One of the anthology movies popular in Britain around this time (Dead of Night, Quartet, etc) this combines three suspernaturalistic tales. Orson Welles is top billed but only in one, the last.
The first one has a decent set up - a guide at an art gallery is invited inside a painting by a mysterious figure (Alan Badel) - and some trippy visuals (tilted cameras etc), but is far too talky, doesn't have much of a story beyond the set up, and got dull very quickly.
The second one feels a lot better paced, though a lot more familiar, being a film noir-ish tale about two best mates (one of them alcoholic, John Gregson) who fall for the same woman (Elizabeth Sellars, the resident femme fetale of British movies of the 50s).
Orson Welles stars in the third as an MP whose dreams are invaded by an opposition MP (Badel again) whose career he has ruined, supposedly from what seems to be a rather tame speech. Orson has a high old time, especially in the dream sequences - it was like a film version of some roles which he played on radio - and I wasn't surprised to hear he had directed some of it (the carnival-like nightclub sequence feels especially his). I found this the most enjoyable, mainly because of Orson's presence (it's a shame he couldn't have appeared in the other two segments); it was based on a story by Somerset Maugham.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Movie review - "Sweethearts" (1938) ***
Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald had by this stage made a lot of money for MGM so the studio were willing to pony up for Technicolour for this effort. It actually wasn't really worth it - I mean, it's nice, but colour would have been better in their previous movies - Naughty Marietta took place in colonial Louisiana, Rosie Maria in mountainous Canada, Maytime in wherever the hell that was set, The Girl of the Golden West in the old west. Sweethearts is a screwball comedy which mostly takes place in the world of nightclubs, backstage dressing rooms, radio studios, swish New York apartments and the like. Yes there are some elaborate numbers on stage but it's all pretty much indoors.
All the MacDonald-Eddy films to this date had varied: pure silly operetta, heightened melodrama, road movie. This one is a screwball comedy, written by Dorothy Parker and Alan Campbell, full of sparky one liners and frantic situations. It's not much of a story - vested interests try to break up a beloved stage star couple (kind of like a singing version of the Lunts) in order to prevent them running off to the movies. A secretary is used to make Jeannette jealous, and that's about it. Things are resolved very quickly.
But it's very bright and funny, with a strong support cast, including Frank Morgan, Mischa Auer and Reginald Gardiner; Eddy wasn't great at comedy but he can be a straight man and Jeannette is lively and sexy - she was very talented.
All the MacDonald-Eddy films to this date had varied: pure silly operetta, heightened melodrama, road movie. This one is a screwball comedy, written by Dorothy Parker and Alan Campbell, full of sparky one liners and frantic situations. It's not much of a story - vested interests try to break up a beloved stage star couple (kind of like a singing version of the Lunts) in order to prevent them running off to the movies. A secretary is used to make Jeannette jealous, and that's about it. Things are resolved very quickly.
But it's very bright and funny, with a strong support cast, including Frank Morgan, Mischa Auer and Reginald Gardiner; Eddy wasn't great at comedy but he can be a straight man and Jeannette is lively and sexy - she was very talented.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Movie review - "Maytime" (1937) *** (warning: spoilers)
Nelson Eddy and Jeannette MacDonald at their MGM peak, in an entertaining melodrama musical which takes place in never never land on the studio backlot. It starts with an aged MacDonald giving a young couple some relationship advice then flashes back to her own operatic career. She is loved by her manipulative manager (John Barrymore) and decides to marry him for the sake of fame and her career.... despite falling in love with another singer (Nelson). She and Nelson are reunited but Barrymore gets out his gun... Poor Jeanette is left to mourn him and to wait until death.
In other words it's the same plot in a way as Barry Manilow's Copacabana or even James Cameron's Titanic. It worked then and it works here, with plenty of songs. I'm really starting to like MacDonald - she had spark and flair, a sense of naughtiness as well as class; Nelson Eddy is bland lunk but he does work well with MacDonald. Plenty of production values, including an elaborate re-creating of small town America (which tended to be MGM's specialty).
