One of the best movies made at RKO during the 1950s - no great acclaim admittedly - and one of the final American works from Fritz Lang. It's pulpy noir time as several reporters compete with each other over finding a serial killer.
Lang's direction still had energy and he benefits from a terrific cast, most of whom do their acting with a cigarette and/or drink: Dana Andrews (playing an alcoholic - ironic since in real life Dana was a famous boozer), Ida Lupino, Vincent Price, Thomas Mitchell, Rhonda Fleming, James Craig, George Sanders. Everyone is in good form and mean the office politics side of this is genuinely interesting, with all the back-biting and manipulation and lack of ethics.
Less interesting is the serial killer stuff - John Drew Barrymore is really bad as the leather jacket wearing "momma's boy" who blames it all on momma. There's some awful scenes like where Dana Andrews taunts the killer and uses his bland virginal girlfriend (Sally Forrest) as bait. The romance between Andrews and Forrest is poor - you wish he'd go off with Lupino again. And what's with that ending where Forrest just recites the fate of all the characters?
It's silly but there is a great cast and sense of doom. I enjoyed it.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Script review - "Dad Rudd MP" by William Freshman and Frank Harvey (1940)
The wonders of the on-line age - so much material that you used to have to spend weeks trawling through at various libraries is now available at the click of a switch. Such is the case with the National Archives of Australia, whose contents is being made increasingly available on line. It includes several screenplays which were registered for copyright - something not automatically given back in the day, which is a bonanza for researchers.
This was the fourth and last in Cinesound's Dad Rudd series - a follow up to Dad and Dave Come to Town. It's credited to Frank Harvey, Cinesound's regular writer, and William Freshman, an Aussie who had earned a reputation in the UK - although from memory Freshman isn't credited on the final film, Bert Bailey is. That could have been a contractual requirement.
The script isn't as good as Come to Town, although its still better than Grandad Rudd. Part of the problem is the central concept - Dad running for MP isn't that inherently funny, unlike him inheriting a fashion story. It had already been done as the third act for On Our Selection and Freshman and Harvey (as well as Ken G. Hall's uncredited comedy team who presumably worked on this) didn't come up with anything that fresh.
It is however solid "battler" drama - Dad Rudd is more prosperous now, but not as wealthy as his oily neighbour Webster, who wants to stint on a local dam and runs against Dad, controlling the media so he can't get his message out there (this is all too believable and unfortunately still resonant today). The climax involves a dam about to flood and the brave engineer - Jim Webster (played by Grant Taylor in the film), Webster's son, who is in love with Dad's daughter Anne - saving the day, and then getting the dam workers, who want to vote for Dad, across the water via flying fox to vote... which was a cute idea.
There are some decent comic set pieces - Dad buys a car but actually it's a fire truck, some keystone cops in the form of the local fire department, Entwistle (returning from Come to Town) helps Dad attract people to the meeting via using fashion models and tries to milk a cow, laughing gas substituted for other with comic results.
The romance between Jim and Anne is solid but lacks the vim and spark of that between Jill Rudd and her beau in Come to Town (it doesn't help that unlike Jill, Anne isn't really integral to the action i.e. she doesn't really have anything to do with the dam or the campaign). Mum gives another speech, Dave is a lech. There is a vamp character, Sylvia, from America, who I kept expecting to do something more; the baddie wasn't that bad. It's all solid, and the politics are moving, but it lacks X factor, for lack of a better word.
This was the fourth and last in Cinesound's Dad Rudd series - a follow up to Dad and Dave Come to Town. It's credited to Frank Harvey, Cinesound's regular writer, and William Freshman, an Aussie who had earned a reputation in the UK - although from memory Freshman isn't credited on the final film, Bert Bailey is. That could have been a contractual requirement.
The script isn't as good as Come to Town, although its still better than Grandad Rudd. Part of the problem is the central concept - Dad running for MP isn't that inherently funny, unlike him inheriting a fashion story. It had already been done as the third act for On Our Selection and Freshman and Harvey (as well as Ken G. Hall's uncredited comedy team who presumably worked on this) didn't come up with anything that fresh.
It is however solid "battler" drama - Dad Rudd is more prosperous now, but not as wealthy as his oily neighbour Webster, who wants to stint on a local dam and runs against Dad, controlling the media so he can't get his message out there (this is all too believable and unfortunately still resonant today). The climax involves a dam about to flood and the brave engineer - Jim Webster (played by Grant Taylor in the film), Webster's son, who is in love with Dad's daughter Anne - saving the day, and then getting the dam workers, who want to vote for Dad, across the water via flying fox to vote... which was a cute idea.
There are some decent comic set pieces - Dad buys a car but actually it's a fire truck, some keystone cops in the form of the local fire department, Entwistle (returning from Come to Town) helps Dad attract people to the meeting via using fashion models and tries to milk a cow, laughing gas substituted for other with comic results.
The romance between Jim and Anne is solid but lacks the vim and spark of that between Jill Rudd and her beau in Come to Town (it doesn't help that unlike Jill, Anne isn't really integral to the action i.e. she doesn't really have anything to do with the dam or the campaign). Mum gives another speech, Dave is a lech. There is a vamp character, Sylvia, from America, who I kept expecting to do something more; the baddie wasn't that bad. It's all solid, and the politics are moving, but it lacks X factor, for lack of a better word.
