Every now and then a film comes along which is regarded as a critical and commercial failure, a misfire, that I love - where I totally get where the filmmaker is coming from, think they executed it well, genuinely like the movie, and am bewildered by the hate. One example is Shadows and Fog from Woody Allen; another one is this comedy from HandMade films and the team of Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais.
It's a look at latter day British colonialism - a tinpot island in the Caribbean that lacks beaches and/or industry whose inhabitants are mostly descended from shipwreck victims. Michael Caine is the dope-smoking, floral shirt-wearing governor who wants the best for his people - yes, absolutely, this is a "white saviour" movie, but Caine's charm makes the role very winning.
The plot concerns the discovery of deposits of mineral water on the island and subsequent fighting over it - there's the British government (led by Leonard Rossiter), French special forces (defending the interests of Perrier), American oil company who want to extract it (Dennis Dugan, Fred Gwynne), visiting movie star making an ad (Dick Shawn), the governor's wife (Brenda Vaccaro), environmentalist (Valerie Perrine), local revolutionaries (led by Billy Connolly), Cubans. There's cameos at the end from some Beatles and Eric Clapton.
All these subplots are juggled expertly and to me at least the satire seemed equal - it makes fun of islanders, British, French, Americans all the same... everyone's an idiot. Occasionally the humour is too broad and unfunny - the whole Brenda Vaccaro subplot probably could have been dispensed with - and it does feel very white orientated (the only genuine local we get to know well is Billy Connolly, who is half white... it's a shame say the Valerine Perrine role couldn't have been a black local... she could have moved away) but it is bright, clever, well structured, with a stand out cast.
Yet the film was a big flop. No one seems to think much of it critically. I honestly don't know why other than the taste of the filmmakers (and myself) was clearly out of step with everyone else.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Movie review - "The Rains of Ranchipur" (1955) ** (warning: spoilers)
The 1950s were a time of studios remaking their old hits in colour with Cinemascope - this one also benefits from real Indian locations but suffers by still having the main Indian character in brownface (Rchard Burton!), and changing the dramatic point.
I've never heard a good thing about this movie so my expectations were low and I found some pleasant surprises: Lana Turner is very well cast as the girl about town who finds true love with Burton; she's not a good actor but has been photographed well and is effective. Burton is good as the prince, despite the make up - he's got soul, sex appeal and charisma, which was what that part needs. Joan Caulfield works well as the young girl who falls for a dissolute man; I don't know much about Caulfield's career, but here he's fresh faced and winning.
That dissolute man is played by Fred MacMurray, who was a great villain but is uncomfortable as a drunk and a character in India and as someone dissolute. Some of his scenes are really amateurish such as when he tells off Turner for falling in love with Burton. George Brent was better in the original.
They also made a big mistake changing the story of Turner's character. In The Rains Came she went to nurse flood victims, devoted herself selflessly to the cause, got sick and died. Here she doesn't nurse and just leaves. It means she doesn't love Burton and he doesn't love her (because if it was true love they'd try to find a way).
Also she's not redeemed because she doesn't so any nursing - Burton says there's a lovely person inside but we don't see it. They also don't kill off her husband - played here by Michael Rennie. He delivers this sexist misogynist speech at the beginning slamming her then mostly disappears for the film and comes back at the end to go off with Turner.
So they departed from the original and suffered accordingly at the box office. A mistake. Still, not as bad as I'd heard.
Movie review - "Room in Rome" (2010) **
Two women spend the night together in a hotel room in Rome. They lie about their past, have sex, reveal the truth about themselves, have more sex, grow emotionally close, look up things on the internet, have some banter with a room service waiter, stare at painting, have some more sex, sit around naked a lot.
It's nicely shot - a very good room, with high ceilings. The leads are very attractive - Spanish Elena Anya, who has been in Almodavar films, and Russian (well Ukranian) Natasha Yarovenko - and the dialogue is mostly in English, albeit stiltingly performed.
I think the film aims for significance with the intercuts of paintings and dialogue and maps of old Rome. But it came across really as more a chance to show some hot lesbian sex.
It's nicely shot - a very good room, with high ceilings. The leads are very attractive - Spanish Elena Anya, who has been in Almodavar films, and Russian (well Ukranian) Natasha Yarovenko - and the dialogue is mostly in English, albeit stiltingly performed.
I think the film aims for significance with the intercuts of paintings and dialogue and maps of old Rome. But it came across really as more a chance to show some hot lesbian sex.
Movie review - "The Green Slime" (1968) **
Legendary in its own way because of its title - a Japanese movie made in co production with MGM which has ensured a healthy after life. It's has a strong cast - Robert Horton, Richard Jaekel and Luciana Paluzzi - plus a surprisingly robust story: a space crew goes up to an asteroid to stop it blowing up (years before Armageddon!), and brings back a slimy thing that wipes out people (years before Alien ... but well after The Thing).
There is solid special effects, and a decent love triangle to give things extra spice - Paluzzi is with Jaekel but used to be with Horton. The monster is laughable and while the film is okay with the military aspect it's not very good with spookiness and suspense. It's simply too silly.
There is solid special effects, and a decent love triangle to give things extra spice - Paluzzi is with Jaekel but used to be with Horton. The monster is laughable and while the film is okay with the military aspect it's not very good with spookiness and suspense. It's simply too silly.
Movie review - "Mad as Hell: The Peter Finch Story" (2011) ****
Very good documentary about the legendary Australian star, which benefits from some fantastic footage and talking heads. There's home movies of Finch by the beach with Peter Thompson (film critic from Sunday), photos of Oliver and Leigh watching the Mercury Theatre, interviews with Virginia McKenna, Vincent Ball, Glenda Jackson, his kids, his first wife (the ballet dancer), Trader Faulkner. There's more random people like Bill Hunter and Barry Norman (though his father, to be fair, directed Finch in a few films).
We see clips from his early films and radio shows, as well as his later British and Hollywood films. There's a lot to get through. The darker side of Finch's nature isn't really explored - he's a hell raiser, and womaniser but that's about the depth of it. I think they simply didn't have time.
But they get the essence of him: the erratic upbringing, the nomadic lifestyle, the talent that flowered in the relatively small patch that was Australian radio and theatre, the stage career that petered out (though it did include being Iago to Orson Welles), the film career that never quite reached the top rank though he managed to appear in a good film at just the right intervals (A Town Like Alice, The Nun's Story, The Pumkin Eater, Far from the Madding Crowd, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Network), the things that held back his talent, the personal charm. An exasperating charming man who left a strong legacy and is surprisingly little remembered in Australia today outside buff circles.
We see clips from his early films and radio shows, as well as his later British and Hollywood films. There's a lot to get through. The darker side of Finch's nature isn't really explored - he's a hell raiser, and womaniser but that's about the depth of it. I think they simply didn't have time.
But they get the essence of him: the erratic upbringing, the nomadic lifestyle, the talent that flowered in the relatively small patch that was Australian radio and theatre, the stage career that petered out (though it did include being Iago to Orson Welles), the film career that never quite reached the top rank though he managed to appear in a good film at just the right intervals (A Town Like Alice, The Nun's Story, The Pumkin Eater, Far from the Madding Crowd, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Network), the things that held back his talent, the personal charm. An exasperating charming man who left a strong legacy and is surprisingly little remembered in Australia today outside buff circles.
Movie review - "Unauthorised: The Harvey Weinstein Project" (2011) ***
Enjoyable documentary on one of the most important Hollywood moguls of the 1990s and 2000s. Nothing in it will surprise anyone who's read Down and Dirty Pictures (whose author, Peter Biskind, pops up here). He's a great talker, bully, yeller; he's very passionate, loves film, loves a fight. It doesn't mention anything about rape or sexual assault.
