Movie review - "Mandingo" (1975) ** (warning: spoilers)

A film that is much mocked and perhaps deservedly so - the acting is over the top, the plot is melodramatic high camp, and it's an ugly feeling movie. 

And yet... and yet... it is a rare studio film that tackles the issue of slavery head on in a no holds barred way - there's none of your Gone with the Wind whitewashing here, slavery is brutal and full on.

So sure critics may laugh at the plot which involves Perry King sleeping with his slave Brenda Sykes, and Susan George chewing the scenery with vigor as his wife with a trashy past who gets hot and bothered for slave Ken Norton, not one but two mixed race babies, and Norton winds up boiled in a pot... And they may chortle at the acting - apart from James Mason, no one is really up to their roles.

But it is an indictment of slavery and patriarchy. King is depicted as a nicer slave owner but he still kills his wife and boils his slave. King's father Mason thinks he's nice but is a horrid exploiter. King and Mason both imprison George and drive her to drink. George mainly sleeps with Norton because she's lonely and bored. Norton is betrayed by King as a master and a pseudo-friend.

It is a confronting movie and sometimes I wonder if white critics preferred to bag it instead of dealing with the issues it raises.

Movie review - "The Heroes of Telemark" (1965) **1/2

This "guys on a mission to blow something up in wartime" film has the benefit of being based on an actual real life mission that was actually successful (many of them were disasters) - the Norwegian heavy water sabotage in World War Two, in particular Operation Gunnerside, the destruction of a chamber and the sinking of the SF Hydro.

This means the film essentially has two climaxes - blowing up a chamber, then sinking a ferry - with a lot of skiing and escaping in between. It also means the film has a repetitive feel, despite some great moments. There's not really a sense of progression or dramatic build, which is problematic when you've got a two hour plus running time and is the chief flaw of this otherwise decent enough movie. (Mind you, I pretty much never met a guys on a mission film I didn't like.)

Richard Harris is the local Norwegian resistance fighter who recruits scientist Kirk Douglas to help him  on the mission. Both actors are effective - Harris had a glowering enigmatic intensity, a brooding quality, that made him very attractive to casting directors in action movies. You don't think of him as an action star but he made an awful lot of them. Kirk Douglas does his Kirk Douglas thing, jutting out the chin and never being too convincing, but he's Kirk Douglas so you go with it.

It's a shame neither have much of a character to play. Both are tough and quite ruthless - Douglas is a scientist but a rugged one who adapts to war time easily. The characters argue over some issue but the conflict feels forced. Douglas is given an ex wife, Ulla Jacobsson - they were meant to have this great sex life but they are together in this very unsexy scene wearing daggy pyjamas. I wish they'd really gone with Douglas being a nerdy man of science and Harris the man of action, and used Jacobsson's sexiness more. The Nazis are stock Nazis - either shouting generals or doltish henchmen - but Michael Redgrave is effective in support and has a memorable death scene.

There are some stunning visuals - I have a soft spot for action films set in the snow. Director Anthony Mann was still in fine form - there's great bits like the commandos watching a plane of British come to their aid and then crash, and the commandos skiing silently down the snow, and when they come across the Norwegian skier who may or may not be trustworthy. Blowing up the ferry at the end felt more conventional.

I get the feeling with this movie they never quite got the story right and as a result concentrated on "bits" and scenes. It doesn't flow satisfactorily but has its moments.

Book review - "Killing the Tiger: The Truth About Operation Rimau" by Peter Thompson and Robert Mackie (2001)

Operation Rimau is one of the true epics of Australia's Pacific War - I've become a little obsessed with it lately. It was a famous failure, yet it involved such courage: 23 men on a mission to attack Singapore Harbour, a sequel to Operation Jaywick; it's rarely a good idea to do a sequel for a top secret mission, though things needn't have turned out as badly as they did. Admittedly the team were busted by a patrol boat shortly before the actual assault was to begin - this sort of risk was unavoidable - but they managed to get to the harbour and sink some shipping, and most of the team made it back to the rendezvous at Merapas Island. The real stuff up came when the commander of the sub sent to pick them up decided to go hunting vessels to sink instead and didn't follow their orders to wait around. You can make an arguable case for the sub commander but still... it was a bit rough, men died (although some made it as far as Timor before being captured).

This is a solid account of the mission. It's put in context of the whole Pacific War, including a reprise of the fall of Singapore and Operation Jaywick. I admit I was hoping to have more on the mission - descriptions of the islands, conditions, personalities and fire fights involved. Still, it's a good read and got the blood stirring.

Book review - "My Life as a Mankiewicz: An Insider's Journey Through Hollywood" by Tom Mankiewicz and Robert Crane (2010)

This is one of my favourite screenwriter memoirs ever - I'd rank it up with William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade and Joe Esterhaus' Hollywood Animal. I never knew that much about Tom Mankiewicz before reading this - I'd seen his name pop up of course, was a big fan of his father, and he always seemed to be available for a retrospective making of doco, especially about the Bonds. His credits are of variable quality - but his memoir is a definite classic.

The irony is Mankiewicz didn't even write this by himself - it was actually written by Robert Crane, who completed it after Mankiewicz's death at a relatively young age (68, due to pancreatic cancer - he liked to drink and smoke so maybe 68 wasn't too bad). Crane has done an excellent job knocking it all into shape; it's full of short, sharp chapters which get right to the point of the story and ensure you never get bored. I've read a lot about the period in time covered by the book but most of the stories were fresh and new to me. They were often very funny and moving. The ending does feel like it could have done a polish - it's a lot of rambling by Mankiewicz about Hollywood today and repeating things he's already said in the book.

Mankiewicz has a big advantage over most screenwriters in that he was Hollywood royalty - son of Joe, nephew of Herman. It was a privileged upbringing in many ways - Beverly Hills childhood, then to New York; visits to film schools; an expensive east coast education; contacts that got him involved in the film industry. However it came with a price: dad was emotionally distant, mum was schizophrenic and abusive and wound up a suicide. Mankiewicz found himself attracted to emotionally unstable actresses for the rest of his life - so, despite not exactly looking like an oil painting, had a highly successful strike rate with women in Hollywood, the Mecca for emotionally unstable actresses; his exes include Dorothy Provine, Tuesday Weld, Carol Lynley, Margot Kidder, Stefanie Powers and  Elizabeth Ashley (he's not very discrete), and he was good friends with Natalie Wood but didn't have an affair with her (they did make out in a sauna which isn't bad).

Mankiewicz must have been great company to have around - he talks about all these friends he had (Jerry Moss, Jack Haley) and he seems to have been a social animal. Maybe it was that combination of wit, some talent, famous father, social connections and just the right amount of tragedy in the background. Or maybe he was just a great guy.

How good a screenwriter was Mankiewicz? He brags every now and then about its quality and how "hot" he was once upon a time but it's hard to gauge He wrote some of the worst James Bond films of all time - Diamonds Are Forever, The Man with the Golden Gun - and rewrote a bunch of movies were the screenplay doesn't exactly sing - The Cassandra Crossing, The Deep. But he wrote a decent enough Bond on his own - Live and Let Die - some okay entertainments - The Eagle Has Landed, Hart to Hart - and "script doctored" and bunch of classics: Superman, The Spy Who Loved Me. My guess is he wasn't a particularly strong on structure or original material, but he could do a decent rewrite and had a gift for dialogue, and he was clearly a great collaborator.

What makes this really special are not just the funny stories but the more heartfelt stuff... his suicidal mother, his loneliness, his tendency to be attracted to crazy women but his inability to sustain a long term relationship. I've read this three times already - it's wonderful.

Movie review - "The Eagle Has Landed" (1976) ***1/2

This takes a while to get going, the handling is clearly flabby (it was John Sturges' last film as director and he was in decline), it's too long and some of the casting is irritating, but it's a cracking yarn from a terrific source novel - Jack Higgins' clever best seller - and steadily gets better as it goes along.

