Always have a lot of time for your reviews, Caractacus.
...
My parents have a flat in Nerja, Andalucia, where this movie was partly filmed.
thanks for saying, Chris
I know I ran the "nice scenery" joke into the ground, but how do you not with a film like this?
In all seriousness, the landscape revealed during the big parachute jump onto the villains patio was spectacular and worth rewatching just for its own sake.
You're mighty lucky your parents have a place right near there. You can visit anytime, I am jealous.
I see from GoogleMaps I once caught a ferry from near there to eastern Morocco. Long time ago by my own personal timescale, but that part of the world looked like it could have been the same for millennia. Crazy mountain ranges to be crossing on a bicycle with not enough water!
now I never promised it was going to be good, but that's a subjective value judgement. I did suspect it might be relevant to your particular areas of expertise!
Theres a lot of 1960s SpyFilms to choose from, which can be overwhelming! so why not make an easy decision and skip straight to the one with Raquel Welch in a skimpy green bikini?
After watching "Fathom" this weekend I felt the need to see Raquel Welch acting again. While "Fathom" was a please check in your brain first" movie, this one is more ambitious in every way. 100 Rifles is a western even though it takes place in Mexico in 1912. Burt Reynolds plays a half white/half India... I mean Native American who has robbed an US bank to buy 100 rifles for his mother's people. NB! The guns are Norwegian Krag-Jørgensen rifles!
Jim Brown plays a US sheriff who has followed Reynolds' character to Mexico to arrest him. Raquel Welch plays a Native Ameri... I give up and will call them indians from now on. The Mexican army treats the indians horribly and she plays one of the leaders of their rebelion. Welsh gets to stretch her acting ability in some major drama scenes as well as doing quite a lot of action. She really gets to do a lot besides looking hot, but of course Welsh shows off her looks too. Especially in a scene where she stops an army train. It's also noteworthy that she has a love scene with Brown's character, a controversial black/white sex scene in 1969. Reynolds was really a TV star at the time, but he gets to show he is movie star material.
This is a good western and well worth watching.
100 rifles (1969)
After watching "Fathom" this weekend I felt the need to see Raquel Welch acting again.
This is a good western and well worth watching.
Yes. It is.
Tom Gries was the director and he made a few interesting films around the late '60s and early '70s - Will Penny, Breakheart Pass, The Hawaiians - his last film was the self-starring biopic of Muhammad Ali The Greatest.
Jim Brown also made the rather gory El Condor in 1969. I like Brown; an underrated performer.
100 Rifles was filmed in Almeria, a region of Andalucia, and just up the road from Nerja [see my post, 4 above] where FATHOM was partly shot. I've been to Tabernas, a town which is uniformly bleak, and where the cast stayed while filming this movie. One street is even called Calle 100 Rifles. From the ruined castle atop the central hillock a location map points out the valleys and plains of Europe's only desert, where the outdoor scenes for 100 Rifles, El Condor, Trinity and Patton were filmed. There are two or three 'wild west' towns locally which were once used as movie sets.
I like Quentin Tarantino's comment: 'How can you f### up a movie with Jim Brown, Raquel Welch and Burt Reynolds?' That's a trifle unfair. It's much better than that and less tortuous than either of his homage westerns.
This excellent and lovely looking and sounding movie becomes more problematic as one gets older. It starts when you begin to feel more sympathy for the Mrs Robinson character.
Other than that, Hoffman's Benjamin seems quite autistic - he's on the spectrum, for sure. It's almost a precursor to Rain Man.
You notice in the opener where he's on the conveyer belt at the airport and looking blank and expressionless though the way it's directed and the S&G song makes it brilliant and cool.
But you get it at other times - when he's renting a room near Berkeley College and is being shown it by the live-in landlord - Benji is just a bit too close behind him, there's a lack of spatial awareness.
At the time, you just think, well this is a young lad who doesn't quite know how to behave, it's quite charming. Being younger, you might also relate to it a bit and enjoy seeing all this up on the screen.
It's amusing to see him go for Mrs Robinson and then.... well, I won't do spoilers for the younger among us. But latterly you sort of feel sorry for all the people he interacted with really. This ambivalence was noted at the time but you pick up on it later on in life. I mean, his parents buy him a flash car and he doesn't even thank them. Okay, so it's the era of She's Leaving Home by the Beatles and Money Can't Buy You Love but all the same...
But as with some Bond films where there's a moral equivocation the production values, comedy and flair gloss over all this.
I hated it when I saw it as a teenage adolescent - especially the music - and hated it when I re-watched it in my late thirties. As you say, I struggled with the Hoffman character, who is very odd, self-obsessed, socially dysfunctional and distinctly uncool. I identified more with Mrs Robinson the second time around, having been dumped by a university-age girlfriend when I was 37 - she ran off with some kid in medical college. I can't quite put my finger on why I dislike it, but I think having a central character who is so selfishly impulsive doesn't help. Nor does having an actor way too old to play a startled, rabbit-in-lights youngster. Nor does that bloody music.
'That bloody music'! Not a fan then. )
Now, I've been turning this review around in my mind and thinking ChrisNo1's exploits would make a good movie itself, perhaps along the lines of Bill Murray's Rushmore.
What puzzles me is what kind of music a younger chrisno1 would have preferred for The Graduate? As young Benji's plane descends and he steps on the conveyer belt at the airport, what should be playing if not The Sound of Silence? I've toyed with the Beatles' Helter Skelter, or Senators' Son (name of band escapes me temporarily). Or The Who's I Can See For Miles - that would work well.
But perhaps S+G were too groovy and hip for our young ajb member? Perhaps in his youth he was into Frank Sinatra's Capital phase? In which case 'It's Nice to Go Travelling' would work a treat for the opener.
When Benji slams the door shut on a lecherous looking Mrs Robinson, it could slide in to the Beatles 'Why Don't We Do it in the Road'. Or Bassey's Goldfinger. Ah, well.
This excellent and lovely looking and sounding movie becomes more problematic as one gets older. It starts when you begin to feel more sympathy for the Mrs Robinson character.
Other than that, Hoffman's Benjamin seems quite autistic - he's on the spectrum, for sure. It's almost a precursor to Rain Man.
You notice in the opener where he's on the conveyer belt at the airport and looking blank and expressionless though the way it's directed and the S&G song makes it brilliant and cool.
But you get it at other times - when he's renting a room near Berkeley College and is being shown it by the live-in landlord - Benji is just a bit too close behind him, there's a lack of spatial awareness.
At the time, you just think, well this is a young lad who doesn't quite know how to behave, it's quite charming. Being younger, you might also relate to it a bit and enjoy seeing all this up on the screen.
It's amusing to see him go for Mrs Robinson and then.... well, I won't do spoilers for the younger among us. But latterly you sort of feel sorry for all the people he interacted with really. This ambivalence was noted at the time but you pick up on it later on in life. I mean, his parents buy him a flash car and he doesn't even thank them. Okay, so it's the era of She's Leaving Home by the Beatles and Money Can't Buy You Love but all the same...
But as with some Bond films where there's a moral equivocation the production values, comedy and flair gloss over all this.
I hated it when I saw it as a teenage adolescent - especially the music - and hated it when I re-watched it in my late thirties. As you say, I struggled with the Hoffman character, who is very odd, self-obsessed, socially dysfunctional and distinctly uncool. I identified more with Mrs Robinson the second time around, having been dumped by a university-age girlfriend when I was 37 - she ran off with some kid in medical college. I can't quite put my finger on why I dislike it, but I think having a central character who is so selfishly impulsive doesn't help. Nor does having an actor way too old to play a startled, rabbit-in-lights youngster. Nor does that bloody music.
'That bloody music'! Not a fan then. )
Now, I've been turning this review around in my mind and thinking ChrisNo1's exploits would make a good movie itself, perhaps along the lines of Bill Murray's Rushmore.
