The first movie from Ralph Thomas and Betty Box, a team that would become one of the giants of British cinema in the 50s and 60s, and to a lesser extent 70s. It's an odd sort of Hitchcockian thriller, with Jean Simmons as a fragile heroine accused of murder. Trevor Howard is a pipe smoking dude who in the opening sequence is booted out of the secret service for incompetence; he struggles to find another job (he's a former journo - Kenneth More appears as his friend) so is forced to take a gig cataloguing butterflies.
Howard had played dashing military hero to a much younger female co star in I See a Dark Stranger; here the age gap is even larger. He could be Simmons' father - which isn't a lot of fun because he's been around the block and she's very child like, with mental problems. (Like Audrey Hepburn, Simmons spent a lot of the 1950s acting against much older male co stars.) It's accentuated in that Howard is so fatherly and protective.
Drama wise I think the film suffers from the fact we're never sure until the end if Simmons did it or not - a mistake Hitchcock never made about his men on the run or spunky heroines (eg Young and Innocent, Rebecca, The Lady Vanishes). Also no one deadly is after Simmons and Howard - sure the British authorities are, but there's no life and death threat, they're quite kindly (as represented by Kenneth More) - only at the end when the real killer comes in do stakes raise. It also lacks humour an romance.
There are compensations - the acting is professional, there is some location work, the action always moves, I enjoyed the climax on a tower.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Movie review - "Percy" (1971) **
Ralph Thomas and Betty Box tried their hand at pretty much everything to get a hit - comedies, war films, thrillers, angry young men dramas. This was a late smash for them, a very British sniggering 70s sex comedy about the world's first penis transplant. Just the right amount of naughtiness at the right time plus lots of gifts for the audience: Hywell Bennett's winning performance in the lead; Denholm Elliot's classy support work; a support cast that includes names like Britt Ekland and Elke Sommers; cameos from George Best and Mick Jagger.
The plot involves Percy searching for the identity of the donor, triggering a series of vignettes (easily shot two handers involving Bennett and another actor) - Percy and a trashy nurse, Percy and a gay antique dealer, etc.
There's lots of expected double entendres and cheap gags. More surprisingly there's some poignancy - Percy strikes up a friendship with the man's widow, who was abused, and a lonely single mum.
It's no classic, that barely needs to be said, but it's got more energy and good humour than many other films of this time.
The plot involves Percy searching for the identity of the donor, triggering a series of vignettes (easily shot two handers involving Bennett and another actor) - Percy and a trashy nurse, Percy and a gay antique dealer, etc.
There's lots of expected double entendres and cheap gags. More surprisingly there's some poignancy - Percy strikes up a friendship with the man's widow, who was abused, and a lonely single mum.
It's no classic, that barely needs to be said, but it's got more energy and good humour than many other films of this time.
Movie review - "The Wild and the Willing" (1962) **
Ralph Thomas and Betty Box had a massive hit putting a group of attractive young actors in a tale of life at uni in Doctor in the House, so eight years later they tried again with this. Their eye for young talent was as sure as ever - this features John Hurt, Ian McShane, Virginia Maskell and Samantha Eggar, among others, which is pretty good.
However there are some notable differences. This movie is in black and white, not colour, and it's a serious piece, not a comedy. At times it's almost self consciously "angry young man" ish with McShane railing about the system or something. It's hard to sympathise that much when he's only at uni - he doesn't have to be there, uni is generally pretty good isn't it? (It's not like an oppressive school or workplace).
The Rank Organisation were supposed to have missed out on the British new wave, passing up the chance to finance Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. This feels like their attempt to join the party, only instead of trying to find new talent they went with Box and Thomas. Actually I can't really fault the direction - it's not flashy but it does the job. It's the clunky script, uninvolving characters and story. The dialogue is arch and self conscious, scenes are awkwardly staged... and you know something, Box and Thomas had a lot of control over their films, and this was co written by Nicholsa Phipps, one of their regular writers, so I probably should blame them.
The film struggles to focus on a story. McShane starts out going out with Eggar; Peter Rogers is a dean whose wife Virginia Maskell sleeps with students; she sleeps with McShane, and he's supposed to fall for her and I think we're supposed to care but if she does it a lot it kind of doesn't have the same impact; McShane is protective of friend John Hurt (I think they hint Hurt is gay but maybe I'm looking for depth that isn't there); McShane and Hurt do a stunt that goes horribly wrong; McShane is revealed to be a genius and heads off into the sunset.
Other support characters are sketchily developed. There's some horrible racist dialogue involving black student Johnny Sekka; Catherine Woodville looks as though she's going to do something interesting but never goes (she and the achingly pretty Eggar just talk about boys all the time). There's a lot of singing. The acting is very fine - all the people who went on to have careers (they also include Jeremy Brett) are impressive here.
It's a real curio of a movie. Did Box and Thomas make it to try and be "in" with the box office, or did it speak to them personally?
However there are some notable differences. This movie is in black and white, not colour, and it's a serious piece, not a comedy. At times it's almost self consciously "angry young man" ish with McShane railing about the system or something. It's hard to sympathise that much when he's only at uni - he doesn't have to be there, uni is generally pretty good isn't it? (It's not like an oppressive school or workplace).
The Rank Organisation were supposed to have missed out on the British new wave, passing up the chance to finance Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. This feels like their attempt to join the party, only instead of trying to find new talent they went with Box and Thomas. Actually I can't really fault the direction - it's not flashy but it does the job. It's the clunky script, uninvolving characters and story. The dialogue is arch and self conscious, scenes are awkwardly staged... and you know something, Box and Thomas had a lot of control over their films, and this was co written by Nicholsa Phipps, one of their regular writers, so I probably should blame them.
The film struggles to focus on a story. McShane starts out going out with Eggar; Peter Rogers is a dean whose wife Virginia Maskell sleeps with students; she sleeps with McShane, and he's supposed to fall for her and I think we're supposed to care but if she does it a lot it kind of doesn't have the same impact; McShane is protective of friend John Hurt (I think they hint Hurt is gay but maybe I'm looking for depth that isn't there); McShane and Hurt do a stunt that goes horribly wrong; McShane is revealed to be a genius and heads off into the sunset.
Other support characters are sketchily developed. There's some horrible racist dialogue involving black student Johnny Sekka; Catherine Woodville looks as though she's going to do something interesting but never goes (she and the achingly pretty Eggar just talk about boys all the time). There's a lot of singing. The acting is very fine - all the people who went on to have careers (they also include Jeremy Brett) are impressive here.
It's a real curio of a movie. Did Box and Thomas make it to try and be "in" with the box office, or did it speak to them personally?
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Movie review - "Suffragette" (2015) ***
The suffragette movement deserved a modern day treatment, especially with the interest in terrorism post Sept 11 and the parallels to the movement back in the day. It's handsome with typically strong British production design and acting. Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, Romola Gorai and Anne-Marie Duff are good in roles you can imagine Emily Blunt, Keir Knightly, Rebecca Hall etc playing the parts. Brendan Gleenson is superb as always as a bastard.
Plenty of things to admire. But it's dramatically wonky. Mulligan doesn't really have a strong personal relationship with anyone, except maybe her son. Husband Ben Wishaw is a passing figure (not supportive), there's no real warmth between her and Carter, Meryl Streep pops in and out. It felt not quite emotionally dramatised.
Plenty of things to admire. But it's dramatically wonky. Mulligan doesn't really have a strong personal relationship with anyone, except maybe her son. Husband Ben Wishaw is a passing figure (not supportive), there's no real warmth between her and Carter, Meryl Streep pops in and out. It felt not quite emotionally dramatised.
