Plot: In 1858 Texas, a former slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) is freed by bounty hunter Dr. King Shultz (Christoph Waltz) and becomes his partner. Both then travel to Tennessee rescue Django's wife from ruthless plantation owned Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his head servant Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson).
Plus: Some excellent Scenes and dialogue, Humor, Good acting, Memorable characters
Minus: Brutality, Too long (165 minutes), Boring last 20 minutes, Simplistic Plot
Django is typical 21st Century Tarantino. Lots of blood, violence, and humor, along with a revenge plot and homage to a 70s B-movie genre - in this case, the "Spaghetti Western" and "Blackplotation". Not as good as "Inglorious Basterds" but better than "Kill Bill Volume 2". Historically absurd and filled with unrealistic cartoon violence, this won't stop ignorant film critics from pontificating on the movie's view of slavery and American history. The best thing about the movie are the 3 memorable characters, Candie, Shultz, and Stephen all played superbly by the actors involved. Sadly, having the created these characters and an interesting situation, Tarintino can't do anything with them except have a pointless, endless, blood bath.
Also noted is the excessive brutality including: 2 whippings and 2 brandings, a graphic fight-to-the-death, men getting torn to death by animals, and a castration scene. All of which puts a damper on some of Tarantino's delightful anachronistic humor including: having the hero wear sunglasses in 1858 Georgia, having Candie drink a Polynesian (Complete with Coconut and straw), KKK members complaining of badly made masks, and Dr. Shultz's waving Big-tooth.
Summary: A typically violent, excessive, self-indulgent Tarantino film, this one is a little too long and has a boring last act. But with some good elements. Rating ***
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Skyfall (2012)
Very interesting Bond movie notable for some good stunts (the opening one is a humdinger), visual brilliance and an excellent sub-plot involving Julie Dench. The only flaws were the sometimes Batman-esque over-the-top, reality free, violence (honestly, the villains shoot at least 1,000 bullets at Bond and miss 999 times) and some perfunctory Bond girl romance.
The producers seem to have welded together an almost comic-book fantasy with a realistic spy story containing dark, adult elements. They keep re-inventing the franchise (50 years old) and doing a surprisingly good job of it.
P.S. For some reason the film uses very little of the standard Bond theme (except at the end). This hurts the film overall but is quite stirring when its finally used at the end.
The producers seem to have welded together an almost comic-book fantasy with a realistic spy story containing dark, adult elements. They keep re-inventing the franchise (50 years old) and doing a surprisingly good job of it.
P.S. For some reason the film uses very little of the standard Bond theme (except at the end). This hurts the film overall but is quite stirring when its finally used at the end.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Faulkner on Hollywood
I had just completed a contract at MGM and was about to return home. The director I had worked with said, “If you would like another job here, just let me know and I will speak to the studio about a new contract.” I thanked him and came home. About six months later I wired my director friend that I would like another job. Shortly after that I received a letter from my Hollywood agent enclosing my first week's paycheck. I was surprised because I had expected first to get an official notice or recall and a contract from the studio. I thought to myself, the contract is delayed and will arrive in the next mail. Instead, a week later I got another letter from the agent, enclosing my second week's paycheck. That began in November 1932 and continued until May 1933. Then I received a telegram from the studio. It said: “William Faulkner, Oxford, Miss. Where are you? MGM Studio.”
I arrived at Mr. Browning's hotel about six p.m. and reported to him. A party was going on. He told me to get a good night's sleep and be ready for an early start in the morning. I asked him about the story. He said, “Oh, yes. Go to room so-and-so. That's the continuity writer. He'll tell you what the story is.”
I went to the room as directed. The continuity writer was sitting in there alone. I told him who I was and asked him about the story. He said, “When you have written the dialogue I'll let you see the story.” I went back to Browning's room and told him what had happened. “Go back,” he said, “and tell that so-and-so—. Never mind, you get a good night's sleep so we can get an early start in the morning.”
So the next morning in a very smart rented launch all of us except the continuity writer sailed down to Grand Isle, about a hundred miles away, where the picture was to be shot, reaching there just in time to eat lunch and have time to run the hundred miles back to New Orleans before dark.
That went on for three weeks. Now and then I would worry a little about the story, but Browning always said, “Stop worrying. Get a good night's sleep so we can get an early start tomorrow morning.”
One evening on our return I had barely entered my room when the telephone rang. It was Browning. He told me to come to his room at once. I did so. He had a telegram. It said: “Faulkner is fired. MGM Studio.” “Don't worry,” Browning said. “I'll call that so-and-so up this minute and not only make him put you back on the payroll but send you a written apology.” There was a knock on the door. It was a page with another telegram. This one said: “Browning is fired. MGM Studio.” So I came back home. I presume Browning went somewhere too. I imagine that continuity writer is still sitting in a room somewhere with his weekly salary check clutched tightly in his hand.
I arrived at Mr. Browning's hotel about six p.m. and reported to him. A party was going on. He told me to get a good night's sleep and be ready for an early start in the morning. I asked him about the story. He said, “Oh, yes. Go to room so-and-so. That's the continuity writer. He'll tell you what the story is.”
I went to the room as directed. The continuity writer was sitting in there alone. I told him who I was and asked him about the story. He said, “When you have written the dialogue I'll let you see the story.” I went back to Browning's room and told him what had happened. “Go back,” he said, “and tell that so-and-so—. Never mind, you get a good night's sleep so we can get an early start in the morning.”
So the next morning in a very smart rented launch all of us except the continuity writer sailed down to Grand Isle, about a hundred miles away, where the picture was to be shot, reaching there just in time to eat lunch and have time to run the hundred miles back to New Orleans before dark.
That went on for three weeks. Now and then I would worry a little about the story, but Browning always said, “Stop worrying. Get a good night's sleep so we can get an early start tomorrow morning.”
One evening on our return I had barely entered my room when the telephone rang. It was Browning. He told me to come to his room at once. I did so. He had a telegram. It said: “Faulkner is fired. MGM Studio.” “Don't worry,” Browning said. “I'll call that so-and-so up this minute and not only make him put you back on the payroll but send you a written apology.” There was a knock on the door. It was a page with another telegram. This one said: “Browning is fired. MGM Studio.” So I came back home. I presume Browning went somewhere too. I imagine that continuity writer is still sitting in a room somewhere with his weekly salary check clutched tightly in his hand.
Friday, October 26, 2012
The Hunger Games (2012)
Plot: Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match.
Well-acted but dull action movie. Seemed like a dumbed-down version of "Battle Royale" and reminded me somewhat of the "Truman Show". The movie seems targeted to teen-age girls and not being one may explain my negative reaction.
Well-acted but dull action movie. Seemed like a dumbed-down version of "Battle Royale" and reminded me somewhat of the "Truman Show". The movie seems targeted to teen-age girls and not being one may explain my negative reaction.
Tree of Life (2011) - Malick
Plot: An impressionist history of a Texas Family in the mid 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through childhood and his complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt).
