TV review - "Parks and Recreation Season 3" (2011) *****

The show totally clicks into gear now they've got the cast right - the one sore thumb aspect, getting Rashida Jones into stories, is solved when she gets a job with the department. Some great arcs - the harvest festival, Andy and April's romance - and ends with a great climax, Lesley being offered to run for office.

TV special - "A Very Murray Christmas" (2015) **1/2

Sure, whatever. Some charm of Bill Murray singing tunes in a hotel room - Sofia Coppola's direction doesn't always mesh neatly with more stock in joke material, like Michael Cera as an agent and Amy Poehler as an assistant. The cameos feel a bit "grab bag"-y: George Clooney, Miley Cyrus, Maya Rudolph... It's a bit different, I didn't mind it, but... sure, whatever.

Movie review - "Gangs Inc" (1941) **1/2 (aka "Paper Bullets")

Unpretentious, lively little C movie which clocks in at barely over an hour, was shot in six days for $20,000 but proved profitable and launched the King Brothers as producers. It shoves an awful lot of plot in its tiny running time - within the first 15 minutes the female lead has seen her former gangster father gunned down, grown up in an orphanage, gotten fired, and taken the rap for her useless boyfriend having killed someone while drunk driving. She becomes an arch criminal after getting out of prison but still has a heart of gold - as shown by her wanting to donate money for a park, and ultimately take down some gangsters.

In case there wasn't enough plot, there's two boys who grew up in the orphanage with the girl, one who is a decent engineer, the other who is a gangster - plus Alan Ladd as an undercover agent being a gangster being in love with the girl's best friend, who has time to sing two songs.

The acting is very strong - Joan Woodbury is solid in the lead, Jack La Rue impresses as the gangster (I wish he'd had more screen time), Alan Ladd is a little stiff but has charisma in the sort of role that would become his bread and butter (he's got the looks and the voice already). (When Eagle Lion re-released it as Gangs Inc - they gave Ladd top billing.)

It's no classic and they really shoved in a lot of plot. Also some key emotional moments are missed - I feel they lack a La Rue-Woodbury love story and the ending is very abrupt. But it certainly moves and to not have affection for films like this feels just plain mean.

TV review - "Parks and Recreation: Season 2" (2010) ****

It's fascinating to see the show finding it's feet. Amy Poehler, Rashina Jones, Aubrey Plaza and Nick Offerman were all very strong - this season sees the blossoming of Chris Pratt and Aziz Ansari, both of whom have been made a lot more positive and active in their goals, whether it's to get Jones back (Pratt) or become a tycoon (Ansari). Paul Schneider's character is sidelined into a solely romantic plot with Jones and given minimal screen time; a harsh decision but the right one because in one or two eps he spills into wacky storylines and threatens to bring the whole mood down. He simply didn't fit.

there's cute romantic arcs with Justin Theroux and Louis C.K. Natalie Morales is cute but I feel the role of Ansari's long term girlfriend could have been really special. Some stunningly good guest characters. And at the end for the last two eps when Adam Scott and Rob Lowe join you go "yes, they've got the combination right".

Script review - "A Safe Place" by John Sayles (1993)

I've got the feeling that the script I read was rewritten by hands other than Sayles - something about the style (lots of exclamation marks and excitable action descriptions as well as quoting "Art of War" and the script is clearly tailored for Dolph Lundgren) didn't feel solely his work. I could be wrong. But this draft felt very close to the final film, which was worked on by two other writers.

I enjoyed reading this script more than watching the film. Maybe I was in a more forgiving mood or something, but I liked the swiftness with which the characters were created (tough Nick, Aussie Ocker, the wise colonel, female merc Grace), and the logic of the story. I wish they'd found more for Loki the beautiful village girl to do i.e. that she'd been more involved in the fight.

Book review - "The Politician: An Insider's Account of John Edwards's Pursuit of the Presidency and the Scandal That Brought Him Down" by Andrew Young (2010)

I read this because Aaron Sorkin has announced his intention to make a film out of it and I hope he does because it's a great yarn. It lacks a sympathetic hero and all that crap but its a fascinating look at the John Edwards story, the glamour boy who wanted to be President. He had self made wealth, a dead son, looks, Southern connections, charisma, a smart wife. He also had flaws - a lack of desire to be any sort of politician other than President (he was a one term congressman), lack of focus on policy and at heart seems to have been dumb - so dumb as to have an affair with a woman while his wife was dying of cancer and think he could get away with it. To make things worse he got Young to claim to be father of his mistresses baby. Did anyone think that would work? Ever?

There are other terrific characters too: devoted, bright Young; his womanising, social rights preacher dad; the driven, smart Elizabeth Edwards who goes kind of mad via the actions of her husband and Young, but would have been a far better president than her husband; Young's long suffering wife; billionaire Bunny Mellon who was devoted to Edwards; jovial trial lawyer Fred Barton who also helped Edwards; new age mistress Rielle Hunter, prone to tantrums and over sharing about her sex life; Hunter's spiritual adviser.

The book is well written and feels as though Young tries to be fair. It's full of moments which would make great scenes and great little details. Young seems happy to portray himself as an idiot as much as Edwards.

A "what if" - if Edwards had resigned from politics when his wife fell ill and nursed her, he would have been a very strong chance in 2016. But he couldn't wait.

Movie review - "Men in War" (1994) **1/2

A decent Dolph Lundgren actioner which benefits from a script by John Sayles but is actually a little dull. Dolph plays a mercenary recruited to help take over an island on behalf of a company who want to harvest the guano.

Some neat touches: beautiful location photography; a local who keeps playing up "wise native" cliches; a female mercenary (Catherine Bell); a hot love scene between a topless Dolph (he's topless for most of the film) and topless Charlotte Lewis; a strong cast (including Perry Lang and Kevin McTighe who have made several films with Sayles); an Aussie mercenary called "Ocker".

There are OK characterisations too among the various fighters. But it was a bit flat and not particularly well directed. There wasn't that much action - a lot at the end admittedly. Dolph is stiff.

Movie review - "The Flying Tigers" (1942) **1/2

John Wayne's first war movie is a cheery knock off of The Dawn Patrol and Only Angels Have Wings with two novelties - one, it's about the flying tigers squadron fighting the Japanese in China during World War Two, which has novelty (although the bulk of the movie is set before Pearl Harbour, when as I understand it the Flying Tigers didn't get going until after that event); two, Wayne acts in a style different to what we'd become used to - he talks in a fast-paced, clipped way, almost as if he was imitating James Cagney.

The basic plot is about pilot who is cocky, selfish but a great flyer who learns the value of teamwork. That's the best part - it has the strongest arc - and it goes to John Carroll, an actor about whom I know little (he had a brief vogue as a leading man in the early 1940s), but who isn't bad. I guess they didn't want Wayne to pay someone too flawed, i.e. he's partly responsible for a co pilot's death and tries to pinch Wayne's girl.

The support cast offers some interest: Anna Lee is the main girl; former Frankenstein bride Mae Clarke is in there, as is Tom Neal. It's always interesting to see an American film which ends with basically a suicide bombing attack (from Carroll).

The movie is made with a lot of energy and lack of scruple.

Movie review – “Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story” (2007) ****

Enormously enjoyable documentary about the life and films of one of America’s most fondly remembered producer-directors – to a section of the public anyway. You can tell which section when you see the several directors who talk with glowing affection about Castle – Joe Dante, John Landis, John Waters. All with a common thread: males who were about ten when Castle was in his heyday. Because that was the target market for Castle’s films: baby boomers, male, who loved the gimmicks. As Waters (who has written about Castle often and well, and was inspired to use gimmicks in his own career) points out, after seeing 13 Ghosts all people talked about at school the next day was seeing the skeleton – no one talked if the film was any good.

William Castle’s story is a prime example of the maxim that everyone has their moment. He lost his parents at an early age, and became obsessed with theatre after seeing Bela Lugosi on stage as Dracula. He went to work in the theatre as a stage manager and actor, and eventually went out to Hollywood and got a job at Columbia. He became a journeyman director, doing all sorts of films (one quite highly regarded - When Strangers Marry – even if it surprisingly isn’t discussed much here.) He got the rights to a book he really liked only to see Orson Welles pinch it and turn it into Lady from Shanghai - although Castle got to work on it.

