I've always liked Meyer since reading an interview with him in a book of screenwriting interviews - he came across as smart and down to earth with a relatively high brow (for Hollywood) group of credits: the good Star Trek movies, Time After Time, Sommersby, The Seven Percent Solution, The Human Stain.
His rise was relatively rapid though like all Hollywood memoirists he's keen to paint himself as an underdog -he went to a midwest college, was a film critic, got a job working as publicity for Paramount, wrote a book about the making of Love Story which financed a move to Los Angeles, got his first screen credit with Invasion of the Bee Girls, did some TV movies, wrote a novel during the Writers Guild strike that became a best seller which was filmed, became a director with Time After Time, moved into Star Trek land and also directed the TV classic The Day After.
There's plenty of Star Trek stuff in here - Meyer's no dummy, he knows who the key audience is. The making of these movies was remarkably confrontational - Gene Rodenberry whinged from his death bed, Paramount politics, egos of Nimoy and Shatner, getting the tone and the story right while not being steeped in series lore. The lesser known Part 6 gets a guernsey which is good and he's nice about Star Trek The Motion Picture which is classy.
He doesn't neglect his other movies and books though - writing The Seven Percent Solution (leading to a little essay-ish bit on how to write a pastiche), writing and directing Time After Time, the difficulties of The Day After (a nightmare with a big personal pay off), directing Volunteers in Mexico and The Deceivers in India, his script doctoring of Fatal Attraction, the mess that was Company Business, writing Sommersby and The Human Stain (where he was rewritten by Robert Benton).
He is less forthcoming on the personal tragedies in his life - the death of his mother from ovarian cancer in her forties, the death of his wife from breast cancer just as young (which derailed his directing career) - though there is a marvelous anecdote of him and Pierce Brosnan having a widower lunch, both crying in grief, then being distracted by a large breasted woman walking past... that is a very male story.
There's interesting digressions on the nature of creativity, where ideas come from, and so on, as well as the general whingeing that Hollywood has gone to sh*t. Meyer is a fine writer and the book is a pleasure to read.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Book review - "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" by Eric Idle
My friends and I were Monty Python fanatics growing up - Eric Idle was always among everyone's top three of the group, along with Michael Palin and John Cleese (everyone recognised Terry Gilliam's directing skill and Graham Chapman's ability as a leading man but they weren't favourites and no one really was into Terry Jones). Idle was instantly likeable with his cockney (?) voice ("say no more, nudge nudge") and instantly funny face - he was a real strength in a group with few weaknesses. His specialty was song writing and he came up with classics notably "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life".
Python was something of a pop group - complete with adoring fans, break ups, constant pressures to reunite - and Idle was the most pop star like of them: paying his guitar, having numerous famous friends (notably George Harrison and Lorne Michaels but also Robin Williams, Steve Martin, Billy Connolly, Mike Nichols), jetting around the world on various exotic trips (down the Nile on John Cleese's yacht with Peter Cook, Stephen Fry and William Goldman among others, attending the Tour de France with Williams and Michael J Fox), swapping Python quotes with Elvis Presley. It's fun to be a celebrity.
Idle's life began with great tragedy - his RAF father was killed hitchiking in an accident on leave, sending his mother to a nervous breakdown; she shunted Idle off to a boarding school for RAF orphans which he hated (I can imagine what it was like) but he was smart, and got a scholarship to Cambridge. He fell in love with writing and performing and in what seems alarming rapidity started writing for TV shows for David Frost and the like, eventually being part of Monty Python. Idle was something of a lone hand in the group - Graham Chapman and John Cleese were one writing team, Terry Jones and Michael Palin the other - but he still fitted in brilliantly and became one of their most recogniseable faces, helped by the singing.
It was Idle who went "American" biggest and most of all, who seemed the least temperamental, who was most keen to get the band back together - Cleese and Jones were more temperamental, Chapman's life was more chaotic, Palin more seemingly focused on England while Gilliam was focused on movies. Idle moved to the US first of all and seems to have the most US credits (though Cleese may match him by now) - mostly small/supporting roles, though he had the lead in The Rutles which has become a major cult, starred in Nuns on the Run, and made a studio comedy, Splitting Heirs, and had a role in Suddenly Susan he doesn't write about here. He regained a bit of status with the huge success of Spamalot - I'm surprised he wasn't used for more musicals because his songs are very catchy. No doubt he tried. For the last twenty years his main gig seems to have been touring and performing.
This is a highly entertaining book packed full of fun stories - hanging out with Harrison and the light that makes it seem to be fun to be famous. Idle quotes a lot from his speeches rather than his sketches and songs - speeches about John Cleese and so on. There's probably too much about concerts and different productions of Spamalot - they were successful, we get it. I would have liked to have read more about the less successful ventures like Splitting Heirs. Still a great romp.
Python was something of a pop group - complete with adoring fans, break ups, constant pressures to reunite - and Idle was the most pop star like of them: paying his guitar, having numerous famous friends (notably George Harrison and Lorne Michaels but also Robin Williams, Steve Martin, Billy Connolly, Mike Nichols), jetting around the world on various exotic trips (down the Nile on John Cleese's yacht with Peter Cook, Stephen Fry and William Goldman among others, attending the Tour de France with Williams and Michael J Fox), swapping Python quotes with Elvis Presley. It's fun to be a celebrity.
Idle's life began with great tragedy - his RAF father was killed hitchiking in an accident on leave, sending his mother to a nervous breakdown; she shunted Idle off to a boarding school for RAF orphans which he hated (I can imagine what it was like) but he was smart, and got a scholarship to Cambridge. He fell in love with writing and performing and in what seems alarming rapidity started writing for TV shows for David Frost and the like, eventually being part of Monty Python. Idle was something of a lone hand in the group - Graham Chapman and John Cleese were one writing team, Terry Jones and Michael Palin the other - but he still fitted in brilliantly and became one of their most recogniseable faces, helped by the singing.
It was Idle who went "American" biggest and most of all, who seemed the least temperamental, who was most keen to get the band back together - Cleese and Jones were more temperamental, Chapman's life was more chaotic, Palin more seemingly focused on England while Gilliam was focused on movies. Idle moved to the US first of all and seems to have the most US credits (though Cleese may match him by now) - mostly small/supporting roles, though he had the lead in The Rutles which has become a major cult, starred in Nuns on the Run, and made a studio comedy, Splitting Heirs, and had a role in Suddenly Susan he doesn't write about here. He regained a bit of status with the huge success of Spamalot - I'm surprised he wasn't used for more musicals because his songs are very catchy. No doubt he tried. For the last twenty years his main gig seems to have been touring and performing.
This is a highly entertaining book packed full of fun stories - hanging out with Harrison and the light that makes it seem to be fun to be famous. Idle quotes a lot from his speeches rather than his sketches and songs - speeches about John Cleese and so on. There's probably too much about concerts and different productions of Spamalot - they were successful, we get it. I would have liked to have read more about the less successful ventures like Splitting Heirs. Still a great romp.
Book review - "Roy Huggins: Creator of Maverick, 77 Sunset Strip, the Fugitive and the Rockford Files" by Paul Green (2014)
Huggins is a legendary figure of US television - creator of Cheyenne, 77 Sunset Strip, The Fugitive, The Rockford Files, Run for Your Life. He did not have a lot to do with the actual running of some of these shows but he was part of reviving Hunter, worked on the second part of Rod Taylor's series Hong Kong, worked on Alias Smith and Jones, did a bunch of TV movies and mini series.
Huggins was an interesting character - he was a communist who avoided blacklisting by naming names, his first wife was so similar to him that they got divorced and both remarried people who serviced their dreams, he liked skin diving, he could be prickly (not hard at a time when TV was dominated by idiots), he often clashed with his stars but they needed him, he was a tough task master but good stuff resulted, he worked at Columbia in the 50s making B movies and they liked him, he was the father in law of Frank Price.
The book benefits from access to Huggins' unpublished memoirs and extensive interviews with people close to him like Price. I did feel some of the quotes could have been edited more.
Huggins was an interesting character - he was a communist who avoided blacklisting by naming names, his first wife was so similar to him that they got divorced and both remarried people who serviced their dreams, he liked skin diving, he could be prickly (not hard at a time when TV was dominated by idiots), he often clashed with his stars but they needed him, he was a tough task master but good stuff resulted, he worked at Columbia in the 50s making B movies and they liked him, he was the father in law of Frank Price.
The book benefits from access to Huggins' unpublished memoirs and extensive interviews with people close to him like Price. I did feel some of the quotes could have been edited more.
Book review - " Live From New York: The Complete, Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live as Told by Its Stars, Writers, and Guests" by James Andrew Miller & Tom Shales (revised edition 2015)
A revised edition which goes up to 2015 so includes people like Kirsten Wiig, Andy Saumberg, Bill Hader and Bobby Monyihan... but cuts out before the Trump presidency years when the show was reinvented and became central to the country's identity once more, in part because it was kind of like the voice of the opposition.
It's still a terrific read, full of bubbling personalities and funny stories - Bill Murray and Chevy Chase fighting backstage, clashes between Victoria Jackson and Jan Hooks how Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were the ones to really form a female power block, Chase's ability to annoy people. Jim Downey sounds like a bit of a misogynistic prick.
The book was perhaps over long - did we really need all the accounts of people deciding to leave (because when a show goes for over thirty years that happens a lot) and there was maybe too much on Lorne Michaels. Also there's lots of references to characters and sketches which will mean nothing to those in countries who don't get the show, like Australia. Still, this book is a classic.
It's still a terrific read, full of bubbling personalities and funny stories - Bill Murray and Chevy Chase fighting backstage, clashes between Victoria Jackson and Jan Hooks how Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were the ones to really form a female power block, Chase's ability to annoy people. Jim Downey sounds like a bit of a misogynistic prick.
The book was perhaps over long - did we really need all the accounts of people deciding to leave (because when a show goes for over thirty years that happens a lot) and there was maybe too much on Lorne Michaels. Also there's lots of references to characters and sketches which will mean nothing to those in countries who don't get the show, like Australia. Still, this book is a classic.
Book review - "Powerhouse: the Untold Story of CAA" by James Andrew Miller (2016)
Excellent oral history of CAA which succeeds in getting many key players on the record. Its big flaw is it becomes a lot less interesting once Ron Meyer and Mike Ovitz leave the agency - the ones who are left are super confident and all that but they aren't as colorful and their narrative arc isn't as interesting. I wasn't that fascinated with how CAA became involved in sports.
For me the gold stuff was in the ego clash between agents, leading to Ovtiz leaving, and how they helped films get made - Ovitz was particularly important in rejuvenating Martin Scorsese's career and did wonders for Tom Cruise and Barry Levinson in particularly. I didn't know Edgar Bronfman badly wanted CAA to run Universal (Ron Meyer was the one who ended up going).It was surprising and great to hear Bill Murray analyse CAA and his agents with such preciseness. Ron Meyer comes out of this very well but I think Ovitz comes out of it strongly too.
In hindsight you can see the seeds for the current WGA dispute - CAA gets bought out by TPG increasing the need to make money; also you can see why Me Too happened - these agencies are devoted to helping their clients you can imagine a little sexual harrassment getting swept under the carpet.
There's a lot of ego, hard work, dedication, personal narrative. There's occasionally some love for movies but I think everyone who worked at CAA just liked being part of the circus.
For me the gold stuff was in the ego clash between agents, leading to Ovtiz leaving, and how they helped films get made - Ovitz was particularly important in rejuvenating Martin Scorsese's career and did wonders for Tom Cruise and Barry Levinson in particularly. I didn't know Edgar Bronfman badly wanted CAA to run Universal (Ron Meyer was the one who ended up going).It was surprising and great to hear Bill Murray analyse CAA and his agents with such preciseness. Ron Meyer comes out of this very well but I think Ovitz comes out of it strongly too.
In hindsight you can see the seeds for the current WGA dispute - CAA gets bought out by TPG increasing the need to make money; also you can see why Me Too happened - these agencies are devoted to helping their clients you can imagine a little sexual harrassment getting swept under the carpet.
There's a lot of ego, hard work, dedication, personal narrative. There's occasionally some love for movies but I think everyone who worked at CAA just liked being part of the circus.
Book review - "Me" by Elton John (2019)
Cheerful, highly readable memoir from one of the world's most beloved pop stars. John's career is astonishing in its length and width - after thirty years at the game he was still turning out hits. Reading this can give you an idea why - he follows his passions, he always tries to be honest (which has gotten him into trouble but helps him survive long term), he's had one of the great collaborations in songwriting history with Bernie Taupin but is always open to collaborating with new artists (George Michael, Lady Ga Ga), he has a strong constitution and work ethic.
The book reads like it was from someone who went through a lot of therapy - his feelings about his RAF dad, and his mother (who turned on him increasingly as life went on), his various co workers. I admit I didn't find the stuff about his childhood that gripping but I loved it once he became famous which took about seven years though he started very young.
The most fun is the section on the seventies - all the cocaine, sex (to which John came to late in life but he made up for it; he used to lure men to his pool room and seduce them with coke but mostly participate as voyeur), extravagance, love (he was engaged to a woman, he would fall for straight men repeatedly), all his famous friends (Keith Moon, Ringo Starr). The eighties stuff is fun too - still more cocaine, reinventing himself as a musician, a disastrous love life (he married a woman... it lasted several years). He doesn't mention befriending the 1986-87 Ashes tourists but credits his ownership of a football club to helping him survive his cocaine addiction. He gets his act together in the nineties and the book is less fun though still interesting as he finds love, has kids, conquers Broadway etc.
Full of great anecdotes - Richard Gere and Sylvester Stallone alpha-chesting over Princess Diana, the press didn't care when he came out as bisexual but was obsessed with his hair transplant (they only let up when he got a wig), he wet himself live on stage in a nappy while recovering from prostate cancer, he clashed with Tina Turner (too temperamental) and Billy Joel (too drunk). A grand read.
The book reads like it was from someone who went through a lot of therapy - his feelings about his RAF dad, and his mother (who turned on him increasingly as life went on), his various co workers. I admit I didn't find the stuff about his childhood that gripping but I loved it once he became famous which took about seven years though he started very young.
The most fun is the section on the seventies - all the cocaine, sex (to which John came to late in life but he made up for it; he used to lure men to his pool room and seduce them with coke but mostly participate as voyeur), extravagance, love (he was engaged to a woman, he would fall for straight men repeatedly), all his famous friends (Keith Moon, Ringo Starr). The eighties stuff is fun too - still more cocaine, reinventing himself as a musician, a disastrous love life (he married a woman... it lasted several years). He doesn't mention befriending the 1986-87 Ashes tourists but credits his ownership of a football club to helping him survive his cocaine addiction. He gets his act together in the nineties and the book is less fun though still interesting as he finds love, has kids, conquers Broadway etc.
Full of great anecdotes - Richard Gere and Sylvester Stallone alpha-chesting over Princess Diana, the press didn't care when he came out as bisexual but was obsessed with his hair transplant (they only let up when he got a wig), he wet himself live on stage in a nappy while recovering from prostate cancer, he clashed with Tina Turner (too temperamental) and Billy Joel (too drunk). A grand read.
Movie review - "Hobbs and Shaw" (2019) **1/2
Big, loud and silly, but with two likeable stars, several enjoyable cameos that you wish were longer (Kevin Hart, Ryan Reynolds, Helen Mirren), an exciting new star (Vanessa Kirby), a decent villain (Idris Elba) and some excellent action scenes.
It's never as fun as I wanted it to be - they waste Kirby in particular, she's an excellent actor, but she has no character to play. Her "romance" with Dwayne Johnson is underwhelming especially as he only has eyes for Jason Statham.
It looks handsome, I love the third act going to Samoa, and there's some memorable OTT moments like Johnson pulling a helicopter with a chain, and a motorbike rider going under a truck. The Honest Trailers on this totally nailed it, by the way - it's like a Marvel movie.
It's never as fun as I wanted it to be - they waste Kirby in particular, she's an excellent actor, but she has no character to play. Her "romance" with Dwayne Johnson is underwhelming especially as he only has eyes for Jason Statham.
It looks handsome, I love the third act going to Samoa, and there's some memorable OTT moments like Johnson pulling a helicopter with a chain, and a motorbike rider going under a truck. The Honest Trailers on this totally nailed it, by the way - it's like a Marvel movie.
Movie review - "Crazy Rich Asians" (2018) ****
I haven't read the novel but it feels like it was written from a novel - it has a strong array of characters who are well fleshed out. The driving force is only slight - man introduces girlfriend to family - but so was Jane Austen, which this reminded me of: what it's really about is a dissection of society, in this case upper class Singapore.
It is very upper class - I enjoyed the food and fashion porn to a degree but after a while I started wondering "gee there would be a lot of servants for all this probably being paid $50 a day if that" and I don't want to be woke about this truly but it dig bug me... because it's not just things it's events which need a lot of staff.
