Movie review - "Razorback" (1984) ***1/2 (rewatching)

 Every still is like a painting. Arkie Whiteley so lovely. Bill Kerr tremendous. Chris Haywood and David Argue heaps of fun, if awful people. Script feels odd in places. Kerr gets a depressinh death. Why kill the dog. 

Movie review - "Roadgames" (1981) ***1/2 (re-watching)

 Put this on again just for fun. My opinion doesn't change. Terrific. Clever, Stylish. Nullabor filming worth it. Boat smash not worth it. Well acted. Needed some line to cover the fact that two Americans meet in the desert.

Dodgy last act. Problem easily fixable. They should have had the police arrest Keach, That's when everyone turns up - Shirley Cameron, etc - saying he's bad. Police are going to haul him away. He insists they go after Jamie Lee Curtis. Don't listen. He escapes and goes after them.

Movie review - "Nature's Grave" (2008) ** aka "The Long Weekend"

 I wonder why they remake it? It's basically the same script. It is an interesting comparison.

Claudia Karvan is a much better actor than Briony Behets. But Jim Caviezel isn't as good as John Hargreaves - his American boorishness also doesn't work as well in an Australian film as Hargreaves' Aussie boorishness. It's nicely shot but not as well shot as Vincent Monton and it doesn't have the same creepiness. They kept the partner swapping plot which seemed to work better in the 70s. They keep the wife masturbating to a book scene. It's on digital and film is better.

De Roche talks about writing the film in a very good career interview here. He has a cameo in the bar and Roger Ward is the truck driver.

I love the intent behind it. I just can't see the point.

Movie review - "Link" (1986) **1/2

 A frustrating experience. The set up and idea is solid: student Elizabeth Shue goes to work as an assistant for enigmatic professor Terence Stamp who is doing research on chimps. As she stays she starts to worry that one of the chimps, Link, could have murder on his mind.

Jerry Goldsmith is credited for the jaunty, chirpy score which doesn't feel right. There's beautiful Scottish locations but too much of it seems shot inside a studio and that lacks atmosphere. I really wanted the atmos cranked up like with Rebecca - crashing waves, isolation, hostility. That isn't done.

Elizabeth Shue is very beautiful, likeable and chirpy - and I think her semi nude scene is justified (is that a body double in long shot?) because it does add to suspense with the creepy chimp looking at her - but maybe she's too chirpy. A more ostensibly mousy, scared actor could have brought more tension - I don't know like, say, Jennifer Jason Leigh or someone. She never seems too scared. I also think she should have been romantically interested in Stamp, leant into the Jane Eyre tropes more... Shue didn't need a boyfriend, the guys who visit at the end just could've been fellow students.

It does pick up in the last third when the chimp goes on the rampage. But it never quite conquers its case of the sillies.

Richard Franklin had a difficult time of it during the shoot. He had troubles with his crew, clashed with his producer, fidgeted with the script, fell inappropriately in "crush" with with leading lady. Maybe that's why this didn't click. It certainly was not widely seen.

Movie review - "Visitors" (2003) ** (warning: spoilers)

 I saw this at the Valhalla in Glebe with high ish hopes... it sounded intriguing a limited location film on a yacht, reuniting Richard Franklin and Everett de Roche in the thriller genre. There are some really spooky moments - a yacht is a creepy place, and star Radha Mitchell has a compelling presence with her look and beauty. Nicely shot. Effective sound.

Main problem - not enough happens. It's a series of scares. Other boat thrillers things happen - Dead Calm they've lost the kid in the opening sequence, they pick up Billy Zane, Sam Neill gets stranded and has his own B plot, he has a goal, Nicole has to sleep with Billy, etc etc 

De Roche/Franklin needed to think more in terms of acts... a real visitor on the boat, as opposed to a fake visitor (she can be unsure). Big things happening at home - not just an unexciting affair between Dominic Purcell and Totti Goldsmith but, say, her father having been murdered or her mother has escaped. Or, I don't know, a shark attack. Some progression.and genuine threat. Or have Radha follow in the footsteps of a woman who went missing on another voyage so they could solve that mystery.