It took me a while to get used to Michael Caine playing a German officer, even if Caine does look teutonic, but once I did I enjoyed his performance. Conversely, I started off enjoying Donald Sutherland's IRA man for his humour and energy but eventually got sick of him - I never believed him as a man of action, great lover, or soulful philosopher (they badly needed Richard Harris, Richard Burton or Peter O'Toole - someone with sadness and gravitas rather than simple mischeviousness).

Robert Duvall is pretty good as the German mastermind of the operation and Jean Marsh (traitor), Donald Pleasance (a chilling Himmler) and Larry Hagman (idiotic American colonel) are superb in their roles. Solid support from Treat Williams (as a competent American officer - I wonder if part of the reason this didn't do that well in America was its depiction of a disastrous American raid). Anthony Quayle's nice German admiral was distracting. Jenny Agutter is the Sutherland's love interest and the ever perky Judy Geeson pops up.

It's hard to think of a film made by an Allied country set in World War Two that had more sympathetic German characters - Caine's character is sentenced to a penal battalion for helping a Jewish woman escape, Quayle is anti-Nazi as is Duvall, Caine's Germans like to play the organ in church, are super competent and loyal soldiers and are only exposed after helping save a girl from drowning. In contrast, the English village includes a traitor, a bully and some massively incompetent American soldiers.

There is some decent action towards the end. Tom Mankiewciz wrote the script; I'm never sure how good a writer he was - it was the source material, surely that made this good - but it seems to be from my vague memory of the novel a solid, faithful adaptation.

Book review - "Robert Shaw: The Price of Success" by John French (1993)

Robert Shaw appeared in some of the most popular films of all time but was he a film star? Kind of but not really seems to be the answer. He was really more effective as a character leading man - in his biggest hits, Jaws, The Deep, The Sting - he was never the actual capital H hero... even in The Deep that role more belonged to Nick Nolte. The did play the hero in a large number of movies but the public never went for them - Swashbuckler, and so on. And sure you can blame the quality of the films but I think part of it was Shaw himself - he had a harsh, cold presence, with made him so effective as a villain, or in Harold Pinter. He lacked warmth and charm.

But what a career and a life. His father was a doctor who had a bad drinking problem and killed himself, which haunted Shaw all his days. His African-born mother had enough money to send him to boarding school, and he later got into RADA. It wasn't easy for him to establish himself - but it wasn't super hard either. He had charisma, energy and dynamism, plus could convey a rugged masculine edge which many English actors (then and now) struggle to do so.

He did long stints with various companies - for Alec Guinness (who had something of a crush on him), at Stratford, touring Australia. He seemed to burn bridges with his ego and impatience but would always recover with a break - either say by getting the lead in a TV series, The Buccaneers, finding a home at the Royal Court, being a brilliant interpreter of Pinter and being cast in The Caretaker as it took on Broadway, scoring perhaps the best villain part in a Bond film of all time. Most of all there was his writing - he was a highly skilled novelist especially and managed to propel his career with acclaimed writings, notably The Hiding Place (filmed as Situation Hopeless Not Serious) and The Man in the Glass Booth.

His most effective performances for many years were on stage and/or supporting roles. Phil Yordan tried to turn him into a film star with roles in The Battle of the Bulge and Custer of the West but he never really crossed over into big league stardom, which bugged him. He had a terrible problem with alcohol and was forever spending money (he had ten children in all to three different women... although, interestingly he wasn't a womaniser according to this book... too busy drinking and writing.) This forced him to make an awful lot of crap, although he had enough of the soul of an artist to continually go back to the low budget role.

The turning point really came in the 1970s when he left England to become a tax exile, moving to Ireland; his writing slowed to a trickle, he became unexpectedly popular in movies following The Sting, his drinking grew worse, his second marriage to Mary Ure ended horribly with him smacking her and her taking a fatal overdose of pills. He earned more and more money, never broke that million dollar film fee barrier he was desperate too and finally died of a heart attack when 52. His third wife was the nanny, with whom Shaw had been having an affair while married to Ure - probably out of efficiency more than anything else.

This is a fascinating book about a talented, tormented man. French was Shaw's agent and assistant for a number of years so has excellent insight - even if it is weird reading him talk about himself in the third person. There is a lot - possibly too much - about Shaw's financial arrangements and battles with the tax man, as well as seemingly endless stories of his difficulties putting on the play Cato Street.

I guess it's a matter of what you find interesting - I was hoping for more on Black Sunday and The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, which I think are great movies (French seems to be dismissive of them), plus his other films. I loved the stuff on Shaw's theatre career and novels about which I knew little. The stories of his personal life, particularly the Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf relationship with Ure, was harrowing and cries out for dramatisation.

There was some annoying errors - The Deep was actually a big hit, and Robin and Marian was written by James Goldman, not his brother William - which made me worry about the accuracy of the book in areas of which I knew less. But it's a great read and made me re-appreciate Shaw in a big way.

Movie review - "Escape from LA" (1996) **

Kurt Russell enjoyed a run of box office hits in the 90s which enabled him to get finance for a (very) late sequel to his 1980 hit Escape from New York - which had given Russell one of his favourite, if not favourite, roles: the enigmatic anti-hero Snake Plissken.  It's not hard to see why Russell loved the part so - he rarely looked more bad-ass, with his eye patch, three day growth and leather pants; the swagger and one liners; the back story that incorporated all sorts of mysterious missions; the nihilistic past. And he's as good as ever in the role. If anything the years have added a bit more shade.

The film isn't much though. It's hopeless muddled, a combination of a remake of the original, a campy cartoon satirical action piece, and a platform for Russell's libertarian political views. The three things do not mesh.

It's disappointing how much it copies the original while making it worse. In many respects the structure is almost identical: instead of Lee Van Cleef there's Stacy Keach and Michelle Forbes (and Cliff Robertson, I guess); there's a maguffin and Plissken thinks he's injected with something; instead of Donald Pleasance as the macguffin holder there's AJ Holder; Steve Buscemi replaces Ernest Borgnine, Georges Corraface replaces Isaac Hayes, Valerie Golina replaces Season Hubley, Pam Grier replaces Harry Dean Stanton. Even Plissken's double cross at the end is the same.

Yet there are some key, disastrous differences. I know John Carpenter was thinking "well Howard Hawks remade Rio Bravo with El Dorado and Rio Lobo" but Hawks maintained the basic dramatic tension of the concept i.e. a siege picture with baddies outside. Escape from New York had a very clear idea - New York was a prison and a horrible nightmarish place to be. It never went in to too much detail about what the outside world was like - it was clearly tough and not super fun, but was infinitely superior to the prison; all the prisoners in New York wanted to get out.  Here Los Angeles is a prison, but one where the prisoners preferred life inside to that on the outside. In Escape from LA the nightmare is modern day America - ruled by a dictatorial president who is in power for life, ruled by a religious fundamentalist regime who are also politically correct (banning smoking, red meat), outlawing muslims and leather jackets, threatened with invasion from the third world. LA is wild and wooly and dangerous but not to a good libertarian like Russell/Plissken and prisoners such as those played by Valerie Golina and Pam Grier would actually rather stay there. Which means it's not that scary, there's not the same impulse to leave, which undermines the drama.

Politically it is interesting. Plissken at the end removes power from the entire world - you don't get more libertarian than that. I'm sure patients in hospitals and people depending on refrigeration and heat to survive might feel differently but at least Russell had the guts to propagate his lunatic theories.

It's in the outlandish, campy comic book sections that I felt this movie was most successful, where it seemed to get its tone right: the underground sub Russell uses, the decaying aspects of Los Angeles (including remnants of Disneyland); Plissken having to play basketball in a court for survival; Plissken surfing a wave with Peter Fonda; the cameos from players such as Fonda, Robert Carradine (a skinhead), Bruce Campbell (fun as a plastic surgeon), Pam Grier (transsexual); the colourful production design.

Like I say the three movies don't mesh - they pull in different directions. But Carpenter completists, Russell fans and libertarians will get stuff out of it.

