A film that copped a lot of hate from reviewers - it's not that bad. Maybe people were annoyed at the $3.5 million price tag on the script.
It's an amiable mash up of Alien Nation and Training Day - Will Smith as a cop with an orc partner (Joel Edgerton). The action takes place over the course of one night. Smith goes from a cop worried about his pension, assuring his wife and daughter he'll be safe, to taking a lot of risks - he blows away a bunch of cops (who want him to blame something on Edgerton) then sets about a reckless course of action.
The Macguffin is a wand - this is in a world where the Orcs are the underclass, the elves are the upper class, and the humans are kind of... the same, I guess. The mythology of the world feels a bit thin - I think you can tell it wasn't based on a book. Or maybe Max Landis had it all fleshed out and didn't have time.
I felt the film got a bit sillier as it went on - more and more mythology comes in (the Dark Lord, brights, orc culture). Will Smith is suddenly a "bright" - he has super powers.
The women characters barely talk. All the other character types are very familiar. The nihilism of David Ayer movies ("there's so much corruption in the LAPD") is now starting to get tired.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Thursday, December 28, 2017
Movie review - "Black Mama, White Mama" (1973) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
One of the best of the Philippines-shot women in prison movies - I'd probably rank it second to The Big Doll House (though I haven't seen them all). It benefits from a strong central idea, albeit one that rips off The Defiant Ones (but that can't claim complete originality - remember The 39 Steps?)... two prisoners who dislike each other, one black and one white, escape while handcuffed together.
The stars are Pam Grier and Margaret Markov - Grier of course was the great female star of blaxploitation, with that amazing hair and athlete's physique. A raw acting talent, but she had charisma and presence in spades. Markov is less well known in part because she retired in 1974 but she teams brilliantly with Grier - she's got an athlete's build too, with long legs, and her pale skin and blonde hair provide a striking visual opposite to Grier. The two of them proved popular as a team and were later reunited on The Arena.
For the first half or so this is fantastic. Markov and Grier are thrown into prison, which seems dominated by predatory lesbian guards. One of the prisoners had an Aussie-ish accent if I'm not mistaken. There's plenty of showers and catfights. And some of the fellow prisoners seem interesting characters - it's a shame we don't see them again after the opening act. (I know it's tricky considering the story has the leads go on the run... still, it's a shame.)
Then Markov and Grier make a run for it, and dress up as nuns to hide, leading to some comedy and with a whole bunch of promising sub plots introduced (Markov's fellow revolutionaries, Grier's former pimp Victor Diaz, military baddy Eddie Garcia) I thought this was primed to be a classic.
Around the half-way mark though, it gets wobbly. The subplots don't really develop interesting - there's no extra twists or things to flip on it's head. Grier and Markov's adventures are linear - I felt they badly needed to run into a third person, like say the Brad Pitt character in Thelma and Louise - to complicate things. They were too isolated.
The climax does have a lot of action and explosions and is well done. It's a downer, though - Grier gets away on a boat but Markov and all her revolutionary mates are killed and Garcia wins.
Production values are high and Grier and Markov make a strong team. Worth watching, just a bit disappointing because I thought it was going to be awesome and it never gets there.
The stars are Pam Grier and Margaret Markov - Grier of course was the great female star of blaxploitation, with that amazing hair and athlete's physique. A raw acting talent, but she had charisma and presence in spades. Markov is less well known in part because she retired in 1974 but she teams brilliantly with Grier - she's got an athlete's build too, with long legs, and her pale skin and blonde hair provide a striking visual opposite to Grier. The two of them proved popular as a team and were later reunited on The Arena.
For the first half or so this is fantastic. Markov and Grier are thrown into prison, which seems dominated by predatory lesbian guards. One of the prisoners had an Aussie-ish accent if I'm not mistaken. There's plenty of showers and catfights. And some of the fellow prisoners seem interesting characters - it's a shame we don't see them again after the opening act. (I know it's tricky considering the story has the leads go on the run... still, it's a shame.)
Then Markov and Grier make a run for it, and dress up as nuns to hide, leading to some comedy and with a whole bunch of promising sub plots introduced (Markov's fellow revolutionaries, Grier's former pimp Victor Diaz, military baddy Eddie Garcia) I thought this was primed to be a classic.
Around the half-way mark though, it gets wobbly. The subplots don't really develop interesting - there's no extra twists or things to flip on it's head. Grier and Markov's adventures are linear - I felt they badly needed to run into a third person, like say the Brad Pitt character in Thelma and Louise - to complicate things. They were too isolated.
The climax does have a lot of action and explosions and is well done. It's a downer, though - Grier gets away on a boat but Markov and all her revolutionary mates are killed and Garcia wins.
Production values are high and Grier and Markov make a strong team. Worth watching, just a bit disappointing because I thought it was going to be awesome and it never gets there.
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Movie review - "Savage Sisters" (1974) **
One of the last of the white-women-in-peril-in-the-Philippines films, a genre which temporarily flourished after The Big Doll House. Many of them were, like this one, produced by John Ashley and Eddie Romero.
Ashley once said this was one of his most expensive films and it looks better than others he had made (or maybe I saw a better print) - decent photography, the actresses look as though some attention's been paid to their appearance.
It's a lively film - quite jaunty. I liked how it was basically about three girls and they got to triumph. Gloria Hendry is a fun star as is Cheri Caffaro. Ashley gives one of his liveliest performances as a sort of con man who falls in with the girls.
It feels stagnant a lot of the time - like it could do with more pace or movement or something. Also the film never seems to be able to decide how exploitative it wants to be - there's some rape and torture and death but the depiction is pulled back. The tone is never quite right.
Ashley once said this was one of his most expensive films and it looks better than others he had made (or maybe I saw a better print) - decent photography, the actresses look as though some attention's been paid to their appearance.
It's a lively film - quite jaunty. I liked how it was basically about three girls and they got to triumph. Gloria Hendry is a fun star as is Cheri Caffaro. Ashley gives one of his liveliest performances as a sort of con man who falls in with the girls.
It feels stagnant a lot of the time - like it could do with more pace or movement or something. Also the film never seems to be able to decide how exploitative it wants to be - there's some rape and torture and death but the depiction is pulled back. The tone is never quite right.
Movie review - The Assignment (2016) ** (warning: spoilers)
Walter Hill developed a taste for lurid comic book stories as a child and showed them off in his Tales from the Crypt TV series but not often in his features, until this one. It probably would've been better off as an episode of that.
The concept is outlandish - male hitman takes out brother of mad doctor who then performs a sex change operation on him. I know that sort of idea is problematic to many, especially in this day and age, but I was willing to go with it.
I didn't feel it came off. There's a nod to comic book style with scene transfers done in drawing - but the treatment of the actual scenes isn't particularly stylised. It's just shot like a normal film - maybe it needed to be completely stylised like say Sin City or even Hill's earlier The Warriors. (I remember thinking his The Driver wasn't stylised enough.)
Maybe it was that Michelle Rodriguez doesn't look particularly like a man during her male phase. I guess it was either this or cast a different actor in each part or cast a male who turns into a woman - a male actor mightn't have looked like a woman. The fake penis was lively, though.
I think also there simply isn't enough story for a feature. The lead is established, kills people, is captured and transformed, goes looking for revenge... that's about it. There's one or two little reversals but of little impact - a girl who professes to be into him/her is revealed to be doing it for money; he/she is captured but escapes easily enough. The running time is padded out with talks between Sigourney Weaver and Tony Shalhoub. Maybe this would have worked as a half hour instalment of an anthology.
The cast is good - Rodriguez, Weaver, and Shalhoub all give solid performances, as do Anthony LaPaglia and Caitlin Gerard. For me the best thing about it was the relationship between Gerard and Rodriguez. I felt for a feature the movie needed more of this sort of thing - Rodriguez and her parents, say, or old boss.
The concept is outlandish - male hitman takes out brother of mad doctor who then performs a sex change operation on him. I know that sort of idea is problematic to many, especially in this day and age, but I was willing to go with it.
I didn't feel it came off. There's a nod to comic book style with scene transfers done in drawing - but the treatment of the actual scenes isn't particularly stylised. It's just shot like a normal film - maybe it needed to be completely stylised like say Sin City or even Hill's earlier The Warriors. (I remember thinking his The Driver wasn't stylised enough.)
Maybe it was that Michelle Rodriguez doesn't look particularly like a man during her male phase. I guess it was either this or cast a different actor in each part or cast a male who turns into a woman - a male actor mightn't have looked like a woman. The fake penis was lively, though.
I think also there simply isn't enough story for a feature. The lead is established, kills people, is captured and transformed, goes looking for revenge... that's about it. There's one or two little reversals but of little impact - a girl who professes to be into him/her is revealed to be doing it for money; he/she is captured but escapes easily enough. The running time is padded out with talks between Sigourney Weaver and Tony Shalhoub. Maybe this would have worked as a half hour instalment of an anthology.
The cast is good - Rodriguez, Weaver, and Shalhoub all give solid performances, as do Anthony LaPaglia and Caitlin Gerard. For me the best thing about it was the relationship between Gerard and Rodriguez. I felt for a feature the movie needed more of this sort of thing - Rodriguez and her parents, say, or old boss.
Movie review - "Beast of the Yellow Night" (1971) **1/2
Decent John Ashley-Eddie Romero flick which is a kind of mash up of werewolf movies and Faust. Ashley has one of his juiciest roles as a dirty piece of work who sells his soul to the devil (Victor Diaz) in exchange for the change to live. He possesses the body of a man, married to a beautiful woman, then turns into a creature that runs around killing people.
This isn't bad - it's not amazing, but it's solid. It mixes up enough stuff to be a little bit original, the handling is brisk.
Mary Wilcox is Ashley's wife and the two of them have a number of sex scenes. People like Ken Metcalfe and Eddie Garcia pop up - they would be in a lot of these movies.
The horror stuff comes along at decent intervals. The make up is good.
This isn't bad - it's not amazing, but it's solid. It mixes up enough stuff to be a little bit original, the handling is brisk.
Mary Wilcox is Ashley's wife and the two of them have a number of sex scenes. People like Ken Metcalfe and Eddie Garcia pop up - they would be in a lot of these movies.
The horror stuff comes along at decent intervals. The make up is good.
Monday, December 25, 2017
Book review - "The Man Who Invented Rock Hudson: The Pretty Boys and Dirty Deals of Henry Willson" By Robert Hofler (2005)
Entertaining, gossipy look at the life, loves and career of legendary agent Henry Willson, best known for discovering Rock Hudson and a bunch of similar pretty boy actors - Guy Madison, Rory Calhoun, Race Gentry, Chad Everett, John Saxon, John Gavin, George Nader, Robert Wagner, Tab Hunter, Troy Donahue. He also had some female clients - Natalie Wood, Lana Turner, Rhonda Fleming - but he was best known for the boys, some of whom Willson slept with.
He got a reputation as a major Hollywood predator, which hurt him in the long run - actors associated with him would deny the association, he struggled to get new talent. Eventually Hudson dropped him as his agent in 1966 and Willson's career never recovered. He lost all his money (he was a prodigious spender), had poor health (he was an alcoholic) and died broke and alone (he seems to have never had a long term romantic relationship).
The book focuses heavily on Hudson, who was Willson's great achievement - and the agent could lay claim to Hudson being his achievement, he really championed him, and he became the biggest star in the country. There are also long entries on Guy Madison and Rory Calhoun, both of whom apparently Willson slept with, and who represented the twin desires of Willson.
Being gossip heavy the book emphasises the personal life - at times it seems Willson mostly went out seducing men and partying and Hudson just had sex. Occasionally I felt the book was a little unfair to Hudson, who was an engaging, likeable presence on screen - he had warmth which made him a bigger star than many of his contemporaries (eg Jeff Chandler) - whereas this book makes it seem like he slept his way to the top. (He had an affair with Ed Muhl of Universal!!!)
Also it can be a depressing and wearying book - all that predatory sex, straight men allowing themselves to be used for their career, alcohol addiction. It's not always a fun and breezy read.
Still, Willson had a definite place in Hollywood history and deserved a book.
He got a reputation as a major Hollywood predator, which hurt him in the long run - actors associated with him would deny the association, he struggled to get new talent. Eventually Hudson dropped him as his agent in 1966 and Willson's career never recovered. He lost all his money (he was a prodigious spender), had poor health (he was an alcoholic) and died broke and alone (he seems to have never had a long term romantic relationship).
The book focuses heavily on Hudson, who was Willson's great achievement - and the agent could lay claim to Hudson being his achievement, he really championed him, and he became the biggest star in the country. There are also long entries on Guy Madison and Rory Calhoun, both of whom apparently Willson slept with, and who represented the twin desires of Willson.
Being gossip heavy the book emphasises the personal life - at times it seems Willson mostly went out seducing men and partying and Hudson just had sex. Occasionally I felt the book was a little unfair to Hudson, who was an engaging, likeable presence on screen - he had warmth which made him a bigger star than many of his contemporaries (eg Jeff Chandler) - whereas this book makes it seem like he slept his way to the top. (He had an affair with Ed Muhl of Universal!!!)
Also it can be a depressing and wearying book - all that predatory sex, straight men allowing themselves to be used for their career, alcohol addiction. It's not always a fun and breezy read.
Still, Willson had a definite place in Hollywood history and deserved a book.
Movie review - "Brides of Blood" (1968) **
The first movie John Ashley made in the Philippines. It's a dopey, not un-entertaining horror adventure film with Ashley playing a peace corps worker who visits an island with doctor Kent Smith and his oversexed wife Beverly Powers.
It's a grab bag of tropes: a mysterious beast is killing women on the island; said beast turns out to be created by radioactive explosions; a native girl has the hots for Ashley; native sacrifices a la Bird of Paradise; killer beasts hot for women a la King Kong; Powers' lust for sex leads her to be punished by being torn apart by a monster; Ashley saves the day.
It's not bad - not as violent as I'd been led to believe but maybe I saw a censored version. It's not particularly attractive - I know shooting in the Philippines was economical, but it's a shame they couldn't have filmed it in a nicer spot.
It's a grab bag of tropes: a mysterious beast is killing women on the island; said beast turns out to be created by radioactive explosions; a native girl has the hots for Ashley; native sacrifices a la Bird of Paradise; killer beasts hot for women a la King Kong; Powers' lust for sex leads her to be punished by being torn apart by a monster; Ashley saves the day.
It's not bad - not as violent as I'd been led to believe but maybe I saw a censored version. It's not particularly attractive - I know shooting in the Philippines was economical, but it's a shame they couldn't have filmed it in a nicer spot.
Movie review - "The Woman Hunt" (1972) **
John Ashley helped Roger Corman made The Big Doll House in the Philippines for New World Pictures, then New World financed some Ashley productions of which this was the last. It's a riff on The Most Dangerous Game - well, kind of. The plot has some white women kidnapped by vicious Eddie Garcia, but there's no official hunting because the women escape.
Ashley plays a mercenary who helps kidnap the women... but then he changes his mind and helps them escape. This kind of feels like a cheat because in the best of these films the women would get themselves out of trouble.
There are three main women, none of them particularly memorable: Pat Woodell (who was in a few of these movies), Charlene Jones (the black one) and Laurie Rose. The film badly needed someone with a bit more star power, like a Roberta Collins or a Pam Grier. Lisa Todd has the best role as the lecherous lesbian head of security for Garcia.
There's some nudity and lots of rape and uninspired action. None of the actors are on fire, except for Garcia. But then no one really has much of a character to play - I really struggled to tell the girls apart, and the men too.
I didn't enjoy this film. The handling felt too heavy or something. Jack Hill (who provided the original story) might have been a better choice as director than Eddie Romero - Hill had a lighter touch and more energy. Scenes which should have been great like Pat Woodell sacrificing herself blowing away hunters before being killed herself, are just flat. There's also stupid bits like Laurie Rose and Ashley going for a frolicking swim when they're still in danger, and Garcia deciding to kill himself when he clearly should've been killed, and Todd going from bad ass sidekick to dopey girl.
Maybe it never would have worked with Ashley being the one who saves the girls. But its an unattractive, unexciting, poorly-made movie.
Ashley plays a mercenary who helps kidnap the women... but then he changes his mind and helps them escape. This kind of feels like a cheat because in the best of these films the women would get themselves out of trouble.
There are three main women, none of them particularly memorable: Pat Woodell (who was in a few of these movies), Charlene Jones (the black one) and Laurie Rose. The film badly needed someone with a bit more star power, like a Roberta Collins or a Pam Grier. Lisa Todd has the best role as the lecherous lesbian head of security for Garcia.
There's some nudity and lots of rape and uninspired action. None of the actors are on fire, except for Garcia. But then no one really has much of a character to play - I really struggled to tell the girls apart, and the men too.
