Showing posts with label Stewart Granger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stewart Granger. Show all posts

Saturday, April 04, 2026

Janet Leigh Top Ten

 1) Psycho (1960) - famous scene but also a genuinely nuanced performance as a frustrated woman who makes a bad decision - Vera Miles doesn't have what Leigh had

2) Touch of Evil (1958) - passive (kidnapped) but she has an inner steel

3) Living It Up (1954) - really fun Martin and Lewis movie and Leigh matches well with Dean 

4) Scaramouche (1952) - honestly her character is a ninny and not in Eleanor Parker's league I just love this flm 

5) Little Women (1949) - the most nothing role in the story but she's ideal - she fitted in well at MGM

6) The Manchurian Candidate (1962) a sex positive woman chasing after Frank, from Leigh's hot streak of classic movies

7) The Fog (1980) - she's fine rather than great I just love the movie

8) The Vikings (1958) - lovely and warm in a movie that needs it

9) Houdini (1953) - perhaps the best film she made with Tony Curtis, very winning

10) Harper (1966) - one of many stars.

Wednesday, November 12, 2025

George Sidney Top Ten

 One of the best underrated glossy directors

1) The Three Musketeers (1948) - wonderful swasbuckling version

2) Scaramouche (1952) - an even better swashbucker with career high efforts from Granger and Eleanor Parker

3) Viva Las Vegas (1964) - the greatest Elvis movie

4) The Eddie Duchin Story (1956) - splendid tearjerker

5) Bathing Beauty (1944) - fun, all star silliness

6) The Harvey Girls (1946) - some Golden Era fun

7) Showboat (1951) - cripes he did this one too

8) Annie Get Your Gun (1950) - and this one!

9) Young Bess (1953) - slight change of pace, great stuff, a little whiffy script wise

10)  Jeanne Eagles (1957) - serios biopic, solidly done

Friday, January 28, 2022

Book review - "Forever Young" by Hayley Mills (2021)

 Hayley Mills had one of the great child star careers - she came out of nowhere to play a scene stealing role in Tiger Bay and might have drifted back into anonymity (no British producers offered her roles) had not Disney wanted to sign her to a seven year contract. Disney promised to do well by her and he did - Pollyanna, The Parent Trap, In Search of the Castaways, The Moon Spinners, Summer Magic That Darn Cat.

She managed to alternate things with interesting films such as Whistle Down the Wind and The Chalk Garden.

Her parents/Disney turned down parts in Exodus, The Children's Hour and Lolita - the latter especially was galling to her. All three films did have notably sadistic, or at least retake-retake-retake directors so maybe they were being protective. But it bugged her - Lolita especially (though Sue Lyons' career wasn't that amazing.)

Her post Disney career started well enough with The Family Way and The Trouble with Angels. But then she had a string of rotten films - Pretty Polly, Sky West and Crooked, Take a Girl Like You, Mr Forbush. Many of these were made by/with her husband and/or father - you could argue they helped damage her career. But it's not as though there were other roles going. Mills grew up very pretty and charming but as an adult she lacked the X factor she had as a child performer.

This is a well written memoir full of interesting stories, like joining her father in Australia when he was making Summer of the Seventeenth Doll - they went to a party with the touring English side, everyone was boozy, Ann Baxter lost an earring in the pool and everyone jumped in to find it. Stewart Granger bullied her at a party, teasing her about the paper in her bra. I can see him doing that.

It goes up until her leaving Roy Boulting. Odd decision - surely there was at least a chapter on Leigh Lawson and making Parent Trap 2 and films like Appointment with Death?

Saturday, October 24, 2020

Book review - "My Lucky Star" by Margret Lockwood (1955)

 Charming memoir from Lockwood, quite early in her career, really - twenty years in. But, as it turned out, it came as she stopped being a film star.

It was an eventful life. She was born into Karachi, moved to England, started acting young, made a fair fist of it early on, helped by her beauty, talent, and the support of Gainsborough. 

I would have liked more about the movies and co stars - there's no a lot here. There is a lot about her husband, her mother, her lover "Bill", and most of all her daughter Toots, the great love of her life. This is very sweet.

Saturday, September 19, 2020

Movie review - "Harry Black and the Tiger" (1958) ** (re-viewing)

 This doesn't work. It should - the basic story is solid. There's location filming in Africa. Maybe Stewart Granger isn't up to the role - it's a meaty part: a hunter who lost part of a leg trying to track down a tiger that is tormenting a village.

Maybe he's too put upon - attacked by a tiger, crippled, he has a whimpy mate, he doesn't get the girl. He doesn't get a chance to kick ass. That Indian nurse seems a little into him - they should have developed that.

It's not that exciting. There's no real personal stakes in the tiger hunt until the end when a brat kid runs away and that's only a short time. The tiger should have killed Barbara Rush - to give Granger a reason to go for it.  The tiger kills a kid but the Indian characters are given such little screen time it doesn't have much impact.

Steel has a different ish role - a coward, bit of an incompetent but not all that bad. He's not up to it. Can't convey emotion. Barbara Rush is too polite at the girl. Needed to be someone more obviously hungry for love.

They dub the voice of the kid. Bad move. I remember bad dubbing in Northwest Frontier as well. Something about poor dubbing of kids in late 50s movies shot in India. The stuff about protecting the kid's image of the cowardly father reminded me of Shane.  But in Shane Van Heflin was a brave man who deserved respect he just wasn't a professional gunfighter; here Steel is this mediocrity in someone else's country whose incompetence causes Granger to be injured twice.

It is weird to see all these white characters acting as if its pre 1947 in India when it is set after World War Two. They should have just set it before the war and had another reason for the injury.

Nice location work. But dull. You can see why it wasn't a hit.

Wednesday, September 09, 2020

Movie review - "Commando" (1962) *** (warning: spoilers)

 Stewart Granger fled to Europe in the sixties, a decision that ultimately put the wind out of hs career, but this is a surprisingly enjoyable action movie. It's a guys on a mission tale, the mission being to capture a rebel leader in 1961 Algeria - the heros are French Foreign Legion.

This was a surprise for me. It's a tight action movie - I saw a crappy print but there's plenty of action, it's filmed on some sort of location, they attempt to have a cross section of soldiers (Dorian Gray as a hooker, there's a soldier who slept with a 14 year old girl,the rebel leader).

The ending is bleak but feels realistic - most of the team die, the guy they captured is released for political reasons. 

It's absolutely one of Granger's better 60s movies.