Talking heads include Peter Bart, George Hickenlooper, Martin Scorsese. Weinstein apparently tried to stop this film being made which was a waste of time - it's not very mean, it's kind of admiring. It does say he became a spent force from the mid 2000s onwards but warns people not to count him out. I'm surprised Kevin Smith didn't appear in it.
Plenty of footage from the films and interviews on red carpets; there's a clip from a film Weinstein directed.
Talking heads include Peter Bart, George Hickenlooper, Martin Scorsese. Weinstein apparently tried to stop this film being made which was a waste of time - it's not very mean, it's kind of admiring. It does say he became a spent force from the mid 2000s onwards but warns people not to count him out. I'm surprised Kevin Smith didn't appear in it.
Plenty of footage from the films and interviews on red carpets; there's a clip from a film Weinstein directed.
Movie review - "Proof of Life" (2000) ***
Lots of good things about this movie - the location shooting the performance of Russell Crowe in the lead, the interesting "world" of kidnapping and ransom (remember the good old days when Latin America, not the Middle East, was the kidnapping capital of the world?), David Caruso's lively support performance.
Meg Ryan kind of wrecks it. She throws the movie off balance, not just with her uninspiring performance but also her sheer star quality. She's a good actor but feels too light weight and all wrong for what is basically the Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca role. You didn't need Meg Ryan you just needed someone attractive, who lusted after Crowe nobly, while the focus was on Crowe trying to get huer husband back.
Meg Ryan's casting pulls focus - you're drawn to her, which is actually a mistake dramatically because the character is so passive. All she does is lie to a politician - the rest of the time she makes cups of tea and hangs around Crowe.
The film flounders in some other spots it should be strong - like the opening sequence of Russell kicking arse (intercut with him talking about it thus robbing the piece of suspense) and the sequence of Morse being kidnapped. I also hate it how they got Morse to be tough and yell at his kidnappers BECAUSE HE'S AN AMERICAN - why didn't they just play it truthfully, in that you'd suck up and be nice.
So a flawed film. But like all movies written by Tony Gilroy, worth watching. Russell Crowe is very well cast and has a great last scene.
Meg Ryan kind of wrecks it. She throws the movie off balance, not just with her uninspiring performance but also her sheer star quality. She's a good actor but feels too light weight and all wrong for what is basically the Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca role. You didn't need Meg Ryan you just needed someone attractive, who lusted after Crowe nobly, while the focus was on Crowe trying to get huer husband back.
Meg Ryan's casting pulls focus - you're drawn to her, which is actually a mistake dramatically because the character is so passive. All she does is lie to a politician - the rest of the time she makes cups of tea and hangs around Crowe.
The film flounders in some other spots it should be strong - like the opening sequence of Russell kicking arse (intercut with him talking about it thus robbing the piece of suspense) and the sequence of Morse being kidnapped. I also hate it how they got Morse to be tough and yell at his kidnappers BECAUSE HE'S AN AMERICAN - why didn't they just play it truthfully, in that you'd suck up and be nice.
So a flawed film. But like all movies written by Tony Gilroy, worth watching. Russell Crowe is very well cast and has a great last scene.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Movie review - "Gary Cooper: American Life, American Legend" (1989) **
Gary Cooper is one Hollywood legend who always irritates me. He was meant to be famed as this stoic silent type who was a great movie actor and star - but I always found he played these whiny whingy characters who liked to sulk and his "aw shucks" routine left me cold.
This documentary was made by Richard Shickel. I like Schickel as a critic but as a documentarian he seems more interested in talking about his subject's persona and image instead of telling the story of his life. There is a trot through the main milestones. Clint Eastwood does a decent job as presenter. There's clips from the famous movies: High Noon, Wings, Mr Deeds, etc.
The best thing about it is some impressive archival footage including home movies of Cooper at Sun Valley hanging out with Hemingway. There's also vision of him at the HUAC hearings; the little turd used his aw shucks routine while giving evidence. What a loser. (Clint/Schickel get around this by saying Cooper was a "fair minded conservative embarrassed by the company he kept.")
This documentary was made by Richard Shickel. I like Schickel as a critic but as a documentarian he seems more interested in talking about his subject's persona and image instead of telling the story of his life. There is a trot through the main milestones. Clint Eastwood does a decent job as presenter. There's clips from the famous movies: High Noon, Wings, Mr Deeds, etc.
The best thing about it is some impressive archival footage including home movies of Cooper at Sun Valley hanging out with Hemingway. There's also vision of him at the HUAC hearings; the little turd used his aw shucks routine while giving evidence. What a loser. (Clint/Schickel get around this by saying Cooper was a "fair minded conservative embarrassed by the company he kept.")
Movie review - "Blackbeard the Pirate" (1952) **
A swashbuckler from RKO during the Howard Hughes years. It's got Robert Newton in the title role off the back of his success in Treasure Island and basically repeating the performance. It is a fun turn, as he "harrs" and "shiver me timbers" and practically spits his words out, but he has complete commitment.
Blackbeard is a decent role - he's no dummy, and is quite smart, outwitting the hero, Keith Andes (playing Maynard a real person), but unable to beat all the other people who want to knock him off.
There's a good cast in this - William Bendix as a treacherous first mate, Linda Darnell is a pirate's daughter who is about to marry Sir Henry Morgan, Torin Thatcher as Morgan, Richard Egan as Andes' sidekick.
The film is full of good ideas and interesting characters but doesn't exploit them - Andes goes undercover for Morgan, but we don't meet Morgan until the end of the film; we're told, but don't see, that Morgan has something over Andes; Darnell is a pirate's daughter who all the pirates want to marry, apparently, but we never meet dad and never really see any scenes of Newtown or any other main pirates wanting to monster Darnell; Darnell and Andes' romance is really undercooked; Andes' assistant Richard Egan kind of vanishes from the film; Andes disappears from the film for the last third; there's no final battle between Newton and Andes.
There's plenty of incidents and action - something is always happening, whether its breaking into rooms, or opening treasure chests. But it's confusing and emotionally uninvolving.
Blackbeard is a decent role - he's no dummy, and is quite smart, outwitting the hero, Keith Andes (playing Maynard a real person), but unable to beat all the other people who want to knock him off.
There's a good cast in this - William Bendix as a treacherous first mate, Linda Darnell is a pirate's daughter who is about to marry Sir Henry Morgan, Torin Thatcher as Morgan, Richard Egan as Andes' sidekick.
The film is full of good ideas and interesting characters but doesn't exploit them - Andes goes undercover for Morgan, but we don't meet Morgan until the end of the film; we're told, but don't see, that Morgan has something over Andes; Darnell is a pirate's daughter who all the pirates want to marry, apparently, but we never meet dad and never really see any scenes of Newtown or any other main pirates wanting to monster Darnell; Darnell and Andes' romance is really undercooked; Andes' assistant Richard Egan kind of vanishes from the film; Andes disappears from the film for the last third; there's no final battle between Newton and Andes.
There's plenty of incidents and action - something is always happening, whether its breaking into rooms, or opening treasure chests. But it's confusing and emotionally uninvolving.
Book review - "Making Headlines" by Chris Mitchell (2016)
Exasperating, thought provoking, compulsively readable. I found myself wanting to throw my book (well, phone - I read it on kindle) across the room but I kept reading. Mitchell has a massive ego and is a surprisingly mediocre writer (in terms of craft... in his defence he probably didn't practice that much during all those years as editor) and has the prejudices one expects in a survivor of News Limited, but makes so many decent points: he's over snippy about the ABC but Fairfax has become a toilet and doesn't know his market. Some of his claims as to the greatness of The Australian are laughable (particularly about impartiality) but at least it tries to be a good paper and has broken some stories.
I actually wouldn't have minded more show biz and sport especially considering News Limited's influence in those areas as well. For instance there's barely a mention of Super League war. There's fascinating insights into the Murdochs - Rupert's comfort with graziers near Yass, Lachlan's pro-gun crim-hating, James' progressiveness - and also politicians: Abbott and Rudd in particular.
