Maigret tend un piège (1958)

Plot:  Based on the Georges Simenon novel - Inspector Maigret pursues a killer who's stalking women in alleyways of Paris.
Stars: Jean Gabin, Annie Girardot, Oliver Hussenot, Lucienne Bogarert.

Part film noir, part police-procedural, this was nominated for three BAFTA awards, and its easy to see why. Everyone, especially Gabin and the Inspector, is perfectly cast, Gabin gives life to the exhausted ready-to-retire inspector, while Bogaret is dynamic as the protective mother , Annie Girardot is believable and subtle as the loving wife. Another plus, we get some great Old Paris atmosphere. And I loved the old-fashioned Gabin kitchen! The mystery itself is well-done and we get plenty of action along with the cat-and-mouse questionings.

Cons: At the end, Jean Desailly overacts. Second, the closing police station scenes go on too long. Did we really need to see Maurice being stalled and his burglary complaint typed-up two or three times? Side Note: The movie was reissued in the USA under the ludicrous title "Woman-Bait"

Conclusion: A very enjoyable French Detective movie. I'm looking forward to the two sequels and reading some Georges Simenon novels. Rating ***

Duel At Diablo (1966)

Plot:  Civilians under US Calavry escort are attacked by renegade Indians.
Stars: James Garner, Sidney Poitier, Bibi Anderson, Dennis Weaver, Bill Travers
How others Saw it: Duel at Diablo is one of those odd movies where almost every written review on the internet is positive, yet it has a Rotten Tomato rating of 57% and a low IMDB Rating of 6.4 with the 1000 Top users.

This is a tough, action-packed,  mid-60s Western that I liked much less than I expected. Clocking in at 103 minutes it moves at a fast pace, has wonderful Utah cinematography and was always engaging. Yet, I didn't enjoy it much. Besides the anachronistic score, the film failed in two major aspects (1) Lack of Historical authenticity and (2) badly cast actors playing unlikable Characters.


Historical Inaccuracy
Movies aren't history lessons, but they should at least TRY for some historical realism (and I'm not talking about minor things like using right Winchester model or the right US Calvary uniform). In Duel at Diablo everyone is a 20th Century American in cowboys hats. Nobody behaves like its the Old West. Poitier mixes with all the whites and no one says a thing. Then we have Anderson, who was kidnapped by the Apaches, bore a Indian child, and wants to go back. Talk about Fake. In reality, woman captives were mistreated and became the property of their Indian captor. They were extremely happy when someone paid a ransom & they returned to civilization. And they were not ostracized by American society, but pitied for their tragic ordeal. However in Duel at Diablo, Anderson is treated as if she had a mulatto baby in 1860 Mississippi!

Meanwhile, Garner carries around the scalp of his Indian wife (why?) who was viciously murdered by white bigots (like about a dozen other leading men in Westerns circa 1950 -1970). Again - completely Fake. In the Old West, killing someone's wife was considered probably the most heinous crime possible - and  extremely rare. A whole posse would've gone out to hang the culprit - but in the movie, Garner has to go on a lone crusade for justice.

Badly Cast actors and Unlikable Characters
I'll go over them one by one, it should be noted that there's little chemistry BETWEEN the actors, no doubt because they come from such eclectic backgrounds. With that said:

Bibi Anderson: First, what is a beautiful Swede doing in 1880 Arizona married to Dennis Weaver - of all people? Secondly, Anderson never really connects with the other actors, partly because her character is so absurd, but also because Anderson speaks in a stilted, remote manner.  She seems to be acting by  herself. Was it because English is her second language - or bad direction?

Dennis Weaver; Until he redeems himself at the end, Weaver plays an utterly despicable character. He treats Anderson with contempt, and is rightly disliked by everyone else. Sometimes villainy can be fun or interesting, but not in this case. Weaver himself brings little to the party.  He really belonged on the small screen.

Sidney Poitier- A very good actor, but he's about as Western as Humphrey Bogart. Leaving aside skin color, there's a modern urbane quality to Poitier which makes him a bad fit for any Western. That's not surprising given he grew up in the Bahamas and NYC. To  make it worse, his character isn't likable, after trying to buy an Indian scalp, he looks on while Garner prevents Anderson from being raped, and is more interested in money than anything else. This was his first, and last, big-time Western.

Bill Travers - Playing an officious US Cavalry Captain, Travers is an ex-enlisted man and the best friend of Garner. I don't really know much about Travers, but he's very bland - and there's no Bromance with supposed "Best Friend"  Garner. The English accent doesn't help.

James Garner - In a change from likable Bret Maverick, Garner plays a bitter, hardened frontier scout bent on avenging his wife. There's nothing wrong with Garner's acting, but his character doesn't have a hint of charm or good spirits. Nor is he Lee Marvin or Clint Eastwood in the tough guy department.

