The last in the series. It was about time. I did enjoy the second last one but this one felt tired. Another blonde. Another expedition to find a missing [insert thing]. Comic chimps.
I did like the white bearded scientist becoming this sort of Merlin figure. The acting was of decent quality. Too much stock footage. It struck me with this how much Weismuller was protected/hidden in these movies.
Silly, fun, colourful, over the top, tongue in cheek. Rachel Weisz doesn't get credit for what she brought to these movies - as well as the loveliness factor she grounds them in reality. John Hannah's part is trimmed but that's a good thing.
It was a bright idea to skip forward a few years so they had a kid who could be the stakes. Solid action.
The second "Johnny Weismuller" Jungle Jim again has a very good story, one of the strongest in the series, though the handling isn't up to it.
This gleefully pillages from H Rider Haggard's She as Johnny goes on an expedition with Jean Byron to the interior to rescue some random dude who has been kidnapped by little people. They work for an immortal queen (Helen Stanton). Bill Henry is also along for the ride - the queen falls for him and tries to marry him but Weismuller does a swap, offering himself in his place.
The film really should have made more of Stanton and Weismuller - Stanton seems very free and easy about who she'll hook up with. There are some villainous diamond hunters as well.
The handling isn't that good but I love Haggard so enjoyed the story and it was different. This is when Jungle Jim stories were best: outlandish fantasies.
From this point on in the Jungle Jim series, Jim was called "Johnny" instead of "Jim". Actually it would have been fun had they gone full meta and had Weismuller play a lecherous, fattening, aging former swimmer trying to prolong his fame.
The Maguffin is cobalt, which is mentioned a lot in the script. Like, a lot.
This actually has a decent story: solid conflict with two duelling brothers, a manipulative colonial official, I didn't spot the twist that the girl was bad (maybe I should have twigged when it was specified she was half black... an attitude typical of the time).
Yet somehow it doesn't hit earlier heights. Not enough action. Too much stock footage. Too much use of the word "cobalt".
Some diamond smugglers want to get their hands on diamonds so cause troubles between the tribes - who seem to be played by more actually black actors than usual instead of white actors in blackface.
Karin Booth is the girl. Lester Matthews is Kingston. There seems to be more stock footage in this one. Tamba the Chimp goes up in a plane. The second male lead seems to do more action that Jim.
There's not too many man eaters. This entry felt a little tired and over done with stock footage. Or maybe it's just me.
A film beloved by boomers because it introduced rock music in big wide screen colourful numbers - serious artists too.
I think this was meant to be based on Do Re Mi a novel by Garson Kanin. Fox bought the novel in 1955 and announced the film would star Tom Ewell and Sheree North who had been in The Lieutenant Wore Skirts. Nunnally Johnson was supposed to direct. Then North dropped out. Jayne Mansfield stepped in off the back of her stage success.
How much was this Do Re Mi? Because there was a Phil Silvers stage musical based on that later.
Anyway it is bright and colourful. Great music. Edmund O'Brien is fun as the gangster turned singer. I could take or leave Tom Ewell, then at his brief stardom peak. Jayne Mansfield is very sweet.
Jim wanders into Bela Lugosi territory, coming across a scientist who tests drugs on animals. It's silly and fun. A non white female lead - a native played by a white actor in brownface. Nestor Paiva is a trusty villain, Tamba the chimp has fun (getting his friends involved in overcoming the Ape), the Ape is a tragic figure in a way though that doesn't stop Jim burning him alive.
Done with polish and energy. I do wish Bela Lugosi had been involved!
A lot to admire - the period detail, sense of style, costumes, Elizabeth Debecki is a perfect femme fetale, Hugh Grant is wonderful fun, Alicia Vikander is stunning, the editing of sequences is entertaining (the Berlin car chase, the split screen in the final raid), and I love the ending with the British navy of all people coming to save the day and Napoleon Solo pulling a clever feint.
The two stars don't work. I spent most of the running time wondering who else could have done the job. Maybe Arne Hammer as Solo not the Russian plus a genuine Russian as Ilya. Or Hugh Grant as Solo, with the part rewritten for him (make him British, give him less action), and a Russian as Ilya. I got a little sick of everyone playing a different nationality to what they were eg Jared Harris as a CIA guy. If you're a fan of Henry Cavill you will feel differently.
Jim's boss, Kingston, wants Jim to help a government agent attain mineral rights to a tribal land, but the baddies want oil. What is the difference? Old Jim/Tarzan would have wanted to protect the land. This one is very pro development.
There's decent acting, some fake headhunters, dicey racial politics, Tamba the chimp gets drunk. A solid entry.
One of the more hawkish Cold War entries with a fascinating set up - Jim is asked to help some African islanders move off their island so the Allies can test atomic bombs, "but don't worry they'll be able to move back". And some pesky foreign agents presumably commies try to persuade the locals opposed it.
There is a blonde doctor trying to inoculate the locals, a doctor who is forced to work for the baddies, a divide among the blacks of pro Jim elders and younger leaders more open to the others (the corruptible young was a trope of post colonial filmmaking).
The plot is clear, the fact it is set on an African island gives it novelty, there is decent action (Jim does hand to hand combat to earn the local's respect) and effective acting - I really liked the guy who played the main baddie.
A very joyously pro nuclear testing film.
After Splendor in the Grass, every movie that Warren Beatty starred in flopped at the box office, but all had some sort of life, all tried to be works of significance.
This was the final movie from Robert Rossen, coming off The Hustler. He clashed with Warren Beatty on the set.
The action takes place in a mental hospital. Beatty is a new therapist there, as messed up as the patients who include Jean Seberg and Peter Fonda.
Beatty is very good, though he played this sort of role a lot - a hesitant, handsome man, basically nice, a little messed up. Seberg and Fonda are both superb. Seberg especially. She often seemed to sleepwalk through her parts eg Moment to Moment. But she's alive here.
It's been pointed out Seberg's part is very Warren Beatty esque - a chronic seducer. Seberg here goes for women and men but Beatty was notorious for flattering gay men (William Inge, Tennessee Williams). Maybe the film would've been a bigger hit had Seberg and Beatty swapped roles.
It's intelligent. Long. A little pretentious. Involving. Not entirely successful but I enjoyed myself. Beatty stretched in his choice of material, I'll give him that. Rossen isn't talked about much but he was smart and talented.
Quite fun. Great central idea. Gorgeous locations and sets. Matt Damon and Heath Ledger don't really play characters. They look different but what are there character types? What is their relationship?
Monica Belluci is wonderful. Lena Headley struggles in a stock role, feisty village girl who needs to be rescued. In hindsight, Terry Gilliam's judgement this was a hybrid feels right. They should have let him go all the way.
Peter Stomare and Jonathan Pryce are fun.
Fun to see a big screen shooting gallery movie. Impressive effects. I enjoyed Brian Duffield's original script. This felt as though it followed it. I may be wrong.
Felt flat. You know Kirsten Stewart's going to live until the end. Maybe stuff underwater isn't exciting I struggled to tell the characters apart or their relationshpis.
It's handsome. Glorious production design.
This adventure feels more crowded than usual - there's lots of characters in the movie, many of them Jim's allies which makes it seem easier for him.
The script writer throws in a bunch of stuff: Jean Byron on an expedition, a former Nazi, an opening sacrifice sequence, Commissioner Kingston again, a valley of headhunters, a nasty hunter, a heroic major to hook up with Byron.
Weismuller was trimmer in the earlier JJ movies it seems. It's bright enough, done with energy. Weismuller looks like a sexual harrasser but I may be doing the man a disservice.
Entertaining but a little disappointing. Not as good as the 1995 bio on Stone - which Stone quotes several times oddly enough.
Stone's life was so action packed my expectations were high - exotic squabbling parents, Yale, Vietnam, drugs, sex, taxi driving, film school being taught by Martin Scorsese, screenwriting, etc. Maybe it' s better suited to being a biography.
Stone is an interesting person. Intelligent, self centered, sensual, aware, ambitious, not great with money.
He plugged away for a number of years - driving a cab, living off his first wife and writing two scripts a year. Robert Bolt was an early champion. He made his first feature quite early but little came of it. What got him going was the spec Platoon. That led to Midnight Express, his first assignment - a good one to have. He became a top screenwriter (Conan, Scarface).
Interesting trivia: Keanu Reeves was offered the lead in Platoon, he wanted Warren Beatty and Tom Cruise for Wall Street. There's fascinating insights into the making of Seizure and The Hand. The book only goes up to him about to start on Wall Street. His analysis of other directors like De Palma, Parker, Milius and Cimino is interesting.
The accounts of the making of Salvador and Platoon is exhausting.
Strong book but I can't deny I felt a little let down.
I wish the Jungle Jim movies pushed the fantastical elements more -the best bits about this one are when he gets involved with these half ape creatures. They live in the Land of the Giants, which Jim is protecting, which is fun.
There's some nasty ivory traders, a Good Woman and a Bad Woman, a chimp, a killer Zulu, lots of stock footage, Commissioner Kingston.
It's done with pace and high spirits.
The series was in solid stride at this stage. This is made with care and energy. Low budget to be sure but enjoyable stock footage, a decent story. Sheila Ryan plays one of the strongest female characters in a Jim film, a photographer looking for a scoop. The missing person here is a football player, played by Bob Waterfield - a real football star who was once married to Jane Russell. He's not a great actor but it adds to the fun.
There's people dressing up in skeleton outfits, Jim fighting a shark, Lyle Talbot as a crazed doctor, killer dinosaur reptiles in a valley, plenty of action. I had a good time watching it.
Deliriously silly Jungle Jim epic with Jim dealing with a secret tribe of pygmies. Jim goes looking for a missing army captain - Ann Savage from Detour!
Foreign agents are after a super duper plant. They dress up as natives and do bad things.
There's stock footage, Weismuller does some swimming and pygmies. Actually there's less pygymy stuff than I thought. You might recognise David Bruce and Billy Curtis (little person) among the cast.
Weismuller takes off his shirt in the opening sequence to dive into a lagoon, Tarzan style. He's not in very good shape.
In this one Jim is protecting animals being hunted by drug runners because the animal gland produce a drug. That's a cool idea.
