One of the reason people love Sam Fuller is because he made films like this. A cheerful account of a real life swindler who almost got his hands on the whole of the Arizona. Because he's played by Vincent Price and the plan is so bold and Price puts in so much work that you really want it to take off.
Ellen Drew is sweet and lovely as the girl he, well, basically gaslights but then they genuinely fall in love so it's okay... dramatically it works I don't want to be a smart arse about it I just wanted to point it out.
James Wong Howe did the cinematography so it looks amazing. Reed Hadley is the deep voiced expert on forgery who goes after Price.
the story proceeds logically. It's not amazing (like a few Fuller movies I get the impression it's overpraised) but it is solid entertainment.
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Movie review - "And Soon the Darkness" (1970) **
The first film made under Bryan Forbes' auspices at EMI Films was in theory a smart move - a low budget suspense thriller about two girls on a cycling holiday in France... they have a fight and separate and when the sensible one (Pamela Franklin) goes looking for the slutty one (Michele Dotrice... Betty from Some Mothers Do Have 'Em and its fun to imagine this is Betty) and she's missing.
It was made by TV talent, but highly experienced - director Robert Fuest, writers Terry Nation and Brian Clemens. It has a cult reputation and was even remade.
It's not that good. There's creepiness at the beginning when you're waiting for one of the girls to go missing. Pamela Franklin has a sweet factor, and watching her I thought "I bet you've got a cult following because you're in horror movies and went nude once in a while" and that's true, but she doesn't rise to the occasion in the last third when she has to carry it all herself - she's better when she has Dotrice (a superior actor) to bounce off.
Robert Fuest has some decent credits but he wasn't a major spooky stylist - like say Roman Polanski or even Freddie Francis - which hurts because not enough happens in the second half. Either the killer is the one weird guy or the second weird guy. It needed another twist or a subplot or something. The Jimmy Sangster written psycho thrillers for Hammer were better.
I can see why you'd like this if you discovered it, like the other Forbes-greenlit thriller from EMI, The Man Who Haunted Himself - but I was underwhelmed.
It was made by TV talent, but highly experienced - director Robert Fuest, writers Terry Nation and Brian Clemens. It has a cult reputation and was even remade.
It's not that good. There's creepiness at the beginning when you're waiting for one of the girls to go missing. Pamela Franklin has a sweet factor, and watching her I thought "I bet you've got a cult following because you're in horror movies and went nude once in a while" and that's true, but she doesn't rise to the occasion in the last third when she has to carry it all herself - she's better when she has Dotrice (a superior actor) to bounce off.
Robert Fuest has some decent credits but he wasn't a major spooky stylist - like say Roman Polanski or even Freddie Francis - which hurts because not enough happens in the second half. Either the killer is the one weird guy or the second weird guy. It needed another twist or a subplot or something. The Jimmy Sangster written psycho thrillers for Hammer were better.
I can see why you'd like this if you discovered it, like the other Forbes-greenlit thriller from EMI, The Man Who Haunted Himself - but I was underwhelmed.
Movie review - "Bowery to Broadway" (1944) ***
Universal was such a second tier studio in the 1940s this musical is very endearing in it's tackiness. It's made with their "names" - Turhan Bey, Susannah Foster, Maria Montez, Donald O'Connor and Peggy Ryan, Ann Blyth - and directed by old Charles Lamont.
The film is a rip off of those 20th Century Fox musicals of the time - they'd star John Payne, Betty Grable, June Havoc, etc and were set in the gay 90s and be about squabbling saloon owners who fall out over a girl. Those had more unity than this which has a more episodic storyline - I think to bring in all the stars.
The leads are Jack Oakie (who was in a few of them at Fox) and Donald Cook. They fall out over singer Maria Montez... only she doesn't appear until an hour in despite her top billing. It's fun to see her - she's slightly more animated here than in her technicolor films. (Having said that it's ashame this wasn't in colour - it would have suited it, and maybe this would be more remembered if it was).
The main plot of the first bit of the movie concerns pianist Turhan Bey (!) in love with singer Susanna Foster. He's creepily possessive, though that was a romance trope at the time - she's injured, he stands by her... then the plot switches to Cook-Montez.
There are turns by Donald O'Connor and Peggy Ryan (singing one song), Ann Blyth. Andy Devine is in it. So too is Evelyn Ankers. Someone plays Lilian Russell. No Lon Chaney Jnr though.
There's plenty of production value. Donald Cook isn't as good as a John Payne or George Montgomery but Jack Oakie is very good, Foster is perfectly cast, Montez and Bey offer novelty outside their normal exotic settings. I actually enjoyed it a lot.
The film is a rip off of those 20th Century Fox musicals of the time - they'd star John Payne, Betty Grable, June Havoc, etc and were set in the gay 90s and be about squabbling saloon owners who fall out over a girl. Those had more unity than this which has a more episodic storyline - I think to bring in all the stars.
The leads are Jack Oakie (who was in a few of them at Fox) and Donald Cook. They fall out over singer Maria Montez... only she doesn't appear until an hour in despite her top billing. It's fun to see her - she's slightly more animated here than in her technicolor films. (Having said that it's ashame this wasn't in colour - it would have suited it, and maybe this would be more remembered if it was).
The main plot of the first bit of the movie concerns pianist Turhan Bey (!) in love with singer Susanna Foster. He's creepily possessive, though that was a romance trope at the time - she's injured, he stands by her... then the plot switches to Cook-Montez.
There are turns by Donald O'Connor and Peggy Ryan (singing one song), Ann Blyth. Andy Devine is in it. So too is Evelyn Ankers. Someone plays Lilian Russell. No Lon Chaney Jnr though.
There's plenty of production value. Donald Cook isn't as good as a John Payne or George Montgomery but Jack Oakie is very good, Foster is perfectly cast, Montez and Bey offer novelty outside their normal exotic settings. I actually enjoyed it a lot.
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Movie review - "Silver River" (1948) ** (re-viewing)
Hugely expensive, a film of great potential. Starts well with a scene of Errol Flynn fighitng in the Civil War. It doesn't have much to do with the final film - I reckon it was added after previews.
Because the film doesn't go well. There's no life to it. Errol Flynn should have been a great anti hero - and he and Ann Sheridan should have made a fabulous couple. But there's no chemistry - no sexual tension.
David and Bathsheba out west should work. But you never get the sense these two are hot for each other. Sheridan doesn't seem to care about her husband either. Thomas Mitchell's drunk is annoying. He should have played Flynn's best friend all along.
There's too much talk about mines and scenes where men walk through rooms and not enough sex and excitement. Why was Barton MacLane bad again?
Because the film doesn't go well. There's no life to it. Errol Flynn should have been a great anti hero - and he and Ann Sheridan should have made a fabulous couple. But there's no chemistry - no sexual tension.
David and Bathsheba out west should work. But you never get the sense these two are hot for each other. Sheridan doesn't seem to care about her husband either. Thomas Mitchell's drunk is annoying. He should have played Flynn's best friend all along.
There's too much talk about mines and scenes where men walk through rooms and not enough sex and excitement. Why was Barton MacLane bad again?
Movie review - "That Forsyte Woman" (1949) ** (re-viewing)
Overproduced - the settings are stuffed with props and everyone's wearing too many clothes. I haven't read the novel but you cans see as here there is a basic love triangle that could work - but it doesn't. Errol Flynn is very good as Soames, Greer Garson is alright as Irene, Robert Young is awful as Philip and Walter Pidgeon not very good as Jolyon. Janet Leigh is too American. Bad support players.
The film needed better handling. Compton Bennett the director doesn't rise to the occasion. There's no feel, no atmosphere. No sense of family.
