Change Your Image
ajoyce1va
Reviews
Salomé (1922)
More a series of Tableaux Vivants than a movie
When reading viewer comments on this forum, I often wonder if they and I have seen the same film. What did the people (there are a few) who liked almost two hours of this nonsense see that I didn't?
In 1923, when Nazimova made this, Art Nouveau and Victorian Decadence were over, over, over, but she pushed ahead anyway. You can blame Middle American socially conservative values for the failure of the project, but I would say that there are plenty of other reasons that "Salome, The Movie" tanked: posturing instead of acting, declarations instead of dialog, buffoonery (Herod and Herodias) paired with painful sincerity (everybody else) and not quite meshing, a really bad dance number from Nazimova, and the overwhelming sense of self-importance that pervades the entire production.
Then there are the absurdities. The Captain of the Guard kills himself because he can't stand the idea that Salome might love someone else. Okay, a bit over the top, but acceptable in a piece of fiction. However, it's absurd to have the character portrayed as (or by) someone who clearly never had any erotic interest in women. Ditto for showing John the Baptist first tempted by Salome and then rejecting her on moral grounds, when either the actor or the portrayal is of someone with the same sexual orientation as the Captain of the Guard.
A one-line review might state: they all stay in character and take themselves very seriously. In this movie, that's not a good thing.
The credits give a nod to the Aubrey Beardsley illustrations as the basis of the costume design. I think there's more to it than that: Nazimova used the Wilde libretto as a framework for the action, but I think she was really trying to bring the Beardsley illustrations to the screen with herself as the center of attention. Give Middle America a little credit for at least a modicum of good taste. This is not artistry -- this is narcissism.
And by the way, one post here suggests that Fellini drew on this film for inspiration. Perhaps, but I see the lines of inspiration going from Herod, as portrayed here, to Harpo Marx, whom Herod very much resembles, and from Herodias to Ma Kettle.
Ran (1985)
Daimyo Lear has no daughters, but lots of problems with his sons
It's interesting to read the earlier reviews for Ran on this forum: the artsy-minded love it, while the roller derby fans hate it. I didn't hate it but must agree that there's enough bad acting from Nakadai to make you want to hold your nose, and lots of terrible writing. For example, we see Hidetora, stumbling around in volcano-land in a preposterous white wig, as he comes out of his stupor to announce "I am lost," and his Fool replies "Such is the Human Condition." Oh, come on!
And some of the actions sequences aren't much better. In the first battle, Tora's captain magically gets inside the castle and opens the gates. As the disaster proceeds, a guardsman comes up to report to Hidetora, finishes his message and as he tries to stagger back to the battle, he dies theatrically right there on the floor. And finally, while the castle burns, Kurosawa shows us pile after pile of bloody, artistically arranged corpse pin-cushions. Yeah, we got the point; get on with the story!
But I wouldn't rate Ran as totally awful because there is much to admire in this film. Many of the domestic scenes show classic Japanese good taste, and the battle sequences are nothing short of amazing. And while I wouldn't care to get it on with ferocious Lady Kaede as (already married) Jiro does, I loved her character as one of the main forces behind the downfall of the House of Ichimonji. Best of all was the cinematography. Most of Kurosawa's greatest work was in black and white, but clearly his understanding of color composition was masterful. If I could keep the court intrigue, the good exterior scenes in the high country, and the battles and cut out all the Hidetora-gone-mad rubbish, I would have enjoyed this movie.
As it was, after over two and a half hours of this stuff, my wife provided the best assessment. As the final credits rolled, she turned to me and said, "Well, that was depressing!"
P.S. An earlier reviewer commented on the anachronistic use of firearms in this film, complaining that samurai would not have used them. Well, yes and no. True 16th Century samurai as shown in this film would have done their work with sword, bow, and lance, but characters like Saburo and Fujimaki would not have scorned the use of men-at-arms with rifles. What was absurd in the final battle sequence was the rate of fire -- impossible for Saburo's small force.
The Black Cat (1941)
Cornball mystery in a spooky old house
Truly a ham-athon, featuring an impressive array of character actors of that period. I loved Gale (The Spiderwoman) Sondergaard as the house manager -- or would you say butlerette? And seeing the young Alan Ladd in an insipid role -- no Shane moves here! -- was very interesting.
