Everything Wrong With "The Last Jedi" | PITCH MEETING

The Last Jedi (2017)

Plot: Rey develops her newly discovered abilities under the reluctant guidance of Luke Skywalker, Meanwhile, the Resistance prepares for battle with the First Order.
Stars:  Mark Hamill,  Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver

Best Quote: Luke Skywalker: Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong. The Rebellion is reborn today. The war is just beginning. And I will not be the last Jedi.

I'll have to admit the critics are mostly right. Overall, is TLJ a disappointment? Yes.  Does it needlessly break with Star Wars traditions? Yes.  Is it "Diverse" to the point of insanity? Yes.  Is "Rey" a MarySue, to end all MarySue's? Yes. Did "Jake Skywalker" show up instead of "Luke Skywalker?" Yes.

But is The Last Jedi a bad movie? No.  Its a good movie - just not a great one.

You still have the wonderful John Williams music, thrilling battles and explosions, imaginative (if highly commercial) alien animals,  and great special effects and set design. All the TFA actors, especially Adam Driver, are better this time (Did everyone take acting lessons?) And unlike others, I thought Luke's death was well done. Nor did the "Humor" bother me.

My only real criticism?  Its too damn long. Almost every scene, especially at the end is strung out about 5 minutes too much. Illustration?  The ending.  It should have ended on the M.Falcon when the camera pans and we see everyone is safe and ready to continue the fight. It should be cut/print/cue Star wars music. *Instead* we cut to a slave kid on the Casino planet, see him sweep up the "stables" and then look up to the Stars while the camera pans down to his "Resistance ring"  Completely unnecessary - but then Disney is probably selling kids "Resistance Rings" at $20 a pop.

Summary: If you're a die-hard Star Wars fan you're going to hate it. If you're expecting it to rival the original trilogy, you're going to be disappointed.  If you're just a casual fan, you'll be happy.

The Man Who Would be King (1975)

Stars: Christopher Plummer, Michael Caine, Sean Connery
Plot:  Based on the Kipling short story, two British India ex-soldiers set out to make themselves Kings of  "Kafiristan".

Kipling, Caine, Connery, and Epic Adventure, all in a critically acclaimed movie. This should have been Woo Hoo -Great movie! Instead, I felt sorta "meh" about everything except the last 30 minutes.  I'm not sure why.

Partly, its the slow start - it takes "Peachy" & "Danny" 20 minutes to start off for Kafiristan. Partly its the mediocre script. And  the dull action scenes.  All the battles consist of "our Lads" shooting down  clay-pigeon Natives. The Kafirs don't put up much of a fight. They mostly mill about in a big crowd and get shot down. Yawn. And  Kafiristan society isn't that interesting. The Kipling story is a "Tall Tale" and Kafiristan needed to be an Epic place,  full of magic and mystery.  Instead Huston shows them  -in semi-realistic fashion - as a bunch of poor, backward characters.  (Why they would have a room full of Gold is inexplicable). Where was David Lean when you needed him?

Finally there's the casting.  As an American, I had a hard time deciphering Caine's cockney accent and Connery isn't really a "lovable Rogue"

A Note on Casting
According to his Biography, Huston originally wanted Bogart/Gable as the leads, but both men died before he could start filming.  In the 60s,  Huston wished for Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton. In the 70s, he finally got the movie financed & approached Paul Newman and Redford.  Newman turned him down - and suggested Caine/Connery.  Thank goodness, since Newman/Redford would've been an absolute disaster.

Summary:  I'm definitively in the minority, but I couldn't warm up to this adventurous tale of British India.  I'd rather watch Gunga Din. Too bad.

Ray Bradbury on Godard

Jean-Luc Godard is such a bore.  Judas Priest, he puts me to sleep.  He is not creative. He doesn't know how to use the camera.  He's an amateur in the worst sense of the word.  A lovely amateur, I would maybe put up with, if he were in love with what he was doing.  But Godard is obviously bored with himself.  He has such second-rate, sophomoric, ideas.  Its like going to a boring Friends house.  You get a little lecture on Sartre and Camus, think "Oh, God give me a drink fast."

The way you judge a Godard film is how often you meet friends in the lobby during the film.  Well, he's an eight-candy bar man.  I go out in the Lobby eight times and I meet all my friends there buying popcorn. That's the giveaway...

Everyone goes because they're bullied into going. That's one hell of a way to go to films.  To hell with servicing directors. I don't want to go out of obligation to anyone.   I want to go because I want to have a good time.  That's the only reason to go to a film. I don't go for a social message.  I don't go to be made better.  To hell with that.