There's a lot of animal stock footage and fun stuff like a female tribe worried about their men and a good scientist coerced into doing Bad Things.
There's too much action though. That sounds weird, I know. I should say there's too much bland action. Stock footage and scenes of people running around. It felt padded.
Still not bad Tarzan lite.
Loud, fun, expert. Expert ish. Just so much fun seeing all these hams together. Stallon gives a lot of time and space to Jason Staham. Jet Li's role isn't much but he has a fun character. Dolph Lundgren has the best part. I forgot Terry Crews was in the movie. Eric Roberts is ideal.
I had a good time watching it.
This book was always out at the LA library and I wondered why as it was a few years old until I realised that Hope was an exec at Amazon and presumably people wanted to suck up when they pitched projects to him.
This book goes up to just pre Amazon. Hope was at an odd stage of his career, having seen the indie film business be knocked out by the GFC and having a not-really-fun stint as head of the San Francisco Film Society.
The book is a combination of memoir, how-to, explaining financial models that aren't really there, and history.
There's terrific insights into the making of early films from Hal Hartley, Ang Lee, Ed Burns, Todd Solodonz. He worked with John Waters, Greg Molotta, Todd Field... lots of people. He doesn't hold back on criticism of people like Field and his one time girlfriend Tamara Jenkins and others.
I felt the book could have done with an edit to make it tighter but it was consistently interesting.
Fun Jungle Jim. Maybe three stars is generous but it has energy and a plot that throws in everything but the kitchen sink. Well, Tarzan tropes, anyway. It's got an expedition into the interior, a Western educated leader (in brownface) trying to get back control of his tribe from nasty locals, a white woman who is raised in the jungle, nefarious treasure hunters (played by Buster Crabbe!).
It's silly and lots of fun with action, stock footage, rampaging chimpanzees. It's terrific to see Crabbe as a villain and John Dehner adds class to the support cast though you're most likely to remember Anita Lhoest as the girl.
They tried for this one. It's not well known but they tried. The support cast is very good - Lesley Ann Downe, Michael Parks, Robert Joy. The characters are given stuff to do - Joy's punk-like killer, the henchman always eating food, Parks and his shades.
Script wise they do a good job of inducing fresh outrage instead of relying on it automatically. Bronson's new girl is the ex of a crime lord - she gets killed, and the crime lord takes custody of her kid, which gives it live stakes.
Some imagination in the action scenes - Bronson uses a soccer ball, a henchman dresses up in drag. There's a fashion world backdrop.
It's not a classic, Bronson was old, and it lacks delirious excess but there's some fine actors and they did try.
Aging beauties and their male prostitutes - it was the theme of many a Tennessee Williams tale. This was based on his 1950 novel which took a decade to be made - the success of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Suddenly Last Summer showed there was still a low of box office hunger for melodramas about horny women.
This has Viven Leigh as an actor who decides to quit a play then her husband dies. She goes to Rome, where the availability of male prostitutes is emphasised in the opening sequences. This presumably upset the Italian government who temporary withdrew permission to make the movie there.
Warren Beatty actively went after the role of the male gigolo. He puts on the spray tan and the accent and does alright. Sometimes he's effective. Other times he's embarassing and overacts.
It was the only feature from famed theatre director Jose Quintero. I don't think he did a very good job.
Nice photography. But I didn't care. She's worried about aging. Falls for a hooker even though she knows he's a hooker. He's a hooker who wants money. Is there meant to be a deeper connection? Would this work if Mrs Stone was male? At least then the "unlocking the hidden passion" stuff would have extra cultural dimension. (There was some camp with Vivien Leigh looking all smug and relaxed after she'd slept with Beatty - "I've just been rammed by Warren Beatty"). But she's an actor... wouldn't she have had a chance to have had hot sex with young things on the road before?
There's no real story. I couldn't see the point. There is the psycho who trails Leigh around, which would have been a more interesting movie. But is he going to kill her? He seems devoted? The film implies she's got a terminal illness. (Everyone smokes btw). Being upfront about that may have made a difference.
Jill St John is fun as a starlet in Rome. So too is Lotte Lenya as a pimp.
I love that Monogram decided, once Boris Karloff no longer wanted to play Mr Wong, to cast a Chinese in that role. And Keye Luke would have seemed natural, as he was established playing Charlie Chan's son and probably the highest profile Chinese actor in Hollywood at the time.
But his casting does make for some adjustment. Luke's Number One son was a very defined character, energetic and Americanised, exasperating his father. Mr Wong was older, distinguished, slow. Luke pulls back on his energy, one of his strengths, and comes up with a hybrid effort.
I think maybe they would have developed the role more for him in time. I understand he signed to make four of these but only did this one - presumably box office wasn't great.
The mystery isn't bad. This was directed by Phil Rosen, making it the only movie not directed by William Night. Grant Withers is the only one to make it through; he was never that much of an asset but I like his continuity factor.
There's decent Chinese content (relative for the time) - the female lead is Chinese, Wong calls up an elder, the plot involves events back in China.
Karloff's last installment in the series ends his association on a high. It's a locked room mystery about the death of a shipping line over. There's plenty of suspects and some memorable characters: I loved the chauffeur who delights in lying; there's also decent subplots, like a romance between rival ship owners, and a double twist at the end.
William Nigh's direction never quite gets into top gear but he has his moments. There's some decent photography.
They never quite got the relationship between Marjorie Reynolds and Grant Withers - was it romantic? Who wanted who? They just seemed to dislike each other.
I liked the Chinese content - Richard Loo as a Tong leader - just wish there had been more.
A dip back after the high of Mr Wong in Chinatown. They bring back Marjorie Reynolds as the reporter but don't seem to know what to do with her. She's not as fun as Grant Withers.
There's less of Karloff's Wong, or so it feels. I actually wish they'd gotten rid of Withers and just had Karloff and Reynolds.
The three of them investigate the death of a cop who was a friend to Withers and Karloff and get involved in a gem smuggling racket. There's not as much Chinese content in this which I feel was a mistake because it was a point of difference.
The budget is decent. The story is fine,
Interesting Williamson. Slower paced. More polite. More British. Which does make its explosions more effective.
There's a lot of short scenes, which I feel it didn't need to be. It all could have played out over the one dinner party. Was this the influence of Williamson going in to screenwriting? He gets extra power when he plays it in continuous time.
There's also a lot of sexual fluidity. Williamson clearly had a high old time in the 70s. The academic has affairs, one with a lesbian, his sister is incestuously interested in him but also sleeps with Sally, who is married to the academic's best friend, who has slept with both with academic and the academic's wife.
The best friend is a filmmaker - Bob Ellis said it was based on him but it reads nothing like him, it's more like successful Williamson (I think Williamson said Tim Burstall was an influence), with the academic being Williamson's portrait of himself if he never went into writing.
The most fun character is the best friend filmmaker and his wife - who is ambitious but not evil, and I feel Williamson describing Kristen. (Who the hell is the bisexual incestuous sister based on?). He's shifted the medium from theatre to film... I'm not sure that entirely works, there's lots of talks about critics and writing, it feels as though it would have suited theatre or books more.
There's some moments of great insight - such as the academic admitting he gets places by sucking up and "giving good interview". The wife is very sympathetic.
For me it wasn't a wholly successful play - a bit too flabby and uncertain, in need of another draft, I feel - but a lot of good things about it.
The best entry in the series so far, helped by Marjorie Reynolds' fun performance as a wisecracking journo who gets involved in the mystery.
This has a fair bit of Xhinese content - the person who hires Wong and then winds up dead (for the third time in a row!) is a Chinese princess, the plot concerns smuggling guns into China, and there's a Chinese little person.
The standard of acting is high though I wish Chinese actors had been given bigger roles. There are some Chinese actors in the cast though - Bessie Loo, Richard Loo, Lee Tung Foo.
The production values are quite high for a Monogram "B" and William Nigh's handling is less lethargic in this one.
This entry starts off energetically but director William Nigh runs out of puff again resulting in the leaden treatment of the first one, which is a shame because it's a solid story. I mean, a B picture for Monogram solid, but that is still solid - it moves along, has suspects and action and all that stuff.
The first Mr Wong had one Chinese actor in the cast, this one has four, I think. Maybe POC a more comprehensive designation than Chinese: Chester Gan, Bruce Wong, Lee Tung Fu and Lotus Long. Of course there is Boris Karloff in yellowface in the lead but one takes what one can.
Karloff brings his A level charisma - there character is a little more Chinese this time, he's investigating the return of a Chinese artifact, which at the end he decides to return to China.
Just wish it had a better director!
Williamson takes on the world of literature and low art vs high art debate. Low is represented by a best selling chick lit novelist, based on Kathy Lette, who Williamson knows and admires and it's one of his most engaging female heroes.
He tries to be fair to the antagonist, the snobby literary critique, supposedly based on Dinny O'Hearn, making it clear he loves his wife and people talk about him being loyal and principled. However Williamson can't resist stacking the deck - the critic is a bad lover, and Williamson never dramatises his principles, we just see him pestering a friend into publishing a worthy book.
He might have a work of more complexity if he got stuck into the Kathy Lette character too - I don't know, had her cheat on her husband, or try to write something literary, or plagiarise or something. She's a little too perfect still. (She is engaging, I just felt her character could have done something more in the second half to do with theme... like realising she's not the soulmate of her husband or have her fall in love with the Jackie Weaver character or something).
Also Williamson doesn't quite nail high literature - there is more to it than suffering; I think he over simplifies because it's not his bag. And the supporting characters of the publisher and his wife, and Kathy Lette's husband, felt as though they could have been used more - to complicate things. It's a little linear.
This review has turned out more critical than I intended - irony! It's a fun play, a bright social comedy, with some witty lines. It tells a story, the world is vivid, and his female characters are stronger than usual. He should have brought back the Kathy Lette character in another play.
The literary critic is one in a long line of Williamson characters supported by a partner because they can't make a living from their art - this seemed to pop up in every second Williamson play of the 21st century.
