This is a suspense movie about an overexcited woman -with money! Is it going to be a Gaslight knockoff? Lady on a train? Your expectations are set up by previous movies you have seen. Fair enough, but not enough to be completely engrossing. The inevitable twist ending is good enough but hardly great. The plot has holes in it which you could drive an Abrams tank through, but the movie is engrossing enough for you to ignore them-for awhile.
Reviews
82 Reviews
Empire of the Sun
(1987)
Doesn't Quite Make It
15 June 2021
Realizing that they would be at a disadvantage in manpower and advanced weaponry in any large war, the Japanese in the early 20th century adopted military terrorism as a weapon. Japanese serviceman were themselves brutalized and taught to be brutal. When the Chinese city of Nanking proved difficult to conquer, the Japanese army ran amok killing, raping, and looting. Perhaps 250,000 civilians were killed. When the same was happening with Shanghai, the Chinese nationalists ceased to defend their cities and retreated to the interior, still fighting and supported by Anglo-American equipment. This made a Japanese victory in China even more difficult to accomplish.
This is the environment within which Empire of the Sun plays out its story. But its few Chinese characters are dehumanized; none are killed. And the Japanese are presented as heroic warriors, albeit perhaps a tad short tempered. It's one thing to not be true to history but quite another to ignore the overriding tragic milieu within which this story plays out.
What is left is a boy's adventure in a prison camp with a war raging around it. It is episodic; It seems to be set up to get one "high art" scene in and then move on to another high art scene, not necessarily a continuation of where the story has gone previously. Then a few more "high art" sequences are presented after the story has played itself out.
This was written by Tom Stoppard, who, as a child, was dislocated again and again in World War II. I wonder how much of his original script was used.
This is the environment within which Empire of the Sun plays out its story. But its few Chinese characters are dehumanized; none are killed. And the Japanese are presented as heroic warriors, albeit perhaps a tad short tempered. It's one thing to not be true to history but quite another to ignore the overriding tragic milieu within which this story plays out.
What is left is a boy's adventure in a prison camp with a war raging around it. It is episodic; It seems to be set up to get one "high art" scene in and then move on to another high art scene, not necessarily a continuation of where the story has gone previously. Then a few more "high art" sequences are presented after the story has played itself out.
This was written by Tom Stoppard, who, as a child, was dislocated again and again in World War II. I wonder how much of his original script was used.
Bewitched
(1945)
Of Historical value
27 March 2020
A diagnostic category of Multiple Personality still exists in the bible of psychiatry, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, but with a new, "scientific" sounding title: Dissociative Identity Disorder. Unlike any other category in that ponderous tome, the category has two pages of commentary attached to it, essentially saying that it is nonsense.
The idea of a dual personality became rife in Hollywood plots around the time that this movie came out. It was an easy plot gimmick until it was done to death. The idea of multiple personalities became popular forty years later, in entertainment vehicles as well as some outlier areas of psychiatry. A considerable amount of harm was done as naive therapists took this idea seriously.
The movie itself is a minor vehicle with a simplistic plot. It is likely to be entertaining only to those who have not seen the multitude of better dual personality films which followed it. The voice of the evil personality is by Audrey Totter , who always did the bad, bad girl very well. Too bad she doesn't appear in the flesh to add a sultry, dark tone to this movie. It would have helped.
The idea of a dual personality became rife in Hollywood plots around the time that this movie came out. It was an easy plot gimmick until it was done to death. The idea of multiple personalities became popular forty years later, in entertainment vehicles as well as some outlier areas of psychiatry. A considerable amount of harm was done as naive therapists took this idea seriously.
The movie itself is a minor vehicle with a simplistic plot. It is likely to be entertaining only to those who have not seen the multitude of better dual personality films which followed it. The voice of the evil personality is by Audrey Totter , who always did the bad, bad girl very well. Too bad she doesn't appear in the flesh to add a sultry, dark tone to this movie. It would have helped.
Echos of many better series
20 January 2020
Another smart guy/ dim bulb mystery series.
The justification for Dr. Lindemann being a omniscient know it-all is that he is a student of Sigmund Freud. Freud, in real life, had no interest in forensics and even failed a medical/forensic exam! How Freud's rambling ideas about intra-family romance translate into Lindemann's knowledge of stagecraft, for example, is not explained. This, to me, was a lingering problem. Why does this guy know so much? Is he an alien?
Hardly a scene passes without a memory of some other series, usually a better one, being recalled. The setting is new, but the plot seems to be a bit of a cut and paste job. Characters are stale. They are not rounded into interesting people nor does anyone have any particularly wittty lines.
The mystery, thus far, (I have only seen the first episode) is faintly familiar but still pretty intriguing
Worth a look but don't change any plans just to see it.
The justification for Dr. Lindemann being a omniscient know it-all is that he is a student of Sigmund Freud. Freud, in real life, had no interest in forensics and even failed a medical/forensic exam! How Freud's rambling ideas about intra-family romance translate into Lindemann's knowledge of stagecraft, for example, is not explained. This, to me, was a lingering problem. Why does this guy know so much? Is he an alien?
Hardly a scene passes without a memory of some other series, usually a better one, being recalled. The setting is new, but the plot seems to be a bit of a cut and paste job. Characters are stale. They are not rounded into interesting people nor does anyone have any particularly wittty lines.
The mystery, thus far, (I have only seen the first episode) is faintly familiar but still pretty intriguing
Worth a look but don't change any plans just to see it.
