Much maligned movie, which flopped for good reason - it isn't that good. But it could have been good, which is frustrating.
I think it was an excellent idea to reboot it as a parallel to the War on Terror, with Robin as a veteran of wars in the Middle East - the opening sequence of fighting in back alleys is very well done, and I liked the concept of Ben Mendhelson bagging the Muslims as part of his scare campaign. I think it was fantastic to have Robin Hood decide to be a Scarlet Pimpernel figure and befriend Nottingham while secretly doing what's right. It was good to have Little John be a former enemy from the crusades.
But having set up this, the film doesn't do anything with it.
The parallels to the War on Terror are dropped. There's no Muslim stuff after the first act. There's no fun with Robin Hood befriending the baddy - no alter ago to contrast.
Jamie Foxx's John could be cut out of the film. I mean, he does suggest the plan and train him but really Robin could have thought of that himself... and the training montage feels superfluous because Robin's already a soldier. He doesn't influence the plot after that. I guess he gets captured and then escapes somehow and helps Robin live but... ugh.
Maid Marian basically just serves water. I mean, really she does nothing. Traditional Mary at least was a spy. This one just hangs around. It's a terrible role.
Will Scarlett has some potential - setting up for the sequel. But really I think Scarlet should have gone bad earlier.
Friar Tuck just kind of hangs out. There's a villainous cardinal, F Murray Abraham, but I missed Prince John. The point of the original is to raise money for King Richard but there's no Richard here - Robin Hood isn't for anything except "the people", who are random extras.
I was willing to give this a fair shake. The opening moments were very iffy - unnecessary narration, unnecessary showing of how Robin met Marian, the silly "draft notice" - then it recovered well for a strong action sequence, then got progressively sillier.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Movie review - "Rock Pretty Baby" (1956) **1/2
Universal jump on the teen rock bandwagon and were rewarded with a hit film with this, which turned John Saxon into a teen idol.
The plot has Saxon, Sal Mineo and their friends in a band together and Saxon has troubles with his dad (Edward Platt from Get Smart).
It's got plenty of rock music and dancing at the hop - Mineo does the drums and Saxon plays the guitar extremely well. It's a studio picture so the production values are high and the acting of good quality - the cast also includes Luana Patten, Shelley Fabares, and Fay Wray! And Henry Mancini did the music.
I quite liked this film. The teens were depicted sympathetically, and there were enjoyable family scenes. I believed the family, with dad struggling to understand the son, Saxon being moody, the kid brother wise cracking and sister Fabares causing trouble. I liked the father son chat even if it is a bit annoyingly simplistic that Plat goes "oh all your troubles are because of a girl".)
Patten is very sweet and there's a hot scene where she and Saxon go for a late night swim and make out afterwards in the dark and they both kind of want to have sex but she resists. I mean, they give it the 1956 studio treatment and she says no, but there's some hot moments.
It's really Saxon's film - he's too old for a teen and dark and brooding with hair that's going to recede but he's quite good, as an imitation James Dean. Sal Mineo is wasted as Saxon's friend - he has a moment where he talks about his parents wanting him to be a doctor, and talks slang and makes out with a girl and plays drums but doesn't have his own subplot. It's a shame - they should have done that, and if they couldn't they could have turned him into a villain.
The plot has Saxon, Sal Mineo and their friends in a band together and Saxon has troubles with his dad (Edward Platt from Get Smart).
It's got plenty of rock music and dancing at the hop - Mineo does the drums and Saxon plays the guitar extremely well. It's a studio picture so the production values are high and the acting of good quality - the cast also includes Luana Patten, Shelley Fabares, and Fay Wray! And Henry Mancini did the music.
I quite liked this film. The teens were depicted sympathetically, and there were enjoyable family scenes. I believed the family, with dad struggling to understand the son, Saxon being moody, the kid brother wise cracking and sister Fabares causing trouble. I liked the father son chat even if it is a bit annoyingly simplistic that Plat goes "oh all your troubles are because of a girl".)
Patten is very sweet and there's a hot scene where she and Saxon go for a late night swim and make out afterwards in the dark and they both kind of want to have sex but she resists. I mean, they give it the 1956 studio treatment and she says no, but there's some hot moments.
It's really Saxon's film - he's too old for a teen and dark and brooding with hair that's going to recede but he's quite good, as an imitation James Dean. Sal Mineo is wasted as Saxon's friend - he has a moment where he talks about his parents wanting him to be a doctor, and talks slang and makes out with a girl and plays drums but doesn't have his own subplot. It's a shame - they should have done that, and if they couldn't they could have turned him into a villain.
Movie review - "Band of Angels" (1957) *
I have a soft spot for Yvonne de Carlo - she was clearly an old pro, has been around forever, and made a lot of films which I enjoy: Easterns, film noir, Westerns, comedies. She was never considered a top rank star but being cast in The Ten Commandments made Hollywood spark up and earned her a plumb role in this, a Civil War melodrama. Although the film stars Clark Gable, who has a juicy role, it's really de Carlo's story.
The central concept of the film is strong: a woman (de Carlo) is raised in the old South on a plantation, but discovers on her father's death that she's part black and is "owned" by a slave trader. That's a great set up - a privileged woman whose position in the world is pulled out from underneath her, who has to fight to survive. Gone with the Wind with a black heroine - that's awesome.
But given this the filmmakers - I haven't read the original novel, but they could have changed it - make a whole lot of mistakes.They invoke Wind a lot - Clark Gable's casting as a buccaneering southerner, a Southern heroine, balls, raping Yankee soldiers, kindly slave owners, a dim black slave like Butterfly McQueen - but never get close to that film's quality.
De Carlo isn't given much of a character to play - she's pretty and that's it. Scarlett O'Hara had drive - she was selfish but active, she wanted Ashley, ignored Rhett. What does De Carlo want? Gable? But Gable pushes her away and she doesn't seem to care. She has easy going relationships with Rex Reason and later Efrem Zimbalist Jnr; Patric Knowles tries to molest her, Gable wants her, Reason tries to rape her once he finds out she's black, Sidney Poitier seems to want her (de Carlo often played women who were pawed). But she's passive. They needed to give her something to do - fight for the blacks, escape, make money, chase after a guy, something. But the film can't make up its mind.
I think they should have given her the goal to be free - and structured the film around that. Or at least just have her love Gable all the way through and constantly try to get him instead of just accepting him pushing her away. But they don't
The film feels compromised by pussy footing around - "Oh we don't want to offend people in the south so lets have kindly slave owners and some rapey Yankees", "lets have Sidney Poitier hate whites justifiably but then slap de Carlo".
Gable's character is flat. A slave owner who buys women but does nothing with them - okay, yes, well, de Carlo sleeps with him But Only Because She Wants To. Then he turns her away because he - gasp - used to be a slave trader (why is this meant to shock when Gable meets De Carlo by Buying Her????). Gable looks bored and ill. He's got none of Rhett Butler's dash and swagger. What does he want? I mean if he's guilty, that's fine... have him want to kill himself, to self destruct, or to set black people free. But he just sort of mopes around.
The film's attitude to race is consistently dodgy. The film is full of kindly slave owners, like de Carlo's father, who never whips his slaves and is nice to them (when he dies all the blacks turn out to sing), and Gable who is nice to his slaves (they sing for him too). Everyone pats Gable on the back for raising Poitier so well... and Poitier is so touched that Gable raised him after rescuing him on a slave mission (!) that Poitier helps him escape.
Ugh. This film is awful. It starts off okay and gets worse. It's unfocused, and confusing, and offensive, and dramatically messy.
You could make the material work, easy. Have de Carlo find out she's black, get sold into slavery, be rescued by Gable to who is working off his guilt by setting slaves free, he frees her but she loves him so goes back.
Sidney Poitier comes off best because his character is the most consistent - he's a black who hates whites (until the end when he feels sorry for Gable).
De Carlo isn't very good, I'm sorry to say. Part of it is her character, who is passive, but a more charismatic star would have worked better - like Ava Gardner, say.
The central concept of the film is strong: a woman (de Carlo) is raised in the old South on a plantation, but discovers on her father's death that she's part black and is "owned" by a slave trader. That's a great set up - a privileged woman whose position in the world is pulled out from underneath her, who has to fight to survive. Gone with the Wind with a black heroine - that's awesome.
But given this the filmmakers - I haven't read the original novel, but they could have changed it - make a whole lot of mistakes.They invoke Wind a lot - Clark Gable's casting as a buccaneering southerner, a Southern heroine, balls, raping Yankee soldiers, kindly slave owners, a dim black slave like Butterfly McQueen - but never get close to that film's quality.
De Carlo isn't given much of a character to play - she's pretty and that's it. Scarlett O'Hara had drive - she was selfish but active, she wanted Ashley, ignored Rhett. What does De Carlo want? Gable? But Gable pushes her away and she doesn't seem to care. She has easy going relationships with Rex Reason and later Efrem Zimbalist Jnr; Patric Knowles tries to molest her, Gable wants her, Reason tries to rape her once he finds out she's black, Sidney Poitier seems to want her (de Carlo often played women who were pawed). But she's passive. They needed to give her something to do - fight for the blacks, escape, make money, chase after a guy, something. But the film can't make up its mind.
I think they should have given her the goal to be free - and structured the film around that. Or at least just have her love Gable all the way through and constantly try to get him instead of just accepting him pushing her away. But they don't
The film feels compromised by pussy footing around - "Oh we don't want to offend people in the south so lets have kindly slave owners and some rapey Yankees", "lets have Sidney Poitier hate whites justifiably but then slap de Carlo".
Gable's character is flat. A slave owner who buys women but does nothing with them - okay, yes, well, de Carlo sleeps with him But Only Because She Wants To. Then he turns her away because he - gasp - used to be a slave trader (why is this meant to shock when Gable meets De Carlo by Buying Her????). Gable looks bored and ill. He's got none of Rhett Butler's dash and swagger. What does he want? I mean if he's guilty, that's fine... have him want to kill himself, to self destruct, or to set black people free. But he just sort of mopes around.
The film's attitude to race is consistently dodgy. The film is full of kindly slave owners, like de Carlo's father, who never whips his slaves and is nice to them (when he dies all the blacks turn out to sing), and Gable who is nice to his slaves (they sing for him too). Everyone pats Gable on the back for raising Poitier so well... and Poitier is so touched that Gable raised him after rescuing him on a slave mission (!) that Poitier helps him escape.
Ugh. This film is awful. It starts off okay and gets worse. It's unfocused, and confusing, and offensive, and dramatically messy.
You could make the material work, easy. Have de Carlo find out she's black, get sold into slavery, be rescued by Gable to who is working off his guilt by setting slaves free, he frees her but she loves him so goes back.
Sidney Poitier comes off best because his character is the most consistent - he's a black who hates whites (until the end when he feels sorry for Gable).
De Carlo isn't very good, I'm sorry to say. Part of it is her character, who is passive, but a more charismatic star would have worked better - like Ava Gardner, say.
Friday, April 26, 2019
Movie review - "Flame of the Islands" (1956) **
In the mid 50s Yvonne de Carlo made two films for Republic Pictures, this and Magic Fire. Its an interesting ish tale about a PR woman who is given $100,000 by the man's very understanding widow who thinks de Carlo was his mistress.De Carlo heads down to the Bahamas with co worker (lover?) Zachary Scott and invests the money in a resort run by Kurt Kaznar, who was the poor man's Dr Smith in Land of the Giants. He's in cahoots with gangsters.
So essentially it's a film noir plot only its shot in colour and on location in the Bahamas. De Carlo's character is introduced as a sort of secretary but it's revealed she "did a bit of singing" so she performs at the night club - an awkward explanation to justify De Carlo doing a number (why not just set up her character as a singer instead of having her do that random office job?).
Also for a film noir there's a lot of talk of God - she visits a sermon by James Arness, where a lot of innocent black children sing (the only blacks we really see in this Bahamas-set film). There's also a bit of melodrama - De Carlo falls for Howard Duff, who she used to love but who doesn't remember her (nice!), and when he does remember her, his possessive mother won't let him go. So it's a film noir in color in the Bahamas with God and dance numbers and a bit of Douglas Sirk melodrama.
Then it becomes more Sirkian - it turns out de Carlo wasn't anyone's mistress, the mistress was Duff's mother, De Carlo was pregnant to Duff years ago and had a stillborn baby, de Carlo just took the money because someone offered and hey why not, and Duff's mother dies after talking to de Carlo and... anyway it just gets all silly and weird.
Like a lot of mid 50s de Carlo films, too much is going on. Why have Zachary Scott in this film? Why introduce an exciting element like gangsters co owning a casino and ignoring them until the end? Why spent all this time on Duff and De Carlo and have De Carlo just dump Duff over the phone? When did De Carlo and Arness fall in love? When he grabbed her?
There's a lot of pawing of De Carlo in this film - Scott does it and Kaznar and Arness. She sings two numbers both of which kind of stick out.
It's a bit of a mess but not unwatchable.
So essentially it's a film noir plot only its shot in colour and on location in the Bahamas. De Carlo's character is introduced as a sort of secretary but it's revealed she "did a bit of singing" so she performs at the night club - an awkward explanation to justify De Carlo doing a number (why not just set up her character as a singer instead of having her do that random office job?).
Also for a film noir there's a lot of talk of God - she visits a sermon by James Arness, where a lot of innocent black children sing (the only blacks we really see in this Bahamas-set film). There's also a bit of melodrama - De Carlo falls for Howard Duff, who she used to love but who doesn't remember her (nice!), and when he does remember her, his possessive mother won't let him go. So it's a film noir in color in the Bahamas with God and dance numbers and a bit of Douglas Sirk melodrama.
Then it becomes more Sirkian - it turns out de Carlo wasn't anyone's mistress, the mistress was Duff's mother, De Carlo was pregnant to Duff years ago and had a stillborn baby, de Carlo just took the money because someone offered and hey why not, and Duff's mother dies after talking to de Carlo and... anyway it just gets all silly and weird.
Like a lot of mid 50s de Carlo films, too much is going on. Why have Zachary Scott in this film? Why introduce an exciting element like gangsters co owning a casino and ignoring them until the end? Why spent all this time on Duff and De Carlo and have De Carlo just dump Duff over the phone? When did De Carlo and Arness fall in love? When he grabbed her?
There's a lot of pawing of De Carlo in this film - Scott does it and Kaznar and Arness. She sings two numbers both of which kind of stick out.
It's a bit of a mess but not unwatchable.
Movie review - "Raw Edge" (1956) ** (warning: spoilers)
The central idea of this Western might make an interesting revisionist tale in the hands of a feminist filmmaker but done via Universal 1956 it's just rapey.
It's set in Oklahoma 1842 where a local baron Herbert Rudley rules the area and has introduced a rule that if a woman is unaccompanied, the first man to get her, keeps her. His wife Yvonne de Carlo is attacked (raped?) and the guy blames his political enemy, John Gilmore who became John Gavin. The enemy is hung, his Indian wife Mara Corday therefore up for grabs and is snatched by another cowboy. Gilmore's brother Rory Calhoun arrives in town and goes abot looking for revenge.
There's a lot of plot in this film. In addition to all the stuff going on above, there's also Rex Reason as a mysterious gambler with his own agenda, Corday's Indian relatives, Rudley's offsider Neville Brand and his brother also want de Carlo.. And it's only 76 minutes.
Really there's too much going on. They would have been better off dealing with a few key strands better. Plots seem rushed like the Calhoun-de Carlo romance.
De Carlo looks fine is a professional - so is Calhoun. The best are Brand and Reason. It's good that Corday's Indian character has some status and is allowed to kill Rudley and go off. It makes no sense Calhoun lets Brand live - really it's just so Brand can come back at the end. Calhoun actually doesn't do that much in the film - Rudley is a strong villain but he's more defeated by the Indians, and Brand and his father. Also why is Reason in the film? He's enigmatic, he helps the heroes, then he's killed... why?
The colour is great, the handling slack, de Carlo's body double is very obvious in some scenes because the director handles them in mid shot over long takes.
And there's an unpleasant rapey stuff - de Carlo is raped, she's considered property by Rudley, Brand wants to own her and calls her his property, even Calhoun drags her off after a chase, and then she wants to be Calhoun's property at the end. Corday was presumably Gilmore's property, then becomes property of another cowboy Robert Wilke, then becomes Indian property.
It gets some points in that pretty much the entire white cast is dead at the end of the film instead of Calhoun and de Carlo - no wonder she wants to go off with him.
There's a ballad over the beginning and end credits.
It's set in Oklahoma 1842 where a local baron Herbert Rudley rules the area and has introduced a rule that if a woman is unaccompanied, the first man to get her, keeps her. His wife Yvonne de Carlo is attacked (raped?) and the guy blames his political enemy, John Gilmore who became John Gavin. The enemy is hung, his Indian wife Mara Corday therefore up for grabs and is snatched by another cowboy. Gilmore's brother Rory Calhoun arrives in town and goes abot looking for revenge.
There's a lot of plot in this film. In addition to all the stuff going on above, there's also Rex Reason as a mysterious gambler with his own agenda, Corday's Indian relatives, Rudley's offsider Neville Brand and his brother also want de Carlo.. And it's only 76 minutes.
Really there's too much going on. They would have been better off dealing with a few key strands better. Plots seem rushed like the Calhoun-de Carlo romance.
De Carlo looks fine is a professional - so is Calhoun. The best are Brand and Reason. It's good that Corday's Indian character has some status and is allowed to kill Rudley and go off. It makes no sense Calhoun lets Brand live - really it's just so Brand can come back at the end. Calhoun actually doesn't do that much in the film - Rudley is a strong villain but he's more defeated by the Indians, and Brand and his father. Also why is Reason in the film? He's enigmatic, he helps the heroes, then he's killed... why?
The colour is great, the handling slack, de Carlo's body double is very obvious in some scenes because the director handles them in mid shot over long takes.
And there's an unpleasant rapey stuff - de Carlo is raped, she's considered property by Rudley, Brand wants to own her and calls her his property, even Calhoun drags her off after a chase, and then she wants to be Calhoun's property at the end. Corday was presumably Gilmore's property, then becomes property of another cowboy Robert Wilke, then becomes Indian property.
It gets some points in that pretty much the entire white cast is dead at the end of the film instead of Calhoun and de Carlo - no wonder she wants to go off with him.
