A big hit in its day which made a star of Glenda Jackson and director Ken Russell. I think, in hindsight, maybe it had just the right amount of straight sex at just the right time - straight sex, though there's plenty of homoeroticism, in particular the famous nude wrestling match between Oliver Reed and Alan Bates... which still retains the power to confront because its still so rare for male stars to do full frontal nudity especially where they wrestle each other.
It's a very well made movie - it looks beautiful. I can't believe it was so cheap - $1.5 million at the time. It's got location work in Switzerland, big old mansions, 1910s period detail.
Russell keeps his excesses mostly in check - or maybe it's more a case he directs as the material dictates (in say The Music Lovers the material required flamboyant treatment).
It is long - overlong I feel. It also feels like an adaptation of a book - it lacks narrative drive and build. It should build to a climax- Reed trying to kill Jackson then killing himself - but while it's all motivated and everything, it doesn't feel like a dramatic locomotive its more a prepared surprise. Which I think would work better in a book, not that I've read the book.
It has some excellent acting - Jackson and Reed have the showiest roles but Bates and Jennie Linden are good too (they just have less interesting parts because they're more perfect). Eleanor Brom is effective as an arty type - quite a big part though she doesn't often get remembered.
The themes about the relationships between men and women and men and men and women and women are still fresh today.
Friday, May 31, 2019
Movie review - "Billion Dollar Brain" (1967) *** (warning: spoilers)
Noe one seems to have much time for this third Harry Palmer film, the one that killed off the series for two decades - not Michael Caine, not director Ken Russell - but I enjoyed it.
Sometimes when this happens I wonder if there's something wrong with me. "This film isn't beloved. No one seems to like it. But I did. Am I weird?" But stuff it.
Of course its unavoidably persona. I like 60s spy films, it's got that great cinematography of the period, and Michael Caine as Harry Palmer. I enjoy films set in the snow- and this was shot in Finland.
It's also got a knock out support cast - Francois Dorleac, the gorgeous sister of Catherine Deneuve who was to shortly die in a car accident; Karl Malden having a high old time as a shifty agent, and Ed Begley hilarious as a deranged anti communist millionaire.
I love films about deranged millionaires with private armies (eg The Stuff, Goodbye Paradise) - this one as Begley trying to lead an uprising in Latvia!
I wonder if part of the reason people didn't like this was that the Americans are the baddies, invading, and Caine is helping the Russians.
The film is flawed - Caine's character is passive too much of the time. I wish there'd been more to do for Guy Doleman who plays British intelligence. Occasionally the story gets a little lost - or more correctly the characters. The Caine-Dorleac romance for instance feels undercooked.
But Russell does a good job I feel - it's visually strong, there's good pacing. The battle on the ice floes at the end is a semi classic and there's some solid action bits. Under-rated.
Sometimes when this happens I wonder if there's something wrong with me. "This film isn't beloved. No one seems to like it. But I did. Am I weird?" But stuff it.
Of course its unavoidably persona. I like 60s spy films, it's got that great cinematography of the period, and Michael Caine as Harry Palmer. I enjoy films set in the snow- and this was shot in Finland.
It's also got a knock out support cast - Francois Dorleac, the gorgeous sister of Catherine Deneuve who was to shortly die in a car accident; Karl Malden having a high old time as a shifty agent, and Ed Begley hilarious as a deranged anti communist millionaire.
I love films about deranged millionaires with private armies (eg The Stuff, Goodbye Paradise) - this one as Begley trying to lead an uprising in Latvia!
I wonder if part of the reason people didn't like this was that the Americans are the baddies, invading, and Caine is helping the Russians.
The film is flawed - Caine's character is passive too much of the time. I wish there'd been more to do for Guy Doleman who plays British intelligence. Occasionally the story gets a little lost - or more correctly the characters. The Caine-Dorleac romance for instance feels undercooked.
But Russell does a good job I feel - it's visually strong, there's good pacing. The battle on the ice floes at the end is a semi classic and there's some solid action bits. Under-rated.
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Script review - "Chloe" (2008) by Erin Cressidia Wilson (warning: spoilers)
Not bad erotic thriller/drama from Wilson which I read because I loved Wilson's script for The Girl on The Train. This isn't as good but is still sharply written. It has an intriguing premise - a woman is convinced her husband is cheating and pays a hooker to seduce him.
You can have more fun reading erotic tales written by women (I have anyway) because you can go "hey if it turns you on" and don't have to worry about (as much) dodginess. It's the basic story that I felt a little underwhelmed by - it lacked a twist or two. I think the husband should have genuinely been a cheater and one of the family should have died. Just to give it more oomph and deliver on its promise. Though it was cool the wife slept with the hooker.
You can have more fun reading erotic tales written by women (I have anyway) because you can go "hey if it turns you on" and don't have to worry about (as much) dodginess. It's the basic story that I felt a little underwhelmed by - it lacked a twist or two. I think the husband should have genuinely been a cheater and one of the family should have died. Just to give it more oomph and deliver on its promise. Though it was cool the wife slept with the hooker.
Movie review - "French Dressing" (1963) **1/2
Ken Russell turned down Summer Holiday but the same producer and writers came back and asked him to do this comedy. He would have been better off with the Cliff Richard musical - which was in colour and had songs.
This feels like it should be a musical. It definitely should be in colour but it's in drab black and white even though it was set in a seaside town.
The basic idea is fun - two workers in said seaside town decide to jazz up business by importing a French movie star and having a film festival and a nudist beach. You can see the chances for satire at admittedly easy targets - French new wave, Cannes, nudity, etc.
The film doesn't quite work, although made by people with talent - you can tell the director is talented - but everyone is miscast. Ken Russell is miscast as a director of comedy - though producer Kenneth Harper wouldn't have known that at the time (well, perhaps the complete absence of comedy films he did for TV but... he was entitled to take a punt). Russell pulls out a lot of tricks - there's energy and movement, but he doesn't have a feel for the characters or the town. It's all surface. That surface has a charm... but it doesn't have the love that he would show in say The Boyfriend.
James Booth is miscast as a comic lead. A sowering glowering actor, a talented performer, he did this after Zulu. He's not a lot of fun to be around in a role that really required a Frankie Howerd or Benny Hill. Or even a young pop star like Cliff Richard because Roy Kinnear is great fun as Booth's sidekick and he could have handled the comedy.
Alita Naughton is inexperienced as the true love interest but is lovely and winning and Russell uses her well. She even sings a song - on a ukulele I think. The movie could have done with more more musical numbers. Naughton suits the film a lot better than Booth - I never at any stage wanted them to get together. Booth just comes across as lecherous.
Kinnear is excellent and Marissa Mell - an actress I'm mainly familiar with from William Goldman talking about her performance in Mata Hari in The Season - is fun as the star. The support cast are decent as they tend to be in British films.
There's slap stick chases, lots of rain, films within films, grotesques. You can feel the influence of Jacques Tati and French cinema. Naughton goes nude into the beach at the end and you can see her bare backside which is a bit of a jolt for 1963 film if not Ken Russell. There's a bunch of other naked bums as the townsfolk come in.
It's a really odd film. It's the sort of movie I enjoyed more on a second viewing because it didn't have the pressure to be funny and you could appreciate the way out visuals.
This feels like it should be a musical. It definitely should be in colour but it's in drab black and white even though it was set in a seaside town.
The basic idea is fun - two workers in said seaside town decide to jazz up business by importing a French movie star and having a film festival and a nudist beach. You can see the chances for satire at admittedly easy targets - French new wave, Cannes, nudity, etc.
The film doesn't quite work, although made by people with talent - you can tell the director is talented - but everyone is miscast. Ken Russell is miscast as a director of comedy - though producer Kenneth Harper wouldn't have known that at the time (well, perhaps the complete absence of comedy films he did for TV but... he was entitled to take a punt). Russell pulls out a lot of tricks - there's energy and movement, but he doesn't have a feel for the characters or the town. It's all surface. That surface has a charm... but it doesn't have the love that he would show in say The Boyfriend.
James Booth is miscast as a comic lead. A sowering glowering actor, a talented performer, he did this after Zulu. He's not a lot of fun to be around in a role that really required a Frankie Howerd or Benny Hill. Or even a young pop star like Cliff Richard because Roy Kinnear is great fun as Booth's sidekick and he could have handled the comedy.
Alita Naughton is inexperienced as the true love interest but is lovely and winning and Russell uses her well. She even sings a song - on a ukulele I think. The movie could have done with more more musical numbers. Naughton suits the film a lot better than Booth - I never at any stage wanted them to get together. Booth just comes across as lecherous.
Kinnear is excellent and Marissa Mell - an actress I'm mainly familiar with from William Goldman talking about her performance in Mata Hari in The Season - is fun as the star. The support cast are decent as they tend to be in British films.
There's slap stick chases, lots of rain, films within films, grotesques. You can feel the influence of Jacques Tati and French cinema. Naughton goes nude into the beach at the end and you can see her bare backside which is a bit of a jolt for 1963 film if not Ken Russell. There's a bunch of other naked bums as the townsfolk come in.
It's a really odd film. It's the sort of movie I enjoyed more on a second viewing because it didn't have the pressure to be funny and you could appreciate the way out visuals.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Movie review - "The Boy Friend" (1971) ***1/2
MGM had the rights to the musical but couldn't think of what to do with it - and wound up giving Ken Russell a go. The result is actually more traditional than you might think - Russell clearly has genuine affection for the piece, and the era, and old stage shows.
It's too long - it's 2 hours 18 minutes with an intermission - I think because he tried to jam in too much. I wish Russell had gotten a co writer on board instead of doing it all himself. Russell whinged about MGM cutting off 25 minutes but I'm sympathetic to the studio.
There is a lot of charm. The visuals re impressive. I think the idea of a show within a show completely works. I got confused about the Twiggy-Chris Gable romance - when did they fall in love? I didn't like Twiggy not accepting the Hollywood role at the end.
Twiggy is very likable and can sing and dance. She surely would have had a bigger career in a decade where they made more musicals. It helps that support actors like Chris Gable and Tommy Tune are the real deal and can sing and dance. The support cast is very good - Glenda Jackson has a fun came. I loved the use of old tropes (the star twisting an ankle so the understudy goes on, the long lost son, etc)... I just wish it wasn't so damn long!
It's too long - it's 2 hours 18 minutes with an intermission - I think because he tried to jam in too much. I wish Russell had gotten a co writer on board instead of doing it all himself. Russell whinged about MGM cutting off 25 minutes but I'm sympathetic to the studio.
There is a lot of charm. The visuals re impressive. I think the idea of a show within a show completely works. I got confused about the Twiggy-Chris Gable romance - when did they fall in love? I didn't like Twiggy not accepting the Hollywood role at the end.
Twiggy is very likable and can sing and dance. She surely would have had a bigger career in a decade where they made more musicals. It helps that support actors like Chris Gable and Tommy Tune are the real deal and can sing and dance. The support cast is very good - Glenda Jackson has a fun came. I loved the use of old tropes (the star twisting an ankle so the understudy goes on, the long lost son, etc)... I just wish it wasn't so damn long!
Movie review - "A Light in the Forest" (1957) ***
In a way kind of a sequel to The Searchers - James MacArthur plays a kid who was kidnapped by Indians in the 1750s then raised by them happily enough. He's forced to go back to his parents as part of a peace negotiation and doesn't like it.
This is quite a good movie - pretty sensitive to the plight of Indians. Ultimately it is on the side of the whites, like all 1950s liberal Westerns, but it constantly emphasizes how the whites don't keep their promises, and cause a lot of trouble.
It dramatises the story well in human terms - MacArthur has to reconnect with his parents, falls in love with a girl (Carol Lynley) whose parents were killed by Indians, battles an uncle (Wendell Corey) who hates Indians, misses his Indian "father" and best friend.
I feel it missed some opportunities. An opening five minutes or so showing MacAthur's life with the Indians I think would've been useful to establish how much he loved it. Also it was fuzzy whether Lynley's parents were killed by Indians or if it was made up. They may as well have gotten rid of MacArthur's father - the role of an Indian scout played by Fess Parker takes over that part (I presume this was to give Parker a decent role). The romance between Parker and Joanne Dru felt undercooked - they probably should have made her MacArthur's sister or something. The film builds to this big climax fight between Indians and whites but instead ends on a tame brawl between Corey and MacArthur.
The acting is decent. Parker is ideal in Westerns, MacArthur good as a sensitive young man (it helps that he gets to keep his cool mohawk haircut), Jessica Tandy excellent as his mother, Wendell Corey was better as a villain than as a hero, Lynley is sweet. The setting is novel too - 1765 Pennsylvania.
Not first rank Disney stuff but pretty good.
This is quite a good movie - pretty sensitive to the plight of Indians. Ultimately it is on the side of the whites, like all 1950s liberal Westerns, but it constantly emphasizes how the whites don't keep their promises, and cause a lot of trouble.
It dramatises the story well in human terms - MacArthur has to reconnect with his parents, falls in love with a girl (Carol Lynley) whose parents were killed by Indians, battles an uncle (Wendell Corey) who hates Indians, misses his Indian "father" and best friend.
I feel it missed some opportunities. An opening five minutes or so showing MacAthur's life with the Indians I think would've been useful to establish how much he loved it. Also it was fuzzy whether Lynley's parents were killed by Indians or if it was made up. They may as well have gotten rid of MacArthur's father - the role of an Indian scout played by Fess Parker takes over that part (I presume this was to give Parker a decent role). The romance between Parker and Joanne Dru felt undercooked - they probably should have made her MacArthur's sister or something. The film builds to this big climax fight between Indians and whites but instead ends on a tame brawl between Corey and MacArthur.
The acting is decent. Parker is ideal in Westerns, MacArthur good as a sensitive young man (it helps that he gets to keep his cool mohawk haircut), Jessica Tandy excellent as his mother, Wendell Corey was better as a villain than as a hero, Lynley is sweet. The setting is novel too - 1765 Pennsylvania.
Not first rank Disney stuff but pretty good.
Movie review - "The Devils" (1971) ****1/2
A remarkable film - over the top, intense, moving. Perhaps Russell's masterpiece - I haven't seen all his movies but feel his over the top flamboyance perfectly matched the story.
It's a powerful true story. People get stuck into Russell for twisting and dramatising but the fact is much of what he does is truer than many Hollywood/British versions of historical stories. And I think part of the heated reaction to many about what they saw on screen was the depiction of how corrupt the Church was and how people can get whipped up into frenzies.
