"Barbara Streisand is the sort of thing that starts Pogroms."
Censored line from Simon's New Leader review of "The way we were"
Other comments/reviews:
When Miss Streisand labors to appear sensitive and vulnerable, she cannot conquer our impression that, were she to collide with a Mack truck, it is the truck that would drop dead. And, as always, I am repelled by her looks; by the receding brow and the overcompensatory nose, which, unlike Cleopatra's in Pascal's famous dictum, would not, even if it were shorter, change the face of the earth — merely blot out a smaller part of it. Only very plain women, in their wish-fulfillment fantasies, could accept without flinching the dashing Robert Redford's passion for, and bedroom scenes with, Barbra Streisand.
(John Simon, National Review)
The Burt Lancaster Award that goes to the actor or actress whose performance most completely depends upon hair styling. This award is to be shared by Miss Streisand's hairdresser for The Way We Were.
(Vincent Canby, New York Times)
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Streisand Sucks - Hello Dolly
"A full close up of Miss Streisand is a truly terrifying experience, as the camera moves closer and closer you know what Sir Edmund Hillary must have felt, and there is no Nepal guide to catch you if you slip, or just reel back in horror. As for the star's acting. Machiavelli stated "I think that just as nature has given everyone a different face, so she given all a different intelligence and imagination, and each acts according to this personality".
Miss Streisand, perhaps because she lacks intelligence and imagination, is obliged to act according to her face - aggressively, smugly, and with a masturbatory delight in herself."
Miss Streisand, perhaps because she lacks intelligence and imagination, is obliged to act according to her face - aggressively, smugly, and with a masturbatory delight in herself."
Streisand Sucks - The Main Event
From John Simon's Review:
'The movie attempts to make both a shark and a goldfish out of a nasty piranha. Miss Streisand has never looked uglier or acted worse than in this movie... Streisand gets Ryan O'Neal to become (1) a terrific boxer, (2) her lover, and (3) a quitter who gives up boxing to become Barbara's love object. I live it to the reader to judge which is most preposterous.
The Director cannot be held responsible for the mess, since directing Streisand must be like getting a rogue Elephant to cross the street on a green light.
'The movie attempts to make both a shark and a goldfish out of a nasty piranha. Miss Streisand has never looked uglier or acted worse than in this movie... Streisand gets Ryan O'Neal to become (1) a terrific boxer, (2) her lover, and (3) a quitter who gives up boxing to become Barbara's love object. I live it to the reader to judge which is most preposterous.
The Director cannot be held responsible for the mess, since directing Streisand must be like getting a rogue Elephant to cross the street on a green light.
Streisand Sucks - Yentl
John Simon:
"But the problem with Streisand--especially when she is functioning as producer, co-writer, director, star, and only singer on the sound-track (nobody else is allowed one note)--is that her repertoire in love is as limited as her repertoire in acting: Though she can convey voracious love of self with revolting conviction, passionate love of books and of another being is categorically beyond her means.
The camera is almost never off Barbra's face, though that is much the least photogenic object to cross its path, and when it reluctantly tears itself away, it does so only to document Yentl's point of view. And David Watkin, that marvelous cameraman, has clearly been instructed to shoot everything as if made of spun sugar and lit up by its private rainbow (Barbra's covenant with the Lord?), so that just looking at it will give you acute indigestion..
There is a scene that attains the ridiculous sublime: Barbra reveals to Many Patinkin that she is a woman; overcome, Avigdor proceeds to touch and gush about the beauty of Yentl's various parts--forehead, eyes, mouth, skin--carefully skirting an object as unmentionable as the name of God is to an Orthodox Jew. There's a moment's pause as his hand falters, and you think, "He's finally noticed IT!" But no, he goes on to eulogize some other outlying feature--the ears, perhaps.
On top of all this comes a score that's stultifyingly ponderous enough to knock out to force out by a blow or by blows; as, to knock out the brain. But the final sequence is an apotheosis. Dressed to kill on a shabby, emigrant-crowded boat to America, Yentl has obviously bought an entire deck for herself, where, unimpeded, she performs a number parlously close to "Don't Rain on My Parade." For this parade, rain would be too good
"But the problem with Streisand--especially when she is functioning as producer, co-writer, director, star, and only singer on the sound-track (nobody else is allowed one note)--is that her repertoire in love is as limited as her repertoire in acting: Though she can convey voracious love of self with revolting conviction, passionate love of books and of another being is categorically beyond her means.
The camera is almost never off Barbra's face, though that is much the least photogenic object to cross its path, and when it reluctantly tears itself away, it does so only to document Yentl's point of view. And David Watkin, that marvelous cameraman, has clearly been instructed to shoot everything as if made of spun sugar and lit up by its private rainbow (Barbra's covenant with the Lord?), so that just looking at it will give you acute indigestion..
There is a scene that attains the ridiculous sublime: Barbra reveals to Many Patinkin that she is a woman; overcome, Avigdor proceeds to touch and gush about the beauty of Yentl's various parts--forehead, eyes, mouth, skin--carefully skirting an object as unmentionable as the name of God is to an Orthodox Jew. There's a moment's pause as his hand falters, and you think, "He's finally noticed IT!" But no, he goes on to eulogize some other outlying feature--the ears, perhaps.
On top of all this comes a score that's stultifyingly ponderous enough to knock out to force out by a blow or by blows; as, to knock out the brain. But the final sequence is an apotheosis. Dressed to kill on a shabby, emigrant-crowded boat to America, Yentl has obviously bought an entire deck for herself, where, unimpeded, she performs a number parlously close to "Don't Rain on My Parade." For this parade, rain would be too good
John Simon on Film Criticism
From His essay Movie Musings 1990:
"When you see such movies, you despair for the future of film, to say nothing of its present. And as you look at the audiences at the Festival's special screenings-ostensibly scholars, critics, distributors, and such, but actually also many rather more peripheral types-you see a lot of characters more suited to rock concerts, disreputable discotheques, late-night subway platforms, and cockfights. Was the cinema intended for the likes of them? Or were they once wholesome human beings, gradually eroded, corroded, used up by movie going.? Certainly the questions they ask during press conferences attest to an advanced state of cerebral atrophy cerebral atrophy
Nevertheless, I refuse to believe that this is the final and irreversible phase of cinema: infantilism and dotage joining hands across an abyss of stupefaction . There were in this very same festival (and I didn't see everything) three good films and two interesting ones. So all is not lost. But it must become possible to attend movies without a sense of deja vu., tired blood, the terminal exhaustion of an art form. Perhaps something truly new could come from the newly liberated countries behind the Iron Curtain-ex oriente lux.
And perhaps we are due for a new era in film criticism, beyond the raised or lowered thumbs of two television caricatures of film critics, beyond the perfunctory and insipid stuff we read in most newspapers and such magazines as deign to bother with movie reviews. If we could get film criticism on a par with the best in book reviewing in our reputable journals, we could perhaps experience something analogous to what happened in France after World War II, when a new wave in film criticism spawned a cinematic New Wave. To be sure, this was the rare case where the film critics themselves become the filmmakers.
There is one quality that more than any other could help revitalize the cinema: believableness. Characters in films must re-establish contact with social, economic, and political realities even where film style is non- or antirealistic. We should not have to ask questions such as: How come she has that much free time? Where does he get his money from? Why would they have been so purblind It may sound like rather simplistic advice, but, if heeded, it could make for major improvements. And truly persuasive critics could-maybeteach their readers to demand that much.
The problem with film critics, however, is that most of them aren't really critics, merely movie buffs who managed to preserve their childhood enthusiasms intact. They like movie movies, as they call them, much more than art films, as they call genres they don't care for. Can you imagine a literary critic preferring book books? Or detective stories to literature? On the other hand, can you imagine a book critic obliged to review most of what lands on his desk, the way movie reviewers are expected-indeed want to-see everything? Granted, a movie takes much less time and effort, but is that an excuse for critical omnivorousness, particularly if it results in your reading in the papers that such-and such a film must be seen, only to have you feel, as you come out of it, the victim of highway robbery?
And now visualize, please, a bunch of grown men and women whose job it is to see movies as bad as that and worse, week in, week out. Or, more likely, day in, day out. If they weren't cretins when they started out, surely they must be feeble-minded by now.
Film criticism should be protected from our so-called critics. Movies should ideally be reviewed by persons well versed in all the arts, who, preferably, are also professional writers of something: plays, essays, poetry, fiction. True, some of the silliest film criticism I have read was signed Alberto Moravia. But then take someone, as early as 1928, writing sensibly about his enjoyment of "a touching screen love story, cast with actors who must be expressive, attractive, and agreeable, and are allowed to be vain, but never unnatural." That someone was Thomas Mann."
Inherit the Wind - Fact vs. Fiction
"The Monkey Trial is a great website showing the historical truth of the Scopes Trial vs. the fiction of "Inherit the Wind" -Seems that Stan Kramer was a little loose with the truth.
Orson Welles on Igmar Bergman and vice-versa
A great post from Wellesnet; a great site about Orson Welles. As shown by following quotes from "Wellesnet" (they need donations by the way) it looks like these two giants weren't fond of each other.
***
I don’t condemn that very northern, very Protestant world of artists like Bergman; it’s just not where I live. The Sweden I like to visit is a lot of fun. But Bergman’s Sweden always reminds me of something Henry James said about Ibsen’s Norway—that it was full of “the odor of spiritual paraffin.” How I sympathize with that! I share neither Bergman’s interests nor his obsessions. He’s far more foreign to me than the Japanese.
—Orson Welles to Kenneth Tynan, 1967
*****
You could write all the ideas of all the movies, mine included, on the head of a pin. It’s not a form in which ideas are very fecund. It’s a form that may grip you or take you into a world or involve you emotionally—but ideas are not the subject of films. I have this terrible sense that film is dead, that it’s a piece of film in a machine that will be run off and shown to people. That is why, I think, my films are theatrical, and strongly stated, because I can’t believe that anybody won’t fall asleep unless they are. There’s an awful lot of Bergman and Antonioni that I’d rather be dead than sit through.
For myself, unless a film is hallucinatory, unless it becomes that kind of an experience, it doesn’t come alive. I know that directors find serious and sensitive audiences for films where people sit around peeling potatoes in the peasant houses—but I can’t read that kind of novel either. Somebody has to be knocking at the door—I figure that is the way Shakespeare thought, so I can’t be in bad company!
—Orson Welles to Barbara Leaming, 1983
*****
Now, given those kind of hostile remarks, it’s no surprise that towards the end of his life, Bergman was not very complimentary about Welles’s work as a director. Here are Bergman’s comments about Welles when he spoke to a Swedish newspaper in 2002:
*****
INGMAR BERGMAN: For me (Orson Welles) is just a hoax. It’s empty. It’s not interesting. It’s dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of, is 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 has is absolutely unbelievable!
JAN AGHED: What about The Magnificent Ambersons?
INGMAR BERGMAN: Also terribly boring. And I’ve never liked Welles as an actor, because he’s not really an actor. In Hollywood you have two categories: you talk about actors and personalities. Welles was an enormous personality, but when he plays Othello, everything goes down the drain, you see, that’s when he croaks. In my eyes he’s an infinitely overrated filmmaker.
—Jan Aghed, När Bergman går på bio, from the Swedish daily newspaper, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, May 12, 2002.
***
I don’t condemn that very northern, very Protestant world of artists like Bergman; it’s just not where I live. The Sweden I like to visit is a lot of fun. But Bergman’s Sweden always reminds me of something Henry James said about Ibsen’s Norway—that it was full of “the odor of spiritual paraffin.” How I sympathize with that! I share neither Bergman’s interests nor his obsessions. He’s far more foreign to me than the Japanese.
—Orson Welles to Kenneth Tynan, 1967
*****
You could write all the ideas of all the movies, mine included, on the head of a pin. It’s not a form in which ideas are very fecund. It’s a form that may grip you or take you into a world or involve you emotionally—but ideas are not the subject of films. I have this terrible sense that film is dead, that it’s a piece of film in a machine that will be run off and shown to people. That is why, I think, my films are theatrical, and strongly stated, because I can’t believe that anybody won’t fall asleep unless they are. There’s an awful lot of Bergman and Antonioni that I’d rather be dead than sit through.
For myself, unless a film is hallucinatory, unless it becomes that kind of an experience, it doesn’t come alive. I know that directors find serious and sensitive audiences for films where people sit around peeling potatoes in the peasant houses—but I can’t read that kind of novel either. Somebody has to be knocking at the door—I figure that is the way Shakespeare thought, so I can’t be in bad company!
—Orson Welles to Barbara Leaming, 1983
*****
Now, given those kind of hostile remarks, it’s no surprise that towards the end of his life, Bergman was not very complimentary about Welles’s work as a director. Here are Bergman’s comments about Welles when he spoke to a Swedish newspaper in 2002:
*****
INGMAR BERGMAN: For me (Orson Welles) is just a hoax. It’s empty. It’s not interesting. It’s dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of, is 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 has is absolutely unbelievable!
JAN AGHED: What about The Magnificent Ambersons?
INGMAR BERGMAN: Also terribly boring. And I’ve never liked Welles as an actor, because he’s not really an actor. In Hollywood you have two categories: you talk about actors and personalities. Welles was an enormous personality, but when he plays Othello, everything goes down the drain, you see, that’s when he croaks. In my eyes he’s an infinitely overrated filmmaker.
