I heard it wasn't very good and it isn't. I watched it for completion's sake. The photograph is lovely and the cast is strong but it's not exciting. It just feels made for money.
Gwyneth Paltrow and Scar Jo are wasted - they even wear identical clothes. Mickey Rourke is kind of fun as a villain but his character is rote. Garry Shandling isn't allowed to do anything much.
There's no sense of fun, danger, excitement. Robert Downey's X factor isn't exploited. I mean, it's in focus and all that.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Movie review - "The Meg" (2018) **
Silly fun but too silly to be a good movie and not silly enough to be crap-tacular. It feels very Chinese not just with its positive Chinese characters and settings but also family schmaltz and cute kidness. Which is fine. I just wish they'd done more with the concept of a prehistoric shark.
I mean, there's no scientific stuff, no paleontologist, nothing really other than the creature running amok. It also feels very Australian-New Zealand with the cast including Jess MacNamee, Ruby Rose, Cliff Curtis.
It passed the time and I hope they make another one because the potential is there for this to be quite good.
I mean, there's no scientific stuff, no paleontologist, nothing really other than the creature running amok. It also feels very Australian-New Zealand with the cast including Jess MacNamee, Ruby Rose, Cliff Curtis.
It passed the time and I hope they make another one because the potential is there for this to be quite good.
Monday, October 28, 2019
Movie review - "The Ambassador's Daughter" (1956) **
Norman Krasna was a so-so director but the main problem with this film is that his writing let him down. It's also miscast.
This has CinemaScope, colour and some name actors but suffers from undercasting - Olivia de Havilland, while still pretty and of a good actor, seems far too old to play a "daughter" i.e. someone who's entire life is defined by being a daughter. She was forty by now and while she looks good for her age she still seems kind of forty.. .and watching it I kept help thinking "you're still hanging around dad? At forty?"
His co star is John Fortsyth who is a lump - I mean he's alright but he's just straight and dull... He is no Robert Cummings, say.
The central concept is lame. De Havilland is the daughter of the American ambassador to France who pretends to be... a French model. What sort of deception is that? Why hide what she is? It made sense in other Krasna films to cover up being super rich or a royal but here there's no point to it.
The support cast are bright: Adolphe Menjou, Edward Arnold, Myrna Loy, Tom Noonan . Not that they have that much to do... Loy gets a monologue at the end but it feels like "oh I'd better give her something to do" as opposed to something dramatic. You actually could cut Menjou and Loy out of the film.
Really dull and disappointing.
This has CinemaScope, colour and some name actors but suffers from undercasting - Olivia de Havilland, while still pretty and of a good actor, seems far too old to play a "daughter" i.e. someone who's entire life is defined by being a daughter. She was forty by now and while she looks good for her age she still seems kind of forty.. .and watching it I kept help thinking "you're still hanging around dad? At forty?"
His co star is John Fortsyth who is a lump - I mean he's alright but he's just straight and dull... He is no Robert Cummings, say.
The central concept is lame. De Havilland is the daughter of the American ambassador to France who pretends to be... a French model. What sort of deception is that? Why hide what she is? It made sense in other Krasna films to cover up being super rich or a royal but here there's no point to it.
The support cast are bright: Adolphe Menjou, Edward Arnold, Myrna Loy, Tom Noonan . Not that they have that much to do... Loy gets a monologue at the end but it feels like "oh I'd better give her something to do" as opposed to something dramatic. You actually could cut Menjou and Loy out of the film.
Really dull and disappointing.
TV review - "Barry Season 2" (2019) ****1/2
The high standard remains. Some excellent action sequences, good cliffhanger, great complications. They ensure Sally has something to do by introducing an abusive ex, they tie in the acting well. Extremely good.
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Movie review - "Dolemite is My Name" (2019) ***
Similar in some ways to Ed Wood -same writers, story of a person who dreamed big, gathered around a motley crue and managed to make a not particularly good movie. There are some key differences - Dolemite was a hit and Rudy Ray Moore had a genuine impact on black culture. Also this film lacks a key relationship to underpin the drama - Ed Wood had Wood and Lugosi, this one doesn't. I guess there's Eddie Murphy and Da'Vine Joy Randolph but it's not the same.
Still Murphy is very likeable and Wesley Snipes is hilarious - I'd forgotten what a good comic actor he was. Actually all the cast was good. The movie really picks up once they start making the movie - up until it feels more like a collection of scenes than a story. Very sweet and engaging.
Still Murphy is very likeable and Wesley Snipes is hilarious - I'd forgotten what a good comic actor he was. Actually all the cast was good. The movie really picks up once they start making the movie - up until it feels more like a collection of scenes than a story. Very sweet and engaging.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Movie review - "Memoirs of an Invisible Man" (1992) *1/2
The turning point in Chevy Chase's career? I guess he was a leading man for a few years after that... but this seemed to mark the end of him as a romantic leading man.
It's a mess. The photography is nice, the cast is strong - except may be that English actor with the super booming voice. Daryl Hannah is nice in a nothing role but at least looks good. Michael McKean is slim with lots of hair. A young Patricia Heaton is in it. Sam Neill channels James Mason. The special effects are fine. I like how a times we watched Chase, when he was invisible.
But the tone never seems right. At times it's comic at times it's serious drama at times it's a thriller. When Chase flirts with Hannah at the beginning they ape North by Northwest and that would totally be fine... but this doesn't have the space and twists of that. There's too much hanging about and being reflective - it doesn't have movement.
It's too vague about Chase's character - he's rich and successful, gets along with his secretary, is confident flirting but is also a loner... is that right? And he.. becomes lonely? Becomes a better person? I was confused. I wish they'd just have Chase as cocky but come more mature - that would have been simple and clean and given Chase something new.
It lacks pace, clear tone, cleverness. It's hard to tell John Carpenter directed it.
It's a mess. The photography is nice, the cast is strong - except may be that English actor with the super booming voice. Daryl Hannah is nice in a nothing role but at least looks good. Michael McKean is slim with lots of hair. A young Patricia Heaton is in it. Sam Neill channels James Mason. The special effects are fine. I like how a times we watched Chase, when he was invisible.
But the tone never seems right. At times it's comic at times it's serious drama at times it's a thriller. When Chase flirts with Hannah at the beginning they ape North by Northwest and that would totally be fine... but this doesn't have the space and twists of that. There's too much hanging about and being reflective - it doesn't have movement.
It's too vague about Chase's character - he's rich and successful, gets along with his secretary, is confident flirting but is also a loner... is that right? And he.. becomes lonely? Becomes a better person? I was confused. I wish they'd just have Chase as cocky but come more mature - that would have been simple and clean and given Chase something new.
It lacks pace, clear tone, cleverness. It's hard to tell John Carpenter directed it.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
TV review - "Succession - Season 2" (2019) ****1/2
They've got more money to make the show this time - more fashions and products and other cool stuff. There's more emphasis on Logan saying "f*ck off" as a catch phrase. Some scenes seem more "gaggy". Sarah Snook's sex life isn't so much driven by a desire to keep an ex close but a genuine desire to sleep around (an actor, a woman)... it didn't seem as real. There is more sex (Holly Hunter gets in the sack, Kieran Culkin does weird sex stuff).
The quality remains high. There's some first rate episodes. I didn't feel it was as good as the first season but it was still excellent.
The quality remains high. There's some first rate episodes. I didn't feel it was as good as the first season but it was still excellent.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Movie review - 'Dear Ruth" (1947) ***1/2 (re-watching)
Various aspects of this adaptation of Norman Krasna's play haven't aged well - the pompous fake love interest is mocked for being anti smoking and anti coffee, William Holden's character is a little "I don't need consent" with his forceful kissing and horrid game where he explains how him and his soldier mates would kiss women by surprise at the train station (hahahaha).
But Krasna's play is a very solid piece of construction - it takes a simple lie (young teen writers hot love letters to airman using her sister's photo), and adds decent complications (the elder sister is engaged, the airman comes to town on leave, the airman has a sister who has her own romance), and it all feels logical.
Krasna had a great deal of affection for his characters and this comes through. Edward Arnold didn't feel quite right to me as dad and Mona Freeman got on my nerves as the teen (I get what they were going for but it's a shame Diana Lynn couldn't have played it) but William Holden and Joan Caulfield are sweet as the lead couple and Billy de Wolfe is funny as a the pompous boyfriend.
It isn't amazing but is warm and funny.
But Krasna's play is a very solid piece of construction - it takes a simple lie (young teen writers hot love letters to airman using her sister's photo), and adds decent complications (the elder sister is engaged, the airman comes to town on leave, the airman has a sister who has her own romance), and it all feels logical.
Krasna had a great deal of affection for his characters and this comes through. Edward Arnold didn't feel quite right to me as dad and Mona Freeman got on my nerves as the teen (I get what they were going for but it's a shame Diana Lynn couldn't have played it) but William Holden and Joan Caulfield are sweet as the lead couple and Billy de Wolfe is funny as a the pompous boyfriend.
It isn't amazing but is warm and funny.
Monday, October 21, 2019
Movie review - "Practically Yours" (1944) **
Norman Krasna's great gift was writing stories about a little lie that spun out into enough consequences for a feature film (or play) and infusing it with heart and warmth.
This one has a bright central idea - a flyer (Fred MacMurray) is going to his death and says over the radio his regret is not going for a walk with "Peggy". Everyone thinks it's his co worker (Claudette Colbert) when in fact it was his dog. But the nation loves the story and when he turns up alive they decide to go on with the deception.
That doesn't feel like a strong enough reason to do it - there's really no call for Colbert to go along with the misunderstanding or for MacMurray to keep up the deception. It needed to be something simple and personal. In The Devil and Miss Jones Charles Coburn lies to bust a union, in Bachelor Mother Ginger Rogers lies to keep her job - but there's nothing personal at stake for Colbert.
The carefree nature of the lie and complications doesn't mesh easily with the life and death stakes - I mean in the opening MacMurray thinks he's dying on a suicide mission, and there's a subplot where a woman is worried about her pilot husband having died and he has died and MacMurray breaks the news gently which makes Colbert fall in love with him...
I think it was miscast - Colbert and MacMurray are too old (she was over forty and he was close to forty). A younger star couple and this silly lie might've been more believable - with Paulette Goddard, say (who wasn't that much younger than Colbert but felt younger), or, don't laugh, Sonny Tufts (who was more believable military-y than MacMurray) - but watching these two old people I kept thinking "you ought to know better".
There's reference to MacMurray's character being a "wolf" i.e. sexual harrasser... actually if they'd used that more maybe there would be some sort of character development for him - a playboy who learns responsibility or something. But it's done in a hamfisted way. (Mind you I'm not sure MacMurray would ever be believable as a "wolf".)
The other love interest is no threat. Not enough time is spent with any support characters - Krasna normally did this well, created a feeling of family - not so here. It's one of his weaker efforts and I'm not surprised so few people remember this.
For Colbert and MacMurray fans only.Oh, and Norma Krasna/Mitchell Leisen completists.
This one has a bright central idea - a flyer (Fred MacMurray) is going to his death and says over the radio his regret is not going for a walk with "Peggy". Everyone thinks it's his co worker (Claudette Colbert) when in fact it was his dog. But the nation loves the story and when he turns up alive they decide to go on with the deception.
