Ursula Andress Top Ten

It occurred to me the other day that Ursula Andress has been in a lot of entertaining films:
1) Dr No (1962) - of course, but also...
2) Fun in Acapulco (1963) - an above average Elvis film
3) Four for Texas (1963) - a comic Sinatra-Martin Western I really like
4) She (1965) - ideally cast in the lead
5) The Tenth Victim (1965) - cult sci fi romp
6) The Blue Max (1966) - entertaining WW1 film
7) Casino Royale (1967) - okay maybe this actually isn't very good but she is
8) Perfect Friday (1970) - heist shenanigans with Stanley Baker
9) Red Sun (1972) - bizarre Western with Charles Bronson
10) Clash of the Titans (1981) - great fantasy film though Andress' part isn't very big

It's an easy top five - Dr No, Acapulco, She, Blue Max, Casino Royale... after that maybe pickier but she's better than gets credit for...

Movie review - "Nocturne" (1946) **1/2

This RKO/Joan Harrison/Jonathan Latimer/George Raft/Edward Marin thriller starts with a bang - literally, with a composer (played by semi-Aussie Edward Ashley) being murdered. Like an earlier RKO-Marin-Raft film, Johnny Angel, however, it doesn't live up to that opening sequence. You want it to, and parts of it are very good, but it never quite matches the strength of that first scene.

Raft is the detective investigating the case. He's constantly crossing the line, doing things like snarling at rich people and pushing idiots in swimming pools. The composer was a womaniser and Raft suspects the killer was an ex or someone jealous.

Raft has a mother, a little old lady who does some wacky comedy, which feels weird. The ending is very full - the killer just confesses, half heartedly tries to leave, and the police rock up. The romance between Raft and Lynn Bari is undercooked. The plot about Raft being kicked off the force seems to be forgotten towards the end.

Bari is good as always (introduced in a swimsuit, with Raft going the perve), Virginia Huston (who looked vaguely familiar- she was Mitchum's girlfriend in Out of the Past) and Joseph Pevney (who has a great face - he later became better known as a director).

The film really should have been set all at night. There's some good tough dialogue and the photography is skilful. But its a disappointment. I think it was a hit because it came out in 1946 when people were seeing pretty much anything, and it was competently made. Then Raft got a false impression of his box office power and kept making similarly flawed films which people got sick of.

Script review - "The Bourne Supremacy" (2003) by Tony Gilroy and Brian Hegeland

Pulsating, gripping action script - not just by Gilroy, apparently, but a few hands. This one ends with Bourne captured - then he escapes. Did that happen in the novel? I can't remember if it did. The bit where Bourne does a mea culpa to the girl whose parents he killed seemed to work better on the page than it did in the movie, from memory... though my memory is hazy. Love the descriptions of things and the way it's put together. It really is one long chase though, with some stock twists (OMG the baddy is the head baddy, etc)

Script review - "Rainbow Six" by Michael Schiffer and others (2003)

I've never read Rainbow Six - I've looked at the synopsis on line and it feels slightly different to others in the Tom Clancy book, a wish fulfillment piece about a super efficient anti-terrorist organisation that comes up against a vicious enemy...a group of fanatical environmentalists (something a few tech writers were into at the time, eg Michael Crichton in State of Fear). It's all Jon Clark, no Jack Ryan.

This script starts off brilliantly with a superb opening sequence where Clark foils an airline hijacking with the help of a plucky airline steward... it's got lots of twists and turns and was really well done. But the whole thing could have been lopped off the film. They didn't bring back the characters - not even the plucky stewardess as a love interest. It's like a Bond film opening.

Then Clark is given his mission to start up his hit squad. They're particularly unmemorable though ethnically diverse - a Muslim and a Jew banter, there's a black guy and a sexy Asian woman introduced in her underpants. Oh and there's Chavez from the books - who doesn't have a romance with Clark's daughter here (maybe they wanted to be able to cast Clark young though he still has a wife). The wife is involved in researching aging.

The rest of it feels stock - his nemesis foreign agent Popov who isn't that bad, the megalomaniac villains. The action scenes are extremely well written but I didn't like it. To me Clancy stories are uber realistic seeming - ordinary professionals in tough situations, done with heaps of research. Of course Jack Ryan wasn't ordinary but he was compared to the normal action heroes - he was married, worked at his desk, was academic. John Clark without Jack Ryan to ground him just comes across as silly and this plot feels over the top.

Movie review - "Contract to Kill" (2016) *1/2

I think Keoni Waxman is a director of talent - he keeps things moving fast, knows how to use the frame. I wasn't as wild about his script which confused me in a lot of places.

Many recent Seagal films don't feature lots of Seagal. In this one he's very front and center, with lots of dialogue and fight scenes. It's a case of be careful what you wish for because he struggles with the dialogue (they should've given the exposition to someone else) and is so awkward in the fight scenes.

Seagal is helped out by sultry Jemma Dallender, who has a decent screen presence (and is the one who has to suffer through the love scene) and Russell Wong, who flies drones (the film has a thing for drones - there's a lot of them, and they're not that exciting).

But it's not a good movie. It's confusing, and lacks excitement, and the star is not on form.

Movie review - "Smoke in the Wind" (1975) *

A Western of some mild historical significance because it was the last released performance of Walter Brennan, whose son did some uncredited directing, and last credit for director Joseph Kane. It also gave a lead role to John Ashley at a time when he mostly only acted in the Philippines and was becoming increasingly involved in producing. Oh, and there's some location filming in Arkansas.

But it's a fairly bad film. Dull pacing, some very erratic acting in the support cast. There's 70s TV music stings.

The basic setting isn't bad - some soldiers return to Arkansas after the civil war having fought for the union but the locals have confederate sympathies. But the story is confusing and was hard to follow. There's lots - as in lots - of talk about Smokey, their Indian friend. After a while it was like "alright already shut up about Smokey".

Ashley has a good speaking voice and is handsome but isn't terribly charismatic-  not that he has much of a role to play. It felt like this was a film with no leading protagonist.

There's not much action, or well done dramatic conflict, or suspense. Mediocre and dull.

Script review - "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" by John Hughes

This John Hughes film always felt as though it belonged in a slightly different universe to this others - you could see the kids of Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink and Some Kind of Wonderful all going to the same... not so much Ferris. Partly the optimism, partly because of breaking the fourth wall... he seems to fit in more with Sixteen Candles or even Weird Science.

Like most of the Hughes classics it has a brilliantly simple, universally identifiable idea - who didn't want to take the day off school? Or even work? There are many memorably moments, and characters - Ferris, tormented Cameron, jealous sister Jeanie, the drug selling teen, antagonist Rooney. Dream girl Sloan isn't that memorable.

Fascinating to see what's in the script that was cut from the final film - Ferris and his friends visit a strip bar, Ferris talks about a girl he knows who sleeps around, Ferris steals money from his sister and parents,Ferris mocks the baby boomers for being ex hippies. All really, really good cuts. (Some of Ferris' whingeing and racism still makes the final film eg complaining about not having a car, asking the car valet if he speaks English).

