Movie review - "Kangaroo" (1952) **1/2 (re-watching)

 Random thoughts:

- looks gorgeous

- Lewis Milestone doesn't understand story

- Maureen O'Hara was right how the original script was wrecked - does this mean her other claims in her memoir were right? That John Ford made out with a guy? That her husband was murdered? That Peter Lawford and Richard Boone were busted in a male brothel?

- Lawford and Boone are dressed the same but Boone makes all the decisions

- why set this in 1900?

- opening scenes may has well have been shot in Hollywood because they take place at night

- fascinating mess.

Book review - "Print the Legend: The Life and Times John Ford" by Scott Eyman

 Eyman can be counted on to do a good biography and he does very well by Ford - solid research, entertainingly written. Maybe a little easy on Ford's racism. And also doesn't cover the possibility of his homosexuality - it refers to crushes and possible affairs with women (Katherine Hepburn)... although these seem asexual. His torment, drinking, preference for male company, consistent use of Jeffrey Hunter (who is barely mentioned in the book).

I'm being salacious. The rest is well done. Ford wasn't always admirable but also was a genius. The most moving section is the end, with Ford longing to direct but also scared he'll be able to (there were some options), being feted, estranged from his son, with an alcoholic useless daughter.

Movie review - "Our Man in Havana" (1959) **1/2

 Graham Greene's funny novel about a British vacuum cleaner salesman who becomes a spy had the idea director Carol Reed and star Alec Guinness and isn't bad but isn't that interesting. Jo Morrow is dreadful as Guinness's daughter. Noel Coward terrific as a secret service man - ditto Ralph Richardson as Coward's boss.

Maureen O'Hara is alright as Guiness's secretary. Ernie Kovacs is funny as a local head of police. Burl Ives is, well, Burl Ives as a German.

I went with this for a while but then it got annoying. It's smart but there's no emotion - no sense that Guiness is really in danger even though he is, or that O"Hara and he fall in love even though they do, or that he loves his daughter, or that he feels sad when Ives is killed and wants revenge. I wish Hitchcock had made it (he wanted to but the rights were too expensive.)

Movie review - "Kangaroo" (1952) ** (re-viewing)

My take on this - Lewis Milestone didn't like the story, he wanted to change the story, he wasn't allowed to, but as a result he stuffed the story. And auterist critics gave him a pass, as auterist critics tend to do when it comes to famous directors, because they could blame "the studio".

The plot is entirely solid - there's nothing wrong with a story about someone pretending to be someone's long lost son, and falling in love with the man's daughter being being unable to do anything about it.

This movie stuffs that central situation. The man with the son (Finlay Currie) isn't rich, he owns a drought riddled property, so there's no money at stake - why would Lawford want Currie's farm? (I think Milestone got excited about the visual possibilities of drought and put it in, not thinking or caring about how that impacted the story, because he didn't care about the story.)

There's a little bit of romance between Lawford and Maureen O'Hara but not nearly enough... and no torment. Because what happens is Currie goes to O'Hara "oh he's your brother you can't be with him" then IN THE SAME SCENE Lawford goes "oh no I'm not your brother". So you've got no urst. Lawford should have turned up said "I'm your son" and then played out all that stuff... with him falling for O'Hara and not being able to make a move.

Other really solid potential story lines are thrown away - Chips Rafferty is meant to be in love with O'Hara (is that right?) but we never see him go after Lawford. (And why not a more handsome rival? Why not cast Charles Tingwell in that role?) Charles Tingwell pops up as this shady character and you think he's going to do something... but he doesn't. Why not have him as a villain in cahoots with Boone?

Richard Boone is fabulous but I think they made a mistake having him and Lawford meet instead of them being established as friends. The film seems continually uncertain how bad to make Lawford - he tries to rob Boone but fails, he's not part of the robbery.

Milestone seems only interested in sequences - a dust strewn water tower, a cattle drive, a corrborree, a battle with whips.

There's no dramatic build. No heart.

I get he didn't like the script and I haven't read the original script but it feels like he made it worse.

