This sounds like it could be fun - the story of two female con artists who are on the lam in the 1890s. Okay the 1890s isn't an inherently funny period, at least not to men, but female con artists is at least different. And maybe this would've worked if original star Betty Hutton had been able to play the role. Instead Paramount went with Veronica Lake who is disastrously miscast.
I've watched a bunch of later-Paramount-era Lake movies recently and not liked her in any of them. She's all wrong here - lacking energy and verve in a part that needs, well, Hutton - or say Diana Lynn. I know that Lake was meant to play vamps but she is flat - and even worse, not sexy.
Joan Caulfield has some game as her sister but really is pretty and that's about it. Mind you neither have much of a character to play - you never get the sense these two are con artists or how they came to be con artists. I guess you assume it's because its the 1890s and women had it hard - which gives you automatic sympathy for them. Not ideal.
The plot has Barry Fitzgerald blackmail the two women into helping out, which has kind of yuck overtones since women were so enslaved during this time. I think it's easier to handle if you find Fitzgerald loveable. The girls are converted to niceness by the town - Fitzgerald gives away their money to people, and they love them for it. I'm sorry but that's a bit yuck, it's their money, even if it's stolen, and Fitzgerald stole it off them.
Why do they introduce the millionaire scammed by the girls (Harold Vermilyea) at the beginning and never see him again? Why don't they have the local bitch (Belulah Bondi) do something really bad? Why don't they have someone chasing after the girls - a detective or something?
They set up a sheriff (George Reeves) but he never seems to suspect the girls - he just falls in love with both and struggles to make up his mind, which makes him an idiot and ensures the love story is unsatisfactory.
They establish Lake has the more ruthless and greedy of the sisters, which is fine. But instead of making her a villain and Caulfield the goodie, as they probably should, Lake again is a-bit-bad-but-really-good in a way that undermines the film; she comes good, falls for Reeves (no chemistry, no build up, he's clearly better suited to Caulfield), and Caulfield has a conveniently invented alternate love interest.
It's another misfire from Paramount. Lake had some incredible luck early in her career, but karma came around and got her back in spades towards the end of her contract.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Movie review - "Out of this World" (1945) **
Betty Hutton and Eddie Bracken were so well liked in Miracle of Morgan's Creek that Paramount decided to reunite them in this musical. Then Hutton went off on another film so the studio went "what the hell" and replaced her with Diana Lynn, the younger sister from Morgan. Lynn was pretty, bright and talented (she can play the piano and sing) but her casting throws the movie off - she's only 19, too young to be romantically matched with Bracken in a non-icky way, too pretty to be matched in a believable way, and too fresh faced and smart to be believably enmeshed in wacky schemes.
The plot of this involves Lynn putting singer Bracken under contract for a cheap rate then over-selling interests in said contract - like The Producers. That sort of silliness makes more sense with Hutton - she's an older woman, she seems dumb, desperate. Lynn comes across as too sensible, with too many years ahead of her.
Not that the plot makes sense. Bracken is meant to have this superb voice (Bing Crosby dubbed) - no one's noticed before? Why does Lynn listen to him and go "oh he's not going to make it, I'll over sell his contract"? He can sing! No one's interested until Veronica Lake whips up publicity? I get that they're making fun of the bobby soxer craze (the lust for Frank Sinatra etc)... but Bracken can sing. Why not have him as a singer who's tried to get noticed for a while, but is too shy or something and it's not until the girl fainting thing comes along that people go for him? Or something that made sense?
A spoof of the bobby soxer craze would be fun - you could have stunts, girls paid to fall for Bracken who genuinely do, irate boyfriends and fathers, publicists in cahoots. But the film ignores these possibilities, forgets the satire focuses on a plot where Lynn sells off excess interest in the contract, thinking Bracken will flop. Even that could have been fun - as The Producers showed - but it doesn't make sense because Bracken's character has talent... and the writers don't do anything much with it except Bracken finding out he hasn't got money and Lynn didn't believe in him.
Veronica Lake is completely wasted. Apparently Paramount were punishing her by casting her second to Diana Lynn... But she could've been used for a good purpose. She's set up as this unscrupulous PR person who hypes Bracken... but then completely disappears from the movie for the middle section. The film is crying out for her character to be used more - for her to be a rival to Lynn, to romance Bracken, to cause trouble... But they don't. There were a few movies around this time where Lake's character should have been bad but wasn't eg Hold That Blonde. I'm assuming this was due to Lake's whingeing - "I don't want to be unsympathetic". But it meant she played these weird half and half roles - people who shouldn't have been bad dramatically but weren't, but weren't that sympathetic either.
As if aware of the script and casting problems, the filmmakers shove in heaps of production numbers - singers, dancers, pianists. There's even a cameo from Bing Crosby's kids. But the movie is crap.
The plot of this involves Lynn putting singer Bracken under contract for a cheap rate then over-selling interests in said contract - like The Producers. That sort of silliness makes more sense with Hutton - she's an older woman, she seems dumb, desperate. Lynn comes across as too sensible, with too many years ahead of her.
Not that the plot makes sense. Bracken is meant to have this superb voice (Bing Crosby dubbed) - no one's noticed before? Why does Lynn listen to him and go "oh he's not going to make it, I'll over sell his contract"? He can sing! No one's interested until Veronica Lake whips up publicity? I get that they're making fun of the bobby soxer craze (the lust for Frank Sinatra etc)... but Bracken can sing. Why not have him as a singer who's tried to get noticed for a while, but is too shy or something and it's not until the girl fainting thing comes along that people go for him? Or something that made sense?
A spoof of the bobby soxer craze would be fun - you could have stunts, girls paid to fall for Bracken who genuinely do, irate boyfriends and fathers, publicists in cahoots. But the film ignores these possibilities, forgets the satire focuses on a plot where Lynn sells off excess interest in the contract, thinking Bracken will flop. Even that could have been fun - as The Producers showed - but it doesn't make sense because Bracken's character has talent... and the writers don't do anything much with it except Bracken finding out he hasn't got money and Lynn didn't believe in him.
Veronica Lake is completely wasted. Apparently Paramount were punishing her by casting her second to Diana Lynn... But she could've been used for a good purpose. She's set up as this unscrupulous PR person who hypes Bracken... but then completely disappears from the movie for the middle section. The film is crying out for her character to be used more - for her to be a rival to Lynn, to romance Bracken, to cause trouble... But they don't. There were a few movies around this time where Lake's character should have been bad but wasn't eg Hold That Blonde. I'm assuming this was due to Lake's whingeing - "I don't want to be unsympathetic". But it meant she played these weird half and half roles - people who shouldn't have been bad dramatically but weren't, but weren't that sympathetic either.
As if aware of the script and casting problems, the filmmakers shove in heaps of production numbers - singers, dancers, pianists. There's even a cameo from Bing Crosby's kids. But the movie is crap.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Movie review - "The Desert Hawk" (1950) **
Jeff Chandler provides some narration for this swashbuckling "Eastern" from Universal and it's the sort of movie which he'd normally star in - maybe he was busy that month. Instead, Universal give the title role to Richard Greene, who plays an Arabian Robin Hood type figure who robs people in the desert.. but it's to fight a tyranical leader etc etc.
The story consists of well established swashbuckling tropes - a beautiful princess (Yvonne de Carlo) who marries the hero without realising, a hero with an alter ego and some wisecracking comic relief friends, duels at the climax, native girls, torture, slave markets.
It took place in a (to me at least) very unspecific time so I couldn't hook into any myth going - although characters are named Aladdin, Sinbad, Scherenadze, etc. It's a romantic, fetishized depiction of Arabic and Islamic culture but is a hell of a lot more positive than anything Hollywood's turned out in the last twenty years or so.
I struggled to get too enthusiastic about the stars. De Carlo is pretty and spirited with a great figure but a little anonymous - I got her mixed up with some of the support girls. Greene was always very much a second tier swashbuckler - he should be good but he lacks the verve of say a Rock Hudson who has a small support role. And as for De Carlo - I would've preferred Maureen O'Hara. The whole movie feels like assembled ingredients rather than a cohesive whole. But it is bright and unpretentious.
The story consists of well established swashbuckling tropes - a beautiful princess (Yvonne de Carlo) who marries the hero without realising, a hero with an alter ego and some wisecracking comic relief friends, duels at the climax, native girls, torture, slave markets.
It took place in a (to me at least) very unspecific time so I couldn't hook into any myth going - although characters are named Aladdin, Sinbad, Scherenadze, etc. It's a romantic, fetishized depiction of Arabic and Islamic culture but is a hell of a lot more positive than anything Hollywood's turned out in the last twenty years or so.
I struggled to get too enthusiastic about the stars. De Carlo is pretty and spirited with a great figure but a little anonymous - I got her mixed up with some of the support girls. Greene was always very much a second tier swashbuckler - he should be good but he lacks the verve of say a Rock Hudson who has a small support role. And as for De Carlo - I would've preferred Maureen O'Hara. The whole movie feels like assembled ingredients rather than a cohesive whole. But it is bright and unpretentious.
Movie review - "Bring on the Girls" (1945) **
You don't get a more sure fire musical concept than a millionaire who wants to pretend to be a normal person - Norman Krasna used it countless times, and this was a remake of a French movie, The Man who Seeks the Truth.
Eddie Bracken isn't terribly believable as a millionaire though you can buy him as someone who is worried people only love him for his money. He enlists in the navy and his family insist he's accompanied by Sonny Tufts.
Tufts' name became a joke in later years but he has an amiable, easy going presence and a surprising amount of talent - he plays a musical instrument, and sings a number on a piano and does a good job - it's not cringe inducing at all.
The problem is with his character. I think the writers made a mistake turning his character so dumb - he thinks that the girl Bracken is wooing is good girl Marjorie Reynolds instead of who is actually is, gold digger Veronica Lake. Then later on he blabs to Bracken's family about what's happened, and then he tries to pinch Lake off Bracken, which isn't very nice.
The movie was Lake's first in a number of months as she got over the death of her child and end of her marriage. After the debacle of The Hour Before Dawn she's been carefully protected - not given too much action, not having to carry a movie, being cast in a role which is the variation of the one she played in I Wanted Wings - to wit, a gold digging night club cigarette girl (though Lake doesn't sing). Her character supposedly ripped off Tufts back in the day and to be honest the film would've been better off had she remained a threat - but then it turns out, gee, she only ripped off Tufts because she thought he was married and wanted to send money back to his kid (the real villain was some band leader we never see).
So the movie lacks a baddie. It also lacks decent conflict. Bracken falls for Lake who knows he is rich all along (why the deception then?) and wants his money. But she's not really bad, she's only bad because she was mistaken by Tufts - something that could be cleared up by a quick chat (as it is they drag it out until the end of the film before she believes it). Why didn't they have Bracken fall in love with a girl who loves him because she is poor and wouldn't like him being rich?
They have Marjorie Reynolds, who is rich but likes to sing, which is kind of interesting, but they barely give her any scenes. You think she's going to romance Tufts but she doesn't; she's not mates with Lake, which would have given the film some emotional pull; she doesn't get many song numbers; she meets Bracken and they fall in love very unconvincingly. You never really see why Reynolds would like Bracken and vice versa other than they're both rich which might be true to real life but isn't dramatically interesting.
The movie also lacks star power. There are four star roles - Bracken, Lake, Tufts and Reynolds - but no one is an A lister. No Bob Hope, or Betty Hutton, or Bing Crosby or Dorothy Lamour. Lake could be fantastic but also wooden and musicals weren't her natural milieu. Bracken needed stronger material. Reynolds simply wasn't a star.
But the real problem here is the script. The plot kicks off with a deception but that's never used because Lake knows Bracken is rich. Reynolds worries about people loving her for her money too but we never see anyone after her. There's no friendship between Bracken and Tufts and Lake and Reynolds. There's no sense of fun. No complications. They throw in another deception with Bracken pretending to be deaf but that isn't followed up either.
There is technicolor and some decent numbers. It's bright and colourful. But the "book" fails and as a result so does the movie.
Eddie Bracken isn't terribly believable as a millionaire though you can buy him as someone who is worried people only love him for his money. He enlists in the navy and his family insist he's accompanied by Sonny Tufts.
Tufts' name became a joke in later years but he has an amiable, easy going presence and a surprising amount of talent - he plays a musical instrument, and sings a number on a piano and does a good job - it's not cringe inducing at all.
The problem is with his character. I think the writers made a mistake turning his character so dumb - he thinks that the girl Bracken is wooing is good girl Marjorie Reynolds instead of who is actually is, gold digger Veronica Lake. Then later on he blabs to Bracken's family about what's happened, and then he tries to pinch Lake off Bracken, which isn't very nice.
The movie was Lake's first in a number of months as she got over the death of her child and end of her marriage. After the debacle of The Hour Before Dawn she's been carefully protected - not given too much action, not having to carry a movie, being cast in a role which is the variation of the one she played in I Wanted Wings - to wit, a gold digging night club cigarette girl (though Lake doesn't sing). Her character supposedly ripped off Tufts back in the day and to be honest the film would've been better off had she remained a threat - but then it turns out, gee, she only ripped off Tufts because she thought he was married and wanted to send money back to his kid (the real villain was some band leader we never see).
So the movie lacks a baddie. It also lacks decent conflict. Bracken falls for Lake who knows he is rich all along (why the deception then?) and wants his money. But she's not really bad, she's only bad because she was mistaken by Tufts - something that could be cleared up by a quick chat (as it is they drag it out until the end of the film before she believes it). Why didn't they have Bracken fall in love with a girl who loves him because she is poor and wouldn't like him being rich?
They have Marjorie Reynolds, who is rich but likes to sing, which is kind of interesting, but they barely give her any scenes. You think she's going to romance Tufts but she doesn't; she's not mates with Lake, which would have given the film some emotional pull; she doesn't get many song numbers; she meets Bracken and they fall in love very unconvincingly. You never really see why Reynolds would like Bracken and vice versa other than they're both rich which might be true to real life but isn't dramatically interesting.
The movie also lacks star power. There are four star roles - Bracken, Lake, Tufts and Reynolds - but no one is an A lister. No Bob Hope, or Betty Hutton, or Bing Crosby or Dorothy Lamour. Lake could be fantastic but also wooden and musicals weren't her natural milieu. Bracken needed stronger material. Reynolds simply wasn't a star.
But the real problem here is the script. The plot kicks off with a deception but that's never used because Lake knows Bracken is rich. Reynolds worries about people loving her for her money too but we never see anyone after her. There's no friendship between Bracken and Tufts and Lake and Reynolds. There's no sense of fun. No complications. They throw in another deception with Bracken pretending to be deaf but that isn't followed up either.
There is technicolor and some decent numbers. It's bright and colourful. But the "book" fails and as a result so does the movie.