Movie review - "The Cassandra Crossing" (1976) ** (warning: spoilers)

A relic of its era, and as a result it has a certain charm: a Europudding all-star disaster film about a virus loose on a train travelling through Europe, with a cast that features something for everyone: Richard Harris (then at the height of his weird 70s career as an action star, that also included Golden Rendezvous and The Wild Geese) as a doctor; Sophia Loren in a role that is actually superfluous to the plot even though the producer was her husband (this happened surprisingly often in Loren films producer by her husband); Lee Strasberg in just his second film role as a Jew who doesn't want to go to Poland and who makes the inevitable comments about gas, camps and showers (were there no other offers after Godfather Part 2?); Lionel Stander as a porter in a part that led to his casting in Hart to Hart; OJ Simpson as a priest but actually an FBI agent; Harris' then-wife Ann Turkel as a singer with long hair and a tendency to be seen in bikini briefs despite the fact the movie is mostly set on a, well, train; Ava Gardner as a woman of mystery accompanied by a drug addicted toy boy Michael Sheen (wide-eyed and long haired and quite good); Burt Lancaster as a general quite willing to have the train go off a bridge so that America's involvement in germ warfare won't be exposed. 

(There's a strong strain of anti-Americanism through the movie which may have helped up the American bagging of the film... a similar thing happened with the much superior Quantum of Solace.)

It's a bit of a mess of a movie with a bunch of subplots and no one seems really at home but everyone appears to try. I think it was a mistake to stop the train and have everyone inspected- it slowed down momentum. And the ending isn't that satisfying - I wanted Lancaster to get more of a come uppance or to more clearly get away with it.

The film does get points for sending half the train over the bridge and killing heaps of passengers. And that cast is always likeable.

Movie review - "Godzilla" (1998) **

Big budget attempt to Americanise the most famous Japanese monster franchise of them all was a big disappointment - it made money, sure, but did anyone actually like it? And its a shame too because there's no reason why this team couldn't have pulled it off - Independence Day had its moments (unfashionable to say now but I enjoyed the first third, the wiping out of the human race). And Cloverfield showed that a rampaging monster on the loose never gets old.

But then Cloverfield did it right when this did it spectacularly wrong. There's no sense of urgency, the actions of the monster doesn't make sense, you never get the feeling lives are under threat. Independence Day "went there" - this doesn't. It's a real disappoinment.

Book review - "United Artists, Volume 1, 1919–1950 The Company Built by the Stars" by Tino Balio (1976)

The definitive corporate account of one of the most fascinating stories in Hollywood history - the creation and early years of United Artists. Famously set up by four of the biggest names in movies - Fairbanks, Chaplin, Pickford and Griffith - this covers it's first thirty years, struggling to survive in a cut throat industry, enjoying the occasionally success but never getting on a sure footing (it wouldn't until Krim and Benjamin came along... the subject of Volume 2).

It turned out classics from early on though - the four founders would help out but really it was people like Joseph Schenck,  Sam Goldwyn and Alex Korda who gave the company prestige. Indeed, the amount of fighting between Chaplin, Pickford and Fairbanks, it's a miracle the company survived as long as it did... but I guess it was a clarion call for independence in the oligarchy of Hollywood.

Every Hollywood studio deserves a book this good written about it.

TV review - "Deadline Gallipoli" (2015) ***

The central idea of this mini series is a strength and a weakness - by telling the story of the Gallipoli campaign through the eyes of war correspondents and photographers, it tackles it in a fresh way; less virginal soldiers thinking of mother going over the top, more sophisticated men of the world being disgusted with an incompetent campaign.

But it's also a weakness in that at the end of the day these people were journalists who just reported what they saw - sure there was pressure in terms of maybe having their accreditation taken away and be sent home, or copping the odd stray bullet/shrapnel... but it's hard to care too much when people are having their heads blown off nearby. And it's not like say All the Presidents Men where the journos are digging away at a story finding out more as they go - here they all know it was bad from the outset, it's just about getting the news out there.

So this story really has a hollow core. "We've got to get the news out" is never going to match "we've got to survive". Also the characterisations aren't that amazing: Joel Judge has a good First XV private school boy look as CW Bean but he starts off as dogged and ends up dogged with PTSD; Sam Worthington has some interesting logistics to play with as Philip Schuster and a romance with Jess De Gouw that wouldn't be out of place in a Charles Chauvel film; Hugh Dancy's sweaty upper class Englishman got on my nerves after a while.

There's still much to admire: the multi racial depiction of the campaign (is this the first Aussie realisation of Anzac to point out the presence of aboriginals, French and Indians there?), some superb battle sequences, a top notch cast, excellent production design, great vignettes such as the war shattered soldiers who have gone loco on the front lines.

Book review - "Directed by Ken G Hall" by Ken G Hall (1977)

Perhaps the most important memoir written by an Australian filmmaker because of Hall's contribution to Australian cinema. He remains our most consistently commercially successful filmmaker of local movies (i.e. Australian ones, not Hollywood), with a series of hits from 1932-46 only really interrupted by the stumble of Strike Me Lucky and to a lesser extent Come Up Smiling. (NB It should be pointed out that hard data supporting this is not readily available but contemporary newspaper accounts and the extent the films were distributed back him up). Yes, Hall made movies at a time before TV and with the backing of a big cinema chain, but other filmmakers had similar advantages (eg Chauvel) and stumbled.

I don't think he was a natural writer - the prose in this is often stilted and several portraits of colourful people don't really come alive (eg Stuart Doyle, George Wallace). But he has such great stories to tell: early cinema going experiences; working as a journalist and moving into publicity; the surprise appointment as director; the hard slog of making On Our Selection and it's massive success; his admiration for Bert Bailey and George Wallace; the disappointment of Strike Me Lucky; the solidification of Cinesound in the 30s; war work; the desperate struggle to reactivate filmmaking in Australia and subsequent heart break.

I thought there would be more on TV, in which Hall worked for a decade. He's also sketchy on his personal life, probably figuring people weren't interested.

His criticism of the Australian film industry remain valid and his proposed solutions actually still make sense (basically he offered up a studio model with an artistic director... kind of like theatre companies). I don't think temperamentally he would have been at home in feature filmmaking of the 70s and 80s but it's a shame he never got to be say head of drama at a TV network.

IIt's an important book - probably the most vital personal account of Australian filmmaking in the 30s and 40s. Though Hall could still go with a good biography as well.

Book review - "Robert Altman: The Oral Biography" by Mitchell Zuckoff (2009)

Patrick McGilligan wrote a wonderful biography of Altman but this is awesome too - an oral biography seems to suit the director because he was so keen to make his film sets and life one big party. Zuckoff has the benefit of working on this shortly after Altman's death, so people's memories are fresh but they can be honest because he's dead.

Altman had an incredible life - Kansas City upbringing, party boy youth, genuinely impressive war service as a bomber in the Pacific, early Hollywood dalliance ending unsatisfactorily, making corporates and industrials in Kansas City, becoming a genuinely great TV director (including Fabian's best performance, "A Lion Walks Among Us"), blowing many opportunities with his personality but always getting a second (then third, fourth and so on) chance due to his talent, breaking into features and becoming a legend with MASH.

Few directors' careers had more ebbs and flows than Altman's but he always managed to survive - if he would drop his budget, try new genres, move to Broadway and cable. Actors love for him meant he actually bounced back in the 1990s - he seemed to thrive in the world of independent cinema. A tiring man to fall in love with but he eventually found the perfect wife. Not a great father either - but what a legacy.

This is a terrific book.

Movie review - "The Sons of Katie Elder" (1965) ***

It's got a fantastic set up for a Western: Katie Elder is dead and her four sons arrive for the funeral, and try to make it up to her high standards by trying to avenge the death of... their father. Okay maybe the set up isn't so great... they should be trying to avenge the death of Katie Elder shouldn't they instead of some random dad?

But it gives John Wayne a great role as her gunslinging eldest son, and a nice support part for Dean Martin as a gambling son. The charisma of these two overshadows the others: Earl Holliman, in admittedly the dullest part as the dull son, and Michael Anderson Jnr as the kid they want to send to college. Tommy Kirk was meant to play Anderson's role until he got busted for drugs and it's a shame - he would have been a lot better.

