Movie review - "Robocop" (1987) *****

 Just a wonderful film - tough, violent, gutsy, political, well acted (right down to the bottom). Ronny Cox, Peter Weller, Kurtwood Smith... all so good. Nancy Allen a little dull.

Movie review - "Flesh and Blood" (1985) **1/2

 The original idea was meant to be about two old comrades, Rutger Hauer and Jack Thompson, clashing. Orion pushed for more of a lovestory. Because it's Paul Verhoeven that means rape. 

Hauer is ideally cast although he and Verhoeven clashed on the film. Jennifer Jason Leigh has a perm, a sexual curiosity, gets gang raped, then is into Hauer.

The other casting is a real grab bag. Hauer's team include Bruno Kirby (!), Susan Tyrell (terrific), Brion James. Tom Burlinson is fresh faced as the prince betrothed to Leigh. Jack Thompson is a mercenary. 

The baddies are diverse - include several women, a kid, a gay couple.

Solid story. But no emotional links between characters. We forget Thompson and Hauer fought together. Burlinson is a stranger basically to Leigh and Hauer. Leigh and Hauer knew her.

Better if Leigh was Thompson's daughter and knew Hauer/Burlinson a long time.

Leigh goes naked a lot.  To a point where it's like "is this really necessary for the script?"

Book review - "Hollywood Animal" by Joe Eszterhas (re-reading)

 Still one of the best ever Hollywood memoirs, even if a lot of the material is over familiar now because Eszterhas keeps rehashing it in interviews and repurposing it for his other books. Epic sweep - Hungarian background, being a refugee, some (thought surprisingly not a lot) tales of journalism, breaking into movies, becoming a scripting superstar, then crashing, fleeing to Cleveland, fighting cancer and finding God... and then getting no more credits.

Eszterhas comes across as completely appalling a person - as does his second wife. Their behaviour on that Hawaiian holiday is particularly obnoxious. But to give him his due he is warts and all - and he has some self awareness here, which is lacking in his later books. Best segments are the ones on FIST, Flashdance, Jagged Edge, the fight with Ovitz, Basic Instinct and the cancer struggle. He can write a good tale for a rampaging narcissist. Colourful cameos by people like Bob Evans, Don Simpson, Sharon Stone, Richard Marquand, etc

Book review - "Starship Troopers" by Robert Henlein (1959)

 Love the movie. Fascinating to read the book and note the differences - the characters are all in there just often different: Carl doesn't meet Johnny and gets killed on Pluto, Carmen is a character Johnny goes on one date with, Johnny's dad lives and joins the army, Diz is a guy who we barely get to know, Ace pops pu then disappears. I think the film did a good adaptation. Though it didn't fix the fifth act.

The action scenes are well done. Love the training detail. It is a bit fascist - like Ancient Rome fascist (it's still a democracy just with a limited franchise). There's a lot of military mentality talk - going on about equipment, and horseplay and what not which feels realistic and is dull.

Book review - "The Beauty of Living Twice" by Sharon Stone (2021)

 Excellent introduction - the tale of her brain bleed. It's well written. Actor-y - lots of talk about spirituality and supporting HIV research and friends. I was hoping for more stuff on the movies, TBH. There's a little on Basic Instinct and Casino and some on the rough shooting conditions on King Solomon's Mines. An entertaining bit about her start in Stardust Memories. She has nice things to say about Arnie, Paul Verhoeven, Michael Douglas. She talks a lot about her friends and family. She doesn't mention Joe Eszterhas (which must have driven him wild). There's a fun anecdote about a producer who I assume was Robert Evans encouraging her to have an affair with who I assume was Billy Baldwin. She takes pride in The Quick and the Dead. Talks fondly about Bruce Wagner, mentions a first husband and that newspaper guy is alluded to as a lousy husband after her stroke (but she thanks him in the "thanks" section). She had dodgy health. Says nice things about Bruce Beresford.

I was hoping for more goss, to be honest, and more of the films. Nothing about Irreconcilable Differences or Catwoman or Police Academy 4 or the action films or The Mighty and The Muse or The Specialist.

She was so good looking and great on screen. I remember when Basic Instinct came out she was the flavour of the month but me and my mates had liked her since King Solomon's Mines. She was good then. I am genuinely surprised she didn't last longer as a star. Bad luck. Made a lot of films that would've sounded great on paper: Sphere, Diabolique, Sliver, The Mighty,The Muse. To be fair, not sure what she turned down.

Not a bad read just not what I was hoping. I'm glad she's doing better. Poor Joe Eszterhas!

