I sometimes feel that Larry Cohen the director doesn't always give the best treatment to Larry Cohen the writer. His script tells a good story and is full of imaginative touches and issues. I don't think as director he gets all the juice out of it.
Maybe I'm being unfair but with this third It's Alive movie (I haven't seen number two yet) I felt he put in horror and suspense because he felt he had to in order to get it made but he was more interested in comedic/social issues and seeing how way out Michael Moriarty could get in his performance. The creature attacks feel perfunctory - almost semi comic. The script deals with life and death situations and some big emotive issues (fear of children, broken marriages, being killed) but the treatment is almost flippant. It's closer to The Stuff in that way - more social commentary and Michael Moriarty than actual horror/drama/suspense.
Moriarty plays a father of one of the mutated babies who argues that his child should live. It gets shunted off to an island where all mutants then years later Moriarty takes part in an expedition to see how the creatures are faring.
It loved the idea of an island full of mutants and wish there had been more of it - a sort of Escape from New York situation. What do the scientists do? What is the ecology like? What do tourists do? How do the babies interact? But after act two on the island, act three involves Moriarty on a boat and going back to the mainland where the baby tries to track down its mother (Karen Black). This was less interesting, although there's some good emotion when Moriarty and Black reconnect with their child... and it's child.
Moriarty is given free range and his admirers will love this movie - his character is an actor and dad, unable to get work, full of shame, prone to acting crazy. Cohen gets points for making the films in the series so different from each other.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Book review - "A Letter of Introduction: The Life and Films of James Stephenson" by David a. Redfern (2013)
James Stephenson was a slim British gentleman best known for one performance - and it's a fantastic one, the lawyer in The Letter. But really that was it. He may have added to the tally but he died shortly after The Letter, of a heart attack, aged 53. Still, he inspired enough devotion from David Redfern to write a very thorough biography on him.
Stephenson was born into a reasonably prosperous middle class family in northern England. Fir the first part of his life he was a good boy and did the right thing - appropriate school, war service in World War One, working as a bank clerk and a merchant (including a stint in China). He got the acting bug relatively late in life and starting performing in amateur theatricals. He had looks, height, presence and a beautiful speaking voice and eventually decided to take the plunge and go professional. There was work to be had in rep and also British quota quickies. Stephenson didn't appear in the more memorable British films of the time but he did come under the eye of Irving Asher who ran Warner Bros' London operation and spotted Errol Flynn and Patric Knowles... he thought Stephenson had possibilities for Hollywood and so Warners paid him to come over.
Stephenson was screen tested by Warners who elected to keep him and put him in lots of small roles - there were plenty of parts for authoritative British actors during the late 30s at Warners. He pops up in movies like Boys Meets Girl and Nancy Drew. His parts grew better in the B movie division like King of the Underworld and Devil's Island and he had bits in As such as The Sea Hawk and The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex. Warners eventually gave him a lead in Calling Philo Vance and he eventually was cast in The Letter. This earned him an Oscar nomination; if it didn't propel Stephenson to stardom, Warners were impressed - he had good roles in Shining Victory and International Squadron.
How big a star would James Stephenson have become? This is all hypothetical of course but I think, not very - he lacked great individuality, he was too old by the time he "made it". However I think he would have had a long, impressive career - the sort of actor who would have benefited from the decline of the Hollywood studios and the rise of quality in Britain; I can see him hopping back and forth across the Atlantic, doing lots of Broadway and TV in between films, maybe getting a TV show, playing a lot of leading men to aging female stars and generals and dads, never being a great star but never being out of work. Alas, it was not to be.
Redfern's biography is exhaustive and would have to be definitive - he had access to family papers and really fleshes out Stephenson's history. It feels almost a shame to report that Stephenson didn't have that interesting a life - he was a decent guy, seemed to live well; the most outlandish thing he did was to go into acting. He was a gentleman - no outrageous sex life, or bad habits. Which leaves his work and the movies he made on the whole weren't that awesome.
Still I did enjoy the book. Stephenson was lucky to have a biographer as devoted as Redfern.
Stephenson was born into a reasonably prosperous middle class family in northern England. Fir the first part of his life he was a good boy and did the right thing - appropriate school, war service in World War One, working as a bank clerk and a merchant (including a stint in China). He got the acting bug relatively late in life and starting performing in amateur theatricals. He had looks, height, presence and a beautiful speaking voice and eventually decided to take the plunge and go professional. There was work to be had in rep and also British quota quickies. Stephenson didn't appear in the more memorable British films of the time but he did come under the eye of Irving Asher who ran Warner Bros' London operation and spotted Errol Flynn and Patric Knowles... he thought Stephenson had possibilities for Hollywood and so Warners paid him to come over.
Stephenson was screen tested by Warners who elected to keep him and put him in lots of small roles - there were plenty of parts for authoritative British actors during the late 30s at Warners. He pops up in movies like Boys Meets Girl and Nancy Drew. His parts grew better in the B movie division like King of the Underworld and Devil's Island and he had bits in As such as The Sea Hawk and The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex. Warners eventually gave him a lead in Calling Philo Vance and he eventually was cast in The Letter. This earned him an Oscar nomination; if it didn't propel Stephenson to stardom, Warners were impressed - he had good roles in Shining Victory and International Squadron.
How big a star would James Stephenson have become? This is all hypothetical of course but I think, not very - he lacked great individuality, he was too old by the time he "made it". However I think he would have had a long, impressive career - the sort of actor who would have benefited from the decline of the Hollywood studios and the rise of quality in Britain; I can see him hopping back and forth across the Atlantic, doing lots of Broadway and TV in between films, maybe getting a TV show, playing a lot of leading men to aging female stars and generals and dads, never being a great star but never being out of work. Alas, it was not to be.
Redfern's biography is exhaustive and would have to be definitive - he had access to family papers and really fleshes out Stephenson's history. It feels almost a shame to report that Stephenson didn't have that interesting a life - he was a decent guy, seemed to live well; the most outlandish thing he did was to go into acting. He was a gentleman - no outrageous sex life, or bad habits. Which leaves his work and the movies he made on the whole weren't that awesome.
Still I did enjoy the book. Stephenson was lucky to have a biographer as devoted as Redfern.
Script review – “The Ultimatum” by Laurence Dworet and Bob Pool (1990)
-->
I was keen to read this because of an interview
I read with Dworet in a book by William Froug. Dworet was an interesting guy –
a doctor who wanted to be a screenwriter and sounded smart as hell and had sold
“The Ultimatum” for a high amount. However a look at IMDB reveals he’s only
really gotten one credit – Outbreak. It’s a shame this wasn’t made – it’s an
exciting thriller about Arab terrorists who threaten to set off a nuclear bomb
in an unknown American city. It has extra resonance with everything that’s
happened with Al Quaeda. The hero is stock “overworked efficient guy” who
neglects the women in his life (surprise). Too much time is spent on a subplot
involving his reporter girlfriend who suspects something is going on, and
attempts of the White House to keep things secret. There are also too many press
conferences and scenes of people watching the news. Many elements are familiar with the old British thriller Seven Days to Noon.
Movie review - "The Ambulance" (1990) ***
Larry Cohen often talks about his love for
old movies of classic Hollywood and their influence on his work is frequently
apparent. This one is heavily inspired by Hitchcock, in particular The Lady
Vanishes. Eric Roberts is a comic book artist who is hot for a young Janine
Turner. She collapses and is spirited off in an ambulance but when he tries
tracking her down no one has any record of her admission. Then when they do
start believing about her existence, they start to think he’s responsible –
also Hitchcockian.
It’s all quite cleverly worked out and it
very watchable – I intended only to see ten minutes or so of this before going
to bed but ended up seeing the whole thing in one hit. A strong cast helps –
James Earl Jones is the detective on the case (his death provides a strong
second act twist), Janine Turner is very pretty, Megan Gallagher extremely
likeable as a cop who also gets involved. Cohen could write some very good
support parts and Gallagher’s has all these extra dimensions – she should’ve
been a bigger film name. Stan Lee plays himself and Eric Bauer from The Young
and the Restless pops up as a baddy.
Eric Roberts is okay in the lead, with his
late 80s mullet. At least he’s a star – I just wish his character wasn’t such a
sexual harasser of Turner in the early part of the film. I also felt the film
would’ve worked better if the character had been more anti social and shyer –
that asking Turner out was a bigger deal. That would’ve suited someone who was
a comic book artist and is someone that the cops would’ve found even more
likely to be a killer. But maybe Cohen felt that wouldn’t work for a good
looker like Roberts. Still there is always something a bit off putting about
Roberts that makes him seem better suited to villainy. Cohen wanted to cast
John Travolta but wasn’t allowed to – he would’ve been better.
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Movie review - "The Stuff" (1985) ***
Lively Larry Cohen horror-satire which has a strong central idea - a yoghurt/ice cream-style dessert becomes a national craze, and destroys the people who eat it. Cohen plays this for comedy and satire more than horror - there's some groovy effects and exploding heads but a lack of genuine tension and spookiness, which is a shame because I think you could've had both but anyway...
It is a very Larry Cohen movie. You've got Michael Moriarty in the lead as an industrial saboteur (a different type of hero but I loved the fresh take on the investigator), playing up with a Southern accent and doing bits of business. Paul Sorvino steals the film in the third act as a rich militaristic colonel with his own private army who helps Moriarty - I love the bit where his troops all need to take cabs.
Andrea Marcovicci is a lively heroine, and Garrett Morris is fun as a cookie tycoon. Scott Bloom isn't much as the kid who gets involved - kind of like the kid in Salem's Lot. All sorts of interesting people pop up in the cast like Danny Aiello.
It's an uneven movie - bits feel cut out of it (eg Mortiarty and Marcovicci's romance), scenes don't quite build the way they should, I found myself constantly going "hang on, what about X?". But it's a very likeable movie which has something to say.
It is a very Larry Cohen movie. You've got Michael Moriarty in the lead as an industrial saboteur (a different type of hero but I loved the fresh take on the investigator), playing up with a Southern accent and doing bits of business. Paul Sorvino steals the film in the third act as a rich militaristic colonel with his own private army who helps Moriarty - I love the bit where his troops all need to take cabs.
Andrea Marcovicci is a lively heroine, and Garrett Morris is fun as a cookie tycoon. Scott Bloom isn't much as the kid who gets involved - kind of like the kid in Salem's Lot. All sorts of interesting people pop up in the cast like Danny Aiello.
It's an uneven movie - bits feel cut out of it (eg Mortiarty and Marcovicci's romance), scenes don't quite build the way they should, I found myself constantly going "hang on, what about X?". But it's a very likeable movie which has something to say.
Movie review - "God Told Me To" (1976) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Larry Cohen likes to say this movie influenced The X Files - I'm inclined to think that show came more from All the President's Men and The Parallax View. But he could argue it influenced Law and Order. It's very New York police procedural, with Tony Lo Bianco as a detective investigating why a sniper went beserk from a tower. He says it's because "God To Me To" which is a reason used by various other killers - including one man who, in a very effective sequence, describes how he killed his wife and children.
I was really looking forward to seeing this and did enjoy it but it didn't quite work for me. Maybe because I knew what the reveal was... Maybe this is a better film "discovered" than anticipated.
Maybe also because I found Tony Lo Bianco was a little cold. I would've preferred Robert Forster, who started off in the role but left the film a few days into shooting.
Also I think story wise a problem for me was so much of the film is spent tracking down the mystery that a lot of the time it felt like a TV show, with Lo Bianco interviewing people. The stuff about him being the spawn of an alien is amazing... I guess I wanted to see that play out more (the relationship to Richard Lynch, etc) instead of it all being wrapped up.
