This film was apparently a hit - I've got to admit it completely missed my radar. Maybe it was bigger in the US than Australia.
It's a good script. Takes a decent enough idea - three different American teens discover a space ship which gives them super powers - and sends it off into interesting directions. It becomes a character piece. There's three very good roles for the leads - the support ones less good but it doesn't matter.
It feels very much like a Steven King style of story and I mean that in the best possible way.
Monday, February 26, 2018
Movie review - "The Special Relationship" (2010) ****
A lesser known instalment of Peter Morgan's marvellous Tony Blair series of movies starring Michael Sheen. This one is about Blair's bromance with Bill Clinton, starting when Blair was an up and comer and Clinton was at his peak. It goes through the turmoil of Clinton's rule, ending with the end of the presidency.
It's a jolt to see all these things referred to which were such a big deal at the time - Monica Lewinsky of course is still remembered but I'd forgotten what a thing Kosovo was, and that early 90s idealism that war could be put to bed. And Blair's puppy dog enthusiasm to send in troops (for good reasons but still... into a mountainous region where occupying armies have always found things hard) can, in hindsight, be seen to be a warning.
Sheen is good as ever in a layered performance. Dennis Quaid is an unexpected choice for Clinton but he does it well - the folksy southern charm, the swagger.
Intelligent and well made. It didn't have the impact of the others in this series but it's as good.
It's a jolt to see all these things referred to which were such a big deal at the time - Monica Lewinsky of course is still remembered but I'd forgotten what a thing Kosovo was, and that early 90s idealism that war could be put to bed. And Blair's puppy dog enthusiasm to send in troops (for good reasons but still... into a mountainous region where occupying armies have always found things hard) can, in hindsight, be seen to be a warning.
Sheen is good as ever in a layered performance. Dennis Quaid is an unexpected choice for Clinton but he does it well - the folksy southern charm, the swagger.
Intelligent and well made. It didn't have the impact of the others in this series but it's as good.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Movie review - "Invasion USA" (1985) **
Not one of Chuck Norris' best remembered films despite the delirious ambition of the concept - Chuck helps fight off an invasion of the US by commies. Because it isn't about that, not really - it's about a bunch of commies, led by Richard Lynch (an old nemesis of Norris') who arrives in the US and does this grab bag of terrorist activities: shooting up a boat load of refugees, trying to blow up a shopping center, trying to blow up a bus load of kids, randomly shooting people on the street, shooting a couple making out on a beach. They keep taking out time to try to kill Norris.
It's all hopelessly difuse and unfocused, which is why the film was a disappointment (and set back Norris' career after the breakthrough of Code of Silence). What's the terrorists plan? To unleash terror and... that's it? But Lynch keeps trying to kill Norris - indeed at the end Norris is able to gode Lynch's entire army to attack just to get Norris. It doesn't make sense.
It's a shame because there's some great action - car chases, over the top fights, a glorious battle at the end with National Guardsmen and baddies, and Norris kicks some serious arse. There's good ideas too - Norris starts off retired living in the everglades, the commies are in cahoots with drug smugglers (a promising subplot just thrown away). But its nonsensical - there's no real logic to the character's actions. They needed to focus it all down in terms of time and space - a specific attack.
It's all hopelessly difuse and unfocused, which is why the film was a disappointment (and set back Norris' career after the breakthrough of Code of Silence). What's the terrorists plan? To unleash terror and... that's it? But Lynch keeps trying to kill Norris - indeed at the end Norris is able to gode Lynch's entire army to attack just to get Norris. It doesn't make sense.
It's a shame because there's some great action - car chases, over the top fights, a glorious battle at the end with National Guardsmen and baddies, and Norris kicks some serious arse. There's good ideas too - Norris starts off retired living in the everglades, the commies are in cahoots with drug smugglers (a promising subplot just thrown away). But its nonsensical - there's no real logic to the character's actions. They needed to focus it all down in terms of time and space - a specific attack.
Friday, February 23, 2018
Script review - "Bright" by Max Landis (2016)
I was curious to read this to see how closely it resembled the final film - it was pretty close, no "fairy lives don't matter today", the wife in the script is a bitter shrew, the structure and set up were the same.
I can see why people got into it - it's a simple idea, logically followed. The script contains the same problems I had with the film - I didn't buy how the cop went from casual observer to all on board by going and shooting a bunch of cops, and the ending felt like a deux ex machina ("oh he's a bright").
I can see why people got into it - it's a simple idea, logically followed. The script contains the same problems I had with the film - I didn't buy how the cop went from casual observer to all on board by going and shooting a bunch of cops, and the ending felt like a deux ex machina ("oh he's a bright").
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Movie review - "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle" (2017) ****
Really good fun. A bright, energetic movie that creaks in spots but has a good message and an incredibly strong central concept - four kids get sucked into a game and turn up as avatars. Everyone is in extremely good form - the kids were fine rather than sensational but they did what they had to do and the adults are sensational. Some of the Jack Black stuff - getting an erection, flirting with Nick Jonas - pushes that PG rating but in a good way. Action scenes are well handled and it looks terrific.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
TV review - "The Last Post" (2017) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
I love the idea of a TV series set in the last days of British rule in Aden - it's such an awesome period, with the declining empire, guerilla warfare, stone-age Arab tribes, communists, arab nationalists, sexual revolution, 60s music, kids killed at birthday parties, assassinations in the streets, desert patrols, bagpipes and Operation Stirling Castle, terrorists vs freedom fighters.
On paper this should totally work - the pitch document must've sounded great. The five main women are very clear types: a local Arab who falls for a British soldier, a long-standing dutiful military wife, a new girl, a journalist and a party girl who's cheating on her husband.
The men are less clearly defined but have potential - there's the cuckold who's kind of sympathetic to the arabs, a burly sergeant, a new soldier who takes over a beloved one, a long-experienced officer.
The first episode is also full of promising dramatic situations - the Arabs are being restless, one takes a pot shot at a base, an intelligence officer who is sleeping with a married woman is killed and the married woman is pregnant, . It looks fantastic - the sets and locations are superb, production values are high, the acting pretty good.
But it's undercooked, and not particularly well written. By killing off the intelligence officer you've got a good end of first ep but not many other places to go - the guy is dead, so you can't have any conflict with him, and the husband is forgiving so that's that. Instead you've got lots of Jessica Raine acting - she tries to get an abortion which goes no where and she drinks and has all these "scenes" where she's unhappy and very quickly gets monotonous and repetitive.
The good girl tries to be a bit naughty and finds out her husband has a Past. The kid is kidnapped (something which didn't happen - plenty of kids were killed but not kidnapped). Footage is taken of the Arabs almost chopping the kids' head off (something which didn't happen - filming executions is a modern phenomenon. But where did they get the camera? The film? How did they develop the film? It was just thoughtless hey-let's-make-a-parallel-with-our-own-times writing).
There's no attempt - nil - to show the complexity of the political situation. No look at the divide in Arabs at the time - or the Arabs who were genuinely allied with the British, or the local shiekhs who used British arms to keep them in power. It's simply British occupiers-Arab rebels and that's it.
There's a massive battle where all these soldiers are killed, some horribly... and it seems to have hardly any impact on the people back at base.
I think they needed to keep alive the guy the wife was cheating on and work on the male characters more. Use more action sequences. Have an Arab family as leads, not side characters, and tell some of the conflicting agendas from their point of view.
This could have been awesome, should at least been good and as it is, is just passable.
On paper this should totally work - the pitch document must've sounded great. The five main women are very clear types: a local Arab who falls for a British soldier, a long-standing dutiful military wife, a new girl, a journalist and a party girl who's cheating on her husband.
The men are less clearly defined but have potential - there's the cuckold who's kind of sympathetic to the arabs, a burly sergeant, a new soldier who takes over a beloved one, a long-experienced officer.
The first episode is also full of promising dramatic situations - the Arabs are being restless, one takes a pot shot at a base, an intelligence officer who is sleeping with a married woman is killed and the married woman is pregnant, . It looks fantastic - the sets and locations are superb, production values are high, the acting pretty good.
But it's undercooked, and not particularly well written. By killing off the intelligence officer you've got a good end of first ep but not many other places to go - the guy is dead, so you can't have any conflict with him, and the husband is forgiving so that's that. Instead you've got lots of Jessica Raine acting - she tries to get an abortion which goes no where and she drinks and has all these "scenes" where she's unhappy and very quickly gets monotonous and repetitive.
The good girl tries to be a bit naughty and finds out her husband has a Past. The kid is kidnapped (something which didn't happen - plenty of kids were killed but not kidnapped). Footage is taken of the Arabs almost chopping the kids' head off (something which didn't happen - filming executions is a modern phenomenon. But where did they get the camera? The film? How did they develop the film? It was just thoughtless hey-let's-make-a-parallel-with-our-own-times writing).
There's no attempt - nil - to show the complexity of the political situation. No look at the divide in Arabs at the time - or the Arabs who were genuinely allied with the British, or the local shiekhs who used British arms to keep them in power. It's simply British occupiers-Arab rebels and that's it.
There's a massive battle where all these soldiers are killed, some horribly... and it seems to have hardly any impact on the people back at base.
I think they needed to keep alive the guy the wife was cheating on and work on the male characters more. Use more action sequences. Have an Arab family as leads, not side characters, and tell some of the conflicting agendas from their point of view.
This could have been awesome, should at least been good and as it is, is just passable.
Movie review - "The Black Swan" (1943) ***1/2
Popular swashbuckler with gorgeous colour and sets and a top rank cast. The script was written by Ben Hecht and Seton I Miller - some of the bantering quippy dialogue feels very Hecht, and the story is by Miller, and feel as if he's borrowing from The Sea Hawk.
Like that this is about a good pirate (though it's clear Tyrone Power was once a bad man, whereas Errol Flynn in Hawk was always good), doing good work, who falls for a hoity toity woman (Maureen O'Hara looking great in technicolour), and deals with a traitor at court (John Sutton instead of Henry Daniell).
But it's not as tightly written. There's no decent comeuppance for John Sutton, or George Zucco (who plays O'Hara's snobby dad). The final battle was confusing.
