Plot: Glen, Hal and Sam are three escaped convicts who move in on and terrorize a suburban household.
Stars: Bogart, Frederic March, Arthur Kennedy
Based on the Tony Award winning best play. Bogart had been outbid for the film rights by William Wyler and wanted March's role but was willing to settle for the supporting role of "Glenn" - the elderly leader of the 3 convicts. Much less impressive on 2nd viewing, "Desperate Hours" flaws become evident when seen twice. Take out the suspense, and there's not much to the story. The 3 crooks are rather standard archetypes, as are the "typical American" suburban family. The acting is excellent, although everyone is repeating parts they've done before (especially Bogart). The whole story suffers from being copied ad nauseam on TV/movies for the last 55 years. Wyler does an excellent job of disguising the movie's play origins, but its still a talky 112 minutes.
Summary: Not really a Bogie movie, March is the star. Too predictable to be other than a well done movie of its type. Rating **1/2
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Sirocco (1951)
Plot: A cynical American expatriate (Bogart) runs guns in 1925 Syria
Stars: Bogart, Lee J. Cobb, Everett Sloan, Marta Toren
Produced by Bogart's "Santana Pictures", Sirocco is a backlot rehash of previous Bogie movies. This time its French Syria instead of Casablanca and Bogie's running guns instead of a saloon. As usual, he's cynical and playing both sides against the middle. The biggest flaw is the supporting cast. Lee J. Cobb is as French as Pastrami and no one else makes an impression. The script is average -the pace often slow. Bogie makes it bearable.
Summary: Not bad, an average Bogie movie that's been done before and done better. Rating **
Stars: Bogart, Lee J. Cobb, Everett Sloan, Marta Toren
Produced by Bogart's "Santana Pictures", Sirocco is a backlot rehash of previous Bogie movies. This time its French Syria instead of Casablanca and Bogie's running guns instead of a saloon. As usual, he's cynical and playing both sides against the middle. The biggest flaw is the supporting cast. Lee J. Cobb is as French as Pastrami and no one else makes an impression. The script is average -the pace often slow. Bogie makes it bearable.
Summary: Not bad, an average Bogie movie that's been done before and done better. Rating **
Sunday, December 25, 2011
San Quentin (1937)
Good guy Pat O'Brien is as the reform minded prison guard trying to help Bogart - a con who wants to go straight but can't. Ann Sheridan (11 years his junior) plays Bogie's older sister (!). The film zips along and at 70 minutes doesn't outstay its welcome. Summary: A good little WB prison drama, nothing special except for the strong cast. Enjoyable. Rating **1/2
Dark Passage (1947)
292. Dark Passage (1947) - Delmer Davis. Co-stars Bogart and Laureen Bacall. 106 minutes. Bogart's an escaped prisoner framed for murder with Bacall as his sole ally. Bogart plays the first part of the movie off-camera, we see the movie from his point of view, then has plastic surgery to become - ta da - Humphrey Bogart. Pluses include: Agnes Morehead as an evil harpy, location shots of San Francisco, and the Bacall/Bogart chemistry. However, the script is routine and having Bogart off-camera doesn't really add anything. Summary: Enjoyable, but should have been better given the talent involved. Rating **1/2
Passage to Marseilles (1944)
Stars Humphrey Bogart, Claude Rains, Sidney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre B&W 109 minutes.
Plot: WW II Propaganda film. Prisoners on Devils Island escape in order to return to France and fight the Germans.
Plot: WW II Propaganda film. Prisoners on Devils Island escape in order to return to France and fight the Germans.
Half Papillion, half 2nd rate Casablanca. WB reunites the director and most of the cast of "Casablanca" but the script is nowhere as good. Filmed in Hollywood, the film does a good of job of portraying Devils Island, a merchant ship and France. Other positives, the action scenes and acting. But there's a lot of WW II propaganda and some absurdities. Silly items include: Bogart as a Frenchman, Bogart dropping love notes to his wife in occupied France from a night bomber going 200 MPH, a German FW Condor attacking a merchant ship with one machine gun, Bogie murdering 4 defenseless German airmen, Bogie's Parisian newspaper being sacked by an angry mob for criticizing Munich.
Summary: A mixed bag, enjoyable on DVD where the WW II propaganda can be skipped. Rating **
Action in the North Atlantic (1943)
311. Action in the North Atlantic (1943) - Bacon. Co-stars Humphrey Bogart, Alan Hale, Raymond Massey 127 minutes. WW II Propaganda film. about the US Merchant Marine. Bogart is First Officer Joe Rossi, who helps Captain Massey steer his ship through U-Boat and Luftwaffe attacks and deliver the cargo to Murmansk. Hale provides excellent comic relief. Not really a Bogie film, his role is generic, little time is spent on shore, and the focus is on the action. The ensemble acting is quite good but everyone is a typical WB archetype. For 1943, the special effects of the ship on fire and various explosions/attacks are well done. Bacon also has the U-boat crew speak only German. Also has the expected propaganda scenes. Summary: An above-average WW II action movie about our boys in the Merchant Marine. Some good acting and special effects. A little too long at 2 hours. Rating **
The Barefoot Contessa (1954)
Plot: Has-been director Harry Dawes gets a new lease on his career when independently wealthy Kirk Edwards hires him to write and direct a film. They go to Madrid to find Maria Vargas, a dancer who will star in the film. Millionaire Alberto Bravano takes Maria from Kirk. Count Vincenzo Torlato-Favrini takes Maria from Alberto.
Starring Heavyweights Ava Gardner, Bogart, and Edmund O'Brien and "Barefoot Contessa" has some good, lush, 1950s photography. Sadly - unlike "All about Eve" - Joe Mank didn't have David Zanuck demanding the script be tightened and rewritten. The story goes on forever and is over scripted. Lots of dialogue and none of it quotable. But a few good moments - primarily due to the actors.
Summary: Well acted and well directed but too much talk and not enough soul or story. Rating **1/2
Starring Heavyweights Ava Gardner, Bogart, and Edmund O'Brien and "Barefoot Contessa" has some good, lush, 1950s photography. Sadly - unlike "All about Eve" - Joe Mank didn't have David Zanuck demanding the script be tightened and rewritten. The story goes on forever and is over scripted. Lots of dialogue and none of it quotable. But a few good moments - primarily due to the actors.
Summary: Well acted and well directed but too much talk and not enough soul or story. Rating **1/2
Saturday, December 24, 2011
We're No Angels (1955)
Stars:Humphrey Bogart, Peter Ustinov, Aldo Ray, Basil Rathbone
Plot: Three convicts escape from Devil's Island & hide out at a kindly merchant family - they repay his kindness by helping him through several crises.
Based on a Broadway play (which is turn was based on the French Play by Albert Hussens), "We're no Angels" can't escape its Broadway origins. Shot on a Paramount sound stage, its talky, plodding and predictable. What should have been a light souffle ends up as a heavy, ham filled biscuit. I found it a very a dull 106 minutes.
The mediocre dialog (maybe it was better in French) requires some great Comedic talent to succeed, but only has Bogart, Ray, and Ustinov. No one's a bigger Bogie fan than me, but he wasn't a comedic actor and lacks the flair needed for black comedy. Ray isn't funny at all (surprised?) while Ustinov is only adequate.
Conclusion: A big disappointment. Not a bad movie, but not very good either. Rating **1/2
Plot: Three convicts escape from Devil's Island & hide out at a kindly merchant family - they repay his kindness by helping him through several crises.
Based on a Broadway play (which is turn was based on the French Play by Albert Hussens), "We're no Angels" can't escape its Broadway origins. Shot on a Paramount sound stage, its talky, plodding and predictable. What should have been a light souffle ends up as a heavy, ham filled biscuit. I found it a very a dull 106 minutes.
The mediocre dialog (maybe it was better in French) requires some great Comedic talent to succeed, but only has Bogart, Ray, and Ustinov. No one's a bigger Bogie fan than me, but he wasn't a comedic actor and lacks the flair needed for black comedy. Ray isn't funny at all (surprised?) while Ustinov is only adequate.
Conclusion: A big disappointment. Not a bad movie, but not very good either. Rating **1/2
Friday, November 25, 2011
J Edgar (2011)
Director: Clint Eastwood
J Edgar is another long, boring Biopic that Hollywood churns out on a regular basis. Like "MacArthur", "Gandhi", "Chaplin" etc. etc. Eastwood makes the mistake of trying to cover too much, in a very superficial manner. Its a very long 2 hours. The "Gay angle" is done in a rather silly way and adds no interest. The script is liberal and dull.
Which is what I expected. We warned our guests that "J Edgar" would bore them - but they insisted -so off we went.
The acting is adequate to good. The makeup is poor. Eastwood is his usual plodding self (See Bird, Invictius (sp), Flags of our Fathers).
Is it historically accurate? Of course not, its Hollywood. "J Edgar" was made by liberals (and whatever Eastwood is) and so has to ignore or skim over several facts. Namely, how could this 'right-wing fascist' have been appointed by Liberal Icon FDR and re-appointed by Truman and Kennedy? How is it Hoover is blamed for all the civil liberties violations when the FBI is UNDER the direction of the President and the Attorney General? The fact is that Hoover had only as much power as the AG and the President wanted him to have - but it makes a more interesting story (and more pleasing to liberals) to think Hoover was out there on his own wire-tapping MLK.
So could "J Edgar" have been interesting? Yes, if the producers had focused in on a smaller part of Hoover's life and told it from a passionate point of view. A movie showing Hoover as a hero, battling the 30s Gangsters or rooting out Commie bastards and spies in the 40s or 50s could have been interesting. OTOH, an Oliver Stone hatchet job 'Full of sound and fury" would have kept me awake. But "J Edgar" is the liberal "balanced" view of Hoover & told without passion.
Summary: Another dull Hollywood Biopic made even duller by the superficial "Gay Sex" angle and dime store psychology . Rating **
J Edgar is another long, boring Biopic that Hollywood churns out on a regular basis. Like "MacArthur", "Gandhi", "Chaplin" etc. etc. Eastwood makes the mistake of trying to cover too much, in a very superficial manner. Its a very long 2 hours. The "Gay angle" is done in a rather silly way and adds no interest. The script is liberal and dull.
Which is what I expected. We warned our guests that "J Edgar" would bore them - but they insisted -so off we went.
The acting is adequate to good. The makeup is poor. Eastwood is his usual plodding self (See Bird, Invictius (sp), Flags of our Fathers).
Is it historically accurate? Of course not, its Hollywood. "J Edgar" was made by liberals (and whatever Eastwood is) and so has to ignore or skim over several facts. Namely, how could this 'right-wing fascist' have been appointed by Liberal Icon FDR and re-appointed by Truman and Kennedy? How is it Hoover is blamed for all the civil liberties violations when the FBI is UNDER the direction of the President and the Attorney General? The fact is that Hoover had only as much power as the AG and the President wanted him to have - but it makes a more interesting story (and more pleasing to liberals) to think Hoover was out there on his own wire-tapping MLK.
So could "J Edgar" have been interesting? Yes, if the producers had focused in on a smaller part of Hoover's life and told it from a passionate point of view. A movie showing Hoover as a hero, battling the 30s Gangsters or rooting out Commie bastards and spies in the 40s or 50s could have been interesting. OTOH, an Oliver Stone hatchet job 'Full of sound and fury" would have kept me awake. But "J Edgar" is the liberal "balanced" view of Hoover & told without passion.
