About 6 months ago, I started this little experiment, not sure of how it was going to go or how long it would last. With Arsenic And Old Lace, I am now 100 movie reviews in, and still hoping to add thousands more.
90% of the films reviewed, so far, I am seeing for the first time. It's been a fun journey exploring many films I've intended to see for a long time but have fallen through the cracks.
I kindly thank you especially for reading. Feel free to comment on my reviews at any time (even to tell me I'm an idiot for getting something wrong!)
Coming soon to a screen near you.... many more reviews!
Arsenic And Old Lace 1944 - Warner Brothers Directed By Frank Capra
SYNOPSIS
Drama critic and author of anti-marriage books, Mortimer Brewster (Cary Grant) weds his girl Elaine (Priscilla Lane.) Upon returning home to tell his sweet old aunts (Josephine Hull + Jean Adair) his big news, he discovers a dead body hidden in the house. The old ladies drop a bombshell... they killed the man and plan to bury him in the basement with the 11 other bodies already there! To make matters worse, Mortimer's long-gone homicidal brother (Raymond Massey) returns with his accomplice (Peter Lorre) and another body and they intend on making the house their new hideout. Can Mortimer sort everything out and finally get to enjoy his new life?
MY THOUGHTS
There were multiple times I found myself choking from laughter from this hilarious gem of a film.
I would describe Arsenic and Old Lace as a fast-paced, slapsticky, screwball, black comedy... a sort of a high-powered comedy cocktail. It's ludicrous to try and explain how comedy works. It just does. And here it works magically.
The film was originally made in 1941 but was held for release due to rights issues. Originally a play, it was still in its Broadway run and the film rights stipulated it couldn't come out until 1944. Frank Capra knew he was going to be called up for Army service (for his propaganda film series Why We Fight) and had just enough time to make it before he had to go. And he made the most of it. There's so much plot crammed into the film and it moves at such a lightning pace that it should be easy for the viewer to get lost. But Capra's talents prevent this from ever happening.
It also helps that the film has an excellent script adapted from the play by the Epstein Brothers, who also won an Oscar for Casablanca.
Cary Grant plays his part way over the top. It's debatable whether this is good or not for the film. I say for the most part the performance works. There are a few scenes where he appears to react to the camera that left me cringing. Not his best work, but I couldn't think of anyone better for the role.
It's hard to believe Priscilla Lane got second billing. Apart from the opening scenes, she's barely there and never anywhere near the center of the action. Although she was a good actress, she's not much more than a pretty face here.
As Dr. Einstein, Peter Lorre shines in an all too rare comic role. He also gets to use some of his great ad-libbing skills with Cary Grant in a few memorable scenes.
Raymond Massey plays a good, if dry, heavy as the Boris Karloff look-alike. Karloff actually played the role on stage but couldn't do the film because of his theater obligations. He would have been better.
I found John Alexander's role as 'Teddy Roosevelt' Brewster to be amazingly annoying at first but warmed to his lunacy as the film went on and wound up liking the character.
The real stars of the film are Jean Adair and Josephine Hull. The two kindly old aunts are the center of the black comedy and are hilarious. Their exuberant and carefree attitudes about their victims was alluded to again and again and never got old throughout the film. They are never the least bit sinister.
Arsenic And Old Lace is a hilarious dark tale perfect for when you want laughs instead of scares around Halloween... or anytime of the year.
The Thief Of Bagdad 1940 - United Artists Directed By Ludwig Berger, Michael Powell, Tim Whelan
SYNOPSIS
Prince Ahmad (John Justin) has been deposed as ruler of Bagdad by the evil wizard Jaffar (Conrad Veidt) and imprisoned. He meets a young thief Abu (Sabu) and the two escape to Basra. There, Ahmad falls in love with a princess (June Duprez.) But Jaffar visits the town and takes her for his bride. She escapes but Jaffar blinds Ahmad and turns Abu into a dog. The two set off on a journey to find her and encounter a genie, magic carpet, a flying mechanical horse and more!
MY THOUGHTS
A nearly perfect adventure film for kids of all ages.
Thief of Bagdad is a fun and enchanting ride. It's made up of many of the best bits from the classic 1,001 Nights/Arabian Nights and is a delight from start to finish.
The brilliant early Technicolor process makes the film look as good as or even better than The Adventures Of Robin Hood or The Wizard Of Oz... in other words beautiful. As in those films, the colors aren't quite a perfect match to reality, so it makes the whole look of the film like a storybook.
Conrad Veidt plays an excellent villain and this was one of his most well known performance of his career which stretched from the classics The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari to Casablanca. John Justin was an adequate, if a bit effete, hero. June Duprez barely even registered. Sabu shines as Abu. His sheer enthusiasm outweighs his limitations as a dramatic actor and he's one of the highlights here. Rex Ingram, as the genie, is the other highlight. He makes the most of his 'small' screen time, with his larger than life performance. It was a rare, meaty non-stereotypical role for an African American during the 1940's.