It has the energy and pace of a script written very quickly - unfortunately also the flaws... the plotting isn't the best. Jeanie and Rooney are both set up to go after Ferris but they don't do much other than go to the home. (NB that end credit sequence of Rooney getting on a bus is revealed to have taken place a lot earlier in the script).

A lively, energetic, flawed script - but still, I think few writers have come near Hughes when it comes to making entertaining teen films.

Movie review - "The Patriot" (1998) **

The turning point in Steven Seagal's career - after the decent Fire Down Below he made this, which was intended for theatres but ended up going straight to DVD, and he never really bounced back (though there have been flashes of return to form eg Exit Wounds).

This has two ideas, either which had the potential to form the basis of a good Seagal film and could even have worked in tandem: Seagal takes on Neo-Nazis and deals with a virus outbreak I quite liked that Seagal was down with the Native Indians and was a doctor with a daughter who wore glasses - these were all different sort of touches.

But the film is a mess. It takes what should have been a simple story and makes it confusing - the Nazis just surrender, inject themselves with a virus, go to court, spit on the judge, the virus spreads, they break out... It doesn't make sense. It's confusing.

Excitement is constantly drained - people stroll in and out of top secret facilities and sieges, there's no build, no rising tension, characters take time off for funerals.

Gailard Sartain is a hilarious fat and unscary bad guy. The film cries out for some CIA baddies and doesn't get it. Theres too much chasing after blood to get a virus cure... don't the militia have any other aims? Why start with the militia surrendering?

It looks pretty - nicely shot, handsome production values. The quality of acting is fine - LQ Jones is in it.  But director Dean Semmler can't seem to get much pace going and it feels like something that was rewritten a lot.

NB The original novel was about a virus epidemic that wiped out most of the USA's population - that would've made a great, and different in a good way, Seagal film.

Movie review - "The Mystery of Marie Roget" (1942) **

The original story was a sequel to The Mystery of the Rue Morgue and this film makes great capital of that - it constantly refers to the Rue Morgue, an achievement of Dupin, which was filmed by Universal in 1932.

That was more of a horror movie - this isn't really, though there are horrific elements: in particular murders of two women, both of whom have their faces mutilated. There's also mention of a killer leopard. But it's generally a straight mystery - similar in ways to the Universal Sherlock Holmes films of the time.

The investigating duo are police officer Gobelin (jaunty Lloyd Corrigan) and Dupin (Patric Knowles). Knowles is awful - flat, dull, uninteresting. So not a star.

Other actors are a lot better: Maria Ouspensaka as the head of the family, Nell O'Day is fine as the ingenue, John Litel and Edward Morris are solid character support, and Maria Montez is a femme fetale. Montez isn't much of an actor but it was good to see her play a baddy - a woman out to kill her sister - and the film suffers once she disappears. She sings a (presumably) dubbed song too.

There's a lot of story - two murders, attempted murders, pulling out brains, duel challenges. It lacks focus - Morris is driving the action, then Montez, the Knowles. Really the film should've been told from Knowles' POV, no matter how dull he was.

There's solid production values and photography - you can tell it's a studio movie. It could have done with a lot more suspense and shocks - it's not particularly well directed and it's not surprising this isn't better known. Still, I didn't mind it.

Movie review - "The Perfect Weapon" (2016) ** (warning: spoilers)

A different sort of Steven Seagal movie - I guess it's not really a Seagal film as his role is relatively small (he's the villain), but he is in it - in that it's a sci fi piece set in the near future. It's a totalitarian state, kind of like The Running Man, run by the Director (Seagal).

The actual hero is some bald actor called Johnny Messner, an assassin who works for the government but then kind of turns a bit good

Late 80s/early 90s heartthrob Richard Tyson is on hand to play a henchman. Vernon Wells has, disappointingly, one scene only as a thug who is going to torture Messner. Sasha Jackson isn't bad as Messner's dead ex love.

I enjoyed the ambition of this film, mild as it was and there were some decent twists involving Jackson - she's actually alive, then she's been Vertigo-ing Messner, but like in Vertigo she's fallen in love with them, but he shoots her.   Also Seagal dies at the end, giving the movie some uniqueness (he doesn't often die in his films)... only he doesn't really die because he's a twin only the twin is still alive but he gets killed by the surviving twin... or something... I got really confused by this bit.

There's a creepy scene where Seagal talks to a Japanese girl lying in his bed about how her body relied on interconnected nerves. But I liked how his character was a super smart, and he still has more star power than Messner. Messner is a completely adequate actor but he doesn't have Seagal's X factor. It really would've been a better movie had they swapped roles.

Movie review - "Daredevil" (2002) **

A film that has some good things but it ultimately just doesn't work. I didn't mind the story... or most of the story... but it all felt a bit wonky. I can understand why they cast Ben Affleck in the lead but he's not very good - I think he'd do better at it now but then he was too smarmy.  Michael Clarke Duncan is a bit too cartoonish as the baddy. I thought Colin Farrell was an excellent villain and Jennifer Garner fine as Elektra.

But too much of this was off. Why have Affleck stalk Garner?It was unpleasant. Why not get Elektra to do anything cool? She just seemed to have these skills. Why not show a relationship between Elektra and her dad? Why have that annoying journalist character? He doesn't do anything of use? Why not give some plot function to Jon Favreau? Why doesn't Daredevil use his blindness more? Most of the time it seems that he can see - lack of eyesight doesn't seem to hamper him in anyway.

The film felt tampered with and fiddled with. It wasn't particularly well directed. It's not hideous just really, really underwhelming.

Movie review - "Paddington 2" (2017) **1/2

Bright, cheerful movie with some first rate effects work. Many of the jokes are lame and this middle class England of fantasy pictures - Harry Potter etc - is starting to get to me. But Hugh Grant is great value as the villain. Actors like Brendan Gleeson enliven things too.

Movie review - "Absolution" (2015) *

Seagal is a man who's done a lotta bad things so he takes a job to try and redeem himself - stopping a human trafficking racket run by Vinnie Jones. Helping him out is Byron Mann, a Chinese American actor whose work I'm not that familiar with - he was perfectly fine. Better than Seagal and Jones both of whom seem to be very tired.

Seagal playing tormented and seeking redemption isn't a bad idea in theory but his acting style is normally laid back and I think he's done that so long that finding something more wasn't in him. Wearing dark glasses most of the time doesn't help.

You can watch the fight scenes and try to figure out if Seagal is doing them or his body double and the hair is painted on. It's unpleasant -people get tortured and killed, Mann makes jokes about going to massage parlors. The whole vibe of the film is depressing.

It's not a very good film. Visually unappealing, I had trouble telling the support actors apart. He helps out stripper/hooker Adina Stetcu, who at least gives the film some warmth. There's an amazingly awkward end scene were she lap dances for him and looks so not into it - just like in a previous Seagal film.

This was hard going.

Dorothy Malone RIP - And a Top Ten

1) The Big Sleep (1946) - Malone is only in this for two scenes but does them with Humphrey Bogart and is sensational (aspiring actresses could do worse than to study these scenes of how to make a big impact in a short space of time).

