
The last ep was pretty good though - it tried something new and for me pulled it out, with perhaps the best ever real life commercial integrated. I also loved Don's three phone calls to Sally, Peggy and Betty - especially the one to Peggy where it seemed like he was going to kill himself. It's lingered with me. So it was worth it for that last episode.
Movie review - "The Last Hunt" (1956) ** (warning:spoilers)
MGM had a big hit with Stewart Granger and Robert Taylor as feuding men of action whose day job involves slaughtering animals in All the Brothers Were Valiant so had another crack at it here. Dore Schary decided to produce personally, and the movie shows his erratic commercial sense, no matter the quality of the novel on which its based.
There are so many problems with this film. It's about buffalo hunters, which is hardly sympathetic to start off with - Granger, the hero, is disgusted by shooting buffalo... but he still does it. The villain, Robert Taylor, is meant to be a baddy because he gets off on killing buffalo and people - but Granger still kills a whole bunch, too. To make it worse the filmmakers throw in all this footage of buffalo genuinely being shot (taken from a cull, but it's still not easy to watch).
The relationship between Granger and Taylor is problematic because they only meet at the beginning of the film - there's no history or familial link. And Taylor's clearly a psycho from the beginning so Granger is not only an idiot for going into business with him, he's a coward for not dealing with his psycho partner a lot earlier. If Granger and Taylor had had a long history, and Taylor had saved his life, or if they'd been brothers, his hesitation would have made some sense - but it doesn't here.
I get that Taylor wants a friend and indeed his neediness for Granger is sometimes touching (as well as carrying standard 50s Western homoerotic overtones) but there is nothing ever we see in why Granger would need Taylor.
The supporting characters are flawed. The minute I saw Lloyd Nolan hobble on screen, monologuing and boozing I thought "oh no here we go... a wise old alcoholic character" and yep sure enough that's what we end up with. He's meant to be some sort of moral conscience I think but he goes along with the buffalo slaughter and Taylor turning Debra Paget into a sex slave until the very end (I did feel his death scene was very effective, though).
Russ Tamblyn is not only a highly unlikely half-Indian, his presence in the movie feels kind of pointless. I kept waiting for him to be this dramatic wild card - he reverts to Indian ways or betrays his people, or become a Taylor acolyte (which would have been great, actually, and made Granger's reluctance to act more understandable, i.e. it was too risky) - but he just hangs around watching on passively most of the time.
Debra Paget's Indian girl is a classic example of 50s liberal non-racism racism. The movie takes this we-should-be-nice-to-the-Indians stance common of movies of the time - this had been stock since Broken Arrow really. Yet Indians are mostly depicted as weak and spineless and Paget's character isn't even given a name - she's called "Indian girl". And she's this passive thing who goes along and basically agrees to become Taylor's concubine for safety, bats her eyes at Granger until he takes possession of her as well. It's a horrible part.
Dramatically there are other problems too - there's no shoot out at the end between the leads, to which I'm guessing the thinking was "this'll be unexpected" which it is but it's also unsatisfying. There's this long sequence where Granger returns to civilisation and wears a suit and gets in a brawl and flirts with a dance hall girl that looks simply ridiculous.
And as for the leads... Well, Robert Taylor isn't bad and it's interesting to see him play the villain. He should really have played the hero and Granger the villain - Granger made a superb baddy - but I'm guessing they wanted to mix it up. Fans of Taylor and Granger are really the only people who should definitely check this out (apart from Richard Brooks and Western completists).
Granger suits cowboy garb quite well, though in some scenes he goes over the top chewing on a cigar and talking like a cowboy. Their performances do anchor the movie and provide some of the best things about it. Also impressive is the location work in Dakota, and MGM 50s production values. But in general this movie just annoyed me.
Movie review - "Days of Thunder" (1989) **
For the first half hour of watching this I thought "this holds up well" - with it's montages, and luscious photography and Tony Scott stylistics - plus the dramatic heavyweights of Robert Duvall and Randy Quaid acting away, and the camp factor of Tom Cruise arriving on his motorcycle being Cole Trickle, clashing with Michael Rooker (remember when he was the up and comer in Hollywood) and so on.
A lot of this has been mocked over the years but the things that are normally held up for ridicule are actually charming: John C Reilly appearing in a support part (when he'd later send up the film in Talledega Nights), Nicole Kidman as a hilariously young neurosurgeon, Don Simpson playing a race driver, all the late 80s excess (big hair, sunglasses). There are plenty of memorable bits, like zooming around the race track to 'Gimme Some Lovin', the rental car race between Rooker and Cruise, the meet cute between Kidman and Cruise.
The big problem with it is the story, which is hopelessly murky. In Top Gun the dramatic lines were clear - Maverick was haunted by the ghost of his father's reputation, he had a best friend who died which causes him a crisis that he had to get though, he struggled to be a team player but learned in the end, he had a competition with Ice Man which was resolved, he learned to let love into his life.
Here it's more confusing. Cole Trickle is basically a good kid who wants to be liked, there's something in his past with his dad but nothing really; he has an at times difficult relationship with Duvall but not really; he becomes mates with Michael Rooker who can't recover from an accident and so Cole drives his car but Duvall says he shouldn't or something and Rooker doesn't die; Cary Elwes comes in as a villain but never does anything that villainous, does he - he's aggressive on the track, sure, but no more than Rooker or Cruise/Cole, but we're supposed to hiss at him because...? His girlfriend has short hair whereas Rooker and Cruise have girlfriends with long hair? Randy Quaid seems set up to become villainous by preferring Elwes to Cruise but then at the end helps Cruise compete in the race, so you wonder what point he has in the whole movie?
It's like a whole bunch of script decisions were made because of fear of being too close to Top Gun - "oh we don't want Rooker to die because that's too close to Top Gun", "we don't want Cruise to be haunted by his past because that's too close to Top Gun", "we dont want him to go on an egomaniac to team player journey because that's too close to Top Gun" - but they haven't replaced it with anything as interesting/compelling. Cruise is a danger on the track at the beginning and by the end of the film hasn't really learned his lesson (at one stage he even takes off after a taxi driver with a terrified Kidman as a passenger.... she dumps him because of his, understandably... but then just all of a sudden forgives him and there's no problem).
Still, it's hard not to feel affection for this movie, with Simpson and Bruckheimer running loose, and Robert Towne selling out, and Nickers and Tom having little on screen chemistry despite hooking up in real life. I think when you mention it's name most movie fans smile, and that's worth something.
A lot of this has been mocked over the years but the things that are normally held up for ridicule are actually charming: John C Reilly appearing in a support part (when he'd later send up the film in Talledega Nights), Nicole Kidman as a hilariously young neurosurgeon, Don Simpson playing a race driver, all the late 80s excess (big hair, sunglasses). There are plenty of memorable bits, like zooming around the race track to 'Gimme Some Lovin', the rental car race between Rooker and Cruise, the meet cute between Kidman and Cruise.
The big problem with it is the story, which is hopelessly murky. In Top Gun the dramatic lines were clear - Maverick was haunted by the ghost of his father's reputation, he had a best friend who died which causes him a crisis that he had to get though, he struggled to be a team player but learned in the end, he had a competition with Ice Man which was resolved, he learned to let love into his life.
Here it's more confusing. Cole Trickle is basically a good kid who wants to be liked, there's something in his past with his dad but nothing really; he has an at times difficult relationship with Duvall but not really; he becomes mates with Michael Rooker who can't recover from an accident and so Cole drives his car but Duvall says he shouldn't or something and Rooker doesn't die; Cary Elwes comes in as a villain but never does anything that villainous, does he - he's aggressive on the track, sure, but no more than Rooker or Cruise/Cole, but we're supposed to hiss at him because...? His girlfriend has short hair whereas Rooker and Cruise have girlfriends with long hair? Randy Quaid seems set up to become villainous by preferring Elwes to Cruise but then at the end helps Cruise compete in the race, so you wonder what point he has in the whole movie?
It's like a whole bunch of script decisions were made because of fear of being too close to Top Gun - "oh we don't want Rooker to die because that's too close to Top Gun", "we don't want Cruise to be haunted by his past because that's too close to Top Gun", "we dont want him to go on an egomaniac to team player journey because that's too close to Top Gun" - but they haven't replaced it with anything as interesting/compelling. Cruise is a danger on the track at the beginning and by the end of the film hasn't really learned his lesson (at one stage he even takes off after a taxi driver with a terrified Kidman as a passenger.... she dumps him because of his, understandably... but then just all of a sudden forgives him and there's no problem).
Still, it's hard not to feel affection for this movie, with Simpson and Bruckheimer running loose, and Robert Towne selling out, and Nickers and Tom having little on screen chemistry despite hooking up in real life. I think when you mention it's name most movie fans smile, and that's worth something.
Movie review - "Panic on Rock Island" (2011) **
Australia can make good genre films, it's been proved time and time again - Mad Max, Saw, Roadgames. This was a strong genre exploitation idea - a virus breaks out on an island hosting a rock concert - but is not executed well. I got the feeling it was made by people who liked the idea of doing something genre but didn't know how execute it.
