Jim Wynorski has made over 150 movies and only regrets a few of them, of which this is one. His main problem was the script which he said he never understood. I didn't have the same issue - mainly I suppose because I wasn't paying full attention and just assumed they were copying Basic Instinct with Marc Singer in the Michael Douglas role of a cop (well SEC investigator here) who is investigating a murder with a fat cop sidekick, that involves questioning a hot blonde (Shannon Tweed, always good value in these sort of movies) who may or may not have done it, and who Singer winds up sleeping with.
When you look at it closely Singer's actions don't really make sense and feel contrived. Ditto Tweed's and Wings Hauser. I don't think it would be too hard to get the drama so Singer was falling for Tweed while investigating her and get blamed for it etc... but the plotting felt convoluted. There was a lot of exposition.
The cast are professional - Tweed has a good old time. But it's really not that good.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Movie review - "Death Race 2050" (2017) **
Roger Corman attempts to recapture lighting in a bottle with this remake of Death Race 2000. Same plot and characters and satirical nature. There's a lot more CGI, less impressive stunt work and a less imposing star line up - no David Carradine, Paul Bartel, Mary Woronov, Sly Stallone, Roberta Collins, Charles Griffith...
It tries to recapture the spirit of the original - there's anarchy and black humour. The cast try their best - some of them are quite good, such as Marci Miller (a lot more animated here than on Days of Our Lives), Malcolm McDowell is always reliable. I liked the driver who had sex with her car and was disappointed when she was killed early off. But it simply isn't as well made.
The editing is frantic, full of jagged cuts, as if afraid the viewers will get bored if they're forced to endure a scene or shot too long. We never get close to any of the characters, not really. They try with Frankenstein (a Kiwi, Manu Bennett formerly of Paradise Beach!) and Annie (Miller) but these scenes don't really fly. They're also oddly shot with this glary light off the actor's faces.
The story kind of follows the original - but they needlessly complicate it. There's this audience member who participates in the race via virtual reality through Miller - which kind of cheapens the emotion in the Miller-Bennett scenes - but he's never really paid off. I guess he does participate in the uprising at the end but it's not very satisfying. The original had a clear plot line where the drivers were being bumped off by the rebellion; there's a little of that here, but the killing is also done by Tammy the Terrorist - a subplot that doesn't go anywhere. As a result it all feels a bit of a mess and t the end when Bennett/Frankenstein tells the audience to make their own reality, I was annoyed and felt like yelling back "simplify your narrative line".
It's not that satisfying as an action movie either - those short cuts mean we never get a good look at some cool car action. There's certainly little suspense or tension - it's more loud and frantic.
It's also curiously prudish for an exploitation film. The first movie had Roberta Collins, Mary Woronov and Simone Griffeth in the buff, and the characters enjoyed sex; David Carradine slept with Griffeth early on. Here there's some breasts, but Burt Grinstead's character doesn't want to sleep with his female co driver and Bennett turns down Miller until the very end. The men have low sex drives here.
The look of the film is kind of ugly more than cool. The scenes set in the modern day with everyone hooked on TV are depressing.
It tries. I wanted to like it. But it's a mess.
It tries to recapture the spirit of the original - there's anarchy and black humour. The cast try their best - some of them are quite good, such as Marci Miller (a lot more animated here than on Days of Our Lives), Malcolm McDowell is always reliable. I liked the driver who had sex with her car and was disappointed when she was killed early off. But it simply isn't as well made.
The editing is frantic, full of jagged cuts, as if afraid the viewers will get bored if they're forced to endure a scene or shot too long. We never get close to any of the characters, not really. They try with Frankenstein (a Kiwi, Manu Bennett formerly of Paradise Beach!) and Annie (Miller) but these scenes don't really fly. They're also oddly shot with this glary light off the actor's faces.
The story kind of follows the original - but they needlessly complicate it. There's this audience member who participates in the race via virtual reality through Miller - which kind of cheapens the emotion in the Miller-Bennett scenes - but he's never really paid off. I guess he does participate in the uprising at the end but it's not very satisfying. The original had a clear plot line where the drivers were being bumped off by the rebellion; there's a little of that here, but the killing is also done by Tammy the Terrorist - a subplot that doesn't go anywhere. As a result it all feels a bit of a mess and t the end when Bennett/Frankenstein tells the audience to make their own reality, I was annoyed and felt like yelling back "simplify your narrative line".
It's not that satisfying as an action movie either - those short cuts mean we never get a good look at some cool car action. There's certainly little suspense or tension - it's more loud and frantic.
It's also curiously prudish for an exploitation film. The first movie had Roberta Collins, Mary Woronov and Simone Griffeth in the buff, and the characters enjoyed sex; David Carradine slept with Griffeth early on. Here there's some breasts, but Burt Grinstead's character doesn't want to sleep with his female co driver and Bennett turns down Miller until the very end. The men have low sex drives here.
The look of the film is kind of ugly more than cool. The scenes set in the modern day with everyone hooked on TV are depressing.
It tries. I wanted to like it. But it's a mess.
Movie review - "Attack of the Crab Monsters" (1957) **1/2 (re-viewing)
I keep wanting to like this more than I do. The story is great - Charles Griffith did a very strong script, full of pace and action and cleverness. You really could remake it and I wish Corman had when his direction got better. He also might have had better leads than Pamela Duncan and Richard Garland, though Mel Welles and Russell Johnson and Ed Nelson are very fine, as are the island locations.
Movie review - "Ishtar" (1987) **1/2
A film so maligned when it came out that, almost inevitably, a cult has sprung up around it, and it has fierce defenders. It's a sweet movie, which is flawed. I can see why it wasn't a big hit. I'm not trying to be wise in hindsight here.
There are two main flaws. First, Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty were about five years too old for their roles. That sounds like an abstract, wanky statement but I'm sorry, it's true. Both give very good performances, have lovely chemistry and clearly defined characters. They have enjoyable by play and commit themselves to their roles. But they're just that bit too old - both were fifty, and so to see them as untalented songwriters is just that bit too sad. Life's past them by - they're never going to improve, or have a success, or a decent relationship. Maybe if their characters had been accountants who took off or something. I guess it's ageist of me but it's how I feel - how many comedies do you enjoy about fifty year old man children?
It's not the main flaw though - that's the story. The first third of this is really good, establishing the characters and their relationship. There's hilarious songs (written by Paul Williams and Elaine May), a lovely warmth and affection, a touching moment when Hoffman goes out on a ledge and Beatty gets him. This is all spot on.
Things get wonky when the action moves to Ishtar. Writer-director May never gets the bread and butter aspects of the story right. I was never clear why so many people were chasing after Hoffman and Beatty. Because of some prophecy about two men? But why? Wouldn't people figure it out? What's so special about them? Why do so many people devote so much resources to them?
Isabelle Adjani gets them involved by borrowing Hoffman's passport - so she knows nothing about Beatty, right? So it's a film where the action is built on two coincidences - Adjani using Hoffman's passport, and then the two men possibly being mistaken for two men in a prophecy? Did I get that right?
The thing is, it wasn't needed. We don't care about that sort of plot, not really - we're there for the stars and jokes and charm. But I kept getting distracted by the flabby plot. Towards the end Hoffman and Beatty realise they've got a map and you go "oh I get that - they've got a map, that's an easy to understand McGuffin"... but the movie's over. They call their agent who negotiates a deal and that's it.
If Beatty and Hoffman had the map from the beginning of act two I think the movie would have been a hit, even with its painted sand dunes and perfectionist leads and director. You could have all the CIA and guerillas and Adjani and everyone chasing after the map - all the adventures would make sense. As it was I struggled to follow it and started to zone out towards the end.
It's a shame because there is so much to admire in the films: the acting is uniformly good (Charles Grodin shines in a support role), the locations are beautiful, the songs funny, there's some really good moments.
There are two main flaws. First, Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty were about five years too old for their roles. That sounds like an abstract, wanky statement but I'm sorry, it's true. Both give very good performances, have lovely chemistry and clearly defined characters. They have enjoyable by play and commit themselves to their roles. But they're just that bit too old - both were fifty, and so to see them as untalented songwriters is just that bit too sad. Life's past them by - they're never going to improve, or have a success, or a decent relationship. Maybe if their characters had been accountants who took off or something. I guess it's ageist of me but it's how I feel - how many comedies do you enjoy about fifty year old man children?
It's not the main flaw though - that's the story. The first third of this is really good, establishing the characters and their relationship. There's hilarious songs (written by Paul Williams and Elaine May), a lovely warmth and affection, a touching moment when Hoffman goes out on a ledge and Beatty gets him. This is all spot on.
Things get wonky when the action moves to Ishtar. Writer-director May never gets the bread and butter aspects of the story right. I was never clear why so many people were chasing after Hoffman and Beatty. Because of some prophecy about two men? But why? Wouldn't people figure it out? What's so special about them? Why do so many people devote so much resources to them?
Isabelle Adjani gets them involved by borrowing Hoffman's passport - so she knows nothing about Beatty, right? So it's a film where the action is built on two coincidences - Adjani using Hoffman's passport, and then the two men possibly being mistaken for two men in a prophecy? Did I get that right?
The thing is, it wasn't needed. We don't care about that sort of plot, not really - we're there for the stars and jokes and charm. But I kept getting distracted by the flabby plot. Towards the end Hoffman and Beatty realise they've got a map and you go "oh I get that - they've got a map, that's an easy to understand McGuffin"... but the movie's over. They call their agent who negotiates a deal and that's it.
If Beatty and Hoffman had the map from the beginning of act two I think the movie would have been a hit, even with its painted sand dunes and perfectionist leads and director. You could have all the CIA and guerillas and Adjani and everyone chasing after the map - all the adventures would make sense. As it was I struggled to follow it and started to zone out towards the end.
It's a shame because there is so much to admire in the films: the acting is uniformly good (Charles Grodin shines in a support role), the locations are beautiful, the songs funny, there's some really good moments.
Script review - "The Limey" by Lem Dobbs (warning: spoilers)
I haven't seen this film yet; the script is quite a lively piece of entertainment, about a London hit man who gets out of prison and visits Los Angeles to avenge the death of the daughter. There's not much mystery - Wilson goes after Valentine, who was involved... he has a fling with a woman who knew his daughter.
There's a nice bit at the end where Valentine admits he did it because the daughter didn't want him to be a criminal. There's a fantastic bit where Wilson is thrown out of a building, goes in and shoot a bunch of people. Some enjoyable character interplay - Wilson talking about his life, Valentine talking about the sixties, Emma discussing her acting career.
It feels a little on the light side, like it sacks a subplot or a twist or something. It's lively though and has some fantastic character stuff.
There's a nice bit at the end where Valentine admits he did it because the daughter didn't want him to be a criminal. There's a fantastic bit where Wilson is thrown out of a building, goes in and shoot a bunch of people. Some enjoyable character interplay - Wilson talking about his life, Valentine talking about the sixties, Emma discussing her acting career.
It feels a little on the light side, like it sacks a subplot or a twist or something. It's lively though and has some fantastic character stuff.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Movie review - "Sins of Desire" (1993) **
Erotic thriller made to cash in on Basic Instinct (though to be fair they'd been doing knock offs since Fatal Attraction). It was Jim Wynorski's first entry in the genre, and he'd made a few of them.
This has Tanya Roberts as a girl going undercover as a receptionist at a creepy doctors office where they're doing weird therapy. Jay Richardson and especially Delia Shepperd are fun as the weird married couple who run it - she's more into women, he's happy to go after patients.
The guys in this film aren't that attractive - we get sex scenes with pudgy Richardson, and also ones with Nick Cassavetes, who has a distractingly awful 90s haircut. The women are pretty.
Tanya Roberts gets in the ring with Cassavetes (going topless) and also, in probably the film's most memorable moment, Shepperd (she lets her seduce her so Cassavetes gets away).
I wished at times Wynorski would send the whole thing up. It's a bit silly - not as strongly plotted as Body Chemistry III. It's patchy - you've got Gail Harris (that Wynorski regular with the weird English accent) having gone undercover, then Roberts going undercover; Cassavetes investigating, and Roberts and another cop. Too much feels repetitive and unfocused.
There's some fun seeing Shepperd grope all the women, and Roberts letting herself be seduced by Shepperd, and having Jan Michael Vincent prop up in a small role (I mean prop up literally, Wynorski always puts him sitting down). There's a prequel to be had in the adventures of Shepperd and Andrews.
This has Tanya Roberts as a girl going undercover as a receptionist at a creepy doctors office where they're doing weird therapy. Jay Richardson and especially Delia Shepperd are fun as the weird married couple who run it - she's more into women, he's happy to go after patients.
The guys in this film aren't that attractive - we get sex scenes with pudgy Richardson, and also ones with Nick Cassavetes, who has a distractingly awful 90s haircut. The women are pretty.
Tanya Roberts gets in the ring with Cassavetes (going topless) and also, in probably the film's most memorable moment, Shepperd (she lets her seduce her so Cassavetes gets away).
I wished at times Wynorski would send the whole thing up. It's a bit silly - not as strongly plotted as Body Chemistry III. It's patchy - you've got Gail Harris (that Wynorski regular with the weird English accent) having gone undercover, then Roberts going undercover; Cassavetes investigating, and Roberts and another cop. Too much feels repetitive and unfocused.