Summary: Another dull Hollywood Biopic made even duller by the superficial "Gay Sex" angle and dime store psychology . Rating **
Combat - More Episode Reviews
A Day in June. Season 1 - The first show. The episode starts out strong as we see Jansen and Murrow as Sargents and romantic rivals in England waiting for the D-Day invasion. Both are still working on their characters so both Saunders and Hanley are rather generic. Shecky Greene shows up as the "Comic Relief" and the whole episode is much more upbeat and humorous than the latter series. Unfortunately, it ends with a rather lame firefight. Rating ***
Any Second Now. Season 1 -Hanley is caught under rubble in church with an unexploded bomb. A well done episode - but predictable. Rating **1/2
Just for the Record. Season 1 - An interesting, if completely unrealistic, episode that has Saunders captured. Later, a reluctant French woman helps him escape. Another episode hurt by the requirement that at least 6 Germans must be killed per episode. Well written and allows Murrow get out of uniform and do a little acting. Rating ***
The Squad Season 1 - A Southerner joins the squad and he's full of fight although disappointed to be in the "Yankee army". Later on a night patrol, he endangers the squad -then saves it - with his "Southern Valor". Kudos to the actor (Bolt) who prevents his character from being a Hillbilly stereotype. A pleasant, action-packed episode. Rating **1/2
A Child's Game Season 5. Saunder's men are ordered to take a farmhouse that is defended by a determined group of teenage German soldiers. Although the ending is touching, this episode loses a lot of its punch through bad casting. The teenage German soldiers are simply too old and look a lot like the 18-20 year olds you'd find fighting any war. Had 14-16 y/o's been cast the episode would've been stronger Rating **1/2
The Wounded Don't Cry. Season 2. An excellent episode that could've been much better with more attention to realism. Yes, I know those Waffen SS were fanatics, but I doubt many wounded SS men were Kamikazes. Nor do I think Kirby would've missed their badly hidden potato mashers. And the final shootout could have been much more interesting if it'd hadn't been so over-the- top. Somewhat of a missed opportunity but Murrow and Karl Böhm are superb. Rating ***
Any Second Now. Season 1 -Hanley is caught under rubble in church with an unexploded bomb. A well done episode - but predictable. Rating **1/2
Just for the Record. Season 1 - An interesting, if completely unrealistic, episode that has Saunders captured. Later, a reluctant French woman helps him escape. Another episode hurt by the requirement that at least 6 Germans must be killed per episode. Well written and allows Murrow get out of uniform and do a little acting. Rating ***
The Squad Season 1 - A Southerner joins the squad and he's full of fight although disappointed to be in the "Yankee army". Later on a night patrol, he endangers the squad -then saves it - with his "Southern Valor". Kudos to the actor (Bolt) who prevents his character from being a Hillbilly stereotype. A pleasant, action-packed episode. Rating **1/2
A Child's Game Season 5. Saunder's men are ordered to take a farmhouse that is defended by a determined group of teenage German soldiers. Although the ending is touching, this episode loses a lot of its punch through bad casting. The teenage German soldiers are simply too old and look a lot like the 18-20 year olds you'd find fighting any war. Had 14-16 y/o's been cast the episode would've been stronger Rating **1/2
The Wounded Don't Cry. Season 2. An excellent episode that could've been much better with more attention to realism. Yes, I know those Waffen SS were fanatics, but I doubt many wounded SS men were Kamikazes. Nor do I think Kirby would've missed their badly hidden potato mashers. And the final shootout could have been much more interesting if it'd hadn't been so over-the- top. Somewhat of a missed opportunity but Murrow and Karl Böhm are superb. Rating ***
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Withnail and I
Plot: In 1969, two unemployed actors living on booze and drugs in a filthy London flat. Heading out to the countryside for the weekend they encounter Withnail’s Flamboyantly Gay Uncle Monty, a violent poacher, and some other rural characters.
Actors: Richard E. Grant, Paul McGann
Pros: Supporting characters, Witty script, Richard Grant
Cons: Too Long, Profanity & Drug use, Paul McGann too bland
Full of funny lines, "Withnail and I" is a British Combination "Leaving Las Vegas" and "The Big Lewbowski". There is no real plot and film focuses on the misadventures of the two leads with some funny supporting characters. Richard Griffiths steals the movie as the eccentric Uncle Monty, while the deadpan Ralph Brown is delightful as their friend/drug dealer. But the movie has its sad and dull moments. Withnail himself is not a funny drunk, and is often profane and obnoxious while the McGann character (I) can be bland or hysterical.
Note: Even though there are no women in the film, the two lead characters are not Gay.
Summary: Rated highly by the critics, I found "Withnail and I" mostly funny but sometimes over-the-top and tedious. No doubt some of the British humor went over my head. Rating ***
Actors: Richard E. Grant, Paul McGann
Pros: Supporting characters, Witty script, Richard Grant
Cons: Too Long, Profanity & Drug use, Paul McGann too bland
Full of funny lines, "Withnail and I" is a British Combination "Leaving Las Vegas" and "The Big Lewbowski". There is no real plot and film focuses on the misadventures of the two leads with some funny supporting characters. Richard Griffiths steals the movie as the eccentric Uncle Monty, while the deadpan Ralph Brown is delightful as their friend/drug dealer. But the movie has its sad and dull moments. Withnail himself is not a funny drunk, and is often profane and obnoxious while the McGann character (I) can be bland or hysterical.
Note: Even though there are no women in the film, the two lead characters are not Gay.
Summary: Rated highly by the critics, I found "Withnail and I" mostly funny but sometimes over-the-top and tedious. No doubt some of the British humor went over my head. Rating ***
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Best Man (1964) - Schaffner
Plot: The two front runners for their party's Presidential nomination, one principled and the other ruthless, vie for the ex-President's endorsement.
Pros: Acting, intelligent script, fast pace
Cons: Very talky, somewhat dated
Based on Gore Vidal's Broadway, and running only 92 minutes, "Best Man" deals with the ethics of the political process not the current issues of 1964. Vidal, of course, attacks Joe McCarthy and Segregation, but its indirectly and not the main focus. Mostly, the movie deals with 2 issues (1) does "the ends justify the means"? and (2) should a politician's personal life matter?
The Three Politicians
To answer these questions the film focuses on 3 politicians. The bad guy - Senator Cantwell- is a ruthless pol who believes the ends justify the means. He's a sort of combination Joe McCarthy & Nixon with touches of Bobby Kennedy. The second, our hero Henry Fonda, is a liberal former Secretary of State. Modeled after Stevenson and Dean Acheson, he's pretty much perfect except for being 'indecisive'. He wants to fight on the issues and is perfectly willing to accept defeat rather than betray his principles.
The third character, Ex-President Hockstader, is modeled after Truman with touches of FDR. Politically and morally, Hockstader is the golden mean and obviously Vidal's political ideal. Hockstader is willing to fight dirty but only to a point - and only when necessary. A man of the people but with progressive elite views. A man who likes power but uses it for the liberal good. Like Fonda he's indifferent to a politicians private life unless it effects his performance. Unlike Fonda he values toughness and is willing to tell people what they want to hear and in a way they want to hear it.
Vidal, however, never truly engages the issues.
Why shouldn't Fonda's treatment for a nervous breakdown be known? Why should his "open marriage" remain a secret? Why shouldn't the voters know that Fonda is an atheist? Vidal and movie assume it doesn't matter, but they never make the case. Similarly, why should it matter that Cantwell is ambitious and will do most anything to succeed? Why is his use of Fonda's personal life, so beyond the pale? Vidal really never says, he just assumes.
A Confusing Ending
Further why are we supposed to cheer Fonda refusal to Cantwell's VP and his endorsement of Meriwell? I thought Fonda wanted power to do good things. And Fonda doesn't even know who Meriwell is!
Other Points
Finally, its interesting that Vidal puts several things in the movie/play. First, its only after Fonda hears of Cantwell going after Gays in the WW II military that he decides Cantwell under no circumstances be President. Secondly, the ex-President speechifies about how a Jew and Black will one day be President and the crowd applauds. But when he mentions a "Lady President" everyone laughs, including the women in the crowd.
Finally, its interesting that Vidal puts several things in the movie/play. First, its only after Fonda hears of Cantwell going after Gays in the WW II military that he decides Cantwell under no circumstances be President. Secondly, the ex-President speechifies about how a Jew and Black will one day be President and the crowd applauds. But when he mentions a "Lady President" everyone laughs, including the women in the crowd.
Summary: An interesting, well-acted political drama. Somewhat dated, it asks more questions than it answers. Rating ***
Dressed to Kill (1980)
Director: De Palma
Stars: Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson
Plot: A razor wielding pyscho attacks and terrorizes women associated with a Manhattan Therapist
"Dressed to Kill's" high rating surprised me. I found it very familiar and badly acted, especially by Caine, who sleepwalks through his role. None of the characters seemed likable or rounded & like many 70s/80s films the "bloody violence" looks like people smeared with Ketchup.
Summary: Second rate Hitchcock. Labeled a "sustained work of terror" and a "directorial Tour de force", I wasn't terrorized or impressed, mostly bored. Rating **1/2
Monday, October 10, 2011
MASH (1970)
Director: Robert Altman
Stars: Elliot Gould, Donald Sutherland
Plot: Doctors Gould and Sutherland join the 4077 MASH during the Korea War. Hi- jinks ensue.
Altman's first and only true popular hit, the movie has long been overshadowed by the highly successful TV show. Episodic, the movie manages to be anti-religious, anti-war, anti-military, and anti-feminist all at the same time. Unlike the TV show's Hawkeye (Alda) and Trapper (Rodgers), Gould and Sutherland aren't particularly nice or even very likable. They're "Joe Cool", and they're entitled because they're great surgeons who are better and smarter then everyone. So they can call the Catholic father "Dago", treat the nurses as sex toys or tell a middle-aged Head nurse that they're "the pros from Dover" and to get them a Steak pronto and a nurse "whose Tits won't get in the way".
And they behave with self-satisfied cruelty toward anyone they think deserves it. Burns is baited and driven out, Hotlips sexually harassed, and an Army General blackmailed. Whether you think these actions are funny depends on your point of view. Ebert made a nice point:
We laugh, not because "M*A*S*H" is Sgt. Bilko for adults, but because it is so true to the unadmitted sadist in all of us. There is perhaps nothing so exquisite as achieving (as the country song has it) sweet mental revenge against someone we hate with particular dedication. And it is the flat-out, poker-faced hatred in "M*A*S*H" that makes it work.
So if you hate "regular army clowns" like Frank Burns or "Hotlips", and can overlook our leads arrogance and general dislike of anyone not "cool", you might find MASH very funny.
I didn't for the most part - although I found it mildly amusing at times. Henry and Radar were still funny and there a number of funny lines. But too much of it grated on me. And the football game goes on for a dull 30 minutes.
Note: Gould and Sutherland tried to have Altman fired during shooting. Both later apologized, but Altman never worked with Sutherland again. And Altman calls the TV show "racist". Sour grapes anyone?
