Movie review - "Cimarron" (1960) **

This and Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were two big flops that did a lot of damage to the career of Glenn Ford and also Sol Siegel as head of production at MGM. Unlike the latter film though it made sense to make it with Ford in the lead - he is well cast - and they picked the right director - Anthony Mann. It was a Western with plenty of colour, movement and action - normally sure fire stuff in 1960. Why then did it lose so much money? (NB It was a hit, but not as big a one as MGM hoped.)

I'm trying not to be wise in hindsight here but it feels the filmmakers made some key mistakes to the story. Really, at heart, this is a "woman's picture" (for lack of a better word) - like Giant and Showboat were, also based on an Edna Ferber novel. The influence of Giant on this is especially apparent - it should have been more like that.

The movie needed to be about Maria Schell's character because she's the narrative spine - this French American who marries an adventurer, and goes to Oklahoma. They fail in the land rush but set up a newspaper. The husband struggles to settle down, it's a battle of make money, a Jewish neighbour loves her but she remains faithful, the husband periodically gets involved in gunfights where he kills people (Charles MacGraw, Vic Morrow), said husband takes off for years at a time, their friends strike oil, their son grows up to fall in love with an Indian girl they've raised as their own and mum doesn't approve, Schell becomes a massively successful newspaper magnate but can't hold on to her man.

When the story is summarised - and that's what is on screen - you can see how it works. It's a similar template to Showboat and not dissimilar to Giant. The girl is the protagonist, the husband is a dashing figure who pops in and out of the action, and the piece at heart is a melodrama.

But for whatever reason the story is distorted to fight against this. We never see Schell fall in love with Ford on screen - the movie starts and bang, they're off to Oklahoma, and we've missed seeing sounds like an interesting story (colorful adventurer Ford romancing hoity rich girl Schell). Then we keep hearing all these things Ford's done in his past life - romancing a prostitute (Anne Baxter in a wonder bra), being a son-like figure for an old newspaper owning couple (Robert Keith, Aline MacMahon), helping the father of a young boy who is turning outlaw (Russ Tamblyn). 

The movie feels like a sequel to another, more interesting movie with Ford having all these wild adventures then settling down for respectability with Schell and ending with the Oklahoma land rush - which is what people always talk about with Cimarron and I thought was going to be the climax but here it happens in the first 20 minutes or something. And Ford fails to get decent land, so it's unsatisfactory.

Then we kick into the more melodramatic section of the story. Ford shoots evil Charles MacGraw who is lynching an Indian and then later shoots bank robber Vic Morrow - both of these are well done sequences (Mann was a top director) which serve to make Ford look heroic and non racist. This is in contrast to his wife who is racist against Indians and who wants Ford to accept reward money for shooting Morrow. Ford has a sulk and takes off for something like five years. Then he comes back and is once more very noble and non racist, complaining when his old mate Arthur O'Connell, who has struck it rich with oil, tries to rip off the Indians. People want him to run for Governor but he has to sell out his principles and he refuses - Schell cracks it and boots him out, so he takes off adventuring again. Eventually she finds out he's been killed in action.

So basically Ford's character is this guy who is brave, tough, has principles, defends Indians, fights racists, won't cheat on his wife with Anne Baxter... but who still periodically abandons his wife and child and newspaper to go off having adventures for years at a time. Which kind of could work if the film really dealt with the fact this guy is one of those who couldn't be tied down, but spends more time on showing how heroic he is. 

And to make him more noble the filmmakers made the major mistake of trashing Schell's character - she's racist until the end (kicking out her son for marrying an Indian), greedy for money, wants Ford to sell out his principles for money, whines about not having her husband and son around.

I have this horrible feeling that MGM may have originally considered this a vehicle for Elizabeth Taylor or something but then got Ford and Schell and once they did all these changes had to be made to keep Ford happy - giving him these heroic/tough guy moments. He could have been a heroic tough guy but they needed to acknowledge that him taking off for years at a time is a bad thing and symptomatic of something deeper - and they needed to make Schell the hero.

I could be wrong - maybe the story was always dodgy. (A lot of these flaws I speak of could have been in Ferber's original novel - I've never read it). But the fact remains this is a big glossy MGM film where the two protagonists are really flawed in an uninteresting, unsympathetic way and the drama is undersold. It's one of those times that if they had cast say Elizabeth Taylor and she'd wanted these changes to make her character more sympathetic/heroic, she would have been dead right.

