Archive for May 2010

 

DVD review: “The Icons of Suspense Collection: Hammer Films”

Best known for its low-budget gothic horror movies with deceptively sumptuous-looking period sets and the distinguished presences of Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and other top British and American actors in lead roles, England’s Hammer Films also was adept at producing Hitchcockian psychological thrillers that were remarkably well-written, directed and acted at even lower production costs than its Frankenstein and Dracula series.

The “Icons of Suspense” set collects six little-known black-and-white gems from the Hammer House vaults. It includes the curious but riveting atomic paranoia oddity, “These Are the Damned” (1963) from director Joseph Losey, which starts out as a confrontation between a vacationing American (Macdonald Carey) and a gang of Teddy Boy bikers (led by a young Oliver Reed) before taking a left turn into sci-fi weirdness involving strange, ice-cold children isolated in secret underground living quarters. “Cash on Demand” (1961) is a tense standoff of wits between a banker (Cushing) and a lone robber (Andre Morell); Oscar-winning cinematographer Guy Green directs “The Snorkel” (1958), a creepfest about a cold-blooded husband (Peter Van Eyck) who devises the diabolically perfect murder of his wife, but doesn’t fool his intuitive stepdaughter; Val Guest directs the psychodrama “Stop Me Before I Kill!” (1960) about an unhinged man and the conniving psychiatrist who has designs on his wife; Hammer regular Jimmy Sangster pens the bloodcurdling “Maniac” (1963) starring Kerwin Matthews; and Cyril Frankel directs the chilling “Never Take Candy from a Stranger” (1960), a shocker about an elderly child molester that was way ahead of its time.

Not a vampire in sight, but the scares are intact, and all come complete with killer twist endings.

— Gene Triplett

Amanda Seyfried: The eyes have it

BY DENNIS KING

NEW YORK — The first thing you notice about Amanda Seyfried: She has such large eyes; doelike eyes of blue framed by cascading blond locks; movie starlet eyes; big, expressive eyes that convey an alluring mixture of youthful naivete and worldly sophistication.

Seyfried admitted to being a little wide-eyed in wonder these days at her good fortune. The petite 23-year-old from Allentown, Pa., has carved out a pretty impressive resume in the few years since she made the leap from fashion-model ingenue to soap-opera actress to star of TV and film (acting opposite such heavyweights as Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore and Vanessa Redgrave).

Since winning her first movie role in the Tina Fey-penned “Mean Girls,” Seyfried has worked steadily on series television and in films ranging from the musical “Mama Mia!” to the sizzling thriller “Chloe.” She has a regular role on the HBO series “Big Love” and last appeared on the big screen in this year’s Nicholas Sparks romantic drama “Dear John.”

Now, still following her romantic muse, Seyfried takes on a role in what must be the most love-struck movie to come along in years, “Letters to Juliet.” It’s a lush, starry-eyed romance-fairytale-travelogue that ranges from Manhattan to Verona, Italy, and has Seyfried playing Sophie, an American tourist who wanders into the courtyard of Juliet Capulet of “Romeo and Juliet” and finds herself drawn in to the lovelorn tales of women who’ve left letters there of their romantic travails.

Seyfried allowed that she was a little reluctant to follow “Dear John” so closely with another sentimental romance.

“But this story was just so filled with long lost love, true love, fate. I couldn’t resist,” she said during a recent press event hosted by Summit Entertainment at a chic Soho boutique hotel. “That said, I’m not going to make another romantic comedy for a while. My focus is not too much on one genre. I like to keep people guessing. That’s the trick.”

Still, the young actress said her fascination with Shakespeare’s tragic lovers began at an early age.

“I have a really, really strong connection to the movie ‘Romeo + Juliet’ by Baz Luhrmann,” she said. “I don’t know why; I guess I was just so intensely inspired by it. And I never let that go. It’s one of the things that drew me into being an actor.

“As a 10-year-old I was just thrown by how real it was and how it felt for me to be watching that. It was really powerful. And it still is. I mean I sat across from Leonardo DiCaprio at an event not too long ago, and I thought, ‘Yeah, it’s true, that’s my Romeo.’”

