The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)

Based on the H.G. Welles novel, the movie is one of Hollywood's greatest turkeys. Unpopular when released, despised by the critics, and marred by cast turnover, script re-writes, and in-fighting between the stars.

Why Brando Took the Role

Money. Brando and the New Line Executives struck a deal to the surprise of original Director Richard Stanley. With Brando on board, everyone wanted in, including Roman Polanski. But Brando stuck by the original director and after Bruce Willis and Rob Morrow dropped out, Val Kilmer and David Thewlis joined the production and filming began.

Brando's Performance
Once again, your DVD cover is lying to you. Brando is not the co-lead. Brando has a supporting role, showing up at the 30 minute mark and leaving 35 minutes later. During this stretch, basically Act II, he's on-screen for about 15 minutes.

Widely regarded as one of his worst performance - some of the blame resides with his bizarre outfits. Outdoors, Brando wears white pancake makeup, a white moo-moo and sunglasses. Indoors, its no makeup, and a patterned moo-moo big enough to cover his 300 lbs. At one point, he has an ice bucket on his head. Throughout, he affects an English accent similar to that used in the Dry White Season or Mutiny on the Bounty and seems bored. The "razzie" nomination is well deserved. Rating *

The Movie
With a 4.6 IMDB rating, Dr. Moreau isn't that bad, but that's all the praise I can give it. David Thewlis, the true lead, gives an adequate performance, as does Val Kilmer. The problem is the slack direction and bad script. The movie is dull - but also confusing. The filmmakers never make clear who is doing what - and why. They also forgot that weird doesn't mean interesting. The last 35 minutes consists of nothing more than violence & explosions. Rating *1/2

The Freshman (1990)

Why Brando Took the Role
Surprisingly, Brando took the initiative and contacted Producer Andrew Bergman, casting himself as the comic Godfather. No doubt he needed the money, since The Formula (1980) was his last big paycheck.  Also, Brando loved comedy, and didn't need to lose weight for the role. Once Brando was cast, Matthew Broderick agreed to do the picture.

Brando's Performance
Brando replays the Godfather - but this time for laughs. According to Bergman, Brando was a sweetheart on the set,  getting along with everyone and easily taking direction. And so, after Production wrapped, everyone was shocked when Brando publicly called the movie "Garbage". It seems the Producers had not paid Brando for an extra days work. Once the check cleared, Brando's tune changed, and he praised the film to the sky.

Many reviews lead you to believe Brando is  co-lead - but he's not. Matthew Broderick is the star - and he's in almost every scene. Brando's role is a supporting one. A 104 minute movie, he only shows up for 30-35 minutes. He's more active than usual, and even ice skates. But what Brando does, he does well, even if no great acting is required. Rating **/12

The Movie
A bland, B- grade comedy - notable only for Brando's Godfather parody. When released, it did mediocre box-office and currently has a 6.4 IMDB rating.  Broderick does a nice Bueller impression, and there are some laughs here and there. But like so  many of his films, Brando is only reason to see it. Rating **1/2

The Score (2001)

Robert De Niro and Ed Norton "score" in this familiar tale of 3 Professional Crooks stealing a Royal Scepter from the Montreal Customs House. Norton shows his versatility while De Niro plays his standard super-cool expert The Supporting cast of Marlon Brando and Angela Bassett do less well. Cast as De Niro's girl friend Bassett isn't give much to do except kiss De Niro and sing a song*. Which brings us to Brando.

Marlon Brando

The 75 year old Brando  - in his last role - shows up for about 20 minutes (five scenes) playing "Max" the financier/fence. Grossly overweight, and sounding like Truman Capote on helium, he plays the whole movie sitting down**. Little acting is required. Mostly its just Brando and De Niro chit-chatting and Brando pleading with De Niro to take "the job". Frankly, a dozen actors in Hollywood could have done as well.  But no doubt De Niro and Norton wanted to work with Brando.

Summary: Well directed heist film, with some good acting by De Niro and Norton, But no more than that. The script is the weak point. Padded out with gratuitous profanity, we're not given much character development or reason to root for the crooks - other than its De Niro and Brando. Rated above average - but low on rewatchability***.