There's some fun seeing Shepperd grope all the women, and Roberts letting herself be seduced by Shepperd, and having Jan Michael Vincent prop up in a small role (I mean prop up literally, Wynorski always puts him sitting down). There's a prequel to be had in the adventures of Shepperd and Andrews.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Movie review - "Screwballs" (1983) **1/2
I watched this after the inept Loose Screws and it comes a lot better in comparison. It introduces five characters separately, establishing all of them having a grudge against Purity Bush, because she got them all on detention. Mind you, the only one who doesn't deserve it is the newcomer, awkward Tom. The fat guy was masturbating in the storeroom, the nerd was perving on everyone, the rich guy was mocking the French teacher and the womaniser was impersonating a doctor to feel up women. But having an innocent victim does help make the leads more likeable.
This is an odd sort of movie. It's got some terrible moments - for instance it gets off to an atrocious start with someone giggling on the soundtrack; there's something very dodgy about a film about essentially trying to sexually assault someone; so many of the gags sink like a stone.
But it's handled in a comic book way that is entirely appropriate; some of the acting is very strong; while the leads are guys, there are prominent female roles who have very healthy sexual appetites too (Tim's sister, the girl who likes Tim, the library, the school teacher) - I assume this was the contribution of Linda Shayne, who co wrote the script with Jim Wynorski (who didn't direct).
The film actually could've been better - some really promising subplots aren't developed, like one of the boys dating Tim's sister (what happens to her?), the romance between Tim and the girl played by Linda Shayne, Purity's horny (step?) mother and commie hating father.
Good performances from Peter Kelaghen (the womaniser) and Linda Shayne. Linda Speciale is pretty as Purity Bush.
This is not a classic - maybe not even a good movie - but it has it's own integrity and is full of energy and verge. And it's a lot better than many in this genre.
This is an odd sort of movie. It's got some terrible moments - for instance it gets off to an atrocious start with someone giggling on the soundtrack; there's something very dodgy about a film about essentially trying to sexually assault someone; so many of the gags sink like a stone.
But it's handled in a comic book way that is entirely appropriate; some of the acting is very strong; while the leads are guys, there are prominent female roles who have very healthy sexual appetites too (Tim's sister, the girl who likes Tim, the library, the school teacher) - I assume this was the contribution of Linda Shayne, who co wrote the script with Jim Wynorski (who didn't direct).
The film actually could've been better - some really promising subplots aren't developed, like one of the boys dating Tim's sister (what happens to her?), the romance between Tim and the girl played by Linda Shayne, Purity's horny (step?) mother and commie hating father.
Good performances from Peter Kelaghen (the womaniser) and Linda Shayne. Linda Speciale is pretty as Purity Bush.
This is not a classic - maybe not even a good movie - but it has it's own integrity and is full of energy and verge. And it's a lot better than many in this genre.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Movie review - 'Body Chemistry 4: Full Exposure" (1995) **
This Wynorski sequel picks up with a reprise of the finale from the previous entry, with the death of Andrew Stevens and his screenwriting friend... so it pays attention to continuity. To a point. Number three had a need coda where Dr Archer got away with the murder and a film was made of it starring Morgan Fairchild - that's thrown away, which is disappointing as I kind of liked it.
Instead Archer is on trial for the producer's murder. Unable to stop getting up to her old tricks, she seduces her defence attorney. Like in 3, the guy is married.
However the script isn't as strong as 3 - in that one the wife had a real goal, to be in the film of Archer's life; here she gets a few phone calls and nags the lawyer (Larry Poindexter) about never coming come. Also in the previous one there was a good subplot about the screenwriter investigating - the one here, where Poindexter's assistant is wondering what's going on, isn't as good.
They do reprise the characters of the two film executives - Robert Forster doesn't return in his part (they get some silver fox to do it) but Stella Stevens does.
Larry Poindexter is a bit wet in the lead - he doesn't have Stevens' strength. However Shannon Tweed is great value as Archer, much better than the girl in three, as she seduces Poindexter on several occasions. It copies most of the story beats of the third film, though you can understand why - they work.
Instead Archer is on trial for the producer's murder. Unable to stop getting up to her old tricks, she seduces her defence attorney. Like in 3, the guy is married.
However the script isn't as strong as 3 - in that one the wife had a real goal, to be in the film of Archer's life; here she gets a few phone calls and nags the lawyer (Larry Poindexter) about never coming come. Also in the previous one there was a good subplot about the screenwriter investigating - the one here, where Poindexter's assistant is wondering what's going on, isn't as good.
They do reprise the characters of the two film executives - Robert Forster doesn't return in his part (they get some silver fox to do it) but Stella Stevens does.
Larry Poindexter is a bit wet in the lead - he doesn't have Stevens' strength. However Shannon Tweed is great value as Archer, much better than the girl in three, as she seduces Poindexter on several occasions. It copies most of the story beats of the third film, though you can understand why - they work.
Movie review - "Demolition High" (1996) **1/2
Fun Jim Wynorski knock of off Toy Soldiers made for Wynorski's company during his action movie phase. It's outrageousness is endearing - terrorists take over a high school with a nuclear missile. Corey Haim is the trouble making kid who gets stuck with them and helps save the day.
Corey Haim looks unwell and far too old (mind you so do the rest of the actors playing students) he has a terrible haircut. But the concept of Corey being a bad ass is irresistible. And he's a genuine bad ass - three kids pick on him early and he beats them up; he takes down several terrorists; he cracks unfunny one liners. And it's Corey Haim!
Great fun with Alan Thicke as the cop on the case - doing most of his scenes standing outside the car outside the school. Dick Van Patten is a general. Best of all are Jeff Kober and Melissa Braselle as terrorists - both are very good.
I actually think the drama would've been better if Wynorski had taken some scenes and situations more seriously - to build the dramatic stakes.
Outrageous Wynorski fun.
Corey Haim looks unwell and far too old (mind you so do the rest of the actors playing students) he has a terrible haircut. But the concept of Corey being a bad ass is irresistible. And he's a genuine bad ass - three kids pick on him early and he beats them up; he takes down several terrorists; he cracks unfunny one liners. And it's Corey Haim!
Great fun with Alan Thicke as the cop on the case - doing most of his scenes standing outside the car outside the school. Dick Van Patten is a general. Best of all are Jeff Kober and Melissa Braselle as terrorists - both are very good.
I actually think the drama would've been better if Wynorski had taken some scenes and situations more seriously - to build the dramatic stakes.
Outrageous Wynorski fun.
Movie review - "Point of Seduction: Body Chemistry 3" (1994)
I saw this film in a cut version with all the sex scenes truncated, which I'm pretty sure is not how it should be watched. But it still held because of a strong cast and decent story.
Andrew Stevens is good value as a TV producer married to soap star Morgan Fairchild. Stevens is told about a TV shrink Shari Sattuck, who is beautiful but whose wooden performance is a flaw. A shame because he has an interesting character - two obsessed men have tried to kill her in the past; it turns out that she manipulated them into it.
Two strong subplots - a screenwriter who pokes around Sattuck's past, and the fact Fairchild wants to play the role of Sattuck in the movie... that's a great idea.
The support cast includes Robert Forster as Stevens' boss, Stella Stevens as an exec, and Chick Vennera as the screenwriter. A clever twist at the end; and fans of director Jim Wynorski will enjoy the jokes at the expense of the film industry.
Production wise it's shot in that early 90s erotic thriller video way - an artefact of its time.
Andrew Stevens is good value as a TV producer married to soap star Morgan Fairchild. Stevens is told about a TV shrink Shari Sattuck, who is beautiful but whose wooden performance is a flaw. A shame because he has an interesting character - two obsessed men have tried to kill her in the past; it turns out that she manipulated them into it.
Two strong subplots - a screenwriter who pokes around Sattuck's past, and the fact Fairchild wants to play the role of Sattuck in the movie... that's a great idea.
The support cast includes Robert Forster as Stevens' boss, Stella Stevens as an exec, and Chick Vennera as the screenwriter. A clever twist at the end; and fans of director Jim Wynorski will enjoy the jokes at the expense of the film industry.
Production wise it's shot in that early 90s erotic thriller video way - an artefact of its time.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Movie review - "Nightfall" (1988) **
The overall quality of Roger Corman's (and his wife Julie's) output dropped off sharply in the early 80s when he sold New World and started making movies more for video than cinema screens. However they did occasionally try to do something different.
This was Julie Corman's attempt at making something special - an adaptation of Isaac Asimov's 1941 short story (highly regarded, though I had to admit I'd never heard of it - but then I'm not a big sci-fi reader). The writer and director was Paul Mayersberg, who wrote The Man Who Fell to Earth - you can entirely sympathise with why Corman made the choice she did. But I feel Mayersberg stuffs it.
Absolutely yes the budget was low. Possibly too low for this ever to have worked, considering the filmmakers had to create an entire civilisation. It would say though that the production values of this aren't bad - there's some impressive desert landscapes, and nice photography.
I think it's main problems are (a) it looks silly and (b) it's not dramatised.
To tackle point (a), a low budget is no excuse for David Birney's absurd Issac Newton wig, or some of the sillier costumers, or archaic dialogue. I was constantly wanting to invest in the film - which is full of smart ideas and interesting - but kept getting distracted.
For (b) there is some terrific potential conflict - science vs religion, man vs his ex, father vs daughter... but Mayersberg drops the ball. Scenes just sort of start and stop without building - as a viewer I was constantly outside the drama as opposed to being inside it.
There are bold ideas and I enjoyed its ambition. It's a mess but it tries.
This was Julie Corman's attempt at making something special - an adaptation of Isaac Asimov's 1941 short story (highly regarded, though I had to admit I'd never heard of it - but then I'm not a big sci-fi reader). The writer and director was Paul Mayersberg, who wrote The Man Who Fell to Earth - you can entirely sympathise with why Corman made the choice she did. But I feel Mayersberg stuffs it.
Absolutely yes the budget was low. Possibly too low for this ever to have worked, considering the filmmakers had to create an entire civilisation. It would say though that the production values of this aren't bad - there's some impressive desert landscapes, and nice photography.
I think it's main problems are (a) it looks silly and (b) it's not dramatised.
To tackle point (a), a low budget is no excuse for David Birney's absurd Issac Newton wig, or some of the sillier costumers, or archaic dialogue. I was constantly wanting to invest in the film - which is full of smart ideas and interesting - but kept getting distracted.
For (b) there is some terrific potential conflict - science vs religion, man vs his ex, father vs daughter... but Mayersberg drops the ball. Scenes just sort of start and stop without building - as a viewer I was constantly outside the drama as opposed to being inside it.
There are bold ideas and I enjoyed its ambition. It's a mess but it tries.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Roger Moore Top Ten
1) The Spy Who Loved Me (1976) - a bit lazy
for me to start off with a Bond, but it's such a brilliant film, one of the
best in the series
2) The Wild Geese (1978) - Moore gets
overshadowed by Richards Burton and Harris and Hardy Kruger, but is good value
in this great guys on a mission film
3) Octopussy (1983) - enormously enjoyable
Bond, one of the most fun - I'm going to limit myself to two Bonds, these are
easily the best IMHO (with a nod to Live and Let Die for handling the tricky
act of transferring the public to a non-Connery Bond, and to For Your Eyes Only
for a very good performance, and Moonraker for playing it in the right style
and... okay I'm cheating now)
4) North Sea Hijack (1980) - not as awesome
as I remembered it being while a kid but one of Moore's best performances as a
very un-Bond hero
5) Shout at the Devil (1976) - another
flawed film but Moore is genuinely good in the role (it should be added that
this movie, like many Moore films of the 70s and 80s, is a tad racist)
6) Spice World (1997) - not being a smart
arse... he's genuinely funny in that film
7) The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970) -
good thriller I haven't seen for ages... I hope it still holds up...
8) The Cannonball Run (1980) - high
spirited silliness but Moore as a Bond type trying to shoot his mother always
makes me laugh
9) Interrupted Melody (1955) - Moore isn't
very good in his early movies - try getting through something like The Miracle
(1959) - and to be honest he's not that great here, but it makes the list
because he plays an Aussie (Marjorie Lawrence's brother)
10) The Persuaders (1971) - put in this
list to avoid putting in The Saint
-->
RIP Roger Moore - his memoirs are a grand
read and it was lovely how he did all that work for UNESCO...
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Movie review - "Cheyenne Autumn" (1964) **
A terrible movie - long, dull, lacking insight or interesting/empathetic characters, full of actors doing "bits". I think even the hardest core John Ford fans struggle to enjoy this.
There are one or two good things. An impressive cast. The colour, A few stylistic compositions of Indians and cavalry standing in line. There's a bad ass moment where James Stewart shoots a cowboy in the foot through his pocket with a hidden gun. And it's John Ford, and you always get something out of a John Ford movie.
But by god was it heavy going. 154 minutes long! You feel every day of that Indian trek.
You get the feeling at the beginning it's going to be a hard slog, with Richard Widmark's narration not really explaining anything we can't figure out, and endless shots of Indians standing around in the hot sun, and badly written and staged love scenes between Widmark and Carroll Baker (I did like him writing his proposal on the blackboard, but there's no heat, no affection, no chemistry between them).
