I remember watching the trailer for this going "is that all there is?" when they pitched the concept. Sure I buy Kate Hudson as a party girl but she seems nice and a natural mum so the thought of her being saddled with kids doesn't make me go "oh that sounds fun"... I think "oh she'll do a great job". There's no instant Uncle Buck style leaps.
Maybe there could have been if Hudson had played a real trashbag, a recovering alcoholic or something but she's just nice. It doesn't help that she isn't given a trashy friend or someone.
I get they tried to make things different by making John Corbett a man of God but he's no threat either. Just helpful.
The acting is good as usual in Gary Marshall film - there's Hayden Panettiere and Abigail Breslin among the kids.
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Movie review - "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" (1964) **
Unfairly bagged in some smart arse books as one of the worst films of all time, this is a colorful, daggy film which admittedly contains some bad child actors but delivers on the promise of its title, and has a solid story: some Martian kids are envious of Christmas so Martians kidnap Santa and two kids. Santa goes to Mars, where he becomes involved in a power struggle. There's a villain, allies, all that.
Some of the acting is terrible - notably the two little earth kids. Pia Zadora looks scared. The adults are hammy but in a right way. It's bright and loud and probably should have been done as a pantomine, but the worst film in the world? Not even close.
Some of the acting is terrible - notably the two little earth kids. Pia Zadora looks scared. The adults are hammy but in a right way. It's bright and loud and probably should have been done as a pantomine, but the worst film in the world? Not even close.
Movie review - "Central Intelligence" (2016) ***
The spirit of 1980s buddy comedies lives on in the films of Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson so it's entirely appropriate they're teamed in this high concept flick. Dwayne was a nerd, Kevin the cool kid at high school... then years on Kevin becomes a nerd and Dwayne is a super spy.
It's a film that takes its time to tell the story (not a criticism), and relies on the chemistry of its stars which is considerable. I missed a love subplot though guess it was different to make it a comedy of remarriage. When Melissa McCarthy popped up I did want her involved in the whole thing. I liked Jason Bateman's turn as a bully. Amy Ryan felt undercast.
It's a film that takes its time to tell the story (not a criticism), and relies on the chemistry of its stars which is considerable. I missed a love subplot though guess it was different to make it a comedy of remarriage. When Melissa McCarthy popped up I did want her involved in the whole thing. I liked Jason Bateman's turn as a bully. Amy Ryan felt undercast.
Movie review - "Spectral" (2016) **
Okay knock off of Aliens which could have used closer study of how that film did it - here it's hard to tell characters apart, they don't seem to have any relationships, there's no human villain we can attach, no decent twists, the sense of the world isn't as strong.
It has some good production values - it looks expensive - and actors, and the action scenes are quite well done. It lacks star power - James Dale and Emily Mortimer don't even have say Dolph Lungren/Tanya Roberts class (probably better actors though). Max Martini and Bruce Greenwood are always good in this kind of film. But honestly I'm wondering why they made it.
It has some good production values - it looks expensive - and actors, and the action scenes are quite well done. It lacks star power - James Dale and Emily Mortimer don't even have say Dolph Lungren/Tanya Roberts class (probably better actors though). Max Martini and Bruce Greenwood are always good in this kind of film. But honestly I'm wondering why they made it.
Script review - "One Shot" by Chris McQuarrie
I actually like this more than the film - even though the film is basically the script. Maybe I needed to see it on the big screen. It's an excellent tough noir, with solid plotting, well spaced out. Maybe the characterisations lack spark - the woman is feisty, the young girl hot, the DA tough. The Zec and Reacher are good characters though.
It's extremely well written. I feel that if this had been made on a smaller budget with a different star people would be hailing it as a minor neo noir classic.
It's extremely well written. I feel that if this had been made on a smaller budget with a different star people would be hailing it as a minor neo noir classic.
Movie review - "Journey to the Centre of the Earth" (2008) **1/2
Enjoyable family film which doesn't have the magic of the 1959 version - it lacks another character or two and doesn't have the same atmosphere - but has it's own goofy charm.
It's helped by engaging lead performances from Brendan Fraser (big and clunky and affable... a little like a young Ronald Reagan!) and the girl and boy. The film has a bright spirit - it moves fast and is cheerful.
