Movie review - "Grand Prix" (1966) *** 1/2 (warning: spoilers)

 MGM's big roadshow made some money but I don't think recouped its cost. Director John Frankenheimer had a great time as he should with Bob O'Brien (very talent friendly) as the studio head, a large budget and European locations.

The movie was meant to star Steve McQueen, who turned it down, as did Paul Newman and Robert Redford, despite the latter not being famous yet. They got James Garner who was trying to be a movie star then. He doesn't quite work - the head is too big or something.

Two other big movie stars are in it - Toshiro Mifune and Yves Montand, who are comfortably cast (not always the case in their English language pictures).  Mifune's role is not that large and he is atrociously dubbed - I wish he'd been a race car driver. Montand is one of the four main stars. The other two are Brian Bedford and some Italian guy, Antonio Sabato.

The racing sequences are superb - justly famous. The land stuff is bland. It didn't have to be - it's not that interesting, that's all. The romance between married Montand and Eva Marie Saint is just... whatever. Saint is a great actress but wasted in the part. Who cares? Why have him married? At least Saint gets a chance to emote with Montand dies. 

Garner's plot is alright - seeking redemption after an accident. Ditto Bedford's.   I just wish more attention had been paid for it.

I'd love to see this on the big screen. 

Neil Simon plays - autobiographical or not?

Come Blow Your Horn (1961)* - yes, based on his brother and parents
Little Me (1962) - no, musical
Barefoot in the Park (1963)* - yes, based on his first marriage
The Odd Couple (1965)* - kind of, based on his brother and mate
Sweet Charity (1966) - no, musical adaptation
The Star-Spangled Girl (1966) - no, Simon regretted not doing concept justice
Plaza Suite (1968) - no, just funny
Promises, Promises (1968) - no, musical adaptation
Last of the Red Hot Lovers (1969) - no, just funny
The Gingerbread Lady (1970) - no, based on people he roughly knew
The Prisoner of Second Avenue (1971) - no
The Sunshine Boys (1972) - no, based on old vaudevillians
The Good Doctor (1973) - no, Chekov
God’s Favorite (1974) - no, Job (bad play)
California Suite (1976) - no, just funny
Chapter Two (1977)* - yes, based on his second marriage
They’re Playing Our Song (1979) - no, musical
I Ought to Be in Pictures (1980) - no
Fools (1981) - no, old Russian
Brighton Beach Memoirs (1983)* - yes, expressly so
Biloxi Blues (1985)* - yes, time in army
Broadway Bound (1986)* - yes, starting career
Rumors (1988) - no, farce
Lost in Yonkers (1991)* - yes based on childhood
Jake’s Women (1992)* - yes based on ex wives
The Goodbye Girl (1993) - no, musical
Laughter on the 23rd Floor (1993)* - yes based on TV career
London Suite (1995) - no just funny
Proposals (1997) - no
The Dinner Party (2000) - no
45 Seconds from Broadway (2001) - no
Rose’s Dilemma (2003) - no

So it’s actually a smaller proportion than I thought - ten if you include Odd Couple. I think bc the blockbusters and critical hits are autobiographical they overshadow other work.

Movie review - "No Looking Back" (1998) ** (warning: spoilers)

 Ed Burns ran out of things to say with this movie, which takes what would've been a subplot for his first two movies and drags it out over a feature - Lauren Holly is engaged to Jon Bon Jovi and ex Ed Burns turns up. We find out early on that she was pregnant and he paid for an abortion. That's about it. Oh Holly can't have kids - that's the third act twist.

The windswept locations are beautiful, the cast is pretty, there's some nice Springsteen songs. There's a lot of working class acting in this - lotta smoking, lotta drinking beers. Every scene some actor seems to spark up or drink a beer - after a while it gets to be a joke.

Holly doesn't quite fit in the world which is the point I guess. The movie's a bit of a love letter to her. I'm not sure she's got It (she was an It girl at the time with Jim Carey and all that). In her defence Burns can't dramatise her issues. But you sense Cameron Diaz or Jennifer Aniston who'd been Burns' last film would've nailed in it.