The film needed better handling. Compton Bennett the director doesn't rise to the occasion. There's no feel, no atmosphere. No sense of family.
Movie review - "The Right Stuff" (1983) ***1/2
It takes the piss but also doesn't, which is what happened in Tom Wolfe's masterful book. This does feel like two movies though - one about Chuck Yeager, a gum chewing laconic modern day cowboy with his fellow gum chewing laconic modern day cowboy friends (seriously they're always chewing) strutting around being cool and manly with big dick energy breaking speed records. This is short like a John Ford film (elegiac funeral scenes) with a dash of Howard Hawks in Barbara Hersey's feisty hard galloping wife and Kim Stanley's hard drinking bar owner.
The other film is more Frank Capra/Preston Sturges, with wacky NASA ops (Harry Shearer and Jeff Goldblum are genuinely funny), swarms of journalists, bombastic politicians (notably LBJ), lots (and lots) of jokes about urine.
I wonder if Kaufman bit off more than he could chew - another writer may have helped. William Goldman's original script was discarded - he wanted to just focus on the astronauts which I think was the correct idea, the two films here co-exist uneasily. I mean who gives a shit if the astronauts earn Yeager's respect?
Dennis Quaid is full of charismatic swagger and makes you wonder why he never became a big star - I'm sure he wonders that too - but then you realise he doesn't have the vulnerability of Tom cruise. If Quaid had played the lead in Top Gun it wouldn't have been as big a hit - Cruise looked as though he needed to be mothered but Quaid looked as though he could handle himself.
There's a few har-har-har military-style jokes about urination, Scott Glenn imitates a hispanic (apparently Alan Shepherd did a lot of this), they don't have Deke Slayton being turned down for some reason, Scott Carpenter is hardly in it. Weird final scene with the astronauts smiling at each other intercut with a fan dance.
The other film is more Frank Capra/Preston Sturges, with wacky NASA ops (Harry Shearer and Jeff Goldblum are genuinely funny), swarms of journalists, bombastic politicians (notably LBJ), lots (and lots) of jokes about urine.
I wonder if Kaufman bit off more than he could chew - another writer may have helped. William Goldman's original script was discarded - he wanted to just focus on the astronauts which I think was the correct idea, the two films here co-exist uneasily. I mean who gives a shit if the astronauts earn Yeager's respect?
Dennis Quaid is full of charismatic swagger and makes you wonder why he never became a big star - I'm sure he wonders that too - but then you realise he doesn't have the vulnerability of Tom cruise. If Quaid had played the lead in Top Gun it wouldn't have been as big a hit - Cruise looked as though he needed to be mothered but Quaid looked as though he could handle himself.
There's a few har-har-har military-style jokes about urination, Scott Glenn imitates a hispanic (apparently Alan Shepherd did a lot of this), they don't have Deke Slayton being turned down for some reason, Scott Carpenter is hardly in it. Weird final scene with the astronauts smiling at each other intercut with a fan dance.
Movie review - "Mara Maru" (1952) **1/2 (re-viewing)
Aspects of this film help it age well simply because they don't make these sort of crusty action melodramas any more. And if Errol Flynn was disintegrating, he was still Errol Flynn and his role suits him - a washed up sea captain. He's occasionally vague but mostly fine in his role.
He has no chemistry with Ruth Roman who is weak - mind you she has no character to play. I wish she'd just been a femme fetale. The cast of this is mostly B league but they do try. Raymond Burr is an A grade villain though.
It's an undercooked movie that occasionally jumps to life. Who cares if the Church get their cross back? Everyone needed to be greedier.
He has no chemistry with Ruth Roman who is weak - mind you she has no character to play. I wish she'd just been a femme fetale. The cast of this is mostly B league but they do try. Raymond Burr is an A grade villain though.
It's an undercooked movie that occasionally jumps to life. Who cares if the Church get their cross back? Everyone needed to be greedier.
Movie review - "Escape Me Never" (1947) ** (re-viewing)
An odd movie. The story is actually solid I think the treatment was badly handled and miscast. Everyone wears too much lederhosen.
Ida Lupino feels all wrong - too modern. Errol Flynn needed a moustache. I buy him as a selfish bohemian but not a composer. It needed more music. Eleanor Parker is stunning. Maybe if she and Lupino had swapped roles it could have been more effective. Gig Young's part needed to be bigger.
The basic love triangle of this is fine - Lupino loves Flynn who loves Parker who backs off when he realises she's loved by his brother Gig Young. But it goes all over the shop. Gets more silly as it goes on.
Warner Bros lost the ability to make this sort of melodrama. Maybe Edmund Goulding could have made it work.
Ida Lupino feels all wrong - too modern. Errol Flynn needed a moustache. I buy him as a selfish bohemian but not a composer. It needed more music. Eleanor Parker is stunning. Maybe if she and Lupino had swapped roles it could have been more effective. Gig Young's part needed to be bigger.
The basic love triangle of this is fine - Lupino loves Flynn who loves Parker who backs off when he realises she's loved by his brother Gig Young. But it goes all over the shop. Gets more silly as it goes on.
Warner Bros lost the ability to make this sort of melodrama. Maybe Edmund Goulding could have made it work.
Book review - "On Leopard Rock" by Wilbur Smith
It's surprised me that no one has done a biography of Smith, at least not to my knowledge - he's had one of the great careers, an accountant who turned his passion for game hunting, literature and history into one of the great best selling authors.
Here are his memoirs - recalling life growing up in Africa with his adored father and mother (the dad comes across vividly the mother is just "lovely"), horrid boarding school, lively holidays shooting wildlife and getting lost in the bush, summer vacations working on boats, dull life as an accountant helping inspire him to write, best selling success from his first proper novel and never looking back, evenings in Rhodesia working for the local police.
I would have liked more on the movies - Smith novels had a brief vogue in the 60s and 70s but have been filmed surprisingly little... I think due to racial issues. Also Hollywood's never cared that much about Africa. He wrote a screenplay that wasn't used but movies were never his passion as he admits. He says Yvette Mimieux's performance in Dark of the Sun was brilliant!
He is good as ever on action - accounts of shooting lions and getting lost in the bush - and some great tips on writing (his philosophy). He's not great describing encounters with famous people - I get the impression that Smith is simply not that interested in them, or maybe doesn't know that many... he spends too much time researching, hunting and writing.
There is very little on his family - he writes sections on his latest wife but nothing on Danielle, who was with him for something like two decades and died of a brain tumour, or her kid, or on his issues with his own children.
So this is a very incomplete memoir but fans of Smith will get a lot out of it.
Here are his memoirs - recalling life growing up in Africa with his adored father and mother (the dad comes across vividly the mother is just "lovely"), horrid boarding school, lively holidays shooting wildlife and getting lost in the bush, summer vacations working on boats, dull life as an accountant helping inspire him to write, best selling success from his first proper novel and never looking back, evenings in Rhodesia working for the local police.
I would have liked more on the movies - Smith novels had a brief vogue in the 60s and 70s but have been filmed surprisingly little... I think due to racial issues. Also Hollywood's never cared that much about Africa. He wrote a screenplay that wasn't used but movies were never his passion as he admits. He says Yvette Mimieux's performance in Dark of the Sun was brilliant!
He is good as ever on action - accounts of shooting lions and getting lost in the bush - and some great tips on writing (his philosophy). He's not great describing encounters with famous people - I get the impression that Smith is simply not that interested in them, or maybe doesn't know that many... he spends too much time researching, hunting and writing.
There is very little on his family - he writes sections on his latest wife but nothing on Danielle, who was with him for something like two decades and died of a brain tumour, or her kid, or on his issues with his own children.
