3:10 To Yuma

3:10 To Yuma
1957 - Columbia Pictures
Directed By Delmer Daves



SYNOPSIS

A small-time rancher (Van Heflin) helps to capture notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Glenn Ford.) He then takes on a dangerous mission, to escort Wade to the 3:10 train to Yuma where the outlaw will go back to prison. But Wade's gang will stop at nothing to see their leader set free.



MY THOUGHTS

A western that trades it's guns in for psychology of it's two leads.

This film can definitely be compared to the superior High Noon. Both feature a honorable hero facing an almost certain death, alone, in the name of justice. High Noon's editing and pacing made it the superior film, along with Gary Cooper's performance.

Here the highlight is the interplay between the two leads Glenn Ford and Van Heflin.
After realizing he was playing the villain, I was unsure how Glenn Ford would be able to pull it off. He always struck me as an "aww shucks" type of squeaky-clean with his cheshire cat-like grin (even when he wasn't smiling.) But he uses those traits to his advantage and plays a very intriguing character.
Heflin's Dan Evans is in a bad way. He's got little income thanks to a big drought, and a wife and two kids to feed... yet we don't pity him. He's doing this job just for the money but when Ford's character offers him significantly more money, he sticks with his job, knowing it's the right and moral thing to do.
Both characters know how to push each other's buttons and their chess game of words when they're confined to the hotel room is far more exciting than any gunfight in the film.

The cinematography is stunningly beautiful and we get to see a lot of the amazing countryside, even though the majority of the story concerns two men in a hotel room.

This film was remade in 2007. I despise the current trend of remaking everything because the new version never holds up to the original. But the new 3:10 To Yuma is slightly superior. It builds upon the story and makes it seem less of a High Noon knockoff. The end of the production code in the 1960's allowed the story to be shown more realistically graphic and less hokey. The remake was far from perfect, but that's for another review.

This version is a sturdy, fine example of the 1950's western, when the genre was at it's height.

Blood Simple

Blood Simple
1984
Directed By Joel Coen



SYNOPSIS

A bartender named Ray (John Getz) runs away with his boss' wife (Frances McDormand.) His boss Marty (Dan Hedaya) finds out after hiring a private investigator (M. Emmet Walsh.) He then hires the P.I. to kill the couple. The P.I. steals the wife's gun and shoots Marty and takes money. Ray happens upon the body and decides to dispose of it... but Marty isn't quite dead yet



MY THOUGHTS

The Coen brothers hit the ground running with their first film.
This film, like the majority of what was to come from them, is a expert homage to film noir.
Noir is usually set in the big city, but being in a sleepy Texas town adds a unique twist to the formula.
Like many noirs, the pacing is sort of like a slow burn. It starts off almost excruciatingly slow but picks up steam and races toward the climax.
Along the way the film picks up suspense and there's a few moments that could cause you to jump out of your seat, more than your average slasher film.

Blood Simple has a serious tone, lacking much of the subtle humor in their later films apart from a flourish or two here or there. But many other touchstones of the Coen Brothers are here like their use of closeups, low camera angles and some unique camera movements.

The performances are uniformly realistic. The characters seem very real thanks to the dialogue. Their words are true to life and lack 'flowery dialogue' that makes many films more cinematic than life-like. (Quentin Tarantino writes amazing dialogue but really who talks that way in the real world?)

I don't think "Blood Simple" is on par with some of their later works like Fargo, but it's not far off and is well worth a look. The Coen Brothers started off strong and only got better.

Humoresque

Humoresque
1946 - Warner Brothers
Directed By Jean Negulesco



SYNOPSIS

A driven young man, Paul Boray (John Garfield,) grows up to become a virtuoso violinist. His big break comes at a party hosted by a wealthy socialite (Joan Crawford.) The two fall in love despite the fact she is married. But she finds out the hard way he is married too... to his music.



MY THOUGHTS

I've always been a fan of movies that were heavily music-centered but not considered 'musicals.' Films like The Blues Brothers, this site's namesake Blues In The Night or even concert films have music play a central role but doesn't feature the typical singing and dance numbers associated with a musical. Humoresque certainly fits this label.

The plot is an oft-traveled one, and the film doesn't add much to it, but it features great actors doing what they do best.