That doesn't feel like a strong enough reason to do it - there's really no call for Colbert to go along with the misunderstanding or for MacMurray to keep up the deception. It needed to be something simple and personal. In The Devil and Miss Jones Charles Coburn lies to bust a union, in Bachelor Mother Ginger Rogers lies to keep her job - but there's nothing personal at stake for Colbert.
The carefree nature of the lie and complications doesn't mesh easily with the life and death stakes - I mean in the opening MacMurray thinks he's dying on a suicide mission, and there's a subplot where a woman is worried about her pilot husband having died and he has died and MacMurray breaks the news gently which makes Colbert fall in love with him...
I think it was miscast - Colbert and MacMurray are too old (she was over forty and he was close to forty). A younger star couple and this silly lie might've been more believable - with Paulette Goddard, say (who wasn't that much younger than Colbert but felt younger), or, don't laugh, Sonny Tufts (who was more believable military-y than MacMurray) - but watching these two old people I kept thinking "you ought to know better".
There's reference to MacMurray's character being a "wolf" i.e. sexual harrasser... actually if they'd used that more maybe there would be some sort of character development for him - a playboy who learns responsibility or something. But it's done in a hamfisted way. (Mind you I'm not sure MacMurray would ever be believable as a "wolf".)
The other love interest is no threat. Not enough time is spent with any support characters - Krasna normally did this well, created a feeling of family - not so here. It's one of his weaker efforts and I'm not surprised so few people remember this.
For Colbert and MacMurray fans only.Oh, and Norma Krasna/Mitchell Leisen completists.
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Movie review - "Bride by Mistake" (1944) **
RKO pull out the B listers for this one - Alan Marshall and Laraine Day. These are pretty enough people but can't carry a rom com. The support cast don't help - randoms like Egar Buchanan and Marsha Hunt. The only one really skilled at comedy us Buchanan.
The production values are impressive - this was an "A" movie at RKO, which makes it surprising they had to borrow all the lead actors.
The story didn't work for me - I know it was based on an Oscar nominated script by Norman Krasna - but it seems like Alan Marshall is more interested in Marsha Hunt, and he's not that into Day. And it feels kind of weird he goes off with Day at the end. Was the original this wonky? I can't remember.
There's an extended sequence where Marshall is in a room with drugged Hunt for over an hour while Day is outside with Hunt's fiancee and they are stressing out. It really seems like they're having sex in there. I was unsure about the friendship between Day and Hunt and Hunt's feelings for Marshall and Marshall's feelings for Hunt and Day and Allyn Joslyn sort of hanging around.
The film was a hit - such is war. And probably the likeability of Ms Day. Who is very pretty. And likeable. That's about it. Marshall doesnt have the chops for this sort of thing - you can see why he didn't become a star. A good fake love interest or leading man.
The production values are impressive - this was an "A" movie at RKO, which makes it surprising they had to borrow all the lead actors.
The story didn't work for me - I know it was based on an Oscar nominated script by Norman Krasna - but it seems like Alan Marshall is more interested in Marsha Hunt, and he's not that into Day. And it feels kind of weird he goes off with Day at the end. Was the original this wonky? I can't remember.
There's an extended sequence where Marshall is in a room with drugged Hunt for over an hour while Day is outside with Hunt's fiancee and they are stressing out. It really seems like they're having sex in there. I was unsure about the friendship between Day and Hunt and Hunt's feelings for Marshall and Marshall's feelings for Hunt and Day and Allyn Joslyn sort of hanging around.
The film was a hit - such is war. And probably the likeability of Ms Day. Who is very pretty. And likeable. That's about it. Marshall doesnt have the chops for this sort of thing - you can see why he didn't become a star. A good fake love interest or leading man.
Movie review - "Four Hours to Kill" (1935) **
An adaptation of a Norman Krasna play "Small Miracle" this still feels like a play - director Mitchell Leisen opens it up a bit but not a lot. It's a decent story- there were plans to remake it in the 40s with Alan Ladd and I would've liked to have seen that version with more gangster stuff.
Richard Barthemless is the crook who escaped and got caught and is being taken back to prison. The four hours to kill is the time they spend at a theatre show - most of the action takes place in the lobby which is cool.
A lot of the dialogue is theatrical. There's theatre style subplots - a young couple want to get together but are stopped by a vixen, a man worries about his wife giving birth. A married woman is going off to Reno.
Charles Wilson is the cop who likes Barthemless. Ray Milland is in this. Dorothy Tree is the vamp. Joe Morrison is the guy being blackmailed into marrying the vamp - so he did have sex with her, yes?
I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. Mitchell Leisen was solid with comedy and musicals but this felt as though it needed more full throttle Warner Bros style treatment.
Richard Barthemless is the crook who escaped and got caught and is being taken back to prison. The four hours to kill is the time they spend at a theatre show - most of the action takes place in the lobby which is cool.
A lot of the dialogue is theatrical. There's theatre style subplots - a young couple want to get together but are stopped by a vixen, a man worries about his wife giving birth. A married woman is going off to Reno.
Charles Wilson is the cop who likes Barthemless. Ray Milland is in this. Dorothy Tree is the vamp. Joe Morrison is the guy being blackmailed into marrying the vamp - so he did have sex with her, yes?
I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. Mitchell Leisen was solid with comedy and musicals but this felt as though it needed more full throttle Warner Bros style treatment.
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Movie review - "Ladies in Black" (2018) *** (warning: spoilers)
A film made with confidence of its market and what sort of film it is. A bright, positive three girls movie - we haven't made enough of them in this country. Beresford directs with customary energy though I wish he'd worked on the dialogue with another writer - a bit of it was on the nose.
He's cast it extremely well - Angourie Rice and Rachel Taylor are especially fine and Julia Ormond adds some gravitas. Susie Porter and Shane Jacobsen feel old Australia - Jacobsen's character displays the conservatism of the time... someone who isn't bad who just lacks the leap of imagination. Ryan Corr is a good actor but his accent was distracting - this day and age I think accent acting is on the way out. I wish a genuine Hungarian had played the part.
While it was nice to watch something good hearted and positive I did wish maybe there had been more dramatic heft - the advantage of three girl movies is someone can go through a harder time. But here all the problems are easily solved - a woman worries about her husband not touching her... so he touches her (he freaks out but comes back); Taylor needs love... finds it; Rice worries about getting into uni... gets in. Couldn't, I don't know, Noni Hazlehurst have died or something.
And at the end when they all ask Rice what she wants to be and she goes "novelist.. actor.. poet.. maybe all of them" I did think "you spoilt boomer. You're going to get a heap of cool bureaucrat jobs take your super and real estate and retire to Barcelona." That is generational envy.
Still, a good movie.
He's cast it extremely well - Angourie Rice and Rachel Taylor are especially fine and Julia Ormond adds some gravitas. Susie Porter and Shane Jacobsen feel old Australia - Jacobsen's character displays the conservatism of the time... someone who isn't bad who just lacks the leap of imagination. Ryan Corr is a good actor but his accent was distracting - this day and age I think accent acting is on the way out. I wish a genuine Hungarian had played the part.
While it was nice to watch something good hearted and positive I did wish maybe there had been more dramatic heft - the advantage of three girl movies is someone can go through a harder time. But here all the problems are easily solved - a woman worries about her husband not touching her... so he touches her (he freaks out but comes back); Taylor needs love... finds it; Rice worries about getting into uni... gets in. Couldn't, I don't know, Noni Hazlehurst have died or something.
And at the end when they all ask Rice what she wants to be and she goes "novelist.. actor.. poet.. maybe all of them" I did think "you spoilt boomer. You're going to get a heap of cool bureaucrat jobs take your super and real estate and retire to Barcelona." That is generational envy.
Still, a good movie.
TV review - "Succession Season 1" (2018) *****
Stunningly good television. Not just the characters but the character relationships are first rate - the way everyone tries to alpha the other, the fact they are kept watchable by funny lines and genuine sense of love for each other (when the dad is ill everyone is worried).
It's been cast brilliantly - they cast the subtext: the weak boyfriend, the dogged but weak and dumb son who wants to run things, the smart and sarcastic but incompetent son, the competent and smart daughter who dates beneath herself to keep control and isn't considered a possibility for leadership because of her gender, the dopey nephew we keep expecting to prove to be smart but never does.
Utterly brilliant.
It's been cast brilliantly - they cast the subtext: the weak boyfriend, the dogged but weak and dumb son who wants to run things, the smart and sarcastic but incompetent son, the competent and smart daughter who dates beneath herself to keep control and isn't considered a possibility for leadership because of her gender, the dopey nephew we keep expecting to prove to be smart but never does.
Utterly brilliant.
Movie review - "King Cohn: The Life and Times of Harry Cohn" by Bob Thomas (1967)
Its frustrating this isn't footnoted but it was very entertaining and remains perhaps the best known book about Cohn, one of Hollywood's legendary tycoons. Like most of them he was Jewish, and admirable and terrible and missed.
Cohn's reputation has suffered in recent years along with Daryl F Zanuck because they are the tycoons probably most like Harvey Weinstein - i.e. skirt chases - which means it's highly likely they would have engaged in sexual harrasment and possibly worse. Cohn was also a bully like Weinstein who swore and was prone to fits of rage.
He could be kind and decent but also a prick. His second marriage seems to have been happy - they had three kids, lost one, adopted another. He had a lot of admirers but a lot of that was due to his business acumen.
He worked his way up the hard way like all the great tycoons. He was a song plugger and fur salesman before going into films. Columbia started as a poverty row studio but Cohn and his brother (like the Warners there was a brother) pulled it up to the majors. He was helped by the skill of Frank Capra, but a lot of it was Cohn... he was very well informed, and he had a nose for talent: Leo McCarey, George Stevens, Cary Grant, Sidney Buchman, Stanley Kramer, Daniel Taradash, Buddy Adler are among those who benefited and prospered from working for Cohn... then had to leave because there can only be one. He built some stars like Rita Hayworth and Kim Novak.
Things that were once seen to hold Columbia back like having no theatres helped it thrive in the 50s - also he got in on the ground floor with TV via Screen Gems.
People have affection for Cohn in part because he exemplified the role of Hollywood tycoon so well - lecherous, foul mouthed, cunning.
Thomas has a journo's gift for funny/scary/ touching anecdotes - there are moving accounts of his last months, funny tales of Norman Krasna teasing him, the unexpectedly strong friendship with Buchman, bullying Jean Arthur and John Wayne, enjoying fighting with Broderick Crawford. Very human, very smart, very ideal for his job, very good man to stay away from.
Cohn's reputation has suffered in recent years along with Daryl F Zanuck because they are the tycoons probably most like Harvey Weinstein - i.e. skirt chases - which means it's highly likely they would have engaged in sexual harrasment and possibly worse. Cohn was also a bully like Weinstein who swore and was prone to fits of rage.
He could be kind and decent but also a prick. His second marriage seems to have been happy - they had three kids, lost one, adopted another. He had a lot of admirers but a lot of that was due to his business acumen.
