The Searching Wind (1946)

Plot: Adapted from the Lillian Hellman Play.  A wounded GI demands his mother and Diplomat father explain their Inter-war record of appeasement and failed marriage.
Stars: Robert Young, Sylvia Sydney, Ann Richards.

One the most obscure Hellman plays, and certainly her most forgotten movie,  The Searching Wind  currently has a grand total of six IMBD user reviews. While a popular wartime play, the film was dated when released, and did poor Box Office. Y'see in  December 1946, people were more interested in Joe Stalin and a possible Cold War than"who was to blame for Munich."

Viewing it 72 years later, its not that bad - there's a Young-Sydney-Richards love triangle, the acting is OK and the production values are high.  Plus, Robert Young is well cast as the indecisive, if well-meaning, lead. As a history buff, I enjoyed it.  But if you don't care about Mussolini's 1922 rise to power - you're in for a long movie.

Note: Hellman fans might give it a whirl, because its so unusual. First, Hammett wasn't involved - and second, its not a melodrama with a nasty villain (unlike Little Foxes/Watch on the Rhine). OTOH, the play has some typical Hellman touches.  We have:

• the self-righteous -but uncertain - youngster who judges his elders; 
• the noble character who's lost his leg fighting fascism (cf: Julia);
• Rich people who are bad or empty headed; and
• some nasty, if witty, put-downs and insults.  

Summary:  For history buffs and Robert Young/Lillian Hellman fans only.  Others will be bored.

Midnight Lace (1960)

Plot:  In London, a wealthy American wife is being stalked and threatened - but by who?
Stars:  Doris Day, Rex Harrison, Myrna Loy, John Gavin

Alternate title:  How to be terrified in London on $1000 a day.  No one does hysteria/fright better than Doris Day! And she never looked better or was better dressed.  Lending fine support are Rex Harrison and Myrna Loy (who steals every scene). Supposedly, Day was worn down by all the negative emotion and refused to make another serious movie.  I'm not a fan of "women in danger" movies - but this is a fun little thriller (a sorta 2nd rate Hitchcock) with good production values.

The Night They Raided Minsky's (1968)

Plot: Supposedly a valentine to Burlesque. A young Amish woman runs away to NYC to do religious dance but ends up in Minsky's Burlesque theater.
Stars:  Jason Robards, Norman Wisdom, Forest Tucker, Britt Eckland
Best Song: “A Perfect Gentleman”

The critics (Kael, Ebert, Glenn Erickson) they be crazy.  According to them, Minsky is a good movie, but it’s not –it’s terrible. And the public agrees with me. It died at the box office and today has a miserable 6.1 IMDB rating

The stage work is unfunny & dull.
And the frenetic cutting (creating a Laugh-in effect) doesn’t improve the jokes/songs.  Making it even worse, the Chorus girls are plain/vulgar - and we get constant shots of pug-uglies in the crowd leering and guffawing.  I suppose this is what Burlesque was really like – and also why it died.

The backstage story is thin and cartoonish.
Its made up of several strands. The Minsky’s (so tolerant/wise you’d think they were Rabbis) try to save their show, Eckland journeys from naive Christian to Stripper, while the comedian team of Robard/Wisdom bicker and compete for Eckland’s favor.  It’s full of overdone characters and predictable plot twists.

The acting is a mixed bag. 
Robards is miscast as a comedian -  he has no chemistry with Eckland, and he’s without charm. Meanwhile, Eckland is too old, too Swedish, and too knowing to play an Amish naïf.  And the great Harry Andrews? He just stomps around shouting angry Bible gibberish –what a waste.  On the plus side, Norman Wisdom is excellent- and deserved a bigger role and better jokes.  Forest Tucker does well with an implausible role – he’s a WASP Gangster (!)

Direction
Weirdly, the movie keeps inter-cutting B&W 1920's stock footage and fading-in from B&W to Color. Evidently, the producers thought we needed constant reminders that its 1925 - and not 1968. Side Note: I’ve never seen so many ugly Extras in one movie.

Summary: Burlesque died because no one liked it - except some old guys who wanted bad jokes and strippers.  If you’re one of those guys  - or a film critic-  you might like The Night They Raided Minsky’s.  Everyone else should skip it.

Charlie Varrick (1973) - Siegel

Plot:  When Charlie Varrick robs $750,000 from a Mob controlled bank, he must outwit both the FBI and the Mafia hit-men.
Stars: Walter Matthau (Charlie Varrick), Joe Don Baker, Sherrie North, John Vernon

A tightly written, brutal story of a little crook beating the big crooks. Charlie Varrick, except for some gratuitous sex scenes, is a fast moving crime movie - with little time for character development or sentiment.  We start out with a bloody bank robbery and end 111 minutes later with an exciting, if implausible, airplane vs. car duel. Varrick, of course, triumphs - did anyone think Don Siegel would kill "Oscar Madison"?

