Movie review – “An Education” (2009) **

You may like this film if you’re a teenage girl with a thing for an older guy, or you’re a middle age woman who wants a trip down memory lane about how she almost ruined her life. I found it a bit flat. The acting is fine and the period detail memorable, but the whole thing felt too familiar. The girl knows the guy is dodgy – he lies about going to Oxford, lies to her parents. So it’s a bit rich she later blames her parents… but then, she is a boomer. Surely in years to come she’ll look back on it with some fondness? I mean she had a couple of great nights, a wonderful weekend in Paris, she lost her virginity romantically, etc. Carey Mulligan is very good, but it’s a terrific role – she’s in every scene.

This reminded me a lot of Guinevere, with Sarah Polley. Like that film, this lacks surprises – the heroine goes in with her eyes mostly open, she knows the older guy is dodgy but figures her life is boring so what the hey? Which is a mature characterisation and mature and all that stuff but it means that they film doesn’t really have anywhere to go (the same thing happened in Guinevere). I thought they wouldn’t have made the film without coming up with a fresh twist apart from the standard soap ones (eg he’s married, she gets pregnant) but they don’t.

Movie review – “Pets” (1974) **1/2

The first lead role for Candice Rialson. She’s very pretty, likeable with a warm screen presence, sexy as hell – although she doesn’t get to show off her comic ability, so effective in later films. She plays a hitchhiker who has a series of adventures: escaping from her controlling brother, then being rescued by some black dudes prologue), then kidnapping a sleazy married guy with this black girl she meets (act one), being picked up by a female artist (former Elvis co-star Joan Blackman) for whom she poses and then makes love (act two), goes to live with an artist who keeps her captive in his basement as a ‘pet’. Each section deals with people trying to imprison Rialson and ends with Rialson running away with a song on the background

It’s an exploitation film but at least they’ve made some effort – there are some interesting shot compositions, it attempts to tackle an odd sort of theme (it was based on a series of one act plays), there’s a few moments which actually surprise you (like where the black girl throws a dog off a cliff.) But the main reason to watch this is Rialson who is very impressive. She seduces two men – her abductee (an older guy) and a burglar, and is seduced by a woman. She does a lap dance, wears skimpy underwear, swimsuits, etc. If you’re a Rialson fan this is definitely worth seeking out.

Movie review – “Mama’s Dirty Girls” (1974) **

I’ve no idea whether this came before or after Big Bad Mama, but it follows a similar template – a tough woman and her sexy daughters use sex appeal to get what they want i.e. money. Gloria Grahame plays the lead – bit of a comedown for her in some respects, I guess, but it is a flashy part. Candice Rialson plays one of her daughters – it’s a more evil character than the likeable Candice normally plays but she’s pretty good (she’s a sort of Lolita-esque tease, who delights in tormenting chubby men). There are two other daughters, all of whom show a decent amount of flesh. (Including an utterly gratuitous one of Candice staring at herself in the mirror to open the film.)

The girls are all decent enough actors, and it’s a great concept – the girls look for men to seduce and kill – but the film is never as much fun as you think. They didn’t quite get the story right – the pace is too slow, unlike Big Bad Mama where there’s lots of driving around and action, here it’s mostly hanging around houses, and there’s no real driving narrative. Also who wants to watch a trashy three girls film where the guys triumph?

Movie review – “Chatterbox” (1977) *

Candice Rialson was a popular drive in star of the 1970s who never seemed able to break through to decent roles in mainstream films; this was partly due to the decline of the drive in market, but Joe Dante and Alan Arkush (who worked with her on Hollywood Boulevard) hypothesised that it was also starring in this film, where she plays a woman with a talking vagina. As always, Candice is very likeable and girl-next-door; she’s a great trooper and manages to take the sleaze out of everything she does (but still be sexy) and as always she gives 110%, but this film is not very enjoyable.

There are actually worse ideas for a comedy, the touch is light and fast, and you imagine with a really smart writer-director this could have taken off – maybe even been really feminist. But as used here the film is far too uncomfortable. Candice’s character clearly doesn’t like her talking vagina, who creates nothing but trouble for her. She also really goes through the ringer – a lesbian tries to rape her, she’s put naked on a board in front of a room of scientists while her vagina sings (and she’s clearly not having a good time), she’s forced to sing a big song and dance number where her clothes get ripped off, her love interest is an insecure drip (are we meant to be glad she gets with him in the end?); if I’m not mistaken she’s also gangbanged. So although there’s plenty of nudity, it’s not that fun. This is in contrast to films like Summer School Teachers where the nudity was less but at least it came about because of her character’s lusts and her character was in control.