It lacks stakes. And is sometimes too silly for it's own good eg being able to get mobile reception down there (something which is used for a gag). There's no villain, or extra complication. Another creature or two with personality may have helped. But it's okay.
It's helped by engaging lead performances from Brendan Fraser (big and clunky and affable... a little like a young Ronald Reagan!) and the girl and boy. The film has a bright spirit - it moves fast and is cheerful.
It lacks stakes. And is sometimes too silly for it's own good eg being able to get mobile reception down there (something which is used for a gag). There's no villain, or extra complication. Another creature or two with personality may have helped. But it's okay.
TV review - "Star Trek" - Season 1 ep 4 ""Where No Man Has Ever Gone Before" (1966) ***
The second pilot is a good ep - Shatner is much better than Hunter, warm and energetic, and they have the bright idea of focusing on his relationship with Spock (there's no McCoy here). Strong story about crew members being possessed - first Gary Lockwood, and then shrink Sally Kellerman (another decent female role). These two give good performances.
There's some action, a moral question, wacky eye make up. It's good stuff.
There's some action, a moral question, wacky eye make up. It's good stuff.
Saturday, July 28, 2018
Movie review - "Mission Impossible: Fall Out" (2018) **** (warning: spoilers)
A really nice surprise - I"m not a fan of this series but it feels as though Chris McQuarrie has really flowered as a filmmaker. Or make I needed to see Rogue Nation on the big screen.
It's a noir-ish smart take - the vibe I got was it was like William Goldman in Marathon Man mode. There's lots of reversals and clever bits though basically the story is easy to follow with two mcguffins, some plutonium and the captured villain from the previous film. That bloke annoyed me in that film - I didn't mind him here and I liked Rebecca Ferguson for the first time.
Simon Pegg seems really skinny as if he's given up sugar. Ving Rhames looks heavy like he should give up sugar. I like how they bring back Michelle Monahan (she gives some much needed warmth) and Wes Bentley was good casting as her husband because he's got the same crazy eyes as young Tom Cruise so it makes sense she would marry him. Alec Baldwin still is a bit too camp but Angela Bassett was perfect as the head of the CIA. Henry Cavill has some great moments - he's big and thick and so contrasts interestingly with Cruiser; they shouldn't give him too much dialogue though. My favourite was Vanessa Kirby she was great fun - I love how she leaps and kisses Cruise - she's like this caged panther and I'm glad they didn't kill her.
As for Cruiser himself... he's getting on and his face seems weirdly young (no lines or anything) but he's still energetic. And there's something touching about this star who's been around so long throwing himself off planes and cliffs etc trying to stay relevant - like Ethan Hunt in a way.
The last act felt like one too many though the last act was good. I wasn't wild how they had a chance to capture both villains and did capture them but let them get away.
Some breathtaking sequences like jumping out of a plane done via long take, then getting into a party, and the chase scenes... actually it's all well done. The second best in the series - still feel Ghost Protocol is better.
It's a noir-ish smart take - the vibe I got was it was like William Goldman in Marathon Man mode. There's lots of reversals and clever bits though basically the story is easy to follow with two mcguffins, some plutonium and the captured villain from the previous film. That bloke annoyed me in that film - I didn't mind him here and I liked Rebecca Ferguson for the first time.
Simon Pegg seems really skinny as if he's given up sugar. Ving Rhames looks heavy like he should give up sugar. I like how they bring back Michelle Monahan (she gives some much needed warmth) and Wes Bentley was good casting as her husband because he's got the same crazy eyes as young Tom Cruise so it makes sense she would marry him. Alec Baldwin still is a bit too camp but Angela Bassett was perfect as the head of the CIA. Henry Cavill has some great moments - he's big and thick and so contrasts interestingly with Cruiser; they shouldn't give him too much dialogue though. My favourite was Vanessa Kirby she was great fun - I love how she leaps and kisses Cruise - she's like this caged panther and I'm glad they didn't kill her.
As for Cruiser himself... he's getting on and his face seems weirdly young (no lines or anything) but he's still energetic. And there's something touching about this star who's been around so long throwing himself off planes and cliffs etc trying to stay relevant - like Ethan Hunt in a way.
