Showing posts with label Guy Hamilton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guy Hamilton. Show all posts

June 11, 2023

The Ringer (1952).

Review #2019: The Ringer (1952).

Cast: 
Herbert Lom (Maurice Meister), Donald Wolfit (Dr. Lomond), Mai Zetterling (Lisa), Greta Gynt (Cora Ann Milton), William Hartnell (Sam Hackett), Denholm Elliott (John Lemley), Norman Wooland (Inspector Bliss), Dora Bryan (Mrs. Hackett), and Charles Victor (Inspector Wembury) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, #291 - Goldfinger, #293 - Live and Let Die, #612 - The Devil's Disciple)

Review: 
Admittedly, Guy Hamilton really is just known for his work with the James Bond films if he is mentioned among British directors for random conversation, and that is fine. He directed 22 films, and four of them were part of the Bond series, but it never hurts to give focus to other works that someone does beyond saying that he directed one of the best Bond films in Goldfinger (1964) (and probably one of the lesser of them with Diamonds Are Forever, but thats another story). He had an ambition to become a filmmaker from a young age, but he had to deal with other matters first, such as serving in the Royal Navy in World War II with the 15th Motor Gunboat Flotilla. After the war, he found work as an assistant director (under the hire of Alexander Korda), which saw him work with people such as Carol Reed and for films such as The African Queen (1951). Hamilton would get his first chance to direct with this film when Reed inspired him to play hardball with Korda unless he got a directing job. Hamilton never looked back and directed for the next three decades in a variety of genres, such as the POW story The Colditz Story (1955), the historical drama The Devil's Disciple (1959, done after he replaced Alexander Mackendrick) or countless action flair like Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985). The film is an adaptation of the 1929 play of the same name by Edgar Wallace, which was in turn was a re-working of his 1925 novel The Gaunt Stranger. Wallace was a prolific writer of his time in the early 20th century that ranged from journalism to nearly 1,000 short stories to even screenplays, which includes the original first draft for King Kong (1933) before his sudden death from diabetes that year. At any rate, there were four prior adaptations of Wallace's work in 1928, 1931, 1932, and 1938 (one was a silent and one was even a German-Austrian film). This was made on the tail end of the career of Alexander Korda as a producer, who made hundreds of films as either director/producer until his death in 1956 (by sheer coincidence, Korda actually expressed an interest in making a film of Ian Fleming's 1954 novel Live and Let Die, which Hamilton would later get to do as director in 1973). 

It is evident how stage-bound the film is, since it basically utilizes two places for most of its 78 minutes, which seems about right for a low-budget British production. I can say this much: it is a pretty decent way to start a career for a first-time director, one with a share of composed thrills and a solid cast to make a useful curiosity for those who like quick films to view from an age long ago. I do applaud the fact that Lom is given some room to play the lead role as a heel. He was a versatile presence in film for years because of the way he carried his voice in any type of role. It works here with a role that probably would've been an adversary in a different thriller but is instead one that is being stalked (British "stalked", not really stalked). Wolfit was actually an actor-manager who toured Shakespeare productions for many years, but he did do his share of acting from time to time (this was the second film he did from his return after not doing one from 1939-1951), although his legacy is perhaps best captured in The Dresser, a play-turned-film about a dresser close to an actor that was written by a one-time dresser of Wolfit. He fuzzes about as someone who seems to have nothing better to do than lurk between the foreground and background, which is mildly interesting when interacting with Gynt, who has charming curiosity for someone who is basically there to see watch potential downfall. It is a calm cat-and-mouse game, not one for scene-chewing. With that in mind, Zetterling is also pretty charming in a role meant to counter Lom when it comes to "normal folks". Hartnell once described himself as a "legitimate character actor" when it came to work in theatre and film, and given that he played a mix of police, solider or toadies in film, it isn't surprising to see him here, albeit with him trying to do a Cockney accent, which goes over fine for a mildly amusing role. You may or may not have a good guess on who ends up being the title character, since "master of disguise" is something that has little room for hard questioning with the amount of people who have lines in the film, but the film at least doesn't throw many red herrings to play tricks. There aren't any scenes that distract from the mystery or drive on to start waving their hand in the "move it along position", which generally means it is on the right foot. It is a quickie represented, not one going on mayhem, which is probably best represented by the eventual turn in its climax, which is quite enjoyable in the curious amoral way it closes things out without being too neat and tidy. As a whole, it probably won't be the first pick on anybody's list for thrillers, but if you came across it, you would be just fine with what you end up seeing, and it makes some sense to see Guy Hamilton go on to better things.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

July 4, 2014

Movie Night: The Devil's Disciple.


