Tarzan was still in jet-setting mode – this time he heads off to Asia (a fictitious country – it was actually shot in Thailand) where he helps the legitimate ruler of a country fight of a usurper. Why would Tarzan care? Well, apparently the former ruler was an old mate. It’s not much of a motivation, to be honest – Tarzan doesn’t really have any business messing about in Asia (perhaps he was inspired by Kennedy’s Peace Corps), and who’s to say Strode wouldn’t make a decent leader? He’s certainly brave and willing to do hands-on villainy.
Having said that, the Thailand locations and extras are terrific, full of colour and variety. Robert Day directs with a sure hand again, and there is some impressive action, notably the final battle between Tarzan and Strode on a rope bridge just above steaming cauldrons. Strode is a strong villain, and its great that he got the chance to act in a better Tarzan film.
This isn’t quite the top rank though. The story is weak – it’s a travelogue really with Tarzan dolphining along, and the whole “you must do X challenges” thing feels really contrived. Also Jock Mahoney looks tired and dispirited; I’m trying not to be ageist (apparently he fell sick during filming) but it counts against the result. Maybe they should have used his age more – had Tarzan having a mid life crsis or something (you know that would make a terrific Tarzan film).
Friday, October 03, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Book review – “Vietnam War” by Paul Ham
Masterpiece account of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War, the best Australian military history book I have read. It covers all the boxes – history of Vietnam and the conflict, the reason behind Australia’s involvement, the anti-war movement, the role of the press, draft dodgers, the VC, the South Vietnamese government, the hearts and minds campaign, Australian political scene, the fall out.
Many, many vivid characters and stories: the shadowy anti-Commie fanatic Ted Serong (who became a trusted adviser but who remained, in the words of Ham, a better critic than player), the Australian officer who ended up leading his own private army in the hills a la Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, hijinks in Saigon, the excitement and epic that was Long Tan (please make this into a movie), the terror of mines, the ruthelessness of the communist foe. The North Vietnamese were clearly a government worth fighting against... but were the South Vietnamese worth fighting for? Not in its early 60s phase, certainly, with its oppressive police state and crappy army.
One or two places Ham really lets fly – he has particular spleen for the dopey American commanders with their stupid body count strategy and the new settlements scheme (which to be fair worked in Malaya during the emergency – but Vietnam War had two crucial differences: Vietnam’s population wasn’t split into Chinese and Malay like in Malaya, and the Malayan communists never had a North Vietnam to flee to). He also hates the stupider anti-war protestors, especially those who attacked the vets when they came back, accusing them of baby killing and child raping (some even rang up the rellies of a dead soldier and said “he got what he deserved” – unbelievable).
Ham takes on some of the powerful myths of Vietnam. There’s the baby boomer we-stopped-the-war myth, the press-as-moral conscience myth (Ham argues the media were mostly pro war until 1968 then jumped on the growing anti-war bandwagon, and that most journos in Vietnam were incompetent charlatans), the Australians-won-all-its-battles myth (Operation Bribie was arguably a defeat), the Australians-were-good-fighters myth (mostly true but they came up a dopey “impregnable line of mines” strategy which was disastrous).
Sometimes he’s a little unfair, I think – why shouldn’t the Allies drop South Vietnam like a hot potato in the 70s? They spent a lot of money and blood in the country – they weren’t wedded with them til death. And of course politicians shift with the wind, that’s what democracy is all about. But this is still a brilliant book.
Many, many vivid characters and stories: the shadowy anti-Commie fanatic Ted Serong (who became a trusted adviser but who remained, in the words of Ham, a better critic than player), the Australian officer who ended up leading his own private army in the hills a la Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, hijinks in Saigon, the excitement and epic that was Long Tan (please make this into a movie), the terror of mines, the ruthelessness of the communist foe. The North Vietnamese were clearly a government worth fighting against... but were the South Vietnamese worth fighting for? Not in its early 60s phase, certainly, with its oppressive police state and crappy army.
One or two places Ham really lets fly – he has particular spleen for the dopey American commanders with their stupid body count strategy and the new settlements scheme (which to be fair worked in Malaya during the emergency – but Vietnam War had two crucial differences: Vietnam’s population wasn’t split into Chinese and Malay like in Malaya, and the Malayan communists never had a North Vietnam to flee to). He also hates the stupider anti-war protestors, especially those who attacked the vets when they came back, accusing them of baby killing and child raping (some even rang up the rellies of a dead soldier and said “he got what he deserved” – unbelievable).