Some of the special effects are still dazzling 70 years later, but most look horribly dated, thanks to the technological leaps since then. They must have looked amazing in its initial release.
There were a few shockingly violent images involving head wounds that may scare young ones, but they are very brief.
It's also odd the overuse of many Hindu gods and images in a Islamic world. I wonder if the filmmakers just threw them in because the (pre-globalization) public didn't know better and they looked cool.
But overall, the film is fast paced and an exciting swashbuckling adventure that could keep young kids attention, even 70 years later.
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington 1939 - Columbia Pictures Directed By Frank Capra
SYNOPSIS
A U.S. Senator dies, and the governor of the state appoints the naive leader of the Boy Rangers, Jefferson Smith (James Stewart.) The governor (Guy Kibbee) is part of a corrupt political machine run by newspaperman Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold.) The governor believes Smith can be easily controlled. But when a land graft scheme put in place by Taylor interferes with a bill Smith proposes... Taylor and his machine move to crush Smith before he can expose their plot.
MY THOUGHTS
An inspiring and masterful work featuring the second team-up of director Frank Capra and star James Stewart.
The film remains relevant more than 70 years later. In the late 30's corrupt politicians were a dime a dozen, and despite inflation, cost the same today. The little guy taking on a massive foe is a story that's been told a million times (it was old when David vs. Goliath was written down) and will keep being told and will never get old. Mr. Smith is David and the corrupt political machine is Goliath.
Capra weaves what could easily be a boring, long winded political snore-fest but he makes every scene further the plot and move the story at a fast and exciting pace. The director knew how to manipulate (in a good way) his audience and get them to feel the way he wanted. Investing the audience emotionally makes for a more exciting film. Capra is also able to weave in some Poli-Sci lessons in the narrative and teach the viewer a little bit about democracy. Capra's skills are the obvious reason why the U.S. Government called on him to make the Why We Fight series of propaganda films during the war.
James Stewart delivered one his best performances of his young pre-war career as Mr. Smith. He's a very sympathetic character and the audience stands steadfast at his side even with all the accusations against him. He shows here all the traits that would make him a huge star later.
Jean Arthur is also great as Smith's coldly cynical secretary who warms to the young senator's naive charms and becomes the only person who will listen to him.
With great heroes to root for, you also need great villains. Claude Rains turns in yet another flawless performance as the senior (and corrupt) senator from Smith's state. He always played his villainous roles with some compassion, making them more realistic and understandable. the characters of Edward Arnold's Taylor and Guy Kibbee's governor aren't as well developed but strong screen presences help them.
Mr. Smith was definitely a product of the era after President Roosevelt called the heads of Hollywood studios to Washington in the late 30's to ask them to help prepare the nation for war. World War I-themed films like The Dawn Patrol and The Fighting 69th were also part of the patriotic effort. This very strong pro-American tone might be a little strong for today's audiences but fits in perfectly with this era and the war years.
The whole story culminates in a nearly 24 hour filibuster and is one of the best sequences of the film filled with drama, suspense and humor and helps to cap off the themes of this excellent film, definitely deserving of the term "classic."
Gay Austrian fashion star Bruno (Sasha Baron Cohen) decides he will become the biggest star in the world and heads to Hollywood.
MY THOUGHTS
Sasha Baron Cohen's previous film Borat was an inventive and fresh, mixing gross out and offensive humor with a incisive look at American culture and how outsiders are treated.
Much of the humor in "Borat" was all about riling up Americans and capturing their overreactions to Borat's outrageous antics.
Bruno (the character) should be even more polarizing (because of his homosexuality) and therefore even funnier than Borat.... but he's not... and neither is the film. Borat was clueless and naive but Bruno always knows what he's doing and he's callous, so the audience definitely has a much harder time rooting for Bruno.
Bruno (the film) follows nearly the exact same format that Borat did, and it's not fresh at all the second time around.
There are a few hilarious sequences, like the Texas talk show where Bruno introduces his new black baby, OJ... or interviews a terrorist in the Middle East and tells the man that Osama Bin Laden looks like a homeless Santa Claus. These scenes are far and few between.
The scripted 'dramatic' scenes between Bruno and his assistant Lutz seem overly amateur and aren't even soap opera-level quality.
This film pales in every aspect compared to the far superior Borat. Skip it and re-watch Borat.
Holiday 1938 - Columbia Pictures Directed By George Cukor
SYNOPSIS
Johnny Case (Cary Grant) is head over heels in love with Julia (Doris Nolan.) In order to win her hand in marriage, he must impress her father (Henry Kolker) and show he has drive and ambition. But Johnny wants to retire young and live his life to the fullest and the father objects and Julia is not too happy about that revelation either. But this does intrigue Julia's free-thinking sister Linda (Katherine Hepburn.) Johnny must decide whether to compromise his dreams and live the dull life of a banker... or spend his life on holiday.
