movie review – Page 2 – The Magnificent 60s

A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) ***

Forget swashbuckling shenanigans in the Captain Blood (1935) and Pirates of the Caribbean (2003) vein, this has more in keeping with Lord of the Flies (1963) as a bunch of third-rate pirates get more than they bargained for after kidnapping a bunch of English children.

The pirates are clever enough when required, using the ruse of pretending to be a ship in distress to defeat an enemy, capable of torturing a captured captain into revealing concealed treasure, or hiding from pursuit by disguising the masts with palm leaves, but generally short on intelligence. That the kidnapping is unintentional, no sensible pirate wanting the British Navy breathing down its neck, gives an indication of the mentality of Captain Chavez (Anthony Quinn) and his mate Zac (James Coburn). Nor are the children Disney-cute and far from being petrified they see it as a great adventure while the crew are superstitious about having the youngsters aboard.

The kids have great fun running rings round the pirates, stealing Chavez’s hat, climbing the rigging, and ringing the bell, while turning round the ship’s figurehead provokes another bout of superstition. When the kids are eventually imprisoned in a rowboat to prevent upsetting the crew they still manage to do so by playing a game that the crew take too seriously.

An attempt to abandon the children on the island of Tampico fails when the oldest boy John (Martin Amis) dies by accident. The children are unperturbed by his death, the only question raised is who can have his blanket. Much to his surprise Chavez discovers he has a strong paternal side, protective when he discovers that one of his captives is a young woman rather than a child, and going against the wishes of his crew when he tends to a knife wound on Emily (Deborah Baxter).

The children are far more grown-up and matter-of-fact than the childish crew, consumed by superstition, and Chavez, consumed by emotion. Although there is considerable comedy to be had from the children’s endeavors, it’s largely an adult film about children. In general, they don’t react the way they would in a Disney picture, nor in the manner which many adults would expect. The sexual tension of the book is considerably underplayed. But the fact that the adults are brought into harm’s way by sheer folly, and their reactions to life are essentially childish, creates a contrast with the more savage attitudes of the children. Emily essentially exposes Chavez’s guilty conscience.

While there is ambivalence aplenty, the depths the book explored go unexplored here, much to the benefit of the picture. The movie dances a tightrope as the children who would otherwise expect to trust an adult grow to learn how to distrust, a rather sharper lesson in growing up than they might have anticipated from their middle-class innocent lives.

Alexander Mackendrick (The Ladykillers, 1955) excels in ensuring the tightrope remains in place while taking advantage of the opportunity for comedy, the realization that this adventure is far from fun only becoming gradually apparent.

Anthony Quinn (Shoes of the Fisherman, 1968) reins in his tendency to ham things up, and his development from unbridled pirate to responsible adult is an interesting one. James Coburn (Dead Heat on a Merry-Go-Round, 1966) reins in the flashing teeth and reveals a more ruthless side than his captain anticipated. Deborah Baxter (The Wind and the Lion, 1975) is easily the pick of the kids although future novelist Martin Amis with his trademark sneer gives her a run for her money.

Lila Kedrova (Torn Curtain, 1966) appears as a brothel madam, Nigel Davenport (Sebastian, 1968) as the father and Gert Frobe (Goldfinger, 1964) as the captured captain. The cast also includes Dennis Price (Tamahine, 1963) and Vivienne Ventura (Battle Beneath the Earth, 1967).

Stanley Mann (Woman of Straw, 1964), Ronald Harwood (The Dresser, 1983) and Denis Cannan (Woman of Straw) wrote the screenplay based on the celebrated Richard Hughes novel.

Lover Come Back (1961) ***

In an ideal world there’d be someone you could complain to if an advertiser stepped out of line. In an ideal world, the agency that won a pitch would be the one that had put in the hard yards researching the marketplace and coming up with the most creative idea rather than the one who took the easy way out by simply wining and dining the client and laying on a bevy of women.

As you might imagine on Madison Ave it will be the prim intense Carol (Doris Day) who will play by the rules and stay up all night honing her pitch. And it would be louche smarmy executive Jerry (Rock Hudson) who puts in the hours but only as far as schmoozing the client and appealing to his primitive nature. Given this is a fiction, I’m assuming the idea of a code of ethics by which advertisers can be brought to book is a figment of the writer’s imagination.

No worries, whether fictional or not, Carol still loses out, Jerry more than capable of winning over the members of the ethics panel by seducing them with seductive chorus girl Rebel (Edie Adams) whom he has promised to turn into a star by featuring her as the model for a new product called VIP.

The only problem is, once Rebel’s usefulness is over, and once the ethics team is satisfied, Jerry has no intention of making such an unlikely candidate for stardom a star. Which is just as well because VIP doesn’t exist. He invented it solely to shoot enough of a commercial to convince Rebel he would honor his part of the deal.

Carol sees through the scam and hauls him up before the ethics board once again. However, Jerry has the sense to bring with him an actual product, a seemingly innocuous candy except it turns out to be highly intoxicating.