Eventually the Indians make a bolt for it but it's a dull slog. Widmark doesn't have a character so much as a bunch of lines about how much the Indians have suffered and what good fighters they are. Baker just gets lines about how much they have suffered; she accompanies them, basically a saint in training. Gilbert Roland and Ricardo Montalban give interchangeable performances as stoic, noble Indians. Montalban is more of a fighter than Roland I think and there's a plot about Montalban's second wife having the hots for Sal Mineo, which threatens to be vaguely interesting... but Ford trims that to the bone and instead gives us endless - and I mean endless - scenes of men on horses travelling through Monument Valley, or standing on crests of hills.
We also get characters doing "turns". Widmark has a bit of a go at the beginning, then along comes Mike Mazurski (playing the Victor McLaglen role) and he's given a drunken Polish sergeant bit, and some other random actor is given a drunken Irish surgeon bit, then Jimmy Stewart and Arthur Kennedy get an extended bit as Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday. Edward G Robinson comes along and does a bit. Ford completists will enjoy seeing people like John Carradine, Ben Johnson and George O'Brien.
There's some action, none of it too memorable - the Indians are said to be good fighters but are never given the opportunity to kick some arse. Their only real victory comes because gung go Patrick Wayne (in a wooden performance) stuffs up (he doesn't even die). They march and starve, and are saved at the end by white men.
I thought at the least they'd get the chance to get some revenge at the viciously racist Texan cowboys who shoot two starving Cheyenne just for fun (an affecting scene even if the cowboys over act). But it never happens. One of them later gets shot by Earp but not because of what they did to the Indians - only because they pick a fight with Earp.
It's an inherently depressing story - the Indians are treated badly, escape north, starve, most of them are massacred at Fort Robinson, and give up. But surely it could have been more interesting/entertaining? It feels like Ford was bending over backwards to show how liberal he had become about the Indians - the main issue is he'd become more dull about them.
There are one or two good things. An impressive cast. The colour, A few stylistic compositions of Indians and cavalry standing in line. There's a bad ass moment where James Stewart shoots a cowboy in the foot through his pocket with a hidden gun. And it's John Ford, and you always get something out of a John Ford movie.
But by god was it heavy going. 154 minutes long! You feel every day of that Indian trek.
You get the feeling at the beginning it's going to be a hard slog, with Richard Widmark's narration not really explaining anything we can't figure out, and endless shots of Indians standing around in the hot sun, and badly written and staged love scenes between Widmark and Carroll Baker (I did like him writing his proposal on the blackboard, but there's no heat, no affection, no chemistry between them).
Eventually the Indians make a bolt for it but it's a dull slog. Widmark doesn't have a character so much as a bunch of lines about how much the Indians have suffered and what good fighters they are. Baker just gets lines about how much they have suffered; she accompanies them, basically a saint in training. Gilbert Roland and Ricardo Montalban give interchangeable performances as stoic, noble Indians. Montalban is more of a fighter than Roland I think and there's a plot about Montalban's second wife having the hots for Sal Mineo, which threatens to be vaguely interesting... but Ford trims that to the bone and instead gives us endless - and I mean endless - scenes of men on horses travelling through Monument Valley, or standing on crests of hills.
We also get characters doing "turns". Widmark has a bit of a go at the beginning, then along comes Mike Mazurski (playing the Victor McLaglen role) and he's given a drunken Polish sergeant bit, and some other random actor is given a drunken Irish surgeon bit, then Jimmy Stewart and Arthur Kennedy get an extended bit as Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday. Edward G Robinson comes along and does a bit. Ford completists will enjoy seeing people like John Carradine, Ben Johnson and George O'Brien.
There's some action, none of it too memorable - the Indians are said to be good fighters but are never given the opportunity to kick some arse. Their only real victory comes because gung go Patrick Wayne (in a wooden performance) stuffs up (he doesn't even die). They march and starve, and are saved at the end by white men.
I thought at the least they'd get the chance to get some revenge at the viciously racist Texan cowboys who shoot two starving Cheyenne just for fun (an affecting scene even if the cowboys over act). But it never happens. One of them later gets shot by Earp but not because of what they did to the Indians - only because they pick a fight with Earp.
It's an inherently depressing story - the Indians are treated badly, escape north, starve, most of them are massacred at Fort Robinson, and give up. But surely it could have been more interesting/entertaining? It feels like Ford was bending over backwards to show how liberal he had become about the Indians - the main issue is he'd become more dull about them.
Movie review - "Hard to Die" (1990) **
A film so endearingly dopey I wish it was better. There's a really fun back story to it's filming - Jim Wynorski made it in mega quick time to take advantage of some sets which were about to be torn down, and basically remade Sorority House Massacre II... only set in an office complex, and had it be a lingere factory to justify the cast running around in underwear.
Many of the same cast returned, including that girl with the British accent. The story is the same, which isn't necessarily a plus since the original story wasn't that strong. It has to be said, though, that the plot does provide excuses for the female leads to take showers, run around in lingere, get killed. I wish they'd used the subplot about the investigating cop more, or fleshed out (if you'll excuse the pun) the characters more.
Also the film goes on these little detours which sound more interesting than what we're watching - for instance, the bit where they're making a sex film, and Wynorski has a cameo as a director... I would've loved for these people to be characters/victims - to have seen more of these instead of the dull old cop.
But it's hard to dislike the movie - it's done with such high spirits, and a killer who actually tries to help and keeps being killed.
Many of the same cast returned, including that girl with the British accent. The story is the same, which isn't necessarily a plus since the original story wasn't that strong. It has to be said, though, that the plot does provide excuses for the female leads to take showers, run around in lingere, get killed. I wish they'd used the subplot about the investigating cop more, or fleshed out (if you'll excuse the pun) the characters more.
Also the film goes on these little detours which sound more interesting than what we're watching - for instance, the bit where they're making a sex film, and Wynorski has a cameo as a director... I would've loved for these people to be characters/victims - to have seen more of these instead of the dull old cop.
But it's hard to dislike the movie - it's done with such high spirits, and a killer who actually tries to help and keeps being killed.
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Script review - "Ninotchka" by Billy Wilder, Charles Brackett and Walter Reisch
I always felt this movie was over-praised - I think critics were overwhelmed by the quality of the credits, and the concept of Garbo in a comedy, and the rareness of a successful satire on the Soviets. It's a good script, mind - just overlong, with a vaguely unsatisfying ending.
There is something a little yuck about the tough, no-nonsense woman turning to jelly at the sight of love. But the Soviet regime was pretty horrible, the love scenes are very charming, and I did like how Ninotchka sticks to her mission to retrieve the jewels because her people need it - she never stops being professional.
I adored the flirt stuff between her and Leon - he's a gigolo, basically, she's a hard arse, but she admits she finds him hot from the get-go - women characters in Billy Wilder films often had a strong sex drive. The Soviet stuff provides some wonderful one liners.
On the length stuff - maybe too much time is spent on the three support Bolsheviks, who all tend to blend into one comic character. Maybe we didn't need the late-in-the-day introduction of Ninotchka's flatmate in Moscow, Anna. I understood why it was all there, mind.
Razinin (the part played by Bela Lugosi) is an effective character. There's a reactionary butler - a very common device from films of this period (maybe to make filmmakers feel better about having them?)
I'm also so relieved all our heroes wind up in Instanbul at the end and not Paris .- if they'd stayed in Paris they would've been shot! And unlike many romantic comedy pairings I could see Ninotchka and Leon making a go of it because she's so sensible she'd ensure any business they did was a success.
Many fine examples of screenwriting in this script - notably a use of Ninotchka's attitude to a hat, to demonstrate falling in love (disdain, disdain, putting the hat on....)
There is something a little yuck about the tough, no-nonsense woman turning to jelly at the sight of love. But the Soviet regime was pretty horrible, the love scenes are very charming, and I did like how Ninotchka sticks to her mission to retrieve the jewels because her people need it - she never stops being professional.
I adored the flirt stuff between her and Leon - he's a gigolo, basically, she's a hard arse, but she admits she finds him hot from the get-go - women characters in Billy Wilder films often had a strong sex drive. The Soviet stuff provides some wonderful one liners.
On the length stuff - maybe too much time is spent on the three support Bolsheviks, who all tend to blend into one comic character. Maybe we didn't need the late-in-the-day introduction of Ninotchka's flatmate in Moscow, Anna. I understood why it was all there, mind.
Razinin (the part played by Bela Lugosi) is an effective character. There's a reactionary butler - a very common device from films of this period (maybe to make filmmakers feel better about having them?)
I'm also so relieved all our heroes wind up in Instanbul at the end and not Paris .- if they'd stayed in Paris they would've been shot! And unlike many romantic comedy pairings I could see Ninotchka and Leon making a go of it because she's so sensible she'd ensure any business they did was a success.
Many fine examples of screenwriting in this script - notably a use of Ninotchka's attitude to a hat, to demonstrate falling in love (disdain, disdain, putting the hat on....)
Friday, May 19, 2017
Movie review - "Sorority House Massacre II" (1990) **
I love the story behind this movie - Jim Wynorski knew some sets for some Roger Corman movies were being torn down, so he proposed a movie that could be shot in a week to Julie Corman, and she did it behind Roger's back.
Like the other Wynorski films from this period, it has a nice light touch - they all clearly had fun making it. I'm not really a fan of movies were scantily clad women get sliced up.
There is some fun to be had watching Wynorski come up with excuses for the girls to have showers, and take their clothes of, and stay in the house when there's a maniac running around, and throw in footage from other Corman films to pad out the running time (there's a flashback to another massacre in the house from Slumber Party Massacre and some cops visit a strip club with vision from Stripped to Kill).
But at the end of the day it's a film about women being cut up and I'm just not into them. Also the plot was confusing - I struggled with the logic for a lot of it, and had trouble telling the women apart. The lead has a weird half English accent - I googled her and discovered she was English. She's not a bad actor - ditto Melissa Moore who plays the other main girl. Peter Spellos (who is "Orville Ketchum as himself") looks great but flounders a bit when he's got too much dialogue.
There's some funny jokes and quite spooky scenes, well handled by Wynorski.
Like the other Wynorski films from this period, it has a nice light touch - they all clearly had fun making it. I'm not really a fan of movies were scantily clad women get sliced up.
There is some fun to be had watching Wynorski come up with excuses for the girls to have showers, and take their clothes of, and stay in the house when there's a maniac running around, and throw in footage from other Corman films to pad out the running time (there's a flashback to another massacre in the house from Slumber Party Massacre and some cops visit a strip club with vision from Stripped to Kill).
But at the end of the day it's a film about women being cut up and I'm just not into them. Also the plot was confusing - I struggled with the logic for a lot of it, and had trouble telling the women apart. The lead has a weird half English accent - I googled her and discovered she was English. She's not a bad actor - ditto Melissa Moore who plays the other main girl. Peter Spellos (who is "Orville Ketchum as himself") looks great but flounders a bit when he's got too much dialogue.
There's some funny jokes and quite spooky scenes, well handled by Wynorski.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Script review - "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" by Billy Wilder and IAL Diamond (warning: spoilers)
I mean, yeah, sure, I guess. It's okay. I still wonder why Wilder bothered. The first act involves a woman wanting Holmes to father her child - which is actually a great idea for a film. But he says no and gets out of it by pretending to be in love with Watson, and refuses to deny he's gay to Watson. Instead of kicking on to a story about that, a whole new story starts up...
The bulk of the story is about an amnesiac woman turning up at Baker Street and Holmes kind of falling for her. There's some good ideas (using Loch Ness, trappist monks), but it all feels hollow because Mycroft Holmes knows all the answers from the get-go, he just doesn't say anything until the end; and Holmes is outsmarted by the woman and Mycroft; and it's about a British sub that is destroyed.
I get that they were trying to subvert Holmes - more drugs, possible gayness, less cleverness. But they don't really go for it, when it comes to subversion - it's all very mild. What if Holmes was gay for Watson? What if he was a moron? What if he was a full on drug addict? They don't do that here. They make him less, smart more gullible - that's all well and good, but it makes him less fun.
This script I read I think was a transcript. I would love to read the original draft, because I understand the final film was much cut about. I had a glimpse of the synopsis for these on wikipedia - it didn't sound that awesome even uncut. I am still unsure why Wilder bothered. A bit of a dud. Needlessly long too.
The bulk of the story is about an amnesiac woman turning up at Baker Street and Holmes kind of falling for her. There's some good ideas (using Loch Ness, trappist monks), but it all feels hollow because Mycroft Holmes knows all the answers from the get-go, he just doesn't say anything until the end; and Holmes is outsmarted by the woman and Mycroft; and it's about a British sub that is destroyed.
I get that they were trying to subvert Holmes - more drugs, possible gayness, less cleverness. But they don't really go for it, when it comes to subversion - it's all very mild. What if Holmes was gay for Watson? What if he was a moron? What if he was a full on drug addict? They don't do that here. They make him less, smart more gullible - that's all well and good, but it makes him less fun.
This script I read I think was a transcript. I would love to read the original draft, because I understand the final film was much cut about. I had a glimpse of the synopsis for these on wikipedia - it didn't sound that awesome even uncut. I am still unsure why Wilder bothered. A bit of a dud. Needlessly long too.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Movie review - "Deathstalker 2: Duel of the Titans" (1987) **1/2
I haven't seen the original Deathstalker though it's not too hard to guess what it was like. This is an energetic piece of low-budget sword and sandal-ry, shot in Argentina.