 

Castle's moment came in the late 50s when he mortgaged his house to fund his own production, Macabre. From all accounts an unremarkable film, Castle's fear that it would flop motivated him to ballyhoo the crap out of it and it was a big hit. It unleashed a popular series of horror films, all better remembered for their gimmicks rather than their quality.

Castle promoted himself as much as his movies, even appearing in them at the beginning in introductions. Few directors were as well known to the public (one that was, Hitchcock, was inspired by Castle to use a gimmick to promote Psycho). Still, a great showman, nice guy, shrewd businessman, talented producer, workmanlike director - and he left a real legacy. The sort of theatricality and showmanship in something like The Tingler (which puts the audience in the film) is missed today.

Eventually the tide ran out around the mid 60s and Castle's films lost their lustre at the box office. He had a massive late career windfall when he bought the rights to Rosemary's Baby in galleys but Paramount wanted Roman Polanski to direct, so he was forced to produce. (A good move - Castle was never much of a director, strictly functional in his control of the medium - the two most famous films he was associated with, Rosemary and Shanghai, were from other directors.

I have a theory he went to his grave thinking "if only I'd directed Rosemary's Baby people would have taken me seriously" but he wouldn't have done ten percent good a job; he was too interested in pennies.) He fell seriously ill during the late 60s and so couldn't cash in on the success of Rosemary's Baby. None of his follow ups did as well (he even directed a film starring Marcel Marceau which flopped badly) but he lived long enough to see his legend grow. He probably smoked too many cigars for his own good - he was only 63 when he died but looked twenty years over.

This is everything a documentary on Castle should be - warm, funny, with great photographs and talking heads (Castle's daughter is very likeable - she has his nose - and Roger Corman even pops up). John Waters is the best value - part of me wished he'd narrated the whole thing. In film extracts, Castle is a little stiff in his introductions for someone so publicised - I think Hitchcock had more natural charisma, as well as being the better director.

Web review - "Splatter" (2009) *

I love Roger Corman and Joe Dante, so I wanted to love this too, but it's not very good. It looks cheap as anything - like it was shot on old VHS. In the series' defence this was relatively early days for digital but it doesn't hold up well. Corey Feldman has fun as the rock star who kills himself and then invites potential beneficiaries to his will to a mansion and sets about killing them.

There's some humour and broadly drawn characterisations. I got the William Castle throwback but those films had more charm and atmosphere than this. I only saw a 30 minute version - apparently three episodes cut together, whereas there are 10 out there (different versions of people being killed). I get the gimmick but it means we never have time to invest in the characters or their relationships. The splatter feels tacked on.

Movie review - "Sharknado" (2013) **

A movie which unexpectedly hit the zeitgeist, at least on twitter. My expectations were higher (lower?) but it's all done in good spirits and has a great concept plus a pretty good cast: what former 90s teenager doesn't have affection for Ian Ziering, or Tara Reid for that matter? And there's also John Heard and Aussie Baywatch er Jaason Simmons, playing an Aussie (cue jokes about vegemite).

The effects are of very variable quality but there is some highly entertaining shark gobblings - these were well done. It's a bit silly that the same shark ate two people who lived - that felt like cheating. Why not kill off Cassie Scerbo? I thought the opening sequence involving the Russian and Asian guys on the boat would've paid off more. Aubrey Peeples has a bit of spunk about her; Chuck Hittinger doesn't.

Movie review - "Rio Lobo" (1970) ***

The last film from Howard Hawks, it came out around the time his reputation as an auteur was really starting to flourish. As a result the film received a lot of serious attention it probably didn't really warrant, and Hawks had to explain a lot of it away - he dumped blame on Jorge Rivero and Jennifer O'Neill especially.

Rivero is certainly no Dean Martin or Robert Mitchum; a good looking boy, as Hawks said, but he lacks presence, and he has troubles enunciating his lines. But to be fair he doesn't have as strong a character to play - no alcoholism or anything interesting, like Martin and Mitchum got to act - he's just a Mexican Confederate who is helping out.

Jennifer O'Neill comes off better; she is is very pretty and does have some edge to her character (she's a medicine woman, out for vengeance) - although Hawks didn't like her I'd put her on par with Angie Dickinson and Michelle Carey, but better than Elsa Martinelli in Hatari.

While I'm at it Chris Mitchum is no James Caan; he's not a bad actor, not as good as Caan but he's not as annoying as Ricky Nelson - but he doesn't have as good a character to play as Nelson or Caan did.  The more I think about it, the more annoying it got - in Rio Bravo Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson had clear characters with specific agendas; ditto James Caan and Robert Mitchum in El Dorado. But not Rivero here; Mitchum has an agenda (get his land) but no character.

On the topic of cast, Jack Elam is no Walter Brennan, though he is better than Arthur Hunnicut was in El Dorado. And I did like the way the moment Elam and Wayne met they kind of fell in love, as if they recognised each other from other movies.

Victor French is a very weak antagonist - the moment Duke meets him he just smacks him around and the guy whimpers. Mike Henry is better in the Chris George role as a corrupt sheriff. I think we missed out seeing the scene where Henry injured Sherry Lansing - it would have made her revenge at the end better.

By the way, Lansing's character feels shoe horned in. I gather that Hawks got sick of O'Neill and gave the emotive act of killing Henry to Lansing. Lansing is actually a lot better than O'Neill; there's a sexy scene where she covers her breasts while talking to Rivero. I'm not sure what she's doing in the film, why they didn't make her Mitchum's girlfriend or something, but she adds to the entertainment.

The story of this is problematic - the set up is John Wayne seeking revenge for his lifelong friend during the Civil War; the Confederates were responsible but only because of the work of a traitor, and the Duke goes after the traitor. This makes up the first thirty minutes and is quite fresh - with a neat attack on a train (they use bees and grease on a wheel), and some fun reversals where Wayne is captured by Rivero then outsmarts them.

But then the film becomes about all these other plot lines - Riviero going to help Mitchum reclaim his property in Texas (and we care because?), O'Neill seeking revenge for murder. Then Hawks throws in some more new characters - Sherry Lansing wanting revenge on Mike Henry.

You can hear Hawks trying to recreate his old magic. Sometimes it doesn't work - such as the flirting banter between O'Neill and Riviero, and between O'Neill and Wayne - but sometimes it does - such as Wayne and Elam's by play, Wayne being exasperated all the women call him "safe" (actually every scene with Wayne has something to recommend it). And the movie does have some of the old relaxed Hawks camaraderie.

I actually enjoy this movie a lot - the crap things like its weird plot and Riviero add to its charm.

Movie review - "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" (2015) ***** (warning: spoilers)

A movie with an awful lot of weight on it's shoulders but they managed to pull it off. Some random observations:
* the first 15 minutes I was worried "are they just going to remake the first movie" but it settled into it's own rhythm after a while;
*it feels very J.J. Abrams - respectful nods to the original, tight direction rather than anything brilliant, and a slim brown haired heroine;
*Hollywood still hasn't found a better villain than Nazis - the Nazi parallels are really shoved down our throats here with the rally scene where Domhnall Gleeson talks;
*was expecting Lando to turn up as Fin's dad;
*Poe seemed a nothing much character - Oscar Isaac is a good actor but this role didn't need someone good as much as more charismatic;
*BB-8 was the most instantly likeable new character but the others grew on me;
*the return of old characters and props was extremely well done;
*the film relied on old characters and story stuff to get its emotion - I feel we could have done with a bit of character work for Finn, Rey and Poe;
*Adam Driver is a very good villain - helped by having a reversal conflict for Luke and of course the "money shot" scene involving Han Solo;
*Harrison Ford very much looks his age but is great in the role:
*Carrie Fisher's plastic surgery was well hidden;
*Daisy Ridley impressed even though I got her mixed up with Keira Knightly at times;
*finally attack on the new Death Star felt surprisingly underwhelming;
*I really liked it a lot.

Movie review - "Drive Hard" (2014) * (warning: spoilers)

Disappointingly poor action-comedy which the director has hopefully suggested is a throw back to Midnight Run but in fact feels like a poor knock off of Collateral. It actually has a couple of decent ideas including a strong set up - former car racing champ Thomas Jane now runs a driving school and is giving a lesson to mysterious John Cusack; Cusack asks if he can pop out for five minutes and it's to rob a bank and Jane is up to his neck in mayhem.

