Movie review - "Backyard Ashes" (2014) **

An impossible film to dislike, made with real heart and love, and based on a very strong idea - a big stakes back yard cricket comp. It also gets novelty points for being shot in Wagga Wagga, not one of the famously pretty Australian towns - though oddly the movie doesn't exploit what physical assets the town does have: for instance, there's no scenes by the river, or those lovely rickety bridges in the area, or the hills and farm land.

The always likeable Andrew Gilbert is excellent in the lead role, the man who challenges his Pommy neighbour to a big game of backyard cricket. I also really like the actors who played his mates, including the ever reliable John Wood.

The neighbour is played by Felix Williamson in hammy 1930s style, like he stepped out of a Beaumont Smith film - he threw the movie out of balance for me, as did the lips of his wife (I don't mean to be nasty, but they were very distracting). It's like Gilbert and Williamson are in two different movies - one naturalistic and homespun, the over broad and campy.

It's beautifully shot and has some great moments, such as Williamson and Gilbert having a beer as the sun goes down, and the fate of the cat is genuinely hilarious. The script is a weak point - characters aren't really differentiated, the movie cries out for a romance subplot (I kept expecting the video taping son to do this, or Gilbert's single mate, but we never see it), it's irritating how all the women folk sip on lemonade and watch the men play, the cat joke is referred to one time too many, the set up conflict of Williamson causing someone to lose his job feels contrived. But it has a massive heart and I'm glad it's done so well.

Movie review - "Magnum Force" (1973) ***

There's a lot of good things about this first Dirty Harry sequel. For starters, it's got a decent story - a vigilante cop is killing off baddies one by one (actually, sorry, sometimes that's ten by ten) making Harry look positively liberal. There's also a superb Lalo Schifrin score, stylish Ted Post direction (I love some of the shots, such as the cop assassin working his way through the bushes, and the opening hustle and bustle court scene.... why didn't Post do more features). There's decent some lines and scenes, plus an excellent cast including Hal Holbrook and a bunch of later TV stars in Tim Matheson, David Soul (very effective as a baddie) and Robert Urich.

There are a lot of dumb bits though. It's like the film had a solid basic structure but the filmmakers (in particular Clint) couldn't resist in shoving "bits" to show off Harry - like Harry happening to eat burgers at an airport cafe just as a hostage situation taking place (mind you it was fun to see Harry pretending to be a pilot) or Harry turning up at a supermarket as some more psychos were taking control. Or the sub-sub plot of Harry's hot Asian-American neighbour who flat outright seduces him.

Some of the action isn't that well staged - for instance during the final set piece I was never sure of which cop Harry had knocked off, and I got confused. And it was a long slog at the running time.

Still, a decent enough movie and the series definitely got worse.

Movie review - "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" (2008) ***

I'm going out on a limb here and saying that this maligned sequel - so maligned it inspired a very funny South Park episode - is actually not the worst in the series, being better than Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's definitely not perfect, but at least it tries different things and has some great moments, whereas Crusade merely re-heated old ingredients.

I'm aware of the flaws - Shia Le Bouf is never going to replace Harrison, the CGI is annoying compared to the real stunts of the first three, and I missed the feeling of exotica that came from the US bound shoot, Ray Winstone felt at times to be extraneous. I felt it was also a mistake to not reveal Indy had a son from the get go - sure it would have robbed the piece of surprise but would have given greater emotional underpinning to everything.

But the 1950s setting gives it freshness, with nods to Marlon Brando and the high school bop; Cate Blanchett camps it up to the right degree, Shia and Harrison work well together, there's lots of crazy arsed imagination, it's lovely to have Karen Allen back. Maybe I'll change my mind about how much I liked it but I did like it.

Movie review - "Many Rivers to Cross" (1955) ***

The third teaming of that not-particularly-remembered MGM combo, Robert Taylor and Eleanor Parker. It's an odd Western, set in late 1700s Kentucky, when lots of people wore Davy Crockett coonskin hats and shot at things, and Indians had Mohawks. Robert Taylor is meant to be a mountain man and Eleanor Parker the tomboy from a boisterous otherwise-all-male family who falls in love with him; if you can go with that, you'll probably enjoy the movie.

It is a bit different from a lot of "I don't want to get married" Western comedies in that Robert Taylor's character comes across as heterosexual - he is clearly attracted to Parker and wants to sleep with her just doesn't want to get married to her.