Someone called John Terlesky plays the title role - he was in Chopping Mall. He's not bad, with an amiable grin and muscular torso. He does looks more like a Karate Kid villain than a typical hero - a bit too cocky and smug, maybe? Very contemporary sort of guy - but he is amiable and he totally suits the film.
The storyline feels cobbled from all those Easterns Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson used to make in the 1950s and Maria Montez made in the 1940s. Deathstalker is strolling through the countryside when he meets a "seer" played by Monique Gabrielle, who is a lot of fun. She's trying to get her kingdom back from an evil twin.
The musical sting got on my nerves - they really use it a lot. I mean a lot. It was also irritating how all the women called Terlesky "stalker".
But it's a fun film - it jaunts along, there's always something happening, everyone seems to be having a good time. Wynorski throws in a bunch of stuff - girls mud wrestling at a bar, a comic midget, two hot women getting massaged, John LaZar from Beyond the Valley of the Dolls as the villain (very good he is too), Terleskey taking on a massive woman in a fight, a sword fight between LaZar and Terleskey at the end, some supporting women, Gabrielle in a double role (her sister has sex with Terleskey), a Pit and the Pendulum homage...
Gabriella and Terleskey are a likeable heroic duo, Toni Naples and Maria Socas are enjoyable in support. What can I say? I enjoyed it.
Someone called John Terlesky plays the title role - he was in Chopping Mall. He's not bad, with an amiable grin and muscular torso. He does looks more like a Karate Kid villain than a typical hero - a bit too cocky and smug, maybe? Very contemporary sort of guy - but he is amiable and he totally suits the film.
The storyline feels cobbled from all those Easterns Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson used to make in the 1950s and Maria Montez made in the 1940s. Deathstalker is strolling through the countryside when he meets a "seer" played by Monique Gabrielle, who is a lot of fun. She's trying to get her kingdom back from an evil twin.
The musical sting got on my nerves - they really use it a lot. I mean a lot. It was also irritating how all the women called Terlesky "stalker".
But it's a fun film - it jaunts along, there's always something happening, everyone seems to be having a good time. Wynorski throws in a bunch of stuff - girls mud wrestling at a bar, a comic midget, two hot women getting massaged, John LaZar from Beyond the Valley of the Dolls as the villain (very good he is too), Terleskey taking on a massive woman in a fight, a sword fight between LaZar and Terleskey at the end, some supporting women, Gabrielle in a double role (her sister has sex with Terleskey), a Pit and the Pendulum homage...
Gabriella and Terleskey are a likeable heroic duo, Toni Naples and Maria Socas are enjoyable in support. What can I say? I enjoyed it.
Monday, May 15, 2017
Movie review - "The Terror Within" (1989) **1/2
Entirely decent little action thriller from Concorde Pictures. Its the sort of story that never goes wrong - an outpost movie, where a couple of people visit another outpost and discover it's all been wiped out. It worked in Alien, it worked in all the films Alien ripped off, it worked in the rip offs of Alien, of which this is one. (It also borrows from The Thing with its rapidly growing antagonist.)
The setting is a post-apocalyptic world, I guess you'd call it... chemical warfare have wiped out most humans, giving this a bleaker quality. I hadn't heard of director Thierry Notz before but feel he does a good job. I liked Thomas Cleaver's script too - it had an admittedly obvious set up but was well developed.
I normally don't like rape scenes in movies and feel Roger Corman was way too keen to put them in his films during the 1980s (Humanoids from the Deep, Galaxy of Terror). The one here is not great fun, but at least is well incorporated into the story - the creature rapes a girl, who turns out to be pregnant... she demands an abortion, but there's a chance it may be a human baby... so they refuse... so the girl kills herself trying to self abort. It's powerful stuff.
The acting, in general, is of high quality. Andrew Stevens is a good action hero, Starr Andreeff is strong as the girl who gets pregnant, Yvonne Sarr also good as a gargoyle victim. George Kennedy adds some gravitas to the cast but to be honest he looks bored. Terri Treas has presence, although her character did seem a bit too keen to hump Stevens when his girlfriend has just died.
The biggest debit is probably the monster which isn't very scary - he/it looks like the Creature from the Black Lagoon. There were too many scenes where we got a good look at it.
The setting is a post-apocalyptic world, I guess you'd call it... chemical warfare have wiped out most humans, giving this a bleaker quality. I hadn't heard of director Thierry Notz before but feel he does a good job. I liked Thomas Cleaver's script too - it had an admittedly obvious set up but was well developed.
I normally don't like rape scenes in movies and feel Roger Corman was way too keen to put them in his films during the 1980s (Humanoids from the Deep, Galaxy of Terror). The one here is not great fun, but at least is well incorporated into the story - the creature rapes a girl, who turns out to be pregnant... she demands an abortion, but there's a chance it may be a human baby... so they refuse... so the girl kills herself trying to self abort. It's powerful stuff.
The acting, in general, is of high quality. Andrew Stevens is a good action hero, Starr Andreeff is strong as the girl who gets pregnant, Yvonne Sarr also good as a gargoyle victim. George Kennedy adds some gravitas to the cast but to be honest he looks bored. Terri Treas has presence, although her character did seem a bit too keen to hump Stevens when his girlfriend has just died.
The biggest debit is probably the monster which isn't very scary - he/it looks like the Creature from the Black Lagoon. There were too many scenes where we got a good look at it.
Script review - "Witness for the Prosecution" by Billy Wilder and Harry Kurnitz (warning: spoilers)
Wilder had a soft spot for murder mysteries - Double Indemnity, Sherlock Holmes, this... Here he took Agatha Christie's first-rate play source material and expanded it - beefing up the part of barrister Sir Wilbur... not giving it any great emotional depth but adding a comic subplot where he squabbles with his nurse who wants him to give up cigars and brandy. This was presumably done to attract Charles Laughton.
He also adds two flashbacks involving Leonard Vole, one where he meets his wife. Presumably this was to give more time to Tyrone Power and Marlene Dietrich. The dialogue of their first meeting - cynicism in post war Berlin - feels the most "Wilder" out of any in this script. (Having said that it'll probably turn out that someone else wrote it!) None of this stuff is essential to the story - it's quite a long read - but it does add to the fun.
It's a satisfying mystery, based on the clever concept that people are more likely to believe a woman if they think she's been lying, than someone telling the truth. I've never believed in a core twist... that no one would think the cockney woman was Christine.
The script is written so that towards the end there's a page which just says "the last ten pages are secret".... I read the rest, but apparently it was issued separately. It's a clever idea. Civilised entertainment from Wilder.
He also adds two flashbacks involving Leonard Vole, one where he meets his wife. Presumably this was to give more time to Tyrone Power and Marlene Dietrich. The dialogue of their first meeting - cynicism in post war Berlin - feels the most "Wilder" out of any in this script. (Having said that it'll probably turn out that someone else wrote it!) None of this stuff is essential to the story - it's quite a long read - but it does add to the fun.
It's a satisfying mystery, based on the clever concept that people are more likely to believe a woman if they think she's been lying, than someone telling the truth. I've never believed in a core twist... that no one would think the cockney woman was Christine.
The script is written so that towards the end there's a page which just says "the last ten pages are secret".... I read the rest, but apparently it was issued separately. It's a clever idea. Civilised entertainment from Wilder.
Script review - "Parks and Rec - Pilot"
Parks and Rec took a while to find it's full strength but this pilot indicates the show was pretty awesome from the get go. Lesley is a fully formed character - bright, perky, slightly delusional etc etc... Anne is about as interesting here as she would ever become (i.e. not very) but she's the straight person that the show needs. Ron is very funny, though nastier to Lesley than he would become. Mark serves a clear function, as do Audrey and Andy. The show feels unsure about Tom - the script indicates it's clearly written for Aziz Ansari, but he's mean about Lesley and his role seems unsure. They would fix that issue brilliantly fairly soon. Very funny, clever pilot.
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Script review - "Breakfast at Tiffany's" by George Axelrod - draft 22 June 1960
Axelrod did a pretty good job turning Capote's novella into a romantic-comedy. I think it was a clever idea to make the male author into a kept man - it gave his character a bit of meat, plus added an interesting character in the woman, and introduced Holly's ex husband in an interesting way.
This is really a showcase for Holly though - who is well captured. There are some lively support characters like Holly's friends, and hill billy husband. Axelrod's day of adventure works well and the Tiffany's scene - all his own work - a delight.
Interestingly the party scene in the script only goes for a short time - Blake Edwards expanded it on screen. Also the final speech in the cab from Paul isn't here - I think it was a good addition because reading this the ending felt a little abrupt.
This is really a showcase for Holly though - who is well captured. There are some lively support characters like Holly's friends, and hill billy husband. Axelrod's day of adventure works well and the Tiffany's scene - all his own work - a delight.
Interestingly the party scene in the script only goes for a short time - Blake Edwards expanded it on screen. Also the final speech in the cab from Paul isn't here - I think it was a good addition because reading this the ending felt a little abrupt.
Movie review - "Chopping Mall" (1986) ***
Fun, silly horror/action flick about a bunch of teens trapped in a shopping center with some killer security robots running loose. This was an early work from Jim Wynorski and is great fun - high spirited, quite smart. It's action more than horror really - a few suspenseful moments and some teens having sex early on, but a lot of gunshots and explosions.
The robots are quite cute, but deadly - I was reminded of the Daleks. The story is pretty strong - Wyorski has eight teens, ensuring a steady stream of deaths. Some decent ones too such as an exploding head.
The quality of acting was high. I did find it heard to tell them apart - three of the girls were blondes, all the guys had brown-ish hair... they all kind of looked like the same.
Film buffs will love things like cameos from Dick Miller (playing Walter Paisley!), Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov, and Mel Wells being in a small role and the gunshop being named after Peckinpah, and watching Attack of the Crab Monsters. This was produced by Julie Corman, for husband Roger's company.
The robots are quite cute, but deadly - I was reminded of the Daleks. The story is pretty strong - Wyorski has eight teens, ensuring a steady stream of deaths. Some decent ones too such as an exploding head.
The quality of acting was high. I did find it heard to tell them apart - three of the girls were blondes, all the guys had brown-ish hair... they all kind of looked like the same.
Film buffs will love things like cameos from Dick Miller (playing Walter Paisley!), Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov, and Mel Wells being in a small role and the gunshop being named after Peckinpah, and watching Attack of the Crab Monsters. This was produced by Julie Corman, for husband Roger's company.
Script review - "Some Like It Hot" by Billy Wilder and IAL Diamond
Such great fun. You remember the visuals of this film - Marilyn Monroe and her ukelele, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in drag, but they leap off the brilliant scaffolding of the script. It has a fantastic setting of the late 1920s - gangster, prohibition, St Valentine's Day Massacre. The version of the script I read didn't actually specify "sequences" but you can see Wilder using a sequence method
A - set up of the two leads seeing a murder and fleeing to Miami as girls
B - on the train, meeting Sugar, finding out about her
C - arriving in Florida, Osgood falls for Jerry, Joe starts to pursue Sugar
D - extended sequence of Joe pretending to be millionaire seducing Sugar while Jerry dances with Osgood
E -the guys decide to leave as the gangsters turn up.
The first four acts are so strong it was a surprise (and didn't really matter) that Wilder muffs the last one - it's a bit convenient the gangsters are having a convention at that hotel, and that another gangster wants to kill Spats. Why make this decision? Why not just have some gangster identify them and tell Spats, and have Spats killed while trying to get the boys?
But like I say it doesn't really matter... the situations are strong and the jokes clever. Wilder/Diamond incorporate things that pay off beautifully - like Osgood having a yacht, and giving Jerry and engagement present which Joe gives to sugar. I love the pop culture references like "I've got Rudy Vallee records".
The character of Sugar is a real dimwit - I give her and Joe maybe a month before he betrays her. But at least she acts consistently. Osgood and Jerry make a much better couple. The sexual harrasment and other things women have to endure, and their camaraderie, is very well depicted. A great read.
A - set up of the two leads seeing a murder and fleeing to Miami as girls
B - on the train, meeting Sugar, finding out about her
C - arriving in Florida, Osgood falls for Jerry, Joe starts to pursue Sugar
D - extended sequence of Joe pretending to be millionaire seducing Sugar while Jerry dances with Osgood
E -the guys decide to leave as the gangsters turn up.
The first four acts are so strong it was a surprise (and didn't really matter) that Wilder muffs the last one - it's a bit convenient the gangsters are having a convention at that hotel, and that another gangster wants to kill Spats. Why make this decision? Why not just have some gangster identify them and tell Spats, and have Spats killed while trying to get the boys?
But like I say it doesn't really matter... the situations are strong and the jokes clever. Wilder/Diamond incorporate things that pay off beautifully - like Osgood having a yacht, and giving Jerry and engagement present which Joe gives to sugar. I love the pop culture references like "I've got Rudy Vallee records".
The character of Sugar is a real dimwit - I give her and Joe maybe a month before he betrays her. But at least she acts consistently. Osgood and Jerry make a much better couple. The sexual harrasment and other things women have to endure, and their camaraderie, is very well depicted. A great read.
Movie review - "Burial of the Rats" (1995) *
Roger Corman kind of returns to the world of Poe, with this tale set in the 19th Century. It actually has more in common with those 1950s sci fi movies where astronauts/pilots stumbled upon planets/islands consisting entirely of women.