Most of all I hated how Power abducted O'Hara. I liked their bantering, I loved how they had to pretend to be married so George Sanders wouldn't kill them... but there was too much rape-yness. And it was no unnecessary - they could've just made it he had to kidnap her because she busted them doing something and was going to tell on them so they had to take her away. But no, he goes to do it because she's going to marry someone else. It's horrible.
I think audiences didn't mind so much because Power is such a clearly nice man, for all his growth and scowling... you never believe he's a really nasty pirate.
It's great fun to see George Sanders in a red beard and wig swashbuckling away, and Laird Cregar has the time of his life as Henry Morgan. I wish Anthony Quinn had more to do. I feel the later Errol Flynn-Quinn-O'Hara movie Against All Flags was a quasi remake of this and fixed a lot of the story problems.
Like that this is about a good pirate (though it's clear Tyrone Power was once a bad man, whereas Errol Flynn in Hawk was always good), doing good work, who falls for a hoity toity woman (Maureen O'Hara looking great in technicolour), and deals with a traitor at court (John Sutton instead of Henry Daniell).
But it's not as tightly written. There's no decent comeuppance for John Sutton, or George Zucco (who plays O'Hara's snobby dad). The final battle was confusing.
Most of all I hated how Power abducted O'Hara. I liked their bantering, I loved how they had to pretend to be married so George Sanders wouldn't kill them... but there was too much rape-yness. And it was no unnecessary - they could've just made it he had to kidnap her because she busted them doing something and was going to tell on them so they had to take her away. But no, he goes to do it because she's going to marry someone else. It's horrible.
I think audiences didn't mind so much because Power is such a clearly nice man, for all his growth and scowling... you never believe he's a really nasty pirate.
It's great fun to see George Sanders in a red beard and wig swashbuckling away, and Laird Cregar has the time of his life as Henry Morgan. I wish Anthony Quinn had more to do. I feel the later Errol Flynn-Quinn-O'Hara movie Against All Flags was a quasi remake of this and fixed a lot of the story problems.
Movie review - "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" (2005) ***
Mike Newell takes over the directors chair and does a no-nonsense but sensitive job. There's lots of quidditch in this - and a big role for Robert Pattison plus Brendan Gleeson running around with one eye. It's good how Pattison's character is so perfect and he's killed. There's a contest which seems rather full on and makes you wonder why parents are so keen to send their kids there.
Monday, February 19, 2018
Book review - "Laird Cregar: A Hollywood Tragedy" (2018) by Gregory William Mank
A fine biography of the cult star Cregar, who I first heard about when Bill Collins presented Hangover Square on TV. I was surprised I'd never heard of him - a horror star, who died young - because the Cregar cult isn't that huge. I think maybe people have less affection for 20th Century Fox horror movies than say Universal ones. Also he didn't make that many movies.
Mank sketches Cregar's short but eventful life well. He came from a distinguished Philadelphia family - several family members were renowned for their cricket skills, at a time when cricket was big in that part of the country. Cregar was the youngest of several brothers and always a bit different, a bit of a show off - he ran away from home early, later joined the merchant marine, and tried to break into acting. Acting seems to have been the one big passion of his life... he tried to make a go of it in New York but did better in California where he worked at the famed Pasadena Playhouse.
Cregar was there a few years, and it was a struggle but when things happened to him they happened fast. His big break was playing Oscar Wilde in a play... it showed off Cregar's gifts perfectly (wit, charisma, size, intelligence) and he was signed to a contract by 20th Century Fox who promptly put him in a series of top character roles.
Actors like Cregar could whinge about the studio system but if they had smart bosses and the right sort of studio they would thrive - they'd get to play all sorts of roles, get PR and build up. Cregar quickly established himself as one of the key character names in the business, stealing his first proper film, Hudson's Bay. He offered some superb villainous turns in I Wake up Screaming, Joan of Paris and This Gun for Hire - the most analogous actors would be Vincent Price and George Sanders and Sydney Greenstreet.
Like those actors Cregar made it to leads - in his case in The Lodger and Hangover Square. But he wasn't happy - while actors like Price and Sanders got to play the odd romantic lead (eg Price in Laura) Cregar was stuck in fatty roles like Greenstreet. He whinged and whined and would diet to play romantic roles... leading to a fatal heart attack.
Even though Cregar was upset at losing out on some roles (Laura to Clifton Webb, Dragonwyck to Price) I think Cregar would've continued to remain in high demand for his entire life, like Greenstreet, Price, Lorre and Sanders (Fox was planning Les Miserables for him when he died). He was just so castable, so charismatic - he could liven up any sort of small role. i could see him headlining a TV show, and being used by Roger Corman, and doing stage appearances.
The book is (perhaps inevitably) sketchy on Cregar's love life - he had a publicised straight romance with a few women, which seem to have been underpinned by genuine romantic feeling, but it's generally recognised he was gay. There's some allusion to a specific boyfriend but we never find out who he is.
Cregar dserved a good book and he got one.
Mank sketches Cregar's short but eventful life well. He came from a distinguished Philadelphia family - several family members were renowned for their cricket skills, at a time when cricket was big in that part of the country. Cregar was the youngest of several brothers and always a bit different, a bit of a show off - he ran away from home early, later joined the merchant marine, and tried to break into acting. Acting seems to have been the one big passion of his life... he tried to make a go of it in New York but did better in California where he worked at the famed Pasadena Playhouse.
Cregar was there a few years, and it was a struggle but when things happened to him they happened fast. His big break was playing Oscar Wilde in a play... it showed off Cregar's gifts perfectly (wit, charisma, size, intelligence) and he was signed to a contract by 20th Century Fox who promptly put him in a series of top character roles.
Actors like Cregar could whinge about the studio system but if they had smart bosses and the right sort of studio they would thrive - they'd get to play all sorts of roles, get PR and build up. Cregar quickly established himself as one of the key character names in the business, stealing his first proper film, Hudson's Bay. He offered some superb villainous turns in I Wake up Screaming, Joan of Paris and This Gun for Hire - the most analogous actors would be Vincent Price and George Sanders and Sydney Greenstreet.
Like those actors Cregar made it to leads - in his case in The Lodger and Hangover Square. But he wasn't happy - while actors like Price and Sanders got to play the odd romantic lead (eg Price in Laura) Cregar was stuck in fatty roles like Greenstreet. He whinged and whined and would diet to play romantic roles... leading to a fatal heart attack.
Even though Cregar was upset at losing out on some roles (Laura to Clifton Webb, Dragonwyck to Price) I think Cregar would've continued to remain in high demand for his entire life, like Greenstreet, Price, Lorre and Sanders (Fox was planning Les Miserables for him when he died). He was just so castable, so charismatic - he could liven up any sort of small role. i could see him headlining a TV show, and being used by Roger Corman, and doing stage appearances.
The book is (perhaps inevitably) sketchy on Cregar's love life - he had a publicised straight romance with a few women, which seem to have been underpinned by genuine romantic feeling, but it's generally recognised he was gay. There's some allusion to a specific boyfriend but we never find out who he is.
Cregar dserved a good book and he got one.
Laird Cregar - Top Seven
A Laird Cregar top seven (he only made 13 or so films)
1) Hangover Square (1945) - a brilliant noir, Cregar is superb as a killer composer, and George Sanders and Linda Darnell are v good too - great Bernard Herrmann score
2) The Lodger (1944) - Cregars other lead role, a remake of the 1927 Hitchcock - I felt he’s a little OTT to be honest, I prefer Hangover square, but there’s some great moments
3) This Gun for Hire (1942) - Alan Ladd is electric in his first star part and Veronica Lake charismatic but Cregar is also extremely good
4) The Black Swan (1943) - one of the most fun pirate movies ever - Cregar is great as Sir Henry Morgan
5) I Wake Up Screaming (1941) - a brilliant noir with Betty Grable, Carole Landis, Victor Mature and most of all Cregar as a stalker cop
6) Joan of Paris (1942) - Every character actor had to play a Nazi in the 40s this was Cregars turn
7) Heaven Can Wait (1943) - Cregar plays the devil in this unexpectedly moving Lubitsch comedy
2) The Lodger (1944) - Cregars other lead role, a remake of the 1927 Hitchcock - I felt he’s a little OTT to be honest, I prefer Hangover square, but there’s some great moments
3) This Gun for Hire (1942) - Alan Ladd is electric in his first star part and Veronica Lake charismatic but Cregar is also extremely good
4) The Black Swan (1943) - one of the most fun pirate movies ever - Cregar is great as Sir Henry Morgan
5) I Wake Up Screaming (1941) - a brilliant noir with Betty Grable, Carole Landis, Victor Mature and most of all Cregar as a stalker cop
6) Joan of Paris (1942) - Every character actor had to play a Nazi in the 40s this was Cregars turn
7) Heaven Can Wait (1943) - Cregar plays the devil in this unexpectedly moving Lubitsch comedy
Movie review - "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (2004) ***
The series gets a new director, more of an artist... Alfonso Cuaron, who moves the camera around more - a lot more, indeed after a while it was like "alright Alfonso, you can stop moving the camera around".
I like how they're aging the characters - hair more toussled, ties undone, a bit more rebellious. The plot concerns an escaped prisoner (Gary Oldman) who may be bad, a new master of the dark arts (David Thewlis) who may be bad. I liked bits of this like the reveal of a rat, and the final shot, but didn't find the story as compelling.
I like how they're aging the characters - hair more toussled, ties undone, a bit more rebellious. The plot concerns an escaped prisoner (Gary Oldman) who may be bad, a new master of the dark arts (David Thewlis) who may be bad. I liked bits of this like the reveal of a rat, and the final shot, but didn't find the story as compelling.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Movie review - "Queen of the Amazons" (1947) ** (warning: spoilers)
Fun, silly, unpretentious effort from the beginning of Robert L. Lippert's career. It's about an expedition to find another expedition - despite the title it's set in Africa. It's got the inherent racism of the genre but at least has pace. There's too much location footage incorporated - after a while it was like "alright already, I know you've got location footage".