Okay other stuff - photography great, the land rush is exciting (though the second one is thrown away dramatically), Henry Morgan is decent support, terrible performance from the kid who plays Ford and Schell's son (MGM didn't have anyone better under contract? even in 1960?), Morrow and MacGraw are solid villains, I liked Tamblyn's part. The let's-be-nice-to-the-Indians is classic Hollywood 50s liberalism i.e. well meaning with a good heart but the Indian characters still have no dimension or personality.

It was a misfire but not of the spectacular size of Four Horsemen and it did hold my interest.

Movie review - "The Man from Down Under" (1943) **1/2

To understand why this film was made, you need to know that Wallace Beery was once a film star: Beery was a beefy, big actor who specialised in playing lovable lunks who got up to comic antics with character actors and cute kids; often there was a woman who wanted to marry him. He had the vibe of James Gandolfini - Robert Newton wasn't dissimilar. Anyway for a long time his act was very popular and he was often ranked in the top ten box office stars in the US and MGM originally developed this story as a vehicle for Beery.

It's an original story but I'd love to know where the writers got their inspiration - I have a theory it might be the tale of Digger Tovell, a French orphan adopted by diggers during WW1 who was smuggled to Australia and grew up to be a young man (tragically dying in a car accident). If it wasn't that exactly it probably was a similar real life tale.

This is about Jocko Wilson, an Aussie digger who at the end of the war decides to smuggle to Belgian orphans back to Australia and raise them as his own. Then the film leaps forward twenty years or so and the kids are grown up - the girl is sent to finishing school, the boy is a boxer.

The subsequent plot goes all over the shop, in a manner reminiscent of more than a few MGM star vehicles (Jean Harlow's later movies come to mind) with it's feel of a producer going "oh we should add this... and that... and I saw this movie last night and it was great and we should put that in as well."  

The boy/man, called Nipper, participates in a big fight and wins but is injured; his winnings enable Jocko to buy a pub in the country... really Australia's north, thus enabling it to be bombed by the Japanese when the Pacific War starts; the girl and boy have hots for each other but can't do anything about it because they think they're related; an American journalist sniffs around the girl but her "brother" jealously punches him out; there are some Catholic Priests near the pub ("quick, Catholic priests are popular, put that in"); a barmaid abandoned by Jocko in France turns up to torment him; World War Two starts and Jocko tries to enlist but is too old and unhealthy, so joins the Land Army; then the Pacific War starts and the pub is turned into an orphanage (I think) which is bombed by Japanese and the Japanese crash and some pilots attack the orphanage ("quick Mrs Miniver had them fight off enemy pilots put that in") but luckily Jocko and Nipper turn up and help fight off the Japanese (along with their friend Ginger who machine guns one to death!); Nipper and the girl discover they're not blood relatives and hook up; Jocko gets a commission in the army thanks to the intervention of the former barmaid.

It's a complete mess really, with the film never settling on what it wants to be about. I felt the real focus should have been on Jocko smuggling the kids back into Australia - there's a movie in just that - but that was only the starting point. There's all this narrative, the big romance plot being yucky because most of the time Nipper and the girl believe they're related but still want to hump each other. I so didn't want them to get together.

Still it is a perfect role for Wallace Beery - ex boxer, brave, rowdy, tough, prone to brawling, irreverent, running away from a woman who wants to marry him (the Marie Dressler part), doing lots of schtick with kids and dodgy mates, gambling, running pubs, mugging.

The only problem is Charles Laughton plays the role. Now Laughton was a brilliant actor, and his Aussie accent attempt here isn't bad, and he makes a decent rogue. But he's never convincing as an ex boxer, or successful former soldier (I know Laughton was one in real life but he doesn't look like the tough two fisted hero described here). Throughout the whole movie he feels like a superb performer who is miscast.

Binnie Barnes isn't that much chop in a part which required a more obvious ham like Elsa Lanchester or Gracie Fields or Marjorie Main. Richard Carlson and Donna Reed are good though as the grown up version of Laughton's kids - Carlson had an engaging presence and Reed was always beautiful and likeable in her films. (I'm surprised they didn't cast Shirley Ann Richards, then under contract at MGM.) Clyde Cook is Laughton's mate.

