The General (1927)

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)

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.

A Place in the Sun (1951)

Abbynormal's Review of "A Place in the Sun" aka (in my world) "Make your holiday Death's holiday too" (Direct quote from the film, believe it or not)

Stunning Elizabeth Taylor and ... well, Montgomery Clift too

This film stars Elizabeth Taylor as Angela Vickers, Shelley Winters as Alice Tripp (not pictured here) and Montgomery Clift as George Eastman.

I have to tell you up front, that I am not much of a fan of Montgomery Clift. You may have guessed that from my captioning of the picture. I think it is because I don't find him even remotely attractive. I know, that is very shallow - I can't help it. It is my blog and I can be shallow if I want to. I think of him as an adult version of James Dean, but I realize that is very unfair to him. James Dean, I mean. I do believe Montgomery Clift to be a good actor, I just don't enjoy watching him do it. In this film, I would say he does a great job of fever acting. He acts by shaking and sweating a lot. Oh, and the ever popular brooding technique. I have never seen a more superior example of brooding while sweating and shaking. Marvelous. I am sure I have upset someone out there. All you Montgomery Clift fans, feel free to tell me off, er set me straight, and explain what you see that I don't see in him.

As for the film, from the moment George Eastman saw Angela Vickers speed by in her white convertible, he was a goner. An obsessive stalker was born. This is a classic love triangle story of sorts, brought about by a man's fantasy and loneliness. George loves Angela who epitomizes everything he wants out of life - wealth, position and glamour. George settles for Alice, in the meantime, who is frumpy, poor and plain. He settles out of loneliness as he believes Angela will never even notice him. Eventually, he does catch her eye (why, I don't know) and she even falls in love with him too (again, why?). This would be a happy ending and the realization of his fantasy if it weren't for that pesky Alice. Apparently, she managed to go and get herself pregnant by him and expects him to do the "right" thing. If he does not, she threatens to go to the papers with the story and scandalize his family. That is the setup of the movie in a nutshell. I will go no further with the plot as I do not wish to ruin it for anyone who has yet to see it.

One of the themes of this film is class division. George's parents were poor missionaries focused on religious gains instead of monetary gains. George has very little education, but has enough ambition to burn. He fantasizes of a rich, glamorous life like that of his Uncle and his family. This class division theme is so brilliantly setup by a long shot in the beginning of the movie (which I love) where the camera is behind the "well to do" Eastman family as George Eastman walks down a long corridor to enter the room and stand opposite them. "Them vs. George" or "Rich vs. Poor" is so clearly setup without a word being said. This theme of him trying to fit into rich society and trying to accepted by his Uncle's family and friends, while the dalliance with Alice drags him back to the lower class, is present throughout the entire film.

I pondered why he ever got involved with Alice anyway. I ran through theories of forbidden fruit since he was told he was not allowed to date any women that worked at his Uncle's factory where he was employed. In the end, I think it had less to do with forbidden fruit and more to do with simple loneliness. He had been in the town for months without a date and Angela, whom he was pining for, had yet to even notice him. From Alice's standpoint, I feel gutted for her in the beginning. Here is this poor working girl, just another face on a factory floor of dozens upon dozens of girls. Yet, the man whom she believes to be another rich Eastman, looks her way. He notices this plain and frumpy Alice and smiles at her. He even asks her out. Of all the girls, he picks her. I am sure this was intoxicating and for one of the few times in her life, she probably felt special. She believed his advances were sincere. Sadly, I think she was wrong. I believe he was just using her to fill the void till something better came along.

And boy, did something better come along (no offense intended towards Shelley Winters here). Elizabeth Taylor as Angela is just stunning. The camera eats her up. The film was shot in B&W to help hammer home the dark themes of the movie. Many of the scenes with Alice and George are done with heavy shadows. All of the scenes with George and Angela, on the other hand, are beautifully lit and gorgeous. The light on Angela's face makes her glow. Every time she appears, the film literally turns from dark to light. The scene where George professes his love to Angela and she does the same in return is breathtakingly romantic and not to be missed - even if it is Montgomery Clift instead of, say, Cary Grant. :-)

Towards the end though, my sympathy stays strong with the beautiful Angela. She accepted this lower class man, fell in love with him and did absolutely nothing wrong. My sympathy for Alice waned a bit when she went from just being a sad character to being a shrill, demanding and desperate woman who decides to blackmail to get what she wants. I understand that she is in a terrible spot, but still, by the end of the scene where she threatens him and is such a witch - I too just wanted her to go away and so we could get back to the charm of Angela. As for George, well, I never had much sympathy for George so I never lost or gained any there.

I believe if you like a movie, one viewing is not nearly enough. Upon first viewing, if you are like me, you are in total plot lust. You are dying to know what happens next, almost to the exclusion of being able to pay attention to anything else other than .. what's going to happen? Upon second viewing, you can calm down a bit and begin to enjoy all of the parts of the film, not just the plot. For instance, if you already know the arc the characters are going to take, you can enjoy watching masterful actors use their skill to get there. Also, you can pay more attention to how shots are set up and notice those nuggets in a movie that make it great, that you couldn't possibly even recognize on the first viewing. An example from "A Place in the Sun" would be, for instance, a foreshadowing device. There are many of these sprinkled through the film, but my favorite has to be the Ophelia painting on the wall in George's room at the boarding house. I love that painting and I love the use of it in this film.

My last though on this film is not one that is originally mine and I won't dissect it too much. I wanted to briefly point out how much I love that "The Talented Mr. Ripley" seems to be so closely tied to the themes of this movie. If you have seen both, I think you will see what I mean.

In summary, if you haven't already guessed, I highly recommend this film. It has it all - drama, romance, suspense - so it has a little bit of something for everyone.

Now, discuss :-)