Angel On My Shoulder

Angel On My Shoulder
1946 - United Artists
Directed By Archie Mayo



SYNOPSIS

As soon as gangster Eddie (Paul Muni) is fresh out of prison, he's bumped off by his partner. He finds himself in hell and befriended by a guy named Nick (Claude Rains.) Nick offers him a way back to Earth. He must impersonate and ruin a look-a-like judge. Upon meeting the judge's fiance (Anne Baxter) Eddie has a change of heart and realizes Nick is more than just a minion of hell... he's the boss!



MY THOUGHTS

An enjoyable, entertaining fantasy with some classic actors doing what they do best.

The film is a comedy, but apart from a few good one liners, but is more amusing than hilarious.

Angel On My Shoulder clearly has a low budget. The 'ghost' effects are simple. Hell is also simply shot. It's very very dark and shadowy, except for fire and smoke. It's more of an impressionistic version of hell then we would see if the film were made today with CGI technology. This low-tech, cheap approach doesn't affect the film's quality. It forces your focus toward the actors.

The three lead performances are strong, and are cast to type. Claude Rains is the standout. He's perfectly cast as the devil... probably the best actor ever I could think of for the role. He brings humor, a twinkle in the eye, along with a fair share of menace to the role.

Muni is sympathetic, even though we know initially he's a bad guy. He becomes even more so as he transforms into a good guy and makes the important decision at the film's climax. The role doesn't need his dramatic chops that he showed in Scarface, The Life of Emile Zola, or I Am a Fugitive From A Chain Gang, but he is great and the performance is nearly as strong as those benchmarks.

Anne Baxter initially seems like a weak choice, but the more you get to know her character, the more you feel for her.

Nothing else about the film is unusual or groundbreaking. The familiarity of everything is comforting, without it feeling like you've 'been there, done that.' The film still holds up well over 60 years later.

ThanksKilling

ThanksKilling
2009
Directed By Jordan Downey



SYNOPSIS

5 college students head home to their small town for Thanksgiving break. A homicidal, trash-talking turkey, who appears every 505 years, targets the group and makes their lives a living hell.



MY THOUGHTS

With a premise like that, you should clearly expect a budget of $100 million and tons of A-list talent fighting each other for the roles.

OK, so that's not the case. You can pick all the change out of your pocket, subtract 50 cents and that's the budget here. Also, fill the screen with people who clearly have never acted before, and a cliche-ridden script and you have a recipe for disaster.

But sometimes despite all those factors, something genius can still be created.

The amazingly absurd script left me choking with laughter at several occasions.
After killing one of the girl's father, the turkey clearly has ripped off the man's face and is wearing it as a mask. When the girl arrives home, she doesn't even realize her tall father is now the size of a turkey (and has feathers) and treats him as she normally would. She introduces her friends to him and no one acts the wiser.
It's too absurd to be believable, but then again a talking axe-and-shotgun-wielding turkey is also somewhat unbelievable.
ThanksKilling is like the most demented Looney Tunes cartoon with a serious drug habit.

The humor is ever further out there than many of the great cheesy b-horror comedies of the 1980's and 90's like Killer Klowns From Outer Space, Leprechaun, or the Ghoulies films. ThanksKilling adds those film's cheesy campy humor with its absurd mix of silliness to create something unique and WAY over the top.

The turkey is clearly a puppet (see the poster above,) as articulate as Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, with an even filthier mouth. He isn't as funny as Triumph, but more sadistic and offers many laughs. The sex scene between the turkey and one of the girls is priceless.

The main five characters are heavily stereotyped in the Breakfast Club style. The jock, the fat hick, the nerd, the skank, and the girl next door type. The characters remain broad caricatures throughout the film, so it's hard to feel for them, yet they feel little anyway. Most of their families are killed, but they show little emotion towards them. That's most likely a result of the script and not the performances, which are uniformly bad, but fit in perfectly with the overall goofiness of the film.

For such an obvious low budget, the gore makeup is surprisingly excellent and could possibly turn the stomach of some viewers.

If you're looking for genuine scares or astonishingly deep performances from accomplished actors, please look elsewhere. This is the complete opposite. This is clearly made for fans of so-bad-it's-good horror films... and is brilliant despite its flaws.