2)The Fast and the Furious (1955) - not the Vin Diesel classic but a 1955 car chase flick which was the first feature Roger Corman ever produced - Malone is v likekable (Malone also appeared in Corman's directorial debut, Five Guns West).

3) Battle Cry (1955) - a melodrama about WW2 based on a best seller which New Zealand audiences will especially find interesting (part of the film is set there) - Malone has a surprisingly sexually frank fling with a young soldier played by Tab Hunter.

4) Sincerely Yours (1955) - Liberace's attempt at big screen stardom with Malone as his love interest (in the space of three years Malone steamed up the screen opposite Liberace, Tab Hunter and Rock Hudson...) - a fairly terrible movie but fascinating to see Liberace act in a melodrama (he took the blame for this film's failure but the script was as much at fault).

5) Artists and Models (1955) - for me the best Martin and Lewis film a really terrific fun comedy with Malone well matched with Martin and Shirley MacLaine perfect for Lewis.

6) Written on the Wind (1956) - Malone won the Oscar for this but I rewatched it recently and felt her performance did not hold up that well - check out her stroking the oil rig at the end (the same team then made The Tarnished Angels)

7) Too Much Too Soon (1958) - Malone mostly played "the girl" in films but her Oscar saw her get a real chance here, as Diana Barrymore, in what I feel is a pretty decent film - stolen by Errol Flynn as John Barrymore.

8) The Last Voyage (1960) - Malone's role isn't much (something you could say about a lot of her career) but they actually sunk a real ship for this film which is cool.

9) Fate is the Hunter (1964) - a Rod Taylor film where Malone has a one scene unbilled cameo - for years I thought it was a mirage but then later on confirmed it that yes it was her - this is a pretty good movie.

10) Beach Party (1963) - most film fans remember Frankie and Annette and forget or don't realise Robert Cummings and Dorothy Malone had quite big parts in this film, the first in the series.
Oh and she's in Basic Instinct (1992) too

Movie review - "Code of Honor" (2016) * (warning: spoilers)

Steven Seagal's physical disintegration over the past twenty years is well known. Less familiar is that of Craig Sheffer - the one time hunk of Some King of Wonderful is looking wide eyed and seedy as a special agent investigating vigilante Seagal, who is knocking off various criminals.

There's a good movie inside here somewhere - some interesting thoughts on vigilantism, revenge, redemption... and I really liked the twist that Sheffer is more of a vigilante than Seagal - but its buried underneath dull handling, the unappealing stars. It's also confusing and a bit dim.

The action isn't particularly well staged, the production values aren't great.

The cast also includes James Russo and Louis Mandylor, who you might recognise from things. The best performance is Helena Mattsson, who is good value as a stripper - yeah, I know, she's a stripper, but the actor makes the most of it.

Movie review - "National Treasure" (2004) **1/2

A surprise hit for the Disney organisation - a G rated adventure movie with Nicolas Cage giving, as always, the piece a bit of edge. He's a treasure hunter who is trying to find a buried treasure with links to the Declaration of Independence. There's some family history here - as represented by dad Jon Voight and grandad Chris Plummer.

Justin Bartha is flat comic relief and Diane Kruger not that fun either as the female love interest. Sean Bean is fine as the baddy.

There's some overproduced action numbers, a strong story and a sense of fun.

Movie review - "The Glimmer Man" (1996) ** (warning: spoilers)

There was that period in the mid 90s when action film stars tried to mix it up by making buddy movies with black actors - Jean Claude Van Damme did one with Dennis Rodman, here Seagal is teamed with Keenan Ivory Wayans of all people.

Wayans was/is a noted comedy star but he plays the role pretty much straight. He's not given that much to play with mind - he's a bit... uptight I guess. He has a broad moment or two where he sobs at old movies. There's certainly none of the character clash of say 48 Hours.  They really should have taken the Seagal-is-new-age-and-Wayans-isn't and run with it, but they don't.

It kind of suits this film which is a real grab bag. It's part buddy cop film, with Seagal and Wayans investigating a serial killer; part actioner with Seagal having a background in special ops; some crims use the serial killer as a cover for their own murders; the serial killer does some stock religious stuff; Seagal's ex wife is killed and it seems he's blamed for the murder, but he never is, really. And was he married with kids? I think he had an ex and they had kids... but there's barely any scenes between Seagal and his kids.

It was really hard to get a fix on this film. It felt like one of those movies where the script was rewritten. There's all the ingredients there for a great movie - I mean, a baddy pretending to be a serial killer to off victims, that's fine, as is Seagal being blamed - but the result is a mess.

The support cast is outstanding - baddies include Brian Cox, Bob Gunton (from The Shawshank Redemption), Stephen Tobolowsky (as the serial killer!). Sitcom star Nikki Cox turns up as a school girl, Spy Kid Alex Vega is one of Seagal's kids and Blame It On Rio's Michelle Johnson is in there too.

Some of the action scenes are fine, and I loved Seagal smacking people around the restaurant. Although Seagal was getting fat at this stage, he seems relaxed and confident and having a good time. The production values are high - it's clearly a studio movie - but it is a complete mess.

Script review - "Some Kind of Wonderful" by John Hughes

Hughes' last teen film is a re-do of Pretty in Pink with the sexes changed around - but by this stage he was really digging into character so it feels fresh. There's some strong protagonists - Keith the art loving mechanic from the poor side of town, Amanda Jones the stunner who is poor but also dates the rich and popular Harvey, and Watts (here called "drummer girl" in character headers) the tomboy dummer with the lousy home life who loves Keith.

The support character includes Hughes' best ever villain, Harvey Jenns, who has a superb line in passive aggression, and Keith's sister, who gets some superb lines, Duncan the eloquent skinhead, and Shayne, Amanda's friend, who turns on her. I would've liked to have met more of Amanda's family to get more of a fix on her.

I've always loved this movie.  The plotting is a bit iffy - after Keith asks Amanda out, he kind of hangs around her a lot; and I never bought it that he fell for Watts. I know they kissed but really the last date is all about Amanda rather than Watts... It would have been nice had he had a realising-he-liked Watts moment before the end. It felt as though it came in a rush.

Some interesting things in the script that were different in the film - here Harvey gets his comeuppance by asking his friends to beat up Keith at the party, which results in everyone turning their back on him and leaving... which feels unbelievable and not real; the film changed it for the better by having Duncan and his friends arrive. There's more stuff between Shayne and Amanda (we see their reunion), and a sequence where Amanda and Shayne see Watts buy some clothes before the date (which felt like an odd scene especially as it was after Shayne had kicked Amanda to the curb). Also there's a line where Watts says she's going return the earrings so Keith can go to art school, which relieved me.

Still, a very fine script and it's easy to see why it was loved. Marvellous dialogue; some brilliant scenes like the kissing one.