Movie review - "Game Changer" (2012) ****
Excellent account of the 2008 election, focusing on the Republican campaign, in particular the rise and fall and rise-ish of Sarah Palin. Julieanne Moore is very good in what is a great role; Ed Harris is also fine - actually everyone is good, including Woody Harrelson, Ron Livingston and Sarah Paulson as Republican backroomers. The piece has great dramatic structure - the Republicans forced to take a punt, making one... and almost getting away with it. It makes you wish they'd do more films like that in Australia.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Movie review - "We're the Millers" (2014) ***1/2
A surprise - I didn't know what to expect from this bawdy comedy; it had been a success at the box office but that doesn't mean it was any good. However the result is a genuinely entertaining film. There is a solid central idea (pot dealer persuades misfits to masquerade as his family to enable him to smuggle drugs), a well constructed screenplay with good reversals (they take the wrong van, they're being set up, the dags they meet on the road are drug officers), well-etched characters (pot seller, stripper, street kid, geek) and many laughs (especially the "family making out' scene).
Jason Sudekis is always likeable, as is Jennifer Aniston; Emma Roberts is a bit pretty-and-bland, as always, but Will Poulter is the ace in the hole - instead of casting some bland pretty boy they went with someone really talented and odd looking. Kathryn Hahn and Nick Offerman offer strong support. Oh and it's got a heart too - I liked it a lot.
Jason Sudekis is always likeable, as is Jennifer Aniston; Emma Roberts is a bit pretty-and-bland, as always, but Will Poulter is the ace in the hole - instead of casting some bland pretty boy they went with someone really talented and odd looking. Kathryn Hahn and Nick Offerman offer strong support. Oh and it's got a heart too - I liked it a lot.
Movie review - "Body Heat" (1981) ****
Few screenwriters were on a hot streak like Larry Kasdan in the late 70s and early 80s: Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, this, The Big Chill, Silverado... I like to re read the screenplay for this movie every couple of years, it's so good. Yes of course it's not the most original story in the world - couple get together, decide to kill woman's husband, things go horribly wrong - but it was marvellously updated to allow for explicit sex, bawdy humour and an ending where the baddy gets away with it. Also it has some fresh ideas - notably the fact the plot revolves around the incompetence of the lawyer, enabling a will to be struck out.
The casting is brilliant - William Hurt is perfect as the handsome but weak lawyer, never as smart as he thinks he is; Kathleen Turner very sexy as the femme fetale (although her performance with her drag queen delivery does too often spill into high camp, not helped by John Barry's OTT score); Richard Crenna the perfect industrialist husband; Ted Danson the tapdancing, likeable DA who hates investigating his friend; JA Preston as the decent cop; Mickey Rourke is electrifying as an arsonist. Sometimes it feels silly but then everything clicks and its great again.
The casting is brilliant - William Hurt is perfect as the handsome but weak lawyer, never as smart as he thinks he is; Kathleen Turner very sexy as the femme fetale (although her performance with her drag queen delivery does too often spill into high camp, not helped by John Barry's OTT score); Richard Crenna the perfect industrialist husband; Ted Danson the tapdancing, likeable DA who hates investigating his friend; JA Preston as the decent cop; Mickey Rourke is electrifying as an arsonist. Sometimes it feels silly but then everything clicks and its great again.
Book review - "The Season: A Candid Look at Broadway" by William Goldman (1968)
Had another read of this fabulous work and enjoyed it as much as ever - gossipy, opinionated, smart, funny it has aged very well. Occasionally it feels a little mean, with cracks about actresses weight and the section on Mike Nichols, but consistently comes up with good, original ideas and fresh takes on the theatre.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Movie review - "Ice Station Zebra" (1969) ***
Bridge on the River Kwai kicked off the golden age of guys on a mission action films - Guns of Navarone, Zulu, Where Eagles Dare, McKenna's Gold. This one came towards the end of the cycle - it probably accelerated said ending because it was a box office disappointment. It's still a lot of fun - though never quite as good as you hope it's going to be (the title is surely one of the best of all time).
The set up is very good - secret Arctic base, crashed satellite, a Yank sub sent to get there before the Ruskies, a secret agent on board. As usual in Alistair Maclean adaptations someone is a mole, or are they - and there's spies who are seen to consistently change sides. Patrick McGoohan and Ernest Borgnine are enjoyable as dodgy spy types, Rock Hudson likeable as the decent American, the one you can trust (like Clint Eastwood in Where Eagles Dare).
But I think there's a lack of action - unlike the team in Navarone or Eagles there's never any sense the sub and its crew won't get back - you just think maybe a person or two will die, which is the case. I think maybe there needed to be some massive disaster on the sub, with it leaking and sinking and only a few survivors or something - to get the blood racing.
It's entertaining, don't get me wrong - there's a lot of tough guys acting tough. But the suspense and death count are lower. And the treacherous women who usually appear in Maclean novels are missed.
Still there is fine work from the (all male) cast, which also includes Jim Brown and Australia's Murray Rose.