Movie review - "Some Girls Do" (1969) **
Deadlier Than the Male was popular enough for Rank to stump up the cast for a second attempt at turning Bulldog Drummond into James Bond. Richard Johnson is back although unfortunately Elke Sommer, Nigel Green and company don't.
We do have Daliah Lavi on hand as an assassin, but the support is lacking - James Villiers isn't as good as Nigel Green, Robert Morley is okay as "M" but lacks gravitas, Ronnie Stevens' silly ass assistant is weirdly reminiscent of the 1930s Drummond films. There is another annoying American character, played by Sydney Rome, and an array of bikinied beauties. The plot feels like they just pinched elements of the first, the James Coburn Flint films, and Dr Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine.
There's attractive scenery and pretty women. Johnson remains dull. Deadlier Than the Male was unexpectedly fun; this was a sequel too far.
We do have Daliah Lavi on hand as an assassin, but the support is lacking - James Villiers isn't as good as Nigel Green, Robert Morley is okay as "M" but lacks gravitas, Ronnie Stevens' silly ass assistant is weirdly reminiscent of the 1930s Drummond films. There is another annoying American character, played by Sydney Rome, and an array of bikinied beauties. The plot feels like they just pinched elements of the first, the James Coburn Flint films, and Dr Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine.
There's attractive scenery and pretty women. Johnson remains dull. Deadlier Than the Male was unexpectedly fun; this was a sequel too far.
Book review - "Hitchcock’s Partner in Suspense: The Life of Screenwriter Charles Bennett" (2014)
Poor old screenwriters - whenever people do a book about them, the publisher feels obliged to mention their more famous collaborator in the title - it happened to Charles Brackett (Billy Wilder), Robert Riskin (Frank Capra) and now Charles Bennett.
For a long time Bennett was surprisingly un-famous among film buff circles, especially considering he had genuine fame as a playwright in his 1920s heydey (including Blackmail) and had several classics on his resume as a screenwriter for Hitchcock, Cecil B De Mille and Irwin Allen, plus a stint as director (Madness of the Heart) and writing the cult classic Night of the Demon. However he toiled in obscurity for a number of years.
In hindsight there were a few reasons: his work as a director was mostly undistinguished; many of the famous directors and producers he worked for were renowned credit hogs; his plays weren't really produced after the 30s; he made an awful lot of forgotten TV; and it seems as though he sold out his talent for the money too often.
Bennett's reputation rose in recent years, in part because he lived until he was 95 and always seemed available for interviews. One was done by Patrick McGilligan in the first Backstory book - if you've read that you'll find a lot of things in here familiar. Actually, this book was disappointingly slight on information about Bennett - surprisingly little on Hitchcock for instance - but it was published posthumously, so I forgave it.
And there was plenty of interesting stuff - Bennett's family and background, his early days as an actor, war service in the trenches (real deal stuff, which saw him shoot Germans and get awarded a medal), acting after the war, turning to writing, becoming increasingly well known. Blackmail the play and film put him on the map as well as in contact with Alfred Hitchcock; the two men got along well and collaborated several times, key films in Hitch's creative development such as The Man Who Knew Too Much and The 39 Steps.
By the late 30s Bennett was one of the most highly paid screenwriters in England, highly regarded by Michael Balcon and others, but he took a big money offer to work in the USA. Bennett earned some decent credits over there, forming a notable relationship with Cecil B de Miller. Bennett admits his strength was in construction rather than dialogue, but he never seems to have lacked for work. During the war he did some espionage for the US government via de Mille, which seems to have mostly been useless reporting of communist activity. More usefully he went to England and did propaganda work for the British government.
After the war Bennett's luck was less strong. He tried to establish himself as a director, not particularly successfully. He made a lot of TV, little of which is remembered today, though he had good experiences filming for Edward Small and did work on the TV Casino Royale. Instead of concentrating on the quality of work and collaborators, he went for the money. He made a number of films with Irwin Allen, an experience which seems to have scarred him although the resulting work is kind of fun.
Bennett claims the industry blacklisted because of his right wing anti communist views - pointing the finger at Dore Schary in particular. He also says he was the victim of ageism. However he did get some attention in his later years being frequently interviewed. There are some dull sections (the Errol Flynn anecdote seemed pointless) but others are interesting, such as Bugsy Siegel being his tenant, C Aubrey Smith in the English community, and life in London during the war..
Bennett's son John offers an epilogue which provides a fascinating counter point to the book. It talks about Bennett's desperately unhappy second marriage which dragged out for years and caused him much pain and money; he had financial troubles, and health issues despite living to a late age; he suffered a very long late career slump, which seems surprisingly for someone so talented and versatile.
The book also includes extracts from Bennett screenplays, plays, propaganda pieces and novels, such as The Secret of the Loch. Interesting and entertaining.
For a long time Bennett was surprisingly un-famous among film buff circles, especially considering he had genuine fame as a playwright in his 1920s heydey (including Blackmail) and had several classics on his resume as a screenwriter for Hitchcock, Cecil B De Mille and Irwin Allen, plus a stint as director (Madness of the Heart) and writing the cult classic Night of the Demon. However he toiled in obscurity for a number of years.
In hindsight there were a few reasons: his work as a director was mostly undistinguished; many of the famous directors and producers he worked for were renowned credit hogs; his plays weren't really produced after the 30s; he made an awful lot of forgotten TV; and it seems as though he sold out his talent for the money too often.
Bennett's reputation rose in recent years, in part because he lived until he was 95 and always seemed available for interviews. One was done by Patrick McGilligan in the first Backstory book - if you've read that you'll find a lot of things in here familiar. Actually, this book was disappointingly slight on information about Bennett - surprisingly little on Hitchcock for instance - but it was published posthumously, so I forgave it.
And there was plenty of interesting stuff - Bennett's family and background, his early days as an actor, war service in the trenches (real deal stuff, which saw him shoot Germans and get awarded a medal), acting after the war, turning to writing, becoming increasingly well known. Blackmail the play and film put him on the map as well as in contact with Alfred Hitchcock; the two men got along well and collaborated several times, key films in Hitch's creative development such as The Man Who Knew Too Much and The 39 Steps.
By the late 30s Bennett was one of the most highly paid screenwriters in England, highly regarded by Michael Balcon and others, but he took a big money offer to work in the USA. Bennett earned some decent credits over there, forming a notable relationship with Cecil B de Miller. Bennett admits his strength was in construction rather than dialogue, but he never seems to have lacked for work. During the war he did some espionage for the US government via de Mille, which seems to have mostly been useless reporting of communist activity. More usefully he went to England and did propaganda work for the British government.
After the war Bennett's luck was less strong. He tried to establish himself as a director, not particularly successfully. He made a lot of TV, little of which is remembered today, though he had good experiences filming for Edward Small and did work on the TV Casino Royale. Instead of concentrating on the quality of work and collaborators, he went for the money. He made a number of films with Irwin Allen, an experience which seems to have scarred him although the resulting work is kind of fun.
Bennett claims the industry blacklisted because of his right wing anti communist views - pointing the finger at Dore Schary in particular. He also says he was the victim of ageism. However he did get some attention in his later years being frequently interviewed. There are some dull sections (the Errol Flynn anecdote seemed pointless) but others are interesting, such as Bugsy Siegel being his tenant, C Aubrey Smith in the English community, and life in London during the war..
Bennett's son John offers an epilogue which provides a fascinating counter point to the book. It talks about Bennett's desperately unhappy second marriage which dragged out for years and caused him much pain and money; he had financial troubles, and health issues despite living to a late age; he suffered a very long late career slump, which seems surprisingly for someone so talented and versatile.