It's a shame in a way that Elia Kazan and William Inge didn't do more teen-related stuff... there would have been a market for it, and they had a real feel for it. Inge understood outsiders, teen pressures and everyone being horny all the time. Kazan could also bring his excellent casting eye for young players - this not only introduced Warren Beatty, but Sandy Dennis, Gary Lockwood, Barbara Loden and revitalised Natalie Wood's career.
Wood is stunningly good as the pretty but poor girl dating the popular rich boy. Beatty and Robert Wagner insisted the Beatty-Wood romance didn't start until after filming ended and Wood and Wagner had gotten divorced. Well, all I can say is she seems to be enjoying her work. I actually think Wagner could have played the role of Bud... the rich boy who is happy... but Beatty was new, and also a champion football player himself, and came from a small town. He also has an element of moodiness with helps.
Pat Hingle's performance is very much in the Karl Malden vein - loud, bombastic, energetic, over the top. He does add a burst of energy which is needed in the Beatty scenes.
Wood is sensational. Achingly pretty. Her eyes on the people she's doing scenes with. I like that they didn't demonise the mother. Her character clearly has some mental issues - as did Wood in real life. She gets to be upbeat, trashy, happy, in love, in agony, wise... it's wonderful work. Beatty is effective because he's stakes, surrounded by bigger personalities - trashy sister (Loden), loud dad, crazy Wood.
Gary Lockwood is effective as a slime. It's beautifully shot.
A simple, very well made movie.
Monogram's attempt to cash in on the Charlie Chan series had the benefit of a bigger star - Boris Karloff, then in a slight career slump because of the British horror fan (Son of Frankenstein revived his career). The other better known member of the cast were Grant Withers, who was in a bunch of films (he was a pal of John Wayne and husband of Loretta Young and he killed himself), and Evelyn Brent.
Withers is a lunky cop, a part as big as Karloff's. Mr Wong isn't a very interesting detective - a stylish Chinese who wears a suit but dresses "oriental" at home. The handling isn't very energetic.
This was remade as a Charlie Chan film, The Docks of New Orleans. It's quite a good script, just lethargically directed. Would it be so hard to have actors move?
I feel Warren Beatty is a little overrated but you've got to give him points for this movie, a big budget Hollywood movie about American socialists during World War One. He doesn't quite nail it - the personal story is excellent but there's a lot of scenes of people in committee meetings yelling at each other.
Still, they're yelling at each other about communism, empathetically.
It helps that it's got movie stars and focuses on a love story between John Reed (Warren Beatty) and Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton), with their various squabblings and separations, and her fling with Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson).
Random thoughts:
* when Beatty and Keaton have an argument about her feeling like a sideshow in his life and him encouraging her to do stuff I went "that's a chat Beatty has with his girlfriends and probably more than once, maybe even with Keaton"
* the real life narrator device works wonderfully
* all acting is extremely good
* Warren Beatty tends to give the same performance (hesitant, pleasant) and he doesn't have the drive of say Jack Nicholson or Gene Hackman but you get used to this
* they actually could have made this cheaply just by keeping the actors indoors
* set design, photography, etc all excellent.
The film is proof that doing 72 takes on something doesn't necessarily make it better. All those dialogue scenes and communist party scene moments feel rewritten to death. It lacks a universal common touch of emotion.
But its ambition is fabulous.
Part two has a sort of casual slapdash feel - one assumes due to it being turned into a stand alone movie- but it doesn't really matter since we know the story and it's full of stars.
D'Artagnan is a stud muffin in this one - he beds Faye Dunaway, and her maid, played by Nicole Calfan. This leads to revenge.
There's plenty of silliness - a submarine, more slapstick - but is has a darker spirit because Raquel Welch dies. The deaths of Welch, Dunaway and Simon Ward are handled very well, as is Dunaway converting her jailer into an assassin.
It felt a little ramshackle. I don't think slicing the films into two entirely worked. This one doesn't have much camaraderie - the other musketeers disappear for too long. I was constantly having to jog my memory. The use of stars helped.
Oliver Reed is superb as the boozy, tormented Athos. Faye Dunaway and Charlton Heston are excellent, Michael York very good.
Easily the most fun of RKO's four Dick Tracy movies - partly because of Boris Karloff as the villain but also because the plot finally is more outlandish to suit the colourful baddies. In this case there's a gas which makes people freeze.
Ralph Byrne was an underwhelming Tracy but I didn't grow up on him. Anne Gwynne is back as Tess who has a little more to do apart from have Tracy cancel their dates. It has handsome RKO production values. But after WW2 TV started to make B pictures less profitable so the series was cancelled.
A very strong story with rich emotional undercurrents, very well structured. It's heavily female orientated and women have never been Williamson's strong suit. The dialogue and characterisation felt as thought it could have used another draft - there's clunky sounding stuff about refugees and Keating and Howard (it's all in character I just wish it had been smoothed over so wasn't so bald), and the teenage girl character is wild and yep has sex with an older middle aged man.
It is moving, every character earns their weight, there's funny lines.
Not often revived and not super focused, but endlessly fascinating if you are a fan of Williamson because it is so clearly autobiographical.
Williamson writes about a successful writer, a novelist rather than playwright - the leap isn't super convincing, I didn't entirely buy his chats with his "editor" which were clearly meant to be director/producer (the relationship isn't the same). He was married with kids but has left his wife to be with a woman with kids who has left her husband. Unlike Juggler's Three we don't meet the abandoned partners but there's plenty going on - they live in an artist colony, he is visited by his editor (an alpha male... based on Tim Burstall?), a female editor who wants to poach him and sleep with him, his gay agent, and his parents.
Because it's so based on real life the female characters are among Williamson's best -the harried, smart, greedy, engaging new love, the horny editor who had a fling at the colony, and his mother.
The male characters are less impressive- is this the one Williamson play where that's the case?
It's a brave self portrayal - Williamson shows himself to be super touchy about critics, threatens his step kids with violence, a groper when drunk.
There's quite a hot seduction scene although Williamson can't help go for the gag (his character can't get it up). It's very early 70s with its artists colony and bickering greatest generation parents and tolerance of infidelities.
Williamson writes with real skill about his parents' generation. I'm surprised he didn't do that more.
Yet the piece isn't a whole success. It sort of ambles - it lacks the cohesive tightness of Don's Party. But an interesting, entertaining play.
I have memories of loving this play when I first read it at uni - I had heard it was based on his real personal situation and was taken aback that someone could be so honest in its writing. Then I heard Williamson would run it down, and indeed he rewrote the play as Third World Blues, and was wondering if I remembered it wrong.
So on re-reading...
The opening is electric. Man turns up to the flat of his married lover. The husband of said lover is there, back from Vietnam. This is tremendous. Then it becomes apparent the Vietnam vet is going to kill the husband and tension is disappated. There's appearances from the woman they both love, the man's wife, the vet's old pal from Vietnam who has committed robbery. There's a cop similar to the ones in The Removalist and also another man in love with the main woman, Jamie, who feels like a surplus character - he could have been folded into the pompous Williamson surrogate.
Williamson can tell a story - I love how he gets out of the armed robbery stuff by having the cop take the proceeds as a bribe. This is good writing.
Yet something about the piece is wonky. Too many characters or something. Or the way it's dealt with doesn't work. The stakes start off high and then go low. Maybe that's it.
Williamson's first hit - only a minor one but it was filmed, and the movie was a profitable hit at a time when people thought such things were impossible. The dialogue is fresh (for the time), funny and imaginative - Williamson had It. Stork is a wonderful character, tall, horny, hypochondriac, not dumb but also dumb. The banter with his mates is fun - alpha Clyde, quasi alpha Tony, future mens rights activist West.
It must have been a revelation at the time and much of it is still funny. Its remarkable also how Williamson still writers like this - male competitiveness, talk of dicks and money, insecurity about dicks, tossed away socialism. The one female, Anna, sleeps with them all, including a married man, Alan, who I forgot was in this -Alan left his wife and kids for Anna and is torn up about it. Williamson was already writing like a middle aged man. I guess he had a wife and kids by this stage. Anna is the first in what would be a long, long line of women who Just Can't Get Enough Dick, in particular middle aged dick.
I think Williamson's use of structure improved over the years, and he would learn how to tell a story with greater finesse. but he is very recognisably Williamson here. And even at this stage he understood the importance of narrative in a way most of his contemporaries never did, eg there's still a plot with Anna falling pregnant and the rest of the cast could be the father.
After two Morgan Conway installments, RKO replaced him (or Conway quit) with Ralph Byrne, who had played Dick Tracy in serials. Byrne is a little better than Conway but underwhelming. There's a new Tess Truehart... and the return of a supporting character from the previous film, the actor Vitamin Flintheart played by Ian Keith, who plays an important role... taking over an informer who has been killed.
This is similar in style to the first two - Tracy goes after a colourful killer on a rampage. In this case it's the Claw, played by Jack Lambert. He goes after a fake-blind beggar, played by Jimmy Conlin - the events leading up to his death are quite scar.
Imaginative direction by John Rawlins. Made with some care. But this series is missing it for me.
This play doesn't get revived much and it's not very good. It's admirable of Williamson to stretch himself but he wasn't great on sexual politics and some of this is just plain uncomfortable.
It tells a story, it has funny lines, you're always aware of what's going on. The set up has some promise - three men and a woman try to get a crooked developer to confess to a crime, and the men all end up sleeping to the women... Actually come to think of it, that sounds iffy in the hands of Williamson and it is iffy.
There's two alpha males, and one more snaggy who is married. There's a girl at the front desk called Sharon, The siren girl has an ex and there's a developer. The developer and ex character feel under utilised. It's not really a farce because it's not constructed like one. There's talking to the audience scenes where we get inside the head of the men and the siren.
Was this Williamson attempting to explain the actions of the sirens he has met in his life? Is it based on the woman he briefly left his wife for?
I think tackling it was beyond him. At least in an interesting way. Look, I'll give him credit, he tries - but it just feels iffy because she just can't resist cock, and likes alphas and blah blah blah.
It's tricky to write biographies of movie producers because it's so hard (at times) to ascertain what their contribution was (not that it's not considerable... it's just hard to tell) . but the author here does a great job.