Ham takes on some of the powerful myths of Vietnam. There’s the baby boomer we-stopped-the-war myth, the press-as-moral conscience myth (Ham argues the media were mostly pro war until 1968 then jumped on the growing anti-war bandwagon, and that most journos in Vietnam were incompetent charlatans), the Australians-won-all-its-battles myth (Operation Bribie was arguably a defeat), the Australians-were-good-fighters myth (mostly true but they came up a dopey “impregnable line of mines” strategy which was disastrous).
Sometimes he’s a little unfair, I think – why shouldn’t the Allies drop South Vietnam like a hot potato in the 70s? They spent a lot of money and blood in the country – they weren’t wedded with them til death. And of course politicians shift with the wind, that’s what democracy is all about. But this is still a brilliant book.
Book review – “Khartoum” by Michael Asher
Excellent account of Britain’s imperial adventures in the Sudan. Like many people, I mostly know about it from the 1966 film Khartoum, which had Charlton Heston as the doomed General Gordon. (Lots of things are named after this era in Australia – there’s a General Gordon school, Khartoum St, etc) But there were a number of other battles, many of which were won by Mahdists - indeed, they broke the British square, and ruled Sudan for over a decade.
The most exciting segments include the murder of Colonel Stewart (who had left Khartoum), the final attack on Gordon (great disasters always make exciting reading), the battle scenes. Asher is a former soldier who has spent a lot of time in the Sudan and he has a gift for describing action and locale. He also spends a bit of time sketching the characters of the leading Mahdist fighters.
Occasionally it got a bit confusing who was who – not just the Arab names, but all the officers with the surname “Stewart”. Asher seems to have particular fondness for Kitchener and gets stuck in Woseley. Kitchener’s campaign is a bit of an anti-climax in the story - it's hard to top Gordon. (It's like reading about the Texas campaign - the Alamo is such a powerful story, San Jacinta seems anti-climactic).
The most exciting segments include the murder of Colonel Stewart (who had left Khartoum), the final attack on Gordon (great disasters always make exciting reading), the battle scenes. Asher is a former soldier who has spent a lot of time in the Sudan and he has a gift for describing action and locale. He also spends a bit of time sketching the characters of the leading Mahdist fighters.
Occasionally it got a bit confusing who was who – not just the Arab names, but all the officers with the surname “Stewart”. Asher seems to have particular fondness for Kitchener and gets stuck in Woseley. Kitchener’s campaign is a bit of an anti-climax in the story - it's hard to top Gordon. (It's like reading about the Texas campaign - the Alamo is such a powerful story, San Jacinta seems anti-climactic).
Book review – “Bob Hope: A Life in Jokes”
Hope was one of the great wise-crackers of the 20th century with an amazing career so it was a clever idea to have a book which tells a bit about his life and times through one liners. Not surprisingly not all of the jokes have worn well, and you have to imagine Hope’s delivery to get the full effect. Particular emphasis is on Hope’s friendships with various Presidents.
Movie review – “The Undying Monster” (1942) **1/2
Has this film been made by Universal Studios andor starred one of the horror holy trinity (Bela/Boris/Lon Jnr) I can imagine it would have entered th classic cannon – as it is, it’s reputation has increased in recently years, partly due to the rise in the reputation of its director, John Brahm.
It is a well-directed werewolf tale, with pleasing period detail (its set around the turn of the century) and excellent photography by Lucien Ballard. The actors lack a little in the charisma department – the biggest name is John Howard, of Bulldog Drummond fame – but they acquit themselves well enough and there are some lovely touches, such as the fact the scientific detective hero as a female sidekick (some sort of first in horror movies? – she cops a few sexist cracks from her hero boss but she’s still a key member of the team)
Unlike the best known werewolf films, the story is told from the point of view of detectives and victims – we’re not even sure it involves a werewolf until towards the end. This does mean that the feeling of tragedy found in most werewolf films is missing and there is only a limited amount of werewolf action (it's closer to Hound of the Baskervilles in that respect). Also the romantic plot is undeveloped. Still an engrossing film – and it runs just over an hour, too.
NB The original source material can be read here.