It's a film that retains it's power. Nuns going crazy, taking off their clothes and masturbating; priests having their heads shaved and being burnt to death.
It's very biased towards the Oliver Reed character. Russell has written about how it's a man who finds redemption but as he has it Reed's character is admirable from the get go - he's studly, bedding all these women, Gemma Jones (Bridget Jones' mother - quite saucy) falls for him, all the nuns want him, he's smart and wise and brave standing up to the troops to keep the independence of his city state. It's a fairly glamorised depiction of a priest, very heroic, even before he stands up to prosecution and is horribly tortured.
The torture scenes are full on - it's painful and mean, with the witch hunter hysterical. A priest holds up the priest's baby child to watch his father die painfully and cackles. Reed dies in great pain.
And the thing is, this sort of stuff happens in real life - happened a lot, continues to happen, and you see it resurfacing all the time.
There could've been a bit more nuance in Vanessa Redgrave's character - she starts mad and gets more mad. Jones doesn't do much but pant over Reed. However Dudley Sutton (he of the affro) and especially Michael Gothard are superb as baddies - Gothard's deranged, yelling witch hunter is fantastic.
All the acting works - everyone commits. It's an extremely effective film.
It's a powerful true story. People get stuck into Russell for twisting and dramatising but the fact is much of what he does is truer than many Hollywood/British versions of historical stories. And I think part of the heated reaction to many about what they saw on screen was the depiction of how corrupt the Church was and how people can get whipped up into frenzies.
It's a film that retains it's power. Nuns going crazy, taking off their clothes and masturbating; priests having their heads shaved and being burnt to death.
It's very biased towards the Oliver Reed character. Russell has written about how it's a man who finds redemption but as he has it Reed's character is admirable from the get go - he's studly, bedding all these women, Gemma Jones (Bridget Jones' mother - quite saucy) falls for him, all the nuns want him, he's smart and wise and brave standing up to the troops to keep the independence of his city state. It's a fairly glamorised depiction of a priest, very heroic, even before he stands up to prosecution and is horribly tortured.
The torture scenes are full on - it's painful and mean, with the witch hunter hysterical. A priest holds up the priest's baby child to watch his father die painfully and cackles. Reed dies in great pain.
And the thing is, this sort of stuff happens in real life - happened a lot, continues to happen, and you see it resurfacing all the time.
There could've been a bit more nuance in Vanessa Redgrave's character - she starts mad and gets more mad. Jones doesn't do much but pant over Reed. However Dudley Sutton (he of the affro) and especially Michael Gothard are superb as baddies - Gothard's deranged, yelling witch hunter is fantastic.
All the acting works - everyone commits. It's an extremely effective film.
Monday, May 27, 2019
Movie review - "An Alligator Named Daisy" (1955) **
Donald Sinden was a competent actor but this film needed a star - Dirk Bogarde, or Kenneth More or even John Gregson. I can see why they went with Sinden - he supported in Doctor in the House - but he hasn't got it.
Director J Lee Thompson seems to know it too - he continually cuts away from Sinden, down plays him, and goes for the supporting cast, which includes reliables like James Robertson Justice, Stanley Holloway, Jeannie Carson (as his true love interest) and Diana Dors (as his fiancee).
Once again Dors is wasted in too small a part - oh maybe making the part bigger would have thrown off the film, but it's a shame she couldn't have played the lead. Diana Dors wrestling with an alligator would have been fun. She commits as always - actually to be fair all the cast do, they're all on the bridge at the end which collapses they all fall in the water and get drenched.
There is some charm, bright colour, Thompson does a good job for someone not known for comedy. It doesn't have particularly strong jokes. Surely there was more to be had with alligator humour? It's like they have this way out premise but don't really develop it. It's a half hearted alligator film.
It's also a half hearted musical - Carson breaks into song, like a real proper musical. There's another song later on, a scene where some ad people sing a song written by Sinden - but that's it. Why not throw in another few songs? Having just two feels weird.
I was disappointed Sinden mentions going to Ireland for a cricket game at the beginning but there's no more cricket.
The cast is surprisingly well known - Frankie Howerd has a cameo, Stephen Boyd pops up as Carson's brother (he looks completely like a Rank 50s star with that thick bryclreamed hair), Joan Hickson has a small role, Margaret Rutherford has a very funny scene.
Director J Lee Thompson seems to know it too - he continually cuts away from Sinden, down plays him, and goes for the supporting cast, which includes reliables like James Robertson Justice, Stanley Holloway, Jeannie Carson (as his true love interest) and Diana Dors (as his fiancee).
Once again Dors is wasted in too small a part - oh maybe making the part bigger would have thrown off the film, but it's a shame she couldn't have played the lead. Diana Dors wrestling with an alligator would have been fun. She commits as always - actually to be fair all the cast do, they're all on the bridge at the end which collapses they all fall in the water and get drenched.
There is some charm, bright colour, Thompson does a good job for someone not known for comedy. It doesn't have particularly strong jokes. Surely there was more to be had with alligator humour? It's like they have this way out premise but don't really develop it. It's a half hearted alligator film.
It's also a half hearted musical - Carson breaks into song, like a real proper musical. There's another song later on, a scene where some ad people sing a song written by Sinden - but that's it. Why not throw in another few songs? Having just two feels weird.
I was disappointed Sinden mentions going to Ireland for a cricket game at the beginning but there's no more cricket.
The cast is surprisingly well known - Frankie Howerd has a cameo, Stephen Boyd pops up as Carson's brother (he looks completely like a Rank 50s star with that thick bryclreamed hair), Joan Hickson has a small role, Margaret Rutherford has a very funny scene.
Script review - "The Rock"
A very good script - every scene pushes the action forward, there's three showy star parts, all different (the tormented general villain, the British agent, the expert Goodspeed), some funny lines, clever action bits. The basic story is solid with its ticking clock.
Maybe some of the supporting characters could be developed - like Womack the FBI guy or the daughter/girlfriend parts. And I felt the offsider for the Ed Harris character would have been better off just being the one person.
But very readable and entertaining. I actually like this better than the film.
Maybe some of the supporting characters could be developed - like Womack the FBI guy or the daughter/girlfriend parts. And I felt the offsider for the Ed Harris character would have been better off just being the one person.
But very readable and entertaining. I actually like this better than the film.
Movie review - "The Music Lovers" (1971) ***1/2
Well, they go for it - director Ken Russell, of course, but also Glenda Jackson and Richard Chamberlain - they all fully commit. They go there.
This is the sort of movie that at one stage I would have called a wank but I appreciate more now because it's so bold and interesting. It dares to be individual.
I wouldn't have minded a bit more story - it's a film of scenes and moments rather than a cohesive narrative but they are great scenes and moments, like the opening montage of Chamberlain playing piano (very well) intercutting with moments of his life, the initial meeting of Jackson, the famous scene of Jackson writing naked on a train carriage floor while Chamberlain can't get it up for her, Jackson having wild sex with a youth, Jackson at the insane asylum.
Jackson is electric - charismatic and acts over the shop. There's this long line of activist not conventionally pretty left wing brilliant actors in England - Emma Thomson was another one.
Chamberlain is very good too - he has a softer nature but he's convincing playing the piano, going mad, being tormented. Good on a secretly gay actor playing a gay on screen too. Mind you it's one of his best roles.
It's a feast for the senses - there was a decent budget. It does get a little wearying.
This is the sort of movie that at one stage I would have called a wank but I appreciate more now because it's so bold and interesting. It dares to be individual.
I wouldn't have minded a bit more story - it's a film of scenes and moments rather than a cohesive narrative but they are great scenes and moments, like the opening montage of Chamberlain playing piano (very well) intercutting with moments of his life, the initial meeting of Jackson, the famous scene of Jackson writing naked on a train carriage floor while Chamberlain can't get it up for her, Jackson having wild sex with a youth, Jackson at the insane asylum.
Jackson is electric - charismatic and acts over the shop. There's this long line of activist not conventionally pretty left wing brilliant actors in England - Emma Thomson was another one.
Chamberlain is very good too - he has a softer nature but he's convincing playing the piano, going mad, being tormented. Good on a secretly gay actor playing a gay on screen too. Mind you it's one of his best roles.
It's a feast for the senses - there was a decent budget. It does get a little wearying.
Sunday, May 26, 2019
Movie review - "Alien" (1979) ***1/2
Got to admit - I wasn't that wild about this watching it years apart. It's slow - takes 30 minutes to collect the alien. Lots of lingering shots of the (admittedly impressive) art design and special effects.
It's not actually that scary/suspenseful. Ridley Scott's never been great at that. It was a tremendous authenticity - working class atmosphere for lack of a better word. It feels like a real ship and real people. Space is scary. But it felt long at two hours.
Some other random observations:
- very good acting
- having two female characters shows the benefits of having two of a minority because Veronica Cartwright can lose it and cry and be terrified and there is another woman who doesn't as a counterpoint
- Sigourney Weaver stripping down to her underwear does feel slsher film exploitative
- Weaver is a star with her role - so is the alien
You do wonder why Scott didn't bring back Walter Hill and David Giler on the new films.
It's not actually that scary/suspenseful. Ridley Scott's never been great at that. It was a tremendous authenticity - working class atmosphere for lack of a better word. It feels like a real ship and real people. Space is scary. But it felt long at two hours.
Some other random observations:
- very good acting
- having two female characters shows the benefits of having two of a minority because Veronica Cartwright can lose it and cry and be terrified and there is another woman who doesn't as a counterpoint
- Sigourney Weaver stripping down to her underwear does feel slsher film exploitative
- Weaver is a star with her role - so is the alien
You do wonder why Scott didn't bring back Walter Hill and David Giler on the new films.
Movie review - "Force 10 from Navarone" (1978) ** (warning: spoilers)
A real mess of a film - you can feel all the different hands in it. It sort of starts off paying homage to the original, showing clips from it, and the early scenes have banter between Robert Shaw, playing Gregory Peck, and Edward Fox, playing David Niven. It's really awful banter though both being stiff upper lip jolly good types, which is inconsistent with the original.
Then the film kind of forgets Fox and becomes about Shaw and Harrison Ford. Shaw and Fox are sent on a mission to kill a traitor in Yugoslavia, Ford is on a mission to blow up a bridge. There's some double cross and twists but none of it that interesting.
Carl Weathers comes along and characters comment on him being black, and he has an awful scene where he sooks because he's left out of the loop. You could cut his character. You could cut Fox's character too. Ford has the odd good moment but wasn't comfortable enough as a star to play himself. Shaw is okay - but character work is weak.
We know Franco Nero is bad so his betrayal is not a surprise. Barbara Bach livens things up with a bit of nudity - the film could have done with more of it. And more females. Guns had two - two romances. We don't even get one romance. It's very boys own. They should have made Carl Weathers a girl, maybe.
There's the occasional good bit - shooting Nero in a van, the final raid on the dam. But it's an underwhelming mess. George MacDonald Fraser did uncredited work on the script. I'm sure it was a hard gig, but he didn't save the say.
Then the film kind of forgets Fox and becomes about Shaw and Harrison Ford. Shaw and Fox are sent on a mission to kill a traitor in Yugoslavia, Ford is on a mission to blow up a bridge. There's some double cross and twists but none of it that interesting.
Carl Weathers comes along and characters comment on him being black, and he has an awful scene where he sooks because he's left out of the loop. You could cut his character. You could cut Fox's character too. Ford has the odd good moment but wasn't comfortable enough as a star to play himself. Shaw is okay - but character work is weak.
We know Franco Nero is bad so his betrayal is not a surprise. Barbara Bach livens things up with a bit of nudity - the film could have done with more of it. And more females. Guns had two - two romances. We don't even get one romance. It's very boys own. They should have made Carl Weathers a girl, maybe.
There's the occasional good bit - shooting Nero in a van, the final raid on the dam. But it's an underwhelming mess. George MacDonald Fraser did uncredited work on the script. I'm sure it was a hard gig, but he didn't save the say.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
Movie review - "Dance Hall" (1950) ** (warning: spoilers)
The cast is decent - you've got Natasha Parry, Jane Hylton, Diana Dors and Petula Clark as the gals with Donald Houston and Bonar Colleano as dudes.
And the central love quadrangle is strong - Parry goes out with Houston but wants to dance with Colleano, making Houstin jealous and Hytlon loves Houston.
But the film makes key mistakes. Parry and Hylton are easily the least charismatic of the four lead. Clark and especially Dors leap off the screen with charisma - but they have minor roles. Dors looks as though she's going to be a lot of fun, and she is, as a saucy minx out for a good time, but has this terrible subplot where a weird guy chases her and ends up dancing with her. (Dors really should have played Hylton's role - the minx in love with the guy she cant have). Clark is fresh and pretty but doesn't have enough screentime and doesn't even sing.
Too much time is spent on boorish Houston - I think Ealing really wanted to make a film about guys and so keep slanting the project towards him. And he's a horrible possessive character. It might have worked had Houston realised that he and Parry were different and he should be with Hytlon but Houston and Parry get married and Colleano is revaled to be a sleaze and... urgh.
Fascinating look into society at the time - the factory work, the dance halls. The guy who runs the dance hall is really sleazy and I'm not sure the filmmakers intended him to be so.
Movie review - "Take a Girl Like You" (1970) *
I've never read Kingsley Amis' novel but surely there was more to it than what is here. Not all books are easy to adapt, but my overwhelming impression watching this is "what's the point?"
Producer Hal Chester has thrown a whole bunch of ingredients into the mix - the director is Beyond the Fringe alumni Jonathan Miller, the writer is musician George Melly, the cast includes Oliver Reed coming off Women in Love and Hayley Mills trying to grow up on screen and a singer, Noel Williamson - but the end result is just... ugh, whatever.
Actually no, that's not true - for the most part this is downright uncomfortable with Reed being a sex pest to Mills - he takes her to his place, insists she go to his flat although she's not keen, kisses her and tries to seduce her, even after she repeatedly says no... then I think we're meant to hope they end up together. He keeps coming at her, she keeps saying no, but seems to like him, he keeps lecturing her that she should have sex, she relents, then finds out he told his mate they were gong to do it, she decides to sleep with his mate... I was unsure whether this happened. Then he chases after her she says she might be in love with him he keeps chasing her.
Is this meant to be romantic? Charming? Frank?