I didn't enjoy this film. The handling felt too heavy or something. Jack Hill (who provided the original story) might have been a better choice as director than Eddie Romero - Hill had a lighter touch and more energy. Scenes which should have been great like Pat Woodell sacrificing herself blowing away hunters before being killed herself, are just flat. There's also stupid bits like Laurie Rose and Ashley going for a frolicking swim when they're still in danger, and Garcia deciding to kill himself when he clearly should've been killed, and Todd going from bad ass sidekick to dopey girl.
Maybe it never would have worked with Ashley being the one who saves the girls. But its an unattractive, unexciting, poorly-made movie.
Movie review - "Beyond Atlantis" (1973) ** (warning: spoilers)
The team of John Ashley and Eddie Romero were known for their early 70 exploitation films. They tried to broaden their appeal with this one, which was made PG, in part to attract Patrick Wayne in the lead (was he box office at the time?).
On one level I can guess why - the film is an adventure tale about three men who go on a treasure hunt (Ashley, Wayne and Sid Haig). They eventually turn on each other a la Treasure of Sierra Madre - well, Ashley gets paranoid and goes a bit Humphrey Bogart. To complicate things is scientist Lenore Stevens and a troupe of natives where the pearls are. Stephanie Rothman wrote the original story - she was heavily involved with Dimension Pictures, the production company, at the time.
The thing is the plots involving the (very Anglo Saxon) natives involves chief George Nader (he of 1950s Universal fame) wanting daughter Leigh Christian to mate with one of the group. That feels like something inherent R rated. Also you get the sense the filmmakers want to do something more exploitative - the camera constantly lingers on Christian's body (lots of swims) and also Stevens' outfit.
Ashley also thought the film was hurt commercially by all the underwater photography - there is a lot of swimming. It looks nice but isn't particularly exciting - which is true. It can be sexy - again, if the film had been R rated, they could've had topless swimming and it probably would have been more effective.
There's some nice island locations. I had trouble telling Wayne and Ashley apart at times - I wish one of them had dyed their hair or cut their hair short or grown a beard or something. Ashley gets the chance to do a bit of character acting, going paranoid.
The climax feels undercooked: really Ashley or at least one of the main group should have died. From memory Nader doesn't die either. The ending feels dumb with Ashley yelling at the others to go diving for pearls with everyone laughing - why is that funny? Aren't the pearls worth a lot? Didn't Victor Diaz try to rip them off? (Why doesn't he die?)
So it's a flawed movie despite trying to be PG when in it's heart it wants to be R.
On one level I can guess why - the film is an adventure tale about three men who go on a treasure hunt (Ashley, Wayne and Sid Haig). They eventually turn on each other a la Treasure of Sierra Madre - well, Ashley gets paranoid and goes a bit Humphrey Bogart. To complicate things is scientist Lenore Stevens and a troupe of natives where the pearls are. Stephanie Rothman wrote the original story - she was heavily involved with Dimension Pictures, the production company, at the time.
The thing is the plots involving the (very Anglo Saxon) natives involves chief George Nader (he of 1950s Universal fame) wanting daughter Leigh Christian to mate with one of the group. That feels like something inherent R rated. Also you get the sense the filmmakers want to do something more exploitative - the camera constantly lingers on Christian's body (lots of swims) and also Stevens' outfit.
Ashley also thought the film was hurt commercially by all the underwater photography - there is a lot of swimming. It looks nice but isn't particularly exciting - which is true. It can be sexy - again, if the film had been R rated, they could've had topless swimming and it probably would have been more effective.
There's some nice island locations. I had trouble telling Wayne and Ashley apart at times - I wish one of them had dyed their hair or cut their hair short or grown a beard or something. Ashley gets the chance to do a bit of character acting, going paranoid.
The climax feels undercooked: really Ashley or at least one of the main group should have died. From memory Nader doesn't die either. The ending feels dumb with Ashley yelling at the others to go diving for pearls with everyone laughing - why is that funny? Aren't the pearls worth a lot? Didn't Victor Diaz try to rip them off? (Why doesn't he die?)
So it's a flawed movie despite trying to be PG when in it's heart it wants to be R.
Movie review - "Hot Rod Gang" (1958) **
John Ashley played villains in two films for AIP, Dragstrip Girl and Motorcycle Gang, and had been well received and was having some success as a singing star, so AIP came up with this more sympathetic vehicle for him.
The plot has Ashley as a rich kid who loves singing rock n roll and driving fast, who has to pretend to be good in order to inherit a pile of money. A whole bunch of shenanigans ensue - Ashley puts on glasses and pretends to be intellectual to impress his doddery old aunts, he sings rock, he puts on a beard and pretends to be a beatnik so he can sing in public (he even does a press interview and becomes famous).
There's a whole bunch of storylines - a good girl with the hots for Ashley (Jody Fair), some car stealing thieves, a snobby lawyer, a trashy blonde, a brawl or two, a car fanatic (Henry McCann), Gene Vincent as himself. It's got an everything but the kitchen sink vibe - the tone is quite light.
Ashley's limitations are exposed to be honest - he was an okay actor, with good looks and a competent singing voice. I don't think he was a great comic actor - though I'm not sure who could've pulled this off. Maybe it would've suited Frankie Avalon more - he was more obviously comic. Ashley was better as a villain.
Plenty of tunes and energy and silliness.
The plot has Ashley as a rich kid who loves singing rock n roll and driving fast, who has to pretend to be good in order to inherit a pile of money. A whole bunch of shenanigans ensue - Ashley puts on glasses and pretends to be intellectual to impress his doddery old aunts, he sings rock, he puts on a beard and pretends to be a beatnik so he can sing in public (he even does a press interview and becomes famous).
There's a whole bunch of storylines - a good girl with the hots for Ashley (Jody Fair), some car stealing thieves, a snobby lawyer, a trashy blonde, a brawl or two, a car fanatic (Henry McCann), Gene Vincent as himself. It's got an everything but the kitchen sink vibe - the tone is quite light.
Ashley's limitations are exposed to be honest - he was an okay actor, with good looks and a competent singing voice. I don't think he was a great comic actor - though I'm not sure who could've pulled this off. Maybe it would've suited Frankie Avalon more - he was more obviously comic. Ashley was better as a villain.
Plenty of tunes and energy and silliness.
Sunday, December 24, 2017
Movie review - "The Twilight People" (1972) **1/2
One of a bunch of movies John Ashley made in the Philippines with Eddie Romero - he would act in them and produce them as well. It's a decent mash up of The Most Dangerous Game and The Island of Dr Moreau - Ashley is scuba diving when he's kidnapped and brought to a mad doctor's lair. The doctor is Charles Macauley; he has a sidekick Jan Merlin who seems to have a crush on Ashley.
The acting is pretty good - Merlin is excellent. Pat Woodell is also good as the mad doctor's daughter who gets a thing for Ashley. Ashley is fine - an okay-ish leading man with the appropriate looks.
The plot is basically Ashley being shown the gallery of horrors in the mad doctor's lair (all the half-human half-beasts) - he sneaks out at night a lot to look at it (as in, a lot). Then with Woodell's help he escapes - only they split up for safety. Which presumably meant it was easier for Ashley to act as producer because a lot of screen time is taken up with Woodell leading creatures to safety, so she gets to be heroic. Good for her!
There's some okay action, and fair make up effects. Pam Grier pops up as a Panther Woman - I wish her part had been bigger. I felt more of a comeuppance was required for Merlin and Macauley - their deaths felt relatively undercooked. Decent production values.
The acting is pretty good - Merlin is excellent. Pat Woodell is also good as the mad doctor's daughter who gets a thing for Ashley. Ashley is fine - an okay-ish leading man with the appropriate looks.
The plot is basically Ashley being shown the gallery of horrors in the mad doctor's lair (all the half-human half-beasts) - he sneaks out at night a lot to look at it (as in, a lot). Then with Woodell's help he escapes - only they split up for safety. Which presumably meant it was easier for Ashley to act as producer because a lot of screen time is taken up with Woodell leading creatures to safety, so she gets to be heroic. Good for her!
There's some okay action, and fair make up effects. Pam Grier pops up as a Panther Woman - I wish her part had been bigger. I felt more of a comeuppance was required for Merlin and Macauley - their deaths felt relatively undercooked. Decent production values.
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Movie review - "King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword" (2017) **
This sounded as if it was going to be great - I loved the trailer, and the idea of a Guy Ritchie heist film set in Arthurian England, around the theft of Excalibur. And there were lots of good things about it - Charlie Hunnam is a movie star despite his bad luck of vehicles; Jude Law is an excellent villain; production values are excellent; there are some great Guy Ritchie montages; I like the idea of Arthur being like Moses in a basket and being raised by prostitutes.
But it's confusing - all the stuff with the "mages", the conflict with humans and their role in Arthur's prophecy seemed pointless. It seemed awfully easy for Uther to beat them (they're losing the war but he just leaps from a horse onto their mobile castle thing and kills Mordred and bang that's it - they've won).
They introduce Mordred at the opening then kill him off. They introduce this interesting character, the head of the blacklegs (local cops) and we never see him again. We never meet Merlin or anyone famous - no Lancelot, no Guinevere, no Gawain. I guess there is Bedivere, Tristan, and Percival - though it's hard to tell them apart. None of the sidekicks have really different personalities - you differentiate them by race. This character Maggie is introduced - she's given these close ups and you think she's going to be important but she isn't.
Occasionally it's reminiscent of Game of Thrones - the combination of medieval political drama, action and fantasy, some of the same cast (Aiden Gillett) - which isn't to the piece's advantage, since GOT is so better.
I feel this could've been great but it needed to be made for a lot less money - just turn it into a Guy Ritchie film in the vein of Lock Stock. Cut out all the excess stuff. It's like it was weighted down with "franchiseness" and the result is a mess.
But it's confusing - all the stuff with the "mages", the conflict with humans and their role in Arthur's prophecy seemed pointless. It seemed awfully easy for Uther to beat them (they're losing the war but he just leaps from a horse onto their mobile castle thing and kills Mordred and bang that's it - they've won).
They introduce Mordred at the opening then kill him off. They introduce this interesting character, the head of the blacklegs (local cops) and we never see him again. We never meet Merlin or anyone famous - no Lancelot, no Guinevere, no Gawain. I guess there is Bedivere, Tristan, and Percival - though it's hard to tell them apart. None of the sidekicks have really different personalities - you differentiate them by race. This character Maggie is introduced - she's given these close ups and you think she's going to be important but she isn't.
Occasionally it's reminiscent of Game of Thrones - the combination of medieval political drama, action and fantasy, some of the same cast (Aiden Gillett) - which isn't to the piece's advantage, since GOT is so better.
I feel this could've been great but it needed to be made for a lot less money - just turn it into a Guy Ritchie film in the vein of Lock Stock. Cut out all the excess stuff. It's like it was weighted down with "franchiseness" and the result is a mess.
Friday, December 22, 2017
Script review - "Trumbo" by John McNamara
Entertaining look at the legendary screenwriter, probably the best known of the Hollywood Ten (along with Ring Lardner Jnr), because he had the furthest fall from grace, being among the highest paid screenwriters in Hollywood. He was the one who bounced back best too, getting Oscar nominated and winning Oscars under pseudonyms, and eventually being part of breaking the blacklist with Exodus and Spartacus.
This covers the most turbulent years of Trumbo's career - 1948 to 1960. It has plenty of support characters to illustrate different aspects of the blacklist - Edward G Robinson who names names, John Wayne who is anti commie but a bit soft, Hedda Hopper who is anti commie through and through, the King brothers who are thugs but have honour, Roy Brewer who is a thug, Louis B Mayer wanting to avoid trouble, Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger competing over who is going to break the blacklist first.
From what I know of the blacklist this seems a reasonably accurate account of events. It's fairly soft on communism - I thought there might be a scene of John Howard Lawson bullying them or Trumbo reflecting on Stalin or something.
I liked the depiction of the family scenes. These are normally not well done in biopics - they tend to be along the lines of "why are you never home" and so on - but these ones have real warmth and feeling. Trumbo is a likeable, engaging person though with plenty of flaws. It does feel as though in its heart that this is a telemovie but this was well done.
Movie review - "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" (2017) ** (warning: spoilers)
What i liked
- Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, C3PO, R2, Chewie
- Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver
- the special effects
- Crait the old mining planet
- Ahch-To the island - that was really cool
- the cute animals, all of them - truly, I think they were
genuinely cute and fun
- the moment Kylo Ren decides to kill Snoke - this was great
(even if ripped off Return to the Jedi)
- the urst between Rey and Kylo Ren
- bit of that final battle on Crait with Rey and Chewie
zipping around in the Falcon
- all the broken down ships on Crait
- the character of Rose, except at the end (see below)
- the back story that Luke almost killed Kylo Ren (i really
liked this)
- the casino planet
What I liked in a campy way
- that woman with frizzy hair and long nose who looked like
a uni librarian who played the rebel officer
- all the talk about "turning people" - it was
like the galaxy of the gays (when are Poe and Finn going to get a room, Finn
seems sexually uninterested in any woman) and Rey was trying to lure Kylo Ren
to the joys of heterosexuality
What I was frustrated by but didn't necessarily hate
- no explanation about Snoke's backstory or Rey's backstory
("oh your parents were junk dealers")... we don't know if it's true,
it was so dramatically underwhelming
- Princess Leia suddenly developing the ability to fly
through space
- Laura Dern trying to pretend to be a bad ass admiral (I'm
all for women playing these roles but can they get someone who looks tough eg
Judi Dench, Joan Allen - Dern looked like a mother from Sydney's north shore)
- Rey and Kylo Ren doing most of their scenes by
intergalactic telephone
- John Boyega's bland "I feel nothing" performance
- the fact there was no explanation to DJ (Benico Del Toro)
being locked up in prison when it took him five seconds to get out
- BB-8 suddenly becoming this great fighter and killing all
these people
- Rose somehow knowing to fly when she was established as
someone who just worked in IT
What I hated
- all the repetitive dialogue
- the bad exposition (is it so hard to do?)
- the lack of narrative momentum
- the acting of Domhall Gleeson whose outrageous scenery
chewing threatens Hayden Christensen's rank as the worst lead actor in the
series
- not saying what happened to DJ
- not having Luke in person appear at the end
- not having Luke spend a decent amount of screen time with
other characters
- the fact the entire rebel army is effectively reduced to a
bunch of people who can fit in the Falcon (i got that right didn't I? they lost
all their ships and something like 99% of their fighting force and could fit
everyone on the Falcon? I know it's roomy but it ain't that roomy)
Most of all - the way all the characters acted like
irresponsible selfish illogical idiots
- Poe disobeys orders not once but twice, both times
endangering the fleet - why is he even in the films?
- Poe leads a mutiny against Holdo/Laura Dern - now I
love a good mutiny story but it's so poorly motivated, makes him look like an
idiot - they try to fix it by having Laura Dern go "I like him" but
why should she? Why have Poe keep his
plan to go to Canto Bight secret? Why
have Holdo keep her plan secret? It all felt like wasted screen time - why not
have Holdo as a turncoat villain? Why not have Poe as a villain? I'm not wild about stories stories where all the drama could be resolved by a simple chat
- Why have the plan to go to Canto Bight at all? To liberate a
horse? Give some kids a ring? Why not have Finn and Rose cross with Rey on
Snoke's ship ? Aren't they on there at the same time?
- Finn's going to do a noble suicide run to blow up the big
cannon on Crait - and Rose stops him! He's trying to save the rebellion and she
STOPS HIM because she's in love with him? Her actions endanger the whole
rebel alliance (including their own!!!) - it completely trashed a good
character.
- Luke goes out to meet the baddies - the reason being he's
trying to give the rebels time to get away only he decides not to tell anyone. Poe just guesses Guesses!
- When Luke goes out to fight Kylo Ren - Kylo calls a halt to the entire invading force so they can stop and duke it out
I've read the above being described as "subverting
expectations" and "doing the unexpected" but I think it was just poorly done.
I didn't mind the basic story - the stakes are the survival
of the fleet... Rey tries to get Luke to come out of retirement... there's a
mission to a casino planet... but it wasn't put well together.
-->
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Movie review - "The Lost City of Z" (2017) ***
I get the feeling all during pre production of this people kept going "Lawrence of Arabia, Lawrence of Arabia that's what'll be like" and in many ways this is a throwback to that film - it's long, about British Empire derring-do, is an adventure tale. It's beautifully shot and gorgeous to look at.
It's a bit dull though. I wanted to like it more than I did - I enjoy history tales and adventure movies. The cast are fine- Charlie Hunnam struggles with his period English accent acting, as does Sienna Miller, but he's a believable explorer, and Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson and Angus Macfadyen were all very good.
It lacked excitement and flair. Hunnam/Fawcett explores politely and respectfully. He has a respectful relationship with his wife (Miller); she occasionally wishes he were home more but doesn't make too big a thing out of it. His son (Holland) sulks a bit but that's soon resolved. Mutinous Macfadyen is a very polite pain. The trench warfare in World War One and the Indian attacks seemed polite - spitting out darts from the riverbank while the explorers are on a raft. Even Fawcett's final death is polite - they are drugged by Indians and carried off over the people... we don't see what happened to them, even if they died.
