I liked this a lot less as a read than as a film - so much of it's pleasures as a film for me came from seeing how they brought back Leia, Luke, Han, Chewis, C3PO, R2, the Falcon. That's not as good on screen.
Kylo Ren is a strong character as is Rey. The stuff around them is good. Finn has an interesting-ish journey. Poe feels like a nothing.
The First Order being villainous and activated again feels like reheating food - which I guess a lot of this was. It was a good film - I'm just becoming more aware of its faults.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Saturday, June 09, 2018
Movie review - "The Last Command" (1955) **1/2
Herbert Yates of Republic foolishly wouldn't give John Wayne what he wanted to make his Alamo picture, ending their relationship and thus losing Republic's one big star. Yates pushed ahead with his own Alamo movie - one that focuses on Jim Bowie.
Bowie is played by Sterling Hayden, a tall actor with a deep voice who I've never been that much of a fan of despite his iconic status and colourful personal life. He's quite well cast as Bowie though.
The film itself is choppy and not particularly well handled (it was Frank Lloyd's last movie). It covers a few years, starting when Bowie is trying to keep out of the conflict, not being a big fan of Texians; he loses his family to plague off screen and eventually becomes radicalised I guess you could say. He takes part in a fight or two then winds up at the Alamo.
Too much screen time is spent on a Mexican woman who pants after Bowie, played by Anna Marie Alberghetti. I enjoyed Arthur Hunnicutt's Davy Crockett and wish he'd been given more screen time. Ditto for Ernest Borgnine's settler. Richard Carlson's Travis was so-so.
Things pick up once everyone gets to the Alamo - really I wish the whole film had been set there. Maybe the filmmakers were worried about the female audience, devoting so much time to Alberghetti's character - but they could've just had her meet Bowie there. It was dramatically unsatisfactory.
The movie gets better as it goes along and there's some decent production value for Republic. It's not unsympathetic to Santa Anna.
Bowie is played by Sterling Hayden, a tall actor with a deep voice who I've never been that much of a fan of despite his iconic status and colourful personal life. He's quite well cast as Bowie though.
The film itself is choppy and not particularly well handled (it was Frank Lloyd's last movie). It covers a few years, starting when Bowie is trying to keep out of the conflict, not being a big fan of Texians; he loses his family to plague off screen and eventually becomes radicalised I guess you could say. He takes part in a fight or two then winds up at the Alamo.
Too much screen time is spent on a Mexican woman who pants after Bowie, played by Anna Marie Alberghetti. I enjoyed Arthur Hunnicutt's Davy Crockett and wish he'd been given more screen time. Ditto for Ernest Borgnine's settler. Richard Carlson's Travis was so-so.
Things pick up once everyone gets to the Alamo - really I wish the whole film had been set there. Maybe the filmmakers were worried about the female audience, devoting so much time to Alberghetti's character - but they could've just had her meet Bowie there. It was dramatically unsatisfactory.
The movie gets better as it goes along and there's some decent production value for Republic. It's not unsympathetic to Santa Anna.
Sterling Hayden Top Ten
Hayden's an interesting actor. A fascinating personal story - a sailor who was offered a film contract after someone saw his photo, leaping straight to leading roles and marriage to Madeleine Carroll, enlisting in the army and becoming a genuine hero, naming names and forever regretting it, taking off on a yacht and travelling the world. becoming a cult icon.
He never seemed to like acting much - he was more into writing and sailing - but attracted the interest of some big fans like Kubrick. Russell Crowe once said he based his LA Confidential performance on Hayden.
Is it possible to do a top ten? In no particular order:
1) Dr Strangelove (1964) - Hayden great fun as a lunatic general
2) The Asphalt Jungle (1950) - I'm surprised Hayden's career didn't get more of a boost after this Huston work... but I guess he was never out of work after it and this really established him in the fifties. Shame he never worked with Huston again - he could've easily fitted into Moby Dick or Roots of Heaven.
3) The Killing (1956) - more Kubrick, Hayden very effective.
