Movie review - "Dead Heat on a Merry Go Round" (1966) **

 One of those films inspired by Charade - all groovy, with twists. It's a bit annoying. A lot rests on the shoulders of James Coburn, who gets out of prison and plans a heist. Thing is it takes half the film for him to raise money for the heist, which involves him romancing people - the shrink to get him out of prison, a maid (Nina Grey who is terrible), a socialite (Rose Marie) another cleaner (Camilla Sparv). Most of these actresses are gorgeous and dressed gorgeously but they're swept off their feet by Coburn - who is attractive but not that hot. Even Cary Grant would struggle to have sold it. But it's all so patchy and stop start.

Coburn also imitates various people including an Australian cop! (He was an Aussie in The Great Escape.)

The film gets much better once the heist kicks in and there's some pace.

It looks terrific in that late 60s way. Harrison Ford pops up to deliver a telegram. I struggled to tell the male support cast apart.

Book review - " Face to Face: The Art of Human Connection Book" by Brian Grazer

 Interesting to read, passionately conveyed, very Hollywood and touchy feely, but that's fine. I had the sense he would tell a story about saving someone's life and he did - Harrison Ford's daughter. You can see why Grazer's done so well, all that sincerity and conviction. Not a dig.

Movie review - "A Time for Killing" (1967) **

 I only watched this because Roger Corman was fired as director shortly into filming. I wonder why he wanted to make it - to do a bigger budgeted Western I suppose. It's unremarkable, really - Phil Karlson took over - although it has some good actors. George Hamilton is good as a Confederate officer who leads an escape from a POW camp right at the end of the war and tries to escape with his troops into Mexico. Hamilton is a bit of a fantatic. He's pursued by Glenn Ford, looking constipated as he was want to do. Inger Stevens is a girl of Ford's who is taken by Hamilton, who then rapes her to keep Ford angry at him and his men to keep the war going.

The cast is interesting. People pop up like Timothy Crey, Kenneth Tobey, a young Harrison Ford, Dick Miller, Max Baer, Harry Deean Stanton (billed as "Dean Stanton").

Ford can be good but phones this in. Stevens is competent. Hamilton presses. Nicely shot although the occasional obivous studio-for-location work jars. It's a downer of a movie. Everyone dies so pointlessly.

Apparently Robert Towne worked on the script. And that work impressed Warren Beatty who read the script (he was offered the lead, turned it down)

Movie review - "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) ***** (rewatching)

 Not much to say extra about this just some thoughts:

* Belloq a great antagonist - smart, brave, the other side of Indi - Marvel films learned from them to have this sort of villain

* The set up, pay off is so good - so is the exposition

* Smart, smart, smart

* Skilful use of sidekicks for story, exposition, eetc - Denholm Elliot's kindly museum man, John Rhys Davies' Sullah (who gets Indy out of a few tight spots)

Movie review - "Hanover Street" (1979) **

 Look I get what they were going for - old style war time sob story - but I don't think Peter Hyams studied them enough. Or was forced to compromise.

It's not his fault Harrison Ford and Lesley Ann Down have no charisma, or Down can't emote despite her beauty. I know he originally cast Kris Kristofferson and Genevieve Bujold. Harrison Ford isn't bad.

It is his fault that he had them meet and get it on with her married to a man who is not only played by dashing Chris Plummer, but he's shown to be kind and caring and a lovely father (to Patsy Kensit who shines in a nice little scene). He's also got a sexy job - training spies. I mean, that's not dull.

It's also his fault they don't give Down anything sympathetic - some vague nursing scenes. She's not even that involved a mother.

You got why Celia Johnson cheated in Brief Encounter. She was dull, had a dull husband, never fell in love before, found this guy and bang.

You don't get Down and Ford here. She's hot and glamorous and so's her husband. So she just wants to root Ford for a wartime thing. Which is fine, but that's not what the movie should be.

It's Hyams' fault they pull focus to Ford and make the last third an action film - not a bad one either, with Nazi undercover scenes reminiscent of Ford and Sean Connery in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Ford again as someone who can't speak English). And it's heart this is really an action /spy movie - there's spy training sequences with Plummer, talk of a spy. It even rips off The Great Escape motorcycle chase.