Flaws
First, why should we care about Varrick? He's a bank robber, implicated in killing three bank guards & policeman. Later, Varrick sets up his partner for the Mafia hit-man and threatens to throw a woman off a balcony. He's no Albert Schweitzer - to say the least.

Second, everyone in the movie is either nasty, cowardly, untrustworthy, crooked or just plain evil. And we get a drawn-out scene of Joe Baker beating a man to death, eight other killings, and visit to a sleazy brothel.  I felt like taking a shower afterwards.

Walter Matthau
The 53 year old Matthau is slightly miscast as a crop-duster pilot/dangerous bank robber. When flying the plane, Matthau looks like Snoopy, and his bedding of the pretty Mafia Secretary is either "pervey" or unintentionally funny. Thankfully, Matthau never engages in physical violence or tries to be an "action hero."

Supporting Cast
While all the supporting actors are good, Joe Baker as the intelligent, psychotic hit-man, and John Vernon as the slimy mafia boss, stand out. Baker is somewhat like Lee Marvin in  "The Killers".  He likes the finer things in life but is cold and relentless in his pursuit of the money and his targets.

Summary:  A fast-paced, amoral crime action/thriller with some off-beat casting.  Its worth a look, if you have strong stomach for 1970's hairstyles and mindless brutality.

Postscript - An implausible Ending:
Matthau's plan at the end was dependent on *everyone* acting as Matthau wanted them to, and doesn't work otherwise.  What if Baker had NOT decided to run over Vernon? What if Vernon had pulled out a gun? What if Baker had taken Matthau out of the cockpit and had *him* open the trunk?  And what if Baker had decided chasing an airplane was too dangerous and quit, or crashed his car?  Then, Matthau would've been back where he started, with $750K and the Mob after him.

IOW, for his plan of killing Vernon AND Baker AND getting away was dependent on a whole bunch of lucky breaks - like drawing Four Aces in Poker.

Sorcerer (1977)

Plot:  A Remake of Wages of Fear (1953). Four men in an isolated South American Town, risk their lives to transport high-explosives through the dangerous jungle.
Stars:   Roy Scheider, Bruno Cremer, Francisco Rabal

OK, so how do you re-make one of the greatest movies (Le salaire de la peur) of all time, and turn it into a critical and box-office disaster?  Well, here's how:

1)  Take the original four likable - deeply human -characters and make them superficial and unlikable. In the original, we had four "average Joe" outcasts who bonded  with each other. We rooted for them.  In this version, we have a Mafioso, a crooked banker, an Arab terrorist, and a Spanish professional killer. They have no warmth and they don't even like each other.  So, why should we care?

2)  Cast un-charismatic actors and obscure foreigners. Originally, Steve McQueen and Yves Montand  were to star. But the producer/director wanted to make more $$$ by casting lower-priced Roy Schinder and Bruno Cremer, along with two more even more obscure actors: Amidou and Rabal. Result? We care even less about the superficial characters.

3) Give your unlikable characters a long pointless backstory.  Unlike Wages of Fear, which begins in the isolated South American town,  Sorcerer gives us long boring "action packed" backstories for the four protagonists. However, its all at the start, and  since we don't know who these guys are, we don't care. And the action sequences are unremarkable - which makes it even worse.

4) Spend a lot of time in the Isolated Town doing nothing of interest. Incredibly, Sorcerer doesn't get the guys on the road till the 55 minute mark. So what were they doing before that? Sorry, I can't remember. There were a lot of broken down South American shacks, Roy Schinder looking sad, rain, mud, and various nasty looking characters, but other than that...sorry dude.

5) Update the Story to the 1970s so we wonder why they need to use Trucks.  In Wages of Fear, they *had* to use trucks. In 1953, no backwater Oil Company would have a helicopter to transport explosives 200 miles. But in 1975?!  So, the film's silly excuse for no helicopters? "Turbulence". Yeah right, as opposed to having high-explosives bounce around in the back of a truck over rough roads!

6) Take out all the Suspense  First, since we don't really like them, who cares if they live or die? In addition, every dangerous scene is  directed in a slack and un-engaging way. We have these big monster trucks rumbling through the jungle and we're always viewing them from a distance.  Even, the much touted bridge scene is a bore.

