Not considered one of the classic Billy Wilders but a very well done romantic comedy with three excellent star roles. It reads very much as if it were written for Audrey Hepburn - there's references to Sabrina's slenderness, and pixie good looks. Through a modern view point it's a little dodgy I guess Linus pursuing Sabrina for money and her falling for it, and Linus paying off these women in David's life (did he rape them? assault them?).
But it maintains its freshness through that Wilder jaundiced look at the world - the importance of money and position and cynicism mixed with romanticism. It's also very well structured into sequences:
A - Sabrina is in love with David, tries to kill herself when he goes off with someone else, is rescued by Linus and heads for Paris.
B - Sabrina gets glam in Paris, Linus arranges David's marriage and Sabrina comes back and David loves her.
C - Linus decides to cock block David by going after Sabrina himself.
D - Linus pursues Sabrina and she finds herself liking him
E - Sabrina likes Linus and is trying to convince herself she wants David.
F - They fall in love and Sabrina is keen but Linus rejects her.
G - David realises Sabrina doesn't really like him and agrees to marry the girl and sends Linus after Sabrina.
I know this was a tough film to make but the script reads smoothly and logically. I guess Linus and Sabrina is a bit creepy if you think about it too hard.
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Yvonne de Carlo Top Ten
1) Salome, Where She Danced (1945) - the role that made her a star.
2) The Ten Commandments (1956) - cast against type as Moses' loyal wife but very effective.
3) The Captain's Paradise (1953) - De Carlo's comedy roles were really variations of her straight parts - a hot pants exotic type - but she's still pretty funny.
4) Fort Algiers (1953) - not a classic and not even in colour but De Carlo is in good form as a spy (her most typical role in many ways) in modern day colonial Africa.
5) Sea Devils (1953) - this is in colour and De Carlo works well with Rock Hudson.
6) River Lady (1948) - De Carlo ideally cast as a riverboat lady in a film that should have been more about her character.
7) Criss Cross (1949) - a super film noir and De Carlo effective as a film fetale.
8) The Munsters (1964-66) - fun comedy which outstayed its welcome but De Carlo was very good in the role.
9) The Seven Minutes (1971) - she only has a small part in this Russ Meyer straight drama but is very well used and is effective.
10) Follies (1971) - not a film, the musical. De Carlo appeared in a lot of middling material in her career, but her Broadway debut was a bona fide classic - and what's more she got perhaps the best song, "I'm Still Here".
2) The Ten Commandments (1956) - cast against type as Moses' loyal wife but very effective.
3) The Captain's Paradise (1953) - De Carlo's comedy roles were really variations of her straight parts - a hot pants exotic type - but she's still pretty funny.
4) Fort Algiers (1953) - not a classic and not even in colour but De Carlo is in good form as a spy (her most typical role in many ways) in modern day colonial Africa.
5) Sea Devils (1953) - this is in colour and De Carlo works well with Rock Hudson.
6) River Lady (1948) - De Carlo ideally cast as a riverboat lady in a film that should have been more about her character.
7) Criss Cross (1949) - a super film noir and De Carlo effective as a film fetale.
8) The Munsters (1964-66) - fun comedy which outstayed its welcome but De Carlo was very good in the role.
9) The Seven Minutes (1971) - she only has a small part in this Russ Meyer straight drama but is very well used and is effective.
10) Follies (1971) - not a film, the musical. De Carlo appeared in a lot of middling material in her career, but her Broadway debut was a bona fide classic - and what's more she got perhaps the best song, "I'm Still Here".
Book review - "Yvonne" by Yvonne De Carlo (1987)
The cinematic work of Yvonne De Carlo deserves re-appraisal - for a time there in the late 40s and early 50s she was a genuine lower level star at Universal, playing a succession of slinky Eastern dancing girls and tough Western dames in some unpretentious technicolor films. She and Maureen O'Hara were these quasi-feminist adventure stars, until the 50s took hold and both wound up staring admiringly at the heroes.
De Carlo was an old pro in the best sense of the world. She started quite young, with a pushy mother and absent father (very common elements in biographies of female star). She did a lot of dancing when younger and moved to the US from Canada; her looks saw her win beauty contests which resulted in a dancing gig at the Florentine Gardens. She worked hard at her dancing and was eventually picked up for the movies, doing a stint at Paramount.
In the 1940s girls with "exotic looks" were not discriminated against; de Carlo played a series of dancing girls and natives; she was going to step in for Dorothy Lamour in Rainbow Island but Lamour changed her mind. She also just missed out on good parts in For Whom the Bell Tolls and The Story of Dr Wassell. Her career was stagnating there but got a huge boost when Walter Wagner cast her in the lead of Salome Where She Danced which turned her into a star.
Salome was made by Universal who put her to work in lots of Easterns and Westerns, and wanted someone easier to deal with than Maria Montez (and De Carlo could sing and dance which Montez couldn't). Occasionally she got the chance in something more prestigious like Criss Cross. De Carlo eventually branched out into comedy, notably in England, and got a few parts in "A" pictures, like The Ten Commandments and Band of Angels. But she never made the full transition to "A" stardom - it's harder for women, especially in the macho late 50s. And to be fair De Carlo didn't have the individuality of great stars - or even great icons like Maureen O'Hara; she lacked spark and life-sometimes she blended into the scenery. But she could act and sing and dance, often better than she was given credit for.
De Carlo found things harder from the late 50s onwards, but she kept at it - working regularly in TV and having a career boost when starring in The Munsters. She also achieved fame on Broadway in Follies. She expresses regret her agents didn't push her for Broadway roles earlier; I'm surprised she didn't appear in more musical films - Universal did make them, though not as often as they did in the 40s.
As a good looking girl De Carlo spent a lot of time fending off lecherous Hollywood wolves/sex pests - Errol Flynn, Franchot Tone, Orson Welles. She was keen on Sterling Hayden but he didn't do anything. Ditto James Stewart. She had amiable dates with Red Skelton and knew Burgess Meredith, a romance with Ray Milland before finally losing her virginity to someone called Carl Anthony. She says Billy Wilder was the first great love of her life. She later had serious romances with Howard Hughes (who made love like an engineer which made me laugh), Robert Stack, Howard Duff and Jock Mahoney (she fell pregnant to him but lost the baby), flings with Burt Lancaster, Carlos Thompson, Tony Curtis and Robert Taylor. There was Aly Khan, of course, who was a great lover - it isn't a very discrete book!
The book gets harder going as once De Carlo marries stuntman Bob Morgan. A sexy man's man, he was overly fond of a drink, and not a particularly devoted husband. She was going to leave him but then he had an accident which resulted in him losing his leg. From then on it was work, work, work as she took every gig going - night club acts, crummy roles in films. She was perennially unlucky in love - she had a taste for love rats (married men, pricks), which never improved.
I liked reading about her encounters with Maria Montez - de Carlo came to Universal as a Montez back up taking her role in Frontier Gal but Montez and she got along; Montez would talk about her being reincarnated, warn her off Howard Hughes and recommend de Carlo and Jean Pierre Aumont (her love interest in one film) play more love scenes because you got more close ups that way.
De Carlo admits to being a right winger - I would've been interested to hear more about this. (I imagine a lot of actors who slogged their way up from the chorus were right wing eg Ginger Rogers.) The book was written before her son died.
It's an entertaining book - a little harrowing (all the sexual harassment), and sad (the career and financial battles). De Carlo had a pretty good life - fame, some good parts, sex with handsome men - but struggled to hang on to money and a good relationship. Still, the world was a better place for her being in it.
De Carlo was an old pro in the best sense of the world. She started quite young, with a pushy mother and absent father (very common elements in biographies of female star). She did a lot of dancing when younger and moved to the US from Canada; her looks saw her win beauty contests which resulted in a dancing gig at the Florentine Gardens. She worked hard at her dancing and was eventually picked up for the movies, doing a stint at Paramount.
In the 1940s girls with "exotic looks" were not discriminated against; de Carlo played a series of dancing girls and natives; she was going to step in for Dorothy Lamour in Rainbow Island but Lamour changed her mind. She also just missed out on good parts in For Whom the Bell Tolls and The Story of Dr Wassell. Her career was stagnating there but got a huge boost when Walter Wagner cast her in the lead of Salome Where She Danced which turned her into a star.
Salome was made by Universal who put her to work in lots of Easterns and Westerns, and wanted someone easier to deal with than Maria Montez (and De Carlo could sing and dance which Montez couldn't). Occasionally she got the chance in something more prestigious like Criss Cross. De Carlo eventually branched out into comedy, notably in England, and got a few parts in "A" pictures, like The Ten Commandments and Band of Angels. But she never made the full transition to "A" stardom - it's harder for women, especially in the macho late 50s. And to be fair De Carlo didn't have the individuality of great stars - or even great icons like Maureen O'Hara; she lacked spark and life-sometimes she blended into the scenery. But she could act and sing and dance, often better than she was given credit for.
De Carlo found things harder from the late 50s onwards, but she kept at it - working regularly in TV and having a career boost when starring in The Munsters. She also achieved fame on Broadway in Follies. She expresses regret her agents didn't push her for Broadway roles earlier; I'm surprised she didn't appear in more musical films - Universal did make them, though not as often as they did in the 40s.
The book gets harder going as once De Carlo marries stuntman Bob Morgan. A sexy man's man, he was overly fond of a drink, and not a particularly devoted husband. She was going to leave him but then he had an accident which resulted in him losing his leg. From then on it was work, work, work as she took every gig going - night club acts, crummy roles in films. She was perennially unlucky in love - she had a taste for love rats (married men, pricks), which never improved.
I liked reading about her encounters with Maria Montez - de Carlo came to Universal as a Montez back up taking her role in Frontier Gal but Montez and she got along; Montez would talk about her being reincarnated, warn her off Howard Hughes and recommend de Carlo and Jean Pierre Aumont (her love interest in one film) play more love scenes because you got more close ups that way.
De Carlo admits to being a right winger - I would've been interested to hear more about this. (I imagine a lot of actors who slogged their way up from the chorus were right wing eg Ginger Rogers.) The book was written before her son died.
It's an entertaining book - a little harrowing (all the sexual harassment), and sad (the career and financial battles). De Carlo had a pretty good life - fame, some good parts, sex with handsome men - but struggled to hang on to money and a good relationship. Still, the world was a better place for her being in it.
Movie review - "Cave of Outlaws" (1951) **1/2
I was intrigued by this - a Western set in a cave, with location filming at some famous caves in Arizona. The cast was strong - MacDonald Carey, Alexis Smith, Hugh O'Brian, Victor Jory, Edgar Buchanan, Russ Tamblyn (as Carey as a boy). But it never quite hit home.
It starts well - Tamblyn being part of a gang that robbed a train, and hiding some gold in the cave. Tamblyn spends 15 years in prison and comes out as Carey, trying to find it. He's dogged by inspector Buchanan, everyone wants to lend him money because they assume he's going to be rich. Alexis Smith wants some of that money to set up a newspaper.
I loved all this. But the film goes off in different directions - maybe it was just different to how I thought it would go in my head, but it felt unsatisfactory. There's all this awesome story set up that isn't used - like Tamblyn's father who forced him to take part in the robbery and was killed (why not keep him alive? Why not use ma?), or the posse leader who beats up Tamblyn brutally at the start to find out where the gold is (why not see himagain?), or the fellow gang members (why not use one of them? or a relative of them?). Why spend so much time on Alexis Smith's missing husband - who cares about him? Why not have him as part of the gang (or the son of someone in the gang - or posse?) Why not have head villain Victory Jory tied up with the original robbery? Why have Edgar Buchanan be the one who shoots Jory and sidekick O'Brien, and not Carey?
I wish there had been more scenes in the caves and also that Smith had been more genuinely treacherous - the role is a bit of a nothing. Or had a second girl character who was treacherous to give it some variety. And the plan to get a bullet by doing a duel is dumb- very dangerous! Why not just take out the bullet.
Still the cave setting is different, the cast strong. And there's some bright dialogue and scenes where people try, like the duel.
It starts well - Tamblyn being part of a gang that robbed a train, and hiding some gold in the cave. Tamblyn spends 15 years in prison and comes out as Carey, trying to find it. He's dogged by inspector Buchanan, everyone wants to lend him money because they assume he's going to be rich. Alexis Smith wants some of that money to set up a newspaper.
I loved all this. But the film goes off in different directions - maybe it was just different to how I thought it would go in my head, but it felt unsatisfactory. There's all this awesome story set up that isn't used - like Tamblyn's father who forced him to take part in the robbery and was killed (why not keep him alive? Why not use ma?), or the posse leader who beats up Tamblyn brutally at the start to find out where the gold is (why not see himagain?), or the fellow gang members (why not use one of them? or a relative of them?). Why spend so much time on Alexis Smith's missing husband - who cares about him? Why not have him as part of the gang (or the son of someone in the gang - or posse?) Why not have head villain Victory Jory tied up with the original robbery? Why have Edgar Buchanan be the one who shoots Jory and sidekick O'Brien, and not Carey?