Still, it's a bold, unconventional movie and Cohen uses New York wonderfully.
I was really looking forward to seeing this and did enjoy it but it didn't quite work for me. Maybe because I knew what the reveal was... Maybe this is a better film "discovered" than anticipated.
Maybe also because I found Tony Lo Bianco was a little cold. I would've preferred Robert Forster, who started off in the role but left the film a few days into shooting.
Also I think story wise a problem for me was so much of the film is spent tracking down the mystery that a lot of the time it felt like a TV show, with Lo Bianco interviewing people. The stuff about him being the spawn of an alien is amazing... I guess I wanted to see that play out more (the relationship to Richard Lynch, etc) instead of it all being wrapped up.
Still, it's a bold, unconventional movie and Cohen uses New York wonderfully.
Movie review - "Les Biches" (1968) *** (warning: spoilers)
I don't know that much about the career of Claude Chabrol - he's called the French Hitchcock, is one of the French New Wave, etc. This film apparently brought him back to critical favour after a few duds. I'd heard of the film - interestingly, it didn't do well at the box office in France, but it did travel... in part one assumes because it has some good looking lesbians.
Rich Stephane Audran picks up street artist Jacquelie Sassard and they have a fling. Then Sassard gets hot for Jean Louis Triginant... who is seduced by Audran. Audran falls for Triginant which Sassard jealous. I thought the French were more comfortable dealing with a menage a trois - I'm sure the dude would be up for shacking up with both - but apparently not.
It's all stylishly shot with attractive stars, particularly the two women. They are very good looking and well dressed.
It's not that erotic. It's got some erotic bits - it's a shame there isn't more. Normally in this sort of film the murder happens around half way through - here it doesn't take place until the end.
Some audiences may be annoyed by the fact the lesbian is a killer and also a man converts a lesbian to heterosexuality. There is also a gay male couple in it as comic relief. The film is quite 90s/00s in that regard. It's enjoyable.
Rich Stephane Audran picks up street artist Jacquelie Sassard and they have a fling. Then Sassard gets hot for Jean Louis Triginant... who is seduced by Audran. Audran falls for Triginant which Sassard jealous. I thought the French were more comfortable dealing with a menage a trois - I'm sure the dude would be up for shacking up with both - but apparently not.
It's all stylishly shot with attractive stars, particularly the two women. They are very good looking and well dressed.
It's not that erotic. It's got some erotic bits - it's a shame there isn't more. Normally in this sort of film the murder happens around half way through - here it doesn't take place until the end.
Some audiences may be annoyed by the fact the lesbian is a killer and also a man converts a lesbian to heterosexuality. There is also a gay male couple in it as comic relief. The film is quite 90s/00s in that regard. It's enjoyable.
Movie review - "The Dressmaker" (2015) *** (warning: spoilers)
I resisted seeing this for a while - the poster turned me off - but enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I wasn't wild about the OTT Jane Campion-eseque direction, complete with broad rural caricatures and wacky acting. I never really enjoy that tone. But it's a strong story, which cleverly subverts Western tropes - the gunslinger is a dressmaker, coming back into her old small town to get revenge and solve the mystery.
There's mysterious corrupt officials and shonky townspeople. It's a great star role for Kate Winslet but also Liam Hemsworth who is a good leading man (not sure he's a star but he's a perfect leading man handsome, virile).
The support cast is full of names - Sarah Snook, Barry Otto, Hugo Weaving, Shane Jacobsen, Gyton Grantley. The photography is beautiful and the dresses well done.
I felt once the mystery was solved the film lost a lot of momentum. The death of Hemsworth was a real shock but the film never really got it's "roll" back. Still, a satisfying ending.
There's mysterious corrupt officials and shonky townspeople. It's a great star role for Kate Winslet but also Liam Hemsworth who is a good leading man (not sure he's a star but he's a perfect leading man handsome, virile).
The support cast is full of names - Sarah Snook, Barry Otto, Hugo Weaving, Shane Jacobsen, Gyton Grantley. The photography is beautiful and the dresses well done.
I felt once the mystery was solved the film lost a lot of momentum. The death of Hemsworth was a real shock but the film never really got it's "roll" back. Still, a satisfying ending.
Monday, December 19, 2016
Movie review - "One Day Since Yesterday: Peter Bogdanovich & the Lost American Film" (2014) ****
Peter Bogdanovich is one of those directors I feel I know personally, mostly because, in addition to seeing his films, I've read so many things he's written - his pieces on directors and actors, especially Orson Welles, are really good. So I'm the perfect target market for this documentary, which explores his life and work, focusing on the making of They All Laughed.
I actually found this a better and more moving film than They All Laughed which I've never loved that much. Bogdanovich is a fantastic protagonist - actor and film enthusiast turned writer about film and then filmmaker; who had such a hot streak from Targets to Paper Moon (all entirely different films); so famous he appeared in the trailers for his movies (as Quentin Tarantino points out, he even sidelines Barbra Streisand in the What's Up Doc? trailer); a high-publicised romance with Cybill Shepherd; guest hosting The Tonight Show. Then the downfall - a series of flops, breaking up with Shepherd - before restoring critical favour with Saint Jack and finding love with Dorothy Stratten and enjoying a wonderful creative experience on They All Laughed.
Then the true nightmare begins - Stratten is killed, Bogdanovich tries to distribute the film himself and goes broke, has a comeback with Mask but stuffs it by being difficult over Bruce Springsteen's music. He recovers to marry Dorothy's sister and makes some decent films but never regains his old heights. (The film omits his second bankruptcy in the late 90s). However he remains revered as a filmmaker, his reputation continues to be strong and the film ends with him making a movie with decent stars, She's Funny That Way.
I was familiar with a lot of the material but there's a great collection of talking heads: Tarantino's take on his films is genuinely fresh; Noah Bambach and Wes Anderson are true fans; Bogdanovich's daughters talk about their dad and his life with love but some wariness; several of his exes appear, including Cybil Shepherd and Colleen Camp. We get to meet some critics such as Molly Haskell, Andrew Sarris and Todd McCarthy. There's also Ben Gazzara who sounds like he's had a stroke.
Bogdanovich leant his papers which mean we see his old annotated scripts and, movingly, a card Stratten wrote for him. Bogdanovich was a bit of a goose but is a very talented filmmaker and it's a shame his post 1985 credits aren't stronger. Excellent doco.
I actually found this a better and more moving film than They All Laughed which I've never loved that much. Bogdanovich is a fantastic protagonist - actor and film enthusiast turned writer about film and then filmmaker; who had such a hot streak from Targets to Paper Moon (all entirely different films); so famous he appeared in the trailers for his movies (as Quentin Tarantino points out, he even sidelines Barbra Streisand in the What's Up Doc? trailer); a high-publicised romance with Cybill Shepherd; guest hosting The Tonight Show. Then the downfall - a series of flops, breaking up with Shepherd - before restoring critical favour with Saint Jack and finding love with Dorothy Stratten and enjoying a wonderful creative experience on They All Laughed.
Then the true nightmare begins - Stratten is killed, Bogdanovich tries to distribute the film himself and goes broke, has a comeback with Mask but stuffs it by being difficult over Bruce Springsteen's music. He recovers to marry Dorothy's sister and makes some decent films but never regains his old heights. (The film omits his second bankruptcy in the late 90s). However he remains revered as a filmmaker, his reputation continues to be strong and the film ends with him making a movie with decent stars, She's Funny That Way.
I was familiar with a lot of the material but there's a great collection of talking heads: Tarantino's take on his films is genuinely fresh; Noah Bambach and Wes Anderson are true fans; Bogdanovich's daughters talk about their dad and his life with love but some wariness; several of his exes appear, including Cybil Shepherd and Colleen Camp. We get to meet some critics such as Molly Haskell, Andrew Sarris and Todd McCarthy. There's also Ben Gazzara who sounds like he's had a stroke.
Bogdanovich leant his papers which mean we see his old annotated scripts and, movingly, a card Stratten wrote for him. Bogdanovich was a bit of a goose but is a very talented filmmaker and it's a shame his post 1985 credits aren't stronger. Excellent doco.
Louis Hayward Top Ten Films
Just because I've finished a book on him!
1) Anthony Adverse (1936) - only a small part but a memorable one, at the beginning
2) The Saint in New York (1938) - Hayward was the first screen Saint, not as good as George Sanders but solid
3) The Man in the Iron Mask (1939) - a good swashbuckler with Hayward impressing in a difficult role (s)
4) Son of Monte Cristo (1940) - another solid mid-tier Edward Small swashbuckler
5) Dance Girl Dance (1940) - Hayward is a leading man to the ladies but its feminist subtext makes this worth watching
6) And Then There Were None (1945) - one of Agatha Christie's greatest stories, this has a jokey tone which is hard to get used to at first but once you do you'll enjoy it
7) Ruthless (1948) - from Hayward's late 40s film noir, Eagle Lion period - enjoyable
8) The Black Arrow (1948) - more Ed Small swashbuckling
9) Walk a Crooked Mile (1948) - film noir
10) My Son My Son (1940) - if Hayward hadn't gone to war he could have challenged George Brent as a rotter in 40s melodramas such as this one
1) Anthony Adverse (1936) - only a small part but a memorable one, at the beginning
2) The Saint in New York (1938) - Hayward was the first screen Saint, not as good as George Sanders but solid
3) The Man in the Iron Mask (1939) - a good swashbuckler with Hayward impressing in a difficult role (s)
4) Son of Monte Cristo (1940) - another solid mid-tier Edward Small swashbuckler
5) Dance Girl Dance (1940) - Hayward is a leading man to the ladies but its feminist subtext makes this worth watching
6) And Then There Were None (1945) - one of Agatha Christie's greatest stories, this has a jokey tone which is hard to get used to at first but once you do you'll enjoy it
7) Ruthless (1948) - from Hayward's late 40s film noir, Eagle Lion period - enjoyable
8) The Black Arrow (1948) - more Ed Small swashbuckling
9) Walk a Crooked Mile (1948) - film noir
10) My Son My Son (1940) - if Hayward hadn't gone to war he could have challenged George Brent as a rotter in 40s melodramas such as this one
Book review - "Louis Hayward: Beyond the Iron Mask, a Collected Memoir" by Mary Ann Anderson (2015)
Disappointingly short book on Hayward, a quasi-well known star of the 30s through to 50s whose career, while not legendary, was very interesting, and deserved better treatment.
Hayward was born in South Africa and educated in England; he wanted to act and his good looks and charm saw him get work on the English stage. He was a protege and lover of Noel Coward, who cast Hayward in one of his plays, Point Valaine. He got work in British films of the early 30s but found more success over in Hollywood, starting with a juicy part in Anthony Adverse. He was the first cinematic incantation of The Saint and was a favourite of producer Edward Small who cast Hayward in The Man in the Iron Mask. This kicked off a career for the actor as a swashbuckler star - he suited period films, and could act; while he only made a few top rank swashbucklers (Son of Monte Cristo), they kept him steadily employed in the 40s and 50s.
Hayward's career was interrupted by war service - and it was impressive service, risking life and limb as head of the photography unit at the Battle of Tarawa. He never recovered his earlier momentum - maybe he wouldn't have even if he hadn't joined the army, who knows, but at least when he came out he had the odd good part (eg And Then There Were None) and was lucky to get regular work in low budget swashbucklers.
Despite the fling with Coward, Hayward had a number of marriages to women, notably Ida Lupino. His career went into gentle decline - there seemed to be plenty of TV and stage work, and the odd film (such as in Chuka with Rod Taylor) before his cigarette habit killed him.