The movie is never quite as good as you think it's going to be. It's got that great 60s colour, a memorable introduction from Wayne (standing among some boulders), a decent amount of action, Martin is given a scene to have some schtick, and Dennis Hopper livens up the support cast as a coward.

But the villains are too weak - you never think for one moment George Kennedy is going to be a threat, and I can't remember who the other baddies are. It's confused by having the brothers reunite for their mother's funeral but avenge their father, and you never get the sense the four are brothers - they have no chemistry - and Holliman and Anderson are weak. Also the love story is under-developed.

It's a movie you watch a go "you know they should remake this and do it right." They didn't with Four Brothers.

Book review - "Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon - Arnon Milchan" by Meir Dolman and Joseph Gelman (2011)

Arnon Milchan's name is well known to film fans as producer or executive producer on a large number of successful films; buffs got to know him well in the 80s and 90s as a financier and supporter of maverick directors: he helped fund Once Upon a Time in America, almost financed The Big Brass Ring for Orson Welles (something not addressed in this book, interestingly), supported Terry Gilliam in the Brazil battle.

His cinematic CV is very impressive: Fight Club, Gone Girl, Pretty Woman. Obviously as smart as a whip I had heard he was independently wealthy but didn't realise he was a billionaire. More than that he was a spy for Israel, using his business contacts to secure Israeli weapons, including the bomb.

Milchan wasn't a born and bred filmmaker - he is Israeli born (not a refugee, though descended from some), who inherited his father's fertilizer company. He expanded it and used it as a launching pad for other operations, which included helping provide weapons for Israel. It was a patriotic act for him but he also took a commission, and diversified into a bunch of other businesses and activities - including helping provide weapons for apartheid era South Africa.

In the 1970s he got involved in financing films, via Elliott Kastner, the producer who is connected with a lot of people at the early stage of their careers, and became successful at that too.

Not surprisingly, he was a successful womaniser, with various mistresses (usually Swedish) stashed in various parts of the world

This is a sympathetic biography, though I couldn't help feeling a sense of unease with Milchan helping Israel stock up on warheads and supporting the Afrikaaners. I also wished there was more on the movies - the authors seemed more interested in Israeli politics. Still, I learned a hell of a lot and it is a fascinating story.

Movie review - "Year of the Dragon" (1985) *** (warning: spoilers)

I still remember the trailer for this movie in the cinema and how much it gripped me - the intercut between a line crossing the screen and various set pieces: "Is Chinatown so bad now?", shoot outs, Arianne interviewing John Lon,e Mickey Rourke looking pensive. I really wanted to see the movie and always felt a little dissatisfied by it - so dark, such an unlikeable hero, yet with so many amazing sequences.

Watching it years on and the virtues remain intact - it looks fantastic, with sumptuous production design; amazingly, a film focusing on Chinese gangsters still has novelty (you think it would be a natural for Godfather type sagas but filmmakers tend to steer clear).

The action sequences are brilliant - a shoot out in a Chinese restaurant, the climax where Rourke and John Lone run at each other across a train bridge blasting away, the scene where some gang members are forced to kill assassins, Rourke taking on two female assassins, the hit on Rourke and his wife.

The movie is full of imaginative touches, like the Italian gangster who speaks through an electronic device, the nuns used as translaters. It's genuinely visually impressive (there's even a sequence in the Golden Triangle) - for all Cimino's indulgences as a director he knew how to fill a frame.

There is some very good acting too - John Lone is a superb villain (even though the character's background could have been flashed out a little more), Dennis Dun a touching nerdy undercover agent.

Rourke does everything he can he's simply ten years too young - the part needed to be played by someone who looked like they served in Vietnam, who had pain and years. Rourke would come to look like that but there he's just Mickey Rourke with powdered care. His character is hard to spend too much time with, with his constant racist cracks, misogyny and ignoring of procedure - he's not eve a particularly good cop either (Dennis Dun's work is more effective).

I can predict the argument that Cimino and Oliver Stone (the screenwriter) would make - "we're not endorsing the point of view of the hero, it's what real life cops talk like, it's based on historical fact" - but the film is racist. The hero is white, most of the villains are Asians, the one decent Asian cop is knocked off in time honoured tradition of the faithful servant, the one sympathetic Asian woman is basically a prostitute (badly acted by Arianne) who lives in a fancy apartment, falls in love with Rourke's character for no real reason whatsoever.

The version of the movie I saw felt cut down -parts like the corrupt cop and Rourke's wife felt as though there were more scenes in them.

I've got to say though, it is a film of power - it's intense and something lively always comes around the corner at you.

Movie review - "Fury" (2014) *** (warning: spoilers)

It may be unfair but I can't shake this image of David Ayer getting jobs in Hollywood by strutting around going "I've seen things in my life I don't like to talk about" with this mysterious air. So he's been given a plumb writing-directing gig of a big budget war film about a American tank crew in the last days of the campaign in Germany.

That's a solid idea for a movie - tank crews don't often get featured in films, so it has freshness, and you get to focus on a couple of characters as opposed to losing track of who is in a platoon.

There is a strong cast - Brad Pitt and Michael Pena can always be relied on, Shia le Bouf gives off a 1940s vibe (he's having a great second career as a character actor), John Bernthal does a variation on his Walking Dead performance but that's fine and Logan Lerman is effective in that old standby, the newbie to the unit. Aussie Xavier Samuel pops up as does Scott Eastwood.

Some of this is fantastic - a big set piece tank battle which shows how tanks worked during the war, an interlude where Pitt takes Lerman to stay with some German girls and its conveyed that he's doing it to get a respite from his men, the last moments of the men. It looks marvellous with all that mud and metal and blood. There are some lovely touches showing Pitt's PTSD (his hands shake a lot of the time, his eyes are haunted).

But other times it's silly and not true to its vision - it sets itself up as this darker depiction of war, with the Americans shooting Germans who surrender, and newbies having to scrape brains out of the tank - but can't resist a finale where Pitt insists they stay and take on a division of SS and almost succeed in wiping them all out. I mean, that's out of Bataan (1943). There are also too many lines which smack of wisdom and feel all writer-y ("this is war").

And the movie tries to have it's cake and eat it too by having Pitt be this psycho - he forces Lerman to shoot a surrendered soldier in the back, he basically allows Lerman to coerce a German girl into sex - but also a super hero, who is super wise, smart and brave and whose men adore him. (The argument in with these sort of characters is that "oh we're trying to depict a complex man we're not endorsing all his actions" but he's played by Brad Pitt, they give him super heroic achievements... it's annoying.)

Movie review - "Jack of Diamonds (1967) **

If you're in the mood for a cat burglar movie this will hit the spot because its got every cliche/trope of the genre your heart could desire: George Hamilton in an all black outfit climbing down a wall during the opening credits, a wise old protege (Joseph Cotten), a beautiful rival female cat burglar (Maria Laforet) and her protege (Maurice Evans), a dogged detective to bring him down, a key jewel, European locations (ski fields, the beach), a big final heist, Hamilton has a trapeze in his apartment that he uses to work out, lots of fancy outfits, Hamilton is called "Ace", Cotten has a secret involving Laforet.

I guess it does lack a beautiful heiress whose jewels are coveted by the burglar. However it does have a series of cameos by actresses playing themselves - Zsa Zsa Gabor, Carroll Baker, Lili Palmer.

It could have done with a third act betrayal and a tightened running time - it feels flabby. The last ten or so minutes drag especially.

George Hamilton tries but is a long way from Cary Grant - a lot of actors got roles by being newer, younger versions of old stars (eg Matthew McConaughey was the new Tom Cruise, Julia Ormond was the new Audrey Hepburn) and only survived if they carved out their own niche; Hamilton would but the niche was as a jokey suntanned playboy, not Cary Grant. Marie Laforet is beautiful but indistinguishable from numerous European actresses who popped up in films around this time. It's a pleasure seeing Cotten - a movie about him teaching Hamilton (the back story to this) would have been more interesting than what's going on; their relationship is reminiscent of Bob Wagner and Fred Astaire in It Takes a Thief. Maurice Evans is alright - might have been nicer if they'd cast some old time movie star to square off against Cotten.

