George Sidney Top Ten

 One of the best underrated glossy directors

1) The Three Musketeers (1948) - wonderful swasbuckling version

2) Scaramouche (1952) - an even better swashbucker with career high efforts from Granger and Eleanor Parker

3) Viva Las Vegas (1964) - the greatest Elvis movie

4) The Eddie Duchin Story (1956) - splendid tearjerker

5) Bathing Beauty (1944) - fun, all star silliness

6) The Harvey Girls (1946) - some Golden Era fun

7) Showboat (1951) - cripes he did this one too

8) Annie Get Your Gun (1950) - and this one!

9) Young Bess (1953) - slight change of pace, great stuff, a little whiffy script wise

10)  Jeanne Eagles (1957) - serios biopic, solidly done

Movie review - "The Musketeer" (2001) **1/2

 Look, not bad. It pulls back on the three musketeers to focus on D'artagnan - which mightn't be such an issue if Justin Chambers hadn't been such a Ken Doll. Mena Suvari is the love interest (not Constance) and she's quite ideal; they would've been better off casting Chris Klein - or to be honest Suvari (you could've had a female D'artagnan) - or a Hong Kong star.

Stephen Rea is Richeliu and Tim Roth is a made up villain who kills D'artagnan's parents. Roth is excellent,.Half way the plot becomes about the Queen, Catherine Denveuve, and she gets all this screen time.

Chambers is a real debit. So too are the undercast musketeers. When they all arrive at the end it should be rousing but it isn't. Still, fine villains and excellent Hong Kong style action sequences - not as good as Hong Kong films themselves but effective.

Movie review - "The Four Musketeers" (1974) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

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.

Movie review - "The Brigand" (1952) **1/2

I didn't mind this - better than Lorna Doone with a stronger story and support cast. It's ostensibly based on an Alexander Dumas tale but surely the greater inspiration was The Prisoner of Zenda.

The lead offers an acting challenge to Anthony Dexter who can't do it. He was a handsome enough guy cast as Valentino by Edward Small and Small gave him a few more chances. At times Dexter works - he's believable as a lounge lizard king not so much as the decent officer who imitates him.

A lot of plot but the basic impersonation is solid. Anthony Quinn adds clash, dash and verve as the villain - he should have played the lead he would've been marvellous. Ron Randell would have been better too - he's got a thankless part as a sort of helpful officer, a little like the role David Niven played in the 1937 Zenda.

There's bright colours and action. I wasn't wild about Jody Lawrence as the dopey princess but Gale Robbins was a lot of fun as a horny aristocrat.

Movie review - "The Three Musketeers" (1973) ***1/2

Entertaining reboot of the famous tale which does feel a little thin focusing on the affair of the Queen's Diamond necklace. For me it lacked the sense of camaraderie you get in longer versions of this tale - the one involving Milady and Porthos.

But there's lots to admire. The cast is top notch. I'm not a massive Michael York fan but he's a perfect d'Artagnan, young, keen and a believable country boy - most versions of the story don't emphasise this but York really seems like a rube out of place. Joss Ackland pops up as his dad - I wish we'd seen him again.

Oliver Reed is superb as Porthos, ditto Richard Chamberlain as Aramis, Faye Dunaway as Milady, Charlton Heston as Richelieu. Spike Milligan and Roy Kinnear are fun though perhaps too broad - they pull the movie in a different direction. Raquel Welch is fun as Constance - to be honest, she's trying too hard, like the hot girl at a drama school determined to play comedy, but she's endearing in that way. And it's great Constance has a bit more dimension, being a clutz and married to Milligan.

It feels very authentic - the George MacDonald Fraser touch, no doubt - without losing the sense of adventure of fun. But it is 1973 - royalty are dumb, D'Artagnan has sex with Constance. Sword fights are done well - decent strokeplay but also rough house antics.

Movie review - "Black Magic" (1949) **1/2

Orson Welles loved to do magic tricks and was a great showman so is perfect casting to play the enigmatic Cagliostro. He didn't often play leading man roles in films he didn't direct, so it's a lot of fun to see him in this - even if the film isn't that great.

It's got good things going for it - the production values are high (it was shot in Italy), the cinematography is crisp. Some of the acting isn't bad.