Some pleasing surprises - I didn't pick the identity of the traitor (he was in interesting character too - eloquent and quote-y), the female characters drive a lot of the action, the native Queen (Amira Moustafa) is allowed to keep her guy at the end. There's action and brightness and some tiresome "I ain't having no woman along" gunk from the hero, but it does give some romantic conflict.
Some pleasing surprises - I didn't pick the identity of the traitor (he was in interesting character too - eloquent and quote-y), the female characters drive a lot of the action, the native Queen (Amira Moustafa) is allowed to keep her guy at the end. There's action and brightness and some tiresome "I ain't having no woman along" gunk from the hero, but it does give some romantic conflict.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Script review - "A History of Violence" by Josh Olson (first draft)
Fascinating reading - this was a first draft of the script and on one hand you go "that was nominated for an Oscar?"... but on the other all the elements are there which eventually made the final film so memorable - the story is basically the same, so is the structure, it's got the same brilliant opening with a bunch of people wiped out including an innocent maid and child.
All the changes made in subsequent drafts were improvements - this draft features the wife's father, an abusive Vietnam vet who has his own subplot but it isn't that interesting (I get the thematic links but he basically just wants to reconnect to his daughter and that's it - when he dies you're kind of relieved). There's also some not very good on-the-nose dialogue between the married couple and between the family.Here Ritchie is a childhood friend who was left behind a la Angels With Dirty Faces and not a brother - brother is much better.
A comment I will make about this script and subsequent film - I don't really classify this is a searing indictment of violence because all the baddies in this film who die so clearly deserve to die. I had the same issue with The Unforgiven - the goodies don't kill any innocent by standers or people who may or may not be innocent. They're all bad even the horrible bully who picks on the kid.
Olson is a familiar face/name out there because of his "I will not read your f*cking script" rant and his many appearances on Trailers from Hell but he has a weird lack of credits.
All the changes made in subsequent drafts were improvements - this draft features the wife's father, an abusive Vietnam vet who has his own subplot but it isn't that interesting (I get the thematic links but he basically just wants to reconnect to his daughter and that's it - when he dies you're kind of relieved). There's also some not very good on-the-nose dialogue between the married couple and between the family.Here Ritchie is a childhood friend who was left behind a la Angels With Dirty Faces and not a brother - brother is much better.
A comment I will make about this script and subsequent film - I don't really classify this is a searing indictment of violence because all the baddies in this film who die so clearly deserve to die. I had the same issue with The Unforgiven - the goodies don't kill any innocent by standers or people who may or may not be innocent. They're all bad even the horrible bully who picks on the kid.
Olson is a familiar face/name out there because of his "I will not read your f*cking script" rant and his many appearances on Trailers from Hell but he has a weird lack of credits.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Book review - "Gaiseric: The Vandal Who Destroyed Rome" by Ian Hughes (2017)
A typically excellent book by Hughes - well written, readable, excellently researched. Gaiseric wasn't a figure I was that familiar with - the Vandal kingdom didn't last long but it was a major thorn in the side of Rome, perhaps the most major thorn, and that was due to Gaiseric. He was king when the tribes were just kind of hanging around in Spain, but then got ambitious and crossed into Africa. They took over a little bit and then the whole lot which had massive ramifications because Rome relied on Africa for its food.
Rome might've survived but Gaiseric kept hammering away at the empire in raids, even sacking Rome. He kidnapped the Empress Eudoxia (wife of Valentinian III), seemingly at her request, and she and her daughter Eudocia lived with Gaiseric for a long while. Eudocia married his son and eventually went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem before she died... which is kind of a romantic story that I'm surprised isn't better known.
Gaiseric was skilled and wily and obviously very good at politics and war. He knew when the seize opportunities, when to be friends, when to delay, when to act quickly - he fought off two major invasions from Rome by quick thinking and anticipatory battles (the first from Majorian, which prompted the stupid Romans to kill a competent commander, the second big invasion from the East really should have defeated him).
Occasionally I got lost who was who and got confused with all the Roman civil wars but it was a very good book.
Rome might've survived but Gaiseric kept hammering away at the empire in raids, even sacking Rome. He kidnapped the Empress Eudoxia (wife of Valentinian III), seemingly at her request, and she and her daughter Eudocia lived with Gaiseric for a long while. Eudocia married his son and eventually went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem before she died... which is kind of a romantic story that I'm surprised isn't better known.
Gaiseric was skilled and wily and obviously very good at politics and war. He knew when the seize opportunities, when to be friends, when to delay, when to act quickly - he fought off two major invasions from Rome by quick thinking and anticipatory battles (the first from Majorian, which prompted the stupid Romans to kill a competent commander, the second big invasion from the East really should have defeated him).
Occasionally I got lost who was who and got confused with all the Roman civil wars but it was a very good book.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
TV review - "Valor" pilot (2017) **
Okay look at the military. There's some good heat between the leads but no one really looks like they're in the military or the CIA and it all feels a little same-y.
A possible way to allocate Screen Australia funds for features
A budget of $50 million - I'm not including salary costs.
* $5 million - go to development of scripts for writers, helping producers option and develop material
* 3 x $10 million - invest ten million in three projects with international focus and have finance from other sources. Examples include say a film of the musical of Priscilla or Boy from Oz.
* 3 x $5 million - invest in three comedy films each with a budget of $5 million - these will be aimed at a domestic audience - they should have some recogniseable element eg Hamish and Andy, Working Dog - kids films can be included in this - the budget is capped at $5 million though
* 1 x $5 million - as above only action movie/thriller eg Battle of Long Tan - if you can't make it for $5 million you don't get the money
* 3 x $1 million - genre pieces - horror, thriller, supernatural, whatever
* 2 x $1 million - new filmmaker fund - two features a year, LGBTI or indigenous Australian, women, whatever (diversity will be allocated in above categories but this is specifically for that function)
* $5 million - go to development of scripts for writers, helping producers option and develop material
* 3 x $10 million - invest ten million in three projects with international focus and have finance from other sources. Examples include say a film of the musical of Priscilla or Boy from Oz.
* 3 x $5 million - invest in three comedy films each with a budget of $5 million - these will be aimed at a domestic audience - they should have some recogniseable element eg Hamish and Andy, Working Dog - kids films can be included in this - the budget is capped at $5 million though
* 1 x $5 million - as above only action movie/thriller eg Battle of Long Tan - if you can't make it for $5 million you don't get the money
* 3 x $1 million - genre pieces - horror, thriller, supernatural, whatever
* 2 x $1 million - new filmmaker fund - two features a year, LGBTI or indigenous Australian, women, whatever (diversity will be allocated in above categories but this is specifically for that function)
Monday, February 12, 2018
Movie review - "The Cloverfield Paradox" (2018) **1/2
Not as bad as its reviews suggest - there's some smart ideas, it aims to be a thinking piece. The production values are excellent as is the cast.
The story however still falls into Alien tropes - diverse types on a space ship, foreigner (Elizabeth Debicki) comes on board, havoc ensues, people being killed off one by one. There's even a chest bursting, albeit with bugs and not an alien, and a person loses an arm (is he an alien? I wasn't sure).
Gug Mbatha-Raw is solid value as the lead, though she's helped by having stuff to play - a husband, dead kids, heroic,etc. The others on the space ship don't - Chris O'Dowd loses an arm and cracks jokes, John Oritz was religious. That's about it. I can barely remember what Daniel Bruhl did.
I feel mashing it up with a monster movie didn't work - there's already the future, and time travel... then they throw in monsters. It was a bit confusing. But I've seen worse films.
The story however still falls into Alien tropes - diverse types on a space ship, foreigner (Elizabeth Debicki) comes on board, havoc ensues, people being killed off one by one. There's even a chest bursting, albeit with bugs and not an alien, and a person loses an arm (is he an alien? I wasn't sure).
Gug Mbatha-Raw is solid value as the lead, though she's helped by having stuff to play - a husband, dead kids, heroic,etc. The others on the space ship don't - Chris O'Dowd loses an arm and cracks jokes, John Oritz was religious. That's about it. I can barely remember what Daniel Bruhl did.
I feel mashing it up with a monster movie didn't work - there's already the future, and time travel... then they throw in monsters. It was a bit confusing. But I've seen worse films.
Movie review - "The Vampire's Ghost" (1945) **1/2
Republic Pictures only made a few horror films, which is a shame because they normally allocated a decent budget ("decent" is relative - I'm talking more than Monogram) and gave things a bit more care. This is an entirely decent vampire film.
It's set in Africa, which means a Hollywood Africa where blacks only have a few lines of dialogue and the focus is on the whites. The star is John Abbott, who I'd never heard of - David del Valle told me about him - a solid hammy British actor. If Karloff or Lugosi had played the part the film would've been a minor classic or at least quite well known. Abbott is fine - he's not a star though.
Abbott becomes obsessed with Peggy Stewart and tries to get Charles Gordon on board. There's a priest who stops him.
It's reasonably logical with some effective moments - not so much scares or shocks but Abbott's manipulation of Stewart. Leigh Brackett co wrote it.
It's set in Africa, which means a Hollywood Africa where blacks only have a few lines of dialogue and the focus is on the whites. The star is John Abbott, who I'd never heard of - David del Valle told me about him - a solid hammy British actor. If Karloff or Lugosi had played the part the film would've been a minor classic or at least quite well known. Abbott is fine - he's not a star though.
Abbott becomes obsessed with Peggy Stewart and tries to get Charles Gordon on board. There's a priest who stops him.
It's reasonably logical with some effective moments - not so much scares or shocks but Abbott's manipulation of Stewart. Leigh Brackett co wrote it.
Movie review - "Cry of the Werewolf" (1961) ***
I liked this a lot more on second viewing because I knew going in that Oliver Reed didn't appear until half way through. It remains a mistake... this is half a brilliant film... the second half, with Reed superb as the tormented man who is a werewolf and killer. Clifford Evans isn't very good in the Claude Rains bit as his dad... which is important because we should really feel it when Evans kills Reed at the end.
