Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

1/11/08

There Will Be Blood (2007) Dir: Paul Thomas Anderson

out of 4

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Reign Over Me (2007)

I feel terrible knocking such a well intentioned movie but frankly I was bored and found not too much going on. I did find it sad and shed a few tears during the course of the movie. I find Adam Sandler obnoxious in most movies but here he surprised me. It's not a movie that I should watch when I'm tired.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

01/03/08: CONAN THE DESTROYER (Richard Fleischer, 1984)

Even before I reacquainted myself with its predecessor, I knew this would basically prove to be an unassuming comic-strip effort – which may have been closer to Robert E. Howard’s source material than the more realistic first film (which perhaps drew more on the famously stark illustrations of Frank Frazetta for its look).

Anyway, while this emerged a somewhat more engaging adventure than RED SONJA (1985), the plot of both films is strikingly similar – in that the mission in each involves a girl in peril (here, however, she’s an innocent rather than a warrior) helped by he-man Arnold Schwarzenegger to fight an evil queen/sorceress and her legions – even if the obligatory comic relief is perhaps even less welcome this time around (via Conan’s diminutive and cowardly sidekick Tracey Walter)! The action highlights are also more elaborate (though they’re far from the stylized ones featured in the 1982 CONAN THE BARBARIAN – and, consequently, less impressive): these include the oft-seen trick involving a wizard defeated by shattering his multiple reflection in a hall of mirrors, and the climax where Conan (with the dubious help of Walter) battle a Toho-style monster(!) called Dagoth.

Despite employing director Fleischer and legendary cinematographer Jack Cardiff (both of whom had worked on THE VIKINGS [1958], one of the most impressive – and evocative – epics from the genre’s heyday), the film can hardly be compared to that magnificent achievement. For starters, Schwarzenegger’s Conan comes off rather buffoonish at times, especially during a drunken reverie in which he stumbles clumsily into rockfaces and in an unintentionally hilarious shot when villainess Sarah Douglas asks Conan to think and we cut to a close-up of wide-eyed Arnie! The cast is made up of veteran character actors (Mako, Jeff Corey and Ferdy Mayne) and supporting newcomers (Grace Jones, Olivia D’Abo, Wilt Chamberlain) and Basil Poledouris once again provides stirring musical accompaniment. Although I revisited the film via the UK R2 DVD, unfortunately it was the original, bare-bones and slightly censored disc rather than any of the two subsequent SE DVDs which include Audio Commentaries with Fleischer, Douglas, D’Abo and Walter!


01/04/08: CONAN THE BARBARIAN [Extended International Version] (John Milius, 1982)

I still have vivid memories of watching this one on Italian TV, with several of its images (alternately sexual, violent and scary) remaining memorable to this very day - particularly the sequence in the giant snake’s lair and the shooting of snakes as arrows!; I also recall catching some of its lowbrow imitators like the Italian-made ATOR movies and THE BEASTMASTER (1982) on TV or VHS, not to mention playing the “Barbarian” computer game with its theme and music clearly inspired by this movie. As a matter of fact, the awe-inspiring visuals and Basil Poledouris’ now-classic score still constitute the film’s mainstays, smoothing over a rather wooly plot and the inherently ponderous nature of the whole enterprise – since what humor there is throughout is quickly stifled by its overpowering sense of gloom. This third viewing of the film – via the Extended (but also slightly censored) version on R4 SE DVD proved to be the most satisfactory so far; I guess it helped that it followed on the heels of several similar “sword-and-sorcery” outings which enabled the inherent superiority CONAN THE BARBARIAN to fully emerge.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the perfect embodiment of a brawny medieval action hero; Sandahl Bergman (who would eventually turn villainous for RED SONJA [1985]) is equally impressive as Valeria, Conan’s blonde female counterpart – their rapport is genuine enough as to make his being shown still pining for her throughout CONAN THE DESTROYER (1984) credible, the villainess of that film (Sarah Douglas) having promised to resurrect Valeria if he lends his services to her ‘cause’!; also on the side of good are Mako as Akiro The Wizard (who returns in the sequel and actually provides the narration in both Conan ventures) and surfer Gerry Lopez as a Mongol thief.

Incidentally, the project originated with Oliver Stone – who’s still credited as co-writer: incongruously for him, he had stressed the fantasy elements of the tale (which writer/director Milius subsequently de-emphasized after taking over); perhaps to lend the film some artistic gravitas, the latter selected powerful and well-known actors for some of the leading characters: James Earl Jones makes for a very sinister Thulsa Doom (playing the last surviving member of an ancient cannibal civilization, he’s made to turn into a giant snake!) and Max Von Sydow (as a king given the Shakespearean name of Osric, even if only one of the sequences filmed with him made the final cut!); a surprising, albeit all-too-brief, presence in the film is that of Jess Franco regular Jack Taylor – here playing one of the priests at Jones’ temple.

In the accompanying documentary (see below), Milius admits to being influenced by Masaki Kobayashi’s classic ghost story compendium KWAIDAN (1964): this can be seen in the love-making scene with a woman turning into a witch (complete with similar use of blue gels) and the protection of an ailing Conan from evil spirits by having several chants written all over his body. Also in the documentary, there is a reference to Milius’ amusing cameo which eventually found itself on the cutting floor!


01/04/08: CONAN UNCHAINED: THE MAKING OF "CONAN THE BARBARIAN" (V) (Laurent Bouzereau, 2000)

This is a competent, fairly lengthy but hardly exhaustive documentary on the subject by renowned film-maker/historian Bouzereau. It should perhaps have dug deeper into the history of Conan – creator Robert E. Howard (and his personal demons) is only mentioned in passing; ditto for the influence maverick illustrator Frank Frazetta had on the mythology behind the character (and the fictionalized era which he inhabited) – not to mention the film’s sequel, or its own place within the whole sword-and-sorcery cycle prevalent during the early 1980s!

Still, several of the main contributors (both behind and in front of the camera) have their say about the film: at the forefront, of course, are John Milius and Arnold Schwarzenegger – but it also goes on to interview Oliver Stone and Max von Sydow (who, of his performance, recalls best his bloody death scene which remained on the cutting-room floor!). The documentary also deals with the painstaking production – from the film’s elaborate sets to its choreographed swordplay, and even touches upon the creation of CONAN THE BARBARIAN’s special effects (here the speakers felt the need to remind the audience that these were done in the days before CGI). However, some discussion on critical reaction to the film at the time of its release – and how it has worn the passage of time – should not have been amiss.


01/06/08: TARZAN, THE APE MAN (John Derek, 1981)

Surely one of the most ill-advised remakes of a classic in film history – especially since the promise of its tag-line, “The most beautiful woman of our time in the most erotic adventure of all time”, isn’t even properly exploited! Although this film was regularly shown on TV in my neck of the woods since my childhood days, its notoriety (for awfulness not erotic content, mind you) kept me away from it until now – and I only relented because I have recently enjoyed Bo Derek’s previous film, 10 (1979), and have been watching a lot of fantasy stuff as well over the Christmas period.

Lead actress/producer Bo Derek is rather ridiculous playing the schoolgirl-ish sexual innocent (witness the inept banana scene) and, as was to be expected, she is made to get her clothes off a few times but, as welcome as these scenes were, she came off as far more sensual in 10 than she does here; Richard Harris, then, chews the scenery incessantly as Jane’s obsessed explorer father, but John Philip Law barely registers as his aide who meekly shows some initial interest in Jane herself; newcomer Miles O’Keeffe has the title role and he only makes his entrance 45 minutes into the movie, is completely silent throughout except for his famous yodel (which is probably lifted from Johnny Weissmuller anyway!) and, furthermore, is as inexpressive as one of the trees he dangles from at regular intervals throughout the film’s second half!; for the record, he later starred in two ATOR movies (or would-be CONAN imitators) for Joe D’Amato and the King Arthur-era set, SWORD OF THE VALIANT (1984).

When still an actor, director John Derek (who also serves as his own cinematographer here) had worked with some good film-makers (Cecil B. De Mille, William Dieterle and Robert Rossen) and a few great ones (Otto Preminger, Nicholas Ray and Don Siegel) but he clearly learned zilch from them as his direction of this one is a major liability: appallingly pretentious at times (witness the perfectly horrid python attack sequence) with a senseless overuse of the slow motion technique and cheesy transitions; this was Derek’s seventh film as a director (and his second of four with wife Bo) and, eventually, he would only get to make two more.