Summary: Not as bad as I remembered. Some funny moments but too long and uneven. Rating **1/2
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Life in Beautiful (1997)
Director: Roberto Benigni
Actors: Roberto Benigni, Nicoletta Braschi
Plot: An Italian Jew has a wonderful romance with the help of his humor, but must use that same quality to protect his son in a Concentration camp.
Plot: An Italian Jew has a wonderful romance with the help of his humor, but must use that same quality to protect his son in a Concentration camp.
I didn't really look forward to watching "Life is Beautiful". I dislike it when comedians try to make us laugh AND cry or use humor to make some profound point. Usually the movie ends up an unpleasant mixture - like hot fudge on raw oysters - or wastes a 1st rate comedian on 2nd rate drama. So I was pleasantly surprised at how *not* awful "Life is Beautiful" is.
The first half is fairly amusing as Benigni does a series of well-done, if slightly familiar, gags and has a light-hearted romance with Braschi. In the second half, things get more serious as Benigni tries to shield his son from the harshness of the German concentration camp. The final scene is excellent and there's some surprisingly good humor - given its Dachau - but the pathos is laid on a little too thick.
Summary: I suppose if you tried to make a funny, life-affirming movie about Concentration camps "Life is Beautiful" does it about as well as possible. But I found the situation too serious/distracting to enjoy much of the 2nd half humor. Four Stars for the first half, two stars for the second. Overall rating: ***
Seven Beauties (1975)
Director: Linda Wertmuller
Actors: Giancarlo Giannini
Plot: Pasqualino, an Italian everyman, deserts the army during World War II. Captured by the Germans he's sent to a concentration camp, where he does almost anything to survive. In lengthy flashbacks, we his life before the war.
Plot: Pasqualino, an Italian everyman, deserts the army during World War II. Captured by the Germans he's sent to a concentration camp, where he does almost anything to survive. In lengthy flashbacks, we his life before the war.
Pros: Direction, Giannini, Editing, Originality, Black Humor
Cons: Graphic Concentration camp brutality, Annoying opening song
Seven Beauties is a stunning and often beautiful film full of black humor. The main character, our anti-hero, is a bungler, a fool who kills for a dimwitted "macho" code of honor. And he'll do pretty much anything to survive. Despite all this, and primarily due to Giannini, we often sympathize and laugh at Pasqualino, rather than dislike and despise him.
The pre-war sequences are the best, showing Pasqualino as a ladies man with 7 homely sisters. I found the concentration camp sequences too graphic, brutal and jarring when set against the rest of the film. And Wertmuller tries too hard to make a pessimistic political/cultural point about human nature.
Summary: An interesting "art house" film that can be viewed on many levels. I didn't enjoy much of it, but I found it fascinating and original. Most will find it too bizarre. Rating ***
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Combat! - Selected episodes
S.I.W (John Cassavetes). Season 3. Cassavetes plays a new replacement who arrives amid rumors he's a coward. When he's shot with his own M-1, everyone suspects its S.I.W, but is it? This a well written and acted episode by everyone involved, especially Cassavetes. Portraying his character in an ambiguous manner he keeps us guessing till the very end. The only minus: the Germans act even more silly than usual, Rating ***1/2
Hills are For Heroes. Season 4. A two part episode, widely considered the best episode of Combat. Hanley must secure, at any cost, a strategic road guarded by two bunkers. Directed by Murrow, its an action and tension packed episode and probably the most "Movie-like" TV episode of the series. The only negative: the Germans use American machine guns. Rating ****
Bridge at Chalons (Lee Marvin). Season 2. Marvin plays a hard-nosed caustic demolition expert that must be guided to the bridge by the Squad. Predictably, Marvin and Saunders clash but end up respecting each other. Marvin is very good, but doesn't have that much dialogue, and the story isn't anything special. Normally, the special effects/set design on "Combat" are pretty good but the "Bridge at Chalons" looks like a cheap wooden pontoon - which it is. Rating: Marvin gets ****, the Story a ** - Overall ***
Hills are For Heroes. Season 4. A two part episode, widely considered the best episode of Combat. Hanley must secure, at any cost, a strategic road guarded by two bunkers. Directed by Murrow, its an action and tension packed episode and probably the most "Movie-like" TV episode of the series. The only negative: the Germans use American machine guns. Rating ****
Bridge at Chalons (Lee Marvin). Season 2. Marvin plays a hard-nosed caustic demolition expert that must be guided to the bridge by the Squad. Predictably, Marvin and Saunders clash but end up respecting each other. Marvin is very good, but doesn't have that much dialogue, and the story isn't anything special. Normally, the special effects/set design on "Combat" are pretty good but the "Bridge at Chalons" looks like a cheap wooden pontoon - which it is. Rating: Marvin gets ****, the Story a ** - Overall ***
The First Day (Buck Taylor) Season 4. Well-written and directed story about the squad breaking in 4 new teenage replacements, a high school football star, a farm boy, a wise-guy, and the boy next door. Even though a couple of guest stars were in their mid-twenties, they come off as teenagers. Note: In reality there was nothing unusual about teenage infantry soldiers (The median age of Marines Killed in WW II was 22), but this is TV. Rating ***
Masquerade. (James Coburn) Season 2. Coburn shines as a German infiltrator, posing as an American, who insists his important German prisoner be taken to Battalion HQ. After a while, Saunders gets suspicious and a game of cat and mouse ensues. Very good and full of nice subtle touches. Rating ****
The Long Way Home. (Richard Basehart) Season 2. Saunders and others are captured by a sadistic SS Colonel and must undergo brutal interrogations or find a way to escape. Basehart was always good at playing Germans and he's excellent in this one. Sadly, the story is too silly. Low-level GI's like Saunders never knew enough for the Germans to spend much time on - let alone keep them in makeshift Prison camps with Colonels in command. And the Germans would have simply shot prisoners who assaulted guards and tried to escape. Rating **1/2
The Enemy. Season 4. Robert Duvall stars as a German expert in booby traps and mines. Captured and forced by Hanley to disarm his own booby-traps, Duvall tries to trick Hanley in order to escape. The one episode I remember from years ago -the plot twists and ending are good - but were better the first viewing. Duvall is convincing as a German. Rating ***
Sunday, September 25, 2011
High Plains Drifter (1973)
Director: Clint Eastwood
Plot: A gunfighting stranger comes to the small town of Lago and is hired to hold off three outlaws who are on their way.
Pros: Eastwood, Direction, Black Humor
Cons: Low Production Values, Somewhat sleezy
"High Plains Drifter" is a well made, enjoyable, American 'Spaghetti Western'. Like his other 'Spaghetti Westerns', you have Eastwood playing the "The Man with No Name" along with low production values, black humor, violence, broad characters and a fantasy plot rather than real West. The only differences are: better supporting actors, a couple of rapes, and no Lee Van Cleff.
I first saw this 25 years ago and didn't like it - too mean. Today, the nasty edge doesn't bother me. So, either I've become meaner, or Pop Culture has become so toxic the causal sadism in "High Plains Drifter" seems rather quaint. I'm guessing the second is true.
Conclusion: High Plains Drifter has a hard edge and low production values, otherwise its an excellent Spaghetti Western with enough violence and black humor to keep Eastwood fans interested. Rating ***
Plot: A gunfighting stranger comes to the small town of Lago and is hired to hold off three outlaws who are on their way.
Pros: Eastwood, Direction, Black Humor
Cons: Low Production Values, Somewhat sleezy
"High Plains Drifter" is a well made, enjoyable, American 'Spaghetti Western'. Like his other 'Spaghetti Westerns', you have Eastwood playing the "The Man with No Name" along with low production values, black humor, violence, broad characters and a fantasy plot rather than real West. The only differences are: better supporting actors, a couple of rapes, and no Lee Van Cleff.
I first saw this 25 years ago and didn't like it - too mean. Today, the nasty edge doesn't bother me. So, either I've become meaner, or Pop Culture has become so toxic the causal sadism in "High Plains Drifter" seems rather quaint. I'm guessing the second is true.
Conclusion: High Plains Drifter has a hard edge and low production values, otherwise its an excellent Spaghetti Western with enough violence and black humor to keep Eastwood fans interested. Rating ***
Monday, September 19, 2011
Days of Heaven (1978) - Malick
Actors: Richard Gere, Sam Shepard, Brooke Adams
Plot: In 1916, A hot-tempered laborer (Gere) convinces the woman he loves (Adams) to marry a Wealthy but dying Farmer (Shepard) to get his fortune.
Pros: Photography, Score, Atmosphere
Cons: Story, Characters Emotionally distant, Richard Gere
Plot: In 1916, A hot-tempered laborer (Gere) convinces the woman he loves (Adams) to marry a Wealthy but dying Farmer (Shepard) to get his fortune.
Pros: Photography, Score, Atmosphere
Cons: Story, Characters Emotionally distant, Richard Gere
Sometimes labeled "90 minutes of Wheat"; "Days of Heaven" is a beautifully shot film that's long on great images and short on story and character. Malick shoots it almost as a silent movie, with little dialogue & few close-ups. This mutes any emotional impact the story has. Having the wooden Richard Gere as the lead further distances the viewer. Too bad Malick couldn't have added more warmth or humor. Shepard does an excellent job, Adams is competent.
Conclusion: "Days of Heaven" probably has more astoundingly beautiful images than any film I've seen. Four **** for its great score and great photography - 2** for its slender, mediocre story and characters. Overall rating ***
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Thieves Like Us (1974)
Director: Robert Altman
Actors: Shelly Duvall, Keith Carradine
Plot: Two convicts break out of Mississippi State Penitentiary in 1936 to join a third on a long spree of bank robbing, their only talent and claim to fame. The youngest one falls in love with a girl at their hideout.
Actors: Shelly Duvall, Keith Carradine
Plot: Two convicts break out of Mississippi State Penitentiary in 1936 to join a third on a long spree of bank robbing, their only talent and claim to fame. The youngest one falls in love with a girl at their hideout.
Pros: Atmosphere, Photography
Cons: Bare bones plot, Dull Dialogue, Ordinary Characters
More of a character study then a crime/"Bonnie and Clyde" type action movie. Like many Altman movies there isn't much of a story or plot. Instead, Altman focuses on the characters (3 Bank robbers plus Duvall) . Shot in Mississippi, Altman went to great lengths to recreate the 1930s by using period clothes, vintage cars and old radio programs. Sadly, I found the characters dull and not much happens. The acting is excellent, although Keith Carradine lacks charisma and Duvall is oddly unattractive.
Conclusion: A talk heavy, somewhat drab film that never rises above its ordinary characters. Well photographed but forgettable. Rating **1/2
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The Conversation (1974)
Director: Coppola
Actors: Gene Hackman, Cindy Williams, Harrison Ford
Plot A paranoid and secretive surveillance expert has a crisis of conscience when he suspects that a couple he is spying on will be murdered.
Pros: Hackman, Direction
Cons: Too long, sluggish pace, Sparse dialog, Lack of good Supporting characters
"The Conversation" is interesting rather than good. Hackman plays a paranoid, introverted and lonely PI/wiretapper who stumbles upon what he thinks is a possible murder plot. But "The Conversation" isn't really a thriller but a character study and I found his character rather dull.
Which is a bad thing - since no other character is really developed. Hackman really is the entire movie. Hackman does an excellent job, but given the repressed nature of his character there's not much to express.
