Crowe has written four classics in his career - Fast Times, this, Jerry Maguire and Almost Famous. This is a lovely simple story - it's just boy meets girl, but all the characters and scenes are fresh. Lloyd Dobler is unique - army brat, kick boxer (put in to make him seem less whimpy?), romantic, best friend with girls, impulsive, passionate. Diane is fantastic - beautiful, a nerd, adores being loved,loyal. The dad is good too - self righteous, loving, good for his old people patients, a crook.
Full of quirky touches, like the lawyers dealing, the relationship between Lloyd's mate Corey and her emotionally abusive ex Joe (I like the songs she sings about him), the school teacher who asks out Diane, the moment Diane realises how much she's missed out at school, the old person's home songs. Lloyd does get a bit "stalk-y" in one or two moments.
A lovely movie.
Friday, October 27, 2017
Movie review - "Dear Murderer" (1947) *** (warning: spoilers)
Enjoyable, unpretentious British thriller, based on a play - one of those plays about upper middle class couples where the man discovers his wife is cheating and plots to get revenge. There were a bunch of these in the 40s and 50s - Obsession, Dial M for Murder, etc. This is a good one.
Eric Portman is ideally cast as the husband, and Greta Gynt (a bit of a British B movie fave) is his wife. It's got some good twists... Portman gets revenge on Denis Price (a lot more effective in small parts like this one than leads) who has been cuckolding him with Gynt, by killing Price and making it look like suicide. Then Portman finds out Gynt dumped Price and has a new bloke, Maxwell Reed... so could get busted for murder... so he tries to pin it on Reed. Only Gynt really loves Reed and Portman really loves Gynt so both are vulnerable.
Reed and Hazel Court have decent looks - neither is called on to do too much. Jack Warner is ideal as the investigating detective.
It's briskly handled and benefits from not trying to make Portman or Gynt likeable. Solid three act entertainment.
Eric Portman is ideally cast as the husband, and Greta Gynt (a bit of a British B movie fave) is his wife. It's got some good twists... Portman gets revenge on Denis Price (a lot more effective in small parts like this one than leads) who has been cuckolding him with Gynt, by killing Price and making it look like suicide. Then Portman finds out Gynt dumped Price and has a new bloke, Maxwell Reed... so could get busted for murder... so he tries to pin it on Reed. Only Gynt really loves Reed and Portman really loves Gynt so both are vulnerable.
Reed and Hazel Court have decent looks - neither is called on to do too much. Jack Warner is ideal as the investigating detective.
It's briskly handled and benefits from not trying to make Portman or Gynt likeable. Solid three act entertainment.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Meeting Tommy Kirk
I met Tommy Kirk today at a Hollywood autograph show. He's no spring chicken, but was still lively and seemed happy to be there. It was $30 to buy one of his photos/posters for him to sign and you could be photographed with him. It was all Disney stuff - Old Yeller, Hardy Boys, Swiss Family Robinson, Merlin Jones - no AIP or his other stuff.
He kindly chatted to me and another fan for a decent period of time. Some random things:
* The film he was proudest of was Swiss Family Robinson.
* He was ashamed of some of his later movies, and wish he hadn't made them. Said he did them for the money and that he made too many films with people who didn't know what they were doing.
* He didn't like It's a Bikini World calling it "shit".
* He had fondness for Pajama Party and Ghost in the Invisible Bikini. He enjoyed working with the talent on those films such as Basil Rathbone. He also didn't mind Village of the Giants.
* He had no interested in writing his life story. I pressed him about this several times but he really didn't want to do it.
* He quoted Wordsworth and Churchill.
* He had no enthusiasm to go back to acting - said he lost the spark. He enjoyed meeting fans, said he had a nice life, was comfortable, had friends, had all his marbles. Was enthusiastic about a new vitamin program he was on.
* When I told him I was from Australia he asked several questions about it. He admired Russell Crowe and the films Priscilla and Crocodile Dundee and wondered if people still had slang terms for grey white sharks. I told him about the outback and crocodile attacks.
* He really liked Jean Hagen although was shocked as a kid to hear her say "move your butt". Had great admiration for Dorothy McGuire. Liked John Mills. Admired Fred MacMurray and was defensive of him when I asked if MacMurray was tight.
* He said his acting school was all the live TV he did especially Matinee Theatre. He enjoyed doing Turn of the Screw with Sarah Churchill.
* He thought the Merlin Jones films were OK but admitted he got sick of wearing a "thing on his head with wires sticking out."
* He wasn't a fan of Savage Sam, thought it wasn't a good film and was insulting to Indians.
*He couldn't remember much about Moon Pilot.
*He spoke very highly of Bill Walsh, calling him a great writer.
He kindly chatted to me and another fan for a decent period of time. Some random things:
* The film he was proudest of was Swiss Family Robinson.
* He was ashamed of some of his later movies, and wish he hadn't made them. Said he did them for the money and that he made too many films with people who didn't know what they were doing.
* He didn't like It's a Bikini World calling it "shit".
* He had fondness for Pajama Party and Ghost in the Invisible Bikini. He enjoyed working with the talent on those films such as Basil Rathbone. He also didn't mind Village of the Giants.
* He had no interested in writing his life story. I pressed him about this several times but he really didn't want to do it.
* He quoted Wordsworth and Churchill.
* He had no enthusiasm to go back to acting - said he lost the spark. He enjoyed meeting fans, said he had a nice life, was comfortable, had friends, had all his marbles. Was enthusiastic about a new vitamin program he was on.
* When I told him I was from Australia he asked several questions about it. He admired Russell Crowe and the films Priscilla and Crocodile Dundee and wondered if people still had slang terms for grey white sharks. I told him about the outback and crocodile attacks.
* He really liked Jean Hagen although was shocked as a kid to hear her say "move your butt". Had great admiration for Dorothy McGuire. Liked John Mills. Admired Fred MacMurray and was defensive of him when I asked if MacMurray was tight.
* He said his acting school was all the live TV he did especially Matinee Theatre. He enjoyed doing Turn of the Screw with Sarah Churchill.
* He thought the Merlin Jones films were OK but admitted he got sick of wearing a "thing on his head with wires sticking out."
* He wasn't a fan of Savage Sam, thought it wasn't a good film and was insulting to Indians.
*He couldn't remember much about Moon Pilot.
*He spoke very highly of Bill Walsh, calling him a great writer.
