Movie review - "Heat" (1986) **

 I enjoyed William Goldman's novel and liked his script but this film doesn't work. It had a troubled production. There's good moments but not enough. Robert Altman who was going to direct would've been ideal. Not to be. Some of the support cast work (Howard Hesseman) others not up to it. Burt Reynolds should've been sensational. This needed a top top director.

Movie review - "Kaleidoscope" (1966) **

 Remarkable how dull this film is. It should be fun - Warren Beatty is a playboy-burglar-gambler who is blackmailed into helping detective Clive Revill bust gangster Eric Portman, while shacking up with swinging bird Susannah York, who is Revill's daughter.

But the film muffs it. There's little suspense or action, it takes over 40 minutes for Beatty to be blackmailed when that could have happened within 15 minutes, the story lacks any decent twists, it seems cheap (I think the budget went on a location shoot to Monaco, the last act is a few people hanging out in a castle), it feels as though there aren't enough characters (Portman is crying out for a henchman, the others could do with a sidekick), Beatty does this robbery but we don't see him rob again, there's a card game that goes on far too long, Revill saves the day at the end not Beatty.

It was a jolt to see Beatty in a fight scene. He's charming and attractive but lacks that drive and intensity of a top level star - after this and Promise Her Anything you could imagine him going the way of George Hamilton but he had Bonnie and Clyde coming up next.

Nice colour and York looks pleasing, in a series of attractive gowns.

Movie review - "The Big Sleep" (1978) **1/2

Michael Winner was always going to cop it coming up against Howard Hawks and Raymond Chandler - he did have Robert Mitchum in his corner, plus a more faithful rendering of the novel, but did not help his case by setting it in England yet keeping so many Americans. They just could have made them English. One expat American!

Winner was very good at pace, at getting films done under budget, and shoving his films full of good actors. His respect for Chandler helps keep this surprisingly watchable - the pace of it spanked along. I never quite got used to Mitchum in England - Mitchum felt too old anyway for someone who is meant to be irresistible to Candy Clark and Sarah Miles.

Both did kind of look kinky. Winner throws in gay kissing which was in the book, and some nudity and porn which was in the book too.

Joan Collins is great fun in her role as is Edward Fox. I loved Oliver Reed and Richard Boone. John Mills is a bit of a nothing as the cop. Sara Miles was... I guess weird. Candy Clark tries in a difficult role. It was sad to see James Stewart. Joan Collins could have played Miles' role and she would've been terrific- but Miles does bring an eccentricity to the part.

Movie review - "The Nightcomers" (1971) **1/2

Interesting idea - a prequel to the events in Turn of the Screw - which is logically developed. It's a simple story with complexity and the casting of the adults can't be faulted - Marlon Brando, Stephanie Beacham, Thora Hird.

Michael Winner wasn't up to the demands of directing it. His great strengths as a director were energy, pace and location shooting - this is a character driven piece, which needed atmosphere. Someone like Seth Holt or Freddie Francis, who did those excellent psycho thrillers for Hammer and Amicus would have been ideal. Winner is not up to it. That isn't a Winner bash, it's an honest opinion.

He lets Marlon Brando clearly do what he wants including a silly accent and endless scenes of him telling dumb stories which the kids are meant to find entertaining. There's a sado masochistic sex scene with Beacham which is unsettling because Becham clearly isn't into it. This is clearly an abusive relationship with all the complexities that involves but Winner can't pull it off.

The kid actors aren't good - I don't think Winner was strong with them either. Still, it is interesting, it tries, it's different. Beacham is gorgeous. Even when Brando is bad he's still compelling.

Book review - "Farewell My Lovely" by Raymond Chandler (1940) (re-reading)

The second Marlowe novel gets off to a great start with the introduction of the memorable Moose Malloy, then him being hired by the blackmailer Marriott and picked up by Anne Riordan... who you think will probably be Velma, the lost love of Moose, until you meet Mrs Grayle.

There's some corrupt cops who knock out Marlowe and sent him to a lunatic asylum which is full on. There's lots of corupt cops but also the occasional good one, like Red, who helps Marlowe get on a gambling boat - they have a kind of bromance. I don't recall the gambling boat from any of the film adaptations which is a shame. It gets convoluted at the end and I had, as usual, trouble following it and remembering it. Some big action happens "off screen" eg the death of Velma.