7) Have people act like idiots.  The guys in the Wages of Fear weren't rocket scientists, they were average Joe's trying the best they could. But in Sorcerer they're just plain dumb.  When they come upon a tree blocking their way, Schinder goes crazy and starts using a machete to find an alternate path -and his partner is going to shoot him - because its the end, right?  But then they realize they have a truck full of explosives...and.... figure out what the audience thought 10 minutes before.  In a later scene,  bandits with AK-47s try to hijack the truck, but they don't search the drivers for weapons, or take any precautions because ...they're idiots.  Result? One guy with a pistol kills five guys with automatic weapons!

8)  Have an unnecessarily sad ending.  Everyone dies. Schider makes it to the end, but after the payoff, gets killed by mafia hit-man. So it was all for nothing.  The end.

IMDB Rating a Phony
And I don't believe the 7.8 IMDB rating for a minute.  I smelled a rat, and loe and behold when you look at the rating details, what do you find?  Well, the 1000 top reviews and IMDB staff give the movie a 7.0. And it has 129 reviews, as many as "Wages of Fear". Well, that's odd - given its bad critical reception and relative obscurity. And amazingly, review after review mentions the producer/director William Friedkin.  Really.  How many people mention an obscure director in their review? It obvious that someone is gaming the system

Summary:  Sorcerer isn't a good movie and isn't deserving of cult status.  Watch Clouzat's Wages of Fear instead.

Night Moves (1975) - Penn

Plot:  A Private Detective is hired to find a runaway daughter and tumbles upon a case of murder
Stars:  Gene Hackman, James Woods, Jennifer Warren, Melanie Griffith
Best Quote:
Tom Iverson: I want that kid the hell out of here. You see, I... I got pretty foolish with her, and I... Well, you've seen her. God, there ought to be a law!
Hackman: (Dryly) There is.

Considered by some to be a "cult classic", Night Moves starts out slow but ends with a bang.  Hackman is excellent as  the middle-aged detective who's always one step behind and over-his-head. Almost everyone lends fine support, especially Janet Ward as the less-than-loving Mother and Melanie Griffith as the over-sexed, baby-faced 16 year old with a killer body. The only exceptions are Jennifer Warren, who's too plain for a femme fatale and Harris Yulin, who makes little impression.

Unfortunately ,the good acting can't overcome the massive plot holes and a dull first half.  The first murder doesn't come till the 60 minute mark (with 40 minutes to go). Before that, not much happens - all we get is a rambling story of a below-average detective and his unfaithful wife.

Plot holes.
Why wasn't Ed Binns killed in the car crash? And would the killers choose such an uncertain & easily traced method of  murder? How did  Ed Binns fly an airplane and shoot a sub-machine gun with one broken arm?  Why did Iverson leave Woods' body out in the open? How does Ed Binns know where Hackman is?  Why are the crooks storing a *wooden* artifact UNDERWATER -where it can erode?

The Meaning of "Night Moves"
BTW, the title "Night moves" is a bad pun.  It refers to the "Knight moves" in a famous 1922 chess game with Grand-master Bruno Moritz, who missed a queen sacrifice/checkmate and lost the game. Hackman re-plays the game on his small chess set during the movie.

Summary
Night Moves has increased in popularity since its dismal 1975 box office.  But its still a flawed movie, with some fine acting and an action packed finish -but weighted down with a dull first half and plot holes.

Four By Fonda - China Syndrome, 9 to 5, Electric Horseman, Barefoot in the Park

I've been on Jane Fonda kick lately. Here are my short reviews:

China Syndrome (1979).   A well-made propaganda film/thriller that attacks nuclear power. Playing on our fears of radiation and nuclear power safety, China Syndrome has muckraking reporter Jane Fonda teaming up with whistle-blower Jack Lemmon to expose an unsafe Nuclear Plant. Everyone gives a fine performance, especially Lemmon. The only real flaw?  The "Evil-safety be damned -Corporate Execs" are overdrawn.  These guys not only try to kill whistle-blowers, they're willing to destroy their own nuclear plant and kill their workers, in order to scrimp on plant safety!  And I'm not sure if PG&E actually has hit-squads, but then I pay my bills on time. Oh, and Michael Douglas is somewhat obnoxious, but you already knew that.

Nine to Five (1981).   My favorite Fonda comedy, although she's completely overshadowed by Dabney Coleman, Dolly Parton, and Lilly Tomlin. Dabney plays the ultimate bad boss - an arrogant, male chauvinist who bullies Fonda, harasses Parton, and  takes credit for Tomlin's work.  But "the Girls" band together and he eventually gets his comeuppance. The story drags in the middle - and gets a little too silly and unbelievable at times - but the great cast (especially Parton and Coleman) pull it off. Some better lines and less sadistic slapstick would've made it a classic.