Seyfried said she also felt a powerful kinship with Sophie.

“I always find a personal connection in everything I do,” she said. “I mean, Sophie is clearly just a version of myself. She’s a pretty normal young woman who’s inspired by love. She also happens to be very similar to my character in ‘Mama Mia!,’ who was also named Sophie.

“When I play these roles it’s not because they’re challenging, it’s more that I’m playing someone who is easily relatable, that audiences will understand and feel connected to,” she said. “I mean, it’s kind of fun to play. It’s not as challenging as, say, ‘Chloe’ (where she played a seductive escort who comes between a wife and her cheating husband), but I connect to Sophie because she’s just on her path to find herself and discover things. She likes to travel, and she’s adventurous.”

One bonus of taking this role, Seyfried said, was the adventure of traveling to beautiful Verona and working there.

“Italy is the perfect place for romance, really, in some ways it’s the heart of Europe,” she said. “Really old and really warm, and there’s so much good wine and food and people and culture and art. It’s the perfect place, and I feel so lucky that I was able to live there for two months.”

The other bonus of “Letters to Juliet” was getting to work with — and hang out with — Vanessa Redgrave, she said.

“I played tennis with her every day,” the young actress marveled. “She moves like a whip. I mean, she’s really fit. And we drank a lot of wine, ate a lot of food.”

And the lessons she learned from Redgrave? “To keep an open mind and a clever imagination,” Seyfried said. “That really gets you far as an actor. Being sensitive to people around you. She’s able to connect with anyone and everyone. She’s been through so much in her life, and she’s experienced years and years of accomplishments and tragedies. And yet she’s still so open to new things and positive about life. I’ve never really ever met anyone like her. She’s a miracle.”

Movie review: ‘Letters to Juliet’ undeliverable but for regal Vanessa Redgrave

Christopher Egan and Amanda Seyfried in "Letters to Juliet."

‘Letters to Juliet’ lacks romantic heat

Supposedly, the quixotic “Letters to Juliet” pivots on the heart-rending tribulations of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. But the most intriguing twist of this cliched love story touches lightly on the long-running, on-screen, off-screen romance of Lancelot and Guenevere.

That twist comes in a small, charming moment of romantic alchemy that occurs late in the movie and slightly redeems the sappy machinations that happen before. So it wouldn’t do to give too much away, except to say that it involves the still-regal Vanessa Redgrave and some of the more graceful Arthurian undercurrents of her life on screen and off.

Beyond that, “Letters to Juliet” is a charming, clever premise that’s somehow lost amid a sweep of lush picture-postcard scenery and a pro-forma love triangle in which very little chemistry is generated among the potential young lovers.

The clever premise is this: In a lovely courtyard in Verona, Italy, at the purported home of Juliet Capulet, is a stone wall on which young women from the world over affix letters to Shakespeare’s tragic heroine detailing the woes of their own love stories. Each day the letters are collected by dedicated volunteers, known as the “secretaries of Juliet,” and each missive receives a hand-written reply.

It’s an irresistible attraction to American tourist Sophie (Amanda Seyfried), who’s in Italy on a holiday with her preoccupied fiance Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal), a passionate chef-restaurateur. When it turns out that Victor is more interested in wine auctions, cheese tastings and truffle digs than making moony eyes with Sophie, she sets off on her own for Juliet’s courtyard.

Sophie is a fact-checker for the New Yorker magazine who aspires to be a writer, and she smells a good story here. When she digs up a weathered, 50-year-old letter in an overlooked crevice of the wall, she’s off on a meandering matchmaking mission that could change her life and her view of true love.

Redgrave soon comes into the picture as Claire, the 70-something, widowed author of the old letter who decades ago forsook her hot young Italian lover, Lorenzo, for marriage to a proper British gentleman. When Sophie answers Claire’s letter, the spunky English widow shows up with her priggish grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) in tow hoping to find Lorenzo and learn what might have been.

The rest is a travelogue tour of the impossibly green, fecund Italian countryside — complete with jaunty pop tunes and comic montages of the various, gnarly Lorenzos who turn up along the way. Clearly, the neglected Sophie, wide-eyed matchmaker, is destined to generate sparks with Charlie, who grudgingly warms to his stylishly earthy grandmother’s appointment with romantic destiny.

