Chuck Norris regarded this film as a breakthrough for him because it really confirmed him as an action star and proved Breaker! Breaker! wasn't a fluke. I think it was his idea too - and it feels "Norris" if you know what I mean: he plays a special services soldier who is sent on a mission in the dying days of the Vietnam War which ends in disaster (like the Son Tay Raid)... years later he is prompted to re-investigate by journalist Anne Archer.
The pacing of this is a little odd. It takes Norris until the last half hour until he starts kicking arse - the first hour he's mostly investigating and navigating.
Norris was smart in his collaborators. He got the experienced Ted Post to direct (presumably Norris would have liked the fact Post did a couple of Clint Eastwood films). The supporting cast is strong - Anne Archer is achingly lovely as his love interest (and they have sex too! Norris would zip on up later in his career), and has a decent role to play. There's also James Francisscus, Jim Backus and Dana Andrews, so the film would have some legitimacy.
The story has a strong background - special ops team, dying days Vietnam War, betrayal by the government... I mean that's all good stuff. Possibly unhealthy politically (Hitler used that argument to come to power ie that Germany lost WW1 because the troops had been betrayed). But it's rich dramatically. And it reminded me that at one stage Chuck Norris wasn't a joke - he made films that spoke to issues that a lot of people cared about. That sounds pretentious but films like this and later Missing in Action and Invasion USA - they struck a chord.
There's a great moment where Norris karate kicks into the drivers window of an incoming car. I wish he'd done more like this in his career. Or even in this film which lacks action. In particular it lacks people for Norris to kill - at the end when he takes out Franciscus it's by driving him off a cliff, and you kind of want something more.
There are curiously cheap credits.
Still, an interesting film.
Monday, December 31, 2018
Book review - "Farewell My Lovely" by Raymond Chandler (1940) (re-reading)
The second Marlowe novel gets off to a great start with the introduction of the memorable Moose Malloy, then him being hired by the blackmailer Marriott and picked up by Anne Riordan... who you think will probably be Velma, the lost love of Moose, until you meet Mrs Grayle.
There's some corrupt cops who knock out Marlowe and sent him to a lunatic asylum which is full on. There's lots of corupt cops but also the occasional good one, like Red, who helps Marlowe get on a gambling boat - they have a kind of bromance. I don't recall the gambling boat from any of the film adaptations which is a shame. It gets convoluted at the end and I had, as usual, trouble following it and remembering it. Some big action happens "off screen" eg the death of Velma.
I don't think it's as good as The Big Sleep and the racism is unfortunate. I wanted to meet Anne's father. But it's a very fine book.
There's some corrupt cops who knock out Marlowe and sent him to a lunatic asylum which is full on. There's lots of corupt cops but also the occasional good one, like Red, who helps Marlowe get on a gambling boat - they have a kind of bromance. I don't recall the gambling boat from any of the film adaptations which is a shame. It gets convoluted at the end and I had, as usual, trouble following it and remembering it. Some big action happens "off screen" eg the death of Velma.
I don't think it's as good as The Big Sleep and the racism is unfortunate. I wanted to meet Anne's father. But it's a very fine book.
Movie review - "Carnival Rock" (1957) **
A little known directorial effort from Corman - it wasn't for AIP or Allied Artists, he did it for Howco, it's not sci fi. It's not even a teenpic despite featuring musical acts like the Platters - it's a melodrama, adapted from a TV play, with musical acts inserted, rather like Corman's Rock all Night.
The melodrama has Douglas Stewart as a nightclub owner who is hopelessly in love with singer Susan Cabot. She's got the hots for Brian Hutton though.
Dramatically it's a little undercooked because Cabot isn't interested in Stewart and appears to never be interested in her - it's just plain old sexual harrasment. I mean maybe if Cabot was leading on Stewart to get his money he'd have more reason to be devastated - or if he and Hutton had a relationship - like if they were brothers or something. But Stewart's too old and not as good looking as Cabot so he can't be that shocked. Yet he goes on and on about it - and bizarrely winds up walking around in a clown make up being taunted by a baby boomer.
There's an interesting subplot about gangsters shaking down Stewart for money - really they needed to start shooting people. And Dick Miller plays Stewart's sidekick and is so devoted to his boss its very easy to do a gay reading of this relationship - indeed, it would make more sense. Stewart goes so berserk at the end he tries to kidnap Cabot and then causes a fire which burns down the club - yet he doesn't die or get arrested; Hutton agrees not to press charges and Stewart goes off into the sunset with Miller. It's a shame. I actually found this watchable in parts but the drama was undercooked - the characters didn't go for it. Cabot needed to be money hungry, Stewart needed to die or be punished in some way. It was unsatisfactory.
Ed Nelson and Jonathan Haze from the Corman stock company pop up.
The melodrama has Douglas Stewart as a nightclub owner who is hopelessly in love with singer Susan Cabot. She's got the hots for Brian Hutton though.
Dramatically it's a little undercooked because Cabot isn't interested in Stewart and appears to never be interested in her - it's just plain old sexual harrasment. I mean maybe if Cabot was leading on Stewart to get his money he'd have more reason to be devastated - or if he and Hutton had a relationship - like if they were brothers or something. But Stewart's too old and not as good looking as Cabot so he can't be that shocked. Yet he goes on and on about it - and bizarrely winds up walking around in a clown make up being taunted by a baby boomer.
There's an interesting subplot about gangsters shaking down Stewart for money - really they needed to start shooting people. And Dick Miller plays Stewart's sidekick and is so devoted to his boss its very easy to do a gay reading of this relationship - indeed, it would make more sense. Stewart goes so berserk at the end he tries to kidnap Cabot and then causes a fire which burns down the club - yet he doesn't die or get arrested; Hutton agrees not to press charges and Stewart goes off into the sunset with Miller. It's a shame. I actually found this watchable in parts but the drama was undercooked - the characters didn't go for it. Cabot needed to be money hungry, Stewart needed to die or be punished in some way. It was unsatisfactory.
Ed Nelson and Jonathan Haze from the Corman stock company pop up.
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Movie review - "Wonder Wheel" (2017) ** (warning: spoilers)
Amazon Studios opened their cheque books for Woody Allen meaning he could make more period pieces. Its a shame he didn't go the full autobiographical route like Neil Simon did with his Biloxi trilogy, and like he did with Radio Days and Annie Hall. I'd love to see accounts of him being a teenager, and working in TV and early stand up.
He's got a lot of money here to recreate Coney Island 1950s - it looks fantastic, with rides and extras and it's beautifully shot.
But instead of anything autobiographical he's come up with what seems to be a first draft attempt to recreate kitchen sink realism plays of the 1950s/60s - the sort of thing that popped up on the Golden Years of Television.
Allen has enough craft to ensure there's at least a story. Maybe he pinched the structure off another play like he did in Blue Jasmine (Streetcar Named Desire) and Play It Again Sam (The Seven Year Itch). Juno Temple visits father Jim Belushi fleeing her gangster husband. Belushi is married to Kate Winslet who starts sleeping with Justin Timberlake who becomes taken with Temple.
There is talk of fate and destiny, with Timberlake acting as a Greek chorus - I didn't mind this. The dialogue is incredibly self conscious and on the nose, as it would often be in Allen dramas, like it's translated subtitles as opposed to real dialogue, but once I got used to the style I didn't mind.
Modern day Allen films offer their pleasures - production design, cinematography (the colours are amazing), a fine cast. Belushi is a bit self conscious at times, as if acting in a play to the galleys. Winslet is sensational. Timberlake is fine, Temple is extremely good.
And again Allen re-uses tropes and themes - there's a nutty actress character who goes increasingly bonkers (Winslet), a womanising man who rationalises his lust and is self aware about his tendency to change his "heart" so to speak; love scenes in the rain and talking about rain being romantic.
I actually went with this for a bit - I didn't intend to keep watching but I stuck with it, the story proceeded logically and was building towards some good ticking clocks (Belushi's alcholism, Winslet's nuttiness, the kid's pyromania). That is, until the ending which was so damp and nothing. Temple goes missing but we never find out what happened to her - why not see she's killed. We never meet her ex husband - why not? Why no confrontation with him and Belushi. Belushi doesn't find out about Winslet's adultery - why not? Too exciting? Why don't we pay off the kid more? i.e. him setting fire to things. All he really serves is a reason for Winslet to not take off... I thought he'd betray his mother or Belushi or something. Why not have something interesting happen to Timberlake? Really he and Temple should have been killed and Belushi finds out about it and he kills Winsley and the kid burns down the building. That's what should have happened.
Is Woody scared of drama? Did he wanted to be unexpected?
There's a potentially interesting subplot where Winslet hints at Belushi having a weird attraction to his daughter - which would have been dramatically interesting, and fascinating considering the Dylan Farrow-Woody stuff... and also would have worked dramatically as it did in View from a Bridge by Arthur Miller... but nothing much is made of it and I think Woody is saying "oh that sort of thing is just what a crazy jealous actress would say like Mia". It's got Justin Timberlake leaving a woman for her step daughter... and he gets to be self righteous and leave at the end when his character really should die.
Interesting to look at, great look and some fine acting, but flawed.
He's got a lot of money here to recreate Coney Island 1950s - it looks fantastic, with rides and extras and it's beautifully shot.
But instead of anything autobiographical he's come up with what seems to be a first draft attempt to recreate kitchen sink realism plays of the 1950s/60s - the sort of thing that popped up on the Golden Years of Television.
Allen has enough craft to ensure there's at least a story. Maybe he pinched the structure off another play like he did in Blue Jasmine (Streetcar Named Desire) and Play It Again Sam (The Seven Year Itch). Juno Temple visits father Jim Belushi fleeing her gangster husband. Belushi is married to Kate Winslet who starts sleeping with Justin Timberlake who becomes taken with Temple.
There is talk of fate and destiny, with Timberlake acting as a Greek chorus - I didn't mind this. The dialogue is incredibly self conscious and on the nose, as it would often be in Allen dramas, like it's translated subtitles as opposed to real dialogue, but once I got used to the style I didn't mind.
Modern day Allen films offer their pleasures - production design, cinematography (the colours are amazing), a fine cast. Belushi is a bit self conscious at times, as if acting in a play to the galleys. Winslet is sensational. Timberlake is fine, Temple is extremely good.
And again Allen re-uses tropes and themes - there's a nutty actress character who goes increasingly bonkers (Winslet), a womanising man who rationalises his lust and is self aware about his tendency to change his "heart" so to speak; love scenes in the rain and talking about rain being romantic.
I actually went with this for a bit - I didn't intend to keep watching but I stuck with it, the story proceeded logically and was building towards some good ticking clocks (Belushi's alcholism, Winslet's nuttiness, the kid's pyromania). That is, until the ending which was so damp and nothing. Temple goes missing but we never find out what happened to her - why not see she's killed. We never meet her ex husband - why not? Why no confrontation with him and Belushi. Belushi doesn't find out about Winslet's adultery - why not? Too exciting? Why don't we pay off the kid more? i.e. him setting fire to things. All he really serves is a reason for Winslet to not take off... I thought he'd betray his mother or Belushi or something. Why not have something interesting happen to Timberlake? Really he and Temple should have been killed and Belushi finds out about it and he kills Winsley and the kid burns down the building. That's what should have happened.
Is Woody scared of drama? Did he wanted to be unexpected?
There's a potentially interesting subplot where Winslet hints at Belushi having a weird attraction to his daughter - which would have been dramatically interesting, and fascinating considering the Dylan Farrow-Woody stuff... and also would have worked dramatically as it did in View from a Bridge by Arthur Miller... but nothing much is made of it and I think Woody is saying "oh that sort of thing is just what a crazy jealous actress would say like Mia". It's got Justin Timberlake leaving a woman for her step daughter... and he gets to be self righteous and leave at the end when his character really should die.
Interesting to look at, great look and some fine acting, but flawed.
Movie review - "Submerged" (2005) **
Some energetic direction at the beginning game me temporary high hopes for this Steve Seagal film - and there's no reason why the central concept couldn't have worked - a device that makes people kill against their will. I mean that worked in The Naked Gun. And after watching recent Seagal films it was nice to see something from the days when he had decent budgets, even straight to video - in that pre GFC glory era.
But as the film goes on it gets more and more confusing and becomes a mess. The director said it was meant to be The Thing crossed with Das Boot which would have been amazing, but then Seagal threw that out a few weeks before filming. The resulting movie was written on the fly and feels like it - the film consists of scenes/segments that feel like trailers for full length films - Seagal getting out of prison and assembling team of cons (who include Vinnie Jones but none of them get much screen time), there's a mad scientist, we go to Uruguay, then to... I don't know.There's mutants. An opera scene. I have trouble remembering any of this film. At least a few women are more prominent.
What a disappointment. I would have loved to have seen this film as originally envisioned.
But as the film goes on it gets more and more confusing and becomes a mess. The director said it was meant to be The Thing crossed with Das Boot which would have been amazing, but then Seagal threw that out a few weeks before filming. The resulting movie was written on the fly and feels like it - the film consists of scenes/segments that feel like trailers for full length films - Seagal getting out of prison and assembling team of cons (who include Vinnie Jones but none of them get much screen time), there's a mad scientist, we go to Uruguay, then to... I don't know.There's mutants. An opera scene. I have trouble remembering any of this film. At least a few women are more prominent.
What a disappointment. I would have loved to have seen this film as originally envisioned.
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Movie review - "That Guy Dick Miller" (2014) ***
Just as Dick Miller is an impossible actor to dislike so too is this tribute to him - full of love and good nature. Dick Miller was a beloved character actor whose presence illuminated many classic films - The Terminator, Piranha, Gremlins. He became a good luck charm for Joe Dante in particular, appearing in most of that director's movies.
Miller got his start with Roger Corman and became a part of Corman's late 50s stock company, even getting the occasional lead as in Bucket of Blood. He kept that status in the early 60s but kind of drifted out of popularity in the late 60s... then had a comeback in the early 70s at New World Pictures as many Corman alumni liked to use him.
That's kind of it for his life story - he has brothers, a wife who was very hot back in the day and gets a lot of screen time. People like him. He's occasionally anxious. He wrote a bit (including an early draft of TNT Jackson) but gave it up.
It's not a super gripping story - I think it would be better as a 50 minute featurette. Some things feel like padding, such as talking about making Gremlins. And I get it was disappointing to be cut out of Pulp Fiction but was it really such a major tragedy. Still, a very sweet movie.
Miller got his start with Roger Corman and became a part of Corman's late 50s stock company, even getting the occasional lead as in Bucket of Blood. He kept that status in the early 60s but kind of drifted out of popularity in the late 60s... then had a comeback in the early 70s at New World Pictures as many Corman alumni liked to use him.
That's kind of it for his life story - he has brothers, a wife who was very hot back in the day and gets a lot of screen time. People like him. He's occasionally anxious. He wrote a bit (including an early draft of TNT Jackson) but gave it up.
It's not a super gripping story - I think it would be better as a 50 minute featurette. Some things feel like padding, such as talking about making Gremlins. And I get it was disappointing to be cut out of Pulp Fiction but was it really such a major tragedy. Still, a very sweet movie.
Friday, December 28, 2018
Book review - "Napoleon" by Andrew Roberts
Interesting book on the French leader who Roberts has more than a little admiration for despite (or because) of his militaristic, totalitarian tendencies. Napoleon was a remarkable man who achieved great things. Were these things not possible peacefully?
Exhaustively researched. Roberts does get a bit side tracked by battles, listing battalions and what not. He doesn't have Max Hastings' gift for the small anecdote that illustrates history brilliantly (but then Roberts wasn't a working journo). But he's good on Napoleon's sex life, and writing, and court life. I think the difference between Roberts and Hastings (I'm reading a lot of them at the moment) is that Hastings is more aware of the personal impact of what other people do.
The best bit is the build up to and the description of the Invasion of Russia. It's an easyto read book and Roberts is great at collating detail.
Exhaustively researched. Roberts does get a bit side tracked by battles, listing battalions and what not. He doesn't have Max Hastings' gift for the small anecdote that illustrates history brilliantly (but then Roberts wasn't a working journo). But he's good on Napoleon's sex life, and writing, and court life. I think the difference between Roberts and Hastings (I'm reading a lot of them at the moment) is that Hastings is more aware of the personal impact of what other people do.
The best bit is the build up to and the description of the Invasion of Russia. It's an easyto read book and Roberts is great at collating detail.
Movie review - "The Octagon" (1980) ***
Fun Chuck Norris film that really made a mark - Pablo Escobar was a fan! The script by Leigh Chapman - a real guy's girl kind of writer who should be better known - is pretty solid. There's a very interesting gimmick in that you can hear Norris' thoughts.
He plays a man who becomes aware of a secret society of assassins (they do freelance?) and takes them down. Art Hindle (the brother in Porky's) is his friend who I thought would be killed around the end of the first or even second act but who makes it until the end... where he dies. The villain is Norris' Chinese half brother which is interesting.
The film has three main female roles and they're all actually quite good parts, well played - there's a dancer played by Kim Langford who Chuck romances and who then dies, and an enigmatic Karen Carlson who tries to get Chuck to fight the bad guys and dies, and then Caro Bagdasarian who is introduced quite late as a assassin who turns good and helps (and sleeps with!) Chuck... and lives! Bagdasarian is a bit of a bad ass. I think Chapman' s influence meant this had better female roles.
It takes Chuck surprisingly long to go kick ass - it's like only the last third. But it is an impressive lair.
The cast includes people like Lee Van Cleef as well as Australian Richard Norton. It's a fun, interesting film, one of Norris' best. He's a bit stiff but he has a calm presence.
He plays a man who becomes aware of a secret society of assassins (they do freelance?) and takes them down. Art Hindle (the brother in Porky's) is his friend who I thought would be killed around the end of the first or even second act but who makes it until the end... where he dies. The villain is Norris' Chinese half brother which is interesting.