Script review - "Showgirls" by Joe Eszterhas

It's hard to believe this actually exists. Maybe it's one of those projects which are better off in short hand having never been made or read eg "Eszterhas and Verhoeven were going to make Showgirls after Basic Instinct but they could never get the finance". That would've sounded awesome. This is not awesome.

It's not even awesome fun. Maybe it is watching it but... I don't know. It's a mess. It's about Nomi, a dancer who wants to make it in Vegas, and discovers it's all shallow.

Nomi yells and abuses people a lot - I mean a lot. Sure, sometimes she gets ripped off but she's really aggro. Elizabeth Berkley played the part as written. Why does she deserve fame? (as much fame as being a dancer in Vegas can get you anyway?) She doesn't seem to like dancing. She doesn't seem to like people. She doesn't seem to like Zack, that guy she sleeps with - so the fact he manipulated her doesn't mean much. She doesn't seem to particularly like her friend Molly, the one who gets raped - I mean she avenges her rape which is cool but she yells at her a lot and makes her go dancing.

I kept expecting the James subplot to reveal that she loved dancing but no - that plot went nowhere. He wanted to dance with her, she didn't want to, he slept with another dancer, used the same lines on both, but then told the truth to Nomi, then left. It was like "why did we watch that whole plot?"

I get the Cristal plot - it's All About Eve. Only in that film you had logical dramatic drive - Eve tried to take over Margot's life, by pinching her men and her roles and her life. There's none of that here - Cristal kind of manipulates Nomi, but basically gives her a job. Nomi gets an audition then Cristal stops it - that's not super evil.

There's horrible treatment of the dancers which I'm sure is true to life but isn't fun - Tony Moss abuses them, that horrible strip club guy Sal abuses them. Why bring back him and the chubby comic, Henrietta? They were awful.

Eszterhas might argue it was meant to be a comedy but it lacks logic and proper narrative drive. Really he should have had someone killing off the strippers and Nomi investigating. And Cristal and Nomi should have slept together.

But it's awful on the page.

Random thoughts on "Starship Troopers"

Random thoughts on Starship Troopers, 20 years on (warning: spoilers... but come on it's been 20 years)

1) I can't think of any other film that matches it's tone - mixture of high school antics, awkward acting, war cliches, Nazi imagery, bug killing, camp, seriousness.... even the sequels don't match it - maybe Robocop comes close but this feels different to even that.

2) The acting ranges from the genuinely good (Dina Meyer, Clancy Brown) to the iconic (Michael Ironside) to 50s B war movie (Casper Van Diem) to 40s film noir (Denise Richards) to dreadful (the guy who plays Casper's dad) but somehow everyone is perfectly suited... whether its minxy Denise, square jawed Casper or Doogie Howser in a Nazi outfit.

3) Main problem with this film for me... the last act (it's roughly five acts: school, training, Klendathuu, Planet P and return to Planet P)... the action builds then there's this final battle which we never see, Rico and his friends go off from a genuinely important battle to go rescue Carmen who no one really cares about even if she is hot... and at the end Doogie goes "the human race was saved by one guy who captured the bug"... and it's Clancy Brown! Who we never saw. So we missed a massive battle. I admit that this nutty story decision is part of the film's charm.

4) Has Michael Ironside ever given a bad performance? (To be fair you could also ask if he's ever given a different one... but he's always awesome!)

5) Hokey as it is, the love triangle plot completely works for me in this film and Dina Meyers is (don't laugh) the emotional core. It's pure Archie-Veronica-Betty-Reggie (with Zander as Reggie).

6) I love the character touch of making Ace (Jake Busey) a good violin player - and how Michael Ironside provided violins for his troops along with beer and footballs. Are violins more popular in the future? Did he just know a lot about his soldiers? Was it good luck? So much mythology that remains unexplored.

7) I never noticed how perky the ship captain played by Brenda Strong is... (Denise Richards' boss) - she's always got a smile on her face, even when picking up Rico from Planet P after most of his platoon has been wiped out.

8) I like how in the future people will still listen to Mazzy Star.

9)It's great how even the more selfish characters, Carmen and Zander, are completely bad ass - Zander has a great defiant final line.

-->

10) I love how the military strategy of the humans is so incredibly abysmal that, like "Aliens", you can enjoy the militarism and the critique of it at the same time.

-->

Movie review - "Showgirls" (1995) *1/2

Perhaps the campest movie ever made in Hollywood by such straight men. Showgirls is really a movie that defies criticism - Joe Eszterhas and Paul Verhoven followed up Basic Instinct with this dopey Flashdance-style take on Vegas showgirls. It's kind of a homage to old MGM musicals, only a lot more sordid and with a lot less music. Flashdance had plenty of dancing and tunes - this one has surprisingly few, and it would have done a lot better with some.