Friday, October 20, 2017
Movie review - "The Thief Who Came to Dinner" (1973) ** (warning: spoilers)
I get what they were trying to do here - a throwback to those old 1930s movies about gentleman thieves, such as Raffles, the Lone Wolf, the Saint. The casting was ideal in 1973 - Ryan O'Neal as the thief, Jacqueline Bisset as his girl, Warren Oates as the investigator.
There are some good things about it. Bisset is beautiful and stylish, everything you'd want in this sort of movie; O'Neal very pretty too and ideally cast as the 1973 version of Cary Grant; Oates is strong and tenacious; and there's a decent support cast including Jill Clayburgh (lively and disastrously under-used), Ned Beatty and Austin Pendleton (very funny as a chess expert brought in to battle O'Neal's chess moves via the media).
Walter Hill wrote the script and I enjoyed some of what I assume to be his contributions (I could be wrong): the early banter between O'Neal and Bisset; the scene where Bisset and O'Neal are on a date and she challenges him to rob a house; some of the O'Neal-Oates exchanges; some reversals such as O'Neal trying to get away and being run into by a little old lady who apologises and insists on reporting it. This last bit reminded me of the scene in The Getaway where a money exchange is interrupted by a random thief... and now I think of it, the script is reminiscent of The Driver in some ways - the little old lady interruption results in a night time car chase; and the plot has a dogged crook after a super thief, and the super thief seems to know everything the dogged crook is doing.
But I feel the film doesn't work for the following reasons:
* It's not a very attractive film visually. I get why they set it in Houston - all that new oil money, it provides some novelty - but Houston isn't a pretty town, at least not in this film. There's a lot of roads, and car lots and skyscrapers. The clothes aren't that great, the houses not too spectacular. It needed to be shot in say Miami or the south of France or New York. Or at least have better costumes and design.
*O'Neal's character really is a bit of a prick. I don't mind thief heroes who steal off people who deserve to be robbed - evil corporations, banks, Russians, Nazis, mafia, etc. I guess the people he robs in Houston are rich and can afford it - but are they that bad? It couldn't have hurt to show them being fat rich Texans, or greedy thieves themselves. I know that'a s cliche but at least that's more effective emotionally than watching him just steal. This mattered especially towards the end when O'Neal is knocking out/fighting all these security guards - they're just poor blokes on minimum wage trying to do a job, and this spoilt idiot is rendering them unconscious. I felt for Oates, who was honest, worked hard and just wanted to catch the thief.
*The plot involves O'Neal being introduced to Texan high society, but we never see much of that - the "coming to dinner" of the title. Why not have a few scenes and characters that really illustrate it. It's kind of there but it's all a bit half hearted.
*After a strong start the film gets repetitive and monotonous. Bisset has this sexy, glamorous introduction - looking fantastic and bantering with O'Neal. Then after they hook up she just becomes his girlfriend, useful mainly for the purposes of exposition. I kept waiting for her to do something - betray him, be revealed to be a thief, die, get arrested, something. I guess she helps him escape at the end but that's it. Such a waste.
* Also wasted is Jill Clayburgh who plays O'Neal's ex. She turns up, Oates interrogates her, you think "oh she'll complicate things". But no. I think she's just in there to flesh out some background and underline that O'Neal is irresistible (she makes a move on him). Bisset gets a little jealous but that's it. She's not a rival, a threat, someone to drive the action... you could have cut her out of the whole film.
* I was confused by the ending. Oates busts O'Neal picking up a chess set - that should be evidence enough to convict O'Neal. Right? Then Oates lets O'Neal go because...? I wasn't sure.
It's not a very good movie.
There are some good things about it. Bisset is beautiful and stylish, everything you'd want in this sort of movie; O'Neal very pretty too and ideally cast as the 1973 version of Cary Grant; Oates is strong and tenacious; and there's a decent support cast including Jill Clayburgh (lively and disastrously under-used), Ned Beatty and Austin Pendleton (very funny as a chess expert brought in to battle O'Neal's chess moves via the media).
Walter Hill wrote the script and I enjoyed some of what I assume to be his contributions (I could be wrong): the early banter between O'Neal and Bisset; the scene where Bisset and O'Neal are on a date and she challenges him to rob a house; some of the O'Neal-Oates exchanges; some reversals such as O'Neal trying to get away and being run into by a little old lady who apologises and insists on reporting it. This last bit reminded me of the scene in The Getaway where a money exchange is interrupted by a random thief... and now I think of it, the script is reminiscent of The Driver in some ways - the little old lady interruption results in a night time car chase; and the plot has a dogged crook after a super thief, and the super thief seems to know everything the dogged crook is doing.
But I feel the film doesn't work for the following reasons:
* It's not a very attractive film visually. I get why they set it in Houston - all that new oil money, it provides some novelty - but Houston isn't a pretty town, at least not in this film. There's a lot of roads, and car lots and skyscrapers. The clothes aren't that great, the houses not too spectacular. It needed to be shot in say Miami or the south of France or New York. Or at least have better costumes and design.
*O'Neal's character really is a bit of a prick. I don't mind thief heroes who steal off people who deserve to be robbed - evil corporations, banks, Russians, Nazis, mafia, etc. I guess the people he robs in Houston are rich and can afford it - but are they that bad? It couldn't have hurt to show them being fat rich Texans, or greedy thieves themselves. I know that'a s cliche but at least that's more effective emotionally than watching him just steal. This mattered especially towards the end when O'Neal is knocking out/fighting all these security guards - they're just poor blokes on minimum wage trying to do a job, and this spoilt idiot is rendering them unconscious. I felt for Oates, who was honest, worked hard and just wanted to catch the thief.
*The plot involves O'Neal being introduced to Texan high society, but we never see much of that - the "coming to dinner" of the title. Why not have a few scenes and characters that really illustrate it. It's kind of there but it's all a bit half hearted.
*After a strong start the film gets repetitive and monotonous. Bisset has this sexy, glamorous introduction - looking fantastic and bantering with O'Neal. Then after they hook up she just becomes his girlfriend, useful mainly for the purposes of exposition. I kept waiting for her to do something - betray him, be revealed to be a thief, die, get arrested, something. I guess she helps him escape at the end but that's it. Such a waste.
* Also wasted is Jill Clayburgh who plays O'Neal's ex. She turns up, Oates interrogates her, you think "oh she'll complicate things". But no. I think she's just in there to flesh out some background and underline that O'Neal is irresistible (she makes a move on him). Bisset gets a little jealous but that's it. She's not a rival, a threat, someone to drive the action... you could have cut her out of the whole film.