The film has three main female roles and they're all actually quite good parts, well played - there's a dancer played by Kim Langford who Chuck romances and who then dies, and an enigmatic Karen Carlson who tries to get Chuck to fight the bad guys and dies, and then Caro Bagdasarian who is introduced quite late as a assassin who turns good and helps (and sleeps with!) Chuck... and lives! Bagdasarian is a bit of a bad ass. I think Chapman' s influence meant this had better female roles.
It takes Chuck surprisingly long to go kick ass - it's like only the last third. But it is an impressive lair.
The cast includes people like Lee Van Cleef as well as Australian Richard Norton. It's a fun, interesting film, one of Norris' best. He's a bit stiff but he has a calm presence.
Serial review - "The Phantom" (1943) ep 1 **
Interesting look at the classic film character - its set in a backlot Africa with the political sensitive that you'd expect. The Phantom dad is overweight - he dies so son Tom Tyler takes over. It doesn't capture the excitement of the comic strip but is okay.
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Movie review - "A Wrinkle in Time" (2018) **
I'm not the target market but I felt this didn't work. Trippy, lethargic tale of a simple story that should have worked - a girl's search to find her father. It's fun to see Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling, etc - but too much of the dialogue is platitudes, the adventures not particularly exciting. There's no thrills - it's an amble through space and time with some friends. Like a drug trip - the film that it reminded me most of was Disney's Alice in Wonderland.
The effects and photography are great. I like the actor who played the little brother and Chris Pine. The main girl was dull. I don't mean to be mean I know she's only a kid but she was a big draw back - an energy suck.
But like I say I'm not the target audience.
The effects and photography are great. I like the actor who played the little brother and Chris Pine. The main girl was dull. I don't mean to be mean I know she's only a kid but she was a big draw back - an energy suck.
But like I say I'm not the target audience.
TV review - "The Marvelous Mrs Maisel Season 2" (2018) ****
Season 2 occasionally coughs and splutters - Amy Sherman Palladino is spectacularly uninterested in Maisel's kids and perhaps too interested in Joel, who while an interesting figure with his weakness and intelligence, gets maybe too much screentime. I would have liked a more viable love interest than the perfect doctor. And I missed Lenny Bruce (who does appear just not enough).
But the acting is excellent, the lines divine, there's some classic moments. I loved the plunger at the Catskills stuff, and the buzzing door (that CIA plot is great). It's very well done and I wish someone would give Ms Amy a big screen musical to direct because she is clearly gagging to do so.
But the acting is excellent, the lines divine, there's some classic moments. I loved the plunger at the Catskills stuff, and the buzzing door (that CIA plot is great). It's very well done and I wish someone would give Ms Amy a big screen musical to direct because she is clearly gagging to do so.
Script review - "Vice" by Adam McKay (warning: spoilers)
Written in anger but with plenty of scholarship - a handy reminder what while Trump is running amok in the White House he's doing a lot less damage than the smarter, more covert Dick Cheney. It has some neat twists and gimmicks like being narrated by the person who ended up giving Cheney his heart. Not without empathy for its subject and all the more effective as propaganda for that fact.
Movie review - "Black Panther" (2018) **** (warning: spoilers)
Extremely well done Marvel movie which became a cultural sensation. It's got the normal slick Marvel action sequences (though I admit it, I'm getting sick of the casual pistol shots to the head from a distance - that's actually really hard to do - and the backwards stabbing with a sword accompanied by a squelch) and has some solid Shakesperean family drama, with an exiled prince coming back to reclaim his throne, and various sisters and queens and uncles.
There's an interesting central dilemma - how to use the technology of the country. The villain actually stands for something good that the hero comes to stand for. Woah! I did feel it was kind of a cheat the villain won the fight but then had to give up the kingdom because... well, he was bad. I felt he could've done something really bad.
Also it's a shame Andy Serkis couldn't have been kept alive for the last act - he's a terrific villain, full of cackling joy and cunning and a South African accent.
Strong acting - it's extremely polished.
There's an interesting central dilemma - how to use the technology of the country. The villain actually stands for something good that the hero comes to stand for. Woah! I did feel it was kind of a cheat the villain won the fight but then had to give up the kingdom because... well, he was bad. I felt he could've done something really bad.
Also it's a shame Andy Serkis couldn't have been kept alive for the last act - he's a terrific villain, full of cackling joy and cunning and a South African accent.
Strong acting - it's extremely polished.
Movie review - "Stronghold" (1951) **
I'd like to know a bit more about the background of this film because the script was credited to Wells Root who has a lot of credits and it is a decent story but the result is really garbled and confusing.
Veronica Lake, in her last film before a hiatus, is a woman who arrives in Mexico to escape the civil war. That's a good idea - you've got Emperor Maximilian and Carlotta and revolutionaries. It was shot in Mexico. Zachary Scott is good value as a nasty aristocrat and Arturo de Cordova is fine as noble who is secretly a revolutionary albeit with the requisit amount of sexual harasment of the heroine. It's Robin Hood set in Maximilian Mexico with Lake as Maid Marian - that should work.
But it gets confusing with people being captured and escaping and recaptured. One minute de Cordova is on top then it's Scott and I wasn't sure where Lake's loyalties lay. Then thisre mine got flooded and people were being captured.
Its frustrating because all the ingredients are there - a sword fight in a cave, a mine flooding, romance, peasants uprising, a last minute reprieve from a hanging. Production values are fine, especially in the second half. Lake is wooden - her acting got worse as she went on - but she looks okay. Scott is good.
A curio. There's narration at the beginning and dubbing - these feels cut about.
Veronica Lake, in her last film before a hiatus, is a woman who arrives in Mexico to escape the civil war. That's a good idea - you've got Emperor Maximilian and Carlotta and revolutionaries. It was shot in Mexico. Zachary Scott is good value as a nasty aristocrat and Arturo de Cordova is fine as noble who is secretly a revolutionary albeit with the requisit amount of sexual harasment of the heroine. It's Robin Hood set in Maximilian Mexico with Lake as Maid Marian - that should work.
But it gets confusing with people being captured and escaping and recaptured. One minute de Cordova is on top then it's Scott and I wasn't sure where Lake's loyalties lay. Then thisre mine got flooded and people were being captured.
Its frustrating because all the ingredients are there - a sword fight in a cave, a mine flooding, romance, peasants uprising, a last minute reprieve from a hanging. Production values are fine, especially in the second half. Lake is wooden - her acting got worse as she went on - but she looks okay. Scott is good.
A curio. There's narration at the beginning and dubbing - these feels cut about.
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Movie review - "Hush" (2016) ***1/2
A slasher film in one respect because the killer has a mask. Really its a one location thriller - a woman, Kate Siegel, stuck at home while being terrorised. The gimmick is she's deaf which provides some great moments - a victim banging on the door and she can't hear, she can't hear him creeping around the house. I did wish they did more with it, but couldn't think of what... maybe use sign language with someone else. They do use an alarm.
The killer is played by John Gallaher who played the irritating Jim in The Newsroom and I did have fun imagining that this was what Jim got up to on the weekends ie. putting on a mask and killing people. The minor roles are well cast - everyone does well.
Expertly directed by Mike Flanagan who is becoming one of my favourite filmmakers.
The killer is played by John Gallaher who played the irritating Jim in The Newsroom and I did have fun imagining that this was what Jim got up to on the weekends ie. putting on a mask and killing people. The minor roles are well cast - everyone does well.
Expertly directed by Mike Flanagan who is becoming one of my favourite filmmakers.
Book review - "Stopover Tokyko" by John P Marquand (warning: spoilers)
This last Moto novel got some good reviews but I found it dull. Like most of the others it's about an American guy and girl in a foreign country, with Moto running in and out of the story. Unlike the others the American isn't an innocent or a newbie spy he's a professional spy - a particularly dull chap, who has a dull romance with his girl, Ruth. There's far too much chat between these two (philosophical and dreary as opposed to sexy) and not enough action/suspense.
There's some good baddies, excellent description of Japan after the war, and a decent ending because Ruth is kidnapped and killed instead of being rescued.
It feels very different to the movie of the same name, which had no Moto.
There's some good baddies, excellent description of Japan after the war, and a decent ending because Ruth is kidnapped and killed instead of being rescued.
It feels very different to the movie of the same name, which had no Moto.
Movie review - "The Housekeeper's Daughter" (1939) **
One of a series of films Hal Roach made for United Artists. I've a soft spot for these independent outfits who made decently budgeted stuff in the Golden Years of Hollywood - Edward Small and so on - and have a fondness for Roach's Captain Fury.
But this was a hard slog. I only got through it for completion's sake. I mean it's not terrible - it's in focus, everyone's competent, all that. There's just no point to it.
It has a promising set up - gangsters moll Joan Bennett goes home to the house where she grew up, mother was a housekeeper. She falls in love with the son of the house, John Hubbard.
Then it all goes wonky - they remove the parents who own the house for far too long. The story goes off on all these detours - a creepy little guy (George Stone, giving a good performance) accidentally kills a show girl (Lilian Bond) leading to journalists investigate; there's two of them (one played by Adolphe Menjou the other by William Gardan) and then Hubbard decides he wants to be a journalist, and he becomes famous... and all this action drifts to Hubbard and Menjou and basically Bennett could be cut out of the whole film. It feels all wonky.
Victor Mature plays Bennett's gangster boyfriend but his part is too small. Marc Lawrence is in it too. The character of Bennett's mother is thrown away - she's just kind of there.
Everyone's trying - there's rapid patter. It's trying to be a wacky screwball comedy. But it's a dull mess.
But this was a hard slog. I only got through it for completion's sake. I mean it's not terrible - it's in focus, everyone's competent, all that. There's just no point to it.
It has a promising set up - gangsters moll Joan Bennett goes home to the house where she grew up, mother was a housekeeper. She falls in love with the son of the house, John Hubbard.
Then it all goes wonky - they remove the parents who own the house for far too long. The story goes off on all these detours - a creepy little guy (George Stone, giving a good performance) accidentally kills a show girl (Lilian Bond) leading to journalists investigate; there's two of them (one played by Adolphe Menjou the other by William Gardan) and then Hubbard decides he wants to be a journalist, and he becomes famous... and all this action drifts to Hubbard and Menjou and basically Bennett could be cut out of the whole film. It feels all wonky.
Victor Mature plays Bennett's gangster boyfriend but his part is too small. Marc Lawrence is in it too. The character of Bennett's mother is thrown away - she's just kind of there.
Everyone's trying - there's rapid patter. It's trying to be a wacky screwball comedy. But it's a dull mess.
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Movie review - "Safari" (1940) **
A so-so melodrama which reminded me of The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber and the Errol Flynn Film Another Dawn.Like that it's about a female who jets around the world, here played by Madeleine Carroll instead of Kay Francis, who is about to marry a man she doesn't love (Tullio Carminati) but falls in love with a dashing adventurer who leads her safari to shoot animals.
Unlike Another Dawn no one is married but the wounded party does not behave well - he gets a bit naughty. Not naughty enough really - you really want Carminatti to do more. It doesn't feel as though there's quite enough plot here.
It's okay I'm not a big Carroll fan but I like Fairbanks and it was interesting to see him play a more hard bitten type of character - a Burt Lancaster like woman hater. I was underwhelmed. These films run into trouble with big game hunting heroes because they also always try to not glamourise game hunting.
Its set in a fictitious country that is supposed to be West Africa. A British colony. There is talk of war being declared and Fairbanks wanting to go and fight. The film could have used some Nazis causing trouble.
Unlike Another Dawn no one is married but the wounded party does not behave well - he gets a bit naughty. Not naughty enough really - you really want Carminatti to do more. It doesn't feel as though there's quite enough plot here.
It's okay I'm not a big Carroll fan but I like Fairbanks and it was interesting to see him play a more hard bitten type of character - a Burt Lancaster like woman hater. I was underwhelmed. These films run into trouble with big game hunting heroes because they also always try to not glamourise game hunting.
Its set in a fictitious country that is supposed to be West Africa. A British colony. There is talk of war being declared and Fairbanks wanting to go and fight. The film could have used some Nazis causing trouble.
Movie review - "Miss Susie Slagle's" (1946) ***
An unexpected delight - the cinematic output of Sonny Tufts doesn't have the best reputation but this was produced by John Houseman, who has many fine films on his resume. It's a loving, sweet depiction of some doctor students in 1910... kind of like Doctor in the House... though really they may as well updated it (there's always something creepy about watching medical period pieces because characters are constantly falling sick from things that will be routinely repaired down the track).
Tufts was very winning as the awkward, shy student - it plays to his strengths (seems like a nice guy, gangly, not too demanding a role, a little bit of romance, some doctoring, no big words). The real surprise for me was Joan Caulfield, who is bright and pretty and great fun as a gal who decides to marry Tufts straight away.
Veronica Lake is in it too - top billed but in not a very big part and she's not very good as a nurse who falls for a doctor student who dies. She never seems comfortable.
There's other doctors too - Billy de Wolfe does comic stuff, and there's some other guy. The men are kind of bland. I got confused who they were - the star power is B list. Ray Collins and George Colouris, old Mercury cronies of Houseman, props up the support.
Lilian Gish plays Miss Susie who runs the boarding house. She's a bit creepy actually - not very good, not that warm, IMHO anyway. I couldn't help laughing at her initiating men - I couldn't help imagining her sneaking into the boys room after dark for some special services. I know that's low hanging fruit but you try watching that scene and not thinking of it, either.
But it's sweet. Director John Berry does a good job in his first feature.
Tufts was very winning as the awkward, shy student - it plays to his strengths (seems like a nice guy, gangly, not too demanding a role, a little bit of romance, some doctoring, no big words). The real surprise for me was Joan Caulfield, who is bright and pretty and great fun as a gal who decides to marry Tufts straight away.
Veronica Lake is in it too - top billed but in not a very big part and she's not very good as a nurse who falls for a doctor student who dies. She never seems comfortable.
There's other doctors too - Billy de Wolfe does comic stuff, and there's some other guy. The men are kind of bland. I got confused who they were - the star power is B list. Ray Collins and George Colouris, old Mercury cronies of Houseman, props up the support.
Lilian Gish plays Miss Susie who runs the boarding house. She's a bit creepy actually - not very good, not that warm, IMHO anyway. I couldn't help laughing at her initiating men - I couldn't help imagining her sneaking into the boys room after dark for some special services. I know that's low hanging fruit but you try watching that scene and not thinking of it, either.
But it's sweet. Director John Berry does a good job in his first feature.
Movie review - "Bird Box" (2018) ***1/2
Very well done - Eric Hessiner is an exellecnt write, Suzanne Bier a very good director and Sandra Bullock a terrific star. At the end of the day it pretty much just is an episode of The Walking Dead. A very well done episode but it's not terribly fresh. There is a different angle with the creatures turning people insane if you see it... it offers potential into stories about the power of sight, etc... a little like Day of the Triffids.... but that's not really dealt with. At the end they stumble upon the blind community but that's it... I felt like that should be act two.
You've got the opening attack then a cross section of people holed up in a house, and various conflicts. So many scenes feel awfully familiar - a visit to a shopping center to loot supplies, people sacrificing themselves for the group. The actors include John Malkovich, Jackie Weaver and Sarah Paulsen... it's all well done. The journey on the river is very pretty. I liked it... I just kind of wish it had used the blind stuff more.
You've got the opening attack then a cross section of people holed up in a house, and various conflicts. So many scenes feel awfully familiar - a visit to a shopping center to loot supplies, people sacrificing themselves for the group. The actors include John Malkovich, Jackie Weaver and Sarah Paulsen... it's all well done. The journey on the river is very pretty. I liked it... I just kind of wish it had used the blind stuff more.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Script review - "Greystoke the Legend of Tarzan" by Robert Towne and Michael Austin
No writers are credited to the draft I read but from memory and a squizz at the internet it seems to be pretty close to what was filmed so I'm assuming this is the Towne/Austin version.
Towne famously complained about the end result and used a pseudonym. This is actually a pretty tight piece of work - it feels very real, and has a great sense of adventure. The best stuff is the first half which is Tarzan's adventures in the jungle - it jumps around in time a bit but is basically Tarzan's parents wash up on shore, they set up a house, fever kills mother and an ape kills father, Tarzan is adopted by Kala whose child has been killed by Silverback. Tarzan grows up among the apes, using some fast thinking and a knife to take out a panther, and conquer the gorilla who has knocked off Silverback from the head of the group.
There's some really moving moments -the death of Kala's child, the death of Kala, the death of John and Alice Greystoke in the jungle, Tarzan seeing Silverback in prison.
Charactertisations aren't fantastic -the Belgian dude d'Arnot is plucky, Tarzan is interesting physically but that's it, the Greystokes are stiff upper lip chaps, Jane is just... the girl. Mind you Tarzan has never been famous for characterisation.
I was expecting a bigger role to be played by Billings, the captain of the ship who abandons the Greystokes and turns up at a nearby town. Maybe the script lacked a villain - there's just a few snobs. They should have had the fake Greystone in the book - the person who took the estate. Or built up someoneon.
The biggest problem for me - and it was so easily fixable - is that the explorer who makes contact with Tarzan is a random Belgian, d'Arnot, when it so should have been Jane. Jane explored in the books - it makes her a stronger character. Now she's just a girl who hangs out at home. Jane going on the trip would have given her agency, a point. It would have strengthened the emotional impact of those scenes. Love stories beat out "respect" stories.
The story peaks in the first half. It struggles in England especially without a villain. There's no threat. The Earl of Greystoke likes his grandson. Jane is lovely. People are a bit snobby but that's it.
But some great stuff in here. A smart movie. Just not entirely dramatically satisfying.
Towne famously complained about the end result and used a pseudonym. This is actually a pretty tight piece of work - it feels very real, and has a great sense of adventure. The best stuff is the first half which is Tarzan's adventures in the jungle - it jumps around in time a bit but is basically Tarzan's parents wash up on shore, they set up a house, fever kills mother and an ape kills father, Tarzan is adopted by Kala whose child has been killed by Silverback. Tarzan grows up among the apes, using some fast thinking and a knife to take out a panther, and conquer the gorilla who has knocked off Silverback from the head of the group.
