Three in the Attic was such a popular success that it's no wonder AIP went for a sequel - well, this isn't really a sequel, since Chris Jones was by that stage probably too expensive (and would soon retire from acting) and also it would have seemed silly to have Paxton Quigley locked up by three more women... so instead they came up with this rip off. Here we have Wes Sten setting out to seduce three women in order to get revenge on the college president (Larry Hagman) who expelled him - Hagman's daughter, wife (Joan Collins) and mistress (Judy Pace).
As in Attic he genuinely falls for one of them (the daughter) who busts him for cheating, leading to mayhem... also as in Attic she forgives him and they go off into the sunset together... unlike Attic the mother comes along Which is kind of hot - they're going to live in a menage a trois (she's the girl's step mother so there's no incest, at least not legally).
However this movie is very different in tone from the earlier one - it's far less sexy and more comic and satirical. Unlike Jones, Sten isn't a genuinely good looking, charming guy but a geeky nerd who is a top level poet that gets duped by student revolutionaries. The sex scenes are played for satirical comedy; Hagman's character sends up some of the right wing politics of the time - there's also pot shots at black power, student revolutionaries, student politics, the middle class (the usual targets of late 60s satire).
The writer-director was Theodore Flicker, best known for The President's Analyst and Barney Miller - and you can feel his satirical stamp. Because of this I'm actually surprised this isn't better known - maybe people felt the central story was too sexist or something.
The acting is very strong - Hagman and Collins were old acting colleagues of Flicker, and both deliver excellent comic performances, very funny. Sten is less impressive - he's like a poor man's Bud Cort. The piece does lack genuine emotional kick which Three in the Attic, for all it's faults, had - there are some nice moments when the girl admits she feels ugly. Structure wise the bit where Sten hooks up with Judy Pace feels tacked on. A curio - patchily brilliant, with some strong acting.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Movie review - "Walk into Hell" (1956) ***
The third collaboration between Chips Rafferty and Lee Robinson was their biggest financial success - mostly due, one can't help thinking, to the location photography of Papua New Guinea: the beautiful rivers, trees and valleys, colourful locals, and genuine sense of "another world". It probably also helped to have a star performer in Chips Rafferty and some French beauty in Francoise Christophe.
Chips plays an Aussie district officer who is about to go on leave when told by the government to cancel and do some work - Reg Lye has discovered oil and the government needs to peg out the area. This instantly marks the film as different from American adventure films set in exotic corners of the globe - the hero is a public servant, working for the government, trying to minimise exploitation; there's no personal stake, such as greed or revenge - he's an honest man trying to do his job. In this respect the film has more in common with British imperial flicks such as Sanders of the River (another film about a public servant who was called back on leave and whinged about it) - and the positive depiction of Australian colonialism presumably ensured its official co operation.
Because Rafferty was too old to romance Christophe, they throw in a love interest - a crocodile hunter who has been dubbed into Australian. Lye provides the comic relief. In actual fact the story could have used a bit more excitement - a traitor on the mission, some sexy love sequences or something. There is a bit of "we shouldn't bring a woman along on this mission" but it feels tired.
There is plenty of colour and its politically and sociologically fascinating. PNG is very much depicted as the third world with Australia running the place with a very paternal hand.
Chips plays an Aussie district officer who is about to go on leave when told by the government to cancel and do some work - Reg Lye has discovered oil and the government needs to peg out the area. This instantly marks the film as different from American adventure films set in exotic corners of the globe - the hero is a public servant, working for the government, trying to minimise exploitation; there's no personal stake, such as greed or revenge - he's an honest man trying to do his job. In this respect the film has more in common with British imperial flicks such as Sanders of the River (another film about a public servant who was called back on leave and whinged about it) - and the positive depiction of Australian colonialism presumably ensured its official co operation.