The first half is fine... it just could've all been conveyed via exposition. Setting up the beggar, then the Marquis, then putting him in prison, then having him attack the mute girl, then having the mute girl escape.
Really they should've started it with Reed as an adult... or, if pushed, with Evans discovering Yvette Romain (Reed's mother). And they should've kept the Marquis (Anthony Dawson) alive as a villain or else not had him at all. It's a mess.
But the film has pleasures: Terence Fisher's direction is excellent, as is the music, the sets, the production design, etc.
NB I went to a talk on this movie at Creature Features in Burbank, LA. Yvonne Romain from the film was there being Q and A'd... and her husband Leslie Bricusse. I had read a lot about "Leslie and Evie" being a couple and didn't realise that she was Evie. It was a lovely Q and A - she basically had nice things to say about everyone though they did have a decent Oliver Reed story or two. Most of the nerds didn't know who Leslie Bricusse was. I went up and chatted to both of them - asked her about Chips Rafferty on Double Trouble (she couldn't remember him) and asked Leslie about Tom Mankiewicz. Nice afternoon.
The first half is fine... it just could've all been conveyed via exposition. Setting up the beggar, then the Marquis, then putting him in prison, then having him attack the mute girl, then having the mute girl escape.
Really they should've started it with Reed as an adult... or, if pushed, with Evans discovering Yvette Romain (Reed's mother). And they should've kept the Marquis (Anthony Dawson) alive as a villain or else not had him at all. It's a mess.
But the film has pleasures: Terence Fisher's direction is excellent, as is the music, the sets, the production design, etc.
NB I went to a talk on this movie at Creature Features in Burbank, LA. Yvonne Romain from the film was there being Q and A'd... and her husband Leslie Bricusse. I had read a lot about "Leslie and Evie" being a couple and didn't realise that she was Evie. It was a lovely Q and A - she basically had nice things to say about everyone though they did have a decent Oliver Reed story or two. Most of the nerds didn't know who Leslie Bricusse was. I went up and chatted to both of them - asked her about Chips Rafferty on Double Trouble (she couldn't remember him) and asked Leslie about Tom Mankiewicz. Nice afternoon.
Sunday, February 11, 2018
Random thoughts - the Burt Reynolds cold streak
In 1982 Burt Reynolds was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, star in the world - and what's more he'd maintained that position for about four years. He had been a name since the early 60s, doing lots of TV and support roles, and moved up to a medium tier star with Deliverance and a series of good ole boy action films such as Gator. What made him huge was Smokey and the Bandit. This was a box office sensation and led to a golden run for Reynolds - the well received Semi Tough, a decently received directorial debut The End, a popular comedy Hooper, a venture into rom com Starting Cover. No one seemed to much like Rough Cut but Smokey and the Bandit II and Cannonball Run were huge and Paternity did okay. Sharky's Machine, his second work as director, was reasonably received and both Best Little Whorehouse in Texas and Best Friends were popular.
Within six years he was finished as a star.
What happened?
Did he just become unfashionable? Did he pick badly? Did America change? Did people get sick of him?
Stars often fall from grace... but the jolt of Reynolds' fall was surprise, especially considering he'd been around for so long. Also, several of his contemporaries managed to keep up their profiles - such as Clint Eastwood and Sylvester Stallone.
Let's look at the films he chose:
* Stroker Ace (1983) - he himself calls this a turning point. He famously turned down the role which won Jack Nicholson an Oscar in Terms of Endearment to do this, showing the danger of breaking the Hollywood commandment "nobody knows anything but always try to pick the classiest project". I can understand why Reynolds did what he did... Hal Needham had directed several of Reynolds' biggest hits to date, it was so obviously commercial (cars, gags, boobs, fun) - this was the first one to flop. Which just goes to show, you can never pick what's going to work - sometimes the public can sniff out a stinker.
* The Man Who Loved Women (1983) - a risky-ish bet from Reynolds who was keen to segue into romantic, grown up films... but it was a remake of a Truffaut movie and had Blake Edwards attached. The public didn't like it. What went wrong? Americans don't mind films about compulsive womanisers eg Shampoo. It just didn't work for them. This is the sort of movie which you can't blame Reynolds for making... it's a shame it didn't pan out for him.
* Cannonball Run II (1984) - this one I do think Reynolds may have been a bit hasty about making. I can understand he wanted a hit, it would have seemed commercial... but backing Needham after Stroker Ace should possibly have made him re think. Around this point he should've been trying to make really good commercial films and honestly there was no way Cannonball Run II was going to be it. It was lazy... there was no reason to make it... It lacked heart.
* City Heat (1984) - teaming Reynolds and Clint Eastwood was a fantastic idea and Blake Edwards should've been an ideal movie. It isn't. You want this to be fun - the opening sequence with the two of them is fine, the basic idea is strong - but it doesn't work. Buddy comedies aren't as easy as they look. Eastwood was wary of Edwards who quit, Reynolds was injured during filming which led to rumours he had AIDS. The film was profitable though, showing Reynolds was still a box office draw.
*Stick (1985) - Reynolds returns to directing and the film is a mess. He should've been able to do Elmore Leonard - he later claimed Universal bullied him into changing too much of the film, in which case he should've stopped directing. I think by this stage Reynolds' confidence was badly shaken and he needed a stronger director for the film. It's a great pity that John Boorman couldn't have done it. (Indeed for me the great missed role for Reynolds during this period is playing the star part in The Emerald Forest - as fine as Powers Boothe was, it would've suited Reynolds like a glove, and given the movie more commercial power.)
* Heat (1986) - this is when things really started going wonky. You can see the appeal of William Goldman's novel for filmmakers - it has a great central character, a tough guy with a gambling problem, and is full of colourful characters. Goldman's script is okay. But not easily adaptable - because it's more character piece than action piece. So you really need a director who gets it. Robert Altman would actually have been fantastic, but he wanted changes and quit the project, The result was a mess with Dick Richards and Jerry Jameson coming in. The Jason Statham remake showed the problems with the material - it's not quite action, not quite character. Reynolds did suit the role but the film is a mess.
* Malone (1987) - another mess of a movie, when Reynolds needed to be making major films with major talents. Harley Cokeliss was the director here, in a modern day Western.
* Rent-a-Cop (1988) - Reynolds is a cop again only this time with Liza Minnelli - a teaming that didn't excite people in the 70s and didn't in the late 80s. It had another second tier director, Jerry London. I think it was this string of four post-City Heat action films which killed Reynolds' career more than anything.
* Switching Channels (1989) - Reynolds' turn as Cary Grant in this remake of His Girl Friday was acclaimed as a comeback (Reynolds tried to do a Cary Grant a few times). He got some good reviews but the film was a fop. Michael Caine (who was originally meant to play the lead) once said a star needed a hit every five pictures or he was out - by now Reynolds was out.
* Physical Evidence (1989) - a weird one in Michael Crichton's filmography as it has nothing to do with science really, and in fact was originally a sequel to Jagged Edge. It would've been fun to see Robert Loggie be defended by Glenn Close but instead we've got Burt and Terese Russell. There were a lot of these thrillers in the 80s and 90s - the best of them had sexiness, style and some decent plot twists, which this doesn't have. It's a really, really average movie.
* Breaking In (1989) - an unexpected surprise: Reynolds finally works with some top talents, John Sayles and Bill Forsyth, and turns in one of his best performances. It was too little too late though - the film was barely seen. If he'd done this in the mid 80s I think people would've really gotten behind it. But by now Reynolds' reputation was at a super low ebb.
Reynolds then did the smart thing and went back to TV - he had a medium success with BL Stryker and a pretty big one with Evening Shade, which ran for 98 episodes and was only really axed because costs got so high. It was a shame, as I think he could've really found home there.
He made semi comebacks in Striptease and Boogie Nights but could never seem to consolidate. It's a shame. I wish he'd have one last big fat hit before going off because the last two decades must've been tough and I still have a lot of affection for him.
Within six years he was finished as a star.
What happened?
Did he just become unfashionable? Did he pick badly? Did America change? Did people get sick of him?
Stars often fall from grace... but the jolt of Reynolds' fall was surprise, especially considering he'd been around for so long. Also, several of his contemporaries managed to keep up their profiles - such as Clint Eastwood and Sylvester Stallone.
Let's look at the films he chose:
* Stroker Ace (1983) - he himself calls this a turning point. He famously turned down the role which won Jack Nicholson an Oscar in Terms of Endearment to do this, showing the danger of breaking the Hollywood commandment "nobody knows anything but always try to pick the classiest project". I can understand why Reynolds did what he did... Hal Needham had directed several of Reynolds' biggest hits to date, it was so obviously commercial (cars, gags, boobs, fun) - this was the first one to flop. Which just goes to show, you can never pick what's going to work - sometimes the public can sniff out a stinker.
* The Man Who Loved Women (1983) - a risky-ish bet from Reynolds who was keen to segue into romantic, grown up films... but it was a remake of a Truffaut movie and had Blake Edwards attached. The public didn't like it. What went wrong? Americans don't mind films about compulsive womanisers eg Shampoo. It just didn't work for them. This is the sort of movie which you can't blame Reynolds for making... it's a shame it didn't pan out for him.
* Cannonball Run II (1984) - this one I do think Reynolds may have been a bit hasty about making. I can understand he wanted a hit, it would have seemed commercial... but backing Needham after Stroker Ace should possibly have made him re think. Around this point he should've been trying to make really good commercial films and honestly there was no way Cannonball Run II was going to be it. It was lazy... there was no reason to make it... It lacked heart.
* City Heat (1984) - teaming Reynolds and Clint Eastwood was a fantastic idea and Blake Edwards should've been an ideal movie. It isn't. You want this to be fun - the opening sequence with the two of them is fine, the basic idea is strong - but it doesn't work. Buddy comedies aren't as easy as they look. Eastwood was wary of Edwards who quit, Reynolds was injured during filming which led to rumours he had AIDS. The film was profitable though, showing Reynolds was still a box office draw.