Movie review - "Hold That Blonde" (1945) **
Eddie Bracken made a big splash in a few Preston Sturges films but never managed to stabilise his stardom. This was a vehicle for his talents - although it feels like something Bob Hope passed up. He's got a pretty "straight woman" (Veronica Lake), Willie Best in support, George Marshall as director, and a decent concept - a kleptomaniac gets involved with jewel thieves - but it just doesn't work.
I don't know what went wrong. Marshall has some excellent comedies on his resume, Bracken could be fantastic, so could Lake (see Sullivan's Travels and I Married a Witch). But the result is flat and dull. Bracken flails about. Lake is dull and lacking sexiness. Maybe the two of them required really special handling of Preston Sturges or Rene Clair. They're definitely no Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard.
Bracken and Lake have zilch chemistry. You could always see what Hope and Goddard saw in each other - both had so much energy, she was super pert and pretty, he was smart despite his cowardice and looked good compared to the villains and dodgy types in the film, and would stick by Goddard. Lake is pretty but dull; Bracken is an anxious kleptomaniac who is a pain in the backside - they're not good for each other, he has a mental problem that isn't dealt with by the end. Neither have much pep.
Maybe it would have helped if there's been some spooky ghost angle - or something involving spies, where the stakes were bigger (eg national security). Jewel theft feels so light. The script isn't particularly good - it lacks strong gags.
Albert Dekker is an investigating cop; George Zucco appears as a shrink; Frank Fenton is the head baddie. Everyone on this film has a strong resume, but it just doesn't work.
I don't know what went wrong. Marshall has some excellent comedies on his resume, Bracken could be fantastic, so could Lake (see Sullivan's Travels and I Married a Witch). But the result is flat and dull. Bracken flails about. Lake is dull and lacking sexiness. Maybe the two of them required really special handling of Preston Sturges or Rene Clair. They're definitely no Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard.
Bracken and Lake have zilch chemistry. You could always see what Hope and Goddard saw in each other - both had so much energy, she was super pert and pretty, he was smart despite his cowardice and looked good compared to the villains and dodgy types in the film, and would stick by Goddard. Lake is pretty but dull; Bracken is an anxious kleptomaniac who is a pain in the backside - they're not good for each other, he has a mental problem that isn't dealt with by the end. Neither have much pep.
Maybe it would have helped if there's been some spooky ghost angle - or something involving spies, where the stakes were bigger (eg national security). Jewel theft feels so light. The script isn't particularly good - it lacks strong gags.
Albert Dekker is an investigating cop; George Zucco appears as a shrink; Frank Fenton is the head baddie. Everyone on this film has a strong resume, but it just doesn't work.
Movie review - "New Wave" (1990) aka "Nouvelle Vague" *1/2
I'm not as across my Jean Luc Godard as a supposed film buff should be. This is from his later period - really, everything after 1969 counts as a "later period". It unites him with another 60s icon, Alain Delon.
For a while I went with this - the interesting use of sound, with overlapping dialogue, music, ambient sounds, etc and it's long tracking shots, eerie mood. The dialogue consists of quotations, often from other movies; names of characters and places are based on films, novels - eg To Have and Have Not, Perry Mason, Joseph Mankiewicz, Leave Her to Heaven, The Barefoot Contessa, The Long Goodbye, Dorothy Parker.
But there's no real story and after 15 minutes or so I started getting bored then I started struggling to stay awake. I say there's no real story but actually the germ of something interesting is in there - rich Domiziana Giordano picking up Alain Delon, then killing him, then Delon's doppleganger turning up... that makes this sound more interesting than it is.Hard core Godard fans should get something out of it.
For a while I went with this - the interesting use of sound, with overlapping dialogue, music, ambient sounds, etc and it's long tracking shots, eerie mood. The dialogue consists of quotations, often from other movies; names of characters and places are based on films, novels - eg To Have and Have Not, Perry Mason, Joseph Mankiewicz, Leave Her to Heaven, The Barefoot Contessa, The Long Goodbye, Dorothy Parker.
But there's no real story and after 15 minutes or so I started getting bored then I started struggling to stay awake. I say there's no real story but actually the germ of something interesting is in there - rich Domiziana Giordano picking up Alain Delon, then killing him, then Delon's doppleganger turning up... that makes this sound more interesting than it is.Hard core Godard fans should get something out of it.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Movie review - "The Widow Cordeuc" (1971) ***
The French knew how to construct their star vehicles - here is a movie for Alain Delon and Simone Signoret, playing parts that perfectly suit their persona: Delon is a drifter out of prison who goes to work for an older widow, Signoret. He starts banging her - but then also gets into the teenage mum (Ottavia Piccolo) who lives next door, whose nasty parents want Signoret's land.
The relationship between Signoret and Delon is quite touching - she's older, earth, Signoret-y - he's been around the block and knows the score, but develops a soft spot for Delon. Delon is an aging flash harry, a man with a mysterious past and not much future.
It's set in 1934 - there's probably a lot of social context I'm unaware of, though I did pick up on the anti-Semitic, anti communist hysteria of the time. The last act, where the police surround the farm and try to capture Delon, and he tries to escape but goes back to Signoret, is very effective. Nicely shot with impressive locations. I dont know much about director Pierre Granier Deferre but felt he did a good job
The relationship between Signoret and Delon is quite touching - she's older, earth, Signoret-y - he's been around the block and knows the score, but develops a soft spot for Delon. Delon is an aging flash harry, a man with a mysterious past and not much future.
It's set in 1934 - there's probably a lot of social context I'm unaware of, though I did pick up on the anti-Semitic, anti communist hysteria of the time. The last act, where the police surround the farm and try to capture Delon, and he tries to escape but goes back to Signoret, is very effective. Nicely shot with impressive locations. I dont know much about director Pierre Granier Deferre but felt he did a good job
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Movie review - "Such a Gorgeous Kid Like Me" (1971) **
One of Truffaut's lesser known and less successful films. The plot isn't bad - a sociologist interviews a woman in prison for killing her lover and falls in love with her. The girl is Bernadette Lafont, an actress I didn't recognise - maybe the film would've been more fun for me with someone I knew. Or more charming.
Lafont is pretty enough, goes topless in a few scenes, has lots of energy, running around like a maniac. She got on the nerves and can't sing.The overwhelming impression I carry away from this film is of her jabbering away.
Andre Dussolier is alright as the nerd who falls in love with her, Guy Marchand is a crappy longue singer who is one of Lafont's lovers, Charles Denner a rat exterminator, Claude Brasseur a lawyer, Philippe Leotard her husband.
The basic story is strong - man falls in love with woman, gets her out of prison, she frames him for murder. But its done comically and such movies are hard to pull off, to get the tone right. Truffaut doesn't.
I never really appreciated just how many Truffaut films were about innocent men falling for crazy mad arse bitches. I kind of felt this was inspired by shy academic directors who fall for their nutbag actresses, with the devoted secretary here (blonde, gorgeous, but with glasses) standing in for the continuity girl. He was also drawing from those 30s Hollywood madcap screwball comedies - and a death scene with someone falling off a castle feels very Vertigo.
It's full of random moments and characters: lounge singers, Marchant has a poster of Truffaut on his wall, the rat killer being a virgin. The ten year old filmmaker was pretty funny. That's the highlight of the film.
Lafont is pretty enough, goes topless in a few scenes, has lots of energy, running around like a maniac. She got on the nerves and can't sing.The overwhelming impression I carry away from this film is of her jabbering away.
Andre Dussolier is alright as the nerd who falls in love with her, Guy Marchand is a crappy longue singer who is one of Lafont's lovers, Charles Denner a rat exterminator, Claude Brasseur a lawyer, Philippe Leotard her husband.
The basic story is strong - man falls in love with woman, gets her out of prison, she frames him for murder. But its done comically and such movies are hard to pull off, to get the tone right. Truffaut doesn't.
I never really appreciated just how many Truffaut films were about innocent men falling for crazy mad arse bitches. I kind of felt this was inspired by shy academic directors who fall for their nutbag actresses, with the devoted secretary here (blonde, gorgeous, but with glasses) standing in for the continuity girl. He was also drawing from those 30s Hollywood madcap screwball comedies - and a death scene with someone falling off a castle feels very Vertigo.
It's full of random moments and characters: lounge singers, Marchant has a poster of Truffaut on his wall, the rat killer being a virgin. The ten year old filmmaker was pretty funny. That's the highlight of the film.
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Movie review - "Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine" (2015) ****
Another work from Alex Gibney, the director of Going Clear. Like that this has got some awesome footage: Jobs giving a deposition, sneaky footage of him walking along while siclk, roll on tape of one of his first interviews. Talking heads include a lot of journalists, the mother of his first child, some former co workers who had unpleasant experiences. A very clear picture of Jobs emerges - charismatic, brilliant, driven, kind of a spiritual but at the end of the day the same money hungry ego maniacal sociopath that most self made billionaires are, bullying co workers, denying paternity of his child, trying to avoid tax and paying shit kickers too much, unable to handle criticism. Absolutely he did leave the world a better place though. Very well made.
Movie review - "A Prize of Gold" (1955) **
Warwick Films got off to a solid start with three respectable action films with Alan Ladd - presumably they wanted him for their fourth effort, but it fell through and they wound up with another American, Richard Widmark. It was the only film he'd make for that company.
It repeats the Warwick formula - action, colour, technically British but aimed at international market, a "global" story, American star opposite a British one (Nigel Patrick, not well remembered today but a name at the time - one of the top ten British stars in 1952), a love interest (Mai Zetterling).
It's set in Germany where soldier Widmark decides to rob some gold bullion. Thing is, he's doing it to help some cute orphans and their sexy guardian, Mai Zetterling - which means this film doesn't have balls. He should've just stole because he wanted the money.
Widmark was an ordinary action hero - certainly never as good as when he was a villain. He's okay. Nigel Patrick isn't a bad villain - the one guy who really wants to do the robbery.
George Cole and Donald Wolfit offered inspired support. Zetterling's role isn't much - she's this madonna/whore figure, looking after orphans, sleeping with her boss to help feed them, falling for Widmark (the meet cute romance scenes feel clunky in here, like they were shoved in via a rewrite to beef up Zetterling's role - I could be completely wrong about that). Widmark falls for Zetterling - it's not clear if she genuinely likes him.
There is location filming in Germany but that's mainly overcast cities and urban places. It's realistic, just not that pretty. Fairly ordinary heist film.
It repeats the Warwick formula - action, colour, technically British but aimed at international market, a "global" story, American star opposite a British one (Nigel Patrick, not well remembered today but a name at the time - one of the top ten British stars in 1952), a love interest (Mai Zetterling).
It's set in Germany where soldier Widmark decides to rob some gold bullion. Thing is, he's doing it to help some cute orphans and their sexy guardian, Mai Zetterling - which means this film doesn't have balls. He should've just stole because he wanted the money.
Widmark was an ordinary action hero - certainly never as good as when he was a villain. He's okay. Nigel Patrick isn't a bad villain - the one guy who really wants to do the robbery.
George Cole and Donald Wolfit offered inspired support. Zetterling's role isn't much - she's this madonna/whore figure, looking after orphans, sleeping with her boss to help feed them, falling for Widmark (the meet cute romance scenes feel clunky in here, like they were shoved in via a rewrite to beef up Zetterling's role - I could be completely wrong about that). Widmark falls for Zetterling - it's not clear if she genuinely likes him.
There is location filming in Germany but that's mainly overcast cities and urban places. It's realistic, just not that pretty. Fairly ordinary heist film.
Movie review - "The Great Game" (1934) aka "The Grand Jeu" ***1/2
I'm not super familiar with the French films of the 1930s, the era of poetic realism. Sometimes films from different periods and cultures can intimidate when you read about them because other people have so much more familiarity with them.
This is apparently one of the better known movies from the time. It was made by Jacques Feyder who directed some English language films including Knight Without Aarmoud..
Pierre Richard-Willm plays a playboy who lives beyond his means while romancing Marie Bell. He winds up embezzling, getting busted, and his family tell him he has to hot tail it to the colonies in disgrace (I thought this was a British thing but clearly it happened in France too.... what happens now without colonies to cover up scandals?) Willm's romance with Bell is cynically depicted at the star - she won't go with him basically because he won't have any money.
He runs off to the Foreign Legion, and meets a prostitute, who practically has "I am a tragic figure" tattooed across her forehead.He tries to turn her into a version of his old love. He winds up killing a barman, they cover it up, he comes into money, runs into his ex... it's pretty soapie, i.e. melodramatic, but effective.
The photography is gorgeous, the acting very fine, the story moves ahead with decent twists and turns. The female characters are either tragic hookers or shallow mistresses or jovial but tragic bartenders; the men are tormented by the women but would rather hang out with other men.
This is apparently one of the better known movies from the time. It was made by Jacques Feyder who directed some English language films including Knight Without Aarmoud..
Pierre Richard-Willm plays a playboy who lives beyond his means while romancing Marie Bell. He winds up embezzling, getting busted, and his family tell him he has to hot tail it to the colonies in disgrace (I thought this was a British thing but clearly it happened in France too.... what happens now without colonies to cover up scandals?) Willm's romance with Bell is cynically depicted at the star - she won't go with him basically because he won't have any money.
He runs off to the Foreign Legion, and meets a prostitute, who practically has "I am a tragic figure" tattooed across her forehead.He tries to turn her into a version of his old love. He winds up killing a barman, they cover it up, he comes into money, runs into his ex... it's pretty soapie, i.e. melodramatic, but effective.
The photography is gorgeous, the acting very fine, the story moves ahead with decent twists and turns. The female characters are either tragic hookers or shallow mistresses or jovial but tragic bartenders; the men are tormented by the women but would rather hang out with other men.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Movie review - "The Lady Takes a Flyer" (1958) **
Lots of middle aged film stars of the 1950s played pilots - it was a cool tough profession. This one has Jeff Chandler as a pilot who goes into business with an old war time mate (Richard Denning) who is keen on a pilot (Lana Turner). They get married, she nags about him always being at work, he's tempted to have an affair.
Why was this film made? It's not based on a best seller, it was an original story. It's not a comedy, there are no real laughs except for a bossy baby sitter and a cute moment where Chandler flies a plane with a baby in his lap. It's not that romantic, apart from a sweet flirting scene while Chandler and Turner are flying respective planes - most of the film consists of the leads squabbling. There's no story - it's a series of incidents (meet, marry, baby, squabble). The climax consists of Turner flying a plane to prove a point - and to rule out any feminism she crashes it. The conflict is repetitive rather than build. The two don't really resolve their issues.
I think the reason it got made is it offered two choice star parts, both of them flyers. Incidentally the story of a romance between two flyers isn't bad - and the movie has this interesting depiction of flyers as these sexually liberated women (there's another female flyer too) - but unfortunately that's only a small component of this film which concentrates on domestic squabbles.