What puzzles me is what kind of music a younger chrisno1 would have preferred for The Graduate? As young Benji's plane descends and he steps on the conveyer belt at the airport, what should be playing if not The Sound of Silence? I've toyed with the Beatles' Helter Skelter, or Senators' Son (name of band escapes me temporarily). Or The Who's I Can See For Miles - that would work well.
But perhaps S+G were too groovy and hip for our young ajb member? Perhaps in his youth he was into Frank Sinatra's Capital phase? In which case 'It's Nice to Go Travelling' would work a treat for the opener.
When Benji slams the door shut on a lecherous looking Mrs Robinson, it could slide in to the Beatles 'Why Don't We Do it in the Road'. Or Bassey's Goldfinger. Ah, well.
Miles Davis 'Someday My Prince Will Come' maybe...
Directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack and Irving Pichel, this adaptation of Richard Connell’s short story was released in the U.K. under the rather more exotic title The Hounds of Zaroff. Either way, it’s a damn fine film.
It is amazing what magic moviemakers could create in the golden days of Hollywood. Not quite a horror movie, but full of horrific incident, this is a beautifully designed and brilliantly constructed film. It was made partly on the cheap during the filming of producers Schoedsack, Merian C. Cooper and David O. Selznick’s monster epic King Kong. There are only six interior sound stages for the whole presentation and two of them are the ship’s bridge and cocktail lounge, which along with all the exterior jungle sets can be seen in the afore-mentioned classic. The producers even borrow four of the cast. Apparently most of the film was shot at night so as not to halt the other production. Not only was the result a success at the box office, it was also a critical success and remains a classic of the era.
A brief synopsis:
Bob Rainsford has recently completed a big game hunt in South America and, on the voyage home, he discusses with his fellow passengers the merits of the chase. Rainsford claims the animals enjoy the hunt as much as he. Challenged to state if he would swap places with his prey, Rainsford refuses to answer. The yacht runs aground in shallow water and all hands are lost except Rainsford, who surviving a shark attack, makes it to the nearby Pacific island of Baranka. Here he discovers the channel buoys have been deliberately misplaced. He also finds a castle-like chateau inhabited by the sophisticated Russian Count Zaroff and his sinister entourage, which includes a pack of vicious hunting dogs. The Count already has two other visitors, the beautiful Eve Trowbridge and her inebriate brother, Martin. During the evening, Zaroff explains he too is a hunter, but, bored with wild animals, he has discovered on his island ‘the most dangerous game.’ That evening Martin disappears. Bob and Eve recce the chateau and discover Zaroff’s trophy room is full of preserved, severed human heads. While they investigate, Zaroff and his men return with Martin’s corpse. The Count explains he hunts human prey and offers Rainsford the opportunity to join him in the kill. When he refuses, Bob and Eve are released into the jungle. If they can survive until sunrise, Zaroff will set them free. No one has ever survived. There follows an exciting, extended chase through the jungle as Zaroff uses a bow and arrow, a scoped hunting rifle and his teeth-baring dogs in cause of his pursuit. Eventually, while battling one of the hounds, Rainsford is shot and topples over a waterfall to his death. Zaroff returns to his chateau with Eve and prepares a victory seduction. At sun-fall, Rainsford reappears. Zaroff’s shot only killed the dog and he managed to swim clear. In a violent brawl, Rainsford kills one of the manservants and fatally wounds the Count. As Rainsford and Eve escape in the motor launch, Zaroff falls into his dog pen to be consumed by the blood-crazed hounds.
Full of wonderful images, this movie never fails to disappoint. The jungle sets are realistic. The model work for the steam yacht better than average. The chateau interiors are huge, looming and brooding. They look and feel as if Count Dracula, not Count Zaroff inhabits them. It’s fair to say the latter is probably the more frightening monster, so callous and nefarious is he in his killings. There is splendid use of dark and light. The midnight trip to the trophy room is particularly effective, the shadows extenuated by the flickering candles. [Apparently, this sequence was originally much longer, but preview audiences were so horrified by the mutilated corpses, they walked out; subsequently the scene was candidly edited.] There is a brilliant swooping close-up of Zaroff’s malevolently lustful expression as he wishes Eve goodnight. The waterfall set-piece is realistically drenched in spray and steam. A struggle through a sludgy swamp has ghostly figures drifting in and out of murky mist. Henry Gerrard’s camerawork is superb throughout. Max Steiner’s score is suitably frantic.
The film doesn’t waste any energy. It could possibly have benefitted from a longer pre-amble. Occasionally the explanatory dialogue feels misplaced. For instance, Eve reveals her suspicions about Zaroff during the Count’s piano recital when it might have been better for her to have called into Rainsford’s bedroom later that night. But these are minor points. The film is really only interested in the central concept of man as hunter and hunted. To that end it succeeds brilliantly. The long chase is a gripping, tension-laden twenty minutes, as incident follows incident, and the hounds scamper closer and closer to their prey, and Zaroff – eyes and nose twitching in delight – steals in hot blooded pursuit. Archie Marshek edits away any unnecessary flab.
The screenplay too functions economically. James Ashmore Creelman ensures only the meat of the story remains in the shooting script. All excess fat is carved off. So almost every line is loaded with meaning:
“I was thinking of the inconsistency of civilisation. The beast of the jungle killing for its existence is considered savage. But man killing for sport is civilised.”
“God made some men kings, some beggars. He made me a hunter.”
“Kill! Then love! When you have known that, you have known ecstasy!”
“Here on my island, I hunt the most dangerous game.”
“I was so entranced by the Count’s story, I didn’t see the danger.”
Perhaps most potently, Rainsford says early on: “This world’s divided into two kinds of people: the hunter and the hunted. Luckily I’m a hunter.” While he initially refuses Zaroff’s offer to trap, pursue and kill humans, when threatened Rainsford regresses to the type he identifies most with and – having escaped the actual hunt – he returns to kill his own prey. There is also an undercurrent of erotica as Zaroff is keen to demonstrate the reward for success is the female of the species. He will not hunt women; they are reserved for the delights of reveille.
The performances are better than adequate. Joel McRea – always a serviceable action hero – is upright and worthy. Physically, he can more than cope with the jungle exploits. The gorgeous Fay Wray is just the right side of vulnerable, yet just capable enough not to be a hindrance. She gets to practice screaming, which would come in handy for King Kong. Robert Armstrong’s boorish consumerist Martin Trowbridge neatly reflects the opposite side of the coin to Zaroff’s studied, extreme liberalism. We’re not surprised the dullard is disposed of. The outstanding performance is from the British actor Leslie Banks as the Count. This was his movie debut and it’s a role which requires calm assurance, metered to a controlled baleful insanity. Zaroff is given a nasty facial scar and Banks uses it as a prop, touching it at moments of tension, when the Count is disappointed, aroused and angered. It’s a simple method to demonstrate the Count’s unhinged nature. During the pursuit, you can almost see him growling, baring his incisors, salivating, like an eager hound. It is no surprise he charges past his dead henchman, Ivan, as if the man had never existed.
The Most Dangerous Game has been remade and imitated several times in the last ninety years, but nothing has ever come close. At a mere 65 minutes, the bones of the film are tremendously slim, yet they carry a body of much substance and scope. In terms of outright pure action and thrills, most movies of the 1930s can’t come close. Perhaps only the much later westerns, like Stagecoach and Jesse James, those Errol Flynn swashbucklers or the Warner Bros. gangster cycle. And, of course, Cooper, Selznick and Schoedsack’s next thrill ride: King Kong.
This is a film that I've been meaning to watch for a long time - more than a decade in fact. It was covered in a film course that I did at university but I never actually got round to watching the film. Well, I've remedied that now and The Wages of Fear is definitely a contender for a spot on my list of 100 favourite films. It's lengthy at two and a half hours, and takes about an hourr before the events of the plot are really set in motion. Basically there's a fire at an oil well in South America, and the oil company need to transport a highly explosive cargo of nitroglycerine via a difficult mountain pass over dodgy roads without bumping the cargo with explosive results. The first hour sets up the characters, who are a ragtag group of unemployed men desperate for a bit of cash, making them ideal candidates for such a dangerous job.
