A bright low budget British comedy thriller, with a dash of The Maltese Falcon as a bunch of types try to track down a valuable brass monkey. The cast is a real grab bag - an awkward Canadian, Carroll Levis, who plays himself (very stiffly); the pretty Carole Landis, shortly before she killed herself in real life; Herbert Lom as a (surprise!) villainous foreigner; Terry Thomas playing himself, as he was then i.e. a stage entertainer (he sings a song); Avril Angers as herself.
It's surprisingly fast paced and light and I enjoyed it. Levis is poor but Landis is spirited and Angers (who I'd never heard of) is a lot of fun. I found it genuinely surprising that Landis was a main baddy - until I remembered they really ripped off Mary Astor in The Maltese Falcon.
Structure wise the film does make a big mistake in that the last third the plot comes to the halt and they do Levis' radio show, with people coming on doing various numbers (an accordionist, etc). This ruins momentum, and is annoying. But it's bright and unpretentious.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Movie review - "Cardboard Cavalier" (1949) **
Sid Field was a popular British stage comedian who never made it as a movie star despite a few expensive attempts, this being one. As a vehicle for the comic it's poorly constructed, with a lack of comic set pieces, or strong support cast, or laughs. It takes too long to introduce Field and is far too serious for much of the running time.
The basic idea isn't bad isn't bad - Field is a barrow boy used as a spy for Charles II during the time of Oliver Cromwell. Bob Hope made a bunch of these historical comedies, but they were done by people who knew what they were doing - plenty of colour, gags and songs. This one feels amateurish.
The main problem is it isn't funny. I know that's a matter of personal taste, but evidently the British public of 1949 agreed with me for they did not turn up in expected numbers. It badly lacks comic sequences. And when they attempt it - eg banter between Field and a royalist lord, Jerry Desmonde - it doesn't really work.
Part of this is due to the weakness of the support cast. Lockwood tries, in a blonde wig, but she's not a natural comedienne; for all her efforts she looks like someone out of her league - and the film is geared too much towards her. Jerry Desmonde, as a royalist officer, was Field's regular on stage collaborator but he's not much good in the film.
It does pick up towards the end when the dramatic lines become simpler - Field and his gang try to break into a castle, resulting in them dressing up (Field in drag). There's pace and movement but it never hits home.
The basic idea isn't bad isn't bad - Field is a barrow boy used as a spy for Charles II during the time of Oliver Cromwell. Bob Hope made a bunch of these historical comedies, but they were done by people who knew what they were doing - plenty of colour, gags and songs. This one feels amateurish.
The main problem is it isn't funny. I know that's a matter of personal taste, but evidently the British public of 1949 agreed with me for they did not turn up in expected numbers. It badly lacks comic sequences. And when they attempt it - eg banter between Field and a royalist lord, Jerry Desmonde - it doesn't really work.
Part of this is due to the weakness of the support cast. Lockwood tries, in a blonde wig, but she's not a natural comedienne; for all her efforts she looks like someone out of her league - and the film is geared too much towards her. Jerry Desmonde, as a royalist officer, was Field's regular on stage collaborator but he's not much good in the film.
It does pick up towards the end when the dramatic lines become simpler - Field and his gang try to break into a castle, resulting in them dressing up (Field in drag). There's pace and movement but it never hits home.
Friday, April 29, 2016
Movie review - "Revenge of the Zombies" (1943) **
Follow up to King of the Zombies also has Mantan Moreland as a servant to two men investigating a mad scientist dabbling in zombies. He's played by John Carradine, giving this star power - and it's actually a good cast, with also Veda Ann Borg popping up as Carradine's zombie wife, Gale Storm as a love interest, and 30s Western star Bob Steele as a double agent.
This film is actually full of great ideas but none of them are developed which is frustrating - hero Mauritz Hugo is Borg's sister but they never have much of a relationship; Carradine seems to be working for the Nazis but doesn't seem to be planning anything; Robert Lowery is a hero who doesn't do much; Moreland is given a romance but hardly any screen time to develop it; Moreland has a fleeting encounter with zombies but that's given hardly any screen time too (Moreland fans will get more out of King of the Zombies); the zombies rise up but there's no build up or satisfaction.
The best bits are Bob Steele as a double/triple agent and the fact Carradine's wife is a zombie but turns on him. There is some decent atmosphere. This actually could have been awesome with a bit more care.
This film is actually full of great ideas but none of them are developed which is frustrating - hero Mauritz Hugo is Borg's sister but they never have much of a relationship; Carradine seems to be working for the Nazis but doesn't seem to be planning anything; Robert Lowery is a hero who doesn't do much; Moreland is given a romance but hardly any screen time to develop it; Moreland has a fleeting encounter with zombies but that's given hardly any screen time too (Moreland fans will get more out of King of the Zombies); the zombies rise up but there's no build up or satisfaction.
The best bits are Bob Steele as a double/triple agent and the fact Carradine's wife is a zombie but turns on him. There is some decent atmosphere. This actually could have been awesome with a bit more care.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Movie review - "Tottie True" (1948) **1/2
Jean Kent livened up Gainsborough melodramas of the 1940s with some sparky support portrayals as slutty girls. In the late 1940s she was given a few starring roles but none of them particularly struck home, including this.
This was a big vehicle for her - an expensive (for Britain) period musical in colour with Kent front and center, playing the title role: a working class girl who becomes a music hall star and marries a lord (James Donald).
And to be fair Kent gives an accomplished, professional performance. She had a music hall background and can sing and dance and act. But she's not a star. She's just an ordinary nice girl who does her best but you don't care.
The story doesn't help her that much. Trottie wants to be a singer, she is a singer, she falls in love with a guy who flies balloons but they can't get it together, so she marries a Lord (James Donald) who is a nice guy, she lives in the aristocracy, their marriage has a bit of a strain with both worried the other is cheating but they work it out.
No real conflict or baddies or development. I guess it was interesting to hear the characters talk about adultery and for Trottie to think her desires were as important as men. Bill Owen - Trottie's co star who loves her - really should have been the rival, not Andrew Crawford, who is awful as the balloon guy.
But there are still pleasures to be had - the art design, photography, colour, songs, period re-creation. Kent is likeable enough and James Donald very good. Christopher Lee and Roger Moore have blink and you'll miss them appearances. The Brits don't have a great reputation for movie musicals but they could do a pretty decent job.
This was a big vehicle for her - an expensive (for Britain) period musical in colour with Kent front and center, playing the title role: a working class girl who becomes a music hall star and marries a lord (James Donald).
And to be fair Kent gives an accomplished, professional performance. She had a music hall background and can sing and dance and act. But she's not a star. She's just an ordinary nice girl who does her best but you don't care.
The story doesn't help her that much. Trottie wants to be a singer, she is a singer, she falls in love with a guy who flies balloons but they can't get it together, so she marries a Lord (James Donald) who is a nice guy, she lives in the aristocracy, their marriage has a bit of a strain with both worried the other is cheating but they work it out.
No real conflict or baddies or development. I guess it was interesting to hear the characters talk about adultery and for Trottie to think her desires were as important as men. Bill Owen - Trottie's co star who loves her - really should have been the rival, not Andrew Crawford, who is awful as the balloon guy.
But there are still pleasures to be had - the art design, photography, colour, songs, period re-creation. Kent is likeable enough and James Donald very good. Christopher Lee and Roger Moore have blink and you'll miss them appearances. The Brits don't have a great reputation for movie musicals but they could do a pretty decent job.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Movie review - "This Time is for Keeps" (1947) **1/2
A thin plot even by Esther Williams' standards - she's an acquacade star who falls in love with a war hero whose father sings opera but the son wants to sing more modern songs... and also there's some girl he was engaged to before the war who he doesn't tell Esther about. And that's about it. Seriously. It practically floats off the page.
But actually I didn't mind it that much. Better than something more plotty which was dodgy, dumb and/or offensive. And Joe Pasternak makes sure there's always something going on in that grab bag variety show act way of his... there's Jimmy Durante doing some numbers and rather touchingly being in love with Esther. The male lead is some bloke called Johnnie Johnston who I'd never heard of but isn't a bad actor (I'd seen worse - he's better than the block of wood Dick Simmons who plays his rival) and can sing; he's a radio star and was married to Kathryn Grayson but didn't end up making a lot of movies - I wonder why. Maybe temperament?
Esther swims around a bit and her swimming cronies hang out by the piano in swimsuits. There's a few cute kids, bright colours, that fat opera singer Lauritz Melchior singing a few numbers (MGM loved their opera) and some acting, band leader Xavier Cugat doing a few numbers and some acting, Dame May Whitty as Esther's bossy grandma, plus location filming on Mackinak Island, which I'd never heard of but looks lovely. It just wants to entertain and if you're in the mood for this sort of thing it will.
But actually I didn't mind it that much. Better than something more plotty which was dodgy, dumb and/or offensive. And Joe Pasternak makes sure there's always something going on in that grab bag variety show act way of his... there's Jimmy Durante doing some numbers and rather touchingly being in love with Esther. The male lead is some bloke called Johnnie Johnston who I'd never heard of but isn't a bad actor (I'd seen worse - he's better than the block of wood Dick Simmons who plays his rival) and can sing; he's a radio star and was married to Kathryn Grayson but didn't end up making a lot of movies - I wonder why. Maybe temperament?
Esther swims around a bit and her swimming cronies hang out by the piano in swimsuits. There's a few cute kids, bright colours, that fat opera singer Lauritz Melchior singing a few numbers (MGM loved their opera) and some acting, band leader Xavier Cugat doing a few numbers and some acting, Dame May Whitty as Esther's bossy grandma, plus location filming on Mackinak Island, which I'd never heard of but looks lovely. It just wants to entertain and if you're in the mood for this sort of thing it will.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Movie review - "Ghosts on the Loose" (1943) **
Bela Lugosi and the East Side Kids were well liked enough as a team in Spooks Run Wild for Sam Katzman and Jack Dietz at Monogram to reunite them in another comedy-horror. Well, comedy-thriller is probably more accurate, as this one has the Kids bust a Nazi spy ring.