Biggest problem was story: the virus breaks out on the island and people look bad and throw up a lot and one or two even die... but that's it. I kept waiting for people to turn into zombies or for the government to start shooting the infected or drop bombs, but they don't. It never escalates. It's just people getting sick, and then more sick, and some die but some don't. It would have been easy to build the stakes in lots of ways - either they become zombies, or kids come off the island and so the police start killing them, or the order goes in to wipe out the whole island so the army's/evil corporation's complicitness isn't exposed... but there's all this pulling of punches
Characters act in silly ways. Mum Dee Smart runs an army blockade to be reunited with her kids because... Why? What's she going to do? If she knew the army were going to kill everyone on the island or she had a vaccine or something there would be some dramatic point, but she's really going on the island just to give her kids a hug which may be emotionally understandable but doesn't have much dramatic point.
Ditto when Grant Bowler goes on the island. Instead of, say, having him source a vaccine and there are people trying to stop him for whatever reason, he just arrives to say gday to his kids.
Also all these kids try to break quarantine to get off because they're freaking out which is understandable... then the police capture one and start thumping him which is even more understandable... and we get all this slow motion of the police thumping the kid and everyone looking on in shock, while I'm thinking "if that kid had gotten past I hope the cops would have shot him".
(And couldn't they have gotten music acts a bit more modern than Spiderbait and Tim Rogers?)
Then there are politicians who are opposed to Bowler quarantining the festival basically because they're... um evil politicians who are providing an obstacle. It doesn't make sense. It made sense of the Mayor in Jaws to oppose shutting down the beaches because the town's entire economy depended on it - here it's a rock festival in the harbour involving smelly teenagers. There would be far more votes in politicians quarantining them, surely? Or you have it say that the politicians are in the pay or the promoter or something.
The performances are all over the shop. Sometimes they felt right - Grant Bowler's dedicated scientist, Simone Kessell's stressed out scientist, Zoe Cramond as a crying victim - but other times it was hopelessly over the time - Vince Colosimo's leather jacket wearing army officer, Paul Tassone's yelly politician. Solid make up work and production values were ultimately sunk by too many people who were out of their element.
Movie review - "The Rover" (2014) **1/2
I think if this had been a debut movie made for say $1 or 2 million, everyone would have been impressed. But coming after Animal Kingdom, with a big budget, it's very underwhelming. There is still lots to admire - I think David Michod is a very good director, who presents things in a consistently fresh, interesting way, there's some wonderful actors - but it's not a very good story.
For starters it took me a while to wrap my head around "the world". I get that society was breaking down and there was a lot of lawlessness and guns, but there were still policemen and phones and trains and some law and order - some things worked, others didn't. I kind of rationalised it in my head as "well it's kind of like a country in modern day Africa" and that helped a little. (I read somewhere in this world people came from all over Australia to work in the mines... I never got that sense from actually watching the film.)
Also the basic spine is Guy Pearce trying to get his car back. That's not everything of course, but that's what pushes the bulk of the narrative along (if I remember correctly... he wants the car back because his dog's corpse is in the book). Well, the thing is Pearce's character doesn't really seem to want this car back - he doesn't seem to care about anything much really, he's broken from the death of his wife and the breakdown of society and he's clinging to this. In Mad Max or it's ilk Max was driven by primeval emotions - revenge, survival. Pearce just kind of ambles along, and wants the car back because he's annoyed more than anything - yes there's the dog's corpse but that's not revealed until the end, so he's this enigmatic mystery. He even gets the chance to have his car back early in the movie but just walks up and abuses the people who have it, enabling them to conk him out - meaning he's either stupid when it comes to strategy, or doesn't care. There is no real emotion there, just some "cool" dystopian misogyny. It's also far too easy for him to kill people - there's no suspense of say him being up against someone who is as tough as him.
Animal Kingdom had a distant, passive protagonist as well but it also had very human, twisted, emotional people in the form of Jackie Weaver, Ben Mendehlson and Guy Pearce. Here the most human character is Robert Pattison, as a dimwit American looking to be reunited with his brother. Pattison gives a good performance (it is a showy role) and provides some connection for the audience.
I don't want to be overly critical - it's stylish and compelling in a lot of places, and for the first half hour or so I really went with it. But over time I felt it ran out of puff and/or was not realised in the way it could have been.
For starters it took me a while to wrap my head around "the world". I get that society was breaking down and there was a lot of lawlessness and guns, but there were still policemen and phones and trains and some law and order - some things worked, others didn't. I kind of rationalised it in my head as "well it's kind of like a country in modern day Africa" and that helped a little. (I read somewhere in this world people came from all over Australia to work in the mines... I never got that sense from actually watching the film.)
Also the basic spine is Guy Pearce trying to get his car back. That's not everything of course, but that's what pushes the bulk of the narrative along (if I remember correctly... he wants the car back because his dog's corpse is in the book). Well, the thing is Pearce's character doesn't really seem to want this car back - he doesn't seem to care about anything much really, he's broken from the death of his wife and the breakdown of society and he's clinging to this. In Mad Max or it's ilk Max was driven by primeval emotions - revenge, survival. Pearce just kind of ambles along, and wants the car back because he's annoyed more than anything - yes there's the dog's corpse but that's not revealed until the end, so he's this enigmatic mystery. He even gets the chance to have his car back early in the movie but just walks up and abuses the people who have it, enabling them to conk him out - meaning he's either stupid when it comes to strategy, or doesn't care. There is no real emotion there, just some "cool" dystopian misogyny. It's also far too easy for him to kill people - there's no suspense of say him being up against someone who is as tough as him.
Animal Kingdom had a distant, passive protagonist as well but it also had very human, twisted, emotional people in the form of Jackie Weaver, Ben Mendehlson and Guy Pearce. Here the most human character is Robert Pattison, as a dimwit American looking to be reunited with his brother. Pattison gives a good performance (it is a showy role) and provides some connection for the audience.
I don't want to be overly critical - it's stylish and compelling in a lot of places, and for the first half hour or so I really went with it. But over time I felt it ran out of puff and/or was not realised in the way it could have been.
Movie review - "Mad Max: Fury Road" (2015) ****1/2
The title could be Mad Max: Cover Girl Models and the character of Max could actually be cut out of the movie and not that much lost story wise (everything important he does could be done by Charlize Theron or Nicholas Hoult's characters), which is never a good sign... But what fantastic big screen entertainment!
It's basically one long chase with a few pauses, and very little character development apart from "burnt out person finding humanity" which is given to three people - there's tough bitter Max who finds his again (for the third movie in a row), female warrior Theron who finds hers (with a connecting-with-the-sisterhood slant), and brainwashed fanatic Hoult who finds his (rather like a deprogrammed ISIS fighter). I guess there's also Abbey Lee Kershaw who starts as an angry cover girl model/wife and becomes nicer after befriending Melissa Jaffer.
But all that's primeval and completely works as drama. And what a fantastic chase - tremendous stunts, some of which literally take your breath away. I felt a pang it couldn't have been shot in Australia but the Namidian desert looks gorgeous and most of the supporting cast speak in Australian accents. Art department, costumes, etc are fantastic.
I also really enjoyed the cast - Tom Hardy made a very good new Max (so glad they didn't go with Sam Worthington), Theron is a first rate kick arse heroine, Rosie Hungtinton Whiteley is a spectacularly good looking Queen Bee, Hoult excellent in perhaps the film's best role, Megan Gale a believable Valkyrie. I loved how these grand dames of Australian tv and theatre like Melissa Jaffer and Jennifer Hagan finally get the chance to play action heroines, and the nod to series heritage by having Hugh Keays Byrne back.
The film is jammed full of great touches - like John Howard as a book keeper type figure with massive feet, Quentin as a genius (was he meant to be like Master from Beyond Thunderdome?), the rock guitarist leading the baddies into battle (like a piper for Highland regiments), the ISIS parallels, the whole world.
I get the feeling the original concept of the film had Max in Charlie Therzon's role - i..e the person who is bad but then changes their mind and helps the wives get to safety - then George Miller and co realised that had unpleasant men-owning-women overtones so added Therzon's character... with the result that Max's got a little sidelined. (This is only guessing I could be wrong).
Incidentally I can see why men's rights groups got upset with this because Hugh Keays Byrne, the villain, is after sole custody of his kids and the movie takes a pro-mothers-should-have-custody-over-their children line.
It's basically one long chase with a few pauses, and very little character development apart from "burnt out person finding humanity" which is given to three people - there's tough bitter Max who finds his again (for the third movie in a row), female warrior Theron who finds hers (with a connecting-with-the-sisterhood slant), and brainwashed fanatic Hoult who finds his (rather like a deprogrammed ISIS fighter). I guess there's also Abbey Lee Kershaw who starts as an angry cover girl model/wife and becomes nicer after befriending Melissa Jaffer.
But all that's primeval and completely works as drama. And what a fantastic chase - tremendous stunts, some of which literally take your breath away. I felt a pang it couldn't have been shot in Australia but the Namidian desert looks gorgeous and most of the supporting cast speak in Australian accents. Art department, costumes, etc are fantastic.
I also really enjoyed the cast - Tom Hardy made a very good new Max (so glad they didn't go with Sam Worthington), Theron is a first rate kick arse heroine, Rosie Hungtinton Whiteley is a spectacularly good looking Queen Bee, Hoult excellent in perhaps the film's best role, Megan Gale a believable Valkyrie. I loved how these grand dames of Australian tv and theatre like Melissa Jaffer and Jennifer Hagan finally get the chance to play action heroines, and the nod to series heritage by having Hugh Keays Byrne back.