There’s something actually quite moving watching Rialson in this film – trying so hard, giving it her all… in a role that is killing her career in with every minute of screentime. No wonder she got out of the game.

Movie review – “Red Dust” (1932) ****

Sexy pre-Code entertainment, from MGM of all places, has dated very well, due to a terrific cast, robust handling and a bright script. Clarke Gable is excellent (who else could have played this role?), Mary Astor sexy in her oh-I'm-so-demure-but-treat-me-a-bit-roughly-and-I'm-a-raging-volcano way, Jean Harlow very hot in her trashy brassy blonde way.

You keep being thrown by how sexy it is – Gable and Harlow clearly have sex the night they meet; Gable offers Harlow money the next morning!; Gable spies Mary Astor taking off her clothes through a window; Gable and Astor kiss in a storm and she's totally up for it (steam is practically coming off their clothes); Harlow takes a bath in a tub and you see her bare back (apparently in real life she leapt up at the end of a take showing her breasts saying "this is one for the boys in the lab"); on the night Gable is shot he tells Harlow to go up to bed and wait for him; Gable puts his hand up Harlow's leg at the end.

Gable’s performance is famous for his he-man aspect (bossing around coolies, ignoring Harlow) but he is genuinely touching and vulnerable in his love for Mary Astor. Harlow is hilarious, sexy and sympathetic as the prostitute who falls for Gable and has to jump and wave to get his attention. (The story is really about the Gable-Astor romance - he only goes with Harlow out of a default position.) Great fun, even if the bit where Astor's husband goes on and on about how much he loves Astor and admires Gable gilds the lily a bit and all the Asian characters are racist caricatures.

NB One extra thing - in articles on the making of this film, they often refer to the final scene being about Harlow reading Gable a kid's story while he puts his hand on her leg. Well, it is but actually the final shot is a guffawing comic relief Chinese cook. If people are going to recall pre-Code films with such fondness, they shouldn't forget the less pleasant aspects.

Movie review – “28 Weeks Later” (2007) ***

Starts with a massive bang and the first 30 minutes is gripping. It goes a bit wonky with a contrivance – it just didn’t feel real that those annoying kids would slip out and go home. This could have been an easy problem to fix – establish the kids are rebels, give them a good reason to go home, or simply have helicopter observers see the mother. It didn’t strike true either than the army wouldn’t leap on a possible vaccine. But once the outbreak starts again and things revert to the normal zombie paradigm – to wit, a chase movie – it’s very strong (although it’s a bit of a coincidence Robert Carlyle keeps turning up). I really liked the direction, the design, and the way the military wasn’t demonized, as it often is (and usually lazily so) in zombie films; it’s clear they’re put between a rock and a hard place. Indeed, if the film has a theme it’s “in times of disease outbreaks… follow orders, and crack down very hard on anyone who doesn’t.”

Movie review – “Group Marriage” (1973) **1/2

The success of Student Nurses led Stephanie Rothman and hubby Charles Swartz to set up their own shingle at Dimension Pictures, for whom Rothman made one well-known film, Terminal Island, and two lesser known ones, this and Working Girls.

This is closer to Terminal Island than her three girls film as it is about couples rather than girls (it’s a “three couples” film, really.) It focuses around some working girls in LA – Chris is having some relationship troubles with her mechanic de facto Xander; she jooks up with a parole officer Dave and winds up sleeping with him even though she loves Xander (“just because I love you doesn’t mean I can’t like him””). Dave has a pretty partner Jan – who hooks up with Xander. Xander and Jan go to bed with Dave and Chris – but they watch TV before going to bed. (The scene is played for laughs but is actually quite hot.)

They all go to the beach where Jan hooks up with a lifeguard Phil (Rothman always makes sure men are exploited as much as women). The boys are out for a jog when they run into a sexy jogger, lawyer Elaine (Claudia Jennings – alright!) who they ask to join their “group marriage”. Elaine agrees and she and Phil have a tender love scene. Later on there are troubles – the media get wind of the six of them leading together, they are car bombed, there’s a weird plot with a Hispanic parolee that doesn’t go anywhere, and Jan finds she wants to have sex outside the group.

There are gay caricatures (their neighbours) and when a bisexual man tries to join the group the men kick him out. The other set comedy scene results where Phil puts an ad in the paper for a sixth person to join and a bunch of wacky types walk up. However the gay couple are still friends of the lead six.

It's an interesting exploitation film, with typical Rothman good humour and intriguing sexual politics. Some of the acting is iffy, and the ease with which people join the group kind of dilutes its dramatic impact, but the women are very good looking, and frequently walk around in skimpy clothes and bikinis. One cute scene has Chris watch Attack of the 50 Foot Woman in bed – a homage to another quasi-feminist film?