Other matters: The audio surveillance equipment that was so fascinating and scary in 1974 now seems quint and funny. And the 70s truly were the decade of ugly. Ugly clothes, ugly haircuts, and ugly cars.
Conclusion: Highly rated by the critics, they find it a "fascinating study of paranoia, invasion of privacy, and the problem of conscience". But I didn't find a lot of "there" there. The lack of good dialogue or characters left me cold. Rating **1/2
Serpico (1973)
Director: Sidney Lumet
Actors: Al Pacino
Plot: An honest New York narcotics detective blows the whistle on rampant police corruption only to have his fellow police officers turn against him.
Pros: Gritty New York Locations and action, Pacino, Direction
Cons: Repetitious, Dull Romantic subplot, No memorable supporting characters
New York City never looked more dangerous, dirty, and depressing then in this true of story of a policeman's fight against police corruption. Pacino is perfectly cast as the lead and the film moves at a quick pace and kept me interested. Further, Lumet directs several good, realistic, action scenes. However, there's too much focus on Serpico's private life, and those scenes (Serpico buying a puppy, acting cute, fighting with his girlfriend, visiting his Italian parents) bring the movie to a grinding halt.
"Serpico" also suffers from an intrusive and often inappropriate soundtrack and a lack of good supporting characters. Pacino dominates the film to excess. He seems to be in every scene & has most of the dialogue - so the other actors have little to work with. Finally, police corruption - although terrible -really isn't that engaging a movie subject.
Conclusion: A solid crime film and an excellent star vehicle for Pacino but somewhat depressing. Rating ***
Monday, September 12, 2011
Mamma Roma (1962)
Director: Pasolini
Stars: Anna Magnani
Plot: Mamma Roma is a middle-aged whore of Roma who can now quit and become a fruit seller. She re-unites with her 16-year-old son, Ettore & dreams of getting him a good position But it is too late for Ettore?
Pros: Direction, Magnani
Cons: Teenage Son is a bit of a bore
Shot in Neo-realistic fashion, 'Mamma Roma' focuses in on the prostitutes and low lifes of lower class Rome and Magnini relationship with her son. Magnani dominates the picture and it comes alive whenever she's on screen. She makes Mamma Roma's struggles quite interesting. Unfortunately, the teenage son is a sullen bore and his scenes without Magnani are somewhat dull. The story itself is simple and direct.
Conclusion: Good Magnini but a cut below "The Bicycle Thief" and the other Italian NeoRealistic masterpieces. Rating ***
Stars: Anna Magnani
Plot: Mamma Roma is a middle-aged whore of Roma who can now quit and become a fruit seller. She re-unites with her 16-year-old son, Ettore & dreams of getting him a good position But it is too late for Ettore?
Pros: Direction, Magnani
Cons: Teenage Son is a bit of a bore
Shot in Neo-realistic fashion, 'Mamma Roma' focuses in on the prostitutes and low lifes of lower class Rome and Magnini relationship with her son. Magnani dominates the picture and it comes alive whenever she's on screen. She makes Mamma Roma's struggles quite interesting. Unfortunately, the teenage son is a sullen bore and his scenes without Magnani are somewhat dull. The story itself is simple and direct.
Conclusion: Good Magnini but a cut below "The Bicycle Thief" and the other Italian NeoRealistic masterpieces. Rating ***
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Easy Rider (1969) - Hopper
Stars: Jack Nicholson, Dennis Hopper, Peter Fonda
Plot: Two drug dealers score big and journey from SF to New Orleans on motorcycles.
Pros: Cinematography, Soundtrack, Nicholson
Cons: Pretty Much everything else.
A fairly short movie (95 minutes) that's pretty good when Fonda & Hopper -our "heroes"- are racing down the open highway, the soundtrack booming, and beautiful pictures of America flashing by. The "Born to be Wild" sequence has become famous. Its also interesting when Jack Nicholson shows up. Sadly, this represents only half the movie. The other half consists of our dull leads doing acid and pot, visiting a hippie commune, being hassled by rednecks, seeing Mardi Gras and having far too many "Like wow man" druggie conversations. Neither of the two leads is given much character or personality. To call their characters "underdeveloped" is an understatement.
The acting, outside of Nicholson, ranges from adequate to amateurish. Fonda is wooden while Hopper does his usual paranoid ranter shtick. Many of the supporting characters - including the Southern locals that insult Fonda/Nicholson/Hopper at a cafe - were real people hired on location and vary in quality.
Morally the film is reprehensible. It promotes drug use and the absurd idea that if only the Rednecks in 'Amerika' would let us smoke pot, wear long hair, practice free love, and ride around on motorcycles everything would be groovy. Its all about Freedom, man. BTW, another name for "Freedom" is "Selfishness".
Looking back, the hippies/Easy rider types were nothing more than social parasites made possible by the hard work & patriotism of previous Generations. They were riding the crest of the post WWII economic boom (including cheap oil) - a boom that would soon come to an end.
Summary: Good in spots, but nowhere near the masterpiece some make it out to be. Rating **1/2
Nashville (1975) - Altman
Stars: Lilly Tomlin, Kieth Carradine, Ronee Blakely, Henry Gibson
Plot: Set in Nashville, the Country and Western music capital, we follow 24 characters through 5 days.
Pros: Good acting, a few good songs, Ronne Blakely
Cons: Too long, weak script, mediocre songs, dull characters
Best Quote: Opal: [In an automobile junkyard] I'm wandering in a graveyard. The dead here have no crosses, nor tombstones, nor wreaths to sing of their past glory, but lie in rotting, decaying, rusty heaps, their innards ripped out by greedy, vulturous hands. Their vast, vacant skeletons... sadly sighing to the sky. The rust on their bodies... is the color of dried blood. Dried blood. I'm reminded of... of an elephant's secret burial ground. Yes. Cette aire de mystère. Cette essence de I'irréel. These cars are trying to communicate. O cars, are you trying to tell me something? Are you trying to convey to me some secret...
Hysterically praised by the critics in 1975, "Nashville" hasn't aged well and its difficult to understand its supposed "greatness". A dated satire of C&W music, the movie is 200 minutes long with 60 minutes of C&W song set pieces, most of which are either mediocre or badly sung . Rather than use good, existing C&W songs, or hire some good C&W songwriters, Altman used songs written/co-written by the actors.
We get a lot of boring and mostly unlikable characters
Other characters are meaningless, as they only show up for a few scenes and then disappear. Equally meaningless is a 3rd Party populist candidate whose speeches are broadcast throughout the movie. And like most Altman films, the dialogue seems improvised and is completely forgettable. Finally, although most of the acting is good - some actors (Gibson in particular) are miscast. They're more Malibu than Nashville. They reek of Manhattan/Hollywood & aren't the least bit "country".
Its not all bad of course
Lilly Tomlin and Ronee Blakely both shine in their roles, there's a BBC reporter who's funny plus a few good songs (cf: "I'm easy"). Too bad the movie didn't focus more on Tomlin and Blakely.
So why all the praise?
Probably because (i) Altman was trying to do something original, (ii) critics love 'slice of life' movies (iii) its a satire on Nashville, C&W music, and by extension "middle America" (iv) there's some good acting, and (v) Altman is considered a "great" director.
Summary: Interesting rather than good. Altman fans and fans of mediocre C&W will like it more. Rating **1/2
Pros: Good acting, a few good songs, Ronne Blakely
Cons: Too long, weak script, mediocre songs, dull characters
Best Quote: Opal: [In an automobile junkyard] I'm wandering in a graveyard. The dead here have no crosses, nor tombstones, nor wreaths to sing of their past glory, but lie in rotting, decaying, rusty heaps, their innards ripped out by greedy, vulturous hands. Their vast, vacant skeletons... sadly sighing to the sky. The rust on their bodies... is the color of dried blood. Dried blood. I'm reminded of... of an elephant's secret burial ground. Yes. Cette aire de mystère. Cette essence de I'irréel. These cars are trying to communicate. O cars, are you trying to tell me something? Are you trying to convey to me some secret...
Hysterically praised by the critics in 1975, "Nashville" hasn't aged well and its difficult to understand its supposed "greatness". A dated satire of C&W music, the movie is 200 minutes long with 60 minutes of C&W song set pieces, most of which are either mediocre or badly sung . Rather than use good, existing C&W songs, or hire some good C&W songwriters, Altman used songs written/co-written by the actors.
We get a lot of boring and mostly unlikable characters
Other characters are meaningless, as they only show up for a few scenes and then disappear. Equally meaningless is a 3rd Party populist candidate whose speeches are broadcast throughout the movie. And like most Altman films, the dialogue seems improvised and is completely forgettable. Finally, although most of the acting is good - some actors (Gibson in particular) are miscast. They're more Malibu than Nashville. They reek of Manhattan/Hollywood & aren't the least bit "country".
Its not all bad of course
Lilly Tomlin and Ronee Blakely both shine in their roles, there's a BBC reporter who's funny plus a few good songs (cf: "I'm easy"). Too bad the movie didn't focus more on Tomlin and Blakely.
So why all the praise?
Probably because (i) Altman was trying to do something original, (ii) critics love 'slice of life' movies (iii) its a satire on Nashville, C&W music, and by extension "middle America" (iv) there's some good acting, and (v) Altman is considered a "great" director.
Summary: Interesting rather than good. Altman fans and fans of mediocre C&W will like it more. Rating **1/2
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Downhill Racer (1969)
Stars: Robert Redford, Gene Hackman, Camilla Sparv
Pros: Hackman, European Locations, Sparv, Racing action shots
Cons: No real plot, Script, Boring Lead character, Pointless
Pros: Hackman, European Locations, Sparv, Racing action shots
Cons: No real plot, Script, Boring Lead character, Pointless
Plot: Redford stars as a David Chapellett, a ruthless, self-absorbed skier out to win Olympic Gold. Gene Hackman is his Coach.
This movie was Redford's baby and he spent years getting it produced. I wonder why. "Downhill Racer" has no plot or point & its a character study of a boring character. Chappellet (Redford) is not so much "ruthless" as tight-lipped, inarticulate and dull. He sets a record for fewest words per minute of screen time and Redford's low-key style makes it worse. Where was Kirk Douglas when you need him?
Nor do we get any back-story of Redford's character. We get one visit to Chappellett's Dad and hometown - but its unconvincingly shown in the usual, phony, Hollywood manner.
However, the European locations shots are attractive as is Sparv who looks beautiful and matches up well with Redford. She's interesting on screen - as is Hackman. Neither are given enough lines. The direction is good, especially the 1st person downhill racing, but there are too many shots of spectators & skiers whizzing by or just standing around.
Conclusion: A movie dying to be remade. 21st camera techniques could make the skiing even more exciting and a new script wouldn't hurt. Recommended only for Redford and skiing fans. Rating **1/2
This movie was Redford's baby and he spent years getting it produced. I wonder why. "Downhill Racer" has no plot or point & its a character study of a boring character. Chappellet (Redford) is not so much "ruthless" as tight-lipped, inarticulate and dull. He sets a record for fewest words per minute of screen time and Redford's low-key style makes it worse. Where was Kirk Douglas when you need him?