The hero is Bram Stoker, who is kidnapped by a cult led by Adrienne Barbeau, who hate men. One of them falls in love with him. He becomes an unofficial woman and gets involved in a fight against corrupt locals.
This is terrible. It looks cheap, it's badly acted. There's some attractive women wearing not much but the sex scenes aren't that erotic - one has Stoker thrusting away while the rats watch. It's not scary. It's not funny. It's awful.
I hated that there was a sequence where Stoker was tortured with a pendulum - it was as if Corman was invoking an actual decent movie.
It was shot in Russia but we don't get cool scenery or anything. Adrienne Barbeau adds some B film class in the lead but that's about it. Kevin Alber, who plays Stoker, is a drip.
The hero is Bram Stoker, who is kidnapped by a cult led by Adrienne Barbeau, who hate men. One of them falls in love with him. He becomes an unofficial woman and gets involved in a fight against corrupt locals.
This is terrible. It looks cheap, it's badly acted. There's some attractive women wearing not much but the sex scenes aren't that erotic - one has Stoker thrusting away while the rats watch. It's not scary. It's not funny. It's awful.
I hated that there was a sequence where Stoker was tortured with a pendulum - it was as if Corman was invoking an actual decent movie.
It was shot in Russia but we don't get cool scenery or anything. Adrienne Barbeau adds some B film class in the lead but that's about it. Kevin Alber, who plays Stoker, is a drip.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Script review - "Key Largo" by John Huston and Richard Brooks (warning: spoilers)
The Petrified Forest done after the war with a heavy dose of UN smarmy-ness. McLeod is a drifter who turns up at a hotel at Key Largo during the off season - he wants to meet the father and widow of his dead war friend.
The father Temple is an old bore, crapping on about his dead son, being this "wonderful" paterfamilias to the simpleton Indians (there was a lot of casual racism in Huston films), and abusing the gangsters when they point guns at him, telling Rocco he's a vermit who should be killed (as if).
The widow Norah slaps the gangster and makes eyes at McLeod pretty quickly. McLeod (in the script the spelling is "M'Leod") has some awful speeches where he quotes someone on the war, and whines about how things were hard when it got back. You could seriously cut Norah out of the film - her main thing is to help McLeod be honourable, but Temple could do that, whiny old fart that he is. I suppose you could have kept Norah and lost Temple. You wouldn't have had Temple being wise about the Indians but who cares.
The script is better on it's villains - Rocco, the once great gangster on hard times, his trio of gunmen (Toots, who just wants to tell jokes; Curly who wants people to join him for a drink), and most of all Gayle, his alcoholic moll who Rocco forces to sing. The last act, where McLeod overcomes the baddies on the boat is quite exciting. The subplot where two Indians are on the lam and are shot by local cop Ben is depressing - I kept expecting the baddies to do it, and sure they help give Ben the wrong impression, but it's still Ben.
The father Temple is an old bore, crapping on about his dead son, being this "wonderful" paterfamilias to the simpleton Indians (there was a lot of casual racism in Huston films), and abusing the gangsters when they point guns at him, telling Rocco he's a vermit who should be killed (as if).
The widow Norah slaps the gangster and makes eyes at McLeod pretty quickly. McLeod (in the script the spelling is "M'Leod") has some awful speeches where he quotes someone on the war, and whines about how things were hard when it got back. You could seriously cut Norah out of the film - her main thing is to help McLeod be honourable, but Temple could do that, whiny old fart that he is. I suppose you could have kept Norah and lost Temple. You wouldn't have had Temple being wise about the Indians but who cares.
The script is better on it's villains - Rocco, the once great gangster on hard times, his trio of gunmen (Toots, who just wants to tell jokes; Curly who wants people to join him for a drink), and most of all Gayle, his alcoholic moll who Rocco forces to sing. The last act, where McLeod overcomes the baddies on the boat is quite exciting. The subplot where two Indians are on the lam and are shot by local cop Ben is depressing - I kept expecting the baddies to do it, and sure they help give Ben the wrong impression, but it's still Ben.
Script review - "Bonfire of the Vanities" by Michael Cristofer - third draft 2 April 1990
A famous flop, mostly because someone wrote a book about it - a good book, which I've read, and remember a lot about (Tom Hanks playing basketball with the crew, Melanie Griffith not having any friends among the crew, Bruce Willis being shoe horned into the film, Hanks being cast because he was likeable, Morgan Freeman being the recipient of affirmative action casting, Brian De Palma complaining about people always going on about his Hitchcock rip offs then ripping off a scene from Foreign Correspondent...).
I read the novel too and have to admit being underwhelmed. Maybe I read it at the wrong time of life or something - but it wasn't a very exciting story (not particularly nice but not evil white man goes on to suffer at the hands of politics) and it didn't seem to have any of the stunning insights of Wolfe's Right Stuff. I do remember phrases like "Master of the Universe".
And I found the film version to be very much "what's the point"? Reading the script reminded me of that - what's the point of it? It doesn't really encapsulate an era or a time. It's not a great story. The characters aren't particularly memorable - Sherman is over paid, cheats on his wife, is a bit of a whimp, probably doesn't deserve to suffer. His mistress is a one-note sex bomb femme fetale. Peter is just drunk. We know very very little about the kid who is hit or his family. The black leader and Jewish prosecutor are caricatures. The whole thing is a downer. I'm not sure what emotion the filmmakers were hoping to invoke in an audience other than "gee I saw the film of a best seller".
Cristofer has said the three hour script version was fantastic. I haven't read that, to be fair. This isn't fantastic.
I read the novel too and have to admit being underwhelmed. Maybe I read it at the wrong time of life or something - but it wasn't a very exciting story (not particularly nice but not evil white man goes on to suffer at the hands of politics) and it didn't seem to have any of the stunning insights of Wolfe's Right Stuff. I do remember phrases like "Master of the Universe".
And I found the film version to be very much "what's the point"? Reading the script reminded me of that - what's the point of it? It doesn't really encapsulate an era or a time. It's not a great story. The characters aren't particularly memorable - Sherman is over paid, cheats on his wife, is a bit of a whimp, probably doesn't deserve to suffer. His mistress is a one-note sex bomb femme fetale. Peter is just drunk. We know very very little about the kid who is hit or his family. The black leader and Jewish prosecutor are caricatures. The whole thing is a downer. I'm not sure what emotion the filmmakers were hoping to invoke in an audience other than "gee I saw the film of a best seller".
Cristofer has said the three hour script version was fantastic. I haven't read that, to be fair. This isn't fantastic.
Script review - "Sunset Boulevard" by Brackett, Wilder and Marshman draft dated 21 March 1949 (re-reading)
Breaking this down...
Sequence A - opening of Gillis being dead... the scene of him in the morgue (touching when a little boy wakes up in there) that was cut in the final film... Tells the story of him being chased for money, winding up at Norma Desmond's place and moving in. Have set up Sheldrake and Betty.
Sequence B - Gillis wants to leave but can't because of money and accepts clothes from Norma.
Sequence C - Gillis a kept man... he tries to leave but Norma tries to kill herself and she and Gillis sleep together.
Sequence D - a kept man, gets call from De Mille, finds out its fake ends on her going mad
Sequence E - Gillis sneaking out to write script, gets busted... dumps Betty and tries to leave but is shot by Norma.
It's a Faustian tale I suppose - or like a vampire movie, with Norma as the vampire sucking in Gillis. There's a lot of compassion for her though - and Gillis is a bit of a shit. Betty is the one nice character.
Sequence A - opening of Gillis being dead... the scene of him in the morgue (touching when a little boy wakes up in there) that was cut in the final film... Tells the story of him being chased for money, winding up at Norma Desmond's place and moving in. Have set up Sheldrake and Betty.
Sequence B - Gillis wants to leave but can't because of money and accepts clothes from Norma.
Sequence C - Gillis a kept man... he tries to leave but Norma tries to kill herself and she and Gillis sleep together.
Sequence D - a kept man, gets call from De Mille, finds out its fake ends on her going mad
Sequence E - Gillis sneaking out to write script, gets busted... dumps Betty and tries to leave but is shot by Norma.
It's a Faustian tale I suppose - or like a vampire movie, with Norma as the vampire sucking in Gillis. There's a lot of compassion for her though - and Gillis is a bit of a shit. Betty is the one nice character.
Script review - "Stalag 17" by Billy Wilder and Edwin Blum (warning: spoilers)
My favourite Wilder movie. I think it's fabulous - funny, exciting, tells a good story. Has aged very well. Cynical tales often do. It's not without sentiment - a pause when some mail comes through for one of the soldiers who was killed at the beginning. It also touches on some very big issues in a subtle way - Harry making a joke about them being turned into lampshades.
As typical for Wilder, the characters are very vivid - everyone remembers Sefton, the wheeler dealer, but it's not an out and out star vehicle, as befits it's Broadway origins; supporting characters make an impression too: Schultz, noway near as buffoonish as he was in Hogan's Heroes (he pretends to be but here he's also smart when the Americans aren't around); Price, the traitor; Hoffy, the leader, hot headed Duke; the comedy team of Animal and Harry; than random Bagradian character who is there to give Dunbar exposition - so to liven him up they make him good at impressions! (I think this is an example of what Blake Snyder calls "the Pope in the pool").
Most of all there's Joey, a character I never thought of much but who really hits home now - someone so traumatised by war he's basically an idiot. There's not much to Cookie and Dunbar is a brave aristocrat.
Much of this is episodic - trying to sneak into the Russian women's dorm, the 4th of July - linked by the overall plot of the traitor amongst the prisoners. It's broken into sequences:
A - the opening escape attempt
B - fall out of the escape attempt
C - talking about Sefton - he is suspect
D - Sefton is blamed and at the end is beaten up
E - Sefton tries to find out who does it and realises it's Price at the end
F - Sefton exposes Price and escapes.
Some of these sequence act breaks felt arbitrary eg B, C - but I guess it did ensure discipline on the structure which the piece often doesn't get.
As typical for Wilder, the characters are very vivid - everyone remembers Sefton, the wheeler dealer, but it's not an out and out star vehicle, as befits it's Broadway origins; supporting characters make an impression too: Schultz, noway near as buffoonish as he was in Hogan's Heroes (he pretends to be but here he's also smart when the Americans aren't around); Price, the traitor; Hoffy, the leader, hot headed Duke; the comedy team of Animal and Harry; than random Bagradian character who is there to give Dunbar exposition - so to liven him up they make him good at impressions! (I think this is an example of what Blake Snyder calls "the Pope in the pool").
Most of all there's Joey, a character I never thought of much but who really hits home now - someone so traumatised by war he's basically an idiot. There's not much to Cookie and Dunbar is a brave aristocrat.
Much of this is episodic - trying to sneak into the Russian women's dorm, the 4th of July - linked by the overall plot of the traitor amongst the prisoners. It's broken into sequences:
A - the opening escape attempt
B - fall out of the escape attempt
C - talking about Sefton - he is suspect
D - Sefton is blamed and at the end is beaten up
E - Sefton tries to find out who does it and realises it's Price at the end
F - Sefton exposes Price and escapes.
Some of these sequence act breaks felt arbitrary eg B, C - but I guess it did ensure discipline on the structure which the piece often doesn't get.
Movie review - "Black Scorpion" (1995) **1/2
Roger Corman's attempt to kick start his own comic book franchise is a quite fun cheesy bit of action - a Catwoman rip off to be sure, but who cares. Joan Severance is an attractive, viking-esque lead, looking splendid in black leather as she runs around beating people up in the name of crime.
Her day job is being a cop - which involves her going undercover as a hooker. I think that's a key flaw to the movie - her "alter ego" isn't that different from Black Scorpion... it might've been more effective if she'd been a nerd or quiet or someone very un-obviously a crime fighter.
Garrett Morris is fun as the Black Scorpion's gadget guy. I also liked Bruce Abbott as the cop who loves Scorpion - these roles can be thankless, but Abbott actually seems to have some balls and isn't emasculated by chasing after this female vigilante.
The low budget occasionally hurts - you want more spectacular stunts and fight scenes. Severance isn't the best fighter - where she karates a couple of women it looks very slow. The villain (another super hero) felt underserved.
The film is better when it focuses on being a more New World-type picture- such as Severance pashing Abbott then later straddling him and having her way with him, or the camraderie between Morris and Severance. It's one of those movies you wish were a bit trashier and sexier. But it is fun.
Her day job is being a cop - which involves her going undercover as a hooker. I think that's a key flaw to the movie - her "alter ego" isn't that different from Black Scorpion... it might've been more effective if she'd been a nerd or quiet or someone very un-obviously a crime fighter.
Garrett Morris is fun as the Black Scorpion's gadget guy. I also liked Bruce Abbott as the cop who loves Scorpion - these roles can be thankless, but Abbott actually seems to have some balls and isn't emasculated by chasing after this female vigilante.
The low budget occasionally hurts - you want more spectacular stunts and fight scenes. Severance isn't the best fighter - where she karates a couple of women it looks very slow. The villain (another super hero) felt underserved.
The film is better when it focuses on being a more New World-type picture- such as Severance pashing Abbott then later straddling him and having her way with him, or the camraderie between Morris and Severance. It's one of those movies you wish were a bit trashier and sexier. But it is fun.