There's a ballad over the beginning and end credits.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Movie review - "The Captain's Paradise" (1953) ***
Alec Guinness was a weird star of British films of the 1950s - a sort of other-wordly smugness/vagueness. This persona works well here, in this comedy about a ship's captain with two wives, one a stuffy British type in Gibraltar, the other a hot sexy thing in Spanish Morocco... because Guinness is so sexless it's not too full on. (I remember this worked for Dirk Bogarde in those doctor comedies - his lack of interest in women on screen made the films more charming, but when the cast obviously straight Michael Craig the film seemed sleazy).
The basic story is clever - it strikes at a universal theme - I think Australian Alec Coppel deserved his Oscar nomination.
It's been cast well - not just Guinness but Celia Johnson and Yvonne de Carlo are ideal. De Carlo was beginning to look her age here - or maybe it's more the gang at London Films didn't know how to give her the full beauty treatment.
It perhaps lacks a bit of development - a villain, say, or some through line. Gangsters or a missing set of jewels, or something to build. Maybe a bigger part for the love rival?
For a farce it's very spread out time-wise - the film covers a bunch of years (Johnson has children - we hardly see them - and the kids grow up and go to boarding school!) There is a second act - the wives start to want what the other one has (De Carlo wants to be domestic, Johnson wants to party), he which is fun... but it feels as though it lacks a third act.
Also I found the ending confusing - why Guinness was arrested and faced a firing squad. I had to look up what happened - he took the blame for a murder committed by de Carlo (why did she do it by the way? Hot blooded African-ness? why did he feel he had to take the blame? if he was so guilty about what he did he looked pretty smug paying off the firing squad? Personally I think Coppel just thought of that cool opening and didn't really work out how to justify it.)
Still it is fun - I loved Guinness' reactions to things, like dancing with de Carlo at a nightclub and being quiet and relaxed on Gibraltar with Johnson. De Carlo is having a good time as is Johnson and the support cast includes reliables like Peter Bull.
Some Australian touches (Coppel was Australian) - a relative of Guinness' character says he spent a year in Australia "among the aboriginals" as a desire to find the meaning of life.
The basic story is clever - it strikes at a universal theme - I think Australian Alec Coppel deserved his Oscar nomination.
It's been cast well - not just Guinness but Celia Johnson and Yvonne de Carlo are ideal. De Carlo was beginning to look her age here - or maybe it's more the gang at London Films didn't know how to give her the full beauty treatment.
It perhaps lacks a bit of development - a villain, say, or some through line. Gangsters or a missing set of jewels, or something to build. Maybe a bigger part for the love rival?
For a farce it's very spread out time-wise - the film covers a bunch of years (Johnson has children - we hardly see them - and the kids grow up and go to boarding school!) There is a second act - the wives start to want what the other one has (De Carlo wants to be domestic, Johnson wants to party), he which is fun... but it feels as though it lacks a third act.
Also I found the ending confusing - why Guinness was arrested and faced a firing squad. I had to look up what happened - he took the blame for a murder committed by de Carlo (why did she do it by the way? Hot blooded African-ness? why did he feel he had to take the blame? if he was so guilty about what he did he looked pretty smug paying off the firing squad? Personally I think Coppel just thought of that cool opening and didn't really work out how to justify it.)
Still it is fun - I loved Guinness' reactions to things, like dancing with de Carlo at a nightclub and being quiet and relaxed on Gibraltar with Johnson. De Carlo is having a good time as is Johnson and the support cast includes reliables like Peter Bull.
Some Australian touches (Coppel was Australian) - a relative of Guinness' character says he spent a year in Australia "among the aboriginals" as a desire to find the meaning of life.
Movie review - "Hurricane Smith" (1952) **
The second of two films Yvonne de Carlo made for Nat Holt at Paramount. Both were written by Fran Gruber with Richard Arlen in a support role. The first, Silver City, had a slightly convoluted plot - this one is incredibly convoluted.
It needn't have been - I mean, really the film should have been about unjustly-accused-of-piracy John Ireland trying to get his money back, taking over a ship, fighting baddies, hiding who he really is on board ship, falling in love with Yvonne de Carlo who changes sides, getting his money.
But the script has two main flaws. It slips the heroic duties between Ireland and Forrest Tucker and Richard Arlen - the latter in particular didn't need to be in the film at all. I kept waiting for two of them to die, or turn bad, or something... but nope, they're all the same sort of person - rough and heroic. If the baddy thinks Tucker is Ireland, which is fine, why not have the baddy kill Tucker? Why have Arlen in the film at all? If they needed to give him a gig, make him the bad guy. (James Craig, borrowed from MGM, is fine by the way).
Also so much of the script fells contrived. Like, Ireland, Tucker and Arlen take over the ship... but they can't go looking for treasure they have to go to Australia to raise money... (NB there are scenes in a fictitious northern port of Australia called "Castleton"... it's not particularly Aussie of course). The real reason is so the slavers can turn up... and be put in the brig... and then when they're sailing there's all these sailors, there's the slave captain and his first mate, and some other sailor, and various sailors mutiny and everyone changes sides. There's all these villains... the slaver, the slaver's first mate, Jim Craig, de Carlo, de Carlo's father. I kept thinking "consolidate all these frigging characters". It's a mess. And it's pointless.
The colour is impressive, the quality of acting solid (even if Ireland spends far too much time shirtless for someone who isn't in particularly good shape), the action good. Gruber just messes it up with a needlessly complicated script with too many characters.
De Carlo is fun. She doesn't have a huge role (it should have been bigger). She has a very camp moment on board listening to some musicians play an island tune and because she's half-Polynesian the jungle drums take hold of her and she goes into this dance routine. Although De Carlo came to fame as a replacement Maria Montez she was rarely as campy - but on this occasion, it's pure camp.
It needn't have been - I mean, really the film should have been about unjustly-accused-of-piracy John Ireland trying to get his money back, taking over a ship, fighting baddies, hiding who he really is on board ship, falling in love with Yvonne de Carlo who changes sides, getting his money.
But the script has two main flaws. It slips the heroic duties between Ireland and Forrest Tucker and Richard Arlen - the latter in particular didn't need to be in the film at all. I kept waiting for two of them to die, or turn bad, or something... but nope, they're all the same sort of person - rough and heroic. If the baddy thinks Tucker is Ireland, which is fine, why not have the baddy kill Tucker? Why have Arlen in the film at all? If they needed to give him a gig, make him the bad guy. (James Craig, borrowed from MGM, is fine by the way).
Also so much of the script fells contrived. Like, Ireland, Tucker and Arlen take over the ship... but they can't go looking for treasure they have to go to Australia to raise money... (NB there are scenes in a fictitious northern port of Australia called "Castleton"... it's not particularly Aussie of course). The real reason is so the slavers can turn up... and be put in the brig... and then when they're sailing there's all these sailors, there's the slave captain and his first mate, and some other sailor, and various sailors mutiny and everyone changes sides. There's all these villains... the slaver, the slaver's first mate, Jim Craig, de Carlo, de Carlo's father. I kept thinking "consolidate all these frigging characters". It's a mess. And it's pointless.
The colour is impressive, the quality of acting solid (even if Ireland spends far too much time shirtless for someone who isn't in particularly good shape), the action good. Gruber just messes it up with a needlessly complicated script with too many characters.
De Carlo is fun. She doesn't have a huge role (it should have been bigger). She has a very camp moment on board listening to some musicians play an island tune and because she's half-Polynesian the jungle drums take hold of her and she goes into this dance routine. Although De Carlo came to fame as a replacement Maria Montez she was rarely as campy - but on this occasion, it's pure camp.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Movie review - "Hotel Sahara" (1951) **1/2
This film has such a bright central idea I'm surprised it hasn't been adapted/remade more - it would seem to be a natural musical/TV show... it's about a North African hotel which keeps having to deal with different occupiers during World War Two. So it spans a bit of time but is all the one location. (Come to think of it the basic idea is a little like Five Graves to Cairo/ Hotel Imperial)
Peter Ustinov does his funny voice thing as an Arab who runs the hotel. His chief worker is Yvonne de Carlo, who finds herself romancing the occupying Italians, British, Germans, French and (briefly) Americans. There's also other staff but these were the main two.
The French section of this felt a little tacked on - it was like a fourth act when maybe the film would have been tighter as a three act (Italian, British, German) with the Americans as a coda. There were inevitable elements of repetition. The film might have benefited with an overall story - a throughline about a map of mines in the area, say like in Five Graves to Cairo, or hidden arms caches, or a local spy or something.
The playing is very broad - there's no genuine threat, or basis in reality. If you can accept that you'll have a good time.
De Carlo has a high old time - she sings a few songs, runs around in a variety of swimsuits, does a few dances. It's a very good opportunity for her. I'm watching a lot of De Carlo movies - because I like the types of movies she made I want to enjoy her acting more than I do. She's pleasant, and fun, mind - she just lacks the focus of the great stars that's all. Ustinov has more charisma.
The support cast includes David Tomlinson and Roland Culver.
Peter Ustinov does his funny voice thing as an Arab who runs the hotel. His chief worker is Yvonne de Carlo, who finds herself romancing the occupying Italians, British, Germans, French and (briefly) Americans. There's also other staff but these were the main two.
The French section of this felt a little tacked on - it was like a fourth act when maybe the film would have been tighter as a three act (Italian, British, German) with the Americans as a coda. There were inevitable elements of repetition. The film might have benefited with an overall story - a throughline about a map of mines in the area, say like in Five Graves to Cairo, or hidden arms caches, or a local spy or something.
The playing is very broad - there's no genuine threat, or basis in reality. If you can accept that you'll have a good time.
De Carlo has a high old time - she sings a few songs, runs around in a variety of swimsuits, does a few dances. It's a very good opportunity for her. I'm watching a lot of De Carlo movies - because I like the types of movies she made I want to enjoy her acting more than I do. She's pleasant, and fun, mind - she just lacks the focus of the great stars that's all. Ustinov has more charisma.
The support cast includes David Tomlinson and Roland Culver.
Movie review - "Silver City" (1951) **1/2
Yvonne de Carlo leaves Universal and heads over to Paramount to make a film that is pretty much exactly like the kind of films she made at Universal. It's a Western, with de Carlo as the feisty daughter of a crusty old timer who has a valuable mining lease. Rich Barry Fitzgerald wants to get his mitts on it but mining surveyor Edmond O'Brien intervenes. O'Brien has a Past... he was once corrupt, turning Richard Arlen against him.
Arlen used to star in a bunch of Pine Thomas movies and this is a little like the more expensive films of that company - its produced by Nat Holy who made a lot of Westerns.
There's some exciting action sequences - a chase on a train at the beginning and a fight in a saw mill at the end. (Though in both O'Brien is up against a random dude instead of the main villain).
The cast is good. Edmond O'Brien really has no business being a leading man in a Western - too chunky looking, not tough, not good looking enough for De Carlo - but he can act. Richard Arlen is decent in a surprisingly complex role. Actually come to think of it, it's probably too complex - I couldn't follow what was going on with that story or the filmmakers stuffed it: how much Arlen knew vs what O'Brien actually did, etc etc.
The guy who plays the evil gunslinger was good (Michael Moore, an insolent type) and Barry Fitzgerald's cutesy Irish schtick works as a nasty tycoon. The girl who played O'Brien's ex was a bit undercast.
Arlen used to star in a bunch of Pine Thomas movies and this is a little like the more expensive films of that company - its produced by Nat Holy who made a lot of Westerns.
There's some exciting action sequences - a chase on a train at the beginning and a fight in a saw mill at the end. (Though in both O'Brien is up against a random dude instead of the main villain).
The cast is good. Edmond O'Brien really has no business being a leading man in a Western - too chunky looking, not tough, not good looking enough for De Carlo - but he can act. Richard Arlen is decent in a surprisingly complex role. Actually come to think of it, it's probably too complex - I couldn't follow what was going on with that story or the filmmakers stuffed it: how much Arlen knew vs what O'Brien actually did, etc etc.
The guy who plays the evil gunslinger was good (Michael Moore, an insolent type) and Barry Fitzgerald's cutesy Irish schtick works as a nasty tycoon. The girl who played O'Brien's ex was a bit undercast.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Movie review - "White Cargo" (1942) ***
A film of its time, lets put it that way - actually, to be fair, its time really was 1920s London stage, where there was a rich tradition of colonial melodramas about angsty white men going ga-ga for some exotic tail. That's when the original play debuted, and the writer, Leon Gordon, did his own adaptation so the spirit is preserved.
There have been some changes - notably making Hedy Lamarr's character Tondeleyo white (well, half-Egyptian, half-Portuguese) so she can marry Richard Carlson without upsetting the Production Code, who had no problem endorsing Walter Pidgeon's dictatorial rule of this part of Africa (he wants to bring back flogging, sentences a man to a year in prison he doesn't deserve to keep things in line) or the depiction of all Africans as simpletons, or Lamarr in brown face.
But the piece does hold dramatically. It's about the difficulties of being colonial officers in Africa - how it drives men around the bend and how they're not liable to make it. (It's not a very positive depiction - no one is happy, everyone is hot and sweaty).
Lamarr is very effective whoever offensive people are liable to find her character. She's not introduced until 30 minutes in, giving her a good build up (others talk about her before then). Then she sets about seducing Carlson - and the story delivers on its promise because they get married, they have sex, she's impatient and then tries to kill him... so Pidgeon tricks her into killing herself.
I'm used to seeing Pidgeon playing cuddly characters so it's weird to see him play a grumpy surly Clarke Gable type role. Frank Morgan is excellent as a boozy doctor the other big part. And Carlson was very good - you can see why people thought it was going to be a big star for so long.
There have been some changes - notably making Hedy Lamarr's character Tondeleyo white (well, half-Egyptian, half-Portuguese) so she can marry Richard Carlson without upsetting the Production Code, who had no problem endorsing Walter Pidgeon's dictatorial rule of this part of Africa (he wants to bring back flogging, sentences a man to a year in prison he doesn't deserve to keep things in line) or the depiction of all Africans as simpletons, or Lamarr in brown face.
But the piece does hold dramatically. It's about the difficulties of being colonial officers in Africa - how it drives men around the bend and how they're not liable to make it. (It's not a very positive depiction - no one is happy, everyone is hot and sweaty).
Lamarr is very effective whoever offensive people are liable to find her character. She's not introduced until 30 minutes in, giving her a good build up (others talk about her before then). Then she sets about seducing Carlson - and the story delivers on its promise because they get married, they have sex, she's impatient and then tries to kill him... so Pidgeon tricks her into killing herself.
I'm used to seeing Pidgeon playing cuddly characters so it's weird to see him play a grumpy surly Clarke Gable type role. Frank Morgan is excellent as a boozy doctor the other big part. And Carlson was very good - you can see why people thought it was going to be a big star for so long.
Movie review - "Life for Ruth" (1962) *** (warning: spoilers)
Most TV medical dramas at one stage or another do the story about the family who won't let their child do a blood transfusion due to religious reasons. This gives it the feature film treatment, which makes you think "is there enough story there for a feature?" and you'd be right... for the most part. Because this was actually quite well done, and I liked it more than I would.
The opening 30 minutes has the accident, the transfusion refused, and the kid's dead and the parents worry. And you think "where's it going to go from here?" What happens is the doctor (Patrick McGoohan) is so annoyed that he arranges for a private prosecution of the dad (Michael Craig) for manslaughter and it goes to trial.
This was made by the team of Basil Dearden and Michael Relph, known for their socially conscious films like Victim. Victim was better drama because it was a mystery, you didn't know everything - and also there were stronger emotional stakes. I mean, there are big stakes here, the kid is dead, but after 30 minutes the kid is dead, there's nothing for the second two acts.
I think McGoohan needed to be in love with Janet Munro, who plays Craig's wife. He could've gone out with Munro, who left him for Craig and converted, so there is an emotional element. I also felt there needed to be a second kid, one who was alive (could be unborn if need be) so they are fighting over who raises the second child - to keep the stakes alive. I guess you have the stakes of Munro/Craig marriage but... they're just going to be sad all the time, you don't really care.
Excellent performances from Craig and McGoohan; Munro is good too though she doesn't have that much to play other than "sad" and "overruled by her husband". The film would've been better had she been given something more to do. Great work from the guy who plays Craig's defence barrister -a live wire. Good too is the bloke who plays the prosecuting lawyer.
I went in with low expectations of this and they were exceeded. But you can see why it wasn't popular and helped end Allied Film Makers.
The opening 30 minutes has the accident, the transfusion refused, and the kid's dead and the parents worry. And you think "where's it going to go from here?" What happens is the doctor (Patrick McGoohan) is so annoyed that he arranges for a private prosecution of the dad (Michael Craig) for manslaughter and it goes to trial.
This was made by the team of Basil Dearden and Michael Relph, known for their socially conscious films like Victim. Victim was better drama because it was a mystery, you didn't know everything - and also there were stronger emotional stakes. I mean, there are big stakes here, the kid is dead, but after 30 minutes the kid is dead, there's nothing for the second two acts.
I think McGoohan needed to be in love with Janet Munro, who plays Craig's wife. He could've gone out with Munro, who left him for Craig and converted, so there is an emotional element. I also felt there needed to be a second kid, one who was alive (could be unborn if need be) so they are fighting over who raises the second child - to keep the stakes alive. I guess you have the stakes of Munro/Craig marriage but... they're just going to be sad all the time, you don't really care.
Excellent performances from Craig and McGoohan; Munro is good too though she doesn't have that much to play other than "sad" and "overruled by her husband". The film would've been better had she been given something more to do. Great work from the guy who plays Craig's defence barrister -a live wire. Good too is the bloke who plays the prosecuting lawyer.
I went in with low expectations of this and they were exceeded. But you can see why it wasn't popular and helped end Allied Film Makers.
Movie review - "Beau Brummel" (1954) ***
In the 1950s MGM liked to remake old hits in widescreen and colour - about half Stewart Granger's films for the studios were remakes including this one, which was done previously with John Barrymore.
There's plenty of admire - beautiful color and sets, a superb performance by Peter Ustinov as George IV and an equally good one by Robert Morley as his mad father. Granger is dashing and Elizabeth Taylor looks pretty.
But at times I wondered what the point of it was. There's no action, so it's not a swashbuckler like Scaramouche. It's not heavy on romance so it's not a great drama. It's more a bromance between Granger and Ustinov.