Movie review - "Doctor, You've Got to Be Kidding!" (1967) **

Sandra Dee is once again far better than her material - I write this so often about that actor that I'm beginning to wonder, maybe it's she who brought the movies down. But I'm inclined to think not - there were a lot of mediocre rom coms in the sixties, all trying to cash in on the Doris Day-Debbie Reynolds riches, and poor old Dee got stuck with the dregs.

The movie is all over the shop and never gets it's focus right. It starts off with the finale, Palm Beach Story style as Dee rushes to hospital to give birth, with three men in tow - Dwayne Hickman, Bill Bixby and Dick Kallman. She's unmarried, which is a little risque for Dee in 1967, then we flashback to the events that led her there.

Dee's mum Celeste Holm wants her to be a singer, which Dee doesn't really but she goes along with. She's loved by muso Kallman, actor Hickman and womanising neighbour Bixby but Dee doesn't know what she wants. She goes to work as a secretary for eccentric George Hamilton, and eventually falls for him and they have sex and are about to get married... but he wants her to give up her singing and she's annoyed that he does. Thing is she really doesn't want to sing, and when she can't because she's pregnant, it doesn't bother her.

The singing is used as a device to get Dee to sing and dance a little, which she does quite well - but there's no point to it story wise because she doesn't want to do it, and when she gets pregnant she gives it up and seems to have no desire to go back to it. So it's hollow.

Dee's character is irritatingly passive - she goes along with her mother's dreams, the demands of her fellow band members, the seduction of Hamilton. Sure she fires up when Hamilton bosses her around, but she doesn't even tell him when she's pregnant. I wish they'd given her some goal - move out of home, have a baby, to get married, something.

She looks great and is charming. And once I got what Hamilton's character was meant to be - slightly aspergers stuffed shirt - I quite enjoyed him even if he was sexist. Veteran actor Allen Jenkins pops up in support as does Mort Sahl as a nightclub owner. There are some funny lines and cringy late 60s moments (including a visit to said nightclub) but it's no surprise this did not revive Dee's career.

Movie review - "The Wind" (1928) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

One of several classic films Lilian Gish made at MGM, at a time when silent movie making was reaching it's peak. It's confident and beautifully put together, although the ending is dumb.

I wasn't familiar with the story, so experienced the rare sensation of having it play out with no preconceptions. Basically Lilian goes to live on the plains, which are subject to howling, howling winds - so howling they send people ga ga. She makes eyes at a cad before finding out he's married, makes the wife of her cousin insane with jealousy, and so marries a nice lug head down the road (Lars Hanson) but doesn't love him. The cad comes back and rapes her (it's implied) so Gish - who by now have been driven ga ga herself in the wind - shoots him. She buries him outside but the wind uncovers and body and Gish goes even more mad which is awesome.

Then it gets confusing. The husband turns up, can't find the body, says something about wind washing away sins, then she says she loves him and isn't afraid anymore. It was a tacked on happy ending that feels false, when clearly Gish should go walk out into the wind and die.

But it is amazing to look at - the Swedish director clearly got the concept of the film, the windswept plains, the isolation and madness... it's a very Scandinavian MGM film. Gish is terrific and Lars Hanson does well in support (those sort of understated roles are harder to do than you think). I was disappointed Dorothy Cumming, as the jealous woman, didn't go berko with the knife, like you think is going to happen.

Movie review - "Bathing Beauty" (1944) ***

The film that launched Esther Williams as a star, although it was originally conceived as a vehicle for Red Skelton. It's a fascinating hodge podge sort of movie containing a bit of everything - something like seven different writers worked on it, and you can tell. Plots come and go, comic bits and musical numbers feel randomly inserted - it gives the impression of say a 1930s musical, before Oklahoma! came along and introduced more discipline to the form... in other words basically a variety show with a series of different acts and numbers and some random book trying to give it narrative and failing.

However it does work on those terms. It helps too that it was MGM in the 1940s so production values are top notch. Esther gets to have some spectacular swimming numbers, the color photography looks great, Red Skelton does some funny bits (and actually is one of her best leading men).

The plot involves - if I've got this right - producer Basil Rathbone (under contract to MGM at the time but not very well used by the studio) wants to break up Skelton and Esther Williams because he wants Skelton to work for him. He succeeds so Williams runs off to a girls school... and Skelton enrols in it in order to win her back. It's all very silly and stupid but you never spend too much time with the story - there's always a musical number (a lot of ones with a Latin feel) coming around the corner.

Esther is very pretty and has charisma, no doubt about it - people made cracks about her ability out of the water but she's likeable, with a warm, girl next door personality. Not everyone could have done what she did. I wasn't that familiar with Skelton's work - I'm not a massive fan after having seen the film but he's not bad. There's a wide galaxy of supporting players doing their thing - spitfire Latino, pompous man/woman, lunk head false love interest etc. So bright and colourful and carefree that in hindsight you can see why war audiences lapped it up.

Script review - "Tusk" by Kevin Smith (2013)

After seeing the film I thought I'd read the script on line - Smith scripts are often entertaining to read because he's such a good writer and are often dialogue heavy. There are some interesting differences from the final film - the script is even shorter, lacking several moments back in the real world involving Wallace, and a scene between Guy and Howard. Wallace is more of a dick head in the script, going off to have sex with swingers (he tells his girlfriend, who is far less sympathetic here - she still cheats on him), more obnoxious. It doesn't have the convenience store girls and there's a different Canadian customs official.

The stuff involving the walrus transformation feels the same - and overlong, though the imagery and weirdness of it is there. In some ways I preferred the script's depiction of Wallace as a nastier person, it made his torture a little easier. It still lacks a strong third act, and feels padded even at this tighter length.

Movie review - "Breakheart Pass" (1975) *** (warning: spoilers)

Not a classic, but entertaining and different - Alistair MacLean, only it's in the West, only it's mostly on a train and in the snow, only it stars Charles Bronson. He's a captured prisoner who winds up on a train headed to a fort where there's a diptheria outbreak... only he's not really a prisoner but a secret agent, and there's no outbreak, but a conspiracy between gun runners and Indians.

These twists might have been more exciting if we hadn't seen them in several MacLean works before - including an under-developed love subplot (Jill Ireland), a "surprise" traitor, a friend of the hero who is killed. Occasionally the film is let down by crappy 70s handling (those musical stings in particular always make it feel like a TV movie, as does - and this is a little mean but it's true - the presence in the cast of Ed Lauter).

But there's some great alpine scenery, the novelty of Bronson playing Miss Marple, I'm a sucker for a train movie, a sequence where a train falls of a bridge is genuinely spectacular, and the support cast includes Charles Durning, Richard Crenna and Ben Johnson.

Movie review - "Red Dragon" (1965) **

Following his divorce from Jean Simmons, Stewart Granger hot footed it to Europe and made a bunch of movies of, um, varying quality. This fell into the "less good" category, a Eurospy thriller whose main attraction is some really impressive Hong Kong location photography - in particular there's lots of scenes shot on the harbour involving the junks, which look terrific

Granger plays an FBI agent investigating the death of two agents who were looking into a smuggling ring. Rosanna Schiaffino is another agent who helps him out.

There's a lot of running around and people kidnapping each other and pointing guns at each other. Granger looks in great shape despite the gray hair and kicks a bit of butt. This wasn't a great movie but it got better as it went along particularly as it focused more on action instead of the dopey plot.

Movie review - "When Eight Bells Toll" (1971) **1/2

Anthony Hopkins didn't really become a star until Silence of the Lambs but his reputation as a brilliant stage actor meant several attempts were made to turn him into one before then. This was the first real go - Elliott Kastner had a big hit with Alistair MacLean's Where Eagles Dare and wanted to kick off a MacLean "franchise" about salvage expert Phil Calvert starring Hopkins. It didn't really turn out that way but the novelty of seeing Hopkins as an action her is a big plus of this movie.