* I was confused by the ending. Oates busts O'Neal picking up a chess set - that should be evidence enough to convict O'Neal. Right? Then Oates lets O'Neal go because...? I wasn't sure.
It's not a very good movie.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Movie review - "Limehouse Blues" (1934) ** (warning: spoilers)
George Raft is running a nightclub, doing dance numbers, involved in crime, has a slinky moll but pines over a classy dame, fighting police and rivals.
The difference here is Raft plays a half-Chinese and he works in the Limehouse District in London. This doesn't feel terribly English, or Chinese, to put it politely, but it does give the film some novelty.
The running time is 65 minutes. I don't mind a short film but this felt too short with far too many undercooked moments. I wanted to see more of Anna May Wong, who plays Raft's jealous lover - they do a dance together. I felt Raft's character needed a criminal rival. The police after him are hardly in it and probably could have been more of a presence. Also the romance between Jean Parker (who Raft loves) and dull Kent Smith is far too rushed; they fall in love in five seconds.
Apart from being, well, white, Raft's role suits his character - he's ruthless, romantic, can dance, and goes down because of the love of a good woman (he gets shot at the end trying to save Smith from a trap he initiated). I had more sympathy for him and Wong than Parker and especially Smith. Parker at least had an interesting criminal background; Smith is just boring.
The film does have that obsession with race and fear of miscegenation very common of the time. Liable to upset some viewers; best appreciated as a museum piece or for Raft/Anna May Wong completists.
The difference here is Raft plays a half-Chinese and he works in the Limehouse District in London. This doesn't feel terribly English, or Chinese, to put it politely, but it does give the film some novelty.
The running time is 65 minutes. I don't mind a short film but this felt too short with far too many undercooked moments. I wanted to see more of Anna May Wong, who plays Raft's jealous lover - they do a dance together. I felt Raft's character needed a criminal rival. The police after him are hardly in it and probably could have been more of a presence. Also the romance between Jean Parker (who Raft loves) and dull Kent Smith is far too rushed; they fall in love in five seconds.
Apart from being, well, white, Raft's role suits his character - he's ruthless, romantic, can dance, and goes down because of the love of a good woman (he gets shot at the end trying to save Smith from a trap he initiated). I had more sympathy for him and Wong than Parker and especially Smith. Parker at least had an interesting criminal background; Smith is just boring.
The film does have that obsession with race and fear of miscegenation very common of the time. Liable to upset some viewers; best appreciated as a museum piece or for Raft/Anna May Wong completists.
Movie review - "War of the Wildcats" (1943) **1/2 (aka "In Old Oklahoma")
Part of John Wayne's appeal was that men liked him but many of the films he made were romances, where he often battled wills against a feisty dame.
Here the dame is Martha Scott who has a decent character to play - she's a teacher run out of town for writing a romance novel who wants to see the world. That's a fantastic set up. The film doesn't really develop it in an interesting way - or maybe I was biased because I wasn't a fan of Scott, who seemed to yell a lot. She also got shunted out of the action in the second half. However it is a better role than would be found in many John Wayne periods - two of the writers were women.
Albert Dekker isn't really good looking enough for his role since he has to be a romantic rival with Wayne for Scott. However he's a strong actor at least and is a formidable opponent. Although, why have the final fist fight off screen?
The support cast includes Gabby Hayes and Dale Evans (who would be Roy Rogers' partner). There's also Sidney Blackmer, playing President Teddy Roosevelt - who rode with Wayne in the Rough Riders (a good idea for a film).
On that Roosevelt note, this isn't a Western per se - it's set in 1906, during the oil boom. There are horses and Indians (getting kicked off their land for oil) and shoot outs but also oil.
Plenty of production value and pace. They didn't quite get the script and the cast right for me.
Here the dame is Martha Scott who has a decent character to play - she's a teacher run out of town for writing a romance novel who wants to see the world. That's a fantastic set up. The film doesn't really develop it in an interesting way - or maybe I was biased because I wasn't a fan of Scott, who seemed to yell a lot. She also got shunted out of the action in the second half. However it is a better role than would be found in many John Wayne periods - two of the writers were women.
Albert Dekker isn't really good looking enough for his role since he has to be a romantic rival with Wayne for Scott. However he's a strong actor at least and is a formidable opponent. Although, why have the final fist fight off screen?
The support cast includes Gabby Hayes and Dale Evans (who would be Roy Rogers' partner). There's also Sidney Blackmer, playing President Teddy Roosevelt - who rode with Wayne in the Rough Riders (a good idea for a film).
On that Roosevelt note, this isn't a Western per se - it's set in 1906, during the oil boom. There are horses and Indians (getting kicked off their land for oil) and shoot outs but also oil.
Plenty of production value and pace. They didn't quite get the script and the cast right for me.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Movie review - "Flame of the Barbary Coast" (1945) **1/2
John Wayne and Ann Dvorak aren't one of the legendary teams of cinema- Wayne and Marlene Dietrich are, and that's who I assume Republic wanted for this movie. Wayne's a cowboy who winds up in Old San Francisco and falls for singer Dvorak; he gets ripped off by gambler Joseph Schildkraut then goes off, learns to gamble, and comes back to get revenge.
So it's part-cowboy movie part-20th Century Fox nostalgia musical - more of the latter really with Wayne using poker games instead of gunfights.
This really lacks colour and needed a few more songs and a proper musical star like Betty Grable or June Haver. Or maybe I'm just not used to Dvorak - she's got an enjoyable insolent quality and is refreshingly independent.
It's cheerful and lively - Joseph Kane does a decent job as director and Schildkraut is an effective villain. Borden Chase wrote the script.
So it's part-cowboy movie part-20th Century Fox nostalgia musical - more of the latter really with Wayne using poker games instead of gunfights.
This really lacks colour and needed a few more songs and a proper musical star like Betty Grable or June Haver. Or maybe I'm just not used to Dvorak - she's got an enjoyable insolent quality and is refreshingly independent.
It's cheerful and lively - Joseph Kane does a decent job as director and Schildkraut is an effective villain. Borden Chase wrote the script.
Saturday, October 14, 2017
Book review - "Maximinus Thrax:From Common Soldier to Emperor of Rome" By Paul N Pearson
Brilliant book on one of Rome's most colourful emperors, the eight foot barbarian Maximus Thrax, who worked his way up from being a common soldier to the most powerful man in the world. It's a great hero's journey only Maximinus isn't really a hero - he was kind of a dictator who killed a bunch of innocent people.
