AbbyNormal Ramblings

Bridget Jones's Dairy (2001)

2010-01-16T12:50:00.003-05:00

I know, this movie is pure fluff culled from the Barnes and Noble shelf called chick lit that no one wants to admit to reading and certainly, no movie buff would ever admit to liking a movie made from … chick lit. Well, I can’t claim to be a major movie buff, though I try, but I can claim to love this movie. It is my movie version of flannel PJs and hot chocolate. It makes me feel warm inside and always – ALWAYS - makes me feel better, mood-wise, for having watched it. I don’t care that it is fluff. Sometimes, fluff is comfort and therefore … good.

Movie Poster for "Bridget Jones's Dairy"

One of the most amazing things about this being total fluff is that, at its core, it really isn’t total fluff at all. The whole framework of the plot is based up Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” which happens to be one of my all-time favorite books. So you take a classic novel adored by women all over and add the fun fluff on top and … in my mind, that is pretty brilliant.

So what is all this fluff about? Well, this movie spans a year in the life of Bridget Jones (Renee Zellweger) as she decides to keep a diary in the hopes of getting it all together. She wants to do all the things that single women want – lose weight, develop a great career, find a man and live happily ever after. Of course, since this is a light romantic comedy, things don’t go nearly so easy. There are two men in her life, over the course of the year. One is Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) – not hard for any Jane Austen fan to decipher who he is. The second is Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant) who also happens to be Bridget’s boss. Over the course of the year, not only does she contend with those men, but she has her crazy friends, her parents splitting up and her mom’s new boyfriend and other zany antics to keep anyone like me in complete delight for the length of the movie.

One of the things that I love about this film is that the heroine is so likable, but yet, a complete wreck. At every turn she says the wrong thing and does the wrong thing. She gets herself into the most embarrassing situations and always manages to grin and bear her way through it all. Renee Zellweger is not a favorite actress of mine, but she so totally embodies Bridget Jones that I am not sure anyone else could have done the part justice.

The other thing that makes this one so much fun is taking Hugh Grant, an icon of the female ideal for a romantic comedy and actually turning him into the totally charming and totally adorable … cad. It works so well because I swear Hugh’s eyes sparkle in delight just from his relief of getting to be a bad boy for once in his life. He seems to relish the role of cad and we relish his enjoyment.

Lastly, dear Colin Firth. Who doesn’t love this man? He is so adorable just standing there looking all stuffy. Any woman who has seen the BBC mini-series version of “Pride and Prejudice” completely lost their mind when he came striding out of the lake after his swim as Mark Darcy. Now here he is as Mark Darcy, again, a couple centuries or so later, being the reserved but strong and wonderful man we all love.

I have seriously seen this movie probably more than 15 times (yes, I know how pathetic that makes me and no, I don’t care) and I still adore it as much as I did the first time. I still laugh at how silly and poignant Bridget is to me and my own experiences and I think she always will be. It is a great movie around the holidays as it is about New Year’s resolutions and holiday gatherings. I highly recommend this movie for anyone who can stomach a total chick flick as it is by far, my recent (say, the last 30 years or so) favorite of the entire genre. Oh, and one word of warning for you, my dear readers, all two of you. Skip the sequel "The Edge of Reason" - just, oof, trust me on this one.

Holiday Affair (1949)

2009-12-25T14:38:00.003-05:00

Connie Ennis (Janet Leigh) is a WW2 widow who is struggling to raise her son, Timothy (Gordon Gerbert), and make ends meet. She has been dating a lawyer, Carl Davis (Wendell Corey), for several years and despite many proposals from him she just hasn’t felt right about saying yes yet. While working as a comparison shopper during Christmas she runs into a store employee Steve Mason (Robert Mitchum) and in a round about way helps him get fired. Throughout a series of situations, Steve keeps popping up in her life. Suddenly Connie is confused about which man to choose so Timothy steps in to help show her which one is right for her.

Robert Mitchum wishes Janet Leigh would turn around so he could admire her bullet bra

I felt terrible for poor Carl in this. He is such a swell guy, but he just seems so dull next to Robert Mitchum as Steve. Plus, I really enjoyed seeing Mitchum in a lighter role. He doesn’t try to be funny, he plays it very straight, which makes him very charming. This may be one of the few times I have thought he was actually attractive in a film, perhaps.

As for Janet Leigh, I have the strangest thing to say here. I can’t ever decide if I like her as an actress. She certainly has given a lot of great performances, but I think it is something about her face – it kinda looks hard. She usually plays very nice women, but something about her face always makes me think there is a pill lurking underneath. Of course, I don’t think most men even realize she has a face given the figure that bullet bra gave her.

I really don’t have much in the way of criticism on this. I thought all around it was a wonderful film. I have really enjoyed finding “holiday” films this year that I hadn’t seen before and this was definitely a great find. This isn’t a straight romantic comedy as the situation of her being a widow lends itself to a fair bit of drama in her trying to move on from such a devastating loss. The comedy is very subtle and lies in the awkward situations where Steve seems to always be turning up and Carl, being such a swell guy, must always be nice and accommodating to him.

I love holiday films and I especially love finding new holiday classic films to look forward to each year. If you haven’t seen this one, I highly recommend you add it to your list for next year.

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

2009-12-19T15:50:00.005-05:00

This is one of those movies that's impossible to watch the preview and remotely grasp what kind of a movie you will be watching. The previews would lead one to believe that they will be watching a silly little movie about a guy who becomes infatuated with today’s equivalent of a blow-up (but much more realistic) sex doll. However, what really lurks under here is a tender and sensitive tale about a young man, Lars Lindstrom (Ryan Gosling), who is so distant and afraid of being hurt that he can’t open himself up to love anything other than something as safe as his "love" doll named Bianca.

Bianca and Lars meeting his brother and sister-in-law

One of the things that I adore about this movie is its theme of acceptance and community. Once Lars takes a huge leap and starts to introduce Bianca around to his close-knit hometown, instead of treating him like a pervert, they try to show him compassion and open their arms to him and his new girlfriend. They realize that this recluse of a young man is reaching out, albeit in a terribly strange way, and if they reject him while he is finally coming out of his shell – he may never recover. The interesting thing is that as he begins to see how compassionate, warm and loving his town is to Bianca, he can start to risk opening himself up to more than just his "love" doll. The overall idea here is that compassion can heal people and I very deeply believe this to be true myself.

Ryan Gosling and his amazing performance as Lars is what makes this movie work. He plays the young man with such commitment and conviction that you begin to care for Bianca because you care so much about him and his struggle. He plays this delusional and sheltered man so well the audience immediately roots for Lars instead of snickering at him on the screen. That is quite a feat for a movie about a man in love with his doll.

Of course, all this serious psyche analysis talk doesn't mean that there aren’t quite a few absolutely riotous moments involving either Lars introducing Bianca to his family or the town’s reaction to seeing her “out and about” with Lars. It is very funny at times, but that really isn't the overall tone of the film as you might expect.

This is my second or third viewing of this film and I remember thinking that I want to live in a town like this – where people care enough to try to understand your problems rather than mock you for them. I loved the older woman at the church meeting that put everyone in their place by telling their family secrets about their problems and saying “These things happen” and pledging her support to act like Bianca is real.

The supporting cast is very good as well. The standouts for me were Emily Mortimore as the sister-in-law who kept trying to reach Lars in his shell. Also, Patricia Clarkson as the primary care physician who is clever enough to develop a rouse of giving Bianca weekly treatments just so she could talk to Lars and help him work through his problem.

I have recommended this one to many people and haven't had anyone say they didn't love it as much as I did. So to you out there who haven't seen this one and think that current movies are ALL rubbish - I highly recommend this film. This one will help you believe that original movies are still being made, albeit rarely. So relish this gem.

The Paper (1994)

2009-12-13T19:00:00.005-05:00

Henry Hackett (Michael Keaton) is a newspaper editor and part of an insane world. He has a wife (Marisa Tomei) who is very pregnant and seemingly going very crazy, he has a reporter that insists his chair at work is debilitating him, he has another reporter (Randy Quaid) that insists a city official is out to kill him and Hackett just interviewed for a job that he got, but doesn’t want, but it may mean his marriage if he doesn’t take it. Then throw in a seemingly racially motivated murder that was pinned on a couple of teenagers who are innocent and Henry is on one side of the story and Alicia is, of course, on the other.

Close and Keaton square off in this fast-paced, thoroughly enjoyable movie

I love movies that are about newspaper folks who are out to get a story and will sell their grandma to get it. You know, sell grandma in a good way. There is something so noble yet conniving at the same time about journalism in general and I think that makes great material for a movie.

I also love movies that are witty, fast-paced, wonderful ensemble casting and a conflict of a good person trying to do the right thing - no matter how hard or crazy it seems. It may sound like a cliche, but this movie has all of that and more.

One of the major themes throughout this movie is about choices and Keaton plays a man trying to keep his life together and figure out how to make it work. He is a workaholic about to become a father and can't seem to figure that there has to be a work/personal life balance. I like that he plays a guy that is so on top of things at work and so clueless about anything else. He is a delight to watch fast-talk and smart-ass his way in and out of trouble throughout the movie.

It also amazes me how the director, Ron Howard, is so masterful at ensemble films. He weaves so many character's stories into this film without feeling like you are short-changing the main character, because they all revolve around him in some way and telling the story of the people close to him furthers his story too. That also helps with the fast pacing and keeping the audience interested because much like an ensemble TV drama - the focus is jumping around to other characters to always keep things moving.

The script on this one is phenomenal with great one-liners. Here are a few of my favorites:

Henry Hackett (Michael Keaton): “Boy, sometimes you can just smell the horrendously shitty day on the way, can’t you?”

Bernie White (Robert Duvall): “Don’t ask marital advice from the guy with two ex-wives and a daughter who won’t speak to him. The problem with being my age is everybody thinks you’re a father figure, but you’re really just the same asshole you always were.”

Henry Hackett (Michael Keaton): “When did you get so paranoid?”
Mike McDougal (Randy Quaid): “When they started plotting against me.”

The one, really over-the-top scene kinda surprised me. Towards the end, Close and Keaton actually end up in a physical fight. It was a little crazy and unbelievable, but I have to say, Close is one of the few women who could make it look like a possible fair fight in the scenario, so you don't feel too upset at Keaton for pickin' on a defenseless woman. :-)

I watched this a decade ago and after this, my second viewing, enjoyed it as much - if not more - the second time around. If you have never seen this one or haven't seen it since it came out - give it another watch. Plus, you gotta watch it for the funny John Wayne imitation Keaton does to mock Close. This is definitely a fun one.

Gunga Din (1939)

2009-12-05T03:05:00.002-05:00

Okay, I have a confession. I need to whisper it though. Lean in close. Clooooser. Okay. Until now, I had never seen "Gunga Din". Yes, I consider myself quite the Cary Grant fan. Yes, I have had the movie on DVD for years. So, why haven't I seen it? Honestly, I think it is because I didn't want to watch all the Cary Grant greats at once. I like the idea of knowing I still have some that I can watch for the first time and get that rush of the first viewing experience. There are actually quite a few I still have left to see, but that is a discussion for another time.

Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr

Set in India, three British soldiers - Cutter (Cary Grant), MacChesney (Victor McLaglen) and Ballantine (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr) - are the best of friends. Watching each other's back, terrorizing anyone that crosses them and generally having a great adventure. It soon becomes evident that the Thuggee cult is on a killing spree and the British Army's new mission is to try to find them and stop them from wiping out everyone in sight. Cutter befriends a native water bearer, Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe), who desperately wants to be a soldier and accidentally finds the Thuggee temple while searching for gold for his new friend. One of them gets captured, the other has to bring help and the audience is on the edge of their seats anticipating a showdown.

I have to say, this movie didn't disappoint even though I delayed my viewing gratification for years. And if you will excuse me for a second while I swoon, OMG - Cary Grant looked smokin' HOT in this one. He always looks great, but, this was over-the-top-hottie-on-screen goodness. Of course, I think I experience that almost EVERY time I watch a Cary Grant movie I either haven't seen before or it has been a long time since I have seen it. The magnetism is always .... (fanning myself) overwhelming, if you will.

And yes, I do have to focus even more on Cary. There are so many wonderful scenes in this one. I loved the beginning, that wonderful innocent, naughty little boy look he pulls in the beginning when Higginbotham tells him to let go of that man and he does, right out a window. He looks like, "You told me to let him go - it isn't my fault he fell out a window. Just following orders." Along the same lines, I also loved the scene where he is pouring the elixir into the punch and trying to hide what he is doing and just look like he is enjoying the party. Then the scene immediately following where he drags Higginbotham to the punch bowl and is pantomiming to MaLaglen that they should give Higginbotham the punch is hilarious. Just that quick, raised eyebrows and mischievous looks tells McLaglen everything he needs to know. AND, I loved hearing the cockney accent coming from Cary's mouth instead of the ultra-refined one he, well, refined instead.

I think, by far though, my favorite Cary moment in the movie is in the Thuggee Temple when he has to draw attention to himself so he marches around singing an English Pub song and ends it with "Now, you are all under arrest. The whole bunch of ya. And you too, (pointing to the leader) and you know why! Her Majesty is very touchy about having her subjects strangled."

All in all, this is a wonderful movie. It reminded me of a version of "The Three Musketeers" but set in India. The interplay between the three leads is wonderful throughout. Cary was tops for me, of course, but all three had wonderful scenes. I had a hearty laugh when Victor and Cary's characters were bickering and they called out for Douglas to intercede. He looked disappointed and sad, never looked at them and just said, "You displease me greatly and I ignore the both of you." Just ... perfect delivery and setup.

If I had to make a complaint about the movie - if I had to - it would be one that classic movie enthusiasts groan when they hear. The movie is dated a little, I think, and only because of the fighting style. I know George Stevens was going for a high adventure and high fun romp - so it make sense - but some of the early fight scenes in this look more like keystone cops taking on Thuggees than anything else. They just aren't very realistic - Grant can take on 8 men at once and lay each one out with just a quick punch. He seems immortal too - not flinching when hit with a chair and later, taking a bayonet in the back and a gunshot in the leg and still smiling and laughing at his friends carrying on while he is laying in the floor supposedly in too much pain to move. But, I add these in only because it is supposed to be a "balanced" movie review. I honestly thought the fight scenes were so much fun - I didn't give a hoot if they were realistic or not.

My last point before wrapping this one up is how wonderful Sam Jaffe was as Gunga Din. He played the character with such dignity and grace. I thought about how I approach my own job/life and how much enthusiasm he brought to just bringing water to everyone. A job most people would think beneath them, he makes it a most noble and important one. He really is wonderful.

So, I highly recommend not waiting years to see this one. It is wonderful beginning to end. I especially enjoyed noticing how many scenes/story lines/themes have been used in later movies as homages to this. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, for example, used many scenes as homages to this wonderful film. Who knew? Well, you did if you weren't a dork like me and had already seen this!

A Letter for Evie (1946)

2009-11-29T10:40:00.001-05:00

Evie O'Connor (Marsha Hunt) is looking for romance. She works in a factory where they supply shirts for soldiers. Out of desperation, she slips a "Dear Soldier" letter into the shirt pocket of a 16.5 sized shirt hoping it would find its way to a tall, handsome, strapping young lad who would read it and fall in love with her. It does indeed find it's way to a tall and handsome lad, but the fact that he is Edgar "Wolf" Larson (John Carroll) means he is too busy chasing skirts to bother with writing a nice girl. However, his buddy Johnny McPherson (Hume Cronyn) who is the antithesis of him physically, listens to the letter and falls instantly in love. He begins writing her and they both fall in love ... that is ... till they have to meet face-to-face.

Hume Cronyn, Marsha Hunt and John Carroll

This could so easily have been just another one of those "mistaken identity" screwball, silly little romantic comedies. Not that there is anything wrong with the occasional fluff like that, but this movie makes it's mark with heartfelt scenes and unsuspected depth that leaves the audience feeling like they have watched something special. Don't get me wrong, it is a romantic comedy with light moments, but it is also much more.

I was intrigued by Hume Cronyn's sensitive performance in this. He doesn't usually do a role like this and it is very nice to see a different side to him. There is a scene where he is concerned that Evie is about to fall under the spell of his handsome Army buddy and decides the only way to get her out of the situation is to act like he is drunk. He plays it totally over the top and it is hilarious to watch ... Hume Cronyn of all people .... act like Jerry Lewis. Heeey Laaaaaaaaady!

This is a hard to find movie, but if you are lucky, you can catch it on TCM. It is definitely worth looking for - one of those rare gems forgotten over time.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)

2009-11-15T19:55:00.003-05:00

Johnny (James Dunn) and Katie Nolan (Dorothy McGuire) are trying to raise a family in the Brooklyn tenements and barely surviving. The story is told through the eyes of their daughter Francie (Peggy Ann Garner) who is coming of age and trying to make sense of her parents as individuals, their relationship and what kind of person she wants to be as she gets older.

Peggy Ann Garner, Dorothy McGuire and Ted Donaldson

I read this book many years ago and again in the past few years. The book is very detailed and covers much more of the minor characters and intricacies of sub-plots. The book is definitely worth reading at least once, if you have a chance. The movie was a good addendum to the book because I had a hard time imagining what true Irish-American tenement life would be like in the early 1900s. The movie fills that in nicely and helps paint the picture of a family truly struggling to survive.

I find the adult characters of this story incredibly compelling. First of all, you have the patriarch, Johnny Nolan. He is an alcoholic and doesn't do a good job of providing for the materials his family needs, but does that make him an all bad father? As they say in the film, he gives of himself generously. He inspires his daughter, he listens to her, he helps her with her problems, he is kind and makes her proud he is her father.

At the opposite end you have Katie Nolan. Katie and Johnny love each other, but the stresses of family life puts a definite strain on them. Katie comes off as a woman that has grown hard and questions that in the film. If she is, she has gotten that way because she had to care for her family, work to make money and provide the necessities. While Johnny could be loving because he had the time without work, she felt she never had enough time to sit and give of herself in that way. She grows resentful of her role and also of the love Francie lavishes on her father.

The reason I find these characters so compelling is because I keep asking myself, would I want to be more like Katie Nolan who is the rock of her family (both in good and bad ways) or more like Johnny Nolan who is the life of his family (both in good and bad ways). I can't answer it for myself yet, so I will be pondering this for a while. Obviously a combo of the two is the best answer, but these characters were purposefully made polar opposites for illustrative purposes, I am sure. Betty Smith knew what she was doing when she wrote the novel. :-)

I think the difference is best described with their views about the Gathers family. Flossy Gathers is a young girl who is very sick and probably going to die. Her family makes the decision to stop spending money on funeral insurance for her and instead spend the money on pretty dresses for her to wear. Johnny's feelings are expressed when he sees Flossy in one of her new dresses.

Johnny: "Well, will you look at our beautiful princess tonight in a brand new gown."
Flossy:"It is made out of silk."
Johnny: "Silk? Oh, don't you tell me that. This dress is made out of flower petals and birds wings and a little old piece of cloud. Anybody can tell that."

Flossy beams because of the exchange. Later, when Flossy dies, Katie and Johnny have a fight. Katie thinks it isn't right that her parents were irresponsible by not keeping up the funeral insurance. Flossy will now be buried in Potter's Field since they couldn't pay for a proper burial. Johnny says that at least she enjoyed the pretty dresses while she was alive because he doesn't think she cares where she is buried now.

I think the point of all this is that there isn't a right or wrong answer, but I have to say that it really makes me think about my values in life. I won't give any crucial plot points away, but the end of the film does have Francie and Neely reflecting on how much fun they had "as kids". I didn't have much money as a child either, but I never realized it and I had fun too. Sometimes, money isn't the most important thing in life and this story felt like a good reminder of that.

I want to add in here that I think one of the early unsung heroes of the movie is Joan Blondell as Sissy Edwards. I think people look over the importance of Sissy in the story. She lightens things up and tries to help keep the peace. When she sees the people she loves struggling, she tries to set them on the right path. Joan Blondell plays this part wonderfully with all the warmth and vivaciousness you would expect. I can't help and wonder if she is not a large piece of the tape holding this family together since she can help both Johnny and Katie see the other's point of view. This also illustrates how important other relationships are outside the main family unit and how keeping those relationships alive is beneficial. Again, what is important to us?

I thought this movie was wonderful. The acting is top-notch and Elia Kazan as a director is perfect for this. The story is heart-breaking, yet inspiring at the same time. If you haven't seen this, put it on your list to watch when things are looking bleak. It will help you feel like things really aren't so bad.

I Saw What You Did (1965)

2009-10-25T15:36:00.010-04:00

Two teenage girls, and a younger sister to one of them, spend an evening randomly picking names out of the phone book to prank call. Somehow they latch on to a particular person/number, Steve Marak (John Ireland) and tell him "I saw what you did and I know who you are". This is intriguing to him because he had just murdered his wife and didn't particularly want any loose ends.

The Cougar - the BEST part of the entire movie - you go Joan

By far, the best part about the entire movie is Joan Crawford's role. She plays Amy (seriously, Amy? Do you think she looks like an Amy?) Nelson, an older woman that is well off and desperately wants Steve. They had obviously had or were still involved in an affair when Steve decided to off his wife. It takes a bit for Amy to realize that his wife just didn't leave of her own accord and decides she can use this information to make him marry her and keep him under her thumb. Now, I am not sure on what planet marrying a murderer is a good idea or even worse - trying to blackmail a murderer to make him marry you - but I guess when you are Joan Crawford you are scared of nothing. :-) Oh, and by far the best moment was seeing ballsy Joan pull this young girl out of the bushes by her hair and yell "Yoooooouuuu Traaaaaaamp!!!!" Only Joan can pull that off to a young girl and not have the audience totally hate her.

Halfway through this movie I remember thinking, "Our younger generation may be getting fat from being glued to the TV and to video game consoles, but there is something to be said for that keeping them out of trouble at least." I don't see many young people stalking murderers for sport, so maybe TV and video games aren't the worst thing they can do with their time afterall.

This whole story starts at a house that is out in the middle of nowhere. To have her friend come over she has to give explicit directions like, "Drive 16 miles out of town, at the red barn, turn right. Go 8 more miles that way, you'll see a bush, turn left. If you pass a rooster, you have gone too far and turn back." It sounded amazingly complicated and very long. Yet, the murderer with just an address on a card instantly knows exactly where they live and is able to drive there with no further instructions. I have a GPS in my car and access to mapquest and I am STILL not sure I could have found her house on the first try. I guess it is murderer's luck.

The thing that was most broken about this movie was the soundtrack they used. Throughout the movie, you have a suspenseful moment, where the murderer is creeping into a room, and they have this crazy, poppy, 60s music playing in the background. It is almost too bizarre to even describe. Even the end of the film, ***********SPOILER ALERT********* where the murderer literally threw a knife at a little girl and tried to strangle the older girl just seconds before - the older girl says, "We're not going to be using the phone for a long, long time" and both the girls suddenly giggle, walk away from the body of the murderer and suddenly this poppy, 60s soda shop music starts and the end credits roll. What kinda suspense movie ending is that?!?! I guess almost being killed is pretty normal in their world. The music made it sound like they were heading off for some hot cocoa and a pajama party.

As you have probably gathered from this review, I can't really recommend this whole film. I recommend watching the beginning with Joan Crawford just because she is so much fun to watch chew through scenery in this. Other than that, this is the epitome of a bipolar film (part suspense/part camp) that tries to satisfy everyone which ultimately satisfies no one.

The Devil-Doll (1936)

2009-10-18T21:27:00.005-04:00

I will be the first to admit that I am not a fan of modern day horror movies. Even when they are supposed to be kinda funny, I just don't see the point in all the blood, guts and gore. Nor do I really see the point in watching something that is meant to prey upon my fears to scare me. I just ... never saw that as a positive, really. So it was with a fair bit of trepidation that I started recording some of the "horror" movies on TCM this month. I decided to give them a try because I reasoned I knew nothing about the beginnings of the genre and like most movie genres, I may prefer the classics to the current fare.

Would you believe me if I told you Lionel Barrymore was in this photo?

Paul Lavond (Lionel Barrymore) is a wrongly convicted man. He was framed by his three partners for robbing the bank they jointly owned and killing a guard. He has been sent away for almost 2 decades when he finally escaped with a fellow inmate, Marcel. The two throw the police off the chase and end up at a laboratory where Marcel's wife, Malita, has been carrying on her husband's experiments. The project they are trying to complete is shrinking humans to 1/6th their size. When Lavond sees what happens when the humans are shrunk, he soon develops a plan to seek revenge on his former partners. Ooooo-kay.

I wouldn't go so far as to call this a great movie, but I really enjoyed it nonetheless. I expected a horror movie, but what I saw was something more layered than strictly a horror tale. It had romance, emotion, humor - the whole bit. The ending, instead of being a scare-your-pants-off kinda ending, was actually the ending you would expect on a good drama.

Having said all that, there are plot holes and hilarious bad science premises galore, that you can pick at if you chose. There is some "camp" acting mixed in with a fair bit of good acting. The "camp" factor is cemented when Barrymore goes full-on drag waltzing around the police as a sweet grandma-ma type character who has an assistant that looks like the Bride of Frankenstein (see photo below) complete with white streak, dark eye makeup and way over-acted wide eyes that look half crazy for dramatic effect. If that isn't camp, I don't know what is. And, even though it made it less of a horror movie probably, I loved it all the more. And you know what? Barrymore was TOTALLY believable as the old lady. I had to do a double-take to realize it was him.

Seriously - is it homage or rip-off?

Even more surprising to me is how the special effects aren't bad at all. I mean, we are talking 1936 and I don't think anyone watching this 70 years later would be pointing to the screen and laughing at the effects. It appears the filmmakers were smart enough to use very simple techniques which make it look solid on film.

The ending, which I won't give away, took me by surprise. Not because of what happened necessarily, but because how wonderfully Lionel Barrymore portrayed his emotions and showed his character trying to suppress them. It was a powerful bit of acting that wasn't overdone (like the Barrymores tend to do as a whole) and it was just, superb.