I wish there had been more scenes in the caves and also that Smith had been more genuinely treacherous - the role is a bit of a nothing. Or had a second girl character who was treacherous to give it some variety. And the plan to get a bullet by doing a duel is dumb- very dangerous! Why not just take out the bullet.
Still the cave setting is different, the cast strong. And there's some bright dialogue and scenes where people try, like the duel.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Movie review - "Siege of the Saxons" (1963) **1/2
Charles Schneer is best remembered for the Ray Harryhausen films he produced; they took a long time to make with their elaborate effects, so he turned out the occasional cheapie to keep the cash running in. This was made to be released with Jason and the Argonauts and re-used sets and footage from other Columbia Pictures.
It's a cheerful, colourful tale, really for kids and no one else, which is ostensibly an Arthurian tale but is more a Robin Hood story. Ronald Lewis - a contract star for the Rank organisation - has a rather unfortunate blonde wig (to help match footage with Alan Ladd from The Black Knight?) - is a former noble turned outlaw who is actually trying to do the decent thing by King Arthur. That's not a bad idea - it gives Arthur a Maid Marian type daughter, Katherine, perkily played by Janette Scott.
Ronald Howard is an excellent villain, Edmund, and Jerome Willis very good as his sidekick. Mark Dignam was fine as Arthur and John Laurie should've been used more as Merlin.
The story is absolutely solid - we set up Arthur's key lieutenant is a secret traitor, Katherine meets Marshall the outlaw, Marshall tries to help Arthur, Arthur is killed, Katherine flees with Marshall, Marshall and Katherine squabble but fall in love, Katherine is captured and sees Edmund and his henchmen wipe out some protestors (a surprisingly full on sequence), Katherine is rescued, they rescue Merlin (maybe a bit of repetition here), they defeat Edmund and his gang with a final battle full of stock footage.
No classic, but bright and happy - something you could say for many films by Nathan Juran.
It's a cheerful, colourful tale, really for kids and no one else, which is ostensibly an Arthurian tale but is more a Robin Hood story. Ronald Lewis - a contract star for the Rank organisation - has a rather unfortunate blonde wig (to help match footage with Alan Ladd from The Black Knight?) - is a former noble turned outlaw who is actually trying to do the decent thing by King Arthur. That's not a bad idea - it gives Arthur a Maid Marian type daughter, Katherine, perkily played by Janette Scott.
Ronald Howard is an excellent villain, Edmund, and Jerome Willis very good as his sidekick. Mark Dignam was fine as Arthur and John Laurie should've been used more as Merlin.
The story is absolutely solid - we set up Arthur's key lieutenant is a secret traitor, Katherine meets Marshall the outlaw, Marshall tries to help Arthur, Arthur is killed, Katherine flees with Marshall, Marshall and Katherine squabble but fall in love, Katherine is captured and sees Edmund and his henchmen wipe out some protestors (a surprisingly full on sequence), Katherine is rescued, they rescue Merlin (maybe a bit of repetition here), they defeat Edmund and his gang with a final battle full of stock footage.
No classic, but bright and happy - something you could say for many films by Nathan Juran.
Monday, November 27, 2017
Movie review - "The Relic" (1997) **
I've got a soft spot for a lot of Peter Hyams films like Capricorn One and Running Scared. This one, not so much. It takes what should be a simple story - a monster running around a museum killing people- and complicates it to the point of obfuscation.
I think they were trying to elevate the material, to make it smarter, but the result is a lot of confusing talk - it's not really smart because there's no fresh twists or ideas, it's just gobble-dy gook about serum and hormones, and endless set ups for situations.
I get what they were going for but they take such contrived steps to do there - for example, they wanted a Poseidon Adventure type of thing with people going along corridors, fighting water to get out. But they do it in a museum with the door right there. And sure they went "the doors are locked" but it didn't feel real.
They analyse the blood of the creature to find out more about it and you think it's going to be one of the people in the group - they have this ticking clock of building a photo like in No Way Out and it turns out to be... the explorer from the beginning of the film, who we never met and don't care about.
I enjoyed the Hyams "look" of the film - close ups, dark photography. There's always movement and colour. It's not a very good movie though.
I saw a Q and A about the film with Hyams and Penelope Ann Miller. Hyams kept talking about wanting to elevate the material - but he doesn't seem to have noticed the logic issues.
I think they were trying to elevate the material, to make it smarter, but the result is a lot of confusing talk - it's not really smart because there's no fresh twists or ideas, it's just gobble-dy gook about serum and hormones, and endless set ups for situations.
I get what they were going for but they take such contrived steps to do there - for example, they wanted a Poseidon Adventure type of thing with people going along corridors, fighting water to get out. But they do it in a museum with the door right there. And sure they went "the doors are locked" but it didn't feel real.
They analyse the blood of the creature to find out more about it and you think it's going to be one of the people in the group - they have this ticking clock of building a photo like in No Way Out and it turns out to be... the explorer from the beginning of the film, who we never met and don't care about.
I enjoyed the Hyams "look" of the film - close ups, dark photography. There's always movement and colour. It's not a very good movie though.
I saw a Q and A about the film with Hyams and Penelope Ann Miller. Hyams kept talking about wanting to elevate the material - but he doesn't seem to have noticed the logic issues.
Sunday, November 26, 2017
Book review - "Creature Chronicles: Exploring the Black Lagoon Trilogy" by Tom Weaver, Steve Kronenberg and David Schecter
An exhaustive (to put it mildly) look at the making of the Creature of the Black Lagoon trilogy. No stone is unturned - the origin, original treatments, scripts, budgets, shooting, post production, marketing, release. I mean, they really go into detail. Towards the end when they started doing interviews from body doubles I began I get physically exhausted. And to have music cues...?
But it's definitive. It's all here. It's exhaustive. And there are lively bits among all the facts - John Agar was a party boozehound (professional on set, let his hair down at night), Jack Arnold was a lecherous old goat very grabby with his hands, Harry Essex was a credit-grabbing hack,William Alland's contribution has been undervalued. The actors mixed between the nice (Julie Adams - I love how she embraced fandom in later life) and the drunk. I enjoyed reading treatments for the proposed remakes.
A full-on, at times overwhelming book but the world is a better place for it to be in it.
But it's definitive. It's all here. It's exhaustive. And there are lively bits among all the facts - John Agar was a party boozehound (professional on set, let his hair down at night), Jack Arnold was a lecherous old goat very grabby with his hands, Harry Essex was a credit-grabbing hack,William Alland's contribution has been undervalued. The actors mixed between the nice (Julie Adams - I love how she embraced fandom in later life) and the drunk. I enjoyed reading treatments for the proposed remakes.
A full-on, at times overwhelming book but the world is a better place for it to be in it.
TV review - "Mindhunter - Season 1" (2017) ****
A surprise - I didn't know what to expect, just that involved serial killers and David Fincher. It's not so much a murder of the week story as a look at the mind of serial killers, being set in the 1970s when the FBI were applying more specific psychological measures of investigation.
I don't know how true it is but it feels true, helped by some great writing and acting. Holt McCallanty was a particular stand out from me - I don't know where he came from but he's great. Cameron Britton is very good too as Edmund Kemper. Everyone is good though.
It's creepy, unsettling and smart. I kept expecting the character of Debbie, the girlfriend, to do more than she did.
I don't know how true it is but it feels true, helped by some great writing and acting. Holt McCallanty was a particular stand out from me - I don't know where he came from but he's great. Cameron Britton is very good too as Edmund Kemper. Everyone is good though.
It's creepy, unsettling and smart. I kept expecting the character of Debbie, the girlfriend, to do more than she did.
Movie review - "The Mummy" (2017) ** (warning: spoilers)
A famous misfire, one of those films that inspired a "pile on" of critical disdain. There are some good things about it - technically its very fine, handsome looking with some impressive effects. I like Jake Johnson and Russell Crowe (ideal casting as Jekyll and Hyde!) and Sofia Boutella has a great look. The start of the film is solid, even if it was a slight stretch to have Cruise go treasure hunting while on patrol for the arm (and why need that? Why not have him as ex army).
But it's confusing - I had trouble following what was happening especially after Cruise died and came back to life. There was stuff about possession and souls and back from the dead and gods and daggers and rubies and stuff - I got lost.
There's no emotional underpinning of anything. I never knew why Tom Cruise was so important to Boutella's mummy - she wanted him to be her husband was that it? In the best mummy movies the mummy was driven by love - he was a former priest going after the reincarnation of his former love. Very simple - that powered everything. Why not just use that - have Boutella think Cruise was the reincarnation of her lost love or something? Everything would've made sense - her drive, the rivalry with Annabelle Wallis.
The movie is also hurt by miscasting. I have so much affection for Tom Cruise but he's not growing into his looks - he's in great shape for a 55 year old but he's no longer a cocky kid. What's a 55 year old doing as a sergeant in the army and fortune hunting on the side? Why not use his age? Why not cast him opposite someone more age appropriate?
Wallis is poor as the female lead. There's so many other good looking female actors out there they could've used (how much would Kate Winslet have cost?)
I went in with an open mind. I wanted to like it. I feel it needed to be simplified. And maybe add a few more scenes that were scary.
But it's confusing - I had trouble following what was happening especially after Cruise died and came back to life. There was stuff about possession and souls and back from the dead and gods and daggers and rubies and stuff - I got lost.
There's no emotional underpinning of anything. I never knew why Tom Cruise was so important to Boutella's mummy - she wanted him to be her husband was that it? In the best mummy movies the mummy was driven by love - he was a former priest going after the reincarnation of his former love. Very simple - that powered everything. Why not just use that - have Boutella think Cruise was the reincarnation of her lost love or something? Everything would've made sense - her drive, the rivalry with Annabelle Wallis.
The movie is also hurt by miscasting. I have so much affection for Tom Cruise but he's not growing into his looks - he's in great shape for a 55 year old but he's no longer a cocky kid. What's a 55 year old doing as a sergeant in the army and fortune hunting on the side? Why not use his age? Why not cast him opposite someone more age appropriate?
Wallis is poor as the female lead. There's so many other good looking female actors out there they could've used (how much would Kate Winslet have cost?)
I went in with an open mind. I wanted to like it. I feel it needed to be simplified. And maybe add a few more scenes that were scary.
Movie review - "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" (2008) ****
Joyous, fun sequel full of life and some very funny jokes - some of which are surprisingly adult. It's a good story - sequels are worth it when there's a decent reason for them to exist, which is the case here because it's about Alex being reunited with his parents.
There's decent subplots - Marty meeting fellow zebras, Gloria dating a hippo, Melman becoming a doctor. So much of this made me laugh out loud - jumping into a volcano, the penguins talking like they're Robert Stack in the 50s aviation film. I really enjoyed the tunes. I've seen this movie a bunch of times and still enjoyed it.
There's decent subplots - Marty meeting fellow zebras, Gloria dating a hippo, Melman becoming a doctor. So much of this made me laugh out loud - jumping into a volcano, the penguins talking like they're Robert Stack in the 50s aviation film. I really enjoyed the tunes. I've seen this movie a bunch of times and still enjoyed it.
Movie review - "Minions" (2015) **1/2
This starts off brilliantly with some funny gags about the history of the minions - accidentally killing dinosaurs, cavemen, Dracula (the death toll of this is high). I appreciate how the minions are sent to the Arctic by Napoleon until the 1960s, thereby avoiding any annoying questions about them helping the Belgians in the Congo, Stalin, Hitler, etc.
But it struggles as it goes on - maybe "struggles" is the wrong word, because the movie has a lot of pace and energy and colour - but really its a series of chase sequences to some 60s hit. Scarlet Overkill isn't a particularly memorable villain; characters are introduced as if they're going to be important (like that family who give them a lift at the beginning, or Nobert the "idiot" who gets a close up) and not seen again. It feels made up as it goes along.
There are some funny jokes and the cast of voices is top notch.
But it struggles as it goes on - maybe "struggles" is the wrong word, because the movie has a lot of pace and energy and colour - but really its a series of chase sequences to some 60s hit. Scarlet Overkill isn't a particularly memorable villain; characters are introduced as if they're going to be important (like that family who give them a lift at the beginning, or Nobert the "idiot" who gets a close up) and not seen again. It feels made up as it goes along.
There are some funny jokes and the cast of voices is top notch.
Movie review - "Pocahontas" (1995) **
This doesn't age well - or maybe it wasn't go great the first time around. The quality of animation made me feel like it was a straight to video sequel rather than the original.