The film’s utter failure only needs to be gauged by the fact that the Tarzan legend was tackled once more on film – in GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN, LORD OF THE APES (which, surprisingly enough, I haven’t watched myself yet) – a mere three years later!! Nominated for six Razzie Awards (including John Derek, Richard Harris and Miles O’Keeffe) and winning one for Bo Derek herself, TARZAN, THE APE MAN was co-written by Gary Goddard, the future director of another highly anticapted but ultimately disappointing transposition to the silver screen of a (this time animated) heroic figure, MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE (1987) which I will be revisiting presently as well (yay)! Despite a charming closing credit sequence showing Tarzan and Jane playing with around with an orang-utan and a music score that is not half bad actually and quite rousing on occasion, any belated good intentions are defeated by an extremely silly climax involving natives painting Bo completely white and, fatally, John Derek’s clear disinterest in the character of Tarzan himself which makes him come off as an unimportant supporting character in his own self-titled movie!!


01/10/08: EASTERN PROMISES (David Cronenberg, 2007)

First of all, my rating is rather misleading because that’s how I also rated Cronenberg’s previous (and superior) film, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) – in fact, my twin brother tried to talk me into giving this one a lower rating but I vetoed the idea; still, quite good, therefore, but not great – in view that the maverick director has apparently forsaken the horror genre for good and set his mind on becoming the successor to Martin Scorsese! In itself, the film is essentially well made but surprisingly cliché-ridden resulting in stereotyped characters and a predictable plotline.

While none of the principal actors are Russians, the cast is generally excellent: Viggo Mortenson’s role is practically a reversal of the one he played in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (though, again, he was more impressive there) – even so, he is to be applauded for consenting to play the tense bath-house assault (the film’s undeniable highlight) fully unclothed – though one wonders what the rabid fans of THE LORD OF THE RINGS films think of him now!; Naomi Watts is fine as always and delivers perhaps the best performance in the film (in spite of the fact that her character isn’t really given much to do); Vincent Cassel, however, is positively annoying as the typically arrogant but ultimately inadequate offspring of a Mafia Godfather (incidentally, if he was such a wimp that his father had to show him how to make love to a woman – even if it happened to be a 14-year old girl – why does the father later be angered that his only son has been branded a “drunken queer”?); Armin Mueller-Stahl portrays the latter and he’s quite good as always – though his ruthless (even inhuman, in view of the revelation about the dead prostitute’s fate) crime lord – hiding under a deceptively innocuous exterior – is anything but a novel concept; Sinead Cusack (whom I’ve recently watched in her prime alongside Peter Sellers in HOFFMAN [1970]) appears as Watts’ mother – the actress is the wife of Jeremy Irons (who made DEAD RINGERS [1988] and M. BUTTERFLY [1993] for Cronenberg…but also MOONLIGHTING [1982], which was directed by Cusack’s co-star here, Jerzy Skolimowski!); the latter has a nice part as Watts’ effusive ex-secret agent uncle (he isn’t afraid to face the Mafia but his amusing fate virtually supplies the film’s lone respite from the prevailing gloominess). Incidentally, coming back to that nude fight scene, Skolimowski himself set one of his best films as a director, DEEP END (1970), in a London bath-house – now there’s a unique film, with a tragic finale one doesn’t see coming!

To get back to the predictable elements in the film: the Russian gangsters pose as restaurant owners and, sure enough – in true GODFATHER-style – we are treated to a group of elderly Russian diners chanting the proverbial “Oci Ciornie”; the explicit throat-cutting sequence which effectively opens the film is virtually repeated halfway through (as if one needed an illustration of the age-old “an eye for an eye” code of ethics adhered to in underworld circles!); even the late reveal of Mortensen’s true identity is a much abused model and shouldn’t surprise anyone who read the earlier signs correctly – the sudden promotion of Mortensen from a lowly if trusted chauffer/clean-up man (yet another oft-used characteristic) into a fully-fledged member of the Russian mafia solely for the purpose of being sold out by Mueller-Stahl while passed off as his son; Cassel humiliates Mortenson by ordering him to have sex with one of the girls as he watches on: the sheer fact that we’ve seen this type of behavior in boss-henchmen relationships many times before makes the graphic scene itself seem gratuitous, etc.

Throughout the film, I was reminded of a very similar recent case (in the same genre, no less) where the sum of the undoubtedly good parts add up to a less than completely satisfactory whole – Sam Mendes’ ROAD TO PERDITION (2002)…


01/07/08: CARRY ON NURSE (Gerald Thomas, 1959)

The second in the popular series is one of the best, but also the first in a quartet of medical lampoons from this stable – the others being CARRY ON DOCTOR (1968), CARRY ON AGAIN, DOCTOR (1969) and CARRY ON MATRON (1972); I’ve watched the latter but not the other two, though I should be able to get to them fairly soon…

Anyway, coming very early in the series, CARRY ON NURSE – which manages to make the most of its single setting – isn’t as crude or as slapdash as a good many of the later entries regrettably proved to be: in fact, it’s pretty much in the vein of classic British comedy of the time (such as the satirical films by the Boultings). The cast brings together several practiced performers in the field: Kenneth Connor (his “Cor, Blimey” attitude as a boxer with a broken hand is somewhat reminiscent of Norman Wisdom), Kenneth Williams (having a less central role than would be the case later but in quite good form as a bookworm nuclear scientist who’s also something of a misanthrope), Charles Hawtrey (playing a radio fanatic, where his prissy antics are already a bit over-the-top), Joan Sims (as an accident-prone nurse), Hattie Jacques (as the fearsome Matron – which became her trademark role), Wilfrid Hyde-White (as an old man whose military record allows him privileged service at the hospital but hasn’t rescinded his gambling mania!), Leslie Philips (as a fun-loving sort who in a drunken binge with his fellow patients decides to have them perform his delayed operation themselves – the latter scene is the film’s hilarious highlight where, predictably, laughing gas is let loose at the most inopportune moment).

The nominal leads here are actually Terence Longdon as a recovering reporter and gorgeous Shirley Eaton as the idealized nurse, who provide the obligatory romantic interest; Jill Ireland (the future Mrs. Charles Bronson) has one of her earliest roles as the girl who finally ensnares Williams, while both Michael Medwin and Norman Rossington appear briefly – as, respectively, Connor’s manager (a self-proclaimed showman) and a punch-drunk remnant of the boxing profession. Other gags revolve around a snob patient who’s continually embarrassed by his commoner wife, another who’s occasionally compelled to run riot in the corridors, and an impossibly solemn-looking student nurse. Apart from throwing Longdon and Eaton in each other’s arms, the denouement sees the release of several of the ‘star’ patients from the hospital – and culminates with the long-suffering nurses’ revenge on the fastidious Hyde-White, by fitting a daffodil in his rectum instead of a thermometer just as the Matron is making her rounds!


01/08/08: CARRY ON COWBOY (Gerald Thomas, 1965)

This is not only one of the best sustained efforts from the “Carry On” crew but a classic film in its own right. I had mentioned it as a rare example of a British Western spoof when I recently watched THE FROZEN LIMITS (1939) with The Crazy Gang; incidentally, the film’s style is pretty close to that of BLAZING SADDLES (1974) – but it actually anticipates Mel Brooks by almost a decade!

There are so many inspired gags in this outing (right from the opening sequence with the black-clad Rumpo Kid arriving in town and immediately gunning down three men, only to then ask himself “I wonder what they wanted?”) that it’s hard to remember them all – even a mere couple of hours later. Notable, however, is the merciless lampoon of the Wyatt Earp legend by making its namesake here (played by soon-to-be Dr. Who Jon Pertwee) – and whom the Mayor even addresses as Twerp – completely useless, being both short-sighted and hard of hearing!