Jennifer Esposito does fit in. She has a great moment where she makes a move on Bon Jovi. More scenes to the suport characters would've been better. Bon Jovi gets a great scene where she cries. Blythe Danner is in it. Her scenes aren't bad. Connie Britton.

Possibilities are hinted at but not really explored - Burns' character being dodgy (I do like that Burns doesn't play him for sympathy).

Movie review - "This Property is Condemned" (1966) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

 A tour de force for Natalie Wood who is gorgeous and very good as a wildcat living in a small town panted over by a lot of men, including Charles Bronson (a rail worker) and some old dude John Harding. Then Robert Redford comes into town and he pants over her too.

Redford is handsome and gives what David Shipman once described as his "usual hesitant, nice performance". Director Sydney Pollack once said they never cracked the love story - I think the issue is more Redford struggles to portray lust for Wood. He's always been better as a lust object  - Wood's keen for him but you don't get the sense that she's keen for her. Also the reason he dumps her is so stupid - because his mother says she's a liar. He just believes the mother, walks out on Natalie Wood, who is naked in the shower. I'm sorry he doesn't care about her - why should we care about them?

The film feels vey studio bound although there was some New Orleans filming. Some weird decisions - Wood runs off after Redford discovers she's married and stole money off Bronson (so?).. she dies off screen... we don't know what happened to Redford.

Why not have Bronson appear and kill Redford? Or why not make Redford a complete cad? Why cheat Wood of a death scene? It's so stupid. Wood's excellent performance deserved better. Bronson is good too. The mother is fine. Redford isn't up to it.

Mary Badham is Wood's younger sister. Mary Reid is a stock monstrous Williams mother, and Robert Blake is in it too.

Documentary review - "The Making of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (1970) ***

 Fascinating look at the film - narrated by George Roy Hill mostly, with some voice over from Paul Newman and William Goldman, full of on the set footage. Hill is matter of fact about his decisions and vision- he was a smart guy.

Unmade Ryan O'Neal

 A series of films that sound pretty good

1) Out of Africa, based on the famous book, from director Nic Roeg with Julie Christie - this could've been fantastic, different from the Pollack version but with Julie Christie... wow

2) The Champ, a remake of the 1932 film, directed by Franco Zefferelli - O'Neal was going to do this but quit when the director wouldn't let his son co star - big mistake, he did Oliver's Story instead, bigger mistake

3) The Bodyguard - same Lawrence Kasdan script, with Diana Ross, and John Boorman directing - would've been amazing... possibly, if the director didn't rewrite all the popularity out of it.

4) The Thorn Birds, based on the best selling novel with Arthur Hiller directing - an utterly, utterly perfect film for O'Neal, who stepped in when first choice Robert Redford pulled out... I think it fell over when Warner Bros decided to not make a movie out of it... it became a fabulously successful mini series with Richard Chamberlain... 

5) First Blood - Morrell's novel was optioned constantly from 1972 with Richard Brooks, and Martin Ritt among those seriously interested in doing it - potential stars included Al Pacino, Steve McQueen, Robert de Niro. Clint Eastwood, John Travolta, Powers Boothe... and Ryan O'Neal apparently. That's what he said in his memoirs - that Freddie Fields offered him the part but O'Neal turned it down because he didn't want to leave Farrah Fawcett at the time, which puts it in the early 1980s.

Movie review - "She's the One" (1996) ***

Edward Burns' second film is done with freshness and verve - he still had something to say, even if you can sense he's running out of stuff to say. But his dialogue is a lot sharper here, his characters are meaner.

It focuses on two brothers, Burns and Mike McGlone, one poor and the other rich, which is solid contrast. Burns marries Maxine Bahns impulsively setting off a chain reaction... Bahns isn't the best actor but she has a lovely presence and nice chemistry with Burns.