Joan Harrison is a name quite well known to serious students of Hitchcock though her reputation is very much in his shadow. She joined his team in the mid 30s, and along with Alma was a crucial part of his development - Hitch only really became Hitch after he met Harrison. She helped make his great late 30s masterpieces which led to his American career; she worked on his early American masterpieces then went her own way, becoming a producer. She started off strong with some quasi classics - Phantom Lady, Nocturne, Dark Water - before tailing off a little with some Robert Montgomery films. She reunited with Hitch for his TV series.
This book does an excellent job sketching Harrison's personality and artistic style - intelligence, taste, love of independence, sexually liberated (affairs with Clark Gable, John Huston and probably Billy Wilder, marriage to Eric Ambler, possible flings with women), sympathetic to progressive causes, stylish. She was friends with Alec Coppel and his wife. She had ill health toward the end which is sad reading but had a pretty good life.
A worthy tribute to a genuine pioneer.
Random thoughts
* I showed this to my five year old daughter and within one minute she said "I hate this".
* It's not very good but I feel people have been especially mean because it's a musical.
* In hindsight they would have been better off having all the roles played by stars/famous people which would have given it a vaudeville quality. I enjoyed seeing the stars. It was the lesser known West End types who were annoying because they were so West End stage.
* The winsome looking heroine is annoying.
* Again in hindsight they would have been better off just having dancers in suits. Because the perspective feels off. One minutes the cats are our size the next they seem to be small. It's disorientating and not in a good way.
* I wasn't a fan of the stage musical so I may be biased.
* Once or twice this game alive, notably in the dancing sequences - when the camera focuses on athletes doing their stuff. Again in hindsight the film would have been better off focusing on dancing.
The second in RKO's short lived Dick Tracy series. Morgan Conway returns as Tracy as does Anne Jeffreys as Tess. He also has an adopted kid.
Dick Wessel plays the outlandish villain. The plot is very linear - it has Cueball killing people and Tracy tracking him down. It lacks a twist. Cueball's bald head is about as colourful as it gets.
Ian Keith adds a bit of dash in too much make up as this actor friend of Tracy's. I kept expecting him to pay off in someway. Maybe he's in the comic.
It's handsome and professionally put together. Just lacks flair of a Mr Moto or Charlie Chan. Gordon Douglas directed.
1) Diamonds Are Forever
2) The Godfather
3) Fiddler on the Roof
4) Bedknobs and Broomsticks
5) The Devils
6) Steptoe and Son
7) The French Connection
8) Nicholas and Alexandra
9) Ryan's Daughter
10) Dirty Harry
11) Mary Queen of Scots
12) A Clockwork Orange
13) What's Up Doc?
14) Straw Dogs
15) Shaft
16) Klute
17) Young Winston
18) The Go Between
19) Mutiny on the Bounty
20) Sleeping Beauty
21) Please Sir
22) Up the Chastity Belt
Interesting what was popular. Really violent movies. Family films. Adaptations of TV series. Historical dramas.
1) The Aristocats
2) On the Buses
3) Soldier Blue
4) There's a Girl in My Soup
5) Percy
6) The Railway Children
7) Too Late the Hero
8) Tales of Beatrix Potter
9) Up Pompeii
10) The Last Valley
11) Butch Cassidy
12) When 8 Bells Toll
13) Tora! Tora! Tora!
14) Dad's Army
15) Little Big Man
The RKO B picture unit were very polished by this stage - Sid Rogell executive produced, William Berke directed. It looks handsome, the support cast includes familiar "B" faces like Sid Rogell and Mike Mazurki, plus an up-and-comer, Jane Greer. Mazurki plays Splitface, who is killing off people one by one. He's the most Dick Tracy-esque aspect of the film - at least, as I associate it with via the Warren Beatty movie.
It's decent B movie stuff. Nothing exceptional or too individual. It's all played straight. Morgan Conway is perfectly fine as Tracy.
I'm of the movie going generation for whom Warren Beatty really doesn't mean that much. Sorry, just being blunt. When Ishtar and this came out it wasn't as though there was Beatty fever.
There's much to admire here. The gorgeous production design. The tone. The story is effective. The colourful characters. The world. The costumes. The acting. The music.
Warren Beatty's direction is maybe a little off. Or it could be him. Or maybe me. I felt it needed someone harder - Beatty had soft elements about him. It should have been Clint Eastwood (who turned it down) or maybe Robert de Niro. I bought Beatty as a shy lover not so much the tough guy.
I agree with the screenwriter who worked on this who said John Landis would've been a more suitable director. I agree. Walter Hill's version would've been interesting - a Warriors style take.
Al Pacino's haminess suits it. Fun to see people like Dick Van Dyke, Dustin Hoffman and James Caan. Sondheim's tunes are perfect.
George Pal's first production is a slight oddity. It's more reminiscent of a sentimental MGM film, featuring Jimmy Durante and Tom Drake, both of whom are in this. There's lots of talk of money, so much talk, it gets annoying.
Everything is a little off. Drake was just that little bit too old by now. He doesn't match that well with Terry Moore who is full of life and vitality though seems too young for him. For me, a little of Jimmy Durante goes a long way.
It's half a musical. Feels as though it wants to be a musical. There's some musical numbers but it's not one.
There's a very cute squirrel who drops money down to the floor below... but really the whole story could have been told without the squirrel. The money could have just dropped. They should have used the squirrel more.
A film that isn't quite sure of itself. Kind of a nice heart. But I didn't like how that family expected money to rain down. Or how Moore expected her false love interest boyfriend to help her career. Everyone is greedy.
Famous cult film/disaster/oddity is great fun once you switch into its rhythm. Paul Williams is an excellent villain, Swan, who rips off the Phantom. There's some neat twists like Swan knows the identity of the phantom all along.
Jessica Harper is fun as the girl, there's some unfortunate homophobia, funky songs, and a mood of anarchy and love of old movies.
So frustrating! The classic movie where the producers lost their nerve along the way and leaned away from its source material when its source material is the best thing about it. There's a genuinely exciting airplane dogfight scene early on and the actor who plays Biggles is ideal.
And you know something? There's no reason why a time travel update couldn't have worked. But they don't lean into that either. Alex Hyde White isn't particularly 1986. They should have committed to that concept - have him as a full on yuppie who is very dependent on technology or something. But there's hardly any time culture clash. I kept forgetting Hyde White was from the future.
And to be frank Hyde White isn't very good. He never seems that involved in what's going on, there seems to be a delay in his reactions to things. In fairness that may be the editing/direction.
Really the Hyde White character should have been female. Then you would have inherent conflict because of the differing attitude towards women from 1917 to 1986 and you could have a romance, and a love triangle with that spy.
In one scene we meet this girl who Biggles had a fling with and a support character goes "oh that's a spy who Biggles fell in love with then she betrayed him and he got upset but now she says she wants to help." I want to see that movie!
It's confusing. The jumping between time feels random. A simple story is needlessly made confusing. I'd love to know what the proposed pre-Terminator script was like.
A flop which led to George Pal leaving Paramount. Before I saw the film I was surprised to hear it wasn't successful - mid 50s was peak sci fi and I was sure the effects would be good. And they are. And there's a simple story at the core - it's about a trip to Mars and the captain goes psycho and has to be knocked off. That's a very dramatic situation.
But the script is muddled. It's written by the guy who did Destination Moon and has similar flaws - all male story (it's the future - couldn't they find a way to get a woman along), achingly awful military stuff (haw haw haw comic relief Irish sergeant haw haw haw comic Italian, the men clapping and howling at a movie of a woman singing in an Arab harem), clunky dialogue, lack of interesting characterisation. The dramatic build isn't very effective either - the general going nuts and being killed by his son is so meaty but dealt with too quickly.
It's a shame because the effects of the space station and space walk, etc are so effective. And that basic set up - man having to kill dad who goes nuts - has great potential.
The son is played by Eric Fleming, who later starred in Rawhide and died shooting a movie.
Much better than Destination Moon - stronger story, more memorable characters, females (well, one Smurfette). Has one of the all time great set ups - a planet is headed to destroy the earth so we'd better get off and set up at another planet. Full on. Much of the world refuses to see there's a problem (hello global warming parallels before warming was a thing) but some richies stump up the cash. There's lottos to pick who goes and... this film actually raises more issues than it can deal with, it basically has a greedy millionaire in a wheelchair, some random couple, and a love triangle involving Barbara Rush and two guys who want her (a doctor and a pilot).
The fact most of the human race is going to be wiped out isn't really dealt with - this should be remade. But it's a kick arse story, the acting is decent, I liked Barbara Rush, the others were fine, the effects were decent (superb for the time). It's a serious, full on, big stakes film.
Historically important - helped kick off the 1950s sci fi boom. Impressively serious treatment of going to the moon. Impressive effects for the time.
Just dull. Buttoned down. Hard to tell characters apart. There was some wise cracking comic relief guy. Needed a traitor or a woman or something.
There's some camp Cold War era fun with scientists in suits worrying about being beaten in the space race and pitching to industrialists why they should finance moon exploration.
And interest in seeing Woody Woodpecker explain how the technology works - this was "homage-d" in a similar scene in Jurassic Park.
I heard this movie was terrible which its absolutely not. It's not amazing but it's fine. I think maybe Sara Miles isn't that awesome in the lead, which is ironic since Robert Bolt wrote and directed it for her. His direction is competent.
The flashier roles as the guys - Jon Finch full of glowering intensity as Melbourne and Richard Chamberlain all androgynous rock star as Byron. I really liked Finch in this. In a way he's kind of the protagonist because in the second half Miles just goes nuts, going berko at Byron/Chamberlain. I wonder if Bolt was channelling his feelings for Miles here - sticking up for her in the face of the establishment etc.
It will help if you like Miles but this was fine.
MGM's attempt to get some of that Star Wars moolah wasn't a hit but it could have been if it had just been played straight or tongue in cheek as opposed to comically. Or if the latter then at least funny.
It's got this gaggy and silly treatment and if it's a joke then why should we care? The stakes should be real.
The script feels like one of those scripts where they giggled while writing it which is great for them but doesn't come across. And some times the costume decisions break reality - like a maid wearing a maid outfit and evil soldiers dressed as basically knights.
