Movie review - "Walk on the Wild Side" (1962) **1/2

 Interesting. A famously tricky production - Larry harvey was annoyed, Edwardy Dmytryk really didn't have control, producer Charles Feldman putting his oar in, script changing a lot, Capucine trying a drama role, Jane Fonda super inexperienced, Barbara Stanwyck playing a pioneering screen lesbian.

Script feels endlessly rewritten. Scenes upon scenes.  Basically Harvey wants Capucine back. Capucine is an artist working at a brothel. Dmyrtyk complained about the sleeze Feldman wanted to put in - I think it needed more! Not sure Dmytryk was the right director - needed someone who could do sexually charged material, like Elia Kazan or Joe Mankiewicz.

Capucine is fine, as is Harvey - I thought both would be worse than they are. Fonda is gorgeous but has a little just-out-of-drama-school vibes about her (I'm acting! Look at me act!).

Great music, photography, Saul Bass title credits. 

Movie review - "After the Ball" (1957) **

 Biopic about Vesta Tilley who I've never heard of and starring Pat Kirkwood who I've never heard of but both were big deals in England. It's very stock biopic, with bald exposition and musical numbers.  Tilley's life lacked drama - a lot of shows, a bit of World War One drama. She retires.

Romulus wanted to made it because it was a vehicle for Kirkwood and also Laurence Harvey who seems hamstrung in a hamstrung part as the husband/manager. No death, no reversal, no illness (they pump up an allergic reaction).

Some colour and. songs. Peter Rogers produced and it feels thrifty.  I mean it's period, and in colour but there's a lot of tight shots.

Movie review - "Summer and Smoke" (1962) **1/2

 Geraldine Page is a very fine actress just not a movie star. Laurence Harvey isn't bad as the hedonistic doctor but the two of them don't have chemistry. I didn't really get the sense he was that into her or she wanted to be pummelled by him. Others may disagree.

(You know who would've been interesting and who was contracted to Hal Wallis? Elvis Presley. He was Southern and hunky and charismatic and played well with older actors.)

But my core issue of this is it didn't get the transformation of Page's character. She's meant to go from airy fairy to hedonism and that's not really well done. It's a sexless version. I can see why it wasn't that popular.

Pamela Tiffin is pretty as the young horny girl who Harvey winds up marrying. She's a little amateurish but it suits the part.

Movie review - "I am a Camera" (1955) **

The story has been so overshadwed by Cabaret but before then it was a hit straight play by John Van Druten. This was adapted by Romulus, a British outfit who aimed to do good work with an international focus.

Julie Harris is Sally. The film feels like a stage play with Harris hanging around Laurence Harvey's apartment with Anton Diffring and Shelley Winters. I missed the cabaret - there was more things happening there. Ron Randell adds a dash of energy as Harris' rich man but the running time is mostly Harris and Harvey.

Look, I mean, it's good this exists, I guess. They tried to make a good movie. Or at least capture some of the play - as much as they could. They had to straighten it up. I guess it's handy for posterity that Julie Harris' performance is perserved. It left me a little cold but maybe she was better live. I liked Laurence Harvey's work - he's a believable writer.

I didn't really care about any of the people or their relationships. The basic story is so clear - a gay writer and his crazy ditzy female bestie. This version was wonky. Why were they friends, what was the appeal, etc. The Breakfast at Tiffany's movie probably had the right idea just making it a flat out straight romance, with him being in love with her. At least there was a strong emotional connection. Here they try to hang on to the play and it's just unsatisfying.

Maybe it could have worked with more chemistry between Harvey and Harris. Actually that's the key - to show these two are friends. Doesn't work. It's weird - both aren't bad, quite good, they just don't mesh.