Notes
* = Its not clear how tall Ms. Bassett is, but several times we see De Niro bending down to kiss her. Once while she's standing in the street while De Niro is up on the curb. And after the second kiss, we can see De Niro's lifts as he walks away.
** = Brando Sitting down AND trying to hide the radio earpiece that's relaying the dialogue. In the last scene, Brando has a towel wrapped around his neck for that sole purpose, but you can still see it.
*** = For the most part, the actual heist moves so quickly, you ignore the implausibilities. It only fails at the very end, SPOILER when Norton runs off with a piece of metal he thinks is the royal scepter. Of course, in real life, Norton would have looked inside the bag before he left, or noticed that jewel encrusted specter felt like a big hunk of metal.  And why would De Niro tote around a 30 lbs piece of metal on the 1,000-1 chance that Norton would try to steal it?

My Dear Secretary (1948)

Plot: An aspiring writer becomes the secretary of an irresponsible, womanizing, best-selling novelist. Cue Comedy.
Stars: Kirk Douglas, Lorraine Day, Keenan Wynn, Irene Ryan, Rudi Valle
Best Quote: Is it informal, or shall I bathe?

Absurdly underrated (5.7 IMDB rating)  My Dear Secretary is an uneven fluffy comedy with some excellent performances by Day, Wynn, and the supporting cast. The first 40 minutes or so, are briskly paced and full of laughs. Unfortunately, the movie then runs out of steam and fizzles out. Performances? Wynn - for once - is actually funny although his character doesn't make a lot sense. Why would playboy Douglas have a live-in Gay Best friend? As for Kirk, comedy wasn't his forte - he didn't have the necessary timing. Douglas either reads his lines too slowly or shouts them in an exaggerated "Madcap" way. Also, his character is supposed to be likable and silly - but Kirk can't keep up the charm for long, and an underlying tone of anger and menace keeps popping up.

The best thing about the movie is the supporting cast, including Grady Sutton as a befuddled bad writer, Alan Mowbray, Florence Bates as the officious Land lady, the beautiful Helen Walker, and a warm and solid Rudi Valle. Gertrude Astor has one of the funniest scenes where she storms into Douglas' Apartment to get her things. "My lipstick. My vase. My Typewriter. Your Frankfurters".

Summary: An uneven comedy with a weak lead performance by Kirk Douglas and an excellent female lead and supporting cast. Rating ** 1/2

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

You have to hand it to Quentin Tarantino the man knows how to direct and cast a film. Brad Pitt*, Leo DiCaprio and all the supporting actors are pitch perfect and QT does an amazing job recreating 1969 Hollywood and Network TV**.  Unfortunately, QT forgot about a plot - there really isn't one. Its pleasant to follow Pitt and DiCaprio around and have run-ins with the Manson family, but that doesn't make for an enthralling 2 hours and 41 minutes. Of course, Tarintino was never big on story - but Once Upon a Time  also lacks his usual nonstop stylized violence and over-heated rhetoric. 

Summary: An enjoyable movie, but overlong and self-indulgent. Better than Django Unchained & Kill Bill Part II but inferior to Tarantino's other movies. Those nostalgic for 1960's Hollywood will like it more.

Notes
* - Pitt looks amazingly fit for a 56 year old.
** =I loved how QT has "George" take a nap so he can watch The FBI (A Quinn Martin production) at 8 PM. Yes, boys and girls, in ye olden days you had to make time to watch your favorite TV show. And you also had to fix your TV roof antenna. No Cable, no VCR and no DVDs. 

The Strange Love of Martha Ives (1946)

Film Noir notable for its cast - Van Heflin, Barbara Stanwyck, Liz Scott . This was also Kirk Douglas' first film and his strengths and weaknesses as a film actor are already evident.  Kirk plays his supporting part - an alcoholic weakling- adequately. But we see flashes of real star power when he gets angry or coolly threatens Van Heflin.  The story? Standard 1940s crime/drama.  Stanwyck riffs off her role in Double Indemnity and the rich people are bad to the bone. Only the poor drifters are good.*  Summary: Compulsive melodrama with plenty of Stars. The only problem is the ending** and too much wooden Liz Scott . Above average.

Notes
* = This was "the party line" in 1946, and Communist Robert Rossen, the screenwriter, follows it.

** =  Spoiler. To appease the production code, both Stanwyck and Douglas commit suicide at the end. Which the Stanwyck character would never do.