Pros: Photography, acting, heartfelt family scenes
Cons: Uneven, too long, Dinosaurs and Brahms, often pretentious
The average movie-goer hates Terry Malick movies with good reason, they're deliberately paced with minimal dialogue and plot and include long, lingering shots of nature. And pretentious movie snobs love them.
And guess what? "Tree of Life" has exactly the same attributes along with a silly 2001-esqe "Creation and Evolution^^" segment - complete with Dinosaurs and Brahms. And yet I didn't hate it, I actually liked a lot of it. Its well-acted and the family scenes (from Malick's boyhood?) ring true and are often touching and beautiful. And the characters seem real and likable (unlike those in "Days of Heaven" or "Badlands"). Plus, I appreciate that Malick is doing something different from the usual phony Hollywood drama.
People have compared it to Kubrick's "2001", which is unjust to Malick. "Tree of Life" may be pretentious but its trying to say something about real people in real life while "2001" was simply another soulless Kubrick entertainment, full of 'sound and fury' signifying nothing.
Summary: Not for the average movie-goer. If you're looking for action, excitement, or even a story, you'll hate this movie. If you want something different or liked Malick's previous movies, you'll like this one. I liked it mostly - but please Terry, no more dinosaurs. Rating ***
^^ = but no men in ape suits, thank goodness.
Pros: Photography, acting, heartfelt family scenes
Cons: Uneven, too long, Dinosaurs and Brahms, often pretentious
The average movie-goer hates Terry Malick movies with good reason, they're deliberately paced with minimal dialogue and plot and include long, lingering shots of nature. And pretentious movie snobs love them.
And guess what? "Tree of Life" has exactly the same attributes along with a silly 2001-esqe "Creation and Evolution^^" segment - complete with Dinosaurs and Brahms. And yet I didn't hate it, I actually liked a lot of it. Its well-acted and the family scenes (from Malick's boyhood?) ring true and are often touching and beautiful. And the characters seem real and likable (unlike those in "Days of Heaven" or "Badlands"). Plus, I appreciate that Malick is doing something different from the usual phony Hollywood drama.
People have compared it to Kubrick's "2001", which is unjust to Malick. "Tree of Life" may be pretentious but its trying to say something about real people in real life while "2001" was simply another soulless Kubrick entertainment, full of 'sound and fury' signifying nothing.
Summary: Not for the average movie-goer. If you're looking for action, excitement, or even a story, you'll hate this movie. If you want something different or liked Malick's previous movies, you'll like this one. I liked it mostly - but please Terry, no more dinosaurs. Rating ***
^^ = but no men in ape suits, thank goodness.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
The Hanging Tree (1959)
Plot: Gary Cooper plays a frontier doctor with a dark past in a rough Montana mining town. When Cooper treats an injured Swiss Girl (Maria Schell), he falls in love with her. Karl Malden (Frenchy) is Schell’s unscrupulous partner. George C. Scott is the town’s crazy preacher.
Forgotten after its 1959 release, "The Hanging Tree" is considered an "undiscovered Gem" by some but not by me. While labeled a "Western" its actually a costume drama, full of "dark" characters behaving in odd and often despicable ways. I not only disliked the characters, I found them - and the town - unbelievable and historically inaccurate. Nobody in the Old West behaved this way. Nor do I consider the movie well acted. Malden wears an absurd hat and overacts shamelessly, Cooper is dull and stone-faced, and Schell is a cipher. As for the "Romance", it's hard to know what was more creepy, Frenchy's lust or 60 year-old Cooper's obsessive "love".
Summary: I found the "The Hanging Tree" even darker and weirder than "Man of the West." - and that's not a recommendation. Rating **
Forgotten after its 1959 release, "The Hanging Tree" is considered an "undiscovered Gem" by some but not by me. While labeled a "Western" its actually a costume drama, full of "dark" characters behaving in odd and often despicable ways. I not only disliked the characters, I found them - and the town - unbelievable and historically inaccurate. Nobody in the Old West behaved this way. Nor do I consider the movie well acted. Malden wears an absurd hat and overacts shamelessly, Cooper is dull and stone-faced, and Schell is a cipher. As for the "Romance", it's hard to know what was more creepy, Frenchy's lust or 60 year-old Cooper's obsessive "love".
Summary: I found the "The Hanging Tree" even darker and weirder than "Man of the West." - and that's not a recommendation. Rating **
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Marnie (1964)
Hitchcock's "Marnie" is at once a fascinating study of a sexual relationship and the master's most disappointing film in years.
Certainly the material is there. In his ladylike heroine, who changes her hairdo every time she cracks a safe, Mr. Hitchcock has as provocative a character as he has ever created. When Sean Connery, playing a singularly open-minded employer, catches the angelic Tippi Hedren with a suitcase full of company funds, he is naturally surprised -- and interested.
Certainly the material is there. In his ladylike heroine, who changes her hairdo every time she cracks a safe, Mr. Hitchcock has as provocative a character as he has ever created. When Sean Connery, playing a singularly open-minded employer, catches the angelic Tippi Hedren with a suitcase full of company funds, he is naturally surprised -- and interested.
This Hitchcockian relationship, explored in sumptuous color, is reminiscent of such memorably maladjusted lovers as Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in "Notorious" or James Stewart and Grace Kelly in "Rear Window." And there's the rub.
Hitchcock has taken a pair of attractive and promising young players, Miss Hedren and Mr. Connery, and forced them into roles that cry for the talents of Grace Kelly and Cary Grant. Both work commendably and well -- but their inexperience shows.
Why, one wonders, did the most reliable of the "big star" directors -- a man whose least consequential stories have always had the benefit of the most illustrious players -- choose relative newcomers for such demanding assignments? Economy, perhaps? If so, Mr. Hitchcock must plead guilty to pound foolishness, for "Marnie" is a clear miss.
Nor is the casting -- which extends to astonishingly inadequate acting in subordinate roles -- its only problem. For once, the best technician in the business has faltered where he has always been strongest -- in his style. Not only is "Marnie" burdened with the most glaringly fake cardboard backdrops since Salvador Dali designed the dream sequences for "Spellbound," but the timing of key suspense scenes is sadly askew. Mr. Hitchcock has always been a trickster, but sleight of hand is spoiled when the magician lets the trickery show.
Curiously he has also settled for an inexplicably amateurish script, which reduces this potent material to instant psychiatry -- complete with a flashback "explanation scene" harking back to vintage Joan Crawford and enough character exposition to stagger the most dedicated genealogist. Poor Diane Baker, gratuitously inserted as a mystifying "menace," does nothing more than enunciate imitation Jean Kerr witticisms ("I'm queer for liars") while swirling about in Hollywood hostess gowns. At one point, just to make sure no one misunderstands Marnie's problem, the script provides the title of her lover's bedside reading matter -- "Sexual Aberrations of the Criminal Female." Get it?
