Movie review - "Bus Riley's Back in Town" (1965) **

 After the success of Splendor in the Grass William Inge couldn't cop a break, on Broadway or Hollywood. This was based on a script and one act play of his, but Inge disliked what was done to it so much he had a nom de plume put on, "William Gage".

I haven't read the original script so I don't know what was changed - apparently Ann Margret's role was beefed up - but it still feels like an Inge work. To wit, it's about a hot young stud who makes women pant who rocks up in a small town.

He's played by Michael Parks whose James Dean esque looks are exploited to the nth degree. He is propositioned by a lonely middle aged gay man, and panted over by various housewives as he sells vacuum cleaners, is lusted by his ex Ann Margret and adored by his sister Kim Darby and school age young thing Janet Margolin.

Actually, in the second half the added Ann Margret bits feel more obvious. She goes to a packed diner/cafe place and does a dance, and later does a sexy dance in a bedroom. These scenes feel weird and clash with other scenes where her character is depicted sympathetically.

I understand the filmmakers' nervousness but if they wanted to jazz up the material they could've done it with sex scenes - like have Parks and Ann Margret in bed more often, having chats, flashing bare backs. Like Room at the Top or (to give a recent American example) The Cincinnati Kid or something. There's nothing wrong with beefing up Ann Margret's part - she's a more engaging character than Janet Margolin. But the depth isn't there.

Also the film needed small town atmosphere but seems to have been shot on the Universal backlot. It's made with Universal cheapness.

I think director Harvey Hart tried but this movie needed that little more care and sensitivity to work. It's hard to do rough adaptations of Bill Inge. They are about a time and place as much as the characters.

Movie review - "Kitten with a Whip" (1964) ** (warning: spoilers)

 A good trashy film inside here struggling to get out. It's got vague Touch of Evil vibes, especially in the last act which is set in Tijuana - Harry Keller produced this and it was made by Universal, and there's a jazzy score.

Ann Margret acts up a storm as a 17 year old delinquent who winds up in the bed of aspiring politician John Forsyth and proceeds to make his life a mess.

Forsyth is professional in a terrible role - his character is a complete dill, finding this girl, not reporting her, letting her stay overnight, buying clothes for her, dropping her at the bus station, then letting her run all over him, invite her friends over. It's probably the most emasculated male lead I can remember seeing. He doesn't even kiss Ann Margret. I kept waiting for the worm to turn but he doesn't punch out the kids, he lets her drive him over a cliff at the end, it's Ann Margret's testimony that gets him off (a complete deux ex machina). The boys die via an accident.

 Ann Margret's performance is undisciplined but she's full of pep and energy and is clearly trying. It's not her fault the movie is bad, and the direction is quite crisp. The main problem is the script. It never feels believable that Forsyth lets Ann Margret stay overnight and buys her stuff - they might've gotten away with that had all the action played over the course of one night but not two nights. Not unless he slept with her, which he should've done. It would've made Ann Margret's actions more understandable.

She's a psycho who is a little lost - they could've done a lot with that. But the film feels afraid to develop the relationship between her and Forsyth too much. If he'd slept with her it would've made him suffering a lot more fun.

There are all these interesting ideas that aren't developed. Like Forsyth's wife - it's hinted there's trouble in their marriage but we only see her once, in a phone call. Why not bring her in to the third act? Why not use the character of that wife (Pamela Brown) of his friend (Richard Anderson)? Why not use the friend more? Why not have one of them killed off? 

I did like the two psycho guys - Peter Brown and Skip Tyler give good perfomances and have delineated characters, as charming educated psycho and more brutish psycho. When the film is a home invasion movie it works better.

It's a film that pulls its punches and wastes its opportunity. Could and should have been so much better.

Movie review - "Lady for a Day" (1933) ***1/2

 Why this is better than the remake:

- it's shorter - the plan kicks in by 29 minutes, the face is faster.

- it's contemporary so was made when there was a depression actually on

- May Robson was unknown so you're not sitting there all the time going "that's Bette Davis"

- Glenda Farrell is a much more believable gangster girlfriend than Hope Lange and isn't given that boring backstory.

- Having lesser known stars in the leads means it works better as what it is, a community story.

Entertaining and a pivotal film for Capra and writer Robert Riskin.

Movie review - "Pocketful of Miracles" (1961) **

 Frank Capra's last movie (though he didn't intend that to be the case at the time) is a remake of his earlier hit Lady for  Day. It has bright, garish colours, as if set in toy town, and is an alright time-filler.  I have memories of it being on TV on Sunday afternoon. 