The last act felt like one too many though the last act was good. I wasn't wild how they had a chance to capture both villains and did capture them but let them get away.
Some breathtaking sequences like jumping out of a plane done via long take, then getting into a party, and the chase scenes... actually it's all well done. The second best in the series - still feel Ghost Protocol is better.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
TV review - "Star Trek ep 2 - "Charlie X" (1966) ***
A really good episode, anchored by a very strong performance by Robert Walker as a strange kid picked up off the planet. He has weird powers and starts hitting on a crew member Janice Rand - it's quite a good ep on the issue of creepy stalkers.
There's camp factor with a shirtless Kirk wearing tights teaching Charlie/Walker how to fight. Spock gets beaten up. Uhura sings at a cafe. Ah, the 60s... But a strong episode.
There's camp factor with a shirtless Kirk wearing tights teaching Charlie/Walker how to fight. Spock gets beaten up. Uhura sings at a cafe. Ah, the 60s... But a strong episode.
TV series - "Star Trek" - "The Cage" (1966) **
The original pilot for the classic series is of interest to see how it differentiates from what became famous. There is Spock but none of the other crew - however there is a crew. Instead of Kirk there's Captain Pike, played by Jeffrey Hunter, who supposedly turned the role down in a decision that in hindsight can be seen to be a major mistake.
I think Hunter would've been absolutely fine - he wasn't as talented as William Shatner and lacked the intensity and humour, but he had his own conviction.
It's a good solid story with imagination - Pike winds up on a planet where aliens want him to breed with a hot blonde. It does dip in the middle - there's a strong start with Pike and the others going on the planet and meeting the mysterious women, and the aliens, etc, but it gets bogged down with too much chat. I can see why executives were wary of this.
All the raw material is there though - it just needed finessing, which they did. More character interaction among the leads, more dramatisation of the themes, etc.
There's two women officers on the ship but their characters are disappointingly sketchy (one is a bit cold which has promise). There's too much Pike to be honest - maybe Gene Rodenberry was hedging his bets making it a solo vehicle. At least it's smart.
I think Hunter would've been absolutely fine - he wasn't as talented as William Shatner and lacked the intensity and humour, but he had his own conviction.
It's a good solid story with imagination - Pike winds up on a planet where aliens want him to breed with a hot blonde. It does dip in the middle - there's a strong start with Pike and the others going on the planet and meeting the mysterious women, and the aliens, etc, but it gets bogged down with too much chat. I can see why executives were wary of this.
All the raw material is there though - it just needed finessing, which they did. More character interaction among the leads, more dramatisation of the themes, etc.
There's two women officers on the ship but their characters are disappointingly sketchy (one is a bit cold which has promise). There's too much Pike to be honest - maybe Gene Rodenberry was hedging his bets making it a solo vehicle. At least it's smart.
TV review - "Star Trek" ep 1 "Man Trap" (1966) **1/2
The first episode broadcast wasn't the first made - they picked this apparently because it had a relatively easy to follow horror plot: a killer creature goes on board and creates havoc. It's a little like The Thing because it can take over people - in this case a woman who was an ex of McCoy.
The episode does show the camaraderie between Kirk, Spock and McCoy which became crucial to the show's success. None of this was in "The Cage". Shatner is much much better than Jeff Hunter - more dynamic, warmer, more humorous.
There's some camp comedy with Spock smacking around a woman (but it's okay because she's really a monster). We also meet our first "red shirt" - in this case a blue shirt, who is killed.
The episode does show the camaraderie between Kirk, Spock and McCoy which became crucial to the show's success. None of this was in "The Cage". Shatner is much much better than Jeff Hunter - more dynamic, warmer, more humorous.
There's some camp comedy with Spock smacking around a woman (but it's okay because she's really a monster). We also meet our first "red shirt" - in this case a blue shirt, who is killed.
Friday, July 20, 2018
Movie review - "Jack Reacher" (2012) ***
I've never read the novels but based on this I think I can get what they were going for - a kind of noir, 40s/50s B movie feel - I kept thinking Robert Mitchum would have been ideal. Or Sterling Hayden or even say Randolph Scott or James Stewart.