Now that's a pretty good idea for a film and adding to the fun is the fact that Cusack is an anti-corporate crusader. But the problem is the movie doesn't do anything much on top of that. Cusack's "revolutionary" nature is limited to the bank being corrupt. There are dodgy cops going after Jane/Cusack (good old Damien Garvey playing this role once again) but also an honest one (Zoe Ventura, not very convincing) so the dodgy ones don't cause much trouble.

A lot of time is spent on Cusack and Jane bantering but really it comes down to Cusack going to Jane 'man up dude and race cars again' which Jane does, which also feels a little blah.

The script feels as though it's going to do all these things to make it more exciting/interesting but that doesn't happen - the corrupt cop looks as though he's going to do something really bad but doesn't; Jane and Cusack look as though they're going to take a hostage like Carol Burns but they don't; the good cop never catches them; the good cop is just good and that's it (I did like how all four cops ended up shooting each other to death - the film could have done with more intense moments like this); there's a few mentions of them being Yanks in Australia together, and you think there'll be some culture clash comedy but there isn't; there's something potentially interesting in Cusack and the wife of bad banker Chris Morris but it's never really exploited; I kept waiting for Chris Morris to hire a really scary baddie but the ones that come along are comic more than anything else; a work mate of Jane's says she had an affair with him and the wife believes it but it's all cleared up easily; I kept expecting the baddies to go after Jane's wife and daughter but they don't; Jerome Ehlders (another banker) looks as though he's going to do something interesting but doesn't; there's no third act twist like or emotional depth there was in Midnight Run (eg de Niro's associate being a traitor, meeting de Niro's estranged wife and daughter) or Collateral (eg Mark Ruffalo catching up to Foxx and being killed).

Brian Trenchard Smith keeps everything at a light, fast pace and the photography is good but the action is disappointing. There isn't even that much car racing. John Cusack and Thomas Jane don't look in very good shape - Cusack is all pale, Jane has a dreadful haircut - but they do provide some good moments.

Movie review - "Infini" (2015) **

It was a long time between drinks for Shane Abbess who made such a splash with Gabriel. This is an impressive looking sci fi film, a genre we don't do enough of in Australia - the photography, set design, costume, music etc are all great.

There's a bright basic idea too  - in the future 95% of people live below the poverty line so there are always people keen to volunteer for dangerous missions that pay well but involve transportation. I was looking forward to seeing a story about time jumping and people going mental. But after a promising beginning, with great visuals and an exciting set up with a team going berserk and dying, it settles down to a very familiar film: a bunch of troops on a deserted mining outpost with a killer on the lose. It's another retread of The Thing with a bit of Alien thrown in. It's a shame - Abbess had a fresh-ish idea but then disregarded it and went for more "the aliens are causing this". 

There is some terrible dialogue which goes on forever and far too much swearing (it got monotonous). I felt like 70% of the dialogue could be cut and I also hated the fact it was an Australian film all in American accents (that didn't feel realistic either). I had trouble telling the characters apart.

I think it was a mistake to lose Daniel McPherson's point of view early on - he's set up as the protagonist then disappears for a couple of crucial minutes. I wasn't wild about the ending either which really was a deux ex machina and felt like an "it's all a dream" cheat. And some of the confrontations eg McPherson vs Luke Ford went on too long.

A movie with a lot going for it - McPherson was a lot better than I thought it would be, Abbess clearly has a lot of talent - but the script is a bit of a mess.

Movie review - "Wake of the Red Witch" (1948) *** (warning: spoilers)

1948 was a big year for John Wayne - although technically an "A" star since Stagecoach in 1939, this that was the year he found himself ranked among the top ten most popular stars in North America for the first time. His best known credits for that year were Red River, Fort Apache, 3 Godfathers and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, but this is a cheerful, unpretentious film which in its own way was influential - because Wayne's boat in the movie is called "Batjac", a name Wayne used for his own production company. It was made by Republic, the cheapie company that had Wayne under contract for many years, but they provided more money for his films around this time, especially this one, which was based on a best seller, and has boats and period costumes and stuff.

This is a south seas movie starring the Duke as a tough sea captain not unlike his role in Red River. There is a lot of plot - within the first ten minutes Wayne is scuttling a ship and going on trial and explaining all this back story. Indeed I feel there was too much plot in the film - it leapt around in time and had all these flashbacks and characters and got very complicated with trials and betrayals when the essential story was kind of simple: Wayne and Luther Adler hate each other because both love Gail Russell, who dies, and there are some valuable pearls at the bottom of the ocean defended by a nasty octopus.

There are two great things about this movie: the love story between Wayne and Russell which is well done; apparently the actors had an affair and I'm inclined to believe it because their chemistry is so good. Russell shone in these sort of tragic, poor-little-thing roles and Wayne commits emotionally.  (It's a genuinely good performance.)The second strong thing is the ending, when Wayne goes to retrieve the pearls - and dies. Full on!

Other good things - the production values are high, the support cast excellent including Gig Young and Henry Daniell.

Movie review - "Big Jake" (1971) *** (warning: spoilers)

One of the best of the late period John Wayne Westerns, where he'd usually lug around in his toupe and beat up the younger generation and be surrounded by old character actors. This has the benefit of a strong story - indeed, Howard Hawks even praised it and wish he'd had something as good (though he probably would have turned it into a siege somehow): a little boy is kidnapped by a nasty bunch of crooks and they demand a million dollars in ransom. Grandma (Maureen O'Hara) asks for her ex husband (John Wayne) to come to the rescue.

The Duke is accompanied by his two sons, one a try-hard tough guy (Pat Wayne) he's always punching out and the other a technology guy (Chris Mitchum) - it's 1909 so there are cars. Also adding to the fun: all the characters who keep thinking Jake was dead (something John Carpenter used in Escape to New York), hearing Wayne say "that'll be the day" again (the story does kind of rip off The Searchers), a wacky opening credits sequence which sets the era.

It is more violent and bloody than usual Wayne westerns (hey, it was the 70s): Bruce Cabot is hacked to death, Wayne's dog is killed (not that he seems to care too much at the end). I feel gypped that there wasn't a scene between Wayne and O'Hara at the end.

There is some good action - the kidnapping sequence and final shoot out especially. Young Pat Wayne is wooden but Richard Boone is a super villain, the Duke is in great form. Bruce Cabot is fine, and I liked Chris Mitchum.

Movie review - "Raw Wind in Eden" (1958) **

Disappointing movie despite a decent set up, location filming in Italy and colour - hoity toity model Esther Williams crashes on an island inhabited by mysterious loner Jeff Chandler. Williams and Chandler are a good match - he's a lot more virile than most of her co-stars, they have chemistry (an affair in real life), are clearly physical people, and had learned to act well enough by now. There are a few hot scenes where they are both out of the water and kiss and are clearly into it.

But it's a slight story that needed something add - either it should have been done as a musical, with palm trees, comic relief and songs (it's a shame Chandler, who could sing, never made a musical) or as an action film, with baddies and shoot outs, or a character drama with genuinely interesting characters and lots of sexual tension.

This is really a dull drama with a bit of action towards the end. The characters are all stock - dodgy Italian lover (Carlos Thompson), shallow model (Esther Williams), mysterious man who was actually a war hero and feels guilty for "killing" his ex when really he didn't (Jeff Chandler), wacky locals, sexy naive local girl.

Williams and Chandler were capable of stepping up to the plate but the writers and director Richard Wilson weren't. Really dull.

Movie review - "Wild Horse Mesa" (1947) **

I've seen a bunch of films with Tim Holt - the famous ones such as The Magnificent Ambersons and My Darling Clementine - but never caught one of his B Westerns until now. It's an impressive film - yes absolutely a stock story (investigating stolen horses) but came from a Zane Grey novel so it was strong, and gives an important role to a wild stallion, so that's a little different.

The production values are high, as is the cinematography. It was shot at Lone Pine Ranch, and there are decent action scenes including a horse stampede as well as a few brawls. Holt is a solid hero - decent, conservative, fresh faced, honest. He has nice by play with Richard Martin, who is his singing, womanising sidekick Chito - however Chito's role in this is quite small. Apparently Chito used to handle most of the romancing in Holt movies but Holt here flirts with Nan Leslie.