John Mahoney is excellent as the dad - he always shone in these Gen X films, like this, Reality Bites and Say Anything.

There's a lot of smoking. Cameron Diaz and Jennifer Aniston provide some star power as does Burns. Amanda Peet shines as Aniston's slightly trashy sister (the elder actors who play their parents are good too). Leslie Mann has a funny support role as Bahns' workmate.

The big thing is though that people were meaner. There was more conflict, more secrets. McGlone is cheating on his wife with Burns' ex - that's good drama. So is Bahns not being completely honest with Burns about her desire to go to Paris.

Some of it is tiresome - the plot about everyone wondering if McGlone is gay (because it doesn't pay off in an interesting way). But it's sweet, and tight, and polished.

Robert Redford executive produced.

Movie review - "Jeremiah Johnson" (1972) ***1/2

 Entertaining Western, notable for stunning scenery from wherever it was shot. It looks isolated, rugged, beautiful, cold. Robert Redford is very miscast in a role requiring Lee Marvin... his hair always looks like its been in a salon... but Redford is fine and conscientous and his casting would've helped make this a massive hit because he softens the material (when he gets given the woman it doesn't come across as rapey because he's a sensitive hunk).

Influences of The Searchers are felt - being given a wife who is killed. In Milius' original script there were more because in act three his son was not killed he was abducted and Johnson went looking for him. Which made more sense than a rampage which runs out of steam. Maybe Redford didn't want to age.

Acting is fine. Splendid costume design. It's Milius through a filter of gorgeousness. Sydney Pollack's direction is intelligent and clean as always.

Movie review - "Legal Eagles" (1986) **

 Conceived as a buddy comedy then reconfigured as a rom com it creaks like buggery and feels hopelessly confused. Robert Redford is against Debra Winger, then with her, then romances Daryl Hannah and has this daughter. He looks handsome. It's a mess. 

I get what it was trying to do and it doesn't get there.

Play review - "Barefoot in the Park" by Neil Simon

 Listened to an audio recording - Laura Linney is perfect as the female lead, you'd think Eric Stoltz would be ideal as the male but he isn't... lacks a certain strength and definite-ness that Robert Redford brought to the part.

A lot of this has dated - jokes about hitting little old ladies, the woman staying home - but it has a genuine love for its female lead that is very endearing, and the jokes come along so consistently, and some of them are still very effective because they are character based. The conflict is obvious but effective (she's spontaneous, he's conservative), the sub plots work well (mother, crazy neighbour), its understanding of stage craft is solid.

Book review - "Magic Time: My Life in Hollywood" by Hawk Koch (2019)

Decent memoir by a highly respected member of Hollywood. Koch was the son of Howard Koch, a noted producer and briefly head of Paramount; Koch Jr became an assistant director and was good at it; he eventually became producer. He seems to be more of a line producer type.

He's quite discrete - he talks about palling around with Robert Redford for instance without dishing much dirt. He had a few wonky marriages. I wish there was more dirt. But it's entertaining.

Book review "Infamous players : a tale of movies, the mob (and sex)"- by Peter Bart (2011)

I've enjoyed Bart's writings in the past - his history of MGM, his collection of essays about the late 90s, his pieces for Variety and Deadline. I noticed the quality would drop whenever he talked about himself - he would always paint himself in the best possible light, claiming to have made key decisions that contributed to successes, claiming to have warned about choices that led to disaster - but he had good access and was a skilled writer. He is always easy to read.

This is a memoir of Bart's time at Paramount in the late 60s and early 70s, a period he often (as in, all the time) refers to in his essays. 

It's perhaps the most self-centered Hollywood memoir I've ever read - and I've read a lot of them - and around half-way through I started hating Bart and couldn't stop.