The Hill (1965)

Plot: In a North African military prison during World War II, five new prisoners struggle to survive in the face of brutal punishment and sadistic guards.
Co-stars: Sean Connery, Harry Andrews, Roy Kinnear, Michael Redgrave, Ozzie Davis, and Ian Bannen (Harris)

Well-acted movie that kept me interested from start to finish. Connery is good -as is Kinnear as the cowardly,selfish "Monty"-  but the real star is Harry Andrews as the Sargent Major. Well photographed and directed.  The best thing in the movie is the acting and the North Africa setting.

Despite winning critical acclaim and winning awards it was a box office bomb when released. Its an above-average movie and not a GREAT one, due to the flaws in the screenplay. Namely:

1) We can start with the Ozzie Davis character, one of the five prisoners we follow. He's a black West Indian - which is quite surprising given the British Army was 99.5% white in WW2. So why is he there?  For anti-racism propaganda of course. Its 1965, and Hollywood wanted to help the Civil Rights movement.

Its a noble motive, but hurts the movie since Davis is not a real-life person but a racial symbol. All the other characters (except Williams) are a mixture of good and bad, but Davis is just plain good - all the time. Even his crime, stealing 3 bottles of whiskey, is harmless. Later, when Connery needs help, the two cowardly white prisoners refuse but Davis steps up and bravely supports him. And in terms of physical/ mental strength Davis is the equal of Connery- but accepts a subordinate role.

And of course, being a racial symbol and not a realistic character - Davis declines to be segregated and then accepts all the racial abuse with humor (scornful and otherwise), dignified silence, or knowing sarcasm. At the end, when the abuse becomes unbearable, he doesn't lash out but knowingly "goes crazy" and "quits the army".

2) The movie starts out well, but about half-way through degenerates into a stereotypical "Sadistic Guards vs. Rebellious prisoners" trope. The guards - especially Williams and Andrews - are the baddies. Connery and Davis the good guys. And the ending is unnecessarily bleak and unrealistic. After taking Williams' abuse for the entire movie, and then hearing that Williams is going to be sent up for trial, McGrath and Davis - for no reason - attack Williams while Connery tells them to stop. THE END. Really?

3) Clocking in at two hours, we get too much repetitive "marching up the hill" and sadistic violence.

4) Seemly "realistic" - its really not.  Except for Williams every other non-prisoner from the Commandant on down is living a bleak unhappy existence.  Only two officers exist, the Commandant who spends all his time in a depressing Egyptian brothel sleeping with a fat prostitute, and the Medical Officer, who drinks and appears to be a closeted Gay.  Where are the 2nd second lieutenants?  Meanwhile, Andrews and Harris drink themselves into a stupor every night. I'm sure that being a Guard in an isolated military prison wasn't a walk in the park, but millions had even worse jobs in WW2.

5) According to movie, Andrews has "reformed hundreds" of prisoners and has been running the prison for the quite some time.  Yet when a "newbie" guard comes on board, Andrews gives him carte blanche and backs him over Harris who's been there forever, and is shocked when Williams screws up. And when a prisoner dies of sunstroke, Andrews acts like  he's never dealt with a sadistic guard or prisoner death before. Really?

6) Finally, the "big show down" between Connery and Andrews is absurd. In the middle of WW 2, Connery, a 20-year regular army soldier, talks about how he "only joined the army because he couldn't get a real job" and is tired of "being a puppet and following regulations" and "killing and dying when ordered". This is 1960s anti-military talk being put in the mouth of a WW 2 soldier.

Summary See it for the acting. Harry Andrews over-the-top performance is worth the price of admission. But with a better script it would've been a great movie. It coulda been a contender" - too bad.

Raintree County (1957) - Dymtryk.

Stars: Montgomery Clift, Lee Marvin, and Elizabeth Taylor
Plot:  Based on the best selling novel A graduating poet/teacher (Clift) falls in love with a Southern Belle (Taylor) and then her past and the Civil War create problems. 188 minutes
Pros: High production values, score, photography supporting cast, Elizabeth Taylor,
Cons: Monty Clift after his accident, too long, unfocused script.

Unfairly compared to GWTW, Raintree is a lush historical drama/romance with a few good Civil War scenes thrown in. While it held my interest, overall it was disappointing. Too many good-looking but slack scenes and not enough memorable ones. Given the talent involved the movie should have been much better. Rating ***

Face in the Crowd (1958) - Kazan

Plot:  A Southern drifter (Griffith) is discovered by Neal and becomes an overnight media sensation. As he rises to the top, he becomes drunk with fame and power.
Stars: Walter Matthau, Patricia Neal and Andy Griffith

An interesting but flawed movie. Griffith is supposed to be charming yet he's usually so obnoxious and over-the-top its puzzling why Neal is attracted to him. The movie would have been better if Griffith had showed more low-key charm, been more likable off-stage and shown his change to power-mad demagogue in a more realistic, gradual fashion.