The plot is quite violent - an old man is shot to death, the head baddy is trampled to death by a horse.

Movie review - "Hysteria" (1965) ** (warning: spoilers)

Jimmy Sangster's psycho thrillers for Hammer tended to concentrate on young women - Susan Strasberg in Scream of Fear, Jeanette Scott in Paranoiac, etc. This one is about a young man, Robert Webber who wakes up as an amnesiac. His only clues are a torn photo from a newspaper and the fact that a mysterious benefactor is paying for the rent on an apartment.

Webber gives a solid, professional performance but to be honest I didn't really care what happened to him - I get that Sangster was trying to mix things up with a male protagonist but it would have been better with a female: they seem more vulnerable; its easier to believe people thinking they are going insane. Or maybe it could have worked with a guy, just someone more likeable or at least empathetic - Webber's a cold actor, who struggles to convey fear/paranoia in an interesting way.

The storyline rips off tropes from Laura (person they think is dead isn't) Gaslight (being driven insane) and Vertigo (fake dead girl is all part of a scheme to frame someone for murder). And really there isn't enough here for a feature - it's like enough plot for a one hour anthology episode or something. They pad it out with flashbacks to Webber's past.

The snazzy flat in London lacks creepy atmosphere you get in earlier movies in the series. I had heard that director Freddie Francis wasn't really into the project and you can tell - it receives lethargic handling. And this is the sort of movie that badly needs energetic, atmospheric direction.

On the plus side, the acting is strong - as said before, Webber isn't a great star but can act; Jennifer Jayne is winning as the nurse who falls for Webber (she's shamefully under-used in the story, even as a red herring); Mauriece Denham offers authority as a private investigator; Leila Goldoni adds glamour as the Kim Novak figure.

TV review - "Parks and Recreation Season 1" ***1/2

It became fashionable to say the first (short - only 6 eps) season of this show was very imperfect and that they figured it out later on, but the bones are clearly all there and the show is already highly entertaining. Amy Poehler is brilliant in a role made for her as the perennially chirpy deputy head of Parks and Recreation and there is strong support from Rashida Jones (a great "straight" person foil for the others), Chris Pratt, Aziz Ansari, Audrey Plaza and Nick Offerman.

You can tell they hadn't quite figured out how to best use Plaza and Ansari - those characters don't feel fully defined. However Poehler, Offerman, Jones and Pratt are all fully formed.

The biggest debit is Paul Schneider who drags things down whenever he has a scene. He seems disinterested in the show and the characters, and its hard to get a fix on him. However he is well used by the writers as dramatic stakes for various stories.

Book review - "Memoirs of a Cad" by George Sanders (1960)

No one played a cad better than George Sanders, and whenever I read about what he was like in real life (notably the profile on him in David Niven's memoirs), he always seems so entertainingly close to how he appeared on screen - charming, witty, lazy, keen to seduce women/not work, depressive.

This memoir is all those things - it's like been regaled by Sanders at some hotel bar or dinner party with various stories about his life and view on the world. It covers briefly his childhood in Russia (to an aristocratic family - something he always gave the impression of); his youth in England; experimenting with a few different careers before moving into acting; establishing himself relatively quickly as a character actor and occasional star who was never out of work.

I was looking forward to chats about Hitchcock, Forever Amber and so on but he rarely discusses his movies - even All About Eve only gets a small mention. He does devote a bit of time to adventures working with Roberto Rossellini in Italy and another movie in Spain, plus a long section on making Solomon and Sheba and Tyrone Power's death (I guess it was fresh in the audience' memory at the time).

Zsa Zsa Gabor gets plenty of mentions; he writes about her with a great deal of exasperated affection. He is sweet on the subject of Betina Hume and mentions Laird Cregar's attempt at dieting.  A few sections feel like newspaper or magazine articles on various topics which have been shoved into the memoir. Sanders likes to end chapters quoting poetry and frequently talks about his enthusiasm for music and musicals.

This won't satisfy you if you are looking for a more indepth autobiography but it is entertaining.

Movie review - "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (1959) ****

Pat Boone actually gets top billing in this movie but most people probably remember James Mason as the star, with Pat playing the support. He was really in there as box office insurance, singing a few songs - and it did so well that you wonder why Pat didn't make more science fiction/adventure movies, where he didn't have to stress about being immoral.

Because this is probably the best film old Pat ever made - something you could probably also say for director Henry Levin, who has a lot of bland films on his resume. It's a really top notch, classy adventure movie, with plenty of impressive production values, good acting and scripy, and sense of wonder. Everyone brought their A game - Arlene Dahl is great as well (this is probably the best film she ever made, too).

A lot of credit surely must go to Charles Brackett who produced and co-wrote. (And Walter Reisch, who he often worked with.) It's a tasteful, intelligent adaptation of Verne - there are some large creatures but they are saved until the end, the filmmakers don't go overboard. There's no lost native civilisation which means no romance underground for Boone and/or Peter Ronson, but does make things more believable.

The world underground is genuinely creepy and feels authentic - caverns, large mushrooms, smouldering volcanoes, dusty floors, the 300 year old dead body of an explorer, inland seas, whirlpools. It feels isolated, dangerous, scary. (I've always remembered the sounds of this film - the gushing of the water, the silence).

There is excitement in that Mason is given a rival scientist... then a more ruthless one (Thayer David) who tries to take over the mission. Dahl adds a welcome dash of romance although the Mason/Dahl "I don't want a woman coming along"/"I insist" banter gets tired quickly (I did like how they have Dahl's character status by having her the one who can translate Icelandic for Ronson).

Ronson and Boone both kind of have the same role - to run around shirtless (Boone's physique is really exploited in this movie - he even has a gratuitous water fall washing scene). Ronson doesn't have much of a character, though he is center stage for the most emotionally affecting scene in the film - when the goose is killed. (The fact the goose is actually killed by David as opposed to it just being threatened is what makes this movie top class.) Boone has a great moment where he's kind of hitting on Dahl and get reminds him to back off, in a nice way - this is good writing.

It's just all extremely well done and 20th Century Fox never managed to match it again though they tried several times eg The Lost World, Five Weeks in a Balloon.

Movie review - "Mr Ace" (1946) *** (warning: spoilers)

A fascinating drama - not a film noir and definitely not a comedy but a drama - about a female congresswoman who wants to be governor. It's refreshingly cynical in a lot of places - she's only a contender because she's rich (dad was a self made man), her husband cheats on her but she wants to hang on to him for political purposes, and she realises she needs the support of "political boss" Mr Ace. America is thus depicted as a place where you need crooks and cash to get elected anywhere so its just as relevant today in some ways.

The congresswoman is Sylvia Sidney who is okay - the film would have been better with someone more charismatic (Tallulah Bankhead was discussed and she would've been perfect) but Sidney is solid and professional. George Raft is perfectly cast as Ace; never the most expressive actor in the world, but he's age appropriate, and you believe him in the part and his chemistry with Sidney is good.

In terms of gender politics the film is iffy in a lot of places. Raft tells Sidney she's too beautiful to go into politics and Sidney's mentor Roman Bohnen (playing a political science professor) is this horrible bossy misogynist in the Lionel Barrymore mode who tells Sidney to have a baby and get married and that she shouldn't run. Admittedly he's saying it because he thinks Sidney is a bit too much of a hard arse and would make a good governor if she just chilled out - a little like the lead in The Philadelphia Story. It's just a bit yuck because there aren't any other female politicians running around.

Good for Sidney though she ignores Raft and Bohnen and approaches Raft's old crony Stanley Ridges instead and he gets her through the nomination. Then she has a crisis of confidence and quits. Raft and Bohnen get together and engineer things so Sidney runs as a reformist candidate. She still gets to win, but only because the guys made it so. But anyway she gets to win - it's not Gloria Steinem but it's a lot more than many movies around this time. And how many films end with the governor of a state making out with George Raft? I found this genuinely watchable.

Movie review - "Perfect Friday" (1970) ** (warning: spoilers)

In the late 60s and early 70s famed theatre director Peter Hall took a brief stab at being a film director; none of the films are that remembered today but this piece has its pleasures, particularly a lively trio of star performances.

