Which is the best Flashman? Common candidates include Great Game and at the Charge and you could make an argument for Redskins but in terms of sheer fun, craft and adventure I'd put in a vote for this one. It feels written by someone at his peak in command of his ability having a time of his life.
The structure of this is more choppy - it's three parts, really, cricket, Borneo and Madagascar - but has extra resonance/pace because Elspeth, normally a supporting character, is involved so much more. I mean it's not as though Fraser gives her much more of a dimension - she's mostly comic still - but her presence gives the action greater flavour. It also increases the stakes since Flashman is forced to be brave.
He really goes through the wringer with this one - getting into a bookmakers scandal with the cricket section (there's a brilliant single wicket game sequence which shows off Fraser's tremendous skill at writing sporting contests, and I loved it how Flashman is faced with an angry duke, bookmaker and a bet), then has a luxury cruise but pays for it in Singapore with an attempt on his life (though who organised it?) and the raid in Borneo, then is topped by his adventures in Madagascar.
The action and descriptions are first rate - the jungles of Borneo, Lords, cricket pubs, the dullness of Singapore - but what you're most likely to remember are the characters: dashing but annoying James Brooke, Ranavalova the horny despot queen, the cricketers. The fictional ones are good too like Don Solomon (though he is based on a real people).
An excellent entry.
Friday, March 27, 2020
Movie review - "Raise the Titanic" (1980) **
Legendary flop which essentially put Lew Grade out of the movie business. So much of it is needlessly sloppy - a potentially exciting opening sequence of an agent finding some documents in the snow and then being shot at is deflated by cutting away to senior soldiers chatting about sending Pitt to rescue the agent and then Pitt rescues the agent (why not have the one sequence); then later David Selby and Anne Archer chat at the office then cut to them chatting on a pier... It's pointlessly sloppy.
Archer doesn't have to be in the film. She reports about the raising which brings in the Russians... why not have a spy do that? David Selby doesn't need to be in the film. There's kind of a love triangle with him, Jordan and Archer but they don't do anything with it. They should have made Selby a traitor or killed him off. Or a woman - had Archer played his role so there was some URST during it.
Jordan's Dirk Pitt doesn't do that much. He shoots someone at the beginning but then pretty much just orders people around behind a console.
The raising is effective. It was creepy how Jordan walked into the deserted Titanic. Why not spend the rest of the film there? They spend about five to ten minutes on board!! Then the boat is shipped back to New York.
Beautiful John Barry score. Solid cast - it's novel seeing Richard Jordan in the lead. M Emmett Walsh pops up.
But simply not exciting. They blew $15 million on stuff we only see for 15 minutes the rest doesn't look that awesome - there is some neat location work.
Archer doesn't have to be in the film. She reports about the raising which brings in the Russians... why not have a spy do that? David Selby doesn't need to be in the film. There's kind of a love triangle with him, Jordan and Archer but they don't do anything with it. They should have made Selby a traitor or killed him off. Or a woman - had Archer played his role so there was some URST during it.
Jordan's Dirk Pitt doesn't do that much. He shoots someone at the beginning but then pretty much just orders people around behind a console.
The raising is effective. It was creepy how Jordan walked into the deserted Titanic. Why not spend the rest of the film there? They spend about five to ten minutes on board!! Then the boat is shipped back to New York.
Beautiful John Barry score. Solid cast - it's novel seeing Richard Jordan in the lead. M Emmett Walsh pops up.
But simply not exciting. They blew $15 million on stuff we only see for 15 minutes the rest doesn't look that awesome - there is some neat location work.
Book review - "Captain Cook" by Alistair MacLean (1972)
A readable, standard non fiction work by MacLean in the vein of his book on Lawrence of Arabia. Not exceptional , pleasant enough but clearly a work of passion - I think doing these might have stopped him from self destructing and it's weird he never did it again at least to me knowledge. Maybe he ran out of heroes.
MacLean has a great deal of admiration for Cook though tempered with acknowledgement that the colonialisation that followed him was not all positive - though he constantly refers to Cook discovering things. MacLean explains things like boats and routes clearly and contextualises it well.
He can't help the main problem of the book - Cook was dull. Diligent, brave, smart... but he kind of just charted a lot of things. Did it well but there was no personality, no fire, just determination. This is why three are no great films or TV series about Cook. He died interestingly and that's the best thing about the movie.
MacLean has a great deal of admiration for Cook though tempered with acknowledgement that the colonialisation that followed him was not all positive - though he constantly refers to Cook discovering things. MacLean explains things like boats and routes clearly and contextualises it well.
He can't help the main problem of the book - Cook was dull. Diligent, brave, smart... but he kind of just charted a lot of things. Did it well but there was no personality, no fire, just determination. This is why three are no great films or TV series about Cook. He died interestingly and that's the best thing about the movie.
Thursday, March 26, 2020
Movie review - "The Post" (2018) ***
Solid story - I was surprised, I wasn't sure how they could get drama out of printing leaks, but they went to character, establishing Kay Graham as haunted by her husband's suicide and her own inexperience and insecurity... and having Ben Bradlee motivated by a desire to beat the Times as much as save democracy.
There's typically high quality production design, Spielberg moves the camera around and lingers over his production design in a way that suggests perhaps the material doesn't completely resonate for him - he clearly finds it interesting rather than fully emotionally engaging. But it is a smart film for grown ups.
