Not a perfect film, and it takes a while to get into it, but it did not deserve the shellacking it received from critics at the time. Mind you, I think we forget now how irritating Peter Bogdanovich could be - check out some talk show clips from the time.
He's got the benefit of Cole Porter songs, pretty photography, a decent budget, and Burt Reynolds, Madeleine Khan and Cybill Shepherd are all very likeable in the leads. Duilio Del Prete is okay - not bad or offensive, he's handsome and can carry a tune, I just kept forgetting he was in the movie.
Eileen Brennan is perfect as the maid and John Hillerman and Mildred Natwick fine.
I'm sure it was a jolt that this musical was made where the leads couldn't really sing and, in particular,dance - maybe the dancing was a mistake, I mean they try, but no one can really do it. These days however it doesn't seem to matter - so many people do musicals who can't really dance or sing. I think it offended people in 1975.
Also I admit the beginning is confronting when Madeleine Khan launches into a song and her voice wobbles.
Cybill Shepherd really copped it but she's good, full of energy and pep. She later got plaudits for doing this stuff on Moonlighting but she's already doing it here. Reynolds is very engaging.
It isn't a great script. These sort of things are harder to do than they seem and Bogdanovich gets the surface right - wacky heiresses, millionaire playboys, showgirls, the dialogue overlaps and is fast, butlers and maids - it's never that funny or memorable. If only he'd collaborated with, I don't know, Neil Simon or someone. (I had the same problem with his other fast talking ensemble pieces like She's Funny That Way and They All Laughed).
But it's cheerful, everyone seems to like each other, the live recording does add an extra dimension. I'm not surprised this one is coming back a little, reputation wise.
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Movie review - "Notorious" by Ben Hecht
A lot of this wouldn't pass muster today - Devlin knocks out Alicia with a fist, and there's a lot of slut shaming going on. But it's an expert, adult film - it's clear Alicia sleeps with Alex and Devlin and lots of others. It's also expertly, but simply plotted - a superb star vehicle but also strong support characters: Alex, his mother, the other Nazis. The goodies are smart but so are the baddies and Alicia is active a lot of the time even at the end when she's dying of poison she manages to figure out what's going on.
One big set piece is going into the wine cellar which is cleverly done. I guess there's also the walk out at the end. The shooting script I read had added pages - three small scenes of a Greek chorus of secretaries at the CIA or wherever it was, to give it a happy ending, commenting on the honeymoon.
One big set piece is going into the wine cellar which is cleverly done. I guess there's also the walk out at the end. The shooting script I read had added pages - three small scenes of a Greek chorus of secretaries at the CIA or wherever it was, to give it a happy ending, commenting on the honeymoon.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Script review - "Harots" by Moira Buffini ep 1
Excellent work - gorgeous use of language, strong and vivid characters, an interesting period of time and point of view (paid sex workers in the olde days) with a fresh take on marriage (to be feared because you'd lose your rights) and ownership (the dream of harlots was to be "bought" by a lord who would be responsible for your debts). Good family drama at core with mum and her two daughters. I did wonder how much "legs" it had... as in for a long running series... but it's a great piece of work.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Script review - "Prince of the City" by Jay Presson Allen and Sidney Lumet
Highly regarded look at police corruption. I respect it more than I admire it. It's obviously smart but it's long - scenes felt repetitive. I didn't get to know many of the characters. The domestic scenes weren't that interesting. A lot of New Yawk acting. Heaps of typos in the draft of the script I read.
The basic material is fascinating - a little-bit corrupt cop has a crisis of confidence and tries to help IA. He vows to not give up his partners but that's easier said than done. He has a cousin in the mob. The officials who help him are ambitious and flawed like his corrupt fellow cops.
There's some suspense where you think the main guy might die but the best stuff comes at the end, when one cop kills himself and other, Levy, tells the main guy to f*ck off.
The basic material is fascinating - a little-bit corrupt cop has a crisis of confidence and tries to help IA. He vows to not give up his partners but that's easier said than done. He has a cousin in the mob. The officials who help him are ambitious and flawed like his corrupt fellow cops.
There's some suspense where you think the main guy might die but the best stuff comes at the end, when one cop kills himself and other, Levy, tells the main guy to f*ck off.
