There's No Business Like Show Business (1954)

It's a fact of life in professional wrestling that it's not enough to just dump a couple of good wrestlers in the ring with no context to it, and expect the crowd to care.  I mean sure, there's a small hard core audience who will rate it "four and three-quarter stars!" and rave about the "wrestling clinic" the participants put on.  And that small hard core audience may even be right about the technical ability on display.  But if the story isn't there - if there's not a compelling reason to the bout - the average fan isn't going to get engaged.

And so it goes for this 'musical comedy', which is big on music and short on comedy.  It's packed to the gills with talented performers giving it their all, and I'm sure that if you're a hardcore song and dance enthusiast you'll find plenty to like.  But for the rest of us, most of the opulent musical numbers just bring the film to a halt.

Now it's true that the picture is about a Vaudeville family, and so you'd expect such performances to be an important part of their lives, but the script relies on that fact alone to justify their inclusion, without any regard for whether they really fit there or make sense or are even particularly good songs.  It also throws so many of them at you - I doubt that there's ever a gap of more than 5 minutes between numbers - that it feels like the film's story (such as it is) never gets a chance to get moving.  It's a film where events happen, but they all feel like distinct items on a checklist, rather than a natural narrative.

As an example, consider the 'romance' arc for Mitzi Gaynor's character.  We see her invited to lunch by a young man.  The next time we see the two characters together, it's so the young man can ask her brother (a priest) to perform their wedding ceremony.  He then disappears from the film entirely, though we do get dialogue mentioning that she is pregnant and the two of them are happy together.

Yeah.  Quite how I'm supposed to be engaged by this plot line (if it even deserves the term), I don't know.  But I guess they couldn't allow any more time for it what with needing to fit at least 4 different performances of "Alexander's Ragtime Band" into the picture.

This is a definite case of having all the right ingredients to make a fine product, and then mixing them in entirely the wrong quantities and getting a soggy mess instead.

Xena: Warrior Princess, Season 2 (1996)

One of the interesting things about Xena as a series was its complete disregard for staying in a particular niche.  Of course the basic premise of the show - repentant former villain Xena roams the land, fighting bad guys with the assistance of her sidekick Gabrielle - remains in place, but beyond that all bets are off.  The show is happy to pinball its episodes back and forth between historical events that occurred hundreds of years apart, and also happy to leap from slapstick comedy to angsty drama to pop culture knock-off.

An example of the historical flexibility?  In this season alone the warrior princess encounters both Julius Caesar and Nazis.  Yes, actual Nazis from World War 2.  Admittedly this is in what came to be called an "uber" episode, featuring a reincarnation of Xena on an archaeological dig, but it's a useful illustration of the wacky things they sometimes came up with. Because yes, if you're thinking "archaeologists vs Nazis sounds familiar", well it is indeed a pretty transparent Indiana Jones riff.  They also yoink episode concepts from A Christmas Carol and Ten Little Indians, and do their Halloween episode in a rock video style.

The above probably gives you an idea of the thematic flexibility of the show, as well, come to think of it.  I don't even need to mention the way it'll have an episode where Gabrielle's husband dies and Xena finally accepts that she won't be able to fix one of her biggest mistakes, and then follow it with an episode of pure farce involving a prissy princess and morally flexible bar wench - both of whom happen to look exactly like Xena herself.  It's a wild mish-mash that shouldn't really work but somehow does.

For fans of the show, season 2 features some pretty significant events in Xena "lore", with the introduction of her son (whom she left to be raised by centaurs in the best Greek mythic tradition), the first appearance of Caesar (played by Karl Urban), and the first time the warrior princess dies (it's okay, she gets better).  It also has the first "uber" episode, as I mentioned above, and the first example of connected episodes running back to back - where each has a complete story in and of itself, but also directly follows on from the one before.

From a cultural perspective, this season also features lead actor Lucy Lawless performing an on-screen kiss with an openly HIV positive actor, which was a pretty courageous thing to do, given then-current beliefs about the disease.  It may not have any real relevance to whether the show was good or not (though clearly I think it was) but it's worth saluting either way.

Stake Land (2010)

What we've got here is a zombie apocalypse movie with the zombies replaced by vampires.  It's quite a clever idea for breathing a little freshness into the (arguably, if you're as big a fan as I am) overplayed zombie formula.

Stake Land's vampires are bestial killers of perhaps animal-level intelligence.  As such, they can be switched in pretty easily in place of the 'fast' zombies such as those found in a lot of modern zombie films: they surge to attack in the same way, and are just as eager to rip out the throat of every human they meet.

The difference of course is in the methods by which the monsters can be dispatched.  On the one hand sunlight kills them, so if you're outside in the day time you're reasonably safe from them. On the other hand you need a wooden stake to kill one - hitting them in either the lower brain or the heart - so the old "shoot 'em in the head" trick is not on the cards unless you have a bow and arrow.

The film centres on a young man named Martin who is saved from vampire attack by a taciturn drifter he knows only as "Mister".  The pair begin a long journey northward in search of "New Eden", which is said to be safe from the pandemic that causes the creatures.  Of course there are plenty of dangers along the way, including the psychotic humans that all but inevitably pop up in zombie apocalypses.  In a refreshing change though, they also encounter functional communities where people are doing the best they can to help each other.

If you're at all a fan of the zombie genre, you should check this film out as it's an interesting variation on the theme.

Man in the Attic (1953)

Jack the Ripper roams the streets of Whitechapel, murdering women.  At the same time, a certain Mr and Mrs Harley, after suffering some financial reversals, decide to take in a lodger.  The applicant is a Dr Slade, who rents not just the room in question but also the attic, as he needs a space to conduct experiments.