There's some really moving moments -the death of Kala's child, the death of Kala, the death of John and Alice Greystoke in the jungle, Tarzan seeing Silverback in prison.
Charactertisations aren't fantastic -the Belgian dude d'Arnot is plucky, Tarzan is interesting physically but that's it, the Greystokes are stiff upper lip chaps, Jane is just... the girl. Mind you Tarzan has never been famous for characterisation.
I was expecting a bigger role to be played by Billings, the captain of the ship who abandons the Greystokes and turns up at a nearby town. Maybe the script lacked a villain - there's just a few snobs. They should have had the fake Greystone in the book - the person who took the estate. Or built up someoneon.
The biggest problem for me - and it was so easily fixable - is that the explorer who makes contact with Tarzan is a random Belgian, d'Arnot, when it so should have been Jane. Jane explored in the books - it makes her a stronger character. Now she's just a girl who hangs out at home. Jane going on the trip would have given her agency, a point. It would have strengthened the emotional impact of those scenes. Love stories beat out "respect" stories.
The story peaks in the first half. It struggles in England especially without a villain. There's no threat. The Earl of Greystoke likes his grandson. Jane is lovely. People are a bit snobby but that's it.
But some great stuff in here. A smart movie. Just not entirely dramatically satisfying.
Movie review - "Donovan's Reef" (1963) **1/2
I always thought this film was a buddy movie about John Wayne and Lee Marvin but actually it's a romance between Wayne and Elizabeth Allan, who I'd never heard of but who does a fine job - she's pretty, spirited, can act. And there's hardly any Wayne-Marvin stuff - far more important is Jack Warden, who plays Allan's estranged father, and who prompts the visit.
Really Maureen O'Hara should have played the Allan part. The film is like The Quiet Man, a romance between contrasting types, which is fine. I'm guessing it was either money, availability or the fact they wanted someone younger because (a) Hollywood and (b) in the story they wanted Allan to be the daughter of a friend of Wayne. Which mean Wayne romances someone young enough to be his daughter.
They could have adjusted the last bit - she could have been his sister, or cousin, it didn't really matter for the story. The main things you needed were (a) the culture clash of the uptight gal being charmed by the islands (b) fear she'll worry about miscegenation of the dad, which could have worked just as well for a brother.
Dramatically it feels wonky because we spent most of the film with Wayne and Allan then over an hour in we have to invest in the estranged relationship on Allan and her father Jack Warden. Warden's character is a real sh*t - another in a long, long line of absent fathers in John Ford films. He let his daughter grow up without spending any time with her. What a terrible person!
There are some pleasing shots of Hawaii. Everyone seems to have had a good time. Wayne and Allan have nice chemistry - mind you, Wayne had good chemistry with most of his co stars - it's one of the reasons he became a big star.
It's under-cast in some roles - it's a great idea to have someone chase after Allan for her money but instead of having someone who would be a real threat they cast Cesar Romero who is even older than Wayne and always depicted like an idiot.
Marvin and Dorothy Lamour is wasted, though Lamour gets to sing a few songs. It's a shame they had Wayne throw Lamour in a lagoon for comedy.
It's even more of the shame the climax consists of Wayne throwing Allan over his lap and spanking her then forcing her to kiss. Of course she gives in. Sometimes that happens in marital rape!
Australians will get a kick out of the end when an Australian Navy ship arrives on the island. The soldiers comically chase women down the street (to rape them?) while a couple of lower ranks hang out in the bar, all with Irish accents - one played by Dick Foran in what is clearly a Victor McLaglen style role. One sings "Waltzing Matilda", words are exchanged with Lee Marvin, John Wayne tries to calm things down by invoking the Battle of the Coral Sea ("we were ll on the same side") but a fight takes place... technically between the locals and the Aussies though Wayne and Marvin seem to punch each other. A local police officer, played by Mike Mazurski (in a role which must have been intended for Ward Bond) comically doesn't intervene. The officer in charge, played by Patrick Wayne, John's son, turns up and doesn't seem surprised, sending his men off to be disciplined.
Really Maureen O'Hara should have played the Allan part. The film is like The Quiet Man, a romance between contrasting types, which is fine. I'm guessing it was either money, availability or the fact they wanted someone younger because (a) Hollywood and (b) in the story they wanted Allan to be the daughter of a friend of Wayne. Which mean Wayne romances someone young enough to be his daughter.
They could have adjusted the last bit - she could have been his sister, or cousin, it didn't really matter for the story. The main things you needed were (a) the culture clash of the uptight gal being charmed by the islands (b) fear she'll worry about miscegenation of the dad, which could have worked just as well for a brother.
Dramatically it feels wonky because we spent most of the film with Wayne and Allan then over an hour in we have to invest in the estranged relationship on Allan and her father Jack Warden. Warden's character is a real sh*t - another in a long, long line of absent fathers in John Ford films. He let his daughter grow up without spending any time with her. What a terrible person!
There are some pleasing shots of Hawaii. Everyone seems to have had a good time. Wayne and Allan have nice chemistry - mind you, Wayne had good chemistry with most of his co stars - it's one of the reasons he became a big star.
It's under-cast in some roles - it's a great idea to have someone chase after Allan for her money but instead of having someone who would be a real threat they cast Cesar Romero who is even older than Wayne and always depicted like an idiot.
Marvin and Dorothy Lamour is wasted, though Lamour gets to sing a few songs. It's a shame they had Wayne throw Lamour in a lagoon for comedy.
It's even more of the shame the climax consists of Wayne throwing Allan over his lap and spanking her then forcing her to kiss. Of course she gives in. Sometimes that happens in marital rape!
Australians will get a kick out of the end when an Australian Navy ship arrives on the island. The soldiers comically chase women down the street (to rape them?) while a couple of lower ranks hang out in the bar, all with Irish accents - one played by Dick Foran in what is clearly a Victor McLaglen style role. One sings "Waltzing Matilda", words are exchanged with Lee Marvin, John Wayne tries to calm things down by invoking the Battle of the Coral Sea ("we were ll on the same side") but a fight takes place... technically between the locals and the Aussies though Wayne and Marvin seem to punch each other. A local police officer, played by Mike Mazurski (in a role which must have been intended for Ward Bond) comically doesn't intervene. The officer in charge, played by Patrick Wayne, John's son, turns up and doesn't seem surprised, sending his men off to be disciplined.
Thursday, December 20, 2018
TV review - "Mr Horn" (1979) ***
William Goldman originally wrote this as a film script which at one stage was going to be done by Robert Redford. It would up as a TV mini series at a time when that was considered a notable drop in prestige. And indeed it is directed and mounted in that crappy American TV way - musical stings for ad breaks, a tendency to over dramatise, shoddy acting in minor roles (eg the father of the 14 year old killed).
It's still interesting and the action does dovetail well into two parts. Part one is young Tom Horn - discovered by Al Seiber (Richard Widmark) and ushered off to scout against the Indians, particularly Geronimo. They have a few fights, he has a cute friends with benefits relationship with a widow played by Karen Black. David Carradine is ideal - he looks like he could exist in the 19th century. Widmark is fine.
Part two and Horn is more of a bad ass. It's never clear if he killed the kid but it is clear that he has become quite ruthless. He's a different sort of character and its to Carradine's credit that the actor is just as believable in the part.
The script is okay. I feel it needed more delicate handling. There's some neat exchanges, but I don't know how much was Goldman's. It's also possible the work packed in too much - there's no central relationship to hang on really. There is Horn and Sieber for a bit and Horn and his made up girlfriend but that's it.
Richard Masur is effective in a small role.
It's still interesting and the action does dovetail well into two parts. Part one is young Tom Horn - discovered by Al Seiber (Richard Widmark) and ushered off to scout against the Indians, particularly Geronimo. They have a few fights, he has a cute friends with benefits relationship with a widow played by Karen Black. David Carradine is ideal - he looks like he could exist in the 19th century. Widmark is fine.
Part two and Horn is more of a bad ass. It's never clear if he killed the kid but it is clear that he has become quite ruthless. He's a different sort of character and its to Carradine's credit that the actor is just as believable in the part.
The script is okay. I feel it needed more delicate handling. There's some neat exchanges, but I don't know how much was Goldman's. It's also possible the work packed in too much - there's no central relationship to hang on really. There is Horn and Sieber for a bit and Horn and his made up girlfriend but that's it.
Richard Masur is effective in a small role.
Movie review - "Lone Wolf McQuade" (1983) ***1/2
Perhaps Chuck Norris' best movie - a really fun cheesy early 80s action flick, with tight direction by Steve Carver, who should have had a bigger career, very much in Sergio Leone mode. You've got a Morricone score and lots of sandy vistas, with Norris effective as the loner hero who works with a team.
Mind you it might be better for those close to him if he's stayed a loner - his daughter gets kidnapped, her boyfriend gets killed, her ex has to give up a dream job (it seems) at the end, his girlfriend is killed, his Sam Elliot-like friend is killed. Such is life for the friends of the hero in an 80s action film.
This is surprisingly progressive - the girlfriend character is decently well rounded (Barbara Carrera looks stunning), McQuade his helped by a Hispanic and a black, there is even a dwarf as a crime boss. David Carradine is a strong antagonist, there's some funny lines, the story is solid, and there's plenty of action. A lot of it is silly but its carried off with conviction.
John Milius provided some advice on the script, particularly the opening, and it made me wish he'd worked with more 80s action stars.
Mind you it might be better for those close to him if he's stayed a loner - his daughter gets kidnapped, her boyfriend gets killed, her ex has to give up a dream job (it seems) at the end, his girlfriend is killed, his Sam Elliot-like friend is killed. Such is life for the friends of the hero in an 80s action film.
This is surprisingly progressive - the girlfriend character is decently well rounded (Barbara Carrera looks stunning), McQuade his helped by a Hispanic and a black, there is even a dwarf as a crime boss. David Carradine is a strong antagonist, there's some funny lines, the story is solid, and there's plenty of action. A lot of it is silly but its carried off with conviction.
John Milius provided some advice on the script, particularly the opening, and it made me wish he'd worked with more 80s action stars.
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Movie review - "California Split" (1974) ****
Altman had his 70s peak - confident, relaxed, working from strong source material, a script by Joseph Walsh who obviously knows the world. It kind of ambles along, a type of filmmaking I'm not normally a fan of, but is done with such authenticity and charm it has a magic about it. George Segal and Elliott Gould are superb as gamblers who become friends - Segal is half a gambler but Gould a pure one, if that makes sensse.
They have various adventures - meeting hookers, getting beaten up by loan sharks, dealing with other gamblers. I can't think of a film that better captures the camaraderie, good and bad times, and consuming nature of gambling. A lovely movie.
They have various adventures - meeting hookers, getting beaten up by loan sharks, dealing with other gamblers. I can't think of a film that better captures the camaraderie, good and bad times, and consuming nature of gambling. A lovely movie.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Maria Montez Top Ten
1) Arabian Nights (1942) - the film that kicked it off... only fair
2) White Savage (1943) - really fun south seas stuff
3) Cobra Woman (1944) - perhaps the best Montez-Hall Sabu film
4) Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves (1944) -a solid entry before the quality dipped
5) Tangier (1946) - in black and white but a decent noir
6) The Exile (1947) - enchanting swashbuckler
7) The Wicked City (1948) - made in France, with Montez good in a film noir part
8) The Mystery of Marie Roget (1942) - not as good as Gypsy Wildcat or Sudan but I put it here because Montez is effective as a baddy - if she'd stayed alive to the end I think this would be better received
9) Siren of Atlantis (1948) - junky lost city fun... Maria isn't that great but the film was entertaining
10) Sudan (1945) - Montez goes off with Turhan Bey which feels like cheating but she rarely looked better
2) White Savage (1943) - really fun south seas stuff
3) Cobra Woman (1944) - perhaps the best Montez-Hall Sabu film
4) Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves (1944) -a solid entry before the quality dipped
5) Tangier (1946) - in black and white but a decent noir
6) The Exile (1947) - enchanting swashbuckler
7) The Wicked City (1948) - made in France, with Montez good in a film noir part
8) The Mystery of Marie Roget (1942) - not as good as Gypsy Wildcat or Sudan but I put it here because Montez is effective as a baddy - if she'd stayed alive to the end I think this would be better received
9) Siren of Atlantis (1948) - junky lost city fun... Maria isn't that great but the film was entertaining
10) Sudan (1945) - Montez goes off with Turhan Bey which feels like cheating but she rarely looked better
Script review - "The Man Who Would Be King" by John Huston and Gladys Hill
What a wonderful script. Divine. I've got to admit - I wasn't a big fan of the film when I first saw it. Maybe I saw it too young - it's more an adventure film for grown ups. But it's great.
Fantastic read. The characters of Peachy and Davy jump off the page - cocky, working class, braggart-ty, cunning, a little dumb, susceptible to women and booze but aware of it. It's so rare we see Imperial films with working class heroes.
The big print is great to read - witty, very much in the style of Kipling. Gladys Hill makes a major contribution. The story cribs from other Kipling apparently. Grand adventure.
Fantastic read. The characters of Peachy and Davy jump off the page - cocky, working class, braggart-ty, cunning, a little dumb, susceptible to women and booze but aware of it. It's so rare we see Imperial films with working class heroes.
The big print is great to read - witty, very much in the style of Kipling. Gladys Hill makes a major contribution. The story cribs from other Kipling apparently. Grand adventure.
Movie review - "The Exile" (1947) ***1/2
A charming effort from Douglas Fairbanks, who stars, wrote and produced it, and director Max Ophuls. I'd heard of this film but had never seen it - it was really charming. It could well be the best film Maria Montez was ever in. She doesn't have a big role despite her top billing - but it's a decent part as a countess who visits the exiled Charles in Flanders. Her character probably should have been villainous - her conflict with Paule Croset is relatively and frustratingly mild.
But it's a good story - Charles exiled, short of money, a bit knocked about after a series of failed returns to England, trying to calm down impatient supporters, worried about assassins. Henry Daniell is superb as an assassin - great introduction sequence, with puritans giving him the job, and when he arrives in Flanders the thing really perked up.
Croset is okay as the female lead rather than sensational. She and Fairbanks have a sweet romance. Fairbanks is brilliant in a role that fits him like a glove - smart, brave, a little weary, romantic, impulsive. It's one of his best films. He really should have made more swashbucklers but I understand this one didn't do too well. Maybe it was the lack of color or action - there's only really action at the end. It could have done with a fight in the beginning and middle, maybe.
It's a shame.There's lovely direction by Max Ophuls and it's beautifully shot - long tracking shots, lovely composition. The set is gorgeous - this was adapted from a novel but it also feels like it could have been a play (apparently there was a play version) as most of it takes place at an inn. There's some fields and a village nearby.
Alan Hale is solid support as an ally of Charles. Montez gives an animated performance and has a bath in a weird 17th century device. This is a romantic film.
But it's a good story - Charles exiled, short of money, a bit knocked about after a series of failed returns to England, trying to calm down impatient supporters, worried about assassins. Henry Daniell is superb as an assassin - great introduction sequence, with puritans giving him the job, and when he arrives in Flanders the thing really perked up.
Croset is okay as the female lead rather than sensational. She and Fairbanks have a sweet romance. Fairbanks is brilliant in a role that fits him like a glove - smart, brave, a little weary, romantic, impulsive. It's one of his best films. He really should have made more swashbucklers but I understand this one didn't do too well. Maybe it was the lack of color or action - there's only really action at the end. It could have done with a fight in the beginning and middle, maybe.
It's a shame.There's lovely direction by Max Ophuls and it's beautifully shot - long tracking shots, lovely composition. The set is gorgeous - this was adapted from a novel but it also feels like it could have been a play (apparently there was a play version) as most of it takes place at an inn. There's some fields and a village nearby.
Alan Hale is solid support as an ally of Charles. Montez gives an animated performance and has a bath in a weird 17th century device. This is a romantic film.
How I Would Have Fixed Forever Amber
It's a terrible movie. Depressing. Amber bangs her head against a brick wall for the whole time chasing a guy who is never in to her. He dumps her to go overseas, has little interest in their kid, scolds her for seeing another guy (false scene because Amber isn't engaged, the guy lies).
It's disastrously undercast. Linda Darnell can be superb but she's all wrong as Amber. Otto Preminger wanted Lana Turner. I guess. Personally I think they should have gone for Maureen O'Hara who at least was a natural red head. The men are dreadful. Cornel Wilde is a shocker - stiff and self righteous and he only gets one sword fight to redeem himself. They should have tried Douglas Fairbanks Jnr. George Sanders is good as is Jessica Tandy. Richard Greene is so anonymous. So is Glenn Langan. All these men look alike. John Russell is okay but the role is a dream. Zanuck was not great on casting.
The big problem is the script.I know the censor was hot on them, but what they came up with doesn't work. It feels like a classic case of talented people writing down to their ability.
Compare it with Gone with the Wind. You've got Scarlett who wants Ashley who is interested in Scarlett but marries Melanie because he knows she's better for him. Rhett loves Scarlett - her spunk, her style, her beauty - and is so perfect for her, but she refuses to see it. Melanie likes Scarlett because she's brave.