Hot Saturday
(1932)
Yesterday's Morality
9 December 2017
I'm so old that I can remember when the morality depicted in this movie was still strong. No sex before marriage. And then make an advantageous marriage. This morality is the basis of this film, and the story which is derived from it seem to reflect some of the twenties silents about wild girls-who really weren't so wild.
In any case, Nancy Carroll Kewpie-doll face, much in style at that time, is mesmerizing. This is one attractive woman.A young Cary Grant is also preternaturally attractive. This is a very early film for him, but he already has that Cary Grant manner about him. Here, he has charm, looks, lots of money, and one hell of a custom build car. Chauffeur driven, of course. Randolph Scott appears late; he is one nice guy. Sort of what Ralph Bellamy became a bit later.
If this movie had a message, it was garbled The whole enterprise was fun, although this clearly was not meant to be a comedy. The serious parts of the movie are so dated, that they play as light comedy, not drama..
In any case, Nancy Carroll Kewpie-doll face, much in style at that time, is mesmerizing. This is one attractive woman.A young Cary Grant is also preternaturally attractive. This is a very early film for him, but he already has that Cary Grant manner about him. Here, he has charm, looks, lots of money, and one hell of a custom build car. Chauffeur driven, of course. Randolph Scott appears late; he is one nice guy. Sort of what Ralph Bellamy became a bit later.
If this movie had a message, it was garbled The whole enterprise was fun, although this clearly was not meant to be a comedy. The serious parts of the movie are so dated, that they play as light comedy, not drama..
The Dark Mirror
(1946)
Yesterday's Psychiatry
4 December 2017
Lew Ayres, suave, handsome and sophisticated, tests a pair of twins with "tests' which a decade later were found to be no better than tarot cards. He discoveres that one of the pair is a murder but he doesn't know which. There are two Olivia de Havillands, one good, one evil, but which is which? There is also a cop who keeps telling everyone that he is dumb, but is he?
There is, of course, the psychotic, homicidal maniac, 1940s style, who appears to be perfectly normal until the end of the picture.
Not bad material for a psycho, mystery melodrama. Olivia has a chance to show her acting chops, segueing from person to person, from personality to personality with facial expressions, voice intonations, and body language. A nice job but the story doesn't play out well. The background music swells up for dramatic moments, but it is counter-productive. It is loud and intrusive and it detracted attention from the scene being played out. Everything is played so that the viewer gets caught up in the mystery and the danger. But, all this just didn't pull me in.
The film is a time passer and there are interesting things in it, but don't expect too much. Freud wouldn't have liked it, but there were very few things he did like
There is, of course, the psychotic, homicidal maniac, 1940s style, who appears to be perfectly normal until the end of the picture.
Not bad material for a psycho, mystery melodrama. Olivia has a chance to show her acting chops, segueing from person to person, from personality to personality with facial expressions, voice intonations, and body language. A nice job but the story doesn't play out well. The background music swells up for dramatic moments, but it is counter-productive. It is loud and intrusive and it detracted attention from the scene being played out. Everything is played so that the viewer gets caught up in the mystery and the danger. But, all this just didn't pull me in.
The film is a time passer and there are interesting things in it, but don't expect too much. Freud wouldn't have liked it, but there were very few things he did like
Seven Days Ashore
(1944)
Garage Sale Movie
3 December 2017
RKO cobbled together their contract players and also some other movie sets to come out with this musical comedy. The players were known at that time, but they weren't top tier talent. What came out was a movie, perhaps a second feature, which helped pass the time but was hardly a work of art.
My main interest in this film was Wally Brown and Alan Carney. I found a previous comedy of theirs, "Rookies in Burma", hilarious when it was first released, but I was only about six years old. "Zombies on Broadway" still holds up as funny.. They're not very funny in "Seven Days Ashore"; they try a few shtick, borrowing other comedians style, but their routines fall flat. The music and dancing show a lot of energy-Marcy McGuire tries so hard that you that you wonder if the studio is violating some labor laws-but the result is ho- hum.
Two gorgeous secondary players, Virginia Mayo and Amelita Ward do a credible job in their share of comic bits. This was an early Virginia Mayo picture and she went on to stardom. Amelita Ward married Leo Gorcey, who didn't want her to work, and her career ebbed away. This trivia might interest fellow movie history nerds.
My main interest in this film was Wally Brown and Alan Carney. I found a previous comedy of theirs, "Rookies in Burma", hilarious when it was first released, but I was only about six years old. "Zombies on Broadway" still holds up as funny.. They're not very funny in "Seven Days Ashore"; they try a few shtick, borrowing other comedians style, but their routines fall flat. The music and dancing show a lot of energy-Marcy McGuire tries so hard that you that you wonder if the studio is violating some labor laws-but the result is ho- hum.
Two gorgeous secondary players, Virginia Mayo and Amelita Ward do a credible job in their share of comic bits. This was an early Virginia Mayo picture and she went on to stardom. Amelita Ward married Leo Gorcey, who didn't want her to work, and her career ebbed away. This trivia might interest fellow movie history nerds.
Two Weeks to Live
(1943)
Rubes' big city comic adventure
16 November 2017
When I was quite young, Lum and Abner came on the radio for a 15 minute program every day-or so it seemed. The program was usually a dialogue between the two of them. There was not that much that was funny for a little kid, but their voices and speech were a treat.