*Stick (1985) - Reynolds returns to directing and the film is a mess. He should've been able to do Elmore Leonard - he later claimed Universal bullied him into changing too much of the film, in which case he should've stopped directing. I think by this stage Reynolds' confidence was badly shaken and he needed a stronger director for the film. It's a great pity that John Boorman couldn't have done it. (Indeed for me the great missed role for Reynolds during this period is playing the star part in The Emerald Forest - as fine as Powers Boothe was, it would've suited Reynolds like a glove, and given the movie more commercial power.)
* Heat (1986) - this is when things really started going wonky. You can see the appeal of William Goldman's novel for filmmakers - it has a great central character, a tough guy with a gambling problem, and is full of colourful characters. Goldman's script is okay. But not easily adaptable - because it's more character piece than action piece. So you really need a director who gets it. Robert Altman would actually have been fantastic, but he wanted changes and quit the project, The result was a mess with Dick Richards and Jerry Jameson coming in. The Jason Statham remake showed the problems with the material - it's not quite action, not quite character. Reynolds did suit the role but the film is a mess.
* Malone (1987) - another mess of a movie, when Reynolds needed to be making major films with major talents. Harley Cokeliss was the director here, in a modern day Western.
* Rent-a-Cop (1988) - Reynolds is a cop again only this time with Liza Minnelli - a teaming that didn't excite people in the 70s and didn't in the late 80s. It had another second tier director, Jerry London. I think it was this string of four post-City Heat action films which killed Reynolds' career more than anything.
* Switching Channels (1989) - Reynolds' turn as Cary Grant in this remake of His Girl Friday was acclaimed as a comeback (Reynolds tried to do a Cary Grant a few times). He got some good reviews but the film was a fop. Michael Caine (who was originally meant to play the lead) once said a star needed a hit every five pictures or he was out - by now Reynolds was out.
* Physical Evidence (1989) - a weird one in Michael Crichton's filmography as it has nothing to do with science really, and in fact was originally a sequel to Jagged Edge. It would've been fun to see Robert Loggie be defended by Glenn Close but instead we've got Burt and Terese Russell. There were a lot of these thrillers in the 80s and 90s - the best of them had sexiness, style and some decent plot twists, which this doesn't have. It's a really, really average movie.
* Breaking In (1989) - an unexpected surprise: Reynolds finally works with some top talents, John Sayles and Bill Forsyth, and turns in one of his best performances. It was too little too late though - the film was barely seen. If he'd done this in the mid 80s I think people would've really gotten behind it. But by now Reynolds' reputation was at a super low ebb.
Reynolds then did the smart thing and went back to TV - he had a medium success with BL Stryker and a pretty big one with Evening Shade, which ran for 98 episodes and was only really axed because costs got so high. It was a shame, as I think he could've really found home there.
He made semi comebacks in Striptease and Boogie Nights but could never seem to consolidate. It's a shame. I wish he'd have one last big fat hit before going off because the last two decades must've been tough and I still have a lot of affection for him.
Friday, February 09, 2018
John Gavin RIP
John Gavin RIP. Most film buffs, even casual, would've seen a movie he was in, because his credits included several classics (Psycho, Spartacus, Imitation of Life) and some movies that were always on TV (Thoroughly Modern Millie, Tammy Tell Me True) Most film buffs, even casual, probably forgot he was in those movies, because he was always so bland and tended to blend into the furniture (Hitchcock called him "the wooden Indian).
I have an affection for him because I once wrote a short play about he and George Lazenby set during the time Gavin was going to play James Bond in Diamonds Are Forever (I say this to explain why I weirdly know so much about him...).
He was a Ken Doll more than an actor but he made a lot of movies, had a really interesting life (President of SAG, Ambassador to Mexico, a successful businessman, married to Constance Towers), and I love the fact he went completely bald.
So in honour of this backup Rock Hudson, a John Gavin top ten:
1) A Time to Love and a Time to Die (1958) - a forgotten film despite being directed by Douglas Sirk and from the novel by Erich Maria Remarque... no one seems to like it, then or now, and is never gets mentioned today, even by Sirk fans... it's like it barely existed... Gavin had the lead.. yes, it was sympathetic to the Germans but so was The Young Lions, but that had Brando and Clift and A Time to Love had Gavin... he was cast because he looked a bit like Rock Hudson and Universal figured Lew Ayres didn't have much experience when he was in All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)... this didn't turn out as well
2) Imitation of Life (1959) - much loved melodrama which is surprisingly complex - Gavin is adequate as the romantic stakes, but out-acted by everyone
3)Spartacus (1960) - Gavin plays Julius Caesar - he mainly hangs around the film and has a sauna with Charles Laughton which presumably made Laughton's day... I am surprised Gavin didn't make more Ancient World spectacles, he had the right sort of "marble" look
4)Psycho (1960) - Hitchcock famously cast Gavin saying "I guess he'll do" (he was cheap) - he's actually not too bad and the film of course is amazing (he plays Janet Leigh's lover who tackles Tony Perkins at the end... still can't picture him, right?)
5) Midnight Lace (1960) - enjoyable woman-in-peril film with Doris Day haunted by a creepy voice (the script is co written by Aussie Ivan Goff)... Gavin battles gamely against his attempt at a British accent and his abilities when he has to demonstrate PTSD - his hair is fantastic, though
6) Breath of Scandal (1961) - Gavin, I'm not kidding, is better than both Maurice Chevalier and Sophia Loren in this film, mostly because they are so disastrously miscast... the film is awful
7) Tammy Tell Me True (1962) - much of Gavin's career was as a prop for leading ladies - here is was Sandra Dee, with whom he made several films, and had no chemistry - it's a sweet, dim movie though
8) Pedro Paramo (1967) - disclosure: I've never seen this film though apparently the novel on which it is based is famous - it's a Mexican film, in Spanish (Gavin was fluent) - and good on him for doing it, I genuinely hope it's good
9) Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967) - Gavin livens up a little in a fun, if overlong musical
10) Pussycat Pussycat I Love You (1970) - a sequel to What's Up Pussycat without Woody Allen, Peter O'Toole or pretty much anyone connected to the first film and most people forgot existed. It does have Gavin and he's the best thing about it. (Very small praise). Ian MacShane plays the lead.
A special John Gavin "what if" for history... what if Sean Connery had not changed his mind about Diamonds Are Forever, and Gavin played the role...
oh and musical fans might get a kick out of the fact he was in the original production of "Seesaw" directed by Michael Bennett...
Script review - "Deadpool" by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick
A bright, funny, irreverent script that laid the ground work for a very successful film. The dialogue is dense, rich and inventive, the scenes are consistently clever. The storyline is quite basic - but I found it ran more smoothly than the film. (Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention to the film). At it's heart it's a love story which it needs to be to have emotional stakes. Extremely good work.
Thursday, February 08, 2018
Movie review - "Doomed! The Untold Story of Roger Corman's Fantastic Four" (2015) ***
Enjoyable account of the making of The Fantastic Four in the 1990s - a film made by Roger Corman's New Horizons output which everyone thought was going to be a (rare for Corman then) theatrical release and help raise everyone's profile.
The film ended up being suppressed because they wanted to make swish new movies and didn't want the brand to be tainted - indeed, the main reason the film was made was because it had to or the rights expired. (There was a Porky's movie made by Brian Trenchard Smith for similar reasons.)
You really feel for the people who made the 1990s Fantastic Four. Those interviewed for the film consistently go "I'm okay with it" when their faces clearly indicate they aren't... particularly star Alex Hyde White (who was really good in the film - this could have launched a new career for him, I get that) and director Oley Sassone. But also the effects, costume and movie people threw their hearts and souls into it and it was really cruel to suppress it... when a DVD release could have gotten the film seen and not damaged the brand. (Is it karma that has made the Fantastic Four such a poisoned chalice?
Other interview subjects include Roger Corman but not Stan Lee or Avi Arad or the writers.
Truth be told the documentary probably doesn't sustain a feature length - it lacks a third act. I suppose you could argue the film becoming widely available illegally is that, but it isn't really. The film is made for not much money quickly then is suppressed and it's upsetting and... that's the end. Maybe a third act about the new films would've fixed this - particularly the 2015 which had such a hard time.
I also felt it might've been good to establish a bit more up front why The Fantastic Four was/is a big deal - I know the target market of this is comic book fans but movie buffs who don't know much about the comic would be interested too.
A good movie - I felt maybe it was better suited to an hour though.
The film ended up being suppressed because they wanted to make swish new movies and didn't want the brand to be tainted - indeed, the main reason the film was made was because it had to or the rights expired. (There was a Porky's movie made by Brian Trenchard Smith for similar reasons.)
You really feel for the people who made the 1990s Fantastic Four. Those interviewed for the film consistently go "I'm okay with it" when their faces clearly indicate they aren't... particularly star Alex Hyde White (who was really good in the film - this could have launched a new career for him, I get that) and director Oley Sassone. But also the effects, costume and movie people threw their hearts and souls into it and it was really cruel to suppress it... when a DVD release could have gotten the film seen and not damaged the brand. (Is it karma that has made the Fantastic Four such a poisoned chalice?
Other interview subjects include Roger Corman but not Stan Lee or Avi Arad or the writers.
Truth be told the documentary probably doesn't sustain a feature length - it lacks a third act. I suppose you could argue the film becoming widely available illegally is that, but it isn't really. The film is made for not much money quickly then is suppressed and it's upsetting and... that's the end. Maybe a third act about the new films would've fixed this - particularly the 2015 which had such a hard time.
I also felt it might've been good to establish a bit more up front why The Fantastic Four was/is a big deal - I know the target market of this is comic book fans but movie buffs who don't know much about the comic would be interested too.
A good movie - I felt maybe it was better suited to an hour though.
Wednesday, February 07, 2018
Movie review - "Becoming Bond" (2017) ****
Fun, lively, irreverent account of how George Lazenby came from nowhere to become James Bond. I'm a Lazenby fan so was always going to enjoy it - I was surprised how much I didn't know. I was very familiar with the Bond stuff but not so much his early life - growing up in Quenbeyan, being in trouble at school. I knew about him going to work as a mechanic and car salesman but not his big romance with a woman called Belinda which forms the emotional heart of the film.