At it's heart this feels like a Rock Hudson-Doris Day-Tony Randall comedy with Oliver Reed as Rock, Hayley as Doris and Noel Harrison as Randall. Only those movies at least had the excuse of being American in the early 60s, and Hollywood glamour, nice costumes and clothes, and star charisma. This is set in some ugly small down.
Mills is actually quite good - an understated touching performance. She's so likeable you really wish she could do better than lecherous Reed. Reed has charisma as always but overpowers. He looks like a psychotic rapist there's no Rock Hudson charm. Harrison is meant to be a swinger but comes across as a creepy gay.
This was a horrible horrible movie. I felt for Hayley Mills who was doing good work.
Producer Hal Chester has thrown a whole bunch of ingredients into the mix - the director is Beyond the Fringe alumni Jonathan Miller, the writer is musician George Melly, the cast includes Oliver Reed coming off Women in Love and Hayley Mills trying to grow up on screen and a singer, Noel Williamson - but the end result is just... ugh, whatever.
Actually no, that's not true - for the most part this is downright uncomfortable with Reed being a sex pest to Mills - he takes her to his place, insists she go to his flat although she's not keen, kisses her and tries to seduce her, even after she repeatedly says no... then I think we're meant to hope they end up together. He keeps coming at her, she keeps saying no, but seems to like him, he keeps lecturing her that she should have sex, she relents, then finds out he told his mate they were gong to do it, she decides to sleep with his mate... I was unsure whether this happened. Then he chases after her she says she might be in love with him he keeps chasing her.
Is this meant to be romantic? Charming? Frank?
At it's heart this feels like a Rock Hudson-Doris Day-Tony Randall comedy with Oliver Reed as Rock, Hayley as Doris and Noel Harrison as Randall. Only those movies at least had the excuse of being American in the early 60s, and Hollywood glamour, nice costumes and clothes, and star charisma. This is set in some ugly small down.
Mills is actually quite good - an understated touching performance. She's so likeable you really wish she could do better than lecherous Reed. Reed has charisma as always but overpowers. He looks like a psychotic rapist there's no Rock Hudson charm. Harrison is meant to be a swinger but comes across as a creepy gay.
This was a horrible horrible movie. I felt for Hayley Mills who was doing good work.
Biggest comebacks - Sellers vs Brando?
Peter Sellers - from There's a Girl in My Soup he was in a record number of flops
* Where Does It Hurt
* Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
* Ghost in the Noonday Sun
* The Blockhouse
* The Optimists of Nine Elms
* Soft Beds Hard Battles
* The Great McGonagall
Then he did Return of the Pink Panther.
Marlon Brando - from Mutiny on the Bounty he was in
*The Ugly American
* Bedtime Story
* Morituri
*The Chase
*The Appaloosa
*A Countess from Hong Kong
*Reflections in a Golden Eye
*Candy
*The Night ofthe Following Day
*Burn!
*The Nightcomers
Then he did The Godfather
Of these two I actually think Sellers was the bigger comeback because some of Brando's films were critically acclaimed whereas no one likes the Sellers films.
* Where Does It Hurt
* Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
* Ghost in the Noonday Sun
* The Blockhouse
* The Optimists of Nine Elms
* Soft Beds Hard Battles
* The Great McGonagall
Then he did Return of the Pink Panther.
Marlon Brando - from Mutiny on the Bounty he was in
*The Ugly American
* Bedtime Story
* Morituri
*The Chase
*The Appaloosa
*A Countess from Hong Kong
*Reflections in a Golden Eye
*Candy
*The Night ofthe Following Day
*Burn!
*The Nightcomers
Then he did The Godfather
Of these two I actually think Sellers was the bigger comeback because some of Brando's films were critically acclaimed whereas no one likes the Sellers films.
Movie review - "Whistle Down the Wind" (1961) ***
Very simple, sweet, effective film about three kids from the north who believe an escaped convict hiding in their barn is Jesus. The eldest girl is Hayley Mills, Bernard Lee (M from the Bond films) is dad, Alan Bates is excellent as the crim, but the show is stolen by Alan Barnes as the youngest kid.
All the acting is superb - it really was clever for Bryan Forbes to pick this for his debut as a director, because I think it really helped having an actor in charge. The performances are excellent. It's a fine role for Mills, whose casting help get the film financed (her mother wrote the original book). The northern atmosphere is well evoked.
I did feel the story could have done with another twist/development/complication - maybe that would have over complicated things though. I love that this was a box office hit.
All the acting is superb - it really was clever for Bryan Forbes to pick this for his debut as a director, because I think it really helped having an actor in charge. The performances are excellent. It's a fine role for Mills, whose casting help get the film financed (her mother wrote the original book). The northern atmosphere is well evoked.
I did feel the story could have done with another twist/development/complication - maybe that would have over complicated things though. I love that this was a box office hit.
Thursday, May 23, 2019
Movie review - "The Bounty" (1984) ***
No one seems to remember or care much for this version in part I think because it flopped but also because it was going to be made by David Lean in two parts and has a bit of "oh if only" aura about it.
It's intelligent, looks great, has location shooting in Tahiti, and a real life Bounty replica. The film is full of people about to become big stars - Mel Gibson (a kind of star, the hottest thing in Hollywood at the time), Tony Hopkins (famous but pre Silence of the Lambs), Daniel Day Lewis (quite a big role), Liam Neeson (quite a big role).
The movie never really comes alive. The local Tahitans are either noble savages or nubile women - the character of Fletcher Christian's wife has never been anything in movies other than a doe eyed topless smiling ninny.
Maybe it was a mistake to do in flashback. The stuff on the boat is good. It suffers from the anti climax factor most Bounty stories have. It looks fantastic. It's smart. It lacks a little X factor but this probably should be better remembered. It's very well cast.
It's intelligent, looks great, has location shooting in Tahiti, and a real life Bounty replica. The film is full of people about to become big stars - Mel Gibson (a kind of star, the hottest thing in Hollywood at the time), Tony Hopkins (famous but pre Silence of the Lambs), Daniel Day Lewis (quite a big role), Liam Neeson (quite a big role).
The movie never really comes alive. The local Tahitans are either noble savages or nubile women - the character of Fletcher Christian's wife has never been anything in movies other than a doe eyed topless smiling ninny.
Maybe it was a mistake to do in flashback. The stuff on the boat is good. It suffers from the anti climax factor most Bounty stories have. It looks fantastic. It's smart. It lacks a little X factor but this probably should be better remembered. It's very well cast.
Movie review - "Black KKKlansman" (2018) ****
Angry, passionate, funny, very entertaining. A true outlandish story - I'm not sure how accurate but it feels true ish in part because as the film makes very aware many of the issues of the time are faced today.
John David Washington is fine in the lead as are Adam Driver and Laura Harrier in support (she's got a big affro and spouts a lot of lines about the cause rather than play a character, but then she is a female character in a Spike Lee movie) but the film is stolen by the colorful support: Topher Grace is David Duke, Jasper Paakkonen as a racist, Ashlie Atkinson as an overweight racist, Corey Hawkins as a nationalist.
It's directed with passion and vigor - the parallels drawn with modern times are very effective.
John David Washington is fine in the lead as are Adam Driver and Laura Harrier in support (she's got a big affro and spouts a lot of lines about the cause rather than play a character, but then she is a female character in a Spike Lee movie) but the film is stolen by the colorful support: Topher Grace is David Duke, Jasper Paakkonen as a racist, Ashlie Atkinson as an overweight racist, Corey Hawkins as a nationalist.
It's directed with passion and vigor - the parallels drawn with modern times are very effective.
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
Movie review - "The Raging Moon" (1970) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Bryan Forbes was able to greenlight his own movies while head of EMI Films. He wrote and directed this piece of "sick lit" about the romance between two people in wheelchairs living in a home. That's not a bad idea for a film - you can imagine guaranteed tears, an exciting support part, a villain or two.
But it takes about 44 minutes for Nanette Newman to appear and the drama is undercooked. It needed a villain and more - I don't know, drama. Or at the very least more scenes between Newman and Malcolm McDowell -it takes them an hour into the film to spend any time together.
It takes McDowell 20 minutes to get into the wheelchair. I don't mind that in theory but he's such a boorish brat during that time - a sex pest on the bus, a sledger on the soccer field, a boor at the dinner. He doesn't become a nice person until past the hour mark - indeed Newman doesn't become lively until then either. So we've got to get through an hour of the film before they're nice. I know characters don't have to be likeable, but surely they have to be compelling in some way?
Newman is pretty and can act and I liked her character - a woman who wants to have sex. But she's too old and matronly for the part - she lacks the spark and life the character needs. Someone like Susan George would have been better. McDowell and Newman don't really have much chemistry. (Maybe Forbes should have played the male lead.)
There is some decent satire, I should say - the cheery minister, the pompous administrator. The acting is strong, even if Newman is miscast.
The film is curiously evasive about some things - the cause of McDowell's injury, the impact of it on his life. We don't see Newman die.
The movie's heart is in the right place. I just wish it was better.
But it takes about 44 minutes for Nanette Newman to appear and the drama is undercooked. It needed a villain and more - I don't know, drama. Or at the very least more scenes between Newman and Malcolm McDowell -it takes them an hour into the film to spend any time together.
It takes McDowell 20 minutes to get into the wheelchair. I don't mind that in theory but he's such a boorish brat during that time - a sex pest on the bus, a sledger on the soccer field, a boor at the dinner. He doesn't become a nice person until past the hour mark - indeed Newman doesn't become lively until then either. So we've got to get through an hour of the film before they're nice. I know characters don't have to be likeable, but surely they have to be compelling in some way?
Newman is pretty and can act and I liked her character - a woman who wants to have sex. But she's too old and matronly for the part - she lacks the spark and life the character needs. Someone like Susan George would have been better. McDowell and Newman don't really have much chemistry. (Maybe Forbes should have played the male lead.)
There is some decent satire, I should say - the cheery minister, the pompous administrator. The acting is strong, even if Newman is miscast.
The film is curiously evasive about some things - the cause of McDowell's injury, the impact of it on his life. We don't see Newman die.
The movie's heart is in the right place. I just wish it was better.
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Movie review - "Nightfall" (1957) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Not bad film noir starring Aldo Ray who made surprisingly few of them - he suited the genre with his gravelly voice and sad eyes. This has a slight Out of the Past vibe as Ray tells his story in flashback to model Anne Bancroft - it involves him grabbing an opportunity to steal a bag of cash.
The most effective moment is when two killers come across innocent Ray and his doctor friend and make them run before killing them (or in Ray's case trying to). The most bizarre moment is the fashion show where Bancroft does some modelling - it's kind of justified in that the two bad guys turn up but it feels weird.
There's several scenes in the snow including the climax (which includes that old staple, death by snowplow). Brian Keith is effective as a baddy - he normally gives a good performance I'd just never seen him play a baddy before. Rudy Bond is his more psychotic colleague.
Stirling Silliphant's screenplay has some bright dialogue but feels as though it cheats in spots. Ray twice is allowed to live by Keith and Bond - one at the beginning where they just knock him out the second time they think he's dead. At the end they should kill him a third time then for some reason Keith turns on Bond.
The story lacks a femme fetale - Bancroft is good. They mention the wife of Ray's friend who is killed Jack Albertson - it really needed to be her. No femme fetale means Ray can be redeemed and survive the film but that feels less fun.
There's too much of James Gregory as a kindly investigating insurance dude - and too many scenes of him explaining the plot to his wife, Jocelyn Brando.
t's beautifully shot and quite well acted.
The most effective moment is when two killers come across innocent Ray and his doctor friend and make them run before killing them (or in Ray's case trying to). The most bizarre moment is the fashion show where Bancroft does some modelling - it's kind of justified in that the two bad guys turn up but it feels weird.
There's several scenes in the snow including the climax (which includes that old staple, death by snowplow). Brian Keith is effective as a baddy - he normally gives a good performance I'd just never seen him play a baddy before. Rudy Bond is his more psychotic colleague.
Stirling Silliphant's screenplay has some bright dialogue but feels as though it cheats in spots. Ray twice is allowed to live by Keith and Bond - one at the beginning where they just knock him out the second time they think he's dead. At the end they should kill him a third time then for some reason Keith turns on Bond.
The story lacks a femme fetale - Bancroft is good. They mention the wife of Ray's friend who is killed Jack Albertson - it really needed to be her. No femme fetale means Ray can be redeemed and survive the film but that feels less fun.
There's too much of James Gregory as a kindly investigating insurance dude - and too many scenes of him explaining the plot to his wife, Jocelyn Brando.
t's beautifully shot and quite well acted.
Monday, May 20, 2019
Movie review - "Outland" (1981) ***
Something of a commercial disappointment on release - I think the Ladd Company, who made it, were hoping for another Alien, for it feels like that movie (working class types in space, an unscrupulous company, people smoke in rooms).
It's not as good but it holds up well, in part because it stars Sean Connery but also because the effects have aged nicely. Maybe not the computer type but the sets and ships on Io, off the planet Jupiter, the atmosphere, the quality of acting. Frances Sternhagen is great fun, as are James Sikking and Steven Berkoff and Peter Boyle.
The set up is nice and simple - a marshal discovers the mining company are killing its workers with drugs that make them produce faster. It doesn't develop entirely logically though. Surely some people would be on Connery's side? Some miners? (I think Boyle should have framed Connery for the deaths somehow to turn people against them.) The ending felt underwhelming with Boyle just punched out - no expose like in say Capricorn One. How did Connery get access to Boyle's transmissions? Why didn't he use this more?
Other things: The subplot involving the wife and kid feels pointless - better to have cut it. I don't mind a bit of mystery but some explanation as to why Connery took a stand would be appreciated. The expert assassins are really dump to fire in a compressed chamber.
It's like the script needed another draft or two just to iron out logic flaws. But it's easy to look at and Connery in sci fi is fun. Hyams directs stylishly, too.
It's not as good but it holds up well, in part because it stars Sean Connery but also because the effects have aged nicely. Maybe not the computer type but the sets and ships on Io, off the planet Jupiter, the atmosphere, the quality of acting. Frances Sternhagen is great fun, as are James Sikking and Steven Berkoff and Peter Boyle.
The set up is nice and simple - a marshal discovers the mining company are killing its workers with drugs that make them produce faster. It doesn't develop entirely logically though. Surely some people would be on Connery's side? Some miners? (I think Boyle should have framed Connery for the deaths somehow to turn people against them.) The ending felt underwhelming with Boyle just punched out - no expose like in say Capricorn One. How did Connery get access to Boyle's transmissions? Why didn't he use this more?