The plot revolves around the wedding of one of the kids' sister - she's played by Ava Gardner! And she was stunningly beautiful even then. Unfortunately both Bela and Ava are hardly in it; most of the action consists of the East Side Kids poking around an old house, wondering if it's haunted, and the Nazis trying to scare them away.
There's not really enough story here for a feature - it's about 20 minutes worth. We do get the East Side Kids singing in a choir (for the wedding), some funny stuff as they help prepare the wedding - this whole film probably should have revolved around the wedding. Its a bit piss weak that all the Nazis are up to his printing propaganda leaflets - they should be making bombs and/or kidnapping or something.
Very light but amiable. Tom Weaver got stuck into this film in his book Poverty Row Horrors but I didn't mind it. Too light to be offensive.
The plot revolves around the wedding of one of the kids' sister - she's played by Ava Gardner! And she was stunningly beautiful even then. Unfortunately both Bela and Ava are hardly in it; most of the action consists of the East Side Kids poking around an old house, wondering if it's haunted, and the Nazis trying to scare them away.
There's not really enough story here for a feature - it's about 20 minutes worth. We do get the East Side Kids singing in a choir (for the wedding), some funny stuff as they help prepare the wedding - this whole film probably should have revolved around the wedding. Its a bit piss weak that all the Nazis are up to his printing propaganda leaflets - they should be making bombs and/or kidnapping or something.
Very light but amiable. Tom Weaver got stuck into this film in his book Poverty Row Horrors but I didn't mind it. Too light to be offensive.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Book review - "Orson Welles: One Man Band" by Simon Callow (2016)
The third of Callow's books on Welles - I think he intended to go all the way until his death but old Orson was so prolific and all over the shop that he only makes it until Chimes at Midnight.
There is heaps until then, though - the making of Black Magic and The Third Man, the torturous shoot of Othello, the stage production of Othello with Peter Finch, the triumph of his Las Vegas magic show and Moby Dick Rehearsed, the disappointment of King Lear, Harry Lime on radio, the various cameos, Mr Akardian, Touch of Evil, the TV shows, directing Laurence Oliver in Rhinoceros, The Trial.
There were some astonishing achievements in there, especially for someone who never equalled Citizen Kane - Othello, Touch of Evil and especially Chimes at Midnight are all striking films, Moby Dick Rehearsed a terrific play, The Fountain of Youth a remarkable piece of TV. Welles would be consistently dogged by bad luck but also good luck would periodically drop out of the sky eg Charlton Heston pushing for him on Touch of Evil, money just magically appearing for The Trial. He appeared in many terrible films as an actor but just enough good ones to keep him in demand (The Third Man, Compulsion).
Welles could never get it together - Hollywood seemed to welcome him back with A Touch of Evil but post production was so traumatic it seemed to turn the studios off him (he disappeared during the editing yet again); artistic triumphs like Moby Dick Rehearsed were not commercial successes; when given complete artistic freedom and support he resulted in The Trial; he'd make fantastic TV but not given the chance to follow it up; commercial successes like Rhinoceros were hurt by the fact Laurence Olivier effectively banned him from rehearsals; Chimes at Midnight was a masterpiece with no distribution. Again and again one keeps thinking "if only"... "if only" he'd been able to make a second film for Zugsmith at Universal, if only he'd been able to schmooze executives as well as cast and crew, if only a major studio had distributed Chimes. But still, so much of the work survives to thrill us.
After reading Patrick McGilligan's biography on Welles' early years, Callow's nuts and bolts biography work (dates, places etc) suffers in comparison. But he is a wonderful writer and is particularly superb and insightful on Welles' acting, and his theatre work. A fantastic read.
There is heaps until then, though - the making of Black Magic and The Third Man, the torturous shoot of Othello, the stage production of Othello with Peter Finch, the triumph of his Las Vegas magic show and Moby Dick Rehearsed, the disappointment of King Lear, Harry Lime on radio, the various cameos, Mr Akardian, Touch of Evil, the TV shows, directing Laurence Oliver in Rhinoceros, The Trial.
There were some astonishing achievements in there, especially for someone who never equalled Citizen Kane - Othello, Touch of Evil and especially Chimes at Midnight are all striking films, Moby Dick Rehearsed a terrific play, The Fountain of Youth a remarkable piece of TV. Welles would be consistently dogged by bad luck but also good luck would periodically drop out of the sky eg Charlton Heston pushing for him on Touch of Evil, money just magically appearing for The Trial. He appeared in many terrible films as an actor but just enough good ones to keep him in demand (The Third Man, Compulsion).
Welles could never get it together - Hollywood seemed to welcome him back with A Touch of Evil but post production was so traumatic it seemed to turn the studios off him (he disappeared during the editing yet again); artistic triumphs like Moby Dick Rehearsed were not commercial successes; when given complete artistic freedom and support he resulted in The Trial; he'd make fantastic TV but not given the chance to follow it up; commercial successes like Rhinoceros were hurt by the fact Laurence Olivier effectively banned him from rehearsals; Chimes at Midnight was a masterpiece with no distribution. Again and again one keeps thinking "if only"... "if only" he'd been able to make a second film for Zugsmith at Universal, if only he'd been able to schmooze executives as well as cast and crew, if only a major studio had distributed Chimes. But still, so much of the work survives to thrill us.
After reading Patrick McGilligan's biography on Welles' early years, Callow's nuts and bolts biography work (dates, places etc) suffers in comparison. But he is a wonderful writer and is particularly superb and insightful on Welles' acting, and his theatre work. A fantastic read.
Movie review - "The Ape Man" (1943) ** (re-viewing)
It's great fun to see Bela Lugosi in an ape man costume and he's certainly well cast as a mad scientist who goes around killing people to extract spinal fluid in order to cure his bad posture (true!)
Louise Currie is the female lead, a wisecracking female reporter (a common sight in low budget horror films, and actually in many ways a stronger role model for women than some of today's horror flicks - at least she has a job). Her love interest is fellow wisecracking reporter Wallace Ford, a tubby middle aged man - but then that was the WW2 shortage in leading men.
Minerva Urecal makes an impression as Lugosi's devoted sister. The ape make up is pretty good. And Lugosi is heaps of fun.
However William Beaudine's direction is poor - is lacks suspense and the action is not exciting; the photography is more, the camera usually static. Surefire scenes such as Lugosi's ape helped going on a rampage are flat and unexciting. The battle of the sexes banter between the reporters is appalling. And that in joke at the end where someone says they're the writer and winks at the screen made me furious - you can't do that in a not-very-good film.
Louise Currie is the female lead, a wisecracking female reporter (a common sight in low budget horror films, and actually in many ways a stronger role model for women than some of today's horror flicks - at least she has a job). Her love interest is fellow wisecracking reporter Wallace Ford, a tubby middle aged man - but then that was the WW2 shortage in leading men.
Minerva Urecal makes an impression as Lugosi's devoted sister. The ape make up is pretty good. And Lugosi is heaps of fun.
However William Beaudine's direction is poor - is lacks suspense and the action is not exciting; the photography is more, the camera usually static. Surefire scenes such as Lugosi's ape helped going on a rampage are flat and unexciting. The battle of the sexes banter between the reporters is appalling. And that in joke at the end where someone says they're the writer and winks at the screen made me furious - you can't do that in a not-very-good film.
TV review - "Vinyl Season 1" (2016) **
You want to love it because the credits list Scorsese, Jagger and Terence Winter, it sounds as if it's going to be cool, the cast is great (Bobby Cannavale getting a lead, Ray Romano going indie, Juno Temple), the concept sounds as though it's going to be good, the art direction and music are fabulous, the cameos from 70s stars like David Bowie and Alice Cooper are awesome...
But it's a crap show.
I liked the pilot, with Cannavale having an epiphany and a murder plot thrown in... but you sense you're in trouble in ep 2 when they're already doing flashbacks and sure enough it's like the series doesn't have anywhere to go. Cannavale is on coke... then more coke... then more... he's obnoxious... then obnoxious... he fails... then fails... and fails again... How did this guy run a record company? He just yells. He doesn't seem to like new music or be good at business or anything.
Juno Temple is introduced in the pilot as an ambitious little thing with a taste for sex and drugs but an ear for music. Once she discovers the new band though, that's it... she just becomes The Girl, hanging around, taking part in a threesome, and watching.
Max Casella is in it and you go "awesome, well done mate - an HBO series". He looks great in those clothes and has this brilliant shimmy he does and a memorable rant talking about guitar. But that's it - that's the end of his character they just rinse and repeat.
Olivia Wilde looks splendid as always, whines about Cannavale never being home, leaves, takes photos... she's not a character. The support players aren't really characters either. This was a hard slog to get through.
Movie review - "Dead Men Walk" (1943) **
As pointed out by Tom Weaver in his book Poverty Row Horrors, its a mystery why the poverty row studios made so few vampire movies - vampires are cheap, effective, well known. Maybe they were scared tackling Universal head on. This is a rare poverty row item from PRC. It rehashes the story of Dracula with George Zucco, that solid second tier horror star, playing dual roles of the Dracula type vampire and his twin brother, the Van Helsing character.
Vampire Zucco is after young Mary Carlise, the Lucy character - who has a dull Jonathan Harker fiancee played woodenly by Ned Young. Dwight Frye livens up things considerably reprising his Renfield performance as the vampire's helper. The idea of having the vampire and nemesis as identical twins was a good one.
Like so many low budget horrors, it starts with a bang and tails off, being unable to develop momentum. The filmmakers make the mistake of having a mob march on Zucco (they think the good brother is the killer) without having money for extras. For some reason they don't embrace the vampire mystique that much either eg Zucco became a vampire through black magic not being bitten. It's not particularly well directed either. However fans of Zucco and Frye will get a lot out of it.
Vampire Zucco is after young Mary Carlise, the Lucy character - who has a dull Jonathan Harker fiancee played woodenly by Ned Young. Dwight Frye livens up things considerably reprising his Renfield performance as the vampire's helper. The idea of having the vampire and nemesis as identical twins was a good one.