But we never get a sense of what drives Brummell/Granger - why he is the way he is... and indeed why what he is should be interesting. He's not motivated by revenge, or greed, or lust, or love, or a desire to fight injustice. He just seems to be an amiable chap.
I haven't seen the Barrymore version but I read the synopsis and that made sense - he was getting revenge for a thwarted love.
James Donald is an okay villain but again I wasn't sure why he was a villain. I wasn't sure why Taylor loved Granger and he loved her (apart from them both being hot), or why they couldn't be together or why at the end he didn't want to be with her when she wanted to be with him. The ending might have been more moving if Granger hadn't foolishly rejected Ustinov and Taylor for no apparent good reason.
Taylor is gorgeous but feels too young for Granger. They were going to cast Eleanor Parker and I wish they had.
The relationship with Ustinov and Granger is touching - Granger is the big brother Ustinov clearly needs. But too much of this is dramatically undercooked and unclear.
There's plenty of admire - beautiful color and sets, a superb performance by Peter Ustinov as George IV and an equally good one by Robert Morley as his mad father. Granger is dashing and Elizabeth Taylor looks pretty.
But at times I wondered what the point of it was. There's no action, so it's not a swashbuckler like Scaramouche. It's not heavy on romance so it's not a great drama. It's more a bromance between Granger and Ustinov.
But we never get a sense of what drives Brummell/Granger - why he is the way he is... and indeed why what he is should be interesting. He's not motivated by revenge, or greed, or lust, or love, or a desire to fight injustice. He just seems to be an amiable chap.
I haven't seen the Barrymore version but I read the synopsis and that made sense - he was getting revenge for a thwarted love.
James Donald is an okay villain but again I wasn't sure why he was a villain. I wasn't sure why Taylor loved Granger and he loved her (apart from them both being hot), or why they couldn't be together or why at the end he didn't want to be with her when she wanted to be with him. The ending might have been more moving if Granger hadn't foolishly rejected Ustinov and Taylor for no apparent good reason.
Taylor is gorgeous but feels too young for Granger. They were going to cast Eleanor Parker and I wish they had.
The relationship with Ustinov and Granger is touching - Granger is the big brother Ustinov clearly needs. But too much of this is dramatically undercooked and unclear.
Book review- "Venom Business" by John Lange/Michael Crichton
This was hard work. Most Crichton/Lange novels are easy to read - fast paced, short chapters. This took forever - long, dull. No research, no interesting ideas, just paper thin characters and a plot that felt like it was made up as written. Indeed, I don't want to be rude, but at times this felt like it was written by Crichton when drunk.
No pace, no interest. Leggy women. He uses f*ck and c*nt so that's novel. It starts off intriguingly with an assassin using snakes... then this is dumped. There is one good sequence where two people are in a car being driven by a third person and they are going 200 miles an hour. That's suspenseful. But it was dull and a real slog. The worst John Lange book I've read yet - I've got two to go.
No pace, no interest. Leggy women. He uses f*ck and c*nt so that's novel. It starts off intriguingly with an assassin using snakes... then this is dumped. There is one good sequence where two people are in a car being driven by a third person and they are going 200 miles an hour. That's suspenseful. But it was dull and a real slog. The worst John Lange book I've read yet - I've got two to go.
Monday, April 22, 2019
Movie review - "Bitter Harvest" (1963) *1/2
Janet Munro has a bit of a cult because she died so young and played "the girl" memorably in a bunch of cult movies - notably The Day the Earth Caught Fire, Swiss Family Robinson and Darby O'Gill and the Little People.
This film gave her a rare lead role - as in, the film actually centers around her character, she isn't an ornament or a reward. It's a shame it isn't better.
I mean, the role gives her a lot of chances to Act. A lot. In the opening scene she comes home trashed, wrecks her apartment, scribbles lipstick all over the mirror, staggers around. Then it flashes back to her being bored in Wales - she goes out one night and gets drunk with some sleazy dudes, wakes up naked in bed in London after having has sex without remembering (being raped basically).
She staggers around miserable then meets the Perfect Man - John Stride, a kind, understanding bartender who thinks she's wonderful... mind you even though she's tired and under the weather he still has sex with her. She is willing in this case but the power dynamic isn't exactly equal (he's looked after her, paid her rent, organised the room, etc).
And then later on when she wants to go out and get a job he's jealous and later on he's possessive. She goes out anyway - he still loves her. She goes to a party - she starts flirting with married Alan Badel. Strine begs for her to come back, she tells him "he's nothing"... which is kind of inconsistent with how her character and their relaitonship has been depicted.
She goes nuts and overdoses. John Stride goes and hooks up with the nice girl who pines after him.
This is horrible sexist claptrap. I think the filmmakers thought they were cutting edge with social realism - a bit of rape and sex.
But at heart it's about a woman with ambition who is punished. The filmmakers give us such empathy for Munro to start off with - she comes from a boring town, she's got nothing to look forward to, men ply her with alcohol and she is raped... but then they depict her as dumb and silly (she just wants to be famous).
It is not a fun movie. At first I felt for Munro then as the film went on it just got unpleasant and I started to hate the movie. The filmmakers do not like her character -they patronise and pity her. It's like it was made by old men going "tsk tsk". They don't give her any agency. It sucks.
Munro does what she can.
This was made by Independent Artists, a production company who made some interesting films in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This isn't one of them.
This film gave her a rare lead role - as in, the film actually centers around her character, she isn't an ornament or a reward. It's a shame it isn't better.
I mean, the role gives her a lot of chances to Act. A lot. In the opening scene she comes home trashed, wrecks her apartment, scribbles lipstick all over the mirror, staggers around. Then it flashes back to her being bored in Wales - she goes out one night and gets drunk with some sleazy dudes, wakes up naked in bed in London after having has sex without remembering (being raped basically).
She staggers around miserable then meets the Perfect Man - John Stride, a kind, understanding bartender who thinks she's wonderful... mind you even though she's tired and under the weather he still has sex with her. She is willing in this case but the power dynamic isn't exactly equal (he's looked after her, paid her rent, organised the room, etc).
And then later on when she wants to go out and get a job he's jealous and later on he's possessive. She goes out anyway - he still loves her. She goes to a party - she starts flirting with married Alan Badel. Strine begs for her to come back, she tells him "he's nothing"... which is kind of inconsistent with how her character and their relaitonship has been depicted.
She goes nuts and overdoses. John Stride goes and hooks up with the nice girl who pines after him.
This is horrible sexist claptrap. I think the filmmakers thought they were cutting edge with social realism - a bit of rape and sex.
But at heart it's about a woman with ambition who is punished. The filmmakers give us such empathy for Munro to start off with - she comes from a boring town, she's got nothing to look forward to, men ply her with alcohol and she is raped... but then they depict her as dumb and silly (she just wants to be famous).
It is not a fun movie. At first I felt for Munro then as the film went on it just got unpleasant and I started to hate the movie. The filmmakers do not like her character -they patronise and pity her. It's like it was made by old men going "tsk tsk". They don't give her any agency. It sucks.
Munro does what she can.
This was made by Independent Artists, a production company who made some interesting films in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This isn't one of them.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Movie review - "Here Come the Huggetts" (1948) ***
The Huggetts (Jack Warner and Kathleen Harrison) were so well received in Holiday Camp it was decided to give them their own series of which this was first. It's another slice-of-life of the late 40s, based around the adventures of the Huggetts at home. They've got three daughters, but the filmmakers bring in a fourth girl to spice things up, a niece - a good thing too because she's played by Diana Dors who is fantastic and the best thing about the film.
Dors' character is slightly chubby, cheerful, lazy, keen to manipulate Harrison into doing everything for her, slack at work, boy crazy, out for a good time. She does get sexually harrased at work and leched on - she can handle it, but there are overtones (because what if she was the sort of girl who couldn't handle it?) Everyone's got a relative like this - that universal appeal of the character adds immensely to the fun.
The other three daughters are played by Jane Hylton, Susan Shaw and Petula Clark. Clark mainly looks cute and sings one song. Shaw doesn't do much. Hylton has a subplot - her boyfriend Jimmy Hanley (he of the receding hairline) is away and she has a little flirtation with David Tomlinson, whose characterisation is a bit too board - he should have been more real, more of a threat. It's like the actor decided to 'have fun" with the role and director Ken Annakin - whose handling otherwise is very good - couldn't bring him into line, or didn't want to.
The other subplot involves Warner and Harrison camping out to see then-princess Elizabeth get married, which is a lot of fun - and Warner has some issues at work.
Really the film could have done with another really strong subplot to support the one involving Dors - maybe something more serious - and three stars is possibly too generous but this was a fun film.
Dors' character is slightly chubby, cheerful, lazy, keen to manipulate Harrison into doing everything for her, slack at work, boy crazy, out for a good time. She does get sexually harrased at work and leched on - she can handle it, but there are overtones (because what if she was the sort of girl who couldn't handle it?) Everyone's got a relative like this - that universal appeal of the character adds immensely to the fun.
The other three daughters are played by Jane Hylton, Susan Shaw and Petula Clark. Clark mainly looks cute and sings one song. Shaw doesn't do much. Hylton has a subplot - her boyfriend Jimmy Hanley (he of the receding hairline) is away and she has a little flirtation with David Tomlinson, whose characterisation is a bit too board - he should have been more real, more of a threat. It's like the actor decided to 'have fun" with the role and director Ken Annakin - whose handling otherwise is very good - couldn't bring him into line, or didn't want to.
The other subplot involves Warner and Harrison camping out to see then-princess Elizabeth get married, which is a lot of fun - and Warner has some issues at work.
Really the film could have done with another really strong subplot to support the one involving Dors - maybe something more serious - and three stars is possibly too generous but this was a fun film.
Movie review - "The Shaggy Dog" (1959) ***
Highly influential in its own way - a low-ish budget comedy shot in black and white it turned out to be a box office phenomenon, starting a long relationship between Disney and Fred MacMurray, and kicking off a whole bunch of comedes with a slight fantasy element that powered Disney for the next two decades. Many were like this written by Bill Walsh, an unsung figure in the history of the studio.
He co wrote this script which is a bit uneven - for instance it introduces Tommy Kirk as performing experiments in the basement but then they don't do anything with it, and they bring in a Cold War spying subplot at the end which is actually fine but would have been less of a jolt if they'd brought it in earlier (says I, anyway). Also the rules as to how Tommy Kirk transforms into a dog feel haphazard - he rubs a ring and it just comes and goes. Walsh would do a tighter job on The Absent Minded Professor.
But there's plenty of funny stuff. Having spies give the ending real stakes.It's funny to have dad Fred MacMurray be an ex postman who hates dogs. Kevin Corcoran is sweet and gives the film warmth as the dog loving younger brother. There's an effective love triangle between Kirk and Tom Considine over Annette Funicello and, later Roberta Shaw and some fun satire.
I'm surprised how short Fred MacMurray's role is - it's very much a supporting part. Knowing how he jigged the schedule on My Three Sons to work as little as possible, I assume that Disney fixed things so shooting this took hardly any time - he's mostly in one or two sets, sitting down. (His character never seems to work, just sits around all day). MacMurray's befuddled small town nature suited the Disney world very well.
His presence does add gravitas to the film - at one stage he was a major name, and he would have raised this film to another level in the eyes of the audience. Jean Hagen plays his wife - it's a thankless role, serving dinner and occasionally sighing.
Annette Funicello's role is surprisingly small too - she's the girl next door, wanted by Kirk and Considine, but a bigger part goes to Roberta Shore. Funicello looked different to how she would in the Beach Party films - her nose seems stubbier, her hair is shorter (I know her from those movies more than The Mickey Mouse Club).
Kirk is a solid lead for this sort of thing - and he is the lead, as he was in Old Yeller. He was a sort of 50s Tom Hanks.... well, if Tom Hanks had been working as a teen.
Disney made sharper films later but this has a strong central concept, skilled cast, and plenty of cham. These sorts of films are harder to do than they appear which is presumably why so few other studios tried.
He co wrote this script which is a bit uneven - for instance it introduces Tommy Kirk as performing experiments in the basement but then they don't do anything with it, and they bring in a Cold War spying subplot at the end which is actually fine but would have been less of a jolt if they'd brought it in earlier (says I, anyway). Also the rules as to how Tommy Kirk transforms into a dog feel haphazard - he rubs a ring and it just comes and goes. Walsh would do a tighter job on The Absent Minded Professor.
But there's plenty of funny stuff. Having spies give the ending real stakes.It's funny to have dad Fred MacMurray be an ex postman who hates dogs. Kevin Corcoran is sweet and gives the film warmth as the dog loving younger brother. There's an effective love triangle between Kirk and Tom Considine over Annette Funicello and, later Roberta Shaw and some fun satire.
I'm surprised how short Fred MacMurray's role is - it's very much a supporting part. Knowing how he jigged the schedule on My Three Sons to work as little as possible, I assume that Disney fixed things so shooting this took hardly any time - he's mostly in one or two sets, sitting down. (His character never seems to work, just sits around all day). MacMurray's befuddled small town nature suited the Disney world very well.
His presence does add gravitas to the film - at one stage he was a major name, and he would have raised this film to another level in the eyes of the audience. Jean Hagen plays his wife - it's a thankless role, serving dinner and occasionally sighing.
Annette Funicello's role is surprisingly small too - she's the girl next door, wanted by Kirk and Considine, but a bigger part goes to Roberta Shore. Funicello looked different to how she would in the Beach Party films - her nose seems stubbier, her hair is shorter (I know her from those movies more than The Mickey Mouse Club).
Kirk is a solid lead for this sort of thing - and he is the lead, as he was in Old Yeller. He was a sort of 50s Tom Hanks.... well, if Tom Hanks had been working as a teen.
Disney made sharper films later but this has a strong central concept, skilled cast, and plenty of cham. These sorts of films are harder to do than they appear which is presumably why so few other studios tried.
Movie review - "Scarlet Angel" (1952) ***
Yvonne de Carlo gets one of her best roles as a slightly shady lady in 1865 New Orleans who decides to impersonate a woman who has died and is the widow of a man from a rich San Francisco family. Rock Hudson is the former blockade runner who gets swindled by de Carlo then chases after the debt. Do they fall in love? What do you reckon?
Hudson is a little too nice for the buccaneering character he plays but he has charisma and he and de Carlo team well - even if they can't quite crack the Rhett Butler-Scarlett O'Hara vibe the film is going for (he even has a "I get you baby" speech). It does help that both of them have a mercenary side - he doesn't turn her in so he can benefit financially, she's out for money too, which makes it fresh. I like the fact that they both clearly like money, sex and a good time and they aren't punished for it. (She takes part in a brawl and he laughs, delighted).
Helping the film age well is the greed of the support characters - a relative wants to prove she's a liar to get money, a man romances de Carlo to get money, an old saloon owner and private investigator try to blackmail her for money. I maybe wanted more resolution of De Carlo and the kid - I think they could have found a way for her and Hudson to raise him.
It was written by Oscar Brodney, a bit of an unappreciated filmmaker - he did a bunch of enjoyable unpretentious entertainments for Universal like this one. It's got pleasing set design and great colour. A fun movie.
Hudson is a little too nice for the buccaneering character he plays but he has charisma and he and de Carlo team well - even if they can't quite crack the Rhett Butler-Scarlett O'Hara vibe the film is going for (he even has a "I get you baby" speech). It does help that both of them have a mercenary side - he doesn't turn her in so he can benefit financially, she's out for money too, which makes it fresh. I like the fact that they both clearly like money, sex and a good time and they aren't punished for it. (She takes part in a brawl and he laughs, delighted).
Helping the film age well is the greed of the support characters - a relative wants to prove she's a liar to get money, a man romances de Carlo to get money, an old saloon owner and private investigator try to blackmail her for money. I maybe wanted more resolution of De Carlo and the kid - I think they could have found a way for her and Hudson to raise him.
It was written by Oscar Brodney, a bit of an unappreciated filmmaker - he did a bunch of enjoyable unpretentious entertainments for Universal like this one. It's got pleasing set design and great colour. A fun movie.
Book review - "Empire of Dreams: The Epic Life of Cecil B De Mille" (2010) by Scott Eyman
Scott Eyman's written a bunch of fantastic books but it's hard to see how he can top this one, an exhaustive and brilliant account of the life of one of the most famous directors of all time.
De Mille wasn't just a director, he was a celebrity (hosting his own radio show), and he was a genre. He was also hated by baby boomer film critics who dominated film criticism from the late 60s onwards and ensured his reputation went into eclipse while those of Hawks, Hitchcock, Nicholas Ray, etc shot up. This was in part because De Mille died in 1959 so wasn't around to do self promoting interviews to the boomers in the 60s like the others. But also because he was a right winger.
I started to re-appreciate the director after reading George MacDonald Fraser write about him so well in Hollywood History of the World. (Eyman quotes Fraser here). And rewatching his films you see there's lots more to De Mille than was commonly accepted in film buff circles.
His shoddy treatment by cineastes made me angry because reading this De Mille was such an influential figure in Hollywood - he helped create the place, shooting The Squaw Man, was clearly a gun director in his prime and artistically bold, especially in the 1920s (I've never seen these films but have read this from numerous sources). He enjoyed great success but had a dip in the late 20s and early 30s, before backing himself and recovering with The Sign of the Cross. Thereafter he became more a brand name and producer than top flight director, but the films are consistently strong. He was famous for spectacle but always understood the human story needed to be paramount.
Eyman points out that the main reason his reputation suffered was his anti-communism, particularly the famous DGA fight where he tried to kick out Joseph Mankiewicz. This story has been inflated - Eyman pulls it back into focus.
De Mille was a flawed man certainly - bit of a hypocrite, a bit rabid during the Cold War, while personally generous he loved to keep his income tax rates down. He was very nineteenth century - he had several long running mistresses but never left his wife, he was influenced by the theatre of David Belasco. He was skilled with publicity, story, acting and producing - he learnt his trade on the theatre circuit. He was a paterfamilias - running his movie company like an actor manager.
Eyman had access to De Mille's papers and there is superb insight into the man - notably his relationships with his brother William (smarter but less skilled) and mother (pushy and a spendthrift), his mistresses, his wife (Eyman's account of De Mille's final moments, holding his wife's hand - she had Alzheimer's and couldn't remember him - is very moving), his son in law Tony Quinn, his niece Agnes, his staff.