Anyway, that aside this was a lot of fun - director John Cho really nailed it. The script is good, well structured, lots of little things pay off eg mention of a private eye, and it seems (through my white Anglo eyes anyway) to capture the culture. The characterisations are vivid - the handsome prince hero, the modern day princess heroine (widowed mother, college professor), the gay BF, the wisecracking BF, the bitchy ex... actually writing all that out I'm going "these are tropes" but having them played by Asians and be Singapore characters (except for the American princess) gives it immense freshness. It looks gorgeous.
I loved all the Aussies in it too like Ronnie Cheung and Remy Hii. Constance Wu and Henry Golding deserve to become front-tier stars - actually so does Awkwafina. Great fun.
It is very upper class - I enjoyed the food and fashion porn to a degree but after a while I started wondering "gee there would be a lot of servants for all this probably being paid $50 a day if that" and I don't want to be woke about this truly but it dig bug me... because it's not just things it's events which need a lot of staff.
Anyway, that aside this was a lot of fun - director John Cho really nailed it. The script is good, well structured, lots of little things pay off eg mention of a private eye, and it seems (through my white Anglo eyes anyway) to capture the culture. The characterisations are vivid - the handsome prince hero, the modern day princess heroine (widowed mother, college professor), the gay BF, the wisecracking BF, the bitchy ex... actually writing all that out I'm going "these are tropes" but having them played by Asians and be Singapore characters (except for the American princess) gives it immense freshness. It looks gorgeous.
I loved all the Aussies in it too like Ronnie Cheung and Remy Hii. Constance Wu and Henry Golding deserve to become front-tier stars - actually so does Awkwafina. Great fun.
Friday, December 27, 2019
Movie review - "The Return of Captain Invincible" (1982) *1/2
I wanted to like this movie more than I did. I get the joke - a pastiche of comic books and spy films and superhero movies and all that. But it's not funny. Or charming. I didn't like it was a kid and I don't like it now.
It feels too adult, not as in grown up, just as in serious and depressing. It's darkly lit, lacks a sense of humour. I'm not sure Philippe Mora was a great comic director. He also fails to convey the underlying drama of the situation - in short hand it's a good story (alcoholic superhero makes comeback) but that isn't realised. In fairness it's a tricky production.
Alan Arkin is okay - I think a more obviously comic actor would have worked better. Kate Fitzpatrick feels miscast in a role that needed say Pamela Stephenson or Jackie Weaver - she doesn't seem to be having a good time. Michael Pate and Christopher Lee are excellent. When Lee sings "Name Your Poison" the film livens up and you get a sense of what this could have been. But it isn't. Indeed, it's a musical where you could easily cut away the musical numbers.
Various odd people pop up like Graham Kennedy, so there is that. And there is no film quite like it. I just wish it was more fun.
It feels too adult, not as in grown up, just as in serious and depressing. It's darkly lit, lacks a sense of humour. I'm not sure Philippe Mora was a great comic director. He also fails to convey the underlying drama of the situation - in short hand it's a good story (alcoholic superhero makes comeback) but that isn't realised. In fairness it's a tricky production.
Alan Arkin is okay - I think a more obviously comic actor would have worked better. Kate Fitzpatrick feels miscast in a role that needed say Pamela Stephenson or Jackie Weaver - she doesn't seem to be having a good time. Michael Pate and Christopher Lee are excellent. When Lee sings "Name Your Poison" the film livens up and you get a sense of what this could have been. But it isn't. Indeed, it's a musical where you could easily cut away the musical numbers.
Various odd people pop up like Graham Kennedy, so there is that. And there is no film quite like it. I just wish it was more fun.
Movie review - "That Lady from Peking" (1968) *1/2
Fascinating piece for those interested in Oz film - one of several movies we made here in the late 60s none of which connected with the public in any way, but they helped pave the way for the more successful revival of the 70s. This was made in 1969 but not released until 1975.
It's a spy movie, I guess, about an American writer (Carl Betz) chasing after the diary of a murdered diplomat which will expose the truth about Red China. It starts in Hong Hong and moves to Sydney, notably around Luna Park. Betz is helped out by his brother, a lounge singer played by Bobby Rydell, which is just one of the nutty things about this movie - Rydell sings a few tunes and goes along on the adventure; when he does the musical score goes wacky and he's accompanied by a wisecracking manager.
Nancy Kwan is a Chinese spy who can't resist Betz - actually he's catnip to most ladies in this one, including Sandy Gore who is topless in a bubble bath and makes eyes at him before she's killed and Eva Lynd as a leggy Russian who can't resist him (there's another blonde who wants him too, his secretary). Ruth Cracknell pops up as a psychic, Jack Thompson is a Russian henchman (billed as "flunky")and Tom Olivier and Graham Rouse are in there too. There's a scene where the Russians kidnap a monk and a final fight at a monastery.
It's very silly and awkwardly made. I guess it has a story at least - it moves along quite fast and there's action and kissing. And Bobbie Rydell fans will get something out of it because he sings a few songs and has a quite large role.
It's a spy movie, I guess, about an American writer (Carl Betz) chasing after the diary of a murdered diplomat which will expose the truth about Red China. It starts in Hong Hong and moves to Sydney, notably around Luna Park. Betz is helped out by his brother, a lounge singer played by Bobby Rydell, which is just one of the nutty things about this movie - Rydell sings a few tunes and goes along on the adventure; when he does the musical score goes wacky and he's accompanied by a wisecracking manager.
Nancy Kwan is a Chinese spy who can't resist Betz - actually he's catnip to most ladies in this one, including Sandy Gore who is topless in a bubble bath and makes eyes at him before she's killed and Eva Lynd as a leggy Russian who can't resist him (there's another blonde who wants him too, his secretary). Ruth Cracknell pops up as a psychic, Jack Thompson is a Russian henchman (billed as "flunky")and Tom Olivier and Graham Rouse are in there too. There's a scene where the Russians kidnap a monk and a final fight at a monastery.
It's very silly and awkwardly made. I guess it has a story at least - it moves along quite fast and there's action and kissing. And Bobbie Rydell fans will get something out of it because he sings a few songs and has a quite large role.
Movie review - "Backstage" (1988) *
Its heart is in those backstage musicals of the 1930s - all the gossipy theatre types and epigrammatic dialogue - and really should have gone all the way and copied that. But there's too much drama, and the star, Laura Branigan, can sing but can't act.
They could have had her going to appear in a musical - singing all the way through rehearsals and on opening night; the filmmakers could have still hit the points they wanted to make about cultural imperialism. But no, she's in a drama, an English drawing room comedy - and we have to sit through Branigan acting in slabs of it. Then we've got to see her audition for The Seagull and acting in slabs of that. The story would have worked just as well had she appeared in a Broadway musical. The poor girl can't act and they keep foisting her acting upon us. It means the second half is a real chore, while the first half was more watchable.
The dialogue is full of epigrammatic quips you'd routinely find in badly written eps of Australian TV - I remember Arcade was full of them - but at least you hear it from some decent actors. Aitkens' character is the son the best Australian playwright of the 1950s who only really had one hit - so I'm guessing he's Ray Lawler's son! (Or Richard Beynon?) He really is rude to Branigan in the opening press conference. Some critics complained that it wasn't realistic critics could teach someone to act but some theatre critics had been directors, eg Harold Clurman.
Movie review - "Ginger Meggs" (1982) **
No one says many nice things about this movie but I liked it when I saw it at the movies and it has charms which have survived the years. They took the decision to keep it in the style of the comic books and I really liked Larry Eastwood's production design - lots of bold, primary colours.
The setting is a problem - it seems to be post war 1940s but feels like the 1930s (Dad it out of work) and they slather on this rock soundtrack which just feels silly. It doesn't have the cohesiveness of Fatty Finn.
The plot is episodic - there are some longer strands, like Ginger's pursuit of a particularly dim girl, his missing monkey and some diamond thieves. It felt odd at the time and does now all this prominence was given to this guy Alex who Ginger meets towards the end of the film who works for the circus.
But those circus scenes are charming, the kids have been well cast (the one who plays Ginger is ideal), and the adults ham it up in a fun way - Gary McDonald and Drew Forsythe in particular were born to play cartoon villains.
The setting is a problem - it seems to be post war 1940s but feels like the 1930s (Dad it out of work) and they slather on this rock soundtrack which just feels silly. It doesn't have the cohesiveness of Fatty Finn.
The plot is episodic - there are some longer strands, like Ginger's pursuit of a particularly dim girl, his missing monkey and some diamond thieves. It felt odd at the time and does now all this prominence was given to this guy Alex who Ginger meets towards the end of the film who works for the circus.
But those circus scenes are charming, the kids have been well cast (the one who plays Ginger is ideal), and the adults ham it up in a fun way - Gary McDonald and Drew Forsythe in particular were born to play cartoon villains.
Movie review - "Venom" (2018) **1/2
Not a particularly strong Marvel movie - the first act feels achingly obvious set up, there's no real interesting character to hang on to, Tom Hardy's accent feels erratic, Michelle Williams looks uncomfortable, the villain is underwhelming and generic.
There is some decent action and special effects but the core relationship of the movie - between Hardy and Venom, who possesses him - is bland; this needed to be special and should have been - get in some great actor to do the voice - but it isn't.
Also I feel this is one of those movies, as Honest Trailers point out, that badly want to be rated R - Venom is a character who suits the R world but its downplayed.
Still, it moves, it's handsome and the Marvel brand was strong enough to help propel this to hit status.
There is some decent action and special effects but the core relationship of the movie - between Hardy and Venom, who possesses him - is bland; this needed to be special and should have been - get in some great actor to do the voice - but it isn't.
Also I feel this is one of those movies, as Honest Trailers point out, that badly want to be rated R - Venom is a character who suits the R world but its downplayed.
Still, it moves, it's handsome and the Marvel brand was strong enough to help propel this to hit status.
Movie review - "Demolition" (1979) **
One of a series of genre TV movies produced by Robert Bruning in the late 70s for Grundys. John Waters stars as an Australian sent home by British intelligence to track down a device that was created to help truckies stay awake longer.
I got confused by the story - it becomes a sort of film noir tale, dimly lit, with Waters being beaten up and knocked out a lot. In one scene he's tortured. But it also has shoot outs with assassins and a climax at a lion park safari running away from lions.
Belinda Giblin is the girl and the cast is full of familiar faces like Tony Barry and Vincent Ball. I wanted to like this more than I did but it was just too confusingly written.
I got confused by the story - it becomes a sort of film noir tale, dimly lit, with Waters being beaten up and knocked out a lot. In one scene he's tortured. But it also has shoot outs with assassins and a climax at a lion park safari running away from lions.
Belinda Giblin is the girl and the cast is full of familiar faces like Tony Barry and Vincent Ball. I wanted to like this more than I did but it was just too confusingly written.
Thursday, December 26, 2019
Book review - Smith#2 - "Dark of the Sun" by Wilbur Smith
The film version of this was remarkably faithful to the book - of course changes were made, notably in term of tone, but the guts of it are in Smith's novel: Bruce Curry, mercenary, on a mission to retrieve some hostages and diamond in the war torn Congo; they head out on a train with a crew including the black Ruffo, the cowardly Belgian Andre, the drunken doctor and a brutish soldier; the airplane attack; the shooting of two kids by the brutish soldier; arriving at the town; staying overnight; the doctor going to help a pregnant mother; General Moses and his troops arriving; the train almost getting away but one carriage rolling back, including the diamonds; Andre being tortured; rescuing the diamonds and some trucks; a final escape; the brutish soldier taking off and being killed.
There are lots of differences but nothing huge - this is set during the Baluba Rebellion not the Simba ones; the brutish soldier is a cockney here, not a German; Andre is gay here, sent in Belgium after his affair with a married man was revealed; they pick up the girl at the destination, not along the way; Ruffy isn't killed, the final pursuit is prompted by raping the girl; there's no subplot about the savagery of Curry and him going nuts; the final fight is a more cat and mouse stalk than a rampaging orgy of violence.
I think the film made decent changes - turning the villain into a German, making it the Simba period, making Andrea a "local", adding the time lock (so it isn't Curry making a mistake). In the book we never find out what happened to the doctor and there's a few action scenes after the retrieval of the diamonds including a truck crashing into the water and a few more attacks from the locals. Ruffo being killed packs more of a wallop than Claire being raped.
The novel surprised me in some ways - even the most horrible villain (the cockney, General Moses) are given at least a page to explain why they are why they are (horrible parents, brutal treatment from the Belgians). It also has Curry reflecting on his busted marriage and why it went wrong - saying mean and cruel things when he should have been kinder; this is written with a sensitivity from Smith that wasn't present in his later novels - I assume he was thinking of his early marriages, and was still raw and sensitive from them having ended.
Very exciting action - some terrifying stuff like Andre meeting General Moses (Smith always had some sympathy for gay characters in his novels but they generally died horribly).
There are lots of differences but nothing huge - this is set during the Baluba Rebellion not the Simba ones; the brutish soldier is a cockney here, not a German; Andre is gay here, sent in Belgium after his affair with a married man was revealed; they pick up the girl at the destination, not along the way; Ruffy isn't killed, the final pursuit is prompted by raping the girl; there's no subplot about the savagery of Curry and him going nuts; the final fight is a more cat and mouse stalk than a rampaging orgy of violence.
I think the film made decent changes - turning the villain into a German, making it the Simba period, making Andrea a "local", adding the time lock (so it isn't Curry making a mistake). In the book we never find out what happened to the doctor and there's a few action scenes after the retrieval of the diamonds including a truck crashing into the water and a few more attacks from the locals. Ruffo being killed packs more of a wallop than Claire being raped.
The novel surprised me in some ways - even the most horrible villain (the cockney, General Moses) are given at least a page to explain why they are why they are (horrible parents, brutal treatment from the Belgians). It also has Curry reflecting on his busted marriage and why it went wrong - saying mean and cruel things when he should have been kinder; this is written with a sensitivity from Smith that wasn't present in his later novels - I assume he was thinking of his early marriages, and was still raw and sensitive from them having ended.
Very exciting action - some terrifying stuff like Andre meeting General Moses (Smith always had some sympathy for gay characters in his novels but they generally died horribly).
Script review - "Dolemite is My Name" by written by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski.
Fun to read on top of seeing the movie - few changes were made. Some scenes that were cut. It's a well structured, tidy screenplay rather than a great one. Like the movie it doesn't get going until they start making the movie. And there's no Lugosi style character to give it extra weight. Still I'm glad the story is told.
Wednesday, December 25, 2019
Movie review - "The Pirate Movie" (1982) **
I liked this when I was ten - the source material is strong, it has colour, and pirates, and sword fights and songs. If you're over ten it's less good unless you're a major major Chris Atkins fan. He's a handsome lad who tries but his voice is high pitched and he doesn't quite pull it off. Kristy McNichol is decent value in the lead. Ted Hamilton's performance as the lead operates on its own plane, and others play it in the right manner: Bill Kerr, Maggie Kirkpatrick.
The film is extremely silly, which is why I liked it as a ten year old. It's not one of director Ken Annakin's better efforts and doesn't quite work but it's not as atrocious as its reputation. I honestly think if you showed it to your eight year old daughter she might like it.
Richard Franklin was going to direct this at one stage! Ken Annakin took over instead.
Sunday, December 22, 2019
Movie review - "Rise of Skywalker" (2019) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
I'm still processing. A friend told me "I'm just glad this is all over." And I agree. These films have become too stressful.
Some random thoughts - it's how I have to process this:
* it feels like a script that was replotted at directors meeting stage - scenes feel as though they end too early, there's still bits which feel as though they could be cut - and other stuff which feels abrupt (how did Chewie get captured again?, Adam Driver getting to the planet)
* when the film focuses on speed and just motoring along it's a lot better
* the failure to define the characters of Finn and Poe more strongly becomes strongly apparent in the banter scenes - compare them to the clearly defined Luke, Han and Leia the new trio are nowhere near as individual
*plotlines feel thrown away eg the reveal of the spy, why did they need to think Chewie was killed? why not have Finn tell Rey what he was going to say? why not use Rose? (they could have killed her off if they didn't like her but that death would have had more emotional impact - they could have used her in the romantic plot... so many ways...)
* nice nostalgia like the return of Wedge, Han, Luke and Lando - though Lando is under-used
*Rey being Palpatine's granddaughter is fantastic idea but should have been introduced in the previous film and played out (eg suspicion of the rebellion towards this character) - they should've kept at least one parent alive too to explain what happened - the concept of Palpatine being alive should have been built and is a failure of planning
* Adam Driver and Daisy Ridley are the best of the new people though it doesn't really progress from the last movie - I forgot he was Carrie Fisher's son
* why give so many close ups to Dominic Monaghan?
* some great visuals: the death star crashed into the water, the fight among the waves, the final battle, the worlds
* occasionally I was stirred: the appearance of the other ships, Han Solo coming back... but mostly I was bored. I don't want to be toxic, truly, but it wasn't very good.