The Arrangement Novel vs. Film

Kazan's film The Arrangement (1969) is based on his 1967 novel of the same title. The book is out of print, but was a runaway bestseller.  And you can see why, its full of sex talk and sex scenes and also includes: attempted murder, attempted suicide, arson, divorce, adultery, indecent exposure, and  a trip to the nut house. Its an easy read - a potboiler -  and must have been "shocking" in 1967.  But its a bit long at 537 pages and its oddly written. Lots of dialogue. Almost no description of the character's physical surroundings or looks.  The suicide attempt is 3 sentences.  The shooting is a paragraph.

The  Film Adaption.
You'd think film director Kazan would've written a movie friendly novel that would be easy to adapt. But The Arrangement is the exact opposite. For example::

• Its written in first person and details Eddie Anderson's subjective feelings and thoughts. But those are difficult to translate to film.  Kazan tries to get around this by showing Eddie's dreams or visions, and even has Kirk talk to himself - but its not very successful.
• A big chunk of the novel addresses Eddie's Greek parents and his life as a child..  Its the best part of the novel, but almost impossible to film. Kazan tries to cover it in a few "flashbacks" but its very superficial and  doesn't work.  
• The novel has too much dialogue and far too many characters for a two hour movie. And sadly Kazan didn't use good judgement on what to include. Instead of focusing on a few characters or ONE part of the novel, he gives us a condensed version with all the main characters but with less dialogue.  As a result, the characters seem underdeveloped and their actions almost random.
•  Finally, none of the four main characters, Eddie, his mistress, his father, and his wife are really likable. In the novel, that's OK, because we're given detailed reasons to understand their behavior. But in film, you can't do that - its all external and objective.  What you see, is what you get. And Kazan does nothing to soften the characters. So, its a long ride.

The Problem of Casting
The movie also suffers from casting problems. Kazan uses well-known supporting actors - even if they don't fit the part. For example, Richard Boone is ridiculous. Who buys Boone as a Greek or as Kirk Douglas' father?  And Hugh Cronyn is all wrong as "Arthur" the family lawyer. In the novel, "Arthur" is a tall, classy lawyer and full of good advice, He eventually marries Florence.  Cronyn turns "Arthur" into a shifty, little pipsqueak (which is why he's so good in The Postman Rings Twice). In the novel, Florence is Eddie's dutiful wife, who feels obligated to help him get over his "Rough patch."  She loves him almost to the very the end.  Deborah Kerr  is all wrong as Florence given that Kirk Douglas is Eddie.  Its hard to think of two lead actors with less chemistry.

Rating the Lillian Hellman Movies

Excellent
Little Foxes (1941) - Adapted by Hellman. Might have been better with Tallulah Bankhead.

Above Average
Watch on the Rhine (1943) - Adapted by Hammett/Hellman.
Dead End (1937) - Adapted by Hellman from the Sidney Kingsley play

Average
Another Part of the Forest (1948) - Good performances - mediocre direction/script
Children's Hour (1961) - Sluggish adaption by Hellman and Hayes.
The Chase (1966) - Hellman disowned the final product
Julia (1977) - Based on Hellman's Memoirs - Fake but accurate.

Below Average
North Star (1943) - Absurd WW II propaganda
The Searching Wind (1946) - Very dull. Hellman hated it.
Toys in the Attic (1963) - Some good acting, otherwise a misfire.

Not made into movies: Autumn Garden, Days to Come, My Mother, My Father, Myself.

Rating Lillian Hellman Original Plays

Excellent
Little Foxes (1939) - A critical and box office hit
The Children's Hour (1934) - The same

Above Average
Watch on the Rhine (1941) - Labeled melodrama - but a box office smash.

