1) I Wake up Screaming - a very good murder mystery
2) My Darling Clementine - a genuine classic with Mature very good
3) Kiss of Death - possibly Mature's best performance
4) Violent Saturday - more of an ensemble piece than a Mature vehicle, this is a decent thriller
5) Demetrius and the Gladiators - enjoyable Ancient World pulp, much more fun than The Robe
6) Chief Crazy Horse - Mature surprisingly effective in the title role
7) Samson and Delilah - Cecil B de Mille spectacle, a lot of crap and good moments
8) Zarak Khan - fun British Empire pulp, the best of Mature's Warwick films
9) Cry of the City - more effective noir from Mature
10) Moss Rose - this film lost a bomb but I found it an enjoyable period noir from Mature's best era (the late 40s)
Special points to One Million BC for it's sheer oddness.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Movie review - "That Man from Rio" (1964) ****1/2
William Goldman once wrote that the hardest kind of movies to do well were romantic comedies and action adventure films. Books upon books have been written about rom coms; the latter is less well explored. How many top class examples of the genre can you think of off the top of your head: Charade, North by Northwest, Romancing the Stone, the best Bonds, Raiders of the Lost Ark... there's not that many.
They're very easy to go wrong - the tone can be off, the wrong stars cast, the script too lazy. But when it works it works wonderfully as proved by this infectious fun French film. It has a high reputation - it was very popular internationally, it one of Jean Paul Belmondo's best remembered films - and I was delighted to see it lived up to the reputation.
The whole thing just works, from the moment the bright bossa nova theme song plays over the jaunty credits, to the opening sequence of a statue being stolen from a museum. This forms an effective Macguffin, with statue and professor being kidnapped along with professor's daughter (Francois Dorleac)... whose fiance (Belmondo) takes off in hot pursuit. There's a good ticking clock too in that Belmondo is on eight days leave from the army and has a certain time by which to get back.
Belmondo is the perfect hero, masculine, handsome (though not annoyingly pretty), clearly having the time of his life... much more likeable than say Alain Delon. Dorleac is a wonderful heroine, spiritied, beautiful and funny - a much sparkier performer than her sister, Catherine Deneuve.
It was shot on location in Paris and Brazil, the latter especially offering some fresh, gorgeous locations - even now Brazil doesn't turn up as a location that much in Hollywood films, so I'm not very familiar with it. They visit Rio and Brasilia and the Amazon it looks wonderful, beautifully shot. Brasilia has this wonderful other-world-y quality. The Amazon sequence at the end feels very Raiders of the Lost Arc-y. There's some unexpected poignancy at the end when we see an Amazon tribe by the roadside as a crew cut down trees.
If I'm being honest there's probably one sequence too many - Dorleac's final kidnapping was one too far. But it's just darn fun.
They're very easy to go wrong - the tone can be off, the wrong stars cast, the script too lazy. But when it works it works wonderfully as proved by this infectious fun French film. It has a high reputation - it was very popular internationally, it one of Jean Paul Belmondo's best remembered films - and I was delighted to see it lived up to the reputation.
The whole thing just works, from the moment the bright bossa nova theme song plays over the jaunty credits, to the opening sequence of a statue being stolen from a museum. This forms an effective Macguffin, with statue and professor being kidnapped along with professor's daughter (Francois Dorleac)... whose fiance (Belmondo) takes off in hot pursuit. There's a good ticking clock too in that Belmondo is on eight days leave from the army and has a certain time by which to get back.
Belmondo is the perfect hero, masculine, handsome (though not annoyingly pretty), clearly having the time of his life... much more likeable than say Alain Delon. Dorleac is a wonderful heroine, spiritied, beautiful and funny - a much sparkier performer than her sister, Catherine Deneuve.
It was shot on location in Paris and Brazil, the latter especially offering some fresh, gorgeous locations - even now Brazil doesn't turn up as a location that much in Hollywood films, so I'm not very familiar with it. They visit Rio and Brasilia and the Amazon it looks wonderful, beautifully shot. Brasilia has this wonderful other-world-y quality. The Amazon sequence at the end feels very Raiders of the Lost Arc-y. There's some unexpected poignancy at the end when we see an Amazon tribe by the roadside as a crew cut down trees.
If I'm being honest there's probably one sequence too many - Dorleac's final kidnapping was one too far. But it's just darn fun.
Monday, August 29, 2016
Book review - "On the Good Ship Hollywood" by John Agar (2007)
John Agar was an odd kind of movie star - the son of a meat packer, he launched into global fame by marrying Shirley Temple, which resulted in a movie contract from David O. Selznick. He lucked out with some of his early film roles, which included parts in classics such as Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and The Sands of Iwo Jima. Agar was an awkward, inexperienced actor, but he looked good on a horse, moved well and didn't bring down any of these films - indeed his work in Iwo Jima was genuinely good.
He was given a few leads - Breakthrough, The Magic Carpet -but he couldn't really carry a film and his career took a nose dive when he divorced Shirley. He copped a truckload of bad publicity for this and the fact he was always being arrested for alcohol related incidents.
His career received a second chance when he was signed by Universal Studios in the mid 50s, for whom he made a number of films, mostly science fiction epics - some of them of very high quality, like Tarantula. He kept busy acting for the rest of his life, though he occasionally had to boost the old income earnings via real estate and other odd jobs. He kept relapsing with drinking and made the mistake of not renewing with Universal when he had the chance - bland handsome types like Agar were always better off under contract. But his second marriage was happy, and they had a couple of kids who seem to love him.
The book is an interesting one - Agar is a relentlessly cheery upbeat sort of chap, forever trying to look on the bright side. He decries attitudes of the younger generation, and all the swearing and violence in films today, takes the blame for his own mistakes. Shirley Temple doesn't get that much of a mention - he simply says they were very much in love, the mum was a piece of work, their marriage suffered... he denies that he cheated on her but admits to drinking a lot. His biggest regret is being estranged from his child with Temple and smoking and drinking so much.
It's a short book and disappointingly slight. There's some stuff on John Wayne and John Ford but not a lot; it's slight on his classic Westerns and war films and sci fi efforts. He talks wistfully about wanting to make more Westerns - indeed I'm surprised Universal didn't use him more for them. The book is fleshed out with some typically strong interviews Tom Weaver did with him which focus on the sci fi stuff. But all the way through I wanted to know more - I mean how many actors worked with Shirley Temple, John Ford, John Wayne, Sam Katzman, Charles Griffith, early AIP, Sidney Pink, Audie Murphy, Larry Buchanan...
Agar comes across as a likeable, amiable guy who was a bit of a goose. The book is a quick read, it's entertaining - but I feel you could do a more solid book on Agar.
He was given a few leads - Breakthrough, The Magic Carpet -but he couldn't really carry a film and his career took a nose dive when he divorced Shirley. He copped a truckload of bad publicity for this and the fact he was always being arrested for alcohol related incidents.
His career received a second chance when he was signed by Universal Studios in the mid 50s, for whom he made a number of films, mostly science fiction epics - some of them of very high quality, like Tarantula. He kept busy acting for the rest of his life, though he occasionally had to boost the old income earnings via real estate and other odd jobs. He kept relapsing with drinking and made the mistake of not renewing with Universal when he had the chance - bland handsome types like Agar were always better off under contract. But his second marriage was happy, and they had a couple of kids who seem to love him.
The book is an interesting one - Agar is a relentlessly cheery upbeat sort of chap, forever trying to look on the bright side. He decries attitudes of the younger generation, and all the swearing and violence in films today, takes the blame for his own mistakes. Shirley Temple doesn't get that much of a mention - he simply says they were very much in love, the mum was a piece of work, their marriage suffered... he denies that he cheated on her but admits to drinking a lot. His biggest regret is being estranged from his child with Temple and smoking and drinking so much.