Some random thoughts - it's how I have to process this:
* it feels like a script that was replotted at directors meeting stage - scenes feel as though they end too early, there's still bits which feel as though they could be cut - and other stuff which feels abrupt (how did Chewie get captured again?, Adam Driver getting to the planet)
* when the film focuses on speed and just motoring along it's a lot better
* the failure to define the characters of Finn and Poe more strongly becomes strongly apparent in the banter scenes - compare them to the clearly defined Luke, Han and Leia the new trio are nowhere near as individual
*plotlines feel thrown away eg the reveal of the spy, why did they need to think Chewie was killed? why not have Finn tell Rey what he was going to say? why not use Rose? (they could have killed her off if they didn't like her but that death would have had more emotional impact - they could have used her in the romantic plot... so many ways...)
* nice nostalgia like the return of Wedge, Han, Luke and Lando - though Lando is under-used
*Rey being Palpatine's granddaughter is fantastic idea but should have been introduced in the previous film and played out (eg suspicion of the rebellion towards this character) - they should've kept at least one parent alive too to explain what happened - the concept of Palpatine being alive should have been built and is a failure of planning
* Adam Driver and Daisy Ridley are the best of the new people though it doesn't really progress from the last movie - I forgot he was Carrie Fisher's son
* why give so many close ups to Dominic Monaghan?
* some great visuals: the death star crashed into the water, the fight among the waves, the final battle, the worlds
* occasionally I was stirred: the appearance of the other ships, Han Solo coming back... but mostly I was bored. I don't want to be toxic, truly, but it wasn't very good.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Book review - "Grant and I" by Robert Forster
The Go Betweens were a notable presence for me growing up - not huge, but a definite presence, this indie cred band who did pop songs and were from Brisbane of all places. As a Brisbane boy this had a lot of resonance for me - like Foster I went to Brisbane Grammar School, and loved cricket and went to UQ, although Forster was actually good at the game, and he studied arts. At uni he met another private school boy Grant McLennan and while both of them seemed to prefer film, they wound up forming the bands.
The Go Betweens had an interesting trajectory - most well known bands rise, plateau and fall, but they forever seemed to be in second gear. Everyone recognised their talent, especially as songwriters, but they could never break through to the broad public, have a hit or even become that famous. They didn't even have much of a local following in Brisbane. (This could be explained by the fact that once they formed they spent so much time in England and Sydney). I still find it remarkable that "Streets of Your Town" wasn't a hit - it only reached #68 in Australia!! This broke the band for a time, which is understandable - they decided to quit (rather the two boys did, annoying the two girls). They got back together, and started recording again, had some more cult albums - which actually rank among their best.
McLennan died quite young of a heart attack - he was a smoker and heavy drinker. It's interesting to wonder what sort of career they would have had if he had lived - still motoring along, I feel, though maybe selling out more vineyard. Their last performance together was at Andrew Upton's birthday party which feels entirely appropriate.
Forster has written a lot of music reviews and you can kind of tell from this book, which lingers over descriptions of his and McLennan's songs, and songs from other artists that influenced him like Bruce Springsteen and Orange Juice.
He has a flair for description but isn't that great as a story teller (the film idea he and McLennan worked on - described in some detail - doesn't sound very good) or even an anecdote or someone who captures a character. The other members of the band feel sketchy - even McLennan doesn't leap off the page as a personality, but I get the impression that's what he's like. There are glimpses of a perhaps richer, more compelling book - going golfing with Lloyd Cole, for instance, or writing of McLellan's devastation post break up. Surely they knew more colourful characters? Forster's dabbling in heroin (which gave him Hep C) is dealt with in only a few lines.
On a personal level I really love some of their songs, though I'm not sure they were the best singers - I wonder how they might've done employing a female front person like the Black Eyed Peas. They definitely should have toured more in Australia - but I get that it cost them money.
For no real reason, my top five of their songs
1) Streets of Your Town
2) Part Company
3) Finding You
4) No Reason to Cry
5)Bachelor Kisses.
The Go Betweens had an interesting trajectory - most well known bands rise, plateau and fall, but they forever seemed to be in second gear. Everyone recognised their talent, especially as songwriters, but they could never break through to the broad public, have a hit or even become that famous. They didn't even have much of a local following in Brisbane. (This could be explained by the fact that once they formed they spent so much time in England and Sydney). I still find it remarkable that "Streets of Your Town" wasn't a hit - it only reached #68 in Australia!! This broke the band for a time, which is understandable - they decided to quit (rather the two boys did, annoying the two girls). They got back together, and started recording again, had some more cult albums - which actually rank among their best.
McLennan died quite young of a heart attack - he was a smoker and heavy drinker. It's interesting to wonder what sort of career they would have had if he had lived - still motoring along, I feel, though maybe selling out more vineyard. Their last performance together was at Andrew Upton's birthday party which feels entirely appropriate.
Forster has written a lot of music reviews and you can kind of tell from this book, which lingers over descriptions of his and McLennan's songs, and songs from other artists that influenced him like Bruce Springsteen and Orange Juice.
He has a flair for description but isn't that great as a story teller (the film idea he and McLennan worked on - described in some detail - doesn't sound very good) or even an anecdote or someone who captures a character. The other members of the band feel sketchy - even McLennan doesn't leap off the page as a personality, but I get the impression that's what he's like. There are glimpses of a perhaps richer, more compelling book - going golfing with Lloyd Cole, for instance, or writing of McLellan's devastation post break up. Surely they knew more colourful characters? Forster's dabbling in heroin (which gave him Hep C) is dealt with in only a few lines.
On a personal level I really love some of their songs, though I'm not sure they were the best singers - I wonder how they might've done employing a female front person like the Black Eyed Peas. They definitely should have toured more in Australia - but I get that it cost them money.
For no real reason, my top five of their songs
1) Streets of Your Town
2) Part Company
3) Finding You
4) No Reason to Cry
5)Bachelor Kisses.
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Movie review - "Marriage Story" (2019) ****
Very good acting. Maybe Scarlett Johansson was outclassed by the others at times but she did pretty well. Intense scenes. Great supporting turns from Ray Liotta and Laura Dern especially - they felt like Hollywood agents as much as lawyers: bombastic, aggressive but not inaccurate Liotta, and nice but nasty Dern, taking her shoes off in the office and talking about her book.
Also strong were Julie Hegarty (so great to see her in a high profile movie), Alan Alda, Merrit Weaver, Wallace Shawn. The character of Driver's mistress was sketchy (she seemed to go from casual root to "I love you" quite quickly). Occasionally sometimes it felt "gag-y."
But it's strong. It's passionate. It's very specific but that gives it universality. Maybe don't watch it with your partner.
Also strong were Julie Hegarty (so great to see her in a high profile movie), Alan Alda, Merrit Weaver, Wallace Shawn. The character of Driver's mistress was sketchy (she seemed to go from casual root to "I love you" quite quickly). Occasionally sometimes it felt "gag-y."
But it's strong. It's passionate. It's very specific but that gives it universality. Maybe don't watch it with your partner.
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Book review - MacLean#1 - "HMS Ulysses" by Alistair MacLean
MacLean's first novel is a little different to what followed, not being about a mystery or a mission full of double cross but rather a regulation trip by a ship through hideous circumstances. There is a lot of suffering and death and it's extremely well described: sailors plunge into the seas, drenched in oil, or freeze to death, or are rammed by their own side or are shot down, or blow up, or kill themselves, or have bits blown off, or get mashed up.
It's gruelling stuff. I had trouble telling the characters apart and there were a lot of them - I lost track and had to re-read this. A useful guide is here.
Fascinatingly it also starts after a mutiny - that doesn't have a huge impact throughout the book as everyone is professional. The Germans are respected, tough adversaries. The story builds in power as it goes along and the death toll rises - the convoy becomes more disastrous and comes to a logical, tragic end.
I can see why this wasn't filmed it would cost a fortune. You'd have to do some character work on it. It's powerful.
It's gruelling stuff. I had trouble telling the characters apart and there were a lot of them - I lost track and had to re-read this. A useful guide is here.
Fascinatingly it also starts after a mutiny - that doesn't have a huge impact throughout the book as everyone is professional. The Germans are respected, tough adversaries. The story builds in power as it goes along and the death toll rises - the convoy becomes more disastrous and comes to a logical, tragic end.
I can see why this wasn't filmed it would cost a fortune. You'd have to do some character work on it. It's powerful.
Book review - MacLean #6 - "Fear is the Key" by Alistair MacLen (warning: spoilers)
The film version of this book was quite faithful - it gave more time to the girl, who here is very much "the girl" (she kind of was in the film too but had a little more to do). The girl has a boyfriend/chauffeur who loves her, Kennedy who helps out Talbot.
I always thought the best way to adapt this would be to tell the story from the POV of the girl and have Talbot as a mystery - get the girl more involved in the second half.
Maclean's gimmick was to tell the story from first person but have him hold stuff back from the reader - normally two things (a) he's a goodie and (b) he totally expected that thing that happened to happen. That happens here.
The plan of the guy is very complex when you think about it (and risky) but it's a well written story, hurtles along, very exciting. You feel the hero is up against it a lot . There's genuine emotion too especially at the end when Talbot describes what the death of his three year old must have been like. Solid climax at the bottom of the sea... though in an adaptation I'd have Talbot go down there to die and have the girl talk him around.
It felt true Talbot didn't get the girl and let the chauffeur have her. A solid ending.
I always thought the best way to adapt this would be to tell the story from the POV of the girl and have Talbot as a mystery - get the girl more involved in the second half.
Maclean's gimmick was to tell the story from first person but have him hold stuff back from the reader - normally two things (a) he's a goodie and (b) he totally expected that thing that happened to happen. That happens here.
The plan of the guy is very complex when you think about it (and risky) but it's a well written story, hurtles along, very exciting. You feel the hero is up against it a lot . There's genuine emotion too especially at the end when Talbot describes what the death of his three year old must have been like. Solid climax at the bottom of the sea... though in an adaptation I'd have Talbot go down there to die and have the girl talk him around.
It felt true Talbot didn't get the girl and let the chauffeur have her. A solid ending.
Movie review - "6 Underground" (2019) **1/2
The opening car chase is thrilling and Ryan Reynolds is likeable as always - indeed, the acting is strong (as it so often tends to be in Michael Bay films). There's some funny lines and Bay's direction is energetic as always.
But it's not much of a story -the premise could possibly have been turned into something interesting but there's no real character work. They don't do anything interesting with the idea of someone being dead to do good deeds. The plot - to overthrow a corrupt dictator - is way too simple with no twists or complications. It's also very easy for the heroes to do it all.
Production values are first rate. Character work is awful.
But it's not much of a story -the premise could possibly have been turned into something interesting but there's no real character work. They don't do anything interesting with the idea of someone being dead to do good deeds. The plot - to overthrow a corrupt dictator - is way too simple with no twists or complications. It's also very easy for the heroes to do it all.
Production values are first rate. Character work is awful.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Movie review - "The Adventures of Don Juan" (1948) ****1/2 (re-viewing)
This film makes me smile. It's bright and colourful and very witty. The women have agency - they chase after Errol Flynn more than the other way around, it's less rapey.
The sets are spectacular as is the color. Don Juan's journey to responsibility is well done. Decent action. Strong support cast- Alan Hale, Ann Rutherford being heaps of fun. Robert Douglas is a terrific villain.
Viveca Lindfors is poor as the female lead. I miss Olivia de Havilland. If they couldn't get her then it's a shame they couldn't have, I don't know, borrowed Maureen O'Hara or someone. Eleanor Parker would've been amazing.
Jaunty music. Great fun. This movie isn't as well known as The Sea Hawk but it's as good.
The sets are spectacular as is the color. Don Juan's journey to responsibility is well done. Decent action. Strong support cast- Alan Hale, Ann Rutherford being heaps of fun. Robert Douglas is a terrific villain.
Viveca Lindfors is poor as the female lead. I miss Olivia de Havilland. If they couldn't get her then it's a shame they couldn't have, I don't know, borrowed Maureen O'Hara or someone. Eleanor Parker would've been amazing.
Jaunty music. Great fun. This movie isn't as well known as The Sea Hawk but it's as good.
Book review - MacLean#10 - "Ice Station Zebra" by Alistair MacLean (warning: spoilers)
Classic MacLean adventure - one of the best adventure titles ever, surely. Different from the movie. The first third is slightly reminiscent - a sub journey to the base. The second two thirds is more Agatha Christie. I didn't guess the killer but then MacLean characters were never that vivid - it's hard to tell them apart, everyone is tough, taciturn and professional.
It's a first person narrative - the Patrick McGoohan character. The ship character isn't very heroic. I kept thinking the sub should have sunk... that would've really upped the stakes. Gritty description of the snow - MacLean was good at this. The film adaptation should have been closer. I would've kept the mystery of the agent (s), only sunk the sub, had the Russians on the way and set the last bit on a Russian sub. It did kind of feel a cheat that the hero was totally across everything at the end... there would be more suspense from him being surprised.
Still, a very strong adventure book. He's done his research.
It's a first person narrative - the Patrick McGoohan character. The ship character isn't very heroic. I kept thinking the sub should have sunk... that would've really upped the stakes. Gritty description of the snow - MacLean was good at this. The film adaptation should have been closer. I would've kept the mystery of the agent (s), only sunk the sub, had the Russians on the way and set the last bit on a Russian sub. It did kind of feel a cheat that the hero was totally across everything at the end... there would be more suspense from him being surprised.
Still, a very strong adventure book. He's done his research.
Movie review - "Ten Little Indians" (1965) ***
There's not a lot of love for this adaptation but I liked it - alpine setting, solid cast of B listers, crisp script (Peter Yeldham co wrote it), some decent atmosphere, competent handling by George Pollock who did the Margaret Rutherford Marples.
The basic source material is excellent of course and I enjoyed seeing random people like Dennis Price, Shirley Eaton, Wilfred Hyde White, Fabian and Hugh O'Brien wait to be killed off one by one. Fabian plays a pop star and sings a song - the title nursery rhyme- then dies first; he does solid work. His performance was bagged but he's absolutely fine - critics were so bigoted about Fabian.
There's a random fist fight scene. Some of the alpine stuff is iffy. The story is very strong. I really liked Shirley Eaton - she was great value, very sexy but also ambiguous... you buy that she could be a killer. Hugh O'Brien is too obviously heroic though - I reckon they should have killed him off it would've been a shock. I like Pollock's work.
The basic source material is excellent of course and I enjoyed seeing random people like Dennis Price, Shirley Eaton, Wilfred Hyde White, Fabian and Hugh O'Brien wait to be killed off one by one. Fabian plays a pop star and sings a song - the title nursery rhyme- then dies first; he does solid work. His performance was bagged but he's absolutely fine - critics were so bigoted about Fabian.
There's a random fist fight scene. Some of the alpine stuff is iffy. The story is very strong. I really liked Shirley Eaton - she was great value, very sexy but also ambiguous... you buy that she could be a killer. Hugh O'Brien is too obviously heroic though - I reckon they should have killed him off it would've been a shock. I like Pollock's work.
Friday, December 06, 2019
Movie review - "The Irishman" (2019) ***
The trailer didn't look great but I allowed myself to be caught up in the hype of people in twitter. It's not a bad movie, of course... but when it starts with a tracking shot through a nursing home with some 50s pop tune I couldn't help thinking "haven't we seen this already?"
And yeah we kind of have.
There's a lot of loving period detail, an excellent actors and moments of people being shot. But a lot of the time I was going "so what?" He was a war veteran and takes that attitude into working for the mob... Jimmy Hoffa is corrupt... his kids didn't like him...
The de-aging technology is interesting. It's very well acted and directed. The killings are effective, particularly the death of Hoffa. It gets better as it goes on and focuses on the leads being old men. Nice to see Joe Pesci being still. The movie is absolutely fine. Maybe it'll stay with me.
Wednesday, December 04, 2019
Book review - Maclean#12 - "Where Eagles Dare" by Alistair MacLean
The script came before the book so unsurprisingly it's faithful. It reads like a novelisation of a script - there's little internal stuff although a descent down a mountain early on has a Navarone vibe. The relationship between the women and Smith and Schaeffer is more fleshed out. So too are the characterisations of the traitorous soldiers (they also die differently and have different names).
It remains a cracking yarn but it is a novelisation more than a novel.
It remains a cracking yarn but it is a novelisation more than a novel.
Monday, December 02, 2019
Movie review - "Run of the Arrow" (1957) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Method actor Rod Steiger wasn't famous for his westerns but this is an interesting cult flick from Sam Fuller. It has a strong central idea - Steiger is a Confederate who won't recognise that his side lost and heads out west.
It is weird to see Steiger as a cowboy hero - he's too fat and looks awkward on a horse. The Irish accent does not help (Fuller was a tough guy but evidently even he could not stop Steiger doing accent acting). I wish the lead had been played by Brian Keith, who is a kindly Union soldier here. Ralph Meeker is a racist.