—Jan Aghed, När Bergman går på bio, from the Swedish daily newspaper, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, May 12, 2002.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Inherit the wind - A 1962 Bad Review
Astounding that a MSM magazine like Time would attack Kramer's movie. But it did. From the Review:
Thanks to Producer-Director Stan ley Kramer, Inherit the Wind has now been made into a movie that retains almost nothing of the play but its flashy, trashy script.
Instead of the hard-paced, sharp-edged direction that Herman Shumlin brought to the play, there is in the film a sluggish, confused manipulation of ideas and players. Instead of Actor Muni there is Spencer Tracy, the Hollywooden archetype of the wise old man, who as the years and pictures go by acts less and less and looks more and more as though he had been carved out of Mount Rushmore. Instead of Ed Begley in the role of Bryan there is Fredric March, who has somehow been persuaded to portray that unbalanced genius of the spoken word as a low-comedy stooge who at the climax catches a face-full of agnostic pie.
Bryan, of course, is not called Bryan in the picture; all the principal characters are given false names. But their historical identities, emphasized by the makeup department and in the script, are never in doubt, and the flagrant distortion of their qualities and motives may therefore seem all the more reprehensible to moviegoers who hold these serious and important men in memory.
Mencken, for example, is portrayed by Gene Kelly as a lip-curling, hat-tilting city-room slicker who talks the sort of typewritten tarradiddle that does less than justice to the rich, organic vocabulary of the author of The American Language.
Thanks to Producer-Director Stan ley Kramer, Inherit the Wind has now been made into a movie that retains almost nothing of the play but its flashy, trashy script.
Instead of the hard-paced, sharp-edged direction that Herman Shumlin brought to the play, there is in the film a sluggish, confused manipulation of ideas and players. Instead of Actor Muni there is Spencer Tracy, the Hollywooden archetype of the wise old man, who as the years and pictures go by acts less and less and looks more and more as though he had been carved out of Mount Rushmore. Instead of Ed Begley in the role of Bryan there is Fredric March, who has somehow been persuaded to portray that unbalanced genius of the spoken word as a low-comedy stooge who at the climax catches a face-full of agnostic pie.
Bryan, of course, is not called Bryan in the picture; all the principal characters are given false names. But their historical identities, emphasized by the makeup department and in the script, are never in doubt, and the flagrant distortion of their qualities and motives may therefore seem all the more reprehensible to moviegoers who hold these serious and important men in memory.
Mencken, for example, is portrayed by Gene Kelly as a lip-curling, hat-tilting city-room slicker who talks the sort of typewritten tarradiddle that does less than justice to the rich, organic vocabulary of the author of The American Language.
Worse still is the distortion of what happened at the trial. The script wildly and unjustly caricatures the fundamentalists as vicious and narrow-minded hypocrites, just as wildly and unwisely idealizes their opponents, as personified in Darrow. Actually, the fundamentalist position, even when carried to the extreme that Bryan struck when he denied that man is a mammal, is scarcely more absurd and profitless than the shallow scientism that the picture offers as a substitute for religious faith and experience.
Bonnie and Clyde - Another Bad 1967 Review
Producer Beatty and Director Arthur Penn have elected to tell their tale of bullets and blood in a strange and purposeless mingling of fact and claptrap that teeters uneasily on the brink of burlesque. Like Bonnie and Clyde themselves, the film rides off'in all directions and ends up full of holes.
Beatty, playing the lead, does a capable job, within the limits of his familiar, insolent, couldn't-care-less manner, of making Barrow the amiable varmint he thought himself to be. Barrow fancied himself something of a latter day Robin Hood, robbing only banks that were foreclosing on poor farmers and eventually turning into a kind of folk hero. But Faye Dunaway's Sunday-social prettiness is at variance with any known information about Bonnie Parker. The other gang members struggle to little avail against a script that gives their characters no discernible shape.
The real fault with Bonnie and Clyde is its sheer, tasteless aimlessness. Director Penn has marshaled an impressive framework of documentation: a flotilla of old cars, a scene played in a movie theater while Gold Diggers of 1933 runs off on the screen, a string of dusty, fly-bitten Southwestern roadhouses and farms. (One booboo: the use of post-1934 dollar bills.) But repeated bursts of country-style music punctuating the bandits' grisly ventures, and a sentimental interlude with Bonnie's old Maw photographed through a hazy filter, aim at irony and miss by a mile. And this, if you please, was the U.S. entry in this year's Montreal Film Festival.
Beatty, playing the lead, does a capable job, within the limits of his familiar, insolent, couldn't-care-less manner, of making Barrow the amiable varmint he thought himself to be. Barrow fancied himself something of a latter day Robin Hood, robbing only banks that were foreclosing on poor farmers and eventually turning into a kind of folk hero. But Faye Dunaway's Sunday-social prettiness is at variance with any known information about Bonnie Parker. The other gang members struggle to little avail against a script that gives their characters no discernible shape.
The real fault with Bonnie and Clyde is its sheer, tasteless aimlessness. Director Penn has marshaled an impressive framework of documentation: a flotilla of old cars, a scene played in a movie theater while Gold Diggers of 1933 runs off on the screen, a string of dusty, fly-bitten Southwestern roadhouses and farms. (One booboo: the use of post-1934 dollar bills.) But repeated bursts of country-style music punctuating the bandits' grisly ventures, and a sentimental interlude with Bonnie's old Maw photographed through a hazy filter, aim at irony and miss by a mile. And this, if you please, was the U.S. entry in this year's Montreal Film Festival.
Bonnie and Clyde - A bad 1967 Review
From Crowther's famous 1967 review:
A raw and unmitigated campaign of sheer press-agentry has been trying to put across the notion that Warner Brothers' Bonnie and Clyde is a faithful representation of the desperado careers of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, a notorious team of bank robbers and killers who roamed Texas and Oklahoma in the post-Depression years.
It is nothing of the sort. It is a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy that treats the hideous depredations of that sleazy, moronic pair as though they were as full of fun and frolic as the jazz-age cutups in Thoroughly Modern Millie. And it puts forth Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway in the leading roles, and Michael J. Pollard as their sidekick, a simpering, nose-picking rube, as though they were striving mightily to be the Beverly Hillbillies of next year.
It has Mr. Beatty clowning broadly as the killer who fondles various types of guns with as much nonchalance and dispassion as he airily twirls a big cigar, and it has Miss Dunaway squirming grossly as his thrill-seeking, sex-starved moll. It is loaded with farcical holdups, screaming chases in stolen getaway cars that have the antique appearance and speeded-up movement of the clumsy vehicles of the Keystone Kops, and indications of the impotence of Barrow, until Bonnie writes a poem about him to extol his prowess, that are as ludicrous as they are crude.
Such ridiculous, camp-tinctured travesties of the kind of people these desperados were and of the way people lived in the dusty Southwest back in those barren years might be passed off as candidly commercial movie comedy, nothing more, if the film weren't reddened with blotches of violence of the most grisly sort.
This blending of farce with brutal killings is as pointless as it is lacking in taste, since it makes no valid commentary upon the already travestied truth. And it leaves an astonished critic wondering just what purpose Mr. Penn and Mr. Beatty think they serve with this strangely antique, sentimental claptrap, which opened yesterday at the Forum and the Murray Hill
A raw and unmitigated campaign of sheer press-agentry has been trying to put across the notion that Warner Brothers' Bonnie and Clyde is a faithful representation of the desperado careers of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, a notorious team of bank robbers and killers who roamed Texas and Oklahoma in the post-Depression years.
It is nothing of the sort. It is a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy that treats the hideous depredations of that sleazy, moronic pair as though they were as full of fun and frolic as the jazz-age cutups in Thoroughly Modern Millie. And it puts forth Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway in the leading roles, and Michael J. Pollard as their sidekick, a simpering, nose-picking rube, as though they were striving mightily to be the Beverly Hillbillies of next year.
It has Mr. Beatty clowning broadly as the killer who fondles various types of guns with as much nonchalance and dispassion as he airily twirls a big cigar, and it has Miss Dunaway squirming grossly as his thrill-seeking, sex-starved moll. It is loaded with farcical holdups, screaming chases in stolen getaway cars that have the antique appearance and speeded-up movement of the clumsy vehicles of the Keystone Kops, and indications of the impotence of Barrow, until Bonnie writes a poem about him to extol his prowess, that are as ludicrous as they are crude.
Such ridiculous, camp-tinctured travesties of the kind of people these desperados were and of the way people lived in the dusty Southwest back in those barren years might be passed off as candidly commercial movie comedy, nothing more, if the film weren't reddened with blotches of violence of the most grisly sort.
This blending of farce with brutal killings is as pointless as it is lacking in taste, since it makes no valid commentary upon the already travestied truth. And it leaves an astonished critic wondering just what purpose Mr. Penn and Mr. Beatty think they serve with this strangely antique, sentimental claptrap, which opened yesterday at the Forum and the Murray Hill
Kael-Simon-MacDonald - 1963 Critic Round table
Scroll down to the May 14, 2006 entry for an MP3 discussion of film circa 1963 with John Simon, Pauline Kael, and Dwight Macdonald.
Kael, in fact, became the template for film critics and most still approach film from her perspective. McDonald OTOH, faded from the scene rather quickly, but Simon continued to be significant players until the 1990s.
In discussion, Kael is out-classed by Macdonald and Simon. She was much better writing long winded essays outlining her likes and dislikes than engaging in the trust and parry of debate. Simon shines in this format, like his writing he's crisp and too the point. Often insulting, dismissive and funny. Macdonald seems to occupy a middle ground although he's more closer to Simon than Kael.
Kael tries to defend "Hud" as an "American" film, but of course she's really trying to defend "Hollywood" not America. She had many friends in Hollywood and like Ebert actually wokred in Hollywood in the late 60s early 70s.
Kael, in fact, became the template for film critics and most still approach film from her perspective. McDonald OTOH, faded from the scene rather quickly, but Simon continued to be significant players until the 1990s.
In discussion, Kael is out-classed by Macdonald and Simon. She was much better writing long winded essays outlining her likes and dislikes than engaging in the trust and parry of debate. Simon shines in this format, like his writing he's crisp and too the point. Often insulting, dismissive and funny. Macdonald seems to occupy a middle ground although he's more closer to Simon than Kael.
Kael tries to defend "Hud" as an "American" film, but of course she's really trying to defend "Hollywood" not America. She had many friends in Hollywood and like Ebert actually wokred in Hollywood in the late 60s early 70s.
Dana Andrews on Marilyn Monroe
You can get the greatest picture from Europe and just play it in the art houses to the intelligent people, and it'll flop and it doesn't make a star of anybody. But it is so much more gratifying to work in a good picture. It's very difficult to get such a picture made. They don't want to make a picture which doesn't appeal to the whole segment of the public. It's nearly impossible. Because actually motion pictures are strictly for money. It's a business. The men who make pictures, in my opinion, are only gamblers. They don't know very much about their business except the results of it and what it can do for them personally. They have no artistic sensibilities at all, because they're money men. They talk in terms of money, and if a little trollop off the streets comes and makes money for them, they are on her side and she's a great lady. I've seen it happen many times. Until she is that, she is just ... nobody.
On our 10th wedding anniversary, Mr. Wyler and a number of his friends were over, and his wife called and said, "We're having dinner with Johnny Hyde"--who was an agent with the William Morris agency--"and wonder if we can bring him along." I said, "Well, it's just a buffet thing, of course, bring him along." She said, "He has a girlfriend with him; could she come?" "Fine."
So this girl came. I must say she didn't look very attractive, and she didn't have anything to say, and nobody paid any attention to her. All of the other people were well known--directors, people like Preminger, people I worked with. It was not a large Hollywood-type party, a party where I didn't know anyone personally. They were all close friends. And everyone said about this girl, "Who the heck is she?" with a sort of derogatory expression on their faces. I said, "Oh, it's some friend of Johnny Hyde's." I went over and tried to engage her in conversation and didn't have much luck. She seemed shy. I thought, this is very peculiar, for her to be with Johnny Hyde, who's quite a man of the world.
f you'd been at that same party two years later, everybody would have been trying to talk to her. Her name was Marilyn Monroe.
This is the way Hollywood is. The girl was there; she was just the same as she is now, more or less, yet they weren't able to see it. Johnny Hyde saw it. He's the one who got her into pictures. "
Dana Andrews on James Dean
"These stars are built up this way. Because of the independent structure, they have to have a star. These stars are the ones already built up, and consequently they can't get rid of them. I'm sure that they would like to get people for less money, naturally, or people who could demand less. But the public does not know them, and the public is not going to get to know them, because they're not put in the pictures. The pictures they're put into aren't seen by the public. They just don't go anymore. So nobody is building stars anymore. Fox is trying. They used to tie in a large star with a secondary, somebody they were building up, who consequently would get seen. Nowadays they want both of them to be top money drawers. So you get older and older leading men
If younger ones get in, it's just happenstance. If it hadn't been for Mr. Kazan, Jimmy Dean would never have been in pictures. He saw him in New York and got him into pictures, but he was not built up by a studio. At the time of his death, he was at the top. He could have gone on till he was 50 years old, because he hit immediately. Studios as a rule can't do this anymore.