A strong suspicion arises that Mr. Hitchcock is taking himself too seriously -- perhaps the result of listening to too many esoteric admirers. Granted that it's still Hitchcock -- and that's a lot -- dispensing with the best in acting, writing and even technique is sheer indulgence. When a director decides he's so gifted that all he needs is himself, he'd better watch out.
Why, one wonders, did the most reliable of the "big star" directors -- a man whose least consequential stories have always had the benefit of the most illustrious players -- choose relative newcomers for such demanding assignments? Economy, perhaps? If so, Mr. Hitchcock must plead guilty to pound foolishness, for "Marnie" is a clear miss.
Nor is the casting -- which extends to astonishingly inadequate acting in subordinate roles -- its only problem. For once, the best technician in the business has faltered where he has always been strongest -- in his style. Not only is "Marnie" burdened with the most glaringly fake cardboard backdrops since Salvador Dali designed the dream sequences for "Spellbound," but the timing of key suspense scenes is sadly askew. Mr. Hitchcock has always been a trickster, but sleight of hand is spoiled when the magician lets the trickery show.
Curiously he has also settled for an inexplicably amateurish script, which reduces this potent material to instant psychiatry -- complete with a flashback "explanation scene" harking back to vintage Joan Crawford and enough character exposition to stagger the most dedicated genealogist. Poor Diane Baker, gratuitously inserted as a mystifying "menace," does nothing more than enunciate imitation Jean Kerr witticisms ("I'm queer for liars") while swirling about in Hollywood hostess gowns. At one point, just to make sure no one misunderstands Marnie's problem, the script provides the title of her lover's bedside reading matter -- "Sexual Aberrations of the Criminal Female." Get it?
A strong suspicion arises that Mr. Hitchcock is taking himself too seriously -- perhaps the result of listening to too many esoteric admirers. Granted that it's still Hitchcock -- and that's a lot -- dispensing with the best in acting, writing and even technique is sheer indulgence. When a director decides he's so gifted that all he needs is himself, he'd better watch out.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Hitchcock Box office 1940-1970 (millions $; adjusted for inflation)
The monster Hits:
Not bad - considering
| Movie | Box Office |
|---|---|
| Psycho (1960) | $389 Million |
| Rear Window (1954) | 373 Million |
| Spellbound (1945) | 251 Million |
| Notorious (1946) | 240 Million |
| North by Northwest (1959) | 196 Million |
| Rebecca (1940) | 188 Million |
| To Catch A Thief (1955) | 133 Million |
| Dial M for Murder (1954) | 133 Million |
| The Man Who Knew (1956) | 130 Million |
| Movie | Box Office |
|---|---|
| Suspicion (1941) | $119 Million |
| Torn Curtain (1966) | 104 Million |
| The Paradine Case (1948) | 104 Million |
| The Birds (1963) | 103 Million |
| Rope (1948) | 96 Million |
| Vertigo (1958) | 93 Million |
| Foreign Correspondent | 89 Million |
Not bad - considering
| Movie | Box Office |
|---|---|
| Saboteur (1942) | $76 Million |
| Shadow of Doubt (1942) | 70 Million |
| Lifeboat (1944) | 65 Million |
| Strangers on a Train (1951) | 63 Million |
| Under Capicorn (1949) | 61 Million |
| I Confess (1953) | 58 Million |
| Movie | Box Office |
|---|---|
| Marnie (1964) | $51 Million |
| Topaz (1969) | $47 Million |
| The Trouble with Harry (1958) | $41 Million |
| Stage Fright (1951) | $32 Million |
Thursday, August 23, 2012
The Shock of the New - Robert Hughes
The late Robert Hughes addresses modern art, starting with the eiffel tower as an emblem of the modern age, built late in the 19th century. Hughes has original ideas on modern art; he doesn't just repeat all the textbook cliches. Each of the 8 one hour programs place the art into different historical contexts, bringing out how they are part of the larger cultural context. For anyone interested in modern art, its worth a view.
However, unlike "Civilization" with Kenneth Clarke, this series loses steam as it goes along. As Hughes notes painting and sculpture become less important as the 20th century progresses and its really hard to maintain interest when he starts discussing "Pop Art" "Surrealism" and art in general after say 1930. But the first 4 programs are very good.
However, unlike "Civilization" with Kenneth Clarke, this series loses steam as it goes along. As Hughes notes painting and sculpture become less important as the 20th century progresses and its really hard to maintain interest when he starts discussing "Pop Art" "Surrealism" and art in general after say 1930. But the first 4 programs are very good.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
The Ghost and Mr Chicken (1966)
Excellent Don Knotts star vehicle, full of great supporting characters, a surprisingly good script, and a brilliant film score. Standouts among supporting actors include Liam Redmond as "Mr Kelsey" and Ellen Corby as "Neva Tremaine".
A low budget affair (nothing more than a TV movie) designed to cash in on Don's "Barney Fife" popularity. A classic example of "termite art".
And they used Bon Ami!
A low budget affair (nothing more than a TV movie) designed to cash in on Don's "Barney Fife" popularity. A classic example of "termite art".
And they used Bon Ami!
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Breaking Bad Season 1
Pros: Great acting by Cranston, Solid direction
Cons: Too much Fantasy and unrealistic situations and actions
Plot: A HS Chemistry Teacher with an expectant wife and disabled son learns he has terminal cancer. He then decides to sell meth to provide for his family.
Breaking bad follows the now standard TV formula of combining the crime underworld, family drama, with some good writing & acting on the side. There's enough "Cool" explosions, violence and thrills to attract the young males while everyone else will tune in for Cranston's fine acting and the family tragi-comedy. For what it is, Breaking bad is very good, but a lot of the plotting is predictable and every character is either unlikable, a loser, or depressed. I enjoyed it, but skipped around a lot.
Cons: Too much Fantasy and unrealistic situations and actions
Plot: A HS Chemistry Teacher with an expectant wife and disabled son learns he has terminal cancer. He then decides to sell meth to provide for his family.
Breaking bad follows the now standard TV formula of combining the crime underworld, family drama, with some good writing & acting on the side. There's enough "Cool" explosions, violence and thrills to attract the young males while everyone else will tune in for Cranston's fine acting and the family tragi-comedy. For what it is, Breaking bad is very good, but a lot of the plotting is predictable and every character is either unlikable, a loser, or depressed. I enjoyed it, but skipped around a lot.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Snake-eyes (1998)
All of De Palma's flashy directing tricks and Nicholas Cage's acting (correction: over-acting) can't save this incredibly dumb conspiracy 'thriller'. Justly rated at 5.9 by IMDB, the movie - especially the script - is an embarrassment. Starts out OK but quickly becomes an obnoxious, very long, movie. Rating **
Saturday, July 7, 2012
The Long Hot Summer
A candy-covered, technicolor "Tennessee-Williams Lite" movie about a southern con-man/barn burner (Paul Newman) who visits a small southern town and impresses the town patriarch (Orson Welles) and his spinster daughter (Joanne Woodward). Enjoyable on its on terms, this silly movie has something from everyone. There's the Newman-Woodward romance for the ladies, Lee Remick (who deserved more screen time) for the men, and Welles and Angela Landsbury for those who care about acting. As for the story, its set in the mythical Hollywood Deep South (home of crude cigar chomping patriarchs, Greek column mansions, and hot steamy southern sex) and bears little relationship to Faulkner or reality. But if you want to see Paul Newman with his shirt off or Orson Welles playing Burl Ives playing Big Daddy its OK. Rating **1/2
Other Views:
Manny Farber: "The fooler in the peepshow is that the jolts are conspicuous waste effects: the beguilement comes from a certain chicanery and crochet like precision. A counterfeit graphic-ness - that fact that Orson Welles storms a plantation on a jeep, talks fast in clogged-mattress Southernese and carries a lapel-pocket filled with Japanese garden of choice Ever sharps - is obvious in every scene of the likable precious "The Long hot Summer". The fantastic note is not in the hokey naturalism, but in the exquisite speed-writing that arranges the spots and collides them with steel writing clarity."