Movie review - "Kangaroo" (1952) (re-viewing) **

I wish this was better. The photography is beautiful. Gorgeous colours. Memorable visuals... swirling dust - Lewis Milestone clearly had a thing for dust.

The basic idea is strong - Peter Lawford pretends to be the son of Finlay Currie. But Currie is poor... his property is drought ridden and looks terrible... that's no stakes. Why not make Currie really rich? Why not have the guy after Maureen O'Hara be sexy and bad and a real threat to Lawford instead of Chips Rafferty? What is the point of Charles Tingwell's character? Why not use him more?

Maureen O'Hara is wasted - it would have been better had she and Lawford swapped roles. Lawford was alright in support but not as a lead - his voice was too high, his presence too wet. O'Hara just hangs out, soothes Lawford's furrowed brow... they should have given her more to do. Female roles in 20th Century Fox melodramas were often bad - Zanuck was very old school in his depiction of women. I wasn't sure when it was set or why.

Richard Boone is fantastic. There's a fun fight with bullwhips. It's great to see Aussies like Rafferty, Letty Craydon (comic servant in Tall Timbers), Tingwell, and Henry Murdoch.

Milestone says when he got to Australia he wanted to make a different movie and this feels like that - as if he was torn over what sort of movie to do instead of having an overall vision.

Movie review - "Comanche Territory" (1950) **1/2

Decent Western notable for its colour and Maureen O'Hara's fun performance as a gun totin' hard drinkin' saloon owner who also owns a local bank. She's romanced by Jim Bowie played adequately by MacDonald Carey - this is set in 1820 though the feeling is 1950 Hollywood.

The plot involves Bowie trying to keep the peace with Indians who have signed a treaty for mining but it's being threatened. There's some okay action - George Sherman the director knew what he was doing. Solid drama with O'Hara's brother being bad. She's the best thing about it, wearing men's clothes then dressing up in a gown, singing in the saloon, punching people out in a brawl...

Movie review - "The Parent Trap" (1961) ***

Listening to Tommy Sands and Annette Funicello warble away at the title track I couldn't help wondering what Funicello thought when Disney pushed Hayley Mills so strongly. "What am I, Walt? Chopped liver?"

Probably not, everyone says she was super nice.

And Mills was a better actor. Her accent is slightly jarring but she's fun as the twins who realise they're twins and swap. Talk about cruel parents-  not introducing themselves to their own children, not letting them know they had a sibling - but those were the times. And it makes for better drama.

The script is quite well structured once you get past the cruelty - Maureen O'Hara is uptown, Brian Keith more rugged, so the girls grew up differently. They meet at camp, clash, then become friends, realise they're sisters, plot to get parents back together, there's a villainous child hating woman after Keith's money (I actually wound up having sympathy for her).

The sexual/familial politics are dodgy by today's standards but it works dramatically. Brian Keith plays the comedy straight, effectively - O'Hara does her hoity toity bit but is appropriate (though you don't feel the remarriage will last). The pacing is deliberate but effective. More could have been done with the grandparents.

Movie review - "The Spanish Main" (1945) *** (re-watching)

Rewatched this off the back of the Mankiewicz biography I read - the script is very solid (Aeneas MacKenzie wrote the original but Herman Mankiewicz punched it up) and has some funny dialogue. Walter Slezak is a strong villain - he often played comic but while the guy he plays here is funny he's very dangerous and smart.

I'm not wild about Paul Henreid - he struggles with his English - but he has some dash. Maureen O'Hara is an old reliable in this stuff. Binnie Barnes has a dream part, a female pirate who is mates with Henreid, and is never any more than average. Actually come to think of it, there's a lot of undercasting in this - Henreid, Barnes and John Emery as a treacherous pirate.

There is colour, decent structure, impressive production values including a ship boarding, the novelty of a Dutch pirate hero, and a different ending where Henreid and O'Hara try to sneak out instead of blasting. There is a rapey subtext often found in O'Hara movies - Henreid forces a kiss on her and forces her to marry him; she gets into it but still too much of it is yuck. That and the casting holds this back for me but there's other things to enjoy.