4) The Last Command (1955) - Hayden as Jim Bowie in an enjoyable version of the Alamo.
5) The Long Goodbye (1973) - superb Hayden cameo as a drunk. I wish he'd worked more with Altman.
6) The Godfather (1972) - is it cheating to have this in here? I would argue Hayden's work still impresses.
7) The Star (1952) - Hayden was masculine and limited - I'm surprised he wasn't used more as a leading man in melodramas like this.
8) Johnny Guitar (1954) - it's really a Joan Crawford-Mercedes McCambridge film but Hayden impresses.
9) Prince Valiant (1954) - now I'm starting to strain! I put this in because it's so random.
10) King of the Gypsies (1978) - Hayden wild and weird.
He never seemed to like acting much - he was more into writing and sailing - but attracted the interest of some big fans like Kubrick. Russell Crowe once said he based his LA Confidential performance on Hayden.
Is it possible to do a top ten? In no particular order:
1) Dr Strangelove (1964) - Hayden great fun as a lunatic general
2) The Asphalt Jungle (1950) - I'm surprised Hayden's career didn't get more of a boost after this Huston work... but I guess he was never out of work after it and this really established him in the fifties. Shame he never worked with Huston again - he could've easily fitted into Moby Dick or Roots of Heaven.
3) The Killing (1956) - more Kubrick, Hayden very effective.
4) The Last Command (1955) - Hayden as Jim Bowie in an enjoyable version of the Alamo.
5) The Long Goodbye (1973) - superb Hayden cameo as a drunk. I wish he'd worked more with Altman.
6) The Godfather (1972) - is it cheating to have this in here? I would argue Hayden's work still impresses.
7) The Star (1952) - Hayden was masculine and limited - I'm surprised he wasn't used more as a leading man in melodramas like this.
8) Johnny Guitar (1954) - it's really a Joan Crawford-Mercedes McCambridge film but Hayden impresses.
9) Prince Valiant (1954) - now I'm starting to strain! I put this in because it's so random.
10) King of the Gypsies (1978) - Hayden wild and weird.
Thursday, June 07, 2018
Book review - "Robur the Conqueror" by Jules Verne
A short novel that Richard Matheson later combined with its sequel Master of the World to make an AIP Vincent Price film of the same name. This has more meat than the sequel - a crazy genius, Robur (a Captain Nemo type) talks at a balloonist conference. They mock him so he later abducts two of them in his super ship, the Albatross. This annoys the two men so much they arrange to sabotage the boat. Then, in a neat twist, they don't report it but try to rip off the design. Robur comes looking for revenge. That's a decent story even though as usual Verne spends more time describing places they fly over than dramatising the plot. Not bad - fast paced.
Book review - "Master of the World" (1904) by Jules Verne
Weird book. Like many a Verne novel it starts with strange sightings/things happening... a man investigates, Strock, he pokes around some places, he gets some letters warning him off, then discovers a mighty ship/aeroplane/sub driven by the Master of the World aka Robur from the previous novel (which Verne politely recaps). Just when you think it's getting good though, some lightning hits the ship, it crashes, Strock escapes and that's about it. What an anti-climax! The ship does have a cool name "The Terror".
Sunday, June 03, 2018
Movie review - "Solo: A Star Wars Story" (2018) ** (warning: spoilers)
I wanted to love this - partly because it's Star Wars, but also because I like that the producer sided with the director and I love Lawrence Kasdan, and have a soft spot for Ron Howard.
But it doesn't work. All the way though watching this I kept saying to myself, "this just doesn't work".
It should have. I mean, there's a lot of good material to play with - Chewbacca, the wookies, the growth of the Empire, Jabba, Greedo, the bounty hunters, Lando, the Kessel run, becoming a smuggler.
And bits of this were good. The special effects. Donald Glover was terrific. Woody Harrelson was good, despite a distracting cow lick on his wig. I loved the way Han met Chewbacca. I laughed at Lando recording his memoirs and the robot insisting Lando wanted her. I enjoyed the odd nod to the prequels.