I think a lot of it is too easy for her. There's no storms. No real threat. Even the pirates aren't real. Also very under-developed relationship with that random accountant.

I was getting more confused as it went on and the ending didn't seem to make sense with Radha not stepping off at the end (I mean, why not... okay Tottie rooted her boyfriend but she still ponied up the cash) No sense of triumph at the end. They should've killed off Radha at the end. At least that would've had some oomph.

Movie review - "Patrick" (1978) *** (re-watching)

Stylish. Clever. Some great moments. Susan Penhalgion's performance never gets the credit she deserves maybe because she was English. She's a very good woman in peril. And the movie feels seventies.

I got Rod Mullinar and Bruce Beeby mixed up. Maybe one of them should have worn a moustache or something.

Robert Helmann and Julia Blake are great hammy fun. I kept expecting Helpman to die. Nicely shot. Great music

There's some flabby passages. Richard Franklin's handling isn't as good as it would be in Roadgames. But there's some tremendous moments too. And the film has archetypal power - the man in love with the nurse, being possessive. There's some feminism in the script with Penhaglion dealing with all these controlling predatory men (something that popped up in a few Everett de Roche scripts).

A very good movie. I remember it spooking me when I saw it on tv and it retains that power.

Movie review - "The Long Weekend" (1978) *** (re-watching)

A sort of sequel to Don's Party with John Hargreaves and Briony Behets is middle class types recovering from some couple swapping and an abortion by heading to the country, where they whinge, make a mess, shoot things.

An eerie, effective movie that one has to be careful not to overpraise or else you might cause false expectations but is extremely good. Beautifully shot. Wonderful use of sound. Editing. So on.

Everett de Roche scripts often had well rounded female characters compared to others in the genre - the influence of his wife? He did have six daughters or something.

The quality of this gave a false picture of what Colin Eggleston movies would be like from this point on. (There's quite a few Aussie directors who fall into the "one good movie only" category.)

Movie review - "Roadgames" (1981) ***1/2

Extremely well acted, written and directed. Loses some tension in the last third. Spooky. Nullabor is brilliant. Gorgeous looking movie. Didn't need the boat stunt - money would have been better spent elsewhere. Stacy Keach is wonderful. So too is Jamie Lee Curtis - it wouldn't have hurt for them to go "hey you're an American here too". Strong support cast including Grant Page. Eerie scenes like poking around a truck and the flash of lightning at night. A very good film.

Movie review - "Windrider" (1986) **

Cheerfully dim Australian comedy which in its heart of hearts seems like a 60s pop film - something starring Frankie Avalon or Connie Francis. I kept expecting Tom Burlinson to break out into song - ironically, he would later have a career as a Frank Sinatra impersonator. Nicole Kidman did a bit of singing too and it's fun to see her as a pop star.

But I think the filmmakers were uncertain of the movie they were making. There was talk of doing a Risky Business style comedy, so you have Nickers running around nude (a fair bit) - but Risky Business' story was about sex, this isn't. It's a film called Windrider and is about a someone wind surfing - that's the climax. It's really a sports film and needed to be about that.

Add some singing, fine - but the drive needed to  be windsurfing. The plot about Burlinson at work is confusing, never seen and pointless. Just make it character.

The romance with Kidman is quite well done (apart from some rapey actions up top), the father son stuff between Burlinson and Charles Tingwell is lovely, the views of Perth are very easy on the eye. It's a cheerful film that did not deserve being torn a new one by critics at the time.

Where it could have been better:
* more focus on windsurfing in the story
* better incorporating the singer into the windsurfing
* have a good female windsurfer for the female audience to have someone to latch on to
* do more with the villain to make him really bad
* have better songs

I also feel Burlinson was simply miscast as an arrogant yuppie - he was most effective as a soulful young man. But I get why he was cast and he does have good chemistry with Kidman.

Movie review - "Snapshot" (1979) ***

One of a series of thrillers produced by Tony Ginnane in the late 70s/early 80s - others include Thirst, Patrick, The Survivor. This is one of the best, an unpretentious, well done flick with solid script work from Everett De Roche and direction from Simon Wincer.