It's very hammy and erratic though. I had trouble following the story. I think it's about the hypnotist Caglistro who gets involved in a plot to have a young woman impersonate Marie Antoinette - only he falls in love with the woman. That should be simple but everything feels complicated - Cagliostro is always hypnotising people, people are escaping, his plan is forever being revealed but he gets away with it etc.

Nancy Guild is a debit in the dual role as the girl and the queen - the girl part isn't that great as she's hypnotised most of the time, but she should be able to make Marie Antoinette interesting.  Frank Latimore is dull as the hero. I wish Akim Tamiroff had been given something to do

Charles Goldner's character, a doctor, is at the beginning and pops up crucially at the end to bust Cagliostro - I got confused by who he was. I got him confused too with Stephen Bekassy, the main villain - he was killed off too early.

Welles darkens his skin, curls his hair and uses a broad accent. He's quite slim and dashing and hammy.

There's a weird, hammily acted opening sequence where Alexander Dumas Snr talks with Alexander Dumas Jnr (Raymond Burr) about the story.

I didn't mind this but have to admit I was surprised how dull it was. Needlessly so. I was really hoping it would be a little gem but it isn't.

Movie review - "The Black Tulip" (1964) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Alain Delon tries his hand at swashbuckling, in this adaptation of an Alexandre Dumas novel which I've never read but apparently this isn't very faithful. It would seem to owe more to The Scarlet Pimpernel and The Prisoner of Zenda with Delon playing twin brothers, one a dashing freedom fighter who runs around the countryside robbing the rich in the name of the poor, the other a more quieter, nebbish type who takes over his brother's position when the cool brother is injured.

There's a good twist in that the quiet brother discovers the groovy brother actually doesn't care about the poor, he robs for kicks - he's like the villain in The Wicked Lady. He finds love in the comely shape of peasant Virni Lisi whose father is a revolutionary.

The other great twist is the bad brother is captured and gets hung... and actually dies. This was like The Corsican Brothers. But it gives the piece some emotional kick. (Even if the movie shies away from going into the emotional turmoil the surviving brother must feel).

There's plenty of banter, action and pleasing production design, though I feel it would be prettier had it been shot in France rather than Spain. Delon is handsome and charismatic and gives two distinctive performances - it's some of his best work. The support characters are fine: some rich aristocrats and comic revolutionaries.

Book review - "Take Two" by Philip Dunne (1992)

In his diaries, Charles Brackett makes a few swipes at Philip Dunne as a dull, boring liberal. It was a little nasty of Brackett - and ironic, especially considering Brackett worked as Dunne's producer at 20th Century Fox several times in the 1950s. But after reading this book I get the feeling Brackett was right.

Dunne was a very good writer who seems like a nice guy with impeccable liberal credentials - helping set up with WGA, early opposition to Nazism and communism, making movies in the war, solid Democrat... But his memoirs are so dull.

To me, at any rate - he talks far too much about the politics in Hollywood at the time, all the dealings with anti-fascist organisations, and Communist groups, and labour and the studios, and it's written in stuffy, unengaging manner. Towards the end of the book he goes on and on (and on and on) about Ronald Reagan the politician, and American politics of the 80s and 90s, and it's just so dull and you don't care.

And more surprisingly it's not very well written. Yes, okay, I'm not that much interested in the politics of the time but surely Dunne could have made things more lively - had more of an eye for character and anecdote?

The most interesting big comes in the middle where Dunne talks about some of his adventures in the screen trade - a screenwriter for Fox in the 30s, working his way up to become one of Daryl Zanuck's top guns, credits including How Green Was My Valley and Pinky - eventually turning producer and director.  Film buffs will particularly enjoy his anecdotes about making Wild in the Country, The Robe, David and Bathsheba, Prince of Players and Ten North Frederick. But Dunne doesn't seem that interested in talking about films - his preference seems to be crapping on about politics.

Dunne would up directing ten features none of them particularly distinguished except Ten North Frederick (he did helm Wild in the Country with Elvis Presley!). He's full of excuses as to why none of the movies particularly worked - not enough budget, public didn't go for the subject matter, studio wouldn't give him the names he wanted in the cast. So it comes as a shock at the end to read Dunne considered him more suited to directing than writing; I'm sorry but ten times at bat, you should have an idea of how good you are and he was simply mediocre. A very good screenwriter - and obviously a decent humane man. A mediocre memoirist.