Nothing happens here that isn’t easily predictable from the beginning. But director Gary Winick (“13 Going on 30”) does a decent job of keeping things light and sprightly and away from bogging down too trenchantly in romantic goo. However, the script by Jose Revera and Tim Sullivan feels like a Hallmark card puffed up with silly homilies about true love and destiny.

Seyfried is a competent young actress, but she seems light as air in her scenes with the imposing Redgrave, and she fails to summon up any substantial romantic heat with either the nattering Garcia Bernal or the likable but stiff Egan.

“Letters to Juliet” is a missive of missed opportunities for something finer, more real, less banal. Without the dignity and poignance of Redgrave’s appearance and the one brief shining moment from her past, it would be destined for the dead-letter office.

 

MOVIE REVIEW

“Letters to Juliet”

PG
1:41
2 stars

Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Christopher Egan, Vanessa Redgrave and Gael Garcia Bernal.

(Brief rude behavior, some language and incidental smoking)

Queen Latifah is reel royalty

BY DENNIS KING

NEW YORK — When you’re the Queen, you have a right to refer to yourself in the third person.

When she’s talking about her multi-Grammy-nominated recording career, her Oscar- and Emmy-nominated acting, her lucrative gigs as a commercial spokeswoman or her busy television-film-music production company, Queen Latifah understandably falls into a habit of calling herself “the Queen,” or “Latifah.” At the very least, she requires the plural, “we,” to encompass her wide-ranging entertainment activities, her frenetic public appearance schedule and her boisterous, larger-than-life personality.

The simple, first-person “I” seems too small to contain her.

Decked out in movie-star shades and sequined sweater and looking svelte and lustrous, as befits a spokesmodel for a well-known weight-loss company and a glam cosmetics giant, Queen Latifah strode regally into a Columbus Circle hotel suite recently for a round of press interviews. Fox Searchlight hosted the event preceding the release of “Just Wright,” starring Latifah and rapper-turned-actor Common.

The basketball-theme romantic comedy features Latifah as Leslie Wright, a New Jersey physical therapist who falls for a star NBA player she’s helping rehabilitate from a career-threatening knee injury.

As a Jersey girl (she was born Dana Elaine Owens in Newark) playing a Jersey girl who’s an ardent fan of the New Jersey Nets, Latifah laughed and said, “How’s that for typecasting?”

Following the working approach of her past movies, Latifah wore several hats in the making of “Just Wright,” produced by her company, Flavor Unit Entertainment.

“It is difficult both producing and starring, but it’s worth it,” she said. “I choose to produce as much as possible because we’re all about ownership. We like to own the things we do, not just be part of making other people a bunch of money, but creating a body of work that we can build on for our own catalog.

“The kind of things we like to do are varied,” she said. “‘Beauty Shop’ is different from ‘The Cookout,’ which is different from ‘Just Wright.’ But we do like to create things that are family-friendly, that everybody can go see.

“There are projects that my company might produce that the Queen would never be in, and there are things that will go straight to DVD,” she said. “There are different audiences, so it’s not like everything we produce Latifah is going to star in. There are certain things that are just for kids — I don’t have to be in them. I’m not going to be in every movie that we create. But we’ll create different types of content for different audiences, you know, black, white, young, old and everything in between.

“We’re young and growing, and we’re going to get better and hopefully get to the point where we’re making futuristic ‘Jaws’ movies, like Steven (Spielberg) and George Lucas. But right now we’re just doing the best we can to create good content.”

Once known as “hip hop’s first lady,” Latifah said she felt a special bond with co-star Common, who also is working to make the leap from rap stardom to the ranks of film acting.

“Common is my friend, and I knew he wanted to step up to another level of acting,” she said. “He took classes, and I knew his work ethic and that his heart was driven in that direction. He’s done great stuff in the movies that he’s been in, but this was a chance for him to show different levels and different abilities. And I told him, ‘This could be that career-changing moment for you, when people will look at you in a different way.’ But this guy, he’s an amazing person. He’s the kind of person that shows up to work with a hundred percent every day.

