Hudson gets a decent biography with this well researched, even handed account. It tackles head on Hudson's sexuality - the thing that really distinguished him as a Hollywood star, especially the AIDS stuff - but does with compassion and footnotes, and also analyses his appeal and skill as an actor.
Hudson was one of the luckiest stars around - he was blessed with great looks, height and charm. With no training or even stage experience, after a few years of bit parts he was a leading man, and a few years after that he was one of the biggest stars in the world. He remained a star in TV until the early 80s and a leading man all his life.
His great gift was he could play a tough guy but be sensitive - he had a warmth lacking in, say, Jeff Chandler or Audie Murphy, other leading men at Universal. He was more accessible and had more charisma than say Dale Robertson or Rory Calhoun.
He was also lucky. Universal was a good studio to learn your trade at in the late 40s and early 50s - the standard of acting wasn't too high, they turned out a lot of potboilers. Ross Hunter came along at just the right time to put him in Magnificent Obsession then George Stevens put him in another league with Giant and Hunter and Day put him in Pillow Talk which led to half a decade of comedy hits. He was less popular in the late 60s - even sure fire stuff like teaming with John Wayne and doing an Alistair MacLean adaptation and Julie Andrews musical didn't work out - but he found new life doing McMillan and Wife. I was surprised how much theatre he did - including several musicals on the road.
It wasn't all luck. He worked very hard, was conscientious and a nice person. Everyone comments on how nice he was.
He had an exotic personal life. While good friends George Nader and Michael Miller were married to all intents and purposes for years, Hudson had a revolving door of boyfriends, some okay, others a bit less suitable. He drank and smoke very heavily - even if AIDS hadn't have come along this could have knocked him off early anyway.
There's plenty of juicy stuff - stories which you'd assume were urban legends, like Hudson fathering a child after the war, and servicing a college football team, actually could have been true. His father shot through when Hudson was little. When he found out he had AIDS he informed ex lovers anonymously. His last few days were this weird combination of genuine friends paying call, Pat Boone and his wife bringing around the bible, Elizabeth Taylor getting in bed with him for a cuddle, and his friends arguing over memorial services and the estate.
Very good book. Depressing at the end - but Hudson had a pretty good life, a lot of success, and a lot of sex and good friends. He never had a great One True Love but I'm not sure he really wanted one. Like many actors he was probably most comfortable playing other people.
Various rantings on movies, books about movies, and other things to do with movies
Showing posts with label Audie Murphy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Audie Murphy. Show all posts
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Monday, August 29, 2016
Book review - "On the Good Ship Hollywood" by John Agar (2007)
John Agar was an odd kind of movie star - the son of a meat packer, he launched into global fame by marrying Shirley Temple, which resulted in a movie contract from David O. Selznick. He lucked out with some of his early film roles, which included parts in classics such as Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and The Sands of Iwo Jima. Agar was an awkward, inexperienced actor, but he looked good on a horse, moved well and didn't bring down any of these films - indeed his work in Iwo Jima was genuinely good.
He was given a few leads - Breakthrough, The Magic Carpet -but he couldn't really carry a film and his career took a nose dive when he divorced Shirley. He copped a truckload of bad publicity for this and the fact he was always being arrested for alcohol related incidents.
His career received a second chance when he was signed by Universal Studios in the mid 50s, for whom he made a number of films, mostly science fiction epics - some of them of very high quality, like Tarantula. He kept busy acting for the rest of his life, though he occasionally had to boost the old income earnings via real estate and other odd jobs. He kept relapsing with drinking and made the mistake of not renewing with Universal when he had the chance - bland handsome types like Agar were always better off under contract. But his second marriage was happy, and they had a couple of kids who seem to love him.
The book is an interesting one - Agar is a relentlessly cheery upbeat sort of chap, forever trying to look on the bright side. He decries attitudes of the younger generation, and all the swearing and violence in films today, takes the blame for his own mistakes. Shirley Temple doesn't get that much of a mention - he simply says they were very much in love, the mum was a piece of work, their marriage suffered... he denies that he cheated on her but admits to drinking a lot. His biggest regret is being estranged from his child with Temple and smoking and drinking so much.
It's a short book and disappointingly slight. There's some stuff on John Wayne and John Ford but not a lot; it's slight on his classic Westerns and war films and sci fi efforts. He talks wistfully about wanting to make more Westerns - indeed I'm surprised Universal didn't use him more for them. The book is fleshed out with some typically strong interviews Tom Weaver did with him which focus on the sci fi stuff. But all the way through I wanted to know more - I mean how many actors worked with Shirley Temple, John Ford, John Wayne, Sam Katzman, Charles Griffith, early AIP, Sidney Pink, Audie Murphy, Larry Buchanan...
Agar comes across as a likeable, amiable guy who was a bit of a goose. The book is a quick read, it's entertaining - but I feel you could do a more solid book on Agar.
He was given a few leads - Breakthrough, The Magic Carpet -but he couldn't really carry a film and his career took a nose dive when he divorced Shirley. He copped a truckload of bad publicity for this and the fact he was always being arrested for alcohol related incidents.