The more Fuller movies I watch the more I noticed how often baby boomer directors ripped them off - this has a savage kid who can't talk given a harmonica (Mad Max 2), and a man being burned alive by the Indians and the white hero living with the Indians shooting him dead to spare him more pain (The Last of the Mohicans).
The film does get points for having the Indians win the battle at the end. It loses them for having a female lead who is just a stock smiling hot native woman (voice dubbed by Angie Dickinson). It gets them for having a snarling protagonist - that is different even if the guy is a prick.
It is weird to see Steiger as a cowboy hero - he's too fat and looks awkward on a horse. The Irish accent does not help (Fuller was a tough guy but evidently even he could not stop Steiger doing accent acting). I wish the lead had been played by Brian Keith, who is a kindly Union soldier here. Ralph Meeker is a racist.
The more Fuller movies I watch the more I noticed how often baby boomer directors ripped them off - this has a savage kid who can't talk given a harmonica (Mad Max 2), and a man being burned alive by the Indians and the white hero living with the Indians shooting him dead to spare him more pain (The Last of the Mohicans).
The film does get points for having the Indians win the battle at the end. It loses them for having a female lead who is just a stock smiling hot native woman (voice dubbed by Angie Dickinson). It gets them for having a snarling protagonist - that is different even if the guy is a prick.
Movie review - "Frozen 2" (2019) **1/2
The voice acting is high quality, the animation is stunning, there are tremendous sequences, good moments. But story wise it's a mess. There's this river... the town's in danger... so Anna decides to flood it, is that right? You keep waiting for it to start, the "Indians" are caricatures, things like the girls being half Indian feel really undercooked, there's no twists, no villains, no logic. "Oh it's magic" seems to be the reason to get away with the shoddy plotting. There's no development between Anna and her guy, no memorable new characters, no effective narrative build.
For all Disney's money and having Pixar people on call, the writing is astonishingly inept. The songs are fine but there are too many of them - they are just shoved in there.
Great moments like Elsa on an ice horse, and running over the sea, some funny lines from Olaf. But it has no real heart.
For all Disney's money and having Pixar people on call, the writing is astonishingly inept. The songs are fine but there are too many of them - they are just shoved in there.
Great moments like Elsa on an ice horse, and running over the sea, some funny lines from Olaf. But it has no real heart.
Movie review - "Assault on Precinct 13" (1976) ***1/2
As an action film this is actually kind of clunky - the gang members lumber at the station like zombies (apparently George Romero was an influence) with the heroes blasting away from them.
But it has a wonderfully creepy mood helped by Carpenter's classic score, the nihilistic feel (the faceless gangs swarming, the ice truck man randomly killed - as well as the girl... this is scarier than the corrupt cops in the remake), the visuals of the empty streets and broken down buildings, glass on the floor.
The acting is erratic in places but effective -Austin Stoker as the taciturn cop just trying to do his job, Darwin Joston in the showiest role as the death row prisoner who becomes a hero, Laurie Zimmer as the sweater wearing receptionist who kills as many as any of the guys (Carpenter seems to accentuate her chest).
Tony Burton went on to be Apollo's trainer in the Rocky movies.
But it has a wonderfully creepy mood helped by Carpenter's classic score, the nihilistic feel (the faceless gangs swarming, the ice truck man randomly killed - as well as the girl... this is scarier than the corrupt cops in the remake), the visuals of the empty streets and broken down buildings, glass on the floor.
The acting is erratic in places but effective -Austin Stoker as the taciturn cop just trying to do his job, Darwin Joston in the showiest role as the death row prisoner who becomes a hero, Laurie Zimmer as the sweater wearing receptionist who kills as many as any of the guys (Carpenter seems to accentuate her chest).
Tony Burton went on to be Apollo's trainer in the Rocky movies.
Book review - Maclean#2 - "Guns of Navarone" by Alistair MacLean
MacLean later became something of a caricature of himself but this is a superb adventure novel - fantastic idea, excitingly paced, excellent descriptions. There's lots of pain and agony and endurance as a team of Allied operatives arrive on Navarone to blow up guns.
It's extremely well written particularly the action stuff - an opening storm sequence, climbing the cliffs, clambering through the scrub. New Zealanders will get a get out of the fact the main man, Mallory, is a Kiwi. The lead characters get along better than they did in the film version, and the local Greeks are men here instead of women, but the structure is basically the same. And why not? The book is terrific.
It has some stronger characters too - Mallory grappling his fear, the scared kid, Andeas the cheerful but deadly Greek.
It's extremely well written particularly the action stuff - an opening storm sequence, climbing the cliffs, clambering through the scrub. New Zealanders will get a get out of the fact the main man, Mallory, is a Kiwi. The lead characters get along better than they did in the film version, and the local Greeks are men here instead of women, but the structure is basically the same. And why not? The book is terrific.
It has some stronger characters too - Mallory grappling his fear, the scared kid, Andeas the cheerful but deadly Greek.
Movie review - "Sweeney!" (1977) ***
I'm not that familiar with the classic 70s British cop show but can get some idea from this movie - lots of brown jackets, big ties, tousled hair, men yelling at each other, women with bobs. At the time people took this sort of stuff for granted but it has extra interest now because cop shows are so different.
John Thaw and Denis Waterman are great value as the yelly cops. Thaw falls for a woman who is a whore - I think he smacks her around. Barry Foster is a slimy type, Colin Welland plays a journalist. There's some violence and nudity which presumably you couldn't show on TV at the time.
But it's tough and fast and zips along. The plot isn't overly complicated which I think is the right idea. A shame they couldn't have gotten some Arab actors to play Arabs.
John Thaw and Denis Waterman are great value as the yelly cops. Thaw falls for a woman who is a whore - I think he smacks her around. Barry Foster is a slimy type, Colin Welland plays a journalist. There's some violence and nudity which presumably you couldn't show on TV at the time.
But it's tough and fast and zips along. The plot isn't overly complicated which I think is the right idea. A shame they couldn't have gotten some Arab actors to play Arabs.
Movie review - "China Gate" (1957) *** (warning: spoilers)
Sam Fuller takes on the Vietnam War - not the American one but the French one (its set before 1954) only with American troops in the French Foreign Legion: Gene Barry and Nat King Cole. Barry is a tormented war lover whose racism is so powerful it means he rejects brave, smart Eurasian Angie Dickinson (whose legs get the Cinema Scope treatment) and their child. Which makes me not give a stuff about Barry as they go on a mission into enemy territory to exploit Dickinson's relationship with commie leader Lee Van Cleef... and downright annoyed as Dickinson dies and Barry lives. Barry should have sacrificed himself
Dickinson is doing it to get her son a new life in America - a clean, understandable emotion that helps the piece age well. It's anti Communist but Lee Van Cleef is given a strong character to play - it's quite chatty his scenes. I did feel it was a shame he and Barry never faced off.
Nat King Cole is a fellow legionnaire - there's a scene where he sings through a rubble strewn town. Some decent suspense on the trip, notably a night attack. It's not major Fuller but is always interesting. It's a strong chance for Dickinson who takes it.
Dickinson is doing it to get her son a new life in America - a clean, understandable emotion that helps the piece age well. It's anti Communist but Lee Van Cleef is given a strong character to play - it's quite chatty his scenes. I did feel it was a shame he and Barry never faced off.
Nat King Cole is a fellow legionnaire - there's a scene where he sings through a rubble strewn town. Some decent suspense on the trip, notably a night attack. It's not major Fuller but is always interesting. It's a strong chance for Dickinson who takes it.
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Movie review - "The Baron of Arizona" (1950) ***
One of the reason people love Sam Fuller is because he made films like this. A cheerful account of a real life swindler who almost got his hands on the whole of the Arizona. Because he's played by Vincent Price and the plan is so bold and Price puts in so much work that you really want it to take off.
Ellen Drew is sweet and lovely as the girl he, well, basically gaslights but then they genuinely fall in love so it's okay... dramatically it works I don't want to be a smart arse about it I just wanted to point it out.
James Wong Howe did the cinematography so it looks amazing. Reed Hadley is the deep voiced expert on forgery who goes after Price.
the story proceeds logically. It's not amazing (like a few Fuller movies I get the impression it's overpraised) but it is solid entertainment.
Ellen Drew is sweet and lovely as the girl he, well, basically gaslights but then they genuinely fall in love so it's okay... dramatically it works I don't want to be a smart arse about it I just wanted to point it out.
James Wong Howe did the cinematography so it looks amazing. Reed Hadley is the deep voiced expert on forgery who goes after Price.
the story proceeds logically. It's not amazing (like a few Fuller movies I get the impression it's overpraised) but it is solid entertainment.
Movie review - "And Soon the Darkness" (1970) **
The first film made under Bryan Forbes' auspices at EMI Films was in theory a smart move - a low budget suspense thriller about two girls on a cycling holiday in France... they have a fight and separate and when the sensible one (Pamela Franklin) goes looking for the slutty one (Michele Dotrice... Betty from Some Mothers Do Have 'Em and its fun to imagine this is Betty) and she's missing.
It was made by TV talent, but highly experienced - director Robert Fuest, writers Terry Nation and Brian Clemens. It has a cult reputation and was even remade.
It's not that good. There's creepiness at the beginning when you're waiting for one of the girls to go missing. Pamela Franklin has a sweet factor, and watching her I thought "I bet you've got a cult following because you're in horror movies and went nude once in a while" and that's true, but she doesn't rise to the occasion in the last third when she has to carry it all herself - she's better when she has Dotrice (a superior actor) to bounce off.
Robert Fuest has some decent credits but he wasn't a major spooky stylist - like say Roman Polanski or even Freddie Francis - which hurts because not enough happens in the second half. Either the killer is the one weird guy or the second weird guy. It needed another twist or a subplot or something. The Jimmy Sangster written psycho thrillers for Hammer were better.
I can see why you'd like this if you discovered it, like the other Forbes-greenlit thriller from EMI, The Man Who Haunted Himself - but I was underwhelmed.
It was made by TV talent, but highly experienced - director Robert Fuest, writers Terry Nation and Brian Clemens. It has a cult reputation and was even remade.
It's not that good. There's creepiness at the beginning when you're waiting for one of the girls to go missing. Pamela Franklin has a sweet factor, and watching her I thought "I bet you've got a cult following because you're in horror movies and went nude once in a while" and that's true, but she doesn't rise to the occasion in the last third when she has to carry it all herself - she's better when she has Dotrice (a superior actor) to bounce off.
Robert Fuest has some decent credits but he wasn't a major spooky stylist - like say Roman Polanski or even Freddie Francis - which hurts because not enough happens in the second half. Either the killer is the one weird guy or the second weird guy. It needed another twist or a subplot or something. The Jimmy Sangster written psycho thrillers for Hammer were better.
I can see why you'd like this if you discovered it, like the other Forbes-greenlit thriller from EMI, The Man Who Haunted Himself - but I was underwhelmed.
Movie review - "Bowery to Broadway" (1944) ***
Universal was such a second tier studio in the 1940s this musical is very endearing in it's tackiness. It's made with their "names" - Turhan Bey, Susannah Foster, Maria Montez, Donald O'Connor and Peggy Ryan, Ann Blyth - and directed by old Charles Lamont.
The film is a rip off of those 20th Century Fox musicals of the time - they'd star John Payne, Betty Grable, June Havoc, etc and were set in the gay 90s and be about squabbling saloon owners who fall out over a girl. Those had more unity than this which has a more episodic storyline - I think to bring in all the stars.
The leads are Jack Oakie (who was in a few of them at Fox) and Donald Cook. They fall out over singer Maria Montez... only she doesn't appear until an hour in despite her top billing. It's fun to see her - she's slightly more animated here than in her technicolor films. (Having said that it's ashame this wasn't in colour - it would have suited it, and maybe this would be more remembered if it was).
The main plot of the first bit of the movie concerns pianist Turhan Bey (!) in love with singer Susanna Foster. He's creepily possessive, though that was a romance trope at the time - she's injured, he stands by her... then the plot switches to Cook-Montez.
There are turns by Donald O'Connor and Peggy Ryan (singing one song), Ann Blyth. Andy Devine is in it. So too is Evelyn Ankers. Someone plays Lilian Russell. No Lon Chaney Jnr though.
There's plenty of production value. Donald Cook isn't as good as a John Payne or George Montgomery but Jack Oakie is very good, Foster is perfectly cast, Montez and Bey offer novelty outside their normal exotic settings. I actually enjoyed it a lot.
The film is a rip off of those 20th Century Fox musicals of the time - they'd star John Payne, Betty Grable, June Havoc, etc and were set in the gay 90s and be about squabbling saloon owners who fall out over a girl. Those had more unity than this which has a more episodic storyline - I think to bring in all the stars.
The leads are Jack Oakie (who was in a few of them at Fox) and Donald Cook. They fall out over singer Maria Montez... only she doesn't appear until an hour in despite her top billing. It's fun to see her - she's slightly more animated here than in her technicolor films. (Having said that it's ashame this wasn't in colour - it would have suited it, and maybe this would be more remembered if it was).
The main plot of the first bit of the movie concerns pianist Turhan Bey (!) in love with singer Susanna Foster. He's creepily possessive, though that was a romance trope at the time - she's injured, he stands by her... then the plot switches to Cook-Montez.
There are turns by Donald O'Connor and Peggy Ryan (singing one song), Ann Blyth. Andy Devine is in it. So too is Evelyn Ankers. Someone plays Lilian Russell. No Lon Chaney Jnr though.
There's plenty of production value. Donald Cook isn't as good as a John Payne or George Montgomery but Jack Oakie is very good, Foster is perfectly cast, Montez and Bey offer novelty outside their normal exotic settings. I actually enjoyed it a lot.
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Movie review - "Silver River" (1948) ** (re-viewing)
Hugely expensive, a film of great potential. Starts well with a scene of Errol Flynn fighitng in the Civil War. It doesn't have much to do with the final film - I reckon it was added after previews.
Because the film doesn't go well. There's no life to it. Errol Flynn should have been a great anti hero - and he and Ann Sheridan should have made a fabulous couple. But there's no chemistry - no sexual tension.
David and Bathsheba out west should work. But you never get the sense these two are hot for each other. Sheridan doesn't seem to care about her husband either. Thomas Mitchell's drunk is annoying. He should have played Flynn's best friend all along.
There's too much talk about mines and scenes where men walk through rooms and not enough sex and excitement. Why was Barton MacLane bad again?
Because the film doesn't go well. There's no life to it. Errol Flynn should have been a great anti hero - and he and Ann Sheridan should have made a fabulous couple. But there's no chemistry - no sexual tension.
David and Bathsheba out west should work. But you never get the sense these two are hot for each other. Sheridan doesn't seem to care about her husband either. Thomas Mitchell's drunk is annoying. He should have played Flynn's best friend all along.
There's too much talk about mines and scenes where men walk through rooms and not enough sex and excitement. Why was Barton MacLane bad again?
Movie review - "That Forsyte Woman" (1949) ** (re-viewing)
Overproduced - the settings are stuffed with props and everyone's wearing too many clothes. I haven't read the novel but you cans see as here there is a basic love triangle that could work - but it doesn't. Errol Flynn is very good as Soames, Greer Garson is alright as Irene, Robert Young is awful as Philip and Walter Pidgeon not very good as Jolyon. Janet Leigh is too American. Bad support players.
The film needed better handling. Compton Bennett the director doesn't rise to the occasion. There's no feel, no atmosphere. No sense of family.
The film needed better handling. Compton Bennett the director doesn't rise to the occasion. There's no feel, no atmosphere. No sense of family.
Movie review - "The Right Stuff" (1983) ***1/2
It takes the piss but also doesn't, which is what happened in Tom Wolfe's masterful book. This does feel like two movies though - one about Chuck Yeager, a gum chewing laconic modern day cowboy with his fellow gum chewing laconic modern day cowboy friends (seriously they're always chewing) strutting around being cool and manly with big dick energy breaking speed records. This is short like a John Ford film (elegiac funeral scenes) with a dash of Howard Hawks in Barbara Hersey's feisty hard galloping wife and Kim Stanley's hard drinking bar owner.
The other film is more Frank Capra/Preston Sturges, with wacky NASA ops (Harry Shearer and Jeff Goldblum are genuinely funny), swarms of journalists, bombastic politicians (notably LBJ), lots (and lots) of jokes about urine.
I wonder if Kaufman bit off more than he could chew - another writer may have helped. William Goldman's original script was discarded - he wanted to just focus on the astronauts which I think was the correct idea, the two films here co-exist uneasily. I mean who gives a shit if the astronauts earn Yeager's respect?
Dennis Quaid is full of charismatic swagger and makes you wonder why he never became a big star - I'm sure he wonders that too - but then you realise he doesn't have the vulnerability of Tom cruise. If Quaid had played the lead in Top Gun it wouldn't have been as big a hit - Cruise looked as though he needed to be mothered but Quaid looked as though he could handle himself.