Unlike many other Ginnane works around this time it feels fulfilled - it hits the beats it wants. You don't feel it's left anything out or has massively unfulfilled potential - it's an unpretentious, tight thriller.

The script also benefits from the input of De Roche's wife Chris, in that it is very sympathetic to the female point of view. Model Sigrid Thornton (excellent) is constantly preyed upon, whether its by the weird photographer (Hugh Keays Byrne), a sleazy photographer (Robert Bruning), her best friend (Chantal Contouri), her ex (Vincent Gil), her bitchy sister, her mother who wants her to get back with her ex because he was nice to mum.

Thorton is a strong lead and ideal for women in peril films - she should've played the lead in more Ginnane films (notably Thirst). There's campy fun with a trip to a late 70s cabaret (which gets lots of screentime). Thornton does a topless photo shoot wading in the water on what looks like a freezing day. Contouri tries to seduce Siggie and Denise Drysdale pops up to crack a few bitchy comments.

I don't want to overpraise this. It's very familiar material - stalkers became the bread and butter for soaps. But it's tight, and creepy and well done.

Movie review - "Harlequin" (1980) **1/2

Notorious in its day because it was made with funds from the Australian taxpayer and the film tried to pretend it wasn't set in Australia - there are references to the US political system rather than the Australian one, plenty of mid Atlantic accents and foreign actors, people drive on the other side of the road, accents are dubbed into Americans.

I personally feel the film could have hit all the story points it wanted, still had imported stars, and be set in Australia. I found the dubbed American accents really annoying - from the bit players mainly... Especially when you have cast like David Hemmings and Paula Duncan capable of mid-Pacific accents. But never mind...

Years on the film comes across as a very flawed piece. There's an imaginative central concept (a modern day updating of the Rasputin story), some interesting characters, beautiful photography, good actors. I would've loved to have read Everett de Roche's original script, with the lead as a priest, and set in Australia, with Harlequin having a strong sexual drive. (I'm surprised there wasn't more sex in the film... isn't that an exploitative element?)

Robert Powell is perfect in the title role. I enjoyed Paula Duncan. David Hemmings was more "iffy"... though it didn't help that his character was so sketchy. Broderick Crawford does his Broderick Crawford thing... again I just wish he's character didn't feel so "cut about".

Alyson Best pops up to provide some brief nudity, in a role that again feels cut about. TV icon Bevan Lee pops up in a support role. Alan Cassell's American accent (dubbed) is annoying.

Still, it's probably one of the best movies Tony Ginnane ever made.

Movie review - "The Long Weekend" (1978) ***1/2 (re-viewing) (warning: spoilers)

This movie holds up well. Seeing it people must have imagined really great futures for writer Everett de Roche and director Colin Eggleston - and while both had decent careers (de Roche especially) they never quite hit the heights promised (or at least implied) by this low budget flick.

Still, they have this. It's not a masterpiece and shouldn't be over-hyped. The running time does feel padded - I feel at heart this was a 60 minute feature if that. Because there's not much story - it's really a collection of incidents, a building of unease and mood... the cigarette but in the grass, the shooting of a dungog, animal cries, a deserted beach.

It helps that the locations are so beautiful - desolate, isolated, stunning, with the sand dunes, and bush and sea. Also Vincent Monton's Panavision photography is breathtaking. The sound and editing are first rate.

There's good playing from John Hargreaves; less assured work from Briony Behets (who goes overboard... I kept wishing for Wendy Hughes). But she's not bad and the drama is solid.  Critics have complained about the unlikeability of the two leads - but that means when they die we don't feel so bad.

Also the characters feel real - he's a bit of a bogan, for all this white collar job: he likes shooting gun and beer and Playboy; he's controlling and won't listen to her, and she complains; there's been adultery in the past involving another couple and an abortion which is causing trouble; she's unhappy, wanting to connect with her husband but not really. Maybe it's because I'm getting on in years myself, in life and my marriage but I found this surprisingly engrossing.