The set up is very good - secret Arctic base, crashed satellite, a Yank sub sent to get there before the Ruskies, a secret agent on board. As usual in Alistair Maclean adaptations someone is a mole, or are they - and there's spies who are seen to consistently change sides. Patrick McGoohan and Ernest Borgnine are enjoyable as dodgy spy types, Rock Hudson likeable as the decent American, the one you can trust (like Clint Eastwood in Where Eagles Dare).
But I think there's a lack of action - unlike the team in Navarone or Eagles there's never any sense the sub and its crew won't get back - you just think maybe a person or two will die, which is the case. I think maybe there needed to be some massive disaster on the sub, with it leaking and sinking and only a few survivors or something - to get the blood racing.
It's entertaining, don't get me wrong - there's a lot of tough guys acting tough. But the suspense and death count are lower. And the treacherous women who usually appear in Maclean novels are missed.
Still there is fine work from the (all male) cast, which also includes Jim Brown and Australia's Murray Rose.
Movie review - "Sudden Death" (1995) * (warning: spoilers)
This and Streetfighter marked a turning point in the career of Jean-Claude Van Damme - his movies were getting steadily better, Universal Soldier and Time Cop were earning him more and more fans, then he started to flounder with some movies that were crap. This must have sounded like a no brainer - Die Hard set in an ice hockey rink, reuniting Van Damme with Time Cop director Peter Hyams, throwing in Powers Boothe as a villain and giving a decent budget. But the filmmakers totally stuff it, ending up with a ridiculous movie.
Why is it so bad? It's lazy - there's no logic. It's unpleasant. The villains are not smart, they are dumb - they kill people constantly: random workers, security guards, members of the general public, hostages; I think the intention was to go "oh yeah, they're going there, they're doing it, killing little old ladies" but the death toll is so high you become completely desensitized to people dying. There's no mystery to their plan - they take over, saying it's all for money, and that's it, there's no real twist except the head of security being in on the plan.
There's no reality - explosions are going off outside the game, there is a siege situation, and yet the audience of the game are completely unaware of what's going on outside (no one ducks outside? no one leaves? no one tries to contact a family member? even with the media there?). A villain runs around in a large penguin suit for extended periods of time, during which time she kidnaps Van Damme's daughter and fights to the death with Van Damme (was Peter Hyams taking this piss?). The main hostage is the vice president which means people are constantly saying "we need to rescue the vice president" which sounds ridiculous. Powers Boothe drinks scotch, smokes and relaxes during the hostage situation. Another villain plays a video game!
Also Jean Claude's two kids are there and his little girl especially witnesses a lot of violence, which is upsetting, even if it is comic book - she screams, almost plunges to her death, sees several people get shot. And his little son is an annoying brat.
It's as though the filmmakers thought up all these "great bits" that they "just had to have" and tried to construct a movie around it. So there's Jean Claude pretending to be a hockey player, and using the lights outside the stadium to pass on a message, and using sign language to communicate with his son. And it's just dumb and stupid and annoying.
Why is it so bad? It's lazy - there's no logic. It's unpleasant. The villains are not smart, they are dumb - they kill people constantly: random workers, security guards, members of the general public, hostages; I think the intention was to go "oh yeah, they're going there, they're doing it, killing little old ladies" but the death toll is so high you become completely desensitized to people dying. There's no mystery to their plan - they take over, saying it's all for money, and that's it, there's no real twist except the head of security being in on the plan.
There's no reality - explosions are going off outside the game, there is a siege situation, and yet the audience of the game are completely unaware of what's going on outside (no one ducks outside? no one leaves? no one tries to contact a family member? even with the media there?). A villain runs around in a large penguin suit for extended periods of time, during which time she kidnaps Van Damme's daughter and fights to the death with Van Damme (was Peter Hyams taking this piss?). The main hostage is the vice president which means people are constantly saying "we need to rescue the vice president" which sounds ridiculous. Powers Boothe drinks scotch, smokes and relaxes during the hostage situation. Another villain plays a video game!
Also Jean Claude's two kids are there and his little girl especially witnesses a lot of violence, which is upsetting, even if it is comic book - she screams, almost plunges to her death, sees several people get shot. And his little son is an annoying brat.
It's as though the filmmakers thought up all these "great bits" that they "just had to have" and tried to construct a movie around it. So there's Jean Claude pretending to be a hockey player, and using the lights outside the stadium to pass on a message, and using sign language to communicate with his son. And it's just dumb and stupid and annoying.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Movie review - "Double Impact" (1991) ***
The quality of Jean Claude Van Damme's films continued to rise in the early 90s... this is one of his strongest, helped in part by the central idea taken from The Corsican Brothers: identical twins are separated at birth when triads assassinate his parents (an excellent opening sequence); one grows up a flashy pink short-wearing yoga/karate instructor in LA, the other is a tough smuggler with a code of honor in Hong Kong. Eventually they meet up and track down the people responsible for their parent's death.
That's a solid basis for an action film and Jean Claude succeeds (helped by some skillful cutting and effects) in making the two different characters. You can't help wishing they'd used the central idea more - made the two really different (eg the flashy one could have known nothing about fighting but learned along the way), had a strong love triangle instead of a fake one (the tough one gets jealous of the flashy one and the tough ones girl but it's only paranoia... why not have them both genuinely fall for the one girl?), used the "opposites" of the lead for more comedy.