Sunday, August 16, 2020

Movie review - "Footsteps in the Fog" (1955) (re-watching) ***

 This holds up well. It probably should have been in intimate black and white instead of colour - the colour on the print I watched wasn't very good. The fact it was shot in England helps. I'm not a Jean Simmons fan but I liked her here - a maid who knows boss Stewart Granger murdered his wife, but loves him... even after Granger then tries to kill her (he knocks off someone else, a mother with two kids, which is full on. The film doesn't really explore this darkness).

Granger is good as a villain. I quite liked Bill Travers and Belinda Lee too - Lee loves Granger, and Travers loves Lee but has to defend Granger. This is a decent subplot. 

Lee doesn't have much to do other than look rich and beautiful which she does. Travers is solid, strong speaking voice.

 Granger does take a risk poisoning himself to get Simmons then tripping up - risk strategy. Maybe all the twists don't work but the underlying drama of a crazy eyes maid in love with her murderous boss is effective and holds it together.

Monday, June 15, 2020

Movie review - "Caravan" (1946) *** (re-watching)

These films are fun. Silly but fun. They tried to make them better but didn't understand why they worked and killed the fun.

This has unrealistic sets, which kept the budget down and made the story more believable because it takes place in never never land. 

Stewart Granger is excellent as is Robert Helpmann; Dennis Price imitates James Mason, and isn't as good , but this is one of his better works. Jean Kent is fine - great character but she is second tier. 

Anne Crawford is a debit - I'm sorry she died young in real life, but she is. Her character doesn't help - bland blonde English lady.

We didn't need all those flashbacks at the star, but it moves at a decent clip - English films forgot how to move. It gets Gainsborough requirements - a good guy and a bad guy, both into sex; a good girl and a bad girl; the bad girl isn't really bad but is foreign and sex mad so dies; the good girl suffers but gets the guy. Why was that so hard for Sydney Box to understand?

Thursday, August 29, 2019

Movie review - "Young Bess" (1953) ***

The fame of the Somerset brothers has suffered from their great days coming after Henry VIII but they were still a highly entertaining pair of rogues, grasping at power in the wake of Henry's death, trying to control Edward VI and the young Queen Elizabeth.

This takes an inevitably romantic look - Stewart Granger is a dashing Thomas Seymour, admired by Henry and loved by young Queen Bess (Jean Simmons). Simmons is meant to be a 14 year old but clearly looks over 20, and what's more was married to Granger in real life.

In the first bit Granger only has eyes for Deborah Kerr as Catherine Parr. But then - and I feel this was a mistake - he falls for Simmons as well. It's a bit yuck because she's so young (not completely young but very young) but also dramatically unsatisfying because Granger is torn between two nice women. Those sort of plot lines rarely work - it's better when one is Bad but Kerr is good. They would've been better off having Granger entirely devoted to Kerr then falling for Simmons after Kerr died.

Still this is an entertaining film, with that MGM gloss and colour and a decent story plus George Sidney behind the camera. It helps that it's kind of true and is so domestic - you believe Simmons having a crush on Granger, and Granger squabbling with brother Guy Rolfe, and Simmons bickering with her brother Edward.

Charles Laughton pops up as Henry VIII. Everyone is well cast. Kathleen Byron has some good moments as Rolfe's wife. The character of Thomas Seymour has been romanticised - even Henry VIII prefers him, everyone says he's brave and good looking - but that does fit in with the story they want to tell.

They should consider remaking this film, or at least re telling this story, showing Seymour as more of a predator, which he was. I think it would work well these days.

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Movie review - "The Whole Truth" (1958) *** (warning: spoilers)

One of a few films that pulled the air out of the tires of Stewart Granger's film career post MGM. You can see why he made it though - it was from Romulus, and was directed by John Guillermin, the budget afforded an American co star (Donna Reed) it was based on a popular play.

Many critics said this was similar to Dial M for Murder and I can see why - it was based on a TV play which became a stage play, has a few twists and turns.

It's not as skilled though director John Guillermin does a good job. It starts brilliantly with  George Sanders meeting Stewart Granger at a party saying he's a detective and Granger's ex mistress has been murdered. Granger freaks and goes to retrieve some things of his at the mistress's house. Granger then sees the mistress is alive and freaks out. He takes her home. She's murdered. He's a suspect. Sanders appears and says he's no detective, he's her husband... and says Granger did it. Evidence points to Granger. Sanders admits he did it... but wants Granger to swing for it.

Up to this point I was going "wow" but couldn't see where else they could go with it. And they don't really go anywhere. Granger gets arrested, his dull wife Donna Reed steps in to find evidence to rescue him.

I mean it was fine, just not up to the first half. It's in black and white which means the south of France setting really isn't exploited. Jonathan Latimer wrote the script which has some good lines and situations - it's briskly done. Just not up to the quality of the first half.

It is interesting to see Granger in a role of a man under pressure. He normally played flat out villains or heroes. Sanders is great fun as always. Reed is pretty but bland. 

The girl who plays the mistress is awful, a caricature of a sexy European dame.

Friday, June 21, 2019

Movie review - "North to Alaska" (1960) **** (re-viewing)

Maybe four stars is too much but re-watching this film - I've seen it several times - I was struck by how much I like it. So many of the pleasures you simply don't get any more - John Wayne in the lead, Charles Feldman's mistress Capucine knocking it out of the park as his co star, Fabian in support, a jaunty ballad-pop theme tune.

Apparently the movie was greatly rewritten as it went along by Henry Hathaway supervising. Someone knew writing though because it does hang together in part because there is decent central conflict - Wayne and Stewart Granger are partners in Alaska circa 1906 who've struck it rich, Wayne goes to Seattle to collect Granger's fiance, finds she's gotten married to someone else so he brings back a prostitute, Capucine. Capucine thinks Wayne wants her and by the time she finds out the truth she's fallen for her - but Wayne doesn't want to be tied down.

So you've got good central conflict and decent characters - a miner who won't be married, and a prostitute who wants him. That's a juicy central dramatic situation. They complicate it in decent ways - there are claim jumpers after Wayne's mine, Granger falls for Capucine, so does Granger's kid brother Fabian, a conman Ernic Kovacs is after the mine, drunken Mickey Shaugnessy used to own the minr. Stories dovetail neatly - for instance Capucine is an ex of Kovacs.

It goes for two hours and really could have been cut - the last half hour the conflict is contrived as they struggle to find ways to keep Wayne and Capucine apart. I also think the sequence where Granger and Capucine are trying to make Wayne jealous drags. They probably wanted to give Granger something to do - it's not much of a part. However, he is a believable miner and it's nice that this role was played by someone with charisma and presence, he gives it heft.