He's not too bad - intense, great voice - even though you don't quite buy him in the fight scenes (Burton wasn't great at those either). The story is more problematic. I mean, it's not bad - involving deliberate sinking of vessels to pinch bullion - it just feels a bit TV. 

It starts off impressively with Hopkins discovering some murdered agents, then gets bogged down with him strolling around the islands looking for clues. It feels murky and lacks the full throttled excitement of his better works - it doesn't have the ticking clock of a guys on a mission film.The baddies are robbers but the hero makes a lot of cracks about the worthlessness of rich people. It's more Jamaica Inn or The Hardy Boys than Guns of Navarone at times - it feels too TV.

There are some familiar MacLean tropes: a person close to the hero turns out to be a traitor (Nathalie Delon), the baddy is a decoy (Jack Hawkins using Charles Gray's voice as a millionaire only doing it because his wife is hostage), the death of a friend (Corin Redgrave). Robert Morley is the "M" character, who goes along on the mission.

It's a gloomy looking film - overcast skies, crashing waves, ocean - with some craggily beautiful Scottish photography. The director was someone called Etiene Perier - I don't think he does a very good job with creating suspense or atmosphere - or handling actors (who I had trouble telling apart). There's not much chemistry between Hopkins and Natalie Delon.

Some of the action is okay and at times its enjoyable.

Movie review - "Tusk" (2014) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Kevin Smith goes weird with another horror comedy in the vein of Red State which shows his continued confidence as a filmmaker - though it wasn't as good as his earlier stab in the genre. It has some great moments and wonderful acting but I kept feeling it wasn't quite a feature - maybe more a 50 minute episode of an anthology TV show.

Justin Long is effective as the egotistical podcaster who has an experience even worse than James Caan in Misery - Long is meant to be a prick (greedy, making fun of people, cheating on his girlfriend) - but because Long is so likeable, and he's not that bad, and his girlfriend his cheating on him with his best friend, you still really feel for the poor guy and he doesn't deserve what happens to him.

Michael Parks is given another fantastic role by Smith as the crazy serial killer and there is good work from chubby Hayley Joel Osmet and Genesis Rodriguez, plus some enjoyable Smith family cameos eg Ralph Garman. I loved some bright Smith dialogue (eg the exchange with the customs official), felt the "Not see Party" gag was over-used, and the reveal of the walrus costume was stunningly effective and the ending didn't cop out. I liked Smith's daughter and Johnny Depp's daughter (the latter stunning beautiful) as bored convenience clerk workers.

Where the film fell down was in the last third after the transformation. It needed an extra twist and you think you're going to get it when Johnny Depp pops up as a cop. But he mainly craps on with a dodgy nose and gets a long flash back with Parks. Sure he fleshes out the back story but really everything Depp's character does could be done by Rodriguez and Osmet, and the movie drags when it should accelerate. I did like the ending though.

Movie review - "A Long Way Down" (2013) **

I really liked the book - this movie is reasonably faithful and has a great cast. How did it go so wrong? For me the main problem was it didn't capture the spirit of the book. The mood of suicide and hopelessness, enlivened by humour, has pretty much evaporated. Sure they talk about it every now and then but you never feel anyone means it.

The cast of names actually aren't, in the long run, that well cast - I'm aware Pierce Brosnan has suffered pain in his life, but he's too stiff and self contained an actor to access sadness and despair in the way, say, Bill Nighy or even Hugh Grant could have done. Imogen Poots' wacky girl is just plain irritating - surely there were better people out there. Toni Collette has played drab sad sacks too often and there's no sense of genuine pain. Ditto Aaron Paul.

Maybe I'm being unfair on the actors - all have done excellent work at some time in their careers. And every now and then in quiet moments you get a glimpse of what this film could be: Collette and her disabled son, Poots being jealous over a girl interested in Paul.

But far too often scenes play out like clunky scenes on stage; endless moments of the characters running around together being wacky (dancing, going swimming). There is too much emphasis on the gag line (usually from Poots) and talk about the media (the main "plot" involve the four being temporarily famous) rather than genuine emotion; the film feels afraid of suicide - you never for one moment think any of them are going to do it.. Hornby's voice is badly missed. It's poorly directed and put together.

Movie review - "Bloodsport" (1989) **

The film that launched Jean Claude Van Damme as a star and he's the best thing about it - in addition to the standard fighting hero stuff (quick with fists, good build), he has fresh faced, innocent good looks, and a naive quality that is appealing, even if his acting is limited; the accent is part of the charm.

This has an odd sort of plot: he plays an army guy who goes AWOL in order to compete in a mysterious underground fight tournament in Hong Kong. A pretty journalist wants to know about this tournament, so sleeps with Jean Claude; two special agents (one of them Forest Whittaker!) want to track him down and bring him back to the army for no really good reason; Jean Claude is doing it for the honour of his teacher... who is still alive (is it that important?). He fights the main baddy to get revenge for crippling his friend (Orgre from Revenge of the Nerds) - but he only just met Ogre and Ogre kind of deserved it anyway because he gloated when the fight was still going on. And it's based on a true story.

Location filming in Hong Kong helps, and there are some decent fight scenes. It's got late 80s charm too, such as the Cannon Group logo, rock soundtrack, wisecracking Chinese sidekick, the hair of the girl; there's also a flashback to Jean Claude as a kid, meeting his sensei - the young actor has a weird accent and everything.

TV review - "Scandal" Season 1 and 2

Highly enjoyable "page turning" TV with twist upon twist upon twist and perhaps the greatest excuse for a couple to not get together on tv in ages: Kerry Washington and Tony Goldwyn love each other but he can't leave his wife because he's the Republican president and lunatic vice president Kate Burton would get in and push her Bible thumping agenda. Washington is a powerful independent woman who looks great but seems scared a lot of the time; everyone adores her. The show is unfortunately pro torture in that it consistently shows torture to be an effective method of information gaining.

Movie review - "Where Eagles Dare" (1968) ****1/2 (warning: spoilers)

I can't be objective about this film because I loved it so much growing up - the quintessential Saturday night action movie, with its brooding heroes, sexy ladies, rousing score, stunning photography.

There are some things unique to this which make it especially lovely: the alpine setting, leading to fights on cable cars, snug pubs, chilly towers, castles on mountain tops, soldiers in whites (has there ever been a bad action movie set in the snow? On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Die Hard 2...); it has some great dames, with always watchable Ingrid Pitt plus stage legend Mary Ure blasting away with a machine gun at the end; it has Clint Eastwood has a handbag - kind of not really needed by the plot, though well covered ("I needed someone I could trust") and with some nice dry lines of humour; there is an Alistair Maclean plot par excellance: gang on a mission, gang includes some traitors, mission has a twist.

Most of all there is Richard Burton, ruthless and kicking arse, and getting ten minutes of pure monologue around the two-thirds mark - something I don't think any other actor could have pulled off, at least not as enjoyably.

To be fair, rewatching this years on and I can see many faults: it goes on far too long; I was confused by the choreography a lot of the time (I'd forget peoples faces i.e. that the three soldiers at the end were on the original mission); the logic of a lot of Burton's actions defies logic (allowing himself to be captured is awfully risky). An awful lot of extras and bit players are killed very easily - knocking off Germans feels too simple.

But it's Where Eagles Dare - its beyond criticism. Pitt and Ure are fantastic heroines, and make you really scratch your head as to why they didn't try harder to get women into Ice Station Zebra. Patrick Wymark adds some great oily villainy - I've never forgotten the sweat on his top lip in his final scene, or his death. Derren Nesbitt's Gestapo Nazi is always enjoyable, and Donald Houston easily stands out among the traitors. And of course there's Burton, having the time of his life - at least, I like to think so.