Chandler and Turner are both okay but that's it. The support cast is full of interesting faces, like Chuck Connors and Alan Hala Jnr. Richard Denning has a particularly thankless role as The Friend.
Why was this film made? It's not based on a best seller, it was an original story. It's not a comedy, there are no real laughs except for a bossy baby sitter and a cute moment where Chandler flies a plane with a baby in his lap. It's not that romantic, apart from a sweet flirting scene while Chandler and Turner are flying respective planes - most of the film consists of the leads squabbling. There's no story - it's a series of incidents (meet, marry, baby, squabble). The climax consists of Turner flying a plane to prove a point - and to rule out any feminism she crashes it. The conflict is repetitive rather than build. The two don't really resolve their issues.
I think the reason it got made is it offered two choice star parts, both of them flyers. Incidentally the story of a romance between two flyers isn't bad - and the movie has this interesting depiction of flyers as these sexually liberated women (there's another female flyer too) - but unfortunately that's only a small component of this film which concentrates on domestic squabbles.
Chandler and Turner are both okay but that's it. The support cast is full of interesting faces, like Chuck Connors and Alan Hala Jnr. Richard Denning has a particularly thankless role as The Friend.
Movie review - "Appointment with Venus" (1951) ***
Very sweet British war movie that was made by completely the right people. You've got the unobtrusive professionalism of Ralph Thomas and Betty Box, and their love for location filming; deft scripting of Nicholas Phipps based on the writing of Jerard Ticknell; the understated heroism of David Niven, playing a role just like what I like to imagine the real Niven was like - polite, professional, cheery; cutie pie Glynis Johns as the local girl who helps steal the cow.
Location filming on the island of Sark helps immensely as does the fact the story is played straight. It's lovely how the Brits identify the issue, talk about Venus, send in their team to retrieve her. There's some decent complications - the Germans are going to shift her away, they rely on an artist objector to help disguise the cow, there is a little kid who helps. German commandant George Colouris is sympathetically depicted.
Niven made this film during his Hollywood slump in the late 40s and early 50s (before The Moon is Blue and then Around the World in 80 Days restored him to favour); he was lucky he had Britain to duck back to but actually he made some of his most interesting films around this time (eg The Elusive Pimpernel) - he served the industry as well as it served him.
Kenneth More impresses as a painter who has dropped out of the war. Johns and Niven have a touching understated romance. No one dies or anything; maybe they should have to increase the stakes. But this has a good heart.
Location filming on the island of Sark helps immensely as does the fact the story is played straight. It's lovely how the Brits identify the issue, talk about Venus, send in their team to retrieve her. There's some decent complications - the Germans are going to shift her away, they rely on an artist objector to help disguise the cow, there is a little kid who helps. German commandant George Colouris is sympathetically depicted.
Niven made this film during his Hollywood slump in the late 40s and early 50s (before The Moon is Blue and then Around the World in 80 Days restored him to favour); he was lucky he had Britain to duck back to but actually he made some of his most interesting films around this time (eg The Elusive Pimpernel) - he served the industry as well as it served him.
Kenneth More impresses as a painter who has dropped out of the war. Johns and Niven have a touching understated romance. No one dies or anything; maybe they should have to increase the stakes. But this has a good heart.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Movie review - "The Last Safari" (1967) *
It sounds like it should be good - Stewart Granger as a big game hunter in Africa, directed by Henry Hathaway, with location filming. The plot sounds solid in short hand - Granger wants to knock off an elephant who killed a friend of his; that's Moby Dick in Africa - that's fine. A millionaire comes along with him, determined to become a man - that's cool too (shades of The Short Happy Life of Francis Macombe). Indeed, Wilbur Smith used this sort of storyline for the first part of one of his Sean Courtney novels, A Time to Die.
But the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Actually, make that, pretty much everything to be desired except for maybe location filming. It's a poor script, with uninteresting characters, no suspense or action. Hathaway's direction feels tired. There's this awful jaunty music theme which is reminiscent of late 60s television.
Most crucially, far too big a role is given to someone called Kaz Garas, who plays the millionaire who wants to go on safari. Garas is spectacularly awful, yelling his lines at everyone including Granger, hunching his shoulders, jutting his head around like an ape. Who was he and why was he given the lead in this? Was he someone's cousin? Someone's son? Lover?
Granger is okay. You believe him as a hunter. He's professional at least which is more than his two co stars. He looks at Garas with contempt throughout the film and you don't blame him. Granger may have been a prima donna with a limited range but he could act which is more than Garas can. Granger's character is supposed to develop some respect for him at the end; you have Granger with this tight smile, sharing a drink with Garas - he looks as though he wants to shoot him.
In Garas' defence his character is incredibly unlikeable, being a dolt on the first safari (jumping out of a jeep if I'm not mistaken), harassing Granger into joining the latter's safari, tagging along with Granger without invitation, jumping into a dance without invitation, punching out an African dancer who is into his girlfriend, ignoring some suffering local people. He's meant to be rich but how did he make any money? How was he not shot back in the USA? You can't imagine him running a bath let alone some kind of business.
Gabriella Licudi is also terrible as Garas' girlfriend, acting in this dimwit voice. To be fair, she's got some awful dialogue, with this achingly clunky exposition about Granger's backstory, and is required to do things like dance a Watusi on her own to the radio while on safari. But she also has this atrocious delivery and you're forever wondering what accent she's attempting, and sinks to the occasion in a big monologue where she tells off Garas. She's meant to be half caste but looks incredibly white. Her best bit is where she joins in a dance with her top buttoned and she's not wearing a bra - this is quite risque and unexpectedly diverting.
The story kicks off with Garas arriving in Africa and going on a safari with Granger and he's a dickhead. Then he hears about Granger wanting to go after a elephant and tags along. Why would Garas care? Why is he so insistent? Why is Gabriella Licundi going along? Granger pushes Garas away time and time again. Why didn't they just have Granger need backing from Garas? Why do they drench the film the music? Why does Licudi dance the Watusi? (I know that actually - for a cheap gag in a film that didn't need it.) Why not open the film with the elephant killing Granger's friend so we see it instead of hearing about it? Why so many repetitive scenes of Granger telling Garas to go away? Why not try to develop friendship between Granger and Garas? (They kind of do... in the last two minutes.) Why so many scenes of Licudi explaining the backstory? Why no sense of danger until the end?
The film is also racist, which I know you can say about most Hollywood films set in Africa, but is particularly annoying here because it's so bad. They try to get around it by having Garaz go tsk tsk at some white big game hunters who won't let supposedly half caste Licudi sit at their table with them, but it's kind of weakened by the fact she hardly looks half caste and that there are no decent speaking roles for black actors. The one sizeable part is a porter played by Johnny Sekka - he's in sunglasses which is different.
It's a bad film, poorly made. Poor Granger.
But the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Actually, make that, pretty much everything to be desired except for maybe location filming. It's a poor script, with uninteresting characters, no suspense or action. Hathaway's direction feels tired. There's this awful jaunty music theme which is reminiscent of late 60s television.
Most crucially, far too big a role is given to someone called Kaz Garas, who plays the millionaire who wants to go on safari. Garas is spectacularly awful, yelling his lines at everyone including Granger, hunching his shoulders, jutting his head around like an ape. Who was he and why was he given the lead in this? Was he someone's cousin? Someone's son? Lover?
Granger is okay. You believe him as a hunter. He's professional at least which is more than his two co stars. He looks at Garas with contempt throughout the film and you don't blame him. Granger may have been a prima donna with a limited range but he could act which is more than Garas can. Granger's character is supposed to develop some respect for him at the end; you have Granger with this tight smile, sharing a drink with Garas - he looks as though he wants to shoot him.
In Garas' defence his character is incredibly unlikeable, being a dolt on the first safari (jumping out of a jeep if I'm not mistaken), harassing Granger into joining the latter's safari, tagging along with Granger without invitation, jumping into a dance without invitation, punching out an African dancer who is into his girlfriend, ignoring some suffering local people. He's meant to be rich but how did he make any money? How was he not shot back in the USA? You can't imagine him running a bath let alone some kind of business.
Gabriella Licudi is also terrible as Garas' girlfriend, acting in this dimwit voice. To be fair, she's got some awful dialogue, with this achingly clunky exposition about Granger's backstory, and is required to do things like dance a Watusi on her own to the radio while on safari. But she also has this atrocious delivery and you're forever wondering what accent she's attempting, and sinks to the occasion in a big monologue where she tells off Garas. She's meant to be half caste but looks incredibly white. Her best bit is where she joins in a dance with her top buttoned and she's not wearing a bra - this is quite risque and unexpectedly diverting.
The story kicks off with Garas arriving in Africa and going on a safari with Granger and he's a dickhead. Then he hears about Granger wanting to go after a elephant and tags along. Why would Garas care? Why is he so insistent? Why is Gabriella Licundi going along? Granger pushes Garas away time and time again. Why didn't they just have Granger need backing from Garas? Why do they drench the film the music? Why does Licudi dance the Watusi? (I know that actually - for a cheap gag in a film that didn't need it.) Why not open the film with the elephant killing Granger's friend so we see it instead of hearing about it? Why so many repetitive scenes of Granger telling Garas to go away? Why not try to develop friendship between Granger and Garas? (They kind of do... in the last two minutes.) Why so many scenes of Licudi explaining the backstory? Why no sense of danger until the end?
The film is also racist, which I know you can say about most Hollywood films set in Africa, but is particularly annoying here because it's so bad. They try to get around it by having Garaz go tsk tsk at some white big game hunters who won't let supposedly half caste Licudi sit at their table with them, but it's kind of weakened by the fact she hardly looks half caste and that there are no decent speaking roles for black actors. The one sizeable part is a porter played by Johnny Sekka - he's in sunglasses which is different.
It's a bad film, poorly made. Poor Granger.
Monday, July 18, 2016
Movie review - "The Vultures" (1984) *** (warning: spoilers)
A French Foreign Legion film with a World War Two backdrop - Jean Paul Belmondo is a legionnaire whose platoon is mostly wiped out by Germans, while trying to retrieve six million in old bullion. There are only five survivors, which makes the film cheaper, as they try to get the money back. Belmondo wants to take the money for himself while Michel Constantine wants them to Do the Right Thing.
Act two has Belmondo lock Constantine in a bank and dealing with a banker and his wife, who gives the film some female glamour. Act three involves the emergence of a German soldier who used to sleep with the wife.
The director was Henry Verneuil, a good, solid commercial director who knows how to keep things moving. Belmondo is perfectly cast as a legionnaire lacking in scruple, determined to make some money, a man's man with an eye for the ladies, strutting around in his singlet with a machine gun being tough and cynical, etc.
The film is astonishingly cynical - the only person interested in doing their duty is Constantine. Belmondo wants the cash, as does his sidekick; there's a fat cowardly soldier, a cowardly bank manager, the manager's trampy wife, and a German officer. Constantine shoots dead Belmondo's ally; he Belmondo ends up teaming up with the wife and German and killing Constantine. Then he and the German double cross each other. A bank manager electrocutes himself urinating on a live wire.
The visuals are great - trucks, desert sand, blue seas, old African buildings etc. There's lots of double crossing and people going after money though some script issues - how did Belmondo on foot track down the German in a tank? I get that the German read the map wrong... but how did Belmondo know where to find him?
But on the whole this is a no nonsense heist film very much in the vein of Kelly's Heroes and Three Kings.
Act two has Belmondo lock Constantine in a bank and dealing with a banker and his wife, who gives the film some female glamour. Act three involves the emergence of a German soldier who used to sleep with the wife.
The director was Henry Verneuil, a good, solid commercial director who knows how to keep things moving. Belmondo is perfectly cast as a legionnaire lacking in scruple, determined to make some money, a man's man with an eye for the ladies, strutting around in his singlet with a machine gun being tough and cynical, etc.
The film is astonishingly cynical - the only person interested in doing their duty is Constantine. Belmondo wants the cash, as does his sidekick; there's a fat cowardly soldier, a cowardly bank manager, the manager's trampy wife, and a German officer. Constantine shoots dead Belmondo's ally; he Belmondo ends up teaming up with the wife and German and killing Constantine. Then he and the German double cross each other. A bank manager electrocutes himself urinating on a live wire.
The visuals are great - trucks, desert sand, blue seas, old African buildings etc. There's lots of double crossing and people going after money though some script issues - how did Belmondo on foot track down the German in a tank? I get that the German read the map wrong... but how did Belmondo know where to find him?
But on the whole this is a no nonsense heist film very much in the vein of Kelly's Heroes and Three Kings.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Movie review - "The Toy Tiger" (1956) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
All action/adventure stars seem to want to try comedy - this was Jeff Chandler's first and only attempt at this genre and it's not too bad. He's helped in that Chandler doesn't have to carry the weight of the comedy for the most part - he's a straight man. The plot is pushed by Tim Hovey, a little kid who makes up stories about having an explorer father at boarding school and and picks Chandler to meet the bill.
Hovey is a cute little kid who was under contract to Universal and who had appeared in The Private War of Major Benson; he had a sort of Brandon de Wilde in Shane vibe and is endearing.
Story wise the big problem with the film for me is that Chandler works with Day and just happens to visit the same town where Day's kid lives. This whole thing wasn't really necessary - they could've had them meet as strangers. And the film doesn't hot house their romance anyway. (Which I kind've liked).
I felt the film could've done with a villain - there is the bratty kid who wants to expose Hovey but he disappears after the first act. A love rival for Chandler and/or Day would've been good. David Janssen pops up as Chandler's assistant who thinks he's fathered a child and you think he's going to do more but he doesn't. The character of the wise old painter is annoying. Why have him in the film if his only function is to make Chandler realise there's more to life than work - Hovey does that. They should've had him visit town to meet his fiancee or something.
But I'm sniping. This is actually a sweet film with a decent motto - about the importance of not over working. The success of Mad Men make it fun to see Chandler as an art designer and Day as a top executive.Day is punished a little bit for daring to have a career, but I did like the compromise ending where Chandler and she both agreed to work for a bit to set things up for them and Hovey (they dump the kid at boarding school at the end - it's not that feel good). There's a lot of charm. The kids are decent.
Chandler does some slapstick in the middle act when he's pretending to be a bushman. He's not great but he's not horrible. Laraine Day acts like a sensible middle aged movie star. I wonder why they cast her in this? She wasn't getting many lead roles around this time. She is well suited. Maybe she was cheap.
Aussie audiences will get a kick out of Cecil Kellaway in the cast and the scene where Hovey pretends his dad has been exploring in Australia, seeing kookaburras - leading to a running gag where Hovey and his mates imitate a kookaburra call.
Hovey is a cute little kid who was under contract to Universal and who had appeared in The Private War of Major Benson; he had a sort of Brandon de Wilde in Shane vibe and is endearing.
