Much maligned movie, which flopped for good reason - it isn't that good. But it could have been good, which is frustrating.
I think it was an excellent idea to reboot it as a parallel to the War on Terror, with Robin as a veteran of wars in the Middle East - the opening sequence of fighting in back alleys is very well done, and I liked the concept of Ben Mendhelson bagging the Muslims as part of his scare campaign. I think it was fantastic to have Robin Hood decide to be a Scarlet Pimpernel figure and befriend Nottingham while secretly doing what's right. It was good to have Little John be a former enemy from the crusades.
But having set up this, the film doesn't do anything with it.
The parallels to the War on Terror are dropped. There's no Muslim stuff after the first act. There's no fun with Robin Hood befriending the baddy - no alter ago to contrast.
Jamie Foxx's John could be cut out of the film. I mean, he does suggest the plan and train him but really Robin could have thought of that himself... and the training montage feels superfluous because Robin's already a soldier. He doesn't influence the plot after that. I guess he gets captured and then escapes somehow and helps Robin live but... ugh.
Maid Marian basically just serves water. I mean, really she does nothing. Traditional Mary at least was a spy. This one just hangs around. It's a terrible role.
Will Scarlett has some potential - setting up for the sequel. But really I think Scarlet should have gone bad earlier.
Friar Tuck just kind of hangs out. There's a villainous cardinal, F Murray Abraham, but I missed Prince John. The point of the original is to raise money for King Richard but there's no Richard here - Robin Hood isn't for anything except "the people", who are random extras.
I was willing to give this a fair shake. The opening moments were very iffy - unnecessary narration, unnecessary showing of how Robin met Marian, the silly "draft notice" - then it recovered well for a strong action sequence, then got progressively sillier.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Movie review - "Rock Pretty Baby" (1956) **1/2
Universal jump on the teen rock bandwagon and were rewarded with a hit film with this, which turned John Saxon into a teen idol.
The plot has Saxon, Sal Mineo and their friends in a band together and Saxon has troubles with his dad (Edward Platt from Get Smart).
It's got plenty of rock music and dancing at the hop - Mineo does the drums and Saxon plays the guitar extremely well. It's a studio picture so the production values are high and the acting of good quality - the cast also includes Luana Patten, Shelley Fabares, and Fay Wray! And Henry Mancini did the music.
I quite liked this film. The teens were depicted sympathetically, and there were enjoyable family scenes. I believed the family, with dad struggling to understand the son, Saxon being moody, the kid brother wise cracking and sister Fabares causing trouble. I liked the father son chat even if it is a bit annoyingly simplistic that Plat goes "oh all your troubles are because of a girl".)
Patten is very sweet and there's a hot scene where she and Saxon go for a late night swim and make out afterwards in the dark and they both kind of want to have sex but she resists. I mean, they give it the 1956 studio treatment and she says no, but there's some hot moments.
It's really Saxon's film - he's too old for a teen and dark and brooding with hair that's going to recede but he's quite good, as an imitation James Dean. Sal Mineo is wasted as Saxon's friend - he has a moment where he talks about his parents wanting him to be a doctor, and talks slang and makes out with a girl and plays drums but doesn't have his own subplot. It's a shame - they should have done that, and if they couldn't they could have turned him into a villain.
The plot has Saxon, Sal Mineo and their friends in a band together and Saxon has troubles with his dad (Edward Platt from Get Smart).
It's got plenty of rock music and dancing at the hop - Mineo does the drums and Saxon plays the guitar extremely well. It's a studio picture so the production values are high and the acting of good quality - the cast also includes Luana Patten, Shelley Fabares, and Fay Wray! And Henry Mancini did the music.
I quite liked this film. The teens were depicted sympathetically, and there were enjoyable family scenes. I believed the family, with dad struggling to understand the son, Saxon being moody, the kid brother wise cracking and sister Fabares causing trouble. I liked the father son chat even if it is a bit annoyingly simplistic that Plat goes "oh all your troubles are because of a girl".)
Patten is very sweet and there's a hot scene where she and Saxon go for a late night swim and make out afterwards in the dark and they both kind of want to have sex but she resists. I mean, they give it the 1956 studio treatment and she says no, but there's some hot moments.
It's really Saxon's film - he's too old for a teen and dark and brooding with hair that's going to recede but he's quite good, as an imitation James Dean. Sal Mineo is wasted as Saxon's friend - he has a moment where he talks about his parents wanting him to be a doctor, and talks slang and makes out with a girl and plays drums but doesn't have his own subplot. It's a shame - they should have done that, and if they couldn't they could have turned him into a villain.