Electric Horseman (1979)- After aging, drunken cowboy Robert Redford sees a Cereal Company's "official Horse" being mistreated, he steals it and goes on the lam. Later, toughie reporter Jane Fonda joins him - and romance/laughs result.  An old-fashioned movie, with an old fashioned plot, it achieves its goal of re-uniting Redford and Fonda in an acceptable Rom-com. Its a talky movie, and a little too long. Fonda is excellent - she's better here than in Barefoot in the Park.  But Redford seems more Wall Street banker than Cowboy. He's no Clark Gable - but then who was in 1979?

Barefoot in Park (1967) -  Based on a Neil Simon Broadway play,  Redford plays a stuffy young lawyer sharing a walk-up NYC apartment with his kooky new bride.  Charles Boyer and Natalie Hatwick lend adequate support.  Fonda and Redford are impossibly good-looking and attractive, and the only reason to watch the movie.  Its the standard Neil Simon set up,  two characters sharing an apartment, one is stuffy/straight/normal - the other is Kooky/odd/adorable (cf:  Come blow your Horn, Goodbye Girl, and the Odd Couple).  We also get the standard Simon jokes and comedic characters - which haven't aged well.  Redford is perfect fit for his role, while Fonda struggles with being adorable and silly.  She's just too intelligent and strong (and a little too old at 30) to be the daffy newlywed.  But its an enjoyable piece of fluff.

Hurry Sundown (1967)

Plot: In 1946, a wealthy Southerner wants the land owned by two small farmers (one white, one black) and will do anything to get it.
Stars: Michael Caine, Jane Fonda, Faye Dunaway, Burgess Meredith

Otto Preminger on White Southerners:
-Look, you know how Southerners *lie!* It's *born* in them! I mean, what the heck? I don't have to tell you! And lemme tell ya: they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No *sir!*
-Human life don't mean as much to them as it does to us! Look, they're sexing and lushing it up and fighting all the time...Oh, sure, there are some good things about 'em, too! Look, I'm the first one to say that! I've known a couple who were OK, but that's the exception, y'know what I mean? Most of 'em, it's like they have no feelings! They can do anything!

A Bomb-office bomb when released, and currently IMDB rated at 5.7, I watched the movie with mounting disbelief.  What the hell was Preminger thinking?

 I've never seen so many good actors give such bad performances.  There's:

•  Michael Caine  trying to play a greedy, Southern aristocrat - and coming off as "Alfie" in a white suit with a weird Cockney-Southern accent;
• Jane Fonda trying to be part Scarlet O'Hara - part Maggie the Cat - and part Stella Kowalski and failing at all of them.  Her bathroom scene with Diahann Carroll, is so bad its embarrassing;
• Burgess Meredith playing a bigoted Southern judge as a Southern-fried "Penguin". You constantly expect him to put on a top hat and go "quack, quack" ; and finally 
• George Kennedy, playing a Southern Sheriff so dumb, he makes "Gomer Pyle" look like a Rhodes Scholar. 

The rest of the cast
The black actors, Carroll, Hooks, and Beah Richards, do well - but they're so noble, well spoken and classy -why aren't they living in Oxford England instead of nowhere Georgia? And while Faye Dunaway is OK,  some guy called John Philip Law is dull and Jim Backus/Robert Reed are absurd as Southern lawyers. Like everyone else, their fake southern accents come and go.

The Plot and Story
A sort of a Miss Jane Pittman goes to Peyton Place with touches of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Dallas - it somehow manages to be (1) boring and (2) offensive to both blacks AND whites.  For example, Preminger didn't seem to understand that Blacks have their own Ministers/Churches and  didn't need white ones to teach them Christianity.  Blacks are patronized AND shown as impossibly good.  We're also given the "N" word - and other racial insults.

And the bizarre, tasteless, sex scenes!  You have Jane Fonda trying to flirt with an uninterested Caine (her Husband)  by playing the sax while on her knees. Much later, Caine breaks into her room and rapes her, but next morning Fonda has a smile on her face and its all love and kisses.