The film is jammed full of great touches - like John Howard as a book keeper type figure with massive feet, Quentin as a genius (was he meant to be like Master from Beyond Thunderdome?), the rock guitarist leading the baddies into battle (like a piper for Highland regiments), the ISIS parallels, the whole world.
I get the feeling the original concept of the film had Max in Charlie Therzon's role - i..e the person who is bad but then changes their mind and helps the wives get to safety - then George Miller and co realised that had unpleasant men-owning-women overtones so added Therzon's character... with the result that Max's got a little sidelined. (This is only guessing I could be wrong).
Incidentally I can see why men's rights groups got upset with this because Hugh Keays Byrne, the villain, is after sole custody of his kids and the movie takes a pro-mothers-should-have-custody-over-their children line.
Movie review - "August: Osage County" (2013) **1/2 (warning:spoilers)
Its wonderful to see an all star adaptation of a Broadway hit and I'm sure this was a very satisfying night out at the theatre, with plenty of juicy roles and conflict and family drama and secrets coming out. On screen however it just comes across as a lot of actors yelling at each other, clearly wanting to speak in Southern accents.
There's a decent secret (a couple in love are actually brother and sister) but it's not that massive because the couple already think they're cousins. Meryl Streep gives a barnstorming performance as does Julia Roberts. There are two British actors pretending to be Americans, effectively enough, but none of them are as good as Chris Cooper - I know actors like to think they can play anything but in a heavy drama like this I think anything that chips away at the reality, even if only a little bit, hurt it.
It was just so much of it felt familiar - the sister who kept going from man to man, the dodgy boyfriend, the husband having an affair, the secret affair, the father figure, etc etc. It's not dopey comic book stuff so I suppose we should be grateful.
There's a decent secret (a couple in love are actually brother and sister) but it's not that massive because the couple already think they're cousins. Meryl Streep gives a barnstorming performance as does Julia Roberts. There are two British actors pretending to be Americans, effectively enough, but none of them are as good as Chris Cooper - I know actors like to think they can play anything but in a heavy drama like this I think anything that chips away at the reality, even if only a little bit, hurt it.
It was just so much of it felt familiar - the sister who kept going from man to man, the dodgy boyfriend, the husband having an affair, the secret affair, the father figure, etc etc. It's not dopey comic book stuff so I suppose we should be grateful.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Movie review - "The Rains Came" (1939) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Highly enjoyable melodrama/disaster picture set in an Indian state which seems to be mostly run by Indians - something that gives the picture extra kick because even though the Indian characters are played by Hollywood actors in brown face, at least the Indians have more power. They seem to like the British - or at least drunken, dissolute artist George Brent, given one of the best roles in his career.
Brent's really the leading man - which surprised me because I thought the movie was more about Myrna Loy's romance with "Indian" Tyrone Power. That plot is definitely in there, but as much if not more time is spent on Brent, and his friendship with old flame Loy (a fellow slut), and romance with adoring Brenda Joyce.
The quality of acting is high - Power is good as the decent, anxious to do well Indian (if you can get past the brown face factor), and Loy is excellent as always in a less typical role for her (I was disappointed we never got to see much good-time-girl-ing from her).
Maria Ouspensaka plays a strong Indian ruler - and actually the movie has decent female characters, all headstrong and in charge of their destinies. (Although admittedly Loy dies while Brent gets to live and have happiness... price of forbidden interracial romance, I think.) Good to see Nigel Bruce in a less sympathetic role, as an aristocrat whose valet hates him.
The special effects were impressive for the time and some sequences really hold up well today - such as a room collapsing under the weight of water, and Brent swimming through the flood (surely not a good idea). Stylish directorial touches too like when Loy realises she's drunk dodgy water.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Movie review - "Lovelace" (2013) **
The basic idea sounds as though it'll be interesting - porn star turned feminist advocate, or was she lying? - and Amanda Seyfried acts her arse off but it's a dull movie. The story feels so predictable - innocent girl under spell of dud guy, becomes famous but doesn't like it, achieves some sort of redemption. There are some neat clothes and tunes and actors but honestly, we've seen it all before, with Boogie Nights... and then Rated X and Wonderland and maybe it's time to consider a moratorium on stories from the golden age of porn.
Surely there was a better movie to be made from the story of Linda Lovelace? It's such rich material - the allegations of abuse and gang rape, the conversion to feminism, the doubt cast on her claims vs the people who support her. But the film takes this wonky middle route, and it ends up being bland. It's not even that sexy.
Surely there was a better movie to be made from the story of Linda Lovelace? It's such rich material - the allegations of abuse and gang rape, the conversion to feminism, the doubt cast on her claims vs the people who support her. But the film takes this wonky middle route, and it ends up being bland. It's not even that sexy.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Movie review - "World War Z" (2013) ***1/2
How much longer is this zombie boom going to last? Now Brad Pitt has gotten in on the act with a $250 million or whatever it cost epic... and it's actually pretty good. This is really a series of set pieces - the initial attack (fantastic spectacle), a shoot out in Korea, a siege in Jerusalem, through hospital corridors in Cardiff.
There's not a lot of character development but there are some fine actors, pleasing pro-UN propaganda, and refreshing multi-national/racial look at the problem instead of making it all about America. Mireille Enos actually makes the thankless role of Brad Pitt's wife into something memorable and Daniella Kertesz is a find as the tough Israeli soldier.
Interesting how in the film's troubled shooting, they originally ended with a massive battle but then went smaller, and went to character - just like what happened with Kaufman and Hart and their play Once in a Lifetime. When in doubt, go to character.
There's not a lot of character development but there are some fine actors, pleasing pro-UN propaganda, and refreshing multi-national/racial look at the problem instead of making it all about America. Mireille Enos actually makes the thankless role of Brad Pitt's wife into something memorable and Daniella Kertesz is a find as the tough Israeli soldier.
Interesting how in the film's troubled shooting, they originally ended with a massive battle but then went smaller, and went to character - just like what happened with Kaufman and Hart and their play Once in a Lifetime. When in doubt, go to character.
Movie review - "Captain Phillips" (2013) ****
Another excellent true life action tale from Paul Greengrass despite a miscast Tom Hanks in the lead. Oh I know he's conscientious and gives a good performance and all that stuff but he still looks like Tom Hanks with a beard and glasses and never really convinces as a sea captain.
Everything around him feels authentic though - I'm sure it was hyped for Hollywood (eg Phillips demanding the hostages take him instead of his men, his final attack of his kidnappers) but so much of it looks and seems authentic: the Somali actors, the views of Oman and the Indian ocean, the big tanker, the logistics of how modern day pirates work and the techniques against them, the American Navy Seals and their methods, the naval ships. It's visually different and fascinating.
I also liked how you wind up having sympathy for the Somalians, particularly that young kid. Barkhad Abdi is very good as the head pirate though the others impress as well. Max Martini felt very believable as the head negotiator.
I did feel this went on a bit - it's over two hours, with perhaps too much time spent in the life boat - but the finale is very intense and moving. (The scenes were the pirates attack are great too), And it was great how they devoted some time to Phillips' immediate PTSD. And yes he is depicted as heroically but the film doesn't shy away from the fact that after the first pirate attack Phillips might have taken more precautions - and the crew come out of it well.
Everything around him feels authentic though - I'm sure it was hyped for Hollywood (eg Phillips demanding the hostages take him instead of his men, his final attack of his kidnappers) but so much of it looks and seems authentic: the Somali actors, the views of Oman and the Indian ocean, the big tanker, the logistics of how modern day pirates work and the techniques against them, the American Navy Seals and their methods, the naval ships. It's visually different and fascinating.
I also liked how you wind up having sympathy for the Somalians, particularly that young kid. Barkhad Abdi is very good as the head pirate though the others impress as well. Max Martini felt very believable as the head negotiator.
I did feel this went on a bit - it's over two hours, with perhaps too much time spent in the life boat - but the finale is very intense and moving. (The scenes were the pirates attack are great too), And it was great how they devoted some time to Phillips' immediate PTSD. And yes he is depicted as heroically but the film doesn't shy away from the fact that after the first pirate attack Phillips might have taken more precautions - and the crew come out of it well.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Movie review - "I, Frankenstein" (2013) *
'"Why should we care?" That's the question that everyone who invested in the movie should have asked before proceeding. I get that it had pedigree - director Stewart Beattie, the writer of Underworld, star Aaron Eckhart - but its such a dull story. It didn't have to be - there is a possible movie in the adventures of Frankenstein's monster after the death of Frankenstein. Sure, you run the risk of it turning into 1954's Long John Silver but there are options there: the search for a mate, the Frankenstein family seeking vengeance, living immortally in a world that considers you an outsider, people wanting to dissect you.
But instead they've come up with some crappy yawn inducing battle between gargoyles and demons over humanity. Why should we care? Why should the monster care? Why should we watch? Humans are barely even seen.