Story wise the big problem with the film for me is that Chandler works with Day and just happens to visit the same town where Day's kid lives. This whole thing wasn't really necessary - they could've had them meet as strangers. And the film doesn't hot house their romance anyway. (Which I kind've liked).
I felt the film could've done with a villain - there is the bratty kid who wants to expose Hovey but he disappears after the first act. A love rival for Chandler and/or Day would've been good. David Janssen pops up as Chandler's assistant who thinks he's fathered a child and you think he's going to do more but he doesn't. The character of the wise old painter is annoying. Why have him in the film if his only function is to make Chandler realise there's more to life than work - Hovey does that. They should've had him visit town to meet his fiancee or something.
But I'm sniping. This is actually a sweet film with a decent motto - about the importance of not over working. The success of Mad Men make it fun to see Chandler as an art designer and Day as a top executive.Day is punished a little bit for daring to have a career, but I did like the compromise ending where Chandler and she both agreed to work for a bit to set things up for them and Hovey (they dump the kid at boarding school at the end - it's not that feel good). There's a lot of charm. The kids are decent.
Chandler does some slapstick in the middle act when he's pretending to be a bushman. He's not great but he's not horrible. Laraine Day acts like a sensible middle aged movie star. I wonder why they cast her in this? She wasn't getting many lead roles around this time. She is well suited. Maybe she was cheap.
Aussie audiences will get a kick out of Cecil Kellaway in the cast and the scene where Hovey pretends his dad has been exploring in Australia, seeing kookaburras - leading to a running gag where Hovey and his mates imitate a kookaburra call.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
Movie review - "East of Sumatra" (1953) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Jeff Chandler was one of Universal's biggest stars in the early 1950s - not a massive name, but popular enough to get them in for his medium budgeted action pictures. He rarely had A list co stars, directors and/or material - although this was directed by Budd Boetticher, who has a cult following for his Westerns, and the story was provided by Louis L'Amour.
The set up feels heavily influenced by Red Dust with Chandler as a macho, two fisted managed in third world Asia - in this case Malaya and he's digging up tin. A prissy Englishman, John Sutton, asks Chandler to go dig for tin on an island east of Sumatra - it turns out Chandler once had a Thing with Sutton's fiancee (Marilyn Maxwell) Way Back When.
But then Chandler and his crew go off to the island, Sutton and Maxwell get forgotten for a bit. Chandler makes friends with the local king to mine tin (the movie is a look at Western commercial imperialism) but things are complicated by the fact the kind's girlfriend is hot for Chandler.
There are also a lot of south sea tropes - a beautiful native girl who swims in a lagoon and does a native dance (did audiences enjoy native dances in films in the 1940s and 50s or did filmmakers just think they did and continually pushed them in); said native girl turns out to be half English to avoid miscegenation issues; the native girl is horny for Chandler.
The support cast is full of interesting people - Scatman Crothers (who sings a song and unfortunately has a "scared black man" bit), Anthony Quinn, Peter Graves, Earl Holliman, Earl Igelisias (as a lecherous member of the crew, constantly on the look out for native tail, who is actually bald). And the last third is quite exciting, when Quinn turns his people against Chandler and his crew, and tries to starve them to death, and Chandler's got to figure out what to do - leading to an escape to a temple and Chandler duelling with Quinn.
The film did feel unsatisfactory dramatically and I get the feeling the script was rewritten and poked at a fair bit. Chandler and Maxwell's relationship is never that interesting - this could simply be a chemistry issue but they never seemed to have a connection or sense of history; you don't really care why they broke up; sometimes Maxwell is a bitch to him, sometimes she's nice - she only throws herself at him because she's scared at the end, it seems. And I know this is probably a flaw on my part but Maxwell seems too old - or at least not sexy enough. I don't think it's my ageism - just imagine Yvonne de Carlo or Maureen O'Hara in the part.
John Sutton is potentially a great villain - bossy, racist, always keen to overrule Chandler, he causes trouble with the natives - but the film pulls its punches with his character; we expect a big confrontation with Chandler over Maxwell but he just gives up; he causes trouble with the locals but he's allowed to live at the end. Why not kill him?
Anthony Quinn's character is interesting. He's a good guy, a king who genuinely wants the best for his people, who genuinely loves Suzan Ball and admires Chandler and is wary of the West. Sure he tries to starve Chandler's crew but it's a low key way and only because he believes (erroneously) that Chandler has burnt down his village. (I wasn't sure what happened to the character who did do it, played by Aram Katcher). And when he challenges Chandler at the end he does it as a man, and when he dies he gives the kingdom to a woman, which feels very progressive of him. But it's depressing because he was a good king who didn't deserve to die - he didn't do anything bad, Chandler would've gone with Maxwell, not Ball.
Ball's character is all over the place. A native girl who is half English, does swims, wants to hump Chandler but is also meant to genuinely love Quinn and be a good Queen?
The whole film stunk of rewriting and/or tampering. I could be wrong, but the large number of writers on the credits make me think I'm right. Still, it has nice colour and Boetticher does a professional job. Chandler is also comfortably cast - his assets as an actor were his looks and voice; he looks like he would manage a tin mine, and many of his lines consist of rousing on people, so the voice gets a solid work out.
The set up feels heavily influenced by Red Dust with Chandler as a macho, two fisted managed in third world Asia - in this case Malaya and he's digging up tin. A prissy Englishman, John Sutton, asks Chandler to go dig for tin on an island east of Sumatra - it turns out Chandler once had a Thing with Sutton's fiancee (Marilyn Maxwell) Way Back When.
But then Chandler and his crew go off to the island, Sutton and Maxwell get forgotten for a bit. Chandler makes friends with the local king to mine tin (the movie is a look at Western commercial imperialism) but things are complicated by the fact the kind's girlfriend is hot for Chandler.
There are also a lot of south sea tropes - a beautiful native girl who swims in a lagoon and does a native dance (did audiences enjoy native dances in films in the 1940s and 50s or did filmmakers just think they did and continually pushed them in); said native girl turns out to be half English to avoid miscegenation issues; the native girl is horny for Chandler.
The support cast is full of interesting people - Scatman Crothers (who sings a song and unfortunately has a "scared black man" bit), Anthony Quinn, Peter Graves, Earl Holliman, Earl Igelisias (as a lecherous member of the crew, constantly on the look out for native tail, who is actually bald). And the last third is quite exciting, when Quinn turns his people against Chandler and his crew, and tries to starve them to death, and Chandler's got to figure out what to do - leading to an escape to a temple and Chandler duelling with Quinn.
The film did feel unsatisfactory dramatically and I get the feeling the script was rewritten and poked at a fair bit. Chandler and Maxwell's relationship is never that interesting - this could simply be a chemistry issue but they never seemed to have a connection or sense of history; you don't really care why they broke up; sometimes Maxwell is a bitch to him, sometimes she's nice - she only throws herself at him because she's scared at the end, it seems. And I know this is probably a flaw on my part but Maxwell seems too old - or at least not sexy enough. I don't think it's my ageism - just imagine Yvonne de Carlo or Maureen O'Hara in the part.
John Sutton is potentially a great villain - bossy, racist, always keen to overrule Chandler, he causes trouble with the natives - but the film pulls its punches with his character; we expect a big confrontation with Chandler over Maxwell but he just gives up; he causes trouble with the locals but he's allowed to live at the end. Why not kill him?
Anthony Quinn's character is interesting. He's a good guy, a king who genuinely wants the best for his people, who genuinely loves Suzan Ball and admires Chandler and is wary of the West. Sure he tries to starve Chandler's crew but it's a low key way and only because he believes (erroneously) that Chandler has burnt down his village. (I wasn't sure what happened to the character who did do it, played by Aram Katcher). And when he challenges Chandler at the end he does it as a man, and when he dies he gives the kingdom to a woman, which feels very progressive of him. But it's depressing because he was a good king who didn't deserve to die - he didn't do anything bad, Chandler would've gone with Maxwell, not Ball.
Ball's character is all over the place. A native girl who is half English, does swims, wants to hump Chandler but is also meant to genuinely love Quinn and be a good Queen?
The whole film stunk of rewriting and/or tampering. I could be wrong, but the large number of writers on the credits make me think I'm right. Still, it has nice colour and Boetticher does a professional job. Chandler is also comfortably cast - his assets as an actor were his looks and voice; he looks like he would manage a tin mine, and many of his lines consist of rousing on people, so the voice gets a solid work out.
Movie review - "Iron Man" (1951) **
W.R. Burnett's novel was filmed in 1931 with Lew Ayres; Universal blew the dust off and turned it into a vehicle for its new bare-chested star, Jeff Chandler. He's ideal casting as a man from the mines who is determined to get out of his poor background - certainly much ; Evelyn Keyes is his wife.
Watching this I was thinking about what makes a star. Evelyn Keyes never became one - a competent, pretty actor, obviously captivating in real life, she never had the right amount of individuality (I had this problem in Smuggler's Island, her previous collaboration with Chandler).
Stephen McNally never became a star either - a powerful actor with a strong presence, he was perhaps too inherently unsympathetic; maybe he didn't get the roles but he had a sympathetic part in Sword of the Desert along with Chandler but it was Chandler who moved forward and became a star.
But Chandler never became a huge star - he had a respectable career but never became a top ten name, like say Rock Hudson who is in this film. I think Hudson matched Chandler's looks, physique and acting, but he had an extra warmth and sympathy which Chandler could never get. I am fully aware this in part because of their roles in this movie - but consider their entire career.
Anyway, this film is briskly directed by Joseph Pevney, who keeps the action moving, and is well shot. I had fresh appreciation for
The drama however is muddled. This feels like one of those films where there were all these discussions about how to keep the characters sympathetic. Chandler is a poor miner who wants to own a radio shop; there's easy money from fighting, and he's a great fighter, but he doesn't like fighting, in part because of a child hood trauma (revealed too late in the film) which turns him into a bit of a psycho. Apparently Chandler fights "dirty" - we here a lot about this but don't really see it; maybe my untrained eye couldn't tell the difference, it just looks like he's fighting more aggressively. But characters go on about it a LOT.
Anyway Chandler fights dirty. His girlfriend/wife Keyes is keen on him doing it for the money, then isn't keen, then is keen again. Chandler isn't keen to fight, then he becomes keen, then he isn't keen. Sports columnist Jim Backus is nice, then nasty, then nice. Stephen McNally's gambler is a drain on Chandler, then is supportive. The crowd boo Chandler all the time because he fights dirty - then at the end when he fights clean and loses they cheer; and we're meant to cheer because...? Everyone likes Hudson because he fights clean (as opposed to Chandler) but he loves the way Chandler fights.
It makes it hard to care - especially once Chandler punches Keyes. A capable cast and director is let down by the script.
Watching this I was thinking about what makes a star. Evelyn Keyes never became one - a competent, pretty actor, obviously captivating in real life, she never had the right amount of individuality (I had this problem in Smuggler's Island, her previous collaboration with Chandler).
Stephen McNally never became a star either - a powerful actor with a strong presence, he was perhaps too inherently unsympathetic; maybe he didn't get the roles but he had a sympathetic part in Sword of the Desert along with Chandler but it was Chandler who moved forward and became a star.
But Chandler never became a huge star - he had a respectable career but never became a top ten name, like say Rock Hudson who is in this film. I think Hudson matched Chandler's looks, physique and acting, but he had an extra warmth and sympathy which Chandler could never get. I am fully aware this in part because of their roles in this movie - but consider their entire career.
Anyway, this film is briskly directed by Joseph Pevney, who keeps the action moving, and is well shot. I had fresh appreciation for
The drama however is muddled. This feels like one of those films where there were all these discussions about how to keep the characters sympathetic. Chandler is a poor miner who wants to own a radio shop; there's easy money from fighting, and he's a great fighter, but he doesn't like fighting, in part because of a child hood trauma (revealed too late in the film) which turns him into a bit of a psycho. Apparently Chandler fights "dirty" - we here a lot about this but don't really see it; maybe my untrained eye couldn't tell the difference, it just looks like he's fighting more aggressively. But characters go on about it a LOT.
Anyway Chandler fights dirty. His girlfriend/wife Keyes is keen on him doing it for the money, then isn't keen, then is keen again. Chandler isn't keen to fight, then he becomes keen, then he isn't keen. Sports columnist Jim Backus is nice, then nasty, then nice. Stephen McNally's gambler is a drain on Chandler, then is supportive. The crowd boo Chandler all the time because he fights dirty - then at the end when he fights clean and loses they cheer; and we're meant to cheer because...? Everyone likes Hudson because he fights clean (as opposed to Chandler) but he loves the way Chandler fights.
It makes it hard to care - especially once Chandler punches Keyes. A capable cast and director is let down by the script.
Movie review - "Smuggler's Island" (1951) **1/2
Early on in his star career Jeff Chandler once said this film was one of his favourites because he got to play a regular guy as opposed to an exotic - an Indian, an Israel freedom fighter, etc. It's a perfectly serviceable Universal action adventure tale whose most irritating feature is that it isn't in colour when it so cries out to be.
The plot has Chandler as a ships captain in Macau who is determined to remain honest and not go into smuggling. He gets hired by Evelyn Keyes, who winds up getting him involved in shonky gold. It's the sort of movie you'd expect Bogard to make at Warners or Alan Ladd at Paramount and Chandler doesn't suffer in comparison; he looks great, has a forceful presence with that magnificent voice.
Evelyn Keyes isn't very good. She must have been great value in real life, with all those lovers, but her quality doesn't really transfer to film (at least not in this movie). And the movie suffers for it because this role is crucial to the plot - she's a femme fetale with the heart of gold etc etc.
There's location footage of boats plus back projection. The photography on the edition of the film I saw lacked the crispness and skill you saw in the best of these sort of movies at Paramount and Warners - but like I say maybe it was just the copy of the film I watched.
There's all the elements you need for a south sea movie - a lugger, underwater diving sequences, islands, Chinese pirates, dingy bars in Macao, casual racism, an American expat hero, buried treasure, treacherous white crooks. I kept thinking of the Ken Hall film Lovers and Luggers. It passes the film. Just needed colour really.
The plot has Chandler as a ships captain in Macau who is determined to remain honest and not go into smuggling. He gets hired by Evelyn Keyes, who winds up getting him involved in shonky gold. It's the sort of movie you'd expect Bogard to make at Warners or Alan Ladd at Paramount and Chandler doesn't suffer in comparison; he looks great, has a forceful presence with that magnificent voice.
Evelyn Keyes isn't very good. She must have been great value in real life, with all those lovers, but her quality doesn't really transfer to film (at least not in this movie). And the movie suffers for it because this role is crucial to the plot - she's a femme fetale with the heart of gold etc etc.
There's location footage of boats plus back projection. The photography on the edition of the film I saw lacked the crispness and skill you saw in the best of these sort of movies at Paramount and Warners - but like I say maybe it was just the copy of the film I watched.