Once the explosive laden trucks are on the road the excruciating tension builds as the drivers encounter obstacle after obstacle. The performances from the four leads are very good, and the director is masterful at ratcheting up the suspense further and further. I have to hand it to the French directors of the 1950s - this film, as well as Rififi and Elevator to the Gallows, rank amongst the finest suspense thrillers I have ever seen. This film also comments on the exploitative oil bosses, and I gather that in the past the film was cut in order to be less critical of the American oil company.
This is a film that I've been meaning to watch for a long time - more than a decade in fact. It was covered in a film course that I did at university but I never actually got round to watching the film.
Instead of Brodie's Notes, did you just watch the trailer?
This film was remade as Convoy wasn't it? I did see the original years ago - this seems to be another one of those many films that simply never get shown telly.
The Dig, on Netflix, with our own Ralph Fiennes as the doughty but low-class excavator who uncovers the incredible find at Sutton Hoo and Carey Mulligan as the terminal owner of the property. Digging up an Anglo Saxon ship without a ghost or ancient curse associated with ain't the most exciting of subjects for a film, so the class problem and terminal disease are really played up. . .as is the role of Lily James (again wearing glasses and in a mousy hairstyle to hide the fact she's smokin' hot) as a young archeologist whose talents are unappreciated by her husband and who begins making goo-goo eyes at the site photographer, who's about to be called up to the looming Second World War. OK, I'm being facetious, but it's an enjoyable film--well-acted and beautifully shot--and certainly worth the time.
The Curse of Frankenstein, 1957
with Peter Cushing as the doctor and Christopher Lee as the monster.
its the first Hammer Horror film! I'd seen Hound of the Baskervilles, and One Million BC, and She, but never a proper Hammer Horror before.
I don't think this is quite Mary Shelley's novel, but the tone is more literary than the Universal version, with lots of emphasis on the costumes and the period decor and long philosophical dialogs. Whereas the Universal doctor famously said "in the name of God, now I know what it feels like to be God", this entire film is a verbal debate on the moral boundaries of scientific research.
And lots of graphic full colour blood and gore.
And two very suspenseful sequences where different women unwittingly enter Frankenstein's laboratory. (thats a lot of square footage of the house for these women never to have entered before despite living under the same roof)
I did feel surprisingly sorry for our "hero" after his brain was damaged after all the trouble he went to to procure it. Well, not his brain, per se, but the one in a jar he was intending to use.
Any way this was good and I see why the series is so revered, so shall seek out more!
Caractacus, yes, Curse of Frankenstein is a very good movie, though not quite as classic as Hammer's version of Dracula. What I enjoyed and what was so different to the Universal original was the callousness of Cushing's Victor Frankenstein. Everybody is a usable commodity for his whim, dead bodies, his fiance, servant girls, etc. It's a very good portrayal of how power - here the power of science - corrupts. Because Frankenstein believes he is godlike, he believes he is above ordinary morality. And yes, lots if garish, vivid photography and heaving cleavage. Uniformly excellent.
The wife was in a spy mood so we whipped through all of the BOURNE films over the past week, in order.
THE BOURNE IDENTITY (2002), Doug Liman
An extremely solid first entry and, once we finished all of the films, our agreed upon favorite of the series. A terrific balance of character and action. The film also benefits from the sense of discovery which the subsequent films kinda lack as they're merely continuing the story.
THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (2004), Paul Greengrass
Excellent but the pervasive shaky cam muddled a lot of the action sequences to the point of incoherence. Damon seems more assured in the role here. Our third favorite entry in the series.
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (2007), Paul Greengrass
Essentially a direct sequel to Supremacy as the timelines kinda interconnect with each other. A much more coherent entry in the franchise and features possibly the best action sequence (the Tangier chase and fight). Our second favorite entry in the series.
THE BOURNE LEGACY (2012), Tony Gilroy
A peripheral film in that Jason Bourne does not appear in it. It's a solid film if taken as its own thing (divorced from the other films) and Jeremy Renner makes for a good lead, but it's stylistically different from the other films and doesn't have the narrative oomph that makes the other films so gripping. Our fifth favorite entry in the series BUT, to be clear, not a bad film.
JASON BOURNE (2016), Paul Greengrass
Damon and Greengrass return and the events of Legacy are ignored. It's good but the new narrative throughline isn't all that gripping. The final action sequence in Las Vegas is great but really pushes credulity, especially when compared to the relative believability of all of the other sequences in the franchise. Our fourth favorite entry in the series.
Lots of fun.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the Bourne films, and am pleased to hear that The Bourne Identity was your favourite of the bunch. It is also my favourite, and over the years I've come to believe that this is not a particularly popular opinion. Having read many reviews and listened to a number of podcast discussions of the Bourne films, it is often ranked lower than the later films directed by Paul Greengrass. I personally feel it has the strongest narrative, and as you said, the process of discovery makes it a very interesting character journey. I think I've enjoyed each successive Bourne film less than the previous one (and I should point out that I never got around to watching Jason Bourne) but my ranking of the first four films goes in order of release....Sort of diminishing returns, as they say. I do like all of the original trilogy a lot though.
Caractacus, yes, Curse of Frankenstein is a very good movie, though not quite as classic as Hammer's version of Dracula. What I enjoyed and what was so different to the Universal original was the callousness of Cushing's Victor Frankenstein. Everybody is a usable commodity for his whim, dead bodies, his fiance, servant girls, etc. It's a very good portrayal of how power - here the power of science - corrupts. Because Frankenstein believes he is godlike, he believes he is above ordinary morality. And yes, lots if garish, vivid photography and heaving cleavage. Uniformly excellent.
Cushing sure acted up a storm, really the film was all bout his character flaws, with the monster being just the most conspicuous product of said flaws, rather than the main attraction.
I did like all the detail of his laboratory, at one point I notice he's cooking and eating his meals in there with all the bodyparts in jars and bubbling testtubes all around the plates he's eating off!
and towards the end we get a clear view of the landing at top of the stairs where the older scientist had fallen from, he still has not repaired it despite the dialog telling us months had gone by! nice subtle bit of character revealing continuity detail.
speaking of heaving bosoms: the actress playing the fiancee slightly resembled Madeleine Kahn, but thats gotta be coincidence: I don't think Mel Brooks referenced this Hammer version otherwise. And Brooks would have cast Kahn no matter what previous versions of Frankenstein's fiancee looked like.
Back to Bourne, yes it's kind of diminishing returns for me too. Not least because each successive film sort of undoes what we understood about the previous one. The third one I took against because Damon really had put on the weight yet it comes straight after no 2 so it's a continuity problem.
As it goes on it becomes less and less plausible that Bourne is still so up to speed that he can run rings around the best security services not just physically but in terms of his technological know-how. I mean, in the first film it's clear he's only outwitting a few gendarmes, plus his existence is taking those higher up by surprise.
What's more, it's a tad dispiriting by the final film to find
that he's having to take part in bare knuckle fights to raise money and his cottage with a white picket fence or whatever his dream is never really comes about, realistic though it is in terms of taking on the State, which never really sleeps and never really gives up.
I recall watching Liman's Go! many years back and thinking he could do a Bond film at a time when as now the magic ingredients for a Bond director seemed (and to some extent still are) eternally elusive.
A nice afternoon watching Elvis strut his toned-down stuff in his first post-Army movie. It isn't based on his military career, but a lot of fans thought it was. The King plays Tulsa McLean, an Oklahoma boy in a tank regiment who also plays guitar and sings in a band, spends time ripping off his Sergeant and even more time romancing the ladies. There is a lot of trivial comedy, some kids, a beautiful leading lady, a fist fight and lots of singing in bars, at puppet shows and on cable cars.