Good on Disney for having a go at Indian culture - the film is progressive, the lead is a woman of colour. But it's not very good - Pocahontas is more more a hot princess interested in a guy because she's out of town, and as a result sells out her people. She doesn't do anything cool like Mulan or Moana she just kind of hangs around and sings and moons over a guy.
It's not particularly well made or exciting - Mel Gibson's singing voice isn't great. The biggest problem for me was the visual look hasn't aged well.
I think this is best appreciated as a teen girl romance. Go in with low expectations you might be okay.
Good on Disney for having a go at Indian culture - the film is progressive, the lead is a woman of colour. But it's not very good - Pocahontas is more more a hot princess interested in a guy because she's out of town, and as a result sells out her people. She doesn't do anything cool like Mulan or Moana she just kind of hangs around and sings and moons over a guy.
It's not particularly well made or exciting - Mel Gibson's singing voice isn't great. The biggest problem for me was the visual look hasn't aged well.
I think this is best appreciated as a teen girl romance. Go in with low expectations you might be okay.
Movie review - "Moana" (2016) *****
A masterpiece. I have a two year old so I've seen this a bunch of times and am always finding something new - a directorial choice, or gag, or visual image. It's beautiful and extremely well directed.
A lot of it is standard (island princess, a quest, a macguffin, a gay villain), but the Polynesian material is very fresh. The by play between Maui and Moana is hilarious and Moana is a true hero and the songs are utterly brilliant.
Some random thoughts:
- the villagers on Moana's island are really dumb (they can't even figure out to maybe plant coconuts in a different area unless Moana told them) - maybe they've been driving cava on the side?
- was Moana's father in love with his friend who died?
- it's weird to see a film so pro explorer, with the Polynesians getting their mojo back to island hop - did anyone live on those islands they moved on to? What about the coconuts, they came from somewhere?
A lot of it is standard (island princess, a quest, a macguffin, a gay villain), but the Polynesian material is very fresh. The by play between Maui and Moana is hilarious and Moana is a true hero and the songs are utterly brilliant.
Some random thoughts:
- the villagers on Moana's island are really dumb (they can't even figure out to maybe plant coconuts in a different area unless Moana told them) - maybe they've been driving cava on the side?
- was Moana's father in love with his friend who died?
- it's weird to see a film so pro explorer, with the Polynesians getting their mojo back to island hop - did anyone live on those islands they moved on to? What about the coconuts, they came from somewhere?
Movie review - "La La Land" (2016) ***1/2
I was resistant to see this - I think all the Oscar hype and I hate to be bullied into seeing a film - but those reservations melted away with that marvelous opening number. It was bright, colourful and fun, and I love how the filmmakers made sure we knew they were really dancing on a real freeway.
It got everything off to a great start - so too did the number "Someone in the Crowd" with Emma Stone and her friends getting ready to go out.
Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone can't exactly sing or dance but they are likeable movie stars. It's very well directed and I loved the bold colours. The musical this reminded me of more than any other was The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and The Young Girls of Rochefort with its colours, non-Broadway feel and unhappy ending.
It did go on a bit and for me there was a too much jazz and talking about jazz - I guess I was more interested in the movie stuff. It may have gotten all those Oscars because old Academy voters were relieved the younger generation hadn't forgotten them.
It got everything off to a great start - so too did the number "Someone in the Crowd" with Emma Stone and her friends getting ready to go out.
Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone can't exactly sing or dance but they are likeable movie stars. It's very well directed and I loved the bold colours. The musical this reminded me of more than any other was The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and The Young Girls of Rochefort with its colours, non-Broadway feel and unhappy ending.
It did go on a bit and for me there was a too much jazz and talking about jazz - I guess I was more interested in the movie stuff. It may have gotten all those Oscars because old Academy voters were relieved the younger generation hadn't forgotten them.
Saturday, November 25, 2017
Script review - "The Hunt for Red October" by Larry Ferguson
Solid adaptation of the Tom Clancy novel is an exciting read - well structured, pulling the action along. We meet Ramius, then Ryan, then the mission starts, Ryan figures out something's up. The complications feel logical and are well spread out - a political officer is murdered, the Soviets try to kill Ramius, the Soviets declare Ramius is insane and try to kill him, another Soviet sub is after them, there's a spy on the sub.
The leads get hero moments - Ryan figures it out and shoots the spy, Ramius does some captaincy wizardry, Mancuso (the US sub captain) gets to take over the Russian sub. I thought maybe more could've been done with the spy and the characters aren't terribly individual - that's why it helped so much that in the film version they were played by stars. They might've made more of Jack Ryan being a fish out of water, if you excuse the pun i.e. a nerd in a world comprising of men of action - but that was probably too tricky to attract a leading man.
Also, and this is in hindsight, I think the film benefited from John Milius' polish of Ramius' dialogue, giving it a historical poetic flair - this draft it's a little dull. But a strong script - it didn't get my heart racing the way say Patriot Games and Sum of All Fears did but it still works.
The leads get hero moments - Ryan figures it out and shoots the spy, Ramius does some captaincy wizardry, Mancuso (the US sub captain) gets to take over the Russian sub. I thought maybe more could've been done with the spy and the characters aren't terribly individual - that's why it helped so much that in the film version they were played by stars. They might've made more of Jack Ryan being a fish out of water, if you excuse the pun i.e. a nerd in a world comprising of men of action - but that was probably too tricky to attract a leading man.
Also, and this is in hindsight, I think the film benefited from John Milius' polish of Ramius' dialogue, giving it a historical poetic flair - this draft it's a little dull. But a strong script - it didn't get my heart racing the way say Patriot Games and Sum of All Fears did but it still works.
Movie review - "Valley of the Dragons" (1961) **
Al Zimbalist was a producer of B/C films best known for incorporating lots of stock footage from other movies. This one uses a lot of One Million Years BC
I don't mind that and this has a solid, if fanciful basis for a movie - two men in the middle of a duel, Cesare Danova and Sean McClory, are whipped off on a passing comet which consists of an ancient civlisation and various monsters.
That's the basis of a potentially really intriguing film - it's from a lesser known Jules Verne novel, Off on a Comet. The filmmakers don't do anything with it though - they just rehash One Million Years BC and The Time Machine having two warring tribes of cavepeople each with a hot girl for the guy.
I think they would've been better off spending the cast budget on characters from the modern day instead of random cave people - you could've had them reacting to what's going on on the comet in different, interesting ways, like in the book. But presumably for budget, it's just Danova and McClory a lot of the time.
The male leads, Danova and McClory are professional, but sleazy in their love scenes. The women are good looking but play completely vapid, blank eyed interchangeable cave women. Danova goes for a really long swim with one for one scene.
There's cave man acting, lots of walking around. I wanted to like this more and maybe I would have had I seen it as a kid on TV. It gets off to a good start, with Danova and McClory about to duel - that's different - but quickly gets boring: lots of Danova and McClory walking around, then they get separated and encounter different cave people, then the cave people point sticks at each other.
I actually think the Verne novel is so strong it's worth someone else having a crack at it. This version doesn't do it justice.
I don't mind that and this has a solid, if fanciful basis for a movie - two men in the middle of a duel, Cesare Danova and Sean McClory, are whipped off on a passing comet which consists of an ancient civlisation and various monsters.
That's the basis of a potentially really intriguing film - it's from a lesser known Jules Verne novel, Off on a Comet. The filmmakers don't do anything with it though - they just rehash One Million Years BC and The Time Machine having two warring tribes of cavepeople each with a hot girl for the guy.
I think they would've been better off spending the cast budget on characters from the modern day instead of random cave people - you could've had them reacting to what's going on on the comet in different, interesting ways, like in the book. But presumably for budget, it's just Danova and McClory a lot of the time.
The male leads, Danova and McClory are professional, but sleazy in their love scenes. The women are good looking but play completely vapid, blank eyed interchangeable cave women. Danova goes for a really long swim with one for one scene.
There's cave man acting, lots of walking around. I wanted to like this more and maybe I would have had I seen it as a kid on TV. It gets off to a good start, with Danova and McClory about to duel - that's different - but quickly gets boring: lots of Danova and McClory walking around, then they get separated and encounter different cave people, then the cave people point sticks at each other.
I actually think the Verne novel is so strong it's worth someone else having a crack at it. This version doesn't do it justice.
Friday, November 24, 2017
Book review - "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" by Jules Verne
It's been ages since I read any Jules Verne - he's great fun. It starts rollicking, imaginative adventure with one of the great anti heroes in Captain Nemo and is wondrous underwater machine, the Nautilus. But after the first act is turns into a not particularly interesting travelogue of the Nautilis going around the world.
Movie review - "Cafe Society" (2016) **1/2
A movie best watched late at night as you're dozing off - it's like a soothing cup of camomile tea. It's lovingly shot, with pleasing production design and attractive actors. And there's a story which clunks along, and old tunes and references to old actors like Ginger Rogers.
I'm not sure what the point of it is, or was. Maybe to do something set in Hollywood in the 1930s - but Woody Allen doesn't seem that interested in that time or place and hops back to New York fairly quickly. If I were trapped in a cinema watching this I'd have been annoyed but I wasn't so it was okay.
Pretty much everything in the film I'd seen in other Woody Allen films. Nebbish Jewish guy falls in love with a beautiful girl... who is secretly the mistress of an older man. Wacky Jewish family. Brother in law is a commie. Brother is a gangster. Nightclubs. Women who have sex with elder men.
The actor are fine - Jesse Eisenberg is fine, Kirsten Stewart is fine, Steve Carrell is fine, Blake Lively is fine. The costumes are lovely. Woody Allen's narration is a little slow.
Woody veers from drama - there's a subplot where the sister arranges for the brother to knock off an annoying neighbour. You think things will escalate - the neighbour's cronies will come after them, or Eisenberg will be implicated, or something. But nope. The brother is executed and that's it. I kept waiting for Parker Posey's character to do something - nope. For Blake Lively to get upset/leave Eisenberg - nope. For Carrell to go after Eisenberg - nope. To see the impact on Carrell's wife of Carrell leaving - nope.
Everyone gets richer. Personal dramas are limited. There aren't many consequences for actions - just like Woody's own life, I suppose.
I'm not sure what the point of it is, or was. Maybe to do something set in Hollywood in the 1930s - but Woody Allen doesn't seem that interested in that time or place and hops back to New York fairly quickly. If I were trapped in a cinema watching this I'd have been annoyed but I wasn't so it was okay.
Pretty much everything in the film I'd seen in other Woody Allen films. Nebbish Jewish guy falls in love with a beautiful girl... who is secretly the mistress of an older man. Wacky Jewish family. Brother in law is a commie. Brother is a gangster. Nightclubs. Women who have sex with elder men.
The actor are fine - Jesse Eisenberg is fine, Kirsten Stewart is fine, Steve Carrell is fine, Blake Lively is fine. The costumes are lovely. Woody Allen's narration is a little slow.
Woody veers from drama - there's a subplot where the sister arranges for the brother to knock off an annoying neighbour. You think things will escalate - the neighbour's cronies will come after them, or Eisenberg will be implicated, or something. But nope. The brother is executed and that's it. I kept waiting for Parker Posey's character to do something - nope. For Blake Lively to get upset/leave Eisenberg - nope. For Carrell to go after Eisenberg - nope. To see the impact on Carrell's wife of Carrell leaving - nope.
Everyone gets richer. Personal dramas are limited. There aren't many consequences for actions - just like Woody's own life, I suppose.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Script review - "Wind River" by Taylor Sheridan
Sheridan's third produced feature film script isn't as strong as his first two but is still pretty good - the tale of a murdered Indian girl in a very very cold Indian Reserve. The hero is Cory, a park ranger who shoots wild animals that attack farm livestock - he's a driven man, tormented by the death of his daughter, and kicks arse as much as any Bruce Willis Hero. Jane is the FBI agent on the case, a spunky girl out of her element but brave.
That doesn't sound terribly original and a lot of this isn't but it has a very strong sense of place - a freezing cold Indian reservation, with its oil, meth problems, obese locals.
It takes a bit to get going and for me lagged around the two thirds mark, before they meet the security guards. There are some exciting action scenes, like a stand off and the final shoot out. It was a satisfying finale.
That doesn't sound terribly original and a lot of this isn't but it has a very strong sense of place - a freezing cold Indian reservation, with its oil, meth problems, obese locals.
It takes a bit to get going and for me lagged around the two thirds mark, before they meet the security guards. There are some exciting action scenes, like a stand off and the final shoot out. It was a satisfying finale.
TV review - "Crisis in Six Scenes" (2016) **
How does Woody Allen handle the challenge of TV, with its freedoms and healthy budget? By taking an old feature script, stretching it over six 22-minute episodes, and filming what seems to be the first draft.