There's all the elements you need for a south sea movie - a lugger, underwater diving sequences, islands, Chinese pirates, dingy bars in Macao, casual racism, an American expat hero, buried treasure, treacherous white crooks. I kept thinking of the Ken Hall film Lovers and Luggers. It passes the film. Just needed colour really.
Friday, July 15, 2016
Movie review - "Deported" (1950) ***
An early starring role for Jeff Chandler, hot off his impressive turn in Sword of the Desert. He plays a Lucky Luciano style gangster who is deported to Italy where he has a romance with a wealthy widow (Marta Toren) and has hassle with a former associate who wants some cash, the maguffin of this story.
That's a decent set up and it has a pretty good story. It's got a solid character arc with Chandler going from cynical heel to opportunist to decent person. There are decent complications - the person from Chandler's past, a black marketeer in Italy, a cop on his trail, a sexy woman who works for the baddy.
The cast (seem to be?) mostly actual Italians, which adds to the air of freshness and reality, although I do admit part of the appeal of these movies is often seeing familiar faces in the supporting cast, which wasn't the case here (I'm not that familiar even with Toren). Chandler is a strong lead - you believe him being a gangster. Marta Toren isn't very good but her character is interesting - a wealthy widow. I generally enjoy movies based on Robert Buckner scripts and this is no exception.
This benefits from location filming in Italy, although it is in black and white when colour would've been preferable - something I noticed with Chandler's Smuggler's Island.
It's a programmer, don't get me wrong - the sort of movie to watch late night on TV, or on a Sunday afternoon. But it has an interesting set up - plenty of gangsters have tried to get into the US Lucky Luciano style (Key Largo, His Kind of Woman) but few focus on the gangster in Italy - plus location shooting.
That's a decent set up and it has a pretty good story. It's got a solid character arc with Chandler going from cynical heel to opportunist to decent person. There are decent complications - the person from Chandler's past, a black marketeer in Italy, a cop on his trail, a sexy woman who works for the baddy.
The cast (seem to be?) mostly actual Italians, which adds to the air of freshness and reality, although I do admit part of the appeal of these movies is often seeing familiar faces in the supporting cast, which wasn't the case here (I'm not that familiar even with Toren). Chandler is a strong lead - you believe him being a gangster. Marta Toren isn't very good but her character is interesting - a wealthy widow. I generally enjoy movies based on Robert Buckner scripts and this is no exception.
This benefits from location filming in Italy, although it is in black and white when colour would've been preferable - something I noticed with Chandler's Smuggler's Island.
It's a programmer, don't get me wrong - the sort of movie to watch late night on TV, or on a Sunday afternoon. But it has an interesting set up - plenty of gangsters have tried to get into the US Lucky Luciano style (Key Largo, His Kind of Woman) but few focus on the gangster in Italy - plus location shooting.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Movie review - "Beau Geste" (1966) ** (warning: spoilers)
The third version of the most famous foreign legion story makes some key changes (there are name change - I'm talking about important ones): there are two brothers, not three; the entire scene of the brothers as kids is dropped, as is any scene of them in England; the brothers don't enlist together; the entire plot about the stolen jewel is gone.
Instead we get a lot more of the sadism of the sergeant, a new back story (all conveyed by expositionary dialogue, never seen) where Geste took the blame for embezzlement for a woman he was in love with (why no flashbacks?), some dull stuff involving the commanding officer (played by Leslie Nielsen), and Beau not his brother survives at the end. There's still the sadistic sergeant, a mutiny and final attack.
There's plenty of action, the visuals are occasionally impressive (but could have benefited from a really first rate director) and Telly Savalas is brilliant as the sergeant. Some of the other support cast are pretty good; Doug McClure is okay as John but Guy Stockwell super bland as Beau.
Instead we get a lot more of the sadism of the sergeant, a new back story (all conveyed by expositionary dialogue, never seen) where Geste took the blame for embezzlement for a woman he was in love with (why no flashbacks?), some dull stuff involving the commanding officer (played by Leslie Nielsen), and Beau not his brother survives at the end. There's still the sadistic sergeant, a mutiny and final attack.
There's plenty of action, the visuals are occasionally impressive (but could have benefited from a really first rate director) and Telly Savalas is brilliant as the sergeant. Some of the other support cast are pretty good; Doug McClure is okay as John but Guy Stockwell super bland as Beau.
Monday, July 11, 2016
Movie review - "Gambling House" (1951) **
One of a handful of films Victor Mature made at RKO under the Howard Hughes regime, this had what passed for the A list at RKO at the time - director Ted Tetzlaff, co stars Terry Moore and William Bendix.
It's the sort of story you could imagine RKO easily making with Robert Mitchum: a gambler (Mature) in debt is offered cash if he'll take the wrap for a murder committed by a dodgy crime boss (Bendix). But things are complicated when the government threaten the Italian-born Mature with deportation.
That's not a bad set up for a film - it does feel like the set up for two different movies but I went with it. But the film never gets in it's stride. I wanted it to be good - decent players, stylish black and white photography - but the filmmakers never seem clear on what sort of movie they're making. Is it noir? Is it romance? Is it drama?
It starts off as a tough crime drama but then detours into this sort of pro America thing with Mature discovering an appreciation for America and romancing a cute little immigration officer (Terry Moore, who is miscast). I got completely confused as to the status of the crime Mature was meant to be covering up and his relationship with Bendix and Bendix's involvement. I get that there were some immigrants he wanted to help, so seem kind of rushed in, but we don't get to know them well - so Mature's sacrifice at the end seems weak.
I got the feeling this film started as one thing but then got pulled in all sort of directions. A gambler taking the rap for something he didn't do in exchange for cash... that's a clean set up for a film. Then they threw in him being deported.
Then they had a gambler discover patriotism because Mr Lucky had been such a hit for the studio (and the Cold War was on and Hughes wanted to show how patriotic RKO was). Then they threw in some romance with a girl who dated Howard Hughes in real life. Then they had a scene with Bendix backstage in a show so they could put in some show girls for Hughes. Then they throw in Mature using his money to ensure some nice migrants stay. (Is this film saying that bribery works in America? For some reason these immigrants need $50,000 to stay - that's a lot - it sounds like a bribe.) Then they have an open ending where someone who isn't Mature kills Bendix, and Mature walks off into the night. Is he going to be with Moore? Is he going to give up gambling? Is he going to be arrested?
It's a mess. It feels like a movie that was reshot and rewritten and it's a shame because it starts so well and the photography is so good. Mature does his best as does Bendix. Moore is way too young and child-like and doesn't strike sparks with Mature.
It's the sort of story you could imagine RKO easily making with Robert Mitchum: a gambler (Mature) in debt is offered cash if he'll take the wrap for a murder committed by a dodgy crime boss (Bendix). But things are complicated when the government threaten the Italian-born Mature with deportation.
That's not a bad set up for a film - it does feel like the set up for two different movies but I went with it. But the film never gets in it's stride. I wanted it to be good - decent players, stylish black and white photography - but the filmmakers never seem clear on what sort of movie they're making. Is it noir? Is it romance? Is it drama?
It starts off as a tough crime drama but then detours into this sort of pro America thing with Mature discovering an appreciation for America and romancing a cute little immigration officer (Terry Moore, who is miscast). I got completely confused as to the status of the crime Mature was meant to be covering up and his relationship with Bendix and Bendix's involvement. I get that there were some immigrants he wanted to help, so seem kind of rushed in, but we don't get to know them well - so Mature's sacrifice at the end seems weak.
I got the feeling this film started as one thing but then got pulled in all sort of directions. A gambler taking the rap for something he didn't do in exchange for cash... that's a clean set up for a film. Then they threw in him being deported.
Then they had a gambler discover patriotism because Mr Lucky had been such a hit for the studio (and the Cold War was on and Hughes wanted to show how patriotic RKO was). Then they threw in some romance with a girl who dated Howard Hughes in real life. Then they had a scene with Bendix backstage in a show so they could put in some show girls for Hughes. Then they throw in Mature using his money to ensure some nice migrants stay. (Is this film saying that bribery works in America? For some reason these immigrants need $50,000 to stay - that's a lot - it sounds like a bribe.) Then they have an open ending where someone who isn't Mature kills Bendix, and Mature walks off into the night. Is he going to be with Moore? Is he going to give up gambling? Is he going to be arrested?
It's a mess. It feels like a movie that was reshot and rewritten and it's a shame because it starts so well and the photography is so good. Mature does his best as does Bendix. Moore is way too young and child-like and doesn't strike sparks with Mature.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
RIP Michael Cimino - some random thoughts
Genius? Maniac? Woman? Over-praised? Under-appreciated? Unfulfilled? One hit wonder?
That's the great thing about Cimino - he offers something for everyone. Lovers of auteurs, haters of auteurs, a fabulous cautionary tale, a depressing example of Icarus...
He was odd. There can be no doubt about it. His appearance did weirdly change - though this has happened with other directors (the Wachowskis, Orson Welles, George Cukor). In his interviews he sounds very... unique.
He was bold. He was individual. He was a fantastist.
No one seems to like his movies after Year of the Dragon. The cults for The Sicilian, The Desperate Hours and The Sunchaser seem small. Cimino can talk all he wants about director's cuts but the chances are those films are simply bad.
Unfulfilled potential? Maybe. Hollywood the villain? I can't agree with that - not with all the chances he got and money he spent.
It is a shame he never got to make Man's Fate or The Fountainhead, stories which seem made for him. But he had a decent bunch of credits at the end of the day: Silent Running,Magnum Force, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, Deer Hunter, Year of the Dragon and yes Heaven's Gate. Not a bad run.
He will be missed.
That's the great thing about Cimino - he offers something for everyone. Lovers of auteurs, haters of auteurs, a fabulous cautionary tale, a depressing example of Icarus...
He was odd. There can be no doubt about it. His appearance did weirdly change - though this has happened with other directors (the Wachowskis, Orson Welles, George Cukor). In his interviews he sounds very... unique.
He was bold. He was individual. He was a fantastist.
No one seems to like his movies after Year of the Dragon. The cults for The Sicilian, The Desperate Hours and The Sunchaser seem small. Cimino can talk all he wants about director's cuts but the chances are those films are simply bad.
Unfulfilled potential? Maybe. Hollywood the villain? I can't agree with that - not with all the chances he got and money he spent.
It is a shame he never got to make Man's Fate or The Fountainhead, stories which seem made for him. But he had a decent bunch of credits at the end of the day: Silent Running,Magnum Force, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, Deer Hunter, Year of the Dragon and yes Heaven's Gate. Not a bad run.
He will be missed.
Movie review - "Captain Caution" (1940) ***
Hollywood doesn't make many films about the War of 1812, for a number of reasons: it's not very well known, sensitivity towards the British market, the fact that the Americans lost (or at the least tied). Their Navy had some exceptional victories though, which inspired Kenneth Roberts to make it the focus of a best selling novel, which was filmed by Hal Roach in 1940.
Roach is best remembered for his comedies but around this time he was turning out some interesting non-comedy features: One Million Years BC, Of Mice and Men, Captain Fury. The latter was, like this, an action tale - only with the twist that it was set in colonial Australia. This is a swashbuckler with the twist of the War of 1812 so I wonder if that was a conscious decision on Roach's part when taking on the majors - to make genre pictures with odd backgrounds
This features Roach's discovery, Victor Mature, in his third film. He's the co lead along with Louise Platt, best known as the pregnant wife in Stagecoach. She's the daughter of a ship's captain (Robert Batty) who is horny for first mate (Victor Mature) but he's reluctant to marry. They are returning from the Far East, not knowing the two countries are at war, when the English attack, killing dad. She vows vengeance and takes over the ship.
This is a fascinating movie. It's a pretty good story, with a great star role for Platt - but she's not up to it. She's dull and uninspiring. Once of the best female parts in a swashbuckler, ever and it's wasted. To think of all the female stars at the time who could've played it! Even Roach contractee Carole Landis would've been better. Maybe Claire Trevor? (I'm trying to think of realistic names here).
(I should add the film isn't exactly a feminist treatise - Platt is hoodwinked by Cabot and spends the second half of the film being a passive victim; at the end she doesn't join in on the big fight, she just watches.)
The guys are better. Bruce Cabot is charismatic as the slaver who works for Platt. (This American character, a Benedict Arnold type, is far more of a villain than the British.) Mature was too odd looking at this stage of his career - it was before he grew into his looks - but at least is virile; he doesn't do that much in the first half except express caution. He and Platt don't have great charisma.
Alan Ladd pops up in a small but showy role as an American sailor captured by the British; it's actually one of Ladd's best pre-stardom parts, with his blonde hair sticking up, skin covered in dirt and a bad case of PTSD and hatred for his captors.
There is decent action with two big ship battles (at the beginning and the end) and an enjoyable uprising from prisoners - the filmmakers had clearly seen Captain Blood. Some awkward amateurish moments but this was an entertaining film, a solid swashbuckler - just like Captain Fury was, come to think of it.
Roach is best remembered for his comedies but around this time he was turning out some interesting non-comedy features: One Million Years BC, Of Mice and Men, Captain Fury. The latter was, like this, an action tale - only with the twist that it was set in colonial Australia. This is a swashbuckler with the twist of the War of 1812 so I wonder if that was a conscious decision on Roach's part when taking on the majors - to make genre pictures with odd backgrounds
This features Roach's discovery, Victor Mature, in his third film. He's the co lead along with Louise Platt, best known as the pregnant wife in Stagecoach. She's the daughter of a ship's captain (Robert Batty) who is horny for first mate (Victor Mature) but he's reluctant to marry. They are returning from the Far East, not knowing the two countries are at war, when the English attack, killing dad. She vows vengeance and takes over the ship.
This is a fascinating movie. It's a pretty good story, with a great star role for Platt - but she's not up to it. She's dull and uninspiring. Once of the best female parts in a swashbuckler, ever and it's wasted. To think of all the female stars at the time who could've played it! Even Roach contractee Carole Landis would've been better. Maybe Claire Trevor? (I'm trying to think of realistic names here).
(I should add the film isn't exactly a feminist treatise - Platt is hoodwinked by Cabot and spends the second half of the film being a passive victim; at the end she doesn't join in on the big fight, she just watches.)
The guys are better. Bruce Cabot is charismatic as the slaver who works for Platt. (This American character, a Benedict Arnold type, is far more of a villain than the British.) Mature was too odd looking at this stage of his career - it was before he grew into his looks - but at least is virile; he doesn't do that much in the first half except express caution. He and Platt don't have great charisma.
Alan Ladd pops up in a small but showy role as an American sailor captured by the British; it's actually one of Ladd's best pre-stardom parts, with his blonde hair sticking up, skin covered in dirt and a bad case of PTSD and hatred for his captors.