Sometimes I felt they spent too much time on this - the one that got away etc etc - but it did add a bit of heart to the movie. He claims she was his great love and always wonders what would've happened if it had worked out. It's his own fault it didn't - Lazenby cheated on her, and didn't hook up with her again when he had the chance.
(I kind of feel the real love of Lazenby's life was Chrissy Townsend, who was in Universal Soldier and with whom he had two children and he sailed around the world... but the marriage ended badly... But then people always romanticise the love that was never realised.)
It's a mythic treatment of the Lazenby story - no mention of Universal Soldier or him going off on a boat for ages while he was still famous, or the death of his son, or the domestic violence allegations from both his ex wives, or the custody dispute with his second wife.
To be fair Lazenby doesn't paint himself as a saint - admits to cheating on Belinda, and getting a big head and even now he says he can't understand why he quit Bond. (My theory - he just went a bit silly and wouldn't listen to anyone). He's a very good raconteur, a charming old rogue.
Josh Lawson is pretty good as Lazenby - not quite the same type, he lacks the macho alphaness of Lazenbym but I honestly couldn't think of another actor who could do better. (Do they make 'em like Lazenby any more). He does the comic stuff well and has a decent build... his hair cut was distracting. He was noticeably older than the girl who plays Belinda (who was very likeable, by the way).
Top notch support cast - Jane Seymour as Maggie Abbott, Jeff Garlin as Harry Saltzman (made me want a Saltzman biopic), the two kids who play young George are outstanding. It's funny and lively and I enjoyed the re-enactments more than I thought I would.
I loved the interview clips of him before and after the Bond film, particularly after where everyone is going "you're sure you want to quit?"
A fun movie. I get the feelign Lazenby will be too unfocused to ever get around to writing his biography but this is a pretty good alternative.
Sometimes I felt they spent too much time on this - the one that got away etc etc - but it did add a bit of heart to the movie. He claims she was his great love and always wonders what would've happened if it had worked out. It's his own fault it didn't - Lazenby cheated on her, and didn't hook up with her again when he had the chance.
(I kind of feel the real love of Lazenby's life was Chrissy Townsend, who was in Universal Soldier and with whom he had two children and he sailed around the world... but the marriage ended badly... But then people always romanticise the love that was never realised.)
It's a mythic treatment of the Lazenby story - no mention of Universal Soldier or him going off on a boat for ages while he was still famous, or the death of his son, or the domestic violence allegations from both his ex wives, or the custody dispute with his second wife.
To be fair Lazenby doesn't paint himself as a saint - admits to cheating on Belinda, and getting a big head and even now he says he can't understand why he quit Bond. (My theory - he just went a bit silly and wouldn't listen to anyone). He's a very good raconteur, a charming old rogue.
Josh Lawson is pretty good as Lazenby - not quite the same type, he lacks the macho alphaness of Lazenbym but I honestly couldn't think of another actor who could do better. (Do they make 'em like Lazenby any more). He does the comic stuff well and has a decent build... his hair cut was distracting. He was noticeably older than the girl who plays Belinda (who was very likeable, by the way).
Top notch support cast - Jane Seymour as Maggie Abbott, Jeff Garlin as Harry Saltzman (made me want a Saltzman biopic), the two kids who play young George are outstanding. It's funny and lively and I enjoyed the re-enactments more than I thought I would.
I loved the interview clips of him before and after the Bond film, particularly after where everyone is going "you're sure you want to quit?"
A fun movie. I get the feelign Lazenby will be too unfocused to ever get around to writing his biography but this is a pretty good alternative.
Script review - "Godzilla" by Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot
A draft script that was discarded once Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich came on board to make the famously underwhelming Godzilla film. This script isn't a classic but is much better than what Devlin came up with... it has a lot of similarities with the later version, including a prologue that happens years before and involves the death of a middle aged man, which haunts survivors; there's another creature for Godzilla to battle; a climax that involves a hero jumping out of a copter into a city.
I wasn't wild about the male hero being an author, or some stuff like a young girl strutting around in underwear, but it was a very structurally strong movie which had good logic and was underpinned with an emotional journey. It would've made a good film.
I wasn't wild about the male hero being an author, or some stuff like a young girl strutting around in underwear, but it was a very structurally strong movie which had good logic and was underpinned with an emotional journey. It would've made a good film.
Script review - "Deja Vu" by Terry Rossio and Bill Marsilii
This film kind of came and went - no one seems to talk about it much these days - but it's really fantastic script - fast paced, full of twists and turns, the logic totally held.
Two things maybe a bit yuck - the stalker aspect (falling in love with the girl who likes kittens and Cary Grant movies) and the violence of the crimes (fingers cut off and bits severed... though this is done via dialogue more than shown anything). But it works as a love story. No wonder Rossio was upset when Tony Scott agreed to direct - Scott wasn't great with love stories.
It feels very different to the scripts Rossio wrote with Ted Elliot - Marsilii brought out a different side to him. A great read.
Two things maybe a bit yuck - the stalker aspect (falling in love with the girl who likes kittens and Cary Grant movies) and the violence of the crimes (fingers cut off and bits severed... though this is done via dialogue more than shown anything). But it works as a love story. No wonder Rossio was upset when Tony Scott agreed to direct - Scott wasn't great with love stories.
It feels very different to the scripts Rossio wrote with Ted Elliot - Marsilii brought out a different side to him. A great read.
Movie review - "Once Before I Die" (1966) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Like Roger Vadim, John Derek's reputation as a filmmaker is eclipsed by his fame as a man who managed to constantly attract hot women, but his debut effort isn't that bad. It's a decent story, a strong cast and some interesting touches - a few flashy montages, use of freeze frames during battle scenes and so on. (I remember another war film shot by a former actor around this time, Beach Red, was also quite groovy in its presentation.)
It's set immediately after Pearl Harbour, with a team of US soldiers trying to flee for safety. Their lieutenant (Derek himself) takes along his fiancee (Andress). In a shock, Derek dies half way through - an accidental grenade going off which feels real - and Andress is left with the others: Rod Lauren, Ron Ely (Tarzan) and Richard Jaeckel.
It's interesting to watch the Derek-Andress relationship on screen - he basically treats her like a baby and she responds in kind, wanting to go and get her puppies, and not wanting to be alone, and suggesting he get a hair cut.
Sometimes you forget there's a war on - it's more an amble - when more tension would've been ideal. The locations aren't that pretty. (I say that a lot about films in the Philippines).
But it's bold and full on. Jaeckel acts up a storm as a shaven headed war lover. Lauren and Ely are fine. The plot where Andress sleeps with Lauren works for me and wasn't as exploitive as I'd been lead to believe. Andress was never shot more beautifully - Derek really knew how to frame her face - and her acting is fine. This film surprised me in a pleasant way.
It's set immediately after Pearl Harbour, with a team of US soldiers trying to flee for safety. Their lieutenant (Derek himself) takes along his fiancee (Andress). In a shock, Derek dies half way through - an accidental grenade going off which feels real - and Andress is left with the others: Rod Lauren, Ron Ely (Tarzan) and Richard Jaeckel.
It's interesting to watch the Derek-Andress relationship on screen - he basically treats her like a baby and she responds in kind, wanting to go and get her puppies, and not wanting to be alone, and suggesting he get a hair cut.
Sometimes you forget there's a war on - it's more an amble - when more tension would've been ideal. The locations aren't that pretty. (I say that a lot about films in the Philippines).
But it's bold and full on. Jaeckel acts up a storm as a shaven headed war lover. Lauren and Ely are fine. The plot where Andress sleeps with Lauren works for me and wasn't as exploitive as I'd been lead to believe. Andress was never shot more beautifully - Derek really knew how to frame her face - and her acting is fine. This film surprised me in a pleasant way.
TV review - "Thriller" episode "La Strega" (1961) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
I only watched this because Ursula Andress was in it - it was her one sizeable role in Hollywood prior to being cast in Dr No. She's striking and charismatic as ever as a woman who is accused of being a witch, and thrown in a river... she winds up at the house of a painter (Alejandro Rey), with a witch (Jeanette Nolan) nearby.
This is a very "foreign" episode - the leads are non Americans and everyone is playing a European. Ramon Navarro pops up in it. Andress really suits costume horror pictures - it's a shame she didn't do more. Nolan is a superb witch.
It was directed by Ida Lupino who does a good job. The ending - with Andress buried alive - is a real jolt. I'd never seen an episode of Thriller before and it's a really good show.
This is a very "foreign" episode - the leads are non Americans and everyone is playing a European. Ramon Navarro pops up in it. Andress really suits costume horror pictures - it's a shame she didn't do more. Nolan is a superb witch.
It was directed by Ida Lupino who does a good job. The ending - with Andress buried alive - is a real jolt. I'd never seen an episode of Thriller before and it's a really good show.
Movie review - "Get Out" (2017) **** (warning: spoilers)
A superb horror film - a black/white riff on The Stepford Wives, extremely well written, directed and acted. It all comes together seamlessly and is a massive promotion for low budget movies. The satire is fresh - skewering the pretensions of white liberals and the fear of modern day blacks.
The cast is uniformly excellent and I LOVED how the hero was a TSA agent. Those people will remember this movie forever.
I'm glad it had a happy ending. The violence is very cathartic. In a way this reminded me of 1960s Edgar Allan Poe pictures - a lot of walking around a haunted house with a big bang at the end.
The cast is uniformly excellent and I LOVED how the hero was a TSA agent. Those people will remember this movie forever.
I'm glad it had a happy ending. The violence is very cathartic. In a way this reminded me of 1960s Edgar Allan Poe pictures - a lot of walking around a haunted house with a big bang at the end.
Movie review - "The Tenth Victim" (1965) **1/2
A film that predicted a remarkable number of tropes that would become fashionable. True the idea of hunting humans as a sport had been around since The Most Dangerous Game but this was set in the future, with the killings televised and done as a sport, and lots of satire and groovy fashions - way before .Death Race 2000 and The Hunger Games and Turkey Shoot and The Running Man.