The “Carry On” stalwarts are in top form, foremost among them Sidney James (as the afore-mentioned Rumpo Kid, amiable outlaw leader – in urgent need of cash at the saloon, he excuses himself to casually hold-up the bank situated just opposite!), Kenneth Williams (as the Mayor of Stodge City – reportedly, he lifted his American accent from legendary comedy producer Hal Roach), Jim Dale (as Marshall P. Knutt, a sanitary engineer mistaken for the new sheriff because of his name!), Charles Hawtrey (as the unlikeliest Indian Chief ever – he’s actually introduced emerging from a tepee-cum-lavatory!) and Joan Sims (as the traditionally sultry saloon hostess); besides, Angela Douglas (who subsequently appeared in three more “Carry Ons” and would later become Mrs. Kenneth More!) – playing the real-life Annie Oakley – makes for an extremely charming gun-toting heroine.

The last third of the film turns into a spoof on the seminal HIGH NOON (1952) – with Dale left to face James and his gang alone in a delightful, and most original, climax. Incidentally, the sheriff’s heroic resistance of a stagecoach raid by Hawtrey’s Indian warriors (ending with James – who engineered it – disappointingly quipping, “I’ve met braver cowards than you braves!”) was actually the work of Douglas i.e. in the vein of THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962); Dale’s subsequent awkward coaching in the handling of firearms, then, is hilarious. Another influence from classic Westerns is in the catfight between Sims and Douglas – in this case drawing on DESTRY RIDES AGAIN (1939).

While CARRY ON COWBOY’s send-up of a popular genre easily makes it one of the gang’s best-known entries, I was surprised to learn that it’s not held in highest regard by even staunch fans of the series – such as the people behind the official “Carry On” website, citing its (deliberate) lack of authenticity as a major drawback; I couldn’t disagree more since, to my mind, the level of humor and ingenuity displayed throughout is soaring indeed for this erratic (and idiosyncratically crude) brand-name…


01/09/08: CARRY ON TEACHER (Gerald Thomas, 1959)

This one seems to me to be an underrated “Carry On” film – which, again, the series website mini-review puts down by labeling it atypical (the school setting making CARRY ON TEACHER feel more like an unofficial entry in the contemporaneous “St. Trinian’s” franchise, which I’m only vaguely familiar with and has actually just been revived)!

While there are some flat spots on occasion, and a few of the gags are extended to their ultimate detriment, the film is generally hilarious (with a fair share of side-splitting moments); besides, the series’ notorious lewdness – mainly evident in the previous entry, CARRY ON NURSE (1959), during its closing moment – is inescapable here, given that Joan Sims’ physical education teacher has been suggestively named Allcock (which Leslie Philips’ character keeps harping on, having fallen for her at first-sight)!

Several of the actors from NURSE return here: these include unacknowledged series performers such as the afore-mentioned Philips (again, incarnating the playboy type but who also happens to be a child psychologist!), Rosalind Knight (her small role as the studious nurse has been amplified here to the similarly workaholic school auditor – though she’s made to share a hesitant romance with Kenneth Connor, playing the nuclear scientist this time around but relentlessly flubbing his lines in anxiety) and Cyril Chamberlain (the delusional patient of CARRY ON NURSE is now the school janitor).

Kenneth Williams, then, is the English Literature teacher (he’s been assigned to stage “Romeo & Juliet” for the annual prize-day – the students, however, are disappointed that the text has been significantly ‘cleaned-up’!); Charles Hawtrey is the music instructor (who is also to provide accompaniment for the play – the constant bickering between both teachers over whether predominance should be given to Shakespeare’s words or the dramatic emphasis allowed by the score is one of the film’s mainstays, with Williams questioning Hawtrey’s very talent by comparing the latter’s work to a dirge…and, sure enough, that’s what his eventual ‘incidental music’ sounds like on the day of the performance!); corpulent Hattie Jacques is once again the indomitable female type, playing the maths professor.

Ted Ray – whom I’d never heard of, but is supposedly a comedy institution in Britain – is the long-suffering acting headmaster. He’s against punishing students, though he’s almost driven to it after the children turn the school – the address, by the way, is on Maudlin Street! – upside down during the inspectors’ one-week stay…except that this transpires to be a deliberate scheme on their part to quash Ray’s chance at a position in another college, because they don’t want him to leave!! The latter element actually leads to an uncharacteristic, sentimental GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS-style ending.

Among the highlights are Connor’s hand-made rocket going through the roof during science class, Hawtrey falling through the floor of a room, Sims’ judo attack on the persistent Philips, the students’ various pranks on their instructors (such as having the tea spiked with alcohol, spreading itching powder in the teachers’ room, or faking a bomb plant), and the disastrous climactic performance of “Romeo & Juliet”.


P.S.Incidentally, a British comic who excelled in playing schoolmasters was Will Way – and in one of these, THE GOOSE STEPS OUT (1942), Charles Hawtrey himself was featured as a student!


01/10/08: CARRY ON, CONSTABLE (Gerald Thomas, 1960)

I wasn’t as taken with this one as the three previous “Carry Ons” I watched: truth be told, law and order is one of the most popular themes with star comedians (Chaplin’s EASY STREET [1917], Keaton’s COPS [1922], Laurel & Hardy’s THE MIDNIGHT PATROL [1933], Will Hay’s ASK A POLICEMAN [1939], Norman Wisdom’s ON THE BEAT [1962], etc.), so it couldn’t very well fail to find an audience – but I also felt the level of gags this time around to be curiously uninventive!

The film marks the series debut of Sidney James as a police sergeant under duress (and constantly threatened with a transfer by Inspector Eric Barker) during a flu epidemic who’s assigned a quartet of rookies to help him – the trouble is that these are none other than Kenneth Connor, Kenneth Williams, Leslie Philips and Charles Hawtrey (the station, apparently, is so hard-up that the prison cells are to serve as their quarters)! The boys deliver their typical schtick: Connor is nervous as the constable whose last name happens to be Constable (and especially given his uncommonly superstitious nature), Williams is a snobbish know-it-all (he figures himself an expert in picking out criminal types – except that the one he approaches to steer on the path of righteousness turns out to be Scotland Yard man Victor Maddern!), Philips the lothario (he falls for a pretty blonde policewoman – but who conveniently comes down with the flu to make way for series stalwart Joan Sims – and then offers advise to guest star Shirley Eaton on matters of romance), while Hawtrey is the prissy but wisecracking member. Cyril Chamberlain is on hand once more, and CARRY ON NURSE (1959)’s Terence Longdon cameos as a confidence trickster plying his trade on rookie Williams.

Again, there’s some tentative romance among the regulars – with James hitting it off with female sergeant Hattie Jacques and, as ever, Connor aching to attract the attention of a serious-minded colleague (in this case, Sims). As for flaws, I guess it boils down to a basic lack of plot: the film practically resolves itself into a series of sketches, some of which even turn repetitious – such as the rookies walking Barker’s dog or bursting into houses only to be met by scantily-clad females (which is how Eaton herself is belatedly introduced), while their helping old ladies in various ways is either unappreciated or greeted with outright hostility. Predictably, too, the quartet finally makes amends by taking the initiative to capture a gang of crooks. Incidentally, the film features some surprising male nudity as the rookies – intending to take an early-morning shower – are scalded and run out in panic; in the same vein, there’s definite camp value to seeing Williams and Hawtrey in drag (having gone undercover to catch potential shoplifters)!

All in all, however, I must admit that I’m having a great time with these early “Carry Ons” – which I find generally more rewarding than the later bawdier, i.e. rather tasteless, entries.


P.S.For some reason, the on-screen title of this one includes a comma after the “Carry On” epithet.


01/11/08: CARRY ON CABBY (Gerald Thomas, 1963)

This is another solid entry in the popular series which, again, recalls earlier classics of British comedy – such as the Ealing and Boulting Brothers films.

Kenneth Williams’ presence is missed here: apparently, he turned down the role of the shop steward (probably influenced by Peter Sellers’ similar, award-winning characterization in I’M ALL RIGHT, JACK [1959] and eventually played by Norman Chappell) because he felt the script was substandard – I disagree and, in fact, Talbot Rothwell became the series’ official writer from this point on! Joan Sims is also conspicuous by her absence (the “Carry On” stalwart’s typical role is played here by the slimmer Liz Fraser – incidentally, also a cast member of JACK).