Movie review – “The Count of Monte Cristo” (1934) ***

Producer Edward Small had a great fondness for swashbuckling tales, presumably dating from this effort, which gave him an early success and kicked off the 30s swashbuckling cycle. For the first hour this is a very good version of the classic tale – the script is very strong, making it clear why the baddies wanted to do ill by Dantes, and how he remained in gaol for so long despite having so many people think well of him.

The second half, which concentrates on the revenge, is less good. It drags on and on, and is less fun, focusing on some particularly wet young lovers, with a rather bland courtroom climax when you want there to be swashbuckling. The whole movie feels as though it goes on for too long as well and the romance between Donat and Elissa Landi feels bland.

There's a full on moment where one of the baddies puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger! Robert Donat is very good in the lead - he had Hollywood at his feet after making this but didn't chase it up.

Movie review – “The Man in the Iron Mask” (1939) ***

Louis Hayward made a large number of second-tier swashbucklers during this career; this was probably is sole first-rate one (although Son of Monte Cristo was pretty fun). He’s very good in a challenging role and it’s a handsome production with a strong story. The supporting cast is good too, including Warren William and Alan Hale as former musketeers and Joan Bennett as the love interest.

Producer Edward Small was presumably inspired by the success of Prisoner of Zenda, with which this shares similarities: a good commoner swaps places with his evil lookalike, and falls in love with the evil lookalike’s betrothed, the villain has a nasty sidekick, there is lots of talk of loyalty and duty.

There is a surprising lack of action – there's only really a decent amount at the end. The director was James Whale; this was his last significant credit in what is an atypical genre for his career (although the dungeon scenes and the big shadows in the palace could have easily slotted into his Universal films). The deaths of the musketeers at the end are dealt with kind of perfunctorily – only two of them get closeup!

Radio review – Lux - “The Count of Monte Cristo” (1939) **

Robert Montgomery, the star you get when you can’t get the star you want, pops up as Edmond Dantes, in this decent version of the classic tale. I kept comparing it with Orson Welles’version - the account of the escape from prison isn’t as exciting but the revenge is done better.

Radio review – MT#8 - “Count of Monte Cristo” (1938) ***

As an actor, Orson Welles is best known for playing parts with bored aplomb, so its an interesting change to hear him panic and squirm as the young Edmond Dantes. He’s pretty good – you wish he’d stretch his wings as an actor a bit more like this in his movie career. Once he goes to gaol and becomes the Count of Monte Cristo it’s the old Orson again. This is a decent version of the tale which suffers from unavoidable shortening (45 minutes); Dantes’ arrest, imprisonment and escape remains excitement, but the complexities of his revenge are avoided. He just collapses the bank and that’s it really. But generally this is a good adaptation.

Movie review - "The Three Musketeers" (1948) ****

MGM weren't known for their swashbucklers - they were more a "woman's studio", or contemporary tough stuff - but when they did enter the genre sometimes the results were gold. Since they didn't have any real obvious action stars under contract (Clark Gable was getting a bit old), they improvised and tried Gene Kelly as d'Artagnan. 

It actually works very well - he's very American (as is most of the cast) but he has energy, idealism and athleticism. From that first brilliant duel sequence, where is meant to fight the musketeers but becomes friends fighting overs, I was a convert: he clambers over tree branches, leaps around, laughs. He's really good - and you wish he'd made another one in his career. (MGM had him and Stewart Granger but they kept using Robert Taylor).

June Allyson again is too American but again her persona suits Constance, all virginal, nice, pretty and brave. You could say the same for Lana Turner (whose performance has copped it in some sections, but I think she's fine - totally stunning, too) and Keenan Wynn. Gig Young and Robert Coote don't do much with two of the musketeer roles but Van Heflin is very good, all boozy torment and doom. Vincent Price snarls his way through Richilieu with ease, but John Sutton is perhaps over prissy as Buckingham.

 

Beautiful MGM colour and production values and plenty of action (including a Kelly sword fight along the beach near the surf - a homage to Captain Blood?). The crucial kicker, the segue of the story from bright, colourful fun to more serious tone, is done very well. Constance's death is very moving. Director George Sidney should be very proud - he showed it wasn't a fluke with Scaramouche.