As for the other actors. Neal is great and Lee Remick is incredibly hot in a small role. However, Walter Matthau is barely adequate as the bespectacled liberal conscience. Finally, the movie's message is too predictable and obvious. Even in 1958, Lonesome Rhodes' heavy-handed and obvious manipulation had been abandoned by politicians, in favor of humor, subtext, omission of certain viewpoints, and associating the correct political beliefs with "coolness". Rating **1/2

Up Periscope (1959)

Plot:  In early 1943, a Navy Lieutenant is sent by Sub to photograph secret Japanese radio codes.
Stars: Alan Hale Junior, James Garner, Edmond O'Brien.

A passable time waster, Up Periscope is notable for its high-powered cast and some excellent Submarine cinematography.  We get real submarines and destroyers (thanks US Pacific Fleet) filmed in beautiful technicolor.

Unfortunately, the plot is predictable and doesn't make much sense. How would the US Navy know where the Japanese kept their code books or whether they were left unattended and not locked up? Even more silly: the Sub commander (O'Brien) tells Garner his mission will save "thousands of lives", but then puts obstacles in Garner's way because "he's responsible for the sub".  So I guess those "thousands of men" weren't  THAT important!  Acting-wise its mostly a two man show, and both Garner and O'Brien (somewhat old and flabby for a Sub commander) do well.  Alan Hale is adequate comic relief.

The Cardinal (1963) Preminger

Tom Tryon stars as an Irish-American Priest who rises through the Catholic Church Hierarchy and tackles abortion, racism, & Nazism. Some critics thought the movie was too "respectful" towards the Church. I think the opposite -  it a vulgar, political movie, uninterested in Christianity.  All we get is Liberal talking points, with some sex on the side.  Preminger comes off as a German Stanley Kramer. Other flaws include a boring lead, few interesting or life- like characters, flat direction, a soap opera script, use of studio backlots, and a mind-numbing 175 minute run-time. On the plus side, Houston is excellent in a supporting role.

Summary: Simply awful. I'm not surprised this was a box office "disappointment" in 1963. Rating *

Beckett (1964)

Plot: Historical drama based on the conflict between Henry II (Peter O'Toole) and Thomas Becket (Richard Burton).

Pros: Beautifully photographed and full of kingly ostentation and pageantry. Both Burton and O'Toole were justly nominated for academy awards. The script is intelligent and full of witty lines.

Cons: The movie is almost 3 hours and bogs down a little in the 2nd hour. And I wish the film had been more focused on Beckett and less on Henry II. Further, the movie seemed historically inaccurate to me. I doubt English kings ran around raping peasant women or forcing Ladies-in-Waiting to sleep with them - there's never been a shortage of women willing to bed the King. And O'Toole is so sad, scared, and irrational and has such a "man-crush" on Beckett, you wonder how he ever ruled as King and whether he was "playing for the other team" Per the history books, Henry II was an intelligent, forceful monarch and a strong, handsome, athletic man. As for Burton, he has trouble playing his characters piety which comes off as cold rigidity. Rating ***

42nd Street and Gold-diggers of 1933

Gold Diggers of 1933  Millionaire songwriters Dick Powell rescues some unemployed chorus girls (Keeler and Blondell included) and helps put on a Broadway show. Uses the same WB sets and supporting characters in 42nd Street. But Gold diggers has more and better songs and the Berkeley choreography shines. Best Song? We're in the Money.  OTOH, the script isn't as good, and the slangy 30s New York Wisecracks got annoying. Ruby Keeler gets more screen time and amazes with her Clunky dancing and naive charm. Rating ***

42nd Street (1933). Risque -if cliche - comedy about putting on a Broadway show. A few good songs at the end. Ruby Keeler goes from chorus line to stardom, when Bebe Daniels breaks an ankle. Ginger Rogers is the comedy relief and Dick Powell has a minor role. The main attraction is a script that crackles with wit and one liners. Further, Keeler is adorable, and Baxter shines as the hard-charging producer. Its Pre-code - but I was still surprised at the explicit T&A shots and constant reminders that the Chorus Girls use sex for their advantage. Quite enjoyable Rating *** 1/2

Cradle will Rock (1997)

Stars: John Cusak as Rockefeller, Emily Watson as a starving actress, Bill Murray a right-wing ventriloquist, Saradon an Italian-Jewish art dealer, and Vanessa Redgrave and Phillip Baker Hall as rich swells.
Pros: Energetic direction, stylish sets, Good acting, Bill Murray subplot.
Cons: Disjointed, Portrayal of Welles and Houseman, uneven script, unrealistic story and characters, awful music by Marc Blitzstein.