Behets goes topless and engages in some masturbation to a Harold Robbins novel - a bit of sex was a good idea, but to Harold Robbins? It does seem a little extraneous.

There are other flaws to be sure, but it's interesting and original and there is some decent drama, powerful atmosphere and some knock out moments such as the death of Behets and Hargreaves.

Movie review - "Razorback" (1984) *** (warning: spoilers)

A beloved 80s cult film - the review site Oz Movies says its perhaps the best of the Ozsploitation films of the 10BA era. I'm not sure I'd agree - Roadgames, Patrick and Long Weekend would match it at least.

But it is easy to see it's appeal to cultists - the title, the concept, the imported American star, Judy Morris' American accent, Bill Kerr's emoting in the opening sequence, Everett de Roche writing the script, the stylish video clip imagery, Iva Davies' score, the duelling banjos act of David Argue and Chris Haywood, the fake pig.

It doesn't work as a film, though, not really. I remember really looking forward to this when it came out and being disappointed - and watching it years later it's still disappointing. You want it to be good - I mean, a film about a killer pig, who doesn't instinctively love that? - and there are great moments, but overall it doesn't come together.

Sometimes spotting what's wrong with a film is easier. Am fully aware this is wisdom in hindsight but I do like the play the game "how would I have fixed this?" With Razorback it was trickier.

Story seems to be number one. All the elements are there for a good movie, but it doesn't come together. Greg Harrison is a bit bland but he has a bland character to play. I was unsure what his character was - he doesn't have any special skills, I was unclear even what his job was. Why not make him a doctor? Or an accountant completely out of his depth? It was also a mistake to have him chop up a kangaroo.

Bill Kerr's character on the other hand is fantastic. Captain Ahab out to get his Moby Dick, the Razorback. Kerr's emoting in the opening sequence is poor and completely over the top (in a bad way) but once he relaxes (or, rather, intensifies) into tormented vengeance seeker, he's awesome - full of hate and fury. But once the film sets up this driven Razorback hater full of potential they don't really do anything with it. There's lots of potential - he could say clash with Gregory Harrison over how to get revenge... Or he could have endangered Arkie Whiteley by his actions? Or the townsfolk? Most of all he should have been given a spectacular finish, being killed doing real battle with the Razorback. Instead the filmmakers throw him in a shed, defenseless and weak, and he gets gored to pieces without putting up any sort of fight. It's depressing - they completely cut his balls off. Maybe they were trying to subvert tropes, but it just made me feel bad for the guy.

David Argue and Chris Haywood are brilliant as the dodgy meat operators - loathsome, but funny villains. But are they too loathsome? Argue tries to rape Judy Morris and tries to kill Bill Kerr. They overtake the film to a large degree - it really should be about a killer razorback but these two keep pulling focus. They even deliberately run over a dog just to be mean - the razorback is never that mean. Sure he gorges people but he can't help it - unlike these two. As a result you get more upset about the two brothers, which maybe wouldn't be a problem but the brothers are all over the last act. It's as if the mayor of Amity went along on the final shark hunting trip in Jaws.

Director Russell Mulcahy and DOP Dean Semler have come up with some amazing images - characters traipsing across the desert, dead animals in the mud, people listening to ghetto blasters on the back of camels, etc (there's a lot of artists on the soundtrack who Mulchay did the video clips for - Duran Duran, Elton John, etc). But a lot of the choreography of the scenes don't make sense. I wasn't exactly sure how Gregory Harrison wound up the top of a windmill, or how Chris Haywood wound up in a mine with Harrison having control of him, or what happened to Arke Whiteley in the final battle (how did she end up tangled in those chains), or what was going on in that final battle. The scenes involving the Razorback are loud and destructive rather than suspenseful and/or scary .

Let's take a walk on the sunny side. I loved the performances, the visuals, and Iva Davies' score. I love the ambition of the film. Arkie Whiteley is gorgeous - not a fantastic actor, but very pretty and likeable. The locations are amazing. I truly wish it was a better film. I wish Everett de Roche had had a strong co-writer to elevate his fabulous ideas.