Book review - "Four Days in September: The Battle of Teutoberg" by Jason Abdale

An exhaustive account of the famous Battle, where the Romans got their butts kicked by Germans. While it wasn't Rome's biggest disaster, or even that massively impactful historically, as the author admits - this one seized the imagination of Romans and historians. It scared Rome off deciding to conquer Germania for a time (though they spend a lot of years invading it afterwards) and became a genuine folk tale.

This book sets the battle in context, sketches the key players, and deals with several "what if"s. As history it can't be faulted.

I did feel as though the book could have been more exciting - I mean a sizeable Roman force were surrounded and wiped out in a forest by marauding Germans - it was real opening-attack-in-Last-of-the-Mohicans stuff but the drama isn't really here. A solid book on the subject but I feel the human face of the battle might've been stronger.

Script review - "Pretty in Pink" by John Hughes

I remember not loving this film when I saw it at the cinemas - too serious, I think, a lot of the issues went over my head - but it was Hughes' best teen script to date. There's no 16 Candles style broad comedy or racism/date rape, no Breakfast Club  caricatures.

Maybe it's because I'm older now but I really appreciated the complex adult characters - Andie's father, still wiped out emotionally after his wife left (dramatically Hughes may have missed a trick not having the mum in the film but it's truer this way), hopeless with money and life but trying his best; Iona, the aging hippy, brain fried with drugs, in constant unhealthy relationships. Even the minor adult characters were nuanced here - the bouncer at the club, the teacher who knows about the class war and is sympathetic to Andy but kind of makes things worse by punishing girls who are mean to her.

The teen characters were, with one exception, vivid and real - Blane's weakness in the face of adversity makes his dreamboat existence more realistic; Ducky is one of the great characters in teen fiction, adolescent, panting, semi-stalking; Steff is an awesome, flawed atagonist (driven by desire for Andie). Even smaller parts like Steff's girlfriend and Andie's friend have nuance.

The character of Andie is the exception for me - she's basically perfect; nice and plucky and hard working and decent etc etc. But she does provide an important center for the film and casting the pretty-but-not-too-pretty Ringwald was of course the masterstroke.

The central concept is brilliantly effective and simple - many Hughes scripts were like this, which is why I feel his work as lasted so long and resonated with so many, because they are so simple yet universal. There's first rate dialogue, and good dramatic scenes. The comedy comes from character and lines rather than big moments.

The big thing that doesn't work for me in the script - the ending. I get how some people didn't like the movie ending, with Andie winding up with Blaine, thinking she should have been with Duckie... but I can so see why test audiences didn't like the first cut, which shot the script. Blane goes to the prom with another girl, Andie turns up with Duckie, Blane just sort of nods to them in defeat, then Andie and Duckie go and have a fun dance i.e. who needs romance when you've got friends (though the film hints at a romance between Andy and Duckie by describing Duckie turning up having transformed into a super hottie - but, I don't know, if she's friend zoned him this long do they really have a chance?)

The retakes are a lot better. Blane goes alone (his date was cut out of this sequence), which shows even though he's weak he truly loves Andie. He tells friend Steff to f*ck off, which is good justice - important for feeling of audience satisfaction. He goes up to Andie and does a complete mea culpa to her and Ducky - because he kind of owed Ducky an apology as well. He prostrates himself to her, thereby becoming deserving of her love. Then he leaves... and Ducky gives his blessing. Even though it's Andie's film, we see Ducky love her so much that I feel this is super important. Then Andie chases after Blane and they kiss - but not before a good looking girl bats his eyes at Ducky so we feel less bad about him being left alone.

Movie review - "The Incredible Hulk" (2008) ***1/2

Marvel had another go at the Hulk about the Ang Lee/Eric Bana take which no one much seems to like. It's a really solid film - I went in with no expectations, and liked how the film dispensed with an origin story (there is an opening credits montage which summarises everything) and plunged into a sort of Jason Bourne film, with Edward Norton living in Brazil, on the run, trying to find a cure. This section is awesome - location shooting helps, the pace is fast, Norton is a strong actor, the reveal of the Hulk is extremely well done.

As the movie progresses it gets more generic and less interesting. The second Hulk sequence takes place in America, where Norton tries to reconnect with Liv Tyler, and is chased again. This feels like a repeat, I guess with the twist he runs off with Tyler, after which the film turns into King Kong... which actually is kind of interesting.

Hulk transformation #3 has him captured. Hulk #4 involves him deliberately transforming to take on Tim Roth who is a hulk.

The casting for this felt a little off. Norton is fine, and I guess Tyler is okay in what is really a thankless part. William Hurt is an accomplished actor but looks ill at ease with his false moutasche - and I HATED how there were no consequences for his actions; if he wasn't killed he should have at least been imprisoned. Tim Roth looks good in black holding a machine gun but I didn't totally buy him as an uber warrior - he gets too many long shots which show how smart he is, the English accent (though covered with a line) does feel clunky (should've just made him a mercenary) and the idea of him bulking up... it didn't ring true. It's like weedy guy one vs weedy guy two - it maybe would've felt better if the guy had been huge and thus feeling he has to overcompensate against the Hulk.

Having said that I really liked the final fight. Though why didn't the Hulk kill him? Is that personal growth? But they've established no one else can take on the other guy?

Ah, anyway. I did enjoy it.

Movie review - "Mercenary for Justice" (2007) **1/2

A perk of Steven Seagal films - odd people occasionally pop up in them. This one has villains that include Luke Goss (from Bros) and Robert Guenver Smith (from a lot of Spike Lee movies) and an ally played by Michael Kenneth Williams who was in Boardwalk Empire.

But then this had a decent budget, I think. It certainly looks fantastic with high production value, snazzy cinematography and location filming in South Africa.

There's some enjoyably tough dialogue and a strong cast - not just the names I mentioned but other less familiar people. Seagal is ideal as a mercenary, the film has a strong cynical tone which suits it and I really liked how women had prominent roles - they take part in the action and everything, notably a blonde mercenary and Seagal's sidekick played by Jacqueline Lord.

The main problem I had with this was the plot which was very confusing - Seagal led a team of mercenaries who think they're fighting for good but actually they're doing it to make money for members of the CIA, and some of his team are good and some are bad, and some family friends are kidnapped to make him to bad, and the bad members of his team kidnap some French diplomats. Then there's storylines about robbing a bank, and busting the son of a billionaire out of prison.

I had a lot of trouble following it. Basically Seagal has this little gang - himself, Lord and Williams - and they go around saving the day. But it was too messy, really.

Still, a decent enough DTV Seagal movie.

Script review - "The Bourne Identity" by Tony Gilroy

A superb action script - stripped back, full blooded, realistic. The making of this film may have been a punish including the writing but it reads like a dream - spanks along, working logically, taking a hoary old device and doing it at tremendous pace. Some interesting differences to the final film - no shoot out at the farm house for instance -but the hard work has been done.

Script review - "The Breakfast Club" by John Hughes

Famously written in a very short space of time and you can tell in a lot of places - there's not a lot of story, it's full of energy and pace, some bits probably could have done with some more work.