Like so many low budget horrors, it starts with a bang and tails off, being unable to develop momentum. The filmmakers make the mistake of having a mob march on Zucco (they think the good brother is the killer) without having money for extras. For some reason they don't embrace the vampire mystique that much either eg Zucco became a vampire through black magic not being bitten. It's not particularly well directed either. However fans of Zucco and Frye will get a lot out of it.
Movie review - "The Crowd" (1928) ****
Highly praised in its day, this remains a powerful affecting movie. It's slice of life stuff, the story of a young man trying to make it in the big city. Dad died when he was 12, he's a bit of a dreamer, works hard enough but is easily distracted (eg persuaded to go on a date instead of studying), he falls in love quickly, gets married, doesn't rise particularly rapidly, has two kids with his wife, his wife's family don't really like him, he wins $500 in a competition but then sees his son run over in front of his eyes, he loses the plot, and marriage is hard.
There are indelible visual images: the teaming office ants, the swarms of people, the packed offices and hospitals, the location shooting of the man on the bus. Plenty of warmth though: the man checking out the girl's legs on said bus, the couple nervously preparing for their first night together after they get married, the broken down apartment they live in with the door being unable to shut, the irritating brothers in law.
The most powerful moment is the death of the kid - for me, this raises the film to masterpiece level. There's also strong sentiment such as the man going to kill himself, and being saved by his surviving kid's cheeriness. As a young dad, these are incredibly moving. There is extra resonance in the fact that star James Murray became an alcoholic who died on the skids in real life.
There are indelible visual images: the teaming office ants, the swarms of people, the packed offices and hospitals, the location shooting of the man on the bus. Plenty of warmth though: the man checking out the girl's legs on said bus, the couple nervously preparing for their first night together after they get married, the broken down apartment they live in with the door being unable to shut, the irritating brothers in law.
The most powerful moment is the death of the kid - for me, this raises the film to masterpiece level. There's also strong sentiment such as the man going to kill himself, and being saved by his surviving kid's cheeriness. As a young dad, these are incredibly moving. There is extra resonance in the fact that star James Murray became an alcoholic who died on the skids in real life.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Movie review - "The Hill" (1965) ***
One of the reasons people love Sean Connery, and why his career lasted so long, was at the height of Bond mania, when he could've been in anything, he ditched the toupee and took a role in what was basically an ensemble piece, an account of life in a British military prison.
Although essentially British, it was directed by Sidney Lumet, who ensures there is nothing pukka and toff nosed about it. It's gritty kitchen sink realism really, the sink being in a military prison, as Connery and his fellow prisoners deal with tough but decent Harry Andrews and tough but sadistic Ian Henry (who is always acting under a hat so you never get a decent look at his face).
Other prisoners include Alfred Lynch (the whimpy one who shouldn't really be in the army and who is basically killed by too much running in the sun), Ossie Davis as a Jamaican, Roy Kinnear and Jack Watson. Michael Redgrave has a small role as the medical officer; I thought Ian Bannen would have a bigger part too, as a more sensitive officer.
It goes for over two hours and is a hard slog at times. There's a lot of characters running up and down that hill and yelling at each other. Then when the ending comes it's very abrupt - though effective. I admired this movie more than I actually liked it. Still, I keep thinking about it, a few days after I saw it, and that doesn't always happen.
Although essentially British, it was directed by Sidney Lumet, who ensures there is nothing pukka and toff nosed about it. It's gritty kitchen sink realism really, the sink being in a military prison, as Connery and his fellow prisoners deal with tough but decent Harry Andrews and tough but sadistic Ian Henry (who is always acting under a hat so you never get a decent look at his face).
Other prisoners include Alfred Lynch (the whimpy one who shouldn't really be in the army and who is basically killed by too much running in the sun), Ossie Davis as a Jamaican, Roy Kinnear and Jack Watson. Michael Redgrave has a small role as the medical officer; I thought Ian Bannen would have a bigger part too, as a more sensitive officer.
It goes for over two hours and is a hard slog at times. There's a lot of characters running up and down that hill and yelling at each other. Then when the ending comes it's very abrupt - though effective. I admired this movie more than I actually liked it. Still, I keep thinking about it, a few days after I saw it, and that doesn't always happen.
Book review - "The Pit and the Pendulum" by Lee Sheridan, Laurence French
Another in Bear Manor Media's much appreciated reprints of novelistations of old movies - in this case the 1961 Roger Corman-Richard Matheson-Vincent Price etc classic. Matheson had to do a lot of work to flesh out Poe's story to feature length, and did it by falling back on some reliable tropes: man arrives in mysterious castle looking for sister; mysterious man of the house who may or may not be a killer; dead person revealed to not really be dead; person going insane; person buried alive.
It's creepy and well structured and benefits from not having to endure John Kerr's performance.
There's an excellent separate bit about the making of the film, including looks at the script, Corman's direction, Price's performance, the art direction, etc.
It's creepy and well structured and benefits from not having to endure John Kerr's performance.
There's an excellent separate bit about the making of the film, including looks at the script, Corman's direction, Price's performance, the art direction, etc.
Movie review - "The Great Race" (1965) ***
Everything I'd read about this film indicated it was a bloated, unfunny waste of cash which does no one credit. I was delighted to find it was a fun, free spirited homage to old silent film gags, an obvious inspiration for Wacky Races, with its cast and director Blake Edwards in fine form.
Tony Curtis has a fun old time sending up his 50s Universal hero image, and he's well matched by Natalie Wood, who never looked prettier (in a variety of fetching outfits, including some relatively racy underwear) or as though she was having more fun (even though she attempted suicide once the film was over); plus Jack Lemmon hamming it up as Professor Fate. There's also Peter Falk as Lemmon's sidekick and Keenan Wynn, as Curtis' sidekick. I did wish they'd focused on some other people in the race - it wasn't that though three wasn't enough running time.
It's bright and colorful and genuinely funny and charming - I enjoyed The Prisoner of Zenda bit thrown in at the end, and winding up on the ice floes, and the pie fight. It is very long, far too long, and really shouldn't have cost all that money - there's plenty of production value but it all could've been done on the studio backlot.
Tony Curtis has a fun old time sending up his 50s Universal hero image, and he's well matched by Natalie Wood, who never looked prettier (in a variety of fetching outfits, including some relatively racy underwear) or as though she was having more fun (even though she attempted suicide once the film was over); plus Jack Lemmon hamming it up as Professor Fate. There's also Peter Falk as Lemmon's sidekick and Keenan Wynn, as Curtis' sidekick. I did wish they'd focused on some other people in the race - it wasn't that though three wasn't enough running time.
It's bright and colorful and genuinely funny and charming - I enjoyed The Prisoner of Zenda bit thrown in at the end, and winding up on the ice floes, and the pie fight. It is very long, far too long, and really shouldn't have cost all that money - there's plenty of production value but it all could've been done on the studio backlot.
Friday, April 22, 2016
Movie review - "Bowery at Midnight" (1942) **1/2 (re-viewing)
Bela Lugosi reteams with director Wallace Ford of Monogram after having made The Corpse Vanishes. This benefits from a decent idea - Lugosi runs a soup kitchen, which he uses to recruit crooks and turn them into zombies. The latter bit feels like a tacked on after thought to what is essentially a crime movie - it kind of works, I just feel could have worked better with some more thorough treatment.There's not enough zombie stuff eg the college student coming back to life at the end felt like a cheat.
Tom Neal lifts things as a gangster who works for Lugosi but who won't kill a woman. Other good scenes include an undercover college student who wants to know what goes through the mind as people die... then Lugosi orders Neal to kill him.
It has energy though and a pleasing degree of nuttiness.
Tom Neal lifts things as a gangster who works for Lugosi but who won't kill a woman. Other good scenes include an undercover college student who wants to know what goes through the mind as people die... then Lugosi orders Neal to kill him.
It has energy though and a pleasing degree of nuttiness.
Movie review - "The Mad Monster" (1942) ** (re-viewing)
PRC seems to have splashed out a little more than usual for this werewolf movie - or maybe it was just better designed and shot. The production values seem relatively high, as George Zucco tries to breed a race of killer werewolves to help win the war (good on you, George!). He does experiments in the basement on Glenn Strange, who when non-werewolf-y, runs around imitating Lon Chaney Jnr in Of Mice and Men - but when the serum hits he turns into a werewolf.
Like so many of these low budget horror films this starts off with a bang, but then slows down, and struggles to sustain interest whenever the action switches to the inexperienced supporting players. Part of the reason why the Universal horror films held up so well was the quality of the support cast and subplots - these struggled on poverty row.
At 77 minutes it feels long. They should have ditched the support cast and focused more on Zucco and his patriotic monsters - that's a genuinely different aspect not really developed. It does have one other shocking aspect - the monster kills a kid. Not bad, but eventually disappointing after a strong beginning.
Like so many of these low budget horror films this starts off with a bang, but then slows down, and struggles to sustain interest whenever the action switches to the inexperienced supporting players. Part of the reason why the Universal horror films held up so well was the quality of the support cast and subplots - these struggled on poverty row.
At 77 minutes it feels long. They should have ditched the support cast and focused more on Zucco and his patriotic monsters - that's a genuinely different aspect not really developed. It does have one other shocking aspect - the monster kills a kid. Not bad, but eventually disappointing after a strong beginning.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Movie review - "The Sea Hawk" (1924) ***
The first version of Rafael Sabatini's novel, memorably filmed by Errol Flynn in 1940. I've never read the book but apparently this version is a lot more faithful. The hero is still an established buccaneer/kind-of pirate, beloved by Queen Elizabeth I; he is still betrayed and winds up a galley slave on a Spanish ship, then escapes and triumphs... but this time the baddies aren't really the Spaniards. I mean they kind of are but the real baddy is the pirate's brother who has him conked on the head and shanghaied so the brother won't get blamed for a murder. He is about to be released by the shanghaiing pirate (Wallace Beery) but they're captured by Spaniards who put them to work on the galleys - then he's rescued by some Moorish pirates and the Sea Hawk rises to become the number one Moorish pirate. Then he kidnaps his old girlfriend and the brother, then they are attacked in turn by a British ship...