There's lots of good stuff - Ursula Andress looking sensational, great costumes, interesting set design, Marcello Mastroianni as the male lead, juicy satire (with an anti-American slant). The plot has a lot of twists, particularly towards the end and is progressive in a way because Andress drives a lot of the action and is as ruthless as Mastroianni. Elsa Martinelli as Mastroinanni's nagging girlfriend. And there's classic moments like Andress shooting people with a gun in her bra and being sponsored by a tea company.
It's never as much fun as you want it to be though. It's not particularly exciting - the action isn't great. There's a lot of standing around talking - it's more a chatty movie than a chase one. I got confused by the plot too every now and then even though the story is at its core quite simple.
It does give some iconic Andress moments though - who I'm coming to appreciate as a genuine star - and she's well matched with Mastroianni.
There's lots of good stuff - Ursula Andress looking sensational, great costumes, interesting set design, Marcello Mastroianni as the male lead, juicy satire (with an anti-American slant). The plot has a lot of twists, particularly towards the end and is progressive in a way because Andress drives a lot of the action and is as ruthless as Mastroianni. Elsa Martinelli as Mastroinanni's nagging girlfriend. And there's classic moments like Andress shooting people with a gun in her bra and being sponsored by a tea company.
It's never as much fun as you want it to be though. It's not particularly exciting - the action isn't great. There's a lot of standing around talking - it's more a chatty movie than a chase one. I got confused by the plot too every now and then even though the story is at its core quite simple.
It does give some iconic Andress moments though - who I'm coming to appreciate as a genuine star - and she's well matched with Mastroianni.
Tuesday, February 06, 2018
Script review - "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose
The 50s liberalism of this has not aged well, with its oh-so-caring-and-considerate architect hero, nagging everyone into submission, and the all-white-all-male-ness of it, the tortured masculinity of post war America, the love for the persecuted hispanic criminal.
But the central idea is so utterly utterly brilliant and Rose structures it so well.The details of the crime have been well thought out and the different Jurors very well differentiated. Rose had the idea of a lifetime and he pulled it off brilliantly.
This has a lot of big print.
But the central idea is so utterly utterly brilliant and Rose structures it so well.The details of the crime have been well thought out and the different Jurors very well differentiated. Rose had the idea of a lifetime and he pulled it off brilliantly.
This has a lot of big print.
Script review - "The Residents" pilot
Excellent pilot, full of pace and energy that leaps off the page. Starts with a great scene - an operation where everyone is joking around then the surgeon accidentally kills the patient. This surgeon is the nemesis for the leads - he has a track record of being incompetent but is also the face of the hospital. This sort of conflict was fresh to me... though I did wonder and what sort of legs the show would have. Is he going to kill people every week?
The support characters are clearly defined. The lead guy was a bit of a bully - I hate that "you know nothing" speech he gave to the newbie. The show defends him by the nurse - who's hot for him - going "oh he's brilliant" and he's shown to be brilliant but he's still a bully. This I found unpleasant especially as the show glamorises him in other respects (super studly, a genius doctor, an enemy to the doctor who kills).
Memorable ending where someone's life support is turned off.
The support characters are clearly defined. The lead guy was a bit of a bully - I hate that "you know nothing" speech he gave to the newbie. The show defends him by the nurse - who's hot for him - going "oh he's brilliant" and he's shown to be brilliant but he's still a bully. This I found unpleasant especially as the show glamorises him in other respects (super studly, a genius doctor, an enemy to the doctor who kills).
Memorable ending where someone's life support is turned off.
Book review - "The Floating World" by Jules Verne
A not very well known Verne novel despite a high concept - it's about an island that travels around the world, as a home for the rich. There's two main families who are rivals and an exiled king plus four musicians who wind up on the island (the story is told through their eyes).
There's stuff happening in the book - a collision with a British ship, picking up a Malay boat that turns out to be full of pirates, a storm, visiting Pacific islands full of cannibals. It's not excitingly realised though - Verne is more interest in travelogues and creating dramatic situations. But I'm surprised this isn't more famous.
There's stuff happening in the book - a collision with a British ship, picking up a Malay boat that turns out to be full of pirates, a storm, visiting Pacific islands full of cannibals. It's not excitingly realised though - Verne is more interest in travelogues and creating dramatic situations. But I'm surprised this isn't more famous.
Monday, February 05, 2018
Movie review - "De Palma" (2017) ***1/2
Funny sort of doco - basically just De Palma talking to camera about his career, interspersed with photos, clips from his films and home movies. But since his career has been so long and varied and De Palma is a strong raconteur (I'd actually never heard him speak before, I think!) it passes the time well.
I particularly enjoyed hearing about his upbringing - upper middle class (dad was a surgeon), squabbling family life but Brian seemed to have plenty of cash (another spoilt boomer director!), lots of education, he only got the film bug at college. Loved seeing clips of a young De Niro, Jennifer Salt and Jill Clayburgh.
De Palma was given a lot of advantages in life (his sex, his background) but was/is a self starter - he had the moxie to make his own feature back in the 60s, and made a living out of doing promotional documentaries. He also has resilience to bounce back from things like being booted off Getting to Know Your Rabbit.
He's got one of those careers where failures are followed by successes then failures. The success of Sisters led to the failure of Phantom of the Paradise led to the success of Obsession (Cliff Robertson was a pain in the neck which was sad to hear) and Carrie, led to the failure of Home Movies, led to the success of Dressed to Kill (the script was hot property and sold for $1 million), led to the failure of Blow Out, led to the success (ish) of Scarface, led to the failure of Body Double and Wise Guys led to the success of The Untouchables led to the failure of Casualties of War and Bonfire of the Vanities, led to the success of Carlito's Way (which he says "I can't do better than that"), Raising Cain and Mission Impossible (clashes in approach from David Koepp and Robert Towne), the mixed success of Snake Eyes and the failure of Mission to Mars, then the more "indie" path he's tread since then.
De Palma comes across as affable and confident, hungering for success as much as anyone in Hollywood, remarkably unaware and un-analytical of what all these scenes in his films where women die violently might mean for him or how derivative he is, and simplistic in his political takes ("it's a sewer"). He's appreciative of great composers and actors and collaborators.
Lots of interesting bits:
- Sean Penn punched out Michael J Fox in Casualties of War to help Fox's performance - thanks Sean
- he still stands by Bonfire of the Vanities
- he's bitter Sidney Lumet pinched Prince of the City off him
- he was offered Flashdance
- he followed his father around when younger to see who his dad was cheating on his mother with
- he hit up Spielberg and Scorsese for money to finish Home Movies
Very much worthwhile.
I particularly enjoyed hearing about his upbringing - upper middle class (dad was a surgeon), squabbling family life but Brian seemed to have plenty of cash (another spoilt boomer director!), lots of education, he only got the film bug at college. Loved seeing clips of a young De Niro, Jennifer Salt and Jill Clayburgh.
De Palma was given a lot of advantages in life (his sex, his background) but was/is a self starter - he had the moxie to make his own feature back in the 60s, and made a living out of doing promotional documentaries. He also has resilience to bounce back from things like being booted off Getting to Know Your Rabbit.
He's got one of those careers where failures are followed by successes then failures. The success of Sisters led to the failure of Phantom of the Paradise led to the success of Obsession (Cliff Robertson was a pain in the neck which was sad to hear) and Carrie, led to the failure of Home Movies, led to the success of Dressed to Kill (the script was hot property and sold for $1 million), led to the failure of Blow Out, led to the success (ish) of Scarface, led to the failure of Body Double and Wise Guys led to the success of The Untouchables led to the failure of Casualties of War and Bonfire of the Vanities, led to the success of Carlito's Way (which he says "I can't do better than that"), Raising Cain and Mission Impossible (clashes in approach from David Koepp and Robert Towne), the mixed success of Snake Eyes and the failure of Mission to Mars, then the more "indie" path he's tread since then.
De Palma comes across as affable and confident, hungering for success as much as anyone in Hollywood, remarkably unaware and un-analytical of what all these scenes in his films where women die violently might mean for him or how derivative he is, and simplistic in his political takes ("it's a sewer"). He's appreciative of great composers and actors and collaborators.
Lots of interesting bits:
- Sean Penn punched out Michael J Fox in Casualties of War to help Fox's performance - thanks Sean
- he still stands by Bonfire of the Vanities
- he's bitter Sidney Lumet pinched Prince of the City off him
- he was offered Flashdance
- he followed his father around when younger to see who his dad was cheating on his mother with
- he hit up Spielberg and Scorsese for money to finish Home Movies
Very much worthwhile.
Movie review - "She" (1965) ***1/2 (re-watching)
Some observations
- it was a mistake I feel to introduce Ayesha so early - having her turn up at an apartment near the town just feels silly... I know why they did it, to get her in sooner (otherwise she doesn't appear til the 45 minute mark) but they didn't do it right... maybe it could've worked as a dream?
- Peter Cushing is very good but wasted as Holly - he should've done more, fell for Ayesha himself
- I was surprised how much screen time John Richardson gets - it's really his film more than Ayesha's... he's okay... he's a funny looking guy with that blonde hair and sun tan and tormented look - not easy to cast, I imagine
- Bernard Cribbins is very good as Job - so too Andre Morrell.
- Ursula Andress is an outstanding Ayesha
- I forgot how many scenes consisted of Andress and Richardson just sitting around talking.
This remains an entertaining, full blooded adventure - location filming in Israel really helps as does the superior cast and score. There's decent action - the brawl at the beginning (I wonder if the shift to 1918 Palestine was inspired by Lawrence of Arabia), the final uprising - and some good set design. The Roman Empire uniforms on Ayesha's guards look silly - presumably Hammer got a deal on them from Cleopatra or something.
Some memorable moments such as Morell being presented with his daughter's ashes and Ursula Andress being transformed into a withered old thing
- it was a mistake I feel to introduce Ayesha so early - having her turn up at an apartment near the town just feels silly... I know why they did it, to get her in sooner (otherwise she doesn't appear til the 45 minute mark) but they didn't do it right... maybe it could've worked as a dream?