The central idea is brilliantly simple and effective - and by making the lead characters come from different social groups ensures differentiation. Most of the plot or at least the conflict is driven by Bender (the delinquent) with Claire (the popular girl) and Andy (jock) as the main antagonists and Brian (nerd) as a complicating factor and Alison (the basket case) only contributing occasionally.

The characters aren't, to be honest, of great depth. Everyone's secret feels stock - Claire's parents are mean and use her as a go between, Andrew's father is mean and competitive, Brian feels pressure, Bender's father beats him. But they are sympathetically depicted, they come from archetypes that work and provide inherent conflict (they could form the basis of a TV show today).

The Claire-Bender romance is believable even if you get the sense it will turn abusive and nasty soon - I mean, Bender is a nasty piece of work, he will be trouble.  The Andrew-Alison romance wasn't convincing on screen and isn't on the page - they're just sort of thrown together. Brian-Alison might have made more sense.

Vern the teacher is a believable tired mean little man. The wise old janitor isn't as bad a figure as some people say - he's just a sympathetic guy.

Plot wise the film is really sequences - meeting everyone, Vern vs Bender, confession times, dancing, some pot smoking, sneaking out.

Some random notes:
- John Hughes was into Molly Ringwald's panties in 16 Candles and there's a panties scene here too (Bender with his head between Claire's legs)
- the team really are mean to the geek - he's teased a lot, and at the end they still make him  do the essay

Script review - "All the Money in the World" by David Scarpa

The central idea is really interesting - the kidnapping of J Paul Getty III. But it has problems - how do you sustain it? You've got a kidnapping sequence, cutting off the ear, grandad refusing to pay... then what? That's maybe half an hour?

So you've got the relationship between grandson and grandad - you bring in mum and dad as well. And that's all terrific. This gets off to a flying start - kidnapping, back story, illustrate the problems of the kidnapping.

Around half way through the script ran into trouble. Possibly inevitable. I mean some of it's interesting, but it's dead ends... thinking the mum might've had something to do with the kidnapping... but she didn't... Paul escapes... but he's recaptured... A dead body turns up... but it isn't Paul... Grandad refuses to pay... but he eventually does. There's no progression. No three act structure.

I think Scarpa didn't lick the problems in the material the way that say the writer of Sully did. Act one of that was "did I stuff up..." Act Two was the accident. Act three was him proving he didn't stuff up.

Here act one is the backstory. Act two the kidnapping. It doesn't really have act three. They try to jazz it up by having the kidnappers go to kill Getty but that feels fake somehow.

I'm not sure how that could've been fixed. Maybe focusing more on the impact of the kidnapping - I mean, dad cleaned up and had a decent ish life but the kidnap victim was a mess, had a stroke and was paralysed forever.  Maybe more into the characters - Gail the mum was plucky and Fletcher Chase was smart but that was about it. One of the kidnappers was nice - again that was about it.

I think the money was on the Gettys - Paul the victim, the hippie who grandad didn't like, who then married young after the kidnapping and was cut off. I think it was hampered by having make Gail and Chase active and heroic to attract stars.

It should be said the craft of writing here is fine - the scenes, dialogue,etc. It's more the story and the characters.

Script review - "Suits: Pilot" by Aaron Korsh

One of the best pilots I've ever read - fast paced, clearly defined characters, interesting set up, full of witty dialogue. Harvey is a great fantasy lead - kind of a young Clooney. Mike is good too - brilliant, dodgy past, drug dealing friend, friends girl in love with him. It sets up intriguing stuff with his best friend's girl, love for Rachel. The pro bono work is make believe but I think you need it.

It's just a terrific read.

Script review - "Sixteen Candles" by John Hughes

The John Hughes teen movies everyone likes are Breakfast Club, Pretty and Pink, Ferris Bueller and Some Kind of Wonderful. People forget Weird Science and Sixteen Candles is mixed.

Candles was the first and you can see plenty of what was great about later Hughes here - the depiction of strong female friendships (Randy - who people forget - and Sam, Caroline and her friends when they're drunk and one cuts her hair), the quiet chats between people (Sam and her dad, Sam and the Geek, even Jake and the Geek).

The humour is really broad - you have to see it as a transitional piece from 80s teen sex comedies to more mature work. This was made at a time when Private School and Porky's were the touchstone comedies.

So you've got a lot of racist jokes - the groom's father is in the Mafia, the Chinese exchange student is a horny idiot. There's also a fair bit of rape humour - Jake offers his girlfriend to the Geek...and the Geek takes advantage of her pretty much.... and then she enjoys it and they start going out. (Presumably the Geek went on to become a millionaire so many Caroline's smart but she did not give consent.)

It's surprising how passive Sam is - the only real act she does is write that she fantasizes about Jake on a form, which she means to show to her friend but Jake reads. I guess she goes to the dance.

The active ones are Jake - who tries to see if Sam likes her - and the Geek - who is chasing after Sam.

The world though is rich - there's a lot of characters but it's easy to follow who is who: the wisecracking brother Mike (who gets many of the best lines), the parents, the two sets of grandparents, the wasted sister (this movie is part teen romance but about 25% Father of the Bride style family wedding comedy - National Lampoon's Wedding... which actually would've been a a good movie), you've got the jocks and their world and the cool kids and their world and the geeks and their world (Love the references to floppy disks!).

There's warm, farce, insight, laugh out loud jokes, satire and moments of extreme dodginess.

Movie review - "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" (2002) ***1/2

The second Harry Potter film shows an increased confidence from everyone around - director Chris Columbus, the young actors. There are some excellent additions - Ken Branagh's show pony wizard and Jason Isaac's Malfoy are both terrific - and the old reliables remain, well, reliable: Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltraine, Alan Rickman, Richard Griffiths.

I wasn't a big fan of the perennially whining Dobby but I did like how he was liberated at the end - this was very touching. There's more sport, more monsters, good banter between the three leads, a decent mystery about who has opened the chamber of secrets, Ron's sister is ideal stakes. The kid who plays Tom Riddle wasn't very good - and I wish the film didn't go for so long, there were places it could have been cut, if only trimming dialogue.

Script review - "Michael Clayton" by Tony Gilroy

As ever this was a joy to read (re-read, rather) - Gilroy has such a wonderfully lively writing style. You can actually enjoy reading his stuff in script form. Lots of dashes, and terrific descriptions, and lively dialogue.

This movie helped popularise the idea of the "fixer" - leading to Ray Donovan, Hail Ceasar and so on. We don't see Clayton do that much fixing - he has a few chats on the phone. In that great scene where he deals with the hit and run guy he basically says "get a local lawyer". He lets Alan escape, and is pretty much behind the eight ball much of the running time - it's Karen and Alan who drive the action really, Alan going crazy and rebelling against his firm (and later arranging for photocopies of the memo to be paid which is how Clayton finds out as opposed to Clayton himself doing much detective work) and Karen arranging for him and then Clayton to be killed.

It all feels real - you sense a larger world going on. The script included scenes which didn't make the final movie - Clayton sleeping with a younger lawyer, scenes with his wife. Good cuts, I think.

Fantastic dialogue, it really moves.