It is a well-directed werewolf tale, with pleasing period detail (its set around the turn of the century) and excellent photography by Lucien Ballard. The actors lack a little in the charisma department – the biggest name is John Howard, of Bulldog Drummond fame – but they acquit themselves well enough and there are some lovely touches, such as the fact the scientific detective hero as a female sidekick (some sort of first in horror movies? – she cops a few sexist cracks from her hero boss but she’s still a key member of the team)
Unlike the best known werewolf films, the story is told from the point of view of detectives and victims – we’re not even sure it involves a werewolf until towards the end. This does mean that the feeling of tragedy found in most werewolf films is missing and there is only a limited amount of werewolf action (it's closer to Hound of the Baskervilles in that respect). Also the romantic plot is undeveloped. Still an engrossing film – and it runs just over an hour, too.
NB The original source material can be read here.
Movie review – “Rocky Mountain” (1950) ***1/2
Errol Flynn often played Southerners in Westerns – Dodge City, Santa Fe Trail – so it’s no surprise to see him leading a rebel task force towards the end of the Civil War with the aim of starting an insurrection in California. It’s a strong situation and makes for a strong Western, with the small size of Errol’s patrol allows for a bit of character development.
Errol is in strong form as a tired, beaten down soldier, sick of war. The cast include a young Slim Pickens (if you can imaigine such a thing) and Patrice Wymore, who fell in love with Errol during the making of the movie and became his third (and from all accounts nicest) wife. To be honest, she’s not one of the great Errol Flynn co-stars on screen, though she’s pleasant enough. It makes a pleasing change that she doesn’t really romance Flynn – she’s got a sympathetic, brave finacee, a union officer (Scott Forbes).
William Keighley directs well, helped by an excellent location. There’s perhaps a bit too much chatting and not enough action, though there is a fair bit of suspense and a brilliant climax. It has all the Southerners waiting for help to arrive – they realise it’s not going to come, so decide to take on the Indians. There is something moving about the Southerners deciding to wear their colours as they go in for the final battle… and they all get killed! Because the story has similarities with Virginia City (north and south combine to fight Indians) you think the Union soldiers will come to the rescue but they don’t. And because we’ve gotten to know the Confederates quite well it packs a punch. Even if they are fighting for the right to own slaves (Errol owns a plantation) it’s quite touching.
This probably didn’t cost Warners a lot of money. Most of the action consists of a small group of cowboys on a mountain top (there are only a lot of extras at the end); the only star is Flynn. The part of Wymore’s fiancée would have seemed a natural for an up and coming Warners star – Steve Cochran? – but they give it to Forbes (NB who it must be said acquits himself decently).
Still this is a pretty good Western, with a wonderful touch of melancholy about it. With a bit more care and star power it could have become a minor classic.
Errol is in strong form as a tired, beaten down soldier, sick of war. The cast include a young Slim Pickens (if you can imaigine such a thing) and Patrice Wymore, who fell in love with Errol during the making of the movie and became his third (and from all accounts nicest) wife. To be honest, she’s not one of the great Errol Flynn co-stars on screen, though she’s pleasant enough. It makes a pleasing change that she doesn’t really romance Flynn – she’s got a sympathetic, brave finacee, a union officer (Scott Forbes).
William Keighley directs well, helped by an excellent location. There’s perhaps a bit too much chatting and not enough action, though there is a fair bit of suspense and a brilliant climax. It has all the Southerners waiting for help to arrive – they realise it’s not going to come, so decide to take on the Indians. There is something moving about the Southerners deciding to wear their colours as they go in for the final battle… and they all get killed! Because the story has similarities with Virginia City (north and south combine to fight Indians) you think the Union soldiers will come to the rescue but they don’t. And because we’ve gotten to know the Confederates quite well it packs a punch. Even if they are fighting for the right to own slaves (Errol owns a plantation) it’s quite touching.
This probably didn’t cost Warners a lot of money. Most of the action consists of a small group of cowboys on a mountain top (there are only a lot of extras at the end); the only star is Flynn. The part of Wymore’s fiancée would have seemed a natural for an up and coming Warners star – Steve Cochran? – but they give it to Forbes (NB who it must be said acquits himself decently).
Still this is a pretty good Western, with a wonderful touch of melancholy about it. With a bit more care and star power it could have become a minor classic.