Other things: The subplot involving the wife and kid feels pointless - better to have cut it. I don't mind a bit of mystery but some explanation as to why Connery took a stand would be appreciated. The expert assassins are really dump to fire in a compressed chamber.
It's like the script needed another draft or two just to iron out logic flaws. But it's easy to look at and Connery in sci fi is fun. Hyams directs stylishly, too.
Saturday, May 18, 2019
Movie review - "Trog" (1970) **
Joan Crawford's second film for Herman Cohen isn't as fun as the first, Berserk! but has its moments. It's an inherently silly story treated in a very straight faced manner, constantly undermined by the make up - the missing link is discovered in a cave, and scientist Joan tries to Get Through to Him before Dark Forces ruin it.
It's sort of Frankenstein with Crawford running around begging people to understand and the creature going on a rampage at the end. It could have done with another subplot or two and maybe a bit more over the top deliriousness - some more shocks/horror/camp.
The support cast feels as though it lacks a character or two - Michael Gough has some fun, but that's it. You missed say Diana Dors and Sally Gleeson from Berserk.
Still, it's quite entertaining in it's own way.
It's sort of Frankenstein with Crawford running around begging people to understand and the creature going on a rampage at the end. It could have done with another subplot or two and maybe a bit more over the top deliriousness - some more shocks/horror/camp.
The support cast feels as though it lacks a character or two - Michael Gough has some fun, but that's it. You missed say Diana Dors and Sally Gleeson from Berserk.
Still, it's quite entertaining in it's own way.
Movie review - "The Story of Gilbert and Sullivan" (1953) **
Gilbert and Sullivan fans will get something out of this - I'm not that into their music, so I found this a hard slog. Like many Korda films after World War Two it drowns in decor - tables, curtains, hats, vests, tea cups, flowers, set dressing. Every scene is decor, decor, decor.
Robert Morley is fun, Maurice Evans is bland, Peter Finch is fine. Although all the characters are dead everyone is played as if they are still alive. The script isn't particularly memory - lots of scenes of people sitting around talking. There's not much shape to it - no villains or even hokey drama. You can see why no one went to see it.
Robert Morley is fun, Maurice Evans is bland, Peter Finch is fine. Although all the characters are dead everyone is played as if they are still alive. The script isn't particularly memory - lots of scenes of people sitting around talking. There's not much shape to it - no villains or even hokey drama. You can see why no one went to see it.
Movie review - "Honky Tonky Freeway" (1981) **1/2
I cant believe EMI authorised $20 million for this. A comedy without stars, from a director (John Schlesinger) who had never made a comedy before, which actually isn't a comedy. I don't want to sound like I'm wise in hindsight but surely even at the time they must have known it was risky.
Money is wasted wholesale - there's a massive parade sequence at the beginning which could be cut (the townsfolk think they're getting a bypass).
The film is a collection of vignettes about people who wind up at a Florida town. The film really should be about the town but we spend most of our time in cars/motels with people travelling to the town.
There's also no stakes - Beau Bridges leaves his wife to run off with Beverly d'Angelo but she leaves him. Jessica Tandy is a boozer which exasperates Hume Cronyn and we care because...? There are crooks on the run. there's some stunts but they don't make sense.
It feels like the film is mostly a first act, and we have a second act at the end and it needs a third act. I've love to know what happens to the nun who cuts lose. The robbers.
There is about five minutes of hectic stunts and sight gags at the end which were really funny - like the elephant on water skis - and made me go "oh that's what the movie is supposed to be! A big destructive comedy like The Blues Brothers." But that's only in the last five minutes.
William Devane's a good actor but not really a comic - they needed a comic. I wish Teri Garr's part had been bigger. I wish it had been more cohesive. It's not a bad movie - it's make with skill - it's just uneven and kind of pointless.
Money is wasted wholesale - there's a massive parade sequence at the beginning which could be cut (the townsfolk think they're getting a bypass).
The film is a collection of vignettes about people who wind up at a Florida town. The film really should be about the town but we spend most of our time in cars/motels with people travelling to the town.
There's also no stakes - Beau Bridges leaves his wife to run off with Beverly d'Angelo but she leaves him. Jessica Tandy is a boozer which exasperates Hume Cronyn and we care because...? There are crooks on the run. there's some stunts but they don't make sense.
It feels like the film is mostly a first act, and we have a second act at the end and it needs a third act. I've love to know what happens to the nun who cuts lose. The robbers.
There is about five minutes of hectic stunts and sight gags at the end which were really funny - like the elephant on water skis - and made me go "oh that's what the movie is supposed to be! A big destructive comedy like The Blues Brothers." But that's only in the last five minutes.
William Devane's a good actor but not really a comic - they needed a comic. I wish Teri Garr's part had been bigger. I wish it had been more cohesive. It's not a bad movie - it's make with skill - it's just uneven and kind of pointless.
Movie review - "Eyewitness" (1970) **1/2
One of the first films from Bryan Forbes' brief regime at EMI Films (It's released as an associated British film). It's not a bad thriller, with energetic direction from John Hough - he throws in a few bells and whistles which was criticised by some reviewers at the time but I think work, particularly a very energetic car chase at the end.
It has flaws though. It's the boy who cried wolf story - Mark Lester as a kid who is always making up stories then witnesses an assassination. That structure works (eg The Window) - but here the assassination takes place up front, everyone sees it... so the adults look really stupid not listening to him.
Maybe this is why the film made what I think is a second key mistake - removing Lester from a lot of the action. The focus becomes about his sister, Susan George, new boyfriend Tony Bonner and grandfather Lionel Jeffries. They take over the get sidelined.
I also wish the film had been set in a real country instead of a fictitious place. I bought that in 1930s films but struggle in 1970 ones for whatever reason. I'm guessing it was because it was shot in Malta and they didn't want to upset the locals because the baddies are corrupt.
In its heart this wants to be an action film more than a thriller. There's one too many heroes - for a moment I thought maybe Bonner and Jeffries are bad which would have been a great twist but no... they're heroic. I liked the red herring nasty housekeeper but it could have done with another twist or two. Bonner really should have been bad... though I did love how his name was Tom and George was called Pippa so the whole thing is a Home and Away prequel.
George is lovely, Jeffries is fun, Lester is okay but I wish his part had been bigger. Location filming on Malta offers novelty.
It has flaws though. It's the boy who cried wolf story - Mark Lester as a kid who is always making up stories then witnesses an assassination. That structure works (eg The Window) - but here the assassination takes place up front, everyone sees it... so the adults look really stupid not listening to him.
Maybe this is why the film made what I think is a second key mistake - removing Lester from a lot of the action. The focus becomes about his sister, Susan George, new boyfriend Tony Bonner and grandfather Lionel Jeffries. They take over the get sidelined.
I also wish the film had been set in a real country instead of a fictitious place. I bought that in 1930s films but struggle in 1970 ones for whatever reason. I'm guessing it was because it was shot in Malta and they didn't want to upset the locals because the baddies are corrupt.
In its heart this wants to be an action film more than a thriller. There's one too many heroes - for a moment I thought maybe Bonner and Jeffries are bad which would have been a great twist but no... they're heroic. I liked the red herring nasty housekeeper but it could have done with another twist or two. Bonner really should have been bad... though I did love how his name was Tom and George was called Pippa so the whole thing is a Home and Away prequel.
George is lovely, Jeffries is fun, Lester is okay but I wish his part had been bigger. Location filming on Malta offers novelty.
Book review - "Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars " by Scott Bowers (2012)
Exhausting to read. Fascinating in parts. Not particularly well written. The sort of book where the good articles about it are more entertaining than the book itself. Bowers has no problem being molested as a young boy or a young teen under priests - which I know is the attitude of some people.
There's plenty of choice gossip, and to be honest a lot of it seemed plausible - Vivien Leigh was a wildcat in bed, Charles Laughton and Tyrone Power liked shit in their sex, Cole Porter was into oral, Montgomery Clift and Roddy McDowall were exceedingly fussy with their tastes, John Carradine was kinky, Errol Flynn liked girls but very very young, Cary Grant and Randolph Scott liked dudes, Rock Hudson is in there. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Gore Vidal was a friend.
Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn both being gay does surprise me - I guess it makes sense. Who knows?
Some stuff felt true because the people weren't famous eg producer Frank MacArthur being gay. Some stuff was just funny like Steve Reeves turning tricks for George Cukor. Some of it I did struggle with - like Bowers being around J Edgar Hoover. Maybe it happened, I'm not that wordly, I just struggled with it.
The best bits of the book are where it stories feel more detailed and authentic - like getting Nestor Almederos to the Oscar ceremony. Bowers had a full life!
There's plenty of choice gossip, and to be honest a lot of it seemed plausible - Vivien Leigh was a wildcat in bed, Charles Laughton and Tyrone Power liked shit in their sex, Cole Porter was into oral, Montgomery Clift and Roddy McDowall were exceedingly fussy with their tastes, John Carradine was kinky, Errol Flynn liked girls but very very young, Cary Grant and Randolph Scott liked dudes, Rock Hudson is in there. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Gore Vidal was a friend.
Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn both being gay does surprise me - I guess it makes sense. Who knows?
Some stuff felt true because the people weren't famous eg producer Frank MacArthur being gay. Some stuff was just funny like Steve Reeves turning tricks for George Cukor. Some of it I did struggle with - like Bowers being around J Edgar Hoover. Maybe it happened, I'm not that wordly, I just struggled with it.
The best bits of the book are where it stories feel more detailed and authentic - like getting Nestor Almederos to the Oscar ceremony. Bowers had a full life!
Friday, May 17, 2019
Book review "Infamous players : a tale of movies, the mob (and sex)"- by Peter Bart (2011)
I've enjoyed Bart's writings in the past - his history of MGM, his collection of essays about the late 90s, his pieces for Variety and Deadline. I noticed the quality would drop whenever he talked about himself - he would always paint himself in the best possible light, claiming to have made key decisions that contributed to successes, claiming to have warned about choices that led to disaster - but he had good access and was a skilled writer. He is always easy to read.
This is a memoir of Bart's time at Paramount in the late 60s and early 70s, a period he often (as in, all the time) refers to in his essays.
It's perhaps the most self-centered Hollywood memoir I've ever read - and I've read a lot of them - and around half-way through I started hating Bart and couldn't stop.
You see, according to Bart, it's Bart who has concerns about Darling Lili, it's Bart who suggests to Robert Evans that he get Francis Coppola to write The Godfather, it's Bart who champions Love Story and suggests Arthur Hiller direct, it's Bart who helps Warren Beatty cut the sex scene in Don't Look Now, it's Bart who thinks Where's Jack? is a bad idea but helps make The Italian Job behind Charles Bludhorn's back, it's Bart who's not sure Paddy Chayefsky is the right writer for Paint Your Wagon, it's Bart who champions Harold and Maude, it's Bart who liked The President's Analyst, it's Bart who suggests True Grit to Hal Wallis, it's Bart who cautions Paramount on Day of the Locust, it's Bart who swaps Emperor of the North for Play It Again Sam, it's Bart who has doubts about Redford's suitability for The Great Gatsby.
Bart, according to Bart, is just so darn wise.
Look, any book about this time and that has up close looks at characters like Robert Evans and Sidney Korshak is going to be interesting, but most of it has been done before and better in other books. Bart wastes pages on recaps about Korshak and Gulf and Western when we want personal insights.
Some of it is interesting - accounts of the making of Blue for instance and Downhill Racer, WUSA, The Parallax View and Sheila Levine is Dead. Stories of The Godfather, Rosemary's Baby and Love Story are more familiar. I would have loved more on the less familiar Paramount movies from his period - say, TR Baskin, Will Penny - or the movie Bart wrote, Making It.
Bart has exasperated affection for Bob Evans, as he should since Evans gave him his job - in part because Bart wrote a flattering article about Evans under the Old Mates Act. Charles Budhorn comes across as Bludhorn always does - a colorful cartoon. Bart is vicious on Frank Yablans - really vicious. There are digs at Robert Redford and Warren Beatty.
The book is laced with homophobia - he brings up Rock Hudson's sexuality all the time, ditto for William Inge and John Schlesinger, and not in a complimentary way.
He also tends to slag off women - Elaine May is duplicitous, Ali MacGraw is a flake, Julie Andrews is sexless, Julia Phillips is a drug addled fool (he criticises plenty of men too but he also admires lots of them, whereas there's little admiration for women).
There is the odd surprise opinion - he would have preferred Bogdanovich's version of The Getaway with Cybil Shepherd as the girl, and wanted Marlon Brando and Coppola on Gatsby (which actually would have been awesome)
Robert Evans' memoirs are a lot more fun and actually feel more accurate. This feels like a book written in a hurry for cash and was really disappointing.
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Movie review - "The Go-Between" (1971) *** (warning: spoilers)
I wonder if this film influenced all those Australian period piece of the 1970s - Picnic at Hanging Rock, Break of Day... there's a genteel quality, pretty pictures and costumes, but a sense of something happening Underneath, a little bit of sex. Break of Day especially.
I'd heard about this film for years, was curious to see it. It has a strong critical reputation. Maybe because I grew up on all those period Australian movies it didn't have the same impact.
It's well made. Alan Bates suited this sort of swaggering hair role - he was one of the hairier British male stars. Julie Christie was always solid as a demure looking woman with a sex drive - she's a star; her eyes are full of sparkle. Dominic Guard is a bit stiff. Edward Fox is touching.
Entirely good movie with some great moments (busting them having sex, Bates' death) and I enjoyed the cricket game. Just wasn't blown away.
I'd heard about this film for years, was curious to see it. It has a strong critical reputation. Maybe because I grew up on all those period Australian movies it didn't have the same impact.
It's well made. Alan Bates suited this sort of swaggering hair role - he was one of the hairier British male stars. Julie Christie was always solid as a demure looking woman with a sex drive - she's a star; her eyes are full of sparkle. Dominic Guard is a bit stiff. Edward Fox is touching.
Entirely good movie with some great moments (busting them having sex, Bates' death) and I enjoyed the cricket game. Just wasn't blown away.
Movie review - "The Trouble With Angels" (1966) ***
Feminist film studies tend to focus on Ida Lupino's early features - I think critics prefer to study noir rather than comedies - but this is interesting and fun, and very female focused: the original writer was female (a Peggy from Mad Men type), the bulk of the cast are female, women drive the action.