In other words it's the same plot in a way as Barry Manilow's Copacabana or even James Cameron's Titanic. It worked then and it works here, with plenty of songs. I'm really starting to like MacDonald - she had spark and flair, a sense of naughtiness as well as class; Nelson Eddy is bland lunk but he does work well with MacDonald. Plenty of production values, including an elaborate re-creating of small town America (which tended to be MGM's specialty).
Friday, January 24, 2014
Movie review - "Halloween" (1978) ***1/2
This has been so imitated that many scenes/moments induce laughter: teenagers asking "who's there" when a killer is loose; Jamie Lee Curtis thinking she's killed Michael Myers twice then not checking; horny teenagers easily exposed; a conveniently incompetent police force; absent parents.
But a lot of it maintains it's power too: hearing the opening theme song still sends chills down my spine; John Carpenter's direction is excellent; the story is superb and Michael one of the great villains. As Danny Peary pointed out he's really just a child who never grew up - he delights in playing games, teasing and hiding and being naughty to teenagers; he never hurts other kids.
There's other things too that list this above standard horror fare: the high quality of the acting, not just Donald Pleasance as a slightly deranged shrink (he's much more fun than Chris Lee would have been), but also likeable newcomer Jamie Lee Curtis (who I should point out is never specified a virgin, she just doesn't have a date that night) and PJ Soles and Nancy Loomis who are who friends - they have actual specific characters to play and seem realistic, which I attribute to Debra Hill's influence on the script. It's also scary rather than gory.
But a lot of it maintains it's power too: hearing the opening theme song still sends chills down my spine; John Carpenter's direction is excellent; the story is superb and Michael one of the great villains. As Danny Peary pointed out he's really just a child who never grew up - he delights in playing games, teasing and hiding and being naughty to teenagers; he never hurts other kids.
There's other things too that list this above standard horror fare: the high quality of the acting, not just Donald Pleasance as a slightly deranged shrink (he's much more fun than Chris Lee would have been), but also likeable newcomer Jamie Lee Curtis (who I should point out is never specified a virgin, she just doesn't have a date that night) and PJ Soles and Nancy Loomis who are who friends - they have actual specific characters to play and seem realistic, which I attribute to Debra Hill's influence on the script. It's also scary rather than gory.
Book review - "Lion of Hollywood: The Life and Legend of Louis B Mayer" by Scott Eyman (2005)
Eyman is one of the best film biographers going around and Mayer deserved reappraisal - he's been long mocked/pillored in Hollywood history because of his behaviour: attacking the writers guild and communists, sobbing and wailing to actors and talking about family values and mother worship and wholesome pictures, terrorising poor little Irving Thalberg and Dore Schary, punching out John Gilbert.
There was more to him than that. Mayer was a genius filmmaker in his way - not a writer, director or even producer, but a great manager of MGM at it's peak. He set up a small, struggling operation, merged it with others and created a colossus which led Hollywood. It was an amazing achievement, even by the mogul standards, and deserves to be acknowledged and praised.
A great "what if" of Hollywood history: what if Mayer hadn't quit MGM in a huff in 1951 over fighting with Dore Schary? Could he have kept the studio up with the times? Who knows... MGM struggled before Schary's arrival when it was just Mayer. But Mayer had management genius that eluded Schary, and his taste was in greater line with that of the American public than Schary - for instance, The Great Caruso was a Mayer pet project. And that Andy Hardy type wholesome picture continued to be very popular on TV (Father Knows Best, etc) - I think Mayer could have come up with great TV ideas.
Schary gets a fair bollocking in this book, a little unfairly, I think: Schary was no Mayer, or Thalberg, and in hindsight was the wrong person to run MGM; he should have joined them as a unit producer, where he could have concentrated on turning out film noirs and hard hitting dramas, instead of expanding into areas where he had no idea, like musicals, comedies and discovering and dealing with stars (all the things Mayer was good at in other words, and which made MGM). But he was a talented man and one of the few moguls who had a decent career after being a mogul.