At a run-time of under 80 min - I definitely recommend this one as a time capsule of what I assume is somewhat representative of the early horror genre. It isn't strictly horror so it has a little bit of something for everyone - drama, crime, romance, horror, sci-fi, emotions, revenge ... even a miniature "half-wit, inbred orphan" that acts like a little nymph when she is shrunk down. Intriguing, no? :-)

Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)

2009-08-24T00:35:00.006-04:00

I always wondered how a simple and sentimental movie about a school teacher could net Robert Donat a Best Actor Oscar in one of the most hotly contended Oscar years ever. Well, now I have watched it and now I know.

Elderly Mr. Chips at the beginning of the movie

Robert Donat, same year, will someone explain to me how this young man came to look like the elderly man seen above?!?!?

I am probably the last person on earth to just get 'round to watching this one, but in case there is one more out there, here's the plot. The movie opens with an elderly Mr. Chips (Robert Donat) reflecting back on his life from the point that he was travelling to take his appointment as teacher at a prestigious private school. Is shows him as an almost painfully shy young man, desperate to do a good job and have his student like and respect him, but he can't seem to break out of the shell of shyness. After approximately a decade on the job, and being passed over for promotion, he finds himself on a trip to Austria. It is here that he meets Katherine (Greer Garson) and they fall in love, marry, and he brings her back to school. It is Katherine that helps ease him out of his shell and helps give him the confidence to become the man and teacher he always wanted to be.

Robert Donat is so completely believable as the 83-year-old man. Not only does he look different, but he carries himself completely different. He sounds completely different. When he delivers the somewhat teasing and grumpy old man line of, "Enough of your loathsome statistics woman, go about your business" you certainly can't imagine that coming from the younger version of himself. What a difference in demeanor and presence between the older Mr. Chips and the young, shy instructor who speaks slow and looks so awkward. I would have sworn on my life that they hired an old man to play the part. How on earth - in 1939 - did they make a 34-year-old Robert Donat look so different and believable as an 83-year-old?

I also want to mention Greer Garson's role too. It is amazing how skillfully and gracefully Katherine helps ease his uncomfortableness at social situations and teaches him how to interact with confidence. I think I have fallen for Greer Garson in this role. She is peaches and cream, delightful ... perfection.

This movie is a testament to storytelling. Chips isn't an extraordinary man really, he is someone that we can identify with - a shy person who learns to reach out. Give good actors and a good director a wonderful, simple story to tell without all of today's over-the-top trappings and this is what you often get - magic. I highly, highly recommend this one if you haven't already seen it.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008)

2009-08-20T21:20:00.004-04:00

I am not going to lie to you. If you watch this movie, you are going to cry. It is perhaps one of the saddest movies I have ever seen.

Bruno shaking hands with his new found friend

Bruno (Asa Butterfield) is an 8-year-old boy growing up in Germany. His father is a Commandant in the German Army who has been assigned to oversee Auschwitz. They move to a house near the concentration camp and Bruno is miserable that he isn't allowed out to explore the surrounding area. As any young child would most likely do, he disobeys his parents and goes exploring anyway. He eventually finds and befriends a boy named Shmuel (Jack Scanlon) whom he thinks lives on a strange farm and wears strange striped pajamas.

It is interesting to watch the atrocity that happened through the eyes of a young, innocent boy. It makes complete sense that there is no way for children to take in and understand what they are seeing as it happens. The innocent questions Bruno asks and the conclusions he draws, when we as the audience knows what's really going on, is completely heart-breaking.

One of the things I liked is how all of the German characters, even Bruno, are shown as humans who are capable of both good and bad acts. It would have been so easy to paint all the German soldiers as monsters, and while most of them were monsters to the Jewish population, they are still shown as multi-dimensional, caring folks to others. Even Bruno is shown to have faults when faced with a difficult situation.

Everything about this movie is both beautiful and heart-breaking simultaneously. The performances are amazing. Both boys show so much innocence and pain on their faces, I don't know how they were able to pull off the performances they did about such a horrible tragedy at such a young age. I would imagine it would be terribly difficult for a young boy to even understand the depth of emotions, nevermind portray them. Most of the adult actors give restrained performances consisting largely of subtle looks as Bruno asks questions to try to understand. I liked they also showed the range of emotion an adult felt (Bruno's mother) when learning the truth of what was really happening at the camps. It helps give an emotional counter-balance to the calm German soldiers coldly going about their business. I also want to add that the cinematography and lighting is all so stunning too. It is so hard to take in the beauty of the cinematography when the subject is so disturbing. It creates an attraction/repulsion at the same time which works because that is what most of the characters are feeling as well.

Believe me, I know it is sometimes hard to get geared up for watching a gut-wrenching film, but this is a very important one. Gird yourself and go for it. This is a great film that everyone needs to watch. Just remember to bring to bring your kleenex as you have been warned.

Perry Mason (1934 - 1936)

2009-08-18T22:12:00.002-04:00

I have a great, great fondness for Warren William. He has largely been forgotten by today's audiences, but I think there is a faithful flock of folks that have rediscovered his work and developed great admiration. As such, I DVRed the Perry Mason marathon last month and just got 'round to watching.

"The Case of the Howling Dog" (1934)

In order, the four movies are "The Case of the Howling Dog" (1934), "The Case of the Curious Bride" (1935), "The Case of the Lucky Legs" (1935) and "The Case of the Velvet Claws" (1936). I won't go into the plots of each of them as they all have different flavors and have different actors/actresses playing similar supporting roles.

Warren is wonderful in everything he does so he is, of course, great as a slick lawyer type that is not above totally breaking the law to finesse justice to the best of his advantage. Warren plays Perry as an extremely charming, quick thinking, witty and urbane .... shyster type. This Perry Mason in no way resembles Raymond Burr's Perry. Warren's Perry reminds me more of what Nick Charles from the "Thin Man" would have been like if he had been a lawyer.

I would have thought the first movie "The Case of the Howling Dog" with Mary Astor would have been one of my favorites, but for some reason, it didn't gel quite right with me. It might have been me, but I found the plot a bit overcomplicated and difficult to follow. I guess they were way too clever for my feeble brain. It was a good start though, to get me in the Perry frame of mind.

The next two "The Case of the Curious Bride" and "The Case of the Lucky Legs" were both wonderful - you have Perry Mason flirting with Della Street as well as any other woman he comes in contact with. You also have Allen Jenkins as the wonderful sidekick Spudsy. Perry also joins the ranks of the charming mystery solvers that can't find a clue without a drink in his hand. There are many jokes and gags regards to his penchant for the spirits and both movies are fun mystery romps that I highly recommend.

The last "The Case of the Velvet Claws" really fell short of my expectations, unfortunately. Warren is still as wonderful as always, but Allen Jenkins didn't return as Spudsy and his absence was very much noticed. Also, the movie series totally "jumped the shark" by starting the movie with a marriage between Perry Mason and Della Street. This tempered the sexual tension between them, it also stopped him from flirting with every single woman so as not to look like a cad and it just ended up not as fun a turn as a result. It is not surprising that this was the last one in the Perry Mason series, unfortunately.

If you are a great fan of Warren William, you should probably make an effort to watch all four. If not, you will be happier just watching the first three and skipping the last. You won't be missing much - you could save the time and re-watch one of Warren's many other wonderful movies.

House of Mirth (2000)

2009-08-15T18:10:00.005-04:00

I was very nervous about watching this one as it is one of those that people report as the worst movie ever made or the most brilliant movie they have ever seen. I doubted I would believe either of those, but I was worried about truly disliking this movie. I needn't have worried.

Lawrence (Eric Stoltz) and Lily (Gillian Anderson) would have had beautiful redheaded, blue-eyed and, almost so pale as to be translucent, children

As a woman of the early 1900s, Lily Barton (Gillian Anderson) finds herself in a most common quandary for women of that time. Does she marry for love or does she find a rich man to marry so she can live without material worry? Of course, that is not the only plot driving this film. It is also about society and what sacrifices one must make to stay true to oneself. Lily is torn between a life with a society lawyer that she loves, Lawrence Selden (Eric Stoltz), and the possibility of marrying a rich man, most likely Sim Rosedale (Anthony LaPaglia). Add to that the nasty turns of society with her frenemy Bertha Dorset (Laura Linney) and best friend's husband Gus Trenor (Dan Akroyd) and Lily finds herself in many precarious situations. As she says herself, "We resist the big temptations, but it is the little ones that pull us down."

I really think Gillian was wonderful in this role. I read so many reviewers talking about how slow her speech seemed and how stiff and reserved she seemed. Well, yeah, that was the way the character was supposed to be. This whole movie is not about spelling out the feelings of the characters in words, but watching subtle nuances on the actor's faces for emotional cues. In fact, most of this movie is about characters saying one thing, but the actors having to pull off showing a completely different emotion on their faces. There really were some wonderful performances in this that I am not sure people in the age of Terminator and the like would truly understand.

One of the wonderful scenes of the movie was between Lily and Lawrence. They make simply touching hands seem so erotic. With Lily's breathing becoming more rapid and Lawrence saying he has nothing to offer her, but it would be hers if he did. The heartbreak of what little is being said there, but with such underlying meaning. All the while the gentle touch of two hands .... and the ache of desire. Yet circumstances making it so that neither is willing to risk their need for material comfort for love.

I have to admit, I have never read Edith Wharton's book so I was terribly confused by the title. After some research I found the answer. Ecclesiastes 7:3-4: Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. I really like this quotation for, at times, this proves I must surely be most wise.

Lastly, I have to speak about Bertha's character and Laura Linney's performance of Bertha. I have often thought Laura Linney is a most underrated actress. She proves it yet again with her turn as Bertha who would be a welcome addition on any of today's reality TV shows. She would be known as what is called "good TV". Some of the quotes from the movie referencing her character are wonderful such as, "For always getting what she wants in the long run, commend me to a nasty woman." This is followed up with a question about liking such a nasty person. The response is, "It's much safer to be fond of dangerous people." Laura plays her as such a cunning and manipulative little ... witch. She is sheer ... witchy perfection.

I do admit that this movie is quite a downer. It is sad that the whole reason that Lily couldn't succeed - her fatal flaw - is that she was simply too nice to play the ruthless games that one had to play in high society. She had many chances to triumph over those who pushed her down, but she always felt her dignity and staying true to herself was more important.

As for my recommendation, the costumes, sets, performances and cinematography - everything about this movie is wonderful. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes subtle films and is okay with an unhappy ending.

Sixteen Candles (1984)

2009-08-13T20:30:00.000-04:00

Due to the death of John Hughes recently, Encore movie channel decided to run some of his movies as a tribute. I happen to have the High Def version of Encore and became immediately excited about the idea of recording Jake Ryan in High Def. Seriously, I watched this movie before puberty and Jake Ryan became as much an idol to me as Magnum PI and Remington Steele. So ... hot.

Jake Ryan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Samantha Baker (Molly Ringwald) just turned 16 and due to her sister's wedding, everyone has completely forgotten. To soften the blow she decides to trounce a geek's heart (Anthony Michael Hall) and set her sights on the most gorgeous guy in school (also most gorgeous guy ever in a teen flick) - Jake Ryan (Michael Schoeffling).

I will be the first to admit this is not a good movie. I still laugh every time I see it though! "No more yankey my wankey!" This was as close as we came to a Judd Apatow film in the 80s. I don't think it is possible to watch this and not chuckle at least once. The most difficult thing about this movie is how completely improbable it is. Let's see, this seriously gorgeous and rich senior guy dating a seriously gorgeous and rich blond senior girl is tired of her partying ways and wants to settle down with an almost mousy sophomore just because she said she wanted to have sex with him. What planet was this filmed on?!?!?! There is no teenage boy that would turn down Caroline (the seriously gorgeous blond) for Samantha (the mousy sophomore).

Since this movie is silly, I have seen a silly game that I thought I would try. It is to list the silly things you learned from the movie. I will list a few things here:

1. In HD, Jake Ryan has cute little freckles.
2. Freshmen will pay to see a girl's panties.
3. Grandmas like to feel up their granddaughters.
4. Rubbing lemons into your elbows is a beauty secret.
5. Men prefer mousy, flat-chested redheads to gorgeous, stacked blonds.

Audience participation time: Can you think of any other items you learned from this movie?

I highly recommend this one for when you are in your mid-life crisis and need to escape back to your days of school when your biggest worry was your hair or acne or when you would hook-up as in HOOK-UP with someone finally. Ahhhh, good times.

Ever Since Eve (1937)

2009-08-11T21:45:00.001-04:00

I had heard of Marion Davies before, but only because she was a mistress to William Randolph Hearst for 30 years until his death. I had never actually seen her in a movie. When TCM showed some of her movies for their Summer Under the Stars series, I decided to record a few. I started with "Not So Dumb" actually, and almost wanted to turn it off. Her fakey voice and silly, annoying "I'm dumb, but cute, so love me" character really was a turn off. However, after talking to my movie mentor, he suggested I watch "Ever Since Eve" in all it's role-reversal glee to try to redeem my overall opinion of Marion Davies.

Marion Davies portrait "borrowed" from doctormacro1 and colored by someone named Brittany

Marge Winton (Marion Davies) is a gorgeous blond secretary who can't keep a job because her male bosses always put the moves on her and she inevitably gets fired when she turns them down. In order to keep a job, she comes up with a brilliant plan of dressing up in full-on frump so that her employers will focus on her skill and not on her appearance. All seems to go well until she is asked to work with a writer named Freddy Matthews (Robert Montgomery) and he eventually sees her without the plain Jane costume and falls in love. After that, mistaken identities, dance numbers and stick 'em ups abound!

This is one of the more improbable screwball comedies I have seen in a while. It starts out sane, but by the end it is so completely off-the-charts zany that you know you enjoyed yourself but wonder how on earth you got there. Marion Davies didn't have the crazy voice like she did in "Not So Dumb" and played a smart lady so I have now forgiven her for annoying me so the other day. Plus, she is cute as a button so I had already forgiven her a bit anyway, truth be told. If that wasn't enough, her romantic rival (Marcia Ralston) went to the school of Ethel Barrymore eye acting (continually narrowing and widening one's eyes to try to show emotion) so that alone makes Marion Davies look completely brilliant! Well done!

A huge bonus for me was seeing Robert Montgomery again. Speaking of forgiving, this one almost made me forgive him making me sit through "Lady in the Lake". Al-most. He is back to sweet "Mr & Mrs. Smith" charming fun and frivolity in this one. I also really enjoyed the supporting cast. Frank McHugh, Patsy Kelly and Barton MacLane help round out the film and provide a bit of a comedic foundation to allow the in-zanity.

This wasn't a great film, but it was definitely enjoyable and most importantly, entertaining. I definitely recommend checking this out if you happen to catch it on TCM sometime. It is worth the 80 minute investment.

Mighty Aphrodite (1995)

2009-08-09T20:48:00.007-04:00

I really shouldn't admit this for fear of stones being thrown by various movie lovers, but I will be brave and just say it. I have a really hard time with Woody Allen movies. I usually like the clever dialogue and I usually like that Allen is making fun of himself in some way or other, but I have little patience for watching Woody Allen play the same character, himself, over and over on the screen.

Lenny (Woody Allen) and Amanda (Helena Bonham Carter) decide they should adopt a child. Well, really she decides and suddenly they are holding a baby boy named Max. The boy thrives in the intellectual environment and by the time he is of pre-school age he has been designated as extremely intelligent. Lenny and Amanda's marriage hits the rocks and Lenny starts fantasizing about the mother (Mira Sorvino) of his adopted son and tracks her down.

Even though I have a difficult time with Woody Allen movies, this one was one of the better ones I have seen. I loved the device of using the Greek Chorus between scenes to both draw parallels to Oedipus and contemporize it in a humorous way. That was a stroke of genius.

What I thought really didn't work very well was the pairing of Woody Allen and Helena Bonham Carter. He was 60 and she was 29. That may have been overcome if either showed the remotest amount of interest in the other. I think it is an understatement to say there was zero chemistry. From the beginning of the movie I was puzzled how they ever got together and how they could really be in love.

My other issue was that the character Mira Sorvino played grated on my nerves. Her voice and her vapidness (is that a word?) made me want to fast-forward through every scene she was in. After hearing so much about her performance due to her winning the best supporting actress Oscar in 1996, I have to say that I don't see it as an Oscar-worthy performance. She is good as the dumb blond and I know that she isn't that way in real-life, but really, does that make it Oscar worthy?

However, even though everything doesn't seem to fit together perfectly in this, I still say it is a terribly funny movie. I particularly loved Olympia Dukakis as Jocasta and Jack Warden as Tiresias as part of the Greek Chorus. The Greek Chorus manages to both lift up the sophistication level while at the same time showing the movie isn't trying to take itself too seriously. That alone made this film brilliant. I recommend this one for the humor, the Greek Chorus and perhaps the line "I'm sure that you're a state-of-the-art fellatrix." Can't beat that.

Sense and Sensibility (1995)

2009-08-07T17:09:00.006-04:00

Recently the gauntlet was thrown down, so to speak, by my friend and fellow blogger Jenny. Whilst discussing "Truly, Madly, Deeply" here in one of my entries, she shared my enthusiasm for the movie and the actors in the comments section. She said, "Alan Rickman is sexy. You have have to, have to watch Sense and Sensibility now. If you have already watched it, you have to watch it again and notice Alan and how sexy he is. " So, apparently, I had to ... because gosh, I don't remember thinking anything about Alan Rickman after watching that one. I mean, seriously, he was an old man or something?

Mr. Rickman

So, about "Sense and Sensibility". I never know how to do a good synopsis of a movie adapted from a Jane Austen novel. There are generally too many twists and turns for any of it to make much sense in a small paragraph form. The important bits are that two of the three Dashwood sisters are of marrying age and are looking for love. Elinor (Emma Thompson) and Marianne (Kate Winslet) have vastly different approaches to finding and expressing love. Of course, gentlemen must enter the picture in the form of Col. Branden (Alan Rickman), Mr. Willoughby (Greg Wise) and Edward Ferrars (Hugh Grant) so as to court the ladies. You are pretty sure there will be a wedding at the end, but the twists and turns and who weds who is always the interesting part.

One of the great things about this one is not only the wonderful performances (shout out to the cranky Hugh Laurie in this), but the direction is wonderful too. I know that the direction has a lot to do with it because I have seen quite a few Ang Lee films now. He is a master when he is directing the shots. As an amateur photographer, I have little patience for any film that doesn't take the time to do something other than simply follow the action with a camera. It *has* to be more than that for a rich movie experience and Ang Lee is one of those directors that totally gets that. I heart that about his films.

Now, keep in mind I was about 20 when I saw this film in the theatre. For some reason, I haven't seen it since even though I own the DVD and really liked the movie. So many movies, so little time. It is amazing how much your life experience plays into what you feel about the same movie. Have you ever noticed this?

At the tender young age when I first saw this, I totally identified with Kate Winslet's character who wanted to be exuberant about love and not play coy. She didn't want to hold anything back and therefore put her heart right out there without even a thought of anyone ever mistreating it. I was all about Mr. Willoughby because he was dashing and charming and FUN. Lord, was he fun.

Now, almost a decade and a half later (good golly!) and at a not-so-tender age anymore, I totally identify with Emma Thompson's character. She holds her feelings deep below the surface so as not to allow just anyone to come along and trample all over them. She feels love just as much as her younger sister, but doesn't run around like a school girl telling everyone. The other epiphany of me watching this at an older age is, indeed, just how sexy Alan Rickman and his character is in this film. He is compassionate, loving, steadfast and true. You may not look at him and think "Woohoo - he MUST be the life of the ball" but I would look at him and think proudly, "That is my kind man whom I love so very much." I would happily sit with him in the garden and let him read me poetry all day. :-)

So, the same film, viewed almost 15 years later which almost translates to a lifetime of experiences, led to a totally different movie experience and result. I have noticed this happen many other times and at first am always surprised at how different the film was in my memory and it takes a while to realize the film and memory is the same, the viewer is the one who has changed.

An American Crime (2007)

2009-08-05T14:05:00.006-04:00

This is the true story of Sylvia Likens (Ellen Page). Her parents worked with traveling carnivals and in 1965, their marriage was on the rocks. They separated largely due to the fact the mother no longer wanted to travel with the carnivals, fearing it was too hard on their daughters Sylvia and Jennie. The father comes back and asks his wife to go with him on a carnival circuit, again, where they can save money for their family. He proposes leaving the girls with a lady from church, Gertrude Baniszewski (Catharine Keener), who also has children and will keep them just a few weeks as a way of making some money. Reluctantly the mother agrees.

As with stories like this, things go well at first until Sylvia and Jennie are beaten with a belt when their parent's money doesn't arrive exactly on time (it is a day late). Then the oldest daughter of Gertrude's becomes jealous of the attention Sylvia is getting from the boys in school and tells her mother that Sylvia is spreading rumors about her. This cements the already growing hatred Gertrude feels towards Sylvia and the abuse escalates. Sylvia somewhat accepts her fate as a way of protecting her sister figuring if Gertrude focuses on her, at least her sister will be spared. Sylvia is eventually locked in the basement where Gertrude encourages her kids and the neighborhood kids to "punish" Sylvia in a variety of harsh and evil ways. The neighbors hear Sylvia's screams coming from the basement, but everyone agrees it is a private matter and it is best if they mind their own business.

Catherine Keener in an oddly, somewhat tender moment with Ellen Page

This movie is obviously incredibly hard to watch, but if you have the stomach for it, I encourage you to do so. The script is based off the court transcripts. They shot the movie in sequential order so the actors could feel the progression of the atrocities. Ellen also took advantage of that and stopped eating so that she could feel Sylvia's starvation pain and lose weight to portray a young girl being starved. I also thought it was brilliant that Catherine Keener didn't play the role like a raving monster. It is a very subtle terror. At one point she asks her son, "Who's in charge?" He replies, "You are Momma" and I think that says it all.

On a personal note, I had an extreme emotional reaction to this movie that I will never forget. My mother very rarely talked about it, but eventually she told me her mother was paranoid schizophrenic. Everything was okay while her dad was alive, but when he died when Mom was 5, all bets were suddenly off. Her mom was incredibly cruel to my Mother. She wouldn't give her clothes or blankets in the winter, preferring to watch her freeze. She shaved her head to humiliate her. She physically and even sexually abused her, and these were just the things Mom dared talk about once, when I was older. I am sure there were so many more things that I never knew about. My Mom had a brother and a half brother. They were also encouraged or forced to hurt my Mom as well. Why Mom? I am not sure, I think her mom was jealous of how much her dad loved her. There may not have really been a reason other than her mom was sick.

It all came to an end one summer day when her mother decided to build a brush fire in front of their house. This was alarming enough to the neighbors as it could get out of control and destroy their property. The neighbors came out to see what was going on when they saw my Mom's mom trying to get her sons to throw her daughter on the brush pile. My Mom was screaming and fighting as best she could for her life. After months and months of neighbors ignoring shrieks of pain they must have heard coming from my Mom, someone finally stepped in and called the police.

I had such an emotional reaction because I couldn't help thinking of my Mom as I watched Ellen portray Sylvia. I also couldn't help think how amazing it is that my Mom was able to be a kind and loving Mom after such an extremely difficult childhood. She was an incredible woman to overcome the abuse and forgive her brothers and be able to love anyone after something like that.

I tell this story now because my Mom is gone now and everyone involved in the story, her mom and her brothers are all gone now too. I don't have any family on her side anymore so there is no one to hurt by telling this story that no one else can tell. It is unbelievable to me how close my Mom came to death as a child just because neighbors thought it was all a private matter. If her mom hadn't chosen such a public venue, I am certain she would have been killed in the house eventually. It is chilling to think myself and my brother and his children came that close to never existing.

I also tell this story to say this happens way more often than any of us think and it is NEVER okay to think it isn't our responsibility to step in or speak up. I wish someone had stepped in earlier for Sylvia and I also wish someone would have saved Mom earlier too.

Fashions of 1934 (1934)

2009-08-04T18:53:00.006-04:00

Sherwood Nash (William Powell) is a con man who is always trying to think of another hustle. After several others didn't quite work out, he happens upon a talented fashion designer named Lynn Mason (Bette Davis). From there they begin a scheme of knocking off original designs and while that doesn't last it leads them to their next plan and possibly even to romance.

Bette Davis in a publicity still from Fashions of 1934

I am doing this blog really just to share Robert Osborne's hilarious intro to this one when it came on TCM recently. I watched the film and, unfortunately, either the film was a little lackluster or I was completely distracted the whole time. I think it was more the latter issue as I was constantly interrupted. I really will have to watch this one again, I think, to really get much out of the whole viewing experience. So this isn't really a review as much as a sharing of the wonders of Robert Osborne's way of bringing films to life.

I am putting quotes around it, but this is perhaps slightly paraphrased as I was typing directly from the TV. If I missed the exact wording, don't sue me. Robert said, "She (Bette) is glamorized beyond recognition. Her hair is bleached blonde and straightened. Her eyes and face have enough makeup to sink the Titanic. She wears gowns by Orry-Kelly that no human being would wear this side of a Halloween party. She went along with it once, just once. When she saw herself on screen she vowed to never let them do that to her again. Part of the fun of watching this one is knowing the seething fury going on in the mind of Bette Davis while she is parading around in all those ridiculous outfits."

I laughed every time I saw her on screen, almost, imagining her as a very angry furball of a kitty with these big huge eyes being forced into "cute" outfits for everyone else's amusement. I kept imagining the kitty hissing and fighting and eventually giving in only to be ashamed by the result when she looked in the mirror. That whole image in my mind was worth the price of admission, as they say. :-)

A Night to Remember (1943)

2009-07-30T21:26:00.010-04:00

No, this is not the early Titanic movie. :-) Nancy Troy (Loretta Young) rents a basement Greenwich Village apartment so her husband Jeff (Brian Aherne) can soak up the ambiance of the area and switch from murder-mystery novels to some kind of a novel with romance set in Greenwich Village. Of course, nothing goes as planned and they suddenly find themselves in a building with a bunch of odd-acting tenants and a stiff in the garden. Soon Jeff decides he will solve the murder so he will finally be able to write an authentic, best-selling murder mystery novel.