Following

Following
1998
Directed By Christopher Nolan



SYNOPSIS

Bill (Jeremy Theobald) is an aspiring writer and enjoys following random people on the streets. He follows Cobb (Alex Haw) who confronts him. Cobb is a burglar and the two soon become partners in crime. But Cobb is not be on the level, and Bill is secretly being set up.



MY THOUGHTS

The first feature film by Christopher Nolan shows a major new talent in the making.

Nolan would soon bring Memento, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight to the big screen.
Following is done on a much, much smaller budget but is just as riveting and entertaining as those films.

The film is just as dark and clever as Memento, but told in a much more conventional style, making it easier to follow on a first viewing. The film does jump a bit in time, but this is resolved quickly and doesn't become too confusing.
It was ironic to see one of the flats the duo robbed had a Batman bat-logo on the front door, knowing Nolan's future.

The acting is solid and the music greatly adds to the tense atmosphere to many scenes.

Overall, a very exciting and intriguing movie.

Up For Grabs

Up For Grabs
2004
Directed By Michael Wranovics



SYNOPSIS

The biggest battle in baseball history wasn't fought on the field, but in a courtroom. The two men who claim to own Barry Bonds' record-breaking 73rd home run duke it out in court to see who's the rightful owner.



MY THOUGHTS

An excellent documentary that shows the dark side of capitalism and sports.

The two men, Alex Popov and Patrick Hayashi, are clearly portrayed as the fools and idiots that they are. Both were clearly not true fans of baseball and were there at PacBell Park on that fateful day just to make a million bucks. As a result of the court case, one was left deep in debt and the other with just a small profit. Avoiding trial would have made them both rich, but they were so pigheaded

The story took hold of the media, even as U.S. troops began their fight in Afghanistan, and as it went to trial, even overshadowed Bonds and the Giants playing in the World Series. Several journalists are interviewed and realize the absurdity of it all.

The film is very entertaining and straightforward. It did not overly paint either man as a good or bad person and had interviews with journalists, witnesses, the judge, and others who provided a balanced opinion of them. That's much different than a one-sided Michael Moore-type documentary. Popov and Hayashi are the ones that paint themselves as greedy and self-absorbed.

Baseball's history plays such an important part in it's present. The filmmakers also interview other home run catchers, like the men who caught Roger Maris' 61st homer, Mark McGwire's 70th, and several of Bonds' other historic homers from 2001. Those men seem like normal guys who just happened to catch a ball, unlike the two greedy bastards seen here. It's a real testament to how American values and culture were once a little bit higher in the toilet water as it circles the drain.

The documentary is at time hilarious and often ridiculous... and highly entertaining.

This film is not available on DVD.

The Accused

The Accused
1949 - Paramount
Directed By William Dieterle



SYNOPSIS

Psychology Professor Wilma Tuttle (Loretta Young) misses her bus ride home and gets a ride from an amorous student (Douglas Dick.) When he later parks and tries to get fresh with her, she kills him in self defense but doesn't come forward. Detectives aren't sure who committed the murder, but soon piece it together and Tuttle may face charges. This may hinder her budding romance with a lawyer (Robert Cummings.)



MY THOUGHTS

A better script would have set The Accused free from prosecution.

The script doesn't really deliver. It's not bad, but flawed. The fact we see Tuttle kill her student in self defense early on does hurt much of the suspense. There's no way she would get the chair or even much prison time even if facing charges for not coming forward to the cops with the facts.

The film does build suspense as it moves along, but more at a slow boil than your average thriller. There's no big chase or gun play that brings the action to a head. The action is more internal, a la the psychology theme. This makes The Accused far less of a visceral experience. Suspense films by Hitchcock and others are far more successful by having more action, or combining action with internal struggles to make a more complex and exciting film.

Also I feel like the film's been done before many times, before and since, though I can't name any other instances. It all felt too familiar and didn't offer any thing new.

The Accused, because of it's subject content and how it was shot, should be labeled a film noir, but it also offers nothing new in that way either.

Still, despite it's flaws, it remains an interesting and somewhat entertaining film.

This film is not available on DVD.

Ride In The Whirlwind

Ride In The Whirlwind
1966
Directed By Monte Hellman



SYNOPSIS

Three cowhands (Cameron Mitchell, Jack Nicholson, Tom Filer) are headed to Texas. They stop and camp near a group of outlaws who just robbed a stagecoach. When a posse shows up the next morning, the cowhands are mistaken for being in the gang. The posse relentlessly pursues the cowhands hoping they hang from a rope.