It does have plenty of costumes plus a top performance from Gina Gershon, who I thought would become a star after this movie - she's vivacious and sexy and perfect for the role. It suffers from an inadequate lead - Elizabeth Berkley is pretty, has a great body and can dance quite well, but isn't up to the role; they needed a modern-day Jennifer Beal, and couldn't get it. There's also some poor support performances from Glenn Plummer (who popped up all the time in 90s movies then fortunately went away) and Glen Ravera. And Kyle MacLachlan's 90's fringe is really annoying.

It's not very well made either, lacking a sense of show biz or eroticism - to me at any rate. For all the time Verhoven and Eszterhas no doubt spent combing strip clubs and casinos, it never felt real - people discussing Paul Abdul and Janet Jackson to take over from an injured Gershon? A topless dancer really being a big star in Vegas? The swimming pool sex scene wasn't bad.

But like I say, Showgirls is really a creature of itself that defies criticism.

Script review – “Basic Instinct” by Joe Eszterhas

Eszterhas in his memoirs makes it sound like he pretty much just tossed this off to make a truck-load of money but it’s a terrific script: a good, solid mystery, spiked up with bisexual women, and a wonderful sparring relationship between the two leads. Catherine Tremmel is one of the best characters he ever came up with: rich, beautiful, sexually omnivorous, playful, funny, lonely, smart – she means everything she says. 

 

Detective Nick is a good creation too – he was overshadowed in the film by Catherine, but he’s definitely no passenger: recovering smoker, coke addict, alcoholic, tormented (his wife killed herself), dodgy (he basically rapes his ex girlfriend), sexually proficient (capable of giving Catherine Tremmell the “fuck of the century”). Their relationship gives this real heart (even though that sounds strange as I write it, it’s probably the best description I can come up with).

 

The film was faithfully adapted from the script but there are some interesting differences: lots of Rolling Stones references here while people have sex (specially their 68-71 period, eg ‘Sympathy for the Devil’ although ‘Miss You’ also pops up) – no legs crossing scene (an invention of the director)

Movie review – “Starship Troopers” (1997) ****

If you’re in the right mood, this is brilliant fun. Even what seem to be debits work to the film’s delightful oddness: the crappy performances by Casper Van Diem and Denise Richards work actually hit just the right crappy tone (Van Diem is reminiscent of a young John Agar, Richards makes a great saucy teen minx); although our heroes defend a basically fascist society, the film is no endorsement of fascism – while everything is clean and technology advanced, it’s clear that the humans provoked the war and that they have incompetent military strategy and contempt for life.

The siege set piece at the base is a stunning sequence – indeed, the film has trouble recovering from it. The final third feels like an after-thought – but even the wonkiness of the structure adds to the enjoyment (as does the fact that the big capture of the alien happens when none of our heroes are involved).
Clancy Brown is perfect as the training sergeant and Dina Meyer is extremely winning. 

Full of terrific moments: Neil Patrick Harris in Nazi regalia, Clancy Brown whipping the troops into line, the brilliant insect creatures (what terrifying antagonists), the walk down washout lane, Michael Ironside leading his troops, “they sucked his brains out”, Van Diem’s talk with his parents just as they’re killed, the indiscriminate way the cast are wiped out.

Book review - "Fiasco" by James Robert Parish

Several case studies of flop Hollyood films, very much in the style of Hollywood Hall of Shame only without the wit of the Medved Brothers. Parish only starts with films from 1963 onwards, though he discusses several of the same films as the Medveds - Cleopatra, Paint Your Wagon -while making some prize omissions (no account of Heaven's Gate, for example).

This is a rich field, and Parish has some good films to choosefrom which came out post-Medved: Cotton Club, Ishtar, Battlefield Earth, Waterworld and the Postman, Town and Country, The Last Action Hero.

He also picks a few left-field choices, like The Wild Party (a big flop forAIP - Arkoff doesn't even mention the film in his memoirs), Popeye (which I understand made money - but like Last Action Hero it was more of a "let down" than a flop and it certainly damaged Robert Altman's career in Hollywood), The Chase.

Parish does fall into the same trap as the Medveds - to wit, being over-snide and times and wise after the event. He quotes people saying a few times but never seems to understand himself how close the line is between a flop and hit (Titanic, which is mentioned a few times, is a case in point - but also Jaws, The Godfather, The Robe the second Ben Hur).

Anyway for what its worth my own thoughts on these films and what lessons can be learned.