There's some competently staged action but nothing truly memorable. Eckhardt does his best but there are appalling I-am-in-a-Hollywood-blockbuster-and-thus-I-must-act-like-I'm-in-a-high-school-play performances from Miranda Otto, Yvonne Strahovski, Socratis Otto and Jai Courtney - even Bill Nighy isn't very good. It's an embarrassment.
But instead they've come up with some crappy yawn inducing battle between gargoyles and demons over humanity. Why should we care? Why should the monster care? Why should we watch? Humans are barely even seen.
There's some competently staged action but nothing truly memorable. Eckhardt does his best but there are appalling I-am-in-a-Hollywood-blockbuster-and-thus-I-must-act-like-I'm-in-a-high-school-play performances from Miranda Otto, Yvonne Strahovski, Socratis Otto and Jai Courtney - even Bill Nighy isn't very good. It's an embarrassment.
Movie review - "Frances Ha" (2013) ****
I really loved this movie although it's not hard to see that it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. It might depend on how much you can stand Greta Gerwig - personally I found her enchanting, beautiful and funny, an original character: a stuff up, nerd, but likeable. It's consistently fresh and entertaining, continually subverting expectations: the key relationship is with her female best friend not some guy, she doesn't have a pure triumph at any stage, she's worried about money but constantly spends it.
It is lovingly shot in black and white and is a remarkable valentine to a single performer as I can recall seeing. There's obviously decent money behind this for all it's indie status - the sound track includes 'Everyone's a Winner' and Bowie's 'Modern Love', I was produced by Scott Rudin - but it's a sweet wonderful movie.
It is lovingly shot in black and white and is a remarkable valentine to a single performer as I can recall seeing. There's obviously decent money behind this for all it's indie status - the sound track includes 'Everyone's a Winner' and Bowie's 'Modern Love', I was produced by Scott Rudin - but it's a sweet wonderful movie.
Movie review - "Sabotage" (2013) ***
Gritty action flick very much in the nihilist vein of late 60s early 70s Sam Peckinpah - cops are corrupt or looking to cover their arse or actual killers, drug cartels torture and rape, innocent bystanders get run over and shot in car chases. It's full on and David Ayers gets marks for ensuring his movie has integrity - even if its bleak look at humanity is grim going at times.
For the most part I got into this though - the tough bantering dialogue (though the swearing got monotonous - I'm not anti swearing I just wish a little more imagination had been used), the fast paced plot, the intensity of the action, the way women are allowed to be as tough as the men, the quality of most of the acting, the star turn by Marielle Enos as a ballsy agent, the by play between Olivia Williams and Harold Perrineau.
There were two flaws for me. Firstly was the casting of Arnold Schwarzengger. He does everything he's asked to do and really tries and it's a novelty to see him in this kind of role... but he's simply miscast. We've seen, read and heard too much about Arnie being so self motivated and positive and noble - he simply can't convey the edge, corruption, loss, and darkness of this character. It needed someone with real darkness, like Tommy Lee Jones or Nick Nolte or Gene Hackman. Arnie is basically too upset a person and not good enough an actor to get into the skin of the character the way he needs to. (He would have been better off in the Olivia Williams part).
Secondly was the fact the film feels like two stories awkwardly meshed: Arnie seeking revenge for the murder and torture of his wife, and DEA people stealing money and then being killed off one by one. They try to link them but it didn't work for me - so the last act felt like an epilogue, or a scene from another movie. It's like there should have been two films - Arnie looking for revenge, and a sequel where he and his team steal money.
For the most part I got into this though - the tough bantering dialogue (though the swearing got monotonous - I'm not anti swearing I just wish a little more imagination had been used), the fast paced plot, the intensity of the action, the way women are allowed to be as tough as the men, the quality of most of the acting, the star turn by Marielle Enos as a ballsy agent, the by play between Olivia Williams and Harold Perrineau.
There were two flaws for me. Firstly was the casting of Arnold Schwarzengger. He does everything he's asked to do and really tries and it's a novelty to see him in this kind of role... but he's simply miscast. We've seen, read and heard too much about Arnie being so self motivated and positive and noble - he simply can't convey the edge, corruption, loss, and darkness of this character. It needed someone with real darkness, like Tommy Lee Jones or Nick Nolte or Gene Hackman. Arnie is basically too upset a person and not good enough an actor to get into the skin of the character the way he needs to. (He would have been better off in the Olivia Williams part).
Secondly was the fact the film feels like two stories awkwardly meshed: Arnie seeking revenge for the murder and torture of his wife, and DEA people stealing money and then being killed off one by one. They try to link them but it didn't work for me - so the last act felt like an epilogue, or a scene from another movie. It's like there should have been two films - Arnie looking for revenge, and a sequel where he and his team steal money.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Movie review - "All the Brothers Were Valiant" (1953) ***
Solid adventure tale which had been filmed a few times before - not surprisingly since the central conflict at the core is so strong: a battle of wills between two brothers, both sailors in love with the same woman, one dodgier than the other. Robert Taylor's craggy post war looks are put to good effect as the hero and Stewart Granger is an excellent villain, or rather anti hero (as he proved in Waterloo Road) - his brother.
The story has Taylor go on a voyage with his new ship after hearing Granger is dead. He takes with him childhood friend/sweetheart turned wife Ann Blyth, she of the china doll looks and permanent smile then runs into Granger in the south seas. Granger has a stash of pearls somewhere and wants to go get them - the other ships crew are keen but Taylor isn't, and a mutiny results. I was actually with the ship's crew on this one - Taylor seemed a little stingy not going along for the pearl trip (how hard would it have been? And it's not as though killing whales is that much honorable).
There is some decent-for-the-time action footage of Taylor and his crew hunting whales and Granger's adventures in the south seas are a fun. I found the final act not as good though there is a satisfactory finale.
Keenan Wynn is superb as a baddy and I liked James Whitmore too as another shonky sailor. Actually the whole support cast is very strong including Lewis Stone in his last role and Betta St John as a sexy south sea islander. Impressive colour and production design.
As an aside the plot reminded me a lot of The Master of Ballantrae - two feuding brothers, one reliable, the other flashy and dashing and more attractive to the girl they both love but dodgy, the dodgy brother having exotic adventures in the islands.
The story has Taylor go on a voyage with his new ship after hearing Granger is dead. He takes with him childhood friend/sweetheart turned wife Ann Blyth, she of the china doll looks and permanent smile then runs into Granger in the south seas. Granger has a stash of pearls somewhere and wants to go get them - the other ships crew are keen but Taylor isn't, and a mutiny results. I was actually with the ship's crew on this one - Taylor seemed a little stingy not going along for the pearl trip (how hard would it have been? And it's not as though killing whales is that much honorable).
There is some decent-for-the-time action footage of Taylor and his crew hunting whales and Granger's adventures in the south seas are a fun. I found the final act not as good though there is a satisfactory finale.
Keenan Wynn is superb as a baddy and I liked James Whitmore too as another shonky sailor. Actually the whole support cast is very strong including Lewis Stone in his last role and Betta St John as a sexy south sea islander. Impressive colour and production design.
As an aside the plot reminded me a lot of The Master of Ballantrae - two feuding brothers, one reliable, the other flashy and dashing and more attractive to the girl they both love but dodgy, the dodgy brother having exotic adventures in the islands.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Movie review - "Escape Plan" (2013) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
This Sylvester Stallone movie has a great "craptacular" high concept and starts off with a bang - he's a prison expert who gets paid to break out of prisons, but then finds himself a regular prisoner, and meets up with Arnold Schwarzenneger. Its tremendous fun seeing Arnie and Sly match off against each other and thump each other around and for a while you think this is going to be awesome...
But then the plot becomes repetitive - Sly escapes, is recaptured. The twists are lame - we think Arnie is working for a mysterious baddy then it turns out he is the mysterious baddy, I mean what is that? And the CIA girl who turns out to be his daughter... what does that give us, really? It would have been better had the CIA been more involved in a nefarious way.
Amy Ryan's love interest is undeveloped and I wish more could have been found for Sam Neill (as a dodgy doctor) to do. It's enjoyable in a way but not up to the strength of its cast or central idea.
But then the plot becomes repetitive - Sly escapes, is recaptured. The twists are lame - we think Arnie is working for a mysterious baddy then it turns out he is the mysterious baddy, I mean what is that? And the CIA girl who turns out to be his daughter... what does that give us, really? It would have been better had the CIA been more involved in a nefarious way.
Amy Ryan's love interest is undeveloped and I wish more could have been found for Sam Neill (as a dodgy doctor) to do. It's enjoyable in a way but not up to the strength of its cast or central idea.
Movie review - "Soldiers Three" (1951) **
After King Solmon's Mines, MGM had a new star in Stewart Granger but they didn't always give him the best vehicles - although this sounds as though it should be been ideal, a brawling knock about comedy action tale about three privates in the British army in late 19th century. Gunga Din showed how such a tale could work but this isn't in that class.
Tay Garnett is not George Stevens and Granger, Robert Newton and Cyril Cusack are not Victor McLaglen, Doug Fairbanks and Cary Grant. Granger isn't entirely happily cast as a cockney - he tries but it's a broad over the top performance (rather like his one as a French Canadian trapper in The Wild North) not very effective. They don't really give him a love interest either - a few girls pop in and out but no relationship, which was a mistake.