Tim Robins wrote and directed this story about a New York City WPA theater group performing Rock The Cradle in 1937. I enjoyed half of “Cradle will rock” especially Bill Murray's performance. But the movie is blend of the good, the bad, and the ridiculous. The direction is excellent and the acting good, but the script and story are very uneven, and the actual “Cradle will rock” music is awful. The main flaw is the script. Too many banal lines, too many subplots, and too much left-wing propaganda. Of the 6 major subplots, only two or three are well done or interesting.

On the plus side, Bill Murray steals the movie as a bitter, anti-communist comedian and Cherry Jones is excellent as the head of the theater group. OTOH, Phillip Baker Hall and Redgrave are wasted as cartoonish “Rich Swells”, and the whole Diego Rivera-Rockefeller subplot was pointless. Finally, the movies view on 1930s NYC, communism, Orson Welles, and the WPA, theater group is one-sided and historically wrong. Robins actually shows the 1930s Stalinists as the “good guys”! An offensive and incredible viewpoint in 1999.

Summary - A historically inaccurate, Left-wing propaganda piece, made bearable by Bill Murray and some excellent performances. Rating **1/2

Northwest Passage (1940)

Spenser Tracy shines as Major Rogers head of the famous "Rodgers Rangers" in this stirring French and Indian war adventure story. The Rangers, including Robert Young and Walter Brennan, go on dangerous raid to attack St. Francis and wipe out the Abenaki Indians.

Filmed in 1940, Hollywood was helping to prepare America for WWII and "Northwest Passage" goes out of its way to show the English-Americans united against a common enemy. Beautifully filmed in technicolor in Idaho, the scenery is fantastic and action scenes well done. Highlights include, the Rangers forming a human chain to cross a fast moving river, the attack on the Abenaki Indian village, the march through the Swamp, and the ending - Redcoats to the rescue. Tracy proves he can play the macho leading man with the best of them. Young is surprisingly good, Brennan is excellent (as always).

Summary A very good war/adventure movie despite some historical inaccuracies. Rating ***

The Flim-Flam Man (1967)

Charming comedy about a rural con-man (George C. Scott) and his new protege (Michael Sarrazin). Beautifully photographed in Kentucky with an excellent score by Goldsmith. Notable for Scott's jubilant performance and the excellent supporting cast including: Slim Pickens, Harry Morgan, Strother Martin, Alice Ghostly and Albert Salmi. Flaws: The film drags at times - the Sarrazin-Sue Lyons romance is a low-point.

Summary - A slight, easy-going comedy made enjoyable by Scott and the other actors. Written by William Rose, who scripted "Genevieve (1953)". Rating ***

The Shootist (1977)

Stars: John Wayne, James Stewart Lauren Bacall and Ron Howard.
Plot: In 1901,  an aged gunslinger (Wayne) learns he has terminal cancer and when word gets out, some old enemies want to settle some old scores.

Pros: This is John Wayne's movie from start to finish and he does a wonderful job (helped by some very good lines). Wayne, of course battled cancer in real life, and brings real pathos to the role. Also, good are the old pros who show up in bit parts, Richard Boone, John Caradine, Hugh O'Brien, Moses Brown, and James Stewart. Boone as usual steals every scene. Its unfortunate his role wasn't expanded. Ron Howard is well cast as the teen-age son.

Cons: On the downside, Bacall and comic relief Harry Morgan are barely adequate. In Morgan's defense he's given some bad lines, but his scenes with Wayne show why he ended his career supporting TV stars like Jack Webb and Alan Alda. As for Bacall, her acting talents were always very limited and the film shows them up. The part calls for personality & warmth and Bacall simply can't deliver. She's too bland, stone faced, and remote. Its sad Geraldine Page or some better actress couldn't have played the part. As with many 70s movies, the movie seems over-lit. 

Casting:  Per Don Siegel's autobiography, he didn't want John Wayne for the lead role because he disliked Wayne's politics (sounds like a blacklist, no?) but after George C. Scott (his first choice) and several other big names turned him down, he finally went with the Duke. The two got along well, although Siegel had to put his foot down, since Wayne wanted to direct his own scenes.

Summary:  The script is quite good but Siegel's direction is competent, nothing more. See it for the Duke's excellent last performance. ***

West Side Story (1961)

Plot:  A variation on Romeo and Juliet. Two NYC gangs fight over turf, while two youngsters (one White, one Puerto Rican) fall in love.
Stars:  Natalie Wood, Richard Beymer,  Rita Moreno,  George Chakiris

A box office smash in 1961, West Side Story was considered new and exciting.  Critics were bowled over by the location  shots, singing/dancing Gang members, and  its serious treatment of race and juvenile delinquency.  The only thing "old hat" was the standard musical love story between Beymer and Wood. And that's the major problem.