Movie review - "Band of Angels" (1957) *
I have a soft spot for Yvonne de Carlo - she was clearly an old pro, has been around forever, and made a lot of films which I enjoy: Easterns, film noir, Westerns, comedies. She was never considered a top rank star but being cast in The Ten Commandments made Hollywood spark up and earned her a plumb role in this, a Civil War melodrama. Although the film stars Clark Gable, who has a juicy role, it's really de Carlo's story.
The central concept of the film is strong: a woman (de Carlo) is raised in the old South on a plantation, but discovers on her father's death that she's part black and is "owned" by a slave trader. That's a great set up - a privileged woman whose position in the world is pulled out from underneath her, who has to fight to survive. Gone with the Wind with a black heroine - that's awesome.
But given this the filmmakers - I haven't read the original novel, but they could have changed it - make a whole lot of mistakes.They invoke Wind a lot - Clark Gable's casting as a buccaneering southerner, a Southern heroine, balls, raping Yankee soldiers, kindly slave owners, a dim black slave like Butterfly McQueen - but never get close to that film's quality.
De Carlo isn't given much of a character to play - she's pretty and that's it. Scarlett O'Hara had drive - she was selfish but active, she wanted Ashley, ignored Rhett. What does De Carlo want? Gable? But Gable pushes her away and she doesn't seem to care. She has easy going relationships with Rex Reason and later Efrem Zimbalist Jnr; Patric Knowles tries to molest her, Gable wants her, Reason tries to rape her once he finds out she's black, Sidney Poitier seems to want her (de Carlo often played women who were pawed). But she's passive. They needed to give her something to do - fight for the blacks, escape, make money, chase after a guy, something. But the film can't make up its mind.
I think they should have given her the goal to be free - and structured the film around that. Or at least just have her love Gable all the way through and constantly try to get him instead of just accepting him pushing her away. But they don't
The film feels compromised by pussy footing around - "Oh we don't want to offend people in the south so lets have kindly slave owners and some rapey Yankees", "lets have Sidney Poitier hate whites justifiably but then slap de Carlo".
Gable's character is flat. A slave owner who buys women but does nothing with them - okay, yes, well, de Carlo sleeps with him But Only Because She Wants To. Then he turns her away because he - gasp - used to be a slave trader (why is this meant to shock when Gable meets De Carlo by Buying Her????). Gable looks bored and ill. He's got none of Rhett Butler's dash and swagger. What does he want? I mean if he's guilty, that's fine... have him want to kill himself, to self destruct, or to set black people free. But he just sort of mopes around.
The film's attitude to race is consistently dodgy. The film is full of kindly slave owners, like de Carlo's father, who never whips his slaves and is nice to them (when he dies all the blacks turn out to sing), and Gable who is nice to his slaves (they sing for him too). Everyone pats Gable on the back for raising Poitier so well... and Poitier is so touched that Gable raised him after rescuing him on a slave mission (!) that Poitier helps him escape.
Ugh. This film is awful. It starts off okay and gets worse. It's unfocused, and confusing, and offensive, and dramatically messy.
You could make the material work, easy. Have de Carlo find out she's black, get sold into slavery, be rescued by Gable to who is working off his guilt by setting slaves free, he frees her but she loves him so goes back.
Sidney Poitier comes off best because his character is the most consistent - he's a black who hates whites (until the end when he feels sorry for Gable).
De Carlo isn't very good, I'm sorry to say. Part of it is her character, who is passive, but a more charismatic star would have worked better - like Ava Gardner, say.
The central concept of the film is strong: a woman (de Carlo) is raised in the old South on a plantation, but discovers on her father's death that she's part black and is "owned" by a slave trader. That's a great set up - a privileged woman whose position in the world is pulled out from underneath her, who has to fight to survive. Gone with the Wind with a black heroine - that's awesome.
But given this the filmmakers - I haven't read the original novel, but they could have changed it - make a whole lot of mistakes.They invoke Wind a lot - Clark Gable's casting as a buccaneering southerner, a Southern heroine, balls, raping Yankee soldiers, kindly slave owners, a dim black slave like Butterfly McQueen - but never get close to that film's quality.