The book also includes extracts from Bennett screenplays, plays, propaganda pieces and novels, such as The Secret of the Loch. Interesting and entertaining.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Movie review - "Deadlier Than the Male" (1967) **1/2
The Rank Film organisation jumps on the James Bond bandwagon - they'd already dabbled with Hot Enough for June - by reviving Bulldog Drummond and changing him from his previous incarnations (neck breaking pseudo fascist in the books, comic gentleman adventurer in the movies) into a modern day sophisticated, womanising spy (although he works for an oil company rather than the government).
Drummond is up against a duo of female assassins - Elke Sommer, Sylva Koscina - who run around knocking off people, usually in some revealing outfit (bikinis, evening gowns, etc). These two are great fun, and several of their scenes are reminiscent of the film Charlies Angels, especially the opening sequence where Sommers attacks a guy on a plane, parachutes out, is met by a bikinied Koscina in a speedboat, then then go someone in bikinis with a spear gun.
Even better the girls have different characters - Sommers is bossy, Koscina a troublesome psychopath, the two bicker. As long as they are around the film is great fun, helped by fantastic costumes and stunning locations. Nigel Green isn't bad as their boss.
The film's more wobbly when it comes to Drummond. Richard Johnson is handsome and clearly a capable actor but is dull as a star. He wouldn't have made a good Bond. The guy who plays his American nephew or whatever is agonisingly irritating - why not make this person a girl helping him? They throw in Suzanna Leigh in the third act, with an accent, but it's too little too late. The action scenes aren't done that well.
But it's bright and cheery and has some smashing looking birds as they used to say.
Drummond is up against a duo of female assassins - Elke Sommer, Sylva Koscina - who run around knocking off people, usually in some revealing outfit (bikinis, evening gowns, etc). These two are great fun, and several of their scenes are reminiscent of the film Charlies Angels, especially the opening sequence where Sommers attacks a guy on a plane, parachutes out, is met by a bikinied Koscina in a speedboat, then then go someone in bikinis with a spear gun.
Even better the girls have different characters - Sommers is bossy, Koscina a troublesome psychopath, the two bicker. As long as they are around the film is great fun, helped by fantastic costumes and stunning locations. Nigel Green isn't bad as their boss.
The film's more wobbly when it comes to Drummond. Richard Johnson is handsome and clearly a capable actor but is dull as a star. He wouldn't have made a good Bond. The guy who plays his American nephew or whatever is agonisingly irritating - why not make this person a girl helping him? They throw in Suzanna Leigh in the third act, with an accent, but it's too little too late. The action scenes aren't done that well.
But it's bright and cheery and has some smashing looking birds as they used to say.
Movie review - "House of Bamboo" (1955) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Hollywood went on a Japanese kick after World War Two with sympathetic depictions of that country booming in the wake of their support in the Korean War: this, Sayonara, Joe Butterfly, Teahouse of the August Moon, etc. This was at the forefront - Sam Fuller's taken the story of another movie and added his own unique touches.
The marriage works well - the structure is a very sound one (as most undercover stories are), with Robert Stack infiltrating a group of ex servicemen committing violent robberies in Japan under the control of Robert Ryan. We find out Stack's undercover around 15 minutes in - the same point when we did re: Paul Walker in The Fast and the Furious.
I feel this movie has influenced a lot of other movies, right down to its homoeroticism... Ryan basically falls in love with Stack making old flame Cameron Mitchell jealous; Ryan winds up shooting Mitchell when the latter is nude in the bath because he believes he's a traitor, the discovers it's Stack. The film throws in the guys having "kimiko girls" to make sure we all know they're straight, but not Ryan... I think Fuller was being up front about him.
There is stunning CinemaScope photography and location work in Japan - it's a treat for the eyes. Robert Stack can be dull but Fuller's loosened him up and he's not a bad hero. Robert Ryan is a superb villain, though the film lacks a character scene or two to flesh out his relationship with Stack and Mitchell. (It didn't feel real Ryan would be so invested in Stack so quickly). Stack's romance with Shirley Yamaguchi is very sweet. I was surprised Sessue Hayakawa's role wasn't bigger.
The Fuller touches are plentiful - Biff Elliot's death on the operating table, Ryan shooting Mitchell in the bathtub, the final shoot out on the spinning wheel.
The marriage works well - the structure is a very sound one (as most undercover stories are), with Robert Stack infiltrating a group of ex servicemen committing violent robberies in Japan under the control of Robert Ryan. We find out Stack's undercover around 15 minutes in - the same point when we did re: Paul Walker in The Fast and the Furious.
I feel this movie has influenced a lot of other movies, right down to its homoeroticism... Ryan basically falls in love with Stack making old flame Cameron Mitchell jealous; Ryan winds up shooting Mitchell when the latter is nude in the bath because he believes he's a traitor, the discovers it's Stack. The film throws in the guys having "kimiko girls" to make sure we all know they're straight, but not Ryan... I think Fuller was being up front about him.
There is stunning CinemaScope photography and location work in Japan - it's a treat for the eyes. Robert Stack can be dull but Fuller's loosened him up and he's not a bad hero. Robert Ryan is a superb villain, though the film lacks a character scene or two to flesh out his relationship with Stack and Mitchell. (It didn't feel real Ryan would be so invested in Stack so quickly). Stack's romance with Shirley Yamaguchi is very sweet. I was surprised Sessue Hayakawa's role wasn't bigger.
The Fuller touches are plentiful - Biff Elliot's death on the operating table, Ryan shooting Mitchell in the bathtub, the final shoot out on the spinning wheel.
Friday, May 20, 2016
Movie review - "Above Us the Waves" (1955) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
When people mock the British war films of the 1950s it's ones like these they have in mind - middle of the road star power (John Mills, John Gregson, Donald Sinden), stiff upper lips, polite middle class heroes and loveable cockneys, understated Bravery, admiring German opposition...
And certainly you could make fun of it. But it is based on a true story, there are attempts at documentary like realism (including documentary footage), the final attack is quite exciting (cramped mini subs leaking etc). It also has a remarkably down beat ending - although the ship is damaged, two of the crews are captured and the third die in what is basically a suicide mission (because they don't want to give the mission away).
The characters aren't memorable - one sailor is a bit of a womaniser, another is scared of being scared, and that's about it. I guess that happens when you do films based on real people many of whom were still around. It's not helped though by the fact it's so hard to tell the actors apart. Mills, Gregson and Sinden aren't terribly distinguishable stars - they could have easily swapped them for Anthony Steel, Richard Todd, Kenneth More, Dirk Bogarde, etc. Aussies will get a kick out of seeing Gregson play an Aussie (presumably Peter Finch wasn't available) but they don't really do much with his Australian-ness.
Drama wise the film's chief flaw is the second act consists of an abortive mission which doesn't really affect anything - they do the mission, get captured by Swedes, then released. It doesn't complicate or accelerate things and could be cut out of the movie.
Still, there are some effective moments, especially knowing it all happened.
And certainly you could make fun of it. But it is based on a true story, there are attempts at documentary like realism (including documentary footage), the final attack is quite exciting (cramped mini subs leaking etc). It also has a remarkably down beat ending - although the ship is damaged, two of the crews are captured and the third die in what is basically a suicide mission (because they don't want to give the mission away).