Something comes between Loretta Young and Brian Aherne

I watched this one and immediately thought it was a decently cute knock-off of "The Thin Man". They aren't as sophisticated as Nick and Nora, Asta has suddenly turned into a giant turtle and the goings ons are supposed to be a bit more eerie and ends up being more silly, but there are still flavors of a poor man's "Thin Man" in there.

I will be the first to admit that this comes off as a rather silly little movie, but I didn't mind really. I never feel that I have to watch something that should be a contender for the greatest films of all time when I sit down to enjoy a movie. All that matters is that it entertains me and this one did, even if it really wasn't very good. Loretta is so adorable to watch and how many films feature a turtle? Seriously?

I recommend this one as long as you are in for a silly little comedy and keep your expectations low. It is cute, fun and a good way to spend an hour and a half.

The Cabin in the Cotton (1932)

2009-07-30T17:45:00.003-04:00

The Blakes are a tenant farmer family struggling to survive and the Norwoods are the sharecropper family that is struggling to keep their power over their tenants. The Blakes oldest son, Marvin (Richard Barthelmess) wants to go to school and educate himself. After a struggle, the sharecropper patriarch Lane agrees to help send him if he works in the store and keeps his books for him. Soon Marvin is torn between the two different allegiances perfectly portrayed by two love interests - Betty (Dorothy Jordan) a tenant farmer's daughter and Madge (Bette Davis) the sharecropper's daughter. As tensions rise between the two factions, Marvin must decide how serve both sides and make peace.

Bette Davis trying to rub off Richard Barthelmess' awful makeup

I have to say that the biggest drawback to this one for me was Richard Barthelmess. First of all, this is another example of Hollywood's obsession with casting old men in parts for young men. Secondly, dear Richard is really from the era of silent film and it screams it in this film given that he is wearing more makeup than Bette Davis. Lastly, I just didn't feel that he was passionate. He was incredibly stiff and kinda looked like an unfrozen caveman barely moving his lips and showing no emotion. He just ... didn't do it for me.

On the other hand, Bette was a complete delight. At first her character seems to be flirting with him just because she is curious and he happens to be around. Given this is pre-code, at one point she strips off-camera to lure him into her bed, saucy minx that she is. This is also the film where she delivers the completely quirky line "I'd like to kiss you but I just washed my hair!" She totally steals this film and blows unfrozen caveman off the screen with her exciting performance.

I really enjoyed this one. Not only because of Bette's not-so-nice girl performance, but the movie is much more. Michael Curtiz really did a great job of lining up some beautiful shots in the compact 78 min run time. The script is really good with the daring social commentary (again, a nice pre-code touch). In addition, there are some interesting music elements mixed throughout. These are the types of movies that I wish the younger generation had someone mentoring them to make sure they studied. Movies like these showcase a time period that is foreign to most current generations and clearly show how hard a struggle it was for basic necessities for many people. When watching a film like this, the hope is one will begin to think about the generations of folks before you whose shoulders are so proudly holding you up even today. At least, that is what I thought about at the end of this movie.

If you haven't seen this one, search it out on TCM - it is definitely worth watching.

These Three (1936) & The Children's Hour (1961)

2009-06-22T16:48:00.013-04:00

"The Children's Hour" is a remake of "These Three", but both films were directed by William Wyler. In both films, Karen Wright (Merle Oberon, Audrey Hepburn) and Martha Dobie (Miriam Hopkins, Shirley MacLaine) open a school for girls in a small town. Karen gets engaged to one of the local doctors, Dr. Joe Cardin (Joel McCrea, James Garner) and trouble seems to follow the engagement. One of the school girls stirs up trouble in the form of gossip. In "These Three" the gossip is that Martha is having an affair with Karen's fiance'. In "The Children's Hour" the gossip is that Karen and Martha are having an affair. In both cases, the gossip spreads like wild fire in the small town and all three reputations, as well as the school, is destroyed.

Shirley MacClaine and Audrey Hepburn in "The Children's Hour"

If you are here, then you are a classic movie fan and probably know the deal about the censorship that forced "These Three" to change what the gossip tidbit was about. I am shocked to say that after watching both, I prefer the censored version, the original. One of the main reasons is the girl that starts the trouble, Mary Tilford, is played brilliantly by Bonita Granville. What a scheming, mean, little wretched girl. However, in the second version, the little girl is a terrible actress and looks like a cross between a lost puppy and a brat. I can't even stand watching her after having watched Bonita rock the role. It is surprising how one weak link in a cast can really do such damage to a movie.

The second reason I prefer the original is the script. In the original, they spend a good bit of time setting up the story about the girls graduating from college, neither having anything to do, so they decide to go to Karen's house that she inherited and look for jobs. It shows them deciding to fix the house and start a school. It shows the awful aunt popping in and out for handouts, which makes more sense about why the aunt is there in the first place. Then it also shows Karen meeting Mary and her Grandmother, with her Grandmother offering to send Mary there and rally some other folks around the school. That helps the audience to understand why they put up with Mary so long and also why when Mary was pulled out of school, everyone else went too. A lot of the background work in the beginning of "These Three" make it a much more even and complete movie, in my mind.

The third and final reason I will mention here about why I prefer the original is the tidbit of gossip. I agree that the movie isn't really about WHAT the gossip is, just what gossip will do to reputations and livelihoods. However, despite "The Children's Hour" being one of the first to start to deal with lesbianism, I am still offended by how it is portrayed as unnatural and an illness. I would rather see the story changed to a heterosexual relationship than to hear the awful way it is handled in this. I understand, it was more than 40 years ago and this was the best they could do then. I really do, but it really is uncomfortable to watch. I am sure it is truthful to the time as to what most thought about homosexuality so it is hard to knock their attempt - I just ... ugh.

Of course, I will say that there are some great things about the 1961 version. For starters, Audrey Hepburn portrays a woman so sweet and so obviously in love. I felt that was an improvement over the 1936 version. No offense to Oberon, but Hepburn radiates love when she looks at Garner in a way that made Oberon look like she was indifferent to McCrea. Also, hands down, Shirley MacClaine blows Miriam Hopkins version off the screen too. I always forget what a great actress MacClaine is. Lastly, one of the best things about the latter version is that it is visually stunning. The cinematography and the shots are all brilliant - much better than the the 1936 version. "The Children's Hour" really worked in some clever angles and it really paid off.

In short, both movies are worth watching, but "These Three" was definitely my preferred version. Mainly because the story feels more complete and there isn't a performance that sticks out as bad. In "The Children's Hour", while I think Hepburn and MacClaine showed more depth and emotion than the previous actresses, the chopping of the script and the absolutely horrid performance by Mary made it a little confusing and somewhat painful to watch.

Midnight (1939)

2009-05-04T09:13:00.008-04:00

I have been absent from this blog for a while, sorry about that. I went to Ireland and had a grand time, then I quickly came down with walking pneumonia. The illness is what did it - I had so much fun watching movies without having to turn in the homework assignment of a blog that I have been a movie watching fiend, but not a blogging fiend. I decided it was time to come back and turn in another assignment.

Eve Peabody (Claudette Colbert) arrives in Paris with no luggage and no money. She convinces Tibor Czerny (Don Ameche), a taxi driver, to drive her around town while she looks for a job in a nightclub. Coming up ended handed, she flees his kindness and lands a job pretending to be a baroness. Her assignment is to woo and marry the lover of Georges Flammarion's (John Barrymore) wife (Mary Astor) so she will stay with her husband.

Don Ameche and Claudette Colbert get cozy while John Barrymroe looks on

This was a delightful screwball romantic comedy. The script was witty and fun (co-written in part by Billy Wilder, so it should be) and the performances were great. I am developing a bit of a crush on Don Ameche - holy cow, what a cutie! And John Barrymore was very funny without being too hammy or over-the-top in this one.

An example of the excellent script is the exchange between Ameche and Colbert's characters as she tries to explain her past "business" ventures:

Eve Peabody: I landed a lord, almost.
Tibor Czerny: Almost?
Eve Peabody: Well, the family came between us. His mother came to my hotel and offered me a bribe.
Tibor Czerny: You threw her out, I hope!
Eve Peabody: How could I, with my hands full of money?

My only issue, and I swear it isn't her fault, is with Claudette Colbert. I don't know what it is, but I just can't warm up to her. Part of it, I think, is her voice and the way she carries herself. I always feel like she is an 60 year-old woman in a 30 year old body. I am sure this isn't fair, but I always think she carries herself that way. I don't see a spark or much personality emanating from her like I do other actresses of the same period. I know she is beloved so I am sure you guys will have a different opinion and I welcome it. I would love to get over the Claudette Colbert hump.

As a warning, I read that they are in the process of remaking this one starring Reese Witherspoon. So those of you who are anti-remakes (I am in that camp most of the time too) start preparing your groans for the upcoming trailers.

But as far as this one, even with my Claudette issue, this was a delightful film. It was recently released on DVD and is available from Netflix so check it out.

Reservation Road (2007)

2009-04-06T21:08:00.002-04:00

Ethan and Grace Lerner (Joaquin Phoenix and Jennifer Connelly) are on their way home from a wonderful family outing with their two children. A tragic accident occurs when Dwight Arno (Mark Ruffalo) who is also returning home from a wonderful day out with his son, loses control of his truck, and hits the Lerner's son. With a split second to decide what to do, he flees the scene of the accident. The rest of the film is about how their lives are changed, how each side deals with what has happened and if it is possible for either sides to move on after such a tragic event.

The accident happens in the first 10 minutes of the film, so I am not giving anything away there, but much more happens that I would love to discuss, but must stay away from so as not to spoil the twists and turns that make a movie interesting. The first thing that must be said is everyone in this film turns in top-notch performances. My heart broke for the family as this movie played out. Even the daughter left behind played by Elle Fanning (yes, Dakota's little sister) turned in a truly moving performance.

I think it is disappointing that this film wasn't given very much promotion when it came out in theatres or when it came out on DVD. I happened to read about it in the upcoming new releases on DVD and decided to give it a try. I am so glad I did because this is an astoundingly good character drama. I love the way it splits off at the time of the accident, and follows the story of both leads trying to grapple with what has happened. It covers all the themes that are huge in every day life - grief, sadness, cowardice, hatred, responsibility, guilt, love and even forgiveness.

Again, I would love to go into a much more in-depth discussion about this one, but it would be such a disservice to ruin the plot. So if anyone watches this one, post here or email me and we can discuss some of this further. I will say the only downside on this one is that a few plot points, such as where character's lives intersect later in the story, seem contrived. Well, so what? I can employ my hefty suspension of disbelief for a truly riveting story. Contrive on, I say.

When you are ready for a great drama - watch this one. It is very sad and tragic, but definitely an interesting exploration of how tragic events effect us. You will be thinking about this one long after the credits roll. Another recommendation!

The Odd Couple (1968)

2009-04-04T09:40:00.001-04:00

Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau) is divorced and lives in a huge apartment that often hosts Poker Night with the guys. Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon) is a part of the regular Poker Night crowd, but something is amiss when he doesn't show up with his usual punctuality. When Felix finally appears, he is distraught because he has been kicked out of his house and his wife wants a divorce. Oscar does the only thing he knows to do which is to invite him to move in until he can get his life sorted out again. Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished.

This is one of those that I had seen bits and pieces of throughout the years, but never sat down to watch the whole thing beginning to end. I swear, you can't get better buddies for a buddy movie. Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon are great as the bickering "couple". I love movies that simplify the plot to the point that they just allow a couple of characters to exist in a space to see what will happen. That is exactly what this movie is about and the characters leap off the screen for our entertainment.

One of my favorite scenes is when their relationship is wearing thin and Oscar is almost at the end of his rope. He finally lets loose with this rant, "I can't take it anymore, Felix, I'm cracking up. Everything you do irritates me. And when you're not here, the things I know you're gonna do when you come in irritate me. You leave me little notes on my pillow. I told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. 'We're all out of cornflakes. F.U.' It took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar!" Hahahahaha! That made me laugh out loud.

Okay, I can't let it go with one favorite scene. I have to add in the bit about Jack Lemmon in the restaurant making that awful noise to try to open his ears. I have to admit, I would have just gotten up and walked out on him, but it was hilarious.

So if you are looking for a discussion about archetypal relationships as they relate to male friendships or something like that, you have come to the wrong place. I can't add anything that hasn't been said a hundred times about this thoroughly entertaining movie. It is an incredibly witty film thanks to the brilliant script by Neil Simon. It is a delight to watch Lemmon and Matthau play off each other. It is a must see comedy, beginning to end, and all those delicious funny bits in between.

Mamma Mia (2008)

2009-04-01T08:00:00.000-04:00

Sophie Sheridan (Amanda Seyfried) is soon to be married and wants to invite her father to the wedding. The trouble is she doesn't know her father's identity. When she uncovers her mother's diary, she discovers her mom Donna (Meryl Streep) had trysts with three men that could potentially be her father. She decides to invite them all (Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard) to her wedding thinking she will instantly know, just by looking in his eyes, who is her real father.

Cast of Mamma Mia

I expected this film to be a bunch of ridiculous nonsense and it did not disappoint, unfortunately. I can't believe so many stars signed up for such a silly and inane film. Oh Meryl, how far you have fallen from the pedestal I put you on. I have to admit, I watched this for the pure Brosnan and Firth factor. I love them both. Unfortunately, Firth's part was minuscule and Brosnan was made to sing. Which he can't, really, despite being Irish. So it made it look and feel painful - not to mention terribly unsexy. Which made me terribly unhappy.

I can't think of anything positive to say other than some of the Greek Isle scenery was gorgeous. That was probably the best part of the film. Oh, and that the cute young girl, Amanda Seyfriend, was really good even though I think she was largely an unknown. She held her ground against all the star power very well and I was impressed by that. Sadly though, unless you are an uber-ABBA fan or a general musical junkie, I would say this is a large waste of time and would be best left undisturbed on the shelf.

Truly, Madly, Deeply (1990)

2009-03-22T22:24:00.002-04:00

Nina (Juliet Stevenson) is having a hard time coping with the death of her boyfriend Jamie (Alan Rickman). In fact, she has mostly fallen apart, withdrawing from life, refusing to go out and refusing to take care of every day things at home. While she has many people that care for her, she is stuck in a mire of depression and sees no way out. That is, until Jamie returns from the dead. Their happiness is somewhat short lived when he starts bringing all his ghost friends over and she begins to think that maybe she really does need to get out and start working on building a life for herself again.

Alan Rickman who plays Jamie who plays the cello

This is such a clever and intelligent movie. Again, I kinda loathe a lot of the ghost fare that gets passed around, but this is a great little character drama. Juliet Stevenson does a wonderful job of playing a woman completely arrested by grief and depression, trying to act like she is not. Rickman is wonderful as her ghostly boyfriend. I never knew Rickman could portray a charming love interest?

I really love that this movie addresses the fantasy of what it would be like to have your loved one back after death. This is the fantasy many people have had when they lose someone they love. It also addresses what it might be like for the deceased watching someone they love lock themselves away from the world due to their pain and anguish. If you watch this one, just keep in mind what you think Jamie's true motivation is for coming back and all of it will make sense. It is such a beautiful story.

The one thing that I didn't like about this is the choice of the other love interest, Sandy (Bill Paterson). Nothing against Bill personally, but Nina's relationship with Jamie was based off a love of music and conversations and, well, they fit together. I didn't really see what Nina saw in Sandy. Yes, he was a nice guy, but I didn't feel any chemistry there. Not only that, but I just found him darn annoying. She obviously has to make a choice, but I didn't see Sandy giving Jamie much of a run for his money, even if he happens to be dead. If it had been me, I would have ditched annoying guy for dead guy, but I think that would have ruined the movie.

My favorite scene is available here on YouTube, where Rickman and Stevenson do an adorable duet of the Walker Brothers hit "(The) Sun Ain't Gonna Shine Anymore". It is perfect for showing the fun they have together and why they were in love to begin with.

This is a great little British independent film. It is not a comedy so much as a drama, but it does have light moments here and there. It has a wonderful script, good acting and a great director, Anthony Minghella, who actually passed away suddenly and much too young, just like the main character in this film. Wow, another one I recommend. I seem to be on a roll.

Too Hot To Handle (1938)

2009-03-19T22:31:00.002-04:00

Chris Hunter (Clark Gable) and Bill Dennis (Walter Pidgeon) are rival newsreel men who are constantly trying to out scoop the other. If the stories get thin, sometimes improvisation is needed. After being scooped by Hunter with a less-than-truthful newsreel, Dennis decides to fake his own story to beat Hunter at his own game. Unfortunately, Alma Harding (Myrna Loy) gets drug into the mess and soon both men are rivals again, but this time for her affections.

Lobby Card for Too Hot To Handle

That is a very high-level view of the plot. There is also a sub-plot about Alma being a top female aviator who is out to find her brother, whose plane crashed along the Amazon. She will take almost any job just to try to raise enough money for her expedition to find what became of her brother.

This is an example of one of those movies where suspension of disbelief is a must. It isn't a bad film at all, it just has it's quirks and if you are up for a fun adventure where you throw any questions about "They can't really fly over a ship that blew up and survive, can they?" then this is for you. I don't want to sound like I didn't enjoy this one - I really did. I love fun adventures and this one really fits the bill.

One of the highlights of this film is the competition between Gable and Pidgeon. They are excellent as the stereotypical newsmen who would sell their own mothers to get a decent story. The dialogue between them is excellent as they take jab after jab at each other. The downside of their ruthless "win at all costs" nature is that it makes it hard to believe that either are really in love with Loy. It seems more like another competition they are in just to show who is better at winning rather than a true attempt to win a woman's heart. One of my favorite lines from the movie was Gable saying to Pidgeon, "With the way you looked at her with those calf eyes just now, you'd let her walk on you with spiked shoes." Great line.

I have made no secret of the fact that Gable is not a favorite leading man of mine. He always seems kinda slick and oily. You know? Icky car salesmaney. However, I have had a friend feeding me some of his movies to attempt to sway me and, sway me he has. I see now that my first impression as slick and oily is really more rascally than anything else. Rascally = good. Oily = bad. After watching "Wife vs. Secretary", "Mutiny on the Bounty" and this one as well as re-watching "It Happened One Night", I concede he is a dang fine actor with a fair bit of range. He still isn't at the top of my male lead list, but I no longer cringe when I see him on the credits - this is a vast improvement for me, I assure you.

I definitely recommend this one if you get some time to watch it. Of course, it is another one you will have to try to catch on TCM as it isn't on DVD. However, it is a fun adventure and the newsman competition angle is great. Plus, you get to see Gable jump around in some version of a strange chicken suit. You can't beat that!

Milk (2008)

2009-03-16T09:14:00.001-04:00

Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) is a mostly closeted, gay insurance man that decides he is tired of seeing the entire gay population in America discriminated against without repercussion. So he comes out in the open with who he really is, moves in with his partner Scott Smith (James Franco) and decides that the only way things will change is to be elected to office as an openly gay man. Only then will their interests truly be represented and only then will they take the first steps to making discrimination against homosexuals unlawful.

The more I have thought about the film over the past few days since watching it, the better the film becomes in my mind. This is a story with which I hope anyone can draw inspiration. Everyone mentions Harvey Milk as a gay hero, but I think it is important to say that he is an American hero. It doesn't matter what class of citizen was being discriminated against, Milk saw discrimination and was the only one brave and clever enough to go about fighting to make a change. I felt the timing of this movie couldn't have been better because so many people watch this and think, "Wow - I can't believe things were so bad way back then. Glad I live in 2009 when that isn't an issue." It still is an issue though. This film focused on Milk's fight against Prop 6 in California, but last year, it was Prop 8 aimed to discriminate. The only sad part was there wasn't a Harvey Milk to successfully fight it this time.

As far as the movie itself, this one is all about Sean Penn. Every time I watch him disappear into a role I am reminded what a magnificent actor he is. Yes, I am sure he is a real jerk, but he is a jerk that can really act. Since I will never meet him, I would much rather watch the jerk that can act rather than the nice guy who is mediocre. Yet again, he delivers an amazing performance where you truly see him as Harvey Milk. I don't know of a current actor today that is that good at blending into his different characters so that he completely disappears before your eyes. I can certainly see why he won the Oscar this year.

One of the strongest parts of this film is how they don't make Milk a saint. The show him as being driven to the point of alienating his partner, they show him as having a "white knight" complex where his ego drives him to try to save everyone. I mean, they don't gloss over the flaws in his personality and it gives you a multi-dimensional character that is interesting to watch develop into a hero.

The only minor complaint about this one is that the Dan White's (Josh Brolin) character wasn't quite developed enough for me. You have to understand that I was barely out of diapers when all of this took place so I wasn't aware of this story at all until the movie came about. As such, I had no idea who Dan White was or why he was driven to take action. I think they hinted at several motives, but I am not certain it all came together for me. I understand not focusing on the bad guy while trying to do this inspirational movie, but I would have liked to understand White a little more. I don't think it was just him being a bigot, I think it was a lot more than that, but I am not 100% certain what the 'more' was.

Yet again, I have to say this film is a winner. It is highly recommended for three reasons. 1) Sean Penn's performance. It was just outstanding. 2) The reminder that when a nation allows a government to oppress any class of citizen, it gives them more power to oppress any and all classes of citizens. 3) As corny and silly as it always sounds, one person who is passionate and driven enough, can make a difference. Watch this one - Milk is good for you.

Mrs. Miniver (1942)

2009-03-13T11:09:00.003-04:00

The Minivers are an English family about to experience war up close and personal. As the war comes to their idyllic little town, they struggle to keep a normal existence and hold the family together. Mrs. Miniver (Greer Garson) manages to keep her young children safe and happy while she worries over the fate of her husband Clem (Walter Pidgeon) and her oldest son Vin (Richard Ney) as they do their part for the war effort.

The Minivers in a tiny tin can (aka bomb shelter)

I really liked this one. What a moving story about a family that is determined to not let outside events disrupt or tear them apart. One of the most touching scenes, to me, was the one pictured above. Mr. and Mrs. Miniver, with their two young children and of course, the cat, all cramped inside a tin can of a bomb shelter while bombs are landing on their home. Rather than be upset, they take their tea and try to chat with each other as they did after dinner every night before the war tried to take over. Just the iron will of this family is amazing - what courage it must have taken to carry on light conversation while your house is a mere, 100 ft away and most likely being blown to bits. At one point her young boy says to her, "Mommy, they nearly killed us this time didn't they?" I can't even begin to imagine how horrible something like that would be to live through. The movie almost makes me feel ashamed for my whole pampered generation.

It is no surprise that this wonderful movie cleaned up at the Oscars in 1943. Greer Garson won for Best Actress in a Leading Role and I can see why on that point too. I thought Greer Garson was absolutely lovely in this. So beautiful and charming. Such a woman of character who tried to be kind to all and keep her family foremost in her mind. Of course, Mrs. Miniver's taste in hats should be reconsidered, but that might be her only flaw. :-)

One odd note I made when I watched the film was how Mrs. Miniver and Vin seemed to be unusually close. I thought that in one of the scenes where Vin kisses his girlfriend and then kisses his mom, Mrs. Miniver. I made a quick note of "He seems to be more interested in kissing his Mom than he does his girl." Well, I had a good laugh when I was discussing the movie with a friend and he mentioned that after the film wrapped, Mrs. Miniver married her son! Well, I mean Greer Garson married Richard Ney. Maybe I was imagining it, but I challenge you to go find that scene and compare kisses, then come back and talk to me.

Lastly, I think many people have complained that this movie had a propagandic message and they think that wasn't appropriate. I honestly don't know what "these people" expect, really? Artists use their talents for what they are passionate about. They draw inspiration, for better or for worse, from the events going on around them. The propaganda claim is very true as William Wyler admitted that he made this film for that reason. He wanted the Nazis stopped and even personally joined the war effort after the film was over. I don't see that as any reason to discount this film, no matter what your view on the matter of "propaganda" might be. "Those people" are silly, in MY opinion.

Anyway, all in all, I really have absolutely nothing negative to say about this film aside from her hideous taste in hats. It is a great film start to finish. I highly recommend this one, without hesitation.

Wanted (2008)

2009-03-06T10:22:00.003-05:00

From Netflix: "Wesley Gibbon (James McAvoy) is just an ordinary guy, unaware that his long-lost father is one of the world's most notorious assassins. But when his father is killed, a mysterious associate named Sloan (Morgan Freeman) arrives, offering Wesley the chance to fill dad's shoes. Mentored by Sloan's deputy, Fox (Angelina Jolie), Wesley carries out the will of the mythological Fates, who see Wesley's targets in a magical loom."

James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie

Yup, they pick who to kill from a 'magical loom'. No joke. Maybe I am getting too old to really enjoy these kinds of nonsensical action movies. Don't get me wrong, I like action movies. I enjoy the "turn off brain, watch the chaos - isn't this fun?" part of it. However, a lot of the recent action movies are not enjoyable to me. Why? Well, they have turned into silly cartoon versions of movies where the laws of any science are completely tossed out the window and reality is a joke.

Let's take this movie as an example. Yes, James McAvoy is the son of an assassin who is then trained to be an assassin. I don't care HOW much training you get for your entire life - you can't be trained to override the laws of physics. They are LAWS. So, you can't shoot a bullet in a circle and have it enter 6 different peoples heads, around that circle - and keep going - to kill every single one of them. First of all, hello, the bullet is traveling in a circle. Second of all, velocity and momentum changes as an object hits other objects - in many situations, trajectory will change too. None of this applies in this, supposedly normal, but yet superhuman assassin training camp.

I just can't get into that. Is it that I am getting too old? Maybe.

It reminded me of the movie "Crank" that I saw recently. They similarly did crazy stuff that couldn't have been possible, but they did it with a wink and a nod, making fun of themselves knowing they were defying all logic and all laws. It wasn't serious and wasn't meant to be. That was OK with me. However, this was supposed to be an in-your-face, cool action thriller. You know, with a group of assassins that get their assignment from ... a loom. Uh huh.

Unless you have a huge crush on Angelina Jolie or just a die-hard comic book, action film fan - totally skip this. The few fun parts (mainly where MacAvoy tells off his horrible boss) are not worth all the frustration you feel when watching the totally implausible rest of the movie.