The book is excellent. It's thorough, well written, has true epic sweep but doesn't get lost. It's funny too - especially with De Mille's exasperation with Victor Mature on Samson and Delilah. It's surprising - Paulette Goddard kept trying to be cast in his films.
A fantastic book.
De Mille wasn't just a director, he was a celebrity (hosting his own radio show), and he was a genre. He was also hated by baby boomer film critics who dominated film criticism from the late 60s onwards and ensured his reputation went into eclipse while those of Hawks, Hitchcock, Nicholas Ray, etc shot up. This was in part because De Mille died in 1959 so wasn't around to do self promoting interviews to the boomers in the 60s like the others. But also because he was a right winger.
I started to re-appreciate the director after reading George MacDonald Fraser write about him so well in Hollywood History of the World. (Eyman quotes Fraser here). And rewatching his films you see there's lots more to De Mille than was commonly accepted in film buff circles.
His shoddy treatment by cineastes made me angry because reading this De Mille was such an influential figure in Hollywood - he helped create the place, shooting The Squaw Man, was clearly a gun director in his prime and artistically bold, especially in the 1920s (I've never seen these films but have read this from numerous sources). He enjoyed great success but had a dip in the late 20s and early 30s, before backing himself and recovering with The Sign of the Cross. Thereafter he became more a brand name and producer than top flight director, but the films are consistently strong. He was famous for spectacle but always understood the human story needed to be paramount.
Eyman points out that the main reason his reputation suffered was his anti-communism, particularly the famous DGA fight where he tried to kick out Joseph Mankiewicz. This story has been inflated - Eyman pulls it back into focus.
De Mille was a flawed man certainly - bit of a hypocrite, a bit rabid during the Cold War, while personally generous he loved to keep his income tax rates down. He was very nineteenth century - he had several long running mistresses but never left his wife, he was influenced by the theatre of David Belasco. He was skilled with publicity, story, acting and producing - he learnt his trade on the theatre circuit. He was a paterfamilias - running his movie company like an actor manager.
Eyman had access to De Mille's papers and there is superb insight into the man - notably his relationships with his brother William (smarter but less skilled) and mother (pushy and a spendthrift), his mistresses, his wife (Eyman's account of De Mille's final moments, holding his wife's hand - she had Alzheimer's and couldn't remember him - is very moving), his son in law Tony Quinn, his niece Agnes, his staff.
The book is excellent. It's thorough, well written, has true epic sweep but doesn't get lost. It's funny too - especially with De Mille's exasperation with Victor Mature on Samson and Delilah. It's surprising - Paulette Goddard kept trying to be cast in his films.
A fantastic book.
Movie review - "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" (1959) ****
Delightful Disney fantasy which remains one of the best films about leprachauns ever made - not that that's particularly high praise.
It's great fun to see Sean Connery in an old fashioned "juvenile lead" role - his eye brows do a LOT of acting (I don't think they stay still for more than a few seconds) and he has what seems to be a terrific amount of hair. He flashes his dimples in 50s brylcreamed heartthrob style and to be honest struggles with his lines at times. He "sings" too!
Janet Muno is lovely as Darby's daughter. She was an original manic pixie dream girl, staring off into the distance a lot of the time (though capable of fire). Her performance has a touch of magic and wistfulness - she's utterly perfect.
Albert Sharpe and Jimmy O'Dea are perfect as Darby and the Leprechaun king. At its heart this film is a battle of wills between these two, continually trying to double cross and one up each other, but enjoying the contests. They don't fall into cuteness so it keeps it fresh - as does the fact the townfolk assume Darby is a lying drunk mourning the death of his wife.
The sets and costumers add a lot - I thought this was shot in Ireland but it was on the Disney backlot. There's a strong support cast including Keiron Moore as a bully.
The script is very clever - things are set up and paid off nicely, it has logic. The ending is satisying.
It's great fun to see Sean Connery in an old fashioned "juvenile lead" role - his eye brows do a LOT of acting (I don't think they stay still for more than a few seconds) and he has what seems to be a terrific amount of hair. He flashes his dimples in 50s brylcreamed heartthrob style and to be honest struggles with his lines at times. He "sings" too!
Janet Muno is lovely as Darby's daughter. She was an original manic pixie dream girl, staring off into the distance a lot of the time (though capable of fire). Her performance has a touch of magic and wistfulness - she's utterly perfect.
Albert Sharpe and Jimmy O'Dea are perfect as Darby and the Leprechaun king. At its heart this film is a battle of wills between these two, continually trying to double cross and one up each other, but enjoying the contests. They don't fall into cuteness so it keeps it fresh - as does the fact the townfolk assume Darby is a lying drunk mourning the death of his wife.
The sets and costumers add a lot - I thought this was shot in Ireland but it was on the Disney backlot. There's a strong support cast including Keiron Moore as a bully.
The script is very clever - things are set up and paid off nicely, it has logic. The ending is satisying.
Friday, April 19, 2019
Movie review - "Third Man on the Mountain" (1959) ***
Delightful kids adventure film which benefits considerably from location work in Switzerland, some excellent mountaineering footage, and never playing down to its audience.s
James MacArthur is the determined young dishwasher who desires to climb the "Citadel" (Matterhorn) in part out of memory of his father who died doing it. Michael Rennie is a British mountaineer who encourages his dreams; James Donald is his uncle who wants him to stay at home. Best of all is Janet Munro who is bewitching in admittedly a thankless role, the innkeeper's daughter who supports and loves MacArthur. At least she gets to do a little bit of mountaineering in act two.
It's dealt with in no nonsense fashion and some of it is quite exciting, even with the painted mattes. I wasn't that wild about the ending with MacArthur being stuck helping stroppy whiny Herbert Lom while Rennie and Donald got to climb to the top. I also felt act three could have done with some mountaineers dying, as happened in the real life successful ascent of the Matterhorn.
Still, an example of Disney's good taste an inherent skill at boys own adventure. They should remake this and make it about a female mountaineer.
James MacArthur is the determined young dishwasher who desires to climb the "Citadel" (Matterhorn) in part out of memory of his father who died doing it. Michael Rennie is a British mountaineer who encourages his dreams; James Donald is his uncle who wants him to stay at home. Best of all is Janet Munro who is bewitching in admittedly a thankless role, the innkeeper's daughter who supports and loves MacArthur. At least she gets to do a little bit of mountaineering in act two.
It's dealt with in no nonsense fashion and some of it is quite exciting, even with the painted mattes. I wasn't that wild about the ending with MacArthur being stuck helping stroppy whiny Herbert Lom while Rennie and Donald got to climb to the top. I also felt act three could have done with some mountaineers dying, as happened in the real life successful ascent of the Matterhorn.
Still, an example of Disney's good taste an inherent skill at boys own adventure. They should remake this and make it about a female mountaineer.
Movie review - "The Devil's Brigade" (1968) ** (warning: spoilers)
World War Two film that has always been in the shadow of The Dirty Dozen even though it was developed before that film came out. You can understand why people think it was a rip off though because the American soldiers are all meant to be troublemakers/ex prisoners and so on. They are combined with Canadians to make a special force unit - this was a real thing, though the film has lots of conflict between the rough and ready Americans and more staid Canadians.
I get why they did this - for conflict etc etc - and appreciate the nod to Canadian history (there's a Frenchman, a Scotsman, a Brit among the Canadian troops) - but it feels contrived. Maybe there's some historical basis to it, but you never really sense why the American troops should be rowdy and the Canadians stuffy. In The Dirty Dozen the reason for conflict was clear - they were all prisoners - here it just feels made up.
William Holden is at his alcoholic best as the tough American commander. Cliff Robertson is alright as the Canadian - I wish they'd given the gig to a real Canuck, like say Christopher Plummer, Lorne Greene, Leslie Nielsen or Glenn Ford. Actually none of the Canadian soldiers feel like Canadians - I could be wrong about that it's just how they feel to an outsider.
The story also lacks a personal element. In Dozen there were great personal stories - Lee Marvin's insubordination, John Cassavetes' rebelliousness, Charles Bronson's dignity, James Brown's battle against racism.
Here it's hard to recall a personal dilemma. Jack Warden and Claude Akins seem to fall in love. Soldiers learn how to kill in hand to hand combat. I wasn't sure what Vince Edwards was meant to be. Holden just kind of stayed above the fray - there was no love-hate between Lee Marvin and Cassevetes in The Dirty Dozen.
Of the support cast a shaven headed Richard Jaekel and a growly Carroll O'Connor make the most impression, but the film would have been better with less main characters, and more time spent on the relationships of the ones that were kept.
Story wise the film has trouble. There's no interesting character relationships except maybe between Akins and Warden. Act two is a successful run against the Germans. So is act three. Really act two they should have been half wiped out or something. The ending at least has a surprise with Robertson being shot by a German after the German has claimed the right of surrender.
Some of the visuals are pretty. The training sequences were shot in Utah which feels different. The end assaults were done in Italy. It's filmed a lot in long shot.
The battle sequences are okay - I don't think Andrew McLaglen was a particularly gifted action director (I remember thinking that about The Wild Geese).
Michael Rennie for some reason is cast as General Mark Clark. Patrick Knowles is Mountbatten. And Holden's character was a real person, so it has some novelty (as does the fact it's about Canadians).
I get why they did this - for conflict etc etc - and appreciate the nod to Canadian history (there's a Frenchman, a Scotsman, a Brit among the Canadian troops) - but it feels contrived. Maybe there's some historical basis to it, but you never really sense why the American troops should be rowdy and the Canadians stuffy. In The Dirty Dozen the reason for conflict was clear - they were all prisoners - here it just feels made up.
William Holden is at his alcoholic best as the tough American commander. Cliff Robertson is alright as the Canadian - I wish they'd given the gig to a real Canuck, like say Christopher Plummer, Lorne Greene, Leslie Nielsen or Glenn Ford. Actually none of the Canadian soldiers feel like Canadians - I could be wrong about that it's just how they feel to an outsider.
The story also lacks a personal element. In Dozen there were great personal stories - Lee Marvin's insubordination, John Cassavetes' rebelliousness, Charles Bronson's dignity, James Brown's battle against racism.
Here it's hard to recall a personal dilemma. Jack Warden and Claude Akins seem to fall in love. Soldiers learn how to kill in hand to hand combat. I wasn't sure what Vince Edwards was meant to be. Holden just kind of stayed above the fray - there was no love-hate between Lee Marvin and Cassevetes in The Dirty Dozen.
Of the support cast a shaven headed Richard Jaekel and a growly Carroll O'Connor make the most impression, but the film would have been better with less main characters, and more time spent on the relationships of the ones that were kept.
Story wise the film has trouble. There's no interesting character relationships except maybe between Akins and Warden. Act two is a successful run against the Germans. So is act three. Really act two they should have been half wiped out or something. The ending at least has a surprise with Robertson being shot by a German after the German has claimed the right of surrender.
Some of the visuals are pretty. The training sequences were shot in Utah which feels different. The end assaults were done in Italy. It's filmed a lot in long shot.
The battle sequences are okay - I don't think Andrew McLaglen was a particularly gifted action director (I remember thinking that about The Wild Geese).
Michael Rennie for some reason is cast as General Mark Clark. Patrick Knowles is Mountbatten. And Holden's character was a real person, so it has some novelty (as does the fact it's about Canadians).
Movie review - "The Sword and the Rose" (1953) **1/2
In the 50s Disney specialised in boys own stories - Treasure Island, Third Man on the Mountain This was a rare "girl's own" and I don't think they were entirely comfortable with that fact. This should be all about Glynis Johns' character, the sister of Henry VIII - and she's kind of the focus of the film but the action keeps drifting over towards Richard Todd as Henry Brandon.
Taken on it's own merits this is a perfectly okay kids look at a famous romance but it really needed to focus more on Johns - make it more of a fairytale and so on, with Todd as Prince Charming. Johns' performance feels reigned in at the beginning then sparks up in the second half with some enjoyable come-hither looks at Todd.
The costumes and sets are fun. It could have done with more action - it's exciting at the end, but some more earlier on would have been good.
James Robertson Justice plays Henry VIII more like the well known Henry when in reality he was younger, which would have been interesting - but I understood why they did it that way. Michael Gough adds some oily villainy. They could have used a decent female support - more Catherine of Aragon, say.
Still, not bad.
Taken on it's own merits this is a perfectly okay kids look at a famous romance but it really needed to focus more on Johns - make it more of a fairytale and so on, with Todd as Prince Charming. Johns' performance feels reigned in at the beginning then sparks up in the second half with some enjoyable come-hither looks at Todd.
The costumes and sets are fun. It could have done with more action - it's exciting at the end, but some more earlier on would have been good.
James Robertson Justice plays Henry VIII more like the well known Henry when in reality he was younger, which would have been interesting - but I understood why they did it that way. Michael Gough adds some oily villainy. They could have used a decent female support - more Catherine of Aragon, say.
Still, not bad.
Movie review - "The Story of Seabiscuit" (1949) **1/2
Shirley Temple's second last film (she made it at the ripe old age of 21) is a slice of Americana more similar to the horsey movies they would make at 20th Century Fox. A bunch of them starred Lon McAllister, 40s leading man who specialised in country boys - and he pops up here as a jockey on Seabiscuit, the famous horse.
This movie is a nominal biopic of that horse, though much fictionalised - McAllister plays a guy based on the Tobey Maguire character from the 2003 film, Fitzgerald is the Chris Cooper character. Charles Howard, played by Jeff Bridges later, is depicted here under his real name.
Temple is a fictitious character - Fitzgerald's niece who falls forMcAllister. The relationship block is that her brother died horse racing and she wants McAllister to quit which is fine. Temple's perfomance is amateturish - she struggles with her Irish accent. Mind you it's no more painful than Fitzgerald who does his Irish thing.
There's actually surprisingly little Seabiscuit in this - he never feels like much of a character. There is some real life footage, some in black and white some in colour. There is a comic Chinese and African American.
I actually didn't mind a lot of this - it's silly but looks good and the newsreel footage does help. And t's kind of true.
This movie is a nominal biopic of that horse, though much fictionalised - McAllister plays a guy based on the Tobey Maguire character from the 2003 film, Fitzgerald is the Chris Cooper character. Charles Howard, played by Jeff Bridges later, is depicted here under his real name.
Temple is a fictitious character - Fitzgerald's niece who falls forMcAllister. The relationship block is that her brother died horse racing and she wants McAllister to quit which is fine. Temple's perfomance is amateturish - she struggles with her Irish accent. Mind you it's no more painful than Fitzgerald who does his Irish thing.
There's actually surprisingly little Seabiscuit in this - he never feels like much of a character. There is some real life footage, some in black and white some in colour. There is a comic Chinese and African American.
I actually didn't mind a lot of this - it's silly but looks good and the newsreel footage does help. And t's kind of true.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Movie review - "Diamond City" (1949) **
The box office success of The Overlanders inspired Gainsborough to try a British Western in South Africa. And you know something? It wasn't a terrible idea. The story of Stafford Parker is an interesting one - a man who set himself up as head of the short-lived Diggers Republic around the time of the diamond rush in the 19th century.
And David Farrar is acceptable in the title role. He was an exciting actor at the time, coming off The Black Narcissus - in an era where so many British leading men were wet, he had a Stewart Granger style swagger. He never made it as a star - in part because he made too many movies like this.
It's a mess. I blame the script which is all over the place. There's too many repetitive scenes where Niall MacGinnis tries to undermine Farrar and Farrar easily beats him. The MacGininis comes back and it starts again. There's also too many repetitive scenes of Farrar giving speeches to extras who cheer.
There's also an unpleasant ending where the black who owns the land turns up with the Boers (MacGinnis) and Farrar scolds him for being a naughty black and that if he goes back on his deals with British and Boers will team up and blow them away.
The film is undercast in key roles. Honor Blackman is far too young to play a Salvation Army officer. Also Diana Dors is too young to play a brassy barmaid. In five to ten years both would have been fine (Dors would have been perfect) but the parts are clearly meant to be played by Phyllis Calvert/Pat Roc/Jean Kent and they should have been.
I guess it's a neat twist that Blackman dumps Farrar for Andrew Crawford... but it kind of makes the whole Blackman-Farrar romance hollow. Also, what are we meant to think about Farrar and Dors - she's so keen for him, and he keeps knocking her back. Why not take her back at the end?
Still, it's fascinating,with British adaptation of Western tropes in South Africa, and its depiction of South African history.
David MacDonald directed a lot of flops in British cinema. This, Bad Lord Byron, Christopher Columbus.
And David Farrar is acceptable in the title role. He was an exciting actor at the time, coming off The Black Narcissus - in an era where so many British leading men were wet, he had a Stewart Granger style swagger. He never made it as a star - in part because he made too many movies like this.
It's a mess. I blame the script which is all over the place. There's too many repetitive scenes where Niall MacGinnis tries to undermine Farrar and Farrar easily beats him. The MacGininis comes back and it starts again. There's also too many repetitive scenes of Farrar giving speeches to extras who cheer.
There's also an unpleasant ending where the black who owns the land turns up with the Boers (MacGinnis) and Farrar scolds him for being a naughty black and that if he goes back on his deals with British and Boers will team up and blow them away.
The film is undercast in key roles. Honor Blackman is far too young to play a Salvation Army officer. Also Diana Dors is too young to play a brassy barmaid. In five to ten years both would have been fine (Dors would have been perfect) but the parts are clearly meant to be played by Phyllis Calvert/Pat Roc/Jean Kent and they should have been.
I guess it's a neat twist that Blackman dumps Farrar for Andrew Crawford... but it kind of makes the whole Blackman-Farrar romance hollow. Also, what are we meant to think about Farrar and Dors - she's so keen for him, and he keeps knocking her back. Why not take her back at the end?
Still, it's fascinating,with British adaptation of Western tropes in South Africa, and its depiction of South African history.
David MacDonald directed a lot of flops in British cinema. This, Bad Lord Byron, Christopher Columbus.
Book review - "Dealing: or the Berkeley-to-Boston Forty-Brick Lost-Bag Blues" by Michael Douglas (Donald and Michael Crichton)
Interesting, I'll give it that - the Crichton brothers wrote this together. Michael never wrote much about drugs in his other books, apart from lots of cigarettes and alcohol, so I'm guessing the drug stuff came from Donald.
It's got lots of slang - "pigs", "bricks", "groovy" and the like. I'll take their word for it that it's realistic. It feels "written" rather than organic though. There's some free love, corrupt cops, some kind of interesting details on how to smuggle marijuana. It only got interesting when the love interest girl was arrested but that happens towards the end and the pace picked up.
