One Minute to Zero (1952)

Plot:  In 1950 Korea, an idealistic UN official (Ann Blyth)  discovers the horrors of war when she helps a hard-bitten US Colonel (Robert Mitchum),  evacuate South Korean Refugees.
Stars: Robert Mitchum, Ann Blyth,  William Talman, Charles McGraw

Produced by Howard Hughes at the height of the Korean War, the movie is a solid, if somewhat predictable,  war programmer notable for its good use of war footage and  US Military equipment.  With a few exceptions the combat scenes are well done, especially a tense scene where Mitchum has to fire on a column of refugees. Talman, who always looked 10 years older then his actual age, lends adequate support.  Blyth does as well as she can with an underwritten role and perfunctory romance with Mitchum.

Summary:  Although almost forgotten, One Minute to Zero is worth a  look if you're interested in the Korean War or just enjoy war movies.  The low 5.8 IMDB rating seems to be due to politics. The movie is just too darn anti-communist for several left-wing critics.  The movie should have "balanced things out" they say - a criticism never made of WW 2 movies. Based on my readings, the story is fairly accurate, but its film -not a history lesson.

Journey Into Fear (1943)

Plot:  Before Pearl Harbor, Nazi agents try to kill an American Armaments Expert (Cotton) on board a ship bound for Batum from Istanbul.
Stars: Joseph Cotton,  Orson Welles,  Everett Sloan, Agnes Moorehead, Delores Del Rio 

Journey into Fear is a low-budget thriller that's been overpraised because it involves Orson Welles and his Mercury Players.  Its extremely short (68 minutes) and well acted, but the casting borders on the ridiculous. Welles is some sort of Turkish Policeman, Sloan is "Kopekin"  and Del Rio is Trukish nightclub singer.  Everyone uses an unidentifiable foreign accent. The best performance comes from Jack Moss -Welles' business manager - as the fat killer.  Welles didn't direct, but the famous pre-credit opening and final duel on a hotel ledge were his idea. Note: Why the boat is traveling to the USSR (Batum) or why the NKVD would let a Turkish Policeman engage in gun battle on Soviet soil, is never explained. Summary: An imaginative, interesting little thriller with a few great scenes.

State Fair (1945)

Plot:  The Frake family goes to the Iowa State Fair and finds fun and romance.
Stars:  Jeanne Crain,  Dana Andrews, Dick Haymes

State Fair is completely different from the other R&H movies because its not really an R&H movie.  Produced by 20th century Fox, and written directly for the screen, its a song version of the original 1933 movie.  R&H wrote the original screenplay and songs - but that's it. As a result,  State Fair is a short (100 minutes),  musical comedy, with an excellent cast of Hollywood actors, most of whom are dubbed.  Filmed in beautiful technicolor, Crain is young and pretty -a perfect fit for the part- and Dana Andrews is excellent.  Good songs, including "It might as well be spring",  "All I Owe Ioway" and "Its a Grand Night for Singing".  Contemporary critics were disappointed that R&H did not write another "Oklahoma" - but State Fair was a box office smash.

Zanuck wrote this about the Film:

  "State Fair is the most popular musical we've had in years and has done sensational business nationwide.  There are two reasons for its success: the wonderful R&H score and the great charm of the story...we had comedy, but it was charming comedy.  We stayed away from the obvious.  As a result, you believed the story of State Fair.."  

Summary:  Superior to the both the 1962 and 1933 versions, this is my kind of musical - charming and funny, with good songs, and no pretentious desire to be anything more.  I wonder how much better the other R&H movies would be, if R&H had gotten a good script writer and tightened things up.

Carousel (1956)

Plot:  15 years after his death, a carousel barker is granted permission to return to Earth for one day to make amends to his widow and daughter.
Stars: Gordon MacRae, Shirley Jones

Carousel is one of R&H's lesser known films, overshadowed by South Pacific and Oklahoma, mostly because its story is much darker and its best songs aren't as popular. That's too bad, because the plot and characters are much more interesting than Oklahoma or South pacific and its mercifully much shorter - just about 2 hours. Other pluses: we're spared any simple-simon lectures on "racism"  or corny R&H "humor".