When the movie stays with the Gangs, its fairly interesting.  But when it switches to the "love story" its deadly boring. Neither lover, (Beymer or Wood) has much star presence, both are dubbed, they don't dance much, and they don't fit their roles. Russian-Jewish Wood, despite the pancake makeup, isn't a credible Puerto Rican, and Beymer is too soft to be a Gang leader. The fiery Rita Moreno - a Puerto Rican - would have been a better lead.

The Songs -  Considered one of the greatest musical scores ever,  I found the songs a mixed lot.  The two "gang numbers"  Cool and The Jet Song were great. OTOH,  America and Gee Officer Krupke set my teeth on edge with their phony, unrealistic lyrics.  Bernstein didn't seem to understand that Puerto Ricans are Americans - not "immigrants".  And Krupke has to be the most annoying "'Teenage snark" song ever recorded.

The Romantic songs  Maria, Tonight, I Feel Pretty, are OK, but derivative.  Did Bernstein sneak into Rogers & Hammerstein houses and steal some sheet music?  Kael puts it this way: "When I left the theater, someone remarked "I could listen to that music forever", to which I replied "We have been listening to it forever".  Having Marnie Nixon dub the songs didn't help.

The Dancing -  This is the highlight of the movie, assuming you can accept Singing/Dancing Gang members and ballet-like  knife fights.  Deservedly, Robbins received a special Oscar for the choreography.

The Direction - One of the best directed film musicals, ever. Things move at a quick pace. And Wise does a tremendous job in transforming a play into a movie, its definitely not a "filmed play." Occasionally, you notice the phony sets, but for the most part it looks very realistic.

The Script - Based on Romeo and Juilet, the story has more plot holes then a New York City street. The dialog is pedestrian. Not one witty or memorable line. And the liberal moralizing! Samples: "When will you kids stop? You make the world lousy" and "You all killed him, not with your guns or knives, but with your hate. Well, now I can kill too. Because now I have hate"  ( I love the "have" in there).

Casting - The leads have been discussed. The supporting players are much better. Moreno and Chakiris are standouts. You can quibble about the gang members.  The Jets, should be Italian/Irish but look like they came out of an Iowa cornfield.  Meanwhile, the Sharks, instead of being Puerto Rican, are Anglo/Italian/Greeks with pancake makeup.

Summary:  Not really my kind of musical.  I prefer musicals with a witty script and some amazing Gene Kelly/Fred Astaire dancing. I don't mind a serious musical if it has an excellent book and characters I care about - but West Side Story had neither.  But that's  a minority view.

The Naked and the Dead (1958)

Literally one of the worst war movies I’ve ever seen. It’s full of flat, uninteresting, and unlikable characters, a meaningless plot, and mediocre direction. The producers throw in some “That wasn’t in the book” good looking strippers, but it still drags on for an interminable 131 minutes. Clift Robertson and Aldo Ray aren’t bad but they can’t breathe life into their superficial characters. Based on the uneven, overrated and overheated Norman Mailer novel, it keeps most of the novel’s weaknesses and none of its strengths. Boring, boring, and boring! Zero Stars

The Crowd (1928)

Considered one of the finest American silent films, The Crowd follows a young man from arrival in NYC, his marriage, and the subsequent ups and downs. Well acted and with some fantastic shots of "old NYC", it has none of the "Hammy" overacting that mars other Silent films. Some of the shots have been become classics and were ripped off by other film-makers (the row of work desks was used by Wilder in The Apartment). I agree its a great film, but its a little too bleak for my tastes. The American public seems to have agreed, since it was a critical success but did only middling box office. ****

Day of the Outlaw (1959)

Plot:   In the dead of Winter, a small Western Town is taken over by an Outlaw Gang.
Stars:  Robert Ryan, Burl Ives (as the Outlaw leader),  Tina Louise

Well done, if low-budget and derivative Western. The first act gives us rancher (Ryan) vs. small town farmers ala Shane. Ryan even makes a "Ryker" like speech about the "men who got here first and ran the risks"  getting pushed out.  In the 2nd Act, Ives' gang shows up & holds the town hostage, like a Western version of Desperate Hours/The Wild One.  The last act gives us a Key Largo ending with Ryan leading the gang out-of-town on a supposedly "safe" trail over the mountains.

Living aside the derivative nature of the script, its well directed and the final 20 minutes shot on location (in snow and freezing temperatures) is beautiful & compelling. The acting?  Well, Burl Ives is Burl Ives. As for Ryan, he lacked the necessary charm/likability to be a leading man - but here, he's a good fit since there's no romance and he's mostly cantankerous. The various supporting players (including "Ginger" from Gilligan's Island) are more than adequate.