Anyway it gets complicated. The the brother is bad but he redeems himself swimming to warn the British ship so as to rescue the girl friend. The head Arab pirate has a half son I think he was who is a lazy lounge lizard jealous of the Sea Hawk - he's kind of bad. Bu the film is reasonably sympathetic to Muslim culture - they're shown to be brave, good fighters, and have honor. Yes they indulge in the slave trade but a point is made that so too do the Spanish.
Milton Sills played the lead role - I'd never heard of him, apparently he was a matinee idol back in the day. He's not very good - a bit blah. Lloyd Hughes makes more of an impression as Sills' wastrel brother - young and dashing, far more charismatic than he'd be in those two Aussie films he made for Ken G Hall in the 1930s.
The female lead is whatever - she's played by Enid Bennett, who is an Aussie, one of the first Aussies in Hollywood to have real success (she did it in part by marriage to Fred Niblo, who she met when the latter was acting on stage out here).
There is some silent film era over acting and impressive spectacle. It lacks the political power of the 1940 film (which could, now that I think about it, act as a prequel to this version). Some great fight scenes and production value. It runs for two hours but doesn't overly drag once Stills gets conked on the head and taken out to sea (up to then it's a slog).
Anyway it gets complicated. The the brother is bad but he redeems himself swimming to warn the British ship so as to rescue the girl friend. The head Arab pirate has a half son I think he was who is a lazy lounge lizard jealous of the Sea Hawk - he's kind of bad. Bu the film is reasonably sympathetic to Muslim culture - they're shown to be brave, good fighters, and have honor. Yes they indulge in the slave trade but a point is made that so too do the Spanish.
Milton Sills played the lead role - I'd never heard of him, apparently he was a matinee idol back in the day. He's not very good - a bit blah. Lloyd Hughes makes more of an impression as Sills' wastrel brother - young and dashing, far more charismatic than he'd be in those two Aussie films he made for Ken G Hall in the 1930s.
The female lead is whatever - she's played by Enid Bennett, who is an Aussie, one of the first Aussies in Hollywood to have real success (she did it in part by marriage to Fred Niblo, who she met when the latter was acting on stage out here).
There is some silent film era over acting and impressive spectacle. It lacks the political power of the 1940 film (which could, now that I think about it, act as a prequel to this version). Some great fight scenes and production value. It runs for two hours but doesn't overly drag once Stills gets conked on the head and taken out to sea (up to then it's a slog).
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Movie review - "The Corpse Vanishes" (1942) **1/2 (re-viewing)
Bonkers, fast paced and fun - perhaps the best of Bela Lugosi's "Monogram Nine". It benefits from a story which, if unrealistic, at least has energy and oomph - someone is killing brides on their wedding day and a feisty female reporter goes to investigate. Turns out the culprit is Bela Lugosi, who like all the best crazy cinema villains, has a strong motive: he uses the bride's blood to keep his wife young.
Basically it's a vampire movie without actually being a vampire movie. Luana Waters is fun as the feisty reporter on the case, Lugosi is entertaining, Elisabeth Russell is fine as his wife and there's lots of delight along the way, such as a dwarf in Lugosi's family and some crazy dialogue.
Waters should have offered herself up as a bride at the end but at least Lugosi kidnaps her and puts her on the slab. Unlike many Monogram films the momentum actually sustains. I don't want to over praise this - it's still cheap and shoddy - but it is definitely among Lugosi's best at Monogram.
Basically it's a vampire movie without actually being a vampire movie. Luana Waters is fun as the feisty reporter on the case, Lugosi is entertaining, Elisabeth Russell is fine as his wife and there's lots of delight along the way, such as a dwarf in Lugosi's family and some crazy dialogue.
Waters should have offered herself up as a bride at the end but at least Lugosi kidnaps her and puts her on the slab. Unlike many Monogram films the momentum actually sustains. I don't want to over praise this - it's still cheap and shoddy - but it is definitely among Lugosi's best at Monogram.
Movie review - "Holiday Camp" (1947) ***1/2
A surprise packet - an early film from Ken Annakin who had a background in documentaries and made the leap to features with ease. It's a real ensemble piece, a look at various people going on holiday at a camp for a week: Flora Robson mourns for a lost love; a young couple wonder what to do with an out of wedlock pregnancy; a loving but squabbling working class couple, the Huggets (Kathleen Harrison, Jack Warner), see their son get ensnared by gamblers and their hot daughter (Hazel Court) romanced by recently-jilted Jimmy Lydon; a smooth RAF conman type (Dennis Price) turns out to be a serial killer.
It works very well, this combination of comedy, drama and romance, a forerunner of modern day soapies. Things are helped by a very good cast - there are veterans like Robson, Warner and Harrison, plus new matinee idols like Price, and brand new hot things like Court and a young Diana Dors. There's also cameos by Pat Roc as herself - and a few other people I didn't recognise who I'm prepared to believe were famous.
Historically its fascinating to see how lower class Brits holidayed back in the day - these massive camps, where they packed them in, had constant organised activities, where you were in each other's pockets, nightly sing alongs of 'Knees Up Mother Brown' and doing the hokey pokey. No wonder the country took to socialism so well. Annakin films this brilliantly incorporating what I assume is footage at a real life camp with the actual actors though.
It all feels authentic. And the melodrama doesn't stuff around - there's a serial killer who kills someone, a couple have premarital sex, a woman contemplates suicide, Hazel Court is a widowed mum. No wonder it was a hit - I'm surprised the Americans didn't remake and Americanise it.
It works very well, this combination of comedy, drama and romance, a forerunner of modern day soapies. Things are helped by a very good cast - there are veterans like Robson, Warner and Harrison, plus new matinee idols like Price, and brand new hot things like Court and a young Diana Dors. There's also cameos by Pat Roc as herself - and a few other people I didn't recognise who I'm prepared to believe were famous.
Historically its fascinating to see how lower class Brits holidayed back in the day - these massive camps, where they packed them in, had constant organised activities, where you were in each other's pockets, nightly sing alongs of 'Knees Up Mother Brown' and doing the hokey pokey. No wonder the country took to socialism so well. Annakin films this brilliantly incorporating what I assume is footage at a real life camp with the actual actors though.
It all feels authentic. And the melodrama doesn't stuff around - there's a serial killer who kills someone, a couple have premarital sex, a woman contemplates suicide, Hazel Court is a widowed mum. No wonder it was a hit - I'm surprised the Americans didn't remake and Americanise it.
Movie review - "Daddy's Home" (2016) **1/2
Smooth, well constructed comedy with Will Ferrell as a step-dad intimidated by the real deal, Mark Wahlberg. Linda Cardinelli plays the thankless Marissa Tomei-style role. The jokes and story are solid rather than inspired, but it has a good heart, and nice message (about being a dad). I enjoyed the dance off finale.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Movie review - "A Place of One's Own" (1945) **
Gainsborough were best known for their melodramas during the war but Maurice Ostrer and Ted Black actually liked a well rounded program so they also turned out musicals, dramas and ghost stories like this one. It features their two biggest stars, James Mason and Margaret Lockwood, but gives them a chance to do something different, especially Mason who puts on whiskers and acts as a doddery old dude.
You wonder why they cast him - presumably to keep the grumpy actor happy after The Man in Grey. It's distracting to see him - you never believe he's an old man, he's a young man in make up acting "old", and thus distances the viewer from the action.
Lockwood's part is more standard - she plays a pretty young thing, the type of role she used specialise in before becoming famous as a bad girl and having Phyllis Calvert take over those parts. She's sweet and likeable and Dennis Prices is okay as her love interest.
The main problem with the film is it's not very scary. Lockwood becomes possessed by the ghost of a dead woman but nothing much more happens - no lives are at stake, no one gets that much of a shock. There's not even suspenseful sequences. It lacks atmosphere. It's so benign and tranquil you wonder why they made it. The production values and camerawork are good.
You wonder why they cast him - presumably to keep the grumpy actor happy after The Man in Grey. It's distracting to see him - you never believe he's an old man, he's a young man in make up acting "old", and thus distances the viewer from the action.
Lockwood's part is more standard - she plays a pretty young thing, the type of role she used specialise in before becoming famous as a bad girl and having Phyllis Calvert take over those parts. She's sweet and likeable and Dennis Prices is okay as her love interest.
The main problem with the film is it's not very scary. Lockwood becomes possessed by the ghost of a dead woman but nothing much more happens - no lives are at stake, no one gets that much of a shock. There's not even suspenseful sequences. It lacks atmosphere. It's so benign and tranquil you wonder why they made it. The production values and camerawork are good.
Monday, April 11, 2016
Movie review - "Black Dragons" (1942) ** (re-viewing)
So many of these Monogram horror movies I'm watching get off to a flying start then become bogged down, lacking complications and/or progression. There's a lot of fun still to be had in this WW2 potboiler, with Bela Lugosi having a great old time as a German who goes around knocking off industrialists. It turns out he's a plastic surgeon who turned Japanese agents into industrialists but we don't find that out until the very end.
Maybe this film would have worked more told in a linear fashion - we could have enjoyed the bonkers plot more being part of it. There was more fun to be had with Japanese masquerading as American agents. It's very silly and doesn't make sense if you think hard (or, rather, all) about it.
But there are pleasures. Lugosi, of course, hypnotising people and running riot - and as a bonus his character has a look a like. Clayton Moore is obnoxious but at least virile as the hero - who seems to have a lot of help but they keep being killed. Joan Barclay is a pretty heroine. And most of all there's the full blown wackiness of the concept.
Maybe this film would have worked more told in a linear fashion - we could have enjoyed the bonkers plot more being part of it. There was more fun to be had with Japanese masquerading as American agents. It's very silly and doesn't make sense if you think hard (or, rather, all) about it.
