Movie review - "Kangaroo" (1952) **1/2 (re-watching)

 Random thoughts:

- looks gorgeous

- Lewis Milestone doesn't understand story

- Maureen O'Hara was right how the original script was wrecked - does this mean her other claims in her memoir were right? That John Ford made out with a guy? That her husband was murdered? That Peter Lawford and Richard Boone were busted in a male brothel?

- Lawford and Boone are dressed the same but Boone makes all the decisions

- why set this in 1900?

- opening scenes may has well have been shot in Hollywood because they take place at night

- fascinating mess.

Movie review - "Skidoo" (1968) *

 Basic plot simple - retired hitman goes into prison to kill gangster. Jazzed up with wackiness. Otto Preminger not a naturally funny director. The late sixties doesn't help.

Carol Channing bizarre. Groucho Marx tired. Frankie Avalon good - so too Frank Gorshin and Austin Pendleton. John Phillip Law tries. Alexandra Hay is pretty.

A mess. Interesting.

Movie review - "Please Believe Me" (1950) **

 One of the many (many) examples of why Dore Schary was not suited to run MGM. He took a fairly decent, basic idea (his, it must be admitted) - British girl inherits Texas ranch and is plagued by fortune hunters on the way over to the US - and piles bad decision upon bad decision. It's a vehicle for Deborah Kerr, not a natural comedian; Kerr has no set character to play other than placid (is she stuffy? bright? smart?); he assigns an ideal director (Norman Taurog) but a specutaculalr unsuitable producer (Val Lewton); he doesn't add colour or songs); foists his uninteresting support actors on it (James Whitmore).

Like that is the point? The fortune hunters hunting a fortune that doesn't exist makes the whole thing feel like a waste of time - we know up front there isn't a fortune. (Why not have them discover oil part way through.) The gangster to whom Walker is in debt is hardly a threat.

It's so dull. Strained. Charmless. Full of fake drama because it's all misunderstandings.

Kerr and Lawford show of their bodies in the pool I guess that's something. Maybe this plot would've worked with Esther Williams, colour, pools, dances and songs. Lawford suits it best - he was strongest as a second lead. Walker isn't quite comfortable but it's interesting to see Walker. Mark Stevens is dull - Van Johnson was cast then given a rest or something. The film needed his extra star power.

I think Dore Schary was ripping off RKO's Tom Dick and Harry. But that was simple - poor girl torn between current dull boyfriend, rich newbie and poor but exciting newbie.

Movie review - "Exodus" (1960) *** (warning: spoilers)

Otto Preminger does Leon Uris' best seller in that 1950s/60s style - widescreen, colour, self importance, stars. Dalton Trumbo got screen credit which was gutsy of Preminger. Because Hollywood doesn't make this sort of movie any more its virtues can be more appreciated - particularly the cast (now mostly dead), photography and location work. That and the fact that the issues are still hot -  it's not as though Jews have life much easier.

Eva Marie Saint is an American nurse. Paul Newman a Jewish freedom fighter. Peter Lawford a nasty British officer. Ralph Richardson a nice one. Sal Mineo a heavily traumatised concentration camp survivor. Jill Haworth (a role turned down by Hayley Mills apparently - or, rather, her parents) is a more optimistic camp survivor. George Mahari is another Jewish fighter. J Lee Cobb is Newman's dad, Alexandra Stewart his sister. She doesn't do much, hangs around in shorts - ditto Saint.

Some scenes are very potent - such as Mineo trying to join the Irgun, and an old guy (David Opatashu, playing Newman's brother) sussing out what he really did in the war.

Newman walks around moodily and charismatically. Saint hangs around occasionally dispensing medicine. Haworth is sweet but pretty awful. Support cast generally strong.

Solid set pieces - King David bombing, escape from Acre prison, final attack. Effective moments with Haworth dying rather than Mineo which you would think would happen. John Derek smiles as an Uncle Tom Arab but gets an effective death, strung up with the Star of David etched into it.

It's not as anti British as the book but is still fairly anti Arab, who are in cahoots with Nazis here.

A film for adults, still. Those days are gone.

Movie review - "Kangaroo" (1952) ** (re-viewing)

My take on this - Lewis Milestone didn't like the story, he wanted to change the story, he wasn't allowed to, but as a result he stuffed the story. And auterist critics gave him a pass, as auterist critics tend to do when it comes to famous directors, because they could blame "the studio".