Come to think of it Mitchell's memoir is a lot like The Australian - smart, thought provoking, bigoted, deluded. You wish he/it wasn't so biased/lunatic it could be a genuinely great.
I actually wouldn't have minded more show biz and sport especially considering News Limited's influence in those areas as well. For instance there's barely a mention of Super League war. There's fascinating insights into the Murdochs - Rupert's comfort with graziers near Yass, Lachlan's pro-gun crim-hating, James' progressiveness - and also politicians: Abbott and Rudd in particular.
Come to think of it Mitchell's memoir is a lot like The Australian - smart, thought provoking, bigoted, deluded. You wish he/it wasn't so biased/lunatic it could be a genuinely great.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Movie review - "Listen to Me" (1989) *1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Look, I'll give points for Douglas Day Stewart trying to make a different sort of teen film and there's no reason you couldn't make an interesting movie about debating - I'm not saying it would be easy, debates are hypothetical arguments, so it would be tricky to establish dramatic stakes (eg not like a trial), but it could be done.
I didn't buy it here though. It feels as though Stewart did a story about college football, crossed out references to "football" and replaced them with "debating". There's two poor kids determined to make the team (Kirk Cameron, Jami Gertz), the star quarterback who doesn't want to be there (Tim Quill), various other team members (comic relief fatty from Head of the Class, crippled girl), a driven coach who will do anything to win (Roy Schneider), college dean who puts pressure on Schneider to play his star even though the star doesn't want to do it. There's a big game finale (debate in front of the Supreme Court) against the team that's impossible to beat (Harvard); the end of second act low point (Quill dies), the recovery and triumph via a tricky move from one of the plucky kids (Gertz revealing how she was raped!).
I struggled with the set up. Debating is that important to a college? Maybe if it was a really small college that had nothing else going for it... ? Or it had an oppressive tradition like say the college in The Paper Chase? Or if these kids dreamt of nothing about debating? Or Roy Schneider was washed up instead of being a coaching star?
The thing about debating is it's never an end in itself, even to these kids - they do it because they're thinking of being politicians. It's not like say football - you dream of playing football, that's it. These kids actually don't dream of debating, not really - it's a stepping stone.Maybe it could have worked if say one of them had a stutter and this was the one thing they were good at, or everyone thought they were dumb, or they were black, or something... I don't know.
Then there's the abortion stuff. I'll be upfront - I'm pro choice so I'm always going to struggle for a film where the heroes have to argue the pro life position. And yes Schneider makes a point of saying "you've got to argue it even if you don't believe it" but the film does stack the deck in favour of the pro lifers - Kirk Cameron's character (dirt poor from Oklahoma) genuinely believes what he's arguing, and Jami Gertz uses her character's real life rape and abortion at 14 to argue that it's such a big issue that women shouldn't have to decide alone, men should be part of it... and a female justice comes to side with her (she says she supports Roe vs Wade still but likes their presentation). The Harvard side are allowed to state their position quite succinctly and well - which is fair but actually makes the movie more twisted in a way because I kept thinking "go Harvard".
There are other weird things/flaws. Kirk Cameron meets Tim Quill's character entering a room while Quill is having sex with a girl - she's about to climax, Cameron offers to leave, but Quill goes "no lets finish later I want to meet my new roommate". And he hops off and orders out the girl so he can chat to Cameron.
There's a quite lovely subplot about a crippled girl debater Amanda Peterson who is pursued by another debater, Chris Atkins (yep Mr Blue Lagoon) and she's insecure about it... I mean that sort of thing is teen drama gold (pretty crippled girl, handsome guy who loves her No Matter What) and I kept waiting for something to kick in, like he's doing it for a bet, or she dumps him because she's insecure, or she gets him because she does well in the final debate... but none of them have anything to do with the final debate except clap and cheer. They get together and that's it. They could've been cut out of the whole film. Why not have her in the final match?
Tim Quill's character is a star debater who wants to be a writer. He wants to quit the team and college so he can focus on his writing? Could there be something a little harder for him to juggle?
Let's take a walk on the sunny side for a bit: the film is handsomely shot. The acting isn't bad - Cameron always had an engaging presence, and I like Gertz. Quill is a little grating (he faded from view) but Schneider is a pro and Peterson is sweet. Odd faces pop up like Peter De Luise, Moon Zappa and Yeardly Smith. There's certainly no other film like it in history - a late 80s teen drama for aspiring red state senators.
I didn't buy it here though. It feels as though Stewart did a story about college football, crossed out references to "football" and replaced them with "debating". There's two poor kids determined to make the team (Kirk Cameron, Jami Gertz), the star quarterback who doesn't want to be there (Tim Quill), various other team members (comic relief fatty from Head of the Class, crippled girl), a driven coach who will do anything to win (Roy Schneider), college dean who puts pressure on Schneider to play his star even though the star doesn't want to do it. There's a big game finale (debate in front of the Supreme Court) against the team that's impossible to beat (Harvard); the end of second act low point (Quill dies), the recovery and triumph via a tricky move from one of the plucky kids (Gertz revealing how she was raped!).
I struggled with the set up. Debating is that important to a college? Maybe if it was a really small college that had nothing else going for it... ? Or it had an oppressive tradition like say the college in The Paper Chase? Or if these kids dreamt of nothing about debating? Or Roy Schneider was washed up instead of being a coaching star?
The thing about debating is it's never an end in itself, even to these kids - they do it because they're thinking of being politicians. It's not like say football - you dream of playing football, that's it. These kids actually don't dream of debating, not really - it's a stepping stone.Maybe it could have worked if say one of them had a stutter and this was the one thing they were good at, or everyone thought they were dumb, or they were black, or something... I don't know.
Then there's the abortion stuff. I'll be upfront - I'm pro choice so I'm always going to struggle for a film where the heroes have to argue the pro life position. And yes Schneider makes a point of saying "you've got to argue it even if you don't believe it" but the film does stack the deck in favour of the pro lifers - Kirk Cameron's character (dirt poor from Oklahoma) genuinely believes what he's arguing, and Jami Gertz uses her character's real life rape and abortion at 14 to argue that it's such a big issue that women shouldn't have to decide alone, men should be part of it... and a female justice comes to side with her (she says she supports Roe vs Wade still but likes their presentation). The Harvard side are allowed to state their position quite succinctly and well - which is fair but actually makes the movie more twisted in a way because I kept thinking "go Harvard".
There are other weird things/flaws. Kirk Cameron meets Tim Quill's character entering a room while Quill is having sex with a girl - she's about to climax, Cameron offers to leave, but Quill goes "no lets finish later I want to meet my new roommate". And he hops off and orders out the girl so he can chat to Cameron.
There's a quite lovely subplot about a crippled girl debater Amanda Peterson who is pursued by another debater, Chris Atkins (yep Mr Blue Lagoon) and she's insecure about it... I mean that sort of thing is teen drama gold (pretty crippled girl, handsome guy who loves her No Matter What) and I kept waiting for something to kick in, like he's doing it for a bet, or she dumps him because she's insecure, or she gets him because she does well in the final debate... but none of them have anything to do with the final debate except clap and cheer. They get together and that's it. They could've been cut out of the whole film. Why not have her in the final match?
Tim Quill's character is a star debater who wants to be a writer. He wants to quit the team and college so he can focus on his writing? Could there be something a little harder for him to juggle?
Let's take a walk on the sunny side for a bit: the film is handsomely shot. The acting isn't bad - Cameron always had an engaging presence, and I like Gertz. Quill is a little grating (he faded from view) but Schneider is a pro and Peterson is sweet. Odd faces pop up like Peter De Luise, Moon Zappa and Yeardly Smith. There's certainly no other film like it in history - a late 80s teen drama for aspiring red state senators.
Book review - "Casablanca: Inside the Script" (2012)
I don't know if I have a favourite film but Casablanca would be up there - it's crisp direction, editing, black and white photography, studio backlot, peerless cast, gripping story with themes of sacrifice and redemption and downright cleverness.