Peter Falk shines in an early role. It was Ann Margret's first movie and she's lovely - always better as a good girl. She sings a song. At times watching this I wondered if it could be a musical - I think other people had the same idea after Guys and Dolls. Some random handsome American plays her Italian fiance. He warbles a tune too.

I quite enjoyed the family of pan handlers - the little person, the mute girl. I know it was hokey but it worked.

Glenn Ford is miscast as a gangster hero, though not as much as Hope Lange who plays his dancer girlfriend. Bette Davis is also miscast playing "old lady" (a few years down the track it wouldn't matter) though I got more used to her.

In the second half the story kicks in and it became especially watchable (though Ford disappears from the action). But then at the climax I watched Davis introducing all these New York figures be introduced to the Italian count I went "who cares if the count approves or not... like he's an Italian count, Italy got smothered in the war and depended on American kindness". That's when it hit me the story didn't update that well.

Maybe it should've been set in Las Vegas - but do they have panhandlers. More could've been made of Davis' alcoholism... that's a ticking clock that was never used. Ditto Mitchell's drinking problem. No romance between her and Thomas Mitchell?

Movie review - "Bonfire of the Vanities" (1990) **

 I was inspired to watch this again after listening to the podcast on the movie by TCM. The main feature of that was Julie Salomon's recordings of interviews at the time. But actually production of the film wasn't too tough - Bruce Willis was a bit egotistical, Melanie Griffith was insecure, the budget went over but... it was reasonably professional. Pages are dedicated to some guy getting a shot of a concorde, as if it mattered.

The film isn't very good. But then I wasn't wild about the novel. Not an easy novel to adapt - it's all about multiple characters and atmosphere. Maybe Robert Altman could've done it.  Sidney Lumet. 

 It had to be about someone we enjoyed seeing suffer. It's not fun to watch Tom Hanks suffer. He seems too nice.

It's mean about the black people. Shows the kid who is in a coma has his CV artificially pumped up as an honours student, shows the black preacher as a cartoonish figure, makes a cheap joke about his mother wanting $10 million to buy clothes.

It has no feel for New York. The sense of the divide between classes. It's too stylish.

The film is about nice Tom Hanks not really doing anything bad except root Melanie Griffith and even that's not too bad in the world of this movie because Kim Cattrall plays the wife as a caricature. And in this story every one is mean - Melanie lies on the stand, his wife leaves him, Bruce Willis writes nasty articles, protestors yell at him, his firm fires him, his co op kicks him out of the building. But then Bruce Willis has a change of heart and comes to the rescue. And white dad Donald Moffatt says he loves him.  And judge Morgan Freeman asks everyone to be decent when Hanks triumphs (well, escapes prosecution) by lying that he made a tape with dad's approval. Go the patriarchy!

Bruce Willis feels off as a drunken journalist. Michael Caine or some old boozy Brit would've been better. Melanie Griffith is actually the best cast.

The miscasting was bad but they distorted the novel into a stock Hollywood hero's journey but still tried to be faithful which means the film just comes off as really racist. That's why people got upset about it.

Movie review - "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" (1966) **1/2

 The reputation of this film is mixed despite its interesting cast. It started very well with that wonderful opening number 'Comedy Tonight'. It is bright and funny and the Spanish locations are fine. 

But after a while I kept thinking "this probably played better on stage" especially the broad comic antics of people like Zero Mostel (slave), Phil Silvers (slave dealer).

The cast includes Michael Crawford (male juvenile), Australia's own Annette Andre as the girl of his dreams, Michael Hordern as Crawford's dad.

Movie review - "Wagon Train" (1940) ***

 First in what would be a long series of B Westerns at RKO starring Tim Holt. They tried him in a few already and decided to star him in a bunch, replacing the presumably more expensive George O'Brien.

Holt is tracking down his father's murderer, a businessman up to No Good. Martha O'Driscoll is the girl. Ray Whitley is the sidekick. Edward Killy directed.

Holt as an amiable boy next door boyishness that suits his heroic character. There's some songs, a cute baby, a decent story, Indians on the warpath. It ticks a lot of boxes. It feels adult in places - the Indians wipe out a farm house leaving a shellshocked O'Driscoll (we don't see the attack but see her reaction). Some impressive action such as a fire.