Sid James, however, is clearly in control – with Hattie Jacques as his female counterpart; even Kenneth Connor and Charles Hawtrey’s characters feel subsidiary here, the film being heavier on plot than the previous series outings I’ve just watched, though both get their big scene (more on this later). The narrative concerns Jacques’ elaborate way of dealing with husband James’ slacking attentions: he’s a cab-service owner and totally absorbed in his work so, unbeknownst to him, she contrives to open a rival business – but with the advantage of young and attractive women drivers! Connor is James’ sidekick (involved with Fraser, tending bar at the cab-driver’s café) who, at one point, appears in drag when he’s made to infiltrate the ‘enemy camp’ (as part of a plan by James to get at the competition); Hawtrey is an accident-prone novice driver (his ‘baptism of fire’ is unsurprisingly fraught with disaster); Jim Dale appears in his first “Carry On” as well, in a bit as an expectant father who takes cabbies James and Connor ‘on a ride’ and causes the former to miss his anniversary celebration!
While there’s some tit-for-tat routines between them (the women – knowledgeable of the fact that the men have intercepted their radio signals – deliberately give out fake addresses, while James & Co. show their force by tampering with the vehicles driven by the ladies…except that the latter still get the upper hand, because their passengers are all-too-willing to lend a helping hand!), the companies finally get together when one of Jacques’ cabs – with her, Fraser and the girls’ payroll inside – is abducted by a gang of crooks. All the various vehicles set out in co-ordinated pursuit and manage to corner the ‘stray’ cab in open-country; the final gag, then, sees Hawtrey driving James’ car into a tree – so that the boss has no alternative but to hail a cab for himself!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

I love "Conan the Barbarian"! It has the atmosphere and feel of a Conan tale, even if not much else is connected.
Conan himself is almost nothing like he is in the stories (true, Conan was impulsive and sometimes foolish when younger but he was never stupid or simple, and later on he became a very clever general, a very shrewd judge of character, a sly dipolmat and a very smart King...none of which you can see Arnold's creation becoming) and Thulsa Doom is not even from 'Conan' but 'King Kull'.

But the look of the film, the action, the costumes, the sets, the music, the set-pieces all add up to one of THE best fantasy films ever made, if only a half successful 'Conan' film.

"The Destroyer" on the other hand (despite using a couple of set pieces from Howard's tales) is not even half successful as a 'Conan' film and even as a general fantasy film it's the fucking dregs!
A cheap-ass piss-take of the most moronic kind.
I hate the thing.
Even the music is crap, thanks to it being just a lazy and bad re-mix of the great original score.
Real lowest denominator dross, and such a shame as this kind of junk is what gives people who have never read the superb Howard stories the utterly wrong impression of them and Conan.

Flush the turd and wave ta ta.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Ooops! Calm down, Dave...you'd better go watch HELL OF THE LIVING DEAD (1980) again, mate to cheer you up!

Seriously, though: I've never read any of the original stories so I can't say how much the movies were true to their spirit or not; I did like CONAN THE DESTROYER (1984) better this time around and certainly enjoyed it more than RED SONJA (1985).

By the way, Dave - I'm somewhat surprised you haven't commented on my viewing of the three Lou Ferrigno peplums I've recently watched; I'd say those would be right up your alley...in a "bad movie night" way, of course!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

'Til We Meet Again (1940)

Dull tale about the shipboard romance between a dying woman, and a man who is condemned to die in the electric chair for murder. Adequate enough story if you're in the mood. What I couldn't figure out was why the convicted murderer was allowed to go prancing around the ship. It just didn't make alot of sense.


The Yearling (1946)

Heart-warming family film that has quite an upsetting ending. This traces the story of a farm family in Florida. A young boy adopts a young fawn after its mother was killed. The boy develops a deep attachment to his pet but soon discovers some hard lessons that result from keeping a wild animal.

I never saw this movie growing up and it is a beautiful story but I can imagine that some small child would be greatly upset with the resolution. I know I would be. Both Gregory Peck and Jane Wyman are excellent as Pa and Ma Baxter. Peck displays a similar warmth that he had in To Kill a Mockingbird, a favourite of mine. The young actor who played Jody bothered me at first but he did come through by the end of the movie and delivered a fine performance in the last few scenes. Overall a worthwhile watch if a bit too slow.

Like Mother, Like Daughter (2007)

Routine made for tv-movie about a woman searching for her missing daughter. Not great, but watchable.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

01/07/08: WOMAN HATERS (Archie Gottler, 1934)

I’m virtually a beginner when it comes to The Three Stooges: I’d seen a few of their films – and episodes from the animated series – as a kid (this short being one of them, incidentally) but not enough to rank them judiciously in the pantheon of classic comedy.

Anyway, this has been advertised as “a musical novelty” – influenced by the work of Ernst Lubitsch, no doubt – with all dialogue written in verse! In essence, it lies somewhere between Laurel & Hardy (with the train setting recalling BERTH MARKS [1929] in particular) and The Marx Bros. – but emerging, in the long run, as less sympathetic than either. The gang joins the titular club but Larry, practically blackmailed into marriage, attempts to keep his status from pals Moe and Curley – but can’t, because his spouse turns out to be a flirt who has her eyes on them as well! Walter Brennan appears briefly as the train conductor.

I have to say that the slap-happy antics of the comic trio gets tiresome after a while. To be honest, I wonder how I’ll be able to stick the relentless display of such childish behavior through 19 Stooges shorts I’ve got scheduled (given that I’ve just acquired a copy of the official Columbia 2-Disc collection)…


01/08/08: PUNCH DRUNKS (Lou Breslow, 1934)

Pretty much on the same level of WOMAN HATERS (1934), though without the rhyming dialogue; ironically, the style of comedy seen here seems like a dry run for later Abbott & Costello efforts (with the comical prizefighting bout recalling that duo’s 1951 meeting with The Invisible Man)! Again, The Stooges consider female companionship as irresistible but essentially intrusive; Moe slaps his buddies around so often that one wonders whether anyone got hurt during the making of these films! An interesting twist here is that Curly’s combative skill is triggered by the playing of “Pop Goes The Weasel”; predictably, Larry’s playing of the song on his violin is made impossible during the decisive fight when Curly falls on top of him from the ring – thus causing Larry to run out of the arena to search for possible replacements (first coming up with a radio and then a truck fitted with a loudspeaker, which he drives through the walls of the building)!


01/09/08: MEN IN BLACK (Raymond McCarey, 1934)

This Oscar-nominated Three Stooges short was possibly a spoof on the Clark Gable hospital drama MEN IN WHITE (1934). The insane comedy style of the film is pretty much influenced by The Marx Bros. – but actually anticipates their own assault on the medical profession in A DAY AT THE RACES (1937)! The Stooges go to their designated operating rooms via horses, racing-cars and the like; the operation on their own boss sees them using an electric drill and then stitching him up with all the various instruments of the profession still inside! As ever, the comic trio fall back too often on slapping each other around (not to mention fooling around with some girl, in this case a dumb nurse); actually, the best gag revolves around the glass on the boss’ office door (which is smashed every time our heroes leave his company, since they’re constantly being called to explain their unethical behavior – seeing them coming one more time, the janitor who’s forever replacing the glass anticipates them by breaking it himself!). Incidentally, both director McCarey and screenwriter Felix Adler worked contemporaneously on the (more sympathetic but no less havoc-ridden) films of Laurel & Hardy.


01/11/08: THREE LITTLE PIGSKINS (Raymond McCarey, 1934)

With this fourth Three Stooges short, I feel like they’re growing on me as I liked it quite a bit! Racketeer Walter Long (a great Laurel & Hardy foil) needs players who can be bought for a fixed game he’s organizing. His moll (a young Lucille Ball) and her companions meet The Stooges dressed in football gear – the boys are down on their luck, so they accept a job advertising for a football team – and, mistaking them for star players, bring them home. After the initial misconception about the men’s presence in Long’s apartment – leading to a delightful chase involving a base-less dumb waiter – The Stooges find themselves in a football stadium trying to make head or tails of the game, to the chagrin of the sinister-looking gangster! The short’s football craziness and the hijinks in the apartment are clearly inspired by HORSE FEATHERS (1932), one of The Marx Bros.’ greatest vehicles.