Summary:  Historically, its all balls. No real western town would've put up with Ives' Gang for a second, and no Western Gang ever acted like the "Burl Ives Gang".  But its a well done film,  with a great last 20 minutes. An unjustly forgotten 'small picture' Western.

Nothing Sacred (1937)

Plot:  A Newspaper reporter brings a woman dying of radium poisoning to New York City for a Grand Farewell - only to find she's perfectly healthy.
Stars:  Carole Lombard, Frederick March

Probably Carole Lombard's funniest role,  Nothing Sacred breezes along and is only 77 minutes. I'm not really a big Lombard fan but she's great in this one. Written by Ben Hecht, its a somewhat cynical, somewhat affectionate, satire of newsmen out for a story at any cost, small towns, and the sentimental American public.  The Fred March character is a much nicer, more gullible, version of the reporters in Front Page or Ace in the Hole.

In addition to Lombard, we get some good supporting characters including Frank Fay, Margaret Hamilton, Sig Ruman, and Walter Connolly.  Troy Brown is hilarious in his few scenes, including a bit as a phony "Sultan" outed by wife Hattie McDaniel. There's not much to criticize, although a more extroverted/energetic leading man (say Gable or Powell) should have been cast.  March is a little too intellectual and passive - but does well enough.

Summary: Notable for being the first technicolor comedy, I'd highly recommend it - but its a definite cut below the Awful Truth or Bringing up Baby.

Some Came Running (1958)

Plot  Based on the James Jones Best Seller. Dave Hirsh (Sinatra) a writer and WW II vet comes back to his Indiana hometown in 1946 and becomes involved with a "Ginny" a sad-sack tootsie (Shirley MacLaine) and a gambler (Dean Martin).

Better than I expected - yes, its kinda of a Soap Opera/Melodrama but the cast - and the 50s Indiana location make it interesting. Just misses being a classic due to (i) being too long (137 minutes), and (2) miscast actors in the lead roles.

Sinatra does a good job at portraying Hirsh as a tough, hard-drinking combat vet, with a talent for writing, but he's incapable of displaying any real in-depth emotion or conflict. He's supposed to be deeply in love with an unattainable school-teacher and be crushed when she spurns him - but "old blue-eyes" just can't convincing act that. He always seems on the verge of saying "dames are a dime a dozen" and leaving for the nearest bar. The part really called for Brando, Dean ( had he lived) or Clift (before his accident).

The same is true of "Ginny" -  MacLaine  is good at portraying her as a goodhearted girl - but she's incapable of expressing the vulnerability and sweetness needed. And like most Hollywood movies they mistakenly equate ignorance or lack of education with intelligence. MacLaine over-emphasizes the characters stupidity. You wonder what Geraldine Page  - or a truly great actress - would have done with the role.

Summary:  Despite its flaws, a strangely compelling movie.   Rating **1/2

Bye, Bye Birdie (1963)

Plot: Based on the Broadway play,  "Birdie" (an Elvis-like Rock & Roller) is about to be drafted into the Army - to the dismay of Ann Margret.
Pros: Ann Margret (who definitely has "it"), some good songs, Paul Lynde, Dick Van Dyke**.
Cons: Overlong and mediocre script, sluggish, unimaginative direction, Various subplots that belonged in a sitcom.  Uneven score with too many mediocre songs.
Best Songs: Bye Bye Birdie, Kids, Put on a Happy Face

 An almost plot-less movie or rather a movie with so many subplots the main theme, satirizing Elvis and the Rock and Roll "fad" -gets lost. Most of this movie was dull, unfocused, and difficult to watch.  The story is simply awful.  And why Janet Leigh wears a black wig, and Dick Van Dyke's Mom is Jewish (without being Jewish) is anyone's guess. Too bad, because the cast is excellent.

Summary:  Except for a few songs and Ann Margret - completely forgettable.

** = Amazingly, Dick Van Dyke was going to be fired from Bye, Bye Birdie (the Play) during the out-of-town tuneup .  However, Gower Champion demanded he be kept, and the rest, they say, is history.

Singin in the Rain vs. West Side Story - Kael vs. Kauffman

An extract from New Republic Film Critic Stanley Kauffman's review of West Side Story. He wrote it in response to Pauline Kael's attack on the film (she's the unnamed "Popular Cultist"):

No one is more jealous of the purity of the popular than the intellectual.  These commentators prefer musicals in which credibility of plot and the quality of the acting are irrelevant (which they are not for West Side Story) and beyond criticism, which exist for their music and dance. But it is in those very terms that these pictures seem to me inferior to the  Robbins-Bernstein-Sondheim work. 