It was also disappointing that Geoffrey Lewis' character never became that integral (I kept expecting him to die, or one of them to be angry at him, or something), the female lead was so under-developed, couldn't there have been one positive Asian character, and the running time went on too long. I felt say an Arnie movie would have fixed these problems, which is why he became a bigger star.
Still, be grateful for what you've got: pleasing location work in Hong Kong, some imaginative action sequences (eg a fight in a blue lit room with a baddie using a dagger in his boot), Bolo Yeung as a baddie, Cory Everson as a female assassin, Jean Claude in fine form.
That's a solid basis for an action film and Jean Claude succeeds (helped by some skillful cutting and effects) in making the two different characters. You can't help wishing they'd used the central idea more - made the two really different (eg the flashy one could have known nothing about fighting but learned along the way), had a strong love triangle instead of a fake one (the tough one gets jealous of the flashy one and the tough ones girl but it's only paranoia... why not have them both genuinely fall for the one girl?), used the "opposites" of the lead for more comedy.
It was also disappointing that Geoffrey Lewis' character never became that integral (I kept expecting him to die, or one of them to be angry at him, or something), the female lead was so under-developed, couldn't there have been one positive Asian character, and the running time went on too long. I felt say an Arnie movie would have fixed these problems, which is why he became a bigger star.
Still, be grateful for what you've got: pleasing location work in Hong Kong, some imaginative action sequences (eg a fight in a blue lit room with a baddie using a dagger in his boot), Bolo Yeung as a baddie, Cory Everson as a female assassin, Jean Claude in fine form.
Movie review - "The Flesh and the Devil" (1926) *** (warning: spoilers)
The movie that helped turn Greta Garbo into a Hollywood star. She's teamed marvellously with John Gilbert - the two of them were into each other in real life and that comes across watching them on screen.
The story of this is simple, effective, misogynistic claptrap - two childhood friends are devoted to each other (Gilbert and Lars Hanson), then Gilbert falls for married Garbo, kills her husband in a duel and is shipped off to the colonies (Africa, although with all those sheep grazing in the background it could be Australia). He comes back to find Hanson has married Garbo - you see, even though they are super good mates, Hanson didn't realise Gabo and Gilbert were on together.
Of course it's the woman's fault, she perishes in the ice while the guys get back together (this is homoerotic enough to be Western, complete with a "beard" in the form of Hanson's sister who loves Gilbert). But it is worth watching for the beauty of the cinematography, the charisma of the two leads, the novelty of seeing a young Garbo play essentially a vamp, the skill of Clarence Brown's direction (I had no idea he was so good), the sexual frisson between Garbo and Gilbert (it's fairly clear they actually have sex).
The story of this is simple, effective, misogynistic claptrap - two childhood friends are devoted to each other (Gilbert and Lars Hanson), then Gilbert falls for married Garbo, kills her husband in a duel and is shipped off to the colonies (Africa, although with all those sheep grazing in the background it could be Australia). He comes back to find Hanson has married Garbo - you see, even though they are super good mates, Hanson didn't realise Gabo and Gilbert were on together.
Of course it's the woman's fault, she perishes in the ice while the guys get back together (this is homoerotic enough to be Western, complete with a "beard" in the form of Hanson's sister who loves Gilbert). But it is worth watching for the beauty of the cinematography, the charisma of the two leads, the novelty of seeing a young Garbo play essentially a vamp, the skill of Clarence Brown's direction (I had no idea he was so good), the sexual frisson between Garbo and Gilbert (it's fairly clear they actually have sex).
Movie review - "Bataan" (1943) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Proves that MGM could do gritty (well gritty-wish) war films with the best of them - America's first six months of WW2 mostly consisted of defeats, forcing filmmakers to put highly positive spins on real life tales. There was a whole subgenre of movies based on America losing - Corregidor, Air Force, Wake Island, So Proudly We Hail, Cry Havoc, They Were Expendable and this. It actually serves to give the film extra poignancy and depth because you go in knowing most of the characters will die - and its based on a true situation.
The plot is essentially a "shooting gallery" one like The Lost Patrol or Kokoda - a small makeshift group of soldiers are ordered to defend a bridge and get picked off one by one. Lee Bowman is the officer but since he's not billed high in the credits you know he won't last long. Robert Taylor is the sergeant and other types are refreshingly varied: young naive musician (Robert Walker in one of his first big roles), crusty old timer (who else but Thomas Mitchell), murderer (Lloyd Nolan - I really enjoyed this subplot), a black soldier (Kenneth Lee Spencer, brave and tough), a Mexican American (Desi Arnaz), a pilot (George Murphy), a Philippines soldier (Roque Espiritu), a cook (Tom Dugan), an engineer (Barry Nelson).
For me this is Hollywood liberalism at it's best - great propaganda in showing the differing faces of American, and also making it easier to tell characters apart. It was made under Dore Schary's unit at the studio and he has every right to be proud of it. It is, however, very racist towards the Japanese, in common with pretty much every movie from this time, who are routinely described as "monkeys" and shown to be sneaks who fake surrendering then still attack, although their bravery is praised.)
It's well handled, with poor model work and it always feels like it's shot in a studio, but there's plenty of spookiness and effective moments - the Japanese soldiers covered in camouflage moving towards the Americans, Spencer dying in freeze frame, George Murphy flying his explosive-packed plane into a bridge Sept 11 style, Taylor going berko with the machine gun at the end (the Americans waste a lot of ammunition). This is one of Taylor's best performances - he was a much better actor with three day growth and a stern attitude.