Romantic track record of Sylvia Syms in her early films

 * My Teenage Daughter - falls for cad who drives a Bentley, crashes parties, knows "jive" and is responsible for her aunt's death

* The Birthday Present - married to man who goes to prison

* No Time for Tears - nurse who falls for sleazy doctor

* The Moonraker -Puritan who falls for Cavalier

*Woman in a Dressing Gown - young woman falls for married man

* Ice Cold in Alex - falls for older military guy

*Bachelor of Hearts - falls for German exchange student

*No Trees in the Street - pimped out to gangster Herbert Lom

*Ferry to Hong Kong - falls for alcoholic Curt Jergens

*Expresso Bongo - stripper in love with promoter Laurence Harvey

*Conspiracy of Hearts - nun

*World of Suzie Wong - in love with man in love with Asian

*Amazons of Rome - Roman in love with Barbarian

*Flame in the Streets - in love with black Johnny Sekka

 *Victim - married to gay Dirk Bogarde

*The Punch and Judy Man - married to Tony Hancock

*The World Ten Times Over - in love with a woman

Movie review - "Of Human Bondage" (1964) **

Relaxed censorship was reason enough to have a pass at this - a kitchen sink realism type tale was fine. And some of this was effective - the Dublin locations, stylish photography, Laurence Harvey gives one of his best performances (he holds himself in check).

But I think they picked the wrong original director, Henry Hathaway, and the wrong replacement, Ken Hughes. Neither had much luck with women stars and/or tales of romantic obsession. I guess Hathaway had Niagara but that had a murder. Hughes had Oscar Wilde but that had a trial.

And they had Kim Novak, who is clearly trying but isn't up to it. She's too old and just feels wrong for the role.

The DNA of this piece is the relationship between her and Harvey - he gets obsessed, she doesn't feel the same way but she's honest about it.

Strong support cast, including Roger Livesey (looking old but the voice is unmistakeable), a sweet Nanette Newman (whose husband Bryan Forbes wrote the script and was meant to have played a role but I can't see him in it), Robert Morley.

Not a disaster, not a terrible movie, just one that doesn't get the core of the story. As a result it ambles and drags without heart.

Movie review - "Night Watch" (1973) **

 The sort of movie I should like. Movie stars. A script by Lucille Fletcher. A woman who might be going insane and a dodgy best friend and mysterious husband. Twists. 

But it doesn't work. Maybe Elizabeth Taylor was wrong for this sort of movie. She's in her frumpy stage. I mean, she's Elizabeth Taylor but... maybe she's too strong. Something.

Laurence Harvey is perfect. It's weird watching him knowing he was going to be dead in a year or so. Billie Whitelaw is good.

Maybe it's the direction. It lacks atmosphere. Maybe 1973 was too late. Maybe the cinematographer.

The film has its fans. I just wish... I don't know it was directed by Seth Holt or Freddie Francis or someone.

Movie review - "Storm Over the Nile" (1955) *** (re-viewing)

 Decent remake of The Four Feathers (1939) where the cast is actually better but they don't get a chance to do anything more since it's basically a shot for shot remake.

Anthony Steel is fine in John Clements' part. It's only when you see two actors play this part did it sink in - this isn't much of a role. Hardly any time is spent exploring the cowardice option - he's a coward for about two scenes. Then when he's heroic he is mostly in blackface.

Mary Ure, a beautiful and talented actor, is wasted in a nothing part. Laurence Harvey isn't as good as Ralph Richardson - Harvey was really only good as swines, and the character here is too noble, too stuffy; you can see him trying to act, holding it in. James Robertson Justice isn't as good as C Aubrey Smith but it's fun to see him. Geoffrey Keen is fine as are Ronald Lewis and Ian Carmichael but only Keen has much to do. (They should have killed off Lewis or Carmichael).

It's fun to see Christopher Lee pop up as an Arab. The photography and location work remains impressive. It's a satisfying story. Cheeky of Korda to try a second bite of the apple but it worked - this was a hit.

Movie review - "The Good Die Young" (1954) ***

 A half success. An excellent cast - characters rarely cross which would have meant that clever scheduling would have kept the budget down.

It's about four men who decide to pull a heist. Everyone has an interesting story, though the impact is lessened by the fact that for all four of them it's a woman's fault... Stanley Baker is a boxer who gets injured but his drag of a wife gives their savings to her useless brother. Richard Basehart wants to move to America with wife Joan Collins but her bitch of a mother Freda Jackson does a fake suicide. John Ireland is a soldier whose bitch of a wife Gloria Grahame is cheating on him with her co star (she's an actor). Laurence Harvey is a ne'er do well rich kid whose wife (Margaret Leighton) won't bail him out.

The only one of these who is "bad" is Harvey - who is completely utterly bad. It's a very showy role. Harvey gets a great introduction, and looks fun with his bouffant hair. Sometimes he's effective - other times he seems amateurish. It's a bit all over the shop. I did love seeing him and Robert Morley as his dad and cuddly Morley telling Harvey how much he hates him. And it's fascinating to see Harvey married on screen to real life wife Margaret Leighton, skiving off her - which is what he did in real life.