01/11/08: HORSES' COLLARS (Clyde Bruckman, 1935)

This is another wonderful Three Stooges short, despite the meaningless title. Here, the boys are Pinkerton detectives sent out West to help an innocent girl being bullied by a ruffian – a premise which actually anticipates Laurel & Hardy’s classic WAY OUT WEST (1937), and even includes a similar scene in which The Stooges attempt to retrieve an important document from the villain’s safe! Gags include the boys playing tough guys at the saloon – where they inadvertently set the sheepskin trousers of the baddie’s henchman on fire – and taking to the dance-floor in a ruse to get at the piece of paper jealously guarded by the heavy inside his wallet. Still, the best moments of the film involve Curley going into a raging fit – a similar affliction to the one he had in PUNCH DRUNKS (1934) – at the sight of a mouse (asked why, Moe replies “That’s because his father was a rat!”) which he’s only able to get out of by being force fed a piece of cheese (“Moe, Larry…cheese!”).

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Larceny Inc. (1942)

Three ex-cons buy a luggage shop in order to dig a tunnel to the bank next door. The leader of the cons decides that it will be profitable to go straight but an escaped prisoner messes up his plans.

This movie is funnier than hell. I didn't think Edward G. Robinson had it in him but he shows a flare for comedy. There are many funny scenes especially the luggage gift wrapping scene and the scene at the end of the movie. The whole cast is very good except for Anthony Quinn who seems like a reject from another movie. Funny stuff. I'll have to add this to my collection.


Skidoo (1968)

This was one weird movie. I can't say that I liked it. I did enjoy seeing stars like Mickey Rooney, Groucho Marx, Carol Channing, Jackie Gleason etc but I think whoever came up with this screenplay must have been smoking pot at the time. This is not campy bad like Plan Nine... but just plain bad.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

01/12/08:FROM BEYOND [Unrated Director's Cut](Stuart Gordon, 1986)

This is the third film I’ve seen from minor horror expert Stuart Gordon – after THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM (1991) and EDMOND (2005) – but the first from his 1980s heyday; for the record, I’ve been interested in RE-ANIMATOR (1985) for years, have fairly recently acquired DOLLS (1987) and will perhaps eventually rent his sci-fi opus, FORTRESS (1993). Anyway, to get back to the film under review: once one gets past the outrageously repulsive make-up and special effects – which belie the fact that this is a 22-year old movie and would certainly have put me off completely had I caught it back in its day (although, I do recall coming across it in video stores at the time) – FROM BEYOND is a thought-provoking if single-minded sci-fi/horror piece which quite deserves its cult status.

Taken from an H. P. Lovecraft original – of whose work Roger Corman’s underrated THE HAUNTED PALACE (1963) is still the best cinematic adaptation – the film deals with a mad scientist (amusingly named Pretorius) who invents a machine which implants a sixth sense within anybody near it, thus enabling one to realize his most repressed and hidden desires: so the scientist is turned into a sadistic torturer of women, the nerdy female psychiatrist (investigating the latter’s beheading) takes a liking to fetishistic attire, etc. The lead is Gordon regular Jeffrey Combs (as the scientist’s assistant who is taken to a mental asylum after narrating the events leading to the latter’s demise) and, also on hand, is skeptical police officer Ken Foree (who, unfortunately, bows out too soon). It goes without saying that tampering with nature and science is not without its consequences and I’d venture to say that rarely have they been so disgustingly realized on screen – via indescribable, stomach-turning creatures (which are always invisibly floating around in our space but animate themselves through the use of the machine) which make the notorious effects for John Carpenter’s THE THING (1982) look positively tame.


01/12/08: DIE HARD 4.0 (Len Wiseman, 2007)

My tolerance for Bruce Willis only extends itself to when he portrays the seemingly indestructible Detective John McClane in the DIE HARD films – a role which, even twenty years from its inception, still fits him like a glove. His charismatic persona goes a long way in making this hopelessly complicated and yet often dumbly illogical blockbuster undeniably entertaining throughout its not ungenerous 130 minute running time; needless to say, the spectacular action set-pieces are practically innumerable, with each one taking pains to outdo its predecessor in grandness and incredulity.

I can’t hope to make head or tails of the plot for those of you who haven’t seen it yet: suffice it to say, it’s predictably tinged with post-9/11 paranoia in the villains’ bid to put America on its bended knees through the wizardry of a network of geeky cyber-hackers…or something. I have to laugh when in the 1960s, many Cold War espionage pictures were dismissed as incomprehensible, because today’s penchant for hi-tech hijinks and unspeakably technical verbosity in even the most unassuming of thrillers shows a total lack of audience-friendliness. Another puzzling trait in contemporary Hollywood movies for me is the fact that anonymous (often impossibly young) villains are chosen to face off against the formidable hero of the day which rather makes one wonder why it took the latter two-and-a-half hours and so many near death experiences to get rid of this unfailingly sore loser; this is certainly the case here since the main villain is played by an unknown actor, his character was fired by the U.S. government when his plans were deemed too ambitious for them and, worse still, is effortlessly upstaged by his female co-conspirator/lover Maggie Q (who eventually meets her demise in one of the film’s lengthiest and most impressive action sequences). Interestingly enough, Willis himself is flanked by a computer freak but his wimpering, stuttering schtick outstays its welcome; writer-director-actor Kevin Smith has a pleasant cameo as the hacker guru dubbing himself “Warlock”.

Although one is expected to suspend his disbelief in films of this kind, there were a couple of stupid plot-holes the size of Manhattan which bugged me no end: if the villain was a top official in the U.S. Security defense program, clearly bears a grudge against them for humiliating him and is actually enacting the very threat he proposed back then in the first place, why do the F.B.I. need John McClane to alert them to his identity? Besides, if the villain is so technologically adept that he creates ultra-sensitive security programs for the U.S. government, how come he needs a whole barrage of computer geeks to put his plan into action (which, naturally, also necessitates an assortment of armed-to-their-teeth henchmen to eliminate them once they’ve completed their assignment?).


01/12/08:SHEENA (John Guillermin, 1984)

This is another film I recall being released in my childhood but have taken over twenty years to catch up with – not that it was a priority for me, knowing of its dismal reputation (SHEENA having been a nominee of five Razzies back in the day); that said, having just watched the even more maligned TARZAN, THE APE MAN (1981), I thought I might as well get to that jungle character’s female counterpart (who originated in a comic-strip)…

The result is perhaps even worse than the notorious John Derek film: if anything, the fact that the character is a household name makes the Tarzan outing a more desirable commodity – besides, even if Tanya Roberts as Sheena does get a couple of gratuitous nude bathing scenes, she’s not really a match for Bo Derek’s Jane! Furthermore, the plot doesn’t exactly compel attention: the ambitious younger sibling of the current African ruler covets both his throne and his intended bride (whose model-type body is also conveniently bared for our perusal) and has him killed – at the same time, contriving to frame the visiting female shaman of an ancient jungle tribe for the deed!

The latter is jailed, but she’s apparently able to communicate telepathically with Sheena (who promptly sets out to rescue her); the scantily-clad, tree-hopping jungle-girl was raised by the shaman ever since the childhood trauma of watching her explorer parents die in a cave-in; the young woman’s gift also allows her to talk to the animals (apparently, all that’s needed is to rub one’s forehead…only it looks more as if the subject’s suffering from migraines!) and, on many an occasion during the course of the film, they come to her aid. Also involved in the narrative are wimpish reporter Ted Wass (who eventually teams up with – and falls for – Sheena), his comic-relief cameraman, and a band of mercenaries in the new king’s employ (unrealistically, he and his bride tag along to their ultimate regret) who sets out in pursuit of our heroes because Wass has unwittingly filmed the assassination.