The plot is essentially a "shooting gallery" one like The Lost Patrol or Kokoda - a small makeshift group of soldiers are ordered to defend a bridge and get picked off one by one. Lee Bowman is the officer but since he's not billed high in the credits you know he won't last long. Robert Taylor is the sergeant and other types are refreshingly varied: young naive musician (Robert Walker in one of his first big roles), crusty old timer (who else but Thomas Mitchell), murderer (Lloyd Nolan - I really enjoyed this subplot), a black soldier (Kenneth Lee Spencer, brave and tough), a Mexican American (Desi Arnaz), a pilot (George Murphy), a Philippines soldier (Roque Espiritu), a cook (Tom Dugan), an engineer (Barry Nelson).
For me this is Hollywood liberalism at it's best - great propaganda in showing the differing faces of American, and also making it easier to tell characters apart. It was made under Dore Schary's unit at the studio and he has every right to be proud of it. It is, however, very racist towards the Japanese, in common with pretty much every movie from this time, who are routinely described as "monkeys" and shown to be sneaks who fake surrendering then still attack, although their bravery is praised.)
It's well handled, with poor model work and it always feels like it's shot in a studio, but there's plenty of spookiness and effective moments - the Japanese soldiers covered in camouflage moving towards the Americans, Spencer dying in freeze frame, George Murphy flying his explosive-packed plane into a bridge Sept 11 style, Taylor going berko with the machine gun at the end (the Americans waste a lot of ammunition). This is one of Taylor's best performances - he was a much better actor with three day growth and a stern attitude.
Friday, June 19, 2015
Movie review - "Kickboxer" (1989) **
Jean Claude Van Damme is now something of a gag celebrity but for a number of years he was a genuine action star - never quite in the league of Arnie or Sly but a true draw at the box office. This was in part because in his heyday (roughly 89-95) you knew his movies always tried to be better than the typical action flick - they would have better production values and directors.
This one was shot on location in Thailand so it always looks good (or at least different) with plenty of lush greens and markets and packed fighting arenas (plus the inevitable stable of 80s action... the visit to the tittie bar). The plot isn't exactly, um, original but serves its purpose - Van Damme's "brother" Dennis Alexio is paralysed in a kickboxing fight so Jean Claude goes looking for revenge. There's a Mr Miyagi trainer, a beautiful girl, a Vietnam Vet who helps them and some baddies.
The kickboxing gives it novelty and Jean Claude does have appeal - boyish good looks, solid fighting ability, a cute accent. The movie does spill into camp too often, Haskell Anderson (the Vietnam Vet) isn't the world's best actor, the writers never met a stereotype they didn't like, and there is some bad 80s guitar. But I enjoyed it.
This one was shot on location in Thailand so it always looks good (or at least different) with plenty of lush greens and markets and packed fighting arenas (plus the inevitable stable of 80s action... the visit to the tittie bar). The plot isn't exactly, um, original but serves its purpose - Van Damme's "brother" Dennis Alexio is paralysed in a kickboxing fight so Jean Claude goes looking for revenge. There's a Mr Miyagi trainer, a beautiful girl, a Vietnam Vet who helps them and some baddies.
The kickboxing gives it novelty and Jean Claude does have appeal - boyish good looks, solid fighting ability, a cute accent. The movie does spill into camp too often, Haskell Anderson (the Vietnam Vet) isn't the world's best actor, the writers never met a stereotype they didn't like, and there is some bad 80s guitar. But I enjoyed it.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Movie review - "Noah" (2014) **1/2
Didn't know how quite to take this - big, expensive, arty, smart, Biblical, hokey. Russell Crowe re-establishes himself as one of the major film stars of the modern era, regardless of how many flops he's been in. Emma Watson seems out of place as the ingenue, but less so than the male model playing Crowe's son; Ray Winstone does some typically solid villain work and Jennifer Connelly and Anthony Hopkins do their best in stock parts - "hang in there honey" and wise old sage respectively.
There's some impressive spectacle, a lot of bits seem silly and it's hard to get too invested in the story of a fanatic. But it's ambitious - it goes there, it tries to be different. Demands to be treated seriously and with respect and there's some effective moments, particularly the montages. I can't say I liked it though.
There's some impressive spectacle, a lot of bits seem silly and it's hard to get too invested in the story of a fanatic. But it's ambitious - it goes there, it tries to be different. Demands to be treated seriously and with respect and there's some effective moments, particularly the montages. I can't say I liked it though.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Movie review - "Ulzana's Raid" (1972) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
The reputation of this movie has shot up in recent years - like a lot of 70s cult classics I feel it's overpraised (eg Get Carter) though I can recognise it's quality. Despite being directed by Robert Aldrich, who I'm a big fan of, I didn't feel it was particularly well put together - it was made by Universal, and has that horrible Universal backlot studio scenes, and tinny Frank de Vol music, with musical stings all the time that make it seem like a TV show, and it feels and smells cheap. (This may not have been Aldrich's fault - I don't know that much about the making of the movie).