No one in this movie feels entirely comfortably cast. Alan Hale Jnr is Parker's aspiring suitor, Russ Tamblyn and Russell Johnson are among her borthers \brother and Victor McLaglen is her dad. Also it's very studio set when some more location work would have helped. But there is some well done action sequences and I really like Eleanor Parker; it's brightly spirited and feels different to many Westerns around this time.

Movie review - "Wild Rovers" (1971) **

Blake Edwards liked to whinge that MGM ruined his masterpiece, and certainly this happened a lot at Metro under the auspices of James T Aubrey. But the main complaint is that they took out 40 minutes of what was already clocks in at over two hours and feels very slow. Would the 40 minutes have helped? I don't think so. I think I saw the uncut version - it felt painful and went on forever.

This is a dull tale about two cow pokes (William Holden and Ryan O'Neal) who decide to rob a bank. They amble about a lot - an awful lot.

I like both Holden and O'Neal in other movies but neither are that memorable here and they seem like really weird friends. Karl Malden provides some much needed energy but he's not in the movie much. It is lyrically shot - so much so that I kept falling asleep. And even though the story is simple enough I struggled at times to follow it. Maybe I was bored.

Movie review - "High Plains Drifter" (1973) ***

I watched this shortly after Joe Kidd and was struck by what a better film it was - better constructed, directed, acted... the whole thing. It's got a fantastic central idea with the mysterious stranger coming into town and seeking revenge - okay so maybe that's not too original but the treatment feels so, with it's quasi-religious/horror movie overtones.

There's also a dwarf sidekick, literally painting the town red, whipping, is Clint an angel or the devil, beautiful location work, some good drama. Unfortunately there's also two rapes-that-become-consensual (very common in 70s cinema). But it's a striking, original work that indicates even then it's star's willingness to push himself.

Movie review - "Flags of Our Fathers" (2006) ***

One of these days Clint Eastwood is going to make a movie about which you can say "gee the only problem with that is it was too short". What are the chances? Probably none. Anyway, there is much to admire in this film, a look at the circumstances surrounding the famous raising of the flag on Iwo Jima photo. In particular the setting of Iwo Jima itself is like no other war film (well, apart from those already set on Iwo Jima) - a lunar like moonscape of dark sand and craggy rocks, a mostly unseen enemy. The battle sequences are scary and very well done.

Where the movie falls down is in terms of its characters. Ryan Philippe basically plays a good guy; Jesse Bradford is a cockier, slightly dumber good guy and Adam Beach is "tragic Indian". You hope Beach's Ira Hayes plot will move you, you want it to move you - but he feels bad, gets drunk, dies tragically... it all feels pro forma. Of the other actors on Iwo Jima only Jamie Bell really makes much of an impression. I don't know why but this movie didn't move me in the way I thought it would. It should have - it's the Battle of Iwo Jima. But I was impressed rather than engrossed.

Movie review - "Klute" (1971) ****

Jane Fonda became something of a joke in later years with her mad statements, crazy eyes and appearing in a series of crap movies (was it the lack of offers or just laziness? You could ask the same of Robert de Niro). So it's good to watch her in this thriller to be reminded of what an incredibly performer she could be/is. Frightening, outwardly cocky, sexy, confused, erratic, desiring warmth but also fearing it - it's fantastic work in what is, in its own way, a brilliant star vehicle.

Donald Sutherland is really odd casting as a romantic hero - I know it was the 70s and all but it feels strange even now, with his jug ears and gawky haircut. He isn't given that much of a character to play either - we never really get a sense of what makes Klute tick, but it doesn't matter so much because Fonda carries it.

The other star is Gordon Willis. If ever there was a case to be made for cinematographers as auteurs he could make it; this is such a stunningly shot film with its creepy scary nights and moments of warmth and paranoia and so on.

Oh and it's also one of few Hollywood movies up until then to treat therapy seriously and not in a comic/exaggerated way.

Book review - "Tribune of Rome: Vespasian 1" by Robert Fabbri

Vespasian is one of my favourite Roman Emperors - I've always liked his competency, sense of humour, level of achievement, and down to earth (from all accounts) nature. It was clever of Fabbri to pick him as the star of a series of novels.