His career received a second chance when he was signed by Universal Studios in the mid 50s, for whom he made a number of films, mostly science fiction epics - some of them of very high quality, like Tarantula. He kept busy acting for the rest of his life, though he occasionally had to boost the old income earnings via real estate and other odd jobs. He kept relapsing with drinking and made the mistake of not renewing with Universal when he had the chance - bland handsome types like Agar were always better off under contract. But his second marriage was happy, and they had a couple of kids who seem to love him.
The book is an interesting one - Agar is a relentlessly cheery upbeat sort of chap, forever trying to look on the bright side. He decries attitudes of the younger generation, and all the swearing and violence in films today, takes the blame for his own mistakes. Shirley Temple doesn't get that much of a mention - he simply says they were very much in love, the mum was a piece of work, their marriage suffered... he denies that he cheated on her but admits to drinking a lot. His biggest regret is being estranged from his child with Temple and smoking and drinking so much.
It's a short book and disappointingly slight. There's some stuff on John Wayne and John Ford but not a lot; it's slight on his classic Westerns and war films and sci fi efforts. He talks wistfully about wanting to make more Westerns - indeed I'm surprised Universal didn't use him more for them. The book is fleshed out with some typically strong interviews Tom Weaver did with him which focus on the sci fi stuff. But all the way through I wanted to know more - I mean how many actors worked with Shirley Temple, John Ford, John Wayne, Sam Katzman, Charles Griffith, early AIP, Sidney Pink, Audie Murphy, Larry Buchanan...
Agar comes across as a likeable, amiable guy who was a bit of a goose. The book is a quick read, it's entertaining - but I feel you could do a more solid book on Agar.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Movie review - "Beyond Glory" (1948) ** (re-viewing)
An odd sort of movie - part tribute to West Point, part courtroom drama, part analysis of PTSD. Three writers are credited, including the impressive Jonathan Latimer, and I wonder if each writer took a completely different approach to the material. But this lack of focus on a specific story hurts the film. It goes all over the place - we meet Ladd at West Point, then there are these charges against him, then we flash back, then we flashback again.
There are all these plots - Ladd romancing Donna Reed, the widow of his former officer; Ladd's initial dislike of the army then becoming an officer; Ladd dealing with life after the army; Ladd being accused of hazing by a rich man's son; Ladd thinking he was a coward.
So you take what you get: John Farrow's brisk direction, the novelty of Alan Ladd as a student at West Point, some documentary like touches of life at West Point, a particularly strong support cast including George Colouris (a worthy baddy, a ruthless lawyer), Donna Reed (noble widow), Henry Travers, Tom Neal and Audie Murphy (who actually would've been ideal in Ladd's role had they ever decided to remake this).
But really this isn't a very good movie. It's too unfocused, Ladd doesn't seem that interested, and the climax is based on a contrivance (i.e. that Ladd would think he was a coward).
There are all these plots - Ladd romancing Donna Reed, the widow of his former officer; Ladd's initial dislike of the army then becoming an officer; Ladd dealing with life after the army; Ladd being accused of hazing by a rich man's son; Ladd thinking he was a coward.
So you take what you get: John Farrow's brisk direction, the novelty of Alan Ladd as a student at West Point, some documentary like touches of life at West Point, a particularly strong support cast including George Colouris (a worthy baddy, a ruthless lawyer), Donna Reed (noble widow), Henry Travers, Tom Neal and Audie Murphy (who actually would've been ideal in Ladd's role had they ever decided to remake this).
But really this isn't a very good movie. It's too unfocused, Ladd doesn't seem that interested, and the climax is based on a contrivance (i.e. that Ladd would think he was a coward).
Monday, April 15, 2013
Movie review - "A Time for Dying" (1971) ** (re-watching)
Audie Murphy's last film is a real curio with one of his best performances - reprising the role of Jesse James he so effectively conveyed in Kansas Raiders all those years before. He's less psycho here, more worldly as James, who is very much a support bit - the real star is Richard Lapp, in a Audie Murphy type role as a young kid who winds up a gun fighter.
The movie never seems to get its tone right - it could be a comedy or heavy drama or action, and at times it's all three. The script feels patchy - Lapp doesn't decide to become a bounty hunter until way too late - and Lapp isn't much of a star.
But it is consistently interesting, even if (or because of) its flaws - Budd Boetticher didn't make too many boring movies. There's this nihilistic ending where Lapp dies and his wife winds up in a brothel, Murphy's cameo, and Victor Jory as Judge Roy Bean. Worth checking out if you're into Murphy and/or Boetticher.
The movie never seems to get its tone right - it could be a comedy or heavy drama or action, and at times it's all three. The script feels patchy - Lapp doesn't decide to become a bounty hunter until way too late - and Lapp isn't much of a star.
But it is consistently interesting, even if (or because of) its flaws - Budd Boetticher didn't make too many boring movies. There's this nihilistic ending where Lapp dies and his wife winds up in a brothel, Murphy's cameo, and Victor Jory as Judge Roy Bean. Worth checking out if you're into Murphy and/or Boetticher.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Movie review - "The Unforgiven" (1960) **
Really irritating Western that came as a
major disappointment to me because of the quality of people involved:
Lancaster, Hecht Hill Lancaster, Maddow, Hepburn, Huston, Le May, Bickford and
Audie Murphy. But not only is it un-exciting it’s patronizing, unexciting and
not a bit dumb.