He worked his way up the hard way like all the great tycoons. He was a song plugger and fur salesman before going into films. Columbia started as a poverty row studio but Cohn and his brother (like the Warners there was a brother) pulled it up to the majors. He was helped by the skill of Frank Capra, but a lot of it was Cohn... he was very well informed, and he had a nose for talent: Leo McCarey, George Stevens, Cary Grant, Sidney Buchman, Stanley Kramer, Daniel Taradash, Buddy Adler are among those who benefited and prospered from working for Cohn... then had to leave because there can only be one. He built some stars like Rita Hayworth and Kim Novak.
Things that were once seen to hold Columbia back like having no theatres helped it thrive in the 50s - also he got in on the ground floor with TV via Screen Gems.
People have affection for Cohn in part because he exemplified the role of Hollywood tycoon so well - lecherous, foul mouthed, cunning.
Thomas has a journo's gift for funny/scary/ touching anecdotes - there are moving accounts of his last months, funny tales of Norman Krasna teasing him, the unexpectedly strong friendship with Buchman, bullying Jean Arthur and John Wayne, enjoying fighting with Broderick Crawford. Very human, very smart, very ideal for his job, very good man to stay away from.
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Play review - "Who Was That Lady I Saw You With?" by Norman Krasna (1958)
Quintessential comedy - a comedy about a lie that gets out of control - with him taking pot shots at the Cold War in this one.
In this one a college professor is caught kissing a student by his wife - he claims the student kissed him but still it's a sleazy concept. His cocky womanising TV writer friend Mike suggests to cover it up he pretend to be a FBI agent.
The complications proceed logically - Mike gets a fake badge made by a props guy who reports him to the FBI who get involved; the wife buys it and gives her husband the green light to take out two women (a suggestion of Mike who misses his old pal David coming along to pick up women); news of David being an agent breaks; the interest of real Russian agents is provoked.
The character of Ann the wife started off smart but wound up a ditz- you'd need to cast someone who seemed naive but also full of energy like Debbie Reynolds.
I'm surprised Krasna didn't bring in the girl who kissed David (why not have her get with Mike?). I also felt the Russians should have had a spy... a traitor in the FBI or the college.
But it is bright and funny.
It reads like a film script - lots of different locations and short scenes. I get the feeling Krasna wrote this as a script first.
In this one a college professor is caught kissing a student by his wife - he claims the student kissed him but still it's a sleazy concept. His cocky womanising TV writer friend Mike suggests to cover it up he pretend to be a FBI agent.
The complications proceed logically - Mike gets a fake badge made by a props guy who reports him to the FBI who get involved; the wife buys it and gives her husband the green light to take out two women (a suggestion of Mike who misses his old pal David coming along to pick up women); news of David being an agent breaks; the interest of real Russian agents is provoked.
The character of Ann the wife started off smart but wound up a ditz- you'd need to cast someone who seemed naive but also full of energy like Debbie Reynolds.
I'm surprised Krasna didn't bring in the girl who kissed David (why not have her get with Mike?). I also felt the Russians should have had a spy... a traitor in the FBI or the college.
But it is bright and funny.
It reads like a film script - lots of different locations and short scenes. I get the feeling Krasna wrote this as a script first.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Movie review - "The Cotton Club" (1984 - original cut) ***
I watched this after seeing Encore. They cut stuff out which they should have kept - the opening credits, some gangster stuff, Gloria Swanson telling Gere he should be a star, a scene among black gangsters. This stuff should have been kept. In many ways the original is tighter. But more dance numbers and Hines is good.
Movie review - "Bachelor Mother" (1939) ****1/2
Enchanting romantic comedy, perhaps the best script Norman Krasna did, a true marvel of structure and affection for his characters. Garson Kanin directed it very well on the whole - the pacing of the early scenes is a little off.
It's the perfect Ginger Rogers movie and while David Niven isn't terribly convincing as an American or the son of Charles Coburn, and they probably would've been better off using Robert Cummings, he's most engaging - he and Rogers seem like nice people. Charles Coburn steals the show though as the tycoon desperate for a grandson.
I love this script. Every scene progresses the action - within five minutes Rogers has been fired, discovered the baby, tried to get rid of the baby, been assumed to be the mother. The complications mount - the adoption people go to Niven, who gives Rogers her job back, who realises she needs to keep up the pretense to keep her job. There's a guy keen on Rogers who wants to parlay his knowledge into a promotion, a girl keen on Niven. There are key sequences - an extended one where Niven tries to return a little duck which displays his lack of understanding of what goes on at the workplace and how Rogers can help, and one at New Years Eve where Rogers pretends to be from Hungary so Niven doesn't turn up dateless.
You get the sense Rogers and Niven like each other and feel their marriage might even work. And Coburn is lovely. It's a very good film.
It's the perfect Ginger Rogers movie and while David Niven isn't terribly convincing as an American or the son of Charles Coburn, and they probably would've been better off using Robert Cummings, he's most engaging - he and Rogers seem like nice people. Charles Coburn steals the show though as the tycoon desperate for a grandson.
I love this script. Every scene progresses the action - within five minutes Rogers has been fired, discovered the baby, tried to get rid of the baby, been assumed to be the mother. The complications mount - the adoption people go to Niven, who gives Rogers her job back, who realises she needs to keep up the pretense to keep her job. There's a guy keen on Rogers who wants to parlay his knowledge into a promotion, a girl keen on Niven. There are key sequences - an extended one where Niven tries to return a little duck which displays his lack of understanding of what goes on at the workplace and how Rogers can help, and one at New Years Eve where Rogers pretends to be from Hungary so Niven doesn't turn up dateless.
You get the sense Rogers and Niven like each other and feel their marriage might even work. And Coburn is lovely. It's a very good film.
Sunday, October 13, 2019
Movie review - "Cotton Club: Encore" (1984/2018) ***1/2
I
have an unfashionable theory that years-after-the-event director's cuts
don’t really improve a movie - eg Star Wars A New Hope, Heaven's
Gate, yes even Blade Runner - and that was the case with Cotton Club
Encore.
Sure it was lovely to see more dance numbers and
more Gregory Hines but the central problem remained - too many scenes
outside the club which should be inside the club (eg the opening
attempted assassination of Dutch Schultz, reunion of the Hines
brothers, Greg Hines wooing Lonette McKee via song and dancing).
Watching it I kept muttering to myself "just set these scenes inside the club". That opening bit where Gere meets James Remar - that could be at the Club, towards closing time. The Hines brothers getting back together - Maurice can come to see Greg perform instead of the other way around. You could establish off screen McKee is performing as white.
The other problem was the film could never simplify the connection
between Dutch Schultz (James Remar) and Dixie (Richard Gere) - "I want
you to be my trumpet player/driver/fashion adviser/mistress escort"...
just make up your mind, Coppola. Gere playing trumpet is a mistake - it forces the film to go to another club because whites didn't play. They should have just had him as a dancer like George Raft - play up the male prostitute angle. When the film starts he's basically a hooker, like Lane - so they bond. Make him a good dancer - Gere could dance - he could dance at the Club, just not in the show. Lane shouldn't want to run a club - give her a fashion line or something so she can bring fashions into the club. Or be a radio performer.
It's a shame because all the
storylines are dramatically solid (fall in love with gangster's
mistress, black singer who passes for white, dancing brothers duo who
fall out, gang war in Harlem, brother becomes gangster) and the support
cast is sensational - Bob Hoskins, Fred Gwynne, Laurence Fisburn, Nicolas Cage, Jennifer Grey, Maurice Hines, John Ryan, Joe
Dellesandro, Ed O'Ross, Julian Beck, Gwen Vernon etc...
Nice to see on the big screen, though - where it's clear Diane Lane totally kept putting in the tongue kissing Richard Gere.
My favourite bits:
- Remar stabbing John Ryan and Fred Gwynne pulling a gun
- Julian Beck's Saul explaining his backstory
- how Cage and Grey really look like 1930s people
- the reunion between the Hines brothers
- the finale where it looks like Coppola did a line of coke and went "f*ck it" and did a big musical number where the stage show is intercut with numbers in real life
- Lane's expression at the end when Gere sees her at the train
- the gold watch scene
I feel it was a mistake to change the opening credits - no longer do they cut away to a musical number. Why? That was a great way to intro the film.
Movie review - "El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie" (2019) ***
Not bad. Not a masterpiece but enjoyable. Fun to see the old gang again like Bryan Cranston and Todd. I would've liked to have seen Skylar and Saul. There's not a lot of female roles. I thought they would have done more to the kid whose mother was killed. Lovely to see Robert Forster in what must have been his last role. The stuff with Todd was good. The gunslinging shoot out felt a little silly.
The film lacks a core relationship. Jesse and Todd isn't satisfying. I'm not sure what they could have done to be fair. Jesse and... a new person? New girl? Brock?I guess Brock was too old by then - the actor.
Another option could have been Skylar or Flynn or Marie. Jesse could have crossed with them getting money out of Walt's house or something. They could have kept the same structure just had him interacting with another character more.
It also lacked the black humour provided by Hank or Saul.
Still, entertaining.
The film lacks a core relationship. Jesse and Todd isn't satisfying. I'm not sure what they could have done to be fair. Jesse and... a new person? New girl? Brock?I guess Brock was too old by then - the actor.
Another option could have been Skylar or Flynn or Marie. Jesse could have crossed with them getting money out of Walt's house or something. They could have kept the same structure just had him interacting with another character more.
It also lacked the black humour provided by Hank or Saul.
Still, entertaining.
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Book review - McGee #5 - "A Deadly Shade of Gold" by John D MacDonald (1965)
I read this after The Girl in the Plain Brown Wrapped and liked it more - it was easier to read, pacier. There was more action and suspense, less stuff about real estate cons. The McGuffin is an old statue - the motivation is clear: avenging the death of a friend. The friend had a woman, so of course McGee has sex with her in her traumatised state. She dies which gives the piece some heft. Some life goes out of the book after this - it introduces a whole new woman and bunch of characters and got tiring. Meyer is in it too being annoying but not much. The physical stuff is well done, Mexico is evocatively described, the second half is too long, but I found this a strong entry.
Book review - "The Ride of a Lifetime" by Robert Iger (2019)
Iger's reputation has shot through the roof in recent years as he helped steer Disney from a bit of a slump in the second half of Eisner's territory. He's the third great CEO Disney have had after Disney and Eisner himself - it'll be interesting to see how long he hangs on.
The book is readable and full of common sense, conciseful tips on leadership - it's quite valuable in that regard. There's not a lot of personal life stuff - the divorce from his first wife is dealt with very quickly - but the best stuff in the book is personal: up close looks at Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch, and especially George Lucas whose reluctance to sell Star Wars is very touching.
Iger is best known for being "man who buys stuff" - but that takes its own skill. Massive purchases were made which could have backfired - Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Fox - but they didn't. He backed away from buying Twitter.
My main note is that Iger champions innovation in the book yet Disney is rapidly becoming known as the place for sequels/remakes only. Time will tell.
Enjoyable read though.
The book is readable and full of common sense, conciseful tips on leadership - it's quite valuable in that regard. There's not a lot of personal life stuff - the divorce from his first wife is dealt with very quickly - but the best stuff in the book is personal: up close looks at Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch, and especially George Lucas whose reluctance to sell Star Wars is very touching.