Because Rafferty was too old to romance Christophe, they throw in a love interest - a crocodile hunter who has been dubbed into Australian. Lye provides the comic relief. In actual fact the story could have used a bit more excitement - a traitor on the mission, some sexy love sequences or something. There is a bit of "we shouldn't bring a woman along on this mission" but it feels tired.
There is plenty of colour and its politically and sociologically fascinating. PNG is very much depicted as the third world with Australia running the place with a very paternal hand.
Movie review - "Three in the Attic" (1968) **1/2
The best known film from AIPs are things like I was a Teenage Werewolf, their 50s sci fi efforts, the Roger Corman Poe pictures, blaxploitation efforts. This sex comedy isn't as famous but it outgrossed all of them, becoming the studio's biggest hit of the sixties. And this must have come down to its concept - a man is locked in an attic by three women who force him to have sex with them.
That section doesn't happen until the last third. Up until then we get a character study of Paxton Quigley, who is the guy - a womaniser on campus. Casting is crucial for this sort of role and AIP were lucky enough to get Christopher Jones, a James Dean type who was a hot item in the 60s, with rising popularity and a lively romantic life (his real life conquests including Susan Strasberg, Susan George, Olivia Hussey and Sharon Tate), and who retired from acting after Ryan's Daughter. Jones is the sort of guy who in real life most men want to punch out - moody, slim, good looking, very attractive to women - but he's got charm, charisma and looks and is perfect for the role. You believe he could score these women.
And they are attractive women too. Yvette Mimieux may have been a little old to play a co-ed by this time but her juvenile quality (which never really left her) suits the part; Judy Pace is a black artist (it's a terrible performance though Pace isn't helped by having to refer to the fact that she's black every second line); Maggie Thrett is a hippy type. It's quite sexy to watch them all get it on, even before the attic marathon love making session, which is meant to make Jones see the error of his ways or something (the film avoids tackling the issue of whether they rape him at all).
The core story is believe it or not a love tale between Jones and Mimieux, the one he really likes. It ends with them getting together (even though she's organised the marathon sex session and is hostile towards him... she tries to understand why he cheated, as if that's hard). You wonder how long Jones will go before he cheats on her again.
This has a lot of period peace charm - some genuinely groovy opening credits and camera work, a catchy theme song "Paxton Quigley's Had the Course" by Chas and Dave, the fashions and performances.
Some of it isn't so crash hot eg Jones getting Thrett to sleep with him by pretending he's "a fag" and commenting that "fags must get so many women". There is some satire at the expense of hippies, students and the 60s sexual revolution - and an ending credit sequence which mocks the elder generation (a cartoon of a sexually frustrated man and his won't-put-out wife coming come after the film and not having sex) - but it's not a comedy, more a straight drama. Still, I'm surprised it's not better remembered.
Movie review - "The Amazing Colossal Man" (1957) **1/2
Charles B Griffith was hired by AIP to work on the script for this but tried to make it a comedy and was booted after one day - while I love Griffith and the resulting script would have been a lot of fun, it was probably the right decision. This sort of story - atomic radiation making something blow up in size - is always best played straight without any winks at the audience or Griffith like craziness.
This feels very similar to The Incredible Shrinking Man in tone and structure - Glenn Langan is touching as the poor bastard who gets caught in an atomic cloud and blows up to a massive size. Director Bert Gordon and his co writer Mark Hanna made the right choice I feel in putting Langan's relationship with fiancee Cathy Downs center stage so the piece always has an emotional element. I felt for Langan's character, a brave bloke who suffers a terrible accident then suffers more - when he goes on his Frankenstein/King Kong-esque rampage the audience's sympathy is firm with him.
The low budget means its really not that much of a rampage - it's through Las Vegas but he doesn't knock over any high buildings and there are few extras. The movie is very cheesy, but it does have heart and was fun.