Nicely photographed by Oscar winner Lloyd Griggs, well costumed by Oscar winner Edith Head, neat set design from Oscar winner Hal Pereira, flat but workmanlike direction from Oscar winner Norman Taurog - producer Hal Wallis really threw the dollars at this one and it kind of works. This is the first of the formula Elvis films and one of the brightest and breeziest. His four pre-army movies were all fairly serious fare interspersed with Elvis singing on stage or in a recording studio. They showcased his rock n roll credentials and his rebel persona. After his spell doing military service, the Colonel - Elvis' myopic manager - decided his protégé needed smartening up. Hence his fifth movie would be a more family orientated film than his fifties sorties but one which still retained a bullish, modish edge.
Tulsa McLean and his buddies are tricksters, wasting as much time as they can, conning their colleagues, gambling, womanising. This leads Tulsa into accepting a bet to spend a night alone with the fabulous unobtainable cabaret dancer Lili, played with much knowing cheerfulness by Juliet Prowse, fresh off the set of Can-Can. She dances well and looks fabulous. She's a good comic foil to Elvis and the two construct a series of scenes which have excellent sparky dialogue. The rest of the plot is fairly inconsequential. It's enough to know it all works out for the best; Tulsa and his mates all have their rough edges scrubbed away by the dames and Elvis even breaks the fourth wall with a final line to the audience.
The songs are very good. This is a much more complete set of numbers than many of his later movies. Pocketful of Rainbows is dreamy, Frankfort Special, Shoppin' Around and G.I. Blues have the swagger, Wooden Heart is the classic ballad. Generally, though the songs are thoughtfully staged and neatly interspersed, there is no attempt to disguise the fact they were recorded in the studio and Elvis' lip-syncing is at times terrible. He's also phenomenally static. There's one cute joke mid-song where his knee shakes and he clutches it to stop the tremor. Basically he spends most of the 'performance' numbers standing still, which is very peculiar.
All in all, a very enjoyable couple of hours, but I have the soundtrack album and it's more fun just to listen to the brilliant songs, which do make a brilliant set and topped the UK charts for oodles of weeks in 1960/61.
If you like spy movies (and chances are you do) you'll love this movie! It's based on a book by the German diplomatic attached in Turkey during WWII, a job one correctly guesses was a cover for espionage work. Much of the story is true. The main character played by James Mason was the servant of the British ambasador in Ankara, a smart man intimately familiar with and yet completely excluded from a life of power and affluence. He sells secret from the ambassador's safe to the Germans for a lot of money.
The man was code named Cisero. In the movie (not in real life) he was in love with a emigre countess who has lost her social status and fortune. I won't spoil more of the story, but it's full of secrets, spying, tension and betrayals. The content and style of the movie reminds me a lot of Alfred Hitchcock, but actually the director is Joseph Mankiewicz (Cleopatra, The bridge over the river Kwai).
We get scenes in both Ankara and Istanbul that could be taken from FRWL and men in tuxes in a first-rate spy thriller. Please note it's a thriller, not an action movie. There are a couple of links to James Bond:
- The story was also used in a TV series where Cisero was played by David Hedison who we know as Felix Leiter in LALD and LTK.
- The German ambasador to Turkey who we see in the movie was Franz von Papen. The Soviet assassination attempt on his life in 1942 was the model for the bomb attack on Bond in the CR novel.
Number24,
Mankiewicz didn't direct The Bridge on the River Kwai - that was David Lean - although I think he was in partnership with the films producer Sam Spiegel for a couple of films.
I am big fan of his CLEOPATRA which is a quiet epic and has some great lines - many stolen from Shakespeare - and stunning photography. LIz Taylor, OMG, gorgeous.
ALL ABOUT EVE is a classic of classics, a cutting, vicious satire.
I've never seen FIVE FINGERS; you have nicely whetted my appetite and I'll try and catch it when I can.
You're right of course. I wrote it in spite of knowing better. It was the screen writer on "5 Fingers" who worked on "The bridge over the river Kwai". Michael Wilson was quite a character. He served in the US Marines IN WWII, but refused to testefy in the HUAC hearings and was black-listed for decades.
ALL ABOUT EVE is a classic of classics, a cutting, vicious satire.
ooh, I've seen that one, that was good. Backstage psychodrama, it takes place almost entirely in the dressing rooms behind the theatre.
Bette Davis as the fading star, Anne Baxter as the backstabbing protege, George Sanders as the critic, and an early cameo from Marilyn Monroe.
wikipedia says Mankiewicz also directed an adaptation of Graham Greene's The Quiet American, but completely missed the point of the book. hmmm, that's problematic...
Pierce at the height of his box office power playing to his strengths as a sophisticated playboy who likes to steal paintings. Hard to believe this was 1999. It feels like yesterday. I remember I saw this in the cinema with a girlfriend and we both immediately thought 'ooh, there's more to PB than Bond & Remington Steele'. [I think she secretly fancied him, as it happens; I digress.]
It's a fun inconsequential ride which hasn't aged well. I saw the 1968 original last year and that has rather dated also, but has the redeeming feature of Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway acting very cool and sexy. A great score and song for that one and lots of chic sixties clothes and split screen effects.
It's all much more straightforward here, though the clothes are still pretty. Faye Dunaway even has a pointless cameo as a useless psychiatrist. The two robberies are well staged and I enjoyed the back-and-forth chit-chat between PB and Rene Russo, who is oozing sex appeal as the insurance investigator pitting her wits against Thomas Crown and Denis Leary's weary NY detective. Pierce is, well, he's just oozing something slightly oily, too-clever-by-half and Brut 33 like. Russo's character is more contradictory than PB's obvious Thomas Crown. Her habit of squealing is annoying and feels childish for a sophisticated, independent, driven woman. She screams in a glider, on an aeroplane, in bed - oh yes, I'd forgotten about the sex scene on the marble staircase - oooooo, chilly.
It's lightweight and easily digested. The action is well photographed and glossy. The good workmanlike script doesn't mess us about. There's effective restrained direction from John McTiernan. And a cute little score from our own Bill Conti which neatly references Michel Legrand's The Windmills of Your Mind from the earlier movie.
I would have preferred the ending to by similar to the original. Somehow the happy resolution here loses something in both their characters. Definitely a thriller for the Sex and the City generation.
I haven't seen this movie in about thirty years, but I'm glad I revisited it. The low budget shows and the US location with rainy pine forrests is a far cry from the exotic locations in the sequels. But we don't get the extreme bodybuilding and violence either. Rambo is a real human being here, with fears and weaknesses. Rambo clearly suffer from PTSD and we even see him cry. Even the "villans" are human beings we can sometimes sympatize with. The movie is surprisingly low on violence. Strictly speaking the only kill Rambo does on purpose is a wartog he hunts. The movie is gritty and feels believable, even though firing a M60 machine gun one-handed still looks silly, and I like the story.
Sylvester Stallone says this is his favourite Rambo movie. Perhaps because it feels human and real?
It's funny, isn't it? I was thinking how the terrain could be in Number24's Norway, or even some place in Scotland... and yet notwithstanding the fact that the Vietnam angle couldn't work in such places, a film like this has to be American.
Ditto Die Hard. No reason really why that couldn't be set in London's City, but it has to be America. They have that knack of taking what would be a potboiler someplace else and making it a viable commercial property simply by dint of it being in the United Staes. They just know how to brand themselves as a movie entity. Set it anywhere else and it just wouldn't have the same flavour.
Top movie, non-stop action after a slightly slow opener.
The original version, and watching Lana Turner in this (or anything else) you have to applaud the young Sean Connery's taste for having an affair with her in the late 50s - though she'd have been a bit older than in this gig. Similarly the young Richard Harris had a fling or one-night stand with movie star Merle Oberon - his story is that they were going at it with the lights off when he said, Do you mind if we have the lights on? It's just, the way it is now I may as well be a kid back in Limerick fiddling with myself! (She obliged.)