As to my present position, they have at United Artists a strict money tag on every star. They look in a book and say, "He's worth this much; he'll bring in so much money if he just plays the telephone directory." As my rating is now--of course, I'm not young--I'm a medium drawer. The top stars number not more than six or seven. I'm probably within the first dozen. That's looking at it as objectively as United Artists does. I can't think of more than a dozen within whose class I fall. I get a percentage, depending on how much I get in money. These independent deals really don't pay off; these days, box office being what it is now, a picture made for $500,000 (which used to be a small budget) has to gross well over a million dollars in order to pay off. At that time, you will get what you defer, which the government demands that you put down. You can't get half your salary. It's established by what you got in the past. I'll be frank to tell you, my price is $100,000 per picture."
If younger ones get in, it's just happenstance. If it hadn't been for Mr. Kazan, Jimmy Dean would never have been in pictures. He saw him in New York and got him into pictures, but he was not built up by a studio. At the time of his death, he was at the top. He could have gone on till he was 50 years old, because he hit immediately. Studios as a rule can't do this anymore.
As to my present position, they have at United Artists a strict money tag on every star. They look in a book and say, "He's worth this much; he'll bring in so much money if he just plays the telephone directory." As my rating is now--of course, I'm not young--I'm a medium drawer. The top stars number not more than six or seven. I'm probably within the first dozen. That's looking at it as objectively as United Artists does. I can't think of more than a dozen within whose class I fall. I get a percentage, depending on how much I get in money. These independent deals really don't pay off; these days, box office being what it is now, a picture made for $500,000 (which used to be a small budget) has to gross well over a million dollars in order to pay off. At that time, you will get what you defer, which the government demands that you put down. You can't get half your salary. It's established by what you got in the past. I'll be frank to tell you, my price is $100,000 per picture."
Dana Andrews on John Wayne
From a 1958 interview:
"As to John Wayne--I don't think anybody who observes acting as such would say that John Wayne is an actor. He's John Wayne, a big hulk of a man who has learned how to walk in a very masculine sort of way, with high boots. He can talk to some extent, but it's always the same. In Ghengis Khan, for instance, it was just ludicrous to see this cowboy speaking as Ghengis Khan. Ward Bond, a very good friend of his, said, "Just when I thought he'd had it, he became the biggest star in the business!"
This is directly attributable to the kind of character that Mr. John Ford is very able to get onto the screen, and he did that in the case of John Wayne in two or three pictures. These pictures made fabulous amounts of money, because of the type of pictures they were, because of the John Ford direction, and because of the characters that were written in there for Mr. Wayne. I think for three or four years running after that he was the top money drawer. Of course, he isn't now such a drawer, but I think he was for five or six years in a row top box office with Alan Ladd, who nobody would say is an actor. This Gun for Hire is the best thing he did, and he didn't say anything in it, much."
Welles to Heston - What is Universal up to?
Dearest Chuck:
I got a wire last night from Muhl stating that (Ernest) Nims (Universal's head of post-production), is working on the 'majority' of the changes requested in my memo, and asking me to turn up on Wednesday for dubbing. What interpretation are we to put on this?
A. They are afraid I won't come for dubbing unless they promise to make the changes.
B. A certain throbbing of war drums has reached their ears at last, and they intend to make a convincing show of cooperating with my suggestions in the hope of spiking my guns, in the event of any future battle.
C. Utter demoralization. Hundreds are being fired from the studio, and the rumors of Muhl's joining them continue to spread. In such an atmosphere of decay and despair, maybe the sheer force of energy—which they now see I am prepared to put into this fight—has awed them into momentary compliance.
D. Another possibility is that the very evident constructive spirit of my memo amounts to a strong weapon which they do not wish to have used against them…
E. The last possibility (and, I think, the least likely!) is that they have all been genuinely converted to the suggestions in the memo and are hastening to put the 'majority' into effect.
Obviously, at this point, our cue is to play it straight. They deserve no thanks for their expressed willingness to follow the main lines of the memo. If, in fact, they do so, it will not constitute a personal favor to me; nothing but the good of the picture has ever been at issue. I shall make my loops and wait and see. It’s up to them. The big question, of course, is just what the 'majority' will really turn out to be. In fact, there were no bargaining points in that memo of mine. It represented my notion of the minimum number of improvements necessary. It's my fear that their execution of these changes will leave something to be desired, since they may be acting without much enthusiasm, but most importantly, because they will be working in great haste.
Much love,
Orson
I got a wire last night from Muhl stating that (Ernest) Nims (Universal's head of post-production), is working on the 'majority' of the changes requested in my memo, and asking me to turn up on Wednesday for dubbing. What interpretation are we to put on this?
A. They are afraid I won't come for dubbing unless they promise to make the changes.
B. A certain throbbing of war drums has reached their ears at last, and they intend to make a convincing show of cooperating with my suggestions in the hope of spiking my guns, in the event of any future battle.
C. Utter demoralization. Hundreds are being fired from the studio, and the rumors of Muhl's joining them continue to spread. In such an atmosphere of decay and despair, maybe the sheer force of energy—which they now see I am prepared to put into this fight—has awed them into momentary compliance.
D. Another possibility is that the very evident constructive spirit of my memo amounts to a strong weapon which they do not wish to have used against them…
E. The last possibility (and, I think, the least likely!) is that they have all been genuinely converted to the suggestions in the memo and are hastening to put the 'majority' into effect.
Obviously, at this point, our cue is to play it straight. They deserve no thanks for their expressed willingness to follow the main lines of the memo. If, in fact, they do so, it will not constitute a personal favor to me; nothing but the good of the picture has ever been at issue. I shall make my loops and wait and see. It’s up to them. The big question, of course, is just what the 'majority' will really turn out to be. In fact, there were no bargaining points in that memo of mine. It represented my notion of the minimum number of improvements necessary. It's my fear that their execution of these changes will leave something to be desired, since they may be acting without much enthusiasm, but most importantly, because they will be working in great haste.
Much love,
Orson
Welles to Heston - Don't cooperate with the Suits
Dearest Chuck:
The way I hear it, you and Janet are growing more cooperative by the minute. The fact that the dialogue you are speaking is not absolute hogwash—the fact that your director is not, after all, a certifiable incompetent and above everything else, the fact that all this added work is involving a great quantity of close footage on both of you bums—I suppose makes this cheeriness inevitable.
This is to remind you that what is happening over there is still the ruination of our picture. The spoiling process may be a bit less obvious than we expected, but the essential fact remains, and I beg you not to permit the merry stimulation of work to interfere with that air of reticence you had sworn to maintain.
There's this character—(known an loved by all)—he might be called "Cooperative Chuck"… he is not merely well disciplined in his work, but positively eager—even wildly eager—to make things easy for his fellows on the set and for all the executives in their offices… In a word, he's the Eagle Scout of the Screen Actors Guild.
The purpose of the communiqué to beg him to leave his uniform and flag in the dressing room…
There's nothing I can do about meeting the excitations of the close-up lens, but I can implore you to curb your peace-making instincts and to maintain an aloof and non-committal silence. That goes for Janet, too, damn it.
In a word, keep your yap shut.
Much love,
Orson
The way I hear it, you and Janet are growing more cooperative by the minute. The fact that the dialogue you are speaking is not absolute hogwash—the fact that your director is not, after all, a certifiable incompetent and above everything else, the fact that all this added work is involving a great quantity of close footage on both of you bums—I suppose makes this cheeriness inevitable.
This is to remind you that what is happening over there is still the ruination of our picture. The spoiling process may be a bit less obvious than we expected, but the essential fact remains, and I beg you not to permit the merry stimulation of work to interfere with that air of reticence you had sworn to maintain.
There's this character—(known an loved by all)—he might be called "Cooperative Chuck"… he is not merely well disciplined in his work, but positively eager—even wildly eager—to make things easy for his fellows on the set and for all the executives in their offices… In a word, he's the Eagle Scout of the Screen Actors Guild.
The purpose of the communiqué to beg him to leave his uniform and flag in the dressing room…
There's nothing I can do about meeting the excitations of the close-up lens, but I can implore you to curb your peace-making instincts and to maintain an aloof and non-committal silence. That goes for Janet, too, damn it.
In a word, keep your yap shut.
Much love,
Orson
Welles to Heston - They are wrecking "Touch of Evil"
Dearest Chuck:
I want you to read this before we talk—there are some points that should be made as unemotionally as possible, and I'm afraid I don't quite trust myself to keep the exposition of them as cool and clear as I'd like.
Your telegram has arrived in which you speak of yourself as "legally bound" to the studio. But this is the advice—not of your own lawyer—but "the legal department of MCA."
Even if I were not available, don't you think it would be sweetly reasonable on your part to insist on a certain standard of professional capacity and reputation in the choice of an alternate director?
UNLESS THE STUDIO IS STOPPED THEY ARE GOING TO WRECK OUR PICTURE—AND I MEAN WRECK IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE KIND OF ONE-TWO-THREE, ABC VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCT THAT CAN BE SLIGHTLY WRECKED. WITHOUT MY HELP THE RESULT WILL BE VERY MUCH LESS SATISFACTORY THAN THE MOST ORDINARY PROGAM ITEM, THE RESULT WILL NOT SIMPLY BE SOMETHING LESS THAN YOU HOPED. THE RESULT WILL BE GENUINELY BAD.
You must realize that if you have a financial interest in the picture, I have a professional one. If I were now directing another picture—or about to direct one—and if I hadn't been away so long, I might be tempted to write off my own investment as a bad loss. But as things are with me in this industry I simply cannot afford to sustain such a blow.
I'm heartsick at the though of having to involve you. But you really cannot avoid some involvement—now or later.
If you are tempted to think of yourself as the helpless victim of sinister Hollywood forces, over which you have no control, I must tell you that you're wrong. You aren't helpless at all, and it's well within your own power to save much of a rather large investment of time, money and—yes—love.
You can do this by getting a little tough now.
Much love as always,
Orson
Wellsnet has a fascinating post about Heston's relationship with Orson Welles. Its based on Heston's diaries.
Interesting fact, Heston turned down Paths of Glory to do Touch of Evil.
___________
I want you to read this before we talk—there are some points that should be made as unemotionally as possible, and I'm afraid I don't quite trust myself to keep the exposition of them as cool and clear as I'd like.
Your telegram has arrived in which you speak of yourself as "legally bound" to the studio. But this is the advice—not of your own lawyer—but "the legal department of MCA."
Even if I were not available, don't you think it would be sweetly reasonable on your part to insist on a certain standard of professional capacity and reputation in the choice of an alternate director?
UNLESS THE STUDIO IS STOPPED THEY ARE GOING TO WRECK OUR PICTURE—AND I MEAN WRECK IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE KIND OF ONE-TWO-THREE, ABC VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCT THAT CAN BE SLIGHTLY WRECKED. WITHOUT MY HELP THE RESULT WILL BE VERY MUCH LESS SATISFACTORY THAN THE MOST ORDINARY PROGAM ITEM, THE RESULT WILL NOT SIMPLY BE SOMETHING LESS THAN YOU HOPED. THE RESULT WILL BE GENUINELY BAD.
You must realize that if you have a financial interest in the picture, I have a professional one. If I were now directing another picture—or about to direct one—and if I hadn't been away so long, I might be tempted to write off my own investment as a bad loss. But as things are with me in this industry I simply cannot afford to sustain such a blow.
I'm heartsick at the though of having to involve you. But you really cannot avoid some involvement—now or later.
If you are tempted to think of yourself as the helpless victim of sinister Hollywood forces, over which you have no control, I must tell you that you're wrong. You aren't helpless at all, and it's well within your own power to save much of a rather large investment of time, money and—yes—love.
You can do this by getting a little tough now.
Much love as always,
Orson
Wellsnet has a fascinating post about Heston's relationship with Orson Welles. Its based on Heston's diaries.
Interesting fact, Heston turned down Paths of Glory to do Touch of Evil.
___________
The Dishonesty of Spielberg's Lincoln
The more I think about it, the less I like the Movie "Lincoln". The movie makes three wrong assumptions/assertions and since Kushner knew they were I wrong, they deserve the label "dishonest".
First, the 13th Amendment was not necessary to destroy slavery. Slavery was already on its way out. The Emancipation proclamation, the ending of slavery by state action in Missouri and Maryland, and the arming of almost 200,000 black men shows that the Slavery Humpty Dumpty wasn't going to be put back together. Weirdly the movie has two Missouri white crackers tell Lincoln they're against "all this freedom nonsense" even though Missouri had already emancipated its slaves! The 13th Amendment wrapped it all up in a nice constitutional bow, but Slavery was on its death bed in January 1865. Even had the SCOTUS found the Emancipation proclamation unconstitutional, the Radical Republicans would've worked around it or reshaped the SCOTUS to suit themselves, just like they did on other issues.
Second, the movie exaggerates the opposition to ending slavery. The movie ignores that (i) all the opposition came from Democrats/Unionists and that 32 of the 72 Democrat representatives (almost 1/4 of the house) were lame ducks, having been defeated in the 1864 election. Further, they'd been elected in 1862 not to support slavery but because of Lincoln's mishandling of the war. In March 1863 40% of the House was Democrat/Unionist. in March 1865 it would drop to 21%. All 56 votes against the Amendment were Democrats/Unionists. Finally, I wonder how many people watching Lincoln think the 13th Amendment had failed to get a MAJORITY (as opposed to 2/3) in the July 1863 vote.
