Movie review - "The King's Thief" (1955) **

 The theft of the crown jewels by Thomas Blood has the material for a fun swashbuckler. This one shoehorns that episode at the end uneasily to a tale about a highwayman in Charles II era fighting to defend the Crown against villainous noble David Niven.

The movie is mostly notable for George Sanders playing Charles II - if he'd depicted the hero or villain the movie might've been fun. Niven is hilariously miscast as the baddy - I'm not sure he would've suited the hero part either but he would've been better than Edmund Purdom.

The movie has all the excitement and humour sucked out of it. Purdom is dull but he has no character to play other than "brave". His group of men lack any individuality or character - they include Roger Moore, but just try telling them apart. 

Dore Schary oversaw so many badly made  "commercial" films in the 1950s. This is so bland. Dull script, doesn't dramatise things like the death of Ann Blyth's dad. Blyth does little. Just rips off Robin Hood.

Nice production values - it's an "A" picture. That's about it. 

Movie review - "Journey to Shiloh" (1968) ** (warning: spoilers)

 A Western seemingly made with the main goal of showing off Universal's contract roster.  The cast is headed by James Caan, relaxed and confident but in an absurdly distracting wig. He plays the leader of seven cowboys who are riding from Texas to join the Confederate Army.

The seven are made up of Caan, Don Stroud, Harrison Ford, Jan Michael Vincent, Don Stroud, Paul Petersen and Michael Burns - that's not a bad hit rate from the Universal casting director. Ford gets a close up at the beginning but then I forgot him. Vincent overacts his death scene.

It's shot in that cheap ugly Universal style - clearly on the backlot. There's quite a decent little romance between Caan and Tisha Sterling. Caan gets to kick a little arse but is always undermined by his wig.

The film gets points for killing off six of the seven. You do feel Caan has been through the wars.  Some bits seem flat out dumb like the soldiers realising the South supports slavery.

The novelty of the cast is the only real reason to watch this

Movie review - "The Return of the Musketeers" (1989) ***

 I remember the general lack of excitement when this came out - the 1973 and 1974 films were hits but it wasn't as though they were hugely iconic, I mean there were lots of other versions of the tale that kept playing on TV. 

Still, I didn't mind it - and I don't mind it now. It's a shaggy dog sort of movie, ambling along with its various subplots the way that, well, the 1973-74 versions did. It does lack the big emotional undercurrent of the original Musketeers - there's no Milady killing D'artagnan's Constance, and then being captured and executed, with Athos being Milady's ex. 

It has some good ideas - having the villain be Milady's daughter Justine, adding a new spunkrat (C Thomas Howell) to be Athos' son, and introducing Cyrano de Bergerac, Louis XIV, Charles I, and Oliver Cromwell.

It's the serious moments here that works best - the killing of Milady's executioner, the death of Charles I, Richard Chamberlain and Oliver Reed getting heavy with Philippe Noiret. It's a shame there wasn't something else of more emotional weight to match the death of Milady or Constance - like say one of the Musketeers. Lester/George MacDonald Fraser clearly couldn't bring themselves to kill off Justine.

The band don't get back together until the end - it's York and Finlay for a bit, then York, Reed, Finlay and Howell, then Chamberlain comes in at the end. But that's dramatic.

The acting is good. I enjoyed Michael York's ageing juvenile interpretation of D'artagnan, Oliver Reed is excellent as always as the moral but boozy Athos, Chamberlain so much fun I wish we'd seen more of him. Frank Finlay gets some screen time but struggles to make an impact - it may be his character. Kim Cattral is a lot of fun as the villainess and C. Thomas Howell at least looks the part as Raoul. It's said to see Roy Kinnear knowing he'd die making this. Bill Paterson is spectacularly good as Oliver Cromwell - the best depiction of that character on screen I've seen.

This film is always a little bit in second gear but I enjoyed it.

An aside: maybe this would've done better had it been a remake of The Man in the Iron Mask. A big role for a newer star, a more road tested source material, you could still have used the original stars. Just a thought.

Movie review - "The Moonraker" (1958) **1/2

 Not the Bond movie but a swashbuckler based on  a play which predated the Fleming novel so they got dibs on the title. It's set in the English Civil War so like most movies set then the heroes are Cavaliers, but the Roundheads aren't painted as villains just tough.

The colour is pleasing, there's plenty of action and the story is solid, if unoriginal - George Baker is a noble who rescues royalists as "The Moonraker". He falls for a Puritan woman (Sylva Syms) who is engaged to a roundhead (Marius Goring).