The plot is entirely solid - there's nothing wrong with a story about someone pretending to be someone's long lost son, and falling in love with the man's daughter being being unable to do anything about it.

This movie stuffs that central situation. The man with the son (Finlay Currie) isn't rich, he owns a drought riddled property, so there's no money at stake - why would Lawford want Currie's farm? (I think Milestone got excited about the visual possibilities of drought and put it in, not thinking or caring about how that impacted the story, because he didn't care about the story.)

There's a little bit of romance between Lawford and Maureen O'Hara but not nearly enough... and no torment. Because what happens is Currie goes to O'Hara "oh he's your brother you can't be with him" then IN THE SAME SCENE Lawford goes "oh no I'm not your brother". So you've got no urst. Lawford should have turned up said "I'm your son" and then played out all that stuff... with him falling for O'Hara and not being able to make a move.

Other really solid potential story lines are thrown away - Chips Rafferty is meant to be in love with O'Hara (is that right?) but we never see him go after Lawford. (And why not a more handsome rival? Why not cast Charles Tingwell in that role?) Charles Tingwell pops up as this shady character and you think he's going to do something... but he doesn't. Why not have him as a villain in cahoots with Boone?

Richard Boone is fabulous but I think they made a mistake having him and Lawford meet instead of them being established as friends. The film seems continually uncertain how bad to make Lawford - he tries to rob Boone but fails, he's not part of the robbery.

Milestone seems only interested in sequences - a dust strewn water tower, a cattle drive, a corrborree, a battle with whips.

There's no dramatic build. No heart.

I get he didn't like the script and I haven't read the original script but it feels like he made it worse.

Movie review - "Won Ton Ton the Dog That Saved Hollywood" (1976) *

Michael Winner wasn't known for being the king of comedy, though he did make The Jokers. Winner blamed Bruce Dern for a lot of the film's failure - he's not Mr Laughs either. He's definitely not up to Madeleine Kahn who is lots of fun - also spot on is Teri Garr who I wish had a bigger part.

On one hand I enjoyed the old person cameos but it did make the film feel old. Cameos are fun but everyone was elderly. It made the whole movie smell old time-y.

Winner keeps everything at a fast pace but there's an air of desperation about it. The movie has no heart. The Jokers had heart because it was about brothers and a world that Winner knew about. He's removed from 1920s Los Angeles. There's no warmth.

The film should have focused on the dog and its relationship with Kahn, but everything feels surface. Kahn is fun but looking at it, she's too broad. She plays it like a support part. Teri Garr would have been better in her role with Kahn in support. Or have Kahn play Dern's role. There were some female directors. But that was probably too much for the filmmakers. Maybe Michael Crawford would have worked in Dern's role.

I laughed at some bits like the dog trying to hang himself. But this felt too much like a movie where they went for laughs without thinking of the point - and the laughs aren't of sufficient quality. They're not Mel Brooks.

There's a good movie to be made in the story of Rin Tin Tin. But the satire is too broad. The filmmakers get bored with the dog and keep changing focus - Rob Liebman takes over the movie at one stage playing a Valentino type. Mad cap in the worst way.

Still, I've seen it now, at least.

Movie review - "Sylvia" (1965) **

Michael Caine once wrote when he arrived in Hollywood in the 60s every male film star was called George - George Peppard, George Chakiris, George Maharis, George Segal. This one stars Maharis, a smug 60s type whose name I was familiar with but who I don't recall from much - his claim to fame is being in Route 66. He feels like a TV star. He's definitely not a film star - too bland, too smug. Maybe he would make a good villain.

This uses the Citizen Kane/Laura template of someone putting together the pieces of someone's life. Maharis is investigating, Carrol Baker is the subject. Maharis gradually comes to fall in love with Baker, which is a stock story line... it can work, but here Maharis doesn't meet Baker until the last half hour. We see them fall for each other but it's very late in the day and a bit yuck too because Maharis uses everything he's found out about Baker to get her to like him. It's like he's being rewarded for being a stalker.

I think we're meant to go "gee isn't he great for not minding she was a hooker and rape victim" but he's creepy. And Maharis plays him smug and creepily. Maybe it would have worked if first choice Paul Newman played the role but even with him it would have retained elements of dodginess.