The Search (1948)

2009-03-04T09:00:00.001-05:00

What happened to all the children whose parents died in the Holocaust? This film focuses on the plight of one such child, Karel 'Jimmy' Malick (Ivan Jandl), who was sent to a concentration camp and miraculously survived. However, he is a shell of a child, so scarred that he has largely lost his memory and afraid to even try to remember. Karel ends up running away because he doesn't understand the difference between American soldiers and German soldiers and doesn't understand he is safe. He eventually is befriended by a GI, Ralph 'Steve' Stevenson (Montgomery Clift) who takes care of him while they try to sort out who he is and what happened to his family.

Ivan Jandl as Karel 'Jimmy' Malick

This is an absolutely stunning film. Do you see that little face up there in the picture? He will break your heart into a thousand pieces. It is not just his though, the other little boys and girls will tear you apart too. The thing that I loved about this film is that it was one part documentary and one part silent film and one part drama. As such, it is one of the earlier examples (that I can list) of what is now commonly called a docudrama.

The boy who played Karel, was apparently a Czechoslovakian boy who couldn't speak a word of English, but had a face that conveyed emotion like nobody's business. I bring this up because Ivan had to learn all his lines phonetically and I think someone was smart enough not to load the film down with a ton of dialogue for him. Instead, they had the boy show his feelings and thoughts without words and the result was amazing. His face tells the story and does it brilliantly. The scenes where they let him be, without talking, ended up giving part of it a silent film feel which was perfect for the this film and the subject. What a brave little boy.

I also liked that a lot of this was filmed in postwar Germany. I say this because they show lots of streets completely lined in rubble where buildings once stood. The sheer amount of destruction is unfathomable for me because I have nothing (thankfully) in my experiences of which to compare. Then to think of families trying to live there and innocent children trying to grow-up there. It is ... sadness beyond words.

I should quickly mention a couple of the other stars. I really liked Aline MacMahon as Mrs. Murray, one of the ladies in charge of the children's homes. She was so compassionate without being overly sentimental and that was a difficult tightrope for her, I bet. And yes, Montgomery Clift was in this one as well. I still don't really like him much as a star, but he didn't do his famous fever acting (I guess he hadn't perfected the sweating and shaking technique yet) so I would say he did a good job in this one too.

I feel I should make a special note of the beautiful cinematography in this. I can't imagine the difficult task of trying to put such human tragedy on film. I don't know if it was the cinematographer or the director, Fred Zinnemann, that set up some of the shots, but they were beautiful. Like, for instance, the one below. They show restraint by not attempting to do a closer shot of the boy, they allow the beauty of the scene with this tiny boy, all alone, speak volumes to what the scene is about.

My only complaint about the entire film is that the ending felt abrupt. I won't ruin it for you, but I always hate when it feels like they say "Oh, we need to wrap this one up quick - end it now!" It doesn't leave it open, there is a definite resolution, but I really wanted a little more time to let the ending have an effect on me instead of having the shock of suddenly see the credits roll. This could easily be a personal preference though.

It is an understatement to say it is a crime and utterly unforgivable that this film is not on DVD. It is one that needs to be seen. I can't believe this masterpiece has not been released. Try to find it on TCM sometime - it is a beautiful, heartbreaking and wonderful film. I loved it. Even WITH Monty Clift in it. :-)

W. (2008)

2009-02-28T17:00:00.002-05:00

This is your life, George W. Bush! This is a satirical retrospective of the life and political career of George W. Bush (Josh Brolin). It shows his path as a young man that generated all sorts of troubles for his family, then becoming "born again" and rising to Govenor of Texas and eventually landing the head job at the White House. All of the key players are here: Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss), George H. W. Bush (James Cromwell), Laura Bush (Elizabeth Banks) and Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton).

Movie Poster

I expected this movie to be a complete smear job on Bush. I mean, come on, it was written and directed by Oliver Stone and who isn't easier to make fun of than our former president? I have to say that Stone showed a tremendous amount of restraint here. I wasn't sure that I could stand an entire movie about grinding one man into the ground. No matter how much he might truly deserve it. I was surprised that Stone made his point, but didn't really pull any dirty punches. In fact, Stone did a tremendous job of actually humanizing Dubya. Bush is portrayed as an average Joe with good intentions of leading his country and making his father proud. Unfortunately, he simply wasn't competent for the job and he wasn't insightful enough to realize that small fact. Bush had Cheney in the background pulling the strings to make the puppet dance while the megalomaniac (Cheney) plots to take over the world's oil supply. Given his self-serving, corrupt administration, Bush was doomed to fail and he was too incompetent to even realize he was being used. It really is enough to make you kinda feel sorry for the guy. Kinda. That was quite the surprise coming from Stone.

I was also glad to see Colin Powell somewhat redeemed as the only sane voice that spoke up against a war without any proof of WMD, even if he later caved to do what the administration wanted him to do. That was an important point to add in and Stone did show that in the movie.

The performances, for the most part, were really amazing. Josh Brolin did a great job and had everything about Dubya down. He did a brilliant job. I was amazed by how they took Thandie Newton and literally turned her into Condi. Her looks and mannerisms were riotous. I think my biggest casting/performance disappointment was James Cromwell as Daddy Bush. He just didn't seem to fit at all. I don't know what they were thinking behind that choice.

Political satire, especially in a biography format of a figure so recent, is really hard to pull off. I didn't expect this to work as well as it did. I couldn't believe they actually made me feel sorry for Bush, but they did. Well, a little. They also took all this heavy material and turned a good part of it into entertaining satire that was actually interesting and funny. This movie was really well done given all the ways it could have gone wrong. I definitely enjoyed watching it, but I don't know if everyone would. The lefties will probably find it amusing and surprising how they feel about Bush as a person, afterwards. The righties will probably just get angry. Given that guide, follow your gut as far as if you should watch this one or not.

The Women (1939) and (2008)

2009-02-22T16:04:00.009-05:00

A group of socialite women is shocked when one of their own, Mary (Norma Shearer) (Meg Ryan), is being stepped out on by her husband. Mary is unsure if she should confront her husband about the affair with the shop girl, Crystal (Joan Crawford) (Eva Mendes) or keep quiet about it till the storm blows over.

Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford and Rosalind Russell in the 1939 version

I had misaligned expectations when I watched the original. I knew it was an all female cast, but that was about all I knew. I mistakenly was super excited about seeing a film that is all about girl power since this is a film made by women, obviously, for women. Instead, it was a bunch of hens who were delighted by each other's misery and even more delighted to gossip about said misery. I realize that is how women are stereotyped, but I really hated seeing that portrayal. It was a bit disheartening and made me have a hard time "enjoying" the movie.

Of course, having said that, the performances were really amazing. Norma Shearer was a wonder as the hurt wife. Rosalind Russell as the biggest hen of them all, without any loyalty whatsoever. Joan Crawford was delightful as the uber-bitch mistress, totally unapologetic about her role in the whole mess. I don't mind some women being shown as catty, because there really are some of them out there, but this film would have you believe the whole lot of us are like that and can't be trusted to be a true friend. That really made me uneasy about the whole film. I really should have enjoyed it for what it was probably, but somehow, I think I misplaced my funny bone.

Annette Bening, Meg Ryan and Eva Mendes (along the bottom) for the 2008 version

Fast-forward to the 2008 version, and my biggest disappointment is corrected. Instead of spending the entire movie tearing each other apart, they are supportive of each other. Instead of Sylvie (Rosalind Russell) (Annette Bening) sending Mary into Saks on purpose to find out the truth about her husband like in the original, she tries to prevent that from happening. It really is nice to see that change about how the women were portrayed.

The problem in changing that is that you really did lose something. The actresses didn't stand out as much in this version. The break-neck speed that I love in older movies, is slowed way down for the new version. The acerbic wit is mostly toned down because they aren't as bitchy now, and I really did love the wit of the original. Also, Eva Mendes, though seriously smoking hot in this, will never be the uber-bitch that Joan played so deliciously in the original. Joan's wicked performance in the bath tub scene was perfect in the original. Plus, at the end when Debra Messing is talking and she says, "and I am sorry I can't stay here long" I was already screaming at the TV, "PLEASE don't let it be a rush to the hospital labor scene with all the labor room antics. I am so sick to death of those scenes in romantic comedies!" Well, you can guess what happened there. So you can guess I really didn't enjoy the last 10 - 15 minutes of the remake.

So I realize I am totally talking out of both sides of my mouth on this. Why can't the updated one have the fast pace and the razor-sharp wit of the first, while retaining the theme of women friends actually WANTING the best for each other and supporting one another? You may wonder which one I liked better? If I had to rate the two, I would definitely have to say the original was a better movie, hands down. However, if you ask which I enjoyed more? Probably the remake, and that is pretty sad for me to say. I think you definitely need to see both and draw your own opinions.

For another take on it, please read Jenny's brilliant take on the original, as compared with another modern day chick flick, the Jane Austen Club. Check it out here.

Central Park (1932)

2009-02-20T17:32:00.007-05:00

Two down-on-their-luck depression era people, Rick and Dot, meet and have an instant spark in Central Park. The vow to meet later that day. Dot (Joan Blondell), somehow gets mixed up in a supposed sting operation while Rick (Wallace Ford) gets kidnapped for his involvement with Dot. Add to that an escaped lion as well as an escaped lunatic zoo keeper and you have the makings of a zany drama.

Lobby Card for Central Park

This is only 60 minutes long and packs a ton of plot into that short time. For most movies I would applaud brevity and packing it in, but in this case I felt like it was a bunch of stuff thrown together that never really had time to resolve. I mean, by the end the big plot is resolved, but you end up with a quick scene to resolve the lion and then policeman making a side comment about the escaped lunatic. Why even bother, really?

Also, I really disliked the fact that Rick goes through all this trouble to rescue the girl. He finally gets to her and is like "Oh, hi, yeah, I am an idiot so I am going to go chase the bad guys. Take care of yourself." Okay, he doesn't actually SAY that, but after his sole motivation was to help the girl, when he gets to her, he doesn't stay with her to see if she is okay and protect her? What ever happened to chivalry? He isn't in law enforcement, he is an out of work guy, why on earth would he steal a car and start chasing bad guys when there were like, a zillion policemen there?

So that is what I didn't like about this one. What did I like? I loved Joan Blondell. She was a dream in this - I loved the snappy way she cracked out that dialogue. I also loved that she really seemed to be one of those women who could take care of herself. I really enjoyed watching her entire performance.

I also liked seeing Guy Kibbee as a policeman that is integral to the plot. I liked seeing him because it proved to me he was a good character actor and not the true idiot with the fluttering eyelashes like in "The Dark Horse". He was such a good actor in "The Dark Horse" that he had me convinced he must be an idiot, but apparently not.

I recommend this to any movie buff out there. It is always good to see these early films and see directors and actors try to sort out their crafts and this business of making movies. I love pre-code so that is a bonus too. For the average movie goer that is just wanting to dip their toes in early movies, I would give a huge list of other pre-codes to watch before this one. This one isn't bad, but didn't really sparkle as a great example. However, it is a good one to watch for us die-hards out there. :-)

The Tall T (1957)

2009-02-17T10:00:00.001-05:00

The other day I mentioned this wonderful Western, but it occurred to me that I never actually did a review of it here. Well ... time to fix that oversight.

As Pat Brennan (Randolph Scott) puts it himself, it just isn't his day. He loses his horse in a bet and when he catches a ride on a stagecoach, it gets robbed by Frank Usher (Richard Boone) and his ruthless gang. It turns out that one of the other passengers, Doretta Mims (Maureen O'Sullivan) has a rich family and the gang decides to hold them all to try to collect a ransom from her father. From that point on it is a cat-and-mouse game between Brennan and Usher as to who will out smart the other.

Randolph Scott and Maureen O'Sullivan get close in a cave

I loved so many things about this great little film. First of all, it is terribly suspenseful with great characters, great performances and great scenery. It holds the audience's interest from beginning to end. I love that Randolph Scott was nearly 60, still looking great, and doing these kinds of roles that called for a raw physicality and he pulled it off. I mean, he was still a Grade A movie star - what an amazing actor. Plus, him and Richard Boone toying with each other, that is a big part of what makes this film such a success. Without two great performances there, this would have been a flop.

It was unusual for me that I found myself actually kinda liking Frank Usher, a little bit. He plays a bad guy who holds everyone else to a certain moral code, which is interesting. He doesn't like the other members of his gang because they are ruthless and stupid. After watching Mr. Mims basically give away who his wife is in hopes of saving his own skin Usher says, "That boy puts his wife on a stake and then wants to kiss her goodbye. You figure me that one?" Later, he goes into the place they are holding her, brings her a plate of food and covers her up gently. From that, you have to believe that there is some kind of humanity in there somewhere and you wonder if it will win out in the end. He is not your average bad guy and I liked the added complexity. Like I said, you almost wanna like him.

I should say, "Nights in Rodanthe" should take note of my favorite scene. The hot kissing scene. Randolph Scott grabs Maureen O'Sullivan with his hand around her neck, whips her towards him, then teases her as if he is going to kiss her, pulls back and finally plants one on her. Wow. "Nights in Rodanthe" could have used some of that chemistry. I tell ya, Randy still had it going on.

Plus, as if everything else isn't already great about it. This movie happens to have one of my favorite last lines. After Randolph Scott and Maureen O'Sullivan have gone through this terrible ordeal and are finally safe, she is crying and trying to pull herself together. They both barely cheated death and as they begin to walk away he says, "Come on now, its gonna be a nice day." That is such a great line for the end of the movie. It is such a great little Western. Definitely add this one to your list if you haven't seen it.

Nights in Rodanthe (2008)

2009-02-16T09:10:00.002-05:00

Adrienne Willis (Diane Lane) is a woman at a major decision point in her life. Should she reunite with her philandering husband or stay the course on her own and endure her kid's disappointment if she doe not allow him back? To give her time to think, she agrees to take care of her friend's inn so her friend, Jean (Viola Davis) can take a vacation. She only has one guest to attend to at the inn, Dr. Paul Flanner (Richard Gere). It is quickly discovered that Flanner is at a turning point in his life as well and the two bond over their shared disappointments and future decisions.

Richard Gere and Diane Lane in a love stare down

I really wanted to like this movie. It is an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel and I have liked those in the past. "The Notebook" is a favorite. Plus, I am all for any movie that shows the over-40ish movie actors carrying a romance flick. I think older actors should be given more opportunities in movies to have a strong romantic story and carry some box office power. Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to like this one, I really didn't.

I like both Richard Gere and Diane Lane. I think they are both great actors and I think they gave fine performances. My problem was how the story lumbered along for most of the movie. It took quite a while for Flanner's storyline to be presented. Even when it was finally presented, it still seemed rather confusing and convoluted. Also, the two of them falling in love seemed so contrived. Maybe I am a sucker for the necessary meet cute? These two just seemed to be pushed onto each other and with a hurricane raging outside it seemed more like, "Well, why not?" than real love. Almost more like an act of desperation and that is never fun to watch.

After their weekend in Rodanthe, they began writing letters back and forth to each other and that is the minor bright spot in the movie for me. I enjoyed watching Adrienne running to the mailbox and ripping open the letter and devouring every word. I love the art of letter writing and I think it is a shame that no one puts pen to paper anymore, especially for wooing.

The bright spot of the letters is short though and the amount of time it took to get there, and then the dreadful part afterwards just doesn't make it worth the effort. The only thing this movie sold me on was that men should write love letters more often and I should go visit the Outer Banks region sometime as it looks interesting. I think I would have rather seen more of what Viola Davis' character was doing on her vacation (at least that looked hot) than what was going on in her absence in Rodanthe. So, I would give this one a pass unless you are into slow tear-jerkers.

Mr. Hobbs Takes A Vacation (1962)

2009-02-15T15:11:00.007-05:00

Roger Hobbs (James Stewart) thinks a romantic getaway with his wife, Peggy (Maureen O'Hara) would be ideal when he calls her to tell her the news. By the time he gets home, their romantic getaway has turned into a family reunion after she has invited their entire brood to a month-long vacation. Even worse, their rental turns out to be a dilapidated house on the beach complete with tons of family issues.

This was a delightful family film. My Mom had a great love of family films since family was what was important to her and she easily passed that love on to me. Stewart and O'Hara both give great performances (duh) and the situations they get themselves into are absolutely hilarious. Stewart's dry wit is so subtle in this one that I caught myself reacting belatedly to the joke and having to rewind so I wouldn't miss anything. Even though he is older in this, he is still great with his presence and physical comedy too. Watching him do the bird-watching walk alone is enough to leave anyone in stitches.

The script didn't disappoint at all with important sub-plots that underscore the serious side to marital and family relations. All the while, the tone of the film is kept light for that summer fun feel. That alone is a very difficult trick to pull without being too corny on one side or too glib on the other and it is done brilliantly. Stewart's crackling repartee and sarcastic jabs keeps the audience on their toes and tells them everything will eventually work out okay. A couple of my favorite quotes include Hobbs telling his wife, "We got one consolation. In the whole history of the world there has never been a child brought up right." Or Hobbs talking to a very attractive girl on the beach and he explains his brood includes grandchildren. As his wife steps out, looking gorgeous as only Maureen O'Hara can, the girl says, "That's a grandma?" Hobbs slyly replies, "36-26-36 and still operating."

I will keep this one short by saying this is delightful. It is a family film that instead of being geared for children, as most are today, is geared more towards adults. I think that is something that I miss in a lot of the more recent family films. If you get a chance, check this out as I am pretty sure the whole family will enjoy watching it.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008)

2009-02-14T15:40:00.003-05:00

Nick (Michael Cera) is a high school guy who is infatuated with an ex-girlfriend, Tris (Alexis Dziena). He keeps trying to win her back by making mix-tapes and she keeps tossing them. One of her high school friends, Norah (Kat Dennings), keeps retrieving them and wondering why Tris won't have anything to do with a guy who could make such an awesome mix-tape. Tris ruthlessly teases Norah about not having a boyfriend so Norah lies and says she does have a boyfriend. She grabs the nearest guy at the time and tells him to act like her boyfriend. Unfortunately, she grabs Nick, Tris's ex. Thrown together in a strange circumstance, they end up spending all evening trying to find a band they both love as well as locate Norah's drunk best friend, Caroline (Ari Graynor) who has gone MIA.

Kat Dennings and Michael Cera

I read and re-read that synopsis and I swear it doesn't sound that interesting. I must tell you though that this was such a funny, sweet and adorable movie. It kinda reminded me of "Say Anything" without all the tension and drama. I think it is because of the theme of music as a secondary character in both movies and also because Kat Dennings could totally be Ione Skye and Michael Cera could totally be John Cusack. It is a great little film without the raunchiness of a lot of recent comedies, but also not sappy as most chick flicks. It is just a lot of fun.

As for the performances, all of the performances were great. Michael Cera is just so totally adorable and Kat Dennings is perfect as a beauty with brains that somehow guys don't seem to see how awesome she is. I don't know how anyone could miss that. All the secondary characters are great as well, especially Ari Graynor as the drunk girl. They all work to make the movie more interesting.

Personally, I loved seeing mix tapes still being used as a relationship tool as portrayed in this movie. Now, the younger generation has their fancy iTunes and it is easy to make a mix tape, er CD. They don't even have to work hard to produce one. Even though they have it easy, I am STILL glad to see it in use. :-) I can't be the only one with a serious love for this? Right? There was such an art to the mix tape and we all believed that if the mix tape was good enough, it would surely convey all our love to the recipient and they would have no choice but to love us back. *sigh* Follies of youth. I loved the nostalgia the film gave me.

Some of my favorite quotes are as follows:

Tris tormenting Norah, "You could totally have better luck with college guys. That's when guys really get into stuff like how smart a girl is, you know? It's not all about looks."

Thom, Nick's friend, pulls Norah into the van and gives her an underwire bra so she can change out of the sports bra the she is wearing for some inexplicable reason. He says, "Nicky is definitely worth the underwire."

There wasn't anything that I didn't enjoy about this movie. The script was comical, all the actors were great and it was very entertaining. I loved the use of "Nick and Norah" for the names, even if Norah wasn't spelt correctly. :-) Of course, there were a few parts that I had a hard time believing, like Caroline not using her cell phone to try to call for help. Or that a high school boy would walk away from a hot girl like Tris when she is doing a sexy dance for him. Horomones would have shut his brain down quicker than he could have said "Norah". Those few areas where suspension of disbelief didn't work certainly didn't hurt the film though. I highly recommend it when you are in the mood for something light and funny. It is definitely a fun one.

Rings On Her Fingers (1942)

2009-02-06T15:09:00.003-05:00

Susan Miller (Gene Tierney) is a department store sales girl who dreams of the good life. One day a rich couple visits the store and soon she is whisked away to exotic locales with them.Why? They need big fish and she is the bait - the couple are con artists and she is now a part of their scam. Unfortunately, John Wheeler (Henry Fonda) is at the wrong place at the wrong time and falls hook line and sinker for Susan Miller, who is now Linda Worthington.

Lobby Card for "Rings On Her Fingers"

This is a cute little Cinderella story. A quote from Gene Tierney's department store sales girl character sets the tone of that nicely with, "I guess we were just born on the wrong side of the counter." I really enjoyed seeing Henry Fonda again since I have developed sunch a fondness for Fonda. :-) Gene Tierney did well and my goodness, was she a beautiful woman or what? She filled out that bathing suit quite nicely too. Henry Fonda's character remarked in the film, "If you didn't have a face like that our quarrels would last a lot longer!" I bet they would, indeed. The supporting cast of the con couple, Laird Cregar (who was surprising agile for a large man) and Spring Byington, played it so charming and devious. So the actors were all great - no issue there with this one.

The downside of this one is that we have seen this story many times. Frankly, we have seen a better screenplay of this acted out many times. There is nothing original or clever here. This is another classic example of really good performances propping up what would otherwise be a very mediocre film.

Luckily, the performances do prop the film up and make it a very enjoyable. It is not outstanding, but very enjoyable. If you find this on TCM and have time to kill, give it a shot. It is pretty shallow as films go, but fun. :-)

Grab Bag O' Movies

2009-02-05T14:40:00.005-05:00

I have watched several movies lately that I either couldn't think of a good way to write a movie review for them or I just didn't want to write about it. So, instead, I thought I would do a quick drive-by type movie synopsis/review of these movies.

The Bank Job (2008):
From Netflix: "Based on a true 1971 event, this thriller tells the story of Terry (Jason Statham), a car dealer who becomes involved in a London bank heist only to find that the contents of the bank vault will draw him deeply and irrevocably into the city's criminal underbelly. Murder and scandal abound in this tale of corruption populated with a surprising mix of offenders, from low-level thugs to government officials and all the way up to the royal family."

This one was my favorite of the bunch. However, this had so many twists and turns that it would have been hard to do any kind of a review without really giving the movie away. I thought this would be a typical Jason Statham action movie with constant action, but it wasn't. It was much more than that and I definitely recommend this one.

Premonition (2007):
From Netflix: "A housewife (Sandra Bullock) is devastated when her husband (Julian McMahon) dies suddenly in a car crash. But when he reappears the next day as if nothing had ever happened, she realizes it may have just been a premonition. Can she prevent the horrible tragedy from happening all over again, or is she powerless to redirect fate? Amber Valletta and Nia Long also star."

I didn't really like this one. Again, I would have had to lay out the entire movie to review this one just to tell you why I didn't like it. I thought they were going a clever way with the idea of "if you knew someone had betrayed you and you had the opportunity to save them, would you still?" That was intriguing to me. However, they hinted at that theme and then twisted it again and went a different way. Bullock's performance was great - it was good to see her do something more meaty than romantic comedy. However, it was just not very satisfying with the mixed themes and confusing plot and, well ... it was just a mess.

My Best Friend's Girl (2008):
From Netflix: "When Dustin's (Jason Biggs) girlfriend, Alexis (Kate Hudson), breaks up with him, he employs his best buddy, Tank (Dane Cook), to take her out on the worst rebound date imaginable in the hopes that it will send her running back into his arms. But when he begins to really fall for Alexis, Tank finds himself in an impossible position. Alex Baldwin and Lizzy Caplan star in this romantic comedy from director Howard Deutch (The Whole Ten Yards). "

This was another one of those guy oriented romantic comedies. I really hate this trend in movies. However, this was better than "Forgetting Sarah Marshall". I had problems with "My Best Friend's Girl" because I kept finding Dane Cook charming one minute and completely irritating the next. Plus, I didn't really buy Kate Hudson's character or Jason Biggs character. Given that, they still had some funny scenes and I loved the location shoot of this in Boston. They made Boston look amazing and since I love Boston, I loved seeing a love story to the great city in this film.

Crank (2006):
From Netflix: "Hit man Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) tears through the streets of Los Angeles in a race to save his own life and his girlfriend Eve (Amy Smart) in this ticking time bomb of a thriller. The freelance killer is poisoned when a mob job goes wrong, and the clock starts ticking when Chelios learns he can elude death if he keeps his adrenaline pumping. With no time to waste, Chelios rampages through the city hoping to save Eve and find an antidote."

This one was such an odd one. It was much more of the typical Jason Statham movie that is action, on time and all the time. It was odd though because the premise and the situations are so ludicrously implausible that it was more like a Wyle Coyote cartoon where Wyle falls off the cliff, but is chasing the road runner 5 seconds later. So if you can implement a high suspension of disbelief for this, it is fun at times and seriously action-packed. If you can't, you will just keep repeating "Come ON - No WAY that is possible!" the entire movie.

I admit, this is the laziest blog I may have ever done, but there you go. Enjoy the fruits of my laziness. I would rate these movies from best to worst as (best) "The Bank Job", "My Best Friend's Girl", "Crank" and then "Premonition" (worst). Anyone seen any of these and have an opinion to share?

Westbound (1959)

2009-01-29T07:54:00.006-05:00

Welcome to the Civil War. Union Captain John Hayes (Randolph Scott) is dispatched to the West to set up a stagecoach delivery route to transport gold safely from California without those sneaky Confederates snaking it. At one critical point in the route, Clay Putnam (Andrew Duggan) stands in the way as a big shot Confederate sympathizer, determined to ruin the Union's plans. Fortunately, John Hayes receives help from a wounded Union soldier Rod Miller (Michael Dante) and his wife, Jeanie (Karen Steele) aka Big Bazongas, but Clay Putnam also has help from all his cronies and henchmen.