Strong cast, Meryl is very good and Tom Hanks is fine but he simple feels miscast - when he's smoking cigarettes and being gruff you kept thinking "that's Tom Hanks acting" in a way I never did Jason Robards in that role.
There's typically high quality production design, Spielberg moves the camera around and lingers over his production design in a way that suggests perhaps the material doesn't completely resonate for him - he clearly finds it interesting rather than fully emotionally engaging. But it is a smart film for grown ups.
Strong cast, Meryl is very good and Tom Hanks is fine but he simple feels miscast - when he's smoking cigarettes and being gruff you kept thinking "that's Tom Hanks acting" in a way I never did Jason Robards in that role.
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
Movie review - "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948) ***** (warning: spoilers)
Some comfort food in difficult times. The lead duo are in good form, the concept of all these women throwing themselves at Costello is hilarious, the house of horrors is solid, I loved the party and the lab.
It's got the handsome production values of a studio picture, the script is well thought out, and all the characters have a purpose even the male juvenile. The female roles actually have some meat on them.
But the true stars are Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney - the latter in particular brings genuine pathos. And Lugosi is so good it's bewildering this didn't kick off more of a comeback.
It's got the handsome production values of a studio picture, the script is well thought out, and all the characters have a purpose even the male juvenile. The female roles actually have some meat on them.
But the true stars are Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney - the latter in particular brings genuine pathos. And Lugosi is so good it's bewildering this didn't kick off more of a comeback.
Monday, March 23, 2020
Movie review - "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" (1981) **
The ghost of Superman hangs over this - respectful treatment of its source material, the unknown in the lead, the long time devoted to build up of the story. Lew Grade said the movie didn't get going until the Ranger put on his mask, which is true - but the early stuff could have worked if simply done better.
In Superman Clark Kent had a clear character but the Lone Ranger doesn't have one. He starts out as honest and decent. Turns into someone honest and decent. There's no Zorro/Pimpernel/Superman style contrast. The female character has nothing going on.
Chris Lloyd does well as the baddie as does Jason Robards as Grant. Lloyd needed a decent henchman. The two leads are forgettable as is the female lead - all opportunities missed. They should have gotten decent TV/broadway actors - Christopher Reeve was inexperienced but had done a decent amount of theatre and was classically trained.
It's not well directed. Few films directed by former DOPs are. It looks good - stylish, handsome, decent production values. But it doesn't build. Or tell a story.
There is clearly some intelligence and taste here and it should have been an ideal kids film but they didn't understand character.
In Superman Clark Kent had a clear character but the Lone Ranger doesn't have one. He starts out as honest and decent. Turns into someone honest and decent. There's no Zorro/Pimpernel/Superman style contrast. The female character has nothing going on.
Chris Lloyd does well as the baddie as does Jason Robards as Grant. Lloyd needed a decent henchman. The two leads are forgettable as is the female lead - all opportunities missed. They should have gotten decent TV/broadway actors - Christopher Reeve was inexperienced but had done a decent amount of theatre and was classically trained.
It's not well directed. Few films directed by former DOPs are. It looks good - stylish, handsome, decent production values. But it doesn't build. Or tell a story.
There is clearly some intelligence and taste here and it should have been an ideal kids film but they didn't understand character.
Movie review - "Escape to Athena" (1978) **
Like other ITC action films such as The Eagle Has Landed and Green Ice this is frustrating because it could easily have been so much better if just tighter and more focused. There is a strong action movie inside here waiting to get out. But it's flabby.
Lew Grade pointed out the first eighty minutes were a mixture of genres and the last forty minutes were solid action and he was dead right. I wonder if that first half is that way in order to give actors bits to do.
The filmmakers aren't skilled enough to juggle all the protagonists - Roger Moore's good German, Telly Savalas' resistance leader, Elliot Gould's USO guy.
It lacks a clear goal. At least Eagle it was easy - trying to kidnap Hitler. Here all the goals collide - making money, POWS escaping, helping knock out a V2 rocket. It needed to be simple - just stealing the treasure.They could have had different motives but keep it focused on the one macguffin.
The action stuff is good - there's a superb motorbike chase through the back alleys - the scenery is gorgeous. The cast is full of actors I like and they felt well-ish cast - Gould is perhaps allowed to mug a bit too much as a USO performer, I went with Moore as a German and Savalas and Niven were definitely ideal. Claudia Cardinale is wasted. Stefanie Powers is a lot of fun as a flirt. The William Holden Stalag 17 cameo is funny. Sonny Bono and particularly Richard Roundtree felt wasted.
The movie lacks a strong villain when it needed one. It also doesn't have a strong sense of place - I mean the resistance seems to have it over the Germans far too easily. Too many characters with too many agendas.
Dammit, it's frustrating. Just keep it simple, guys.
Lew Grade pointed out the first eighty minutes were a mixture of genres and the last forty minutes were solid action and he was dead right. I wonder if that first half is that way in order to give actors bits to do.
The filmmakers aren't skilled enough to juggle all the protagonists - Roger Moore's good German, Telly Savalas' resistance leader, Elliot Gould's USO guy.
It lacks a clear goal. At least Eagle it was easy - trying to kidnap Hitler. Here all the goals collide - making money, POWS escaping, helping knock out a V2 rocket. It needed to be simple - just stealing the treasure.They could have had different motives but keep it focused on the one macguffin.