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Movie review - "Shamus" (1973) **1/2
As he so often was, Burt Reynolds is better than his material here. He's ideal as a private eye, sleeping on a pool table with a phone handing from a basket, confident but amiable so he doesn't seem like a lech, which his character is.
The script isn't up to the models of Raymond Chandler its aping - some scenes are direct steals of The Big Sleep including meeting a tycoon in a weird climate (here it's cold instead of hot) and where the shamus flirts with a librarian.
Burt gets beaten up a lot but comes through. The support cast isn't up to something like Harper. It's okay. Dyan Cannon is great with Burt and I wish they'd have made more movies together.
Rod Taylor played the same role in a TV movie which was a pilot for a proposed series.
The script isn't up to the models of Raymond Chandler its aping - some scenes are direct steals of The Big Sleep including meeting a tycoon in a weird climate (here it's cold instead of hot) and where the shamus flirts with a librarian.
Burt gets beaten up a lot but comes through. The support cast isn't up to something like Harper. It's okay. Dyan Cannon is great with Burt and I wish they'd have made more movies together.
Rod Taylor played the same role in a TV movie which was a pilot for a proposed series.
Friday, September 07, 2018
Script review - "Room" by Emma Donoghue
Excellent script which benefits from lots of lovely touches and details. The examination of the relationship between the mother and son is first rate - especially in the language of the son. I read this and kept thinking "this role is a gift for any half decent actor but it'll be a bugger to find the kid".
The first half was the strongest for me because it dealt with an inherently tense situation - the escape sequence was very exciting. The second half is more character dram about what happens outside the room. It all feels true and logical (they find it hard to adjust, there's media attention, mum and dad have broken up) - but it's like the film has to be rebooted. That's the story they wanted to tell I know - but the fact is it feels very much like a separate film. Still good stuff. It was a moving experience to read.
The first half was the strongest for me because it dealt with an inherently tense situation - the escape sequence was very exciting. The second half is more character dram about what happens outside the room. It all feels true and logical (they find it hard to adjust, there's media attention, mum and dad have broken up) - but it's like the film has to be rebooted. That's the story they wanted to tell I know - but the fact is it feels very much like a separate film. Still good stuff. It was a moving experience to read.
Movie review - "Cruising" (1980) ***
A real end of the 70s movie - writers often can't resist the synergy of Sorcerer coming out the same time as Star Wars but William Friedkin still had enough cache to make this with what I assume was pretty much total freedom. Like Sorcerer its reputation continues to rise.
This copped it at the time because it was about a gay serial killer and there weren't many gay characters on screen. In recent years it's been more appreciated as a period piece and people seem less touchy about the subject matter - possibly because it's a period piece, that time has passed... but also because there are a lot more gay characters on screen now. (Not saying things still don't have a way to go, just pointing out it's more than it was.)
It's a remarkably frank piece with cop Al Pacino going undercover in leather bars to find a serial killer. The scenes in bars are quite full on - not the nice dancing in Police Academy films but lots of sex,people standing around watching others having sex, rock and roll dancing, drugs. It's a sealed world- indeed one of the club managers instantly spots Pacino for a cop and tells him to leave! But by the end of the film he's got his act down pat - he seems to know exactly what to say. You can read this film a number of ways - one of those ways is a heroes journey where Pacino learns how to have sex with guys.
It doesn't spell out that he has sex with guys but it is implied. It affects his sex life with Karen Allen, he seems to know all the lingo at the end, when the police come in to rescue him he's all tied up and tells the cops that they're too soon.
It's a confronting film in a lot of ways. We get to spend a little time with some of the victims before they're killed, so we get to know and like them, and are with them as they get killed, which isn't fun.
There's lots of loose ends which I know Friedkin will say are deliberately ambiguous but personally I think is just sloppy screenwriting from someone who wasn't a professional screenwriter - they don't resolve the cops who force gays to have sex with them (Paul Sorvino just finds out the gays are telling the truth), they don't resolve if there's another serial killer, or explain who that tall black man in a thong is who comes in during the interrogation (apparently the cops would do that to make any complaint about police brutality seem silly - why not include a line to cover that?). There are hints of Pacino having a poor relationship with his dad which aren't chased up. Pacino learns the saying of the killer "I'm here you're here" even though it was misheard by others and we never find out why.