But the handling was sloppy. The action scenes lack excitement and verve (Howard's never been a great action director). The cinematography was murky.
The story and script was poor. I was often confused about what was going on. There was a lot of constant exposition
I kept going "you could cut that bit... and that bit". You didn't need to see that opening scene on Corellia. Or really the stuff in the Imperial army (I wonder if there was meant to be more of this, but it was removed after The Force Awakens). Or the whole train hijack sequence - they introduce two characters (one of whom, a wise cracking pilot creature, seems like is a rip off of the raccoon in Guardians of the Galaxy). The film doesn't really start until Han and his gang go looking for fuel.
There's no real villain until Dryden Vos gets nasty at the end. (They set up a baddy at the beginning and never use her again. Imperial troops pop up every now and then and leave.)
There's no real stakes after the half way point - the first half is all about getting Emilia Clarke, but then Han meets her so the stakes are over. Then it's about paying off a debt...?
Alden Ehrenreich was okay in an impossible role - he's good looks and presence, even if he doesn't have that thing Harrison Ford did, the combination of stress and cockiness.
Emilia Clarke is alright. She doesn't have much of a role to play - she's done Bad Things but that's about it. She and Ehrenreich don't have much chemistry. Why no resolution with her character's story? Why not kill her? We don't want to see her again. Why bring in Darth Maul at the eleventh hour? What was that supposed to do?
This simply wasn't very good.
But it doesn't work. All the way though watching this I kept saying to myself, "this just doesn't work".
It should have. I mean, there's a lot of good material to play with - Chewbacca, the wookies, the growth of the Empire, Jabba, Greedo, the bounty hunters, Lando, the Kessel run, becoming a smuggler.
And bits of this were good. The special effects. Donald Glover was terrific. Woody Harrelson was good, despite a distracting cow lick on his wig. I loved the way Han met Chewbacca. I laughed at Lando recording his memoirs and the robot insisting Lando wanted her. I enjoyed the odd nod to the prequels.
But the handling was sloppy. The action scenes lack excitement and verve (Howard's never been a great action director). The cinematography was murky.
The story and script was poor. I was often confused about what was going on. There was a lot of constant exposition
I kept going "you could cut that bit... and that bit". You didn't need to see that opening scene on Corellia. Or really the stuff in the Imperial army (I wonder if there was meant to be more of this, but it was removed after The Force Awakens). Or the whole train hijack sequence - they introduce two characters (one of whom, a wise cracking pilot creature, seems like is a rip off of the raccoon in Guardians of the Galaxy). The film doesn't really start until Han and his gang go looking for fuel.
There's no real villain until Dryden Vos gets nasty at the end. (They set up a baddy at the beginning and never use her again. Imperial troops pop up every now and then and leave.)
There's no real stakes after the half way point - the first half is all about getting Emilia Clarke, but then Han meets her so the stakes are over. Then it's about paying off a debt...?
Alden Ehrenreich was okay in an impossible role - he's good looks and presence, even if he doesn't have that thing Harrison Ford did, the combination of stress and cockiness.
Emilia Clarke is alright. She doesn't have much of a role to play - she's done Bad Things but that's about it. She and Ehrenreich don't have much chemistry. Why no resolution with her character's story? Why not kill her? We don't want to see her again. Why bring in Darth Maul at the eleventh hour? What was that supposed to do?
This simply wasn't very good.
Book review - "Reach for the Top: The Turbulent Life of Laurence Harvey" by Anne Sinai
I first became familiar with Laurence Harvey via David Shipman's entry on him in the book The Great Movie Stars. Shipman really tore into him, slagging his acting, quoting people who worked with him and hated him, saying he was a male prostitute.
I get Harvey was annoying. He was relentlessly pushy and ambitious. He spruiked himself mercilessly. He was arrogant and could deliver terrible performances. He never really had a strong box office appeal. He could be bitchy and really cruel. He was chronically unfaithful to people. He spent money like it was going out of fashion. He was a wanker. He hit Hermoine Baddley. He cheated on his partners.