But there are pleasures. Lugosi, of course, hypnotising people and running riot - and as a bonus his character has a look a like. Clayton Moore is obnoxious but at least virile as the hero - who seems to have a lot of help but they keep being killed. Joan Barclay is a pretty heroine. And most of all there's the full blown wackiness of the concept.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Movie review - "I'll Be Your Sweetheart" (1945) ***1/2
Gainsborough must have looked at the grosses being racked up by 20th Century Fox with their period musicals starring Betty Grable/Alice Faye and decided to have a crack at it themselves. The result is surprisingly fun - I'd never heard about this movie but it has a lot of energy and pep, plus an actual point.
Michael Rennie, at the beginning of his career, is in the John Payne/George Montgomery role as an aspiring song plugger who wants to bring sheet music to the people. He falls for singer Margaret Lockwood, in the Betty Grable/Alice Faye part. Peter Graves pops up as a rival for him in business and love.
The kicker is that the real plot of this is about copyright. Turn of the century apparently music piracy was rife, making it hard for industry people to make a living - something with incredible resonance today. The climax of the film involves a copyright bill getting passed through the act of Parliament - including Rennie leading a mob to smash up the printing presses of music pirates.
Someone called Vic Oliver is billed about the title, just below Lockwood, but his role is small. It's really Rennie's film with Lockwood having a key role. I think more could have been done with Grave's part.
It's not in colour but there is plenty of songs and production value - good costumes. There's a lot of brawling - Rennie punching out Graves and leading a mob to smash up the pirates printing press. This is where the influence of Hollywood was most felt for me. But it was a lot of fun and incredibly fascinating. The cast all get into it - Rennie and Lockwood are a pleasing lead couple and the support players are strong. British film musicals get a bad wrap but I liked this.
Michael Rennie, at the beginning of his career, is in the John Payne/George Montgomery role as an aspiring song plugger who wants to bring sheet music to the people. He falls for singer Margaret Lockwood, in the Betty Grable/Alice Faye part. Peter Graves pops up as a rival for him in business and love.
The kicker is that the real plot of this is about copyright. Turn of the century apparently music piracy was rife, making it hard for industry people to make a living - something with incredible resonance today. The climax of the film involves a copyright bill getting passed through the act of Parliament - including Rennie leading a mob to smash up the printing presses of music pirates.
Someone called Vic Oliver is billed about the title, just below Lockwood, but his role is small. It's really Rennie's film with Lockwood having a key role. I think more could have been done with Grave's part.
It's not in colour but there is plenty of songs and production value - good costumes. There's a lot of brawling - Rennie punching out Graves and leading a mob to smash up the pirates printing press. This is where the influence of Hollywood was most felt for me. But it was a lot of fun and incredibly fascinating. The cast all get into it - Rennie and Lockwood are a pleasing lead couple and the support players are strong. British film musicals get a bad wrap but I liked this.
Movie review - "Spooks Run Wild" (1941) ** (re-viewing)
Boys of the City seems to have been well received enough for Monogram and Sam Katzman to rehash it - once again the kids are off to summer camp, once again they are waylaid by scary people, with a red herring and a genuine maniac. I actually enjoyed this more than the first film - the plot was simpler and there was Bela Lugosi and his midget sidekick providing fun as seeming villains who turn about to be magicians.
The film actually would've been better if Lugosi had been the villain as he has real threat. It's silly and dumb but I have affection for this film.
The film actually would've been better if Lugosi had been the villain as he has real threat. It's silly and dumb but I have affection for this film.
Saturday, April 09, 2016
Movie review - "Highly Dangerous" (1950) **
Margaret Lockwood returned to movies after an 18 month absence to make the sort of film where she first got an international reputation - the comedy thriller, so well essayed in The Lady Vanishes and Night Train to Munich. She surrounded herself with good talent - American leading man Dane Clark, writer Eric Ambler, director Roy Ward Baker and Naunton Wayne who was in the first two movies.
And it's a solid story with a strong female role - she's an insect scientist asked by British intelligence to do a mission for them in an unnamed Eastern European country (this was very popular around this time - State Secret, Crisis), where she crosses swords with the local copper (Marius Goring) and is helped by an American journo (Dane Clare).
But the film never quite works because the tone is all over the shop. Baker/Ambler/Lockwood play the whole thing straight, which starts off okay with various assassinations and machinations. But then part way through the film Goring gives Lockwood some truth serum and she gets confused with a radio spy drama and thinks she's an actual spy (which is a comic conceit similar to the one used later in Jo Beth Williams' American Dreamer) - only they still seem to play it straight even though it's outlandish.
The biggest problem with this film is it's just not fun. Lady Vanishes and Night Train to Munich were fun - characters were in peril but you had Charters and Caldicott, interesting subplots and entertaining banter involving the two leads. There are no light comic relief characters here, it badly lacks a subplot and the two leads lack chemistry. Lockwood, so fun in those two movies I listed, feels all wrong here - too old, her hair's too short, she doesn't have a fixed character, something. She lacks spirit and pizzazz. Dane Clark tries his best but he's a bit weird.
The film is solidly constructed - it has a beginning middle an end, conflict, all that stuff - but you're likely to simply not care, and it's not that mysterious why it failed to revive Lockwood's career.
And it's a solid story with a strong female role - she's an insect scientist asked by British intelligence to do a mission for them in an unnamed Eastern European country (this was very popular around this time - State Secret, Crisis), where she crosses swords with the local copper (Marius Goring) and is helped by an American journo (Dane Clare).
But the film never quite works because the tone is all over the shop. Baker/Ambler/Lockwood play the whole thing straight, which starts off okay with various assassinations and machinations. But then part way through the film Goring gives Lockwood some truth serum and she gets confused with a radio spy drama and thinks she's an actual spy (which is a comic conceit similar to the one used later in Jo Beth Williams' American Dreamer) - only they still seem to play it straight even though it's outlandish.
The biggest problem with this film is it's just not fun. Lady Vanishes and Night Train to Munich were fun - characters were in peril but you had Charters and Caldicott, interesting subplots and entertaining banter involving the two leads. There are no light comic relief characters here, it badly lacks a subplot and the two leads lack chemistry. Lockwood, so fun in those two movies I listed, feels all wrong here - too old, her hair's too short, she doesn't have a fixed character, something. She lacks spirit and pizzazz. Dane Clark tries his best but he's a bit weird.
The film is solidly constructed - it has a beginning middle an end, conflict, all that stuff - but you're likely to simply not care, and it's not that mysterious why it failed to revive Lockwood's career.
Movie review - "Madness of the Heart" (1949) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Just because Gainsborough stopped making melodramas, didn't mean other producers would stop - here Two Cities hired the excellent screenwriter Charles Bennett to write and direct and Gainsborough's former first lady Margaret Lockwood to star. The result has a poor reputation but actually I like it.
It's derivative certainly, and is full of scenes/characters/tropes you encounter in other movies, but Bennett's done a pretty good job and on the whole it's well executed, with acting that ranges from decent to excellent. It's only at the end he muffs it.
Margaret Lockwood is decent as the young woman going blind who falls for wealthy Paul Dupis, not realising that his friend Kathleen Byron is in love with him and wants her dead. This is a good set up for a film - indeed, it was used in Rebecca. There's also elements of Gaslight (moving items around), The Spiral Staircase (crippled heroine), Leave Her to Heaven (nasty woman tries to engineer drowning).
There's also a strong third act, when Lockwood regains her sight, but doesn't tell anyone as she returns to the mansion. At this point I was going "alright!" and waiting for Lockwood to kick arse/do something clever but it never really happens - Bennett muffs the climax, Lockwood reveals herself to Byron way too soon and then Byron drives off a convenient cliff with Maxwell Reed. Reed is also under-used - he's a mysterious figure who is on to Byron but never does anything really bad even though you keep expecting him to. There is also too much overhearing and coincidences.
But for all that it was an enjoyable movie and it's a shame Bennett didn't direct more.
It's derivative certainly, and is full of scenes/characters/tropes you encounter in other movies, but Bennett's done a pretty good job and on the whole it's well executed, with acting that ranges from decent to excellent. It's only at the end he muffs it.
Margaret Lockwood is decent as the young woman going blind who falls for wealthy Paul Dupis, not realising that his friend Kathleen Byron is in love with him and wants her dead. This is a good set up for a film - indeed, it was used in Rebecca. There's also elements of Gaslight (moving items around), The Spiral Staircase (crippled heroine), Leave Her to Heaven (nasty woman tries to engineer drowning).
There's also a strong third act, when Lockwood regains her sight, but doesn't tell anyone as she returns to the mansion. At this point I was going "alright!" and waiting for Lockwood to kick arse/do something clever but it never really happens - Bennett muffs the climax, Lockwood reveals herself to Byron way too soon and then Byron drives off a convenient cliff with Maxwell Reed. Reed is also under-used - he's a mysterious figure who is on to Byron but never does anything really bad even though you keep expecting him to. There is also too much overhearing and coincidences.
But for all that it was an enjoyable movie and it's a shame Bennett didn't direct more.
Friday, April 08, 2016
Movie review - "Thrill of a Romance" (1945) ***
MGM had the Midas touch when it came to making film stars in the 30s and 40s - in addition to the usual suspects (i.e. really good looking people, musical comedy stars), they made stars who had failed at other studios (Spencer Tracy), who were really old (Marie Dressler), who were really young (Judy Garland).
This film stars two of their biggest "they were stars?" stars - Esther Williams, who was very pretty and could swim well and that was about it, and Van Johnson, who was pleasantly looking in a boy next door way and who could act well enough and that was about it. But the studio understood it was wartime and people wanted relateable escapism - she was the girl next door, he was the boy next door. The team together marvelously (they'd make several more movies together), and there's bright colour and opulent sets plus a variety of music acts.