Third, there is absolutely no evidence the Confederates in 1865 would've made peace to "save" slavery. In fact, just the opposite. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were considering emancipation in order to keep the war going and save the Confederacy. A bill promising freedom to any slave who joined the Confederate army was passed in March 1865. And Secretary of State Benjamin had been lobbying Davis for years to free the slaves in return for foreign recognition.
First, the 13th Amendment was not necessary to destroy slavery. Slavery was already on its way out. The Emancipation proclamation, the ending of slavery by state action in Missouri and Maryland, and the arming of almost 200,000 black men shows that the Slavery Humpty Dumpty wasn't going to be put back together. Weirdly the movie has two Missouri white crackers tell Lincoln they're against "all this freedom nonsense" even though Missouri had already emancipated its slaves! The 13th Amendment wrapped it all up in a nice constitutional bow, but Slavery was on its death bed in January 1865. Even had the SCOTUS found the Emancipation proclamation unconstitutional, the Radical Republicans would've worked around it or reshaped the SCOTUS to suit themselves, just like they did on other issues.
Second, the movie exaggerates the opposition to ending slavery. The movie ignores that (i) all the opposition came from Democrats/Unionists and that 32 of the 72 Democrat representatives (almost 1/4 of the house) were lame ducks, having been defeated in the 1864 election. Further, they'd been elected in 1862 not to support slavery but because of Lincoln's mishandling of the war. In March 1863 40% of the House was Democrat/Unionist. in March 1865 it would drop to 21%. All 56 votes against the Amendment were Democrats/Unionists. Finally, I wonder how many people watching Lincoln think the 13th Amendment had failed to get a MAJORITY (as opposed to 2/3) in the July 1863 vote.
Third, there is absolutely no evidence the Confederates in 1865 would've made peace to "save" slavery. In fact, just the opposite. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were considering emancipation in order to keep the war going and save the Confederacy. A bill promising freedom to any slave who joined the Confederate army was passed in March 1865. And Secretary of State Benjamin had been lobbying Davis for years to free the slaves in return for foreign recognition.
Lincoln (2012)
Just saw it and was bored. Although I'm a Civil War buff "Lincoln" is not my kind of movie. Too much talk, talk, talk and parliamentary procedure. "We must pass the 13th Amendment , "No, Abe its too risky! What about the war?" "No, its the right thing, Slavery must End!". Blah, Blah.
However, the acting is excellent and Sally and DDL deserve Oscars. If you liked "Amistad" or long-winded (to me) Biopics like "Gandhi" you'll probably like "Lincoln". Otherwise not.
Political films, of course, can be done well and be entertaining, see for example: "The Best Man", "The Last Hurrah", or "Advice and Consent". But "Lincoln" isn't one of the them.
Also, I was puzzled why Lincoln - in the movie - is so obsessed with passing the 13th Amendment in January 1865. Historically, everyone knew that in early March 1865 the Republicans would've passed the Amendment in the House of Representatives, no matter what. And that ratification was a sure thing. By January 1865, Missouri and Maryland had freed their slaves, and Slavery was on its way out in Kentucky and the South. Even Jefferson Davis was proposing giving slaves their freedom if they'd don a Confederate Uniform.
But despite my boredom, my hat's off to Spielberg. At least he tried to do a quality movie about a Great historical topic instead of "ET-Part II" or "Private Ryan goes to Okinawa".
However, the acting is excellent and Sally and DDL deserve Oscars. If you liked "Amistad" or long-winded (to me) Biopics like "Gandhi" you'll probably like "Lincoln". Otherwise not.
Political films, of course, can be done well and be entertaining, see for example: "The Best Man", "The Last Hurrah", or "Advice and Consent". But "Lincoln" isn't one of the them.
Also, I was puzzled why Lincoln - in the movie - is so obsessed with passing the 13th Amendment in January 1865. Historically, everyone knew that in early March 1865 the Republicans would've passed the Amendment in the House of Representatives, no matter what. And that ratification was a sure thing. By January 1865, Missouri and Maryland had freed their slaves, and Slavery was on its way out in Kentucky and the South. Even Jefferson Davis was proposing giving slaves their freedom if they'd don a Confederate Uniform.
But despite my boredom, my hat's off to Spielberg. At least he tried to do a quality movie about a Great historical topic instead of "ET-Part II" or "Private Ryan goes to Okinawa".
The Ten Best Academy Award "Best Actors"
Of all the Oscars for "Best Actor" here are the top 10.
1) William Holden - Stalag 17 - It made Holden a superstar and propelled him out of mediocre films. Wilder only considered Holden after Kirk Douglas and a few others turned him down. His blend of toughness, charm, and intelligence is hard to beat. Most actors including Douglas couldn't have pulled it off. Holden's character really isn't that likable and its only Holden's charm that allows us to root for "the crud" in the early part of the movie.
2) Brando - On the Waterfront - His second best, after Streetcar, but this one won the Oscar. The role fit the young Brando like a glove.
3) George C. Scott - Patton - A great performance Scott is Patton, even Patton's daughter was impressed. Scott was at the bottom of the casting list. Supposedly, every star including John Wayne, Heston, Lancaster, Douglas, and even Lee Marvin turned it down before Scott was given the role.
4) Cagney - Yankee Doodle Dandy - Again, Cagney is George Cohan. He signs, dances, and even acts. Another movie where the best actor dominates from start to finish without a misstep.
5) Bogart - African Queen - He was better in Treasure of Sierra Madre, but funny, pathetic, charming, and brave as "Charlie". He even makes us believe he's in love with Spinster Hepburn.
6) Harrison - My Fair Lady - The movie itself is a too literal adaptation of the play but Harrison's performance will live forever as the definitive "Professor Higgins".
7) De Niro - Raging Bull - An incredible performance that makes a bleak, unineresting movie come alive.
8) Olivier - Hamlet - The definitive performance.
9) Nicholson - One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest - Jack makes us root for a selfish psychopath. Like RAGING BULL this is a one man show.
10) Scofield - A Man for All Seasons - No one could have done better as Sir Thomas More.
The Ten Best Academy Award "Best Actresses"
See Ed Copeland's. for his 10 best Oscar winning performances. Here are mine:
1) Vivian Leigh - Gone With the Wind - She dominates the film from start to finish. She is Scarlett O'Hara, and no one could have done a better job.
2) Audrey Hepburn - Roman Holiday - This is the movie that made the world fall in love with Audrey Hepburn. Not one wrong note, she is beguiling, charming, and always the Princess.
3) Vivian Leigh - Streetcar Named Desire "A harrowing study in human frailty and incipient madness, Leigh’s performance is, at times, almost unbearable to watch; the viewer can’t help but want to reach out and save Blanche — mostly from herself."
4) Grace Kelly - Country Girl - Grace Kelly was not only beautiful she could act. Sadly, some have never forgiven her for taking away "Judy's Oscar". Cast against type as Bing's dowdy, controlling, wife she makes it work.
5) Maggie Smith - The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie - She made a middle-aged, Mussolini loving Fascist, irresistible. Now that Acting.
6) Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice - Well, its Meryl Steep
7) Jule Andrews -Mary Poppins - Its impossible to imagine anyone else in the role.
8) Anna Magnani - The Rose tattoo - A force of nature. She takes a so-so character and brings her alive.
9) Liz Taylor - Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf - Another Beauty playing Dowdy but Liz actually not only undergoes a physical transformation, she's a hurricane. Quite different from the subdued beauty of What I Saw last Summer.
10) Susan Hayward - I Want to Live! My mothers favorite movie. It always left her "limp as a dishrag". Yes, Susan lacks a little subtlety but she drives the narrative forward and makes you root for this killer to escape the Gas Chamber.
Five Worst "Best Actress" Academy Awards
Again working off Ed Copeland marvelous post. And also excluding the "Lifetime achievement" Oscars. The Academy is terrible at giving this award. They constantly give it to the wrong person or to the right person for the wrong role. Page for example, was nominated 4 times but only won in 1984 when the Academy gave her a "Lifetime Achievement" Oscar. Louise Rainier won 2 Oscars while Vanessa Redgrave has never won a "Best Actress".1. Luise Rainier - THE GOOD EARTH (1938)- Amazingly this was her 2nd Oscar. The first Oscar came for a minor B+ performance in "THE GREAT ZIEGFELD". Her performance as the Chinese peasant O-Lan is unconvincing in every way. She says very little and rarely changes expression. I guess she was going for "Stoic" and succeeded. Up there with Mickey Rooney's Japanese photographer in "BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S" as the worst Caucasian actor playing an Asian.
2. Judy Holiday - BORN YESTERDAY (1950) - One of those crazy situations where the weakest nominee wins because everyone splits their votes. Holiday beat Davis and Baxter in "ALL ABOUT EVE" and Swanson's role of a lifetime in "SUNSET BLVD". To my eyes, Holiday simply repeats her dumb blond persona from "ADAMS RIB". Here she becomes tiresome as she says all her lines in nasal Brooklyn accent. I found the dialog annoying and unfunny. I've never been a Holiday fan although I liked her in small doses. Harry Cohn (who called her a "fat, Jewish Broad") cast her the movie over Monroe and Hagan.
3. Cher - MOONSTRUCK (1987) - What can I say - I mean Cher "Best Actress" - what were they thinking?
4. Elizabeth Taylor BUTTERFIELD 8 (1960)- Liz hated the movie and did it only because of her contract. Everyone agrees she didn't deserve to be nominated let alone win - but she was very ill so she got a sympathy Oscar. Self Styled Siren states:
"Even wronged wife Debbie Reynolds voted for her. To her immense credit, Taylor has always said she knew she didn't deserve the award. Unfortunately, she was right. Granted, Gloria Wandrous is a ludicrous projection of misogyny, possibly unplayable as written. Plus there's the problem of Taylor's leading man, of whom Jane Fonda said, 'Acting with Laurence Harvey is like acting by yourself. Only worse."
5. Kate Hepburn ON GOLDEN POND (1981) - Very old Kate Hepburn plays a very old women who bears an uncanny resemblance to a very old Kate Hepburn. Not much acting required. Like her other Oscar win "GUESS WHOSE COMING TO DINNER" Kate doesn't do much except support the old male star. They should have simply hired Martin Short and saved a lot of money.
Five worst "Best Actor" Academy Awards
I've excluded the Oscars given as substitute lifetime achievement awards. We all understand that John Wayne "True Grit", Henry Fonda "on Golden Pond", Paul Newman "The Color of Money", didn't win for their performances alone. Hollywood just wanted to reward them for the whole careers.
1. Paul Muni "THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR" Sally Box says it best:
"In one of our collections of New Yorker cartoons, a woman on a radio quiz show says,'I don’t know what he did, but Paul Muni played him in the movie."
Muni was the 30s idea of a "Great Actor." Between 1930 and 1938 he was nominated 5 times and won for "Life of Louis Pasteur." Not a bad actor, but looking back its hard to see what all the fuss was about. Muni always seems to be "acting" - either too pious/noble when playing great men or hamming it up when playing less heroic roles. I wont even mention his horrible Chinese/Russian/Mexican impersonations.
2. Paul Lucas "WATCH ON THE RHINE" - Josh R says:
"An earnest, monochromatic performance neither good nor bad enough to qualify as memorable - this win only really begins to piss you off when you recall that the competition included Bogart in Casablanca (Oscar wasn't quite ready for the anti-hero yet). It's difficult to make impassioned sermons on the tyranny of fascism work without something in the way of dramatic fire - Lukas drones on like a high school history teacher reading from a textbook. We're supposed to believe that this dude is dynamic and inspiring enough to single-handedly liberate Europe - something that would only make sense if he were planning to pull it off by boring the Nazis to sleep."
3. Jose Ferrer - "Cyrano de Bergerac" - Hollywood considered him a great actor for a couple years in the early 1950s and then his career went into free fall. Ferrer isn't bad in the role but he's really one-note johnny. Ferrer is fine at making speeches or sword-fighting but his romancing of Roxanne is embarrassing. Despite the script, Ferrer is as romantic as E.G. Marshall in a business suit.
Ferrer was a very limited actor. Highly intelligent, physically unimpressive, and blessed with a rich baritone voice. But his great voice could only play a few notes. An accurate opinion: "Like Burgess Meredith or Hume Cronyn, Ferrer is one of those actory actors who never spoke a believable word in his life."
4. AL PACINO (SCENT OF A WOMAN) - Everyone's favorite bad Pacino performance. This started Al's decent into self-parody. Per Isaac Bickerstaff:
He's blind and he yells.
Look! He dances the tango!
I wish I were deaf."
5. Richard Dreyfuss (THE GOODBYE GIRL) A truly amazing choice. Richard Dreyfuss plays Richard Dreyfuss in a mediocre movie based on mediocre Simon play. Dreyfuss was a character actor thrust into Stardom for some reason in the 1970s. Appealing but limited. Belushi's 2 minute SNL takeoff is more memorable than the whole movie:
John Belushi: Okay, okay, you know. I know you don't do TV. You know, I just thought you lost your place on the cue cards, that's all.
Richard Dreyfuss: I don't use cue cards, John, and when I'm doing Shakespeare, actors who do Shakespeare do not use cue cards, you know?
John Belushi: [sarcastically] Ooooo, Shakespeare! Well, What do I know, huh? I'm just a sleazy, late night TV actor, is that it?