The film is not unwatchable per se, but it’s not very rewarding either outside of some undeniable campiness – despite the involvement of interesting talent behind the camera: director Guillermin, for one, wasn’t new to the jungle habitat – having directed a couple of the 1960s Tarzan films, SHAFT IN AFRICA (1973), and the 1976 version of KING KONG (with its lamentable 1986 sequel following SHEENA itself)!; story and (bad) script come courtesy of David Newman (the SUPERMAN films), Leslie Stevens (THE OUTER LIMITS TV series) and Lorenzo Semple Jr. (the 1960s BATMAN), cinematography is by Oscar-winning Pasqualino De Santis (ROMEO AND JULIET [1968]) and the editor is Ray Lovejoy (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY [1968]); still, perhaps the worst offender is Richard Hartley’s unsuitable score – with a main theme shamelessly redolent of Vangelis’ celebrated music for CHARIOTS OF FIRE (1981)!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Mario, I've been a Stooges fan all my life, but I too have found only recently that I can't take too much of them, because it gets so repetitious. My advice would be to watch one short at a time, no more than one a day before you watch your feature(s). It's just way too much of the same if you watch numerous shorts in a row.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

01/11/08

Across the Wide Missouri (1951) William A. Wellman

Clark Gable plays a beaver hunter who heads to the Rocky Mountains but encounters Indians as he explores the new territory. There's some nice things in this film but in the end it comes as a major disappointed especially about Gable and Wellman did so much better with The Call of the Wild in 1935. When this was shown on TCM, William Wellman, Jr. talked about all the problems with MGM during post production. Apparently this was originally meant to be an epic picture but the studio started cutting it to pieces and they eventually cut so much that they had to hire Howard Keel to do narration to bring any sense to the film. Watching the 78-minute movies it's easy to tell that there's all sorts of stuff missing and there are even some very strange edits, which make it clear that we were originally meant to see more. As for the final version, it's really not too bad but it's not too good either. Gable is pretty good in his role but Ricardo Montalban steals the film. J. Carroll Naish has a nice role as well. The Technicolor really brings out the great locations but in the end one can't get over the edited product. The "shock" at the end of the picture is also ruined due to the narration, which kills the suspense of how the film plays out.

01/12/08

Seas Beneath (1931) John Ford

A U.S. "mystery ship" is sent out to destroy a German U-boat, which has been causing damage to Allied ships. Like many other early sound films, this one here suffers from non-stop talking, which is damaged because the dialogue is just downright stupid and bad. I guess studios would read screenplays and order additional dialogue because this film has so many subplots that I can't help but think they were added to boost up the dialogue. There's a love story between George O'Brien and Marion Lessing, which is just downright stupid and bad. I'm going to guess the relationship between the boat Commander and a possible German spy was meant to add suspense but it never does. Ford really seems bored with these various dialogue scenes because there's never an ounce of energy in them. What really works is the final twenty-minutes when the mystery ship goes up against the U-boat. There's a long sequence where the ship must fall under attack because the sub isn't in their range for a counter attack. This scene here is full of wonderful excitement and some real suspense. The action scenes are all very realistic and Ford really puts the viewer in a mind frame where it feels like you're actually on the ship. Outside of these scenes I'd have to say Ford's direction is pretty weak because it really seems like he's making a silent movie with dialogue. The scenes are really strange to look at and they never really feel like a director use to the sound technology.

Marines in the Making (1942) Herbert Polesie

Pete Smith short shows us how the Marines are now being trained for battle and new technology in WW2. The film only runs around 8-minutes but it's entertaining throughout especially the section talking about how the Marines looked at how colleges were training their football players.

Voice of Hollywood No. 5, The (1930) No Director Credited

This short was included on the recently released Harry Langdon: Lost and Found collection. This entertainment show features various Hollywood stars and this episode includes Langdon, Lola Lane, Harry Jolson, Lew Cody and Armida. There's really nothing too special here with the exception of it being of minor historic interest.

Hollywood on Parade No. 4 (1932) Louis Lewyn

Another film included in the Langdon set but I'm sure most have seen at least one episode of this series, which shows various Hollywood stars out and about at various events. This one shows Langdon, Harold Lloyd, Charles Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Robert Montgomery and various others. Most of the action takes place at a tennis match but it's never clear on where the match is. This is minor entertainment if you want to see these legends back in the day.

Beautiful Clothes (1942) Josef Berne

Harry Langdon sings the title song in this short, which I read was made for video jukeboxes. I guess these were mainly featured in bars and other type places but it's the first film like it I've ever seen. Langdon sings throughout the short running time and even appears in drag. This film also features what has to be the dumbest model in history. At one point the camera goes on her and she's suppose to just smile but before doing so she looks left and right, apparently looking for the director, and then smiles before looking around for him again.

Hal Roach Annoucement (1929) Hal Roach

Harry Langdon shows up at a girl's house and makes a fool out of himself. I guess there's some big historic force behind this short, which was never meant to be seen by the public. Langdon's career was pretty much over when he threw away his partner Frank Capra but Hal Roach decided to give him a comeback shot in 1929 and this film was a brief annoucement to the stockholders. The film really isn't that funny but I'm not sure how much effort actually went into it. Langdon would go onto make eight films for Roach but was then fired when they all failed at the box office.

Knight Duty (1933) Arvid E. Gillstrom

Harry Langdon plays a tramp who gets stuck inside a wax museum after running from the police. While inside, another couple enters and steals some jewelry so Langdon must try and get it back. I found this short to be pretty entertaining once we get inside the wax museum. The opening gag with Langdon and a water hose doesn't work at all but we get a lot more laughs as the film moves along. There's a very good sequence where Langdon doesn't realize he's in a wax museum and finds himself fighting with gangsters. Even though this is a sound film Langdon doesn't say more than a few words.

Hooks and Jabs (1933) Arvid E. Gillstrom

Harry Langdon, broke and poor, gets a dollar from a woman and goes into a bar to use it but finds himself in one fight after another. There aren't many, if any, laughs here due partly because everything we see here had been done countless times before and in much better films. There's not a single fresh idea to be found.

Love, Honor and Obey (The Law) (1935) No Director Credited

Harry Langdon is eight hours away from being married but his fiance warns him that the wedding will be called off if he gets one more driving ticket. He wakes up late for the wedding and must rush to get there while trying to avoid a ticket. Believe it or not, B.F. Goodrich, the tire company, produced this film as a contest. Theater viewers would watch the film, write down the number of driving violations and then take their answers to their store where they'd be given a prize. With that in mind, there's really not too many laughs here except for a canary at the wedding, which gets drunk. The rest of the humor is quite unfunny. I guess you could have fun going along with the contest but outside of that there's nothing here.

Harry Langdon: Lost and Found (2007) David Kalat

All Day Entertainment produced this documentary that takes a look at the life and career of silent film star Harry Langdon who would rival Chaplin for a two year period before hitting poverty row. This documentary does a very good job at telling Langdon's story and it certainly makes me even more eager to jump into the silent films out there that feature the forgotten star. The most interesting aspects center around the controversy with Frank Capra who directed two films with Langdon as star. Rumors, myths and legends are all over the place about the falling out of the two men but we get some nice stories and thoughts on the subject. What's also interesting is how much of Stan Laurel's persona seemed to come from that of Langdon. Langdon would eventually go onto work with Laurel and Hardy by writing their stories, which included Block-Heads, which was a remake of an early Langdon film. There's also talk on why Langdon is still forgotten among the silent comedians and why he will probably never be rediscovered as a legend like Lloyd, Keaton, Arbuckle and Chaplin.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)

As was obvious to anyone who loved the book and wasn't stuck in some 'but it's old Hammer and so it is automatically superb' robotic trance, 'Hammer' made a pig's ear of adapting Bram Stoker's "Dracula" for their 1957 movie.
Offering up an almost mute Dracula and missing out every single great set-piece from the novel and adding in some farcical rubbish of their own, which blew huge holes in the plot (the worst being the change from unknowing Harker to vampire hunter Harker), 'Hammer' in fact gave us one of the least faithful (and generally effective in my view) adaptations of the novel ever seen.
The previous year‘s “Curse of Frankenstein” was the same, but in this case it was done much better and the original, rather tedious, psychologically deep and thrill-free, Shelley novel was ripe for exciting re-invention anyway…unlike Stoker’s far superior, still effective “Dracula”.

It is a surprise then to see that when they came to adapt the most famous of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 'Sherlock Holmes' stories 'Hammer' actually stayed far closer to the source (with help in the little details by big Holmes fan Peter Cushing) than they had up till now.
But the problems still persisted when they came to add their own elements.
It was obvious why they did this time (as the story, a mystery story of course, is so well known that no mystery remains) but that does not mean 'Hammer' were paying enough attention to what they added or the plot problems it causes.