Screenwriters had long realized that a drunken Doris Day (The Ballad of Josie, 1967) is a banker and that she’ll use it to hit a comedic home run. And that’s the way it plays out with the complication that the pair have a one-night stand and a subsequent speedy marriage which leads to exactly the kinds of complications you’d expect from a Rock Hudson-Doris Day comedy and with a not unexpected twist at the tail end of the tale.

The only problem here is that we spend so much time satirizing the advertising industry, which, let’s face it, is easy meat, that it takes too long to get to the comedic hard yards the pair eventually put in. Doris Day makes a very persuasive top dog, and with that pinched-up intensity you could easily see her playing such a role in a drama and be very convincing. Generally, when she’s adopting her in-charge mode, there’s plenty inanimate objects to get in the way and create the pratfalls and physical comedy at which she excels. But when she’s just being undone by someone else’s cleverness, she might win sympathy but that doesn’t translate into big laffs.

So it only really gets going when the pair get into a romantic tangle, helped along, as I said by Day’s trademark inebriation. Rock Hudson (Seconds, 1966) is at his best when he’s constantly being taken down a peg or two by a clever woman or is himself ambushed by inanimate objects, so he’s somewhat out of his comfort zone in, here, always sitting in the winner’s circle.

There are certainly some high points but for too long it just drifts along, and much of the sharpness of the satire has been superseded by the more ruthless antics exposed on Mad Men (2007-2015), so it’s lost some of the bite which may have made up for the lack of comedy in the earlier sections.

But there’s no diminishing the screen charisma of the Hudson-Day partnership. It brought out the best in both actors. Tony Randall (Bang! Bang! You’re Dead! / Our Man in Marrakesh, 1966) puts in an interesting shift as Jerry’s boss who is bullied by his underling. Edie Adams (The Honey Pot, 1967) adds scheming to sultriness.

Directed by Delbert Mann (Buddwing, Mister Buddwing, 1966) from a screenplay by Stanley Shapiro (A Very Special Favor, 1965) and Paul Henning (Bedtime Story, 1964).

Good wholesome fluff.

Journey to the Far Side of the Sun / Doppelganger (1969) ****

Bring Gerry and Sylvia Anderson into the equation and it’s a straightforward free pass of the cult kind. For the fanboys, the inventors of Supermarionation (Thunderbirds Are Go!, 1966) live on an exalted plane immune from criticism. however, sci fi buffs have tended to be less than impressed by the pair’s first venture into (to use a Walt Disney phrase) “live-action.” So response swings between these extremes. I fit into neither category so I come at this with something of an open mind and for a variety of reasons found it a far more enjoyable experience than I had anticipated, though I hazard a guess that on the big screen the flaws in the special effects would have been more obvious.

Some aspects even have a contemporary chime, the X-ray security screening machines, for example, and the fact that there’s no such actual entity called Europe and if you want to advance a project you have to navigate your way through the representatives of several countries as well as the hovering financial weight of the United States, bristling at being asked to pay more than its share but worried about being excluded.

And there’s no ice-cool scientific boffin. Instead we have the choleric, not to mention bombastic, Jason Webb (Patrick Wymark). Nor do non-combatants scoot through training. The rigors potential astronauts are put through in the likes of The Right Stuff (1983) or Apollo 13 (1995) are nothing to the body-wringing and mind-blowing experience of John Kane (Ian Hendry).

His companion space buddy Col John Ross (Roy Thinnes) is well-drawn for a sci fi adventure. He’s worried that exposure to radiation and worse in space has knocked his masculinity on the head, his wife Sharon (Lynn Loring) complaining it has left him sterile. Though it turns out she’s a wily creature, secretly using contraception.

We also get a spy, Dr Hassler (Herbert Lom), and it’s not so much that he has a gadget – a mini camera secreted in a false eyeball – than the detail involved in him retrieving the film. In most movies there would be no gap between the reveal of the gadget and the production of its secrets. But here Dr Hassler has to go through a whole procedure, dipping the eyeball into four solutions and dabbing it with this and that, before he can view a single frame.

The picture breaks down into a straight three-act vehicle. The first section getting to lift off, then the journey including the kind of phantasmagorical event you found in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and which even Christopher Nolan relied upon in Interstellar (2014), and arrival.

Most sci fi movies play fast and loose with audiences, rarely remaining true to the logic of their invented worlds or concepts. This sticks to its original notion even if that means ending up with a distinctly downbeat ending. Initially, the astronauts are searching for a new planet, whose orbit is similar to Earth, but on the other side of the sun. This being the year 2068, distance is no object and they reckon it’s a six-week return trip.

But what the astronauts discover on arrival at the new planet is a nightmare situation, that in terms of ability to drive you mad skews close to enigmatic British TV series The Prisoner (1967) or Lost (2004-2010) before it jumped the shark. Ross and Kane have landed on a doppelganger planet and the movie takes this world to its logical conclusion. It’s the real parallel universe, or multiverse in the current vernacular, except everything happens the same as on Earth.