Richard Dreyfuss: No, no, I didn't mean that--
John Belushi: No, no, what do I know about Shakespeare, huh? Mr. Oscar, Mr. Best Actor. Now, Richard Burton, now there's an actor. When he did Hamlet, when he did Hamlet he was great. He didn't have to use any pauses. But it takes one drink, and Hollywood
blackballs him! Huh, Mr. New Hollywood Establishment? You know? At least when George C. Scott won the Oscar, he didn't accept it! You know? Marlon Brando
sent up an Indian! Now, you could've sent up an Indian, but nooooo! You run up there, you "whoo-hoo-hoo, I could stay up here all night." Maybe I'm just a struggling TV actor, right? Maybe I didn't win the Oscar, you know? Maybe I have to work every week just to keep my family in clothes and drugs, you know? Maybe I don't know that much about Shakespeare, you know, or about pausing or England. But I know one thing, [takes the Oscar from Richard] you didn't deserve this Oscar. [John punches Richard in the stomach and walks offstage. Audience applauds. Stage lights dim again as Richard tries to restart his performance]
Richard Dreyfuss: To be, or... [pouting] I don't wanna do this anymore. [Takes off Hamlet wig] We'll be right back. [Walks out of the spotlight as audience applauds]
10 Worst Academy Award "Best Pictures" 1930-1990
There were a lot of candidates. Until I sat down to write, I didn't realize how many bad/mediocre movies have received Best Pictures. The only problem was narrowing the list to 10. So, to cut down the candidates, I excluded pre-1934 and post-1990 movies. First, the pre-1934 movies were products of their time and can't be judged by today's standards. Secondly, post 1990 for the most part suck. Including them would mean all ten slots would be filled by the likes of Crash, Shakespeare In Love, American Beauty, etc.
1. Driving Miss Daisy (1989) She's a rich Jewish lady of the South, high-toned, spoiled, stubborn to a fault, He's a black illiterate chauffeur, wise, patient and in need of a job. And me, I was bored silly.
2. Around the World in 80 Days (1956) This endless, bloated, tedious travelogue was sheer torture. Maybe its better on the big screen but I doubt it.
3. Gentleman's Agreement (1947) Gregory Peck takes on anti-semitism in this 1947 snooze fest. Another sermon from Hollywood in movie form. Its very serious and responsible, they just forgot the "entertainment" part. Peck pretends to be Jewish in the film - and does about well as you'd expect. Later, Peck played a Nazi in "THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL". What range! Is there any role Peck couldn't play?
4. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)- The only thing I dislike more than the Circus, is movies about the Circus.
5. You Can't Take it with You (1938) Painfully long and unfunny Capra comedy. With Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur. Love all three - but not in this movie.I came to laugh but fell asleep instead. Full of Capra corn, hokey, and slow. I'd write more but I couldn't finish it.
6. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) A TV Movie of the week.
7. Midnight Cowboy (1969) Imagine "Dumb and Dumber" as an X-rated drama and you have "Midnight Cowboy". Voight and Hoffman are wasted in this unbelievable story about two men in 1969 NYC. One's a naive male prostitute the other his sickly friend. Both struggle to survive on the streets of New York City. Both are incredibly stupid.
8. All the King's Men (1949) From Robert Penn Warren's pretentious, boring novel about a fictional Huey Long comes this pretentious, boring movie about a fictional Huey Long. Like George Wallace, Long was someone everyone in elite America disliked. So of course Hollywood had to make a "brave" - but low budget - movie attacking him. Lots of hokum about "power corrupts." The plot is predictable, Crawford is arrogant and full of bluster. and everyone else is boring or charmless. BTW, the real Huey Long could charm the birds off the trees and had some good ideas as well as some bad ones.
9. Life of Emile Zola (1937)- Another boring, 1930s prestige pictures put out by WB and rewarded with an Oscar. Frankly, I didn't know much about Zola before watching this and now - I've decided to stop while I'm ahead. Dreyfus, Zola, it all seems as unimportant and Boring as the 1858 Tariff debate. Muni fills the screen with his usual brand of owlish importance and wears a beard.
10. Terms of Endearment (1983) Manipulative, shallow, chick flick. Like Kramer v Kramer, it reminded me of a Lifetime TV movie of the week. Jack and Shirley overact shamelessly. Maybe, I wasn't the target audience for this film.
Honorable Mention: Rocky, Rain Man, Silence of the Lambs, Dances with Wolves, Tom Jones, Mrs. Miniver, West Side Story.
1. Driving Miss Daisy (1989) She's a rich Jewish lady of the South, high-toned, spoiled, stubborn to a fault, He's a black illiterate chauffeur, wise, patient and in need of a job. And me, I was bored silly.
2. Around the World in 80 Days (1956) This endless, bloated, tedious travelogue was sheer torture. Maybe its better on the big screen but I doubt it.
3. Gentleman's Agreement (1947) Gregory Peck takes on anti-semitism in this 1947 snooze fest. Another sermon from Hollywood in movie form. Its very serious and responsible, they just forgot the "entertainment" part. Peck pretends to be Jewish in the film - and does about well as you'd expect. Later, Peck played a Nazi in "THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL". What range! Is there any role Peck couldn't play?
4. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)- The only thing I dislike more than the Circus, is movies about the Circus.
5. You Can't Take it with You (1938) Painfully long and unfunny Capra comedy. With Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur. Love all three - but not in this movie.I came to laugh but fell asleep instead. Full of Capra corn, hokey, and slow. I'd write more but I couldn't finish it.
6. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) A TV Movie of the week.
7. Midnight Cowboy (1969) Imagine "Dumb and Dumber" as an X-rated drama and you have "Midnight Cowboy". Voight and Hoffman are wasted in this unbelievable story about two men in 1969 NYC. One's a naive male prostitute the other his sickly friend. Both struggle to survive on the streets of New York City. Both are incredibly stupid.
8. All the King's Men (1949) From Robert Penn Warren's pretentious, boring novel about a fictional Huey Long comes this pretentious, boring movie about a fictional Huey Long. Like George Wallace, Long was someone everyone in elite America disliked. So of course Hollywood had to make a "brave" - but low budget - movie attacking him. Lots of hokum about "power corrupts." The plot is predictable, Crawford is arrogant and full of bluster. and everyone else is boring or charmless. BTW, the real Huey Long could charm the birds off the trees and had some good ideas as well as some bad ones.
9. Life of Emile Zola (1937)- Another boring, 1930s prestige pictures put out by WB and rewarded with an Oscar. Frankly, I didn't know much about Zola before watching this and now - I've decided to stop while I'm ahead. Dreyfus, Zola, it all seems as unimportant and Boring as the 1858 Tariff debate. Muni fills the screen with his usual brand of owlish importance and wears a beard.
10. Terms of Endearment (1983) Manipulative, shallow, chick flick. Like Kramer v Kramer, it reminded me of a Lifetime TV movie of the week. Jack and Shirley overact shamelessly. Maybe, I wasn't the target audience for this film.
Honorable Mention: Rocky, Rain Man, Silence of the Lambs, Dances with Wolves, Tom Jones, Mrs. Miniver, West Side Story.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Best Westerns of All Time
What I consider a Western: Set in North America, usually West of the Mississippi between 1750-1920 & deals with: the exploration and settlement of the frontier, US Calvary, Indians, Indian wars, settlement, Gunfighters, outlaws, cowboys, other Western historical figures, and/or based on novels that are considered "westerns".
By Decade
1930s - 03
1940s - 17
1950s - 28
1960s - 21
1970s - 07
Total 76
The 1930s and Before
The 1940s
The 1950s
1970s and Beyond
By Decade
1930s - 03
1940s - 17
1950s - 28
1960s - 21
1970s - 07
Total 76
The 1930s and Before
- Stagecoach (1939)
- Drums Along the Mohawk (1939)
- Destry Rides Again (1939)
The 1940s
- Northwest Passage (1940)
- Virginia City (1940)
- The Mark of Zorro (1940)
- The Westerner (1940)
- They Died with Their Boots on (1941)
- Ox-bow Incident (1943)
- My darling Clementine (1946)
- Angel and the Badman (1947)
- The Unconquered (1947)
- Pursued (1947)
- Fort Apache (1948)
- Red River (1948)
- Three Godfathers (1948)
- Yellow Sky (1948)
- Treasure of Sierra Madre (1948)
- Paleface (1948)
- She wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)
The 1950s
- Rio Grande (1950)
- Wagon Master (1950)
- Winchester '73 (1950)
- Rocky Mountain (1950)
- Bend in the River (1952)
- Son of Paleface (1952)
- The Lusty Men (1952)
- High Noon (1952)
- Naked Spur (1953)
- Hondo (1953)
- Shane (1953)
- Escape from Fort Bravo (1953)
- The Far Country (1954)
- River of No Return (1954)
- Vera Cruz (1954)
- Man from Laramie (1955)
- Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier, (1955)
- 3:10 to Yuma (1957)
- Jubal (1957)
- Seven Men From Now (1957)
- Night Passage (1957)
- The Searchers (1957)
- The Tall T (1958)
- Cowboy (1958)
- Ride Lonesome (1959)
- Rio Bravo (1959)
- No Name on the Bullet (1959)
- The Big Country (1959)
- One Eyed Jacks (1960)
- The Alamo (1960)
- Comanche Station (1960)
- North to Alaska (1960)
- The Magnificent Seven (1960)
- How the West was Won (1962)
- The Man who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)
- Ride the High Country (1962)
- For a few Dollars More (1965)
- Major Dundee (1965)
- Nevada Smith (1966)
- The Professionals (1966)
- Firecreek (1966)
- The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)
- El Dorado (1967)
- Bandelero (1968)
- Will Penny (1968)
- Support Your Local Sheriff (1969)
- True Grit (1969)
- The Wild Bunch (1969)
- Once Upon a Time in the West (1969)
1970s and Beyond
- The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970)
- There Was a Crooked Man (1970)
- Two Mules for Sister Sarah (1970)
- Cheyenne Social Club (1970)
- The Grey Fox (1982)
- Lonesome Dove (1989)
- Unforgiven (1992)
The Top 50 Musicals of All Time
- 42nd Street
- Top Hat (1935)
- Swing Time (1936)
- Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
- Wizard of Oz - (1939)
- Fantasia (1940)
- Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)
- Cabin in the Sky (1942)
- Holiday Inn (1942)
- Meet me in St Louis (1944)
- Easter Parade (1948)
- On the Town (1949)
- Take me Out to the Ballgame (1949)
- Showboat (1951)
- An American in Paris (1951)
- Singing in the Rain - (1952)
- Bandwagon (1953)
- Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)
- Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)
- White Christmas (1954)
- A Star is Born (1954)
- Pete Kelly's Blues (1955)
- Carousel (1956)
- The King and I (1956)
- Funny Face (1957)
- Love Me or Leave Me (1957)
- Damn Yankees (1958)
- Gigi (1958)
- Music Man (1962)
- My Fair Lady (1964)
- The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964)
- Robin and the Seven Hoods (1964)
- Hard Days Night (1964)
- Sound of Music (1965)
- The Jungle Book (1967)
- How to Succeed in Business (1967)
- Oliver (1968)
- That's Entertainment (1974)
- That's Entertainment II (1976)
- All that Jazz (1979)
- Carmen (1983)
- Pirates of Penzance (1983)
- Muppets Take Manhattan (1984)
Fargo (1997)
Plot: A dim-witted Minnesota Car Dealer decides to stage a fake kidnap of his wife in order to extort money from his rich father-in-law.
One of the Coen's Brothers more humane films. Unlike Most CB films the people seem to be more or less realistic and the black comedy comes naturally from the situation. Acting honors go to Steve Buscemi, who is fantastic as the "funny Looking" criminal. Macy and McDormand also do well, although too often both engage in "mugging it up" for the comic effect.
The only sour scene involves an Asian American (Steve Park) who is mocked for liking Sheriff Marge. Its unclear why this scene is even in the movie, but its needless and offensive. Note: Fargo is in North Dakota. Whether this an inside Joke by the CB's, or tip off that the characters are really North Dakotan is unclear.
Favorite Lines:
-Oh, he was a little guy... Kinda funny lookin'.
-Uh-huh. In what way?
-Oh, just in a general kinda way.
One of the Coen's Brothers more humane films. Unlike Most CB films the people seem to be more or less realistic and the black comedy comes naturally from the situation. Acting honors go to Steve Buscemi, who is fantastic as the "funny Looking" criminal. Macy and McDormand also do well, although too often both engage in "mugging it up" for the comic effect.
The only sour scene involves an Asian American (Steve Park) who is mocked for liking Sheriff Marge. Its unclear why this scene is even in the movie, but its needless and offensive. Note: Fargo is in North Dakota. Whether this an inside Joke by the CB's, or tip off that the characters are really North Dakotan is unclear.
Favorite Lines:
-Oh, he was a little guy... Kinda funny lookin'.
-Uh-huh. In what way?
-Oh, just in a general kinda way.
John Simon on Roger Ebert
From "Uncensored John Simon": Three score and ten is the life expectancy the bible allots us, and that is the age at which the film critic Roger Ebert died on April 4. He was, as the lengthy obituaries declared, the most famous movie critic of our era, and, in an epoch in which fame is measured in television time, so he was. In this, no one could compete with him.