Wind is better than Amber for the following reasons
a) the dramatic lines are cleaner - Scarlett is spoilt and selfish, she gets everything she wants and wants Ashley. She's also brave. Amber is born poor to horribly strict people and suffers injustice so you automatically feel sorry for her and dislike all the tsk tsking.
b) Rhett is dashing and good and driven by love for Scarlett. Bruce is dashing and treats Amber horribly - like a villain. He impregnates her, leaves her, scolds her for causing a duel which isn't his fault and is rewarded.Rhett dashing and good.
c) in Wind Ashley is weak, Melanie good. There is no equivalent in Amber. Really Bruce is the Ashley - someone not worthy of Amber's love. But no one is - there's no male character like Rhett for us to rely on to go "oh amber pay attention to that guy". They set up this friend of Bruce's played by Richard Greene who should have played that role but they don't. (Michael Rennie performed a similar role in The Wicked Lady).
d) in Wind Scarlett earns respect by constantly having trouble thrown at her. She's got a Civil War, husbands keep dying, she helps Melanie escape the burning of Atlanta, she shoots a Yankee soldier who seems to have rape on his mind, makes sure the baby gets born for Ashley, helps Tara get back on its feet financially. Now Amber actually does a bit of that - she helps nurse Bruce from the plague, runs through the fire. But she rarely does it for other people. Her goal is to get a title to marry Bruce which is dumb because Bruce never seems to want to marry her.
e) There is a good reason for Scarlett and Rhett not to be together - her love for Ashley and later on the psychological damage done by the war and the loss of their child. Here the reason is that Bruce simply doesn't like Amber.
There were either two ways to go:
1) make Amber a goodie
2) make her a baddy
(1) Could have worked but you would have had to soften it a lot. A good example is the 1945 film Kitty with Paulette Goddard - she plays a pickpocket in love with Ray Milland but he doesn't love her. He wants to use her to get into the foreign office though so he has a reason to be in her orbit.
You could have made Amber completely sympathetic. Make every other woman a bitch.
(2) Could also have worked. May have made it easier to get past the censors. Have Amber empathetic but ruthless. You could have had more sex that way. She would have to suffer. Possibly die. She didn't die in the novel - you could end her on a downer. It happens anyway.
I do think you would have had to flesh out two support parts:
a) a man who loves Amber all through the film. Doesn't have to be a huge part - just keep cutting back to him. Someone who the audience can see who should be with her. I'd make the Earl of Almsbury this.
b) a woman to be a counterpoint to Amber. If she's good she should be a real bitch. If she's bad she should be pure but still love Amber. The woman who loves Bruce could be good for this.
I think either way you'd have to make Bruce bad. James Mason, originally offered the part, would have been perfect. Ditto Stewart Granger. Bruce is the villain of the piece. He's simply irredeemable.
Amber should want to raise their son to get him back. Amber should do everything for their son - money, title, safety, etc That's extremely sympathetic.
I think the easiest way would have been to go the (2) option. Make her "bad". But make clear she's driven by love and in love with a no good guy.
Bruce should have suffered at the end. I would use the character of Jemima, Amber's step daughter - make her a friend. Make her the "good" counterpoint to Amber.
I think that would have worked.
Movie review - "The Sun Never Sets" (1939) **
Hollywood's film industry of the 1930s was notably pro-British Empire - in part due to the success of Lives of a Bengal Lancer and the films that followed in its wake but also due I think to nervousness about the rise of totalitarianism in Europe. The relationship soured during and after World War Two but it was at its peak in this weird 1939 film from Universal.
Britisher Bill Lipscomb wrote the script which is presumably why there is such an emphasis on family and tradition and sacrifice. Basil Rathbone is a colonial servant whose family provides nothing but colonial servants so it seems - and apparently they're all okay about it. Well brother Doug Fairbanks Jr complains for a bit but is talked into sense by C Aubrey Smith who points out a map showing where all the family is.
Then Fairbanks goes out to Africa. Rathhone is sent out too on a top secret mission. His wife is pregnant and doesn't want to go but does because of duty. Rathbone doesn't really want to go but does because of duty. When they're there Rathbone goes on a mission. Baddy Lionel Atwill persuades Fairbanks to persuade Rathbone to come back from the mission to look after his sick, ill wife. This is a Bad Thing. When Fairbanks finds out his been duped everyone goes into scandal mode - despite the fact that Rathbone's baby child has died. Rathbone's career is wrecked and he's recalled; Fairbanks seems semi suicidal and decides to go and make money because that's all that's left but can't go back to London. However Fairbanks redeems himself by locating a radio and calling in an attack on the baddy's base which is led by Rathbone in planes.
The action component of this is dumb. Lionel Atwill is up to No Good by.. transmitting in a radio. What's he doing exactly? Spreading fake news? Whipping up trouble? Asking for independence? They never say - but it's hollow to see Rathbone nobly fighting someone who wants to rule Africans when Rathbone is basically ruling Africans.
Also the climax is crap - Fairbanks smuggles himself in by pretending to be drunk... then calling out a code over the radio... which is heard back in London as a family code word, which ushers in a bomb attack? It's just stupid.
Fairbanks and Rathbone don't get much of a chance to be heroic - only at the end.
I did like Rathbone confronting Lionel Atwill and talking about ant farms (but again don't the British treat the Africans like ants in this film? There's certainly no black character in this film who does anything other than chant), and it's a novelty seeing Rathbone as a hero. Atwill is always good, and I liked Fairbanks. The death of the baby is sensitively handled. Cecil Kellaway pops up as a colonial official. Barbara O'Neil and Virginia Field are a little hard to tell apart as the women but they give decent performances. The stuff involving the agent helping Rathbone was well done.
The production values are decent - there's a fair few African extras and places like villages and mines, etc. But this is just too silly.
Britisher Bill Lipscomb wrote the script which is presumably why there is such an emphasis on family and tradition and sacrifice. Basil Rathbone is a colonial servant whose family provides nothing but colonial servants so it seems - and apparently they're all okay about it. Well brother Doug Fairbanks Jr complains for a bit but is talked into sense by C Aubrey Smith who points out a map showing where all the family is.
Then Fairbanks goes out to Africa. Rathhone is sent out too on a top secret mission. His wife is pregnant and doesn't want to go but does because of duty. Rathbone doesn't really want to go but does because of duty. When they're there Rathbone goes on a mission. Baddy Lionel Atwill persuades Fairbanks to persuade Rathbone to come back from the mission to look after his sick, ill wife. This is a Bad Thing. When Fairbanks finds out his been duped everyone goes into scandal mode - despite the fact that Rathbone's baby child has died. Rathbone's career is wrecked and he's recalled; Fairbanks seems semi suicidal and decides to go and make money because that's all that's left but can't go back to London. However Fairbanks redeems himself by locating a radio and calling in an attack on the baddy's base which is led by Rathbone in planes.
The action component of this is dumb. Lionel Atwill is up to No Good by.. transmitting in a radio. What's he doing exactly? Spreading fake news? Whipping up trouble? Asking for independence? They never say - but it's hollow to see Rathbone nobly fighting someone who wants to rule Africans when Rathbone is basically ruling Africans.
Also the climax is crap - Fairbanks smuggles himself in by pretending to be drunk... then calling out a code over the radio... which is heard back in London as a family code word, which ushers in a bomb attack? It's just stupid.
Fairbanks and Rathbone don't get much of a chance to be heroic - only at the end.
I did like Rathbone confronting Lionel Atwill and talking about ant farms (but again don't the British treat the Africans like ants in this film? There's certainly no black character in this film who does anything other than chant), and it's a novelty seeing Rathbone as a hero. Atwill is always good, and I liked Fairbanks. The death of the baby is sensitively handled. Cecil Kellaway pops up as a colonial official. Barbara O'Neil and Virginia Field are a little hard to tell apart as the women but they give decent performances. The stuff involving the agent helping Rathbone was well done.
The production values are decent - there's a fair few African extras and places like villages and mines, etc. But this is just too silly.
Monday, December 17, 2018
Movie review - "Green Hell" (1940) ***
This has a dreadful critical reputation - even James Whale cultists seem to have little good to say about it. Doug Fairbanks bagged it. So did Vincent Price.
I think its a perfectly fine silly jungle adventure tale. A group of adventurers go into the jungle to dig up an inca temple. A woman (Joan Bennett) rocks up to visit her husband (Vincent Price) who has been killed... and she's panted over by Fairbanks and George Sanders.
Its written by Francis Marion - maybe she is why the men are so sensitive and talk about their feelings more. (Look at the scene between George Sanders and Fairbanks where they talk about their mutual love for Bennett - they take it very seriously.) Is that a bad thing?
I feel Marion would also be why the woman character is more central than normal in this kind of film. She has a lot of power and agency, even though she doesn't have a job.
There's some truly spectacular sets - it looks amazing - and spooky poking-around-the-temple scenes. The natives are you standard "other" - savage, primitive, dangerous, occasionally loyal. This is entirely typical of pictures from the time. There's a good storm and final attack.
Some of it seems abrupt - John Howard's character for instance. I think it would have been better with more action - more of a ticking clock. There's a lot of sitting around in the jungle in the middle section and it's all over Bennett - there were a few more subplots in say Five Came Back which I feel influenced this.
It's not a classic - and maybe we are right to expect more from Whale - but I enjoyed this. Price, Fairbanks, Sanders and Bennett are good - so too is John Howard. George Bancroft's raucous American is annoying but its not a big part. Alan Hale is miscast as a scientist but that's fun in its own way.
Unfairly maligned.
I think its a perfectly fine silly jungle adventure tale. A group of adventurers go into the jungle to dig up an inca temple. A woman (Joan Bennett) rocks up to visit her husband (Vincent Price) who has been killed... and she's panted over by Fairbanks and George Sanders.
Its written by Francis Marion - maybe she is why the men are so sensitive and talk about their feelings more. (Look at the scene between George Sanders and Fairbanks where they talk about their mutual love for Bennett - they take it very seriously.) Is that a bad thing?
I feel Marion would also be why the woman character is more central than normal in this kind of film. She has a lot of power and agency, even though she doesn't have a job.
There's some truly spectacular sets - it looks amazing - and spooky poking-around-the-temple scenes. The natives are you standard "other" - savage, primitive, dangerous, occasionally loyal. This is entirely typical of pictures from the time. There's a good storm and final attack.
Some of it seems abrupt - John Howard's character for instance. I think it would have been better with more action - more of a ticking clock. There's a lot of sitting around in the jungle in the middle section and it's all over Bennett - there were a few more subplots in say Five Came Back which I feel influenced this.
It's not a classic - and maybe we are right to expect more from Whale - but I enjoyed this. Price, Fairbanks, Sanders and Bennett are good - so too is John Howard. George Bancroft's raucous American is annoying but its not a big part. Alan Hale is miscast as a scientist but that's fun in its own way.
Unfairly maligned.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Movie review - "Son of Fury" (1942) ***
Adaptation of a best seller, crafted into a star vehicle for Tyrone Power. He's very handsome and dashing and all that. Fox made sure this was a hit - dependable Phil Dunne did the script, John Cromwell directed, George Sanders offered support, there's decent production value Gene Tierney is a native girl and Frances Farmer the fake love interest.
Dunne does a solid job - there's three acts and a prologue, with Roddy McDowall excellent as young Tyrone. The piece has a theme too - the injustice of laws that so favour the nobility. Act two is an idyllic life in Tahiti with Power romancing Tierney - I really liked how he was allowed to go back with her at the end, she didn't even have to turn out to be white or anything. I liked McDowall for not wrecking Henry Davenport's life by running off.
George Sanders does his Sanders thing well. In the opening scene he takes his shirt off for a boxing match - the most physical role Sanders ever played? No hiding those man boobs. It's not that satisfying Power grows up to beat up old Sanders - I mean, he is pretty old.
John Carradine livens things up as Power's friend. Frances Farmer was good value too as the fake love interest - she actually seems interested in what she's acting.
Dunne does a solid job - there's three acts and a prologue, with Roddy McDowall excellent as young Tyrone. The piece has a theme too - the injustice of laws that so favour the nobility. Act two is an idyllic life in Tahiti with Power romancing Tierney - I really liked how he was allowed to go back with her at the end, she didn't even have to turn out to be white or anything. I liked McDowall for not wrecking Henry Davenport's life by running off.
George Sanders does his Sanders thing well. In the opening scene he takes his shirt off for a boxing match - the most physical role Sanders ever played? No hiding those man boobs. It's not that satisfying Power grows up to beat up old Sanders - I mean, he is pretty old.
John Carradine livens things up as Power's friend. Frances Farmer was good value too as the fake love interest - she actually seems interested in what she's acting.
The A to Z of Russ Meyer
Originally published for Filmink
Russ Meyer is the most cult-iest of cult movie directors. Films like Faster Pussycat Kill Kill (1965), Vixen (1968) and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) still pack out revival houses. HIs work continues to inspire critical analysis and attract new fans. Artwork from his movie remains in high demand for posters and T shirts.
Here’s an A to Z about the famous auteur.
A is for Alzheimer’s Disease, which afflicted Meyer during the last years of his life prior to his death in 2004, and is a downer of a way to start this article but you can’t ignore it happened. Meyer had an incredible life – lots of sex, fame, money, laughs and a job he loved, even some critical respect. He died a wealthy man with a devoted fan base – there was no Ed Wood/DW Griffith style languishing in obscurity and poverty for old Russ. That doesn’t guarantee you’ll go out well, though, and it didn’t for Meyer, whose health declined in the mid 1990s and developed into full blown Alzheimer’s. (Mental illness ran in the family – his mother and sister wound up in psychiatric hospitals.)
B is for blaxploitation, in part out of defiance because I’m expected to write “breasts” which really are the defining feature of Meyer’s oeuvre. Meyer did want to try other sorts of films in his career – hence in 1973’s Black Snake he tried a period blaxploitation film about a slave uprising at a plantation in the colonial West Indies. The film failed – I think mostly because it had a white hero and not a black one, but Meyer thought it was due to a lack of on-screen sex and because his female lead (future London aristocrat Anouska Hempel, who reportedly tried to block the film being seen in the UK in later years) didn’t have big breasts. You can’t escape them when talking about Meyer.
C is for Charles Napier, a big strapping actor familiar from countless films and TV shows (notably Rambo First Blood Part II), who pops up in a number of Meyer movies. A couple of male actors in Meyer films went on to do other things (Napier, Motorpsycho’s Alex Rocco and Common Law Cabin’s Ken Swofford) but none of the women. It’s remarkable because many of the women in Meyer films were fabulous, eg Dolly Read, Raven De La Croix, Shari Eubank. The two who should have been stars were Erica Gavin, who gave a performance of remarkable erotic ferocity in Vixen, and especially Tura Satana from Faster Pussycat Kill Kill, who should have starred in a whole bunch of Pam Grier-style action vehicles but kind of drifted off the scene.
D is for dentist, Russ Meyer’s – who loaned his office to Meyer in the late 50s for a weekend so the filmmaker could shoot the nudie comedy film The Immortal Mr Teas (1959). The film – Meyer’s first feature (he had mostly been a photographer until then) – was raw and plotless (it contains no dialogue) but was well-shot, good-natured and featured lots of nudity, and became a box office sensation, sparking a slew of imitations, including some from Meyer himself (Eve and the Handyman (1961) and Wild Naked Gals of the West (1962)) before the bottom inevitably dropped out of the market. In Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens (1979), Meyer had a dentist character, a flamboyantly gay male who tries to rape the male hero, so maybe he cooled on the profession in later years.
E is for Eve Meyer, Meyer’s second wife, associate producer, lead model, star of his second film Eve and the Handyman and overall muse. The two drifted apart personally and professionally by the early ‘70s and, like many an auteur director, Meyer was never as good once he broke up with his wife (eg George Lucas, Peter Bogdanovich). She died in a plane crash on the Canary Islands in 1977.
F is for feminism, something Meyer is occasionally accused of, mostly due to having three strong female leads in Faster Pussycat Kill Kill and making a film about female sexual desire, Vixen. But try arguing that feminism after watching Charles Napier beat, strangle, stomp and electrocute Shari Eubank to a lingering death in Supervixens (1975); or Lorna Maitland learning to love sex by being raped in Lorna (1964) and then being murdered for liking sex; or have Alex Rocco in Motorpsycho (1965) ignore looking after his recently raped wife so he can go looking for revenge and flirt with Haji; or all of the comic rape in Up! (1976) and Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens. One thing is certain though – Meyer’s films with female protagonists (Faster Pussycat, Vixen, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Mondo Topless) are a hell of a lot more entertaining and hold up much better than those where the action is driven by the men (Blacksnake, Supervixens, Finders Keepers Lovers Weepers). He never seemed to learn that lesson though and kept drifting back to stories with male protagonists.
G is for GI, which Meyer was during World War Two, working as a combat cameraman. He loved the experience so much he never wanted a grown-up job, hence going into nude photography and filmmaking. Meyer never lost a “GI” vibe to his filmmaking either – he mostly shot in a rough and ready style, with small crews, filming in isolated locations and Meyer very much the leader of his “platoon”… and the tone of many of his films (large breasts, square jaws, broad comedy, violence) often seemed aimed at GIs. In some movies you can practically hear a redneck private from Missouri watching it going “haw haw haw”.
H is for homophobia, something Meyer is accused of, mostly because (spoilers) all the LGBTI characters in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls get murdered but also because of the gay caricatures in The Seven Minutes (1971), Up! (1976) and Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens, and Haji being a tragic doomed lesbian in Faster Pussycat. However, Meyer always depicts lesbian lovemaking as a positive, enjoyable thing (especially in Vixen) – indeed the climax of Cherry Harry and Raquel (1970) features two women happily going at it intercut with scenes of two men pointlessly shooting each other to death, making a surprisingly affecting point about sex being more worthwhile than violence. I am aware this doesn’t clear him of homophobia and he films everything very much through a straight male gaze (or leer), but he at least had queer characters in several of his movies when that wasn’t super common – half the male characters in Up!, for instance, are bisexual.
I is for impotence, a recurring theme in Meyer films, which frequently feature men who can’t get it up as a plot point. The subject is treated mostly comically, such as Stuart Lancaster’s impotence in Good Morning and Goodbye leading to his wife (Alaina Capri) sleeping around, or Ken Kerr in Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens only being able to get it up for anal sex causing his wife (Kitten Natividad) to sleep around. Meyer occasionally tackles the subject more seriously, as in Supervixens where impotence drives Charlies Napier to murder a taunting Shari Eubanks. Meyer did like to reuse many story ideas and themes but after watching a bunch of his movies back to back, impotence did seem to be on his mind an awful lot #justsaying.