And it's a pity because the basic story is very solid and there's some excellent casting - Robert Urich is fine as the leader of the pirates, Mary Crosby is a delight as the princess, Urich's gang includes a just-pre-Prizzi's Honour Anjelica Huston and a young Ron Pearlman.
Structurally it's fine - it's got everything you want: pirates, evil royalty, princesses, a quest to find a father, a gang, action. The time jumping at the end is quite clever.
It's just the treatment. Jokes like space herpies and Urich lifting up Crosby's blouse to have a perv while she's asleep... it wasn't needed. This film was made for kids. It's not made with conviction it's got this slightly contemptuous aura.
I'm not a massive fan of this franchise but anyway here goes. Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson were a great time in Thor Ragnarok but both were playing very specific, big characters - here it's less clear. She's a sort of Bridget Jones/Hermoine but not really and he's a sort of Han Solo but not really. They both quip. There's a lot of quips.
Decent effects and some cool action. But it lacks action. The reveal of who the baddy is is tired. So is the Europe setting.
It's not awful just feels a little bleh.
Part of the brief 3D revival of the early 80s, not as well known as the sequels done in 3D, this is the sort of movie that underperformed at the box office but found some fans on video. I'm not sure why it escaped me, I was the right age, but I did and as a result it has little charms.
It's confused, sluggish, despite some decent production design. They sacked the director two weeks in and replaced him with Lamont Johnson who wasn't what this production needed. It needed a Brian Trenchard Smith and a script do-over by John Sayles.
Peter Strauss is a very good actor and handsome but seems awkward in his role - how Han Solo to play it? It needed a personality actor who could fall back on tricks - they should have used someone who came close to getting Han Solo like Kurt Russell who would have been cheap then or Tom Selleck (who admittedly may have been busy on Magnum). Or just had more of a firm idea of what he was to play.
Molly Ringwald I think is a debit. It's progressive in a way to have a young kid sidekick but she's tooo close in age to Strauss - the possible romance is always there and the film leans into it by having them share a sleeping bag and playing them screwball comedy-ish. It was too high a bar for them to go for - either cast an older actor to play Straus' part or pick an elder one to play Ringwald and go for romance.
The idea of three girls crashing on the island and having to be rescued is fun... but they do nothing with it. We barely see the girls, or spend any time with them. They seem to have no personality. The girls may has well be a pile of gold.
Ivan Reitman was a producer. Michael Ironside is the villain.
Bleak, grown up, intense. The sfx have aged but are still effective and it's scary because the martians kick butt. Gene Barry finds evidence of something or other but it's not really of any use. The only thing that stops them is bacteria.
I could have done without the religious stuff in the end - everyone running into church.But up until ten it's very effective. The mayhem strikes a real chord.
Gloriously entertaining look at Craig's acting adventures - his relatively quick rise to success, being at Rank in the 1950s, Europe and Hollywood in the 1960s, Australia in the 1970s. He was a good looking lad who could act - Rank had him as a back up Dirk Bogarde. He whinges a lot. This is very bitchy for someone who had so much success (i.e. consistent work). But it is very funny. It shines a light too on films that don't get a lot of attention, i.e. 1950s British movies.
There's a decent enough story at the core of this - a scientist investigates murders committed by a psychic but the treatment was needlessly confusing. I also think it wasn't very well directed by Byron Haskin, towards the end of his career/life. The treatment cried out for spookiness, scariness, atmosphere, but too often looks like a flat Universal movie from the late 60s. There's no MGM lushness or style.
As a whodunnit it's not effective because we forget (or I did) who the people at the start of the movie were. I'm not sure George Hamilton was up for the challenges of the role although it is one of his better performances. I wish Suzanne Pleshette, who plays his girlriend, and who should have been the main baddie, had played his part. Or, if it had to be a man, then Rod Taylor, who was attached to this for a time.
Some decent moments like going out to the desert where Aldo Ray tries to kill Hamilton. This needed to be shot outside a studio, with a director really keen to make it work, not an old pro.
The TV series was ideal for a horror movie reboot as it was a bit spooky anyway. This lacks atmospheric direction - a real stylist could have had fun with this - and Michael Pena is very underwhelming as Mr Roarke.
But the set up and script are solid as are the support players like Maggie Q and Ryan Hansen. I just kept feeling it could have been handled better. And Tattoo throughout would have been better than just at the end.
The treatment wasn't as good as the story.
A very sweet biopic of the famous escape artist - I assume hugely fictionalised. Gorgeous photography, sets and costumes and Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh are extremely likeable in the leads. They are young a fresh faced and their chemistry works a treat.
Curtis is clearly trying and gives a good performance. Leigh is lovely. No one else gets much of a look in. Michael Pate pops up as a heckling Brit. Connie Gilchrist, who soon went to Oz to play in Long John Silver, is in it as well.
George Pal should have done more biopics. I guess tom thumb and The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm fall into that category. Directed with typical unobtrusive skill by George Marshall.
A box office disappointment but I think this sort of movie just belongs on streaming now. It's an engrossing story, the exposition is well handled, and it has fun star performances - Charlize Theron, Nicole K, Margot Robbie. Very strong support cast including Kate McKinnon.
Fun film based on the classic short story about killer ants. Instead of padding that out, it provides around 30 minutes of story. The other hour - at the front - is sweaty melodrama with Eleanor Parker as a purchased bride for plantation owner Charlon Heston who gets his virginal knickers in a twist when he discovers she's been married before. He acts abusive and cruel without any of the softness that say Rock Hudson or Tyrone Power might have brought to it - I know this trope was considered Romantic at the time but now it's just watching an abuser.
Still the acting is strong and it gives Eleanor Parker something to play. She's a red head and thus is super beautiful - she always took on an extra dimension in red. Heston has swagger - this is one of his "macho American in a backlot third world" performances like Secret of the Incas.
William Conrad is a local. It could have done with more ants but that last third is exciting and the first two thirds quite entertaining and Parker is gorgeous.
One of Bronson's starring vehicles is an attempt to do something a little different - though not too different. Here he's a journalist, and doesn't shoot that many, though he fires a gun at one stage and beats up someone at the end.
Ironically the story would have been more effective if played more typical. It's based on a novel The Avenging Angel, a Mormon thing (there was a Tom Berenger movie with that title) and is about a feud between two Mormon brothers in Colorado and an investigation into the death of a whole family. It would have been easy to give Bronson a personal connection to that family and had his quest be a personal one - I think the movie would have been better. I understand the novel was about a cop but Bronson plays a reporter so presumably that was a requested change.
The film is fine. Solid story. A lot of old pros around - Paul Jarrico did the script, J. Lee Thompson directed, Jeff Corey and John Ireland play feuding Mormans, Trish Van Dere is the girl. A few younger faces would have helped.
I genuinely didn't guess the baddie, the Colorado locations are a treat, the Mormons gives it novelty, but really it feels like the episode of a TV series. If they wanted to make it a movie, they should have had Bronson has a former Mormon, with a personal connection (like he was raised by them or something) and it was his estranged sister who was shot. Being a reporter makes it feel like this is just another episode in his life.
I was only vaguely familiar with Zweibel before reading this but he has a rich pedigree: an original writer on Saturday Night Live, a man very skilled at doing life stories of top comedians (Garry Shandling, Billy Crystal, Gilda Radner, Martin Short), writer of some of Rob Reiner's least successful films (North, Story of Us), show runner of Ryan O'Neal's Good Sports, dabbler in many forms (novels, theatre, movies, TV).
It's an entertaining book. Good to hear insight about early SNL from a writer, throws in a whole chapter on a film he made with Crystal, skips over some potentially interesting stuff in a sentence (a brief cocaine problem, his wife being robbed at gun point), illuminating sketches on Radner and Shandling, take downs of Ryan O'Neal and Farrah Fawcett, touching account of the backlash to North (less analysis of Story of Us... my take with the problem: it seems it was written by two happily married people), he is refreshingly empathetic about age discrimination in Hollywood.
A low-ish budget didn't help but wasn't fatal. A goofy tone didn't help either but wasn't fatal. This was simply inepty made without love or care.
Maybe it's faithful to the books. I can't believe the books are this stupid or unexciting. There's no charm. No sense of adventure.
It's shot like an episode of a TV series complete with backlot shooting and Frank De Vol score. It's undercast. Some players try to ham it up - at least they try.
Ron Ely is unmemorable as Doc Savage. His sidekicks are the worst things- indistinguishable and bland. They could be cut out of the movie. I hated his sidekicks.
It's dopey. Lazy.
Pamela Hensley at least adds from beauty. They just should have made it about her and Doc Savage. Or just made it well.
Not regarded as top tier Pal and it isn't but I enjoyed it. Yes, Edward Platt looks silly in his headdress. Yes, Anthony Hall is a debit as the lead and makes you wonder why MGM couldn't have found someone else. (I know he was last minute but they had a bunch of actors under contract.) Yes, they could have done more work setting up Greece as an every day society. (I actually think the hero should have come from the modern era but anyways).
But it looks great. Lovely cinematography. Solid sets. The story works - slave uprisings are always solid. Fun to see John Dall again, in blonde hair. I liked Joyce Taylor. It's silly and fun.
This is fun. Silly. Over the top. Colourful. It works.
Brendan Fraser's goofines softens the character. Rachel Weiz is charming. John Hannah is fine.
Some of the support cast underwhelms, particularly the rival treasure hunters.
I wish it wasn't as racist as it was.
Tony Randall does a Peter Sellers, playing multiple roles. George Pal was behind this fantasy which as he himself admitted is a little bit of everything... a little bit Western, some Ancient World analogy, a little bit travelling salesman, a little bit newspaperman taking on corrupt townsfolk.
Arthur O'Connell is a less sympathetic person than normal. John Erickson is fine as the juvenile. Barbara Eden has surprisingly little screen time as the female lead. There's a young kid.
It's fuzzy and ramshackle but full of charm. You never quite know where it's going or what it's going to do.
There is yellowface.
Very good book about Mary Maguire, who leapt to national fame when cast in Charles Chauvel's Heritage. This led to a role in The Flying Doctor which led to a brief overseas movie career in Hollywood and England.