De Carlo isn't given much of a character to play - she's pretty and that's it. Scarlett O'Hara had drive - she was selfish but active, she wanted Ashley, ignored Rhett. What does De Carlo want? Gable? But Gable pushes her away and she doesn't seem to care. She has easy going relationships with Rex Reason and later Efrem Zimbalist Jnr; Patric Knowles tries to molest her, Gable wants her, Reason tries to rape her once he finds out she's black, Sidney Poitier seems to want her (de Carlo often played women who were pawed). But she's passive. They needed to give her something to do - fight for the blacks, escape, make money, chase after a guy, something. But the film can't make up its mind.
I think they should have given her the goal to be free - and structured the film around that. Or at least just have her love Gable all the way through and constantly try to get him instead of just accepting him pushing her away. But they don't
The film feels compromised by pussy footing around - "Oh we don't want to offend people in the south so lets have kindly slave owners and some rapey Yankees", "lets have Sidney Poitier hate whites justifiably but then slap de Carlo".
Gable's character is flat. A slave owner who buys women but does nothing with them - okay, yes, well, de Carlo sleeps with him But Only Because She Wants To. Then he turns her away because he - gasp - used to be a slave trader (why is this meant to shock when Gable meets De Carlo by Buying Her????). Gable looks bored and ill. He's got none of Rhett Butler's dash and swagger. What does he want? I mean if he's guilty, that's fine... have him want to kill himself, to self destruct, or to set black people free. But he just sort of mopes around.
The film's attitude to race is consistently dodgy. The film is full of kindly slave owners, like de Carlo's father, who never whips his slaves and is nice to them (when he dies all the blacks turn out to sing), and Gable who is nice to his slaves (they sing for him too). Everyone pats Gable on the back for raising Poitier so well... and Poitier is so touched that Gable raised him after rescuing him on a slave mission (!) that Poitier helps him escape.
Ugh. This film is awful. It starts off okay and gets worse. It's unfocused, and confusing, and offensive, and dramatically messy.
You could make the material work, easy. Have de Carlo find out she's black, get sold into slavery, be rescued by Gable to who is working off his guilt by setting slaves free, he frees her but she loves him so goes back.
Sidney Poitier comes off best because his character is the most consistent - he's a black who hates whites (until the end when he feels sorry for Gable).
De Carlo isn't very good, I'm sorry to say. Part of it is her character, who is passive, but a more charismatic star would have worked better - like Ava Gardner, say.
Friday, April 26, 2019
Movie review - "Flame of the Islands" (1956) **
In the mid 50s Yvonne de Carlo made two films for Republic Pictures, this and Magic Fire. Its an interesting ish tale about a PR woman who is given $100,000 by the man's very understanding widow who thinks de Carlo was his mistress.De Carlo heads down to the Bahamas with co worker (lover?) Zachary Scott and invests the money in a resort run by Kurt Kaznar, who was the poor man's Dr Smith in Land of the Giants. He's in cahoots with gangsters.
So essentially it's a film noir plot only its shot in colour and on location in the Bahamas. De Carlo's character is introduced as a sort of secretary but it's revealed she "did a bit of singing" so she performs at the night club - an awkward explanation to justify De Carlo doing a number (why not just set up her character as a singer instead of having her do that random office job?).
Also for a film noir there's a lot of talk of God - she visits a sermon by James Arness, where a lot of innocent black children sing (the only blacks we really see in this Bahamas-set film). There's also a bit of melodrama - De Carlo falls for Howard Duff, who she used to love but who doesn't remember her (nice!), and when he does remember her, his possessive mother won't let him go. So it's a film noir in color in the Bahamas with God and dance numbers and a bit of Douglas Sirk melodrama.
Then it becomes more Sirkian - it turns out de Carlo wasn't anyone's mistress, the mistress was Duff's mother, De Carlo was pregnant to Duff years ago and had a stillborn baby, de Carlo just took the money because someone offered and hey why not, and Duff's mother dies after talking to de Carlo and... anyway it just gets all silly and weird.
Like a lot of mid 50s de Carlo films, too much is going on. Why have Zachary Scott in this film? Why introduce an exciting element like gangsters co owning a casino and ignoring them until the end? Why spent all this time on Duff and De Carlo and have De Carlo just dump Duff over the phone? When did De Carlo and Arness fall in love? When he grabbed her?
There's a lot of pawing of De Carlo in this film - Scott does it and Kaznar and Arness. She sings two numbers both of which kind of stick out.
It's a bit of a mess but not unwatchable.