Nor do we get any back-story of Redford's character. We get one visit to Chappellett's Dad and hometown - but its unconvincingly shown in the usual, phony, Hollywood manner.
However, the European locations shots are attractive as is Sparv who looks beautiful and matches up well with Redford. She's interesting on screen - as is Hackman. Neither are given enough lines. The direction is good, especially the 1st person downhill racing, but there are too many shots of spectators & skiers whizzing by or just standing around.
Conclusion: A movie dying to be remade. 21st camera techniques could make the skiing even more exciting and a new script wouldn't hurt. Recommended only for Redford and skiing fans. Rating **1/2
Saturday, August 27, 2011
The Sting (1973) - Hill
Stars: Robert Redford, Paul Newman, Robert Shaw
Pros: Acting, Score, Script, Entertaining
Pros: Acting, Score, Script, Entertaining
Cons: Drags in the middle.
Plot: In 1930s Chicago, a con-man (Redford) seeking revenge for his murdered partner teams up with a master of the big-con (Newman) to win a fortune from a criminal banker (Shaw).
What Kael thought: "The Sting is for people who like crooks as sweeties. The director is once again the implacably impersonal George Hill. The Script by David Ward is a collection of Damon Runyon hand-me-downs with the flavor gone. Newman and Redford are two of the sexiest men in the country but when they play boyish coquettes, the show is really cloying. I would much rather see two Gay men in love than see two romantic actors going through a routine whose point is that they're so adorable smiley butch that they can pretend to be in love and its all innocent. And the absence of women is really felt in the movie. But then not only is half of humanity left out, so is what engages the remaining half. I found it visually claustrophobic and totally mechanical." - From Reeling by Pauline Kael
“The Sting” is a slick, feel-good bit of fluff and Box office smash that re-unites Newman, Hill, and Redford. However, unlike Butch Cassidy, “The Sting” really isn’t a buddy picture, the two men have few scenes together. Newman has his moments, but he really supports Redford, who’s the main lead from start to finish. The two actors also switch personas. Instead of being the cool, serious Sundance to Newman’s Butch, Redford here is the warmer & more charming of the two. Also notable are Robert Shaw as the arrogant villain and Charles Durning as the crooked cop.
Except in the middle, “The Sting” moves briskly and its twists and turns kept me guessing. While played straight it never takes itself seriously and has no message. The script is clever and tight. The Scott Joplin music while historically inappropriate to the 1930s adds to the enjoyment.
It’s an unlikely Academy Award winner. While a nice entertainment the Academy rarely gives light comedies the Oscar and The Sting really isn’t that remarkable. Possibly, after giving Oscars to “Midnight Cowboy (1969)”, “Patton (1970), “The French Connection (1971), and “The Godfather (1972)” some AA voters wanted to reward a more wholesome, family-oriented film. Or maybe it was the best of the English-language films nominated ( “The Exorcist”, “American Graffiti”, and “A touch of Class”).
Conclusion: One of the weaker Academy Award Best pictures, but an enjoyable light comedy Rating ***
Friday, August 19, 2011
Battleship Potemkin (1925)
Battleship Potemkin (1925)
The Hype -
Voted No. 8 on the TSPDT 1,000 Greatest Films.
Roger Ebert -
There's no reason to watch Battleship Potemkin 84 years later. Time has passed it by. It should be thrown on the ash heap of history - along with Marx, Trotsky and Lenin.
The Real Reason Its Rated Highly - First, its directed by Sergei Einstein the great Russian film maker. Cinemaphiles always overpraise any movie made by a great director. If the director was great - so their "logic" goes - the movie therefore must also be great. Secondly, its a landmark film. The film pioneered many techniques used in film since 1925. Thirdly, its communist propaganda, & that always warms the heart of the left-wing film critics. Fourth, its silent and list makers always feel they have to toss in a few silent films to be taken seriously.
The Hype -
Voted No. 8 on the TSPDT 1,000 Greatest Films.
Roger Ebert -
"The Battleship Potemkin'' has been so famous for so long that it is almost impossible to come to it with a fresh eye. It is one of the fundamental landmarks of cinema...If today it seems more like a technically brilliant but simplistic... that may be because it has worn out its element of surprise--that, like the 23rd Psalm or Beethoven's Fifth, it has become so familiar we cannot perceive it for what it is"Pauline Kael -
Voted the greatest film of all time by an international panel of critics in Brussels in (1958), as it had been in 1950, POTEMKIN (Russians and purists pronounce it Po-tyom-kin) has achieved such an unholy eminence that few people any longer dispute its merits. Great as it undoubtedly is, it's not really a likable film; it's amazing, though--it keeps its freshness and its excitement...The Reality - A very long 65 minute silent movie. Battleship Potemkin is a BAD melodrama full of of bad acting and Cartoonish Soviet Propaganda. There is no character development or real plot. The story is quite simple. Its 1905 Odessa Russia. On the Potemkin, the nasty mustache twirling officers are oppressing the noble sailors. On shore in Odessa, the Cossacks and the Bourgeois are oppressing the noble workers. But they only take so much and start the Revolution - the end. Repetitively, the movie loops the same shots over and over again to fill the time. We see the same shot of the ship again and again. And the same shot of the sailors going up or down the decks over and over. Yes, the "Odessa Steps" scene is well done, but thats 2 minutes out of 65 minutes.
There's no reason to watch Battleship Potemkin 84 years later. Time has passed it by. It should be thrown on the ash heap of history - along with Marx, Trotsky and Lenin.
The Real Reason Its Rated Highly - First, its directed by Sergei Einstein the great Russian film maker. Cinemaphiles always overpraise any movie made by a great director. If the director was great - so their "logic" goes - the movie therefore must also be great. Secondly, its a landmark film. The film pioneered many techniques used in film since 1925. Thirdly, its communist propaganda, & that always warms the heart of the left-wing film critics. Fourth, its silent and list makers always feel they have to toss in a few silent films to be taken seriously.
Citizen Kane - Welles
The Hype -
No.1 on the TSPDT 1,000 Greatest Films.
Andrew Sarris -
The Reality - Good? Yes. The Greatest film ever? Hardly. It has a good script, a few great scenes, some good lines, and some dazzling camera shots. But its dated and the story and characters are mediocre. Over the space of 119 minutes we follow Charles Foster Kane and his rise and fall. There is no suspense since the movie tells us Kane's Life story twice. Once at the beginning in a satirical Time newsreel - then in more detail through flashbacks. Kane himself - although charming at the start - soon becomes an arrogant, bitter old man. Even more dis-likable is Dorthy Comingore (Susan Alexander) who makes an obnoxious character even more so. As for Cotton, he does what he can with the priggish, self-righteous "Jedidiah" - but is defeated by the script.
So after all the hoopla about camera angles and deep focus photography, what is point of the story? The point in 1941 was to attack William Randolph Hearst, a powerful media mogul hated by most of Hollywood and the Left. But that attack and Hearst himself, hold no interest 60 years later.
Ingmar Bergman's overstates it a bit ( Welles' performance is very good) but speaks a Truth about Citizen Kane:
" For me it's just a hoax. It's empty. It's not interesting. It's dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of - is all the critics' darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it's a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie's got is absolutely unbelievable.
The Real Reason Its Rated Highly - Landmark film, check. Great Director, Check. Great film Technique, check. Left-wing politics, check. Plus, Kane has something for everyone as the Number 1 film. Its been the No. 1 film for almost 50 years - so its a safe choice. Its an American film but not pro-American. Its left-wing but not overtly so. Its full of great technique but also has some good performances. It brings recognition to poor Orson Welles. Above all, Film professors and buffs can talk for weeks about the politics, the background, Welles, the making of movie, Hearst, Toland, the sound, the camera angles, the brilliant technique.
No.1 on the TSPDT 1,000 Greatest Films.
Andrew Sarris -
"Citizen Kane is still the work which influenced the cinema more profoundly than any American film since Birth of a Nation."Pauline Kael -
"Orson Welles film is generally considered the greatest American film of the sound period, and it may be more fun than any other great movie. Citizen Kane is perhaps the one American talking picture that seems as fresh now as the day it opened. It may seem even fresher."Sight and Sound Magazine:
"Dazzlingly inventive, technically breathtaking, Citizen Kane reinvented the way stories could be told in the cinema, and set a standard generations of film-makers have since aspired to. An absorbing account of a newspaper tycoon's rise to power, Orson Welles' debut film feels as fresh as tomorrow's headlines. And he was only 26 when he made it."
The Reality - Good? Yes. The Greatest film ever? Hardly. It has a good script, a few great scenes, some good lines, and some dazzling camera shots. But its dated and the story and characters are mediocre. Over the space of 119 minutes we follow Charles Foster Kane and his rise and fall. There is no suspense since the movie tells us Kane's Life story twice. Once at the beginning in a satirical Time newsreel - then in more detail through flashbacks. Kane himself - although charming at the start - soon becomes an arrogant, bitter old man. Even more dis-likable is Dorthy Comingore (Susan Alexander) who makes an obnoxious character even more so. As for Cotton, he does what he can with the priggish, self-righteous "Jedidiah" - but is defeated by the script.
So after all the hoopla about camera angles and deep focus photography, what is point of the story? The point in 1941 was to attack William Randolph Hearst, a powerful media mogul hated by most of Hollywood and the Left. But that attack and Hearst himself, hold no interest 60 years later.
Ingmar Bergman's overstates it a bit ( Welles' performance is very good) but speaks a Truth about Citizen Kane:
" For me it's just a hoax. It's empty. It's not interesting. It's dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of - is all the critics' darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it's a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie's got is absolutely unbelievable.
The Real Reason Its Rated Highly - Landmark film, check. Great Director, Check. Great film Technique, check. Left-wing politics, check. Plus, Kane has something for everyone as the Number 1 film. Its been the No. 1 film for almost 50 years - so its a safe choice. Its an American film but not pro-American. Its left-wing but not overtly so. Its full of great technique but also has some good performances. It brings recognition to poor Orson Welles. Above all, Film professors and buffs can talk for weeks about the politics, the background, Welles, the making of movie, Hearst, Toland, the sound, the camera angles, the brilliant technique.
McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971) - Altman
The Hype -
No. 169 on the TSPDT 1,000 Greatest Films.
AFI No. 8 Western of all Time:
Roger Ebert -
There is no real plot - only a series of vignettes, and the acting ranges from poor to adequate. Beatty wears a beard and does his usual charming, alpha male as puppy dog act. Neither McCabe nor Mrs. Miller are particularly likable or interesting. Like most Altman films the movie is pointless - but has a few great scenes in the last 30 minutes, namely the shootout at the bridge and McCabe death.
The Real Reason Its Rated Highly -
Re-watch Postscript - I was struck by how absurdly unrealistic the last part of the film is, including the shootout.
First, the Big Corporation sends 3 hit-men to kill McCabe - no matter what. Isn't the whole point to get him to sell out and only kill him if necessary?
Second, McCabe owns most of the town and is worth $6,000 - a small fortune in those days, yet has no "hired gun" or "Muscle" to protect him or to keep order at the whorehouse and saloon. All the miners are just sweethearts.
And there's the indifference to the killers. The town marshal who never appears, and none of the townspeople care that 3 killers with guns are wandering about town looking to kill McCabe. No one tries to help him, and when the killers murder the Churchman in the Church, no one even notices! However, when the Church is set afire they all come out to put it out. And none of his whores even act as lookouts.