The story is a switch of The Searchers,
with an Indian girl raised by a white family. But instead of showing all that
up front and having the drama play out, this one holds off the reveal that
Audrey Hepburn is an Indian until around half way through and everyone starts
wailing and carrying on as if it’s 1941 Germany and she’s a Jew.
And instead of The Searchers' heavily
multi-cultural world with its mixture of Swedes, Confederates, Indians, half-Indians
and Anglos, this depicts a world where apparently the worst shame is to be
Indian. When its revealed that Audrey has red blood the townsfolk get whipped
up into a hysterical fury, her own brother Murphy rants and raves like she’s an
alien. I get that people were racist along the frontier, I’m sure they were,
but this didn’t ring true – that people would be so shocked at this time in
American history that an adopted girl was Kiowa, that they would shun and carry
on so much about a girl they’ve known their entire lives. It all ran false. The
Elvis movie Flaming Star dealt with this material so, so much better.
None of the characters are that likeable or
interesting – Burt Lancaster’s patriarch, harbouring incestuous feelings for
his sister Hepburn (it’s okay apparently because they’re not blood relatives…
sorry, but it was a little too close to Scarface for me) and ordering an Indian
who wants to parley to be shot dead; Audie Murphy’s racist brother (never given
a really good reason for his hysteria inducing reaction to Indians except they
killed his paw – incidentally he’s meant to be a goodie who comes to the rescue at the
end); Doug McClure’s bland younger brother
(no character at all and one wonders why he’s in the film), Lilian
Gish’s pop-eyed mother (though the bit where she causes Joseph Wiseman to be
hung is one of the best in the movie).
Audrey Hepburn is pretty and likeable as
always but she’s not that convincing as an Indian, looks too old, and is stuck with a
nothing part – entirely passive (she seems bullied into staying with the whites
more than anything else, there’s never a moment where she explores her Indian
heritage). At the end of the movie you feel sorry for her more than anything
else, stuck in this semi-abusive relationship with her brother. There’s some
hammy acting, too.
Also for a movie that is supposed to shed
light on American racism, it’s racist in its depiction of the Indians – who are
once again mostly depicted as savages in the distance with only a few lines of
dialogue. They whoop whoop and fire arrows and charge on a building – but they are never allowed to show
humanity, or humour. John Saxon has the biggest part, as a white allied
Indian, but it’s not much of a role.
The central idea of an Indian raised by a
while family is a good one and there are some effective moments: I always like
Charles Bickford in Westerns, Dimitri Tomkin’s score is interesting, the final
siege isn’t bad, and Joseph Wiseman is fun as a crazed white settler. Audie
Murphy does some effective hysteria acting – it’s not his fault his character
doesn’t really make sense (why didn’t they give him more of an Indian fighting
backstory? Make allowances for his age? Why make him a hero at the end?) But it
doesn’t ring true and it just plain annoyed me.
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
My Audie Murphy Top Ten
My top ten favourite Audie Murphy films - in no particular order:
1) The Red Badge of Courage (1951) - flawed masterpiece, with fine direction by John Huston;
2) Night Passage (1957) - one of James Stewart's lesser westerns but great to see him and Audie;
3) Six Black Horses (1962) - run of the mill stuff but I include it because its competence made it stand out in Audie's sixties output;
4) To Hell and Back (1955) - Audie as Audie makes this a less conventional war movie;
5) Kansas Raiders (1950) - Audie as Jesse James, terrific;
6) The Kid from Texas (1950) - Audie is brilliant as a juvenile delinquent Billy the Kid;
7) The Quiet American (1958) - Audie a little out of his element but a fascinating, if flawed, movie;
8) No Name on a Bullet (1958) - Audie meets Ingmar Bergman - I'm not kidding;
9) The Guns of Fort Petticoat (1957) - loved this Western, despite it not having the best reputation;
10) Gunsmoke (1953) - strong Western, one of his best "typical" vehicles from the period.
1) The Red Badge of Courage (1951) - flawed masterpiece, with fine direction by John Huston;
2) Night Passage (1957) - one of James Stewart's lesser westerns but great to see him and Audie;
3) Six Black Horses (1962) - run of the mill stuff but I include it because its competence made it stand out in Audie's sixties output;
4) To Hell and Back (1955) - Audie as Audie makes this a less conventional war movie;
5) Kansas Raiders (1950) - Audie as Jesse James, terrific;
6) The Kid from Texas (1950) - Audie is brilliant as a juvenile delinquent Billy the Kid;
7) The Quiet American (1958) - Audie a little out of his element but a fascinating, if flawed, movie;
8) No Name on a Bullet (1958) - Audie meets Ingmar Bergman - I'm not kidding;
9) The Guns of Fort Petticoat (1957) - loved this Western, despite it not having the best reputation;
10) Gunsmoke (1953) - strong Western, one of his best "typical" vehicles from the period.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Book review – “No Name on the Bullet” by Don Graham
Superb biography on Audie Murphy which
tackles all the important aspects of his life equally well: upbringing, war
service, immediate post war career, film career, and final days. It was an
astonishingly varied life for a small town Texan sharecropper – war hero,
trauma victim, movie star, ally of Jimmy Hoffa, protege of Jimmy Cagney, songwriter, gambler, womaniser, thug, amateur cop (no kidding, he went out on raids and everything). There was a lot more to him than being a war hero - or a movie star.