Anyway! The is a classic film noir though it's really about the desire and distrust between the two antagonists. It seems very easy for a young bum to get work, otherwise it might have a Depression era flavour to it.
So John Garfield gets a job as a handyman at a roadside bistro, finds the hot blonde is his employer's wife, they're all living onsite and you can take it from there.
Works well, it's odd how some of it was allowed by censors but you never see them in bed together - the first snog is shocking but that's as far as it goes. Subsequent legal shenanigans lack plausibility and move very fast. It's not clear given you don't see them having sex exactly what it is they're still hanging around each other for when it might be best to split.
You have to wait til the end of the film to have the title explained, though it's not dissimilar to An Inspector Calls.
If you're of a certain age, the sexual power games between the two may seem reminiscent of your parents - the haughty, cool type in a superior position to the earthy bloke, the stand-off, the rudeness, the 'don't you'll mess my hair up' vibe, the strangeness of sexual politics of bygone days.
At times I fancied seeing the remake with Jack Nicholson when Lana Turner is being too high-handed... he'd know how to deal with it. But both the remake and this film are never shown on telly any more, for reasons I'll never quite understand, it's as if they and many others are part of some secret Govt ban similar to that of a totalitarian state. It's not for the content - in this, it's clear they're bad'uns.
The original version, and watching Lana Turner in this (or anything else) you have to applaud the young Sean Connery's taste for having an affair with her in the late 50s - though she'd have been a bit older than in this gig.
Lana Turner was gorgeous. She was 25 when she made TPART and would only have been 36-37ish when that Connery fling occurred (did it really occur? I forget) so not so terribly old, Nap. She looked stunning even playing it down in Peyton Place and Imitation of Life.
The Postman Always Rings Twice
...It seems very easy for a young bum to get work, otherwise it might have a Depression era flavour to it...
James Cain wrote the novella in 1934, so its definitely Depression era. Also the beginnings of California car culture, its a remote looking diner only reachable mid-road trip.
...Subsequent legal shenanigans lack plausibility and move very fast. It's not clear given you don't see them having sex exactly what it is they're still hanging around each other for when it might be best to split...
As with Double Indemnity (a similar plot, but with middle class protagonists), Cain likes this idea that insurance companies are more motivated to solve a murder mystery than the police, because they have a financial incentive. Most of his books seem to have insurance investigators doing the real work at some point.
And in all these types of stories, the boyfriend is never smart enough to just leave after the murder, its all them slinky femme fatales fault for leading a poor schmuck to the electric chair.
Rambo: first blood (1982)
...The low budget shows and the US location with rainy pine forests is a far cry from the exotic locations in the sequels. ...
It's funny, isn't it? I was thinking how the terrain could be in Number24's Norway, or even some place in Scotland... and yet notwithstanding the fact that the Vietnam angle couldn't work in such places, a film like this has to be American.
Wikipedia says it was filmed in Hope, British Columbia, and mountains round the lower Fraser River, doubling as a fictional town in Washington State, which would only be an hours drive south.
That last page was brilliant wasn't it? Some great reviews and return comments, well done everyone. -{
Re Thomas Crown, I had a letter in the London Evening Standard re the film. The film critic had carped about Pierce having a white bow tie in his glamour scene as it is not too stylish; I pointed out this was likely due to a contractual arrangement; as Bond he wouldn't be allowed to wear a black bow tie in any other film as it would make him look like Bond. I think this is true.
The movie is v good indeed and one of those where Pierce is more like Bond than when he's Bond - or have I made this point already? I did seem to antipode the death of Kennedy Jnr with all his gliding stuff in it. Admittedly it doesn't quite seem so chic or brilliant now, it's not a time capsule of charm but it worked at the time.
I enjoyed those comments about The Postman Always Rings Twice, yes, I'd seem Double Indemnity recently and it's similar. Everyone seems boxed in to making bad decisions, or life choices if you will.
Girding my loins against my abhorrence of slapstick and physical comedy, I watched The Pink Panther while cooking up some fabulous prawn and salmon fishcakes, a green salad with sweet potato fries, and popping open a bottle of Provence rose - it doesn't matter where your rose comes from, as long as it's from Provence. Still drinking it as it happens.
Back to the film and I don't want to claim I enjoyed the cooking more than the movie (although I think I probably enjoyed the results of my cooking more) but the antics of Sir Charles Lytton, his nephew George, the Princess Dala, Inspector Clouseau and his wife Simone did occasionally try my patience. It is Peter Sellers, in his international break out role as the bumbling, accident prone detective, who dominates the film and that's rather a pity as the real clever word play surrounds the other characters.
David Niven as always displays a sure touch playing Sir Charles, in reality the jewel thief the Phantom. This role resembles his own break-out turn as the gentleman crook in Raffles. He's ably supported by Claudia Cardinale as the sexy middle-eastern Princess, who is easily and rather wonderfully seduced by a bottle of champagne and a tiger rug. Capucine is more watchable than Sellers as Clouseau's treacherous wife; her comic timing is immaculate. Robert Wagner is forgettable as the nephew who wants to follow in his mentor uncle's footsteps. The dialogue is sassy and rich, the playing is brilliant (Wagner aside) and the look of the film is particularly fine. Excellent photography - much of it on location. Good sets. Costumes swish.
It only falls down when the action reaches the exiled Princess' villa in Rome and an elaborate masked ball takes place. Cue mistaken identity, all round confusion and a none too amusing car chase. For the 1960's I'd say this was quite a sophisticated romp. It kickstarted the caper genre which persisted through the decade and produced such classics or not classics as The Italian Job, Gambit, How to Steal a Million, Topkapi, etc. It's so good, I even forgave the long scene in Clouseau's hotel suite where everyone and his maiden aunt seems to be hiding in a closet or under the bed.
There are a few minor missteps: Brenda de Banzies awful society hostess is one, another more diverting scene has Fran Jeffries singing Meglio Stasera (It Had Better Be Tonight) at a ski-lodge slumber party. I had no idea this song was from The Pink Panther. Composer Henry Mancini wrote it, with dual English and Italian lyrics. Mancini was on something of a roll having just scored a big hits with Breakfast at Tiffany's (Moon River, etc) and Hatari (Baby Elephant Walk, etc). Director and writer Blake Edwards wasn't doing too badly himself.
A good slice of entertainment. Harmless fun. Entertaining all round.
Comments
I know I ran the "nice scenery" joke into the ground, but how do you not with a film like this?
In all seriousness, the landscape revealed during the big parachute jump onto the villains patio was spectacular and worth rewatching just for its own sake.
You're mighty lucky your parents have a place right near there. You can visit anytime, I am jealous.
I see from GoogleMaps I once caught a ferry from near there to eastern Morocco. Long time ago by my own personal timescale, but that part of the world looked like it could have been the same for millennia. Crazy mountain ranges to be crossing on a bicycle with not enough water! now I never promised it was going to be good, but that's a subjective value judgement. I did suspect it might be relevant to your particular areas of expertise!
Theres a lot of 1960s SpyFilms to choose from, which can be overwhelming! so why not make an easy decision and skip straight to the one with Raquel Welch in a skimpy green bikini?
After watching "Fathom" this weekend I felt the need to see Raquel Welch acting again. While "Fathom" was a please check in your brain first" movie, this one is more ambitious in every way. 100 Rifles is a western even though it takes place in Mexico in 1912. Burt Reynolds plays a half white/half India... I mean Native American who has robbed an US bank to buy 100 rifles for his mother's people. NB! The guns are Norwegian Krag-Jørgensen rifles!