This is a worthy tribute taking the reader through the initial play, Everyone Comes to Ricks - which had a lot more influence on the final product than is normally acknowledged. The meat of the drama is all in that original script. Mind you clearly outstanding work was done by the Epsteins, Howard Koch, Hal Wallis etc... the book still doesn't entirely clear up who contributed what (probably impossible). Interesting memos and so on.
This is a worthy tribute taking the reader through the initial play, Everyone Comes to Ricks - which had a lot more influence on the final product than is normally acknowledged. The meat of the drama is all in that original script. Mind you clearly outstanding work was done by the Epsteins, Howard Koch, Hal Wallis etc... the book still doesn't entirely clear up who contributed what (probably impossible). Interesting memos and so on.
Movie review - "Athena" (1954) *
Esther Williams whinged in her memoirs that she developed this film and then wasn't cast in it because Dore Schary have her role to Jane Powell. Williams was a whinger but in this case I feel she's right - the concept is very "out there" but would've made a lot more sense in terms of a Williams vehicle, i.e. a story made to justify swimming routines. With more "normal" stars like Powell it doesn't make sense. Well, it does, but it's dumb.
It's a kind of knock off of You Can't Take it With You with uptight lawyer Edmund Purdom getting caught up with a family of health nut bags - pert little Jane Powell, sister Debbie Reynolds, some other sisters, old grandad (Louis Calhern) and body builders (who include Steve Reeves).
I think it's meant to be a satire on the health movement - non smoking, body building, vegetarianism. It doesn't work because it's unfocused - I think the healthy people are meant to be the goodies, or at least admirable, and some of them are, but a body builder who doesn't like Purdom seems to be a villain. The fish out of water comedy doesn't work because Purdom is so uptight - he seems to be someone who would be a non smoking vegetarian (it's not like say Red Skelton or Ma and Pa Kettle dropped in - then you'd get decent conflict). Hanging around these healthy people doesn't make him laugh or less uptight really.
The romance between Purdom and Powell isn't much - she falls in love with him and wants to marry him because their "numbers match" which isn't very romantic. He falls in love with her straight away because... I guess she does look good in short shorts. So does Debbie Reynolds.
But there's no central source of conflict like say the family live on land that is required by someone evil, or the family own a lot of back taxes (like The Mating Season with Reynolds). Purdom's fiancee is set up as this threat (Linda Christian) but when Purdom dumps her all she does is be a bit mean to Powell in the buffet line. I wasn't sure what the point was of the romance between Powell's sister Debbie Reynolds and Vic Damone, Purdom's friend - there's no conflict there, or colour. Purdom wants to run for congress, then doesn't - and that's it. At the end Purdom does some judo on a rival suitor of Powell's - and that's it.
It's a really bad script. No laughs, no point, a bad story. Powell is pretty, bland and can sing. Reynolds is always engaging. Damone can sing but it's a bit bland on screen - mind you he doesn't have a character to play. Purdom can't sing or act - he lumbers around handsomely, totally unsuited to being a star. Louis Calhern's granpa is creepy.
There are some alright tunes but this is plain up a dud film. Joe Pasternak knew what he was doing, normally. How did he make this?
It's a kind of knock off of You Can't Take it With You with uptight lawyer Edmund Purdom getting caught up with a family of health nut bags - pert little Jane Powell, sister Debbie Reynolds, some other sisters, old grandad (Louis Calhern) and body builders (who include Steve Reeves).
I think it's meant to be a satire on the health movement - non smoking, body building, vegetarianism. It doesn't work because it's unfocused - I think the healthy people are meant to be the goodies, or at least admirable, and some of them are, but a body builder who doesn't like Purdom seems to be a villain. The fish out of water comedy doesn't work because Purdom is so uptight - he seems to be someone who would be a non smoking vegetarian (it's not like say Red Skelton or Ma and Pa Kettle dropped in - then you'd get decent conflict). Hanging around these healthy people doesn't make him laugh or less uptight really.
The romance between Purdom and Powell isn't much - she falls in love with him and wants to marry him because their "numbers match" which isn't very romantic. He falls in love with her straight away because... I guess she does look good in short shorts. So does Debbie Reynolds.
But there's no central source of conflict like say the family live on land that is required by someone evil, or the family own a lot of back taxes (like The Mating Season with Reynolds). Purdom's fiancee is set up as this threat (Linda Christian) but when Purdom dumps her all she does is be a bit mean to Powell in the buffet line. I wasn't sure what the point was of the romance between Powell's sister Debbie Reynolds and Vic Damone, Purdom's friend - there's no conflict there, or colour. Purdom wants to run for congress, then doesn't - and that's it. At the end Purdom does some judo on a rival suitor of Powell's - and that's it.
It's a really bad script. No laughs, no point, a bad story. Powell is pretty, bland and can sing. Reynolds is always engaging. Damone can sing but it's a bit bland on screen - mind you he doesn't have a character to play. Purdom can't sing or act - he lumbers around handsomely, totally unsuited to being a star. Louis Calhern's granpa is creepy.
There are some alright tunes but this is plain up a dud film. Joe Pasternak knew what he was doing, normally. How did he make this?
Book review - "Behind the Door: The True Story of Loretta Young" by Edward Funk (2015)
Loretta Young was one of those stars easy to mock - pretty, conscious of being a star, famously devout Catholic (she would refuse to do certain scenes/play certain roles, had a swear jar on set), hosted her own TV show where she entered a door every week with a new gown, always having crushes on co stars, participants in one of the juiciest scandals in Hollywood (having Clark Gable's love child), featuring in so many decorative roles.
But you don't have careers as long as successful as hers for no reason, and she had plenty of positives: ferocious work ethic, great dignity, street smarts (she knew about camera angles, lighting, dresses, etc). She could act as she occasionally got the chance to show. Fellow stars like Robert Mitchum would mock her gently but also had great respect for her.
Young was a child star - mum was a stage mum (most female stars of this era seem to have one), and Loretta and her two sisters went into the biz. Loretta became the biggest star of the three - she was very pretty, took direction well, and found consistent work. Most of her parts were decorative but she occasionally got a meaty role like in Platinum Blonde and she enlivened several pre-Code movies like Man's Castle.
Her career stepped up a notch when she went over to 20th Century Fox - who did use her as a clothes horse to look at the leading man a lot but also gave her some good chances: Ramona, The Story of Alexander Graham Bell. Her career kept going when she left Fox in the 40s and stepped up towards the end of the war when she was given some meaty roles and became a real box office draw: The Stranger, Rachel and the Stranger, The Farmer's Daughter (which won her an Oscar - Dore Schary was a big fan of Loretta ).
The tide started to go out in the 1950s but Loretta stayed ahead of the curve moving into TV where she enjoyed great success, and also creative fulfilment, playing all sorts of roles on her show. She had a dodgy second husband who fleeced her for a lot of cash (all these stars seem to have dodgy husbands) but she held on to enough to have a comfortable life. One of her sons became a pop star in the Moby Grape! (Like Jerry Lewis' son.)
She spent retirement doing a lot of charity work and socialising and lived to a ripe old age. She admitted herself she was never a great actor like Bette Davis, or even a top rank star, but she had a pretty good career with impressive credits.
She was a participant in one of the most famous Hollywood scandals: having Clark Gable's love child. This book reveals that Gable actually date raped her - something which I didn't want to believe but was all too easy to believe considering the time. Young had crushes on most of her male co stars - she's constantly falling in "love" with Spencer Tracy, with Jeff Chandler, with all of them - but not actually doing anything about it. She was a true "actress", who enjoyed the romance of infatuation with her costars - and Gable took it to another level. It would have been hard for Young to prove and/or do anything about - she had the baby and adopted it herself.