MY THOUGHTS

An unusual B-movie western.

The script was written by Jack Nicholson (who also produced.) This was made as he still worked in several B-movies for director Roger Corman... and a few years before he became a superstar.
His script does avoid many cliches of the genre. There are no real heroes and no real villains. Every character, from the cowhands, to the posse, to the thieves, to the family, are just trying to survive in the harsh world. You could almost call the film 'artsy' but it completely lacks any pretentiousness.
This slow placed film is far from Nicholson's next two writing assignments as you could get... the very psychedelic drug films The Trip (starring Peter Fonda) and Head (starring The Monkees.)

The acting from all involved could be mistaken for being wooden. They play men who live off the land, not fancy talkers, so the performances fit. Always great character actor Harry Dean Stanton shines as Blind Dick, the leader of the outlaws. His role is really the only charismatic character in the film.

Ride In The Whirlwind is an offbeat and unique western.

Odd Man Out

Odd Man Out
1947- England
Directed By Carol Reed



SYNOPSIS

A secret Irish rebel organization executes a daring robbery on a mill. It doesn't go so well, as leader Johnny McQueen (James Mason) kills a man, is shot and severely wounded, and separated from his comrades. In great pain, he makes it from hiding place to hiding place as the police close in, searching for their man.



MY THOUGHTS

Director Carol Reed is best known for his masterful film, The Third Man. Odd Man Out is not in the same league, but is still a very entertaining film.

The films are shot similarly, with a high contrast between light and shadow, creating the perfect moody, atmospheric look of a film noir in an urban landscape.
Die hard purists would discount this movie as a film noir, being that it is not American, but it fits as one just as much as The Third Man does.

The script remains exciting even though you expect the outcome almost from the start. A wounded man has little chance of evading a vast police force that has virtually locked down Belfast, even with help from citizens. The constant chase between the cops and Johnny is often reminiscent of the final moments of The Third Man, as the police pursue Orson Welles' character.

It's not made clear what organization Johnny is a member of, but you could assume it's the IRA, even though there's no mention of that name, or any reference to the politics of why the group is operating. It's not really necessary after the robbery is committed.
The film does delve into social and religious issues in addition to the limited political themes, giving it much more depth than the average film.

Johnny is not sympathetic, having killed, but you feel for him, much like many of the townspeople who offer assistance. They do so not because of politics, but because of compassion.
Much of this sympathy is due to James Mason's excellent performance. You can see just how much pain Johnny is in, even when he tries to hide it, by looking into Mason's eyes. It's very real and believable.
Mason considered this his best performance, and the finest film he did.

The film is not currently available of DVD. This is a shame.

As You Like It

As You Like It
1936 - 20th Century Fox
Directed By Paul Czinner



SYNOPSIS

An evil duke takes his brother's land and exiles his family. The banished duke's daughter Rosalind (Elisabeth Bergner) stays with the evil duke's daughter Celia. Rosalind gets banished and Celia and her flee the palace for the woods. They run into Orlando (Lawrence Olivier,) who Rosalind has fallen for. Rosalind, however, has disguised herself as a man and cannot pursue Orlando directly. But he has family problems of his own to contend with. Will they find happiness?



MY THOUGHTS

This should have been called As You Hate It.

You can't fault the script. It was William Shakespeare after all, adapted for the screen by J.M. Barrie, author of Peter Pan. But the real problems stem from the direction and actors.

The direction is boring, like it was shooting a stage performance of the play. The camera occasionally moves. The camera only moves in for a closeup when an actor is alone, or delivers a long soliloquy.

Laurence Olivier stars as Orlando. He's the actor/filmmaker most associated with Shakespeare on the big screen. This was his first film of the bard's work. He's the least offensive of the performers, though even he is guilty of some of their same traits.

The rest of the actors prance about pompously in a VERY hammy theatrical style. Their smugness really shines anytime they give a soliloquy and all attention turns to them and they get a generous closeup. They deliver every word like it was the most important and profound thing ever said. It becomes obnoxious after 5 minutes... and intolerable after an hour and a half.

Elisabeth Bergner (as Rosalind) is a big offender. She looks and sounds like she's doing a bad Greta Garbo impression, even as she's trying to impersonate a man. No one even guesses this very feminine person is actually a woman. It's on par with Lois Lane not realizing Clark Kent and Superman are one in the same.