Movie review – “Escape Me Never” (1947) **
Errol Flynn was supposed to star in The Constant Nymph for Warners but was ushered off into more stereotypical fare – but the film was a hit, so when Warners plumped for a sequel several years later he was allowed to star.
The plot has rich Eleanor Parker break it off with composer Gig Young because she thinks Young has been living with single mother Ida Lupino. Actually Lupino’s been living with Young’s brother, Errol Flynn – so when Parker heads off for the mountains, Flynn and Young accompany him along with Lupino. Flynn falls in love with Parker before finding out who she is – when he does he goes and marries Lupino and Young winds up with Parker. But Parker still loves Flynn.
At this point the film starts to go south – Errol writes a ballet, has a fling with Parker, Lupino’s child dies (a shock), then Errol realises he actually loves Lupino in a really contrived scene and gets back with her.
Errol is well cast as a bohemian composer, a free spirit who’s a bit selfish and a womaniser – though we never really see him be a real bastard. It might have been a better film if he had. He does take off with Parker towards the end and Lupino’s child dies, but if that’s anyone’s fault it’s Lupino’s (for not getting medical help earlier) – and Parker is hot and wants him. What do you expect him to do? But he's still effective, even though he's shaved off his moustache and wears little Austrian outfits when in the mountains. It's not his fault the movie doesn't work.
Ida Lupino is a bit too modern and American as the widowed mother. She is part independent - when Errol takes off, she insists on coming along – part door mat – she wants Errol no matter what. They throw in a few lines where Lupino says she and Flynn are just friends, to which you go “yeah right” – it’s fairly obvious they’re rooting (why else would he live with her? For friendship?)
Eleanor Parker is a stunner- I reckon she’s three times as good looking when she’s in period costume. She and Errol have a charming flirt scene (this was lacking in Never Say Goodbye since they were already married). Her scenes with Errol have genuine heat – so much so towards the end it’s not believable when they don’t get together. Errol and Lupino seem like friends with benefits but Errol and Parker are a hot fling.
It feels like it should be a musical – there are times when you swear the characters are about to sing, like when Errol and Young decide to leave, and when Lupino cuddles her baby after he goes. It's a heavily flawed movie in which the story and some of the casting doesn't work. I think Warners would have been able to pull it off during the studio's great days but they were coming to an end.
The plot has rich Eleanor Parker break it off with composer Gig Young because she thinks Young has been living with single mother Ida Lupino. Actually Lupino’s been living with Young’s brother, Errol Flynn – so when Parker heads off for the mountains, Flynn and Young accompany him along with Lupino. Flynn falls in love with Parker before finding out who she is – when he does he goes and marries Lupino and Young winds up with Parker. But Parker still loves Flynn.
At this point the film starts to go south – Errol writes a ballet, has a fling with Parker, Lupino’s child dies (a shock), then Errol realises he actually loves Lupino in a really contrived scene and gets back with her.
Errol is well cast as a bohemian composer, a free spirit who’s a bit selfish and a womaniser – though we never really see him be a real bastard. It might have been a better film if he had. He does take off with Parker towards the end and Lupino’s child dies, but if that’s anyone’s fault it’s Lupino’s (for not getting medical help earlier) – and Parker is hot and wants him. What do you expect him to do? But he's still effective, even though he's shaved off his moustache and wears little Austrian outfits when in the mountains. It's not his fault the movie doesn't work.
Ida Lupino is a bit too modern and American as the widowed mother. She is part independent - when Errol takes off, she insists on coming along – part door mat – she wants Errol no matter what. They throw in a few lines where Lupino says she and Flynn are just friends, to which you go “yeah right” – it’s fairly obvious they’re rooting (why else would he live with her? For friendship?)
Eleanor Parker is a stunner- I reckon she’s three times as good looking when she’s in period costume. She and Errol have a charming flirt scene (this was lacking in Never Say Goodbye since they were already married). Her scenes with Errol have genuine heat – so much so towards the end it’s not believable when they don’t get together. Errol and Lupino seem like friends with benefits but Errol and Parker are a hot fling.
It feels like it should be a musical – there are times when you swear the characters are about to sing, like when Errol and Young decide to leave, and when Lupino cuddles her baby after he goes. It's a heavily flawed movie in which the story and some of the casting doesn't work. I think Warners would have been able to pull it off during the studio's great days but they were coming to an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)