Movie review - "Force of Execution" (2013) *

I was a little confused by the plot of this Steven Seagal movie at first but what it boiled down to was this - he's a crime lord who retired but Ving Rhames wants to take over his old network. There's a big subplot involving a former assassin of Seagal's who is traumatised - he's played by Bren Foster, an Aussie actor. His friend is Danny Trejo, so this movie has a decent amount of B film star power.

There's a lot of scenes in strip clubs and a fair few torture scenes, which I didn't like. It was good how Foster's character had some meat on it - he was a broken, guilty man. So too did Seagal.

But I didn't like the film. It was needlessly confusing. Opportunities for emotional connection were missed. New characters came in and were given importance in an odd way which threw me - like Seagal's other sidekick. The film also had a nasty tone. There was a decent amount of action but it wasn't a terribly gripping story. I think the basis of something really awesome was there, but it didn't come together, for me at any rate.

Movie review - "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales" (2017) **

I was in LA when this film came out. There was a distinct lack of enthusiasm for it - as if everyone was expecting it to be bad, and to make all its money overseas, which is what happened.

It actually starts brightly enough. Brenton Thwaites is ideal as a new Orlando Bloom - he's the son of Orlando and Keira Knightley who both reappear and there's some lively stuff in some colonial town with Johnny Depp trying to escape execution and a bunch of Australian actors in the support cast: David Wenham (who does a lot of period movies), Bruce Spence, John Leary.

The plot consists of chasing after the Special Thing, with Depp causing trouble for Thwaites and his love interest Kaya Scodelario, who has a kind of feminist character (she's being trialled as a witch because she believes in science) but the point is a bit ineffective in a film where she's basically the smurfette. I don't think she's as effective as Thwaites.

Geoffrey Rush returns and Javier Badem is there in lots of make up. I wish there had been more interaction between these two and Depp, and more character stuff involving Depp and the fact that Thwaites is Bloom/Knightley's son... there's a moment where he asks Thwaites if his mother calls out Depp's name at night which was great, I wish there'd been more of it. It's a shame Knightly only did a cameo I would've loved to have her along on the journey. Maybe more with Rush and his daughter - it was so tentative.

There's no character stuff. Pirates being wacky the leads being less fun. The support characters get a line or two.

We do get a lot of effects and stunts and spectacle and Hans Zimmer's wearying score. I know the post production people put in a lot of work but it all feels so familiar. I wish they'd set it somewhere a bit different at least.

Movie review - "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (2001) ***1/2

I think the filmmakers on this one did a really good job. They had to be faithful to the book and made a lot of smart decisions - cast young actors who actually suited the roles (they couldn't act but were well cast), surrounded them with some superb British talent, ponied up for some gorgeous photography and art design.

It's a visual treat for the eyes - all those sets and effects and interesting buildings. It's not particularly well directed (I think Chris Columbus is a better producer than director) and John Williams' score feels wearying - it's something we've heard too many times.

But the set pieces work - visiting Hogwarts and the alley, the battle against the troll, the Quidditch game, the final battle. The film has a good heart - like Star Wars, which it resembles in many ways, some in story (innocent boy is of royal lineage, there's a force which attracts good and bad, colorful comic relief) but also in being a lively rehash of old tropes.

Daniel Radcliffe's acting at this stage was really the look, a smile and a double take - but he is a pretty good Harry. The same could be said for all the young actors.

I wish Richard Griffiths had more screen time, he was such fun, as was Fiona Shaw. Robbie Coltrane and Maggie Smith are terrific value, and Alan Rickman is superb as Snape. Ian Hart is a little undercooked but I guess that's the point of the role, to not notice him (I remember when I first saw the movie I couldn't recognise the actor... he really needs that turban for individualisation).

Movie review - "She" (1935) ** (re-watching) (warning: spoilers)

A second viewing of this big flop from the team that made King Kong. Despite a best selling source novel and talented people, it's a mess. I love the novel, I love King Kong, I wanted this to be good, but it isn't.

The main problems:

- The character of Holly is pointless. You could remove him from the whole film and it wouldn't matter. As played by Nigel Bruce he's not that interesting. I mean he doesn't have to be like he is in the book - ugly, falling in love with She - but at least he has a point in the book. Here he does nothing. If he was removed Helen Mack's character could do everything he does.

- Leo/Randolph Scott doesn't fall for She. He's tempted by her for a couple of minutes but quickly comes to his senses and dislikes her. He falls in love with Helen Mack too which is dull (Scott's performance is awkward but he does have the right look). At the end he doesn't want to go into the flame because of Ayesha he does it so Mack isn't killed. That's dumb.

- The film has this awful bias towards Helen Mack (as Tanya a combination of a few women who annoyed She) - she's a loving dopey idiot who just wants to hang around Leo. To be fair she was that in the book too but at least in the book she was killed, here she gets the guy.

- The natives look silly. I know this is a problem for many films of this era but the locals of Kor look particularly dopey in their sub-Egyptian outfits.

- Helen Gahagan isn't up to the part. She doesn't have the looks - she's pretty enough but Ayesha needs to be captivating.

- There's this massive production number towards the end, before everyone goes off to the Spirit of Life, which is completely pointless. Lots of dancing and singing and carry on - as if the filmmakers were worried there wasn't enough spectacle. They could cut it out of the film and nothing would have mattered.

- There's not enough action. Just a lot of jumping around. The movie is dull.

What I did like:

- some of the sets

- shifting the action to the Arctic, this worked fine - things like discovering corpses in the

- the make up when Ayesha disintegrated was fine.

It has a sort of King Kong feel - it's about an expedition to an exotic part of the world, there are three key players, one of whom is lusted after by a foreign beast, another one who loves the lustee. But Kong had a genuine sense of wonder. You have the Robert Armstrong character driving a lot of the action - he had something to do. You felt for Kong - he beat up other creatures on the island, and fell in love (they give nothing heroic for She to do). It feels as though the filmmakers didn't like Ayesha

Movie review - "A Good Man" (2014) ** (warning: spoilers)

Steven Seagal is required to do a bit more running and emoting than in his later movies in this one. He's a special ops who takes part in a mission that goes wrong - in part because he can only do it with one other person (it's a low budget film). It's actually a decent sequence which results in a bunch of women and children being killed and Seagal trying to save a girl's life and she dies.

Then he's recovering in Eastern Europe and forms a relationship with a single mum and her little sister, Hondo style. The mum has a brother, who shares hero duties with Seagal - he's Victor Webster, a good looking guy with a decent screen presence who shares the load with Seagal well (I'd never seen him before but he'd done a heap of TV).

Tzi Ma is a decent villain. There are several scenes in a strip club which are a drag - like 80s Cannon cinema. Director Keoni Waxman ensures it's fast paced. Some of the action stuff is a bit vicious and unpleasant and Romania (where the film was shot) isn't terribly interesting visually.

Iulia Verdes is the single mum. There's a really awkward final embrace between her and Seagal where it looks like she's giving him a lap dance and he's sitting down and she so clearly doesn't want to be there.