Review #612: The Devil's Disciple.

Cast
Burt Lancaster (Anthony Anderson), Kirk Douglas (Richard Dudgeon), Laurence Olivier (General John Burgoyne), Janette Scott (Judith Anderson), Eva Le Gallienne (Mrs. Dudgeon), Harry Andrews (Major Swindon), and Basil Sydney (Lawyer Hawkins) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, #291 - Goldfinger and #293 - Live and Let Die)

Review
It figures to review a movie (based on a play) based around the Revolutionary War on the day of America' declaration of Independence 238 years ago, and The Devil's Disciple fits that bill just nicely. Is the movie good though? Yeah, pretty much. The most interesting actor is Kirk Douglas, playing a clever little character that fits so unevenly with the rest of the character, and yet he's the most interesting one of the bunch. Lancaster is at least commanding, and Olivier is as well, the cast is pretty good all in all. The action is brief, but it is fun to watch, and while the movie may run short, it does its job pretty well. The movie may take its time to get where it wants, but it eventually makes its mark, and it works well overall, especially today. Happy Independence Day to all, and stay safe.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

November 24, 2012

Movie Night: Live and Let Die.


Review #293: Live and Let Die.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Yaphet Kotto (Dr. Kananga/Mr. Big), Jane Seymour (Solitaire), Julius Harris (Tee Hee Johnson), David Hedison (Felix Leiter), Gloria Hendry (Rosie Carver), Clifton James (J.W. Pepper), Geoffrey Holder (Samedi), Bernard Lee (M), Roy Stewart (Quarrel Jr) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, and #291 - Goldfinger)

Review
This was the eighth Bond film, two years after the love it or hate it Diamonds Are Forever. In a way, this is like a trilogy, three straight films in order by the same director all with James Bond. But is this any better then the other two? Yes...and no. This was Roger Moore's first film as James Bond (Even though this is the third review of him as James Bond, sorry for the reviewing paradox), and he does a reasonable job, making the role slowly turn into his own, away from Connery (and Lazenby), which is a good thing. It's a shame that the film around him isn't exactly "good", though. Its plot lines are weird at points, making me wonder if I watching a Bond film or one of those random 70's films you might find in a cheap DVD pack. And that's another flaw of the film, it's dated at some points. (The fashion, the club locations, even the dialogue at times) What does dated mean exactly? It means that over time a film doesn't look as good as it might've been in its time, instead it looks like only a product of the 70's and not much else. The villain is not very impressive nowadays compared to other villains the Bond series has had (Goldfinger, Blofeld, Klebb, Jaws, even Franz Sanchez), and his henchmen Tee Hee reminds me too much of Dr. No, who wasn't exactly impressive to being with. The leading lady (Also known as the Bond girl, but I thought that would be weird to say) is excellent, having a purpose and being noteworthy enough to escape just being a girl who Bond saves. I'd almost forgotten that Q isn't in this film, and he usually provided some sort of fun, even if it was for one or two scenes. The action is mildly enjoyable. In the end, this film might be a step up or a small misstep for the Bond franchise, not being horrible, but not being very good either. At least Moore would have better opportunities as Bond. I think. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 007 out of 10 stars.

November 23, 2012

Movie Night: Goldfinger.


