Movie review - "Moonlighting - the Pilot" (1986) ****

One of the delights of television in the 80s, brilliantly updating screwball comedy using The Main Event device of a rich woman whose accountant has taken all her money, leaving her with some assets, including a detective agency that was a tax write off.

Cybil Shepherd's career received a major leap from playing the lead- her specialty had been playing sullen eyed stunners in Last Picture Show and Heartbreak Kid then she became something of a joke as Peter Bogdanovich tried to build her into a star with Daisy Miller and At Long Last Love. By the early 80s she must have been washed up - in the pilot for Masquerade she has dull eyes, the sign of a nothing. But here she sparkles and shines, and finally became the star (albeit a small screen one) that Bogdanovich always thought. (She's still very good looking too and in the opening scene flashes a lot of leg).

She's perfectly matched by Bruce Willis' star making turn as the naughty boy David Addison -while in some spots he's a bit rough in this episode he's charismatic and full of energy and life - so funny (he's stopped being funny now,hasn't he, Bruce Willis?). The plot is effective with a memorable assassination sequence involving a jogger, guns and a Mohawk.
Bright, tangy dialogue. They really did it right with this one.

Book review - "Whatever Happened to Orson Welles" by Joe McBride

Another book on Welles? At this stage in the game? But one pauses -McBride is one of the best movie biographers ever, he wouldn't waste our time. And so it proves. This is an unusual sort of book - I'd call it a "personal biography", because it is very much based on McBride's experience as a young writer doing pieces on Welles and working with him on The Other Side of the Wind.

The first section of the book covers Welles' career up to that movie - radio, Kane, Rita, Chimes etc. It is brightly done, but familiar and McBride's tendency to criticise writers who are critical of Welles (e.g. David Thomson, Charles Higham) gets a bit irritating at times - its like being caught in a vicious academic debate about post-modernism. But when he gets on to Other Side of the Wind and Welles's last decade and a half its really interesting; McBride offers a fascinating sketch of Welles and his methods, his collaborators in the last years of his life (especially Gary Graver and his mistress), how his methods changed (a younger mistress = more sexy topics), the staggering array of unfinished projects, his endless struggles to make films, his at times difficult relationship with Peter Bogdanovich and with McBride (despite the young man's passion for Welles' work the director was a real prat at times).

Because Welles' final years were full of so many "if only"s and "wouldn't have been good if he'd been given the support to finish X"s (one of the reasons that he will always be fascinating to film buffs, because his career is so rich in hypotheticals), it can't help but being sad. But there are moments of triumph, too - his various friendships, making F For Fake, his continual ability to remain at the cutting edge with creative powers undimmed, his lust for life.

I was also delighted to read that his final decade was among his most rewarding financially - voice over and commercials work kept him in cigars and food, so he wasn't poor. (NB good on McBride for chiding those who point to his 70s wine ads as some sort of low point in his career - he points out that Welles did heaps of ads back in his 30s glory days, he was always a bit of a huckster). Even better is the fact that Welles at one stage EDITED A PORN MOVIE - Graver worked on the less glamorous fringes of the film industry from time to time, and Welles one day asked if he could help out on something his DOP was doing... hence a Welles touch where you least expect it? (Wonder if they'll start showing it in retrospectives).

The book is (unavoidably) frustrating in one respect in that McBride describes so many of Welles' films from this time but you know its nothing quite like the experience of watching the movie - you kept wishing you could click on a link to watch what he was talking about.(I'd love to watch the Orson Welles talk show). For all the status of The Other Side of the Wind as a lost masterpiece, the story doesn't sound very interesting - I'm sure it would be visually dazzling but Welles running loose without the structure of either a strong co-writer or source material often resulted in a bit of a mess. The heart doesn't beat too fast at the thought of Cradle Will Rock or Big Brass Ring either. However, King Lear - that would have been magnificent, and the fact that didn't get made really upsets me.

The quality slips away in the last bit of the book, as McBride starts to get stuck into other people over Welles - daughter Beatrice for stopping people seeing his father's work (though Beatrice does sound like again), Bogdanovich for wanting money to complete projects, George Lucas and Henry Jaglom for not financing Welles restoration projects out of their personal fortunes (which is a bit unfair, it is their money), slagging off Tim Robbins for Cradle Will Rock.

But on the whole this is a passionate, personal book about Orson Welles, well work reading and invaluable on the last decade and a half of his life.

Book review - "Lugosi" by Gary Rhodes

If you thought previous books on Lugosi were definitive, well guess again -Rhodes has come up with a true "must" for a Lugosi fan. It's a great idea - a sort of encyclopedia on Lugosi with different chapters a bio, film descriptions, stage appearances, vaudeville, television,quotes by Lugosi, quotes about him. It allowed Rhodes to shove in heaps of information without the confines of a narrative bio and it works brilliantly - they should do it for every movie star. I was especially impressed with the emphasis on stage and vaudeville - these were major components of Lugosi's career but are often treated as mere lead-up-to-becoming-a-movie-star; here they get appropriate weight. And its wonderful to hear Lugosi in his own words. Rhodes also pays tribute to Lugosi's status as a cult icon, and the great urban legends of his career (i.e. missing Frankenstein test footage, lost White Zombie footage). The essential tragedy of Lugosi's life is still evoked - one of the most appealing things about him for film fans, I've always thought - but he still had an amazingly rich, diverse life.