As you'd expect, Jones is wonderful in the role, and MacRae (whose character dominates the film) does well - but its sad Sinatra passed up the role. Hardly an original opinion, I know.  If Sinatra had played "Billy" this would be counted among R&H's best films and much more popular. It does have flaws:  sometimes the characters lapse into "hick speak", which I suppose was a R&H lame attempt at "authenticity", the scenes in Heaven go on too long, and there's another deadly boring "ballet".  Some good songs:  "June is busting out all over" and "You'll never walk alone" "My Boy Bill".

Summary:  The darkest of the R&H films, and one of their better ones. I'd rate it below Sound of Music, The King and I and State Fair (1945).

Oklahoma (1955)

Plot:  In 1905, in the Oklahoma territory, two Cowboys, a peddler, and a brutish ranch hand vie for the hearts of 2 young women.
Cast:  Shirley Jones, Gordon MacRae, Rod Steiger, Gloria Grahame, Eddie Albert

I liked Oklahoma a lot  better than South Pacific.  The songs are better, the direction is better, and the cast is much, much better.  Shirley Jones is perfect in the lead and looks fantastic, and everyone else is well cast.  Of course, MacRae isn't really in the same class as Jones - maybe they should have cast a more charismatic actor and dubbed him. But that's a nitpick. The only real problem is the book.  Like South Pacific, the plot is paper thin and the movie is 2 1/2 hours long.  Even worse, the movie grinds to a halt for an  interminable 15 minute Agnes De Mille "Ballet".  I found myself Fast-forwarding a lot. But you can't beat great songs like: "Oh, what a beautiful Morning" "Oklahoma" or  "People will say we're in Love".  Rating ***

South Pacific (1958)

Plot:  During WW 2 in the South Pacific,  a French Planter, an American Nurse, a native girl, and young 2nd Lieutenant,  find romance.
Stars: Mitzi Gaynor, John Kerr,  Rossano Brazzi

Over the years, I don't think any musical has suffered such a drop in reputation as South Pacific.  Based on the Pulitzer-prize winning Broadway musical, the movie was a  critical and box office smash.  Today, it has an IMDB rating of 6.9 and the top "1000 voters" give it an astoundingly low 6.0.  Even those who like the movie, think its a flawed adaption.  So what went wrong?

The most common answer is "Color Filters" - but  I think the book is the main problem.  The characters are bland and the plot is paper thin.  Drama is conflict, but the conflict in South Pacific is minimal and mainly revolves around Gaynor overcoming her dislike of  Brazzi having incredibly cute, half-Polynesian kids   Really. Oh, and there's a hokey spy mission and Kerr falling in love with Frances Nguyen.  Its not much plot to stretch out for 171 minutes.

What's makes it even worse is the casting. Gaynor and Brazzi are both mediocre actors, and John Kerr is charisma free and frankly unlikable.  Given that he's dubbed in the movie, his casting is inexplicable. As for Ray Walston, he's completely unbelievable as a 44 year old Sailor and not very funny (of course, R&H were never known for their humor).

And the Direction? Well that's a mixed bag.  I give Josh Logan credit for some beautiful location shots (Hawaii) but he negates that with some fake, corny, stage-bound military action scenes.  In fact, despite the realistic uniforms and equipment, *everything* military in the movie seems fake. And Logan makes no effort, to make a film. Instead,  its a filmed play.  Almost every song/dance is filmed with a static camera focused directly on the singer/dancer.  There's no camera movement.  And everyone talks very slowly and there are a lot of non-essential scenes.  I guess people didn't mind that back in the 1950s, but the ponderous pace makes a dull book even duller.

So what's good? Well there's always Hawaii -  and "Some Enchanted Evening" and "Bali Hai"

Summary:  Probably the dullest of the R&H movies.  A good musical needs more than a few good songs and some anti-racism.  ** 

Taming of the shrew (1967)

Plot: Based on the Shakespeare play.  A headstrong women is "tamed" by her husband.
Stars:  Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor.