A favorite of the popular cultists is Singin in the Rain (1952);  it contains several bright numbers but apart from the fact that, compared with Robbins' dancers, Gene Kelly is only a hoofer, there are dance routines in Singin in the Rain,  which are indistinguishable from  some of the film's parodies of the early 1930s  dance routines.  On their own terms then, these films of the popular cultists are inferior to films like West Side Story.

Kauffman had christened West Side Story "the best film musical ever made".  Meanwhile, Kael had called it "Frenzied hokum" and stated:

West Side Story begins with a blast of stereophonic music that had me clutching my head.  Is the audience so impressed by science and technique, and by the highly advertised new developments that they accept this jolting series of distorted sounds gratefully—on the assumption, perhaps, that because it’s so unlike ordinary sound, it must be better? Everything about West Side Story is supposed to stun you with its newness, its size, the wonders of its photography, editing, choreography, music.  It’s nothing so simple as a musical, it’s a piece of cinematic technology.

The irony of this hyped-up, slam-bang production is that those involved apparently don't really believe that beauty and romance can be expressed in modern rhythms, because whenever their Romeo and Juliet enter the scene, the dialogue becomes painfully old-fashioned and mawkish, the dancing turns to simpering, sickly romantic ballet, and sugary old stars hover in the sky...

Christmas Holiday (1944)

Plot: Film Noir about a young woman who marries a charming wastrel and gets more than she bargained for
Stars: Gene Kelly, Deanna Durbin

It'd been interesting to know why Durbin and Kelly were cast in a movie called "Christmas Holiday" - because its no "Christmas Movie" and while Durbin sings - its always unhappily and Kelly doesn't sing or dance at all.

So, how did come about?  Well, Durbin was tired of playing sunny girl singer roles, and requested a change - so Universal gave her this bleak film-noir role as a girl who marries a charming wastrel (Gene Kelly) with  an overbearing mother (incest, hint, hint). After six months Kelly kills a bookie and is sent up the river.  Durbin feels responsible so she "punishes" herself by getting a job as singer/hostess in a low rent bar (Prostitute, hint, hint).  She tells her story after a Christmas Mass to  a TDY Air Force officer.  Kelly shows up, after an escape from prison, and per the Production Code meets a sad end.

Its a well done, if twisted, and convoluted Film Noir.  Durbin does quite well in a serious part, and probably could have done more serious roles, if she'd been interested. OTOH, Kelly is fine as the "weak wastrel" but incapable of being menacing or psychotic. He's not bad, just adequate in the role. Its the kind of role that say, Richard Widmark, would've gone to town on.

But make no mistake, Durbin is the star, Kelly only shows up at the 25 minute mark & has to share time with his "Overbearing mother"  (Gale Sondergaard).

Summary:  Above average  Film Noir with some off-beat casting (Deanna Durbin and Gene Kelly) and good direction.  However, it suffers from some structural plot problems.  90 minutes long, it doesn't start to tell Durbin's story until 25 minutes in (that's a hell of a prologue) and comes to an abrupt halt.

It's Always Fair Weather (1955)

Stars: Gene Kelly, Cyd Charisse, Dan Daily and Deloras Gray. 101 minutes.
Plot: After WW II GI’s who vow to reunite 10 years later - when they do, they find their friendship has faded until a TV hostess brings them together.

Comden and Green wrote the script/lyrics - Previn the music. Positives include a few good song & dance numbers: Kelly dancing on roller skates, Charisse in "Baby you knock me out" and Gray in "Thanks but no Thanks". But the remaining songs are forgettable and the script/story lacks sparkle and humor. Further problems include a boring brawl at the end, and a lack of star power and chemistry between the 3 GI’s, (Kelly, Daily, and Kidd). The professions of friendship at the start seem unconvincing while their dislike of each other at the reunion seems far too real. Rating **1/2

The Good Shepard (2006)

Plot:  A Yalie CIA agent played by Matt Damion recruited by the OSS, during World War II. We follow his family life and career at the CIA during the 40s and 50s.

Pros: Good history lesson, supporting actors, good set design, costumes,, camera work,, intelligent story 

Cons: Matt Damion, lack of intrigue and suspense, too long, too slow, boring lead character.

I really wanted to like this movie but its inert and dull. The long 160 minutes was made even longer by the slow, deliberate pacing and lack of intrigue.. Its probably the dullest spy story ever. An amazing amount of padding, with endless shots of people walking, staring out into space, or making small talk. Most conversations are deliberate, somber and, full of pauses. There are a few excellent scenes but they get lost in the ponderous, mediocre sludge. As for the acting, Damion dominates the movie but was emotionless and disinterested – just like me. To be fair, the script gives him little to work with. Note to Hollywood – WASP does not equal boring. However, many of supporting cast are excellent, especially Pesci, Baldwin, Gambon, John Turturro. Jolie is wasted in a standard neglected wife role.