It's about antics of two friends at a convent school over a number of years: Hayley Mills and June Harding. There's a series of adventures - they get busted smoking, pull pranks, fight and support, and gradually come to see the nuns are alright. It was a good choice for Mills who smokes and mucks up but is basically good. I didn't quite buy she'd take vows at the end... the character just seemed to have too much life. But I figured it's something a directionless kid with lousy male role models might do.
The film is sympathetic to nuns lives in its way - the rituals, the death of a nun. It's quite sensitive.
Jim Hutton makes a cameo (he totally suits the world of this sort of movie), and Camilla Sparv plays a nun. They should turn this into a TV series.
It's about antics of two friends at a convent school over a number of years: Hayley Mills and June Harding. There's a series of adventures - they get busted smoking, pull pranks, fight and support, and gradually come to see the nuns are alright. It was a good choice for Mills who smokes and mucks up but is basically good. I didn't quite buy she'd take vows at the end... the character just seemed to have too much life. But I figured it's something a directionless kid with lousy male role models might do.
The film is sympathetic to nuns lives in its way - the rituals, the death of a nun. It's quite sensitive.
Jim Hutton makes a cameo (he totally suits the world of this sort of movie), and Camilla Sparv plays a nun. They should turn this into a TV series.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Movie review - "Pollyanna" (1960) **
There's a solid cast and high production values but jeez this was hard going. It's over two hours long and lacks gags and charm. Hayley Mills is fine in the lead - these sort of parts are hard to play but she's perfectly likeable.
It really needs more villains, or scariness, or romance, or, I don't know, drama. Some of this works - Hayley winding up crippled and all the townsfolk gathered around to visit; the performances of Mills and Agnes Moorehead (who totally gets the genre); the softening of grumpy Adolphe Menjou who adopts Kevin Corcoran (and yes there's dodgy overtones to that these days but I went with it).
But there are too many flaws. For starters the town is that miserable when Pollyanna arrives. It's a normal town. Nancy Olson's maid is just an idiot; are we meant to find her romance with James Drury, who just kisses in the main street without asking, charming? Jane Wyman isn't that strict. Pollyanna doesn't help Richard Egan. It's just Wyman is a bit up tight for Egan. And did I mention it goes too long?
It was a box office disappointment even though Mills did win an Oscar - presumably this was in part because a new child star invoked pleasant memories of the 1930s.
It really needs more villains, or scariness, or romance, or, I don't know, drama. Some of this works - Hayley winding up crippled and all the townsfolk gathered around to visit; the performances of Mills and Agnes Moorehead (who totally gets the genre); the softening of grumpy Adolphe Menjou who adopts Kevin Corcoran (and yes there's dodgy overtones to that these days but I went with it).
But there are too many flaws. For starters the town is that miserable when Pollyanna arrives. It's a normal town. Nancy Olson's maid is just an idiot; are we meant to find her romance with James Drury, who just kisses in the main street without asking, charming? Jane Wyman isn't that strict. Pollyanna doesn't help Richard Egan. It's just Wyman is a bit up tight for Egan. And did I mention it goes too long?
It was a box office disappointment even though Mills did win an Oscar - presumably this was in part because a new child star invoked pleasant memories of the 1930s.
Movie review - "The Truth About Spring" (1965) **
Universal try to do a Disney style adventure film but fail, despite having two Disney juveniles, Hayley Mills and James MacArthur. The basic story isn't bad - rich kid MacArthur winds up on a boat with ragamuffin John Mills and tomboy Hayley and they wind up having a treasure hunting adventure.
But for this sort of thing to work you need action, suspense and romance, decent locations and stars. It was shot on location in Spain but doesn't look particularly pretty. The story involves pirates and treasure but there's no sense of threat or excitement - it's not a very good script.
Mills and MacArthur have no chemistry - he's too old, both are miscast. They feel all wrong - when they get engaged at the end I was going "oh no". I liked MacArthur in his action-y films for Disney like Swiss Family Robinson but he doesn't get much physical stuff to do here and he flounders. I wonder if this film helped ensure he'd remain a character actor.
These films are harder to make than they look. This movie proves that. It's so ordinary. Good actors like David Tomlinson, Harry Andrews and Lionel Jeffries feel wasted.
But for this sort of thing to work you need action, suspense and romance, decent locations and stars. It was shot on location in Spain but doesn't look particularly pretty. The story involves pirates and treasure but there's no sense of threat or excitement - it's not a very good script.
Mills and MacArthur have no chemistry - he's too old, both are miscast. They feel all wrong - when they get engaged at the end I was going "oh no". I liked MacArthur in his action-y films for Disney like Swiss Family Robinson but he doesn't get much physical stuff to do here and he flounders. I wonder if this film helped ensure he'd remain a character actor.
These films are harder to make than they look. This movie proves that. It's so ordinary. Good actors like David Tomlinson, Harry Andrews and Lionel Jeffries feel wasted.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
British Film Stars of the 70s
Random question - why did Britain pump out so many film stars in the 1960s but so few in the 1970s?
The fact they made less movies of course is a big factor - but I think Britain in the 1950s made more movies and less international stars.
Anyway let's look at some 1960s created stars:
- Michael Caine
- Albert Finney
- Terence Stamp
- Peter O'Toole
- Richard Harris
- Richard Burton and Rex Harrison went from second tier star to first tier
- Roger Moore (on TV)
- Sean Connery
- Oliver Reed
- Alan Bates
- Julie Christie
- Vanessa Redgrave
- David Hemmings
- Julie Andrews
- Cliff Richard
- Oliver Reed
Who became a star in the 1970s
- Roger Moore went from second tier to first tier
- Glenda Jackson
Who did they think was going to be a star?
- Jon Finch
- Malcolm McDowell
- Susan George
- Michael York
- Anthony Hopkins
- Michael Jayston
- Mark Lester
- Jack Wild
- Hywel Bennett
- Simon Ward
- Nicholas Clay
- Leigh Lawson
- Oliver Tobias
- Robin Askwith
- Edward Fox
- Barry Evans
- David Essex
For comparison who became a film star in the 1980s
- Tom Conti
- Jeremy Irons
- Nigel Havers
- Bob Hoskins
- Daniel Day Lewis
- Jenny Agutter
- Helena Bonham Carter
- Julie Walters
- Rupert Everett
- Gary Oldman
But the 1990s
- Hugh Grant
- Kate Winslet
- Colin Firth
- Ewen McGregor
- Emma Thomson
- Judi Dench
- Ralph Fiennes
- Kisten Scott Thomas
The fact they made less movies of course is a big factor - but I think Britain in the 1950s made more movies and less international stars.
Anyway let's look at some 1960s created stars:
- Michael Caine
- Albert Finney
- Terence Stamp
- Peter O'Toole
- Richard Harris
- Richard Burton and Rex Harrison went from second tier star to first tier
- Roger Moore (on TV)
- Sean Connery
- Oliver Reed
- Alan Bates
- Julie Christie
- Vanessa Redgrave
- David Hemmings
- Julie Andrews
- Cliff Richard
- Oliver Reed
Who became a star in the 1970s
- Roger Moore went from second tier to first tier
- Glenda Jackson
Who did they think was going to be a star?
- Jon Finch
- Malcolm McDowell
- Susan George
- Michael York
- Anthony Hopkins
- Michael Jayston
- Mark Lester
- Jack Wild
- Hywel Bennett
- Simon Ward
- Nicholas Clay
- Leigh Lawson
- Oliver Tobias
- Robin Askwith
- Edward Fox
- Barry Evans
- David Essex
For comparison who became a film star in the 1980s
- Tom Conti
- Jeremy Irons
- Nigel Havers
- Bob Hoskins
- Daniel Day Lewis
- Jenny Agutter
- Helena Bonham Carter
- Julie Walters
- Rupert Everett
- Gary Oldman
But the 1990s
- Hugh Grant
- Kate Winslet
- Colin Firth
- Ewen McGregor
- Emma Thomson
- Judi Dench
- Ralph Fiennes
- Kisten Scott Thomas
Movie review - "Sunday Bloody Sunday" (1971) ***1/2
It's funny/depressing in a way that this film's matter of fact acceptance of fluid sexuality remains so cutting edge. There's a lot more representation of gay men, but still not a lot of bisexual men.
This is a loving, empathetic depiction of a week in the lives of three people in a triangle - Glenda Jackson and Peter Finch, and the lover they share, Murray Head. Everyone is Down With It, which doesn't mean it's hard.
Finch is breathtakingly good. So is Jackson. Head isn't very good - it's not his character, it's the actor, and I presume was a case of director John Schlesinger having a crush.
I wouldn't have minded a bit more story and/or emotion. The most moving bit involves a dog being run over (I bet this hurt it at the box office as much as the depiction of sexuality). It's clearly a very good film though. Jon Finch is good in a splashy little support role that presumably gave people the false impression he was a potential star.
This is a loving, empathetic depiction of a week in the lives of three people in a triangle - Glenda Jackson and Peter Finch, and the lover they share, Murray Head. Everyone is Down With It, which doesn't mean it's hard.
Finch is breathtakingly good. So is Jackson. Head isn't very good - it's not his character, it's the actor, and I presume was a case of director John Schlesinger having a crush.
I wouldn't have minded a bit more story and/or emotion. The most moving bit involves a dog being run over (I bet this hurt it at the box office as much as the depiction of sexuality). It's clearly a very good film though. Jon Finch is good in a splashy little support role that presumably gave people the false impression he was a potential star.
Doris Day - Top Eleven Abusive Spouse Roles
In preparing my earlier Doris list I was struck by the number of films
that showed her being in abusive relationships: (warning - some SPOILERS
for old Doris Day films)
1) Young Man with a Horn (1950) - Doris plays a singer who falls for a self centered musician (Kirk Douglas) who leaves her for a lesbian who is experimenting with being straight (Lauren Bacall) then takes Day back when he's broke and drunk
2) Tea for Two (1950) - Doris plays a socialite whose freeloading producer boyfriend (Billy de Wolfe) is cheating on her while using her money to produce a show
3) Storm Warning (1951) - Doris is a pregnant newly wed whose husband is an alcoholic and member of the KKK who tries to rape Doris' sister, and winds up being responsible for her death
4) The Winning Team (1952) - Doris plays the wife of some famous baseball player (Ronald Reagan) who got PTSD and a drinking problem in WW1
5) Young at Heart (1954) - Doris elopes with a depressed man (Frank Sinatra) who tries to kill himself to "set her free"
6) Love Me or Leave Me (1955) - Doris plays a singer who marries and abusive, violent gangster (Jimmy Cagney) out of gratitude for what he did for her career
7) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) - Doris plays a woman who had to give up a successful singing career to marry James Stewart
8) Julie (1956) - Doris is a stewardess whose husband (Louis Jourdan) tries to kill her
9) Midnight Lace (1960) - Doris' husband tries to drive her insane and then kill her
10) Send Me No Flowers (1964) - Rock Hudson doesn't tell wife Doris he thinks he is dying
11) Ballad of Josie (1967) - Doris has an abusive husband who she accidentally kills
1) Young Man with a Horn (1950) - Doris plays a singer who falls for a self centered musician (Kirk Douglas) who leaves her for a lesbian who is experimenting with being straight (Lauren Bacall) then takes Day back when he's broke and drunk
2) Tea for Two (1950) - Doris plays a socialite whose freeloading producer boyfriend (Billy de Wolfe) is cheating on her while using her money to produce a show
3) Storm Warning (1951) - Doris is a pregnant newly wed whose husband is an alcoholic and member of the KKK who tries to rape Doris' sister, and winds up being responsible for her death
4) The Winning Team (1952) - Doris plays the wife of some famous baseball player (Ronald Reagan) who got PTSD and a drinking problem in WW1
5) Young at Heart (1954) - Doris elopes with a depressed man (Frank Sinatra) who tries to kill himself to "set her free"
6) Love Me or Leave Me (1955) - Doris plays a singer who marries and abusive, violent gangster (Jimmy Cagney) out of gratitude for what he did for her career
7) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) - Doris plays a woman who had to give up a successful singing career to marry James Stewart
8) Julie (1956) - Doris is a stewardess whose husband (Louis Jourdan) tries to kill her
9) Midnight Lace (1960) - Doris' husband tries to drive her insane and then kill her
10) Send Me No Flowers (1964) - Rock Hudson doesn't tell wife Doris he thinks he is dying
11) Ballad of Josie (1967) - Doris has an abusive husband who she accidentally kills
Doris Day Obscure Top 5
In memory of Doris Day a top five of some more obscure works in her filmography
1) Storm Warning (1951) - Doris plays a woman whose husband (Steve Cochran) is a member of the KKK - her sister (Ginger Rogers!) busts up the gang with the help of a crusading DA (Ronald Reagan!)
2) Julie (1956) - Doris is a stewardess with a psycho husband (Louis Jourdan) who she has to battle... leading to a climax where she lands a plane, perhaps the first stewardess landing the plane climax in film history. Go Doris!
3) Midnight Lace (1960) - Doris is stalked again, in a decent psycho thriller co written by Australia's own Ivan Goff
4) Caprice (1967) - Doris and Richard Harris as industrial spies who flirt and double cross each other in a film very, very much like the later Julia Roberts-Clive Owen film Duplicity
5) The Ballad of Josie (1968) - Doris shoots her abusive husband in the old west and sets up a suffrage film
1) Storm Warning (1951) - Doris plays a woman whose husband (Steve Cochran) is a member of the KKK - her sister (Ginger Rogers!) busts up the gang with the help of a crusading DA (Ronald Reagan!)
2) Julie (1956) - Doris is a stewardess with a psycho husband (Louis Jourdan) who she has to battle... leading to a climax where she lands a plane, perhaps the first stewardess landing the plane climax in film history. Go Doris!
3) Midnight Lace (1960) - Doris is stalked again, in a decent psycho thriller co written by Australia's own Ivan Goff
4) Caprice (1967) - Doris and Richard Harris as industrial spies who flirt and double cross each other in a film very, very much like the later Julia Roberts-Clive Owen film Duplicity
5) The Ballad of Josie (1968) - Doris shoots her abusive husband in the old west and sets up a suffrage film
Monday, May 13, 2019
Movie review - "The Tommy Steele Story" (1957) ***
Bright, unpretentious juke box musical to cash in on the fame of Tommy Steele, Britain's first rock and roller, who proved to have long staying power - though more as a general entertainer. The script is roughly based on Steele's rise to fame - he's from working class origins, learns to play the guitar while recovering from an accident, becomes a merchant seamen and starts performing, leading to him being fired (the sole conflict in the movie), and then becoming famous.