It was full of scenes that you wondered why were in it - such the opening sequence of hunting, and the ball. Was that to establish the family had a poor reputation? Why not cut in later and dramatise it some other way?
It does have a cohesive vision though, I'll give it that. And while the heart never got thumping watching it, there were memorable moments - I still think of Macfadyen's polite protest and the death scene. Maybe they should've focused on the final expedition instead of three - I don't know. I can see why critics liked it and audiences weren't enthusiastic though.
It's a bit dull though. I wanted to like it more than I did - I enjoy history tales and adventure movies. The cast are fine- Charlie Hunnam struggles with his period English accent acting, as does Sienna Miller, but he's a believable explorer, and Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson and Angus Macfadyen were all very good.
It lacked excitement and flair. Hunnam/Fawcett explores politely and respectfully. He has a respectful relationship with his wife (Miller); she occasionally wishes he were home more but doesn't make too big a thing out of it. His son (Holland) sulks a bit but that's soon resolved. Mutinous Macfadyen is a very polite pain. The trench warfare in World War One and the Indian attacks seemed polite - spitting out darts from the riverbank while the explorers are on a raft. Even Fawcett's final death is polite - they are drugged by Indians and carried off over the people... we don't see what happened to them, even if they died.
It was full of scenes that you wondered why were in it - such the opening sequence of hunting, and the ball. Was that to establish the family had a poor reputation? Why not cut in later and dramatise it some other way?
It does have a cohesive vision though, I'll give it that. And while the heart never got thumping watching it, there were memorable moments - I still think of Macfadyen's polite protest and the death scene. Maybe they should've focused on the final expedition instead of three - I don't know. I can see why critics liked it and audiences weren't enthusiastic though.
Movie review - "The Big Sick" (2017) *****
Probably my favourite movie of 2017. I'm going to be biased because it's a about a man whose girlfriend winds up in a coma who has to deal with her parents who are having marriage troubles - things I've been through, and which the film gets right. And also it refers to cricket.
But it is warm and lovely comedy full of very good observation. It's got two aces in the hole - the coma stuff, which is done well, and the fact he's a Pakistani American and she's a white girl, so the look at the relationship is very fresh.
It's beautifully done - the casting is immaculate. Like a lot of Judd Apatow productions, even the small bits really shine - I loved the annoying flatmate who everyone dislikes and is perennially annoying, and the beautiful Pakistani girl who just wants a nice guy and a relationship so she "can finally relax" (she gets the end of the scene too).
My only gripe is it started to drag towards the end - after the girl told the guy she didn't want to see him again, I felt maybe some of those other goodbye scenes could've been truncated and the two other scenes where she tells him to go away maybe could've been combined or even deleted. Great end though.
But it is warm and lovely comedy full of very good observation. It's got two aces in the hole - the coma stuff, which is done well, and the fact he's a Pakistani American and she's a white girl, so the look at the relationship is very fresh.
It's beautifully done - the casting is immaculate. Like a lot of Judd Apatow productions, even the small bits really shine - I loved the annoying flatmate who everyone dislikes and is perennially annoying, and the beautiful Pakistani girl who just wants a nice guy and a relationship so she "can finally relax" (she gets the end of the scene too).
My only gripe is it started to drag towards the end - after the girl told the guy she didn't want to see him again, I felt maybe some of those other goodbye scenes could've been truncated and the two other scenes where she tells him to go away maybe could've been combined or even deleted. Great end though.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Comic book review - "Triggerman" by Walter Hill & Jeff Matz
I don't read many graphic novels - I don't looked at this because it was from Walter Hill. It's one of the better projects he's been associated with this century. It's a gritty, pulpy look at a determined gangster - the characters are very chatty for Hill. The tone is consistent - bleak, violent, codes of honor and psychopaths. It was enjoyable.
Movie review - "The Magnificent Seven" (2016) ***
I love Antoine Fuque's taste in old movies - he clearly grew up with guys on a mission films such as this one. They've been talking about remaking Seven for ages - Walter Hill was going to do it once, then Brian De Palma. I heard about one version which was going to be set in Columbia fighting against drug lords which would've been awesome and fresh.
I can't actually really see the motivation to make this one. It's still a Western. The seven are a bit more multicultural - there's an Indian, a Korean, a black. But not terribly unique.
In the 1960 film most of them had a little arc - Brad Dexter was out for cash, Robert Vaughan was having a nervous breakdown, Horst Bucholz wanted to be part of the gang, Charles Bronson was haunted.
It was hard to tell these ones apart. The Korean remains the Korean, the Indian is the Indian. The ones who stick out most are the bigger names:Ethan Hawke (superb) as a traumatised Confederate; Washington (a good Western hero) is out for revenge but we only find out at the very end. Vincent D'Onforio looks good as a jolly tubby hunter but I wasn't sure what his arc was.
There was an overall theme too - the seven (well, six because Dexter was always after the cash) find meaning fighting for the villagers. It provided a solid three act structure because at the end of act two the seven get their arses kicked and are told to get out of town. This movie doesn't do that - the seven arrive, and kick arse, and gather a big army, and kick more arse. True some die - the most suspenseful thing about the film is seeing who will live and who will die out of the heroes. But it seems a relatively easy feat.
There's no romance - the only girl of significance is widowed early on and everyone respects that. The villains aren't that memorable. We've seen Peter Skarsgaard play a baddie a few times now - he hardly seems a match for Washington and his men. Maybe it wouldn't have been so noticeable if more thought had been put into his henchmen. Everyone is an excellent shot, giving the action scenes a same-y quality.
It sounds like I'm bagging it. I guess I am but I enjoyed a lot of the film. The cast is very good, the photography is divine. Nice to hear the theme song at the end but why not have it at the top?
I can't actually really see the motivation to make this one. It's still a Western. The seven are a bit more multicultural - there's an Indian, a Korean, a black. But not terribly unique.
In the 1960 film most of them had a little arc - Brad Dexter was out for cash, Robert Vaughan was having a nervous breakdown, Horst Bucholz wanted to be part of the gang, Charles Bronson was haunted.
It was hard to tell these ones apart. The Korean remains the Korean, the Indian is the Indian. The ones who stick out most are the bigger names:Ethan Hawke (superb) as a traumatised Confederate; Washington (a good Western hero) is out for revenge but we only find out at the very end. Vincent D'Onforio looks good as a jolly tubby hunter but I wasn't sure what his arc was.
There was an overall theme too - the seven (well, six because Dexter was always after the cash) find meaning fighting for the villagers. It provided a solid three act structure because at the end of act two the seven get their arses kicked and are told to get out of town. This movie doesn't do that - the seven arrive, and kick arse, and gather a big army, and kick more arse. True some die - the most suspenseful thing about the film is seeing who will live and who will die out of the heroes. But it seems a relatively easy feat.
There's no romance - the only girl of significance is widowed early on and everyone respects that. The villains aren't that memorable. We've seen Peter Skarsgaard play a baddie a few times now - he hardly seems a match for Washington and his men. Maybe it wouldn't have been so noticeable if more thought had been put into his henchmen. Everyone is an excellent shot, giving the action scenes a same-y quality.
It sounds like I'm bagging it. I guess I am but I enjoyed a lot of the film. The cast is very good, the photography is divine. Nice to hear the theme song at the end but why not have it at the top?
Movie review - "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" (1961) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
I didn't enjoy this as much as I remember doing the first time I saw it. It's bright and colourful and Charles Bennett as always provides an exciting structure - the captain of a super sub sets off on a mission to fire rockets in order to save the world (there's a lot of made up science to justify this). Thing is a lot of people think he's deranged and they go after him.
Now that's exciting but the thing is - normally people like that are deranged. I wish they'd found a better reason to justify the chase - like he was blamed for something they didn't do, they were trying to kill him on mistaken grounds or something. It was a bit uncomfortable.
There's some good stuff in there though: a traitor on board ship (I love the reveal it's Joan Fontaine and I love that she gets eaten by a shark), a random shark on board, Peter Lorre in the cast, Frankie Avalon singing a song on the soundtrack, Avalon playing the trumpet while Barbara Eden dances, Michael Ansara as a religious maniac, the vision of the pink skies when they hop out of the sub, a fight with a creature, a minefield, a near mutiny, the sets.
I think they missed a trick not having a romance develop in front of us - when the film stars Eden is going out with Robert Sterling. It's also not very well directed - Allen was a much better producer than director.
Now that's exciting but the thing is - normally people like that are deranged. I wish they'd found a better reason to justify the chase - like he was blamed for something they didn't do, they were trying to kill him on mistaken grounds or something. It was a bit uncomfortable.
There's some good stuff in there though: a traitor on board ship (I love the reveal it's Joan Fontaine and I love that she gets eaten by a shark), a random shark on board, Peter Lorre in the cast, Frankie Avalon singing a song on the soundtrack, Avalon playing the trumpet while Barbara Eden dances, Michael Ansara as a religious maniac, the vision of the pink skies when they hop out of the sub, a fight with a creature, a minefield, a near mutiny, the sets.
I think they missed a trick not having a romance develop in front of us - when the film stars Eden is going out with Robert Sterling. It's also not very well directed - Allen was a much better producer than director.
Monday, December 18, 2017
Movie review - "TwoTickets to Paris" (1962) **
One of the last of the rock n roll jukebox movies - cheapies where a loose story provided an excuse for a bunch of music acts. They were endearing in their way and it's a shame the genre died out because they were time capsules.
This is a kind of sequel to Hey Let's Twist which I haven't seen yet. Joey Dee, a 60s pop singer, plays himself. He's engaged to be married but gets a a gig to play in France - his fiancee comes along. She's chaperoned - they kind of flirt with another couple who are trying to make the other jealous. On the boat is Gary Crosby, who appeared in a few musicals around this time, though usually with a bigger budget.
Joey Dee is an energetic lively performer - his band was mixed race which I confess surprised me. Lisa James is attractive as the girl who flirts with Dee and Jeri Lynne Fraser is perky as the fiancee (she gets to sing a song - I assume she was dubbed but I could be wrong)
There's lots of numbers often with crowds. It's not big budget thought - it's not in colour and is mostly set in doors even though the bulk of the action takes place on a cruise liner. Kay Meford adds some Broadway class to her role and Gary Crosby basically does an imitation of his father. It's not very good but judge this by a lower standard.
This is a kind of sequel to Hey Let's Twist which I haven't seen yet. Joey Dee, a 60s pop singer, plays himself. He's engaged to be married but gets a a gig to play in France - his fiancee comes along. She's chaperoned - they kind of flirt with another couple who are trying to make the other jealous. On the boat is Gary Crosby, who appeared in a few musicals around this time, though usually with a bigger budget.
Joey Dee is an energetic lively performer - his band was mixed race which I confess surprised me. Lisa James is attractive as the girl who flirts with Dee and Jeri Lynne Fraser is perky as the fiancee (she gets to sing a song - I assume she was dubbed but I could be wrong)
There's lots of numbers often with crowds. It's not big budget thought - it's not in colour and is mostly set in doors even though the bulk of the action takes place on a cruise liner. Kay Meford adds some Broadway class to her role and Gary Crosby basically does an imitation of his father. It's not very good but judge this by a lower standard.
Sunday, December 17, 2017
TV review - "The Deuce - Season One" (2017) ***
So many good things going for it - the production design, costumes, acting. It's an interesting world though a bit wearying in its seediness. But I've got to admit - I didn't love it. I like more story.
For instance, we establish that Maggie Gyllenhaal (superb) doesn't want to be a prostitute, then gets interested in filmmaking, and we expect her to go off and do filmmaking. But then she isn't allowed to, she goes back to being miserable, then starts filmmaking.
Everyone looks as though they're about to do something interesting but never quite get there: the pimps who smack their women around, the college student who just kind of serves drinks and sleeps with James Franco, the gay bartender who is mostly just gay. There is a lot of openings of venues, I guess.
If you can adapt to the story telling rhythms I think you'll love it, because there's lots of good stuff. I think it just wasn't for me.
For instance, we establish that Maggie Gyllenhaal (superb) doesn't want to be a prostitute, then gets interested in filmmaking, and we expect her to go off and do filmmaking. But then she isn't allowed to, she goes back to being miserable, then starts filmmaking.
Everyone looks as though they're about to do something interesting but never quite get there: the pimps who smack their women around, the college student who just kind of serves drinks and sleeps with James Franco, the gay bartender who is mostly just gay. There is a lot of openings of venues, I guess.
If you can adapt to the story telling rhythms I think you'll love it, because there's lots of good stuff. I think it just wasn't for me.
Saturday, December 16, 2017
Sandra Dee Top Ten
1) Gidget (1959) - the perky girl next door and feminist icon - why don't they remake this?
2) A Summer Place (1959) - good tormented melodrama
3) Imitation of Life (1959) - more solid melodrama, with a race angle
4) Portrait in Black (1960) - Dee's role is relatively minor but this is a decent film
5) Take Her She's Mine (1963) - decent comedy with Dee in a role inspired by Nora Ephron - she should've worked with James Stewart more
6) Come September (1961) - perhaps the best of Dee's comedies - definitely the best film she made with Bobby Darin
7) I'd Rather Be Rich (1964) - the material is poor but Dee is very good
8) The Reluctant Debutante (1958) - Dee is a little miscast but at least is surrounded by excellent actors
9) Tammy Tell Me True (1962) - Dee's performance irritated me to be honest but I guess I've got to put a Tammy movie on this list somewhere
10) Until They Sail (1957) - Dee a charming juvenile
2) A Summer Place (1959) - good tormented melodrama
3) Imitation of Life (1959) - more solid melodrama, with a race angle
4) Portrait in Black (1960) - Dee's role is relatively minor but this is a decent film
5) Take Her She's Mine (1963) - decent comedy with Dee in a role inspired by Nora Ephron - she should've worked with James Stewart more
6) Come September (1961) - perhaps the best of Dee's comedies - definitely the best film she made with Bobby Darin
7) I'd Rather Be Rich (1964) - the material is poor but Dee is very good
8) The Reluctant Debutante (1958) - Dee is a little miscast but at least is surrounded by excellent actors
9) Tammy Tell Me True (1962) - Dee's performance irritated me to be honest but I guess I've got to put a Tammy movie on this list somewhere
10) Until They Sail (1957) - Dee a charming juvenile
Movie review - "Snapshot" (1979) ***
One of a series of thrillers produced by Tony Ginnane in the late 70s/early 80s - others include Thirst, Patrick, The Survivor. This is one of the best, an unpretentious, well done flick with solid script work from Everett De Roche and direction from Simon Wincer.
Unlike many other Ginnane works around this time it feels fulfilled - it hits the beats it wants. You don't feel it's left anything out or has massively unfulfilled potential - it's an unpretentious, tight thriller.
The script also benefits from the input of De Roche's wife Chris, in that it is very sympathetic to the female point of view. Model Sigrid Thornton (excellent) is constantly preyed upon, whether its by the weird photographer (Hugh Keays Byrne), a sleazy photographer (Robert Bruning), her best friend (Chantal Contouri), her ex (Vincent Gil), her bitchy sister, her mother who wants her to get back with her ex because he was nice to mum.
Thorton is a strong lead and ideal for women in peril films - she should've played the lead in more Ginnane films (notably Thirst). There's campy fun with a trip to a late 70s cabaret (which gets lots of screentime). Thornton does a topless photo shoot wading in the water on what looks like a freezing day. Contouri tries to seduce Siggie and Denise Drysdale pops up to crack a few bitchy comments.
I don't want to overpraise this. It's very familiar material - stalkers became the bread and butter for soaps. But it's tight, and creepy and well done.
Unlike many other Ginnane works around this time it feels fulfilled - it hits the beats it wants. You don't feel it's left anything out or has massively unfulfilled potential - it's an unpretentious, tight thriller.
The script also benefits from the input of De Roche's wife Chris, in that it is very sympathetic to the female point of view. Model Sigrid Thornton (excellent) is constantly preyed upon, whether its by the weird photographer (Hugh Keays Byrne), a sleazy photographer (Robert Bruning), her best friend (Chantal Contouri), her ex (Vincent Gil), her bitchy sister, her mother who wants her to get back with her ex because he was nice to mum.
Thorton is a strong lead and ideal for women in peril films - she should've played the lead in more Ginnane films (notably Thirst). There's campy fun with a trip to a late 70s cabaret (which gets lots of screentime). Thornton does a topless photo shoot wading in the water on what looks like a freezing day. Contouri tries to seduce Siggie and Denise Drysdale pops up to crack a few bitchy comments.
I don't want to overpraise this. It's very familiar material - stalkers became the bread and butter for soaps. But it's tight, and creepy and well done.