I found it a hard slog to be honest but I didn't get much out of the book - either as a social tract, character study or simple page turner. I didn't particularly care about any of the characters all the world. Maybe if it had been told from the POV of the corrupt cop... at least he had some drive and ambition.
It's got lots of slang - "pigs", "bricks", "groovy" and the like. I'll take their word for it that it's realistic. It feels "written" rather than organic though. There's some free love, corrupt cops, some kind of interesting details on how to smuggle marijuana. It only got interesting when the love interest girl was arrested but that happens towards the end and the pace picked up.
I found it a hard slog to be honest but I didn't get much out of the book - either as a social tract, character study or simple page turner. I didn't particularly care about any of the characters all the world. Maybe if it had been told from the POV of the corrupt cop... at least he had some drive and ambition.
Movie review - "Under Cover Man" (1932) ** (warning spoilers)
George Raft spent a lot of his career being unhappy at being cast as gangsters, even though that was the one type of role he was good at. He was forever wanting to soften the characters he played - he turned down Double Indemnity for instance because the character didn't turn out to secretly be a cop.
No doubt he was pleased by this early star vehicle, which has him as a crook who goes undercover to get the guy who shot his dad. He's helped by Nancy Carroll, whose brother was killed by the same bad guys.
There's not a lot of action - mostly at the end and beginning. Most of this is Raft and Carroll talking to each other and/or other people. In particular both flirt, him with a moll, she with a gangster Lew Cody.
There's a neat twist at the end where Roscoe Karns, a gunman is revealed to be another undercover agent. Raft is awkward mostly but has some good moments, as does Carroll. Gregory Ratoff is in this. It isn't very well directed.
No doubt he was pleased by this early star vehicle, which has him as a crook who goes undercover to get the guy who shot his dad. He's helped by Nancy Carroll, whose brother was killed by the same bad guys.
There's not a lot of action - mostly at the end and beginning. Most of this is Raft and Carroll talking to each other and/or other people. In particular both flirt, him with a moll, she with a gangster Lew Cody.
There's a neat twist at the end where Roscoe Karns, a gunman is revealed to be another undercover agent. Raft is awkward mostly but has some good moments, as does Carroll. Gregory Ratoff is in this. It isn't very well directed.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Movie review - "Savage Sam" (1963) **
No one much remembers or likes this sequel to Old Yeller even though it features two of the same cast - Tommy Kirk and Kevin Corcoran - and was based on a script and novel by Fred Gipson, who wrote the original. Which makes sense because it isn't as good.
Old Yeller's strength was in its simplicity - slice of life Americana about a boy and his dog and the boy has to learn to be a man by shooting the dog. It put the boy and dog front and center - the whole story was about their relationship, the boy meeting the dog, not liking him at first, the dog earning his respect, then coming to love him, then having to shoot him. Great stuff.
There's no unifying theme here. Kirk is more grown up, running the farm while his parents are away. There's a dog in it, Savage Sam, who is a bit of a scamp, but belongs more to Corcoran. They rush off to find the dog with Marta Kristen... and get kidnapped by Apaches. The film is about Kirk escaping from the Apaches, hooking up with Brian Keith and some other cowboys and going to rescue the others. Savage Sam is a bit player, and the bulk of the film is a stock Western, like The Searchers lite. There's none of that film's complexity or depth - the Indians are hollering savages, it's a clear battle of good versus evil. I guess one of the white cowboys is a bit racist - that's about as liberal as this gets.
There's no central theme - nothing to hang on to. They should have done something - I don't know, made more of the romance between Kirk and Kristen, acknowledged that Kirk is a young adult. Used Kirk's father again say (if Fess Parker wasn't available, have Keith play this role instead of some random relative). Maybe Kirk hates farming, or wants his own place, and his father won't let him - then Kirk gets kidnapped so there's all this family under current.
Or used the Old Yeller connection more - maybe Kirk hates Sam, because Sam isn't as good as Yeller, and Sam earns Kirk's respect, or something. Or Kirk and Kirsten are romancing and Corcoran is jealous because the old gang is breaking up. It needed a serious subtext.
As an action movie it's okay - not terribly well directed or exciting despite the stakes of the story. Everyone worries about Kristen being raped, which is a little different for Disney. Corcornan's whiney-ness isn't new or surprising - but it really got on my nerves here, mostly because he's older than I've seen him before, but also because he's a little brat when kidnapped by the Apaches (they respect him for it). I kept going "shut up kid".
Old Yeller's strength was in its simplicity - slice of life Americana about a boy and his dog and the boy has to learn to be a man by shooting the dog. It put the boy and dog front and center - the whole story was about their relationship, the boy meeting the dog, not liking him at first, the dog earning his respect, then coming to love him, then having to shoot him. Great stuff.
There's no unifying theme here. Kirk is more grown up, running the farm while his parents are away. There's a dog in it, Savage Sam, who is a bit of a scamp, but belongs more to Corcoran. They rush off to find the dog with Marta Kristen... and get kidnapped by Apaches. The film is about Kirk escaping from the Apaches, hooking up with Brian Keith and some other cowboys and going to rescue the others. Savage Sam is a bit player, and the bulk of the film is a stock Western, like The Searchers lite. There's none of that film's complexity or depth - the Indians are hollering savages, it's a clear battle of good versus evil. I guess one of the white cowboys is a bit racist - that's about as liberal as this gets.
There's no central theme - nothing to hang on to. They should have done something - I don't know, made more of the romance between Kirk and Kristen, acknowledged that Kirk is a young adult. Used Kirk's father again say (if Fess Parker wasn't available, have Keith play this role instead of some random relative). Maybe Kirk hates farming, or wants his own place, and his father won't let him - then Kirk gets kidnapped so there's all this family under current.
Or used the Old Yeller connection more - maybe Kirk hates Sam, because Sam isn't as good as Yeller, and Sam earns Kirk's respect, or something. Or Kirk and Kirsten are romancing and Corcoran is jealous because the old gang is breaking up. It needed a serious subtext.
As an action movie it's okay - not terribly well directed or exciting despite the stakes of the story. Everyone worries about Kristen being raped, which is a little different for Disney. Corcornan's whiney-ness isn't new or surprising - but it really got on my nerves here, mostly because he's older than I've seen him before, but also because he's a little brat when kidnapped by the Apaches (they respect him for it). I kept going "shut up kid".
Movie review - "Bon Voyage" (1962) ***
All American families on vacation was a comedy genre in the late 50s and early 60s - movies like Holiday for Lovers, Mr Hobbs Takes a Vacation and this one. It's Disney's entry into the genre, with Fred MacMurray and Jane Wyman as a couple who head to Europe with their kids, Deborah Walley, Tommy Kirk and Kevin Corcoran.
It's a breezy, fun film, clearly made by people who've been on family vacation. It benefits from some universal conflicts - there's a bit of marital strain because Wyman comes from a posh Boston family and MacMurray is a plumber, MacMurray tries to connect with his kids and often makes a hash of it, his teenage kids don't want to hang out with him but young Corcoran does, Corcoran wants to take a piss on a tour of underground tunnels.
There's some unpleasant-to-modern-viewers stuff with MacMurray lording it over Wyman (depicting MacMurray as an idiot tempers this a little but only a little), Deborah Walley (the daughter) tries to get love interest Michael Callan to have a normal career.
Also there's a very effective scene where Walley's love interest, Michael Callan, confronts her at the beach where she's been flirting with other guys - he grabs her, and she gets away, terrified, and MacMurray hugs her - this is very believable and well done. Then of course Callan and Walley get together and we're meant to feel happy about it because he's learnt his lesson. But the thing is he's jealous and possessive and that's not going to change - MacMurray gets jealous over a man paying interest to Wyman, and I think we're meant to find that's cute, only now you also wonder if the husbands aren't punching the wives. Callan in particular plays his character like a wife beater - he was a good looking guy, Callan, who could act, and dance, but his performances often had a strand of cruelty about them, he looked like a villain, and I really didn't want him and Walley to wind up together.
Walley is sweet and an ideal all American girl - she's got some nicely written scenes, professing her lack of interest in Callan while clearly being into him. Tommy Kirk is perfect as the son, constantly trying to pick up women (wearing a beret, pretending to be impostors,etc) - his scenes are more broad but he plays them well. Wyman doesn't have that much to do but still has more to do than in Holiday for Lovers where she played a similar sort of role.
I did feel the movie would have played better with Brian Keith as the lead than MacMurray - more forceful, more like James Stewart. I never bought MacMurray as a plumber. I guess he's okay.
I think however it was a good idea to shoot most of the film from his point of view so he watches his kids do their romancing from a distance and isn't entirely sure what's going on. That's quite effective.
And location filming on the boat and in Europe helps.
It's a breezy, fun film, clearly made by people who've been on family vacation. It benefits from some universal conflicts - there's a bit of marital strain because Wyman comes from a posh Boston family and MacMurray is a plumber, MacMurray tries to connect with his kids and often makes a hash of it, his teenage kids don't want to hang out with him but young Corcoran does, Corcoran wants to take a piss on a tour of underground tunnels.
There's some unpleasant-to-modern-viewers stuff with MacMurray lording it over Wyman (depicting MacMurray as an idiot tempers this a little but only a little), Deborah Walley (the daughter) tries to get love interest Michael Callan to have a normal career.
Also there's a very effective scene where Walley's love interest, Michael Callan, confronts her at the beach where she's been flirting with other guys - he grabs her, and she gets away, terrified, and MacMurray hugs her - this is very believable and well done. Then of course Callan and Walley get together and we're meant to feel happy about it because he's learnt his lesson. But the thing is he's jealous and possessive and that's not going to change - MacMurray gets jealous over a man paying interest to Wyman, and I think we're meant to find that's cute, only now you also wonder if the husbands aren't punching the wives. Callan in particular plays his character like a wife beater - he was a good looking guy, Callan, who could act, and dance, but his performances often had a strand of cruelty about them, he looked like a villain, and I really didn't want him and Walley to wind up together.
Walley is sweet and an ideal all American girl - she's got some nicely written scenes, professing her lack of interest in Callan while clearly being into him. Tommy Kirk is perfect as the son, constantly trying to pick up women (wearing a beret, pretending to be impostors,etc) - his scenes are more broad but he plays them well. Wyman doesn't have that much to do but still has more to do than in Holiday for Lovers where she played a similar sort of role.
I did feel the movie would have played better with Brian Keith as the lead than MacMurray - more forceful, more like James Stewart. I never bought MacMurray as a plumber. I guess he's okay.
I think however it was a good idea to shoot most of the film from his point of view so he watches his kids do their romancing from a distance and isn't entirely sure what's going on. That's quite effective.
And location filming on the boat and in Europe helps.
Movie review - "The Happiest Millionaire" (1967) **
Disney jumped on the musical roadshow bandwagon using people who'd served them so well before: the Sherman brothers, Fred MacMurray, Norman Tokar. But the end result doesn't click.
By jove this was a hard slog. I mean it goes for almost three hours. Three! There's an intermission and everything. Mind you I guess Mary Poppins was 140 minutes.
People say this was an attempt to repeat Mary Poppins which would have made sense - I feel it was their go at You Can't Take It With You, the adventures of a madcap family.
The Poppins element is in the form of Tommy Steele, who Disney apparently wanted to play the Dick Van Dyke role in that film. Here he's a butler who joins the family.
And Steele is fine - toothy and energetic and he suits the Disney world - but his character is a problem. You don't need him in the film, you could cut him out totally and it wouldn't make any difference.
The film at its heart is about Jon Davidson romancing Lesley Anne Downe (both are fine, by the way, very All American and sweet) - he gets involved in her madcap family, they get engaged, his bitchy mother Genevieve Page tries to stop it. That sort of story works - it did for You Can't Take It With You. You jazz it up with antics of other family members.
But instead they pad it out with stuff involving Steele (a few numbers, he and Davidson go drink together) and ignore the rest of the family - there's some brothers at the beginning who disappear, and Greer Garson literally just kind of hangs around. If they wanted to use Steele they should have made him a son or something (surely the accent could have been explained away?)
There's some okay tunes and numbers but they've bloated what should be a simple story and it's hard to get through. I also feel Fred MacMurray isn't entirely well cast as a loveable eccentric - he's perfect as someone a bit vague and absent minded, as in The Absent Minded Professor - but this character feels as though he needed more drive. Brian Keith say, who did a lot of work for Disney, would have been a lot more fun - you can imagine him boxing and so on.
Still, it's not terrible, just hard work to watch. And it is wholesome family entertainment.
By jove this was a hard slog. I mean it goes for almost three hours. Three! There's an intermission and everything. Mind you I guess Mary Poppins was 140 minutes.
People say this was an attempt to repeat Mary Poppins which would have made sense - I feel it was their go at You Can't Take It With You, the adventures of a madcap family.
The Poppins element is in the form of Tommy Steele, who Disney apparently wanted to play the Dick Van Dyke role in that film. Here he's a butler who joins the family.
And Steele is fine - toothy and energetic and he suits the Disney world - but his character is a problem. You don't need him in the film, you could cut him out totally and it wouldn't make any difference.
The film at its heart is about Jon Davidson romancing Lesley Anne Downe (both are fine, by the way, very All American and sweet) - he gets involved in her madcap family, they get engaged, his bitchy mother Genevieve Page tries to stop it. That sort of story works - it did for You Can't Take It With You. You jazz it up with antics of other family members.
But instead they pad it out with stuff involving Steele (a few numbers, he and Davidson go drink together) and ignore the rest of the family - there's some brothers at the beginning who disappear, and Greer Garson literally just kind of hangs around. If they wanted to use Steele they should have made him a son or something (surely the accent could have been explained away?)
There's some okay tunes and numbers but they've bloated what should be a simple story and it's hard to get through. I also feel Fred MacMurray isn't entirely well cast as a loveable eccentric - he's perfect as someone a bit vague and absent minded, as in The Absent Minded Professor - but this character feels as though he needed more drive. Brian Keith say, who did a lot of work for Disney, would have been a lot more fun - you can imagine him boxing and so on.
Still, it's not terrible, just hard work to watch. And it is wholesome family entertainment.
Movie review - "Unkissed Bride" (1966) *
Really weird film, though the cast list is full of familiar names - Tommy Kirk starred, the support cast included Anne Helm and Jacques Bergerac (who was Mr Ginger Rogers and Mr Dorothy Malone), the writer, producer and director was Jack Harris who produced The Blob among others.
To explain why this film exists it helps to have read Harris' memoirs - he wanted to make a way out groovy comedy. I guess it was the sixties and anything went - Dr Strangelove had been a big hit. It's hard to do comedy for exploitation though because it's so easy to miss, especially when you're not that experienced in the genre.
This has a high, or at least way out, concept - Anne Helm and Tommy Kirk are newlyweds, she is wary of having sex, so she reads from Mother Goose, causing Kirk to faint. He realises he has Mother Goose issues and visits a shrink who gets him to take LSD.
The action is frantic - there's women running around in bikinis, and a hotel detective who thinks Helm is cheating on Kirk with Bergerac. Helm is pretty and sweet as is Danica d'Hondt who plays the shrink. Kirk was sliding into drugs at this stage but was still an accomplished light comedian who gives the film's best performance - if he hadn't had trouble in his private life surely he would have easily segued into young leading man roles at Disney that were played by Dean Jones.
But it's unfunny and dreary. Bergerac has trouble pronouncing English. The pace is off and farce is harder to do than it looks when done well - here it just looks hard to do.
It has some historical interest - a film directed by Harris, the basic concept, the cast, cameos by Henny Youngman and Joe Pyne (the latter was a shock jock of the 60s).
To explain why this film exists it helps to have read Harris' memoirs - he wanted to make a way out groovy comedy. I guess it was the sixties and anything went - Dr Strangelove had been a big hit. It's hard to do comedy for exploitation though because it's so easy to miss, especially when you're not that experienced in the genre.
This has a high, or at least way out, concept - Anne Helm and Tommy Kirk are newlyweds, she is wary of having sex, so she reads from Mother Goose, causing Kirk to faint. He realises he has Mother Goose issues and visits a shrink who gets him to take LSD.
The action is frantic - there's women running around in bikinis, and a hotel detective who thinks Helm is cheating on Kirk with Bergerac. Helm is pretty and sweet as is Danica d'Hondt who plays the shrink. Kirk was sliding into drugs at this stage but was still an accomplished light comedian who gives the film's best performance - if he hadn't had trouble in his private life surely he would have easily segued into young leading man roles at Disney that were played by Dean Jones.
But it's unfunny and dreary. Bergerac has trouble pronouncing English. The pace is off and farce is harder to do than it looks when done well - here it just looks hard to do.
It has some historical interest - a film directed by Harris, the basic concept, the cast, cameos by Henny Youngman and Joe Pyne (the latter was a shock jock of the 60s).
Movie review - "Slave Girl" (1947) **1/2
Late 40s Yvonne de Carlo film from Universal which I thought would be more fun than it was especially after I heard the film was reshot to add more comedy including adding a talking camel. The talking camel inserts feel really clunky and dumb and the film lacks a certain spark.
I mean, it's got things I like - it's set on the Barbary Coast (there was a vogue for films set during the Barbary War during the late 1940s), there are dancing girls and Yvonne de Carlo, Andy Devine does some comic relief, it's in colour, it's an "Eastern".
But there's also things that don't work - Broderick Crawford tries to do comic relief, de Carlo's performance lacks a little spark, male lead George Brent it too old and lumbering for all his legendary off screen charm.
Maybe my view was hurt by the fact the print wasn't very good so I didn't get the full impact of the photography. But it is all over the place. Never quite gets its groove.
I mean, it's got things I like - it's set on the Barbary Coast (there was a vogue for films set during the Barbary War during the late 1940s), there are dancing girls and Yvonne de Carlo, Andy Devine does some comic relief, it's in colour, it's an "Eastern".
But there's also things that don't work - Broderick Crawford tries to do comic relief, de Carlo's performance lacks a little spark, male lead George Brent it too old and lumbering for all his legendary off screen charm.
Maybe my view was hurt by the fact the print wasn't very good so I didn't get the full impact of the photography. But it is all over the place. Never quite gets its groove.