The central idea is fine - hippy radical comes to stay with uptight old Jewish couple during the late 60s and causes mayhem. It's not terribly fresh - it was old in the 60s- but it's a solid conflict for a comedy, and Allen had mined some of this area before with Bananas.
And this has pleasures of latter day Woody Allen - it's nicely shot in pleasant apartments, the quality of actors are high. Some of it is funny, such as the old biddy book club reading Mao. I started thinking while watching this - the mind drifted - that Woody Allen films are kind of like Westerns for his fans: you know with even the worse ones you'll get at least a few stock things, only instead of punch ups at the saloon and a shoot out and horses, it'll be decent production values and some jokes and some semblance of a story.
Miley Cyrus is fine as the hippy; she's the stock young woman Allen character - loud, opinionated, trouble making, sexually experimental. Don't worry Woody doesn't sleep with her - the Woody surrogate does though.
Some opportunities missed: I actually would've liked to have seen a tale of Woody in the late 60s, when he was becoming super famous (I guess we did see that in Annie Hall)... he doesn't seem to have much affinity for the period. I wish he'd used the opportunity to make TV to do something really interesting - like, I don't know, some super serious and depressing Bergman dramas or something.
Allen is quite old now, and it's slowing down the delivery of his lines. So too for Elaine May - though at least she's an age appropriate love interest. It passes the time I guess, when watched out of the corner of the eye. I'm so glad I didn't see it in a cinema.
The central idea is fine - hippy radical comes to stay with uptight old Jewish couple during the late 60s and causes mayhem. It's not terribly fresh - it was old in the 60s- but it's a solid conflict for a comedy, and Allen had mined some of this area before with Bananas.
And this has pleasures of latter day Woody Allen - it's nicely shot in pleasant apartments, the quality of actors are high. Some of it is funny, such as the old biddy book club reading Mao. I started thinking while watching this - the mind drifted - that Woody Allen films are kind of like Westerns for his fans: you know with even the worse ones you'll get at least a few stock things, only instead of punch ups at the saloon and a shoot out and horses, it'll be decent production values and some jokes and some semblance of a story.
Miley Cyrus is fine as the hippy; she's the stock young woman Allen character - loud, opinionated, trouble making, sexually experimental. Don't worry Woody doesn't sleep with her - the Woody surrogate does though.
Some opportunities missed: I actually would've liked to have seen a tale of Woody in the late 60s, when he was becoming super famous (I guess we did see that in Annie Hall)... he doesn't seem to have much affinity for the period. I wish he'd used the opportunity to make TV to do something really interesting - like, I don't know, some super serious and depressing Bergman dramas or something.
Allen is quite old now, and it's slowing down the delivery of his lines. So too for Elaine May - though at least she's an age appropriate love interest. It passes the time I guess, when watched out of the corner of the eye. I'm so glad I didn't see it in a cinema.
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Script review - "The Founder" by Robert Siegel
Really good biopic of Ray Kroc the man who didn't found McDonald's but who helped turned it into a behemoth. It's a little like The Social Network I guess in that it's about an empathetic but not particularly nice protagonist who is driven.
For the first part you are on Kroc's side - he's hard working, has a vision, and fights for good things, like quick service, good food, family friendly atmosphere. I get his impatience with the delays of the McDonalds brothers and his desire to sell a product of value. He only really becomes a prick in the last third when Harry Sonneborn gives him the idea of going into real estate.
It's a smart script. It dramatises its exposition well and is consistently interesting. The scenes between Kroc and his wife Ethel aren't particularly compelling.
For the first part you are on Kroc's side - he's hard working, has a vision, and fights for good things, like quick service, good food, family friendly atmosphere. I get his impatience with the delays of the McDonalds brothers and his desire to sell a product of value. He only really becomes a prick in the last third when Harry Sonneborn gives him the idea of going into real estate.
It's a smart script. It dramatises its exposition well and is consistently interesting. The scenes between Kroc and his wife Ethel aren't particularly compelling.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
TV review - "Glow - Season 1" (2017) ****
Loving tribute to a female wrestling group in the 1980s - sort of the same area covered by Robert Aldrich's All the Marbles, but a lot better done... with warmth, and humour and camaraderie. In a weird way the show is also a great tribute to co-op theatre: the lack of funds, the battle to get crowds, the devotion of the actors, the crazy directors.
Full of stand out turns like Alison Brie as the archetypal struggling actor, generally terrible but great in a crisis (though why that pilot nudity), Marc Maron as the director, Sydelle Noel as a genuine hard-arse amongst the girls, Britney Young as wrestling royalt.
Occasionally the dialogue felt a bit writer room-y in the way Orange is the New Black's does, but this was a really good show.
Full of stand out turns like Alison Brie as the archetypal struggling actor, generally terrible but great in a crisis (though why that pilot nudity), Marc Maron as the director, Sydelle Noel as a genuine hard-arse amongst the girls, Britney Young as wrestling royalt.
Occasionally the dialogue felt a bit writer room-y in the way Orange is the New Black's does, but this was a really good show.
Monday, November 20, 2017
Movie review - "Magic Fire" (1956) **
William Dieterle had a fondness for biopics - he did Juarez at Warners - and managed to persuade Republic Pictures to pony up the cash for this look at the life of Wagner.
Wagner's life was action packed and had plenty of music and drama but this is a fairly ordinary film, with a slack structure, inadequate cast and poor script.
I think the movie tries to pack too much in - a lot happens, three main romances, revolution, musical success and failure, jail... too much, so nothing every really has much impact.
I also think the cast isn't particularly up to it. Alan Badel was effective as crazy John the Baptist in Salome but lacks a certain something as Wagner - warmth, empathy... something. I didn't care what happened to him. Yvonne de Carlo does what she can as his first girl which isn't much with some terrible dialogue; but she's better than Rita Gam and Valentina Cortese in support. Actors play Ludwig II and Liszt but no one makes much impact.
There are some pretty location shots and decent slabs of music but the whole sense I got from this was "meh".
Wagner's life was action packed and had plenty of music and drama but this is a fairly ordinary film, with a slack structure, inadequate cast and poor script.
I think the movie tries to pack too much in - a lot happens, three main romances, revolution, musical success and failure, jail... too much, so nothing every really has much impact.
I also think the cast isn't particularly up to it. Alan Badel was effective as crazy John the Baptist in Salome but lacks a certain something as Wagner - warmth, empathy... something. I didn't care what happened to him. Yvonne de Carlo does what she can as his first girl which isn't much with some terrible dialogue; but she's better than Rita Gam and Valentina Cortese in support. Actors play Ludwig II and Liszt but no one makes much impact.
There are some pretty location shots and decent slabs of music but the whole sense I got from this was "meh".
Movie review - "Wonder Woman" (2017) **** (warning: spoilers)
It took a bizarrely long time for Wonder Woman to get the big screen treatment, especially since her origin story is so good and she's probably the most famous female super hero.
It's not a perfect film - I couldn't help wonder what might've happened had a German washed up on that beach, and the movie feels built around sequences rather than a cohesive whole.
But the sequences are amazing - Amazons training, Wonder Woman going into no man's land, the death of Steve Trevor (though couldn't he have flown out into the ocean or something?).
Gal Gadot's acting is limited but she's a movie star - she looks like a goddess, can do the acting, and is likeable. Chris Pine is perfectly suited for this sort of role - I think he's better as a support star.
Danny Huston camps it up as a villain. Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen are perfect as islanders; ditto Elena Anaya as a mysterious doctor and Lucy Davis as a fellow spy (bringing some much needed warmth and levity to the film). There's even a cute little gang including Said Taghmaoui, Ewen Bemner, and Eugene Brave Rock.
I was surprised it was in World War One, not Two, but it is a bit fresher that way. It was very entertaining.
It's not a perfect film - I couldn't help wonder what might've happened had a German washed up on that beach, and the movie feels built around sequences rather than a cohesive whole.
But the sequences are amazing - Amazons training, Wonder Woman going into no man's land, the death of Steve Trevor (though couldn't he have flown out into the ocean or something?).
Gal Gadot's acting is limited but she's a movie star - she looks like a goddess, can do the acting, and is likeable. Chris Pine is perfectly suited for this sort of role - I think he's better as a support star.
Danny Huston camps it up as a villain. Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen are perfect as islanders; ditto Elena Anaya as a mysterious doctor and Lucy Davis as a fellow spy (bringing some much needed warmth and levity to the film). There's even a cute little gang including Said Taghmaoui, Ewen Bemner, and Eugene Brave Rock.
I was surprised it was in World War One, not Two, but it is a bit fresher that way. It was very entertaining.
Saturday, November 18, 2017
Movie review - "Passion" (1954) **
An oldish Western storyline - a cowboy gets revenge on the land owners who kill his gal - is given some freshness by being set in Spanish California, and have its characters be Spanish Americans. There's also Yvonne de Carlo in a dual role as said dead gal and her twin sister - both of whom love Cornel Wilde. And some spectacular scenery - the Sierra mountains, a shoot out in snow...
But it's a curiously flat movie. It's a vigilante tale - Wilde killing off the baddies one by one - but I didn't feel too much for his pain since he'd been away from de Carlo for ages, hadn't even married her, and indeed didn't know she was pregnant. He didn't seem to particularly like her.
The film lacks another twist or complication - I kept expecting Raymond Burr, as a local law man, to provide this (a reveal he's in on it, or in love with one of the de Carlos, etc), or maybe the second de Carlo (to betray Wilde or something) but it never happens. It's very linear and monotonous. The reveal that his baby is still alive isn't it - if anything it makes Wilde look like an idiot for going off on this rampage.
I loved the idea of seeing two de Carlo's, one a tomboy the other more feminine, but the two of them are only around for ten minutes before one is killed and that's no time to do anything. It was fun to see Lon Chaney Jnr as a dodgy cowboy.
But it's a curiously flat movie. It's a vigilante tale - Wilde killing off the baddies one by one - but I didn't feel too much for his pain since he'd been away from de Carlo for ages, hadn't even married her, and indeed didn't know she was pregnant. He didn't seem to particularly like her.
The film lacks another twist or complication - I kept expecting Raymond Burr, as a local law man, to provide this (a reveal he's in on it, or in love with one of the de Carlos, etc), or maybe the second de Carlo (to betray Wilde or something) but it never happens. It's very linear and monotonous. The reveal that his baby is still alive isn't it - if anything it makes Wilde look like an idiot for going off on this rampage.
I loved the idea of seeing two de Carlo's, one a tomboy the other more feminine, but the two of them are only around for ten minutes before one is killed and that's no time to do anything. It was fun to see Lon Chaney Jnr as a dodgy cowboy.
Movie review - "Border River" (1954) **
Who says Hollywood can't be educational? I'd never heard of the Mexican free trade zone, the Zona Libre, until this movie - where a Confederate soldier, Joel McCrea, rocks up to buy guns for his slave-owning masters. Yvonne de Carlo is on hand as a local gal, and Pedro Armendariz is the local warlord.
The Confederate-supplies story gets ignored for a lot of time and instead there's lots of stuff of Armendariz being jealous of de Carlo's attraction to McCrea, and a local revolutionary wanting to take over Armendariz.
Why not have a main character be a Union soldier after McCrea? (There is one but it's half arsed.) Why not talk about what happened to the, you know, guns? Why not have a decent ending? Why not have McCrea be more actively involved with the revolutionaries? Or at least de Carlo, who comes from revolutionary stock? (She basically carries the water for McCrea.)
The ingredients are there for something decent but the result is dull and mediocre.
The Confederate-supplies story gets ignored for a lot of time and instead there's lots of stuff of Armendariz being jealous of de Carlo's attraction to McCrea, and a local revolutionary wanting to take over Armendariz.
Why not have a main character be a Union soldier after McCrea? (There is one but it's half arsed.) Why not talk about what happened to the, you know, guns? Why not have a decent ending? Why not have McCrea be more actively involved with the revolutionaries? Or at least de Carlo, who comes from revolutionary stock? (She basically carries the water for McCrea.)
The ingredients are there for something decent but the result is dull and mediocre.
Friday, November 17, 2017
Script review - "Mother" by David Aaronofksy (warning: spoilers)
I get why this is polarising - it's a bit wanky, it's very confronting that a baby is killed - but I'm surprised it got such squeals of shock. I guess I'm more used to it having seen all that "in your face" British theatre of the nineties and noughties. At least it has the guts to go there - and is full on and hard core and tries to be different.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
Script review - "I, Tonya" by Steve Rogers
It's surprising in a way it took Hollywood so long to make a film about Tonya Harding - she's got such great name recognition and it's clearly going to be a fantastic role for whoever played her. Maybe it was too associated with 90s scandal like OJ or the Menendez brothers, or Amy Fisher.