Kovacs is a strong antagonist - he's clever and sly. Wayne is in wonderful form - big, warm, charismatic, doing an amusing slow burn, jealous, charming It's one of his likeable performances.

It's also one of Fabian's best efforts. The role suits him like a glove - not too much pressure, but still with a little meat. It's not very convincing that he and Granger are brothers, and his haircut feels 1960 rather than 1906 but he gets to play a 17 year old and has a definite character - kid who wants to be an adult, who falls for Capucine and tries to seduce her (a long scene and he holds his own). He sings a song "If You Only Knew", which is a soft ballad - he wasn't bad at these eg "This Friendly World" from Hound Dog Man. He's very likeable.

The real surprise packet though is Capucine. A bit of a joke at the time because she was am oderl turned actress and mistress of Charles Feldman, she's a delight - perfectly cast (as a French prostitute), elegant, beautiful, lovely. She believably falls in love with Wayne, is very sweet - the first third of the film, their courtship in Seattle, is among the best bit of the movie. She's good at comedy - very funny being seduced by Fabian and later taking part in the brawl at the end. This is important too because the movie is her character's story as much as Wayne's - she drives the second half of the movie, pursuing Wayne.

The scenary is spectacular and the production design a delight - beaches, steamers, muddy roads, bordellos, lumberjack lunches, mines. I have a soft spot for "Northerns" set during the Alaskan gold rush and this film really goes for it.

It's a charming, sweet movie  with a jaunty title track. I recognise I may be biased because I saw this film as a kid when highly formative.

(I could have done without the wacky sound effects during the fight scenes eg birds tweeting when someone gets punched.)

Movie review - "Green Fire" (1954) **

Pretty much every film Grace Kelly starred in was popular - this one has a reputation as a dud but in fact it made a profit. No one likes it though and it isn't very good.

It's bewildering what went wrong. It has a lot of things going for it - Kelly of course, but also an ideally cast Stewart Granger (stepping in for Clark Gable, who was meant to star, but the studio took it away when he wouldn't renew his contract), Paul Douglas in support, location filming in Columbia, CinemaScope, great color, and a plot about looking for jewels in Columbia. There's elements which sound exciting - bandits, cave ins, fights - and it looks good, but it's all... flat.

Part of the problem is the story is stagnant. Granger turns up looking for emeralds, and finds them very quickly... near the coffee plantation of Grace Kelly. He spends most of the film hanging around the coffee plantation. They have meals on the verandah, walks in the garden, then they do some mining but it's next door - it's not like say King Solomon's Mines where he was moving around.

There are some villainous bandits but they just sort of turn up whenever need to. Paul Douglas feels extraneous - a sidekick who is Granger's moral conscience, I think. But Kelly is also his moral conscience. They should have made Douglas a villain, or at least funny.

There's also John Ericson as Kelly's brother. He sort of hangs around, then overrules Kelly in helping Granger build the mine, then is killed... to... make Kelly annoyed at Granger, I guess. But Ericson feels pointless. Why not make him a villain too?

Instead we've got this boring drama about Granger being greedy, digging  a mine (though the script tweaks it so that Ericson pushes the idea on Granger).

I would have made it that Granger's partner, Paul Douglas, was more ruthless than Granger. I would have had Kelly as an innocent abroad - she has nothing to play as it is, she's just this dim woman hanging around a coffee plantation. If you wanted to keep the stupid coffee plantation I would have had Kelly come out to take it over, and if you wanted to keep Ericson, have him run it into the ground because he was lazy and useless. So Kelly is this hoity toity miss trying to fix her coffee plantation while Granger is swagging around digging for emeralds - this gives Kelly something to do.

I would've added more sexual tension too. The hottest bit is when Granger and Kelly kiss in the rain - at the end. Have this stuff throughout. Make her prim and proper, wanting to be rogered but afraid at the same time etc etc. Not rocket science.

But MGM under Dore Schary struggled with these sort of meat and potatoes broad appeal entertainments.

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Movie review - "Beau Brummel" (1954) ***

In the 1950s MGM liked to remake old hits in widescreen and colour - about half Stewart Granger's films for the studios were remakes including this one, which was done previously with John Barrymore.

There's plenty of admire - beautiful color and sets, a superb performance by Peter Ustinov as George IV and an equally good one by Robert Morley as his mad father.  Granger is dashing and Elizabeth Taylor looks pretty.
 
But at times  I wondered what the point of it was. There's no action, so it's not a swashbuckler like Scaramouche. It's not heavy on romance so it's not a great drama. It's more a bromance between Granger and Ustinov.

But we never get a sense of what drives Brummell/Granger - why he is the way he is... and indeed why what he is should be interesting. He's not motivated by revenge, or greed, or lust, or love, or a desire to fight injustice. He just seems to be an amiable chap.

I haven't seen the Barrymore version but I read the synopsis and that made sense - he was getting revenge for a thwarted love.

James Donald is an okay villain but again I wasn't sure why he was a villain. I wasn't sure why Taylor loved Granger and he loved her (apart from them both being hot), or why they couldn't be together or why at the end he didn't want to be with her when she wanted to be with him. The ending might have been more moving if Granger hadn't foolishly rejected Ustinov and Taylor for no apparent good reason.

Taylor is gorgeous but feels too young for Granger. They were going to cast Eleanor Parker and I wish they had.

The relationship with Ustinov and Granger is touching - Granger is the big brother Ustinov clearly needs. But too much of this is dramatically undercooked and unclear.

Thursday, January 05, 2017

Stars Under Dore Schary at MGM

I became interested in the Dore Schary era at MGM when researching my book on Rod Taylor - he signed to the studio in late 1955, towards the end of Schary's regime. Schary's reputation as a studio exec is mixed to say the least - when people think about him, that is. He doesn't seem to polarise buffs the way say Leo B Mayer did. He's not regarded as one of the great moguls. He famously replaced Mayer in 1951 but was given the boot himself a few years later.

Schary's credits do demand he be taken seriously as a filmmaker - some okay ones as writer, but very good ones as producer. He championed some difficult subjects as studio head: Battleground, They Live By Night, Bad Day at Black Rock. These are movies to be proud of - and the world is a better place for them being in it.

However when it came to stars, Schary was a clear second-rater. Maybe a third rater, even. This was particularly noticeable because of the studio he ran.