Movie review - "Big Bad Mama II" (1987) ** (warning: spoilers)
Big Bad Mama was one of Roger Corman's biggest hits at New World but it did end with most of the leading characters dead, so he presumably didn't feel he could make a direct sequel - instead he made a bunch of "kind of" sequels, such as Crazy Mama and Fighting Mad.
More than a decade later he must've gone "stuff it" and brought Angie Dickinson back to go on a crime spree - for this is a remake more than a sequel; once again she's a widow kicked off a farm, once again she goes on the lam with two daughters. It was directed by Jim Wynorski, who remade Not of this Earth around this time.
We see her husband in this one - he gets killed at the beginning. Mama leaps straight to robbing banks after hubby is shot - I mean they don't even try to get a job or a loan first or anything. Robert Culp is in the Tom Skerritt part as their male accomplice - only he's not a fellow outlaw, he's a columnist who wants to make the girls famous, which is interesting but perhaps not as exciting. He's an observer rather than a participant in the film.
The main plot involves them kidnapping the son of the banker/politician who kicked them off their land. He falls in love with one of the sisters, making the other one jealous, and she leaves the group.
That's not a bad plot but it lacks a bit of kick... The original had Shatner and Skerritt squabbling over Dickinson but there's none of that here. They have the two girls fighting over the guy, but not because of any real emotional attachment. I think it was a mistake for Dickinson not to kill Bruce Glover when she had the chance... it felt hollow. The movie lacks the genuine passion of the original... it doesn't feel like there's a Depression going on, everyone looks well fed. Also the ending, where everyone gets away, feels like a cheat.
Danielle Brisebois and Julie McCullough are good value as the girls, although their haircuts as a bit late 80s for something set in 1934. They go for a swim; one of them does some nudity with the guy. Dickinson and Culp have sex - rather, their body doubles do.
Jim Wynorski directs with competence. There's some decent production value. It's not a stinker. But it lacks flaire.
More than a decade later he must've gone "stuff it" and brought Angie Dickinson back to go on a crime spree - for this is a remake more than a sequel; once again she's a widow kicked off a farm, once again she goes on the lam with two daughters. It was directed by Jim Wynorski, who remade Not of this Earth around this time.
We see her husband in this one - he gets killed at the beginning. Mama leaps straight to robbing banks after hubby is shot - I mean they don't even try to get a job or a loan first or anything. Robert Culp is in the Tom Skerritt part as their male accomplice - only he's not a fellow outlaw, he's a columnist who wants to make the girls famous, which is interesting but perhaps not as exciting. He's an observer rather than a participant in the film.
The main plot involves them kidnapping the son of the banker/politician who kicked them off their land. He falls in love with one of the sisters, making the other one jealous, and she leaves the group.
That's not a bad plot but it lacks a bit of kick... The original had Shatner and Skerritt squabbling over Dickinson but there's none of that here. They have the two girls fighting over the guy, but not because of any real emotional attachment. I think it was a mistake for Dickinson not to kill Bruce Glover when she had the chance... it felt hollow. The movie lacks the genuine passion of the original... it doesn't feel like there's a Depression going on, everyone looks well fed. Also the ending, where everyone gets away, feels like a cheat.
Danielle Brisebois and Julie McCullough are good value as the girls, although their haircuts as a bit late 80s for something set in 1934. They go for a swim; one of them does some nudity with the guy. Dickinson and Culp have sex - rather, their body doubles do.
Jim Wynorski directs with competence. There's some decent production value. It's not a stinker. But it lacks flaire.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Script review - "Sicario" by Taylor Sheridan (warning: spoilers)
Tough fighting-the-drug-cartel actioner which has as leads two types of people normally on the sideline - a female cop, and a Columbian enforcer. Both extremely good roles - as is the part of Matt, the DEA guy, who loves the contest.
I loved the friendship between Kate and Reggie, her partner, who helps her pick up guys and looks out for her. Alejandro is a great bad ass film. The movie does seem to endorse killing people as the best solution to a problem.
It's tough but not super bleak because Kate lives, as does Alejandro, and he gets his revenge.
I loved the friendship between Kate and Reggie, her partner, who helps her pick up guys and looks out for her. Alejandro is a great bad ass film. The movie does seem to endorse killing people as the best solution to a problem.
It's tough but not super bleak because Kate lives, as does Alejandro, and he gets his revenge.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Movie review - "Not of this Earth" (1995) **1/2
Corman's third remake of this story - this one was done for Showtime. I can see the appeal to Corman - it's a clever vampire tale and can be done quite cheaply: it's really three people living in a house, one of them with sunglasses. There's opportunity for a little satire, some sexiness/nudity via the nurse, a couple of showy roles; the effects won't cost a bomb - dark sunglasses and weird eye stuff really.
This was the strongest all round cast of all three versions: Michael York as the vampire, Dick Belzer as his assistant, Mason Adams (you might not know the name but you'll recognise him) as the doctor, Parker Stevenson as the cop. Elisabeth Barondes is sweet as the nurse. She has to do some topless bathing and have a shower (I think a body double is used in the shower). Stevenson looks a little silly with his late 70s porn star moustache and hair - why not make him more handsome? He looks like a pimp. York is effective in his role.
The script is very faithful to the 1957 version. A couple of key changes - the vacuum salesman is gone, replaced by a religious dude, which I think is much better idea than trying to get someone to repeat Dick Miller. There are similarities with
This was the strongest all round cast of all three versions: Michael York as the vampire, Dick Belzer as his assistant, Mason Adams (you might not know the name but you'll recognise him) as the doctor, Parker Stevenson as the cop. Elisabeth Barondes is sweet as the nurse. She has to do some topless bathing and have a shower (I think a body double is used in the shower). Stevenson looks a little silly with his late 70s porn star moustache and hair - why not make him more handsome? He looks like a pimp. York is effective in his role.
The script is very faithful to the 1957 version. A couple of key changes - the vacuum salesman is gone, replaced by a religious dude, which I think is much better idea than trying to get someone to repeat Dick Miller. There are similarities with
Script review - "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" by Robert Rossen
I had no idea Rossen worked on this movie- but he's the only writer credited. And from reading it, this felt similar to the movie - although it's been a while since I saw it. There was a bit where Curtin (the Tim Holt character) does a big speech about Mexicans after someone refers to them as bloodthirsty and Curtin points out that you'd be bloodthirsty too if you'd had to suffer from years of abuse etc etc - the sort of good old progressive attitudes that commies would put in scripts (not a criticism!)
Maybe it's simply a very faithful version of a very filmable novel - I'll leave it to an academic to do a proper comparative analysis.
I was a tad underwhelmed by this film when I first saw it - I seem to say that a lot about John Huston movies - but enjoyed reading the script. The theme is very universal - down and outers going prospecting for gold, finding it... then realising once they do their problems have only just begun. How do they divide it up between them? What to do when another American, Cody, stumbles upon their campsite and figures it out - kill him or make him part of the partnership? What to do when some bandits come along - bluff or fight? At what point do they leave? What to do when some Indians demand their main prospector go with them?
For a film famous as a work on paranoia, the characters act rationally most of the time - Curtin, the everyman, is pretty much consistently normal and rational - he saves Dobbs' life, always tries to do the right thing, and at the end goes off to find Cody's widow. Howard,the grizzled prospector, is so wise and smart, not just about gold mining but human nature, that you wonder how he wound up in a flop house at the beginning - he spots the gold site, helps dig it, is brave and smart, predicts how people are going to act... Even Dobbs is normal most of the time - he's a bit tetchy but it's only at the end he goes ga-ga.
The film is a bit racist towards Mexicans - the bulk of them are corrupt and ruthless. The Indians are naive. The bandits are genuinely scary (and they should be, lopping off Dobbs' head) - though it should be said the police are quite efficient (though ruthless too).
A very satisfying look at greed with some suspenseful scenes and one very juicy role (Dobbs).
Maybe it's simply a very faithful version of a very filmable novel - I'll leave it to an academic to do a proper comparative analysis.
I was a tad underwhelmed by this film when I first saw it - I seem to say that a lot about John Huston movies - but enjoyed reading the script. The theme is very universal - down and outers going prospecting for gold, finding it... then realising once they do their problems have only just begun. How do they divide it up between them? What to do when another American, Cody, stumbles upon their campsite and figures it out - kill him or make him part of the partnership? What to do when some bandits come along - bluff or fight? At what point do they leave? What to do when some Indians demand their main prospector go with them?
For a film famous as a work on paranoia, the characters act rationally most of the time - Curtin, the everyman, is pretty much consistently normal and rational - he saves Dobbs' life, always tries to do the right thing, and at the end goes off to find Cody's widow. Howard,the grizzled prospector, is so wise and smart, not just about gold mining but human nature, that you wonder how he wound up in a flop house at the beginning - he spots the gold site, helps dig it, is brave and smart, predicts how people are going to act... Even Dobbs is normal most of the time - he's a bit tetchy but it's only at the end he goes ga-ga.
The film is a bit racist towards Mexicans - the bulk of them are corrupt and ruthless. The Indians are naive. The bandits are genuinely scary (and they should be, lopping off Dobbs' head) - though it should be said the police are quite efficient (though ruthless too).
A very satisfying look at greed with some suspenseful scenes and one very juicy role (Dobbs).
Movie review - "Not of this Earth" (1988) **
I was never a massive fan of the original, although I'm partial to the work of Roger Corman and Charles Griffith. Corman remade this, handing the duties over to Jim Wynorski, who agreed to do it for a cheap price. The film is probably best remembered today for giving a straight (ish) acting part to Traci Lords.
At first I thought this was terrible. Instead of opening credits which are creepy, like the original, there's a grab bag of footage from other Corman productions such as Galaxy of Terror (the opening card is "Miracle Pictures" from Hollywood Boulevard.) The opening scene feels like Screwballs, which Wynorski co wrote... you have a couple having sex when the creature comes along and kills them. Arthur Roberts feels out of place as the vampire - not in a good way. The atmosphere and tone of the film didn't seem to work.
But then I got into the film's rhythm. The story does hold, there is imagination, and Lords was a plucky heroine. I mean, I laughed sometimes at her delivering her lines, but not in a bad way - she's kind of sending it up. but she's got spirit and independence. She has this sort of sly humour thing going on.
She has a shower and shows off some butt, hangs around in a bikini a fair bit and takes place with an awkward sex scene having a stylised orgasm. But she's brave and smart - it's actually a decent role now I think about it. She's better than the male actors who tend to be weak.
Some changes from the original - Roberts kills some hookers, plus a stripper who turns up at the wrong address. They keep the vacuum cleaner salesman sequence - just not the same without Dick Miller. There's a weird slasher murder sequence that makes no sense. Actually I struggled to follow a few of the scenes. The story has momentum and the chase scene at the end is ridiculous. I ended up going with this movie and quite enjoying it.
At first I thought this was terrible. Instead of opening credits which are creepy, like the original, there's a grab bag of footage from other Corman productions such as Galaxy of Terror (the opening card is "Miracle Pictures" from Hollywood Boulevard.) The opening scene feels like Screwballs, which Wynorski co wrote... you have a couple having sex when the creature comes along and kills them. Arthur Roberts feels out of place as the vampire - not in a good way. The atmosphere and tone of the film didn't seem to work.
But then I got into the film's rhythm. The story does hold, there is imagination, and Lords was a plucky heroine. I mean, I laughed sometimes at her delivering her lines, but not in a bad way - she's kind of sending it up. but she's got spirit and independence. She has this sort of sly humour thing going on.
She has a shower and shows off some butt, hangs around in a bikini a fair bit and takes place with an awkward sex scene having a stylised orgasm. But she's brave and smart - it's actually a decent role now I think about it. She's better than the male actors who tend to be weak.
Some changes from the original - Roberts kills some hookers, plus a stripper who turns up at the wrong address. They keep the vacuum cleaner salesman sequence - just not the same without Dick Miller. There's a weird slasher murder sequence that makes no sense. Actually I struggled to follow a few of the scenes. The story has momentum and the chase scene at the end is ridiculous. I ended up going with this movie and quite enjoying it.
Tuesday, May 09, 2017
Script review - "Hell or High Water" by Taylor Sheridan (warning: spoilers)
Unpretentious, very well done heist film underlined by strong dynamics - not just the relationship between the brothers but also the two pursuing police, and the brothers and their dead parents, Tommy and his kid.
It throws us straight into the action with a robbery - the type of robbery is different, a bit tricky. The exposition is well thought out, Texas Ranger Marcus figured out the crime very quickly rather like Marge in Fargo. There's a very strong denouement - it's extremely satisfying. The lead characters are all well etched.
The female characters aren't as strong as the men - money hungry ex, tubby cafe waitress - though I did struggle to see where there was room for one. There's a lot of derogatory bagging of Indians which I'm sure is true to time and place and character but does get a bit wearisome. But a very good, tough movie - the sort you wish we could/would make in Australia.
It throws us straight into the action with a robbery - the type of robbery is different, a bit tricky. The exposition is well thought out, Texas Ranger Marcus figured out the crime very quickly rather like Marge in Fargo. There's a very strong denouement - it's extremely satisfying. The lead characters are all well etched.
The female characters aren't as strong as the men - money hungry ex, tubby cafe waitress - though I did struggle to see where there was room for one. There's a lot of derogatory bagging of Indians which I'm sure is true to time and place and character but does get a bit wearisome. But a very good, tough movie - the sort you wish we could/would make in Australia.