Iger is best known for being "man who buys stuff" - but that takes its own skill. Massive purchases were made which could have backfired - Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Fox - but they didn't. He backed away from buying Twitter.
My main note is that Iger champions innovation in the book yet Disney is rapidly becoming known as the place for sequels/remakes only. Time will tell.
Enjoyable read though.
Movie review - "Because of You" (1952) **
Jeff Chandler suited playing the male leads in women's pictures - he had the look and enough talent, and was virile and didn't overpower the female co star while not being overpowered himself. He should have done more - but most of his movies were Universal actioners.
Here the star really is Loretta Young. She starts the film looking a little floozy like in a blonde peroxide wig and dancing with her shonky boyfriend - I actually like the idea of floozy Young. But she's not... she's an innocent who winds up in prison because he asked her to hold something.
So she goes to prison and is a good girl - I was looking forward to Young in prison fighting off lesbian rapists but alas it was not to be. She gets out, becomes a nurse and meets war veteran Chandler when the story really kicks off.
Young is noble and suffering - I respect her as an actor and admit she's well cast for basically a weak and passive character but I'm not wild about her as a star.
The film is quite well written and decently paced. Scenes with the kid feel written by someone with a lot of experience with children. Moments are charming. I love how Young became the assistant to a magician - this was cute.
But there are flaws.
One is minor - it feels very contrived that Young doesn't tell Chandler she was in prison. I did buy her getting in the car with her ex - this was tense and all too believable especially when he threatened the kid.
One is major - Chandler's character is a truly horrible human being. He goes into such a sulk about finding out Young went to prison and was in a car with her ex - she was forced!!!! - that he gets the married annulled, gets full custody of the kid AND TELLS THE KID HER MOTHER IS DEAD!!! Then sooks and carries on when he finds out that she's secretly been the kid's nanny - and only asks her back because the kid isn't happy without Young. He's a truly abusive person - really he should be the villain.
The film depicts a bleak world for women - Young is convicted twice of crimes involving her ex that she's innocent of, prison rules are harsh, she can't date/marry on parole without permission, she loses custody of her child, her ex tells the child her mother is dead.
Thing is, the flaws of the movie could have been fixed. You should have had Young's ex threaten the kid - they go on the trip... the ex is going to hurt the kid so Young shoots the ex... shoots him. She freaks out, the cops come, the ex is captured, Young goes on the run... Chandler thinks she's run off with her ex... That makes his anger understandable. It also makes you understand why she stays away and sneaks back to being a nanny... You keep the ex alive... he comes back in the third act to threaten the family (escapes from prison)... they shoot him dead after he proves Young's innocence... All reunited.
That would be better than this.
It's a shame Chandler is so horrible in the last act because I went with this until then.
Here the star really is Loretta Young. She starts the film looking a little floozy like in a blonde peroxide wig and dancing with her shonky boyfriend - I actually like the idea of floozy Young. But she's not... she's an innocent who winds up in prison because he asked her to hold something.
So she goes to prison and is a good girl - I was looking forward to Young in prison fighting off lesbian rapists but alas it was not to be. She gets out, becomes a nurse and meets war veteran Chandler when the story really kicks off.
Young is noble and suffering - I respect her as an actor and admit she's well cast for basically a weak and passive character but I'm not wild about her as a star.
The film is quite well written and decently paced. Scenes with the kid feel written by someone with a lot of experience with children. Moments are charming. I love how Young became the assistant to a magician - this was cute.
But there are flaws.
One is minor - it feels very contrived that Young doesn't tell Chandler she was in prison. I did buy her getting in the car with her ex - this was tense and all too believable especially when he threatened the kid.
One is major - Chandler's character is a truly horrible human being. He goes into such a sulk about finding out Young went to prison and was in a car with her ex - she was forced!!!! - that he gets the married annulled, gets full custody of the kid AND TELLS THE KID HER MOTHER IS DEAD!!! Then sooks and carries on when he finds out that she's secretly been the kid's nanny - and only asks her back because the kid isn't happy without Young. He's a truly abusive person - really he should be the villain.
The film depicts a bleak world for women - Young is convicted twice of crimes involving her ex that she's innocent of, prison rules are harsh, she can't date/marry on parole without permission, she loses custody of her child, her ex tells the child her mother is dead.
Thing is, the flaws of the movie could have been fixed. You should have had Young's ex threaten the kid - they go on the trip... the ex is going to hurt the kid so Young shoots the ex... shoots him. She freaks out, the cops come, the ex is captured, Young goes on the run... Chandler thinks she's run off with her ex... That makes his anger understandable. It also makes you understand why she stays away and sneaks back to being a nanny... You keep the ex alive... he comes back in the third act to threaten the family (escapes from prison)... they shoot him dead after he proves Young's innocence... All reunited.
That would be better than this.
It's a shame Chandler is so horrible in the last act because I went with this until then.
Friday, October 11, 2019
Movie review - "The Story of David" (1960) **
Jeff Chandler suited Biblical pictures down to the ground, with his noble profile, booming voice, authoritative presence and booming voice... It's surprising he appeared in so few of them. I guess he made most of his movies for Universal who didn't make that many (too expensive).
This was one of his last films - he's dyed his hair black for the first bit! Though for the rest of the film he has head gear. He plays David, post Goliath - it's the section where Saul tries to kill him and he's mates with Jonathan. Really Chandler is too old but he brings his old Chandler-esque qualities.
It's not particularly well written or directed but sticks to the story and is enjoyable as, in the words of one critic, a Sunday school version of the tale. And the story is decent. I did wish the budget was bigger during the battle scenes. Also the script fails to hone in on any interesting character dynamics.
It is helped by location work in Israel and the cast who include Donald Pleasance (he's terrific in Biblical films), Barbara Shelley from Hammer horror and Richard O'Sullivan from Man About the House.
This was one of his last films - he's dyed his hair black for the first bit! Though for the rest of the film he has head gear. He plays David, post Goliath - it's the section where Saul tries to kill him and he's mates with Jonathan. Really Chandler is too old but he brings his old Chandler-esque qualities.
It's not particularly well written or directed but sticks to the story and is enjoyable as, in the words of one critic, a Sunday school version of the tale. And the story is decent. I did wish the budget was bigger during the battle scenes. Also the script fails to hone in on any interesting character dynamics.
It is helped by location work in Israel and the cast who include Donald Pleasance (he's terrific in Biblical films), Barbara Shelley from Hammer horror and Richard O'Sullivan from Man About the House.
Movie review - "The Joker" (2019) ***1/2
Joaquin Phoenix is terrific - the role is a fantastic one but not fool proof as Jared Leto indicated. Todd Phillips keeps Phoenix front and center as any Elvis Presley movie and is well rewarded.
The look of 1981 New York, sorry, Gotham, is convincing - bows to the art department - and I was gripped for a lot of this. A lot of it I was wishing I could take out my phone. It felt needlessly long. I did love how Thomas Wayne was a prick and even the butler Alfred was mean.
Two main gripes, one minor:
* the film started off feeling realistic but then as it went on felt less show - surely they would have vetted him more before going on a talk show? And I didn't buy everyone in clown masks praising him... that tends not to happen. Privately maybe but did, say, people rally around Lee Harvey Oswald? I think these things could have been fixed easily - you actually didn't need everyone running around praising Joker at the end, it would have worked fine with him being carted off and a lunatic fan then shooting the Waynes.
*a major gripe - the only people who are killed in the film deserve it. The mother who let her son be abused. Thomas Wayne who is horrible. The racist bullying gun happy clown. The yuppies on the train. The smug talk show host. If the film had shown someone nice and innocent being killed - the nice neighbour, her kid, one of his shrinks, a guest on the talk show, a member of the audience - then the movie would have been really grown up. But this is a Hollywood movie. And to be fair so was Taxi Driver where no one nice or innocent got killed either.
The look of 1981 New York, sorry, Gotham, is convincing - bows to the art department - and I was gripped for a lot of this. A lot of it I was wishing I could take out my phone. It felt needlessly long. I did love how Thomas Wayne was a prick and even the butler Alfred was mean.
Two main gripes, one minor:
* the film started off feeling realistic but then as it went on felt less show - surely they would have vetted him more before going on a talk show? And I didn't buy everyone in clown masks praising him... that tends not to happen. Privately maybe but did, say, people rally around Lee Harvey Oswald? I think these things could have been fixed easily - you actually didn't need everyone running around praising Joker at the end, it would have worked fine with him being carted off and a lunatic fan then shooting the Waynes.
*a major gripe - the only people who are killed in the film deserve it. The mother who let her son be abused. Thomas Wayne who is horrible. The racist bullying gun happy clown. The yuppies on the train. The smug talk show host. If the film had shown someone nice and innocent being killed - the nice neighbour, her kid, one of his shrinks, a guest on the talk show, a member of the audience - then the movie would have been really grown up. But this is a Hollywood movie. And to be fair so was Taxi Driver where no one nice or innocent got killed either.
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Movie review - "Lair of the White Worm" (1987) *** (warning: spoilers)
Nutty Ken Rusell adaptation of a Bram Stoker - the acting is all over the place, the tone goes from genuine silly to camp comedy, there's Oscar Wilde quotes throughout, Hugh Grant as a Wilde type hero, a cast including Grant, Peter Capaldi, Sammi Davis, Catherine Oxenberg and most of all Amanda Donohoe in a star making turn.
This film was uneven but I really enjoyed it. It's constantly surprising and unexpected - sometimes it's unexpected in bad ways, but that keeps you on your feet. It's a comedy and is full of silly moments - but there's scary ones too like when Donohoe kills that kid.
I actually wish Russell had treated the material more seriously at times - I felt he could do it. The scary moments are effective and I wanted more of them.
Hugh Grant is kind of the hero... well you think he is, even if he is also depicted as a bit of an upper class twist complete with man servant and RAF uniform... at the end he goes on a mission to get the worm... but doesn't do anything during the climax while Peter Capaldi cuts down Oxenberg, rescues Sammi Davis, throws Donohoe into the worm then chucks in a grenade. That actually is pretty funny.
Capaldi walks around and plays the bag pipe, Donohoe ties up Oxenberg in her underwear above a pit with the worm and threatens her with a big dildo (I was confused at that bit bc I thought Oxenberg had to be a virgin). Oxenberg being tied up in her underwear and Davis being knocked out while a man comes to rescue them is one of the more conventional aspects of the them.
Oxenberg is stunningly beautiful though her acting isn't quite right - it was novel she was a virgin. Davis' voice might get on your nerves but she has energy. Capaldi has energy too and Grant had charisma - it's weird seeing both of them so young, they needed to grow into their looks. But the break out star here is Donohoe who is great fun.
This film was uneven but I really enjoyed it. It's constantly surprising and unexpected - sometimes it's unexpected in bad ways, but that keeps you on your feet. It's a comedy and is full of silly moments - but there's scary ones too like when Donohoe kills that kid.
I actually wish Russell had treated the material more seriously at times - I felt he could do it. The scary moments are effective and I wanted more of them.
Hugh Grant is kind of the hero... well you think he is, even if he is also depicted as a bit of an upper class twist complete with man servant and RAF uniform... at the end he goes on a mission to get the worm... but doesn't do anything during the climax while Peter Capaldi cuts down Oxenberg, rescues Sammi Davis, throws Donohoe into the worm then chucks in a grenade. That actually is pretty funny.