This movie is a pleasant easy-going version of their radio humor. A situation is set up for them to meet strange characters and get into comic situations. All of this had been done a lot before this; the oddball characters, the gags, the situations would all have been familiar to 1943 audiences. But the Lum and Abner characters with their distinctive "country" speech and their strange misunderstandings of the big city and the people in it , freshen things up quite a bit.
This movies segues from one comic situation to another smoothly enough. If you don't find one funny, the next one will be along shortly, and it is likely to get a laugh out of you. Absolutely low pressure, easy-going humor.
Try watching it when you're stressed out. This film will calm you down.
This movie is a pleasant easy-going version of their radio humor. A situation is set up for them to meet strange characters and get into comic situations. All of this had been done a lot before this; the oddball characters, the gags, the situations would all have been familiar to 1943 audiences. But the Lum and Abner characters with their distinctive "country" speech and their strange misunderstandings of the big city and the people in it , freshen things up quite a bit.
This movies segues from one comic situation to another smoothly enough. If you don't find one funny, the next one will be along shortly, and it is likely to get a laugh out of you. Absolutely low pressure, easy-going humor.
Try watching it when you're stressed out. This film will calm you down.
Rocco and His Brothers
(1960)
A Flawed Classic
13 November 2017
Epic! Operatic! Dramatic black and white photographs! Compelling! There is wizardry in this cinematic effort. But
overlong, too histrionic for American audiences, slow moving, and predictable. This film purports to be the story of naïve and innocent country folk who come to the big city and face difficult life choices. This is expressed by characters in two long, sociologically tinged speeches. Minus these speeches, this sociological realism is just a back story. The main theme of the story line is biblical; the secondary theme, prosaic.
I had to read the English subtitles to follow the story, so I may have missed a lot. While reading, the visuals and the actors' expressions sometimes get lost. Ann Girardot does fine job as a prostitute who has a heart of gold-sometimes. Salvatori is great as is Paxinou but all these roles often strain credibility. Delon looks saintly and lost. Everything is a nanosecond removed from an uproar. A gym manager tears up his office, Citizen Kane style, because he doesn't like the quality of boxers in his gym-and his character is inconsequential.
I waited four decades before I could see this movie. I was not disappointed because I no longer expect epiphanies. I simply want to be brought into the story and be interested in its outcome. No more. Thus, I recommend this movie. The story is compelling. It was well done and has great cinema historic value, even with its flaws.,
I had to read the English subtitles to follow the story, so I may have missed a lot. While reading, the visuals and the actors' expressions sometimes get lost. Ann Girardot does fine job as a prostitute who has a heart of gold-sometimes. Salvatori is great as is Paxinou but all these roles often strain credibility. Delon looks saintly and lost. Everything is a nanosecond removed from an uproar. A gym manager tears up his office, Citizen Kane style, because he doesn't like the quality of boxers in his gym-and his character is inconsequential.
I waited four decades before I could see this movie. I was not disappointed because I no longer expect epiphanies. I simply want to be brought into the story and be interested in its outcome. No more. Thus, I recommend this movie. The story is compelling. It was well done and has great cinema historic value, even with its flaws.,
The Last Tycoon
(2016–2017)
Too many flaws
20 July 2017
There have been many failures trying to film a Fitzgerald novel. In fact, Robert Di Niro, as Monroe Stahr, discusses this problem in the 1976 version of The Last Tycoon. So why look for more trouble?. In this rendition, a ton of added plot is already burying the Fitzgerald/Wilson story in the first episode. Are the authors hoping for a six year run and need to have hackneyed, clichéd story lines to stretch things out. We have stereotyped Nazis,stereotyped homeless,the usual moronic underlings and a dangerous affair for the (in the book) monkish Monroe Stahr.
Kathleen-in the book-is so mysterious and ethereally lovely that even the depressed and nonreactive Stahr falls hard for her. In this version she is a decidedly non ethereal waitress, played by an actress who has the disconcerting habit of scrunching up her face in conversation so that she looks terrible. Stahr, who eshews the advances of incredibly attractive women three times a minute, must have been attracted to her valiant attempts to use her cheeks to loosen some peanut brittle stuck to her molars. No magic here.
The actor playing Stahr looks like he is being strangled by a starched, too tight suit. His face looks like he overdosed on a botox injection. Kelsy Grammar and Lilly Collins play their characters in a more naturalistic style, but the characters seem shallow,
Jeez why do they keep dumbing things down and then even doing that poorly ?
Kathleen-in the book-is so mysterious and ethereally lovely that even the depressed and nonreactive Stahr falls hard for her. In this version she is a decidedly non ethereal waitress, played by an actress who has the disconcerting habit of scrunching up her face in conversation so that she looks terrible. Stahr, who eshews the advances of incredibly attractive women three times a minute, must have been attracted to her valiant attempts to use her cheeks to loosen some peanut brittle stuck to her molars. No magic here.
The actor playing Stahr looks like he is being strangled by a starched, too tight suit. His face looks like he overdosed on a botox injection. Kelsy Grammar and Lilly Collins play their characters in a more naturalistic style, but the characters seem shallow,
Jeez why do they keep dumbing things down and then even doing that poorly ?
Night Life of the Gods
(1935)
The Gods Must be Stupid
3 July 2017
Thorne Smith was a writer whose stories reliably made good movies, even after the censors cut some of the juice out of them. I am also an Alan Mowbray fan. Thus, I expected a lot from Night Life of the Gods. The title itself suggested a witty parody
This film did not deliver A large amount of time was devoted to Mowbray using his magic ring to freeze annoying people and bring ancient statues of Greek gods to life. Zip! Zap! Huntz Hall could have done it much better. It takes forever to get to the part where the gods are brought to life. When this finally happens , the Gods turn out to be .morons. There are no comments from them about modern life nor any comparison with lifer on Mt. Olympus. They just act like bewildered children with an immense sense of entitlement. Unfortunately, there is very little humor in their romp through New York City.