So the choleric Webb initially accuses the astronauts of cowardice, to have turned back and failed to complete their mission which would have led them to our Earth. Doppelganger literally means mirror image which eventually explains why writing goes left to right and everything is a step out of normal kilter. Identical except not quite. And stuck in a world where everything that seems real is one step away from your known reality. The kind of situation that would have been created by a mad scientist intent on torturing minds.

Ross determines to attempt to return to Earth but that means connecting what remains of his spaceship with a space vessel made on the new planet but the parts that should fit exactly don’t fit because they have designed in mirror fashion. So that’s it for your chances of a happy ending.

Left me with a nightmare feeling, the ultimate what if. As far as stings in the tail go, comparable with Planet of the Apes (1968).

For the concept as much as the clever detail, I’ve given it a higher mark than maybe it deserves.

Ella McCay (2025) **

I should have taken notice of the horrific opening weekend for Ella McCay – just $2 million return on a $35 million budget. But it seemed unfair to ignore a new picture by the Oscar-winning writer-director of Terms of Endearment (1983), Broadcast News (1987) and As Good As It Gets (1997). Maybe I should have taken into account his cinematic rustiness, this is his first picture in 15 years, though that’s leavened by the fact he’s not exactly been prolific, including this a career spanning just eight pictures, so this could just be another gem a long time in the making.

Alas, no. It’s an unholy mess. From the set-up it presents as an expose of politics in the sharply satirical manner of Broadcast News. But all we learn about politics is the amount of time politicians spend drumming up money from sponsors in boiler rooms filled with begging employees working the phone and that be careful who you choose as a running mate because if the top person dies or – in this case – gets promoted, you’re left with someone nobody voted for and who has such little grasp of the humans she’s meant to be working for that in her ideological frenzy she bores everyone to death.

This looks as if it started one way and went another. A simple plot device could have been used to explore the problems of politicians squaring family lives with duty. Ella McCay (Emma Mackey) – promoted to governor of an unnamed state because the incumbent, Bill (Albert Brooks), is promoted elsewhere – has been caught out using a room in the government building to have lunchtime sex with restaurateur husband Ryan (Jack Lowden).

This might have done wonders for her career, given she’s such a stuffy uptight lady, and the issue would have deserved no more than a mild slap on the wrist for illicit use of government property, and highlighted the problems of work-life balance in the business. Instead, it’s forced to do triple duty in a bizarre manner.

A journalist with so little grasp of politics is dumb enough to think this is actually an expose worth blackmailing someone over. And a politician with so little grasp of PR is dumb enough to think this poses a threat. And a husband with probably a very good grasp of how business works tries to pay off said journalist only for the whole farrago to explode in everyone’s face and result in a vengeful husband instigating divorce proceedings and blaming her for the bribery.

Oh dear, these bad men damaging a young woman’s promising career. Except the head of her political party calling her to book is a woman and it’s Ryan’s mother who puts him on collision course with his wife. Ella is just tone-deaf to everyone except herself. In her inauguration speech she fails to thank Bill or her husband and in her first meeting with her staff drones on for so long fails to notice they are falling asleep.

*Reminder of just how good James L. Brooks could be*.

It’s not just Ella who’s tone-deaf it’s the director. There’s a just terrible scene where having decided to spend the night at her brother’s apartment she fails to notify her police guard and then blasts them in the morning for watching over her overnight and wasting taxpayer’s money by clocking up overtime and this is presented as if in fact her anger is proof of her innate goodness.

Rammed into this bizarre concoction is estranged dad Eddie (Woody Harrelson) whom Ella refuses to forgive for his womanizing – and in fact the only scene that actually carries any heft is the one where as a teenager she refuses to play the happy family game when he’s been caught out in a misdemeanor.

Oh, and while we’re at it, her brother Casey (Spike Fearn), an agoraphobic computer geek who happens to pocket $2 million a year on a spread betting hustle, is on hand to listen (unwillingly it has to be said) to her self-justifying rants and effort is put in to justifying his continued presence in the picture with a dumb plugged-in romance.

The main problem is that mostly Ella is on the verge of a nervous breakdown, constantly whining, bursting into tears (or screaming – the apparent alternative) and what sets out to show how women are constricted in politics actually instead reveals how someone constitutionally unfit for the hard graft of politics becomes a liability. But, wait, hooray, she does good in the end.

Everyone overacts. So there’s no excuse except directorial slackness for usually dependable actors like Woody Harrelson (Now You See Me, Now You Don’t, 2025) and Jamie Lee Curtis (The Last Showgirl, 2024) and for Emma Mackey (Emily, 2022), face in constant fidget, inexperience might mitigate. Jack Lowden (Tornado, 2025), done no favors by the script, and veteran Albert Brooks (Concussion, 2015), in his first movie in a decade, are better, but that’s not saying much.

Just awful. American moviegoers were right to give this a body swerve.

The Hustler (1961) ****

You get the impression this is the kind of movie that contemporary “visionary” directors think they are making when they focus on an unlikeable obsessive character causing chaos all around. It’s not just star quality they are missing – who wouldn’t give their eyeteeth for a Paul Newman to get behind a movie with poor commercial prospects, especially one tackling a sport that is guaranteed to put off the female element of the audience. Without Newman’s involvement you didn’t have a hope in hell of getting anywhere near the female audience.