Like a previous poster, I would have liked to see Hugh Herbert get knocked off first, but that wouldn't have made sense within the plot because he wasn't in line to inherit. So we're stuck with him doing his usual schtick throughout the movie.
There is one huge plot-hole. Herbert picks up the old lady's will and uses it as a bookmark, but drops it later. As soon as he does that, a spooky hand (belonging to the murderer, perhaps?) reaches out of the curtains and picks it up. So what happens to it after that?
Anyway, I'm glad I didn't buy a theater ticket to see this old turkey, but it was worth the hour and ten minutes to see it in streaming video on Netflix. Might watch it again some time too.
The Locked Door (1929)
Enjoyable if utterly unbelievable rubbish
Other comments mention some innovative camera work in this film, but what you'll remember first is the stiff, stagy acting. And yet, you'll keep watching right up to the ridiculous deus-ex-machina ending because the movie isn't terrible enough to make you turn it off. And there are some points of interest.
One, oddly enough, is the set. Devereaux's bachelor pad has Gothic architectural details worthy of Dracula's castle. Funny that as a playboy with no visible means of support (blackmail, perhaps), he should be able to afford such a magnificent place.
Another would be Barbara Stanwyck with a horrendous 1920's hairdo, overacting like she probably never did again. I never believed that she would be so much in love with a husband who looks twice her age and has all the passion and animation of a dead codfish.
Another would be the villain of the piece, played by Rod La Roque as the ultimate lounge lizard with the a perfectly sleazy pencil-thin mustache and a leering, mocking manner to match. But I believed all that far more than I believed his change of heart at the end.
And finally, standing out like a beacon among the minor players, is Zazu Pitts as the ditsy switchboard operator. Very funny.
Ride the High Country (1962)
Two old men go for it one last time
I don't give this one a 10 because the main plot (what to do about the gold) and the subplot (what to do about the girl) clash somewhat. The author's idea appears to be that the way Scott and McCrea decide what to about the girl point to their resolution of the other problem as well, but it was hard to see that in the raucous events surrounding her wedding. There's really no moral ambiguity about what to do with the gold, and McCrea 's character is steadfast on that point right from the start. It's pretty clear what will happen to the girl after her marriage -- the other brothers expect to share her -- so given what sort of men the three leads are, their actions about the girl are pretty well pre-determined too, don't you think?
There are many delights in this film. It was wonderful to see Randolph Scott give the most relaxed, charming performance of his career. Joel McCrea was perfect in this role. But beyond them, I really enjoyed seeing men I remember as established character actors like John Anderson and Warren Oates holding their own with Edgar Buchanan and Percy Helton. And Mariette Hartley was stunningly beautiful in this film. Great to see them all.
One thing I would point out -- the scene where the Hammonds toss brother Henry in a water trough (does that count as a bath) struck one reviewer here as hilarious, but when Henry comes out of the water, he has a look on his face as he goes for his knife that is truly chilling. Not funny. And indicative of how Billy's wedding to Elsa is going to turn out.
Tôkyô monogatari (1953)
With one exception, much like an episode of Seinfeld
The difference, of course, is that while both are about nothing, Seinfeld episodes are funny. Somebody did find the scene of the three old men getting drunk to be humorous, but I'm confounded if I see it that part as anything but maudlin and pathetic.
My family and I lived for four years in Japan, and learned to speak some and read enough to follow street signs, at least. Some of the most striking things about this movie for me were the views of Tokyo and the infrastructure. How did they manage to rebuild their factories to rebuild their train system, only eight years after the end of the war?
I gather that the Japanese of the 1950's were not a great deal like the Japanese I knew in the 80's, although the connections across three decades were visible. The Japanese women of my neighborhood were a lot more like Noriko than Shige. The older men I knew reminded me of the father -- self absorbed and uninterested in the women around them. Did you notice the way the father behaves at Atami? When he and the mother sit on the causeway and decide to go back home to Onomichi, she stands up but feels dizzy. He basically tells her to shake it off and walks on, not even looking back to see how she is. Again, after the funeral, a neighbor asks how he's doing and he talks a bit about his days will seem long without the mother's company. It's all about him, right?
Reviewers notice how Noriko, the widow of a son killed in the war, is the only one who shows any compassion and interest in the parents, her in-laws. This is matched by the fact that none of the rest of the family, all of whom seem relatively successful, have any real interest in her. They have reasonably decent houses while she lives in a crappy apartment building with shared kitchen and bath facilities.