But there's a remarkable script by Alan Sharp. It's a tough, nihilistic movie - some claim this is an allegory for the Vietnam War but I can't see that at all. It's about an Apache leader and some mates who bust out from the reservation and go on a rampage, and the soldiers track them down. How is that allegorical? There's a hell of a difference between Apaches and the Viet Cong/NVA, and the Vietnamese and European settlers in the east.
Rather, it's a tougher take on the Western. The Apaches are ruthless and sadistic - they rape, torture, steal (it's a very bleak look at Apaches); the cavalry people aren't as bad but still heavily flawed - racist, penny pinching, prone to revenge acts of sadism.
Bruce Davison is very good as a decent officer trying to do the right thing, struggling to come to terms to the nasty nature of his job. Burt Lancaster is superb as the wise, tough but worn out scout, who has seen far too much death and is afraid of dying. The third lead, refreshingly, is an Indian character - a scout who knows Ulzana well.
Some of the scenes in this are remarkably shocking - the one where the scout flees the woman and child as the Indians approach, comes back to seemingly help them and kills the woman, then is killed and disemboweled; the settler who thinks he is safe when tricked by a bugle only to die horribly. The action became less tense when it was about the soldiers and Indians and there were no settlers - I think this would have added an extra element. But it's worth it when Lancaster gets a tragic ending, mortally wounded and wanting to die alone.
But there's a remarkable script by Alan Sharp. It's a tough, nihilistic movie - some claim this is an allegory for the Vietnam War but I can't see that at all. It's about an Apache leader and some mates who bust out from the reservation and go on a rampage, and the soldiers track them down. How is that allegorical? There's a hell of a difference between Apaches and the Viet Cong/NVA, and the Vietnamese and European settlers in the east.
Rather, it's a tougher take on the Western. The Apaches are ruthless and sadistic - they rape, torture, steal (it's a very bleak look at Apaches); the cavalry people aren't as bad but still heavily flawed - racist, penny pinching, prone to revenge acts of sadism.
Bruce Davison is very good as a decent officer trying to do the right thing, struggling to come to terms to the nasty nature of his job. Burt Lancaster is superb as the wise, tough but worn out scout, who has seen far too much death and is afraid of dying. The third lead, refreshingly, is an Indian character - a scout who knows Ulzana well.
Some of the scenes in this are remarkably shocking - the one where the scout flees the woman and child as the Indians approach, comes back to seemingly help them and kills the woman, then is killed and disemboweled; the settler who thinks he is safe when tricked by a bugle only to die horribly. The action became less tense when it was about the soldiers and Indians and there were no settlers - I think this would have added an extra element. But it's worth it when Lancaster gets a tragic ending, mortally wounded and wanting to die alone.
Movie review - "Jersey Boys" (2014) **
Throughout this film I kept thinking "oh yeah I can see how this would have worked on stage" with it's theatrically effective device of characters talking to the audience, and broad characterisations, and endless parades of tunes. Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons aren't the first band you think of for a hit musical but in hindsight you can see the appeal - there's an interesting enough story involving the boys, with one of them getting in debt to the Mob, and two others forming a strong creative partnership that excludes the others, with detours, some tragic (Frankie's daughter dies of an overdose) others more comic (Joe Pesci's early involvement with the band). There's also plenty of songs, not just the early 60s do-Wop stuff but later classics such as 'Can't Take My Eyes Off You' and 'Who Loves You?'
Yeah it would have worked on stage. As a movie it doesn't really - it's too leisurely paced when it needed to be sparky, too brown where some lively art direction and costumes would have worked a treat. The singing abilities of the cast would impress on stage where it's live - on film you can easily dub actors so it's less impressive.
Good on them I guess for being loyal to the stage cast but I think stars would have been better - some more charisma would have fleshed out the paper thin parts. John Lloyd is fine as Frankie and Vincent Piazza shows charm as Tommy - though even he gets monotonous after a while. Erich Bergen and Michael Lomenda are just bland. Chris Walker is the cuddliest mafia don you'll ever see and the rest of the cast are "types" - camp gay, adoring women, bitchy wives, scolding cops, ethnic mothers, tragic daughter, wordless groupies. Actually the leads are types too. It drags on and on. The tunes are lively.
Yeah it would have worked on stage. As a movie it doesn't really - it's too leisurely paced when it needed to be sparky, too brown where some lively art direction and costumes would have worked a treat. The singing abilities of the cast would impress on stage where it's live - on film you can easily dub actors so it's less impressive.
Good on them I guess for being loyal to the stage cast but I think stars would have been better - some more charisma would have fleshed out the paper thin parts. John Lloyd is fine as Frankie and Vincent Piazza shows charm as Tommy - though even he gets monotonous after a while. Erich Bergen and Michael Lomenda are just bland. Chris Walker is the cuddliest mafia don you'll ever see and the rest of the cast are "types" - camp gay, adoring women, bitchy wives, scolding cops, ethnic mothers, tragic daughter, wordless groupies. Actually the leads are types too. It drags on and on. The tunes are lively.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Book review - "I Love the Illusion: The Life and Career of Agnes Moorehead" by Charles Tranberg (2005)
Agnes Moorehead had one of the greatest careers of any character actress of the 20th century - she came to acting relatively late in life, after starting a teaching career, but got work quite quickly: did particularly well in radio where she met a young Orson Welles who took her to Hollywood with him; she delivered two superb performances in Citizen Kane and Magnificent Ambersons that helped set her up for life in cinema; was the definitive lead in Sorry Wrong Number on radio, perhaps the most famous radio play of all and worked constantly in that medium as well; conquered theatre with Don Juan in Hell in the 1950s; then in the 1960s swept all before her as Endora in Bewitched. Never out of work, always liked, a true professional.