So this is a very incomplete memoir but fans of Smith will get a lot out of it.
Movie review - "The Man Who Haunted Himself" (1970) **1/2
One of the first films greenlit by Bryan Forbes at EMI Films, it flopped at the time but has gone on to have a cult reputation in part because it was Roger Moore's favourite among his films.
It feels like a movie that should have been made in the 50s or early 60s - 1970 was a bit late in the day for a thriller with a hero wearing bowler hats and a silly moustache. Maybe the moustache would never work.
Moore is very good - he was proud of his work and should be. His suaveness is used to good effect because he starts off so smugly and disintegrates.
I wish it had a better director than Basil Dearden. He's obviously strong with actors but not so crash hot on suspense - someone strong with mood and creepiness would have been much better.
I think it would have been better had Moore met the doppleganger earlier - played out the ramifications of that. And more of the sexiness and alter ego - I guess that's Face Off territory but still.
Interesting. I didn't love it but there are people who do. Lovely to see Moore stretch himself.
It feels like a movie that should have been made in the 50s or early 60s - 1970 was a bit late in the day for a thriller with a hero wearing bowler hats and a silly moustache. Maybe the moustache would never work.
Moore is very good - he was proud of his work and should be. His suaveness is used to good effect because he starts off so smugly and disintegrates.
I wish it had a better director than Basil Dearden. He's obviously strong with actors but not so crash hot on suspense - someone strong with mood and creepiness would have been much better.
I think it would have been better had Moore met the doppleganger earlier - played out the ramifications of that. And more of the sexiness and alter ego - I guess that's Face Off territory but still.
Interesting. I didn't love it but there are people who do. Lovely to see Moore stretch himself.
TV series - "Mindhunter Season 2" (2019) **1/2
I didn't like this as much because it doesn't have the narrative drive of trying to set up the unit and approaching investigating serial killers in a totally different way. It's not as fresh and also the human interest component - is one of the cops kids a psycho - feels over the top. The production design and acting remain impressive. Anna Torv doesn't do much.
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Movie review - "The Stuntman" (1980) *** (warning: spoilers)
Cult favourite which I might have liked more had I discovered it instead of having it hyped for me. Steve Railsback is the man on the run who winds up working as a stuntman for Peter O'Toole, a film director, who seems to be nuts... but we find out Railsback the ex Vietnam vet is also nuts. Barbara Hershey is, yet again for her career, The Girl, but she is very good - actually the whole cast is.
Decent handling. I think I would have liked it more had O'Toole killed Railsback. O'Toole is great fun but he's matched by nutty Railsback. Maybe I'll have to watch this again.
Decent handling. I think I would have liked it more had O'Toole killed Railsback. O'Toole is great fun but he's matched by nutty Railsback. Maybe I'll have to watch this again.
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Movie review - "Danger Close" (2019) ***
So frustrating. It's a cracker story - and the story is done justice. It looks handsome. There was a big budget. Most of the cast are great - Travis Fimmell and Luke Bracey are strong leads and people like Stephen Peacocke are ideal soldier types. The music is terrific.
But when it goes wrong it goes really wrong. In 2019 you should not be having scenes where someone talks about their upcoming marriage just before being shot. Or comic relief Irishmen. Or scenes where Little Pattie just blandly smiles. Or scenes where when a base is under mortar attack you've got soldiers wanting to continue their poker game and smoke and drink beer on guard duty. When the base is under mortar attack!!! (In contrast scenes like Tony Hayes demanding vehicles stop to collect him instead of going to the rescue of the soldiers feel very realistic).
The movie actually didn't need to cost as much as it did - you didn't need POV of the helicopters or planes or endless drone shots. They would've been better off focusing on little moments and characters - building suspense, because those are effective.
The film also gives no voice to the Vietnamese. They could have just done a Zulu and had one opening scene which dealt with their side then switched to the Aussie POV. There's no allowance that it's their country. It sure would have made the movie a richer experience.
This should have been a really solid war film, because the story is strong and it was given the budget to do it justice, but there's too many silly moments like Travis Fimmell standing up with a pistol as the Vietnamese run in. It's a shame.
But when it goes wrong it goes really wrong. In 2019 you should not be having scenes where someone talks about their upcoming marriage just before being shot. Or comic relief Irishmen. Or scenes where Little Pattie just blandly smiles. Or scenes where when a base is under mortar attack you've got soldiers wanting to continue their poker game and smoke and drink beer on guard duty. When the base is under mortar attack!!! (In contrast scenes like Tony Hayes demanding vehicles stop to collect him instead of going to the rescue of the soldiers feel very realistic).
The movie actually didn't need to cost as much as it did - you didn't need POV of the helicopters or planes or endless drone shots. They would've been better off focusing on little moments and characters - building suspense, because those are effective.
The film also gives no voice to the Vietnamese. They could have just done a Zulu and had one opening scene which dealt with their side then switched to the Aussie POV. There's no allowance that it's their country. It sure would have made the movie a richer experience.
This should have been a really solid war film, because the story is strong and it was given the budget to do it justice, but there's too many silly moments like Travis Fimmell standing up with a pistol as the Vietnamese run in. It's a shame.
Movie review - "Stuber" (2019) **1/2
A decent time to be had. This is a throw back to 80s buddy films - Kumail Nanjiani is very funny as the geeky uber driver caught up in cop Dave Bautista's attempts to get bad guy Iko Uwais. I'm not sure Bautista's got star factor... I kept wishing it was Vin Diesel or Van Damme or someone. And is he really old enough to be the father of Natalie Morales?
Betty Gilpin is funny as Nanjiana's lusted after BFF, Karen Gillan has a decent... cameo? would you call it?, it took me a while to recognise Mira Sorvino. The action scenes are very well done. It's extremely, extremely annoying how Bautista/Nanjiani don't call for help throughout the day... I mean they keep finding dead bodies and no one calls? Why didn't they make Bautista falsely accused of a crime or something? It's really irritating.
Also the film doesn't use the uber stuff enough. It touches on it - a rival uber driver, a bunch of other drivers... It's just a shame. It feels like a decent Netflix movie - not a theatrical experience.
Betty Gilpin is funny as Nanjiana's lusted after BFF, Karen Gillan has a decent... cameo? would you call it?, it took me a while to recognise Mira Sorvino. The action scenes are very well done. It's extremely, extremely annoying how Bautista/Nanjiani don't call for help throughout the day... I mean they keep finding dead bodies and no one calls? Why didn't they make Bautista falsely accused of a crime or something? It's really irritating.
Also the film doesn't use the uber stuff enough. It touches on it - a rival uber driver, a bunch of other drivers... It's just a shame. It feels like a decent Netflix movie - not a theatrical experience.
Movie review - "Parasite" (2018) ****1/2
Superb black comedy thriller about a family of Korean hucksters who worm their way into a house of richies and find that there's more than they expected. It's a work of rich characterisation and logical progression. One of the best looks at the class system in Korea - actually make that most countries. I wasn't familiar with any of the actors but they were all fantastic - the dad with a brooding sense of injustice, the laughing mother, the quick witter daughter, the son who kicks it off, the housekeeper, the rich man and his nutty wife and kids. Each scene progresses the action logically. (It was maybe a stretch they let in the housekeeper.. maybe better that she broke in).
The themes are universal - gap between rich and poor, families struggling to make do. It's wonderful.
The themes are universal - gap between rich and poor, families struggling to make do. It's wonderful.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Movie review - "Treasure Island" (1950) ****
Charming version of the legendary tale, helped with some beautiful production design and photography, a very strong cast of Brit actors (except for lead Bobby Driscoll who is most engaging), and a filmmaking team clearly into it.
