I thought I was across most nutty British explorers but I hadn't heard of Percy Fawcett, who disappeared in 1925 trying to find a lost civilisation. This is an odd sort of movie - a throw back to old classic epics like Lawrence of Arabia or Khartoum.
Perhaps too much so. For a lot of this, the action feels a bit... lifeless I think is the word. Everyone is polite and driven. It's all very polite. Fawcett isn't a very interesting character and neither is his wife Nina (who is saddled with "why are you never home"?)
The film is divided roughly into three expeditions, with a war interlude. Things pick up on the second trip with the whiny cowardly James Murray on hand to provide some conflict. The Battle of the Somme interlude is vivid and well done and the final act very effective... mind you it would be hard to stuff up an ending where Fawcett and his son disappear.
Pretty good - it just took a while to get going. I feel it needed to be shorter or something maybe. Or maybe embrace the madness/insanity of it all or something.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Movie review - "Song of Scheherazade" (1947) **1/2
Walter Reisch's only film as director and it's an entirely decent effort, helped by Universal giving him a good budget and Technicolour. I wasn't that wild about his story but it was a bit different - a biopic of some Russian composer Nicky Rimsky-Korsakov. I'd never heard of this bloke and to be honest wasn't that familiar with his tunes but apparently he's famous. And he was genuinely a sailor as this film has it - he stops off Tangiers while on a world trip and falls for a dancer, who inspires him to write music.
The lead is played by French actor Jean Pierre Aumont, a drippy type with a sappy face who doesn't seem to be that much of an actor. He had a good career, getting a Hollywood push in the 40s - he lacked Louis Jourdan's looks and Jean Gabin's talent, but he did have a good story, fleeing France when it was occupied. He also had solid war service, fighting for de Gaulle's forces, and an interesting personal life, being married to Maria Montez. He's not that memorable on screen though, at least not to me and I didn't care much about his character's worries.
Better value is Yvonne de Carlo as the dancer... who also happens to be an impoverished noble, so she's doing it on the sly. De Carlo is sexy and engaging and a good dancer; I agree with Sam Spiegel's verdict that her persona was "plebian" - she's not entirely convincing as an aristocrat. I wonder if Universal intended Maria Montez to play this role - it would have suited her.
The support cast is interesting. Eve Arden is far too young to play de Carlo's mother but is fun. Philip Reed is a bit wet as a Russian prince who has a whip duel with Aumont but then becomes his mate .Brian Donlevy is an extremely American Russian ship captain. Someone called Charles Kullman sings a few songs. There are some entertaining dance numbers and production values are high; I enjoyed the comedy interludes too.
I wouldn't call this an entirely successful movie, and no one seems completely well cast, but it entertains.
The lead is played by French actor Jean Pierre Aumont, a drippy type with a sappy face who doesn't seem to be that much of an actor. He had a good career, getting a Hollywood push in the 40s - he lacked Louis Jourdan's looks and Jean Gabin's talent, but he did have a good story, fleeing France when it was occupied. He also had solid war service, fighting for de Gaulle's forces, and an interesting personal life, being married to Maria Montez. He's not that memorable on screen though, at least not to me and I didn't care much about his character's worries.
Better value is Yvonne de Carlo as the dancer... who also happens to be an impoverished noble, so she's doing it on the sly. De Carlo is sexy and engaging and a good dancer; I agree with Sam Spiegel's verdict that her persona was "plebian" - she's not entirely convincing as an aristocrat. I wonder if Universal intended Maria Montez to play this role - it would have suited her.
The support cast is interesting. Eve Arden is far too young to play de Carlo's mother but is fun. Philip Reed is a bit wet as a Russian prince who has a whip duel with Aumont but then becomes his mate .Brian Donlevy is an extremely American Russian ship captain. Someone called Charles Kullman sings a few songs. There are some entertaining dance numbers and production values are high; I enjoyed the comedy interludes too.
I wouldn't call this an entirely successful movie, and no one seems completely well cast, but it entertains.
Script review - "Last of the Mohicians" by Michael Mann and Cris Crowe
It's a shame Michael Mann doesn't do more remakes, especially of older movies - he's got a gift for taking an old story and really revitalising it. This is a brilliant version of the old novel, done with pace, leanness and integrity.
I guess it is a bit 90s PC - the British are as bad as the Indians in many ways, responsible for slaughter of Indians and betraying the colonials, and being stuffy; Hawkeye points out the British and French Empire are Bad; Cora is Scottish not English; Hawkeye is white but raised by the Indians and is very right on.
And the story has repetitive aspects - the girls are rescued by Hawkeye and his gang three times - and flaws - the relationship between Alice and Uncas is very under done. Actually this was fleshed out more in the script - they had a love scene where Uncas realises half way through sex that Alice actually has PTSD.