He has some chemistry with Newton but none with Cusack and the three of them never seem like makes. In fairness, Newton and Cusack aren't given much to do - the second half of the movie gets bored with the three of them and focuses on Granger and David Niven, who is 2 I C to the colonel, Walter Pidgeon. Presumably this was done to placate Niven, who was a bigger name than Newton and Cusack and whose role in the first half is thankless. But they give the heroism to Granger and Niven which undermines Newton and Cusack and you don't have Soldiers Three. They should have bitten the bullet and just cast Niven as someone in the lower ranks.
Indians aren't given much of a go - there is an Indian villain and his Uncle Tom relative who is into Gandhi like passive resistance (a sop to post war attitudes) - but no character of much weight or importance, certainly nothing like Gunga Din. It's also offensive all those British soldiers standing around in the 1918 prologue toasting Douglas Haig for being a great general (and would soldiers who've just finished a four year long world war be interested at all in Pidgeon's crappy reminiscences? I wish they hadn't started with this sequence because it made me wonder what happened to the three soldiers and I figured the all probably died broke and alcoholic.)
There is some decent action and the cast is consistently impressive. No colour and no location photography.
Tay Garnett is not George Stevens and Granger, Robert Newton and Cyril Cusack are not Victor McLaglen, Doug Fairbanks and Cary Grant. Granger isn't entirely happily cast as a cockney - he tries but it's a broad over the top performance (rather like his one as a French Canadian trapper in The Wild North) not very effective. They don't really give him a love interest either - a few girls pop in and out but no relationship, which was a mistake.
He has some chemistry with Newton but none with Cusack and the three of them never seem like makes. In fairness, Newton and Cusack aren't given much to do - the second half of the movie gets bored with the three of them and focuses on Granger and David Niven, who is 2 I C to the colonel, Walter Pidgeon. Presumably this was done to placate Niven, who was a bigger name than Newton and Cusack and whose role in the first half is thankless. But they give the heroism to Granger and Niven which undermines Newton and Cusack and you don't have Soldiers Three. They should have bitten the bullet and just cast Niven as someone in the lower ranks.
Indians aren't given much of a go - there is an Indian villain and his Uncle Tom relative who is into Gandhi like passive resistance (a sop to post war attitudes) - but no character of much weight or importance, certainly nothing like Gunga Din. It's also offensive all those British soldiers standing around in the 1918 prologue toasting Douglas Haig for being a great general (and would soldiers who've just finished a four year long world war be interested at all in Pidgeon's crappy reminiscences? I wish they hadn't started with this sequence because it made me wonder what happened to the three soldiers and I figured the all probably died broke and alcoholic.)
There is some decent action and the cast is consistently impressive. No colour and no location photography.
Movie review - "Veronica Mars" (2014) ***1/2
This film got a bad wrap from some fans but I ended up liking it a lot. It was never going to be as good as the TV series because (a) it's a movie and can't have the dense plotting of the original series and (b) it's not as high school and thus simply not as much fun. But it was made by people who cared and is a decent enough mystery - although I would have liked it more had I remembered the girl who died.
The cast is impressive - Kristen Bell is fun in the role of her life time and it's great to see old familiar faces again like Jason Dohring (though I think he's meant to be better looking in naval whites than he appears), Krysten Ritter (outstanding), Francis Capra (a role that you think is going to be bigger than it turns out to be), Percy Daggs III, Ryan Hansen (great fun), Enrico Colantani, Ken Marino, Chris Lowell. Martin Starr is great too. I love the way Veronica is always the hero but the guys in her life still have balls i.e. fighting over her and such.
There are some brilliant cameos too like from James Franco, Justin Long and Dax Shepherd. I could have done without Harvey Levin.
Production values are high and there are some great moments - like Veronica dancing with her friends but checking out suspects and the finale where a killer is after her to the song "You'll Never Find a Love Like Mine".
The cast is impressive - Kristen Bell is fun in the role of her life time and it's great to see old familiar faces again like Jason Dohring (though I think he's meant to be better looking in naval whites than he appears), Krysten Ritter (outstanding), Francis Capra (a role that you think is going to be bigger than it turns out to be), Percy Daggs III, Ryan Hansen (great fun), Enrico Colantani, Ken Marino, Chris Lowell. Martin Starr is great too. I love the way Veronica is always the hero but the guys in her life still have balls i.e. fighting over her and such.
There are some brilliant cameos too like from James Franco, Justin Long and Dax Shepherd. I could have done without Harvey Levin.
Production values are high and there are some great moments - like Veronica dancing with her friends but checking out suspects and the finale where a killer is after her to the song "You'll Never Find a Love Like Mine".
Movie review - "The Light Touch" (1951) **1/2
Not a particularly highly regarded film - especially not by its grumpy star - and I can't recall a movie that cried out more to be shot in colour, but I found it entertaining. Stewart Granger is an art thief who pinches an expensive painting on behalf of gangster George Sanders, but then pretends to lose it, get it copied by Pier Angeli and sell the copies.
This plot seems heavily inspired by the real life theft of the Mona Lisa (as with that Granger steals the painting by pretending to be a workman) - I wonder why they didn't have the Mona Lisa, it might have given the picture more of a selling point.
Anyway the stuff involving the theft and the forgery was interesting. Granger is well cast as a rogue and I loved how the script made it clear he was a genuine art lover; Sanders is always fun as a villain (or at least was then, before his boredom got to be infectious).
Pier Angeli is utterly lovely but her role is the weakest link in the movie - she comes on screen virginal and pure etc etc and you just know that Granger is going to turn good because of her, and the movie can't come up with an extra twist or turn to compensate. I don't mind a goody-goody but she's so passive - for the story really to work the forger needed to be all for the plan, but instead Angeli is against it but goes along with it for a bit and... anyway, it's unsatisfactory. Maybe the mistake was making her a forger - although the fact she's also young enough to be Granger's daughter is distracting. It also suffers from the lack of a decent climax - the baddies are set to do something but don't and in the end both get away.
(Interestingly this film reminded me a bit of Mara Maru, which was another tale of an old handsome rogue - played in that film by Errol Flynn - who started off greedy but then finds morality via the love of a good woman and returns an artefact to the Catholic Church).
But there are some good things: Granger, Sanders, the location work (even though, as said, you want it to be in colour), a decent support cast (including Normal Lloyd). I wish it had been funnier with a stronger female lead but it passes the time well enough.
Saturday, May 09, 2015
Movie review - "Trumbo" (2007) ***
The best known members of the Hollywood Ten would probably be Ring Lardner Jnr, Edward Dmytryk and Trumbo. Trumbo has a special place in history because of his justly famous letters which reveal him to be one of the genuinely nicest and liberal of the Ten - Richard Corliss in his book on screenwriters Talking Pictures would praise Trumbo's letters but criticise his screenplays. Trumbo is also the writer with the greatest fall from grace, going from one of the top paid writers in Hollywood to be on the blacklist - but also with the best comeback, winning two Oscars secretly (Roman Holiday and The Brave One) and the first to be credited again with Exodus and Spartacus.
This is an unusual sort of film - part documentary, with the standard talking heads (including Trumbo's kids) and footage from the time (eg the ten being self righteous at the hearings, home movie work) - interspersed with famous actors reading from letters to and from Trumbo: Josh Lucas, Liam Neeson, Brian Dennehy, Donald Sutherland, Nathan Lane, Joan Allen, Paul Giamatti, David Straithairn. It's a little distracting to be honest - the latter piece feels a bit too theatrical for me (the letters have been turned into a play), and you can see the actors Acting.. I felt myself watching and going "wow Josh Lucas has good teethe" instead of concentrating on the content.
It remains interesting and Trumbo is a fascinating, admirable figure. Even he couldn't give up Hollywood money and concentrate on novels, though.
This is an unusual sort of film - part documentary, with the standard talking heads (including Trumbo's kids) and footage from the time (eg the ten being self righteous at the hearings, home movie work) - interspersed with famous actors reading from letters to and from Trumbo: Josh Lucas, Liam Neeson, Brian Dennehy, Donald Sutherland, Nathan Lane, Joan Allen, Paul Giamatti, David Straithairn. It's a little distracting to be honest - the latter piece feels a bit too theatrical for me (the letters have been turned into a play), and you can see the actors Acting.. I felt myself watching and going "wow Josh Lucas has good teethe" instead of concentrating on the content.
It remains interesting and Trumbo is a fascinating, admirable figure. Even he couldn't give up Hollywood money and concentrate on novels, though.
Book review - "Kidnapped" by Robert Louis Stevenson
I'm not sure I ever read the original when I was young but I was familiar with one of those abridged classics version and several sequences still haunt me. It's not a long book but is packed with incident and adventure; the stuff I remember remains strongest: David's uncle trying to kill him by getting him to go upstairs, meeting Alan Breck, the murder of the cabin boy, the siege on the boat, running through the heather, the highland council court, the satisfactory conclusion. I'd forgotten the main subplot was about an assassination of a local lord.
Alan Breck remains one of the most memorable action heroes in literature - a bad boy who changed sides during the 45, who loves fighting, charming, sulky, bug on honour but not entirely trustworthy. Reading this I kept thinking "they should do a version where David is a girl it would be a great romantic adventure". I know you'd lose the big brother-mentor thing but it would be worth it - it would give the piece more of a whole.