Before Schary's arrival, MGM was renowned for it's stars - it had the biggest, the brightest, etc. They had everything: crusty old farts (Wallace Beery, Lionel Barrymore), charismatic tough guys (Clark Gable), pretty boys (Robert Taylor), novelty acts (Esther Williams), comediennes (Jean Harlow), plucky teens (Mickey Rooney), boys next door (James Stewart, Van Johnson, Robert Walker, Robert Young), kids (Freddie Bartholomew, Margaret O'Brien, Claude Jarman Jnr), old bags (Marie Dressler, Marjorie Main), wacky girls (Lucille Ball), posh girls (Greer Garson, Deborah Kerr), comics (Red Skelton, Marx Brothers), sexpots (Joan Crawford, Ava Gardner, Lana Turner), classy dames (Myrna Loy, Katherine Hepburn), stunning musical talent (Judy Garland), foreign imports (Greta Garbo, Hedy Lamar, Greer Garson), Frenchmen (Jean Pierre Aumont), actors who had failed at other studios (Spencer Tracy, William Powell, Lew Ayres), opera singers (Mario Lanza, Jane Powell, Nelson Eddy, Jeanette MacDonald), even blacks (Lena Horne) and Chinese (Keye Luke).

Louis B Mayer had a genius for discovering and managing stars that still isn't fully appreciated today. Absolutely Eddie Mannix and Howard Strickling played their part too but they at the studio after Mayer left - and the studio lost its ability to create stars.

Let's look the big MGM stars during Schary's time at the studio and Schary's involvement in their careers:

* June Allyson - the girl next door star of musicals, very much a Pasternak/Mayer kind of star, when Schart took over she was at her peak (The Three Musketeers, Little Women, The Stratton Story) - her career declined under his watch - Too Young to Kiss, The Girl in White, Remains to Be Seen (though to be fair they did put her in Battle Circus and Executive Suite). Maybe this decline would have happened anywhere but it's interesting that Allyson's career was revitalised in the mid 50s with a series of "perfect wife" roles outside MGM (The Glenn Miller Story, Strategic Air Command) that saw her back in the top ten stars. MGM responded by putting her in The Opposite Sex, a flop musical remake of The Women.  I think Allyson was not a typical Schary kind of star - suited for saccharine roles in musicals and dramas - and he didn't know how to handle her.

* Pier Angeli - became a star in Teresa and Schary must have been convinced he found his own Garbo. But he failed to build on the momentum: The Light Touch, Devil Makes Three, Story of Three Loves, The Flame and the Flesh.

* Leslie Caron - one of the biggest stars of Schary's time at the studio, she was a star in An American in Paris and brought them in in Lili (and later Gigi) but also a lot of money losers (The Man in a Cloak, Glory Alley, Gaby, The Glass Slipper). A mixed success.

* Cyd Charisse - a Mayer discovery who never really made a mark outside of musicals, but lasted at the studio a long time. Schary didn't know what to do with her outside musicals, not really.

* Glenn Ford - already a star at Columbia, but it was at MGM he really came into his own. His man next door looks and slightly tormented air suited the Eisenhower era, with it's secretly PTSD men in suits smoking cigarettes and having domestic dramas. He suited Schary style movies such as Trial and The Blackboard Jungle and went well in comedies such as Teahouse of the August Moon. I think Ford's elevation from B to A star owes something to Schary. 

*Clark Gable - the King of Hollywood, he wasn't handled with particular skill by Schary who seemed uncomfortable with Gable movies. In fairness, Gable was on the slide - but he was capable of bringing them in, as Mogambo (and his post MGM movies) showed. Schary should have been able to handle him better.

* Ava Gardner - a reluctant MGM discovery (came up via marriage to Mickey Rooney) they actually did well by her with choices parts such as Showboat, Loan Star and Mogambo. Schary didn't "get" female stars but he "got" the noir-ish Gardner.

* Stewart Granger - a good MGM star from 1950-56, although he was already a star in Britain before he joined the studio, and mostly thrived in remakes while there (King Solomon's Mines, Prisoner of Zenda, Scaramouche). Nonetheless, while Granger whinged a lot about Schary he whinged about everyone and made a hash of his career post MGM; I think Schary did okay by Granger.

* Howard Keel - decent musical star who appeared in several classics of that genre whose career declined with the musical. Made some classics under Schary (notably Seven Brides for Seven Brothers). Could he have done more under Mayer? Maybe... maybe not... Keel did lack a little individuality.

*Gene Kelly - a tremendous talent who blossomed in the Schary era but it was really in musicals made under Mayer ally Arthur Freed that he became a legend.

* Grace Kelly - she became a star in the Schary era, but her great films were made at other studios (especially Paramount with Hitchcock). Schary tried to take some credit for her success, and he did sign her up, but he also cast her in her only critical flop, Green Fire, and her one commercial flop, The Swan. (Every film she starred in outside the studio was a critical and commercial hit. Every single one.)

*Deborah Kerr - a back up Greer Garson who eventually came into her own in the 1950s but not really in MGM films. Like many Schary era MGM stars (eg Grace Kelly, Elizabeth Taylor), she did better outside MGM.

*Mario Lanza - a triumph of Mayer's star making abilities... and Schary's lack of them. Lanza was a major talent who was nurtured carefully by the studio, rewarded them with some minor hits then a massive one with The Great Caruso. He wound up leaving MGM. I can't imagine Mayer struggling to handle Lanza, he was so skilled dealing with high maintenance stars... Schary did struggle.

* Ricardo Montalban - the dancing Latin, who came in as a support to Esther Williams. He had good roles in some very Schary-leaning productions: Battleground, Mystery Street, Right Cross... Schary probably had dreams of turning Montalban into the first big Mexican Hollywood star. But ultimately it didn't work. Too many dud Schary films. (And to be fair I don't think Montalban had the individuality to be a great movie star... he was a TV man.)

* Eleanor Parker - not remembered as a big name, she was a solid MGM star in the 1950s, even though it was Warners who established her. She had some good years at Metro under Schary as their kind of back up Ava Gardner - Scaramouche, Interrupted Melody - but could never move into the first rank, having some big flops (eg The Painted Veil). Still, probably deserves to be remembered better and Schary gave her plenty of chances. She was probably too much of a character actor and not individual enough to be a great star - as she admitted.

* Walter Pidgeon - gentlemanly actor who found his niche as a leading man for Greer Garson. By the time Schary came along his great days were over; he drifted into support roles which I think would've been inevitable. Schary did give Pidgeon one of his best roles with Forbidden Planet. I think Schary "got" Pigdeon - he could play authoritative types. 