This deals with Vespasian's early life and his first adventures, rather in the manner of George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman. There is much historical detail but little of Flashman's humour and verve unfortunately; and Fabbri is no way near Fraser's league as a writer yet. Some of the dialogue is particularly bad and the story becomes overly "plotty" too often. But it's written with keenness, and pace and Fabbri has a real flair for action sequences and violence, and I got into this more as I went on. It's got a decent plot, involving Antonia, a young Caligula and evil Thracians - and although I wish we'd gotten to meet Tiberius and Sejanus it's a worthy page turner about a great figure in history.

Movie review - "Cobra" (1986) *

Nasty, mean spirited knock off of Dirty Harry which I wanted to enjoy in a dumb 80s action movie way but was simply too derivative, too mean. Surely after Rambo 2 and Rocky IV, Sly could have taken some time out to do something decent and intelligent - but he took the money and ran here, looking at Dirty Harry and Sudden Impact, ripping it off (even via casting - Reni Santoni is Cobra's partner), and adding more corpses.

To be fair he does look cool in a camp way, with his mirrored sunglasses, tooth pick, tight jeans and three day growth - not to mention awesome car. But the story makes no sense - it's about a serial killer running rampant in the city, yet there's also an army of killers (though only one seems to do the killing), plus some other guy who holds up a supermarket. Brigitte Nielsen is attacked and survives; even though she never gets a decent look at the people after her, the army of killers still come after her and Cobra has to save the day... by killing every single last one of them.

There is some decent, if not particularly memorable action, and it's beautifully photographed - rather like Rambo 2 come to think of it. Brigitte Nielsen is beautiful and looks great in a swimsuit during a photo shoot but isn't given much of a character to play and has to wear this silly red haired curly wig covering her face. Her chemistry with then-hubby Stallone isn't overwhelming. Brian Thompson probably gives the best performance as the head baddy.

The nasty tone comes from the fact so many innocent people are killed - that person at the supermarket, random nurses, strangers knocked off by the serial killer, security guards, etc. Also there are lots of knives and blood. There is little tension.

Movie review - "Felony" (2013) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

This starts with a bang - a superbly directed chase and shoot out sequence, done with freshness and energy, followed by a gripping hit and sun sequence. The subsequent action plays out well and you feel you're in good hands and starting to think this could be a little noir/drama classic. But what really should be the first act only takes about 50 minutes, and the movie doesn't have any other ideas.

It sets up all these potentially intriguing situations and characters - Melissa George knowing the mother Sarah Roberts, cop Jai Courtney falling for Roberts, the case Joel Edgerton is working on - but doesn't do anything with them, not really. You keep waiting for Tom Wilkinson to force Edgerton to do something dodgy, or Edgerton and Roberts to have this bond, or George to do anything, really, but they don't. And the enigmatic, confusing ending is frustrating - so Courtney's going to dob them in? Or Not? Or something?

It's a shame because that first act really is excellent.

Movie review - "Rambo: First Blood Part 2" (1985) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Sylvester Stallone helped America overcome its Vietnam demons with this over the top wish fulfillment action fantasy where everyone's favourite PTSD poster boy, John Rambo, is called to rescue American POWs in Vietnam (something very common in cinema at the time, eg Missing in Action, Uncommon Valor). And if Rambo's arguments sound a lot like right wing Germans after World War One - we could have won if we'd been allowed, etc - it is true to character and does give this resonance.

The basic structure of this is very sound - James Cameron co wrote the screenplay. It's not original, mind, but there are decent twists: falling off target, deciding to take a POW back, being betrayed, the death of the girl.

The action scenes are over the top and spectacular rather than memorable. I've seen the film a few times and am struggling to recall them - I can remember the dialogue, both campy ("I've always believed the mind is the best weapon") and genuinely moving ("all we want is for our country to love us the way we love it"), I recall the montages (Rambo getting ready for battle), the silly excessive images (Rambo's flowing hair, firing a machine gun), the solid support from Charles Napier and Richard Crenna and Steven Berkoff, the stunning photography. But the actual action just seems to be explosions and increasingly unrealistic acts.

Politically and sociologically this is fascinating, especially considering how popular it was at the box office - it says a lot about America at the time. It was a phenomenon. As an actual movie it is competent but flawed. Worth seeing.

Movie review - "Rambo III" (1988) **1/2

Rambo II made so much money it would have been rude for Sylvester Stallone not to return for a third installment; the result did not attract the same level of "hot button" controversy at the time - though it's become notorious in later years because some think Rambo was helping the same forces America would be fighting from 2001 on wards. It's also not as good a movie.