The film is mainly of interest for a cast. It's structured to be a lot of two handers - Maharis interviewing someone, who gets a chance to do some juicy emoting. We've got Peter Lawford as a prospective husband, Ann Sothern as a drunken lady, Edmond O'Brien as an ex, Aldo Ray as a rapist, Viveca Lindfors as a librarian, Lloyd Bochner as another rapist, Joanne Dru as an ex-prostitute, Paul Gilbert as a nasty cross dresser, Nancy Kovak as a stripper. The quality of acting varies - there's a fair bit of ham going around.

And some bad writing. Sylvia isn't a terribly interesting character - men seem to like her and want to have sex with her; she's a loyal friend... but that's about it. Baker is okay in the role - I always like her, but she can't surpass the material. Maybe someone better could have made more of the role, but I doubt it (Jane Fonda? Natalie Wood?) At least she's got a bit of charisma. And even Vanessa Redgrave at her peak would struggle to make all that gunk about Baker's love of poetry and poetry writing work (and there's a lot of it, especially in the last half hour when she meets Maharis).

The whole film has an unpleasant sixties male vibe - with this man investigating a woman, as if he's going to understand her, and these censor-pushing items like two rapes (I mean two, come on...),  and a cross dresser and alcohol, and these women seeming to find Maharis super attractive (not just Baker but also Kovak and Lindfors). It's a misfire, only for completists of the actors.

Book review - "Peter Lawford: The Man Who Kept the Secrets" by James Spada (1991)

Peter Lawford is best remembered for his association with other people rather than anything he did on his own terms: supporting various starlets as a contract player for MGM, marrying JFK's sister, being friends with Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jnr which made him part of the Rat Pack, talking to Marilyn Monroe the night she died. Nonetheless he lived a rich and fascinating life and it's well recounted by Spada.

It's a gossipy-feeling account but is also well footed and seems to have been thoroughly researched. Lawford came from an unstable, if well connected home: mum married well but cheated on his step dad with a distinguished soldier (she hated sex but wanted to upscale) resulting in a scandalous divorce case; mum was going to kill herself during labour it was so painful; mum and dad jet-setted around the world in the 1930s on inherited money; beautiful young boy Peter was molested by men and women from a young age. He did some early acting work sporadically as a child, including in Lord Jeff, but only got really serious about it when the family was stuck in the USA during World War Two; Lawford attracted the attention of agent Sue Carol (better remembered today as Alan Ladd's wife), and picked up various bit parts - a notable one in A Yank at Eton - before getting a contract with MGM.

Hollywood was lacking in leading men because of the war and Lawford was 4F because of an arm injury (he cut it badly in a childhood accident); he had a high pitched voice and wasn't much of an actor but he was handsome and had a healthy physique (honed from much mucking around on the beach). He leapt to kind-of stardom in The White Cliffs of Dover and found a niche for himself supporting bigger names on the MGM lot - Lassie, June Allyson, Fred Asatire, Esther Williams, Kathryn Grayson, Elizabeth Taylor. MGM rarely entrusted Lawford with a flat out lead role - and they were completely right because when they did the results underwhelmed eg Kangaroo (shot in Australia for 20th Century Fox), The Hour of 13, Rogue's March. Lawford's career was hit with a double whammy - the decline in movie attendance, the replacement of Louise B Mayer with Dore Schary at MGM - and was let go by the studio. He went into TV and had two decent-ish runs with Dear Phoebe and The Thin Man but what really saved him was marrying Pat Kennedy. This kept him in the nation's eye, especially after JFK was elected, and helped him become best mates with Frank Sinatra and part of the Rat Pack.

Lawford did offer JFK some genuine help in terms of media training and Hollywood connections. But when the Kennedys distanced themselves from Sinatra in 1962 Lawford was kicked out of the Rat Pack (only Sammy Davis Jnr remained loyal) and when he divorced Pat a few years later the family kicked him to the curb as well.

The last decade and a bit of Lawford's life is depressing reading - alcoholism, drug addiction (particularly cocaine), financial troubles (he spent money hand over fist), marital troubles. He remained handsome and charming and had no trouble getting female attention right up to the end of his life - although the relationships didn't last, mainly due to his drug addiction and taste for kinky sex (he preferred oral, would like a bit of S & M and a girl to join in, and was probably bisexual too - Spada doesn't hide anything!).

People interviewed in the book frequently refer to Lawford's charm and likeability, and he must have had something to have friends to were loyal for a long time, who managed to charm the Kennedys and  executives for many years. But to be honest he was a bit of a drip - a poor actor who had some good moments and was obviously professional but who never pushed himself; a bit of a dimwit; a poor financial manager, and a worse career manager; a crybaby on the topic of the Kennedys; a poor husband and father.