The characters aren't memorable - one sailor is a bit of a womaniser, another is scared of being scared, and that's about it. I guess that happens when you do films based on real people many of whom were still around. It's not helped though by the fact it's so hard to tell the actors apart. Mills, Gregson and Sinden aren't terribly distinguishable stars - they could have easily swapped them for Anthony Steel, Richard Todd, Kenneth More, Dirk Bogarde, etc. Aussies will get a kick out of seeing Gregson play an Aussie (presumably Peter Finch wasn't available) but they don't really do much with his Australian-ness.
Drama wise the film's chief flaw is the second act consists of an abortive mission which doesn't really affect anything - they do the mission, get captured by Swedes, then released. It doesn't complicate or accelerate things and could be cut out of the movie.
Still, there are some effective moments, especially knowing it all happened.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Movie review - "The Mask of Dimitrious" (1944) ***
They don't make them like this any more and it's never likely to happen because this film is such a creature of 40s Warner Bros - you've got the sets, the sumptuous black and white photography, an Eric Ambler story, Jean Negulesco directing, and a rogues gallery of support players, in particular Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet.
In some ways the film this reminded me most of was Citizen Kane (I'm aware the novel predated the movie)- a writer (Lorre) looking into the past of a dead person (Zachary Scott), interviewing people in his life. There's a police chief (Kurt Katch, playing the same role Orson Welles did in Journey Into Fear), his ex lover (Faye Emerson), former partner (Greenstreet), boss (Victor Francen). Then it goes into a Third Man twist with Dimitrios really being alive, which gives us a third act.
The story has a patch work quilt feel to it. The vignettes really tell us the same thing again and again i.e. that Dimitrios was dodgy. He doesn't have any of Citizen Kane's complexity. And Lorre's character doesn't have the personal involvement that say Joseph Cotten does in The Third Man - he's only on this for a lark.
I did like how Lorre and Greenstreet became friends, so Scott shooting at Greenstreet at the end infuriated Lorre... more of this and the film might have had more heart. Or maybe using Emerson more.
But there are other compensations. It's so beautifully shot and directed; there's a tonne of atmosphere; Lorre is great fun in a hero role and him and Greenstreet are always good value together; Scott makes an impressive debut. It is fun.
Movie review - "The Big Short" (2015) ****
Hollywood takes on the GFC - so the protagonists are people who made a pile of money out of it, by betting against the market. It's an irony the characters often comment on - the fact the heroes triumph mean that the world's economy crashed. But it is a fresher way of looking at the disaster.
There are three main groups - Steve Carrell and his gang, loosely associated with Ryan Gosling; Christian Bale and his gang; two guys and Brad Pitt. The villains are the bankers and inefficient government.
There's a lot of exposition - so much so you wonder if it couldn't have been dramatised better. I think the filmmakers fell in love with the conceit of having celebrities explain things when surely they could have been demonstrated via action. It's criticisms about the treatment of immigrants and poor people might have had more impact in a film that didn't fail the Bechdel test so badly (most female characters are strippers, and/or celebrities).
But it is a smart film and it treats its audience smartly. Bale and Carrell engage in a lot of Acting but after a while I got used to it, and the social anger and comment is insightful and pointed. Often very funny and also anger making, and further serves to highlight Adam Mackay as the leading political satirist of his generation.
There are three main groups - Steve Carrell and his gang, loosely associated with Ryan Gosling; Christian Bale and his gang; two guys and Brad Pitt. The villains are the bankers and inefficient government.
There's a lot of exposition - so much so you wonder if it couldn't have been dramatised better. I think the filmmakers fell in love with the conceit of having celebrities explain things when surely they could have been demonstrated via action. It's criticisms about the treatment of immigrants and poor people might have had more impact in a film that didn't fail the Bechdel test so badly (most female characters are strippers, and/or celebrities).
But it is a smart film and it treats its audience smartly. Bale and Carrell engage in a lot of Acting but after a while I got used to it, and the social anger and comment is insightful and pointed. Often very funny and also anger making, and further serves to highlight Adam Mackay as the leading political satirist of his generation.
Movie review - Doctor#7 - "Doctor in Trouble" (1970) *1/2
There's no reason the doctor series couldn't have kicked on for a few more films at least, with more vigorous handling - as proved by the success of the subsequent TV series, there is always a market for a comedy about young doctors - but this entry in the series is tired and sad.
The films were at their best with some young fresh faced medico learning the trade - when there was an underlying seriousness. Ralph Thomas frequently attributed the success of the first film to the fac there were no comics in it, and the cast played things straight. Here everyone is Trying To Be Funny.
Leslie Phillips is the lead - playing a character with the same name as Doctor in Love but a different name than Doctor in Clover. He looks like an aging, balding lech, and it's not that fun to watch a film focused on him.
This one is a rehash of Doctor at Sea with Philips and a bunch of other passengers going on a ship. There's a whole lot of subplots and frantic running around plus a lot more TNA than we've seen before, to reflect changing times.
There's a strong cast - John Le Mesurier as an officer; Robert Morley as the captain; James Robertson Justice in a small role as Sir Lancelot Spratt; Harry Secombe as a passenger; Angela Scoular (Ruby from On Her Majesty's Secret Service) as a model Phillips is keen on (she goes topless in few scenes and married Phillips in real life); Monty Python's Graham Chapman as a gay photographer keen on Phillips (the two look alike); Irene Handl is a concerned mother; Joan Sims as a Russian photographer. Someone called Simon Dee is a TV star who plays a doctor. Graham Stark is in brownface as a servant. Thinking about it, Secombe, Sims, Dee and Chapman would have all made ideal doctors in a doctor film but Phillips is the only one.
There are actually decent ideas here - the passengers include a pools winner, a TV star, a bunch of models and a stripper; there's shenanigans involving dressing up in drag and a climax where the doctor has to perform on a Russian ship. But the filmmakers sacrifice any seriousness for gags - the Carry On influence perhaps. You never care for Phillips at all, or him proving himself to Morley or other people, or his romance with Scoular. It's a sell out of the spirit of the first few movies.
The films were at their best with some young fresh faced medico learning the trade - when there was an underlying seriousness. Ralph Thomas frequently attributed the success of the first film to the fac there were no comics in it, and the cast played things straight. Here everyone is Trying To Be Funny.
Leslie Phillips is the lead - playing a character with the same name as Doctor in Love but a different name than Doctor in Clover. He looks like an aging, balding lech, and it's not that fun to watch a film focused on him.
This one is a rehash of Doctor at Sea with Philips and a bunch of other passengers going on a ship. There's a whole lot of subplots and frantic running around plus a lot more TNA than we've seen before, to reflect changing times.
There's a strong cast - John Le Mesurier as an officer; Robert Morley as the captain; James Robertson Justice in a small role as Sir Lancelot Spratt; Harry Secombe as a passenger; Angela Scoular (Ruby from On Her Majesty's Secret Service) as a model Phillips is keen on (she goes topless in few scenes and married Phillips in real life); Monty Python's Graham Chapman as a gay photographer keen on Phillips (the two look alike); Irene Handl is a concerned mother; Joan Sims as a Russian photographer. Someone called Simon Dee is a TV star who plays a doctor. Graham Stark is in brownface as a servant. Thinking about it, Secombe, Sims, Dee and Chapman would have all made ideal doctors in a doctor film but Phillips is the only one.
There are actually decent ideas here - the passengers include a pools winner, a TV star, a bunch of models and a stripper; there's shenanigans involving dressing up in drag and a climax where the doctor has to perform on a Russian ship. But the filmmakers sacrifice any seriousness for gags - the Carry On influence perhaps. You never care for Phillips at all, or him proving himself to Morley or other people, or his romance with Scoular. It's a sell out of the spirit of the first few movies.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Movie review - Doctor#6 - "Doctor in Clover" (1966) **
The "doctor" series of the 50s and 60s had surprising durability - even though this was number six in the series and had Leslie Phillips rather than Dirk Bogarde, it still made the top 15 money makers in Britain of 1966.