Robert Newton's Long John Silver isn't everyone's cup of tea - it's not a replica of what's in the book, but it is a lot of fun. He really is the definitive eye rolling argh me hearties pirate. You can understand why Jim Hawkins wants to hang out with him more than the other adults, who are a little dull.
There's a lot of love that's gone into the movie. It's done with affection and a spirit of adventure. Decent action - it doesn't shy away from the darker stuff either, like Jim Hawkins having to kill.
Robert Newton's Long John Silver isn't everyone's cup of tea - it's not a replica of what's in the book, but it is a lot of fun. He really is the definitive eye rolling argh me hearties pirate. You can understand why Jim Hawkins wants to hang out with him more than the other adults, who are a little dull.
There's a lot of love that's gone into the movie. It's done with affection and a spirit of adventure. Decent action - it doesn't shy away from the darker stuff either, like Jim Hawkins having to kill.
Movie review - "Charlie's Angels" (2019) ** (warning: spoilers)
It doesn't work but it could have worked. The things I though were wrong from the trailer actually were fine.. and other stuff which I figured Elizabeth Banks would be able to do easy, she doesn't.
First up, the good stuff - only Kirsten Stewart of the girls is recognisable but the others are terrific. They are lively, different and personable. I believed them in the action stuff. Their character differences could have been played up - Naomi Scott could have been more nerdy, Ella Balinska could have been even more straight lacked - but there is inherent conflict in their types to give some progression to them getting along.
Also there was some talk "we didn't need a new reboot of Charlie's Angels". I would argue in a post Hilary Clinton defeat world, we did - this is a strongly feminist take, and that's why you make the film. There's lovely pro girl touches like little girls observing the Angels, the lecherous security guard doing body scanning, and the random-person-who-gives-information-in-the-second-act does work in the third world for female health.
The action scenes are very well done - especially the fights. It looks handsome. The cast is a good one.
But it still didn't work. For me, at any rate.
First up, the plot is needlessly confusing. The MacGuffin is some ball that makes clean energy but also kills people... and can be fixed via a bit more work... huh? And the guts of the plot has Scott call the Townsend agency because... she can't get through to the boss, is that right? That's why she hires detectives? "Shock" reveals like the head of the IT company being bad and a Bosley going rogue feel so stock that they may as well just have put them up the front of the movie... Who is paying the Townsend agency for looking after Scott? Why can they access pretty much every computer but not figure it out? It's all boring meat and potatoes plotting but it's skimmed over, and as a result you find yourself distracted by it, when you just want it deal with so you can focus on action.
The film's full of bits where you go "oh that's cool" but when you think about it doesn't make sense - like the reveal of all the angels at the end... that's cool... but what were they doing while Stewart and Balinska were fighting it out? Especially the secretary who gave Scott the card? She's an angel but she wasn't involved, is that right? Why not just have Scott write her memo, have people try to kill her, and then she goes to the agency?
There's glimpses of the really fun movie inside that make you frustrated this didn't go there - the character of Saint, played by Luis Gerando Mendez, who provides the girls with food platters, consensual back alignments, weapons, clothes and therapy (a lovely touch)... this is great 2019 female fantasy... kick arse, then come home to some nice clothes, food laid out, massage and therapy... More of this would have been great. But, hang on - isn't that the Bosley role? So there's an additional Bosley.
Because this version gives Bosleys too much to do. One turns bad, that's fine... but here we've got Djimon Honsou as a Bosley going on a mission and getting killed, and Elizabeth Banks going along on all the later missions. Bosley is meant to provide gear or stuff things up - the biggest mistake this movie makes I feel was putting too much attention on Bosley. Banks pulls focus from her cast. In part that's because she is a charismatic actor, but the focus should be on her angels, not frigging Bosley. And Banks keeps hanging around . I mean, the key confrontation at the end is between Banks and Patrick Stewart... like, who cares? It needed to be about the three girls - and if they wanted to expand that, then the angels. Everything the Honsou character could (and, I would argue, should) have been done by a Charlie's Angel - they take part in action, they get killed, makes more sense Balinska is wary about new team-members.
The idea of a franchises Townsend agency is wonderful but they don't really do anything with it. They could have livened up countless scenes by constantly running into other angels doing missions. The training camp at the end is really fun - but that's at the very end credits.
I feel the film could have done with more wish fulfilment - I loved Chris Pang's villain adoring Kirsten Stewart... why not do more of that? Or the nerd who loved Balinska - that felt like it needed another beat. And talk of Scott's dating life - I would have loved to have seen more of that. I guess, yes I am asking for more men in the movie, but wouldn't it serve the greater cause of a female fantasy? Even if it's say Scott has a deadshit boyfriend she kicks to the curb - just something dramatised.
First up, the good stuff - only Kirsten Stewart of the girls is recognisable but the others are terrific. They are lively, different and personable. I believed them in the action stuff. Their character differences could have been played up - Naomi Scott could have been more nerdy, Ella Balinska could have been even more straight lacked - but there is inherent conflict in their types to give some progression to them getting along.
Also there was some talk "we didn't need a new reboot of Charlie's Angels". I would argue in a post Hilary Clinton defeat world, we did - this is a strongly feminist take, and that's why you make the film. There's lovely pro girl touches like little girls observing the Angels, the lecherous security guard doing body scanning, and the random-person-who-gives-information-in-the-second-act does work in the third world for female health.
The action scenes are very well done - especially the fights. It looks handsome. The cast is a good one.
But it still didn't work. For me, at any rate.
First up, the plot is needlessly confusing. The MacGuffin is some ball that makes clean energy but also kills people... and can be fixed via a bit more work... huh? And the guts of the plot has Scott call the Townsend agency because... she can't get through to the boss, is that right? That's why she hires detectives? "Shock" reveals like the head of the IT company being bad and a Bosley going rogue feel so stock that they may as well just have put them up the front of the movie... Who is paying the Townsend agency for looking after Scott? Why can they access pretty much every computer but not figure it out? It's all boring meat and potatoes plotting but it's skimmed over, and as a result you find yourself distracted by it, when you just want it deal with so you can focus on action.
The film's full of bits where you go "oh that's cool" but when you think about it doesn't make sense - like the reveal of all the angels at the end... that's cool... but what were they doing while Stewart and Balinska were fighting it out? Especially the secretary who gave Scott the card? She's an angel but she wasn't involved, is that right? Why not just have Scott write her memo, have people try to kill her, and then she goes to the agency?
There's glimpses of the really fun movie inside that make you frustrated this didn't go there - the character of Saint, played by Luis Gerando Mendez, who provides the girls with food platters, consensual back alignments, weapons, clothes and therapy (a lovely touch)... this is great 2019 female fantasy... kick arse, then come home to some nice clothes, food laid out, massage and therapy... More of this would have been great. But, hang on - isn't that the Bosley role? So there's an additional Bosley.
Because this version gives Bosleys too much to do. One turns bad, that's fine... but here we've got Djimon Honsou as a Bosley going on a mission and getting killed, and Elizabeth Banks going along on all the later missions. Bosley is meant to provide gear or stuff things up - the biggest mistake this movie makes I feel was putting too much attention on Bosley. Banks pulls focus from her cast. In part that's because she is a charismatic actor, but the focus should be on her angels, not frigging Bosley. And Banks keeps hanging around . I mean, the key confrontation at the end is between Banks and Patrick Stewart... like, who cares? It needed to be about the three girls - and if they wanted to expand that, then the angels. Everything the Honsou character could (and, I would argue, should) have been done by a Charlie's Angel - they take part in action, they get killed, makes more sense Balinska is wary about new team-members.