I don't think it's as good as The Big Sleep and the racism is unfortunate. I wanted to meet Anne's father. But it's a very fine book.

Script review - "Harper" by William Goldman (re-reading)

Goldman's written about his experiences with this in his memoirs-  it was his first full length produced script. It holds up reasonably well - the dialogue is very Goldman, flip and tough. I haven't read any Ross MacDonald - the plot seems perfectly serviceable, a collection of scenes. The roles aren't bad - treacherous secretary, thug, stressed out killer, druggy singer The male roles are better than the female ones - the parts of the missing man's wife and Harper's wife for instance feel under-used. I wasn't wild about the ending being unsure whether Harper was going to be shot or not. Not enjoyably vague.

Movie review - "Fear is the Key" (1972) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Barry Newman had a brief vogue as an action hero in the early 70s with films like Vanishing Point, The Salzburg Connection and this. It's based on an Alistair MacLean novel, during a period when a series of such adaptations struggled at the US box office - When Eight Bells Toll, Puppet on a Chain.

This is the wisdom of hindsight, of course, but I think you can tell why - for starters Newman isn't an automatic hero who you accept and enjoy as a tough guy. That gives the piece some novelty, he's excellent in the dramatic moments at the end, he's a believable family man - but not so much as a brilliant car driver,  or someone handsome enough to turn Suzy Kendall into an ally even after he's kidnapped her, and/or someone to punch out various henchmen.

There's a typical MacLean twist that involves us not knowing what hero Newman is up to until the two thirds mark - thinking he's a baddy then discovering he's a goodie. He had Richard Burton do that in Where Eagles Dare. The thing is, for most of Dare we thought Burton was a goodie, then briefly thought he was a baddy, then realised he was a goody. Also we had Clint Eastwood as an audience surrogate.

Here Newman seems to be dodgy - he starts a fight, shoots a cop... it doesn't make him very sympathetic. We guess that there's some agenda because in the opening scene we see him hear a girlfriend and friend be killed... but maybe it would have been better if we'd known all along, we could have been more emotionally invested in him. Of course it is a nice reveal at the end that his young son was in the plane... but it's very late in the day. Maybe the best thing to do would have been tell the story from Suzy Kendall's point of view - she could have been the audience surrogate (like Audrey Hepburn in Charade).

On the topic of Kendall, she wasn't the best actress in the world but her part needed to be bigger. She's just this good looking frightened thing - we never get a sense of growing attraction toward (or indeed any feelings about) Newman. The involvement of Ray McNally - as Kendall's father -felt under-developed too.

Positives include stylish photography and music, some excellent support performances (including Ben Kingsley as a scary henchman, and Dolph Sweet). And the final confrontation on the ocean floor was effective. Just don't stress too much about logic.

Book review - "Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon - Arnon Milchan" by Meir Dolman and Joseph Gelman (2011)

Arnon Milchan's name is well known to film fans as producer or executive producer on a large number of successful films; buffs got to know him well in the 80s and 90s as a financier and supporter of maverick directors: he helped fund Once Upon a Time in America, almost financed The Big Brass Ring for Orson Welles (something not addressed in this book, interestingly), supported Terry Gilliam in the Brazil battle.

His cinematic CV is very impressive: Fight Club, Gone Girl, Pretty Woman. Obviously as smart as a whip I had heard he was independently wealthy but didn't realise he was a billionaire. More than that he was a spy for Israel, using his business contacts to secure Israeli weapons, including the bomb.

Milchan wasn't a born and bred filmmaker - he is Israeli born (not a refugee, though descended from some), who inherited his father's fertilizer company. He expanded it and used it as a launching pad for other operations, which included helping provide weapons for Israel. It was a patriotic act for him but he also took a commission, and diversified into a bunch of other businesses and activities - including helping provide weapons for apartheid era South Africa.

In the 1970s he got involved in financing films, via Elliott Kastner, the producer who is connected with a lot of people at the early stage of their careers, and became successful at that too.

Not surprisingly, he was a successful womaniser, with various mistresses (usually Swedish) stashed in various parts of the world

This is a sympathetic biography, though I couldn't help feeling a sense of unease with Milchan helping Israel stock up on warheads and supporting the Afrikaaners. I also wished there was more on the movies - the authors seemed more interested in Israeli politics. Still, I learned a hell of a lot and it is a fascinating story.