Overall, I found the Japanese I knew in the 1980's to be easy to like, hard to love. With that I experience, I watched Tokyo Story and found it hard to like, hard to maintain any interest, and hard to care about. All the commentaries above that go on about how universal this film is are deluding themselves. Likewise, all the commentary about how this is one of the greatest films of all time are not comparing it to Kurosawa's best work, which totally blow this boring soap opera away.
Anyway, I rate it a three -- not totally awful -- but would never spend another 2 hours and 15 minutes of my life watching it again.
Incubus (1966)
A succubus falls in love with TJ Hooker and is killed by a goat.
I wouldn't call this film awful, compared, say, to a three hour Kevin Costner extravaganza or to any Ben Affleck rubbish you'd care to name. But it is pretentious, silly, and weird.
Many of the comments above start with the decision of the screenplay's author to do it all in Esperanto. Must have seemed like a good idea at the time, but for me, the main effect was to persuade most of the cast to memorize and almost chant their lines rather than learn, internalize, and act them. Strangely, Shatner is the only member of the cast who tries to approach the dialog professionally, as if it were actually a dramatic role he's doing, with lines that have a real meaning, and not just something he's reciting for SAG scale.
The thing that impressed me most about the film, apart from how good Marc's sister looked partially undressed, was the way the story is heavily imbued with Christian values. This influence appeared now and then in the old Outer Limits shows, but it's extremely rare to find such values in anybody's mainstream cinema, and even rarer in films like this one with pretensions to Bergmanesque artistry.
Bottom line: rent it from Netflix for the oddity of it all, but don't take it seriously.
And BTW, if Marc couldn't really kill the Incubus, how does the goat manage to kill Amael?
Bell Book and Candle (1958)
The Age Difference
A number of contributors have mentioned the age difference between Stewart and Novak. She was 25 and he was 50 when this movie was released. I think that the difference didn't matter for a suspense drama like Vertigo, but it does matter for a romantic comedy. We can easily understand, that is, why his character would be attracted to hers, but it's less clear why hers would be attracted to his.
Still, the movie works as a light romantic fantasy. The scene where she stares at him across the cat's head, with her dark painted-on eyebrows flaring and the sounds of her humming and the cat purring, is true magic. It's a little jarring, therefore, when the scene shifts to the top of the Flatiron Building, and we see the age difference very sharply. As he embraces her, she reaches up to run her fingers through his hair, but stops that motion and just brushes her fingertips lightly against his toupee.
O Lucky Man! (1973)
Pretentious, chaotic, unfunny, and interminable
There's a line in Ira Levin's film "Deathtrap" where failing playwright Sidney Bruhl describes to his wife a play written by one of his students. "How good is it?" asks Bruhl. "So good even a gifted director couldn't hurt it." Was Bruhl referring, perhaps, to Lindsay Anderson?
Anderson was a prime representative of the nihilistic, self-loathing traits one finds in those parts of the British population that hate their jobs, their prospects, their cities, their neighbors, their country, their sexuality, and their accents. And of course, anyone who happens to be successful in any normal profession or calling. In "If...", his lad Mick Travis rebels against the cruelty of the upper classmen in his school by staging an armed rebellion, complete with firearms, and ends up killing the headmaster and himself. Cute, neh? In "O Lucky Man", the violence is more surrealistic but equally driven by Anderson's various angers and hatreds. I'm not surprised that British intellectuals would like this stuff ("Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals"), but to me it's quite tiresome.
What we have in "O Lucky Man" is a sort of Richard Lester parade of absurdities without the comic genius that Lester brought to his work. The strangest thing about the film is the number of people (many of them contributing to these reviews) that have found 183 minutes of this rubbish worth watching.
Apart from these general observations, I have two specific complaints. First, the studio music sessions that punctuate the film contribute nothing to its flow, and are far from wonderful as music. Fortunately, with the DVD you can fast-forward through these interludes and not have to listen. Second, the film features two interesting actresses -- Rachel Roberts, still hot at 46 when the film was released, and Helen Mirren, smoking hot at 28 -- but neither of them do nude scenes. Anderson reserved that honor for female bit players and extras.
Ercole alla conquista di Atlantide (1961)
Eeeeuw!