And yet... and yet...
He worked really hard. He constantly went back to the stage even when it cost him film money. He always tried different things - producing, directing. He pushed. He experimented. Some of his performances on film were superb - not just Room at the Top but also The Alamo. (Around the same time he'd be so terrible in Expresso Bongo and The Long and the Short and The Tall.)
Yes he did hook up with women and men who were older and richer than he and could've helped his career - but he seemed to genuinely like them. I think he was attracted to maturity and success. People didn't have to help him as much as he did. He was handsome; he must've been good company when in the right mood.
He had a fascinating life and career. Born in Lithuania, he moved to South Africa as a young boy and grew up in Jo'burg. He didn't like it much and entered the army as soon as he could and entertained the troops - alongside Sid James, who hated him. Then it was off to RADA, which he left soon for Manchester Rep. He was tall, good looking and studied hard, as well as being ambitious - he was working reasonably steadily almost straight away, although as someone who spent money as soon as he earned it he was always whingeing about his lack of progress. What really got things going for him was James Woolf of Romulus - he fell in love with Harvey and thought he was going to be a big star.
Harvey achieved acclaim at Stratford Upon Avon. He was noticed for films like Cairo Road and also Romeo and Juliet; he was in a terrible Hollywood film, King Richard and the Crusades but redeemed himself in Romulus films like I Am Camera and The Silent Enemy. He was also in Storm Over the Nile. He was terrible in Three Men on a Boat but Room at the Top made him an international name.
The films that followed were varied but often interesting - The Alamo, The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. He directed on stage and film (The Ceremony) and made a lot of money out of Darling. His star faded in the late 60s and he died relatively young.
The book is well done though frustratingly lacking in footnotes. It feels as though it had a lot of co operation from his family.
A really interesting actor.
I get Harvey was annoying. He was relentlessly pushy and ambitious. He spruiked himself mercilessly. He was arrogant and could deliver terrible performances. He never really had a strong box office appeal. He could be bitchy and really cruel. He was chronically unfaithful to people. He spent money like it was going out of fashion. He was a wanker. He hit Hermoine Baddley. He cheated on his partners.
And yet... and yet...
He worked really hard. He constantly went back to the stage even when it cost him film money. He always tried different things - producing, directing. He pushed. He experimented. Some of his performances on film were superb - not just Room at the Top but also The Alamo. (Around the same time he'd be so terrible in Expresso Bongo and The Long and the Short and The Tall.)
Yes he did hook up with women and men who were older and richer than he and could've helped his career - but he seemed to genuinely like them. I think he was attracted to maturity and success. People didn't have to help him as much as he did. He was handsome; he must've been good company when in the right mood.
He had a fascinating life and career. Born in Lithuania, he moved to South Africa as a young boy and grew up in Jo'burg. He didn't like it much and entered the army as soon as he could and entertained the troops - alongside Sid James, who hated him. Then it was off to RADA, which he left soon for Manchester Rep. He was tall, good looking and studied hard, as well as being ambitious - he was working reasonably steadily almost straight away, although as someone who spent money as soon as he earned it he was always whingeing about his lack of progress. What really got things going for him was James Woolf of Romulus - he fell in love with Harvey and thought he was going to be a big star.
Harvey achieved acclaim at Stratford Upon Avon. He was noticed for films like Cairo Road and also Romeo and Juliet; he was in a terrible Hollywood film, King Richard and the Crusades but redeemed himself in Romulus films like I Am Camera and The Silent Enemy. He was also in Storm Over the Nile. He was terrible in Three Men on a Boat but Room at the Top made him an international name.
The films that followed were varied but often interesting - The Alamo, The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. He directed on stage and film (The Ceremony) and made a lot of money out of Darling. His star faded in the late 60s and he died relatively young.
The book is well done though frustratingly lacking in footnotes. It feels as though it had a lot of co operation from his family.
A really interesting actor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)