Movie review - "The Allnighter" (1987) *1/2
An attempt to embrace the spirit of the beach party films from a girl point of view and a female director. Women audiences may enjoy it more. I found it frustrating because I could see what it wanted to do but felt it couldn't get there.
There's nothing wrong with the basic idea - five housemates, three of them women, have a last night before they graduate from college. It's bright and colourful and Joan Cusack is one of the girls and she's good. There's a decent love triangle set up with Susanna Hoffs pining after John Terleskey who doesn't notice she's alive until rock guitarist Michael Ontkean turns up.
Susanna Hoffs isn't a great actor but she does have charisma and is pretty. She should've been better protected, though - she needed to be surrounded by strong actors, like Elvis and Pat Boone were in their films. She also needed things that played to her strengths - costume changes and lots of songs. She doesn't sing! Why have Susanna Hoffs in a fluffy movie where she doesn't sing? She wears a swimsuit and the director gets her to dance around in her underwear in front of the mirror (her mum wrote and directed it), but she clearly can't dance.
Cusack can act really well but Deedee Pfeiffer who plays the third of her friends isn't very good. John Terleskey has cocky charm as the object of Hobbs affection and James Anthony Shanta is okay.
Hoffs' character should've been given more status. She throws herself at Ontkean who turns her down; Ontkean should've been keen for her - he forgets she's there when another woman turns up. Terleskey doesn't treat her very well - he swings from jealousy to mistreatment, sleeps with another girl that night, and only sleeps with Hoffs at the end because he finds her hot, which may be true to life but isn't very emotionally satisfying.
The film seems to constantly strive for an atmosphere of fun and camaraderie that isn't quite there - people do dancers and sit around and chat. Scenes are awkwardly blocked and staged like Hoffs showing Ontkean a dance she did to his song - I get what they were going for, but it didn't feel real. Also when Hoffs was locked out of a room (why did Ontkean forget she was there?) and her friends were arrested for being hookers - none of it felt real. And its not Hoffs who saves the day its Terleskey which isn't very satisfying.
Also I got confused with the characterisations. I think Hoffs was meant to be quiet and smart - but said a number of dumb things. The two male friends were very similar surfer dudes - I think one was dumber than the other; it didn't help that both were blonde. Cusak kind of films everything even intimate scenes which doesn't feel real - I know people did a lot of that later on with reality TV but here, for me at least it didn't ring true. Pfeiffer is set up early on as a party girl who sleeps around but she's also got a fiance, is that right? Or did I get her mixed up with this other blonde who is randomly there?
There's nothing wrong with contradictions in characters if they're going to be explored, but the film doesn't. The film is a bit of a mess. I think because of the colours and because it's about young women coming of age, if you saw it at the right time in your life you might lake it.
There's nothing wrong with the basic idea - five housemates, three of them women, have a last night before they graduate from college. It's bright and colourful and Joan Cusack is one of the girls and she's good. There's a decent love triangle set up with Susanna Hoffs pining after John Terleskey who doesn't notice she's alive until rock guitarist Michael Ontkean turns up.
Susanna Hoffs isn't a great actor but she does have charisma and is pretty. She should've been better protected, though - she needed to be surrounded by strong actors, like Elvis and Pat Boone were in their films. She also needed things that played to her strengths - costume changes and lots of songs. She doesn't sing! Why have Susanna Hoffs in a fluffy movie where she doesn't sing? She wears a swimsuit and the director gets her to dance around in her underwear in front of the mirror (her mum wrote and directed it), but she clearly can't dance.
Cusack can act really well but Deedee Pfeiffer who plays the third of her friends isn't very good. John Terleskey has cocky charm as the object of Hobbs affection and James Anthony Shanta is okay.
Hoffs' character should've been given more status. She throws herself at Ontkean who turns her down; Ontkean should've been keen for her - he forgets she's there when another woman turns up. Terleskey doesn't treat her very well - he swings from jealousy to mistreatment, sleeps with another girl that night, and only sleeps with Hoffs at the end because he finds her hot, which may be true to life but isn't very emotionally satisfying.
Also I got confused with the characterisations. I think Hoffs was meant to be quiet and smart - but said a number of dumb things. The two male friends were very similar surfer dudes - I think one was dumber than the other; it didn't help that both were blonde. Cusak kind of films everything even intimate scenes which doesn't feel real - I know people did a lot of that later on with reality TV but here, for me at least it didn't ring true. Pfeiffer is set up early on as a party girl who sleeps around but she's also got a fiance, is that right? Or did I get her mixed up with this other blonde who is randomly there?
There's nothing wrong with contradictions in characters if they're going to be explored, but the film doesn't. The film is a bit of a mess. I think because of the colours and because it's about young women coming of age, if you saw it at the right time in your life you might lake it.
Script review - "Darkest Hour" by Anthony McCarten
Decent enough look at the early days of Churchill's Prime Minstership, with Act two consisting of Churchill's doubts and Halifax and Churchill pushing for peace, then recovering to make a speech during Dunkirk.
This script has a bit of a "greatest hits" flavour - famous speeches and quotes, some support characters recapping other aspects of his career ("remember Gallipoli"). The King stutters, Clementine is admiring, the cockneys are loyal, etc. It's all competently done - lacks a bit of fire in the belly (eg it cuts out before Churchill orders the bombing of the French navy).
This script has a bit of a "greatest hits" flavour - famous speeches and quotes, some support characters recapping other aspects of his career ("remember Gallipoli"). The King stutters, Clementine is admiring, the cockneys are loyal, etc. It's all competently done - lacks a bit of fire in the belly (eg it cuts out before Churchill orders the bombing of the French navy).
Script review - "The Disaster Artist" by Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber
Loving account of the making of the legendary The Room - similar in affection to Ed Wood - though it does lack that film's galaxy of characters (most of the people in this are alive). It also lacks a death.
It focuses on the bromance between Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero - the other characters don't get much of a look in (there's the continuity person, a DOP, a girlfriend). The film's ace in the hole is the character if Wiseau, as mysterious as any Clint Eastwood hero - of uncertain age, nationality, financial status, mental state. It's a bravaura characterisation.
The script is very good - I think it's the best possible version that could've been done of the story while everyone's alive.
It focuses on the bromance between Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero - the other characters don't get much of a look in (there's the continuity person, a DOP, a girlfriend). The film's ace in the hole is the character if Wiseau, as mysterious as any Clint Eastwood hero - of uncertain age, nationality, financial status, mental state. It's a bravaura characterisation.
The script is very good - I think it's the best possible version that could've been done of the story while everyone's alive.
Friday, December 15, 2017
Script review - "In Bruges" by Martin McDonagh (warning: spoilers)
Astonishgly good script - very simple, two gangsters are hiding out in Bruges in Belgium, done almost like a play with lots of dialogue. But the stakes are high - one of the men has shot a priest and accidentally killed a boy; the other is unsure what he'll be told to do.
There's a lot of beautiful set up and pay off - a dwarf is introduced for comic effect then comes back to be killed like a small boy; a woman seems to be a bit of sex love interest, then tries to rob the guy, then helps redeem him; the villain Harry is a three dimensional person with a strong code of honour, a family, his own demons (molested by the priest).
Bruges is a real character in this - medieval, boring, touristy, characterful, suspected by the English/Irish. This ends with Ray having survived and about to kill himself - we're not sure if he'll go through with it.
This came with a strong reputation - people had urged me to see it - and it totally stands up.
There's a lot of beautiful set up and pay off - a dwarf is introduced for comic effect then comes back to be killed like a small boy; a woman seems to be a bit of sex love interest, then tries to rob the guy, then helps redeem him; the villain Harry is a three dimensional person with a strong code of honour, a family, his own demons (molested by the priest).
Bruges is a real character in this - medieval, boring, touristy, characterful, suspected by the English/Irish. This ends with Ray having survived and about to kill himself - we're not sure if he'll go through with it.
This came with a strong reputation - people had urged me to see it - and it totally stands up.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Script review - "Grease" by Bronte Woodard based on a story by Alan Carr and Woodard
"Bronte Woodard" isn't a terribly well known figure in Hollywood history despite writing Grease - his only other credit was Can't Stop the Music. He died age 39 in 1980.
This is a pretty good script - it hits all the beats, tells a simple story well and manages to sketch out the key characters. It's interesting to compare this to the final film - I'm not sure what draft it is. Sandy isn't Australian; there's a lot more Danny-Sandy dialogue (were they trying to attract stars?). Also the big print sketches out the characters of the T Birds and the Pink Ladies more - in particular it refers to character dynamics among T Birds that aren't really visualised or expressed in dialogue (eg a Sonny-Danny rivalry). The structure is the same. The key jokes are the same.
The script is quite lecherous - actually the film is too but I didn't notice it has much: Danny feels up a girl, tries to date rape Sandy basically. There's a lot about sex.
These scripts are harder to do than they seem and Woodard did good work.
This is a pretty good script - it hits all the beats, tells a simple story well and manages to sketch out the key characters. It's interesting to compare this to the final film - I'm not sure what draft it is. Sandy isn't Australian; there's a lot more Danny-Sandy dialogue (were they trying to attract stars?). Also the big print sketches out the characters of the T Birds and the Pink Ladies more - in particular it refers to character dynamics among T Birds that aren't really visualised or expressed in dialogue (eg a Sonny-Danny rivalry). The structure is the same. The key jokes are the same.
The script is quite lecherous - actually the film is too but I didn't notice it has much: Danny feels up a girl, tries to date rape Sandy basically. There's a lot about sex.
These scripts are harder to do than they seem and Woodard did good work.
Movie review- "Suicide Squad" (2016) ** (warning: spoilers)
So many good things about it - the concept, the cast, the production design, the ideas. It's made by talented people. But it doesn't work. It was written too quickly. It doesn't click.
Like Batman vs Superman there's too much going on. The film should be relatively simple - bad guys get out of prison to get someone even badder. The Dirty Dozen did it well - establish the characters, give a few of them back story, spend act two having them bond (the training/war games sequence) then send them into battle for act three. Pick some to actually die to give it some stakes.
So we have Deadshot, Harley Quinn, El Diablo. That's all good. The Lee Marvin character is Amanda Waller - oh and also Rick Flagg. And now things get confusing because Flagg is in love with June Moone who is possessed by the Enchantress. The Enchantress wants to... rule the world I think.
Deadshot's motivation is clear - it's for his daughter. Harley is tormented by the Joker. I got Flagg's issue. I was confused by El Diablo.
The Flagg stuff is interesting - too interesting. It pulls focus from the Suicide Squad. I like the story - give it to the Suicide Squad people - El Diablo or someone. They would've been better off dumping Flagg and the Enchantress - having Amanda Waller do the Lee Marvin role. And make the Joker the villain. That's right, the Joker is a supporting character - you could cut him out of the movie and it wouldn't affect anything.
Margot Robbie is amazing. Will Smith is good as is Viola Davis. Jared Leto isn't very good. I hope they get to do it right for the sequel.
Like Batman vs Superman there's too much going on. The film should be relatively simple - bad guys get out of prison to get someone even badder. The Dirty Dozen did it well - establish the characters, give a few of them back story, spend act two having them bond (the training/war games sequence) then send them into battle for act three. Pick some to actually die to give it some stakes.
So we have Deadshot, Harley Quinn, El Diablo. That's all good. The Lee Marvin character is Amanda Waller - oh and also Rick Flagg. And now things get confusing because Flagg is in love with June Moone who is possessed by the Enchantress. The Enchantress wants to... rule the world I think.
Deadshot's motivation is clear - it's for his daughter. Harley is tormented by the Joker. I got Flagg's issue. I was confused by El Diablo.
The Flagg stuff is interesting - too interesting. It pulls focus from the Suicide Squad. I like the story - give it to the Suicide Squad people - El Diablo or someone. They would've been better off dumping Flagg and the Enchantress - having Amanda Waller do the Lee Marvin role. And make the Joker the villain. That's right, the Joker is a supporting character - you could cut him out of the movie and it wouldn't affect anything.
Margot Robbie is amazing. Will Smith is good as is Viola Davis. Jared Leto isn't very good. I hope they get to do it right for the sequel.
Script review - "Blow Out" by Brian De Palma (warning: spoilers)
De Palma made his reputation for knocking off Hitchcock but there he has a go at Antonioni, specifically Blow Up. Nothing wrong with that actually - Antonioni didn't really use his concept for a thriller, so why shouldn't someone else? Making the hero a sound recordist is a fresh angle - though sound plays a disappointingly small role in this movie.
But I've got to say - I wasn't wild about the script. It felt obvious in some spots - it's a conspiracy, they're out to get the baddies. It also felt nasty with this Burke killer randomly killing women to cover up his other work. There was lots of talk, on the nose dialogue. I did like how Jack had a history of working with the cops and stuffing up.
The characters are really stupid - Jack and Sally are always taking people's word for things. Sally just goes along with Burke. Jack never thinks things through. That's more realistic and I know it's not the characters fault we have superior knowledge but it's frustrating to watch. The ending is also an incredible downer - Burke kills Sally, Jack almost dies and Burke escapes. I think in the film at least Burke died. But then Jack uses Sally's scream for a crap movie! It just felt yuck.
The reputation of this film has become super high in recent years. I don't get it. Maybe it was amazingly directed.
NB Is the tubby producer "Sam" a tribute to Sam Arkoff?
But I've got to say - I wasn't wild about the script. It felt obvious in some spots - it's a conspiracy, they're out to get the baddies. It also felt nasty with this Burke killer randomly killing women to cover up his other work. There was lots of talk, on the nose dialogue. I did like how Jack had a history of working with the cops and stuffing up.
The characters are really stupid - Jack and Sally are always taking people's word for things. Sally just goes along with Burke. Jack never thinks things through. That's more realistic and I know it's not the characters fault we have superior knowledge but it's frustrating to watch. The ending is also an incredible downer - Burke kills Sally, Jack almost dies and Burke escapes. I think in the film at least Burke died. But then Jack uses Sally's scream for a crap movie! It just felt yuck.
The reputation of this film has become super high in recent years. I don't get it. Maybe it was amazingly directed.
NB Is the tubby producer "Sam" a tribute to Sam Arkoff?
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Movie review - "Thirst" (1979) **1/2
A really strong idea - Chantal Contouri discovers she's descended from a royal line of vampires - and a strong world - vampirism in the modern day - but the story doesn't kick on.
Contouri is passive a lot of the time, walking around and being freaked. There's too much padding and repetition - scenes of Contouri walking, refusing blood, escaping and being recaptured. The time could've been better spent on other areas - the royal family, her past. Maybe have her go vampire a lot earlier.
It's a shame because the idea is great and there are some memorably moments - Contouri taking a bloody shower, flashbacks to her being traumatised as a girl.
The cast are ideal to play vampires - Max Phipps, David Hemmings, Henry Silva (wasted in his role), Shirley Camero, Robert Thompson from Patrick. Rod Mullinar is on hand to play his handsome leading man thing which he often did at the time.
It's got other Tony Ginnane hallmarks too like Brian May's booming music and nice atmospheric photography. Unfortunately like much of Ginnane's output it's disappointing.
Contouri is passive a lot of the time, walking around and being freaked. There's too much padding and repetition - scenes of Contouri walking, refusing blood, escaping and being recaptured. The time could've been better spent on other areas - the royal family, her past. Maybe have her go vampire a lot earlier.
It's a shame because the idea is great and there are some memorably moments - Contouri taking a bloody shower, flashbacks to her being traumatised as a girl.
The cast are ideal to play vampires - Max Phipps, David Hemmings, Henry Silva (wasted in his role), Shirley Camero, Robert Thompson from Patrick. Rod Mullinar is on hand to play his handsome leading man thing which he often did at the time.
It's got other Tony Ginnane hallmarks too like Brian May's booming music and nice atmospheric photography. Unfortunately like much of Ginnane's output it's disappointing.
Movie review - "Logan" (2017) ****1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Really good film. Tough, downbeat. You don't need huge special effects and huge casts to do a super hero movie just a lot of heart, and intelligence and good actors.
There's plenty of action - mostly fights with claws. The R rating means you get lots of claws ripping off people's head and blood and guts and brutal slogging it down.
It helps having genuine stakes - Wolverine is allowed to die; ditto Xavier.
A fine array of villains - Boyd Holbrook is a great arrogant prick, Richard E. Grant is very good as the doctor who thinks he's reasonable torturing and killing these kids, and Hugh Jackman gets to play his own nemesis. (Not to be a smarty but I always felt Tom Cruise should've done this in Mission Impossible 2).
The sympathetic support cast is good too - Stephen Merchant, the girl (reminiscent of the feral kid in Mad Max 2).
A lot of it does feel familiar - escaping to Canada, the girl, the feral kids who are out of Village of the Damned, the doco footage of the kids being too well shot. But so many great touches, like Wolverine being a limo driver (I never realised how humiliating that job is), all the fights, and that remarkable sequence where Wolverine comes across a nice family of blacks having trouble with nasty landlords and you think it's just pat the dog... but they're all wiped out
There's plenty of action - mostly fights with claws. The R rating means you get lots of claws ripping off people's head and blood and guts and brutal slogging it down.
