Co-Stars: Vivien Leigh, Lee Marvin, Jose Ferrer, Simone Signoret, Lee Marvin, George Segal
Plot: In 1933, a diverse group of passengers board a German passenger ship bound for Hamburg Or as the tagline puts it: EXPLORER, MISTRESS, VAGRANT, LOAFER, ARTIST, TRAMP ... THEY ARE ALL AT THE CAPTAIN'S TABLE!
Pros: Acting, Vivien Leigh, Signoret-Werner subplot, Lee Marvin, Flamingo Dancing
Cons: Too long, uneven, often pretentious & verbose script, dull direction, Jose Ferrer, Segal-Ashley story
Given the Best Picture Academy Award nomination, "Ship of Fools" is a surprisingly boring, banal film. Its "Grand Hotel" at sea with Nazi's and much less interesting. It goes on for 149 very long minutes.
What saves the film from being a complete bore are the actors. Leigh and Signoret are marvelous as middle-aged women with issues, and Werner provides some pathos as the world-weary doctor. Lee Marvin is solid as usual, playing a nasty American Redneck. If only the movie had simply focused on these characters!
The other actors do less well. Segal and Ashley are bland and forgettable, while Ferrer is simply awful as he shouts and sneers in a cartoon German accent. He's completely unconvincing as a Nazi or even a human being.
But the real problem is the script, which lacks focus and is very uneven. Too many characters and too many subplots - most of which are dull. The Segal-Ashely in particular is banal and uninteresting. He wants to be an artist, she wants commercial success. They fight, they make up, they fight again. Ho hum. Other pointless subplots: a 19-year-old German who becomes obsessed with having his first sexual experience and a 16-year-old girl is worried that she won't be able to attract a man.
Further, Kramer shoe-horns in a lot of pretentious statements about racism, antisemitism, the rise of Nazi Germany, and art. And he presents them in his usual ham-fisted, over-obvious, GET IT? manner. Worst line: "Listen, my friend," says a Jewish salesman, "there are one million Jews in Germany alone. What are they going to do -- kill all of us?**"
** = Note: There weren't 1 million Jews in Germany, there were only 600,000 and most of them left Germany before WW II.
Summary: An uneven Soap Opera, made watchable by some good acting (Leigh, Werner, Marvin and Signoret). Rating **1/2
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
True Grit (2010) - Movie No. 342
Co-stars: Jeff Bridges (Rooster Cogburn), Matt Damon, Hailee Steinfeld (Mattie).
Plot: In 1878 Fort Smith Arkansas, a 14-year girl hires a US Marshal to go after her father's killer.
Pros: , Direction, Set and Custom Design, story and dialog very similar to the book.
Cons: Bridges mumbles his lines, The Bear Man, Good dialog from the book cut
Except for a few misfires (The man in Bear Skin and the Outhouse scenes) the movie is an excellent retelling of the novel. The dialog (taken mostly from the novel) is funny and charming. But how does it compare to the 1969 version?
1) Its obvious the Coen's (despite their BS denial) *have* seen the '69 version and they adjust there film accordingly. Knowing Bridges couldn't compete with Wayne in certain scenes, they made some changes. The famous "Rat" scene is cut, the comic story of Cogburn's former life is done in throwaway fashion, the showdown in the meadow is shown mostly from Matte's POV not Rooster's and final scene of Rooster (Wayne) in cemetery is cut and replaced by Mattie epilogue - which is in the book.
2) The exuberant '69 Bernstein score is replaced a somber low key one.
3) The new movie is much more realistic. The violence in the cabin is much more graphic and shocking, the scenes in Ft. Smith are more historically accurate. The clothing, weather, terrain, and weapons are more historically accurate. Too much of the '69 version was standard Hollywood Western.
4) Damon is far superior to Campbell (anyone surprised?)
5) The first 40 minutes (up till Matte fords the river) of the new Movie are superior to the old one, with a couple of exceptions. Strother Martin is sorely missed, as is the "Rat speech".
6) Bridges is OK - but he adopts a gravely, deep accent which often mutes and diminishes the comic dialog. Best example, Bridges' version of Rooster's life speech (A clumsier child you'd never see, etc.) compared to Wayne's. Bridges gives a performance, Wayne was a Film star.
7) While Steinfeld is very good, in a lot of lines Kim Darby is far superior. Kim's reading of the line "Rooster Cogburn is no good friend of mine! He led us straight into your hands, and now he has left me with a gang of cut-throats! Is that what they call "grit" in Fort Smith? We call it something else in Yell County." is memorable as is her 'discussion' with Stother Martin and her chemistry with Wayne.
8) 1969 supporting characters are better. Stother Martin, the defense attorney, Robert Duval, Cheney, etc. Except for the Undertaker and Boarding house owner all the '60 players are better.
9) The Coen's Direction is far better. The scene where Damon says goodbye to Mattie in the Rain is well done and the ride to save Mattie's life is much more dramatic.