Movie Poster from "Westbound"

I will say upfront that this movie was a bit of a disappointment to me. This is one of those Budd Boetticher / Randolph Scott collaborations which I have enjoyed, but this one isn't one of the better ones. The story is very weak and convoluted. The plot lines are under-developed and terribly predictable. Even worse, they made Scott a hero, but a mostly ineffectual one, just kind of standing by and watching chaos happen to a town till the final showdown. And good golly, the acting aside from Scott is simply atrocious. The most fun I had with the other actors was watching Big Bazongas and the way her dresses and such were cut to best show off her ... well, Big Bazongas. Everyone needs to have a talent, I guess, even if it isn't acting.

So, while this was semi-interesting, I would give this a pass unless you are a Boetticher or Scott fan, or just want to see every Western there is out there, or a fan of Big Bazongas. If you are in the mood for a good Boetticher / Scott film - pick up "The Tall T" instead. You won't be disappointed in that one.

Ghost Town (2008)

2009-01-27T16:00:00.001-05:00

I love comedies, but I don't always laugh out loud even though I enjoy them. Every once in a while, a comedy will touch my funny bone in that special way that elicits full "laugh out loud" fun. This movie not only touched me once, twice, but three times a lady. And I loved it.

Insert your own funny caption *here*

The movie starts out with Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear), a married man that just narrowly missed getting busted by his wife (Tea Leoni) for trying to buy a love nest apartment for his girlfriend. He dies soon after and the movie turns to Bertram Pincus (Ricky Gervais), a misanthropic dentist, who is soon going in for an embarrassing hospital procedure. After he leaves the hospital he suddenly realizes he is seeing ghosts, and that includes Frank. Some amount of time has passed since Frank's death and he (and a bunch of other ghosts) want Pincus' help in resolving some unfinished business.

If this sounds somewhat similar to "Ghost" - then you are kind of in the right ballpark. I am the first to admit the whole "ghost genre" is so terribly played out. However, where "Ghost" goes terribly sentimental and somewhat sappy, this movie takes a definite turn into a deep comedic realm with a touch of humanistic moral and is all the better for it.

Ricky Gervais is someone I personally find hilarious. I love the dry, British humor. There are scenes with him in this movie that almost had me in absolute tears. Here is an example:

When he checks into the hospital he has a discussion with a nurse about if his bowels have evacuated. After trying to dodge the question, him and the nurse have the following exchange:

Pincus: "I shat. Ok? Good. Again, and again. It was like a terrorist attack down there in the darkness and the chaos, and the running and the screaming, okay?"
Nurse: "Fine with me."
Pincus: "Good. Gross invasion of my privacy, this."
Nurse: "Wait until they get you in the back."

Another example of brilliant Gervais-ness. They give him a relaxant before the procedure and he has said some not nice things as they wheel him into the room.

Doctor: "Not a real people person are you, Dr. Pincus?"
Pincus: "Not really. Given a choice between a few people and loads of people, I choose my cat. She hunts dwarfs. She takes them up the tree. They're still alive. You can see their little legs going. Sounds like Norah Jones when she plays the piano."

He can almost do no wrong in my eyes.

I also want to touch on Kinnear's performance as I have thought for a long time that Greg Kinnear is a terribly underrated actor. He is kinda like an older Jason Bateman if you think about it. He has become known as a great straight man that can toss out some deadpan lines too and get a great laugh. Time and time again I have seen him in romantic comedy roles that he hits out of the park, but I don't think he gets much respect for it. In this movie - he plays a bit of an amoral lout. He cheated on his wife and is unapologetic for it through most of the film. He is charming and we easily forgive him because he is who he is. One of my favorite exchanges between him and Gervais come in a scene which shows how unapologetic Kinnear's character is:

Frank: "You are a sad little man."
Pincus: "And you're a lying, bigamist corpse."
Frank: "No, no, I'm not a bigamist. I'm an adulterer. It's a whole different thing."
Pincus: "Sorry, my mistake. You were a real catch."

If you haven't guessed, I highly recommend this one for a day when you could use a good laugh. It isn't all about laughs in this one though, as it is well grounded with the theme of examining your own life. Pincus is a jerk and he too, is unapologetic about not caring about anyone but himself and is quiet existence. But even he has to decide if that is all he wants out of life - a detached quiet. So not only do you have a great comedy, but it has a nice little message that they don't try to beat the audience about the head with. Check this one out when you have time, it is hilarious. There, I did the whole review and not once did I use the phrase "He sees dead people". Oh, wait, uhmm ... oops.

Eastern Promises (2007)

2009-01-26T09:51:00.001-05:00

There is little I can say about the plot without giving the movie away. I *hate* to do that. So I will tell you what starts the story in motion and the rest will be for you to decide if you wish to watch it or not. A young, unidentified Russian girl dies in the ER while giving birth. All that is on her person is a diary written in Russian. The ER doctor, Anna (Naomi Watts), sets out to try to get the diary translated so she can identify the girl and find the rightful home for the baby. Unfortunately, she couldn't imagine how dangerous her investigation about the girl's identity would become.

Viggo Mortensen looking a litte more than just tough

Now, given that plot, if you know anything about the movie you might be wondering how the actual star of the movie fits in. Viggo Mortensen, Nikolai, plays a chauffer to a Russian Mafia family based in London. That is all I care to give away, but I will say that Mortensen is absolutely amazing in his role. He nailed everything about it - he nailed the accent, the attitude, the toughness - everything. I can see why he was nominated for an Oscar for this performance. His character is set up well by a short exchange with the ER doctor in the beginning of the movie when they are discussing her motor bike.

Nikolai: "How much do you want for it?"
Anna: "It has sentimental value."
Nikolai: "Ahhh, sentimental value. I have heard of that."

It is a bit subtle, but it says a lot about his character. I read that Viggo went to Russia and Siberia, with just a translator, to try to learn about the Russian mafia lifestyle and study the tattoos which figure prominently into this movie. The research paid off because ... he really nailed it.

Now, I have to warn you, this is a great story and a really good movie. However, it is seriously not for the faint of heart. It is brutal and shocking. There is a lot of graphic violence and unpleasant scenes. I had to wince away from the screen several times myself. Also, there is a fight scene that takes place where Viggo is completely naked and if you don't want to see brief glimpses of male full frontal nudity, then skip that entire scene. It isn't sexy or hot at all. It is a bloody and complex fight scene where the man happens to be completely naked when he is attacked. It fits well into the story and was incredibly brave of Viggo to take on. I just wanted to throw the warning out as I am recommending this one and don't want to hear that I told you to watch something you weren't prepared for. It is meant to shock and it does.

I still recommend this one if you can get past the graphic violence. It is one of those movies that will stay with you for a while. The characters are strong and you will ponder where they go from the point that you leave them. You will also contemplate what is good and what is evil and perhaps the much thinner line between the two than one would think. The voice of the Russian girl, via her diary, will haunt you and make you realize that "Eastern Promises" is the perfect title. It is an amazing piece of work, but it is hard to stomach.

The Dark Horse (1932)

2009-01-25T12:49:00.001-05:00

The Progressive Party is hopelessly deadlocked with trying to nominate a candidate for Governor. One side of the deadlock has a brilliant idea. They decide to nominate a "dark horse" candidate from the same county their competition is from so that the votes will be split and their guy will be nominated. Unfortunately, the other deadlocked side realizes what they are trying to do and decide to vote the "dark horse" candidate in rather than lose altogether. Of course, neither side knows anything about the "dark horse" candidate, other than his name, so now they are stuck trying to get a moon-faced, blithering idiot named Zachary Hicks (Guy Kibbee) into the Governor's spot. Enter Kay Russell (Bette Davis), the party's secretary, who has the answer to all their problems. Her boyfriend Hal Blake (Warren William) is a brilliant campaign manager who could run a successful campaign to get a turnip elected president. The party agrees to hire him and the antics are off and running.

Guy Kibbee, Vivienne Osborne and Warren William in "The Dark Horse"

This is a great political satire and Warren William is awesome, awesome, awesome in it. His performance crackles with energy. He is such a character - so charming. You know he is a bit of a shyster, but he is so good at being a shyster that you don't even care. He can launch into an impassioned speech at the drop of the hat to make you believe anything that he is trying to sell to you and ... you enjoy the sales pitch. Here is a perfect example, from after a sheriff breaks down his door, which he knew was coming and plays it so outraged and almost pious it is hilarious:

"What do you ruffians mean by breaking in like this? Is there no privacy in America? Has the time passed when a man's home is his castle? When you smash in my door, the laws of America crash around our heads. This is outrageous!!!!"

I remember Warren William from "Three On A Match", but didn't think too much about him then - he didn't stand out to me. In this role, not only did he stand out but he literally jumped off the screen! I can't wait to see him in more movies.

Every time I watch an early Bette Davis film I am always struck with her beauty. She looks very little like she did when she got older and really gained popularity. She looks like a cute sorority girl. She does well with the role of ... I guess the ingenue here. It is obvious that the studio didn't really know what they had yet and put her in cutesy roles where she could be sassy, but not fierce like she would be later in her career.

The supporting cast is great - which would actually include Bette Davis as supporting cast, but I have already talked about her. Guy Kippee plays Zachary Hicks, the idiot candidate, and boy does he play idiot well. I love the campaign slogan, "Vote for Hicks from the Sticks". He also has this weird way of smiling, where he bats his eyelashes like a girl, which makes him seem even more idiotic. I swear, either he is a true idiot or a great character actor. I think Warren William's character sums the candidate up best when asked what he thought of him after first meeting him. He said, "He's the dumbest human being I ever saw. Every time he opens his mouth he subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge." Ouch.

Also, I shouldn't leave out Vivienne Osborne. She plays Hal Blake's ex-wife and even though I didn't mention her at all in the plot synopsis, she plays heavily into the plot later in the film. She is pretty ... pretty calculating, that is. I kept going back and forth on my feelings about her because in one scene she seems like she might be nice, but later, you realize she is really only out to bleed anyone and everyone she can. I have to ask, how on earth did that woman get $400 / week alimony in 1932?!?!?!?! That is $1,600 a month!! In 1932?!?!?!?!

Lastly, I want to mention Frank McHugh as Joe. Joe is the go-to-guy (or crony, I guess) for Hal Blake's character. I really loved the scene where he is insulting Zachary Hicks, without realizing that the person he is talking to is actually Hicks himself. When someone calls out Hicks name and the guy walks off, Joe realizes what he has done. He takes off his hat and starts beating his head against the wall. I laughed out loud because, good golly, I have wanted to do that many times myself.

I love political satire and social commentary about the American public. They do this in a light humorous way and tossed other elements in to keep the movie interesting for everyone. The performances are great too. If this film comes on TV (it isn't available on DVD) I highly recommend you watch it. I don't think anyone would be disappointed with it.

The Male Animal (1942)

2009-01-23T22:50:00.007-05:00

I have to say this - I am starting to heart me some Henry Fonda. He is one of those leading actors, like Gary Cooper, that doesn't usually grab a hold of you on first viewing like some other male leads ... like, say ... Cary Grant. However, you watch one Henry Fonda film and think "Wow, that was good. That Henry Fonda fella was good too." Then you see another and another and you suddenly think, "Wow, I heart me some Henry Fonda". Well, you think that if you are a dork like me. Otherwise you probably think, "That Henry Fonda is a fine actor and I can't believe I didn't recognize that before". (BTW, thanks to my friend for pointing me in Mr. Fonda's direction - much appreciated.)

Olivia de Havilland and Henry Fonda in The Male Animal

Professor Tommy Turner (Henry Fonda) is an English professor who loves to teach and is soon to be tenured. Unfortunately, an overzealous Board of University Trustees are determined to fire all the "reds" (re: liberals) amongst the university staff. When an article in the university literature magazine is published labeling Professor Turner as a liberal who is standing up to the Board of Trustees by reading a letter by a convicted anarchist, he is suddenly thrown into the spotlight and in a tough position. To add to the mess, it is the big university game and his wife's (Olivia de Havilland) college sweetheart and football hero Joe Ferguson (Jack Carson) has come back into town. The question soon becomes how Professor Turner will stay true to his own core beliefs and keep his job and also Ellen, his wife.

This is a cute little comedy with a very important message about free speech and how important it is to stand up to the erosion of our civil liberties. Everything about that part of the movie, I loved. I loved the exchange of the Dean of the Department with the head Trustee.

(Discussing searching out the liberals, reds, and getting rid of them)
Trustee: "Can't find the reds, get after the pinks."
Dean: "What shade should I stop at?"

That pretty much says it all doesn't it?

Henry Fonda was fantastic in this role playing the reluctant activist and hero. He played the comedy bits perfect and I loved his character. He had great lines and delivered them perfectly. Here are some examples:

Ellen: "Aren't you going to wear your nice new blue suit?"
Tommy: "I don't like to wear new suits. They are too full of creases and mortgages."

Joe: "Say, this is a nice big ol' place you got here. Do you own it?"
Tommy: "No, we rent, from a bank."

Ellen: "You better take a hot water bottle to bed with you."
Tommy: "Nice of you to arrange for a substitute."

I also thought the bit about academics vs. sports was an interesting plot line too. It got even deeper into the intellectual vs. jock debate as to who is more apt to attract women and be the right man in the long run for women. I didn't have a problem with any of that. Both of those debates rage on even today. I loved how the Professor was trying to explain the difference between the two to a young intellectual. He said: "He (the jock) is a hunter. He comes home at night with meat slung over his shoulder. (insert Henry Fonda male grunt here) While you sit drawing pictures on the wall of your cave."

The big problem I had with the whole movie was Olivia de Havilland's character. I found her so irritating and unsympathetic throughout. She has a husband that is going through a career and personal crisis and she is chasing after her college sweetheart like he is the last hot sausage in town. She chases him to the point that even the poor professor is convinced she loves the neanderthal and resigns himself to letting her go. I never understand how great men put up with such selfishness and, dare I say it, bitchiness from undeserving women. I mean, the woman screams at the man for putting on the wrong pair of trousers, for goodness sakes. Given all that though, I don't think Olivia is at fault here. She plays the character as I assume she was asked, but I hated the character and kept screaming at Henry to just dump her and move on with his life. I would have never thought Olivia de Havilland could be so unlikeable - especially in a comedic role! I even liked her better in "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte", if that tells you anything.

I did have a theory as to why they made her a shrew to him though. I think they were trying to show how mild-mannered his character is. I think they were showing that he doesn't stand up to her, so asking him to stand up to an entire institution would be impossible. So that makes his decision on whether to just go along with the university, like he does with her, or to stand up to them all the more difficult. That is the only possible reason I can think of for having her be so unreasonable to him.

So all in all, I definitely recommend this film. It is a great little Henry Fonda comedy with some great tension and plots. You will have to try to get past the wife's irritating character so you can stop yelling at her and enjoy the movie instead. At least, that is what *I* had to do to enjoy it anyway. :-)

The General (1927)

2009-01-11T18:48:00.006-05:00

I have seen snippets of this one through the years, but decided that I should finally sit down and watch it all the way through. This movie is set during the civil war. The Northern forces have stolen The General, a train manned by Johnnie Gray (Buster Keaton), who was rejected by the Confederate army because he was more valuable to the South as a railroad engineer. The Northern forces plan to use The General as a supply train for it's forces in a bit of a Trojan Horse maneuver. The only person who knows about this is Gray and he must stop the attack and save the girl (there is always a girl). To do this, he must single-handedly chase down a train, cross enemy lines, re-cross enemy lines and tell the Southern Forces about the plan against them.

The talented Buster Keaton doing his thing

I don't think I could say anything here about Buster Keaton that hasn't been said a million times. His physical acting abilities are astounding. His comedic timing is impeccable. He was an amazingly talented man. What they were able to pull off without any special effects is really stunning. The dangerous stunts he performed without stunt men - amazing. The whole performance is terribly brilliant.

As for the movie? I think this is a spectacular and riveting movie for it's time. I think it set the bar for what other movies started aiming for - a dash of humor, a dash of romance and a little action too. And, I think everyone should see this brilliant movie once. Perhaps, on the outside, twice. Much beyond that, unless you are a film historian, you are probably good. I say that because the movie - while being brilliant for it's time - wears on after a while. As clever as all the Spy vs. Spy tricks were between the two dueling trains, it got a little old for me pretty quick. I don't know that this would be a film that I could watch multiple times and still be as entertained as when I watched it all the way through today.

Also, this may be blasphemous, but I have to say I prefer the Chaplin movies to the Keaton movies. I understand he was the original and what an original he was. I just think Chaplin movies really benefited from that extra decade of movie experience. Chaplin movies have more going for them than physical stunts and action - that extra decade made a difference.

So, I recommend watching this if you have never seen it. Anyone claiming to be a film buff definitely has to watch it. Today's audiences won't be bowled over by it, I don't think, but if you put it in the proper historical perspective one should, at the very least, be impressed. Opposing views always welcome - let me know if I am off the mark here.

Mutiny On The Bounty (1935)

2009-01-10T22:00:00.008-05:00

I think everyone knows the plot on this one, but a quickie version is as follows. The HMS Bounty, is on a mission first to Tahiti and then on to the West Indies. The ship is led by a stubborn and tough Captain by the name of Bligh (Charles Laughton) that demands discipline and wields punishment as often as most people change pants. After stopping in Tahiti for a few months, the sailors begin to get restless when they set sail once again and decide to take the ship, led by Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable). Hence the name "Mutiny on the Bounty".

Gable and the Old Toad

I really liked Gable's performance in this and thought he deserved the Oscar that year. Apparently he lost to Victor McLaglen in "The Informer", which I have not seen, so hopefully McLaglen deserved to beat Gable out. One of the reasons I loved Gable's performance early on in the movie was how he seemed to always show contempt for Bligh, even through a smile. Gable was such a smooth operator in this, always showing the right amount of restraint or passion, depending upon what the scene called for. Just, a really well done performance.

Charles Laughton did a good job with the infamous Captain Bligh too. This isn't a historically accurate historic epic (say that three times really fast), but I think of movies as novels instead of non-fiction anyway, so that isn't terribly important to me. I thought Laughton's performance was interesting because he made him a dichotomous Blight. On the ship, he was a harsh task master. However, when he was cast out on the ocean with his loyal men, he toned the harshness way down and showed him in a more humane light. I have to say though, when I first saw Laughton on screen, I laughed. He really reminded me of a puffed up old toad with those lips sticking out and the weird hunched over stance of his. Also, I thought he looked a bit like a young and much more surly, John Candy. That made me laugh too.

I have to share some of my favorite dialogue which occurred in the opening of the movie. A young ensign reported to duty and upon seeing the ship asks, "That's the Bounty for Tahiti? She isn't very big is she?" An older gentleman replies, "It ain't the size that counts, youngster. It's the salt in the lads that man it." Well said. :-)

Also, I have to pick on one part of the movie too. I know it was 1935, but still, they had a budget of $2 million for this picture so I still think it fair to pick on this. At one point during the voyage, they toss a man overboard with a rope tied around his waist, for punishment. (Glad my parents never thought of that) Anyway, they show the man underwater, hitting his head I think and being dragged along. The underwater shot looks like, I kid you not, a Ken doll (of Ken and Barbie fame) being dragged along the water of an aquarium with a toy boat floating above him. I know, I know, it was 1935. But the shot looked horrible. Why even have the shot in the movie? Just skip it and show them pulling the man up - you would lose nothing other than the giggles.

Another weird thing for me was the almost constant use of extreme close-up on the actor's faces. I understand a close-up can be quite effective in certain scenes, but if you use it constantly, it loses it's impact. I don't know if this was the director's style or what, but I have to admit that I thought it was way over used by the end.

Also, I was reading on imdb.com about the film and I ran across a lot of interesting trivia that I couldn't help share. I stress that I have no idea if these are fact or fiction, but I wanted to toss them out anyway.

MGM wanted Cary Grant to play Byam (the young ensign), but Grant was under contract to Paramount, which refused to release him.

Franchot Tone's role was originally intended for Robert Montgomery.

This won an Oscar for Best Picture, but won no other Oscars.

Actor James Cagney was sailing his boat off of Catalina Island, California, and passed the area where the film's crew was shooting aboard the Bounty replica. Cagney called to director Frank Lloyd, an old friend, and said that he was on vacation and could use a couple of bucks, and asked if Lloyd had any work for him. Lloyd put him into a sailor's uniform, and Cagney spent the rest of the day as an extra playing a sailor aboard the Bounty.

Clark Gable had to shave off his trademark mustache for this film for historical accuracy. Mustaches were not allowed in the Royal Navy during the time the story takes place.

In order to break the ice before shooting, Clark Gable, apparently unaware of co-star Charles Laughton's homosexuality, took him to a brothel. Laughton's wife Elsa Lanchester always said that Laughton was nevertheless "flattered" by this gesture.

Clark Gable initially felt he was badly miscast as an English naval lieutenant in an historical epic. However, he later said he believed this was the best movie he had starred in.

I definitely recommend this one. So does AFI who put it on it's top 100 list and so does just about everyone. It is a great historic adventure epic. It has some weird quirks (like the close-ups) and some minor plot holes that aren't important to go into, but still, definitely worth watching when you are ready for an interesting adventure flick.

The Spiral Staircase (1945)

2009-01-09T22:41:00.011-05:00

In a small New England town, a serial killer appears to be on the loose. He targets women with some form of disability. Enter Helen Chapel (Dorothy McGuire) who is a woman who is unable to speak so that makes for a big disability. She works as a caretaker to ill and elderly Mrs. Warren (Ethel Barrymore). Mrs. Warren's two sons live with her, Professor Warren (George Brent) and Steve Warren (Gordon Oliver). Mrs. Warren obviously believes one of her sons is the serial killer and wants Helen to get out of the house while she still can. Despite Mrs. Warren's pleadings, Helen does not leave. Since the house has a spiral staircase, it is a pretty good bet some kind of action is going to go down there.

Look at that gorgeous shot of Dorothy McGuire going down the Spiral Staircase.

The beginning of the movie starts with the rolling of the opening credits. However, instead of just rolling the opening credits, they show the star of the movie - the spiral staircase. They also show a woman creeping slowly down it. Then add in the super eerie music and a thunderstorm with lightning and all those sounds and with little effort the tone of the movie is totally set. Not to mention adding in an element of suspense and excitement. What a brilliant way to roll the credits. I loved it.

I always find films that take place real-time very interesting. What I mean by real-time, is that this film all transpires in one single afternoon/evening. It starts with a murder at the hotel where Helen had been watching a movie. She goes to Mrs. Warren's home where she lives and is terrorized that evening by the murderer. Also, I love a good suspense film and this fits nicely into that category. The director, Robert Siodmak, does a really good job setting up creepy and interesting shots using shadows. The music, the Gothic style, the creepy shots (the gigantic eye will give me nightmares later) all handily set up a great atmosphere for a suspense/thriller.

The performances are good, but no one particularly stands out. I enjoyed seeing George Brent again, a decade after his leading man good looks had gone a bit. Dorothy McGuire does a decent job of portraying her emotions without using words. The one that got me was good ol' Ethel. I don't know what it is about the Barrymores, but so far they just crack me up! Ethel is sick and can't move from her bed so she does all her acting with her eyes. While she tells Helen to flee the house she talks softly but keeps opening her eyes wide for emphasis, then that exhausts her so the eyes close a bit, but here they come again all wide. That is repeated a hundred times throughout the movie. Maybe I am hard on the Barrymores, but I have to say, in this movie she invented eye-size acting. Joan Fontaine invented eyebrow waggle acting and Monty Cliff invented brooding and sweating acting. I guess you have to be famous for something :-)

All in all, this was a good little suspense B-movie. I think the main flaw was the predictability - at least for me. It was pretty clear who the killer was and how it was going to climax and what would happen. However, even given that, I still recommend watching this one when you get a chance. If for no other reason than this movie falls into the category of being one of those great b&w movies that they just don't make anymore, sadly.

A Face in the Crowd (1957)

2009-01-07T19:47:00.002-05:00

It is rare that I am completely blown away by a film, but this one might as well have been dynamite in my living room. Wow.

Marcia Jeffries (Patricia Neal) is a small town radio personality who highlights average people through her show called "A Face in the Crowd". She visits the local jail looking for someone to do something interesting for her show and gets more than she bargained for with 'Lonesome' Rhodes (Andy Griffith). He is a drifter with a short fuse and a big appetite for alcohol which is what landed him in jail. He does a few snippets of songs which are good, but is so engaging and charismatic when he talks on the show that she asks him to start doing his own show on their station. His "folksy" charm (they compare him to Will Rogers more than once) leads to a TV show in Memphis which then leads to a national show in New York, with Marcia by his side helping him along the way. Unfortunately, his head expands as much as his audience size and before long Marcia is trying to figure out how to deal with the monster she unwittingly created.

Marcia and her Monster

This film is a scathing commentary about the use and abuse of fame as well as the intermingling of entertainment and politics. I can't say enough how amazing it is to me that this film was made in 1957, before the Kennedy/Nixon debate ... before they really had a firm grasp on just how true this would become. This movie was completely overlooked when it was released because I don't think the audience honestly thought the American people would be that gullible, but we have proven time and time again that we really are gullible when it comes to celebrities and their power over us. Lonesome probably says it best when he tells Marcia "They're (his huge national audience) mine. I own them. They think like I do. Only they're even more stupid than I am, so I gotta think for them. I'll be the power behind the president. And you'll be the power behind me." It is so chilling to hear those words because he actually believes it and at that moment in time, it is sadly true.

So let's get to the stunning performances.