Quite a few things I didn't know. His mum had a relationship with a much younger lover/friend/something which was reportedly the inspiration for Harold and Maude. He had a production company which made The Patty Duke Show. He was supposedly considered for James Bond (another one!).

Movie review - "Rogue's March" (1952) **

You would have thought that pro British Empire takes would have gone out of fashion after World War two, and for the most part they did, but there was a brief up-surge in the 1950s - in part because of the box office success of Kim, British Empire tales offering opportunities for colourful adventure tales in cinemascope, but also because the rise of communism I think made the US regard British Imperialism more fondly - at least, historical imperalism. So you had Bengal Brigade, King of the Khyber Rifles and this effort, which was written and produced by Leo Gordon, who worked on Kim.

Unfortunately it's not as good (even though Kim was hardly a classic) - despite a solid story: a British officer from a good family and with a taste for gambling is falsely accused of selling secrets to the Russians. He gets the boot from his regiment and is sentenced to prison, but escapes, re-enlists as a private in another regiment, and redeems himself on the Khyber Pass.

Now that's a great set up - a knock off of The Four Feathers, with opportunities to revenge, action, redemption, etc. But its' done in by several things - low budget, black and white photography, Peter Lawford in the lead (he was no leading man at the best of times and is hopelessly out of his depth in a role that cries out for Steward Granger or Errol Flynn, or even Robert Taylor/Jeff Chandler/Rock Hudson... someone who doesn't look like a lounge lizard), slack handling. Janice Rule is a dud as the girl who loves Lawford and Richard Greene blends into the scenery as Lawford's best friend/rival.

So many moments you think would be key are missed: establishing strongly that Lawford is a wastrel, a sense of progression from playboy for real soldier, the escape sequence, a sense of suspense. Lawford is given a potentially interesting character but it isn't developed; everyone else is a stock type.

There is a decent battle at the end and Leo G. Carroll is excellent as Lawford's unforgiving father. And the story works.

Movie review - "The Longest Day" (1962) ***

Very long and far too often it falls into self importance with characters sitting around going "this is the most important thing that ever happened ever" (eg Rod Steiger's scene). The Canadians are once again pretty much entirely ignored, although they are mentioned once or twice.

But the use of real locations helps it as does the fact it's performed in German and French as well as English. While it was still filmed like a 50s/60s war movie - with the standard actors gripping their stomach and collapsing when shot, and bland dialogue - you get to see the real beaches, and countryside. The black and white photography was a good decision.

The all-star cast (even though at the time only John Wayne and Robert Mitchum could have been said to be box office draws) helps us follow the action, the music is rousing. It does go for long and I was surprised how large Richard Beymer's part is - he indicates all over the shop, giving a real "I am playing a GI performance" but it's part of the movie's charm.

The most memorable scenes for me: the German officer spotting the massive Allied Armada coming out of the fog, all those pop stars playing US Rangers (Fabian, Paul Anka, Tommy Sands... along with Robert Wagner and George Segal), Jeffrey Hunter being killed on Omaha, Sal Mineo being killed because of the click thing, Kenneth More with his bulldog and beard on the beach, random people like Mark Damon, Tom Tryon, Stuart Whitman and Steve Forrest hanging around in the side of frame, Aussie John Meillion as an admiral (Ron Randell is in it apparently but I must have blinked and missed them), Richard Todd defending a bridge, Red Buttons going deaf.

Sean Connery is pretty embarrassing as an Irish soldier and I wasn't wild about the French stuff - I had trouble telling the characters apart - in part because I didn't recognise the actors as well, but I didn't have that problem with the Germans. Peter Lawford underwhelmed me too in a terrific role (Lord Lovat). And some times the depiction of the action was hokey - not to mention long.

Still, a worthwhile movie with some excellent moments. Daryl F Zanuck made a lot of other better movies, but it's still pretty good.

Movie review - "Harlow" (1965) **

Joseph E. Levine enjoyed a big hit with The Carpetbaggers, where Carroll Baker played a trashy movie star based on Jean Harlow with a script by John Michael Hayes, so it made sense for him to follow it up with a biopic starring Baker as Harlow with a script by John Michael Hayes - though this movie isn't that much more a realistic depiction of Harlow's life than The Carpetbaggers.