Capaldi walks around and plays the bag pipe, Donohoe ties up Oxenberg in her underwear above a pit with the worm and threatens her with a big dildo (I was confused at that bit bc I thought Oxenberg had to be a virgin). Oxenberg being tied up in her underwear and Davis being knocked out while a man comes to rescue them is one of the more conventional aspects of the them.
Oxenberg is stunningly beautiful though her acting isn't quite right - it was novel she was a virgin. Davis' voice might get on your nerves but she has energy. Capaldi has energy too and Grant had charisma - it's weird seeing both of them so young, they needed to grow into their looks. But the break out star here is Donohoe who is great fun.
Movie review - "Escapade in Japan" (1957) **
Arthur Lubin was always a very good director of kids so it's no surprise that the two leads in this film are good especially Jon Provost.
But the story is flawed. It starts off fine - Provost is on a plane (he's on his own!) that crashes near Japan (most of the passengers die? Is that right?) He's rescued by a fisherman and his kid. When the cops turn up the kids worry that they've done something wrong and take off.
So the whole film is based on a misunderstanding. There's no good reason the kids go on the run, there's no danger, no threat. Japan is a friendly place - people are nice; they stop at one house and get food, and at another and have a bath. We cut back to the parents occasionally who are worried (Cameron Mitchell and Teresa Wright are wasted), then back to the kids who run around. One of them gets stuck up a roof.
It's like all the excitement is sucked out of it. You could have told the story from the parents point of view - them getting worried, following up leads, trying to figure out where the kids are, playing out some drama (it's on location in Japan, maybe one of them has issues with the Japanese or something). Or you could have told it from the kids POV only made it exciting - give them a decent reason to avoid detection (like they saw a murder and don't know who to trust), give it real stakes (like have someone after them who is bad).
This all feels pointless. The kids are great and there's some charming views of Japan - it was shot on location as part of that late 50s Hollywood Japan kick that included Sayonara, House of Bambo, Stopover Tokyo, The Barbarian and the Geisha. It flopped at the box office helping kill of RKO and Lubin's feature film career (though the direction is alright it's just the script).
But the story is flawed. It starts off fine - Provost is on a plane (he's on his own!) that crashes near Japan (most of the passengers die? Is that right?) He's rescued by a fisherman and his kid. When the cops turn up the kids worry that they've done something wrong and take off.
So the whole film is based on a misunderstanding. There's no good reason the kids go on the run, there's no danger, no threat. Japan is a friendly place - people are nice; they stop at one house and get food, and at another and have a bath. We cut back to the parents occasionally who are worried (Cameron Mitchell and Teresa Wright are wasted), then back to the kids who run around. One of them gets stuck up a roof.
It's like all the excitement is sucked out of it. You could have told the story from the parents point of view - them getting worried, following up leads, trying to figure out where the kids are, playing out some drama (it's on location in Japan, maybe one of them has issues with the Japanese or something). Or you could have told it from the kids POV only made it exciting - give them a decent reason to avoid detection (like they saw a murder and don't know who to trust), give it real stakes (like have someone after them who is bad).
This all feels pointless. The kids are great and there's some charming views of Japan - it was shot on location as part of that late 50s Hollywood Japan kick that included Sayonara, House of Bambo, Stopover Tokyo, The Barbarian and the Geisha. It flopped at the box office helping kill of RKO and Lubin's feature film career (though the direction is alright it's just the script).
Movie review - "Amelia and the Angels" (1958) ***
Charming film about a child looking for angels wings for her ballet dress - an early work from Ken Russell, it got him his job at the BBC. Not typical of his later outfit and you wonder why he didn't do more kids stuff because his non naturalistic approach suited it. The girl is very good. Shot cinema verite style with location work.
Wednesday, October 09, 2019
Movie review - "Warm Nights on a Slow Moving Train" (1987) **
Bob Ellis directed three feature films. Let that sink in next time you're wondering if boomers weren't spoilt.
Ah look I guess it's not the worst thing - he was literate, a good writer, knew a lot of decent actors. And at least this tries to be something different - an erotic film set on a train.
It's not very sexy though despite Wendy Hughes in the lead. There's little build up to the sex. The sex scenes are mostly someone clambering on top of Hughes.
There's a lot of talk. Apparently Ellis had a longer cut. It probably would've been hard to get through but I think if you make an Ellis film you go with it.
The plot: Hughes is a hooker on a train and she has a series of random encounters - with a football coach (John Clayton) who seems based more on Ellis than his childhood friend Roy Masters, a soldier (Rod Zuanic - remember when he was in every second Australian film?), a travelling salesman (Norman Kaye), a musician (Steven Spears) and a mystery man who works for ASIO (Colin Friels).
It's very Ellis - women are for sex, men talk about themselves, and ASIO plot to kill women loving left leaning politicians. It's not very believable and doesn't quite work but at least it's different. It's one of those films that probably would have come across less silly in French.
The acting is okay. Friels shouldn't have used that Scottish accent. I like movies set on trains.
Ah look I guess it's not the worst thing - he was literate, a good writer, knew a lot of decent actors. And at least this tries to be something different - an erotic film set on a train.
It's not very sexy though despite Wendy Hughes in the lead. There's little build up to the sex. The sex scenes are mostly someone clambering on top of Hughes.
There's a lot of talk. Apparently Ellis had a longer cut. It probably would've been hard to get through but I think if you make an Ellis film you go with it.
The plot: Hughes is a hooker on a train and she has a series of random encounters - with a football coach (John Clayton) who seems based more on Ellis than his childhood friend Roy Masters, a soldier (Rod Zuanic - remember when he was in every second Australian film?), a travelling salesman (Norman Kaye), a musician (Steven Spears) and a mystery man who works for ASIO (Colin Friels).
It's very Ellis - women are for sex, men talk about themselves, and ASIO plot to kill women loving left leaning politicians. It's not very believable and doesn't quite work but at least it's different. It's one of those films that probably would have come across less silly in French.
The acting is okay. Friels shouldn't have used that Scottish accent. I like movies set on trains.
Movie review - "Prisoner of Honor" (1991) **
The Dreyfus Affair is intrinsically interesting but I feel Richard Dreyfus was miscast - I get he wanted to play a different sort of role but he just feels so jewish, so contemporary... I didn't buy him as a French Catholic officer who comes to believe Dreyfus is innocent. He didn't feel like someone in the army, or a Frenchman or a non Jew. Sorry, Richard - I know this was a passion project.
It's directed by Ken Russell for some reason - they presumably wanted to give the piece some oomph - but there's no real Russell flourishes. It looks handsome.
There's a bunch of English actors being Frenchmen - the actors all look like boozers: Oliver Reed, Jeremy Kemp, etc. You never really get a feeling of France at the time, or the mood of the army or the anti Semitism that was prevalent.
The film actually isn't bad when Dreyfus isn't in it - when the generals are being anti Semitic pricks, and another soldier is forced to kill himself... The compositions feel bolder, as if Russell was empowered in Dreyfus' absence.
I think telling the story from his character's point of view was a mistake... It starts with Dreyfus being convicted there's no excitement of him being busted and going to prison and the discovery of the culprit is off screen.
The device of having some Englishman narrate it in 1923 feels pointless.
It's directed by Ken Russell for some reason - they presumably wanted to give the piece some oomph - but there's no real Russell flourishes. It looks handsome.
There's a bunch of English actors being Frenchmen - the actors all look like boozers: Oliver Reed, Jeremy Kemp, etc. You never really get a feeling of France at the time, or the mood of the army or the anti Semitism that was prevalent.
The film actually isn't bad when Dreyfus isn't in it - when the generals are being anti Semitic pricks, and another soldier is forced to kill himself... The compositions feel bolder, as if Russell was empowered in Dreyfus' absence.
I think telling the story from his character's point of view was a mistake... It starts with Dreyfus being convicted there's no excitement of him being busted and going to prison and the discovery of the culprit is off screen.
The device of having some Englishman narrate it in 1923 feels pointless.
Tuesday, October 08, 2019
Movie review - "Lisztomania" (1975) **
Ken Russell jumped from the success of Tommy to this biopic of the life of Liszt, so it's a genre very much in his wheelhouse. He takes the idea of Liszt being the first pop star and really runs with it... so much so the film loses any grounding in reality. It's set in this never never land... it never feels remotely nineteenth century. It loses bearings of time and place.
Other Russell biopics had their flourishes but were grounded in some sort of reality - they used lots of music. This has a little Liszt but a lot more Rick Wakeman pop songs which Daltrey sings. I wasn't sure what year it was set in or what country.
It might have more impact if you're super familiar with Liszt's career and get all the references but I wasn't and didn't. The stuff I enjoyed the most was where I had a little bit of knowledge, like his relationship with Wagner, and the Wagner character wearing a Nazi helmet But for the rest I had to google it on wikipedia to then get the references which is so way to enjoy a film.
There are some full one excesses here - the massive dildo at a concert for example. That's not the real problem though.
Roger Daltrey tries and I get why he was cast being a real rock star but he doesn't crack it. Part of it is inexperience but may for me it's also that Daltrey was a front man not a composer whereas Liszt was both... maybe a singer songwriter would have worked... maybe not Elton John but someone like him, a solo act.
Sarah Kestleman is perfect in the Russell world. Little Nell is in it too. And Ringo Star.
I wonder if Russell's heart wasn't more in the Wagner character. Maybe he should have done a Wagner biopic.There are some striking images and it's always different. But it's a mess.
Other Russell biopics had their flourishes but were grounded in some sort of reality - they used lots of music. This has a little Liszt but a lot more Rick Wakeman pop songs which Daltrey sings. I wasn't sure what year it was set in or what country.
It might have more impact if you're super familiar with Liszt's career and get all the references but I wasn't and didn't. The stuff I enjoyed the most was where I had a little bit of knowledge, like his relationship with Wagner, and the Wagner character wearing a Nazi helmet But for the rest I had to google it on wikipedia to then get the references which is so way to enjoy a film.
There are some full one excesses here - the massive dildo at a concert for example. That's not the real problem though.
Roger Daltrey tries and I get why he was cast being a real rock star but he doesn't crack it. Part of it is inexperience but may for me it's also that Daltrey was a front man not a composer whereas Liszt was both... maybe a singer songwriter would have worked... maybe not Elton John but someone like him, a solo act.
Sarah Kestleman is perfect in the Russell world. Little Nell is in it too. And Ringo Star.
I wonder if Russell's heart wasn't more in the Wagner character. Maybe he should have done a Wagner biopic.There are some striking images and it's always different. But it's a mess.
Monday, October 07, 2019
Movie review - "Running from the Guns" (1987) **
10BA cinema at its schlocky best - John Dixon showed he had a real feeling for the Australian myth with The Man from Snowy River and Anzacs I'm surprised he didn't do something historical-leaning for his directorial debut (dramatic feature debut that is).
Jon Blake and Mark Hembrow have easy chemistry as a couple of good old blokes but I think it was a mistake to have them as mechanics on the knock... It was a bit vague as to their characters... I think they should have been cops or flat out crooks. Probably cops. It would have made the action scenes make more sense - the bang bang is decently done but Blake and Hembrow seem awfully proficient with firearms.