Like all Emperors I guess... only Maximinus annoyed the Senate of Rome so much they rose up against him, in a terrifically exciting campaign as described by Herodian, where the people of Aquiela fought him off in a siege that resulted in his own troops killing him.
It didn't help Rome in the long run. It's an interesting "what if" - what if Thrax had survived; he was s superb fighter and could have stabilised the Empire. But maybe he wasn't a good enough politician. Knocking off Alexander Severus didn't really help.
Pearson does a great job, contextualising the Empire and Thrax's life, pointing out he likely suffered acromegaly. He's sympathetic to the Emperor, arguing many others did worse and noting his battlefield achievements. Certainly his successors didn't make a go of it being unable to work as a team.
Pearson also talks about Thrax's cultural impact - plays on the Siege of Aquilena, and Gladiator, as well as Nazi's who were convinced he was a German. A terrific book - definitive, easily.
Like all Emperors I guess... only Maximinus annoyed the Senate of Rome so much they rose up against him, in a terrifically exciting campaign as described by Herodian, where the people of Aquiela fought him off in a siege that resulted in his own troops killing him.
It didn't help Rome in the long run. It's an interesting "what if" - what if Thrax had survived; he was s superb fighter and could have stabilised the Empire. But maybe he wasn't a good enough politician. Knocking off Alexander Severus didn't really help.
Pearson does a great job, contextualising the Empire and Thrax's life, pointing out he likely suffered acromegaly. He's sympathetic to the Emperor, arguing many others did worse and noting his battlefield achievements. Certainly his successors didn't make a go of it being unable to work as a team.
Pearson also talks about Thrax's cultural impact - plays on the Siege of Aquilena, and Gladiator, as well as Nazi's who were convinced he was a German. A terrific book - definitive, easily.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Movie review - "The Driver" (1978) (rewatching) ****
Some random thoughts:
* I enjoyed this a lot more on second viewing, on the big screen at the Egyptian - it helped seeing it in a packed cinema with enthusiastic fans.
* Ryan O'Neal is very good - it takes a while to get used to Mr Handsome in an action film but it helped viewing the film a second time, when I was used to him - he had the right level of determination and aloofness - there's not a lot of fire and tension in the performance, but it is effective.
* Isabelle Adjani isn't so great - she looks the part, but struggles with her words.
* Bruce Dern is a lot of fun - now I've read his memoir I can't look at him without thinking of him jogging to and from set.
* Ronee Blakely is extremely effective and her death scene is the best bit in the film because it's so shocking.
* I got confused by some of the story... Dern gets a gang to hire O'Neal so he can bust O'Neal... but O'Neal turns down the gang... then Dern talks to O'Neal, and O'Neal takes the job, is that right? I feel this confusion, in addition to O'Neal's casting, is what contributed to the film's underwhelming performance at the US box office.
* alternate castings that would've worked in this film... (this is a game I like to play) - well, McQueen and Bronson turned it down, and I can't see Pacino, Beatty, Hoffman or Nicholson do it - Burt Reynolds too jokey (but you know something, he would've worked). Paul Newman might have done it because it involved cars. Eastwood. Sean Connery. Hackman.
*Last car chase especially outstanding.
*I feel Hill's direction may not have been sufficiently stylised. Needed more music and artiness, to go with the story. I feel he fixed this on The Warriors.
* I enjoyed this a lot more on second viewing, on the big screen at the Egyptian - it helped seeing it in a packed cinema with enthusiastic fans.
* Ryan O'Neal is very good - it takes a while to get used to Mr Handsome in an action film but it helped viewing the film a second time, when I was used to him - he had the right level of determination and aloofness - there's not a lot of fire and tension in the performance, but it is effective.
* Isabelle Adjani isn't so great - she looks the part, but struggles with her words.
* Bruce Dern is a lot of fun - now I've read his memoir I can't look at him without thinking of him jogging to and from set.
* Ronee Blakely is extremely effective and her death scene is the best bit in the film because it's so shocking.
* I got confused by some of the story... Dern gets a gang to hire O'Neal so he can bust O'Neal... but O'Neal turns down the gang... then Dern talks to O'Neal, and O'Neal takes the job, is that right? I feel this confusion, in addition to O'Neal's casting, is what contributed to the film's underwhelming performance at the US box office.
* alternate castings that would've worked in this film... (this is a game I like to play) - well, McQueen and Bronson turned it down, and I can't see Pacino, Beatty, Hoffman or Nicholson do it - Burt Reynolds too jokey (but you know something, he would've worked). Paul Newman might have done it because it involved cars. Eastwood. Sean Connery. Hackman.
*Last car chase especially outstanding.
*I feel Hill's direction may not have been sufficiently stylised. Needed more music and artiness, to go with the story. I feel he fixed this on The Warriors.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Movie review - "Baby Driver" (2017) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Joyous, sharp, and full of life. It's well cast, and Ansel Elgort anchors things well, which is important. The character does a lot of dodgy stuff but you can't help feel sympathy for him with his ear condition and dead mother. He and Lily James are sweet.
I felt structurally maybe the film shouldn't have had Elgort get off the hook with Spacey, hang around with James for ten minutes, then get put back on the hook - it was a release of tension. Also Jon Hamm continually coming back to life at the end like a super villain got a bit wearisome.
But I liked what Kevin Spacey's character did at the end, and I liked how he went to prison. Walter Hill provides a voice cameo at the end, in the trial!
I felt structurally maybe the film shouldn't have had Elgort get off the hook with Spacey, hang around with James for ten minutes, then get put back on the hook - it was a release of tension. Also Jon Hamm continually coming back to life at the end like a super villain got a bit wearisome.
But I liked what Kevin Spacey's character did at the end, and I liked how he went to prison. Walter Hill provides a voice cameo at the end, in the trial!
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Movie review - "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" (2016) **1/2
This starts off pretty well - I enjoy the brooding Zak Snyder world and the booming Hans Zimmer score. Ben Affleck is a strong Bruce Wayne/Batman, helped by greying temples and the fact you believe he's (a) tormented (b) rich (c) a bit crazy.
The Honest Trailers version of this summed up the film better than I could - it's a good Batman film, a confusing Superman film, which features some really cool action sequences and goes on far too long. There's not enough Batman vs Superman - the conflict it set up quite well, from Batman's POV anyway, you can understand why Batman distrusts Superman. It's a bit wobbly why Superman doesn't like him, and Lex Luthor's plan is super confusing. The dispute is resolved in a famously unconvincing bit of business.