Movie review - "The Asian Connection" (2016) **

Late period Steven Seagal - the waistline is huge, the hair is clearly painted on, most of his scenes are shot with him sitting down except one where he tumbles with a topless girl, it's a relatively small role though quite well spread out throughout the film.

He's the baddy in this one - well, antagonist rather, since the "heroes" are bank robbers - a Yank and an Englishmen living in Thailand who decide to rob a bank in Cambodia. That's not terribly nice behaviour and there's no redeeming reason for it - none of them have a terminally ill daughter seeking treatment or anything. One has a girlfriend who I thought was going to be the innocent victim, but she's complete into it, making out on the bed of cash and later on joining in the robberies.

So there's really no one to sympathise with - except, oddly, Seagal who sits at this table, wondering why he keeps trusting people who advise him to put his money in banks which keep being robbed - and indeed after we've seen that scene a few times we wonder too.

Pim Bubear has a likeable screen presence as the girl. John Edward Lee kept reminding me of Australian spin bowler Steve O'Keefe. I wish their characters had been etched out a bit more - why do they do what they do? I know character should be explained through action but I felt they were inconsistent - nihilistic? Decent? Troubled?

Director David Zirilli keeps things moving at a fast pace. It's no classic but it is unpretentious fun - I quite enjoyed it- and the location shooting in Thailand helps.

Movie review - "Half Past Dead" (2002) **

Steven Seagal is a thief sent to prison - New Alcatraz - because actually he's an FBI agent secretly, and when a top level prisoner is going to be executed, some bad guys take over because they want to know where the prisoner has hidden is treasure, and Seagal has to save the day.

Die Hard in a prison - which is actually a great idea. But the script is murky and confusion for too long. Seagal's role is relatively limited. He drops out of the movie for great slabs - spends a lot of time sitting in a chair talking to people on radio. Was this when he started getting too heavy for action films?

The film brings in all these promising ideas and doesn't use them. Seagal is out for revenge against crime pin Richard Bremmer - great. But we only see Bremmer at the beginning. The death of Seagal's wife happens off screen.

Morris Chestnut is a very worth adversary. I loved seeing Stephen Cannell and Bruce Weitz (from Hill Street Blues) in the cast. There's some solid kick ass gals like Claudia Christian and Nia Peebles and a few decent twists - people shooting people who then turn out to be still alive. Action sequences were fine.

There's also a classic moment where Chestnut throws a Supreme Court judge out of a helicopter and Seagal jumps out of his helicopter to go rescue her. That sort of wackiness is a lot of fun and the film needed more of it.

There's a really good action movie in here - Seagal's quest for revenge, his relationship with convicted killer Weitz, it's all got the basis for something solid. But the film is too unfocused and stop-start and Seagal doesn't seem particularly interested. The stuff about Seagal dying then coming back - which inspired the movie - is barely used. Ja Rule, the black sidekick, really could've been taken out of the film.

I really didn't like the scene where Chestnut taunted Supreme Court judge Linda Thorson for her childlessness. That seemed particularly sadistic and mean. I know he was the baddy but it felt as though there was some other agenda going on.

Movie review - "Fire Down Below" (1997) *** (warning: spoilers)

A complete surprise. For the most part this was a very solid, entertaining Steven Seagal movie. I don't want to over-hype it but there were lots of good things.

The basic story isn't terribly awesome - Seagal is an EPA agent who goes to Kentucky to investigate who is dumping toxic waste. That's very Scooby Doo - dumping toxic waste - I presume it was a passion project of environmentalist Seagal.

But it's full of good stuff (Jeb Stuart was one of the writers). It's set in Kentucky and was filmed there so has lots of atmosphere. There's plenty of country music including some played by Seagal, which is aweseome, and Harry Dean Stanton.

The cast is extremely strong - Stanton, Kris Kristofferson, Stephen Lang, Marg Helgenberger from CSI. I also liked less familiar names like the bloke who played Kristofferson's useless son.

There are also some very fine subplots to make up for the predictability and linearity of the main storyline (which isn't much - Kristofferson's dumping waste, the end). I loved how Kristofferson had this useless son he had contempt for.

Helgenberger in particular gets to play an actual role - a woman considered crazy, but it's because she almost went to prison for killing her father. Turns out she was abused by her brother (Lang) and Lang killed dad who found out - that's full on.

Indeed, this plot is so interesting it actually throws off the film a little because it gets resolved twenty minutes before the end when Lang dies... and then Seagal goes off to get the toxic dumpers. And it's like, "we don't care, the Helgenberger/Lang stuff is better because it's more emotionally powerful". I think it would've been a better movie had they kept Lang alive until towards the end or at least had Helgenberger kept hostage so there were more emotional stakes. The last twenty minutes were the weak point for me - the film struggled, you kept expecting it to end, and it dragged on. (I did like how Kristofferson just got hit with a fine, though.)

Seagal gives a relaxed, charismatic performance. He looks good, is funny with a line, works well with Helgenberger. I've only just started watching his movies and this is the first one where I felt I could understand his appeal.

Felix Enriquez Alcala directs extremely well - he later went more into TV. There's an absolute cracker of a car chase scene and a very fine shoot out under the mines.

This movie took me completely by surprise and that fact it got nominated for Razzies is, IMHO, just lazy and wrong.

Movie review - "Beast of Blood" (1970) **

A genuine sequel to The Mad Doctor of Blood Island in that it picks up literally where the last one left off - on a boat, with the creature on board. The creature knocks off pretty much everyone except John Ashley - not that we see it because the other actors didn't return. Then Ashley goes back to the island. Instead of being accompanied by an army platoon, he's got a journo (Celeste Yarnall).

The mad doctor is still operating, Ashley still gets over his head, there's a lot of gore, a sex scene between Yarnall (a lot better actor than Angelique Pettyjohn) and Ashley, some action at the end.

This is a much better movie than the earlier one. No annoying zooms, the photography is genuinely good, the production values are better, the island looks prettier. Ashley seems more comfortable. The villain is good - he wears an eyepatch and has an impressive lair.

Its still a bit dull in spots. I don't get the magic these films have for fans. Maybe you had to see them young on TV or something.

Movie review - "Spielberg" (2017) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Decent doco about the famous filmmaker - it tells you a lot of stuff most filmmakers know (Jaws went over budget, critics don't like it when he goes serious, he's really talented) and has lots of famous talking heads say nice things (even Daniel Day Lewis). A few people criticise say The Color Purple for being too pretty and Empire of the Sun for being too sentimental. I don't think Always is mentioned at all (though I might've blinked and missed it).

The best thing about the movie is the home movie footage of Spielberg - growing up in Arizona, bossing his family around in plays; his mum having fun; palling it up with Brian De Palma and Scorsese and Amy Irving back in the day. I also really loved seeing footage of his parents and hearing how they got back together after their divorce.

Spielberg comes across as a very confident person who's had a lot of therapy - though he says he never needed therapy because he worked through his issues with his movies. He does feel like someone very in touch with himself - he's up front about his passions of the movies he saw as a kid, the movies that continue to inspire him; the things that affected him as a kid (being Jewish, his parents' divorce, his fascination for World War Two, his love of the underdog).