But it is different - it sticks out. It promised a more interesting career from Russell Mulcahy than the one that eventuated.

Movie review - "Patrick" (2013) ***

Remake of the 1970s ozspolitation semi classic improves on the original in some ways, but in others is a step back. It looks terrific with some brilliant production design (creepy hospital, dark corridors), and stylish photography; there is some top notch acting with Sharni Vinson a likeable heroine, Rachel Griffiths taking to horror like a duck to water, and Charles Dance providing gravitas. Jackson Gallagher is a suitably enigmatic Patrick, Simone Buchanan an effective scrubber mum, and Peta Sergeant does her cheery flirt thing well. I also enjoyed seeing Rod Mullinar pop up in one scene. The central concept remains a strong one and there are some decent shocks. It also moves at a decent pace.

But the story is needlessly complicated, especially in the second half. It should be enough that Patrick is in love with the nurse (although this is undeveloped), but instead Patrick has this other agenda involving Dance which is never really made clear; the why-doesn't-anyone-call-the-police logic really grates towards the end; there were unsatisfactory resolutions involving the fluid, and electric shocks and Dance's secret plans, and the missing nurse. Vinson's relationship with Damon Gameau (who is fine in the thankless Michael Douglas in Coma role) was also sketchy. And Martin Crewes gives a poor performance as a shrink.

The action felt jumped around at times with odd continuity. And while the music score was excellent there was too much of it, when it may have been more effective to hold on a scene and use silence. It's an enjoyable movie, with much to admire, I just wish they'd simplified and streamlined it a bit more.

Movie review - "Fortress" (1985) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

There is a really interesting movie lurking in here - an examination on the effect of violence on young children in the vein of Lord of the Flies - but unfortunately these issues are only skirted over and for the most part this is a fairly run of the mill adventure tale.

It is badly hurt by a dreadful performance from Rachel Ward in the lead. It's a gift role - you get to be brave, tough, beautiful, conflicted, smart, go on a real emotional journey... but it is completely beyond her abilities. She just has this dead flat delivery and grating accent. She is pretty and does go for a swim in her underwear, but that's very little compensation.

The kids come off better and kudos to the filmmakers and actors for enabling them to have some personality despite their large number: they include Beth Buchanan, Rebecca Rigg, and Asher Keddie! They all seem very believable, constantly complaining and wanting to go to the toilet, with the elder boys perving on Ward, and getting bloodthirsty. Towards the end it gets kind of complex with Ward whipping the kids up into a violent frenzy and the kids going berko on the kidnappers, then keeping silent about it... but like I say that feels undercooked. (The script was written by Everett de Roche whose scripts often felt as though they needed another draft.)

It's almost as though the finale of this needed to be the second act, with an extra third act showing the impact of the violence - you could still have a kidnapper at large if you like to keep the suspense. It could have enabled the filmmakers to get into the characters of the kidnappers a bit more too, who are just giggling, loud thugs, whose faces we rarely see. (NB If I'm not mistaken there were four kidnappers but we see only two get killed.)

Arch Nicholson wasn't the world's best director - I know he died young, which is tragic, but it's true. This offers opportunities for suspense and action galore and he only does a mediocre job.

Movie review - "Long Weekend" (1978) ***

Colin Eggleston seemed to launch himself as a talent to watch when this movie came out - but none of his subsequent movies impressed and it soon became obvious the real talent to watch was the writer, Everett de Roche, who soon established himself as one of Australia's leading screenwriters. It's a very clever, tricky idea of humans vs nature - a couple go away for the weekend and pick away at the world: throw cigarettes out the window, hit kangaroos, chop down trees. Eventually nature strikes back.

If I'm being really honest there's not quite enough story here for a feature, so it doesn't quite come off, but it's very skilfully done - I kept thinking of early Roman Polanski films. There are lots of noises, and jolts, and a creeping sense of unease.

The domestic spats between John Hargreaves and Briony Behets is pretty good but occasionally spills into TV on the nose dialogue (when it's restrained and implied it is much better). There's a bit of nudity from Behets who also does a masturbation scene - I guess it's a cheap special effect.