Florine McKenny is the romantic interest She hams it up royally. Everyone else also does the same, but it is unusual to see this in the romantic lead. She screws her face into some awfully unattractive expressions which I can't remember ever seeing from a female romantic lead, at least not from one as attractive as she.
Too bad.
This film did not deliver A large amount of time was devoted to Mowbray using his magic ring to freeze annoying people and bring ancient statues of Greek gods to life. Zip! Zap! Huntz Hall could have done it much better. It takes forever to get to the part where the gods are brought to life. When this finally happens , the Gods turn out to be .morons. There are no comments from them about modern life nor any comparison with lifer on Mt. Olympus. They just act like bewildered children with an immense sense of entitlement. Unfortunately, there is very little humor in their romp through New York City.
Florine McKenny is the romantic interest She hams it up royally. Everyone else also does the same, but it is unusual to see this in the romantic lead. She screws her face into some awfully unattractive expressions which I can't remember ever seeing from a female romantic lead, at least not from one as attractive as she.
Too bad.
Gentleman's Fate
(1931)
For Film History Fans
21 June 2017
As a movie, this offering has all of the usual faults of an early talkie. It movies too slowly with awkward pauses; there are long often flowery speeches, and the performers seem uncomfortable at times. In addition, the script is a hodge podge of ideas and scenes written not so much to tell a coherent story but to get required love and action scenes into the movie. Characters are stereotypes whose lines are predictable.
It is interesting as cinema history. What killed Gilbert's career? For a while, his voice was considered the reason. In this film, Gilbert's voice is fine. In this movie, he reads his lines well with a tenor voice, but he can't find any inner character to give resonance to them. His character just isn't quite congruent with the premise of this movie. It probably isn't his fault because the person the script forces him to play couldn't possibly exist in real life or even in plausible fiction. I wonder if this was also the case with his other early talkies?
Early thirties blond beauties Anita Page and Leila Hyams look so much alike that they might be twins (actually a plot point). Both do a credible job, but Page is more compelling. The movie comes alive with her scenes. Neither she nor Hymes were given much to do in their later movies and their careers were quite short.
All in all, if you aren't a movie history fan, you'll need a pot of coffee on the stove to get you through this.
It is interesting as cinema history. What killed Gilbert's career? For a while, his voice was considered the reason. In this film, Gilbert's voice is fine. In this movie, he reads his lines well with a tenor voice, but he can't find any inner character to give resonance to them. His character just isn't quite congruent with the premise of this movie. It probably isn't his fault because the person the script forces him to play couldn't possibly exist in real life or even in plausible fiction. I wonder if this was also the case with his other early talkies?
Early thirties blond beauties Anita Page and Leila Hyams look so much alike that they might be twins (actually a plot point). Both do a credible job, but Page is more compelling. The movie comes alive with her scenes. Neither she nor Hymes were given much to do in their later movies and their careers were quite short.
All in all, if you aren't a movie history fan, you'll need a pot of coffee on the stove to get you through this.
Casanova in Burlesque
(1944)
Fun Movie
8 June 2017
This is a low budget movie which had potential: A troupe of burlesque performers putting on a musical version of The Taming of the Shrew in a stuffy college setting. This premise is realized in a mediocre fashion: not much wit nor imagination is put into the buildup or to the performance (which relies on slapstick).
The movie is fun. It has a laugh or two. It is watchable because June Havoc is funny being the character she so often played in the 1940s: a gum chewing, very sexy, wisecracking, shapely, working class woman. She does a couple of songs, too. So does Dale Evans (without Roy Rogers). Her swinging, lively song is the best in the movie. Joe E. Brown is Joe E. Brown, but, playing a college professor, he plays it quite straight for a good part of the movie.
The version I saw had passable sound and visual quality, but it was cut up badly. It seemed that a good part of the movie was missing. I could follow the plot despite the missing parts, but the movie was sufficiently engaging that I found the omissions annoying.
Since I am an amateur movie historian and a fan of Joe E. Brown and June Havoc, I enjoyed it. I do not know how people who know neither of these performers would react to this modest, but interesting flick.
The movie is fun. It has a laugh or two. It is watchable because June Havoc is funny being the character she so often played in the 1940s: a gum chewing, very sexy, wisecracking, shapely, working class woman. She does a couple of songs, too. So does Dale Evans (without Roy Rogers). Her swinging, lively song is the best in the movie. Joe E. Brown is Joe E. Brown, but, playing a college professor, he plays it quite straight for a good part of the movie.
The version I saw had passable sound and visual quality, but it was cut up badly. It seemed that a good part of the movie was missing. I could follow the plot despite the missing parts, but the movie was sufficiently engaging that I found the omissions annoying.
Since I am an amateur movie historian and a fan of Joe E. Brown and June Havoc, I enjoyed it. I do not know how people who know neither of these performers would react to this modest, but interesting flick.
Café Society
(2016)
It Might Have Been
13 December 2016
Allen did not fully develop this film in a number if ways. I would like to make a statement about his treatment of the purported theme of this movie in particular.