It's a short book and disappointingly slight. There's some stuff on John Wayne and John Ford but not a lot; it's slight on his classic Westerns and war films and sci fi efforts. He talks wistfully about wanting to make more Westerns - indeed I'm surprised Universal didn't use him more for them. The book is fleshed out with some typically strong interviews Tom Weaver did with him which focus on the sci fi stuff. But all the way through I wanted to know more - I mean how many actors worked with Shirley Temple, John Ford, John Wayne, Sam Katzman, Charles Griffith, early AIP, Sidney Pink, Audie Murphy, Larry Buchanan...
Agar comes across as a likeable, amiable guy who was a bit of a goose. The book is a quick read, it's entertaining - but I feel you could do a more solid book on Agar.
Movie review - "Seven Days... Seven Nights" (1960) (aka "Moderato cantilabe") **
Jean Paul Belmondo later said this film was boring and he was right. No one's denying the talent - Marguerite Duras' script from her novel, Jeanne Moreau, Peter Brook, Belmondo, some stunning black and white cinemtaography. It's a simple story with interesting aspects. It feels realised, if that makes sense - that the filmmakers made the film they wanted to. It satisfies on it's own terms.
But it is dull. It goes on for too long. It avoids drama - you keep waiting for Belmondo and Moreau to go for it but they don't, not really. Moreau is very good. Belmondo seems a bit bored (he was a last minute replacement for Richard Burton).
I'm always nervous about writing these sort of reviews about art house classics because I feel I'm exposing my ignorance or something. That I missed the point. However I do feel I got the point here - I just didn't like it. Maybe I'll change my mind in another viewing in a decade or so.
But it is dull. It goes on for too long. It avoids drama - you keep waiting for Belmondo and Moreau to go for it but they don't, not really. Moreau is very good. Belmondo seems a bit bored (he was a last minute replacement for Richard Burton).
I'm always nervous about writing these sort of reviews about art house classics because I feel I'm exposing my ignorance or something. That I missed the point. However I do feel I got the point here - I just didn't like it. Maybe I'll change my mind in another viewing in a decade or so.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Movie review - "Hunter Will Get You" (1976) **1/2
Jean Paul Belmondo in tough guy mode, a sort of free lance muscle who does jobs the cops can't touch like bust heroin dealers and shut down gambling operations. The main plot of this involves him looking into a serial killer (Bruno Cremer, who you may recognise from Sorcerer) who gets young men to help him rob banks then kills them.
It's not very well made (the writer and director is Philippe Labro), and the film suffers in the early part when Belmondo is not around. But things pick up when Belmondo hooks up with a young man who Cremer failed to kill; he breaks him out of prison and they escape together.
The last half hour is good - Cremer killing the boy and then Belmondo seeking revenge (shock - another French film about the undeclared love between two men), resulting in some strong action and a climactic fight scene where Belmondo shoves a broken glass bottle into Cremer's gut, leading to a quote from Oscar Wilde plays over the credits.
It feels like a TV show with a bit more violence and a major star in the lead.
It's not very well made (the writer and director is Philippe Labro), and the film suffers in the early part when Belmondo is not around. But things pick up when Belmondo hooks up with a young man who Cremer failed to kill; he breaks him out of prison and they escape together.
The last half hour is good - Cremer killing the boy and then Belmondo seeking revenge (shock - another French film about the undeclared love between two men), resulting in some strong action and a climactic fight scene where Belmondo shoves a broken glass bottle into Cremer's gut, leading to a quote from Oscar Wilde plays over the credits.
It feels like a TV show with a bit more violence and a major star in the lead.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Movie review - "Fear Over the City" (1975) **1/2
Like British film stars had to play war heroes in the 50s, French film stars had to play cops in the 70s. Here Jean Paul Belmondo is a tough chain smoking detective investigating a serial killer. It's fun to see Belmondo and partner Charles Denner (you might recognise him from The Man Who Had Power Over Women) constantly smoking and looking world weary; both are definitely well cast and it's an ideal star vehicle for Belmondo. It was co-written and directed by Henri Verneuil, a man with a number of strong tough guy feature credits (eg The Sicilian Clan).
The film suffers from being about serial killers - not super common in 1975, that subject has become so well covered a lot of this feels familiar. It plays like an episode of a TV show, only in French, with Belmondo, and an impressively staged chase sequence in the middle where Belmondo goes after a baddie. (You think it's going to be a small chase but it turns out to be a long one, rather like The French Connection. And the baddie isn't the killer he's someone else.)
The opening sequence consists of a lone woman being taunted by a serial killer over the phone - rather like the opening of Scream, only she throws herself impulsively off a balcony rather than being legitimately murdered. But murder fans don't worry - the killer still knocks off some women in dutifully unpleasant scenes. The killer (Adalberto Maria Merli) has a neat visual "look" - a bug eye. He kills because he doesn't like the morals of certain women, rather like the killer in Frenzy. He sends lots of letters and phone calls to the police and even visits them - so it's not that hard for them to figure out who did it, you would think, but Belmondo doesnt until the killer throws a grenade into a porno theatre and holds a porno actress and her friendsy (!) hostage. Belmondo isn't much of a detective - even at the end he admits he's more muscle than brain.
There's a subplot about a gangster who is pursued by Belmondo and lots of scenes in apartments. Various psychiatrists at the end get involved to have a chat.
This film feels like a bunch of "bits"thrown together - a serial killer, a robber, an action sequence. It was a big hit and Belmondo seems to be having fun.
The film suffers from being about serial killers - not super common in 1975, that subject has become so well covered a lot of this feels familiar. It plays like an episode of a TV show, only in French, with Belmondo, and an impressively staged chase sequence in the middle where Belmondo goes after a baddie. (You think it's going to be a small chase but it turns out to be a long one, rather like The French Connection. And the baddie isn't the killer he's someone else.)
The opening sequence consists of a lone woman being taunted by a serial killer over the phone - rather like the opening of Scream, only she throws herself impulsively off a balcony rather than being legitimately murdered. But murder fans don't worry - the killer still knocks off some women in dutifully unpleasant scenes. The killer (Adalberto Maria Merli) has a neat visual "look" - a bug eye. He kills because he doesn't like the morals of certain women, rather like the killer in Frenzy. He sends lots of letters and phone calls to the police and even visits them - so it's not that hard for them to figure out who did it, you would think, but Belmondo doesnt until the killer throws a grenade into a porno theatre and holds a porno actress and her friendsy (!) hostage. Belmondo isn't much of a detective - even at the end he admits he's more muscle than brain.
There's a subplot about a gangster who is pursued by Belmondo and lots of scenes in apartments. Various psychiatrists at the end get involved to have a chat.
This film feels like a bunch of "bits"thrown together - a serial killer, a robber, an action sequence. It was a big hit and Belmondo seems to be having fun.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Movie review - "What's So Bad About Feeling Good?" (1969) *1/2
George Seaton was best known for his dramas in the 40s, 50s and 60s but he had a background in writing comedy - notably several musicals and the Marx brothers film A Day at the Races. He worked on the script for the latter with Robert Pirosh and the two of them collaborated for this one. I think knowing that helps give this some context - Seaton and Pirosh were clearly going for something equally mad cap and off the wall, their attempt to match say the 60s films of Richard Lester. That sort of film is hard to pull off though, especially by old men, and Seaton was writer, producer and director. This is a dreadful mess that is painful to watch.
The film starts with George Peppard as a one time ad man living with some hippies in a loft, including girlfriend Mary Tyler Moore. (I wonder if the team at Mad Men ever saw this - a lot of the visuals are reminiscent: hippies in the village with beards and guitars, etc). Then a virus strikes which makes everyone feel positive about things. It spreads throughout New York, causing sales of alcohol and tobacco to plummet, resulting in a tax crisis; the mayor (John McMartin ) and governor (Dom Deluise) get involved.