The idea of a franchises Townsend agency is wonderful but they don't really do anything with it. They could have livened up countless scenes by constantly running into other angels doing missions. The training camp at the end is really fun - but that's at the very end credits.
I feel the film could have done with more wish fulfilment - I loved Chris Pang's villain adoring Kirsten Stewart... why not do more of that? Or the nerd who loved Balinska - that felt like it needed another beat. And talk of Scott's dating life - I would have loved to have seen more of that. I guess, yes I am asking for more men in the movie, but wouldn't it serve the greater cause of a female fantasy? Even if it's say Scott has a deadshit boyfriend she kicks to the curb - just something dramatised.
Book review - "Triumph of the Sun" by Wilbur Smith (2005)
The siege of Khartoum is one of the great British imperial epics so it's surprising in a way it took Wilbur Smith so long to get around to writing it. I guess it took place in the Sudan and Smiths patch has traditionally been Southern Africa and Egypt.
This one unites the Courtneys and Ballantynes - actually that's slightly disappointing element. I was looking forward to a big clash but while there's some niggle, both in love with the same girl, neither are really in love with her, and the Courtney, Ryder, isn't in the book much - he disappears for great slabs of time. The real dynamic in the book is Penrod Ballantyne vs a Muslim leader, Osman Atalan, who serves the sort of role that Afrikaaners have in Courtney books in the part.
There are three female characters, all daughters of the British ambassador - all indistinguishable, really. The eldest, Rebecca, just wants cock and becomes a top courtesan - she sleeps with Ryder, Penrod, the Mahdi and Osman, and goes crazy for Osman in captivity. I was hoping Smith would alter history so she'd murder the Mahdi at least (he's got Osman chopping off Gordon's head) but no dice. Her twin sisters are giggling ninnies - one winds up with Ryder and marries him at fifteen and the other marries Penrod at sixteen which I'm sorry just feels a bit yuck.
Smith's dialogue is ropey as ever but his description of action is superb and he is a great yarn spinner. The book is very exciting, and has an epic sweep - it's about Khartoum but goes up to Kitchener's end expedition (I'm surprised he didn't devote a book to that... he also rushes through the fate of Rebecca's children in a few paragraphs when there could be another book in their adventures). There's hellishly evocative accounts of the sack of Khartoum and being imprisoned by the Mahdi. Some of the writing is really good - I just wish he'd devote more time to his fictional characters. (His recreation of historical figures like Gordon and the Mahdi is excellent).
This one unites the Courtneys and Ballantynes - actually that's slightly disappointing element. I was looking forward to a big clash but while there's some niggle, both in love with the same girl, neither are really in love with her, and the Courtney, Ryder, isn't in the book much - he disappears for great slabs of time. The real dynamic in the book is Penrod Ballantyne vs a Muslim leader, Osman Atalan, who serves the sort of role that Afrikaaners have in Courtney books in the part.
There are three female characters, all daughters of the British ambassador - all indistinguishable, really. The eldest, Rebecca, just wants cock and becomes a top courtesan - she sleeps with Ryder, Penrod, the Mahdi and Osman, and goes crazy for Osman in captivity. I was hoping Smith would alter history so she'd murder the Mahdi at least (he's got Osman chopping off Gordon's head) but no dice. Her twin sisters are giggling ninnies - one winds up with Ryder and marries him at fifteen and the other marries Penrod at sixteen which I'm sorry just feels a bit yuck.
Smith's dialogue is ropey as ever but his description of action is superb and he is a great yarn spinner. The book is very exciting, and has an epic sweep - it's about Khartoum but goes up to Kitchener's end expedition (I'm surprised he didn't devote a book to that... he also rushes through the fate of Rebecca's children in a few paragraphs when there could be another book in their adventures). There's hellishly evocative accounts of the sack of Khartoum and being imprisoned by the Mahdi. Some of the writing is really good - I just wish he'd devote more time to his fictional characters. (His recreation of historical figures like Gordon and the Mahdi is excellent).
Friday, November 22, 2019
Movie review - "Crossed Swords" (1954) ** (re-viewing)
Should have been good. Late period Errol as a Don Juan type. Cesare Danova has his best friend and Gina Lollobrigida as the love interest. Italian locations, Jack Cardiff cinematography. Some clever script ideas like the men being forced to marry, and the women being involved in seducing the men.
It's not good. They don't use the ideas - why not have Don Juan be forced to be married? Errol is more rape-y here than in The Adventures of Don Juan. Undercast villains. Poor direction. Poor dubbing.
It's not good. They don't use the ideas - why not have Don Juan be forced to be married? Errol is more rape-y here than in The Adventures of Don Juan. Undercast villains. Poor direction. Poor dubbing.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
Random Thoughts on "Charlie's Angels" Reboot
Haven't seen it yet - this is going off the trailer(s) and various press reports. Some possible reasons why the public didn't go:
- Lack of star power. Everyone had heard of Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Bill Murray. Only Kirsten Stewart was super well known from current version. Elizabeth Banks and Patrick Stewart were kind of known. Maybe if Miley Cyrus had been in it.
- The trailer didn't seem that fun. Occasionally fun. Weirdly low energy. Low key techno, I think is the music - no pumping bass. It was too laid back.
- Elizabeth Banks' name is all over it. She intros the trailer, is prominent in the trailer, wrote, produced and directed. I actually think the film would've been better had she starred - she has high energy, the women in the film (as per the trailer) don't seem to be as much. But I do worry about bfilms where the one person wrote and directed and produced it, especially when they are cartoon-y movies and not personal projects. I feel this way when I see a man's name all over the credits too.
- No guy for the guys in the audience to hang on to. I know it's a girl orientated film for girls - get that, understand it, dig it. I just felt they could have shown a little bit more of a sympathetic guy - a bit more of that "cute nerd" for instance. I know women have that issue a lot, being completely sidelined in movies, and accept that. It was just how I felt watching it.
- The film didn't feel as though it had a decent reason to exist. The 2000 version was a different take... what was this one's take? More feminist? More serious?
- Lack of star power. Everyone had heard of Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Bill Murray. Only Kirsten Stewart was super well known from current version. Elizabeth Banks and Patrick Stewart were kind of known. Maybe if Miley Cyrus had been in it.
- The trailer didn't seem that fun. Occasionally fun. Weirdly low energy. Low key techno, I think is the music - no pumping bass. It was too laid back.
- Elizabeth Banks' name is all over it. She intros the trailer, is prominent in the trailer, wrote, produced and directed. I actually think the film would've been better had she starred - she has high energy, the women in the film (as per the trailer) don't seem to be as much. But I do worry about bfilms where the one person wrote and directed and produced it, especially when they are cartoon-y movies and not personal projects. I feel this way when I see a man's name all over the credits too.
- No guy for the guys in the audience to hang on to. I know it's a girl orientated film for girls - get that, understand it, dig it. I just felt they could have shown a little bit more of a sympathetic guy - a bit more of that "cute nerd" for instance. I know women have that issue a lot, being completely sidelined in movies, and accept that. It was just how I felt watching it.
- The film didn't feel as though it had a decent reason to exist. The 2000 version was a different take... what was this one's take? More feminist? More serious?
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Book review - "Long Way Down" by Cameron Douglas
Full marks to Douglas for being so honest - I'm assuming it's honest because he certainly doesn't come well out of this book. For the first part this was gripping - insight into growing up as the only child of Michael Douglas and his first life, hanging out with the rich and famous, growing up as his father exploded into a major star.