Bosley Crowther: "There are those who would like to rate this picture, produced by Jerry Wald for Twentieth Century-Fox, alongside that same producer's (and studio's) "Peyton Place." Both of them tell stories of tensions in American towns. There is one noticeable difference. "Peyton Place" started weakly and got strong. "The Long, Hot Summer" starts superbly and ends in a senseless, flabby heap."
Other Views:
Manny Farber: "The fooler in the peepshow is that the jolts are conspicuous waste effects: the beguilement comes from a certain chicanery and crochet like precision. A counterfeit graphic-ness - that fact that Orson Welles storms a plantation on a jeep, talks fast in clogged-mattress Southernese and carries a lapel-pocket filled with Japanese garden of choice Ever sharps - is obvious in every scene of the likable precious "The Long hot Summer". The fantastic note is not in the hokey naturalism, but in the exquisite speed-writing that arranges the spots and collides them with steel writing clarity."
Bosley Crowther: "There are those who would like to rate this picture, produced by Jerry Wald for Twentieth Century-Fox, alongside that same producer's (and studio's) "Peyton Place." Both of them tell stories of tensions in American towns. There is one noticeable difference. "Peyton Place" started weakly and got strong. "The Long, Hot Summer" starts superbly and ends in a senseless, flabby heap."
Hell's Angels (1930)
Plot: Two brothers (one good and one bad) leave Oxford and join in the British Royal Flying Corps in World War I. One brother falls for Jean Harlow.
Great old fashioned war film with some of the greatest air-to-air combat scenes ever filmed. The plot is standard and the acting often wooden but it held my interest. Most memorable wartime scenes: the beautifully photographed aerial dogfight skirmishes, German zeppelin raids over London, and the red-tinted and two-color Technicolor scenes. Jean Harlow further perks things up as a sexy, but untrustworthy, "good time girl" who utters the immortal words "Would you be shocked if I put on something more comfortable?" I even enjoyed the "Cornball dialogue" and "Melodramatics" as a nice change of pace from constant 21st century cynicism & sophistication. Rating ***
Great old fashioned war film with some of the greatest air-to-air combat scenes ever filmed. The plot is standard and the acting often wooden but it held my interest. Most memorable wartime scenes: the beautifully photographed aerial dogfight skirmishes, German zeppelin raids over London, and the red-tinted and two-color Technicolor scenes. Jean Harlow further perks things up as a sexy, but untrustworthy, "good time girl" who utters the immortal words "Would you be shocked if I put on something more comfortable?" I even enjoyed the "Cornball dialogue" and "Melodramatics" as a nice change of pace from constant 21st century cynicism & sophistication. Rating ***
Friday, July 6, 2012
The Descendants (2011)
Plot: After his wife is injured in an accident, a wealthy Hawaiian Landowner (George Clooney) tries both to reconnect with his daughters and confront his wife's lover.
The Descendants has its heart in the right place along with a wonderful supporting cast, especially Beau Bridges and Robert Forester. A generally somber film - its nothing spectacular, just a good, solid story with identifiable characters. Obviously aimed at the aging boomers, I loved the films over-all message about family and preference for community over mere money. Too bad the script wasn't deeper, less vulgar and more challenging. Like Woody's "Midnight in Paris" the story seems somewhat "dumbed-down" to ensure greater popularity. Case-in-point is a jarring opening narration that tells us dummies that people in paradise (aka Hawaii) have problems too. Duh, really? But Hawaii still looks beautiful. Rating ***
The Descendants has its heart in the right place along with a wonderful supporting cast, especially Beau Bridges and Robert Forester. A generally somber film - its nothing spectacular, just a good, solid story with identifiable characters. Obviously aimed at the aging boomers, I loved the films over-all message about family and preference for community over mere money. Too bad the script wasn't deeper, less vulgar and more challenging. Like Woody's "Midnight in Paris" the story seems somewhat "dumbed-down" to ensure greater popularity. Case-in-point is a jarring opening narration that tells us dummies that people in paradise (aka Hawaii) have problems too. Duh, really? But Hawaii still looks beautiful. Rating ***
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Monte Walsh (1970)
Lee Marvin and Jack Palance star in this leisurely character study of two old cowboys facing the end of the Old West. While the entire cast is excellent, both Marvin and Palance are perfect as regular likable guys caught up in circumstances beyond their control. A nice little movie, with some good moments, but needing more energy and better action scenes. The movie often seems so intent on being "low-key" and "realistic" that it forgets to be entertaining. Rating ***
Friday, June 29, 2012
Manny Farber - Evenings-In take
http://evenings-in.blogspot.com/2005/04/manny-farber-film-critic-as-art-hunk.html
But to whom do tracts championing Hawks or the French New Wave sound radical now? Farber and film began to break apart in the post-60's era, and his late reviews sound puzzled by the advent of movies built by men educated on his precepts, but not his scruples. “Taxi Driver”? Farber's late career piece dedicated to this Scorcese/Shrader celebration of murder is ambivalent, appearing very near the end of "Negative Space," dripping palpable discomfort now as he witnesses his criticism's big influence on these guys, an influence as responsible for the bad parts in the flick as the good. Must have been bracing.