Charles Tranberg has done a very good job of covering her life, helped by access to her papers. His examination of her acting style and career is very thorough - the look at her credits is very well done.
To be honest though it wasn't a terribly interesting life. There's an old rumour she was a lesbian, which Tranberg debunks; I think this got started because Moorehead simply looked like people's idea of a lesbian - and it might have livened up the book. She was a Midwestern gal who was religious, adored her dad who died early, who worked very hard and had Midwestern morality - becoming increasingly publicly associated with right wing causes towards the end of her life. She had rotten luck with her love life, with several failed marriages; she was also a lousy mother, fostering a kid but barely spending any time with him, making him raised by nannies and at boarding school (this is the most upsetting section of the book - they had a falling out and the guy dropped out of her life and no one knows what happened to him). I think she just loved acting so much she was prepared to give her career priority over everything.
It seems she was an immacuate pro and complete actress, working hard and always prepared. She could be a pain in the neck over things like billing and respect and whinged a lot around the time of Bewitched. But she knew her stuff and was always respected. I just wish she hadn't been such of a dickhead. It's not the fault of Tranberg who has written a good book.
Charles Tranberg has done a very good job of covering her life, helped by access to her papers. His examination of her acting style and career is very thorough - the look at her credits is very well done.
To be honest though it wasn't a terribly interesting life. There's an old rumour she was a lesbian, which Tranberg debunks; I think this got started because Moorehead simply looked like people's idea of a lesbian - and it might have livened up the book. She was a Midwestern gal who was religious, adored her dad who died early, who worked very hard and had Midwestern morality - becoming increasingly publicly associated with right wing causes towards the end of her life. She had rotten luck with her love life, with several failed marriages; she was also a lousy mother, fostering a kid but barely spending any time with him, making him raised by nannies and at boarding school (this is the most upsetting section of the book - they had a falling out and the guy dropped out of her life and no one knows what happened to him). I think she just loved acting so much she was prepared to give her career priority over everything.
It seems she was an immacuate pro and complete actress, working hard and always prepared. She could be a pain in the neck over things like billing and respect and whinged a lot around the time of Bewitched. But she knew her stuff and was always respected. I just wish she hadn't been such of a dickhead. It's not the fault of Tranberg who has written a good book.
Movie review - "White House Down" (2013) **
I've got some affection for this film because it's so obviously trying to pretend it's still 1998 or thereabouts - with its action man lead role and obvious spec script origins (a story full of elements of other successful films) and dopey action.
And, you know, some of this isn't bad - Die Hard meets Seven Days in May is actually a great idea and the sequence where the baddies take over the White House is well done. And there is one good idea in particular - the head of security has used his position to collect a group of bad guys from all over.
But it's not a very good movie.
Channing Tatum is a likable star but he's miscast in the lead. I never got a fix on him - a war hero who never does up his tie, a distracted absent dad but he seems to be always around. He's too warm - someone like Arnie or Clint or Steve Seagal would have carried weight and history with him. Channing needed more of a defined character to play.
Also I feel it was a mistake to cast Jaimee Fox as president. He lacks gravitas, clowns it up far too much (I liked the joke about the nicorette though), and has been given too much action stuff to do - it's ridiculous.
Most importantly the movie sets up all these interesting things and then does nothing with them.
For instance, the baddies are a collection of random nutters/terrorists and ex soldiers... that's a fantastic idea that you could do heaps with but they just have a few people shout at each other.
Or James Woods is upset at the president's peace plan in the Middle East - fantastic, a modern day Seven Days in May... but in the end Wood mostly ends up yelling and cracking one liners.
Channing didn't vote for Fox, great - but instead of making them really mismatched (eg super conservative cop and liberal president or vice versa) and getting drama out of it they just sort of hang around.
The media break flight curfew and endanger the life of Channing's daughter by splashing her name all over the press... but there's no come uppance.
It's frustrating. The filmmakers have obviously studied Die Hard but not nearly enough.
Jason Clarke and James Wood are good as the main baddies and it's nice Maggie Gyllenhaul is given some status as the head of security. And sometimes the over the top silliness of this is really fun (secret tunnels underneath, a limo on the lawn with a bazooka firing at it.)
But as the movie goes on it just gets dumber and dumber.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015
Movie review - "A Thunder of Drums" (1961) **1/2
In the 1960s, Hollywood tried to keep Westerns popular by casting teen idols in support of crusty old timers - Frankie Avalon, Ricky Nelson, Fabian, Elvis Presley, Troy Donahue. Here it was George Hamilton's turn - and actually he makes a decent fist of it. Hamilton isn't the first actor you think of when you hear the word "Western" but he's very well cast, as a toffee nosed West Pointer who is transferred to a fort out West and rubs crusty commander Richard Boone up the wrong way and steals the girl (Luana Patten) of one of his fellow officers.