Summary:  Sheer pulp fiction.... a massive mishmash of stereotyped Southern characters and hackneyed melodramatic incidents.... flimsy in texture and dramatically beyond belief.... Stereotypes lifted from the bottom of the Southern cracker barrel.... An offense to intelligence - Bosley Crowther

Fun with Dick and Jane (1977)

Plot:  An Unemployed Aerospace Engineer (Dick) and his wife (Jane) turn to armed robbery to maintain their upper class life.
Stars:  George Segal, Jane Fonda, Ed McMahon

The movie has a good comedy idea, but its badly executed with  various bits of crudity, and the worst crime of all: unfunny jokes. And three other problems:

•  Dick" and "Jane" as written, aren't particularly likable. They're frivolous, materialistic, amoral spendthrifts.  There's  no real difference between them and their corrupt boss. Why should I care that they're losing their swimming pool and Mexican Cook?
• George Segal - whose popularity always mystifies me - dominates the film. He isn't believable as an Aerospace Engineer, or even likable. He works well with Fonda, but the two seem like brother and sister - there's no romance.
• The production values, script, and supporting cast are at "TV movie of the Week" levels.

Summary:  I find Fun with Dick and Jane guilty of filming a comedy with an unfunny script. And casting George Segal, a compound felony.  I sentence it to "never watch again."  Fans of 1970s comedy may be more lenient.

Comes a Horseman (1978)

Stars:  Jane Fonda, Jason Robards, James Caan, Richard Farnsworth

Well sir, I jes seen Comes a Horseman and I feel lower than a snake’s belly. Y’see I was all set to see a rip-roaring Western and instead I got stuck with what they call a “Modern Western”, made by some city slicker called Alan Pakula.  From what I can tell, this here “Modern western”, is just an old time western made different for no good reason.

Fer instance, in an ol' Western you’d have a strong silent type, like Gary Cooper, who’d let his guns do the talkin’.  But in Comes a Horseman, why *everyone* is a strong, silent type, even the leadin’ lady.  Why, they don’t say much, and when they do, they talk right slow like.  Durned if I know why - ‘cept one of em’s Canadian – so that explains *him*. And a lot of the picture is shot inside, where its kinda dark, and you can’t really see much.  But I guess that’s artistic - so it’s Ok.

Then there’s the plot. Y’see Jason Robards is a “land baron” and a mean ol’ snake who wants the whole Valley to his self, and the only one standin’ in his way is a small rancher.  No it’s not Jimmy Caan, its Jane Fonda. See, I done told ya it was different.  Well, Jane’s a tough ol’ Gal and jes don’t want to sell out.   And to make it even more surprisin', she and ol’ Jason used to be an item, and he still wants to bed her, but Jane won’t have none of it.  And Jane’s kinda sad, but eventually she perks up when Jimmy Caan starts helping out around the Ranch.

So, anyway, until the last 15 minutes, there’s a whole lot of slow talkin’, and cow-punchin’, and pretty Mountains, and dark rooms, and ol’ Jason looking ornery - but not much gun play or excitement. ‘Cept, the Canadian dies – but we all knew he was a gonner anyhow.

Summary: If you hanker to watch a Jane Fonda western, you might cotton to Comes a Horseman. But ol’ western fans should stick to Randy Scott.

Any Wednesday (1966)

Plot:  Based on a Broadway hit play. A New York Apartment becomes the setting for comedy hi-jinks when a businessman, his wife, his mistress, and a young client  all accidentally meet there.
Stars:  Jason Robards, Jane Fonda, Dean Jones

Judging by IMDB (6.1 rating with 11 user reviews) this 60s comedy has been pretty much forgotten. And  I can see why.  Its supposed to be a "wacky" farce with lots of sexual innuendo - but times change, and now it seems like a dated, very long, sitcom.  The casting doesn't help. Did anyone ever think Jason Robards was funny? He's too old for the part and lacks charm.  And Jane Fonda is miscast, she was never good at being kooky or adorable.  Her part required a light-footed Gazelle, and she's a powerful work horse.  The supporting characters, Dean Jones and Rosemary Murphy do better.

Silent Movie (1976) - Mel Brooks

Plot:  A film director struggles to produce the first major silent feature film in forty years.
Stars:  Mel Brooks, Marty Feldman, Dom DeLuise |
Best Quote:  [via title card] Marry me and you will never have to take your clothes off again.

I'm a big Mel Brooks fan, but this satire of Silent Movies, didn't make me laugh once.  Partly, its the subject matter, satirizing silent movies is like satirizing Prohibition, its hard to care.  But mostly its the actors:  Dom Deluise, Mel Brooks and Marty Feldman aren't good physical comedians. Mel has three facial expressions; Marty has two. Sid Caesar is much better, but he's not given much to work with.

Summary:  2nd rate Mel Brooks. The best thing about the movie? Its only 87 minutes.