Monday, May 08, 2017
TV review - "The People vs OJ Simpson" (2016) ****1/2
Cracking dramatisation of (one of) the trial of the century, something that was such a huge thing when it was happening - so many articles, so much analysis, you got sick of it. Enough time has passed for some better analysis - I loved it.
The theme of this piece was the war on women vs the war on black people - women exemplified by Marcia Clark, much mocked and maligned, and, Nicole Simpson, beaten and dead; black people exemplified by the weak prosecutor, and rumbustious Johnny Cochrane, and OJ and Rodney King.
It was a hard slog trial full of twists and turns - a collapsing prosecutor, a racist cop, a troublesome jury, a political defence that got out of hand but proved brilliantly effective. Robert Kardashian and Marcia Clark come out of it extremely well; actually, so does Cochrane.
OJ remains an enigmatic figure - touching at times. The show skirts the issue of his actual guilt/innocence very well.
It took me a little time to adjust to some super famous faces playing other famous people eg Cuba Gooding Jnr, Nathan Lane - but after a while it was fine. Everyone gives a strong performance. Great writing, very well plotted - I loved it.
The theme of this piece was the war on women vs the war on black people - women exemplified by Marcia Clark, much mocked and maligned, and, Nicole Simpson, beaten and dead; black people exemplified by the weak prosecutor, and rumbustious Johnny Cochrane, and OJ and Rodney King.
It was a hard slog trial full of twists and turns - a collapsing prosecutor, a racist cop, a troublesome jury, a political defence that got out of hand but proved brilliantly effective. Robert Kardashian and Marcia Clark come out of it extremely well; actually, so does Cochrane.
OJ remains an enigmatic figure - touching at times. The show skirts the issue of his actual guilt/innocence very well.
It took me a little time to adjust to some super famous faces playing other famous people eg Cuba Gooding Jnr, Nathan Lane - but after a while it was fine. Everyone gives a strong performance. Great writing, very well plotted - I loved it.
Sunday, May 07, 2017
Movie review - "The Fantastic Four" (1994) **
This became a bit of a cult movie because it was never released - they made it then someone paid a few million to ensure it was put away so it wouldn't spoil a deluxe version. That's a bit mean IHMO - this was no masterpiece but is completely fun, if judged in the context within which it was made, i.e. as a bit of straight to video fun. I think if I saw it when I was ten I really would've liked it.
I don't want to overpraise things - it is pretty hokey, and does get worse as it goes on. The plot felt needlessly complicated, the special effects and make up felt cheap when they really needed to be great. There's a slightly distasteful subplot about a dwarf. The romance between Reed and Sue is very quick. The level of camp is high.
But Alex Hyde White is engaging as Reed and Michael Bailey Smith good as the thing. Jay Underwood is a little wonky as Johnny but Rebecca Staab as pretty as Sue. The script isn't bad, there's a degree of intelligence going on, and it's quite sweet.
I don't want to overpraise things - it is pretty hokey, and does get worse as it goes on. The plot felt needlessly complicated, the special effects and make up felt cheap when they really needed to be great. There's a slightly distasteful subplot about a dwarf. The romance between Reed and Sue is very quick. The level of camp is high.
But Alex Hyde White is engaging as Reed and Michael Bailey Smith good as the thing. Jay Underwood is a little wonky as Johnny but Rebecca Staab as pretty as Sue. The script isn't bad, there's a degree of intelligence going on, and it's quite sweet.
Script review - "Escape from New York" by John Carpenter and Nick Castle
A great, gripping action tale. The opening sequence of Plissken's robbery I think was unnecessary - we see too much of the outside world - and I think was good they cut. We plunge into the exciting drama of the president's plane going down, trying to get him, being knocked back, asking for Plissken's help, throwing Plissken in.
Once he arrives in New York things get, perhaps inevitably, more episodic - going to the theatre, meeting cabbie, tracking down Brain, being captured, meeting the Duke, engaging in the fight, the final run for safety. The ending is effective.
The "world" of New York prison probably could have been explored more - it would make a great setting for a TV show.
Once he arrives in New York things get, perhaps inevitably, more episodic - going to the theatre, meeting cabbie, tracking down Brain, being captured, meeting the Duke, engaging in the fight, the final run for safety. The ending is effective.
The "world" of New York prison probably could have been explored more - it would make a great setting for a TV show.
Script review - "Shadow of a Doubt" by Thornton Wilder, Alma Reville
Some people adore this Hitchcock film - I've never understood why. Maybe they respond to its depiction of small town Americana. In this dull town live a typical American family - befuddled dad, snappy daughter and her wisecracking sister. The mum's brother, Charlie, comes to town. He and the eldest daughter (also called Charlie) have a special bond. This is intriguing - it means more when Charlie turns out to be a killer.
I found myself having sympathy for Uncle Charlie - maybe this is why some people like the movie, he's a very empathetic protagonist, knocking off old widows, having headaches, being chased by the police. I wonder why they introduced two cops and did nothing with the second (one, Jack, has a very quick romance with younger Charlie, but the second feels kind of pointless - I assume he was there to be killed but it doesn't happen).
It works out reasonably logically - there's a new widow Charlie goes after, another person who could be the killer.
But I really didn't care that much. The younger Charlie was a bit of an idiot, the family were a bit of whatever. Maybe people respond to the Americana of it all. Hitchcock himself loved it. Maybe he was into the inversion of the family dynamic. I mean, it's fine, it just leaves me cold.
I found myself having sympathy for Uncle Charlie - maybe this is why some people like the movie, he's a very empathetic protagonist, knocking off old widows, having headaches, being chased by the police. I wonder why they introduced two cops and did nothing with the second (one, Jack, has a very quick romance with younger Charlie, but the second feels kind of pointless - I assume he was there to be killed but it doesn't happen).
It works out reasonably logically - there's a new widow Charlie goes after, another person who could be the killer.
But I really didn't care that much. The younger Charlie was a bit of an idiot, the family were a bit of whatever. Maybe people respond to the Americana of it all. Hitchcock himself loved it. Maybe he was into the inversion of the family dynamic. I mean, it's fine, it just leaves me cold.
Script review - "Strangers on a Train" (1951) by Czenzi Ormonde, Alma Reville, Whitfield Cook, Raymond Chandler etc
No writers were credited on this draft I read - the screen credits attribute it to Raymond Chandler as were as Czenzi Cermonde and Whitfield Cook, although apparently nothing of Chandler's work remains. (Having said that you really need to double check those claims).
It's a very well structured, highly entertaining piece. The concept maybe is a bit silly but it's at least different: weird Bruno suggests to Guy that they murder each other's enemies - Guy has a slutty wife and Bruno has a mean dad. Bruno is the only one who is serious about it.
The beginning is almost like a play with a long chat between Bruno and Guy. Then things get more cinematic with the murder of Guy's wife, full of great visual ticks and devices. It's a bit wonky that Guy doesn't tell the cops straight away about Bruno.
Bruno is a fantastic role - smart, pathetic, whiny, cunning, lonely, mother fixated. Guy suffers in comparison - a bit of a self-righteous dill, too silly to not tell the police straight away about Bruno and to try and win a tennis game quickly instead of throwing it. Anne is dull as is her father. I wish more use had been made of Bruno's mother, she was fun. So is Anne's gossipy sister and Guy's trampy wife.
Hitchcock complained about the dialogue but I thought it was fine. None of it felt too "Chandler". Solid story though.
It's a very well structured, highly entertaining piece. The concept maybe is a bit silly but it's at least different: weird Bruno suggests to Guy that they murder each other's enemies - Guy has a slutty wife and Bruno has a mean dad. Bruno is the only one who is serious about it.
The beginning is almost like a play with a long chat between Bruno and Guy. Then things get more cinematic with the murder of Guy's wife, full of great visual ticks and devices. It's a bit wonky that Guy doesn't tell the cops straight away about Bruno.
Bruno is a fantastic role - smart, pathetic, whiny, cunning, lonely, mother fixated. Guy suffers in comparison - a bit of a self-righteous dill, too silly to not tell the police straight away about Bruno and to try and win a tennis game quickly instead of throwing it. Anne is dull as is her father. I wish more use had been made of Bruno's mother, she was fun. So is Anne's gossipy sister and Guy's trampy wife.
Hitchcock complained about the dialogue but I thought it was fine. None of it felt too "Chandler". Solid story though.
Saturday, May 06, 2017
Script review - "Halloween 3" by Tommy Lee Wallace
Got this script off a Halloween website - it's solely credited to Wallace although my understanding was that it came from a story by John Carpenter and Nigel Kneale did some study on it. It's an interesting attempt to do something different - an entirely new tale in the Halloween universe, this being a story about an evil Irish manufacturer who wants to kill a whole lot of people on Halloween.
It's clearer here that Challis is separated from his wife, though he's still a dick. The stuff about Connor making a fortune from fake poop feels silly and often you get the impression scenes and moments are just there for shock without really making sense. Really it probably should have been an anthology TV show. But it's nice and creepy with a memorable ending.
It's clearer here that Challis is separated from his wife, though he's still a dick. The stuff about Connor making a fortune from fake poop feels silly and often you get the impression scenes and moments are just there for shock without really making sense. Really it probably should have been an anthology TV show. But it's nice and creepy with a memorable ending.
Friday, May 05, 2017
Movie review - "Loose Screws" (1985) *
Follow up to Screwballs from the same director only this time for Roger Corman's new company, Concorde. It's very low rent stuff. There's four guys who go to a school - a blonde, brunette, fatty and nerd. They have a competition to score as many girls as they can - which is problematic story wise as the goal is disparate. At least the goal in Screwballs was clear - to see boobs.
Other problems include: it's hard to tell the guys apart. The nerd isn't that nerdy (played by the same actor who was the nerd in Screwballs), the brunette and blonde are very similar. The villain (the headmaster) lacked a definite character too. I found it hard to tell the women apart.
The dialogue is full of innuendo - it's closer to a Carry On scene in that respect. There's a lot of lechery and sexual harassment and perving. It's like it was made by a bunch of closet gays and /or impotent people trying to prove their heterosexuality.
There is some unexpected charm in a scene where the brunette gets in drag and winds up in a spa with a short sighted girl. That's the highlight. I am grasping at straws. Oh, there's some catchy songs on the soundtrack.
Other problems include: it's hard to tell the guys apart. The nerd isn't that nerdy (played by the same actor who was the nerd in Screwballs), the brunette and blonde are very similar. The villain (the headmaster) lacked a definite character too. I found it hard to tell the women apart.
The dialogue is full of innuendo - it's closer to a Carry On scene in that respect. There's a lot of lechery and sexual harassment and perving. It's like it was made by a bunch of closet gays and /or impotent people trying to prove their heterosexuality.
There is some unexpected charm in a scene where the brunette gets in drag and winds up in a spa with a short sighted girl. That's the highlight. I am grasping at straws. Oh, there's some catchy songs on the soundtrack.
My John Carpenter Top Ten
1) Escape from New York (1981) - bad ass action classic
2) Dark Star (1974) - very funny clever sci fi
3) John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars (2001) - I don't know anyone else who loves this movie but I do
4) Big Trouble in Little China (1986) - brilliant fun - how did this flop?
5) The Thing (1982) - I don't love this as much as the die hards but it's still pretty good
6) John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) - tough action horror flock
7) Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) - forget the remake this is the one to see
8) Halloween (1978) - I suppose
9) Christine (1983) - not among his most highly regarded films but I like it
10) Elvis (1979) - entirely decent biopic of the King
2) Dark Star (1974) - very funny clever sci fi
3) John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars (2001) - I don't know anyone else who loves this movie but I do
4) Big Trouble in Little China (1986) - brilliant fun - how did this flop?
5) The Thing (1982) - I don't love this as much as the die hards but it's still pretty good
6) John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) - tough action horror flock
7) Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) - forget the remake this is the one to see
8) Halloween (1978) - I suppose
9) Christine (1983) - not among his most highly regarded films but I like it
10) Elvis (1979) - entirely decent biopic of the King
Movie review - "Fast Charlie and the Moonbeam Rider" (1979) **
Little-known Roger Corman work, despite starring David Carradine and being directed by Steve Carver and co produced by Corman. It was made for Universal - maybe that's why it isn't well known, because it didn't come from New World stock. Universal were presumably were hoping for something like Smokey and the Bandit. I think that's what they were aiming for - I wasn't sure.
It's an odd movie. The main problem is tone - it's kind of a straight drama, but doesn't have enough action to be an action flick, or comedy to be fun, or sex to be exploitation. There's a kid in the film but not in a very big role so it's not a kid's movie.
Carradine is enjoyable as a shaggy dog lead. Brenda Vaccaro isn't bad as the widowed mum who comes along. But it takes far too long for the motorcycle action to get going - the film's half over. When it comes, it's pretty impressive, but there's not enough of it. I didn't think the back story of Carradine seeming to be a deserter worked either. We have these support characters set up, fellow veterans, but they don't seem to do much.
This is a period movie so there must have been a bit of a budget. It's a real neither fish nor fowl movie and I can kind of see why it's vanished. You might enjoy it more if you're into old motorcycles.
It's an odd movie. The main problem is tone - it's kind of a straight drama, but doesn't have enough action to be an action flick, or comedy to be fun, or sex to be exploitation. There's a kid in the film but not in a very big role so it's not a kid's movie.