That's an OK idea - not the world's best, but you can see opportunities for satire. It probably needed to be made for an established comedy star - Jerry Lewis, say, or The Beatles, someone with whom it was easier to travel into a world of make-believe. Mary Tyler Moore can play comedy well, as well all know; George Peppard isn't a bad straight man (eg Breakfast at Tiffany's) but struggles in "madcap" world. Some players get it right such as Dom Deluise.
But the tone is all off. It's not particularly funny or clever or even genuinely madcap / subversive - at heart it's about people being nice to each other, and having to get married. It may have played better had we seen Peppard fall in love with Moore instead of already establishing them as a couple. Or maybe it simply needed to be funnier.
The film starts with George Peppard as a one time ad man living with some hippies in a loft, including girlfriend Mary Tyler Moore. (I wonder if the team at Mad Men ever saw this - a lot of the visuals are reminiscent: hippies in the village with beards and guitars, etc). Then a virus strikes which makes everyone feel positive about things. It spreads throughout New York, causing sales of alcohol and tobacco to plummet, resulting in a tax crisis; the mayor (John McMartin ) and governor (Dom Deluise) get involved.
That's an OK idea - not the world's best, but you can see opportunities for satire. It probably needed to be made for an established comedy star - Jerry Lewis, say, or The Beatles, someone with whom it was easier to travel into a world of make-believe. Mary Tyler Moore can play comedy well, as well all know; George Peppard isn't a bad straight man (eg Breakfast at Tiffany's) but struggles in "madcap" world. Some players get it right such as Dom Deluise.
But the tone is all off. It's not particularly funny or clever or even genuinely madcap / subversive - at heart it's about people being nice to each other, and having to get married. It may have played better had we seen Peppard fall in love with Moore instead of already establishing them as a couple. Or maybe it simply needed to be funnier.
Movie review - "A Man Named Rocca" (1961) ** (warning: spoilers)
A French gangster film which means it has elements of 1930s Warner Bros films plus plenty of French man love and treatment of women as madonnas or whores. The man love comes from Jean Paul Belmondo who arrives in Marseilles trying to figure out why his old partner, Pierre Vancek, is in prison. The whore is Beatrica Altariba, mistress of Vaneck's dodgy partner. The madonna is Vaneck's sister, Christina Kaufmann.
It was based on a novel by Jose Giovanni, who had a fascinating life, being imprisoned during World War Two, where he fought and also collaborated with the Nazis.
The main problem with this film is it lacks focus. You think it's going to be about Belmondo getting his mate out of prison. But he doesn't do much to get that to happen - there's no suppression of evidence, solving of the crime, convicting the real killer, prison breaks etc. He just knocks off his mate's dodgy partner and takes over his rackets. The mate goes to prison, Belmondo goes for the sister, then shoots some thugs who hassle him and winds up in prison himself.
The movie changes gears and becomes a prison film with Belmondo being a bad ass and going to work clearing land mines, resulting in some Wages of Fear style tension. His mate loses an arm, he gets out and there's a rushed feeling ending where the mate still stuffs up.
A film full of unresolved subplots (the mistress) and unsatisfactory emotion. Belmondo is charismatic, though really a bit too young for the role. Kaufman and Altariba are beautiful.
It was based on a novel by Jose Giovanni, who had a fascinating life, being imprisoned during World War Two, where he fought and also collaborated with the Nazis.
The main problem with this film is it lacks focus. You think it's going to be about Belmondo getting his mate out of prison. But he doesn't do much to get that to happen - there's no suppression of evidence, solving of the crime, convicting the real killer, prison breaks etc. He just knocks off his mate's dodgy partner and takes over his rackets. The mate goes to prison, Belmondo goes for the sister, then shoots some thugs who hassle him and winds up in prison himself.
The movie changes gears and becomes a prison film with Belmondo being a bad ass and going to work clearing land mines, resulting in some Wages of Fear style tension. His mate loses an arm, he gets out and there's a rushed feeling ending where the mate still stuffs up.
A film full of unresolved subplots (the mistress) and unsatisfactory emotion. Belmondo is charismatic, though really a bit too young for the role. Kaufman and Altariba are beautiful.
Movie review - "The Eiger Sanction" (1975) *** (warning: spoilers)
Clint Eastwood's languid directing style suits mountaineering - the slow but steady pace, the accumulation of suspense rather than wham-bam action... There's some terrific mountains to take in here - in the US and Europe; Clint is a believable mountaineer and I bought all the technical jargon about the mountain trade spouted by Clint and George Kennedy.
The story should be simple but is needlessly complicated. Clint is a former assassin hired by a shadowy government office to kill an assassin in order to (a) help his country (b) avenge an old friend of Clint's (c) get the IRS off Clint's back (a nice touch!). For some reason, the man Clint is after will be on a mountaineering expedition, one of several people, they're not sure which, except he has a limp. Clint doesn't notice that Kennedy has a limp until the end for some reason. Clint kills one person, goes back to the "M" figure, is told to kill again - one visit was surely enough? People keep trying to kill Clint at Kennedy's training center but he never seems that worried. Clint is passive for a lot of the story for all the mountaineering he does - all these people die on the mountain due to it being, well, hard - no real attempt from Clint to save them.
The novel on which this is based was a spoof and enough of the spoof survives this film - the albino head of the government organisation, the flamboyantly gay assassin (Jack Cassidy), the way out humour, the fact Clint's character is an art professor as well as assassin (hit on by students including a nubile Candice Rialson), a plot involving treacherous government. Other elements of it are more recognisably Clint: women throwing themselves at him (blonde, Indian, black), mocking feminists (when a woman asks George Kennedy about climbing a mountain and masculinity, Kennedy goes "lady why don't you go get yourself a screw")
It's beautifully shot. Some of the mountaineering stuff is really good. The acting is strong - Clint is ideally cast, Kennedy and Cassidy are fun.
The story should be simple but is needlessly complicated. Clint is a former assassin hired by a shadowy government office to kill an assassin in order to (a) help his country (b) avenge an old friend of Clint's (c) get the IRS off Clint's back (a nice touch!). For some reason, the man Clint is after will be on a mountaineering expedition, one of several people, they're not sure which, except he has a limp. Clint doesn't notice that Kennedy has a limp until the end for some reason. Clint kills one person, goes back to the "M" figure, is told to kill again - one visit was surely enough? People keep trying to kill Clint at Kennedy's training center but he never seems that worried. Clint is passive for a lot of the story for all the mountaineering he does - all these people die on the mountain due to it being, well, hard - no real attempt from Clint to save them.
The novel on which this is based was a spoof and enough of the spoof survives this film - the albino head of the government organisation, the flamboyantly gay assassin (Jack Cassidy), the way out humour, the fact Clint's character is an art professor as well as assassin (hit on by students including a nubile Candice Rialson), a plot involving treacherous government. Other elements of it are more recognisably Clint: women throwing themselves at him (blonde, Indian, black), mocking feminists (when a woman asks George Kennedy about climbing a mountain and masculinity, Kennedy goes "lady why don't you go get yourself a screw")
It's beautifully shot. Some of the mountaineering stuff is really good. The acting is strong - Clint is ideally cast, Kennedy and Cassidy are fun.
Movie review - "Highpoint" (1982) *
I remember this screened on TV in Brisbane when I was growing up and someone had cut together a jaunty commercial for it, to the theme of "Peter Gunn". It seemed lively and bright and emphasised the stunts. But the result is a train wreck which is an embarassment for Canada.