Jim Brown plays a US sheriff who has followed Reynolds' character to Mexico to arrest him. Raquel Welch plays a Native Ameri... I give up and will call them indians from now on. The Mexican army treats the indians horribly and she plays one of the leaders of their rebelion. Welsh gets to stretch her acting ability in some major drama scenes as well as doing quite a lot of action. She really gets to do a lot besides looking hot, but of course Welsh shows off her looks too. Especially in a scene where she stops an army train. It's also noteworthy that she has a love scene with Brown's character, a controversial black/white sex scene in 1969. Reynolds was really a TV star at the time, but he gets to show he is movie star material.
This is a good western and well worth watching.
Yes. It is.
Tom Gries was the director and he made a few interesting films around the late '60s and early '70s - Will Penny, Breakheart Pass, The Hawaiians - his last film was the self-starring biopic of Muhammad Ali The Greatest.
Jim Brown also made the rather gory El Condor in 1969. I like Brown; an underrated performer.
100 Rifles was filmed in Almeria, a region of Andalucia, and just up the road from Nerja [see my post, 4 above] where FATHOM was partly shot. I've been to Tabernas, a town which is uniformly bleak, and where the cast stayed while filming this movie. One street is even called Calle 100 Rifles. From the ruined castle atop the central hillock a location map points out the valleys and plains of Europe's only desert, where the outdoor scenes for 100 Rifles, El Condor, Trinity and Patton were filmed. There are two or three 'wild west' towns locally which were once used as movie sets.
I like Quentin Tarantino's comment: 'How can you f### up a movie with Jim Brown, Raquel Welch and Burt Reynolds?' That's a trifle unfair. It's much better than that and less tortuous than either of his homage westerns.
'That bloody music'! Not a fan then.
Now, I've been turning this review around in my mind and thinking ChrisNo1's exploits would make a good movie itself, perhaps along the lines of Bill Murray's Rushmore.
What puzzles me is what kind of music a younger chrisno1 would have preferred for The Graduate? As young Benji's plane descends and he steps on the conveyer belt at the airport, what should be playing if not The Sound of Silence? I've toyed with the Beatles' Helter Skelter, or Senators' Son (name of band escapes me temporarily). Or The Who's I Can See For Miles - that would work well.
But perhaps S+G were too groovy and hip for our young ajb member? Perhaps in his youth he was into Frank Sinatra's Capital phase? In which case 'It's Nice to Go Travelling' would work a treat for the opener.
When Benji slams the door shut on a lecherous looking Mrs Robinson, it could slide in to the Beatles 'Why Don't We Do it in the Road'. Or Bassey's Goldfinger. Ah, well.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Miles Davis 'Someday My Prince Will Come' maybe...
Directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack and Irving Pichel, this adaptation of Richard Connell’s short story was released in the U.K. under the rather more exotic title The Hounds of Zaroff. Either way, it’s a damn fine film.
It is amazing what magic moviemakers could create in the golden days of Hollywood. Not quite a horror movie, but full of horrific incident, this is a beautifully designed and brilliantly constructed film. It was made partly on the cheap during the filming of producers Schoedsack, Merian C. Cooper and David O. Selznick’s monster epic King Kong. There are only six interior sound stages for the whole presentation and two of them are the ship’s bridge and cocktail lounge, which along with all the exterior jungle sets can be seen in the afore-mentioned classic. The producers even borrow four of the cast. Apparently most of the film was shot at night so as not to halt the other production. Not only was the result a success at the box office, it was also a critical success and remains a classic of the era.
A brief synopsis:
Full of wonderful images, this movie never fails to disappoint. The jungle sets are realistic. The model work for the steam yacht better than average. The chateau interiors are huge, looming and brooding. They look and feel as if Count Dracula, not Count Zaroff inhabits them. It’s fair to say the latter is probably the more frightening monster, so callous and nefarious is he in his killings. There is splendid use of dark and light. The midnight trip to the trophy room is particularly effective, the shadows extenuated by the flickering candles. [Apparently, this sequence was originally much longer, but preview audiences were so horrified by the mutilated corpses, they walked out; subsequently the scene was candidly edited.] There is a brilliant swooping close-up of Zaroff’s malevolently lustful expression as he wishes Eve goodnight. The waterfall set-piece is realistically drenched in spray and steam. A struggle through a sludgy swamp has ghostly figures drifting in and out of murky mist. Henry Gerrard’s camerawork is superb throughout. Max Steiner’s score is suitably frantic.
The film doesn’t waste any energy. It could possibly have benefitted from a longer pre-amble. Occasionally the explanatory dialogue feels misplaced. For instance, Eve reveals her suspicions about Zaroff during the Count’s piano recital when it might have been better for her to have called into Rainsford’s bedroom later that night. But these are minor points. The film is really only interested in the central concept of man as hunter and hunted. To that end it succeeds brilliantly. The long chase is a gripping, tension-laden twenty minutes, as incident follows incident, and the hounds scamper closer and closer to their prey, and Zaroff – eyes and nose twitching in delight – steals in hot blooded pursuit. Archie Marshek edits away any unnecessary flab.
The screenplay too functions economically. James Ashmore Creelman ensures only the meat of the story remains in the shooting script. All excess fat is carved off. So almost every line is loaded with meaning:
“I was thinking of the inconsistency of civilisation. The beast of the jungle killing for its existence is considered savage. But man killing for sport is civilised.”
“God made some men kings, some beggars. He made me a hunter.”
“Kill! Then love! When you have known that, you have known ecstasy!”
“Here on my island, I hunt the most dangerous game.”
“I was so entranced by the Count’s story, I didn’t see the danger.”
Perhaps most potently, Rainsford says early on: “This world’s divided into two kinds of people: the hunter and the hunted. Luckily I’m a hunter.” While he initially refuses Zaroff’s offer to trap, pursue and kill humans, when threatened Rainsford regresses to the type he identifies most with and – having escaped the actual hunt – he returns to kill his own prey. There is also an undercurrent of erotica as Zaroff is keen to demonstrate the reward for success is the female of the species. He will not hunt women; they are reserved for the delights of reveille.
The performances are better than adequate. Joel McRea – always a serviceable action hero – is upright and worthy. Physically, he can more than cope with the jungle exploits. The gorgeous Fay Wray is just the right side of vulnerable, yet just capable enough not to be a hindrance. She gets to practice screaming, which would come in handy for King Kong. Robert Armstrong’s boorish consumerist Martin Trowbridge neatly reflects the opposite side of the coin to Zaroff’s studied, extreme liberalism. We’re not surprised the dullard is disposed of. The outstanding performance is from the British actor Leslie Banks as the Count. This was his movie debut and it’s a role which requires calm assurance, metered to a controlled baleful insanity. Zaroff is given a nasty facial scar and Banks uses it as a prop, touching it at moments of tension, when the Count is disappointed, aroused and angered. It’s a simple method to demonstrate the Count’s unhinged nature. During the pursuit, you can almost see him growling, baring his incisors, salivating, like an eager hound. It is no surprise he charges past his dead henchman, Ivan, as if the man had never existed.
The Most Dangerous Game has been remade and imitated several times in the last ninety years, but nothing has ever come close. At a mere 65 minutes, the bones of the film are tremendously slim, yet they carry a body of much substance and scope. In terms of outright pure action and thrills, most movies of the 1930s can’t come close. Perhaps only the much later westerns, like Stagecoach and Jesse James, those Errol Flynn swashbucklers or the Warner Bros. gangster cycle. And, of course, Cooper, Selznick and Schoedsack’s next thrill ride: King Kong.
Thoroughly recommended.
This is a film that I've been meaning to watch for a long time - more than a decade in fact. It was covered in a film course that I did at university but I never actually got round to watching the film. Well, I've remedied that now and The Wages of Fear is definitely a contender for a spot on my list of 100 favourite films. It's lengthy at two and a half hours, and takes about an hourr before the events of the plot are really set in motion. Basically there's a fire at an oil well in South America, and the oil company need to transport a highly explosive cargo of nitroglycerine via a difficult mountain pass over dodgy roads without bumping the cargo with explosive results. The first hour sets up the characters, who are a ragtag group of unemployed men desperate for a bit of cash, making them ideal candidates for such a dangerous job.