The book isn't a bad rough overview of Hayward's life and there are some good photos but I kept wanting more - more about his films, acting style, personal life, working with Edward Small, etc. There's not enough.
Hayward was born in South Africa and educated in England; he wanted to act and his good looks and charm saw him get work on the English stage. He was a protege and lover of Noel Coward, who cast Hayward in one of his plays, Point Valaine. He got work in British films of the early 30s but found more success over in Hollywood, starting with a juicy part in Anthony Adverse. He was the first cinematic incantation of The Saint and was a favourite of producer Edward Small who cast Hayward in The Man in the Iron Mask. This kicked off a career for the actor as a swashbuckler star - he suited period films, and could act; while he only made a few top rank swashbucklers (Son of Monte Cristo), they kept him steadily employed in the 40s and 50s.
Hayward's career was interrupted by war service - and it was impressive service, risking life and limb as head of the photography unit at the Battle of Tarawa. He never recovered his earlier momentum - maybe he wouldn't have even if he hadn't joined the army, who knows, but at least when he came out he had the odd good part (eg And Then There Were None) and was lucky to get regular work in low budget swashbucklers.
Despite the fling with Coward, Hayward had a number of marriages to women, notably Ida Lupino. His career went into gentle decline - there seemed to be plenty of TV and stage work, and the odd film (such as in Chuka with Rod Taylor) before his cigarette habit killed him.
The book isn't a bad rough overview of Hayward's life and there are some good photos but I kept wanting more - more about his films, acting style, personal life, working with Edward Small, etc. There's not enough.
Book review - "Larry Cohen: The Stuff of Gods and Monsters" by Michael Digby (2015)
Larry Cohen has done a lot of interviews in his time - one of them, for The Incredibly Strange Film Book, is one of my favourite, his no-nonsense approach to filmmaking helped encourage me to be a writer. When I heard about this book I wondered if there was a point to reading it, because there are so many other Cohen interviews out there. But there is, because it's so exhaustive.
Absolutely, some of it will be familiar, especially his writings on his more cult-y favourites like God Told Me To, It's Alive and Black Caesar, as well as the recent blockbuster Phone Booth and famous-for-being-Bette-Davis'-last-film The Wicked Stepmother and The Private Files of J Edgar Hoover which Cohen likes to talk about a lot. I did know of his TV work, which is well covered in Backstory 4.
But because Cohen is so incredibly prolific there was heaps I didn't know - his childhood, plays, lesser known directorial efforts (The Ambulance, Special Effects, Perfect Strangers), recent concentration on being a screenwriter, the extent of his success in 60s TV. He was often unhappy with the work directors who weren't him did on his films - even Sidney Lumet on Guilty as Sin and Joel Schumacher on Phone Booth (he basically likes the job the latter did but wished it had a bigger star than Colin Farrell and thought Schumacher could have shown him more respect). He really gives it to William Lustig, director of the Maniac Cop series.
A very clear picture of Cohen emerges - as you'd hope from 700 plus pages of interviews! Talented, smart, a ferocious work ethic, independent, grumpy, always a little touchy about lack of industry respect and mistreatment. He talks about his encounters with Alfred Hitchcock, troubles with Bette Davis, a friendship with Sam Fuller (who he used as an actor), his good experiences with some difficult actors (eg Eric Roberts), his fights with friend David Carradine, his unhappy experiences in network television (even on NYPD Blue), Billy Dee Williams' drinking problem, working for AIP in the 70s, getting fired off several movies, and lots more.
His key creative impulses seem to be social commentary, a lively imagination, and old movies of the 30s and 40s, particularly Warner Bros and Universal. It's a very comprehensive, impressive book that made me want to go revisit Cohen's work.
Absolutely, some of it will be familiar, especially his writings on his more cult-y favourites like God Told Me To, It's Alive and Black Caesar, as well as the recent blockbuster Phone Booth and famous-for-being-Bette-Davis'-last-film The Wicked Stepmother and The Private Files of J Edgar Hoover which Cohen likes to talk about a lot. I did know of his TV work, which is well covered in Backstory 4.
But because Cohen is so incredibly prolific there was heaps I didn't know - his childhood, plays, lesser known directorial efforts (The Ambulance, Special Effects, Perfect Strangers), recent concentration on being a screenwriter, the extent of his success in 60s TV. He was often unhappy with the work directors who weren't him did on his films - even Sidney Lumet on Guilty as Sin and Joel Schumacher on Phone Booth (he basically likes the job the latter did but wished it had a bigger star than Colin Farrell and thought Schumacher could have shown him more respect). He really gives it to William Lustig, director of the Maniac Cop series.
A very clear picture of Cohen emerges - as you'd hope from 700 plus pages of interviews! Talented, smart, a ferocious work ethic, independent, grumpy, always a little touchy about lack of industry respect and mistreatment. He talks about his encounters with Alfred Hitchcock, troubles with Bette Davis, a friendship with Sam Fuller (who he used as an actor), his good experiences with some difficult actors (eg Eric Roberts), his fights with friend David Carradine, his unhappy experiences in network television (even on NYPD Blue), Billy Dee Williams' drinking problem, working for AIP in the 70s, getting fired off several movies, and lots more.
His key creative impulses seem to be social commentary, a lively imagination, and old movies of the 30s and 40s, particularly Warner Bros and Universal. It's a very comprehensive, impressive book that made me want to go revisit Cohen's work.
Movie review - "Inn of the Damned" (1974) **
The excellent Oz Movies website has an entry for this film which correctly points out this was director Terry Bourke's attempt at "the big time" - he had a decent budget, some impressive stars, an alright idea... but he stuffs it.
It's not a disaster - Bourke would make worse films, certainly - but it is a misfire. The basic story really doesn't have enough plot for a feature. It's about an old couple, traumatised by the loss of their children, who kill of visitors to a deserted inn - a perfectly acceptible concept for a horror movie, with one main location, opportunities for decent shocks etc. Though as developed here, really there's 30 to 60 minutes of plot - like Bourke's earlier featurette, Night of Fear.
The filmmakers pad out the running time with subplots - bounty hunter Alex Cord is looking for a killer, a woman guest is having a lesbian relationship with her step daughter. This pushes the film towards the two hour mark and was a mistake. The Cord subplot lacks tension and the lesbian subplot, which could have been good 70s exploitation erotica, isn't fun or hot because the step daughter isn't into it - she's forced into it, which isn't very sexy.
For some reason the budget blew out - there's some impressive locations and photography, but really this could have been filmed in a studio. Might have been more atmospheric too. The one genuinely spooky bit at the end comes when Cord and Michael Craig poke around the basement of the house.
The cast are an attraction. Cord is an indistinguishable American lead but he's random-ness has appeal to Oz cultists; Judith Anderson is perfect as the killer, and her performance deserves a better film (it was her one psycho-biddy movie, unless you count Rebecca). Joseph Furst matches her well and John Meillon and Michael Craig offer professional support.
It's not a disaster - Bourke would make worse films, certainly - but it is a misfire. The basic story really doesn't have enough plot for a feature. It's about an old couple, traumatised by the loss of their children, who kill of visitors to a deserted inn - a perfectly acceptible concept for a horror movie, with one main location, opportunities for decent shocks etc. Though as developed here, really there's 30 to 60 minutes of plot - like Bourke's earlier featurette, Night of Fear.
The filmmakers pad out the running time with subplots - bounty hunter Alex Cord is looking for a killer, a woman guest is having a lesbian relationship with her step daughter. This pushes the film towards the two hour mark and was a mistake. The Cord subplot lacks tension and the lesbian subplot, which could have been good 70s exploitation erotica, isn't fun or hot because the step daughter isn't into it - she's forced into it, which isn't very sexy.
For some reason the budget blew out - there's some impressive locations and photography, but really this could have been filmed in a studio. Might have been more atmospheric too. The one genuinely spooky bit at the end comes when Cord and Michael Craig poke around the basement of the house.
The cast are an attraction. Cord is an indistinguishable American lead but he's random-ness has appeal to Oz cultists; Judith Anderson is perfect as the killer, and her performance deserves a better film (it was her one psycho-biddy movie, unless you count Rebecca). Joseph Furst matches her well and John Meillon and Michael Craig offer professional support.
Movie review - "Coogan's Bluff" (1968) ***
I've been watching a bunch of Clint Eastwood movies lately and it's easy to tell when a really top notch director was at work - Don Siegel's handling is so good, so better than, say Clint's - confident and taunt and imaginative.
It almost makes you forgive the unpleasant side to this film, which is as big a Red State fantasy pic as any Clint would make later in life. He's an Arkansas deputy sheriff sent to the Big Smoke to bring back a baddy. In the opening sequence he single handedly outwits and captures a crazed Indian killer, then beds a hot blonde and shows his superior what's what. In New York he rubs up against detective Lee J Cobb but also beats up a crim who is sexually harassing Suzanne Clarke... only to pretty much sexually harass her himself, only she really likes it and is in to it. The baddy is a crazed hippy type - from the Charles Manson mode before Manson became famous - very well played by Don Stroud (whose role is surprisingly small).
But to be fair there are several scenes where Coogan/Clint is outsmarted - the hippies knock him out, it takes him a while to figure out where the baddies are.
The script feels like one of those scripts that get fiddled with and "fixed" - where various bits and scenes are added instead of creating something more cohesive. It really is just a series of encounters for Coogan in New York City. But that is a very strong concept - and it's late 1960s New York too, which would probably shock people from today, with its hippies, and grimy crime, and alternate lifestyles.
There's some outstanding action sequences - the final chase, a fight in a pool room - that make you wish you had more.
It almost makes you forgive the unpleasant side to this film, which is as big a Red State fantasy pic as any Clint would make later in life. He's an Arkansas deputy sheriff sent to the Big Smoke to bring back a baddy. In the opening sequence he single handedly outwits and captures a crazed Indian killer, then beds a hot blonde and shows his superior what's what. In New York he rubs up against detective Lee J Cobb but also beats up a crim who is sexually harassing Suzanne Clarke... only to pretty much sexually harass her himself, only she really likes it and is in to it. The baddy is a crazed hippy type - from the Charles Manson mode before Manson became famous - very well played by Don Stroud (whose role is surprisingly small).
But to be fair there are several scenes where Coogan/Clint is outsmarted - the hippies knock him out, it takes him a while to figure out where the baddies are.
The script feels like one of those scripts that get fiddled with and "fixed" - where various bits and scenes are added instead of creating something more cohesive. It really is just a series of encounters for Coogan in New York City. But that is a very strong concept - and it's late 1960s New York too, which would probably shock people from today, with its hippies, and grimy crime, and alternate lifestyles.
There's some outstanding action sequences - the final chase, a fight in a pool room - that make you wish you had more.
Sunday, December 18, 2016
My top 10 comedies
The Guardian published a list of several comedian's favorite comedies.
Procrastinating, I thought I'd add mine...
1) Flying High (1982) - called Airplane! in the US I saw this film countless times growing up and it's still great in part because it has a solid story (filmed seriously as Zero Hour)
2) Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974) - I'm limiting myself to one Monty Python film, this remains as brilliant as it ever was, with divine acting, writing and design.
3) Annie Hall (1977) - I was a bit intimidated by Woody Allen's critical reputation growing up, that I delayed seeing his films. I wasn't aware how flat out funny so many of his movies were, such as this.
4) Stripes (1981) - limiting myself to one Bill Murray (the others would be Ghostbusters and Meatballs), this is a brilliant service comedy with some stand out support performances from Warren Oates, John Candy and John Larroquette.
5) Clueless (1995) - helped revive the teen movie in the 90s, a very funny, sweet film which promised a bigger career for Alicia Silverstone than the one that eventuated.