So far, fair enough, but the film makes some odd decision - Goring isn't a villain he just has a politically different POV to Baker, so the last duel is between Baker and some other guy with dark hair who looks just like Baker. Too many people in the film look like George Baker, it was hard to tell them apart. (There's a servant character whose wife dislikes her husband's loyalty to Baker - he looked too much like Baker).

Sylvia Syms is beautiful and would be revealed to be incredibly sexy in Ice Cold in Alex but is dull here, just hanging around a manor house spouting lines. I did laugh at her in a puritan hat.

The biggest problem though is Baker who simply isn't a star. He's handsome enough and he can act, but he just lacks dash - all while watching this I kept thinking "you're not a star, a support maybe but not a star". They should've given this to Richard Todd or a new TV swashbuckler like Robert Shaw or Roger Moore or someone.

The support cast variers. John LeMesurier is a strong Cromwell, Goring has an interesting crazy eyed look as a Roundhead but his part should have been bigger. People like Paul Witsun Jones are fun. Gary Raymond is spectacularly unmemorable as Prince Charles, the future Charles II. Actors are normally a strong point of British films but this felt undercast.

It was directed by David MacDonald who made some of the worst British movies of the late 40s. This is one of his better pictures but it's still not that well directed; I think he was saved by his story, the photography and costumes.

Movie review - "The Exile" (1947) ***1/2

A charming effort from Douglas Fairbanks, who stars, wrote and produced it, and director Max Ophuls. I'd heard of this film but had never seen it - it was really charming. It could well be the best film Maria Montez was ever in. She doesn't have a big role despite her top billing - but it's a decent part as a countess who visits the exiled Charles in Flanders. Her character probably should have been villainous - her conflict with Paule Croset is relatively and frustratingly mild.

But it's a good story - Charles exiled, short of money, a bit knocked about after a series of failed returns to England, trying to calm down impatient supporters, worried about assassins. Henry Daniell is superb as an assassin - great introduction sequence, with puritans giving him the job, and when he arrives in Flanders the thing really perked up.

Croset is okay as the female lead rather than sensational. She and Fairbanks have a sweet romance. Fairbanks is brilliant in a role that fits him like a glove - smart, brave, a little weary, romantic, impulsive. It's one of his best films. He really should have made more swashbucklers but I understand this one didn't do too well. Maybe it was the lack of color or action - there's only really action at the end. It could have done with a fight in the beginning and middle, maybe.

It's a shame. There's lovely direction by Max Ophuls and it's beautifully shot - long tracking shots, lovely composition. The set is gorgeous - this was adapted from a novel but it also feels like it could have been a play (apparently there was a play version) as most of it takes place at an inn. There's some fields and a village nearby.

Alan Hale is solid support as an ally of Charles. Montez gives an animated performance and has a bath in a weird 17th century device. This is a romantic film. 

How I Would Have Fixed Forever Amber

It's a terrible movie. Depressing. Amber bangs her head against a brick wall for the whole time chasing a guy who is never in to her. He dumps her to go overseas, has little interest in their kid, scolds her for seeing another guy (false scene because Amber isn't engaged, the guy lies).

It's disastrously undercast. Linda Darnell can be superb but she's all wrong as Amber. Otto Preminger wanted Lana Turner. I guess. Personally I think they should have gone for Maureen O'Hara who at least was a natural red head. The men are dreadful. Cornel Wilde is a shocker - stiff and self righteous and he only gets one sword fight to redeem himself. They should have tried Douglas Fairbanks Jnr. George Sanders is good as is Jessica Tandy. Richard Greene is so anonymous. So is Glenn Langan. All these men look alike. John Russell is okay but the role is a dream. Zanuck was not great on casting.

The big problem is the script.I know the censor was hot on them, but what they came up with doesn't work. It feels like a classic case of talented people writing down to their ability.

Compare it with Gone with the Wind. You've got Scarlett who wants Ashley who is interested in Scarlett but marries Melanie because he knows she's better for him. Rhett loves Scarlett - her spunk, her style, her beauty - and is so perfect for her, but she refuses to see it. Melanie likes Scarlett because she's brave.