Hargreaves is very strong as always; Behets is less good although she matches him at times. Her fate is a superbly done sequence - the movie has a strong ending after tap dancing in the middle.

Movie review - "Patrick" (1978) ***

Is Everett de Roche the world's best "half brilliant" writer? His scripts are always full of such imagination and cleverness but they always feel as though they need another draft - or punching up by another writer. I went to a Q and A once with Richard Franklin who was promoting The Visitors and he said as much - from memory he claimed de Roche would do this terrific first draft but never be able to substantially improve upon it.

This film has a very clever idea - a comatose patient who killed his slutty mum (shades of Norman Bates) has the power of telekinesis, falls in love with a nice nurse who looks after him (Susan Penhalgion, who seems like a nice person) and if he can't have her then no one can. This is great because Patrick's motivations are based on love, which drives all the best horror movie protagonists (e.g. Norman Bates) - the telekinesis means he can do things from his hospital bed.

He should have done more, though - Patrick is relatively benign here, he hardly kills anyone. And bits of this feel undercooked: Susan Penhaligon's relationship with her ex Rod Mullinar (is he a nice guy or what?) and the one with Dr Bruce Barry (who seems to be sleazy but is quite sympathetically depicted). The performances of Julia Blake and Robert Helpmann have been called hammy but they are completely appropriate for the tone of this movie, with it's gothic hospital and booming Brian May score.

Penhaligon is a pretty, decent enough lead - it's a shame this couldn't have been played by someone really charismatic. The guy who plays Patrick has a great look and there are lots of spooky sequences, and it is frequently interesting.

Book review – “Not Quite Hollywood” by Paul Harris

Companion piece to the documentary is disappointingly slight – only 81 pages. Mark Hartley has gone on record as complaining that there is little written about Aussie exploitation films, which wasn’t exactly true – David Stratton in his books on the industry devotes many pages to the work of Ginnane, and especially the ocker comedies. They’re still a lot better source of information than this book – which doesn’t even feature all the anecdotes in Hartley’s film. It’s colourfully designed with lots of bright pictures and posters but you can’t help longing for a proper history of the industry. One that can tell the real story.

Maybe I’m being unfair here – I’m sure Harris wrote this to a brief – it’s just that I know Hartley and his team did so much research on the subject, I would have loved to see it. Especially since I got the feeling Hartley was a little compromised by his closeness to the filmmakers and his desire to celebrate genre films in Hollywood to give a fuller picture; maybe in a few years such a book will ensue.

Movie review – “Not Quite Hollywood” (2008) ****

Half a masterpiece. I love it because I’m a big fan of the era, ozploitation, Ginnane and Trenchard Smith, Richard Franklin, etc. The film is full of energy and colour and pretty much uses the majority of nude scenes from those films, if you’re so interested, so that they’re located in the one convenient locations. It also has Quentin Tarantino talking about the films with a lot more insight than most of our critics (eg pointing out that no one shoots cars better than an Aussie).

It has flaws, though. For one thing it’s too much of a celebration – it doesn’t really deal with the criticisms of the movies in enough detail – in particular the misogyny inherent in a lot of them (there are an awful lot of tits and bush – and the cocks of John Holmes and Graeme Blundell as well, admittedly but more tits and bush; and the female point of view is limited to actors who appeared in them).

Also the issue of how these films fit in our national consciousness isn’t really dealt with - something important since many of them were financed using government tax breaks and direct funding. Alvin Purple made a lot of money, fine – but can you justify government money in Pacific Banana? Was Ginnane entitled to import all those overseas actors for his movies? (You don’t have to say he was wrong, but I think the other point of view needs to be better elucidated.)

It also doesn’t dig into the characters enough. There are key figures throughout – Trenchard-Smith, Grant Page, Ginnane, Everett de Roche – but we never really get to known what makes them tick, or go with them on any sort of emotional journey. Didn’t Ginnane go bankrupt? What’s the real reason why Sandy Harbutt never made another film?

(NB I also would quibble though that these films have been ignored over the years – David Stratton devoted many pages to them in his two books on the Australian film industry.)