There is decent action with two big ship battles (at the beginning and the end) and an enjoyable uprising from prisoners - the filmmakers had clearly seen Captain Blood. Some awkward amateurish moments but this was an entertaining film, a solid swashbuckler - just like Captain Fury was, come to think of it.
Saturday, July 09, 2016
Movie review - "Raw Deal" (1977) *** (warning: spoilers)
No one thought much of this film when it came out but today it's a fascinating period piece - an example of a "meat pie Western" par excellance. TV in 1970s Australia loved to explore the bushranging era - there was Rush, Cash and Company, Tandarra, Seven Little Australians, Against the Wind, Ben Hall, Luke's Kingdom.
This movie was from the team that made Cash and Company and Tandarra, neither of which I've seen and from what I gather neither was super popular with viewers but I can imagine the pitch to investors: "It'll be an Australian Western... why can't we do genre... Magnificent Seven". It would have sounded different and commercial.
And why not finance it? I mean okay Australia wasn't like the wild west but it was violent, there were guns. Yes, the film uses Western tropes but it makes some attempt to adapt to Australia - the plot revolves around the sectarianism of the time, which was a much bigger issue here than in the USA. There's references to Guy Fawkes, and cricket.
Gerard Kennedy is a bounty hunter who meets up with gun seller Gus Mecurio. They scare off some Irish standover men/Catholic revolutionaries, which impresses the anti-Catholic local politicians, who hire them to bring down said stand over men.
There's a gang of five - tough hero Kennedy, American Mecurio, dapper gentleman Rod Mullinar, young Chris Pate, and taciturn Hu Pryce. The actors are good - Mullinar shines in his role - although I did find Pate's character a little irritating, with his comic relief antics and subplot where he loses his virginity to a whore.
The handling is TV rather than cinema, although production values are decent. But since I saw this on a computer it didn't bother me. And the TV stars in it - Kenned, Mecurio and Mullinar - are craggy types we don't have any more, and are missed.
The budget does feel lacking for the final shoot out - which really should have ended with them all dead, instead of Mecurio, Kennedy and Pate miraculously surviving. There needed to be a decent female role too I think. And a more energetic music score, especially over the opening titles. But this was fun.
This movie was from the team that made Cash and Company and Tandarra, neither of which I've seen and from what I gather neither was super popular with viewers but I can imagine the pitch to investors: "It'll be an Australian Western... why can't we do genre... Magnificent Seven". It would have sounded different and commercial.
And why not finance it? I mean okay Australia wasn't like the wild west but it was violent, there were guns. Yes, the film uses Western tropes but it makes some attempt to adapt to Australia - the plot revolves around the sectarianism of the time, which was a much bigger issue here than in the USA. There's references to Guy Fawkes, and cricket.
Gerard Kennedy is a bounty hunter who meets up with gun seller Gus Mecurio. They scare off some Irish standover men/Catholic revolutionaries, which impresses the anti-Catholic local politicians, who hire them to bring down said stand over men.
There's a gang of five - tough hero Kennedy, American Mecurio, dapper gentleman Rod Mullinar, young Chris Pate, and taciturn Hu Pryce. The actors are good - Mullinar shines in his role - although I did find Pate's character a little irritating, with his comic relief antics and subplot where he loses his virginity to a whore.
The handling is TV rather than cinema, although production values are decent. But since I saw this on a computer it didn't bother me. And the TV stars in it - Kenned, Mecurio and Mullinar - are craggy types we don't have any more, and are missed.
The budget does feel lacking for the final shoot out - which really should have ended with them all dead, instead of Mecurio, Kennedy and Pate miraculously surviving. There needed to be a decent female role too I think. And a more energetic music score, especially over the opening titles. But this was fun.
Movie review - "Golden Rendezvous" (1977) **
One of several 1970s action movies aimed at an international audience, many of which, curiously, starred Richard Harris (The Wild Geese, Orca, The Ravagers, The Cassandra Crossing). This had the benefit of of an Alistair MacLean novel as source material and an inherently exciting set up - to wit, it's about the hijacking of an ocean liner.
There are some very good actors on display - not just Harris but people like Burgess Meredith, John Vernon, David Janssen, John Carradine, Dorothy Malone and Gordon Jackson. Ann Turkel has come in for a lot of criticism for her bad acting but she is stunningly gorgeous, and I was willing to go with her. The filmmakers try to compensate for her acting by getting her to change outfits a few times and to play love scenes opposite Harris, her real life husband at the time.
The film is hurt by some inept handling - shoddy camerawork, awful music, sparse production values. Films where terrorists take over pleasure cruises don't have the best track record (eg Speed 2, Assault on a Queen - yes there was Under Siege but it mostly look place on a military craft). There are logic problems, the story is needlessly confusing, the baddies are very naive about Harris, the romance between Harris and Turkel is oddly developed, David Janssen is wasted.
But you know it has action, and the story moves, and I liked this as it went along. You probably could remake this.
There are some very good actors on display - not just Harris but people like Burgess Meredith, John Vernon, David Janssen, John Carradine, Dorothy Malone and Gordon Jackson. Ann Turkel has come in for a lot of criticism for her bad acting but she is stunningly gorgeous, and I was willing to go with her. The filmmakers try to compensate for her acting by getting her to change outfits a few times and to play love scenes opposite Harris, her real life husband at the time.
The film is hurt by some inept handling - shoddy camerawork, awful music, sparse production values. Films where terrorists take over pleasure cruises don't have the best track record (eg Speed 2, Assault on a Queen - yes there was Under Siege but it mostly look place on a military craft). There are logic problems, the story is needlessly confusing, the baddies are very naive about Harris, the romance between Harris and Turkel is oddly developed, David Janssen is wasted.
But you know it has action, and the story moves, and I liked this as it went along. You probably could remake this.
Random thoughts - Why did RKO Fail?
Have been re-reading Richard Jewel's excellent history of RKO - such a fantastic book. It details RKO's history from 1942 - the Orson Welles era - to its collapse in 1957. That time span includes its Golden Period, the Charles Koerner reign of 1942-46 - then Koerner died and the studio never recovered.
They tried Dore Schary, who Jewel argues was not a success; then it was bought by Howard Hughes, who ran the place into the ground; then it was owned by some gangsters before Hughes took it back; then it came under tire manufacturers who sold it off to Lucille Ball.
In hindsight the key problems can seem to be:
1) Koerner's death in 1946 - an excellent executive, remembered today mostly for sacking Orson Welles but also a promoter of artistic films (eg Val Lewton) and someone capable of giving stability to RKO management.
2) Howard Hughes' ownership - the man who really killed RKO with his erratic leadership.
3) O'Neil's stewardship - things were still capable of being turned around in 1956 but he made poor decisions including rushing films into production and selling movies to TV outright instead of leasing them.
Movie review - "The Man from UNCLE" (2015) **1/2
I've never seen an episode of the TV series but can understand it's appeal to film producers: name recognition, two great star parts, sexy spies and intrigue, etc. There's some good stuff here - it's not a bad movie - with stylish costumes, neat music, some genuinely clever moments. But it never comes alive.
Everyone is very good looking. But Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer, while handsome, competent and able to wear clothes well, aren't stars. Says I anyway. Cavill is wrestling with his American accent and lack of sophistication; Hammer seems like a good bloke but simply isn't interesting. Hugh Grant pops up in the old Leo G Carroll role and has a twinkle in his eye, roguish humour and command of the screen that the other two don't have. It's a shame he wasn't young enough to play Napoleon Solo. And to show I'm not ageist, I'd claim that Alicia Vikander is a star - with that throaty voice and splendid 60s outfits (Guy Ritchie obviously loved putting her in those sunglasses).
Elizabeth Debicki is great fun as the femme fetale. The rest of the supporting cast are underwhelming as is the plot. The action sequences are sometimes clever but rarely actually exciting - Ritchie often uses distancing techniques to pull you out of the film. And this will sound odd but the budget feels $50 million too short in this day and age of immense spectacle.
Everyone is very good looking. But Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer, while handsome, competent and able to wear clothes well, aren't stars. Says I anyway. Cavill is wrestling with his American accent and lack of sophistication; Hammer seems like a good bloke but simply isn't interesting. Hugh Grant pops up in the old Leo G Carroll role and has a twinkle in his eye, roguish humour and command of the screen that the other two don't have. It's a shame he wasn't young enough to play Napoleon Solo. And to show I'm not ageist, I'd claim that Alicia Vikander is a star - with that throaty voice and splendid 60s outfits (Guy Ritchie obviously loved putting her in those sunglasses).
Elizabeth Debicki is great fun as the femme fetale. The rest of the supporting cast are underwhelming as is the plot. The action sequences are sometimes clever but rarely actually exciting - Ritchie often uses distancing techniques to pull you out of the film. And this will sound odd but the budget feels $50 million too short in this day and age of immense spectacle.
Friday, July 08, 2016
Movie review - "13 Hours" (2015) ***
I wanted to like this more than I did. It's such a great story - a real old fashioned siege epic, a bunch of guys (and a few girls) fighting off massed hordes - and there's plenty of good things about it: the photography, production design; the action sequences were well done; some of it is engrossing.
But it's tonally off. There's a lot of whingeing and posturing - the heroes, whom I think we're meant to think are awesome, strut around, heave their manly chests, posture, and complain. The head of the CIA is dumb, the CIA agents are dumb, the Libyan allies range from comically in-manly to inept. There's too many beards, scenes of men introducing themselves to each other and worrying about their families (the families that they consistently, regularly leave to go work overseas even though they don't have to).
As in Black Hawk Down the locals barely feature - faceless killers, wailing women; even the people who saved the Americans at the end are hardly in it. But unlike Black Hawk Down our heroes aren't understated professionals, they feel like NRA members on a weekend shoot out. And the movie overly panders to the Red State audience prejudices - loving shots of ammunition, dialogue like "Americans are dying", whingeing about the lack of air support during the siege, preference given to "saving lives" over actual work that could help stabilise the region which could save more lives.
The acting doesn't help. Pablo Schreiber's posturing makes it seem like he's sending up the whole thing. So does Toby Stephens. John Krasinki (presumably trying for a Chris Pratt style career evolution) is annoying. Max Martini impresses as the most understated mercenary.
Look, to be fair - the movie is told form the point of view of the contractors, and thus has its own integrity in terms of point of view: they considered their jobs the most important out there, and that's the attitude the film takes. It has plenty of pace and action and I did enjoy watching it - I just wanted it to be a classic.
But it's tonally off. There's a lot of whingeing and posturing - the heroes, whom I think we're meant to think are awesome, strut around, heave their manly chests, posture, and complain. The head of the CIA is dumb, the CIA agents are dumb, the Libyan allies range from comically in-manly to inept. There's too many beards, scenes of men introducing themselves to each other and worrying about their families (the families that they consistently, regularly leave to go work overseas even though they don't have to).
As in Black Hawk Down the locals barely feature - faceless killers, wailing women; even the people who saved the Americans at the end are hardly in it. But unlike Black Hawk Down our heroes aren't understated professionals, they feel like NRA members on a weekend shoot out. And the movie overly panders to the Red State audience prejudices - loving shots of ammunition, dialogue like "Americans are dying", whingeing about the lack of air support during the siege, preference given to "saving lives" over actual work that could help stabilise the region which could save more lives.
The acting doesn't help. Pablo Schreiber's posturing makes it seem like he's sending up the whole thing. So does Toby Stephens. John Krasinki (presumably trying for a Chris Pratt style career evolution) is annoying. Max Martini impresses as the most understated mercenary.
Look, to be fair - the movie is told form the point of view of the contractors, and thus has its own integrity in terms of point of view: they considered their jobs the most important out there, and that's the attitude the film takes. It has plenty of pace and action and I did enjoy watching it - I just wanted it to be a classic.
Movie review - "Tank Force" (1958) *** (aka "No Time to Die") (warning: spoilers)
I get the feeling the gang at Warwick Films had this rewritten after watching Bridge on the River Kwai because it has several similar elements - English soldiers in a POW camp during World War Two (only here in North Africa), a stiff upper lip English officer (Leo Genn) clashing with an American soldier (Victor Mature), talk about the Geneva convention and escape committees. There's also a dash of Rogue Male too with the reveal that Mature had a Jewish wife who wound up at Belsen, and who tried to kill Goebbels so the Nazis are after him.
I've got to say though I quite liked this film - it's a solid war adventure tale that moves at a decent pace. Writer-director Terence Young served in the desert during the war and clearly responds to the material - there's swirling desert sands, well choreographed action. The script was co written with Richard Maibaum, so it makes sense, has decent characters and structure.
The acting is decent: the five escaping POWs are Mature, Genn, Anthony Newley (far less annoying here than he usually was in Warwick films), Bonar Colleono (in one of his best films, as "the Pole", clearly suffering PTSD and keen to kill Germans) and South African Sean Kelly who plays an Aussie.
The presence of Aussie characters in this is fun - Kelly has a smaller role compared to the others but is a brave decent bloke and when he dies they play 'Waltzing Matilda' on the soundtrack. There's also references to other Aussie soldiers in the camp.
There are also some Italian girls - Luciana Paluzzi, who later worked for Terence Young in Thunderball, as a beautiful girl who (shock) dies. Actually the death toll is high for this film, which makes it effective. There's a very very sympathetic German officer (Nazis come off better than the Italians - did Warwick's films do better in that market?), George Colouris as an unsympathetic German, an Englishman in brown face as a sheikh (but at least the film acknowledges there were Arabs in the desert during the North African campaign).
My expectations of this film were low but I really liked it.
I've got to say though I quite liked this film - it's a solid war adventure tale that moves at a decent pace. Writer-director Terence Young served in the desert during the war and clearly responds to the material - there's swirling desert sands, well choreographed action. The script was co written with Richard Maibaum, so it makes sense, has decent characters and structure.
The acting is decent: the five escaping POWs are Mature, Genn, Anthony Newley (far less annoying here than he usually was in Warwick films), Bonar Colleono (in one of his best films, as "the Pole", clearly suffering PTSD and keen to kill Germans) and South African Sean Kelly who plays an Aussie.
The presence of Aussie characters in this is fun - Kelly has a smaller role compared to the others but is a brave decent bloke and when he dies they play 'Waltzing Matilda' on the soundtrack. There's also references to other Aussie soldiers in the camp.
There are also some Italian girls - Luciana Paluzzi, who later worked for Terence Young in Thunderball, as a beautiful girl who (shock) dies. Actually the death toll is high for this film, which makes it effective. There's a very very sympathetic German officer (Nazis come off better than the Italians - did Warwick's films do better in that market?), George Colouris as an unsympathetic German, an Englishman in brown face as a sheikh (but at least the film acknowledges there were Arabs in the desert during the North African campaign).
My expectations of this film were low but I really liked it.
Movie review - "Wabash Avenue" (1950) **1/2
These Betty Grable musicals were more tolerable during the war - you can understand the appeal of technicolour fairy floss after a hard day at the munitions factory but to know this was made in 1949, I can't help thinking "Betty don't you want to try something different?"