My favorite scene in this movie is the one where Herc first meets evil queen and failed Hollywood starlet Fay Spain, and she shows that she's the one with the real courage. As she sits on her throne, totally regal and a devoted servant of Uranus, a fly lands on her shoulder and crawls into her armpit. My second favorite scene is the one where she tries to drug him. Herc staggers about for a while, then plops on the floor like a beached whale. The evil Atlanteans leave the room. Herc then performs his most impressive feat of the movie: he spits out the drugged wine in a thin arc stream like a fountain. Wish I could do that -- it'd be a great party trick.
Du bi shuang xiong (1976)
A pair of one-armed swordsmen team up to defeat a third, a hidden robber who has killed a local magistrate.
I rented a copy of this one from Netflix -- big mistake. The DVD version titled "The One-Armed Swordsmen" was produced by madmen who thought that the fighting sequences would be appreciated better pasted all together in one big chapter than as part of a consistent, sequential story. Some of the story was left in separate chapters, which you can select from the main menu, but the DVD is still a mess. Don't rent or buy it. Not that there was anything wonderful about the original story, an absurdly complicated piece of nonsense. Much as I liked seeing Wang Yu in his prime again after all these years, this one is an utter waste of time. I've had dish detergents that made a better film than this. What the chopped-up DVD version shows us is that no matter how silly a Chinese script may be, you have to see some sort of story to care about how the fighting sequences turn out.
But "The One-Armed Swordsmen" does offer you do the chance to see both Wang and Shaw Brothers stalwart Lo Lieh beating up smirking pretty boy David Chiang -- it's always a pleasure to see that happen. Lo plays a sort of second-string villain here, and serves as a prime example of why some people really need orthodontists. he film is also graced by the participation of Taiwanese actor Chang Yi as the magistrate.
Another comment above mentions the obligatory fight-in-the-inn scene (there are two, in fact) where Wang and Chiang are attacked by a pack of comical barbarians using what look like cavemen weapons, making Bruce Lee noises while they fight. None of this makes any sense, but that's okay if you're not expecting any clarity or common sense. It was fun to watch anyway.
Another peculiarity of this production is that there are no significant women characters. There are a couple of female roles, but they play no serious role in the action or the plot.
If you can find a copy of the original Shaw Brothers One-Armed Swordsman movie, the one which explains why he has only the one arm and why he uses a broken sword, go for it.
The Manxman (1929)
In a nutshell, interesting photography on the Manx location but a sappy melodrama of a story.
My main complaint against this film is not the story, which hinges on the conflict of love versus class sentiments, and therefore is far more British than anything we can relate to in American cinema. No, the thing that struck me again and again as I watched this sudsy rubbish was the bad casting. The girl, a popular European 27 year old actress of that era, looks (intentionally, I think) like a ditzy 18 year old version of Jean Harlow. 18 may be a good age for a girl in trouble in traditional British lower class society, but it makes it hard to understand why the much older Philip would be in love with her, or why after her girl-in-trouble problem is solved, she would be so much in love with him as to push the love triangle into tragedy. The emotion flow doesn't make sense in either direction.
For the role of Philip -- good lawyer, unreliable friend and lover -- we see a man clearly in his 40's who looks old enough to be the girl's father. The third node in the triangle is Danish actor Carl Brisson (34 when this was made) , whose most often used talent in this film was his ability to grin glassy eyed into the camera, showing us two enormous dimple lines.
Despite the limitations of the casting and "Pete's" acting ability, the performance qualities aren't too bad. For example, when the town doctor comes down to announce the birth of the girl's child, he first asks "Who's the father?", as if he was the only person in a small fishing village who wouldn't know. Philip stands up excitedly and is about to claim the honor, but realizes that he can't give himself away, so he makes a small gesture to point at Pete. Nicely handled.
Bottom line is that there's very little evidence of Hitchcock's later, more polished style, and not much other reason to rent this movie.
Xia nü (1971)
The daughter of a wrongfully slain court official, two of his generals, and a poor scholar team up to avenge the official.
I rented this movie from Netflix. The DVD shows it in letterbox format with bright white English subtitles in the lower black space. The quality of the print that was used to make the disc is good for outdoor action, but the action in two long night scenes is so dark as to be mostly invisible.