This is Andy Griffith's film debut and by far his best performance. He plays a megalomaniac who is one of the most dangerous "wolf in sheep's clothing" type characters I have ever seen portrayed. Here is this charming man whom everyone is instantly drawn to because he is like them. However, in private, he really isn't like them. He is a hooch drinking, woman chasing, selfish man who can't see anything past his ratings and his own self. He takes everything he can from everyone and gives nothing in return. To see sweet old Andy Griffith in such a despicable role is quite the shock and boy, does good ol' Andy give it to the audience for all it is worth. In one of my favorite scenes, he is judging a baton twirling competition. Beautiful Lee Remick catches his eye as she twirls in her little skirt and his wolf-like stare is so intensely sexual that I think even I blushed for Remick. Someone sees him staring at her and says, "She is only 17." His response, with what I imagined as invisible drool on his chin was, "She looks like a very sweet child." The leer doesn't go away, only intensifies. Oof. Remember, this is Andy Griffith!!

I think Andy has gotten most of the acting kudos for this movie in recent history because of how we perceive him based off his wholesome image. However, it would be a shame to not give kudos to Patricia Neal for her performance. I was amazed at the difference of her character in the beginning versus the end. In the beginning, she looks so young and vibrant - maybe even a little sassy. She lights up the screen. By the end, she looks drawn, shrunken and exhausted. The light has totally gone out. It would be a mistake to think this movie is all about Lonesome Rhodes because I think this movie is as much about her as well. It is about Marcia being charmed by Lonesome, same as everyone else, but slowly realizing what a cold and uncaring man he really is. It is about her decision to stay with him because she can't untangle herself from his web and also because she feels a burden to try to clean up the trail of destruction he leaves in his wake. It is about how it chips away at her soul to stay there with him and help him continue to grow and flourish even though she knows she is only making her monster more powerful by doing so. Her role is crucial because it is her love for him that keeps us, as the movie audience, from turning on Lonesome as he does so many terrible things throughout the movie. As long as she continues to stay with him, then we think there must be something redeeming so we stay with Lonesome too. If you watch this movie twice, and really pay attention to Patricia Neal both times, I think you will agree with me that her performance is stunning.

I will add in a quick paragraph about Walter Matthau in this too. I like that he gives the movie some much needed balance. He is Mel Miller, a writer on the Lonesome Rhodes show, and catches on to Lonesome quicker than anyone else. It is his writer's sarcasm and subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) jabs that gives voice to what the audience is thinking. For instance, Mel says "I'll say one thing for him, he's got the courage of his ignorance." Mel also happens to be in love with Marcia. In one of the sweetest scenes where he is describing himself he says, "Didn't you know? All mild men are vicious. They hate themselves for being mild, and they hate the windy extroverts whose violence seems to have a strange attraction for nice girls. You should know better." They continue talking and he so tenderly touches her jawline with his finger. It was such a sweet gesture that spoke volumes of how deep his love was for her. Such an incredibly intimate moment, all with just a simple touch.

Everything about this film is top-notch. Budd Schulberg wrote an amazing script and Elia Kazan, the director, took several first-time movie actors and guided them through performances of a lifetime. If you rent the DVD, there is a great documentary about this film where they interview Andy Griffith about what it was like to debut in this film. Kazan wanted his actors to feel the scene, not try to act the scene. Kazan told him, "If you think it and feel it hard enough, it will come out through your eyes, and the camera will see it." As an example, he tells us exactly what Kazan's direction was to him for the baton twirling competition, and I almost choked on my dinner when I heard that tidbit. The documentary is a must see.

I have raved and raved enough about this movie. If you haven't seen this - PROMISE ME - you will go out and watch it immediately. You will NOT be sorry. After you watch it, please report back here and tell me how brilliant I am for making you watch it. :-)

Theodora Goes Wild (1936)

2009-01-04T12:37:00.005-05:00

I watched this a few days ago on TCM and my first question was, "Why the heck isn't this on DVD yet?" This is a delightful comedy that deserves a DVD release people!

Lynnfield, a typical small town, is in a fury over the latest best-selling novel that is being printed in excerpts in their local paper. The prudes of the town deem it too racy and therefore morally objectionable. Little do they know, one of their own, Theodora Lynn (Irene Dunne) is actually the author. Theodora has gone to great lengths to keep the author's (her) identity a secret, but during a meeting with her publisher she meets Michael Grant (Melvyn Douglas) and lets her guard down. From that point on, he is determined to free her from small town life by forcing her to admit her true identity. Meanwhile, Theodora finds out some secrets of her own about Michael and sets a plan in motion to give him a taste of his own medicine.

That looks painful

I am a fan of Irene Dunne's already so it came as no surprise that she was absolutely wonderful in the role of Theodora. In fact, she was even nominated for an Oscar for her performance. She is such a great comedic actress and this movie is one of the first to show off her talents in that area.

So the surprise, for me, was Melvyn Douglas whom I knew very little about. I believe I had only seen him in "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" up to this point. He was good in that, but not a standout necessarily. In this one though, he and Irene had a great chemistry and I loved how he tormented her in such a charming way. I read a review online about how his whistling in the film was annoying, but honestly, I didn't find that to be the case. His whistling, to me, was just a constant dig at her, trying to ruffle Theodora so that she would ... take action. I love the kind of comedy that comes from two people battling against each other, almost always, because they have fallen for each other and don't want to give in. This film does a terrific job with that situation.

As for the story, I love how subversive it is to the culture at the time. It takes aim at small town America which had been so revered as being perfect. It chips away at the facade showing the hypocritical and judgemental nature of the population, but in a comedic way so as not to totally offend a primary demographic. Very clever, them big town writers. :-)

One of my favorite quotes, and I can't recall which small town supporting character said it, was about Theodora. They said, "It's all perfectly clear to me. That adorable young thing is an unholy terror on wheels. There's nothing in the world more deadly than innocence on the manhunt!"

If you haven't guessed yet, I highly recommend this great little screwball comedy gem and I demand a DVD release. Anyone listening people? More Cowbell!

Rocket Science (2007)

2008-12-31T19:02:00.005-05:00

This is a story about a young boy with a stuttering problem finding his voice, who knew it would be the voice of anger and revenge? 15-year-old Hal Hefner (Reece Thompson) is an outsider both at home and at school. He has a terrible stutter and doesn't know how to overcome it and find a way to fit in somewhere. He meets and falls in love with the star of the high school debate team, Ginny Reyerson (Anna Kendrick), and even joins the team due to his crush's urging. All is bound to not go well, especially with her intense drive to win and his intense love for her.

Reece Thompson and Anna Kendrick in ye olde cheese wagon

Everything about this movie is completely irreverent - the characters, the story and even the music. Have I mentioned how I love irreverent? Plus, all of the young actors are amazingly good and the script is pretty darn tight too. At first, the story is hard to follow, then you think it might be meandering, but once the surprise "evil plot" in the film is uncovered you realize the story has all been leading up to the unveiling. Very cool.

I love the conversation that is taking place in the scene the above picture is taken from. Ginny is telling Hal about how she was identified a few years ago as having debate potential and as such, she must strive to ferret out other folks that have similar talent and she believes Hal is such a person. She sums it up with, "I ferreted you".

The downside of this is that even though this is completely original and not predictable, about halfway through I had the eerie feeling I was sitting through a Wes Anderson film. I don't think that is really the fault of the writer/director Jeffrey Blitz. I doubt that he sat down with the idea of ripping off a Wes Anderson film, but yet, it is unmistakable how similar it is to the feeling of "Rushmore" or "Royal Tenenbaums".

Overall I would say this is very quirky, very irreverent and funny so your funny bone definitely needs to lean in the quirky/irreverent direction to appreciate this one. Needless to say, if you like Wes Anderson films, you will love this one.

Step Brothers (2008)

2008-12-30T18:45:00.005-05:00

I have been pretty sick for the past few days and I have a hard time with high brow films while I am near death's door (slight exaggeration there) so I almost always reach for the stupidest thing I can find. Luckily, Netflix had just sent me "Step Brothers" and well, that certainly fits the requirement.

Mary Steenburgen, Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly and Richard Jenkins as a picture-perfect dysfunctional family

Dr. Robert Doback (Richard Jenkins) and Nancy Huff (Mary Steenburgen) meet, fall in love, marry and move in together in the first 10 minutes or so of this film. Their happily ever after is tested by their middle-aged sons who both still live at home with no desire to move out or on. Even worse, Brennan Huff (Will Ferrell) and Dale Doback (John C. Reilly) hate each other instantly and turn the newlyweds home into a war zone.

I find it funny that after dissing "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" I am so quickly back into Judd Apatow land. I can't seem to escape him. Of course, this isn't a romantic comedy, it is definitely a dude's comedy so that is totally cool beans with me. I won't do a full in-depth review of this as ... I am not really sure it is possible to do that credibly. This film is exactly what you expect from a Ferrell movie - constant low-brow humor with shining moments of comedic genius scattered here and there into the fabric of the film. I usually don't love these kinds of films, but I chuckle now and then and forget that I am sick and miserable, at least for an hour and a half, which I consider to be a very good thing.

I would say my biggest surprise of the film was Richard Jenkins. I have seen his face everywhere, it seems, in the past couple of years as a character actor. The thing that amazes me is his range - he excels in drama (example "The Visitor" or "North Country") and also excels in comedy (example "Step Brothers" or "Burn After Reading"). I am going to keep a watch out for future films of his as he seems to be full of surprising, brilliant performances.

I guess the bottom line on this is if you are into dude comedies or Apatow creations or Ferrell's films - this is a great one for those fans and you MUST see this. If you don't really dig low-brow, somewhat stupid comedy, give it a pass and pull out a foreign film. :-)

Marty (1955)

2008-12-18T20:00:00.002-05:00

Marty Piletti (Ernest Borgnine) is a lonely butcher from the Bronx who lives with his mother and has little hope for ever finding a woman to marry. Luck is on his side one Saturday night when he finds a lonely schoolteacher, Clara Snyder (Betsy Blair), who shares the same fears about never finding someone to marry. That should be the happy end to the story, but as his family and friends dismiss her as unsuitable for him, does he go with his heart or cave to everyone's opinions?

Marty and his Ma

The first thing that really stood out to me about this film is that it is more like our modern character-driven type independent movies. It is just a story about Marty. No twists of plot, no sub-plot, just a straight-forward movie about Marty. I think that was pretty unusual for the time. In fact, I read that Burt Lancaster helped finance this film because he believed it would bomb and he planned to use it as a tax write off. Oops.

The second thing is that I don't see either characters as terribly ugly like they are referenced in the film. Poor Betsy Blair is referenced as a dog more than one time, yet, although she may be a tad bit plain, she is in no way a dog. I expect that if you stepped out of Hollywood, both Betsy and Ernie would be average looking folk and not "dogs".

Ernie won a Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Marty. I have to say that both he and Betsy did great jobs in this. I use the word subtle often, but there are several scenes where it calls for a close-up of Ernie's face where he is being rejected or hurt and he does a good job of allowing it to come across. The scene where he calls a woman he met for a date is so painful. She rejects him numerous time and he closes his eyes as if to shield himself from the rejection. Really heart wrenching. In another scene he talks about how he was so depressed he considered suicide, not your average fare, and it is very touching.

I am not sure if some of the lines are supposed to be funny because they are usually in such a serious scene, but one I found kind of funny was when Marty and his mother were having a fight over her desire for him to go out in hopes of meeting a girl. Marty yells at her, "I am just a fat little man. A fat, ugly man." His mother calmly replies, "You're not ugly."

Another one is when Marty is dancing with Clara. He says, "Your not such a dog as you think you are." What a swell pick-up line. :-)

The one thing I had trouble with was believing that Marty would even listen to the people telling him that Clara is not worthy of him. Here is a man that was just saying no woman ever pays him any attention. He finds a decent woman that is interested in him. He enjoys talking to her and has a good time. When he drops her off he is so excited he can hardly contain himself. So, after that, a few unkind words from people who selfishly don't want to share him with a wife and he suddenly isn't sure if he should call her up again? I mean, excuse me? Not only that, but he promised her he would call and the whole movie builds up what a nice guy he is that always helps others and does what is right. I know him questioning calling her is crucial to the plot - it is the whole movie - but I just had hard time believing his indecision.

The last thing that I loved was a quote from Marty's mom when she was talking to her sister. I hope to use this quote some day in the future. She said, "Where you go, rain goes. Some day you are going to smile and we are going to have a big holiday." I love that line. I can think of so many people that would be appropriate for.

I fear that some people might find this a bit of a boring movie since nothing really happens - it is all about Marty having to make a choice to call up this girl for a second date or not. The acting is really well done as is the directing. I think it is a fine film for anyone who enjoys character-driven dramas. If you don't, you will probably fall asleep about halfway in.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

2008-12-17T07:32:00.000-05:00

I had been saving this movie for when I really needed a stupid comedy to make me laugh. Since I haven't been feeling well, I thought there was no better time than the present. The fact that expectations were semi-high is always a sign for disaster.

Movie Poster of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall"

A lovable loser type music composer Peter Bretter (Jason Segel) gets his heart broken after a 5 year relationship with TV star girlfriend Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell). He has a really hard time getting over her so he decides to go to Hawaii for a change of scenery so he can forget her. Of course, as fate would have it, she happens to be vacationing at the same resort with her current rock star boyfriend Aldous Snow (Russell Brand).

Before I say anything else, let me first say that I do not mind puerile, mindless comedy. I do not mind some crude humor here and there. I laughed at "Borat" and actually loved "SuperBad". This one which is closer to a romantic comedy, should be right up my alley then, right? Wrong.

I had to ponder to figure out what the difference was - why I didn't like this one - but liked the others. It finally occurred to me that this is a romantic comedy ... for DUDES. Borat was a comedy and SuperBad was a buddy comedy - that's cool beans. But now we need to make romantic comedies for dudes? I almost find it offensive. Almost all genres of movies are already focused on the male audience so we have to take one of the few genres previously known as chick flicks and make those for men too? What about movies for women? Do we as an audience no longer matter at all?

That is why I didn't like this movie very much. I don't mind going in to see a men's comedy, a men's buddy film, a men's action movie - I know what I am going to get from them and enjoy many of them. But I also like to see the occasional chick flick. I am worried that there is a new trend of trying to add elements that men find funny into the chick flicks so more men will watch them too. I will be honest, I don't want my romantic comedies littered with stupid penis jokes and crude humor every five seconds. I will watch a guy's comedy for that stuff, not a romantic comedy done up for dudes. If we sit through their "death and destruction" movies to be with them they should be willing to sit through a true "chick flick" with us.

Feh. Please, anyone else seen this and have an opinion?

Count Three And Pray (1955)

2008-12-16T10:57:00.001-05:00

This is going to be a review-lite as I didn't expect to watch this when I stumbled across it. It went something like this: I couldn't sleep, turned on TCM and this one was just starting and I couldn't help but watch the whole thing.

Movie Poster - best graphic I could find

Luke Fargo (Van Heflin) returns from the Civil War to find an entire town against him. They are upset that he chose to fight for the North and most think it was just to be contrary and not because he felt he needed to fight for the cause. To make matters even harder on him, he returns telling people that he had a calling to become a preacher. Most of the town recalls him as a gambling, drinking, fighting, womanizer type of a man and they can't believe he has possibly changed. One of the most powerful men in town, Yancey Huggins (Raymond Burr) - the merchant, especially can't get over the fact that he went "blue-legged" (fought for the North) and is determined to bring the preacher down no matter what he has to do. If all of that isn't enough to contend with, when he moves into the parsonage he discovers he has a squatter to deal with. Lissy (Joanne Woodward) is a wild orphan that refuses to leave so Luke allows her to stay and tries to help get her pointed in the right direction. Of course, to the townspeople, the preacher who claims to be reformed appears to be living in sin with a young girl.

This movie is about the struggle of Luke, who is a confirmed sinner, to do right and turn the townspeople around so that he can help them do right too. I always love the theme of bad girl gone good or bad guy gone good. It is nice to think that love can transform a person, be it religious love or parental love or partner love, from caring only about themselves to being truly altruistic.

This is Joanne Woodward's film debut and she plays the part well. I have little patience for the wild shrew bratty type character so I did get a little tired of watching her throw temper tantrums, but that isn't her fault - she was an expert temper tantrum thrower. Van Heflin was very believable as the sinner turned do-gooder. In fact, I am not sure I have ever noticed him before, but dang, he is a good actor! Some of the scenes where he is struggling internally are played brilliantly. You can see him shaking and grappling with his own thoughts and demons, while trying to maintain decorum. Really good acting there. Lastly, of the main characters, Raymond Burr plays a terrifying meanie in this one. He is most excellent at sitting in a chair and just looking menacing and intimidating.

The thing that totally ruined the movie for me was the ending. I have to talk about it, so unfortunately, I have to throw up a spoiler alert.

*************************** SPOILERS **********************************

I was shocked that in the end, out of nowhere, Luke and Lissy suddenly get married. There was no romance there. I mean, it was obvious that Lissy had a crush on Luke, but that looked like puppy dog love - just a childish crush. So ... tell me ... she comes back from the whorehouse all dolled up and that makes her a woman? I know someone tosses in a side-statement that she is actually 18, but I totally don't buy it. She acted like a bratty 14 or 15 year old. This man who went through the war and has a past and scars to heal doesn't need a bratty 18 year old as his wife. I mean, seriously, what the heck was going on with that? Was it a marriage of convenience because they had been "living in sin", but even so why not just move her somewhere else where she can interact with people her age and learn how to be a young woman? I was totally disgusted by that ending. It was way too Woody Allen and Soon-Yi for me. Gross.

**************************** END SPOILERS ******************************

Aside from the absolutely dreadful ending (imho), this is a really good Western that kept my attention throughout. The script is really strong and moves at a good pace. Also, the redemption theme is always interesting to me and I love seeing how other people react to it. If you see this coming up on TCM, I suggest giving it a watch. If for no other reason than seeing Joanne Woodward play a young brat - that is amusing in itself. :-)

Pocketful of Miracles (1961)

2008-12-15T08:20:00.002-05:00

This is Frank Capra's last film. As with any movie with this most terrific director, it is a little hokey, a little corny, a lotta syurpy and a definite pleaser of the feel-good fans. And you know what? I loved it - I love a wonderful feel good movie as long as it has the acting performances to back it up and oh, boy, does this one have the needed talent.

Bette Davis as Apple Annie

Apple Annie (Bette Davis) is a panhandling, alcoholic who sells apples on the streets of New York City. Early in the film we learn that Annie has a daughter, Louise (Ann-Margaret), that was born out of wedlock and raised in Spain so that she could have a better life than what Annie could have given her in NYC. They have never met, only conversing through letters, and Annie has embellished her life quite a bit over the years. The trouble comes when Louise writes to tell her she is engaged to the son of a Spanish Count and plans to visit her mother in NYC very soon. Annie is afraid her daughter's life will be ruined once her future in-laws discover her true identity so she manages to secure the creativity and resourcefulness of a powerful bootlegger, Dave The Dude (Glenn Ford). With his help and those of his various associates, they manage to turn Annie into the New York socialite her daughter is expecting to see.

Let me start off saying I loved Bette Davis in this role. I loved everything about her performance. For starters, she doesn't go loud and over-the-top with this, she reins her performance in appropriately. She even was careful with her voice, making it sound slightly frail and raspy - which is perfect for Apple Annie. I like how she is tough on the street, but when she is begging at the fancy pants hotel for her daughter's letter, she is so vulnerable and humble. And when she is drunk and explaining the predicament about her daughter's visit to Queenie and Dave the Dude, the feeling of hopelessness is so palpable - my heart was breaking for her. Just, an amazing performance by Ms. Davis all around.

I also have to say how much I really enjoyed Peter Falk in this. He was fabulous as Dave the Dude's right hand man, Joy Boy, and handy with the zingers. When he walks into the room after the row between Queenie and Dave the Dude, "Look at this place, like the inside of a goat's stomach!" He seriously stole quite a few scenes in this film when Glenn Ford wasn't looking.

I wouldn't have thought Glenn Ford would have handled this kind of role with the twinge of comedy, but I thought he did fine. As did Hope Lange as Queenie. I can't say either stood out as amazing, but I thought they handle the roles well.

I was thrilled to see Edward Everett Horton as Hutchins, the Butler, in this. I swear, that man has the best comedic timing and is a sheer genius. I do adore that man and he had some great lines too. I especially loved the reception scene when the Count asks when they guests are supposed to arrive. He says, "Oh, well, no one arrives first, sir, they all come in last." He just has such a perfect way of delivering lines that sound flat when you read them, but when HE says them, they are riotous.

Also, I enjoyed Thomas Mitchell's performance of Judge Henry G. Blake. I love an exchange between him and Apple Annie as they are preparing for the reception and she asks about the menagerie of fake socialites that Dave the Dude is sending over.

Judge: "Orchids bloom where weeds once grew."
Annie: "What if they make mistakes?"
Judge: "The Dude will kill them."
Annie: "Aww, the poor dears."

My final favorite quote comes from Junior, one of Dave the Dude's cronies. When he sees Apple Annie, all dressed up as the socialite for the first time he says, "It is like a cockroach turned into a butterfly." Niiiiiiice. :-)

I do have a question for those of you who are much more knowledgeable than myself. I read that this is a remake of "Lady For A Day", which I have not seen. I was curious as to which one you prefer and why?

Also, did anyone else notice the Nutcracker music playing softly in various scenes throughout the movie? There were also a couple of Christmas trees here and there. I didn't plan on watching a "holiday" film, but I guess this is another holiday, non-holiday-ish film. You can't escape! :-)

I highly recommend watching this one. It is a great one for when you need one of those pick-me-up feel-good movies after a rough day. It is such a sweet film and I wouldn't mind watching it again, myself, just to see Bette in this first-rate performance.

Remember The Night (1940)

2008-12-14T08:08:00.000-05:00

I was lucky enough to be under the weather and stuck on the couch channel surfing when this was starting on TCM. Not having scoured the filmography of Stanwyck or MacMurray I had no idea they had starred together in more than just "Double Indemnity". I know, I am an idiot.

Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck

Given the title of the movie, I was surprised to discover it takes place over the holidays and is therefore a holiday movie. "Remember the Night" is a horrible title for this one - maybe they should call it Christmas in Indiana? Heh. Anyway, the plot goes something like this: just before Christmas, Lee Leander (Barbara Stanwyck) is caught shoplifting. Again. It is her third offense. The District Attorney assigns John Sargent (Fred MacMurray) to prosecute the case since he is the best at getting convictions against women. After an abysmal defense attorney makes a mistake at trial, Sargent seizes an opportunity to get the trial postponed till after the holidays. He does this because the jury's heart is always softened around Christmas and convictions are much harder to get. Sargent has an attack of the old conscience and feels bad that his trick will keep her behind bars for Christmas, so he arranges for the bail that she could not pay. Much like feeding a stray, he suddenly can't get rid of her and after discovering they are both Hoosiers, they take a trip home to Indiana for the holidays.

This film is a comedy, romance, drama, holiday film and even part film-noir. I mean, really, and does it all well. The sentimentality of some of the scenes is well justified after the dark scenes like the one at Leander's childhood home. I loved how it somehow balanced out all the disparate elements.

I really thought Stanwyck and MacMurray had great, great, great chemistry in this and their performances were wonderful. Stanwyck was so beautiful and played it in her usual sassy manner until her character realizes Sargent is a genuinely nice guy. MacMurray played his part carefully so the he wouldn't look too slick in New York or too corny in Indiana. I don't know how he managed that, but it really was a great performance by him. I also loved the touch of Sargent's mother (Beulah Bondi) and aunt spinster (Elizabeth Patterson) not to forget the farm-hand Willie (Sterling Holloway). The scenes at the Sargent's home are so warm and touching that it makes anyone ache for the familiarity of home during the holidays.

TCM also made an interesting note that I wanted to pass along about this one. Preston Sturges wrote the screenplay for this but was apparently very unhappy with the cuts the director, Mitchell Leisen, made. He decided that if he wanted his scripts done the way he wrote them, he would have to direct the movies too. So, when he finished "The Great McGinty" he offered it to the studio for $1 with the condition that they let him direct it. They agreed and that is how he made the jump from writer to director. Pretty shrewd on his part.

As far as "Remember the Night", other than the title, I think this is a very sweet and wonderful movie. I highly recommend watching it, especially around the holidays. Just remember to bring along a couple of tissues for the ride - you may need them.

Smart People (2008)

2008-12-13T08:20:00.005-05:00

Dennis Quaid is Lawrence Wetherhold, a self-absorbed, surly professor who generally appears to hate the world. The bitterness has obvious root, the death of his wife that he hasn't been able to let go. Enter into the plot a former student and ER Doctor, Janet Hartigan (Sarah Jessica Parker), and a drifter-type adopted brother, Chuck (Thomas Haden Church). Lawrence's life and those of his kids, Vanessa (Ellen Page) and James (Ashton Holmes), are bound to take a slightly different course.

Thomas Haden Church and Ellen Page do a little bonding

When you boil it down, this movie is really about highly intelligent people that are complete emotional idiots. Every single person in this film is damaged. With some, as I said in the plot, the root of the damage is obvious. Others, you don't know how it happened, but you know the damage is there. These people get through life using their brains as a barrier so that their precious isolationism will be maintained.

The performances, as you would expect from these great actors, are good. I have such a serious fondness for all the actors in this movie. I will spotlight Ellen Page specifically because I think she has one of the most complex roles. She portrays a teenager who has somehow turned into a 40-year-old woman after the death of her mother. She is miserable, has no friends and is so completely invested in her father's life that she appears to be more of a housewife to him than a daughter. She strives for perfection in a vain attempt for her father to appreciate or recognize her. In one of the scenes, she is talking to her Uncle. She reminds him that, "You should really make your bed. It sets the tone for the day." The line alone shows how matriarchal and up-tight she has become since her mother's death. She is really in need of some chaos.

I love that the chaos she needs is injected by her adopted Uncle Chuck. I only point out the adopted fact because that well may be his saving grace in this family. He is obviously not highly intelligent, but he has what the others lack in emotional intelligence. He understands people and actually likes getting to know people. He enters the dysfunctional home and immediately understands that his niece is in the most danger of becoming a wreck of an adult. Thomas Haden Church, who is a great underrated actor, plays the part brilliantly. I like the dichotomy between Chuck and Lawrence as totally opposite brothers, but also because watching Church and Quaid act opposite each other was a cinematic treat.