It doesn't help that much of the film is fictionalised - you have to do some extra reading to realise that Leslie Nielsen is meant to be Howard Hughes (who was also in The Carpetbaggers), Martin Balsam is meant to be Leo B. Mayer, Majestic is meant to be MGM, Jack Harrison is William Powell. Red Buttons plays Arthur Landau, the kindly agent who promotes her - depicted as a saintly Santa Claus type figure who loves his wife and is completely platonic about Harlow. Peter Lawford is allowed to play the real Paul Bern, Angela Lansbury her real mother and Raf Valone her real step father.

Most of the film centers on men trying to get Harlow into bed - the first assistant director (Peter Hensen), the impresario (Nielsen), movie star (Mike Connors), producer (Lawford). And she's tempted a lot of the time but is afraid to give into her cravings. It's that sort of level of trash. Harlow doesn't get dick from Lawford so she seeks it from Vallone, who says no; Connors wants to give it to her first then changes his mind; Nielsen is willing to do it, then she gets it whenever she can.

I've always had time for Carroll Baker as an actor - she had this great deep throaty voice and a vivacious presence. She's not much like the real life Harlow, who was sparky, naive and  a lot more voluptuous - you have to enjoy her on her own terms. Which is as a campy over the top ham.

Lovers of camp will enjoy some of the ripe dialogue, Baker's monologues, Harlow's search for sexual satisfaction, and the elaborate decor. There's some real "am I watching this?" stuff here, like a sequence where Baker tries to seduce Vallone, Connors and Nielsen in succession, and is knocked back by the first two. However Nielsen does the deed and then Harlow winds up picking up men in bars, waking up in hotel rooms with flashing neon signs outside. It's entertaining on some level and it's consistent awfulness and his quality cast do keep you watching, but in the end I was just offended for poor old Jean.

Movie review - "On an Island with You" (1948) **1/2

Esther Williams was a likeable star - non-threateningly pretty, sexily athletic, full of bounce. Maybe not the best actor in the world but she had personality - plus technicolour and MGM sheen. It's a shame she didn't have a stronger co star than Peter Lawford or, it must be said, Ricardo Montalban, both of whom have impressive torsos but are a little bland, especially Lawford (who has such a whimpy voice).

The plot is a kind of send up of old Dorothy Lamour/Maria Montez South Sea island films, only its dimmer than anything either of them made: Williams plays a movie star making a south seas film co-starring real life fiancee Montalban and Cyd Charisse, who secretly loves Montalban. The naval advisor is Peter Lawford, who has long loved Williams - so he "charmingly" abducts her, flies her to an island, and insists she dance with him.

I think we're meant to find this stalking harassment adorable; so too is Williams, but we never really see why. Lawford isn't charming, and doesn't deserve her love. I mean, if his character brought something to the relationship - if he treated her like a normal person, or made her laugh, or something, it might work. But he just abducts and harasses her, and despite seemingly being happy with Montalban she falls in love with him. It's okay though because Montalban chucks her over for Charisse. Then at the end Williams tries to help out Lawford and he gets all upset with her for no reason and says things like "have you forgotten to be a woman?" (It's like they just threw in scenes from old Clarke Gable movies without bothering to make sure they flowed.)

The thing is, the whole story could have been easily improved - just make Williams a temperamental bitch, or have something in common with Lawford. It wouldn't have been hard. But they got lazy.

MGM try to distract the audience with other things - Esther in the water of course, dancing and doing numbers but having frolics with Lawford and Montalban which were a little steamy; Charisse flashes those spectacular legs in some dance numbers; Jimmy Durante provides some tiresome (to me anyhow) comic schtick and songs; Leon Ames does blustering comic naval officer stuff and Xavier Cugat does comedy and conducts his orchestra; there's also some tiresome antics involving a child actor which I think is meant to be funny. Esther and Charisse run around in brown face, the photography and production design is impressive.

Movie review - "The April Fools" (1969) **

Catherine Deneuve's first Hollywood movie sees her miscast as the wife of an executive (Peter Lawford) who has an affair with an unhappily married man (Jack Lemmon). Apparently Shirley Maclaine was originally considered for Deneuve's role and they really should have gone with her - or another more expressive actress. Her beauty and aristocratic manner can work well on film but not here when the role requires some life.