No one has a decent Aussie accent though people do try - mostly people sound cockney, though the priests are Irish. For Aussies this is fascinating because of it's depiction of Australia and Australians - most of the movie is set in Australia: Melbourne at first, where Jocko has a pub, then where Nipper fights his bout, then somewhere in north Australia. We get to see some pubs, a boxing venue, the country, lots of priests.

Dramatically it's a mess. There are lots of good actors and decent production values so it's easy to watch. Historically it's fascinating. (And you know something, at least Hollywood made a film set in Australia during the war - Australians hardly ever did).

(Side note - I think MGM were attracted making a movie set in Australia because Australia got bombed.)

Movie review - "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014) *** (warning: spoilers)

Solid installment to the Marvel series with plenty of decent actors and action, and a treatment that is respectful with some sparky dialogue. I'm getting annoyed at how the films are starting to feel like expensive episodes of a TV show though. When Nick Fury died I thought "oh great, this is that movie's special thing" but then they bring Fury back to life. When America flirted with Black Widow I thought "okay we're doing a romance here" but they don't. When America finds out the main baddy is his old mate I thought "okay that's going to be the big emotional heart" - but the guy lives. They keep lowering the stakes and it's annoying.

Annoying too how the film tries to make some comment about giving up our freedoms in the name of security is bad - but these films always endorse the Jedi Knight-hood of super heroes, as if that's somehow a morally superior peace keeping mechanism.

The script skillfull cribs from Three Days of the Condor and the like and I enjoyed seeing Robert Redford whore himself for a few scheckels. It's all slick and well made I just wish the films would mean more as a stand alone item.

Book review - "Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944–45" by Max Hastings (2004)

Superb account of the last two years of the war in Europe - written with Hastings' wonderful combination of small anecdote and overall strategy. Lots of it is familiar - D Day, Arnhem, Patton, Ike, Hitler, concentration camps, the Bulge, rape-happy Russians - but plenty of less so, particularly the battles in the East.

Thepoor quality of much of the Allied troops (in particular the Canadians), Monty's dodgy leadership for all his talents, Ike's lack of imagination, Patton probably over-reacted, the failure of the Allies to press on aggressively enough after Normandy (the worry about sacrificing lives may have caused more lives to be lost in the long run by not pushing for victory at key times), the horrors the German leadership unleashed on their own people although many Germans were complicit in it, the suffering of Holland, the boat disaster in the Baltic, East Prussia. I think Hastings goes on too long about how much better fighters the Germans and Russians were than the West (at times it was like "alright already") and I don't enjoy reading about the Allies European campaign - something about it depresses me - but this is an excellent book.

Movie review - "Catch Me If You Can" (2002) ***1/2

It's not hard in hindsight to see the appeal of this piece for Steven Spielberg, with its quick witted protagonist who cons his way around big companies with bluff and charm - like Spielberg famously did at Universal in the late 60s - and who, like Spielberg, is haunted by his parent's divorce, who seeks out elder mentors and who just wants to be loved.

Frank Abagnale is probably has some sort of narcissistic mental condition, like a lot of con artists - he's definitely not all well in the end. That's not really explored here, apart from blaming mum and dad, which is probably a good thing. Leo di Caprio is excellent in the role though, as is Christopher Walken as his father. Good work too from Amy Adams as the girl who may or may not be his one true love. Tom Hanks' FBI agent annoyed me - he was just an overweight Tom Hanks in a hat, with occasional character notes thrown in i.e. he is estranged from his family.

The production design and costumes are great though less fresh now we see it all the time on Mad Men. The tone is jaunty and there is some really clever writing - I loved all the cons, and technical details about cheques and his escapes. It does go too long and there were lots of bits where you felt it could be cut eg Jennifer Garner's cameo (though this was charming and well done), Ellen Pompeo's cameo.

Movie review - "Pompeii" (2014) *1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Dopey action film which has more in common with the peplums of the early 1960s and straight to DVD actioners of the 90s than say Game of Thrones - which has raised the bar so high when it comes to period action/adventure tales in the ancient world it probably wasn't a good idea to cast Kit Harrington in the lead. It doesn't help that Harrington's lack of ability is exposed here - he's got himself some neat abs, but the sick calf look, effective on Thrones surrounded by all that back story and good acting, just gets on the nerves here, as does his lack of charisma. Maybe he's really a great actor waiting to happen in the right part, maybe he'll get better as the years go on, but he doesn't have the charisma or presence to carry a big Hollywood action film. At least not one as dumb as this.