*Jane Powell - pretty, pert discovery of Joe Pasternak who spluttered along under Schary then faded as musicals went out of fashion. Schary didn't do that well by her but it's hard to imagine Mayer at his peak doing much more.

* Debbie Reynolds - people think of Reynolds as a bigger star in the early 1950s than she was because of Eddie Fisher and Singing in the Rain but she played a lot of support roles in unsuccessful musicals for MGM - Hit the Deck, Athena, The Affairs of Dobie Gillis, Give a Girl a Break - and the odd successful comedy (The Tender Trap). It's a tribute to Schary's lack of star making nous that she only really became a genuine star once she left the studio for Tammy; she returned to MGM once Schary left and did well for them (eg The Main Game). Schary simply didn't use her well.

* Elizabeth Taylor - discovered during the Mayer regime, she flowered in the 1950s... but her big films were at other studios (eg A Place in the Sun) until the late 1950s, when MGM gave her something to bite into (Raintree County, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof).

* Robert Taylor - handsome lunk who spent the early part of his career on the arm of leading ladies, but who had a long, strong career. MGM did well by him when he came back from the war, and although very much a Mayer type star he did unexpectedly well under Schary, finding an unexpected niche as the star of swashbucklers (Quo Vadis, Ivanhoe) and more expectedly Westerns.

* Spencer Tracy - the resuscitation of Tracy's career at MGM was a triumph of Mayer and Thalberg (they took a well regarded but not particularly popular star and turned him into a legend). Schary loved Tracy and did very well by him, unlike most of the legendary MGM names: Father of the Bride, Bad Day at Black Rock, Adam's Rib, etc. Schary didn't break new ground with Tracy but their films together are definitely in Schary's credit column.

*Lana Turner - stunningly pretty, couldn't act, but was a star... the sort of star Schary simply didn't know how to handle. The Schary regime is notable for its mishandling of Turner's career (Diane, The Prodigal) with the exception of The Bad and the Beautiful. There was still life in her career, too, as proved by her success after leaving Metro - Peyton Place, Imitation of Life, Portrait in Black... MGM under Schary just didn't know how to do it, whereas Jerry Wald and Ross Hunter did. Maybe if Schary had used her in more harder-edged films things could have been different; he clearly didn't "get" glossy entertainments.

*Michael Wilding - had a four year contract with the studio while married to Elizabeth Taylor. MGM never really seemed to know how to use him (miscast in The Glass Slipper) - he may never have found a home in Hollywood but his career never recovered from the years at MGM.

*Esther Williams - Williams was the story of star who probably only could have been developed and exploited by Mayer. Her films were a joke at the time but they were enormously successful - far more profitable than the classic Freed musicals - and they have held up well, mainly because they have such integrity. They came under the ambit of Joe Pasternak so Dore Schary couldn't do too much damage to them... but eventually he did put her in Jupiter's Darling, her biggest flop, and she left the studio. Williams later bitched about Schary in her memoirs... though she bitched about everyone. In fairness even Mayer would've been challenged to extend Williams' career as she aged and musicals declined in popularity - but he would've done a better job than Schary.

Most of the above were developed by people other than Schary. Below is a list of people who came up under his tutelage.

*Richard Anderson - handsome young man who was around for a long time in support parts but never looked like evolving to a star. A TV name at best, which is what he became.

*Don Burnett - handsome young actor in the Richard Anderson mold who never really rose better than his role in the TV series of North West Passage.

*John Cassevetes - briefly under contract to MGM in the late 50s; they used him in Edge of the City and Saddle the Wind. So MGM's ability to spot talent was in... they just didn't always know how to use the actors they had.

*Vic Damone - handsome guy with a terrific voice and married to an actor (Pier Angeli) but was curiously lifeless in his film appearances: Athena, Kismet, Hit the Deck. Another flop Schary star.

*Nancy Davis - whatever you say about her politics, Nancy was a bland middle of the road actor who got a surprisingly large amount of lead roles at MGM, almost all of which lost money. Had no business being a star - a dull support act at best.

*Sandra Descher - MGM child star who underwhelmed in The Last Time I Saw Paris, The Cobweb, The Prodigal.

*Robert Dix - son of Richard Dix, he was signed to MGM from 1954-56 and mostly had bit parts plus a decent ish role in Forbidden Planet. Had an interesting career, making some memorable exploitation films (for Al Adamson, among others), but a long, long way from a star.

*Jim Drury - handsome young man who MGM contracted and put in some minor roles eg Diane, The Tender Trap. They let him go and he had success on TV playing The Virginian. That was about all he did but it wasn't a bad "spot" from MGM.

*Tania Elg - beautiful, leggy Finnish dancer, it was her misfortune to be signed as MGM's output of musicals was in decline. She was given some non musical chances (The 39 Steps, Watusi) but lacked the individuality which might have given her more of a career.

*John Ericson - handsome man who was launched to kind-of stardom in Teresa but never seemed to make a big impression despite several chances at the studio: Rhapsody, The Student Prince, Green Fire, Bad Day at Black Rock.

*Steve Forrest - handsome man who never graduated beyond "handsome man" roles at MGM. Later had more success on TV.

*Anne Francis - pretty but bland leading lady who actually appeared in a few classic films during her time at the studio (The Blackboard Jungle, Forbidden Planet, Bad Day at Black Rock) but is hard to remember.

*Anthony Franciosa - an interesting talent, he signed towards the end of the Schary regime (This Could be the Night) and had a good career, but he never made the top rank.

*Ronald Green - contractee whose best known MGM performance was as The Dauphin in Diane and who had bit parts in The King's Thief, The Glass Slipper and The Scarlet Coat. Did not go on to have much of a career.

*Dolores Grey - top notch stage star, winner of several Tonys, who signed to the studio and made several films for them - Designing Woman, The Opposite Sex, It's Always Fair Weather, Kismet - but failed to make too much of an impression. Another example of Schary being unable to exploit a genuine proven talent.

*Dean Jones - amiable boy next door type in the Jack Lemmon mode who later found great popularity as a leading man in several Disney films. He started his film career as a contract player for MGM with small parts in The Rack, Tea and Sympathy and The Opposite Sex. His career didn't really get going until he left the studio but I think MGM do get some points for spotting him.

*Judi Jordan - had small roles in Raintree County and Ransom! and... that's all I can find on her.