The longer this movie went on the more it annoyed me. Cinema screens and theatres in the late 60s were full of these sort of middle-aged-men-wish-fulfillment stories about disaffected middle aged men who threw off their inhibitions and ran away from their nagging bitch wives to find happiness with hot dream girls. Lemmon's wife Sally Kellerman is a materialistic ball breaker (he doesn't seem to be responsible for any of the problems in the marriage), his male friends are lecherous and drunken but basically supportive (Jack Weston, Harvey Korman), the female roles are caricatures: blank dream girls (Deneuve), greedy bitches (Kellerman) or wacky hipsters (Myrna Loy).

It is fun to see Myrna Loy and Charles Boyer as free spirited old people, but even they can't transcend cliche. Lemmon and Deneuve have zero chemistry, their dilemmas have no stakes (he doesn't like his wife and job and she doesn't like her husband and neither have kids... so what's the issue?), the final rush to the airport takes something like over half an hour of on screen time (and involves "hilarious" drunk driving), there's too much talk about princes turning into frogs and vice versa plus endless scenes of people dancing at parties (this was a feature of some of Deneuve's French films around this time - maybe director Stuart Rosenberg was trying to make her feel at home).

On the sunny side, Lemmon is perfectly cast and never phones it in; there are some funny line; the support cast is impressive; and the music score very good, including the title track and "Say a Little Prayer".

Radio review - Lux - "Little Women" (1950) ***

Several of the cast from MGM's film repeat their screen performances - June Allyson, Peter Lawford, Margaret O'Brien and Janet Leigh, but no Elizabeth Taylor, which is presumably why the part of Amy is so truncated. It's serviceable enough, with everyone trying - the only one really out of his league is Lawford, who doesn't have a strong enough voice for radio. Even though this is a story for kids it's very adult - Allyson and Lawford may be childhood soul mates but don't get together and he winds up with someone better looking and shallower, which happens; O'Brien dies; it's set against the background of war.

At the end O'Brien makes a crack about hoping the fact she and Lawford came out to Hollywood together from New York "doesn't wind up in the columns" - she was 13 at the time but knowing Lawford that didn't make her necessarily safe. Allyson jokes about her upcoming movie with husband Dick Powell.

Radio review - Lux - "Green Dolphin Street" (1949) **

Kiwis will find this story especially interesting as it's an MGM take on life in their country during colonial days - "New Zealand, where English laws won't reach you". There's two fugitives, a murderer on the run (Van Heflin) who goes into timber, then years later a drunken English navy officer (Peter Lawford) who worries about being busted for desertion. They wind up working together, drunken bum drunkenly writers to the wrong sister (Lana Turner) who comes out to see him who the other guy secretly loves and forces drunken bum to marry despite fact that drunken bum actually loves the woman's sister (Donna Reed) who becomes a nun.

Utter codswallop done which doesn't feel vaguely New Zealand-ish, but fascinating - there are talks of Maoris not liking the British, Heflin is down with the Maoris, Lawford and Turner own "the most fancy house in Dunedin". Heflin and Turner are solid - Lawford's weak voice and poor performance are indicative of why he never became a big star.

Radio review – Suspense- “The Moonstone” (1953) **

Peter Lawford never became a genuine star – I think partly because he had a weak voice, on display here. It’s a two part episode based on a novel by Wilkie Collins, the first detective novel in English or something - the announcer goes on and on about what a classic it is. The story isn't terribly involving and there aren't many memorable characters which is probably why it's not much remembered today (even though it was very influential and much copied). Lawford plays the hero, an amateur detective who solves the mystery of a missing diamond. It's from India and much of the plot concerns Indian cults and corrupt army officers.

Movie review – “Hook Line and Sinker” (1969) **

Jerry Lewis rarely played a family man – this may have been the first time he did – so it gives this otherwise undistinguished comedy some novelty. But he’s not much of a family man: he’s an insurance worker who is told he has a terminal illness, so he goes off on a fishing trip, racking up major bills on his credit cards. Then his doctor (Peter Lawford) tells him he’s not going to die, but should fake his death to get out of debt.
There’s a decent film lurking inside here somewhere, but the current plot is riddled with holes – he doesn’t seem to care about his kids, or his wife (Anne Francis), so when he finds out the doctor and wife are in cahoots, you don’t really care. Also we find out about the betrayal too late. There's some funny bits like Jerry pretending to be an Australian sheep farmer, and some decent slapstick, but generally this is poor, and throws away ideas and opportunities wholesale.