Stanley Baker is excellent as an anti-hero. I get the feeling that Romulus (who made this) were more American minded saw him play a more sympathetic role.

 I liked John Ireland too though Gloria Grahame felt wasted - her one good moment was seeming to be turned on when he announced he had a plan, but then Ireland throws her in a bath. 

Basehart is dull. I had trouble remembering who he was when I saw him on screen. Collins does well in a not much role but Jackson is great campy fun.

The big fault of the movie - the heist isn't suggested until 1 hour 10 minutes in. And there's only 20 minutes to go. They should have known each other from the outset, been old army pals (they're all veterans - the movie is pleasingly cynical on the troubles of veterans). Harvey could have suggested the heist early - they all go "no no no" and then change their minds. They decide to do it too quickly and too late.

The other problem is that more needed to be done with the women.

The ending - criminal walking to a plane on the tarmac - feels influenced by The Asphalt Jungle.

Movie review - "King Richard and the Crusaders" (1954) **1/2

 Better than I'd been led to believe. Laurence Harvey is quite good as a dashing knight hero. Virginia Mayo is silly. Rex Harrison is in brownface and sings songs but he's fun. So too is George Sanders.

It was expensive but a lot of scenes look cheap - two actors in a tent. George Sanders spends a lot of time lying down in bed sick. The plot has nasty English knights trying to cause trouble. It's actually quite nice to the Arabs, this movie.

It's just so silly but there's lots of action and at least the three male leads are all uniformly miscast so it works coherently. Michael Pate is a villain as is Robert Douglas. Virginia Mayo is there.

The Medveds listed this among the 50 Worst Movies of All Time. That is not, not true. I mean it's dumb but... I was taken with it.

They get around the dodginess of the Crusades by having Harrison help Sanders take out some treacherous knights.

Book review - "John Frankenheimer: A Conversation with Charles Champlin"

Frankenheimer had one of the all time hot streaks - both during the Golden Years of television where he was one of the stars, but also his early films. Young Savages, All Fall Down, The Manchurian Candidate, The Train, Seven Days in May, Seconds... Critics cooled on him from Grand Prix onwards after which his career seemed to wobble: The Extraordinary Seaman, The Fixer, The Gypsy Moths, I Walk the Line, The Horseman, Impossible Object, The Iceman Cometh, 99 and 44/100% Dead,. There were some "commercial" films - French Connection II, Black Sunday, The Prophecy - and a drinking problem. His career dipped in the 80s but he came back in the 90s with TV work. This book is before Ronin.

Obviously a smart guy - lucky in how he got into tv, but you make your own luck, developing material, taking chances, taking risks. Strong work ethic - he managed to kick the booze. He whinges a bit about studios and like all people in their memoirs blames other people for his films that flopped but in fairness takes some brickbats too.

The film is full of interesting bits like his sometimes prickly relationship with Burt Lancaster, saying James Garner was only effective when playing "a shit", his hopes for The Horseman (the Afghan government offered him free land), Gordon Stulberg of Fox agreed to finance 99 and 44/100% Dead if Richard Harris was cast, Don Johnson was a pain on Dead Bang.

An entertaining book, I just wish it included some of his later career.

Movie review - "The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm" (1963) **1/2

A film much beloved by some and I think if I'd seen it as a child I would have been one of them. It really needed to be 90 minutes and made as a regular film. It was dragged out to over two hours, the Cinerama photography is clunky (you can tell it was shot with three cameras).

Even then though it would have had problems - the surrounding storyline of the Grimm brothers is fairly (sorry for the pun), grim. Who cares about them having financial troubles, writing a paid gig for a duke or whoever. Karl Boehm and Laurence Harvey aren't very interesting; neither is Harvey's marriage to Claire Bloom (it's not happy) or less forgivably Boehm's romance with Barbara Eden. 

The two brothers have some differences - Harvey is more happy go lucky Boehm more serious - but it's not that electric. Who cares if Harvey gets sick or continues to write? We want to focus on the stories!

Better are the sequences, which are charming. George Pal went for less familiar tales. Once MGM wanted to go to Cinerama I think this was a mistake - they should have gone for famous stories and star cameos.