J is for Jimmy McDonough, a writer whose biography of Meyer, Big Bosoms and Square Jaws: The Biography of Russ Meyer, King of the Sex Film, is required reading for anyone interested in the career of this unique filmmaker. There are plenty of book-long cinematic studies of Meyer – including Meyer’s own memoir, A Clean Breast – but McDonough’s book is the one that really goes behind the scenes. Meyer had a difficult upbringing (little money, no father) but a devoted mother (who married six times). Service in World War Two was the making of him as a man and a filmmaker. When he got out, he shot industrial films and worked as a photographer (he took stills of James Dean in Giant and did a lot of jobs for Playboy), before breaking out with The Immoral Mr Teas. He usually self-financed and had his fair share of failures at the box office (Wild Gals of the Naked West, Fanny Hill, Mudhoney, Faster Pussycat, The Seven Minutes, Blacksnake) but would always bounce back with a massive hit (Lorna, Motorpsycho, Vixen, Cherry Harry & Raquel, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Supervixen). He had plenty of feuds and friends and women, but in general had a grand life until the end.
K is for killer convicts. I’m drawing a long bow with this one but bear with me, it’s interesting… During his war service, Meyer heard a legend about a special squad of Allied soldiers recruited from among the inmates of military prison that was sent on a suicide mission against the Germans. He told this to E.M. Nathanson, who turned it into a novel, The Dirty Dozen, which became a famous film in 1967 – easily Meyer’s greatest contribution to cinema outside his own movies. (An aside: Meyer was obsessed with Nazis, who frequently turned up as characters in his films).
L is for Li’l Aber, a comic strip about hillbillies living in the impoverished mountain village of Dogpatch USA. This was a huge influence on Meyer’s filmmaking, with its use of broad stereotypes and tropes such as buxom women and klutzy guys. Most of his films, sexy or not, are big screen cartoons, and really should be viewed in that light.
M is for mother, Russ Meyer’s, perhaps the defining female in his life. Meyer adored his mother Lydia, who inspired his dreams and gave him support (i.e spoilt him rotten). Dad was barely around – make of that what you will, psychiatrists.
N is for names of cool bands, which Meyer movies seem to have inspired more than any other director – Mudhoney, Faster Pussycat, Motor Psycho.
O is for overseas, where Meyer never liked working. He had an unhappy experience doing Fanny Hill (1964) in West Germany, Black Snake in Barbados and Who Killed Bambi (see below) in Ireland. At heart he was a very American filmmaker – just a very specific type of America.
P is for penises, which appear in Meyer’s ‘70s films with surprising regularity for such a breast man. He’s got Charles Napier running full frontal in the desert in Cherry, Harry and Raquel and they keep popping up in Up! And Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens. Absolutely, they are outnumbered by breasts and (towards the end) vaginas but they’re in there.
Q is for questions, documentary style – asked of strippers in Mondo Topless, Meyer’s 1964 documentary about topless dancers. This intersperses a LOT of footage of topless dancing with surprisingly interesting first-person accounts of their work and life and makes one wish Meyer had made more documentaries in his career. For all his faults, he was an extremely gifted filmmaker with a flair for editing, pace and visual composition.
R is for Roger Ebert, a bespectacled film critic who is a bigger deal in the US than Australia because he was on TV for so long here. He became friends with Meyer after writing an appreciative article on the latter’s films, leading to Meyer hiring Ebert to write the fun, clever script for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Ebert stayed a critic for the rest of his life, but he occasionally took leave of absences to work with Meyer on the terrible scripts for Up! and Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens (both done under a pseudonym) as well as the abandoned Who Killed Bambi? A film was even going to be made of their relationship called Russ and Roger Go Beyond with Josh Gad playing Ebert and Will Ferrell as Meyer, but the studio decided not to proceed when the #MeToo movement hit and it was felt this mightn’t be the time for such a project set in the world of sexploitation.
S is for Sex Pistols, The who were going to make a film with Meyer in the late ‘70s (they were big Beyond the Valley of the Dolls fans!!). Sets were built, a cast assembled (Marianne Faithful was going to play Sid Vicious’ mother), Roger Ebert wrote a script, and filming started in Ireland… but a few days into shooting the money ran out and the plug was pulled. The project was re-fashioned as the Meyer-less Great Rock n Roll Swindle which features some of Meyer’s footage. Ebert’s original script is available online.
T is for Tobacco Road, a sweaty Southern melodrama, now forgotten but a big deal in Meyer’s day, inspiring countless imitations of melodramatic sagas about horny Southerners. The plays of Tennessee Williams fall into this category (albeit at the higher end) as do the films of Russ Meyer, particularly in the ‘60s – Lorna, Mudhoney, Common Law Cabin, Good Morning and Goodbye, Cherry, Harry & Raquel).
U is for Uschi Digard, a Swedish model and actor who appeared in a few Meyer films, most notably in Cherry, Harry and Raquel, where Meyer compensated for the fact that his female lead quit before all her scenes had been shot, by intercutting footage of Digard running around the desert naked to cover any plot holes. And you know something? It totally works.
V is for violence, something which featured in most of Meyer’s films even though he was better known for the sex. Sometimes the violence is extremely well done (eg Faster Pussycat), sometimes it’s extremely unpleasant (eg Supervixens), other times it overtakes the movie when you’d rather characters were having sex (eg Blacksnake, Finders Keepers Lovers Weeper are basically action movies).
W is for Williams, Edy, who Meyer met during Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and became his wife number three. He overlooked her for lead roles in The Seven Minutes (she played a support) and Blacksnake. Meyer was going to put her in a star vehicle, Foxy but it was never made. Are you surprised to hear the marriage didn’t last? You know something, Edy Williams should have played the lead in Blacksnake – it would have been more fun.
X is for X rating which Meyer alternatively battled and embraced throughout his career. Battles with censors cost him a lot of money but he made it back in the success he enjoyed.
Y is for Yvonne de Carlo, perhaps the best-known star to appear in a Meyer film – his 1971 stab at respectability, The Seven Minutes, which he made following the success of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. (Although 1930s star Miriam Hopkins was in 1964’s Fanny Hill.) I think I’m the only person in the world who likes The Seven Minutes – I find it an entertaining, fast paced courtroom drama which deals with interesting issues, which is well directed and acted. The public stayed away in droves and Meyer was spooked back into the exploitation field.
Z is for Zanuck, Richard F who brought Meyer to 20th Century Fox after the director had a huge success with Vixen, which was made for $90,000 and grossed over $9 million. The result, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, was such a hit that Fox signed Meyer to make three more films – The Seven Minutes, Everyone in the Garden (from a play by Edward Albee, which would have been awesome) and The Final Steal from a novel by Peter George. Dolls was also so controversial it helped Zanuck get the boot from Fox. Meyer only made one film in that three picture deal, The Seven Minutes, which flopped and never worked for a studio again. His last four features were financed independently.
Russ Meyer is the most cult-iest of cult movie directors. Films like Faster Pussycat Kill Kill (1965), Vixen (1968) and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) still pack out revival houses. HIs work continues to inspire critical analysis and attract new fans. Artwork from his movie remains in high demand for posters and T shirts.
Here’s an A to Z about the famous auteur.
A is for Alzheimer’s Disease, which afflicted Meyer during the last years of his life prior to his death in 2004, and is a downer of a way to start this article but you can’t ignore it happened. Meyer had an incredible life – lots of sex, fame, money, laughs and a job he loved, even some critical respect. He died a wealthy man with a devoted fan base – there was no Ed Wood/DW Griffith style languishing in obscurity and poverty for old Russ. That doesn’t guarantee you’ll go out well, though, and it didn’t for Meyer, whose health declined in the mid 1990s and developed into full blown Alzheimer’s. (Mental illness ran in the family – his mother and sister wound up in psychiatric hospitals.)
B is for blaxploitation, in part out of defiance because I’m expected to write “breasts” which really are the defining feature of Meyer’s oeuvre. Meyer did want to try other sorts of films in his career – hence in 1973’s Black Snake he tried a period blaxploitation film about a slave uprising at a plantation in the colonial West Indies. The film failed – I think mostly because it had a white hero and not a black one, but Meyer thought it was due to a lack of on-screen sex and because his female lead (future London aristocrat Anouska Hempel, who reportedly tried to block the film being seen in the UK in later years) didn’t have big breasts. You can’t escape them when talking about Meyer.
C is for Charles Napier, a big strapping actor familiar from countless films and TV shows (notably Rambo First Blood Part II), who pops up in a number of Meyer movies. A couple of male actors in Meyer films went on to do other things (Napier, Motorpsycho’s Alex Rocco and Common Law Cabin’s Ken Swofford) but none of the women. It’s remarkable because many of the women in Meyer films were fabulous, eg Dolly Read, Raven De La Croix, Shari Eubank. The two who should have been stars were Erica Gavin, who gave a performance of remarkable erotic ferocity in Vixen, and especially Tura Satana from Faster Pussycat Kill Kill, who should have starred in a whole bunch of Pam Grier-style action vehicles but kind of drifted off the scene.
D is for dentist, Russ Meyer’s – who loaned his office to Meyer in the late 50s for a weekend so the filmmaker could shoot the nudie comedy film The Immortal Mr Teas (1959). The film – Meyer’s first feature (he had mostly been a photographer until then) – was raw and plotless (it contains no dialogue) but was well-shot, good-natured and featured lots of nudity, and became a box office sensation, sparking a slew of imitations, including some from Meyer himself (Eve and the Handyman (1961) and Wild Naked Gals of the West (1962)) before the bottom inevitably dropped out of the market. In Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens (1979), Meyer had a dentist character, a flamboyantly gay male who tries to rape the male hero, so maybe he cooled on the profession in later years.
E is for Eve Meyer, Meyer’s second wife, associate producer, lead model, star of his second film Eve and the Handyman and overall muse. The two drifted apart personally and professionally by the early ‘70s and, like many an auteur director, Meyer was never as good once he broke up with his wife (eg George Lucas, Peter Bogdanovich). She died in a plane crash on the Canary Islands in 1977.
F is for feminism, something Meyer is occasionally accused of, mostly due to having three strong female leads in Faster Pussycat Kill Kill and making a film about female sexual desire, Vixen. But try arguing that feminism after watching Charles Napier beat, strangle, stomp and electrocute Shari Eubank to a lingering death in Supervixens (1975); or Lorna Maitland learning to love sex by being raped in Lorna (1964) and then being murdered for liking sex; or have Alex Rocco in Motorpsycho (1965) ignore looking after his recently raped wife so he can go looking for revenge and flirt with Haji; or all of the comic rape in Up! (1976) and Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens. One thing is certain though – Meyer’s films with female protagonists (Faster Pussycat, Vixen, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Mondo Topless) are a hell of a lot more entertaining and hold up much better than those where the action is driven by the men (Blacksnake, Supervixens, Finders Keepers Lovers Weepers). He never seemed to learn that lesson though and kept drifting back to stories with male protagonists.
G is for GI, which Meyer was during World War Two, working as a combat cameraman. He loved the experience so much he never wanted a grown-up job, hence going into nude photography and filmmaking. Meyer never lost a “GI” vibe to his filmmaking either – he mostly shot in a rough and ready style, with small crews, filming in isolated locations and Meyer very much the leader of his “platoon”… and the tone of many of his films (large breasts, square jaws, broad comedy, violence) often seemed aimed at GIs. In some movies you can practically hear a redneck private from Missouri watching it going “haw haw haw”.
H is for homophobia, something Meyer is accused of, mostly because (spoilers) all the LGBTI characters in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls get murdered but also because of the gay caricatures in The Seven Minutes (1971), Up! (1976) and Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens, and Haji being a tragic doomed lesbian in Faster Pussycat. However, Meyer always depicts lesbian lovemaking as a positive, enjoyable thing (especially in Vixen) – indeed the climax of Cherry Harry and Raquel (1970) features two women happily going at it intercut with scenes of two men pointlessly shooting each other to death, making a surprisingly affecting point about sex being more worthwhile than violence. I am aware this doesn’t clear him of homophobia and he films everything very much through a straight male gaze (or leer), but he at least had queer characters in several of his movies when that wasn’t super common – half the male characters in Up!, for instance, are bisexual.
I is for impotence, a recurring theme in Meyer films, which frequently feature men who can’t get it up as a plot point. The subject is treated mostly comically, such as Stuart Lancaster’s impotence in Good Morning and Goodbye leading to his wife (Alaina Capri) sleeping around, or Ken Kerr in Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens only being able to get it up for anal sex causing his wife (Kitten Natividad) to sleep around. Meyer occasionally tackles the subject more seriously, as in Supervixens where impotence drives Charlies Napier to murder a taunting Shari Eubanks. Meyer did like to reuse many story ideas and themes but after watching a bunch of his movies back to back, impotence did seem to be on his mind an awful lot #justsaying.
J is for Jimmy McDonough, a writer whose biography of Meyer, Big Bosoms and Square Jaws: The Biography of Russ Meyer, King of the Sex Film, is required reading for anyone interested in the career of this unique filmmaker. There are plenty of book-long cinematic studies of Meyer – including Meyer’s own memoir, A Clean Breast – but McDonough’s book is the one that really goes behind the scenes. Meyer had a difficult upbringing (little money, no father) but a devoted mother (who married six times). Service in World War Two was the making of him as a man and a filmmaker. When he got out, he shot industrial films and worked as a photographer (he took stills of James Dean in Giant and did a lot of jobs for Playboy), before breaking out with The Immoral Mr Teas. He usually self-financed and had his fair share of failures at the box office (Wild Gals of the Naked West, Fanny Hill, Mudhoney, Faster Pussycat, The Seven Minutes, Blacksnake) but would always bounce back with a massive hit (Lorna, Motorpsycho, Vixen, Cherry Harry & Raquel, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Supervixen). He had plenty of feuds and friends and women, but in general had a grand life until the end.
K is for killer convicts. I’m drawing a long bow with this one but bear with me, it’s interesting… During his war service, Meyer heard a legend about a special squad of Allied soldiers recruited from among the inmates of military prison that was sent on a suicide mission against the Germans. He told this to E.M. Nathanson, who turned it into a novel, The Dirty Dozen, which became a famous film in 1967 – easily Meyer’s greatest contribution to cinema outside his own movies. (An aside: Meyer was obsessed with Nazis, who frequently turned up as characters in his films).
L is for Li’l Aber, a comic strip about hillbillies living in the impoverished mountain village of Dogpatch USA. This was a huge influence on Meyer’s filmmaking, with its use of broad stereotypes and tropes such as buxom women and klutzy guys. Most of his films, sexy or not, are big screen cartoons, and really should be viewed in that light.
M is for mother, Russ Meyer’s, perhaps the defining female in his life. Meyer adored his mother Lydia, who inspired his dreams and gave him support (i.e spoilt him rotten). Dad was barely around – make of that what you will, psychiatrists.
N is for names of cool bands, which Meyer movies seem to have inspired more than any other director – Mudhoney, Faster Pussycat, Motor Psycho.
O is for overseas, where Meyer never liked working. He had an unhappy experience doing Fanny Hill (1964) in West Germany, Black Snake in Barbados and Who Killed Bambi (see below) in Ireland. At heart he was a very American filmmaker – just a very specific type of America.
P is for penises, which appear in Meyer’s ‘70s films with surprising regularity for such a breast man. He’s got Charles Napier running full frontal in the desert in Cherry, Harry and Raquel and they keep popping up in Up! And Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens. Absolutely, they are outnumbered by breasts and (towards the end) vaginas but they’re in there.
Q is for questions, documentary style – asked of strippers in Mondo Topless, Meyer’s 1964 documentary about topless dancers. This intersperses a LOT of footage of topless dancing with surprisingly interesting first-person accounts of their work and life and makes one wish Meyer had made more documentaries in his career. For all his faults, he was an extremely gifted filmmaker with a flair for editing, pace and visual composition.
R is for Roger Ebert, a bespectacled film critic who is a bigger deal in the US than Australia because he was on TV for so long here. He became friends with Meyer after writing an appreciative article on the latter’s films, leading to Meyer hiring Ebert to write the fun, clever script for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Ebert stayed a critic for the rest of his life, but he occasionally took leave of absences to work with Meyer on the terrible scripts for Up! and Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens (both done under a pseudonym) as well as the abandoned Who Killed Bambi? A film was even going to be made of their relationship called Russ and Roger Go Beyond with Josh Gad playing Ebert and Will Ferrell as Meyer, but the studio decided not to proceed when the #MeToo movement hit and it was felt this mightn’t be the time for such a project set in the world of sexploitation.
S is for Sex Pistols, The who were going to make a film with Meyer in the late ‘70s (they were big Beyond the Valley of the Dolls fans!!). Sets were built, a cast assembled (Marianne Faithful was going to play Sid Vicious’ mother), Roger Ebert wrote a script, and filming started in Ireland… but a few days into shooting the money ran out and the plug was pulled. The project was re-fashioned as the Meyer-less Great Rock n Roll Swindle which features some of Meyer’s footage. Ebert’s original script is available online.
T is for Tobacco Road, a sweaty Southern melodrama, now forgotten but a big deal in Meyer’s day, inspiring countless imitations of melodramatic sagas about horny Southerners. The plays of Tennessee Williams fall into this category (albeit at the higher end) as do the films of Russ Meyer, particularly in the ‘60s – Lorna, Mudhoney, Common Law Cabin, Good Morning and Goodbye, Cherry, Harry & Raquel).
U is for Uschi Digard, a Swedish model and actor who appeared in a few Meyer films, most notably in Cherry, Harry and Raquel, where Meyer compensated for the fact that his female lead quit before all her scenes had been shot, by intercutting footage of Digard running around the desert naked to cover any plot holes. And you know something? It totally works.
V is for violence, something which featured in most of Meyer’s films even though he was better known for the sex. Sometimes the violence is extremely well done (eg Faster Pussycat), sometimes it’s extremely unpleasant (eg Supervixens), other times it overtakes the movie when you’d rather characters were having sex (eg Blacksnake, Finders Keepers Lovers Weeper are basically action movies).