But instead they've got Tom Cruise who is professional and is a fine actor but simply feels miscast. You don't believe him as an ex soldier or drifter. Actually I'm not sure what you believe Cruise as any more - his speciality used to be a fresh faced dude. Now he's in great shape but still old. He doesn't have his old spark. He's just kind of... nothing. And that matters in this sort of film because it's such a star vehicle.
Rosamund Pike isn't that memorable as the female lead - neither is Jai Courtney. But Werner Herzog and Robert Duvall are spot in, as is Richard Jenkins. The story isn't bad.There were unpleasant moments, like lingering over the death of a woman.
Who could've played Jack Reacher better in the style in which Chris McQuarrie presents him? Russell Crowe maybe? George Clooney? Jaimee Foxx? Denzel, Daniel Craig.. they all could've gotten it.
I didn't mind the story - though I felt it's natural home these days would be as a HBO series of TV movies. Some decent action including a car chase.
But instead they've got Tom Cruise who is professional and is a fine actor but simply feels miscast. You don't believe him as an ex soldier or drifter. Actually I'm not sure what you believe Cruise as any more - his speciality used to be a fresh faced dude. Now he's in great shape but still old. He doesn't have his old spark. He's just kind of... nothing. And that matters in this sort of film because it's such a star vehicle.
Rosamund Pike isn't that memorable as the female lead - neither is Jai Courtney. But Werner Herzog and Robert Duvall are spot in, as is Richard Jenkins. The story isn't bad.There were unpleasant moments, like lingering over the death of a woman.
Who could've played Jack Reacher better in the style in which Chris McQuarrie presents him? Russell Crowe maybe? George Clooney? Jaimee Foxx? Denzel, Daniel Craig.. they all could've gotten it.
I didn't mind the story - though I felt it's natural home these days would be as a HBO series of TV movies. Some decent action including a car chase.
Monday, July 16, 2018
Movie review - "Justice League" (2017) **
The movie gets off to a wonky start with Superman talking to camera - not a bad idea itself but he's got this wonky face thing happening which I gather was because the CGI'd out the actor's beard. Then it gets worse with a cover version of "Everybody Knows" which smells of try hard cool for trailers, and a silly slow mo sequence of a fat bald man smashing up a store which I think is meant to show disintegration of society.
The film doesn't work. It feels just silly - Wonder Woman and Batman and Aquaman. I didn't buy that they lived in the same world and knew each other. It was tired and uninvolving.
The villain was so dull - some creature who wants a box for world domination. No complexity, no shade. A bunch of Amazons get killed. Then underground people. I did worry for the Russian family. There's random terrorist attacks like the silly one led by the Game of Thrones guy who is beaten by Wonder Woman.
Ben Affleck looked tired. Jeremy Irons is miscast - I don't buy him as a servant; the lacks the warmth someone like Michael Caine or Billy Connolly would have brought to the role. Gai Gadot tries but struggles without a decent emotive plot like rebelling against her family or falling in love or clashing with the new world. Amy Adams feels wasted. Diane Lane looks wasted.
Ezra Miller is lively as the Flash - he at least has a clear relationship with the others, clingy with Batman, a crush on Wonder Woman, bewildered by Acquaman. I wasn't sure how Batman felt about anyone. I guess it was cool Acquaman mocked Batman - the film could've used more of this interpersonal stuff. But he kind of stuck out in the group. Jason Moama is okay in the role - his character feels weird.
Ray Fisher isn't very good as Cyborg but he had the best character - a teenager moody and lonely because he was half machine. That's a great emotional core around which to build a film - surely he would be more annoyed at dad (Joe Morton)? But he doesn't get enough screen time.
A film that tries to do too much and none of it well.
The film doesn't work. It feels just silly - Wonder Woman and Batman and Aquaman. I didn't buy that they lived in the same world and knew each other. It was tired and uninvolving.
The villain was so dull - some creature who wants a box for world domination. No complexity, no shade. A bunch of Amazons get killed. Then underground people. I did worry for the Russian family. There's random terrorist attacks like the silly one led by the Game of Thrones guy who is beaten by Wonder Woman.