“His character required the cockiness and brashness and competitiveness of an NBA player, the cut physique and the sexiness of a professional athlete, and he pulled it off,” she said. “He’s very athletic. He had all the physicality. But then it required layers of, you know, a guy who wants love, he loves his mother, he likes a nice, clean, classy house, not having girls running around and a party every day. And who can pull that off? Who do you believe it from? You believe it from him.”

Having worked opposite another former rapper, LL Cool J, in a romantic part, Latifah said she could vouch that Common is no slouch in the romance department.

“The day we shot our little romantic scene was kinda like a day off for me,” she said. “I had been wearing my different hats the whole movie and doing my own role and handling the business. So on the day we had that scene, I came in and said, ‘You got me?’ And he said, ‘I got you.’ So I just relaxed. I was just a woman in the hands of a real gentleman. And I knew that he would take care of me.

“Between him and Sanaa (Hamri, the director), who’s not going to allow anything that doesn’t look right, and with my very cool, composed crew, I knew that I would be covered. It was fine. I got to lie around in bed all day for a change. I didn’t have to run anywhere, I didn’t have to do anything, I just got to lay up and look nice.”

Like a Queen for a day.

Movie review: Queen Latifah just so-so in ‘Just Wright’

She dribbles, she leaps, she shoots, she — well, mostly misses.

“Just Wright,” Queen Latifah’s big-hearted effort at blending a Cinderella romance with the grit and glamour of professional basketball, goes shy of the mark with a mundane script that fails to capitalize on its star’s boisterous charisma.

Despite bringing some all-star talent to bear (including welcome appearances by Phylicia Rashad and Pam Grier), the specially Latifah-tailored story from screenwriter Michael Elliot (“Brown Sugar”) is bogged down with thoroughly predictable plot turns and stock characterizations that make it feel like a bland fairy tale.

Director Sanaa Hamri (“The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2”) and Latifah, whose vibrant presence is usually enough to elevate ordinary material, have their work cut out for them with this by-the-numbers story about a single New Jersey girl, Leslie Wright (hence, the title), who works as a physical therapist, roots rabidly for her beloved New Jersey Nets (in this fairy tale, an NBA title contender) and longs to find Mr. Right.

Latifah’s tomboyish Leslie is the perennial good sport whose dates sheepishly declare that they’d much rather hang out with her than romance her.

But her fortunes seem to turn one night when she has a meet-cute encounter with Nets point guard Scott McKnight (Common), and the charmed pro athlete invites Leslie to his star-studded birthday party. But Leslie makes the mistake of taking along her hot, gold-digging god-sister, Morgan (Paula Patton), whose sole ambition in life is to become an NBA trophy wife.

Naturally, Morgan horns in on Leslie’s budding flirtation with Scott, and again Leslie is left on the sidelines of love.

But when Scott suffers a career threatening knee injury, a contrived series of circumstances has Morgan sashaying out the door and Leslie hired by the Nets as Scott’s personal physical therapist. Lots of sweating and grunting and complaining later and this Cinderella tale winds its way to a totally unsurprising happily ever after.

The always appealing Latifah delivers her usual solid performance, deftly blending sassy comedy with heart-felt emotion And rapper-turned-actor Common (whose previous film work has been in gangsta and action fare) is uncommonly good in a role that demands fluid athleticism, romantic sensitivity and emotional vulnerability. He’s got game.

The very strong supporting cast sports nice turns by Patton as the materialistic Morgan, by still-powerful icons Rashad and Grier as smartly meddlesome mothers and by James Pickens Jr. as Leslie’s all-thumbs handyman dad.

But performances aren’t the problem here. It’s that very good performances are wasted on commonplace material. Despite the limp assertion of its title, “Just Wright” is just so-so.

— Dennis King

MOVIE REVIEW

“Just Wright”

PG
1:51
2 stars

Starring: Queen Latifah, Common, Paula Patton, Pam Grier and Phylicia Rashad.

(Some suggestive material and brief language)

Queen Latifah: Pearl Bailey won’t you please come home?


BY DENNIS KING

NEW YORK – Whenever Queen Latifah does press interviews, she said, someone always asks her about starring in a biography of the iconic singer and actress Pearl Bailey.