Summary:  Leaving aside historical inaccuracy, nobody in Duel at Diablo truly liked anyone else - and I didn't like them either. I didn't give a damn whether the Apache killed them or not. Sometimes good action scenes aren't enough - you need believable situations, well cast actors,  and characters you can root for.  Rating **

On Katharine Hepburn

The part was nearly unactable, yet Miss Hepburn took it, and found triumph in it. She glittered like a bracelet thrown up at the sun; she was metallic, yet reminded us that metals shine yet still melt.

Her voice is a rallying cry for truancy, a downright clarion. "she is" someone once declared "that yell - that shriek that is simultaneous with the ringing of a school bell." - the bell that provokes the rush to the playground. Miss Hepburn is not versatile - she is simply unique.  Like most stars of real magnitude, she can do two or three of the hardest things in the world supremely well; and the play scores a bulls-eye on the target of her talents.   Her role is written in one note, but it is Miss Hepburn's note, and she makes it sound like a Cadenza - Kenneth Tynan on the Millionairess. 

Witness to Murder (1954)

"Witness to Murder" is a modest but entertaining thriller with some sensational cinematography and a couple of conspicuously good performances by Barbara Stanwyck, Gary Merrill, and George Sanders that more than compensate for its rather unbelievable plot. Only 81 minutes long, the story doesn't contain many twists but it’s impossible not to become involved with Stanwyck’s plight. She’s reported a murderer, but the Police think she’s a kook, and the killer a nice guy! Further, many scenes are suspenseful and well done. Unfortunately, the whole thing ends abruptly, as if the screenwriters ran out of time, and had to end the film.

George Sanders is tremendous and convincingly plays a sophisticated LA author who's actually a callous killer. He only fails when his character absurdly breaks into Germanic Nazi-speak – all that’s missing is the Seig Heil!*  Barbara Stanwyck is excellent as the determined woman seeking justice, but also has well-played moments of weakness. Gary Merrill lends excellent support as the sympathetic, highly intelligent, policeman.

Other pluses? Some good cinematography which enhances the mood. Cons? The music is intrusive and way overdone. Rating ** 1/2 

Notes
* = It says something about Hollywood, that in the midst of the Cold War, with the Korean War - with 50,000 dead Americans - just ended,  they couldn't make the villain a Communist. Instead Sanders is a ridiculous Santa Monica Nazi - he even quotes Hegel and Nietzsche !

The Academy Awards Love Brando

Its rather amusing that some younger Brando fans believe he was a "Hollywood rebel".  The fact is, Brando was a favorite of the Hollywood establishment  from the first day he arrived in Hollywood - this is shown by the favoritism of the AA nominating committee.  Lets examine his AA nominations:

Nominations for Leading Actor

1951  Streetcar named Desire
This was well deserved.

1952  Viva Zapata
Given the other American acting performances this was a deserved nomination

1953 Julius Caesar
This is where the favoritism starts. First of all, Brando plays Marc Anthony who is a supporting character. Anthony has one-half the lines of Brutus, and 70% of the lines of Cassius. Second, while Brando gives a good performance, James Mason - in the lead - was just as good and Gielgud - as Cassius - was better.  Yet, the Academy overlooked both excellent performances and gave Brando the AA Lead actor nod!

1954 On the Waterfront
A deserved nomination and win

1957 Sayonara
A completely undeserved nomination.  Far from AA caliber, This is one of Brando's worst performances. The role itself is rather bland, Brando has little chemistry with his leading lady, and his decision to portray the character as thick-headed southerner is unrealistic (he's supposedly a hot-shot jet fighter pilot) and badly done.  It was a weak year, so there's some defense for the nomination.

1972 Godfather
Once again Brando was given a Leading actor nomination for a supporting role. Al Pacino was the true lead actor. The Godfather (original version ) is a  three hour movie - approximately 180 minutes. Brando is shot at the 45 minute mark, hospitalized, and doesn't have significant dialogue again till the 120 minute mark. He then  dies with 30 minutes to go. In other words, Brando is missing for 105 of 180 minutes. Some leading man!  Pacino meanwhile, appears throughout the movie. Al Pacino was so insulted at being given a "Supporting" nomination he boycotted the Feb 1973 awards show.

1973 Last Tango in Paris
This is a rather odd AA nomination for three reasons.

• First, the 60s/early 70s Academy rarely nominated actors in foreign films. People forget that Last tango is a foreign film.  It has plenty of french dialogue, and was shot in France. It was produced, directed, and written by Frenchmen and Italians, and has only one American actor - Brando. 
• Second,  Brando refused the award in 1972, and was publicly contemptuous of the Academy. How many others have thumbed their noses at the AA and been rewarded? 
• Thirdly, the AA usually avoided nominating  last year's winner in the following year. It was felt to be "too soon" and  they preferred to "spread the nominations around".  