It helps having genuine stakes - Wolverine is allowed to die; ditto Xavier.
A fine array of villains - Boyd Holbrook is a great arrogant prick, Richard E. Grant is very good as the doctor who thinks he's reasonable torturing and killing these kids, and Hugh Jackman gets to play his own nemesis. (Not to be a smarty but I always felt Tom Cruise should've done this in Mission Impossible 2).
The sympathetic support cast is good too - Stephen Merchant, the girl (reminiscent of the feral kid in Mad Max 2).
A lot of it does feel familiar - escaping to Canada, the girl, the feral kids who are out of Village of the Damned, the doco footage of the kids being too well shot. But so many great touches, like Wolverine being a limo driver (I never realised how humiliating that job is), all the fights, and that remarkable sequence where Wolverine comes across a nice family of blacks having trouble with nasty landlords and you think it's just pat the dog... but they're all wiped out
Book review - "Girl Next Door: The Life and Career of Jeanne Crain" by Rupert Alistair
Crain is one of those movie stars whose reputation has not aged well, to put it mildly. She was a big star in her day and appeared in some genuine classics: State Fair, Leave Her to Heaven, Pinky and A Letter to Three Wives. She was nominated for an Oscar. She worked with Joe Mankiewicz, Elia Kazan and Otto Preminger.
But when the tide turned her career went downhill very fast and she never got it back - she went to work on stage and TV and as a character actress, but there was no late career appearance to make people appreciate her.
Crain was very pretty and not very good as an actor. I get the impression even Alistair felt this after analysing her career but was too polite to say so (I may be completely wrong).
But she had a look that was perfect for the time - the war and post-war era. This period is better remembered for its sultry film noir stars like Ava Gardner, or feisty heroines like Kate Hepburn, or exotic actors like Dorothy Lamour, or musical legends like Judy Garland, and they were definitely around, but so too "good girls" like Crain, June Allyson and Janet Leigh. Wholesome types who GIs could dream about on the front, who reassured people in a world gone mad that there were still nice, clean decent people out there.
Crain's dad shot through at an early age, and she wound up in California and started entering and winning beauty contests. She was spotted by a talent scout and her rise was fairly rapid. Orson Welles, of all people, seriously considered her for the role of Lucy in The Magnificent Ambersons, of all things before going with Anne Baxter. She was signed to 20th Century Fox who gave her a small part in The Gang's All Here then she was given the lead in Home in Indiana and - bang - she was away.
In hindsight Fox was ideal for her because Zanuck liked making Americana (eg Kentucky, State Fair) - you can imagine Crain would've played Will Rogers' daughter a lot had Rogers still been alive. State Fair remake was a huge hit as was Leave Her to Heaven (even though you might be likely to forget she was in it) and Margie. She made some unsatisfactory films with Otto Preminger and wound up in Letter to Three Wives because Zanuck insisted. Zanuck also refused to let her play the role of Clementine in My Darling Clementine because she was too big a star (a shame, I think she should have done it, but not doing it didn't hurt her career).
Pinky was a massive hit and she was in another Mankiewicz film People Will Talk but then in the early 50s her career hit a snag - Dangerous Crossing, Vicki, City of Bad Men - and she left Fox. She never regained her career momentum, being relegated to "the girl" parts like in Fastest Gun Alive and Guns of the Timberland. She did some TV (including a version of The Great Gatsby with Rod Taylor) and theatre and cabaret, as well as the obligatory films in Italy.
What happened? Admittedly Crain lost out on some roles because she was pregnant a lot - seven kids! She had four then she and her husband separated, then they got back together and had three more! She often lost roles to Anne Baxter, and missed some parts which would've suited her like the Jean Simmons part in The Robe. She wasn't suited for musicals, not really being a singer or dancer. I also think she was hurt by the emergence of Susan Hayward, who became Fox's go-to star for dramas.
I think the big thing is she wasn't very good. No actor could ask for more than a part in something like Pinky, Letter to Three Wives or People Will Talk. Crain always gave a similar performance - nice, polite, pert. When she was young and fresh she brought those qualities as well; over time they faded and she didn't have anything else.
Maybe that's unfair - she seems to have been a professional and worked hard. I'm sure she was a decent actor. She's not terrible in her films. But she never had the fire or spark of the great stars. (Admittedly I haven't seen every Crain performance.) Both Mankiewicz and Kazan disparaged her ability in their memoirs.
She could have been distracted by her love life. This book is good on Crain's career but fascinating on her marriage - she married Paul Brickman, a businessman so handsome he was briefly under contract to Warner Bros as a back up to Errol Flynn. They were together a long time, until her death, but it was not an easy marriage. They almost got divorced - she claimed he drank and hit her several times. He had affairs; he claimed she did too with friends (which seems true - doesn't excuse the hitting). They got back together. Despite seven kids they constantly went to parties and worked all over the place.
I don't think they were particularly focused parents - maybe that's not true but two of their children predeceased her, one a son who drank himself to death, the other son (a musician who would jam with the founder of Jane's Addiction!) who died of a heroin overdose. Crain and her husband did separate towards the end and lived in separate residences for the last part of their lives, but they never divorced. It's like something out of Mad Men - all those nannies looking after kids while the parents go to parties, drink and have affairs over cocktails.
It's an interesting book - probably more interesting than Crain on screen.
But when the tide turned her career went downhill very fast and she never got it back - she went to work on stage and TV and as a character actress, but there was no late career appearance to make people appreciate her.
Crain was very pretty and not very good as an actor. I get the impression even Alistair felt this after analysing her career but was too polite to say so (I may be completely wrong).
But she had a look that was perfect for the time - the war and post-war era. This period is better remembered for its sultry film noir stars like Ava Gardner, or feisty heroines like Kate Hepburn, or exotic actors like Dorothy Lamour, or musical legends like Judy Garland, and they were definitely around, but so too "good girls" like Crain, June Allyson and Janet Leigh. Wholesome types who GIs could dream about on the front, who reassured people in a world gone mad that there were still nice, clean decent people out there.
Crain's dad shot through at an early age, and she wound up in California and started entering and winning beauty contests. She was spotted by a talent scout and her rise was fairly rapid. Orson Welles, of all people, seriously considered her for the role of Lucy in The Magnificent Ambersons, of all things before going with Anne Baxter. She was signed to 20th Century Fox who gave her a small part in The Gang's All Here then she was given the lead in Home in Indiana and - bang - she was away.
In hindsight Fox was ideal for her because Zanuck liked making Americana (eg Kentucky, State Fair) - you can imagine Crain would've played Will Rogers' daughter a lot had Rogers still been alive. State Fair remake was a huge hit as was Leave Her to Heaven (even though you might be likely to forget she was in it) and Margie. She made some unsatisfactory films with Otto Preminger and wound up in Letter to Three Wives because Zanuck insisted. Zanuck also refused to let her play the role of Clementine in My Darling Clementine because she was too big a star (a shame, I think she should have done it, but not doing it didn't hurt her career).
Pinky was a massive hit and she was in another Mankiewicz film People Will Talk but then in the early 50s her career hit a snag - Dangerous Crossing, Vicki, City of Bad Men - and she left Fox. She never regained her career momentum, being relegated to "the girl" parts like in Fastest Gun Alive and Guns of the Timberland. She did some TV (including a version of The Great Gatsby with Rod Taylor) and theatre and cabaret, as well as the obligatory films in Italy.
What happened? Admittedly Crain lost out on some roles because she was pregnant a lot - seven kids! She had four then she and her husband separated, then they got back together and had three more! She often lost roles to Anne Baxter, and missed some parts which would've suited her like the Jean Simmons part in The Robe. She wasn't suited for musicals, not really being a singer or dancer. I also think she was hurt by the emergence of Susan Hayward, who became Fox's go-to star for dramas.
I think the big thing is she wasn't very good. No actor could ask for more than a part in something like Pinky, Letter to Three Wives or People Will Talk. Crain always gave a similar performance - nice, polite, pert. When she was young and fresh she brought those qualities as well; over time they faded and she didn't have anything else.
Maybe that's unfair - she seems to have been a professional and worked hard. I'm sure she was a decent actor. She's not terrible in her films. But she never had the fire or spark of the great stars. (Admittedly I haven't seen every Crain performance.) Both Mankiewicz and Kazan disparaged her ability in their memoirs.
She could have been distracted by her love life. This book is good on Crain's career but fascinating on her marriage - she married Paul Brickman, a businessman so handsome he was briefly under contract to Warner Bros as a back up to Errol Flynn. They were together a long time, until her death, but it was not an easy marriage. They almost got divorced - she claimed he drank and hit her several times. He had affairs; he claimed she did too with friends (which seems true - doesn't excuse the hitting). They got back together. Despite seven kids they constantly went to parties and worked all over the place.
I don't think they were particularly focused parents - maybe that's not true but two of their children predeceased her, one a son who drank himself to death, the other son (a musician who would jam with the founder of Jane's Addiction!) who died of a heroin overdose. Crain and her husband did separate towards the end and lived in separate residences for the last part of their lives, but they never divorced. It's like something out of Mad Men - all those nannies looking after kids while the parents go to parties, drink and have affairs over cocktails.
It's an interesting book - probably more interesting than Crain on screen.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Movie review - "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" (2005) ***1/2 (reviewing)
Saw this in LA with a Q and A from Shane Black, who was in great form, talking about his love for crappy thrillers, his career up and downs, his battle with alcohol, his work to get this film made - he said the crucial thing was Robert Downey Jr was dating Joel Silver's assistant which helped make Silver want to fund the film.
It's a bright, energetic modern day noir with lots of funny narration and detail, a decent plot, and plenty of good actors. Downey Jr is in fine form, as is Val Kilmer, though he seems a little overweight. Michelle Monaghan is warm and funny and lovely as I guess the femme fetale only she isn't.
Sometimes the pacing didn't feel right and it felt like Downey turned into too much of a super hero at the end. I loved the look of LA and the different sort of photography that's used.
It's a bright, energetic modern day noir with lots of funny narration and detail, a decent plot, and plenty of good actors. Downey Jr is in fine form, as is Val Kilmer, though he seems a little overweight. Michelle Monaghan is warm and funny and lovely as I guess the femme fetale only she isn't.
Sometimes the pacing didn't feel right and it felt like Downey turned into too much of a super hero at the end. I loved the look of LA and the different sort of photography that's used.
Monday, December 11, 2017
Movie review - "Sing Boy Sing" (1958) **
20th Century Fox had a lot of success with movies starring Elvis Presley and Pat Boone so it's no surprised that they snapped up the remake rights to The Singing Idol, a TV play starring Tommy Sands. It wasn't a big hit but this isn't a bad drama about singing idol Sands feeling a pull towards his religious up brining.
The film makes some mistakes. It was in CinemaScope but not colour, which I feel was an odd decision. Apart from financial reasons maybe they figured that black and white suited the heavier drama of this (as opposed to something like say April Love) - but why do CinemaScope?
Even more importantly, the film holds off Sands visiting his dying grandfather until one hour into the film. That's meant to be the guts of the plot and they delay it. Instead they bring in this plot where Sands strikes up a friendship with a yokel delivery boy played by Nick Adams; and O'Brien gets testy about Adams and Sands and Adams hang out.
Why did they do this? Did they want to build up a part for Adams? If so why not cast Adams in the the role of O'Brien's off sider who is kind of a moral conscience figure? Instead we get all this screen time with Adams, who has nothing to do with the central theme; we have to sit through a big monologue where Adams has been arrested and talks about how hard life is. Why not make Adams Sands' brother at least? Have some reason for Sands to stick by him? From what I saw, Adams was basically using Sands (which actually would've been a lot more interesting dramatically) - there's no reason Sands should stick by him. It's a waste of screen time.
There's not enough romance either. There's a girl he knows from childhood but we don't really met her until an hour in. The role was sketchy in the TV play - she just sits and listens - but unfortunately it's not improved here, when it should have been.
And there's not enough granddad. The Jazz Singer starts off with the conflict straight away - we see the cantor and the kid, then the kid starts singing and he and the cantor have a big fight and the kid takes off. Why didn't they do that here? The grandfather here isn't much of a character - we never see him raising Sands or dealing with him before he's sick. He just turns up in bed. This was an issue in the TV play but it didn't matter that much with a 50 minute running time. It matters at feature length.
The film lacks star power. The girl, Lili Gentle, is okay but a bit minor league (in her defence she doesn't have much of a role to play). Edmond O'Brien sweats his way through his role as a manager - he's not that much better than Fred Clark but I guess O'Brien was coming off an Oscar win at the time.
Tommy Sands however is good - he can sing, he's got presence and can act. It's not his fault the film flopped though he was probably blamed for it. The fault is Claude Binyon, who wrote the script, and Henry Ephron, who directed it. And whoever idea it was to build up the Nick Adams part
The film makes some mistakes. It was in CinemaScope but not colour, which I feel was an odd decision. Apart from financial reasons maybe they figured that black and white suited the heavier drama of this (as opposed to something like say April Love) - but why do CinemaScope?
Even more importantly, the film holds off Sands visiting his dying grandfather until one hour into the film. That's meant to be the guts of the plot and they delay it. Instead they bring in this plot where Sands strikes up a friendship with a yokel delivery boy played by Nick Adams; and O'Brien gets testy about Adams and Sands and Adams hang out.
Why did they do this? Did they want to build up a part for Adams? If so why not cast Adams in the the role of O'Brien's off sider who is kind of a moral conscience figure? Instead we get all this screen time with Adams, who has nothing to do with the central theme; we have to sit through a big monologue where Adams has been arrested and talks about how hard life is. Why not make Adams Sands' brother at least? Have some reason for Sands to stick by him? From what I saw, Adams was basically using Sands (which actually would've been a lot more interesting dramatically) - there's no reason Sands should stick by him. It's a waste of screen time.
There's not enough romance either. There's a girl he knows from childhood but we don't really met her until an hour in. The role was sketchy in the TV play - she just sits and listens - but unfortunately it's not improved here, when it should have been.
And there's not enough granddad. The Jazz Singer starts off with the conflict straight away - we see the cantor and the kid, then the kid starts singing and he and the cantor have a big fight and the kid takes off. Why didn't they do that here? The grandfather here isn't much of a character - we never see him raising Sands or dealing with him before he's sick. He just turns up in bed. This was an issue in the TV play but it didn't matter that much with a 50 minute running time. It matters at feature length.
The film lacks star power. The girl, Lili Gentle, is okay but a bit minor league (in her defence she doesn't have much of a role to play). Edmond O'Brien sweats his way through his role as a manager - he's not that much better than Fred Clark but I guess O'Brien was coming off an Oscar win at the time.
Tommy Sands however is good - he can sing, he's got presence and can act. It's not his fault the film flopped though he was probably blamed for it. The fault is Claude Binyon, who wrote the script, and Henry Ephron, who directed it. And whoever idea it was to build up the Nick Adams part
Script review - "Macao" by Stanley Rubin and Bernard Schoenfeld
I read a published edition of this script - it was an odd choice to publish considering its reputation isn't super high, and the writers aren't famous. Like the film, the script is an unpretentious programmer about a bunch of Americans running around Macao - like most Hollywood films in the orient at the time, there's few local speaking parts (some Chinese bit parts and the local Portuguese head of police.
It's easy to imagine Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell in their roles; it's a shame Russell isn't given more to do (she almost could've been cut out of the film). I liked the character of the villain who was trapped in Macao - it made him unexpectedly sympathetic. Although I think it was a mistake to get him to want to leave, and all that stuff about the diamond was confusing. Decent twist with the reveal of the salesman being a detective but I was hoping for another one, like his boss being with the baddies as well.
Not bad, not sensational. There are better film scripts that haven't been published but hey why not...?
It's easy to imagine Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell in their roles; it's a shame Russell isn't given more to do (she almost could've been cut out of the film). I liked the character of the villain who was trapped in Macao - it made him unexpectedly sympathetic. Although I think it was a mistake to get him to want to leave, and all that stuff about the diamond was confusing. Decent twist with the reveal of the salesman being a detective but I was hoping for another one, like his boss being with the baddies as well.
Not bad, not sensational. There are better film scripts that haven't been published but hey why not...?
Saturday, December 09, 2017
TV review - "Kraft Theatre - The Singing Idol" (1957) ***
A stand alone one hour episode of an anthology drama series that rocketed Tommy Sands to fame. He plays a pop idol who is a little like Elvis Presley (side burns, a southern accent, controlling manager) but also a lot like the singer in The Jazz Singer (dad is a preacher who wants Sands to go back to God).
It's not bad drama - we meet Sands at the height of his fame, he hears his father is dying, he goes home, dad asks him to do God's work and dies, he reconnects with his childhood sweetheart.