 

Watching this, I was reminded why Dumas story has remained so popular over the years. Yes, there's the obvious stuff - glamour, action, romance, with some memorable characters (d'Artagnan, Milady, Athos, Richelieu) and lots of story.

 

But I think the heart of it is so much of the story strikes an emotional chord. People relate to d'Artagnan who arrives in a new city trying to make it, only to stuff up and get in three fights - but then wind up with three great mates. Or how he loves beautiful pure Constance - but can't resist sexy Milady (its the old Archie comics Betty vs Veronica). Or how Athos torments himself over his past. Romance, lust, friendship - this has it all, which is why it will be remade from here til kingdom come. This version of it isn't for everyone's tastes but I really liked it.

Movie review - "The Corsican Brothers" (1941) ***

Dumas' novel as one of the all time great concepts for a swashbuckler -Siamese twins are born, separated at birth, and raised apart so the evil lord who killed their parents will think they're dead. They they are reunited to wreck vengeance. Edward Small could be counted upon to produce a solid swashbuckler and this one gets off to a strong beginning- with Corsican celebrations ruined by evil Akim Tamiroff, who cheats by having dad (Henry Wilcoxon) shot by someone else, then the two babies raised separately, one in the scrub of Corsica, the other in Paris.

But then the script drops the ball big time by throwing away the scene where the twins meet: instead of taking a bit of time establishing the two separately, the film just has them turn 21, an old doctor introduces them, says "you two are brothers", they decide to get vengeance - and that's it. Talk about a great opportunity wasted. It also makes their decision to seek vengeance a bit flippant - how about establishing that their dad was nice and actually worth avenging, for instance? (Dad mayhave deserved to die) Also, the two don't really use the identical twins factor much - they raid places separately, but they are known as "a bandit in a red cap" - that could be separate people. They needed to have people actually see Fairbanks Jnr in the flesh, arrest him - then have witnesses say "no that's not him". But then I guess they couldn't use the Scarlet Pimpernel like shenanigans that follow when Fairbanks Jnr pretends to be a dandy.

To compensate for this the script throws in some fresh twists. It's particularly good how the Corsican bandit brother doesn't actually like his new brother very much - indeed, he gets sick of him and starts hating him, partly because he's sick of feeling things his brother feels (the comic potentials of this is not really exploited), partly because they love the same woman (Ruth Warrick, Mrs Citizen Kane, a bit bland). He hates him so much that he refuses to come to his brother's rescue and only attacks Tamiroff when he things brother is dead (there is a revival drug, which perhaps inspired William Goldman in The Princess Bride). The biggest kicker is that one of the brother's dies -this is a big shock, but a very effective one. The sets are good, there is a solid bunch of action, Tamiroff is a strong villain (though he needs a better side kick - the actor who plays Tamiroff's evil henchman,the part normally played by Basil Rathbone, is seriously undercast), and Fairbanks Jnr is excellent in the lead - totally at home with the derring-do and romance, and easily distinguishes between characters. A tighter script that better milked its source novel and a better second villain and this would have been one of the true classics of the genre, instead of a semi-classic.

Movie review - "Son of Monte Cristo" (1941) ***

Excellent example of an unpretentious, medium-budget swashbuckler that Hollywood used to churn out. Technically a sequel to The Count of Monte Cristo (1934), this is more of a follow up to The Man in the Iron Mask (1939), with Louis Hayward and Joan Bennett again starring and George Bruce again scripting.

Hayward is the son of the famous count who gets involved in a dictatorial Balkan country - mainly because he takes a shine to Bennett, as the local duchess (who is democratically minded). The show is stolen by George Sanders as the local dictator - although a brute he is a smart one, willing to get his own hands dirty, he seems to genuinely love Bennett and at least he's worked his way up himself the hard way (the film is pro-aristocracy, but very anti-Nazi).

Brisk pace helps it not matter so much the story rips off Zorro - Hayward pretends to be a fop and also dons a black mask to become "The Torch". Well directed from Rowland Lee - Sanders has an especially spectacular death. If two of the support cast seem vaguely familiar, its because they are Clayton Moore (later the Lone Ranger) and Dick Byrd (later Dick Tracy).