One other thing I would like to note that I really like about this one is that it isn't the cliched "Here are broken people and by the end they are all fixed" kind of a movie, even though they did go for a happyish ending. The movie is much more subtle than the grand fix gesture. It is not about any of the character's massive change, but rather, about characters trying or wanting to change a little - like in real life. Most people do not go from being a curmudgeon to being the most popular guy on the street. They make small changes like trying to greet someone or smile politely when passing a stranger. Again, not a Hollywood ending and much more like the reality of every day life. I think Quaid sums it up for his character when he says, "I know I'm a miserable asshole, but I do have some hope for myself." Indeed.

I will say that I loved this movie in parts, and in concept and themes, but as a whole didn't quite love it. I think with all the beloved indie actors, the expectations were so high, I was bound to be a bit disappointed perhaps. Something didn't quite gel right for me and even though the movie was short, the plot seemed to creep along in a few places. I didn't quite buy all of the characters because they weren't developed enough. I blame most of this on the newbie director as I think with a more capable one, this movie really could have been so much better. But, I did like it and am glad I had the chance to watch it. You will like this one if you are really into character-driven independents (like myself) or are a completionist and want to see all of the work by one of the actors in this one. Otherwise, sadly, I think you will find it a bit dull so you might consider skipping it.

Christmas In Connecticut (1945)

2008-12-12T15:05:00.005-05:00

Barbara Stanwyck stars in this movie as Elizabeth Lane, a magazine columnist who describes herself as happily married, new mother and expert homemaker who lives on a perfect Connecticut farm with her family. The would be wonderful if it were actually true. Instead, she is single and lives in a cramped apartment in New York City and, oh, can't cook. Unfortunately, her magazine publisher, Alexander Yardley (Sydney Greenstreet), is a stickler for the truth and has just come up with a brilliant plot to boost magazine sales. He wants her to invite a war hero, Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), out to her lovely farm for Christmas. It goes without saying that Yardley wants to tag along so he too can experience a wonderful Christmas in Connecticut.

I felt like this was a holiday version of a screwball comedy. I love holiday movies and I love screwball comedies, so you put the two together and it is like peanut butter and jelly. The best thing was that the screwballiness took the edge off the holidayiness. What I mean is, the film didn't get sentimental about the holidays and that is a nice change for a film with "Christmas" in the title.

I also love that this is kind of a relevant theme given the rise of the Martha Stewarts and Rachel Rays of the world. In fact, I secretly love the idea of Martha Stewart really being like Elizabeth Lane - not having any clue how to cook or live on a farm - and just getting someone else to do all the work for her. heh heh.

Stanwyck, as Elizabeth Lane, attempting to "flip-flop the flop-flips" (yes, a Felix-ism)

The absolutely best part of the whole film though, hands down, was Uncle Felix. It is hard to say exactly how they became friends, but it is obvious that Elizabeth helped him finance the start up of his restaurant and he supplies her with recipes for the magazine in return for her kindness. He also seems to watch out for her and generally worry about her happiness. I always seem to gravitate to the supporting actors and Felix was no exception. S.Z. Sakall was so adorable as Uncle Felix, such a teddy bear. Plus, he had the best lines and so many great Felix-isms, for lack of anything else to call them. Here are a few of his great lines:

After smelling sardines Elizabeth was eating for lunch, Felix says, "Are you mad at your stomach darling?"

After seeing the mink coat she has just bought and her saying how she had to have it he says, "Nobody needs a mink coat but the mink."

When it looks like Yardley is about to find out the truth, Felix says they should go. He explains it with, "When the bag let's out the cat, somebody gets scratched."

What a wise man :-)

I should toss in a few great quotes out of Stanwyck's mouth too.

When she went to talk to the publisher to talk him out of making her invite the war hero and returned without luck she explains it as, "Every time I opened my mouth, he talked. I felt like Charlie McCarthy."

And when she is kissing her now fiance, "John, when you are kissing me, don't talk about plumbing."

I loved Stanwyck and her performance, of course, I think that almost goes without saying when you are talking about Stanwyck. Man is she amazing. Sydney Greenstreet as the publisher is brilliant too. It was interesting to see him in a lighter role - I think I have only seen him cast in dramatic roles. The only casting that I felt wasn't exactly perfect perhaps was Dennis Morgan. Don't get me wrong, he is incredibly handsome so I could see why he was cast, but I didn't really think he added much to the role other than a strong jawline.

I definitely suggest watching this one. It is hard to go wrong with it. You have your great performances, your witty dialogue, your screwball comedy, your holiday backdrop and if that isn't enough - UNCLE FELIX! He really does rock my world.

Stanley and Livingstone (1939)

2008-12-09T08:03:00.003-05:00

This may not be the most historically accurate portrayal of the lives of Stanley and Livingstone (especially Stanley), but that is okay with me. If I wanted historical accuracy, I would have reached for a documentary. Instead, I wanted a little escapism and an interesting adventure and that is exactly what I got with this rousing film.

Spencer Tracy looking like Africa has gotten him a little down

This movie is about Henry M. Stanley (Spencer Tracy) who is a reporter for the New York Herald. He is known for his perseverance in chasing whatever story his paper assigns to him. His newest assignment might be his biggest challenge yet. He is told to go to Africa to find Dr. David Livingstone (Cedric Hardwicke), a missionary, who another newspaper reported as deceased. Even by today's standards this would probably be a difficult task, but during the 1870s it is darn near impossible. This movie details Stanley's journey to find Dr. Livingstone, the long and hard fought discovery of Dr. Livingstone and Stanley's subsequent fight to have his story believed upon his return.

There are so many things that make this film really work. I love that 20th Century Fox actually sent a small crew to Africa to film authentic safari footage to include in this film. The on-location shooting is priceless for the scenery that is added to the film. They even included stand-ins of the main actors so they could do wide shots showing them walking along the African plains.

Another obvious thing going for this film is the caliber of the actors. First off, you have Spencer Tracy as the lead. The more I watch Spencer the more I enjoy him as an actor. In some of his movies he plays the character so understated that you wonder if he even has to think about acting, it is so natural. With just a slow, almost lazy blink of his eyes he conveys how he feels about what is being said to him, without uttering a word. It is sheer brilliance and I swear, the camera loves his face. Aside from the lead though, the supporting actors in this one are all wonderful too. Walter Brennan plays a guide and sidekick type character to Spencer. His very colorful character is a good yin to Spencer's even keeled yang. Brennan actually steals a few scenes right out from under Spencer and, I have to say, that is not easy to do. On top of Brennan, you add in Cedric Hardwicke, Charles Coburn and Henry Travers and you have a pretty amazing supporting cast.

I also like how, to me, this really had the feel of a western, but set in Africa. One of the reasons I love Westerns is the way the directors use the old West as a secondary character in the films. The scenery in some of the great Westerns simply can't be beat and I felt the same about this one. The shots might not be clever or fancy, but gosh, it is amazing. They definitely used Africa as a secondary character that, just like the Old West, could beat a man down without too much effort.

I loved so many of the scenes in this film too. One of the great ones is the chase scene where Stanley's caravan is attacked by a local tribe. It was filmed and edited brilliantly and, you just don't see many great chase scenes on foot, especially of this magnitude. It is a sight to behold and shouldn't be missed.

I also enjoyed the opening scene of the movie. The US President had sent a couple of delegates to talk to an Indian Chief and were supposed to be escorted by the Army. An Army Officer was explaining to them how you can't just go in and talk to the Indians, they are brutal and would rather scalp a white man rather than talk to him. Suddenly, out of a clearing, come an escort of Indians with Spencer Tracy and Walter Brennan in between them. The Indians wave goodbye fondly as does Tracy and Brennan as they ride towards the Army camp. LOL! Guess they only want to harm certain men. :-)

I also loved the climatic scene where Stanley finally finds what he has been looking for all this time. As strings play "Onward Christian Soldier" in the background, Dr. Livingstone walks out of his hut and Spencer nails the famous line, "Dr. Livingstone, I presume." He says it with such disbelief, awe and weariness - just brilliant. I also love the line a little later from Livingstone, "Well, this is an occasion. We will have the fatted pig for dinner." Mmm ... the other white meat.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I can't really think of anything negative to say about it, which is uncommon for me. As such, I highly recommend this one.

It Happened On Fifth Avenue (1947)

2008-12-08T09:44:00.006-05:00

Tagline of this movie: "It's Happier Than Heaven ... the Hit of '47!" Are you kidding me? Who wrote that? :-)

Hobo Aloysius T. McKeever (Victor Moore) looks forward to winter every year as that is when the O'Connors leave their mansion on New York's Fifth Avenue for three months. He takes the opportunity to move in and enjoy the lap of luxury behind their backs. This year is different though. First off, McKeever meets Jim Bullock (Don DeFore) who just lost his apartment and invites him to be his guest. Second, the O'Connors daughter Trudy (Gale Storm) shows up at the mansion unannounced. She thinks the duo seem more fun than her finishing school so she poses as a runaway to keep her identity secret. Soon her father (Charlie Ruggles) comes looking for her and she begs him to pose as a panhandler as well. More people move in, more sub-plots and more confusion. One thing is certain, the O'Connors and their new friends will never forget this Christmas.

Gale Storm (seriously, is that her real name?) and Don DeFore

I decided to watch this one because I was in the mood for some sort of a holiday movie. This isn't exactly what I would call a holiday movie, but it does take place over Christmas and New Year's therefore it comes close. It has a feeling of warmth and community and I loved that about this one. Over New Year's, with the whole crowd at the table, McKeever says, "I would like to feel that you are all my friends. For to be without friends is a serious form of poverty." Very touching and true words.

Not only is this a comedy on the surface, but it also has a little bit more of a serious level underneath that. One level is the funny shenanigans of McKeever and all the people moving into the home. On the deeper level is the theme of social reform as to what is left if rich developers buy up affordable housing? What are the young folks starting out and the old folks who no longer work supposed to do? Of course, the ever present theme of money not buying happiness is there throughout the film as well.

Some of the funniest lines are given to two night watchmen type characters who are hired to check in on the mansion every night. One of the watchmen says to the other, "How would you like to live in a joint like this?" The other says, "What? And have room for the rest of my wife's relations?" Another funny line is when a detective shows up looking for Trudy. One of the night watchmen says, "She ain't in there. That joint is as empty as a sewing basket at a nudist's camp." I also liked the deadpan of McKeever in a scene with the watchmen. One of the watchmen, upon seeing McKeever in a Santa's suit, says, "Well I'll be a monkey's orphan." McKeever deadpans, "Oh, come sir. Your family connections must be better than that."

One of my favorite scenes is towards the end of the movie when Trudy and Jim are in a Latin restaurant. While they discuss the very serious matter of if he should take a job that takes him out of the country or stay, they keep having the unstable, rocking table problem due to uneven table legs. The physical gag of the table combined with a persistent waiter and the serious conversation, oh, and Latin singers serenading of course, cracked me up. I am a pushover for physical sight gags.

There were also a few things that I didn't like about this one. It seemed they were using a pre-filmed moving backdrop in every outdoor scene. I understand this was 1947 and I understand budget constraints, but still, I found this very distracting from the scenes. Surely they could have improved that with a little more creativity.

I also got annoyed by McKeever's character pretty quick. At first he was a cute old hobo, with a cute little dog, very nice and mischievous. However, after being in the house with a crowd of people, he suddenly turns into bossy boots. Suddenly he acts like the patriarch of this mis-matched family, correcting their every behavior while not pitching in to help. I kept thinking "If I see his finger waggle at someone one more time, I may have to break it." Of course, I don't expect everyone would feel this way. It probably goes back to my disdain for authority figures. :-)

Lastly, I think the pacing was a bit off. It is rather obvious that Mr. O'Connor is going to be the character that goes through the biggest change. At the critical moment when the movie looks like he is going to change, he doesn't. Then the movie drags on for another 30 minutes. I think they missed the opportunity to tighten the movie up a bit there. I am not saying lop off the whole last 30 minutes, but it should have been written tighter with Mr. O'Connor seizing the first opportunity, not letting it pass him by. I don't think that added anything but time to the movie.

Lastly, one of the strangest things that occurred to me while watching this was that McKeever could be the character of Johnny Case from "Holiday", many years later, if he never found love. I kinda liked that thought - that Johnny Case would while away his elder years reading in other people's mansions and enjoying his time. Yes, I know, I am weird.

This was a good movie, but not a great one. There were good comedic elements, but it didn't all come together quite as well as in some of the other great holiday themed movies. If you have the time and opportunity, this is worth a look.

Purple Violets (2007)

2008-12-07T17:49:00.006-05:00

Ed Burns wrote, directed, produced and co-starred in this movie. It has his fingerprints all over it and is typical Ed Burns fare. The focus of all of the movies he writes is on relationships - whether they be familial or romantic. He likes to explore how relationships tear apart due to external forces or how they become mended and every scenario in between. He also, almost always, makes his movie a love story to New York City. He films all his movies there and intersperses them with wonderful shots that make me wonder how I miss all that beauty when I visit there.

Patrick Wilson and Selma Blair as cooooool New Yorkers

The movie is about four people who, twelve years ago during college, were all best friends and dating. They happen to run into each other while dining at a restaurant and the history of the past relationships unfold a bit. Pretty quickly you discover that Michael Murphy (Ed Burns) and Kate Scott (Debra Messing) are no longer together and haven't spoken in 12 years because she believes he cheated on her in college and it destroyed her. You also discover that Patti Petalson (Selma Blair) and Brian Callahan (Patrick Wilson) broke up back then due to Brian going off to college in another state and Patti not wanting to have a long distance relationship.

The two women and the two men, separately, have remained best friends throughout the span of time but have not spoken to the others. Each character is pretty well developed by Burns and have their own story to unfold throughout the movie. Patti is in a loveless marriage and even though she used to be a great writer, has lost the confidence to write anymore. Brian became an author of a series of novels that amassed him and his lawyer, Michael, a great deal of money, but he is unhappy with doing that kind of fluff writing. He is also in a relationship with a young girl and soon after seeing Patti, no longer finds the young girl amusing. Kate appears to have never recovered from her heart break over Michael and is so consumed with anger towards him spends much of the movie refusing to even speak to him. Michael became a lawyer and also realized he was an alcoholic in college and for most of his 20s and went to AA to sober up. He spends much of the movie chasing Kate trying to make amends.

I see this movie as having two great strengths. The first one is the actors who deliver solid performances. Everyone in this works well as an individual and as a cohesive team. The second strength of this movie is Ed Burns. He has really seasoned as a movie maker. I don't always love his movies (I recall really hating "Sidewalks of New York"), but I can see where he has learned from his mistakes and corrected them. In this one, he really allows the characters to breathe. What I mean is, instead of trying to cover every second of the movie in dialogue, he allows the characters to have scenes where the actor conveys where they are and their emotion without overtly verbalizing it. Only the camera is there to capture their dialogue and it is all internal. I think it is scary for a director to allow that, but I love it when they give the character time to breathe. Also, I think Burns has made a consistent effort to improve the interest of his chosen shots, which I personally am a stickler for in a director. Burns usually focused on just the actors, but in this effort, he focused on a few clever or beautiful shot setups. I particularly loved one in Patti's apartment where she is arguing with her husband and the camera is at the other end of the hall, showing a wall divider between them. Shots like that speak so much to the story, saying this couple can't tear down the wall, they are completely divided, and probably will never be together as a whole again.

I have to say one negative about Ed Burns, since I just spent a paragraph talking about how he has seasoned and how he did really well in this. I always hate that all of his work has some snide air of superiority. Maybe it is just me, but I always get the feeling that he is trying to say something like "Look at me! I am esoteric! I am an intellectual!" I also get the feeling that if you say you don't like his stuff, then you are branded a Philistine. Again, it could be just me though. :-)

So to wrap this up, this was a good, sweet movie. Not a great movie, but certainly an enjoyable one to sit down and watch for an hour and a half. The main issue with it was the predictability, within 15 minutes of the movie, I was pretty darn sure I knew how this was going to play out. So there weren't really any twists or clever turns, just an exploration of the characters and their relationships. But if you sit down to a Burns film, that is pretty much what you should expect, and this is his most solid one yet.

The Rocking Horse Winner (1950)

2008-12-05T13:36:00.006-05:00

I will start with the fact that I really did not like this film. It is based off a D.H. Lawrence short story, which I read ages ago, and wasn't super thrilled with the story. Given that, it is not a shock that I didn't quite enjoy the movie. Even though I didn't enjoy the movie, it was still interesting for certain parts, so we will touch on those points and then I will try to erase this one from memory.

Brilliant shot of Valerie Hobson with the shadow of her son trying to predict a winner

The story is about a young boy named Paul (John Howard Davies) whose family is in a financial crisis, despite being upper class, due to his mother's voracious appetite for money. His mother, Hester (Valerie Hobson), constantly spends on whatever she thinks she wants and isn't even remotely remorseful. She bluntly tells her husband that he simply must make more money despite the fact that he obviously has a well paying job as is. The story takes a strange turn when the children are given a rocking horse as a Christmas present. Paul senses his mother's unhappiness and understands that money is the only thing she really wants. Through his desire to make his mother happy, he discovers that if he rides this rocking horse long enough and hard enough, he comes up with the name of the winner of the local horse race. He confides this to their servant Bassett (John Mills) and soon the two are placing bets and making money off of Paul's revelations. The question becomes how long Paul can keep the secret and keep up the stressful pace required to have the winning horse names revealed to him.

The theme of consumer greed is very timely considering today's rampant desire to live beyond our means using credit that we can't pay back. I have a hard time understanding how such a beautiful woman with a loving family couldn't be happy with what she already had. At one point when faced with the obvious conclusion that they are in serious trouble she says, "We will scrimp and save and do all the ghastly things you say we must do." Exactly when did saving money become a ghastly chore?

The main reason I think this film really didn't work was the young boy. He was 10 or 11 when he did this film and I think it was too complex a role for him to handle. When he is in a conversational scene, he is fine, but the heavier scenes of him with his rocking horse consist of him widening his eyes in some poor display of the power the horse has over him. I just don't think he had the chops for the role so it didn't work for me.

The other problem is that this is a rather well known short story with a rather well known subtext. This is supposed to be an oedipal story about Paul's desire to become the bread winner to take the place of his father and "please" his mother. The scenes of him on the rocking horse are supposed to be of a sexual nature. In the movie, they ever so slightly hint at this and perhaps it is something that should be read and not seen. Watching the young boy on the horse, with the thought of what it should be in the back of my mind, completely creeped me out. Plus, they took several steps trying to sexualize the scenes of him including having him walk around with his pajama shirt wide open and riding the rocking horse with a crop. It is hard to explain if you haven't seen it, and perhaps I was over-reacting, but it just didn't feel quite right.

Having gone over what didn't work, I should mention a few things that did. I really enjoyed Valerie Hobson's performance as the selfish mother. She was incredibly beautiful in this, which I thought was odd since I didn't feel that way about her in "Great Expectations". The arc of her character is done well and despite her being the cause of the troubles, you feel sorry for her before the end of the movie.

I also really enjoyed John Mills performance as Bassett. So far, I haven't disliked anything that he has been in. I may have to seek out more of his movies to watch.

Lastly, my favorite scene is very short, but worth mentioning. Paul is being drawn up the stairs to the rocking horse and he pauses and looks out the window. The sky seems to be turning grey and threatening and the clouds form the shape of the heads of horses. I am impressed they pulled this off in 1950. It is kinda creepy and really perfect for setting the tone of the next scene.

Unless you are a huge fan of D.H. Lawrence or like mild horror movies, I have to regretfully suggest that you give this movie a pass. The interest factor of the odd story doesn't outweigh the pain/discomfort factor.

Great Expectations (1946)

2008-12-04T19:26:00.001-05:00

A great friend tipped me off to the fact that "Great Expectations" was coming on TCM last night and I might want to give it a viewing. I was very familiar with the story, having read it a couple of times in my misspent youth. Since I hadn't seen the movie, I fired up ye olde television set and got down to business.

The thing that struck me the most about this movie was the awesome cinematography. I noticed it won the 1948 Oscar for Best Cinematography and boy, did they get that one right. The cinematographer is listed as Guy Green. According to IMDB.com, Guy Green replaced the first cinematographer after the director, David Lean, viewed the opening shots of the marshes and was quite dissatisfied. I don't know what the first cinematographer did, but the opening scene was what mesmerized me in this movie. The screen is filled with a big expansive sky and a small path between marshes and this tiny silhouette of a boy running down the path. Brilliant shot. That shot and the churchyard scene both easily convey the feeling of this tiny boy in this desolate place, isolated and alone. Your heart breaks for him.

Part of the beginning of the movie - stunning scene and image

I am going to choose to kinda skip over the plot as I think most people know the plot of this story, either from the various movies or the novel. The movie does vary quite a bit from the novel, but still, I think it is a wonderful representation of Dickens work.

There were several casting choices for this one that raised my eyebrows, either in a good way or in a bad way. The first was John Mills as the adult Pip. He is playing a man just coming into adulthood, yet, according to IMDB, he was 40. I must say, he didn't look like a young man so I thought that was a surprising choice. However, having said that, I still thought Mills delivered a wonderful performance so I quickly forgot whatever quarrel I had with that one.

Secondly, the casting of Jean Simmons as the young Estella. What an absolutely fabulous casting choice. I estimate she would have been 16-ish and she was perfect. She was exactly who I imagined when I read about the young Estella. She is so beautiful that one immediately understands why Pip would fall for Estella instantly. And Jean Simmons played Estella with such disdain for poor Pip, yet a mild curiosity. She was cold and mean, yet beautiful and interesting. It was perfect for the character.

Which, sadly, brings me to the casting of the adult Estella. This part was played by Valerie Hobson and after watching Jean Simmons, it was utter disappointment. I won't really go into how she wasn't nearly as beautiful as Jean Simmons. Estella is supposed to be a woman who mesmerizes men with her amazing beauty and torments them with her indifference. As Pip says at one point, "My admiration of her knew no bounds" and that was the way every man felt about Estella. Yet, Estella was trained by Miss Havisham to break men's heart for retribution because a man broke hers. Valerie Hobson did not play Estella as a heart breaker at all. She actually played her as a flirt and as someone who genuinely likes Pip even though she doesn't feel the need to be with him. I don't know, maybe I am being hard on Hobson, but I thought her performance was a little flat for what Estella should have been. When I watched Jean Simmons' Estella, I was captivated. When I watched Valerie Hobson's Estella, I was a little bored.

Of course, having said all that, she did crush Pip's heart. I loved the scene at Miss Havisham's house where Estella tells Pip that she is going to marry someone else. She tells him, "You will get me out of your thoughts in a week." The reason I loved this is the layers of complexity of her saying something so poignant with Miss Havisham behind her, in the room that has become a monument to her own heart break. She is even wearing the wedding dress that she was never married in, all those years later. Miss Havisham certainly didn't get her betrothed out of her thoughts in a week. Yet, Miss Havisham looks on, saying nothing as if proud that her revenge is being exacted on the male population.

There are a few other brief, interesting things to mention. Alec Guinness was in one of his earliest talking roles in this film as Herbert Pocket. That was a nice surprise for me - I had no idea. Also, towards the beginning, there was a scene with talking cows. Now, I watched this on TCM and I was tired, I am beginning to think I dreamt this part. Were there talking cows and if so, why? That seems like a terribly strange thing to throw into this kind of movie. I am not sure what the motivation was behind that. Any ideas?

I definitely think this is a great, great film. Well, aside from talking cows, if there was such a thing. Maybe I was just hungry? :-) Seriously, the black and white, gorgeous cinematography alone makes it worth the two hours. It is like moving art on screen. The story, is a great story. You can't do much better than Dickens with his twists and turns of the plot. Also, most of the performances are very strong. The characters themselves are terribly interesting and complex. When you are in the mood for a good drama, do yourself a favor and give this one a chance.

Female (1933)

2008-12-02T22:24:00.008-05:00

I will start out by saying I loved that they explored gender role reversal in 1933. They put a woman as a top executive in a male dominated field (which most everything was then). Not only did they have her working in a man's role, but they showed her acting like a man in her personal life. What a freakin' awesome statement and progressive movie in 1933!! Of course, there are flaws which we will discuss, but I guess we will take what we can get.

Ruth Chatterton longing for a vodka-hazed man

The general idea of the movie is Alison Drake (Ruth Chatterton) is the owner of an automobile factory. She works hard like a man and plays hard like a man. She uses her attractive male employees as evening entertainment until they profess feelings for her. Then she has the lovelorn transferred far away so as not to annoy her with their insipid feelings and grotesque gestures. Of course, as you might guess, she runs into a newly hired engineer named Jim Thorne (George Brent) who does not come when she gives the come hither look. From that point on it is a battle of wills, but who's will is strongest?

One of my favorite scenes was the seduction of poor old Cooper. After plying him with vodka and being all sweet and feminine, he had no chance. She asks him, "Are you naturally enthusiastic?" followed with a toss of a pillow on the floor, a twinkle in her eye and a wry smile. Oh, she was one saucy minx!

I have to say that I find it fascinating that according to her birth date on imdb.com - she was 40 when she made this movie!! She looked fabulous. We talk about how 40 is the new 30 now, well, apparently it was then too. Not only that, but I think I admire the bravery of the movie even more to show a sexy 40 year old cavorting around with young men.

At one point Alison says, "You know, a long time ago, I decided to travel the same open road that men travel. So I treat men the exact way they've treated women." Mighty bold Miss Alison.

I also love the scene where her she is in misery because her male secretary professes his love. This scene is great for several reasons. The first reason is Pettigrew, her assistant, played by Ferdinand Gottschalk. I noticed him earlier, but his cheekiness won me over here. As her secretary sits there, she tells Pettigrew that the secretary, Briggs, must be transferred to Montreal immediately and to make the arrangements. Pettigrew, knowing exactly why he must be transferred, delights in tormenting him with a sing-song "Ohhhhhhh ... does Mr. Briggs WANT to go to Montreal?" The second reason I loved this scene is for her edict that she will only have a sensible female secretary from then on. She asks Pettigrew to line up interviews with sensible woman and says, "And remember, it takes more than flat heels and glasses to make a sensible woman."