6) A Night at the Opera (1935) - purists prefer Marx Brothers where there's no straight story or musical interludes. I think they work well here - gives the brothers a goal and the opera setting has a sense of wonder about it.
7) Dad and Dave Come to Town (1938) - hokey but very sweet old Aussie film.
8) Spy (2013) - I loved Bridesmaids but limiting myself to one Melissa McCarthy I'll go for this one - fantastic story and exciting action.
9) The Wedding Crashers (2005) - the film loses its way in the second half but the first half is Heaven.
10) Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) - the duo made funnier films but this has magic about it.
Procrastinating, I thought I'd add mine...
1) Flying High (1982) - called Airplane! in the US I saw this film countless times growing up and it's still great in part because it has a solid story (filmed seriously as Zero Hour)
2) Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974) - I'm limiting myself to one Monty Python film, this remains as brilliant as it ever was, with divine acting, writing and design.
3) Annie Hall (1977) - I was a bit intimidated by Woody Allen's critical reputation growing up, that I delayed seeing his films. I wasn't aware how flat out funny so many of his movies were, such as this.
4) Stripes (1981) - limiting myself to one Bill Murray (the others would be Ghostbusters and Meatballs), this is a brilliant service comedy with some stand out support performances from Warren Oates, John Candy and John Larroquette.
5) Clueless (1995) - helped revive the teen movie in the 90s, a very funny, sweet film which promised a bigger career for Alicia Silverstone than the one that eventuated.
6) A Night at the Opera (1935) - purists prefer Marx Brothers where there's no straight story or musical interludes. I think they work well here - gives the brothers a goal and the opera setting has a sense of wonder about it.
7) Dad and Dave Come to Town (1938) - hokey but very sweet old Aussie film.
8) Spy (2013) - I loved Bridesmaids but limiting myself to one Melissa McCarthy I'll go for this one - fantastic story and exciting action.
9) The Wedding Crashers (2005) - the film loses its way in the second half but the first half is Heaven.
10) Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) - the duo made funnier films but this has magic about it.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Movie review - "Battlestar Galactica" (1978) **1/2
Saw this on the big screen at the Astor Theatre in Melbourne. I've always had fondness because I saw it at the cinema when it came out as a kid. So I can't be in any way objective.
It starts well - swiftly establishing the world and the key characters of Starbuck, Apollo, Adama, Anthena, Tigh, etc. The central conflict is strong, the Pearl Harbour-esque attack is fantastic - Adama telling Lew Ayres "that... was my son" still has power. Then all humanity wiped out - full on. Adam headed to Earth - fantastic.
But then things go wonky. The central concept - that the human race has been wiped out - is inherently dark. The TV series veered away from it - that's why this was a show worth remaking, to be true to the concept.
Instead Glen A Larson concentrates on side tracks - cheering up Boxey with Muffit, a really boring flight through a minefield, shenanigans on Carillon. The final success of the humans is very rousing.
I was surprised how strong the acting was. Dirk Benedict is engaging, Richard Hatch very good in a difficult role (a goody two shoes). Old hands like Lorne Greene, Lew Ayres, John Colicos, Terry Carter and Ray Milland lift the standard across the board. Jane Seymour is stunningly beautiful. The other women are better than they get credit for - Laurette Spang is really bright and even Maren Jensen is fine. Some of the smaller roles are iffy, like the woman who laughs hysterically on the container and that creepy doctor.
Magnificent music. Special effects decent for the time. Lots of logic problems. Good fun for Gen X'ers.
It starts well - swiftly establishing the world and the key characters of Starbuck, Apollo, Adama, Anthena, Tigh, etc. The central conflict is strong, the Pearl Harbour-esque attack is fantastic - Adama telling Lew Ayres "that... was my son" still has power. Then all humanity wiped out - full on. Adam headed to Earth - fantastic.
But then things go wonky. The central concept - that the human race has been wiped out - is inherently dark. The TV series veered away from it - that's why this was a show worth remaking, to be true to the concept.
Instead Glen A Larson concentrates on side tracks - cheering up Boxey with Muffit, a really boring flight through a minefield, shenanigans on Carillon. The final success of the humans is very rousing.
I was surprised how strong the acting was. Dirk Benedict is engaging, Richard Hatch very good in a difficult role (a goody two shoes). Old hands like Lorne Greene, Lew Ayres, John Colicos, Terry Carter and Ray Milland lift the standard across the board. Jane Seymour is stunningly beautiful. The other women are better than they get credit for - Laurette Spang is really bright and even Maren Jensen is fine. Some of the smaller roles are iffy, like the woman who laughs hysterically on the container and that creepy doctor.
Magnificent music. Special effects decent for the time. Lots of logic problems. Good fun for Gen X'ers.
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Movie review - "It's Alive" (1974) ***1/2
A massive leap for Larry Cohen as a director - it's so much more confident visually than some of his other movies. His handling is assured and confident. It's well written but that's less surprising. This is a simple idea extremely well executed.
I normally associated John P Ryan as the psycho warden in Runaway Train so it was weird to see him as a nice guy family man. His wife is about to have her second wife and Cohen brilliantly exploits one of the all time great fears - that your baby will be born deformed - and gives it a twist: that the baby becomes a killer. It's a primal, strong concept.
Ryan's performance anchors the film well. He's given good support by Sharon Farrell as the wife. Part of me was thinking maybe Cohen should have focused more on the mother - who after all carried the damn thing for nine months and is the mother. But I guess making Ryan the central figure means we can move around more. Farrell secretly hiding the son makes for good conflict with Ryan. Also Ryan's character goes on more of a journey... Farrell's love for the baby is strong and more unconditional, whereas Ryan gets to cover disgust, embarrassment, anger, etc before coming to love and regret. Ryan's final scene with his "son" is very powerful.
Bernard Herrmann did a superb score which helps create a wonderful atmosphere. I felt the lower budget helped - Ryan is walking around alone and isolated in many shots, but it adds to the feeling of desolation and loneliness. The budget does stretch for a decent amount of gun wielding policemen.
Cohen fans will enjoy the Cohen touches, like Ryan impersonating Walter Brennan, and discussing watching Frankenstein films and reading the novel when discussing his son. They'll also like it of course because it's one of his best movies.
I normally associated John P Ryan as the psycho warden in Runaway Train so it was weird to see him as a nice guy family man. His wife is about to have her second wife and Cohen brilliantly exploits one of the all time great fears - that your baby will be born deformed - and gives it a twist: that the baby becomes a killer. It's a primal, strong concept.
Ryan's performance anchors the film well. He's given good support by Sharon Farrell as the wife. Part of me was thinking maybe Cohen should have focused more on the mother - who after all carried the damn thing for nine months and is the mother. But I guess making Ryan the central figure means we can move around more. Farrell secretly hiding the son makes for good conflict with Ryan. Also Ryan's character goes on more of a journey... Farrell's love for the baby is strong and more unconditional, whereas Ryan gets to cover disgust, embarrassment, anger, etc before coming to love and regret. Ryan's final scene with his "son" is very powerful.
Bernard Herrmann did a superb score which helps create a wonderful atmosphere. I felt the lower budget helped - Ryan is walking around alone and isolated in many shots, but it adds to the feeling of desolation and loneliness. The budget does stretch for a decent amount of gun wielding policemen.
Cohen fans will enjoy the Cohen touches, like Ryan impersonating Walter Brennan, and discussing watching Frankenstein films and reading the novel when discussing his son. They'll also like it of course because it's one of his best movies.
Movie review - "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" (1953) ****
It terms of sheer fun, female bonding and high spirits this musical remains hard to beat - Jane Russell became famous for her chest, so assiduously promoted by Howard Hughes, but when she died everyone was posting clips from this film on Facebook, not The Outlaw. She's perfectly teamed with Marilyn Monroe as the gold digging Lorelei Lee. Russell's out for sex, Marilyn's out for diamonds, both care deeply for each other. Is it the best female friendship depicted in a movie? I can't think of a better one. (I probably will the minute I post this.)
It's full of terrific numbers - "Two Girls from Little Rock", "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend". It feels very much like a filmed Broadway show - I haven't seen the original production, but much of the plot just smells of Broadway - most of the action takes place on an ocean liner and in Paris, the thrust of the actual plot concerns a missing tiara, there's very musical "bits" like the two girls being down and out at a Parisian cafe and talks on a shipboard galley at night.
The biggest debit is Elliot Reid's Malone. Tom Noonan's nerdy millionaire is fine - he's actually perfectly cast - but was there no one in Hollywood better than Reid to play Russell's love interest? The part doesn't involve singing or dancing or even that much acting - all you have to do is be handsome and virile, and Reid is hilariously inept. It doesn't really matter because the crux of the film is Monroe and Russell - it's just weird casting from Howard Hawks, that's all.
There's moments of pure high camp, such as Russell singing "Is There Anyone Here for Love" while men prance around in skin coloured short-shorts. (What was Hawks thinking?) "Diamonds Are a Girls Best Friend" is done very well, both by Monroe and Russell. I love the gendarmes clapping along to Russell in the courtroom.
One thing I noticed on a recent viewing was that Lorelei really is quite mercenary. I mean, I get she was outwardly meant to be but at the end always thought that she would settle down and take good care of Noonan. But although she's engaged she's barely five seconds on the ship when she's seeking out other men, and trying to get diamonds off Charles Coburn. What's she planning on doing to get those diamonds? She's going to put out, isn't she? So surely even after she's married she's going to be susceptible to the lure of diamonds in exchange for favours?
It's full of terrific numbers - "Two Girls from Little Rock", "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend". It feels very much like a filmed Broadway show - I haven't seen the original production, but much of the plot just smells of Broadway - most of the action takes place on an ocean liner and in Paris, the thrust of the actual plot concerns a missing tiara, there's very musical "bits" like the two girls being down and out at a Parisian cafe and talks on a shipboard galley at night.
The biggest debit is Elliot Reid's Malone. Tom Noonan's nerdy millionaire is fine - he's actually perfectly cast - but was there no one in Hollywood better than Reid to play Russell's love interest? The part doesn't involve singing or dancing or even that much acting - all you have to do is be handsome and virile, and Reid is hilariously inept. It doesn't really matter because the crux of the film is Monroe and Russell - it's just weird casting from Howard Hawks, that's all.
There's moments of pure high camp, such as Russell singing "Is There Anyone Here for Love" while men prance around in skin coloured short-shorts. (What was Hawks thinking?) "Diamonds Are a Girls Best Friend" is done very well, both by Monroe and Russell. I love the gendarmes clapping along to Russell in the courtroom.
One thing I noticed on a recent viewing was that Lorelei really is quite mercenary. I mean, I get she was outwardly meant to be but at the end always thought that she would settle down and take good care of Noonan. But although she's engaged she's barely five seconds on the ship when she's seeking out other men, and trying to get diamonds off Charles Coburn. What's she planning on doing to get those diamonds? She's going to put out, isn't she? So surely even after she's married she's going to be susceptible to the lure of diamonds in exchange for favours?
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Movie review - "The Private Files of J Edgar Hoover" (1977) ***1/2
Terrific fun, so much more entertaining than Clint Eastwood's film on the same subject. This is clearly Larry Cohen's tribute to old Warner Bros biopics, with a ripped from the headlines feel. Because it's the late 70s he can take a lot darker look at it's subject matter.
He certainly shoves in everything but the kitchen sink - this is very much a greatest hits version of Hoover's life, starting when he was involved in deporting immigrants (where the role is played by James Wainwright), then going into him heading the FBI, his early successes against gangsters, then domestic enemies during the war (where he starts being played by Broderick Crawford), obsession against the communists, clashing with the Kennedys, then Nixon.