Wind is better than Amber for the following reasons
a) the dramatic lines are cleaner - Scarlett is spoilt and selfish, she gets everything she wants and wants Ashley. She's also brave. Amber is born poor to horribly strict people and suffers injustice so you automatically feel sorry for her and dislike all the tsk tsking.
b) Rhett is dashing and good and driven by love for Scarlett. Bruce is dashing and treats Amber horribly - like a villain. He impregnates her, leaves her, scolds her for causing a duel which isn't his fault and is rewarded.Rhett dashing and good.
c) in Wind Ashley is weak, Melanie good. There is no equivalent in Amber. Really Bruce is the Ashley - someone not worthy of Amber's love. But no one is - there's no male character like Rhett for us to rely on to go "oh amber pay attention to that guy". They set up this friend of Bruce's played by Richard Greene who should have played that role but they don't. (Michael Rennie performed a similar role in The Wicked Lady).
d) in Wind Scarlett earns respect by constantly having trouble thrown at her. She's got a Civil War, husbands keep dying, she helps Melanie escape the burning of Atlanta, she shoots a Yankee soldier who seems to have rape on his mind, makes sure the baby gets born for Ashley, helps Tara get back on its feet financially.  Now Amber actually does a bit of that - she helps nurse Bruce from the plague, runs through the fire. But she rarely does it for other people. Her goal is to get a title to marry Bruce which is dumb because Bruce never seems to want to marry her.
e) There is a good reason for Scarlett and Rhett not to be together - her love for Ashley and later on the psychological damage done by the war and the loss of their child. Here the reason is that Bruce simply doesn't like Amber.

There were either two ways to go:
1) make Amber a goodie
2) make her a baddy

(1) Could have worked but you would have had to soften it a lot. A good example is the 1945 film Kitty with Paulette Goddard - she plays a pickpocket in love with Ray Milland but he doesn't love her. He wants to use her to get into the foreign office though so he has a reason to be in her orbit.

You could have made Amber completely sympathetic. Make every other woman a bitch.

(2) Could also have worked. May have made it easier to get past the censors. Have Amber empathetic but ruthless. You could have had more sex that way. She would have to suffer. Possibly die. She didn't die in the novel - you could end her on a downer. It happens anyway.

I do think you would have had to flesh out two support parts:

a) a man who loves Amber all through the film. Doesn't have to be a huge part - just keep cutting back to him. Someone who the audience can see who should be with her. I'd make the Earl of Almsbury this. 

b) a woman to be a counterpoint to Amber. If she's good she should be a real bitch. If she's bad she should be pure but still love Amber. The woman who loves Bruce could be good for this.

I think either way you'd have to make Bruce bad. James Mason, originally offered the part, would have been perfect. Ditto Stewart Granger. Bruce is the villain of the piece. He's simply irredeemable.

Amber should want to raise their son to get him back. Amber should do everything for their son - money, title, safety, etc That's extremely sympathetic.

I think the easiest way would have been to go the (2) option. Make her "bad". But make clear she's driven by love and in love with a no good guy.

Bruce should have suffered at the end. I would use the character of Jemima, Amber's step daughter - make her a friend. Make her the "good" counterpoint to Amber.

I think that would have worked.

Movie review - "Cardboard Cavalier" (1949) **

Sid Field was a popular British stage comedian who never made it as a movie star despite a few expensive attempts, this being one. As a vehicle for the comic it's poorly constructed, with a lack of comic set pieces, or strong support cast, or laughs. It takes too long to introduce Field and is far too serious for much of the running time.

The basic idea isn't bad isn't bad - Field is a barrow boy used as a spy for Charles II during the time of Oliver Cromwell. Bob Hope made a bunch of these historical comedies, but they were done by people who knew what they were doing - plenty of colour, gags and songs. This one feels amateurish.

The main problem is it isn't funny. I know that's a matter of personal taste, but evidently the British public of 1949 agreed with me for they did not turn up in expected numbers. It badly lacks comic sequences. And when they attempt it - eg banter between Field and a royalist lord, Jerry Desmonde - it doesn't really work.

Part of this is due to the weakness of the support cast. Lockwood tries, in a blonde wig, but she's not a natural comedienne; for all her efforts she looks like someone out of her league - and the film is geared too much towards her. Jerry Desmonde, as a royalist officer, was Field's regular on stage collaborator but he's not much good in the film.

It does pick up towards the end when the dramatic lines become simpler - Field and his gang try to break into a castle, resulting in them dressing up (Field in drag). There's pace and movement but it never hits home.