I truly wished that this was one of Shakespeare's tragedies, instead of a comedy, so every character would suffer a very painful death at the end... but this sadly didn't happen.

Bullets Or Ballots

Bullets Or Ballots
1936 - Warner Brothers
Directed By William Keighley



SYNOPSIS

Disgraced former police detective Johnny Blake (Edward G. Robinson) decides to change sides and become involved in the numbers racket. He joins the mob of Al Krueger (Barton MacLane.) When Krueger is bumped off by his #2 'Bugs' Fenner (Humphrey Bogart,) Blake ascends to the top. But Fenner isn't sure Blake ever left the police department.



MY THOUGHTS

An entertaining gangster film that's boosted by many great performances.

Edward G. Robinson is as highly charismatic as he was in his breakthrough role in Little Caesar, though here he's a good guy. Always fun to watch,

The female roles are far different from the usual molls in every other gangster film
Joan Blondell is a big player in the numbers racket... and Robinson's sort-of love interest. You rarely see women as tough gangsters in this era.
Louise Beavers, her black maid, is practically running the racket along side of Blondell as equals, which is very unusual and progressive for the time.

Humphrey Bogart plays one of his best supporting gangster thugs of his pre-fame career. He's intense and frightening.... not a guy you'd ever want to meet.

The film is just as fast moving and economically shot as all the other films of Warner's gangster film cycle of the 30's and 40's. It's not as good as the best, like Angels With Dirty Faces or White Heat, but Bullets or Ballots is solid entertainment.

My Man Godfrey

My Man Godfrey
1936 - Universal
Directed By Gregory La Cava



SYNOPSIS

An easy-going bum named Godfrey (William Powell) is plucked from living at the city dump by a ditsy socialite Irene Bullock (Carole Lombard) and given a job as a butler at her eccentric family's mansion. But there's more to Godfrey than meets the eye.



MY THOUGHTS

My Man Godfrey shouldn't be considered at the top of the heap of screwball comedies, like Bringing Up Baby, It Happened One Night, or the work of director Preston Sturges, but is still an entertaining romp.

William Powell is excellent as Godfrey, the 'straight man' to the crazy family. Carole Lombard is also great as Irene.
Her family is almost too out-there to be real, but then again screwball comedies tend to be a little more surreal. Lombard and her fellow Bullocks: Alice Brady, Gail Patrick, and Eugene Pallette have great chemistry and function just like a real (extremely dysfunctional) family.

It is clever how the film makes out the rich to be little more than children mentally, while the poor are more sophisticated and adult. That probably set well with the Depression-era audiences.

The script is somewhat predictable, but contains some surprises, like how Godfrey uses his money.
I was expecting some bigger laughs than My Man Godfrey delivered. The film did remain silly and fast paced throughout... and is still a treat to watch more than 70 years after it was released.

Foreign Correspondent

Foreign Correspondent
1940 - Walter Wanger Productions/United Artists
Directed By Alfred Hitchcock



SYNOPSIS

On the eve of World War II, a New York crime reporter (Joel McCrea) is sent overseas to dig up anything he can on the coming conflict. He soon finds himself in over his head, wrapped up in an organization seeking peace... that is really a front for enemy agents.



MY THOUGHTS

Another masterpiece from the master!

You get all the usual touches from a Hitchcock film here. Great camera angles, strong musical score, great editing, suspense, all with a wry sense of humor.

This time Hitch's 'everyman' hero is played by Joel McCrea. He's as good as James Stewart, Cary Grant and all the others who played the Average Joe who gets caught up in a big mess. The supporting players are all top notch as well and everyone gels well together. It's hard to single out a standout performance (or even a weak one,) as they are all equally well done.

The plot is a bit complicated, with many twists and turns, but is never confusing. In a lesser film maker's hands it could have been a mess. The suspense and intrigue build more and more with each successive scene without ever letting up steam (or giving the viewer a chance to breathe!)... and it all builds to an impressive climax.
The climactic scenes aboard the airplane are the best I've ever seen of an impending crash. It's one of the most suspenseful 'edge of the seat' sequences in Hitchcock's entire career (and that's really saying something!)

Foreign Correspondent features one of Hitchcock's most overt political messages. The concluding "America is the last hope" speech and playing the "Star Spangled Banner" during the closing credits are almost done over-the-top, but really aren't much different from many other films from the World War II era, though this predates the U.S. entry into the war.