Latifah is said to bear a striking physical resemblance to the larger-than-life Bailey, who died in 1990, and there are uncanny similarities in the trajectories of the two women’s careers.

“When there’s a decent script, I’ll do it in a minute,” Latifah said during a press day for her new film, “Just Wright.” “But there hasn’t been a script yet. Just lots of talk and speculation. Even my father, he says he’s going to wring my neck if I don’t get after that. There’s no book, nothing to option, but there are more than a few tantalizing stories out there about Pearly Mae that could be told.”

Bailey, like Latifah, began her career in music and later moved on to success as an actress on stage, film and TV. She won a Tony Award for the title role in an all-black Broadway production of “Hello, Dolly” in 1968.

Latifah said she’s admired Bailey all her life and considers her a positive role model. A film biography of her life and times is long overdue.

“That could be one of those movies that could change a career,” she said. “Every time I’m asked about her, I’m reminded of a time when I saw a picture in a book and I thought it was me but it was actually Pearl, with a skinnier waist. I mean, in some ways we look identical.”

Movie Review: “Iron Man 2” a cluttered, ironclad contraption


Common wisdom in Hollywood says that it’s the rare sequel that outshines the original. And in the case of the overstuffed, overly frenetic, slightly incoherent “Iron Man 2,” that wisdom holds fast and true.

If this hotly anticipated sequel to the 2008 Marvel Comics superhero saga proves anything, it’s that more is not always better. But that’s a cliché, as well as a very real pitfall that trips up many if not most big-bang, big-budget action movies that score big box-office bucks and come back a couple of years later for a second helping of riches.

The things that surprised and charmed us most about the first “Iron Man” – clever gizmos, clever characters, prize-worthy special effects and the willfully eccentric, darkly dangerous presence of Robert Downey Jr. in the title role – are back in spades for the sequel.

But so is an overly convoluted plot by actor-screenwriter Justin Theroux (“Tropic Thunder”) that confronts our gazillioinaire playboy industrialist-inventor Tony Stark (Downey, upping his game in terms of bleak, sardonic humor) with a rash of personal problems and a couple of potent arch-enemies on his case.

It’s hardly necessary to provide detailed synopsis, since this thing was practically blogged to death before it hit multiplex screens.

But, briefly, Stark, seemingly unhinged by creeping megalomania and a bad ticker, is still stubbornly guarding the secret of his nifty bionic iron suit and insisting that he’s using it for the good of mankind.

Amid a numbing barrage of explosive special effects, orchestrated without much apparent logic by returning director Jon Favreau, Stark struggles with his own inner nuttiness while fending off a genius Russian thug named Ivan Vanko (is that Mickey Rourke under all those tattoos?), who blames Stark for … oh, something or other. There’s also an underhanded weapons dealer with the appropriate weapons dealer name Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), who’s conniving with Vanko against Stark.

On top of that, the blustery U.S. Sen. Stern (Garry Shandling) is pressuring Stark to turn over his technology to the Defense Department; Stark’s loyal Girl Friday, Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow), now has a rival in a dishy new assistant, Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson, scantily clad), and old comrade Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle, stepping in for Terrence Howard) feels that he needs to knock some sense into Stark’s muddled head.

That doesn’t even take into account the puzzling presence of Samuel L. Jackson’s eye-patched crimefighter Nick Fury, who shows up late and hangs around without much to do.

All the confusion and chaos of the story, or the over-reliance on noisy CGI action scenes, won’t likely spoil the fun for hardcore fans. Downey’s cheeky flamboyance and his knack for glib, dark humor provide enough saving grace to make “Iron Man 2” an ironclad blockbuster. It manages to be enjoyable, even while being a rattling contraption that’s far too mechanical for its own good.

- Dennis King

“Iron Man 2”

PG-13
2:04
2.5 stars
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson and Mickey Rourke
(Sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, and some language.)

Movie Review: “Art of the Steal” tells one side of contentious story


Located in the modest Philadelphia suburb of Merion, the Barnes Foundation art collection is reported by ardent admirers to be a genteel, time-worn and slightly eccentric treasure trove of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist and early Modern paintings.