Evocative and sympathetic descriptions of the highlands, though the scariest moments come on the ship. David is a likeable enough hero.
Alan Breck remains one of the most memorable action heroes in literature - a bad boy who changed sides during the 45, who loves fighting, charming, sulky, bug on honour but not entirely trustworthy. Reading this I kept thinking "they should do a version where David is a girl it would be a great romantic adventure". I know you'd lose the big brother-mentor thing but it would be worth it - it would give the piece more of a whole.
Evocative and sympathetic descriptions of the highlands, though the scariest moments come on the ship. David is a likeable enough hero.
Movie review - "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (1989) **1/2
A movie much admired in its time and since but I've always found it disappointing. I did when first seeing as a teenager and was always bemused seeing its reputation rise so high against Temple of Doom (in part because Spielberg trashes Temple). Then I thought "maybe I'm wrong, maybe it actually is awesome" so I watched it again and nope, still didn't get into it.
I love River Phoenix as young Indy and Sean Connery as Indy Snr but the rest of the movie feels like a dull retread of Raiders. There's a Biblical Macguffin, talk of God, fighting Nazis, a rival archeologist. So many of the reverses and twists feel mechanical - almost every scene it's like "well we'll do this... and then they'll be something unexpected" but the reversals are predictable and their constancy.
Some scenes feel downright lazy - a boat chase in Venice - how's that for freshness?; Indy teaching love struck students; Indy loses the book and goes to Germany to get it and then just... retrieves it really easily; the rich, cultured American turning out to be bad; the final test for the grail (v H Rider Haggard); the other group who are defending the grail but who then let Indy go; Denholm Elliot and Jonathan Rhys Davies going along on the trip for no real reason other than nostalgia.
Some bits are great particularly the relationship between Indy Jnr and Senior, helped by Connery and Ford's playing - this relationship feels fresh and real, with neither as a baddy (eg "we never talk", "okay talk"... and Ford can't think of anything to say). There were some good action bits too like the boat being destroyed by the propeller, and the baddy shooting Connery.
It's always pleasant to be around actors like Connery, Elliot and Rhys Davies, but Alison Doody is poor in her part and the villains unmemorable. It feels too much like a dull retread too often.
I love River Phoenix as young Indy and Sean Connery as Indy Snr but the rest of the movie feels like a dull retread of Raiders. There's a Biblical Macguffin, talk of God, fighting Nazis, a rival archeologist. So many of the reverses and twists feel mechanical - almost every scene it's like "well we'll do this... and then they'll be something unexpected" but the reversals are predictable and their constancy.
Some scenes feel downright lazy - a boat chase in Venice - how's that for freshness?; Indy teaching love struck students; Indy loses the book and goes to Germany to get it and then just... retrieves it really easily; the rich, cultured American turning out to be bad; the final test for the grail (v H Rider Haggard); the other group who are defending the grail but who then let Indy go; Denholm Elliot and Jonathan Rhys Davies going along on the trip for no real reason other than nostalgia.
Some bits are great particularly the relationship between Indy Jnr and Senior, helped by Connery and Ford's playing - this relationship feels fresh and real, with neither as a baddy (eg "we never talk", "okay talk"... and Ford can't think of anything to say). There were some good action bits too like the boat being destroyed by the propeller, and the baddy shooting Connery.
It's always pleasant to be around actors like Connery, Elliot and Rhys Davies, but Alison Doody is poor in her part and the villains unmemorable. It feels too much like a dull retread too often.
Movie review - "Frozen" (2009) ****
Charming version of The Snow Queen which has been a massive success. There is superb animation and characterisation - it's full of life and energy and the two leads are immensely likeable. Some people have a lot of problem with this film because of the character of the powerful sister who is locked up in a room for years by her parents and who runs away - I can understand that (the parents aren't very nice!) but it does make for great drama.
There are some pleasant tunes, some superb sidekick characters in the snowman and moose, an enchanting world and lots of energy.
There are some pleasant tunes, some superb sidekick characters in the snowman and moose, an enchanting world and lots of energy.
Book review - "Overlord" by Max Hastings (1984)
The first book by Hastings I didn't really love. Maybe his writing hadn't hit it straps at this stage or maybe I don't find the Normandy campaign that interesting - too thoroughly covered by other writers, too much America, too many mistakes by the Allies after they landed which led to the prolonging of the war (as Hastings once pointed out the mistake made by the Germans halting at Dunkirk was repeated many times by the Allies when they were on the offensive). Once the Allies successfully landed they knew they were going to win - but they also knew whoever was leading the charge had a good chance of dying so their took their own sweet time about it, when boldness actually would have shortened the war and saved more lives in the long wrong. Sometimes I did get sick of him talking about how great the German army was but maybe because it's an uncomfortable truth for me.
Movie review - "Cimarron" (1960) **
This and Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were two big flops that did a lot of damage to the career of Glenn Ford and also Sol Siegel as head of production at MGM. Unlike the latter film though it made sense to make it with Ford in the lead - he is well cast - and they picked the right director - Anthony Mann. It was a Western with plenty of colour, movement and action - normally sure fire stuff in 1960. Why then did it lose so much money? (NB It was a hit, but not as big a one as MGM hoped.)
I'm trying not to be wise in hindsight here but it feels the filmmakers made some key mistakes to the story. Really, at heart, this is a "woman's picture" (for lack of a better word) - like Giant and Showboat were, also based on an Edna Ferber novel. The influence of Giant on this is especially apparent - it should have been more like that.
The movie needed to be about Maria Schell's character because she's the narrative spine - this French American who marries an adventurer, and goes to Oklahoma. They fail in the land rush but set up a newspaper. The husband struggles to settle down, it's a battle of make money, a Jewish neighbour loves her but she remains faithful, the husband periodically gets involved in gunfights where he kills people (Charles MacGraw, Vic Morrow), said husband takes off for years at a time, their friends strike oil, their son grows up to fall in love with an Indian girl they've raised as their own and mum doesn't approve, Schell becomes a massively successful newspaper magnate but can't hold on to her man.
When the story is summarised - and that's what is on screen - you can see how it works. It's a similar template to Showboat and not dissimilar to Giant. The girl is the protagonist, the husband is a dashing figure who pops in and out of the action, and the piece at heart is a melodrama.
But for whatever reason the story is distorted to fight against this. We never see Schell fall in love with Ford on screen - the movie starts and bang, they're off to Oklahoma, and we've missed seeing sounds like an interesting story (colorful adventurer Ford romancing hoity rich girl Schell). Then we keep hearing all these things Ford's done in his past life - romancing a prostitute (Anne Baxter in a wonder bra), being a son-like figure for an old newspaper owning couple (Robert Keith, Aline MacMahon), helping the father of a young boy who is turning outlaw (Russ Tamblyn).
The movie feels like a sequel to another, more interesting movie with Ford having all these wild adventures then settling down for respectability with Schell and ending with the Oklahoma land rush - which is what people always talk about with Cimarron and I thought was going to be the climax but here it happens in the first 20 minutes or something. And Ford fails to get decent land, so it's unsatisfactory.
Then we kick into the more melodramatic section of the story. Ford shoots evil Charles MacGraw who is lynching an Indian and then later shoots bank robber Vic Morrow - both of these are well done sequences (Mann was a top director) which serve to make Ford look heroic and non racist. This is in contrast to his wife who is racist against Indians and who wants Ford to accept reward money for shooting Morrow. Ford has a sulk and takes off for something like five years. Then he comes back and is once more very noble and non racist, complaining when his old mate Arthur O'Connell, who has struck it rich with oil, tries to rip off the Indians. People want him to run for Governor but he has to sell out his principles and he refuses - Schell cracks it and boots him out, so he takes off adventuring again. Eventually she finds out he's been killed in action.
So basically Ford's character is this guy who is brave, tough, has principles, defends Indians, fights racists, won't cheat on his wife with Anne Baxter... but who still periodically abandons his wife and child and newspaper to go off having adventures for years at a time. Which kind of could work if the film really dealt with the fact this guy is one of those who couldn't be tied down, but spends more time on showing how heroic he is.
And to make him more noble the filmmakers made the major mistake of trashing Schell's character - she's racist until the end (kicking out her son for marrying an Indian), greedy for money, wants Ford to sell out his principles for money, whines about not having her husband and son around.
I have this horrible feeling that MGM may have originally considered this a vehicle for Elizabeth Taylor or something but then got Ford and Schell and once they did all these changes had to be made to keep Ford happy - giving him these heroic/tough guy moments. He could have been a heroic tough guy but they needed to acknowledge that him taking off for years at a time is a bad thing and symptomatic of something deeper - and they needed to make Schell the hero.
I could be wrong - maybe the story was always dodgy. (A lot of these flaws I speak of could have been in Ferber's original novel - I've never read it). But the fact remains this is a big glossy MGM film where the two protagonists are really flawed in an uninteresting, unsympathetic way and the drama is undersold. It's one of those times that if they had cast say Elizabeth Taylor and she'd wanted these changes to make her character more sympathetic/heroic, she would have been dead right.