It actually reminded me of a 1990s film - To Die For with Nicole Kidman. It has the same pieces to camera, and protagonists' love of fame, and look at the dark underbelly of American society, etc.
This has some funny lines, and strongly etched characters - Tony, her mother, her abusive husband Jeff, his idiot mate. It does feel very familiar at times. Once or twice though it was surprising and moved me - such as Tonya doing the triple. But all too often it felt "surface".
It actually reminded me of a 1990s film - To Die For with Nicole Kidman. It has the same pieces to camera, and protagonists' love of fame, and look at the dark underbelly of American society, etc.
This has some funny lines, and strongly etched characters - Tony, her mother, her abusive husband Jeff, his idiot mate. It does feel very familiar at times. Once or twice though it was surprising and moved me - such as Tonya doing the triple. But all too often it felt "surface".
Movie review - "The San Francisco Story" (1952) **1/2
It's in black and white and the drama never quite works but the setting has novelty: 1850s San Francisco, dealing with the activities of the vigilantes trying to clean up San Francisco. There was also a pro vs anti slavery background to all this in real life which is completely overlooked but I liked how the final shoot out was on a beach.
Yvonne de Carlo is the female lead, a shady lady, clearly sexually experienced, mistress to the baddy - who is allowed to turn good and get the guy. He is Joel McCrea, handsome, virile and affable as ever - after seeing de Carlo line up against some pretty weak male talent it was nice to see her teamed with someone worthy of her.
Sidney Blackmer is a good villain and I enjoyed Florence Bates as a jolly inn keeper prone to shanghaiing drunks - though this did feel as though it belonged in another movie. I really liked Richard Erdman as McCrea's sidekick - couldn't put my finger on when I remembered him so gave him a google; he was the camp leader in Stalag 17 and also played Leonard in Community.
Yvonne de Carlo is the female lead, a shady lady, clearly sexually experienced, mistress to the baddy - who is allowed to turn good and get the guy. He is Joel McCrea, handsome, virile and affable as ever - after seeing de Carlo line up against some pretty weak male talent it was nice to see her teamed with someone worthy of her.
Sidney Blackmer is a good villain and I enjoyed Florence Bates as a jolly inn keeper prone to shanghaiing drunks - though this did feel as though it belonged in another movie. I really liked Richard Erdman as McCrea's sidekick - couldn't put my finger on when I remembered him so gave him a google; he was the camp leader in Stalag 17 and also played Leonard in Community.
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Movie review "Tomahawk" (1951) *** (warning: spoilers)
A bit of a surprise - I didn't know much about this Western, it doesn't have a great rep, but it was intelligent and different. Its very much from the post Broken Arrow school of liberal Hollywood westerns with Van Heflin - offbeat but effective casting - as Jim Bridger, a real life Indian scout, trying hard to prevent war between Sioux and whites.
The real villain in this is Alex Nicol, an ambitious cavalry scout who hero worships Chivington and was part of the famed Sandy Creek Massacre quite bloodily described here (Heflin's Indian wife and child were killed in it). He and other gung go whites are clearly the baddies and the Sioux quite sympathetic - though not terribly personalised. Indeed it's so anti-picking-on-the-Indians (talking about all the treaties the white man has broken I wondered if the writers were blacklisted).
It's not heavy on action - battle scenes are threatened more than delivered. However there is a strong sense of tension because violence is always threatened. And the ending is a genuine surprise - the whites fight off the Indians, but only due to superior technology... and the result it the fort gets knocked down so its a tactical victory for Red Cloud.
Heflin's nervy intensity suits the role - as does his craggy, tormented face. Yvonne de Carlo is wasted as "the girl" - a girl keen on Heflin. Her part could've been cut out of the movie - something you couldn't often claim for de Carlo in her heyday. There's good support from people like Preston Foster and Jack Oakie - Rock Hudson is it in too, briefly.
The real villain in this is Alex Nicol, an ambitious cavalry scout who hero worships Chivington and was part of the famed Sandy Creek Massacre quite bloodily described here (Heflin's Indian wife and child were killed in it). He and other gung go whites are clearly the baddies and the Sioux quite sympathetic - though not terribly personalised. Indeed it's so anti-picking-on-the-Indians (talking about all the treaties the white man has broken I wondered if the writers were blacklisted).
It's not heavy on action - battle scenes are threatened more than delivered. However there is a strong sense of tension because violence is always threatened. And the ending is a genuine surprise - the whites fight off the Indians, but only due to superior technology... and the result it the fort gets knocked down so its a tactical victory for Red Cloud.
Heflin's nervy intensity suits the role - as does his craggy, tormented face. Yvonne de Carlo is wasted as "the girl" - a girl keen on Heflin. Her part could've been cut out of the movie - something you couldn't often claim for de Carlo in her heyday. There's good support from people like Preston Foster and Jack Oakie - Rock Hudson is it in too, briefly.
Monday, November 13, 2017
Movie review - "Fort Algiers" (1953) **1/2
Yvonne de Carlo had her own money in this film, so its interesting to see the sort of movie she felt obliged to provide to her fans - to wit, an action-adventure tale set in the third world, with de Carlo in a series of skimpy outfits playing a spy.
On those terms its enjoyable - at the time critics yawned and they may still do but it's the sort of movie Hollywood doesn't make any more so I liked it. It's interesting being a contemporary tale about the French Foreign Legion - the French are battling off Arabs (led by Raymond Burr) who are supported by unspecified foreign powers (presumably communist though the movie doesn't come out and say this - I remember a Tarzan film which did a similar thing).
The movie had the same producer as Outpost in Morocco which means it could use some of that film's impressive location photography - shots of genuine Arab faces and impressive cavalry charges. There are some effective foreign legion bits such as the opening massacre, and Arabs charging at a fort at the end, and being repelled by makeshift explosions. I also liked how de Carlo's character propelled a lot of the action.
It's a shame the movie isn't in colour and doesn't have a more interesting leading man than Carlos Thompson, who was from South America. He's okay looking but lacks flair, warmth and vivacity - also it's annoying he's playing an American. The script was creaky in places - such as revealing the explanation of why Thompson and de Carlo broke up and over-relying on Burr's character being dumb.
De Carlo and Burr are perfectly cast and there's solid support from old reliables like John Dehner.
On those terms its enjoyable - at the time critics yawned and they may still do but it's the sort of movie Hollywood doesn't make any more so I liked it. It's interesting being a contemporary tale about the French Foreign Legion - the French are battling off Arabs (led by Raymond Burr) who are supported by unspecified foreign powers (presumably communist though the movie doesn't come out and say this - I remember a Tarzan film which did a similar thing).
The movie had the same producer as Outpost in Morocco which means it could use some of that film's impressive location photography - shots of genuine Arab faces and impressive cavalry charges. There are some effective foreign legion bits such as the opening massacre, and Arabs charging at a fort at the end, and being repelled by makeshift explosions. I also liked how de Carlo's character propelled a lot of the action.
It's a shame the movie isn't in colour and doesn't have a more interesting leading man than Carlos Thompson, who was from South America. He's okay looking but lacks flair, warmth and vivacity - also it's annoying he's playing an American. The script was creaky in places - such as revealing the explanation of why Thompson and de Carlo broke up and over-relying on Burr's character being dumb.
De Carlo and Burr are perfectly cast and there's solid support from old reliables like John Dehner.
Movie review - "The Gal Who Won the West" (1949) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Cheerful, dim musical comedy which was meant to be a vehicle for Deanna Durbin - and is typical of the weak material that star had in her latter career. It's better suited for Yvonne de Carlo, who was usually in thin films.
She's an opera singer who goes out West and is fought over two men - some random actors called John Russell and Scott Brady, neither of whom is particularly memorable. However old reliable Charles Coburn is on hand as the boys' grandfather.
It's lively and energetic and the colour is great. De Carlo seems to be having a fun time, playing basically a cheerful gold digger; she does a rendition of "Frankie and Johnny". It is a refreshing change to have a Western with the girl center stage, driving the action - being a bit mercenary about nabbing a rich husband, succeeding and not being punished.
The script - by Bill Bowers and Oscar Brodney - has a clever opening which tells the story of De Carlo's arrival in town from three different points of view. The whole thing is in flashback from the present day - we meet de Carlo in old age makeup. There are some clever lines and the piece have spirit.
The boys brawling over De Carlo gets depressing after a while - they're so vicious about it; these two literally want to kill each other. And neither of them is really worthy of her. The piece does keep you guessing who she will marry but that's not necessarily a great thing because she has no emotional connection with either.
In the end (spoiler) she marries Russell but Russell is a womanizer - and she mostly does it because she knows Brady will keep Russell in line. I did like however that they showed de Carlo in the present day, old and happy, so presumably it all worked out.
She's an opera singer who goes out West and is fought over two men - some random actors called John Russell and Scott Brady, neither of whom is particularly memorable. However old reliable Charles Coburn is on hand as the boys' grandfather.
It's lively and energetic and the colour is great. De Carlo seems to be having a fun time, playing basically a cheerful gold digger; she does a rendition of "Frankie and Johnny". It is a refreshing change to have a Western with the girl center stage, driving the action - being a bit mercenary about nabbing a rich husband, succeeding and not being punished.
The script - by Bill Bowers and Oscar Brodney - has a clever opening which tells the story of De Carlo's arrival in town from three different points of view. The whole thing is in flashback from the present day - we meet de Carlo in old age makeup. There are some clever lines and the piece have spirit.
The boys brawling over De Carlo gets depressing after a while - they're so vicious about it; these two literally want to kill each other. And neither of them is really worthy of her. The piece does keep you guessing who she will marry but that's not necessarily a great thing because she has no emotional connection with either.
In the end (spoiler) she marries Russell but Russell is a womanizer - and she mostly does it because she knows Brady will keep Russell in line. I did like however that they showed de Carlo in the present day, old and happy, so presumably it all worked out.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
TV review - "Lights Out - episode "Another Country"" (1952) **
Lights Out is a little remembered TV anthology - I'd never heard of it. It was based on a radio show and you can tell.
This runs for 22 minutes and is a simple effective story most notable for giving Yvonne de Carlo her TV debut. She's a mystery woman who turns up at a house attracted by Beethoven's music being played there by three people. It turns out she's a ghost of Beethoven's ex. That's not a bad little story - it does come across as silly here when we flash back to Beethoven.
It's very rickety. I didn't recognise any of the other actors. De Carlo acquits herself well - I was surprised she didn't do more ghost/horror stories, she suited them.
Occasionally an interesting name pops up on the credits for these and in this case its Richard Sylbert who did sets.
This runs for 22 minutes and is a simple effective story most notable for giving Yvonne de Carlo her TV debut. She's a mystery woman who turns up at a house attracted by Beethoven's music being played there by three people. It turns out she's a ghost of Beethoven's ex. That's not a bad little story - it does come across as silly here when we flash back to Beethoven.
It's very rickety. I didn't recognise any of the other actors. De Carlo acquits herself well - I was surprised she didn't do more ghost/horror stories, she suited them.
Occasionally an interesting name pops up on the credits for these and in this case its Richard Sylbert who did sets.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Movie review - "Casbah" (1948) **1/2
Jean Gabin, Charles Boyer... Tony Martin. Martin is an amiable singer-actor probably best remembered today for popping up in a few Marx Brothers movies like The Big Store. This is a remake of Algiers with Martin as the thief Pepe Le Moko who is hiding out in the Casbah.
It's a quasi-musical: Martin sings a few songs and Yvonne de Carlo, who plays his girlfriend, sings one. It's in black and white, not colour though.
The female lead isn't de Carlo - that honour goes to Marta Toren, a Swedish actor who Universal briefly tried to push as a second Ingrid Bergman/Garbo. She isn't very good, with dull eyes and an unexciting presence - this was her first Hollywood film to be fair, though.
I thought de Carlo was wasted in her part but she's really good in it so may be not - the girl who loves Martin so much she betrays him. Peter Lorre is superb as the policeman determined to nab Martin and Thomas Gomez and Hugo Haas offer ideal third-world-backlot support.
Too much time is devoted to Douglas Dick (as an old friend of Martin's who betrays him), whose make up is distracting.
There's a hollow core in this film - I never bought that Toren liked Martin. I did buy he liked her and although Martin's miscast he tries. De Carlo, Lorre and Gomez are very good and the story still holds. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.
It's a quasi-musical: Martin sings a few songs and Yvonne de Carlo, who plays his girlfriend, sings one. It's in black and white, not colour though.
The female lead isn't de Carlo - that honour goes to Marta Toren, a Swedish actor who Universal briefly tried to push as a second Ingrid Bergman/Garbo. She isn't very good, with dull eyes and an unexciting presence - this was her first Hollywood film to be fair, though.