It's still beautifully shot with lots of impressive explosions and stunts involving helicopters; and the basic set up isn't bad: Rambo turns down a chance to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, but decides to go there when his old mentor Richard Crenna is captured.

But the story isn't as good as Rambo 2  - the absence of James Cameron perhaps? The structure isn't as clean: Rambo turns up in Afghanistan, goes to rescue Crenna, fails, then goes back and rescues him again, then fights off the Soviets, is in a hot spot, but the Afghans rescue him and he goes home. It lacks the personal resonance in the second film, where Rambo was returning to his old stomping ground, and trying to win a war that had been lost; it also lacks the twists - in the second film Rambo decided to rescue a POW (twist), was not picked up by the US who betrayed him (twist), was rescued by his girlfriend who died (twist), then went on rampage. There's no sense of progression.

And it also lacks characters. This movie only has two real characters of note - Rambo and Trautman, plus some random evil baddy, and random helpful tribespeople. In Rambo 2 there were plenty of random people (even Steven Berkoff's character) but there were more who had resonance for Rambo: a fellow veteran POW, a CIA spook who betrayed him, a woman he kind of fell in love with. This movie has opportunity for such characters but doesn't take him - Kurtwood Smith's shady operative cried out for some betraying of Rambo but he disappears; that kid soldier cried out to bond with Rambo as a kid role but he doesn't.

The best moment is when Trautman lectures the Russian:  There won't be a victory. Every day, your war machines lose ground to a bunch of poorly-armed, poorly-equipped freedom fighters. The fact is that you underestimated your competition. If you'd studied your history, you'd know that these people have never given up to anyone. They'd rather die than be slaves to an invading army. You can't defeat a people like that. We tried; we already had our Vietnam! Now you're gonna have yours.

If only George W had seen the film!

In short: not as offensive as the second film but not as good either.

Script review - "Rambo: First Blood Part 2" by James Cameron

James Cameron's first draft of the action blockbuster became renowned as a script greatly changed by it's star, with Cameron distancing himself from the politics especially of the final film. Still, I was struck by how closely the final movie resembled it - in particular, the structure seems identical: Trautman retrieves Rambo from imprisonment, offers a deal to find POWs, Rambo clashes with the CIA spook, is dropped in the jungle, meets a beautiful Vietnamese agent, finds the camp and rescues a POW, is betrayed by the spook, is recaptured and tortured by Russians but escapes due to the girl, who is then killed after they decide to get together; Rambo goes on a rampage and kills a bunch of Russians and Vietnamese, steals a chopper, rescues the POWS and flies back to Thailand, snarls at the spook and walks off into the sunset. It's all here in Cameron's work.

Of course there are some differences - the opening scene is here in a psychiatric hospital, with Rambo in a makeshift cell (a nice touch); Rambo is given a wise cracking CIA op sidekick for the mission, who you can easily imagine being played by Bill Paxton - and who actually could easily be cut out of the film story wise (and he was.... people might think it was ego or something but the sidekick doesn't really contribute anything except maybe a little humour); there is little political posturing, with Rambo not whingeing about his country not loving him, or wanting to win this tim; Trautman is tougher here, more of a bad ass. But is surprisingly close to the end result. Certainly why would Sly tamper with the structure? It's very effective. One thing I would add though - it is not that character driven. Indeed, Sly's version, with it's paranoid hero convinced that the suits cost America the war, has more of a distinct character for Rambo.

Movie review - "Betrayed" (1954) ** (warning: spoilers)

This is best remembered today for being the last movie Clark Gable made at MGM - his still potent star power helped propel this to "unlikely hit" status, with the "unlikely" arising because it isn't very good. Still it does have Gable, Lana Turner and Victor Mature all hilariously miscast as Dutchmen, plus colour photography and the novelty of a film set around the Battle of Arnhem.

Gable is the head of Dutch Intelligence who is rescued from the Germans by local resistance leader Victor Mature (giving the best performance in the best part). He goes back to England and trains (and falls in love with) Lana Turner, who is parachuted into Holland. The movie forgets about Gable for a while and becomes about Turner and Mature (although a love triangle is, disappointingly, never developed - Mature is obsessed with his mother and wears a flamboyant scarf... are we meant to think he's gay?). Then Gable begins to think there is a traitor in the nest and is convinced it's Turner.