“A Critic for the Common Man,” read the headline of the New York Times obit by Douglas Martin on April 5. On April 6, came an appraisal of him by A. O. Scott, one of the Times film critics, who, a fellow Chicagoan, grew into film criticism under Ebert’s initial skepticism and eventual patronage. That article was headlined “Critic Whose Sting Was Salved by His Caring.”
Most interesting to me was his own estimate of his TV show that went by various titles and was always shared with one other critic. It was not, he told Playboy, “a high-level, in-depth criticism,” but it demonstrated to younger viewers that one can bring standards of judgment to movies, that “it’s O.K. to have an opinion.” His own opinions could be gleaned also from his Sun-Times column, as well as his blog, Facebook and Twitter, where he had more than 800,000 followers.
Now, I wonder: unless those younger viewers were the age group from 8 to 12, why should they need to be told to have opinions about movies? And what is the value of opinions that need this kind of coaxing? Even more questionable is the whole thumbs up, thumbs down critique Ebert practiced, inherited from the Roman emperors who thus granted clemency or death at the gladiatorial contests. In Ebert’s case, the thumb was mightier than the word: wouldn’t such a shortcut take precedence over whatever verbiage followed it?
Never mind, though. I do not wish to minimize the importance of Ebert, who, I gather, wrote 15 books, some extending beyond film criticism to rice cookery and rambles through London. My unawareness of them, and never hearing a reference to them from anyone in my circle, are no proof of unimportance, merely a reason to give us pause.
I had very little contact with Ebert, though our paths occasionally crossed at screenings or film festivals.
What it all comes down to is this. I have doubts about someone who wrote screenplays for the soft-core pornographer Russ Meyer, and apparently “never tired of talking about it.” But my main problem is the notion of the critic as a common man, no different from the masses of moviegoers except for writing out his opinions and opining on television. I firmly believe that the film critic should have a special expertise, like any kind of art critic. Like a physician, he should know more about medicine than a layman who picks an over-the-counter drug for a cold; like an architect, he should know more about architecture than a mere gaper at buildings.
The opinions of common men about film may be of genuine interest, but are of no major importance. To be sure, a failure in medicine is made manifest by the patient’s demise; a failure in architecture, by a collapsed building or a permanent eyesore. For failure in criticism, there is no such manifest evidence. Only time has the last word, but the good critic foreshadows it.
Granted, Ebert knew more about films quantitatively than the average moviegoer, but qualitatively—when it comes to taste and intellect—I very much doubt it. I feel truly sorry for Ebert’s sufferings from cancer: his loss of a jaw and the inability to eat, drink or talk. I do admire his staunch defiance of these depredations. But I must disagree about his alleged esteem, which, however widespread, does not seem to come from artists, scholars or intellectuals. I must also take issue with A. O. Scott’s contention that “wielding the thumb of judgment takes more dexterity, more art, than you might think.” Except from the palsied or mentally defective, it takes no dexterity whatsoever, let alone art.
And what about a “sting salved by caring”? No one who writes steadily about film (or any other discipline) does so without caring. Furthermore, a critical sting is not like a slight flesh wound, treatable with ointment. If intentionally negative, it has to sting. This is the only way it is noticeable, the only way it could make a difference. That is to say if any criticism makes a difference.
“A Critic for the Common Man,” read the headline of the New York Times obit by Douglas Martin on April 5. On April 6, came an appraisal of him by A. O. Scott, one of the Times film critics, who, a fellow Chicagoan, grew into film criticism under Ebert’s initial skepticism and eventual patronage. That article was headlined “Critic Whose Sting Was Salved by His Caring.”
Most interesting to me was his own estimate of his TV show that went by various titles and was always shared with one other critic. It was not, he told Playboy, “a high-level, in-depth criticism,” but it demonstrated to younger viewers that one can bring standards of judgment to movies, that “it’s O.K. to have an opinion.” His own opinions could be gleaned also from his Sun-Times column, as well as his blog, Facebook and Twitter, where he had more than 800,000 followers.
Now, I wonder: unless those younger viewers were the age group from 8 to 12, why should they need to be told to have opinions about movies? And what is the value of opinions that need this kind of coaxing? Even more questionable is the whole thumbs up, thumbs down critique Ebert practiced, inherited from the Roman emperors who thus granted clemency or death at the gladiatorial contests. In Ebert’s case, the thumb was mightier than the word: wouldn’t such a shortcut take precedence over whatever verbiage followed it?
Never mind, though. I do not wish to minimize the importance of Ebert, who, I gather, wrote 15 books, some extending beyond film criticism to rice cookery and rambles through London. My unawareness of them, and never hearing a reference to them from anyone in my circle, are no proof of unimportance, merely a reason to give us pause.
I had very little contact with Ebert, though our paths occasionally crossed at screenings or film festivals.
What it all comes down to is this. I have doubts about someone who wrote screenplays for the soft-core pornographer Russ Meyer, and apparently “never tired of talking about it.” But my main problem is the notion of the critic as a common man, no different from the masses of moviegoers except for writing out his opinions and opining on television. I firmly believe that the film critic should have a special expertise, like any kind of art critic. Like a physician, he should know more about medicine than a layman who picks an over-the-counter drug for a cold; like an architect, he should know more about architecture than a mere gaper at buildings.
The opinions of common men about film may be of genuine interest, but are of no major importance. To be sure, a failure in medicine is made manifest by the patient’s demise; a failure in architecture, by a collapsed building or a permanent eyesore. For failure in criticism, there is no such manifest evidence. Only time has the last word, but the good critic foreshadows it.
Granted, Ebert knew more about films quantitatively than the average moviegoer, but qualitatively—when it comes to taste and intellect—I very much doubt it. I feel truly sorry for Ebert’s sufferings from cancer: his loss of a jaw and the inability to eat, drink or talk. I do admire his staunch defiance of these depredations. But I must disagree about his alleged esteem, which, however widespread, does not seem to come from artists, scholars or intellectuals. I must also take issue with A. O. Scott’s contention that “wielding the thumb of judgment takes more dexterity, more art, than you might think.” Except from the palsied or mentally defective, it takes no dexterity whatsoever, let alone art.
And what about a “sting salved by caring”? No one who writes steadily about film (or any other discipline) does so without caring. Furthermore, a critical sting is not like a slight flesh wound, treatable with ointment. If intentionally negative, it has to sting. This is the only way it is noticeable, the only way it could make a difference. That is to say if any criticism makes a difference.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Rambo II (1985)
Rambo II is an action thriller with a heart, if little brain. Clocking in at a quick 97 minutes, we follow Sylvester Stallone, as he goes on a deep, dark, mission to save left Vietnam POWs. While the situation is pure fantasy, its hard not to admire the well-done action scenes and heart-felt one-liners.
A box office smash, Rambo II, took in over $300 million.
A box office smash, Rambo II, took in over $300 million.
Acting honors, such as they are, go to Charles L. Napier, for his slimey, CYA, backstabbing, bureaucrat, "Murdock". His reaction to Rambo's Line "Murdock, I'm coming to get YOU" is almost worthy of an Oscar. Also, good are Steven Berkoff, an the sinister KGB Colonel, and Richard Crenna as upright former Commander, Col. Trautman (Incredibly, Kirk Douglas had been cast in the role, but disliked the ending, and backed out at the last moment!).
Further adding to the fun are Goldsmith's upbeat score and some great lines by James Cameron, including:
Further adding to the fun are Goldsmith's upbeat score and some great lines by James Cameron, including:
Trautman: Then what is it you want?
Rambo: I want, what they want, and every other guy who came over here and spilled his guts and gave everything he had, wants! For our country to love us as much as we love it! That's what I want!
Trautman: How will you live, John?
Rambo: Day by day.
Murdock: And if I were you... I'd never make the mistake of bringing this subject up again.
Trautman: Oh you're the one who's making the mistake.
Murdock: Yeah? What mistake?
Trautman: Rambo.
Lt. Col. Podovsky: [while torturing Rambo]: You may scream. There is no shame.
Rambo: I want, what they want, and every other guy who came over here and spilled his guts and gave everything he had, wants! For our country to love us as much as we love it! That's what I want!
Trautman: How will you live, John?
Rambo: Day by day.
Murdock: And if I were you... I'd never make the mistake of bringing this subject up again.
Trautman: Oh you're the one who's making the mistake.
Murdock: Yeah? What mistake?
Trautman: Rambo.
Lt. Col. Podovsky: [while torturing Rambo]: You may scream. There is no shame.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Blade Runner (1982)
Stars: Harrison Ford, Ruger Hauer, William Sanderson, Sean Young
Best Quote: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.
After reading Phillip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", I decided to revisit the movie adaptation, which I fondly remembered from 1982. Man, what a disappointment.
The film LOOKS great, has good action sequences, and fine acting by Sanderson and Hauer - but otherwise its mediocre. The movie junks the Novel's back stories, along with its fascinating, futuristic world and meditations on humanity.
Instead we get a stripped-down SF action/film noir. Its a feast for the eyes - but overall the story & characters are too simplistic. You can argue that's what movie's have to do - but Scott went too far in dumbing-down the novel.
As for Harrison Ford he's extremely muted, and lack the charisma of a true Star. The old-time leading men would've blown him off the screen. Sean Young plays a emotionless replicant, without much emotion.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Wizard of Oz
Extremely touching old movie that I remember from my childhood. Seeing it again, I was extremely impressed with the songs and script which moves along with a single dull moment. The casting couldn't be bettered but its seems to have come about more by accident then design. Favorite Line:
"Oh, no, my dear; I'm really a very good man, but I'm a very bad Wizard,
"Oh, no, my dear; I'm really a very good man, but I'm a very bad Wizard,
Saturday, March 23, 2013
And then there were none (1945)
Plot: Ten people are invited for a weekend on an island by a Mr U. N. Own, but he isn't on the island. At dinner a record is played, by that all the people are accused of murder, suddenly the first of them is dead, then the next...
Stars: Barry Fitzgerald and Walter Houston.
The important thing in a fun-murder mystery of this kind is that the characters are likable, but shallow and silly enough that you don't feel sorrow if they get bumped off. Barry Fitzgerald, Judith Anderson and Louis Hayward stand out as particularly delightful and aloof from the carnage around them, but everybody contributes nicely in the ensemble. The cast is comprised of actors who normally are supporting performers, and it works for this film because if there was a well known star, that person would be less suspect due to the audiences expectation that person will have more screen time. The film neglects dramatic considerations of the book and plays the story more for laughs.
Based on the Following Rhyme:
Ten little Indian boys went out to dine;
One choked his little self and then there were nine.
Nine little Indian boys sat up very late;
One overslept himself and then there were eight.
Eight little Indian boys travelling in Devon;
One said he'd stay there and then there were seven.
Seven little Indian boys chopping up sticks;
One chopped himself in half and then there were six.
Six little Indian boys playing with a hive;
A bumblebee stung one and then there were five.
Five little Indian boys going in for law;
One got in Chancery and then there were four.
Four little Indian boys going out to sea;
A red herring swallowed one and then there were three.
Three little Indian boys walking in the zoo;
A big bear hugged one and then there were two.
Two Little Indian boys playing in the sun;
One got all frizzled up and then there was one.
One little Indian boy left all alone;
He went out and hanged himself and then there were none.
Stars: Barry Fitzgerald and Walter Houston.
The important thing in a fun-murder mystery of this kind is that the characters are likable, but shallow and silly enough that you don't feel sorrow if they get bumped off. Barry Fitzgerald, Judith Anderson and Louis Hayward stand out as particularly delightful and aloof from the carnage around them, but everybody contributes nicely in the ensemble. The cast is comprised of actors who normally are supporting performers, and it works for this film because if there was a well known star, that person would be less suspect due to the audiences expectation that person will have more screen time. The film neglects dramatic considerations of the book and plays the story more for laughs.
Based on the Following Rhyme:
Ten little Indian boys went out to dine;
One choked his little self and then there were nine.
Nine little Indian boys sat up very late;
One overslept himself and then there were eight.
Eight little Indian boys travelling in Devon;
One said he'd stay there and then there were seven.
Seven little Indian boys chopping up sticks;
One chopped himself in half and then there were six.
Six little Indian boys playing with a hive;
A bumblebee stung one and then there were five.
Five little Indian boys going in for law;
One got in Chancery and then there were four.
Four little Indian boys going out to sea;
A red herring swallowed one and then there were three.
Three little Indian boys walking in the zoo;
A big bear hugged one and then there were two.
Two Little Indian boys playing in the sun;
One got all frizzled up and then there was one.
One little Indian boy left all alone;
He went out and hanged himself and then there were none.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Murder on the Orient express (1974)
Director - Stan Lumet
Stars: Ingrid Bergman, Bacall, Widmark, Tony Perkins, Martin Balsom, Connery, Vanessa Redgrave, Albert Finney. Wendy Hiller, Gielgud
Story: When a passenger is murdered, Belgium Detective Poirot must find the Killer using only his wits. Based on the 1934 Agatha Christie Novel.
Even with low expectations this was a disappointment. The movie took too long to get started (the first murder occurs 25 minutes in) and seems a lethargic 2 hours and 8 minutes. The acting was uneven, Bacall was a mediocre, lifeless Mrs. Hubbard (Hepburn, Davis, or Page would've done wonders with the role), Balsam sports an absurd French accent (Balsam was always unbelievable as a non-American, cf: Hombre), and Perkins was very bland. As usual, the ensemble's British and foreign actors outclass the hapless Americans, the only exception being Widmark. Since there's no real suspense or sense of danger the dialogue and direction needed more zest. Bergman is good, but her Oscar win is inexplicable. The endless shots of the train were very dull.