W is for Williams, Edy, who Meyer met during Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and became his wife number three. He overlooked her for lead roles in The Seven Minutes (she played a support) and Blacksnake. Meyer was going to put her in a star vehicle, Foxy but it was never made. Are you surprised to hear the marriage didn’t last? You know something, Edy Williams should have played the lead in Blacksnake – it would have been more fun.
X is for X rating which Meyer alternatively battled and embraced throughout his career. Battles with censors cost him a lot of money but he made it back in the success he enjoyed.
Y is for Yvonne de Carlo, perhaps the best-known star to appear in a Meyer film – his 1971 stab at respectability, The Seven Minutes, which he made following the success of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. (Although 1930s star Miriam Hopkins was in 1964’s Fanny Hill.) I think I’m the only person in the world who likes The Seven Minutes – I find it an entertaining, fast paced courtroom drama which deals with interesting issues, which is well directed and acted. The public stayed away in droves and Meyer was spooked back into the exploitation field.
Z is for Zanuck, Richard F who brought Meyer to 20th Century Fox after the director had a huge success with Vixen, which was made for $90,000 and grossed over $9 million. The result, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, was such a hit that Fox signed Meyer to make three more films – The Seven Minutes, Everyone in the Garden (from a play by Edward Albee, which would have been awesome) and The Final Steal from a novel by Peter George. Dolls was also so controversial it helped Zanuck get the boot from Fox. Meyer only made one film in that three picture deal, The Seven Minutes, which flopped and never worked for a studio again. His last four features were financed independently.
Movie review - "Kitty" (1945) ***
I've got the sneaking suspicion Paramount made this to cash in on Forever Amber in the same way Warner Bros made Jezebel to cash in on Gone with the Wind. (The novel was bought for filming prior to Amber's publication though it must be said.)
Paulette Goddard isn't the first star you think of to be in a costume film but she's very well cast here as a pretty fortune hunter. Well she doesn't start off that way - she's just a starving guttersnipe whose looks get her some modelling work and a job in a rich man's house. Ray Milland then decides to turn her into a lady to further his own career.
So it's a rip off of Pygmalion crossed with Gainsborough movies that were popular in England... but the touch of this is lighter.
Goddard is super fun - cheerful, lively. She makes this fun. I really like her as an actor. I enjoyed how Milland's motive was selfish - to get back in the foreign office. Greed helps a piece age well. Goddard goes on and marries two guys - she sleeps with them.
It's not a perfect film. Milland is very uninterested in Goddard for the most part, which the story requires, but is hard to believe because Goddard is so vivacious. I think they should have had a female rival for him - a lady whose love he was seeking, a real bitch. It would have made Milland seem more straight.
Support cast don't get much of a chance to shine which is a shame. Cecil Kellaway is fun as Gainsborough but we don't see him again after the beginning. Patrick Knowles is stiff as always as someone who loves Kitty. There are various old actors playing wigs. You get the impression that Mitchell Leisen at times is more interested in the decor than the storyline but Goddard makes it worthwhile.
Paulette Goddard isn't the first star you think of to be in a costume film but she's very well cast here as a pretty fortune hunter. Well she doesn't start off that way - she's just a starving guttersnipe whose looks get her some modelling work and a job in a rich man's house. Ray Milland then decides to turn her into a lady to further his own career.
So it's a rip off of Pygmalion crossed with Gainsborough movies that were popular in England... but the touch of this is lighter.
Goddard is super fun - cheerful, lively. She makes this fun. I really like her as an actor. I enjoyed how Milland's motive was selfish - to get back in the foreign office. Greed helps a piece age well. Goddard goes on and marries two guys - she sleeps with them.
It's not a perfect film. Milland is very uninterested in Goddard for the most part, which the story requires, but is hard to believe because Goddard is so vivacious. I think they should have had a female rival for him - a lady whose love he was seeking, a real bitch. It would have made Milland seem more straight.
Support cast don't get much of a chance to shine which is a shame. Cecil Kellaway is fun as Gainsborough but we don't see him again after the beginning. Patrick Knowles is stiff as always as someone who loves Kitty. There are various old actors playing wigs. You get the impression that Mitchell Leisen at times is more interested in the decor than the storyline but Goddard makes it worthwhile.
Movie review - "To Live and Die in LA" (1985) *** (warning: spoilers)
Nutty William Friedkin film - it's consistent interesting although also silly. I don't think there's been a more incompetent hero than that played by William Petersen. He struts around in skin tight jeans and mirrored sunglasses, determined to be heroic but keeps doing dumb things - he chases down John Turturro at the airport brandishing a gun and running through security when surely all he would have to do it contact/call the airline and get them to hold up Turturro; he pinches evidence from the evidence room when all he would need to do is wait for it a few days; he gets beaten up by Tururro when the latter is in his custody and so can escape; he decides to rob someone to raise money to participate in a sting; he winds up in a massive car chase with the FBI and causing the death of an FBI agent (I loved this twist); he doesn't cover Willem dafoe's sidekick enough and so gets shot in the face; he doesn't even get a bust.
It hit me half way though that Petersen was actually the villain - the film tracks his descent into madness, wanting to avenge his partner's death (two days to retirement!) so badly that he breaks the law, commits a robbery, causes the death of innocent people, blackmails his girlfriend and corrupts his new partner.
I think the film would have done better had it been told through the point of view of his new partner - because as an audience you want to identify/emphathise with your protagonist. That's the structure that worked in Training Day. You want to hang on to someone moral.
I think it also would have done better if Petersen had been less dumb - sometimes you go "oh wow he's on the edge" other time's he's just stupid.
There were also confusing moments - like how did Dafoe know Dean Stockwell had talked to Jon Pankow? Was Stockwell in on the whole thing? If so what was the point? These sort of holes often popped up in scripts where Friedkin wrote the script.
There's a really weird scene in the locker rooms of a gym where Pankow, Dafoe and Peterson all take their clothes off. Dafoe and Peterson start then Pankow drops his pants and moves into frame. It's like WTF? Peterson also goes full frontal in a love scene with Darlanne Fuegel.
But you know it's consistently interesting. It's got pace and energy and lots of new actors. The car chase is fantastic. I loved the characterisations of the villains - Dafoe is a counterfeiter who is also an artist whose girlfriend Debra Feur is also an avante garde dancer and is a little keen on another dancer (Jane Leaves from Frasier! Lying spread eagled in lingere in one scene)... they tape their sex sessions and Dafoe organises Leaves to come over and sleep with Feur when he's out on a job. It's a very progressive relationship!
He's a better boyfriend than Peterson, who sleeps with parolee Darlanne Fuegel (who is lovely) but forces her to inform (she works at a strip club) by threatening to bust her parole, and isn't interested that she has a kid, and is generally horrible.
Jon Pankow is miscast. His acting is fine - it's a good performance - he just looks so weird with that big head and strutting around. Petersen is a striking presence and the other actors are good.
A nutty fascinating film full of interesting moments.
It hit me half way though that Petersen was actually the villain - the film tracks his descent into madness, wanting to avenge his partner's death (two days to retirement!) so badly that he breaks the law, commits a robbery, causes the death of innocent people, blackmails his girlfriend and corrupts his new partner.
I think the film would have done better had it been told through the point of view of his new partner - because as an audience you want to identify/emphathise with your protagonist. That's the structure that worked in Training Day. You want to hang on to someone moral.
I think it also would have done better if Petersen had been less dumb - sometimes you go "oh wow he's on the edge" other time's he's just stupid.
There were also confusing moments - like how did Dafoe know Dean Stockwell had talked to Jon Pankow? Was Stockwell in on the whole thing? If so what was the point? These sort of holes often popped up in scripts where Friedkin wrote the script.
There's a really weird scene in the locker rooms of a gym where Pankow, Dafoe and Peterson all take their clothes off. Dafoe and Peterson start then Pankow drops his pants and moves into frame. It's like WTF? Peterson also goes full frontal in a love scene with Darlanne Fuegel.
But you know it's consistently interesting. It's got pace and energy and lots of new actors. The car chase is fantastic. I loved the characterisations of the villains - Dafoe is a counterfeiter who is also an artist whose girlfriend Debra Feur is also an avante garde dancer and is a little keen on another dancer (Jane Leaves from Frasier! Lying spread eagled in lingere in one scene)... they tape their sex sessions and Dafoe organises Leaves to come over and sleep with Feur when he's out on a job. It's a very progressive relationship!
He's a better boyfriend than Peterson, who sleeps with parolee Darlanne Fuegel (who is lovely) but forces her to inform (she works at a strip club) by threatening to bust her parole, and isn't interested that she has a kid, and is generally horrible.
Jon Pankow is miscast. His acting is fine - it's a good performance - he just looks so weird with that big head and strutting around. Petersen is a striking presence and the other actors are good.
A nutty fascinating film full of interesting moments.
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Movie review - "Caribbean" (1952) **1/2
Technically a swashbuckler though there's actually not much action - it was a Pine Thomas Production, so its inherently lower budgeted but they were dab hands at making things look relatively decent.
John Payne is a chap who is told to go undercover on a Caribbean Island by Cedric Hardwicke - a pirate (I think) who wants revenge on another pirate. He falls in love with Hardwicke's daughter Arlene Dahl, the poor man's Maureen O'Hara.
That's not a bad story. Payne is a decent action star. Dahl is flat - the story needed more spice. Hardwicke is good though his part isn't very large - he pops up at the beginning and end, that's it. Francis L Sullivan and Willard Parker (a leading man for five seconds a few years earlier) give the support cast some heft, as does Clarence Muse as a slave.
Pine Thomas allocate their pennies so there are a couple of big action sequences - one on a boat and the slave uprising at the end. It looks pretty good - nice colour. But the film lags in the Payne-Dahl scenes.
John Payne is a chap who is told to go undercover on a Caribbean Island by Cedric Hardwicke - a pirate (I think) who wants revenge on another pirate. He falls in love with Hardwicke's daughter Arlene Dahl, the poor man's Maureen O'Hara.
That's not a bad story. Payne is a decent action star. Dahl is flat - the story needed more spice. Hardwicke is good though his part isn't very large - he pops up at the beginning and end, that's it. Francis L Sullivan and Willard Parker (a leading man for five seconds a few years earlier) give the support cast some heft, as does Clarence Muse as a slave.
Pine Thomas allocate their pennies so there are a couple of big action sequences - one on a boat and the slave uprising at the end. It looks pretty good - nice colour. But the film lags in the Payne-Dahl scenes.
Thoughts on Elliott Gould - Could He Have Remained a Star?
1969. Elliott Gould makes Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. He becomes a star. He quickly signs a bunch of deals including setting up his own company.
He makes MASH and becomes a bigger star. Getting Straight and is even bigger - because its the only student protest film to make money and a lot of that is attributed to Gould.
He does Move which flops. Then does I Love My Wife which also flops. I think both these were failures you can't blame Gould for choosing - they were in the Bob and Carol vein. However apparently Gould turned down McCabe and Mrs Miller to do Wife. That was a mistake. Always go with your great directors.
He does Little Murders which flops. You definitely can't blame him for this. Hit play, great role. The movie's pretty good too. It probably should have had a name female co star. It's become a cult.
Gould goes to Sweden and does The Touch. No one likes it. But when Ingmar Bergman calls you have to answer.
Gould then flips out on A Glimpse of Tiger. This is Gould's fault. Drugs messed with his head. He goes on a two year sabbatical. Maybe that was too long but if that's the time you need to recover.
Gould comes back smartly with two Altmans - The Long Goodbye and California Split. Neither a big hit, and Goodbye cops it from some critics, but they are all films treated respectfully.
He does a buddy cop film, Busting. Can't blame him for that, a decent choice. It was made by Peter Hyams who later cast Gould in Capricorn One.
SPYS sounded weak. And was weak. It did reunite him with Sutherland but not Altman. This was a mistake. I don't know what else he was offered. Apparently At Long Last Love was an option. He does Who? and no one notices.
Gould then makes a series of "commercial" films - I Will I Will For Now, Harry and Walter Go to New York. They flop.
He winds up in a hit film, Capricorn One, and a good movie The Silent Partner, then makes a series of duds - Matilda, Escape to Athena, The Lady Vanishes, Falling in Love Again.
By the end of the decade he isn't a star anymore.
So what lessons can be learned
- don't let drugs affect your work
- if you have a relationship with a good director (Altman) you do it when they call - sure you'll get The Touch but you'll also get McCabe and Mrs Miller
- there's no such thing as "commercial"
- don't take off two years when you're popular because it won't last
He's still plugging away and has had a great career. I just wish Gould had remained a star for longer because his choices were so interesting when he had power.
He makes MASH and becomes a bigger star. Getting Straight and is even bigger - because its the only student protest film to make money and a lot of that is attributed to Gould.
He does Move which flops. Then does I Love My Wife which also flops. I think both these were failures you can't blame Gould for choosing - they were in the Bob and Carol vein. However apparently Gould turned down McCabe and Mrs Miller to do Wife. That was a mistake. Always go with your great directors.
He does Little Murders which flops. You definitely can't blame him for this. Hit play, great role. The movie's pretty good too. It probably should have had a name female co star. It's become a cult.
Gould goes to Sweden and does The Touch. No one likes it. But when Ingmar Bergman calls you have to answer.
Gould then flips out on A Glimpse of Tiger. This is Gould's fault. Drugs messed with his head. He goes on a two year sabbatical. Maybe that was too long but if that's the time you need to recover.
Gould comes back smartly with two Altmans - The Long Goodbye and California Split. Neither a big hit, and Goodbye cops it from some critics, but they are all films treated respectfully.
He does a buddy cop film, Busting. Can't blame him for that, a decent choice. It was made by Peter Hyams who later cast Gould in Capricorn One.
SPYS sounded weak. And was weak. It did reunite him with Sutherland but not Altman. This was a mistake. I don't know what else he was offered. Apparently At Long Last Love was an option. He does Who? and no one notices.
Gould then makes a series of "commercial" films - I Will I Will For Now, Harry and Walter Go to New York. They flop.
He winds up in a hit film, Capricorn One, and a good movie The Silent Partner, then makes a series of duds - Matilda, Escape to Athena, The Lady Vanishes, Falling in Love Again.
By the end of the decade he isn't a star anymore.
So what lessons can be learned
- don't let drugs affect your work
- if you have a relationship with a good director (Altman) you do it when they call - sure you'll get The Touch but you'll also get McCabe and Mrs Miller
- there's no such thing as "commercial"
- don't take off two years when you're popular because it won't last
He's still plugging away and has had a great career. I just wish Gould had remained a star for longer because his choices were so interesting when he had power.
Movie review - "Ebb Tide" (1937) **
Henry Hathaway was meant to direct this but he was delayed on Souls at Sea which is a shame because he would have brought some much needed vigour. James Hogan doesn't do a very good job.
The basic story is very strong - it's based on a novel by Robert Louis Stevenson. But it badly lacks excitement and pace. There's a storm sequence but it's not very well done. The one effective moment is when the three main guys arrive on the island and meet Lloyd Nolan. The climax is forgettable the action undercooked.
Oscar Homolka is extremely irritating in his first Hollywood movie - I wonder why producers were so keen on him? Ray Milland is fine in a whatever part. Barry Fitzgerald is solid. Frances Farmer seems bored in her role - I get she was unhappy in Hollywood but I get the sense she's phoning it in a bit here. It's not a great role (her character is mostly a nag, she's mostly there to hang off Milland's arm) but she could have done better.
The one actor who really nails it is Lloyd Nolan, who is strong and creepy as the deranged island ruler. But the film isn't up to him.
The basic story is very strong - it's based on a novel by Robert Louis Stevenson. But it badly lacks excitement and pace. There's a storm sequence but it's not very well done. The one effective moment is when the three main guys arrive on the island and meet Lloyd Nolan. The climax is forgettable the action undercooked.
Oscar Homolka is extremely irritating in his first Hollywood movie - I wonder why producers were so keen on him? Ray Milland is fine in a whatever part. Barry Fitzgerald is solid. Frances Farmer seems bored in her role - I get she was unhappy in Hollywood but I get the sense she's phoning it in a bit here. It's not a great role (her character is mostly a nag, she's mostly there to hang off Milland's arm) but she could have done better.
The one actor who really nails it is Lloyd Nolan, who is strong and creepy as the deranged island ruler. But the film isn't up to him.
TV review - "The Haunting of Hill House" (2018) ****1/2
Excellent adaptation of the famous novel. Maybe it would have been better off with a shorter run - emaybe six eps? - but its very well done. Atmospheric direction, strong acting. Its dramatically powerful, in part because of the deft characterisation but also because its a family drama. All the characters are distinctive - the warm but crazy mother, anxious father, sensible OCD elder sister, messed up but but professionally competent lesbian middle sister, writer brother, drug addict brother, traumatised younger sister. They are real people and you care about all of them which is what what happens to them matters. The interactions and family dynamics are first rate.
There's also another family - the two housekeepers and their kid. The fate of these is very moving.
Good shocks, some bravaura directing. It's extremely well done.
There's also another family - the two housekeepers and their kid. The fate of these is very moving.
Good shocks, some bravaura directing. It's extremely well done.
Movie review - "South of Pago Pago" (1940) ***
Silly, fun South Sea movie which gave an early role for Jon Hall after his Hurricane stardom. There's also a choice lead role for Frances Farmer, who had previously been in another South Seas tale - Ebb Tide. This is a little reminiscent of that and also The Hurricane and Come and Get It with Farmer. As in that latter film Farmer is a saloon gal who falls in with some shady types - Victor McLaglen and Douglas Dumbrille. They go to an island to steal pearls and Farmer romances the local chief's son, Hall.
In a way this is quite progressive movie - Frances is clearly sexually experienced, she marries Hall and they have sex. Of course she's got to be punished for her misdeeds and gets shot but is heroic. The natives are initially fooled by the visitors but then they turn on them - kill them off, sometimes brutally, and leave a warning sign against any foreigners.