I would have liked more movie stuff - stories of other famous people, even more on the movies Cameron Douglas made. It would have been a relief from the relentless story of him getting drugs, taking drugs, getting arrested/expelled, having sex with some woman, getting in a fight, getting wake up calls that he ignores..
He comes across as a complete wanker. Given chance after chance. He had a career - as a deejay, which was lucrative - and blew it. Got leading roles in some films - blew that too. Stuffed relationships. Refused to do a regular job.
Sure his parents weren't great - they paid for expensive schools and rehab but clearly didn't want to spend time with him, Michael chuckled over Cameron's fighting antics when firmer boundaries might've been more appropriate. Mum is obssessed with her youth and has bad taste in men. But they didn't deserve this.
After a while all the details and downfall-ing become relentlessly grim. Douglas seems proud of his tough rep in prison and not going full stool pigeon. Even out of prison he still refuses to get a proper job - he's working on screenplays and his acting! I have this feeling he'll relapse.
The most likeable person in the book is his loyal junkie girlfriend Erin who Douglas still winds up dumping.
Still, points for depicting himself as warts and all.
I would have liked more movie stuff - stories of other famous people, even more on the movies Cameron Douglas made. It would have been a relief from the relentless story of him getting drugs, taking drugs, getting arrested/expelled, having sex with some woman, getting in a fight, getting wake up calls that he ignores..
He comes across as a complete wanker. Given chance after chance. He had a career - as a deejay, which was lucrative - and blew it. Got leading roles in some films - blew that too. Stuffed relationships. Refused to do a regular job.
Sure his parents weren't great - they paid for expensive schools and rehab but clearly didn't want to spend time with him, Michael chuckled over Cameron's fighting antics when firmer boundaries might've been more appropriate. Mum is obssessed with her youth and has bad taste in men. But they didn't deserve this.
After a while all the details and downfall-ing become relentlessly grim. Douglas seems proud of his tough rep in prison and not going full stool pigeon. Even out of prison he still refuses to get a proper job - he's working on screenplays and his acting! I have this feeling he'll relapse.
The most likeable person in the book is his loyal junkie girlfriend Erin who Douglas still winds up dumping.
Still, points for depicting himself as warts and all.
Movie review - "Istanbul" (1957) **
Bad. Starts promisingly with location footage of Istanbul but most of this is shot on the backlot. Errol Flynn looks too old - if the role suited that it was good but it doesn't here. The role is clearly meant for someone like Jeff Chandler who would be channelling someone like Humphrey Bogart.
There are echoes of Casablanca - black pianist friend, girl from his past, mysterious police chief, exotic types hanging around - but this is no way near as good. I haven't seen Singapore but that would have had the extra element of the war... Istanbul was neutral during the war.
The guy who plays the police chief is pretty good, but having Colonel Klink as a villain is distracting (not the poor actor's fault, it's just the way it is). Cournell Bourchers or whatever she is is a dull female lead and they do nothing with the character of her husband. It lacks suspense, excitement, mystery, atmosphere. It does have Nat King Cole singing 'When I Fall in Love'.
There are echoes of Casablanca - black pianist friend, girl from his past, mysterious police chief, exotic types hanging around - but this is no way near as good. I haven't seen Singapore but that would have had the extra element of the war... Istanbul was neutral during the war.
The guy who plays the police chief is pretty good, but having Colonel Klink as a villain is distracting (not the poor actor's fault, it's just the way it is). Cournell Bourchers or whatever she is is a dull female lead and they do nothing with the character of her husband. It lacks suspense, excitement, mystery, atmosphere. It does have Nat King Cole singing 'When I Fall in Love'.
TV review - "The Mandalorian" - first two eps (2019) **
Stunning art design, costumes and music. The actors are fine. At it's heart this wants to be a film - it's all A plot there's no subplots to cut away to. The lead is behind a helmet, not interacting with anyone. There's no lead human. The emotional kicks given by the film derive from the first two movies - baby Yoda and the jawas.
Friday, November 15, 2019
Movie review - "Kim" (1951) *** (re-viewing) (warning: spoilers)
I enjoyed this on re-viewing. It is bright and colourful and has locations in India. There's a lot of brown face - a lot - but the filmmakers get the basic escapist conceit of the novel: it's a young boys fantasy, to be a carefree orphan who will do important work for his bosses, go to a boarding school but not a mean one, have adults look out for you, and spend your holidays spying.
Errol Flynn has a "big brother" role similar to The Prince and the Pauper - the real star is Dean Stockwell. They probably should have given those spy training sequences to Flynn - but the guy who does them is good.
Cecil Kellaway is in brownface as a fellow spy - his death is a genuine shock. It is nice to see two expat Aussies working together.
I enjoyed Robert Douglas as the efficient colonel - it was like he was in his own series/show and Stockwell kind of pops in. Paul Lukas is in brownface - I appreciated how he died though the film could have done a better job on the Stockwell-Lukas relationship.
The action/suspense scenes are quite exciting because they involve a young kid. I still would have liked more vigorous handling.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Movie review - "Cry Wolf" (1947) *** (warning: spoilers) (re-viewing)
A version of Jane Eyre - with Barbara Stanwyck as Jane and Errol Flynn as Rochester and Richard Basehart as the mad woman and Geraldine Brooks as the daughter. I mean that's an exaggeration but the structure is similar - Stanwyck meets Flynn, says she was married to his late brother, he's hiding a secret... which is insanity.
This is a fun movie. It's not very well directed - someone like Robert Siodmak would have really amped up the tension. You want creepy corridors and spooky angles... and it's there in theory just not done very well.
Also Stanwyck is far too sensible and strong. I get the appeal of having a powerful female lead but someone on the verge of a nervous breakdown would have given it more tension.
Flynn is an ideal Rochester. Brooks is excellent going nutty as is Basehart. The film could have used a creepy servant or two.
This is a fun movie. It's not very well directed - someone like Robert Siodmak would have really amped up the tension. You want creepy corridors and spooky angles... and it's there in theory just not done very well.
Also Stanwyck is far too sensible and strong. I get the appeal of having a powerful female lead but someone on the verge of a nervous breakdown would have given it more tension.
Flynn is an ideal Rochester. Brooks is excellent going nutty as is Basehart. The film could have used a creepy servant or two.
Movie review - "Against All Flags" (1951) ***1/2
This is just fun. Errol is creaky but that's part of the appeal in a way - he's this aging rogue going undercover, who isn't as good looking as he once was but at least knows how to flirt so the girls go for him... Maureen O'Hara, sexually aggressive and surrounded by smelly pirates, probably goes for him for the same reason.
O'Hara is a fun pirate - I like seeing her play forward women, she portrayed quite a few of them around this point. Anthony Quinn is a strong villain - in fact the whole cast was pretty good. Universal ran a well oiled machine by this time.
O'Hara is a fun pirate - I like seeing her play forward women, she portrayed quite a few of them around this point. Anthony Quinn is a strong villain - in fact the whole cast was pretty good. Universal ran a well oiled machine by this time.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Movie review - "The Warriors" (1979) **** (re-watching it)
Always good to watch this again. Random observations:
* This time I'm struck by the quality of small parts - Cyrus, the head of the Orphans. These really stand out.
* The costumes are quasi futuristic but nothing is more outlandish than the prom outfits worn by those kids at the end. Did they come in from Saturday Night Fever?
* Why didn't Michael Beck become a bigger star? I know the answer for James Remar - drugs - but not Beck.
* Beautifully shot.
* I keep watching and rewatching the opening credits introducing all the characters - it's so beautiful.
* Why did Walter Hill never return to this style apart from Streets of Fire?