*Anna Kashfi - Indian-American actress best known for her marriage to Marlon Brando. Was under contract to MGM but I'm not sure she made any films for them.

*John Kerr - a Broadway sensation in Tea and Sympathy, Kerr at one stage was so "hot" he turned down The Spirit of St Louis and Friendly Persuasion. MGM used him for The Cobweb, Tea and Sympathy and Gaby - the latter two leads. A very underwhelming talent, and indicative of Schary's failure to spot male stars.

*Janet Lake - un-memorable starlet once married to Robert Dix. Small roles in films like The Fastest Gun Alive and These Wilder Years.

*Barbara Lang - blonde sexy Marilyn Monroe type under contract to MGM who had small parts in films like Hot Summer Nights, Party Girl and House of Numbers. Had some okay TV appearances.

*Luana Lee - MGM glamour girl who never moved beyond small parts in films like Raintree County, The Opposite Sex, The Fastest Gun Alive.

*Jarma Lewis - starlet in the Luana Lee and Tania Elg mould, and became about as successful despite roles in The Tender Trap, The Cobweb and Raintree County. She married well though - to a bowling alley tycoon.

*Dewey Martin- one of those actors who got chances (The Big Sky, Land of the Pharaohs) but never seemed to become a star. Made a few MGM films, including Tennessee Champ but failed to become a star.

*Liliane Montevecchi - ballerina who MGM seemed to have on their books as a back up Leslie Caron, appearing in The Glass Slipper, Moonfleet and Meet Me in Las Vegas. They failed to turn her into a star.

*Roger Moore - handsome cardigan model with a fantastic voice and became a much beloved star via The Saint and James Bond. His MGM experience was less happy - to be frank he was pretty bad in a series of films; the studio did give him chances but he blew them (Diana, The King's Thief, Interrupted Melody).

*Elizabeth Mueller - European star who was tried by MGM in The Power and the Prize but didn't take off.

*Leslie Nielsen - another bland handsome face who was highly unimpressive in his MGM films (ef Forbidden Planet) then settled into TV... and who then had a surprising late in life renaissance as a comedy actor. Like Roger Moore, a talent that MGM/Schary spotted but did not use well (though in fairness, was Nielsen a great lost star?).

*Irene Papas - yes, Irene Papas of Guns of Navarone, Z and Zorba the Greek fame really was under contract to MGM during the Schary era - appearing in Tribute to a Bad Man. She didn't have her big success until after she left the studio but Schary and MGM deserve some points for trying.

*Edmund Purdom - a handsome lunk from England who was doing bits then launched to overnight fame in The Student Prince. Schary thought MGM had a new star - especially after Fox borrowed him for The Egyptian - but returns for The Prodigal, The King's Thief and Athena proved their eye was out again. In his memoirs Schary makes it seem as though he turfed Purdom after the latter asked for more money, which may have been true - but Schary doesn't mention he also cast Purdom in three vehicles, which all flopped.

*Jeff Richards - Schary era discovery, a baseball player who became an actor, but he proved to be no Kurt Russell. One memorable part was in Seven Brides to Seven Brothers. And that was about it.

*Gena Rowlands - a surprisingly far-sighted signing from MGM, who nabbed her after her stage success in Middle of the Night. She only made one film - The High Cost of Loving. A great talent that they didn't know how to use.

*Willard Sage - small time actor, a character actor type, who was under contract to MGM but never did much more than bits in films like Gaby and The Tender Trap. Didn't have a spectacular career once he left the studio either.

*Elaine Stewart - Schary's attempt at creating a sex bomb. Stewart shone in small roles in The Bad and the Beautiful and Brigadoon then was promoted in Take the High Ground, A Slight Case of Larcency and Code Two, without making much of an impact. 

*Russ Tamblyn - child actor who turned into a great dancer and a decent-ish actor with a strong boy next door quality; Schary had him pegged as a next big thing (maybe he was dreaming of creating his own Mickey Rooney) and gave him lots of chances. Although Tamblyn had his moments (Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, High School Confidential, Tom Thumb) he never quite broke through. MGM put him in a lot of movies where he looked plain odd (The Last Hunt, Cimarron). Overall though he was one of Schary's more successful actors.

*Rod Taylor - a big name in Aussie radio, was given two good chances by Schary, The Catered Affair and Raintree County. He didn't particularly shine in either but his later career demonstrated Schary had some success with talent development. He made a lot of good films for MGM post Schary: The Time Machine, The VIPs, Young Cassidy. 

*Bill Travers - handsome lunk from England who was signed by MGM off the back of his success in Geordie but failed to light the public's fire in Bhowani Junction, The Seventh Veil or The Barretts of Wimpole Street. Another Schary-era dud star.

*Ralph Vitti - young actor who was contracted to MGM and given small roles in Somebody Up There Likes Me and Raintree County. Was dropped by the studio, later went to Warners, and had an okay career as "Michael Dante". 

*James Whitmore - a Spencer Tracy lookalike who seemed to get a lot of the roles Tracy didn't want to do at MGM (Battleground, The Next Voice You Hear, Because You're Mind). A capable, sturdy actor, not a star.

In fairness it was a tricky time to create stars - but let's look at how other studios did during the 1950s...
  
Universal developed Jeff Chandler, Rock Hudson, Audie Murphy, Yvonne de Carlo and Tony Curtis. Later there was Sandra Dee. This is a pretty strong record.

Warner Bros had Paul Newman, Dennis Hopper, James Dean, James Garner, Troy Donahue, Tab Hunter and Natalie Wood. An excellent result.

Columbia had John Derek, Aldo Ray, James Darren, Kim Novak, Judy Holliday, Jack Lemon. Very good.

20th Century Fox had Robert Wagner, Jeffrey Hunter, Sheree North, Pat Boone and Jayne Mansfield. In the late 1950s Buddy Adler went on a star building rampage: Stuart Whitman, Gary Crosby, David Hedison, Jill St John, Fabian.

So MGM didn't just do badly in comparison to their past they did in comparison to their competitors.

Which is life. But what prompted me to write this article is that Schary had the gall to write pieces on how to make stars, such as "Then It's Up to the Public: Dore Schary Tells How to Create a Film Star" in Los Angeles Times 9 January 1955 p D1.

In actual fact Schary would consistently misuse the stars he had (Grace Kelly, Elizabeth Taylor), be unable to handle stars (Mario Lanza), not know what he had under his nose (Roger Moore, Debbie Reynolds), or promote duds (Edmund Purdom, Jeff Richards, James Whitmore). He helped kill the careers of Esther Williams and Jane Powell. He did treat some stars well, such as Walter Pidgeon and Spencer Tracy, and was an early promoter of people like Rod Taylor. But overall it's a shoddy record.