You see, according to Bart, it's Bart who has concerns about Darling Lili, it's Bart who suggests to Robert Evans that he get Francis Coppola to write The Godfather, it's Bart who champions Love Story and suggests Arthur Hiller direct, it's Bart who helps Warren Beatty cut the sex scene in Don't Look Now, it's Bart who thinks Where's Jack? is a bad idea but helps make The Italian Job behind Charles Bludhorn's back, it's Bart who's not sure Paddy Chayefsky is the right writer for Paint Your Wagon, it's Bart who champions Harold and Maude, it's Bart who liked The President's Analyst, it's Bart who suggests True Grit to Hal Wallis, it's Bart who cautions Paramount on Day of the Locust, it's Bart who swaps Emperor of the North for Play It Again Sam, it's Bart who has doubts about Redford's suitability for The Great Gatsby. 

Bart, according to Bart, is just so darn wise.

Look, any book about this time and that has up close looks at characters like Robert Evans and Sidney Korshak is going to be interesting, but most of it has been done before and better in other books. Bart wastes pages on recaps about Korshak and Gulf and Western when we want personal insights. 

Some of it is interesting - accounts of the making of Blue for instance and Downhill Racer, WUSA, The Parallax View and Sheila Levine is Dead. Stories of The Godfather, Rosemary's Baby and Love Story are more familiar. I would have loved more on the less familiar Paramount movies from his period - say, TR Baskin, Will Penny - or the movie Bart wrote, Making It.

Bart has exasperated affection for Bob Evans, as he should since Evans gave him his job - in part because Bart wrote a flattering article about Evans under the Old Mates Act. Charles Budhorn comes across as Bludhorn always does - a colorful cartoon. Bart is vicious on Frank Yablans - really vicious. There are digs at Robert Redford and Warren Beatty.

The book is laced with homophobia - he brings up Rock Hudson's sexuality all the time, ditto for William Inge and John Schlesinger, and not in a complimentary way. 

He also tends to slag off women - Elaine May is duplicitous, Ali MacGraw is a flake, Julie Andrews is sexless, Julia Phillips is a drug addled fool (he criticises plenty of men too but he also admires lots of them, whereas there's little admiration for women).

There is the odd surprise opinion - he would have preferred Bogdanovich's version of The Getaway with Cybil Shepherd as the girl, and wanted Marlon Brando and Coppola on Gatsby (which actually would have been awesome)

Robert Evans' memoirs are a lot more fun and actually feel more accurate. This feels like a book written in a hurry for cash and was really disappointing.

Random thoughts on Neil Simon

He died this week - a ripe old age. I don't know what his last years were like but I hope they were okay ish. He seemed to find happiness with his last marriage.

Simon was once a very big deal in my life - I would read and re-read his plays and try to ape his style. He had the basics so down - simple stories, strong emotion, solid structure, laughs and heart. He was a great gag man but knew his work needed more than that.

Simon was once a massive deal in the theatre world - from the 60s to the 90s, really, Neil Simon plays were events. He would stumble to be be sure but always bounce back.

Some random thoughts on his theatre works:

* Come Blow Your Horn (1961) - solid first play, decent laughs, based on the Simon family notably Neil and his brother but also his parents. Not a classic, but good.
* Little Me (1963) - musical which Simon would criticise but which seems to be revived a lot. I've read it - it's okay. Maybe needs tunes.
* Barefoot in the Park (1963) - funny, warm play which hasn't dated particularly well, in part because it was so imitated - it is about a manic pixie dream girl. But written with a lot of love and skill. The film adaptation is very well acted and awfully directed.
* The Odd Couple (1965) - a deserved classic, brilliantly funny, subtle structure, a great idea masterfully executed. Like Barefoot the film is divinely acted and not very well directed.
* Sweet Charity (1966) - Bob Fosse was the real star of this, but Simon's adaptation is solid.
* The Star Spangled Girl (1967) - not a bad idea, two liberals fight over a conservative manic pixie dream girl, but Simon doesn't get the girl - its his first play not really based on a world he knows, or a girl he knows, and you can tell.
* Plaza Suite (1968) - another Simon classic, the first and last eps especially. The middle bit is fine but the first and last are brilliant. A segmentthat was cut resulted in a film The Out of Towners that is stressful to watch.
* Promises Promises (1968) - first rate musicalisation of The Apartment and I can't believe it wasn't filmed.
* Last of the Red Hot Lovers (1969) - this was okay. A bit repetitive.
* The Gingerbread Man (1970) - interesting tough ish play. I saw it live - it has lost a lot of its freshness.
* The Prisoner of Second Avenue (1971) - angry white middle class rage, quite well done.
* The Sunshine Boys (1972) - lots of fun and one of Simon's best star vehicle
* The Good Doctor (1973) - Simon does Chekov. Not bad. Some people love this but I found it a bit cold.
* God's Favorite (1974) - I didn't like this one. Repetitive and not terribly interesting.
* California Suite (1976) - a marvellous return to form. The slapstick play isn't that great but the othe three are superb.
* Chapter Two (1977) - Simon's most autobiographical effort since Barefoot I guess, a very moving and funny account of widowhood.
 * They're Playing Our Song (1978) - skilful funny book which is probably Simon's most original musical. I wish it had been filmed.
* I Ought to Be in Pictures (1980) - not bad, but feels like ingredients he's used before.
* Fools (1981) - terrible play about Russians. Simon's worst.
* Brighton Beach Memoirs (1982) - Simon returns to autobiography and it works a treat, a very fine play which was badly filmed.
* Biloxi Blues (1984) - another fine memoir play that was turned into an even better film.
* Broadway Bound (1986)- a decent play, the least good of the trilogy in part because he'd already mined this material for Come Blow Your Horn but some good moments.
* Rumors (1988) - Simon attempt at a farce. Not bad.
* Lost in Yonkers (1990) - a return to material of his other plays (dodgy family, etc) but very well done.
* Jake's Women (1992) - Simon with some familiar themes (widowhood etc) but well done
* The Goodbye Girl (1993) - I remember being less impressed by the film when I rewatched it. Have never seen the musical.
* Laughter on the 23rd Floor (1993) - disappointing play which I wanted to be better because of its source material but lacks story and real insight into Simon's collaborators.
* London Suite (1996) - a dud, no really strong plays not even the sequel to the California Suite classic.
* Proposals (1997) - haven't read this and have no desire to it doesn't sound very good.
* The Dinner Party (1999) - another play I haven't read. I think I should though!
* 45 Seconds from Broadway (2001) - not a very good play, I have read this one, it is very creaky.
* Rose's Dilemma (2003) - I saw this on Broadway. It wasn't very good - dealt with widowhood etc. Had some funny lines but I think from the 1990s Simon ran out of gas.

Honourable mentions for his original film scripts:
* The Heartbreak Kid (1972) - genius writing
* Murder by Death (1976) - lots of fun
* The Goodbye Girl (1977) - feels like a play. Not bad. I remember finding it brilliant the first time and annoying the second.
* The Cheap Detective (1978) - haven't seen it
* Seems Like Old Times (1980) - quite fun
* Max Dugan Returns (1983) - not very good not enough story for a film
* The Lonely Guy (1984) - very sweet I remember this fondly
* The Slugger's Wife (1985) - never seen it and it sounds awful
* The Marrying Man (1991) - I should try to see this from all accounts its a train wreck but a fascinating one
* The Odd Couple 2 (1998) - no desire to see this.

So his great days were really the 60s and late 70s and 80s... for me and any rate.

Wonderful entertainer. Brilliant writer.

Script review - "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" by William Goldman

I've read an awful lot about this script, in part because Goldman often refers to it - it's got his idea character intros, and ending, and was so successful.

It's weird to read it - there's a lot of empty spaces and the script clocks in at over 180 pages. It's got a wonderful central relationship, a bromance, with the girl in there as well but the boys are into each other more than her. Full of casual, witty by play.