Okay other stuff - photography great, the land rush is exciting (though the second one is thrown away dramatically), Henry Morgan is decent support, terrible performance from the kid who plays Ford and Schell's son (MGM didn't have anyone better under contract? even in 1960?), Morrow and MacGraw are solid villains, I liked Tamblyn's part. The let's-be-nice-to-the-Indians is classic Hollywood 50s liberalism i.e. well meaning with a good heart but the Indian characters still have no dimension or personality.
It was a misfire but not of the spectacular size of Four Horsemen and it did hold my interest.
Wednesday, May 06, 2015
Movie review - "The Man from Down Under" (1943) **1/2
To understand why this film was made, you need to know that Wallace Beery was once a film star: Beery was a beefy, big actor who specialised in playing lovable lunks who got up to comic antics with character actors and cute kids; often there was a woman who wanted to marry him. He had the vibe of James Gandolfini - Robert Newton wasn't dissimilar. Anyway for a long time his act was very popular and he was often ranked in the top ten box office stars in the US and MGM originally developed this story as a vehicle for Beery.
It's an original story but I'd love to know where the writers got their inspiration - I have a theory it might be the tale of Digger Tovell, a French orphan adopted by diggers during WW1 who was smuggled to Australia and grew up to be a young man (tragically dying in a car accident). If it wasn't that exactly it probably was a similar real life tale.
This is about Jocko Wilson, an Aussie digger who at the end of the war decides to smuggle to Belgian orphans back to Australia and raise them as his own. Then the film leaps forward twenty years or so and the kids are grown up - the girl is sent to finishing school, the boy is a boxer.
The subsequent plot goes all over the shop, in a manner reminiscent of more than a few MGM star vehicles (Jean Harlow's later movies come to mind) with it's feel of a producer going "oh we should add this... and that... and I saw this movie last night and it was great and we should put that in as well."
The boy/man, called Nipper, participates in a big fight and wins but is injured; his winnings enable Jocko to buy a pub in the country... really Australia's north, thus enabling it to be bombed by the Japanese when the Pacific War starts; the girl and boy have hots for each other but can't do anything about it because they think they're related; an American journalist sniffs around the girl but her "brother" jealously punches him out; there are some Catholic Priests near the pub ("quick, Catholic priests are popular, put that in"); a barmaid abandoned by Jocko in France turns up to torment him; World War Two starts and Jocko tries to enlist but is too old and unhealthy, so joins the Land Army; then the Pacific War starts and the pub is turned into an orphanage (I think) which is bombed by Japanese and the Japanese crash and some pilots attack the orphanage ("quick Mrs Miniver had them fight off enemy pilots put that in") but luckily Jocko and Nipper turn up and help fight off the Japanese (along with their friend Ginger who machine guns one to death!); Nipper and the girl discover they're not blood relatives and hook up; Jocko gets a commission in the army thanks to the intervention of the former barmaid.
It's a complete mess really, with the film never settling on what it wants to be about. I felt the real focus should have been on Jocko smuggling the kids back into Australia - there's a movie in just that - but that was only the starting point. There's all this narrative, the big romance plot being yucky because most of the time Nipper and the girl believe they're related but still want to hump each other. I so didn't want them to get together.
Still it is a perfect role for Wallace Beery - ex boxer, brave, rowdy, tough, prone to brawling, irreverent, running away from a woman who wants to marry him (the Marie Dressler part), doing lots of schtick with kids and dodgy mates, gambling, running pubs, mugging.
The only problem is Charles Laughton plays the role. Now Laughton was a brilliant actor, and his Aussie accent attempt here isn't bad, and he makes a decent rogue. But he's never convincing as an ex boxer, or successful former soldier (I know Laughton was one in real life but he doesn't look like the tough two fisted hero described here). Throughout the whole movie he feels like a superb performer who is miscast.
Binnie Barnes isn't that much chop in a part which required a more obvious ham like Elsa Lanchester or Gracie Fields or Marjorie Main. Richard Carlson and Donna Reed are good though as the grown up version of Laughton's kids - Carlson had an engaging presence and Reed was always beautiful and likeable in her films. (I'm surprised they didn't cast Shilrey Ann Richards, then under contract at MGM.) Clyde Cook is Laughton's mate.
No one has a decent Aussie accent though people do try - mostly people sound cockney, though the priests are Irish. For Aussies this is fascinating because of it's depiction of Australia and Australians - most of the movie is set in Australia: Melbourne at first, where Jocko has a pub, then where Nipper fights his bout, then somewhere in north Australia. We get to see some pubs, a boxing venue, the country, lots of priests.
Dramatically it's a mess. There are lots of good actors and decent production values so it's easy to watch. Historically it's fascinating. (And you know something, at least Hollywood made a film set in Australia during the war - Australians hardly ever did).
(Side note - I think MGM were attracted making a movie set in Australia because Australia got bombed.)
Tuesday, May 05, 2015
Movie review - "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014) *** (warning: spoilers)
Solid installment to the Marvel series with plenty of decent actors and action, and a treatment that is respectful with some sparky dialogue. I'm getting annoyed at how the films are starting to feel like expensive episodes of a TV show though. When Nick Fury died I thought "oh great, this is that movie's special thing" but then they bring Fury back to life. When America flirted with Black Widow I thought "okay we're doing a romance here" but they don't. When America finds out the main baddy is his old mate I thought "okay that's going to be the big emotional heart" - but the guy lives. They keep lowering the stakes and it's annoying.
Annoying too how the film tries to make some comment about giving up our freedoms in the name of security is bad - but these films always endorse the Jedi Knight-hood of super heroes, as if that's somehow a morally superior peace keeping mechanism.
The script skillfull cribs from Three Days of the Condor and the like and I enjoyed seeing Robert Redford whore himself for a few scheckels. It's all slick and well made I just wish the films would mean more as a stand alone item.
Annoying too how the film tries to make some comment about giving up our freedoms in the name of security is bad - but these films always endorse the Jedi Knight-hood of super heroes, as if that's somehow a morally superior peace keeping mechanism.
The script skillfull cribs from Three Days of the Condor and the like and I enjoyed seeing Robert Redford whore himself for a few scheckels. It's all slick and well made I just wish the films would mean more as a stand alone item.
Book review - "Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944–45" by Max Hastings (2004)
Superb account of the last two years of the war in Europe - written with Hastings' wonderful combination of small anecdote and overall strategy. Lots of it is familiar - D Day, Arnhem, Patton, Ike, Hitler, concentration camps, the Bulge, rape-happy Russians - but plenty of less so, particularly the battles in the East.
Thepoor quality of much of the Allied troops (in particular the Canadians), Monty's dodgy leadership for all his talents, Ike's lack of imagination, Patton probably over-reacted, the failure of the Allies to press on aggressively enough after Normandy (the worry about sacrificing lives may have caused more lives to be lost in the long run by not pushing for victory at key times), the horrors the German leadership unleashed on their own people although many Germans were complicit in it, the suffering of Holland, the boat disaster in the Baltic, East Prussia. I think Hastings goes on too long about how much better fighters the Germans and Russians were than the West (at times it was like "alright already") and I don't enjoy reading about the Allies European campaign - something about it depresses me - but this is an excellent book.
Thepoor quality of much of the Allied troops (in particular the Canadians), Monty's dodgy leadership for all his talents, Ike's lack of imagination, Patton probably over-reacted, the failure of the Allies to press on aggressively enough after Normandy (the worry about sacrificing lives may have caused more lives to be lost in the long run by not pushing for victory at key times), the horrors the German leadership unleashed on their own people although many Germans were complicit in it, the suffering of Holland, the boat disaster in the Baltic, East Prussia. I think Hastings goes on too long about how much better fighters the Germans and Russians were than the West (at times it was like "alright already") and I don't enjoy reading about the Allies European campaign - something about it depresses me - but this is an excellent book.
Movie review - "Catch Me If You Can" (2002) ***1/2
It's not hard in hindsight to see the appeal of this piece for Steven Spielberg, with its quick witted protagonist who cons his way around big companies with bluff and charm - like Spielberg famously did at Universal in the late 60s - and who, like Spielberg, is haunted by his parent's divorce, who seeks out elder mentors and who just wants to be loved.
Frank Abagnale is probably has some sort of narcissistic mental condition, like a lot of con artists - he's definitely not all well in the end. That's not really explored here, apart from blaming mum and dad, which is probably a good thing. Leo di Caprio is excellent in the role though, as is Christopher Walken as his father. Good work too from Amy Adams as the girl who may or may not be his one true love. Tom Hanks' FBI agent annoyed me - he was just an overweight Tom Hanks in a hat, with occasional character notes thrown in i.e. he is estranged from his family.
The production design and costumes are great though less fresh now we see it all the time on Mad Men. The tone is jaunty and there is some really clever writing - I loved all the cons, and technical details about cheques and his escapes. It does go too long and there were lots of bits where you felt it could be cut eg Jennifer Garner's cameo (though this was charming and well done), Ellen Pompeo's cameo.
Frank Abagnale is probably has some sort of narcissistic mental condition, like a lot of con artists - he's definitely not all well in the end. That's not really explored here, apart from blaming mum and dad, which is probably a good thing. Leo di Caprio is excellent in the role though, as is Christopher Walken as his father. Good work too from Amy Adams as the girl who may or may not be his one true love. Tom Hanks' FBI agent annoyed me - he was just an overweight Tom Hanks in a hat, with occasional character notes thrown in i.e. he is estranged from his family.