They get away with Plummer happening to go on a mission with Ford - not so much with convenient flak whiping out everyone on the plane except for them.

The cast includes reliables like Alec McCowen, John Ratzenberger, Shane Rimmer and Richard Masure. There's  fat person in it - Hyams films often had them. Ford's co pilot is Michael Sacks from Slaughterhouse Five. Lush John Barry score.

Book review - "Tell me how you love the picture : a Hollywood life" by Edward Feldman

 Entertaining memoir from Feldman, who had a strong Hollywood career, including Peter Weir's Witness. We hear of triumphs like that as well as humour detours making Hot Dog the Movie.

Some great stories: Michael Ritchie being lazy on The Golden Child, Alex Segal being fired from a TV movie for abusing the mothers of child actors, dealing with the ego of Joe Levine (who he had to publicise as much as Embassy's films), Mervyn Le Roy did uncredited directing on The Green Berets,

Feldman talks a lot about Aussies Peter Weir and Mel Gibson, though not so much about others he worked with - Louis Nowra on K19 for instance. There's a chapter on Ray Stark and one on Levine.

Movie review - "Journey to Shiloh" (1968) ** (warning: spoilers)

 A Western seemingly made with the main goal of showing off Universal's contract roster.  The cast is headed by James Caan, relaxed and confident but in an absurdly distracting wig. He plays the leader of seven cowboys who are riding from Texas to join the Confederate Army.

The seven are made up of Caan, Don Stroud, Harrison Ford, Jan Michael Vincent, Don Stroud, Paul Petersen and Michael Burns - that's not a bad hit rate from the Universal casting director. Ford gets a close up at the beginning but then I forgot him. Vincent overacts his death scene.

It's shot in that cheap ugly Universal style - clearly on the backlot. There's quite a decent little romance between Caan and Tisha Sterling. Caan gets to kick a little arse but is always undermined by his wig.

The film gets points for killing off six of the seven. You do feel Caan has been through the wars.  Some bits seem flat out dumb like the soldiers realising the South supports slavery.

The novelty of the cast is the only real reason to watch this

Movie review - "The Conversation" (1974) *** (warning spoilers)

Much to admire - I wonder if it's been over praised. Gene Hackman is excellent as the surveillance man who gets in over his head. It has a sweaty aura of paranoia but isn't as good as something like The Parallax View.

The story has one decent twist - they're not victims they're protagonists. It has a superb support cast including John Cazale, Teri Garr, Allen Garfield, Harrison Ford (very spooky), Robert Duvall, Frederic Forrest, Cindy Williams. Excellent music and photography and of course sound.

Maybe too long?

Movie review - "Rise of Skywalker" (2019) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

I'm still processing. A friend told me "I'm just glad this is all over." And I agree. These films have become too stressful.

Some random thoughts - it's how I have to process this:
* it feels like a script that was replotted at directors meeting stage - scenes feel as though they end too early, there's still bits which feel as though they could be cut - and other stuff which feels abrupt (how did Chewie get captured again?, Adam Driver getting to the planet)
* when the film focuses on speed and just motoring along it's a lot better
* the failure to define the characters of Finn and Poe more strongly becomes strongly apparent in the banter scenes - compare them to the clearly defined Luke, Han and Leia the new trio are nowhere near as individual
*plotlines feel thrown away eg the reveal of the spy, why did they need to think Chewie was killed? why not have Finn tell Rey what he was going to say? why not use Rose? (they could have killed her off if they didn't like her but that death would have had more emotional impact - they could have used her in the romantic plot... so many ways...)
* nice nostalgia like the return of Wedge, Han, Luke and Lando - though Lando is under-used
*Rey being Palpatine's granddaughter is fantastic idea but should have been introduced in the previous film and played out (eg suspicion of the rebellion towards this character) - they should've kept at least one parent alive too to explain what happened - the concept of Palpatine being alive should have been built and is a failure of planning
* Adam Driver and Daisy Ridley are the best of the new people though it doesn't really progress from the last movie - I forgot he was Carrie Fisher's son
* why give so many close ups to Dominic Monaghan?
* some great visuals: the death star crashed into the water, the fight among the waves, the final battle, the worlds
* occasionally I was stirred: the appearance of the other ships, Han Solo coming back... but mostly I was bored. I don't want to be toxic, truly, but it wasn't very good.