Yet, rather than nominate someone who wanted an AA and/or hadn't been nominated before, or worked in an American film, the academy went with Brando - AGAIN. That's favoritism.

Supporting actor Nominations 

1989 Dry White Season
Here the Academy nominated Brando for a standard 15 minute Lawyer role. He appears in only two scenes and does little to justify a nomination. He's not bad, its just a good solid performance that a half-dozen English actors could have done as well.  One wonders what Brando would've done if he'd won - send up another Fake Indian, or try a Fake black South African?

Caught Plastered (1931)

Although forgotten today, the comedy team of Wheeler and Wolsey were very popular in the 1930's Caught Plastered, their first film shows why. Its a mildly amusing, short comedy about two down-and-out Vaudevillians helping an old lady save her drug store. Wolsey is a sort of poor man's Groucho, with wisecracks, glasses and a cigar. Naive, baby-face Wheeler handles the romance and sings. I found them very funny, but more charismatic comedians - like the Marx Brothers, WC fields, Laurel & Hardy - overshadowed them. They just aren't in the same league. The hokey plot (old fashioned even in 1931) is just an excuse for jokes and some vaudeville routines, although Jason Robards Senior makes an excellent villain and Dorothy Lee has some innocent clunky charm.

Best Scene: W&W wait on some very demanding, obnoxious customers.


Typical Jokes:
Wheeler: The manager came backstage and said he didn't allow profanity in his theater.

Wolsey: We didn't use any profanity.

Tanner: I know, but the audience did.

Wolsey: You know, some people call me a wit.
Wheeler: And they're half right.

Summary: Like many early 30's movies, this comedy is a bit of an antique piece. To modern viewers the whole thing is played half-a-beat too slow. But its only 68 minutes and I laughed at many of the jokes. Wolsey and Wheeler are a funny comedy team, and I'm looking forward to more of their films. Rating ** 1/2

Born on the 4th of July (1989)

Where did we go wrong Oliver Stone? I used to love your movies, and think you were a great director. And yet as I re-watch these old favorites from the 1980s and early 1990s, I wonder what I ever saw in you.  I guess I've grown up and changed. What seemed "cool" and "realistic" in 1989, now seems hysterical, overdone and fake. And who can believe Tom Cruise as a Small-town disabled vet? And what's up with all the fake Small-town Americana at the start - its even worse then Nixon.  Of course, there's some good acting, by Dafoe and Berenger,  and the flim isn't boring.  You were never boring Oliver. But all the flashy photography, rats, and superficial, over-the-top dramatics, just doesn't do it anymore. And I can't help but remember all the liberal establishments types who cried over Ron Kovics had no trouble cheerleading for the Gulf War and our invasion of Iraq*.  That left a sour taste in my mouth. But we'll always have Platoon - so there's that.  Rating **1/2

* = Hollywood scriptwriters know that disabled vets make good antiwar movies or inspiring stories depending on how you tell the story.  When Hollywood dislikes a war, like Vietnam or WW 1, then the tone is "What the hell did he lose his legs for?"  When its a  liberal "Good War"  then its about the noble struggle to over come the handicap (Pride of the Marines, the Men, etc.)  The Hollywood flip-flopping from being pro-war to anti-war never seems to be sincere but seems always driven by politics. For example, its only after Vietnam came on the horizon that anti-war movies based on WW II (Slaughter-house Five, Catch-22, Johnny Got his Gun) suddenly made an appearance.  And from what I can tell, no real anti-war movie has been about the Gulf War, or Iraq or Afghanistan.

Leaving Las Vegas (1995)

Soft-porn movie about the love between an alcoholic bent on drinking himself to death (Nicholas Cage) and a warm-hearted prostitute (Elizabeth Shue). I'm never understood the appeal of these sort of movies but actors seem to love them, since it gives them a chance to act with a Capital "A" Cf: Ray Milland in Lost Weekend,  Albert Finney in Under the Volcano and Nicholson and Streep in IronWeed. 

 Leaving Las Vegas is the same type movie, except it has lots more graphic sex, profanity, and sleazy characters. One could accept that as "realism" if the rest of the movie wasn't so unrealistic. For example: How can Cage drink so much and stay lucid? Or, why is someone as beautiful/intelligent as Shue street-walking in Las Vegas?  In reality, Shue would be making big money "escorting" rich clients.  And why would she care about down-and-out Cage, except it makes a good story?  Its hard to feel the "realism" when Shue's character is just the cliched "prostitute with a heart of gold."

Summary: I'm not a fan of sad stories about unlikable losers killing themselves with booze - but Shue and Cage do some fine acting and *almost* make the film enjoyable.  BTW, isn't it interesting that Hollywood gives us downer stories about the evils of drink, but takes a more or less positive,"isn't it wild and wacky?" approach to cocaine and MJ.  No doubt lots of Hollywood execs got in on ground floor of the legalized Marijuana business.  Rating **