So essentially it's a film noir plot only its shot in colour and on location in the Bahamas. De Carlo's character is introduced as a sort of secretary but it's revealed she "did a bit of singing" so she performs at the night club - an awkward explanation to justify De Carlo doing a number (why not just set up her character as a singer instead of having her do that random office job?).
Also for a film noir there's a lot of talk of God - she visits a sermon by James Arness, where a lot of innocent black children sing (the only blacks we really see in this Bahamas-set film). There's also a bit of melodrama - De Carlo falls for Howard Duff, who she used to love but who doesn't remember her (nice!), and when he does remember her, his possessive mother won't let him go. So it's a film noir in color in the Bahamas with God and dance numbers and a bit of Douglas Sirk melodrama.
Then it becomes more Sirkian - it turns out de Carlo wasn't anyone's mistress, the mistress was Duff's mother, De Carlo was pregnant to Duff years ago and had a stillborn baby, de Carlo just took the money because someone offered and hey why not, and Duff's mother dies after talking to de Carlo and... anyway it just gets all silly and weird.
Like a lot of mid 50s de Carlo films, too much is going on. Why have Zachary Scott in this film? Why introduce an exciting element like gangsters co owning a casino and ignoring them until the end? Why spent all this time on Duff and De Carlo and have De Carlo just dump Duff over the phone? When did De Carlo and Arness fall in love? When he grabbed her?
There's a lot of pawing of De Carlo in this film - Scott does it and Kaznar and Arness. She sings two numbers both of which kind of stick out.
It's a bit of a mess but not unwatchable.
Movie review - "Raw Edge" (1956) ** (warning: spoilers)
The central idea of this Western might make an interesting revisionist tale in the hands of a feminist filmmaker but done via Universal 1956 it's just rapey.
It's set in Oklahoma 1842 where a local baron Herbert Rudley rules the area and has introduced a rule that if a woman is unaccompanied, the first man to get her, keeps her. His wife Yvonne de Carlo is attacked (raped?) and the guy blames his political enemy, John Gilmore who became John Gavin. The enemy is hung, his Indian wife Mara Corday therefore up for grabs and is snatched by another cowboy. Gilmore's brother Rory Calhoun arrives in town and goes abot looking for revenge.
There's a lot of plot in this film. In addition to all the stuff going on above, there's also Rex Reason as a mysterious gambler with his own agenda, Corday's Indian relatives, Rudley's offsider Neville Brand and his brother also want de Carlo.. And it's only 76 minutes.
Really there's too much going on. They would have been better off dealing with a few key strands better. Plots seem rushed like the Calhoun-de Carlo romance.
De Carlo looks fine is a professional - so is Calhoun. The best are Brand and Reason. It's good that Corday's Indian character has some status and is allowed to kill Rudley and go off. It makes no sense Calhoun lets Brand live - really it's just so Brand can come back at the end. Calhoun actually doesn't do that much in the film - Rudley is a strong villain but he's more defeated by the Indians, and Brand and his father. Also why is Reason in the film? He's enigmatic, he helps the heroes, then he's killed... why?
The colour is great, the handling slack, de Carlo's body double is very obvious in some scenes because the director handles them in mid shot over long takes.
And there's an unpleasant rapey stuff - de Carlo is raped, she's considered property by Rudley, Brand wants to own her and calls her his property, even Calhoun drags her off after a chase, and then she wants to be Calhoun's property at the end. Corday was presumably Gilmore's property, then becomes property of another cowboy Robert Wilke, then becomes Indian property.
It gets some points in that pretty much the entire white cast is dead at the end of the film instead of Calhoun and de Carlo - no wonder she wants to go off with him.
There's a ballad over the beginning and end credits.
It's set in Oklahoma 1842 where a local baron Herbert Rudley rules the area and has introduced a rule that if a woman is unaccompanied, the first man to get her, keeps her. His wife Yvonne de Carlo is attacked (raped?) and the guy blames his political enemy, John Gilmore who became John Gavin. The enemy is hung, his Indian wife Mara Corday therefore up for grabs and is snatched by another cowboy. Gilmore's brother Rory Calhoun arrives in town and goes abot looking for revenge.
There's a lot of plot in this film. In addition to all the stuff going on above, there's also Rex Reason as a mysterious gambler with his own agenda, Corday's Indian relatives, Rudley's offsider Neville Brand and his brother also want de Carlo.. And it's only 76 minutes.