In many respects Young was an exasperating ninny - hopeless about men (she let her second husband get away with a lot of money), overly interested in clothes, didn't push herself as an artist - which made this book frustrating for me. But there was much to admire as well. Funk knew Young and at one stage this was going to be a memoir, so there's plenty of terrific material, mostly from her. If you're even only vaguely interested in Young you should read this.
But you don't have careers as long as successful as hers for no reason, and she had plenty of positives: ferocious work ethic, great dignity, street smarts (she knew about camera angles, lighting, dresses, etc). She could act as she occasionally got the chance to show. Fellow stars like Robert Mitchum would mock her gently but also had great respect for her.
Young was a child star - mum was a stage mum (most female stars of this era seem to have one), and Loretta and her two sisters went into the biz. Loretta became the biggest star of the three - she was very pretty, took direction well, and found consistent work. Most of her parts were decorative but she occasionally got a meaty role like in Platinum Blonde and she enlivened several pre-Code movies like Man's Castle.
Her career stepped up a notch when she went over to 20th Century Fox - who did use her as a clothes horse to look at the leading man a lot but also gave her some good chances: Ramona, The Story of Alexander Graham Bell. Her career kept going when she left Fox in the 40s and stepped up towards the end of the war when she was given some meaty roles and became a real box office draw: The Stranger, Rachel and the Stranger, The Farmer's Daughter (which won her an Oscar - Dore Schary was a big fan of Loretta ).
The tide started to go out in the 1950s but Loretta stayed ahead of the curve moving into TV where she enjoyed great success, and also creative fulfilment, playing all sorts of roles on her show. She had a dodgy second husband who fleeced her for a lot of cash (all these stars seem to have dodgy husbands) but she held on to enough to have a comfortable life. One of her sons became a pop star in the Moby Grape! (Like Jerry Lewis' son.)
She spent retirement doing a lot of charity work and socialising and lived to a ripe old age. She admitted herself she was never a great actor like Bette Davis, or even a top rank star, but she had a pretty good career with impressive credits.
She was a participant in one of the most famous Hollywood scandals: having Clark Gable's love child. This book reveals that Gable actually date raped her - something which I didn't want to believe but was all too easy to believe considering the time. Young had crushes on most of her male co stars - she's constantly falling in "love" with Spencer Tracy, with Jeff Chandler, with all of them - but not actually doing anything about it. She was a true "actress", who enjoyed the romance of infatuation with her costars - and Gable took it to another level. It would have been hard for Young to prove and/or do anything about - she had the baby and adopted it herself.
In many respects Young was an exasperating ninny - hopeless about men (she let her second husband get away with a lot of money), overly interested in clothes, didn't push herself as an artist - which made this book frustrating for me. But there was much to admire as well. Funk knew Young and at one stage this was going to be a memoir, so there's plenty of terrific material, mostly from her. If you're even only vaguely interested in Young you should read this.
Movie review - "Christine" (1958) ** (warning: spoilers)
The Sissi movies made Romy Schneider a star in Europe so the French industry came a calling with this version of Leibelei. That was by Arthur Schnitzler so it's set in that never-never Vienna of 1906 where young army officers have nothing better to do than have affairs. Alain Delon is seeing married Michele Presle but then falls for pretty young aspiring opera singer Schneider. He kicks Presle to the curb but it's too late - Presle's husband has found out and challenges Delon to a duel. Delon gets killed and Schneider kills herself which is full on - but actually gives this piece of froth some kic.
Schneider is pretty and sweet, perfectly cast. Delon is pretty in a ken doll way. There's a strong support cast and the photography and production design are nice - it's like a Ross Hunter movie. Not bad.
Schneider is pretty and sweet, perfectly cast. Delon is pretty in a ken doll way. There's a strong support cast and the photography and production design are nice - it's like a Ross Hunter movie. Not bad.
Book review - "The Life and Times of Mickey Rooney" by Richard Lertzman and William Birnes
Rooney was a fascinating star - someone who was born in a trunk, acting from the age of 2, a headliner at 3, a film star at six (in a series of short films), then washed up at 11, rediscovered by MGM and Max Reinhardt (who put him in Puck in Midsummer Night's Dream), became a star again at MGM particularly as Andy Hardy but also in a series of musicals with Judy Garland. By the end of the 1930s he was the biggest star in the US.
Rooney found the perfect studio in MGM - Louis B Mayer loved Americana and musicals, and Rooney thrived in both genres. He also did well in schmaltzy dramas such as Boys Town and The Human Comedy. Rooney earned a lot of money but spent it just as fast, on loans and gambling and other bad habits. He womanised like there was no tomorrow but fell for Ava Gardner before she was famous. His popularity began to ebb as he got older and he missed two crucial years of his career serving in the army.
Nonetheless he was still a draw when he came back - some of his post war films were popular such as Love Laughs at Andy Hardy and (surprisingly) Killer McCoy, where he played a boxer. Summer Holiday and Words and Music lost money however and Rooney and MGM parted ways - a stupid decision on Rooney's part because he missed out on the studio pension. He also ventured into independent filmmaking for which he was temperamentally unsuited and was soon washed up as a major star. Does anyone remember Quicksand, The Fireball, He's a Cockeyed Wonder, My Outlaw Brother, The Strip, Sound Off, Off Limits, All Ashore, A Slight Case of Larceny, Drive a Crooked Road, The Atomic Kid?
But he was still Rooney, still very talented, with a phenomenal work ethic. He did TV, radio, Las Vegas, made a reputation as a character actor (The Bridges at Tokyo Ri, Requiem for a Heavyweight). He was never out of work. A good thing too for his private life was a mess - constantly getting married and divorce, always burning through money, associating with gangsters (he played Vegas a lot and was always in hock to dodgy people) - a lot of people he knew wound up murdered, such as business managers and one wife.
Things turned around in the 1970s - Rooney had a run of genuine good film roles (The Black Stallion, Bill) and a stage smash with Sugar Babies. This earned him a fortune - which he proceeded to blow. His last years were a depressing mixture of lawsuits and allegations of dementia and elder abuse - one was never sure what Rooney was genuinely suffering and what he was making up.
This isn't a fun book - for all his talent Rooney seems to have been a pretty appalling person, constantly making stupid decisions and pronouncements, grasping for cash, turning on those who loved him, generally being insufferable. It's very sordid with it's gangsters, gambling, murder, abuse, dashed hopes and dreams. Rooney never learns his lesson and keeps making the same mistakes so he's a frustrating person to follow.
The book felt well researched though maybe over reliant on secondary sources. It "goes there" - there's descriptions of Rooney's lovemaking with Gardner including about her nipples. I wish they'd referred to primary sources more such as studio documentation. But generally this is a good book.
As an aside - I've sometimes wondered whether Rooney's status as a star could've been maintained after World War Two. If he'd stayed at MGM longer and they'd looked after him. It was a challenging time for Hollywood and Dore Schary was never going to be an exec who liked stars like Rooney but MGM did still make musicals and comedies. The last proper Andy Hardy film made a comfortable profit - I think it was a big mistake to end the series; there were plenty of stories to be had with Andy going through college, becoming a young lawyer and getting married. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a challenge but I think it could've been done. Anyway, we'll never know...
Rooney found the perfect studio in MGM - Louis B Mayer loved Americana and musicals, and Rooney thrived in both genres. He also did well in schmaltzy dramas such as Boys Town and The Human Comedy. Rooney earned a lot of money but spent it just as fast, on loans and gambling and other bad habits. He womanised like there was no tomorrow but fell for Ava Gardner before she was famous. His popularity began to ebb as he got older and he missed two crucial years of his career serving in the army.