MY THOUGHTS
One of the most delightful romantic comedies from Hollywood's golden age.
If you've ever wondered why Katherine Hepburn was a big star, you must see Holiday. Hepburn often played fiercely independent, quick talking, quick acting, feisty women. This is one of the best examples of her screen image. She rules every scene she's in without overpowering her costars
Hepburn and Grant have electric chemistry, also on display in much better known Bringing Up Baby (which came out just months before Holiday) and The Philadelphia Story.
Cary Grant is great as usual. He's more blue-collar than his usual debonair screen image, which is a great contrast to the wealthy family he's trying to marry into. He's as funny as ever.
George Cukor's direction makes the most of the comedy and the drama contained in the superb script.
The film's script adds depth and substance to many of the roles which could have been just throwaway stereotypes, like Julia and Linda's perpetually drunk brother Ned played by Lew Ayers. He is depressed and sympathetic and offers wise advice and support for Hepburn and Grant's characters, instead of a wise-cracking drinker. Even the father who could have come across as a stupid aristocrat, but the part is written more realistically than that. A typical screwball comedy of the era would go that route, but Holiday is so different from them, I wouldn't even classify it as one.
The message of the script is 'life is what you make it so make the most of it' but we're not hit over the head with it, which is always a good thing. The script also takes so well deserved jabs at capitalism taken to the extreme.
The sole weakness of the script (and the film) is that you can see the ending from a mile away. Hepburn is the top-billed star... and when she's not introduced as Johnny's girl, you know she will have him by the end. The film is still a sheer delight to watch. The journey is more fun than the destination... which isn't typical of your average 'Holiday," but here it is.
A famed movie director (Marcello Mastroianni) is preparing to shoot his next film but is having problems with the story. All sorts of people from his friends, his producer, production workers, and his wife and mistress are constantly bombarding him with one problem after another. He retreats into dreams and memories for an escape... and maybe something to inspire his film.
MY THOUGHTS
Federico Fellini's masterpiece is an autobiographical tale he decided to make fresh on the heels of La Dolce Vita. Much has been said and written about this film and to be perfectly honest, I won't add anything new here.
The acting is superb, as is the cinematography.. and the film is as great as people say.
The story is simple and easy to follow but the inclusion of the very surrealistic, ambiguous and 'arty' dream sequences challenge the viewer. They themselves are not confusing, just far different than the usual Hollywood fare. At times it is a bit difficult to know what is dream and what is reality.
This was my first time viewing this film and it's quite clear that this is one of the films that takes several views to ingest (and understand) everything. I liked what I saw and plan to study this amazing film further.
Gilda 1946 - Columbia Pictures Directed by Charles Vidor
SYNOPSIS
Johnny Farrell (Glenn Ford) is a down and out gambler in Argentina who's given a cushy job at a nightclub/casino. He quickly rises in the ranks and when his boss (George Macready) leaves on a vacation, Johnny's left in charge. When his boss returns, he is married. The boss' new wife Gilda (Rita Hayworth) has a past with Johnny. When the boss disappears and is presumed dead... Johnny takes over and realizes he's in charge of more than just a nightclub.
MY THOUGHTS
What could have been a standard film noir is bolstered due to a standout performance by Rita Hayworth.
Many elements of noir are here... crime, a dry troubled narrator, a dangerous love triangle, etc. but they all take a back seat.
Rita Hayworth's sexiness is intoxicating in the film (as all the male characters find out!) and she draws your eyes toward her every time she's on screen. This is the film that made her a star. Her role isn't the usual 'femme fatale' role in a film noir. She's much more sensitive and fearful than one of those bad gal roles (think Lauren Bacall in To Have And Have Not.)
Hayworth and Glenn Ford have really great chemistry. Their love/hate relationship provides real sparks to what could have been a very bland romantic angle in the film. Glenn Ford also shines here, giving one of his best performances... but he's not the one wearing the attractive dresses.
The script is the weak element of the film. It's uneven in several spots. Some scenes drag on forever (especially ones without Hayworth and/or Ford.) The ending seems tacked on, and way too positive considering the rough edges to the story. At times, Gilda even feels like a knockoff of Casablanca. Joseph Calleia's detective character was played exactly like Claude Rains' Captain Renault, complete with a constant twinkle in the eye. But it's the two leads who overcome those faults and deliver a great film.
Shoot The Piano Player 1960 - France Directed By Francoise Truffaut
SYNOPSIS
Charlie (Charles Aznavour) is a piano player in a bar. His estranged brother shows up, followed by two gangsters because he stole money. The brother escapes but the gangsters target Charlie. They got Charlies address from his boss. When confronting his boss, Charlie accidentally kills him and is forced into hiding and forced to rejoin his family.... all the while as his relationship with Lena (Marie Dubois,) the waitress at the bar, develops into love.