Movie review - "Force 10 from Navarone" (1978) ** (warning: spoilers)

A real mess of a film - you can feel all the different hands in it. It sort of starts off paying homage to the original, showing clips from it, and the early scenes have banter between Robert Shaw, playing Gregory Peck, and Edward Fox, playing David Niven. It's really awful banter though both being stiff upper lip jolly good types, which is inconsistent with the original.

Then the film kind of forgets Fox and becomes about Shaw and Harrison Ford. Shaw and Fox are sent on a mission to kill a traitor in Yugoslavia, Ford is on a mission to blow up a bridge. There's some double cross and twists but none of it that interesting.

Carl Weathers comes along and characters comment on him being black, and he has an awful scene where he sooks because he's left out of the loop. You could cut his character. You could cut Fox's character too. Ford has the odd good moment but wasn't comfortable enough as a star to play himself. Shaw is okay - but character work is weak.

We know Franco Nero is bad so his betrayal is not a surprise. Barbara Bach livens things up with a bit of nudity - the film could have done with more of it. And more females. Guns had two - two romances. We don't even get one romance. It's very boys own. They should have made Carl Weathers a girl, maybe.

There's the occasional good bit - shooting Nero in a van, the final raid on the dam. But it's an underwhelming mess. George MacDonald Fraser did uncredited work on the script. I'm sure it was a hard gig, but he didn't save the day.

Script review - "Return of the Jedi" by Lawrence Kasdan and George Lucas

Just finished reading the script for “Return of the Jedi” (Lando dies in the original draft!) and for no particular reason thought would list the top ten things I legit love about the film (its top ten disappointments is too easy)
1) Jabba the Hutt
2) how jabba dies
3) Salacious Crumb
4) that bit of business where Luke bounces on the plank and flips and catches a light saber and starts wasting guards - it’s really cool 
5) the line “many bothans died to get this information” - v evocative, simple
6) Admiral Ackbar (until Nemo probably the most positive on screen role model for fish)
7) the three prong structure of the climax (Endor/Death Star/space)
8 ) the fact the emperor is undone by not factoring in Ewoks
9) the emotion in the final light saber battle with the emperor /Luke /Vader and the Vader acting when he makes his final decision
10) the final images
Jedi is easy to neg for a fan boy but has lots of good stuff.

Okay I should list some negatives
1) it's too easy for Luke to become a Jedi
2) the heroes seem to have no real plan at the beginning
3) the film could've done with a proper second act instead of a very brief Luke visit to Dantoine
4) the stuff about Leia being Luke's sister is awesome but is thrown away

Script review - "The Force Awakens" by JJ Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan

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.

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.

Movie review - "Blade Runner 2049" (2017) ***1/2

The original wasn't very popular at the box office, you know! Just saying! Because it was confusing in a lot of places - even with the voice over (which I've got to say I liked) and often gloomy. It's reputation has risen and risen in recent years and it's now a classic.

So it was brave of them to tackle a sequel - and they did it very well. Harrison Ford is back, as well as Edward James Olmos and a re-enactment of Sean Young.

I liked Ryan Gosling, Robin Wright, David Bautista, Lennie James and Ana de Armas as his fake girlfriend. Jared Leto was fine. I didn't like Sylvia Hoeks as the assassin replicant - her scenes felt tonally off, like they were from a more stock action film. Denis Villeneuve is a very good director.

There are some stunning visuals and scenes - the opening worm farm, the orphanage, the final battle. There were a frustrating amount of unanswered questions - no resolution to the fate of Leto, or the status of the revolution.

It's a very good movie, and there's much to be proud of. I never got wrapped up in it the way I did the original. It lacks a scene with the emotional power of Rutger Hauer's final moments, or the pace and suspense that comes from tracking down people who may or may not be robots.