There's an awful lot going on - but then Hoover did lead an interesting life. The best section for me was his clashes with Robert Kennedy, well played by Michael Parks - this is when the conflict felt real and personal and the film kicked up a gear.
Everything else is broad brush strokes - his mother (June Havoc) to whom Hoover is devoted, his good friend Clyde (Dan Dailey), a mentor (Lloyd Nolan in a blink and you'll miss him appearance), a rival (Jose Ferrer), a socialitie who tries to seduce him (Celeste Holm). There's a subplot with Rip Torn as an FBI agent fired for having a fling with a married woman.
Cohen wrote an article on Clint Eastwood's Hoover film which made me think this movie would be really pro Hoover but it's not. Hoover is shown having some good points - he's against Nixon's men making secret recordings, he insists on due process, he tries to increase the professionalism of the Bureau - but it's not exactly a valentine: he's also shown to be obsessed with illegal recordings, he blackmails Kennedy and Martin Luther King with his recordings, he tries to have sex with women (Ronnee Blakely and then later Celeste Holm) but can't go through with it, faces rumours of his love for Clyde (which the characters say is crap and it's clear that nothing sexual happened but the film depicts them as spending a lot of time together and you could read a love story into it), he's ruthless and clings to power.
I really loved the depiction of Hoover. Cohen doesn't moralise or train to explain too much - once or twice he does and the scenes clunk. But basically he just shows him as this contradictory enigma - occasionally principled, ruthless, sexually hung up.
It's great fun to see these old time stars in decent roles. Crawford has gravitas ... but I couldn't help wishing he was more animated. His performance is okay but it's a superb role, a gift - a better actor would have done more.
The handling could have been tighter - I say this a lot about Cohen's movies but it needed more of that Warners 30s/40s pace. Occasionally its clunky and rough but it was grand fun.
He certainly shoves in everything but the kitchen sink - this is very much a greatest hits version of Hoover's life, starting when he was involved in deporting immigrants (where the role is played by James Wainwright), then going into him heading the FBI, his early successes against gangsters, then domestic enemies during the war (where he starts being played by Broderick Crawford), obsession against the communists, clashing with the Kennedys, then Nixon.
There's an awful lot going on - but then Hoover did lead an interesting life. The best section for me was his clashes with Robert Kennedy, well played by Michael Parks - this is when the conflict felt real and personal and the film kicked up a gear.
Everything else is broad brush strokes - his mother (June Havoc) to whom Hoover is devoted, his good friend Clyde (Dan Dailey), a mentor (Lloyd Nolan in a blink and you'll miss him appearance), a rival (Jose Ferrer), a socialitie who tries to seduce him (Celeste Holm). There's a subplot with Rip Torn as an FBI agent fired for having a fling with a married woman.
Cohen wrote an article on Clint Eastwood's Hoover film which made me think this movie would be really pro Hoover but it's not. Hoover is shown having some good points - he's against Nixon's men making secret recordings, he insists on due process, he tries to increase the professionalism of the Bureau - but it's not exactly a valentine: he's also shown to be obsessed with illegal recordings, he blackmails Kennedy and Martin Luther King with his recordings, he tries to have sex with women (Ronnee Blakely and then later Celeste Holm) but can't go through with it, faces rumours of his love for Clyde (which the characters say is crap and it's clear that nothing sexual happened but the film depicts them as spending a lot of time together and you could read a love story into it), he's ruthless and clings to power.
I really loved the depiction of Hoover. Cohen doesn't moralise or train to explain too much - once or twice he does and the scenes clunk. But basically he just shows him as this contradictory enigma - occasionally principled, ruthless, sexually hung up.
It's great fun to see these old time stars in decent roles. Crawford has gravitas ... but I couldn't help wishing he was more animated. His performance is okay but it's a superb role, a gift - a better actor would have done more.
The handling could have been tighter - I say this a lot about Cohen's movies but it needed more of that Warners 30s/40s pace. Occasionally its clunky and rough but it was grand fun.
Movie review - "Black Caesar" (1973) **1/2
Larry Cohen's use of Yaphet Kotto in Bone was enough to encourage AIP to approach him to make a blaxploitation gangster film. He responded by doing a black version of old Warner Bros gangster films - and very good it is too.
All the tropes are there - scenes of the gangster as a young kid (a shoe shine boy who helps a gangster kill a rival - a solid opening), gangsters getting knocked off on his way to the top, flashy clothes, molls, the woman he marries and makes unhappy, a childhood friend, a neighbourhood priest, a disapproving mother, the wife has an affair with the childhood friend. There's even scenes were someone falls down stairs, and people get shot on sidewalks - you can imagine the whole thing being done with George Raft and Edward G Robinson.
Sure it had been done before but doing it with black actors does make it seem fresh. Fred Williamson is a decent (anti) hero - handsome, driven. He's not a top league star, but he's a good B picture star. A leading man.
Admittedly, once I found out the treatment had originally been commissioned by Sammy Davis Jr I kept wishing that he'd played the role. He was shorter, less good looking, more charismatic, more driven. Williamson's character's main obstacle is that he is black - which don't get me wrong is a problem (the scene where he gets a comeuppance on the corrupt police captain is brilliant), but Davis Jnr would have all this extra stuff: height, looks, no eye - not to mention all that extra energy.
The handling is a little flabby. I tend to find this a lot with Larry Cohen's films. He has a pleasing taste for documentary style realism - shooting on the streets of New York (lots of scenes where extras look at the camera) but this needed some of that old Warner Bros tightness - some bang-bang-editing. Some sequences drag. I feel Cohen the director didn't always serve Cohen the writer that well.
But it is a lively script and there are plenty of good moments.
All the tropes are there - scenes of the gangster as a young kid (a shoe shine boy who helps a gangster kill a rival - a solid opening), gangsters getting knocked off on his way to the top, flashy clothes, molls, the woman he marries and makes unhappy, a childhood friend, a neighbourhood priest, a disapproving mother, the wife has an affair with the childhood friend. There's even scenes were someone falls down stairs, and people get shot on sidewalks - you can imagine the whole thing being done with George Raft and Edward G Robinson.
Sure it had been done before but doing it with black actors does make it seem fresh. Fred Williamson is a decent (anti) hero - handsome, driven. He's not a top league star, but he's a good B picture star. A leading man.
Admittedly, once I found out the treatment had originally been commissioned by Sammy Davis Jr I kept wishing that he'd played the role. He was shorter, less good looking, more charismatic, more driven. Williamson's character's main obstacle is that he is black - which don't get me wrong is a problem (the scene where he gets a comeuppance on the corrupt police captain is brilliant), but Davis Jnr would have all this extra stuff: height, looks, no eye - not to mention all that extra energy.
The handling is a little flabby. I tend to find this a lot with Larry Cohen's films. He has a pleasing taste for documentary style realism - shooting on the streets of New York (lots of scenes where extras look at the camera) but this needed some of that old Warner Bros tightness - some bang-bang-editing. Some sequences drag. I feel Cohen the director didn't always serve Cohen the writer that well.
But it is a lively script and there are plenty of good moments.
Movie review - "The Long Weekend" (1977) ***1/2 (re-viewing) (warning: spoilers)
This movie holds up well. Seeing it people must have imagined really great futures for writer Everett de Roche and director Colin Eggleston - and while both had decent careers (de Roche especially) they never quite hit the heights promised (or at least implied) by this low budget flick.
Still, they have this. It's not a masterpiece and shouldn't be over-hyped. The running time does feel padded - I feel at heart this was a 60 minute feature if that. Because there's not much story - it's really a collection of incidents, a building of unease and mood... the cigarette but in the grass, the shooting of a dungog, animal cries, a deserted beach.
It helps that the locations are so beautiful - desolate, isolated, stunning, with the sand dunes, and bush and sea. Also Vincent Monton's Panavision photography is breathtaking. The sound and editing are first rate.
There's good playing from John Hargreaves; less assured work from Briony Behets (who goes overboard... I kept wishing for Wendy Hughes). But she's not bad and the drama is solid. Critics have complained about the unlikeability of the two leads - but that means when they die we don't feel so bad.
Also the characters feel real - he's a bit of a bogan, for all this white collar job: he likes shooting gun and beer and Playboy; he's controlling and won't listen to her, and she complains; there's been adultery in the past involving another couple and an abortion which is causing trouble; she's unhappy, wanting to connect with her husband but not really. Maybe it's because I'm getting on in years myself, in life and my marriage but I found this surprisingly engrossing.
Behets goes topless and engages in some masturbation to a Harold Robbins novel - a bit of sex was a good idea, but to Harold Robbins? It does seem a little extraneous.
There are other flaws to be sure, but it's interesting and original and there is some decent drama, powerful atmosphere and some knock out moments such as the death of Behets and Hargreaves.
Still, they have this. It's not a masterpiece and shouldn't be over-hyped. The running time does feel padded - I feel at heart this was a 60 minute feature if that. Because there's not much story - it's really a collection of incidents, a building of unease and mood... the cigarette but in the grass, the shooting of a dungog, animal cries, a deserted beach.
It helps that the locations are so beautiful - desolate, isolated, stunning, with the sand dunes, and bush and sea. Also Vincent Monton's Panavision photography is breathtaking. The sound and editing are first rate.
There's good playing from John Hargreaves; less assured work from Briony Behets (who goes overboard... I kept wishing for Wendy Hughes). But she's not bad and the drama is solid. Critics have complained about the unlikeability of the two leads - but that means when they die we don't feel so bad.
Also the characters feel real - he's a bit of a bogan, for all this white collar job: he likes shooting gun and beer and Playboy; he's controlling and won't listen to her, and she complains; there's been adultery in the past involving another couple and an abortion which is causing trouble; she's unhappy, wanting to connect with her husband but not really. Maybe it's because I'm getting on in years myself, in life and my marriage but I found this surprisingly engrossing.
Behets goes topless and engages in some masturbation to a Harold Robbins novel - a bit of sex was a good idea, but to Harold Robbins? It does seem a little extraneous.
There are other flaws to be sure, but it's interesting and original and there is some decent drama, powerful atmosphere and some knock out moments such as the death of Behets and Hargreaves.
Thursday, December 08, 2016
Book review - "A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam" by Lewis Sorley (1999)
The Vietnam War is America's most famous military defeat (only die hard history buffs recall the War of 1812). Growing up in the 80s I had a very definite image of the war from films and TV shows - rock and roll, rape, soldiers melting down in the hot sun being unable to tell friend from foe, fragging, race problems... And there was a historical basis to that myth. Even Sorley admits the societal problems infected the army - not helped by the constant influx of new troops and withdrawal of troops who knew what they were doing.
What Sorley does though, and very well, is to draw attention to the latter years of the war, the post-Tet years, when just as America finally figured out how to fight the war properly, the government and public got sick of supporting it, and withdrew... gradually at first, but then in a heap. Sorley argues there were a number of key changes - notably the fact that Creighton Abrams took over from Westmoreland. Abrams focused on security and population control rather than body count, took the fight to the enemy more - went into Cambodia and Laos, introduced the Phoenix Program, sped up Vietnamisation.
Ultimately he wasn't successful. He appears to have eradicated or at least minimised the guerilla threat of the VC and hurt the NVA but was. It unable to deliver a fatal blow - he felt he could have in 1971 but it didn't happen. Could it ever have happened? Maybe. Maybe if Abrams had been in charge earlier. But with North Vietnam as a permanent bolt hole - and backed by China and the USSR - it was always going to be very hard. Sorley talks a lot about how Abrams got the countryside to quieten down - but the fighting power of North Vietnam never seemed to ebb. South Vietnam's capabilities improved as shown by their efforts in the 1972 offensive, but they needed US support and when that went they collapsed.
