Something of an "it movie" when it came out - great reviews, solid box office, clearly a high point in the career of director John Ruane who seems to have vanished. It's a black comedy, veers greatly in tone. I remember seeing it at the cinema, enjoying not knowing where it was going, loving John Clarke, being captivated by Zoe Carides (the Oz film industry equivalent of a manic pixie dream girl but wonderful all the same), not really finding it that awesome. That hasn't changed.
I recognise its quality and can see why people love it, it's just not for me. Good on Neil for coming back - he plays a guy who should have it together (he has looks and charm) but so many weaknesses (alcohol, passivity).
Sunday, May 31, 2020
Saturday, May 30, 2020
Movie review - "Eliza Fraser" (1976) ** (re-watching)
Endearing in its way that it just wants to entertain. It's not very good but its heart is in the right place. It didn't need to cost as much money as it did - traipsing around the dunes and what not really could've been done anywhere.
The English cast definitely weren't worth it - I mean, yes, Trevor Howard is a great actor but he looks unwell and they could've gotten Frank Thring. John Castle is fine, but was he a name. And Susannah York is poor. Eliza needed to be a lively vixen - I don't think Wendy Hughes, the original choice, would have been perfect, though she would've been better than York; I think someone with lower class sparkle, like Jackie Weaver, would've been better. Or - don't laugh - Abigail. The way the story is constructed Eliza doesn't have to do much acting.
Part of the problem is also Williamson's screenplay which I think in its heart is more a theatre piece. It keeps changing focus on who the lead it - John Castle gets this intro, then he vanishes while the Fraser's go on the boat, then John Waters is given all this time and he vanishes, and Eliza/York doesn't do much except commune with the aboriginals. Then there's this duelling stuff between Castle and George Mallaby, and then the fight comes between Castle and Noel Ferrier, and Eliza is so passive. I wasn't sure how different Castle and Waters were meant to be - I mean Castle was a rogue, but wasn't Waters a convict, and there was Noel Ferrier...
Ugh.
They should have combined Castle and Waters' characters. Or made them more different. Given Fraser/York somewhere to go -started her as prim and moved her to raucous or something.
But it looks good and it's fun to see people like Bruce Spence and Dennis Miller turn up.
The English cast definitely weren't worth it - I mean, yes, Trevor Howard is a great actor but he looks unwell and they could've gotten Frank Thring. John Castle is fine, but was he a name. And Susannah York is poor. Eliza needed to be a lively vixen - I don't think Wendy Hughes, the original choice, would have been perfect, though she would've been better than York; I think someone with lower class sparkle, like Jackie Weaver, would've been better. Or - don't laugh - Abigail. The way the story is constructed Eliza doesn't have to do much acting.
Part of the problem is also Williamson's screenplay which I think in its heart is more a theatre piece. It keeps changing focus on who the lead it - John Castle gets this intro, then he vanishes while the Fraser's go on the boat, then John Waters is given all this time and he vanishes, and Eliza/York doesn't do much except commune with the aboriginals. Then there's this duelling stuff between Castle and George Mallaby, and then the fight comes between Castle and Noel Ferrier, and Eliza is so passive. I wasn't sure how different Castle and Waters were meant to be - I mean Castle was a rogue, but wasn't Waters a convict, and there was Noel Ferrier...
Ugh.
They should have combined Castle and Waters' characters. Or made them more different. Given Fraser/York somewhere to go -started her as prim and moved her to raucous or something.
But it looks good and it's fun to see people like Bruce Spence and Dennis Miller turn up.
Movie review - "Fever" (1989) ***
Tight little thriller from Craig Lahiff, who would go on to specialise in that genre. The dusty small town South Australian town atmosphere helps, as does the star power of Bill Hunter and Gary Sweet. Mary Regan is solid in her role, and Jim Holt shines as a dodgy cop.
There's plenty of twists and turns. It's not always top rank - it would have been better creating more of a relationship between Sweet and Bill Hunter for instance. I think they knocked out Bill Hunter too soon - it would've been a better movie had Regan and Sweet known about the money earlier because then they never would've been sure if they were into each other or the money.
Still at least it's into narrative. Lahiff tries to keep the pace moving. Sweet was very handsome back in the day and Hunter always adds gravitas.
There's plenty of twists and turns. It's not always top rank - it would have been better creating more of a relationship between Sweet and Bill Hunter for instance. I think they knocked out Bill Hunter too soon - it would've been a better movie had Regan and Sweet known about the money earlier because then they never would've been sure if they were into each other or the money.
Still at least it's into narrative. Lahiff tries to keep the pace moving. Sweet was very handsome back in the day and Hunter always adds gravitas.
Thursday, May 28, 2020
Movie review - "The Killing of Angel Street" (1981) **
The making of this film was extremely difficult, with anxious politicians and businessmen making vague threats, difficulties almost getting Julie Christie to play the lead (they couldn't come up with the cash in the end), sacking Bill Hunter for John Hargreaves.
