One of several TV movies Robert Bruning produced for his Gemini Productions. This isn't particularly well directed or even written but it has its moments and has a decent story and cast - Kate Fitzpatrick is a night nurse who goes to work for a retired opera singer who has a possessive sister. The film might've been better had we found out down the track the sister has killed someone but we find out in the opening few minutes - that's TV movies for you.
There's a good ending with Gary Day winding up dead and the discovery of a skeleton in the attic. The piece could have done with more atmosphere and spookiness. Fitzpatrick isn't exactly believable as a night nurse but it is fun to see her and she has that marvellous speaking voice; it's also great to see an Aussie movie which has two elderly female protagonists. This is as close as we get to Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? I suppose.
Sunday, January 05, 2020
Book review - "The Garner Files" by James Garner
I'm still not sure how I feel about James Garner. A TV giant absolutely - I was never a fan of Maverick or The Rockford Files but I recognise his skill in them and his status as a TV star... also in a series of high quality TV movies in the late 80s. His track record is a movie star is patchier - I agree with the critic who once said he seemed to make movies he was in seem like TV shows, but he appeared in a decent number of classics: The Great Escape, The Americanisation of Emily, Support Your Local Sherriff.
There's lots about him to admire - a marriage of over forty years (albeit with some separations - I did hear he had a fling with Lauren Bacall hence his appearance in The Fan) to a woman who had a daughter with polio to another man when they met, a strong work ethic, a respect for the script (he doesn't like going off book), a willingness to sue Warners over their harsh contracts and also Universal after ripping him off, a strong civil rights record (including taking part in the March on Washington).
He has a prickly side, a temper - he admits to punching out Tony Franciosca (on the set of A Man Could Get Killed), Glenn A Larson and someone who heckled him at golf. He can be pompous and up his own arse, and takes these swipes at Rog Huggins (was it Garner and not Huggins who added the humour in Maverick - really?)
In this books he also skims over stuff which would have been worth talking about in greater detail (or at least I would've liked to hear about it more) - doing cocaine with John Belushi, a fifty year marijuana habit (his life long smoking led to heart surgery). Instead we get long-winded chapters on his interest in golf, football and racing cars. I did like his chapter on how he approached acting. I would've liked to have heard more about his films and TV shows but appreciate the chapter at the back of the book where he goes through all of them.
Garner had a rough upbringing - his mother died when he was young (a botched abortion), he was passed around to various relatives, dad drank and one of his new wives was physically abusive, it was the depression. After school he bummed around from job to job and saw active service in Korea (proper service to - he took part in battles, shot at people, was injured - this is a good section of the book).
He was lucky, too - blessed with beauty (he earned some money modelling), and a childhood friend was Paul Gregory who he bumped in to and suggested Garner try acting. Gregory promptly put him in a stage production of The Caine Mutiny Court Martial which went to Broadway - Garner's role was only small but he was in a hit and got to watch Hank Fonda and Lloyd Nolan act. He learned lessons well and was signed to Warner Bros who eventually put him in Maverick.
The book has a few digs and claps for Steve McQueen (a neighbour in the Hollywood Hills for a time), a strong dislike of Charles Bronson and Charlton Heston. There's a dull chapter where Garner's family and friends talk about how great he is. I have a lot of respect for Garner but after this, I get the feeling that I don't like him. I'm sure he wouldn't care a toss!
There's lots about him to admire - a marriage of over forty years (albeit with some separations - I did hear he had a fling with Lauren Bacall hence his appearance in The Fan) to a woman who had a daughter with polio to another man when they met, a strong work ethic, a respect for the script (he doesn't like going off book), a willingness to sue Warners over their harsh contracts and also Universal after ripping him off, a strong civil rights record (including taking part in the March on Washington).
He has a prickly side, a temper - he admits to punching out Tony Franciosca (on the set of A Man Could Get Killed), Glenn A Larson and someone who heckled him at golf. He can be pompous and up his own arse, and takes these swipes at Rog Huggins (was it Garner and not Huggins who added the humour in Maverick - really?)
In this books he also skims over stuff which would have been worth talking about in greater detail (or at least I would've liked to hear about it more) - doing cocaine with John Belushi, a fifty year marijuana habit (his life long smoking led to heart surgery). Instead we get long-winded chapters on his interest in golf, football and racing cars. I did like his chapter on how he approached acting. I would've liked to have heard more about his films and TV shows but appreciate the chapter at the back of the book where he goes through all of them.