But I loved the sets, the costumes, the location work in Bavaria, the puppetoons. Terry Thomas is fun as is Buddy Hackett; I liked Russ Tamblyn and Yvette Mimieux is an ideal princess.

Book review - "Reach for the Top: The Turbulent Life of Laurence Harvey" by Anne Sinai

I first became familiar with Laurence Harvey via David Shipman's entry on him in the book The Great Movie Stars. Shipman really tore into him, slagging his acting, quoting people who worked with him and hated him, saying he was a male prostitute.

I get Harvey was annoying. He was relentlessly pushy and ambitious. He spruiked himself mercilessly. He was arrogant and could deliver terrible performances. He never really had a strong box office appeal. He could be bitchy and really cruel. He was chronically unfaithful to people. He spent money like it was going out of fashion. He was a wanker. He hit Hermoine Baddley. He cheated on his partners.

And yet... and yet...

He worked really hard. He constantly went back to the stage even when it cost him film money. He always tried different things - producing, directing. He pushed. He experimented. Some of his performances on film were superb - not just Room at the Top but also The Alamo. (Around the same time he'd be so terrible in Expresso Bongo and The Long and the Short and The Tall.)

Yes he did hook up with women and men who were older and richer than he and could've helped his career - but he seemed to genuinely like them. I think he was attracted to maturity and success. People didn't have to help him as much as he did. He was handsome; he must've been good company when in the right mood.

He had a fascinating life and career. Born in Lithuania, he moved to South Africa as a young boy and grew up in Jo'burg. He didn't like it much and entered the army as soon as he could and entertained the troops - alongside Sid James, who hated him. Then it was off to RADA, which he left soon for Manchester Rep. He was tall, good looking and studied hard, as well as being ambitious - he was working reasonably steadily almost straight away, although as someone who spent money as soon as he earned it he was always whingeing about his lack of progress. What really got things going for him was James Woolf of Romulus - he fell in love with Harvey and thought he was going to be a big star.

Harvey achieved acclaim at Stratford Upon Avon. He was noticed for films like Cairo Road and also Romeo and Juliet; he was in a terrible Hollywood film, King Richard and the Crusades but redeemed himself in Romulus films like I Am Camera and The Silent Enemy. He was also in Storm Over the Nile. He was terrible in Three Men on a Boat but Room at the Top made him an international name.

The films that followed were varied but often interesting - The Alamo, The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. He directed on stage and film (The Ceremony) and made a lot of money out of Darling. His star faded in the late 60s and he died relatively young.

The book is well done though frustratingly lacking in footnotes. It feels as though it had a lot of co operation from his family.

A really interesting actor.

Movie review - "The Alamo" (1960) ***

John Wayne's big noisy Valentine to America- I can't believe it was so hard for him to get it financed. Maybe people were worried about the unhappy ending - or the budget blowing out like it did - or Wayne's inexperience behind the camera.

The direction's perfectly fine, by the way. He's no Ford, but its competently put together. Impressive spectacle at the end (still don't think it should've cost $12 million or whatever it did).

John Wayne plays John Wayne in a coonskin cap more than Davy Crockett. Wayne was a good enough actor to play a proper Crockett but he isn't given much in James Edward Grant's script - he does the John Wayne thing and occasionally talks about politics.

It's not much of a screenplay .- the battle is put in little context, the characters aren't that interesting. Richard Widmark's role as Jim Bowie took up surprisingly little screen time. A kind of quasi romance between Crockett and a Mexican girl played by Linda Cristal took up a surprisingly large amount of screen time at the beginning (there's not much action in the first half by the way... really it all comes at the end).

There's a lot of Chill Wills hanging around being colourful. Frankie Avalon looks completely ridiculous in a coonskin cap as a friend of Crockett - he does his best, and Wayne acts with complete sincerity in all their scenes together, he just looks so modern and out of place in this movie.

The biggest surprise for me was Laurence Harvey as Colonel Travis - I find Harvey can be very hot and cold but he was reined in here, and gave an excellent performance.

There's plenty of hokey moments - Bowie freeing his slave who then stays on to fight, women refusing to leave their husbands, character actors being "colourful". But it's a grand story still and Wayne's vision does have integrity.