I really enjoyed George Brent in his role as well. Jim Thorpe tried desperately to avoid the vodka trap she laid out for him while being stern and maintaining his dignity. I think I have seen George Brent in two movies now and both times I thought he was a bit stiff in his performance at first. I am not sure if that is by his design or if I am not used to him as an actor yet. It took no time for me to definitely appreciate him. I especially loved when he was working on the automatic transmission and that cute curl of hair fell across his forehead. I am always a goner for that look. :-)

Before I get to the joke they called the ending, I will add that I thought it odd that Ruth Chatterton spent most of her time naked, kinda. I am not talking about the bedroom type scenes. They had that poor woman take two or three showers during this short one hour movie! What exactly was up with that? She must have been the cleanest, dirty girl out there in the 30s :-)

Now, I need to discuss two parts about the ending. So if you haven't seen it and don't want to see the ending, please skip all this.

********************************SPOILERS***********************************

The part that I was a bit confused about was when Alison broke down in the directors meeting and ran to her office. Pettigrew said to her that he had been expecting that to happen. Basically because, "You are just a woman after all (so you can't run a big business you silly little thing)". I felt betrayed by Pettigrew since he seemed to really support Alison. He seemed to be pretty proud of her and how tough she was. I have to admit, I quickly thought of him as a toadie and got pretty angry with him being supportive one minute and sexist to her the next. Then, after a bit of reflection, I began to think about why he said that to her. I started to think that maybe he was just trying to goad her into bucking up and charging back in there like a strong woman. What does anyone else think about that scene? I thought he was goading her because in the next scene when she ran out to go chase her man, he acted terribly upset. If he really were sexist and wanted to see her out of the comapny, he would have been thrilled to she her chasing a man down. So, that makes me think he wasn't being sexist, just trying to get her back on track. Anyone have thoughts about this?

Lastly, the dreadful end of the movie. I hated it. HATED IT. I definitely support a woman's right to choose to stay at home just like I support a woman's right to choose to have a career. That is what feminism is all about to me - having the right to do what you want for yourself. The reason I **HATED** the ending is because it seemed like such a sexist cop out! It is totally unrealistic to me that she would be happy to just be subservient to her man and play house while he goes off and runs her company. It was such a drastic change that it makes no logical sense. If they had simply left it with her running the company and him doing great engineering work that made the company successful too, it would have been brilliant. What a team they would have been! I am not sure if the censors forced this kind of an ending on them (like in the cut version of "Baby Face" with the bad ending) or if the studio was afraid of public opinion or what exactly motivated this, but it shouldn't have been done that way. End of story.

*******************************END SPOILERS*********************************

Even though I SERIOUSLY hated the ending, I would still say this is a very worthwhile movie. Just watching a woman in a power position in the 1930s makes it worth watching, despite the "bite the big wiener" ending.

Wife Vs. Secretary (1936)

2008-12-02T17:29:00.007-05:00

Myrna Loy, Jean Harlow, Jimmy Stewart ... and oh yeah, Clark Gable ... how could this movie go wrong? Well, it really doesn't. This is a very enjoyable drama with a lot of light moments thrown in for good measure.

With Jean Harlow on his right and Myrna Loy on his left, Clark Gable is a very lucky man

The basic plot is as follows: Gable, as Van Stanhope, is a millionaire magazine publisher. He is married to Linda (Myrna Loy) and the beginning of the movie portrays their loving and happy marriage. However, after a few suspicious incidents occur between Van and his beautiful secretary named Whitey (Jean Harlow) friends and family begin to plant seeds of doubt in Linda's mind where there never was any before. Even though Whitey has a boyfriend named Dave (Jimmy Stewart) it doesn't take long for the audience to wonder if she might harbor secret feelings for her boss as well.

I really enjoyed this film. I am not a big fan of Gable, but he didn't look as oily (or whatever it is) as he usually does to me. In fact, in this movie he actually looked handsome and came off as charming without the usual "roguish" adjective attached somewhere. Myrna was, as she always is, a breath of fresh air. In the early scenes of the film she is cute as a button teasing Gable. Harlow is breath taking, as always. I have to say it was a surprise to see Jimmy in such an early role. He looked like a baby! There is something so cute about how boyish and unsure of himself he seems.

I have a few favorite scenes from this film. I already mentioned the beginning of the movie with the interactions between Gable and Loy. They actually have great chemistry together and it is sweet to watch. I also loved the scene at the anniversary party where Harlow dances by with Gable and an older man quips, "Gentlemen, I fear that even I could give that little lady dictation". I was on the floor laughing over that line. Great, great line. I also loved the ice skating scene only because it was fun to watch Jimmy Stewart get completely eaten up with jealousy.

One of the scenes I totally didn't understand was towards the end when Whitey goes to Linda's stateroom on the cruise liner to tell her how she feels about Van. If Whitey really wanted him all for herself, why even talk to Linda when Linda is obviously out of the picture at that time? Only two scenarios would come from Whitey going to talk to Linda: 1) Hearing Whitey talk about what a great man Van is would make her want to run back to him. 2) Linda thinking Whitey is a liar and chooses to ignore her and continue down the path of leaving her husband. It appeared that Linda was going to leave Van anyway, so was there any real upside in Whitey talking to Linda? Was she trying to clear her conscious in some way so she wouldn't feel like she stole him from Linda? I will add that I was secretly hoping for a third scenario that would end up in a good old-fashioned cat fight, but really, I don't think it would have been a good fit for the movie. I just love the hilarity of a good cat fight. Call me crazy. :-)

I also found it ironic that Dave tells Whitey he is sorry for his jealousy and launches into this speech about how there wouldn't be any problems if couples just trusted each other. I thought it ironic because just hours before, Whitey was making it clear to Linda that if she gets the chance to be with Van, she will. In other words, she would have dumped Dave faster than you could say "bye-bye". Was it meant to be ironic or was there some other moralistic message there?

All in all, I definitely recommend watching this one too. The women will love watching how cute and in love Van and Linda are in the beginning of the movie. Of course, the men will enjoy watching Harlow swinging her hips around the office like it is a new Olympic sport.

When Did You Last See Your Father? (2007)

2008-12-01T21:51:00.005-05:00

This movie is based off the novel by Blake Morrison about how he comes to grips from the point that he learns his Dad only has a few weeks to live. He returns to his childhood home to help his Mom care for his Dad and, in his own way, to make peace with their relationship. Blake is played by Colin Firth and his dad is played by Jim Broadbent.

Jim Broadbent and Colin Firth both give two very strong performances in "When Did You Last See Your Father?"

I really liked that this was overwhelmingly, an unsentimental film. The film established and explored Blake and his Dad's relationship through a series of flashbacks. The flashbacks followed the relationship arc with Blake as a child, believing his dad could do no wrong, to Blake as a teenager thinking he wished his father were dead. It showed the Dad as a truly flawed human being. I loved the almost constant use of mirrors and reflections from the point that Blake returned to his childhood home to be with his Dad before he died. The symbolism is obvious as he reflects over the memories of the past.

The problem with the film is that it has all been done before. That may sound callous, but this is a pretty common story without any unearthed themes. I will concede that the amazing acting by Colin Firth and Jim Broadbent does make this one top-notch from the pack. Colin plays his cards close to the vest as he typically does in roles, but he finishes with a super-emotional scene that would water the eyes of even the coldest of us all. Jim Broadbent delivers an amazing performance throughout. I have always adored him as a wonderful character actor and adore him even more after seeing this.

I would say this film is definitely worth watching for the amazing, strong performances of Broadbent and Firth. Just remember that it is a slow, emotional drama so not for the faint of heart, so to speak. Also, another reason to watch this film might be a bit personal, but I will share anyway. It is this: watching Mr. Darcy naked and, uhmm, enjoying himself in a bathtub definitely made it worthwhile. I know, I am a naughty girl :-)

Twentieth Century (1934)

2008-11-30T12:24:00.006-05:00

This one came on TCM while I was drinking some coffee this morning and it seemed like a delightful way to start the morning.

The movie centers around an egotistical Broadway director named Oscar Jaffe (John Barrymore) who finds and cultivates a new theatrical star in the form of a lingerie model named Lily Garland (Carole Lombard). He takes on the role of mentor and in the process totally plays her like a violin. The young, naive Lily, of course, falls for him. Over time, the Svengali loses control of his puppet as she becomes more like a female version of himself. She develops her own ego issues and (gasp) independent thought which puts her at odds with Jaffe. It doesn't take long for her to believe she can do much better than him and the theatre life. They part, but of course, it is not the last time they see each other. They run into each other aboard the Twentieth Century Limited.

Carole Lombard and John Barrymore before she decides she can do better :-)

I have to admit, I knew nothing about this movie and when I started watching, I was really taken aback. First, at how dreadful Lombard is in her performance as an actress (with the play within a play). Then I realized she was supposed to be terrible so Jaffe could polish her up. Secondly, I was shocked at how much Barrymore completely overacted every second of his performance! I mean, he did the most expansive, over-the-top, hammed up (Jewish people wouldn't even watch due to Kosher laws) and I couldn't imagine why Hawks didn't tone him down a little. Then, maybe 15 minutes in, it dawned on me. Overacting was the whole point. Oscar Jaffe is SUPPOSED to be this incredibly hammy person. That IS the character of Oscar Jaffe. Barrymore is actually spoofing himself as Oscar Jaffe. Duh. Brilliant.

After I understood what the point of it was, I really enjoyed the interactions between Jaffe and Lily. I am not sure if there was truly a love-type chemistry there, but they were wonderful in their roles. It is almost like watching a tennis match as they throw barbs back and forth, trying to out do the other. At one point Jaffe says a line that, I think, sums up their relationship. He says, "She loves me. I could tell that through her screaming."

I especially liked the supporting characters of Jaffe's two cronies, Owen O'Malley (Roscoe Karns) and Oliver Webb (Walter Connolly). They have some of the best lines in the whole movie and are hilarious from beginning to end. At one point, Jaffe shouts an empty threat of suicide, as he often does, and one of them quips, "He won't kill himself. It would please too many people." In fact, the whole script is fantastic. The writing is stupendous with great lines throughout. To be fair to Jaffe, he has some good ones at his cronies expense too. For example, "It’s typical of my career that in the great crises of life, I should stand flanked by two incompetent alcoholics!"

I always have weird observations or thoughts after watching a movie for the first time. For this one, I am surprised by what held my focus for one entire scene. On the train, at one point, Lombard is wearing a lightweight white turtleneck. I don't want to sound prudish, but I was surprised that she wasn't wearing a bra under it. I was completely mesmerized watching her, uhmm, assets getting in on the acting. Has anyone else noticed this and was it common to wear a sheer top without a bra in those days? I know it was common in certain dresses, but in a sheer turtleneck? Gosh, maybe I am a prude for even noticing and questioning it.

Also, I had the strangest deja vu watching this. At one point, early on, I saw John Barrymore as Gene Wilder in his Young Frankenstein performance. I mean, seriously, don't those two performances seem very similar? It was disconcerting for me when I realized this and I couldn't stop hearing Wilder's voice and seeing his face in place of Barrymore at various points in the movie.

I also like that this is one of the first screwball comedies. I think "It Happened One Night" gets the honor of being the first, but this was released in the same year. Considering this is a part of the beginning of the genre, this is a wonderful film to take in. I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys comedies, especially of the screwball variety.

Baby Face (1933)

2008-11-28T22:15:00.009-05:00

Let me start with how much I thoroughly loved this movie. What a treat. I am going to take a different path on this and make use of a wonderful review by my friend Jenny where she describes the plot much more cleverly than I could. So click here and read that first, don't forget to read the comments below, then we will get started dissecting the details I want to talk about. :-)

Stanwyck getting ready to adjust a man's attitude with a beer bottle

I love the tagline that is listed for this movie: "She climbed the ladder of success - wrong by wrong!" ha ha.

I wanted to focus this blog about the two different movie versions. The version that had been known to the world prior to 2004 was the original theatrical release. Meaning it is the version that was cut up by the New York State Board of Censors after they demanded many changes and cuts. In 2004, someone in the Library of Congress happened to notice that of the two reels of "Baby Face" one of the reels had more footage. They investigated and realized it was a duped copy of the movie as it was meant to be, prior to the censors getting their fingers in the mix. So, more than 70 years later, the pre-release version was found and finally viewed.

I find it really surprising the number of cuts and changes that were made. Yes, some of them seem rather obvious, but the number of cuts of seemingly rather innocuous lines surprised me. For anyone interested, click here for a document from Warner Brothers, detailing all the changes that were made due to censor demands. Don't worry, I will go over some of the more obvious ones if you don't want to click and read the whole document.

One of the most obvious cuts they would make is to what I affectionately call the "exploitation" scene where Cragg the cobbler tells Lily to use what she has. The un-cut version goes something like him saying: "Exploit yourself. Go to some big city where you will find opportunities. Use men. Be strong! Defiant. Use men to get the things you want." In the theatrical version it is: "There is a right and a wrong way. Remember the price of the wrong way is too great. Go to some big city where you will find opportunities. Don't let people mislead you. Be clean, be strong, be defiant and you will be a success." Pfft.

In the theatrical version, they also took out her "paying" her and Chico's way to ride in the rail car. It is a shame too because I really loved how Chico just smiled when she realized what Lily had in mind, and walked to the other end of the car singing a nice song.

Also, in the un-cut version, Cragg the cobbler sends her another Nietzsche book for Christmas. He calls her attention to this passage: "Face life as you find it, defiantly and unafraid. Waste no energy yearning for the moon. Crush out all sentiment." In the theatrical release, they instead show a written letter from Cragg chastising her for choosing "the wrong way". He tells her she needs to regain her self respect and use the book to guide her right. Of course, they never show any descriptor of the book that is supposed to guide her right as Nietzsche would not be the book they would have in mind.

The biggest difference is the ending. So yet again, if I haven't already completely spoiled it for you, the ending will be discussed so skip if you don't want it to be known.

**********************************SPOILER**************************************

In the un-cut version, the last scene is of Lily and Courtland in the ambulance where she says the money in the case doesn't matter and the EMT tells her he has a good chance.

In the theatrical version, they toss in the most absurd and depressing scene in the whole movie! The cut from the ambulance to the board of directors office at the bank. They make it clear that Courtland survived and that he and Lily are happy together. They say that Courtland and Lily gave up all their money and possessions to help get the bank running again. Then they moved to Pittsburgh so Courtland could be a steel mill worker.

Now, is it just me, but didn't she hate being across from the steel mills when she was in the speakeasy? Why on earth, now that she knows better, would she ever go back there? Even penniless they could have found opportunities elsewhere. It is the worst possible ending for Lily. I think she would have rather used Courtland's gun to put a bullet through her own brain instead of being dragged back to that horrible life.

******************************END SPOILERS********************************

I really loved everything about this movie except the part of Lily dumping Chico at the end. That seemed really unforgivable and unnecessary. I loved Stanwyck's gritty acting and bravery at playing such a bad girl. I love the emotion when she told her father what she thought of him. "Yeah, I'm a tramp, and who's to blame? My father. A swell start you gave me. Ever since I was 14, what's it been? Nothing but men! Dirty rotten men! And you're lower than any of them! I'll hate you as long as I live!"

It is interesting to see both versions back to back, but of course, I highly recommend the un-cut version. I can't believe such a great movie was cut up and ruined for so long. Shame on them.

The Lady in the Lake (1947)

2008-11-27T21:12:00.009-05:00

Well, I have said it before and I will say it again. The key to happiness is lowered expectations. After having watched "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" (1941) and being completely taken with Robert Montgomery in the movie, I dutifully looked for a movie I might have of his that I hadn't yet watched. Sure enough, I had a film noir, Philip Marlowe movie just waiting on me to get around to watching. You might guess that I was very excited about this and so ... unfortunately, expectations were high.

Robert Montgomery and Audrey Totter in "The Lady in the Lake"

"The Lady in the Lake" stars Robert Montgomery as Philip Marlowe and Audrey Totter as Adrienne Fromsett. Robert Montgomery actually did double duty in this, not only was he the star but also the director. Somehow, someone came up with a brilliant idea (sarcasm dripping here) to do this film totally in first person point of view. That means the audience sees everything from Philip Marlowe's eyes, i.e. the camera is Philip Marlowe. Aside from a few glimpses in mirrors and windows, we only see Philip Marlowe for a few minutes during prologues for scenes. (The fact that the movie needed prologues thrown in because of the complicated plot was an instant warning in and of itself.) So keep in mind, I watched this movie solely because Robert Montgomery was in it. Yet, even though he is the star - the protagonist of the film - he is only seen for maybe 5 minutes of the entire movie. Yay, me.

I can't believe I was suckered into two of these in a row. I went from "The Thomas Crowne Affair" (1968) movie gimmick of multi-image screen to the "Lady in the Lake" camera point of view movie gimmick. Both with disastrous results. I think the main problem in the "Lady in the Lake" is pacing. Since the filmmakers wanted to make it feel realistic for the audience, the camera slowly lumbered from marker to marker in what could only be described as an excruciating old lady's pace. They wanted to show Philip Marlowe getting out of a car and checking out a guy on the ground and hiding behind a fence. In what would take today's cameras 30 seconds to do, with the camera setups in the 1940s, it takes minutes which to, at least today's audience, feel like days.

The other disappointing thing is that ... and I really hate to say this ... but I really disliked Robert Montgomery as Philip Marlowe. That is hard to say given you only see him for 5 minutes. I think if we had actually seen him, I would have warmed up to him. As is, you only hear his dialogue and it doesn't sound like Robert Montgomery at all. It sounds more like Robert Montgomery imitating Humphrey Bogart because he thinks that is the way Philip Marlowe should sound. His delivery is terrible. Whereas Bogart comes across as a wise-cracker, Montgomery's dialogue comes off as obnoxious. I think, again, maybe if we had nonverbal clues via actually seeing Montgomery on film, it wouldn't have been as obnoxious, but as is, not so good.

The last point I want to make contains a spoiler. If you don't want to hear about the end of the movie, turn away now.

*********************************SPOILER**************************************

Even if the pacing were fixed, and even if Montgomery didn't try to imitate Bogart in a most obnoxious way, the other thing I truly hated about this movie was the Adrienne Fromsett character. So what if she wasn't the actual murderer? She still was a tramp trying to sleep her way to a million dollars while making sure the wife of the guy she was sleeping with stayed out of the picture. On top of that, when she told Philip Marlowe how much she cared for him and how she loved him, it was the most disingenuous speech I have ever heard. The entire time I was hoping he was just playing her to get info and then he would cut her loose. But at the end, he stays WITH the disingenuous, gold-digging tramp? Are you KIDDING ME? I actually threw a pillow at the TV screen at the end of the movie. Just ... I couldn't believe it.

******************************END SPOILERS***********************************

Before I close, I do want to say that I have seen the gimmicky, first person point of view thing work well in other movies. I will use the beginning of "Dark Passage" (1947) with Bogie and Bacall as an example, which happened to be released the same year. The camera portraying Bogart in first person point of view works brilliantly in the beginning. Not only that, but they have the good sense to ditch the gimmick so they can get the movie going faster than a turtle with a camera strapped to it's back.

My point being, it isn't just one thing in the movie - it is the whole movie. If you haven't guessed already, I really disliked this one. Take my advice and don't waste your time.

Remakes - Better The Second Time?

2008-11-23T16:23:00.005-05:00

I am not a classic movie expert, but a lot of my friends think I am, so I guess I play one in real life. It isn't my fault I pretend to be an expert. I am in my early 30s and it seems that most of my peer set have only watched b&w films under duress. By comparison, I am an expert even though I feel guilty for even using that term when compared to true experts like my dear friend Jenny.

So many times in day-to-day conversations with the classic movie clueless, I end up in the role of expert trying to get someone interested in watching one of those icky old movies. The easiest way, I think, is when someone raves about having seen some recent movie and I interject "Well, if you loved that, you really should see the original." Of course, they almost always have no idea the movie they had been raving about was a remake and we all know, the original is always better than the remake. Or is it?

With such wonderful actors - how could it all go so horribly wrong?

I bring this up because I watched the original, 1968, "Thomas Crowne Affair" on TCM today. Oy!! I had to force myself to stay with it. There were a few good scenes with Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway, but overall, the movie was hard to watch. It rambles on with the gimmicky multi-image screen that didn't work and was very distracting. The 1999 version is clever, focused and sexy as hell. Did I mention sexy as hell? I mean it. Yowser, and in a good way. Much better than the original.

So after the movie ended I started pondering, what movies were actually better the second time around? I decided to make a short list, in no particular order, and see if anyone wanted to add to it or disagree with me.

1) His Girl Friday (Oh yeah, I had to start with a Cary Grant one. Yippee!)

2) Ben-Hur

3) The Maltese Falcon

4) Scarface

5) The Thomas Crowne Affair

I can list a few more - mostly sci-fi or horror genre, but want to see what others anyone might want to toss out there. Anyone disagree about anything I listed? Chime in.

Once

2008-08-26T20:42:00.007-04:00

Okay, I totally admit it. Sometimes I am stupid about films. Sometimes I don't get why they are special. Sometimes ... I am totally lame.

Case in point - the movie "Once". As soon as this had been released on DVD, I rented it and watched it. I didn't know much about it other than it was supposed to be really amazing. I hate when someone tells me that about a film too because the key to happiness, I swear, is lowered expectations. After I watched this, I was like, wot? There was hardly any plot, the film looks like it was filmed in a day by an amateur and if there was a script it had to be a two page one because most of it was just music. Really good music, but still, music. Without plot. Which, I find a plot, you know, usually necessary. Especially in a movie.

Marketa Irglova and Glen Hansard

Fast-forward 8 months later and I came across this film again. If you haven't seen it, it is about a Czech girl and an Irish guy in Ireland. The guy, played by Glen Hansard, has kinda stalled in life and needs someone to give him a little push. The girl, played by Marketa Irglova, is the one who comes along to supply said push. That really is the entire plot of the movie.

Please keep in mind this is a REALLY independent film. By that, I mean, we are talking a budget of $150,000 and 17 days to shoot this. There are some shaky shots and while you watch it you are definitely aware that you are watching a really low-budget film. However, I think that is part of the charm of this. No studio would have ever let this film fly if they didn't stay SERIOUSLY under the radar - which was the filmmaker's strategy from the beginning with the ridiculously low budget.

So what makes it worth watching? The idea behind the film was to make a modern day musical for younger audiences. They didn't think actors breaking out into song would work on a young audience so they wove the music into what the movie was about. And the music alone is beautiful, moving and powerful. In fact, one of the songs from the movie won an Oscar. Then you add the main characters into the movie. The filmmaker wanted to make it all about the music so he decided to hire musicians instead of actors. He used long lenses to capture most of the shots at a distance because the cameras in the face of non-actors would be too distracting and intimidating. It was a brilliant way to do it. Both of the leads were already friends and their chemistry is great. The guy looks so vulnerable in scenes with her and the girl is so persistent and charming.

There are several scenes in this film that I really like. One is the 90 second, mostly ad-libbed song they use to sum up the guy's past relationship and how he got stalled in life. And he sings it on a bus. And it is funny. Another is when the guy and girl are talking and she reveals she is married and that her husband is still in the Czech Republic where she left him, yet he wants to come to Ireland to be with her. She is saying that she wants her daughter to grow up with her father too and she isn't sure what she should do. The guy asks her "Do you love him?" She answers him in Czech and refuses to translate it. I, of course, did a search and found out that she said "No. I love you." Which is both beautiful and perfect.

I see this as a story about friendship and how sometimes people drop into our lives at just the moment we need them. I am not sure why this is, but it has happened to me several times and it is always a wonderful gift.

And what is with the title, "Once"? The filmmaker says it references all the guys he knew that hung in the pubs in Ireland saying "Once I get my record deal" or "Once I get my own flat" or whatever. The guys who kept waiting for something to happen, but didn't do anything to make it happen. That is the way the guy in the film is and the girl pushes him past the "Once" type of thinking.

All around, for the resources it had, this was an underrated and brilliant film. But don't expect it to be amazing. It isn't amazing. It is brilliant in it's subtlety and yeah, I admit it, I was lame for not getting it the first time.

Guilt Flowers

2008-08-19T10:36:00.005-04:00

I received flowers the other day. No, not like the one pictured above. The one pictured above I bought for myself at a farmer's market a few weeks ago. The flowers I received the other day were what I call "Guilt Flowers" and are my least favorite to receive. I understand trying to say I am sorry through flowers as a gesture, but somehow the giver seems to think it is a quick fix and the receiver thinks "You slept with 20 women behind my back and you think a $40 flower arrangement will make it all better?" Yeeeeeah.

In the case of my flowers, they weren't from a boyfriend who had transgressed in some way. They were actually from a co-worker. I am sure this makes it an abnormality as far as the tradition of the guilt flowers go. I don't think co-workers usually buy each other flowers and have them delivered, but the story of why they bought me the flowers might be good for a chuckle.

I received an unsolicited instant message from the co-worker complaining about ... well, me. They ranted for a few sentences before I realized they actually thought they were talking to someone else and had sent the IM to the person that irked them instead of the person with which they wanted to vent. I asked them what they were talking about and they apologized and said they had meant to send it to another co-worker. So basically, I meant to talk about you behind your back and accidentally did it to your face. Oopsie.

Well, that was the first time. I let it slide.

Last week, you guessed it, I received another unsolicited instant message complaining about me ... again. This time, after I realized what had happened, I told them they had done it again. They immediately said they were sorry. I am sure they were. They were sorry they were stupid enough to do it again. I didn't let them have it, but I also didn't let it slide this time. I pointed out this was the second time in just a few weeks so that means a few things to me. 1) They talk about me behind my back a lot. 2) I must be doing a poor job in their opinion and am a poor teammate and would like to know how I can improve to make things better for them. I thought this was a better approach than just going off on them. Of course, they took the cowardly way out and said I was perfect and they were sorry.

My question here is how would you have handled it? Also, how do you look at the pretty flowers without seeing 'GUILT' written all over them? :-)