I thought de Carlo was wasted in her part but she's really good in it so may be not - the girl who loves Martin so much she betrays him. Peter Lorre is superb as the policeman determined to nab Martin and Thomas Gomez and Hugo Haas offer ideal third-world-backlot support.
Too much time is devoted to Douglas Dick (as an old friend of Martin's who betrays him), whose make up is distracting.
There's a hollow core in this film - I never bought that Toren liked Martin. I did buy he liked her and although Martin's miscast he tries. De Carlo, Lorre and Gomez are very good and the story still holds. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.
Movie review - "River Lady" (1948) *** (warning: spoilers)
Entertaining Universal Western, with the studio ponying up for some good production value (timber, a riverboat, saloons) and colour. It's not a bad story either, as riverboat lady Yvonne de Carlo pursues roughneck Rod Cameron, who is also desired by good girl Helena Carter, daughter of John MacIntire; dodgy Dan Duryea loves de Carlo.
Everyone's motivations are clear and strong and its all underpinned by emotion. Cameron isn't quite charismatic enough to make you (or me at any rate) believe that de Carlo and Carter would pant all over him but he's okay - and I guess his character has talent and ambition and a leader, which would be attractive.
De Carlo is ideally cast as a riverboat lady - she looks great and is in fine form, even singing a song. I wish more of the action had focused on her. De Carlo's characters generally got to keep the guy in her first few movies of stardom but as time went on she would lose them to other women eg Casbah, Calamity Jane and Sam Bass. Here she loses out to good girl Helena Carter.
Which is a bit sexist - especially all that stuff about Cameron being insulted a woman bails him out.
However Carter was a real surprise packet for me - lively, sparky, with some clever dialogue. She goes after Cameron actively, in part because its a rebellious act and she's clearly sexually attracted to him. Carter is pretty and has real personality on screen - I'm surprised she didn't have more of a career.
Dan Duryea is also very good as the shady man with a yen for de Carlo. I wish he'd been used more - actually the whole movie could've been better, it seemed to be building to a top rank melodrama that never happened. But it is colourful and fun.
Everyone's motivations are clear and strong and its all underpinned by emotion. Cameron isn't quite charismatic enough to make you (or me at any rate) believe that de Carlo and Carter would pant all over him but he's okay - and I guess his character has talent and ambition and a leader, which would be attractive.
De Carlo is ideally cast as a riverboat lady - she looks great and is in fine form, even singing a song. I wish more of the action had focused on her. De Carlo's characters generally got to keep the guy in her first few movies of stardom but as time went on she would lose them to other women eg Casbah, Calamity Jane and Sam Bass. Here she loses out to good girl Helena Carter.
Which is a bit sexist - especially all that stuff about Cameron being insulted a woman bails him out.
However Carter was a real surprise packet for me - lively, sparky, with some clever dialogue. She goes after Cameron actively, in part because its a rebellious act and she's clearly sexually attracted to him. Carter is pretty and has real personality on screen - I'm surprised she didn't have more of a career.
Dan Duryea is also very good as the shady man with a yen for de Carlo. I wish he'd been used more - actually the whole movie could've been better, it seemed to be building to a top rank melodrama that never happened. But it is colourful and fun.
Script review - "The Lost City of Z" by James Gray
I thought I was across most nutty British explorers but I hadn't heard of Percy Fawcett, who disappeared in 1925 trying to find a lost civilisation. This is an odd sort of movie - a throw back to old classic epics like Lawrence of Arabia or Khartoum.
Perhaps too much so. For a lot of this, the action feels a bit... lifeless I think is the word. Everyone is polite and driven. It's all very polite. Fawcett isn't a very interesting character and neither is his wife Nina (who is saddled with "why are you never home"?)
The film is divided roughly into three expeditions, with a war interlude. Things pick up on the second trip with the whiny cowardly James Murray on hand to provide some conflict. The Battle of the Somme interlude is vivid and well done and the final act very effective... mind you it would be hard to stuff up an ending where Fawcett and his son disappear.
Pretty good - it just took a while to get going. I feel it needed to be shorter or something maybe. Or maybe embrace the madness/insanity of it all or something.
Perhaps too much so. For a lot of this, the action feels a bit... lifeless I think is the word. Everyone is polite and driven. It's all very polite. Fawcett isn't a very interesting character and neither is his wife Nina (who is saddled with "why are you never home"?)
The film is divided roughly into three expeditions, with a war interlude. Things pick up on the second trip with the whiny cowardly James Murray on hand to provide some conflict. The Battle of the Somme interlude is vivid and well done and the final act very effective... mind you it would be hard to stuff up an ending where Fawcett and his son disappear.
Pretty good - it just took a while to get going. I feel it needed to be shorter or something maybe. Or maybe embrace the madness/insanity of it all or something.
Movie review - "Song of Scheherazade" (1947) **1/2
Walter Reisch's only film as director and it's an entirely decent effort, helped by Universal giving him a good budget and Technicolour. I wasn't that wild about his story but it was a bit different - a biopic of some Russian composer Nicky Rimsky-Korsakov. I'd never heard of this bloke and to be honest wasn't that familiar with his tunes but apparently he's famous. And he was genuinely a sailor as this film has it - he stops off Tangiers while on a world trip and falls for a dancer, who inspires him to write music.
The lead is played by French actor Jean Pierre Aumont, a drippy type with a sappy face who doesn't seem to be that much of an actor. He had a good career, getting a Hollywood push in the 40s - he lacked Louis Jourdan's looks and Jean Gabin's talent, but he did have a good story, fleeing France when it was occupied. He also had solid war service, fighting for de Gaulle's forces, and an interesting personal life, being married to Maria Montez. He's not that memorable on screen though, at least not to me and I didn't care much about his character's worries.
Better value is Yvonne de Carlo as the dancer... who also happens to be an impoverished noble, so she's doing it on the sly. De Carlo is sexy and engaging and a good dancer; I agree with Sam Spiegel's verdict that her persona was "plebian" - she's not entirely convincing as an aristocrat. I wonder if Universal intended Maria Montez to play this role - it would have suited her.
The support cast is interesting. Eve Arden is far too young to play de Carlo's mother but is fun. Philip Reed is a bit wet as a Russian prince who has a whip duel with Aumont but then becomes his mate .Brian Donlevy is an extremely American Russian ship captain. Someone called Charles Kullman sings a few songs. There are some entertaining dance numbers and production values are high; I enjoyed the comedy interludes too.
I wouldn't call this an entirely successful movie, and no one seems completely well cast, but it entertains.
The lead is played by French actor Jean Pierre Aumont, a drippy type with a sappy face who doesn't seem to be that much of an actor. He had a good career, getting a Hollywood push in the 40s - he lacked Louis Jourdan's looks and Jean Gabin's talent, but he did have a good story, fleeing France when it was occupied. He also had solid war service, fighting for de Gaulle's forces, and an interesting personal life, being married to Maria Montez. He's not that memorable on screen though, at least not to me and I didn't care much about his character's worries.
Better value is Yvonne de Carlo as the dancer... who also happens to be an impoverished noble, so she's doing it on the sly. De Carlo is sexy and engaging and a good dancer; I agree with Sam Spiegel's verdict that her persona was "plebian" - she's not entirely convincing as an aristocrat. I wonder if Universal intended Maria Montez to play this role - it would have suited her.
The support cast is interesting. Eve Arden is far too young to play de Carlo's mother but is fun. Philip Reed is a bit wet as a Russian prince who has a whip duel with Aumont but then becomes his mate .Brian Donlevy is an extremely American Russian ship captain. Someone called Charles Kullman sings a few songs. There are some entertaining dance numbers and production values are high; I enjoyed the comedy interludes too.
I wouldn't call this an entirely successful movie, and no one seems completely well cast, but it entertains.
Script review - "Last of the Mohicians" by Michael Mann and Cris Crowe
It's a shame Michael Mann doesn't do more remakes, especially of older movies - he's got a gift for taking an old story and really revitalising it. This is a brilliant version of the old novel, done with pace, leanness and integrity.
I guess it is a bit 90s PC - the British are as bad as the Indians in many ways, responsible for slaughter of Indians and betraying the colonials, and being stuffy; Hawkeye points out the British and French Empire are Bad; Cora is Scottish not English; Hawkeye is white but raised by the Indians and is very right on.
And the story has repetitive aspects - the girls are rescued by Hawkeye and his gang three times - and flaws - the relationship between Alice and Uncas is very under done. Actually this was fleshed out more in the script - they had a love scene where Uncas realises half way through sex that Alice actually has PTSD.
But it's powerful and epic and doesn't stuff around - babies and kids are killed. Its well researched and very exciting.
I guess it is a bit 90s PC - the British are as bad as the Indians in many ways, responsible for slaughter of Indians and betraying the colonials, and being stuffy; Hawkeye points out the British and French Empire are Bad; Cora is Scottish not English; Hawkeye is white but raised by the Indians and is very right on.
And the story has repetitive aspects - the girls are rescued by Hawkeye and his gang three times - and flaws - the relationship between Alice and Uncas is very under done. Actually this was fleshed out more in the script - they had a love scene where Uncas realises half way through sex that Alice actually has PTSD.
But it's powerful and epic and doesn't stuff around - babies and kids are killed. Its well researched and very exciting.
Movie review - "Calamity Jane and Sam Bass" (1949) **1/2
There's lots of good things about this Western: its in colour; the production values are strong; George Sherman directs with a steady hand; there's impressive horses; the support cast includes reliables like Norman Lloyd and Lloyd Bridges; Willard Parker is ideally cast as a sheriff.
I didn't mind Howard Duff as a hero - Universal tried to turn him into a star around this time, and it didn't quite work, but he can act, he's got a superb voice, and okay presence. I wasn't familiar with Dorothy Hart but she's effective.
Yvonne de Carlo is perfect as Calamity Jane - okay maybe "perfect" is overdoing it, but she's sassy and pretty and looks like she'd be able to shoot people. Not all Western fans enjoy de Carlo in that genre but I do.
The basic idea of this film is solid - Duff's Sam Bass goes from honest bloke to outlaw, and he's loved by sassy tomboy de Carlo (Calamity Jane) but loves good girl Dorothy Hart.
But the execution suffers. There's all this stuff about Duff loving a horse and being upset when his horse is killed and wanting horses - only we never spend that much time with horses. There's no overall villain, not really - I keep expecting Willard Parker to play this role but he doesn't. De Carlo looks like she's going to have a big role in the film, and she should have, but she doesn't. There's all this plot about horses and owing money which confused me. I wasn't sure exactly when Duff turned bad or what he was doing that was bad.
It was alright. It felt like it had been rewritten a few times without a clear overall vision. It's a shame because of the good things in the movie.
I didn't mind Howard Duff as a hero - Universal tried to turn him into a star around this time, and it didn't quite work, but he can act, he's got a superb voice, and okay presence. I wasn't familiar with Dorothy Hart but she's effective.
Yvonne de Carlo is perfect as Calamity Jane - okay maybe "perfect" is overdoing it, but she's sassy and pretty and looks like she'd be able to shoot people. Not all Western fans enjoy de Carlo in that genre but I do.
The basic idea of this film is solid - Duff's Sam Bass goes from honest bloke to outlaw, and he's loved by sassy tomboy de Carlo (Calamity Jane) but loves good girl Dorothy Hart.
But the execution suffers. There's all this stuff about Duff loving a horse and being upset when his horse is killed and wanting horses - only we never spend that much time with horses. There's no overall villain, not really - I keep expecting Willard Parker to play this role but he doesn't. De Carlo looks like she's going to have a big role in the film, and she should have, but she doesn't. There's all this plot about horses and owing money which confused me. I wasn't sure exactly when Duff turned bad or what he was doing that was bad.
It was alright. It felt like it had been rewritten a few times without a clear overall vision. It's a shame because of the good things in the movie.
Tuesday, November 07, 2017
Script review - "The Big Sick"
Smart funny and wonderful. It's not that fresh to have a rom com set in the world of stand up comics any more, but having him Pakistani is extremely fresh and the romance is well done - the female character is very fleshed out. And the stuff about dealing with a girlfriend in a coma is excellent. A simple, warm, lovely script.
Movie review - "Frontier Gal" (1945) *
Universal signed Yvonne de Carlo as a sort of back up Maria Montez, so when Montez turned down the role in this, de Carlo stepped in. Problem is the film is still clearly written for Montez - she's a hoity-toity dame who speaks in a foreign accent and runs a saloon.
Rod Cameron, an overweight puffy dude who had a brief vogue as a leading man, pops into town looking for revenge. Cameron strikes sparks with de Carlo, sleeps with her (it was hard to tell by what we saw but this seemed implied via the dialogue...that they'd had sex not just kissed), then she thinks they're getting married but he's got a fiancee - which is pretty racy. So she forces him to marry her at gunpoint then reveals he's on the run.