The purported theme of the movie is "it might have been". The unrealized potential of a love which didn't work out. This seems to be the theme of the movie because it is the last thing which Allen puts in As with other aspects of this film, Woody Allen's failure to develop and polish his scenario undermines his purpose. Girl ditches Woody substitute in Hollywood, he hustles into New York Café Society where, Presto! Change-O!, shy guy becomes a glad hander/manager/restaurateur. He knows all of the glitterati. He meets another woman and has a family in the space of a nanosecond (Allen the narrator tells us). Never, apparently, a thought of his first love. And then she walks in; they talk; the movie ends with a sweetish "it might have been" miasma wafting in.
This can be a powerful theme if handled correctly. It has to be developed. It has to be lurking in the relationship for the entire film to work. If the theme is developed, as Whittier tells us, it is very sad:
For of all sad words of tongue or pen The saddest are these: 'It might have been"
A great movie with this theme is "H. M. Pulham, Esq."
"It might have been" can also be written as comedy showing the the contrast between the idolized lost love and the reality of an actual person: Thus, Bret Harte wrote:
If, of all words of tongue and pen, The saddest are, 'It might have been,'
More sad are these we daily see: 'It is, but hadn't ought to be.'
Allen didn't go near the comedy. There are few laughs in this movie except for some shtick here and there inserted for no particular plot point nor character development reason. As a serious theme "it might have been" seems to have been thrown in at the last moment at the end to make this movie seem to have some justification for being made.
The purported theme of the movie is "it might have been". The unrealized potential of a love which didn't work out. This seems to be the theme of the movie because it is the last thing which Allen puts in As with other aspects of this film, Woody Allen's failure to develop and polish his scenario undermines his purpose. Girl ditches Woody substitute in Hollywood, he hustles into New York Café Society where, Presto! Change-O!, shy guy becomes a glad hander/manager/restaurateur. He knows all of the glitterati. He meets another woman and has a family in the space of a nanosecond (Allen the narrator tells us). Never, apparently, a thought of his first love. And then she walks in; they talk; the movie ends with a sweetish "it might have been" miasma wafting in.
This can be a powerful theme if handled correctly. It has to be developed. It has to be lurking in the relationship for the entire film to work. If the theme is developed, as Whittier tells us, it is very sad:
For of all sad words of tongue or pen The saddest are these: 'It might have been"
A great movie with this theme is "H. M. Pulham, Esq."
"It might have been" can also be written as comedy showing the the contrast between the idolized lost love and the reality of an actual person: Thus, Bret Harte wrote:
If, of all words of tongue and pen, The saddest are, 'It might have been,'
More sad are these we daily see: 'It is, but hadn't ought to be.'
Allen didn't go near the comedy. There are few laughs in this movie except for some shtick here and there inserted for no particular plot point nor character development reason. As a serious theme "it might have been" seems to have been thrown in at the last moment at the end to make this movie seem to have some justification for being made.
Smart Alecks
(1942)
Slapsie Maxie?...the "boss"
12 December 2016
Whom do kids look up to and imitate? Certainly not parents nor any adults. Kids admire older kids. Thus, the East Side Kids were a good act for the grade school crowd of the 1940s.. Their later Bowery Boys iterations were way too old to be the comedy sensation of the fourth grade. They wore suits for Pete's sake. Thus, the East Side Kids could be-and should be- childishly silly and immature. They had to act like kids and to a great extent, they did. They seemed like a real gang of street kids (albeit a tad too old) as opposed to the adult hapless loafers of The Bowery Boys
Here the bad guys are kids also. Maxie Rosebloom played a character (as usual) so dumb that he made Satch/Glimpy seem like a veritable Stephen Hawkins He was the "boss" of the criminal gang-which only seemed to have one other member, anyway. Perfect!
The only critical issue is: did kids like this movie when it came out? Well, I did
Here the bad guys are kids also. Maxie Rosebloom played a character (as usual) so dumb that he made Satch/Glimpy seem like a veritable Stephen Hawkins He was the "boss" of the criminal gang-which only seemed to have one other member, anyway. Perfect!
The only critical issue is: did kids like this movie when it came out? Well, I did
Blithe Spirit
(1945)
Lost it's charm
13 November 2016
Blithe Spirit is a great play. I also remember enjoying it on TV in the very old black and white days. As a fantasy in glorious technicolor, it actually loses something. I don't think that fantasies work that well in color. In this case, the color is an actual problem
As I get older and older And totter toward the tomb Movies ghosts in florescent green Fill my heart with morbid gloom
Rex Harrison usually played a comedic role Of an arrogant, entitled, self centered cad. In real life, Rex was all of this and much, much worse So now Rex's antics aren't funny. They are sad.
Sure, Margaret Rutherford was funny, but she kept doing the same shtick for the rest of her career, so her antics were quite predictable. The green ghosts were bilious. Kay Hammond kept fluttering her arms in a way which was incongruous with her lines. It was painful to watch her. Rex Harrison was supposed to be a sympathetic character harassed by his ghostly wives, but he was annoying. Perhaps the reports that he was an absolute boor in real life colored my judgement.
As I get older and older And totter toward the tomb Movies ghosts in florescent green Fill my heart with morbid gloom
Rex Harrison usually played a comedic role Of an arrogant, entitled, self centered cad. In real life, Rex was all of this and much, much worse So now Rex's antics aren't funny. They are sad.
Sure, Margaret Rutherford was funny, but she kept doing the same shtick for the rest of her career, so her antics were quite predictable. The green ghosts were bilious. Kay Hammond kept fluttering her arms in a way which was incongruous with her lines. It was painful to watch her. Rex Harrison was supposed to be a sympathetic character harassed by his ghostly wives, but he was annoying. Perhaps the reports that he was an absolute boor in real life colored my judgement.