Maybe if it had been a straight up thriller it wouldn't have been that bad but it tries for a light Hitchcockian tone, I think anyway, with elements of The Big Sleep. There are endless comic bits and pieces which are like nails on a chalkboard.
The plot has Richard Harris as an accountant who goes to work for a rich family, where the black sheep (Christopher Plummer) has stolen money from the mafia and CIA. I think that's what it is. Beverly d'Angelo is Plummer's sister.
Harris is a bumbling accountant who can also do things like drive cars well and fly helicopters; d'Angelo does barely anything until the very end (though she looks good) and there's no scenes showing much of a romance between her and Harris.
There are some fine Canadian actors in this: Chris Plummer, Kate Reid, Robin Gammell (CIA guy), Saul Rubinek and Maury Chaykin (mugging furiously in a double act). But it's awful. The action is chopped about, it doesn't make sense.
There are some intriguing bits: Harris gets out of a tight spot by turning up the sound on a TV via remote; a chase involving horse drawn carriages which results in one plunging into the water; the final fall on the CN Tower (not bad... until it goes out of focus and they cut away too soon from it).
Maybe if it had been a straight up thriller it wouldn't have been that bad but it tries for a light Hitchcockian tone, I think anyway, with elements of The Big Sleep. There are endless comic bits and pieces which are like nails on a chalkboard.
The plot has Richard Harris as an accountant who goes to work for a rich family, where the black sheep (Christopher Plummer) has stolen money from the mafia and CIA. I think that's what it is. Beverly d'Angelo is Plummer's sister.
Harris is a bumbling accountant who can also do things like drive cars well and fly helicopters; d'Angelo does barely anything until the very end (though she looks good) and there's no scenes showing much of a romance between her and Harris.
There are some fine Canadian actors in this: Chris Plummer, Kate Reid, Robin Gammell (CIA guy), Saul Rubinek and Maury Chaykin (mugging furiously in a double act). But it's awful. The action is chopped about, it doesn't make sense.
There are some intriguing bits: Harris gets out of a tight spot by turning up the sound on a TV via remote; a chase involving horse drawn carriages which results in one plunging into the water; the final fall on the CN Tower (not bad... until it goes out of focus and they cut away too soon from it).
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Movie review - "Ravagers" (1979) *1/2
Richard Harris in action mode again - after being one of a bunch of guys on a mission, dealing with terrorists, and running arms in Rhodesia, here he's in post apocalyptic mode. It's in the near future when most of the human race have been wiped out by something or other and ravagers are roaming deserted buildings tormenting the nicer survivors.
Harris is shacked up with wife Alana Stewart (formerly Alana Hamilton) who is soon killed by some baddies and Harris is sad for about five minutes until he comes across a refuge with nicer humans where he hooks up with an even prettier woman, Anne Turkel.
They find their way to a boat where there are survivors run by Ernest Borgnine and Woody Strode. Harris is optimistic about the future but he's the one who brings the savages on the head of Borgnine and his people.
The Walking Dead does this sort of stuff every week, and a lot better too. Actually so did other post apocalyptic films around this time - Damnation Alley, Omega Man, A Boy and His Dog, even Deathsport.
It's simply not that exciting. It looks good, the cast is strong - okay you can laugh at Turkey and Stewart being these Studio 54 glamazons, but they have presence. Harris does his tormented man thing, Borgnine and Strode are fine, as is Art Carney as an old codger who survives. But it's really a clunky chase - actually "chase" makes it sound more exciting than it is, it's a plod from one locale to another. Philosophical and political points are made haphazardly. These sort of movies always tend to promote fascism while pretending to decry it anyway.
Harris is shacked up with wife Alana Stewart (formerly Alana Hamilton) who is soon killed by some baddies and Harris is sad for about five minutes until he comes across a refuge with nicer humans where he hooks up with an even prettier woman, Anne Turkel.
They find their way to a boat where there are survivors run by Ernest Borgnine and Woody Strode. Harris is optimistic about the future but he's the one who brings the savages on the head of Borgnine and his people.
The Walking Dead does this sort of stuff every week, and a lot better too. Actually so did other post apocalyptic films around this time - Damnation Alley, Omega Man, A Boy and His Dog, even Deathsport.
It's simply not that exciting. It looks good, the cast is strong - okay you can laugh at Turkey and Stewart being these Studio 54 glamazons, but they have presence. Harris does his tormented man thing, Borgnine and Strode are fine, as is Art Carney as an old codger who survives. But it's really a clunky chase - actually "chase" makes it sound more exciting than it is, it's a plod from one locale to another. Philosophical and political points are made haphazardly. These sort of movies always tend to promote fascism while pretending to decry it anyway.
Saturday, August 13, 2016
The Key Films in the James Bond Series
1) Dr No - the one that really established it all. Funny enough, I don't think it ever gets the credit it deserves - overshadowed by From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Casino Royale or On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Absolutely, there would be bigger budgets, memorable moments to come - but the template of Bond as a sophisticated, debonair assassin was struck from the first film, a magical accident of Sean Connery, Ian Fleming, Terence Young, Ken Adams, Broccoli/Saltzman, etc coming together. Connery proved stunningly right as Bond, the story was excellent (it's a good fall back structure to borrow even now), Joseph Wiseman an expert villain, Ursula Andress an incredible Bond. A sidekick, a treacherous girl, combination of comedy and violence... It was there from the get go.
2) Goldfinger - for many this is THE Bond film, even now, a beautifully structured piece of entertainment, with perhaps the best villain, best use of gadgets, best theme song, and best plan of all time. Terrific fun.
3) On Her Majesty's Secret Service - the first Bond without Connery, the first box office disappointment, the first unhappy ending... and now many (myself included) see it as the greatest Bond of them all... I'd say it comfortably has the biggest "cult" of any Bond film.
4) Live and Let Die - Diamonds Are Forever restored the box office health of the Bond films, but a lot of that was attributed to Connery. Live and Let Die showed the series could thrive with a new Bond if that Bond was a better established actor - and few had the pedigree of Roger Moore, whose Saint TV series was an excellent training ground for the part. It's a flawed movie that hasn't aged very well, but its rock soundtrack is superb and there are some good moments.
5) The Spy Who Loved Me - Harry Saltzman's financial problems resulting in him leaving the series, and this showed that Cubby Broccoli could handle things fine on his own very much thank you with a movie that admittedly pinched most of its key elements from earlier films (Russian agent female lead, spectacular villain, wordless henchman) but rehashed them to a brilliant degree, making it an artistic high point of the Bond rein.
6) Goldeneye - the Bonds took their longest break before Pierce Brosnan showed their was life in the series yet. I don't think anyone remembers this film with that much fondness, but it was a well made entry which revitalised things.
7) Casino Royale - a major shot in the arm, Daniel Craig being the best challenger to Connery's crown. It's an origin story though oddly the film didn't need to be.
2) Goldfinger - for many this is THE Bond film, even now, a beautifully structured piece of entertainment, with perhaps the best villain, best use of gadgets, best theme song, and best plan of all time. Terrific fun.
3) On Her Majesty's Secret Service - the first Bond without Connery, the first box office disappointment, the first unhappy ending... and now many (myself included) see it as the greatest Bond of them all... I'd say it comfortably has the biggest "cult" of any Bond film.
4) Live and Let Die - Diamonds Are Forever restored the box office health of the Bond films, but a lot of that was attributed to Connery. Live and Let Die showed the series could thrive with a new Bond if that Bond was a better established actor - and few had the pedigree of Roger Moore, whose Saint TV series was an excellent training ground for the part. It's a flawed movie that hasn't aged very well, but its rock soundtrack is superb and there are some good moments.