Pacino is frustratingly passive a lot of the time. He spends a lot of time hanging out, not really doing much detecting. The big breakthrough - the fingerprint on a movie machine - comes through other cops. He spends a lot of time chasing a suspect who we know isn't the killer because he doesn't look like the person who the killer is - because we've seen enough of the killer. I get this happens in investigations it just feels like a waste of time to watch. He does some detecting at the end but that seems to be mostly stalking this guy and breaking into his apartment.
One friend thought the ending implied that the evil spirit of the killer might have passed in Pacino, like The Exorcist - which does make sense, even though it's not clear, but is a case of a filmmaker ripping off their own successful work.
Personally I don't think he's the serial killer at the end. Why would he kill the playwright? The playwright was his friend - serial killers tend not to kill their friends. Also the playwright was a different look to the other victims. And the boyfriend does have a good motivation.
I did like the depiction of the homophobia of the time - matter of fact and horrible: cops coercing drag queens into performing sex acts, serial killers of gay men only getting eight years, cops beating up a gay to get a confession.
Some excellent performances, including Pacino, Paul Sorvino as a cop (interesting limp), James Remar as a flamboyant dancer (he's good!), Ed O'Neil. Powers Boothe pops up with a funny scene as a salesman.
An interesting, challenging film. Spielberg was going to direct it at one stage!
This copped it at the time because it was about a gay serial killer and there weren't many gay characters on screen. In recent years it's been more appreciated as a period piece and people seem less touchy about the subject matter - possibly because it's a period piece, that time has passed... but also because there are a lot more gay characters on screen now. (Not saying things still don't have a way to go, just pointing out it's more than it was.)
It's a remarkably frank piece with cop Al Pacino going undercover in leather bars to find a serial killer. The scenes in bars are quite full on - not the nice dancing in Police Academy films but lots of sex,people standing around watching others having sex, rock and roll dancing, drugs. It's a sealed world- indeed one of the club managers instantly spots Pacino for a cop and tells him to leave! But by the end of the film he's got his act down pat - he seems to know exactly what to say. You can read this film a number of ways - one of those ways is a heroes journey where Pacino learns how to have sex with guys.
It doesn't spell out that he has sex with guys but it is implied. It affects his sex life with Karen Allen, he seems to know all the lingo at the end, when the police come in to rescue him he's all tied up and tells the cops that they're too soon.
It's a confronting film in a lot of ways. We get to spend a little time with some of the victims before they're killed, so we get to know and like them, and are with them as they get killed, which isn't fun.
There's lots of loose ends which I know Friedkin will say are deliberately ambiguous but personally I think is just sloppy screenwriting from someone who wasn't a professional screenwriter - they don't resolve the cops who force gays to have sex with them (Paul Sorvino just finds out the gays are telling the truth), they don't resolve if there's another serial killer, or explain who that tall black man in a thong is who comes in during the interrogation (apparently the cops would do that to make any complaint about police brutality seem silly - why not include a line to cover that?). There are hints of Pacino having a poor relationship with his dad which aren't chased up. Pacino learns the saying of the killer "I'm here you're here" even though it was misheard by others and we never find out why.
Pacino is frustratingly passive a lot of the time. He spends a lot of time hanging out, not really doing much detecting. The big breakthrough - the fingerprint on a movie machine - comes through other cops. He spends a lot of time chasing a suspect who we know isn't the killer because he doesn't look like the person who the killer is - because we've seen enough of the killer. I get this happens in investigations it just feels like a waste of time to watch. He does some detecting at the end but that seems to be mostly stalking this guy and breaking into his apartment.
One friend thought the ending implied that the evil spirit of the killer might have passed in Pacino, like The Exorcist - which does make sense, even though it's not clear, but is a case of a filmmaker ripping off their own successful work.
Personally I don't think he's the serial killer at the end. Why would he kill the playwright? The playwright was his friend - serial killers tend not to kill their friends. Also the playwright was a different look to the other victims. And the boyfriend does have a good motivation.
I did like the depiction of the homophobia of the time - matter of fact and horrible: cops coercing drag queens into performing sex acts, serial killers of gay men only getting eight years, cops beating up a gay to get a confession.
Some excellent performances, including Pacino, Paul Sorvino as a cop (interesting limp), James Remar as a flamboyant dancer (he's good!), Ed O'Neil. Powers Boothe pops up with a funny scene as a salesman.
An interesting, challenging film. Spielberg was going to direct it at one stage!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)