The first two thirds features some of the worst writing I've seen in a movie in a while - though I'm not across my big dopey epics. It reads like fan fiction crap, with a little boy watching two villainous Romans kill his family (one played by Keifer Sutherland, hamming it up), be sold into slavery, become a great gladiator (somehow... it's never gone into, unlike say Conan the Barbarian or Ben Hur), winds up in Pompeii where conveniently the two villains are stationed, falls in love with a stock aristocratic girl (Emily Browning, who I swear can act but here just lets her lips do the work) because he's good with horses, and fights a lot until the volcano erupts and we can all go home.

The film is full of poorly developed subplots and loose ends - Keifer Sutherland has this relationship with new emperor Titus which is meant to be dodgy; Browning has this maid Jessica Lucas who looks as though she's about to pay off but doesn't - as does slave owner Joe Pingue and Browning's mum Carrie Ann Moss (I think all three characters are only in the film for exposition purposes, they all could have been cut out); there's a really boring subplot about Browning's dad Jared Harris (who gives the best performance - he was born to play an aristocratic Roman) wanting Sutherland's help in a property development; Harrington's black gladiator friend (how's that for originality) played by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is the one who fights the other Roman who helped kill Harrington's family because...?; Harrington escapes then is recaptured with no real story development; Sutherland keeps having chances to kill Harrington and not taking them to drag out the running time; Harrington rescues Browning twice.

What they've basically done it try to cross Gladiator with a disaster film, only it doesn't work in either  genre. In the best disaster films you've got a decent cross section of characters who are interesting and who you care about and all have different fates; here we have stock archetypes - no one is really sympathetic except the leads and Adewale (Harris is killed trying to kill Sutherland). It's not as good as Gladiator either because the lead character is so dull - he's a gladiator into horses, big deal.

The movie has two good things going for it - special effects when the volcano erupts which are pretty good and the ending where Harrington and Browning decide to kiss and are enveloped in flame instead of running. Now this was pretty cool - based on the real life remains of a couple - and easily a strong enough basis for a Titanic like romance. But unlike Jack and Rose who did heaps of stuff on the ship together (sketching, sex in the car, running around the deck, a night out) Harrington and Browning hardly ever cross - a few looks, a horse ride, a lot of running around with the lava flowing... that's about it. This could have been Titanic in Ancient Rome but it's as though the filmmakers panicked and worried they'd lose the 300 crowd so shoved in plenty of blood and guts. The result was you had action which was only stock standard, and under developed the rest of the movie. A pity.

Movie review - "Draft Day" (2013) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Kevin Costner raised the sports bar so high with Bull Durham that every time I see him in another sports movie I can't help going "I wish this was as good as Bull Durham". I had that reaction for about the first thirty minutes of this (along with wondering "is Kevin Costner still a film star... this movie acts as if he is") but once I shook that off and appreciated the film for what it was I enjoyed it. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it in the cinema, but it's solid pay TV fare, helped by an unusual setting - the NFL draft. I'm not super familiar with the system and even now wouldnt pass a quiz but I gather its important and involves trading players.

Costner managers a Cleveland team and is having a rough week - his dad has just died, the team owner Frank Langella doesn't really trust him, his girlfriend Jennifer Garner is pregnant, he has to pony up for the number one draft pick but doesn't suspect he's right.

The crux of the plot involves investigating the background of this quarterback and I liked the way that unfolded - uncertainty over his mental toughness, then finding out he was unpopular with teammates, and then all of a sudden he goes from being super popular with team managers to incredibly unpopular.

The film felt hampered by being too nice to people - everyone is basically good even the owner of the team; all the general managers are nice to each other. Surely there is more vindictiveness and aggression behind the scenes in professional sports? At least cut-throat competition - this seems relatively benign.

Also much of it seemed underdeveloped such as the relationship between Costner and mother Ellen Burstyn (to be honest the only-talked-about storyline of Costner having to sack his own father sounded more dramatic than this film) and Jennifer Garner has a really thankless role as Costner's girlfriend - they jazz it up by having her as the salary cap person, but she's still just the girlfriend. (She should have dumped him in the opening scene or something - might have given the movie some energy). The Greek Chorus of radio commentators is irritating, esp the guy who craps on about Cleveland.

Still it's beautifully shot with all that American NFL colour in the stadiums and the cast on the whole feel real. Not a great sports movie but a decent one and at least its different.