There's a few har-har-har military-style jokes about urination, Scott Glenn imitates a hispanic (apparently Alan Shepherd did a lot of this), they don't have Deke Slayton being turned down for some reason, Scott Carpenter is hardly in it. Weird final scene with the astronauts smiling at each other intercut with a fan dance.
The other film is more Frank Capra/Preston Sturges, with wacky NASA ops (Harry Shearer and Jeff Goldblum are genuinely funny), swarms of journalists, bombastic politicians (notably LBJ), lots (and lots) of jokes about urine.
I wonder if Kaufman bit off more than he could chew - another writer may have helped. William Goldman's original script was discarded - he wanted to just focus on the astronauts which I think was the correct idea, the two films here co-exist uneasily. I mean who gives a shit if the astronauts earn Yeager's respect?
Dennis Quaid is full of charismatic swagger and makes you wonder why he never became a big star - I'm sure he wonders that too - but then you realise he doesn't have the vulnerability of Tom cruise. If Quaid had played the lead in Top Gun it wouldn't have been as big a hit - Cruise looked as though he needed to be mothered but Quaid looked as though he could handle himself.
There's a few har-har-har military-style jokes about urination, Scott Glenn imitates a hispanic (apparently Alan Shepherd did a lot of this), they don't have Deke Slayton being turned down for some reason, Scott Carpenter is hardly in it. Weird final scene with the astronauts smiling at each other intercut with a fan dance.
Movie review - "Mara Maru" (1952) **1/2 (re-viewing)
Aspects of this film help it age well simply because they don't make these sort of crusty action melodramas any more. And if Errol Flynn was disintegrating, he was still Errol Flynn and his role suits him - a washed up sea captain. He's occasionally vague but mostly fine in his role.
He has no chemistry with Ruth Roman who is weak - mind you she has no character to play. I wish she'd just been a femme fetale. The cast of this is mostly B league but they do try. Raymond Burr is an A grade villain though.
It's an undercooked movie that occasionally jumps to life. Who cares if the Church get their cross back? Everyone needed to be greedier.
He has no chemistry with Ruth Roman who is weak - mind you she has no character to play. I wish she'd just been a femme fetale. The cast of this is mostly B league but they do try. Raymond Burr is an A grade villain though.
It's an undercooked movie that occasionally jumps to life. Who cares if the Church get their cross back? Everyone needed to be greedier.
Movie review - "Escape Me Never" (1947) ** (re-viewing)
An odd movie. The story is actually solid I think the treatment was badly handled and miscast. Everyone wears too much lederhosen.
Ida Lupino feels all wrong - too modern. Errol Flynn needed a moustache. I buy him as a selfish bohemian but not a composer. It needed more music. Eleanor Parker is stunning. Maybe if she and Lupino had swapped roles it could have been more effective. Gig Young's part needed to be bigger.
The basic love triangle of this is fine - Lupino loves Flynn who loves Parker who backs off when he realises she's loved by his brother Gig Young. But it goes all over the shop. Gets more silly as it goes on.
Warner Bros lost the ability to make this sort of melodrama. Maybe Edmund Goulding could have made it work.
Ida Lupino feels all wrong - too modern. Errol Flynn needed a moustache. I buy him as a selfish bohemian but not a composer. It needed more music. Eleanor Parker is stunning. Maybe if she and Lupino had swapped roles it could have been more effective. Gig Young's part needed to be bigger.
The basic love triangle of this is fine - Lupino loves Flynn who loves Parker who backs off when he realises she's loved by his brother Gig Young. But it goes all over the shop. Gets more silly as it goes on.
Warner Bros lost the ability to make this sort of melodrama. Maybe Edmund Goulding could have made it work.
Book review - "On Leopard Rock" by Wilbur Smith
It's surprised me that no one has done a biography of Smith, at least not to my knowledge - he's had one of the great careers, an accountant who turned his passion for game hunting, literature and history into one of the great best selling authors.
Here are his memoirs - recalling life growing up in Africa with his adored father and mother (the dad comes across vividly the mother is just "lovely"), horrid boarding school, lively holidays shooting wildlife and getting lost in the bush, summer vacations working on boats, dull life as an accountant helping inspire him to write, best selling success from his first proper novel and never looking back, evenings in Rhodesia working for the local police.
I would have liked more on the movies - Smith novels had a brief vogue in the 60s and 70s but have been filmed surprisingly little... I think due to racial issues. Also Hollywood's never cared that much about Africa. He wrote a screenplay that wasn't used but movies were never his passion as he admits. He says Yvette Mimieux's performance in Dark of the Sun was brilliant!
He is good as ever on action - accounts of shooting lions and getting lost in the bush - and some great tips on writing (his philosophy). He's not great describing encounters with famous people - I get the impression that Smith is simply not that interested in them, or maybe doesn't know that many... he spends too much time researching, hunting and writing.
There is very little on his family - he writes sections on his latest wife but nothing on Danielle, who was with him for something like two decades and died of a brain tumour, or her kid, or on his issues with his own children.
So this is a very incomplete memoir but fans of Smith will get a lot out of it.
Here are his memoirs - recalling life growing up in Africa with his adored father and mother (the dad comes across vividly the mother is just "lovely"), horrid boarding school, lively holidays shooting wildlife and getting lost in the bush, summer vacations working on boats, dull life as an accountant helping inspire him to write, best selling success from his first proper novel and never looking back, evenings in Rhodesia working for the local police.
I would have liked more on the movies - Smith novels had a brief vogue in the 60s and 70s but have been filmed surprisingly little... I think due to racial issues. Also Hollywood's never cared that much about Africa. He wrote a screenplay that wasn't used but movies were never his passion as he admits. He says Yvette Mimieux's performance in Dark of the Sun was brilliant!
He is good as ever on action - accounts of shooting lions and getting lost in the bush - and some great tips on writing (his philosophy). He's not great describing encounters with famous people - I get the impression that Smith is simply not that interested in them, or maybe doesn't know that many... he spends too much time researching, hunting and writing.
There is very little on his family - he writes sections on his latest wife but nothing on Danielle, who was with him for something like two decades and died of a brain tumour, or her kid, or on his issues with his own children.
So this is a very incomplete memoir but fans of Smith will get a lot out of it.
Movie review - "The Man Who Haunted Himself" (1970) **1/2
One of the first films greenlit by Bryan Forbes at EMI Films, it flopped at the time but has gone on to have a cult reputation in part because it was Roger Moore's favourite among his films.
It feels like a movie that should have been made in the 50s or early 60s - 1970 was a bit late in the day for a thriller with a hero wearing bowler hats and a silly moustache. Maybe the moustache would never work.
Moore is very good - he was proud of his work and should be. His suaveness is used to good effect because he starts off so smugly and disintegrates.
I wish it had a better director than Basil Dearden. He's obviously strong with actors but not so crash hot on suspense - someone strong with mood and creepiness would have been much better.
I think it would have been better had Moore met the doppleganger earlier - played out the ramifications of that. And more of the sexiness and alter ego - I guess that's Face Off territory but still.
Interesting. I didn't love it but there are people who do. Lovely to see Moore stretch himself.
It feels like a movie that should have been made in the 50s or early 60s - 1970 was a bit late in the day for a thriller with a hero wearing bowler hats and a silly moustache. Maybe the moustache would never work.
Moore is very good - he was proud of his work and should be. His suaveness is used to good effect because he starts off so smugly and disintegrates.
I wish it had a better director than Basil Dearden. He's obviously strong with actors but not so crash hot on suspense - someone strong with mood and creepiness would have been much better.
I think it would have been better had Moore met the doppleganger earlier - played out the ramifications of that. And more of the sexiness and alter ego - I guess that's Face Off territory but still.
Interesting. I didn't love it but there are people who do. Lovely to see Moore stretch himself.
TV series - "Mindhunter Season 2" (2019) **1/2
I didn't like this as much because it doesn't have the narrative drive of trying to set up the unit and approaching investigating serial killers in a totally different way. It's not as fresh and also the human interest component - is one of the cops kids a psycho - feels over the top. The production design and acting remain impressive. Anna Torv doesn't do much.
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Movie review - "The Stuntman" (1980) *** (warning: spoilers)
Cult favourite which I might have liked more had I discovered it instead of having it hyped for me. Steve Railsback is the man on the run who winds up working as a stuntman for Peter O'Toole, a film director, who seems to be nuts... but we find out Railsback the ex Vietnam vet is also nuts. Barbara Hershey is, yet again for her career, The Girl, but she is very good - actually the whole cast is.
Decent handling. I think I would have liked it more had O'Toole killed Railsback. O'Toole is great fun but he's matched by nutty Railsback. Maybe I'll have to watch this again.
Decent handling. I think I would have liked it more had O'Toole killed Railsback. O'Toole is great fun but he's matched by nutty Railsback. Maybe I'll have to watch this again.
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Movie review - "Danger Close" (2019) ***
So frustrating. It's a cracker story - and the story is done justice. It looks handsome. There was a big budget. Most of the cast are great - Travis Fimmell and Luke Bracey are strong leads and people like Stephen Peacocke are ideal soldier types. The music is terrific.
But when it goes wrong it goes really wrong. In 2019 you should not be having scenes where someone talks about their upcoming marriage just before being shot. Or comic relief Irishmen. Or scenes where Little Pattie just blandly smiles. Or scenes where when a base is under mortar attack you've got soldiers wanting to continue their poker game and smoke and drink beer on guard duty. When the base is under mortar attack!!! (In contrast scenes like Tony Hayes demanding vehicles stop to collect him instead of going to the rescue of the soldiers feel very realistic).
The movie actually didn't need to cost as much as it did - you didn't need POV of the helicopters or planes or endless drone shots. They would've been better off focusing on little moments and characters - building suspense, because those are effective.
The film also gives no voice to the Vietnamese. They could have just done a Zulu and had one opening scene which dealt with their side then switched to the Aussie POV. There's no allowance that it's their country. It sure would have made the movie a richer experience.
This should have been a really solid war film, because the story is strong and it was given the budget to do it justice, but there's too many silly moments like Travis Fimmell standing up with a pistol as the Vietnamese run in. It's a shame.
But when it goes wrong it goes really wrong. In 2019 you should not be having scenes where someone talks about their upcoming marriage just before being shot. Or comic relief Irishmen. Or scenes where Little Pattie just blandly smiles. Or scenes where when a base is under mortar attack you've got soldiers wanting to continue their poker game and smoke and drink beer on guard duty. When the base is under mortar attack!!! (In contrast scenes like Tony Hayes demanding vehicles stop to collect him instead of going to the rescue of the soldiers feel very realistic).
The movie actually didn't need to cost as much as it did - you didn't need POV of the helicopters or planes or endless drone shots. They would've been better off focusing on little moments and characters - building suspense, because those are effective.
The film also gives no voice to the Vietnamese. They could have just done a Zulu and had one opening scene which dealt with their side then switched to the Aussie POV. There's no allowance that it's their country. It sure would have made the movie a richer experience.
This should have been a really solid war film, because the story is strong and it was given the budget to do it justice, but there's too many silly moments like Travis Fimmell standing up with a pistol as the Vietnamese run in. It's a shame.
Movie review - "Stuber" (2019) **1/2
A decent time to be had. This is a throw back to 80s buddy films - Kumail Nanjiani is very funny as the geeky uber driver caught up in cop Dave Bautista's attempts to get bad guy Iko Uwais. I'm not sure Bautista's got star factor... I kept wishing it was Vin Diesel or Van Damme or someone. And is he really old enough to be the father of Natalie Morales?
Betty Gilpin is funny as Nanjiana's lusted after BFF, Karen Gillan has a decent... cameo? would you call it?, it took me a while to recognise Mira Sorvino. The action scenes are very well done. It's extremely, extremely annoying how Bautista/Nanjiani don't call for help throughout the day... I mean they keep finding dead bodies and no one calls? Why didn't they make Bautista falsely accused of a crime or something? It's really irritating.
Also the film doesn't use the uber stuff enough. It touches on it - a rival uber driver, a bunch of other drivers... It's just a shame. It feels like a decent Netflix movie - not a theatrical experience.
Betty Gilpin is funny as Nanjiana's lusted after BFF, Karen Gillan has a decent... cameo? would you call it?, it took me a while to recognise Mira Sorvino. The action scenes are very well done. It's extremely, extremely annoying how Bautista/Nanjiani don't call for help throughout the day... I mean they keep finding dead bodies and no one calls? Why didn't they make Bautista falsely accused of a crime or something? It's really irritating.
Also the film doesn't use the uber stuff enough. It touches on it - a rival uber driver, a bunch of other drivers... It's just a shame. It feels like a decent Netflix movie - not a theatrical experience.
Movie review - "Parasite" (2018) ****1/2
Superb black comedy thriller about a family of Korean hucksters who worm their way into a house of richies and find that there's more than they expected. It's a work of rich characterisation and logical progression. One of the best looks at the class system in Korea - actually make that most countries. I wasn't familiar with any of the actors but they were all fantastic - the dad with a brooding sense of injustice, the laughing mother, the quick witter daughter, the son who kicks it off, the housekeeper, the rich man and his nutty wife and kids. Each scene progresses the action logically. (It was maybe a stretch they let in the housekeeper.. maybe better that she broke in).
The themes are universal - gap between rich and poor, families struggling to make do. It's wonderful.
The themes are universal - gap between rich and poor, families struggling to make do. It's wonderful.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Movie review - "Treasure Island" (1950) ****
Charming version of the legendary tale, helped with some beautiful production design and photography, a very strong cast of Brit actors (except for lead Bobby Driscoll who is most engaging), and a filmmaking team clearly into it.
Robert Newton's Long John Silver isn't everyone's cup of tea - it's not a replica of what's in the book, but it is a lot of fun. He really is the definitive eye rolling argh me hearties pirate. You can understand why Jim Hawkins wants to hang out with him more than the other adults, who are a little dull.
There's a lot of love that's gone into the movie. It's done with affection and a spirit of adventure. Decent action - it doesn't shy away from the darker stuff either, like Jim Hawkins having to kill.
Robert Newton's Long John Silver isn't everyone's cup of tea - it's not a replica of what's in the book, but it is a lot of fun. He really is the definitive eye rolling argh me hearties pirate. You can understand why Jim Hawkins wants to hang out with him more than the other adults, who are a little dull.
There's a lot of love that's gone into the movie. It's done with affection and a spirit of adventure. Decent action - it doesn't shy away from the darker stuff either, like Jim Hawkins having to kill.
Movie review - "Charlie's Angels" (2019) ** (warning: spoilers)
It doesn't work but it could have worked. The things I though were wrong from the trailer actually were fine.. and other stuff which I figured Elizabeth Banks would be able to do easy, she doesn't.
First up, the good stuff - only Kirsten Stewart of the girls is recognisable but the others are terrific. They are lively, different and personable. I believed them in the action stuff. Their character differences could have been played up - Naomi Scott could have been more nerdy, Ella Balinska could have been even more straight lacked - but there is inherent conflict in their types to give some progression to them getting along.
Also there was some talk "we didn't need a new reboot of Charlie's Angels". I would argue in a post Hilary Clinton defeat world, we did - this is a strongly feminist take, and that's why you make the film. There's lovely pro girl touches like little girls observing the Angels, the lecherous security guard doing body scanning, and the random-person-who-gives-information-in-the-second-act does work in the third world for female health.
The action scenes are very well done - especially the fights. It looks handsome. The cast is a good one.
But it still didn't work. For me, at any rate.
First up, the plot is needlessly confusing. The MacGuffin is some ball that makes clean energy but also kills people... and can be fixed via a bit more work... huh? And the guts of the plot has Scott call the Townsend agency because... she can't get through to the boss, is that right? That's why she hires detectives? "Shock" reveals like the head of the IT company being bad and a Bosley going rogue feel so stock that they may as well just have put them up the front of the movie... Who is paying the Townsend agency for looking after Scott? Why can they access pretty much every computer but not figure it out? It's all boring meat and potatoes plotting but it's skimmed over, and as a result you find yourself distracted by it, when you just want it deal with so you can focus on action.
The film's full of bits where you go "oh that's cool" but when you think about it doesn't make sense - like the reveal of all the angels at the end... that's cool... but what were they doing while Stewart and Balinska were fighting it out? Especially the secretary who gave Scott the card? She's an angel but she wasn't involved, is that right? Why not just have Scott write her memo, have people try to kill her, and then she goes to the agency?
There's glimpses of the really fun movie inside that make you frustrated this didn't go there - the character of Saint, played by Luis Gerando Mendez, who provides the girls with food platters, consensual back alignments, weapons, clothes and therapy (a lovely touch)... this is great 2019 female fantasy... kick arse, then come home to some nice clothes, food laid out, massage and therapy... More of this would have been great. But, hang on - isn't that the Bosley role? So there's an additional Bosley.