Movie review - "Breakheart Pass" (1975) *** (warning: spoilers)

Not a classic, but entertaining and different - Alistair MacLean, only it's in the West, only it's mostly on a train and in the snow, only it stars Charles Bronson. He's a captured prisoner who winds up on a train headed to a fort where there's a diptheria outbreak... only he's not really a prisoner but a secret agent, and there's no outbreak, but a conspiracy between gun runners and Indians.

These twists might have been more exciting if we hadn't seen them in several MacLean works before - including an under-developed love subplot (Jill Ireland), a "surprise" traitor, a friend of the hero who is killed. Occasionally the film is let down by crappy 70s handling (those musical stings in particular always make it feel like a TV movie, as does - and this is a little mean but it's true - the presence in the cast of Ed Lauter).

But there's some great alpine scenery, the novelty of Bronson playing Miss Marple, I'm a sucker for a train movie, a sequence where a train falls of a bridge is genuinely spectacular, and the support cast includes Charles Durning, Richard Crenna and Ben Johnson.

Movie review - "When Eight Bells Toll" (1971) **1/2

Anthony Hopkins didn't really become a star until Silence of the Lambs but his reputation as a brilliant stage actor meant several attempts were made to turn him into one before then. This was the first real go - Elliott Kastner had a big hit with Alistair MacLean's Where Eagles Dare and wanted to kick off a MacLean "franchise" about salvage expert Phil Calvert starring Hopkins. It didn't really turn out that way but the novelty of seeing Hopkins as an action her is a big plus of this movie.

He's not too bad - intense, great voice - even though you don't quite buy him in the fight scenes (Burton wasn't great at those either). The story is more problematic. I mean, it's not bad - involving deliberate sinking of vessels to pinch bullion - it just feels a bit TV. 

It starts off impressively with Hopkins discovering some murdered agents, then gets bogged down with him strolling around the islands looking for clues. It feels murky and lacks the full throttled excitement of his better works - it doesn't have the ticking clock of a guys on a mission film.The baddies are robbers but the hero makes a lot of cracks about the worthlessness of rich people. It's more Jamaica Inn or The Hardy Boys than Guns of Navarone at times - it feels too TV.

There are some familiar MacLean tropes: a person close to the hero turns out to be a traitor (Nathalie Delon), the baddy is a decoy (Jack Hawkins using Charles Gray's voice as a millionaire only doing it because his wife is hostage), the death of a friend (Corin Redgrave). Robert Morley is the "M" character, who goes along on the mission.

It's a gloomy looking film - overcast skies, crashing waves, ocean - with some craggily beautiful Scottish photography. The director was someone called Etiene Perier - I don't think he does a very good job with creating suspense or atmosphere - or handling actors (who I had trouble telling apart). There's not much chemistry between Hopkins and Natalie Delon.

Some of the action is okay and at times its enjoyable.

Book review - "Hollywood England" by Alexander Walker

Invaluable account of the British film boom of the 1960s and subsequent bust, with a skilful appreciation of the talents involved and the artistic and corporate industry within which they worked. Occasionally it falls into the trap of whininess - all of Walker's British film industry books have this flaw, "why did they do it that way?" 

He also waffles at times and overlooks some key films from the era - there's nary a mention of horror or comedy, two massively popular genres from the period.

But there is some terrific stuff, such as the story behind the Bonds, early works of Schlesinger, Boorman, Richardson etc, the role of Nat Cohen, the finale involving Bryan Forbes, the regimes of United Artist and Universal, etc.

Movie review - "Villain" (1971) ***1/2

This was one of two British gangster films that appeared in 1971 with big stars - Get Carter, with Michael Caine, has since gone on to be one of the Bibles of the New Lad movement, while Villain, with Richard Burton, is mostly forgotten. I think its partly because Burton plays a gay gangster who still lives with his mother and is hopelessly in love with Ian MacShane - he's not going about having phone sex with Britt Ekland on the phone and being right on straight. Also Burton is a really nasty piece of work here - so is Caine in Carter, but that film takes place in a world with him surrounded by other gangsters and crooked businessman, here Burton comes up against two tough but honest cops (Nigel Davenport and Colin Welland) who give the film more of a moral counterpoint.