I'm intrigued by a theory I read on the internet once about an alternate strategy - "New South Vietnam" - which would created a smaller, more defendable version of South Vietnam south of the Mekong River.
It's a flawed work - very focused on Abrams, with little on America's allies (Australia is barely mentioned). It's very dry for a book on war with plenty of statistics when more colour would've have gone astray - even a slightly more detailed picture of the key players. But it is well researched and does an important job of challenging our assumptions on the war.
What Sorley does though, and very well, is to draw attention to the latter years of the war, the post-Tet years, when just as America finally figured out how to fight the war properly, the government and public got sick of supporting it, and withdrew... gradually at first, but then in a heap. Sorley argues there were a number of key changes - notably the fact that Creighton Abrams took over from Westmoreland. Abrams focused on security and population control rather than body count, took the fight to the enemy more - went into Cambodia and Laos, introduced the Phoenix Program, sped up Vietnamisation.
Ultimately he wasn't successful. He appears to have eradicated or at least minimised the guerilla threat of the VC and hurt the NVA but was. It unable to deliver a fatal blow - he felt he could have in 1971 but it didn't happen. Could it ever have happened? Maybe. Maybe if Abrams had been in charge earlier. But with North Vietnam as a permanent bolt hole - and backed by China and the USSR - it was always going to be very hard. Sorley talks a lot about how Abrams got the countryside to quieten down - but the fighting power of North Vietnam never seemed to ebb. South Vietnam's capabilities improved as shown by their efforts in the 1972 offensive, but they needed US support and when that went they collapsed.
I'm intrigued by a theory I read on the internet once about an alternate strategy - "New South Vietnam" - which would created a smaller, more defendable version of South Vietnam south of the Mekong River.
It's a flawed work - very focused on Abrams, with little on America's allies (Australia is barely mentioned). It's very dry for a book on war with plenty of statistics when more colour would've have gone astray - even a slightly more detailed picture of the key players. But it is well researched and does an important job of challenging our assumptions on the war.
Movie review - "Gaslight" (1944) ****
A really excellent movie. I'd heard of it, of course - the film's title helped inspire the famous term "gaslighting" - but had never seen it until recently. I think it would easily rank with one of the best movies that Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten and George Cukor ever made.
The MGM team seem to have gotten excited at the prospect of making some Victorian gothic romance and responded with impressive period detail. It's very atmospheric and beautifully shot and the three leads all suit the period setting. I was surprised MGM would feel as though they had to borrow all three but they are all superb... Bergman so beautiful and fragile (she always looked dazed when in love... important for this role since her character is manipulated), Boyer handsome and driven and manipulative, Cotten is amiable and smart (I never felt Cotten was a proper star but he was a first rate leading man).
What gives the piece unexpected freshness is the emotional manipulation - Boyer is abusing his wife by playing tricks, trying to drive her insane. This has incredible resonance today where domestic violence is such a hot topic. Boyer isn't physically violent to Bergman but he treats her terribly - the scenes are powerful to watch.
His plan is extremely complicated and I didn't quite buy he'd go to such effort - I had this problem with Patrick Hamilton's original play as well. I also felt the last confrontation between Boyer and Bergman might have been more effective if Boyer had more of a chance to get away.
Angela Lansbury shines in a choice support role as a vicious made. Dame May Whitty does her Dame May Whitty thing. It's a really good movie.
The MGM team seem to have gotten excited at the prospect of making some Victorian gothic romance and responded with impressive period detail. It's very atmospheric and beautifully shot and the three leads all suit the period setting. I was surprised MGM would feel as though they had to borrow all three but they are all superb... Bergman so beautiful and fragile (she always looked dazed when in love... important for this role since her character is manipulated), Boyer handsome and driven and manipulative, Cotten is amiable and smart (I never felt Cotten was a proper star but he was a first rate leading man).
What gives the piece unexpected freshness is the emotional manipulation - Boyer is abusing his wife by playing tricks, trying to drive her insane. This has incredible resonance today where domestic violence is such a hot topic. Boyer isn't physically violent to Bergman but he treats her terribly - the scenes are powerful to watch.
His plan is extremely complicated and I didn't quite buy he'd go to such effort - I had this problem with Patrick Hamilton's original play as well. I also felt the last confrontation between Boyer and Bergman might have been more effective if Boyer had more of a chance to get away.
Angela Lansbury shines in a choice support role as a vicious made. Dame May Whitty does her Dame May Whitty thing. It's a really good movie.
Movie review - "The Quiet Duel" (1949) **
Early Akira Kurosawa movie - the year before Rashomon - which was his second with Toshiro Mifune. It's not an action film, it's about syphilis - awesome, I know, right?
It's a medical melodrama which gets off to a terrific start with Mifune operating on soldiers in a makeshift surgery in 1944. There's some great Kurosawa compositions and atmosphere as Mifune cuts a finger and infects himself and you think "oh this is going to be good".
But once it gets back to Japan, the action movies to a sound stage and the film becomes less interesting. Mifune has dumped his fiancee but still desires her; he works for his dad; one of his nurses is a former crazy bitch who is still a bit crazy.
I kept waiting for the story to start - for him to have sex with the former crazy nurse and to infect her (she seems to want to), or to go mad and start doing weird things, or to sleep with his ex, or to seek revenge on the guy who infected him, or to try to set up a hospital or something and have to keep his condition a secret.
But it never does. Mifune is noble and tormented and Japanese, as is his fiancee. People are concerned about what's going on but there's no forward progression.
Noriko Sengoku (the recovering suicide person) has the second best role. Toshiro Mifune fans will be interested to see how he handles a non gangster/samurai part, almost as if Dr Kildare got syphillis (he does well). Takashia Shimura is dull as Mifune's dad, though he has the requisite gravitas. Miki Sanjo is dull as the dull fiancee.
This isn't much of a movie, mostly because of the story. I guess it was interesting to see Kurosawa and Mifune in a contemporary medical tale.
It's a medical melodrama which gets off to a terrific start with Mifune operating on soldiers in a makeshift surgery in 1944. There's some great Kurosawa compositions and atmosphere as Mifune cuts a finger and infects himself and you think "oh this is going to be good".
But once it gets back to Japan, the action movies to a sound stage and the film becomes less interesting. Mifune has dumped his fiancee but still desires her; he works for his dad; one of his nurses is a former crazy bitch who is still a bit crazy.
I kept waiting for the story to start - for him to have sex with the former crazy nurse and to infect her (she seems to want to), or to go mad and start doing weird things, or to sleep with his ex, or to seek revenge on the guy who infected him, or to try to set up a hospital or something and have to keep his condition a secret.
But it never does. Mifune is noble and tormented and Japanese, as is his fiancee. People are concerned about what's going on but there's no forward progression.
Noriko Sengoku (the recovering suicide person) has the second best role. Toshiro Mifune fans will be interested to see how he handles a non gangster/samurai part, almost as if Dr Kildare got syphillis (he does well). Takashia Shimura is dull as Mifune's dad, though he has the requisite gravitas. Miki Sanjo is dull as the dull fiancee.
This isn't much of a movie, mostly because of the story. I guess it was interesting to see Kurosawa and Mifune in a contemporary medical tale.
Tuesday, December 06, 2016
Movie review - "Razorback" (1984) *** (warning: spoilers)
A beloved 80s cult film - the review site Oz Movies says its perhaps the best of the Ozsploitation films of the 10BA era. I'm not sure I'd agree - Roadgames, Patrick and Long Weekend would match it at least.
But it is easy to see it's appeal to cultists - the title, the concept, the imported American star, Judy Morris' American accent, Bill Kerr's emoting in the opening sequence, Everett de Roche writing the script, the stylish video clip imagery, Iva Davies' score, the duelling banjos act of David Argue and Chris Haywood, the fake pig.
It doesn't work as a film, though, not really. I remember really looking forward to this when it came out and being disappointed - and watching it years later it's still disappointing. You want it to be good - I mean, a film about a killer pig, who doesn't instinctively love that? - and there are great moments, but overall it doesn't come together.
Sometimes spotting what's wrong with a film is easier. Am fully aware this is wisdom in hindsight but I do like the play the game "how would I have fixed this?" With Razorback it was trickier.
Story seems to be number one. All the elements are there for a good movie, but it doesn't come together. Greg Harrison is a bit bland but he has a bland character to play. I was unsure what his character was - he doesn't have any special skills, I was unclear even what his job was. Why not make him a doctor? Or an accountant completely out of his depth? It was also a mistake to have him chop up a kangaroo.
Bill Kerr's character on the other hand is fantastic. Captain Ahab out to get his Moby Dick, the Razorback. Kerr's emoting in the opening sequence is poor and completely over the top (in a bad way) but once he relaxes (or, rather, intensifies) into tormented vengeance seeker, he's awesome - full of hate and fury. But once the film sets up this driven Razorback hater full of potential they don't really do anything with it. There's lots of potential - he could say clash with Gregory Harrison over how to get revenge... Or he could have endangered Arkie Whiteley by his actions? Or the townsfolk? Most of all he should have been given a spectacular finish, being killed doing real battle with the Razorback. Instead the filmmakers throw him in a shed, defenseless and weak, and he gets gored to pieces without putting up any sort of fight. It's depressing - they completely cut his balls off. Maybe they were trying to subvert tropes, but it just made me feel bad for the guy.
David Argue and Chris Haywood are brilliant as the dodgy meat operators - loathsome, but funny villains. But are they too loathsome? Argue tries to rape Judy Morris and tries to kill Bill Kerr. They overtake the film to a large degree - it really should be about a killer razorback but these two keep pulling focus. They even deliberately run over a dog just to be mean - the razorback is never that mean. Sure he gorges people but he can't help it - unlike these two. As a result you get more upset about the two brothers, which maybe wouldn't be a problem but the brothers are all over the last act. It's as if the mayor of Amity went along on the final shark hunting trip in Jaws.
Director Russell Mulcahy and DOP Dean Semler have come up with some amazing images - characters traipsing across the desert, dead animals in the mud, people listening to ghetto blasters on the back of camels, etc (there's a lot of artists on the soundtrack who Mulchay did the video clips for - Duran Duran, Elton John, etc). But a lot of the choreography of the scenes don't make sense. I wasn't exactly sure how Gregory Harrison wound up the top of a windmill, or how Chris Haywood wound up in a mine with Harrison having control of him, or what happened to Arke Whiteley in the final battle (how did she end up tangled in those chains), or what was going on in that final battle. The scenes involving the Razorback are loud and destructive rather than suspenseful and/or scary .
Let's take a walk on the sunny side. I loved the performances, the visuals, and Iva Davies' score. I love the ambition of the film. Arkie Whiteley is gorgeous - not a fantastic actor, but very pretty and likeable. The locations are amazing. I truly wish it was a better film. I wish Everett de Roche had had a strong co-writer to elevate his fabulous ideas.
But it is different - it sticks out. It promised a more interesting career from Russell Mulcahy than the one that eventuated.
But it is easy to see it's appeal to cultists - the title, the concept, the imported American star, Judy Morris' American accent, Bill Kerr's emoting in the opening sequence, Everett de Roche writing the script, the stylish video clip imagery, Iva Davies' score, the duelling banjos act of David Argue and Chris Haywood, the fake pig.
It doesn't work as a film, though, not really. I remember really looking forward to this when it came out and being disappointed - and watching it years later it's still disappointing. You want it to be good - I mean, a film about a killer pig, who doesn't instinctively love that? - and there are great moments, but overall it doesn't come together.
Sometimes spotting what's wrong with a film is easier. Am fully aware this is wisdom in hindsight but I do like the play the game "how would I have fixed this?" With Razorback it was trickier.