MY THOUGHTS
The French coined the term "film noir" soon after that wholly American film style started to fade from prominence. That style was influenced by the gangster films of the 1930's. Noir was the primary influence on the French New Wave films of the very late 50's and early 60's. Francois Truffaut was one of the primary directors of this new wave. Here, in Shoot The Piano Player, noir takes center stage from the outset of the film and remains for much of the film. A man on the run amongst the shadows that could have been outtakes from the end of The Third Man... but then the man comes face to face with a lamppost.
This is a great example of the film's great sense of humor. It occasionally drifts into the very silly variety but that does balance much of the tragedy in the tale.
This is Truffaut's second film and couldn't be further from his first, The 400 Blows. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, even though Blows is a masterpiece. Shoot the Piano Player uses a jumbled narrative, skipping around in time, which could have been a bit jarring at the time, but it's and other film's influence have made it commonplace these days.
All the actors deliver stellar performances, especially Aznavour, who nails his character perfectly.
The film bombed on initial release, but has gained respect in the years since and is definitely recommended for fans of French New Wave and/or film noir.
Rocky II 1979 - MGM Directed By Sylvester Stallone
SYNOPSIS
Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) has retired from the ring and married his beloved Adrian (Talia Shire.) Rocky has trouble holding down a steady job and Adrian gets pregnant and has complications, leaving her in a coma. When Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) demands a rematch, Rocky must decide if he should do battle or stay retired.
MY THOUGHTS
The exciting second round in the Rocky series.
Sylvester Stallone never gets much respect as a director, but he's far more accomplished than most realize. The fight scenes and training montages are the highlights and hallmarks of the series with Bill Conti's score pumping throughout, and work well in this film. They are a stark contrast to Rocky's home life, much of it being spent at a hospital as Adrian lays in a coma. These home life scenes are much slower paced, yet equally as interesting and we see the characters of Rocky and Adrian further fleshed out from the first film. The script, also by Stallone, blends action, drama and humor effortlessly and for the most part is fast paced, though some early scenes drag on a little. The script remains very faithful to the feel and tone of the first and is not merely a continuation. Further developing the Rocky character, adds much more to the story... from his spending spree... to driving
Stallone and Shire, along with Burt Young, Carl Weathers and Burgess Meredith, solidify their performances from the first Rocky and build upon them.
The climactic battle is very well shot. I'm not sure if Stallone or Weathers actually took the hits to the head in the ring or not. The perfect camera angles are used to fudge it if they don't actually get hit. The fight is suspenseful, even though having seen this film 20 years ago, I knew how it ended.
Rocky II is a surprisingly good sequel, but I won't call it a 'knockout' because that would be too corny.
Grey Gardens 1975 Directed by Albert Maysles, David Maysles, Ellen Hovde, Muffie Meyer
SYNOPSIS
The far beyond-eccentric aunt and cousin of Jackie Kennedy are profiled in this documentary as they live together in their decaying mansion, with cats, raccoons, fleas and plenty of filth.
MY THOUGHTS
It's hard to look away from this voyeuristic view of two crazy women.
The mother and daughter's relationship is definitely a love-hate one. Despite the mother being nearly bed-ridden, they take care of each other like co-dependents. It's rare that anyone from the outside world comes into their lives. I pity these two for not getting professional help because they're obviously mentally ill, and living in such deplorable conditions. But, I guess they are admirable for living life they way they want to, even if it's that far from the norm. I couldn't look away from the film... not knowing what the two would do next.
Many have called this film 'poignant' but I don't see it. The filmmakers seem to be completely exploiting the two, always showing them at their worst... yelling at each other... bickering... spouting nonsense or goofy philosophies. I find it hard to believe they would act that way 24/7, even if mentally ill. There would be at least some moments of clarity.
Despite the film's exploitative-ness, it is still a fascinating film.
The Road 2009 - Dimension Films Directed By John Hillcoat
SYNOPSIS
A man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) struggle to survive in a post apocalyptic wasteland where all plants and animals have died... and cannibals are looking for food.
MY THOUGHTS
A bleak and dark novel is perfectly captured on the big screen.
The film is very faithful to the powerful novel by Cormac McCarthy. In fact, I swear some of the images from the film were taken directly from my imagination when I read the book. Nothing much is changed. The story isn't lightened up to get a bigger box office, nor are any extra scenes added of scares/suspense for the same purpose.
The Road perfectly conveys many of the themes of the novel, nature of humanity, hope/faith, and survival. The film also retains the book's ambiguous cause of the apocalypse.
The cinematography is amazing, carrying the bleak tone of the narrative. Everything is gray, cloudy, rainy, dirty and decaying.
Viggo Mortensen is a great actor and his performance here ranks among his best. Surprisingly his character's young son, Kodi Smit-McPhee, is every bit as good. Both are Oscar-worthy. The character's bond is so strong, they seem like a real father and son duo. Robert Duvall pops up for a few scenes almost unrecognizable, covered in muck, as does Guy Pearce. They are two of the very few characters who interact with the father and son. Charlize Theron appears in flashbacks as Mortensen's wife.