The film marks a break from tradition in that the leading man, Phillips, is a comic character - there's no straight man at the center, like Bogarde or Michael Craig. I think this was a mistake because the piece has no center. Phillips should be a supporting character - an aging lecherous doctor, would be better off as a sidekick. John Fraser, as Philips' brother, a fellow doctor, should have been pushed to the center - though Fraser is a little funny looking with those eyebrows that seem to be painted on.
There are some really stunning women including Shirley Ann Field as a nurse (her role is disappointingly small - she's introduced, then given a fiancee and that's it) and Elizabeth Ercy as a physio who wears a swimsuit. The music got on my nerves.
Phillips' pursuit of Ercy isn't very entertaining or fun - it's creepy. The film is on surer ground when it concentrates on James Robertson Justice rampaging around the place and his romance with Joan Sims. The scene where all the doctors and nurses get high on gas was genuinely funny as was the whingeing patient and Justice and Sims.
The film marks a break from tradition in that the leading man, Phillips, is a comic character - there's no straight man at the center, like Bogarde or Michael Craig. I think this was a mistake because the piece has no center. Phillips should be a supporting character - an aging lecherous doctor, would be better off as a sidekick. John Fraser, as Philips' brother, a fellow doctor, should have been pushed to the center - though Fraser is a little funny looking with those eyebrows that seem to be painted on.
There are some really stunning women including Shirley Ann Field as a nurse (her role is disappointingly small - she's introduced, then given a fiancee and that's it) and Elizabeth Ercy as a physio who wears a swimsuit. The music got on my nerves.
Phillips' pursuit of Ercy isn't very entertaining or fun - it's creepy. The film is on surer ground when it concentrates on James Robertson Justice rampaging around the place and his romance with Joan Sims. The scene where all the doctors and nurses get high on gas was genuinely funny as was the whingeing patient and Justice and Sims.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Movie review - "The Black Tent" (1956) **1/2
Few people seem to say kind things about John Davis and the Rank Film Organisation but his basic ideas about what projects to green light weren't bad - try to give people what they couldn't get on TV, which for him meant colour and location filming (the thing he could never bring himself to do - which in hindsight was a big mistake - was to make films that pushed the boundaries censor-wise).
The big appeal of this movie is location filming in Libya, which is really stunning - gorgeous deserts, and ancient Roman ruins, palm trees, black tents, oasis etc. It's one of the best looking British films from this period I've seen.
The story is soapie but works on some level: wealthy Donald Sinden gets a letter alluding to the fate of his brother Anthony Steel, who went MIA in the North African desert during World War Two. He goes there and finds the truth relatively quickly: Steel was wounded, takes refuge with some Bedouin, falls for the Sheikh's daughter, decides to have a crack at the Germans.
Anthony Steel was a handsome, but inexpressive actor. I think they could have gotten around this say people had said a lot of different things about him which made him sound interesting, like in Laura ("he was angry", "he could be kind", "he was traumatised"). Or if he'd been teamed with a more interesting female co star than Anna Maria Sandri who is bland as dishwater (to be fair, it's a terrible character - the stock, doe eyed adoring Arab girl who never has her own opinion - but her acting is poor). Or if he'd been given Sinden's role, which basically consists of just poking around and asking questions - and Sinden, a better actor, been given Steel's part. But then I guess Sinden isn't as good looking as Steel. Maybe Michael Craig, who was good looking and who can act - and who plays a support part. But Steel was more of a name at the time. Anyway, Steel looks odd with his hair dyed blonde.
There are script troubles too. Sinden badly lacks his own storyline. Yes, sure he pokes around looking for Sinden but he needed something else to do in the present day - a romance say with the widow, or some other girl; a threat (why not have an Arab or German try to kill him); unresolved business with his brother that could have been wrapped up. He sort of plods along.
Also more needed to be made of the German threat during the flashback scenes. What impact did they have on the Arabs? Were the Arabs divided over how to treat Steel? There could've been a civil war - Andre Morrell (good as the Sheikh) torn over what to do. There was more potential in the storyline.
But I did like it. Looks great, there is a story, Sinden and Morrell can act, it at least acknowledges there were people in the desert during this time other than Germans and Allies.
The big appeal of this movie is location filming in Libya, which is really stunning - gorgeous deserts, and ancient Roman ruins, palm trees, black tents, oasis etc. It's one of the best looking British films from this period I've seen.
The story is soapie but works on some level: wealthy Donald Sinden gets a letter alluding to the fate of his brother Anthony Steel, who went MIA in the North African desert during World War Two. He goes there and finds the truth relatively quickly: Steel was wounded, takes refuge with some Bedouin, falls for the Sheikh's daughter, decides to have a crack at the Germans.
Anthony Steel was a handsome, but inexpressive actor. I think they could have gotten around this say people had said a lot of different things about him which made him sound interesting, like in Laura ("he was angry", "he could be kind", "he was traumatised"). Or if he'd been teamed with a more interesting female co star than Anna Maria Sandri who is bland as dishwater (to be fair, it's a terrible character - the stock, doe eyed adoring Arab girl who never has her own opinion - but her acting is poor). Or if he'd been given Sinden's role, which basically consists of just poking around and asking questions - and Sinden, a better actor, been given Steel's part. But then I guess Sinden isn't as good looking as Steel. Maybe Michael Craig, who was good looking and who can act - and who plays a support part. But Steel was more of a name at the time. Anyway, Steel looks odd with his hair dyed blonde.
There are script troubles too. Sinden badly lacks his own storyline. Yes, sure he pokes around looking for Sinden but he needed something else to do in the present day - a romance say with the widow, or some other girl; a threat (why not have an Arab or German try to kill him); unresolved business with his brother that could have been wrapped up. He sort of plods along.
Also more needed to be made of the German threat during the flashback scenes. What impact did they have on the Arabs? Were the Arabs divided over how to treat Steel? There could've been a civil war - Andre Morrell (good as the Sheikh) torn over what to do. There was more potential in the storyline.
But I did like it. Looks great, there is a story, Sinden and Morrell can act, it at least acknowledges there were people in the desert during this time other than Germans and Allies.
Book review - "William Cameron Menzies: The Shape of Things to Come" by James Curtis
William Cameron Menzies was one of the true geniuses of Hollywood - his stunning art design illuminated numerous films, notably Gone with the Wind, but also Kings Row, Thief of Bagdad, Around the World in 80 Days, Spellbound, The Shape of Things to Come and many more. He also worked as a director - not always with that great a result but he did have some memorable works on his resume, such as Invaders from Mars.
James Curtis is one of the best film biographers around, up there with Patrick McGilligan and Scott Eyman. He's given Menzies' life the royal treatment - superbly researched, well written, plenty of length and illustrations.
I do have to admit I wasn't that gripped. The problem with a book about art directors is Curtis is forever having to describe pictures and refer to illustrations - which Curtis does and there are lots of pictures. But I found all the descriptions wearying; there's no substitute for watching the films.
The other big issue is the character of Menzies himself - he wasn't that interesting. He was born in Scotland, which is a bit different, but established himself relatively quickly. He was an alcoholic who smoked (leading to an early death); a bit of an idiot, a bit fat; he could be grumpy (which, along with his drinking, caused surprisingly long career slumps - despite his genius and skill at getting budgets down, which I would've thought kept him on the A list forever, he had to toil on a lot of crap). He didn't like dealing with actors, which explains why he never really made it as a director. But he's not that a compelling figure.