This feels very similar to The Incredible Shrinking Man in tone and structure - Glenn Langan is touching as the poor bastard who gets caught in an atomic cloud and blows up to a massive size. Director Bert Gordon and his co writer Mark Hanna made the right choice I feel in putting Langan's relationship with fiancee Cathy Downs center stage so the piece always has an emotional element. I felt for Langan's character, a brave bloke who suffers a terrible accident then suffers more - when he goes on his Frankenstein/King Kong-esque rampage the audience's sympathy is firm with him.
The low budget means its really not that much of a rampage - it's through Las Vegas but he doesn't knock over any high buildings and there are few extras. The movie is very cheesy, but it does have heart and was fun.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Movie review - "The Riddle of the Sands" (1979) ***
In the late 70s Rank reactivated its filmmaking division which had been limited to Carry On movies and the odd horror flick; Tony Williams greenlit eight films at a cost of ten million pounds. This slate went on to be criticised for its conservatism, but you can't really blame him - it was a conservative company, and why not make kids films like Wombling Free or Tarka the Otter? (Both had name recognition coming from a TV show and classic book respectively.) And while remaking The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes was going to be critically risky, both had name recognition, Rank had the rights, and in the case of 39 Steps they wanted to try putting in more John Buchan, which hadn't been done on screen to date. Eagle's Wing even at the time was a ludicrous bet - an English art house Western, come on... - and Silver Dream Racer would have seemed too "try hard", with David Essex's pop idol days on the wane. But Bad Timing was a legitimate punt at doing something art house-y... and it was definitely time for a film version of The Riddle of the Sands to be made.
Really a film of this should have been made years ago - preferrably in the 30s or 50s - but Erskine Childers' family wouldn't allow it so filmmakers had to wait until the novel was in the public domain. On the sunny side this has meant it could be shot in gorgeous Panavision, in colour and heavily on location - the movie looks terrific, with its windswept North Sea locations, small coastal towns and sand bars.
Michael York and Simon MacCorkindale are well cast as Carruthers and Davies - but I feel they lack a little something in the charisma department. Really this needed Dirk Bogarde and Kenneth More. The script tries to emphasise some different between them, getting comedy out of stuck up, high maintenance York and free-spirited mucking-around-on-boats MacCorkindale, but it doesn't really work because basically they are both jolly-good-chap types who went to the same school - they needed to have different personas (say Roger Moore and Richard Harris... though I know those two would have been more expensive but I'm sure similar types of actors were out there). If more time had been spent developing these two as characters the film might have been more successful.
Jenny Agutter looks pretty as always but struggles with her German accent and the romantic subplot between her and MacCorkingdale is really undeveloped - why not turn it into a love story? They changed the ending too so that the traitor character (played well by Alan Badel) doesn't kill himself but is killed by the Germans - which gives it some action but also robs the piece of an emotional kick at the end, and still makes the leads passive.
I think the adapters make a mistake not sticking us just with York for the first fifteen-twenty minutes or so, making us identify with him, building up the mystery about MacCorkindale; by cutting away to MacCorkindale too soon and telling his story it robbed us of some drama, and made it unclear who our hero was. (I think John Carter movie made a similar mistake i.e. not sticking with our protagonist for a long time at the beginning.)
The book was loved in part because of its authenticity about boats and navigating through sand banks, which was never going to translate that well to screen, though it looks good. The suspense on land is handled a bit too perfunctorily - this is where the movie could have been really spooky and exciting, but it isn't. Also a lot of the action is repetitive - our two heroes on a boat, or chatting to Germans over dinner. It lacked progression.
Okay this review has turned out more negative than I wanted. I like the movie a lot - it's so beautiful looking and has such integrity; it was clearly a labor of love from those involved, and the novel was treated with the greatest respect. I wish it had done better at the box office; British cinema would have benefited greatly.
Really a film of this should have been made years ago - preferrably in the 30s or 50s - but Erskine Childers' family wouldn't allow it so filmmakers had to wait until the novel was in the public domain. On the sunny side this has meant it could be shot in gorgeous Panavision, in colour and heavily on location - the movie looks terrific, with its windswept North Sea locations, small coastal towns and sand bars.