And this was quite a different Paul Newman. In the first of his iconic roles, he’s far from the traditional hero. He’s an obsessive loner. But you are drawn towards him because of both the intensity and vulnerability of this character. He could as easily be the loser, the last thing an audience wants, he’s often accused of being, the bottler looking for an excuse for not going the extra mile it takes to win. And even when he does win, triumph comes with loss, of love and his avowed profession.

And it takes a heck of a confident director – Robert Rossen (Lilith, 1964) – to lock us into the dark prison of a pool room for virtually the first 30 minutes of the picture. If you don’t know the rules of American pool – as opposed to billiards and snooker – you’re not going to learn them here. “Fast” Eddie Felson (Paul Newman) has spent years on the road, hustling in small town poolrooms, to built up the kind of cash stack he requires to take on the greatest name in pool, Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason) whose unbeaten run stretches back a decade and a half.

And the movie should be over in that first half hour – or at the very least turned into a very different kind of picture, the one where the champ squanders his fortune – because Felson has thumped Fats. He’s $18,000 ahead at one point. In any other sport that should be mean he’s not just won but he’s won in style. Except it doesn’t work that way here. Fats has to concede. And Fats won’t concede because this is a marathon and despite his bulk Fats is better built for a 40-hour match than his slimmer opponent. And so it proves.

Felson is back to the beginning, welshing on his business partner Charlie (Myron McCormick) and heading out into the night. Where he meets alcoholic Sarah (Piper Laurie) who’s sitting in a bus station in the early morning sipping coffee until the liquor stores open. She’s not your usual easy pick-up, she knocks him back easily and in an idiosyncratic manner. She nearly does the same again, but relents and they start a relationship that’s built on nothing except ships passing in the night. She’s a lush, he’s a has-been. She’s a bit of a cultured lush, reads, writes short stories, but still booze is her first love.

If he’s not down enough, here comes the kicker. Thugs in a poolroom object to being hustled and break his thumbs. But she’s not very maternal and he’s not the kind of man who wants to be looked after in that fashion.

Eventually, he hooks up with another backer, a shady underworld character, Bert Gordon (George C Scott) whose first move is to break up Felson’s relationship, attempting to belittle Sarah, getting her smashed and putting the moves on her as if free sex is part of the deal. Felson gets badly hustled by wealthy Louisville Findley (Murray Hamilton), duped into playing billiards instead of pool, and the potential loss might well have slammed the door on the deal with Gordon. But Gordon gets his pound of flesh, literally, and Sarah, clearly better versed in the ways of the world than Felson, gives in to her lover’s manager and then is so disgusted with herself that she commits suicide.

Felson gains his revenge on both Minnesota Fats and Gordon but at a cost, lover lost, and kicked out of his profession. Victory has never been so negative.

While the acting all round is superb, all four principals plus the director Oscar-nominated, it’s the feel of the piece and the obsessiveness of the characters that resonates. Robert Rossen makes no concessions to the audience. He doesn’t explain the game and he doesn’t, as would be par for the course anywhere else, show how Felson learned how to handle a cue a different way after his thumbs were broken and there’s a distinct lack of the triumphalism that generally comes with the territory.

Behind the Scenes article tomorrow.

Fate Is the Hunter (1964) ***

More like Flight from Ashiya (1964) than Flight of the Phoenix (1965) in that airline disaster triggers flashback rather than contemporaneously finding a solution to the problem, but similar in tone to the more recent Flight (2012) and Sully (2016) where the automatic response of the authorities was to blame pilot error rather than ascertain mechanical malfunction. Unlike the two modern pictures, pilot Jack Savage (Rod Taylor) cannot be interrogated in court because he died in the explosion. So investigator Sam McBane (Glenn Ford) seeks some corresponding incident in the past which might account for the pilot making such a mistake.

Other options face McBane. Sabotage could be the cause since a passenger took out a $500,000 insurance policy days before boarding the twin-engine plane. Bird strike cannot be ruled out after feathers are found in the engine. Or it could be simple misfortune. Three inbound planes all running late prevent the plane returning immediately to Los Angeles and it would have landed safely on a beach except for hitting a temporary structure. But engineers hardly need to pore over the evidence. The fault is staring them in the face. Savage had reported two engines catching fire but the wreckage reveals one engine intact.

However, the only survivor, stewardess Martha Webster (Suzanne Webster) maintains that two red warning lights were flashing, indicating malfunction in both engines. But since she is badly injured and in a woozy state, this is not taken as gospel. So McBane dips into the playboy past of Savage, a buddy, a man with such appeal he can serenade real-life figures as Jane Russell (playing herself). Two occasions highlight the man’s heroic history of emergency landings. So can he be the unreliable character painted by a jilted fiancée (Dorothy Malone) or the drinker who should not have been in a bar so soon before take-off?