Graham gives due credit and prominence to everything. I maybe would have liked more on the movies but recognise the book would have run for 500 plus pages (which actually would have been great, I enjoyed this so much) and what is here is very good. Murphy didn't become a movie star over night - it took a couple of years, including training paid for by the Cagney brothers, and a few bit parts before being given a fat juicy role in Bad Boy. Murphy owed his fame to his war service, but he also brought a lot to the party himself - those boyish good looks, short stature (Joe Dante said kids liked him and I think that had something to do with it), lightning temper, quick fire moves, old Texan politeness. There was no other movie star like him, he had genuine individuality: he was like a politer, younger Texan Jimmy Cagney, maybe.
The genre Murphy overwhelming specialised in was Westerns - he made these more than any others. In part this was because he was reluctant to make war movies (only three), in part because most male actors of the 50s did time in the saddle, but also because the public didn't seem to like him in other roles. And he did try, particularly after his massive success in To Hell and Back: he made a boxing movie, service comedy, biopic, thriller, rural comedy. But none of them particularly took so he went back to Westerns for the sixties instead of pushing himself. There were a couple of terrific sounding movies he tried to get up but was unable to get finance for. In the sixties his budgets got lower, his scripts worse, his acting less inspired (although he was still capable of rising to the occasion). It's a shame. It's also a shame like an idiot he gambled all his money away. He didn't drink but he had plenty of other flaws - womanising, hot temper, stupid business decisions.
What could he have done differently? Well, for starters he could have pushed himself more and worked with better talent. He was directed by John Huston, Don Siegel and Budd Boetticher - he needed to seek out people like these more than journeymen, who didn't push him enough. And he shouldn't have gambled. And he should have gone to therapy at least once a week. This is all hindsight, but they aren't bad lessons for every actor to learn. Or war veteran.
His war service was tough, ferocious, unglamorous, unrelenting: Sicily, Italy, southern France (which is known as the champagne campaign but sounds quite hard here). A man born to soldier - there's a great quote where he talks about the benefit of audacity in war. A good thing to know in life. It made him and destroyed him too. (NB What would have happened to a 4F Audie Murphy? Maybe a nice life as a small town clerk. Who knows).
If you want to read a Murphy bio this is the one to do. Well researched, footnoted, and written.
The genre Murphy overwhelming specialised in was Westerns - he made these more than any others. In part this was because he was reluctant to make war movies (only three), in part because most male actors of the 50s did time in the saddle, but also because the public didn't seem to like him in other roles. And he did try, particularly after his massive success in To Hell and Back: he made a boxing movie, service comedy, biopic, thriller, rural comedy. But none of them particularly took so he went back to Westerns for the sixties instead of pushing himself. There were a couple of terrific sounding movies he tried to get up but was unable to get finance for. In the sixties his budgets got lower, his scripts worse, his acting less inspired (although he was still capable of rising to the occasion). It's a shame. It's also a shame like an idiot he gambled all his money away. He didn't drink but he had plenty of other flaws - womanising, hot temper, stupid business decisions.
What could he have done differently? Well, for starters he could have pushed himself more and worked with better talent. He was directed by John Huston, Don Siegel and Budd Boetticher - he needed to seek out people like these more than journeymen, who didn't push him enough. And he shouldn't have gambled. And he should have gone to therapy at least once a week. This is all hindsight, but they aren't bad lessons for every actor to learn. Or war veteran.
His war service was tough, ferocious, unglamorous, unrelenting: Sicily, Italy, southern France (which is known as the champagne campaign but sounds quite hard here). A man born to soldier - there's a great quote where he talks about the benefit of audacity in war. A good thing to know in life. It made him and destroyed him too. (NB What would have happened to a 4F Audie Murphy? Maybe a nice life as a small town clerk. Who knows).
If you want to read a Murphy bio this is the one to do. Well researched, footnoted, and written.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Movie review - "40 Guns to Apache Pass" (1967) **
Audie Murphy's last movie as a lead is the story of story he was making in 1951 but it's not a bad set up - he's a calvary captain at an Arizona town surrounded by Apaches, who leads a mission to retrieve a wagon containing forty rifles. There's some troublesome dudes in the posse, including a cowardly soldier who lets his brother get killed, and a rebellious Southerner.
There's some irritating (and unnecessary) voice over, something which featured in a few Audie Murphy westerns, Kenneth Tobey and Michael Blodgett in the support cast, a decent amount of action, an underdeveloped love interest who just pops up and at the end. William Witney wasn't the best director in the world. The story holds and keeps this solid. Not awesome but not bad, and suitable in a way for it to be a Murphy swan song as it's typical of far too much of his output.