5) The Spy Who Loved Me - Harry Saltzman's financial problems resulting in him leaving the series, and this showed that Cubby Broccoli could handle things fine on his own very much thank you with a movie that admittedly pinched most of its key elements from earlier films (Russian agent female lead, spectacular villain, wordless henchman) but rehashed them to a brilliant degree, making it an artistic high point of the Bond rein.
6) Goldeneye - the Bonds took their longest break before Pierce Brosnan showed their was life in the series yet. I don't think anyone remembers this film with that much fondness, but it was a well made entry which revitalised things.
7) Casino Royale - a major shot in the arm, Daniel Craig being the best challenger to Connery's crown. It's an origin story though oddly the film didn't need to be.
Movie review - "Your Ticket is No Longer Valid" (1981) * (warning: spoilers)
A serious Canadian drama about impotence with Richard Harris and George Peppard...That's the sort of topic that doesn't sound great in short hand, the sort of movie about which you go "might work if everything comes off." It doesn't here, but the sheer bizarreness of the film's existence give it some points.
Harris is a businessman (I got the sense the wealth was inherited) who is working on a deal. There's a fellow businessman, George Peppard, who can't get it up and talks to Harris about it A LOT - but really Peppard is a supporting player. The main story concerns Harris and his relationship with his younger girlfriend, Jennifer Dale. He has a good sex life with Dale then he starts to struggle getting it up... until he begins fantasizing about Dale having sex with a mysterious intruder who robbed him one night. Harris then becomes obsessed with the intruder so you start thinking "oh this movie is about Harris realising he's gay" but it doesn't go there either. He winds up watching a sex show with Peppard, having dealings with Jeanne Moreau, and then winding up watching the intruder and Dale having sex, then he has sex with Dale, then... I think he's killed by Moreau.
I was confused. Maybe it's clearer to understand - I admit to zoning out. Harris acts all over the shop but I wasn't clear about his character. Good on him for trying something different, and yes while it's a film about a middle aged man with a young female lover who adores him, it's also about a man who needs images of a swarthy male gypsy to get it up, which was brave of Harris. He takes his clothes off a lot too - he liked to go for it, old Richard.
There's some support characters who pop in and out - Harris' son, his shrink, a woman who mocks Peppard's love making. The visuals aren't that pretty. And it's a fairly bad movie. But the fact it actually exists is interesting.
Harris is a businessman (I got the sense the wealth was inherited) who is working on a deal. There's a fellow businessman, George Peppard, who can't get it up and talks to Harris about it A LOT - but really Peppard is a supporting player. The main story concerns Harris and his relationship with his younger girlfriend, Jennifer Dale. He has a good sex life with Dale then he starts to struggle getting it up... until he begins fantasizing about Dale having sex with a mysterious intruder who robbed him one night. Harris then becomes obsessed with the intruder so you start thinking "oh this movie is about Harris realising he's gay" but it doesn't go there either. He winds up watching a sex show with Peppard, having dealings with Jeanne Moreau, and then winding up watching the intruder and Dale having sex, then he has sex with Dale, then... I think he's killed by Moreau.
I was confused. Maybe it's clearer to understand - I admit to zoning out. Harris acts all over the shop but I wasn't clear about his character. Good on him for trying something different, and yes while it's a film about a middle aged man with a young female lover who adores him, it's also about a man who needs images of a swarthy male gypsy to get it up, which was brave of Harris. He takes his clothes off a lot too - he liked to go for it, old Richard.
There's some support characters who pop in and out - Harris' son, his shrink, a woman who mocks Peppard's love making. The visuals aren't that pretty. And it's a fairly bad movie. But the fact it actually exists is interesting.
Movie review - "Mister Moses" (1965) **
I've never read Max Catto's novel but the synopsis indicates why it would be attractive to filmmakers - the tale of a conman in modern African who natives think is a version of Moses; he leads them to safety and finds redemption. Movie stars love playing rogues with a heart of gold.
Robert Mitchum is ideally cast in the title role. The film benefits from location filming in Kenya, brisk Ronald Neame direction, a jaunt John Barry score, and the delectable Carrol Baker as the female lead. Baker is spirited, funny, beautiful, with that great voice; she matches well with Mitchum (even though he's old enough to be her father, like several of Baker's co stars during her early Hollywood years eg Karl Malden, Clark Gable).
But I didn't really like the movie. It's racist. I mean, you can say that about pretty much any Hollywood film in Africa, but the black characters are still poor - the locals are exemplified by one dumb elder (Orlando Martins), no more, and a shonky dude who is from America (Raymond St Jacques) and wants to con his own people.
The adventures this Mr Moses has aren't particularly exciting - the ticking clock is a dam about to be flooded, but that doesn't happen. You keep waiting for someone to chase after them, or to have extra baddies, or a development or something but it's all too easy. Moses in the Bible had floods and pursuing Egyptians and plagues and interesting conflicts among the Jews... this doesn't.
Ian Bannen is annoying as a district official engaged to Baker (I kept waiting for him to do something treacherous but it never happens). Alexander Knox's character feels superfluous in many ways too - it's like if Robert Morley didn't die at the beginning of African Queen and went along with Kate and Bogie.
Still, nice music and Baker/Mitchum completists will get something out of it.
Robert Mitchum is ideally cast in the title role. The film benefits from location filming in Kenya, brisk Ronald Neame direction, a jaunt John Barry score, and the delectable Carrol Baker as the female lead. Baker is spirited, funny, beautiful, with that great voice; she matches well with Mitchum (even though he's old enough to be her father, like several of Baker's co stars during her early Hollywood years eg Karl Malden, Clark Gable).
But I didn't really like the movie. It's racist. I mean, you can say that about pretty much any Hollywood film in Africa, but the black characters are still poor - the locals are exemplified by one dumb elder (Orlando Martins), no more, and a shonky dude who is from America (Raymond St Jacques) and wants to con his own people.
The adventures this Mr Moses has aren't particularly exciting - the ticking clock is a dam about to be flooded, but that doesn't happen. You keep waiting for someone to chase after them, or to have extra baddies, or a development or something but it's all too easy. Moses in the Bible had floods and pursuing Egyptians and plagues and interesting conflicts among the Jews... this doesn't.
Ian Bannen is annoying as a district official engaged to Baker (I kept waiting for him to do something treacherous but it never happens). Alexander Knox's character feels superfluous in many ways too - it's like if Robert Morley didn't die at the beginning of African Queen and went along with Kate and Bogie.
Still, nice music and Baker/Mitchum completists will get something out of it.
Movie review - "Circus World" (1964) ** (re-viewing)
Samuel Bronston had tackled Revolutionary America, medieval Spain. the Boxer Rebellion and Ancient Rome -with this he turned his eye on turn of the century circuses. Not as inherently violent as those periods, but still plenty of spectacle and colour. John Wayne is believable as a circus owner and its nice to see him out of Westerns.
But they didn't bring a story.Wayne runs a circus, has an adoptive daughter (Claudia Cardinale) and a rival (John Smith) plus a best friend (Lloyd Nolan). He decides to take his show to Europe. Things get off to a rocky start when, in the film's best sequence, the boat capsizes and a lot of his animals and equipment are sunk. But he bounces back with relative ease, gets together a new circus and is a success. There's a fire at the end, but no members of the public are present and it's quickly resolved.
There's a subplot - or is it the main plot, I wasn't sure - about Wayne and Cardinale who run in to Rita Hayworth, Cardinale's mother; she was married to Cardinale's father, but had an affair with Wayne which resulted in the dad basically killing himself on the trapeze.