There's some tough talking dialogue, an exciting heist sequence (the plot revolves around Burton and his gang robbing a payroll), excellent support actors, and a particularly fine starring turn from Burton. The risks and chances this man took in his career are remarkable, especially for someone so often accused of selling out his talent (because he wouldn't appear in theatre? As if theatre is so strong). One of the most famous actors in the world, he plays a gangster who is gay, sadomasochistic, vicious, ageing, loves his mummy and MacShane - would say Brad Pitt do that today? Actually, come to think of it Brad Pitt probably would, which is partly why he's lasted - like Burton did, despite all his drinking.

The gangsters here get stuck in traffic jams, bitch about the state of the country and the youth of today, talk about what's on TV tonight. The outbursts of violence are sudden and extreme. It's not exactly a laugh a minute and has been superseded in many ways by TV but is a tough well made gangster flick.

Script review – “Harper” by William Goldman (warning: spoilers)

Part of the reason Goldman did so well as a screenwriter is he had a great knack at rejuvenating old Hollywood genres – Westerns (Butch Cassidy), newspaper movies (All the Presidents Men), swashbucklers (The Princess Bride). This was his take on private eye films and it launched his career (he’d written one full script before, an adaptation of ‘Flowers for Agernon’ for Cliff Robertson which wasn't filmed, and do some rewriting on Masquerade, but this was his first proper produced credit).

It’s bright enough, no classic, no Big Sleep, but it has some funny dialogue (Goldman always tries to end a scene with a wry line; may favourite one was “when she’s 100 you’ll only be 124”) and colourful characters to attract a good support cast (which it did). To his credit, Goldman didn’t take too much credit for the success of the film, attributing it to a terrific cast and good timing.

His script is solid – it’s logical, it holds - but not in the class of Butch Cassidy. 

As in the movie, the script loses heart when Taggert the secretary dies – you just don’t care about Arthur (Harper's lawyer mate) as much. It’s also too open ended for my liking – I get that Arthur isn’t going to shoot Harper but does Harper saying “oh hell” too mean he’s not going to report Arthur. Structure-wise it isn’t that great – lots of running around and going from encounter to encounter. Which is a requirement of the genre, I guess. Harper gets beat up a lot – about three or four times.

Script review – “Heat” by William Goldman

I read a copy of this at the Margaret Herrick Library - it was a shooting script. Apparently production of the film was fraught - Goldman has been sketchy on the details in his memoirs (because lawsuits are still flying, he claimed), but having seen the film it did appear to be reasonably faithful. (My memory may be playing tricks here, it's been a while since I saw the film.) The problems of the film are evident in the script: mainly, there's not enough story. I really liked the novel, Edged Weapons: it was a terrific character study about a "chaperone" in Vegas, a gambling addict who is also a ruthless fighter. The joy came in the little details and the character mixed in with the occasional outbursts of violence - for it to work it would have needed a director willing to embrace the nuance and atmosphere of it's world (Robert Altman, who was attached for a while, would have been terrific). Like all Goldman screenplays, though, it's a pleasure to read.

Movie review – “Harper” (1966) *** (warning: spoilers)

A 60s version of the private eye genre – instead of disheveled Bogart we have Paul Newman in a jacket and tie, constantly putting his feet up on furniture and acting casual (insolent may be more appropriate). He has an ex-wife, a smart mouth, and a code of honour, so you kind of know his mate is going to betray him, even if then it was new. 

William Goldman wrote the screenplay which bears his marks: flip dialogue, lots of sarcasm, use of reversals (eg Bob Wagner tries to burst in the door which Newman then opens), solid structure, wacky characters, sexpot women. Strong support cast, with Lauren Bacall in a wheelchair, Julie Harris as a drug addict, Shelley Winters as an alcoholic, Robert Webber as a prick, Pamela Tiffin (gorgeous, big hair) does a shimmy dance in a bikini on a diving board (she’s pretty good in the role – what happened to her?). Best of all is Robert Wagner as the cheerful, boyish secretary keen to help Harper investigate – he has a big secret. Has that great 60s colour photography and slightly arty violent scenes. A bit smart-arsey at times and it seems to run out of steam when Wagner dies, but watchable regardless.