There's some irritating (and unnecessary) voice over, something which featured in a few Audie Murphy westerns, Kenneth Tobey and Michael Blodgett in the support cast, a decent amount of action, an underdeveloped love interest who just pops up and at the end. William Witney wasn't the best director in the world. The story holds and keeps this solid. Not awesome but not bad, and suitable in a way for it to be a Murphy swan song as it's typical of far too much of his output.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Movie review - "Trunk to Cairo" (1966) **
One for all those Audie Murphy fans (myself included) who keep wishing they could see him in something other than Westerns... Well, serves us right, because little old Aud is hilariously miscast as a James Bond type agent in this cheapie 60s thriller set in Egypt. He doesn't look comfortable in nightclubs, swigging back liquor while in a suit, or making out with sexy dames on the beach. As a matter of fact, he doesn't look comfortable doing anything much in this film, even the action stuff because it seems so sneaky (e.g. breaking into compounds, dressing up in disguise as an Arab) whereas Audie's persona was always more up front.
But what they hey it's only a cheap Bond knock off and the fact it stars Audie gives it a certain odd charm (as does the fact its an Israeli-West German production, which may explain a certain anti-Arab mood). George Sanders, by then firmly in the where's-the-paycheck stage of his career, pops in the support cast, the colour is bright, it has wacky 60s music. It's crap but endearing crap.
But what they hey it's only a cheap Bond knock off and the fact it stars Audie gives it a certain odd charm (as does the fact its an Israeli-West German production, which may explain a certain anti-Arab mood). George Sanders, by then firmly in the where's-the-paycheck stage of his career, pops in the support cast, the colour is bright, it has wacky 60s music. It's crap but endearing crap.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Movie review - "The Quick Gun" (1964) **
This low budget Audie Murphy western actually has a pretty decent story - not too original, to be sure, but full of action and suspense. Which makes it frustrating that it was so poorly handled. Audie is fine, but Merry Anders comes across bland as his ex girlfriend, the villainous ex rancher out for revenge is too fat to be a threat, his nephew over acts too much to be scary, and so does the guy who plays the outlaw wanting to hold up a town. There's odd sets like the weirdly semi-pink saloon, a sexist tone with characters constantly worried how the women will take it and a concern for rape, plus general uninspired direction and an overlong running time (it's only 90 minutes but it feels longer - besides, the best Audie Murphy Westerns clocked in under 80 minutes).
But the story does keep you watching - it has effective melodrama, such as the man determined to avenge his useless son (who Murphy killed), and the fact the gang are so evil: they don't just rob, they rape, and kill everyone. When the town is attacked, almost all the men are wiped out, which is full on. It's a shame it wasn't done better justice.
But the story does keep you watching - it has effective melodrama, such as the man determined to avenge his useless son (who Murphy killed), and the fact the gang are so evil: they don't just rob, they rape, and kill everyone. When the town is attacked, almost all the men are wiped out, which is full on. It's a shame it wasn't done better justice.
Movie review - "World in My Corner" (1956) **1/2
It's such a delight to see Audie Murphy in a non Western, and in a genre that should have suited him - a boxing flick - which is enough to carry you along for half the running time, but after a while it sinks in that this isn't really a very good movie. He's the usual young kid with a rough upbringing who is tempted to throw matches. There's a dodgy, rich gangster who wants to corrupt him; a sexy dame from a higher social class who he becomes obsessed with; a poor but honest trainer; some gangsters; a colourful promoter who is morally ambitious and provides comic relief.
We've seen it all before - I'm sure even in 1956 people had seen it all before. Audie convinces in fight scenes despite his height and he's okay, but his limitations are exposed in a few scenes. Barbara Rush is a pretty, competent actor but she needed to be better. Jeff Morrow is really good though as her dodgy rich father - the fact he's driven his wife into a blithering wreck and is trying to do the same with his daughter (his wife reminded me of Ma Hardy from the Hardy family movies) is the most original thing about the move.
Oh I should mention there are some clever credits - in the form of newspaper articles. The jazzy music score (co written by Henry Mancini) got on my nerves after a while, it reminded me of cheap Roger Corman movies.
We've seen it all before - I'm sure even in 1956 people had seen it all before. Audie convinces in fight scenes despite his height and he's okay, but his limitations are exposed in a few scenes. Barbara Rush is a pretty, competent actor but she needed to be better. Jeff Morrow is really good though as her dodgy rich father - the fact he's driven his wife into a blithering wreck and is trying to do the same with his daughter (his wife reminded me of Ma Hardy from the Hardy family movies) is the most original thing about the move.
Oh I should mention there are some clever credits - in the form of newspaper articles. The jazzy music score (co written by Henry Mancini) got on my nerves after a while, it reminded me of cheap Roger Corman movies.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Movie review - "Cast a Long Shadow" (1959) **
After making a bunch of Westerns for Universal, Audie Murphy turned producer a few times - but made basically the same sort of film. This was one, despite having Walter Mirisch producing as well. It's not even in colour.
The premise isn't bad, and it gives Audie the chance to play something slightly different - a bitter, drunken outcast, who discovers he's inherited a ranch. People who live on the ranch want to buy it off him, but it's in debt so that prompts a cattle ride. But the cattle ride doesn't begin until almost an hour in, which is one of many problems of this movie - another is they reconcile Murphy and his ex (Terry Moore) too soon. And it's a muddled story.