Stanley Baker is kind of cast against type as a mousy deputy bank manager - I say "kind of" because said bank manager plans a bank robbery and is a big time stud with Ursula Andress so he's not that mousy. The film might have worked better with a more obviously whimpy actor in this role, someone who stinks of being a little coward (eg Alec Guiness, Tom Courtney) - it may be have given this more tension instead of Baker standing there in his hairpiece practically going "hey I'm cast against type". (I will say though that this is among his better 70s movies.)

Andress is a spendthrift girl about town married to decadent aristocrat David Warner. She  is surprisingly good as the girl who sleeps with both men, whose loyalties we are never sure about. She rolls around in sheets, shows of boob and breasts (Peter Hall said this was a "send up of sex films" but I kind of don't think so) and displays a lot more energy than we're used to seeing from her.

Warner is a lot of fun as an impoverished, self entitled lord who takes to robbing banks like a duck to water.  There is an element of ham in Warmer and he pitches his performance just right; I don't always like him as an actor but he was good here.

There are a few twists - we presume that everyone is going to try and rip off everyone else, but because no one is an obvious star there is good tension. The theme music was overly jaunty and there are stretches where I got bored.

The last third was good (the robbery) when narrative took over. I really liked the idea of Dave Warner and Stanley Baker deciding to try robbing a bank again at the end of the film and wouldn't have minded a sequel.

Movie review - "Jules Verne's Rocket to the Moon" (1967) ** (warning: spoilers)

Dimwitted attempt to cash in on the success of Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines has at least an impressive cast made for this sort of thing - Terry Thomas, Lionel Jeffries. Burl Ives suits the fun as PT Barnum but Troy Donahue brings everything down by playing "comedy". Donahue's deep voice and brooding quality suited melodrama; it might have worked in comedy if played completely straight but he tries to be funny and collapses in a heap. It's not too damaging though since his part isn't very big.

What is damaging is that it takes forever to get to the moon- indeed they only get there in the last minute of the movie and it mightn't be the moon, it could be Russia. Which feels pointless and dumb and really, really frustrating - I mean you can't make this sort of movie and not actually go to the moon.

There are some pleasures - the hammy acting by the Brits, the production design, the costumes, location filming in Ireland. It's a handsome film to look at and everyone is trying to give the audience a good time.

Daliah Lavi plays Donahue's girlfriend and is beautiful but wooden.  Dennis Price and Hermione Gingold add some class. Don Sharp's direction keeps things bubbling along although maybe he's responsible for the tone being out in places - he was never known for his comedies.

Movie review - "Strangerland" (2015) * (warning: spoilers)

A story that could (possibly) have made a decent enough ep of say Water Rats is dragged out to feature length with some big name actors and nice shots of the desert. A family moves to a small town - two kids go missing but no one seems particularly worried. Okay that's unfair - mum does stress but dad seems more worried about the family's reputation, which doesn't make sense (I get maybe he thinks that the daughter has simply run off... but the young son?)

The townsfolk don't seem to worry either even though surely the disappearance of two kids would be news. Hugo Weaving is the detective on the case, and he doesn't seem to worried either. There's a remarkable lack of tension... not to mention absence of believable character development or narrative satisfaction (spoiler: we don't even find out what happened to the girl).

Would Nicole Kidman really forgive Joseph Fiennes for having kept quiet about seeing the kids leave for so long? Would Joe Fiennes never mention when he saw the kids leave? Would he really keep things secret? What happened to the subplot with the teacher played by Martin Dingle-Wall? What is the story of the relationship between the married couple? Is he a molesteror or did they just grow apart?

Okay, so I get that they didn't want to tie up everything in a neat bow and certainly films like Picnic at Hanging Rock and Walkabout didn't spell everything out. But they offered other compensations - shots of the landscape, evocative performances. Strangerland is mostly set indoors, in the country town - we hardly ever go out into the desert. The landscape which could have been another character like, say, Hanging Rock, isn't.

The filmmakers try to pump up the spookiness by throwing in some wind sounds and storms but it's not enough. This is a movie that reeks of film school: lots of scenes of people sitting around the breakfast table speaking flat naturalistic dialogue, endless shots of the horizon, self conscious reference to aboriginal people and culture, passive heroes, reference to a young teenage girl's sexual awakening.

I can imagine the screen studies assignment that would accompany this - lots of talk about landscape, and depiction of women in the country, and the place of women in Australian society.

Maybe this would have been creepier if set in 1962 or something. Or if the family had been aboriginal. Or if only the teenage daughter had gone missing not the kid as well. Or if Nicole Kidman had gone completely bonkers at the end instead of whimping out.

There is some good acting from Kidman, Meyne Wyatt and Hugo Weaving. Fiennes isn't much but it's a terrible role.

Movie review - "Mad Love" (aka L'amour braque) (1985) *1/2

Frances Huster is a bank robber who goes out with Sophie Marceau - they both become involved with an idiot (Tcheky Karyo). It's based on Dostoyevsky's The Idiot. 

It gets off to a weird start with a bank robbery by what seems to be theatre students - running around and yelling in masks as if they're doing a performance piece. That sets the tone for the movie - which operates at a fast, heightened theatrical pace, non naturalistic (especially the dialogue).  I didn't go for it - maybe you have to be used to the work of the director.

I only watched really for Sophie Marceau who is pretty and gives a decent performance, including some obligatory full frontal nudity (other girls in the cast have to do it as well). But this was heavy going. Lots of over the top acting, a high body count, lack of logic, plenty of ham. Maybe if I'd seen other films from this director. Or maybe it was just bad.

Movie review - "That Sugar Film" (2014) ***

The central conceit is a rather shameless ripped off Super Size Me but this does have a fresh playing area at least - modern society's addiction to sugar - and tackles an important subject in an entertaining, energetic way. Fun cameos from Hugh Jackman, Stephen Fry and the director's missus, Zoe Tuckwell-Smith.

Movie review - "Rolling Thunder" (1977) **1/2

This vigilante film has a bit of a reputation among film buffs - Quentin Tarantino has long been a fan (I'm sure the returning Vietnam POW stuff influenced the Chris Walker scene in Pulp Fiction), it was co-written by Paul Schrader whose reputation seems to be nothing these days but whose 70s output is highly regarded, the reputation of director John Flynn is rising, it received a famously bad preview where the audience almost rioted.

Watching the film years on I wasn't that knocked out by it. Flynn directs in a solid, almost polite way - the story is inherently exciting but it's not that an exciting film. William Devane's hand is shoved in  garbage disposal unit but we don't hear crunching sound effects or see anything bloody - it's implied. The deaths off his wife and son happen off screen. The opening credit sequence features a crappy 70s love ballad and it takes ages for any action to happen. Indeed there's only a few action sequences - the attack on Devane, Devane smacking around an informer, Devane taking on one of the crooks and his cronies, the boyfriend of Devane's wife shooting out with some baddies, and the final shoot out.

If you're looking for high voltage vigilante movie this doesn't really deliver, except maybe at the end when Flynn lets loose and shows blood, carnage and nudity (the climax is set at a whorehouse) that he's been restrained about to now. Actually a lot of the movie feels restrained - it's as though Devane and Tommy Lee Jones should die at the end but they don't (though admittedly they could be mortally wounded - the film ends abruptly.)

The first act is well-done drama, with William Devane adjusting to coming home, being told by his wife that she's fallen for another man, struggling to reconnect with his son (similar to Homeland). The role of the woman who falls for him is surprisingly complex and well drawn and very well played by Linda Haynes. The quality of acting is high - though Devane was a little cold. I get that he's detached and all that but he's got to have some emotion because he goes on a rampage and Devane never coveys that. In his defence he wears mirrored sunglasses a lot but for instance Tommy Lee Jones conveys far more instability in his stillness.

There's some odd bits - the abrupt ending (as mentioned), the large amount of screen time given to the 2IC of the baddy gang (Luke Askew) but not the ringleader (James Best). It wasn't clear why the gang let Devane live when they killed his wife and kid. I remember reading Schrader's script and liking how it was the fact the former POW could distance himself from reality helped him survive the camp but also meant he couldn't act to help his wife and child... that's not clear here.