They certainly open the film well though, adding a very 'Hammer' feel to the opening 'flashback' account of the evil Sir Hugo's activities and his fate at the tooth and claw of that infamous Hound.
This opening carries with it the same kind of sleazy decadence and sophisticated cruelty we would later see in the (ridiculously long) lead-up to another curse 'Hammer' would tackle, "The Curse of the Werewolf". And David Oxley makes a wonderful Sir Hugo.

The much missed Peter Cushing is good as Holmes but, despite his love of the character, can't seem to shake that Van Helsing persona off.
This may be more to do with the script though than Cushing, as it gives his Holmes far too many flights of supernatural fancy that are a million miles away from Doyle’s character.
And which do indeed owe more to the aforementioned Van Helsing than Sherlock Holmes, as this dreadful line to the local clergyman (a lovely comic performance by Miles Malleson) shows;
“I am fighting evil…Fighting it as surely as you”.
These horrible, out of character, dialogue additions are made even more frustrating because Cushing is (by his own insistence supposedly) given a couple of genuine Doyle Holmes lines to say that will please fans as much as the non-Doyle lines will annoy them.
The film also commits that most deadly of sins and has Holmes utter the famous "Elementary my dear Watson" line, which of course was never uttered in the Doyle stories.

Andre Morell offered up one of the first serious and more faithful Dr Watson's to grace the cinema screen since the infamous (though likable) buffoonery of Nigel Bruce in the famous Basil Rathbone movies completely re-wrote the character, and he does a solid job in essaying a Watson that we could seriously believe that unforgiving man of extremes Sherlock Holmes would indeed admire and more importantly be able to put up with!

Christopher Lee is a serious and moody Sir Henry (as you would expect from Lee) and perhaps gives the character a bit too much strength and force of will, as you get the feeling he could actually take care of himself.
Despite the success of his Dracula portrayal Lee would still basically play support to Cushing’s lead for a couple of films yet, but you can certainly see the star actor to come flexing his muscles here.
The rest of the cast is good and interesting and no one lets the side down.

The outdoor shots of the moor (not actually Dartmoor) are well used and although the indoor sets for the main, close-up, work are indeed obviously sets they are still extremely good and the use of ground hugging fog and silhouetted ruins against the sky all make for one of the most atmospheric recreations in any of the (many) versions of the story.
The brief violence (it is ‘Hammer’ after all) adds bite (ha ha) to the proceedings but the garish blood smacks more of a school play than the grim reality and starkness that it’s moor setting manages to convey.
The set of Baskerville Hall itself is also a wonderful creation and shows the richness in detail (as indeed does the faithful reconstruction of Holmes’ 221b Baker Street rooms) that early ‘Hammer’ movies were famous for.

So far so good then really (some dialogue aside), but the faults are still here and as such the film as a whole becomes a rather plodding and less than gripping affair.
But this is not all down to ‘Hammer’ (or even the now rather cosy and overly theatrical ‘Hammer’ of this period, an historical and vital era for sure, but for me not a patch on the next two decades to follow) and is in fact down to the actual source itself.

It’s strange that the most popular and well known Sherlock Holmes story is one that utterly dispenses with that most fascinating character for a huge portion of the narrative (a portion where most of the really mysterious events occur no less) as Holmes supposedly stays behind and lets Watson do the business.
All versions of the story that have gone before of course suffer due to this loss of it’s central character, and this version is no different. But that is a problem with the original Doyle story as well.
Holmes is brought back as soon as possible by ’Hammer’ (and in a visually effective way) but we do miss his insights and eccentricities while he’s away.

But the Hammer changes as well tend to only half work at their best and utterly fail at their worst.
The crucial matter of a missing Baskerville portrait from the Hall seems to have no bearing at all in this version unless you keep your ears well open. As only an extremely confusing line of dialogue hints at why it was removed.
This is due to ‘Hammer’ (screenplay by Peter Bryan) making a big change (indeed an addition) to the villain of the piece.
The one-line motive, briefly shouted out, seems to contradict itself and leaves us to fill in the gaps to make any sense of it.
We have the element of the unknown Baskerville relative, as in Doyle’s story (which explains the painting), but also an additional rant about the oppression by the Baskervilles on those around them (supposedly during the time of Sir Hugo, which seems then a bit unfair to Sir Henry who was nor even born then) that seems to contradict said person (somehow,) being one of the supposedly hated Baskerville’s themselves and/or being one of the oppressed at the same time!

We are also thrown into needless confusion (again for no good reason other than ’Hammer’ had to, in a half-arsed fashion, interfere) during the investigation of an old mine.
Why does Holmes not wonder what the hell was going on when he is nearly killed by a runaway mine truck supposedly being held safely by two other men, who then vanish.
Holmes makes no mention of it and makes no accusations (and indeed one of the men is not a villain, so why did he let the cart go and why vanish and supposedly leave Holmes to his fate!?) and what exactly happened is never explained!

And in a completely 'makes no sense in anyway at all to the plot' addition 'Hammer' also have some kind of sacrificial rite element added, via a remark of Holmes, when the mutilated remains of a body are found. Perhaps this bit of crowbarred in 'horror' dialogue was written purely to sound good in the trailer as it has absolutely no baring on the narrative and is never brought up again.

Perhaps the most bizarre bit of ‘Hammer’ vandalism though is not an addition, but a removal!
Mortimer tells Holmes about the curse of The historical Hound and then tells him of the recent death of Sir Charles.
And yet the most famous, and delightfully dramatic, line that actually ties the two things together (surely the whole damn point!) is never uttered.
In Doyle’s story Mortimer mentions, to tie the Hound of legend into the events of now, that in the ground next to Sir Charles’s body were found chilling marks…”Mr Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound”!
Yet this line is never said! Losing not only a great bit of drama but any link at all to Sir Charles’s death and the damned Hound of the Baskervilles!

Another negative is The Hound itself. When it finally appears it looks like an extremely weedy creature with a deformed head far too large for its body and makes little impact even when supposedly savaging someone.
The Hound caused Director Terence Fisher and co. a lot of trouble (the Great Dane used was supposedly rather sweet and good natured but hard to control, and supposedly even a child in a fur costume was going to be used, and then discarded, for some scenes of The Hound attacking!) and the haphazard, lets get it over with as quickly as possible, feel to the finale is testament to this.

Overall then we have an adaptation of a sometimes classic, sometimes weak, Sherlock Holmes story that suffers due to faults in the source (some you can‘t change but other adaptations have coped with them better), but also due to faults created by the weak meddling in the story by ‘Hammer’ themselves.
Which is a shame, because the film looks great, has a fine cast and manages to deliver one of the most atmospheric re-tellings of Doyle’s most extensively filmed tale.

But, despite the rather buffoonish Watson of course and a clumsy handling of the villain’s fate, the most successful adaptation (though not the most faithful, but it still does it better) of “The Hound of the Baskervilles” still remains the Basil Rathbone film. Though some good versions could well be found in the huge pile of German adaptations, if you can find any of them.

So it’s not the best “Hound”, but it’s not the worst “Hound”.
It’s not the best ‘Hammer’, but it’s not the worst ‘Hammer’.
And therein lies the ultimate fate of this film.
It’s a sadly average, middle of the road, almost invisible movie that had elements in it that should have made it so much more. It's one real claim to fame is that it was the first Holmes movie in colour.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Wow, Freak -- I could have written this myself!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

We are in a very small minority!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Don't get me wrong - I enjoy HORROR OF DRACULA, but I think fans really over-praise it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's a good vampire movie, but as "Dracula" I think it has a lot of issues.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

A New Kind of Love

This isn't the worst film Paul Newman ever made, but they sports scenes, even given the dream context, are the worst scenes he ever made. This may have been a racy film in 1963, but it's hard to believe it was funny then, and it's certainly not funny, racy or anything good, now.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Caine Mutiny (1954)

This is set during WW2. An executive officer relieves his captain of duty when he is suspected of mental instability.

The acting is quite good in this movie. Fred MacMurry plays Lt. Tom Keefer who seems to be the instigator as pointed out by Lt. Barney Greenwald played by Jose Ferrer. He wears down the exec. officer and eventually has him convinced that Captain Queeg is in fact unstable but when it comes to testify he bails out on his comrades. Humphrey Bogart was excellent as Captain Queeg. He was able to show him in all his fraility and was deserving of the Oscar nomination. The rest of the cast were uniformly good. This is based on the novel by Herman Wouk and though I haven't read the book this will be on my list of future books to read.