Really there's too much going on. They would have been better off dealing with a few key strands better. Plots seem rushed like the Calhoun-de Carlo romance.
De Carlo looks fine is a professional - so is Calhoun. The best are Brand and Reason. It's good that Corday's Indian character has some status and is allowed to kill Rudley and go off. It makes no sense Calhoun lets Brand live - really it's just so Brand can come back at the end. Calhoun actually doesn't do that much in the film - Rudley is a strong villain but he's more defeated by the Indians, and Brand and his father. Also why is Reason in the film? He's enigmatic, he helps the heroes, then he's killed... why?
The colour is great, the handling slack, de Carlo's body double is very obvious in some scenes because the director handles them in mid shot over long takes.
And there's an unpleasant rapey stuff - de Carlo is raped, she's considered property by Rudley, Brand wants to own her and calls her his property, even Calhoun drags her off after a chase, and then she wants to be Calhoun's property at the end. Corday was presumably Gilmore's property, then becomes property of another cowboy Robert Wilke, then becomes Indian property.
It gets some points in that pretty much the entire white cast is dead at the end of the film instead of Calhoun and de Carlo - no wonder she wants to go off with him.
There's a ballad over the beginning and end credits.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Movie review - "The Captain's Paradise" (1953) ***
Alec Guinness was a weird star of British films of the 1950s - a sort of other-wordly smugness/vagueness. This persona works well here, in this comedy about a ship's captain with two wives, one a stuffy British type in Gibraltar, the other a hot sexy thing in Spanish Morocco... because Guinness is so sexless it's not too full on. (I remember this worked for Dirk Bogarde in those doctor comedies - his lack of interest in women on screen made the films more charming, but when the cast obviously straight Michael Craig the film seemed sleazy).
The basic story is clever - it strikes at a universal theme - I think Australian Alec Coppel deserved his Oscar nomination.
It's been cast well - not just Guinness but Celia Johnson and Yvonne de Carlo are ideal. De Carlo was beginning to look her age here - or maybe it's more the gang at London Films didn't know how to give her the full beauty treatment.
It perhaps lacks a bit of development - a villain, say, or some through line. Gangsters or a missing set of jewels, or something to build. Maybe a bigger part for the love rival?
For a farce it's very spread out time-wise - the film covers a bunch of years (Johnson has children - we hardly see them - and the kids grow up and go to boarding school!) There is a second act - the wives start to want what the other one has (De Carlo wants to be domestic, Johnson wants to party), he which is fun... but it feels as though it lacks a third act.
Also I found the ending confusing - why Guinness was arrested and faced a firing squad. I had to look up what happened - he took the blame for a murder committed by de Carlo (why did she do it by the way? Hot blooded African-ness? why did he feel he had to take the blame? if he was so guilty about what he did he looked pretty smug paying off the firing squad? Personally I think Coppel just thought of that cool opening and didn't really work out how to justify it.)
Still it is fun - I loved Guinness' reactions to things, like dancing with de Carlo at a nightclub and being quiet and relaxed on Gibraltar with Johnson. De Carlo is having a good time as is Johnson and the support cast includes reliables like Peter Bull.
Some Australian touches (Coppel was Australian) - a relative of Guinness' character says he spent a year in Australia "among the aboriginals" as a desire to find the meaning of life.
The basic story is clever - it strikes at a universal theme - I think Australian Alec Coppel deserved his Oscar nomination.
It's been cast well - not just Guinness but Celia Johnson and Yvonne de Carlo are ideal. De Carlo was beginning to look her age here - or maybe it's more the gang at London Films didn't know how to give her the full beauty treatment.
It perhaps lacks a bit of development - a villain, say, or some through line. Gangsters or a missing set of jewels, or something to build. Maybe a bigger part for the love rival?
For a farce it's very spread out time-wise - the film covers a bunch of years (Johnson has children - we hardly see them - and the kids grow up and go to boarding school!) There is a second act - the wives start to want what the other one has (De Carlo wants to be domestic, Johnson wants to party), he which is fun... but it feels as though it lacks a third act.
Also I found the ending confusing - why Guinness was arrested and faced a firing squad. I had to look up what happened - he took the blame for a murder committed by de Carlo (why did she do it by the way? Hot blooded African-ness? why did he feel he had to take the blame? if he was so guilty about what he did he looked pretty smug paying off the firing squad? Personally I think Coppel just thought of that cool opening and didn't really work out how to justify it.)