Executives can be miscast just like actors and Dore Schary was miscast to run MGM.

Sunday, September 04, 2016

My Stewart Granger Top Ten

1) Scaramouche (1952) - Granger's best film and best performance - wonderful fun
2) Moonfleet (1955) - flawed but entertaining smuggler movie
3) All the Brothers Were Valiant (1954) - fun adventure tale with Granger an ideal villain
4) Caravan (1946) - outrageous Gainsborough high camp fun
5) Captain Boycott (1947) - intelligent well made period movie
6) Fanny By Gaslight (1944) - strong melodrama
7) The Man in Grey (1943) - the film that made Granger a star and it still holds up
8) The Prisoner of Zenda (1952) - it may have remade the Selznick version exactly but this is still good
9) Bhowani Junction (1956) - underrated post colonial melodrama
10) Waterloo Road (1945) - smug in many ways but Granger gives one of his best performances as a spiv

 Richard Burton wrote in his diary that you couldn't have a Stewart Granger Film Festival. Is this true? Well, it would be a little low rent.

But thinking classy movies

- Some Launder and Gilliats: Waterloo Road, Captain Boycott

- Caesar and Cleopatra

- Some Gainsboroughs: Man in Grey, Fanny by Gaslight, Love Story, Madonna of the Seven Moons, Magic Bow

- MGM auteur pieces: Moonfleet (Fritz Lang), Bhowani Junction (George Cukor)

- Scaramouche!

So you could.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Movie review - "The Last Safari" (1967) *

It sounds like it should be good - Stewart Granger as a big game hunter in Africa, directed by Henry Hathaway, with location filming. The plot sounds solid in short hand - Granger wants to knock off an elephant who killed a friend of his; that's Moby Dick in Africa - that's fine. A millionaire comes along with him, determined to become a man - that's cool too (shades of The Short Happy Life of Francis Macombe). Indeed, Wilbur Smith used this sort of storyline for the first part of one of his Sean Courtney novels, A Time to Die.

But the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Actually, make that, pretty much everything to be desired except for maybe location filming. It's a poor script, with uninteresting characters, no suspense or action. Hathaway's direction feels tired. There's this awful jaunty music theme which is reminiscent of late 60s television.

Most crucially, far too big a role is given to someone called Kaz Garas, who plays the millionaire who wants to go on safari. Garas is spectacularly awful, yelling his lines at everyone including Granger, hunching his shoulders, jutting his head around like an ape. Who was he and why was he given the lead in this? Was he someone's cousin? Someone's son? Lover?

Granger is okay. You believe him as a hunter. He's professional at least which is more than his two co stars. He looks at Garas with contempt throughout the film and you don't blame him. Granger may have been a prima donna with a limited range but he could act which is more than Garas can. Granger's character is supposed to develop some respect for him at the end; you have Granger with this tight smile, sharing a drink with Garas - he looks as though he wants to shoot him.

In Garas' defence his character is incredibly unlikeable, being a dolt on the first safari (jumping out of a jeep if I'm not mistaken), harassing Granger into joining the latter's safari, tagging along with Granger without invitation, jumping into a dance without invitation, punching out an African dancer who is into his girlfriend, ignoring some suffering local people. He's meant to be rich but how did he make any money? How was he not shot back in the USA? You can't imagine him running a bath let alone some kind of business.

Gabriella Licudi is also terrible as Garas' girlfriend, acting in this dimwit voice. To be fair, she's got some awful dialogue, with this achingly clunky exposition about Granger's backstory, and is required to do things like dance a Watusi on her own to the radio while on safari. But she also has this atrocious delivery and you're forever wondering what accent she's attempting, and sinks to the occasion in a big monologue where she tells off Garas. She's meant to be half caste but looks incredibly white. Her best bit is where she joins in a dance with her top buttoned and she's not wearing a bra - this is quite risque and unexpectedly diverting.

The story kicks off with Garas arriving in Africa and going on a safari with Granger and he's a dickhead. Then he hears about Granger wanting to go after a elephant and tags along. Why would Garas care? Why is he so insistent? Why is Gabriella Licundi going along? Granger pushes Garas away time and time again. Why didn't they just have Granger need backing from Garas? Why do they drench the film the music? Why does Licudi dance the Watusi? (I know that actually - for a cheap gag in a film that didn't need it.) Why not open the film with the elephant killing Granger's friend so we see it instead of hearing about it? Why so many repetitive scenes of Granger telling Garas to go away? Why not try to develop friendship between Granger and Garas? (They kind of do... in the last two minutes.) Why so many scenes of Licudi explaining the backstory? Why no sense of danger until the end?

The film is also racist, which I know you can say about most Hollywood films set in Africa, but is particularly annoying here because it's so bad. They try to get around it by having Garaz go tsk tsk at some white big game hunters who won't let supposedly half caste Licudi sit at their table with them, but it's kind of weakened by the fact she hardly looks half caste and that there are no decent speaking roles for black actors. The one sizeable part is a porter played by Johnny Sekka - he's in sunglasses which is different.

It's a bad film, poorly made. Poor Granger. 

Monday, May 09, 2016

Movie review - "Quentin Durward" (1955) **1/2

Quo Vadis kicked off a career for Robert Taylor as swashbuckler, and he had two big hits of that genre in England, Ivanhoe and Knights of the Round Table. This was a flop though - indicating that the cycle was winding down. Though to be fair... everyone had heard of the novels on which the other films were based but how well known is Scott's Quentin Durward? Maybe it was at one stage - I'm not sure - but definitely the period within this is set is not as familiar to those in English speaking countries: to wit, the reign of Louis XI and his troubles with Charles the Duke of Burgundy.

I got confused a lot of the time watching this - I wasn't sure who (apart from Taylor) was meant to be the goodies and the baddies and what they were fighting for. It felt as though the film didn't get started until 40 minutes in when Taylor sets off escorting Kay Kendall, who he falls in love with. I struggled to tell the supporting characters apart and didn't know what it was all about.

It's fun to see Kendall get the glamour treatment but she's wasted really - it's a poor role. Taylor's American-ness really grated in this one, in a part that (as you could say for all of Taylor's swashbuckler roles) required Stewart Granger. He tries and seems a decent old stick - but it is frustrating to see someone so miscast. Especially so as he even has something of a character to play - Quentin Durward is a man who tries to do the Right Thing and live by an Honourable Code. There's possible complexities here which Taylor isn't capable of.