Michael York and Simon MacCorkindale are well cast as Carruthers and Davies - but I feel they lack a little something in the charisma department. Really this needed Dirk Bogarde and Kenneth More. The script tries to emphasise some different between them, getting comedy out of stuck up, high maintenance York and free-spirited mucking-around-on-boats MacCorkindale, but it doesn't really work because basically they are both jolly-good-chap types who went to the same school - they needed to have different personas (say Roger Moore and Richard Harris... though I know those two would have been more expensive but I'm sure similar types of actors were out there). If more time had been spent developing these two as characters the film might have been more successful.
Jenny Agutter looks pretty as always but struggles with her German accent and the romantic subplot between her and MacCorkingdale is really undeveloped - why not turn it into a love story? They changed the ending too so that the traitor character (played well by Alan Badel) doesn't kill himself but is killed by the Germans - which gives it some action but also robs the piece of an emotional kick at the end, and still makes the leads passive.
I think the adapters make a mistake not sticking us just with York for the first fifteen-twenty minutes or so, making us identify with him, building up the mystery about MacCorkindale; by cutting away to MacCorkindale too soon and telling his story it robbed us of some drama, and made it unclear who our hero was. (I think John Carter movie made a similar mistake i.e. not sticking with our protagonist for a long time at the beginning.)
The book was loved in part because of its authenticity about boats and navigating through sand banks, which was never going to translate that well to screen, though it looks good. The suspense on land is handled a bit too perfunctorily - this is where the movie could have been really spooky and exciting, but it isn't. Also a lot of the action is repetitive - our two heroes on a boat, or chatting to Germans over dinner. It lacked progression.
Okay this review has turned out more negative than I wanted. I like the movie a lot - it's so beautiful looking and has such integrity; it was clearly a labor of love from those involved, and the novel was treated with the greatest respect. I wish it had done better at the box office; British cinema would have benefited greatly.
Movie review - "Walkabout" (1971) ***1/2
I had to study the original novel in high school and remember not liking the film - it was a famous movie because there was a copy of it in the library, allowing students to fast forward to Jenny Agutter's full frontal nudity (ah, the days when it was hard for teenage boys to access images of naked women...) but it departed from the book in many ways - too many for me, with its lack of geographical logic (they drive out into the outback from the city and bang they're in the middle of nowhere), all the cuts to civilisation, the lack of development in the love story between the boy and the girl, the ridiculous sex comedy sequence involving the scientists (including a cleavage plunging Noelene Brown).
But years later I read Louis Nowra's excellent book on the film and his enthusiasm made me revisit it with fresh eyes. It's a movie of remarkable hallucinatory imagery and sensuality - it overwhelms the senses. And it was a lot more enjoyably going in knowing there would be a lot of symbolism and non-linear narrative and that it wasn't going to be a faithful adaptation of the book - it was going to be it's own creation.
A lot about it I still didn't like - the lingering shots of Agutter's nubile body (she was 16 when this was filmed which when I was fifteen was no problem but feels a bit wrong now), that weird sequence involving the scientists, some of the cuts. The desert feels too crowded - there's not much of a sense of danger. And the emotional distance that the two white kids feel throughout the movie I think caused me to feel emotionally distant towards them.
But it's beautifully shot, definitely thought provoking. The cast is superb - Gulpilil was a magnificent find, Luc Roeg is perfect as the matter of fact young boy and Agutter is idea, so beautiful but also with a streak of practical ruthlessness. John Meillion also registers strongly in his role as their suicidal father.
I'm not surprised this wasn't a hit at the box office when it came out but it's held up well and remains fascinating.
But years later I read Louis Nowra's excellent book on the film and his enthusiasm made me revisit it with fresh eyes. It's a movie of remarkable hallucinatory imagery and sensuality - it overwhelms the senses. And it was a lot more enjoyably going in knowing there would be a lot of symbolism and non-linear narrative and that it wasn't going to be a faithful adaptation of the book - it was going to be it's own creation.