Movie review - "Dark Eyes of London" (1939) **

Bela Lugosi made a few films in England, including this enjoyable minor piece based on an Edgar Wallace story. Insurance investigators, bodies in the Thames and Bela as a mad doctor, mad assistants, a damsel in distress, plus an American detective included for the American market (obviously Bela was not enough). A bit more polished than Bela's later films for Monogram, less tacky.

Movie review - "Girl on a Motorcycle" (1968) **

This piece of late 60s groovy cinema has its pleasures, chiefly Marianne Faithful getting up with no clothes on and putting on a leather outfit and driving around to visit Alain Delon. We flashback to their relationship and get Faithful in a variety of stages of undress, plus a lot of interior monologuing.
Despite pleasing shots of a motorbike driving across the roads, one gets the feeling that this would work better as a novel than a movie. Or better in French where some of the dialogue might seem less laughable. It is nice to see a film which deals with the sexual obsession of a woman rather than a man.

Movie review - "Lagaan" (2001) ****

Bollywood movies really are the modern day equivalent to 60s beach party films - wholesome, predictable musicals that are a lot of fun. Curiously, both genres place a lot of emphasis on the group, though they have heroes. This goes for three and a half hours though it didn't need to be. It has a strong Syd Field plot, with its set up, hero, overcoming obstacles, complications etc. The hero has a great intro scene trying tosave deer from hunting Britishers; the baddy gets to show how evil he is forcing a vegetarian Raja to eat meat and also killing a bunny rabbit.Although the baddy is really evil his sister is nice - she falls in love with the Indian and teaches him cricket. Jolly good. And the head Britishers aren't bad, even though many of the Indian cricket team are very anti-British (the British umpires make several decisions in favour of the Indians - there's no implication of bias).
What's nicest about the movie is its sense of inclusion - the Indian team comprises of a crazy fortune teller (the most Aussie of the cricketers, like a cross between Rod Hogg, Dennis Lille and Ian Callen - I love his send offs of the British players), an older doctor, a Muslim, a combative fast bowler, and most touching of all an untouchable with a withered arm who is a hopeless batter and fielder but an at times unplayable spin bowler(what makes it especially moving is that there was a player like that,Chandra - only I don't think he was an untouchable).
The final cricket game is a joy, very gripping, and shows how well cricket adapts to cinema - there is sledging, a beamer, dropped catches, fours and sixes,a dramatic last wicket stand, a runner (NB who is Mankadded and because he's a small boy I think we're supposed to feel sorry for him - but he deserved it, really, he was out of his crease a long way, its cheating),he's and hitting a six off the last ball. Entertaining tunes and production numbers.

Movie review - "The Kingdom" (2007) ** (warning: spoilers)

So wanted this thriller to be better than it was because the trailer was so good and it's a great idea for a film: an FBI team investigating a bombing of a US compound in Saudi Arabia. Great format to explore Middle East-West relations.

But they muff it with far too many "movie scenes" that feel as though they've been "punched up" by script doctor hacks. Like introducing Jamie Foxx talking to a group of kindergarten kids where he talks about his son's birth ("you know, we need a scene where we establish what a good dad Jamie is" - but would kids care?); and these awful scenes where the FBI agents are in Saudi Arabia swearing and carrying on and being frustrated ("like, we need a scene to show them butting heads so then we can have a HERO'S JOURNEY where they come to respect the Saudis"). The sheer fact Americans are in Saudi Arabia is conflict enough without shoving in this crappy 90s cop movie garbage about "hey man let us do our job". They're in Saudi Arabia and they're being obnoxious. To make matters worse they bring a woman, Jennifer Garner, without even the courtesy of an explanatory line like "she's the only person we can get at short notice" - and she wears T shirts and singlet tops. I kept thinking, "cover up, Jen".

The film picks up once everyone starts co-operating and there's a nice scene between Foxx and the nice Arab (a likeable character and the best performance in the film) and you think "that's what this movie should have been - a buddy flick in Saudi Arabia, instead of having these four not very likeable or - even less forgivable - different characters".

Why are all the FBI agent characters the same? Why not have one have a romance, or another be very anti-US in Saudi Arabia, or very proper, or extremely apathetic or whatever. The complexities of the US-Saudi alliance - our military propping up a dictatorship, moderate opposition forces with Saudi Arabia being pushed towards extremism, religious vs. secular - are raised briefly then mostly ignored. (It's a shame we couldn't have seen more of the Jeremy Piven character - Piven plays him like Ari Gold but you can imagine that's what would be needed out there).

Then there's that awful scene where the husband of a woman killed by terrorists attacks the nearest Muslim - OK, you're upset, but he's in Saudi Arabia and has worked there for a period of time, one would assume he knew there would be some risks or at least learn not to blame people just because they are Muslims, and anyway the fifty worder who plays him isn't much of an actor. (This isn't like the Sept 11 attacks - these Americans are on foreign soil.)

There is a pretty good ambush and race-against-time sequence at the end - even if you think would terrorists really stop to pull out the camera and film Jason Bateman getting his head chopped off with a bunch of Americans in hot pursuit. This sequence is done well.

But then they ruin it with the worst possible choice of endings - making the final battle unrealistic "Hollywood" (no innocent people hit despite being fought in a crowded urban area, no Americans killed, Bateman saved just in time)... but the nice Arab (Ashraf Barhoum) is there blasting away with Foxx kicking butt and taking names and you think "OK it's an Arnie movie but at least a positive Arab is joining in the carnage" - then they kill him. The one nice lead character, four irritating Americans - the Americans live and the nice guy dies. So not only is it unrealistic, it's a downer. I ended up leaving the cinema just mad.