The action stuff is good - there's a superb motorbike chase through the back alleys - the scenery is gorgeous. The cast is full of actors I like and they felt well-ish cast - Gould is perhaps allowed to mug a bit too much as a USO performer, I went with Moore as a German and Savalas and Niven were definitely ideal. Claudia Cardinale is wasted. Stefanie Powers is a lot of fun as a flirt. The William Holden Stalag 17 cameo is funny. Sonny Bono and particularly Richard Roundtree felt wasted.
The movie lacks a strong villain when it needed one. It also doesn't have a strong sense of place - I mean the resistance seems to have it over the Germans far too easily. Too many characters with too many agendas.
Dammit, it's frustrating. Just keep it simple, guys.
Sunday, March 22, 2020
Documentary review - "The Test: A New Era for Australia's Team" (2020) ***
I'm a cricket fan so I was always going to like it, but I didn't love it. Far too often it was too close to The Office with Justin Langer as David Brent walking around spouting philosophies and talking about being a good bloke and giving speech after speech and basically trying to turn coaching cricket into coaching AFL. Good on him for exposing himself I guess - those poor players having to watch all that talking.
There is some decent access which is interesting - I loved every scene of a batsman throwing his bat across the dressing room after being dismissed (Shaun Marsh, Dave Warner, Aaron Finch).
Tim Paine and Finch come across as grown men. Steve Smith comes across as a talented child. Zampa and Stoinis are funny - I wish there had been more of them. Mitch Marsh seems like a lot of fun. Shaun Marsh seems like a nice guy. I came away with more respect for Khwaja. Travis Head seems sensible.
There's notable omissions. No Greg Chappell. No discussion of the favouritism Langer showed his pets. Very little talk about sandpapergate.
There's tantalising glimpses of a bigger story. David Saker tentatively offering some criticism (he would eventually resign). Trevor Hohns hanging around. The really, really, really large support staff - I mean what to do they all do? Langer asking for honest feedback from his staff - whose jobs depend on him don't they? Does performance manager Dene Hills ever run data on how Australia collapse when they have a number six who averages 30 with the bat.
Too much of it was like a stock doco - cutting from talking heads (including people like Gerard Whatley and Gideon Haigh) back to news footage, stock standard narrative.
I mean, I'll take it. I just wish it was better. I get things were off limits but even just letting the camera roll in the change rooms for longer periods would have been better. You get the feeling there were notes "let's not bore them" so they shoved in talking heads when sitting back and letting the action talk would have been better.
There is some decent access which is interesting - I loved every scene of a batsman throwing his bat across the dressing room after being dismissed (Shaun Marsh, Dave Warner, Aaron Finch).
Tim Paine and Finch come across as grown men. Steve Smith comes across as a talented child. Zampa and Stoinis are funny - I wish there had been more of them. Mitch Marsh seems like a lot of fun. Shaun Marsh seems like a nice guy. I came away with more respect for Khwaja. Travis Head seems sensible.
There's notable omissions. No Greg Chappell. No discussion of the favouritism Langer showed his pets. Very little talk about sandpapergate.
There's tantalising glimpses of a bigger story. David Saker tentatively offering some criticism (he would eventually resign). Trevor Hohns hanging around. The really, really, really large support staff - I mean what to do they all do? Langer asking for honest feedback from his staff - whose jobs depend on him don't they? Does performance manager Dene Hills ever run data on how Australia collapse when they have a number six who averages 30 with the bat.
Too much of it was like a stock doco - cutting from talking heads (including people like Gerard Whatley and Gideon Haigh) back to news footage, stock standard narrative.
I mean, I'll take it. I just wish it was better. I get things were off limits but even just letting the camera roll in the change rooms for longer periods would have been better. You get the feeling there were notes "let's not bore them" so they shoved in talking heads when sitting back and letting the action talk would have been better.
Saturday, March 21, 2020
Movie review - "The Eagle Has Landed" (1976) **1/2
Jack Higgins novel is a classic, a cracker of a yarn. This adaptation has a strong cast and good things about it but misses the mark - it's overlong (at more than two hours) and takes too long to get going on the mission. Also not enough time is spent on the German soldiers who aren't Michael Caine - they don't have the feel of individuals, and if they did their final sacrifice might've meant more.
Donald Sutherland isnt entirely convincing in a part that clearly should've been played by Richard Harris. Caine is fine. Larry Hagman as a nutty colonel is heaps of fun as is Jean Kent as a treacherous lady; I also liked Treat Williams as a competent American soldier and Jenny Agutter is lovely as always. Robert Duvall and Donald Pleasance are excellent Nazis.
Not well directed. Tom Mankiewicz's screenplay is fairly faithful to the book.
Donald Sutherland isnt entirely convincing in a part that clearly should've been played by Richard Harris. Caine is fine. Larry Hagman as a nutty colonel is heaps of fun as is Jean Kent as a treacherous lady; I also liked Treat Williams as a competent American soldier and Jenny Agutter is lovely as always. Robert Duvall and Donald Pleasance are excellent Nazis.
Not well directed. Tom Mankiewicz's screenplay is fairly faithful to the book.
Thursday, March 19, 2020
Movie review - "Green Ice" (1981) **
One of the more frustrating ITC mid-Atlantic adventure tales, mostly because the ingredients are there but it doesn't gel. It's an adventure heist tale about emeralds set in Colombia and shot in Mexico - the Mexico locations are gorgeous and Anne Archer was never more beautiful or fun as the rich woman investigating her sister's death. Omar Sharif is a reliable baddie and Ryan O'Neal is charming.