The characters probably have too much in common too - in buddy comedies there's usually a difference between the lead blokes but both of them were knockabouts. They do seem to be friends though - I'm surprised they didn't share more scenes together, Blake goes off with Hembrow for great slabs of time.
I got sad watching Blake - handsome, a decent actor, he would have continued to be in much demand. Maybe not a Mel Gibson star - could Gibson have survived all the flops Blake appeared in? - but you can easily see him on a US cop show for ten years.
Hembrow has a lovely relaxed knock about presence - I'm surprised he disappeared. Nikki Coghill is fabulous - sweet, lovely, likeable. She was good in more bad Australian films than perhaps any other actor.
It's great that the love interest works for the crime authority but a mistake to have them meet of their own bat - it would've been better coming out of the story organically.
There's a lot of corruption in Australian society in this movie. Seriously everyone is corrupt - the cops, the rich, the unions.
The film smells of Melbourne - not just Melbourne locations but Melbourne actors (it's all very graduation of Crawfords) and praise of battlers, with characters called "Muppet" and "Spanner", and cops with porkpie hats and camp gays.
This is fun in it's late 80s obscure way. It's uneven as drama - it knows what beats it wants to hit and what it's kind of going for but doesn't get there. It's too confusing who the heroes are for me, key roles are miscast (Terry Donovan's part feels like it should be someone broadly comic), there's awful moments like Donovan visiting a brothel. It is a genuine period piece.
Jon Blake and Mark Hembrow have easy chemistry as a couple of good old blokes but I think it was a mistake to have them as mechanics on the knock... It was a bit vague as to their characters... I think they should have been cops or flat out crooks. Probably cops. It would have made the action scenes make more sense - the bang bang is decently done but Blake and Hembrow seem awfully proficient with firearms.
The characters probably have too much in common too - in buddy comedies there's usually a difference between the lead blokes but both of them were knockabouts. They do seem to be friends though - I'm surprised they didn't share more scenes together, Blake goes off with Hembrow for great slabs of time.
I got sad watching Blake - handsome, a decent actor, he would have continued to be in much demand. Maybe not a Mel Gibson star - could Gibson have survived all the flops Blake appeared in? - but you can easily see him on a US cop show for ten years.
Hembrow has a lovely relaxed knock about presence - I'm surprised he disappeared. Nikki Coghill is fabulous - sweet, lovely, likeable. She was good in more bad Australian films than perhaps any other actor.
It's great that the love interest works for the crime authority but a mistake to have them meet of their own bat - it would've been better coming out of the story organically.
There's a lot of corruption in Australian society in this movie. Seriously everyone is corrupt - the cops, the rich, the unions.
The film smells of Melbourne - not just Melbourne locations but Melbourne actors (it's all very graduation of Crawfords) and praise of battlers, with characters called "Muppet" and "Spanner", and cops with porkpie hats and camp gays.
This is fun in it's late 80s obscure way. It's uneven as drama - it knows what beats it wants to hit and what it's kind of going for but doesn't get there. It's too confusing who the heroes are for me, key roles are miscast (Terry Donovan's part feels like it should be someone broadly comic), there's awful moments like Donovan visiting a brothel. It is a genuine period piece.
Sunday, October 06, 2019
TV review - "The Secret Life of Arnold Bax" (1992) **
Ken Russell got to make a film a year for The South Bank Show - all directors should be so lucky.
Some of this is amateurish - all the time Russell/Bax throws down whisky, some of the acting and playing. It's great when Jackon is on scene less so when it's Russell and the girl. The plot has him live with Jackson then go away and lech after a young woman. I didn't know much about Bax so it was a bit interesting - fascinating to see Russell in the lead. Not that flamboyant. There is a woman doing a strip scene/fan dance.
Some of this is amateurish - all the time Russell/Bax throws down whisky, some of the acting and playing. It's great when Jackon is on scene less so when it's Russell and the girl. The plot has him live with Jackson then go away and lech after a young woman. I didn't know much about Bax so it was a bit interesting - fascinating to see Russell in the lead. Not that flamboyant. There is a woman doing a strip scene/fan dance.
Saturday, October 05, 2019
Movie review - "Salome's Last Dance" (1988) **1/2
Ken Russell does Oscar Wilde's famous play - he basically films a performance of the play, in a brothel, being watched by Wilde. It's an interesting take - the photography is beautiful, and it's got Russell vulgarities like boobs and farts and dildos and what not, but it is basically filmed theatre.
Glenda Jackson is the one well known member of the cast - I wish it had more famous people... surely Oliver Reed could have used the cred? The actors who are there can act - people like Stratford Johns and Douglas Hodge. The jury is more mixed on Imogen Mallais-Scott who plays Salome. She became blind just before filming, but Russell kept her on - it's maybe not an entirely successful performance (you really want a star, or someone who became a star) but it is interesting.
Stratford Johns and Jackson are the best value. It took me a while to get into this - after Jackson came in it picked up, and Salome started to go after John the Baptist. All the set up was wonky but when the drama kicked in I went with it.
This was the second of four films Russell made for Vestron. I think maybe they were hoping he would give them class, even some Oscars, while still turning out movies with nudity.
Glenda Jackson is the one well known member of the cast - I wish it had more famous people... surely Oliver Reed could have used the cred? The actors who are there can act - people like Stratford Johns and Douglas Hodge. The jury is more mixed on Imogen Mallais-Scott who plays Salome. She became blind just before filming, but Russell kept her on - it's maybe not an entirely successful performance (you really want a star, or someone who became a star) but it is interesting.
Stratford Johns and Jackson are the best value. It took me a while to get into this - after Jackson came in it picked up, and Salome started to go after John the Baptist. All the set up was wonky but when the drama kicked in I went with it.
This was the second of four films Russell made for Vestron. I think maybe they were hoping he would give them class, even some Oscars, while still turning out movies with nudity.
Movie review - "Disco Fever" (1978) **
Weird sort of movie - a disco film starring Fabian. It's as if the producers wanted to make a disco movie, or could get the finance, then Fabian became available so they decided to shoehorn him in.
The film feels written for him, he's a fading pop star who gets mistaken for Frankie Avalon and Fabian ("were you in North to Alaska?" "no that was Fabian') who hangs around a disco. The film uses footage of Fabian from his hey day - being mobbed and what not - as well as a glimpse of his Playgirl centerfold.
The plot has the manager of a disco see Fabian and decide to orchestrate his comeback. Fabian wants to sing new songs. The manager wants him to sing old songs on a disco plane as a warm up act for new star Michael Blodgett. Fabian decides to stick to his guns and sing his not particularly memorable new songs. The crowd goes wild.
There's something very cute in a movie insisting this would happen. Fabian has a beard and gives a typically relaxed, professional performance - probably too relaxed... more anxiousness and tension would have added to the movie, to give it more stakes.
You never believe for a second that Fabian would be used to launch a disco singer or perform in a disco or that his new songs would go over. The bitchy female manager who wants to bed Fabian and is annoyed is an unpleasant trope. Subplots come and go like the ex of the girl interested in Fabian, and the girl Casey Kasem does coke with.
But I didn't mind this movie. There is lots and lots of disco dancing. There's a fair bit of music - disco and Fabian rock tracks. Casey Kasem plays Fabian's manager who sells him out, tries to pick up women, and does cocaine with a topless starlet. (In some ways this film is for kids with dancing, music, a silly storyline and a motorbike race just kind of thrown in... but then there's some nudity, swearing and cocaine. It's like, make up your mind, movie!) The idea of a disco plane is camp enough for its own film.
A curio, to be sure. Not appalling just a real mish mash.
The film feels written for him, he's a fading pop star who gets mistaken for Frankie Avalon and Fabian ("were you in North to Alaska?" "no that was Fabian') who hangs around a disco. The film uses footage of Fabian from his hey day - being mobbed and what not - as well as a glimpse of his Playgirl centerfold.
The plot has the manager of a disco see Fabian and decide to orchestrate his comeback. Fabian wants to sing new songs. The manager wants him to sing old songs on a disco plane as a warm up act for new star Michael Blodgett. Fabian decides to stick to his guns and sing his not particularly memorable new songs. The crowd goes wild.
There's something very cute in a movie insisting this would happen. Fabian has a beard and gives a typically relaxed, professional performance - probably too relaxed... more anxiousness and tension would have added to the movie, to give it more stakes.
You never believe for a second that Fabian would be used to launch a disco singer or perform in a disco or that his new songs would go over. The bitchy female manager who wants to bed Fabian and is annoyed is an unpleasant trope. Subplots come and go like the ex of the girl interested in Fabian, and the girl Casey Kasem does coke with.
But I didn't mind this movie. There is lots and lots of disco dancing. There's a fair bit of music - disco and Fabian rock tracks. Casey Kasem plays Fabian's manager who sells him out, tries to pick up women, and does cocaine with a topless starlet. (In some ways this film is for kids with dancing, music, a silly storyline and a motorbike race just kind of thrown in... but then there's some nudity, swearing and cocaine. It's like, make up your mind, movie!) The idea of a disco plane is camp enough for its own film.
A curio, to be sure. Not appalling just a real mish mash.
Friday, October 04, 2019
Movie review - "The Rainbow" (1989) **1/2
Ken Russell returns to DH Lawrence in the last of his four films for Vestron - the last time he got consistent finance for features though he always kept busy. It's the sort of tale that sounds as if it should work - a young woman rebelling against society. But it doesn't work.
Part of it for me was Sammi Davis' lead performance. She seems like a happy chirpy girl not that affected by the world around her so there's no sense of struggle. She seems to pop along - one minute being with soldier Paul McCann, having lesbian sex with Amanda Donohoe (would this not be a bit more of a thing?), then becoming a teacher then hooking up with McGann again.
There's no sense of internal struggle - which, sure, if that's how you want to go you can but it removes the drama. She is a bit sulky when Donohoe flirts with David Hemmings but when those two get married Donohoe seems more upset with Davis. She never seems that into McGann other than as a f*ck buddy. She's not that enthusiastic about teaching so when she cracks it and whips a kid and then quits it doesn't mean anything.
Sometimes it is effective like when she's sexually harassed at school or her mother (Glenda Jackson) glowers at her for having ambition. This is what the movie should be - showing opposition to Davis. It feels easier for her. I completely acknowledge female viewers may feel differently and get more conflict out of it.
But I still feel the role needed a young Glenda Jackson - someone with more fire. Judy Davis. Emma Thompson at the time - she would've been fantastic. Or Kristin Scott Thomas.
Amanda Donohoe is very good as the sensuous teacher. McGann is alright though someone with more charisma/sensuousness might have been more effective. It's not as good as Women in Love - I think it was marred by the casting.
Part of it for me was Sammi Davis' lead performance. She seems like a happy chirpy girl not that affected by the world around her so there's no sense of struggle. She seems to pop along - one minute being with soldier Paul McCann, having lesbian sex with Amanda Donohoe (would this not be a bit more of a thing?), then becoming a teacher then hooking up with McGann again.