Obviously a lot of people love this film, but I'd give it only 7 out of 10 because it's way too long, over 3 hours. It was shown in theaters in the early 70's as Part I and Part II on separate days, which would be okay except the climactic fight in the bamboo forest which ends Part I is repeated in entirety in Part II. And there are other sequences which could be trimmed back. Towards the beginning, for example, Scholar Ku makes a long, long annoying nocturnal investigation of the spooky old mansion where he lives with his mother, finding nothing. Because the print is so dark, we see nothing as well. Again, in Part II, after the heroes have tackled the evil forces of the Eastern Chamber (a never-explained reference to some part of the Imperial Palace, I suppose), Scholar Ku wanders around the battle site laughing humorlessly over his own cleverness in the ways he spooked the Imperial guard force that came to attack. A little of this stuff goes a long way.
Nonetheless, it's a good Netflix rental. I particularly enjoyed seeing Pai Ying in a heroic role as Gen. Shih, and hawk-faced Miao Tien as the evil Commandant's lieutenant. It was also interesting to see 1970's Taiwanese hero actor Tien Peng (often billed as "Roc" Tien) as a handsome official of intermediate strength and skill working for the evil Eastern Chamber people. And I loved Ku's mother.
Two other people deserve honorable mention. The Chinese title "Hsia Nü" means "gallant lady", according to the subtitles, but lead actress Hsü Feng is hard to warm up to, and usually seems off-putting rather than gallant. She never smiles in this film or shows any emotional content when she fights.
The other interesting person is Chiao Hu (often billed as Roy Chiao), who plays the Buddhist monk that injects the Touch of Zen. Chiao was always a likable actor, but he too never smiles or seems like anything but a chilly person here. In both cases, however, their demeanor is perfectly appropriate to the roles, so I didn't mind that.
And was that Sammo Hung in a bit part, supporting the evil general Hsü in the final struggles?
Qi shi er sha xing (1978)
Standard "Bandit Chief vs. Young Heroes" story. The YH group has to fight their way up through the bandit hierarchy before they can confront the bandit chief himself.
Anyone who thinks this is the worst movie or even the worst kung-fu movie ever made hasn't seen very many. It's true that "72 Desperate Rebels" suffers from many of the problems of the genre -- poor writing; stock situations and characters; uninspired, cheesy acting -- but there are many saving graces in this particular outing.
Top of my list would be the presence of marvelous, always menacing, veteran villain Pai Ying as the bandit chief. He doesn't have much to do here, but it's always satisfying to see him. Also, even though it was just a short cameo appearance (and rather disappointing for that), there's a brief fighting scene featuring a very buff Chen Sing in his prime. The rest of the cast consisted of people I never saw before or since.
Second, the production values are surprisingly high for an indie film company. Even the extras have great costumes. There are good sets and outdoor locations, especially along what looks like the southern Taiwan coast. I particularly appreciated the absence of the cheap camera tricks like slow motion and fast, back & forth Leone-style cuts so overused by Hong Kong companies. Scene setup and art direction are quite good, all things considered.
Third, some of the action actually showed some flashes of creativity. As the Young Heroes fight their way up the hierarchy to get to the bandit chief, they pass through some rooms of a sort of magic causing them visual disorientation, dizzying flag twirling, and a bizarre contraption of small, deafening bells attached to an overhead bamboo framework. Not terribly believable, but interesting to see. Also, when the Young Heroes plus add-ons like the blind man and the one-armed swordsman have fought their way up to be able to confront the 7-foot tall pituitary giant, the tricks they use against him and his counter-moves showed unusual cleverness. Kept me watching all the way to the end.
I rented this movie from Netflix and would recommend it. The one thing I really missed in it was the scene so common in Hong Kong "BC vs YH" movies from the 60's and 70's where the lower orders of the bandit gang come back to report the the Young Heroes have beaten them soundly. The chief stands up, waves his fist at them, and shouts "You idiots," and the gang -- all neatly lined in ranks like a military company -- bow and shout back "Yes, Sir!"
Samouraïs (2002)
Kurata still looks pretty good
Not the worst movie ever made -- that might be Gigli, or perhaps Battlefield Earth. Along with the negative aspects, widely commented on above, Samourais has some interesting positives.