What went wrong? The story fails to get momentum - it keeps stopping for chats and seems reluctant to turn up the head on its heroes. It could never get a fix on the characterisatinos of the leads (apart from her being uptown) and the status of their relationship. They don't use the villains enough - the guy who killed the sister is killed very quickly
O'Neal takes his shirt off an almost absurd amount of times. The credits are by Bond titles guy Maurice Binder and feel Bond like. Bill Wyman wrote the score.
It's such a shame - this didn't need to be bad.
What went wrong? The story fails to get momentum - it keeps stopping for chats and seems reluctant to turn up the head on its heroes. It could never get a fix on the characterisatinos of the leads (apart from her being uptown) and the status of their relationship. They don't use the villains enough - the guy who killed the sister is killed very quickly
O'Neal takes his shirt off an almost absurd amount of times. The credits are by Bond titles guy Maurice Binder and feel Bond like. Bill Wyman wrote the score.
It's such a shame - this didn't need to be bad.
Wednesday, March 18, 2020
Movie review - "The Hostage Tower" (1980) **
This should have been good. A story from Alistair MacLean about criminals taking over the Eiffel Tower. Location filming in Paris, including the tower. A cast including Peter Fonda, Maud Adams, Britt Ekland, Douglas Fairbanks Jr, Rachel Roberts, Keir Dullea, Billy Dee Williams.
But it's dumb. Annoyingly dumb. And bad.
It's directed with this dopey bad 70s TV way complete with silly music stings. The handling is far too light. I loved Fairbanks and Rachel Roberts as this duo running a crime fighting organisation but it didn't make sense... they knew Keir Dullea was up to something bad... so got Maude Adams and Billy Dee Williams to go undercover in the group... and went along with it as they took over the Eiffel Tower. Instead of, you know, stopping it.
It's so jokey and light. Keir Dullea's crack tam includes not only Adams and Dee Williams but Peter Fonda who is out for revenge against him. The action isn't that fierce. You never fear for hostage Celia Johnston.
Adams makes a great thief/spy - ideal for this sort of thing. I liked seeing the others.
But this was stupid.
But it's dumb. Annoyingly dumb. And bad.
It's directed with this dopey bad 70s TV way complete with silly music stings. The handling is far too light. I loved Fairbanks and Rachel Roberts as this duo running a crime fighting organisation but it didn't make sense... they knew Keir Dullea was up to something bad... so got Maude Adams and Billy Dee Williams to go undercover in the group... and went along with it as they took over the Eiffel Tower. Instead of, you know, stopping it.
It's so jokey and light. Keir Dullea's crack tam includes not only Adams and Dee Williams but Peter Fonda who is out for revenge against him. The action isn't that fierce. You never fear for hostage Celia Johnston.
Adams makes a great thief/spy - ideal for this sort of thing. I liked seeing the others.
But this was stupid.
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
Vale Stuart Whitman
I remember once reading a list of the richest actors in Hollywood - it included names you'd expect like Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra... and Stuart Whitman. I thought "what? Stuart Whitman?" But it was true... he did engineering in the army and when he got out and went into acting, he needed a day job like a lot of actors. His day job was he bought a little bulldozer (he learned how to drive one in the army) and would hire it and himself out for the day/week to clear land It was the 1950s and there was a property boom on in LA... Whitman soon figured out where it would be good to pick up some land himself for developing/re-selling. Over time he was worth $80 million. But he kept acting because he loved it. Indeed, he was a compulsive actor and took everything going when maybe a little more choosy-ness might have been ideal (or at least using some of that $80 million to maybe option a decent book or screenwriter).
2) Hound Dog Man (1959) - ostensibly a Fabian movie this film really more belongs to Whitman, who plays a ne'r-do-well... the part really needed the star power of Elvis or even just Tommy Sands but Whitman is effective
3) The Story of Ruth (1960) - part of a sub-genre, Biblical spectacles that no one remembers - interesting to watch. Whitman plays Boaz.
4) The Mark (1961) - Whitman was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for this movie where he plays a child molesterer... only he doesn't actually molest children he only thinks about it (he does abduct a girl but doesn't go through with it) and then gets "better"... but the film does get points for tackling a big issue in 1960
5) The Comancheros (1961) - a really fun John Wayne western with Whitman as his rival and Ina Balin giving perhaps her best performance
6) Shock Treatment (1964) - mental illness-sploitation with Whitman faking illness to go undercover (not the Sam Fuller movie which used the same idea)
7) Sands of the Kalahari (1965) - Cy Endfield and Stanley Baker's fascinating follow up to Zulu has Whitman stepping in to a role that George Peppard walked out on as one of a group of passengers who crash in the desert and deal with horniness and killer baboons
8) Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965) - really fun, lovely movie, a deserved hit... it's a little odd to see Whitman in it (original choice Dick Van Dyke would have been more at home) but he's fine
9) Night of the Lepus (1972) - a killer bunny rabbit movie, no kidding - the sort of movie where David Del Valle would do a killer commentary - kicked off the horror cycle of Whitman's career, which included films about cannibals (Welcome to Arrow Beach), killer alligators (Eaten Alive), cult leaders (Guyana)
10) Crazy Mama (1975) - part of New World Pictures cycle of films about outlaw women and their trashy daughters (eg Big Bad Mama) this one has Whitman hook up with Cloris Leachman and Linda Purl... directed by Jonathan Demme
Anyway here's a top ten:
1) Ten North Frederick (1958) - Whitman has a small but shiny role as an abusive musician in this Gary-Cooper-has-a-midlife-crisis melodrama... it helped get Whitman a contract at Fox who tried for a few years to turn him into a star
2) Hound Dog Man (1959) - ostensibly a Fabian movie this film really more belongs to Whitman, who plays a ne'r-do-well... the part really needed the star power of Elvis or even just Tommy Sands but Whitman is effective
3) The Story of Ruth (1960) - part of a sub-genre, Biblical spectacles that no one remembers - interesting to watch. Whitman plays Boaz.