John Garfield delivers a complex, strong and realistic performance as Boray. Boray's tough and outspoken yet has the passion to be a great musician.
Though largely forgotten today, Garfield was a powerhouse actor, one of the first 'method' actors in Hollywood. He sadly saw his career (and ultimately his life) destroyed by the House Un-American Activities Committee.



Joan Crawford's character is a weak point for me in the story. We never really understand her motivations as a character apart from her love for someone that she won't be able to have and control.
She has a serious drinking habit that is never truly explained. Is it because of her marriage or boredom? It doesn't get worse through the film. It starts out bad and stays there.
I also don't get Garfield's attraction to her. He doesn't seem interested in money... so it must be looks. But by this time Crawford had begun to go from a beautiful woman into starting to look like a drag queen.

Oscar Levant's role as Boray's pianist/ friend is essentially the same role that he played just a few years later in An American In Paris. That's not a bad thing.

By far the standout performance is by Franz Waxman. He arranged, conducted and put together the musical selections for the film. The classical compositions are stellar and work both as concert pieces and are also woven into the narrative, much like Dvorak's piece that named the film.
Waxman also hied future legendary violinist Isaac Stern to play Garfield's violin. It's actually Stern's hand fingering the violin for Garfield, while another musician's hand was moving the bow... yet it looks like Garfield playing the whole time. That's movie magic if I ever heard of it!

The film does have some magic to it... and is recommended to classical music fans and those who like a music-centered film.

Pride Of The Bowery

Pride Of The Bowery
1940 - Monogram
Directed By Joseph H. Lewis



SYNOPSIS

Muggs (Leo Gorcey) wants to find a new place to train to become a great boxer. He enlists Danny (Bobby Jordan) and his other friends to find a new place. Danny dupes Muggs into going to a CCC camp (Civilian Conservation Corps) and all the East Side Kids accompany them there. Muggs struggles to fit in and soon seeks to help out a troubled boy who stole money from the camp safe to send to his ailing aunt. So, Muggs enters a boxing tournament in town and gets money... but gets caught putting his winnings back in the safe.



MY THOUGHTS

The fourth film in the East Side Kids series lacks the humor the series was known for and only an adequate plot.

Leo Gorcey and Bobby Jordan appear in the series for the 3rd time (the first film featured other actors) and have their roles nailed down perfectly and adlib most of the humor to assist the dry script.
The lack of funny also meant a much smaller part for comic relief 'Sunshine Sammy' Morrison. He's not even in the gang, just a fellow camper this time.

The film was Bobby Stone's first of his twelve appearances in the series and his worst because he's given more than a handful of lines. As the troubled boy Willie, he is simply terrible. In a series that cannot claim too many great supporting performances anyway, Stone stands out as the absolute worst.

The fight scenes were well shot with plenty of quick cuts and multiple angles, though the film is sped up almost comically fast.
Most of the film was shot outdoors (California doubling for upstate New York) and the beautiful scenery helps you to forget the film's budget was about $13.47
The low budget and short shooting schedule (all the films in the series were shot in about 6 days) definitely affects the final product, giving it an unpolished shine for better or worse.

Far from the best in the series, but far from the worst.

(500) Days Of Summer

(500) Days Of Summer
2009 - Fox Searchlight
Directed By Marc Webb



SYNOPSIS

Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has fallen in love with his co-worker Summer (Zooey Deschanel.) He knows she's the one he's supposed to spend the rest of his life with but she doesn't believe love exists and doesn't want a boyfriend... and their relationship is doomed.



MY THOUGHTS

(500) Days of Summer is a unique, fresh and excellent take on the romantic comedy genre.
We're told from the outset that the relationship won't work out. This combined with the non-lineal story adds a much more creative aspect to a tired genre. Since we know they're not going to work out, you focus more on the relationship, trying to pick out what went wrong, why and when.

Unlike many romantic comedies, the characters of Tom and Summer seem like real people living in the real world. This is due to an excellent and intelligent script and superb performances by the leads.
Both Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel have built up excellent indie film resumes over the past decade and with the success of this film have hopefully broken through to the mainstream, so we can see their amazing talents more often (though lets hope they stay in Indie film because that's still where the best parts lie.)