The appearance of Wonder Woman and cameos from Acquaman and the Flash were a little bit enjoyable but I get the feeling the film might've been better off without them because it felt overloaded. The last third was very loud and noisy.
It's always nice to see Oscar winners sparking up a comic book movie - Holly Hunter, Jeremy Irons - though also depressing because you know it means they don't have any other gigs going. Gal Gadot impresses as Wonder Woman but Henry Cavill really isn't killing it as Superman.
The Honest Trailers version of this summed up the film better than I could - it's a good Batman film, a confusing Superman film, which features some really cool action sequences and goes on far too long. There's not enough Batman vs Superman - the conflict it set up quite well, from Batman's POV anyway, you can understand why Batman distrusts Superman. It's a bit wobbly why Superman doesn't like him, and Lex Luthor's plan is super confusing. The dispute is resolved in a famously unconvincing bit of business.
The appearance of Wonder Woman and cameos from Acquaman and the Flash were a little bit enjoyable but I get the feeling the film might've been better off without them because it felt overloaded. The last third was very loud and noisy.
It's always nice to see Oscar winners sparking up a comic book movie - Holly Hunter, Jeremy Irons - though also depressing because you know it means they don't have any other gigs going. Gal Gadot impresses as Wonder Woman but Henry Cavill really isn't killing it as Superman.
Movie review - "Dark Command" (1940) ***
After Stagecoach John Wayne and Claire Trevor made a few films together, of which this is one. It's made for Republic, and directed by Raoul Walsh - who made surprisingly few films with Wayne.
Republic took out the cheque book for this one - they borrowed Walter Pidgeon from MGM, have Gabby Hayes and Roy Rogers no less in the support cast (Rogers is quite good), the source material comes from a novel by W R Burnett, there are plenty of extras.
It's a good story, helped by an action packed background - bleeding Kansas before and during the war. John Wayne comes to town and becomes a sheriff; he's Union leading, he falls for Claire Trevor whose brother Rogers likes Wayne but is Confederate leaning. Pidgeon loves Trevor and goes around robbing people secretly, which upsets his mum Marjorie Main.
It's all good melodramatic stuff and I actually wasn't sure how it would end. There's an attack on Lawrence based on the Lawrence Massacre but it's so fictionalised (Wayne gets there in time to warn people, the people fight back, no kids are mown down) that it doesn't matter. Needless to say, there's not one black face in the film.
Wayne is warm and engaging and spars well with Trevor. Its fun to see Pidgeon in a villainous role, there's plenty of action, Walsh keeps things moving fast.
Republic took out the cheque book for this one - they borrowed Walter Pidgeon from MGM, have Gabby Hayes and Roy Rogers no less in the support cast (Rogers is quite good), the source material comes from a novel by W R Burnett, there are plenty of extras.
It's a good story, helped by an action packed background - bleeding Kansas before and during the war. John Wayne comes to town and becomes a sheriff; he's Union leading, he falls for Claire Trevor whose brother Rogers likes Wayne but is Confederate leaning. Pidgeon loves Trevor and goes around robbing people secretly, which upsets his mum Marjorie Main.
It's all good melodramatic stuff and I actually wasn't sure how it would end. There's an attack on Lawrence based on the Lawrence Massacre but it's so fictionalised (Wayne gets there in time to warn people, the people fight back, no kids are mown down) that it doesn't matter. Needless to say, there's not one black face in the film.
Wayne is warm and engaging and spars well with Trevor. Its fun to see Pidgeon in a villainous role, there's plenty of action, Walsh keeps things moving fast.
Saturday, October 07, 2017
Book review - "Portugal's Guerrilla Wars in Africa: Lisbon's Three Wars in Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese Guinea 1961-74" by Al Venter
I got this because I didn't know much about Portugal's guerrilla wars in Africa. I've read bits about it - the occasional Portuguese veteran pops up in an action novel, in the battle of Rhodesia the fall of Portugal colonialism was a big deal.
Venter's spent a lot of time in Africa and knows the word. It's an interesting structured book - it feels as though it ambles a long a bit; it doesn't try to be a definitive account of the war or anything, which I admit frustrated me because I only wanted to read one book on this topic.
It's a depressing book because the wars went on for over a decade, and lots of people died (innocent locals more than Portuguese) and bankrupted Portugal, and resulted in dictatorships coming in. There was a lot to admire about the way Portugal ran their countries - the color bar didn't see to be as strong - but the countries weren't particularly well developed; they didn't leave much of an administrative or democratic legacy.
The three fields of war were very different. Mozambique was badly run - the general seems to have been an idiot, frustrating the Rhodesians. Portuguese Guinea was tough and primitive and based in water. The war in Angola was actually won.
In hindsight the Portuguese were clearly over-stretched, fighting wars in three different areas. An interesting "what if"... what if they'd abandoned Portuguese Guinea and Mozambique and focused all there energies on Angola, which bordered South Africa? They might have held it. Still, I imagine the decision was too ruthless for the colonial office to take.
Venter's spent a lot of time in Africa and knows the word. It's an interesting structured book - it feels as though it ambles a long a bit; it doesn't try to be a definitive account of the war or anything, which I admit frustrated me because I only wanted to read one book on this topic.
It's a depressing book because the wars went on for over a decade, and lots of people died (innocent locals more than Portuguese) and bankrupted Portugal, and resulted in dictatorships coming in. There was a lot to admire about the way Portugal ran their countries - the color bar didn't see to be as strong - but the countries weren't particularly well developed; they didn't leave much of an administrative or democratic legacy.
The three fields of war were very different. Mozambique was badly run - the general seems to have been an idiot, frustrating the Rhodesians. Portuguese Guinea was tough and primitive and based in water. The war in Angola was actually won.
In hindsight the Portuguese were clearly over-stretched, fighting wars in three different areas. An interesting "what if"... what if they'd abandoned Portuguese Guinea and Mozambique and focused all there energies on Angola, which bordered South Africa? They might have held it. Still, I imagine the decision was too ruthless for the colonial office to take.
Movie review - "Seven Sinners" (1940) ***
Marlene Dietrich's career revived with Destry Rides Again so Universal whipped up this follow up, which uses many of the same elements, and mixes it in with Sadie Thompson. She's a singer who travels through the South Seas, getting kicked out of various islands for causing brawls, which is a funny concept. She lands on one island and falls for naval officer John Wayne.