Actually I found Hamilton's character easier to take than Boone's. Hamilton had a journey - from playboy to dedicated officer. Boone spent a lot of time whinging, was given too much dialogue, and had an attitude that ended up being creepy - you can't have a wife, you've got to dedicate himself to the cause, etc. When at the end he's persuaded Hamilton to ditch his girl and Hamilton invites him for a scotch alone together at night, Boone has this smile, and you can't help thinking "is there some other sort of recruiting going on here?"
It's not a bad story - about Apaches attacking - with some quite confronting moment: the opening scene involves Indians slaughtering and raping some women, leaving a little girl the only traumatised survivor; Indians later massacre a cavalry troop and are basically scary as hell; there's adultery and bickering at the fort. It was written by James Warner Bellah who wrote some John Ford movies - and I wish Ford had directed this. I think he would have loved it - you could imagine him working with a fellow boozer like Boone, or even giving that part to John Wayne, with Hamilton in the John Agar/Jeffrey Hunter role. He would have elevated the material, gotten juice out of the world of the fort and amped up the suspense. But they got Joseph Newman instead and he does a workmanlike job at best.
There is great novelty in the cast - Arthur O'Connell (who supported more teen idols than any other character actor of this period) is strong as a sergeant, Richard Chamberlain is decent as an officer, Charles Bronson is a womanising tough soldier, and Duane Eddy and Slim Pickens pop up.
Actually I found Hamilton's character easier to take than Boone's. Hamilton had a journey - from playboy to dedicated officer. Boone spent a lot of time whinging, was given too much dialogue, and had an attitude that ended up being creepy - you can't have a wife, you've got to dedicate himself to the cause, etc. When at the end he's persuaded Hamilton to ditch his girl and Hamilton invites him for a scotch alone together at night, Boone has this smile, and you can't help thinking "is there some other sort of recruiting going on here?"
It's not a bad story - about Apaches attacking - with some quite confronting moment: the opening scene involves Indians slaughtering and raping some women, leaving a little girl the only traumatised survivor; Indians later massacre a cavalry troop and are basically scary as hell; there's adultery and bickering at the fort. It was written by James Warner Bellah who wrote some John Ford movies - and I wish Ford had directed this. I think he would have loved it - you could imagine him working with a fellow boozer like Boone, or even giving that part to John Wayne, with Hamilton in the John Agar/Jeffrey Hunter role. He would have elevated the material, gotten juice out of the world of the fort and amped up the suspense. But they got Joseph Newman instead and he does a workmanlike job at best.
There is great novelty in the cast - Arthur O'Connell (who supported more teen idols than any other character actor of this period) is strong as a sergeant, Richard Chamberlain is decent as an officer, Charles Bronson is a womanising tough soldier, and Duane Eddy and Slim Pickens pop up.
Monday, June 01, 2015
Movie review - "Joe Kidd" (1972) **
A not very good Clint Eastwood Western despite co-starring Robert Duvall, being written by Elmore Leonard and directed by John Sturges; Sturges was very much in decline during this stage of his career and from all accounts Leonard's script was tampered with.
It actually has a decent idea - the courtroom in a small town is taken over temporarily by a Mexican revolutionary/freedom fighter/terrorist, and a land baron recruits a gun slinger (guess who) to go catch him. But having set that up, the movie decides not to do anything that interesting with it - it just becomes Clint tagging along with a posse, acting very passively, before realising that the land baron (well played by Duvall) is a bad egg and changing sides... only not really because the freedom fighter (Saxon) is selfish and ruthless.
It's a muddy movie - Clint Eastwood's character is meant to be an ex gunslinger turned rancher or something who goes after Saxon in part because Saxon attacked his farm - but we never get the sense he's a farmer. And we never really see why Eastwood changes sides - not that he really changes sides either because he turns against the land baron more than becoming pro revolutionary. (Was Clint afraid to be too left wing on film?) In the end Saxon allows himself to be arrested and turned in for trial.
There are some pretty location shots of the mountains and there is some okay action towards the end with a siege at Church and later with a train crashing into a bar. But it's too confusing, and a bit gutless. And too often it's done in crappy early 70s Universal Pictures style i.e. too much like a TV show.
It actually has a decent idea - the courtroom in a small town is taken over temporarily by a Mexican revolutionary/freedom fighter/terrorist, and a land baron recruits a gun slinger (guess who) to go catch him. But having set that up, the movie decides not to do anything that interesting with it - it just becomes Clint tagging along with a posse, acting very passively, before realising that the land baron (well played by Duvall) is a bad egg and changing sides... only not really because the freedom fighter (Saxon) is selfish and ruthless.
It's a muddy movie - Clint Eastwood's character is meant to be an ex gunslinger turned rancher or something who goes after Saxon in part because Saxon attacked his farm - but we never get the sense he's a farmer. And we never really see why Eastwood changes sides - not that he really changes sides either because he turns against the land baron more than becoming pro revolutionary. (Was Clint afraid to be too left wing on film?) In the end Saxon allows himself to be arrested and turned in for trial.
There are some pretty location shots of the mountains and there is some okay action towards the end with a siege at Church and later with a train crashing into a bar. But it's too confusing, and a bit gutless. And too often it's done in crappy early 70s Universal Pictures style i.e. too much like a TV show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)