4) The Mark (1961) - Whitman was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for this movie where he plays a child molesterer... only he doesn't actually molest children he only thinks about it (he does abduct a girl but doesn't go through with it) and then gets "better"... but the film does get points for tackling a big issue in 1960
5) The Comancheros (1961) - a really fun John Wayne western with Whitman as his rival and Ina Balin giving perhaps her best performance
6) Shock Treatment (1964) - mental illness-sploitation with Whitman faking illness to go undercover (not the Sam Fuller movie which used the same idea)
7) Sands of the Kalahari (1965) - Cy Endfield and Stanley Baker's fascinating follow up to Zulu has Whitman stepping in to a role that George Peppard walked out on as one of a group of passengers who crash in the desert and deal with horniness and killer baboons
8) Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965) - really fun, lovely movie, a deserved hit... it's a little odd to see Whitman in it (original choice Dick Van Dyke would have been more at home) but he's fine
9) Night of the Lepus (1972) - a killer bunny rabbit movie, no kidding - the sort of movie where David Del Valle would do a killer commentary - kicked off the horror cycle of Whitman's career, which included films about cannibals (Welcome to Arrow Beach), killer alligators (Eaten Alive), cult leaders (Guyana)
10) Crazy Mama (1975) - part of New World Pictures cycle of films about outlaw women and their trashy daughters (eg Big Bad Mama) this one has Whitman hook up with Cloris Leachman and Linda Purl... directed by Jonathan Demme
Movie review - "Gunman's Walk" (1957) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
I recognise the quality of this - it's expertly put together. There's something not nice about it though. Maybe it lacks warmth despite being a family story. Gnarled rancher Van Heflin has two kids - bad Tab Hunter and good James Darren.
No one is entirely comfortable in Western garb but they acquit themselves fine. All the gasp-shock acting about half breeds got wearying especially as for all the film's ostensible anti racism the only Indian who gets a decent part is Kathryn Crosby and she's so clearly white and just plays an aw-gee type (aw gee I want to be a teacher).
Hunter is very good in an unsympathetic role. Darren isn't bad. Neither is Heflin. I apprecite the film showed some warmth between Hunter and Darren.
Solid ending where Heflin shoots Hunter dead then cries about it to Darren - this was moving. It feels cheap. Low budget. I wasn't wild about it but recognise its professional sheen.
No one is entirely comfortable in Western garb but they acquit themselves fine. All the gasp-shock acting about half breeds got wearying especially as for all the film's ostensible anti racism the only Indian who gets a decent part is Kathryn Crosby and she's so clearly white and just plays an aw-gee type (aw gee I want to be a teacher).
Hunter is very good in an unsympathetic role. Darren isn't bad. Neither is Heflin. I apprecite the film showed some warmth between Hunter and Darren.
Solid ending where Heflin shoots Hunter dead then cries about it to Darren - this was moving. It feels cheap. Low budget. I wasn't wild about it but recognise its professional sheen.
Saturday, March 14, 2020
Movie review - "The Secret Ways" (1961) **
What a dull movie. MacLean's original novel wasn't perfect but it was full of pace, intrigue, twists and decent characters. It threw you right into it - the hero was on the run from page one. Here dull Richard Widmark rocks up, gets a mission, ambles into Vienna, then across the iron curtain.
There's some decent chase stuff in the middle and at the end - the final chase isn't bad. It needed more of his. There's strong actors.
But it's boring. Really boring. Trudge, trudge. Actors with accents. I couldn't tell the characters apart. One hot girl and less obviously hot girl. Widmark. Some Europeans.
Location filming helps but it's in black and white so even that isn't too great.
There's some decent chase stuff in the middle and at the end - the final chase isn't bad. It needed more of his. There's strong actors.
But it's boring. Really boring. Trudge, trudge. Actors with accents. I couldn't tell the characters apart. One hot girl and less obviously hot girl. Widmark. Some Europeans.
Location filming helps but it's in black and white so even that isn't too great.
Movie review - "Bear Island" (1979) **
Watching this again after having read the book:
* they should have kept the film crew idea instead of changing them to
* Donald Sutherland looks like a drip in his intro scene falling into the water while being winched on to a boat and having to be picked up - he's not a terribly charismatic hero (within 35 minutes he's in bed again, having survived an avalanche) but at least he's Canadian
* I think they should have kept Sutherland's character a doctor as it would've given him more status
* the avalanche scene is quite good
* I think they made a mistake getting to the island so quickly instead of having some creepy stuff on the boat with people being murdered
*there's too many middle aged/old actors and too many accents
* it never gets pace going... or much atmosphere
* the scenery is splendid
*there's too many parkers
* good actors just hard to tell their characters apart - the actors have gone for accents (eg Vanessa Redgrave as Norwegian)
*there's a lack of build
*having Nazis and a thief wasn't a bad idea but it doesn't flow
A bit of a mess. Nice visuals.