10) The Coen's cut a lot of good lines. All the lines with Stonehill about being a "Good Christian" are cut in the new version. Also cut is Mattie's line: "Those horses can't outrun Little Blackie! They're loaded down with fat men and iron!" and Rooster's classic line: "In the lip? What was you aiming at? Rooster: His upper lip."
Summary: Despite being inferior to the '69 version in many ways, an excellent movie. Rating ***
Plot: In 1878 Fort Smith Arkansas, a 14-year girl hires a US Marshal to go after her father's killer.
Pros: , Direction, Set and Custom Design, story and dialog very similar to the book.
Cons: Bridges mumbles his lines, The Bear Man, Good dialog from the book cut
Except for a few misfires (The man in Bear Skin and the Outhouse scenes) the movie is an excellent retelling of the novel. The dialog (taken mostly from the novel) is funny and charming. But how does it compare to the 1969 version?
1) Its obvious the Coen's (despite their BS denial) *have* seen the '69 version and they adjust there film accordingly. Knowing Bridges couldn't compete with Wayne in certain scenes, they made some changes. The famous "Rat" scene is cut, the comic story of Cogburn's former life is done in throwaway fashion, the showdown in the meadow is shown mostly from Matte's POV not Rooster's and final scene of Rooster (Wayne) in cemetery is cut and replaced by Mattie epilogue - which is in the book.
2) The exuberant '69 Bernstein score is replaced a somber low key one.
3) The new movie is much more realistic. The violence in the cabin is much more graphic and shocking, the scenes in Ft. Smith are more historically accurate. The clothing, weather, terrain, and weapons are more historically accurate. Too much of the '69 version was standard Hollywood Western.
4) Damon is far superior to Campbell (anyone surprised?)
5) The first 40 minutes (up till Matte fords the river) of the new Movie are superior to the old one, with a couple of exceptions. Strother Martin is sorely missed, as is the "Rat speech".
6) Bridges is OK - but he adopts a gravely, deep accent which often mutes and diminishes the comic dialog. Best example, Bridges' version of Rooster's life speech (A clumsier child you'd never see, etc.) compared to Wayne's. Bridges gives a performance, Wayne was a Film star.
7) While Steinfeld is very good, in a lot of lines Kim Darby is far superior. Kim's reading of the line "Rooster Cogburn is no good friend of mine! He led us straight into your hands, and now he has left me with a gang of cut-throats! Is that what they call "grit" in Fort Smith? We call it something else in Yell County." is memorable as is her 'discussion' with Stother Martin and her chemistry with Wayne.
8) 1969 supporting characters are better. Stother Martin, the defense attorney, Robert Duval, Cheney, etc. Except for the Undertaker and Boarding house owner all the '60 players are better.
9) The Coen's Direction is far better. The scene where Damon says goodbye to Mattie in the Rain is well done and the ride to save Mattie's life is much more dramatic.
10) The Coen's cut a lot of good lines. All the lines with Stonehill about being a "Good Christian" are cut in the new version. Also cut is Mattie's line: "Those horses can't outrun Little Blackie! They're loaded down with fat men and iron!" and Rooster's classic line: "In the lip? What was you aiming at? Rooster: His upper lip."
Summary: Despite being inferior to the '69 version in many ways, an excellent movie. Rating ***
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Inherit the Wind - Movie No. 341
Co-stars: Spencer Tracy (Drummond) , Frederick March (Brady), Claude Akins (Rev Brown)
Plot: In 1925 in a small Tennessee town, a former US Presidential Candidate and a famous Defense Attorney argue the case for and against a science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution.
Pros: Acting, Spencer Tracy, Fredric March, Courtroom drama
Cons: Too long, Historical inaccuracy, defaming of Christian Fundamentalists, Rachael Brown-Cates subplot, too melodramatic
Inherit the Wind as Movie
Seen strictly as a movie "Inherit the Wind" has a couple things going for it. First, Tracy is a perfect fit the role of "Drummond" the wise, liberal atheist-agnostic. Also, good (despite some awful makeup) is Fredric March as the pompous windbag Col. Brady. The two actors play off each other well, and the highlight is their interactions in, and out, of the courtroom. Second, all the other actors are more than adequate, and do as well as possible, given their lines. Third, the movie has some good dialog, much of it taken directly from the Trial transcript or Mencken's writings.
On the negative side: the film more or less dies when (1) outside the courtroom and (2) Tracy is off-screen. March plays Brady as a low comedy Buffoon and Akins is too much of a cartoon villain to be believable. At the same time, the Cates (Dick York) and Rachael Brown (Donna Anderson) subplot is tedious. All this makes parts of the movie dull, especially the first 25 minutes - prior to Tracy's arrival. In the first 25 minutes, all we get is plot exposition, Akins being a hateful bigoted Fundy preacher, and Brady making a long-winded speech.
The Movie as History
Plot: In 1925 in a small Tennessee town, a former US Presidential Candidate and a famous Defense Attorney argue the case for and against a science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution.