A bleak film with a powerful message of hope and perseverance despite overwhelming odds.
Champagne 1928 - British International Directed By Alfred Hitchcock
SYNOPSIS
The daughter of a wealthy Wall Street investor (Betty Balfour) lives a life of frivolity, even crashing her father's plane so she can get aboard a cruise ship. She's set to get engaged to her boyfriend (Jean Bradlin,) as her father (Gordon Harker) tells her he's lost everything. The boyfriend bolts as another man (Ferdinand von Alten) moves in to woo her. Her boyfriend realizes he loves her and tries to win her back. Her father is holding a big secret.
MY THOUGHTS
The master of suspense delivers a film lacking suspense and a master's touch.
Perhaps this is dated, but I found the film utterly lifeless, dull and boring. It's not because it's a silent film either. I've seen several that don't fit this description. But, thank god this is a silent film. I don't know if I would have been able to take the snobbish rich girl's whining the whole way through the movie.
The film has what would be an ideal plot for a screwball comedy but this film lacks humor, apart from an occasional funny moment. The story is very predictable and you never really care for any of the characters, which makes the film tedious.
Alfred Hitchcock does deliver a few interesting camera shots and a visual gag or two... but that's about it.
Skateboarding teen Alex (Gabe Nevins) accidentally kills a security guard and decides to cover it up.
MY THOUGHTS
Indy director Gus Van Sant scores again with an offbeat tale involving troubled teens.
The film is shockingly similar to Van Sant's previous film about a school shooting, Elephant. Both use minimal dialogue, non-professional actors, and a non-linear storyline. In Elephant the storyline was used to tell the story from different character's perspectives, but here we only see the story from Alex's POV. That doesn't stop several shots from getting reused. The overly-long tracking shots of Alex as he makes his way through school could have fit perfectly in Elephant and a virtually identical to similar shots in that film.
I'm not sure if Van Sant uses these long tracking shots, the non-linear story, and overly-long slow-motion skateboarding shots to be artsy... or to help beef up the thread-bare story in order to get it to feature-length.
Like with Elephant, Van Sant uses almost exclusively first-time actors. Although John Robinson was a standout in Elephant, that film was an ensemble piece, so many of the sub-par performances blended into the film. Here in Paranoid Park, the character of Alex is onscreen in nearly every shot, requiring very skilled actor. Gabe Nevins does an amazing job. He's able to portray very subtle nuances with little dialogue. The audience sympathizes with him knowing he is so wracked up over the murder... and his fears of coming clean. This was his first (of hopefully many) acting jobs.
Paranoid Park could have easily fallen into the category of "pretentious bullshit" like Van Sant's previous film Last Days... but there's something indescribable that lifts it from that category into a great film.
The House On 92nd Street 1945 - 20th Century Fox Directed By Henry Hathaway
SYNOPSIS
William Dietrich (William Eythe) is fresh from an Ohio college and is drafted by Nazi agents to be a special agent for them in America. He immediately reports this to FBI Agent Briggs (Lloyd Nolan,) who sets him up as a special agent. Dietrich goes to train in Germany and returns to New York to help steal American secrets for the Nazis, all the while cluing the FBI in to the Nazi agents he is working with. The FBI must move quick as the Nazi agents are somehow getting and transmitting the secrets of Process 97... AKA the Manhattan Project.
MY THOUGHTS
This docu-drama is a relic of it's time but is still an entertaining and suspenseful film. It tells a dramatic story while also aiming for documentary-style realism and uses stock footage, a newsreel announcer-sounding narrator, and uses the actual locations where the real action took place. This was similar in style to director Henry Hathaway's later film Call Northside 777 starring James Stewart. The style is definitely dated and several early film noir were done like this and Northside, along with He Walked By Night (which inspired TV's Dragnet) but it fits the material.
The acting is wooden all around, with everyone going for a direct realistic style, adding to the documentary feel. Lloyd Nolan is a strong presence, though his part lacks the witty banter he had in the Detective Michael Shane film series and his debut role in G-Men as an FBI agent (and also the film that named this blog.)
The film generates real suspense as it approaches the climax... not knowing if the Dietrich character will make it when the Nazis find out his secret... and the identity of Mr. Christopher.
It was also great to see the FBI's research methods in the pre-computer era in detail. They had a much more difficult job than they do now with all of today's increased automation, and the old technology was fascinating to see. The story also has resonance today as you can imagine the FBI working diligently trying to track down terrorist sleeper cells.. like the Nazi ones of days past.
Phantom Ship (AKA The Mystery of the Mary Celeste) 1936 - Guaranteed Films (Hammer Films) Directed By Denison Clift
SYNOPSIS
In 1872, an American cargo ship, the Mary Celeste, was discovered derelict in North Atlantic with her full cargo... and no trace of her crew. This is a dramatization of what might have happened on the fateful voyage. One crew member after another either disappear or turn up dead until only one is left.