Story seems to be number one. All the elements are there for a good movie, but it doesn't come together. Greg Harrison is a bit bland but he has a bland character to play. I was unsure what his character was - he doesn't have any special skills, I was unclear even what his job was. Why not make him a doctor? Or an accountant completely out of his depth? It was also a mistake to have him chop up a kangaroo.
Bill Kerr's character on the other hand is fantastic. Captain Ahab out to get his Moby Dick, the Razorback. Kerr's emoting in the opening sequence is poor and completely over the top (in a bad way) but once he relaxes (or, rather, intensifies) into tormented vengeance seeker, he's awesome - full of hate and fury. But once the film sets up this driven Razorback hater full of potential they don't really do anything with it. There's lots of potential - he could say clash with Gregory Harrison over how to get revenge... Or he could have endangered Arkie Whiteley by his actions? Or the townsfolk? Most of all he should have been given a spectacular finish, being killed doing real battle with the Razorback. Instead the filmmakers throw him in a shed, defenseless and weak, and he gets gored to pieces without putting up any sort of fight. It's depressing - they completely cut his balls off. Maybe they were trying to subvert tropes, but it just made me feel bad for the guy.
David Argue and Chris Haywood are brilliant as the dodgy meat operators - loathsome, but funny villains. But are they too loathsome? Argue tries to rape Judy Morris and tries to kill Bill Kerr. They overtake the film to a large degree - it really should be about a killer razorback but these two keep pulling focus. They even deliberately run over a dog just to be mean - the razorback is never that mean. Sure he gorges people but he can't help it - unlike these two. As a result you get more upset about the two brothers, which maybe wouldn't be a problem but the brothers are all over the last act. It's as if the mayor of Amity went along on the final shark hunting trip in Jaws.
Director Russell Mulcahy and DOP Dean Semler have come up with some amazing images - characters traipsing across the desert, dead animals in the mud, people listening to ghetto blasters on the back of camels, etc (there's a lot of artists on the soundtrack who Mulchay did the video clips for - Duran Duran, Elton John, etc). But a lot of the choreography of the scenes don't make sense. I wasn't exactly sure how Gregory Harrison wound up the top of a windmill, or how Chris Haywood wound up in a mine with Harrison having control of him, or what happened to Arke Whiteley in the final battle (how did she end up tangled in those chains), or what was going on in that final battle. The scenes involving the Razorback are loud and destructive rather than suspenseful and/or scary .
Let's take a walk on the sunny side. I loved the performances, the visuals, and Iva Davies' score. I love the ambition of the film. Arkie Whiteley is gorgeous - not a fantastic actor, but very pretty and likeable. The locations are amazing. I truly wish it was a better film. I wish Everett de Roche had had a strong co-writer to elevate his fabulous ideas.
But it is different - it sticks out. It promised a more interesting career from Russell Mulcahy than the one that eventuated.
Monday, December 05, 2016
Book review - "Stuntman!: My Car-Crashing, Plane-Jumping, Bone-Breaking, Death-Defying Hollywood Life" by Hal Needham (2011)
Disappointing autobiography from a colourful Hollywood character. Needham certainly had an interesting life and made a decent contribution to movie making - indeed, he's one of the few stuntmen of whom you could argue was an auteur - but his memoirs are unfocused.
Needham was - as he mentions many, many times in this book - born poor, living in Tennessee then Arkansas. Dad shot through but ma was a decent woman, hard working and religious and all that stuff and she remarried to a sharecropper. Needham's childhood seems to have consisted of a lot of poverty and chores but joining the army helped him. He got work as a paratrooper and developed contacts which proved useful. After discharge he went to work as a treelopper but broke into stunts via a buddy who was helping out on The Spirit of St Louis. (Needham tells a great story where Billy Wilder took part in a flight stunt to win a bet that the director wouldn't do it.)
Needham admits to being interested in stunts mainly for the money - he talks a LOT about how much money he made, how you could get more money doing certain jobs in certain ways, it clearly drove him - but he also seems to have found his life's passion. He would practice stunts on the weekend, developed his own stunt crew, was always thinking up new bits of business. Once he got a job as Richard Boone's stunty on Have Gun Will Travel he didn't look back and became one of the best in the business.
Interestingly though, Needham has few classic action films on his resume - no Bond films, say, or even The Great Escape. He did a lot of TV, many films for Andrew McLaglen (like Bandolero!), a couple of the lesser known John Waynes, some Burt Reynolds films. He branched out into other areas - doing ads to demonstrate the power of air bags, developing the Wild West show at Universal's theme part. At one stage he was so high profile he even had his own action figure. He moved into directing with Smokey in the Bandit - a film originated by Needham.
Needham was a good ole boy - that is very clear from this book where he includes an anecdote working on The French Connection 2 telling a local French girl how the Americans came and save the French during the way; he's always talking about hanging out at the bar, and chasing women. But he clearly had a gift for connecting with audiences - the Smokey films were big hits, as was Hooper and The Cannonball Run. These were all Needham projects - Smokey and Cannonball were his ideas.
Then around the early 80s it started to go wrong - Stroker Ace bombed as did Cannonball Run II and Megaforce. Needham's directing and stunt career wound down - interestingly, it coincided with the declined in Burt Reynolds' career.
You won't hear much about that in this book - actually you won't hear anything. You'll hear a lot about stunts, in fact heaps about stunts. There's plenty about growing up poor, and adventures on the way to making it, and his views on stuntmen. There is a little bit on John Wayne (almost all positive), but surprisingly little on Burt Reynolds (Dinah Shore was nice, they shared a house, Needham drove him over the state line when it seemed Reynolds might be up for murder during the making of The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing). It's frustrating because I would've loved a closer look at Reynolds or Andrew McLaglen or other people. And Needham can tell a good story - he does a good bitch session on Peter Bogdanovich making Nickelodeon which inspired a Bogdanovich-esque director to appear in Hooper.
I know there's always a danger in a reviewer going "I wish a book had been X" but I honestly think Needham had a better, more interesting book in him than this effort. No reflection on his less successful films, no real grasp of the personalities he worked with, his own private life was vague. Still, if you enjoyed his films you'll get something out of it.
Needham was - as he mentions many, many times in this book - born poor, living in Tennessee then Arkansas. Dad shot through but ma was a decent woman, hard working and religious and all that stuff and she remarried to a sharecropper. Needham's childhood seems to have consisted of a lot of poverty and chores but joining the army helped him. He got work as a paratrooper and developed contacts which proved useful. After discharge he went to work as a treelopper but broke into stunts via a buddy who was helping out on The Spirit of St Louis. (Needham tells a great story where Billy Wilder took part in a flight stunt to win a bet that the director wouldn't do it.)
Needham admits to being interested in stunts mainly for the money - he talks a LOT about how much money he made, how you could get more money doing certain jobs in certain ways, it clearly drove him - but he also seems to have found his life's passion. He would practice stunts on the weekend, developed his own stunt crew, was always thinking up new bits of business. Once he got a job as Richard Boone's stunty on Have Gun Will Travel he didn't look back and became one of the best in the business.
Interestingly though, Needham has few classic action films on his resume - no Bond films, say, or even The Great Escape. He did a lot of TV, many films for Andrew McLaglen (like Bandolero!), a couple of the lesser known John Waynes, some Burt Reynolds films. He branched out into other areas - doing ads to demonstrate the power of air bags, developing the Wild West show at Universal's theme part. At one stage he was so high profile he even had his own action figure. He moved into directing with Smokey in the Bandit - a film originated by Needham.
Needham was a good ole boy - that is very clear from this book where he includes an anecdote working on The French Connection 2 telling a local French girl how the Americans came and save the French during the way; he's always talking about hanging out at the bar, and chasing women. But he clearly had a gift for connecting with audiences - the Smokey films were big hits, as was Hooper and The Cannonball Run. These were all Needham projects - Smokey and Cannonball were his ideas.
Then around the early 80s it started to go wrong - Stroker Ace bombed as did Cannonball Run II and Megaforce. Needham's directing and stunt career wound down - interestingly, it coincided with the declined in Burt Reynolds' career.
You won't hear much about that in this book - actually you won't hear anything. You'll hear a lot about stunts, in fact heaps about stunts. There's plenty about growing up poor, and adventures on the way to making it, and his views on stuntmen. There is a little bit on John Wayne (almost all positive), but surprisingly little on Burt Reynolds (Dinah Shore was nice, they shared a house, Needham drove him over the state line when it seemed Reynolds might be up for murder during the making of The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing). It's frustrating because I would've loved a closer look at Reynolds or Andrew McLaglen or other people. And Needham can tell a good story - he does a good bitch session on Peter Bogdanovich making Nickelodeon which inspired a Bogdanovich-esque director to appear in Hooper.
I know there's always a danger in a reviewer going "I wish a book had been X" but I honestly think Needham had a better, more interesting book in him than this effort. No reflection on his less successful films, no real grasp of the personalities he worked with, his own private life was vague. Still, if you enjoyed his films you'll get something out of it.
Movie review - "Hang 'Em High" (1968) **1/2
An important film in Clint Eastwood's career - he'd become a star in Italian spaghetti Westerns but this proved his popularity would hold in Hollywood films. Its an interesting cross breed - the spaghetti Western influence is felt here, notably via the music score and some of the visuals - but more overwhelmingly it feels like an episode of a 60s TV Western like, well, Rawhide. A lot of movies made by Universal Pictures around this time suffered from that fate - the sets look like backlot sets, there are these crappy musical stings at the end of scenes, it feels cheap.
Occasionally the piece rises to something more - such as the scene where Clint is locked in with other prisoners, a, impressively powerful execution sequence, the odd bit of dialogue and action.
The plot seems to borrow from the set up of The Ox Bow Incident (NB this could have been accidental) - Clint is wrongly accused of stealing some cattle by a posse so they hang him; he survives and gets payback. Part of the difference is he gets payback via being appointed as marshall by a judge... only it's a hanging judge (Pat Hingle) who is very keen to hang people. There are some mediations on justice and the death penalty but it all feels haphazard.
In addition to the usual prostitutes there's Inger Stevens as a love interest. She has a scene where she tells Eastwood she was raped and he looks annoyed that he won't be able to get his end in. Not to worry, there's a rain storm soon, they wind up in a barn and he gets his way.
There's a very strong support cast - Dennis Hopper pops up as does Bruce Dern, Charles Macgraw, Ed Begley, and Ben Johnson (who looks like he's going to be a major character but disappears after the first ten minutes or something). I've got such mixed feelings about this film - every time I was going to write it off, it could surprise me in some good way with quality... then when I started to like it, it would let me down. It feels as though the script needed another few drafts and for shooting to all be on location, or something.
Occasionally the piece rises to something more - such as the scene where Clint is locked in with other prisoners, a, impressively powerful execution sequence, the odd bit of dialogue and action.
The plot seems to borrow from the set up of The Ox Bow Incident (NB this could have been accidental) - Clint is wrongly accused of stealing some cattle by a posse so they hang him; he survives and gets payback. Part of the difference is he gets payback via being appointed as marshall by a judge... only it's a hanging judge (Pat Hingle) who is very keen to hang people. There are some mediations on justice and the death penalty but it all feels haphazard.
In addition to the usual prostitutes there's Inger Stevens as a love interest. She has a scene where she tells Eastwood she was raped and he looks annoyed that he won't be able to get his end in. Not to worry, there's a rain storm soon, they wind up in a barn and he gets his way.