Irrational Man
(2015)
What a mess!
20 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Two things stand out about this movie: it is poorly made and boring. If it is supposed to be a murder comedy, it is not funny. If it is supposed to be a suspense movie, there is no tension at all.
As mentioned by others here, the main performers don't seem to quite know the script. Minor characters seem in a panic to find their marks. Some just look like they are suffering from stage fright. Joaquin Phoenix often has a bemused smile, as if he just found himself in the middle of a children's puppet show. He drinks from a prohibition era hip flask-a trope from the pre-code 1930s. Do they still made such a thing? The script is cobbled together willy nilly from old movies. You not only can guess what is going to happen next, you can guess the very next line. There is a lot of meaningless conversation to fill time until the hasty ending. There is supposed to be a surprise ending. If the ending is a surprise, it is only because a character suddenly acts completely OUT of character, as if Scarlett O'Hara goes into a convent.
Despite the title, this is not any kind of riff on philosophy or existence. The philosophy prof might just as well have been a Slavic language teacher Allen is also back inserting propaganda about his own life. A judge in a custody trial ruled against him; now Allen gets even with that judge by creating an evil, fictional judge to kill off in this mess of a movie.
As mentioned by others here, the main performers don't seem to quite know the script. Minor characters seem in a panic to find their marks. Some just look like they are suffering from stage fright. Joaquin Phoenix often has a bemused smile, as if he just found himself in the middle of a children's puppet show. He drinks from a prohibition era hip flask-a trope from the pre-code 1930s. Do they still made such a thing? The script is cobbled together willy nilly from old movies. You not only can guess what is going to happen next, you can guess the very next line. There is a lot of meaningless conversation to fill time until the hasty ending. There is supposed to be a surprise ending. If the ending is a surprise, it is only because a character suddenly acts completely OUT of character, as if Scarlett O'Hara goes into a convent.
Despite the title, this is not any kind of riff on philosophy or existence. The philosophy prof might just as well have been a Slavic language teacher Allen is also back inserting propaganda about his own life. A judge in a custody trial ruled against him; now Allen gets even with that judge by creating an evil, fictional judge to kill off in this mess of a movie.
Istanbul
(1957)
Flynn at half mast
24 November 2015
I always get an unpleasant jolt when I see a movie from the late phase of Errol Flynn's career. He had not gotten fat, but his face had puffed up and seemed vertically scrunched. Worst of all, his youthful roguish smile and impish expressions had become a permanent stone face. His 1930s style mustache seemed an unusual affectation in an era of clean shaven men. His lips barely moved as he let his lines leak out. He looked sad and angry, no matter what emotions the script called for. He certainly had a lot of illnesses, so maybe his perpetually tightly shut mouth was hiding some physical problem.
His female lead, Cornel Borchers, had many closeups as she spoke to Flynn. Her animation and sparkling smile contrasted with Flynn's stone face. Thus, the scenes did not play well. They also seemed to have fallen into devoted, passionate love in a nanosecond, for reasons which are unexplained.
The movie is a mild romantic/adventure story. There is enough in it to keep you watching, but just enough. There is an amnesia thread in the story which belongs in the Three Stooges Handbook of psychiatric practice. Nat Cole sings well, of course.
His female lead, Cornel Borchers, had many closeups as she spoke to Flynn. Her animation and sparkling smile contrasted with Flynn's stone face. Thus, the scenes did not play well. They also seemed to have fallen into devoted, passionate love in a nanosecond, for reasons which are unexplained.
The movie is a mild romantic/adventure story. There is enough in it to keep you watching, but just enough. There is an amnesia thread in the story which belongs in the Three Stooges Handbook of psychiatric practice. Nat Cole sings well, of course.
The End of the Tour
(2015)
For Wallace fans only
6 September 2015
This is supposed to be the story of an interview with David Foster Wallace (DFW)right after his successful tome, "Infinite Jest" was published. Of course, no one else witnessed the interview so cynics can suspect that the story may be a tad more than somewhat fictional. It could certainly have been jazzed up, and we wouldn't have known, yet, the interview as told in the movie is very ho hum. It reveals little about DFW's mental state, his approach to writing fiction and his personality. The question which obsesses his fans, why did he kill himself, is not addressed, and not much information is given to help the viewer make inferences. What is left is a slow, meandering story of two neurotic guys making tepid observations and getting upset with each other.
In a lot of ways this is quite true to life. Artists in conversation with each other sound very much like anyone else. Brilliant insights don't get thrown around.
Thus, unless the viewer is a rabid DFW fan, looking to get into DFWs head, and willing to accept only a few crumbs of insight, this is a film about two hypersensitive guys trying to do conversational wheelies around each other. Neither of the two is witty. In fact, the conversations get reduced to mutual whining. Since all there is is talk, the impression of story movement is simulated by having a lot of the talk being in a moving car or an airplane as the two talkers go from place to place It would probably be a lot more fun if Christopher Hitchens were to interview Philip Roth.
In a lot of ways this is quite true to life. Artists in conversation with each other sound very much like anyone else. Brilliant insights don't get thrown around.