There are some great bits too - Devane making a weapon out of his hook; the feel of small town Texas; the prominence given to Hayne's role; and especially the moment where Devane tells Tommy Lee Jones he's found the guys and Tommy just says "let's go". To give the film it's due it's very much a character-driven piece.

Pat Boone Top Five

Pat Boone didn't make enough movies to justify a top ten list so here is my top five Pat Boone films:
1) Journey to the Center of the Earth - charming, hokey science fiction, part of the late 50s Jules Verne craze - Boone should have done more in this genre.
2) April Love - quintessential Boone vehicle, it's a surprise he didn't make more of these.
3) Goodbye Charlie - not a great movie by any means but gets in here because it's weird to see Pat making out with Debbie Ryenolds as a reincarnated man.
4) All Hands on Deck - a silly comedy with Pat giving one of his most relaxed performances.
5) The Cross and the Switchblade - Boone made surprisingly few out and out religious movies but this was one.

Movie review - "The Horror of it All" (1963) ** (warning: spoilers)

Poor old Pat Boone was considered one of 20th Century Fox's main assets in the late 50s and early 60s but when Darryl F Zanuck took the studio back over he parcelled him off to Robert Lippert for two cheapies - The Yellow Canary and this one.

This is an old dark house mystery horror comedy in the vein of The Cat and the Canary and The Old Dark House with Boone as a young man who wants to marry a young Englishwoman and meets her crazy relatives. They include an Elvira-type sexy dame right out of Mark of the Vampire, a doddery old inventor right out of You Can't Take It With You and a bed ridden grandpa and vicious relative locked up right out of The Old Dark House.


I enjoyed this for the most part - it was unpretentious and cheerful, with Pat Boone looking at home as an amiable straight man surrounded by character actors. Derivative to be sure, but a decent cast - including Dennis Price (the Brits always do dodderying eccentrics well). It's in black and white, the director was Terence Fisher.

The film did drag towards the end - I think it ran out of charm for me (it's barely over 70 minutes). You realise there aren't many jokes. And the actions of Boone's fiance - pretending to be the baddy to help Boone - don't really make sense.

Movie review - "Wet Hot American Summer" (2001) ***

Films become cults in my lifetime and I have no idea of the fact until I read some article about the cult - Clue, The Room, Birdemic, this. I do kind of scratch my head as to why - it's a perfectly decent spoof of late 70s early 80s teen camp films (Meatballs, Little Darlings) with some funny moments and a superb cast. Maybe it's one of those movies that hold up when you watch it again and again.

It joyously plays with tropes and conventions, although you never feel for the characters in the way that you did in say Flying High (I had the same problem with They Came Together). I did like the way it "went there" with some scenes - the counsellors taking heroin, Michael Ian Black and Bradley Cooper having torrid sex, Paul Rudd being responsible for several kids drowning and no one seeming to care.

Movie review - "Caravan to Vaccares" (1974) *

One of a series of Alistair MacLean adaptations that served to cool Hollywood's excitement towards the novelist. This was produced and directed by Geoffrey Reeve, who also made Puppet on a Chain - a film best remembered for a sequence that Reeve did not direct (Don Sharp did) but apparently it made enough money for him to get finance for this.

There have been few more perfect MacLean adaptation heroines than Charlotte Rampling - who is beautiful, brave, feisty, exotic and mysterious. There have been few more inappropriately cast MacLean heroes than David Birney, who is meant to be a tough, sexy adventurer but looks like a TV cop... from a sitcom.

As this movie went on I got more and more annoyed - how it was needlessly confusing, how Birney was so laughably bad as a tough guy (I longed for someone who gravitas and toughness... even Barry Newman from Fear is the Key would have done), the lack of logic, the lack of excitement, the lack of decent action scenes.

The best things about it are Rampling and the location photography, which includes some bullfighting. Rampling goes nude in one scene when she's in bed with Birney - full frontal even; it was the one surprising thing about the movie. I guess the murder of a girl during a bullfight was okay.

Movie review - "Bernadine" (1957) **

The novelty of seeing Pat Boone in a leading role helped propel this musical to box office success, but it's not a very good movie.. although in the right hands, with decent treatment, it could have been. This wasn't director/writer/actor proof material in the way that, say, April Love was - this is coming of age, gentle teen stuff. It needed careful handling not songs shoved in and some uninspiring contract players.

This movie is really Dick Sergeant's story as much as Boone's - they are two high school buddies who like to race boats and cars and have an imaginary dream girl called Bernadine. Sergeant rings up a girl at random and decides she's Bernadine - it's Terry Moore. The "plot" has Sergent's mother (Janet Gaynor!) be so annoyed with Sergeant's crappy school marks that she threatens to marry a guy Sergeant doesn't like - so he's got to study. Instead she falls for Boone's brother.

Now all this Sergeant stuff should so patently go to Pat Boone - it's easily the best role (you get to fall in love, have your heart broken, worry about your parents). I'm assuming Fox and Boone were worried about Boone's ability to carry the action so reduced pressure on it - in the way that Elvis in Love Me Tender was really a support character. It's a shame because while Boone is charming (although green) Sergeant isn't much chop. (This would have made a great Mickey Rooney movie in the 1940s but Sergeant is no Mickey Rooney.)

The writers and director Henry Levin are unable to capture any small town atmosphere or sense of camaraderie or teen life - you never feel Boone and Sergeant are friends, or that Boone was a brother, or indeed these kids are teenagers living in a town. There's colour and CinemaScope and a few songs.

Movie review - "The Yellow Canary" (1963) **

Pat Boone tried to change his image in the early 60s with The Main Attraction and this movie, where he plays an egotistical, selfish pop idol  fond of the bottle whose son is kidnapped. Fox stumped up serious cash to pay for his fee, the rights to a novel, and a script by Rod Serling... but then Zanuck took over the studio and parcelled the project off on low budget producer Robert Lippert.

You know something? I don't think Zanuck was wrong. It's hard to see this being massively successful with colour, cinemascope and a bigger co star name than Barbara Eden. It's a down beat noir-ish tale so so black and white and a lower budget suit it (though I'm sure Boone didn't think so).

Serling's script isn't that great, full of flowery dialogue. It lacks atmosphere and suspense. There's no scene where we see Boone and/or Barbara Eden with the kid before he's kidnapped so there's no real emotional connection. The various suspects blend into one, there's too much of the droning jazzy soundtrack and the re-awakening-of-romance between him and Eden is poorly done (I know they're worried about their kid but they could have had at least a scene about their relationship).

It is interesting to see Pat Boone try a different sort of part and he's not bad - but he's not an egomaniac for very long, as he spends most of the movie worried about his kid. It's a but yuck how he proves himself a man at the end by blowing away Steve Forrest - that might have meant more with more of a build up.

Out of the support cast Jack Klugman comes off best as the cop on the case.

Movie review - "Brides of Dracula" (1960) *** (another viewing)

I caught this at the New Beverly in Los Angeles - such comfortable seats! - because I wanted to see it on the big screen. It's probably the best looking of the Hammer horrors,with gorgeous photography, colour, costumes and sets. Yvonne Monlaur is one of the prettiest Hammer horror starlets and there are some good looking women in the support cast. There are lots of "in depth" shots i.e. looking down on balconies and from higher floors.

The script is irritatingly disjointed (three writers are credited on it). I kind of went with why the innkeeper was so keen to get Yvonne Monlaur out of town at night,and got that Monlaur fell in love with David Peel in one scene with only a few lines of dialogue... but not that she never asked Peel about his relationship with his mother (Marita Hunt) even though he's accused her of locking up; or that she never seems perturbed that Hunt dies after she lets Peel go; or the fact that Peel bites Peter Cushing but leaves him alive (despite the fact two of his brides are there) to go and fetch Monlaur; Monlaur promises Cushing to have nothing to do with Peel then goes and gets engaged to him.

There's a mysterious servant figure who pops up at the beginning but is never seen again; servant Greta seems all keen for keeping the Baron under lock and key in the first third, then becomes a full on ally for him; Monlaur is always getting intro trouble in ways that feel increasingly contrived.