Summary: A missed opportunity – given the story and talent it should have been much better.. Rating **

Left Handed Gun (1957) Harper (1965) & Murder My Sweet (1944)

Left Handed Gun Penn (1958)

Stars: Paul Newman and Lita Milan. B&W 102 minutes.

Plot: In 1880s New Mexico, Billy the Kid vows revenge on the 4 men who killed his boss. 

Should be renamed "Billy the Kid - misunderstood Juvenile Delinquent." The story is melodramatic and historically inaccurate. People ride horses and fire six-shooters but the dialogue and characters are straight out of 50s Hollywood. Newman is in full "method acting" mode complete with pauses, grimaces, and smirks. He works way too hard in the role. The supporting cast is forgettable except for Denhner and Milan. For Newman Fans only Rating *

Harper (1965) - Paul Newman. Newman is "Harper" a Ross MacDonald type LA detective investigating Bacall's missing husband. We couldn't finish this, the movie seemed plotless and just a series of scenes strung together. Lots wisecracks that were less than wise. I remember episodes of Cannon and Rockford Files that were better. Newman's constant gum chewing didn't help.Rating **

Murder, My Sweet (1944) 

Stars Dick Powell and Claire Trevor - B&W 95 minutes.

Plot: Adoption of Chandler's "Farewell my Lovely. Private eye Philip Marlowe is hired to look for 'Velma' a client's former girlfriend. 

While Bogart is the premiere Marlowe, and Mitchum was tougher, Powell runs a close third. Powell utters the wisecracks with excellent timing. The supporting cast is above average. The movie stays true to the novel and uses a lot of Chandler's dialogue and characters. Enjoyable Rating ***

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Stars Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent and Christopher Waltz 152 minutes.
Plot; In Nazi-occupied France, a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" join with forces with British commandos to kill the Nazi High command at a Paris Movie theater.
Pros: Acting - especially by Watlz and Laurent, final hour, black humor, Fake Nazi movie "Nation's Pride", basement scene, well drawn characters, movie references
Cons: Brad Pitt, unnecessary gore and brutality, slack pace, too much dialogue.

One the most uneven movies I've ever seen. Brilliant scenes alternate with static/boring ones. One minute Walz is having a tension filled interrogation, the next, Brad Pitt's basterds are stupidly scalping someone. As stated by "Hancock the Superb" over the years QT has grown as a director and regressed as a writer. "IB" really needed a rewrite to pick up the pace and shorten and sharpen the dialogue. But QT is now too big to be edited. And on re-watch the black comic nature of the movie came to the fore. In almost every scene Tarinto drops large boulder-sized hints stating"Don't take this seriously, its a comic book fantasy".

Summary: An uneven effort with some parts that I never will watch again and others I want to see over and over. Recommended only for QT fans, those with a strong stomach, and those with a strong liking for fantasy and/or movies about movies. Rating ***

Cabaret (1972) - Fosse

Plot:  In Wiemar Berlin,  a free-spirited cabaret singer romances two men while the Nazi Party rises to power.
Stars:  Liza Minnelli,  Michael York,  Joel Grey
Best Songs:  Heirat, Cabaret,  Money, Tomorrow Belongs to Me 

Cabaret is one of those disappointing musicals that has a passel of great songs, a great singer, and an utterly boring book.  When the movie is in the Kit Kat Klub with Joel Grey as MC, and Liza on stage, its magical.  When it goes outside the club, and concentrates on the un-compelling love triangle and York's antics, its meanders and  loses its way.

The Script tries to jazz the story up by throwing decadence, Nazis and Bi-sexuality at us, but to no avail.  Part of the problem is Liza.  A great singer (side note: how often does a great singer have a great singer as a parent?), she's not much of an actress, or a great beauty.  Her character "Sally Bowles" is supposed to be a charismatic "Wild and Crazy Girl" who knocks the socks off the staid  York character. But Liza can't really play that.  Meanwhile, York is passive/dull in a passive/dull part. And none of the other actors make an impression.

But there are some great songs. The best isn't by Liza, but Heirat, sung by Greta Keller in the background.  Amusingly, the two Jewish composers were criticized for writing a "Nazi Anthem" (Tomorrow Belongs to Me) !

Summary: I found Isherwood's Berlin Stories a bore, and same goes for Cabaret's book. My recommendation - watch it for the production numbers or skip the  movie and buy the soundtrack.