The best thing about it is the revelation of Murphy's true paternity. There's some okay action and a decent support cast including John Dehner, and Uncle Jesse and Deputy Roscoe from The Dukes of Hazzard. But its very flat and unfortunately gave an indication of the quality of Murphy's 60s films.
The premise isn't bad, and it gives Audie the chance to play something slightly different - a bitter, drunken outcast, who discovers he's inherited a ranch. People who live on the ranch want to buy it off him, but it's in debt so that prompts a cattle ride. But the cattle ride doesn't begin until almost an hour in, which is one of many problems of this movie - another is they reconcile Murphy and his ex (Terry Moore) too soon. And it's a muddled story.
The best thing about it is the revelation of Murphy's true paternity. There's some okay action and a decent support cast including John Dehner, and Uncle Jesse and Deputy Roscoe from The Dukes of Hazzard. But its very flat and unfortunately gave an indication of the quality of Murphy's 60s films.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Movie review - "The Red Badge of Courage" (1951) ***1/2
Probably the best movie that Audie Murphy ever made - certainly the most famous, even though it wasn't a box office hit, but it led to the famous showdown between Louis B Mayer and Dore Schary/Nick Schenck at MGM which resulted in Mayer leaving the studio he had helped turn into a giant. Watching this years down the track it's hard not to be impressed by it's quality - the beautiful images of battle and soldiers in camp, the intelligence and sensitivity of its adaptation, the sheer novelty of watching a story that deals with cowardice in war time, the realistic touches (e.g. a general telling the same joke to different groups of troops), quality of the character actors, the photography.
But it's a bit of a mess. I know it was cut down by the studio (the addition of the narration from James Whitmore doesn't help), but you do have to be sympathetic to them - there's no female role, little warmth, it does feel art house-y. We never really get into the Kid's head - I really liked Audie Murphy's performance, he felt authentic with his bravado and nervousness (though with this accent you would expect to find him fighting for the South). A very good picture but commercially you and see Mayer's point. Still, I'm glad it exists and wish that it could be restored somehow.
But it's a bit of a mess. I know it was cut down by the studio (the addition of the narration from James Whitmore doesn't help), but you do have to be sympathetic to them - there's no female role, little warmth, it does feel art house-y. We never really get into the Kid's head - I really liked Audie Murphy's performance, he felt authentic with his bravado and nervousness (though with this accent you would expect to find him fighting for the South). A very good picture but commercially you and see Mayer's point. Still, I'm glad it exists and wish that it could be restored somehow.
Movie review - "Showdown" (1963) **
Dull, even by the standards of Audie Murphy 60s Westerns - the only thing that makes it stand out is that its in black and white (to save money). Oh and I guess there's a bit near the beginning where he's chained up in an iron collar. Again he has a sort of bromance with a weak person - Charles Drake - that leads him into trouble when he gets chained to a killer. The part of the killer is undercooked, Drake's character isn't that interesting, or is his girl - a saloon singer (Drake is conveniently a gambling drunken loser so it's okay Audie makes a move on her). Flat action, indifferent handling and one ending too many. Very ordinary.
Friday, July 06, 2012
TV review - Suspense - "The Flight" (1957) ** (warning: spoilers)
Suspense felt padded on radio when it went from 30 mins to an hour and an hour feels too long on TV as well. This stars Audie Murphy in a story with similarities to The Gun Runners - instead of being a skipper here he's a pilot who has to smuggle someone into a fictitious South American country. Well, he doesn't realise that at first but that's what it turns out to be. The person is actually a dissident for the regime, but a lot of this doesn't make sense - namely, why don't the locals just kill Murphy instead of just keeping him sort of under house arrest?
Good support cast including Jack Warden (Yank expat who may or may not be a baddie), Everett Sloane (sleazy South American) and Susan Kohner (a girl he meets who may or may not be a baddie). Murphy isn't bad - it's good to see him in a different profession, ie. a flyer - but his character is a real dill because the whole thing is so obviously dodgy.
Good support cast including Jack Warden (Yank expat who may or may not be a baddie), Everett Sloane (sleazy South American) and Susan Kohner (a girl he meets who may or may not be a baddie). Murphy isn't bad - it's good to see him in a different profession, ie. a flyer - but his character is a real dill because the whole thing is so obviously dodgy.
Thursday, July 05, 2012
TV review - Ford Startime Theatre - "The Man" (1960) ** (warning: spoilers)
It's a real shame they no longer make anthology drama, because it gave movie stars the chance to stretch their wings and try different things. Audie Murphy, stuck in Westerns for the majority of his career, plays something genuinely different - a psycho in a contemporary thriller. He's a young man who attaches himself as a home handyman to elderly Thelma Ritter. He torments her, isolates her, and winds up killing her dog. (It's kind of like a cheap version of The Servant).
Since Murphy was reputed in life to be something of a psycho, it's not surprising to find him all too believable. But he needed more careful handling, I think - he's allowed to go too crazy too soon. Maybe people were more trusting back then, and they kind of cover it by having him claim to have known Ritter's dead son, but he is very wacko very early. The material lets him down, although it has pedigree - it's based on a play by Mel Dinelli which had been filmed. It feels as though it lacks logic.