Ben Affleck looked tired. Jeremy Irons is miscast - I don't buy him as a servant; the lacks the warmth someone like Michael Caine or Billy Connolly would have brought to the role. Gai Gadot tries but struggles without a decent emotive plot like rebelling against her family or falling in love or clashing with the new world. Amy Adams feels wasted. Diane Lane looks wasted.
Ezra Miller is lively as the Flash - he at least has a clear relationship with the others, clingy with Batman, a crush on Wonder Woman, bewildered by Acquaman. I wasn't sure how Batman felt about anyone. I guess it was cool Acquaman mocked Batman - the film could've used more of this interpersonal stuff. But he kind of stuck out in the group. Jason Moama is okay in the role - his character feels weird.
Ray Fisher isn't very good as Cyborg but he had the best character - a teenager moody and lonely because he was half machine. That's a great emotional core around which to build a film - surely he would be more annoyed at dad (Joe Morton)? But he doesn't get enough screen time.
A film that tries to do too much and none of it well.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Movie review - "Dr Strange" (2016) **1/2
Solid Marvel entry benefits from a strong origin story - brilliant surgeon gets injured and becomes super hero - an ideal star in Benedict Cumberbatch, and excellent support cast including Rachel McAdams and Tilda Swinton.
Cumberbatch goes off to a mystical land and learns super powers - you'll feel as though you've seen it before. The ending, with Strange using a time loop, was quite clever. There's plenty of spectacle and color. It's hard to care as the film went on. The cast are very likeable but it's noisy rather than moving.
Cumberbatch goes off to a mystical land and learns super powers - you'll feel as though you've seen it before. The ending, with Strange using a time loop, was quite clever. There's plenty of spectacle and color. It's hard to care as the film went on. The cast are very likeable but it's noisy rather than moving.
Movie review - "Ready Player One" (2018) **
I wanted to like this, I did. I'm trying not to be a grumpy old man. Is it because I'm old? Would I simply have not liked this if I was twelve.
There are some good bits - the visuals are amazing and clever. Some of the action scenes, the ones where you're in a video game, are very good. The effects people did an excellent job. I liked the nuttiness of The Shining sequence.
But I didn't like it. The future the film is set in is depressing - full of grime and slums and everyone is desperate for escape by playing video games. Instead of improving water or jobs or life (or even just good old fashioned over throwing an evil government) the stakes are about ensuring access to the main game people play - and that an Evil Corporation don't take it over and... charge money.
Spielberg seems to struggle to get the tone right - it's as if he's second guessing himself as director. I got confused by the pop culture stuff - it was meant to be stuff that inspired Mark Rylance, right? But it was such a grab bag of stuff - music and The Shining and so on. It didn't feel as though it had any thematic consistency (maybe I'm missing something).
The heroes were depressing - kids who play video games all day and are obsessed with the Steve Jobs like guy played by Rylance who was a nerdy idiot. And really, no one else figured out clues.
I wasn't wild about the acting. Tye Sheridan was annoying; they throw in an overacting aunt and her lover who beats up Sheridan. Mark Rylance's performance was ticks and wigs and gestures. Simon Pegg doesn't save the day. Ben Mendhelson does okay in bits but Hannah John Kamen goes over the top and when she and Mendo get together it all gets silly and campy. I did like the other kids, such as Olivia Cooke (she's flawed! she has a birthmark!)
It was just kind of depression. Poor script with endless narration, insufficient dramatisation.
There are some good bits - the visuals are amazing and clever. Some of the action scenes, the ones where you're in a video game, are very good. The effects people did an excellent job. I liked the nuttiness of The Shining sequence.
But I didn't like it. The future the film is set in is depressing - full of grime and slums and everyone is desperate for escape by playing video games. Instead of improving water or jobs or life (or even just good old fashioned over throwing an evil government) the stakes are about ensuring access to the main game people play - and that an Evil Corporation don't take it over and... charge money.
Spielberg seems to struggle to get the tone right - it's as if he's second guessing himself as director. I got confused by the pop culture stuff - it was meant to be stuff that inspired Mark Rylance, right? But it was such a grab bag of stuff - music and The Shining and so on. It didn't feel as though it had any thematic consistency (maybe I'm missing something).
