Movie - "Water" (1985) **** (warning: spoilers)

Every now and then a film comes along which is regarded as a critical and commercial failure, a misfire, that I love - where I totally get where the filmmaker is coming from, think they executed it well, genuinely like the movie, and am bewildered by the hate. One example is Shadows and Fog from Woody Allen; another one is this comedy from HandMade films and the team of Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais.

It's a look at latter day British colonialism - a tinpot island in the Caribbean that lacks beaches and/or industry whose inhabitants are mostly descended from shipwreck victims. Michael Caine is the dope-smoking, floral shirt-wearing governor who wants the best for his people - yes, absolutely, this is a "white saviour" movie, but Caine's charm makes the role very winning.

The plot concerns the discovery of deposits of mineral water on the island and subsequent fighting over it - there's the British government (led by Leonard Rossiter), French special forces (defending the interests of Perrier), American oil company who want to extract it (Dennis Dugan, Fred Gwynne), visiting movie star making an ad (Dick Shawn), the governor's wife (Brenda Vaccaro), environmentalist (Valerie Perrine), local revolutionaries (led by Billy Connolly), Cubans. There's cameos at the end from some Beatles and Eric Clapton.

All these subplots are juggled expertly and to me at least the satire seemed equal - it makes fun of islanders, British, French, Americans all the same... everyone's an idiot. Occasionally the humour is too broad and unfunny - the whole Brenda Vaccaro subplot probably could have been dispensed with - and it does feel very white orientated (the only genuine local we get to know well is Billy Connolly, who is half white... it's a shame say the Valerine Perrine role couldn't have been a black local... she could have moved away) but it is bright, clever, well structured, with a stand out cast.

Yet the film was a big flop. No one seems to think much of it critically. I honestly don't know why other than the taste of the filmmakers (and myself) was clearly out of step with everyone else.

Movie review - "The Rains of Ranchipur" (1955) ** (warning: spoilers)

The 1950s were a time of studios remaking their old hits in colour with Cinemascope - this one also benefits from real Indian locations but suffers by still having the main Indian character in brownface (Rchard Burton!), and changing the dramatic point.

I've never heard a good thing about this movie so my expectations were low and I found some pleasant surprises: Lana Turner is very well cast as the girl about town who finds true love with Burton; she's not a good actor but has been photographed well and is effective. Burton is good as the prince, despite the make up - he's got soul, sex appeal and charisma, which was what that part needs. Joan Caulfield works well as the young girl who falls for a dissolute man; I don't know much about Caulfield's career, but here he's fresh faced and winning.

That dissolute man is played by Fred MacMurray, who was a great villain but is uncomfortable as a drunk and a character in India and as someone dissolute. Some of his scenes are really amateurish such as when he tells off Turner for falling in love with Burton. George Brent was better  in the original.

They also made a big mistake changing the story of Turner's character. In The Rains Came she went to nurse flood victims, devoted herself selflessly to the cause, got sick and died. Here she doesn't nurse and just leaves. It means she doesn't love Burton and he doesn't love her (because if it was true love they'd try to find a way). 

Also she's not redeemed because she doesn't so any nursing - Burton says there's a lovely person inside but we don't see it. They also don't kill off her husband - played here by Michael Rennie. He delivers this sexist misogynist speech at the beginning slamming her then mostly disappears for the film and comes back at the end to go off with Turner.

So they departed from the original and suffered accordingly at the box office. A mistake. Still, not as bad as I'd heard.

Movie review - "Room in Rome" (2010) **

Two women spend the night together in a hotel room in Rome. They lie about their past, have sex, reveal the truth about themselves, have more sex, grow emotionally close, look up things on the internet, have some banter with a room service waiter, stare at painting, have some more sex, sit around naked a lot.

It's nicely shot - a very good room, with high ceilings. The leads are very attractive - Spanish Elena Anya, who has been in Almodavar films, and Russian (well Ukranian) Natasha Yarovenko - and the dialogue is mostly in English, albeit stiltingly performed.

I think the film aims for significance with the intercuts of paintings and dialogue and maps of old Rome. But it came across really as more a chance to show some hot lesbian sex.