This is consistently silly, whether its the three leads pretending they're Dutch, or characters taking time out from massed battles to go off and have personal dramas (the invasion of Europe has begun and Wilfrid Hyde White gives Gable a month's leave!), or Victor Mature's obsession with his mother, or Gable having a fight with a German general but it's filmed in long shot and is clearly done by a body double, or Lana Turner trying to act in a role that cried out for Ava Gardner, or Gable trying to hide how uncomfortable he is with his role.

It does get some points for originality: Mature is inspired to betray the resistance, not because of cash but after some locals shave his mother's head. There is some pleasing location filming in the Netherlands and I enjoyed Hyde-White's boffin-but-not-really general.

Movie review - "First Blood" (1982) ***1/2

The name "John Rambo" still elicits chuckles among film buffs. And even the first in the series - the arty one, for lack of a better word, the one people are allowed to admit they like (just like you're allowed to like the first Rocky) - has its moments of high camp: Sly Stallone running wild with his flaming mane of hair and bullets wrapped around his torso, Richard Crenna spitting out his exposition on Rambo's backstory with such gravitas ("Congressional medal of honour winner... trained killer... I've come to protect you from him..."), Sly's presence.

But its that rarity in the action genre: a genuine character driven movie. Rambo is a fully fledged, three dimensional protagonist - suffering from PTSD, broken, lonely, hungry for affection, touchy, indignant, with his own sense of honour. And Sly is really good in the role, with his haunted, lonely eyes and mumbling and howling at the injustice of it all. His monologue at the end is genuinely touching, talking about having an old friend die in his arms with bits of his body all over the play - "guy cry" at it's best.

As an action film this actually isn't that good - I'm not sure it's Ted Kotcheff's strength. It looks fantastic, with stunning British Columbia scenery (lush trees, craggy rocks, waterfalls, endless mountains). As a drama its very effective, with the sympathy loaded towards Sly. And it's well acted, Brian Dennehy and Richard Crenna providing effective support (though Crenna camps it up more than I remembered). But can you remember the action sequences? Mainly Sly firing off bullets and not hitting anyone, and running around.

I'm not saying it's not enjoyable - it's just not as well directed action wise as say a Michael Mann film. Still, very effective.

Vale Omar Shariff

Omar Sharif was always a bit of a punchline rather than an actor but he remains (I'm pretty sure anyway) the only Arab to have become a genuine Hollywood star, and proved you can sustain a lucrative career appearing in only three hits and countless flops provided those three hits are among the biggest blockbusters of all time.

For the sheer hell of it here are my top five random Omar Sharif performances in massive flops:
1) Fall of The Roman Empire (1964) - actually has the same plot as Russell Crowe's Gladiator just structured differently and as a result no one went to see it. Played King of the Armenians.
2) Mackenna's Gold (1969) - the team that made Guns of Navarone reteam with Sharif thrown in and results in a confusing Western. Played a Mexican.
3) Che! (1969) - Sharif as Che Guevera has to be seen to be believed as does Jack Palance as Castro. It's actually kind of an interesting movie just very right wing. Played an Argentinian.
4) The Last Valley (1971) - Michael Caine out miscasts Sharif here in a film which answers the question "why doesn't Hollywood make any movies about the 30 Year War?" Plays a German.
5) Top Secret (1984) - one of the funniest comedies of all time, and the only reason I can think it wasn't a massive hit is it mixed genres. Plays someone from a random nation.

Movie review - "Svengali" (1931) **

John Barrymore hams his arse off as the famous impresario who dazzles a young woman and makes her an opera star. Carmel Myers is the first one - but she rejects him when she won't give him money. So then he goes for Marian Marsh, with whom he falls in love - although he falls for super wet Bramwell Fletcher (who ironically would marry Barrymore's daughter Diana). It's like a vampire movie in many regards - I think we're meant to hope that Marsh goes for Fletcher but he's just as possessive in his own way. Barrymore barnstorms his way around. There's surprisingly little opera singing and some stiff direction.

Movie review - "Moonfleet" (1955) *** (warning: spoilers) (re-viewing)

An odd sort of movie - you can see why it wasn't a big hit (it lost money) but it's interesting; John Houseman, who produced, always seemed to try to make something of quality, as did director Fritz Lang. Stewart Granger whinged about the final result - he did that about a lot of the films he made - but he was right in some respects: it should have been a black and white lower budgeted film, when MGM added colour and CinemaScope. Still, there is plenty of atmosphere, with the kid walking through the graveyard, and seeing corpses swinging, and ghoulish faces.