First, there's Kurata. He did his most notable work 35 years ago (!), but he still looks good and can handle the fight sequences with skill and grace. The best is his solo duel in the airport restroom. For some reasons, despite his character's supposed fame, skill, and ancestry, the demon's henchmen send a junior thug with a sword to meet him -- yeah sure, no problem walking through an airport with that! He meets the sword attacks by pulling out a pair of tonfa, just like in "Kung Fu: the Invisible Fist" (his best early work, rentable from Netflix), and beating the stuffings out of the guy.
Second, there are the production values. Good photography, good editing, some handsome locations shots by the second unit in Japan. There are no huge explosions or car chases. Special effects are limited and appropriate to the, uh, story.
Third, (I may be alone in thinking this), there is the integration of the fighting sequences with the, uh, story. Cheaply made Hong Kong chopsocky flics are pretty much just a series of fights -- one against many, or one against one to no ultimate purpose. In Samourais, the attacks of the demon's crew are more or less directed to a plot-directed purpose.
Finally, there's a modest attempt by the fight choreographers to inject a little realism. When the Commissioner's daughter is attacked early in the film, she does the usual Supergirl kicks and blows, but then she uses her bicycle chain as a weapon, and draws (fake) blood with it. Looked real. Likewise, in the opener, where we see the demon's first rebirth back in feudal Japan times, the titular Samurai fights off a gang of thugs, but instead of vaguely waving his sword in the direction of his attackers, like Zatoichi or Sanjuro do, you could actually believe that the Samurai was trying to do these guys some damage.
On the negative side, there's a lot of stupid dialog and bad acting, including Kurata's. His acting in the early 1970's was pretty much restricted to looking bored between fights, and pouring a lot of emotion into the action scenes. In Samourais, the emotional content is gone, and he usually looks world-weary rather than bored. No matter how good Kurata looks as a man of 56 (when Samourais was made), he's still sleep-walking through the role.
The worst feature of the film, often mentioned in other comments, is the sidekick character. If you liked Jar-Jar Binks, you'll love Nadir, who unfortunately survives through the end of the picture. It won't hurt to fast-forward through all of the scenes where Mako, the junior lead kid, appears with him.
Bottom line: the story seems intended to insult the intelligence of everyone over the age of 12, but the overall production is good enough to make renting it justifiable. Or you might do as I did, and tape it when it shows up on the Spike cable network again.
BTW, the scenes shot in France don't show the Paris you may remember as a tourist. It's the Seine Saint-Denis arrondissement, France's version of the old East Bronx housing project vertical slums.
E hu kuang long (1972)
Chen Sing's best hero role
That doesn't make this a good movie, but it's a tiny bit better than his other pairing with Kurata, available through Netflix under the title "Rage of the Wind." So what's good about this one, and why would anyone want to watch it now?
First, there is the magnificent Chen Sing in his prime. As a short, powerfully muscled man, Chen was never a master of technique like Bruce Lee. Rather he carried his films with his burning intensity and what Lee called emotional content. The intensity is what made him a great villain in most of his films, and such a pleasure to watch in his few hero roles like this one.
Second, and equally impressive in a different way, is Kurata of the flamboyant eyebrows. Showing a constant air of boredom with the slow-witted Chinese around him, but turning instantly into a lightning-fast fighting machine when necessary, Kurata was the perfect counterpart to Chen's dogged tenacity.
Third, there's Irene Ryder, Hong Kong singing star of the early 70's, who made a couple of these movies as an adjunct to her main career. In this one, she had to act as well as look pretty. It doesn't work -- she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag -- but it's nice to see her at her most attractive.
Fourth, ladies, there's junior lead Bruce Leung at his most handsome. He gets to duel with Kurata's lieutenant, and handles himself quite well.
Fifth, there's slimy old Chiang Nan as the bandit chief working a human trafficking racket, who accepts Kurata as a paying guest, and Chen as a hard-fighting new gang member. Chiang was one of my favorite character actor villains in the early 70's, and it's still fun to watch him.
Finally, there's the great confrontation battle between Chen and Kurata. Endurance and courage against speed and viciousness. It's still worth waiting through the usual bad writing and endless series of small match-ups to see it.
There are some amusing continuity errors. The time frame is supposed to be the late 1920's, but at one point when the Hong Kong Police are about to make a raid, they arrive in vehicles of the 1960's. Also, clothing styles are a mixed bag (these films were very, very low budget) and never believable as period costumes. To show that Kurata and his bud are Japanese, they wear cheap summer vacation Happy Coats as a substitute for kimonos.