It's a remake of her 1943 hit Coney Island with Betty again as a singer, only it's in Chicago instead of New York, has Victor Mature instead of George Montgomery, Phil Harris instead of Cesar Romero and Reginald Gardiner instead of Phil Silvers.
The casting changes a lot. Mature is sleazier and less energetic than Montgomery; also less believable as a music man, although he does become better as the film progresses and the character is more likeable. Phil Harris is a ruddy faced comedian who seems bewildered - I assume he's famous from soemething else; he's not remotely believable as a romantic rival for Grable, or a saloon owner, or a scammer or a threat. For me he was the film's big weakness. Gardiner is okay.
There's colour and some jaunty songs and tunes. Grable seems bored at times - she'd made this sort of film a lot by this stage, slapping the face of the leading man and being feisty, etc.
But it's not bad and I liked it more as it went on.
It's a remake of her 1943 hit Coney Island with Betty again as a singer, only it's in Chicago instead of New York, has Victor Mature instead of George Montgomery, Phil Harris instead of Cesar Romero and Reginald Gardiner instead of Phil Silvers.
The casting changes a lot. Mature is sleazier and less energetic than Montgomery; also less believable as a music man, although he does become better as the film progresses and the character is more likeable. Phil Harris is a ruddy faced comedian who seems bewildered - I assume he's famous from soemething else; he's not remotely believable as a romantic rival for Grable, or a saloon owner, or a scammer or a threat. For me he was the film's big weakness. Gardiner is okay.
There's colour and some jaunty songs and tunes. Grable seems bored at times - she'd made this sort of film a lot by this stage, slapping the face of the leading man and being feisty, etc.
But it's not bad and I liked it more as it went on.
Movie review - "Red Hot and Blue" (1949) **1/2
John Farrow made some great film noirs as did Victor Mature but this one collaboration was a musical - a genre in which Mature had considerable experience but not Farrow. There's a lot of pace and running around but the movie never quite works. Or maybe it does if you're more of a fan of Betty Hutton, the frentic hammy blonde who was so popular in the 1940s. Personally, I could take her or leave her, in this film at least.
I will admit she's got plenty of energy and there's a funny song tribute to Hamlet. June Havoc and Jane Night are a lot of fun as her fellow showgirls as is Frank Loesser as a gangster. But it's strained - it never works.
You only need to compare it to say Bullets over Broadway which had many of the same elements - gangsters backing Broadway shows, showgirls, pretentious theatre directors. But that film knew it was making a comedy - this one struggles. Hutton and Victor Mature don't make a good team, Mature's playing feels off (are we meant to take him seriously? comically?), the gangsters are no threat.
It's frustrating - this film should be awesome fun, but it's not.
I will admit she's got plenty of energy and there's a funny song tribute to Hamlet. June Havoc and Jane Night are a lot of fun as her fellow showgirls as is Frank Loesser as a gangster. But it's strained - it never works.
You only need to compare it to say Bullets over Broadway which had many of the same elements - gangsters backing Broadway shows, showgirls, pretentious theatre directors. But that film knew it was making a comedy - this one struggles. Hutton and Victor Mature don't make a good team, Mature's playing feels off (are we meant to take him seriously? comically?), the gangsters are no threat.
It's frustrating - this film should be awesome fun, but it's not.
Thursday, July 07, 2016
Movie review - "The Glory Brigade" (1953) ***
There was a late 40s/ early 50s vogue in Hollywood to make movies about prejudice in the army - Jews (Crossfire), blacks (Home of the Brave), Japanese-Americans (Go for Broke!). This one was the Greek's turn. Not Greek-Americans but Greek soldiers themselves.
I didn't realise there was much prejudice against Greek soldiers - and the film kind of acknowledges that by having Greek-American officer Victor Mature keen to work with European Greeks, until a battle incident happens where Mature thinks they're cowards. Mature feels bad about sticking up for the Greeks and gives them a hard time. Of course, since the president of 20th Century Fox was a Greek, Spyros Skouros, the Greeks are actually innocent - they just wipe their bayonets clean.
That's not a bad idea for a film - the Greek angle gives it some freshness. Mature is solid in the lead role and has decent conflict with Alexander Scourby, who is the Greek officer. (The moustache is a bit distracting.) Lee Marvin and Richard Egan pop up in support roles. And New Zealanders will enjoy the fact that there's a small part involving a New Zealand soldier who gives them information - played by someone called Ray Harden who was also in The Desert Rats.
I dont know much about director Richard Webb but enjoyed his work here - gritty, accomplished use of visuals. It's not a classic but is a professional tough war film with the novelty of Greek characters and a focus on America's relationship with it's allies in the Korean War.
I didn't realise there was much prejudice against Greek soldiers - and the film kind of acknowledges that by having Greek-American officer Victor Mature keen to work with European Greeks, until a battle incident happens where Mature thinks they're cowards. Mature feels bad about sticking up for the Greeks and gives them a hard time. Of course, since the president of 20th Century Fox was a Greek, Spyros Skouros, the Greeks are actually innocent - they just wipe their bayonets clean.
That's not a bad idea for a film - the Greek angle gives it some freshness. Mature is solid in the lead role and has decent conflict with Alexander Scourby, who is the Greek officer. (The moustache is a bit distracting.) Lee Marvin and Richard Egan pop up in support roles. And New Zealanders will enjoy the fact that there's a small part involving a New Zealand soldier who gives them information - played by someone called Ray Harden who was also in The Desert Rats.
I dont know much about director Richard Webb but enjoyed his work here - gritty, accomplished use of visuals. It's not a classic but is a professional tough war film with the novelty of Greek characters and a focus on America's relationship with it's allies in the Korean War.
Movie review - "Stella" (1950) **
You wonder why 20th Century Fox made this - it was a time when movie attendances were plummeting, audiences keen to see new and interesting films... maybe they needed something to pay the overhead. It's written and directed by Claude Binyon, an experienced screenwriter who dabbled in directing, but from this evidence wasn't much of a talent.
It's an odd sort of Arsenic and Old Lace pastiche, with a wacky family dealing with a dead uncle, trying to collect the inheritance. This sort of farce - I think it's meant to be a farce - really only works if it's based on a popular stage play; this was based on a novel. It's not that funny though - is it meant to be? It's not scary or a mystery. It's like a farce without gags. I could never understand the tone. Black comedy... only not comedy.
Ann Sheridan looks bored as the sensible member of the family. Victor Mature is sleazy as the man interested in her - his sexual harrasment is very uncharming and he has no chemistry with Sheridan. More attention needed to be paid to the support cast. David Wayne is there, as is Chill Wills. But no one shines. What is the point? It's one of a number of Victor Mature films from the early 50s whose existence feels random eg Affair with a Stranger.
It's an odd sort of Arsenic and Old Lace pastiche, with a wacky family dealing with a dead uncle, trying to collect the inheritance. This sort of farce - I think it's meant to be a farce - really only works if it's based on a popular stage play; this was based on a novel. It's not that funny though - is it meant to be? It's not scary or a mystery. It's like a farce without gags. I could never understand the tone. Black comedy... only not comedy.
Ann Sheridan looks bored as the sensible member of the family. Victor Mature is sleazy as the man interested in her - his sexual harrasment is very uncharming and he has no chemistry with Sheridan. More attention needed to be paid to the support cast. David Wayne is there, as is Chill Wills. But no one shines. What is the point? It's one of a number of Victor Mature films from the early 50s whose existence feels random eg Affair with a Stranger.
Movie review - "Something for the Birds" (1952) **
An attempt at making a Hepburn-Tracy romantic comedy only instead the stars are Patricia Neal and Victor Mature. Both these two incidentally are talented, can act and can play comedy - but they're not A graders and the film needs it especially as the material isn't strongest.
The set up isn't bad, and has resonance today - Neal is an environmentalist determined to protect a bird who is threatened by gas explorers; she enlists the help of old admiral Edmund Gwenn and lobbyist Mature. Gwenn turns out to be an imitation admiral - indeed, that's another plot going on, he's an engraver who pretends to be an admiral.
There's two films going on here - Neal trying to protect condors by playing politics in Washington and Gwenn pretending to be an admiral. Neither is developed. Why don't we see the areas where the condors live? Why is it all set in Washington? Why is there no villain - no oil company person, or bad lobbyist or nemesis for Gwenn? Why no developed love interest for Gwenn? Why not really get stuck into lobbyists?
There are no real stakes for Gwenn's involvement apart from vaguely liking Neal and wanting to have a go. There's some attempt to talk about the importance of democracy etc (the influence of Born Yesterday and State of the Union no doubt) but the satire on Washington, lobbyists and birds is mild. Gwenn makes these little speeches at the end which I think are meant to get you inspired (extras clap) a la Frank Capra, but they're just annoying, like his character.
Mature is okay as a bouncy lobbyist but he doesn't strike sparks with Neal who is just plain miscast. The direction seems intelligent from Robert Wise - it's crisply shot and staged - but it's a film devoid of fun and life.
Wednesday, July 06, 2016
Movie review - "Affair with a Stranger" (1953) **
RKO turned out some interesting films under the Howard Hughes regime; others were more "meh" such as this romantic comedy-drama. It's got the sort of premise of which you say "yeah that could work, in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing": it's a look at the marriage of a couple, a playwright and and a model, from the point of view of people who knew them. Kind of a little like Letter to Three Wives and Forget Paris - actually come to think of it it's a lot like Forget Paris. Only there's no Joseph L Mankiewicz or Bill Crystal here, just a lot of awkwardly staged scenes.
I think everyone was out of their class - stars Victor Mature and Jean Simmons, the support cast, the writer, director Roy Rowland. It's mind numbingly boring.
Mature is professional as he always is but is never convincing as a writer - though I did buy him as a gambler. He has poor chemistry with Simmons, who looks bored. Simmons has a great reputation - people like William Goldman are always going on about her - but she's incredibly ordinary here; she seems like she's about to fall asleep.
There's some astonishingly ordinary support performances from others in the cast - Jane Darwell, the people playing their friends, crusty co workers etc. The plot ambles along with dull incident - they meet, Mature gambles a little, a slutty girl hits on him, he struggles to make it as a playwright, then he makes it super quick. The one interesting bit is when Simmons falls pregnant and has a baby; the doctor makes Mature wait at a nearby bar, then Mature gets a call that the baby has died - this was moving.
Really dumb script full of loose ends. What about their adopted kid? What about the seductive actress? What about their play? What problem do they have? Why are they back together? Are we meant to care? Why was this made?
I think everyone was out of their class - stars Victor Mature and Jean Simmons, the support cast, the writer, director Roy Rowland. It's mind numbingly boring.
Mature is professional as he always is but is never convincing as a writer - though I did buy him as a gambler. He has poor chemistry with Simmons, who looks bored. Simmons has a great reputation - people like William Goldman are always going on about her - but she's incredibly ordinary here; she seems like she's about to fall asleep.
There's some astonishingly ordinary support performances from others in the cast - Jane Darwell, the people playing their friends, crusty co workers etc. The plot ambles along with dull incident - they meet, Mature gambles a little, a slutty girl hits on him, he struggles to make it as a playwright, then he makes it super quick. The one interesting bit is when Simmons falls pregnant and has a baby; the doctor makes Mature wait at a nearby bar, then Mature gets a call that the baby has died - this was moving.
Really dumb script full of loose ends. What about their adopted kid? What about the seductive actress? What about their play? What problem do they have? Why are they back together? Are we meant to care? Why was this made?
Tuesday, July 05, 2016
Documentary review - "The Last of the Gentleman Producers" (2004) ***
Entertaining look at the career of Euan Lloyd, best known for his late 70s and early 80s guys on a mission action films, notably The Wild Geese. He worked in publicity, befriended Alan Ladd during his Warwick days, got a job with Warwick via Ladd's influence, became an associate producer, then producer.
Lloyd's output was fairly unremarkable - Shalako, Catlow, Paper Tiger - but he hit a sort of golden run with those aging hero action films. I wish Who Dares Wins had been better. Obviously a cultured nice chap who thrived in the 70s; the mystery why his career faded from the mid 80s isn't really explained. Lloyd does a good interview; people like Roger Moore and Joan Armatrading (of all people) chip in their ten cents worth.
Lloyd's output was fairly unremarkable - Shalako, Catlow, Paper Tiger - but he hit a sort of golden run with those aging hero action films. I wish Who Dares Wins had been better. Obviously a cultured nice chap who thrived in the 70s; the mystery why his career faded from the mid 80s isn't really explained. Lloyd does a good interview; people like Roger Moore and Joan Armatrading (of all people) chip in their ten cents worth.
Documentary review - "The Flesh and the Fury: X-posing Twins of Evil" (2012) ***1/2
A very thorough look at the making of Twins of Evil - it's over feature length - but it doesn't feel padded because it explores the whole Karlstein trilogy, including the writing of Carmilla, the making of The Vampire Lovers and Lust for a Vampire before getting around to Twins (they don't spend much time on Lust, no one likes it).
Some fantastic talking heads, including leading Hammer enthusiasts/writers such as Wayne Kinsey as well as Joe Dante, plus interviews with John Hough (director) and Damien Thomas. The Collinson twins don't get interviewed, unfortunately.
Some fantastic talking heads, including leading Hammer enthusiasts/writers such as Wayne Kinsey as well as Joe Dante, plus interviews with John Hough (director) and Damien Thomas. The Collinson twins don't get interviewed, unfortunately.
Monday, July 04, 2016
Movie review - "Bedazzled" (1967) ***
Cult 60s favourite is probably the best known feature film from Dudley Moore and Peter Cook - Moore went on to have a lot more success on the big screen but Cook less so. It's episodic, and I found it dragged from time to time, but it is also clever, funny and has two excellently cast stars - Moore is a great schleb and Cook an even better devil. The relationship between the two is unexpectedly touching, especially at the end.
Eleanor Bron is amusing as the girl desired by Moore - it's a passive role but she does it well, and brings individuality to the part. There are cameos by people like Raquel Welch (as lust, looking splendid in underwear although the acting is iffy... am I imagining that her voice is dubbed) and Australia's own Barry Humphries. I actually wish there had been more cast members doing these cameos.
Eleanor Bron is amusing as the girl desired by Moore - it's a passive role but she does it well, and brings individuality to the part. There are cameos by people like Raquel Welch (as lust, looking splendid in underwear although the acting is iffy... am I imagining that her voice is dubbed) and Australia's own Barry Humphries. I actually wish there had been more cast members doing these cameos.
Movie review - "Seven Days' Leave" (1942) ***
I've always been curious to see this film after reading about it in The RKO Story which gave it a decent spread and pointed out how popular it was, despite being little remembered today. I think this was because the movie so clearly and simply just wants to entertain, has a bright spirit and must have tickled the fancy of audiences who glanced at the poster and thought "that looks easy to watch".