It's worth seeing as a vehicle for Steele who is very winning with a big smile and lots of energy. He has his awkward moments but is clearly a natural performer. And the film is stuffed with songs - there's a lot of them (something like 13 in a 70 minute running time), including "It's hot in the Cannibal pot tonight".
It's also fascinating for the insight into British music of the time - a little bit of rock, a lot more skiffle, calypso and reggae. Some other artists appear, some of them black.
It's worth seeing as a vehicle for Steele who is very winning with a big smile and lots of energy. He has his awkward moments but is clearly a natural performer. And the film is stuffed with songs - there's a lot of them (something like 13 in a 70 minute running time), including "It's hot in the Cannibal pot tonight".
It's also fascinating for the insight into British music of the time - a little bit of rock, a lot more skiffle, calypso and reggae. Some other artists appear, some of them black.
Sunday, May 12, 2019
Movie review - "The Family Way" (1966) ***
A tale handled with much sensitivity and sympathy though it raises (perhaps unintentionally) a few issues it doesn't really go into.
Hayley Mills "broke away" from her squeaky clean image, apparently - well not really, it's more an evolution because she still basically plays a pretty girl next door, albeit one who has sex and shows off her backside.
Both are crucial to the plot. She marries Hywel Bennett and they both seem to dig each other but she teases him on their wedding night and he can't get it up. And he continues to not get it up over the next few weeks and everyone gets involved.
And because he's a little arty - he's a projectionist, and likes books and things - people wonder if she's not manly, but Bennett's possible homosexuality isn't really tackled head on. She lives with his family and his young brother Murray Head stumbles on Mills having a bath (hence the rear end) and they are attracted towards each other.
But it's okay, don't worry, because Mills has a go at him at Bennett and he throws her down at the bed and seems to get turned on. I has vague spousal rape overtones though he does pull back and is sensitive. But it made me wonder.
Also John Mills and Marjorie Rhodes - who play his parents - have this long scene where they talk about how Mills' childhood friend Billy went on a honeymoon with them, which is damn weird. It's hinted that Billy may be Bennett's father - but also that Mills loved Billy. Of course there are a variety of nunances in relationships - bromances don't necessarily involve a sexual component, people can have trouble with potency that don't have anything to do with being gay.
So I found this film expectedly complex- I mean it ends with John Mills having a quiet bawl at the end. (My take: he was in love with Billy, who slept with his wife resulting in Bennett... and Bennett just has a super low sex drive which is going to break up his marriage down the track. But I could be wrong). Also am I mistaken or does it hint that Hayley Mills' father has incestuous designs on his daughter?
It's very well handled and acted. Roy Boulting couldn't do suspense that well as we'd soon find out with Twister Nerve but comedy drama.. no worries. Hayley Mills is very winning as is Bennett, Rhodes and so on.
Paul McCartney did the music score.
Hayley Mills "broke away" from her squeaky clean image, apparently - well not really, it's more an evolution because she still basically plays a pretty girl next door, albeit one who has sex and shows off her backside.
Both are crucial to the plot. She marries Hywel Bennett and they both seem to dig each other but she teases him on their wedding night and he can't get it up. And he continues to not get it up over the next few weeks and everyone gets involved.
And because he's a little arty - he's a projectionist, and likes books and things - people wonder if she's not manly, but Bennett's possible homosexuality isn't really tackled head on. She lives with his family and his young brother Murray Head stumbles on Mills having a bath (hence the rear end) and they are attracted towards each other.
But it's okay, don't worry, because Mills has a go at him at Bennett and he throws her down at the bed and seems to get turned on. I has vague spousal rape overtones though he does pull back and is sensitive. But it made me wonder.
Also John Mills and Marjorie Rhodes - who play his parents - have this long scene where they talk about how Mills' childhood friend Billy went on a honeymoon with them, which is damn weird. It's hinted that Billy may be Bennett's father - but also that Mills loved Billy. Of course there are a variety of nunances in relationships - bromances don't necessarily involve a sexual component, people can have trouble with potency that don't have anything to do with being gay.
So I found this film expectedly complex- I mean it ends with John Mills having a quiet bawl at the end. (My take: he was in love with Billy, who slept with his wife resulting in Bennett... and Bennett just has a super low sex drive which is going to break up his marriage down the track. But I could be wrong). Also am I mistaken or does it hint that Hayley Mills' father has incestuous designs on his daughter?
It's very well handled and acted. Roy Boulting couldn't do suspense that well as we'd soon find out with Twister Nerve but comedy drama.. no worries. Hayley Mills is very winning as is Bennett, Rhodes and so on.
Paul McCartney did the music score.
Movie review - "Big Wednesday" (1978) ***
Those of us like me who think surfers are basically boorish self centered fools are likely to have that impression confirmed by this movie, which is nonetheless surprisingly compelling because John Milius is so into it. He gives the story the epic treatment - big widescreen shots, a healthy budget (probably not necessary - for instance there's all these extras and a big set in the induction sequence but were they needed?), gorgeous score, a long running time, the story spans a decade - and treats it with such seriousness, I went with it.
The three leads aren't that interesting. All blonde, which doesn't help - there's Jan Michael Vincent playing a role close to the real Vincent, a talented surfer who is always drunk; crazy Gary Busey; serious William Katt. My attention kept going to Katt's character because he actually seemed to have a brain.
The film might have been better focusing on these three - their friendship and dynamics and hope and dreams. But for some reason Milius' attention drifts to side characters - not say the women which would have been okay (there are women in this film but they basically just hang around the guys), but other surfers, other friends, who are blonde too. I had trouble following who was who. One of them died but I couldn't remember him - I assume he was a blonde.
They surf, chase girls in a gropy way, one of them has a kid, they drink and punch each other and other surfers, they get drafted, they go to Mexico, they holler during a wedding ceremony and at the movies. They basically act like f*ckwits a lot of the time - they don't even seem particularly committed to surfing. None of them go into any competitions, say, or make surf boards (a support character does). There's not even a Milius surrogate who wants to go into the movies.
But that's the type of people Milius wanted to make a movie about and he commits. It's great to look at, I loved the Arthurian touches like passing on the surf board, there's some funny scenes like the induction sequence. And because it spans ten years and deals with people who failed so often the movie is touching and moving.
The three leads aren't that interesting. All blonde, which doesn't help - there's Jan Michael Vincent playing a role close to the real Vincent, a talented surfer who is always drunk; crazy Gary Busey; serious William Katt. My attention kept going to Katt's character because he actually seemed to have a brain.
The film might have been better focusing on these three - their friendship and dynamics and hope and dreams. But for some reason Milius' attention drifts to side characters - not say the women which would have been okay (there are women in this film but they basically just hang around the guys), but other surfers, other friends, who are blonde too. I had trouble following who was who. One of them died but I couldn't remember him - I assume he was a blonde.
They surf, chase girls in a gropy way, one of them has a kid, they drink and punch each other and other surfers, they get drafted, they go to Mexico, they holler during a wedding ceremony and at the movies. They basically act like f*ckwits a lot of the time - they don't even seem particularly committed to surfing. None of them go into any competitions, say, or make surf boards (a support character does). There's not even a Milius surrogate who wants to go into the movies.
But that's the type of people Milius wanted to make a movie about and he commits. It's great to look at, I loved the Arthurian touches like passing on the surf board, there's some funny scenes like the induction sequence. And because it spans ten years and deals with people who failed so often the movie is touching and moving.
Saturday, May 11, 2019
Movie review - "Twisted Nerve" (1968) **
Roy Boulting's second film with Hayley Mills, and she's shot very prettily, but really the film's more a tour de force for Hywel Bennett (who worked with the two of them before in The Family Way).
Bennett plays a psycho from a wealthy family (Phyllis Calvert) who pretends to be dim around Hayley Mills. He goes to live with her, keeping up the pretense - he sleeps with her mother (Billie Whitelaw, who doesn't really look old enough to be Mills' mother) which is pretty full on because she thinks he's mentally delayed.
I was confused by some of this. I'm not sure how Bennett thinks he's going to seduce Mills by being slow - he goes the grope on her in a river at one stage and she recoils, she never seems that interested in him. Also the film hints that he's gay - he's got all these male muscle magazines in his bedroom and he seems tormented.
The film copped it, deservedly, for the suggestion towards the end that Bennett was the way he was because his brother had down syndrome. As many critics pointed out this bit wasn't needed - the film is basically an old fashioned psycho thriller with some modern gore and psychology.
The cast is excellent. Mills doesn't have much to do except react - I think Boulting was trying to fashion her as a Hitchcock blonde but she's very passive. Frank Finlay is enjoyably smarmy as Bennett's stepfather, Bennett gets to act all over the shop and does well, Barry Foster is nicely slimy as a lodger (I was disappointed he wasn't killed). The climax is unwhelming when it needed to be a pow - I don't think Roy Boulting was a terribly gifted visual director. (This was a problem evident in the Sidney Gilliat directed film with Bennett and Mills, Endless Night.)
Bernard Herrman provided an excellent score including a whistling tune which Tarantino pinched for Kill Bill. But it's a movie that needed a Hitchcock to direct and didn't get it.
Bennett plays a psycho from a wealthy family (Phyllis Calvert) who pretends to be dim around Hayley Mills. He goes to live with her, keeping up the pretense - he sleeps with her mother (Billie Whitelaw, who doesn't really look old enough to be Mills' mother) which is pretty full on because she thinks he's mentally delayed.
I was confused by some of this. I'm not sure how Bennett thinks he's going to seduce Mills by being slow - he goes the grope on her in a river at one stage and she recoils, she never seems that interested in him. Also the film hints that he's gay - he's got all these male muscle magazines in his bedroom and he seems tormented.
The film copped it, deservedly, for the suggestion towards the end that Bennett was the way he was because his brother had down syndrome. As many critics pointed out this bit wasn't needed - the film is basically an old fashioned psycho thriller with some modern gore and psychology.
The cast is excellent. Mills doesn't have much to do except react - I think Boulting was trying to fashion her as a Hitchcock blonde but she's very passive. Frank Finlay is enjoyably smarmy as Bennett's stepfather, Bennett gets to act all over the shop and does well, Barry Foster is nicely slimy as a lodger (I was disappointed he wasn't killed). The climax is unwhelming when it needed to be a pow - I don't think Roy Boulting was a terribly gifted visual director. (This was a problem evident in the Sidney Gilliat directed film with Bennett and Mills, Endless Night.)
Bernard Herrman provided an excellent score including a whistling tune which Tarantino pinched for Kill Bill. But it's a movie that needed a Hitchcock to direct and didn't get it.
Friday, May 10, 2019
Movie review - "A Bullet for Pretty Boy" (1970) **
Fabian was a half decent actor, best suited for delinquent types, so he's well cast as the gangster Pretty Boy Floyd. It's a sympathetic account - Floyd only goes into gangster-ism after bullies shoot down his Paw - an he's surrounded by crooks and cops who are worse than him.
This was shot by Larry Buchanan, who has a bigger budget than we normally see - the period detail isn't lavish, but it's not bad, there's some old cars, and a robbery in the main street. There's a fair amount of action which is reasonably handled - I'm not sure if this was Buchanan, or Maury Dexter, who took over filming.
Jocelyn Lane is touching as the prostitute who loves Fabian. Adam Roarke is effective as a preacher who joins Fabian's gang - I kept wishing his part was bigger than it was. The film could have done with deeper, richer relationships.
Fabian gives a solid performance. His attractiveness is exploited - surprisingly few films did this considering he became a pop star mostly by being good looking. Here he's got Lane and Astrid Warner (his wife) throwing themselves at him, as well as a brothel madam.
The film is competent rather than inspired - it could have done with more passion - but isn't bad.
This was shot by Larry Buchanan, who has a bigger budget than we normally see - the period detail isn't lavish, but it's not bad, there's some old cars, and a robbery in the main street. There's a fair amount of action which is reasonably handled - I'm not sure if this was Buchanan, or Maury Dexter, who took over filming.
Jocelyn Lane is touching as the prostitute who loves Fabian. Adam Roarke is effective as a preacher who joins Fabian's gang - I kept wishing his part was bigger than it was. The film could have done with deeper, richer relationships.
Fabian gives a solid performance. His attractiveness is exploited - surprisingly few films did this considering he became a pop star mostly by being good looking. Here he's got Lane and Astrid Warner (his wife) throwing themselves at him, as well as a brothel madam.
The film is competent rather than inspired - it could have done with more passion - but isn't bad.
Film review - "Pretty Polly" (1967) **
Hayley Mills caused a commotion doing a little bit of nudity on The Family Way and continued to push the edge with her next film, this one, where she bangs with an Indian dude - played by the handsome Shashi Kapoor. They really do it too - he takes er on the beach, the night her aunt dies.
It's a Cinderella story with Mills being a mousy girl (i.e. she's got glasses on) accompanying her aunt in Singapore. The aunt dies and the girl blossoms. She sleeps with Kapoor, gets a better hair cut and starts flirting with a white guy. Her rougish uncle Trevor Howard is around .
I haven't read the story but can see it's appeal for Mills - you have an arc, get to wear different types of clothes, you're the centre of attention.
I can't see why they made the film in the first place. It's very light - feels like it was better suited to say an hour on TV (apparently the TV version - with Lynn Redgrave - is superior). The story is slight. The characters not particularly rich. There's some neat location filming in Singapore, but you don't get a sense of the city, not really. The bulk of the characters are Englishmen abroad.
Mills is fine - accomplished, pretty. Maybe someone with more range would have done better, like say Redgrave or Rita Tushingham. Maybe Guy Green wasn't the right director. Maybe the screenwriters weren't the right people. Maybe the original material wasn't worth doing.
But I just kept going "what is the point of this" all the way through.
It's a Cinderella story with Mills being a mousy girl (i.e. she's got glasses on) accompanying her aunt in Singapore. The aunt dies and the girl blossoms. She sleeps with Kapoor, gets a better hair cut and starts flirting with a white guy. Her rougish uncle Trevor Howard is around .
I haven't read the story but can see it's appeal for Mills - you have an arc, get to wear different types of clothes, you're the centre of attention.
I can't see why they made the film in the first place. It's very light - feels like it was better suited to say an hour on TV (apparently the TV version - with Lynn Redgrave - is superior). The story is slight. The characters not particularly rich. There's some neat location filming in Singapore, but you don't get a sense of the city, not really. The bulk of the characters are Englishmen abroad.