Book review - "Grave Descend" by John Lange/Michael Crichton (warning: spoilers)
This Lange novel is about a diver in Jamaica who is hired to do an urgent mystery dive by some shady characters. You can feel the movie watching habits of Crichton through this - the hero feels like Robert Mitchum, the baddy like Sydney Greenstreet, the secret is a stashes of diamonds for the war.Crichton was an enthusiastic diver though so this has the benefit of some of his research and expertise on that. Only the diving really. The first half of this was stronger when the hero didn't know what was going on - once he does it's less fun. The women are hot and sexy, there's a loyal black who rescues the hero a lot in the second half which feels like cheating.
Book review - "Seduction" by Karina Longworth
I got into Longworth's work via her excellent "You Must Remember This" podcast - a really fresh way of looking at old Hollywood. In particular recommend her episodes on Raquel Welch and Charles Manson. The standard has dropped off a little in recent months, I think because her focus has been on this book.
Another look at Howard Hughes, you might ask? There's a lot of them. The fresh take here is that Longworth looks at him from the female point of view - his first wife, Billie Dove, Jean Harlow and the many that came afterwards - Ava Gardner, Linda Darnell, Jean Peters, Katherine Hepburn, Faith Domergue.
The material at the beginning and end of the book - the start and end of Hughes' life - is solid, though not exceptional. Where it gets exceptional is looking at the women - not so much the first wife (I get the impression Longworth didn't care much about her) but Billie Dove onwards. In particular there are some superb pieces on the acting and persona of Jane Russell, Jean Peters (the first decent writing I've read on Peters), and Terry Moore (ditto).
Well researched. Engrossing. Made me want to revisit many of the films. Terry Moore and Peters should be better known as actors among film buffs - their work was really varied.
Another look at Howard Hughes, you might ask? There's a lot of them. The fresh take here is that Longworth looks at him from the female point of view - his first wife, Billie Dove, Jean Harlow and the many that came afterwards - Ava Gardner, Linda Darnell, Jean Peters, Katherine Hepburn, Faith Domergue.
The material at the beginning and end of the book - the start and end of Hughes' life - is solid, though not exceptional. Where it gets exceptional is looking at the women - not so much the first wife (I get the impression Longworth didn't care much about her) but Billie Dove onwards. In particular there are some superb pieces on the acting and persona of Jane Russell, Jean Peters (the first decent writing I've read on Peters), and Terry Moore (ditto).
Well researched. Engrossing. Made me want to revisit many of the films. Terry Moore and Peters should be better known as actors among film buffs - their work was really varied.
Script review - "Journey of Death" by Alan B McElroy and John Milius
Milius often spoke of his love of bikers and biker movies so it's a surprise he didn't make more - this one is a perfectly decent biker flick, very influenced by The Searchers, about the son of the head of the Hells Angels living in peace, who is roused to anger when a fellow veteran is killed in a dick swinging dispute over $5 unpaid gas, and his woman is abducted.
The script would have been better off following The Searchers more - there's no familial link with the gal (who is one dimensional as most female Milius characters - she's hot, rides a bike, gets raped, and is a little attracted to the baddy who rapes her). Also the head guy Jonah has a son and a business- he's quite settled in life, I didn't buy that he'd go on this rampage. Sure, honor, I get that but... it just strained for me.
There's Milius touches - flamboyant dialogue, stories of warriors, description of people as Roman Emperors and Vikings, enemies who respect each other. It would have made a decent film - not a classic but enjoyable.
The script would have been better off following The Searchers more - there's no familial link with the gal (who is one dimensional as most female Milius characters - she's hot, rides a bike, gets raped, and is a little attracted to the baddy who rapes her). Also the head guy Jonah has a son and a business- he's quite settled in life, I didn't buy that he'd go on this rampage. Sure, honor, I get that but... it just strained for me.
There's Milius touches - flamboyant dialogue, stories of warriors, description of people as Roman Emperors and Vikings, enemies who respect each other. It would have made a decent film - not a classic but enjoyable.
Movie review - "Ride the Wild Surf" (1964) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
This is a beach movie which is a bit more critically respectable because it has some excellent real life footage of surfing in Hawaii. It is flawed - Tom Lisanti thinks its the best surf movie from Hollywood. I don't really like it - maybe I prefer my beach movies more junky.
Some random observations:
* great Jan and Dean title track - but they should have played it over the opening credits to get the movie off to a brighter start
* there's a lot of three girls beach movies but this is one of the few "three guys" movies
* some excellent surfing footage but its intercut terribly with footage of the stars on the backlot
* the film gets points for being more multicultural - there's a Hawaiian surfer, and an Aussie (Murray Rose) - and also for incorporating some slang and attitudes, however badly
* Jim Mitchum is meant to be the baddy but actually the nastiest character is some random surfer called Frank ( played by Anthony Hayes) who keeps baiting Fabian - I kept expecting him to die or something but he doesn't - some undercooked drama there
* Fabian is fine, though not terribly believable as a surfer - well not a top surfer - and he has to glower and be bitter a bit too much - also there's a yuck moment where he tries to force himself on Fabares
* there's three nice romances but badly constructed scenes - Fabian goes from "I hate college" to "okay I'll go back to college" in one scene (admittedly Shelley Fabares is looking hot in the scene but still), Hunter and Hart's mother is clunk too - all the stories have good potential but the writing isn't good
* actually dramatically the whole flow of the film feels a bit wonky
* the women have nice camaraderie but the guys don't - they don't feel like friends - in part because Tab Hunter is so clearly older than the others
* Barbara Eden is a lot of fun as a kook and is even allowed to beat up Brown - though she spends most of the film watching him on a towel
* Fabares and Hart are very sweet - Fabares is more professional but Hart does have a great shimmy dance (she'd repeat in Pajama Party)
Some random observations:
* great Jan and Dean title track - but they should have played it over the opening credits to get the movie off to a brighter start
* there's a lot of three girls beach movies but this is one of the few "three guys" movies
* some excellent surfing footage but its intercut terribly with footage of the stars on the backlot
* the film gets points for being more multicultural - there's a Hawaiian surfer, and an Aussie (Murray Rose) - and also for incorporating some slang and attitudes, however badly
* Jim Mitchum is meant to be the baddy but actually the nastiest character is some random surfer called Frank ( played by Anthony Hayes) who keeps baiting Fabian - I kept expecting him to die or something but he doesn't - some undercooked drama there
* Fabian is fine, though not terribly believable as a surfer - well not a top surfer - and he has to glower and be bitter a bit too much - also there's a yuck moment where he tries to force himself on Fabares
* there's three nice romances but badly constructed scenes - Fabian goes from "I hate college" to "okay I'll go back to college" in one scene (admittedly Shelley Fabares is looking hot in the scene but still), Hunter and Hart's mother is clunk too - all the stories have good potential but the writing isn't good
* actually dramatically the whole flow of the film feels a bit wonky
* the women have nice camaraderie but the guys don't - they don't feel like friends - in part because Tab Hunter is so clearly older than the others
* Barbara Eden is a lot of fun as a kook and is even allowed to beat up Brown - though she spends most of the film watching him on a towel
* Fabares and Hart are very sweet - Fabares is more professional but Hart does have a great shimmy dance (she'd repeat in Pajama Party)
Movie review - "Black Bart" (1948) *** (warning: spoilers)
Fun good looking Western shot in that gorgeous late 40s colour which benefits from being full of cynical people. It's about a real life outlaw Black Bart - I assume he's been incredibly romanticised, as here played by Dan Duryea. He's sort of a Robin Hood in reverse, being respectable during the day and robbing coaches at night dressed in black.
He holds up a stage coach carrying Lola Montez - a real person, played here by Yvonne de Carlo. When I saw the other lead player was Jeffrey Lynn I assumed that Lynn would be the true love interest. But no - the romance is between Duryea and de Carlo and Lynn wants de Carlo but also wants money from Duryea.
Everyone is a bit shifty which helps this piece age well. The ending has Duryea and Lynn killed during a shoot out with cops. The "good" characters only have small roles.
Percy Kilbridge is fun as a fellow crook. It's fast paced, well directed by George Sherman, has a nice sly tone. De Carlo has two dances and is in good form - she was at her best flirting with crooks.
He holds up a stage coach carrying Lola Montez - a real person, played here by Yvonne de Carlo. When I saw the other lead player was Jeffrey Lynn I assumed that Lynn would be the true love interest. But no - the romance is between Duryea and de Carlo and Lynn wants de Carlo but also wants money from Duryea.
Everyone is a bit shifty which helps this piece age well. The ending has Duryea and Lynn killed during a shoot out with cops. The "good" characters only have small roles.
Percy Kilbridge is fun as a fellow crook. It's fast paced, well directed by George Sherman, has a nice sly tone. De Carlo has two dances and is in good form - she was at her best flirting with crooks.
Monday, April 15, 2019
Movie review - "Babes in Toyland" (1961) ** (re-viewing)
The idea of this film always intrigued me - I think I had a story version of it in a book of Disney stories or something and was attracted to the bright bold primary colours of its design. That remains striking - it's set in a fairytale never never land where everything is white, pink, blue, green, whatever. It has a little fairytale magic too.
But it's very juvenile. Annoyingly so. No one acts like a real person - everyone's in a pantomime. Annette Funicello is chirpy, Tommy Sands is bouncy, the villagers dance, the kids are noisy. The baddies have more human emotion but not much - the head baddy (Ray Bolder) twirls his moustache, the dudes based on Laurel and Hardy (Gene Sheldon, Henry Calvin) bumble.
Compare it to say The Wizard of Oz (which is surely what Disney had in mind) - Dorothy is very believable, she wants to leave, and her friends are very relatable - cowardly lion and so on.
It's only towards the end when Annette finds the toy maker (Ed Wynn), a wizard style figure, and his assistant played by Tommy Kirk the piece really comes alive - because Wynn and Kirk are more warm, relatable people. Wynn has flaws (he's pompous and jealous) and Kirk was always a very good "ordinary boy".
Kirk should have played Sands' role - he was simply more engaging. And I think Disney realised his mistake because he went on to put Kirk with Funicello in a number of films.
There's wonky story stuff - Funicello thinks Sands has abandoned her at the beginning but then he reveals it's all cool within 20 minutes and the film brings in these kids to get lost to kick off a whole new story. Really they should have just had Funicello get lost (run away or something) and Sands go looking for her. There's not enough threat or danger.
I liked the talking trees, and the soldiers at the end, and the opening dance number in the town.
But it's very juvenile. Annoyingly so. No one acts like a real person - everyone's in a pantomime. Annette Funicello is chirpy, Tommy Sands is bouncy, the villagers dance, the kids are noisy. The baddies have more human emotion but not much - the head baddy (Ray Bolder) twirls his moustache, the dudes based on Laurel and Hardy (Gene Sheldon, Henry Calvin) bumble.
Compare it to say The Wizard of Oz (which is surely what Disney had in mind) - Dorothy is very believable, she wants to leave, and her friends are very relatable - cowardly lion and so on.
It's only towards the end when Annette finds the toy maker (Ed Wynn), a wizard style figure, and his assistant played by Tommy Kirk the piece really comes alive - because Wynn and Kirk are more warm, relatable people. Wynn has flaws (he's pompous and jealous) and Kirk was always a very good "ordinary boy".
Kirk should have played Sands' role - he was simply more engaging. And I think Disney realised his mistake because he went on to put Kirk with Funicello in a number of films.
There's wonky story stuff - Funicello thinks Sands has abandoned her at the beginning but then he reveals it's all cool within 20 minutes and the film brings in these kids to get lost to kick off a whole new story. Really they should have just had Funicello get lost (run away or something) and Sands go looking for her. There's not enough threat or danger.
I liked the talking trees, and the soldiers at the end, and the opening dance number in the town.
Movie review - "Son of Flubber" (1963) **
Sequel to The Absent Minded Professor isn't as much fun, in part because MacMurray had invented Flubber and got the girl, and any triumphs in this one inevitably won't be as satisfying.
They try to reheat ingredients by having the government tie up the development of flubber in red tape, which leads to some decent satire of the government. This is dropped though - MacMurray has to raise money for his greedy college and, more disappointingly, greedy wife. Nancy Olson didn't have much to do in the first - sit around and wish she was married and be pursued by Elliot Reid - but at least she was nice. Here she's worried about money all the time, agrees to take a fur coat as a bribe for persuading her husband to commercially exploit flubber, being stupidly jealous about some random woman getting Kirk, hanging out with Reid.
MacMurray then invents a device to control the weather but it's like, big deal, so what.
There's a repeat of the sequence where McMurray torments Reid ending up where a cop busts Reid - but it's not as fun here because MacMurray has been such a drip, refusing to let his wife work, not being able to get her any money. They repeat Ed Wynn coming back. And the device being used to help the college win a game (in this case football).
I didn't care about anyone in this version - MacMurray was absent minded last time but basically good but here he seems just dim. Olson isn't much better. The college doesn't deserve money - why should it stay open?
Keenan Wynn is good fun as Alonzo Hawk - I wish we'd seen more of him. Or maybe just that he'd been used better (the script isn't as tight).
Tommy Kirk brightens things as Wynn's son. His character has changed a bit from the first one - here he's helping out MacMurray and is a lot more nice (not that he was bad in the first film but here he actively opposes his dad). Mind you he still could have been cut out of the film, which is never a good sign.
There's a courtroom climax. But it just doesn't seem to work for me. The film has no heart. It needed a romance. They should have given MacMurray a niece to romance Kirk. You don't care about Olson and MacMurray.
They try to reheat ingredients by having the government tie up the development of flubber in red tape, which leads to some decent satire of the government. This is dropped though - MacMurray has to raise money for his greedy college and, more disappointingly, greedy wife. Nancy Olson didn't have much to do in the first - sit around and wish she was married and be pursued by Elliot Reid - but at least she was nice. Here she's worried about money all the time, agrees to take a fur coat as a bribe for persuading her husband to commercially exploit flubber, being stupidly jealous about some random woman getting Kirk, hanging out with Reid.
MacMurray then invents a device to control the weather but it's like, big deal, so what.
There's a repeat of the sequence where McMurray torments Reid ending up where a cop busts Reid - but it's not as fun here because MacMurray has been such a drip, refusing to let his wife work, not being able to get her any money. They repeat Ed Wynn coming back. And the device being used to help the college win a game (in this case football).
I didn't care about anyone in this version - MacMurray was absent minded last time but basically good but here he seems just dim. Olson isn't much better. The college doesn't deserve money - why should it stay open?
Keenan Wynn is good fun as Alonzo Hawk - I wish we'd seen more of him. Or maybe just that he'd been used better (the script isn't as tight).
Tommy Kirk brightens things as Wynn's son. His character has changed a bit from the first one - here he's helping out MacMurray and is a lot more nice (not that he was bad in the first film but here he actively opposes his dad). Mind you he still could have been cut out of the film, which is never a good sign.
There's a courtroom climax. But it just doesn't seem to work for me. The film has no heart. It needed a romance. They should have given MacMurray a niece to romance Kirk. You don't care about Olson and MacMurray.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Movie review - "The Horsemasters" (1961) **1/2
Fine family film (well, telemovie in the US, released theatrically elsewhere) by Disney shot in England about the adventures of a riding school. There's two Americans there - Tommy Kirk and Annette Funicello, neither of whom look entirely comfortable on a horse, but who do bring early 60s Disney teen star power.
Janet Munro normally places nice girls, at least in the films I've seen, so it's a bit of a jolt to see her as the harsh teacher of the group. She's actually more of the star of the film than Funicello and Kirk - she and John Fraser, who plays an Australian, and does quite a decent job. The guts of the story involves their bickering romance - it's very chaste.
The movie actually would have been better had Funicello and Kirk been given something to do - they're just in it.
There's plenty of horse riding and dressage if you're in to that, which I'm not. The climax involves the students joining in on a fox hunt - that's not very politically correct! They're all off to kill foxes!
Janet Munro normally places nice girls, at least in the films I've seen, so it's a bit of a jolt to see her as the harsh teacher of the group. She's actually more of the star of the film than Funicello and Kirk - she and John Fraser, who plays an Australian, and does quite a decent job. The guts of the story involves their bickering romance - it's very chaste.
The movie actually would have been better had Funicello and Kirk been given something to do - they're just in it.
There's plenty of horse riding and dressage if you're in to that, which I'm not. The climax involves the students joining in on a fox hunt - that's not very politically correct! They're all off to kill foxes!
Movie review - "The Absent Minded Professor" (1961) ***
Bill Walsh was an unsung hero of Disney - maybe he's sung, I don't know. But his name was on the studios biggest hits of the 50s and 60s, whether Mary Poppins, Davy Crockett, The Mickey Mouse Club or this.
It's a surprisingly shark poke at early 60s US - colleges where rich donors expect people to automatically pass their dumb sons, and where the military is behind the eight ball. I was really (delightedly) surprised to see the pot shots taken at the military - they're depicted as blundering fools, pompous idiots and what not. Surely, this was par for the course at the time, it's just weird to see it in a Disney film.
Fred MacMurray is very well cast in the title role. Nancy Olson does what she can in a thankless part. Keenan Wynn is enormous fun as the villain who bets against his own son's team - Tommy Kirk is good value too as the son. Elliott Reid, so miscast in Gentleman Prefer Blondes, is perfect as the slime ball after Olsen. It's odd to see this in black and white when it feels like such a colour movie.
There's plenty of wish fulfilment - a flying car, using special powers to win a baskeball game. I think this was central to Walsh's success.
It's a surprisingly shark poke at early 60s US - colleges where rich donors expect people to automatically pass their dumb sons, and where the military is behind the eight ball. I was really (delightedly) surprised to see the pot shots taken at the military - they're depicted as blundering fools, pompous idiots and what not. Surely, this was par for the course at the time, it's just weird to see it in a Disney film.
Fred MacMurray is very well cast in the title role. Nancy Olson does what she can in a thankless part. Keenan Wynn is enormous fun as the villain who bets against his own son's team - Tommy Kirk is good value too as the son. Elliott Reid, so miscast in Gentleman Prefer Blondes, is perfect as the slime ball after Olsen. It's odd to see this in black and white when it feels like such a colour movie.
There's plenty of wish fulfilment - a flying car, using special powers to win a baskeball game. I think this was central to Walsh's success.
Movie review - "A Foreign Affair" (1948) ***1/2
Before Billy Wilder discovered William Holden he was stuck with John Lund in this lesser known comedy. I'm surprised it's not better known because it ticks the Wilder boxes - sex, cynicism, an iconic star.