There's no sense of internal struggle - which, sure, if that's how you want to go you can but it removes the drama. She is a bit sulky when Donohoe flirts with David Hemmings but when those two get married Donohoe seems more upset with Davis. She never seems that into McGann other than as a f*ck buddy. She's not that enthusiastic about teaching so when she cracks it and whips a kid and then quits it doesn't mean anything.
Sometimes it is effective like when she's sexually harassed at school or her mother (Glenda Jackson) glowers at her for having ambition. This is what the movie should be - showing opposition to Davis. It feels easier for her. I completely acknowledge female viewers may feel differently and get more conflict out of it.
But I still feel the role needed a young Glenda Jackson - someone with more fire. Judy Davis. Emma Thompson at the time - she would've been fantastic. Or Kristin Scott Thomas.
Amanda Donohoe is very good as the sensuous teacher. McGann is alright though someone with more charisma/sensuousness might have been more effective. It's not as good as Women in Love - I think it was marred by the casting.
Movie review - "Who Killed Aunt Maggie?" (1940) **1/2
Arthur Lubin was at his peak around this time and keeps his touch light and fun in an entertaining comedy chiller. It's not the sort of movie you expect from Republic but is bright and fast. It could do with a better cast but I liked John Hubbard - he was a decent second tier leading man. I've never been a fan of Wendy Barrie. In a big studio film you'd get a top support cast like say Gale Sondegaard but not here. Oh maybe that's mean - Walter Abel and Onslow Stevens are fine.
Still the old dark house has an atmosphere - it's one of those will reading over night movies. I liked how the female lead had a job, a radio writer - I wasn't wild how Barrie and Hubbard's relationship seems really nasty with them arguing at the end. How long will they last after getting married?
There's too much "comic scared black servant" stuff - no offence to Willie Best who did what he's asked, it's just uncomfortable.
Still, a decent effort from Lubin.
Still the old dark house has an atmosphere - it's one of those will reading over night movies. I liked how the female lead had a job, a radio writer - I wasn't wild how Barrie and Hubbard's relationship seems really nasty with them arguing at the end. How long will they last after getting married?
There's too much "comic scared black servant" stuff - no offence to Willie Best who did what he's asked, it's just uncomfortable.
Still, a decent effort from Lubin.
Thursday, October 03, 2019
Movie review - "Between Us Girls" (1942) *1/2
Deanna Durbin turned down this film and no surprise because the idea is stupid - it's about a 20 year old woman who pretends to be 12 so her mother's new boyfriend doesn't think mom is too old. Isn't he going to figure it out eventually? She keeps the deception going with the boyfriend's colleague Bob Cummings because.... um, fun?
The Major and the Minor had a girl pretend to be fun for a logical reason but here it's stupid. Durbin stepped out and Diana Barrymore stepped in. Presumably Universal figured the daughter of John Barrymore could handle it - indeed they throw in extra acting for her to go, by making her character an actor, and have her perform as Queen Victoria, Sadie Thompson.
Barrymore runs around and mugs and it's painful. She tries but she hasn't got it. It's a tough role but she isn't even pretty. Universal don't protect her - she carries the bulk of the action she's always the focus of scenes and she's hideous.
I mean there's a strong cast here otherwise - Cummings acts his arse off and does a good job opposite her - he's got a bit to do but Kay Francis (her mother) and John Boles (mother's boyfriend) are wasted as is Andy Devine (manager). The film bets all its chips on Barrymore and it's a bust.
Henry Koster's handling isn't bad - the blocking of the scenes and what not is fine. It looks handsome. But its so dumb and gets more and more painful. Amateurish Barrymore.
The Major and the Minor had a girl pretend to be fun for a logical reason but here it's stupid. Durbin stepped out and Diana Barrymore stepped in. Presumably Universal figured the daughter of John Barrymore could handle it - indeed they throw in extra acting for her to go, by making her character an actor, and have her perform as Queen Victoria, Sadie Thompson.
Barrymore runs around and mugs and it's painful. She tries but she hasn't got it. It's a tough role but she isn't even pretty. Universal don't protect her - she carries the bulk of the action she's always the focus of scenes and she's hideous.
I mean there's a strong cast here otherwise - Cummings acts his arse off and does a good job opposite her - he's got a bit to do but Kay Francis (her mother) and John Boles (mother's boyfriend) are wasted as is Andy Devine (manager). The film bets all its chips on Barrymore and it's a bust.
Henry Koster's handling isn't bad - the blocking of the scenes and what not is fine. It looks handsome. But its so dumb and gets more and more painful. Amateurish Barrymore.
Movie review - "The Barefoot Mailman" (1952) **1/2
Little known comedy drama which has the benefit of a novel setting - 1895 Florida when mailmen walked barefoot through the swamps and sand to deliver the mail. Conman Bob Cummings turns up to convince the locals that the rail road is coming through.
It's got colour and location photography and Cummings is ideally cast as a Music Man style conman. Cummings needs strong co stars though - he's not Cary Grant he's Cary Grant lite. He's got Terry Moore who looks too young - it doesn't help she pretends to be a 12 year old. There's also Jerome Courtland who has a really big role - he's the pure hero. He's a dull character and not a particularly charismatic guy - maybe Glenn Ford could have made the part work but Courtland doesn't. Cummings' character shod have interesting relationships with Moore and Courtland but he doesn't - it feels like he's off in one movie and they're in another.
There's enjoyable support players like John Russell and Will Greer and a bit of action including a fake fight with an alligator.
Courtland gets too much screen time - really this should have been all Cummings. And I was disappointed there wasn't more mailman stuff - I mean that's the title and a point of difference. I figured Cummings would deliver more mail or be a mailman or something.
Still it's breezy enough and like I say the setting is different.
It's got colour and location photography and Cummings is ideally cast as a Music Man style conman. Cummings needs strong co stars though - he's not Cary Grant he's Cary Grant lite. He's got Terry Moore who looks too young - it doesn't help she pretends to be a 12 year old. There's also Jerome Courtland who has a really big role - he's the pure hero. He's a dull character and not a particularly charismatic guy - maybe Glenn Ford could have made the part work but Courtland doesn't. Cummings' character shod have interesting relationships with Moore and Courtland but he doesn't - it feels like he's off in one movie and they're in another.
There's enjoyable support players like John Russell and Will Greer and a bit of action including a fake fight with an alligator.
Courtland gets too much screen time - really this should have been all Cummings. And I was disappointed there wasn't more mailman stuff - I mean that's the title and a point of difference. I figured Cummings would deliver more mail or be a mailman or something.
Still it's breezy enough and like I say the setting is different.
Book review - McGee#10 - "The Girl in the Plain Brown Wrapper" by John D MacDonald (1968)
McGee gets a request from an ex (who he seduced when she was recovering from a bad marriage) who has died... to look after her daughter who is in trouble. Presumably McGee thinks he can bang her - or her sister; he thinks about it but doesn't go through with it.
There was a lot of plot here - a lot - heaps of stuff about real estate fraud that got confusing. He has sex with a nurse who winds up dead. There's an intriguing relationship with a cop. Good action but all the plot and investigation got me down. And McGee got on my nerves a lot.
There was a lot of plot here - a lot - heaps of stuff about real estate fraud that got confusing. He has sex with a nurse who winds up dead. There's an intriguing relationship with a cop. Good action but all the plot and investigation got me down. And McGee got on my nerves a lot.
Movie review - "Ad Astra" (2019) ***
You can see why James Gray is admired but also why people don't go to his movies - lots of good stuff and bad stuff in here mixed together. It's a riff on Apocalypse Now only in space which I think is a great idea.
Gray does a half good job of setting up the world - there's not a lot of Indians and Chinese in space in the near future and I'm not trying to be overly woke here it just doesn't strike me as realistic. Sometimes the sets and stuff felt real other times it felt like clunky throwbacks (will we still have CNN? and scrolls across the screen).
Gray isn't that good at exposition - like making the power surge a threat, and I got confused at the end what was going on. He's very good on theme - the importance of connecting and realising we're all we've got. It felt like there was too much narration and dialogue.
He's very good on suspense/action sequences - the opening fall, the chase scene on the moon, the space monkeys. Indeed these sequences could have been spun off into their own movies that probably would have been more fun, especially Brad Pitt vs the space pirates or Brad Pitt vs the space monkeys.
Pretty much everyone who gets a ride with Brad Pitt in this film dies. Pitt is excellent, incidentally. Donald Sutherland and Tommy Lee Jones playing former astronaut colleagues is a nice nod to Space Cowboys.
It's a big budget star driven movie that's not a sequel and is based on an original script. It has a superb star performance and some effective moments.
Gray does a half good job of setting up the world - there's not a lot of Indians and Chinese in space in the near future and I'm not trying to be overly woke here it just doesn't strike me as realistic. Sometimes the sets and stuff felt real other times it felt like clunky throwbacks (will we still have CNN? and scrolls across the screen).
Gray isn't that good at exposition - like making the power surge a threat, and I got confused at the end what was going on. He's very good on theme - the importance of connecting and realising we're all we've got. It felt like there was too much narration and dialogue.
He's very good on suspense/action sequences - the opening fall, the chase scene on the moon, the space monkeys. Indeed these sequences could have been spun off into their own movies that probably would have been more fun, especially Brad Pitt vs the space pirates or Brad Pitt vs the space monkeys.
Pretty much everyone who gets a ride with Brad Pitt in this film dies. Pitt is excellent, incidentally. Donald Sutherland and Tommy Lee Jones playing former astronaut colleagues is a nice nod to Space Cowboys.
It's a big budget star driven movie that's not a sequel and is based on an original script. It has a superb star performance and some effective moments.
Wednesday, October 02, 2019
Movie review - "Princess O'Rourke" (1943) ***
Norman Krasna's directorial debut didn't indicate amazing talent - some scenes are paced and staged awkwardly - but in the main this is a charming, affectionate fable. It has a strong set up - exiled European princess falls for regular joe pilot - and a team of strong comic actors: Bob Cummings, Charles Coburn, Jack Carson, Jane Wyman. They help prop up Olivia de Havilland, who is a delight and likable and all that stuff... not a great comic but the others can do that for her.
There's not a lot of jokes - it's more a charm piece. There is deception - it is Krasna after all - with de Havilland not telling Cummings she's royalty until two third in.
The film has a genuine sense of fun and camaraderie as Cummings, de Havilland, Wyman and Carson hang around town - de Havilland helps out at a woman's auxiliary service and so on.
I wasn't wild about the last act where Cummings got all uppity because he was just going to be a prince consort and accused de Havilland of being a slave - which had a point in a way but the fact is you know his solution is to be a slave to her. With a little tweak this could be made non problematic.
This is the quintessential Cummings part - he plays a flyer, an amiable guy, with a big female co star and strong support players. He and Krasna should have worked together more because the results were always effective when they dd.
There's not a lot of jokes - it's more a charm piece. There is deception - it is Krasna after all - with de Havilland not telling Cummings she's royalty until two third in.
The film has a genuine sense of fun and camaraderie as Cummings, de Havilland, Wyman and Carson hang around town - de Havilland helps out at a woman's auxiliary service and so on.