Movie review - "Against All Flags" (1951) ***1/2

This is just fun. Errol is creaky but that's part of the appeal in a way - he's this aging rogue going undercover, who isn't as good looking as he once was but at least knows how to flirt so the girls go for him... Maureen O'Hara, sexually aggressive and surrounded by smelly pirates, probably goes for him for the same reason.

O'Hara is a fun pirate - I like seeing her play forward women, she portrayed quite a few of them around this point. Anthony Quinn is a strong villain - in fact the whole cast was pretty good. Universal ran a well oiled machine by this time.

Movie review - "Veils of Bagdad" (1953) **

One of a series of Easterns that Universal made in the early 1950s. The best remembered ones starred Rock Hudson or Tony Curtis; this one has Victor Mature, who I am a bit of a fan of, but he doesn't have the energy or humour of the younger Curtis and Hudson. It isn't as though Mature is miscast (for a Universal Studios version of Bagdad, that is) - he plays a soldier who has been around a bit, seen something of life. But he's not as committed as in other movies.

Maybe it didn't help his female co star is Mari Blanchard - who is beautiful and all that, but lacks something, a spark or individuality. Maureen O'Hara was meant to co star and I wish she'd done so - either her or Yvonne de Carlo.

George Sherman's direction is lethargic. Overly moody - not very fun. Lots of close ups. I can't put my finger on it but this film missed for me. See The Prince Who Was a Thief instead.

The support cast is strong - villains include Guy Rolfe and Leon Askin, Nick Cravat, James Arness and Glenn Strange and Robert Blake have support roles.

Movie review - "What Price Glory?" (1952) ***

One of those "oh yeah he made that didn't he" John Ford movies - a remake of a very influential 1920s play, whose influence can be felt on Ford's work with its quarrelling soldiers.

I actually didn't mind this. It should have been made on location at this stage in the game - the colour photography doesn't look good in the studio setting. You can sense it was once meant to be a musical - Corinne Calvet sings a number in a bar, and Marissa Pavan sings (well, mimes) to Robert Wagner.

But the basic material is still strong - two experienced soldiers squabbling with each other, stealing the same woman, then being brave, and going back to squabbling.

It's a strong cast but it doesn't quite click. It was weird to watch - individually Jimmy Cagney, Dan Dailey and Corinne Calvet were fine, but... they didn't have the right chemistry. I believed Cagney and Dailey on their own but not as long term rivals. I bought Calvet as a French tavern owner - she's bright and engaging - but I never felt Cagney or Dailey were genuinely interested in her.  I just really wish John Wayne and Ward Bond were in it (they played in a stage production directed by Ford along with Gregory Peck and Maureen O'Hara!)

The best section is in a dug out when a soldier has a breakdown, and Robert Wagner dies. This has a serious element that the film could have done with more of.

It's vigorous and bright. No classic but decent enough.

Movie review - "Donovan's Reef" (1963) **1/2

I always thought this film was a buddy movie about John Wayne and Lee Marvin but actually it's a romance between Wayne and Elizabeth Allan, who I'd never heard of but who does a fine job - she's pretty, spirited, can act. And there's hardly any Wayne-Marvin stuff - far more important is Jack Warden, who plays Allan's estranged father, and who prompts the visit.

Really Maureen O'Hara should have played the Allan part. The film is like The Quiet Man, a romance between contrasting types, which is fine. I'm guessing it was either money, availability or the fact they wanted someone younger because (a) Hollywood and (b) in the story they wanted Allan to be the daughter of a friend of Wayne. Which mean Wayne romances someone young enough to be his daughter.

They could have adjusted the last bit - she could have been his sister, or cousin, it didn't really matter for the story. The main things you needed were (a) the culture clash of the uptight gal being charmed by the islands (b) fear she'll worry about miscegenation of the dad, which could have worked just as well for a brother.

Dramatically it feels wonky because we spent most of the film with Wayne and Allan then over an hour in we have to invest in the estranged relationship on Allan and her father Jack Warden. Warden's character is a real sh*t - another in a long, long line of absent fathers in John Ford films. He let his daughter grow up without spending any time with her. What a terrible person!

There are some pleasing shots of Hawaii. Everyone seems to have had a good time. Wayne and Allan have nice chemistry - mind you, Wayne had good chemistry with most of his co stars - it's one of the reasons he became a big star.