A lot about it I still didn't like - the lingering shots of Agutter's nubile body (she was 16 when this was filmed which when I was fifteen was no problem but feels a bit wrong now), that weird sequence involving the scientists, some of the cuts. The desert feels too crowded - there's not much of a sense of danger. And the emotional distance that the two white kids feel throughout the movie I think caused me to feel emotionally distant towards them.
But it's beautifully shot, definitely thought provoking. The cast is superb - Gulpilil was a magnificent find, Luc Roeg is perfect as the matter of fact young boy and Agutter is idea, so beautiful but also with a streak of practical ruthlessness. John Meillion also registers strongly in his role as their suicidal father.
I'm not surprised this wasn't a hit at the box office when it came out but it's held up well and remains fascinating.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Movie review - "Four Sided Triangle" (1953) **1/2
Early sci fi effort from Hammer films, made the same year as Spaceways and a lot more effective - much better made, in part because it has a stronger story. Two boys are in love with the same girl, a childhood friend (years before Pearl Harbour) - the two grow up to become scientists, still in love with the girl, but she prefers one of them... so the other decides to clone her. But then the poor bastard finds out the clone likes his mate too - when they go on honeymoon she tries to kill herself. Instead of trying to find someone new, he decides to wipe the clone's memory, leading to chaos.
Now that's not a bad idea for a science fiction film - indeed, I'm surprised it wasn't used again in the 60s and 70s when the creepy/necrophiliac overtones couldn't have been exploited more. It's very much indebted to Frankenstein, with a bad scientist toying with god and dealing with his tragic creation, climaxing with an operation that involves the monster strapped to a slab and a fire burning down the building. (The first Quatermass owned a debt to that story too.) The big difference here is Frankenstein is schtupping his monster.
It lacks logic - I get why the mad scientist is doing it (for love) but for the girl and his mentor doctor to go along with it pushes credibility. It's stylishly shot and directed.
A big debit is the cast - Stephen Murray is given a choice role as the tormented Bill, a Frankenstein figure, but he's never allowed to cut loose (or was unable to). John Van Eyssen is a damp squib as his friend (meant to be more charismatic but bugger if I could see it). James Hayter irritates as a kindly pipe smoking doctor who seems to encourage the cloning. The most effective performance came from cult favourite Barbara Payton, notorious good time girl whose career was overshadowed by scandal; she's not a great actress but she's pretty and is clearly trying - she seems like a nice person, which is a bit naff to say, but it's true, and actually helps the movie... she's no cliched femme fetale and her clone character is touching in places.
Now that's not a bad idea for a science fiction film - indeed, I'm surprised it wasn't used again in the 60s and 70s when the creepy/necrophiliac overtones couldn't have been exploited more. It's very much indebted to Frankenstein, with a bad scientist toying with god and dealing with his tragic creation, climaxing with an operation that involves the monster strapped to a slab and a fire burning down the building. (The first Quatermass owned a debt to that story too.) The big difference here is Frankenstein is schtupping his monster.
It lacks logic - I get why the mad scientist is doing it (for love) but for the girl and his mentor doctor to go along with it pushes credibility. It's stylishly shot and directed.
A big debit is the cast - Stephen Murray is given a choice role as the tormented Bill, a Frankenstein figure, but he's never allowed to cut loose (or was unable to). John Van Eyssen is a damp squib as his friend (meant to be more charismatic but bugger if I could see it). James Hayter irritates as a kindly pipe smoking doctor who seems to encourage the cloning. The most effective performance came from cult favourite Barbara Payton, notorious good time girl whose career was overshadowed by scandal; she's not a great actress but she's pretty and is clearly trying - she seems like a nice person, which is a bit naff to say, but it's true, and actually helps the movie... she's no cliched femme fetale and her clone character is touching in places.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)