Some roles are meh - the sweetheart (who just kind of sits and listens to Sands monologue and gets offended when he tries to kiss her) and the all-wise all-tolerant... assistant I think it is, some middle aged dude who seems to be the conscience of the piece.
Better value are the characters of Sands' pop star, and also manager, played by Fred Clark in an unsympathetic role. Clark's character is mean and ruthless but is given a strong point of view - he's put a lot of work into Sands' career, he grew up with religion and hates it. I really liked the ending where Sands agrees to go along with Clark but the execs are warned (not Clark, oddly) that Sands one day will stand up for himself. It's a lot more believable.
Sands acquits himself quite well - not a great actor, but not bad. It's a fantastic part and he can sing. Some decent scenes and Paul Bogart directs well. Sands sings "Teenage Crush" which became a hit song.
This was filmed as Sing Boy Sing.
It's not bad drama - we meet Sands at the height of his fame, he hears his father is dying, he goes home, dad asks him to do God's work and dies, he reconnects with his childhood sweetheart.
Some roles are meh - the sweetheart (who just kind of sits and listens to Sands monologue and gets offended when he tries to kiss her) and the all-wise all-tolerant... assistant I think it is, some middle aged dude who seems to be the conscience of the piece.
Better value are the characters of Sands' pop star, and also manager, played by Fred Clark in an unsympathetic role. Clark's character is mean and ruthless but is given a strong point of view - he's put a lot of work into Sands' career, he grew up with religion and hates it. I really liked the ending where Sands agrees to go along with Clark but the execs are warned (not Clark, oddly) that Sands one day will stand up for himself. It's a lot more believable.
Sands acquits himself quite well - not a great actor, but not bad. It's a fantastic part and he can sing. Some decent scenes and Paul Bogart directs well. Sands sings "Teenage Crush" which became a hit song.
This was filmed as Sing Boy Sing.
Friday, December 08, 2017
Movie review - "The Great Wall" (2016) **
A film which caused controversy on release out of fear of bringing in a "white saviour" - Matt Damon was going to star in a Chinese story about the Chinese fighting off evil serpents at the great wall. Well he's not really a white saviour - it's the Chinese who drive the action and have the stakes.
Indeed part of the film's problem is that Damon could be cut out of the film and there'd be no real difference. The same problem happened with Keanu Reeves in 47 Ronin - he wasn't necessary for the story, the stakes weren't about him.
I got the feeling this wasn't an issue for Richard Chamberlain in Shogun - I could be wrong it had been a long time since I saw it. But it felt like there were stakes on Chamberlain - he was always at risk of being killed, he fell for a local girl which could've gotten them killed.
Damon didn't have much of a character to play. Come to think of it no one had a great character - the girl general (the actor playing her didn't feel convincing) isn't much of a character, nor was the Emperor. Damon's sidekick wasn't funny or even particularly treacherous. Willem Dafoe looked as though he was going to do something interesting but didn't.
Some impressive production values and decent action sequences. But it felt undercooked. The determination to not offend I think hurt this.
How would you do it? Maybe make the battle more personal for Damon. Have his offsider be his brother - his brother fights for the baddies. Have more treacherous humans (they can ally with the baddies). Have Damon constantly at risk of being killed. Give him a romance instead of just a respectful friendship.
Indeed part of the film's problem is that Damon could be cut out of the film and there'd be no real difference. The same problem happened with Keanu Reeves in 47 Ronin - he wasn't necessary for the story, the stakes weren't about him.
I got the feeling this wasn't an issue for Richard Chamberlain in Shogun - I could be wrong it had been a long time since I saw it. But it felt like there were stakes on Chamberlain - he was always at risk of being killed, he fell for a local girl which could've gotten them killed.
Damon didn't have much of a character to play. Come to think of it no one had a great character - the girl general (the actor playing her didn't feel convincing) isn't much of a character, nor was the Emperor. Damon's sidekick wasn't funny or even particularly treacherous. Willem Dafoe looked as though he was going to do something interesting but didn't.
Some impressive production values and decent action sequences. But it felt undercooked. The determination to not offend I think hurt this.
How would you do it? Maybe make the battle more personal for Damon. Have his offsider be his brother - his brother fights for the baddies. Have more treacherous humans (they can ally with the baddies). Have Damon constantly at risk of being killed. Give him a romance instead of just a respectful friendship.
Movie review - "King Kong: Skull Island" (2016) ***
I had a really good time watching this, even if it didn't quite hit the heights of Aliens it was aiming for. A mash up of King Kong and the Vietnam War is actually a great idea - all these traumatised soldiers who've just lost a big war running into a big ape.
There are a lot of characters - you could actually have cut stars Brie Larson and Tom Hiddleston out of the film. I wish they'd given Larson more to do - Kong doesn't even fall in love with her - and Hiddleston has this back story that isn't really needed.
Sam Jackson, John C Reilly and John Goodman are all a lot of fun. Moments feel undercooked (eg Reilly's relationship with the locals - wouldn't he have more of a connection? I wish one of them had been personalised). The effects and action scenes are excellent.
There are a lot of characters - you could actually have cut stars Brie Larson and Tom Hiddleston out of the film. I wish they'd given Larson more to do - Kong doesn't even fall in love with her - and Hiddleston has this back story that isn't really needed.
Sam Jackson, John C Reilly and John Goodman are all a lot of fun. Moments feel undercooked (eg Reilly's relationship with the locals - wouldn't he have more of a connection? I wish one of them had been personalised). The effects and action scenes are excellent.
Movie review - "King Cohen" (2017) ***1/2
Loving look at the life and films of Larry Cohen, a very interesting filmmaker. The great things about this are the interviews, and old photos and clips of Larry growing up and behind the scenes of his films - that house which keeps appearing in his films is his!
We hear from some film loving colleagues - Joe Dante, Martin Scorsese, JJ Abrams, John Landis - as well as Cohen's wife, his ex wife and ex girlfriend - so he obviously can stay on good terms! There's also people who made films with him, including Michael Moriarty and Fred Williamson.
Most of the stories concern Cohen's audacity in stealing shots - there's a lot of these. It does touch on his sacking on a few films (notably I the Jury) but is generally extremely positive. There's no mention of his sister, who was murdered.
It's fun and peppy even if inevitably not of great depth/analysis - for that you really need to read that huge book on Cohen.
We hear from some film loving colleagues - Joe Dante, Martin Scorsese, JJ Abrams, John Landis - as well as Cohen's wife, his ex wife and ex girlfriend - so he obviously can stay on good terms! There's also people who made films with him, including Michael Moriarty and Fred Williamson.
Most of the stories concern Cohen's audacity in stealing shots - there's a lot of these. It does touch on his sacking on a few films (notably I the Jury) but is generally extremely positive. There's no mention of his sister, who was murdered.
It's fun and peppy even if inevitably not of great depth/analysis - for that you really need to read that huge book on Cohen.
TV review - "Stranger Things - Season 2" (2017) ***
Perhaps inevitably lacks the magic of season 1 - the kids have grown, are a little less cuter; the journey of the adults is less intense; I got the kid who went missing, Will, mixed up with his friend a lot. They introduce a girl, Max, who has a great initial look but her character doesn't go anywhere - and the blonde villain doesn't really do anything bad. I felt it lacked a real human villain. And I get why Ep 7 has been so divisive.
But it remains very well done, production values are high, and has a satisfactory ending (even if they do start setting up all these plots towards the end of the run). Also one scene knocked my socks off - when the kids dressed up as Ghosbusters, just like I used to do.
But it remains very well done, production values are high, and has a satisfactory ending (even if they do start setting up all these plots towards the end of the run). Also one scene knocked my socks off - when the kids dressed up as Ghosbusters, just like I used to do.
Thursday, December 07, 2017
Book review - "The General Danced at Dawn" (1971)
George MacDonald Fraser is best known for his Flashman novels but he did another series - a collection of short stories about the adventures of army lieutenant Dand McNeill serving in a Highland Regiment in North Africa after World War Two. More obviously autobiographical than Flashman, but still funny and evocative and worth reading.
This was the first two stories are adequate - "Monsoon Selection Board", where McNeill talks about being selected for officer school, and "Silence in the Ranks", about McNeill meeting his platoon.
Then the stories improve - there's "Play Up, Play Up and Get Tore In" an excellent account of the regiment's football team; there's a memorable character in the dodgy ship's captain and some very exciting football games - Fraser, a former news reporter, was very good at describing matches.
"Wee Wullie" is another strong entry, with the memorable characters of Wullie and the provost marshall; it's a moving tale of bravery.
"The General Danced at Dawn" is great fun - a story I would've liked to have seen filmed (you could film these stories in a Doctor in the House kind of way).
"Night Run to Palestine" feels different to the others because it changes location, being about McNeill's adventures on a night train from Cairo to Palestine - which sounds like a B movie and there are elements of that here, but it is interesting.
"The Whisky and the Music" centers around the legend of a highland regiment. It's not much of a story but is interesting in its depiction of the importance of bag pipes and pipers in highland regiments.
This series is famous for McAuslan but he actually doesn't have much of a role to play until "Guard at the Castle" which is about him doing the guard at Edinburgh Castle (the stories switch location to Scotland, which Fraser must've done). It has a sequel, "McAuslan's Court Martial" where McAuslan almost gets the boot for being dirty; it features a trial, another Fraser area of expertise - he did good trials in Flash for Freedom and Flashman and the Tiger.
It's a good collection of short stories. I wondered how you'd adapt it for a screenplay? Do it like Doctor in the House, I think... string it into some sort of narrative but keep it episodic. Add a romance.
Maybe structure it like this
Sequence 1 - Silence in the Ranks
Sequence 2 - Guard at the Castle - only keep this set in Libya
Sequence 3 - The General Danced at Dawn
Sequence 4 - McAuslan's Court Martial
Sequence 5 - the climactic game in Play Up, Play Up and Get Tore In - I'd make McAuslan and McNeill part of the team
This was the first two stories are adequate - "Monsoon Selection Board", where McNeill talks about being selected for officer school, and "Silence in the Ranks", about McNeill meeting his platoon.
Then the stories improve - there's "Play Up, Play Up and Get Tore In" an excellent account of the regiment's football team; there's a memorable character in the dodgy ship's captain and some very exciting football games - Fraser, a former news reporter, was very good at describing matches.
"Wee Wullie" is another strong entry, with the memorable characters of Wullie and the provost marshall; it's a moving tale of bravery.
"The General Danced at Dawn" is great fun - a story I would've liked to have seen filmed (you could film these stories in a Doctor in the House kind of way).
"Night Run to Palestine" feels different to the others because it changes location, being about McNeill's adventures on a night train from Cairo to Palestine - which sounds like a B movie and there are elements of that here, but it is interesting.
"The Whisky and the Music" centers around the legend of a highland regiment. It's not much of a story but is interesting in its depiction of the importance of bag pipes and pipers in highland regiments.
This series is famous for McAuslan but he actually doesn't have much of a role to play until "Guard at the Castle" which is about him doing the guard at Edinburgh Castle (the stories switch location to Scotland, which Fraser must've done). It has a sequel, "McAuslan's Court Martial" where McAuslan almost gets the boot for being dirty; it features a trial, another Fraser area of expertise - he did good trials in Flash for Freedom and Flashman and the Tiger.
It's a good collection of short stories. I wondered how you'd adapt it for a screenplay? Do it like Doctor in the House, I think... string it into some sort of narrative but keep it episodic. Add a romance.
Maybe structure it like this
Sequence 1 - Silence in the Ranks
Sequence 2 - Guard at the Castle - only keep this set in Libya
Sequence 3 - The General Danced at Dawn
Sequence 4 - McAuslan's Court Martial
Sequence 5 - the climactic game in Play Up, Play Up and Get Tore In - I'd make McAuslan and McNeill part of the team
Movie review - "The Million Eyes of Sumuru" (1968) **
Harry Alan Towers had success with some Fu Manchi movies made in the late 60s - looking for a follow up his eyes lit on another super villain created by Sax Rohmer, Sumuru. While Fu Manchu was the yellow peril Sumuru was the female peril - created by Rohmer when publishers started finding her work just too racist.
The film is sexist - Sumuru is determined to rule the world but is undermined by females who can't help resisting men - but the impact of that is limited by the film's sloppiness and stupidity.
The camp factor is extremely, extremely high here. George Nader, a famous Hollywood gay, is the he-man hero who women find irresistible. George was getting on a bit - he takes his shirt off a lot and is in good shape but the years were starting to tell. And I don't mean to be the sort of person who reads in gay things into films because of an actor's sexual orientation but it honestly does seem like Nader is sending it up and mocking heterosexuality in his performance.
Shirley Eaton from Goldfinger is fun as Sumuru, having a great old time. I have affection for Frankie Avalon with his helmet hair and goofy nature - the sexist nature of some of his character's comments are unfortunate. Wilfred Hyde White dodders through and Klaus Kinski has a high old time as a prince.
There's some very attractive women in the film as well as location shooting in Hong Kong (Terry Bourke, Australian director, was production manager). The film is a mess - you can't say it's a good movie, it's confusing - but it has fun things.
The film is sexist - Sumuru is determined to rule the world but is undermined by females who can't help resisting men - but the impact of that is limited by the film's sloppiness and stupidity.
The camp factor is extremely, extremely high here. George Nader, a famous Hollywood gay, is the he-man hero who women find irresistible. George was getting on a bit - he takes his shirt off a lot and is in good shape but the years were starting to tell. And I don't mean to be the sort of person who reads in gay things into films because of an actor's sexual orientation but it honestly does seem like Nader is sending it up and mocking heterosexuality in his performance.
Shirley Eaton from Goldfinger is fun as Sumuru, having a great old time. I have affection for Frankie Avalon with his helmet hair and goofy nature - the sexist nature of some of his character's comments are unfortunate. Wilfred Hyde White dodders through and Klaus Kinski has a high old time as a prince.
There's some very attractive women in the film as well as location shooting in Hong Kong (Terry Bourke, Australian director, was production manager). The film is a mess - you can't say it's a good movie, it's confusing - but it has fun things.
Monday, December 04, 2017
Movie review - "Johnny Angel" (1945) *** (warning spoilers)
I always assumed George Raft's career went into freefall after he left Warners, a studio which made films that he was so ideal for, but actually he hung on as a decent star for a few years freelancing. This in particular was a big hit, making over a million dollars in profit - true, it was at a time when Hollywood was doing gangbusters business, but not every film did that well, so audiences must have still liked Raft.
It's a pretty good little film - a programmer in many ways, but a decent mystery with some beautiful black and white photography and decent direction from Ed Marin. Raft at first seems odd as a sea captain but it's nice to see him in uniform - anyway he doesn't spend much time on a boat, but more poking around night clubs and docks investigating what happened to his father's boat, which has turned up empty and bobbing in the sea Marie Celeste style.
Signe Hasso isn't very good as the mystery girl but Claire Trevor is enjoyable as a gold digging woman. I liked Hoagy Carmichael popping up as an enigmatic cab driver and there's excellent performances from Marvin Miller as a sad sack in love with Trevor (great final scene) and Lowell Gilmore as a suave red herring. I really loved the ending with Miller blubbering his confession and then Margaret Wycherly stepping in to blow him away. It was also fun how Raft uses his sex appeal on Trevor to solve the case (he wasn't able to get away with that much longer.)
I don't want to over praise this - there's too many scenes set in the sunlight when it really all should've been at night or on cramped ships, the romance between Raft and Hasso is so undercooked that when they get together at the end its a surprise, I wish there had been more creepy boat stuff.
But Raft is solid, the film is entertaining. It's easily one of his best later movies and I can see why he persisted on working with Marin.
It's a pretty good little film - a programmer in many ways, but a decent mystery with some beautiful black and white photography and decent direction from Ed Marin. Raft at first seems odd as a sea captain but it's nice to see him in uniform - anyway he doesn't spend much time on a boat, but more poking around night clubs and docks investigating what happened to his father's boat, which has turned up empty and bobbing in the sea Marie Celeste style.
Signe Hasso isn't very good as the mystery girl but Claire Trevor is enjoyable as a gold digging woman. I liked Hoagy Carmichael popping up as an enigmatic cab driver and there's excellent performances from Marvin Miller as a sad sack in love with Trevor (great final scene) and Lowell Gilmore as a suave red herring. I really loved the ending with Miller blubbering his confession and then Margaret Wycherly stepping in to blow him away. It was also fun how Raft uses his sex appeal on Trevor to solve the case (he wasn't able to get away with that much longer.)
I don't want to over praise this - there's too many scenes set in the sunlight when it really all should've been at night or on cramped ships, the romance between Raft and Hasso is so undercooked that when they get together at the end its a surprise, I wish there had been more creepy boat stuff.
But Raft is solid, the film is entertaining. It's easily one of his best later movies and I can see why he persisted on working with Marin.