The tight-lipped shoulder-hunched humorless soulless McBane, described as “one of the best-built machines” known to man, finds himself questioning his own attitudes as he uncovers more of his friend’s life. But when it comes to the big enquiry, televised, he has no better an explanation to ascribe the unexpected collision of different events than the “fate” of the title. Naturally, that mystical prognosis hardly goes down well with his superiors. Luckily, McBane comes to his senses and suggests a simulation which does, in fact, pinpoint the flaw.

It’s relatively easy to pinpoint the flaw in the picture. Audiences expecting a disaster movie with characters stranded by a crash were disappointed to find that by cinematic sleight-of –hand they were being presented with The Jack Savage Story, which with the larger-than-life character and his various aviation and romantic adventures would easily have made a picture in its own right. Stuck instead with the glum McBane as their guide, who, beyond his steadfastness, does not come into his own until the last 15 minutes, seemed an unfair trick. The explosion of the doomed plane at the 10-minute mark is easily the dramatic highlight and the continued flashbacks rather than adding to the tension often eased it.

With four stars above the title, audiences might have anticipated some kind of four-sided triangle, but the two female stars scarcely appear although Martha has one excellent scene, shocked when asked to don her uniform again, and Sally (Nancy Kwan) enjoys a fishing meet-cute with Savage.

That said, if you accept as McBane as more of a private eye, his surly demeanor fits, and the Savage life story is certainly a fascinating one and the various aviation episodes unusual enough to maintain interest. Glenn Ford (Is Paris Burning?, 1965), his box office sheen waning and about to shift exclusively to westerns, is always watchable but there’s no real depth to the character. Rod Taylor (Dark of the Sun, 1968) is at his most exuberant and that’s no bad thing, and beneath the bonhomie a good guy at heart, but his portrayal provides little of the shade that would make it thinkable he was to blame. Suzanne Pleshette (The Power, 1968) and Nancy Kwan (Tamahine, 1963) are both under-used. Look out for Mark Stevens (Escape from Hell Island, 1963), Jane Russell (Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, 1953) in her first movie in seven years, and Dorothy Malone (The Last Sunset, 1961).

Ralph Nelson (Once a Thief, 1965) sticks to the knitting but four scenes stand out: the explosion, Martha’s breakdown at the sight of her uniform, the stewardess during the simulation staring down the plane at the empty seats filled with sacks of sand, and an excellent composition (which Steven Spielberg pays homage to in West Side Story) of a character being preceded into a scene by his very long shadow. Also worth pointing out is that, in almost James Bond style, the opening sequence lasts ten minutes before there is any sign of the credits.

Harold Medford (The Cape Town Affair, 1967) wrote the screenplay based very loosely on the eponymous bestselling memoir by Ernest K. Gann, whose The High and the Mighty had been turned into a hit picture a decade before. The author was so furious with how much the adaptation veered from his biography – which often pointed out the dangers of flying, recurrent pilot death and airplane unworthiness a main theme – that he took his name off the credits, missing out on an ancillary goldmine as the movie, a box office flop, proved a television staple.

Ambush Bay (1966) ****

I’m going out on a limb on this one. I don’t think anyone’s done anything but give it a cursory examination and mark it down as a standard programmer of the era. But I saw a lot that was considerably impactful.

Generally speaking, although the war picture had gradually shifted from the gung-ho to the more realistic (Operation Crossbow, 1965, Von Ryan’s Express, 1965), it’s generally accepted that it was The Dirty Dozen (1967), Beach Red (1967) and Play Dirty (1968) that ushered in the new era of authenticity and violence.

Oddly enough, this little picture, minus the bloodletting, was the bridge. It’s way tougher than you would expect for a low-budget picture only ever intended to fill out the lower half of a double bill and never going to catch the eye of a critic hoping to find an unknown movie to punt.

Let’s start with the ruthlessness. A bunch of Yanks on a secret mission in the Philippines are hounded by Japanese soldiers. At their first encounter, knives are the weapon of choice so as not to attract attention. We don’t see the knives going in but we hear them slicing into flesh. They capture one of the enemy who begs to be taken prisoner but nobody’s got time to bother with such niceties so they tie him to a tree and come morning he’s dead. Rather than give away their own position, they don’t fire on the pursuing Japanese which results in one of their own being killed. A female American-born Japanese spy, convinced her natural charms can distract the Japanese, volunteers at one point to stay behind, even if that means becoming the sexual plaything of the Japanese commander and then passed on to his men. And when that ploy fails she is ruthlessly sacrificed.

There are other narrative reversals. The Dirty Dozen, for example, begins with a lengthy introduction to each of the condemned men. Here, as the team prepare to land on the Philippines, we are introduced, via voice-over, to each of the team. And then you learn that the real reason for this is that we’ll count up the number of men in the group and become aware that they are gradually being whittled away.

And then there’s the voice-over itself. This not being one of those post-modernist numbers where the narrator is speaking from beyond the grave, audiences know that a narrator is a survivor. But what they’re not going to guess is that he’ll be the only survivor.