Movie review - "100 Bloody Acres" (2012) ***

A lovely surprise - I had no expectations going into watching this, good or bad, but came away impressed with a tightly made, fun horror comedy with plenty of humour and gore. Angus Sampson and Damon Herriman are believable as weird arsed brothers, Anna Mcgahan likeable as the girl, Oliver Ackland subverts expectations as one of the boys. Tight script, polished handling.

Movie review - "Locke" (2013) ***1/2

One of those gimmick films, like Buried or Phone Booth - this was one person driving in a car in real time talking on the phone. It gets points for not being about a gangster, soldier or assassin - he's just a regular guy... well, a reasonably successful concrete worker (his car is very nice) driving north to attend the birth of his son... to a woman not his wife. He's got to break the news to his wife, deal with a lot of concrete hassle, and also handle stresses of the baby coming.

At times - I admit it - I wish there was gunplay or murder involved but for the most part this was surprisingly engrossing. It took me a few minutes to get into it, but I did, helped by Tom Hardy's strong performance (he plays it in a Welsh accent). Occasionally the drive feels padded and you can't help wondering if at heart this wasn't a 30 or 50 minute episode of a TV anthology drama. But matters are helped by strong acting from the voices at the other end of the phone, and some beautiful photography and lovely music.

Movie review - "Kingsman: The Secret Service" (2014) ****

A nice surprise: sure, it pretty much just regurgitates other movies but so did Star Wars and like that, this is full of energy and panache and some surprisingly genuine emotion. Matthew Vaughan, Jane Goldman and co have munched up a whole bunch of movies - James Bond, of course, but also the Harry Ipcress and Flint series, Star Wars, zombie flicks and others - and turned it into an English lads mag wet dream, very well done.

Taron Egerton is surprisingly non annoying as the working class spiv, complete with up turned cap and tracksuit, who is turned into a secret agent; Colin Firth has the time of his life as a posh but deadly secret agent, having two spectacular fight scenes (although sometimes these feel overly computer generated - they may not be, they just feel that way); Michael Caine and Samuel L Jackson add gravitas and pop culture fun; Sophie Cookson is a spunky heroine though I wish she'd been given more to do in the final battle; Mark Strong is an excellent red herring for the third act traitor; Sofia Boutella's henchwoman is superior to many in the Bond series.

There is a very funny My Fair Lady gag, a not so great one about anal sex (is it that hard to persuade people to do it?), a lot of subversion and plenty of style. A lot of fun.

Book review - "The Mystery of a Hansom Cab" by Fergus Hume (1886) (warning: spoilers)

At one stage this ranked with among the most famous Australian novels of all time, up there with Robbery Under Arms and For the Term of His Natural Life - it was frequently adapted for the stage and screen, most recently by the ABC in 2012. Do people read it anymore? Does it remain famous? I have no idea.

Anyway it holds up really well - it's an enjoyable page turner, with a decent mystery. I'm not saying it's a classic, at least not a capital "C" classic, but it is a strong little story. It has solid depiction of Melbourne at the time - with its combination of bars, seedy back alleys, class divisions, mansions.

It did throw me how the protagonist kept changing - there was the original detective, then the young man accused, then his girlfriend, then his lawyer and another detective, who saw the action home. On one hand this meant you were never sure what was going to happen - on the other, there was never any one person to "hook" into. Also the character of Brian Fitzgerald was an overly convenient idiot at times, keeping quiet to avoid scandal of illegitimacy sneaking out (just like Rufus Dawes). But I guess it was interesting in that Fitzgerald didn't go easily off into the sunset. I also liked the competition between the two detectives, and the reveal of the actual killer. This book is worth a read.

Movie reviews - "Drinking Buddies" (2013) **1/2

Most mumblecore - or mumblecore-ish - movies don't get much of a run in Australia, but this one did, because of it's all star cast (okay maybe not "stars" but names): Olivia Wilde, Jake Johnson, Anna Kendrick and Ron "oh yeah that guy" Livingstone.  Plus Jason Sudeikis and Ti West have small roles. Several of the men have beards - it seems to be a real thing.

The world of brewery workers is a fresh one and the relationship between work pals Wilde and Johnson is universal and well handled - flirtatious, fun, undermining both their other romantic relationships, but neither seemingly wanting to actually commit to each other.

It is well acted, particularly by Wilde, though I could have done with more story or at least more unusual characters. It didn't quite sustain its running time for me, and I felt needed a decent plot twist/fillip. But I didn't mind it while it was on.

Movie review - "Wake in Fright" (1971) ***

It's great that an Aussie film from so long ago remains well remembered - I mean, a 2009 cinema re-release, how good is that? And it's definitely a work of quality - some stunning photography and acting. But is it over praised?

Maybe it's one for the baby boomers. That's definitely what Gary Bond is - a school teacher stuck out in a small town, and bitterly resenting it, like a good old entitled boomer. While waiting for a flight home he gets too drunk and is drawn into a two up game and loses all his money, like an idiot. The locals are actually friendly - Al Thomas invites him to his house, where his daughter Sylvia Kay offers to seduce him and mates take him out on a kangaroo shoot. But Bond can't get it up for the girl, and gets all shaky about shooting the roo - he could have said "no". Then later he's taken to Donald Pleasance's place and Pleasance has sex with him but it doesn't look un-consensual. Bond continues to whinge, tries to kill himself but doesn't, and winds up a broken man.

Maybe it's because I'm a Queenslander and this stuff isn't foreign to me but the outback and its people here aren't terrifying or scary - they're actually hospitable. Boorish, yes; misogynistic, absolutely; brutal in a way - of course. But they aren't mean. Bond is free to go his own way, he just doesn't wake it. He's offered beer, company, sex (straight and gay), hunting expeditions, hospitality. He doesn't have the guts to have a cup of coffee, and read a book, or seek out sober companionship.

For me, this is a film about a weak whinging person determined to prove he's a man but he can't - he can't even kill himself. I'm not saying that's not dramatically valid - I just don't feel it's a classic or an indictment on our nation.

Jack Thompson's charisma bounces off the screen, it was a fantastic role for Chips Rafferty to play (the kind but nosy police chief), Donald Pleasance is effectively creepy as always. I didn't mind Gary Bond even if his character was a dick. Stunning photography and Tony Buckley's editing of the roo sequence is deservedly famous.

Movie review - "These Final Hours" (2014) **** (warning: spoilers)

There's been a few good movies coming out of WA for a while now - this is one, an intense, testosterone driven look at the last few hours of the world.  A meteor has hit and everyone is going to die so people are reacting in crazy ways - prayers, looting, random acts of sex, drugs and violence. Nathan Phillips just wants to get wasted even though his pretty girlfriend (Jessica De Gouw) wants to spend the last few hours together. It's a hell of an introduction, with the foot put on the throttle - and things get more intense when he rescues a young girl from being raped and decides to take her to her family.

There's not going to be much of a happy ending in this movie, but it gets points for not whimping out - Phillips discovering his sister and hubby have killed their kids and then themselves, a neighbour being hacked to death on the street, the little girl decides to stay with her dead family rather than Phillips.

It's a very blokey bloke look at the end of the world - drugs, partying, speeding cars, heroically saving little girls, not wanting to commit to your girlfriend, avoiding psycho exes, Russian roulette, reluctantly seeing your mother.

Nathan Phillips gives a strong performance as does Angourie Rice as the girl; there are good cameos by Dan Henshal, Sarah Snook, Lynette Curran and Jess DeGouw. It's beautifully shot and scored; the script could have done maybe with more of a story instead of being a collection of scenes, but they are strong scenes.

Book review - "Clint: The Life and Legend" by Patrick McGilligan (2002)

A controversial book when it came out because it took a much harsher view on Eastwood than we normally hear about - charges which demanded to be taken seriously because McGilligan is one of our major film biographers. McGilligan does his typically excellent, professional job - he does plenty of research, there are lots of interviews.

It's just his judgements feel a little... cranky, maybe? Exasperated? McGilligan seems to get really annoyed with the media and critics who easily swallow the Eastwood myth - he's publicity shy, he's a feminist movie maker, he's a great movie maker, he's a great American. I felt McGilligan was a little unfair on the critics and Eastwood himself and perhaps unduly influenced by fawning attitudes of the press.

