The Razor's Edge (1946)

Plot:  A disillusioned WW I fighter pilot (Larry) rejects the conventional life and goes on a search for the meaning of Life.

Stars: Gene Tierney (Isabella),  Tyrone Power (Larry), Clifton Webb (Elliot), Ann Baxter (Sophie)

Based on the 1944 bestselling Novel by Somerset Maugham, this was Daryl Zanuck's baby. The only Studio head to bid for the novel's movie rights, he hovered over the production like a mother hen. Fortunately, 20th Century Fox had the right actors and the movie is *almost* perfectly cast.  Perhaps, Montgomery Clift as "Larry", or George Sanders as "Elliot", would have been as good, but  not significantly better.

And the script is an excellent adaption of the novel, although its a little too long at 2.5 hours.  Today, Larry's rejection of materialism seems old hat, while his "philosophy" - supposedly based on the "Wisdom of the East" - comes off as sophomoric. However, 1946  audiences - who didn't know the Hippies and Beatniks were just around the corner - probably found Larry's antics fresh, and exciting.

In any case, Zanuck knew the public wants entertainment, not sermons. And so Larry's search is only part of the picture. Instead,  we get a lot on Sophie's Tragedy, Isabella's love for Larry, and Elliot's snobbish good humor. Webb, as you might expect, steals the movie with lines like these:

Elliott Templeton: You know, I've never been able to understand why, when there's so much space in the world, people should deliberately choose to live in the Middle West.

Isabella the Villainess - Novel vs. Movie

One major difference between the novel and movie is the treatment of Isabella.

 In novel, Isabella is materialistic, tough-minded and possessive.  But she's not an aloof beauty with high cheek-bones. She's warm and vivacious and later at 30 -after she lost her "baby fat" - she's thin and chic. IOW, she's more Myrna Loy than Gene Tierney.

And the novel's Isabella is admirable is many ways.  When young, she's incredibly understanding toward Larry. She's faithful during his 2 years in the Air Force, defends him while he "loafs" for 1 year, and consents to his 2-year trip to Paris to "find himself".

When the 2 years are up, she amicably rejects Larry's marriage proposal, because she won't fit into Larry's life. What is she is going to do, while Larry continues to read philosophy and goes on his spiritual quests?  She's NOT a philosopher, and she already has HER answer to life's meaning. And what about kids?

So, she marries rich man Gray.  But later, when Gray loses all their money and can't work , she never criticizes and supports him every way she can.  She's also good mother, and while attracted to Larry, never thinks of leaving Gray for Larry - or even having an affair.

Which brings us to Sophie.
In the novel, Isabella has maternal feelings for Larry.  She sees Sophie as a "loser"  trying to drag Larry down with her. So, somewhat ruthlessly, she "tests" Sophie. And the test shows Isabella was right.

All this is pretty much  skipped and skimmed over in the movie. Because Tierney was good at playing the cold villianess (Cf. Leave her to Heaven), Isabella's materialism and aloofness are emphasized and all her good qualities left out.  Its implied that Isabella is motivated by jealousy and wants Larry for herself. She doesn't just test her with a bottle of liquor, she practically pours it down Sophie's throat!

Novel Sophie vs. Film Sophie
Due to the production code and for better drama, the film makes Sophie more sympathetic than the novel.  The film script "cleans her up" by dropping her opium addiction, love of handsome brutes, and the substantial allowance spent on drugs and drink. Instead the film leads us to believe Sophie's just an alcoholic that's hit rock bottom.

And in the novel, she leaves Larry for Toulon where she spends 2 years drugging, drinking and consorting with low-lifes.  There, she meets Maugham (the narrator) tells him  she "had no desire to be Mary Magdalene to Larry's Jesus", and doesn't want to change.  Of course, this is all dropped in the movie. Instead, Sophie runs away after Larry's rescue attempt fails, and she turns up dead.

Had the film been the true to novel, Isabella wouldn't be such a villianess, would she?

The Razor's Edge (1984)

Plot:  Based on the novel by Somerset Maugham, and a remake of the classic 1946 movie staring Clifton Webb, Tyrone Power, and Gene Tierney. It tells the story of Larry Darrell, a WWI  American ambulance driver. Traumatized by his war-time experiences,  Larry forsakes his rich friends to look for Life's meaning.

Stars:  Bill Murray, Thresa Russell, Catherine Hicks, Denholm Mitchell Elliott.

Wow, was this b-a-d, terrible.  It isn't more faithful to the novel and its far inferior - in almost every way - to the original 1946 adaptation.  Yes, its in color, the Indian scenes are better, and the set design is superior, but those are minor points. As the leading man, Bill Murray makes Tyrone Power look like Laurence Oliver. Murray goes through the entire movie with a deadpan poker face, except when uttering a few ironic comments.  I guess he was trying to be "thoughtful" or "deep".