Mills is fine - accomplished, pretty. Maybe someone with more range would have done better, like say Redgrave or Rita Tushingham. Maybe Guy Green wasn't the right director. Maybe the screenwriters weren't the right people. Maybe the original material wasn't worth doing.
But I just kept going "what is the point of this" all the way through.
Movie review - "Dark of the Sun" (1968) ****1/2
Have seen this film a bunch of times but it was a pleasure to view it again. Some thoughts:
* How stunning does it look? The photography, the location work in Jamaica, the sets...
* It has an intense atmosphere. Even the "settled" city at the beginning is a war zone, with cars overturned and armed soldiers everywhere. Every corner has danger. A night or two alone and you risk desk.
* I think the fact director Jack Cardiff was British helped him have more a feel for Africa - he gets the rough nuances of say Belgian administration in the way that an American director mightn't. It's a very colonial view though - the local Africans are very savage. (There are two nice black characters, Jim Brown and Bloke Modisane)
* The script is first rate. For the most part. It sets up brilliantly and efficiently - the lead characters, the mission, the ticking clock. The characters are distinctive and richly drawn. There are good twists, like the safe having a time, and the train rolling back to the Simbas.
* There are some script flaws. The girl part (Yvette Mimieux) is nothing. She starts of memorably, running from a massacre, but then just sort of hangs around. She's not even kidnapped at the end. I think she's mostly in the film to prove Taylor is straight even though the crux of the film is his love for Brown.
* The Bloke Modisane character becomes all important at the end but isn't in it much at the start. His part could've been beefed up more - or had his stuff given to the Olivier Despax character.
* The theme is muddled. The big fight between Taylor and Brown feels confusing. Like, Taylor is cynical and Brown scolds him for not thinking that Kenneth More was brave for dying, but Brown trusts Taylor with the diamonds and... um...? I get what they were going for - Brown's concern that Taylor stood for nothing - but it feels as though these scenes had been "worked" on and didn't quite fit in with the whole.
* It's a bleak film. They're going the mission for a black guy, admittedly, but Calvin Lockhart seems pretty ruthless. Two kids talk to the mercenaries then are shot by Peter Carsten. The nicest character, Jim Brown, is stabbed in the back. Nuns are raped. Kenneth More stays to help a mother give birth and they're all killed - so it was for nothing. Taylor kills Carsten, on entirely reasonable grounds (the guy deserves to die) but then he turns himself in. (It's a different ending - I always assume he'll change his mind).
* The acting is very good. Kenneth More, Brown, Taylor - it's perhaps Taylor's best performance.
* The action is great. There's two Taylor-Carsten fights - one with chain saws one on rivers which ends with Taylor breaking Carten's arms and stabbing him. The Simba attack is exciting, as is the final raid. It's one of the great sixties action films.
* How stunning does it look? The photography, the location work in Jamaica, the sets...
* It has an intense atmosphere. Even the "settled" city at the beginning is a war zone, with cars overturned and armed soldiers everywhere. Every corner has danger. A night or two alone and you risk desk.
* I think the fact director Jack Cardiff was British helped him have more a feel for Africa - he gets the rough nuances of say Belgian administration in the way that an American director mightn't. It's a very colonial view though - the local Africans are very savage. (There are two nice black characters, Jim Brown and Bloke Modisane)
* The script is first rate. For the most part. It sets up brilliantly and efficiently - the lead characters, the mission, the ticking clock. The characters are distinctive and richly drawn. There are good twists, like the safe having a time, and the train rolling back to the Simbas.
* There are some script flaws. The girl part (Yvette Mimieux) is nothing. She starts of memorably, running from a massacre, but then just sort of hangs around. She's not even kidnapped at the end. I think she's mostly in the film to prove Taylor is straight even though the crux of the film is his love for Brown.
* The Bloke Modisane character becomes all important at the end but isn't in it much at the start. His part could've been beefed up more - or had his stuff given to the Olivier Despax character.
* The theme is muddled. The big fight between Taylor and Brown feels confusing. Like, Taylor is cynical and Brown scolds him for not thinking that Kenneth More was brave for dying, but Brown trusts Taylor with the diamonds and... um...? I get what they were going for - Brown's concern that Taylor stood for nothing - but it feels as though these scenes had been "worked" on and didn't quite fit in with the whole.
* It's a bleak film. They're going the mission for a black guy, admittedly, but Calvin Lockhart seems pretty ruthless. Two kids talk to the mercenaries then are shot by Peter Carsten. The nicest character, Jim Brown, is stabbed in the back. Nuns are raped. Kenneth More stays to help a mother give birth and they're all killed - so it was for nothing. Taylor kills Carsten, on entirely reasonable grounds (the guy deserves to die) but then he turns himself in. (It's a different ending - I always assume he'll change his mind).
* The acting is very good. Kenneth More, Brown, Taylor - it's perhaps Taylor's best performance.
* The action is great. There's two Taylor-Carsten fights - one with chain saws one on rivers which ends with Taylor breaking Carten's arms and stabbing him. The Simba attack is exciting, as is the final raid. It's one of the great sixties action films.
Movie review - "Dr Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs" (1966) **
I used to loathe this film and I'm a fan of the first one. I'm used to it now, in particular I'm prepared for the Italian comic duo who are in it, Franci and Ciccio. It's not a very good movie but it is bright and colourful and Price is always fun.
The plot is serviceable - Goldfoot is making girl who are bombs to kill NATO generals. I missed Susan Hart as the robot but there is Laura Antonelli who is very fetching as the girl who helps and is sexually harassed by Fabian.
Fabian isn't as good a light comedian as Frankie Avalon, who brought a cartoony quality totally appropriate to the genre, but he's a solid straight man. He actually provides a good "normal" centre for the action.
I really missed Dwayne Hickman and Jack Mullaley - not only were they solid comic actors their characters gave the earlier film heart. Avalon and Hickman had a solid relationship - there's none of that here, because Fabian doesn't have much to do with the Italian duo (I'm reviewing the US version - the Italian one has more of the duo, apparently). And instead of the lovely Price-Mullaley by play there's just Price and some random Chinese dude. Why not give Price a decent sidekick? If not a comic a sexy dame?
It's helter skelter, very stupid. Honestly maybe two stars is too many but I like the period and the colour and Price, Fabian and Antonelli.
The plot is serviceable - Goldfoot is making girl who are bombs to kill NATO generals. I missed Susan Hart as the robot but there is Laura Antonelli who is very fetching as the girl who helps and is sexually harassed by Fabian.
Fabian isn't as good a light comedian as Frankie Avalon, who brought a cartoony quality totally appropriate to the genre, but he's a solid straight man. He actually provides a good "normal" centre for the action.
I really missed Dwayne Hickman and Jack Mullaley - not only were they solid comic actors their characters gave the earlier film heart. Avalon and Hickman had a solid relationship - there's none of that here, because Fabian doesn't have much to do with the Italian duo (I'm reviewing the US version - the Italian one has more of the duo, apparently). And instead of the lovely Price-Mullaley by play there's just Price and some random Chinese dude. Why not give Price a decent sidekick? If not a comic a sexy dame?
It's helter skelter, very stupid. Honestly maybe two stars is too many but I like the period and the colour and Price, Fabian and Antonelli.
Thursday, May 09, 2019
Movie review - "A Hard Day's Night" (1964) ****
I'm late to the party on this one. I'm very familiar with its influence so it didn't knock my socks off but you can still tell it's a fine film. Superb music of course but the Beatles are great talent and they were smart/lucky enough to get just the right director in Richard Lester and the right writer in Alun Owen. It's very different from a typical pop group film of the time - they tended to be more conventional - but the risk paid off brilliantly.
It's anarchic, fast, and free spirited. A lot of the jokes die, there is plenty of padding (scenes of them dancing, for instance). The support cast are good, the music is divine.
It's anarchic, fast, and free spirited. A lot of the jokes die, there is plenty of padding (scenes of them dancing, for instance). The support cast are good, the music is divine.
Movie review - "In Search of the Castaways" (1962) ***
A big hit in its day but, oddly enough, it doesn't seem that well remembered as other early Hayley Mills films like Parent Trap or Written Down the Wind. It's a vehicle for Mills, clearly with Swiss Family Robinson in mind, though she shares the heroism around with Maurice Chevalier, Michael Anderson, Wilfred Hyde White and whoever plays her brother.
The script is flawed - sections of the adventure are motivated by mistakes from Maurice Chevalier and/or other characters being silly. (You could cut the whole south American sequence and it wouldn't matter, for instance. Why not use it - say have the Indian go along with them?) I forgot at times they were looking for the father. Villain George Sanders was introduced too late in the piece (he's great fun - they should have used him more - had him chasing after Mills, say).
The puppy love romance between Mills and Michael Anderson is sweet. There's a strong cast - Chevalier, Wilfred Hyde White. It could have done with a bit more character differentiation - a grown up romance (say if Chevalier had been made a female and with White or vice versa). That's what Journey to the Centre of the Earth
It'll be of interest to Aussies and Kiwis. The group visit Melbourne (though it just looks like studio set London) and "New Zealand" - there are a bunch of Maoris who are important to the plot.
There's good special effects - a tidal wave, a volcano. It looks impressive. I enjoyed the song interludes - it's like a musical they genuinely sing. The piece has charm. I just wish they'd tightened the script.
The script is flawed - sections of the adventure are motivated by mistakes from Maurice Chevalier and/or other characters being silly. (You could cut the whole south American sequence and it wouldn't matter, for instance. Why not use it - say have the Indian go along with them?) I forgot at times they were looking for the father. Villain George Sanders was introduced too late in the piece (he's great fun - they should have used him more - had him chasing after Mills, say).
The puppy love romance between Mills and Michael Anderson is sweet. There's a strong cast - Chevalier, Wilfred Hyde White. It could have done with a bit more character differentiation - a grown up romance (say if Chevalier had been made a female and with White or vice versa). That's what Journey to the Centre of the Earth
It'll be of interest to Aussies and Kiwis. The group visit Melbourne (though it just looks like studio set London) and "New Zealand" - there are a bunch of Maoris who are important to the plot.
There's good special effects - a tidal wave, a volcano. It looks impressive. I enjoyed the song interludes - it's like a musical they genuinely sing. The piece has charm. I just wish they'd tightened the script.
Movie review - "Endless Night" (1972) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Later Agatha Christie and later effort from Sidney Gilliat who maybe wasn't the right director for this. It needed more atmosphere and thrills.
Hywel Bennett and Hayley Mills (in their third film together) aren't bad in the lead - though it's a bit annoying Mills is playing an American, I just wanted an American to play it. Also she plays the role as a bright, pretty well adjusted thing - you wonder why she marries moody chauffeur Bennett. I mean, he's handsome but she's pretty - it doesn't make sense the way say mousy Joan Fontaine marries fortune hunter Cary Grant in Suspicion. Why not have her play it dowdy or in a wheelchair?
Gilliat's script is fine but his direction is not up to it. Compare the creepiness of say the Hammer psycho thrillers written by Jimmy Sangster - they used wind, shadows, sound, desolation, music, weird extras, suspense, etc. This is just stock life in the country stuff.
Britt Ekland adds a little glamour. Agatha Christie hated her nudity at the end. It is a jolt in part because there's been no nudity until then - I mean nudity would be fine (and surely Mills and Bennett would have been up for it) but at the end it is weird.
Lois Maxwell is great fun as Mills' bitchy relative - Peter Bowles is smooth too, and it's fun (it also a little melancholy) to see George Sanders being George Sanders-y just before he killed himself, but there's some random guy with grey ish hair who doesn't quite work.
They should remake this only get a director who can really handle atmosphere.
Hywel Bennett and Hayley Mills (in their third film together) aren't bad in the lead - though it's a bit annoying Mills is playing an American, I just wanted an American to play it. Also she plays the role as a bright, pretty well adjusted thing - you wonder why she marries moody chauffeur Bennett. I mean, he's handsome but she's pretty - it doesn't make sense the way say mousy Joan Fontaine marries fortune hunter Cary Grant in Suspicion. Why not have her play it dowdy or in a wheelchair?
Gilliat's script is fine but his direction is not up to it. Compare the creepiness of say the Hammer psycho thrillers written by Jimmy Sangster - they used wind, shadows, sound, desolation, music, weird extras, suspense, etc. This is just stock life in the country stuff.
Britt Ekland adds a little glamour. Agatha Christie hated her nudity at the end. It is a jolt in part because there's been no nudity until then - I mean nudity would be fine (and surely Mills and Bennett would have been up for it) but at the end it is weird.
Lois Maxwell is great fun as Mills' bitchy relative - Peter Bowles is smooth too, and it's fun (it also a little melancholy) to see George Sanders being George Sanders-y just before he killed himself, but there's some random guy with grey ish hair who doesn't quite work.
They should remake this only get a director who can really handle atmosphere.
Tuesday, May 07, 2019
Randomly popular Australian films pre-revival
* The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906)
* The Fatal Wedding (1911)
* Sweet Nell of Old Drury (1913)
* The Martyrdom of Edith Cavell (1915)
* The Man They Could Not Hang (1920)
* On Our Selection (1932)
* Forty Thousand Horsemen (1940)
* The Fatal Wedding (1911)
* Sweet Nell of Old Drury (1913)
* The Martyrdom of Edith Cavell (1915)
* The Man They Could Not Hang (1920)
* On Our Selection (1932)
* Forty Thousand Horsemen (1940)
Movie review - "Sombrero" (1953) **1/2
MGM had a bunch of Latino types under contract - Ricardo Montalban, Fernando Lamas - so Dore Schary decided to make a film set in Mexico. They had to pad out the cast with some Latino-ish types - Canadian Yvonne de Carlo, Italian Vittorio Gassman, Cyd Charisse, Italian Pier Angeli.
This is a collection of three stories, which loosely interconnect (some characters know each other, everyone lives in the same village). They're all romances - poor de Carlo loves rich Gassman but he's dying, cocky Montalban loves retiring Angeli, poor Rick Jason (another Schary discovery whose career did little) loves rich Charisse.
None of it is particularly interesting. It was shot on location in Mexico, which gives it novelty, but doesn't seem terribly authentic. There's an occasional great dance number and I wondered if this wouldn't have been better as a musical so you could've at least gotten some great dance numbers.