Carradine is enjoyable as a shaggy dog lead. Brenda Vaccaro isn't bad as the widowed mum who comes along. But it takes far too long for the motorcycle action to get going - the film's half over. When it comes, it's pretty impressive, but there's not enough of it. I didn't think the back story of Carradine seeming to be a deserter worked either. We have these support characters set up, fellow veterans, but they don't seem to do much.
This is a period movie so there must have been a bit of a budget. It's a real neither fish nor fowl movie and I can kind of see why it's vanished. You might enjoy it more if you're into old motorcycles.
Script review - "Halloween" by John Carpenter and Debra Hill (1978)
The film was so imitated that so many of its tropes became cliches and of course a lot of people are offended by it - namely teenage girls being sliced up by a maniac, the only one to survive being a virgin, etc etc.
But it's a very good script - I like Carpenter's writing, it's sparse and lean, lots of one sentence paragraphs, very visual, clear to follow. There's a great opening with a girl being killed and the reveal it's a kid, and we plunge into the action with Michael Myers escaping. The rest of it is hide and seek really, an excuse for virtuosity - but the female characters have some meet on them (Hill's influence?).
Main story flaw is Loomis deciding to not tell the media that Myers is on the loose - this didn't feel consistent with his terror of Myers. I'd love a spin off prequel series about the adventures of Loomis and Myers in the pysch ward!
But it's a very good script - I like Carpenter's writing, it's sparse and lean, lots of one sentence paragraphs, very visual, clear to follow. There's a great opening with a girl being killed and the reveal it's a kid, and we plunge into the action with Michael Myers escaping. The rest of it is hide and seek really, an excuse for virtuosity - but the female characters have some meet on them (Hill's influence?).
Main story flaw is Loomis deciding to not tell the media that Myers is on the loose - this didn't feel consistent with his terror of Myers. I'd love a spin off prequel series about the adventures of Loomis and Myers in the pysch ward!
Script review - "Halloween 2" by Debra Hill and John Carpenter (1981) (warning: spoilers)
An entirely decent sequel script - doesn't break new ground, but delivers the goods. There are some strong ideas, like picking up the action immediately after the end of the previous film, giving Laurie a love interest (Jimmy), the reveal that Laurie is Michael's sister, and having Loomis kill himself at the end to save Laurie. I wish they'd used the Laurie connection more - had, say, Michael's parents still alive, and maybe learned more about Loomis' history with Michael. I also felt they missed an opportunity having the local sheriff (named after Leigh Brackett) learn about the death of his daughter from film one... and then never see him again. Also making Michael into an indestructible monster feels like a cheat.
Thursday, May 04, 2017
Book review - "Roger Corman: Interviews (Conversations with Filmmakers Series)" by Constantine Nasr (2011)
Very good collection of interviews with the great Corman. I particularly enjoyed the earlier ones he did before he'd ossified into this great figure - making movies in his prime. Lots of stuff I didn't know, like his dissatisfaction with John Ireland's direction on Fast and the Furious and disliking working with Edward Small on Tower of London.
The book became less effective as it went on and could have done with an edit to remove repetition - we get too many of the same stories, esp about the 60s (Poe, unhappiness with AIP etc). I would've liked more about the less known Corman stuff i.e. post New World. In fairness, maybe Corman is happier to talk about the 50s through to early 80s than after that. Still a worthy addition to Cormon-ology.
The book became less effective as it went on and could have done with an edit to remove repetition - we get too many of the same stories, esp about the 60s (Poe, unhappiness with AIP etc). I would've liked more about the less known Corman stuff i.e. post New World. In fairness, maybe Corman is happier to talk about the 50s through to early 80s than after that. Still a worthy addition to Cormon-ology.
Script review - "They Live" by Fred Armitage (John Carpenter)
Carpenter's considerable skills as a director and composer have tended to overshadow his gifts as a writer, which are also considerable - this is skilled, lean work, which keeps you turning the page. There's no co writer here so I'm guessing this is more "pure Carpenter" than other stuff he's done.
It's the ramblings of a child of the sixties, mixed up with 50s sci fi like The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers - it's all about the corporations and greed and aliens trying to dull us and "the Man". Some people say it predicts our current climate - it kind of does, only Nada the hero definitely would have voted for Trump. "He tells it like it is".
Good solid structure, very easy to read (lots of one line paragraphs) - very visual. The fight scene is fun to read - Carpenter just writes "fight scene" on several pages and that's it! I wish it was more motivated though - getting Frank to look through glasses doesn't seem enough. Nada does set about shooting people awfully fast.
It's the ramblings of a child of the sixties, mixed up with 50s sci fi like The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers - it's all about the corporations and greed and aliens trying to dull us and "the Man". Some people say it predicts our current climate - it kind of does, only Nada the hero definitely would have voted for Trump. "He tells it like it is".
Good solid structure, very easy to read (lots of one line paragraphs) - very visual. The fight scene is fun to read - Carpenter just writes "fight scene" on several pages and that's it! I wish it was more motivated though - getting Frank to look through glasses doesn't seem enough. Nada does set about shooting people awfully fast.
Tuesday, May 02, 2017
TV review - "The Heavy Water War" (2015) ****
I'd never seen any TV from Norway but this was very enjoyable. It's about the true story of the mission to stop the Germans from developing the atom bomb in Norway - previously dramatised in Heroes of Telemark. This suits TV a lot more than film because the narrative feels more naturally episodic - watching the film I remember it feeling clunky that one minute there's this plane that's crashing, then they attack a dam, then they blow up a boat.
By making it a mini series they're able to focus on specific episodes. So we also get the scientists in Copenhagen (the basis for the Michael Frayn play).
There's some good actors, and tough action, and impressive period detail. It's smart, exciting TV even if the title is daggy. The Anna Friel subplot didn't quite work for me - I didn't buy her character. I don't want to be sexist - I'm sure there were women in secret service - she just felt a bit "TV".
By making it a mini series they're able to focus on specific episodes. So we also get the scientists in Copenhagen (the basis for the Michael Frayn play).
There's some good actors, and tough action, and impressive period detail. It's smart, exciting TV even if the title is daggy. The Anna Friel subplot didn't quite work for me - I didn't buy her character. I don't want to be sexist - I'm sure there were women in secret service - she just felt a bit "TV".
Monday, May 01, 2017
Book review - "Seven Keys to Baldpate" By Earl Derr Biggers
The novel which was later adapted by George Cohan into a popular play, filmed many times. It is very heavy going - not as good as the play - a very hard slog. It's got kind of the same characters and story but the pace is leaden and it's dull.
Movie review - "Contempt" (1963) ** (aka Le Mepris)
Jean Luc Godard is given CinemaScope, colour and big stars - Jack Palance wasn't on the A list at this stage but he was a name and Brigitte Bardot was one of the biggest stars in the world. Not so big was Michel Piccoli, who pops up in all sorts of French movies. He's a writer hired by producer Palance to work on an adaptation of The Odyssey.
He's married to Bardot and the film tells the story of strains in their marriage. Not hard to see why - she's one of the hottest women of the planet and Piccoli is seriously out of her league. Instead of being grateful and taking what he can get, he whinges and worries. She runs off with Palance and both die in a car crash - because the bitch deserved it presumably, proving once again the Godard isn't that radical.
The music score is spectacular - one of the greatest I've ever heard, lush and moving. That carries the film for a long way.
There's an opening shot of Bardot lounging naked in the dark as Piccoli talks to her arse and she collapses out of a few towels. The colour is gorgeous as are the island locations. And Godard is always worth watching for directors because he jazzes things up. But it got on my nerves and dragged.
He's married to Bardot and the film tells the story of strains in their marriage. Not hard to see why - she's one of the hottest women of the planet and Piccoli is seriously out of her league. Instead of being grateful and taking what he can get, he whinges and worries. She runs off with Palance and both die in a car crash - because the bitch deserved it presumably, proving once again the Godard isn't that radical.
The music score is spectacular - one of the greatest I've ever heard, lush and moving. That carries the film for a long way.
There's an opening shot of Bardot lounging naked in the dark as Piccoli talks to her arse and she collapses out of a few towels. The colour is gorgeous as are the island locations. And Godard is always worth watching for directors because he jazzes things up. But it got on my nerves and dragged.
Movie review - "Rogue One" (2016) ****
The first two thirds of this are a little wonky - the film never seems to get in a groove. I mean it's got a bright central idea - about the architect of the Death Star, and his daughter who is used by the rebellion. I liked all the various misfits who get together - the Japanese couple, the hardened rebel officer, etc.
But it never seems to get a fix on the characters - they don't seem to use Felicity Jones' rebelliousness. Also some things felt extraneous - she gets a video from dad and then goes and rescues dad?
But the final act is magnificent - it has integrity, gravitas, and I totally got wrapped up with it. War is serious.
Some random observations:
* didn't feel it was necessary for the rebellion to go "we're not going on the final mission" and then changing their mind;
* the recreation of Peter Cushing worked I felt - but Carrie Fisher felt wrong;
* David Prowse's physical presence was missed.
There's a brilliant "Honest Trailers" on this... "setting up the Stormtroopers' weakness against sticks".
But it never seems to get a fix on the characters - they don't seem to use Felicity Jones' rebelliousness. Also some things felt extraneous - she gets a video from dad and then goes and rescues dad?
But the final act is magnificent - it has integrity, gravitas, and I totally got wrapped up with it. War is serious.
Some random observations:
* didn't feel it was necessary for the rebellion to go "we're not going on the final mission" and then changing their mind;
* the recreation of Peter Cushing worked I felt - but Carrie Fisher felt wrong;
* David Prowse's physical presence was missed.
There's a brilliant "Honest Trailers" on this... "setting up the Stormtroopers' weakness against sticks".
Script review - "The Thing" by Bill Lancaster (1981)
Lancaster's only got three produced credits, but what credits - this, the Bad News Bears and The Bad News Bears in Japan (okay maybe that third isn't so awesome). Why was this so? Was he difficult to deal with? Unlucky? Lazy?
This is a taunt, gripping script - written in a sparse style you often find in Carpenter scripts (I don't know if that decision was from Lancaster independently, it may have been).
It thrusts us into the action straight away, with a dog being pursued by Norwegians in a helicopter, resulting in deaths. Then mysteries result.
This has some stuff that wasn't in the final film - good changes I feel: a sequence where Macready and others go after the thing on snowmobiles and one of them is killed (easily cut, though a decent sequence); a lot more scientific explanation.
The magnificent blood test scene is there. This draft also has what I feel was the main flaw - letting us think Macready might be the Thing, so we lose the audience surrogate. I think it was this rather than the violence and gore which hurt the movie at the box office - we didn't have anyone to relate to. (I could be completely wrong).
I also wish they had found ways to differentiate the characters apart from "black" - had a woman, maybe, or an Asian, or someone with one leg.
But it's a smart, exciting script that I admit to enjoying reading more than the Howard Hawks version.
This is a taunt, gripping script - written in a sparse style you often find in Carpenter scripts (I don't know if that decision was from Lancaster independently, it may have been).
It thrusts us into the action straight away, with a dog being pursued by Norwegians in a helicopter, resulting in deaths. Then mysteries result.
This has some stuff that wasn't in the final film - good changes I feel: a sequence where Macready and others go after the thing on snowmobiles and one of them is killed (easily cut, though a decent sequence); a lot more scientific explanation.
The magnificent blood test scene is there. This draft also has what I feel was the main flaw - letting us think Macready might be the Thing, so we lose the audience surrogate. I think it was this rather than the violence and gore which hurt the movie at the box office - we didn't have anyone to relate to. (I could be completely wrong).
I also wish they had found ways to differentiate the characters apart from "black" - had a woman, maybe, or an Asian, or someone with one leg.
But it's a smart, exciting script that I admit to enjoying reading more than the Howard Hawks version.
Script review - "The Social Network" by Aaron Sorkin (re-reading)
Really beautiful work - perhaps Sorkin's best since The West Wing. This feels like what he was trying to do with The Farnsworth Invention - it's less depressing because here the anti social genius, Zuckerburg, triumps.
Zuckerburg actually comes out of, this pretty well - ruthless to be sure, not very since to his friend, but Eduardo was silly for not reading the contract, and the Winklevoss twins aren't too bright either. Sorkin has sympathy for handsome aristocrats - he's show that in his work before (eg President Bartlett, Sam Seaborne) but he doesn't trash Zuckerburg - he's smart, funny, resourceful.
The film copped it for treatment of women and there are some unfortunate choices - the woman who offers Sean Parker the chance to snort coke of her chest, Eduardo's psycho girlfriend (a completely pointless scene). Was this Fincher's input or Sorkin? Still, a masterpiece.
Zuckerburg actually comes out of, this pretty well - ruthless to be sure, not very since to his friend, but Eduardo was silly for not reading the contract, and the Winklevoss twins aren't too bright either. Sorkin has sympathy for handsome aristocrats - he's show that in his work before (eg President Bartlett, Sam Seaborne) but he doesn't trash Zuckerburg - he's smart, funny, resourceful.
The film copped it for treatment of women and there are some unfortunate choices - the woman who offers Sean Parker the chance to snort coke of her chest, Eduardo's psycho girlfriend (a completely pointless scene). Was this Fincher's input or Sorkin? Still, a masterpiece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)