Added to this the bat work is very shonky and the climax where Cushing/Van Helsing creates a cross from the shadows of a windmill feels like cheating. There's an uncomfortable level of misogyny with all these men fighting over defenseless silly woman (though the Baron's mother is an imposing character). And what's with the random comic bit in the third act involving Miles Malleson as a doctor who takes a lot of pills and wants to increase his bill all the time?

But there are lots of good things about it: Cushing is a superb Van Helsing; David Peel a worthy adversary (what ever happened to him?); the support cast is awesome; some of the dialogue was great; there's a few nice digs at the importance of social status among the characters. It has amazing atmosphere. I just can't share fans' enthusiasm for this one, though.

Movie review - "Crimson Peak" (2015) ** (warning: spoilers)

I really wanted to like this film more than I did because I'm fond of gothic romances, especially those old AIP Poe cycle pictures, Guillermo del Toro has so much talent, and there's a wonderful cast assembled here. But it's a mess.

All through the film I kept thinking "that's needlessly expensive" and "you don't need that" - it would have been a much better movie had they focused the action, and improved the atmosphere. This took forever to have gotten going - it could have started with Mia Wasikowska's father paying off Tom Hiddleston, and established everything else as back story.

Characters and things are set up and never used - the bitchy mother figure who gives Wasikowska a hard time; Hiddleston's servant; the fact Wasikowska is a writer; the thing about the clay bricks; the fact Wasikowska keeps being visited by ghosts by doesn't tell anyone; a long scene which sets up seeing dead people in photos. You could even cut the ghosts out of the whole story and it would still work.

The actual story itself isn't bad, though familiar, full of tropes we've seen before in films like Rebecca, Jane Eyre, Gaslight, The Innocent: fortune hunting aristocrats, mysterious doings in the attic, ghosts, incest, people going mad and/or being poisoned. Wasikowska isn't a bad leading lady once you got used to her hair (often over her eyes); I like Jessica Chastain and Tom Hiddleston, and it was fun to see Charlie Hunnam in the "John Kerr role".

But del Toro never quite gets the tone right - it's spooky and gothic with gore splattered throughout. It could have done with a few more old fashioned scares.

TV review - "The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" (2015) ****

I get the feeling at times that the charming, delightful Ellie Kemper is a bit of a one-trick pony - but it's a charming, delightful trick and this sitcom has been cleverly devised to be a showcase for her talents. It's also got the finger prints of 30 Rock and Tina Fey all over it - the young girl making it in the big city, the gay best friend, the rapid fire jokes, the presence of Jane Krakowski.

It's often brilliant, Tituss Burgess is a star, Kemper is fantastic, I got used to Carol Kane after a while, Krakowski is always good value in a variation of her 30 Rock character. They never have much luck with Jimmy's nice boyfriends - Kim Hong Lee played too much of a caricature for us to care and Andy Ridings is too dumb. Dylan Gelula's bitchy teenager was a bit too bitchy to be fun, if that makes sense.

There are some stunningly good guest turns - Jon Hamm as the cult leader, Tina Fey and Jerry Minor as inept prosecutions, Tim Blake Nelson has brilliant moments as a dumb cop (the heroin gag was amazing), all the cult girls. Not a complete success but of very high quality.

Movie review - "The Queen's Guards" (1961) **

A rare Michael Powell film that film buffs tend to ignore, along with Honeymoon and The Boy Who Turned Yellow - in part because it was so hard to see for a long time. His most financially successful films of the 1950s had been war movies - Ill Met by Moonlight and especially The Battle of the River Plate - so many he felt he had to make this to keep "in" with the public. Only thing is, it's not based on a historical story, or even a novel - it's an original fictional account of a guards regiment. (It's not that original though - it's full of tropes familiar from other war movies such as The Four Feathers.)

The movie has all sorts of problems. Daniel Massey lacks star power in the Dirk Bogarde-esque role as a young soldier who flashes back throughout the film. It is kind of cool to see him act opposite his real life father Raymond Massey, who plays his father on screen, and Massey senior hams it up in a decent C Aubrey Smith impersonation (the scenes where he drunkenly craps on about how great his dead son was is very reminiscent of Four Feathers).

Secondly, the film lacks historical context. It's set in 1960 - the opening credits make that very clear - but nothing else is. Massey goes off to fight in a battle that takes place in a fictitious Arabic country against some browned up English actors pretending to be Arabs. It reminded me of those make up conflicts that they used to shove into old 30s melodramas set in the British raj like The Last Outpost or Another Dawn. But its 1960 now - there's no love triangle - audiences deserve a bit more reality. I don't know why they just didn't make it Oman or Malaya.

Thirdly it's just dull. The conflict between Massey and his overbearing hammy father is alright but overdone. The secret of his brother is not that intriguing. There's an undeveloped romance. And the action scenes at the end are boring.

The best thing about it are some of the visuals - the red of the guards uniforms and the trooping of the colour. But if any movie showed how much Powell relied on Emeric Pressburger, it was this one.

Movie review - "The Wild Geese" (1978) ***1/2 (re-watching)

Watching this again, it strikes me, politics aside, what a good story it is - and what an excellent script was made from that story. The basic situation is set up simply and quickly - getting an African leader out of jail - and the key characters all have strong motivations and distinct personalities: tycoon Stewart Granger wants mining concessions, drunken Richard Burton wants money, Jack Watson misses adventure, Roger Moore wants to escape the price on his head (put there by the mafia), Richard Harris wants to help who he thinks is a decent man, Hardy Kruger wants to get home to South Africa.

From then on the action develops logically and at a fast pace - there's training sequences, landing in Africa, a relatively easy achieving of the first goal, then - in a great twist - Granger betrays the mercenaries and they have to get home the hard way.

Characters have emotional connections to the mission - Harris is motivated by ideology, but also wants to look after his son; he asks Burton to be godfather, and Burton later has to shoot Harris; Burton, Harris and Moore are all old friends; Kruger and the African president form a friendship; Burton and Watson are old friends, to the great worry of the latter's wife. This means that when characters die it means something - I get a lump in my throat when Kurger dies, when Burton has to shoot Harris, when Burton sees Watson die.

Reginald Rose wrote two other filmed scripts for producer Euan Lloyd, neither of which was that good - The Sea Wolves and Who Dares Wins - the latter was especially poor. So I wonder what the extent of his contribution was - maybe he was very reliant on source material. Or maybe other factors intruded on the later films, who knows?

The action is flabby, Africa doesn't look particularly pretty (a lot of scrub and dirt), there are uncomfortable political overtones - while there are two well rounded black characters, and the whites are certainly nasty (mafia heroin dealers, treacherous mining magnates) the whites are always in charge: indeed, even the local Africans have to be led by Russian tacticians.

But it packs an emotional punch and has a very strong cast - Burton is perfectly cast as a washed up alcoholic, Roger Moore has some genuinely effective moments, and Richard Harris is really good as the idealistic mercenary.

Movie review - "Don Juan, or if Don Juan Were a Woman" (1973) **

Historically significant in a way because it was the last film (to date) for Brigitte Bardot, who never seems that interested in what's going on, despite the movie being a vehicle for her, and the director being her old paramour, Roger Vadim.

She plays a female Don Juan, very apt casting, who has a series of adventures. She confesses a murder to a priest (Matthieu Carriere) (there's a long scene with the two of them washing each others hands in close up which starts off interestingly but becomes comic), who she then tells stories to about her conquests - two main ones, rather: sleeping with a married man who likes archery (Maurice Rounet) whose life she then ruins by getting him to go to an orgy; then sleeping with the wife (Jane Birkin) of another married man (Robert Hossein); then a 70s guitar type (Robert Walker Jnr). Then she has a crack at the priest.

Bardot still looks pretty good and the scenes of her and Birkin in bed together are quite hot. It is always interesting to see her as a sexually voracious woman. There's a lot of drivel dialogue about the nature of men and women - Vadiim would have been better off getting Bardot to do a few more sexual encounters. The ending, where Bardot burns to death, feels like the inevitable triumph of misogyny.

Movie review - "The Sea Wolves" (1980) **

Follow up to The Wild Geese with many of the same cast and crew - it was even meant to have Richards Burton and Harris as well but they became unavailable, being replaced by Gregory Peck and David Niven.

