Too Hot To Handle (1938)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.