At this point in our Nation's cinematic life, Manny retreated from the critic's battle to inform and confront. He claims, believably, the break came when the public started embracing the mythic in earnest. The grand visions being manufactured by the New Hollywood (the old New Hollywood, of Coppola, Lucas, etc.), turned him off—and just when he thought film would break from the strictly small-time commercial, and give us the vast universe of the personal intelligence! Instead it decided to sell tickets, lots of tickets, and in unlocking this route to the mega-commercial with fake venerations of the commonly mythic, or mythically common, Hollywood lost Manny forever. More interesting to the Farb Man at the end were Herzog and Snow and Chantal Akerman (the names become less and less familiar the further we progress toward the end of his critical career, don't they? Wouldn't most "film fanz" of today shout, "Manny, lighten up! It's a story about a killer kabbie! Lean back and enjoy the ride!"). "
Was the problem that Hollywood started succeeding with brutal machines inspired in some perverse way by his own ideals? Or did he just lose interest, or get old? I think he recognized his interests had veered off into a scorched field of commercially useless art films, and he didn't like the idea of becoming irrelevant, "that old kook, that artist, Farber." It was great to play the prophet for a while, and then an apostle—but when nobody converts, you gotta change jobs fast. Becoming yet another irritating academic championing unseen art must not have appealed, so logically he gave up writing his elaborate criticism/poems for an audience so small and refined. He must have missed the bright lights, big city of the earlier days, and ultimately, he couldn’t stand to surrender all traces of populism. The goose was cooked once he saw "the public" wasn't going to follow him into these formalist art films and their aesthetic determinism. The fun for him must have always come in creating these masterpiece meditations with oodles of high art appeal as mere adornments for mass-media popular entertainments—a Marlowe-like detective, bent on discovering the transcendent art in the transient and commercial.
But to whom do tracts championing Hawks or the French New Wave sound radical now? Farber and film began to break apart in the post-60's era, and his late reviews sound puzzled by the advent of movies built by men educated on his precepts, but not his scruples. “Taxi Driver”? Farber's late career piece dedicated to this Scorcese/Shrader celebration of murder is ambivalent, appearing very near the end of "Negative Space," dripping palpable discomfort now as he witnesses his criticism's big influence on these guys, an influence as responsible for the bad parts in the flick as the good. Must have been bracing.
At this point in our Nation's cinematic life, Manny retreated from the critic's battle to inform and confront. He claims, believably, the break came when the public started embracing the mythic in earnest. The grand visions being manufactured by the New Hollywood (the old New Hollywood, of Coppola, Lucas, etc.), turned him off—and just when he thought film would break from the strictly small-time commercial, and give us the vast universe of the personal intelligence! Instead it decided to sell tickets, lots of tickets, and in unlocking this route to the mega-commercial with fake venerations of the commonly mythic, or mythically common, Hollywood lost Manny forever. More interesting to the Farb Man at the end were Herzog and Snow and Chantal Akerman (the names become less and less familiar the further we progress toward the end of his critical career, don't they? Wouldn't most "film fanz" of today shout, "Manny, lighten up! It's a story about a killer kabbie! Lean back and enjoy the ride!"). "
Was the problem that Hollywood started succeeding with brutal machines inspired in some perverse way by his own ideals? Or did he just lose interest, or get old? I think he recognized his interests had veered off into a scorched field of commercially useless art films, and he didn't like the idea of becoming irrelevant, "that old kook, that artist, Farber." It was great to play the prophet for a while, and then an apostle—but when nobody converts, you gotta change jobs fast. Becoming yet another irritating academic championing unseen art must not have appealed, so logically he gave up writing his elaborate criticism/poems for an audience so small and refined. He must have missed the bright lights, big city of the earlier days, and ultimately, he couldn’t stand to surrender all traces of populism. The goose was cooked once he saw "the public" wasn't going to follow him into these formalist art films and their aesthetic determinism. The fun for him must have always come in creating these masterpiece meditations with oodles of high art appeal as mere adornments for mass-media popular entertainments—a Marlowe-like detective, bent on discovering the transcendent art in the transient and commercial.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Rich Man, Poor Man (1976)
Stars: Nick Nolte (Tom), Peter Strauss (Rudy) Susan Blakely (Julie)
Pros: Falconitti character, Nolte, action scenes, supporting actors, Susan Blakely is hot
Cons: Peter Strauss and the Rudy character, too long, mediocre story and writing
Rich Man, Poor Man was as enormous hit on American TV in 1976, leading the Networks to produce other famous min-series such as The Winds of War and nighttime soaps like “Dallas” and Falcon Crest. Nolte is the main reason to see the show. The series comes alive whenever he’s onscreen and he fits his character perfectly. Blakely is effective and sexy - but asked to do too much as her character goes through wild/unrealistic changes of emotion and attitude. Strauss is a disappointment. While his part is dull, he does nothing to improve it, and is charisma-free. The supporting actors are good - especially Smith as the unforgettable villain “Falconitti”. The overrated Asner is adequate as the father.
Based on the Irwin Shaw novel, the story isn’t art but a glorified soap opera. Starting out strong it falters in the last third. The series (and novel) try to make a grand statement about “Post war America” but accomplish nothing more than: "America is corrupt, everything stinks and unracist good guys should move to France."
Summary: Not as good as I remember but still OK. Fast-forward when Strauss appears without Blakely or Nolte. Rating **1/2
Sunday, June 10, 2012
The Help (2011)
Plot: In 1963 Mississippi, a white society girl turns everyone's lives upside down when she interviews the black maids/nannies working for prominent families.
Pros: Acting by Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer. Houses lovely to look at
Cons: Predictable story and characters, Direction, Black characters given too little screen time
A dumb chick flick movie about segregation, black maids, and their white bosses in 1963 Mississippi. While Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer are excellent as the black maids, (if only the movie had been just about them!) the main focus is on the white actresses, especially our heroine "Skeeter" (Emma Stone). Everyone is a predictable caricature; the snobby cold-hearted racist, the pure-at-heart heroine who KNOWS racism is wrong, the over-controlling boyfriend who's put in his place, etc.
Pros: Acting by Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer. Houses lovely to look at
Cons: Predictable story and characters, Direction, Black characters given too little screen time
A dumb chick flick movie about segregation, black maids, and their white bosses in 1963 Mississippi. While Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer are excellent as the black maids, (if only the movie had been just about them!) the main focus is on the white actresses, especially our heroine "Skeeter" (Emma Stone). Everyone is a predictable caricature; the snobby cold-hearted racist, the pure-at-heart heroine who KNOWS racism is wrong, the over-controlling boyfriend who's put in his place, etc.
Another variation on the great boomer morality play where we get to boo the evil white segregationists, cheer the noble (mostly) underdog blacks, and identify with our plucky, white, proto-feminist, liberal heroine. The direction adds to the air of unreality by making 1963 Mississippi so colorful, bright, and clean it seems like Disneyland. Are white liberals ever going to tire of revisiting those great wonderful days of Segregation? I hope so. Of course, I'm not the target audience for the film and only saw it as a favor. Rating **
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Un-American Westerns
Per the New York Review of Books:
"The highly popular Broken Arrow (1950), notable for preaching peaceful coexistence between white settlers and their Apache neighbors, was written by (but not credited to) blacklisted red Albert Maltz; released the same year, The Devil’s Doorway, a less commercially successful but more militant brief on behalf of a mistreated Shoshone cavalryman, was written by Guy Trosper (designated a fellow traveler by the FBI) and, unlike Broken Arrow, praised for its political perspicuity by the Daily Worker, which recognized it as an allegory on the situation of African American veterans.