The worst part of the version available through Netflix, apart from the awful title "Kung Fu: the Invisible Fist" is the English dubbing. I first saw this film with a Chinese sound-track in New York's Chinatown in 1972. As awkward and unbelievable as the dialog is when you see it in subtitles, it seems much worse when you have to listen to it.
The Great McGinty (1940)
Is there a joke here?
Apparently there were people at the time this flick came out that thought it was terrific. Got an Oscar for best screenplay. I guess all that means is that the times have moved on. Whatever it is, it isn't a comedy, which is what Sturges was best known for. Our lug McGinty 1) stops a suicide, 2) gets involved with a graft and protection-racket boss, 3) marries someone who loves him but is content to be an article of adornment rather than a wife, 4) gets elected mayor and steps up to city-wide graft, 5) gets elected governor and moves up to the point of being involved in really big-time graft, and so on. None of this is funny.
Now, political corruption and graft are facts of human life under democracies, dictatorships, and communism. Maybe especially communism. It's worth getting angry about, but I can't see it as funny. So I can understand that they may have liked this at the Academy Awards for 1940, when America was still under the effects of the Depression. That still doesn't make this movie a comedy, even a black one.
Donlevy lays it straight and does a creditable job. Akim Tamiroff steals the show out from under him. William Demarest does his usual work. Muriel Angelus memorized the part of the wife -- there's a reason why no one ever heard of her before or since. That's about it. So for the acting alone, I'll rate it 5 out of ten. But there are no stars here, and nothing that would ever make me want to see it again.
Er long zheng zhu (1974)
So pedestrian!
The people involved in this movie didn't listen to Bruce Lee when he said that kung fu action should have emotional content -- not necessarily anger, but something other than a full body dance.
I agree with the earlier comment that the dubbing in this flick is weird -- very slow to keep pace with the original Chinese word flow -- and again, there's not much sign of emotional content.
The photography is nothing special either. This was a very low budget venture, possibly filmed in Macao to judge by the look of the seaside fortifications the two men fight around. There are only ultra-inexpensive special effects, and no attempts to backfill light on the actors when there's no sun on their faces and bright sky behind them. As a result, there's a surprising amount of daytime action that is hardly visible. Camera lenses can only do so much. The producers didn't seem to care, either.
I know this goes against the traditions of the genre, but after 15 or 20 minutes of constant fighting, complete with high kicks, jumps, throws, and so on, shouldn't somebody appear to be out of breath? There are no concessions to reality here.
Still, it's nice to see Shih Kien as a vigorous man in (I'd guess) his late 40's, still being able to handle the demands of the kung fu action.
Bottom line -- don't waste your time or money buying or renting this movie, but if it plays on cable and you don't have anything better to do, it won't hurt to watch it.
The Comancheros (1961)
Dull, predictable, politially incorrect film; great scenery
As I sat watching this movie on TV (Feb 2005), I kept asking myself why I wasn't turning it off and going to bet. The story was absolutely predictable, unbelievable, and dull. I couldn't accept that an educated, likable young man like Stuart Whitman's character would take an interest in a girl as stiff, wooden, and dull as Ina Balin was portraying, any more than I could understand what all these people supposedly from the 1840's were doing with post-Civil War clothing, hair styles, and weapons.
In brief, the Duke is a Texas Ranger who has a brief encounter with bad man Lee Marvin, from whom he learns what he needs to infiltrate a camp of renegades. In the main subplot, he gets entangled with a gambler (Whitman) and the girl (Balin) that fancies the gambler. The girl is the daughter of the head of the Comancheros, a gang of renegades who provide the Comanches with booze and guns. With that as a basis, you can guess easily what sort of John Wayne stuff will follow.
There are, however, a couple of points of interest. First, the film was shot on location in magnificent areas of the West as it looked before highways, cattle feed lots, and cell towers. The musical score is fine too, so you can look at the scenery and listen to the music and enjoy the picture even if you don't expect much from the story or dialog.
Second, the film gives us a constant parade of excellent character actors in the secondary roles. Lee Marvin was the most impressive, but look also for Nehemiah Persoff (generic villain of 1960's TV), Edgar Buchanan, Richard Devon, and Jack Elam. And there's also my personal favorite, Joanie O'Brien, who started out as a singer for Bob Crosby and had a brief career in films in the 60's: she's probably still elegant, intelligent, and beautiful today.