The film loses pace in the middle when it's a lot of Farmer and Hall hanging around but picks up at the end. It probably needed a subplot in to help out - McLaglen and Dumbrille feel wasted. Maybe a love triangle?
In a way this is quite progressive movie - Frances is clearly sexually experienced, she marries Hall and they have sex. Of course she's got to be punished for her misdeeds and gets shot but is heroic. The natives are initially fooled by the visitors but then they turn on them - kill them off, sometimes brutally, and leave a warning sign against any foreigners.
The film loses pace in the middle when it's a lot of Farmer and Hall hanging around but picks up at the end. It probably needed a subplot in to help out - McLaglen and Dumbrille feel wasted. Maybe a love triangle?
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Movie review - "Apache" (1954) ***1/2
Breakthrough film for Robert Aldrich and also Burt Lancaster, as it was the first he did for United Artists. It gets off to a strong star - James Webb was a good writer - with Lancaster refusing to surrender along with Geronimo and being arrested, then escaping and going for revenge.
But the thing is what sort of revenge is he going to do? How is he going to keep up the fight? He doesn't really have a goal - just random acts of terrorism. He kidnaps Jean Peters, who adores him and they have this uncomfortably abusive relationship where he treats her badly but she can't help loving that man. Eventually she persuades him to grow corn but them the others come in.
For me the frustrating thing about the movie was it lacked a proper baddie - there are two candidates, a slimy dude played by John Dehner who hates Indians and tries to kill Lancaster, but he's killed half way through. There's also Charles Bronson's Uncle Tom Indian... but the thing is the whole movie is about Apaches learning to live with the white man so he can't really be bad. I feel they say needed someone ripping off the Apache, or someone who did sell out Geronimo, or make Peters' father really evil or something.
Having said that it's still fresh, even now, to have an Indian as the hero, even if Lancaster is in brown face. He's determined, brave and tough - but a fanatic. So the film in a way is an interesting take on terrorism - he's one of those hard core dudes who refuse to believe the fight is over, but is eventually tamed by domesticity. And while Lancaster just causing random destruction is frustrating dramatically it is truer to life about terrorism.
The film offers an interesting relationship between Lancaster and John McIntire's Indian agent. I liked they cast an old hand like McIntire instead of some young spunk - he seems old, tired, wise. He does well.
Aldrich and Lancaster wish the ending could have been changed to Lancaster died. But I totally bought the sold out ending -the film builds towards his domesticity, and the dramatic device of having the baby cry out works. I do have doubts with everyone just standing around letting him walk off. I mean, he did just kill a bunch of people. (Aldrich had a soft spot for such illogical endings eg Too Late the Hero).
The handling is vigorous. It's not a big budget movie - lots of two handers between Lancaster and someone else, normally Peters. It's entertaining.
But the thing is what sort of revenge is he going to do? How is he going to keep up the fight? He doesn't really have a goal - just random acts of terrorism. He kidnaps Jean Peters, who adores him and they have this uncomfortably abusive relationship where he treats her badly but she can't help loving that man. Eventually she persuades him to grow corn but them the others come in.
For me the frustrating thing about the movie was it lacked a proper baddie - there are two candidates, a slimy dude played by John Dehner who hates Indians and tries to kill Lancaster, but he's killed half way through. There's also Charles Bronson's Uncle Tom Indian... but the thing is the whole movie is about Apaches learning to live with the white man so he can't really be bad. I feel they say needed someone ripping off the Apache, or someone who did sell out Geronimo, or make Peters' father really evil or something.
Having said that it's still fresh, even now, to have an Indian as the hero, even if Lancaster is in brown face. He's determined, brave and tough - but a fanatic. So the film in a way is an interesting take on terrorism - he's one of those hard core dudes who refuse to believe the fight is over, but is eventually tamed by domesticity. And while Lancaster just causing random destruction is frustrating dramatically it is truer to life about terrorism.
The film offers an interesting relationship between Lancaster and John McIntire's Indian agent. I liked they cast an old hand like McIntire instead of some young spunk - he seems old, tired, wise. He does well.
Aldrich and Lancaster wish the ending could have been changed to Lancaster died. But I totally bought the sold out ending -the film builds towards his domesticity, and the dramatic device of having the baby cry out works. I do have doubts with everyone just standing around letting him walk off. I mean, he did just kill a bunch of people. (Aldrich had a soft spot for such illogical endings eg Too Late the Hero).
The handling is vigorous. It's not a big budget movie - lots of two handers between Lancaster and someone else, normally Peters. It's entertaining.
Movie review - "Mary Queen of Scots" (2018) **1/2
Frustrating because there are some superb things - well one, really, the performance of Saoirse Ronan as Mary Queen of Scots. The whole conception and depiction of this character is perhaps the best ever of Mary in a film - she's proud, smart, charismatic, a bit dodgy, cunning but not cunning enough, with bad judgement.
Margot Robbie's Elizabeth is strong too - insecure, uncertain, but with a big picture view (and better advisers) than Mary. The scene between the two at the end is brilliant - that's what the whole film should have been, about their relationship.
But it's not. It's patchy and uncertain. Scenes seem to randomly start and end. There's little dramatic build. We have the greatest hits but it never seems real never comes alive.
The support actors are shockingly poorly drawn. Guy Pearce's sidekick just spouts lines in a bad beard. Mary's brother glowers in a beard. Darnley has something to do (bisexual and useless). Rizzio's gay, which is fine, but that's it for him - no depth, no shade. Robert just pines over Elizabeth. Bothwell just glowers. John Knox just shrieks. Mary's handmaidens - who could easily have characters - just giggle. Elizabeth's handmaiden doesn't even do that.
The theatre background of the director is evident in scenes like the assassination of Rizzio - it feels stagy - and the random diversity casting of some support players. I don't really mind they put in a black actor and an Asian actor - this period was more racially diverse in reality than many people realise - but these actors don't have a character to play. That black noble just sort of spouts exposition Elizabeth's Asian lady in waiting infuriated me - I've got problem her being Asian, but she had no character. She just say there and listened.
I get the feeling this really should have been a six part series. The time jumps wouldn't have been disconcerting - you could build to definite climaxes like the death of Rizzio, Darnley, etc.
As it is the film doesn't have courage to focus on what it's theme should be - Elizabeth and Mary as sisters, women in a man's world. The story needed to totally focus on that. It kind of does but this theme is dissipated.
Margot Robbie's Elizabeth is strong too - insecure, uncertain, but with a big picture view (and better advisers) than Mary. The scene between the two at the end is brilliant - that's what the whole film should have been, about their relationship.
But it's not. It's patchy and uncertain. Scenes seem to randomly start and end. There's little dramatic build. We have the greatest hits but it never seems real never comes alive.
The support actors are shockingly poorly drawn. Guy Pearce's sidekick just spouts lines in a bad beard. Mary's brother glowers in a beard. Darnley has something to do (bisexual and useless). Rizzio's gay, which is fine, but that's it for him - no depth, no shade. Robert just pines over Elizabeth. Bothwell just glowers. John Knox just shrieks. Mary's handmaidens - who could easily have characters - just giggle. Elizabeth's handmaiden doesn't even do that.
The theatre background of the director is evident in scenes like the assassination of Rizzio - it feels stagy - and the random diversity casting of some support players. I don't really mind they put in a black actor and an Asian actor - this period was more racially diverse in reality than many people realise - but these actors don't have a character to play. That black noble just sort of spouts exposition Elizabeth's Asian lady in waiting infuriated me - I've got problem her being Asian, but she had no character. She just say there and listened.
I get the feeling this really should have been a six part series. The time jumps wouldn't have been disconcerting - you could build to definite climaxes like the death of Rizzio, Darnley, etc.
As it is the film doesn't have courage to focus on what it's theme should be - Elizabeth and Mary as sisters, women in a man's world. The story needed to totally focus on that. It kind of does but this theme is dissipated.
Monday, December 10, 2018
Movie review - "Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens" (1979) *
Russ Meyer's last feature and it was a hard slog to get through. It's comic sex antics in a small town - Meyer said it was his spoof of Our Town complete with a narrator (actually there's two - Meyer regular Stuart Lancaster, and a deejay played by Ann Marie.
It's a series of gags and sexual encounters, mostly revolving around an insatiable wife played by Kitten Natividad and her husband Lamar who only likes anal sex.
Natividad is like many Meyer heroines - busty, of course, and keen on sex, absolutely, but also with a girl next door niceness. She throws herself into the role and always seems to be having a good time and is the best thing about the movie about from the attractive girl who plays the dentist's nurse.
The film is pretty stupid. Roger Ebert co wrote it but there is none of the cleverness of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls - no plot, really, no interesting characters or dialogue. Meyer repeats himself - there's Martin Borrmann, Greek choruses. It's like an assembly of comedy sex scenes that an ex GI might find funny. When watching this I kept imagining rednecks chortling, going "haw haw haw".
There are a lot of vagina insert shots and also a fair few penis inert shots. There's heaps of comic rape - I don't recall any movie that had more comic rape than this one. Natividad rapes her husband then he rapes her, then she rapes a guy who turns out to be 14. Lamar rapes the dentist's nurse and the gay dentist tries to rape him and June Mack (a hugely endowed older black woman) rapes Lamar.
There's lots of sex scenes but its all quick cuts and comically done. Like many Meyer scenes the one really consensual believable hot encounter is the lesbian one - between Natividad and the dentist's assistant. But even that keeps being interrupted.
It was wearying.
It's a series of gags and sexual encounters, mostly revolving around an insatiable wife played by Kitten Natividad and her husband Lamar who only likes anal sex.
Natividad is like many Meyer heroines - busty, of course, and keen on sex, absolutely, but also with a girl next door niceness. She throws herself into the role and always seems to be having a good time and is the best thing about the movie about from the attractive girl who plays the dentist's nurse.
The film is pretty stupid. Roger Ebert co wrote it but there is none of the cleverness of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls - no plot, really, no interesting characters or dialogue. Meyer repeats himself - there's Martin Borrmann, Greek choruses. It's like an assembly of comedy sex scenes that an ex GI might find funny. When watching this I kept imagining rednecks chortling, going "haw haw haw".
There are a lot of vagina insert shots and also a fair few penis inert shots. There's heaps of comic rape - I don't recall any movie that had more comic rape than this one. Natividad rapes her husband then he rapes her, then she rapes a guy who turns out to be 14. Lamar rapes the dentist's nurse and the gay dentist tries to rape him and June Mack (a hugely endowed older black woman) rapes Lamar.
There's lots of sex scenes but its all quick cuts and comically done. Like many Meyer scenes the one really consensual believable hot encounter is the lesbian one - between Natividad and the dentist's assistant. But even that keeps being interrupted.
It was wearying.
Movie review - "The Southern Star" (1969) ***
I'd never heard of this film despite it starring a couple of my favourites, Ursula Andress and Orson Welles. It's the sort of movie I'm surprised didn't play on TV more when I was growing up because it's a fun adventure film (presumably there was a rights issue).
It's also one of the very few English language movies to my knowledge that have been made in West Africa - in particular Senegal (which admittedly is a former French colony). The locations are consistently interesting. And the time period - 1912 - is novel.
The story is taken from a little know Jules Verne novel. It's adventure more than sci fi - a diamond is discovered in Africa, and is stolen. George Segal, an adventurer who is engaged to the daughter (Andress) of the company boss (Harry Andrews) sets out looking for it along with the daughter with Ian Hendry in hot pursuit and Orson Welles as a neighbouring official making life difficult. Johnny Sekka is Segal's black friend who everyone thinks pinched the diamond.
Welles part isn't that big - I'm guessing they couldn't afford him for that long - but he makes an impact. Hendry is good fun.
Sega was a revelation - not so much his acting just seeing him in this sort of movie. He actually fits in well. Andress is great - she actually has a character to play, and goes along on the adventure. She fires guns, and helps save the day a few times. She has a nude swim - we see a bare bum which is a bit racy for what is basically a kids film.
I think the writers made a mistake by having Segal and Andress as a couple from the get go. Would have been better if they'd fallen in love during the course of the movie.
And of course the black African characters are pretty much backgrounded - though Sekka has a decent part.
Still the locations remain fresh, it has a decent tone. I'm surprised this isn't better known. Ideal kids film.
It's also one of the very few English language movies to my knowledge that have been made in West Africa - in particular Senegal (which admittedly is a former French colony). The locations are consistently interesting. And the time period - 1912 - is novel.
The story is taken from a little know Jules Verne novel. It's adventure more than sci fi - a diamond is discovered in Africa, and is stolen. George Segal, an adventurer who is engaged to the daughter (Andress) of the company boss (Harry Andrews) sets out looking for it along with the daughter with Ian Hendry in hot pursuit and Orson Welles as a neighbouring official making life difficult. Johnny Sekka is Segal's black friend who everyone thinks pinched the diamond.
Welles part isn't that big - I'm guessing they couldn't afford him for that long - but he makes an impact. Hendry is good fun.
Sega was a revelation - not so much his acting just seeing him in this sort of movie. He actually fits in well. Andress is great - she actually has a character to play, and goes along on the adventure. She fires guns, and helps save the day a few times. She has a nude swim - we see a bare bum which is a bit racy for what is basically a kids film.
I think the writers made a mistake by having Segal and Andress as a couple from the get go. Would have been better if they'd fallen in love during the course of the movie.
And of course the black African characters are pretty much backgrounded - though Sekka has a decent part.
Still the locations remain fresh, it has a decent tone. I'm surprised this isn't better known. Ideal kids film.
Saturday, December 08, 2018
David Niven Top Ten
1) The Dawn Patrol (1938) - Errol Flynn is top billed but really its Niven's film
2) The Way Ahead (1944) - Niven typifies British officers of the war - well meaning, enthusiastic, slightly insecure
3) Bachelor Mother (1939) - maybe Niven is miscast but it's a great comedy
4) Appointment with Venus (1950) - there's something about his performance in this movie which really nails that British officer type, once more
5) Separate Tables (1958) - Niven is a bit actor-y but it is a good performance
6) The Pink Panther (1964) - its often forgotten Niven played the title role - it's great fun, with ski fields, Peter Sellers and European beauties
7) The Elusive Pimpernel (1950) - regarded as a flop but I really like it
8) Death on the Nile (1978) - Niven is a sidekick but its great fun
9) A Matter of Life and Death (1946) - probably his best work
10) Around the World in 80 Days (1956) -I guess so!
Oh I love Guns of Navarone but Niven is really miscast.
2) The Way Ahead (1944) - Niven typifies British officers of the war - well meaning, enthusiastic, slightly insecure
3) Bachelor Mother (1939) - maybe Niven is miscast but it's a great comedy
4) Appointment with Venus (1950) - there's something about his performance in this movie which really nails that British officer type, once more
5) Separate Tables (1958) - Niven is a bit actor-y but it is a good performance
6) The Pink Panther (1964) - its often forgotten Niven played the title role - it's great fun, with ski fields, Peter Sellers and European beauties
7) The Elusive Pimpernel (1950) - regarded as a flop but I really like it
8) Death on the Nile (1978) - Niven is a sidekick but its great fun
9) A Matter of Life and Death (1946) - probably his best work
10) Around the World in 80 Days (1956) -I guess so!
Oh I love Guns of Navarone but Niven is really miscast.
Movie review - "Up!" (1976) **
No one's favourite Russ Meyer movie - few people seem to say much about it. I remember watching it at the cinema, and not having a good time. The tone feels slightly off - as if Meyer was trying to do something a little different but afraid to.
There are constant, constant insert shots which gets wearying - vagina, tongues, extreme close ups of arses. The sex seems to be in only a few positions and frequently in long shot - one partner stands up while other wraps legs around waist, from behind, in a creek, on rocks. There's also a bit more penis action if I'm not mistaken than other Meyer films - we see several dildos, glimpses of real ones, etc.
I didn't like this for the most part. I didn't find it funny when Raven de La Croix was raped several times and it was treated comically (one time she falls asleep and wakes up to find someone do it, another time its from a lumberjack - with Meyer making a cameo as someone cheering it on).
Then in the last 20 minutes the film clicks - it becomes this outrageous, genuinely fun cartoony comedy with people running around naked and backstories involving Eva Braun. You watch it and go "that's what the film should be like". Indeed, I went back and rewatched the first bit again to see if I could enjoy it all like that and... nope - couldn't do it.
Pleasing locations. Kitten Natividad is fun as the Greek chorus commenting on the action. Janet Wood is fantastic as Alice - really beautiful and buxom and sweet. So too is Raven as a perfect Meyer hero - I reckon they should have let the audience know earlier on that she was an undercover agent, he would have played with those tropes more.
I just hate all that rape. Critics who argue Meyer was feminist really need to see this rape-as-a-joke film.
There are constant, constant insert shots which gets wearying - vagina, tongues, extreme close ups of arses. The sex seems to be in only a few positions and frequently in long shot - one partner stands up while other wraps legs around waist, from behind, in a creek, on rocks. There's also a bit more penis action if I'm not mistaken than other Meyer films - we see several dildos, glimpses of real ones, etc.
I didn't like this for the most part. I didn't find it funny when Raven de La Croix was raped several times and it was treated comically (one time she falls asleep and wakes up to find someone do it, another time its from a lumberjack - with Meyer making a cameo as someone cheering it on).
Then in the last 20 minutes the film clicks - it becomes this outrageous, genuinely fun cartoony comedy with people running around naked and backstories involving Eva Braun. You watch it and go "that's what the film should be like". Indeed, I went back and rewatched the first bit again to see if I could enjoy it all like that and... nope - couldn't do it.
Pleasing locations. Kitten Natividad is fun as the Greek chorus commenting on the action. Janet Wood is fantastic as Alice - really beautiful and buxom and sweet. So too is Raven as a perfect Meyer hero - I reckon they should have let the audience know earlier on that she was an undercover agent, he would have played with those tropes more.