Addressing another aspect of the American West, two blacklisted Communists Lester Cole and Marguerite Roberts, worked at various times on the script for the long-germinating Viva Zapata!, set during the early-twentieth-century Mexican Revolution and celebrating the radical agrarian reformer Emiliano Zapata—although it was ultimately directed, from John Steinbeck’s screenplay, by a former Communist desperate to avoid the blacklist, Elia Kazan. Kazan strenuously promoted Viva Zapata! as an anti-Communist movie until the late ‘60s when he saw it as having a special significance for “disgruntled and rebellious people” throughout the world—a proto–Spaghetti Western."
"The highly popular Broken Arrow (1950), notable for preaching peaceful coexistence between white settlers and their Apache neighbors, was written by (but not credited to) blacklisted red Albert Maltz; released the same year, The Devil’s Doorway, a less commercially successful but more militant brief on behalf of a mistreated Shoshone cavalryman, was written by Guy Trosper (designated a fellow traveler by the FBI) and, unlike Broken Arrow, praised for its political perspicuity by the Daily Worker, which recognized it as an allegory on the situation of African American veterans.
Addressing another aspect of the American West, two blacklisted Communists Lester Cole and Marguerite Roberts, worked at various times on the script for the long-germinating Viva Zapata!, set during the early-twentieth-century Mexican Revolution and celebrating the radical agrarian reformer Emiliano Zapata—although it was ultimately directed, from John Steinbeck’s screenplay, by a former Communist desperate to avoid the blacklist, Elia Kazan. Kazan strenuously promoted Viva Zapata! as an anti-Communist movie until the late ‘60s when he saw it as having a special significance for “disgruntled and rebellious people” throughout the world—a proto–Spaghetti Western."
Monday, May 7, 2012
St. Valentine's Day Massacre (1967)
St Valentine's Day Massacre (1967) Roger Corman's low-budget retelling of Al Capone, Bugsy Moran and that day in Chicago in 1929. Despite the documentary style narrative this is a entertaining, completely Hollywood retelling of the actual events. Everyone over acts shamelessly starting with Jason Robards as Al Capone. Machine guns blast away, the cars look authentic, and everyone is dressed impeccably. Its hard to think of anyone less Italian than Jason Robards but he makes it work. Rating ***
Pigs and Battleships
Pigs and Battleships (1961) Set in Yokosuka, with a US Navy base during the Korean War (1951-1953), Imamura's dark satirical movie concerns a young Teen hoodlum excited to be in the Yakuza and diverting the Pigs and food scraps to the black market. His girlfriend objects, and movie follows their troubled relationship, against a backdrop steeped in corruption caused by US Sailors wanting some R&R and the greedy Japanese prostitutes, gangsters and businessmen who want to profit. At times angry but mostly comical, Imamura satirizes both the US sailors (who look like Apes in Sailor uniforms) and the Yakuza.
There are a number of great scenes, including the rape of Haruko and the finale which includes hundreds of rampaging Hogs, however, the movie as whole is just above average due to the dated nature of the satire. Rating ***
There are a number of great scenes, including the rape of Haruko and the finale which includes hundreds of rampaging Hogs, however, the movie as whole is just above average due to the dated nature of the satire. Rating ***
Sunday, April 29, 2012
LA Confidential
Stars: Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, James Cromwell, Kim Basinger
Plot: In the early 1950s, three very different LA policemen investigate a series of murders.
Pros: Acting, Script, Set Design, Production values, David Strathairn
Cons: Not a chick movie, Silly ending
Best Line: "Go back to Jersey, sonny. This is the City of the Angels, and you haven't got any wings. "
Although often described as a throwback to earlier detective movies, LA Confidential is very modern (and unrealistic) 1990s take on the LA PD of the 1950s. LA Confidential has some great acting, and its the ability of Pearce, Crowe, and Spacey to create vivid well-rounded characters that makes it a great movie. Weirdly the only Oscar win was by Basinger. The movie looks fabulous, and moves at a fast pace. Sadly, its let down by a dumb shoot-out ending that makes no sense whats so ever, besides being completely unrealistic. Further, women may be disappointed since Basinger - playing a prostitute - is the only significant female character.
Summary: Ranked 75 on IMDB best movies of all time, LA Confidential is a winner but that's off the record, on the QT, and very hush, hush. Rating ****
Plot: In the early 1950s, three very different LA policemen investigate a series of murders.
Pros: Acting, Script, Set Design, Production values, David Strathairn
Cons: Not a chick movie, Silly ending
Best Line: "Go back to Jersey, sonny. This is the City of the Angels, and you haven't got any wings. "
Although often described as a throwback to earlier detective movies, LA Confidential is very modern (and unrealistic) 1990s take on the LA PD of the 1950s. LA Confidential has some great acting, and its the ability of Pearce, Crowe, and Spacey to create vivid well-rounded characters that makes it a great movie. Weirdly the only Oscar win was by Basinger. The movie looks fabulous, and moves at a fast pace. Sadly, its let down by a dumb shoot-out ending that makes no sense whats so ever, besides being completely unrealistic. Further, women may be disappointed since Basinger - playing a prostitute - is the only significant female character.
Summary: Ranked 75 on IMDB best movies of all time, LA Confidential is a winner but that's off the record, on the QT, and very hush, hush. Rating ****
Monday, March 19, 2012
I can get it for you Wholesale (1951)
Stars: Susan Hayward, Dan Dailey, George Sanders
Plot: A dress designer bulldozes her way to the top of the garment/fashion industry; but finally has to choose between ambition and love.
Staring two of my favorites: Susan Hayward and George Sanders; "I can get it for you wholesale" has some good moments but can't overcome an extremely wordy script with minimal character development and a predictable plot.
There are *some* funny/witty lines expertly delivered by Sanders & Hayward - but that's larded between a lot of dull/mediocre stuff. As in "Force of Evil" Polonsky seems to believe that word-count equals quality and almost every second of run-time is filled with with talk. Yak, Yak, Yak. And like "Force of Evil" I had a hard time caring about the less-than-likable characters. On the plus side, the acting is quite good, there's a lot of George Sanders being George Sanders, and we get some interesting location shots of 1951 NYC.
**Spoilers Ahead**
The last two scenes in the movie are examples of Polansky's overwriting. Both are well acted and have some good lines - but Polanksy simply can't keep it short and effective. In the Sanders & Hayward scene he has both characters exchange the same thoughts over and over. In the last scene with Jaffe-Hayward-Daily, Sam Jaffe's character has the final words. He only had to say "Teddy, just because 7th avenue is a jungle, there's no need to live like a wild animal. That's what Harriet learned, that's why she's back. Remember Teddy, its not easy to walk back in, after you walked out." Cue embrace. Cut/print it.
Instead Jaffe goes on for another minute - saying nothing memorable or needed. Typical Polansky.
**End Spoilers**
Having seen almost all of Abe Polonsky's films I'm less than impressed with his talents. Its somewhat amusing to read of the author of 'Tell them Willie boy was here" and "Madigan" dissing Kazan -but that's politics in Hollywood. I think Wilder had him in mind when he stated that "Only two or three of the Hollywood Ten had talent, the rest were just unfriendly".