* they should have kept the film crew idea instead of changing them to
* Donald Sutherland looks like a drip in his intro scene falling into the water while being winched on to a boat and having to be picked up - he's not a terribly charismatic hero (within 35 minutes he's in bed again, having survived an avalanche) but at least he's Canadian
* I think they should have kept Sutherland's character a doctor as it would've given him more status
* the avalanche scene is quite good
* I think they made a mistake getting to the island so quickly instead of having some creepy stuff on the boat with people being murdered
*there's too many middle aged/old actors and too many accents
* it never gets pace going... or much atmosphere
* the scenery is splendid
*there's too many parkers
* good actors just hard to tell their characters apart - the actors have gone for accents (eg Vanessa Redgrave as Norwegian)
*there's a lack of build
*having Nazis and a thief wasn't a bad idea but it doesn't flow
A bit of a mess. Nice visuals.
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
Book review - "Athabasca" by Alistair MacLean
That title does my head in. This starts off well with a chat among men about sabotage on oil fields with some interesting research at how oil is made - and similar research is littered through the book. But I got the impression MacLean hired a researcher and cut and pasted it in.
I guess it is faced paced and there's plenty of action - the baddies kill people at regular intervals, the hero have a wife and daughter who are kidnapped, there is a traitor I couldn't pick.
But it's not very good. Too many of the characters drink - it feels written by a boozer - and they lead was this tubby boozer who was meant to be smart but came across as an idiot and he's got two investigators who feel like Hitchcock and Scully out of Brooklyn Nine Nine. Once I got that picture in my head I couldn't get it out.
I think at this stage MacLean was reluctant to go for the drama - his leads don't really suffer. Even when the wife and daughter are kidnapped the hero isn't too worried or is anyone else. For a bright moment it ilooked as though someone was going to have to have his arm chopped off to get out of a tight spot - the 50s MacLean would have done that. Not this guy.
I guess it is faced paced and there's plenty of action - the baddies kill people at regular intervals, the hero have a wife and daughter who are kidnapped, there is a traitor I couldn't pick.
But it's not very good. Too many of the characters drink - it feels written by a boozer - and they lead was this tubby boozer who was meant to be smart but came across as an idiot and he's got two investigators who feel like Hitchcock and Scully out of Brooklyn Nine Nine. Once I got that picture in my head I couldn't get it out.
I think at this stage MacLean was reluctant to go for the drama - his leads don't really suffer. Even when the wife and daughter are kidnapped the hero isn't too worried or is anyone else. For a bright moment it ilooked as though someone was going to have to have his arm chopped off to get out of a tight spot - the 50s MacLean would have done that. Not this guy.
Friday, March 06, 2020
Movie review - "The Blue Max" (1966) ***
I'm surprised it took me so long to watch this, it was always on Foxtel - maybe the running time. It's beautifully shot, the Irish locations make it seem like World War One Europe, there's some excellent music and plane stuff - I think plane heads love this movie.
The central story is solid drama but it's been mercilessly dragged out to a Roadshow - I mean it's two and a half hours, and has an intermission.
It feels like a sports movie at heart - cocky kid George Peppard wants to be the champ, and doesn't care about anything else really. The film is on Peppard's shoulders and he carries it - he was ideal in these big movies as he proved in The Carpetbaggers and How the West Was Won, especially if he played a bastard.
There is some juicy melodrama with him being promoted by General James Mason and having an affair with Mason's wife Ursula Andress. The ending is very satisfying with Mason sending Peppard to his death. But that all comes in a rush. There's not nearly enough Mason-Andress-Peppard stuff - Mason doesn't appear until over 40 minutes in and there's too little of him.
I think this would have made a fantastic 90 minute movie. As it is it's too long - too many scenes of hitting the same beat ("you're ruthless!").
The Andress scenes are electric - she gets these zooms when she appears. There's some racy scenes with her in bed with Peppard- one where she's topless with a towel draped strategically around her neck and over her chest which must have tested the censor.
The central story is solid drama but it's been mercilessly dragged out to a Roadshow - I mean it's two and a half hours, and has an intermission.
It feels like a sports movie at heart - cocky kid George Peppard wants to be the champ, and doesn't care about anything else really. The film is on Peppard's shoulders and he carries it - he was ideal in these big movies as he proved in The Carpetbaggers and How the West Was Won, especially if he played a bastard.
There is some juicy melodrama with him being promoted by General James Mason and having an affair with Mason's wife Ursula Andress. The ending is very satisfying with Mason sending Peppard to his death. But that all comes in a rush. There's not nearly enough Mason-Andress-Peppard stuff - Mason doesn't appear until over 40 minutes in and there's too little of him.
I think this would have made a fantastic 90 minute movie. As it is it's too long - too many scenes of hitting the same beat ("you're ruthless!").
The Andress scenes are electric - she gets these zooms when she appears. There's some racy scenes with her in bed with Peppard- one where she's topless with a towel draped strategically around her neck and over her chest which must have tested the censor.
Movie review - "The Parent Trap" (1961) ***
Listening to Tommy Sands and Annette Funicello warble away at the title track I couldn't help wondering what Funicello thought when Disney pushed Hayley Mills so strongly. "What am I, Walt? Chopped liver?"
Probably not, everyone says she was super nice.
And Mills was a better actor. Her accent is slightly jarring but she's fun as the twins who realise they're twins and swap. Talk about cruel parents- not introducing themselves to their own children, not letting them know they had a sibling - but those were the times. And it makes for better drama.