- Peter Cushing is very good but wasted as Holly - he should've done more, fell for Ayesha himself
- I was surprised how much screen time John Richardson gets - it's really his film more than Ayesha's... he's okay... he's a funny looking guy with that blonde hair and sun tan and tormented look - not easy to cast, I imagine
- Bernard Cribbins is very good as Job - so too Andre Morrell.
- Ursula Andress is an outstanding Ayesha
- I forgot how many scenes consisted of Andress and Richardson just sitting around talking.
This remains an entertaining, full blooded adventure - location filming in Israel really helps as does the superior cast and score. There's decent action - the brawl at the beginning (I wonder if the shift to 1918 Palestine was inspired by Lawrence of Arabia), the final uprising - and some good set design. The Roman Empire uniforms on Ayesha's guards look silly - presumably Hammer got a deal on them from Cleopatra or something.
Some memorable moments such as Morell being presented with his daughter's ashes and Ursula Andress being transformed into a withered old thing
Movie review - "Milius" (2017) ****
I think this is a revised version of the documentary - there's more stuff about the Genghis Khan project (did this prompt the recut? to get interest in that?), more footage of Milius post stroke. He's struggling a bit with his words, which is sad to see - but makes the film more epic, more moving.
The talking heads remain great, including Milius' old footage himself - George Lucas, Coppola, Spielberg, Michael Mann, Bryan Singer (weird to see him), Ed O'Neill, Sam Elliot, Harrison Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
There's few women - his daughter, Lea Thompson, Kathleen Kennedy. Not enough talk about how, frankly, the depiction of women in Milius films is shocking. There's inclusion of a talk with a female executive around the time of Big Wednesday where he's berating her, which does not show Milius in a good light. We have lots of stuff involving his kids but no mention of his wives.
A very good documentary. Not uncritical - it mocks how he became a caricature - but very positive.
The talking heads remain great, including Milius' old footage himself - George Lucas, Coppola, Spielberg, Michael Mann, Bryan Singer (weird to see him), Ed O'Neill, Sam Elliot, Harrison Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
There's few women - his daughter, Lea Thompson, Kathleen Kennedy. Not enough talk about how, frankly, the depiction of women in Milius films is shocking. There's inclusion of a talk with a female executive around the time of Big Wednesday where he's berating her, which does not show Milius in a good light. We have lots of stuff involving his kids but no mention of his wives.
A very good documentary. Not uncritical - it mocks how he became a caricature - but very positive.
Movie review - "Nightmare in the Sun" (1965) ** (warning: spoilers)
After leaping to fame in Dr No Ursula Andress appeared in two decently budgeted studio films, Fun in Acapulco and Four For Texas before winding up in this cheapie thriller. I assume she was talked into it by her then husband John Derek who has the lead role.
But it must be said this isn't bad. It's directed by Marc Lawrence, best known as an actor, and presumably it was he who attracted the top level cast - Andress is a saucy minx married to small town tycoon Arthur O'Connell, who is having a fling with sheriff Aldo Ray, and she tries it on with hitchhiker Derek who gets dropped off in town by Sammy Davis Jnr; Richard Jaekel and Robert Duvall are travelling through, locals include Allyn Jolyson, Keenan Wynn and Chick Chandler.
Derek looks a bit old - still handsome, but the hair is flecked with grey. He's okay - in the scenes where he's pursued for murder he's convincingly worried, but other moments he's more awkward. The character isn't much - he wants to get home with his wife. Would've been better drama had he been more shifty - and slept with Andress, say, or did a little light thieving.
Andress is a star. She's relaxed and comfortable and vivacious and gives a good performance. But she dies 21 minutes in. A great scene - O'Connell shoots her and Lawrence cuts to a doll reverberating.
There's a few other neat touches in this - a dust storm, Stanley Cortez' striking photography. I feel the movie would've been better had Andress stayed alive more. Also Derek gets out of it by a deux ex machina - Ray persuades O'Connell to blame the murder on Derek but O'Connell then changes his mind.
Good quality acting, patchy script... but a surprisingly enjoyable B film. Andress holds her own in a top level cast by virtue of sheer charisma and beauty. I think acting with Derek made her relax more but he's awkward.
Sunday, February 04, 2018
Script review - "LA to Vegas" - pilot by Lon Zimmet
Brilliantly funny, very clever and smart pilot. It's got a strong central idea - a plane that goes from Los Angeles to Vegas - because you can do before and after and show off lots of different sorts of people at different stages in their life (elopers, gamblers, strippers... presumably later there will be gangsters and cops).
The lead characters are all very clearly defined and differentiated - Dave the big kid pilot, Artem the gambler, Nicole the stripper, Ronnie the bitter flight attendant.
The stories are strong - a couple are eloping, Ronnie is hoping to get a new job, she forms a relationship with a mystery passenger Micah (I love how the staff came up with fantasy pasts for him). There's some great running gags with superb pay offs - Artem bets on everything, Dave wants to be a hero.
I did wonder if the series had "legs" ie would we get sick of being on a plane all this time? The novelty did give it freshness though and the script was brilliant.
The lead characters are all very clearly defined and differentiated - Dave the big kid pilot, Artem the gambler, Nicole the stripper, Ronnie the bitter flight attendant.
The stories are strong - a couple are eloping, Ronnie is hoping to get a new job, she forms a relationship with a mystery passenger Micah (I love how the staff came up with fantasy pasts for him). There's some great running gags with superb pay offs - Artem bets on everything, Dave wants to be a hero.
I did wonder if the series had "legs" ie would we get sick of being on a plane all this time? The novelty did give it freshness though and the script was brilliant.
Friday, February 02, 2018
Movie review - "The Mountain of the Cannibal God" (1978) ** (spoilers)
I'd never seen an Italian cannibal movie - apparently there's enough for form a sub-genre - and only watched this because of Ursula Andress. It surprised me - no classic, a lot of it was off putting, but it did consistently surprise me.
It benefitted from location filming - the jungles and rivers are real, the actors are there, and it looks great. It also has two Hollywood names - Andress and Stacy Keach.
The plot is a riff on King Solomon's Mines with Andress and her brother Antonio Marsina going on an expedition with professor Stacy Keach to find Andress' missing husband. Explorer Claudio Cassinelli goes along.
The first half of this seemed fairly straight forward - a traipse through the jungle, battling the elements, with Marsina being a brat and Andress making eyes at Cassinelli. I was surprised why they had Keach and Cassinelli in the film. There was lots of footage of animals being killed, which I understand was a thing from exploitation Italian films of the time.
It gets weirder and weirder - a woman sleeps with Marsina and is stabbed by a cannibal, Keach dies at a waterfall (a real shock), they stumble upon a cannibal lair. The husband is dead with a geiger counter that's being worshipped by the cannibals; they kill and east Marsina, and strip Andress and oil her up and start shoving lizars into Marsina. Some natives have sex and masturbate, and one has sex with a pig, and someone gets their dick cut off and it all gets pretty wild and Andress and Cassinelli escapes.
It's bizarre and weird and certainly not what I was expecting.
It benefitted from location filming - the jungles and rivers are real, the actors are there, and it looks great. It also has two Hollywood names - Andress and Stacy Keach.
The plot is a riff on King Solomon's Mines with Andress and her brother Antonio Marsina going on an expedition with professor Stacy Keach to find Andress' missing husband. Explorer Claudio Cassinelli goes along.
The first half of this seemed fairly straight forward - a traipse through the jungle, battling the elements, with Marsina being a brat and Andress making eyes at Cassinelli. I was surprised why they had Keach and Cassinelli in the film. There was lots of footage of animals being killed, which I understand was a thing from exploitation Italian films of the time.
It gets weirder and weirder - a woman sleeps with Marsina and is stabbed by a cannibal, Keach dies at a waterfall (a real shock), they stumble upon a cannibal lair. The husband is dead with a geiger counter that's being worshipped by the cannibals; they kill and east Marsina, and strip Andress and oil her up and start shoving lizars into Marsina. Some natives have sex and masturbate, and one has sex with a pig, and someone gets their dick cut off and it all gets pretty wild and Andress and Cassinelli escapes.
It's bizarre and weird and certainly not what I was expecting.
Script review - "Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl" by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio
Johnny Depp gets all the credit for the success of this franchise, and he brought a hell of a lot - but you know what? There are other actors who could've played the part: Robert Downey Jnr, Eric Roberts, Bruce Campbell. The part is so well written and clear.
It's a bright, fun, lively movie - simple to follow though it has some complexity (I got lost occasionally with the rules of the curse though it did all make sense). Will and Elizabeth are a bit dull but they kind of have to be so everyone else can shine. There's no real great romantic scene between them - there's more heat between her and Jack Sparrow. But a very good script with lively support characters and a believable world.
It's a bright, fun, lively movie - simple to follow though it has some complexity (I got lost occasionally with the rules of the curse though it did all make sense). Will and Elizabeth are a bit dull but they kind of have to be so everyone else can shine. There's no real great romantic scene between them - there's more heat between her and Jack Sparrow. But a very good script with lively support characters and a believable world.
Movie review - "Frankenstein's Daughter" (1958) *
The sort of film you want to love because it's old and crappy and is so clearly hoping to make money for as little money as possible. There's John Ashley, at the time an AIP star, though this clearly costs less than that, Harold Lloyd Jnr and some old character actors.
But it's a bad movie. It's sloppy - not exciting, with medicore make up. It keeps changing focus.
The central idea is promising - a girl turns into a monster and goes around tormenting people. That's a good idea, especially as the girl doesn't know she's doing it... it worked a treat in I Was a Teenager Werewolf which I thought this was going to rip off. But then the film throws in a second monster, a scarier one - the real threat. Which is cheating, confusing and pointless - and robs the piece of any real point.
But it's a bad movie. It's sloppy - not exciting, with medicore make up. It keeps changing focus.
The central idea is promising - a girl turns into a monster and goes around tormenting people. That's a good idea, especially as the girl doesn't know she's doing it... it worked a treat in I Was a Teenager Werewolf which I thought this was going to rip off. But then the film throws in a second monster, a scarier one - the real threat. Which is cheating, confusing and pointless - and robs the piece of any real point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)