No. 169 on the TSPDT 1,000 Greatest Films.
AFI No. 8 Western of all Time:
Roger Ebert -
"It is not often given to a director to make a perfect film. Some spend their lives trying, but always fall short. Robert Altman has made a dozen films that can be called great in one way or another, but one of them is perfect, and that one is McCabe and Mrs. Miller(1971)"Pauline Kael -
"A beautiful pipe dream of a movie: Robert Altman's fleeting vision of what frontier life might have been, with Warren Beatty as a cocky small-time gambler and Julie Christie as an ambitious madam in the turn-of-the-century Northwest. Delicate, richly textured, and unusually understated, this modern classic is not like any other film. Altman builds a Western town as one might build a castle in the air--and it's inhabited."The Reality - McCabe and Mrs Miller is a pretentious, revisionist "Western" for people who don't like Westerns. A Small town hustler (Beatty) sets up a bordello with his drug addled Madame (Julie Christie) in a Northwest lumber town . Not really a "Western" more of a costume drama filled with 1971 dialogue and attitudes. The sound was badly recorded with half the dialogue being uttered out the corner of people's mouths or in remote corners of the set. The indoor photography is also poor and looks like a badly shot 16mm film.
There is no real plot - only a series of vignettes, and the acting ranges from poor to adequate. Beatty wears a beard and does his usual charming, alpha male as puppy dog act. Neither McCabe nor Mrs. Miller are particularly likable or interesting. Like most Altman films the movie is pointless - but has a few great scenes in the last 30 minutes, namely the shootout at the bridge and McCabe death.
The Real Reason Its Rated Highly -
- Cinemaphiles love Robert Altman. Why? I don't know - but they do.
- They also love Warren Beatty - I guess 'cause he's so "dreamy".
- The movie is "revisionist" or according to the New York Times: "McCabe and Mrs. Miller re-imagines the American West as a muddy frontier filled with hustlers, opportunists, and corporate sharks -- a turn-of-the-century model for a 1971 America mired in violence and lies"
- Westerns are too popular to leave off any "Great Films" list, but most film critics dislike the Genre. Given their love of Altman, choosing McCabe as a "Great film" is a win-win for them.
Re-watch Postscript - I was struck by how absurdly unrealistic the last part of the film is, including the shootout.
First, the Big Corporation sends 3 hit-men to kill McCabe - no matter what. Isn't the whole point to get him to sell out and only kill him if necessary?
Second, McCabe owns most of the town and is worth $6,000 - a small fortune in those days, yet has no "hired gun" or "Muscle" to protect him or to keep order at the whorehouse and saloon. All the miners are just sweethearts.
And there's the indifference to the killers. The town marshal who never appears, and none of the townspeople care that 3 killers with guns are wandering about town looking to kill McCabe. No one tries to help him, and when the killers murder the Churchman in the Church, no one even notices! However, when the Church is set afire they all come out to put it out. And none of his whores even act as lookouts.
2001 A Space Odyssey
2001 Space Odyssey Sucks or OVERRATED - Great Movies that aren't
The Hype -
No 4 on the TSPDT 1,000 Greatest Films.
No. 6 on the Sight and Sound Critics Top 10 Movies of All Time
Roger Ebert - "This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn't include a single shot simply to keep our attention. He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations. Alone among science-fiction movies, 2001 is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe."
Danny Peary, Cult Movies (1981) ... [T]he most awesome, beautiful (the visuals and the music), mentally stimulating, and controversial science fiction film ever made..."
The Reality -
Inside the 141 minute bore that is 2001 - there's an excellent 60 minute movie trying to get out. The movie's middle part with HAL the computer is actually quite good, but the rest of the movie is simply dull. Lots of "Blue Danube", light shows, Monkeys, and Space Ships. The human characters are cardboard cutouts and there is no plot. Kubrick takes a short story by Clarke and pads it out to 141 minutes. There are some interesting visuals - but if I want great visuals I'll just look out the window.
The following critics got it right:
'Whatever else movies do, they do not postulate definitions; if they try they die. What possible religious revelation could be vouchsafed by a movie whose only memorable character was a gay computer? At this distance, within two years of the title's prediction, 2001 looks dated and bloated; watching the flight attendants on the moon shuttle, I only wish that Kubrick had had the courage to call it 1968: A Bad Year for Hats."-- Anthony Lane
"The ridiculous labor of 2001, the cavernous sets, and the special lenses, ride upon a half-baked notion of the origins and purpose of life that a first-year student ought to have been ashamed of. But this message in a bottle lasts over three (with intermission) hours, and the movie has long sequences of directorial self-indulgence."- David Thomson
"It's a monumentally unimaginative movie... The light-show trip is of no great distinction;
-- Pauline Kael, Harper's (February, 1969) anthologized in her collection For Keeps (1994)
No doubt some people will try to explain 2001's plot and why its a great film. But just as a joke that has to be explained isn't funny, a movie that has to explained and diagrammed isn't good.
The Real Reason Its Rated Highly - 2001 checks all the boxes. Landmark film, Great Director, great technique and visuals. Further, 2001 is the perfect movie for a certain group of people. You know who they are. The internet wonks, the comic book guys, the SF buffs, --the student or professor of philosophy/art/film. A person with a passion for avante-garde films with wacky imagery and little else. They're the type of people who find a college thesis' worth of material from the dialogue in the Matrix sequels, they're the ones that boldly declare a film 'art' and anybody else who disagrees with them 'just didn't get it.' 2001 is art alright. The kind of art that I can only liken as being assaulted and nearly beaten to death by an Andy Warhol painting. Yes this movie is art, and you will hate it for that.
No 4 on the TSPDT 1,000 Greatest Films.
No. 6 on the Sight and Sound Critics Top 10 Movies of All Time
Roger Ebert - "This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn't include a single shot simply to keep our attention. He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations. Alone among science-fiction movies, 2001 is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe."
Danny Peary, Cult Movies (1981) ... [T]he most awesome, beautiful (the visuals and the music), mentally stimulating, and controversial science fiction film ever made..."
The Reality -
Inside the 141 minute bore that is 2001 - there's an excellent 60 minute movie trying to get out. The movie's middle part with HAL the computer is actually quite good, but the rest of the movie is simply dull. Lots of "Blue Danube", light shows, Monkeys, and Space Ships. The human characters are cardboard cutouts and there is no plot. Kubrick takes a short story by Clarke and pads it out to 141 minutes. There are some interesting visuals - but if I want great visuals I'll just look out the window.
The following critics got it right:
'Whatever else movies do, they do not postulate definitions; if they try they die. What possible religious revelation could be vouchsafed by a movie whose only memorable character was a gay computer? At this distance, within two years of the title's prediction, 2001 looks dated and bloated; watching the flight attendants on the moon shuttle, I only wish that Kubrick had had the courage to call it 1968: A Bad Year for Hats."-- Anthony Lane
"The ridiculous labor of 2001, the cavernous sets, and the special lenses, ride upon a half-baked notion of the origins and purpose of life that a first-year student ought to have been ashamed of. But this message in a bottle lasts over three (with intermission) hours, and the movie has long sequences of directorial self-indulgence."- David Thomson
"It's a monumentally unimaginative movie... The light-show trip is of no great distinction;
-- Pauline Kael, Harper's (February, 1969) anthologized in her collection For Keeps (1994)
No doubt some people will try to explain 2001's plot and why its a great film. But just as a joke that has to be explained isn't funny, a movie that has to explained and diagrammed isn't good.
The Real Reason Its Rated Highly - 2001 checks all the boxes. Landmark film, Great Director, great technique and visuals. Further, 2001 is the perfect movie for a certain group of people. You know who they are. The internet wonks, the comic book guys, the SF buffs, --the student or professor of philosophy/art/film. A person with a passion for avante-garde films with wacky imagery and little else. They're the type of people who find a college thesis' worth of material from the dialogue in the Matrix sequels, they're the ones that boldly declare a film 'art' and anybody else who disagrees with them 'just didn't get it.' 2001 is art alright. The kind of art that I can only liken as being assaulted and nearly beaten to death by an Andy Warhol painting. Yes this movie is art, and you will hate it for that.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Hawaii -George Hill (1966)
Stars: Julie Andrew, Max Van Sydow, Richard Harris
Pros: Photography, set design, soundtrack, Hawaiian locations, Jocelyne LaGarde, Topless natives
Cons: Too long, Dull Script, one dimensional characters, Van Sydow over-the-top
Plot: In 1820 Abner Hale, (Van Sydow) a rigid, priggish, New England missionary, marries Jerusha Bromley (Andrews) and takes her to Hawaii intent on converting the natives. It proves a difficult task & Sea Captain Richard Harris shows up to test their marriage vows
“Hawaii” is surprising movie. It’s surprised me that in 1966 such a long (over 3 hours) overtly anti-Christian movie, dully scripted by a communist, and starring a Swedish actor was given the green light by Hollywood with a budget of $12 million. Even more surprising, it was the 1966 box-office champ - pulling in over $16 million.
Unsurprisingly, it’s been pretty much forgotten. While score is great, the Polynesian actors (especially Jocelyne LaGarde) excellent, and has some lovely Hawaiian cine-photography the story itself is a crushing bore that lumbers along & never seems to end. And the same is true of Abner Hale. We see far too much of this dullard, who never goes away, and who never changes (except at the end). Trumbo’s script and Van Sydow excessive piety make him more robot than human. Andrews, who has top billing, is given little to do and seems rather muted. Richard Harris is Richard Harris. Incredibly even though its 3 hours long, none of the 3 main characters are given any real background or depth, they remain unchanging clichés.
But some scenes are excellent and stay with you - Andrews illness, the Sea voyage to Hawaii, the outbreak of disease. George C. Scott is excellent in a brief appearance. Carol O’Connor is laughable as a New England puritan
Conclusion: An overlong, turgid historical romance that overstays its welcome. Some competent supporting actors and beautiful photography made some of it bearable. Best seen on a big screen with plenty of booze.Rating **1/2
Pros: Photography, set design, soundtrack, Hawaiian locations, Jocelyne LaGarde, Topless natives
Cons: Too long, Dull Script, one dimensional characters, Van Sydow over-the-top
Plot: In 1820 Abner Hale, (Van Sydow) a rigid, priggish, New England missionary, marries Jerusha Bromley (Andrews) and takes her to Hawaii intent on converting the natives. It proves a difficult task & Sea Captain Richard Harris shows up to test their marriage vows
“Hawaii” is surprising movie. It’s surprised me that in 1966 such a long (over 3 hours) overtly anti-Christian movie, dully scripted by a communist, and starring a Swedish actor was given the green light by Hollywood with a budget of $12 million. Even more surprising, it was the 1966 box-office champ - pulling in over $16 million.
Unsurprisingly, it’s been pretty much forgotten. While score is great, the Polynesian actors (especially Jocelyne LaGarde) excellent, and has some lovely Hawaiian cine-photography the story itself is a crushing bore that lumbers along & never seems to end. And the same is true of Abner Hale. We see far too much of this dullard, who never goes away, and who never changes (except at the end). Trumbo’s script and Van Sydow excessive piety make him more robot than human. Andrews, who has top billing, is given little to do and seems rather muted. Richard Harris is Richard Harris. Incredibly even though its 3 hours long, none of the 3 main characters are given any real background or depth, they remain unchanging clichés.