It's not Curtis' writing because characters in the book keep popping and drawing focus by virtue of being interesting: HG Wells, sulky and troublesome during the making of Things to Come; Korda, running around frantically making various projects; the charming Sam Wood, who didn't seem to tick any stock "good director" boxes except "could talk to actors" yet made a bunch of classic films; Ronald Colman's insecurity making TV in the 50s including sniping at Benita Hume.
It's probably the definitive work on Menzies and I'd love to see a documentary adaptation because you could see the clips. But I found it heavy going at times.
James Curtis is one of the best film biographers around, up there with Patrick McGilligan and Scott Eyman. He's given Menzies' life the royal treatment - superbly researched, well written, plenty of length and illustrations.
I do have to admit I wasn't that gripped. The problem with a book about art directors is Curtis is forever having to describe pictures and refer to illustrations - which Curtis does and there are lots of pictures. But I found all the descriptions wearying; there's no substitute for watching the films.
The other big issue is the character of Menzies himself - he wasn't that interesting. He was born in Scotland, which is a bit different, but established himself relatively quickly. He was an alcoholic who smoked (leading to an early death); a bit of an idiot, a bit fat; he could be grumpy (which, along with his drinking, caused surprisingly long career slumps - despite his genius and skill at getting budgets down, which I would've thought kept him on the A list forever, he had to toil on a lot of crap). He didn't like dealing with actors, which explains why he never really made it as a director. But he's not that a compelling figure.
It's not Curtis' writing because characters in the book keep popping and drawing focus by virtue of being interesting: HG Wells, sulky and troublesome during the making of Things to Come; Korda, running around frantically making various projects; the charming Sam Wood, who didn't seem to tick any stock "good director" boxes except "could talk to actors" yet made a bunch of classic films; Ronald Colman's insecurity making TV in the 50s including sniping at Benita Hume.
It's probably the definitive work on Menzies and I'd love to see a documentary adaptation because you could see the clips. But I found it heavy going at times.
Movie review - "Nor the Moon By Night" (1959) **1/2
I'm surprised Belinda Lee isn't better known - she was beautiful, could act, had an exotic love life, died tragically young (in a car accident). Maybe she lacked a famous film on her resume - most of her time was spent under contract for the Rank Organisation in the 1950s, not highly regarded by film buffs.
This was one of her better known films, and she basically has the lead role, as an English girl who travels to South Africa to marry a game warden (Patrick McGoohan) only to fall for his brother (Michael Craig).
That's not a bad set up for a drama - it's very tried and true - although the execution leaves something to be desired. McGoohan and Craig aren't especially close; McGoohan barely knows Lee (they're pen pals more than anything) so it's not that much of a betrayal for Craig to hook up with her; it's annoying how there's a cute blonde pining for McGoohan in the wings. There's a subplot about poachers calling trouble and a fat South African corrupting locals, which is reminiscent of Where Eagles Fly, a big hit some years earlier.
But the film muffs the drama. There's no big confrontation between Craig and McGoohan over Lee - McGoohan just gives up. The poacher subplot barely involves Craig at all it's mostly McGoohan. At times it's like the two actors are in separate films. The action scenes seem randomly inserted and most involve McGoohan - he crashes his car, is chased by a lion, winds up a tree, gets in a fight. There's no narrative build. (It's not a very well constructed screenplay). There's another subplot about Lee being accused of killing an old lady but at the end that's just resolved with a phone call saying everything is okay.
There's some attractive location filming in South Africa. Michael Craig is okay in a role that really needed Stewart Granger (though you know they would've wanted Dirk Bogarde who wouldn't have been right - at least Craig is a convincing heterosexual). There's a hot scene where Craig and Lee kiss in the rain. Lee is quite sexy. The acting is decent. McGoohan probably should have played Craig's role.
I actually didn't mind this. It was entertaining, pretty, obviously expensive. The director was right - it's a hotch potch - but it's watchable.
Directed by Ken Annakin.
Movie review - "Sisters" (2015) ****
Gen X women do Project X and the result is one of the funniest comedies in a long time, full of laugh out loud moments. We're going through a golden age of raunchy comedy at the moment with this, Bridesmaids, Trainwreck, etc. The plot is very simple but effective, touching on basic emotions like family, fear of aging, second chances, worries about parenting and so on.
Tina Fey is very effective cast against type as a sort of rock chick. Amy Poehler is fantastic and they have terrific chemistry, the match of Hope and Crosby. Like in a lot of the best comedies, the support cast is extremely strong, down to the smallest roles.
Tina Fey is very effective cast against type as a sort of rock chick. Amy Poehler is fantastic and they have terrific chemistry, the match of Hope and Crosby. Like in a lot of the best comedies, the support cast is extremely strong, down to the smallest roles.
Movie review - "Jurassic World" (2015) **1/2
I don't care if it made a billion dollars it's not very good, a Spielberg film made by someone who isn't Spielberg. It's all a bit crap - the two juveniles get on the nerves (a posey teenage boy who seems interested in his hair, a bratty kid wanting to see rides); an underdeveloped personal connection with Bryce Dallas Howard (she's their aunt - who cares?).
Bryce Howard and Chris Pratt seem to be sending up their roles - uptight gal and cocky guy. The action scenes felt lazy - there's little stand out suspense and not much logic. Even though it's set off the coast of Costa Rice, it's a very white American cast.
It's colourful and some of the special effects are okay. I like the actors. I know it made a lot of money - surely that was nostalgia and big screen spectacle rather than anything else?
Bryce Howard and Chris Pratt seem to be sending up their roles - uptight gal and cocky guy. The action scenes felt lazy - there's little stand out suspense and not much logic. Even though it's set off the coast of Costa Rice, it's a very white American cast.
It's colourful and some of the special effects are okay. I like the actors. I know it made a lot of money - surely that was nostalgia and big screen spectacle rather than anything else?
Movie review - "Man of the Moment" (1935) *
Terrible British comedy with amateurish acting and handling. There are two interesting things about it - the cast and an unexpected dark undertone. Douglas Fairbanks Jnr pulls Laura La Plante out of the river after she's tried to kill herself following an unhappy love affair (this is treated comically); he looks after her which upsets his fiancee (Margaret Lockwood, very young). Lockwood dumps him so he heads to Monte Carlo to gamble - leading to some location filming.
I didn't know much about La Plante but she was fairly terrible. I like Fairbanks Jnr but the material defeated him. Lockwood was very green. This was heavy going although it did improve as it went on.
I didn't know much about La Plante but she was fairly terrible. I like Fairbanks Jnr but the material defeated him. Lockwood was very green. This was heavy going although it did improve as it went on.
Monday, May 09, 2016
Movie review - "Spotlight" (2015) ****
Throwback to the verisimilitude and engrossing newspaper drama of All the Presidents Men and... well, that's the only other top rank newspaper drama I can think of off the top of my head. Not as well written in a way - the research is there, and it's interesting, but it lacks humour and structure of that other film. Also the fact it's about a bunch of reporters instead of just two limits the personal connection we have to the heroes, if only because we spend less time with them.
But a fascinating look at how stories were gotten in the early 2000s... a time that may be past now (although the Panama Papers gives one hope).
But a fascinating look at how stories were gotten in the early 2000s... a time that may be past now (although the Panama Papers gives one hope).
Movie review - "Quentin Durward" (1955) **1/2
Quo Vadis kicked off a career for Robert Taylor as swashbuckler, and he had two big hits of that genre in England, Ivanhoe and Knights of the Round Table. This was a flop though - indicating that the cycle was winding down. Though to be fair... everyone had heard of the novels on which the other films were based but how well known is Scott's Quentin Durward? Maybe it was at one stage - I'm not sure - but definitely the period within this is set is not as familiar to those in English speaking countries: to wit, the reign of Louis XI and his troubles with Charles the Duke of Burgundy.