Maybe the post war vibe turns off critics though that didn't stop them liking The Third Man. Maybe it was Lund - though there is an all-time great star performance from Marlene Dietrich. Maybe it's because Dietrich ultimately turns out to be bad - well, a Nazi sympathiser. The other role is Jean Arthur who comes in high status as a congresswoman - though she does melt for Lund. There's a rapey-ish kind of scene where Lund bails her up against filing cabinets - though this is repeated with her bailing him up at the end, so it is softened.
More could have been made of the Nazi villain - it felt like there was too little of him. Also there was too much of this general at the end.
It felt a little mean Marlene wound up in a labour camp - the film is so empathetic towards her character. A lot of smart dialogue. Very understanding of the difficulties of a conquering army taking over a conquered nation, matter of fact acceptance about sex and bribes, fascinating look at post war Berlin.
Maybe the post war vibe turns off critics though that didn't stop them liking The Third Man. Maybe it was Lund - though there is an all-time great star performance from Marlene Dietrich. Maybe it's because Dietrich ultimately turns out to be bad - well, a Nazi sympathiser. The other role is Jean Arthur who comes in high status as a congresswoman - though she does melt for Lund. There's a rapey-ish kind of scene where Lund bails her up against filing cabinets - though this is repeated with her bailing him up at the end, so it is softened.
More could have been made of the Nazi villain - it felt like there was too little of him. Also there was too much of this general at the end.
It felt a little mean Marlene wound up in a labour camp - the film is so empathetic towards her character. A lot of smart dialogue. Very understanding of the difficulties of a conquering army taking over a conquered nation, matter of fact acceptance about sex and bribes, fascinating look at post war Berlin.
Friday, April 12, 2019
Movie review - "High Time" (1960) **1/2
The story about a mature age person returning to college to get an education is evergreen - Hollywood does it every twenty years or so (Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School, Melissa McCarthy in Life of the Party, etc). This one has Bing Crosby giving it a go - he looks old, so that helps, and he is charming enough, I guess, though I've never been a big Crosby fan.
I like this film more than I did on first viewing. It has a bright colourful palate, and is about nice people - the only brats are Bing's selfish kids (who seem very real... though you can't help wondering he's probably a terrible dad), a pompous lecturer played by Gavin McLeod, and the odd heckling student.
Bing has a pleasant camaraderie with fellow students - Tuesday Weld, Fabian, Richard Beymer, and Patrick Adiarte as his close friends, but also Yvonne Craig as a journalism student he has a nice rapport with. He has a slow burn romance with French teacher Nicole Maurey.
The film goes for four years - freshman, sophomore, junior and senior - which is a long time span for a feature film. But it does give the movie a "passing of time" quality. The kids get to grow up and mature - well, Fabian learns to study and Weld settles down with one guy (because, marriage).
I didn't like Maurey much - she seems bored and she and Crosby don't have an over abundance of chemistry. The young kids are good though, and all have some character to play - Adiarte is an Indian, meaning this is surprisingly multicultural (to keep things in perspective, the actor was Filipino and the character wears a turban), Beymer as a hipster, Fabian as a jock, Weld as a groovy chick who changes her personality every year to fall for one of the guy (she starts with Beymer, briefly goes Indian, has a crush on Crosby then becomes engaged to Fabian), Craig as a journalism student. I actually wanted more of Crosby and the kids - Beymer starts off as this funny strong presence but is backgrounded; Weld, as ever in her early films, feels under-used; Craig and Crosby strike sparks and you expect it to pay off somehow but it doesn't really; Adiarte wears a turban and that's it; Crosby's relationship with his kids doesn't evolve.
The film is set in the South I think - they go to a college where a dean has a tribute to the old South ball. Oh those loveable old racists.
Henry Mancini wrote a catchy theme song. I did laugh at Bing in drag.
I like this film more than I did on first viewing. It has a bright colourful palate, and is about nice people - the only brats are Bing's selfish kids (who seem very real... though you can't help wondering he's probably a terrible dad), a pompous lecturer played by Gavin McLeod, and the odd heckling student.
Bing has a pleasant camaraderie with fellow students - Tuesday Weld, Fabian, Richard Beymer, and Patrick Adiarte as his close friends, but also Yvonne Craig as a journalism student he has a nice rapport with. He has a slow burn romance with French teacher Nicole Maurey.
The film goes for four years - freshman, sophomore, junior and senior - which is a long time span for a feature film. But it does give the movie a "passing of time" quality. The kids get to grow up and mature - well, Fabian learns to study and Weld settles down with one guy (because, marriage).
I didn't like Maurey much - she seems bored and she and Crosby don't have an over abundance of chemistry. The young kids are good though, and all have some character to play - Adiarte is an Indian, meaning this is surprisingly multicultural (to keep things in perspective, the actor was Filipino and the character wears a turban), Beymer as a hipster, Fabian as a jock, Weld as a groovy chick who changes her personality every year to fall for one of the guy (she starts with Beymer, briefly goes Indian, has a crush on Crosby then becomes engaged to Fabian), Craig as a journalism student. I actually wanted more of Crosby and the kids - Beymer starts off as this funny strong presence but is backgrounded; Weld, as ever in her early films, feels under-used; Craig and Crosby strike sparks and you expect it to pay off somehow but it doesn't really; Adiarte wears a turban and that's it; Crosby's relationship with his kids doesn't evolve.
The film is set in the South I think - they go to a college where a dean has a tribute to the old South ball. Oh those loveable old racists.
Henry Mancini wrote a catchy theme song. I did laugh at Bing in drag.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Movie review - "Windrider" (1986) **
Cheerfully dim Australian comedy which in its heart of hearts seems like a 60s pop film - something starring Frankie Avalon or Connie Francis. I kept expecting Tom Burlinson to break out into song - ironically, he would later have a career as a Frank Sinatra impersonator. Nicole Kidman did a bit of singing too and it's fun to see her as a pop star.
But I think the filmmakers were uncertain of the movie they were making. There was talk of doing a Risky Business style comedy, so you have Nickers running around nude (a fair bit) - but Risky Business' story was about sex, this isn't. It's a film called Windrider and is about a someone wind surfing - that's the climax. It's really a sports film and needed to be about that.
Add some singing, fine - but the drive needed to be windsurfing. The plot about Burlinson at work is confusing, never seen and pointless. Just make it character.
The romance with Kidman is quite well done (apart from some rapey actions up top), the father son stuff between Burlinson and Charles Tingwell is lovely, the views of Perth are very easy on the eye. It's a cheerful film that did not deserve being torn a new one by critics at the time.
Where it could have been better:
* more focus on windsurfing in the story
* better incorporating the singer into the windsurfing
* have a good female windsurfer for the female audience to have someone to latch on to
* do more with the villain to make him really bad
* have better songs
I also feel Burlinson was simply miscast as an arrogant yuppie - he was most effective as a soulful young man. But I get why he was cast and he does have good chemistry with Kidman.
But I think the filmmakers were uncertain of the movie they were making. There was talk of doing a Risky Business style comedy, so you have Nickers running around nude (a fair bit) - but Risky Business' story was about sex, this isn't. It's a film called Windrider and is about a someone wind surfing - that's the climax. It's really a sports film and needed to be about that.
Add some singing, fine - but the drive needed to be windsurfing. The plot about Burlinson at work is confusing, never seen and pointless. Just make it character.
The romance with Kidman is quite well done (apart from some rapey actions up top), the father son stuff between Burlinson and Charles Tingwell is lovely, the views of Perth are very easy on the eye. It's a cheerful film that did not deserve being torn a new one by critics at the time.
Where it could have been better:
* more focus on windsurfing in the story
* better incorporating the singer into the windsurfing
* have a good female windsurfer for the female audience to have someone to latch on to
* do more with the villain to make him really bad
* have better songs
I also feel Burlinson was simply miscast as an arrogant yuppie - he was most effective as a soulful young man. But I get why he was cast and he does have good chemistry with Kidman.
Movie review - "The Coolangatta Gold" (1984) **
What's good about this:
* the photography and locations and sets
* the visuals
* some of the acting - Joss McWilliam is green but very well cast, Colin Friels is good, Robyn Nevin, Grant Kenny looks the part (of himself!)
* Nick Tate is very well cast - he just needed to be reined in
* the core conflict is fantastic - Cain and Abel, the younger son wanting approval
What's not so good:
* all the unresolved subplots - like the band Joss manages not wanting to move to Sydney, what happens to that? Or whether the ballet dancer is going to want to move to Sydney and Seattle?
* all the unexploited subplots - Grant Kennedy could have been a character - ditto his father. Why have the karate guy in it at all? It would have made sense had he trained Joss but he doesn't. Why not do something more with mum? (They may as well have killed off the character)
* time wasted on things like the night club sequence - they listen to a whole song, and then pretty much a whole other song. It's like 6 minutes in the middle of the film.
What's not as bad as you think:* Josephine Smulders copped a lot of blame and she isn't very good but she's not the main problem this didn't work - that's with script issues.
* iron man races don't seem to be that exciting - but the racing on the sand stuff at the end works very well... so I think it could just be how the earlier stuff was shot.
Australia should do another iron man film. Learn from this one, don't let its failure scare filmmakers away.
* the photography and locations and sets
* the visuals
* some of the acting - Joss McWilliam is green but very well cast, Colin Friels is good, Robyn Nevin, Grant Kenny looks the part (of himself!)
* Nick Tate is very well cast - he just needed to be reined in
* the core conflict is fantastic - Cain and Abel, the younger son wanting approval
What's not so good:
* all the unresolved subplots - like the band Joss manages not wanting to move to Sydney, what happens to that? Or whether the ballet dancer is going to want to move to Sydney and Seattle?
* all the unexploited subplots - Grant Kennedy could have been a character - ditto his father. Why have the karate guy in it at all? It would have made sense had he trained Joss but he doesn't. Why not do something more with mum? (They may as well have killed off the character)
* time wasted on things like the night club sequence - they listen to a whole song, and then pretty much a whole other song. It's like 6 minutes in the middle of the film.
What's not as bad as you think:* Josephine Smulders copped a lot of blame and she isn't very good but she's not the main problem this didn't work - that's with script issues.
* iron man races don't seem to be that exciting - but the racing on the sand stuff at the end works very well... so I think it could just be how the earlier stuff was shot.
Australia should do another iron man film. Learn from this one, don't let its failure scare filmmakers away.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Movie review - "Half a Sixpence" (1967) **
This is one of those musicals I watched thinking "gee this was probably a lot of fun to watch on stage" - with it's bright cheerful energetic star, Tommy Steele, and lively cast high kicking away and cheerful songs.
As a film it's less impressive. The director was George Sidney who stages scenes outdoors and all that - the production values are very high, with costumes and sets and what not. The support cast lacks star power - people like Julia Foster, Cyril Ritchard (didn't realise he was Australian), Elaine Taylor, Hilton Edwards... names who are vaguely familiar but who I didn't exactly recognise. Everyone is fine, they can act and sing and that, I just would've preferred another quasi-name or two.
The whole thing left me cold to be honest - but then I'm not a massive fan of these tales of plucky men who inherit money and pursue women. I'm not the target audience.
It's a long film. Bloated. This was immediately post Sound of Music and Paramount would have dreamt of similar financial returns - new British star, Broadway and West end hit, period family film. But it's so long - 140 minutes. I was thinking it was going to end and "intermission" came up. There is a fantastic number in the second half, "Flash Bang Wallop" - I think a few more of these and this would be a classic.
But the story is so slight and Kipps so passive. He's poor, loves Ann, inherits money, dumps Ann for Helen, realises he's shallow, then marries Ann. Really the film could and should have ended there - but he has greedy plans to build a mansion, loses money,gets back Ann, winds up with more money. So he realises "money makes you shallow" twice.
There's a lot of money - but I feel they'd have been better off cutting it down, spending the money on some name co stars for Steele - like, I don't know, Susannah York, Rita Tushingham, Lynn Redgrave, Hayley Mills or something. Or a Hollywood star doing an accent.
As a film it's less impressive. The director was George Sidney who stages scenes outdoors and all that - the production values are very high, with costumes and sets and what not. The support cast lacks star power - people like Julia Foster, Cyril Ritchard (didn't realise he was Australian), Elaine Taylor, Hilton Edwards... names who are vaguely familiar but who I didn't exactly recognise. Everyone is fine, they can act and sing and that, I just would've preferred another quasi-name or two.
The whole thing left me cold to be honest - but then I'm not a massive fan of these tales of plucky men who inherit money and pursue women. I'm not the target audience.
It's a long film. Bloated. This was immediately post Sound of Music and Paramount would have dreamt of similar financial returns - new British star, Broadway and West end hit, period family film. But it's so long - 140 minutes. I was thinking it was going to end and "intermission" came up. There is a fantastic number in the second half, "Flash Bang Wallop" - I think a few more of these and this would be a classic.
But the story is so slight and Kipps so passive. He's poor, loves Ann, inherits money, dumps Ann for Helen, realises he's shallow, then marries Ann. Really the film could and should have ended there - but he has greedy plans to build a mansion, loses money,gets back Ann, winds up with more money. So he realises "money makes you shallow" twice.
There's a lot of money - but I feel they'd have been better off cutting it down, spending the money on some name co stars for Steele - like, I don't know, Susannah York, Rita Tushingham, Lynn Redgrave, Hayley Mills or something. Or a Hollywood star doing an accent.
Tuesday, April 09, 2019
Movie review - "Easy Living" (1949) **1/2
An odd one in the Victor Mature filmography - until you consider that in the late 40s he was developing a nice little reputation as an actor (My Darling Clementine, Kiss of Death) and this project was greenlit by Dore Schary at RKO (though it wasn't made til Howard Hughes til over).
It's got Schary worthiness, being a look at the life of a football player (Mature). He's a star but he lives beyond this means
The screenwriter, Charles Schnee, has actually done a good job (Schary liked Schnee, promoted him to producer at MGM) - characters are well sketched, have depth, and sympathy. There's a big fat strand of sexism through the film (a key plot point involves Mature being overlooked for a coaching position because his wife isn't "reliable) but even Scott is allowed to have her moment in the sun - she points out their life has traditionally been about worshipping Mature, she wants a career.
Some subplots feel hampered by censorship - a model who slept around kills herself, a woman tells Scott she wants to seduce Mature then kind of vanishes, Ball and Mature really should sleep together, it's unsure if Scott sleeps with her client. Because much of it is adult and frank and well done - Jacques Tourneur was a good director.
Lloyd Nolan is effective as a coach. Lizabeth Scott feels vaguely miscast but gives a good performance - you could say the same for Lucille Ball. Mature isn't quite believable as a footballer but is at least a physical type. Sonny Tufts was a real surprise - he's very relaxed and strong as Mature's friend. There's a black player on the team, Jim Backus turns up as a doctor.
There's a scene where Mature and Scott go to a nightclub and hear a person sing a torch song called "Easy Living"which feels tacked on.
It's a really odd sort of movie - bits of it are very good I found it engrossing. It doesn't quite pull it off, you can see why it lost money, and there's a terrible finale when Mature slaps Scott twice and "forgives" her (for the crime of having ambition). But treats the trevails of footballers sensitively and it's no joke.
It's got Schary worthiness, being a look at the life of a football player (Mature). He's a star but he lives beyond this means
The screenwriter, Charles Schnee, has actually done a good job (Schary liked Schnee, promoted him to producer at MGM) - characters are well sketched, have depth, and sympathy. There's a big fat strand of sexism through the film (a key plot point involves Mature being overlooked for a coaching position because his wife isn't "reliable) but even Scott is allowed to have her moment in the sun - she points out their life has traditionally been about worshipping Mature, she wants a career.
Some subplots feel hampered by censorship - a model who slept around kills herself, a woman tells Scott she wants to seduce Mature then kind of vanishes, Ball and Mature really should sleep together, it's unsure if Scott sleeps with her client. Because much of it is adult and frank and well done - Jacques Tourneur was a good director.
Lloyd Nolan is effective as a coach. Lizabeth Scott feels vaguely miscast but gives a good performance - you could say the same for Lucille Ball. Mature isn't quite believable as a footballer but is at least a physical type. Sonny Tufts was a real surprise - he's very relaxed and strong as Mature's friend. There's a black player on the team, Jim Backus turns up as a doctor.
There's a scene where Mature and Scott go to a nightclub and hear a person sing a torch song called "Easy Living"which feels tacked on.
It's a really odd sort of movie - bits of it are very good I found it engrossing. It doesn't quite pull it off, you can see why it lost money, and there's a terrible finale when Mature slaps Scott twice and "forgives" her (for the crime of having ambition). But treats the trevails of footballers sensitively and it's no joke.
Monday, April 08, 2019
Movie review - "Light Up the Sky!" (1960) ** (warning: spoilers)
Not very well known war movie despite being directed by Lewis Gilbert and starring Ian Carmichael, Tommy Steele and Benny Hill, and having a novel setting - the world of the men who manned searchlights.
It's based on a play and you can tell. It's more an ensemble piece and I wondered at times if it wouldn't work better as a straight up star vehicle for Hill and Steele who play brothers and are in good form. Hill is a good actor - handling the comedy well of course but also some dramatics like when he discovers Steele has knocked up a girl. It's a real shame Hill didn't do more dramatic acting. Steele is good too. Actually I can't fault the acting. I just found it dull.
It all felt so familiar - man hears about son dying. Squabbling in the mess. Knocking up a local girl. Worried about girlfriend.
The one really good bit is the final attack and the death of one of the crew. More seriousness maybe would have worked.
Carmichael just pops in and out of the film. The book ending scenes in the present day watching a cricket match where he's got a silly moustache seem strange.
It's based on a play and you can tell. It's more an ensemble piece and I wondered at times if it wouldn't work better as a straight up star vehicle for Hill and Steele who play brothers and are in good form. Hill is a good actor - handling the comedy well of course but also some dramatics like when he discovers Steele has knocked up a girl. It's a real shame Hill didn't do more dramatic acting. Steele is good too. Actually I can't fault the acting. I just found it dull.
It all felt so familiar - man hears about son dying. Squabbling in the mess. Knocking up a local girl. Worried about girlfriend.
The one really good bit is the final attack and the death of one of the crew. More seriousness maybe would have worked.