Movie review - "Milius" (2017) ****

I think this is a revised version of the documentary - there's more stuff about the Genghis Khan project (did this prompt the recut? to get interest in that?), more footage of Milius post stroke. He's struggling a bit with his words, which is sad to see - but makes the film more epic, more moving.

The talking heads remain great, including Milius' old footage himself - George Lucas, Coppola, Spielberg, Michael Mann, Bryan Singer (weird to see him), Ed O'Neill, Sam Elliot, Harrison Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

There's few women - his daughter, Lea Thompson,  Kathleen Kennedy. Not enough talk about how, frankly, the depiction of women in Milius films is shocking.  There's inclusion of a talk with a female executive around the time of Big Wednesday where he's berating her, which does not show Milius in a good light. We have lots of stuff involving his kids but no mention of his wives.

A very good documentary. Not uncritical - it mocks how he became a caricature - but very positive.

Movie review - "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" (2015) ***** (warning: spoilers)

A movie with an awful lot of weight on it's shoulders but they managed to pull it off. Some random observations:
* the first 15 minutes I was worried "are they just going to remake the first movie" but it settled into it's own rhythm after a while;
*it feels very J.J. Abrams - respectful nods to the original, tight direction rather than anything brilliant, and a slim brown haired heroine;
*Hollywood still hasn't found a better villain than Nazis - the Nazi parallels are really shoved down our throats here with the rally scene where Domhnall Gleeson talks;
*was expecting Lando to turn up as Fin's dad;
*Poe seemed a nothing much character - Oscar Isaac is a good actor but this role didn't need someone good as much as more charismatic;
*BB-8 was the most instantly likeable new character but the others grew on me;
*the return of old characters and props was extremely well done;
*the film relied on old characters and story stuff to get its emotion - I feel we could have done with a bit of character work for Finn, Rey and Poe;
*Adam Driver is a very good villain - helped by having a reversal conflict for Luke and of course the "money shot" scene involving Han Solo;
*Harrison Ford very much looks his age but is great in the role:
*Carrie Fisher's plastic surgery was well hidden;
*Daisy Ridley impressed even though I got her mixed up with Keira Knightly at times;
*finally attack on the new Death Star felt surprisingly underwhelming;
*I really liked it a lot.

Movie review - "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" (2008) ***

I'm going out on a limb here and saying that this maligned sequel - so maligned it inspired a very funny South Park episode - is actually not the worst in the series, being better than Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's definitely not perfect, but at least it tries different things and has some great moments, whereas Crusade merely re-heated old ingredients.

I'm aware of the flaws - Shia Le Bouf is never going to replace Harrison, the CGI is annoying compared to the real stunts of the first three, and I missed the feeling of exotica that came from the US bound shoot, Ray Winstone felt at times to be extraneous. I felt it was also a mistake to not reveal Indy had a son from the get go - sure it would have robbed the piece of surprise but would have given greater emotional underpinning to everything.

But the 1950s setting gives it freshness, with nods to Marlon Brando and the high school bop; Cate Blanchett camps it up to the right degree, Shia and Harrison work well together, there's lots of crazy arsed imagination, it's lovely to have Karen Allen back. Maybe I'll change my mind about how much I liked it but I did like it.

Movie review - "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (1989) **1/2

A movie much admired in its time and since but I've always found it disappointing. I did when first seeing as a teenager and was always bemused seeing its reputation rise so high against Temple of Doom (in part because Spielberg trashes Temple). Then I thought "maybe I'm wrong, maybe it actually is awesome" so I watched it again and nope, still didn't get into it.

I love River Phoenix as young Indy and Sean Connery as Indy Snr but the rest of the movie feels like a dull retread of Raiders. There's a Biblical Macguffin, talk of God, fighting Nazis, a rival archeologist. So many of the reverses and twists feel mechanical - almost every scene it's like "well we'll do this... and then they'll be something unexpected" but the reversals are predictable and their constancy.