This has the advantage of being based on a true story and has a great central concept - over the hill soldiers being left out of the war get a chance to do something heroic - but they don't develop it properly. The focus of the action should have been on David Niven and co, fat Blimp types who get a last minute chance to be heroic. There is ample opportunity for comedy, poignancy, even romance... Dad's Army showed how it should be done.

But instead we get all this time devoted to spy shenanigans involving Roger Moore, who is clearly young, lithe and active - he runs around Goa, romancing a femme fetale, collecting information. At times the film comes close to being a Moore star vehicle instead of an ensemble piece. 

There's also Gregory Peck who, again, is an active soldier. The film is weighed far too much towards them - namely, conventional war stories - rather than what would've made this special. It needed more of David Niven, Trevor Howard, Patrick Macnee, etc. There is some but not enough.

The script isn't as good either - it lacks clearly defined characters and structure. There's no sense of the British Empire fading, or life in India. There are some good bits like the killing of Trevor Howard, and the final raid is well done, but it's disappointing.

England produce so many great character actors and the story is so strong - based on a true incident, no less - that I think Euan Lloyd should give some serious thought to remaking this. Imagine it with Bill Nighy, Maggie Smith, etc...

Richard Harris - action hero

I remember in the 1990s when Nicolas Cage became an action star to everyone's surprise that there was a lot of talk of "gee action stars are changing... these days they can be Actors as well". I think that was because in the 1980s we'd become used to muscle men being action stars - Van Damme, Norris, Arnie, etc - they'd forgotten that in the 1970s plenty of Actors went the action route, notably Richard Burton and Richard Harris.

Burton's status wasn't as surprising because he dipped in and out of action movies throughout his career - in the 1950s he appeared in Biblical epics and war films (in common with every single British star from this period). It wasn't that shocking to see him in say Where Eagles Dare.

Harris was less conventional, because he became a star later on in life - the 1960s. He did make occasional action films through that decade - The Heroes of Telemark, Major Dundee - but really got going in the 1970s: Golden Rendezvous, The Wild Geese, High Point, 99 and 44/100% Dead, Juggernaut, The Cassandra Crossing. None of these films were massive hits at the time but they seemed to do well "internationally".

And Harris actually isn't bad in these films. He doesn't look like a tough guy but he's got intelligence and soul - I particularly liked his principled mercenary in The Wild Geese. It's just darn weird that he got so many offers, that's all.

TV series - "Master of None" (2015) ****

You'd think Hollywood' is surely reaching critical mass with the number of semi-autobiographical rom com-ish TV series it makes with a background to the industry - but then one comes along like this which manages to be fresh and sweet and very well observed. Aziz Ansari finally gets to play the star role he's threatened to play for years and is notably well supported by Noel Wells as his girlfriend.

Book review - "Bond on Bond: Reflections on 50 Years of James Bond" by Roger Moore (2013)

I really enjoyed Roger Moore's memoirs, which felt very much written in his "voice" - this one doesn't, which is a shame. There are some good bits, which really feel like an inside look at the series, but for the most part it feels like a stock retread of facts that most serious Bond fans already know. Maybe I'm trying to make the book into something it was never meant to be - but why else do it? It's good natured and affectionate like you'd expect any book to be with Moore's name attached.

Movie review - "Milius" (2013) ****

A highly entertaining look at the life and times of one of Hollywood's most colourful characters, and top writers - at least during the first part of his career. Milius became something of a cartoon caricature of himself, as this film points out, but early on few writers could match him for lively, original work: Apocalypse Now, The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, Jeremiah Johnson. I've read these scripts and they're fantastic.

The quality of his output started to decline as he went into directing (not uncommon, unless the person in question worked with a co-writer) - but Milius enjoyed a decent amount of success as a director: Conan the Barbarian and Red Dawn. His career started to go south in the late 80s - Milius blames this in part on prejudice against conservatives, which interviewees Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzeneggar poo poo... A more likely reason (as pointed out here) was the commercial failure of several Milius films, notably Farewell to the King and Flight of the Intruder - and also Milius' persona I think began to grate. He kept busy as a writer and director although never matched his old pals like George Lucas, Coppola and Steven Spielberg. Milius was never as good a director as he was a writer - the perfect director for him was Francis Ford Coppola; I also think it's a shame he never got to work with other operatic directors like Brian de Palma.

What gives this film unexpected gravitas is the dimension of unexpected tragedy - his friends talking about how Milius became a caricature, his friend who embezzled from him, a stroke that meant he couldn't speak. By the end of the film he has recovered a little bit, but not a lot - he can shoot and move around but the filmmakers don't show him talking that much.

There are some excellent talking heads - Coppola, Spielberg, Schrader, Eastwood - plus some who don't really have a connection, but I assume agreed to talk for box office value (Stallone, Bryan Singer). Michael Mann is in there - Milius made an episode of Miami Vice for fun, although we only hear about it during the closing credits, just like we only hear about his contribution to UFC there.

There are other areas I would have liked to hear more about - his marriages (none mentioned), his female characters (only two women talk, Lea Thompson and his daughter), his production company the A team.

But these are outweighed by the positives: the depiction of the collegiate atmosphere of 70s film making, home movies of the young Milius, extracts from old USC student films, the talk of the stroke and ensuing battles, meeting his kids. A must for film buffs.

Book review - "Dropped Names" by Frank Langella

Langella is probably best known to movie buffs for his portrayal as Dracula and Richard Nixon, and his many villainous roles; he was also the off screen partner of Whoopi Goldberg for a time. I admit to not knowing a lot about his career except that he worked extensively in theatre; this entertaining memoir fills in a lot of blanks.

Rather in the matter of Bring on the Empty Horses by David Niven, it's structured in the form of a series of encounters with famous people - Laurence Olivier, Yvonne de Carlo, Bob Mitchum, Rita Hayworth, Rex Harrison, George C Scott.

A lot of this is great - Burton was a drunken bore, forever reciting stock pieces; Tony Perkins made a joke about the size of his cock as a come on; his homoerotic relationship with Raoul Julia; being mysteriously hated by Colleen Dewhurst; Laurence Olivier saying gay actors need to "hide the Nellie" and talking about his premature ejaculation; affairs with Rita Hayworth, Yvonne de Carlo (who was happy just to hop on and go), Elizabeth Taylor and Jackie Kennedy. An interesting analysis of working with director George C Scott and Elia Kazan (who Langella never official works with but regrets). Worth a read.

Movie review - "Gold" (1974) **1/2

The novels of Wilbur Smith would seem a natural for the movies, with their tough heroes, abundance of sex and action packed plots, but Hollywood hasn't really gone for them in a big way, in part because most of them are set in South Africa, a hot topic in the 60s through to 90s. Michael Klinger made two starring Roger Moore in the mid 70s, this and Shout at the Devil.

This one is a contemporary tale but avoids tackling politics directly - it's a thriller about mischievious business people who want to raise the price of gold by flooding a mine. The person out to stop them is heroic engineer Roger Moore.

There are two main dramatic problems with the film. Firstly, Moore has an affair with Susannah York, who is married to Bradford Dillman and is the daughter of Ray Milland. I think it's meant to be alright because Dillman is evil, but if he's so bad then why does York hang around? I don't much like her, and I don't much like Moore for having a fling with her. Fall in love, fine - but do it out in the open, not like little cowards.

Secondly, Moore is ignorant of the plot to flood the mine until it actually happens - about 100 minutes into the film. That means he spends a lot of time walking around looking handsome, speaking in that cultured voice, but he doesn't get to do that much heroic: he worries about a job, has sex with a floozy, has a fling with York - while the baddies (Dillman, etc) push the action. Passive heroes are never a good idea in action films.

Another problem is the casting of Moore - he does his best but isn't that convincing as a tough mine engineer; too posh, too cultured. The film needed a Connery or Caine or Harris or Richard Burton (who I'm sure were approached but were too expensive).

There is some indirect politics in a way with its picture of whites lazying by the pool and playing bowls while the blacks (who are generally all sympathetic characters) toil and suffer.

There is some decent location work in South Africa. Mines actually aren't that interesting but at least this one looks authentic. There is a de rigeur wildlife trip complete with ostriches and faithful black servant. The action of the final mine flood is very good (with an interestingly shot assassination of Dillman thrown in - being driven at by a car) but there's too little of it. Some camp value lies in the theme son and the fashion.