Summary: A flabby, mediocre adaptation of a very enjoyable whodunit. I say with sadness, read the book instead. **1/2
Sunday, March 10, 2013
The Furies (1950)
211. The Furies (1950)
Mann directs Stanwyck and Walter Houston in the story of a egoistical Rancher struggling with his fiery, headstrong daughter. They battle throughout over the Dowry, the ranch (The Furies) and Judith Anderson. The B&W cine-photography is excellent, and Mann shows his usual flair in the action scenes. Walter Houston never gave a bad performance and Stanwyck always shines in these kind of roles. But as for the story itself - too much of a melodrama. And the supporting cast except for Judith Anderson is barely adequate. I can understand why this film was overshadowed by "Winchester '73" - Rating **
Mann directs Stanwyck and Walter Houston in the story of a egoistical Rancher struggling with his fiery, headstrong daughter. They battle throughout over the Dowry, the ranch (The Furies) and Judith Anderson. The B&W cine-photography is excellent, and Mann shows his usual flair in the action scenes. Walter Houston never gave a bad performance and Stanwyck always shines in these kind of roles. But as for the story itself - too much of a melodrama. And the supporting cast except for Judith Anderson is barely adequate. I can understand why this film was overshadowed by "Winchester '73" - Rating **
The Unconquered (1947)
182. The Unconquered (1947) - a surprisingly good movie directed by DeMille starring Goddard and Gary Cooper. Follows Goddard as she goes from London to the American frontier, then Western Pennsylvania. A little long and sluggish at times, but still above average. The critics called it the "Perils of Paulette" since she's threatened with rape, torture, execution, and slavery. The story brings up the forgotten fact that whites were brought to North America as indentured servants (Slaves). Also does a good job on costumes , muskets, etc. from the time period - 1760. Rating **1/2
Cheyenne Autumn
206. Cheyenne Autumn (1964) - Great photography, an all-star cast and some good action scenes can't save this from being one of the dullest Westerns I've ever seen. None of the characters seem real, and having Ricardo Montalban play a Cheyenne didn't help. And what the heck was Wyatt Earp and Jimmy Stewart doing in this movie? Even Ford needed a good story and script. Rating - **
The Way we Were
The Way We Were (1973) Pollack. 118 minutes. Communist Streisand and Bourgeois Redford have a romance during and after WW II. Pros: Streisand is well cast. She plays the obnoxious, mouthy, plain-faced Jewish Stalinist from New York to perfection. Second, Redford is also well-cast as the empty headed, apolitical, passive, pretty boy who falls in love with her. Third, the movie is lushly photographed and Streisand doesn't look awful all the time. And any physical contact between Redford and Streisand is minimized. Cons: Streisand character is charmless and constantly rants and nags. Unbelievable love story, phony looking 1940s sets, no memorable dialogue, weak supporting characters - except for James Woods, pace slow at times.
The movies politics are interesting. The producers were brave to make an outright Stalinist the heroine. But then they fudge the facts and make Streisand a "good" commie. The film only shows her talking about fighting fascism and HUAC and how she's "Late for her Young Communist league meeting". We don't see her talk in Communist jargon, breathe hatred against the bourgeois and Trotsky, attack religion and patriotism, defend Stalin and the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact, help spies funnel Government secrets to the USSR or campaign to keep the USA out of WW II from Sept 1939-June 1941. So, even though Babs has a picture of Lenin on her wall, she's really just an 'intense' liberal.
The movie's portrait of 1946-1948 Hollywood and HUAC is also interesting. Evidently, Hollywood back then was run by wealthy WASP Ivy-league producers that looked like Patrick O'Neal and Bradford Dillman while left-wing New Yorkers - like Babs - felt out of place. And -per the movie - anti-communist mobs roamed the streets attacking any Hollywood celebrity brave enough to protest HUAC.
Conclusion: Seen with Mrs. RC as a favor - it wasn't as awful as I expected. No doubt its target audience - Communists and Streisand fans - will enjoy it more.Rating **
Torn Curtain & Topaz
Torn Curtain (1966) - Hitchcock. Co-stars Paul Newman and Julie Andrews. 128 minutes. An American scientist-spy (Newman) defects to East Germany to steal a scientific formula. But his fiancee (Andrews) upsets his plans by following him. Pros: The killing in the farmhouse, Gromek, Lila Kedrova. Cons: Sluggish pace, lack of humor and romantic chemistry, mediocre script, Chilly distant acting by Newman and Andrews, too much back projection Summary: Second-rate Hitchcock - the beginning of the end for Hitchcock Rating **
270. Topaz (1969) - Hitchcock. Co-stars Frederick Stafford and Dany Robin 143 minutes. A French intelligence agent becomes embroiled in the Cold War politics first with uncovering the events leading up to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and then back to France to break up an international Russian spy ring.Cossack. Cons: Sluggish pace, mediocre script, no big stars, an abrupt emotionless ending. Incredibly Hitchcock wanted an even worse ending - a duel! Pros: The Russian defector's escape and interrogation, the stealing of the documents (Roscoe Browne), the entire Cuba sequence, Phillipe Noiret (Jarret)Summary: Second-rate Hitchcock but still better than "Torn Curtain" or "Saboteur" Rating **1/2
270. Topaz (1969) - Hitchcock. Co-stars Frederick Stafford and Dany Robin 143 minutes. A French intelligence agent becomes embroiled in the Cold War politics first with uncovering the events leading up to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and then back to France to break up an international Russian spy ring.Cossack. Cons: Sluggish pace, mediocre script, no big stars, an abrupt emotionless ending. Incredibly Hitchcock wanted an even worse ending - a duel! Pros: The Russian defector's escape and interrogation, the stealing of the documents (Roscoe Browne), the entire Cuba sequence, Phillipe Noiret (Jarret)Summary: Second-rate Hitchcock but still better than "Torn Curtain" or "Saboteur" Rating **1/2
Gosford Park (2001)
Altman. In 1932 a gathering of Aristocrats at an English Country Estate turns to murder. Scotland Yard investigates and finds everyone had a motive. Actually, the movie is more Galsworthy than Agatha Christie - not really murder mystery more of recreation of 30s English society with a great ensemble cast. The film is well acted - standouts include Helen Miren and Maggie Smith. Further pluses include high production values and some good period music. Negatives: Too many shallow characters with too many subplots, too much time-wasting,chit chat, Its a two hour movie and I counted at least 20 major/minor characters. Summary: Some great acting, great individual scenes and funny one-liners but there's no real story and the characters are underdeveloped and not very likable. In other words, its like many Altman movies. The scriptwriter commentary fleshes out the characters and makes the story more clear - but a move should stand on its own. Rating **1/2
The Fountainhead (1949)
The Fountainhead (1949) Vidor. Gary Cooper and Patrica Neal star in the film version of the Ayn Rand's novel Pros: Cooper and Neal heat up the screen. B&W cine-photography, Lavish production values Cons: Silly Rand story, too many speeches. Cooper and Neal's love affair was quite good and Neal looks fantastic. She also plays her over-the-top character as well as possible. The photography and art direction are also good. The story however is absurd with Cooper as the uncompromising architect who blows up his own building rather than change them. Lots of blather about the 'individual' and the evil villain is a power-hungry architect newspaper critic (!). Summary:Enjoyable only for the Neal - Cooper love affair. Watch the rest of the movie with the sound off Rating **
The Strawberry Blonde (1941)
72. The Strawberry Blonde (1941) Walsh. A 1890s romantic comedy. Cagney plays a struggling dentist who meets Oliva De Havilland while pursing Rita Hayward (the Strawberry Blonde”) Pros: Musical Score, Cagney, De Havilland, acting in general, script, charming characters Cons: Slight story Analysis:. An amiable, low-key, charming period piece that gives De Havilland and Cagney a chance to play two likable and romantic characters. The script contains some funny lines and situations. Jack Carson, Hayworth, and Alan Hale shine as supporting players. Summary: The leads make this slight but charming movie a delight. Rating ***
The Last Metro (1980) - Truffant
Plot In German occupied Paris, a Jewish Theater owner is forced to hide in the theaters basement while his wife (Catherine Denuve) stars in the latest production and tries to find a means of escape.
Pros: Story, acting, direction
Cons: Story could have been more suspenseful.
Analysis: An excellent movie - more about life during the occupation than a melodrama about the horrors of Nazi occupation. Some good acting and memorable characters - especially Gérard Depardieu as the leading man.
Summary: Enjoyable - but could have been great with some sharper writing and more tension. Rating ***
Pros: Story, acting, direction
Cons: Story could have been more suspenseful.
Analysis: An excellent movie - more about life during the occupation than a melodrama about the horrors of Nazi occupation. Some good acting and memorable characters - especially Gérard Depardieu as the leading man.
Summary: Enjoyable - but could have been great with some sharper writing and more tension. Rating ***
This Gun for Hire & The Glass Key
The Glass Key (1942) Based on the Hammett Novel. Ladd tries to save his Boss (Brian Donleavy) from being framed for murder Pros: William Bendix, Alan Ladd, Veronica Lake Cons: Script, flat direction. Analysis Ladd is enjoyable as the tough-guy who's one set ahead of everyone else and Lake is sultry and beautiful. And the film really comes alive when Bendix's sadistic henchman character comes onscreen. Bendix's love of violence is so excessive its actually uncomfortable - wonder how it got past the Hayes code. But the story and other characters are un-engaging and like the "Maltese Falcon" - its mostly drama and discussion. Unlike the "Maltese Falcon" the script lacks memorable dialogue. And who cares about a crooked politician anyway? Plays much longer than its 85 minute run-time. Summary: Mediocre although Bendix, Ladd and Lake have their moments. Rating **
This Gun for Hire (1942) Ladd plays a Hitman who’s been double-crossed and is now out for revenge. Pros: Acting, Lake, some good action scenes Cons: Standard story and shallow characters
Analysis: The movie that made Alan Ladd a star. A standard film-noir but Ladd and Lake make the film interesting by their chemistry and charisma. Except for the evil old coot in a wheelchair, the other actors and the story in general are rather dull. Note: Robert Preston is actually the hero and leading man.. Summary: Good when Ladd is onscreen – otherwise mediocre. Rating **1/2
Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)
Stars Garfield and Turner.
Story: A drifter falls in love with the wife of a roadside diner and murder ensues. Based on the James Cain bestseller.
Pros Lana Turner, some good plot twists, Leon Amers and Hugh Cronyn.
Cons: No chemistry between Turner and Garfield, Characters, bad story structure. slow pace and mediocre direction.
Another classic film noir that fails to live up to the hype. Postman isn't bad - its just OK. First, Garfield is solid but lacks charisma. His part (Frank) cries for a Mitchum or Lancaster – even a young Bill Holden would’ve been better. Garfield seems more like Lana Turner’s brother than her passionate lover. Turner looks fantastic & is the movie’s prime asset. She’s often back-lit, well-dressed, and her acting is more than adequate. While her character isn't smart, you can understand Garfield's falling for her.
The supporting players are mostly forgettable except for the legal beagles - Hugh Cronyn and Leon Ames. Cronyn shines as the conceited, shady defense attorney while Ames is smooth and convincing as the DA. The trial portion has some excellent plot twists. The story structure is a problem. The last third of the movie refuses to end - it just goes on and on. Various episodes (the blackmail fisticuffs, the Death row conversation, Frank’s Affair) seem pointless. The whole post trial portion could have been told in half the time. Finally, the lead characters -Cora and Frank - are rather stupid and pathetic. No doubt realistic, but not very enjoyable. Summary - Not bad - but with significant flaws. See the movie for Lana Turner. Rating **1/2
Another classic film noir that fails to live up to the hype. Postman isn't bad - its just OK. First, Garfield is solid but lacks charisma. His part (Frank) cries for a Mitchum or Lancaster – even a young Bill Holden would’ve been better. Garfield seems more like Lana Turner’s brother than her passionate lover. Turner looks fantastic & is the movie’s prime asset. She’s often back-lit, well-dressed, and her acting is more than adequate. While her character isn't smart, you can understand Garfield's falling for her.
The supporting players are mostly forgettable except for the legal beagles - Hugh Cronyn and Leon Ames. Cronyn shines as the conceited, shady defense attorney while Ames is smooth and convincing as the DA. The trial portion has some excellent plot twists. The story structure is a problem. The last third of the movie refuses to end - it just goes on and on. Various episodes (the blackmail fisticuffs, the Death row conversation, Frank’s Affair) seem pointless. The whole post trial portion could have been told in half the time. Finally, the lead characters -Cora and Frank - are rather stupid and pathetic. No doubt realistic, but not very enjoyable. Summary - Not bad - but with significant flaws. See the movie for Lana Turner. Rating **1/2
Force of Evil (1948) - Polansky
Plot John Garfield stars as a Mob Lawyer caught in the middle between his brother (Thomas Gomez) a small-time numbers racketeer, and his Gangster boss.
Pros: The last 15 minutes is excellent – its action packed with a tense and suspenseful Kidnapping and murder. Good NYC location shots & Garfield is solid.