The heroes were depressing - kids who play video games all day and are obsessed with the Steve Jobs like guy played by Rylance who was a nerdy idiot. And really, no one else figured out clues.
I wasn't wild about the acting. Tye Sheridan was annoying; they throw in an overacting aunt and her lover who beats up Sheridan. Mark Rylance's performance was ticks and wigs and gestures. Simon Pegg doesn't save the day. Ben Mendhelson does okay in bits but Hannah John Kamen goes over the top and when she and Mendo get together it all gets silly and campy. I did like the other kids, such as Olivia Cooke (she's flawed! she has a birthmark!)
It was just kind of depression. Poor script with endless narration, insufficient dramatisation.
Book review - "Five Weeks in a Balloon" by Jules Verne (1863)
Verne's first hit novel hasn't aged as well as his other classics, though it has some good bits. There's three characters - Dr Ferguson, Dick Kennedy and Kennedy's black servant Joe... who is admittedly a "yes massa" type but also gets to be heroic.
The basic plot is travelling over Africa in a balloon - but there are some lively set pieces: rescuing a missionary, Joe getting sucked down by quicksand, a missionary is rescued, Joe is rescued. There's lots of description of the places they travel and the balloon - this quasi-documentary approach (for lac of a better term) I think sold the piece as more realistic to viewers.
So some good bits but not that good.
The basic plot is travelling over Africa in a balloon - but there are some lively set pieces: rescuing a missionary, Joe getting sucked down by quicksand, a missionary is rescued, Joe is rescued. There's lots of description of the places they travel and the balloon - this quasi-documentary approach (for lac of a better term) I think sold the piece as more realistic to viewers.
So some good bits but not that good.
Sunday, July 01, 2018
Movie review - "Dark Mountain" (1944) **1/2
This starts off with stock footage of burning forests and I thought it would be a typical Pine Thomas flick set in the world of a macho profession - to wit, working as a forest ranger and involve fire fighting. But it isn't really.
It is about two men in love with the one girl, their favourite story - here played by Robert Lowery (not a bad leading man, stepping in for Richard Arlen presumably) and Regis Toomey (replacing Chester Morris) and Ellen Drew (stepping in for Jean Parker presumably).
The difference here is the girl has married one of the guys - Toomey. But it's okay because Toomey is involved in criminal activity and has killed some people (including Elisha Cook Jnr!). So he goes on the run and most of the film's running time - the entire second half really - consists of Drew helping Toomey hide, Lowery helping Drew thinking she's alone and not noticing Toomey is hiding in the next room.
So this is more an "on the lam" type movie. (To save money? A lot of scenes of just two-three people in a room).
It's not bad - the acting is professional and the acting brisk. I thought the climax would be more forest-y but is really just a car driving fast down a road. The film ducks drama in a few places - no final fight between Lowery and Toomey, Drew kind of goes along with what Toomey does and changes sides out of opportunism than anything else (felt she needed to be more active) and I was surprised gangsters didn't go after Toomey at the end - that would've been a good complication.
Anyway, it was fine.
It is about two men in love with the one girl, their favourite story - here played by Robert Lowery (not a bad leading man, stepping in for Richard Arlen presumably) and Regis Toomey (replacing Chester Morris) and Ellen Drew (stepping in for Jean Parker presumably).
The difference here is the girl has married one of the guys - Toomey. But it's okay because Toomey is involved in criminal activity and has killed some people (including Elisha Cook Jnr!). So he goes on the run and most of the film's running time - the entire second half really - consists of Drew helping Toomey hide, Lowery helping Drew thinking she's alone and not noticing Toomey is hiding in the next room.
So this is more an "on the lam" type movie. (To save money? A lot of scenes of just two-three people in a room).
It's not bad - the acting is professional and the acting brisk. I thought the climax would be more forest-y but is really just a car driving fast down a road. The film ducks drama in a few places - no final fight between Lowery and Toomey, Drew kind of goes along with what Toomey does and changes sides out of opportunism than anything else (felt she needed to be more active) and I was surprised gangsters didn't go after Toomey at the end - that would've been a good complication.
Anyway, it was fine.