The film was Hitchcock's second film after coming to America (to avoid the upcoming chaos.) His first film, Rebecca, won Best Picture. Foreign Correspondent is equal to or even better than that film. It's not one of Hitchcock's most known films, but is definitely worth seeking out. You cannot go wrong.

I Wake Up Screaming

I Wake Up Screaming
1941 - 20th Century Fox
Directed By H. Bruce Humberstone



SYNOPSIS

When up and coming model/ actress Vicky Lynn (Carole Landis) is murdered, her former agent Frankie Christopher (Victor Mature) is accused. Police release him for lack of evidence, and he sets out to find the real killer. Along the way, Christopher falls in love with the model's sister Jill (Betty Grable) and is followed by a sinister police inspector (Laird Cregar) who's sure he did it.



MY THOUGHTS

One of the earliest film noirs is a very exciting whodunit.

The film was released just 2 weeks after The Maltese Falcon, the film considered the first true film noir, and the two couldn't be more different. A pivotal supporting role from Elisha Cook Jr. is really the only thing the two have in common, apart a common theme of obsession. Here, Vicky Lynn is the center of the obsession (much like the Maltese Falcon itself.) Mature and Grable's characters have their own different ways they show that obsession as do the police inspector, the has-been actor and the newspaper columnist.

Laird Creger is the standout performance of the film. His soft-spoken yet creepy and sinister voice emanating from such a huge body adds menace and weight (no pun intended, well maybe a little) to the film. He's reminiscent of a late-career Marlon Brando, just not as aloof.

The visuals are primo film noir. The use of shadows (crucial to the noir style) are effectively used here, especially during the interrogation scenes, and when Christopher is hiding near the climax, waiting for the killer to reveal himself. Interesting camera angles also add some uniqueness to the storytelling.

The script was based on a book and uses flashback which was rare for films of the era. Citizen Kane is often considered the first film to feature flashbacks and was released just 6 months prior to this.
The film does sag a bit in the second half, as it turns to a love story. The film runs less than 1:30, so it doesn't sag for too long and the film is over before the love story drifts into sappiness. It would have been a better if the love story was muted a bit and the filmmakers focused more on the cat and mouse game between Frankie Christopher and the cops.

The title is misleading and would fit a horror film much better than this one. No one screams. However, Victor Mature does wake up in one scene. But, the title is catchy and does draw interest.

It may not be one of the most well-known film noirs, but I Wake Up Screaming is a solidly entertaining film and should be sought out by noir fans.

Vampyr

Vampyr
1932 - Germany
Directed By Carl Theodore Dreyer



SYNOPSIS

Allan (Julian West) is an occult fanatic. He stays at an old inn and is approached by an old man. The man warns that a sickly woman must not die and presents Allan with a package to be opened upon the man's death. He soon turns up dead. Allan opens the package to find a book about vampires, and he starts to realize what's plaguing the sickly woman and all the strange things he's been seeing around the tiny town.



MY THOUGHTS

A masterpiece of early horror, Vampyr is a visual delight.

The film has much more in common with the classic German Expressionist horror classics like Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, than with more contemporary horror films of the time like Dracula and Frankenstein.

The film is not silent but it uses very limited dialogue and some sound effects to help tell the story. Title cards are used to great effect like as in silent films. Other than those, the images are all there is to tell the story.

Vampyr has some genuinely creepy moments, but is never scary. When dreaming, a ghostly Allan comes across his own corpse in a coffin. It's a haunting and upsetting. Shadows also frequently move around, unattached to humans. The vampire of the title barely even appears in the film. She's a creepy looking old hag. Her icy stare is chill-inducing. Those and many others are images that will stick with you long after you see the film.



The battered condition of the film print also added to the eerie atmosphere. The print's heavily scratched and speckled quality adds to the intentionally hazy cinematography to create a dreamy, ethereal world.

Vampyr is like an old-school version of what modern filmmaker Guy Maddin does with every film he makes, like Tales from the Gimli Hospital.

There's barely a plot to the film, and even on a first viewing, I spotted some glaring plot holes, but they weren't terribly distracting. The film allegedly has missing scenes and it's possible they helped to answer those problems.

Classic horror film buffs and fans of non-conventional experimental films should definitely check this one out, if you haven't already.