The script is quite well structured once you get past the cruelty - Maureen O'Hara is uptown, Brian Keith more rugged, so the girls grew up differently. They meet at camp, clash, then become friends, realise they're sisters, plot to get parents back together, there's a villainous child hating woman after Keith's money (I actually wound up having sympathy for her).
The sexual/familial politics are dodgy by today's standards but it works dramatically. Brian Keith plays the comedy straight, effectively - O'Hara does her hoity toity bit but is appropriate (though you don't feel the remarriage will last). The pacing is deliberate but effective. More could have been done with the grandparents.
Probably not, everyone says she was super nice.
And Mills was a better actor. Her accent is slightly jarring but she's fun as the twins who realise they're twins and swap. Talk about cruel parents- not introducing themselves to their own children, not letting them know they had a sibling - but those were the times. And it makes for better drama.
The script is quite well structured once you get past the cruelty - Maureen O'Hara is uptown, Brian Keith more rugged, so the girls grew up differently. They meet at camp, clash, then become friends, realise they're sisters, plot to get parents back together, there's a villainous child hating woman after Keith's money (I actually wound up having sympathy for her).
The sexual/familial politics are dodgy by today's standards but it works dramatically. Brian Keith plays the comedy straight, effectively - O'Hara does her hoity toity bit but is appropriate (though you don't feel the remarriage will last). The pacing is deliberate but effective. More could have been done with the grandparents.
Book review - MacLean#16 - "Bear Island" by Alistair MacLean
A poor movie but a good MacLean novel - it doesn't feel like a fleshed out screenplay but an actual book with strong descriptions of boats and first person narration. It's a murder on a boat tale, but the boat is in the Arctic Ocean which gives it physical stakes.
Bodies turn up at decent intervals, there's a dogged doctor hero, the suspects are on a film crew which gives the piece some glamour (leading to jaudiced observations from the MacLean surrogate as to movie making). Why didn't they keep this element in the film? It would have been fun.
When the action gets to the Bear Island there's more dead bodies - disappointingly little physical stuff. I was looking forward to some old school freezing to death and clambering over mountains but it doesn't happen. Maybe MacLean was too rich by this stage? He also sets up some lively characters - a Polish count, a Russian triple agent turned film producer - who I wish we could have seen more of.
The mystery is decent enough. It's not top flight MacLean but it's strong.
Bodies turn up at decent intervals, there's a dogged doctor hero, the suspects are on a film crew which gives the piece some glamour (leading to jaudiced observations from the MacLean surrogate as to movie making). Why didn't they keep this element in the film? It would have been fun.
When the action gets to the Bear Island there's more dead bodies - disappointingly little physical stuff. I was looking forward to some old school freezing to death and clambering over mountains but it doesn't happen. Maybe MacLean was too rich by this stage? He also sets up some lively characters - a Polish count, a Russian triple agent turned film producer - who I wish we could have seen more of.
The mystery is decent enough. It's not top flight MacLean but it's strong.
Thursday, March 05, 2020
Audrey Hepburn age gaps with her co star (it's approximate)
Roman Holiday - 24 to Greg Peck's 37
Sabrina - 25 to Bogart's 55 and Holden's 36
War and Peace - 26 to Fonda's 50 and Mel Ferrer's 38
Love in the Afternoon - 28 to Gary Cooper's 56
Funny Face - 28 to Fred Astaire's 56
Green Mansions - 30 to Tony Perkins' 27
Unforgiven - 31 to Lancaster's 47
Breakfast at Tiffany's - 32 to Peppard's 33
The Children's Hour - 32 to James Garner's 33
Charade - 33 to Cary Grant's 59
Paris When it Sizzles - 35 to Holden's 46
My Fair Lady - 35 to Rex Harrison's 56
How to Steal a Million - 37 to Peter O'Toole's 34
Two for the Road - 38 to Albert Finney's 31
Wait Until Dark - 38 to Effrem Zimbalist's 49
Robin and Marian - 47 to Sean Connery's 46
Bloodline - 50 to Ben Gazzara's 49
They All Laughed - 52 to Gazzara's 51
(Again I stress these are approximate ages - I don't know exact shooting dates - but it will give you some idea of the gap.)
Sabrina - 25 to Bogart's 55 and Holden's 36
War and Peace - 26 to Fonda's 50 and Mel Ferrer's 38
Love in the Afternoon - 28 to Gary Cooper's 56
Funny Face - 28 to Fred Astaire's 56
Green Mansions - 30 to Tony Perkins' 27
Unforgiven - 31 to Lancaster's 47
Breakfast at Tiffany's - 32 to Peppard's 33
The Children's Hour - 32 to James Garner's 33
Charade - 33 to Cary Grant's 59
Paris When it Sizzles - 35 to Holden's 46
My Fair Lady - 35 to Rex Harrison's 56
How to Steal a Million - 37 to Peter O'Toole's 34
Two for the Road - 38 to Albert Finney's 31
Wait Until Dark - 38 to Effrem Zimbalist's 49
Robin and Marian - 47 to Sean Connery's 46
Bloodline - 50 to Ben Gazzara's 49
They All Laughed - 52 to Gazzara's 51
(Again I stress these are approximate ages - I don't know exact shooting dates - but it will give you some idea of the gap.)
Movie review - "Ant Man" (2015) ***
A tribute to the skill of Marvel - the films kept getting bigger but then they decided to scale down for this smaller scale (literally) take of one of the lesser known superheroes. It still has some spectacle - the impressive tiny special effects.