So, other then  Murray, what else was wrong?

Well,  Catherine Hicks, as Isabella, for one.  She' not charismatic or much of anything. And then there's Denholm Elliott, who just reminds you of how much better Clifton Webb was.

And the script. It deviates from the novel for some reason.  Larry is no longer a pilot, but an ambulance driver, and the WW I scenes eat up the 20 minutes of the movie, even though they aren't done very well. And the script dumbs-down and over-explains things.   All the richness of Eliot's Templeton's character is lost along with Isabella or Gray's complexity.

The only bright spot is Thresa Russell who is excellent as "Sophia".

Singin' In The Rain -- Final Scene

The Moon and Sixpence (1942)

Plot:  A Victorian Stockbroker (Strickland)  leaves his family to paint in the South Seas. Based on the Maugham Novel, which was based on the life of Gauguin.
Stars:  Herbert Marshall, George Sanders, Molly Lamont

Title's meaning: "Like so many young men he [Philip] was so busy yearning for the moon that he never saw the sixpence at his feet."

Clocking in at just 89 minutes, this is an enjoyable, faithful, and abbreviated, film revision of the novel.  In fact, almost 3/4 of the scenes and 50 percent of the dialog comes straight from the book.  Its a good literary movie, and the acting is excellent, even though Sanders is a little too likable and sophisticated to play a brutish, "wimmen-hating'" Stockbroker turned artist.

The only real minus is the Tahiti scenes, which are completely fake and have white actors playing Tahitians.  Understandable given it was 1942, but that doesn't make it more enjoyable. Further, to avoid disappointment, I'd suggest seeing the movie BEFORE you read the novel.

However, reading the novel first, will prevent you - unlike several prominent internet critics - from misunderstanding the ending.  Our non-conformist artist gets leprosy and dies,  not due to the production code, or  a desire to "punish" Strickland, but because the film is a copy of the novel. And the novel's ending is natural and dramatic, showing Strickland facing death with courage and resolve.

Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

Plot: A fictional retelling of the rise and fall of the 1930s American criminals, Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker.
Stars:  Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman
Best Quote:  Who wants to see a movie about the rise and fall of a couple of rats? These movies went out with Cagney - Jack Warner


On the 50th anniversary of this "classic", I decided to give it a re-watch.  I've seen B&C at least three times in my life. The first time was on TV.  Like the other school boys, I was astounded at the  "cool violence" and hotness of Faye Dunaway.  Today, I'm still amazed at how "Hot" Dunaway is, but the violence seems much less "cool".

B&C, with its sympathy for blood-thirsty killers, dark humor and graphic violence was a milestone film. It blazed the way for  directors like Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino. In 1967,  it was greeted with applause from vulgarians like Pauline Kael and boos from the stuffed shirts like Bosley Crowther.

My Opinion
So what did I think?

Well, my opinion is mixed.  The acting is great, except for Warren Beatty, and the direction and technical aspects are good.  But there are several problems.

First, the middle part of the film is rather dull.  Its an endless series of holdups, shootouts, and discussions/arguments about Clyde's "sexual problems", and disputes within the gang. Second, the violence is dated.  All the "gore" denounced in 1967 as "too graphic" today seems old hat and fake. Third, the whole thing seems pointless.

Lastly, the movie is too "Hollywood".  B&C have a beautiful wardrobe with Bonnie changing into a new outfit every scene, and everything looks like California.  All the "average people" seem like Hollywood extras, instead of real people (Note that all the "squares" robbed or killed are middle-aged and/or homely) and its obvious that the same sets and locations are being used over and over again.  Its not a bad film, but an 8.0 IMDB rating is too high. I'd rate it much lower.

Warren Beatty
I've always admired that Beatty knew his limitations as an actor. When producing, he covered them up, by letting other actors share the load.  B&C is no exception.  Hackman, Dunaway and Pollard are given stand-out roles with most of the good lines.  It all revolves around "Clyde", but he's somewhat passive.

But even so, Beatty is the weak link.  He has little chemistry with Dunaway, and he's unbelievable as a Depression-era bandit.  If Eastwood was the arch-typical "Tough guy", then Beatty was the exact opposite.  On-screen, Warren Beatty doesn't have an ounce of "toughness".  Later, he would play a Beverly Hills hairdresser/Ladies man with complete conviction.  Which made him a bad fit for Clyde Barrow.