Anyway Schary is only one character in this book. There's plenty of others, notably his duelling daughters Edie and Irene (who would have been a great movie producer but instead worked on the stage), his poor first wife who was dumped and basically driven ga ga, a nice enough second wife (Mayer had a mid life crisis), the enigmatic Thalberg, the feuding Nick Schenck, the movie stars who were forever traipsing into Mayer's office with their problems (Greer Garson and Jeannette MacDonald could wrap him around their little finger, he was distant from Clark Gable, liked Kate Hepburn's class, didn't know what on earth to do with Judy Garland, dealt with Van Johnson's homosexuality in a matter of fact "fixer" way).
It's all deftly handled by Eyman who combines scholarship with entertaining gossip. He probably over-quotes Esther Williams and doesn't get into the dark side of the MGM vision (eg in the Andy Hardy films, it's not just about Andy's high spirits and the judge being sensible, it's also about the mother being a blithering idiot and the daughter having her spirit crushed), but its still a great book.
There was more to him than that. Mayer was a genius filmmaker in his way - not a writer, director or even producer, but a great manager of MGM at it's peak. He set up a small, struggling operation, merged it with others and created a colossus which led Hollywood. It was an amazing achievement, even by the mogul standards, and deserves to be acknowledged and praised.
A great "what if" of Hollywood history: what if Mayer hadn't quit MGM in a huff in 1951 over fighting with Dore Schary? Could he have kept the studio up with the times? Who knows... MGM struggled before Schary's arrival when it was just Mayer. But Mayer had management genius that eluded Schary, and his taste was in greater line with that of the American public than Schary - for instance, The Great Caruso was a Mayer pet project. And that Andy Hardy type wholesome picture continued to be very popular on TV (Father Knows Best, etc) - I think Mayer could have come up with great TV ideas.
Schary gets a fair bollocking in this book, a little unfairly, I think: Schary was no Mayer, or Thalberg, and in hindsight was the wrong person to run MGM; he should have joined them as a unit producer, where he could have concentrated on turning out film noirs and hard hitting dramas, instead of expanding into areas where he had no idea, like musicals, comedies and discovering and dealing with stars (all the things Mayer was good at in other words, and which made MGM). But he was a talented man and one of the few moguls who had a decent career after being a mogul.
Anyway Schary is only one character in this book. There's plenty of others, notably his duelling daughters Edie and Irene (who would have been a great movie producer but instead worked on the stage), his poor first wife who was dumped and basically driven ga ga, a nice enough second wife (Mayer had a mid life crisis), the enigmatic Thalberg, the feuding Nick Schenck, the movie stars who were forever traipsing into Mayer's office with their problems (Greer Garson and Jeannette MacDonald could wrap him around their little finger, he was distant from Clark Gable, liked Kate Hepburn's class, didn't know what on earth to do with Judy Garland, dealt with Van Johnson's homosexuality in a matter of fact "fixer" way).
It's all deftly handled by Eyman who combines scholarship with entertaining gossip. He probably over-quotes Esther Williams and doesn't get into the dark side of the MGM vision (eg in the Andy Hardy films, it's not just about Andy's high spirits and the judge being sensible, it's also about the mother being a blithering idiot and the daughter having her spirit crushed), but its still a great book.
Book review - "Paul Newman" by Shawn Levy
Was there a luckier film star than Paul Newman? Born to a reasonably well off family in Cleveland (dad ran a successful sports store); he was genetically blessed with his looks and metabolism; he kept all his hair whereas other males in his family went bald; dad was a bit distant but taught him a good work ethic, joined the navy during the war but didn't really see hard service (he was on a crew to a pilot who got an earache one day meaning Newman missed a devastating kamikaze attack) and meant he could afford to attend college where he developed an interest in acting; he arrived in New York in 1952 just as live TV was booming and Broadway was peaking, so there was plenty of work around... and within two years was starring in a Hollywood blockbuster; he was a good looking masculine guy at a time when Hollywood was looking for such actors (the established Hollywood stars were aging and the studios weren't developing talent the same way); he inherited several roles meant for James Dean; he met and married his soulmate, who happened to be one of the most talented actresses of her generation; his passion for making tomato sauce led to a multi million dollar business; a passion for alcohol and partying (he's an alcoholic basically, which was news to me) was always managed to be kept under control.