It's under-cast in some roles - it's a great idea to have someone chase after Allan for her money but instead of having someone who would be a real threat they cast Cesar Romero who is even older than Wayne and always depicted like an idiot.

Marvin and Dorothy Lamour is wasted, though Lamour gets to sing a few songs. It's a shame they had Wayne throw Lamour in a lagoon for comedy.

It's even more of the shame the climax consists of Wayne throwing Allan over his lap and spanking her then forcing her to kiss. Of course she gives in. Sometimes that happens in marital rape!

Australians will get a kick out of the end when an Australian Navy ship arrives on the island. The soldiers comically chase women down the street (to rape them?) while a couple of lower ranks hang out in the bar, all with Irish accents - one played by Dick Foran in what is clearly a Victor McLaglen style role. One sings "Waltzing Matilda", words are exchanged with Lee Marvin, John Wayne tries to calm things down by invoking the Battle of the Coral Sea ("we were ll on the same side") but a fight takes place... technically between the locals and the Aussies though Wayne and Marvin seem to punch each other. A local police officer, played by Mike Mazurski (in a role which must have been intended for Ward Bond) comically doesn't intervene. The officer in charge, played by Patrick Wayne, John's son, turns up and doesn't seem surprised, sending his men off to be disciplined.

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 - "Tripoli" (1950) ***

From the late 1940s Pine-Thomas increased their budgets to tackle the challenge of television - they would have bigger stars and often colour, although they remained action tales.

This one's a period piece about the Barbary War, which enjoyed a post war vogue in Hollywood. John Payne is plays a character based on the real life bloke who raised the American flag above the Arabs. Payne does sturdy work as the hero - I always liked him as an actor. He's matched with Maureen O'Hara, who actually has a character to play - a woman who has wound up living with an Arab prince and is trying to marry him for money. She's got some good banter with maid Connie Gilchrist and Payne, even if there is that taming-of-the-spitfire stuff with slight rape-y overtones.

The film was directed by Will Price, O'Haras husband who she slagged off in her memoirs as being a drunken, spongeing closeted gay. But he does a decent job - or the Pine Thomas team was just super smooth.

There's enjoyable colour and production values and a support cast including Phil Terry and Alan Napier. Most of all there's Howard da Silva as a local mercenary, engaging and unscrupulous and hugely likeable - it's one of his best performances. Unpretentious and the slightly novel setting is of interest.

Movie review - "The Black Swan" (1943) ***1/2

Popular swashbuckler with gorgeous colour and sets and a top rank cast. The script was written by Ben Hecht and Seton I Miller - some of the bantering quippy dialogue feels very Hecht, and the story is by Miller, and feel as if he's borrowing from The Sea Hawk.

Like that this is about a good pirate (though it's clear Tyrone Power was once a bad man, whereas Errol Flynn in Hawk was always good), doing good work, who falls for a hoity toity woman (Maureen O'Hara looking great in technicolour), and deals with a traitor at court (John Sutton instead of Henry Daniell).

But it's not as tightly written. There's no decent comeuppance for John Sutton, or George Zucco (who plays O'Hara's snobby dad). The final battle was confusing.

Most of all I hated how Power abducted O'Hara. I liked their bantering, I loved how they had to pretend to be married so George Sanders wouldn't kill them... but there was too much rape-yness. And it was no unnecessary - they could've just made it he had to kidnap her because she busted them doing something and was going to tell on them so they had to take her away. But no, he goes to do it because she's going to marry someone else. It's horrible.

I think audiences didn't mind so much because Power is such a clearly nice man, for all his growth and scowling... you never believe he's a really nasty pirate.

It's great fun to see George Sanders in a red beard and wig swashbuckling away, and Laird Cregar has the time of his life as Henry Morgan. I wish Anthony Quinn had more to do. I feel the later Errol Flynn-Quinn-O'Hara movie Against All Flags was a quasi remake of this and fixed a lot of the story problems.