It's really weird to see Murphy appearing as himself at the end smiling, saying goodnight and nice words about Ritter and Ford after just having murdered Ritter in the show (albeit off screen). Ritter is good as always and Michael J Pollard pops up in the support cast.
Since Murphy was reputed in life to be something of a psycho, it's not surprising to find him all too believable. But he needed more careful handling, I think - he's allowed to go too crazy too soon. Maybe people were more trusting back then, and they kind of cover it by having him claim to have known Ritter's dead son, but he is very wacko very early. The material lets him down, although it has pedigree - it's based on a play by Mel Dinelli which had been filmed. It feels as though it lacks logic.
It's really weird to see Murphy appearing as himself at the end smiling, saying goodnight and nice words about Ritter and Ford after just having murdered Ritter in the show (albeit off screen). Ritter is good as always and Michael J Pollard pops up in the support cast.
Movie review - "Bad Boy" (1949) **
Juvenile delinquents were all the rage in Hollywood in the late 40s and early 50s - Knock on Any Door, Rebel without a Cause. They were liked in Britain too - there was a film called The Boys in Brown about decent reformist juvenile wardens and crusading judges, plus female equivalents in Good Time Girl. This feels heavily influenced by Boys Town, which like that was about a real life reformist institution - here it's the Variety Boys Club of America (which sounds like a pedophiles paradise, but that's just my biased 2012 eyes - I'm sure they do a lot of good work). A young gangster comes into the institution with a massive chip on his shoulder, causes a lot of trouble, but eventually sees the error of his ways, turning down the chance to go off with a real bad egg.
Here the warden is Lloyd Nolan and his most troubled charge is none other than Audie Murphy. Murphy got stuck in Westerns for the majority of his career - from this performance, his first lead, it's a shame he never got the chance to play a gangster, because he was a baby faced psychotic (he could have made a great Pretty Boy Floyd or Clyde Parker). It's a great introduction for him because his dialogue is kept to a minimum (his final speech to the judge is given to Nolan rather than Murphy - he says "isn't that what you wanted to say, son" and Murphy says "yes"), he has a good character (chip on his shoulder juvenile delinquent with a mean step dad), and has to perform several scenes with experienced actors like Nolan, Jane Wyatt and James Gleason. The one thing they might have done better is we don't have much sympathy for Murphy for a long time - we don't find out his "they took my red fire truck away" story until about two thirds of the way in. Murphy is very effective - he didn't progress too much as an actor but he was a lot better than he got credit for.
Nolan is professional as ever - these "decent warden" roles are thankless parts, really, though not as thankless as Wyatt's, who plays his supportive, loving wife. If they remade this for pay TV today she'd be having sex with prisoners and/or having a drug problem, but in 1949 she just makes cups of tea and cooks - she may as well not be in the film. There's also quite a silly story about the root of Murphy's troubles - he only went bad because he thinks he killed his mother accidentally with pills. It gives this some narrative drive, but it's still silly. (They would have been better off using Murphy's gangster mate more, like they did in Boy's Town). So this isn't much of a movie, really, but it is interesting, and Murphy fans will get a lot out of it.
Here the warden is Lloyd Nolan and his most troubled charge is none other than Audie Murphy. Murphy got stuck in Westerns for the majority of his career - from this performance, his first lead, it's a shame he never got the chance to play a gangster, because he was a baby faced psychotic (he could have made a great Pretty Boy Floyd or Clyde Parker). It's a great introduction for him because his dialogue is kept to a minimum (his final speech to the judge is given to Nolan rather than Murphy - he says "isn't that what you wanted to say, son" and Murphy says "yes"), he has a good character (chip on his shoulder juvenile delinquent with a mean step dad), and has to perform several scenes with experienced actors like Nolan, Jane Wyatt and James Gleason. The one thing they might have done better is we don't have much sympathy for Murphy for a long time - we don't find out his "they took my red fire truck away" story until about two thirds of the way in. Murphy is very effective - he didn't progress too much as an actor but he was a lot better than he got credit for.
Nolan is professional as ever - these "decent warden" roles are thankless parts, really, though not as thankless as Wyatt's, who plays his supportive, loving wife. If they remade this for pay TV today she'd be having sex with prisoners and/or having a drug problem, but in 1949 she just makes cups of tea and cooks - she may as well not be in the film. There's also quite a silly story about the root of Murphy's troubles - he only went bad because he thinks he killed his mother accidentally with pills. It gives this some narrative drive, but it's still silly. (They would have been better off using Murphy's gangster mate more, like they did in Boy's Town). So this isn't much of a movie, really, but it is interesting, and Murphy fans will get a lot out of it.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Movie review - "Texas, Brooklyn and Heaven" (1948) **
Guy Madison was a handsome kid who made bobby soxers sigh in a short appearance in Since You Went Away but who was soon exposed to be a particularly wooden actor - never better demonstrated than in this romantic comedy. It's a kind of young-folks-in-the-big-city lark, complete with female lead Diana Lynn who played a variation of this part in My Friend Irma. Both get up to adventures - he's a newspaper journo turned aspiring playwright, she's a hitchhiker who winds up in a swim suit on Coney Island, there are wacky pickpockets, crusty old bartenders, zany little old ladies, theatre producers, shenanigans with a horse, etc.