Nonetheless he was still a draw when he came back - some of his post war films were popular such as Love Laughs at Andy Hardy and (surprisingly) Killer McCoy, where he played a boxer. Summer Holiday and Words and Music lost money however and Rooney and MGM parted ways - a stupid decision on Rooney's part because he missed out on the studio pension. He also ventured into independent filmmaking for which he was temperamentally unsuited and was soon washed up as a major star. Does anyone remember Quicksand, The Fireball, He's a Cockeyed Wonder, My Outlaw Brother, The Strip, Sound Off, Off Limits, All Ashore, A Slight Case of Larceny, Drive a Crooked Road, The Atomic Kid?
But he was still Rooney, still very talented, with a phenomenal work ethic. He did TV, radio, Las Vegas, made a reputation as a character actor (The Bridges at Tokyo Ri, Requiem for a Heavyweight). He was never out of work. A good thing too for his private life was a mess - constantly getting married and divorce, always burning through money, associating with gangsters (he played Vegas a lot and was always in hock to dodgy people) - a lot of people he knew wound up murdered, such as business managers and one wife.
Things turned around in the 1970s - Rooney had a run of genuine good film roles (The Black Stallion, Bill) and a stage smash with Sugar Babies. This earned him a fortune - which he proceeded to blow. His last years were a depressing mixture of lawsuits and allegations of dementia and elder abuse - one was never sure what Rooney was genuinely suffering and what he was making up.
This isn't a fun book - for all his talent Rooney seems to have been a pretty appalling person, constantly making stupid decisions and pronouncements, grasping for cash, turning on those who loved him, generally being insufferable. It's very sordid with it's gangsters, gambling, murder, abuse, dashed hopes and dreams. Rooney never learns his lesson and keeps making the same mistakes so he's a frustrating person to follow.
The book felt well researched though maybe over reliant on secondary sources. It "goes there" - there's descriptions of Rooney's lovemaking with Gardner including about her nipples. I wish they'd referred to primary sources more such as studio documentation. But generally this is a good book.
As an aside - I've sometimes wondered whether Rooney's status as a star could've been maintained after World War Two. If he'd stayed at MGM longer and they'd looked after him. It was a challenging time for Hollywood and Dore Schary was never going to be an exec who liked stars like Rooney but MGM did still make musicals and comedies. The last proper Andy Hardy film made a comfortable profit - I think it was a big mistake to end the series; there were plenty of stories to be had with Andy going through college, becoming a young lawyer and getting married. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a challenge but I think it could've been done. Anyway, we'll never know...
Friday, October 21, 2016
Movie review - "Nowhere to Run" (1993) **
Made during Jean Claude Van Damme's great period of stardom (okay maybe you shouldn't call it "great" but at his peak) - this one isn't as well remembered as others today. Partly, I think, because the concept is so generic and bland: he's an escaped con who winds up at the farm of a widowed mother of two (Rosanna Arquette) who is fighting off evil property developers (led by Joss Ackland). Property developers were getting tired in the 1980s on TV; in 90s action cinema they were comatose.
The relationship between Van Damme and Rosanna Arquette is quite strong; Arquette is a skilled actor, really helping lift those scenes. Everyone knows Van Damme's limitations, but he is sensitive and has a good look. Arquette does a surprising amount of nude scenes - a sex scene too where she's topless and Jean Claude has his hands on her boobs and he's nuzzling away. Was she forced to do this? Was she into it? I kind of felt sorry for her.
The relationship between Van Damme and the kids felt a little undercooked, though Kieran Culkin isn't bad as the boy. Ted Levine is a strong villain sidekick. Ackland is good too - it's just the nature of his villainy is so tired. The character of the cop in love with Arquette looks as though he's about to do something interesting but never does. There's a few decent action scenes - probably not enough.
It's an odd film. A bit of action, a bit of drama, some Western homage. They probably would've been better off making it more of a Van Damme film.
Joe Eszterhas co wrote it. I'd love to know how the project developed and changed. It's not a dog. Just average.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Movie review - "The Big Country" (1958) *** (warning: spoilers)
A good, solid Western story is perhaps given over-reverential treatment. This seemed to happen sometime with epic Westerns - I'm thinking of Duel in the Sun and The Outlaw - they were given all this weight.
Gregory Peck is ideally cast as the former sailor who goes out west to marry sexy little minx Carroll Baker, only to discover that Baker's dad Charles Bickford is engaged in a feud with rival owner Burl Ives; Bickford's overseer Charlton Heston loves Baker and thus hates Peck; Burl Ives' son Chuck Connors doesn't really want to be involved in the feud; Baker's friend Jean Simmons falls for Peck.
Those are juicy roles - characters with clearly defined, contrasting objectives, and for the most part this is strong drama. It's got a decent theme - Peck doesn't want to get dragged into a pointless feud, and Baker thinks she's cowardly.
The ending doesn't quite work, full of contrived moments (Ives shooting Connors, Bickford and Ives shooting each other with duelling pistols). It also has unsatisfactory moments: we never find out what happened to Baker, the romance between Peck and Simmons is undercooked.
Strong performances from Bickford and Ives; Heston makes an effective villain. I like Baker - her throaty voice and blonde looks gives intensity to the part. Jean Simmons is a winsome "whatever"; some writers like William Goldman adore Simmons but honestly I could take her or leave her. Much of the action is filmed in long shot. The photography and music are stirring.
Gregory Peck is ideally cast as the former sailor who goes out west to marry sexy little minx Carroll Baker, only to discover that Baker's dad Charles Bickford is engaged in a feud with rival owner Burl Ives; Bickford's overseer Charlton Heston loves Baker and thus hates Peck; Burl Ives' son Chuck Connors doesn't really want to be involved in the feud; Baker's friend Jean Simmons falls for Peck.
Those are juicy roles - characters with clearly defined, contrasting objectives, and for the most part this is strong drama. It's got a decent theme - Peck doesn't want to get dragged into a pointless feud, and Baker thinks she's cowardly.
The ending doesn't quite work, full of contrived moments (Ives shooting Connors, Bickford and Ives shooting each other with duelling pistols). It also has unsatisfactory moments: we never find out what happened to Baker, the romance between Peck and Simmons is undercooked.
Strong performances from Bickford and Ives; Heston makes an effective villain. I like Baker - her throaty voice and blonde looks gives intensity to the part. Jean Simmons is a winsome "whatever"; some writers like William Goldman adore Simmons but honestly I could take her or leave her. Much of the action is filmed in long shot. The photography and music are stirring.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Movie review - "The Glass Slipper" (1955) ***
MGM had a big hit with Leslie Caron in Lili so the same team (star, writer, producer, director) got together for a version of Cinderella. There's bright colour and some top character actors and a healthy budget. The sets and tone felt right, there are enjoyable ballets. I liked the production values and some of the support cast - like Elsa Lanchester and Estelle Windwood.
Michael Wilding isn't very good as Prince Charming - I don't care if he was married to the much younger Liz Taylor at the time he seems too old, and not really dashing. He's uncomfortable dancing too. The film felt as though it lacked a villain - the wicked step mother and sisters are hardly in it.
I'd count it as a half success. Charles Walter was a good director and Leslie Caron is ideal as Cinderella. I get the feeling if this was one of those films more widely seen on TV it would have a big legion of girls who love it.
Michael Wilding isn't very good as Prince Charming - I don't care if he was married to the much younger Liz Taylor at the time he seems too old, and not really dashing. He's uncomfortable dancing too. The film felt as though it lacked a villain - the wicked step mother and sisters are hardly in it.
I'd count it as a half success. Charles Walter was a good director and Leslie Caron is ideal as Cinderella. I get the feeling if this was one of those films more widely seen on TV it would have a big legion of girls who love it.
Monday, October 10, 2016
Movie review - "Hit the Deck" (1955) **
MGM star power at it's most second rate: for men you've got Russ Tambyn, Tony Martin and Vic Damone, for women you've got Jane Powell, Ann Miller and okay yes Debbie Reynolds, the one genuine A rank star. They throw in Walter Pidgeon and Gene Raymond and a story that feels ripped off On the Town - three sailors having adventures on shore leave.