Cons: Too talky, verbose script, no real plot movement, unlikable characters and forgettable supporting actors. Looks Low-budget
The popularity of Force of Evil is puzzling. Except for the last 15 minutes, I found it boring. Its flaws are numerous:
Summary - Except for the last 15 minutes – a bore. Rating **
Pros: The last 15 minutes is excellent – its action packed with a tense and suspenseful Kidnapping and murder. Good NYC location shots & Garfield is solid.
Cons: Too talky, verbose script, no real plot movement, unlikable characters and forgettable supporting actors. Looks Low-budget
The popularity of Force of Evil is puzzling. Except for the last 15 minutes, I found it boring. Its flaws are numerous:
- Thomas Gomez. First, Garfield as Gomez's brother ? The two look nothing alike.
- Unlikable Leads. Neither brother is particularly likable or interesting. Why are a mob lawyer and a numbers racketeer the “good guys”? And why are we supposed to care about them? Polansky fails to make it clear. The casting of Tom Gomez compounds the problem since Gomez’s forte was playing slobs and villains.
- Supporting cast. The Good girl & femme fatale generate no excitement. The rest of the supporting cast are merely adequate.
- Verbose talky Script. Until the last 15 minutes, almost every second of film is filled with forgettable banter & chatter, most of it about a boring plot to bankrupt the small-time racketeers. The story has no real drive or movement. The “good girl” wants to leave the rackets, blah blah. Gomez doesn’t want to join the combination, blah blah. Garfield argues with the Mob boss, blah blah.
Summary - Except for the last 15 minutes – a bore. Rating **
Alexander Nevsky
Alexander Nevsky (1938) Eisenstein Soviet propaganda movie about the invasion of Russia by the Teutonic Knights in 1242. Aimed clearly at Nazi Germany the movie ends with the defeat of the Knights and the warning that "Those who come to us in peace will be welcome as a guest. But those who come to us sword in hand will die by the sword.!" The analogy with Nazi Germany is made obvious as the Teutonic Knights wear Nazi style helmuts and have banners very similar to Germany's . The film is also Anti-Christian as the evil Knights (who literally throw live babies into the fire and kill small Children) have crosses on their uniforms, are constantly shown praying and attending their tent Church. The catholic priests are numerous, old and ugly. At the end of the battle, the victorious peasants destroy the Church and smile as they cut down priests with axes and swords. Pros: score by Prokofiev, acting by Cherkassov (Nevsky), some well directed battle scenes. Cons: The battle is half the movie, characters are propaganda points not people, not much dialogue and most of its simplistic. Summary: Some interesting and well directed battle scenes but Nevsky is a 1930s Soviet propaganda film short on character and human interest. Film buffs and those interested in 1930s Soviet Union will enjoy it, everyone else will be bored. Rating **
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Night of the Hunter (1955)
219. Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton)
Pros - Robert Mitchum, Lilian Gish, Some interesting scenes, Photography, Shelly Winters dies again.
Cons - Uneven direction, slow pace at times, Shelly Winters talks too much, Awkward mixture of realism, fantasy, horror, and Macabre humor.
Summary - Not really my kind of movie -odd but interesting. Mitchum does an excellent job as a murderous, phony preacher but is even better (and much more chilling) in "Cape Fear". Gish shines as the good woman who provides a refugee for children. Rating - ***
Cons - Uneven direction, slow pace at times, Shelly Winters talks too much, Awkward mixture of realism, fantasy, horror, and Macabre humor.
Summary - Not really my kind of movie -odd but interesting. Mitchum does an excellent job as a murderous, phony preacher but is even better (and much more chilling) in "Cape Fear". Gish shines as the good woman who provides a refugee for children. Rating - ***
Lolita (1962)
Lolita. (Kubrick) Pros - James Mason, Peter Sellers Cons-Everything else.
Plot and Story Kubrick's "Lolita" is a perfect example of a great novel making a poor movie. What makes "Lolita" a great novel, ( the use of an unreliable narrator, the beauty of the language, Nabakov's puns, jokes and literary allusions, our seeing Lolita as fantasy of Humbert's mind , etc.) can't be translated to the screen. The story - by itself -isn't particularly interesting. And the characters, shown externally & in a straightforward manner, are somewhat unpleasant and boring. Kubrick's adds some "black comedy" but not enough.
Direction: Lolita has few of the dazzling visuals you'd expect from Kubrick. The movie was shot cheaply in England in B&W - with a few 2nd unit shots from the East Coast. A lot of back projection. The pace is slow and at 152 minutes its way too long.
Plot and Story Kubrick's "Lolita" is a perfect example of a great novel making a poor movie. What makes "Lolita" a great novel, ( the use of an unreliable narrator, the beauty of the language, Nabakov's puns, jokes and literary allusions, our seeing Lolita as fantasy of Humbert's mind , etc.) can't be translated to the screen. The story - by itself -isn't particularly interesting. And the characters, shown externally & in a straightforward manner, are somewhat unpleasant and boring. Kubrick's adds some "black comedy" but not enough.
Direction: Lolita has few of the dazzling visuals you'd expect from Kubrick. The movie was shot cheaply in England in B&W - with a few 2nd unit shots from the East Coast. A lot of back projection. The pace is slow and at 152 minutes its way too long.
Acting Mason is excellent. But I found Sue Lyons too old. Shelly Winters is Shelly Winters. And we get a LOT of shelly winters. She pretty much dominates the film for about 45 minutes.
Peter Sellers: Hit and miss. Sellers has a ten minute (mostly dull) opening scene and at least 10 more minutes later in the film. While one scene is my favorite, too often Sellers over-acts and his scenes (adlibbed?) go on far too long.
Best Scene: Sellers as "Clare Quilty" questions Mason about his relationship with Lyons "“It’s good for us normal guys to get together and talk about normal things. One normal guy to another".
Overall: Controversial and "edgy" in 1962, I found the movie tedious. Rating **
The Awful Truth (1937)
11. The Awful Truth (McCarey). Irene Dunne and Grant star in a romantic comedy about a high class NYC couple facing divorce. The script is witty, Grant is in top form and the classy Irene Dunne is the perfect partner. While Grant was the ultimate romantic comedy lead, Dunne never gets the props she deserves. She really could do it all, comedy, drama, and sing. She was five 5 years older than Grant, so while he went on to co-star with Ingrid Bergman and Audrey Hepburn - she went into retirement. As for the supporting cast Mr Smith (Asta) and Ralph Bellamy are very good. Despite its reputation as "wacky" and "screwball" - I found the movie more sophisticated/witty than farcical or zany. However, Dunne's turn as "Lola" Grant's vulgar '"sister" - had both of us rolling with laughter. Another highlight is the surprisingly large amount of well done slapstick. Flaws: The story drags at times - particularly in the middle. The cabin scene takes 5 minutes too long to get the famous cuckoo-clock finish. Rating ***1/2
A Woman is a Woman (1961)
267. A Woman is a Woman (1961) - Godard. 84 Minutes. A comedy-satire staring Anna Karina as a stripper who wants a baby with her unwilling Boyfriend. Its Karina picture all the way, she's in every scene and shown at her most attractive. Shot in five weeks with no script, and it shows. An empty story, no character development and interesting and dull scenes alternate. Summary: Forgettable Godard, Karina makes it bearable. Rating **
Despicable Me (2010)
Despicable Me (Coffin/Renauld) - Rating ***Animated story, Steven Carell is the lead voice actor, 95 minutes. When a criminal mastermind uses a trio of orphan girls as pawns for a grand scheme, he finds himself profoundly changed by the growing love between them Aimed at small kids, Despicable me is a harmless, funny little movie that entertains and is more or less forgettable. The real stars are the minions, little yellow characters who reminded me of the talking M&Ms and who should have been given more screen time. The story is unoriginal, but has some good jokes, is warm-hearted and well (voice) acted.
Ruby Gentry
295. Ruby Gentry (1952) - Vidor Rating ** Co-stars Charlton Heston, Jennifer Jones, and Karl Malden. B&W 82 minutes. Trashy "Falcon Crest" type story about a beautiful, strong-willed girl from the wrong side of the swamp, who falls for young Heston but marries wealthy Karl Malden. Surprisingly, Heston is good as the romantic lead - no doubt because its Jones (who's very good) does the chasing. Summary: Well directed (except for some bad narration) and well-acted but the low budget, routine script, and soap opera story sink it.
Julius Caesar -1970
291. Julius Caesar (1970) - Burge. Rating **1/2
Co-stars Charlton Heston, John Gielgud, Jason Robards, Richard Johnson and Robert Vaughn. 119 minutes. Another try at Shakespeare's famous play, This ones more cinematic, lively and action packed than the 1953 version. Highlights include Heston as Anthony and Richard Johnson as Cassius. Also, Gielgud is a vast improvement on Calhern's 1953 Caesar (although the role cries for Oliver). Surprisingly, Vaughn and Diana Riggs are quite good in their small roles. Heston's funeral oration is excellent and quite unlike Brando. Whereas Mankiweitz and Brando solemnly underplay the whole thing to focus attention on the dialogue, Burge makes the oration into an action packed scene with Heston moving and interacting with Crowd, sometimes even yelling his words. But all these good points can't make up for Robard's awful Brutus. Everyone - including Robards - agrees his zombie like performance was terrible, leading me to wonder why he was cast in the first place? Its unfortunate that the director didn't see the disaster coming and have Robards and Richard Johnson switch parts.
South Pacific
38. South Pacific (1958) (Logan) The film version of the famous R&H musical. In general, I prefer energetic musicals like "Top Hat" or "Singing in the Rain" over the operetta R&H shows. But even with my lower expectations this was a major disappointment. Not all bad, it did have some good songs and great location shots (Kauai). But the direction is slack, the dancing seems perfunctory, and story just drones on and on for two and half hours. The cast has a FEW high-spots - Hall is excellent, Brazzi adequate, and Mitzi Gaynor good (Doris Day would have been perfect) but Kerr is a complete zero and nobody else seems believable or compelling. The supporting cast list is full of nobodies. Even Ray Walton is unfunny and far too old. No doubt R&H thought "South Pacific" was a guaranteed box office hit - so why spend money on Stars? Summary: Another Josh Logan disaster. The songs are good and so are the shots of Kauai - otherwise a heavy footed ponderous bore. Rating **
Three Women (1977)
Plot: Story of "Pinky" (Spacek) who moves from Texas to work at a small-town California health resort. She meets, and then becomes roommates with, "Millie" (Duvall) a would-be sophisticate.The film explores their relationship.
Pros: Acting by Shelly Duvall and Sissy Spacek, some interesting scenes.
Cons:
Pros: Acting by Shelly Duvall and Sissy Spacek, some interesting scenes.
Cons:
- One of the ugliest films I've seen (not talking the actresses). The location shots are ugly, the sets are unattractive, the men look like hairy apes, and it has that cheap 1970s TV look. Everyone outside the "Three Women" are unattractive.
- Altman pads the movie to an absurd extent. "Persona" is 85 minutes, Three Women is 124 minutes, yet Persona has more plot/dialogue. We get endless shots of people doing mundane everyday things. Conversations are desultory and banal - humor almost non-existent.
- The story itself was meaningless and focused on two pathetic people with nothing uplifting/enlightening to say about them.
The Long Goodbye
The basic plot is from Chandler's novel, but the film is more a parody of Chandler's Private Eye than a faithful retelling. Gould plays Marlowe as a bumbling, stumbling, rip-van-winkle - good as bumbler/cynic, he's less good at cracking-wise or being serious.. The plot is threadbare and confusing, and Altman emphasizes the atmosphere and characters. The supporting characters are a mixed lot. Hayden steals the movie as the suicidal, drunken author - while Van Pallandt is excellent as his wife. Gibson, and Rydell are unconvincing. The cinematography is very good.
Summary: The lackluster story, meandering pace, and Gould's limited acting skills sink a movie with promise. Good scenes alternate with bad. Not recommended for Raymond Chandler fans. Still some memorable scenes: Hayden and Gould talking on the Beach, the opening Cat food scene, and the ending. Rating **1/2
2nd Viewing Post Script: A re-watch confirms my previous opinion. Gibson, for example, is simply awful as the Doctor. The man can't act. As for Rydell, he's borderline adequate, any decent character actor would've had 10 times the impact. However, my main impression was the sluggish pace. Wow, this thing really drags, and we get far too much "padding". There too many shots of people walking around, driving, eating, drinking, or engaging in meaningless small talk. Its really too bad, because there are many good scenes, including:
- The Cat demanding to be Fed
- Driving Terry to Mexico
- The Killing
-Rescuing Hayden from the Sanitarium
- The Dog with Hayden's Kane
-Hayden and Gould talking at the beach
2nd Viewing Post Script: A re-watch confirms my previous opinion. Gibson, for example, is simply awful as the Doctor. The man can't act. As for Rydell, he's borderline adequate, any decent character actor would've had 10 times the impact. However, my main impression was the sluggish pace. Wow, this thing really drags, and we get far too much "padding". There too many shots of people walking around, driving, eating, drinking, or engaging in meaningless small talk. Its really too bad, because there are many good scenes, including:
- The Cat demanding to be Fed
- Driving Terry to Mexico
- The Killing
-Rescuing Hayden from the Sanitarium
- The Dog with Hayden's Kane
-Hayden and Gould talking at the beach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)