Book review – “Rat Pack Confidential” by Shawn Levy

Entertaining look at the coolest dudes of the late 50s and early 60s, before the 60s got too wild. I expected Frank to be angry and Dean cool and Peter Lawford a mess despite all the good fortune that came his way, but the most touching character was easily Sam Davis Jnr, constantly fighting for approval. Also have a new appreciation for Joey Bishop who seemed to be highly professional and hard working (not that I didn’t expect this about Bishop so much as I didn’t have any opinion of him). It’s perhaps a bit too much to blame them for killing Marilyn Monroe.

Movie review – Holmes #6 – “Sherlock Holmes Faces Death” (1943) ***

After three war films, Universal came up with a good old-fashioned nasty family story for Holmes (although it does have a war link, being set at a house that’s been converted into a home for convalescent soldiers). The horrible Musgraves live in isolated Musgrave Manor, complete with an eavesdropping alcoholic butler, windswept grounds, secret passageways, crypts, a family curse and a clock that strikes thirteen times (“the last time that happened was the night X died”) –and a house guest, Watson, who is looking after the soldiers. Someone is stabbed in the neck, so Holmes is called in.

Rathbone is in particularly fine form in this one, all darkened expressions and quick movement - nothing escapes him. I love how he takes on those vowels – words like “room” and “lured”. Watson talks about narrowly escaping marriage – loved that confirmed bachelorism – and Lestrade has become an idiot – when he says he’s lost and all turned around, Holmes comments that he has been for years and asks one of the servants to give him a saucer of milk.

It’s very bright and entertaining; the house is marvellous fun, with a terrific Musgrave curse turning into a chess board – though they perhaps could have got more spook factor out of it. The support cast is a bit mild, with the exception of the guy who plays the shell-shocked soldier. A young Peter Lawford appears at the beginning, saying “blimey”.

In Holmes final speech is downright socialist - he talks about how England is changing, less guilty – how people won’t think of themselves while others are starving, etc. That’s the sort of thing that could get you blacklisted in the 50s. (One of the great things about this series – Holmes’ homilies at the end were always a bit different.)

Movie review – “Kangaroo” (1952) **1/2

After WW2, Hollywood made a number of films overseas, partly to take advantage of audience’s desire for location photography and new settings, partly to use funds frozen by currency restrictions. So film crews set forth from Los Angeles and criss crossed the globe; inevitably they set their eye Down Under. The resulting film was a big budgeted failure which doesn’t seem to be remembered with too much fondness. I have to say, though, I quite enjoyed it.

I think the main problem was it had a sort of melodramatic plot that audiences enjoyed in the 30s but didn't hold up as well after the war (rogues pretending to be someone’s long lost son, drunken fathers, a romance interrupted by fear of incest, etc).

Also the story is flawed – it gets off to a good start, with Peter Lawford and Richard Boone doing a con on Finlay Currie – but the stakes of that con aren’t very high (they should have had Lawford pretend to be Currie’s son from the outset, and have a police officer from Sydney come to track them down, or something – when the deception is revealed it doesn’t seem to mean much).

Things slow down during the middle with far too many tracking shots of cattle in swirling dust and Charles Tingwell’s ne’er-do-well, who you think is going to be this villain or wild-card element, is under-used. Oh, and the finale is a bit rushed, too, with O’Hara just tending Lawford in bed.

There is much to enjoy, though: colour photography, location work around Port Augusta, Lewis Milestone’s direction including his tracking shots (even though Milestone professed to dislike the result), Richard Boone’s excellent performance as a smooth-talking villain (ruthless but not unsympathetic), Maureen O’Hara doing her feisty-big-breasted-farmer’s-daughter-who-just-needs-taming routine, the opening credit sequence where you get your Aussie fix straight away by having (a) kangaroos hop around a homestead (b) Maureen O’Hara smile at a cockatoo (c) Maureen O’Hara chat with Chips Rafferty); a dust storm sequence where Lawford rescues Boone from a windmill, and an exciting whip duel between Lawford and Boone at the end.

Peter Lawford, while being a handsome OK actor with an interesting private life, lacks in the charisma department (he has a wishy washy character – kind of a scamp but not really, who goes along with what Richard Boone suggests – but someone like Bill Holden or Clarke Gable could have made it work) So a half-success... but not the dud history seems to have consigned it.

NB Apparently the film is in the public domain - it's downloadable here.