Book review - "The History of Britain" by Simon Schama

Three books incorporating the history of Britain from, well, the beginning up until Winston Churchill and George Orwell (there is a brief bit bringing it up to date in the 90s but that's more epilogue-y). Schama is an excellent writer with a great gift for juicy story. Some things are really zipped over eg War of the Roses.

There was probably too much talk about buildings and the publication of books (do historians place undue emphasis on the power of books because they themselves are writers?). But a gripping, enthralling read.

Movie review - "Blood on Satan's Claw" (1970) ***

One of the better British "historical horrors" from this period, financed by Tigon who had money in The Witchfinder General and were no doubt hoping for similar success. The evil here is supernatural though rather than lying in the souls of men - it's literally dug up by farmer Barry Andrews, who was in a Hammer horror film... as was British teen sexpot Linda Hayden, who is very saucy as a kittenish village girl who gets possessed and tries to seduce the local vicar.

Hayden then sets about whipping up the local kids into a frenzy Charles Manson style. There's some hilarious long hair from the reverend and a nobleman, a particularly unsettling rape sequences (not that I've seen too many enjoyable rape sequences but this one is disturbing), Patrick Wymark is a fire and brimstone judge not too far from Matthew Hopkins/Vincent Price in Witchfinder General only here more of a hero than in that movie and Michele Dotrice is excellent as a member of the cult.

This originally began as a three part movie which was converted into a singular narrative; it feels like more of an ensemble piece, and thus has a richer "world" than usual with these sort of movies - although one wished it had a bit more cohesion, especially at the end.

Still, it's interesting, with a real sense of creepiness (the horror and Satanic nature of the cult is underplayed), there's a lot of intelligence going on, I loved the cinematography and music, Linda Hayden's performance has become deservedly iconic.

Movie review - "The Witchfinder General" (1968) ****1/2

Possibly overpraised in some circles because it was the last film of its director, Michael Reeves, who died not long after this was released - it nonetheless remains a startling tough, vivid action horror movie. This was a hit and kicked off the second cycle of Poe movies for AIP but is very different from the Poes - Reeves was a big Don Siegel fan and approached this as a Western, and it feels very Western-y, with chases on horseback across the countryside, and women folk being raped and vengeance driving characters to great violence.

It benefits from a rich historical background: the English civil war with the country divided, lawlessness rampant and witchfinder Matthew Hopkins running about dispensing justice. He's played by Vincent Price in one of that actor's best performances - not hammy, but genuinely chilling. There is excellent support from Robert Russell as his odious companion.

It's very pacey and clear - Hopkins goes for a local priest (Rupert Davies) who is accused of a witch but is talked out of  it by said vicar's niece (Hilary Dwyer) who offers up sex instead. But when Russell rapes Dwyer all bets are off and the priest is killed. Dwyer's boyfriend Ian Ogilvy goes looking for revenge which takes him a while but he ends up chopping Price into pieces. Which to be fair Price deserves but the experience has sent him and Dwyer half mad - the image of her screaming her lungs out is one of many you're likely to take from this film.

The plot is a bit repetitive in places - someone captures someone then escapes - but it's full of action and incident. Ogilvy is a strong hero, Dwyer is very pretty and pleasingly sexually liberated (before the rape). I also liked Nicky Henson as one of Ogilvy's mates and Patrick Wymark's cameo as Cromwell. There is some violence (witchburning, axe choppings) but you're mostly likely to remember the bleak, intense mood of it all.

Movie review - "A Field in England" (2013) **

During the English civil war a man goes looking for an Irishman and they hook up with some others and look for treasure. I think. This was a very confusing. There are some effective battle sequences at the beginning, some trippy visuals (the characters eat magic mushrooms), intriguing use of sound, solid acting. There is a funny death bed confession.

But it was hard to get a grip on what was going on and to be involved in the characters. I began to long for some violent scenes to wake up. It didn't need to be that confusing did it? It's a bunch of guys looking for treasure - you can create something easy to follow about that, can't you?

Book review - "The History of the English Speaking Peoples" by Winston Churchill

A greatest hits tour through English history - and it really is English history despite occasional nods to the colonies - which is mostly of interest to read Winston's great phrases and his views on people and events. He has a soft spot for Marlborough, Edward I and Queen Bess; doesn't like Cromwell; defends George McClelland; goes into great detail on English political party machinations of the 19th century. He's not particularly interested in Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa - or the Industrial Revolution - and is really into battles. But as long as you don't approach it as any sort of definitive work but as an invaluable insight into how one of the 20th century's leading figures looked at the world.