Wayne and Dietrich work well together - they had an affair in real life and their chemistry is evident: she with her exotic looks and warm nature, and he this big handsome lug. They seem to genuinely like each other as well as finding each other attractive.
The other strength of this film is the support cast - Dietrich has these offsiders including dopey Broderick Crawford, doctor Albert Dekker, and pickpocket Mischa Auer.
There's a horrible scene were Crawford slaps Dietrich around to dissuade her from marrying Wayne - and the film seems to support that position. It's not exactly strong on plot either - it's mostly men falling for Dietrich, with Oscar Homolka being a bit too stalker-y.
There's several brawls and songs. I'm a sucker for stories set in the South Seas, and it has the breezy charm of many medium budget films Wayne starred in during that decade between Stagecoach and Red River.
Wayne and Dietrich work well together - they had an affair in real life and their chemistry is evident: she with her exotic looks and warm nature, and he this big handsome lug. They seem to genuinely like each other as well as finding each other attractive.
The other strength of this film is the support cast - Dietrich has these offsiders including dopey Broderick Crawford, doctor Albert Dekker, and pickpocket Mischa Auer.
There's a horrible scene were Crawford slaps Dietrich around to dissuade her from marrying Wayne - and the film seems to support that position. It's not exactly strong on plot either - it's mostly men falling for Dietrich, with Oscar Homolka being a bit too stalker-y.
There's several brawls and songs. I'm a sucker for stories set in the South Seas, and it has the breezy charm of many medium budget films Wayne starred in during that decade between Stagecoach and Red River.
Friday, October 06, 2017
Movie review - "Diabolically Yours" (1967) ** (warning: spoilers)
The last film of Julien Duvivier, this was a flop despite the presence of Alain Delon and Santa Berger in the leads, and a decent idea: Delon wakes up with amnesia, with a lot of money and a hot wife and begins to suspect that he isn't who they say he is.
There's a few familiar tropes - urst with the wife, turbulent dreams, a dodgy butler. It isn't done particularly well. Delon and Berger look attractive; Berges always about to have a shower or getting a massage.
It lacks a bit of oomph and some decent twists. It's got the story elements of say something like Scent of Fear but none of the spookiness, psycho drama or "oh my god" moments. I have trouble remembering scenes from it and I saw it not that long ago.
There's a few familiar tropes - urst with the wife, turbulent dreams, a dodgy butler. It isn't done particularly well. Delon and Berger look attractive; Berges always about to have a shower or getting a massage.
It lacks a bit of oomph and some decent twists. It's got the story elements of say something like Scent of Fear but none of the spookiness, psycho drama or "oh my god" moments. I have trouble remembering scenes from it and I saw it not that long ago.
Thursday, October 05, 2017
Book review - "Roadshow! The Fall of Film Musicals in the 1960s" by Matthew Kennedy (2014)
Very good look at the explosions in big budget musicals that followed the success of Sound of Music. The big ones get their own chapter - there were genuine successes like Thoroughly Modern Millie, Oliver! Funny Girl, Fiddler on the Roof, Jesus Christ Superstar and Cabaret; half successes like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and On a Clear Day You Can See Forever; films that were okay but lost huge amounts of money: Half a Sixpence, Camelot, Dr Doolittle, Hello Dolly; films few people remember, like Song of Norway, The Happiest Millionaire, The Great Waltz or Goodbye Mr Chips; surprise flops like Sweet Charity; legendary money losers like Paint Your Wagon, Star!, Man of La Mancha and Darling Lili; surprisingly profitable enterprises like Finian's Rainbow and Son of Norway.
My take out from reading this book:
*Musicals have never stopped being popular. They've never stopped being popular on Broadway and came back in a big way in the animated world. Many of the notorious flops in the book were among the years biggest films eg Camelot. But...
*Musicals need to be made for a price. It's astonishing how needlessly expensive many of these films were. Camelot is basically three people in a castle. Darling Lili is two people, one of whom performs occasionally in a music hall. Goodbye Mr Chips is about a man who teaches at school. But they cost too much money to ever have a real chance of being profitable. Sometimes the film's over production made it less enjoyable eg Hello Dolly, Paint Your Wagon. Part of this is because musicians and technicians used to be under contract and now they aren't... but I think also these filmmakers got panicky and threw money at problems, hoping spectacle would save them.
*Musicals need to be cast well. I don't want to be wise after the event - but the leads of musicals should be able to sing, and suit the parts. Audiences don't mind if they're not film stars - look at the acceptance of Ted Neely, Topol, Mark Lester. Absolutely it won't always work - the public didn't go to see Robert Morse reprise his role in How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying, for instance. But if you can't get a movie star who suits the part, then cast the Broadway star. There were so many better suited Hollys than Barbra Streisand; the leads in Paint Your Wagon were ridiculous, ditto Redgrave and Franco Nero in Camelot and Man of La Mancha.
*What was really killed in the late 60s was the teen musical - the unpretentious programmer, like the Donald O'Connor musicals of the 40s for Universal, or Elvis' musicals, or the Beach Party films. These seemed to dry up despite the glorious music of the time - even in the early 1960s Hollywood studios would sign up teen idols but this seemed to stop. In particular I can't believe there weren't more blaxploitation musicals.
*These roadshows I feel definitely scared off big screen adaptations that should have happened by now. I get why no one's tried to film Oh Calcutta! But it's a shame there hasn't been films of Wicked, 42nd Street (the newer version), The Book of Mormon, Avenue Q, La Cage Aux Folles, Spamalot, Matilda, Promises Promises, They're Playing Our Song, Into the Heights.
An entertaining book, full of fun anecdotes and interesting analysis.
My take out from reading this book:
*Musicals have never stopped being popular. They've never stopped being popular on Broadway and came back in a big way in the animated world. Many of the notorious flops in the book were among the years biggest films eg Camelot. But...
*Musicals need to be made for a price. It's astonishing how needlessly expensive many of these films were. Camelot is basically three people in a castle. Darling Lili is two people, one of whom performs occasionally in a music hall. Goodbye Mr Chips is about a man who teaches at school. But they cost too much money to ever have a real chance of being profitable. Sometimes the film's over production made it less enjoyable eg Hello Dolly, Paint Your Wagon. Part of this is because musicians and technicians used to be under contract and now they aren't... but I think also these filmmakers got panicky and threw money at problems, hoping spectacle would save them.