It's a wonky old musical really - apparently a lot of Broadway musicals were like this, before Oklahoma! revolutionised the genre - where the book mainly serves as an excuse to go from song to song and the musical numbers kind of shoved in any old how. There are musical numbers by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, some fat opera singer called Lauritz Melchior, a little black kid who sings a number. Melchior sings a lot - I'd never heard of him but he gets heaps of screen time, a lot more that Esther swimming numbers (of which there's hardly any).
It is a slightly racier book that you'd expect... Esther plays a swimming instructor who is wooed by millionaire (someone called Carleton Young). He sweeps her off her feet, they get married, go on honeymoon, he leaves on business reasons... and she proceeds to fall in love with soldier Van Johnson. That's pretty full on, Esther falling for two guys in the one movie, in very quick succession (I think it's meant to be implied that she doesn't have sex with her husband).
A lot of people would have related to this in war time though. There's production value to spare (it mostly takes place at a resort), everyone is forever having breakfast/lunch/dinner somewhere swank, lots of cheek to cheek dancing; there's even some location footage when Esther and Van go walking through the forest.
Esther and Van are genuinely good together. He doesn't sing and she hardly swim but they suit the roles.
This film stars two of their biggest "they were stars?" stars - Esther Williams, who was very pretty and could swim well and that was about it, and Van Johnson, who was pleasantly looking in a boy next door way and who could act well enough and that was about it. But the studio understood it was wartime and people wanted relateable escapism - she was the girl next door, he was the boy next door. The team together marvelously (they'd make several more movies together), and there's bright colour and opulent sets plus a variety of music acts.
It's a wonky old musical really - apparently a lot of Broadway musicals were like this, before Oklahoma! revolutionised the genre - where the book mainly serves as an excuse to go from song to song and the musical numbers kind of shoved in any old how. There are musical numbers by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, some fat opera singer called Lauritz Melchior, a little black kid who sings a number. Melchior sings a lot - I'd never heard of him but he gets heaps of screen time, a lot more that Esther swimming numbers (of which there's hardly any).
It is a slightly racier book that you'd expect... Esther plays a swimming instructor who is wooed by millionaire (someone called Carleton Young). He sweeps her off her feet, they get married, go on honeymoon, he leaves on business reasons... and she proceeds to fall in love with soldier Van Johnson. That's pretty full on, Esther falling for two guys in the one movie, in very quick succession (I think it's meant to be implied that she doesn't have sex with her husband).
A lot of people would have related to this in war time though. There's production value to spare (it mostly takes place at a resort), everyone is forever having breakfast/lunch/dinner somewhere swank, lots of cheek to cheek dancing; there's even some location footage when Esther and Van go walking through the forest.
Esther and Van are genuinely good together. He doesn't sing and she hardly swim but they suit the roles.
Movie review - "King of the Zombies" (1941) **
Low budget horror comedy in the vein of The Ghost Breakers is actually quite fun if you can get past the political incorrectness (okay racism). Three men - pilot, rich white guy, rich white guy's servant - crash on an isolated tropical island inhabited by a mad doctor and bunch of zombies.
The real star of the movie is actually the black guy, Mantan Moreland, doing a variation of Eddie Anderson's Rochester character, a smart talking valet to Jack Benny on radio. He's constantly being terrified, sassing his bosses, and is the first one to figure out what's going on. Yes, he's a "comic darky" but he gets to drive a lot of the action.
The zombie moments are fine, there are some laughs and I enjoyed the atmosphere, especially the zombie ritual at the end, and the wackiness of Nazi agents turning up on the island. A big flaw for me was the lack of star names - Belga Lugosi was originally meant to be cast and he would've been great as the mad doctor. Victory Henry is fine but lacks spark. The two white leads are forgettable. Only Moreland stands out.
The real star of the movie is actually the black guy, Mantan Moreland, doing a variation of Eddie Anderson's Rochester character, a smart talking valet to Jack Benny on radio. He's constantly being terrified, sassing his bosses, and is the first one to figure out what's going on. Yes, he's a "comic darky" but he gets to drive a lot of the action.
The zombie moments are fine, there are some laughs and I enjoyed the atmosphere, especially the zombie ritual at the end, and the wackiness of Nazi agents turning up on the island. A big flaw for me was the lack of star names - Belga Lugosi was originally meant to be cast and he would've been great as the mad doctor. Victory Henry is fine but lacks spark. The two white leads are forgettable. Only Moreland stands out.
Tuesday, April 05, 2016
Movie review - "Jassy" (1947) ** (re-viewing)
The last of the "official" Gainsborough melodramas even though it was a hit at the box office - this was partly because of Gainsborough's new studio head, Sydney Box, and studio owner, J. Arthur Rank, not liking the genre, combined with a decrease in the popularity of other costume pictures.
It's not that well remembered either, certainly not compared to say The Man in Grey or even Madonna of the Seven Moons. I watched it without realising that I'd actually seen it before in 2012. This is likely partly due to the fact the film is in colour, and lacks star names. There is Margaret Lockwood and Pat Roc but instead of Stewart Granger and James Mason there is Dermot Walsh and Basil Sydney - both of whom, it has to be said so decent jobs, though Sydney lacks sex appeal (I was surprised Dennis Price, who plays Walsh's father, wasn't given this role).
There's plenty of story on display here, with some powerful tropes - alcoholism, suicide, gambling, drunkeness, adultery, revenge, confessions in the dock then dropping dead - but the screenwriters weren't able to knock it into a cohesive whole. I never got a fix on the character of Jassy - she's part gypsy and has second sight, but that's only really an issue at the beginning; then she becomes a driven woman, determined to get revenge for the death of her father but also in love with Dermot Walsh, even though he's in love with her friend Patricia Roc - even though she cheats on him.
I think the piece would have been more effective as a straight up revenge piece, going after Basil Sydney by taking over his house and marrying him and tormenting him, and confused by her love for Walsh. But Jassy isn't that driven by revenge - she seems to marry Sydney out of pique, she doesn't seem to have a plan except maybe to get the property back to Walsh but she can do that half an hour before she does.
They don't really explore her relationship with slutty best friend Pat Roc either, as Sydney's daughter. The demarcation between women in Man in Grey and Wicked Lady was clear - good girl vs bad girl. Here Jassy is a bit bad but not really and Roc is a bit bad but not really which might be less predictable but dilutes the drama and isn't necessarily more complex, just less interesting. I didn't get the link between Lockwood and Walsh as well - no heat, no reason for them to be together (the finale where they kiss is completely unconvincing).
Too much of it is repetitious as well - there's two whippings (both by fathers of daughters), endless scenes of Sydney pouring a drink. Lockwood leaves the property to Walsh via letter then turns up in person straight away.
It's just not a very good movie, and the main reason is the script.
It's not that well remembered either, certainly not compared to say The Man in Grey or even Madonna of the Seven Moons. I watched it without realising that I'd actually seen it before in 2012. This is likely partly due to the fact the film is in colour, and lacks star names. There is Margaret Lockwood and Pat Roc but instead of Stewart Granger and James Mason there is Dermot Walsh and Basil Sydney - both of whom, it has to be said so decent jobs, though Sydney lacks sex appeal (I was surprised Dennis Price, who plays Walsh's father, wasn't given this role).
There's plenty of story on display here, with some powerful tropes - alcoholism, suicide, gambling, drunkeness, adultery, revenge, confessions in the dock then dropping dead - but the screenwriters weren't able to knock it into a cohesive whole. I never got a fix on the character of Jassy - she's part gypsy and has second sight, but that's only really an issue at the beginning; then she becomes a driven woman, determined to get revenge for the death of her father but also in love with Dermot Walsh, even though he's in love with her friend Patricia Roc - even though she cheats on him.
I think the piece would have been more effective as a straight up revenge piece, going after Basil Sydney by taking over his house and marrying him and tormenting him, and confused by her love for Walsh. But Jassy isn't that driven by revenge - she seems to marry Sydney out of pique, she doesn't seem to have a plan except maybe to get the property back to Walsh but she can do that half an hour before she does.
They don't really explore her relationship with slutty best friend Pat Roc either, as Sydney's daughter. The demarcation between women in Man in Grey and Wicked Lady was clear - good girl vs bad girl. Here Jassy is a bit bad but not really and Roc is a bit bad but not really which might be less predictable but dilutes the drama and isn't necessarily more complex, just less interesting. I didn't get the link between Lockwood and Walsh as well - no heat, no reason for them to be together (the finale where they kiss is completely unconvincing).
Too much of it is repetitious as well - there's two whippings (both by fathers of daughters), endless scenes of Sydney pouring a drink. Lockwood leaves the property to Walsh via letter then turns up in person straight away.
It's just not a very good movie, and the main reason is the script.
Monday, April 04, 2016
Movie review - "Invisible Ghost" (1941) ** (re-viewing)
The first of the "Monogram nine", nine films Bela Lugosi made for Sam Katzman at Monogram. It's one of the best known and benefits from some very good direction from Joe Lewis. It starts with a bang: Bela is having dinner for his dead wife, then we find out the wife is alive, then we find out Bela is a murderer without knowing, then an innocent person dies...
It's got elements of Jane Eyre (crazy wife locked away) and Poe (man not knowing he's man going on killing sprees). Then things go a bit haywire - the story becomes repetitive instead of developing, the story becomes increasingly silly/illogical, and it got dull. Lugosi is in good form, particularly his touching moments - it's a different sort of role for him, a killer who doesn't know he's a killer. But this never becomes as good as you hope it'll be.
It's got elements of Jane Eyre (crazy wife locked away) and Poe (man not knowing he's man going on killing sprees). Then things go a bit haywire - the story becomes repetitive instead of developing, the story becomes increasingly silly/illogical, and it got dull. Lugosi is in good form, particularly his touching moments - it's a different sort of role for him, a killer who doesn't know he's a killer. But this never becomes as good as you hope it'll be.
Sunday, April 03, 2016
Movie review - "The Devil Bat" (1940) **1/2 (re-viewing)
Bela Lugosi made nine films for Monogram of which this is not one - however it is often regarded as such because it was made for the similarly impoverished outfit PRC. The budget is limited an it has plenty of flaws but it does put Lugosi - so often wasted in red herring support roles - front and center.