* This time I'm struck by the quality of small parts - Cyrus, the head of the Orphans. These really stand out.
* The costumes are quasi futuristic but nothing is more outlandish than the prom outfits worn by those kids at the end. Did they come in from Saturday Night Fever?
* Why didn't Michael Beck become a bigger star? I know the answer for James Remar - drugs - but not Beck.
* Beautifully shot.
* I keep watching and rewatching the opening credits introducing all the characters - it's so beautiful.
* Why did Walter Hill never return to this style apart from Streets of Fire?
Sunday, November 10, 2019
Movie review - "The Sisters" (1938) ***
Decent melodrama, with disturbing undertones and great production design. It's not really about the sisters - it starts off that way, with Bette Davis, Anita Louise and Jane Bryan all having romantic entanglements. But focus shifts to Davis and her relationship with dead-shit Errol Flynn.
The marriage is actually a very accurate depiction of an abusive relationship - he drinks, whines about his novel, has his masculinity threatened, she takes it because she loves him and he promises to get better and there's nowhere else to go. Flynn gives a fine performance - he's lifted by having doing scenes with Davis and also Donald Crisp.
Really his character should have died... he gets back with Davis at the end, in a scene that test audiences wanted. No doubt it inspired women to stay with their loser husbands who subsequently murdered them.
It is a shame that more time couldn't have been spent on the other sisters - or at least Louise, who has an interesting character (flirty, always looking for a new love, hooking up with old Alan Hale and incurring the wrath of his sister). I wasn't wild about the scene where they teamed up to help men drive a trampy woman out of town - I mean, Louise is pretty trampy isn't she?
I liked the election eves device, the recreation of the earthquake and the depiction of the brothel.
The marriage is actually a very accurate depiction of an abusive relationship - he drinks, whines about his novel, has his masculinity threatened, she takes it because she loves him and he promises to get better and there's nowhere else to go. Flynn gives a fine performance - he's lifted by having doing scenes with Davis and also Donald Crisp.
Really his character should have died... he gets back with Davis at the end, in a scene that test audiences wanted. No doubt it inspired women to stay with their loser husbands who subsequently murdered them.
It is a shame that more time couldn't have been spent on the other sisters - or at least Louise, who has an interesting character (flirty, always looking for a new love, hooking up with old Alan Hale and incurring the wrath of his sister). I wasn't wild about the scene where they teamed up to help men drive a trampy woman out of town - I mean, Louise is pretty trampy isn't she?
I liked the election eves device, the recreation of the earthquake and the depiction of the brothel.
Movie review - "Rocky Mountain" (1950) *** (re-viewing - warning: spoilers)
Perhaps Flynn's best western - not without flaws (the support characters could be sketched out more, it could have handled a subplot) - but it is unpretentious, self contained. It is low budget but that suits the story - a group of eight confederate soldiers invade California to try and start a rebellion there. They rescue a woman from an Indian attack and have to deal with the woman's Union officer husband and the elements and all that stuff.
It proceeds logically and with a deal of tension. It helps that the ending results in all the southerners getting wiped out even the painfully young kid - a dog rushing to them is a lovely touch.
It could have done with a stronger cast - I wish Lauren Bacall had done it as originally intended but can understand why she turned it out. Patrice Wymore is sweet, just inexperienced - ditto Scott Forbes. The support soldier actors are good though including Slim Pickens.
This falls into the category of later period Flynn movies that suit his later disintegrated state - he's tired, worn out by war, nostalgically thinking of the old days, trying to make something of his life, being gentlemanly with the lady. I really like this film - it's not a masterpiece, but it's fine.
It proceeds logically and with a deal of tension. It helps that the ending results in all the southerners getting wiped out even the painfully young kid - a dog rushing to them is a lovely touch.
It could have done with a stronger cast - I wish Lauren Bacall had done it as originally intended but can understand why she turned it out. Patrice Wymore is sweet, just inexperienced - ditto Scott Forbes. The support soldier actors are good though including Slim Pickens.
This falls into the category of later period Flynn movies that suit his later disintegrated state - he's tired, worn out by war, nostalgically thinking of the old days, trying to make something of his life, being gentlemanly with the lady. I really like this film - it's not a masterpiece, but it's fine.
Thursday, November 07, 2019
Movie review - "Santa Fe Trail" (1940) **1/2 (re-viewing)
Big, loud, noisy. I don't think Michael Curtiz was as interested in Westerns as other genres. It forms part of a trilogy with Dodge City and Virginia City and is probably the least of these. For every vaguely decent point the script makes, like blacks wondering what happens to them after they are free, or vaguely historical point, like Jeb Stuart being at Harper's Ferry, it's undermined by making the slave owning Stuart the hero, emasculating the abolitionist Custer (he loses the girl, doesn't get to be heroic), having more sympathetic slavers than abolitionists.
Van Heflin is meant to be a villain, causing trouble with his anti slavery ways at West Point - but it's he who tips off the government about Harpers Ferry. He saves more lives than Flynn!
Olivia de Havilland is charming but wasted in her part - any starlet could have played the role (why not give her a position on slavery?). There's plenty of action but it isn't that memorable. The best bit is when the Indian fortune teller predicts the Civil War - this is genuinely creepy.
This is a post Gone with the Wind MAGA movie.
Van Heflin is meant to be a villain, causing trouble with his anti slavery ways at West Point - but it's he who tips off the government about Harpers Ferry. He saves more lives than Flynn!
Olivia de Havilland is charming but wasted in her part - any starlet could have played the role (why not give her a position on slavery?). There's plenty of action but it isn't that memorable. The best bit is when the Indian fortune teller predicts the Civil War - this is genuinely creepy.
This is a post Gone with the Wind MAGA movie.
Wednesday, November 06, 2019
Movie review - "The Big Boodle" (1957) **1/2 (re-viewing)
No one thought much of this film when it came out... but time has been kind. Well, maybe. It's got Errol Flynn only a few years away from death looking old and warn out but it's a role that totally suits him: a washed up old rogue who has wasted his life, working at the tables in a Havana casino. He gets involved in an attempt to smuggle in some counterfeit money - he gets beaten up, slapped around, fired, stuck in the country, looks a bit lost and sad, but he's still old charming Errol and he manages to get through it.
The location shooting in Cuba helps immeasurably - it's in black and white and I wish more scenes had been set outside but what is there is fine - rooftop pools, pavements, markets, Moros Castle.
I wish more had been done with Pedro Armendiaz - who is the local cop. Presumably this was not to offend Cuban authorities. And Gia Scala is more charismatic than Rosanno Rory.
Still, this is a decent little movie.
The location shooting in Cuba helps immeasurably - it's in black and white and I wish more scenes had been set outside but what is there is fine - rooftop pools, pavements, markets, Moros Castle.
I wish more had been done with Pedro Armendiaz - who is the local cop. Presumably this was not to offend Cuban authorities. And Gia Scala is more charismatic than Rosanno Rory.
Still, this is a decent little movie.
Sunday, November 03, 2019
Movie review - "The Long Riders" (1980) ***1/2 (re-viewing)
I think I like this movie more as the years go on because I've gotten over its central flaw - lack of narrative build.As I've written before, this feels like an album rather than a movie - it's a collection of "tracks": the opening bank robbery, two Belle Starr tracks, being at home, the Northfield raid, the final shooting etc.
The device of casting brothers works wonderfully - though the quality of acting varies widely. All the Carradines are good, very distinct personalities. Stacy Keach was great but James was dull and looked silly with his hair. The Quaids were strong (Dennis seems so young) and I liked the Guests, though both their characters seemed similar.