Because this version gives Bosleys too much to do. One turns bad, that's fine... but here we've got Djimon Honsou as a Bosley going on a mission and getting killed, and Elizabeth Banks going along on all the later missions. Bosley is meant to provide gear or stuff things up - the biggest mistake this movie makes I feel was putting too much attention on Bosley. Banks pulls focus from her cast. In part that's because she is a charismatic actor, but the focus should be on her angels, not frigging Bosley. And Banks keeps hanging around . I mean, the key confrontation at the end is between Banks and Patrick Stewart... like, who cares? It needed to be about the three girls - and if they wanted to expand that, then the angels. Everything the Honsou character could (and, I would argue, should) have been done by a Charlie's Angel - they take part in action, they get killed, makes more sense Balinska is wary about new team-members.
The idea of a franchises Townsend agency is wonderful but they don't really do anything with it. They could have livened up countless scenes by constantly running into other angels doing missions. The training camp at the end is really fun - but that's at the very end credits.
I feel the film could have done with more wish fulfilment - I loved Chris Pang's villain adoring Kirsten Stewart... why not do more of that? Or the nerd who loved Balinska - that felt like it needed another beat. And talk of Scott's dating life - I would have loved to have seen more of that. I guess, yes I am asking for more men in the movie, but wouldn't it serve the greater cause of a female fantasy? Even if it's say Scott has a deadshit boyfriend she kicks to the curb - just something dramatised.
First up, the good stuff - only Kirsten Stewart of the girls is recognisable but the others are terrific. They are lively, different and personable. I believed them in the action stuff. Their character differences could have been played up - Naomi Scott could have been more nerdy, Ella Balinska could have been even more straight lacked - but there is inherent conflict in their types to give some progression to them getting along.
Also there was some talk "we didn't need a new reboot of Charlie's Angels". I would argue in a post Hilary Clinton defeat world, we did - this is a strongly feminist take, and that's why you make the film. There's lovely pro girl touches like little girls observing the Angels, the lecherous security guard doing body scanning, and the random-person-who-gives-information-in-the-second-act does work in the third world for female health.
The action scenes are very well done - especially the fights. It looks handsome. The cast is a good one.
But it still didn't work. For me, at any rate.
First up, the plot is needlessly confusing. The MacGuffin is some ball that makes clean energy but also kills people... and can be fixed via a bit more work... huh? And the guts of the plot has Scott call the Townsend agency because... she can't get through to the boss, is that right? That's why she hires detectives? "Shock" reveals like the head of the IT company being bad and a Bosley going rogue feel so stock that they may as well just have put them up the front of the movie... Who is paying the Townsend agency for looking after Scott? Why can they access pretty much every computer but not figure it out? It's all boring meat and potatoes plotting but it's skimmed over, and as a result you find yourself distracted by it, when you just want it deal with so you can focus on action.
The film's full of bits where you go "oh that's cool" but when you think about it doesn't make sense - like the reveal of all the angels at the end... that's cool... but what were they doing while Stewart and Balinska were fighting it out? Especially the secretary who gave Scott the card? She's an angel but she wasn't involved, is that right? Why not just have Scott write her memo, have people try to kill her, and then she goes to the agency?
There's glimpses of the really fun movie inside that make you frustrated this didn't go there - the character of Saint, played by Luis Gerando Mendez, who provides the girls with food platters, consensual back alignments, weapons, clothes and therapy (a lovely touch)... this is great 2019 female fantasy... kick arse, then come home to some nice clothes, food laid out, massage and therapy... More of this would have been great. But, hang on - isn't that the Bosley role? So there's an additional Bosley.
Because this version gives Bosleys too much to do. One turns bad, that's fine... but here we've got Djimon Honsou as a Bosley going on a mission and getting killed, and Elizabeth Banks going along on all the later missions. Bosley is meant to provide gear or stuff things up - the biggest mistake this movie makes I feel was putting too much attention on Bosley. Banks pulls focus from her cast. In part that's because she is a charismatic actor, but the focus should be on her angels, not frigging Bosley. And Banks keeps hanging around . I mean, the key confrontation at the end is between Banks and Patrick Stewart... like, who cares? It needed to be about the three girls - and if they wanted to expand that, then the angels. Everything the Honsou character could (and, I would argue, should) have been done by a Charlie's Angel - they take part in action, they get killed, makes more sense Balinska is wary about new team-members.
The idea of a franchises Townsend agency is wonderful but they don't really do anything with it. They could have livened up countless scenes by constantly running into other angels doing missions. The training camp at the end is really fun - but that's at the very end credits.
I feel the film could have done with more wish fulfilment - I loved Chris Pang's villain adoring Kirsten Stewart... why not do more of that? Or the nerd who loved Balinska - that felt like it needed another beat. And talk of Scott's dating life - I would have loved to have seen more of that. I guess, yes I am asking for more men in the movie, but wouldn't it serve the greater cause of a female fantasy? Even if it's say Scott has a deadshit boyfriend she kicks to the curb - just something dramatised.
Book review - "Triumph of the Sun" by Wilbur Smith (2005)
The siege of Khartoum is one of the great British imperial epics so it's surprising in a way it took Wilbur Smith so long to get around to writing it. I guess it took place in the Sudan and Smiths patch has traditionally been Southern Africa and Egypt.
This one unites the Courtneys and Ballantynes - actually that's slightly disappointing element. I was looking forward to a big clash but while there's some niggle, both in love with the same girl, neither are really in love with her, and the Courtney, Ryder, isn't in the book much - he disappears for great slabs of time. The real dynamic in the book is Penrod Ballantyne vs a Muslim leader, Osman Atalan, who serves the sort of role that Afrikaaners have in Courtney books in the part.
There are three female characters, all daughters of the British ambassador - all indistinguishable, really. The eldest, Rebecca, just wants cock and becomes a top courtesan - she sleeps with Ryder, Penrod, the Mahdi and Osman, and goes crazy for Osman in captivity. I was hoping Smith would alter history so she'd murder the Mahdi at least (he's got Osman chopping off Gordon's head) but no dice. Her twin sisters are giggling ninnies - one winds up with Ryder and marries him at fifteen and the other marries Penrod at sixteen which I'm sorry just feels a bit yuck.
Smith's dialogue is ropey as ever but his description of action is superb and he is a great yarn spinner. The book is very exciting, and has an epic sweep - it's about Khartoum but goes up to Kitchener's end expedition (I'm surprised he didn't devote a book to that... he also rushes through the fate of Rebecca's children in a few paragraphs when there could be another book in their adventures). There's hellishly evocative accounts of the sack of Khartoum and being imprisoned by the Mahdi. Some of the writing is really good - I just wish he'd devote more time to his fictional characters. (His recreation of historical figures like Gordon and the Mahdi is excellent).
This one unites the Courtneys and Ballantynes - actually that's slightly disappointing element. I was looking forward to a big clash but while there's some niggle, both in love with the same girl, neither are really in love with her, and the Courtney, Ryder, isn't in the book much - he disappears for great slabs of time. The real dynamic in the book is Penrod Ballantyne vs a Muslim leader, Osman Atalan, who serves the sort of role that Afrikaaners have in Courtney books in the part.
There are three female characters, all daughters of the British ambassador - all indistinguishable, really. The eldest, Rebecca, just wants cock and becomes a top courtesan - she sleeps with Ryder, Penrod, the Mahdi and Osman, and goes crazy for Osman in captivity. I was hoping Smith would alter history so she'd murder the Mahdi at least (he's got Osman chopping off Gordon's head) but no dice. Her twin sisters are giggling ninnies - one winds up with Ryder and marries him at fifteen and the other marries Penrod at sixteen which I'm sorry just feels a bit yuck.
Smith's dialogue is ropey as ever but his description of action is superb and he is a great yarn spinner. The book is very exciting, and has an epic sweep - it's about Khartoum but goes up to Kitchener's end expedition (I'm surprised he didn't devote a book to that... he also rushes through the fate of Rebecca's children in a few paragraphs when there could be another book in their adventures). There's hellishly evocative accounts of the sack of Khartoum and being imprisoned by the Mahdi. Some of the writing is really good - I just wish he'd devote more time to his fictional characters. (His recreation of historical figures like Gordon and the Mahdi is excellent).
Friday, November 22, 2019
Movie review - "Crossed Swords" (1954) ** (re-viewing)
Should have been good. Late period Errol as a Don Juan type. Cesare Danova has his best friend and Gina Lollobrigida as the love interest. Italian locations, Jack Cardiff cinematography. Some clever script ideas like the men being forced to marry, and the women being involved in seducing the men.
It's not good. They don't use the ideas - why not have Don Juan be forced to be married? Errol is more rape-y here than in The Adventures of Don Juan. Undercast villains. Poor direction. Poor dubbing.
It's not good. They don't use the ideas - why not have Don Juan be forced to be married? Errol is more rape-y here than in The Adventures of Don Juan. Undercast villains. Poor direction. Poor dubbing.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
Random Thoughts on "Charlie's Angels" Reboot
Haven't seen it yet - this is going off the trailer(s) and various press reports. Some possible reasons why the public didn't go:
- Lack of star power. Everyone had heard of Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Bill Murray. Only Kirsten Stewart was super well known from current version. Elizabeth Banks and Patrick Stewart were kind of known. Maybe if Miley Cyrus had been in it.
- The trailer didn't seem that fun. Occasionally fun. Weirdly low energy. Low key techno, I think is the music - no pumping bass. It was too laid back.
- Elizabeth Banks' name is all over it. She intros the trailer, is prominent in the trailer, wrote, produced and directed. I actually think the film would've been better had she starred - she has high energy, the women in the film (as per the trailer) don't seem to be as much. But I do worry about bfilms where the one person wrote and directed and produced it, especially when they are cartoon-y movies and not personal projects. I feel this way when I see a man's name all over the credits too.
- No guy for the guys in the audience to hang on to. I know it's a girl orientated film for girls - get that, understand it, dig it. I just felt they could have shown a little bit more of a sympathetic guy - a bit more of that "cute nerd" for instance. I know women have that issue a lot, being completely sidelined in movies, and accept that. It was just how I felt watching it.
- The film didn't feel as though it had a decent reason to exist. The 2000 version was a different take... what was this one's take? More feminist? More serious?
- Lack of star power. Everyone had heard of Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Bill Murray. Only Kirsten Stewart was super well known from current version. Elizabeth Banks and Patrick Stewart were kind of known. Maybe if Miley Cyrus had been in it.
- The trailer didn't seem that fun. Occasionally fun. Weirdly low energy. Low key techno, I think is the music - no pumping bass. It was too laid back.
- Elizabeth Banks' name is all over it. She intros the trailer, is prominent in the trailer, wrote, produced and directed. I actually think the film would've been better had she starred - she has high energy, the women in the film (as per the trailer) don't seem to be as much. But I do worry about bfilms where the one person wrote and directed and produced it, especially when they are cartoon-y movies and not personal projects. I feel this way when I see a man's name all over the credits too.
- No guy for the guys in the audience to hang on to. I know it's a girl orientated film for girls - get that, understand it, dig it. I just felt they could have shown a little bit more of a sympathetic guy - a bit more of that "cute nerd" for instance. I know women have that issue a lot, being completely sidelined in movies, and accept that. It was just how I felt watching it.
- The film didn't feel as though it had a decent reason to exist. The 2000 version was a different take... what was this one's take? More feminist? More serious?
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Book review - "Long Way Down" by Cameron Douglas
Full marks to Douglas for being so honest - I'm assuming it's honest because he certainly doesn't come well out of this book. For the first part this was gripping - insight into growing up as the only child of Michael Douglas and his first life, hanging out with the rich and famous, growing up as his father exploded into a major star.
I would have liked more movie stuff - stories of other famous people, even more on the movies Cameron Douglas made. It would have been a relief from the relentless story of him getting drugs, taking drugs, getting arrested/expelled, having sex with some woman, getting in a fight, getting wake up calls that he ignores..
He comes across as a complete wanker. Given chance after chance. He had a career - as a deejay, which was lucrative - and blew it. Got leading roles in some films - blew that too. Stuffed relationships. Refused to do a regular job.
Sure his parents weren't great - they paid for expensive schools and rehab but clearly didn't want to spend time with him, Michael chuckled over Cameron's fighting antics when firmer boundaries might've been more appropriate. Mum is obssessed with her youth and has bad taste in men. But they didn't deserve this.
After a while all the details and downfall-ing become relentlessly grim. Douglas seems proud of his tough rep in prison and not going full stool pigeon. Even out of prison he still refuses to get a proper job - he's working on screenplays and his acting! I have this feeling he'll relapse.
The most likeable person in the book is his loyal junkie girlfriend Erin who Douglas still winds up dumping.
Still, points for depicting himself as warts and all.
I would have liked more movie stuff - stories of other famous people, even more on the movies Cameron Douglas made. It would have been a relief from the relentless story of him getting drugs, taking drugs, getting arrested/expelled, having sex with some woman, getting in a fight, getting wake up calls that he ignores..
He comes across as a complete wanker. Given chance after chance. He had a career - as a deejay, which was lucrative - and blew it. Got leading roles in some films - blew that too. Stuffed relationships. Refused to do a regular job.
Sure his parents weren't great - they paid for expensive schools and rehab but clearly didn't want to spend time with him, Michael chuckled over Cameron's fighting antics when firmer boundaries might've been more appropriate. Mum is obssessed with her youth and has bad taste in men. But they didn't deserve this.
After a while all the details and downfall-ing become relentlessly grim. Douglas seems proud of his tough rep in prison and not going full stool pigeon. Even out of prison he still refuses to get a proper job - he's working on screenplays and his acting! I have this feeling he'll relapse.
The most likeable person in the book is his loyal junkie girlfriend Erin who Douglas still winds up dumping.
Still, points for depicting himself as warts and all.
Movie review - "Istanbul" (1957) **
Bad. Starts promisingly with location footage of Istanbul but most of this is shot on the backlot. Errol Flynn looks too old - if the role suited that it was good but it doesn't here. The role is clearly meant for someone like Jeff Chandler who would be channelling someone like Humphrey Bogart.
There are echoes of Casablanca - black pianist friend, girl from his past, mysterious police chief, exotic types hanging around - but this is no way near as good. I haven't seen Singapore but that would have had the extra element of the war... Istanbul was neutral during the war.
The guy who plays the police chief is pretty good, but having Colonel Klink as a villain is distracting (not the poor actor's fault, it's just the way it is). Cournell Bourchers or whatever she is is a dull female lead and they do nothing with the character of her husband. It lacks suspense, excitement, mystery, atmosphere. It does have Nat King Cole singing 'When I Fall in Love'.
There are echoes of Casablanca - black pianist friend, girl from his past, mysterious police chief, exotic types hanging around - but this is no way near as good. I haven't seen Singapore but that would have had the extra element of the war... Istanbul was neutral during the war.
The guy who plays the police chief is pretty good, but having Colonel Klink as a villain is distracting (not the poor actor's fault, it's just the way it is). Cournell Bourchers or whatever she is is a dull female lead and they do nothing with the character of her husband. It lacks suspense, excitement, mystery, atmosphere. It does have Nat King Cole singing 'When I Fall in Love'.
TV review - "The Mandalorian" - first two eps (2019) **
Stunning art design, costumes and music. The actors are fine. At it's heart this wants to be a film - it's all A plot there's no subplots to cut away to. The lead is behind a helmet, not interacting with anyone. There's no lead human. The emotional kicks given by the film derive from the first two movies - baby Yoda and the jawas.
Friday, November 15, 2019
Movie review - "Kim" (1951) *** (re-viewing) (warning: spoilers)
I enjoyed this on re-viewing. It is bright and colourful and has locations in India. There's a lot of brown face - a lot - but the filmmakers get the basic escapist conceit of the novel: it's a young boys fantasy, to be a carefree orphan who will do important work for his bosses, go to a boarding school but not a mean one, have adults look out for you, and spend your holidays spying.
Errol Flynn has a "big brother" role similar to The Prince and the Pauper - the real star is Dean Stockwell. They probably should have given those spy training sequences to Flynn - but the guy who does them is good.
Cecil Kellaway is in brownface as a fellow spy - his death is a genuine shock. It is nice to see two expat Aussies working together.
I enjoyed Robert Douglas as the efficient colonel - it was like he was in his own series/show and Stockwell kind of pops in. Paul Lukas is in brownface - I appreciated how he died though the film could have done a better job on the Stockwell-Lukas relationship.
The action/suspense scenes are quite exciting because they involve a young kid. I still would have liked more vigorous handling.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Movie review - "Cry Wolf" (1947) *** (warning: spoilers) (re-viewing)
A version of Jane Eyre - with Barbara Stanwyck as Jane and Errol Flynn as Rochester and Richard Basehart as the mad woman and Geraldine Brooks as the daughter. I mean that's an exaggeration but the structure is similar - Stanwyck meets Flynn, says she was married to his late brother, he's hiding a secret... which is insanity.
This is a fun movie. It's not very well directed - someone like Robert Siodmak would have really amped up the tension. You want creepy corridors and spooky angles... and it's there in theory just not done very well.