It's a ramshackle piece, stuffed with various acts, bits and pieces, like an old vaudeville show, with a wonky plot to keep it all together, full of scenes, tropes and characters familiar from other movies and musicals. Soldier Victor Mature inherits some money but has to marry the descendant of a certain general - who happens to be Lucille Ball who happens to be engaged to a stuffy man. She's got a wisecracking sister who breaks out into song; he's got some wisecracking friends, including an impersonator (who does Ronald Colman, Charles Laughton, Lionel Barrymore), some guy with a weird Jerry Lewis like voice (Arnold Stang) and a spitfire fiancee who breaks into song; they attend various concerts and shows together, featuring real life stars forgotten now, such as Ralph Edwards (smug game show host who makes gags about fat female audience members) and Les Brown.
There's plenty of energy and high spirits. Mature, who was then making a lot of musicals, is lively - he even sings and dances. The odd person out is actually Lucille Ball, who is miscast - or at the very least wasted. She's got energy, quirk and comedy talent to spare but the part only requires a stiff straight woman, and Ball never quite pulls it off. (Come to think of it, you could do a sex role reversal and have Ball play the Mature part - she would've been great.)
It's a ramshackle piece, stuffed with various acts, bits and pieces, like an old vaudeville show, with a wonky plot to keep it all together, full of scenes, tropes and characters familiar from other movies and musicals. Soldier Victor Mature inherits some money but has to marry the descendant of a certain general - who happens to be Lucille Ball who happens to be engaged to a stuffy man. She's got a wisecracking sister who breaks out into song; he's got some wisecracking friends, including an impersonator (who does Ronald Colman, Charles Laughton, Lionel Barrymore), some guy with a weird Jerry Lewis like voice (Arnold Stang) and a spitfire fiancee who breaks into song; they attend various concerts and shows together, featuring real life stars forgotten now, such as Ralph Edwards (smug game show host who makes gags about fat female audience members) and Les Brown.
There's plenty of energy and high spirits. Mature, who was then making a lot of musicals, is lively - he even sings and dances. The odd person out is actually Lucille Ball, who is miscast - or at the very least wasted. She's got energy, quirk and comedy talent to spare but the part only requires a stiff straight woman, and Ball never quite pulls it off. (Come to think of it, you could do a sex role reversal and have Ball play the Mature part - she would've been great.)
Sunday, July 03, 2016
Movie review - "Creed" (2015) **** (warning spoilers)
Rocky Balboa made a lovely ending to the series, but then this came along - an unexpectedly fresh, well done addition. It consistently goes in directions different to what I was expecting: little Creed is discovered in juvey... but then is taken in by Creed's widow, so grows up with heaps of money, but is still hungry to be a boxer; the Girl part actually has something of an arc - Tessa Thompson (who is lovely) is going deaf; the take on African American culture feels natural and non macho; boxing scenes are shot in long takes, so feel incredibly real.
Strong cast: Michael B Jordon isn't terribly charismatic but is believable as a boxer and a sensitive young man; Thompson is a fin; Stallone is wonderful - wise, old, battered, full of wisdom but willing to search for new things, longing for family (I did feel it was a mistake to not see/address the issue of his son when his cancer diagnosis came through); nice to see Phylicia Rashad getting a decent gig as step mom (though she seems to repeat people's dialogue a bit); Tony Bellew is superb as Creed's psycho British opponent, and I liked Graham McTavish as his opponent too.
This movie launches Ryan Coogler as a major talent and also confirms that there's plenty of life left in old Stallone yet. Wonder if they'll make a sequel? They'd have to kill Rocky off for good.
Strong cast: Michael B Jordon isn't terribly charismatic but is believable as a boxer and a sensitive young man; Thompson is a fin; Stallone is wonderful - wise, old, battered, full of wisdom but willing to search for new things, longing for family (I did feel it was a mistake to not see/address the issue of his son when his cancer diagnosis came through); nice to see Phylicia Rashad getting a decent gig as step mom (though she seems to repeat people's dialogue a bit); Tony Bellew is superb as Creed's psycho British opponent, and I liked Graham McTavish as his opponent too.
This movie launches Ryan Coogler as a major talent and also confirms that there's plenty of life left in old Stallone yet. Wonder if they'll make a sequel? They'd have to kill Rocky off for good.
Saturday, July 02, 2016
Book review - "Peter Lawford: The Man Who Kept the Secrets" by James Spada (1991)
Peter Lawford is best remembered for his association with other people rather than anything he did on his own terms: supporting various starlets as a contract player for MGM, marrying JFK's sister, being friends with Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jnr which made him part of the Rat Pack, talking to Marilyn Monroe the night she died. Nonetheless he lived a rich and fascinating life and it's well recounted by Spada.
It's a gossipy-feeling account but is also well footed and seems to have been thoroughly researched. Lawford came from an unstable, if well connected home: mum married well but cheated on his step dad with a distinguished soldier (she hated sex but wanted to upscale) resulting in a scandalous divorce case; mum was going to kill herself during labour it was so painful; mum and dad jet-setted around the world in the 1930s on inherited money; beautiful young boy Peter was molested by men and women from a young age. He did some early acting work sporadically as a child, including in Lord Jeff, but only got really serious about it when the family was stuck in the USA during World War Two; Lawford attracted the attention of agent Sue Carol (better remembered today as Alan Ladd's wife), and picked up various bit parts - a notable one in A Yank at Eton - before getting a contract with MGM.
Hollywood was lacking in leading men because of the war and Lawford was 4F because of an arm injury (he cut it badly in a childhood accident); he had a high pitched voice and wasn't much of an actor but he was handsome and had a healthy physique (honed from much mucking around on the beach). He leapt to kind-of stardom in The White Cliffs of Dover and found a niche for himself supporting bigger names on the MGM lot - Lassie, June Allyson, Fred Asatire, Esther Williams, Kathryn Grayson, Elizabeth Taylor. MGM rarely entrusted Lawford with a flat out lead role - and they were completely right because when they did the results underwhelmed eg Kangaroo (shot in Australia for 20th Century Fox), The Hour of 13, Rogue's March. Lawford's career was hit with a double whammy - the decline in movie attendance, the replacement of Louise B Mayer with Dore Schary at MGM - and was let go by the studio. He went into TV and had two decent-ish runs with Dear Phoebe and The Thin Man but what really saved him was marrying Pat Kennedy. This kept him in the nation's eye, especially after JFK was elected, and helped him become best mates with Frank Sinatra and part of the Rat Pack.
Lawford did offer JFK some genuine help in terms of media training and Hollywood connections. But when the Kennedys distanced themselves from Sinatra in 1962 Lawford was kicked out of the Rat Pack (only Sammy Davis Jnr remained loyal) and when he divorced Pat a few years later the family kicked him to the curb as well.
The last decade and a bit of Lawford's life is depressing reading - alcoholism, drug addiction (particularly cocaine), financial troubles (he spent money hand over fist), marital troubles. He remained handsome and charming and had no trouble getting female attention right up to the end of his life - although the relationships didn't last, mainly due to his drug addiction and taste for kinky sex (he preferred oral, would like a bit of S & M and a girl to join in, and was probably bisexual too - Spada doesn't hide anything!).
People interviewed in the book frequently refer to Lawford's charm and likeability, and he must have had something to have friends to were loyal for a long time, who managed to charm the Kennedys and executives for many years. But to be honest he was a bit of a drip - a poor actor who had some good moments and was obviously professional but who never pushed himself; a bit of a dimwit; a poor financial manager, and a worse career manager; a crybaby on the topic of the Kennedys; a poor husband and father.
Quite a few things I didn't know. His mum had a relationship with a much younger lover/friend/something which was reportedly the inspiration for Harold and Maude. He had a production company which made The Patty Duke Show. He was supposedly considered for James Bond (another one!).
It's a gossipy-feeling account but is also well footed and seems to have been thoroughly researched. Lawford came from an unstable, if well connected home: mum married well but cheated on his step dad with a distinguished soldier (she hated sex but wanted to upscale) resulting in a scandalous divorce case; mum was going to kill herself during labour it was so painful; mum and dad jet-setted around the world in the 1930s on inherited money; beautiful young boy Peter was molested by men and women from a young age. He did some early acting work sporadically as a child, including in Lord Jeff, but only got really serious about it when the family was stuck in the USA during World War Two; Lawford attracted the attention of agent Sue Carol (better remembered today as Alan Ladd's wife), and picked up various bit parts - a notable one in A Yank at Eton - before getting a contract with MGM.
Hollywood was lacking in leading men because of the war and Lawford was 4F because of an arm injury (he cut it badly in a childhood accident); he had a high pitched voice and wasn't much of an actor but he was handsome and had a healthy physique (honed from much mucking around on the beach). He leapt to kind-of stardom in The White Cliffs of Dover and found a niche for himself supporting bigger names on the MGM lot - Lassie, June Allyson, Fred Asatire, Esther Williams, Kathryn Grayson, Elizabeth Taylor. MGM rarely entrusted Lawford with a flat out lead role - and they were completely right because when they did the results underwhelmed eg Kangaroo (shot in Australia for 20th Century Fox), The Hour of 13, Rogue's March. Lawford's career was hit with a double whammy - the decline in movie attendance, the replacement of Louise B Mayer with Dore Schary at MGM - and was let go by the studio. He went into TV and had two decent-ish runs with Dear Phoebe and The Thin Man but what really saved him was marrying Pat Kennedy. This kept him in the nation's eye, especially after JFK was elected, and helped him become best mates with Frank Sinatra and part of the Rat Pack.
Lawford did offer JFK some genuine help in terms of media training and Hollywood connections. But when the Kennedys distanced themselves from Sinatra in 1962 Lawford was kicked out of the Rat Pack (only Sammy Davis Jnr remained loyal) and when he divorced Pat a few years later the family kicked him to the curb as well.
The last decade and a bit of Lawford's life is depressing reading - alcoholism, drug addiction (particularly cocaine), financial troubles (he spent money hand over fist), marital troubles. He remained handsome and charming and had no trouble getting female attention right up to the end of his life - although the relationships didn't last, mainly due to his drug addiction and taste for kinky sex (he preferred oral, would like a bit of S & M and a girl to join in, and was probably bisexual too - Spada doesn't hide anything!).
People interviewed in the book frequently refer to Lawford's charm and likeability, and he must have had something to have friends to were loyal for a long time, who managed to charm the Kennedys and executives for many years. But to be honest he was a bit of a drip - a poor actor who had some good moments and was obviously professional but who never pushed himself; a bit of a dimwit; a poor financial manager, and a worse career manager; a crybaby on the topic of the Kennedys; a poor husband and father.
Quite a few things I didn't know. His mum had a relationship with a much younger lover/friend/something which was reportedly the inspiration for Harold and Maude. He had a production company which made The Patty Duke Show. He was supposedly considered for James Bond (another one!).
Movie review - "Eye in the Sky" (2015) ****
A gripping, fiercely intelligent and well balanced thriller about the ethical, military, legal, emotional, political and other complications of an operation during the War on Terror. It did feel like an episode of an anthology TV show at times - a self contained, high end one to be sure. Maybe that's because TV is so good these days and films you see in the theatres are generally poor.
I'd never heard of writer Guy Hibbert before but it's a really superb screenplay - appears to be well researched (I'll have to take his word for it!), solidly structured, several characters are superbly sketched out and given empathetic motivations.
It's not a typical gung ho look at military operation, in part because it was made by and is predominantly about British forces (the American politicians are depicted as having none of the moral dilemmas!). The main soldier is a woman, Helen Mirren; the drone pilots include Aaron Paul, reluctant to kill a kid, and co pilot Phoebe Fox; the Somalian agent on the ground, Barkhad Abdi (I'm glad that actor got another gig!); minister Jeremy Northam is constantly trying to pass the buck; Monica Dolan is the voice of small l liberalism; general Alan Rickman is not a monster; foreign secretary Iain Glenn has food poisoning. Really worth looking at.
I'd never heard of writer Guy Hibbert before but it's a really superb screenplay - appears to be well researched (I'll have to take his word for it!), solidly structured, several characters are superbly sketched out and given empathetic motivations.
It's not a typical gung ho look at military operation, in part because it was made by and is predominantly about British forces (the American politicians are depicted as having none of the moral dilemmas!). The main soldier is a woman, Helen Mirren; the drone pilots include Aaron Paul, reluctant to kill a kid, and co pilot Phoebe Fox; the Somalian agent on the ground, Barkhad Abdi (I'm glad that actor got another gig!); minister Jeremy Northam is constantly trying to pass the buck; Monica Dolan is the voice of small l liberalism; general Alan Rickman is not a monster; foreign secretary Iain Glenn has food poisoning. Really worth looking at.
Movie review - "The Revenant" (2015) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
For the first 30-40 minutes of this, I thought it was a masterpiece - stunning visuals, breathtaking scenery/photography/production design, some excellent acting, two superb set pieces: the opening Indian attack then the fight with the bear. This is what cinema is meant to be. Alejandro Inarritu is clearly a major talent. The moment where Tom Hardy kills Leo di Caprio's son in front of his eyes is truly heart-wrenching.
But once this moment passed the film became less engaging - and two and a half hours was really an hour too much. There were so many sequences that felt unneeded - confrontation with the French traders, the Indians. By the time Leo di Caprio got back to the fort and was about to head out for revenge I was thinking "alright, already can't someone else have shot Tom Hardy". For me a movie that runs that long needed to have more substance. Okay, I get that Leo had an Indian wife who was killed, and a son who was killed, and life was harsh around that time but... at the end of the day, wasn't this a simple survival film with some interesting colonial subtext?
Strong support cast, including Hardy, Will Poulter (who I recognised but couldn't pick it - he's the kid from We're the Millers) and Domhall Gleeson (romantic lead from Love Actually). Some amazing stuff in here, to be sure, I just wish it had been longer. Female characters are loving wistful types in flashbacks and/or bit part rape victims.
But once this moment passed the film became less engaging - and two and a half hours was really an hour too much. There were so many sequences that felt unneeded - confrontation with the French traders, the Indians. By the time Leo di Caprio got back to the fort and was about to head out for revenge I was thinking "alright, already can't someone else have shot Tom Hardy". For me a movie that runs that long needed to have more substance. Okay, I get that Leo had an Indian wife who was killed, and a son who was killed, and life was harsh around that time but... at the end of the day, wasn't this a simple survival film with some interesting colonial subtext?
Strong support cast, including Hardy, Will Poulter (who I recognised but couldn't pick it - he's the kid from We're the Millers) and Domhall Gleeson (romantic lead from Love Actually). Some amazing stuff in here, to be sure, I just wish it had been longer. Female characters are loving wistful types in flashbacks and/or bit part rape victims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)