But it's powerful and epic and doesn't stuff around - babies and kids are killed. Its well researched and very exciting.
I guess it is a bit 90s PC - the British are as bad as the Indians in many ways, responsible for slaughter of Indians and betraying the colonials, and being stuffy; Hawkeye points out the British and French Empire are Bad; Cora is Scottish not English; Hawkeye is white but raised by the Indians and is very right on.
And the story has repetitive aspects - the girls are rescued by Hawkeye and his gang three times - and flaws - the relationship between Alice and Uncas is very under done. Actually this was fleshed out more in the script - they had a love scene where Uncas realises half way through sex that Alice actually has PTSD.
But it's powerful and epic and doesn't stuff around - babies and kids are killed. Its well researched and very exciting.
Movie review - "Calamity Jane and Sam Bass" (1949) **1/2
There's lots of good things about this Western: its in colour; the production values are strong; George Sherman directs with a steady hand; there's impressive horses; the support cast includes reliables like Norman Lloyd and Lloyd Bridges; Willard Parker is ideally cast as a sheriff.
I didn't mind Howard Duff as a hero - Universal tried to turn him into a star around this time, and it didn't quite work, but he can act, he's got a superb voice, and okay presence. I wasn't familiar with Dorothy Hart but she's effective.
Yvonne de Carlo is perfect as Calamity Jane - okay maybe "perfect" is overdoing it, but she's sassy and pretty and looks like she'd be able to shoot people. Not all Western fans enjoy de Carlo in that genre but I do.
The basic idea of this film is solid - Duff's Sam Bass goes from honest bloke to outlaw, and he's loved by sassy tomboy de Carlo (Calamity Jane) but loves good girl Dorothy Hart.
But the execution suffers. There's all this stuff about Duff loving a horse and being upset when his horse is killed and wanting horses - only we never spend that much time with horses. There's no overall villain, not really - I keep expecting Willard Parker to play this role but he doesn't. De Carlo looks like she's going to have a big role in the film, and she should have, but she doesn't. There's all this plot about horses and owing money which confused me. I wasn't sure exactly when Duff turned bad or what he was doing that was bad.
It was alright. It felt like it had been rewritten a few times without a clear overall vision. It's a shame because of the good things in the movie.
I didn't mind Howard Duff as a hero - Universal tried to turn him into a star around this time, and it didn't quite work, but he can act, he's got a superb voice, and okay presence. I wasn't familiar with Dorothy Hart but she's effective.
Yvonne de Carlo is perfect as Calamity Jane - okay maybe "perfect" is overdoing it, but she's sassy and pretty and looks like she'd be able to shoot people. Not all Western fans enjoy de Carlo in that genre but I do.
The basic idea of this film is solid - Duff's Sam Bass goes from honest bloke to outlaw, and he's loved by sassy tomboy de Carlo (Calamity Jane) but loves good girl Dorothy Hart.
But the execution suffers. There's all this stuff about Duff loving a horse and being upset when his horse is killed and wanting horses - only we never spend that much time with horses. There's no overall villain, not really - I keep expecting Willard Parker to play this role but he doesn't. De Carlo looks like she's going to have a big role in the film, and she should have, but she doesn't. There's all this plot about horses and owing money which confused me. I wasn't sure exactly when Duff turned bad or what he was doing that was bad.
It was alright. It felt like it had been rewritten a few times without a clear overall vision. It's a shame because of the good things in the movie.
Tuesday, November 07, 2017
Script review - "The Big Sick"
Smart funny and wonderful. It's not that fresh to have a rom com set in the world of stand up comics any more, but having him Pakistani is extremely fresh and the romance is well done - the female character is very fleshed out. And the stuff about dealing with a girlfriend in a coma is excellent. A simple, warm, lovely script.
Movie review - "Frontier Gal" (1945) *
Universal signed Yvonne de Carlo as a sort of back up Maria Montez, so when Montez turned down the role in this, de Carlo stepped in. Problem is the film is still clearly written for Montez - she's a hoity-toity dame who speaks in a foreign accent and runs a saloon.
Rod Cameron, an overweight puffy dude who had a brief vogue as a leading man, pops into town looking for revenge. Cameron strikes sparks with de Carlo, sleeps with her (it was hard to tell by what we saw but this seemed implied via the dialogue...that they'd had sex not just kissed), then she thinks they're getting married but he's got a fiancee - which is pretty racy. So she forces him to marry her at gunpoint then reveals he's on the run.