Book review - "Yvonne" by Yvonne De Carlo (1987)

The cinematic work of Yvonne De Carlo deserves re-appraisal - for a time there in the late 40s and early 50s she was a genuine lower level star at Universal, playing a succession of slinky Eastern dancing girls and tough Western dames in some unpretentious technicolor films. She and Maureen O'Hara were these quasi-feminist adventure stars, until the 50s took hold and both wound up staring admiringly at the heroes.

De Carlo was an old pro in the best sense of the world. She started quite young, with a pushy mother and absent father (very common elements in biographies of female star). She did a lot of dancing when younger and moved to the US from Canada; her looks saw her win beauty contests which resulted in a dancing gig at the Florentine Gardens. She worked hard at her dancing and was eventually picked up for the movies, doing a stint at Paramount.

In the 1940s girls with "exotic looks" were not discriminated against; de Carlo played a series of dancing girls and natives; she was going to step in for Dorothy Lamour in Rainbow Island but Lamour changed her mind. She also just missed out on good parts in For Whom the Bell Tolls and The Story of Dr Wassell. Her career was stagnating there but got a huge boost when Walter Wagner cast her in the lead of Salome Where She Danced which turned her into a star.

Salome was made by Universal who put her to work in lots of Easterns and Westerns, and wanted someone easier to deal with than Maria Montez (and De Carlo could sing and dance which Montez couldn't). Occasionally she got the chance in something more prestigious like Criss Cross. De Carlo eventually branched out into comedy, notably in England, and got a few parts in "A" pictures, like The Ten Commandments and Band of Angels. But she never made the full transition to "A" stardom - it's harder for women, especially in the macho late 50s. And to be fair De Carlo didn't have the individuality of great stars - or even great icons like Maureen O'Hara; she lacked spark and life-sometimes she blended into the scenery. But she could act and sing and dance, often better than she was given credit for.

De Carlo found things harder  from the late 50s onwards, but she kept at it - working regularly in TV and having a career boost when starring in The Munsters. She also achieved fame on Broadway in Follies. She expresses regret her agents didn't push her for Broadway roles earlier; I'm surprised she didn't appear in more musical films - Universal did make them, though not as often as they did in the 40s.

As a good looking girl De Carlo spent a lot of time fending off lecherous Hollywood wolves/sex pests - Errol Flynn, Franchot Tone, Orson Welles. She was keen on Sterling Hayden but he didn't do anything. Ditto James Stewart. She had amiable dates with Red Skelton and knew Burgess Meredith, a romance with Ray Milland before finally losing her virginity to someone called Carl Anthony. She says Billy Wilder was the first great love of her life. She later had serious romances with Howard Hughes (who made love like an engineer which made me laugh), Robert Stack, Howard Duff and Jock Mahoney (she fell pregnant to him but lost the baby), flings with Burt Lancaster, Carlos Thompson, Tony Curtis and Robert Taylor. There was Aly Khan, of course, who was a great lover - it isn't a very discrete book!

The book gets harder going as once De Carlo marries stuntman Bob Morgan. A sexy man's man, he was overly fond of a drink, and not a particularly devoted husband. She was going to leave him but then he had an accident which resulted in him losing his leg. From then on it was work, work, work as she took every gig going - night club acts, crummy roles in films. She was perennially unlucky in love - she had a taste for love rats (married men, pricks), which never improved.

I liked reading about her encounters with Maria Montez - de Carlo came to Universal as a Montez back up taking her role in Frontier Gal but Montez and she got along; Montez would talk about her being reincarnated, warn her off Howard Hughes and recommend de Carlo and Jean Pierre Aumont (her love interest in one film) play more love scenes because you got more close ups that way.

De Carlo admits to being a right winger - I would've been interested to hear more about this. (I imagine a lot of actors who slogged their way up from the chorus were right wing eg Ginger Rogers.) The book was written before her son died.

It's an entertaining book - a little harrowing (all the sexual harassment), and sad (the career and financial battles). De Carlo had a pretty good life - fame, some good parts, sex with handsome men - but struggled to hang on to money and a good relationship. Still, the world was a better place for her being in it.