Garner had a rough upbringing - his mother died when he was young (a botched abortion), he was passed around to various relatives, dad drank and one of his new wives was physically abusive, it was the depression. After school he bummed around from job to job and saw active service in Korea (proper service to - he took part in battles, shot at people, was injured - this is a good section of the book).
He was lucky, too - blessed with beauty (he earned some money modelling), and a childhood friend was Paul Gregory who he bumped in to and suggested Garner try acting. Gregory promptly put him in a stage production of The Caine Mutiny Court Martial which went to Broadway - Garner's role was only small but he was in a hit and got to watch Hank Fonda and Lloyd Nolan act. He learned lessons well and was signed to Warner Bros who eventually put him in Maverick.
The book has a few digs and claps for Steve McQueen (a neighbour in the Hollywood Hills for a time), a strong dislike of Charles Bronson and Charlton Heston. There's a dull chapter where Garner's family and friends talk about how great he is. I have a lot of respect for Garner but after this, I get the feeling that I don't like him. I'm sure he wouldn't care a toss!
Friday, January 03, 2020
Movie review - "White Dog" (1982) *** (warning: spoilers)
Sam Fuller received an unexpected 11th hour offer to make a studio picture when Paramount came a calling - they were looking to rush some films into production before a writers strike and Fuller had come champions among the baby boomers on staff.
It's an interesting story, like most Fuller movies are, with a terrific central idea - a dog knocked over by Kristy McNichol saves her from rape and then is revealed to be a white dog, i.e. a dog trained to attack black people. Despite this idea the film struggled with accusations of racism, which would've confused Fuller who had a long distinguished record of tackling race head on.
McNichol is a little flat compared to other Fuller protagonists - maybe because she wasn't a stripper, journalist or soldier... she's an actor, and Fuller presumably knew a lot of them, but she's passive. I guess that's the role. Paul Winfield is excellent as the dog trainer determined to de-racist-ise the dog... even though it kills a fellow black (a moving scene because the poor guy didn'r deserve it, he was simply walking in the wrong place at the wrong time).
The character played by Jameson Parker, McNichol's boyfriend, is pointless - I kept expecting him to be killed but he sort of appears and leaves, never to return. The character of the person who owned the dog is under-utilised - he appears in one scene, it's a good one (a "kindly" old man with his two little granddaughters, a great creepy touch) but I wanted more - that should've been the third act.
You can feel the handcuffs on Fuller slightly and it needs another act but it remains a compelling work. Burl Ives offers support.
It's an interesting story, like most Fuller movies are, with a terrific central idea - a dog knocked over by Kristy McNichol saves her from rape and then is revealed to be a white dog, i.e. a dog trained to attack black people. Despite this idea the film struggled with accusations of racism, which would've confused Fuller who had a long distinguished record of tackling race head on.
McNichol is a little flat compared to other Fuller protagonists - maybe because she wasn't a stripper, journalist or soldier... she's an actor, and Fuller presumably knew a lot of them, but she's passive. I guess that's the role. Paul Winfield is excellent as the dog trainer determined to de-racist-ise the dog... even though it kills a fellow black (a moving scene because the poor guy didn'r deserve it, he was simply walking in the wrong place at the wrong time).
The character played by Jameson Parker, McNichol's boyfriend, is pointless - I kept expecting him to be killed but he sort of appears and leaves, never to return. The character of the person who owned the dog is under-utilised - he appears in one scene, it's a good one (a "kindly" old man with his two little granddaughters, a great creepy touch) but I wanted more - that should've been the third act.
You can feel the handcuffs on Fuller slightly and it needs another act but it remains a compelling work. Burl Ives offers support.
Thursday, January 02, 2020
Movie review - "Verboten" (1959) **
No one's favourite Sam Fuller film, at least not to my knowledge - with baby boomer film critics you never know. It's they who elevated Fuller to demi-God status, attracted to his colourful personality and background, his excellent copy, the clear evidence of authorship in his movies.
This has James Best, Roscoe from The Dukes of Hazard, as an American soldier who marries a German girl after World War Two and gets involved in fighting Nazis who want Hitler to come back. There's lots of speeches about how bad the Nazis were and how Germany is trying to get back on track.
I mean it's of interest - its striking to see a relatively old film take on the Concentration Camps and the Holocaust head on, and also depict the Nuremberg trials (albeit via press footage - this is a low budget movie). The acting is variable and the low budget hurts this one. It also feels a little bit untrue - were the werwolves that active after World War Two? That much of a threat? They always felt like an idea that was given more prominence than they deserved due to the efforts of writers of paperback thrillers.