Once the explosive laden trucks are on the road the excruciating tension builds as the drivers encounter obstacle after obstacle. The performances from the four leads are very good, and the director is masterful at ratcheting up the suspense further and further. I have to hand it to the French directors of the 1950s - this film, as well as Rififi and Elevator to the Gallows, rank amongst the finest suspense thrillers I have ever seen. This film also comments on the exploitative oil bosses, and I gather that in the past the film was cut in order to be less critical of the American oil company.
Instead of Brodie's Notes, did you just watch the trailer?
This film was remade as Convoy wasn't it? I did see the original years ago - this seems to be another one of those many films that simply never get shown telly.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
with Peter Cushing as the doctor and Christopher Lee as the monster.
its the first Hammer Horror film! I'd seen Hound of the Baskervilles, and One Million BC, and She, but never a proper Hammer Horror before.
I don't think this is quite Mary Shelley's novel, but the tone is more literary than the Universal version, with lots of emphasis on the costumes and the period decor and long philosophical dialogs. Whereas the Universal doctor famously said "in the name of God, now I know what it feels like to be God", this entire film is a verbal debate on the moral boundaries of scientific research.
And lots of graphic full colour blood and gore.
And two very suspenseful sequences where different women unwittingly enter Frankenstein's laboratory. (thats a lot of square footage of the house for these women never to have entered before despite living under the same roof)
I did feel surprisingly sorry for our "hero" after his brain was damaged after all the trouble he went to to procure it. Well, not his brain, per se, but the one in a jar he was intending to use.
Any way this was good and I see why the series is so revered, so shall seek out more!
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the Bourne films, and am pleased to hear that The Bourne Identity was your favourite of the bunch. It is also my favourite, and over the years I've come to believe that this is not a particularly popular opinion. Having read many reviews and listened to a number of podcast discussions of the Bourne films, it is often ranked lower than the later films directed by Paul Greengrass. I personally feel it has the strongest narrative, and as you said, the process of discovery makes it a very interesting character journey. I think I've enjoyed each successive Bourne film less than the previous one (and I should point out that I never got around to watching Jason Bourne) but my ranking of the first four films goes in order of release....Sort of diminishing returns, as they say. I do like all of the original trilogy a lot though.
I did like all the detail of his laboratory, at one point I notice he's cooking and eating his meals in there with all the bodyparts in jars and bubbling testtubes all around the plates he's eating off!
and towards the end we get a clear view of the landing at top of the stairs where the older scientist had fallen from, he still has not repaired it despite the dialog telling us months had gone by! nice subtle bit of character revealing continuity detail.
speaking of heaving bosoms: the actress playing the fiancee slightly resembled Madeleine Kahn, but thats gotta be coincidence: I don't think Mel Brooks referenced this Hammer version otherwise. And Brooks would have cast Kahn no matter what previous versions of Frankenstein's fiancee looked like.
As it goes on it becomes less and less plausible that Bourne is still so up to speed that he can run rings around the best security services not just physically but in terms of his technological know-how. I mean, in the first film it's clear he's only outwitting a few gendarmes, plus his existence is taking those higher up by surprise.
What's more, it's a tad dispiriting by the final film to find
I recall watching Liman's Go! many years back and thinking he could do a Bond film at a time when as now the magic ingredients for a Bond director seemed (and to some extent still are) eternally elusive.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A nice afternoon watching Elvis strut his toned-down stuff in his first post-Army movie. It isn't based on his military career, but a lot of fans thought it was. The King plays Tulsa McLean, an Oklahoma boy in a tank regiment who also plays guitar and sings in a band, spends time ripping off his Sergeant and even more time romancing the ladies. There is a lot of trivial comedy, some kids, a beautiful leading lady, a fist fight and lots of singing in bars, at puppet shows and on cable cars.
Nicely photographed by Oscar winner Lloyd Griggs, well costumed by Oscar winner Edith Head, neat set design from Oscar winner Hal Pereira, flat but workmanlike direction from Oscar winner Norman Taurog - producer Hal Wallis really threw the dollars at this one and it kind of works. This is the first of the formula Elvis films and one of the brightest and breeziest. His four pre-army movies were all fairly serious fare interspersed with Elvis singing on stage or in a recording studio. They showcased his rock n roll credentials and his rebel persona. After his spell doing military service, the Colonel - Elvis' myopic manager - decided his protégé needed smartening up. Hence his fifth movie would be a more family orientated film than his fifties sorties but one which still retained a bullish, modish edge.
Tulsa McLean and his buddies are tricksters, wasting as much time as they can, conning their colleagues, gambling, womanising. This leads Tulsa into accepting a bet to spend a night alone with the fabulous unobtainable cabaret dancer Lili, played with much knowing cheerfulness by Juliet Prowse, fresh off the set of Can-Can. She dances well and looks fabulous. She's a good comic foil to Elvis and the two construct a series of scenes which have excellent sparky dialogue. The rest of the plot is fairly inconsequential. It's enough to know it all works out for the best; Tulsa and his mates all have their rough edges scrubbed away by the dames and Elvis even breaks the fourth wall with a final line to the audience.
The songs are very good. This is a much more complete set of numbers than many of his later movies. Pocketful of Rainbows is dreamy, Frankfort Special, Shoppin' Around and G.I. Blues have the swagger, Wooden Heart is the classic ballad. Generally, though the songs are thoughtfully staged and neatly interspersed, there is no attempt to disguise the fact they were recorded in the studio and Elvis' lip-syncing is at times terrible. He's also phenomenally static. There's one cute joke mid-song where his knee shakes and he clutches it to stop the tremor. Basically he spends most of the 'performance' numbers standing still, which is very peculiar.
All in all, a very enjoyable couple of hours, but I have the soundtrack album and it's more fun just to listen to the brilliant songs, which do make a brilliant set and topped the UK charts for oodles of weeks in 1960/61.
If you like spy movies (and chances are you do) you'll love this movie! It's based on a book by the German diplomatic attached in Turkey during WWII, a job one correctly guesses was a cover for espionage work. Much of the story is true. The main character played by James Mason was the servant of the British ambasador in Ankara, a smart man intimately familiar with and yet completely excluded from a life of power and affluence. He sells secret from the ambassador's safe to the Germans for a lot of money.
The man was code named Cisero. In the movie (not in real life) he was in love with a emigre countess who has lost her social status and fortune. I won't spoil more of the story, but it's full of secrets, spying, tension and betrayals. The content and style of the movie reminds me a lot of Alfred Hitchcock, but actually the director is Joseph Mankiewicz (Cleopatra, The bridge over the river Kwai).
We get scenes in both Ankara and Istanbul that could be taken from FRWL and men in tuxes in a first-rate spy thriller. Please note it's a thriller, not an action movie. There are a couple of links to James Bond:
- The story was also used in a TV series where Cisero was played by David Hedison who we know as Felix Leiter in LALD and LTK.
- The German ambasador to Turkey who we see in the movie was Franz von Papen. The Soviet assassination attempt on his life in 1942 was the model for the bomb attack on Bond in the CR novel.
Find this movie and watch it! :007)
Mankiewicz didn't direct The Bridge on the River Kwai - that was David Lean - although I think he was in partnership with the films producer Sam Spiegel for a couple of films.
I am big fan of his CLEOPATRA which is a quiet epic and has some great lines - many stolen from Shakespeare - and stunning photography. LIz Taylor, OMG, gorgeous.
ALL ABOUT EVE is a classic of classics, a cutting, vicious satire.
I've never seen FIVE FINGERS; you have nicely whetted my appetite and I'll try and catch it when I can.
Bette Davis as the fading star, Anne Baxter as the backstabbing protege, George Sanders as the critic, and an early cameo from Marilyn Monroe.
wikipedia says Mankiewicz also directed an adaptation of Graham Greene's The Quiet American, but completely missed the point of the book. hmmm, that's problematic...