Lovingly amassed by wealthy physician Albert C. Barnes (who made his fortune with the invention of a venereal disease treatment), the collection includes 59 works by Matisse and 181 by Renoir. Its 69 Cezannes are said to be “more than can be found in the entire city of Paris.”

Barnes formed his foundation in 1922 to “promote the advancement of education and the appreciation of fine arts,” and he housed his expanding collection in an arboretum at his home. When he died in 1951, Barnes’ wishes were made clear – that the art should remain in its original home and be primarily available to students, with limited public viewing hours.

But, as detailed in the impassioned if narrowly focused documentary, “The Art of the Steal,” Barnes’ wishes have apparently been usurped in a tangle of conniving and courtroom maneuvering by Philadelphia’s political and cultural elite that, according to filmmaker Don Argott, amounts to “the greatest act of artistic vandalism since World War II.”

Despite heated protests from supporters of the intimate, admittedly quirky Marion facility, the collection (now valued at more than $25 billion) will be relocated in 2012 to vast new, modern museum space in Philadelphia.

Argott’s documentary is clearly an emotional advocacy piece arguing quite convincingly that a terrible injustice has been done and that the forces of homogenization and corporate greed have won out over Barnes’ personal, idiosyncratic approach to art appreciation.

While Argott (“Rock School”) attempts to frame his film as crime thriller, it’s riddled with numerous unanswered questions and obvious plot holes. Those derive from the absence of any voice by advocates of the move. A more balanced presentation of the debate – including assertions on the financial and artistic benefits of the move – would have provided a clearer picture of the controversy. However, several key defenders of the move, we’re told, declined to be interviewed for the film.

As it is, “The Art of the Steal” is intensely earnest and provocative and one-sided. It’s one part of a worthy debate that ends up raising as many questions as it answers, which in the end is not a bad thing for an advocacy film to do.

- Dennis King

“The Art of the Steal”

Not rated
1:41
3 stars
(Suitable for general audiences.)

Under the Radar DVD of the Week: “The Bandit of Sherwood Forest”


“The Bandit of Sherwood Forest”

As Russell Crowe dons green tights for a muscled-up new big-screen version of “Robin Hood” this week, the 1946 Technicolor swashbuckler “The Bandit of Sherwood Forest” hits DVD shelves on Tuesday.

This old studio programmer features Cornel Wilde as Robert of Nottingham, son of the legendary Robin Hood, who comes to the aid of the Queen Mother (Jill Esmond) and the beautiful Lady Catherine (Anita Louise) when they’re menaced by the despotic Regent (Henry Daniell) and his partner in crime Fitz-Herbert (George Macrady).

With the Magna Carta under siege, our hero reunites the Merrie Men, including Friar Tuck (Edgar Buchanan) and Will Scarlet (John Abbott), and storms the castle to put down the evil noblemen’s oppressive scheme.

And if that stony studio castle setting looks familiar, it could be because it was later used in several of Columbia Picture’s Three Stooges comedies, most famously “The Hot Scots” in 1948. “The Bandit of Sherwood Forest,” based on a novel by Paul A. Castleton, was remade in 1950 as “Rogues of Sherwood Forest,” with John Derek in the starring role.

“The Bandit of Sherwood Forest” is not rated. It runs 87 minutes and is being released by Sony Pictures for a suggested retail price of $14.94.

- Dennis King

‘Zhivago’ took starlet from art house to epic

BY GENE TRIPLETT

For a child of Britain’s realist film movement, where budgets and shooting schedules were as tight as a railroad timetable, the epic and sumptuous sprawl of “Doctor Zhivago” was a revelation.

Rita Tushingham was only 18 when she’d made her auspicious screen debut in Tony Richardson’s prize-winning drama “A Taste of Honey” in 1961 and had appeared in only four more modestly financed but critically lauded films when she was chosen to play the illegitimate daughter of a Russian poet-doctor (Omar Sharif) and a political activist’s wife (Julie Christie) in David Lean’s sweeping screen adaptation of Boris Pasternak’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel of the Bolshevik Revolution.