The film has many laugh-out-loud moments and the humor sometimes hits the infantile/toilet humor variety which is even funnier than normal because you wouldn't expect it in a film like this.

(500) Days of Summer should appeal to just about everyone and is well worth checking out.

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
2009
Directed By Terry Gilliam



SYNOPSIS

A traveling show lead by Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) allows people to literally step into their imaginations through a magic mirror. The troupe has fallen on hard times when they rescue a man (Heath Ledger) hanging from a bridge. With his charisma, charm, and business know-how he starts bringing in money. But the immortal Parnassus faces even bigger problems. He made a deal with the Devil (Tom Waits) years ago. In order to regain his youth, he would give up his daughter (Lily Cole) when she hit 16 years of age. That day is very soon and the Devil shows up to collect, he renegotiates the deal. Now Parnassus and the Devil race to see who can seduce the first five people to the light side or the dark side.



MY THOUGHTS

(Since it's still in theaters I must warn you that this may contain minor spoilers)

Doctor Parnassus is a return to form for director Terry Gilliam and a fitting farewell for Heath Ledger.
Gilliam's last two films Tideland and The Brothers Grimm both had his imaginative visual style that defines his films, but suffered from weak screenplays. Parnassus fits in tonally with Gilliam's films from the 1980's Time Bandits, Brazil, and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, and has more than a few nods to his Monty Python days. Parnassus doesn't hit the highs of Brazil or Time Bandits but is a strong film in its own right.

The film contains huge surrealist landscapes from Gilliam's rich imagination when the characters enter the mirror, much like Alice (In Wonderland) when she looks into the looking glass.
The real-life scenes are also skewed and show off Gilliam's acid wit with plenty of commentary on today's society (a sign in a store window reads "Only 364 Days Until Christmas!)

I was surprised by how much of the film Heath Ledger appears in... he's in everything but the scenes inside the mirror.
Ledger's character's appearance helps to save the fledgling troupe, yet there's no way he could be called the hero of the story and I'm not sure there really is one. Ledger shines one last time in bringing this murky character to life and once he's on screen the film picks up steam.
The character's true darkness is shown as he enters the mirror.
His mirror identities are played by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. The three are all clearly playing playing the same character and the whole thing doesn't come of as distracting or gimmicky. The changes are explained in the film.



Christopher Plummer is always an asset to any movie he's in.
He seemingly hasn't portrayed a 'good guy' since before The Sound Of Music and its great to see. As a counterpoint to the devil and with his special powers, Parnassus is sort of a god-like character but the role isn't a flattering one. He's a serious alcoholic who spends most of the time lamenting the past and wishing he were dead . Plummer's presence adds a lot of gravity to the film.



Like his other films, The Imagination of Doctor Parnassus is not for everyone, but fans of Terry Gilliam and fans of films that are off the beaten path will delight in this unique and entertaining film.

Candyman

Candyman
1992- TriStar
Directed By Bernard Rose



SYNOPSIS

A college grad student (Virginia Madsen) is doing her thesis on urban legends. She learns of one called the Candyman who has a hook for a hand and appears when you say his name 5 times into the mirror who plagues a housing project on the south side of Chicago. When she goes to research she discovers the Candyman (Tony Todd) is no legend... he's real! Soon, people she cares about turn up dead... and she's accused!



MY THOUGHTS

For years I'd put off watching Candyman, thinking it fell into the same cheesy, lame slasher-movie crowd of the era. But unlike most horror films of the late 80's early 90's, Candyman is actually disturbing and creepy.... and good.

Candyman has an intelligence that many horror films at the time seemingly forgot. There's more than just hacking and slashing, there's some psychology in the mix. The film toys with the idea that Helen Lyle is crazy or that the Candyman is just some guy impersonating the legend. This adds depth to what could have been a flat story and adds some intrigue to the plot and keeps the audience guessing. The film contains ample gore, but that's not the main focus of the horror, it's more cerebral.

The horror genre isn't known for great acting performances but Virginia Madsen and Tony Todd deliver. Todd is unsettling every time he's on screen, ideal for a villain.

The film is based off of a story by horror master Clive Barker, who's also responsible for the equally creepy Hellraiser.

Candyman is one of the better horror films of the 1990's and is definitely worth a look.