I got confused a lot of the time watching this - I wasn't sure who (apart from Taylor) was meant to be the goodies and the baddies and what they were fighting for. It felt as though the film didn't get started until 40 minutes in when Taylor sets off escorting Kay Kendall, who he falls in love with. I struggled to tell the supporting characters apart and didn't know what it was all about.
It's fun to see Kendall get the glamour treatment but she's wasted really - it's a poor role. Taylor's American-ness really grated in this one, in a part that (as you could say for all of Taylor's swashbuckler roles) required Stewart Granger. He tries and seems a decent old stick - but it is frustrating to see someone so miscast. Especially so as he even has something of a character to play - Quentin Durward is a man who tries to do the Right Thing and live by an Honourable Code. There's possible complexities here which Taylor isn't capable of.
The costumes are bright and the production values are high. There are also a number of excellent action sequences - which surprised me since I kind of assume director Richard Thorpe is just a stock technician. But there's some great stuff: Taylor scaling a castle in the beginning, the final duel on chains with fire blazing.
Really top notch support cast, particularly Robert Morley as Louis XI and Duncan Lamont as a scary villain. George Cole's comic relief sidekick did get on my nerves.
I got confused a lot of the time watching this - I wasn't sure who (apart from Taylor) was meant to be the goodies and the baddies and what they were fighting for. It felt as though the film didn't get started until 40 minutes in when Taylor sets off escorting Kay Kendall, who he falls in love with. I struggled to tell the supporting characters apart and didn't know what it was all about.
It's fun to see Kendall get the glamour treatment but she's wasted really - it's a poor role. Taylor's American-ness really grated in this one, in a part that (as you could say for all of Taylor's swashbuckler roles) required Stewart Granger. He tries and seems a decent old stick - but it is frustrating to see someone so miscast. Especially so as he even has something of a character to play - Quentin Durward is a man who tries to do the Right Thing and live by an Honourable Code. There's possible complexities here which Taylor isn't capable of.
The costumes are bright and the production values are high. There are also a number of excellent action sequences - which surprised me since I kind of assume director Richard Thorpe is just a stock technician. But there's some great stuff: Taylor scaling a castle in the beginning, the final duel on chains with fire blazing.
Really top notch support cast, particularly Robert Morley as Louis XI and Duncan Lamont as a scary villain. George Cole's comic relief sidekick did get on my nerves.
Saturday, May 07, 2016
Movie review - "Doctor Syn" (1937) **
Doctor Syn was a popular figure in British literature - a parson by day, smuggler by night. He's played here by George Arliss, an ancient looking dude who was a film star in the 1930s. He's okay as Syn, though he lacks dash.
Director Roy William Neill made some good films in his time but this is pretty creaky. In part because I watched a crap print where you couldn't tell what was going on in the night scenes. But also dramatically - you're all too aware so much exciting stuff happens off screen (the death of Clegg/Syd's wife, his revenge against the pirate). I think the person who killed his wife needed to be alive.
The plot involves the authorities figuring out what Clegg/Syd is up to but it's never that exciting. There is some sweet stuff involving a young Margaret Lockwood who is Arliss' secret daughter; their scenes work - a lot more than Lockwood's love for drippy lunk John Loder. There's some lively trap doors and creepy covers and I enjoyed the fat kid.
Director Roy William Neill made some good films in his time but this is pretty creaky. In part because I watched a crap print where you couldn't tell what was going on in the night scenes. But also dramatically - you're all too aware so much exciting stuff happens off screen (the death of Clegg/Syd's wife, his revenge against the pirate). I think the person who killed his wife needed to be alive.
The plot involves the authorities figuring out what Clegg/Syd is up to but it's never that exciting. There is some sweet stuff involving a young Margaret Lockwood who is Arliss' secret daughter; their scenes work - a lot more than Lockwood's love for drippy lunk John Loder. There's some lively trap doors and creepy covers and I enjoyed the fat kid.
Movie review - "A Girl Must Live" (1939) ***
Really fun, bright British comedy about three showgirls on the make, full of energy and bright Frank Launder script. Launder wrote this without Gilliat; it was interesting to contrast this with Girl in the News, which was also directed by Carol Reed starring Margaret Lockwood but was written by Gilliat without Launder. This was a better movie, a lot more fun - and made me wonder if Launder was a better writer than Gilliat. Of course it simply maybe personal taste, the source novel, anything... But it seems Launder was better at comedy. You can definitely feel The Lady Vanishes here more than in Girl in the News.
Anyway Margaret Lockwood is bright and vivacious in Lady Vanishes mode as a bright young thing who flees finishing school and winds up on stage. Her cronies include Renee Houston and an achingly young Lili Palmer. Everyone is good as is the support cast including Naunton Wayne.
The film feels influenced by those Warner Bros musicals of the early 1930s with girl's minds on money and doddering old men interested in sex. This makes it refreshingly adult. There are a few musical numbers but it's not really a musical.
The girls run around in their underwear a lot, Houston and Palmer have a cat fight, Wayne is a drunken burglar, Hugh Sinclair is the noble who Lockwood falls in love with. This romance is a little abrupt - Sinclair comes into the piece too late and is too sketchy a figure. It was the biggest flaw of the film for me. But Reed and the writers have such affection for their characters this is a hard movie to dislike and I found it a delightful surprise.
Anyway Margaret Lockwood is bright and vivacious in Lady Vanishes mode as a bright young thing who flees finishing school and winds up on stage. Her cronies include Renee Houston and an achingly young Lili Palmer. Everyone is good as is the support cast including Naunton Wayne.
The film feels influenced by those Warner Bros musicals of the early 1930s with girl's minds on money and doddering old men interested in sex. This makes it refreshingly adult. There are a few musical numbers but it's not really a musical.
The girls run around in their underwear a lot, Houston and Palmer have a cat fight, Wayne is a drunken burglar, Hugh Sinclair is the noble who Lockwood falls in love with. This romance is a little abrupt - Sinclair comes into the piece too late and is too sketchy a figure. It was the biggest flaw of the film for me. But Reed and the writers have such affection for their characters this is a hard movie to dislike and I found it a delightful surprise.
Monday, May 02, 2016
Movie review - "The Girl in the News" (1940) **
Unpretentious little British melodrama which reunites Carol Reed and Margaret Lockwood in what was their fifth teaming, I believe. It has an intriguing idea: Lockwood is a nurse who is put on trial for killing a patient; she just gets off in part due to the skill of her lawyer Barry Barnes, but when a second patient is killed things look grim.
Oddly, Lockwood played a version of this in the later movie Bedelia where she was guilty of knocking off various husbands. Here she's innocent. And this could have made an ideal Hitchcock movie, with it's thriller aspects, lawyer falling in love with accused, butler having affair with married man. But there is not much pace - most of the action is set around courtrooms.
Lockwood is warm and sympathetic - she made such a good bitch later in her career that it's good to be reminded what a winning heroine she could be. Barnes is a wet drip (something many British leading men of this period were). There is a strong support cast, including Emlyn Williams (suspicious butler), Roger Livesey (the detective - shame he didn't play the male lead), Margaretta Scott (non grieving widow). Script is by Sidney Gilliat so it's logical and well done. It just lacks spark ad humour.