Still it is fun - I loved Guinness' reactions to things, like dancing with de Carlo at a nightclub and being quiet and relaxed on Gibraltar with Johnson. De Carlo is having a good time as is Johnson and the support cast includes reliables like Peter Bull.
Some Australian touches (Coppel was Australian) - a relative of Guinness' character says he spent a year in Australia "among the aboriginals" as a desire to find the meaning of life.
Movie review - "Hurricane Smith" (1952) **
The second of two films Yvonne de Carlo made for Nat Holt at Paramount. Both were written by Fran Gruber with Richard Arlen in a support role. The first, Silver City, had a slightly convoluted plot - this one is incredibly convoluted.
It needn't have been - I mean, really the film should have been about unjustly-accused-of-piracy John Ireland trying to get his money back, taking over a ship, fighting baddies, hiding who he really is on board ship, falling in love with Yvonne de Carlo who changes sides, getting his money.
But the script has two main flaws. It slips the heroic duties between Ireland and Forrest Tucker and Richard Arlen - the latter in particular didn't need to be in the film at all. I kept waiting for two of them to die, or turn bad, or something... but nope, they're all the same sort of person - rough and heroic. If the baddy thinks Tucker is Ireland, which is fine, why not have the baddy kill Tucker? Why have Arlen in the film at all? If they needed to give him a gig, make him the bad guy. (James Craig, borrowed from MGM, is fine by the way).
Also so much of the script fells contrived. Like, Ireland, Tucker and Arlen take over the ship... but they can't go looking for treasure they have to go to Australia to raise money... (NB there are scenes in a fictitious northern port of Australia called "Castleton"... it's not particularly Aussie of course). The real reason is so the slavers can turn up... and be put in the brig... and then when they're sailing there's all these sailors, there's the slave captain and his first mate, and some other sailor, and various sailors mutiny and everyone changes sides. There's all these villains... the slaver, the slaver's first mate, Jim Craig, de Carlo, de Carlo's father. I kept thinking "consolidate all these frigging characters". It's a mess. And it's pointless.
The colour is impressive, the quality of acting solid (even if Ireland spends far too much time shirtless for someone who isn't in particularly good shape), the action good. Gruber just messes it up with a needlessly complicated script with too many characters.
De Carlo is fun. She doesn't have a huge role (it should have been bigger). She has a very camp moment on board listening to some musicians play an island tune and because she's half-Polynesian the jungle drums take hold of her and she goes into this dance routine. Although De Carlo came to fame as a replacement Maria Montez she was rarely as campy - but on this occasion, it's pure camp.
It needn't have been - I mean, really the film should have been about unjustly-accused-of-piracy John Ireland trying to get his money back, taking over a ship, fighting baddies, hiding who he really is on board ship, falling in love with Yvonne de Carlo who changes sides, getting his money.
But the script has two main flaws. It slips the heroic duties between Ireland and Forrest Tucker and Richard Arlen - the latter in particular didn't need to be in the film at all. I kept waiting for two of them to die, or turn bad, or something... but nope, they're all the same sort of person - rough and heroic. If the baddy thinks Tucker is Ireland, which is fine, why not have the baddy kill Tucker? Why have Arlen in the film at all? If they needed to give him a gig, make him the bad guy. (James Craig, borrowed from MGM, is fine by the way).
Also so much of the script fells contrived. Like, Ireland, Tucker and Arlen take over the ship... but they can't go looking for treasure they have to go to Australia to raise money... (NB there are scenes in a fictitious northern port of Australia called "Castleton"... it's not particularly Aussie of course). The real reason is so the slavers can turn up... and be put in the brig... and then when they're sailing there's all these sailors, there's the slave captain and his first mate, and some other sailor, and various sailors mutiny and everyone changes sides. There's all these villains... the slaver, the slaver's first mate, Jim Craig, de Carlo, de Carlo's father. I kept thinking "consolidate all these frigging characters". It's a mess. And it's pointless.
The colour is impressive, the quality of acting solid (even if Ireland spends far too much time shirtless for someone who isn't in particularly good shape), the action good. Gruber just messes it up with a needlessly complicated script with too many characters.
De Carlo is fun. She doesn't have a huge role (it should have been bigger). She has a very camp moment on board listening to some musicians play an island tune and because she's half-Polynesian the jungle drums take hold of her and she goes into this dance routine. Although De Carlo came to fame as a replacement Maria Montez she was rarely as campy - but on this occasion, it's pure camp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)