Well, I came in with low expectations and they were met.  I'm not a big fan of Shakespeare's comedies. Big Bill was a great writer, and no doubt his puns, witty remarks, and word play had them rolling in the aisles in 1610, but they've never raised more than a smile from me.  They read much better than they play on stage. And movie doesn't really improve things much.  The play's dialogue is cut drastically, and we get a frantic pace, and lots of slap-stick, but its still not very funny.  And Taylor and Burton don't add much either.  Neither was known for their comedy on-screen and it shows.  Further,  Taylor has some trouble with dialogue and doesn't have much chemistry with Burton. I suppose, after the success of "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf" everyone thought a Shakespearean battle of Burton vs. Taylor would be a success.  Except it isn't.

Our Man in Havana (1959)

Plot:  A British vacuum cleaner salesman joins the British secret service. To keep his superiors happy, he invents fictitious spy tales. However, his lies take on a life of their own and attract enemy agents.
Stars:  Alec Guinness, Noel Coward,  Burl Ives, Ernie Kovac, Maureen O'Hara

There are two reasons to see the movie, one is the excellent acting of Guinness and Coward, the other is the fascinating location shots of pre-Castro Cuba. Otherwise, its rather mediocre. There are a few funny moments, but much of book's humor - based mostly on irony, sardonic humor, and absurdity - doesn't translate well onto the screen.  Maybe Carol Reed should have hired a good film comedy writer instead of Grahame Greene. Its also hurt by some oddball/box office driven casting. Kovac is a Cuban Policeman,  Ives is a German Doctor and O'Hara is an English secretary and love interest. None of them do particularly well.  The movies serious turn at the end is rather jarring.

Note: Hitchcock bid for the rights and paid the highest sum, but Greene refused to let him film it.  It seems Greene never had much liking or respect for Hitchcock and thought he'd "Ruin" the film. It'd be interesting to know what Hitch would've done differently - for a start, he probably would not have hired Greene as a screenwriter.

Summary:  Given the talent involved, a disappointment - its uneven and surprisingly serious - but Guinness and Coward provide a few chuckles. **1/2

The Quiet American (2002)

Overpraised remake of the Graham Greene novel of the same name .  Michael Caine is excellent as English journalist "Fowler", and the Vietnamese actors and cinematography are good but the story is a bore and Brendan Fraser is wooden and miscast as the CIA agent/Boy Scout "Pyle".  This film is much closer to Greene's novel than the 1957 American film which portrayed Pyle as a hero, but its still not very well written or interesting.

Most of the over done praise seems to be due to the anti-American message of the both the novel and film.  Which is annoying, since the book's Anti-Americanism is ham-fisted and  overdone. In the book,  Pyle, while physically brave,  isn't just a naive blunderer, he's positively moronic and so unreal you wonder if Greene ever knew an American or a CIA agent. The critics harp on the book's supposedly wise prescience regarding  America in Vietnam but the novel isn't warning against the escalation in the 1960's, its attacking America's *worldwide* attempt in the 1950's to combat Communism in the less developed world.  The game - the book implies - isn't worth the candle. So, if Vietnam, or any country wants to go Communist, we should let them.  Given that Greene was a friend of Soviet Spy Kim Philby its an understandable attitude on his part.

Note: I've called Caine "excellent" but that's more due to his fitting the part  (Fowler is supposed to be intelligent, cynical, English, and middle-aged/old) then any great acting feat on his part.  To my eye, he just gives a standard Caine performance, no different than a dozen others.

Summary: I'd suggest everyone read the novel and skip the movie. Its not as good as the hype would lead you to believe.

Sea Wife (1957)

Plot:  After being torpedoed by Japanese sub, four survivors ( a Nun, Army Officer, bigoted businessman, Black purser) try to survive on a small raft. Told in a flashback.
Stars: Richard Burton, Joan Collins, Basil Sydney and Cy Grant

Sea Wife is better than its 5.6 IMDB rating. The cinematography is beautiful (especially location shots of Jamaica) , the acting is good (except for Collins), its only 81 minutes, and the Singapore evacuation and ship sinking are well done. Unfortunately, the script is rather bland and everyone is a little too polite and subdued. Which is a problem when your movie is about 4 people on a raft - cause they can't do much except talk.   Once on the raft, the story only has 2 subplots and both are missed opportunities.