There's an unfortunate rapey vibe - indeed it's one of the most rape-y Westerns I've seen. In the first act De Carlo is always slapping Cameron's face and he's roughly kissing her and she slaps him again and he kisses her again and she's supposed to like it; then later on he abducts her and forces her to go on a honeymoon; when he arrives back from six years absence he grabs her and drags her upstairs and she's struggling. He rapes her twice! (Or at least that's what it seems like.)
Then when he meets his six year old daughter by de Carlo he winds up abducting her from de Carlo because de Carlo allows her to sing on a bar, and then spanks the daughter when she throws a tantrum (but the daughter doesn't mind because it means he loves her). And he goes and fetches his old fiance! Then later on when the daughter is kidnapped by the baddie, de Carlo tries riding after them.. and Cameron forcibly removes her from the horse. And at the end Cameron gives de Carlo a spanking to show he loves her with the daughter looking on.
It's really horrible. It's also tonally a mess because the film starts off with Cameron seeking revenge against the guy who killed his partner... all good stock Western stuff... but then his six year old daughter becomes involved and the film moves into Full House territory with cuteness of a clueless cowboy dealing with his daughter... but the mum is still around, and the dad is keeping the daughter from the mum! The revenge plot is forgotten until the end - actually it's forgotten at the end too because the baddie kidnaps the daughter, it's got nothing really to do with shooting Cameron's partner.
There's an awful scene where de Carlo - this is after Cameron has stolen her daughter - goes on how much she loves Cameron, how she'll do anything for him, etc etc. Then later on de Carlo's meant to be all embarassed because she runs a saloon... whereas Cameron was in prison!
How to fix it? I think start the film when Cameron returns from prison (i.e. the six year later mark... remove the prologue). Have him come to town. Don't make De Carlo the mother, make her a saloon keeper looking after the kid; kill off the mother so Cameron's actions aren't so obnoxious and immoral.
De Carlo looks nice but has to be passive the whole thing. She slaps Cameron a few times but gets spanked and raped in return.
Rod Cameron, an overweight puffy dude who had a brief vogue as a leading man, pops into town looking for revenge. Cameron strikes sparks with de Carlo, sleeps with her (it was hard to tell by what we saw but this seemed implied via the dialogue...that they'd had sex not just kissed), then she thinks they're getting married but he's got a fiancee - which is pretty racy. So she forces him to marry her at gunpoint then reveals he's on the run.
There's an unfortunate rapey vibe - indeed it's one of the most rape-y Westerns I've seen. In the first act De Carlo is always slapping Cameron's face and he's roughly kissing her and she slaps him again and he kisses her again and she's supposed to like it; then later on he abducts her and forces her to go on a honeymoon; when he arrives back from six years absence he grabs her and drags her upstairs and she's struggling. He rapes her twice! (Or at least that's what it seems like.)
Then when he meets his six year old daughter by de Carlo he winds up abducting her from de Carlo because de Carlo allows her to sing on a bar, and then spanks the daughter when she throws a tantrum (but the daughter doesn't mind because it means he loves her). And he goes and fetches his old fiance! Then later on when the daughter is kidnapped by the baddie, de Carlo tries riding after them.. and Cameron forcibly removes her from the horse. And at the end Cameron gives de Carlo a spanking to show he loves her with the daughter looking on.
It's really horrible. It's also tonally a mess because the film starts off with Cameron seeking revenge against the guy who killed his partner... all good stock Western stuff... but then his six year old daughter becomes involved and the film moves into Full House territory with cuteness of a clueless cowboy dealing with his daughter... but the mum is still around, and the dad is keeping the daughter from the mum! The revenge plot is forgotten until the end - actually it's forgotten at the end too because the baddie kidnaps the daughter, it's got nothing really to do with shooting Cameron's partner.
There's an awful scene where de Carlo - this is after Cameron has stolen her daughter - goes on how much she loves Cameron, how she'll do anything for him, etc etc. Then later on de Carlo's meant to be all embarassed because she runs a saloon... whereas Cameron was in prison!
How to fix it? I think start the film when Cameron returns from prison (i.e. the six year later mark... remove the prologue). Have him come to town. Don't make De Carlo the mother, make her a saloon keeper looking after the kid; kill off the mother so Cameron's actions aren't so obnoxious and immoral.
De Carlo looks nice but has to be passive the whole thing. She slaps Cameron a few times but gets spanked and raped in return.
Monday, November 06, 2017
Script review - "Dunkirk" by Christopher Nolan
A different sort of script - very sparse and lean, only 82 pages, little dialogue. It's very hard to tell characters apart on the page. You read it and feel "i guess I'd have to trust the director". The most engrossing bit is the blinding of the soldier who then dies by someone on his own side.
It plunges you into the action, doesn't stuff around. It just doesn't read particularly well.
It plunges you into the action, doesn't stuff around. It just doesn't read particularly well.
Movie review - "Sea Devils" (1953) ***
This film gets a bad rap but I've always really enjoyed it. It's got pace, action, colour, historical background and two ideally cast stars in Rock Hudson and Yvonne de Carlo - both very suited for this kind of thing.
Borden Chase's story was supposedly based on Victor Hugo's Toilers of the Sea but I'm not sure how faithful it is. Chase does a good job, throwing us straight into the action - Hudson is a British smuggler in the Napoleonic Wars, who gets involved transporting Yvonne de Carlo back and forth across the channel. He thinks de Carlo is an aristocrat, then a French spy - in fact she's a British spy.
There's a pleasing amount of double crosses and misunderstandings, and de Carlo gets to be active, which suited her - she was less effective in roles where she just hung out and watched the hero. The baddies are smart; the supporting cast earn their keep as characters - de Carlo's untrustworthy boss, a suspicious French novel, a ruthless French spy, a double crossing British smuggler.
Bryan Forbes is irritating as Hudson's sidekick - I think he made a good move going into writing and directing. Maxwell Reed is better as the villainous fellow smuggler who pops in the second half; Reed wasn't a great actor either but his glowering looks were better suited to villains than heroes.
Location filming in England and France helps, so does Raoul Walsh's brisk handling. It's one of the best movies from RKO in the 1950s (admittedly not high praise).
Borden Chase's story was supposedly based on Victor Hugo's Toilers of the Sea but I'm not sure how faithful it is. Chase does a good job, throwing us straight into the action - Hudson is a British smuggler in the Napoleonic Wars, who gets involved transporting Yvonne de Carlo back and forth across the channel. He thinks de Carlo is an aristocrat, then a French spy - in fact she's a British spy.
There's a pleasing amount of double crosses and misunderstandings, and de Carlo gets to be active, which suited her - she was less effective in roles where she just hung out and watched the hero. The baddies are smart; the supporting cast earn their keep as characters - de Carlo's untrustworthy boss, a suspicious French novel, a ruthless French spy, a double crossing British smuggler.
Bryan Forbes is irritating as Hudson's sidekick - I think he made a good move going into writing and directing. Maxwell Reed is better as the villainous fellow smuggler who pops in the second half; Reed wasn't a great actor either but his glowering looks were better suited to villains than heroes.
Location filming in England and France helps, so does Raoul Walsh's brisk handling. It's one of the best movies from RKO in the 1950s (admittedly not high praise).
Movie review - "Buccaneer's Girl" (1950) **1/2
Yvonne de Carlo isn't remembered as a great star but from 1945 to 1951 or thereabouts she toplined a bunch of Universal action films, normally in technicolor. She's best remembered for her turns in film noirs like Brute Force and Criss Cross but in those movies she had support parts; in these she drove the action.
Here she's a damsel who is captured by a pirate - another version of the famed Lafitte. The bloke who plays her is some guy called Philip Friend, an English actor who had a decent career - but really didn't have the charisma for a leading man. This was his big chance and he's not up to it.
Fortunately there's a very strong gallery of supporting characters - Elsa Lancaster as a (surprise) eccentric old thing who befriends de Carlo; Robert Douglas as a nasty shipping magnate; Norman Lloyd as his secretary; Henry Daniell as a villainous captain. It's an excellent line up.
De Carlo is vivacious, looks good and sings a bunch of times - her real voice too, she was an opera person. As much as I like her films I don't think she was a top rank star - there's something about her that lacked great individuality, for me at any rate. Sometimes she could blend into the background a bit too much; for all her beauty and spirit, there's something about her that doesn't quite draw the eye. I think Maureen O'Hara was better at this sort of stuff. She is fun.
Its colourful, with good production values and there's a bit of action. I liked the setting of New Orleans around the time of Lafitte (Friend's buccaneer is based on that pirate).
The main problem, apart from the casting of Friend, is the story, which is needlessly and confusingly complicated. All the elements are there: Friend lives a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel existence, as a pirate and a respectable person on land; Friend has a bitchy fiance who hates de Carlo. But it isn't quite smoothed over.
I was unsure of the context and what was going on at times. Also I got what Friend's character was doing but not de Carlo's... was she out for money? Love? What was her character? She was really the protagonist - this needed to be fleshed out more. The film was geared too much to Friend.
Still, a decent second-tier swashbuckler from Universal when they were really strong in this area.
Here she's a damsel who is captured by a pirate - another version of the famed Lafitte. The bloke who plays her is some guy called Philip Friend, an English actor who had a decent career - but really didn't have the charisma for a leading man. This was his big chance and he's not up to it.
Fortunately there's a very strong gallery of supporting characters - Elsa Lancaster as a (surprise) eccentric old thing who befriends de Carlo; Robert Douglas as a nasty shipping magnate; Norman Lloyd as his secretary; Henry Daniell as a villainous captain. It's an excellent line up.
De Carlo is vivacious, looks good and sings a bunch of times - her real voice too, she was an opera person. As much as I like her films I don't think she was a top rank star - there's something about her that lacked great individuality, for me at any rate. Sometimes she could blend into the background a bit too much; for all her beauty and spirit, there's something about her that doesn't quite draw the eye. I think Maureen O'Hara was better at this sort of stuff. She is fun.
Its colourful, with good production values and there's a bit of action. I liked the setting of New Orleans around the time of Lafitte (Friend's buccaneer is based on that pirate).
The main problem, apart from the casting of Friend, is the story, which is needlessly and confusingly complicated. All the elements are there: Friend lives a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel existence, as a pirate and a respectable person on land; Friend has a bitchy fiance who hates de Carlo. But it isn't quite smoothed over.
I was unsure of the context and what was going on at times. Also I got what Friend's character was doing but not de Carlo's... was she out for money? Love? What was her character? She was really the protagonist - this needed to be fleshed out more. The film was geared too much to Friend.
Still, a decent second-tier swashbuckler from Universal when they were really strong in this area.
Saturday, November 04, 2017
Movie review - "Bear Island" (1979) ** (warning: spoilers)
The money really was wasted. I mean, I appreciate they went and shot in the icy wilds - there's some spectacular locations: glaciers, fjords, all that stuff. It looks terrific. But at its heart this is a film about a bunch of people stuck in a room struggling to get outside - you could've filmed a lot more of it inside if you wanted to save money and I think provided you'd given those scenes some atmosphere you wouldn't have cared too much.
Cast wise it's very much a B team - good actors to be sure but hardly big box office, and all so old: Donald Sutherland is the hero, Vanessa Redgrave is wasted as the girl (basically), Richard Widmark, Christopher Lee and Lloyd Bridges all handled different accents.
There's some decent action - snowmobiles zipping around, the odd fight, a chase on a boat at the end.
The main problem is I just didn't care. There were too many scenes of people in parkas where their faces were hidden (may be accurate, but hard to make an emotional connection). The stakes were old Nazi gold which I guess is okay - just not as good as something like, say, beating the Nazis in war time.
It was also hard to engage with any of the characters. Donald Sutherland didn't seem particularly interested with what was going on - no one did. MacLean came up with some decent twists in the past- like in Puppet on a String the heroin addicted girl being show to putting it on etc. But here you know it's going to be Widmark or Bridges so when its Bridges, its like "so what"?
It's not terrible, not a disaster just a B movie.
Friday, November 03, 2017
Movie review - "Puppet on a Chain" (1971) ** (warning: spoilers)
1960s Alistair MacLean adaptations featured top rank stars, and excellent behind the scenes talent. The 1970s version tended to be B list efforts - you'd have stars like Barry Newman and David Birney. Here is some bloke called Sven-Bertil Taube as an "American" agent poking around Amsterdam trying to crack a drug ring.
That means he basically walks around Amsterdam following dodgy people, encountering addicts. There's some tsk-tsk-ing from older characters about rampart use of drugs among young people which wouldn't be out of place in a 1930s film (although from memory this wasn't uncommon in action novels aimed at middle aged men that came out in the 60s through 80s).