Review #291: Goldfinger.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Gert Fröbe (Auric Goldfinger), Honor Blackman (Pussy Galore), Harold Sakata (Oddjob), Cec Linder (Felix Leiter), Bernard Lee (M), Martin Benson (Mr. Solo), Tania Mallet (Tilly Masterson), Shirley Eaton (Jill Masterson), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever and #289 -The Man with the Golden Gun)

Review
Goldfinger was the third Bond film, released a year after the success of From Russia with Love (#277), but is this better then that film? That is debatable, but either way Goldfinger is a good film. Connery does a fine job yet again, being consistent in his portrayal of Bond. Frobe does an excellent job as the third villain of the series (Third of many), being more down to earth, and yet still threatening. The motifs of gold are a bit subtle. (This would be parodied in #134 - Austin Powers in Goldmember) But what I find excellent is Harold Sakata as Oddjob. The way he moves and used that hat without saying words is truly a sight to see. The action is good for the most part, entertaining and yet useful. Blackman does a good job as the leading lady, alluring and interesting. While there might be some humor, it does not get in the way of the plot. This is a film that still works after over 40 years, and with style indeed. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

November 21, 2012

Movie Night: The Man with the Golden Gun.


Review #289: The Man with the Golden Gun.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Christopher Lee (Francisco Scaramanga), Britt Ekland (Mary Goodnight), Maud Adams (Andrea Anders), Hervé Villechaize (Nick Nack), Richard Loo (Hai Fat), Soon-Tek Oh (Lieutenant Hip), Clifton James (J.W. Pepper), Bernard Lee (M), Marc Lawrence (Rodney), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Marne Maitland (Lazar), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever)

Review
The Man with the Golden Gun was the ninth film in the James Bond series based off the 13th novel of the book series by Ian Fleming, though the film doesn't have much to do with the novel (This doesn't hurt the film though as the films usually don't have that much accuracy anyway). And I finally get to talk about Roger Moore as James Bond. How is he? Well....Let me get to that later. Christopher Lee (I should make a game of how many times I review him in a film with him either being there or being the villain) is decent (He's been Dracula, a Baskerville, a Wonka, Dooku, The Creature, and a voice of the Jabberwocky in his career. Impressive.), probably more interesting then the plot. What's the plot? Something about solar power and a man with the golden gun (title drop), almost as thin as Diamonds Are Forever. The dialogue is meh, but the attempts at comedy are even more mediocre, which doesn't mesh well with the action. Ekland is...surprisingly clumsy (One scene I can't believe involves her not being able to see a button that is bright red), again almost as "eh" as Jill St. John in (again) Diamonds Are Forever. So how is Roger Moore? Well...He's relatively okay. He's not a suave type of Bond, but a more "roll with it" Bond. Roger Moore would be James Bond for 12 years (The longest run for a Bond, with 7 movies from 1973-1985), with this film being a slight misfire for the Bond franchise.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

November 5, 2012

Movie Night: Diamonds Are Forever.


Review #280: Diamonds Are Forever.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Jill St. John (Tiffany Case), Charles Gray (Ernst Blofeld), Jimmy Dean (Willard Whyte), Bruce Glover (Mr. Wint), Putter Smith (Mr. Kidd), Norman Burton (Felix Leiter), Joseph Furst (Metz), Lana Wood (Plenty O'Toole), Bruce Cabot (Bert Saxby), Bernard Lee (M), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Desmond Llewelyn (Q) Directed by Guy Hamilton.

Review
When I said a familiar face for this film, I mean they just lured Connery back for one more Bond film. How is it though? Well...Think of it like this. It is if you combined a good aspect of the Bond films (Bond himself) and some silliness with the intent to make the film more light-hearted yet fun and you get: A mess. That or Die Another Day. It's a bit of a downgrade from On Her Majesty's Secret Service (try saying that 5 times fast), not as good as From Russia with Love and Dr. No. It's main flaw is that it just feels like a weird experiment that went wrong somewhere along the way. Connery tries his best, but he is downgraded by silly things, such as Bond getting in a chase sequence with a moon buggy and a plot of a laser by diamonds. The supporting cast is okay at best. St. John is a step down from Rigg and the Bond girls before her. A new actor for Blofeld who is relatively decent (though I wish he would've been bald, to match the previous two times), though not particularly menacing. The action may be decent, but action and Connery just isn't enough to save this. In the end, this is a disappointment that is a not so satisfying way for Connery to end his run as Bond for the second and last time (however there was Never Say Never Again with Connery released in 1983 though like Casino Royale - #224 it wasn't produced by EON Productions). Speaking of Bond, there's one more to cover.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.