I should add though that McGilligan provides enough facts for the reader to draw their own conclusions. My own take was Eastwood doesn't come across that badly - a bit ruthless and vindictive, sure; tight with the buck, absolutely. But he is surrounded by people who are always wanting a piece of him - all these "betrayed" friends and associates could try to make money off other projects. Yes he had a big ego, like every Hollywood star. But his survival at the top is remarkable - as are the creative risks he continued to take: Breezy, Play Misty for Me, Every Which Way But Loose, Bronco Billy, Black Hunter White Heart... these were not safe choices.

Anyway back to the book - its superb on Eastwood's family history and early years, especially him breaking into Hollywood and the large number of people who helped him (during the first decade he really coasted in life on his looks). Very thorough on Rawhide and the Leone Westerns. If it feels less strong in the stuff on the 70s through to 90s it may be because that material is more familiar. A strong book nonetheless.

Movie review - "Gosford Park" (2001) *****

A wonderful movie, perhaps Robert Altman's best - he has an entirely fresh setting (a mansion in the early 1930s), a new - for him at anyway - genre (Agatha Christie type murder), a superb script by Julian Fellows, a complex subject matter (class system of the time), and a sensational cast. He keeps his indulgences under control and focuses on tackling things with a fresh, withering eye.

Everyone is so good - Maggie Smith's bitchy aristocrat, Kelly MacDonald's sweet little maid, Clive Owen's brooding man of mystery, Helen Mirren's devoted maid (heartbreaking at the end with Eileen Atkins), Kirsten Scott Thomas' sensual lady of the house, Michael Gambon's horrible aristocrat (with his little dog everywhere), Emily Watson's wise old maid (I predict she'd wind up as a top Hollywood executive or a leading madam), Bob Balaban's pushy producer, Camilla Rutherford's dopey aristocrat, Tom Hollander's panicky son in law, Alan Bates corrupted butler, Richard E Grant's campy and vengeful footman, Jeremy Northam's Ivor Novello, Eileen Atkins' lioness cook. Even Ryan Philippe is good as an annoying bisexual actor.

It's consistently entertaining and interesting - it has a social point, some marvellous dialogue, and a decent story. A masterpiece.

Movie review - "This Thing Called Love" (1992) **1/2

An odd sort of a movie - part romance, part ensemble piece about friendship, part musical, part star vehicle for Samantha Mathis. It's not hard to see why it wasn't a big hit - on the other hand you can see too why some people would like it a lot. It's got a good heart and features one of River Phoenix's last performances, plus one of Sandra Bullock's first, and occasionally manages to be something sweet and interesting.

It starts off clunkily, with Mathis arriving in Nashville to make it as a singer-songwriter, with what seems to be very rudimentary direction and some really awkward scenes. But it gets better as it goes along (or maybe I got more used to what the director was trying to do) - those long takes Bogdanovich likes to do were particularly effective, and I wish the whole movie had been full of them.

The other movie of the director's this reminded me most of was They All Laughed - the easy banter and sense of camraderie amongst the characters (Howard Hawks influenced no doubt), the unexpected warmth from strangers (the policeman who pitches his songs, the person crashed into by Dermot Mulroney who is excited for Mulroney to hear his song on the radio, the girls watching River Phoenix propose), the use of country music.

Maybe at times he was going for a Last Picture Show vibe as well but the characters aren't as strong - Mathis basically plays a good girl, Phoenix a brooding bad boy who is kind of good, Bullock a warm comic relief, Mulroney a nice guy who likes to drink... Either these characters could have been fleshed out more, or we could have done with a few more characters (They All Laughed had one or two more).

Also I felt Mathis wasn't quite strong enough to carry the movie. I had a crush on her in the early 90s as did a lot of people who saw her in Pump Up the Volume - but she doesn't have the warmth and charm of Bullock. I'm nor surprised she got a leading role after Volume - on the other hand, I'm not surprised she wasn't offered too many more. (Though it should be said that attractive male actors get more chances than female).

Oh and I wasn't wild about the music. But still, it's a charming tale in it's own way.

Book review - "Take Two" by Philip Dunne (1992)

In his diaries, Charles Brackett makes a few swipes at Philip Dunne as a dull, boring liberal. It was a little nasty of Brackett - and ironic, especially considering Brackett worked as Dunne's producer at 20th Century Fox several times in the 1950s. But after reading this book I get the feeling Brackett was right.

Dunne was a very good writer who seems like a nice guy with impeccable liberal credentials - helping set up with WGA, early opposition to Nazism and communism, making movies in the war, solid Democrat... But his memoirs are so dull.

To me, at any rate - he talks far too much about the politics in Hollywood at the time, all the dealings with anti-fascist organisations, and Communist groups, and labour and the studios, and it's written in stuffy, unengaging manner. Towards the end of the book he goes on and on (and on and on) about Ronald Reagan the politician, and American politics of the 80s and 90s, and it's just so dull and you don't care.

And more surprisingly it's not very well written. Yes, okay, I"m not that much interested in the politics of the time but surely Dunne could have made things more lively - had more of an eye for character and anecdote?

The most interesting big comes in the middle where Dunne talks about some of his adventures in the screen trade - a screenwriter for Fox in the 30s, working his way up to become one of Daryl Zanuck's top guns, credits including How Green Was My Valley and Pinky - eventually turning producer and director.  Film buffs will particularly enjoy his anecdotes about making Wild in the Country, The Robe, David and Bathsheba, Prince of Players and Ten North Frederick. But Dunne doesn't seem that interested in talking about films - his preference seems to be crapping on about politics.

Dunne would up directing ten features none of them particularly distinguished except Ten North Frederick (he did helm Wild in the Country with Elvis Presley!). He's full of excuses as to why none of the movies particularly worked - not enough budget, public didn't go for the subject matter, studio wouldn't give him the names he wanted in the cast. So it comes as a shock at the end to read Dunne considered him more suited to directing than writing; I'm sorry but ten times at bat, you should have an idea of how good you are and he was simply mediocre. A very good screenwriter - and obviously a decent humane man. A mediocre memoirist.

Movie review - "Maximum Risk" (1996) *** (warning: spoilers)

One of the most distinguishing things about Jean Claude Van Damme's career is he brought over so many Hong Kong directors to Hollywood. Hard Target introduced us to John Woo and this was the Hollywood debut of Ringo Lam, famous for City on Fire. Good move too for Lam is clearly trying hard to make this fresh and different - there is plenty of energy, the quality of support acting is strong, the action sequences are consistently interesting (a chase through a Russian steam bath, crashing on to taxis, fights in rickety old elevators). Van Damme gives one of his best performances.

The story isn't bad either and gets off to a great start, with Van Damme being pursued... then killed... then revealed to have a long lost identical twin a la Double Impact who is the actual hero. He takes his brother's place, which involves going to New York, meeting a comic relief cab driver (whose death is a big shock and good writing) and his brother's girlfriend (the gorgeous and ever-likeable Natasha Hestridge, who flashes a bit of boob and proves to be probably Van Damme's strongest female co star ever), and has Russian mafia.

However after 40 minutes or so I began to feel the filmmakers made a mistake killing off the brother - there was something a little hollow about him avenging the death of someone he never met and would never meet; the brother surviving and entering the action would have made a great third act. It would have enhanced the emotion of the film.

TV review - "Orange is the New Black: Season 3" (2015) ****

The season premiere of this got things off to a wonky start and my expectations were low but it got better as it went along and some of the arcs proved surprisingly durable: privatisation of the prison led to some excellent satire (I love the moment "am I being fired?" "HR will talk you through it") and a great characterisation in the new boss of the warden; I went with Piper becoming more corrupted (though I did get sick of soiled panties gag) and enjoyed Soso's breakdown and the new religion and the Jewish food plot; Ruby Rose isn't much of an actor but she was very well cast. Loved the finale, with moment of warmth undercut with buses upon buses of new arrivals.