Maguire was blessed with incredible luck for the first part of her life and career - loving, wealthy family, looks and personality, film stardom... she attracted the devotion of old, rich and powerful men who helped her career (Miles Mander, Joe Schenck) and married a super rich war hero in England. Then her luck turned... the husband was a fascist who was interned for two years, she had a child who died, the life went out of her movie career, she became an alcoholic.
To be frank a lot of her problems were her own fault - no one forced her to drink or marry a fascist, and if she really liked acting she would've kept doing it. Still, you feel for her.
Adams does the story justice. Particularly enthralling is the war time stuff, the tale of her husband's imprisonment and activities (seems he was harshly dealt with but such a sh*t head it's hard to care). Maguire's sisters were also fascinating. I wasn't sure there was going to be enough material for a book but this stuff ensures it is.
Why did this get financed? Who was the market? It doesn't have enough action to be an action film. The budget, while decent enough for an Aussie film, wasn't enough for Indiana Jones type adventures. There's no humour. No romance. No sense of adventure.
No differentiated characters - I had trouble telling the leads apart. No stars. I forgot which one was Errol Flynn at times.
He kind of has an ex, played by Isabel Lucas in an astonishingly bland way. There's boxing matches.
David Wenham perks things up as a dodgy mayor. Callan Mulvey hangs around too. Both would have been better as the leads.
A brief moment all these hookers are on the boat and you go "now that's an Errol Flynn film". But this bit lasts two minutes then it's over.
It's so dull. And annoying.
Looks good.
Really fun. Bright. Wonderful tone. Good actors. Margot Robbie a solid lead, Ewen McGregor and Chris Messina having the time of their lives as villain. Funny moments. Great production design.
Took too long to get going - the story doesn't start until 40 minutes in. Didn't need all that set up. It's actually a simple story about trying to get a diamond. It didn't need the rest.
Also didn't need to be R. Why? A key character is a 12 year old girl (or some age like that). Why not let them go see it. A few trims of language and blood and surely they would have been fine and this would have made that much more. I'm Monday morning quarterbacking now.
Dennis Hopper's attempt to be Jean Luc Godard isn't terrible but isn't a masterpiece. It's interesting. I love that Julie Adams got a big role.
It's pervy - Hopper has this Peruvian woman, Stella Garcia, who he takes by a waterfall, and struts around in a bikini and whines about wanting more clothes. People who worship 70s cinema never bring this up.
There's a lot of impro and Goddard style moments and cameos from people like Peter Fonda, Kris Kristofferson, Dean Stockwell.
It looks amazing. Those Peruvian locations are still a novelty. I think if this hadn't been made by a studio it would have been more accepted. Hopper clearly had talent.
Charming musical fantasy with gorgeous photography, music, and a strong cast. Plot a little on the light side. Russ Tamblyn is winning in the title role, Terry Thomas and Peter Sellars are fun as crooks. The tunes are memorable: I'm surprised this wasn't turned into a stage musical.
Ken Hughes: Forgotten Auteur
Stephen Vagg looks at the life and career of a little remembered British writer-director, Ken Hughes.
Ken Hughes was one of those directors I used to dismiss on the basis of a traumatic childhood experience. One day in high school, a history teacher locked us inside the assembly hall and forced us to watch the 1970 epic Cromwell, a sluggardly dull trudge through the English Civil War. Hughes’ name was plastered all over it, as writer and director, and it scarred me from visiting his filmography for many years.
It was unfair, I know, but these things happen. Later on I heard he made one masterpiece, The Trials of Oscar Wilde (1960), which I did see - and was brilliant. So I had a second look at Cromwell, was bored again, and ran away once more.
What prompted a more serious dive into the Hughes oeuvre was my interest in Diana Dors. (https://www.filmink.com.au/a-tale-of-two-blondes-diana-dors-and-belinda-lee/) Hughes directed Ms Dors in The Long Haul (1957), a great little unpretentious B-movie about truckers co-starring Victor Mature. I was surprised to see the name of the auteur of Cromwell on it, and decided to revisit his filmography, only properly this time. I was surprised to find a filmmaker whose output was consistently interesting and entertaining, and deserved more critical attention than it has received.
Hughes was born in Liverpool in 1922. He began working at the BBC as a technician when he was only sixteen, then during the war moved into making documentaries, short features, and training films for the Ministry of Defence. After the war he directed documentaries for the BBC.
The British film industry had a thriving “B” picture scene in the 1950s, helped by quota protections which incentified thrifty producers to make short features that played the lower half of double bills. A new organisation that specialised in this field was Anglo-Amalgamated, run by the team of Stuart Levy and Nat Cohen. Cohen is one of those moguls who should be better known - a shrewd gambler who would later control EMI Films and help finance debut features from directors as varied as John Schlesinger, Ken Loach, John Boorman and Alan Parker... and Ken Hughes. Anglo-Amalgamated wanted to make a crime drama called Wide Boy (1952), based on a radio and TV play by Australian Rex Rienits about a low-class chiseller who gets in over his head when he attempts blackmail. Hughes was given the job of directing and did it excellently - it’s stripped back, atmospheric entertainment, without an ounce of fat on it. Check out this opening sequence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k8ESUCgmjE
Anglo-Amalgamated put Hughes to work writing and directing 30 minute films for release in cinema, such as The Missing Man (1953), The Candlelight Murder (1953), The Drayton Case (1953), The Dark Stairway (1954), The Blazing Caravan (1954), The Murder Anonymous (1955), Passenger to Tokyo (1954), The Strange Case of Blondie (1954), Night Plane to Amsterdam (1955). These essentially feel like self-contained episodes of an anthology TV series; I’ve only seen a few but they hold up well - Australia’s own Vincent Ball pops up in some, like The Drayton Case here
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2goxdb
Hughes’ second feature was Black 13 (1954) which he wrote and directed for low budget producer Roger Proudlock. The star was Peter Reynolds, a highly entertaining actor who specialised in cads, and who later emigrated to Australia where he died in a fire.
Hughes then wrote and directed The House Across the Lake (1954) based on Hughes’ own novel. This was made for Hammer Films, before that studio specialised in horror, and featured many aspects of British B movies from the 1950s: a short running time, film noir-ish plot, and imported B-list American stars, in this case Alex Nicol and Hilary Brook. It’s quite a fun movie, reminiscent of The Postman Always Rings Twice; one is inclined to wonder if Nicol’s character, a writer under the pump and distracted by lust, was a Hughes self-portrait.
Here’s a trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmhJJn0LIPA
Anglo-Amalgamated hired Hughes to make The Brain Machine (1955) with Elizabeth Allen and Maxwell Reed, a decent little thriller that feels like it wants to be sci fi but isn’t. Like most of his early features, it’s an easy watch if you’re in the right mood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o2kJ8Vdmdc
Hughes wrote and directed two more features for Anglo, both with B-list stars from Hollywood, both worth watching: The Little Red Monkey (1955) with Richard Conte, based on a TV serial, and Confession (1955) with Sydney son-of-Charlie Chaplin. He also helped write The Flying Eye (1955) for the Children’s Film Foundation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb9BBVS4hOw
Hughes’ thrift and versatility impressed Tony Owen, aka Mr Donna Reed, who had set up a filmmaking operation in England, Todon. Todon had a lot of success making genre pieces aimed at the international market; indeed, Owen’s impact on the British scene is under-rated because he rarely took screen credit - it was easier to get British subsidies with a local producer’s name on it. Owen hired Hughes to write Portrait of Alison (1955), a lively Laura (1944)-style murder mystery starring Howard Hughes favourite Terry Moore and Canadian-living-in Britain Robert Beatty; Guy Green did the actual directing. Also for Owen, Hughes wrote and directed Timeslip (1955), a slightly sci-fi tale based on a TV serial, starring two Americans, Gene Nelson and another Howard Hughes fave, Faith Domergue. Both were distributed by Anglo-Amalgamated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUKLDiI_zak
The first really stand-out movie of Hughes’ career was Joe MacBeth (1955) a modernised re-telling of Macbeth set among American gangsters of the 1930s, shot in England. It was produced by American Mike Frankovich from a script by another American, Philip Yordan (with a little help from Shakespeare). “It was one of the few scripts I picked up in my life that didn't require a great deal of work,” said Hughes. The movie is gloriously fun. Everyone is in strong form: Paul Douglas, Ruth Roman, Sid James, Bonar Colleano (an American who worked extensively in British films prior to his death in a car crash). It was distributed by Columbia; Frankovich became head of that company’s British operations, and they would finance Hughes’ next few films.
First of these was Wicked as They Come (1956), which Hughes wrote and directed for producers Frankovich and Setton. It starred Arlene Dahl as a woman who claws her way from poverty to the top; it’s revealed at the end she was motivated by having been sexually assault when younger (there was a feminist-ish strand through some of Hughes’ work: for instance in The Brain Machine a person refers to Elizabeth Allen’s character as “ma’am” and she asks to be called “doctor”.) Dahl later sued Columbia over the movie claiming its poster art was misleadingly sexy. The film would have been better off following the lead of the poster art rather than the script: at heart this should have been a campy Joan Crawford vehicle but it’s far too reticent and dull. I watched this after Joe MacBeth put me on a high over Hughes’ abilities - Wicked as They Come sent me back down to earth. I’m sure the film has its fans. Dahl lost her case, incidentally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7E9WNUWJLU
Hughes worked on two more Max Setton films for Columbia. He wrote the excellent script for Town on Trial (1957), directed by John Guillermin, where detective John Mills investigates the murder of a sexy piece of tail in a small town (men driven by lust was a recurring theme of Hughes movies). He also wrote and directed The Long Haul (1957) which I mentioned at the top of this piece, a movie that has been overshadowed in the cinema of British truck driving stories by Hell Drivers (1957) but which is enormously entertaining, with Diana Dors and Victor Mature giving excellent performances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1-1SZN3yVg
Maxwell Setton left Columbia to help establish Bryanston Films with Michael Balcon, leaving Hughes needing a new patron. For British TV he wrote episodes of Solo for Canary (1958) and had a huge personal success with a one-man TV play he wrote and directed, Sammy (1958); this was a 40-minute story about a low-level Soho operator (played Anthony Newley) who can’t pay his gambling debts. Reviews were excellent and Hughes’ script was adapted countless times in other countries for TV, notably in the US as Eddie (1959) starring Mickey Rooney.