Movie review - "The Green Slime" (1968) **

Legendary in its own way because of its title - a Japanese movie made in co production with MGM which has ensured a healthy after life. It's has a strong cast - Robert Horton, Richard Jaekel and Luciana Paluzzi - plus a surprisingly robust story: a space crew goes up to an asteroid to stop it blowing up (years before Armageddon!), and brings back a slimy thing that wipes out people (years before Alien ... but well after The Thing).

There is solid special effects, and a decent love triangle to give things extra spice - Paluzzi is with Jaekel but used to be with Horton. The monster is laughable and while the film is okay with the military aspect it's not very good with spookiness and suspense. It's simply too silly.

Movie review - "Mad as Hell: The Peter Finch Story" (2011) ****

Very good documentary about the legendary Australian star, which benefits from some fantastic footage and talking heads. There's home movies of Finch by the beach with Peter Thompson (film critic from Sunday), photos of Oliver and Leigh watching the Mercury Theatre, interviews with Virginia McKenna, Vincent Ball, Glenda Jackson, his kids, his first wife (the ballet dancer), Trader Faulkner. There's more random people like Bill Hunter and Barry Norman (though his father, to be fair, directed Finch in a few films).

We see clips from his early films and radio shows, as well as his later British and Hollywood films. There's a lot to get through. The darker side of Finch's nature isn't really explored - he's a hell raiser, and womaniser but that's about the depth of it. I think they simply didn't have time.

But they get the essence of him: the erratic upbringing, the nomadic lifestyle, the talent that flowered in the relatively small patch that was Australian radio and theatre, the stage career that petered out (though it did include being Iago to Orson Welles), the film career that never quite reached the top rank though he managed to appear in a good film at just the right intervals (A Town Like Alice, The Nun's Story, The Pumkin Eater, Far from the Madding Crowd, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Network), the things that held back his talent, the personal charm. An exasperating charming man who left a strong legacy and is surprisingly little remembered in Australia today outside buff circles.

Movie review - "Unauthorised: The Harvey Weinstein Project" (2011) ***

Enjoyable documentary on one of the most important Hollywood moguls of the 1990s and 2000s. Nothing in it will surprise anyone who's read Down and Dirty Pictures (whose author, Peter Biskind, pops up here). He's a great talker, bully, yeller; he's very passionate, loves film, loves a fight. It doesn't mention anything about rape or sexual assault.

Talking heads include Peter Bart, George Hickenlooper, Martin Scorsese. Weinstein apparently tried to stop this film being made which was a waste of time - it's not very mean, it's kind of admiring. It does say he became a spent force from the mid 2000s onwards but warns people not to count him out. I'm surprised Kevin Smith didn't appear in it.

Plenty of footage from the films and interviews on red carpets; there's a clip from a film Weinstein directed.

Movie review - "Proof of Life" (2000) ***

Lots of good things about this movie - the location shooting the performance of Russell Crowe in the lead, the interesting "world" of kidnapping and ransom (remember the good old days when Latin America, not the Middle East, was the kidnapping capital of the world?), David Caruso's lively support performance.

Meg Ryan kind of wrecks it. She throws the movie off balance, not just with her uninspiring performance but also her sheer star quality. She's a good actor but feels too light weight and all wrong for what is basically the Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca role. You didn't need Meg Ryan you just needed someone attractive, who lusted after Crowe nobly, while the focus was on Crowe trying to get huer husband back.

Meg Ryan's casting pulls focus - you're drawn to her, which is actually a mistake dramatically because the character is so passive. All she does is lie to a politician - the rest of the time she makes cups of tea and hangs around Crowe.

The film flounders in some other spots it should be strong - like the opening sequence of Russell kicking arse (intercut with him talking about it thus robbing the piece of suspense) and the sequence of Morse being kidnapped. I also hate it how they got Morse to be tough and yell at his kidnappers BECAUSE HE'S AN AMERICAN - why didn't they just play it truthfully, in that you'd suck up and be nice.

So a flawed film. But like all movies written by Tony Gilroy, worth watching. Russell Crowe is very well cast and has a great last scene.