It's like the book for a musical only there aren't any songs and it isn't in colour. Also, the leads are basically failures - Madison doesn't make the grade as a playwright, Lynn isn't much good at anything, neither of them make a go of it in New York City, and it turns out they both really want to raise a ranch for horses in Texas. Then why leave Texas to go to New York? Madison gets an inheritance - he could have just spent it on the ranch and that was that.
The supporting cast try and it moves along at a fair clip. Audie Murphy pops up at the beginning as a newsroom boy in Madison's paper. You can glimpse the famous Dallas Book Depository. But this is pretty ordinary. Directed by William Castle!
It's like the book for a musical only there aren't any songs and it isn't in colour. Also, the leads are basically failures - Madison doesn't make the grade as a playwright, Lynn isn't much good at anything, neither of them make a go of it in New York City, and it turns out they both really want to raise a ranch for horses in Texas. Then why leave Texas to go to New York? Madison gets an inheritance - he could have just spent it on the ranch and that was that.
The supporting cast try and it moves along at a fair clip. Audie Murphy pops up at the beginning as a newsroom boy in Madison's paper. You can glimpse the famous Dallas Book Depository. But this is pretty ordinary. Directed by William Castle!
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Movie review - "Night Passage" (1957) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Audie Murphy normally was the only star in his movies but here he's in support of a bigger name - James Stewart. This is a Jimmy Stewart-Anthony Mann Western made without Anthony Mann - the director quit the project in pre-production, replaced by James Nielsen, but the spirit of their earlier collaborations hangs over it: there's beautiful location photography, atmosphere, Stewart has a strong relationship with the baddie who kind of isn't a baddie.
As in Winchester 73 the villain is Stewart's brother - played by Audie Murphy in one of his most effective performances. (I keep describing Murphy's performances as "effective" rather than good because I can never seem to call him a good actor.) He's a sympathetic villain, obviously tough, very sure of himself, quick on the draw - for my mind he outshines James Stewart, although Stewart is the better actor, and it's a shame he isn't introduced into the film earlier, or the reveal that they are brothers is held off.
Indeed, it's a shame the film isn't better. It's got some great things going for it - the mountain setting, the rivalry between the brothers, the Stewart-Murphy combination, Stewart sings two songs with an accordion which at least is novelty value. Other stuff isn't that great - Stewart doesn't have much of a character to play (a former railway guard given the job of catching a crook); Brandon de Wilde from Shane is in it and is annoying; Murphy comes in too late; Dan Duryea, normally excellent, hams it up as one of those real baddies who come along to redeem the anti-hero; the female parts are poor.
Still in Audie Murphy land it's an above average Western and makes you wish he appeared with other big stars more often so he didn't have to carry the movie on his own shoulders all the time.
As in Winchester 73 the villain is Stewart's brother - played by Audie Murphy in one of his most effective performances. (I keep describing Murphy's performances as "effective" rather than good because I can never seem to call him a good actor.) He's a sympathetic villain, obviously tough, very sure of himself, quick on the draw - for my mind he outshines James Stewart, although Stewart is the better actor, and it's a shame he isn't introduced into the film earlier, or the reveal that they are brothers is held off.
Indeed, it's a shame the film isn't better. It's got some great things going for it - the mountain setting, the rivalry between the brothers, the Stewart-Murphy combination, Stewart sings two songs with an accordion which at least is novelty value. Other stuff isn't that great - Stewart doesn't have much of a character to play (a former railway guard given the job of catching a crook); Brandon de Wilde from Shane is in it and is annoying; Murphy comes in too late; Dan Duryea, normally excellent, hams it up as one of those real baddies who come along to redeem the anti-hero; the female parts are poor.
Still in Audie Murphy land it's an above average Western and makes you wish he appeared with other big stars more often so he didn't have to carry the movie on his own shoulders all the time.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Movie review - "Bullet for a Badman" (1964) **
The seven Westerns Audie Murphy made for producer Gordon Kay in the 60s were all a bit same-y - you'd have Audie on the trail of a bad guy, with whom he'd have a bit of a bromance/love-hate thing going on, plus a girl played by a starlet in the middle. There'd usually be a posse containing a bad cowboy, some Indians and nasty outlaws along the way.
Here at least the bad guy is played by Darren McGavin, who turns in good work as the outlaw who used to ride with Audie, and who's ex wife is now Mrs Murphy. The adventures are fairly unexciting - encounters with baddies, Injuns, shot outs on rocky cliffs. It also seems to have about three endings. Edward Platt, Chief from Get Smart, pops up in the support cast. Very average, plodding entertainment. Audie Murphy fans will be interested to see him play a family man with a wife and child.
Here at least the bad guy is played by Darren McGavin, who turns in good work as the outlaw who used to ride with Audie, and who's ex wife is now Mrs Murphy. The adventures are fairly unexciting - encounters with baddies, Injuns, shot outs on rocky cliffs. It also seems to have about three endings. Edward Platt, Chief from Get Smart, pops up in the support cast. Very average, plodding entertainment. Audie Murphy fans will be interested to see him play a family man with a wife and child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)