But some scenes are excellent and stay with you - Andrews illness, the Sea voyage to Hawaii, the outbreak of disease. George C. Scott is excellent in a brief appearance. Carol O’Connor is laughable as a New England puritan
Conclusion: An overlong, turgid historical romance that overstays its welcome. Some competent supporting actors and beautiful photography made some of it bearable. Best seen on a big screen with plenty of booze.Rating **1/2
Sunday, August 7, 2011
They Shoot Horses Don't They (1969) Pollack
Stars: Jane Fonda, Susannah York, Gig Young
Pros: Acting in general, Gig Young, Jane Fonda, Dialogue
Cons: Ending, Gimmicky Flash-forwards, Often over-the-top, Drags in the middle
Plot: Set during the Great Depression. Unemployed people enter a dance marathon, hosted by a manipulative businessman Gig Young. Contestants include bitter, sharp-tongued, Jane Fonda, her new found quasi-boyfriend Michael Sarrazin, would-be actress Susannah York, ex-sailor Red Buttons, and a married couple who are expecting.
"There can only be one winner, folks, but isn't that the American way?"
Its easy to be critical of TSHDY. Its a mildly interesting but unpleasant movie about dance marathons in the 30s. Well acted, but pretty much every character (except Red Buttons) is a loser, unpleasant, and/or crooked. Not content with suffering on the dance floor, the contestants fight and quarrel with each other and go crazy, while Gig Young manipulates everyone for the "good of the show". The ending is abrupt and unconvincing since (a) it makes little sense and (b) the movie never provides a convincing motivation/background for their actions.
But the acting saves it. Gig Young (Yowsa, Yowsa, Yowsa) shines as the aging, disillusioned and somewhat dishonest manager while Fonda puts in her best performance next to Klute. She's competitive, bitter, funny and strong and will do almost anything to win. Unfortunately, her strength makes nonsense of her characters story arc. York also plays her part well except for an over-the-top shower scene.
Cons: Ending, Gimmicky Flash-forwards, Often over-the-top, Drags in the middle
Plot: Set during the Great Depression. Unemployed people enter a dance marathon, hosted by a manipulative businessman Gig Young. Contestants include bitter, sharp-tongued, Jane Fonda, her new found quasi-boyfriend Michael Sarrazin, would-be actress Susannah York, ex-sailor Red Buttons, and a married couple who are expecting.
"There can only be one winner, folks, but isn't that the American way?"
Its easy to be critical of TSHDY. Its a mildly interesting but unpleasant movie about dance marathons in the 30s. Well acted, but pretty much every character (except Red Buttons) is a loser, unpleasant, and/or crooked. Not content with suffering on the dance floor, the contestants fight and quarrel with each other and go crazy, while Gig Young manipulates everyone for the "good of the show". The ending is abrupt and unconvincing since (a) it makes little sense and (b) the movie never provides a convincing motivation/background for their actions.
But the acting saves it. Gig Young (Yowsa, Yowsa, Yowsa) shines as the aging, disillusioned and somewhat dishonest manager while Fonda puts in her best performance next to Klute. She's competitive, bitter, funny and strong and will do almost anything to win. Unfortunately, her strength makes nonsense of her characters story arc. York also plays her part well except for an over-the-top shower scene.
Direction: Although Pollack was nominated for an AA, the direction is flawed. The photography and set design are excellent. But the flash forwards are gimmicky, the opening scene is pretentious, and many of dance scenes (especially the dance 'races') are absurdly overdone. Pollack even uses slow motion so that even the dimmest dim-bulb can see the "suffering." Subtle it ain't.
The film also drags at times, with too many repetitive shots of actors dancing and getting on and off the dance floor. Oh, and its supposed to be some deep allegory about life or 1930s capitalism, or something.
Summary: One of the better Hollywood "Everything stinks" movies of the late 60s. TSHDY is an excellent, character piece with some great acting by Gig Young and Jane Fonda. Its held back by a bleak simple-simon plot and too much melodrama . Rating **1/2
The film also drags at times, with too many repetitive shots of actors dancing and getting on and off the dance floor. Oh, and its supposed to be some deep allegory about life or 1930s capitalism, or something.
Summary: One of the better Hollywood "Everything stinks" movies of the late 60s. TSHDY is an excellent, character piece with some great acting by Gig Young and Jane Fonda. Its held back by a bleak simple-simon plot and too much melodrama . Rating **1/2
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Detective Story (1951) Wyler
Stars: Kirk Douglas, Eleanor Parker, Lee Grant, Joseph Wiseman
Pros: Douglas, Parker, Script, Supporting actors (except Wiseman)
Cons: Douglas, Melodramatic at times, Joseph Wiseman
Plot: One day in the 21st Precinct squad room, assorted characters form a backdrop for the troubles of hard-nosed Detective Jim McLeod (Douglas). He believes in a strict interpretation of the law and doesn't believe in turning the other cheek. The current object of his zealousness is Karl Schneider, an abortionist responsible for the death of several young women.
Pros: Douglas, Parker, Script, Supporting actors (except Wiseman)
Cons: Douglas, Melodramatic at times, Joseph Wiseman
Plot: One day in the 21st Precinct squad room, assorted characters form a backdrop for the troubles of hard-nosed Detective Jim McLeod (Douglas). He believes in a strict interpretation of the law and doesn't believe in turning the other cheek. The current object of his zealousness is Karl Schneider, an abortionist responsible for the death of several young women.
Detective story is based on a popular Broadway play and was considered gritty and cutting-edge for its time. Its spawned numerous imitators, and today seems rather tame and respectable. Much of the focus is on the supporting actors, who portray the criminals, crime victims, and relatives who visit the station. Parker and Grant are excellent (both AA nominees) as are William Bendix, Cathy O'Donnell, and George McCreedy. Wiseman is simply dreadful giving one of the hammiest most unbelievable film performances - ever.
But the main focus in on Douglas - and Kirk is both a positive and a negative. The Role of 'Detective Jim McLeod' was much sought after in Hollywood. Heston had played the role on stage and was disappointed he didn't get it. Bogart wanted the role so badly, he put in a large, but losing, bid for the film rights. Other Hollywood stars expressed interest, but Wyler gave it to Douglas.
And I could see why. Douglas is absolutely dynamite in the first half of the movie, he's intense and aggressive as he goes after the crooks. Pure Kirk Douglas. But in the last part of the film, as his character becomes more troubled, Kirk fails to provide nuance or convincingly express conflicting emotions. He has no chemistry with Parker and his character's actions often seem arbitrary and abrupt. Too often he goes over-the-top.
The script is also at fault, never providing the background or rationale for his character's actions and behavior. He just is what he is. So, we end up with melodrama instead of heartfelt tragedy.
Summary: An excellent, if somewhat dated, 50s crime drama. Its full of good acting - mostly and a little too much melodrama. Rating ***
Midnight in Paris (2011) - Woody Allen
Stars: Owen Wilson, Rachael McAdams,
Plot: A writer (Wilson) and his fiancee (McAdams) visit Paris. He dreams of 1920s Paris, home of Hemingway, Stein, Fitzgerald, and Picasso and wants to stay and write - she wants to shop and go home to Beverly Hills.
Woody's latest. An enjoyable piece of fluff with Owen Wilson playing Woody Allen. Highlights include some great shots of Paris, a good soundtrack, Michael Sheen as the pedantic Know-it-all and some excellent acting by all involved. Wilson shows his comedic acting talents by taking lines written for Woody Allen and making them charming and believable even when coming a tall, good looking, and "not from NYC" actor.
Its good but could have been much better. Allen doesn't do much with 1920s Paris characters, they're either punchlines (Zelda Fitzgerald/Dali) or historical caricatures (Picasso/TS Eliot) that never come alive. Exceptions: Bates as Gertrude Stein and whoever played Hemingway.
Nor are McAdams or her parents given much to do. The situation, actors, and photography are good but this should have been sharper/funnier. Wilson, for example, is in almost every scene and talks constantly but quips are few. However, this is Woody's 41st film and he *is* 75 years old. So I suppose its understandable. Or maybe he's just getting lazy.
Rating: B+
Woody's latest. An enjoyable piece of fluff with Owen Wilson playing Woody Allen. Highlights include some great shots of Paris, a good soundtrack, Michael Sheen as the pedantic Know-it-all and some excellent acting by all involved. Wilson shows his comedic acting talents by taking lines written for Woody Allen and making them charming and believable even when coming a tall, good looking, and "not from NYC" actor.
Its good but could have been much better. Allen doesn't do much with 1920s Paris characters, they're either punchlines (Zelda Fitzgerald/Dali) or historical caricatures (Picasso/TS Eliot) that never come alive. Exceptions: Bates as Gertrude Stein and whoever played Hemingway.
Nor are McAdams or her parents given much to do. The situation, actors, and photography are good but this should have been sharper/funnier. Wilson, for example, is in almost every scene and talks constantly but quips are few. However, this is Woody's 41st film and he *is* 75 years old. So I suppose its understandable. Or maybe he's just getting lazy.
Rating: B+
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Big Jim McLain (1952) - Ludwig
Stars: John Wayne, James Arness, Nancy Olsen, and Alan Napier, Veda Ann Borg
Pros: Veda Borg, Hawaiian locations, Alan Napier, Pro-HUAC
Cons: Low Budget, Not much action, Low Key, Only 90 minutes.
Plot: House Un-American Activities Committee investigators Jim McLain (Wayne) and Mal Baxter (Arness) come to Hawaii to track Communist Party activities. They are interested in everything from insurance fraud to the sabotage of a U.S. naval vessel. Alan Napier (aka Alfred of Batman) is also in Hawaii as a top communist official. Their paths will meet.
Released at height of the Korean War, "Big Jim McLain" was one of few films ever made by Hollywood that shows HUAC in a positive way. Its also one of the few John Wayne movies that dresses him in a contemporary suit and tie. Part travelogue, part quasi-documentary police movie, part political thriller, "Big Jim McLain" moves at fairly quick pace but can't escape a mediocre script and low budget values.
"Pathetic anti-Communist propaganda film with a snarling John Wayne at his ugliest as a macho windbag special agent for HUAC. Edward Ludwig directs as if HUAC was the last means of defense in America from the invading Soviet Commies and John Wayne's simple-minded right-wing politics were needed to save a vulnerable America from its ruthless gangster-like political enemies" - Dennis Schwartz
"With that said, what was John Wayne thinking when he made this idiotic, cartoonish garbage? This is the sort of movie that, when made as pro-American propaganda, is so embarrassing that it drives people over to the other side and gives aid and comfort to this nation's enemies" - Typical IMDB Reviewer
Cons: Low Budget, Not much action, Low Key, Only 90 minutes.
Plot: House Un-American Activities Committee investigators Jim McLain (Wayne) and Mal Baxter (Arness) come to Hawaii to track Communist Party activities. They are interested in everything from insurance fraud to the sabotage of a U.S. naval vessel. Alan Napier (aka Alfred of Batman) is also in Hawaii as a top communist official. Their paths will meet.