*Musicals need to be cast well. I don't want to be wise after the event - but the leads of musicals should be able to sing, and suit the parts. Audiences don't mind if they're not film stars - look at the acceptance of Ted Neely, Topol, Mark Lester. Absolutely it won't always work - the public didn't go to see Robert Morse reprise his role in How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying, for instance. But if you can't get a movie star who suits the part, then cast the Broadway star. There were so many better suited Hollys than Barbra Streisand; the leads in Paint Your Wagon were ridiculous, ditto Redgrave and Franco Nero in Camelot and Man of La Mancha.
*What was really killed in the late 60s was the teen musical - the unpretentious programmer, like the Donald O'Connor musicals of the 40s for Universal, or Elvis' musicals, or the Beach Party films. These seemed to dry up despite the glorious music of the time - even in the early 1960s Hollywood studios would sign up teen idols but this seemed to stop. In particular I can't believe there weren't more blaxploitation musicals.
*These roadshows I feel definitely scared off big screen adaptations that should have happened by now. I get why no one's tried to film Oh Calcutta! But it's a shame there hasn't been films of Wicked, 42nd Street (the newer version), The Book of Mormon, Avenue Q, La Cage Aux Folles, Spamalot, Matilda, Promises Promises, They're Playing Our Song, Into the Heights.
An entertaining book, full of fun anecdotes and interesting analysis.
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Movie review - "Bride of the Gorilla" (1951) **
I was prompted to re-watch this after reading Tom Weaver's book on the film. It's engaging and silly and not that good but the basic story is fine and the cast a delight. Raymond Burr is very good in the Lon Chaney Jnr type part as a sweaty plantation foreman in love with the boss' wife (Barbara Payton) - shades of The Letter. He kills the boss then starts turning into a creature.
Payton isn't very good - she's pretty and has a knockout figure but her eyes are dead. She never seems committed to a scene or the moment - I don't think she was that into acting, more her personal life. She does have a nice romantic scene with Burr.
Lon Chaney Jnr is on hand to play a local policeman and Tom Conway is lots of fun as a doctor. The movie lacks sympathetic characters that were so prevalent in The Wolf Man - that had Chaney, Evelyn Ankers and Claude Rains. This has murderer Burr, cheating Payton, sweaty Chaney.
We also don't get much killer animal stuff. A few scenes, but not a lot. Still, it's fun, unpretentious stuff.
Payton isn't very good - she's pretty and has a knockout figure but her eyes are dead. She never seems committed to a scene or the moment - I don't think she was that into acting, more her personal life. She does have a nice romantic scene with Burr.
Lon Chaney Jnr is on hand to play a local policeman and Tom Conway is lots of fun as a doctor. The movie lacks sympathetic characters that were so prevalent in The Wolf Man - that had Chaney, Evelyn Ankers and Claude Rains. This has murderer Burr, cheating Payton, sweaty Chaney.
We also don't get much killer animal stuff. A few scenes, but not a lot. Still, it's fun, unpretentious stuff.
Monday, October 02, 2017
Script review - "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" by William Goldman
I've read an awful lot about this script, in part because Goldman often refers to it - it's got his idea character intros, and ending, and was so successful.
It's weird to read it - there's a lot of empty spaces and the script clocks in at over 180 pages. It's got a wonderful central relationship, a bromance, with the girl in there as well but the boys are into each other more than her. Full of casual, witty by play.
It does go on a long and there's lots of bits that aren't so great - endless chase scenes, hanging out at a brothel; even the South American sojourn was longer than I remembered; the bifocals line.
But the classic bits remain strong: the intro, meeting Sundance, the kick in the balls; the robberies; the finale; Etta leaving. I think I prefer All the President's Man for Goldman's screenplays but this is very good.
It's weird to read it - there's a lot of empty spaces and the script clocks in at over 180 pages. It's got a wonderful central relationship, a bromance, with the girl in there as well but the boys are into each other more than her. Full of casual, witty by play.
It does go on a long and there's lots of bits that aren't so great - endless chase scenes, hanging out at a brothel; even the South American sojourn was longer than I remembered; the bifocals line.
But the classic bits remain strong: the intro, meeting Sundance, the kick in the balls; the robberies; the finale; Etta leaving. I think I prefer All the President's Man for Goldman's screenplays but this is very good.
Book review - "Bride of the Gorilla" by Tom Weaver
No one really likes(d) Bride of the Monster, not even the people who made it or John Landis who did the introduction to this book or even Tom Weaver who wrote this book. But it's such an engagingly silly piece it's hard not to feel some affection for it - at least, for those who like gorilla movies.
It was written and directed by Curt Siodmak, a major writer of horror films whose reputation as director is much less imposing. It has in interesting cast including Raymond Burr, Barbara Payton, Tom Conway, Woody Strode and Lon Chaney Jnr. It's also got a decent story which as Weaver points out is like an early draft of The Wolf Man.
This book packs a lot in for a slight movie - there's an account of the making, of course, and reviews etc... but also the script, a detailed look at the music, an account of the final days of Siodmak (the world of horror fans can be catty!), an interview with Tom Neal's son, a look at the life of Chaney, and much more.
The one debit of the book for me was Weaver make the occasional cheap crack at Payton, which felt mean. But the book was a lot of fun.
It was written and directed by Curt Siodmak, a major writer of horror films whose reputation as director is much less imposing. It has in interesting cast including Raymond Burr, Barbara Payton, Tom Conway, Woody Strode and Lon Chaney Jnr. It's also got a decent story which as Weaver points out is like an early draft of The Wolf Man.
This book packs a lot in for a slight movie - there's an account of the making, of course, and reviews etc... but also the script, a detailed look at the music, an account of the final days of Siodmak (the world of horror fans can be catty!), an interview with Tom Neal's son, a look at the life of Chaney, and much more.
The one debit of the book for me was Weaver make the occasional cheap crack at Payton, which felt mean. But the book was a lot of fun.
Movie review - "The Secret Place" (1956) ** (warning: spoilers)
Clive Donner's debut feature also gave early leading roles to Belinda Lee, David McCallum and Roland Lewis. They're all quite good actually.
Rank Films had this reputation for old fashioned movies but this is quite snazzy and hip, starting with it's rock and roll song over the title credits. And the cast's performances are young and method-y especially David McCallum as a young teen. I think it helps that Donner was so young - he doesn't look down on his characters.
The story falls into that crime film sub-genre - the one where the protagonist is an adoring younger boy. This had a vogue in British cinema of the time with The Fallen Idol, Hunted, The Kidnappers, Moonfleet.