Movie review - "The Scarlet Blade" (1965) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

The English civil war hasn't been that terribly popular with movie makers, even swashbucklers - probably because while the Roundheads stood for things like parliamentary supremacy and democracy, the Cavaliers really were supporting a dictator - but they were the ones with the glamour (and better uniforms). So the heroes of this are Royalists trying to save King Charles I. We know they're not going to succeed, so then it becomes about whether our heroes are going to escape.

This film does try something new for swashbucklers - many of the characters are conflicted. It's mostly set at an old English house (a good idea - helps hide the low budget) with Lionel Jeffries in fine form as a roundhead keen to kick some royalist but - but his daughter June Thorburn is a royalist and his lieutenant Oliver Reed (excellent) is in love with Thorburn and so ends up betraying his cause. 

These characters are a lot more complex than the lead - Jack Hedley who is the Scarlet Blade, a royalist do-gooder who was reported as killed in a battle and goes around the countryside using his non de plume. This sounds Zorro ish but the point of Zorro was he got to pretend to be a toff, which this doesn't do. It's a rather thankless role for Hedley, who isn't very charismatic (most romantic male leads for Hammer weren't), but the other male leads make up for it.

There's not enough action, but at least it's different: the big battle at the end is kind of pointless, Jeffries lets his daughter and her lover go free at the end, Jeffries shoots Reed. Not a success but a bit more different than say A Challenge for Robin Hood.

Radio review – SDP - “The Exile” (1949) **

This swashbuckler suits a half hour adaptation because the story is so slight – indeed, it’s lucky to make that long (although they do cut out the Maria Montez role). Without the visuals of the action and Max Ophuls direction this is very slight; it does have Doug Fairbanks Jnr reprising his role (excellent speaking voice) and its fascinating to hear Ophuls himself introduce the show in his soft spoken, accented English.

TV review – “Errol Flynn Theatre – Rescued” (1957) **

In the late 50s Errol Flynn hosted and co-produced his own anthology TV series, in which he occasionally appeared. This instalment has him in a swashbuckling role; he plays a Royalist during the English Civil War who tries to rescue a captured general from the Parliamentarians. Pro-royalist swashbucklers are always a bit wonky because even though the cavaliers had the glamour, they’re still fighting against democracy for a dictator.

This story tries to duck around it by having the villain be an ambitious soldier who wants to get on to Cromwell’s staff – but it still leaves a bit of a nasty taste in the mouth. Not much action – most of this has Errol running around taverns, getting up to spy escapades. Unlike Sword of Villon, Errol’s age and weeziness counts against him here; it’s alright, but really only for Errol completists. 

Andrew Keir has a support role.

Movie review - "Stage Beauty" (2004) **

Terrific idea - what happens to male female performers when women are allowed on stage - never quite hits the mark. Maybe it works better onstage, where we get to see the "female"performances in a longer form. 

Also the film never seems quite able to reconcile its sexual politics -Billy Crudup is gay, OK I get that, but then he has this sort of romance with Clare Danes (a bit vanilla) - but that would mean that playing a man turns him butch, and the film flinches away from that and sort of comes up with an open ending. It's like it wants to be Hollywood but also PC. 

It also bucks against the inherent tragedy/sadness of the situation (many of these actors will never find work again, like the coming of sound), by having him re-invent himself as a director who discovers method acting which is a bit irritating. Indeed, despite the bright set up the film never seems to get in its stride. 

Rupert Everett is fun as Charles II.

Movie review - "Cromwell" (1970) **

It's Richard Harris vs Alec Guinness and Guiness wins by a knock out. The English Civil War has always been problematic in the movies - because Parliament was obviously the right side, but they were dull Puritans with funny hats who hated sex and theatre, whereas the Royalists were dashing and romantic but at heart violent dictators.

Cromwell was a fascinating man, a sort of suburban Rotary Club manager who due to history discovered a genius for military and political leadership. Harris is not only miscast he is extremely irritating - every time the camera goes on him he goes "Great! I get to act!" and sets about yelling and chewing the furniture. You are enjoying the film then they cut to him and its like "oh shut up". Contrast with Guiness' Charles I - Chuckie was an amiable idiot, a lousy king and despot but Guiness gives him shades and dimensions and you feel sorry for him having his head chopped off even if it was the right thing to do. 

Some decent enough supporting performances. The direction is OK and it covers the Civil War basics but it is a bit dull.