He's a mad scientist on a rampage but a well motivated one - he works for a cosmetics company and wants revenge against the executives who made a fortune from his formula (he sold it outright instead of holding out for a percentage); so he trains a bat to attack a particular type of cream. Now that's a solid idea for a horror movie, a lot better than you often found at PRC and Monogram.
And the film delivers on deaths - unlike The Ape where Karloff only knocked off one or two Lugosi chalks up a decent death toll here, not that anyone seems to notice. The bat attacks are occasionally laughable but they are deadly.
I actually liked the reporter character more on second viewing - it was his sidekick who annoyed me. Some decent acting from the older actors and Lugosi delivers a solid, hammy star performance utterly perfect for the part.
He's a mad scientist on a rampage but a well motivated one - he works for a cosmetics company and wants revenge against the executives who made a fortune from his formula (he sold it outright instead of holding out for a percentage); so he trains a bat to attack a particular type of cream. Now that's a solid idea for a horror movie, a lot better than you often found at PRC and Monogram.
And the film delivers on deaths - unlike The Ape where Karloff only knocked off one or two Lugosi chalks up a decent death toll here, not that anyone seems to notice. The bat attacks are occasionally laughable but they are deadly.
I actually liked the reporter character more on second viewing - it was his sidekick who annoyed me. Some decent acting from the older actors and Lugosi delivers a solid, hammy star performance utterly perfect for the part.
Movie review - "Bedelia" (1946) **
At the end of World War Two, the British film industry had brief dreams of world domination - things went so well for them during the war, with a whole host of new stars, and the emergence of tycoons like Korda and Rank. Rank in particular made a stab at US glory only to come a cropper, although he had his moments (Caesar and Cleopatra, Henry V, The Red Shoes).
Rank would have been particularly disappointed with the reception to this one, which would have seemed it had the elements to break through - it was distributed by Eagle Lion, a company in which he had money, had Margaret Lockwood coming off The Wicked Lady, featured a Hollywood "name"-ish co star, Ian Hunter, and was based on a novel by Vera Caspary who just had a big hit with Laura.
Caspary's story is great - it's about a man who marries a woman and discovers she has a tendency to knock off her husbands. That's solid, with elements of Rebecca (there's even a bitchy housekeeper), Bluebeard, Suspicion and Leave Her to Heaven. There was no reason this couldn't have made a terrific thriller like Laura with the right casting and handling but it misses the mark.
The cast aren't quite right- Lockwood is okay and probably would have been fine in a better film but can't transcend her material (she does some decent hysterical acting). Ian Hunter is alright, although he played this ignorant husband role far too often in Hollywood (the Herbert Marshall part), and a really gifted actor could have made something of this. Barry Barnes is terrible in a role that cried out for a Stewart Granger or James Mason, someone with balls not this wet drip. Anne Crawford is underwhelming in what could have been a neat support role, the girl with a yen for Hunter.
The script also has a lot of problems. There's no emotional undercurrent - we never really feel that Hunter loves Lockwood and aren't sure what she feels about him. Barnes has no emotional connection to the story (why not personalise it? Have him avenging a dead friend/relative and also fall for Lockwood?). Key moments aren't dramatised - we never get the sense that Hunter's life is in danger, Crawford/Barnes are never threatened. The only one you're worried about is Lockwood.
Occasionally there's some effective moments like when Lockwood cracks it or the wind machine cranks up and things get a little spooky. But in generally they stuffed it. Someone should give thought to remaking this.
Rank would have been particularly disappointed with the reception to this one, which would have seemed it had the elements to break through - it was distributed by Eagle Lion, a company in which he had money, had Margaret Lockwood coming off The Wicked Lady, featured a Hollywood "name"-ish co star, Ian Hunter, and was based on a novel by Vera Caspary who just had a big hit with Laura.
Caspary's story is great - it's about a man who marries a woman and discovers she has a tendency to knock off her husbands. That's solid, with elements of Rebecca (there's even a bitchy housekeeper), Bluebeard, Suspicion and Leave Her to Heaven. There was no reason this couldn't have made a terrific thriller like Laura with the right casting and handling but it misses the mark.
The cast aren't quite right- Lockwood is okay and probably would have been fine in a better film but can't transcend her material (she does some decent hysterical acting). Ian Hunter is alright, although he played this ignorant husband role far too often in Hollywood (the Herbert Marshall part), and a really gifted actor could have made something of this. Barry Barnes is terrible in a role that cried out for a Stewart Granger or James Mason, someone with balls not this wet drip. Anne Crawford is underwhelming in what could have been a neat support role, the girl with a yen for Hunter.
The script also has a lot of problems. There's no emotional undercurrent - we never really feel that Hunter loves Lockwood and aren't sure what she feels about him. Barnes has no emotional connection to the story (why not personalise it? Have him avenging a dead friend/relative and also fall for Lockwood?). Key moments aren't dramatised - we never get the sense that Hunter's life is in danger, Crawford/Barnes are never threatened. The only one you're worried about is Lockwood.
Occasionally there's some effective moments like when Lockwood cracks it or the wind machine cranks up and things get a little spooky. But in generally they stuffed it. Someone should give thought to remaking this.
Saturday, April 02, 2016
Movie review - "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief" (2015) *****
Engrossing film about Scientology from Alex Gibney, who made that excellent film about Enron. It has some awesome footage: the mysterious L Ron Hubbard chatting away to camera, ditto the just-as-mysterious David Miscaviage. There's inhouse Scientology videos including their own attempt at an anthem, footage from conventions, home movie footage of adventures on the boats with L Ron. There's also hidden camera stuff of Scientology thugs trying to shake down people.
There's also some great "talking heads" - Paul Haggis would be the best known, but there's also some former top level Scientology people (one an Aussie whose accent can still be heard). It also discusses the role of Tom Cruise and John Travolta in the Church.
My two cents on this topic: Scientology is no sillier than any other religion, and should never be banned, it just needs to be subject to the rule of law. Like other religions it is susceptible to exploitation from particularly controlling/charismatic people, which seems to be what is happening with Miscaviage. Like many other businesses they keep their competitive edge via exclusionary business practices, suppressing criticism, use of ground troops and relentless effort.
It's a classy documentary with some excellent photography. Miscavige would make a great Bond villain - a Sejanus or Philip the Arab who managed to hang on to his power. Fascinating stuff.
There's also some great "talking heads" - Paul Haggis would be the best known, but there's also some former top level Scientology people (one an Aussie whose accent can still be heard). It also discusses the role of Tom Cruise and John Travolta in the Church.
My two cents on this topic: Scientology is no sillier than any other religion, and should never be banned, it just needs to be subject to the rule of law. Like other religions it is susceptible to exploitation from particularly controlling/charismatic people, which seems to be what is happening with Miscaviage. Like many other businesses they keep their competitive edge via exclusionary business practices, suppressing criticism, use of ground troops and relentless effort.
It's a classy documentary with some excellent photography. Miscavige would make a great Bond villain - a Sejanus or Philip the Arab who managed to hang on to his power. Fascinating stuff.
Movie review - "The Oldest Profession" (1967) **
A 60s Europudding comic look at prostitution through the ages. It's the sort of movie that makes you apprehensive thinking about it then when you watch your heart sinks because you realise your worst fears are to be realised. But after a slow start this was okay.
The first two segments are weak. Part 1 is set in prehistoric times with Michele Mercier as a cave girl who discovers make up. Part 2 is in ancient Rome with Elsa Martinelli and a Roman Emperor visits a brothel. Lazy jokes, not particularly well done.
Part 3 gets better- its the French Revolution and a young man pretends to be wanting to watch his uncle executed so he can sleep with Jeanne Moreau. The fact Moreau is in it helps this a lot.
Part 4 is set in the 1890s and is lots of fun, with Raquel Welch in good form as a stripper who cons a man into marrying her. It's one of Welch's best performances - she's splendid looking as always in some lingerie but is genuinely high spirited as the clever girl.
Part 5 has plenty of energy from Nadia Gray and France Anglade as prostitutes who operate out of the car and wind up running an operation from an ambulance. The possibilities in this premise feel undercooked (it could hold a feature eg Night Shift) but the actresses really go for it.
Part 6 was done by none other than Jean Luc Godard and is set in the future. Anna Karina appears along with one time Mr Brigitte Bardot, Jacques Charrier. This is the best segment, imaginative and bold, a fascinating companion piece to Alphaville. Incidentally, it's the one segment with nudity.
So all in all this wasn't a bad movie, certainly not as much as I feared going in.
The first two segments are weak. Part 1 is set in prehistoric times with Michele Mercier as a cave girl who discovers make up. Part 2 is in ancient Rome with Elsa Martinelli and a Roman Emperor visits a brothel. Lazy jokes, not particularly well done.
Part 3 gets better- its the French Revolution and a young man pretends to be wanting to watch his uncle executed so he can sleep with Jeanne Moreau. The fact Moreau is in it helps this a lot.
Part 4 is set in the 1890s and is lots of fun, with Raquel Welch in good form as a stripper who cons a man into marrying her. It's one of Welch's best performances - she's splendid looking as always in some lingerie but is genuinely high spirited as the clever girl.
Part 5 has plenty of energy from Nadia Gray and France Anglade as prostitutes who operate out of the car and wind up running an operation from an ambulance. The possibilities in this premise feel undercooked (it could hold a feature eg Night Shift) but the actresses really go for it.
Part 6 was done by none other than Jean Luc Godard and is set in the future. Anna Karina appears along with one time Mr Brigitte Bardot, Jacques Charrier. This is the best segment, imaginative and bold, a fascinating companion piece to Alphaville. Incidentally, it's the one segment with nudity.
So all in all this wasn't a bad movie, certainly not as much as I feared going in.
Movie review - "Where the Spies Are" (1965) **
I remember seeing a TV ad for this in the 80s and wondering how come I'd never heard of it - a groovy 60s spy film with David Niven. Apparently the first in a proposed series, too. Even today the film isn't particularly well known or remembered.