Carmichael just pops in and out of the film. The book ending scenes in the present day watching a cricket match where he's got a silly moustache seem strange.
Movie review - "Four Weddings and a Funeral" (1994) *****
Just finished rewatching "Four Weddings and a Funeral"... has it been 25 years? Gulp!
Some random thoughts
- ADR terrible
- It's great the Carrie (Andie McDowell) is sexually liberated and everything but to have sex with a guy you know really likes you while you're engaged to someone else, and then to turn up on that guy's wedding day... it's a little self centered and I'm not sure how long she and Charles would last... but I know in my heart that Charles and his friends (the real romance of the film) will still be ultra tight
- it's fun to rewatch knowing Hugh Grant was closer IRL to his character in Bridget Jones' Diary and I would totally watch a remake of this film with that character in the lead
- the set up, structure, and pay off of this screenplay is an utter, utter marvel, as is the fact it balances so many characters and subplots and tones and if you think that's easy try writing it yourself - even Richard Curtis himself never topped this
- I don't think there's any movie where so many actors/characters got a moment in the sun... everyone remembers Charles, and Carrie, and Tom and Fiona, Gareth and Matthew, Scarlett, and David the deaf brother... but also the married couples, Bernard and Lydia, and anxious Angus and drunk Laura, and Henrietta and her dumb brother, and the lecherous guy who tries to pick up Carrie, the girl who romances David, the old man who snaps at Charles, the old man who scowls at Father Gerald, and Father Gerald, and the woman who asks Fiona if she's a lesbian and all the ex girlfriends... they all get at least one moment to really shine and I can't think of any other which matches it...
- "is it raining I hadn't noticed" retains the power to horrify
Some random thoughts
- ADR terrible
- It's great the Carrie (Andie McDowell) is sexually liberated and everything but to have sex with a guy you know really likes you while you're engaged to someone else, and then to turn up on that guy's wedding day... it's a little self centered and I'm not sure how long she and Charles would last... but I know in my heart that Charles and his friends (the real romance of the film) will still be ultra tight
- it's fun to rewatch knowing Hugh Grant was closer IRL to his character in Bridget Jones' Diary and I would totally watch a remake of this film with that character in the lead
- the set up, structure, and pay off of this screenplay is an utter, utter marvel, as is the fact it balances so many characters and subplots and tones and if you think that's easy try writing it yourself - even Richard Curtis himself never topped this
- I don't think there's any movie where so many actors/characters got a moment in the sun... everyone remembers Charles, and Carrie, and Tom and Fiona, Gareth and Matthew, Scarlett, and David the deaf brother... but also the married couples, Bernard and Lydia, and anxious Angus and drunk Laura, and Henrietta and her dumb brother, and the lecherous guy who tries to pick up Carrie, the girl who romances David, the old man who snaps at Charles, the old man who scowls at Father Gerald, and Father Gerald, and the woman who asks Fiona if she's a lesbian and all the ex girlfriends... they all get at least one moment to really shine and I can't think of any other which matches it...
- "is it raining I hadn't noticed" retains the power to horrify
Sunday, April 07, 2019
Movie review - "Io" (2019) **
Another mediocre Netflix film - this one has some diversity (Anthony Mackie), it basically a two hander, an adequate white female lead (Margaret Qualley), attempts to grasp at some big themes, isn't dumb, but also isn't terribly exciting either. These Netflix films have no passion. I think this mainly existed for content - two hander, sci f, etc etc.
Movie review - "The Highwaymen" (2019) **
A sort of 1930s Western, the look at the pursuit of Bonnie and Clyde from the POV of the men who took them out - the part played by Denver Pyle in the 1967 version.
Here we have Kevin Costner and Woody Harrelsen as two old time-y law enforcement officers. This was written with old Paul Newman and Robert Redford in mind and they would've been better - Costner and Harrelsen are fine, I think just maybe a decade or so too young for the humour and suspense these two were going for. I spent time fantasy casting... Clint Eastwood of course but more realistically budget wise... Gene Hackman (though he's retired), Duvall, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, de Niro, Pacino... basically, someone who became famous in the 70s.
The script also is, to use a William Goldman reference (speaking of 70s), dolphin-y... the two leads kind of dolphin along until the final climax. There are some nice moments and work, a little bit of Unforgiven style regret, but it's a bit plodding, especially at 132 minutes.
Bonnie and Clyde are pretty much depicted as mad dogs, which I guess they were - but it's a shame the scenes where they shoot dead law officers weren't done with more suspense/dread/horror, especially as we never see them (I don't mind that concept I just wish it was done better).
It's fine - like so many Netflix films it's utterly "fine" without being great.
Here we have Kevin Costner and Woody Harrelsen as two old time-y law enforcement officers. This was written with old Paul Newman and Robert Redford in mind and they would've been better - Costner and Harrelsen are fine, I think just maybe a decade or so too young for the humour and suspense these two were going for. I spent time fantasy casting... Clint Eastwood of course but more realistically budget wise... Gene Hackman (though he's retired), Duvall, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, de Niro, Pacino... basically, someone who became famous in the 70s.
The script also is, to use a William Goldman reference (speaking of 70s), dolphin-y... the two leads kind of dolphin along until the final climax. There are some nice moments and work, a little bit of Unforgiven style regret, but it's a bit plodding, especially at 132 minutes.
Bonnie and Clyde are pretty much depicted as mad dogs, which I guess they were - but it's a shame the scenes where they shoot dead law officers weren't done with more suspense/dread/horror, especially as we never see them (I don't mind that concept I just wish it was done better).
It's fine - like so many Netflix films it's utterly "fine" without being great.
Movie review - "Geronimo: An American Legend" (1993) **
I saw this in the cinema - I think it was the first Walter Hill film that I saw on the big screen, and I remember loving the images and being underwhelmed by the drama. Rewatching it years on and that hasn't changed - it's a mess. I know this film has its admirers but I struggle to see what Hill was going for, apart from aping John Ford.
There's beautiful visages - the desert, horses climbing out of the sand, people taking pot shots at each other, horses going through the river.
But dramatically it's all over the place - it's not about Geronimo, or other Indians, or even the white men. It's about a bunch of actors looking cool. There's no point to Matt Damon's character - Jason Patric's character is mostly an accent. Gene Hackman and Robert Duvall get by on star power and ability... but really there's two sorts of white characters... racists and people who fight the Indians but by gosh darn they respect them and they're not racist. Why not vary it a little? Why not give Damon something to do? Or cut him out?
The Indians either fight for the white men and have noble dignity or fight against them and have noble dignity. Why not vary them? Why not have some interesting character interaction?
Why not pick a particular story... say Geronimo's final break out? It's a film of moments rather than narrative cohesion and so many of those moments are repetitive - we get two scenes of Geronimo surrendering in an anti-climactic way for instance. I kept watching it going "that could be cut... and that..." Notably Damon's pointless narration.
Heavy and plodding, overwritten with no passion, for all the "right on" comments the Indians make about the white men stealing their land. Why don't we see it?
Some decent moments - Duvall's death, the tracker being betrayed at the end. But it feels like a museum exhibit.
There's beautiful visages - the desert, horses climbing out of the sand, people taking pot shots at each other, horses going through the river.
But dramatically it's all over the place - it's not about Geronimo, or other Indians, or even the white men. It's about a bunch of actors looking cool. There's no point to Matt Damon's character - Jason Patric's character is mostly an accent. Gene Hackman and Robert Duvall get by on star power and ability... but really there's two sorts of white characters... racists and people who fight the Indians but by gosh darn they respect them and they're not racist. Why not vary it a little? Why not give Damon something to do? Or cut him out?
The Indians either fight for the white men and have noble dignity or fight against them and have noble dignity. Why not vary them? Why not have some interesting character interaction?
Why not pick a particular story... say Geronimo's final break out? It's a film of moments rather than narrative cohesion and so many of those moments are repetitive - we get two scenes of Geronimo surrendering in an anti-climactic way for instance. I kept watching it going "that could be cut... and that..." Notably Damon's pointless narration.
Heavy and plodding, overwritten with no passion, for all the "right on" comments the Indians make about the white men stealing their land. Why don't we see it?
Some decent moments - Duvall's death, the tracker being betrayed at the end. But it feels like a museum exhibit.
Saturday, April 06, 2019
Movie review - "Veils of Bagdad" (1953) **
One of a series of Easterns that Universal made in the early 1950s. The best remembered ones starred Rock Hudson or Tony Curtis; this one has Victor Mature, who I am a bit of a fan of, but he doesn't have the energy or humour of the younger Curtis and Hudson. It isn't as though Mature is miscast (for a Universal Studios version of Bagdad, that is) - he plays a soldier who has been around a bit, seen something of life. But he's not as committed as in other movies.
Maybe it didn't help his female co star is Mari Blanchard - who is beautiful and all that, but lacks something, a spark or individuality. Maureen O'Hara was meant to co star and I wish she'd done so - either her or Yvonne de Carlo.
George Sherman's direction is lethargic. Overly moody - not very fun. Lots of close ups. I can't put my finger on it but this film missed for me. See The Prince Who Was a Thief instead.
The support cast is strong - villains include Guy Rolfe and Leon Askin, Nick Cravat, James Arness and Glenn Strange and Robert Blake have support roles.
Maybe it didn't help his female co star is Mari Blanchard - who is beautiful and all that, but lacks something, a spark or individuality. Maureen O'Hara was meant to co star and I wish she'd done so - either her or Yvonne de Carlo.
George Sherman's direction is lethargic. Overly moody - not very fun. Lots of close ups. I can't put my finger on it but this film missed for me. See The Prince Who Was a Thief instead.
The support cast is strong - villains include Guy Rolfe and Leon Askin, Nick Cravat, James Arness and Glenn Strange and Robert Blake have support roles.
Movie review - "Tommy the Toreador" (1958) ***
For Tommy Steele's third movie, Nat Cohen and Stuart Levy stumped up for colour and some location filming in Spain. It's much better than The Duke Who Wore Jeans - a lot simpler and more grounded.
Tommy plays a merchant seaman (Steele's background in real life) who accidentally gets stranded in Spain and becomes mixed up with a matador. The colour is pleasing as is the Spanish location work; Steele is in excellent form, bright and silly and energetic, and is helped by his fellow players. Janet Munro is charming as the love interest, a British show girl he meets; Sid James and Bernard Cribbins play Spaniards who try to cash in on Tommy's "fame"; Kenneth Williams is a vice consul; Virgilio Teixeira is a real matador.
John Paddy Carstairs directed - he knows his stuff. Maybe three stars is overly generous but this was very endearing.
Tommy plays a merchant seaman (Steele's background in real life) who accidentally gets stranded in Spain and becomes mixed up with a matador. The colour is pleasing as is the Spanish location work; Steele is in excellent form, bright and silly and energetic, and is helped by his fellow players. Janet Munro is charming as the love interest, a British show girl he meets; Sid James and Bernard Cribbins play Spaniards who try to cash in on Tommy's "fame"; Kenneth Williams is a vice consul; Virgilio Teixeira is a real matador.
John Paddy Carstairs directed - he knows his stuff. Maybe three stars is overly generous but this was very endearing.
Movie review - "Escapade in Florence" (1962) ***
Annette Funicello is probably best known for her movies with Frankie Avalon but she had a successful collaboration with Tommy Kirk at Disney - The Shaggy Dog, the Merlin Jones films, this.
This was a two parter for television but shot in colour. Funicello and Kirk play Americans abroad in Florence who run into each other (literally, both on mopeds) and get involved with art thieves.
It's completely unpretentious, wholesome, all-American fun. The two leads are excellently cast and very likeable - not obnoxious, but bright and keen to help, the perfect Peace Corps youngsters. There is a solid support cast of character actors including some handsome Italian lout who bats eyes at Annette. She smiles coyly at him and Kirk but there's no kissing.
The Italian locations are pleasing. Maybe three stars is too much but this felt totally accomplished and realised.
This was a two parter for television but shot in colour. Funicello and Kirk play Americans abroad in Florence who run into each other (literally, both on mopeds) and get involved with art thieves.
It's completely unpretentious, wholesome, all-American fun. The two leads are excellently cast and very likeable - not obnoxious, but bright and keen to help, the perfect Peace Corps youngsters. There is a solid support cast of character actors including some handsome Italian lout who bats eyes at Annette. She smiles coyly at him and Kirk but there's no kissing.
The Italian locations are pleasing. Maybe three stars is too much but this felt totally accomplished and realised.
Friday, April 05, 2019
Movie review - "Rob Roy the Highland Rogue" (1953) **1/2
Disney went on a British kick in the 50s and 60s - this was one of three films he made starring Richard Todd, all historical adventures. It's not based on the novel by Sir Walter Scott - possibly a mistake because the story isn't that gripping. Rob Roy gets captured and escapes twice in the first half hour - the first time from the first Jacobite uprising, the second when he's arrested by troops led by nasty Michael Gough. After the second time he becomes a Scottish Robin Hood - really that should have happened earlier. And there's three scenes of Todd leading a charge of highlanders - at the beginning, middle and end. The story has no build.
It's cartoony but at least colourful. As David Shipman once observed, Todd's acting improved when he put on a Scottish accent - though the dyed red beard is annoying.
The film gets around English-Scottish awkwardness by showing Gough to be Bad and ignoring advice from the conciliatory Duke of Argyle, played by James Robertson Justice. Also at the end Rob gets out of trouble by pleading to George I that he won't do it again and George I is very kindly depicted.
I think they missed a trick not borrowing from Robin Hood more and having conflict via the romantic angle - Glynis Johns is his love, and she loves him, that's it, the end. Okay at the end she nags him into peace but... so what. You could have cut her out of the film, which is never ideal. Why not have her as English? Or related to Gough somehow?
Gough is a solid villain but he gets no come uppance - the King just scowls at him. Geoffrey Keene is decent as Gough's henchman - he gets killed in the final battle. But Todd has let him go beforehand in an earlier raid.
Also there's a scene for Todd's grandmother's funeral (they make all this hoo ha over her, even though heaps of extras, British and Highland, die and no one seems to care). Gough turns up to arrest Todd then Justice barks at Gough and Gough leaves. It weakens Gough.
From a history point of view, I enjoyed it - especially little cameos from George I, Walpole, and Marlborough. I just wish they'd knocked the story into shape more - drawn out the romance with Johns, maybe had another young female who loved Roy (an Englishwoman), have Johns and Todd fall in love more gradually, have less repetition.
It's cartoony but at least colourful. As David Shipman once observed, Todd's acting improved when he put on a Scottish accent - though the dyed red beard is annoying.
The film gets around English-Scottish awkwardness by showing Gough to be Bad and ignoring advice from the conciliatory Duke of Argyle, played by James Robertson Justice. Also at the end Rob gets out of trouble by pleading to George I that he won't do it again and George I is very kindly depicted.
I think they missed a trick not borrowing from Robin Hood more and having conflict via the romantic angle - Glynis Johns is his love, and she loves him, that's it, the end. Okay at the end she nags him into peace but... so what. You could have cut her out of the film, which is never ideal. Why not have her as English? Or related to Gough somehow?
Gough is a solid villain but he gets no come uppance - the King just scowls at him. Geoffrey Keene is decent as Gough's henchman - he gets killed in the final battle. But Todd has let him go beforehand in an earlier raid.
Also there's a scene for Todd's grandmother's funeral (they make all this hoo ha over her, even though heaps of extras, British and Highland, die and no one seems to care). Gough turns up to arrest Todd then Justice barks at Gough and Gough leaves. It weakens Gough.
From a history point of view, I enjoyed it - especially little cameos from George I, Walpole, and Marlborough. I just wish they'd knocked the story into shape more - drawn out the romance with Johns, maybe had another young female who loved Roy (an Englishwoman), have Johns and Todd fall in love more gradually, have less repetition.
Movie review - "The Duke Wore Jeans" (1958) **
The Tommy Steele Story was a big hit so Nat Cohen and Stuart Levy rushed out a second Steele film, casting him in a dual role as lookalikes - one an artistocrat who gets his look a like to impersonate him on a visit to a royal country.
There are worse ideas for a silly film - I mean, it's the basis of The Prisoner of Zenda and The Prince and the Pauper. But it meshes uneasily with the teen musical aspects of Steele. That exists in its own uneasy reality - that of a British pop/rock musical. To cross it with Prisoner of Zenda feels like a bridge too far.
There are some basic construction flaws - like there's not much difference between the two characters Steele plays, the aristocrat and the layabout. Really the aristocrat should be posh - they kind of make him this hard worker only interested in cows but also he's secretly married (we never meet the secret wife). But he's got no real personality.
And I didn't buy the basic set up - 1958 feels far far too late to have plots about arranged marriages.
There's a bewildering lack of culture clash comedy - it's basically just Tommy being bouncy and charming. And to be fair he is charming - with a big smile, full of energy, singing and dancing away. He's got the right stuff - more West End than pop star (and the tunes back this up) but he's talented. He has a sweet romance with the princess and really the film needed to give him more relationships on screen - there was no progression in his relationship with a manservant, for instance.
They throw in a plot about a possibility military coup but never do it. Never reunite the two Tommys. Don't expose the deception in a big way. So it's a lousy book.
But it has a solid support cast, some tunes and the star really giving it his all.
There are worse ideas for a silly film - I mean, it's the basis of The Prisoner of Zenda and The Prince and the Pauper. But it meshes uneasily with the teen musical aspects of Steele. That exists in its own uneasy reality - that of a British pop/rock musical. To cross it with Prisoner of Zenda feels like a bridge too far.
There are some basic construction flaws - like there's not much difference between the two characters Steele plays, the aristocrat and the layabout. Really the aristocrat should be posh - they kind of make him this hard worker only interested in cows but also he's secretly married (we never meet the secret wife). But he's got no real personality.
And I didn't buy the basic set up - 1958 feels far far too late to have plots about arranged marriages.
There's a bewildering lack of culture clash comedy - it's basically just Tommy being bouncy and charming. And to be fair he is charming - with a big smile, full of energy, singing and dancing away. He's got the right stuff - more West End than pop star (and the tunes back this up) but he's talented. He has a sweet romance with the princess and really the film needed to give him more relationships on screen - there was no progression in his relationship with a manservant, for instance.
They throw in a plot about a possibility military coup but never do it. Never reunite the two Tommys. Don't expose the deception in a big way. So it's a lousy book.
But it has a solid support cast, some tunes and the star really giving it his all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)