This has James Best, Roscoe from The Dukes of Hazard, as an American soldier who marries a German girl after World War Two and gets involved in fighting Nazis who want Hitler to come back. There's lots of speeches about how bad the Nazis were and how Germany is trying to get back on track.
I mean it's of interest - its striking to see a relatively old film take on the Concentration Camps and the Holocaust head on, and also depict the Nuremberg trials (albeit via press footage - this is a low budget movie). The acting is variable and the low budget hurts this one. It also feels a little bit untrue - were the werwolves that active after World War Two? That much of a threat? They always felt like an idea that was given more prominence than they deserved due to the efforts of writers of paperback thrillers.
Wednesday, January 01, 2020
Book review - "Homework: A Memoir of My Hollywood Years" by Julie Andrews (2019)
No one denies Andrews' status as a Hollywood icon but what should be a fascinating book - a look at the peak of her Hollywood career, from Mary Poppins through to That's Life! - is a hard slog. It covers what should be interesting stuff - the making of Darling Lili, for instance - and manages to make it dull.
I think it was the logistics. There's so much logistics - all her kids, and step kids, and ex, and family, and Blake Edwards' family - and dealing with homes in Switzerland, and Malibu and going on tour. She didn't make that many movies in the 70s but she seems to be always on the move, making TV specials or following Blake Edwards around or performing in concerts. She's forever worried about the kids education or what the kids are up to. It's a wearying book to read.
Andrews doesn't seem like the brightest tool in the shed though her heart is in the right place (she did a lot of charity work for Vietnamese/Cambodian orphans). She seems a fairly uncomplicated person - I could be wrong about this, but her world view seems narrow: she's spent most of her life working and performing and when she made enough to not work as hard she got drawn into this life of domestic minutae.
The book is invaluable however as a portrait of Blake Edwards - charming, charismatic, talented, self centered, selfish, adulterous (it's implied... Andrews only talks of a flirtation with Peter Sellers' wife but then admits Edwards wrote all those scripts about middle aged men tempted into adulterly), manipulative, controlling, drug addicted, boozy, manic depressive. He has a gall bladder attack than turns out to be nothing when Andrews' mother is dying meaning Andrews couldn't be with her - that sort of thing.
Andrews has done a lot of psycho analysis (she meets Edwards by sharing the same analyst) but it doesn't seem to have given her a lot of particular insight - I get the impression she just liked talking about herself (I could be wrong). She talks about her shrink giving her geography lessons and what not to make up for her lack of education - that's a tutor's job! Julie the guy was ripping you off. But then I think Andrews was one of those performers who are susceptible to people pushing her around - which is why she lasted so long with Blake Edwards.
Andrews encounters with famous people are remarkably un-notable - James Garner was nice, Omar Sharif was nice, Paul Newman was nice, Chris Plummer was nice. Rex Harrison was impatient - that's about as juicy as this gets. The one surprise was that she was good mates with Carol Burnett - they should have made a movie together.
Worth readings if you are an Andrews fanatic and/or interested in Blake Edwards.
Aside: I always figured Andrews sabotaged her career in the late 60s with her choices (Star, Darling Lili)... but when you think about it what other musicals could she have been in? Camelot I guess but... Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? Bedknobs and Broomsticks? She would have been tricky to cast in the 70s.
I think it was the logistics. There's so much logistics - all her kids, and step kids, and ex, and family, and Blake Edwards' family - and dealing with homes in Switzerland, and Malibu and going on tour. She didn't make that many movies in the 70s but she seems to be always on the move, making TV specials or following Blake Edwards around or performing in concerts. She's forever worried about the kids education or what the kids are up to. It's a wearying book to read.
Andrews doesn't seem like the brightest tool in the shed though her heart is in the right place (she did a lot of charity work for Vietnamese/Cambodian orphans). She seems a fairly uncomplicated person - I could be wrong about this, but her world view seems narrow: she's spent most of her life working and performing and when she made enough to not work as hard she got drawn into this life of domestic minutae.
The book is invaluable however as a portrait of Blake Edwards - charming, charismatic, talented, self centered, selfish, adulterous (it's implied... Andrews only talks of a flirtation with Peter Sellers' wife but then admits Edwards wrote all those scripts about middle aged men tempted into adulterly), manipulative, controlling, drug addicted, boozy, manic depressive. He has a gall bladder attack than turns out to be nothing when Andrews' mother is dying meaning Andrews couldn't be with her - that sort of thing.