There are interesting elements raised but never developed. At the beginning a lot is made of John Wayne and John Smith being Wild West style artists, which is cool and a great reason to explain their presence in the cast... but then this feels forgotten and these two just hang around the circus at the end. Lloyd Nolan feels as though he's in the movie just for exposition. Richard Conte looks as though he's about to do something interesting, as a clown who is the brother of Cardinale's father, but he never does. (Or is he the person who wrote "suicide" on Cardinale's wall? I wasn't sure who did that.) John Smith's character threatens to become interesting, with this supposed rivalry with Wayne and romancing Cardinale - but the script never develops any conflict. (Why not make him Wayne's biological son? Why not ramp up the conflict?)
The romance between Cardinale and Smith is rushed through and feels a bit yuck because although Cardinale is stunning as always (especially in those trapeze outfits), she plays it so naive and child like.
John Wayne is fun. Richard Conte and Nolan are professional. John Smith is weak; his role was to have been played by Rod Taylor, and it's a shame it wasn't - Taylor is simply a better, more charismatic actor and the part could've used it. Rita Hayworth was excellent in her part; she looks tragic and is a believable trapeze artist. Many good elements, but it doesn't mesh, and the film's failure at the box office is hardly surprising.
But they didn't bring a story.Wayne runs a circus, has an adoptive daughter (Claudia Cardinale) and a rival (John Smith) plus a best friend (Lloyd Nolan). He decides to take his show to Europe. Things get off to a rocky start when, in the film's best sequence, the boat capsizes and a lot of his animals and equipment are sunk. But he bounces back with relative ease, gets together a new circus and is a success. There's a fire at the end, but no members of the public are present and it's quickly resolved.
There's a subplot - or is it the main plot, I wasn't sure - about Wayne and Cardinale who run in to Rita Hayworth, Cardinale's mother; she was married to Cardinale's father, but had an affair with Wayne which resulted in the dad basically killing himself on the trapeze.
There are interesting elements raised but never developed. At the beginning a lot is made of John Wayne and John Smith being Wild West style artists, which is cool and a great reason to explain their presence in the cast... but then this feels forgotten and these two just hang around the circus at the end. Lloyd Nolan feels as though he's in the movie just for exposition. Richard Conte looks as though he's about to do something interesting, as a clown who is the brother of Cardinale's father, but he never does. (Or is he the person who wrote "suicide" on Cardinale's wall? I wasn't sure who did that.) John Smith's character threatens to become interesting, with this supposed rivalry with Wayne and romancing Cardinale - but the script never develops any conflict. (Why not make him Wayne's biological son? Why not ramp up the conflict?)
The romance between Cardinale and Smith is rushed through and feels a bit yuck because although Cardinale is stunning as always (especially in those trapeze outfits), she plays it so naive and child like.
John Wayne is fun. Richard Conte and Nolan are professional. John Smith is weak; his role was to have been played by Rod Taylor, and it's a shame it wasn't - Taylor is simply a better, more charismatic actor and the part could've used it. Rita Hayworth was excellent in her part; she looks tragic and is a believable trapeze artist. Many good elements, but it doesn't mesh, and the film's failure at the box office is hardly surprising.
Tuesday, August 09, 2016
Book review - "Foxy Lady: The Authorised Biography of Lynn Bari" by Jeff Gordon (2010)
A biography of Lynn Bari - why? But, when you think about it, why not? Bari was a very likeable, capable performer who did sterling work over a number of years, and is still remembered by buffs today for some excellent "other woman" parts in Sun Valley Serenade and Orchestra Wives.
There was more to her career than that of course - a long apprenticeship in Fox's B unit, becoming known as Queen of the Bs: few of these films gathered any sort of serious critical renown (though she popped up in Charlie Chans, Mr Motos and Michael Shaynes). She never quite became a star - Gordon argues she was kind of was one around the time of The Magnificent Dope, Moon Over Her Shoulder and Tampico. But she never really headlined a big hit and crashed through to the next level the way, say, Jeanne Crain, Linda Darnell, Gene Tierney and Anne Baxter did.
Why that didn't happen is one of the things tackled by Gordon in his excellent, comprehensive biography, which benefits from extensive interviews with Bari. She was a co operative, hard working, highly professional actress who seemed to get along with most people. But her mother was a drunk who had a habit of calling the studio and complaining about her. She also had shocking taste in men, marrying agent Walter Kane who ripped her off and gave her bad advice, then Sidney Luft, who did exactly the same. Part of her appeal for producers was her placid nature but then she started complaining about roles and money at a time when (post WW2) the studios were reducing their contract lists.
Her decline as a film star/name was perhaps inevitable, even if she'd had that hit or two - but it's a shame she never got a great "second act" like a hit play or TV series. She tried a few series and did a lot of theatre and guest roles but never crashed through. Her protracted and vicious divorce/custody dispute with Luft may have had something to do with that, but it was also age and circumstance. Still she was rarely out of work.
The latter part of her life is depressing. After two dud marriages with agent types she hooked up with a shrink, who didn't like her to work, cheated on her, wasn't generous during the divorce settlement. She became an alcoholic, had a lot of health problems (an intense cigarette habit didn't help), stopped working... On the bright side, she had a lot of friends, had a good relationship with her son, kept her marbles to the end. And she became friends with Gordon, who interviewed her for what became this book, so that must have made her feel good.
This is a loving, affectionate look at Bari, with solid scholarship behind it. It presents a favourable interpretation of Bari's flaws (appalling taste in men, poor financial nous, etc) but doesn't obscure them. I particularly enjoyed the stuff about Fox's B movie unit, about which I knew little (apart from the Chans and Motos). It's a sad to read at times, but I'm glad she got a book.
There was more to her career than that of course - a long apprenticeship in Fox's B unit, becoming known as Queen of the Bs: few of these films gathered any sort of serious critical renown (though she popped up in Charlie Chans, Mr Motos and Michael Shaynes). She never quite became a star - Gordon argues she was kind of was one around the time of The Magnificent Dope, Moon Over Her Shoulder and Tampico. But she never really headlined a big hit and crashed through to the next level the way, say, Jeanne Crain, Linda Darnell, Gene Tierney and Anne Baxter did.
Why that didn't happen is one of the things tackled by Gordon in his excellent, comprehensive biography, which benefits from extensive interviews with Bari. She was a co operative, hard working, highly professional actress who seemed to get along with most people. But her mother was a drunk who had a habit of calling the studio and complaining about her. She also had shocking taste in men, marrying agent Walter Kane who ripped her off and gave her bad advice, then Sidney Luft, who did exactly the same. Part of her appeal for producers was her placid nature but then she started complaining about roles and money at a time when (post WW2) the studios were reducing their contract lists.
Her decline as a film star/name was perhaps inevitable, even if she'd had that hit or two - but it's a shame she never got a great "second act" like a hit play or TV series. She tried a few series and did a lot of theatre and guest roles but never crashed through. Her protracted and vicious divorce/custody dispute with Luft may have had something to do with that, but it was also age and circumstance. Still she was rarely out of work.
The latter part of her life is depressing. After two dud marriages with agent types she hooked up with a shrink, who didn't like her to work, cheated on her, wasn't generous during the divorce settlement. She became an alcoholic, had a lot of health problems (an intense cigarette habit didn't help), stopped working... On the bright side, she had a lot of friends, had a good relationship with her son, kept her marbles to the end. And she became friends with Gordon, who interviewed her for what became this book, so that must have made her feel good.
This is a loving, affectionate look at Bari, with solid scholarship behind it. It presents a favourable interpretation of Bari's flaws (appalling taste in men, poor financial nous, etc) but doesn't obscure them. I particularly enjoyed the stuff about Fox's B movie unit, about which I knew little (apart from the Chans and Motos). It's a sad to read at times, but I'm glad she got a book.