I wasn't wild about the last act where Cummings got all uppity because he was just going to be a prince consort and accused de Havilland of being a slave - which had a point in a way but the fact is you know his solution is to be a slave to her. With a little tweak this could be made non problematic.
This is the quintessential Cummings part - he plays a flyer, an amiable guy, with a big female co star and strong support players. He and Krasna should have worked together more because the results were always effective when they dd.
Book review - "In My Father's Shadow: A Daughter Remembers Orson Welles" by Chris Welles Feder (2010)
I've never read a bad book on Orson Welles - he's too interesting a character with such a dramatic life arc. This is by his eldest daughter, to his short lived first marriage... the debutante lady who from this was a piece of work, an upper class gal interesting enough to get Welles and then Charles Lederer who then went off with some British army officer Jack Pringle and turned into a stuffy racist bitch in South Africa.
Welles is described as the sort of father that I would imagine him to be - charming, charismatic, kind, hopeless with money and appointments, full of attention when someone was there, not great other times. A big spoiled baby who whined about being betrayed but really that tended to be his own fault - and his version of betrayal was usually that someone didn't want to be his slave.
The best periods were when Chris lived in Santa Monica - step dad Lederer got along well with Welles and Rita Hayworth was a great step mother. It got harder when Hayworth had a child and then really bad when Chris' mother remarried Pringle. They did reconnect at various times - in Hong Kong during the making of Ferry to Hong Kong - and towards the end of his life, when he stopped being so happy go lucky and was more panicky, had endured more direction.
Considering her upbringing Chris Welles turned out remarkably well adjusted - one divorce, it's true, but even that was kind of interesting, with a guy who went to live in South Korea; no drinking or drug habits; a happy second marriage and a decent career writing educational books; lots of globe trotting.
Her aching for a relationship with her father is intense - but her mother wasn't better. The nicest people raising her were the Hills. She forms a nice relationship with Oja Kodar after Orson's death but is never that close to his other children. I did feel the book maybe could have brought Chris' relationship with her mother and Rita Hayworth up to date. But a very good book.
Welles is described as the sort of father that I would imagine him to be - charming, charismatic, kind, hopeless with money and appointments, full of attention when someone was there, not great other times. A big spoiled baby who whined about being betrayed but really that tended to be his own fault - and his version of betrayal was usually that someone didn't want to be his slave.
The best periods were when Chris lived in Santa Monica - step dad Lederer got along well with Welles and Rita Hayworth was a great step mother. It got harder when Hayworth had a child and then really bad when Chris' mother remarried Pringle. They did reconnect at various times - in Hong Kong during the making of Ferry to Hong Kong - and towards the end of his life, when he stopped being so happy go lucky and was more panicky, had endured more direction.
Considering her upbringing Chris Welles turned out remarkably well adjusted - one divorce, it's true, but even that was kind of interesting, with a guy who went to live in South Korea; no drinking or drug habits; a happy second marriage and a decent career writing educational books; lots of globe trotting.
Her aching for a relationship with her father is intense - but her mother wasn't better. The nicest people raising her were the Hills. She forms a nice relationship with Oja Kodar after Orson's death but is never that close to his other children. I did feel the book maybe could have brought Chris' relationship with her mother and Rita Hayworth up to date. But a very good book.
Tuesday, October 01, 2019
Movie review - "Free for All" (1949) **
Amiable enough comedy helped by the charm of Robert Cummings in the lead as a scientist who invents a pill to turn water into petrol. Cummings really needs a strong film star though - very talented but he wasn't like Cary Grant, he couldn't carry a movie on his own shoulders. Here he's got Ann Blyth who has that china doll prettiness but lacks spunk in a role that requires, I don't know, I'd take Maureen O'Hara or Anne Sheridan.
Percy Kilbridge is always fun and there's other reliable types like Ray Collins. The story is weak because you know it's not a real thing and it's never going to exist and while there's fun satire with the military refusing to believe the thing exists it's depressingly believable the oil company tries to steal it off him. There's a gangster who thinks Cummings is a ganster too but is cute. At the end Cummings gets his memory back and... so what? So they don't need petrol any more? Um...
Maybe colour would have helped. Cummings does well - he just needed a stronger co star. There's location work in Washington.
Percy Kilbridge is always fun and there's other reliable types like Ray Collins. The story is weak because you know it's not a real thing and it's never going to exist and while there's fun satire with the military refusing to believe the thing exists it's depressingly believable the oil company tries to steal it off him. There's a gangster who thinks Cummings is a ganster too but is cute. At the end Cummings gets his memory back and... so what? So they don't need petrol any more? Um...
Maybe colour would have helped. Cummings does well - he just needed a stronger co star. There's location work in Washington.
Movie review - "Something in the Wind" (1947) **
The first Deanna Durbin movie in a number of years not produced by Felix Jackson (their marriage would soon end) and the quality drops sharply. The initial set up is weak but you could do something with it - John Dall thinks Durbin is a hussy who was his recently dead grandfather's lover. Now you could do something with that - it could have been set up a lot better - but it's so contrived here... It could all be explained with one chat but they come up with super weak reasons why Durbin doesn't just go "oh its my aunt"... then the problems are compounded by having John Dall and Donald O'Connor kidnap Durbin! Ugh!
The film was struggling for me even up til then - Durbin seems puffy and overweight and not into it and Dall is not a good romantic lead in this sort of movie. Donald O'Connor threatened to bring things back on track with one of his spectacular song and dance numbers "I Love a Mystery". Then the movie went back to being terrible... O'Connor asks Durbin to break up Dall and Helena Carter because he loves Carter and is convinced she loves him... and she goes for it. Just because.
It's so stupid. I liked Durbin and O'Connor - they would be a great on-screen brother and sister and I wish they'd worked together again on.a better movie. Durbin has no real motivation - why not just have her want to be a singing star? It's stupid. Durbin goes away from her job for ages and doesn't get fired (why not have Dall be responsible for her getting fired so she can have revenge).
There's some good bits like Durbin smiling as O'Connor dances and an opera duet between Durbin and a cop in a police cell. At times I wondered if Durbin was stoned/drunk. Some nice tunes.Dall looks so awkward and isn't motivated to like Durbin and the two of them have nil chemistry. Helena Carter adds some dash and beauty as his fiancee but why no scene between her and O'Connor?
Probably Durbin's worst movie.
The film was struggling for me even up til then - Durbin seems puffy and overweight and not into it and Dall is not a good romantic lead in this sort of movie. Donald O'Connor threatened to bring things back on track with one of his spectacular song and dance numbers "I Love a Mystery". Then the movie went back to being terrible... O'Connor asks Durbin to break up Dall and Helena Carter because he loves Carter and is convinced she loves him... and she goes for it. Just because.
It's so stupid. I liked Durbin and O'Connor - they would be a great on-screen brother and sister and I wish they'd worked together again on.a better movie. Durbin has no real motivation - why not just have her want to be a singing star? It's stupid. Durbin goes away from her job for ages and doesn't get fired (why not have Dall be responsible for her getting fired so she can have revenge).
There's some good bits like Durbin smiling as O'Connor dances and an opera duet between Durbin and a cop in a police cell. At times I wondered if Durbin was stoned/drunk. Some nice tunes.Dall looks so awkward and isn't motivated to like Durbin and the two of them have nil chemistry. Helena Carter adds some dash and beauty as his fiancee but why no scene between her and O'Connor?
Probably Durbin's worst movie.
Book review - "Ernst Lubitsch: Laughter in Paradise" by Scott Eyman (1993)
He wanted to act and went to work for Max Reinhardt and became a top comic then moved into film then directing and was a success in Germany and then Hollywood. By all accounts he was a nice man, very professional, well respected and rewarded. Charming, a good friend... It's a life that actually isn't that interesting but Eyman is a strong writer and excellent researcher and it is easy to read.
Movie review - "Kidnapped" (1960) **1/2
Disney was still on his classic adaptation kick when he decided to blow the dust off Robert Louis Stevenson's classic novel. I've had a fondness for this book but it never quite breaks through to the top rank for me... the characters are great, David, his slimy uncle and especially Alan the soldier of fortune who does a little dance after a violent action. The story line is more problematic - after a terrific beginning it goes off into episodes with stuff about the murder of some officer that ambles. It feels like part one of something and indeed there was a sequel.
The film needed to be a bromance to work - that's what's in the book, the relationship between David and Alan. That doesn't really come across here.
Peter Finch is a decent enough Alan - maybe not entirely believable as a man of action, but fairly enigmatic. I did feel that Peter O'Toole, who has a small role towards the end as a highlander, would have been better value.
James MacArthur is okay as David. Very American yes but that's alright - it brings a contemporary feel. And his performance isn't bad - there's just not much chemistry between him and Finch.
There's pleasing location work in Scotland and a decent support cast. The treatment is respectful rather than full blooded. I always felt this story should have made David into a woman you could have played proper romance then.
The film needed to be a bromance to work - that's what's in the book, the relationship between David and Alan. That doesn't really come across here.
Peter Finch is a decent enough Alan - maybe not entirely believable as a man of action, but fairly enigmatic. I did feel that Peter O'Toole, who has a small role towards the end as a highlander, would have been better value.
James MacArthur is okay as David. Very American yes but that's alright - it brings a contemporary feel. And his performance isn't bad - there's just not much chemistry between him and Finch.
There's pleasing location work in Scotland and a decent support cast. The treatment is respectful rather than full blooded. I always felt this story should have made David into a woman you could have played proper romance then.
Book review - "Being Wagner" by Simon Callow
I'm not a big Wagner fan and even after having read the book aren't that interested in his life but I do like Callow's writing and it is marvellously written.
Callow has a soft spot for geniuses who were also performing hams - Orson Welles, Charles Dickens - so he goes for Wagner, who lived, felt and composed with almost comical intensity, the archetypcal arts wanker. Callow has enthusiasm and love for his subject matter and its music and you get swept up in his use of words, even if Wagner himself comes across as someone best to keep away from.
Callow has a soft spot for geniuses who were also performing hams - Orson Welles, Charles Dickens - so he goes for Wagner, who lived, felt and composed with almost comical intensity, the archetypcal arts wanker. Callow has enthusiasm and love for his subject matter and its music and you get swept up in his use of words, even if Wagner himself comes across as someone best to keep away from.
Movie review - "Two Sinners" (1935) **
Cheapie melodrama made by Lubin early in his career - Otto Kruger is a man who gets out of prison after fifteen years and finds love with a woman who looks after a kid and the woman winds up in prison too.
The kid actor isn't bad - Lubin was a decent director of children from the get go. I did watch it and think "why was this made? Was there an audience for this? Were Kruger and Martha Sleeper really big stars?"
The film probably would have been better told from Sleeper's point of view - the governess who falls for a mystery man with a Secret, who works for a horrible woman who blames Sleeper for things she didn't do.
It's low budget but not agonisingly so. Not a hidden classic or anything.
The kid actor isn't bad - Lubin was a decent director of children from the get go. I did watch it and think "why was this made? Was there an audience for this? Were Kruger and Martha Sleeper really big stars?"
The film probably would have been better told from Sleeper's point of view - the governess who falls for a mystery man with a Secret, who works for a horrible woman who blames Sleeper for things she didn't do.
It's low budget but not agonisingly so. Not a hidden classic or anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)