They didn't reinvent the wheel, using a familiar structure, close to that of Iron Man. Nice cast - no one terribly new or exciting, but everyone doing decent work, Paul Rudd is affable as always, the typically slick action scenes.
I liked the father-daughter parallel of Rudd trying to be a decent dad, and Douglas trying the same thing too.
Another bald villain - oh we are persecuted. Absolutely fine.
They didn't reinvent the wheel, using a familiar structure, close to that of Iron Man. Nice cast - no one terribly new or exciting, but everyone doing decent work, Paul Rudd is affable as always, the typically slick action scenes.
I liked the father-daughter parallel of Rudd trying to be a decent dad, and Douglas trying the same thing too.
Another bald villain - oh we are persecuted. Absolutely fine.
TV review - "Brooklyn Nine Nine - Season 5" (2018) *****
I loved this season. Everyone was on point. The writing and playing were so confident. It was heartfelt, funny and true. Gina was missed when not around but everyone stepped up.
Tuesday, March 03, 2020
Movie review - "The Groundstar Conspiracy" (1972) ** (warning: spoilers)
A potentially good movie inside here struggling to get out - George Peppard and Michael Sarrazin are ideal, James Olson adds decent support, there's a strong location. But it's flatly directed, and scripted without energy. No pace, or atmosphere or suspense really. That sting-y Universal music. Feels like a TV movie.
It felt like a cheat that Peppard was a goodie - there's no really satisfying confrontation with Peppard and Sarrazin, Peppard is never in jeopardy, the relationship between Christine Belford (strikingly young here) and Sarrazin starts too late. It needed to be a chase film but everyone hangs around.
Shot in Vancouver.
It felt like a cheat that Peppard was a goodie - there's no really satisfying confrontation with Peppard and Sarrazin, Peppard is never in jeopardy, the relationship between Christine Belford (strikingly young here) and Sarrazin starts too late. It needed to be a chase film but everyone hangs around.
Shot in Vancouver.
Sunday, March 01, 2020
Movie review - "Godzilla vs. Hedorah" (1971) ***
Godzilla vs the Smog Monster was the American title and it gives a better idea of this ecologically friendly entry in the series. Its very groovy with some animated sequences, funky music and a scene at a nightclub where a woman dances and sings in a colored body stocking like out of The Trip and there's a right-on-man guitar playing college student hero who sings songs around the campfire. But there's actually not a lot of him.
There's a decent amount of monster acting - I like the idea of a smog monster, Hedorah's a worthy adversary (getting beaten easy enough straight up but then coming out really dangerous) and the final fight with Godzilla is fun. The hero is a doctor who spends most of the movie lying in bed recovering giving advice.
This was silly but the environmental stuff worked well (after all the first movie started with a social message) and was a lot more fun after two weak entries.
There's a decent amount of monster acting - I like the idea of a smog monster, Hedorah's a worthy adversary (getting beaten easy enough straight up but then coming out really dangerous) and the final fight with Godzilla is fun. The hero is a doctor who spends most of the movie lying in bed recovering giving advice.
This was silly but the environmental stuff worked well (after all the first movie started with a social message) and was a lot more fun after two weak entries.
Book review - "Arthur Penn: American Director" by Nat Segaloff (2011)
How good a director was Arthur Penn? At one stage his reputation was sky high - not just Bonnie and Clyde but Little Big Man and Night Moves. No one much seems to like his output from the 1980s onwards - Targets has such a great central idea I'm surprised it hasn't been remade but it didn't make an impact at the time.
I admit I haven't seen many of his films. I don't have a lot of feelings about Arthur Penn. I'm uttery neutral. It's interesting how his reputation at one point was sky high but now he's forgotten even among film buffs.
He had a grand career - lucky to be sure, to get through the war and use the GI Bill for a thorough college education, and have opportunities when TV came along because no one knew how it worked... but he made the most of those opportunities, working hard and smart. He was a hugely successful Broadway director, something often not known about him (many of those early TV guys did plays), had a turbulent time in features - there were fights on The Left Handed Gun, The Train, The Chase - before hitting it big with Bonnie and Clyde. That gave him a decade of freedom before The Missouri Breaks dented his status.
Apparently he shot lots of takes from different angles which strikes me as a director who doesn't know his own mind and depends a lot on a strong editor. He struggled when producing Law and Order.
All this stuff actually makes the book more interesting because Penn had such highs and lows. Nat Segaloff is a good writer and benefits from extensive interviews with Penn himself and his family. I wish there was more on the lesser known stuff but every book has a time limit.
I admit I haven't seen many of his films. I don't have a lot of feelings about Arthur Penn. I'm uttery neutral. It's interesting how his reputation at one point was sky high but now he's forgotten even among film buffs.
He had a grand career - lucky to be sure, to get through the war and use the GI Bill for a thorough college education, and have opportunities when TV came along because no one knew how it worked... but he made the most of those opportunities, working hard and smart. He was a hugely successful Broadway director, something often not known about him (many of those early TV guys did plays), had a turbulent time in features - there were fights on The Left Handed Gun, The Train, The Chase - before hitting it big with Bonnie and Clyde. That gave him a decade of freedom before The Missouri Breaks dented his status.
Apparently he shot lots of takes from different angles which strikes me as a director who doesn't know his own mind and depends a lot on a strong editor. He struggled when producing Law and Order.
All this stuff actually makes the book more interesting because Penn had such highs and lows. Nat Segaloff is a good writer and benefits from extensive interviews with Penn himself and his family. I wish there was more on the lesser known stuff but every book has a time limit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)