First, the Collins-Burton love story is a waste of time because Collins is a Nun. We know that from the start - even though Burton is never told.  Second, the conflict between the bigot and Black purser, which should have been exciting, is defeated by a failure of nerve.  In the book, the black purser finds a machete and turns into a scary, controlling paranoid, resulting in the bigot - rightly or wrongly - trying to leave him on the island.  In the movie, the black purser is so harmless and friendly (even his island behavior seems more cautious than paranoid)  that leaving him on the island seems completely contrived and irrational.  And then he gets eaten by a shark.  Really.

Summary:  Not as bad as its reputation suggests - its an enjoyable World War 2 survival tale - but  a tepid screenplay and Joan Collins prevent it from being anything more.  Watch "Lifeboat" instead.

The Secret World of Arrietty (2010)

Plot:  A family of four-inch-tall people reside in a normal size home and  borrow simple items to live. Things change when the daughter is discovered by the house's owners.

Based on the award winning Children's book "The Borrowers" - Secret World is charming, yet simple tale of a little people living in a world of Giants.  The hand drawn animation is wonderful and the highlight of the film is the imaginative, "small world" that the family live in.  For example, getting some sugar from the Kitchen is an all-night exercise that requires complex planning and the scaling of enormous tables and chairs.  The voice acting is quite good too. Its not perfect, the plot is a little thin, and the film never lives up to the great promise of the first 15 minutes. Its probably the most "Disney" of all the  Gihbli movies I seen.  Its good but not great.

Act of Violence (1949)

Act of Violence is an interesting film that adds some philosophical complexity to its thriller/film noir plot. We start with Van Heflin, a seemingly happy WW II vet living a successful life with pretty Janet Leigh in a small California town. But he has a dark secret, and an old WW II "buddy" (Robert Ryan) with a grudge. In fact, Ryan wants Van Heflin dead, and doesn't care if he goes to jail for it.

So far so good.  We get a lot of suspense and questions as why Van is so nervous and scared.  And then we get the answer - Heflin had ratted out some American POW's for food. He got the food, and the other POW's got the bayonet. Of course, he had his reasons - but Ryan isn't in a forgiving mood.  And then the movie goes off the rails. Heflin leaves his wife, tries to commit suicide, and then hooks up with a hooker with a heart of gold (Mary Astor).  Astor convinces him to hire some muscle to "bump off" Ryan and then we wind up with a completely unconvincing ending that satisfies the Production Code but makes no sense.

The film did well with the critics but bombed at the box-office. And I can see why. Who precisely is the hero? Who do we root for? Not Heflin, the cowardly stoolie. But neither can we root for Ryan, he's a crazed vigilante.  And we certainly can't root for Astor and friends.  And the movie is somewhat unrealistic. Ryan passes up chance after chance to kill Van Heflin.  And the Germans (unlike the Japanese) rarely -if ever- bayoneted American POW's for trying to escape.  And any stoolie who caused American POW deaths would've been investigated - by the US Army - and punished.

Summary: Act of Violence raises interesting issues but can't answer them, because its a 90 minute film noir. And so it falls between two stools. Too talky for a film-noir, too superficial and action oriented for a serious drama. But its well acted and directed.  Rating ***

The Wild Geese (1979)

Plot: A British banker hires a group of British mercenaries to rescue an African politician from a corrupt Dictator.
Stars:  Roger Moore, Richard Burton, Stewart Granger, Hardy Kruger, Richard Harris

The Wild Geese is a "boys-own-adventure" with some over-the-hill mercenaries on a rescue mission in deepest, darkest, Africa.  Its one of those action movies that the public likes and the critics hate.  The most enjoyable feature is the all-star cast that delivers the goods. We have Granger as the arrogant, slimy Banker, Burton as the capable commander, Harris as "the planner", Kruger as the Boer who "knows Africa", and Moore as the cocky, jack-of-all-trades.  Assisting are Jack Watson, Ronald Fraser, and  Winston Ntshona.  Every one gets their chance to shine and a few get a heroic death. In other reviews, Stewart Granger is rarely mentioned. but his scenes with Burton are the best in the film.   The Direction is capable.