Average
Another Part of the Forest (1946) - Mixed Reviews,  mediocre box office
The Autumn Garden (1951) - Mixed reivews, 100 performances
Toys in the Attic (1960)  - Popular at the time, not so now

Below Average
Days to Come (1936) - A Flop
The Searching Wind (1944) - Mixed Reviews - Popular at the time.
My Mother, My Father, and Me (1963) - A Flop

The Arrangement (1969)

Plot: A middle-aged Adman looks back on his life after a failed suicide attempt
Stars: Kirk Douglas, Deborah Kerr, Richard Boone and Faye Dunaway

The Arrangement has been absurdly attacked by critics over the years (Kael called it “Monstrously unconvincing”) and even Kazan was disappointed in the final product. But it’s not that bad. The acting is fine, especially by Deborah Kerr and Faye Dunaway. And there’s some excellent – if flashy - camera work. Yet all the flash can’t cover the big hole in the movie -the lack of engaging characters and story. There’s nothing to connect to. I could never rouse any interest in “Eddie Anderson”, his wife, or his mistress. They’re not likable or admirable.  And no matter how much they shout, Eddie is still a nonentity. Who cares if he's "sold out"?

We see Kirk with his big house and beautiful wife and empty - if successful - life at the ad agency, and we're supposed to CARE he's going through a mid-life crisis.  We're supposed to care that he's lost his Greek roots and become "Eddie Anderson".  We're supposed to care he's a talented man - who's settled. We're supposed to - but we don't.  Because Eddie does nothing to earn our sympathy. His problems are all internal.  He's not being held down by others. And he often behaves like a jerk.

I think Kazan cared so deeply about Eddie Anderson (based on his own life), he just assumed we would.* Maybe Brando could’ve made us care, and given the middle-aged angst some meaning and energy. But Kirk can’t do that – he’s just adequate. He’s all surface, and doesn’t bring much to the party **.

Summary:  An empty movie with fine technique and nothing to say.  Kazan should have left the melodrama to Tennessee Williams. Or had someone else adapt his novel. However, its been over-criticized.  Its not bad, just very mediocre.  Rating 2 of 4

Notes
* The novel makes us sympathize with Eddie by getting inside his head, and we see things through his eyes. We know his motives and background in great detail. The movie can’t do this.

** The other problem is that Kirk was never good at romance. He has zero chemistry with Kerr, When you think leading men with warmth/ passion for the opposite sex, Kirk’s name doesn’t top the list. Finally, Kazan wrote in his autobiography that he should have cancelled the movie after Brando dropped out.  The role needed a great actor. He praises Douglas for being intelligent, hard working, and a good actor, but Douglas was wrong for the part.  Actors can only go so far from their basic personality.  Kirk Douglas was a fighter who never gave an inch.  Kirk didn't live a life of quiet desperation. Which is not Eddie Anderson..

The War Wagon (1967)

Best Quote: [after shooting two bad guys]
Douglas: Mine hit the ground first.
Wayne: Mine was taller.

A comedy heist film in cowboy boots, The War Wagon covers familiar territory but does it well. The story is simple and told with cynical good humor. A band of misfits (including Howard Keel) led by John Wayne, try to capture an armored wagon full of gold. Kirk Douglas - playing it as broadly as possible - gets most of the good lines. Note: by 1967, Kirk was on the downside of his acting career -this was his 3rd teaming with John Wayne, in as many years.

Conclusion: A breezy Western with enough laughs and action to fill its short 100 minute run time. One of Wayne’s better post 1963 movies. Rating 3 of 4.

Toys in the Attic (1963)

Plot: Two spinster sisters are visited by  their "Bad Boy" Brother and his new Bride.  Southern Gothic fireworks ensue. Adopted from Lillian Hellman's play.
Stars:  Dean Martin, Wendy Hiller, Gene Tierney, Yvette Minimeux and Geraldine Page
Best Quote: "Miss Page, under Mr. Hill's direction, is a pinwheel whenever she's on. She sizzles and pops and spins in circles. But what's at the core of her? Who knows!" - NYT

Toys has some good things going for it:  New Orleans location shots,  B&W cinematography  and a short 90 minute run-time. And some excellent acting by Page, Hiller, and Tierney.   As for the rest of the cast, Dean Martin pulls a "Burt Lancaster" bringing box office appeal and mediocre acting to a role requiring a powerhouse thespian. Poor Minimeux tries hard, but is miscast

 Story?  Set in New Orleans, its Lillian Hellman does Tennessee Williams, except Hellman doesn't have Williams' humanity or his poetic language. Her characters are unengaging. Unlike "Blanche Dubois" or "Maggie the Cat" they don't deserve our sympathy, just a trip to a psychiatrists office.

Summary:  Dull dysfunctional family theater with some good acting. Has all the dramatic push of a tea cart. Rating 2 of 4