Sunday, August 07, 2016
Movie review - "The Miracle" (1959) *1/2 (warning: spoilers)
To understand why this got made you need to know it was based on a play that was very popular in Europe in the 1910s and which toured the US in the 1920s. Warners bought the film rights back then and to be honest that's when they should've made it but it kicked around in development hell until it was revived during the late 50s vogue for religious pictures (A Man Called Peter, The Nun's Story, etc.)
The plot is odd. It starts in a convent with some "how do you solve a problem like Maria" style chats among the nuns about Carroll Baker, who is a novice, but tends to day dream. When hunky British soldier Roger Moore trots into town (the time is the Napoleonic Wars and Wellington's campaign in Spain) she gets hot pants and the two of them are soon rolling in the hills. She gets it into her head that Moore is killed, goes a little ga-ga and runs off with the gypsies. Vittoria Gassman falls in love with her and winds up dead. Then she becomes a flamenco dancer; a bullfighter falls in love with her and ends up dead. Then she's reunited with Moore. At the convent the Virgin Mary comes down from a statue and pretends to be Baker. There's a drought. Baker goes back to the church so that Moore can survive the Battle of Waterloo and that it may rain again. I think I've got all that right.
So basically it's about a woman who wants to escape being a nun, but God keeps killing off all the men who are into her, and throwing in some drought for good measure, so she goes back to it. Which isn't very fun.
At times this has shades of Gainsborough Melodramas of the 1940s, with Baker going from nun, to gypsy wench, to flamenco dancer... Maybe that's should have made it. The filmmakers never get the tone right.
Baker actually is compelling in the lead - I always enjoy her, she's a strong actor, great voice, has star quality. She's better than the material. There is camp fun watching her hop around playing all these sort of characters - Baker as a nun is inherently campy. Roger Moore hadn't grown into his looks by this stage; like Baker he's got a great voice, and his performance isn't bad.
There is some hammy support acting from Walter Slezak and Katina Paxinou; some terrible dialogue such as "here's a portrait from my friend Goya" and the Duke of Wellington going "we could fight him here... at Waterloo".
It's a terrible move really only for Roger Moore and Carroll Baker completists, and/or students of religious films of the 1950s.
The plot is odd. It starts in a convent with some "how do you solve a problem like Maria" style chats among the nuns about Carroll Baker, who is a novice, but tends to day dream. When hunky British soldier Roger Moore trots into town (the time is the Napoleonic Wars and Wellington's campaign in Spain) she gets hot pants and the two of them are soon rolling in the hills. She gets it into her head that Moore is killed, goes a little ga-ga and runs off with the gypsies. Vittoria Gassman falls in love with her and winds up dead. Then she becomes a flamenco dancer; a bullfighter falls in love with her and ends up dead. Then she's reunited with Moore. At the convent the Virgin Mary comes down from a statue and pretends to be Baker. There's a drought. Baker goes back to the church so that Moore can survive the Battle of Waterloo and that it may rain again. I think I've got all that right.
So basically it's about a woman who wants to escape being a nun, but God keeps killing off all the men who are into her, and throwing in some drought for good measure, so she goes back to it. Which isn't very fun.
At times this has shades of Gainsborough Melodramas of the 1940s, with Baker going from nun, to gypsy wench, to flamenco dancer... Maybe that's should have made it. The filmmakers never get the tone right.
Baker actually is compelling in the lead - I always enjoy her, she's a strong actor, great voice, has star quality. She's better than the material. There is camp fun watching her hop around playing all these sort of characters - Baker as a nun is inherently campy. Roger Moore hadn't grown into his looks by this stage; like Baker he's got a great voice, and his performance isn't bad.
There is some hammy support acting from Walter Slezak and Katina Paxinou; some terrible dialogue such as "here's a portrait from my friend Goya" and the Duke of Wellington going "we could fight him here... at Waterloo".
It's a terrible move really only for Roger Moore and Carroll Baker completists, and/or students of religious films of the 1950s.
Saturday, August 06, 2016
Movie review - "Act One" (1963) **
Moss Hart's memoirs about his early days as a playwright became a classic of the form. It was adapted, produced and directed by Dore Schary, then in his brief writer-director phase
It's a very Dore Schary movie - intelligent, sensible, polite, self conscious. Look at the way Hart talks to other writers - "I'm the soul of graciousness". The polite way he talks to actors. The awkward comedy. This was effective in telling the story of Franklin Roosevelt recovering from polio, not so much in a tale of a young man trying to Make It Big in Theatre.
It should be a racy, affectionate valentine to old Broadway but it's made with a pole up its backside, as if it were directed by Hilary Clinton. The jokes are awkward - Hart has dream sequences about being famous; his friends bicker and banter. But there's no atmosphere. It's shot like a serious 50s American TV drama.
Hart/Hamilton does a reading of the play - where he reads all the parts. Eli Wallach's theatre producer talks like an essay on playwriting. There's so much serious talk about comedy. A joke were women are attracted to a young Cary Grant ("Archie Leech") is funny at first then repeated like three or four times without much change. There are montages of people writing. We are never clear why Once in a Lifetime didn't work or how they got to make it work.
George Hamilton tries - he's a polite, well mannered man, it's a conscientious performance - but he's simply miscast playing a young struggling Hart. Too handsome. Too unlike a writer. I think Hamilton would've been perfect for the late period Hart - a darling of the social scene, well dressed, sophisticated. But not a young man on the make. He's got no energy or chutzpah: James Woolcott suggested a young Richard Dreyfuss would've been ideal. I think George Segal, who plays Hart's jealous friend, would've been better.
The support cast for this is strong - Segal, Jason Robards as George S Kaufman (tousle haired and grumpy - he seems like a real writer whereas Hamilton never does), Eli Wallach, Jack Klugman as an investor who seems to be in love with Hart/Hamilton. So too does sensitive David Starr played by Sam Groom who I later found was based on a young Dore Schary.
It's a failure as a film really - it lacks energy, is too stately, doesn't capture the atmosphere of the theatre. But it is interesting, because so few films are made about these people. There's a party sequence with Alexander Woolcott, Fanny Brice, Dorothy Parker - I wish there'd been more stuff like that.
It's a very Dore Schary movie - intelligent, sensible, polite, self conscious. Look at the way Hart talks to other writers - "I'm the soul of graciousness". The polite way he talks to actors. The awkward comedy. This was effective in telling the story of Franklin Roosevelt recovering from polio, not so much in a tale of a young man trying to Make It Big in Theatre.
It should be a racy, affectionate valentine to old Broadway but it's made with a pole up its backside, as if it were directed by Hilary Clinton. The jokes are awkward - Hart has dream sequences about being famous; his friends bicker and banter. But there's no atmosphere. It's shot like a serious 50s American TV drama.
Hart/Hamilton does a reading of the play - where he reads all the parts. Eli Wallach's theatre producer talks like an essay on playwriting. There's so much serious talk about comedy. A joke were women are attracted to a young Cary Grant ("Archie Leech") is funny at first then repeated like three or four times without much change. There are montages of people writing. We are never clear why Once in a Lifetime didn't work or how they got to make it work.
George Hamilton tries - he's a polite, well mannered man, it's a conscientious performance - but he's simply miscast playing a young struggling Hart. Too handsome. Too unlike a writer. I think Hamilton would've been perfect for the late period Hart - a darling of the social scene, well dressed, sophisticated. But not a young man on the make. He's got no energy or chutzpah: James Woolcott suggested a young Richard Dreyfuss would've been ideal. I think George Segal, who plays Hart's jealous friend, would've been better.
The support cast for this is strong - Segal, Jason Robards as George S Kaufman (tousle haired and grumpy - he seems like a real writer whereas Hamilton never does), Eli Wallach, Jack Klugman as an investor who seems to be in love with Hart/Hamilton. So too does sensitive David Starr played by Sam Groom who I later found was based on a young Dore Schary.