Pros: Acting, Spencer Tracy, Fredric March, Courtroom drama
Cons: Too long, Historical inaccuracy, defaming of Christian Fundamentalists, Rachael Brown-Cates subplot, too melodramatic
Inherit the Wind as Movie
Seen strictly as a movie "Inherit the Wind" has a couple things going for it. First, Tracy is a perfect fit the role of "Drummond" the wise, liberal atheist-agnostic. Also, good (despite some awful makeup) is Fredric March as the pompous windbag Col. Brady. The two actors play off each other well, and the highlight is their interactions in, and out, of the courtroom. Second, all the other actors are more than adequate, and do as well as possible, given their lines. Third, the movie has some good dialog, much of it taken directly from the Trial transcript or Mencken's writings.
On the negative side: the film more or less dies when (1) outside the courtroom and (2) Tracy is off-screen. March plays Brady as a low comedy Buffoon and Akins is too much of a cartoon villain to be believable. At the same time, the Cates (Dick York) and Rachael Brown (Donna Anderson) subplot is tedious. All this makes parts of the movie dull, especially the first 25 minutes - prior to Tracy's arrival. In the first 25 minutes, all we get is plot exposition, Akins being a hateful bigoted Fundy preacher, and Brady making a long-winded speech.
The Movie as History
As an accurate or fair history of the Scopes trial, the movie is complete Balls - a liberal fairy-tale, its what liberals *wish* would've happened. In real life, there was no Rachael Brown or Rev. Brown and Cates (Scopes) was no scientist or martyr. Scopes deliberately broke the law after answering an ad from the ACLU, he was only a part-time biology teacher, liked by the town, and welcome there before and after the trial. There was no possibility of Cates (Scopes) going to jail, Bryan even volunteered to pay his $200 fine. Darrow was welcomed in town, and treated politely. There were no bigoted religious fundies singing "Give me that old time religion", demonstrating or verbally abusing atheists.
In real life, Bryan was a intelligent, generous, likable man ( unsurprising given he had been Secretary of State and a 3 time Presidential candidate) while Darrow was actually a somewhat nasty atheist who openly expressed his contempt for Christianity and Christians. In real life, Bryan more than held his own when cross-examined by Darrow and Bryan didn't believe the earth was created in 6,000 years. In real life, its Darrow who refused to put the Scientists on the stand because he didn't want them cross-examined, and its Darrow who entered a guilty plea before the closing arguments. And needless to say Darrow was neither a friend or close acquittance of either Bryan, Mrs. Bryan or Mencken.
The Anti-Christian Propaganda
In real life, Bryan was a intelligent, generous, likable man ( unsurprising given he had been Secretary of State and a 3 time Presidential candidate) while Darrow was actually a somewhat nasty atheist who openly expressed his contempt for Christianity and Christians. In real life, Bryan more than held his own when cross-examined by Darrow and Bryan didn't believe the earth was created in 6,000 years. In real life, its Darrow who refused to put the Scientists on the stand because he didn't want them cross-examined, and its Darrow who entered a guilty plea before the closing arguments. And needless to say Darrow was neither a friend or close acquittance of either Bryan, Mrs. Bryan or Mencken.
The Anti-Christian Propaganda
Although often labeled a Science (Evolution) vs. Religion movie - "Inherit the Wind" really isn't. The Movie accepts the truth of Evolution (Tracy calls it as true as Geometry), and Brady never makes a case against it, other than calling it "the devils tool". Nor is the movie really about "Freedom of conscious" since its clear that Cates (Scopes) can teach "Evolution" anywhere except in this small bigoted Tennessee town and talk/write about it anywhere except as a teacher. So, its not exactly "A Man for All Seasons".
The real thrust of the movie is an attack on the Fundamentalist Christians. Rev Brown (Akins) is shown as an unsmiling, stern, religious fanatic, who spurns his own daughter when she asks for some parental affection. Later, declaring he "Hates God's enemies" he calls on God to cast his daughter into Hell for supporting Cates' right to speak. The Christian townspeople are shown to be just as bigoted, ignorant and hateful. They harass Drummond before and during the trial, - and act like Nazi's at a Nuremberg rally during Rev. Brown's prayer service. Brady (aka Bryan) is shown as an egotistical glutton - a pompous windbag - who betrays Rachel's confidence, and is perfectly willing to destroy her to win the case. When Cates is found guilty, Brady demands jail time, a fine is not good enough. And during Drummond's cross-examination, Brady acts like a fool. He states he's never read Darwin, that God told him to oppose Evolution, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old. When Drummond shows how wrong he is, Brady collapses and has a nervous breakdown.
The movie doesn't so much make the case for science as ridicule religion. Strangely, although Rev Brown and Brady are supposedly devout Christians, Christ and the "New Testament" are never quoted or mentioned.
Summary: A well acted, at times interesting courtroom drama - but overlong and tedious when Tracy is off-screen. Overrated due to the subject matter. Ratings **1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)