Plot: A dress designer bulldozes her way to the top of the garment/fashion industry; but finally has to choose between ambition and love.
Staring two of my favorites: Susan Hayward and George Sanders; "I can get it for you wholesale" has some good moments but can't overcome an extremely wordy script with minimal character development and a predictable plot.
There are *some* funny/witty lines expertly delivered by Sanders & Hayward - but that's larded between a lot of dull/mediocre stuff. As in "Force of Evil" Polonsky seems to believe that word-count equals quality and almost every second of run-time is filled with with talk. Yak, Yak, Yak. And like "Force of Evil" I had a hard time caring about the less-than-likable characters. On the plus side, the acting is quite good, there's a lot of George Sanders being George Sanders, and we get some interesting location shots of 1951 NYC.
**Spoilers Ahead**
The last two scenes in the movie are examples of Polansky's overwriting. Both are well acted and have some good lines - but Polanksy simply can't keep it short and effective. In the Sanders & Hayward scene he has both characters exchange the same thoughts over and over. In the last scene with Jaffe-Hayward-Daily, Sam Jaffe's character has the final words. He only had to say "Teddy, just because 7th avenue is a jungle, there's no need to live like a wild animal. That's what Harriet learned, that's why she's back. Remember Teddy, its not easy to walk back in, after you walked out." Cue embrace. Cut/print it.
Instead Jaffe goes on for another minute - saying nothing memorable or needed. Typical Polansky.
**End Spoilers**
Having seen almost all of Abe Polonsky's films I'm less than impressed with his talents. Its somewhat amusing to read of the author of 'Tell them Willie boy was here" and "Madigan" dissing Kazan -but that's politics in Hollywood. I think Wilder had him in mind when he stated that "Only two or three of the Hollywood Ten had talent, the rest were just unfriendly".
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The Big Combo (1955)
Plot: A police detective (Wilde) is obsessed with bringing a suave, and seemingly invulnerable crime boss (Conte) to justice - the gangster's girlfriend may be the weak link.
Stars: Richard Conte, Cornel Wilde, Jean Wallace, Brian Donlevy
Enjoyable but over-praised Film Noir. The plot is pretty standard but with an 84 minute run time that's not a problem. More problematic is the bland Cornel Wilde and the 2 wooden female performances. The action scenes are mixed. A couple are well done, others are almost unintentionally funny. Anyone want a pineapple in a box?
Pluses: A great jazz score and some beautiful B&W cinematography. Also, Earl Holliman and Lee Van Cleef are memorable as the Gay(?) henchmen. Conte is fabulous as the ruthless "Mr. Brown".
Summary: Another "cult film" that leaves me puzzled. I liked it, but its no better than 30 other film-noirs. Rating: ***
Stars: Richard Conte, Cornel Wilde, Jean Wallace, Brian Donlevy
Enjoyable but over-praised Film Noir. The plot is pretty standard but with an 84 minute run time that's not a problem. More problematic is the bland Cornel Wilde and the 2 wooden female performances. The action scenes are mixed. A couple are well done, others are almost unintentionally funny. Anyone want a pineapple in a box?
Pluses: A great jazz score and some beautiful B&W cinematography. Also, Earl Holliman and Lee Van Cleef are memorable as the Gay(?) henchmen. Conte is fabulous as the ruthless "Mr. Brown".
Summary: Another "cult film" that leaves me puzzled. I liked it, but its no better than 30 other film-noirs. Rating: ***
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Odds Against Tomorrow (1959)
Stars: Harry Belefonte, Robert Ryan, Gloria Grahame, Ed Bergley, Shelly Winters
Plot: A New York City Jazz Singer, a retired disgraced Cop, and a racist muscle-man plan to rob a small town bank in Upstate New York.
Effective little film noir, with some good acting (and some bad), great cinematography, and some good action scenes. Filmed on low "B movie" Budget, director Robert Wise gets all he can out of the location shots on Hudson New York and New York City. Belefonte is surprisingly good as the gambling Jazz Singer who has to become a bank robber to pay-off the Mob, while Bergley is quite sympathetic as the old eccentric who plans the heist. On the minus side, Winters and Grahame aren't given much to do. Ryan does a tired repeat of his usual evil bigot, and the phony southern accent doesn't help.
What keeps "Odds against tomorrow" from being a very good film-noir is the script by Abe Polansky. The movie sags in the middle, and the 3 main characters aren't particularly sympathetic or smart. The 'race issue' stuff is rather dated. Also, Polansky threw away the book's upbeat ending to create his own downbeat symbolic ending - which has all the subtlety of a jack-hammer.
**Avast Ye - Spoilers ahead**
Finally, the heist itself is well filmed except for the incredible idiocy of the police. First, they shoot Ed Bergley six times over 5 minutes, and while having the gang pinned down in the alley never think of sending someone around back to cut off their escape. Later, they let Ryan and Belefonte shoot and chase each other till they get to a Gasworks, where they continue to let the two shoot each other and also blow up the gas works. We don't see any dead Gaswork employees - but no thanks to "Mellon's Finest"!
Plot: A New York City Jazz Singer, a retired disgraced Cop, and a racist muscle-man plan to rob a small town bank in Upstate New York.
Effective little film noir, with some good acting (and some bad), great cinematography, and some good action scenes. Filmed on low "B movie" Budget, director Robert Wise gets all he can out of the location shots on Hudson New York and New York City. Belefonte is surprisingly good as the gambling Jazz Singer who has to become a bank robber to pay-off the Mob, while Bergley is quite sympathetic as the old eccentric who plans the heist. On the minus side, Winters and Grahame aren't given much to do. Ryan does a tired repeat of his usual evil bigot, and the phony southern accent doesn't help.
What keeps "Odds against tomorrow" from being a very good film-noir is the script by Abe Polansky. The movie sags in the middle, and the 3 main characters aren't particularly sympathetic or smart. The 'race issue' stuff is rather dated. Also, Polansky threw away the book's upbeat ending to create his own downbeat symbolic ending - which has all the subtlety of a jack-hammer.
**Avast Ye - Spoilers ahead**
Finally, the heist itself is well filmed except for the incredible idiocy of the police. First, they shoot Ed Bergley six times over 5 minutes, and while having the gang pinned down in the alley never think of sending someone around back to cut off their escape. Later, they let Ryan and Belefonte shoot and chase each other till they get to a Gasworks, where they continue to let the two shoot each other and also blow up the gas works. We don't see any dead Gaswork employees - but no thanks to "Mellon's Finest"!
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The Great Man (1956)
Plot: A reporter preparing a eulogy for a beloved radio commentator, finds a despicable egomaniac beneath the public persona.