B&C and History
 If you read any of the left/liberal film critics you'll be struck by their double standard regarding film and history - B&C is complete balls as history. The real B&C were ordinary people and ruthless killers - they killed any policeman or civilian who crossed them.  They weren't beautiful, charming, or funny. Nor did they rob the rich to give to the poor.

For example, the real B&C would have murdered Texas Ranger Frank Hammer in a heart beat, let alone set him free after some mockery and a kiss.  It'd take a a whole page to detail all the historical inaccuracies. Needless to say, some of the real-life people portrayed in the film - and still alive in 1967 - sued Warner Brothers and got a significant payout.

Everest (2015)

Plot: - In May 1996,  an attempt to climb Mount Everest goes  disastrously wrong and 8 climbers die
Stars: Jason Clarke, Thomas Wright

This movie was a disappointment. Like some other 21st Century movies about recent historical events, Everest is shot in a quasi-documentary style. As a result, it lacks the real life punch of a true documentary or the excitement of complete fiction. There are no heroes or villains,  just a grey situation with average people trying to climb the mountain and making understandable mistakes. We never really know any of the characters - except on a superficial level. Accordingly, their struggle for survival doesn't really mean much.

Today it would be impossible, but in ye olden days, Hollywood would've jazzed up the story with some great character actors, a villain, a good looking hero (Spencer Tracy comes to mind), and a love affair. The real people involved in the story would have been upset, but it would have made a much better movie.

On the upside: the movie *looks* great, and some of the special effects are spectacular.  And it seems to fairly represent the effort and technical aspects of climbing the world's highest  mountain.

Summary:  Overall, a disappointment. Everest  looks great but lacks engaging characters. Read the many books instead.

The Graduate (1967)

Plot: A disillusioned college graduate finds himself torn between his older lover and her daughter.
Stars:  Dustin Hoffman, Ann Bancroft, Murray Hamilton, Katherine Ross

Watching the Graduate on its 50th anniversary was a surprising experience. I'd expected to be pleased - but I was bored.  And for the following reasons:

The film has two parts: the first part is a satirical comedy about an idealistic 22 y/o dealing with his crass parents while being pursued by a ferocious  "cougar" called Mrs. Robinson.  Except for the following lines,  I didn't find this part funny - and there's nothing more boring than an unfunny comedy.

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Plastics.

The second part is an often sentimental drama about him breaking off his relationship with Mrs Robinson and then stalking - and trying to marry - her daughter Elaine.  And I found that boring too, because Elaine is a complete zero.  Hoffman's obsession with her is never explained since she isn't beautiful, witty, smart, or funny. Why would anyone go after her, when you could have Ann Bancroft?

And I kept noticing things.

 Like how 30 y/o Dustin Hoffman was too old to be a "what should I do with my life?" 22 y/o.  Or how Ann Bancroft (36 years old) was too young and pretty to be a "Cougar" with a 20 y/o daughter. And why would she go after whiny, 5' 6" Dustin Hoffman, when she could have any number of SoCal Surfers - or Mel Brooks?

And why are we supposed to root for Ben?  He's a creep.  Born into a rich family, he mopes around after graduation doing nothing and then hops into bed with the wife of his father's best friend.  A man who likes Ben and has helped him his entire life. Later, as if to destroy this guy even further, he decides to stalk his daughter relentlessly until she marries him.  How'd you like to find out that your new son-in-law has been boinking your wife?  The Graduate gets us to overlook Ben's creepiness by stacking the deck.  Both Elaine and Ben are shown as idealistic, if naive. bumblers. Meanwhile, all the adults are mean, crass, silly, or bitter.

Summary:  I found it pretty damn boring but most people (IMDB rating 8.0) don't.  If you aren't allergic to Simon and Garfunkle or Dustin Hoffman - I'd give it shot.  But read the on-line 1997 Ebert review after you're finished.

Manchester by the Sea (2016)

Plot:  A Depressed Uncle has to take care of his orphaned Niece in present day New England.

I saw this as a favor, since I usually don't like this kind of movie.  And no surprise, I didn't like it. The acting was good, and I suppose if you wanted to make a movie about a lot of average depressing people, having awkward - but "meaningful"- conversations this does it about well as possible

That aside, two things annoyed me.  First, the movie is 137 minutes, and literally 37 minutes consists of  pauses and ordinary people doing ordinary things - like walking, watching TV, driving, fixing dinner, staring in into space, drinking, opening doors, etc.  The pace is excruciatingly slow. Two, everyone is profane ('cause Hollywood 'average people' always cuss like sailors) and they talk *very* slowly  and awkwardly.  It was like listening to a 45 record at 33 speed.

Summary: A well made family drama about average people.  It bored the hell out of me.