Movie review - "McClintock!" (1963) **1/2

In his memoirs, Frank Capra talks of working on Circus World with John Wayne and the latter's screenwriter, James Edward Grant. Grant delivered a pithy summary of what made a successful Wayne film - something along the lines of gags, flags and a girl with big boobs the Duke could put over his lap and spank. That's very much the tone and story of this film, which Grant wrote (and was made just before Circus World) - but there are a few other Wayne films like it, notably The Quiet Man, Donovan's Reef and North to Alaska.

This is meant to be a comic version of Taming of the Shrew which actually would be a fantastic idea - but this isn't really Taming of the Shrew, although it's got some of the same elements. It's more a comedy of remarriage - Wayne is the kind of unofficial mayor of a small town, a successful cattleman, who is estranged from wife Maureen O'Hara. She returns to town as their daughter Stefanie Powers comes home from school. Powers is a little hoity toity and interested in smarmy Jerry Van Dyke but soon comes to her senses and goes for honest, dull Patrick Wayne. O'Hara is very hoity toity but soon winds up in mud and getting spanked and is a good egg.

It's a little long at over two hours but does have a breezy charm and genuine family feel - Wayne is very comfortable, and if his son is wooden at least it's his son; the Duke and O'Hara always had good chemistry, and people like Chill Wills do their schtick. It's fun to see Yvonne de Carlo pop up as a threat to O'Hara - two survivors of 50s technicolor, right-wingers getting along well with the Duke.

The film's a bit offensive by today's standards - a friend referred to it as a "rape comedy", and there are jokes about women getting black eyes and comically drunken Indians. Although to be fair Wayne and his friends get up to antics on behalf of the Indians being exploited by local agents, which is surprisingly PC.

The movie has more serious dramatic flaws - Wayne and O'Hara became separated for a reason and that reason isn't really resolved (you can't imagine these two being happily married after the final curtain - the same issues are going to rear their head). De Carlo's character probably should've been a genuine threat instead of a pretend one. The romance between Wayne and Powers is really undercooked. The script could've been tightened.

But if you're in the mood for a John Wayne comedy (and he made surprisingly few of them) - this will fit the bill.

Movie review - "Rio Grande" (1950) **1/2

Most film buffs love Fort Apache and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon but not this one, the third in the unofficial cavalry trilogy. It's definitely a John Ford movie - it was shot in Monument Valley, is full of the Ford stock company (Victor McLaglen, Harry Carey Jnr, Ben Johnson, John Wayne, Maureen O'Hara), they fight Indians, there's some Irish comedy and a plot about a neglectful husband and father. There's no John Agar but there are plenty of carefully composed shots of horses and cavalrymen going past.

The domestic subplot is the most interesting thing about the movie, especially considering it's resonances with Ford's own poor home life. John Wayne hasn't seen his wife since his troops burned down her family's plantation in Shenandoah; his son turns up at the fort determined to make a man of himself.

One of the great things about Ford films is they would subvert expectations. The Indians win at the end of Ford Apache; the climax of Ribbon involves driving off a lot of horses to avoid war. There's none of that here.

I've read Joseph McBride's biography on Ford which points out that the film was influenced by the politics of its right-wing screenwriter, James Warner Bellah. The Indian enemies (Apaches) are savages who kill and kidnap for no reason, and retreat in Mexico. The national border is an annoying thing getting in the way of goddam justice and General Sheridan (J Carroll Naish) gives Wayne the green light to go into Mexico and kick some Indian butt (promising to rig the jury in any court martial so he'll get off). Maureen O'Hara resents her husband but soon learns her lesson and is happily doing his washing by the half way mark. (A massive problem dramatically - their relationship should've remained unresolved until the end). A murder charge (faced by Johnson's character) is justifiable to protect a woman's honour.

Wayne and O'Hara are good value, as are the Ford regulars. Claude Jarman Jnr is okay. I was really intrigued by that soldier with the eyepatch played by Peter Oritz and wish he'd gotten the chance to romance O'Hara more. The singing interludes from the Sons of Pioneers are a drag.

Movie review - "The Wings of Eagles" (1957) ** 1/2 (warning: spoilers)

The film John Wayne and John Ford made together right after The Searchers which is as well known as this is not, even though it has some interesting source material: it's a biopic of Spig Wead, a naval flyer who became a writer after being paralysed in an accident, then went back to the navy during WW2. That sounds like inherently depressing material, which is maybe why this movie lost money at the box office.