The "Great Man" is sorta of a 2nd rate Citizen Kane. A truth-seeking reporter (Jose Ferrer) finds that beloved, recently deceased, radio figure "Herb Fuller" - isn't the patriotic, likable, salt-of-the-earth guy we were lead to believe. Like Andy Griffith in "A Face in the Crowd", Fuller is supposedly modeled on Arthur Godrey, a popular 1950s Radio/TV personality who seems to have scared the crap out of liberal intellectuals. Reading between the film frames, it seems Liberals were afraid that some kind of smiley, "average joe" personality (aka Godfrey) could be used by "Big Business" to sell 1950s conservatism and capitalism to all the those 'yokels' in heartland. Hence, the push back.
Viewed simply as a movie, "The Great Man" has some good points. The supporting cast is excellent. Kennan Wynn shines as Fuller's slimy "what's in it for me" agent, Dean Jagger is good as the smooth amoral Radio Network President, and Julie London is extremely sexy as the extremely drunk, Widow Fuller. Further, the script is full of good, cynical lines reminiscent of "Sweet Smell of Success".
However, "The Great Man" never really takes off. Partly, its due to Jose Ferrer - who despite his great voice - is too wooden and lacking in charisma. But mostly its the predictable, and low budget story. People talk about "Herb Fuller" but we never see him & we know from the start he's a bad apple. As a result, the narrative lacks drive and suspense. Think 'Citizen Kane', without the great photography or any dialog by Charles Foster Kane.
Summary: "The Great Man" isn't great - but its a forgotten picture worth a watch - if only for the 50s atmosphere and the supporting actors. Rating **1/2
The "Great Man" is sorta of a 2nd rate Citizen Kane. A truth-seeking reporter (Jose Ferrer) finds that beloved, recently deceased, radio figure "Herb Fuller" - isn't the patriotic, likable, salt-of-the-earth guy we were lead to believe. Like Andy Griffith in "A Face in the Crowd", Fuller is supposedly modeled on Arthur Godrey, a popular 1950s Radio/TV personality who seems to have scared the crap out of liberal intellectuals. Reading between the film frames, it seems Liberals were afraid that some kind of smiley, "average joe" personality (aka Godfrey) could be used by "Big Business" to sell 1950s conservatism and capitalism to all the those 'yokels' in heartland. Hence, the push back.
Viewed simply as a movie, "The Great Man" has some good points. The supporting cast is excellent. Kennan Wynn shines as Fuller's slimy "what's in it for me" agent, Dean Jagger is good as the smooth amoral Radio Network President, and Julie London is extremely sexy as the extremely drunk, Widow Fuller. Further, the script is full of good, cynical lines reminiscent of "Sweet Smell of Success".
However, "The Great Man" never really takes off. Partly, its due to Jose Ferrer - who despite his great voice - is too wooden and lacking in charisma. But mostly its the predictable, and low budget story. People talk about "Herb Fuller" but we never see him & we know from the start he's a bad apple. As a result, the narrative lacks drive and suspense. Think 'Citizen Kane', without the great photography or any dialog by Charles Foster Kane.
Summary: "The Great Man" isn't great - but its a forgotten picture worth a watch - if only for the 50s atmosphere and the supporting actors. Rating **1/2
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Battle Circus (1953)
Plot: In a Korean War MASH Unit, a hard-bitten Army surgeon falls for a new nurse ready to save the world.
Stars: Humphrey Bogart, June Allyson
Battle Circus, is one of the few Hollywood movies to deal with the Korean War. Its an enjoyable, if forgettable, Hollywood war movie that has some good battle/action scenes and some very bad romance. Bogart does well as a generic leading man, but is slightly miscast. He's too old to be Army surgeon and younger actors such as Heston, Hudson, or Bill Holden would've been better. But the main problem is June Allyson. As you'd expect, she has no chemistry with Bogart and seems awkward and uncomfortable. Robert Kieth is excellent as Bogart's commanding officer. Rating **1/2
Stars: Humphrey Bogart, June Allyson
Battle Circus, is one of the few Hollywood movies to deal with the Korean War. Its an enjoyable, if forgettable, Hollywood war movie that has some good battle/action scenes and some very bad romance. Bogart does well as a generic leading man, but is slightly miscast. He's too old to be Army surgeon and younger actors such as Heston, Hudson, or Bill Holden would've been better. But the main problem is June Allyson. As you'd expect, she has no chemistry with Bogart and seems awkward and uncomfortable. Robert Kieth is excellent as Bogart's commanding officer. Rating **1/2
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Tokyo Joe (1949)
Plot: An American returns to Tokyo try to pick up threads of his pre-WW2 life there, but finds himself squeezed between criminals and the authorities.
Dull, mediocre Film Noir set in Tokyo (filmed on Columbia Studio's Backlot) that squanders the interesting premise of Bogie doing 'Casablanca' in Tokyo. Bogie is OK and Sessue Hayakawa is a superb villain, but otherwise its too slow Joe in Tokyo. Produced by Bogart's Santana production company, he later called the film "worthless". Rating **
Dull, mediocre Film Noir set in Tokyo (filmed on Columbia Studio's Backlot) that squanders the interesting premise of Bogie doing 'Casablanca' in Tokyo. Bogie is OK and Sessue Hayakawa is a superb villain, but otherwise its too slow Joe in Tokyo. Produced by Bogart's Santana production company, he later called the film "worthless". Rating **
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Beat the Devil (1953)
Director: John Houston
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Jennifer Jones, Robert Morley, Gina Lollobrigida
Plot: On their way to East Africa a group of rogues meet a seemingly innocent British couple. They meet and things happen...
Quite funny and deservedly a cult classic. High-point: Jennifer Jones wearing a blond wig and showing an unexpected flair for comedy. Too bad the whole is less than the sum of all parts. The script is witty and acting very good, but film looks very low budget and several scenes lack energy and/or make no sense. Based on the Novel by British Communist Claud Cockburn. Houston knew Cockburn in Ireland and persuaded Bogart to pay Cockburn $10,000 for the film rights. Capote was hired to fix the script and did a marvelous job. Others that shine include Robert Morley and Ivor Barnard. Bogart simply plays it straight. Gina Lollobrigida is quite sexy.
Best Quote:
-Harry, we must beware of these men. They are desperate characters.
-What makes you say that ?
-Not one of them looked at my legs!
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Jennifer Jones, Robert Morley, Gina Lollobrigida
Plot: On their way to East Africa a group of rogues meet a seemingly innocent British couple. They meet and things happen...
Quite funny and deservedly a cult classic. High-point: Jennifer Jones wearing a blond wig and showing an unexpected flair for comedy. Too bad the whole is less than the sum of all parts. The script is witty and acting very good, but film looks very low budget and several scenes lack energy and/or make no sense. Based on the Novel by British Communist Claud Cockburn. Houston knew Cockburn in Ireland and persuaded Bogart to pay Cockburn $10,000 for the film rights. Capote was hired to fix the script and did a marvelous job. Others that shine include Robert Morley and Ivor Barnard. Bogart simply plays it straight. Gina Lollobrigida is quite sexy.
Best Quote:
-Harry, we must beware of these men. They are desperate characters.
-What makes you say that ?
-Not one of them looked at my legs!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)