MY THOUGHTS
It's nice to see Bela Lugosi out of the horror genre for once. Phantom Ship is dark and ominous like a horror film, but is not. Lugosi did his fair share of slumming in movies that wish they were b-level, like this one. He doesn't ham it up with a twinkle in his eye like in later garbage like Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (yes that's a real film.) Here he plays it straight and very dark, mysterious and creepy... a delight to watch.
The direction of the film leads a lot to be desired. Most of the action is offscreen. The captain and his bride-to-be are central characters with even more screen time than Lugosi. They just simply disappear from the film and mentioned to be missing and/or dead. This happens with most of the other deaths as well. I'm not sure if this was done for budgetary or censorship reasons, but that along with some very choppy editing, makes for a poorly made film.
The script is also flat. In a typical crime show on television, the writers steer you into believing someone quite obvious committed the crime, then reveal it to be someone else you didn't expect. In Phantom Ship, the writers try to do this, but audience never has any doubt who's to blame. Maybe because the only familiar face here is Dracula.
It's ironic that the studio that became Hammer used Lugosi for one of it's earliest productions. Hammer would soon become THE British studio for horror films. Hammer propelled Christopher Lee to stardom in the same role that made Lugosi famous.
On The Town 1949 - MGM Directed By Gene Kelly + Stanley Donen
SYNOPSIS
Three Navy sailors (Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Jules Munshin) get 24 hours of shore leave and head out into New York City looking for fun and girls.
MY THOUGHTS
A fun and enjoyable musical romp through New York City.
The music was great and never annoying as I find in many musicals. On the Town is not overcrowded with music to the point where you have to yell out "oh god, another one!." Several songs were written by Leonard Bernstein, including the New York, New York (It's a Heckuva Town.) The script has very witty and cheeky sense of humor and has more pop culture references in it than a typical movie of today (rare for the time.)
As a history buff, it was great to see NYC as it was in the late 40's.. and especially in all its technicolor glory. Much of the film was shot on location (also rare for the time even more so for a musical.)
There's not a weak performance among the actors. Kelly and Sinatra have great chemistry, which is why they were teamed up several times.
The film is practically a remake of the Kelly/Sinatra film Anchor's Aweigh just set on the opposite side of the country. But who cares? The magic struck twice.
Racket Busters 1938 - Warner Brothers Directed By Lloyd Bacon
SYNOPSIS
Gangster Pete Martin (Humphrey Bogart) makes moves to control the produce market in New York. He starts by targeting the trucking business. This angers many truckers including popular driver Denny Jordan (George Brent.) Martin threatens to harm Jordan's pregnant wife (Gloria Dickson) if he doesn't join Martin's new truckers union. Jordan bends and loses many friends in the process... but how many of them must be beaten and killed before he sees the light and helps to kick the gangsters to the curb?
MY THOUGHTS
An enjoyable, but non-essential, Warner Brothers gangster film from the 30's.
Humphrey Bogart is at his snarling bad-guy best here... making the most out of very little. His character has only one ambition - to take control of the city's food supply. That is all he's used for. We never learn anything else about the character. It's very one dimensional. Bogart played thugs like this left and right during this time in his career and always turned in a solid performance despite the weakly written characters. This part was weaker then most. He was given top billing but George Brent, as the hero, has more screen time. Bogart isn't on screen long enough to light up a smoke (I don't recall him smoking once in the film which must have been a departure for him!)
Brent's character is much more fleshed out and he even has a character arc where he grows learns and changes. Brent does a suitable job but the character seems to be all over the place. At the beginning he's a cynical and wisecracking happy-go-lucky type. Once he's 'gone to the dark side,' he does a 180 and is cold, wooden and dull. Such a drastic change doesn't seem realistic at all.
Realism is what the screenwriters were going for here. The scenario seems like it was ripped from the headlines of the day and cobbled together and rushed into a screenplay. With a little more time the script could have been much better... and less predictable.
The magic of the Warner Brothers gangster films does add some needed gloss to the production, as do many familiar faces like Allen Jenkins. The costumes and good use of the studio's backlot add a lot to the production values of this B-movie.
A blackmailer (Robert Arden) wants to get the riches of the wealthy Mr. Arkadin (Orson Welles.) He decides to romance his daughter (Paola Mori) but instead falls in love with her. Arkadin finds out about his blackmail scheme and hires him for a job. Arkadin doesn't remember anything that happened to him before 1927 and now the blackmailer must travel all over the world to find out what happened prior to that time.
MY THOUGHTS
Orson Welles is generally considered a film-making genius... Mr. Arkadin proves him to be a mad one.
The film is bizarre, chock full of unique and interesting camera angles, lighting, and a non-linear storyline. The lighting and the camera angles are so severe at times that they draw attention to themselves. At times, I was drawn away from the narrative so badly that I missed chunks of dialogue which left the film even more confusing.