This is a collection of three stories, which loosely interconnect (some characters know each other, everyone lives in the same village). They're all romances - poor de Carlo loves rich Gassman but he's dying, cocky Montalban loves retiring Angeli, poor Rick Jason (another Schary discovery whose career did little) loves rich Charisse.
None of it is particularly interesting. It was shot on location in Mexico, which gives it novelty, but doesn't seem terribly authentic. There's an occasional great dance number and I wondered if this wouldn't have been better as a musical so you could've at least gotten some great dance numbers.
Movie review - "Mr Forbush and the Penguins" (1971) **
Part of Bryan Forbes' slate at EMI Films and I can see the appeal of it in the animal loving British film industry - a man spends six months in Antarctica among the penguins. And they stumped up for location filming on Antarctica and the penguins are cute.
But there's no story. He's on his own so there's no one to talk to. He gets a visit from some random dude on a sled and some pilots but it's not that exciting. They don't make any characters out of penguins. There's a blizzard but big deal. He plods around penguins but the footage of John Hurt in studio clearly didn't match that well with location stuff so they cut back on that.
No suspense or laughs. He sends back taped letters to Hayley Mills, a waitress he was sexually harassing before he went.
I think they film is meant to be about Frobush's journey from shallow pants man to caring person by hanging out with penguins but they couldn't find a way to dramatise it (even though Anthony Schaffer wrote the script). The opening scenes in London are dull - try hard funny dialogue, Sally Gleeson pops up as a conquest, uncomfortable scenes of Hurt trying to pick up Mills. Surely this sort of stuff is easy to do? Have him as cocky and spoilt and have Mills actually be interested but worried he's shallow... but she looks keen to avoid him.
Part of it is Hurt, a very fine character actor but not a leading man. It's fun to see Tom Cruise as a womaniser getting redemption but not Hurt. (British cinema produced heaps of leading men in the 60s - Caine, Connery, Harris - but seemed to struggle in the 70s - Hurt, Jon Finch). The film would have been better had Hayley Mills played Hurt's role. Hayley Mills among the penguins... I mean, that would be gold. Great fun. More successful too.
Mind you, Mills was admittedly a last minute addition - Susan Fleetwood was originally cast then sacked as Forbes brought in Boulting (original director Al Viola was making his feature debut... a mad idea on such an ambitious project). The end result is still rough - for instance the final reunion between Hurt and Mills is in long shot with what looks to be doubles.
The idea was interesting but they didn't get the story right and they stuffed the execution of what they did have.
But there's no story. He's on his own so there's no one to talk to. He gets a visit from some random dude on a sled and some pilots but it's not that exciting. They don't make any characters out of penguins. There's a blizzard but big deal. He plods around penguins but the footage of John Hurt in studio clearly didn't match that well with location stuff so they cut back on that.
No suspense or laughs. He sends back taped letters to Hayley Mills, a waitress he was sexually harassing before he went.
I think they film is meant to be about Frobush's journey from shallow pants man to caring person by hanging out with penguins but they couldn't find a way to dramatise it (even though Anthony Schaffer wrote the script). The opening scenes in London are dull - try hard funny dialogue, Sally Gleeson pops up as a conquest, uncomfortable scenes of Hurt trying to pick up Mills. Surely this sort of stuff is easy to do? Have him as cocky and spoilt and have Mills actually be interested but worried he's shallow... but she looks keen to avoid him.
Part of it is Hurt, a very fine character actor but not a leading man. It's fun to see Tom Cruise as a womaniser getting redemption but not Hurt. (British cinema produced heaps of leading men in the 60s - Caine, Connery, Harris - but seemed to struggle in the 70s - Hurt, Jon Finch). The film would have been better had Hayley Mills played Hurt's role. Hayley Mills among the penguins... I mean, that would be gold. Great fun. More successful too.
Mind you, Mills was admittedly a last minute addition - Susan Fleetwood was originally cast then sacked as Forbes brought in Boulting (original director Al Viola was making his feature debut... a mad idea on such an ambitious project). The end result is still rough - for instance the final reunion between Hurt and Mills is in long shot with what looks to be doubles.
The idea was interesting but they didn't get the story right and they stuffed the execution of what they did have.
Monday, May 06, 2019
Movie review - "Swinging Safari" (2018) ***
Ferociously funny comedy from Stephan Elliott. I felt the shock of recognition many times - I too made Super 8 films in my backyard, though it was in the 80s. All the tennis playing, above ground pools, pollywaffles, whales on beaches (this was a thing back in the way), tubs of chlorine, kids having unsafe clothes, shagpile carpets... It's all there.
The stuff with the kids is excellent. The moments involving the adults is less good - the playing is so broad and over the top, it feels different. The kids stuff is broad too but because it's kids it feels more natural. I think the film would have been better entirely from the POV of the kids.
I could have done with a little more story. So many scenes could be inserted anywhere. The adults have an orgy and there's ramifications from that but not much. Maybe more should have been made of the central romance - or if it isn't a romance and the Elliott surrogate realises he's gay, then that. Some progression at least. (An aside I didn't believe even 70s parents encouraging their 14 year old kids to have sex. Sixteen maybe - but 14 felt young to me.)
I also think Elliot missed a trick not having grandparents come into the film - 70s grandparents were their own unique breed.
Still a lot of genuine laughs, especially if you remember that time.
The stuff with the kids is excellent. The moments involving the adults is less good - the playing is so broad and over the top, it feels different. The kids stuff is broad too but because it's kids it feels more natural. I think the film would have been better entirely from the POV of the kids.
I could have done with a little more story. So many scenes could be inserted anywhere. The adults have an orgy and there's ramifications from that but not much. Maybe more should have been made of the central romance - or if it isn't a romance and the Elliott surrogate realises he's gay, then that. Some progression at least. (An aside I didn't believe even 70s parents encouraging their 14 year old kids to have sex. Sixteen maybe - but 14 felt young to me.)
I also think Elliot missed a trick not having grandparents come into the film - 70s grandparents were their own unique breed.
Still a lot of genuine laughs, especially if you remember that time.
Movie review - "Reno" (1939) **
There's a few movies with this title - it's the second most famous city in Nevada after all, albeit for divorces rather than gambling. This one is a male melodrama - a genre that was popular in the 30s with heavyset stars like Edward Arnold and, in this case, Richard Dix. It involves his life and times as a young lawyer in a growing Reno. He represents miners and then, when that runs out, the divorce industry.
It's not very interesting. The movie starts off well, with a long tracking shot inside a casino (director John Farrow loved his tracking shots eg China) and Anita Louise gambling at the wheel, and Dix as a casino boss. Then Louise accuses him of cheating, we go to trial, then flash back.
Dix isn't very exciting (at least not to me - if you like him you'll enjoy this more). I wasn't wild about Gail Patrick as his wife either. I didn't get, if he loved her, why he didn't make it work - or try to contact his daughter. He clearly didn't care about either - and if he didn't, why should we?
The film badly needed a villain - someone to get a comeuppance. It also needed to be fun. It should be - miners, divorcees, casinos... but it's dull. Maybe Catholic John Farrow was the wrong guy to make a film about the divorce capital of the world.
It's not very interesting. The movie starts off well, with a long tracking shot inside a casino (director John Farrow loved his tracking shots eg China) and Anita Louise gambling at the wheel, and Dix as a casino boss. Then Louise accuses him of cheating, we go to trial, then flash back.
Dix isn't very exciting (at least not to me - if you like him you'll enjoy this more). I wasn't wild about Gail Patrick as his wife either. I didn't get, if he loved her, why he didn't make it work - or try to contact his daughter. He clearly didn't care about either - and if he didn't, why should we?
The film badly needed a villain - someone to get a comeuppance. It also needed to be fun. It should be - miners, divorcees, casinos... but it's dull. Maybe Catholic John Farrow was the wrong guy to make a film about the divorce capital of the world.
Sunday, May 05, 2019
Movie review - "Evil Under the Sun" (1982) ***
The fourth in EMI's Agatha Christie adaptations is the least starry - you've got Peter Ustinov back as Poirot, plus Maggie Smith, Diana Rigg, Roddy McDowall and James Mason, but the rest are fairly B team: Jane Birkin, Nicholas Clay (remember when he was going to be a star?), Colin Blakely, Sylvia Miles. Everyone is good, don't get me wrong, I was just hoping for more names.
I also wasn't wild about the fact the film was set in a sort of la-la land, a made up country. They just should have set it in Spain, where it was shot.
The mystery is good and the Majorca locations are pleasing. It doesn't have the reputation of Murder on the Orient Express or Death on the Nile but it holds up well.
I also wasn't wild about the fact the film was set in a sort of la-la land, a made up country. They just should have set it in Spain, where it was shot.
The mystery is good and the Majorca locations are pleasing. It doesn't have the reputation of Murder on the Orient Express or Death on the Nile but it holds up well.
Movie review - "Welcome to the Jungle" (2003) ***
The script for this film is absolutely fine. There's a strong cast and gorgeous locations - jungle has rarely looked as lushly green.
But there's a central, major fault - the casting of Sean William Scott.
I know Scott was a hot ticket at the time, and it isn't as though he's bad he's just pointless. What's his character? What's the type? He's just sort of a young cocky guy - a pseudo Tom Cruise.
If he was playing Stifler from American Pie that would've made sense because that would've been funny. But it's as though Scott didn't want to do that... but didn't replace it with anything else. Because Dwayne Johnson is in it Scott can't even be that heroic - Johnson gets dibs.
I kept wishing it was a buddy comedy with another buddy. Jack Black, say. Or a girl, so that there would be some sexual tension. Rosario Dawson is a revolutionary - but there's no reason you couldn't have two.
The action scenes are done with energy, it's an engaging film, Johnson has charisma and there's a cute cameo from Arnie.
But there's a central, major fault - the casting of Sean William Scott.
I know Scott was a hot ticket at the time, and it isn't as though he's bad he's just pointless. What's his character? What's the type? He's just sort of a young cocky guy - a pseudo Tom Cruise.
If he was playing Stifler from American Pie that would've made sense because that would've been funny. But it's as though Scott didn't want to do that... but didn't replace it with anything else. Because Dwayne Johnson is in it Scott can't even be that heroic - Johnson gets dibs.
I kept wishing it was a buddy comedy with another buddy. Jack Black, say. Or a girl, so that there would be some sexual tension. Rosario Dawson is a revolutionary - but there's no reason you couldn't have two.
The action scenes are done with energy, it's an engaging film, Johnson has charisma and there's a cute cameo from Arnie.
Saturday, May 04, 2019
Book review - "Easy Go" by John Lange/Michael Crichton
Fast paced early work from Crichton has a really clever central idea - an archaeologist discovers a lost tomb of the pharaohs and instead of telling the world decides to steal it. There is a rag tag group of characters assembled out of film archetypes - a British lord, a sexy dame, a smuggler, a thief, a journalist.
But the book doesn't seem to have many other fresh ideas after that. There's some research about digs, but not of a standard that Crichton would later excel in. There are some decent moments, like discovering the tomb and when the hero gets stuck in the tomb - but not enough of them. He doesn't put his characters in enough peril.
I found the ending confusing. I started off liking this but that feeling lessened as the bok went on. Still it is a great idea and I wish Crichton had revised this one.
But the book doesn't seem to have many other fresh ideas after that. There's some research about digs, but not of a standard that Crichton would later excel in. There are some decent moments, like discovering the tomb and when the hero gets stuck in the tomb - but not enough of them. He doesn't put his characters in enough peril.
I found the ending confusing. I started off liking this but that feeling lessened as the bok went on. Still it is a great idea and I wish Crichton had revised this one.
Thursday, May 02, 2019
Movie review - "Shotgun" (1955) **
The main point of interest for this western is that it was co written by Rory Calhoun. Calhoun was one of the smarter 50s heart throbs, parlaying what could have very short career into a lifetime go at it. He found a decent run with Westerns in particular - he wrote and produced as well as star.
He co wrote this one but doesn't star in it - it was made by Allied Artists and Calhoun was under contract to Universal. The star is Sterling Hayden in a Calhoun-style role. I'm not a big fan of Hayden - love his personal story, but on screen I find he mumbles.
Still he teams well with Yvonne de Carlo, even though De Carlo is dressed more frumpish than usual. It was like she aged overnight on screen.
Both play people with Pasts - De Carlo has been Around, and so has Hayden. They are travelling across country chasing bad people.
A lot of this consists of two or three handers - Zachary Scott comes along well and is smarmy. He's less effective outdoors.
This is okay. Director Lesley Selander knew what he was going - but doesn't do it terribly well. There's a bit of action, a name cast, nothing particularly special about it.
He co wrote this one but doesn't star in it - it was made by Allied Artists and Calhoun was under contract to Universal. The star is Sterling Hayden in a Calhoun-style role. I'm not a big fan of Hayden - love his personal story, but on screen I find he mumbles.
Still he teams well with Yvonne de Carlo, even though De Carlo is dressed more frumpish than usual. It was like she aged overnight on screen.
Both play people with Pasts - De Carlo has been Around, and so has Hayden. They are travelling across country chasing bad people.
A lot of this consists of two or three handers - Zachary Scott comes along well and is smarmy. He's less effective outdoors.
This is okay. Director Lesley Selander knew what he was going - but doesn't do it terribly well. There's a bit of action, a name cast, nothing particularly special about it.
Movie review - "The Phantom Gunslinger" (1967, released 1970) *
Weird comedy -was there a market for such things in the 1960s because it reminded me of something like Unkissed Bride. Troy Donahue, career firmly on the slide now, actually seems to try as an aspiring preacher who winds up sheriff of a town overrun by gangsters.
It was shot in Mexico with a mostly Mexican cast although the heavily endowed Brit actor Sabrina is in it. There are bright colours and nutty behaviour - it's like an episode of The Monkees or something. only not funny. It's hard going a lot of the time. My four year old watched it with me part of the time and liked the colour and movement.
Albert Zugsmith directed this!
It should be said too that Donahue seems to throw himself into the role, acting with more energy and pace than he did in his soulful Delmer Daves hey day.
It was shot in Mexico with a mostly Mexican cast although the heavily endowed Brit actor Sabrina is in it. There are bright colours and nutty behaviour - it's like an episode of The Monkees or something. only not funny. It's hard going a lot of the time. My four year old watched it with me part of the time and liked the colour and movement.
Albert Zugsmith directed this!
It should be said too that Donahue seems to throw himself into the role, acting with more energy and pace than he did in his soulful Delmer Daves hey day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)