This falls into the sub genre of "small boy becomes enthralled with dodgy dashing elder man adventure tales" - Treasure Island, The Fallen Idol, Hunted, The Spanish Gardener are other ones. Jon Whiteley is the boy who goes to stay with smuggler/local lord Stewart Granger, who does deals with aristocrat George Sanders (very good), and romances a bunch of women, including Sanders' wife (Joan Greenwood) and a voluptuous woman (Viveca Lindfors).

Of the characters, only Sanders, Granger and Whiteley get much screen time. It's a bleak tale in a way - Granger is Whiteley's father (it's implied) but Whiteley never finds this out; Granger is mortally wounded (resulting in a touching ending), there don't seem to be too many other nice people; the world is one of corruption and lacks warmth; the ending, with Whitley waiting for Granger's return "because he's my friend" is a bit of a downer because we know the guy's gone off to die. (NB I wonder if this inspired the makers of City of Men.) The storyline also tends to be repetitive - Whitley gets in trouble, is rescued by Granger, gets in trouble again.

Still, Granger was rarely better cast (he did well in these enigmatic roles) - although James Mason probably would have been better. Whiteley is effective and Sanders and Greenwood are always good.

Movie review - "Who Dares Wins" (1982) **

Most British movies of the early 80s were so relentlessly anti-Thatcher that this one has novelty value for being a right wing conservative piece. It was inspired by the Iranian embassy siege, which deserved a big screen adaptation (war movies used to be a stock genre for the British film industry and the public still has an appetite for them... this was a hit in England).

It stars Lewis Collins of The Professionals, who isn't the most charismatic actor in the world but is terrifically believable as an SAS guy - he seems like the real deal, as if he's doing it himself, and I wonder he didn't make more action films, because the 80s were the decade for them.

This is done in however by its dopey plot. It starts off promisingly enough - a man is killed during a protest, who turns out to be an undercover agent, trying to discover if there are militants in the peace movement. Now a lot of people will find that concept offensive, but it's not impossible there are hardline militant leftists in the peace movement, and killing an agent is good. So Lewis Collins of the SAS is called in to investigate.

And this is where the film gets silly. Collins is married with a kid but promptly sets out to seduce one of the leaders of the group, Judy Davis as a Vanessa Redgrave type. Davis' performance is superb incidentally - intense, passionate, beautiful, touchingly vulnerable with Collins. Collins says he's from the SAS but got kicked out, so she is enthusiastic about him. Then she discovers he's got a wife and kids and is lying and - get this - she doesn't have him killed; instead they get some terrorists to hold his wife and kid for ransom (why?), so he can come along when they hold the US embassy for siege (why) so he can... why? Then they let him go to the toilet (why?) enabling him to signal to the forces outside.

It's really dopey, dopey filmmaking. It also doesn't have nearly enough action - Collins kicks some butt towards the end, and the SAS raiding the embassy and Collins' house is pretty good. But up until then it's a hard slog. Even the scene where the terrorists take over the embassy isn't that exciting. And there's far too much talk, including a scarcely believable scene where Richard Widmark (US ambassador) and Robert Webber (general) scold the terrorists whhen the terrorists are pointing a gun at them.

There's some beautiful rugged scenery, it is a fascinating time capsule of hawkish early 80s politics and Collins, when called upon to be active, does it very well. It's also amazing to see Judy Davis knocking it out of the park in such a mediocre film.

Script review - "Napoleon" by Stanley Kubrick

Perhaps Stanley Kubrick's most famous "unmade" film, on which he toiled for a number of years but ultimately abandoned due to cost  - though he got his period film kick out of his system with Barry Lyndon. The script of it I've read would have made an interesting movie at the least - it doesn't leap off the page as amazing, with far too much narration explaining what's going on, and over long dialogue speeches. also seems to take on too much - it's a greatest hits of Napleon's life, going from military academy as a child through to the French revolution, growing power, becoming Emperor, invading Russia, Waterloo, etc.

It does work as drama - Napoleon was an interesting guy - there are some great visuals you can imagine Kubrick directing the hell out of. (It would cost a fortune.) Like a lot of Kubrick films he's into boobs and sex - plenty of Josephine making love, and Napoleon and even Marie-Louise. I'm not sure it's worth doing in the hands of another director - not without that visual brilliance.

Emotionally the guts of the movie concerns Napoleon and Josephine, Napoleon and Joseph, and Napoleon and the Tsar of Russia. They all talk an awful lot but do interesting things. It would have been better than Barry Lyndon.