Arkadin jumps around in time and never lets the audience in on where or when the story is which adds to the confusion. A typical film would have an establishing shot of a building or location at the start of the scene. Instead, we jump right into the middle of the scene mid-sentence, unsure of what's happening. I'm unsure why Welles would do this, other than to say he's being different. One of the cardinal rules of directing should be "Don't lose your audience." This is violated nearly every 10 minutes.
Many of the supporting performances are so laughably ridiculous and over-the-top they derail any seriousness that Welles may have been attempting. This is mainly the men and women the blackmailer seeks out when looking for clues to Arkadin's past. One horribly bad performance after another.
There are several different versions of the film and I'm not entirely certain which one this was, but the sound and picture quality was terrible.
If you're looking for a film on the same level as Welles' Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil, or the Magnificent Ambersons... look elsewhere. This is made by the same man, but not clearly the same master.
The Devil Is A Sissy 1936 - MGM Directed By W.S. Van Dyke
SYNOPSIS
Privileged British boy Claude (Freddie Bartholomew) moves in with his poor father in Manhattan's lower east side. He soon meets tough street kids Buck (Jackie Cooper) and Gig (Mickey Rooney) and wants to be friends. When Gig's father is sent to the electric chair, Gig wants to raise money for a tombstone. Claude knows a place full of toys that the trio can rob to pawn to get enough money. The three get caught... but do they have enough in them to give up crime and go straight?
MY THOUGHTS
MGM was used to and more known for producing lavish musicals and bringing classic works of literature to life. Socially-conscious films were usually the domain of Warner Brothers, but that didn't stop other studios like MGM from attempting them as well. The Devil Is A Sissy was an attempt at this, in the vein of Dead End. (please see my review of Crime School for more on this era.)
MGM was a little out of their element here and it does show. The whole air of the film has a bit of phoniness to it. The backlot of MGM is used to great effect as New York, but it seems too clean to be the slums. The film even has a brief musical number (a singalong) that feels out of place with the more serious tone of much of the film. The script also is fairly predictable. You can fairly easily guess who the trio robs, as well as how the film will end.
However, the film's trio of young lead actors do rescue the film from these weaknesses.
Freddie Bartholomew is just as endearing and earnest as he was in David Copperfield and Little Lord Fauntleroy and makes for a great contrast with his American buddies.
Jackie Cooper, 5 years removed from his Little Rascals days, is tough but likable.
Mickey Rooney is the real standout here. Gig's a nice guy buried under a pile of bad breaks. Rooney gains sympathy when his father is executed and plays the emotions very realistically, more so than most performances of the pre-method era.
This three are arguably the biggest male child actors of Hollywood's Golden Age and this was the only time all appeared in the same film together.
The film definitely benefits from their team-up, lifting this from a ho-hum production, to a memorable one.
There are a few scratches and speckles that appear from time to time (usually at the starts and ends of the original reels of film) but they are not so bad they detract from the watching experience. Much of the film looks to be in excellent shape.
Crime School 1938 - Warner Brothers Directed By Lewis Seiler
SYNOPSIS
After committing a brutal beating, Frankie Warren (Billy Halop) and his gang (the other Dead End Kids) are sent to reform school, where brutality reigns. The new Deputy Commissioner of Corrections Mark Braden (Humphrey Bogart) finds out about the extreme conditions and cleans the place up and tries to steer Frankie on the right path so he won't become a hardened criminal. But falling for Frankie's sister (Gale Page) may make it difficult for Braden.
MY THOUGHTS
A Broadway play premiered in 1935 that would signal a new direction for Hollywood's crime films. Dead End was a smash hit detailing the lives of young street kids who were on the path to be the next big gangsters in newspaper headlines. The story proposed that these so called 'Dead End Kids' were to become bad as a result of their environment. The squalor of the tenements of the lower east side of Manhattan were to blame for their life of crime.
Independent film producer Sam Goldwyn snatched up the movie rights to the play and released Dead End in 1937, to universal acclaim and several Oscar nominations, including Best Picture.
All this... at a time when Warner Brothers was considered the go-to studio for socially conscious films. In fact, Warner's I Am A Fugitive From a Chain Gang actually led to widespread prison reforms across the country and a full pardon to the author who wrote the autobiographical tale.
Dead End would have been a perfect match for the studio. It even featured two Warner Brothers actors out on loan, Humphrey Bogart and Allen Jenkins, along with future contract players, The Dead End Kids.
Warner Brothers snatched up the boy's contracts after Goldwyn let them go following their reign of terror during Dead End's production, leading to thousands of dollars in damages to the studio.
The Dead End Kids largely played the same roles (though with different names) they did in the stage and film versions of Dead End. They are as likable and fun to watch as their first appearance. Their energetic and anarchic personas move the film at a brisk pace, and also offer a generous amount of hi-jinks and humor.