Maybe this led to all the excitement being drained out of it. Or maybe the filmmakers weren't up to it.
Some effective moments - like the solitary house along the streets. It's a throwback to the time of green bans, militant unions, unionists who were communists, developers were more violently criminal, pubs reeked of smoke, the Sydney inner city hadn't gentrified.
Elizabeth Alexander does well in the lead and there's some fine acting from Hargreaves, Alexander Archdale, Reg Evans and so on... plus the novelty of seeing Tony Martin in an early role.
But it's flat. For a film based on a true story there's an awful lot of cliches -villains popping up out of the back seat of cars, heroes going to the media to Tell All, people singing protest chants in the pub (on the march I can understand but in a pub?), evil businessmen literally chuckling evilly in a boardroom and playing golf, groovy tenants, the heroine dangled off a building ledge.
There's not a lot of nuance - the communist unionist is heroic and martyred - a bit ruthless and indifferent to Alexander's suffering but even then he's doing it In a Good Cause. The brother and his wife look as though they're going to add complexity but, no, the wife is all for the struggle and the brother just misses out on a job opportunity.
The drama is underwhelming - at the end we don't see Alexander go for it. She keeps changing her mind about what she's going to do... then talks... but we don't see what she's going to say. It's implied she's going to tell the truth but we just hear the intro, she could be then about to lie... The green ban kicks in, but there's no fall out. It's ambiguous and while the filmmakers might argue this was intentional I get the feeling it was more incompetence because at the end you feel... what? Corruption goes on? But a unionist has been killed. I mean, that's going to cause some noise isn't it? If she made these allegations... surely there'd be some fall out. If not... then there would be fall out too.
It's frustrating. I think they got so exhausted by the production process they didn't bring their A game.
Maybe this led to all the excitement being drained out of it. Or maybe the filmmakers weren't up to it.
Some effective moments - like the solitary house along the streets. It's a throwback to the time of green bans, militant unions, unionists who were communists, developers were more violently criminal, pubs reeked of smoke, the Sydney inner city hadn't gentrified.
Elizabeth Alexander does well in the lead and there's some fine acting from Hargreaves, Alexander Archdale, Reg Evans and so on... plus the novelty of seeing Tony Martin in an early role.
But it's flat. For a film based on a true story there's an awful lot of cliches -villains popping up out of the back seat of cars, heroes going to the media to Tell All, people singing protest chants in the pub (on the march I can understand but in a pub?), evil businessmen literally chuckling evilly in a boardroom and playing golf, groovy tenants, the heroine dangled off a building ledge.
There's not a lot of nuance - the communist unionist is heroic and martyred - a bit ruthless and indifferent to Alexander's suffering but even then he's doing it In a Good Cause. The brother and his wife look as though they're going to add complexity but, no, the wife is all for the struggle and the brother just misses out on a job opportunity.
The drama is underwhelming - at the end we don't see Alexander go for it. She keeps changing her mind about what she's going to do... then talks... but we don't see what she's going to say. It's implied she's going to tell the truth but we just hear the intro, she could be then about to lie... The green ban kicks in, but there's no fall out. It's ambiguous and while the filmmakers might argue this was intentional I get the feeling it was more incompetence because at the end you feel... what? Corruption goes on? But a unionist has been killed. I mean, that's going to cause some noise isn't it? If she made these allegations... surely there'd be some fall out. If not... then there would be fall out too.
It's frustrating. I think they got so exhausted by the production process they didn't bring their A game.
Movie review - "Kitty and the Bagman" (1981) **
A confused movie. For a time it seems that Tony Buckley and Don Crombie are trying to remake Caddie with Liddy Clark as a classy gal who is betrayed by a low life bloke (here David Bradshaw) starts to slum it in bars, hanging with a low rent barmaid (here Collette Mann), and falls or for a spiv (some guy in a moustache). She winds up in a rivalry with Val Lehman and this just should have been Tilly Devine vs Kate Leigh. That would've been fun - no need to change names when the characters are dead.
But the film goes on detours - there's too much Bagman, not enough Val Lehman. They take time out for this train robbery.
It looks great. The actors are fine - Libby Clark never became a star but she's got spirit and life. It's not her fault the movie doesn't work. It's the fault of the filmmakers who veer away from the exciting conflict.
This is classic 10BA in many ways. Filmmakers with solid track records. Plenty of cast. Decent premise - it must have sounded terrific in the brochure. Muddled execution. They should have called in Joan Long to write the script - or some other competent woman. It's a film about a woman it needed more women in the key creative team.
This isn't one of those movies where you go "this should never have been made". This had an excellent reason to be made. It was just poorly made.
But the film goes on detours - there's too much Bagman, not enough Val Lehman. They take time out for this train robbery.
It looks great. The actors are fine - Libby Clark never became a star but she's got spirit and life. It's not her fault the movie doesn't work. It's the fault of the filmmakers who veer away from the exciting conflict.