There's a very strong support cast - Dennis Hopper pops up as does Bruce Dern, Charles Macgraw, Ed Begley, and Ben Johnson (who looks like he's going to be a major character but disappears after the first ten minutes or something). I've got such mixed feelings about this film - every time I was going to write it off, it could surprise me in some good way with quality... then when I started to like it, it would let me down. It feels as though the script needed another few drafts and for shooting to all be on location, or something.
Sunday, December 04, 2016
Movie review - "Bridge of Spies" (2015) **1/2
Steven Spielberg became a legend in part by making movies that perfectly targeted in the inner child in all of us - this one targets the inner forgotten middle aged man. Tom Hanks works hard at his boring job (insurance lawyer), isn't particularly respected by his nagging wife or ungrateful kids. He gets a call to defend a Soviet spy (Mark Rylance) which he does with such passion that he saves the spy from execution and people on the train start scowling at him. But he proves Everyone Wrong when the spy is used to swap for Francis Gary Powers. Then everyone hears about what he does and people are nice to him on the train again.
It's an odd sort of movie. There's a very sympathetic description of a Soviet spy, who is calm, and brave and a bit doddery in a loveable English eccentric sort of way - Hanks keeps going on about how hes better than say the Rosenbergs because he was born Russian. But he is in the country spying isn't he? And is it so great we got back Francis Gary Powers? I mean, yeah, he was brave and that crap but it was hardly a massive victory for freedom.
I feel in my guts there wasn't enough story here for a feature film. It was a hit, but I'm inclined to put that down to the fact it's a big budget film for adults with a star in it, that tries to tell a story... Hollywood makes hardly any movies like that these days. And it does a nice line in middle aged man wish fulfillment.
I'm not sure why Spielberg wanted to make this. I get the impression he may have been excited about the possibilities involved in recreating the era. It's slow paced and not that gripping and at 140 minutes way too long. The stakes feel low. Who cares about spies who've been caught? Or a lawyer whose wife nags him? Tom Hanks isn't Jimmy Stewart - I miss the days when Tom Hanks played Tom Hanks. But it does have novelty and the production design is impressive.
It's an odd sort of movie. There's a very sympathetic description of a Soviet spy, who is calm, and brave and a bit doddery in a loveable English eccentric sort of way - Hanks keeps going on about how hes better than say the Rosenbergs because he was born Russian. But he is in the country spying isn't he? And is it so great we got back Francis Gary Powers? I mean, yeah, he was brave and that crap but it was hardly a massive victory for freedom.
I feel in my guts there wasn't enough story here for a feature film. It was a hit, but I'm inclined to put that down to the fact it's a big budget film for adults with a star in it, that tries to tell a story... Hollywood makes hardly any movies like that these days. And it does a nice line in middle aged man wish fulfillment.
I'm not sure why Spielberg wanted to make this. I get the impression he may have been excited about the possibilities involved in recreating the era. It's slow paced and not that gripping and at 140 minutes way too long. The stakes feel low. Who cares about spies who've been caught? Or a lawyer whose wife nags him? Tom Hanks isn't Jimmy Stewart - I miss the days when Tom Hanks played Tom Hanks. But it does have novelty and the production design is impressive.
Movie review - "Deadpool" (2016) ***1/2
They're a very smart bunch at Marvel, getting more life out of their old formula by coming up with a fresh twist - an extremely meta, self referential R rated version. Ryan Reynolds is perfectly cast in the lead - ditto TJ Miller as his best friend.
They comment on the tropes while still delivering them - hooker with a heart of gold, "bad guy" with a heart of gold, getting revenge, a superhero so talented there's no real threat to him, a damsel in distress who pretends to not be a damsel in distress. It's smart arseness and cleverness does get annoying at times but other times it is genuinely funny with some brilliantly smart bits. It does have integrity which is why I think people responded to it so much.
They comment on the tropes while still delivering them - hooker with a heart of gold, "bad guy" with a heart of gold, getting revenge, a superhero so talented there's no real threat to him, a damsel in distress who pretends to not be a damsel in distress. It's smart arseness and cleverness does get annoying at times but other times it is genuinely funny with some brilliantly smart bits. It does have integrity which is why I think people responded to it so much.
Saturday, December 03, 2016
Script review - "Mad Max Two" (13 April, 1981)
Not sure of the exact draft of this screenplay - it seems reasonably close to the final product. The same set up is there, as is the structure - Max finds a tanker, meets the Gyro captain, arrives at the camp, goes and gets the tanker and brings it back, tries to escape but is injured, drives the tanker at the end. Pappagalo lives at the end of this one and is a lot more ruthless.
Some of the character names aren't very politically correct: "gay boy berserkers", "The Lusty Girl" (the Arky Whitley part). I feel a lot of this may have been changed during shooting. But even at script stage this has tremendous mythical power and is a gripping read. The characters are simple but clearly defined via action. You could film it tomorrow.
Some of the character names aren't very politically correct: "gay boy berserkers", "The Lusty Girl" (the Arky Whitley part). I feel a lot of this may have been changed during shooting. But even at script stage this has tremendous mythical power and is a gripping read. The characters are simple but clearly defined via action. You could film it tomorrow.
Movie review - "Trespass" (1993) ***
You don't associate the team of Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis with gritty thrillers - well structured comedies are more their line (Back to the Future, Used Cars, I Wanna Hold Your Hand). This too is well structured and it could have really done with more comedy.
It's a modern day take on The Treasure of the Sierre Madre with Bill Paxton and William Sandler going looking for buried treasure in an abandoned building... only to pick a day where two drug lords (Ice T and Ice Cube) have decided to use the same building to take out a rival.
This starts with a bang - a great Ry Cooder score, rapid intro into the story... a scene of a drug dealer killing a rival, a fire sequence, firemen discover the map and decide to go looking for it, stumble upon an old derelict, the drug dealers turn up, guns get drawn...
The second half of the movie was less sure. There were fewer complications, some repetitive scenes that could've actually been cut from the film (eg Paxton and Sandler building a bridge to try and get across to the next building, which was shot down). The divisions among the gangsters were interesting - I wish there had been more.
I kept thinking the film needed extra twists to push it home - like say someone else turns up: someone Paxton/Sandler know from their civilian life, such as a girlfriend... or an associate of the drug dealer that Ice T and Ice Cube kill... or more police... or the reveal one of the gang was a traitor, or two of them were going out... or something...
Sandler started pretty greedy and crazed (he brings a gun to the expedition) and just gets more greedy and crazed. Paxton starts a little greedy and wary but basically decent and ends the same way. I do wish these roles had been played by better actors from the Walter Hill stock company, like Nick Nolte, Powers Boothe, Keith Carradine, etc. Ice T and Ice Cube wipe the floor with them - actually all the black actors are pretty good.
All the "motherfucker"s in the dialogue gets boring after a while. The photography is beautiful. The concept of drug dealing gangsters referring to themselves as businessmen, using mobile phones and filming themselves on the video was fresher then... and the technology has dated. Unfortunately the social conditions which inspired the story haven't.
It's a modern day take on The Treasure of the Sierre Madre with Bill Paxton and William Sandler going looking for buried treasure in an abandoned building... only to pick a day where two drug lords (Ice T and Ice Cube) have decided to use the same building to take out a rival.
This starts with a bang - a great Ry Cooder score, rapid intro into the story... a scene of a drug dealer killing a rival, a fire sequence, firemen discover the map and decide to go looking for it, stumble upon an old derelict, the drug dealers turn up, guns get drawn...
The second half of the movie was less sure. There were fewer complications, some repetitive scenes that could've actually been cut from the film (eg Paxton and Sandler building a bridge to try and get across to the next building, which was shot down). The divisions among the gangsters were interesting - I wish there had been more.
I kept thinking the film needed extra twists to push it home - like say someone else turns up: someone Paxton/Sandler know from their civilian life, such as a girlfriend... or an associate of the drug dealer that Ice T and Ice Cube kill... or more police... or the reveal one of the gang was a traitor, or two of them were going out... or something...
Sandler started pretty greedy and crazed (he brings a gun to the expedition) and just gets more greedy and crazed. Paxton starts a little greedy and wary but basically decent and ends the same way. I do wish these roles had been played by better actors from the Walter Hill stock company, like Nick Nolte, Powers Boothe, Keith Carradine, etc. Ice T and Ice Cube wipe the floor with them - actually all the black actors are pretty good.
All the "motherfucker"s in the dialogue gets boring after a while. The photography is beautiful. The concept of drug dealing gangsters referring to themselves as businessmen, using mobile phones and filming themselves on the video was fresher then... and the technology has dated. Unfortunately the social conditions which inspired the story haven't.
Movie review - "Undisputed" (2002) *** (re-viewing)
Unpretentious Walter Hill-David Giler film which doesn't have the tightness of Hill's works during his golden period (late 70s early 80s) but is enjoyable. It has the benefit of a strong "what if" idea - what if the heavyweight champion of the world was sent to prison for rape and had a fight with the local champion?
It helps that the stars look as though they can box - Ving Rhames and Wesley Snipes. There must have been a lot of pressure to cast white leads - as was the case in the direct to video sequels - but it was worth the effort: it helps sell the reality of the film. Excellent support cast: Peter Falk, Fisher Stevens, Wes Studi, Michael Rooker.
Aspects are flabby - I can't think of a more appropriate word. The script feels as though it could have done with another complication - I had the same feeling about an earlier Hill boxing movie, Hard Times, which this resembles every now and then (e.g. the boxer being honourable and refusing to cheat).
It helps that the stars look as though they can box - Ving Rhames and Wesley Snipes. There must have been a lot of pressure to cast white leads - as was the case in the direct to video sequels - but it was worth the effort: it helps sell the reality of the film. Excellent support cast: Peter Falk, Fisher Stevens, Wes Studi, Michael Rooker.
Aspects are flabby - I can't think of a more appropriate word. The script feels as though it could have done with another complication - I had the same feeling about an earlier Hill boxing movie, Hard Times, which this resembles every now and then (e.g. the boxer being honourable and refusing to cheat).
Thursday, December 01, 2016
Movie review - "Anaconda" (1997) **
Schlocky fun which benefits of having a "before they were famous" cast including Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube and Owen Wilson. There's also some people whose best days were behind them including Jon Voight and Eric Stoltz.
The story revolves around that old 1990s standby, a documentary film crew, trying to track down a lost tribe. Instead they stumble upon a killer anaconda. More time is spent dealing with crazed anaconda catcher Jon Voight (sporting an outrageous accent).
The highlight of the film is Voight who hams it up but is entertaining. The special effects of the anaconda are poor and there are surprisingly few suspenseful sequences involving the reptile. There are some enjoyably over the top attacks. I thought the script would use the lost tribe as a third act complication but no.
Stoltz's role is emasculating - he's knocked out for most of the film. Ice Cube gives a relaxed performance and Lopez is a likeable hero, even though at times you feel she's posing so the hair can go over her eye the right way. The scenery is pleasant. It's disappointingly mediocre - not bad enough to be a true masterpiece of crap but not a well made film at all.
The story revolves around that old 1990s standby, a documentary film crew, trying to track down a lost tribe. Instead they stumble upon a killer anaconda. More time is spent dealing with crazed anaconda catcher Jon Voight (sporting an outrageous accent).
The highlight of the film is Voight who hams it up but is entertaining. The special effects of the anaconda are poor and there are surprisingly few suspenseful sequences involving the reptile. There are some enjoyably over the top attacks. I thought the script would use the lost tribe as a third act complication but no.
Stoltz's role is emasculating - he's knocked out for most of the film. Ice Cube gives a relaxed performance and Lopez is a likeable hero, even though at times you feel she's posing so the hair can go over her eye the right way. The scenery is pleasant. It's disappointingly mediocre - not bad enough to be a true masterpiece of crap but not a well made film at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)