It does go on a long and there's lots of bits that aren't so great - endless chase scenes, hanging out at a brothel; even the South American sojourn was longer than I remembered; the bifocals line.

But the classic bits remain strong: the intro, meeting Sundance, the kick in the balls; the robberies; the finale; Etta leaving. I think I prefer All the President's Man for Goldman's screenplays but this is very good.

Script review - "A Bridge Too Far" by William Goldman

Not recognised as one of Goldman's classics even though in Adventures in the Screen Trade he spoke highly of the experience and the resulting film - he seemed to have only good things to say about Butch Cassidy and Bridge - I think later Princess Bride and Hearts of Atlantis were added to this.

It's done in that lively Goldman style very easy to follow and read, with little asides (eg "he's four days away from becoming a legend") and some bright dialogue. He was hamstrung by the fact many of the principals were still alive. Montgomery died in 1976 - I presume that's why he's not in the film at all, only mentioned. Lord Browning - who died in 1965 - has to take on some of the mistakes (eg ignoring intelligence reports that Germans were in the area), which for me was the main flaw of the film. It felt unfair.

I did struggle to tell the characters apart on the page - this was less of an issue on screen because the main roles were played by stars. There are some lively cameos - the sergeant who drives his "dead" captain to a hospital; the Americans going across the river to take the bridge; Major Frost and Urquhart's adventures behind enemy lines.

Some characters threaten to become interesting but don't, like that bridge-building captain (I think Elliot Gould played him) and the Irish guards officer Vandeleur (Michael Caine). Others are annoying like the Polish general, Sosabowski who whinges all the time.

Structurally although the film takes place over several days it feels like one afternoon - I know films sometimes struggle with that and wasn't sure how to fix it, it's just the reaction I got. Also it didn't feel as though it built - towards the end when the Poles started their attack, I was getting impatient.

Still some very effective moments - the siege, the build up, the death of the old lady and the little boy. And it gets points for being a British-American film about a big defeat. There aren't that many apart from Tora Tora Tora.

Script review - "All the President's Men" by William Goldman

Just re-read this once more... such a fantastic script, getting through massive exposition with pace, humour and accessibility. Feels a little different in some key scenes to the final film but not massively so. I can't be bothered doing a serious comparison with the film... hopefully someone has. One of Goldman's masterpieces.

Movie review - "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014) *** (warning: spoilers)

Solid installment to the Marvel series with plenty of decent actors and action, and a treatment that is respectful with some sparky dialogue. I'm getting annoyed at how the films are starting to feel like expensive episodes of a TV show though. When Nick Fury died I thought "oh great, this is that movie's special thing" but then they bring Fury back to life. When America flirted with Black Widow I thought "okay we're doing a romance here" but they don't. When America finds out the main baddy is his old mate I thought "okay that's going to be the big emotional heart" - but the guy lives. They keep lowering the stakes and it's annoying.

Annoying too how the film tries to make some comment about giving up our freedoms in the name of security is bad - but these films always endorse the Jedi Knight-hood of super heroes, as if that's somehow a morally superior peace keeping mechanism.

The script skillfull cribs from Three Days of the Condor and the like and I enjoyed seeing Robert Redford whore himself for a few scheckels. It's all slick and well made I just wish the films would mean more as a stand alone item.

Book review - "William Goldman: The Reluctant Storyteller" by Sean Egan (2014)

A frustrating book, especially since Goldman is one of my favourite writers, and there hasn't been an in-depth critical analysis of his work since Richard Andersen's in 1978. Egan puts in all this time and effort into analysing Goldman's novels, short stories and non fiction... but when it comes to the screenplays he goes off the finished film, which is unfair, and criticises the acting and direction, which shouldn't be the scope of this book.

It feels very under-researched - he refers constantly to Goldman's papers at Columbia Uni but doesn't seem to have accessed them, or read early drafts of screenplays, or his unfilmed screenplays and unproduced plays. He's only done a couple of interviews, too, and barely seems to have glanced at any newspaper archives.