Or that he least deserves to survive. Private Grenier (James Mitchum) is a rookie – “six months ago he was stacking shoe boxes” – and he’s truculent and troublesome. His only job is to keep the radio safe, excused fighting duties so that he can broadcast to the waiting General MacArthur the outcome of the mission. But he’s as useless at guarding the radio as he is at everything else and the radio is shot to pieces. He’s so dumb he doesn’t realize the purpose of a Japanese tea house.

There’s not an ounce of the gung-ho. The dialog is delivered in an undertone. Nobody makes a meal of any line of dialog no matter ho juicy. Everything undercuts. When Commander Sgt Corey (Hugh O’Brian) plans to go into serious harm’s way his number two Sgt Wartell (Mickey Rooney) asks what will happen if he doesn’t come back. In matter-of-fact tones, but without the snap of someone thinking he’s delivering a great line, Corey replies, “You get a field promotion and an extra eight bucks a month.”

The Ambush Bay of the title is supremely ironic. It’s the Americans who are going to be ambushed. The Japanese have seeded the sea-bed of the beach where they guess the Americans are going to land with mines. Nothing unusual there. Minesweepers will clear the path. Except these are unusual mines, anchored to the seabed and only loosened by remote control by the enemy.

The initial mission is just to locate the aforementioned spy Miyazaki (Tisa Chang) who turns out to be a sought-after sex worker in the tea house. But when the radio is out of action, they have to disable the radio tower controlling the mines. By this point they’re down to just two men, Corey and Grenier.

Grenier has the ingenious plan of draining fuel from a truck to make a Molotov cocktail, toss it into a fuel dump and in the confusion make their way to the radio tower. Even at this late stage, reversals come thick and fast. Great idea – you got a match? Nope. But the lorry driver is smoking. He discards a lighted cigarette. But when he gets out of his cab he grinds the cigarette with his foot. Luckily, they can revive it.

All the way the dialog is like loaded dice. “Idiot,” muses Grenier, “that’s the nicest thing he’s said to me.”

Miyazaki has some choice lines. “If you’re dead that won’t help me.” And, encountering Corey’s disbelief at her gender, “Suppose I refused to believe you were my contact.” And in the understated manner of every individual, of the leering Japanese commander, she notes, “He desires me, I think that’s the phrase.”

Visually, this isn’t littered with gems. Most of the visuals are under-stated, brutality generally off-camera but there’s one unforgettable scene. The Japanese commander, having been distracted by Miyazaki puts his pistol in his holster. A few minutes later, realizing he has been duped, he takes it out of its holster.

Hugh O’Brian (Ten Little Indians, 1965) is superb as the non-scene-stealer-in-chief. Mickey Rooney (The Secret Invasion, 1964) has less opportunity for grandstanding than in most of his pictures. And surely this is the recently-deceased James Mitchum’s (In Harm’s Way, 1965) best role, as he shifts from amateur to professional. If you’re looking for an understated scene-stealer Tisa Chang (better known for her stage work – she only appeared in five films) is choice.

Directed by Ron Winston (Banning, 1967) from a script by Ib Melchior (Planet of the Vampires, 1965) and Marve Feinberg in his debut.

The lowest-budgeted film, just $640,000, in the 1966 release schedule of United Artists, on a cost-to-profit scale this proved one of its most successful pictures hammering out $1.7 million in rentals.

Worth going out on a limb for.

Who’s Got the Action (1962) ***

Complication. The keenest weapon in the screenwriter’s armory. And the most overused and, conversely, not employed to its greatest potential. Generally, it’s the only device for a romance – boy meets girl, (enter complication as…) boy loses girl, boy gets girl. But, just occasionally, it appears with some skill, layer after layer of deft complication until a whole story is tied up in acceptable and believable knots.

Before we get into all that it’s worth pointing out how language changes. These days mention of “action” will carry connotations of a sexual nature, so, just to be clear, here we’re talking about gambling, betting on horses, the mythical sure thing. And if you want to take a more cosmic perspective, we can apply the scientific rule that every action has a re-action, in other words consequence.

Attorney Steve Flood (Dean Martin) has a gambling addiction. He’s $8,000 in the hole to illegal bookie Clutch (Lewis Charles). Steve’s wife Melanie (Lana Turner) comes up with a clever idea to wean him off his addiction, by creating a fictional bookie, so that her husband’s losses will come to nothing. So she calls in Steve’s partner Clint Morgan (Eddie Albert) triggering Complication No 1. Clint’s always had the hots for Melanie and hopes to take advantage of Steve’s problems, helping her out by agreeing to act as the mythical bookie.

And that would be fine except for Complications No 2 and No 3. Instead of losing, as has been the trend, Steve wins big on his first bet, so now Melanie has to find a large chunk of dough. In dumping Clutch, Steve has come to the attention of mobster Tony Gagouts (Walter Matthau) who’s wondering about the mysterious new bookie queering his pitch and denying him a good customer (such is the definition of a loser).

Steve’s gambling success creates Complication No 4, attracting the interest of a pair of judges who are happy to stake the gambler, whose winning streak shows no sign of stopping.