From here, events go as you might expect, given the coincidence of events.  The Ripper murders continue, and the Harleys become uncomfortably aware that their new tenant spends an awful lot of time out at night, and has a bag and coat just like the one the Ripper was reported to be seen wearing, and ... well, you get the idea.  Lots of circumstantial but inconclusive evidence that their tenant has homicidal tendencies.  Which would be worrisome enough by itself, but in addition their beloved niece seems quite taken with the doctor.  Still, it could all just be coincidence, and Slade always seems to have a logical explanation for his sometimes odd habits, so probably it's nothing to worry about ...

This is for the most part a pretty solidly made little film.  The cast is all competent, and the plot moves along briskly enough.  But then we get to the ending.  And well: spoilers ahead.

So the film is based on 1913 novel The Lodger, in which a landlady becomes aware that her tenant is a serial killer known as "the Avenger", but - in dire need of the rental income and with a cultural resentment of the police - does not reveal who he is until it is almost too late.  In changing the focus to "is he the killer or isn't he?", the film basically decides to make the twist that there isn't a twist, and the obvious suspect is in fact the killer.  I guess if this was executed really well I could go with it, but it doesn't gel here for me.

I also think making the film about the very real Jack the Ripper, rather than a fictionalised version of him, was a mistake.  The Ripper's identity remains unresolved to this day, and to have him revealed and chased through the streets before apparently drowning in the Thames feels false and hollow because we know it is false and hollow.

A mostly enjoyable little film that goes sadly awry in the last act.

Much Ado About Nothing (2012)

As I was watching this movie, I waffled back and forth about whether or not to give it a recommendation, because I kept comparing it to the Kenneth Branagh version and feeling it came up short.  Ultimately I decided to do the fair thing though, and judge it solely on its own merits, so a qualified recommendation it is.

If you've read the review I linked above then there's probably not a lot I need tell you about the basic plot of the film.  Although director Joss Whedon has used modern sets and costumes for his costumes, and gender-flipped one role from male to female, he's not touched the story in any notable way.

In case you haven't read the other link: it's about two couples.  The first is Benedick and Beatrice, who ostensibly hate one another and argue constantly (so are clearly destined to be together) and who get all the funny bits of the script.  And then there's Claudio and Hero, who fall instantly in love and then have all the dramas, all the time - mostly because Claudio is kind of a jerk.

I think Whedon's failure to do anything new with the script is my biggest disappointment with the film.  The modern setting is purely cosmetic: the characters speak the same Shakespearian lines, display the same Shakespearian morals, and suffer the same Shakespearian coincidences and contrivances.  Watching the black and white visuals of men and women in elegant attire, I couldn't help but wish that I was watching a film noir retelling of the story, with suitably updated script and dialogue.

Still, despite my disappointment and the fact that I think the Branagh version is better, this is a well-made adaptation with a likeable cast.  And if you're a fan of Whedon's other works you're sure to recognise a fair few faces.

River of No Return (1954)

About 55 minutes into this film, the 'hero' wrestles Marilyn Monroe's character to the ground in pursuit of ... well, at the very least a kiss, but in the context of the dialogue, quite possibly a lot more.  If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you can probably guess that this was the point where I shouted imprecations at the screen.

Not that I was rapturous about the film even before that.  I mean, it had been a tolerable enough little western, provided you were willing to overlook the casual 1950s racism and the way the camera-work lasciviously ogled Monroe, but nothing really to write home about.

A widowed farmer has his gun and horse stolen by a gambler.  Realising that he is now at the mercy of the natives - remember the casual racism I mentioned - he resolves to flee with his son via the only means available: the titular "River of No Return".  Accompanying them on the journey is Kay (Monroe), a saloon singer who has the misfortune to be the villainous gambler's fiancée.

So yeah, you know Kay and the kid are going to bond, and eventually the crusty old farmer will come to like her too (for the "I feel I have the right to manhandle you" definition of "like", anyway).  But first they'll have to deal with rapids, mountain lions, natives and other menaces.  It's fairly paint-by-numbers stuff.

There's some enjoyment to be had here from picking out the obvious sound-stage footage against the on-location stuff, and giggling at the awful green screen sequences when the main cast are "rafting" on the "river", but otherwise it's only worth your time if you are a Monroe fanatic.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

I'm not sure what possessed anyone to spend $180 million dollars on a latter day Flash Gordon as told from the perspective of the Dale Arden character.  Perhaps the Wachowskis have kissed the Blarney Stone a whole bunch of times.  Or maybe they have some very incriminating photos of some very important people.

Whatever the reason, I'm glad it happened.  It's not that this is a good film, really.  Narratively speaking it is little more than a succession of action set pieces separated by scenes of gorgeous people wearing gorgeous frocks and spouting prose so overwrought that calling it 'melodramatic' doesn't seem to do it justice.  And yet, it's kind of compelling in its kitchen sink sensibility of baroque spacecraft, slinky catgirls, hunky wolfboys and sudden wingfic moments.

In order words, the only thing stopping it from being totally awesome is the absence of a stonking Queen soundtrack.

Trust me, I'm not the first person to notice the Flash Gordon thing.

The plot?  Oh, it's some malarkey about space vampires harvesting worlds for their life energy and the young woman who - thanks to said space vampires having some odd inheritance laws - is the only person who can prevent them from snacking on good old planet Earth.  And of course in the process she meets a handsome young man with a penchant for taking his shirt off.

But frankly, none of the last paragraph really matters, because it's all just an excuse for the kind of "turn the volume to 11" space opera that nobody makes any more.  Or ever, really.  This is not a movie that goes off the rails: it's a movie that never knew there were rails to begin with.

And for that, I and The Mary Sue salute it.