Also Stanwyck is far too sensible and strong. I get the appeal of having a powerful female lead but someone on the verge of a nervous breakdown would have given it more tension.
Flynn is an ideal Rochester. Brooks is excellent going nutty as is Basehart. The film could have used a creepy servant or two.
This is a fun movie. It's not very well directed - someone like Robert Siodmak would have really amped up the tension. You want creepy corridors and spooky angles... and it's there in theory just not done very well.
Also Stanwyck is far too sensible and strong. I get the appeal of having a powerful female lead but someone on the verge of a nervous breakdown would have given it more tension.
Flynn is an ideal Rochester. Brooks is excellent going nutty as is Basehart. The film could have used a creepy servant or two.
Movie review - "Against All Flags" (1951) ***1/2
This is just fun. Errol is creaky but that's part of the appeal in a way - he's this aging rogue going undercover, who isn't as good looking as he once was but at least knows how to flirt so the girls go for him... Maureen O'Hara, sexually aggressive and surrounded by smelly pirates, probably goes for him for the same reason.
O'Hara is a fun pirate - I like seeing her play forward women, she portrayed quite a few of them around this point. Anthony Quinn is a strong villain - in fact the whole cast was pretty good. Universal ran a well oiled machine by this time.
O'Hara is a fun pirate - I like seeing her play forward women, she portrayed quite a few of them around this point. Anthony Quinn is a strong villain - in fact the whole cast was pretty good. Universal ran a well oiled machine by this time.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Movie review - "The Warriors" (1979) **** (re-watching it)
Always good to watch this again. Random observations:
* This time I'm struck by the quality of small parts - Cyrus, the head of the Orphans. These really stand out.
* The costumes are quasi futuristic but nothing is more outlandish than the prom outfits worn by those kids at the end. Did they come in from Saturday Night Fever?
* Why didn't Michael Beck become a bigger star? I know the answer for James Remar - drugs - but not Beck.
* Beautifully shot.
* I keep watching and rewatching the opening credits introducing all the characters - it's so beautiful.
* Why did Walter Hill never return to this style apart from Streets of Fire?
* This time I'm struck by the quality of small parts - Cyrus, the head of the Orphans. These really stand out.
* The costumes are quasi futuristic but nothing is more outlandish than the prom outfits worn by those kids at the end. Did they come in from Saturday Night Fever?
* Why didn't Michael Beck become a bigger star? I know the answer for James Remar - drugs - but not Beck.
* Beautifully shot.
* I keep watching and rewatching the opening credits introducing all the characters - it's so beautiful.
* Why did Walter Hill never return to this style apart from Streets of Fire?
Sunday, November 10, 2019
Movie review - "The Sisters" (1938) ***
Decent melodrama, with disturbing undertones and great production design. It's not really about the sisters - it starts off that way, with Bette Davis, Anita Louise and Jane Bryan all having romantic entanglements. But focus shifts to Davis and her relationship with dead-shit Errol Flynn.
The marriage is actually a very accurate depiction of an abusive relationship - he drinks, whines about his novel, has his masculinity threatened, she takes it because she loves him and he promises to get better and there's nowhere else to go. Flynn gives a fine performance - he's lifted by having doing scenes with Davis and also Donald Crisp.
Really his character should have died... he gets back with Davis at the end, in a scene that test audiences wanted. No doubt it inspired women to stay with their loser husbands who subsequently murdered them.
It is a shame that more time couldn't have been spent on the other sisters - or at least Louise, who has an interesting character (flirty, always looking for a new love, hooking up with old Alan Hale and incurring the wrath of his sister). I wasn't wild about the scene where they teamed up to help men drive a trampy woman out of town - I mean, Louise is pretty trampy isn't she?
I liked the election eves device, the recreation of the earthquake and the depiction of the brothel.
The marriage is actually a very accurate depiction of an abusive relationship - he drinks, whines about his novel, has his masculinity threatened, she takes it because she loves him and he promises to get better and there's nowhere else to go. Flynn gives a fine performance - he's lifted by having doing scenes with Davis and also Donald Crisp.
Really his character should have died... he gets back with Davis at the end, in a scene that test audiences wanted. No doubt it inspired women to stay with their loser husbands who subsequently murdered them.
It is a shame that more time couldn't have been spent on the other sisters - or at least Louise, who has an interesting character (flirty, always looking for a new love, hooking up with old Alan Hale and incurring the wrath of his sister). I wasn't wild about the scene where they teamed up to help men drive a trampy woman out of town - I mean, Louise is pretty trampy isn't she?
I liked the election eves device, the recreation of the earthquake and the depiction of the brothel.
Movie review - "Rocky Mountain" (1950) *** (re-viewing - warning: spoilers)
Perhaps Flynn's best western - not without flaws (the support characters could be sketched out more, it could have handled a subplot) - but it is unpretentious, self contained. It is low budget but that suits the story - a group of eight confederate soldiers invade California to try and start a rebellion there. They rescue a woman from an Indian attack and have to deal with the woman's Union officer husband and the elements and all that stuff.
It proceeds logically and with a deal of tension. It helps that the ending results in all the southerners getting wiped out even the painfully young kid - a dog rushing to them is a lovely touch.
It could have done with a stronger cast - I wish Lauren Bacall had done it as originally intended but can understand why she turned it out. Patrice Wymore is sweet, just inexperienced - ditto Scott Forbes. The support soldier actors are good though including Slim Pickens.
This falls into the category of later period Flynn movies that suit his later disintegrated state - he's tired, worn out by war, nostalgically thinking of the old days, trying to make something of his life, being gentlemanly with the lady. I really like this film - it's not a masterpiece, but it's fine.
It proceeds logically and with a deal of tension. It helps that the ending results in all the southerners getting wiped out even the painfully young kid - a dog rushing to them is a lovely touch.
It could have done with a stronger cast - I wish Lauren Bacall had done it as originally intended but can understand why she turned it out. Patrice Wymore is sweet, just inexperienced - ditto Scott Forbes. The support soldier actors are good though including Slim Pickens.
This falls into the category of later period Flynn movies that suit his later disintegrated state - he's tired, worn out by war, nostalgically thinking of the old days, trying to make something of his life, being gentlemanly with the lady. I really like this film - it's not a masterpiece, but it's fine.
Thursday, November 07, 2019
Movie review - "Santa Fe Trail" (1940) **1/2 (re-viewing)
Big, loud, noisy. I don't think Michael Curtiz was as interested in Westerns as other genres. It forms part of a trilogy with Dodge City and Virginia City and is probably the least of these. For every vaguely decent point the script makes, like blacks wondering what happens to them after they are free, or vaguely historical point, like Jeb Stuart being at Harper's Ferry, it's undermined by making the slave owning Stuart the hero, emasculating the abolitionist Custer (he loses the girl, doesn't get to be heroic), having more sympathetic slavers than abolitionists.
Van Heflin is meant to be a villain, causing trouble with his anti slavery ways at West Point - but it's he who tips off the government about Harpers Ferry. He saves more lives than Flynn!
Olivia de Havilland is charming but wasted in her part - any starlet could have played the role (why not give her a position on slavery?). There's plenty of action but it isn't that memorable. The best bit is when the Indian fortune teller predicts the Civil War - this is genuinely creepy.
This is a post Gone with the Wind MAGA movie.
Van Heflin is meant to be a villain, causing trouble with his anti slavery ways at West Point - but it's he who tips off the government about Harpers Ferry. He saves more lives than Flynn!
Olivia de Havilland is charming but wasted in her part - any starlet could have played the role (why not give her a position on slavery?). There's plenty of action but it isn't that memorable. The best bit is when the Indian fortune teller predicts the Civil War - this is genuinely creepy.
This is a post Gone with the Wind MAGA movie.
Wednesday, November 06, 2019
Movie review - "The Big Boodle" (1957) **1/2 (re-viewing)
No one thought much of this film when it came out... but time has been kind. Well, maybe. It's got Errol Flynn only a few years away from death looking old and warn out but it's a role that totally suits him: a washed up old rogue who has wasted his life, working at the tables in a Havana casino. He gets involved in an attempt to smuggle in some counterfeit money - he gets beaten up, slapped around, fired, stuck in the country, looks a bit lost and sad, but he's still old charming Errol and he manages to get through it.
The location shooting in Cuba helps immeasurably - it's in black and white and I wish more scenes had been set outside but what is there is fine - rooftop pools, pavements, markets, Moros Castle.
I wish more had been done with Pedro Armendiaz - who is the local cop. Presumably this was not to offend Cuban authorities. And Gia Scala is more charismatic than Rosanno Rory.
Still, this is a decent little movie.
The location shooting in Cuba helps immeasurably - it's in black and white and I wish more scenes had been set outside but what is there is fine - rooftop pools, pavements, markets, Moros Castle.
I wish more had been done with Pedro Armendiaz - who is the local cop. Presumably this was not to offend Cuban authorities. And Gia Scala is more charismatic than Rosanno Rory.
Still, this is a decent little movie.
Sunday, November 03, 2019
Movie review - "The Long Riders" (1980) ***1/2 (re-viewing)
I think I like this movie more as the years go on because I've gotten over its central flaw - lack of narrative build.As I've written before, this feels like an album rather than a movie - it's a collection of "tracks": the opening bank robbery, two Belle Starr tracks, being at home, the Northfield raid, the final shooting etc.
The device of casting brothers works wonderfully - though the quality of acting varies widely. All the Carradines are good, very distinct personalities. Stacy Keach was great but James was dull and looked silly with his hair. The Quaids were strong (Dennis seems so young) and I liked the Guests, though both their characters seemed similar.
James Whitmore is fantastic as the professional no-nonsense Pinkerston and Pamela Reed is fun as Belle Star, as is James Remar as her husband. The female characters have a little to do though not a lot.
I wasn't wild about the slow motion action sequences but loved the atmosphere.
The device of casting brothers works wonderfully - though the quality of acting varies widely. All the Carradines are good, very distinct personalities. Stacy Keach was great but James was dull and looked silly with his hair. The Quaids were strong (Dennis seems so young) and I liked the Guests, though both their characters seemed similar.
James Whitmore is fantastic as the professional no-nonsense Pinkerston and Pamela Reed is fun as Belle Star, as is James Remar as her husband. The female characters have a little to do though not a lot.
I wasn't wild about the slow motion action sequences but loved the atmosphere.
Movie review - "The Master of Ballantrae" (1953) **1/2 (re-viewing)
Plenty of good stuff on display here - the colour, a decent budget, lots of action, Stevenson's source material, Errol Flynn being perfectly cast as the dissolute brother who goes to fight for Bonnie Prince Charlie while good brother Anthony Steel stays behind, Flynn's by play with Roger Livesey.
They've made Flynn heroic, which isn't consistent with the text, but I understand why they did it - that brother simply had more interesting adventures, going off and being a pirate and what not. If you want tot make the other brother the hero you'd need to spend time with him - and the piece would be less of a swashbuckler and more of a gothic noir.
But having said that they make the other brother (Steel) a goodie. Flynn thinks Steel has betrayed him, but he's wrong which is fake drama and dull. And makes Steel's presence in the whole movie pointless. If you make Flynn good, make Steel bad - wouldn't be hard: he covets Flynn's popularity, and love interest. Steel being good is kind of pointless. Maybe it could've worked if there had been another villain - but it turns out Flynn was betrayed by a girl who loved him.
The second flaw is the romance between Flynn and Beatrice Campbell is so flat. It doesn't work on the page - he's clearly a lousy boyfriend, the romance will last five seconds once the film is over - and the playing between the two doesn't help.
So those are two big flaws. It's a shame because they could have been easily fixed.
Flynn was clearly aging and getting on but it actually suits the part. It is one of his better 50s films.
They've made Flynn heroic, which isn't consistent with the text, but I understand why they did it - that brother simply had more interesting adventures, going off and being a pirate and what not. If you want tot make the other brother the hero you'd need to spend time with him - and the piece would be less of a swashbuckler and more of a gothic noir.
But having said that they make the other brother (Steel) a goodie. Flynn thinks Steel has betrayed him, but he's wrong which is fake drama and dull. And makes Steel's presence in the whole movie pointless. If you make Flynn good, make Steel bad - wouldn't be hard: he covets Flynn's popularity, and love interest. Steel being good is kind of pointless. Maybe it could've worked if there had been another villain - but it turns out Flynn was betrayed by a girl who loved him.
The second flaw is the romance between Flynn and Beatrice Campbell is so flat. It doesn't work on the page - he's clearly a lousy boyfriend, the romance will last five seconds once the film is over - and the playing between the two doesn't help.
So those are two big flaws. It's a shame because they could have been easily fixed.
Flynn was clearly aging and getting on but it actually suits the part. It is one of his better 50s films.
Movie review - "The King" (2019) **1/2
Adapted from the Prince Hal cycle of plays by Shakespeare though Game of Thrones feels like more of an influence - the dialogue, the look of the movie, the battle sequences, all the gloom and violence.
It revamps the plays which is fine but I don't think what they replaced it with is more interesting than what they cut out. Hal starts off a bit irresponsible but 20 minutes in he's killed Hotspur in hand to hand combat so basically he's a bad ass. Falstaff is a bad ass too - no coward.
No one feels like a real human being everyone feels like they're acting in a movie - or, more accurately, Game of Thrones. People talk tough. There's bursts of violence to keep you awake.
It looks stunning - costumes, production design. The actors are all fine. I like how the characters switched from English to French and back. Lots of good stuff. But I felt it didn't have much underpinning it. Everyone was too tough.
It revamps the plays which is fine but I don't think what they replaced it with is more interesting than what they cut out. Hal starts off a bit irresponsible but 20 minutes in he's killed Hotspur in hand to hand combat so basically he's a bad ass. Falstaff is a bad ass too - no coward.
No one feels like a real human being everyone feels like they're acting in a movie - or, more accurately, Game of Thrones. People talk tough. There's bursts of violence to keep you awake.
It looks stunning - costumes, production design. The actors are all fine. I like how the characters switched from English to French and back. Lots of good stuff. But I felt it didn't have much underpinning it. Everyone was too tough.
Saturday, November 02, 2019
Movie review - "The Last of Robin Hood" (2014) **
Really disappointing. It sounds like it should be a slam dunk - an account of Errol Flynn's romance with Beverly Aadland. You've got so much rich material: the age difference, Flynn disintegrating and dying, Aadland's weird mother who enabled their romance. The cast should be outstanding - Kevin Kline, Dakota Fanning, Susan Sarandon.
But it doesn't work. The movie lacks a point of view - scenes feel rudimentary, they never breathe, there's no little moments/observations and the film needs them. You never get a sense of why Flynn goes for her or her for him.
Kline should be perfect as Flynn, and has some dash, but no Australian edge and lacks the... I guess sadness of the real Flynn He would do better in a better written film. Fanning is flat out bad - she's blank, matter of fact.. she's never believable as Aadland. She never seems to react to anything or be alive.
Susan Sarandon comes off best in part because her character is clearer - she wants her girl to be a star. Probably the film should have been all from her character's point of view or something.
But it doesn't work. The movie lacks a point of view - scenes feel rudimentary, they never breathe, there's no little moments/observations and the film needs them. You never get a sense of why Flynn goes for her or her for him.
Kline should be perfect as Flynn, and has some dash, but no Australian edge and lacks the... I guess sadness of the real Flynn He would do better in a better written film. Fanning is flat out bad - she's blank, matter of fact.. she's never believable as Aadland. She never seems to react to anything or be alive.
Susan Sarandon comes off best in part because her character is clearer - she wants her girl to be a star. Probably the film should have been all from her character's point of view or something.
Friday, November 01, 2019
TV review - Silicon Valley Season 5 (2018) ****
TJ Miller is missed and for some reason there aren't a lot of new characters in this one... they stick with their old crew, especially Richard and Gavin, when maybe some fresh blood would have worked (like girlfriends). I guess there are new employees but they aren't particularly memorable. I did like the quiet guy who becomes a corporate animal - why not make that character female? It could be done.
But I'm nit pickig. The plotting remains strong and there's heaps of classic moments - the destruction of the robot, the sight gag of the violent video games, the comments about the weirdness of setting up in America. The climax episode is very strong.
But I'm nit pickig. The plotting remains strong and there's heaps of classic moments - the destruction of the robot, the sight gag of the violent video games, the comments about the weirdness of setting up in America. The climax episode is very strong.
Movie review - "The Tingler" (1959) **
I loved this on the small screen. On the big screen it was a slog - badly directed and blocked, clumsily written. I kept falling asleep. Vincent Price props it up single handedly.
Actually that's not fair - the basic story is really good with a bright idea and decent twists (it was the husband etc ) even if it does borrow liberally from Diabolique. The thumping heartbeat was spooky as was the dash of colour.
But I didn't enjoy this. See it on the small screen!
Actually that's not fair - the basic story is really good with a bright idea and decent twists (it was the husband etc ) even if it does borrow liberally from Diabolique. The thumping heartbeat was spooky as was the dash of colour.