Script review - "The Lady Vanishes" by Launder and Gilliat
This would have to be one of my favourite scripts of all time. It's so lovely and clever and fresh and funny. And the structure is to die for. Things are brought in and paid off beautifully, the characters are clearly delineated and warmly sketched. Yes I like it in part it's about cricket but also because of its cleverness and wit and excitement.
Irish is a cheerful young girl but that's all she has to be; Gilbert is given some real background (folk dancing, impoverished father) - though I do wish Iris had been given more of the nun's heroic stuff at the end (there you go, flaws). Miss Froy is the greatest secret agent of all time; the villains (Dr Hartz, the Baronness) may be evil foreigners but they are smart and gentlemanly (at the end Hartz says "good luck to them"); the subplot about the cheating couple is very adult and believable; the nun in high heels (who does a lot of heroic stuff at the end) is brilliant, going back to her country in the hour of need; Charters and Caldicott are splendid.
Break it down into sequences
A - meet all the characters in a comic, fun way - bewildered Britishers and flustered foreigners. End with the singer being murdered
B - get on the train, someone tries to kiss Miss Froy and Iris gets conked on the head, set up the passengers in the compartment and the tea and the name on the window, then go to sleep - wake up and Miss Froy is gone
C - Iris looks for Miss Froy, everyone denies her including the British (to avoid getting in trouble), Gilbert and Dr Hartz try to help, Irish sees Miss Froy's name, a woman gets on the train, Hartz persuades Iris that she imagined it but then Gilbert sees the tea and believes her - reveal that Hartz is in on it with the nun and the woman
D - Gilbert and Iris keep looking and get in a fight with the man in the compartment. Hartz reveals his plan to drug Gilbert and Iris to the nun and he drugs them...
E - But they wake up. Turns out the nun helped them. They rescue Miss Froy and try to put someone else in her place. They almost get away with it but Hartz figures out what's going on. And orders the train to be diverted.
F - The train is diverted but it's the dining room and the British are left. They manage to fight them off, especially Gilbert and the nun. Miss Froy reveals who she is and makes a run for it.
G -Gilbert and Irish get together and discover Miss Froy's still alive.
Wonderful stuff.
Irish is a cheerful young girl but that's all she has to be; Gilbert is given some real background (folk dancing, impoverished father) - though I do wish Iris had been given more of the nun's heroic stuff at the end (there you go, flaws). Miss Froy is the greatest secret agent of all time; the villains (Dr Hartz, the Baronness) may be evil foreigners but they are smart and gentlemanly (at the end Hartz says "good luck to them"); the subplot about the cheating couple is very adult and believable; the nun in high heels (who does a lot of heroic stuff at the end) is brilliant, going back to her country in the hour of need; Charters and Caldicott are splendid.
Break it down into sequences
A - meet all the characters in a comic, fun way - bewildered Britishers and flustered foreigners. End with the singer being murdered
B - get on the train, someone tries to kiss Miss Froy and Iris gets conked on the head, set up the passengers in the compartment and the tea and the name on the window, then go to sleep - wake up and Miss Froy is gone
C - Iris looks for Miss Froy, everyone denies her including the British (to avoid getting in trouble), Gilbert and Dr Hartz try to help, Irish sees Miss Froy's name, a woman gets on the train, Hartz persuades Iris that she imagined it but then Gilbert sees the tea and believes her - reveal that Hartz is in on it with the nun and the woman
D - Gilbert and Iris keep looking and get in a fight with the man in the compartment. Hartz reveals his plan to drug Gilbert and Iris to the nun and he drugs them...
E - But they wake up. Turns out the nun helped them. They rescue Miss Froy and try to put someone else in her place. They almost get away with it but Hartz figures out what's going on. And orders the train to be diverted.
F - The train is diverted but it's the dining room and the British are left. They manage to fight them off, especially Gilbert and the nun. Miss Froy reveals who she is and makes a run for it.
G -Gilbert and Irish get together and discover Miss Froy's still alive.
Wonderful stuff.
Sunday, December 03, 2017
Movie review - "Jason Bourne" (2016) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
The Bourne films set the agenda for modern day spy movies with their sense of realism and fast pace, and the first four movies were strong, but this one is a disappointment despite the return of Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass.
Technically it's fine - it looks polished, the action is solid. I think the biggest problem is the story - there's nothing new about it. So much of it feels familiar - the head baddy behind a headset following Bourne (Tommy Lee Jones instead of Chris Cooper, David Strathairn, Ed Norton) who clashes with a female (Alicia Vikander instead of Joan Allen), a girl who likes him being killed in the opening sequence (Julia Stiles instead of Fanka Potente), Bourne being chased by a super assassin (Victor Cassell instead of Clive Owen), Bourne forcing a woman to drive, a sequence where Bourne meets someone in London who winds up killed.
I was excited by the idea of Bourne learning more about his past but we just learn that his father started Treadstone and was killed... it just gives him an excuse to go an kill people). The stuff about government oversight into privacy on line is boring. Why do spy movies try to get political? I really wish they'd tied it in to events of the fourth movie - a Jeremy Renner/Matt Damon cross over would've been awesome.
It lacks emotion and boldness - there was really no reason to make this film except money. I know you could've said that about all of them, but the first three sequels all tried in places to be different and this doesn't.
Technically it's fine - it looks polished, the action is solid. I think the biggest problem is the story - there's nothing new about it. So much of it feels familiar - the head baddy behind a headset following Bourne (Tommy Lee Jones instead of Chris Cooper, David Strathairn, Ed Norton) who clashes with a female (Alicia Vikander instead of Joan Allen), a girl who likes him being killed in the opening sequence (Julia Stiles instead of Fanka Potente), Bourne being chased by a super assassin (Victor Cassell instead of Clive Owen), Bourne forcing a woman to drive, a sequence where Bourne meets someone in London who winds up killed.
I was excited by the idea of Bourne learning more about his past but we just learn that his father started Treadstone and was killed... it just gives him an excuse to go an kill people). The stuff about government oversight into privacy on line is boring. Why do spy movies try to get political? I really wish they'd tied it in to events of the fourth movie - a Jeremy Renner/Matt Damon cross over would've been awesome.
It lacks emotion and boldness - there was really no reason to make this film except money. I know you could've said that about all of them, but the first three sequels all tried in places to be different and this doesn't.
Friday, December 01, 2017
Movie review- "Jack the Giant Killer" (1961) **1/2
Edward Small saw the grosses for The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad and thought "I'll have me some of that" so he hired that movie's star, head villain and director. He didn't hire Ray Harryhausen so the effects aren't as good but this is a sweet, fun movie, impossible to dislike if you've got a soft spot for this sort of film.
Kerwin Mathews is handsome and a bit bland but not bad as the hero; Judi Meredith has spunk and life as the heroine. Torin Thatcher plays the villain to the manor born and Anna Lee is great fun as a witch.
There's some repetition - Meredith is captured twice in the first half hour and some of the effects are wonky; but it hits a lot of the beats you want - there's a leprechaun who's a genie, and escapes and sword fighting and possession, and a surprisingly shocking moment where a boy's father is killed in front of the boy's eyes.
Cheerful and bright. Nathan Juran directed and co-wrote.
Kerwin Mathews is handsome and a bit bland but not bad as the hero; Judi Meredith has spunk and life as the heroine. Torin Thatcher plays the villain to the manor born and Anna Lee is great fun as a witch.
There's some repetition - Meredith is captured twice in the first half hour and some of the effects are wonky; but it hits a lot of the beats you want - there's a leprechaun who's a genie, and escapes and sword fighting and possession, and a surprisingly shocking moment where a boy's father is killed in front of the boy's eyes.
Cheerful and bright. Nathan Juran directed and co-wrote.
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Script review - "Sabrina Fair" by Billy Wilder, Ernest Lehmann and Samuel Taylor
Not considered one of the classic Billy Wilders but a very well done romantic comedy with three excellent star roles. It reads very much as if it were written for Audrey Hepburn - there's references to Sabrina's slenderness, and pixie good looks. Through a modern view point it's a little dodgy I guess Linus pursuing Sabrina for money and her falling for it, and Linus paying off these women in David's life (did he rape them? assault them?).
But it maintains its freshness through that Wilder jaundiced look at the world - the importance of money and position and cynicism mixed with romanticism. It's also very well structured into sequences:
A - Sabrina is in love with David, tries to kill herself when he goes off with someone else, is rescued by Linus and heads for Paris.
B - Sabrina gets glam in Paris, Linus arranges David's marriage and Sabrina comes back and David loves her.
C - Linus decides to cock block David by going after Sabrina himself.
D - Linus pursues Sabrina and she finds herself liking him
E - Sabrina likes Linus and is trying to convince herself she wants David.
F - They fall in love and Sabrina is keen but Linus rejects her.
G - David realises Sabrina doesn't really like him and agrees to marry the girl and sends Linus after Sabrina.
I know this was a tough film to make but the script reads smoothly and logically. I guess Linus and Sabrina is a bit creepy if you think about it too hard.
But it maintains its freshness through that Wilder jaundiced look at the world - the importance of money and position and cynicism mixed with romanticism. It's also very well structured into sequences:
A - Sabrina is in love with David, tries to kill herself when he goes off with someone else, is rescued by Linus and heads for Paris.
B - Sabrina gets glam in Paris, Linus arranges David's marriage and Sabrina comes back and David loves her.
C - Linus decides to cock block David by going after Sabrina himself.
D - Linus pursues Sabrina and she finds herself liking him
E - Sabrina likes Linus and is trying to convince herself she wants David.
F - They fall in love and Sabrina is keen but Linus rejects her.
G - David realises Sabrina doesn't really like him and agrees to marry the girl and sends Linus after Sabrina.
I know this was a tough film to make but the script reads smoothly and logically. I guess Linus and Sabrina is a bit creepy if you think about it too hard.
Yvonne de Carlo Top Ten
1) Salome, Where She Danced (1945) - the role that made her a star.
2) The Ten Commandments (1956) - cast against type as Moses' loyal wife but very effective.
3) The Captain's Paradise (1953) - De Carlo's comedy roles were really variations of her straight parts - a hot pants exotic type - but she's still pretty funny.
4) Fort Algiers (1953) - not a classic and not even in colour but De Carlo is in good form as a spy (her most typical role in many ways) in modern day colonial Africa.
5) Sea Devils (1953) - this is in colour and De Carlo works well with Rock Hudson.
6) River Lady (1948) - De Carlo ideally cast as a riverboat lady in a film that should have been more about her character.
7) Criss Cross (1949) - a super film noir and De Carlo effective as a film fetale.
8) The Munsters (1964-66) - fun comedy which outstayed its welcome but De Carlo was very good in the role.
9) The Seven Minutes (1971) - she only has a small part in this Russ Meyer straight drama but is very well used and is effective.
10) Follies (1971) - not a film, the musical. De Carlo appeared in a lot of middling material in her career, but her Broadway debut was a bona fide classic - and what's more she got perhaps the best song, "I'm Still Here".
2) The Ten Commandments (1956) - cast against type as Moses' loyal wife but very effective.
3) The Captain's Paradise (1953) - De Carlo's comedy roles were really variations of her straight parts - a hot pants exotic type - but she's still pretty funny.
4) Fort Algiers (1953) - not a classic and not even in colour but De Carlo is in good form as a spy (her most typical role in many ways) in modern day colonial Africa.
5) Sea Devils (1953) - this is in colour and De Carlo works well with Rock Hudson.
6) River Lady (1948) - De Carlo ideally cast as a riverboat lady in a film that should have been more about her character.
7) Criss Cross (1949) - a super film noir and De Carlo effective as a film fetale.
8) The Munsters (1964-66) - fun comedy which outstayed its welcome but De Carlo was very good in the role.
9) The Seven Minutes (1971) - she only has a small part in this Russ Meyer straight drama but is very well used and is effective.
10) Follies (1971) - not a film, the musical. De Carlo appeared in a lot of middling material in her career, but her Broadway debut was a bona fide classic - and what's more she got perhaps the best song, "I'm Still Here".
Book review - "Yvonne" by Yvonne De Carlo (1987)
The cinematic work of Yvonne De Carlo deserves re-appraisal - for a time there in the late 40s and early 50s she was a genuine lower level star at Universal, playing a succession of slinky Eastern dancing girls and tough Western dames in some unpretentious technicolor films. She and Maureen O'Hara were these quasi-feminist adventure stars, until the 50s took hold and both wound up staring admiringly at the heroes.
De Carlo was an old pro in the best sense of the world. She started quite young, with a pushy mother and absent father (very common elements in biographies of female star). She did a lot of dancing when younger and moved to the US from Canada; her looks saw her win beauty contests which resulted in a dancing gig at the Florentine Gardens. She worked hard at her dancing and was eventually picked up for the movies, doing a stint at Paramount.
In the 1940s girls with "exotic looks" were not discriminated against; de Carlo played a series of dancing girls and natives; she was going to step in for Dorothy Lamour in Rainbow Island but Lamour changed her mind. She also just missed out on good parts in For Whom the Bell Tolls and The Story of Dr Wassell. Her career was stagnating there but got a huge boost when Walter Wagner cast her in the lead of Salome Where She Danced which turned her into a star.
Salome was made by Universal who put her to work in lots of Easterns and Westerns, and wanted someone easier to deal with than Maria Montez (and De Carlo could sing and dance which Montez couldn't). Occasionally she got the chance in something more prestigious like Criss Cross. De Carlo eventually branched out into comedy, notably in England, and got a few parts in "A" pictures, like The Ten Commandments and Band of Angels. But she never made the full transition to "A" stardom - it's harder for women, especially in the macho late 50s. And to be fair De Carlo didn't have the individuality of great stars - or even great icons like Maureen O'Hara; she lacked spark and life-sometimes she blended into the scenery. But she could act and sing and dance, often better than she was given credit for.
De Carlo found things harder from the late 50s onwards, but she kept at it - working regularly in TV and having a career boost when starring in The Munsters. She also achieved fame on Broadway in Follies. She expresses regret her agents didn't push her for Broadway roles earlier; I'm surprised she didn't appear in more musical films - Universal did make them, though not as often as they did in the 40s.
As a good looking girl De Carlo spent a lot of time fending off lecherous Hollywood wolves/sex pests - Errol Flynn, Franchot Tone, Orson Welles. She was keen on Sterling Hayden but he didn't do anything. Ditto James Stewart. She had amiable dates with Red Skelton and knew Burgess Meredith, a romance with Ray Milland before finally losing her virginity to someone called Carl Anthony. She says Billy Wilder was the first great love of her life. She later had serious romances with Howard Hughes (who made love like an engineer which made me laugh), Robert Stack, Howard Duff and Jock Mahoney (she fell pregnant to him but lost the baby), flings with Burt Lancaster, Carlos Thompson, Tony Curtis and Robert Taylor. There was Aly Khan, of course, who was a great lover - it isn't a very discrete book!
The book gets harder going as once De Carlo marries stuntman Bob Morgan. A sexy man's man, he was overly fond of a drink, and not a particularly devoted husband. She was going to leave him but then he had an accident which resulted in him losing his leg. From then on it was work, work, work as she took every gig going - night club acts, crummy roles in films. She was perennially unlucky in love - she had a taste for love rats (married men, pricks), which never improved.
I liked reading about her encounters with Maria Montez - de Carlo came to Universal as a Montez back up taking her role in Frontier Gal but Montez and she got along; Montez would talk about her being reincarnated, warn her off Howard Hughes and recommend de Carlo and Jean Pierre Aumont (her love interest in one film) play more love scenes because you got more close ups that way.
De Carlo admits to being a right winger - I would've been interested to hear more about this. (I imagine a lot of actors who slogged their way up from the chorus were right wing eg Ginger Rogers.) The book was written before her son died.
It's an entertaining book - a little harrowing (all the sexual harassment), and sad (the career and financial battles). De Carlo had a pretty good life - fame, some good parts, sex with handsome men - but struggled to hang on to money and a good relationship. Still, the world was a better place for her being in it.
De Carlo was an old pro in the best sense of the world. She started quite young, with a pushy mother and absent father (very common elements in biographies of female star). She did a lot of dancing when younger and moved to the US from Canada; her looks saw her win beauty contests which resulted in a dancing gig at the Florentine Gardens. She worked hard at her dancing and was eventually picked up for the movies, doing a stint at Paramount.
In the 1940s girls with "exotic looks" were not discriminated against; de Carlo played a series of dancing girls and natives; she was going to step in for Dorothy Lamour in Rainbow Island but Lamour changed her mind. She also just missed out on good parts in For Whom the Bell Tolls and The Story of Dr Wassell. Her career was stagnating there but got a huge boost when Walter Wagner cast her in the lead of Salome Where She Danced which turned her into a star.