It's not a very good movie. The pace is plodding, the story uninteresting. Taube lacks charisma. There's little humour and not much action in the first healf - the odd fist fight. The best thing about it is the photography and the Amsterdam locations - these are pretty good.
Barbara Perkins is pretty as the girl who helps Taube. I didn't quite buy she'd fit in as an undercover operative - too American for someone working in Holland. The girl who plays a girl whose brains have been so raddled by heroin she's childlike isn't terribly convincing, to put it politely. Alexander Knox is very good.
In the second half things pick up. There's a few decent twists: the execution of Parkins; the reveal of a reverend as a baddy (this actually wasn't such a surprise); the double reveal of a head cop and his heroin addicted niece as baddies. There's a justifiably famous boat chase, which was shot by Don Sharp (who also did some other sequences on the film), and less talk and more thumping... and you can see what sort of movie this might have made: more action, more like Bond, less bad acting.
That means he basically walks around Amsterdam following dodgy people, encountering addicts. There's some tsk-tsk-ing from older characters about rampart use of drugs among young people which wouldn't be out of place in a 1930s film (although from memory this wasn't uncommon in action novels aimed at middle aged men that came out in the 60s through 80s).
It's not a very good movie. The pace is plodding, the story uninteresting. Taube lacks charisma. There's little humour and not much action in the first healf - the odd fist fight. The best thing about it is the photography and the Amsterdam locations - these are pretty good.
Barbara Perkins is pretty as the girl who helps Taube. I didn't quite buy she'd fit in as an undercover operative - too American for someone working in Holland. The girl who plays a girl whose brains have been so raddled by heroin she's childlike isn't terribly convincing, to put it politely. Alexander Knox is very good.
In the second half things pick up. There's a few decent twists: the execution of Parkins; the reveal of a reverend as a baddy (this actually wasn't such a surprise); the double reveal of a head cop and his heroin addicted niece as baddies. There's a justifiably famous boat chase, which was shot by Don Sharp (who also did some other sequences on the film), and less talk and more thumping... and you can see what sort of movie this might have made: more action, more like Bond, less bad acting.
Movie review - "Race for the Yankee Zephyr" (1981) **
I remember wanting to enjoy this as a kid because of its great title and concept but being underwhelmed by it. It remains underwhelming, with a great title and concept.
Brian Trenchard Smith was apparently flown to New Zealand for a day to keep director David Hemmings in line. It's a shame Trenchard Smith couldn't take over because he'd have brought the right light touch that this needs. Hemmings' work is fairly ordinary.
Brian May's score feels brooding and the playing isn't there. Donald Pleasance is ideal in the Walter Brennan part, and George Peppard camps things up as he's been asked to. Ken Wahl is a good looking guy with some charisma but isn't quite right here - he's a bit lumbering or something. (At times I wished Peppard was playing Wahl's role and Hemmings was playing the villain). Lesley Ann Warren feels wasted - I get she's meant to be a good girl who gets a bit naughty but she lacks a scene that's hers; a bathtub moment or an action scene or something.
The plot is fairly simple - Peppard chases the gang of three. It could've done with a twist like the betrayal of a friend or a death or some other reversal - like the government being involved, or a widow of one of the dead pilots coming along or something. I guess Pleasance is captured but that doesn't feel too major.
The scenery is stunning, there's some awesome camera work. Bruno Lawrence pops up as Peppard's henchmen. It is a film that just wants to entertain you, I'll give it that.
Brian Trenchard Smith was apparently flown to New Zealand for a day to keep director David Hemmings in line. It's a shame Trenchard Smith couldn't take over because he'd have brought the right light touch that this needs. Hemmings' work is fairly ordinary.
Brian May's score feels brooding and the playing isn't there. Donald Pleasance is ideal in the Walter Brennan part, and George Peppard camps things up as he's been asked to. Ken Wahl is a good looking guy with some charisma but isn't quite right here - he's a bit lumbering or something. (At times I wished Peppard was playing Wahl's role and Hemmings was playing the villain). Lesley Ann Warren feels wasted - I get she's meant to be a good girl who gets a bit naughty but she lacks a scene that's hers; a bathtub moment or an action scene or something.
The plot is fairly simple - Peppard chases the gang of three. It could've done with a twist like the betrayal of a friend or a death or some other reversal - like the government being involved, or a widow of one of the dead pilots coming along or something. I guess Pleasance is captured but that doesn't feel too major.
The scenery is stunning, there's some awesome camera work. Bruno Lawrence pops up as Peppard's henchmen. It is a film that just wants to entertain you, I'll give it that.
Wednesday, November 01, 2017
Could Margaret Lockwood's career have been saved?
I've been thinking about Margaret Lockwood lately, as you do (okay no one does except me) - in particular, about what went wrong with her career after the triumph of The Wicked Lady. The most popular star in Britain at what was arugably the high point of the British film industry... within ten years her name was thought to repel audiences from Cast a Dark Shadow.
During World War Two Lockwood's resume was full of hits, notably the Gainsborough melodramas - The Man from Grey, Wicket Lady, Love Story. She was also in some well received other kinds of films such as Dear Octopus and I'll Be Your Sweetheart.
Let's look what followed:
*Bedelia (1946) - which could and should have been right her up her alley (she played a murderess) but was hurt by some odd scripting decisions and inadequate casting
*Hungry Hill (1947) - should have been a blockbuster but the film lacked focus - it needed to be about Lockwood's character through and through but instead she pops in and out of it
*Jassy (1947) - did okay at the box office - a half success - but could've done better. Again, the movie lacked focus. Was Lockwood good or evil or what? It felt like a movie that didn't know what it really was.
*The White Unicorn (1947) - I haven't seen this film yet. It's about delinquent girls.It was a melodrama. Didn't sound very exciting.
*Look Before You Love (1948) - I haven't seen this either but it sounds terrible.
*Cardboard Cavalier (1949) - Lockwood tries comedy but instead of using a well worn source material she decides to play foil to Sid Field. It's not a very good movie.
* Madness of the Heart (1949) - not a bad melodrama, though it has a poor rap. Lacks big name co-stars.
*Highly Dangerous (1950) - an attempt to make a Lady Vanishes style film but it never seems sure of her tone.
She then made three poorly received films for Herbert Wilcox, and basically ceased to be a star.
So anyway what happened to Lockwood's career? What could she have done differently?
I'll try not to be too harsh in hindsight here but it seems her main errors were
*Not featuring against bigger stars. Most of her late 40s movies lacked names- no Phyllis Calvert, no Stewart Granger or James Mason. You had people like Denis Price, Dermot Walsh, Griffin Jones, Dane Clark.... very much the second eleven. Nothing wrong with making a trashy movie but the trashier films generally need stars.
*She should have been the focus of more of her films. Hungry Hill and Jassy in particular pulled against the fact they needed to be women's pictures, about women.
*She should've tried Hollywood. I understand her reluctance, but the material was simply better. Interestingly all the big British stars of the late 1940s - Mason, Granger, Anna Neagle, Michael Wilding - suffered when the 1950s came in, in Britain. The only ones to survive were those who went to Hollywood and stayed. (Phyllis Calvert and Patricia Roc gave it a go but didn't stay).
Margaret Lockwood... a big star who should've been a LOT bigger.
During World War Two Lockwood's resume was full of hits, notably the Gainsborough melodramas - The Man from Grey, Wicket Lady, Love Story. She was also in some well received other kinds of films such as Dear Octopus and I'll Be Your Sweetheart.
Let's look what followed:
*Bedelia (1946) - which could and should have been right her up her alley (she played a murderess) but was hurt by some odd scripting decisions and inadequate casting
*Hungry Hill (1947) - should have been a blockbuster but the film lacked focus - it needed to be about Lockwood's character through and through but instead she pops in and out of it
*Jassy (1947) - did okay at the box office - a half success - but could've done better. Again, the movie lacked focus. Was Lockwood good or evil or what? It felt like a movie that didn't know what it really was.
*The White Unicorn (1947) - I haven't seen this film yet. It's about delinquent girls.It was a melodrama. Didn't sound very exciting.
*Look Before You Love (1948) - I haven't seen this either but it sounds terrible.
*Cardboard Cavalier (1949) - Lockwood tries comedy but instead of using a well worn source material she decides to play foil to Sid Field. It's not a very good movie.
* Madness of the Heart (1949) - not a bad melodrama, though it has a poor rap. Lacks big name co-stars.
*Highly Dangerous (1950) - an attempt to make a Lady Vanishes style film but it never seems sure of her tone.
She then made three poorly received films for Herbert Wilcox, and basically ceased to be a star.
So anyway what happened to Lockwood's career? What could she have done differently?
I'll try not to be too harsh in hindsight here but it seems her main errors were
*Not featuring against bigger stars. Most of her late 40s movies lacked names- no Phyllis Calvert, no Stewart Granger or James Mason. You had people like Denis Price, Dermot Walsh, Griffin Jones, Dane Clark.... very much the second eleven. Nothing wrong with making a trashy movie but the trashier films generally need stars.
*She should have been the focus of more of her films. Hungry Hill and Jassy in particular pulled against the fact they needed to be women's pictures, about women.
*She should've tried Hollywood. I understand her reluctance, but the material was simply better. Interestingly all the big British stars of the late 1940s - Mason, Granger, Anna Neagle, Michael Wilding - suffered when the 1950s came in, in Britain. The only ones to survive were those who went to Hollywood and stayed. (Phyllis Calvert and Patricia Roc gave it a go but didn't stay).
Margaret Lockwood... a big star who should've been a LOT bigger.
John Carpenter in Concert
I was lucky enough to see John Carpenter in concert at the Hollywood Palladium last night. It was great fun - a very entertaining show. Wonderful to be in a packed room full of Carpenter buffs who clearly knew and loved his films.
Not a super long set. It was lovely to see Carpenter bopping around, feeding off the crowd's reaction. How many other directors would you pay to see in concert? Actually probably a few for me... but Carpenter is a skilled musician, whose tunes form an integral part of the mood of his movies. They played clips from his films on a screen in the background.
From memory the set list was like this:
* 'Escape from New York' title track - great choice, really got the night off to a good start.
* 'Assault on Precinct 13' - good follow up - the clips included killing the girl. Jeez!
* 'The Fog'
*'Village of the Damned'
* 'The Thing' - he made sure he credited the writer
* some songs from 'Lost Themes' i.e. Carpenter was like most older musicians, sneaking in the newer tracks after some hits. Audience enjoyed them though - and they are good songs.
* 'Starman' which Carpenter proclaimed "is my only love story!'
* 'In the Mouth of Madness' - a more rocking song... I don't normally like his rock and roll in films but it worked well live
* 'Porkchop Express' from Big Trouble in Little China - great live song
*'They Live' got a great response
*something from Body Bags which I've never seen
*'Halloween' - of course big rise
He went away and came back from an encore where he played
* 'Santiago' from Vampires
* 'Prince of Darkness'
* song from Christine. He ended the show saying "take care on the roads, watch out for Christine... " then launched into the song.
I think I've got all the songs down. The order may not be right.
Nothing from Dark Star or Ghosts of Mars or Memoirs of an Invisible Man, but I was very happy with what I got. He looked like he was having fun and so did the audience.
Not a super long set. It was lovely to see Carpenter bopping around, feeding off the crowd's reaction. How many other directors would you pay to see in concert? Actually probably a few for me... but Carpenter is a skilled musician, whose tunes form an integral part of the mood of his movies. They played clips from his films on a screen in the background.
From memory the set list was like this:
* 'Escape from New York' title track - great choice, really got the night off to a good start.
* 'Assault on Precinct 13' - good follow up - the clips included killing the girl. Jeez!
* 'The Fog'
*'Village of the Damned'
* 'The Thing' - he made sure he credited the writer
* some songs from 'Lost Themes' i.e. Carpenter was like most older musicians, sneaking in the newer tracks after some hits. Audience enjoyed them though - and they are good songs.
* 'Starman' which Carpenter proclaimed "is my only love story!'
* 'In the Mouth of Madness' - a more rocking song... I don't normally like his rock and roll in films but it worked well live
* 'Porkchop Express' from Big Trouble in Little China - great live song
*'They Live' got a great response
*something from Body Bags which I've never seen
*'Halloween' - of course big rise
He went away and came back from an encore where he played
* 'Santiago' from Vampires
* 'Prince of Darkness'
* song from Christine. He ended the show saying "take care on the roads, watch out for Christine... " then launched into the song.
I think I've got all the songs down. The order may not be right.
Nothing from Dark Star or Ghosts of Mars or Memoirs of an Invisible Man, but I was very happy with what I got. He looked like he was having fun and so did the audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)