But the most amazing thing about this film is the depiction of the Comanches as drunken, bloodthirsty savages. I don't suppose that the real Comanches of that time period were any better at the business of acting like human beings than their Texan neighbors, but this one-dimensional portrait of the people is downright embarrassing. John Ford didn't treat Indians in his films that way, so I don't know why Wayne did in this one.
All in all, this film is a very mixed bag. It was nice seeing Joanie O'Brien after all these years, but I wouldn't watch the picture again.
Eddie and the Cruisers II: Eddie Lives! (1989)
Not a terrible movie
I started watching this on TV (1) without intending to see it all, and (2) without realizing that there had been an Eddie & The Cruisers Part I. Don't plan to go back and watch Part I, but I stayed to see all of Part II. If you like the music of the 80's, you might do the same.
The premise is that Eddie has been hiding out in Canada for twenty five years, cleverly disguised to look like Robert Goulet, while everybody back in the lower 48 who loved his music thinks he's dead. He has a good day job in construction, where he seems to be a foreman, but even after so many years, music still calls to him. Around the same time, his old record company is reviving his 1960's music, so you can see very early on where this is going.
The film gives Eddie a love interest in the person of an artist who approaches him on the street, asking if she could paint his portrait because his face is so intriguing -- that of a guy forever looking for something he can't have, she says. She's not a big success as an artist, although she certainly has an expensive wardrobe, hairdo, and apartment. But she's there for Eddie when he needs her. For his part, Eddie likes her well enough to get jealous when she dances with another guy, so you can see where this is headed too.
Mysteriously, he starts out with just a lead guitarist, but the rest of a band comes together when he calls, even though they don't recognize Eddie under the Goulet hair and mustache, nor do they recognize the old Eddie voice or music riffs. And equally mysteriously, they just accept his moods and dictatorial manner. So they practice and practice, and eventually (you knew this was coming, right?) they take on some live gigs.
Eddie's problem, as the girl recognized on the street, is that he doesn't just love music -- he's searching for musical perfection. Since this all must take place in a parallel universe, he doesn't realize that there isn't much perfection in rock & roll (how could you ever know if you screw it up or not?), but he keeps on trying for it, getting angry and moody when it eludes him. This brings us to the ultimate mystery here -- why do artist girl and the boys in the band put up with him?
Like some Hollywood musicals of the 30's and 40's, without a great plot or really believable characters a film like this lives or dies on the music it offers, and fortunately, the music in this one is pretty good. It channels Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band very effectively. Even though this was made in the 80's, there is no disco, no rap, and none of what passes for music today. It's pretty much straight Springsteen, with occasional flashes back to the simpler Rock of the early 60's. I found it both comforting and enjoyable. Hope you do too.
Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love (1996)
This is sort of like environmental art. Nice for background but not worth watching full time
I'd give it a 4 because the girl, Maya, is pretty and the film shows a lot of her, but otherwise the story is not very engaging. Briefly, Maya has a fling with the Rajah on his wedding night, but doesn't really like him that much. For his part, he's mainly in love with himself. When word gets out what she's done, she has to leave the palace and ends up in a school for courtesans where they teach the girls the Kama Sutra. Later she falls in love with a sculptor, a friend of the Rajah, with difficult consequences for their relationship with the Rajah. You can predict the rest.
What's good about this film? It appears to have been filmed in Northern India, somewhere in Rajasthan, I imagine. Occasionally exteriors are filmed near old ruins, so if you haven't visited India, the film gives a good idea of what the countryside around Delhi looks like. Also, the production put good efforts into costume (although Maya and Kumar occasionally dispense with costume altogether), makeup, and cinematography. There is music, but it's listenable, exotic but quite unlike the ultra high pitched screeching you hear in Bollywood flicks. So from an artistic perspective, it's fine.
Where is it a loser? I was utterly unable to develop any sympathy for any of the characters. Female viewers may be interested in the sight of mostly nude male characters with good muscle tone, hair in long greasy perms, and big hook noses, but the guys didn't do anything for me. Male viewers may like what they see of Maya, but both she and the film are too dull to sustain much interest. The best thing I can say about the actors is that they take their parts seriously, and speak plain, relatively unaccented accents. They may not be especially interesting as Indians or as people, but they avoid being caricatures.