Russ Tamblyn falls for dancer Debbie Reynolds and worries about his sister Jane Powell, who is pursued by lecherous actor Gene Raymond (their dad is admiral Walter Pidgeon); Tony Martin pursues old flame Ann Miller.
No one is really up to their roles - the camraderie between the three friends feels forced. Martin and Damone can sing well. Martin is a bit too old. Tamblyn is okay - he's such a good dancer with an interesting look I want to like him more than I do but he's not a very good actor.
There's an uncomfortable plot where the sailors rescue Powell from being seduced by Raymond - she wants to sleep with him, so they beat him up and Damone literally drags her away; then when she tries to run away she grabs him, a cop comes along and he kisses her. He holds onto her arm and won't let a go - it's rapey.
The rest of it is derivative - Miller nags Martin about the fact he never married her; Damone and Powell fall in love; Tamblyn and Reynolds fall in love (I'm not sure what their conflict it); the sailors are pursued by some unfunny shore patrol.
There are some excellent dance numbers - Miller does a top tap dance at the end. Reynolds and Powell both get song a dance numbers. The just-singing bits are less impressive. Roy Rowland wasn't much of a director. This is one of Joe Pasternak's weaker musicals - the cast feels weak, the book is weak, the characters aren't delineated, it harks back to earlier better films (like many "commercial" entertainments in Schary's MGM.) It does have professional gloss - dancers, production values, photography, etc.
Russ Tamblyn falls for dancer Debbie Reynolds and worries about his sister Jane Powell, who is pursued by lecherous actor Gene Raymond (their dad is admiral Walter Pidgeon); Tony Martin pursues old flame Ann Miller.
No one is really up to their roles - the camraderie between the three friends feels forced. Martin and Damone can sing well. Martin is a bit too old. Tamblyn is okay - he's such a good dancer with an interesting look I want to like him more than I do but he's not a very good actor.
There's an uncomfortable plot where the sailors rescue Powell from being seduced by Raymond - she wants to sleep with him, so they beat him up and Damone literally drags her away; then when she tries to run away she grabs him, a cop comes along and he kisses her. He holds onto her arm and won't let a go - it's rapey.
The rest of it is derivative - Miller nags Martin about the fact he never married her; Damone and Powell fall in love; Tamblyn and Reynolds fall in love (I'm not sure what their conflict it); the sailors are pursued by some unfunny shore patrol.
There are some excellent dance numbers - Miller does a top tap dance at the end. Reynolds and Powell both get song a dance numbers. The just-singing bits are less impressive. Roy Rowland wasn't much of a director. This is one of Joe Pasternak's weaker musicals - the cast feels weak, the book is weak, the characters aren't delineated, it harks back to earlier better films (like many "commercial" entertainments in Schary's MGM.) It does have professional gloss - dancers, production values, photography, etc.
Tuesday, October 04, 2016
Movie review - "The Wind and the Lion" (1975) ***1/2
John Milius the director never matched Milius the writer - he lacked with the camera the vision he had with the pen, the sense of grandeur and flamboyance - but he surrounded himself with a good team on this one and the result is one of his best films.
It kind of sends up old fashioned adventure tales in a way reminiscent of George MacDonald Fraser's historical fiction and screenplays of the 1970s - a loving embrace of the form but also a satirical twist, playing up the less pleasing aspects. (Like Fraser Milius' work was full of this satirical edge in the 70s but it ebbed with time and both men wound up taking themselves way too seriously as they got older.)
The Teddy Roosevelt era even now is not often depicted by filmmakers - I'm not sure why, I think they are uncomfortable with Roosevelt's naked imperialism and jingoism. Not Milius, who loves not just Roosevelt but also the soldiers (all the diplomats and soldiers are as gung ho as anyone) and the Raisuli.
This means the film has tremendous freshness. It's helped immeasurably by the locations (Spain), photography, costumes and Jerry Goldsmith score. Sean Connery is also entirely apt as the Raisuli - sure he's Scottish, but he's got the perfect combination of charisma, skill, sensitivity, toughness and ability to speak Milius' dialogue.
I understand the need for a third act but I didn't quite buy Steve Kanaly's American officer doing such an about face. The female lead is a pretty crap character compared to the two male leads - she's pretty and spirited and that's it (Bergen doesn't bring much else to the part apart from that). I didn't but her about face either (the film doesn't go the full romance, more respect). They toy with the kids going all High Wind in Jamaica but don't go there. The story is a bit wonky - there's an escape and recapture sequence which seems put in there mostly for Connery to gallop along a beach with a sword.
There's plenty of great sequences (everything involving Brian Keith as Roosevelt) - the tone is just right. I enjoyed this a lot.
It kind of sends up old fashioned adventure tales in a way reminiscent of George MacDonald Fraser's historical fiction and screenplays of the 1970s - a loving embrace of the form but also a satirical twist, playing up the less pleasing aspects. (Like Fraser Milius' work was full of this satirical edge in the 70s but it ebbed with time and both men wound up taking themselves way too seriously as they got older.)
The Teddy Roosevelt era even now is not often depicted by filmmakers - I'm not sure why, I think they are uncomfortable with Roosevelt's naked imperialism and jingoism. Not Milius, who loves not just Roosevelt but also the soldiers (all the diplomats and soldiers are as gung ho as anyone) and the Raisuli.
This means the film has tremendous freshness. It's helped immeasurably by the locations (Spain), photography, costumes and Jerry Goldsmith score. Sean Connery is also entirely apt as the Raisuli - sure he's Scottish, but he's got the perfect combination of charisma, skill, sensitivity, toughness and ability to speak Milius' dialogue.
I understand the need for a third act but I didn't quite buy Steve Kanaly's American officer doing such an about face. The female lead is a pretty crap character compared to the two male leads - she's pretty and spirited and that's it (Bergen doesn't bring much else to the part apart from that). I didn't but her about face either (the film doesn't go the full romance, more respect). They toy with the kids going all High Wind in Jamaica but don't go there. The story is a bit wonky - there's an escape and recapture sequence which seems put in there mostly for Connery to gallop along a beach with a sword.
There's plenty of great sequences (everything involving Brian Keith as Roosevelt) - the tone is just right. I enjoyed this a lot.
Sunday, October 02, 2016
Peter Finch Top Ten
1) Network (1976) - easy choice
2) Dad and Dave Go to Town (1938) - he's only in a few scenes but so funny
3) The Nun's Story (1959) - Finch is superb as a Congo doctor
4) The Trials of Oscar Wilde (1960)
5) The Shiralee (1957)
6) A Town Like Alice (1956)
7) No Love for Johnnie (1961)
8) Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971)
9) Train of Events (1949) - first British performance, terrific
10) Elephant Walk (1954) - steals film
Top Ten Woody Allen
In no particular order
1) Annie Hall (1977) - masterpiece, still brilliant even now
2) Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) - better than any Chekhov
3) Manhattan (1979) - major influence on TV relationship drama from 90s onwards
4) Blue Jasmine (2013) - sure, a rip off of Streetcar Named Desire but extremely well done
5) Shadows and Fog (1991) - I'm the only person I know who loves this film - it's magical
6) Play it Again Sam (1971) - not considered one of his best but I've always considered it one of his best written works
7) Another Woman (1988) - an unfashionable choice I know but I really like this
8) Crimes and Misdemeanors (1993) - Allen keeps ripping off this film and you can't blame him
9) Manhattan Murder Mystery (1992) - for sheer fun, one of his best
10) Husbands and Wives (1992) - powerful drama, incredibly good film
1) Annie Hall (1977) - masterpiece, still brilliant even now
2) Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) - better than any Chekhov
3) Manhattan (1979) - major influence on TV relationship drama from 90s onwards
4) Blue Jasmine (2013) - sure, a rip off of Streetcar Named Desire but extremely well done
5) Shadows and Fog (1991) - I'm the only person I know who loves this film - it's magical
6) Play it Again Sam (1971) - not considered one of his best but I've always considered it one of his best written works
7) Another Woman (1988) - an unfashionable choice I know but I really like this
8) Crimes and Misdemeanors (1993) - Allen keeps ripping off this film and you can't blame him
9) Manhattan Murder Mystery (1992) - for sheer fun, one of his best
10) Husbands and Wives (1992) - powerful drama, incredibly good film
Saturday, October 01, 2016
Movie review - "You Will Meet a Talk Dark Stranger" (2010) ***
I totally enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would. I think I went in with low expectations because it took three years to be released in Australia - but it was a completely watchable film. Maybe I would've been annoyed had I seen it in the cinema but on TV it plays fine.