James Whitmore is fantastic as the professional no-nonsense Pinkerston and Pamela Reed is fun as Belle Star, as is James Remar as her husband. The female characters have a little to do though not a lot.
I wasn't wild about the slow motion action sequences but loved the atmosphere.
The device of casting brothers works wonderfully - though the quality of acting varies widely. All the Carradines are good, very distinct personalities. Stacy Keach was great but James was dull and looked silly with his hair. The Quaids were strong (Dennis seems so young) and I liked the Guests, though both their characters seemed similar.
James Whitmore is fantastic as the professional no-nonsense Pinkerston and Pamela Reed is fun as Belle Star, as is James Remar as her husband. The female characters have a little to do though not a lot.
I wasn't wild about the slow motion action sequences but loved the atmosphere.
Movie review - "The Master of Ballantrae" (1953) **1/2 (re-viewing)
Plenty of good stuff on display here - the colour, a decent budget, lots of action, Stevenson's source material, Errol Flynn being perfectly cast as the dissolute brother who goes to fight for Bonnie Prince Charlie while good brother Anthony Steel stays behind, Flynn's by play with Roger Livesey.
They've made Flynn heroic, which isn't consistent with the text, but I understand why they did it - that brother simply had more interesting adventures, going off and being a pirate and what not. If you want tot make the other brother the hero you'd need to spend time with him - and the piece would be less of a swashbuckler and more of a gothic noir.
But having said that they make the other brother (Steel) a goodie. Flynn thinks Steel has betrayed him, but he's wrong which is fake drama and dull. And makes Steel's presence in the whole movie pointless. If you make Flynn good, make Steel bad - wouldn't be hard: he covets Flynn's popularity, and love interest. Steel being good is kind of pointless. Maybe it could've worked if there had been another villain - but it turns out Flynn was betrayed by a girl who loved him.
The second flaw is the romance between Flynn and Beatrice Campbell is so flat. It doesn't work on the page - he's clearly a lousy boyfriend, the romance will last five seconds once the film is over - and the playing between the two doesn't help.
So those are two big flaws. It's a shame because they could have been easily fixed.
Flynn was clearly aging and getting on but it actually suits the part. It is one of his better 50s films.
They've made Flynn heroic, which isn't consistent with the text, but I understand why they did it - that brother simply had more interesting adventures, going off and being a pirate and what not. If you want tot make the other brother the hero you'd need to spend time with him - and the piece would be less of a swashbuckler and more of a gothic noir.
But having said that they make the other brother (Steel) a goodie. Flynn thinks Steel has betrayed him, but he's wrong which is fake drama and dull. And makes Steel's presence in the whole movie pointless. If you make Flynn good, make Steel bad - wouldn't be hard: he covets Flynn's popularity, and love interest. Steel being good is kind of pointless. Maybe it could've worked if there had been another villain - but it turns out Flynn was betrayed by a girl who loved him.
The second flaw is the romance between Flynn and Beatrice Campbell is so flat. It doesn't work on the page - he's clearly a lousy boyfriend, the romance will last five seconds once the film is over - and the playing between the two doesn't help.
So those are two big flaws. It's a shame because they could have been easily fixed.
Flynn was clearly aging and getting on but it actually suits the part. It is one of his better 50s films.
Movie review - "The King" (2019) **1/2
Adapted from the Prince Hal cycle of plays by Shakespeare though Game of Thrones feels like more of an influence - the dialogue, the look of the movie, the battle sequences, all the gloom and violence.
It revamps the plays which is fine but I don't think what they replaced it with is more interesting than what they cut out. Hal starts off a bit irresponsible but 20 minutes in he's killed Hotspur in hand to hand combat so basically he's a bad ass. Falstaff is a bad ass too - no coward.
No one feels like a real human being everyone feels like they're acting in a movie - or, more accurately, Game of Thrones. People talk tough. There's bursts of violence to keep you awake.
It looks stunning - costumes, production design. The actors are all fine. I like how the characters switched from English to French and back. Lots of good stuff. But I felt it didn't have much underpinning it. Everyone was too tough.
It revamps the plays which is fine but I don't think what they replaced it with is more interesting than what they cut out. Hal starts off a bit irresponsible but 20 minutes in he's killed Hotspur in hand to hand combat so basically he's a bad ass. Falstaff is a bad ass too - no coward.
No one feels like a real human being everyone feels like they're acting in a movie - or, more accurately, Game of Thrones. People talk tough. There's bursts of violence to keep you awake.
It looks stunning - costumes, production design. The actors are all fine. I like how the characters switched from English to French and back. Lots of good stuff. But I felt it didn't have much underpinning it. Everyone was too tough.
Saturday, November 02, 2019
Movie review - "The Last of Robin Hood" (2014) **
Really disappointing. It sounds like it should be a slam dunk - an account of Errol Flynn's romance with Beverly Aadland. You've got so much rich material: the age difference, Flynn disintegrating and dying, Aadland's weird mother who enabled their romance. The cast should be outstanding - Kevin Kline, Dakota Fanning, Susan Sarandon.
But it doesn't work. The movie lacks a point of view - scenes feel rudimentary, they never breathe, there's no little moments/observations and the film needs them. You never get a sense of why Flynn goes for her or her for him.
Kline should be perfect as Flynn, and has some dash, but no Australian edge and lacks the... I guess sadness of the real Flynn He would do better in a better written film. Fanning is flat out bad - she's blank, matter of fact.. she's never believable as Aadland. She never seems to react to anything or be alive.
Susan Sarandon comes off best in part because her character is clearer - she wants her girl to be a star. Probably the film should have been all from her character's point of view or something.
But it doesn't work. The movie lacks a point of view - scenes feel rudimentary, they never breathe, there's no little moments/observations and the film needs them. You never get a sense of why Flynn goes for her or her for him.
Kline should be perfect as Flynn, and has some dash, but no Australian edge and lacks the... I guess sadness of the real Flynn He would do better in a better written film. Fanning is flat out bad - she's blank, matter of fact.. she's never believable as Aadland. She never seems to react to anything or be alive.
Susan Sarandon comes off best in part because her character is clearer - she wants her girl to be a star. Probably the film should have been all from her character's point of view or something.
Friday, November 01, 2019
TV review - Silicon Valley Season 5 (2018) ****
TJ Miller is missed and for some reason there aren't a lot of new characters in this one... they stick with their old crew, especially Richard and Gavin, when maybe some fresh blood would have worked (like girlfriends). I guess there are new employees but they aren't particularly memorable. I did like the quiet guy who becomes a corporate animal - why not make that character female? It could be done.
But I'm nit pickig. The plotting remains strong and there's heaps of classic moments - the destruction of the robot, the sight gag of the violent video games, the comments about the weirdness of setting up in America. The climax episode is very strong.
But I'm nit pickig. The plotting remains strong and there's heaps of classic moments - the destruction of the robot, the sight gag of the violent video games, the comments about the weirdness of setting up in America. The climax episode is very strong.
Movie review - "The Tingler" (1959) **
I loved this on the small screen. On the big screen it was a slog - badly directed and blocked, clumsily written. I kept falling asleep. Vincent Price props it up single handedly.
Actually that's not fair - the basic story is really good with a bright idea and decent twists (it was the husband etc ) even if it does borrow liberally from Diabolique. The thumping heartbeat was spooky as was the dash of colour.
But I didn't enjoy this. See it on the small screen!
Actually that's not fair - the basic story is really good with a bright idea and decent twists (it was the husband etc ) even if it does borrow liberally from Diabolique. The thumping heartbeat was spooky as was the dash of colour.
But I didn't enjoy this. See it on the small screen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)