Complication No 5 – Melanie turns to nightclub singer Saturday Knight (Nita Talbot), her next door neighbor and girlfriend of Tony, for help in raising cash and she obliges by buying some of the couple’s furnishing while Melanie also pawns jewelry.

Complication No 6 is created by Tony, who, trying to trace the rival bookie, installs a wiretap that leads him to the Flood apartment. And that should be the end of the tale, and little chance of a happy ending, except for Complication No 7. Tony has incriminated himself via the wiretaps and with an attorney ready to exploit the situation, it all works out fine, original debt to the gangster wiped out and the mobster blackmailed into marrying Saturday.

Now, with so many complications and sub-plots, this isn’t a Dean Martin picture the way the Matt Helm series is, especially not with a co-star like Lana Turner (By Love Possessed, 1961) who, not weighed down by the kind of heavy romantic tangle that seemed her remit at this point of her career, has the chance to steal a good deal of the limelight.

But the strong supporting case also do their best to chisel scenes away from the big stars. Eddie Albert’s (Captain Newman M.D., 1963) idea of a seductive lunch is a cracker and Nita Talbot (Hogan’s Heroes series, 1965), fashion ideas like Audrey Hepburn on speed, can’t help but play up to the camera. Walter Matthau is trying out a characterization for Charade (1963).

The beauty of this is that the narrative follows a neat logic. You can’t just muscle in on the illegal gambling business.

Director Daniel Mann ( A Dream of Kings, 1969) whips up an entertaining Runyonesque comedy from a screenplay by Jack Rose (It Started in Naples, 1960) based on a novel by namesake Alexander Rose who you might have spotted wearing his acting hat in The Hustler (1961).

They seemed to be a lot better at these effortless concoctions back in the day.

Wild River (1960) ****

Funny how you remember the circumstances of seeing a film for the first time. This was important for me because it was the start of me digging into the vast heritage of the movies rather than watching just what was showing at my local cinema. I can’t pin down the exact date, but I have a feeling I was still at school, though in the advanced stage of that academia. I saw this on a 16mm print in a terraced house sitting on the hard kind of seats you used to get in assembly halls.

The location was the Scottish Film Council, the predecessor of the Glasgow Film Theatre, which was located in the city’s West End. The occasion was the final film in an eight-movie retrospective of Elia Kazan pictures. Either before or after I attended a similar Fellini retrospective. Certain more controversial films were omitted, so no Gentleman’s Agreement (1947), Pinky (1948) or Baby Doll (1956) and although this was the early 1970s no room for Splendor in the Grass (1961), America, America (1963) or The Arrangement (1969). Afterwards, there was a cup of tea and a biscuit and a discussion hosted by John Brown, who in my memory smoked small cigars, later a television and screen writer.

It was an introduction for me to the power of the retrospective, to view a huge number of a director’s films back-to-back (the screenings were weekly) and to understand the thematic symmetry of their work. Kazan predated the New Hollywood of the late 1960s and 1970s, so, although his movies usually challenged existing norms, these days they are often viewed as more stolid than of the first rank, his cause not helped by revelations that he named names at the anti-Communist hearings of the 1950s.

Wild River is one of those films that plays completely differently now thanks to the intervening decades. A contemporary audience is unlikely to sympathize with hero Chuck Glover (Montgomery Clift) whose job is to persuade farmers in the early 1930s to clear out of the way of land that is going to be swamped with water to supply a new dam that would serve to both control the catastrophic flooding in the Tennessee Valley and bring electricity to an impoverished area.

These days ageing landowner Ella Garth (Jo Van Fleet) would attract massive publicity in her fight to avoid being shifted from land that had been in her family for generations, especially as she claims that dams go “against nature.”. And no matter how sympathetic a character like Chuck might be to her circumstances he would be viewed as a more well-meaning-than-most government apparatchik.

And in some respects, this plays much better as one of the few movies exploring the plight of the African American at the hands of the racist authorities. Chuck incites local hostility when he recruits Blacks to work alongside Whites, in the end conceding that they should work in separate crews. But he comes unstuck when he sticks to the principle that they should be paid the same, more than double the going daily rate for Blacks.

In consequence he is beaten up and, worse, a gang of thugs attack the house inhabited by his lover Carol (Lee Remick) and her two young children and the cops, when they arrive, are apt to condone the violence.

Ella takes a maternal attitude to her Black workforce and while certainly nobody received abusive treatment at her hands she has a patronizing manner, though in the end she encourages them to leave.

Despite his democratic and anti-racist views, Chuck comes over as a clever dick, thinking his smooth eastern charm can convince the reluctant woman to move and for the racists to abandon their inherent racism.

I’m not sure about the widowed Carol either, she almost seems to be throwing herself at the first decent man who comes her way. While she is already being courted by a local fellow, who is more decent than the rest, that is clearly going to be a marriage of convenience, but what exactly makes Chuck so much more an attractive proposition is never made entirely clear except that, for narrative purposes, it creates a romantic deadline – is she just a fling, thrown over when he heads home – and a whiff of tension.

However, marriage to the other man would have made her just a passive housewife, whereas she realizes that in many ways she is smarter than Chuck, more grounded, and she would have more freedom in this kind of match.