I just hate all that rape. Critics who argue Meyer was feminist really need to see this rape-as-a-joke film.
Movie review - "Supervixens" (1975) *
After two flops Russ Meyer returned to more Vixen/Cherry Harry and Raquel territory with this sexy comedy action parody. For the most part this is carefree silly stuff, about a gas station attendant who is irresitible to all these well endowed women. I wondered if maybe Meyer was inspired by Alvin Purple though the actor cast, Charles Pitts, isn't as nerdy as Graeme Blundell.
There's plenty of treats for Meyer fans - he runs into some spectacular women, who are named after characters in other Meyer films with "super" in front of their title (eg SuperLorna, SuperCherry). Actors like Charles Napier, John Lazar and Stuart Lancaster return from earlier Meyer works, as well as the dude who played Vixen's husband - Lazar and Lancaster have cameos basically but Napier has a big role as the villain. There's someone playing Martin Borrmann again.
And there's some very attractive women on display. Shari Eubank is a fantastic Meyer heroine - she's got the chest, but can act pretty well (she has a double role and they are very distinct, not easy to do) and is very pretty and sweet. Uschi Digard is hilarious as a Swedish maid take off. The other girls are good.
I give the film one star for a hideous, revolting scene where Napier's character kills Eubanks' (well, one of her characters she has a dual role). She taunts him for impotence, so he bashes her, drowns her in the bath, stomps on her - she's bleeding and lingers so he kills her off. It's a horrible, mean and awful scene. Meyer pushed the violence earlier but nothing like this. Eubanks plays a maneater but no one deserves that. I just hated it - and can't help wondering if Meyer was motivated in part by the disintegration of this marriage to Edy Williams.
Come to think of it there's a bit of anti female violence - Pitts punches Eubank and Lancaster thumps Digard.
The film also goes on too long - it's 100 minutes. You don't mind the long running time in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls because there's so much plot, but this is basically a scene of linear encounters - Pitts hooking up with various women.
The film was a hit but it's got a nasty soul. The best Meyer movies celebrated sex. This one celebrates violence.
There's plenty of treats for Meyer fans - he runs into some spectacular women, who are named after characters in other Meyer films with "super" in front of their title (eg SuperLorna, SuperCherry). Actors like Charles Napier, John Lazar and Stuart Lancaster return from earlier Meyer works, as well as the dude who played Vixen's husband - Lazar and Lancaster have cameos basically but Napier has a big role as the villain. There's someone playing Martin Borrmann again.
And there's some very attractive women on display. Shari Eubank is a fantastic Meyer heroine - she's got the chest, but can act pretty well (she has a double role and they are very distinct, not easy to do) and is very pretty and sweet. Uschi Digard is hilarious as a Swedish maid take off. The other girls are good.
I give the film one star for a hideous, revolting scene where Napier's character kills Eubanks' (well, one of her characters she has a dual role). She taunts him for impotence, so he bashes her, drowns her in the bath, stomps on her - she's bleeding and lingers so he kills her off. It's a horrible, mean and awful scene. Meyer pushed the violence earlier but nothing like this. Eubanks plays a maneater but no one deserves that. I just hated it - and can't help wondering if Meyer was motivated in part by the disintegration of this marriage to Edy Williams.
Come to think of it there's a bit of anti female violence - Pitts punches Eubank and Lancaster thumps Digard.
The film also goes on too long - it's 100 minutes. You don't mind the long running time in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls because there's so much plot, but this is basically a scene of linear encounters - Pitts hooking up with various women.
The film was a hit but it's got a nasty soul. The best Meyer movies celebrated sex. This one celebrates violence.
Friday, December 07, 2018
Movie review - "Black Snake" (1973) **
Russ Meyer had his first real flop with The Seven Minutes - he went back to independent filmmaking and came up with his second real flop. I didn't really like it- too unpleasant - but there were many unpleasant films around this time that made money so maybe there's something in Meyer's claim this was a few years too late.
I think also the film had a structural problem - blaxploitation films normally had black stars, mostly male but also female. This one is about two white people really - the guy who arrives at the plantation looking for his brother, and the white girl who runs it. I think if Meyer had made the hero a black dude it would have been a hit - you could have had him being a stud with all the women, and helping inspire the slave rebellion, etc.
If Meyer didn't want to go down that road the film would have been better off with a female lead (most Meyer films are better off when they focus on the women). He talked about the backstory of the lead in an interview - this working class girl who slept her way to the top. That sounds like a fun movie. This woman being racist and whipping people running a slave plantation isn't fun.
It's a gorgeous looking film - it was shot on location in Barbados. And production values are good - with the old house, cane fields, beaches, prisons, etc. Anouska Hempel is cute and not a bad actor in the lead - Meyer complained her breasts weren't big enough. He didn't cast then wife Edy Williams in the film - you know something, Edy probably would have been more fun.
Percy Herbert adds some class to the support cast. David Werbeck is alright as the white saviour.
But it's a mean spirited film. Lots of violence and racism and whipping. Not enough sex.
I think also the film had a structural problem - blaxploitation films normally had black stars, mostly male but also female. This one is about two white people really - the guy who arrives at the plantation looking for his brother, and the white girl who runs it. I think if Meyer had made the hero a black dude it would have been a hit - you could have had him being a stud with all the women, and helping inspire the slave rebellion, etc.
If Meyer didn't want to go down that road the film would have been better off with a female lead (most Meyer films are better off when they focus on the women). He talked about the backstory of the lead in an interview - this working class girl who slept her way to the top. That sounds like a fun movie. This woman being racist and whipping people running a slave plantation isn't fun.
It's a gorgeous looking film - it was shot on location in Barbados. And production values are good - with the old house, cane fields, beaches, prisons, etc. Anouska Hempel is cute and not a bad actor in the lead - Meyer complained her breasts weren't big enough. He didn't cast then wife Edy Williams in the film - you know something, Edy probably would have been more fun.
Percy Herbert adds some class to the support cast. David Werbeck is alright as the white saviour.
But it's a mean spirited film. Lots of violence and racism and whipping. Not enough sex.
Thursday, December 06, 2018
Movie review - "The Seven Minutes" (1971) ***
No one seems to have many kind things to say about this Russ Meyer film, his second picture done for 20th Century Fox, and his only really "straight" picture - an attempt to dramatise Irving Wallace's best seller. It's normally a coda in his career - "oh and then he made Seven Minutes which failed so he went back to indies". But I liked it.
The script is solid and its interesting material. I've got a soft spot for courtroom dramas that tackle social issues. The screenplay puts forward both sides of the case - though Meyer makes his feelings clear by having several scenes depicting anti pornographers as fat filthy old men who hang around dancers and are hypocritical.
Wayne Launder is strong as the lead - he never had much of a career, but he's handsome, virile, a decent actor. Maybe a bit TV but he's good. Tom Selleck is in this but I didn't watch it going "I wish Selleck was playing the lead and not Launder."
Marianne McAndrew is sweet as the girl who works for him.
It's clearly Meyer trying to do something different - he takes the material seriously - but also feels very Meyer - there's actors like Charles Napier, and Edy Williams as Launder's sexpot fiancee, and the editing is rapid. There are some grotesques and one scene where Launder visits a person who is filming a porno. And the themes - anti censorship, pro liking sex (and unfortunately a bit of homophobia and hatred of impotence) - are very Meyer.
John Carradine pops up. Ron Randell is meant to be in this too. Phil Carey is a strong antagonist. It doesn't entirely work as drama - really the personal stakes aren't that high, I'm surprised they didn't bring in Williams' tycoon dad as a character - but it was enjoyable. I'm aware few people share this opinion.
The script is solid and its interesting material. I've got a soft spot for courtroom dramas that tackle social issues. The screenplay puts forward both sides of the case - though Meyer makes his feelings clear by having several scenes depicting anti pornographers as fat filthy old men who hang around dancers and are hypocritical.
Wayne Launder is strong as the lead - he never had much of a career, but he's handsome, virile, a decent actor. Maybe a bit TV but he's good. Tom Selleck is in this but I didn't watch it going "I wish Selleck was playing the lead and not Launder."
Marianne McAndrew is sweet as the girl who works for him.
It's clearly Meyer trying to do something different - he takes the material seriously - but also feels very Meyer - there's actors like Charles Napier, and Edy Williams as Launder's sexpot fiancee, and the editing is rapid. There are some grotesques and one scene where Launder visits a person who is filming a porno. And the themes - anti censorship, pro liking sex (and unfortunately a bit of homophobia and hatred of impotence) - are very Meyer.
John Carradine pops up. Ron Randell is meant to be in this too. Phil Carey is a strong antagonist. It doesn't entirely work as drama - really the personal stakes aren't that high, I'm surprised they didn't bring in Williams' tycoon dad as a character - but it was enjoyable. I'm aware few people share this opinion.
Wednesday, December 05, 2018
Movie reviews - "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" (1970) ****1/2
This is fantastic fun. Russ Meyer rose to the occasion of working for a big studio by making a film that looks great and is packed to the gills with stuff - more characters, more story, more everything.
Like the best Meyer films it's driven by women - I can't believe he didn't make this a hard and fast law about his movies because whenever he did it paid off in spades (eg this, Vixen, Faster Pussycat). It's a "three girls" film with the girls being in a band - they are positive, likeable and diverse (one black, one gay).
The acting is very good. Dolly Read is immensely winning as the main girl - fairly early on she cheats on her boyfriend David Gurian with Michael Blodgett, and you don't mind, in part because the boyfriend is such a drip, but also because she's a nice person.
Cyntha Myers is stunning and likable as the girl who realises she's a lesbian after falling pregnant and having an abortion. Like Read, I'm super surprised Myers didn't have more of a career, even if only as a regular on Glen A Larson TV shows.
The black characters actually have something to do - the girl, Marcia McBroom, loves her pot, her boyfriend (Harrison Page from Vixen) wants to be a lawyer, and there is a fun love triangle with a boxer.
Gurian is a whimp but handsome and his whimpness works totally for the role. Edy Williams is great fun as a man eater. Michael Blodgett is excellent as a gigolo and John Lazar is outstanding as G man. Erica Gavin seems a lot less intense than in Vixen - she's actually not that great.
Like a lot of Meyer there's some impotence and men worried they're gay and outlandish plot. Unlike a lot of Meyer this one has gay dudes in it.
In case we get bored they throw in a plot with Phyllis Davis, as Read's aunt who is in love with Charles Napier, Duncan McLeod as a dodgy lawyer. (This feels tacked on - I think it was because the film was originally a sequel to the 1967 film, and these characters were from that one. They remain in this non-organic state. Meyer should have made Davis a blonde or red head to differentiate her from the others more).
I loved the set design, the music, the feel.The songs were catchy.
The one draw back of the film is all the queer characters are killed - I don't mind Z man, or even Gavin and Blodgett, but it's a super shame that Myers had to die, and so horribly, because she really didn't do anything wrong.
That aside its a tremendously entertaining film and a deserved classic.
Like the best Meyer films it's driven by women - I can't believe he didn't make this a hard and fast law about his movies because whenever he did it paid off in spades (eg this, Vixen, Faster Pussycat). It's a "three girls" film with the girls being in a band - they are positive, likeable and diverse (one black, one gay).
The acting is very good. Dolly Read is immensely winning as the main girl - fairly early on she cheats on her boyfriend David Gurian with Michael Blodgett, and you don't mind, in part because the boyfriend is such a drip, but also because she's a nice person.
Cyntha Myers is stunning and likable as the girl who realises she's a lesbian after falling pregnant and having an abortion. Like Read, I'm super surprised Myers didn't have more of a career, even if only as a regular on Glen A Larson TV shows.
The black characters actually have something to do - the girl, Marcia McBroom, loves her pot, her boyfriend (Harrison Page from Vixen) wants to be a lawyer, and there is a fun love triangle with a boxer.
Gurian is a whimp but handsome and his whimpness works totally for the role. Edy Williams is great fun as a man eater. Michael Blodgett is excellent as a gigolo and John Lazar is outstanding as G man. Erica Gavin seems a lot less intense than in Vixen - she's actually not that great.
Like a lot of Meyer there's some impotence and men worried they're gay and outlandish plot. Unlike a lot of Meyer this one has gay dudes in it.
In case we get bored they throw in a plot with Phyllis Davis, as Read's aunt who is in love with Charles Napier, Duncan McLeod as a dodgy lawyer. (This feels tacked on - I think it was because the film was originally a sequel to the 1967 film, and these characters were from that one. They remain in this non-organic state. Meyer should have made Davis a blonde or red head to differentiate her from the others more).
I loved the set design, the music, the feel.The songs were catchy.
The one draw back of the film is all the queer characters are killed - I don't mind Z man, or even Gavin and Blodgett, but it's a super shame that Myers had to die, and so horribly, because she really didn't do anything wrong.
That aside its a tremendously entertaining film and a deserved classic.
Movie review - "Cherry Harry and Raquel" (1969) ***
Russ Meyer's nutty desert saga, made flush with the confidence of his success with Vixen. It's got some familiar male faces - Stuart Lancaster, who played old men a few times in Meyer films, and Charles Napier, who would go on to become a familiar face on screens.
There is a story - Napier is seeing two women (brunette Linda Ashton and blonde Larissa Ely) and involved in a crime ring. Ely in particular is a lot of fun - like many a Meyer starlet I wish we'd seen her in more things. Napier is good rugged value - he does full frontal running across the desert which was a shock. Meyer was surprisingly progressive in a lot of ways. Like the ending - it has Meyer and John Milo shooting at each other while Ashton and Ely have sex. It's a wonderfully positive message - men tend to violence and death, the women like to have sex.
Meyer had to rewrite some of the film because a lead actor didn't want to do it (Ashton?) So he threw in shots of Uschi Digard running naked around the desert. And it totally makes sense in the context of the film.
There is a story - Napier is seeing two women (brunette Linda Ashton and blonde Larissa Ely) and involved in a crime ring. Ely in particular is a lot of fun - like many a Meyer starlet I wish we'd seen her in more things. Napier is good rugged value - he does full frontal running across the desert which was a shock. Meyer was surprisingly progressive in a lot of ways. Like the ending - it has Meyer and John Milo shooting at each other while Ashton and Ely have sex. It's a wonderfully positive message - men tend to violence and death, the women like to have sex.
Meyer had to rewrite some of the film because a lead actor didn't want to do it (Ashton?) So he threw in shots of Uschi Digard running naked around the desert. And it totally makes sense in the context of the film.
Tuesday, December 04, 2018
Movie review - "Finders Keepers Lovers Weepers" (1968) **
Russ Meyer really getting into his creative groove now - check out the credit sequence, intercutting dancers at a strip club with men watching and the credits on bottles. The handling is very confident.
Unfortunately after a strong beginning this isn't a very good movie. I think the idea is good - and Paul Lockwood is a strong lead. He kind of looks like a rugged Robert Pattinson - I'm surprised he didn't have more of a career. He plays the manager of a strip club who is enticed over to the house of his brothel mistress to have sex with a woman then his mistress, so the mistress can organise a robbery of his strip club. He doesn't realise that his wife is dancing at the club and is sleeping with a bar tender.
It's not an enjoyable film. It gets very violent at the end - it's a Desperate Hours scenario. The sex isn't as fun because people doing it have agendas - to distract other people mainly. Anne Chapman, who plays the wife, never looks like she's having fun. There's a scene where Lockwood appears to basically rape her. Then she dances at the club but it's more out of revenge. She sleeps with the bar tender but seems to regret it
There's none of the joy and fun and love of sex that would be found in, say, Vixen. It's a downer.
Some decent acting but the thugs. And there's a naked black woman which was a Meyer first.
Unfortunately after a strong beginning this isn't a very good movie. I think the idea is good - and Paul Lockwood is a strong lead. He kind of looks like a rugged Robert Pattinson - I'm surprised he didn't have more of a career. He plays the manager of a strip club who is enticed over to the house of his brothel mistress to have sex with a woman then his mistress, so the mistress can organise a robbery of his strip club. He doesn't realise that his wife is dancing at the club and is sleeping with a bar tender.
It's not an enjoyable film. It gets very violent at the end - it's a Desperate Hours scenario. The sex isn't as fun because people doing it have agendas - to distract other people mainly. Anne Chapman, who plays the wife, never looks like she's having fun. There's a scene where Lockwood appears to basically rape her. Then she dances at the club but it's more out of revenge. She sleeps with the bar tender but seems to regret it
There's none of the joy and fun and love of sex that would be found in, say, Vixen. It's a downer.
Some decent acting but the thugs. And there's a naked black woman which was a Meyer first.
Movie review - "Vixen" (1968) ***1/2
A blockbuster success for Russ Meyer - the right film at the right time, but he was also fortunate in discovering Eric Gavin whose performance in the title role really makes this fly. In the first 40 minutes Vixen has seduced a mountie, her husband, a guest, the guest's wife and her own brother. She takes a break at the end so Meyer can throw in some plot about a communist who wants to go to Cuba.
The acting is very solid. Gavin is a star and she really looks as though she loves sex and is having a good time. Vincene Wallace is very attractive too - the love scene between her and Gavin is the sexiest in Meyer films at least to me. I think other people share that opinion too - in part because Meyer actually builds up to it, plays the suspense and tension, instead of just cutting to a guy grinding away on top of a girl.
The photography is strong as always as is the editing. It's full of life.
I didn't like Vixen's racism. It got wearying. And if the film was really anti racist Vixen would have slept with the black dude.
Although set in Canada it was shot in California.
The acting is very solid. Gavin is a star and she really looks as though she loves sex and is having a good time. Vincene Wallace is very attractive too - the love scene between her and Gavin is the sexiest in Meyer films at least to me. I think other people share that opinion too - in part because Meyer actually builds up to it, plays the suspense and tension, instead of just cutting to a guy grinding away on top of a girl.
The photography is strong as always as is the editing. It's full of life.
I didn't like Vixen's racism. It got wearying. And if the film was really anti racist Vixen would have slept with the black dude.
Although set in Canada it was shot in California.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)