It's an odd sort of movie. Obviously inspired by the success of the James Bond films (Niven apparently was a front runner to play Bond in Dr No and indeed did play him in Casino Royale), it plays the story completely straight, although the concept seems to lend itself to a spoof: Niven is a doctor talked into doing some intelligence work by John LeMesurier because the Brits lack available talent.
Niven's character is Jason Love, and at times they play him as a fish out of water. But he's not really because he had military and intelligence experience in World War Two, he's quite suave, and he adapts to intelligence work relatively quickly, easily using some gadgets to get out of tight spots, knocking out Nigel Davenport, and being quite cunning. So there's no suspense or humour from the concept of a newbie agent at work.
I never really got a fix on Love - he's meant to be a country GP but Niven doesn't give that sense... he's David Niven, real life war hero and gent. (Someone like Alec Guinness for instance would have seemed more obviously rural GP). He doesn't have many distinguishing characteristics either apart from really liking old cars, which comes in at the beginning of the film then is ignored. He doesn't seem to have any family or friends.
There is some action but not that much - a shoot out here and there. Structure wise the story suffers from the fact it's about preventing an assassination, which Niven does around the 70 minute mark, but then there's this extended coda (or third act) with him captured by the Russians and on a peace plane and they're trying to get information out of him and the Brits are trying to get him down. This bit is too convoluted for a third act and probably would've been better off being it's own movie. (The film feels long at 110 minutes and this last act really really dragged.)
There were lots of things I did enjoy though. The acting was of very high quality across the board, not just the always reliable Niven but also Le Mesurier and solid British character types like Davenport; there are some strong villains like Eric Pohlmann and Francoise Dorleac was a superb girl, gorgeous and mysterious. Location shooting in Beirut adds to the charm, it's got that 60s colour I always enjoy, and there are some solid twists, such as Niven thinking he's being rescued by the Brits only it's the Russians, and the fact the head Russian baddie is the butler.
It's an odd sort of movie. Obviously inspired by the success of the James Bond films (Niven apparently was a front runner to play Bond in Dr No and indeed did play him in Casino Royale), it plays the story completely straight, although the concept seems to lend itself to a spoof: Niven is a doctor talked into doing some intelligence work by John LeMesurier because the Brits lack available talent.
Niven's character is Jason Love, and at times they play him as a fish out of water. But he's not really because he had military and intelligence experience in World War Two, he's quite suave, and he adapts to intelligence work relatively quickly, easily using some gadgets to get out of tight spots, knocking out Nigel Davenport, and being quite cunning. So there's no suspense or humour from the concept of a newbie agent at work.
I never really got a fix on Love - he's meant to be a country GP but Niven doesn't give that sense... he's David Niven, real life war hero and gent. (Someone like Alec Guinness for instance would have seemed more obviously rural GP). He doesn't have many distinguishing characteristics either apart from really liking old cars, which comes in at the beginning of the film then is ignored. He doesn't seem to have any family or friends.
There is some action but not that much - a shoot out here and there. Structure wise the story suffers from the fact it's about preventing an assassination, which Niven does around the 70 minute mark, but then there's this extended coda (or third act) with him captured by the Russians and on a peace plane and they're trying to get information out of him and the Brits are trying to get him down. This bit is too convoluted for a third act and probably would've been better off being it's own movie. (The film feels long at 110 minutes and this last act really really dragged.)
There were lots of things I did enjoy though. The acting was of very high quality across the board, not just the always reliable Niven but also Le Mesurier and solid British character types like Davenport; there are some strong villains like Eric Pohlmann and Francoise Dorleac was a superb girl, gorgeous and mysterious. Location shooting in Beirut adds to the charm, it's got that 60s colour I always enjoy, and there are some solid twists, such as Niven thinking he's being rescued by the Brits only it's the Russians, and the fact the head Russian baddie is the butler.
Movie review - "The Ape" (1940) **
In the 1996 thriller Extreme Measures Hugh Grant uncovers a plot where shady doctors and nurses are operating on homeless people to develop a technique to cure paralysis... fifty years before that Curt Siodmak came up with a junky film about kindly-but-mad Boris Karloff using spinal fluid to cure a crippled girl's paralysis.
That's a great motivation for a mad scientist and this throws in a killer gorilla as well.The gorilla knocks off someone useful for the experiments, so when the gorilla dies Karloff steps in Frankenstein-style putting on a gorilla outfit so he can kill people and use the serum.
That's a strong story, enough for a full length feature if developed properly, which this isn't at a little over 60 minutes. Maris Wrixon is likeable as the crippled girl and Karloff is always good; the rest of the support cast is not as strong. It's silly and fun though not really that good.
That's a great motivation for a mad scientist and this throws in a killer gorilla as well.The gorilla knocks off someone useful for the experiments, so when the gorilla dies Karloff steps in Frankenstein-style putting on a gorilla outfit so he can kill people and use the serum.
That's a strong story, enough for a full length feature if developed properly, which this isn't at a little over 60 minutes. Maris Wrixon is likeable as the crippled girl and Karloff is always good; the rest of the support cast is not as strong. It's silly and fun though not really that good.
Friday, April 01, 2016
Movie review - "100 Rifles" (1969) **
The teaming of three legends (in their own way): Raquel Welch, Jim Brown and Burt Reynolds. It was the brief period of stardom for both Welch and Brown - both getting lots of PR, and with the backing of major studios (Brown with MGM, Welch with Fox, who made this), both famed for their physiques and personal lives rather than their acting, both with reputations for being difficult on the set. Apparently things were tense between them on the set with Reynolds acting as referee. I get the feeling the behind the scenes story was more interesting than what we see.
I wish this film had been better. It sounds like it's going to be great, with Brown as a sheriff teaming up with wildcat Welch and bank robber Reynolds to help protect the local Indians against nasty Mexicans (led by Fernando Lamas)... it's set in the Pancho Villa era of 1912 Mexico. Dan O'Herlihy pops up as a gun runner and there's decent production values with trains, machine guns, extras and hangings.
But it's too dull too often. The action scenes lack zip. I've never seen so many Mexican extras and bit parts shot but all the genocide gets depressing after a while. There's a battle between Mexicans and Indians, then another one, then another one... it's hard to get too fired up and/or care. I don't think Tom Gries was much of an action director.
Occasionally it flares to life - there is genuine chemistry between Brown and Welch and their sex scene was hot (once they got past the bit where he forced himself on her). He's got that great build and she's awesome in a wet T shirt blowing away Mexicans.
In a way I wish this film had been trashier - more cleavage and torsos and sex and violence - with the roles rewritten to suit the stars more. Have Jim Brown full of pride and violence and rage, have Raquel play an imperious princess who is brave and gutsy and smart, and give Reynolds lots of self-deprecating jokes. It's in there a little bit, but not enough. The story of this is good - you've got anti heroes helping the Indians take on the baddies, sex, inter-racial stuff, buddy comedy, Western feminism... but they muffed it.
I wish this film had been better. It sounds like it's going to be great, with Brown as a sheriff teaming up with wildcat Welch and bank robber Reynolds to help protect the local Indians against nasty Mexicans (led by Fernando Lamas)... it's set in the Pancho Villa era of 1912 Mexico. Dan O'Herlihy pops up as a gun runner and there's decent production values with trains, machine guns, extras and hangings.
But it's too dull too often. The action scenes lack zip. I've never seen so many Mexican extras and bit parts shot but all the genocide gets depressing after a while. There's a battle between Mexicans and Indians, then another one, then another one... it's hard to get too fired up and/or care. I don't think Tom Gries was much of an action director.
Occasionally it flares to life - there is genuine chemistry between Brown and Welch and their sex scene was hot (once they got past the bit where he forced himself on her). He's got that great build and she's awesome in a wet T shirt blowing away Mexicans.
In a way I wish this film had been trashier - more cleavage and torsos and sex and violence - with the roles rewritten to suit the stars more. Have Jim Brown full of pride and violence and rage, have Raquel play an imperious princess who is brave and gutsy and smart, and give Reynolds lots of self-deprecating jokes. It's in there a little bit, but not enough. The story of this is good - you've got anti heroes helping the Indians take on the baddies, sex, inter-racial stuff, buddy comedy, Western feminism... but they muffed it.
Movie review - "Boys of the City" (1940) *
A movie about the East Side Kids, a gang of wise cracking juvenile delinquents who got up to trouble. They head off to camp and get waylaid, winding up in a haunted house.
It's like Dead End Kids meets The Cat and the Canary - an old dark house story with our heroes bumbling around and meeting a scary house keeper, mysterious chef - there's a scared black kid who is terrified a la Willie Best in The Ghost Breakers, a scene where the house keeper torments a young girl a la Rebecca, a Charlie Chan style denouement.
It was directed by Joseph Lewis who always tries to do something visually interesting. For a while I enjoyed this - a quite complex plot is set up with the kids staying at a house owned by a judge whom people are trying to kill, the judge was a bit corrupt, the kids were mentored by a former gangster who the judge sent to jail, there's a girl in there.
But the script becomes muddled. There were so many characters it was hard to tell who was who. The middle section drops the plot and consists of the boys poking around the house in some unscary scenes. It's not very scary. It was hard going as it went on and I was glad the film ended.
It's like Dead End Kids meets The Cat and the Canary - an old dark house story with our heroes bumbling around and meeting a scary house keeper, mysterious chef - there's a scared black kid who is terrified a la Willie Best in The Ghost Breakers, a scene where the house keeper torments a young girl a la Rebecca, a Charlie Chan style denouement.
It was directed by Joseph Lewis who always tries to do something visually interesting. For a while I enjoyed this - a quite complex plot is set up with the kids staying at a house owned by a judge whom people are trying to kill, the judge was a bit corrupt, the kids were mentored by a former gangster who the judge sent to jail, there's a girl in there.
But the script becomes muddled. There were so many characters it was hard to tell who was who. The middle section drops the plot and consists of the boys poking around the house in some unscary scenes. It's not very scary. It was hard going as it went on and I was glad the film ended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)