Obviously very confident from the get-go, someone who knew what he wanted to do. He's evolved as an artist from someone who loved fantasy so someone who now mostly goes to history for his canvas - so it's entirely appropriate the film begins and ends with a clip from Lawrence of Arabia.

The topic of Spielberg is so big and covers so many themes and the film was vaguely unsatisfying. I'm not sure how else you could've done it though - maybe just made it about him and his family? Maybe had it last for longer?

Movie review - "Fantastic Voyage" (1966) ***

20th Century Fox were partial to big budget sci fi in the 1960s - Irwin Allen made a bunch of movies there, they did the Planet of the Apes series and threw a lot of money and one of their favourite directors (Richard Fleischer) at this effort.

It's got one of the best ever silly concepts - a crew of scientists is shrunk and inserted in the body of a defecting scientist to perform an important operation. It starts off very excitingly - Fleischer has done a very good job - with the scientist defecting, agent Stephen Boyd on the case, someone shooting the agent, and the operation having to be done.

The crew consists of Boyd (who really has no business being there, isn't he an agent?), pilot William Redfield (who has that craggy bland accountant look so familiar in 60s cinema eg Arthur Hill), scientists Donald Pleasance and Arthur Kennedy, and assistant Raquel Welch.

Welch doesn't have much of a role - he mostly stands around and listens, and says the odd line. Boyd molests her a little at the beginning but nothing much more happens between them. She goes out swimming with them a few times and once has to be rescued. She doesn't even take her clothes off, which I thought was going to happen. But it must be said, at least she gets to go along on the mission. (I was hoping she would turn out to be the traitor or at least have a romance with Boyd, but no).

There's some decent action on the voyage - a saboteur is on board. Boyd thinks it's Kennedy then stops suspecting him when Kennedy talks about God, because no Commie would believe in God, presumably. Really he should know it would be Donald Pleasance.

There's some decent imagination here - the crew are at risk of being attacked by anti bodies, the danger of going up into the ear drum (a loud noise outside threatens them), a ticking clock when the miniaturisation stops. I really like how the film commits to its central idea.

Some of it is dull - the special effects and sets probably cost a bomb so there's a lot of lingering over them. All the scuba diving stuff gets a little dull after a while (this is a common feature of many underwater movies). I felt also the plot could've done with another threat - an attack on the outside maybe?

But generally well done. Edmond O'Brien and Arthur O'Connell are sweaty military men.

Movie review - "Sully" (2016) ***1/2

I totally enjoyed this more than I thought I would. My expectations weren't high - Tom Hanks in another Tom Hanks-y role, being a modern day James Stewart, and I couldn't see how they could get a feature out of it. Surely there was only half an hour of plane landing?

But the twist is the film is about something we can all relate to: did I stuff up? Did I make the right decision? I.e. was Sully/Hanks right in landing the plane on the Hudson, very risk endeavour, instead of going for the airport?

The investigators are made into villains which apparently upset them but big deal - it works dramatically and I bought it. Because that's what happens once danger is passed - people nitpick and go "did you have to do it that way".

The other great universal thing about the film is the actual plane crash which is done very well. Having been on a lot of plane trips this struck home - all the little details (the procedure, the flight attendant going "Brace Brace") were great.

Occasionally the film slips into "movie" territory - I wasn't that gripped by the adventures of Average Man and his two Cap Wearing Sons (I'm still not sure what the point of this is/was... they get a lot of screentime... was it to appeal to Clint's Flyover base audience"? I was more invested in the old lady and the mum with the baby). Also the climactic hearing scene felt very "movie" - a packed house, surprise witness, etc.

But it was very well done. Hanks is extremely effective as Sully, and Laura Linney does wonders as the wife - this could be a thankless part ("thank goodness you're alright") but she makes it work and the writer gives her stuff to play with (she does her scenes with Hanks over the phone, she's freaking out, etc). Good support parts too like Molly Hagan as the flight attendant.

I only meant to watch this in instalments and wound up watching the whole thing.

Movie review - "The Mad Doctor of Blood Island" (1969) *

This was hard going. Very hard going. I wanted to like it but it's an ugly looking film - the Philippines are not shown off to the best advantage. The photography is murky and marred by this agonisingly annoying zoom stuff.

There's three plots none of them that interesting or well developed - John Ashley (awkward and uncomfortable for some reason) turns up investigating green blood, Angelique Pettyjohn (who is terrible) is looking for her dad, and some other guy is searching for his mother. Ronald Remy is the mad doctor. The best performer is Alicia Alonzo as a minxy local girl who can't get enough love - yeah I know that's a cliche but so is everything else and at least Alonzo commits.

It's dull and unexciting. The monster is laughable and there isn't even any gore. They throw in a sexy scene between Ashley and Pettyjohn and Alonzo and a guy, but even that isn't exciting.

Movie review - "Catwoman" (2004) *

Catwoman is one of the all time great super hero roles - the leather, the alter ego, the urst with Batman. Her appeal had already been thoroughly road tested on the small screen and in Batman Returns. How did this go wrong?

Because it is a bad film. 

It's not misunderstood, they didn't try a brave new direction - it's just bad.

For starters, Halle Berry is simply miscast. A talented actor, who has a very likeable screen presence and is stunning looking, she seems out of place. Too nice or something. Sharon Stone, who is very good as the villain, would've been ideal - ditto others considered (Ashley Judd, Nicole Kidman) or others who did it (Michelle Pfeiffer).

It doesn't help that when she's meant to be the ugly duckling she's still very attractive, just has messy hair and baggy jumpers - and she is story wise too because she can attract Benjamin Bratt.

Maybe she could have worked with a stronger script. Things get off to a bad start with narration that pretty much spells out everything we seen on screen, then is dropped (was this added after test screenings?) but it's not too horrible... until the transformation into Catwoman.

The script is fully of silly bits - she's attracted to catnip, wants jewellery, is good at basketball, jumps around. Her leather outfit is explained because it's a gift from her friends. She orders cream at a night club. Then she does a dance with a whip. Eats a lot of tuna. Urgh! It's awful.

The reason she's transformed into a cat woman feels dumb - she's licked by a cat who's a messenger for an Egyptian God. (It's the sort of thing that isn't worth doing because it raises too many questions eg are their other people who do this? Why her? Is the crazy old lady blessed as well?) Why'd they give her superpowers - isn't the point of Catwoman that she doesn't have them? Why not use the source material?

The villain plot is dumb too. Sharon Stone's developing a cream that you have to keep using or it'll hurt you... Isn't that easily combatted by going to the authorities or the newspaper?  Why isn't Catwoman a thief here? Still they should've had more story instead of crappy scenes of Catwoman being cat-ty. Why doesn't Catwoman know Stone is in on the plan? How did Stone learn to fight so well she can match someone with special powers?

Bad acting by the guy who plays Stone's husband. Standard Benjamin Bratt performance as the male love interest.

It lives down to the hype.