Woody Allen movie these days offer pleasures I never thought they would - attractive settings, all star casts lovingly photographed, plenty of stories. You don't normally think of Allen as a great story teller, mostly because he re-uses so many of the same characters and situations, but there's plenty of plot, each scene pushes the action forward, the characters are relatable, the all star cast means it's easy to follow what's going on.
Anthony Hopkins dumps Gemma Jones to chase Lucy Punch who wants Theo James while Jones winds up with Roger Ashton-Griffiths; their child Naomi Watts is married to Josh Brolin who wants Freida Pinto who is engaged to Neil Jackson, while Watts wants Antonio Banderas who is married and has a fling with Anna Friel. Everyone is pretty much unrequited except Jones to takes the blue pill Matrix style, buying into reincarnation and being happy as a result.
The Allen tropes are on display yet again: older man with younger woman (I genuinely feel he's biologically incapable of writing a film featuring this); frustrated artist; person breaking into someone's house; prostitute; class class relationship; affairs and the middle classes; sexual obsession. It's nice to see a non white family in the form of Pinto and her parents. Some of the dialogue is clunky.
You kind of feel Allen mostly made it so he made a film that year but it's attractive and well acted and I did enjoy it.
Woody Allen movie these days offer pleasures I never thought they would - attractive settings, all star casts lovingly photographed, plenty of stories. You don't normally think of Allen as a great story teller, mostly because he re-uses so many of the same characters and situations, but there's plenty of plot, each scene pushes the action forward, the characters are relatable, the all star cast means it's easy to follow what's going on.
Anthony Hopkins dumps Gemma Jones to chase Lucy Punch who wants Theo James while Jones winds up with Roger Ashton-Griffiths; their child Naomi Watts is married to Josh Brolin who wants Freida Pinto who is engaged to Neil Jackson, while Watts wants Antonio Banderas who is married and has a fling with Anna Friel. Everyone is pretty much unrequited except Jones to takes the blue pill Matrix style, buying into reincarnation and being happy as a result.
The Allen tropes are on display yet again: older man with younger woman (I genuinely feel he's biologically incapable of writing a film featuring this); frustrated artist; person breaking into someone's house; prostitute; class class relationship; affairs and the middle classes; sexual obsession. It's nice to see a non white family in the form of Pinto and her parents. Some of the dialogue is clunky.
You kind of feel Allen mostly made it so he made a film that year but it's attractive and well acted and I did enjoy it.
Movie review - "Love is My Profession" (1958) ** (aka " En Cas de Malheur")
A combination of two of the biggest stars in French cinema - Mr Establishment Jean Gabin and the hot new thing Brigitte Bardot (Gabin was never afraid to team up with the young bucks and does... he made films with Delon and Belmondo early in their careers). The story is perfect for both - he's a lawyer defending her for robbery and he becomes infatuated.
It's based on a Georges Simenon novel which means it's got a solid story - or would seem to. Adding to the complications are Gabin's wife (Edwige Feuillere) and Bardot's ex (Franci Iterlenghi). But, as pointed out by the New York Times review of this, while it's got all the elements, the elements don't gel.
Bardot is a crook, Gabin is her lawyer, Gabin falls for Bardot, Bardot has a boyfriend, Gabin has a wife... there should be a solid feature in that. But the development is disappointing - it's really the boyfriend gets jealous and kills Bardot, but that happens at the very end. It feels nasty, typical misogynistic codswallop - the girl being punished. The film lacks another act or two - a reveal that Feuillere did the crime, or Iterlenghi coming after Gabin say, or Feuilliere and Iterlenghi being in cahoots. Other characters keep popping and threatening to do something interesting - Gabin's maid, Bardot's friend, Bardot's accomplice - but they don't.
The film was famous for a scene where Bardot seduces Gabin by lying against a desk, hiking up her skirt to him... showing the audience her backside and Gabin presumably what was on the other side. This was cut in the version I saw. It would've spiced things up.
Still, Bardot is very sexy and quite effective - perfectly cast. Gabin also works in his French Spencer Tracy routine, looking French and tormented and solid. Feuillier is wasted. The photography and production values are first rate.
It's based on a Georges Simenon novel which means it's got a solid story - or would seem to. Adding to the complications are Gabin's wife (Edwige Feuillere) and Bardot's ex (Franci Iterlenghi). But, as pointed out by the New York Times review of this, while it's got all the elements, the elements don't gel.
Bardot is a crook, Gabin is her lawyer, Gabin falls for Bardot, Bardot has a boyfriend, Gabin has a wife... there should be a solid feature in that. But the development is disappointing - it's really the boyfriend gets jealous and kills Bardot, but that happens at the very end. It feels nasty, typical misogynistic codswallop - the girl being punished. The film lacks another act or two - a reveal that Feuillere did the crime, or Iterlenghi coming after Gabin say, or Feuilliere and Iterlenghi being in cahoots. Other characters keep popping and threatening to do something interesting - Gabin's maid, Bardot's friend, Bardot's accomplice - but they don't.
The film was famous for a scene where Bardot seduces Gabin by lying against a desk, hiking up her skirt to him... showing the audience her backside and Gabin presumably what was on the other side. This was cut in the version I saw. It would've spiced things up.
Still, Bardot is very sexy and quite effective - perfectly cast. Gabin also works in his French Spencer Tracy routine, looking French and tormented and solid. Feuillier is wasted. The photography and production values are first rate.
Movie review - "Two Women" (1960) **** (warning: spoilers)
Powerful affecting drama which earned Sophia Loren an Oscar, and deservedly so, because she's captivating - imperious, gorgeous, tormented, warm, funny, harrowed, loving. It's a fantastic part (at its heart this film is a good old fashioned star vehicle).
The story is simple: Loren and her daughter get sick of being bombed in 1943 Rome so they head home. Loren has a sort of romance with an intellectual (Jean Paul Belmondo). The Allies come. She and her daughter are raped by Moroccan soldiers. The boyfriend is killed.
It's very effective, understated on the most part.I kept thinking of the Russian movie Burnt by the Sun - like that this is a rural piece with the violence more alluded to in bursts (the opening bombing, a plane strafes them along the road killing a man, running into pro Mussolini guerillas) building to the shock finale where Loren and her daughter are raped.
Belmondo is effective cast against type. Eleonara Brown is pretty good as the girl. Raf Vallone's part feels tacked on (he's a guy Loren sleeps with at the beginning), although I guess he has uses exposition wise. But it's Loren's film.
The story is simple: Loren and her daughter get sick of being bombed in 1943 Rome so they head home. Loren has a sort of romance with an intellectual (Jean Paul Belmondo). The Allies come. She and her daughter are raped by Moroccan soldiers. The boyfriend is killed.
It's very effective, understated on the most part.I kept thinking of the Russian movie Burnt by the Sun - like that this is a rural piece with the violence more alluded to in bursts (the opening bombing, a plane strafes them along the road killing a man, running into pro Mussolini guerillas) building to the shock finale where Loren and her daughter are raped.
Belmondo is effective cast against type. Eleonara Brown is pretty good as the girl. Raf Vallone's part feels tacked on (he's a guy Loren sleeps with at the beginning), although I guess he has uses exposition wise. But it's Loren's film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)