Surprisingly, the most depressing thing about this isn't the paralysis - this happens half way in, but Wead does recover reasonably well to be able to get around on crutches; he has a lively second and third act in his life, being a successful writer and fighting in the war. The downer is his family life. Wead's child dies in the first ten minutes. His marriage is poor - he neglects his kids, is estranged from his wife (Maureen O'Hara) who has a drinking problem. He's about to get back with his wife when the accident happens and he pushes her away. Then they're about to get back together when Pearl Harbour happens and he rushes off to war. He never gets back to his wife. He never connects with his two surviving kids. The film ends with Wead farewelling the navy after a heart attack (a dodgy ticker would kill him in real life shortly after the war)...

In an attempt to liven things up John Ford throws in a lot of horseplay - rivalry between army and navy officers, comic antics on planes including "funny" crashes, a brawl, Dan Dailey hopping around as Wayne's best friend (who seems to be in love with him), Dailey singing a song, a scene where Dailey encourages Wayne to "move one toe".

But there's no hiding it - it's a downer. The final moments are Wead realizing how important his family is... remembering walking along with his wife, being with the kids... but there's no reunion. He doesn't actually enjoy spending time with him - he loves his work, the men he hangs around with - he actually doesn't like his family that much. A lot of John Ford films are unexpected - this is one.

It's an interesting film - very unsympathetic about it's protagonist. Many writers have said that Ford treated the depiction of Wead in an autobiographical way - someone who loved his work and the military, who loved booze and mucking around, but who neglected his family... felt bad about that but never changed it.

Wayne gives a good performance with many layers. O'Hara's is less sure - though in her defence it's surprisingly short role (She and Wead are so estranged) and she never gets a real chance to sink her teeth into anything much. Dailey is "whatever". Ward Bond is enormous fun as a director based on John Ford, sending up his boss mercilessly - it's a fascinating depiction with so many of Ford's physical characteristics (supposedly) captured.

As a movie, the comic interludes are dull, some of the writing is poor, it's a dramatic mess which varies in tone. It is nicely shot and features two movie stars. But the people who will get most out of it are John Ford fans.

Movie review - "Ten Gentlemen from West Point" (1942) **1/2

Military movies of the early 40s all tended to share the same elements: two soldiers, contrasting personality types, who squabble over the same woman, but learn how to be good soldiers; the stern officer in charge learns to appreciate his troops; there's a battle at the end where heroism is proved.

It's a formula for a reason, offering chances for conflict, colour, comedy and all that - indeed, it was re-used in Top Gun. Here the girl is Maureen O'Hara, always likeable, never as effective in black and white (unfortunately the case here); the male stars are George Montgomery, 20th Century Fox's Clarke Gable imitator (an engaging actor) and wet drip John Sutton. You wish for John Payne or Henry Fonda or someone instead of Sutton.

Montgomery isn't entirely happily cast as a backwoodsman from Kentucky. Sutton is more comfortable as a rich kid, though he is a drip. O'Hara is at home in these sort of parts - a laughed at the opening sequence where she goes around kissing soldiers for the sake of West Point. You hussy, Maureen!

There is a strong support cast, including Laird Cregar (not the first actor you think of to play a military officer but he has an imposing presence), Ward Bond (always good as a sergeant type) and Henry Davenport. Some of these have decent roles to sink their teeth into - such as Cregar, as an officer who doesn't believe in West Point.

Its set in the 1800s, a period we don't see that often in Hollywood films - the era of funny hats, and random Indian battles. This one ends fighting Tecumseh and his men - though there's no mention of the War of 1812, which is technically when this took place. (Probably was a bit uncomfortable during World War Two to draw attention to the fact that really it was the US fighting the British).

It's very corny, but there are things that work: Sutton discovering his patriotism, the nephew of Benedict Arnold redeeming the family honour. The romance between Montgomery and O'Hara feels undercooked - I didn't like how he rejected her, then she tagged along anyway (it felt like a scene inserted after the first preview). The final action sequence is well done.