Thus, unless the viewer is a rabid DFW fan, looking to get into DFWs head, and willing to accept only a few crumbs of insight, this is a film about two hypersensitive guys trying to do conversational wheelies around each other. Neither of the two is witty. In fact, the conversations get reduced to mutual whining. Since all there is is talk, the impression of story movement is simulated by having a lot of the talk being in a moving car or an airplane as the two talkers go from place to place It would probably be a lot more fun if Christopher Hitchens were to interview Philip Roth.
Badly out of whack
19 August 2015
I think it is informative to speculate why this film fails and fails badly. It has great production values, sumptuous photography, classy music (a bit smaltzy for current times but spot on for the 1960s), and a professional cast. Lee Cobb roars, as always, and Paul Lukas and Charles Boyer play their usual European gentlemen quite nicely, and Paul Henreid is heroic. It is based on a wildly successful, classic book which led to an equally successful and admired classic silent movie.
Okay, so far, but why does the film drag along as a meandering story which seldom engages the viewer? The stars are one possibility. A listless Glenn Ford in an anachronistic hat looks bewildered much of the time, as if he stepped onto the set of a different movie. Ingrid Thulin was somehow out of sync. Her lips and the dubbed English were well coordinated, but her expressions and body language were not quite congruent with her lines. Also, what was that sudden, powerful attraction between them? They both looked too old for it to have been pure hormones.
A major problem is the era depicted in this film. The book and silent movie depict the time of the first World War. This purposeless Great War was the result of bumbling leaders who stumbled into a war in which their moronic generals could only slaughter soldiers by the millions. The actual history was not too different from the war in the satire, Duck Soup. No one knew how to either end the war or win it. The book and silent movie tell the story of family members from neutral Argentina who get drawn into this maw of hell. Their fates are roughly parallel to what happened to the world itself during this time. A powerful, moving existential tale.
This 1962 film changes the era to the second World War. This was a war which gave much of the world the option of fighting or becoming a slave or being murdered. In this film one part of the family is in conquered France while the other part is in the barbaric Nazi S.S. No decision to fight or remain neutral is really available. No existential crisis. No credible conflict is evident.Thus, the films winds down to a formulaic heroic (and impossible) ending. At some point, it looks like everyone just wants to quit and go home.
The film tries to tell a story which is out of sync with the time and situation in which it is located. Its lead players do not mesh with the other performers, nor with each other, and look lost. The film is not very good, but the big problem is that it is bewildering to consider how so much talent can go so terribly wrong.
Okay, so far, but why does the film drag along as a meandering story which seldom engages the viewer? The stars are one possibility. A listless Glenn Ford in an anachronistic hat looks bewildered much of the time, as if he stepped onto the set of a different movie. Ingrid Thulin was somehow out of sync. Her lips and the dubbed English were well coordinated, but her expressions and body language were not quite congruent with her lines. Also, what was that sudden, powerful attraction between them? They both looked too old for it to have been pure hormones.
A major problem is the era depicted in this film. The book and silent movie depict the time of the first World War. This purposeless Great War was the result of bumbling leaders who stumbled into a war in which their moronic generals could only slaughter soldiers by the millions. The actual history was not too different from the war in the satire, Duck Soup. No one knew how to either end the war or win it. The book and silent movie tell the story of family members from neutral Argentina who get drawn into this maw of hell. Their fates are roughly parallel to what happened to the world itself during this time. A powerful, moving existential tale.
This 1962 film changes the era to the second World War. This was a war which gave much of the world the option of fighting or becoming a slave or being murdered. In this film one part of the family is in conquered France while the other part is in the barbaric Nazi S.S. No decision to fight or remain neutral is really available. No existential crisis. No credible conflict is evident.Thus, the films winds down to a formulaic heroic (and impossible) ending. At some point, it looks like everyone just wants to quit and go home.
The film tries to tell a story which is out of sync with the time and situation in which it is located. Its lead players do not mesh with the other performers, nor with each other, and look lost. The film is not very good, but the big problem is that it is bewildering to consider how so much talent can go so terribly wrong.
Humoresque
(1946)
A Near Miss
24 March 2015
When this film first came out in 1946, radio comics told jokes about it. The jokes centered on John Garfield, who had a filmography of nothing but tough guy parts, playing a classical violinist. These jokes were probably publicity plants, but they do point out a problem with the movie. Garfield carries with him a long established persona of a socially engaged tough guy and this history sabotages his attempt to play an ethereal, over-mothered, nerdy, self obsessed artist. I keep expecting him to punch someone. There is also the shadow issue of his sexuality. The childhood mentor with whom he lives, when asked about the nature of their relationship, answers that it is identical to the one between George Sand and Chopin. Huh? How did that one get past the censors? Joan Crawford does give one of her best performances, but it was a clearly a performance. I appreciated the effort Crawford put into it. She just misses. Part of the problem is the script. She is as much plot device as a fully fleshed out character. Why is she so over emotional? Her over-reaction at the end-and, boy, what an over-reaction- is not forecast by her earlier casual dismissals of her husband and her boy toys.
But the film is very high level melodrama. The swelling music behind key scenes fits in. A compelling story is told well. Oscar Levant's one liners are great until they begin to grate. The cast does a uniform good job. Thus, Humoresque is well worth seeing, even if it falls short of being a classic.
But the film is very high level melodrama. The swelling music behind key scenes fits in. A compelling story is told well. Oscar Levant's one liners are great until they begin to grate. The cast does a uniform good job. Thus, Humoresque is well worth seeing, even if it falls short of being a classic.
Gone Girl
(2014)
Tight suspense fizzles out into stupidity
2 March 2015
This evolved into a tight, suspenseful thriller: what happened. An intriguing story unfolded, but the movie went on and on and on. At the end, everyone has become seriously stupid and so the movie lost me.