There's an unfortunate rapey vibe - indeed it's one of the most rape-y Westerns I've seen. In the first act De Carlo is always slapping Cameron's face and he's roughly kissing her and she slaps him again and he kisses her again and she's supposed to like it; then later on he abducts her and forces her to go on a honeymoon; when he arrives back from six years absence he grabs her and drags her upstairs and she's struggling. He rapes her twice! (Or at least that's what it seems like.)
Then when he meets his six year old daughter by de Carlo he winds up abducting her from de Carlo because de Carlo allows her to sing on a bar, and then spanks the daughter when she throws a tantrum (but the daughter doesn't mind because it means he loves her). And he goes and fetches his old fiance! Then later on when the daughter is kidnapped by the baddie, de Carlo tries riding after them.. and Cameron forcibly removes her from the horse. And at the end Cameron gives de Carlo a spanking to show he loves her with the daughter looking on.
It's really horrible. It's also tonally a mess because the film starts off with Cameron seeking revenge against the guy who killed his partner... all good stock Western stuff... but then his six year old daughter becomes involved and the film moves into Full House territory with cuteness of a clueless cowboy dealing with his daughter... but the mum is still around, and the dad is keeping the daughter from the mum! The revenge plot is forgotten until the end - actually it's forgotten at the end too because the baddie kidnaps the daughter, it's got nothing really to do with shooting Cameron's partner.
There's an awful scene where de Carlo - this is after Cameron has stolen her daughter - goes on how much she loves Cameron, how she'll do anything for him, etc etc. Then later on de Carlo's meant to be all embarassed because she runs a saloon... whereas Cameron was in prison!
How to fix it? I think start the film when Cameron returns from prison (i.e. the six year later mark... remove the prologue). Have him come to town. Don't make De Carlo the mother, make her a saloon keeper looking after the kid; kill off the mother so Cameron's actions aren't so obnoxious and immoral.
De Carlo looks nice but has to be passive the whole thing. She slaps Cameron a few times but gets spanked and raped in return.
Rod Cameron, an overweight puffy dude who had a brief vogue as a leading man, pops into town looking for revenge. Cameron strikes sparks with de Carlo, sleeps with her (it was hard to tell by what we saw but this seemed implied via the dialogue...that they'd had sex not just kissed), then she thinks they're getting married but he's got a fiancee - which is pretty racy. So she forces him to marry her at gunpoint then reveals he's on the run.
There's an unfortunate rapey vibe - indeed it's one of the most rape-y Westerns I've seen. In the first act De Carlo is always slapping Cameron's face and he's roughly kissing her and she slaps him again and he kisses her again and she's supposed to like it; then later on he abducts her and forces her to go on a honeymoon; when he arrives back from six years absence he grabs her and drags her upstairs and she's struggling. He rapes her twice! (Or at least that's what it seems like.)
Then when he meets his six year old daughter by de Carlo he winds up abducting her from de Carlo because de Carlo allows her to sing on a bar, and then spanks the daughter when she throws a tantrum (but the daughter doesn't mind because it means he loves her). And he goes and fetches his old fiance! Then later on when the daughter is kidnapped by the baddie, de Carlo tries riding after them.. and Cameron forcibly removes her from the horse. And at the end Cameron gives de Carlo a spanking to show he loves her with the daughter looking on.
It's really horrible. It's also tonally a mess because the film starts off with Cameron seeking revenge against the guy who killed his partner... all good stock Western stuff... but then his six year old daughter becomes involved and the film moves into Full House territory with cuteness of a clueless cowboy dealing with his daughter... but the mum is still around, and the dad is keeping the daughter from the mum! The revenge plot is forgotten until the end - actually it's forgotten at the end too because the baddie kidnaps the daughter, it's got nothing really to do with shooting Cameron's partner.
There's an awful scene where de Carlo - this is after Cameron has stolen her daughter - goes on how much she loves Cameron, how she'll do anything for him, etc etc. Then later on de Carlo's meant to be all embarassed because she runs a saloon... whereas Cameron was in prison!
How to fix it? I think start the film when Cameron returns from prison (i.e. the six year later mark... remove the prologue). Have him come to town. Don't make De Carlo the mother, make her a saloon keeper looking after the kid; kill off the mother so Cameron's actions aren't so obnoxious and immoral.
De Carlo looks nice but has to be passive the whole thing. She slaps Cameron a few times but gets spanked and raped in return.
Monday, November 06, 2017
Script review - "Dunkirk" by Christopher Nolan
A different sort of script - very sparse and lean, only 82 pages, little dialogue. It's very hard to tell characters apart on the page. You read it and feel "i guess I'd have to trust the director". The most engrossing bit is the blinding of the soldier who then dies by someone on his own side.
It plunges you into the action, doesn't stuff around. It just doesn't read particularly well.
It plunges you into the action, doesn't stuff around. It just doesn't read particularly well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)