Oddly enough, there’s a Hitchcock vibe here. At several points the camera tracks Glover in longshot as he appears to be heading for trouble.

The racist elements give this its bite rather than any ecological issues. The acting is certainly of high quality, Montgomery Clift (The Misfits, 1961), less mannered than in some of his work, in one of his last great roles. It’s an interesting part. At one point he wishes he could once in a while win a physical fight, and it’s Carol who is more likely to show the venom required in battle.

Lee Remick (No Way To Treat A Lady, 1968) continued to build on her exceptional promise. Jo Van Fleet (Cool Hand Luke, 1967) gets her teeth into the kind of role most actors dream of. You can spot Bruce Dern (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 2019) in his first role.

An unusual approach to the screenplay, too, by Paul Osborn (The World of Suzie Wong, 1960). Like The Towering Inferno (1974) a decade later, this derived from two novels – Dunbar’s Cove by Borden Deal and Mud on the Stars by William Bradford Huie (The Americanization of Emily, 1964).

Despite my ecological reservations, still stands up..

Best Seller (1987) ***

If nobody’s shot your dog or killed a member of your family, it’s kinda hard for an assassin to work up much audience sympathy. And although this is closer to John Wick than say The Mechanic (1972) or Day of the Jackal (1973), it doesn’t help the sympathy cause if your leading character is played by James Woods (Oscar-nominated the same year for Salvador) who so often essays an amoral fidgety weasel.

So it’s left to Brian Dennehy (F/X, 1986) to do the heavy lifting. Dennehy was the kind of stolid supporting actor who once in a while in the Hollywood Dream made it through on occasion to top billing. His brawn was not in the obvious top-off mold of muscle men Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenneger and more in keeping with Holt McCallany (The Amateur, 2025).

It’s not unheard of for characters on either side of the law to team up to tackle the bad guys, but it’s a bit of a stretch for incorruptible widowed hero cop Dennis Meechum (Brian Dennehy) not to toss assassin Cleve (James Woods) into the pokey especially when there are ample witnesses to one of the killer’s killings. But, wait, let’s throw him a get-out-of-jail-free card because he saved the life of Meechum.

Even so, Cleve is as creepy as all get out and even if – especially if – he was a fantasist and not an accomplished assassin you would expect the sensible cop to run a mile, especially after he kidnaps Meechum’s daughter. For reasons unknown, Cleve is handed another get-out-of-jail-free card because actually he didn’t kidnap the 16-year-old Holly (Allison Balsam) but just gave her and her pals a lift home. Quite why a cop’s daughter would fall for the line given by a complete stranger that he was her dad’s pal is anyone’s guess, except it suits the script.

There’s quite a lot of what used to be called “high concept” – in other words getting away with the most unlikely of scenarios – here, not least that Meechum would go along with the psychotic Cleve in order to get the material to write a book, that particular well having dried up after the death of Meechum’s wife.

The fact that Meechum has a side hustle as a best-selling author – though still a cop – is one of the many stretches in the tale. You have to go along with quite a lot until the proper narrative kicks in, and realize that, in fact, Meechum is merely the dupe to allow Cleve to achieve his real aim which is to gain revenge by knocking off former employer David Madlock (Paul Shenar) who, regardless of whatever other malarkey he is up to, had the good sense to rid himself of the psychotic entitled gunman.

It seems inconceivable, too, that, by the simple device of employing a barrage of lawyers, big businessman and philanthropist Madlock would not be able to block publication. Meechum refuses to bow under pressure but his publisher might well do once she has been terrorized by Cleve.

And this wouldn’t work at all except for Cleve. Like Jeff Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974) he’s a loner (though also like that character having no problem seducing women) who’s desperate for male friendship and appreciation. He wants to buddy up with Meechum and for the cop to enter into such a relationship willingly. In Cleve’s demented eyes, sharing the same woman appears to be one way they could cement the relationship. He appears to view the publication of the book which would uncover the illegitimate activities of the seemingly legitimate Madlock as a means of redemption. He wants to come out well in the book, even introduces Meechum to his quite normal family, and sees that as some kind of weird redemption.

Eventually, there’s enough shoot-out action, especially when Cleve enters silent John Wick assassin mode, to make the journey worthwhile. But although Cleve is a fascinating original character and the dynamics of the relationship constantly shift, it beggars belief that Meechum would entertain him for a moment especially when he discovers Cleve was responsible for wounding him and killing some of his colleagues in a robbery several years before.

Woods is the standout though Dennehy does stake a decent claim as a leading man. Despite being third-billed Victoria Tennant (The Ragman’s Daughter, 1972) hardly appears.

Screenwriter Larry Cohen (It’s Alive, 1974) is no stranger to the genre mash-up and generally gets away with inconsistencies but here the bar is set way too low at the outset for the tale to be believable. Director John Flynn (The Sergeant, 1968) goes with the flow.

Worth it to see Dennehy get a shot at the big time and for another in Woods’ tribe of weasels but will have you scratching your head with the unlikeliness of the tale.