Cleopatra - massive hit, massive cost. Surely audiences would never have come in such numbers as to the Finch-Boyd version. It needed the Taylor-Burton scandal to push it into the stratosphere. Were Fox wrong to insist on only one film instead of two like Mankiewicz wanted? You can understand why Zanuck did - but I think the Rex Harrison segment was strong enough to stand on its own. Significant factor in the cost blowout I think was the absence of a strong producer - Walter Wagner was kicked off the project, but Fox should have appointed a tough dimes and pennies man to help Mank.

The Chase - Sam Spiegel may have been a rogue but he always backed talent and The Chase was full of it. I haven't seem the film for a long time but I remember liking it - it was quite suspenseful and built to a real climax. Poor Arthur Penn just got knocked over by his producer and star. Lesson to be learned... you know, I think this was still a punt worth taking regardless of how it turned out.

Paint Your Wagon - another rampant producer, Arthur Lerner, plus a director who couldn't stand up to him. Yet another Hollywood musical where the (three) leads couldn't sing or dance (something they still persist in doing today). Lesson to be learned: cast at least one singing/dancing lead. This should have been made on the backlot by MGM in the 1950s - it wasn't popular enough to deserve all the money poured into it. If it had been a stage hit of the scale of say, Sound of Music or Camelot, yes - but not the mid size success the original was.

Lesson: mid size successful source material should equal mid size budget.

The Wild Party - this never would have made it, not as an AIP production directed by James Ivory - the poem which inspired the story would have made good AIP fodder (trashy exploitation about the swinging 20s) or Ivory fodder (searing look at fame and loneliness), but both would have been markedly different movies. Combining them resulted in a mess -Ivory's version of the film doesn't sound any better than the one that AIP put out.

Lesson: hire a director whose sensibility matches what you want from the studio.

Popeye - this made a profit but not what they hoped and Parish probably was convinced to include it because he could incorporate Bob Evans stories. There was much that was magical about this film, notably the set design. But it was a bit of a mess.

Lesson: again worth the risk -don't do drugs - maybe it's too risky to write original songs for a musical (though that doesn't seem to hurt Disney's cartoons).

The Cotton Club - easy: don't start pre production without a script. This had a great topic, talented director - but he "found" the story as he went which is expensive. Oh and if your star wants changes that damage the whole thing (i.e. "I want to be liked", "I won't play a gangster") - get a new one. I know Richard Gere was hot stuff in 1983 but Coppola's Coppola, for crying out loud - surely he would have been able to get a replacement quick smart

Ishtar - this actually was quite funny - it's main problem (on screen at least) was sheer old fashioned miscasting - Hoffman and Beatty were too old for roles that could have easily been filled by a Saturday Night Live/Second City alumni or similar ilk (Tom Hanks, Chevy Chase, Steve Martin, etc). I can vouch personally that to the teenage male population of 1987, the names of Beatty and Hoffman meant nothing. Off screen the main culprit seems to have been Elaine May's shooting methods - with comedy there's no need to act like George Stevens or Stanley Kubrick. What great comedy was made using countless re-takes?

Shanghai Surprise - I maintain this could have been worked: it was a great idea to do an old fashioned Casablanca-style exotic melodrama set in war-torn Shanghai, that's a great setting. This fell down with plain old miscasting (which people were worried about at the time so it's not hindsight.) Sean Penn was too young for his role which cried out for a Tom Selleck or Harrison Ford - (Penn couldn't even play it now, the role needs a personality star which Penn isn't). Madonna was not suited for a missionary - she wasn't a good enough actor and the only way to get around her experience would be to perfectly cast her, like she was in Desperately Seeking Susan. Playing a lounge singer who pretended to be a missionary, that might have worked.

Last Action Hero -- made some money but for my mind two major problems (a) miscasting (the annoying kid who played Arnie's sidekick) (b) the final bit of the script - I've thought about this and I reckon the last act would have worked if Arnie hadn't played Arnie in the real world,b ut another character - a movie star. Because it's Arnie you know he's not going to die, right? So there's no tension. But if Arnie played an Arnie type actor (you could have some fun with this - like a Rainer Wolfcastle type), you would have more tension because he could die -hey, you could have even killed him off. There you go, fixed the script problems of Last Action Hero for you, all for free!

Cutthroat Island - script, script, script. Total script mess (excellently pulled apart in the book "Good Script Bad Script"), like all those pirate films that flopped. You watch old Errol movies and the scripts are strong (and usually based on history and/or a strong source material, too - why didn't they adapt Da Foe or something). Also I think people didn't care to see Geena Davis kick arse. I think people will go see women in action films, but they have to be the right women (eg Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider brought them in even though the film was crap, but no one got excited about Halle Berry in Catwoman.) Davis' casting helped kill this, like it did The Long Kiss Goodnight. With Sharon Stone in the lead I think people would have been a lot more excited.