It's annoying because what he did find out was fascinating (eg how A Family Affair got produced, John Brady's involvement in Adventures of the Screen Trade) - I just wish he'd put in more effort. And while I appreciate the effort Egan puts into looking at the novels, and some of his criticisms were first rate (eg Goldman's over use of sports metaphors, appreciation for his skill as a journalist), other bits of it seem narky and mean. Of course, this judgement is no doubt influenced by the fact that I disagreed with his criticisms, but too many of them had a touch of the "nyah nyah nyah"s.

I enjoyed it, I'm glad it exists, I just wish the author had put in more effort.

Book review - "Paul Newman" by Shawn Levy

Was there a luckier film star than Paul Newman? Born to a reasonably well off family in Cleveland (dad ran a successful sports store); he was genetically blessed with his looks and metabolism; he kept all his hair whereas other males in his family went bald; dad was a bit distant but taught him a good work ethic, joined the navy during the war but didn't really see hard service (he was on a crew to a pilot who got an earache one day meaning Newman missed a devastating kamikaze attack) and meant he could afford to attend college where he developed an interest in acting; he arrived in New York in 1952 just as live TV was booming and Broadway was peaking, so there was plenty of work around... and within two years was starring in a Hollywood blockbuster; he was a good looking masculine guy at a time when Hollywood was looking for such actors (the established Hollywood stars were aging and the studios weren't developing talent the same way); he inherited several roles meant for James Dean; he met and married his soulmate, who happened to be one of the most talented actresses of her generation; his passion for making tomato sauce led to a multi million dollar business; a passion for alcohol and partying (he's an alcoholic basically, which was news to me) was always managed to be kept under control.

There was tragedy and loss along the way - he had to leave his wife and kids to marry that soulmate, Joanne Woodward; a son died of a drug overdose; he cheated in the early 70s (I had no idea of this). But on the whole it was a remarkable run of luck. To his credit, Newman's always acknowledged this, working very hard, consistently seeking out the best material (support actors, writers, directors), always pushing himself into new areas (directing, producing, racing), returning to the stage as often as possible, being politically involved, having a sense of humour about himself, getting heavily involved in charity (he gives away a lot), trying to keep the size of his head under control, working at his craft.

As a result he enjoyed a remarkable career and remained one of the most highly regarded, loved and respected stars of all time. He took so many chances and risks - I'd forgotten just how many flops he'd made - but he always manged to come up with a hit in time to maintain his fame.

Levy has done an excellent job of research and writing, full of top notch analysis of Newman's performances and persona in particular. However as the book went on something kept nagging at me and eventually I figured out what it was: I found Newman, for all his fine qualities, irritating. The beer, the boorishness, the practical jokes and hamburgers and being a regular guy and into the Actors Studio. Sometimes his performances grate on me too with their 60s knowingness. Maybe I'm simply just not a fan. Not Levy's fault's he's done a great job, just how I feel.

Movie review - "All is Lost" (2013) ***1/2

Robert Redford wakes up on his yacht one morning to find he's hit some discarded cargo and is leaking in the middle of the Indian Ocean - he has to spend the rest of his film battling this problem and all that flow from it, including the elements. It's a gripping story, with Redford having to carry almost the entire action silently - he doesn't even have a beach ball to talk to.

And while Redford's limitations as an actor are apparent at times (his breakdown isn't much of a breakdown and he's never been good at suggesting tension) he has charisma and likeability which mean we're with him the whole way, the fact he's a star means we feel we know him even in the absence of any back story, and he's obviously a physical guy so I bought it that he was sailing around the world even at that age, and is as capable as his character seems to be (I don't know whether you'd believe it of, say, Anthony Hopkins). So I hope he gets the Oscar nomination that must have been at the back of his mind when he wanted to do this.

The filmmakers did a marvellous job of recreating the experience of being on a yacht. I think the second ship passing was one too many but I know why they did it. This is something a bit new for an action adventure tale and I hope it makes a lot of cash.