Boudu Saved From Drowning

Boudu Saved From Drowning
1932 - France
Directed By Jean Renoir

SYNOPSIS

Despondent over the disappearance of his beloved dog, homeless man Boudu (Michel Simon) jumps off a bridge. He's saved by a book dealer who takes him in and introduces him to upper-middle class life.



MY THOUGHTS

Director Jean Renoir (son of the legendary impressionist painter) is considered one of the most important French directors of all time, this is far from a masterpiece.

The film is clearly satire on class differences. This is clear from the start. Boudu asks police for help in finding his dog. They shun him and threaten to lock him up. Then a woman who lost her 10,000 franc Pekingese approaches and officers rush to help the rich woman.
Like most satires, Boudu completely lacks any likable characters. The Boudu character is completely ignorant of upper classes (beyond believability,) not even knowing what a necktie is, and seems nearly virtuous, until he was saved. Once that happens, he becomes corrupt and seduces/rapes his benefactor's wife and the two fall in love. In the end, Boudu finds that he was happier as a bum.
The book dealer is also corrupt, sleeping with the maid and lamenting ever saving Boudu because the poor man gets in the way of his affair.

Boudu Saved From Drowning lacks much of a sense of humor which causes the satire to fall flat.
Also a problem, is the film's slow, plodding pace. It takes any and all bite out of the satire. Rather than marveling at the story, I was busy checking my watch. This may be a result from the period it was made (just coming into the sound era.) Many silent films I've seen also share this trait.
The performances are also not very memorable.

Overall, the potentially strong concept is destroyed by bland execution.

The film was later remade by Hollywood in the 1980's as "Down and Out in Beverly Hills."

The Most Dangerous Game

The Most Dangerous Game
1932 - RKO Pictures
Directed by Ernest B. Schoedstack and Irving Pichel



SYNOPSIS

A big game hunter (Joel McCrea) is returning from an expedition, when his boat sinks killing everyone but him. He makes it to a nearby island and finds the home of a Russian, Count Zaroff (Leslie Banks,) who's also a hunter. He has two guests who also survived a recent wreck (Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong.) Zaroff is bored having hunted every kind of animal... except man. And he's got his eyes on his three guests!



MY THOUGHTS

An entertaining horror/adventure from the makers of King Kong.

Director Ernest B. Schoedstack and Producer Merian C. Cooper made this film concurrently with King Kong. The film utilized the jungle sets from Kong as well as many cast (Robert Armstrong, Fay Wray) and crew members (most notably composer Max Steiner.) The films also share the same pulpy, straight-forward, fast-paced storytelling.... though the monster at the center of the story couldn't be more different. Kong was sympathetic, lacking the knowledge of right and wrong and being thrown into a world (New York) he just couldn't understand. The evil Zaroff knows exactly what he's doing and revels in it.

Leslie Banks is excellent as Zaroff, and is the highlight of the film. He's over the top, but not too far as to make his character completely unbelievable. His creepy stare could give anyone the willies.
Joel McCrea is solid as the standard cardboard cutout hero.
Fay Wray offers up some good screams, but like most female characters in films like this, has little to do but react with screams and the occasional fainting spell.
Armstrong's role seems to be made purposefully annoying so we don't feel too bad when he's offed.

The film is very atmospheric and holds its own in this regard with the classic horror films produced at Universal of the era (Frankenstein, Dracula, etc.) There are no overt scares like modern horror films, but a general atmospheric eeriness that makes Dangerous Game and the Universal horror films succeed. The dead body and head in a jar in the trophy room are genuinely creepy and along with Banks' performance add immeasurably to the atmosphere of the film.

The film's short run time (under 1 hr. and 5 minutes) ensures there's no unnecessary dialogue or scenes. Everything moves the plot along at a fast pace.

The Most Dangerous Game is not as huge of a cinematic achievement as King Kong, but a remains as an amazing and entertaining film in its own right.

A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints

A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints
2006
Directed By Dito Montiel



SYNOPSIS

A writer (Robert Downey Jr.) returns to Queens for the first time since he left as a teenager when his father falls ill. The reasons why he left are recounted in a series of flashbacks featuring his younger self (Shia LeBeouf) and his dirtbag friends and suffering girlfriend.



MY THOUGHTS

Young people growing up in a tough neighborhood. It's been done countless times since the silent era. This film is one of the many, and offers nothing new.