Wild Geese does have some flaws.  Poor old Richard Burton looks to be in his mid-sixties (he was actually 53) and often wanting a comfy chair and a whisky.  Its a tad too long at 2 hours and 15  minutes, and  finally, some of action scenes look low-budget and/or silly.  For example, wouldn't well trained mercenaries know that you get out of your truck *immediately* when under air attack, and why were they attacking a barracks with 200 men in broad daylight?

Summary:  A solid, 1970s action-adventure film with a good cast.  If you want a deep, sophisticated movie about the problems of Africa, look elsewhere.

South Park Season 14

 My Ratings:

Excellent:  You Have 0 Friends, 200, Insheeption, Coon 2 - Hindsight
Notes: "o friends" is a witty spoof facebook, while "Insheeption" satirizes the complexity of the move Inception. "200" has some laugh out loud lines relating to Tom Cruise. "Coon-2" continues the story of the South Park superhero with Cartman being Cartman.

Good:  Mysterion Rises, Coon vs. Coon and Friends, The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs
Notes:  "Mysterion" and "Coon vs." are inferior to the first part of the Coon trilogy, as Parker goes off the rails with some tepid satire of BP Oil Spill (remember that?) and a dull origins story involving Kenny.  "Scrotie" is a Butters episode and Butter rules.

OK:   Sexual Healing, Medicinal Fried Chicken,  201, Its a Jersey thing
Notes:  The first 3 episodes have hilarious "B" subplots involving Cartmen which save them from being rated lower.  "Fried Chicken" has Cartman as a 'Scarface' dealing in bootleg KFC, while "201" shows Cartman finding out who is his father. "Sexual" has him playing a  hilarious Tiger Woods & wife video game.   "Jersey" starts out strong with a satire "Jersey Housewives" - but ends weak. Finally, "201" would be rated higher except large hunks of dialog related to Mohammad  are censored.

Bad:   Poor and Stupid, Crippled Summer, Crème Fraîche
Notes:  All three episodes are poorly done. "Crème" has a somewhat funny subplot involving Sharon and a piece of exercise equipment but its not good enough to save yet another episode where Randy acts insanely stupid.  In "fried chicken" Randy deliberately gets cancer in order to smoke pot, while in "Creme" he becomes so addicted to cooking he quits his job to become the school's chef.

The Comedians (1967)

Plot: We follow six Americans/Europeans living under the brutal Haitian dictatorship of "Papa Doc"
Stars:  Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Peter Ustinov, and Alec Guinness.

Based on the excellent novel by Grahame Greene,  I found the movie too long, too talky, and too tepid. Its a good example of why novelists shouldn't adapt their own work**. Greene sticks close to the novel - but the novel is only good because of Greene's writing style and ability to get inside his characters minds, neither of which can be filmed.  As a result, there's not much suspense, action, humor, or melodrama.  What we get is a sluggish, downbeat movie with too much Liz,  some dark humor, and plenty of sophisticated political dialog.

As for the actors, Ustinov is totally wasted and  "Liz and Dick" have no chemistry on-screen.  Both Burton and Taylor - either because of the script - or their own limitations never seem to inhabit their characters but always seem to be *acting*.  Of course, charismatic movie stars always have trouble "disappearing" into their characters, but this was an extreme example. On the plus side, the other actors are fine, and photography is beautiful.

** Greene somewhat agreed with me. He stated in a Guardian Film Lecture:

"I'm not very happy with The Comedians.   The script wasn't as good as it should have been. The direction wasn't as good as should have been. I think it should have been made in B&W, and that Elizabeth Taylor was a disaster." 

Summary:  If you're a fan of Burton, Taylor,  or Graham Greene, you might want to spend 2 1/2 hours on "The Comedians". Others should approach with low expectations.