Novel review - "The Four Feathers" by A.E.W. Mason

Pukka adventure novel which has one of the great high concepts of all time - an officer, loved by his girl, admired by his mates - chickens out of active service at the time of the Sudan uprising. He's sent four white feathers of cowardice and sets out to redeem himself.

Despite this set up there is a surprisingly little amount of action - far too much time is spent on the incredibly dull heroin Ethne, who is stoic and suffering, and Durrance, the one who goes blind - who is a little more interesting, but still spends most of his time being blind and stoic. Harry Faversham's adventures in the Sudan are dealt mostly via reportage (we don't even get to be there for the death of Castleton, one of the men who gave him the feathers) except at the end when we go with him to Omdurman prison when he tries to bust out Lt Trench. Trench is given more of a character than dull lt Willoughby and there is good suspense as Faversham goes a little mad in the heat, an attempt fails and then succeeds. You read it and go "this would make a good movie... after some changes".

Movie review - "The Long and the Short and the Tall" (1961) **

There was a brief period when Japanese-themed war films were popular in British cinema - due, I guess, to Bridge on the River Kwai: Camp on Blood Island, Yesterday's Enemy (also about a patrol in Burma) and this. 

George MacDonald Fraser took this film to task in his book about Hollywood historical movies because of its inaccuracies. He had served in Burma - I've never been near the place, let alone had any sort of military service, but it didn't feel that real to me either: carrying on about cigarettes, agonising ceaselessly over shooting prisoners, arguing constantly in front of the enemy, being unable to stab a soldier on patrol, etc, etc.

It was originally a play a maybe it worked on stage, with cramped intensity, but it doesn't here. It feels stagey - a bunch of actors standing around yelling at each other most of the time (although there is some action at the end). Richard Harris looks impressive but isn't really; I felt the best performances were from Richard Todd (whose underplaying is a relief next to Laurence Harvey), Australia's own John Meillon, and Ronald Fraser.

Laurence Harvey is spectacularly bad, mugging all over the shop with an outrageous accent - it really is appalling work, and you could weep when you hear that Peter O'Toole played the role on stage and was available for the film, but the producers wanted a bigger name. Not that I think he would have saved the film. 

It was heavy going.

Movie review - "Room at the Top" (1959) ****

Marvellous film which was a bit hit but then became unfashionable to admire compared to later British kitchen sink movies - not as arty or something. It was a ridiculous thing to happen because this is a superb movie, very well directed, scripted, and acted.

Laurence Harvey gives his best performance as Joe Lampton, who is always described as ruthless - he certainly wants to get ahead, and why not? What's wrong with that - he's an accountant for the council at a low level, smart and capable... why shouldn't he better himself? His bosses like him - what right do they have to warn him off seeing rich Heather Sears? (To be fair the film doesn't criticise this, I'm taking task with the critics who simplify it).

Lampton is very sympathetic here - yes he chases after Heather Sears, but because she's good looking and likes a challenge, he isn't necessarily interested in her dad's money (just her position). He's good in bed - Sears obviously likes the first time they have sex (this is startlingly frank), and Simone Signoret likes him too. He works hard, makes friends easily, is nice to his parents who he doesn't disown. He's certainly more likeable that Sears' smug boyfriend, always going on about his war service, or Signoret's faithless, cruel husband. Yes, he's sexist but Signoret calls him on it. Yes, he drops Signoret but only after her husband points out he will fight it all the way - and he marries Sears but only after refusing a bribe from her father and finding out that Sears got pregnant. He sells out by not going off with Signoret regardless (who is broke up with then asked back) but even at the time knows it's the wrong decision and it clearly destroys him.

The film tackles class head on - Lampton goes on about it a lot, as do other characters, in a way that seems real. It also embraces sex - Lampton is a sexual beast, there are post-coital scenes with Signoret and Sears, he has sex with another woman in an alley. Signoret is superb, all melancholic sexiness and warmth. (I wonder if James Woolf, Laurence Harvey's sponsor and occasional lover in real life, related to this part - all the references to her being older and past it but the only person who loved him.) Sears isn't as good but is effective as a pretty, spoilt thing who nonetheless has some spirit.

A few things clunk - it's a drag to see Lampton beaten up by toughs as a sort of punishment for his behaviour (this sort of scene is always in movies about lotharios - it was even in Shame), it was funny to see him start social climbing by participating in amateur theatrics, some of the supporting performances of upper class types seem over the top. But it remains a gripping, strong drama.