Showgirls - awful film - despite what Joe Eszterhas tried to argue, I don't think Drew Barrymore in the lead would have worked, the main character is too irrational and for all the research Eszterhas and Verhoven did for this, none of it seems real. Would Janet Jackson takeover a strip show? It should be pointed out that Gina Gershon should have become a star with this - she plays it at the right tone. Even though Vegas showgirls is a good topic for a film, this one was just too nasty and confused - might have been better done by Roger Corman (he's probably already done it). (Side point: like many critics Parish says how un-erotic he finds Showgirls. Critics like to say they find such-and-such film not erotic - do they ever admit to finding films erotic? "Yeah, I loved Wild Things went home and watched it with the wife for our anniversary." Danny Peary is the only movie critic I've ever read who does so. (If forced to admit what turns them on most critics cop out and say something like "Lubitsch".) Sorry, but that pool scene was hot.)

Waterworld and The Postman - Waterworld had a great concept for a film.It just had bad luck with the weather, really. And people were getting plain sick of Kevin Costner. (Having affairs helps some careers if it suits their image eg Liz Taylor, Sharon Stone - but it hurt Costner's because it was so contrary to his image). This was reflected by the fact that a fair few people still turned up to see it.

The Postman was different- everyone laughed at Costner for Dances With Wolves (three hours, in Sioux) but he pulled it off so no wonder he ploughed ahead with this one despite anyone's warnings (making a bad film is just the same as a good one - you need blinkers. The trick is at what stage you put the blinkers on).

The Postman's idea wasn't bad - OK, yes, the title sounds lame but these things can work. But people had embraced epic Westerns before - they've never embraced patriotic post-apocalyptic films. Post apocalyptic movies are inherently dark, you don't get that all that whipped up by them. This isn't to say it shouldn't have been made, just it should have been made cheaply.

Battlefield Earth - I remember that hostility towards this film was so extreme I made a point to see it; it seemed motivated by pure religious hatred and thought the poor film needed defending. But no - this sinks on its own. You'd think they would struggle to miss - a sci fi film about humans rising up against their oppressors - that story never fails. But it does here through inadequate handling, mostly the script - the hero keeps getting captured and re-captured, making for a very frustrating experience. And there are massive plot holes. This shouldn't have been made - not without a massive restructure, anyway.

Town and Country - this sounds like it should have been a play at the National rather than a movie - or at least a British film. Not an expensive film. How does Warren Beatty keep bamboozling all these execs as to his drawing power? This was a turkey at inception.

Movie review - "Robocop" (1987) ****

The memories of some poor sequels fade and this action film still stands up. Paul Verhoeven proved an inspired choice for this sort of satirical sort of promoting form of law and order. Very black and funny, yet with heart. Human work from Peter Weller and inspired villainous turns from Ronny Cox and Kurtwood Smith.

Book review – “The Devil’s Guide to Hollywood” by Joe Eszterhas

“By” Joe Eszterhas is a bit rich – it really should be “edited by”. Oh, OK, there is some original material, about a chapter’s worth, where Joe suggests what sort of routine to use to write a screenplay, and gives some advice about what to do. But most of this book consists of him quoting others, in particular others about Hollywood, especially screenwriting – William Goldman is quoted extensively, so is Robert McKee (who Eszterhas sometimes makes fun of, sometimes seems to approve what McKee says), also John Gregory Dunne’s Monster, the autobiographies of Zsa Zsa Gabor and Swifty Lazar, the books of William Froug, other books on screenwriting, Phil Noyce’s book. 

This is an irritatingly lazy book. Eszterhas already wrote a brilliantly entertaining memoir on his life and career, Hollywood Animal (material from which he re-hashes here). Why another one? It must have been the money. He hasn’t had a screenplay credit since he moved back to Cleveland, is what why? But his books have sold well.

Reading this you can’t shake the feeling that part of Eszterhas wishes he could wind the clock back to the early 90s, when he was still smoking and drinking and making millions with his spec scripts (many of which had basically the same plot: person falls in love with person so obviously guilty of murders that they must be innocent and they turn out to be guilty) and bragging about being a great family man by living in Marin County and commuting to Hollywood, rooting around on his wife pretty much non-stop, including with Sharon Stone, telling execs to get stuffed, writing blockbusters, making records. Since then he got re-married (he says he’s faithful), had a new family, quit smoking after a bout of cancer, moved from LA, returned to prose – but he keeps looking back at Old Joe with one suspects a touch of wistfulness.