Salome was made by Universal who put her to work in lots of Easterns and Westerns, and wanted someone easier to deal with than Maria Montez (and De Carlo could sing and dance which Montez couldn't). Occasionally she got the chance in something more prestigious like Criss Cross. De Carlo eventually branched out into comedy, notably in England, and got a few parts in "A" pictures, like The Ten Commandments and Band of Angels. But she never made the full transition to "A" stardom - it's harder for women, especially in the macho late 50s. And to be fair De Carlo didn't have the individuality of great stars - or even great icons like Maureen O'Hara; she lacked spark and life-sometimes she blended into the scenery. But she could act and sing and dance, often better than she was given credit for.
De Carlo found things harder from the late 50s onwards, but she kept at it - working regularly in TV and having a career boost when starring in The Munsters. She also achieved fame on Broadway in Follies. She expresses regret her agents didn't push her for Broadway roles earlier; I'm surprised she didn't appear in more musical films - Universal did make them, though not as often as they did in the 40s.
The book gets harder going as once De Carlo marries stuntman Bob Morgan. A sexy man's man, he was overly fond of a drink, and not a particularly devoted husband. She was going to leave him but then he had an accident which resulted in him losing his leg. From then on it was work, work, work as she took every gig going - night club acts, crummy roles in films. She was perennially unlucky in love - she had a taste for love rats (married men, pricks), which never improved.
I liked reading about her encounters with Maria Montez - de Carlo came to Universal as a Montez back up taking her role in Frontier Gal but Montez and she got along; Montez would talk about her being reincarnated, warn her off Howard Hughes and recommend de Carlo and Jean Pierre Aumont (her love interest in one film) play more love scenes because you got more close ups that way.
De Carlo admits to being a right winger - I would've been interested to hear more about this. (I imagine a lot of actors who slogged their way up from the chorus were right wing eg Ginger Rogers.) The book was written before her son died.
It's an entertaining book - a little harrowing (all the sexual harassment), and sad (the career and financial battles). De Carlo had a pretty good life - fame, some good parts, sex with handsome men - but struggled to hang on to money and a good relationship. Still, the world was a better place for her being in it.
Movie review - "Cave of Outlaws" (1951) **1/2
I was intrigued by this - a Western set in a cave, with location filming at some famous caves in Arizona. The cast was strong - MacDonald Carey, Alexis Smith, Hugh O'Brian, Victor Jory, Edgar Buchanan, Russ Tamblyn (as Carey as a boy). But it never quite hit home.
It starts well - Tamblyn being part of a gang that robbed a train, and hiding some gold in the cave. Tamblyn spends 15 years in prison and comes out as Carey, trying to find it. He's dogged by inspector Buchanan, everyone wants to lend him money because they assume he's going to be rich. Alexis Smith wants some of that money to set up a newspaper.
I loved all this. But the film goes off in different directions - maybe it was just different to how I thought it would go in my head, but it felt unsatisfactory. There's all this awesome story set up that isn't used - like Tamblyn's father who forced him to take part in the robbery and was killed (why not keep him alive? Why not use ma?), or the posse leader who beats up Tamblyn brutally at the start to find out where the gold is (why not see himagain?), or the fellow gang members (why not use one of them? or a relative of them?). Why spend so much time on Alexis Smith's missing husband - who cares about him? Why not have him as part of the gang (or the son of someone in the gang - or posse?) Why not have head villain Victory Jory tied up with the original robbery? Why have Edgar Buchanan be the one who shoots Jory and sidekick O'Brien, and not Carey?
I wish there had been more scenes in the caves and also that Smith had been more genuinely treacherous - the role is a bit of a nothing. Or had a second girl character who was treacherous to give it some variety. And the plan to get a bullet by doing a duel is dumb- very dangerous! Why not just take out the bullet.
Still the cave setting is different, the cast strong. And there's some bright dialogue and scenes where people try, like the duel.
It starts well - Tamblyn being part of a gang that robbed a train, and hiding some gold in the cave. Tamblyn spends 15 years in prison and comes out as Carey, trying to find it. He's dogged by inspector Buchanan, everyone wants to lend him money because they assume he's going to be rich. Alexis Smith wants some of that money to set up a newspaper.
I loved all this. But the film goes off in different directions - maybe it was just different to how I thought it would go in my head, but it felt unsatisfactory. There's all this awesome story set up that isn't used - like Tamblyn's father who forced him to take part in the robbery and was killed (why not keep him alive? Why not use ma?), or the posse leader who beats up Tamblyn brutally at the start to find out where the gold is (why not see himagain?), or the fellow gang members (why not use one of them? or a relative of them?). Why spend so much time on Alexis Smith's missing husband - who cares about him? Why not have him as part of the gang (or the son of someone in the gang - or posse?) Why not have head villain Victory Jory tied up with the original robbery? Why have Edgar Buchanan be the one who shoots Jory and sidekick O'Brien, and not Carey?
I wish there had been more scenes in the caves and also that Smith had been more genuinely treacherous - the role is a bit of a nothing. Or had a second girl character who was treacherous to give it some variety. And the plan to get a bullet by doing a duel is dumb- very dangerous! Why not just take out the bullet.
Still the cave setting is different, the cast strong. And there's some bright dialogue and scenes where people try, like the duel.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Movie review - "Siege of the Saxons" (1963) **1/2
Charles Schneer is best remembered for the Ray Harryhausen films he produced; they took a long time to make with their elaborate effects, so he turned out the occasional cheapie to keep the cash running in. This was made to be released with Jason and the Argonauts and re-used sets and footage from other Columbia Pictures.
It's a cheerful, colourful tale, really for kids and no one else, which is ostensibly an Arthurian tale but is more a Robin Hood story. Ronald Lewis - a contract star for the Rank organisation - has a rather unfortunate blonde wig (to help match footage with Alan Ladd from The Black Knight?) - is a former noble turned outlaw who is actually trying to do the decent thing by King Arthur. That's not a bad idea - it gives Arthur a Maid Marian type daughter, Katherine, perkily played by Janette Scott.
Ronald Howard is an excellent villain, Edmund, and Jerome Willis very good as his sidekick. Mark Dignam was fine as Arthur and John Laurie should've been used more as Merlin.
The story is absolutely solid - we set up Arthur's key lieutenant is a secret traitor, Katherine meets Marshall the outlaw, Marshall tries to help Arthur, Arthur is killed, Katherine flees with Marshall, Marshall and Katherine squabble but fall in love, Katherine is captured and sees Edmund and his henchmen wipe out some protestors (a surprisingly full on sequence), Katherine is rescued, they rescue Merlin (maybe a bit of repetition here), they defeat Edmund and his gang with a final battle full of stock footage.
No classic, but bright and happy - something you could say for many films by Nathan Juran.
It's a cheerful, colourful tale, really for kids and no one else, which is ostensibly an Arthurian tale but is more a Robin Hood story. Ronald Lewis - a contract star for the Rank organisation - has a rather unfortunate blonde wig (to help match footage with Alan Ladd from The Black Knight?) - is a former noble turned outlaw who is actually trying to do the decent thing by King Arthur. That's not a bad idea - it gives Arthur a Maid Marian type daughter, Katherine, perkily played by Janette Scott.
Ronald Howard is an excellent villain, Edmund, and Jerome Willis very good as his sidekick. Mark Dignam was fine as Arthur and John Laurie should've been used more as Merlin.
The story is absolutely solid - we set up Arthur's key lieutenant is a secret traitor, Katherine meets Marshall the outlaw, Marshall tries to help Arthur, Arthur is killed, Katherine flees with Marshall, Marshall and Katherine squabble but fall in love, Katherine is captured and sees Edmund and his henchmen wipe out some protestors (a surprisingly full on sequence), Katherine is rescued, they rescue Merlin (maybe a bit of repetition here), they defeat Edmund and his gang with a final battle full of stock footage.
No classic, but bright and happy - something you could say for many films by Nathan Juran.
Monday, November 27, 2017
Movie review - "The Relic" (1997) **
I've got a soft spot for a lot of Peter Hyams films like Capricorn One and Running Scared. This one, not so much. It takes what should be a simple story - a monster running around a museum killing people- and complicates it to the point of obfuscation.
I think they were trying to elevate the material, to make it smarter, but the result is a lot of confusing talk - it's not really smart because there's no fresh twists or ideas, it's just gobble-dy gook about serum and hormones, and endless set ups for situations.
I get what they were going for but they take such contrived steps to do there - for example, they wanted a Poseidon Adventure type of thing with people going along corridors, fighting water to get out. But they do it in a museum with the door right there. And sure they went "the doors are locked" but it didn't feel real.
They analyse the blood of the creature to find out more about it and you think it's going to be one of the people in the group - they have this ticking clock of building a photo like in No Way Out and it turns out to be... the explorer from the beginning of the film, who we never met and don't care about.
I enjoyed the Hyams "look" of the film - close ups, dark photography. There's always movement and colour. It's not a very good movie though.
I saw a Q and A about the film with Hyams and Penelope Ann Miller. Hyams kept talking about wanting to elevate the material - but he doesn't seem to have noticed the logic issues.
I think they were trying to elevate the material, to make it smarter, but the result is a lot of confusing talk - it's not really smart because there's no fresh twists or ideas, it's just gobble-dy gook about serum and hormones, and endless set ups for situations.
I get what they were going for but they take such contrived steps to do there - for example, they wanted a Poseidon Adventure type of thing with people going along corridors, fighting water to get out. But they do it in a museum with the door right there. And sure they went "the doors are locked" but it didn't feel real.
They analyse the blood of the creature to find out more about it and you think it's going to be one of the people in the group - they have this ticking clock of building a photo like in No Way Out and it turns out to be... the explorer from the beginning of the film, who we never met and don't care about.
I enjoyed the Hyams "look" of the film - close ups, dark photography. There's always movement and colour. It's not a very good movie though.
I saw a Q and A about the film with Hyams and Penelope Ann Miller. Hyams kept talking about wanting to elevate the material - but he doesn't seem to have noticed the logic issues.
Sunday, November 26, 2017
Book review - "Creature Chronicles: Exploring the Black Lagoon Trilogy" by Tom Weaver, Steve Kronenberg and David Schecter
An exhaustive (to put it mildly) look at the making of the Creature of the Black Lagoon trilogy. No stone is unturned - the origin, original treatments, scripts, budgets, shooting, post production, marketing, release. I mean, they really go into detail. Towards the end when they started doing interviews from body doubles I began I get physically exhausted. And to have music cues...?
But it's definitive. It's all here. It's exhaustive. And there are lively bits among all the facts - John Agar was a party boozehound (professional on set, let his hair down at night), Jack Arnold was a lecherous old goat very grabby with his hands, Harry Essex was a credit-grabbing hack,William Alland's contribution has been undervalued. The actors mixed between the nice (Julie Adams - I love how she embraced fandom in later life) and the drunk. I enjoyed reading treatments for the proposed remakes.
A full-on, at times overwhelming book but the world is a better place for it to be in it.
But it's definitive. It's all here. It's exhaustive. And there are lively bits among all the facts - John Agar was a party boozehound (professional on set, let his hair down at night), Jack Arnold was a lecherous old goat very grabby with his hands, Harry Essex was a credit-grabbing hack,William Alland's contribution has been undervalued. The actors mixed between the nice (Julie Adams - I love how she embraced fandom in later life) and the drunk. I enjoyed reading treatments for the proposed remakes.
A full-on, at times overwhelming book but the world is a better place for it to be in it.
TV review - "Mindhunter - Season 1" (2017) ****
A surprise - I didn't know what to expect, just that involved serial killers and David Fincher. It's not so much a murder of the week story as a look at the mind of serial killers, being set in the 1970s when the FBI were applying more specific psychological measures of investigation.
I don't know how true it is but it feels true, helped by some great writing and acting. Holt McCallanty was a particular stand out from me - I don't know where he came from but he's great. Cameron Britton is very good too as Edmund Kemper. Everyone is good though.
It's creepy, unsettling and smart. I kept expecting the character of Debbie, the girlfriend, to do more than she did.
I don't know how true it is but it feels true, helped by some great writing and acting. Holt McCallanty was a particular stand out from me - I don't know where he came from but he's great. Cameron Britton is very good too as Edmund Kemper. Everyone is good though.
It's creepy, unsettling and smart. I kept expecting the character of Debbie, the girlfriend, to do more than she did.
Movie review - "The Mummy" (2017) ** (warning: spoilers)
A famous misfire, one of those films that inspired a "pile on" of critical disdain. There are some good things about it - technically its very fine, handsome looking with some impressive effects. I like Jake Johnson and Russell Crowe (ideal casting as Jekyll and Hyde!) and Sofia Boutella has a great look. The start of the film is solid, even if it was a slight stretch to have Cruise go treasure hunting while on patrol for the arm (and why need that? Why not have him as ex army).
But it's confusing - I had trouble following what was happening especially after Cruise died and came back to life. There was stuff about possession and souls and back from the dead and gods and daggers and rubies and stuff - I got lost.
There's no emotional underpinning of anything. I never knew why Tom Cruise was so important to Boutella's mummy - she wanted him to be her husband was that it? In the best mummy movies the mummy was driven by love - he was a former priest going after the reincarnation of his former love. Very simple - that powered everything. Why not just use that - have Boutella think Cruise was the reincarnation of her lost love or something? Everything would've made sense - her drive, the rivalry with Annabelle Wallis.
The movie is also hurt by miscasting. I have so much affection for Tom Cruise but he's not growing into his looks - he's in great shape for a 55 year old but he's no longer a cocky kid. What's a 55 year old doing as a sergeant in the army and fortune hunting on the side? Why not use his age? Why not cast him opposite someone more age appropriate?
Wallis is poor as the female lead. There's so many other good looking female actors out there they could've used (how much would Kate Winslet have cost?)
I went in with an open mind. I wanted to like it. I feel it needed to be simplified. And maybe add a few more scenes that were scary.
But it's confusing - I had trouble following what was happening especially after Cruise died and came back to life. There was stuff about possession and souls and back from the dead and gods and daggers and rubies and stuff - I got lost.
There's no emotional underpinning of anything. I never knew why Tom Cruise was so important to Boutella's mummy - she wanted him to be her husband was that it? In the best mummy movies the mummy was driven by love - he was a former priest going after the reincarnation of his former love. Very simple - that powered everything. Why not just use that - have Boutella think Cruise was the reincarnation of her lost love or something? Everything would've made sense - her drive, the rivalry with Annabelle Wallis.
The movie is also hurt by miscasting. I have so much affection for Tom Cruise but he's not growing into his looks - he's in great shape for a 55 year old but he's no longer a cocky kid. What's a 55 year old doing as a sergeant in the army and fortune hunting on the side? Why not use his age? Why not cast him opposite someone more age appropriate?
Wallis is poor as the female lead. There's so many other good looking female actors out there they could've used (how much would Kate Winslet have cost?)
I went in with an open mind. I wanted to like it. I feel it needed to be simplified. And maybe add a few more scenes that were scary.
Movie review - "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" (2008) ****
Joyous, fun sequel full of life and some very funny jokes - some of which are surprisingly adult. It's a good story - sequels are worth it when there's a decent reason for them to exist, which is the case here because it's about Alex being reunited with his parents.
There's decent subplots - Marty meeting fellow zebras, Gloria dating a hippo, Melman becoming a doctor. So much of this made me laugh out loud - jumping into a volcano, the penguins talking like they're Robert Stack in the 50s aviation film. I really enjoyed the tunes. I've seen this movie a bunch of times and still enjoyed it.
There's decent subplots - Marty meeting fellow zebras, Gloria dating a hippo, Melman becoming a doctor. So much of this made me laugh out loud - jumping into a volcano, the penguins talking like they're Robert Stack in the 50s aviation film. I really enjoyed the tunes. I've seen this movie a bunch of times and still enjoyed it.
Movie review - "Minions" (2015) **1/2
This starts off brilliantly with some funny gags about the history of the minions - accidentally killing dinosaurs, cavemen, Dracula (the death toll of this is high). I appreciate how the minions are sent to the Arctic by Napoleon until the 1960s, thereby avoiding any annoying questions about them helping the Belgians in the Congo, Stalin, Hitler, etc.
But it struggles as it goes on - maybe "struggles" is the wrong word, because the movie has a lot of pace and energy and colour - but really its a series of chase sequences to some 60s hit. Scarlet Overkill isn't a particularly memorable villain; characters are introduced as if they're going to be important (like that family who give them a lift at the beginning, or Nobert the "idiot" who gets a close up) and not seen again. It feels made up as it goes along.
There are some funny jokes and the cast of voices is top notch.
But it struggles as it goes on - maybe "struggles" is the wrong word, because the movie has a lot of pace and energy and colour - but really its a series of chase sequences to some 60s hit. Scarlet Overkill isn't a particularly memorable villain; characters are introduced as if they're going to be important (like that family who give them a lift at the beginning, or Nobert the "idiot" who gets a close up) and not seen again. It feels made up as it goes along.
There are some funny jokes and the cast of voices is top notch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)