Movie review - "Darling" (1965) **1/2

This swinging 60s classic impressed a lot at the time, winning several Oscars and confirming Julie Christie as a star, but it didn't do much for me. There's plenty of jump cuts, zooms, non-synchronous sound, first person voice over, tricky visuals, man-in-the-street interviews, pastiche commercials and TV shows, and elegant unhappiness - maybe it's been copied too much but I just couldn't care. For all its hipness and it's heart this is an old fashioned star vehicle for Christie - who it must be said is particularly beautiful and beguiling, frequently wearing low cut gowns and lingere, showing her bare back (and backside, in one scene - this was a shock).

She plays a young model who has a series of adventures: shacking up with married TV presenter Dirk Bogarde, a fumbling acting career, an abortion, a fling with lecherous Larry Harvey (who, if I'm not mistaken, goes down on her in one scene), trips to Paris and Italy, an affair with a count, has a gay best friend (a photographer), marries an Italian because no one loves her then gets upset when he's too busy.

It's all very decadent: rich women with jewels gamble at fundraising for starving Africans; a party in Italy results in guests swapping clothes/taking them off and passing in the corner; advertising men chuckle over photographs; commercial shoots in Italy; the rich and beautiful hang out on yachts along the Mediterranean coast; lying on the beach in a bikini surrounded by cute boys in shorts, changing for tan according to the sun; disrobing while crying in an empty Italian mansion. But are they really happy? For most of the time they seem to be.

Bogarde was never that convincing as a straight man and looks bored here - you never get the sense he really likes Christie so when their relationship busts up he doesn't seem to care. Harvey is better as the ruthless opportunist, presumably because it was closer to his real character.

The whole point is Christie is shallow and her world and friends so ultimately the piece isn't involving. It also lacks a strong narrative, and isn't in colour. The Yanks liked it though - all that sex.

Movie review - "Storm Over the Nile" (1955) ***

You wonder why the Kordas bothered making it, especially since they used the same script as the 1939 film, which was shot in colour, as well as much new footage. Was it a desire to employ some actors? Make some easy money? It must have been to do it in Cinemascope.

It still works - it's a good story of high adventure with a background in cowardice (although that isn't really explored apart from the opening sequence of little Harry Faversham being scared). Anthony Steel steps in for John Clements and does about as little with the role as Clements did, but he's handsome and dashing and not that irritating (he's a bit more expressive than Clements). Laurence Harvey replaces Ralph Richardson as the soldier who goes blind in the desert, the part that gets the bulk of the sympathy (giving up the woman he loves when he realises that Harry is still alive and a hero) - he's not as good an actor but he does try. And the part doesn't require that much acting - mostly being blind, and noble about love.

Mary Ure is pretty enough but bland, James Robertson Justice is an excellent substitute for C Aubrey Smith, Geoffrey Keen offers good support, and there's some familiar names in the support cast: Ronald Lewis and Ian Carmichael as the other two friends (neither of whom have a character really) and Christopher Lee as an Arab.

Movie review - "Three Men in a Boat" (1957) **1/2

Romulus Films' attempt to make a success in the vein of those Rank comedies of the 1950s - you expect to see Dirk Bogarde, Donald Sinden and Kenneth Moore plus Kay Kendall and Dinah Sheridan. Instead we have Laurence Harvey, Jimmy Edwards and Donald Tomlinson as the three friends who decide to take a two week holiday to get away from it all by boating down the river - The Hangover, ye olde English style. One of the characters refers to it being the twentieth century but it feels like the 1880s - characters with boaters and striped jackets. The women they run into include Shirley Eaton, Lisa Gastoni and Jill Ireland who are very pretty and full of spirits. There are also some inevitable stuffy old men and women.

The book on which this is based is apparently a classic. The plot is a series of episodes: falling in the river, flirting with girls, getting lost in a maze, going skinny dipping and scandalising some biddies, taking part in a cricket match and wrecking it, crashing a party, etc.

Jimmy Edwards' moustache got on my nerves and he felt too old; Tomlinson is good value as the married man who does some outrageous flirting; Harvey didn't feel right - Kenneth More or Dirk Bogarde would have been much better. And too often the piece feels forced and contrived when it should be effortless. Still, it is what is.