All the characters are quick to anger and violence and no one is happy or has anything resembling a sense of humor. This gives them a real two dimensional appearance which detracts from the fine performances.
Robert Downey Jr. is very understated in his role. He's not the manic character he's played in several recent films like A Scanner Darkly or Iron Man. He matches LeBeouf's strong performance well. The other actors are solid, but the script hampers them from being great.

The cinematography offers a very gritty, grainy view of New York, appropriate for the subject matter.

Oddly, the film's flashbacks were set in the mid 1980's... yet the music played were all clearly from the 1970's which didn't fit. Cat Stevens and disco were rarely heard back in the 1980s. The fashions seemed 70's-ish as well, which left me even more confused.

Overall, not a bad film, but far from the great one it could have been with a better script.

The X-Files: I Want To Believe

The X-Files: I Want To Believe
2008 - 20th Century Fox
Directed By Chris Carter



SYNOPSIS

A missing FBI agent has the agency baffled. A pedophile priest (Billy Connolly) claims he has visions of her capture. The FBI brings in former agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) to determine whether the priest's visions are for real.... and the case may be something far more sinister than a simple abduction.



MY THOUGHTS

It's great to see Mulder and Scully back in action, but the film doesn't add much to the legacy of a classic TV series.

The story is solid, but is no better than an average episode of the series. In order to be a film, the stakes should have been raised, the settings grander and much more should happen. This was done well with the first film (Fight The Future) but not here. That makes the entire thing bland. Suspense and chills are also hard to come by here, which would help.

The cinematography is excellent. Everything is dark, bleak, cold and snowy, which fits perfectly with the tone of the film.

The acting is solid. Duchovny and Anderson know their roles well and are as good as always. Most every other role doesn't really stand out. All the FBI agents are particularly bland.

Although not a bad film, this is for die-hard X-files fans only.

Stagecoach

Stagecoach
1939 - United Artists/Walter Wanger Productions
Directed by John Ford



SYNOPSIS

A stagecoach full of troubled souls must travel through hostile Indian Territory with Geronimo on the warpath. Along the way, they pick up a wanted outlaw, the Ringo Kid (John Wayne) who is on the way to avenge the killings of his father and brother. One the way he falls for a female passenger with a secret (Claire Trevor.) Every one's plans for the future are put on hold... when the Apaches strike!



MY THOUGHTS

John Ford and John Wayne's first major team-up propelled them both into the stratosphere... while remaining in the old west.

The film succeeds on numerous levels.
The small stagecoach is crammed with interesting characters that bring color to the black and white film. Claire Trevor plays a prostitute, being kicked out of her town by a legion of decency. Doc Boone (Thomas Mitchell) is also given the boot for his continual drunkenness (he won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the role.) Boone takes a liking to a timid whiskey maker (Donald Meek) who carries samples with him. A notorious gambler (John Carradine) takes a liking to a woman (Louise Platt) on her way to meet her soldier husband. She becomes ill and we soon find out why when she gives birth to a baby daughter. A cantankerous banker (Berton Churchill) is also aboard, with loot stolen from his bank. To round out the group, the noisy Andy Devine drives the stagecoach, with the tough as-nails Marshall (George Bancroft) riding shotgun.
John Wayne offers little different from his screen persona. This film elevated him from B-movie western hero to a full-fledged star. He's not even given top-billing in the credits (Trevor is.)

All the characters contrast against each other well in a very credible way. All are from different walks of society and clash with each other at first... but through the course of the journey learn to understand, tolerate, and some even like each other.

The film's short run time (1:30) keeps the epic story moving at a fast pace and there's rarely a dull moment. When there's no physical action, the verbal conflicts between the characters propel the story thanks to the great script.
The climactic battle with the Apaches is the highlight of the film. The stunt work is amazing. The horses alone should have won an Oscar for all their amazing stunts. The stuntmen were also shockingly good.
The camerawork is equally breathtaking. There's only a few static shots. Most of the cameras were moving (likely on trucks) in and around the action. That gives a real feeling of 'being there' amongst the fight.
The camerawork also shines a bit earlier in the film when the stagecoach forges the river. The camera is actually set up on the top of the stagecoach looking over the shoulders of Devine and Bancroft, also adding to the 'being there' feel.

The film clearly shows John Ford's mastery of film and he was nominated for an Oscar, and the film for Best Picture, but both lost to Gone With The Wind. Ford did however win Best Director the next two years for The Grapes Of Wrath and How Green Was My Valley.
This film is not his masterpiece, but comes close.