Some scenes feel downright lazy - a boat chase in Venice - how's that for freshness?; Indy teaching love struck students; Indy loses the book and goes to Germany to get it and then just... retrieves it really easily; the rich, cultured American turning out to be bad; the final test for the grail (v H Rider Haggard); the other group who are defending the grail but who then let Indy go; Denholm Elliot and Jonathan Rhys Davies going along on the trip for no real reason other than nostalgia.

Some bits are great particularly the relationship between Indy Jnr and Senior, helped by Connery and Ford's playing - this relationship feels fresh and real, with neither as a baddy (eg "we never talk", "okay talk"... and Ford can't think of anything to say). There were some good action bits too like the boat being destroyed by the propeller, and the baddy shooting Connery.

It's always pleasant to be around actors like Connery, Elliot and Rhys Davies, but Alison Doody is poor in her part and the villains unmemorable. It feels too much like a dull retread too often.

Movie review - "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" (1984) ****

When Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade came out it became fashionable to knock this sequel and the film's reputation never recovered - in part because Spielberg slags it off too. It's certainly darker than other films in the series (Spielberg and Lucas were getting divorced around this time)... but that darkness makes it interesting. And yes it's racist though not really more than the first one (although this does surprisingly extol the virtues of British rule in India... I kept expecting a baddie white guy along with all the bad Indians but nope... all the baddies are coloured.)

It's perhaps the best looking of all the movies because it's set in India (though was shot in Sri Lanka) - the colour and locales are gorgeous. The pace is it is terrific - it's full throttle almost the entire way, and features some of the most memorable set pieces in the whole series: Kate Capshaw singing 'Anything Goes' in Chinese in a big dance number (Spielberg does Busby Berkley, and very well), the spectacular battle in the Shanghai nightclub, the raft sliding down the mountain (when it went over the cliff was too over the top), the thugee death ceremony, the brilliant chase on the mine train, and final battle on the bridge.

Kate Capshaw's whingeing nightclub singer came in for a lot of criticism but I liked her - she was lively and wisecracking and always had clear goals (to get laid, get money, get out of trouble and into luxury). Maybe there was one too many screaming sequences, but, like I said, the two main filmmakers were going through women troubles at the time.

(On that note it was also interesting that the chief villain is someone who literally rips out people's hearts and steals children from their parents... and puts Indy under their sway via magic potion until he wakes up and shakes free... and the suited Oxford Prime Minister front man, i.e. the "wife's lawyer" stand in, turns out to be a psychotic religious nut. Bitter much?)

The cast is strong, the action frentic, the visuals sumptuous, the music rousing. It is flaws (dodgy attitude on race, silliness) but is much better than its reputation.

Movie review - "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) *****

A movie that has aged incredibly well, in part because it was envisioned as a period piece - stunning production design take us back to a never never land of 1936, when Nazis roamed the globe and Americans could still be described as innocent, when all Arab extras gibbered wildly (actually that hasn't changed much in Hollywood) and bars in Nepal were run by tough talking dames who could drink men under the table, and saloons in the third world had ventian blinds.

It's a world of Charlie Chan, Mr Moto, Howard Hawks, Casablanca, Charlton Heston in Secret of the Incas, Tarzan, Only Angels Have Wings, Torrid Zone, His Girl Friday, 30s serials, Zorro, Stagecoach, Gunga Din, Valley of the Kings, Lawrence of Arabia, Alan Ladd in China. A brilliant, beautiful pastiche, even more effective than Star Wars, made with love, humour and passion, and perhaps the best ever adventure script courtesy of Lawrence Kasdan.

Gripe time - it's annoying we never saw how Indy survived the submerging submarine, or Marian survive the explosion, and once or twice when rewatching this it dragged (particularly the jeep chasing scene). It is extremely violent even by today's standards.

But Harrison Ford is a perfect hero, handsome and stressed out (and a lot more of a prick than I remembered), Karen Allen a feisty, likeable heroine in the Ann Sheridan mode (although how young is she when Indy had her way with her? She says she was a child!), John Rhys Davis and Denholm Elliot perfect sidekicks, Paul Freeman a wonderful villain. It is wonderful fun.