There was tragedy and loss along the way - he had to leave his wife and kids to marry that soulmate, Joanne Woodward; a son died of a drug overdose; he cheated in the early 70s (I had no idea of this). But on the whole it was a remarkable run of luck. To his credit, Newman's always acknowledged this, working very hard, consistently seeking out the best material (support actors, writers, directors), always pushing himself into new areas (directing, producing, racing), returning to the stage as often as possible, being politically involved, having a sense of humour about himself, getting heavily involved in charity (he gives away a lot), trying to keep the size of his head under control, working at his craft.
As a result he enjoyed a remarkable career and remained one of the most highly regarded, loved and respected stars of all time. He took so many chances and risks - I'd forgotten just how many flops he'd made - but he always manged to come up with a hit in time to maintain his fame.
Levy has done an excellent job of research and writing, full of top notch analysis of Newman's performances and persona in particular. However as the book went on something kept nagging at me and eventually I figured out what it was: I found Newman, for all his fine qualities, irritating. The beer, the boorishness, the practical jokes and hamburgers and being a regular guy and into the Actors Studio. Sometimes his performances grate on me too with their 60s knowingness. Maybe I'm simply just not a fan. Not Levy's fault's he's done a great job, just how I feel.
There was tragedy and loss along the way - he had to leave his wife and kids to marry that soulmate, Joanne Woodward; a son died of a drug overdose; he cheated in the early 70s (I had no idea of this). But on the whole it was a remarkable run of luck. To his credit, Newman's always acknowledged this, working very hard, consistently seeking out the best material (support actors, writers, directors), always pushing himself into new areas (directing, producing, racing), returning to the stage as often as possible, being politically involved, having a sense of humour about himself, getting heavily involved in charity (he gives away a lot), trying to keep the size of his head under control, working at his craft.
As a result he enjoyed a remarkable career and remained one of the most highly regarded, loved and respected stars of all time. He took so many chances and risks - I'd forgotten just how many flops he'd made - but he always manged to come up with a hit in time to maintain his fame.
Levy has done an excellent job of research and writing, full of top notch analysis of Newman's performances and persona in particular. However as the book went on something kept nagging at me and eventually I figured out what it was: I found Newman, for all his fine qualities, irritating. The beer, the boorishness, the practical jokes and hamburgers and being a regular guy and into the Actors Studio. Sometimes his performances grate on me too with their 60s knowingness. Maybe I'm simply just not a fan. Not Levy's fault's he's done a great job, just how I feel.
Movie review - "Birdemic: Shock and Terror" (2010) *
It's pleasing to know that Hollywood can still turn out "so bad it's good" classics up there with Robot Monster or Glen or Glenda? This is one of a recent rash of crap cult classics which also include The Room and has to be seen to be believed.
It's consistently bad, with some new craziness thrown in every couple of minutes to keep us interested: the awful cinematography, the dialogue, the Victoria's Secret model heroine (actually not a bad performance) looking for love and her seemingly gold digging mother, the endless monologues, the software programming background of the hero, the performance of the hero, the special effects, the structure pinched off The Birds, Tippi Hedren's third billed role (she's not in the film it's just a clip of her is seen), the global warming propaganda that happens at the end, action sequences of characters with guns shooting at birds, bad music.
Really, it's terrific fun, and a great night out.
It's consistently bad, with some new craziness thrown in every couple of minutes to keep us interested: the awful cinematography, the dialogue, the Victoria's Secret model heroine (actually not a bad performance) looking for love and her seemingly gold digging mother, the endless monologues, the software programming background of the hero, the performance of the hero, the special effects, the structure pinched off The Birds, Tippi Hedren's third billed role (she's not in the film it's just a clip of her is seen), the global warming propaganda that happens at the end, action sequences of characters with guns shooting at birds, bad music.
Really, it's terrific fun, and a great night out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)