Clearly, there was supposed to be an ironic story of a media feeding frenzy. The TV coverage motivated the action of the characters. Okay, but it was not told all that clearly and there was little irony and no humor to this part of the movie.
Who was responsible for such a long picture. Anyone watching it could tell that the compelling nature of the story was dwindling.
Okay but could have been m much better (and shorter).
Clearly, there was supposed to be an ironic story of a media feeding frenzy. The TV coverage motivated the action of the characters. Okay, but it was not told all that clearly and there was little irony and no humor to this part of the movie.
Who was responsible for such a long picture. Anyone watching it could tell that the compelling nature of the story was dwindling.
Okay but could have been m much better (and shorter).
The Brothers Karamazov
(1958)
Non classic movie of classic book
23 February 2015
I was reading The Brothers Karamazov when this movie came on TCM. I recorded it and then watched it after I finished the book. There is no way that any movie could have duplicated this long, rambling book full of digressions, religious and psychological discussions, Russian nationalism, and satirical descriptions of inept doctors and lawyers. As a movie, it follows the basic plot well enough, ironing out the complexities and complications to make it a movie. A basic movie plot.
Well, it's not all that much of a story by itself. The romance is unconvincing; there is little suspense or mystery. The production values are okay. It looks like we are in backwoods 19th century Russia, but, at the same time, it is hardly impressive.
Lee Cobb makes a caricature in the book into a real person. Maria Schell plays a character who is supposed to have an infectious smile, but she smiles so much in the movie that it seems like a psychiatric condition. The rest of the cast is okay. Without the book's long back stories the characters have no depth in this movie and their motivations can be bewildering.
Well, it's not all that much of a story by itself. The romance is unconvincing; there is little suspense or mystery. The production values are okay. It looks like we are in backwoods 19th century Russia, but, at the same time, it is hardly impressive.
Lee Cobb makes a caricature in the book into a real person. Maria Schell plays a character who is supposed to have an infectious smile, but she smiles so much in the movie that it seems like a psychiatric condition. The rest of the cast is okay. Without the book's long back stories the characters have no depth in this movie and their motivations can be bewildering.
Where the Truth Lies
(2005)
What is this supposed to be?
24 December 2014
What is this movie supposed to be? A murder mystery? Probably not. Not too much attention is paid to the mystery and the solution is lame, almost thrown away. Existential? We do see a lot of the victim's nude body and her dead face. Creepy and unnecessary. Is the film meant to tell us about the adventures of a bright female writer uncovering secrets? Nope. The female lead character is kind of dumb (but beautiful, of course), and the "secrets" are not very compelling. The unraveling of these tepid secrets takes time and is confusing with too many flashbacks into different eras and places, all of which look the same. Thus, it is too hard to follow to allow viewer involvement in the plot.
This movie reminded me of the soft-core porn movies shown on late night cable or satellite TV. This is different in that the performances are that of skilled professionals. Great sets! Great music! But the enterprise seemed to have the same purpose as the soft-core throwaways: an excuse to show woman's bodies and simulated sex.
This movie reminded me of the soft-core porn movies shown on late night cable or satellite TV. This is different in that the performances are that of skilled professionals. Great sets! Great music! But the enterprise seemed to have the same purpose as the soft-core throwaways: an excuse to show woman's bodies and simulated sex.
The Last Command
(1928)
Times Change
18 November 2014
Sure the absence of spoken dialogue, flimsy sets and obvious miniatures mark this movie as an antique, but it does grab you. It is easy to disregard the antique technical aspects of the film, but the psychology of the protagonists are equally out of date. Did people in 1928 swallow the unlikely behavior of the protagonists as reflecting real life or did they see it as necessary plot components of a fantasy. I suspect the latter.
William Powell was most naturalistic in his acting. He played a calculating, humorless, dictatorial movie director. The antithesis of Nick Charles. Jannings got a chance to strut his famous histrionics, and he puts on quite a show. Brent could be a smoldering Garbo one minute and a Joan Crawford flapper the next. Her behavior was designed for script purposes and did not simulate any fully fleshed out character.
Director Joseph von Sternberg (nee Jonas Sternberg)and Jannings reached their career heights with The Blue Angel two years later. Von Sternberg could really stretch out a quiet, actionless scene and fill it with tension. He was successful in Hollywood for a while and then his career crashed. Jannings became a Nazi in Germany and slid into obscurity and early death after WWII.
The movie can be gripping. It is well done, but the characters are acting out a movie style fantasy that is not longer palatable. I couldn't suspend my disbelief. Hey, times change.
William Powell was most naturalistic in his acting. He played a calculating, humorless, dictatorial movie director. The antithesis of Nick Charles. Jannings got a chance to strut his famous histrionics, and he puts on quite a show. Brent could be a smoldering Garbo one minute and a Joan Crawford flapper the next. Her behavior was designed for script purposes and did not simulate any fully fleshed out character.
Director Joseph von Sternberg (nee Jonas Sternberg)and Jannings reached their career heights with The Blue Angel two years later. Von Sternberg could really stretch out a quiet, actionless scene and fill it with tension. He was successful in Hollywood for a while and then his career crashed. Jannings became a Nazi in Germany and slid into obscurity and early death after WWII.
The movie can be gripping. It is well done, but the characters are acting out a movie style fantasy that is not longer palatable. I couldn't suspend my disbelief. Hey, times change.
Tell Your Friends