Thoughts on Ralph Meeker
Ralph Meeker isn't a very well known name to buffs today unless you're a fan of Kiss Me Deadly. At one stage though he had a real buzz around him - he replaced Brando on stage in Streetcar Named Desire, and had a key role in Mr Roberts on Broadway as well as the lead role in Picnic (with Paul Newman supporting him).
Why did never become a star?
He was a burly tough guy in a decade when that was a plus. Other Brand replacements, Jack Palance and Anthony Quinn, became famous. Meeker's Picnic co star Paul Newman became famous.
Why not Meeker?
Well, they did try - MGM hired him to a contract in the early 50s. His starring vehicles did not perform well (unlike say Palance who got lucky with Sudden Fear and Shane right off the bat).
Maybe he was difficult, but I've got no proof of that.
I also think maybe he lacked a certain... affability. He seemed mean. He never had say Brando's or Newman's on screen gentleness. Maybe he could've and I haven't seen it. Maybe it was just role selection. Too many guest shots on TV not enough solid directors.
But it is a puzzle. He has his fans - Quentin Tarantino liked that Aldo Ray/Meeker/Brian Keith type. But Meeker's career never seemed to hit even Aldo Ray heights.
Anyway, still, made some great movies - anyone would be happy to have Kiss Me Deadly and Paths of Glory on their resume.
Why did never become a star?
He was a burly tough guy in a decade when that was a plus. Other Brand replacements, Jack Palance and Anthony Quinn, became famous. Meeker's Picnic co star Paul Newman became famous.
Why not Meeker?
Well, they did try - MGM hired him to a contract in the early 50s. His starring vehicles did not perform well (unlike say Palance who got lucky with Sudden Fear and Shane right off the bat).
Maybe he was difficult, but I've got no proof of that.
I also think maybe he lacked a certain... affability. He seemed mean. He never had say Brando's or Newman's on screen gentleness. Maybe he could've and I haven't seen it. Maybe it was just role selection. Too many guest shots on TV not enough solid directors.
But it is a puzzle. He has his fans - Quentin Tarantino liked that Aldo Ray/Meeker/Brian Keith type. But Meeker's career never seemed to hit even Aldo Ray heights.
Anyway, still, made some great movies - anyone would be happy to have Kiss Me Deadly and Paths of Glory on their resume.
Movie review - "Tropic Zone" (1953) ***
Bright, colourful "south of the border" banana plantation film in the mode of Torrid Zone. Try to put aside thoughts of what the United Fruit Corporation got up to and enjoy Rhonda Fleming have one of her best roles and give one of her best performances as a woman who inherits a banana plantation and goes for lots of swims and showers (I guess it is the tropics).
Ronald Reagan isn't exactly the ideal Mr Hard-bitten Adventurer in the third world - too affable - but the affability has its pleasures and he and Fleming make an excellent team; they have real camaraderie and chemistry. At first I thought it seemed a little suss Reagan couldn't get it up for the hot local who wanted him (Estelita) but he does seem to like Fleming.
For the most part this was enjoyable - lots of color and movement and shady characters hanging out in bars. Noah Beery has the third lead as an alcoholic and there's a surprising number of song and dance numbers from Estelita. It slows down towards the end when it really should speed up and there's too many scenes of rallying extras. But I didn't mind it.
There's some extra fun too in having Reagan play a character on the run from the political rulers of another country, and having to whip up the local natives to help them serve the interests of an American fruit company.
Ronald Reagan isn't exactly the ideal Mr Hard-bitten Adventurer in the third world - too affable - but the affability has its pleasures and he and Fleming make an excellent team; they have real camaraderie and chemistry. At first I thought it seemed a little suss Reagan couldn't get it up for the hot local who wanted him (Estelita) but he does seem to like Fleming.
For the most part this was enjoyable - lots of color and movement and shady characters hanging out in bars. Noah Beery has the third lead as an alcoholic and there's a surprising number of song and dance numbers from Estelita. It slows down towards the end when it really should speed up and there's too many scenes of rallying extras. But I didn't mind it.
There's some extra fun too in having Reagan play a character on the run from the political rulers of another country, and having to whip up the local natives to help them serve the interests of an American fruit company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)