“The experience was very different from what I’d obviously had before, because they were low-budget British films,” Tushingham said in a recent phone interview from London, where she was promoting the 45th anniversary release of Lean’s film on DVD and Blu-ray.

Rita Tushingham and Alec Guinness in a scene from "Doctor Zhivago."

The Liverpool-born actress had worked with such young British lions of the directorial world as Richardson, Basil Dearden (“A Place to Go,” 1963), Sidney Furie (“The Leather Boys,” 1964), Desmond Davis (“Girl With Green Eyes,” 1964) and Richard Lester (“The Knack … and How to Get It,” 1965) in the hippest of shoestring-financed art house features, and had made quite a name for herself with most-promising newcomer awards from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) and the Golden Globes, and best actress honors at the 1961 Cannes Film Festival.

But working for Lean, Oscar-winning director of such gold-plated, major-studio productions as “The Bridge on the River Kwai” and “Lawrence of Arabia,” was a whole new first-class train ride.

“It was a much slower process, because you would sit and (Lean) would sort of discuss what he wanted with the crew, and he’d talk about it and maybe block out the scene and not shoot every day,” Tushingham said. “And it was a very different way of doing it. You didn’t feel like you had to get so many minutes in the can every day. And I thought suddenly, ‘Well, what happened here? Is something wrong? We’re going quite slowly.’ And that was the way he worked, and he had that luxury of being able to do that.”

Unlike Geraldine Chaplin, who had to audition for the part of Zhivago’s wife, Tushingham wasn’t required to submit to a screen test to land the part she played.

“I found out I was playing it while I was shooting ‘The Knack,’” she recalled. “Someone brought in a paper and said, ‘Ooh, you’re in David Lean’s next film, I see.’ And I said, ‘Am I?’ And that was it.”

Tushingham had become something of an iconic figure in the British hipster circles of the early ’60s, sharing the swinging English nightlife with such newly established luminaries as Albert Finney, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Tom Courtenay, her close friend Lynn Redgrave (who died shortly after this interview was conducted), and fellow Liverpudlians John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and George Harrison.

Harrison, in fact, grew up just down the road from Tushingham.

“I think I’m not wrong that he was an altar boy and he was the butcher boy,” Tushingham said. “He certainly delivered orders on his bike.”

But aside from having close friends in starry places, she also was gifted with an unconventionally striking and expressive visage — sometimes plain, other times pretty in an offbeat sort of way — with large, soulful blue eyes that made her perfect as the daughter of Zhivago, as played by Sharif.

“It might have helped, I really don’t know,” Tushingham speculated. “Because Omar’s got the most beautiful, watery, deep eyes, hasn’t he? It’s lovely. And Julie was, to me, just absolutely stunning.”

Before viewing the newly restored and remastered Blu-ray version of “Doctor Zhivago,” it had been many years since she’d seen the film.

“Isn’t it stunning?” she asked. “And the color, it’s so rich, isn’t it? It’s just beautiful, I think. Freddie Young, the cinematographer, did a beautiful job.”

Adapted for the screen by Robert Bolt (“A Man for All Seasons”), and photographed against the snowy expanses of Finland, Canada and the mountainous regions of Spain (since the Soviet Union would not allow filming there), “Doctor Zhivago” tells an intimate and emotional story of love and indomitable human spirit in the midst of the cataclysmic Russian Revolution.

Sharif plays the title character, who is married to the aristocratic Tonya (Chaplin) but is also in love with Lara (Christie), a nurse whose life has been destroyed by tragedy. War and revolution repeatedly bring him together with each woman only to be separated again as he struggles to survive the conflict within him and around him and keep his loved ones safe.

The memorable score by Maurice Jarre won one of five Oscars bestowed on the film (the others were for screenplay, art direction, costume design and cinematography) out of 10 nominations in all.

“I think it’s a film that from the very beginning, as soon as you hear the music, you’re taken into it,” Tushingham said. “And it’s a wonderful love story. I think you should just let the film wash over you. And there’s so much on the screen, too. It’s an epic, and it’s just wonderful to watch. You rarely get those now. Apart from the fact that there isn’t the money, there aren’t the directors. There are obviously, of course, a few. But it’s just a complete film, in my opinion.”