Oddly, Lockwood played a version of this in the later movie Bedelia where she was guilty of knocking off various husbands. Here she's innocent. And this could have made an ideal Hitchcock movie, with it's thriller aspects, lawyer falling in love with accused, butler having affair with married man. But there is not much pace - most of the action is set around courtrooms.
Lockwood is warm and sympathetic - she made such a good bitch later in her career that it's good to be reminded what a winning heroine she could be. Barnes is a wet drip (something many British leading men of this period were). There is a strong support cast, including Emlyn Williams (suspicious butler), Roger Livesey (the detective - shame he didn't play the male lead), Margaretta Scott (non grieving widow). Script is by Sidney Gilliat so it's logical and well done. It just lacks spark ad humour.
Sunday, May 01, 2016
Movie review - "Bank Holiday" (1938) ***
An early landmark in the career of Carol Reed and Margaret Lockwood, who were solid names of British cinema in the 30s and became legends in the 40s. It's a simple enough tale of various people going away for a weekend - rather like the later Holiday Camp, which surely ripped off this film.
The stories aren't that much - two girls go looking for boys, a working class family hang out and are working class, and the most screen time is given to a slightly creepy tale about a nurse who meets a guy waiting for his wife to give birth, the wife dies, the nurse goes off for a weekend away with her boyfriend (they're not married) but she can't stop thinking about the guy. The plots in Holiday Camp were much better - there was more of them and they were better structured.
It is redeemed by the acting and the handling, which is very confident. Small roles are played by people like Felix Alymer and Wilfrid Lawson; Walter Patch and Kathleen Harrison are strong as the working class couple. Margaret Lockwood is lovely as the nurse, reluctant to hop in the sack with boyfriend Hugh Williams and obviously keen on newly widowed John Lodge. Rene Ray is quite good as the girl prepared to accept Williams the moment Lockwood's dumped him. (The women in this jump on a guy the moment he's single).
The tone of the stories are pleasingly adult - there's no doubt Williams wants to have sex with Williams, the world weary acceptance about the world from the hotel staff and police, Lodge contemplates suicide. There are neat touches such as all the people sleeping on the beach, the dancing, the scenes at the train station. I preferred Holiday Camp but this has a lot to admire.
The stories aren't that much - two girls go looking for boys, a working class family hang out and are working class, and the most screen time is given to a slightly creepy tale about a nurse who meets a guy waiting for his wife to give birth, the wife dies, the nurse goes off for a weekend away with her boyfriend (they're not married) but she can't stop thinking about the guy. The plots in Holiday Camp were much better - there was more of them and they were better structured.
It is redeemed by the acting and the handling, which is very confident. Small roles are played by people like Felix Alymer and Wilfrid Lawson; Walter Patch and Kathleen Harrison are strong as the working class couple. Margaret Lockwood is lovely as the nurse, reluctant to hop in the sack with boyfriend Hugh Williams and obviously keen on newly widowed John Lodge. Rene Ray is quite good as the girl prepared to accept Williams the moment Lockwood's dumped him. (The women in this jump on a guy the moment he's single).
The tone of the stories are pleasingly adult - there's no doubt Williams wants to have sex with Williams, the world weary acceptance about the world from the hotel staff and police, Lodge contemplates suicide. There are neat touches such as all the people sleeping on the beach, the dancing, the scenes at the train station. I preferred Holiday Camp but this has a lot to admire.
Movie review - "Hungry Hill" (1947) **
Daphne du Maurier's novel was a best seller, a saga of Irish families in the 1840s and onwards. I'm surprised MGM didn't buy the film rights for Greer Garson, but Britain's Two Cities nabbed it instead. It starts out promisingly, with location filming in Ireland, and instant conflict - Cecil Parker wants to mine on a land, another family don't like that, his two sons (Michael Denison and Dennis Price) are different and both love trashy Margaret Lockwood.
But then Denison dies and we're left with the less charismatic Dennis Price and the movie goes downhill. It focuses on Price whose character is never quite clear - he's jealous of his dead brother, doesn't want to be in mining, but nothing seems to drive him - then Price's character dies and the focus switches to his son, Dermot Walsh. He's a negative character too, spending a lot of time drinking and whingeing and being a wastrel and mean to his mum.
It's not easy adapting epic novels for the movies because they risk going all over the place, which is what happens here - Gone with the Wind worked because it focused on Scarlett and Rhett. This has no center. It begins with Parker, then we shift to Price, then we shift to Walsh.
There's a possible center, Margaret Lockwood's character, the woman in love with one brother who dies, then marries the other one despite not really loving him, then who comes to love him as she dies, then spoils their son and is rejected by him, then sees him die and wonders about revenge. It's a mystery why, at a time when Lockwood was the biggest female star in British movies, they didn't make it into a proper vehicle for her and made her drive the action. But they don't. I can't even get a fix on her character - she starts of as a flirty vixen type then becomes a drab housewife, then a suffering mother.
There are other problems here too: for instance, a key factor in these character's lives is a feud between two families. But we only focus on one family really, the rich one and never see much of the others, the Donovans. They throw in Donovans periodically - one to lead a mine strike, a sister to sleep with Walsh, the brother of the sister - but never spend any time on one. Why not some matriarch to clash with Lockwood?
Let's take a walk on the sunny side. It's impressive looking, with good sets and some location work. The cast is strong; the leads could admittedly have been more charismatic (Walsh, Price never could match Stewart Granger and James Mason) but everyone can act. It begins in a lively way, Lockwood's character is initially compelling, and there are some memorable sequences, such as a mine flood, a mine riot and a dancing sequence where the music speeds up and everyone spills outside (which actually has nothing to do with the main story).
But on the whole the filmmakers show far less udnderstanding of what makes an entertaining, successful melodrama than the gang over at Gainsborough.
But then Denison dies and we're left with the less charismatic Dennis Price and the movie goes downhill. It focuses on Price whose character is never quite clear - he's jealous of his dead brother, doesn't want to be in mining, but nothing seems to drive him - then Price's character dies and the focus switches to his son, Dermot Walsh. He's a negative character too, spending a lot of time drinking and whingeing and being a wastrel and mean to his mum.
It's not easy adapting epic novels for the movies because they risk going all over the place, which is what happens here - Gone with the Wind worked because it focused on Scarlett and Rhett. This has no center. It begins with Parker, then we shift to Price, then we shift to Walsh.
There's a possible center, Margaret Lockwood's character, the woman in love with one brother who dies, then marries the other one despite not really loving him, then who comes to love him as she dies, then spoils their son and is rejected by him, then sees him die and wonders about revenge. It's a mystery why, at a time when Lockwood was the biggest female star in British movies, they didn't make it into a proper vehicle for her and made her drive the action. But they don't. I can't even get a fix on her character - she starts of as a flirty vixen type then becomes a drab housewife, then a suffering mother.
There are other problems here too: for instance, a key factor in these character's lives is a feud between two families. But we only focus on one family really, the rich one and never see much of the others, the Donovans. They throw in Donovans periodically - one to lead a mine strike, a sister to sleep with Walsh, the brother of the sister - but never spend any time on one. Why not some matriarch to clash with Lockwood?
Let's take a walk on the sunny side. It's impressive looking, with good sets and some location work. The cast is strong; the leads could admittedly have been more charismatic (Walsh, Price never could match Stewart Granger and James Mason) but everyone can act. It begins in a lively way, Lockwood's character is initially compelling, and there are some memorable sequences, such as a mine flood, a mine riot and a dancing sequence where the music speeds up and everyone spills outside (which actually has nothing to do with the main story).
But on the whole the filmmakers show far less udnderstanding of what makes an entertaining, successful melodrama than the gang over at Gainsborough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)