Andrews has done a lot of psycho analysis (she meets Edwards by sharing the same analyst) but it doesn't seem to have given her a lot of particular insight - I get the impression she just liked talking about herself (I could be wrong). She talks about her shrink giving her geography lessons and what not to make up for her lack of education - that's a tutor's job! Julie the guy was ripping you off. But then I think Andrews was one of those performers who are susceptible to people pushing her around - which is why she lasted so long with Blake Edwards.
Andrews encounters with famous people are remarkably un-notable - James Garner was nice, Omar Sharif was nice, Paul Newman was nice, Chris Plummer was nice. Rex Harrison was impatient - that's about as juicy as this gets. The one surprise was that she was good mates with Carol Burnett - they should have made a movie together.
Worth readings if you are an Andrews fanatic and/or interested in Blake Edwards.
Aside: I always figured Andrews sabotaged her career in the late 60s with her choices (Star, Darling Lili)... but when you think about it what other musicals could she have been in? Camelot I guess but... Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? Bedknobs and Broomsticks? She would have been tricky to cast in the 70s.
Book review - MacLean #14 - "Puppet on a Chain" by Alistair MacLean (warning: spoilers)
This didn't make a particularly memorable movie and it's not that good a novel - better than the movie, but I wouldn't rank it among the top tier MacLean. It has more of a female presence but before Gloria Steinem calls up with an award, the characters aren't exactly complex - a drugged out daughter of a cop, the hero cop's two hot assistants (the main reason there's two is so one can die and the other can be his reward), another druggie girl.
The atmosphere of Amsterdam is well conveyed and the action scenes are well done - there's the inevitable Maclean climbing sequence. I wasn't as wild about the poking-around-places sequences which made up the bulk of the first half.
The hero survives an awful lot of being conked on the head and captured - I was unsure how exactly he got out of two tight spots. There's some quite shocking violence - one women winds up hooked on a chain another is stabbed together by a bunch of maddies with pitchforks (this is vaguely Wicker Man territory). Last third is the best. Some decent twists with the reveal of who the baddies are, which I enjoyed even though I'd seen the film.
The atmosphere of Amsterdam is well conveyed and the action scenes are well done - there's the inevitable Maclean climbing sequence. I wasn't as wild about the poking-around-places sequences which made up the bulk of the first half.
The hero survives an awful lot of being conked on the head and captured - I was unsure how exactly he got out of two tight spots. There's some quite shocking violence - one women winds up hooked on a chain another is stabbed together by a bunch of maddies with pitchforks (this is vaguely Wicker Man territory). Last third is the best. Some decent twists with the reveal of who the baddies are, which I enjoyed even though I'd seen the film.
Movie review - "Park Row" (1952) ***
One of the reasons people love Sam Fuller is once he finally established himself in Hollywood with The Steel Helmet he went and made this uncommercial tale, dedicated to American journalism. I watched it and thought, a story about wisecracking reporters in 1880s New York, thats the sort of thing Daryl F Zanuck would want to make as a musical for Betty Grable - and apparently he offered to fiance it if Fuller turned it into one.
And you know something? I think it still would've worked - Fuller still could have hit his story points. Instead he self financed, went with United Artists - he managed to get enough of a budget for a small street set, meaning a lot of cramped scenes and close ups and no stars (Gene Evans is the lead)
It's tight and fast and full of speeches and has such love for journalism it's endearing. The low budget does hurt this one though because Evans and his reporters can't go out and about that much reporting (too expensive). It also loses points for not being in color (I know why I'm allowed to wish it was in colour) and for having a finale where his rival publisher, a woman, gives him the win by giving up her paper.
It is well acted and entertaining.
And you know something? I think it still would've worked - Fuller still could have hit his story points. Instead he self financed, went with United Artists - he managed to get enough of a budget for a small street set, meaning a lot of cramped scenes and close ups and no stars (Gene Evans is the lead)
It's tight and fast and full of speeches and has such love for journalism it's endearing. The low budget does hurt this one though because Evans and his reporters can't go out and about that much reporting (too expensive). It also loses points for not being in color (I know why I'm allowed to wish it was in colour) and for having a finale where his rival publisher, a woman, gives him the win by giving up her paper.
It is well acted and entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)