Pierce at the height of his box office power playing to his strengths as a sophisticated playboy who likes to steal paintings. Hard to believe this was 1999. It feels like yesterday. I remember I saw this in the cinema with a girlfriend and we both immediately thought 'ooh, there's more to PB than Bond & Remington Steele'. [I think she secretly fancied him, as it happens; I digress.]
It's a fun inconsequential ride which hasn't aged well. I saw the 1968 original last year and that has rather dated also, but has the redeeming feature of Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway acting very cool and sexy. A great score and song for that one and lots of chic sixties clothes and split screen effects.
It's all much more straightforward here, though the clothes are still pretty. Faye Dunaway even has a pointless cameo as a useless psychiatrist. The two robberies are well staged and I enjoyed the back-and-forth chit-chat between PB and Rene Russo, who is oozing sex appeal as the insurance investigator pitting her wits against Thomas Crown and Denis Leary's weary NY detective. Pierce is, well, he's just oozing something slightly oily, too-clever-by-half and Brut 33 like. Russo's character is more contradictory than PB's obvious Thomas Crown. Her habit of squealing is annoying and feels childish for a sophisticated, independent, driven woman. She screams in a glider, on an aeroplane, in bed - oh yes, I'd forgotten about the sex scene on the marble staircase - oooooo, chilly.
It's lightweight and easily digested. The action is well photographed and glossy. The good workmanlike script doesn't mess us about. There's effective restrained direction from John McTiernan. And a cute little score from our own Bill Conti which neatly references Michel Legrand's The Windmills of Your Mind from the earlier movie.
I would have preferred the ending to by similar to the original. Somehow the happy resolution here loses something in both their characters. Definitely a thriller for the Sex and the City generation.
I haven't seen this movie in about thirty years, but I'm glad I revisited it. The low budget shows and the US location with rainy pine forrests is a far cry from the exotic locations in the sequels. But we don't get the extreme bodybuilding and violence either. Rambo is a real human being here, with fears and weaknesses. Rambo clearly suffer from PTSD and we even see him cry. Even the "villans" are human beings we can sometimes sympatize with. The movie is surprisingly low on violence. Strictly speaking the only kill Rambo does on purpose is a wartog he hunts. The movie is gritty and feels believable, even though firing a M60 machine gun one-handed still looks silly, and I like the story.
Sylvester Stallone says this is his favourite Rambo movie. Perhaps because it feels human and real?
Ditto Die Hard. No reason really why that couldn't be set in London's City, but it has to be America. They have that knack of taking what would be a potboiler someplace else and making it a viable commercial property simply by dint of it being in the United Staes. They just know how to brand themselves as a movie entity. Set it anywhere else and it just wouldn't have the same flavour.
Top movie, non-stop action after a slightly slow opener.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The original version, and watching Lana Turner in this (or anything else) you have to applaud the young Sean Connery's taste for having an affair with her in the late 50s - though she'd have been a bit older than in this gig. Similarly the young Richard Harris had a fling or one-night stand with movie star Merle Oberon - his story is that they were going at it with the lights off when he said, Do you mind if we have the lights on? It's just, the way it is now I may as well be a kid back in Limerick fiddling with myself! (She obliged.)
Anyway! The is a classic film noir though it's really about the desire and distrust between the two antagonists. It seems very easy for a young bum to get work, otherwise it might have a Depression era flavour to it.
So John Garfield gets a job as a handyman at a roadside bistro, finds the hot blonde is his employer's wife, they're all living onsite and you can take it from there.
Works well, it's odd how some of it was allowed by censors but you never see them in bed together - the first snog is shocking but that's as far as it goes. Subsequent legal shenanigans lack plausibility and move very fast. It's not clear given you don't see them having sex exactly what it is they're still hanging around each other for when it might be best to split.
You have to wait til the end of the film to have the title explained, though it's not dissimilar to An Inspector Calls.
If you're of a certain age, the sexual power games between the two may seem reminiscent of your parents - the haughty, cool type in a superior position to the earthy bloke, the stand-off, the rudeness, the 'don't you'll mess my hair up' vibe, the strangeness of sexual politics of bygone days.
At times I fancied seeing the remake with Jack Nicholson when Lana Turner is being too high-handed... he'd know how to deal with it. But both the remake and this film are never shown on telly any more, for reasons I'll never quite understand, it's as if they and many others are part of some secret Govt ban similar to that of a totalitarian state. It's not for the content - in this, it's clear they're bad'uns.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Lana Turner was gorgeous. She was 25 when she made TPART and would only have been 36-37ish when that Connery fling occurred (did it really occur? I forget) so not so terribly old, Nap. She looked stunning even playing it down in Peyton Place and Imitation of Life.
And in all these types of stories, the boyfriend is never smart enough to just leave after the murder, its all them slinky femme fatales fault for leading a poor schmuck to the electric chair.
Re Thomas Crown, I had a letter in the London Evening Standard re the film. The film critic had carped about Pierce having a white bow tie in his glamour scene as it is not too stylish; I pointed out this was likely due to a contractual arrangement; as Bond he wouldn't be allowed to wear a black bow tie in any other film as it would make him look like Bond. I think this is true.
The movie is v good indeed and one of those where Pierce is more like Bond than when he's Bond - or have I made this point already?
I enjoyed those comments about The Postman Always Rings Twice, yes, I'd seem Double Indemnity recently and it's similar. Everyone seems boxed in to making bad decisions, or life choices if you will.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Girding my loins against my abhorrence of slapstick and physical comedy, I watched The Pink Panther while cooking up some fabulous prawn and salmon fishcakes, a green salad with sweet potato fries, and popping open a bottle of Provence rose - it doesn't matter where your rose comes from, as long as it's from Provence. Still drinking it as it happens.
Back to the film and I don't want to claim I enjoyed the cooking more than the movie (although I think I probably enjoyed the results of my cooking more) but the antics of Sir Charles Lytton, his nephew George, the Princess Dala, Inspector Clouseau and his wife Simone did occasionally try my patience. It is Peter Sellers, in his international break out role as the bumbling, accident prone detective, who dominates the film and that's rather a pity as the real clever word play surrounds the other characters.
David Niven as always displays a sure touch playing Sir Charles, in reality the jewel thief the Phantom. This role resembles his own break-out turn as the gentleman crook in Raffles. He's ably supported by Claudia Cardinale as the sexy middle-eastern Princess, who is easily and rather wonderfully seduced by a bottle of champagne and a tiger rug. Capucine is more watchable than Sellers as Clouseau's treacherous wife; her comic timing is immaculate. Robert Wagner is forgettable as the nephew who wants to follow in his mentor uncle's footsteps. The dialogue is sassy and rich, the playing is brilliant (Wagner aside) and the look of the film is particularly fine. Excellent photography - much of it on location. Good sets. Costumes swish.
It only falls down when the action reaches the exiled Princess' villa in Rome and an elaborate masked ball takes place. Cue mistaken identity, all round confusion and a none too amusing car chase. For the 1960's I'd say this was quite a sophisticated romp. It kickstarted the caper genre which persisted through the decade and produced such classics or not classics as The Italian Job, Gambit, How to Steal a Million, Topkapi, etc. It's so good, I even forgave the long scene in Clouseau's hotel suite where everyone and his maiden aunt seems to be hiding in a closet or under the bed.
There are a few minor missteps: Brenda de Banzies awful society hostess is one, another more diverting scene has Fran Jeffries singing Meglio Stasera (It Had Better Be Tonight) at a ski-lodge slumber party. I had no idea this song was from The Pink Panther. Composer Henry Mancini wrote it, with dual English and Italian lyrics. Mancini was on something of a roll having just scored a big hits with Breakfast at Tiffany's (Moon River, etc) and Hatari (Baby Elephant Walk, etc). Director and writer Blake Edwards wasn't doing too badly himself.
A good slice of entertainment. Harmless fun. Entertaining all round.