Hughes’ work had impressed producers Irwin Allen and Albert Broccoli, owners of Warwick Films, which, like Todon, was an operation aimed at making international-orientated genre pieces in England “for a price”. Hughes worked on the script for Warwick’s High Flight (1957) a Top Gun-esque tale, complete with cocky pilots and homoeroticism starring Ray Milland, that was directed by John Gilling.
Warwick liked it enough to hire Hughes to direct two films for the company. Oddly, these were different to the bulk of their usual output, being non-action films, and not featuring a Hollywood star. Instead, both featured Anthony Newley: Jazz Boat (1960) (based on another story by Rex Rienits) and In the Nick (1960). Jazz Boat starts out as a crime drama then weirdly turns into a musical (complete with dance numbers) then back into a crime drama again. In the Nick is a comedy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV0basjmZns
Neither film is particularly remembered today but Warwick also financed Hughes’ one undeniable classic. This was The Trials of Oscar Wilde (1960) with Australia’s own Peter Finch in the title role. It’s a stunningly good account of the legendary playwright, with beautiful art direction from Ken Adams and a superb line-up of actors doing sterling work. Finch was rarely better; the entire subject is treated with taste and discretion.
The film was highly acclaimed by critics but not popular at the box office, in part because of the appearance at the same time as a rival project on the same topic, Oscar Wilde (1960) starring Robert Morley. The movie’s financial failure contributed to the dissolution of Warwick; Broccoli and Allen split up, Broccoli went on to make the James Bond films, while Allen spent the rest of his career trying to catch up to his former partner (and came close, incidentally, with a series of hit movies based on the Matt Helm stories).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQWf3VyLu9Y&list=PL0gml3Zg1wRlNV2NvOUtIq2sS01wBoh9y&index=39&t=0s
Hughes had wanted to follow Oscar Wilde with a biopic about Oliver Cromwell but was unable to raise the finance. Instead he wrote and directed The Small World of Sammy Lee (1963), a feature-length adaptation of his TV play Sammy, with Anthony Newley reprising his small screen performance. The film was a co-production between Bryanston Films and Seven Arts, an American company headed by Ray Stark which had set up operations in England. The film contains much to admire, including superb photography and acting (Aussies Ken Wayne and Kenneth Warren have support roles), and a glimpse of Soho of the time. It is repetitive (Sammy tries to get money, almost gets it, doesn’t) and how much you like it will very much depend on your opinion of Anthony Newley. The movie has become something of a cult item in recent years but was a commercial failure on release and contributed to the collapse of Bryanston Films.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmJ7LrgcKpk
Hughes moved back to television, directing episodes of the TV series Espionage (1964) and writing episodes of An Enemy of the State (1965). He returned to features when Henry Hathaway walked off the set of Of Human Bondage (1964) which the latter was directing in Ireland with Laurence Harvey and Kim Novak. The film was made by Seven Arts and Ray Stark offered Hughes the job of taking over; Hughes also rewrote Bryan Forbes’ script, based on the novel by W. Somerset Maugham. The resulting film is interesting, and contains one of Harvey’s best performances, but isn’t that good. Novak’s performance doesn’t help and, more seriously, Hughes doesn’t get - or didn’t have time to capture - the essential DNA of the story. It is interesting to compare it with other versions of the novel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmthl1hAdFA
Seven Arts still liked Hughes and helped finance a comedy he wanted to write and direct, Drop Dead Darling (1965), starring Tony Curtis as a Bluebeard type who kills women he marries. It’s a frantic farce that does cartwheels for a laugh with beautiful locations and contains some excellent support performances, including Zsa Zsa Gabor. Curtis claimed in his memoirs he did the film because he liked Hughes’ “excellent script” but felt the final movie did not add up to the sum of his parts. He was spot on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um5J9x-R89c
The movie was presumably why producer Charles Feldman hired Hughes to direct a section of the James Bond spoof Casino Royale (1967) - reportedly the Berlin stuff with Joanna Pettet. Other directors credited included John Huston, Val Guest, Robert Parrish and Joseph McGrath. I’m not sure comedy was Hughes’ strength.
I think this is Hughes’ stuff here, but don’t quote me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_8o4BbDqkg
Hughes’ next movie also had a Bond connection, or rather, several: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968), was based on a novel by Ian Fleming, produced by Albert Broccoli, written by Roald Dahl (who had scripted You Only Live Twice), designed by Ken Adam, and featured a number of Bond actors (Desmond Llewellyn, Gert Frobe). Hughes directed and rewrote Roald Dahl’s script. It’s a gorgeous looking movie with divine sets, a fabulous cast and cheerful songs; it’s also, like so many late 60s musicals, far too long and would have been better at a tight 90 minutes.
Chitty Chitty cost so much it actually lost a lot of money on first release - it helped convince Broccoli not to make anything other than Bond movies - but it was popular and has become a family viewing perennial.
“The film made a lot of money, but that doesn’t really make me feel any better about it,” said Hughes later. “On the other hand, I’ve made pictures that got awards at Berlin and places, and didn’t make any money, and that doesn’t make me feel any better either”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTTzcXSLjhI
The film was well regarded enough to enable Hughes to raise finance for his dream project, an epic biopic of Oliver Cromwell called Cromwell (1970). It was produced by Albert Broccoli’s old partner, Irwin Allen.
I’ve been mean about this film and will be again, but it does have some good things about it: Alec Guinness is superb as Charles I, and the production design is amazing. But it’s dull. So dull. Every time Richard Harris walks on screen he looks as though he’s about to give a speech and he does. Admittedly I don’t enjoy English Civil War tales unless they involve witch burnings or focus around Charles II in exile. But if you are a history teacher who couldn’t be bothered talking to class for two hours, Cromwell could solve your issues that day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7QHFm2AeMo
Up until making this film, Hughes was riding high. He earned £44,177 in 1968 and £47,960 in 1969, the year he sold his company, Ken Hughes Productions, to Constellation Investments for £300,000. It was one of those tricky financial arrangements filmmakers sometimes enter into to help with their tax situation; Hughes was to regret it.
Cromwell was popular at the British box office failed to recoup its huge cost. Around this time the American majors pulled out of filmmaking in Britain, and Hughes, after steady work for almost two decades, found himself floundering a little, earning no money in 1970.
In hindsight, he probably should have fled to Hollywood, like so many of his contemporaries (John Gilling, Michael Winner) or gone into horror, sex comedies or big screen adaptations of TV shows (the most profitable genres in 70s British cinema). Instead he stayed in London where he wrote for television (Menace, Colditz, Fall of Eagles, Dial M for Murder, Oil Strike North). He eventually got two feature gigs as writer-director: The Internecine Project (1974), a thriller for British Lion starring James Coburn and Lee Grant, and Alfie Darling (1975), a sequel to the comedy-drama Alfie (1966), financed by his old patron Nat Cohen (now head of EMI). Internecine has a decent central idea - James Coburn is up for a job so decides to kill off four people who know about his shady past - but feels in badly need of some extra twists/complications. And Alfie Darling suffers very, very, very badly in comparison to the original, which turned Michael Caine into a star (you may feel differently if you like Alan Price, who steps into Caine’s shoes).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vhl7orjm20
Both films flopped. In 1975 Hughes declared bankruptcy, claiming his personal inability to curb expenses, two divorces, taxes and the collapse of the film industry.
Hughes decided to move to the US. He got the gig making one of the most bizarre movies of all time, something even weirder than Casino Royale: Sextette (1978), starring Mae West. Irving Rapper had originally meant to direct before Hughes stepped in just before shooting began. The resulting film is absurd but almost compulsive in its randomness, whether it’s Timothy Dalton singing “Love will Keep Us Together” to Mae West, or George Hamilton playing a gangster, or Ringo Starr putting on a weird European accent to play a director, or Tony Curtis as a Russian, or Dom De Luise as a manager flunky, or West talking to George Raft in an elevator, or Keith Moon and Van McCoy and Alice Cooper AND Walter Pidgeon or... Oh, anyway, see it if you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as6Iv5R1G0M
Hughes’ last film as director was a slasher flick, Night School (1981), the movie debut of Rachel Ward. It’s quite a stylish piece of entertainment, made with professionalism and skill rather than ludicrous excess, which means it isn’t as fun as others in this genre. Ward has X factor from the get-go and takes part in a Psycho (1960) shower scene homage; it has a feminist moments and there’s also not one but two sexually predatory academics. For me, it was Hughes’ most enjoyable film since Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fuMpdXBVZA
And then the credits stopped. I don’t know what happened. Night School was well done. The producer of that film speaks well of Hughes in interviews. He was heading towards sixty years of age so there was ageism, but he could write as well as direct and was used to low budgets... Maybe there were other issues (if anyone knows, please feel free to tell me). He died of complications from Alzheimer’s Disease in 2001.
So how good a filmmaker was Ken Hughes? For me - and this is purely, utterly subjective - he was very “ups and downs” kind of guy with a solid over-all average: the maker of a genuine classic (Trials of Oscar Wilde), a handful of terrific movies (Long Haul, Joe MacBeth, Wide Boy) and some films that have splendid things in them (Small World of Sammy Lee, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and yes Casino Royale). He also made movies that were dull (Cromwell), dire (Alfie Darling), disappointing (Timeslip) and in one case beyond belief (Sextette). He clearly worked best when attached to a feisty little production company with strong Hollywood links (Anglo Amalgamated, Tony Owen, Warwick, Seven Arts).
I also wonder if maybe Ken Hughes rated his own writing too highly. He clearly had abilities as a writer - some of his scripts were fabulous. But it is hard to keep a high level of quality if you write and direct all the time and Hughes was also prone to rewrite, even on screenplays by skilled colleagues (Roald Dahl on Chitty Chitty, Bryan Forbes on Of Human Bondage). In hindsight maybe Hughes would have been better off working more with a trusted collaborator than being a one man band. I completely admit It’s hard to make these sort of judgements without reading/comparing original drafts and the rewrites, but it’s just a sense I get.