The production design and costumes are great though less fresh now we see it all the time on Mad Men. The tone is jaunty and there is some really clever writing - I loved all the cons, and technical details about cheques and his escapes. It does go too long and there were lots of bits where you felt it could be cut eg Jennifer Garner's cameo (though this was charming and well done), Ellen Pompeo's cameo.
Saturday, May 02, 2015
Movie review - "Pompeii" (2014) *1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Dopey action film which has more in common with the peplums of the early 1960s and straight to DVD actioners of the 90s than say Game of Thrones - which has raised the bar so high when it comes to period action/adventure tales in the ancient world it probably wasn't a good idea to cast Kit Harrington in the lead. It doesn't help that Harrington's lack of ability is exposed here - he's got himself some neat abs, but the sick calf look, effective on Thrones surrounded by all that back story and good acting, just gets on the nerves here, as does his lack of charisma. Maybe he's really a great actor waiting to happen in the right part, maybe he'll get better as the years go on, but he doesn't have the charisma or presence to carry a big Hollywood action film. At least not one as dumb as this.
The first two thirds features some of the worst writing I've seen in a movie in a while - though I'm not across my big dopey epics. It reads like fan fiction crap, with a little boy watching two villainous Romans kill his family (one played by Keifer Sutherland, hamming it up), be sold into slavery, become a great gladiator (somehow... it's never gone into, unlike say Conan the Barbarian or Ben Hur), winds up in Pompeii where conveniently the two villains are stationed, falls in love with a stock aristocratic girl (Emily Browning, who I swear can act but here just lets her lips do the work) because he's good with horses, and fights a lot until the volcano erupts and we can all go home.
The film is full of poorly developed subplots and loose ends - Keifer Sutherland has this relationship with new emperor Titus which is meant to be dodgy; Browning has this maid Jessica Lucas who looks as though she's about to pay off but doesn't - as does slave owner Joe Pingue and Browning's mum Carrie Ann Moss (I think all three characters are only in the film for exposition purposes, they all could have been cut out); there's a really boring subplot about Browning's dad Jared Harris (who gives the best performance - he was born to play an aristocratic Roman) wanting Sutherland's help in a property development; Harrington's black gladiator friend (how's that for originality) played by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is the one who fights the other Roman who helped kill Harrington's family because...?; Harrington escapes then is recaptured with no real story development; Sutherland keeps having chances to kill Harrington and not taking them to drag out the running time; Harrington rescues Browning twice.
What they've basically done it try to cross Gladiator with a disaster film, only it doesn't work in either genre. In the best disaster films you've got a decent cross section of characters who are interesting and who you care about and all have different fates; here we have stock archetypes - no one is really sympathetic except the leads and Adewale (Harris is killed trying to kill Sutherland). It's not as good as Gladiator either because the lead character is so dull - he's a gladiator into horses, big deal.
The movie has two good things going for it - special effects when the volcano erupts which are pretty good and the ending where Harrington and Browning decide to kiss and are enveloped in flame instead of running. Now this was pretty cool - based on the real life remains of a couple - and easily a strong enough basis for a Titanic like romance. But unlike Jack and Rose who did heaps of stuff on the ship together (sketching, sex in the car, running around the deck, a night out) Harrington and Browning hardly ever cross - a few looks, a horse ride, a lot of running around with the lava flowing... that's about it. This could have been Titanic in Ancient Rome but it's as though the filmmakers panicked and worried they'd lose the 300 crowd so shoved in plenty of blood and guts. The result was you had action which was only stock standard, and under developed the rest of the movie. A pity.
The first two thirds features some of the worst writing I've seen in a movie in a while - though I'm not across my big dopey epics. It reads like fan fiction crap, with a little boy watching two villainous Romans kill his family (one played by Keifer Sutherland, hamming it up), be sold into slavery, become a great gladiator (somehow... it's never gone into, unlike say Conan the Barbarian or Ben Hur), winds up in Pompeii where conveniently the two villains are stationed, falls in love with a stock aristocratic girl (Emily Browning, who I swear can act but here just lets her lips do the work) because he's good with horses, and fights a lot until the volcano erupts and we can all go home.
The film is full of poorly developed subplots and loose ends - Keifer Sutherland has this relationship with new emperor Titus which is meant to be dodgy; Browning has this maid Jessica Lucas who looks as though she's about to pay off but doesn't - as does slave owner Joe Pingue and Browning's mum Carrie Ann Moss (I think all three characters are only in the film for exposition purposes, they all could have been cut out); there's a really boring subplot about Browning's dad Jared Harris (who gives the best performance - he was born to play an aristocratic Roman) wanting Sutherland's help in a property development; Harrington's black gladiator friend (how's that for originality) played by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is the one who fights the other Roman who helped kill Harrington's family because...?; Harrington escapes then is recaptured with no real story development; Sutherland keeps having chances to kill Harrington and not taking them to drag out the running time; Harrington rescues Browning twice.
What they've basically done it try to cross Gladiator with a disaster film, only it doesn't work in either genre. In the best disaster films you've got a decent cross section of characters who are interesting and who you care about and all have different fates; here we have stock archetypes - no one is really sympathetic except the leads and Adewale (Harris is killed trying to kill Sutherland). It's not as good as Gladiator either because the lead character is so dull - he's a gladiator into horses, big deal.
The movie has two good things going for it - special effects when the volcano erupts which are pretty good and the ending where Harrington and Browning decide to kiss and are enveloped in flame instead of running. Now this was pretty cool - based on the real life remains of a couple - and easily a strong enough basis for a Titanic like romance. But unlike Jack and Rose who did heaps of stuff on the ship together (sketching, sex in the car, running around the deck, a night out) Harrington and Browning hardly ever cross - a few looks, a horse ride, a lot of running around with the lava flowing... that's about it. This could have been Titanic in Ancient Rome but it's as though the filmmakers panicked and worried they'd lose the 300 crowd so shoved in plenty of blood and guts. The result was you had action which was only stock standard, and under developed the rest of the movie. A pity.
Friday, May 01, 2015
Movie review - "Draft Day" (2013) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Kevin Costner raised the sports bar so high with Bull Durham that every time I see him in another sports movie I can't help going "I wish this was as good as Bull Durham". I had that reaction for about the first thirty minutes of this (along with wondering "is Kevin Costner still a film star... this movie acts as if he is") but once I shook that off and appreciated the film for what it was I enjoyed it. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it in the cinema, but it's solid pay TV fare, helped by an unusual setting - the NFL draft. I'm not super familiar with the system and even now wouldnt pass a quiz but I gather its important and involves trading players.
Costner managers a Cleveland team and is having a rough week - his dad has just died, the team owner Frank Langella doesn't really trust him, his girlfriend Jennifer Garner is pregnant, he has to pony up for the number one draft pick but doesn't suspect he's right.
The crux of the plot involves investigating the background of this quarterback and I liked the way that unfolded - uncertainty over his mental toughness, then finding out he was unpopular with teammates, and then all of a sudden he goes from being super popular with team managers to incredibly unpopular.
The film felt hampered by being too nice to people - everyone is basically good even the owner of the team; all the general managers are nice to each other. Surely there is more vindictiveness and aggression behind the scenes in professional sports? At least cut-throat competition - this seems relatively benign.
Also much of it seemed underdeveloped such as the relationship between Costner and mother Ellen Burstyn (to be honest the only-talked-about storyline of Costner having to sack his own father sounded more dramatic than this film) and Jennifer Garner has a really thankless role as Costner's girlfriend - they jazz it up by having her as the salary cap person, but she's still just the girlfriend. (She should have dumped him in the opening scene or something - might have given the movie some energy). The Greek Chorus of radio commentators is irritating, esp the guy who craps on about Cleveland.
Still it's beautifully shot with all that American NFL colour in the stadiums and the cast on the whole feel real. Not a great sports movie but a decent one and at least its different.
Costner managers a Cleveland team and is having a rough week - his dad has just died, the team owner Frank Langella doesn't really trust him, his girlfriend Jennifer Garner is pregnant, he has to pony up for the number one draft pick but doesn't suspect he's right.
The crux of the plot involves investigating the background of this quarterback and I liked the way that unfolded - uncertainty over his mental toughness, then finding out he was unpopular with teammates, and then all of a sudden he goes from being super popular with team managers to incredibly unpopular.
The film felt hampered by being too nice to people - everyone is basically good even the owner of the team; all the general managers are nice to each other. Surely there is more vindictiveness and aggression behind the scenes in professional sports? At least cut-throat competition - this seems relatively benign.
Also much of it seemed underdeveloped such as the relationship between Costner and mother Ellen Burstyn (to be honest the only-talked-about storyline of Costner having to sack his own father sounded more dramatic than this film) and Jennifer Garner has a really thankless role as Costner's girlfriend - they jazz it up by having her as the salary cap person, but she's still just the girlfriend. (She should have dumped him in the opening scene or something - might have given the movie some energy). The Greek Chorus of radio commentators is irritating, esp the guy who craps on about Cleveland.
Still it's beautifully shot with all that American NFL colour in the stadiums and the cast on the whole feel real. Not a great sports movie but a decent one and at least its different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)