Bogart's role couldn't have been more different. In Dead End, he was the notorious Babyface Martin, wanted gangster, and someone the boys looked up to with awe. Here, Bogart is a crusader for good who must win over the hearts of the boys with much effort. This was the strongest of his pre-fame 'good guy' performances, mainly because it was the meatiest part. He played a similar role as a District Attorney in Marked Woman, but the part wasn't written with as much depth. This was one of his first lead roles since landing at Warner's for his powerful supporting performance in The Petrified Forest, which led to countless numbers of gangster roles for Bogart (like Babyface Martin.)
Some of the themes of Crime School were previously used in the 1933 film The Mayor Of Hell starring James Cagney and Frankie Darro and this film is a partial remake of the earlier one. Cagney played a gangster who muscled his way in to change a rough reform school.
In Crime School, we see more of the kids life before reform school and it meshes perfectly with the world of Dead End, and touches on the same central themes. The boys have little to do but commit petty crimes. Once in reform school, it matches the Mayor of Hell in its depiction of the brutality of the warden and guards... and a man looking to civilize and reform the reform school.
The script for Crime School lacks much of the freshness and bite that both Dead End and Mayor of Hell had, and that's the film's weakness... but the performances make up much of the difference. Bogart is more realistic than James Cagney's gangster-wanting-to-do-good in Mayor, and the Dead End Kids have much greater chemistry than do Frankie Darro and a collection of glorified kid-actor extras.
The next and final time Bogart and The Dead End Kids would appear in the same film would be the finest example of the gangster film merging with the socially conscious film, Angels With Dirty Faces. Crime School pales in comparison to that film as well as Dead End, but is still a mighty fine entertaining film wrapped up with an important social message.
THE DVD
Crime School makes its home video debut as part of the new Warner Archive Collection. It is a selection of the studio's back catalog that it deemed not financially worthy of a general DVD release. It and hundreds of other films (from the silent era to the 1990's) are available at WarnerArchive.com The films are fancy pressed DVD-R's featuring an un-remastered print of the film. What you see is exactly the same copy you'd see on TCM or any TV station that would show the film. The exorbitant price of $19.99 per movie kept me from sampling Warner's new DVD line, but thankfully, a great Black Friday sale got me to buy, and I'm glad.
There are plenty of scratches, speckles and lines that appear from time to time (usually at the starts and ends of the original reels of film) but they are not so bad they detract from the watching experience. The disc also features what it calls a trailer... but it's just a few minutes of the start of the film and it fades out. It's nothing like the trailer that appears above.
As a fan of Bogart and the Dead End Kids, I'm glad to finally see this film (in any way I could) and you should definitely seek it out.
Comedienne Charlene Yi doesn't believe in love. She sets out across America to try and understand just what love is. Along the way she meets Michael Cera.
MY THOUGHTS
This unique quasi-documentary is a unique look at one of life's most difficult concepts.
Yi and the film crew head all over the country talking to people about love. This I thought was the most interesting and enlightening part of the film. She speaks to young and old about the good and bad sides of love. It's fascinating how everyone had a very different concept of love.
Those scenes feel intruded upon, when they add Yi's budding romance with Michael Cera. These scenes veer the film off course and it loses focus while juggling the two narratives. The young couple constantly complains about cameras being in the way, which gets annoying after the second mention. After you've heard it 30 times, you're annoyed.
Several liberties were taken to make Paper Heart not a real documentary. The director, who is a character in the film, is played by Jake M. Johnson and not the actual director (yet the character and director share the same name.) Also Yi and Cera were a couple before the film was made.
Paper Heart does have a charming quality to it, but it does wear thin after awhile. It has a good sense of humor too, but I could never describe it as 'hilarious.'
Overall, It's a good (but not great) way to spend an hour and a half.
The Edukators 2005 - Germany Directed By Hans Weingatner
SYNOPSIS
Three anti-capitalist revolutionaries spread their message by breaking into mansions. These so-called "Edukators" don't steal, just rearrange furniture and leave ominous notes to scare the homeowners. Their pastime is ruined when a homeowner comes home in the middle of an operation. They kidnap him and head into the country, unsure of what to do with him.
MY THOUGHTS
Politics and drama collide in an interesting tale of young revolutionaries.
The characters anti-capitalist message doesn't overcrowd the film, though it is always present. It's not so heavy-handed that it would offend people with an opposite viewpoint. It does get a little too preachy near the end, but doesn't go over the line. It does however cause you to THINK about politics and how you live your life. And that's always a good thing.
The camerawork is all hand-held and can be very jerky at times. I'm guessing this is supposed to reflect the anti-establishment-ness of the characters. It's very raw and low tech as opposed to swooping crane shots and other fancy camerawork you would find in a big money Hollywood film.
The performances are excellent, especially Daniel Bruhl, who also shined this year in Quintin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. The performances were helped greatly by an amazing script. It presented great characters with interesting interpersonal relationships, a plot full of twists and turns, and politics. With all those ingredients, the story never felt complicated and came across very realistic, and moved at a swift pace.
Weaving excellent characters among a gripping story with a political message that makes you think... The Edukators really delivers.
Posts