Released at height of the Korean War, "Big Jim McLain" was one of few films ever made by Hollywood that shows HUAC in a positive way. Its also one of the few John Wayne movies that dresses him in a contemporary suit and tie. Part travelogue, part quasi-documentary police movie, part political thriller, "Big Jim McLain" moves at fairly quick pace but can't escape a mediocre script and low budget values.
Shot in the quasi-realistic "Dragnet" manner, with Wayne narrating the action, the movie eschews all melodrama and action. So, no gun battles, no sadistic villains, no witty one-liners, no resounding triumph of justice, no car chases, and no damsels in distress. Only a couple mild fist-fights and one killing that is only discussed, not shown. HUAC was a serious subject in 1952 and so "BJM" is a somewhat realistic movie. But certain concessions to the box office are made.
There's a lot of beautiful Hawaiian scenery (not in color, unfortunately), a Wayne-Olsen romance that is charming and quite time-consuming, a funny Veda Borg playing her typically brassy blond, and communist leaders that are sufficiently suave and sinister - if overly talky and easily fooled.
But in the end the subdued quasi-realism makes "BJM" rather unexciting. The other major problem is the script, which is routine but has a couple good points.
First, There are two excellent patriotic scenes, one where Arness and Wayne visit the Arizona Monument at Pearl Harbor, making it clear that Cold war is continuation of that struggle, and the end scene where we see (real) Marines board their transport to Korea, signifying that no matter what, the fight continues.
Second, Napier's plan to sabotage the port is both clever and (for 1952) quite realistic. They also have some good lines, including:
Second, Napier's plan to sabotage the port is both clever and (for 1952) quite realistic. They also have some good lines, including:
Napier: Save me from these incompetent "true communists." Give me a well-paid mercenary any day.Henchmen; Comrade, we must use the tools we have.Napier: (Sigh) Yes, but when we achieve power...Henchmen: ...we Liquidate.
And:
Commie: I suppose that's what an ignorant cotton-chopping East Texas redneck thinks is justice.Wayne: You sound like you might have chopped some cotton.Commie. I consider myself part of the country-club set. We left the cotton to the white trash and N****ers.Wayne: (hits him on the Jaw).
Summary: Rating: **1/2. While some Classical film buffs & Wayne fans might enjoy this 'blast from the past', others will be bored by the outdated politics and lack of action. Liberals should avoid the film, since the few mild pro-HUAC references will no doubt drive them into hysteria and/or feeble attempts to laugh it away as "camp". BTW, here are some "liberal" reviews of this rather routine 1952 movie (its hard not to laugh when reading these):
"Pathetic anti-Communist propaganda film with a snarling John Wayne at his ugliest as a macho windbag special agent for HUAC. Edward Ludwig directs as if HUAC was the last means of defense in America from the invading Soviet Commies and John Wayne's simple-minded right-wing politics were needed to save a vulnerable America from its ruthless gangster-like political enemies" - Dennis Schwartz
"With that said, what was John Wayne thinking when he made this idiotic, cartoonish garbage? This is the sort of movie that, when made as pro-American propaganda, is so embarrassing that it drives people over to the other side and gives aid and comfort to this nation's enemies" - Typical IMDB Reviewer
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Bite the Bullet -1975 (Brooks)
Plot: In 1908 Colorado, nine adventurers enter a long-distance, 700 mile horse race.Stars: Gene Hackman, Candice Bergan, James Coburn, and Ben Johnson
Pros: Scenery, Ben Johnson, a few good scenes, excellent finish, Horses
Cons: Sluggish pace, sparse dialog, choppy editing, Candice Bergan
Best Quote: A big, expensive Western that doesn't contain one moment that might be called genuine. The movie looks prefabricated - New York Times
An enjoyable movie that ambles along for too long at too slow a pace. Except for Ben Johnson (a real joy) the excellent cast doesn't have much to work with. Candice Bergan, in particular, is given an unbelievable character ( a whore, striking a blow for feminism) and forced to engage in too many tedious "We can't let a female...." discussions. And while the scenery is great, the film often looks cheap - like many 70s films.
The dialog not only is sparse, but too cynical and downbeat. Typical 1970s, of course. At one point, Hackman (our Hero) actually offers a prostitute Heroin! And we get the usual, in this case untrue, historical revisionism. Former Rough-rider Hackman declares they didn't "charge up San Juan Hill" they "crawled up the Hill on our scared bellies". Of course, they ran/walked up the Hill - had they "crawled" - they would have all been shot before they got to the top.
Why the sparse dialog and underdeveloped story? Brooks started with an unfinished script - and wrote most of it while filming. The actors would get a page of dialog every morning. The ending wasn't written till the night before.
Summary: A good cast and story idea that comes up lame, due to a 2nd rate script. The producer should have hired a writer with more talent and less chutzpah. But Hackman and Ben Johnson are always fun to watch. Rating **1/2
Summary: A good cast and story idea that comes up lame, due to a 2nd rate script. The producer should have hired a writer with more talent and less chutzpah. But Hackman and Ben Johnson are always fun to watch. Rating **1/2
Friday, June 17, 2011
Road to Rio (1947)
Stars: Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Dorothy Lamour, Wiere Brothers
Plot: Who Cares?
The 5th and the last of the truly funny Road pictures. Highlights include an appearance by the "Andrews Sisters" , the Wiere Brothers, and some great one-liners by Hope. No doubt Hope and Crosby wanted to do something different and Rio is less zany and slower-paced, more "mainstream", than the previous Road pictures. "Rio" clocks in at 100 minutes compared to the 82 minutes of "Road to Morocco" and 90 minutes for "Road to Utopia" and there are fewer fast-paced gags/inside jokes and by-ply between the boys.
I'd place it below those two films, but its still pretty good. And being able to see it in a theater full of classical films fans who "got the jokes" added to the pleasure.
Also, two things struck me, watching it in on a big screen. First, what a truly great physical comedian Bob Hope was. He always had great timing and could tell a joke, but when he was young -that is under 50 - he could complement that with some truly funny facial expressions. The other is how great Crosby sounds in a theater. What a great baritone voice he had - beautiful and manly. Sinatra was probably the better singer of Popular music (whether upbeat or cynical) but when it comes to crooning a love ballet or a more old-fashioned song Crosby couldn't be beat.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Altman - What I always Suspected
Per Richard Schickel's review of "Robert Altman: The Oral Biography" :
"It appears that from the beginning of his career until almost its end (when illness slowed him), Robert Altman never passed an entirely sober day in his life. When he was not drinking heavily, he was smoking dope -- often doing both simultaneously. When he screened dailies on location, he insisted the cast and crew gather to view them in a party atmosphere, with the merriment rolling on into the night.His ability to ingest industrial-strength quantities of stuff that was bad for him fills one with shock, awe and questions. Yet Mitchell Zuckoff, who interviewed 145 people for the long, insanely admiring "Robert Altman: The Oral Biography," never comes to grips with the effect this had on his films."
"This was another sore point with Altman, who didn't like writers, either. He was always telling his actors to say whatever came into their heads. Anyone attempting to hold him to account, whether for budget or story, was his enemy.""He said he was uninterested in the essentials of moviemaking: narrative or character development. What he cared for was behavior, especially of the spur of the moment variety. Since most actors -- especially the bad ones -- prefer to be left to their own devices, this made him wildly popular with them.To make sure the audience never quite understood what was going on, he overlapped dialogue -- no wait, that's not quite right -- he layered multiple conversations into his dialogue tracks and then turned the volume down, so that much of the time you couldn't hear what anyone was saying."
Friday, June 10, 2011
1001 movies I must see before I die - an analysis
Book title - 1001 movies you must see before you die
Editor - Steven Jay Schneider
Summary: This is probably a good book for those who want to start viewing some classic films. The selection is OK but the film write-ups are rather weak, for film write-ups I'd recommend "Kael's 5001 nights at the movies".
And as shown by the analysis below, the book has 4 flaws. First, they try to diversify film selections by time, so each decade gets more or less the same number of films - even though quality films aren't spread evenly out over time. Second, they pick a little bit of everything from every genre and every country. Thirdly, the authors prefer "serious" and "edgy" dramas to entertainment. So, Comedy/Musicals/Adventure/Westerns get short shrift.
Finally, too many "Milestone" pictures are selected. Yes, its nice that picture "Y" knocked their socks off in 1962, or that picture "X" - was the first to do blah blah, but so what?
Analysis:
Pages by Decade:
1920s: 56
1930s: 82
1940s: 91
1950s: 122
1960s: 145
1970s: 143
1980s: 125
1990s: 108
2000s: 53
Films by category (Labels not exclusive):
Comedy -250
Musical - 60
Westerns - 40
Noir - 50
Horror -120
Drama -600
Films by Director:
Bunuel - 9
Hitchcock -18
Ford - 8
Godard - 8
Altman - 6
Kubrick - 10
Cassevetes - 4
Woody Allen - 6
Speilberg - 8
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Top 20 - 2002 to 2007
- The Two Towers
- The Return of the King
- Kill Bill, Part I
- Catch me if you can
- Chicago
- Bin-Jip
- Der Untergang
- Apocalypto
- The Lives of Others
- The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
- Pirates of the Caribbean
- 2046
- Infernal Affairs
- Lust, Caution
- Team America, World Police
Friday, May 27, 2011
Top 30 - 1930
- All Quiet on the Western Front
- Animal Crackers
- The Big House
- Hell's Angels
- Another Fine Mess
- Not So Dumb, starring Marion Davies
- Raffles
- Hog Wild
Foreign
- Under the Roofs of Paris
- Westfront 1918 (Vier von der Infanterie)
Top 20 - 2001
- Amelie
- Blackhawk Down
- Heist
- Lord of the Rings
- Mullholland Drive
- Oceans 11
- Spirited Away
- Stanley Kubrick: A life in Pictures
- The Dish
- The Emperors New Clothes
- The Royal Tennenbaums
- Winged Migration
Top 20 - 2000
- Cast Away
- Chicken Run
- High Fidelity
- Meet the Parents
- Best in Show
- Battle Royale
- Audition
- Shower (Xizao)
- Harry un ami qui vous veut du bien
- In the Mood For Love (Fa Yeung Nin Wa)
- The Girl on the Bridge (La Fille sur de Pont)
- Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Top 20 - 1999
- Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
- The Big Kahuna
- Bowfinger
- Election
- Fight Club
- The Matrix
- A Midsummer Night's Dream
- Office Space
- South Park
- The Straight Story
- The Talented Mr. Ripley
- Topsy-Turvy
Foreign
- With Fire and Sword
- Herod's Law (La Ley de Herodes)
- East -Quest
- Happy End (Haepi-endeu)
- Not one less (Yi ge dou bu neng shao)
- Audition
Top 20 - 1998
- 42 Up
- A Perfect Murder
- Antz
- Enemy of the State
- Happiness
- Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
- Ronin
- Saving Private Ryan
- The Big Lebowski
- The Last Days of Disco
- The Man in the Iron Mask
- Thin Red Line
- The Truman Show
- There's Something About Mary
- Your Friends & Neighbors
Foreign
- Run Lola Run (Lola rennt)
- Xiu Xiu - The sent down Girl
- Lady Zho (Jing Ke ci Qin Wang)
- The Dinner game
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)