Here the boy has a crush on Belinda Lee, very good - but she plays the criminal's girlfriend, which means her link to the crime is more tenuous. I wish she'd gotten to take part in the heist herself. Lewis is effective in a villainous part. I'm surprised McCallum's role wasn't bigger.
As the film goes on it gets less interesting. The gang are constantly thwarted in their efforts to get the diamonds - things keep happening. I couldn't put my finger on it why this wasn't working for me - maybe it was the lack of a new element or development in what was going on. I guess the kid finds out the girl knows crooks - but that didn't feel very strong. I wasn't sure what happened to Lewis' character or Lee's a the end - or even the kid.
Still, worth watching.
Clive Donner interview side 7 here says Donner was an editor but he wanted to direct. He was going to Group Three but John Davis offered him a contract. Donner wanted to make Room at the Top but Rank refused bc they didn't like the book. He pitched Secret Place, liked that, and that was approved. Donner called the film a mixture of Pinewood establishment solid movie making and something that was fresher and newer and freer and dealing with ordinary people. He called it "an emotional thriller".
Donner in interview side 8 wanted to cast a cockney girl but Davis refused bc of her accent - she was Anne Archer. Donner knew Davis wanted to use Rank contract artists so picked Belinda Lee. Said she was young, lovely, her family was well to do. Called her unpretentious, relatively innocent, sweet. In love with Cornwell Lucas who did stills that looked as though they came out of never never land. Donner did tests with her. Says she worked fantastically hard and she was good. Donner says the picture was well received and he's proud of it. He talks about Lee's life briefly - the affair, moving to Europe, said she did well "big hair big tits", says she was going to Hollywood and was only there a short time when she died.
Donner talks about her in side 10 - recaps what he said earlier, went to see her play Rosalind in the Park. Donner argued to Rank she wasn't convincingly working class. He did a test of Barbara Archer but Davis had his heart set on Belinda.
TV review - "Bright Little Lies" (2017) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Enjoyable melodrama - that's not a back handed compliment. It's well done though perhaps stretched out at 7 one-hour eps... there's lots of filler, with scenes of kids running around and other such montages.
It reminded me of Ross Hunter/Douglas Sirk 1950s melodramas, with its combination of lust, unhappy marriages, aspirational lifestyles (the Monterey coast), good female roles. Instead of Lana Turner and Jane Wyman there's Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon and Shailene Woodley - plus Laura Dern and Zoe Kravitz.
It's extremely well done across the board - acting, costumes, etc. Nicole gets the juiciest part, being slapped around and having self destructive sex. Her scenes with the shrink are particularly well done and must have been what got her the Emmy.
Dramatically really Reese's character could have had the affair on screen - I'm guessing they made it flash back so she'd be more sympathetic? Builds to a tense ending. Still I kept feeling it could and should have been condensed into a great two hour movie. Such is modern Hollywood!
It reminded me of Ross Hunter/Douglas Sirk 1950s melodramas, with its combination of lust, unhappy marriages, aspirational lifestyles (the Monterey coast), good female roles. Instead of Lana Turner and Jane Wyman there's Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon and Shailene Woodley - plus Laura Dern and Zoe Kravitz.
It's extremely well done across the board - acting, costumes, etc. Nicole gets the juiciest part, being slapped around and having self destructive sex. Her scenes with the shrink are particularly well done and must have been what got her the Emmy.
Dramatically really Reese's character could have had the affair on screen - I'm guessing they made it flash back so she'd be more sympathetic? Builds to a tense ending. Still I kept feeling it could and should have been condensed into a great two hour movie. Such is modern Hollywood!
Sunday, October 01, 2017
Script review - "A Bridge Too Far" by William Goldman
Not recognised as one of Goldman's classics even though in Adventures in the Screen Trade he spoke highly of the experience and the resulting film - he seemed to have only good things to say about Butch Cassidy and Bridge - I think later Princess Bride and Hearts of Atlantis were added to this.
It's done in that lively Goldman style very easy to follow and read, with little asides (eg "he's four days away from becoming a legend") and some bright dialogue. He was hamstrung by the fact many of the principals were still alive. Montgomery died in 1976 - I presume that's why he's not in the film at all, only mentioned. Lord Browning - who died in 1965 - has to take on some of the mistakes (eg ignoring intelligence reports that Germans were in the area), which for me was the main flaw of the film. It felt unfair.
I did struggle to tell the characters apart on the page - this was less of an issue on screen because the main roles were played by stars. There are some lively cameos - the sergeant who drives his "dead" captain to a hospital; the Americans going across the river to take the bridge; Major Frost and Urquhart's adventures behind enemy lines.
Some characters threaten to become interesting but don't, like that bridge-building captain (I think Elliot Gould played him) and the Irish guards officer Vandeleur (Michael Caine). Others are annoying like the Polish general, Sosabowski who whinges all the time.
Structurally although the film takes place over several days it feels like one afternoon - I know films sometimes struggle with that and wasn't sure how to fix it, it's just the reaction I got. Also it didn't feel as though it built - towards the end when the Poles started their attack, I was getting impatient.
Still some very effective moments - the siege, the build up, the death of the old lady and the little boy. And it gets points for being a British-American film about a big defeat. There aren't that many apart from Tora Tora Tora.
It's done in that lively Goldman style very easy to follow and read, with little asides (eg "he's four days away from becoming a legend") and some bright dialogue. He was hamstrung by the fact many of the principals were still alive. Montgomery died in 1976 - I presume that's why he's not in the film at all, only mentioned. Lord Browning - who died in 1965 - has to take on some of the mistakes (eg ignoring intelligence reports that Germans were in the area), which for me was the main flaw of the film. It felt unfair.
I did struggle to tell the characters apart on the page - this was less of an issue on screen because the main roles were played by stars. There are some lively cameos - the sergeant who drives his "dead" captain to a hospital; the Americans going across the river to take the bridge; Major Frost and Urquhart's adventures behind enemy lines.
Some characters threaten to become interesting but don't, like that bridge-building captain (I think Elliot Gould played him) and the Irish guards officer Vandeleur (Michael Caine). Others are annoying like the Polish general, Sosabowski who whinges all the time.
Structurally although the film takes place over several days it feels like one afternoon - I know films sometimes struggle with that and wasn't sure how to fix it, it's just the reaction I got. Also it didn't feel as though it built - towards the end when the Poles started their attack, I was getting impatient.
Still some very effective moments - the siege, the build up, the death of the old lady and the little boy. And it gets points for being a British-American film about a big defeat. There aren't that many apart from Tora Tora Tora.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)