But I didn't enjoy this. See it on the small screen!
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Movie review - "Iron Man 2" (2008) **
I heard it wasn't very good and it isn't. I watched it for completion's sake. The photograph is lovely and the cast is strong but it's not exciting. It just feels made for money.
Gwyneth Paltrow and Scar Jo are wasted - they even wear identical clothes. Mickey Rourke is kind of fun as a villain but his character is rote. Garry Shandling isn't allowed to do anything much.
There's no sense of fun, danger, excitement. Robert Downey's X factor isn't exploited. I mean, it's in focus and all that.
Gwyneth Paltrow and Scar Jo are wasted - they even wear identical clothes. Mickey Rourke is kind of fun as a villain but his character is rote. Garry Shandling isn't allowed to do anything much.
There's no sense of fun, danger, excitement. Robert Downey's X factor isn't exploited. I mean, it's in focus and all that.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Movie review - "The Meg" (2018) **
Silly fun but too silly to be a good movie and not silly enough to be crap-tacular. It feels very Chinese not just with its positive Chinese characters and settings but also family schmaltz and cute kidness. Which is fine. I just wish they'd done more with the concept of a prehistoric shark.
I mean, there's no scientific stuff, no paleontologist, nothing really other than the creature running amok. It also feels very Australian-New Zealand with the cast including Jess MacNamee, Ruby Rose, Cliff Curtis.
It passed the time and I hope they make another one because the potential is there for this to be quite good.
I mean, there's no scientific stuff, no paleontologist, nothing really other than the creature running amok. It also feels very Australian-New Zealand with the cast including Jess MacNamee, Ruby Rose, Cliff Curtis.
It passed the time and I hope they make another one because the potential is there for this to be quite good.
Monday, October 28, 2019
Movie review - "The Ambassador's Daughter" (1956) **
Norman Krasna was a so-so director but the main problem with this film is that his writing let him down. It's also miscast.
This has CinemaScope, colour and some name actors but suffers from undercasting - Olivia de Havilland, while still pretty and of a good actor, seems far too old to play a "daughter" i.e. someone who's entire life is defined by being a daughter. She was forty by now and while she looks good for her age she still seems kind of forty.. .and watching it I kept help thinking "you're still hanging around dad? At forty?"
His co star is John Fortsyth who is a lump - I mean he's alright but he's just straight and dull... He is no Robert Cummings, say.
The central concept is lame. De Havilland is the daughter of the American ambassador to France who pretends to be... a French model. What sort of deception is that? Why hide what she is? It made sense in other Krasna films to cover up being super rich or a royal but here there's no point to it.
The support cast are bright: Adolphe Menjou, Edward Arnold, Myrna Loy, Tom Noonan . Not that they have that much to do... Loy gets a monologue at the end but it feels like "oh I'd better give her something to do" as opposed to something dramatic. You actually could cut Menjou and Loy out of the film.
Really dull and disappointing.
This has CinemaScope, colour and some name actors but suffers from undercasting - Olivia de Havilland, while still pretty and of a good actor, seems far too old to play a "daughter" i.e. someone who's entire life is defined by being a daughter. She was forty by now and while she looks good for her age she still seems kind of forty.. .and watching it I kept help thinking "you're still hanging around dad? At forty?"
His co star is John Fortsyth who is a lump - I mean he's alright but he's just straight and dull... He is no Robert Cummings, say.
The central concept is lame. De Havilland is the daughter of the American ambassador to France who pretends to be... a French model. What sort of deception is that? Why hide what she is? It made sense in other Krasna films to cover up being super rich or a royal but here there's no point to it.
The support cast are bright: Adolphe Menjou, Edward Arnold, Myrna Loy, Tom Noonan . Not that they have that much to do... Loy gets a monologue at the end but it feels like "oh I'd better give her something to do" as opposed to something dramatic. You actually could cut Menjou and Loy out of the film.
Really dull and disappointing.
TV review - "Barry Season 2" (2019) ****1/2
The high standard remains. Some excellent action sequences, good cliffhanger, great complications. They ensure Sally has something to do by introducing an abusive ex, they tie in the acting well. Extremely good.
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Movie review - "Dolemite is My Name" (2019) ***
Similar in some ways to Ed Wood -same writers, story of a person who dreamed big, gathered around a motley crue and managed to make a not particularly good movie. There are some key differences - Dolemite was a hit and Rudy Ray Moore had a genuine impact on black culture. Also this film lacks a key relationship to underpin the drama - Ed Wood had Wood and Lugosi, this one doesn't. I guess there's Eddie Murphy and Da'Vine Joy Randolph but it's not the same.
Still Murphy is very likeable and Wesley Snipes is hilarious - I'd forgotten what a good comic actor he was. Actually all the cast was good. The movie really picks up once they start making the movie - up until it feels more like a collection of scenes than a story. Very sweet and engaging.
Still Murphy is very likeable and Wesley Snipes is hilarious - I'd forgotten what a good comic actor he was. Actually all the cast was good. The movie really picks up once they start making the movie - up until it feels more like a collection of scenes than a story. Very sweet and engaging.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Movie review - "Memoirs of an Invisible Man" (1992) *1/2
The turning point in Chevy Chase's career? I guess he was a leading man for a few years after that... but this seemed to mark the end of him as a romantic leading man.
It's a mess. The photography is nice, the cast is strong - except may be that English actor with the super booming voice. Daryl Hannah is nice in a nothing role but at least looks good. Michael McKean is slim with lots of hair. A young Patricia Heaton is in it. Sam Neill channels James Mason. The special effects are fine. I like how a times we watched Chase, when he was invisible.
But the tone never seems right. At times it's comic at times it's serious drama at times it's a thriller. When Chase flirts with Hannah at the beginning they ape North by Northwest and that would totally be fine... but this doesn't have the space and twists of that. There's too much hanging about and being reflective - it doesn't have movement.
It's too vague about Chase's character - he's rich and successful, gets along with his secretary, is confident flirting but is also a loner... is that right? And he.. becomes lonely? Becomes a better person? I was confused. I wish they'd just have Chase as cocky but come more mature - that would have been simple and clean and given Chase something new.
It lacks pace, clear tone, cleverness. It's hard to tell John Carpenter directed it.
It's a mess. The photography is nice, the cast is strong - except may be that English actor with the super booming voice. Daryl Hannah is nice in a nothing role but at least looks good. Michael McKean is slim with lots of hair. A young Patricia Heaton is in it. Sam Neill channels James Mason. The special effects are fine. I like how a times we watched Chase, when he was invisible.
But the tone never seems right. At times it's comic at times it's serious drama at times it's a thriller. When Chase flirts with Hannah at the beginning they ape North by Northwest and that would totally be fine... but this doesn't have the space and twists of that. There's too much hanging about and being reflective - it doesn't have movement.
It's too vague about Chase's character - he's rich and successful, gets along with his secretary, is confident flirting but is also a loner... is that right? And he.. becomes lonely? Becomes a better person? I was confused. I wish they'd just have Chase as cocky but come more mature - that would have been simple and clean and given Chase something new.
It lacks pace, clear tone, cleverness. It's hard to tell John Carpenter directed it.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
TV review - "Succession - Season 2" (2019) ****1/2
They've got more money to make the show this time - more fashions and products and other cool stuff. There's more emphasis on Logan saying "f*ck off" as a catch phrase. Some scenes seem more "gaggy". Sarah Snook's sex life isn't so much driven by a desire to keep an ex close but a genuine desire to sleep around (an actor, a woman)... it didn't seem as real. There is more sex (Holly Hunter gets in the sack, Kieran Culkin does weird sex stuff).
The quality remains high. There's some first rate episodes. I didn't feel it was as good as the first season but it was still excellent.
The quality remains high. There's some first rate episodes. I didn't feel it was as good as the first season but it was still excellent.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Movie review - 'Dear Ruth" (1947) ***1/2 (re-watching)
Various aspects of this adaptation of Norman Krasna's play haven't aged well - the pompous fake love interest is mocked for being anti smoking and anti coffee, William Holden's character is a little "I don't need consent" with his forceful kissing and horrid game where he explains how him and his soldier mates would kiss women by surprise at the train station (hahahaha).
But Krasna's play is a very solid piece of construction - it takes a simple lie (young teen writers hot love letters to airman using her sister's photo), and adds decent complications (the elder sister is engaged, the airman comes to town on leave, the airman has a sister who has her own romance), and it all feels logical.
Krasna had a great deal of affection for his characters and this comes through. Edward Arnold didn't feel quite right to me as dad and Mona Freeman got on my nerves as the teen (I get what they were going for but it's a shame Diana Lynn couldn't have played it) but William Holden and Joan Caulfield are sweet as the lead couple and Billy de Wolfe is funny as a the pompous boyfriend.
It isn't amazing but is warm and funny.
But Krasna's play is a very solid piece of construction - it takes a simple lie (young teen writers hot love letters to airman using her sister's photo), and adds decent complications (the elder sister is engaged, the airman comes to town on leave, the airman has a sister who has her own romance), and it all feels logical.
Krasna had a great deal of affection for his characters and this comes through. Edward Arnold didn't feel quite right to me as dad and Mona Freeman got on my nerves as the teen (I get what they were going for but it's a shame Diana Lynn couldn't have played it) but William Holden and Joan Caulfield are sweet as the lead couple and Billy de Wolfe is funny as a the pompous boyfriend.
It isn't amazing but is warm and funny.
Monday, October 21, 2019
Movie review - "Practically Yours" (1944) **
Norman Krasna's great gift was writing stories about a little lie that spun out into enough consequences for a feature film (or play) and infusing it with heart and warmth.
This one has a bright central idea - a flyer (Fred MacMurray) is going to his death and says over the radio his regret is not going for a walk with "Peggy". Everyone thinks it's his co worker (Claudette Colbert) when in fact it was his dog. But the nation loves the story and when he turns up alive they decide to go on with the deception.
That doesn't feel like a strong enough reason to do it - there's really no call for Colbert to go along with the misunderstanding or for MacMurray to keep up the deception. It needed to be something simple and personal. In The Devil and Miss Jones Charles Coburn lies to bust a union, in Bachelor Mother Ginger Rogers lies to keep her job - but there's nothing personal at stake for Colbert.
The carefree nature of the lie and complications doesn't mesh easily with the life and death stakes - I mean in the opening MacMurray thinks he's dying on a suicide mission, and there's a subplot where a woman is worried about her pilot husband having died and he has died and MacMurray breaks the news gently which makes Colbert fall in love with him...
I think it was miscast - Colbert and MacMurray are too old (she was over forty and he was close to forty). A younger star couple and this silly lie might've been more believable - with Paulette Goddard, say (who wasn't that much younger than Colbert but felt younger), or, don't laugh, Sonny Tufts (who was more believable military-y than MacMurray) - but watching these two old people I kept thinking "you ought to know better".
There's reference to MacMurray's character being a "wolf" i.e. sexual harrasser... actually if they'd used that more maybe there would be some sort of character development for him - a playboy who learns responsibility or something. But it's done in a hamfisted way. (Mind you I'm not sure MacMurray would ever be believable as a "wolf".)
The other love interest is no threat. Not enough time is spent with any support characters - Krasna normally did this well, created a feeling of family - not so here. It's one of his weaker efforts and I'm not surprised so few people remember this.
For Colbert and MacMurray fans only.Oh, and Norma Krasna/Mitchell Leisen completists.
This one has a bright central idea - a flyer (Fred MacMurray) is going to his death and says over the radio his regret is not going for a walk with "Peggy". Everyone thinks it's his co worker (Claudette Colbert) when in fact it was his dog. But the nation loves the story and when he turns up alive they decide to go on with the deception.
That doesn't feel like a strong enough reason to do it - there's really no call for Colbert to go along with the misunderstanding or for MacMurray to keep up the deception. It needed to be something simple and personal. In The Devil and Miss Jones Charles Coburn lies to bust a union, in Bachelor Mother Ginger Rogers lies to keep her job - but there's nothing personal at stake for Colbert.
The carefree nature of the lie and complications doesn't mesh easily with the life and death stakes - I mean in the opening MacMurray thinks he's dying on a suicide mission, and there's a subplot where a woman is worried about her pilot husband having died and he has died and MacMurray breaks the news gently which makes Colbert fall in love with him...
I think it was miscast - Colbert and MacMurray are too old (she was over forty and he was close to forty). A younger star couple and this silly lie might've been more believable - with Paulette Goddard, say (who wasn't that much younger than Colbert but felt younger), or, don't laugh, Sonny Tufts (who was more believable military-y than MacMurray) - but watching these two old people I kept thinking "you ought to know better".
There's reference to MacMurray's character being a "wolf" i.e. sexual harrasser... actually if they'd used that more maybe there would be some sort of character development for him - a playboy who learns responsibility or something. But it's done in a hamfisted way. (Mind you I'm not sure MacMurray would ever be believable as a "wolf".)
The other love interest is no threat. Not enough time is spent with any support characters - Krasna normally did this well, created a feeling of family - not so here. It's one of his weaker efforts and I'm not surprised so few people remember this.
For Colbert and MacMurray fans only.Oh, and Norma Krasna/Mitchell Leisen completists.
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Movie review - "Bride by Mistake" (1944) **
RKO pull out the B listers for this one - Alan Marshall and Laraine Day. These are pretty enough people but can't carry a rom com. The support cast don't help - randoms like Egar Buchanan and Marsha Hunt. The only one really skilled at comedy us Buchanan.
The production values are impressive - this was an "A" movie at RKO, which makes it surprising they had to borrow all the lead actors.
The story didn't work for me - I know it was based on an Oscar nominated script by Norman Krasna - but it seems like Alan Marshall is more interested in Marsha Hunt, and he's not that into Day. And it feels kind of weird he goes off with Day at the end. Was the original this wonky? I can't remember.
There's an extended sequence where Marshall is in a room with drugged Hunt for over an hour while Day is outside with Hunt's fiancee and they are stressing out. It really seems like they're having sex in there. I was unsure about the friendship between Day and Hunt and Hunt's feelings for Marshall and Marshall's feelings for Hunt and Day and Allyn Joslyn sort of hanging around.
The film was a hit - such is war. And probably the likeability of Ms Day. Who is very pretty. And likeable. That's about it. Marshall doesnt have the chops for this sort of thing - you can see why he didn't become a star. A good fake love interest or leading man.
The production values are impressive - this was an "A" movie at RKO, which makes it surprising they had to borrow all the lead actors.
The story didn't work for me - I know it was based on an Oscar nominated script by Norman Krasna - but it seems like Alan Marshall is more interested in Marsha Hunt, and he's not that into Day. And it feels kind of weird he goes off with Day at the end. Was the original this wonky? I can't remember.
There's an extended sequence where Marshall is in a room with drugged Hunt for over an hour while Day is outside with Hunt's fiancee and they are stressing out. It really seems like they're having sex in there. I was unsure about the friendship between Day and Hunt and Hunt's feelings for Marshall and Marshall's feelings for Hunt and Day and Allyn Joslyn sort of hanging around.
The film was a hit - such is war. And probably the likeability of Ms Day. Who is very pretty. And likeable. That's about it. Marshall doesnt have the chops for this sort of thing - you can see why he didn't become a star. A good fake love interest or leading man.
Movie review - "Four Hours to Kill" (1935) **
An adaptation of a Norman Krasna play "Small Miracle" this still feels like a play - director Mitchell Leisen opens it up a bit but not a lot. It's a decent story- there were plans to remake it in the 40s with Alan Ladd and I would've liked to have seen that version with more gangster stuff.
Richard Barthemless is the crook who escaped and got caught and is being taken back to prison. The four hours to kill is the time they spend at a theatre show - most of the action takes place in the lobby which is cool.
A lot of the dialogue is theatrical. There's theatre style subplots - a young couple want to get together but are stopped by a vixen, a man worries about his wife giving birth. A married woman is going off to Reno.
Charles Wilson is the cop who likes Barthemless. Ray Milland is in this. Dorothy Tree is the vamp. Joe Morrison is the guy being blackmailed into marrying the vamp - so he did have sex with her, yes?
I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. Mitchell Leisen was solid with comedy and musicals but this felt as though it needed more full throttle Warner Bros style treatment.
Richard Barthemless is the crook who escaped and got caught and is being taken back to prison. The four hours to kill is the time they spend at a theatre show - most of the action takes place in the lobby which is cool.
A lot of the dialogue is theatrical. There's theatre style subplots - a young couple want to get together but are stopped by a vixen, a man worries about his wife giving birth. A married woman is going off to Reno.
Charles Wilson is the cop who likes Barthemless. Ray Milland is in this. Dorothy Tree is the vamp. Joe Morrison is the guy being blackmailed into marrying the vamp - so he did have sex with her, yes?
I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. Mitchell Leisen was solid with comedy and musicals but this felt as though it needed more full throttle Warner Bros style treatment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)