The costumes are bright and the production values are high. There are also a number of excellent action sequences - which surprised me since I kind of assume director Richard Thorpe is just a stock technician. But there's some great stuff: Taylor scaling a castle in the beginning, the final duel on chains with fire blazing.

Really top notch support cast, particularly Robert Morley as Louis XI and Duncan Lamont as a scary villain. George Cole's comic relief sidekick did get on my nerves.

Saturday, August 08, 2015

Movie review - "Red Dragon" (1965) **

Following his divorce from Jean Simmons, Stewart Granger hot footed it to Europe and made a bunch of movies of, um, varying quality. This fell into the "less good" category, a Eurospy thriller whose main attraction is some really impressive Hong Kong location photography - in particular there's lots of scenes shot on the harbour involving the junks, which look terrific

Granger plays an FBI agent investigating the death of two agents who were looking into a smuggling ring. Rosanna Schiaffino is another agent who helps him out.

There's a lot of running around and people kidnapping each other and pointing guns at each other. Granger looks in great shape despite the gray hair and kicks a bit of butt. This wasn't a great movie but it got better as it went along particularly as it focused more on action instead of the dopey plot.

Monday, July 06, 2015

Movie review - "Moonfleet" (1955) *** (warning: spoilers) (re-viewing)

An odd sort of movie - you can see why it wasn't a big hit (it lost money) but it's interesting; John Houseman, who produced, always seemed to try to make something of quality, as did director Fritz Lang. Stewart Granger whinged about the final result - he did that about a lot of the films he made - but he was right in some respects: it should have been a black and white lower budgeted film, when MGM added colour and CinemaScope. Still, there is plenty of atmosphere, with the kid walking through the graveyard, and seeing corpses swinging, and ghoulish faces.

This falls into the sub genre of "small boy becomes enthralled with dodgy dashing elder man adventure tales" - Treasure Island, The Fallen Idol, Hunted, The Spanish Gardener are other ones. Jon Whiteley is the boy who goes to stay with smuggler/local lord Stewart Granger, who does deals with aristocrat George Sanders (very good), and romances a bunch of women, including Sanders' wife (Joan Greenwood) and a voluptuous woman (Viveca Lindfors).

Of the characters, only Sanders, Granger and Whiteley get much screen time. It's a bleak tale in a way - Granger is Whiteley's father (it's implied) but Whiteley never finds this out; Granger is mortally wounded (resulting in a touching ending), there don't seem to be too many other nice people; the world is one of corruption and lacks warmth; the ending, with Whitley waiting for Granger's return "because he's my friend" is a bit of a downer because we know the guy's gone off to die. (NB I wonder if this inspired the makers of City of Men.) The storyline also tends to be repetitive - Whitley gets in trouble, is rescued by Granger, gets in trouble again.

Still, Granger was rarely better cast (he did well in these enigmatic roles) - although James Mason probably would have been better. Whiteley is effective and Sanders and Greenwood are always good.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Movie review - "The Last Hunt" (1956) ** (warning:spoilers)

MGM had a big hit with Stewart Granger and Robert Taylor as feuding men of action whose day job involves slaughtering animals in All the Brothers Were Valiant so had another crack at it here. Dore Schary decided to produce personally, and the movie shows his erratic commercial sense, no matter the quality of the novel on which its based.

There are so many problems with this film. It's about buffalo hunters, which is hardly sympathetic to start off with - Granger, the hero, is disgusted by shooting buffalo... but he still does it. The villain, Robert Taylor, is meant to be a baddy because he gets off on killing buffalo and people - but Granger still kills a whole bunch, too. To make it worse the filmmakers throw in all this footage of buffalo genuinely being shot (taken from a cull, but it's still not easy to watch).

The relationship between Granger and Taylor is problematic because they only meet at the beginning of the film - there's no history or familial link. And Taylor's clearly a psycho from the beginning so Granger is not only an idiot for going into business with him, he's a coward for not dealing with his psycho partner a lot earlier. If Granger and Taylor had had a long history, and Taylor had saved his life, or if they'd been brothers, his hesitation would have made some sense - but it doesn't here. 

I get that Taylor wants a friend and indeed his neediness for Granger is sometimes touching (as well as carrying standard 50s Western homoerotic overtones) but there is nothing ever we see in why Granger would need Taylor.

The supporting characters are flawed. The minute I saw Lloyd Nolan hobble on screen, monologuing and boozing I thought "oh no here we go... a wise old alcoholic character" and yep sure enough that's what we end up with. He's meant to be some sort of moral conscience I think but he goes along with the buffalo slaughter and Taylor turning Debra Paget into a sex slave until the very end (I did feel his death scene was very effective, though).

Russ Tamblyn is not only a highly unlikely half-Indian, his presence in the movie feels kind of pointless. I kept waiting for him to be this dramatic wild card - he reverts to Indian ways or betrays his people, or become a Taylor acolyte (which would have been great, actually, and made Granger's reluctance to act more understandable, i.e. it was too risky) - but he just hangs around watching on passively most of the time.

Debra Paget's Indian girl is a classic example of 50s liberal non-racism racism. The movie takes this we-should-be-nice-to-the-Indians stance common of movies of the time - this had been stock since Broken Arrow really. Yet Indians are mostly depicted as weak and spineless and Paget's character isn't even given a name - she's called "Indian girl". And she's this passive thing who goes along and basically agrees to become Taylor's concubine for safety, bats her eyes at Granger until he takes possession of her as well. It's a horrible part.

Dramatically there are other problems too - there's no shoot out at the end between the leads, to which I'm guessing the thinking was "this'll be unexpected" which it is but it's also unsatisfying. There's this long sequence where Granger returns to civilisation and wears a suit and gets in a brawl and flirts with a dance hall girl that looks simply ridiculous.

And as for the leads... Well, Robert Taylor isn't bad and it's interesting to see him play the villain. He should really have played the hero and Granger the villain - Granger made a superb baddy - but I'm guessing they wanted to mix it up. Fans of Taylor and Granger are really the only people who should definitely check this out (apart from Richard Brooks and Western completists).

Granger suits cowboy garb quite well, though in some scenes he goes over the top chewing on a cigar and talking like a cowboy. Their performances do anchor the movie and provide some of the best things about it. Also impressive is the location work in Dakota, and MGM 50s production values. But in general this movie just annoyed me.