It's a failure as a film really - it lacks energy, is too stately, doesn't capture the atmosphere of the theatre. But it is interesting, because so few films are made about these people. There's a party sequence with Alexander Woolcott, Fanny Brice, Dorothy Parker - I wish there'd been more stuff like that.
The odd career of Veronica Lake
I don't think anyone had better luck than Veronica Lake when starting out. Her first decent part was a choice, showy support role in a big hit, I Wanted Wings - a military romantic drama released just as America was gearing up for a war.
She followed this with great parts in five fantastic films:
* Sullivan's Travels - a classic Preston Sturges comedy;
* This Gun for Hire - an exciting thriller which teamed her with Alan Ladd;
* The Glass Key - another top thriller with Ladd;
* I Married a Witch - delightful Rene Clair comedy with Lake at her sexiest as a witch;
* So Proudly We Hail - gripping war story with a very flashy part for Lake as a Bataan nurse.
Lake made a notable contribution to all five films - being effective, her limitations protected.
Then the tide turned. She cut her hair, lost a baby, developed a bad reputation, and was in a series of duds:
* The Hour Before Dawn
* Bring on the Girls
* Hold That Blonde
* Out of This World
Things turned around a little with Miss Susie Slagle's, The Blue Dahlia and Ramrod. But then it was back to crap:
* Saigon
* The Sainted Sisters
* Isn't it Romantic?
Then she left Paramount, and could never recover her previous position.
What happened? Was it inevitable?
Well, Lake wasn't a very good actor - she had to be carefully used. She couldn't survive bad material (unlike, say, Alan Ladd).
You could say "Paramount shouldn't have put her in comedies" - but she'd had success in Sullivan's Travels and I Married a Witch.
Most of the films she appeared in during the second half of her Paramount career were simply ineptly made - they helped killed the careers of Eddie Bracken, Joan Caulfield and Diana Lynn as much as Lake.
It's a shame she wasn't teamed with Ladd more - she could've easily slipped into say OSS (as she did on radio) or Wild Harvest or Calcutta. (She may have refused these parts, to be fair - it's just a pity since Ladd was rarely as effective with another girl.)
There was also a curious reluctant to use her as an out and out vamp. Lake looked like a bad girl but rarely played one - there was always some excuse or redemption for her behaviour. Sometimes this made the film more interesting (eg The Blue Dahlia) but often it weakened the drama - several of her films would've been better had Lake played a flat out villain eg The Sainted Sisters. Also she would've seemed a natural for film noir as a femme fetale, but she didn't - noirs, yes, but as good girls.
Maybe it was simply karma. But it's as hard a slog to get through Lake's last films at Paramount as it is a pleasure to get through her first.
So anyway a Lake top ten
1) I Wanted Wings
2) This Gun for Hire
3) Sullivan's Travels
4) The Glass Key
5) I Married a Witch
6) So Proudly We Hail
7) The Blue Dahlia
8) Ramrod
9) Miss Susie Slagle's
10) Saigon (not very good but at least with Ladd)
She followed this with great parts in five fantastic films:
* Sullivan's Travels - a classic Preston Sturges comedy;
* This Gun for Hire - an exciting thriller which teamed her with Alan Ladd;
* The Glass Key - another top thriller with Ladd;
* I Married a Witch - delightful Rene Clair comedy with Lake at her sexiest as a witch;
* So Proudly We Hail - gripping war story with a very flashy part for Lake as a Bataan nurse.
Lake made a notable contribution to all five films - being effective, her limitations protected.
Then the tide turned. She cut her hair, lost a baby, developed a bad reputation, and was in a series of duds:
* The Hour Before Dawn
* Bring on the Girls
* Hold That Blonde
* Out of This World
Things turned around a little with Miss Susie Slagle's, The Blue Dahlia and Ramrod. But then it was back to crap:
* Saigon
* The Sainted Sisters
* Isn't it Romantic?
Then she left Paramount, and could never recover her previous position.
What happened? Was it inevitable?
Well, Lake wasn't a very good actor - she had to be carefully used. She couldn't survive bad material (unlike, say, Alan Ladd).
You could say "Paramount shouldn't have put her in comedies" - but she'd had success in Sullivan's Travels and I Married a Witch.
Most of the films she appeared in during the second half of her Paramount career were simply ineptly made - they helped killed the careers of Eddie Bracken, Joan Caulfield and Diana Lynn as much as Lake.
It's a shame she wasn't teamed with Ladd more - she could've easily slipped into say OSS (as she did on radio) or Wild Harvest or Calcutta. (She may have refused these parts, to be fair - it's just a pity since Ladd was rarely as effective with another girl.)
There was also a curious reluctant to use her as an out and out vamp. Lake looked like a bad girl but rarely played one - there was always some excuse or redemption for her behaviour. Sometimes this made the film more interesting (eg The Blue Dahlia) but often it weakened the drama - several of her films would've been better had Lake played a flat out villain eg The Sainted Sisters. Also she would've seemed a natural for film noir as a femme fetale, but she didn't - noirs, yes, but as good girls.
Maybe it was simply karma. But it's as hard a slog to get through Lake's last films at Paramount as it is a pleasure to get through her first.
So anyway a Lake top ten
1) I Wanted Wings
2) This Gun for Hire
3) Sullivan's Travels
4) The Glass Key
5) I Married a Witch
6) So Proudly We Hail
7) The Blue Dahlia
8) Ramrod
9) Miss Susie Slagle's
10) Saigon (not very good but at least with Ladd)
Movie review - "Isn't it Romantic?" (1948) **
To understand why this was made you need to remember that nostalgic family pieces in historical settings were all the rage in the 1940s - Meet Me in St Louis, Life with Father, I Remember Mama, etc.
This load of old codswallop is set in Indiana during Reconstruction, and focuses on three sisters - Veronica Lake, Mona Freeman and Mary Hatcher. Their idiotic father is obsessed with the Civil War (he runs around in a Confederate uniform) and won't get a job. I think he's meant to be loveable ol' dad but he just comes across as a lazy, racist separatist, uncharmingly played by Roland Culver. We're supposed to feel for him at the end when he realises he got swindled; I wanted him to shoot himself, like that Confederate officer in The Ox Bow Incident.
These sort of movies are hard to pull off - director Henry King was one who could, as was John Ford, but Norman McLeod fails. He's not helped by a B level cast. Lake seems uncomfortable; Freeman and Hatcher are B list. There's a few musical numbers - maybe with colour and more elaborate musical numbers it might have gone over.
Billy de Wolfe is tiresome as Lake's love interest; Patric Knowles un-charming as the guy who romances then swindles Lake. This film just annoyed me. There were cute period detail I suppose like going to see an early silent film.
This load of old codswallop is set in Indiana during Reconstruction, and focuses on three sisters - Veronica Lake, Mona Freeman and Mary Hatcher. Their idiotic father is obsessed with the Civil War (he runs around in a Confederate uniform) and won't get a job. I think he's meant to be loveable ol' dad but he just comes across as a lazy, racist separatist, uncharmingly played by Roland Culver. We're supposed to feel for him at the end when he realises he got swindled; I wanted him to shoot himself, like that Confederate officer in The Ox Bow Incident.
These sort of movies are hard to pull off - director Henry King was one who could, as was John Ford, but Norman McLeod fails. He's not helped by a B level cast. Lake seems uncomfortable; Freeman and Hatcher are B list. There's a few musical numbers - maybe with colour and more elaborate musical numbers it might have gone over.
Billy de Wolfe is tiresome as Lake's love interest; Patric Knowles un-charming as the guy who romances then swindles Lake. This film just annoyed me. There were cute period detail I suppose like going to see an early silent film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)