This is classic 10BA in many ways. Filmmakers with solid track records. Plenty of cast. Decent premise - it must have sounded terrific in the brochure. Muddled execution. They should have called in Joan Long to write the script - or some other competent woman. It's a film about a woman it needed more women in the key creative team.
This isn't one of those movies where you go "this should never have been made". This had an excellent reason to be made. It was just poorly made.
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Book review - "A Life in Movies: Stories from 50 years in Hollywood" by Irwin Winkler (2019)
Highly entertaining career look by Winkler, who has an astonishing record as producer and a decent one as director. He started his career in the mail room, became a manager with Bob Chartoff, and segued his way into producing after impressing Bob O'Brien at MGM which was cool.
He did all sorts of films - including Double Trouble an Elvis movie which was meant to be a vehicle for Julie Christie - but got lucky with Point Blank and They Shoot Horses Don't They. Lots of misfires, but plenty of good movies too then striking the mother lode with Rocky. Winkler has continued to try to make good films, even after breaking with Chartoff, even after working as a director. His record as director isn't as strong - I was surprised he'd made so many movies. He must be good company.
Plenty of fun stories - the ego of Peter Bogdanovich, the chaos of Horses, the drama of Rocky. Recommended.
He did all sorts of films - including Double Trouble an Elvis movie which was meant to be a vehicle for Julie Christie - but got lucky with Point Blank and They Shoot Horses Don't They. Lots of misfires, but plenty of good movies too then striking the mother lode with Rocky. Winkler has continued to try to make good films, even after breaking with Chartoff, even after working as a director. His record as director isn't as strong - I was surprised he'd made so many movies. He must be good company.
Plenty of fun stories - the ego of Peter Bogdanovich, the chaos of Horses, the drama of Rocky. Recommended.
Movie review - "Don's Party" (1976) ***1/2
I saw this as a teenager and it was too young to see it. Being older I get it more though it is very much a piece of its time and place.
It's been beautifully cast in the most part. John Hargreaves is perfect as Don. Ray Barrett is older than him as Mal which is a little jarring but he's superb. So too are Graham Kennedy (what a dramatic debut!), Pat Bishop (making wonders with her role, in what is the best female part because she's got that terrific scene with Don/Hargreaves), Candy Raymond (a knock out but also very good), Veronica Lang, Graeme Blundell, Kit Taylor (again doing great work with a not particularly deeply written part). Claire Binney seems a little out of depth in what is not a great role; Jeannie Drynan has probably the worst part, sulky Kath - she does what she can, but her final outbreak isn't that terrific. Harold Hopkins isn't quite right as Cooley - probably better than Paul Hogan would have been (though props to the boldness of that casting). Jack Thompson really should have played that part.
Some of this is tremendous. The camaraderie, the silliness. Beresford keeps it moving fast, locates the action around the house but sparks it up with sex, nudity, pace, different rooms, a swimming pool, some scenes outside to start off with, a cameo from John Gorton and Beresford himself.
Some scenes are awful such as the women sitting talking about how the men are in bed. The bit where they throw Binney in the pool feels awkwardly non-consensual. There's a bit too much male nudity though that is true of the time.
Candy Raymond is amazing - she should have done more. Had at least a Wendy Hughes level career. Too sexy, maybe? The name? Kennedy is so touching. The gropy/sexist nature of the male characters is softened by casting actors who didn't give off a very sexual vibe (Kennedy, Hargreaves, Blundell, Barrett).
It's been beautifully cast in the most part. John Hargreaves is perfect as Don. Ray Barrett is older than him as Mal which is a little jarring but he's superb. So too are Graham Kennedy (what a dramatic debut!), Pat Bishop (making wonders with her role, in what is the best female part because she's got that terrific scene with Don/Hargreaves), Candy Raymond (a knock out but also very good), Veronica Lang, Graeme Blundell, Kit Taylor (again doing great work with a not particularly deeply written part). Claire Binney seems a little out of depth in what is not a great role; Jeannie Drynan has probably the worst part, sulky Kath - she does what she can, but her final outbreak isn't that terrific. Harold Hopkins isn't quite right as Cooley - probably better than Paul Hogan would have been (though props to the boldness of that casting). Jack Thompson really should have played that part.
Some of this is tremendous. The camaraderie, the silliness. Beresford keeps it moving fast, locates the action around the house but sparks it up with sex, nudity, pace, different rooms, a swimming pool, some scenes outside to start off with, a cameo from John Gorton and Beresford himself.
Some scenes are awful such as the women sitting talking about how the men are in bed. The bit where they throw Binney in the pool feels awkwardly non-consensual. There's a bit too much male nudity though that is true of the time.
Candy Raymond is amazing - she should have done more. Had at least a Wendy Hughes level career. Too sexy, maybe? The name? Kennedy is so touching. The gropy/sexist nature of the male characters is softened by casting actors who didn't give off a very sexual vibe (Kennedy, Hargreaves, Blundell, Barrett).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)