Still he should be better known. I wonder why he isn’t. Check out Joe MacBeth if you haven’t.
A sort of remake of Duel in the Jungle from the same producers (Todon, company of Donna Reed), same director (George Marshall), shot on location which focuses on white people on an expedition.
This one has Cornel Wilde investigating his disappearing brother, accompanied by Leo Genn and Genn's niece Donna Reed. Reed is lovely, Wilde is ideal for this sort of stuff (Aldo Ray turned down the role... why?), Genn is fun, especially at the end when he goes nutty, Christopher Lee is even more fun as a big game hunter who may be a baddy, Ron Randell is on hand as another person who may be a baddy.
Randell's voice is dubbed - poor Ron! Nice photography of Kenya. The leopard men are fun.
John Mortimer's classic one hour radio/TV/stage play padded out to feature length. It doesn't work as well but at least we have Peter Sellers in marvelous form as the barrister. Sellers excelled at wounded dignity - dumb people unaware of their own incompetence.
Richard Attenborough is fine though his fake nose was distracting. It was easy to get up movies in Britain back in the day wasn't it?
Fantasy sequences are used. Not bad. You just watch it and go "this is overlong". Or at least I did.
Made with such taste and skill it's remarkable to realise that Michael Winner directed, but then he hadn't began his artistic descent yet. I think Irwin Winkler and Bob Chartoff might've kept him in check too.
He also had a script from Lewis John Carlino, a bright idea well developed, and two excellent stars... well, excellently cast stars: Charles Bronson as the driven assassin who is actually lonely, and Jan Michael Vincent as the cocky protege. Bronson is very effective - the first ten minutes are silent. I love his tousled hair and his death scene.
Looks beautiful, lovely score. Classic double twist ending. It has an interesting theme about loneliness and existentialism - very Michael Mann and character study-y. It's effectiveness is limited I think by the fact it has been so often imitated.
First film in Britain from Tony Owens, Mr Donna Reed who made a series of movies there. It was a hit and launched him on a producing career.
It's a decent adventure, with reliable Dana Andrews as an insurance investigator who sexually harrasses Jeanne Crain, then goes along with her on a trip to find her husband, David Farrar.
The cast has people like George Colouris and Wilfred Hyde White. It has African location footage - Northern Rhodesia and South Africa, some quite decent.
Black actors barely have any dialogue. We see some British patrol officers. Farrar is an excellent louse. The basic story I think is a modern day version of the Granger-Kerr King Solomon's Mines. Crain is bland. Andrews solid.
Good basic structure. George Marshall directs well. Decent action and adventure.
Entertaining Ken Hughes film based on his novel which seems like a rip off of The Postman Always Rings Twice but that's not necessarily a criticism. I wasn't familiar with American Alex Nicol but he's not a bad lead as a writer drawn into an attempt by Hilary Brooke to kill husband Sid James. James has quite a big part - as a tycoon.
Susan Stephens is on hand as the good girl, again. Did she get sick of that?
Good old sordid sexy fun.
Excellent, tight programmer with Kathleen Byron cheating on her husband with cad Peter Reynolds. Husband finds out about it and goes to kill himself then loses his memory and Byron decides she loves him again but Reynolds has a crime agenda as well.
John Guillermin directs with pace and flair. It's a tight story.Byron is excellent as is Reynolds; Hugh McDermott is a bit of a debit.
But it's tough, tight, spanks along. I love how Byron wasn't punished for having an affair.
The last film from Ken Hughes is a perfectly adequate, accomplished slasher movie. It lacks the delirious grandeur of the nuttier entries in this genre.
There's a bit of feminism in the movie - female producer and writer - with talks about how women have been persecuted. Rachel Ward is in it and has star factor.
There's a bit too much of stock cop Leonard Mann. There is a lecherous lesbian academic, a lecherous straight male academic. Also some moments of genuine flair - a murder in an aquarium plus a decent homage to the shower scene in Psycho with Ward in a see through bra and some kinky stuff involving red soap.
I don't like slashers, but this had a story and ambition and some fun moments. I'm surprised Hughes didn't direct more after this.
Lively British B movie from Tony Owen, Donna Reed's husband who like Warwick Films made British genre movies with American stars. Here he's got Terry Moore, very lively as a good time model who is murdered, then like Laura turns up alive - someone else got it.
Robert Beatty, an American actor living in London, plays the lead. He's quite good, not a star IMHO but a decent lead, and William Sylvester is very good. Actually all the cast are strong: Moore, Geoffrey Keen, Allan Cuthbertson, Terence Alexander. Nice photography. Fast pace. Guy Green directed and wrote it along with Ken Hughes, who directed a few films for Owen.
Relaxed censorship was reason enough to have a pass at this - a kitchen sink realism type tale was fine. And some of this was effective - the Dublin locations, stylish photography, Laurence Harvey gives one of his best performances (he holds himself in check).
But I think they picked the wrong original director, Henry Hathaway, and the wrong replacement, Ken Hughes. Neither had much luck with women stars and/or tales of romantic obsession. I guess Hathaway had Niagara but that had a murder. Hughes had Oscar Wilde but that had a trial.
And they had Kim Novak, who is clearly trying but isn't up to it. She's too old and just feels wrong for the role.
The DNA of this piece is the relationship between her and Harvey - he gets obsessed, she doesn't feel the same way but she's honest about it.
Strong support cast, including Roger Livesey (looking old but the voice is unmistakeable), a sweet Nanette Newman (whose husband Bryan Forbes wrote the script and was meant to have played a role but I can't see him in it), Robert Morley.
Not a disaster, not a terrible movie, just one that doesn't get the core of the story. As a result it ambles and drags without heart.
Frantic comedy gives the impression it would do anything for a laugh. The actors ham it up, there's a fast past, the music is wacky.
It's a black comedy with Tony Curtis as a man who kills his wives but they're annoying so it doesn't matter.
It doesn't quite come off but I didnt mind it. I like Curtis, even in dodgy comedies, and it has pleasing locations. It's fun to see Zsa Zsa Gabor (diamond drenched ditz) and Finella Fieling (horny aristocrat) and nancy Kwan (his true love I think).
Rosanna Schiaffino isn't quite up to her role and the film outstays its welcome but it does have some good things about it.
I'd like to think Kevin Smith has one great movie left in him. He's been through a lot in recent years -a heart attack, watching his daughter grow up, seeing his position in Hollywood change after some flops to being more of a talk show host and director of episodic TV and finding out what he did about Weinstein and smoking a lot of weed. Surely there's something to be had there?
This is most effective when it's serious and schmaltzy on the topic of fatherhood - Jay and his daughter. That was great.
The rest is tired and lazy. Really really old pop culture references (Silence of the Lambs), dad jokes about Gen X not knowing about the internet, slow pacing. Some people look old. Good to see Ben Affleck friends with Kevin Smith again, but he looks little funny. So does Matt Damon and Jason Lee. Elizabeth Shannon has aged nicely. Val Kilmer looks like he's got one foot in the grave.
I like that Holden and Alyssa that's a nice ending (and would have made a better film)... but to have her married to a woman and Elizabeth Shannon felt like repeating the gag twice.
Aparna Brielle is funny. I liked Adam Brophy's cameo and Craig Robinson.
I've got such mixed feelings. I grew up with these people. I used to like Kevin Smith. I wanted this to be funny. Everyone's too old to be madcap. It's lazy the way he got the script to work. I think smoking weed every day for over a decade isn't great for your comic edge. The timing is off.
Shirley Ann Field was one of the most gorgeous actors of early 60s British cinema - I mean she was really stunning. She's too hot for Robert Stephens here yet the plot is meant to have them in to each other.
This was based on a short John Mortimer play about a couple who sneak off for sex at lunch. That's the sort of idea that seems to naturally suit one act plays... it's been expanded out here but feels like padding.
Also isn't the point meant to be that they are married? Or he is? They don't feel married here. There's a lot of PDA - they make out in the storeroom, at the movies, in the park.
There's simply not enough story. There are fantasy sequences. Walking around. But really the guts of it is a ten minute argument.
Stephens is excellent - he looks like someone cheating. Field is... fantastic to look at, and gazes at Stephens with such adoration she seems to really like him. But why is she with him? My prejudice no doubt. But I think Maggie Smith, who also auditioned, would have suited the part better.
A film that feels as though in its heart of hearts wants to be sci fi and should be sci fi but is a crime thriller. Elizabeth Allan has quite a feminist part as a shrink ("call me doctor not ma'am") who treats dangerous killer Maxwell Reed. Reed is quite good, he's not required to speak that much, and looks sweaty and stressed.
Allan was in her forties her ex husband played by Patrick Barr is also old so this has quite old leads for the time which gives it a point of difference. So too does the fact the plot involves corruption of unions.
It moves fast, it could have done with a bit of... zing, I guess, but is a decent B.
One of several films written for Harry Alan Towers by Australia's Peter Yeldham, this also was one of the last lead roles from Steve Cochran. It's an action adventure that really could have been shot anywhere. There's clearly some location shooting in Africa - I couldn't say if it was Mozambique. Apparently they shot in South Africa.
It could have taken place in Europe. There's hardly any black people, the villains are Arabs and there's a lot of Germans. It feels more like a Europspy film.
It is interesting to see aging battered Cochrane in his last role. The basic plot isn't bad and there's some good looking blonde movies but this wasn't much of a film.
It looks gorgeous. I think people took the quality of photography in films like this for granted at the time. Huge budget. Ken Adams' sets are stunning. Lovely costumes. Well cast. Dick Van Dyke ideal for this. Sally Ann Howes is very winning. I liked the kids. Benny Hill is fun as is Robert Helpmann. Loved seeing Bond actors like Gert Frobe. Pleasant tunes.
It's just too long. Pointlessly so. The car doesn't start to play a role until 50 minutes in. Fifty minutes. They don't get to the land until ninety minutes in. They could and should have junked most of the first half, just made it a nice tight ninety minutes.
And why make the whole thing a dream? Why not have it just as a pure fantasy?