The Painted Veil (2007)

This is a beautiful love story set among a cholera epidemic in China. A young doctor and his adulterous wife travel to China to assist with the epidemic. The wife feels out of place and unwanted but eventually she warms up to the people and helps in her own small way.

The acting is quite good but the story is very predicable. I've seen this type of story many times before. I could have predicted how it would end but somehow it's still a satisfying story and beautifully photographed.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Marianne

I keep reading that Marion Davies wasn't nearly so bad as she's made out in Citizen Kane, and while that may be true, you'd never guess it from this movie. An early talkie, she (and the rest of the cast) are still doing bad silent overacting. She uses a horrid French accent throughout the film, and it doesn't help that the story is a snoozer. If you were putting Citizen Kane on trial for defaming Davies, this film would be Defense Exhibit #1.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

They Got Me Covered

Top-notch Bob Hope comedy, with Dorothy Lamour, minus Bing (except for a vocal cameo) has him as a bungling reporter against Gestapo agents getting ready commit sabotage throughout the United States. Fast-paced and funny.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Thin Man (1934)

Viewed 1/7/2008

Revisited this classic mystery/comedy.

out of


Out of the Past (1947)

Viewed 1/7/2008

Revisited this classic noir. Gets better every time I see it.

out of


The Marquise of O (1976)

Viewed 1/7/2008 (first viewing)

Absorbing period drama from Eric Rohmer, set during the Franco-Prussian war. An Italian noblewoman is saved from a gang of rapists by a Russian Count. Months later the widowed woman finds herself mysteriously pregnant and her mortified family disowns her. What does the Count know of her condition and why does he insist upon marrying her?

out of


Sunshine (2007)

Viewed 1/8/2008 (first viewing)

Danny Boyle's disappointing sci-fi'er has a group of astronauts trying to reignite our dying sun. By turns stupid and incomprehensible with nary a character to care about.

out of


Zatoichi (2003)

Viewed 1/9/2008 (first viewing)

Takeshi Kitano's take on the venerable character, a blind swordsman who wanders Japan righting wrongs. My only quibble here is the CGI blood spray, personally I prefer blood to gush the old-fashioned way.

out of


3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Viewed 1/10/2008 (first viewing)

Holy...fucking...shit. Some moron probably got paid more to write that howlingly bad ending than I'll make in a lifetime.

out of


Thief (1981)

Viewed 1/10/2008 (first viewing)

Michael Mann's absorbing drama of a professional thief determined to survive despite intrusions from opportunistic crime bosses and dirty cops.

out of


Mario's Story (2006)

Viewed 1/11/2008 (first viewing)

Compelling documentary on Mario Rocha, a young Latino who was sentenced to life in prison for a crime he more than likely had nothing to do with. Mario's family and lawyers struggle year after year to convince the courts that his case was mishandled and that his conviction should be overturned. A sobering study of "the system," judicial egos and hope against all odds.

out of


Cause for Alarm (1951)

Viewed 1/11/2008 (first viewing)

Okay thriller stars Loretta Young as a housewife whose husband has turned paranoid and delusional during a debilitating illness. She finds herself in a jam when he dies after having sent a letter to the D.A. stating that she's trying to kill him!

out of


Sonatine (1993)

Viewed 1/11/2008

Revisited Takeshi Kitano's minimalist yakuza film. Kitano himself stars as a weary crime boss assigned to negotiate a treaty between rival Okinawa gangs. Unfortunately he finds himself under attack and must go into hiding. Can he find out who is behind the attacks before he and his men are decimated?

out of


Angel in Krakow (2002)

Viewed 1/12/2008 (first viewing)

Disarming film about a rumpled angel who is assigned the task of bettering the lives of humans. Set aground in Krakow, Poland he soon befriends a pretty street merchant and her son, both of whom take a shine to him. Nice little film and perfect for families.

out of


Climates (2006)

Viewed 1/13/2008 (first viewing)

Sparse film from Nuri Bilge Ceylan stars the director and his wife as a disaffected couple who decide to separate. Solid study of a disconnected couple and their attempt to reconcile.

out of


Asleep in the Deep (2004)

Viewed 1/14/2008 (first viewing)

Lynchian short about a punked-out girl named Alyce who wanders into a surreal town and takes up residence in a dilapidated hotel. There she meets an aged black fiddle player who keeps a dark secret. Off-kilter and obtuse, but very entertaining; an adaptation of the H.P. Lovecraft story The Music of Erich Zann.

out of


Indebted (2005)

Viewed 1/14/2008 (first viewing)

Well-meaning but slight short about a self-loathing deadbeat dad who gets a second chance.

out of


Inch' Allah Dimanche (2001)

Viewed 1/14/2008 (first viewing)

An Algerian woman emigrates to France to live with her husband who's been working there for years. There she's caught between his abusive and domineering ways, a mother-in-law from Hell, and a culture of freedom she doesn't quite know how to deal with. Familiar drama of culture shock and feminine liberation is nonetheless engaging. The superb soundtrack helps.

out of


Black Rider (1994)

Viewed 1/14/2008 (first viewing)

A bus passenger's bigoted tirade ends in quite an unexpected manner in this humorous short.

out of

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977)

Laughingly bad in all departments except the creatures were kind of neat.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Iron Horse (US Version - 8 of 10

Tremendous film from Ford. George will be happy to note there's no silent melodrama overacting here, very naturalized performances. Some of Ford's shots are phenomenal in their use of deep space (the saloon just before the fight begins when the hero returns from the ravine), and overall the film looks solid, but the film really illustrates what enormous strides were made in stock and lens technology over the next ten-twelve years, it's an invaluable comparison just to see how differently the lens of 1925 captured landscapes compared to those of Ford's later films, they are much softer and flatter with low contrast for the most part, not hugely appealing, but they got the job done. Really hammers home why Sunrise was entirely shot on a stage, the studio lighting would allow for a more dynamic image, and here to you can see the difference on the interiors.

The story is strong, the setpieces are good but occasionally hokey, but the spatial sense is not as strong as Ford typically displays in his later films (the location of the two fingered villain when he starts sniping during the final battle in relation to the beseiged workers is the best example, nothing lines up).

The story of the transcontintental railroad, Iron Horse is the closest Ford ever came to making an epic. Davy and his father left Springfield Illinois long before the civil war, when Davy was but twelve, and he left behind a girl as well. Davy's father is killed on the frontier and Davy is rescued by some mountain men and survives on his own. Flashforward to the future, Lincoln signs the bill to create a transcontinental railroad, and Davy's old flame is engaged to the Union Pacific's chief engineer. And just as she arrives on the frontier Davy meets up with them. But all is not well a villionous landowner wants to divert the railroad through his land and reap the massive rewards of development, and only Davy knows the shorter route.

I've been wanting to see this film for about eight years now. glad it's finally available, it's one of Ford's better films.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Goodfellas (1990)

A Martin Scorsese masterpiece, much better IMHO than the over-rated The Departed. Wonderfully acted and shot with a first rate screenplay, this is my favourite Scorsese picture.

Mayor of Hell (1933)

James Cagney stars as Patsy Gargan a newly appointed Deputy Commissioner of Corrections who after a visit to a reform school instigates changes that have a profound effect on everyone concerned. Jimmy Smith leader of a street gang is hard to get through to, but eventually he realizes that Gargan is trying to help. When Gargan goes into hiding for a shooting, matters take a turn for the worse at the reform school.

The acting was top-notch especially the young actor who played Jimmy Smith. This was really his picture with Cagney taking a supporting role as far as screen time goes. Cagney was great as always with the rest of the actors adequate in their parts. This film became totally unrealistic at the end but it still remaining an entertaining watch.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

"The Abominable Dr Phibes"

Well thought of Vincent Price vehicle that's actually dated very badly and fails to impress that much.
The unique elements of how Phibes exists and how he goes about his business (though there are 'Phantom of the Opera' tinges here) are entertaining for a while and make the film stand out for sure.
But the ballroom dances, robotic band tunes, endless organ playing, and spotlight dinners in silly frocks become extremely tiresome, overly self-indulgent and slow things down to a crawl.

There is some good black humour here, and Price does a good job with a limiting role.
But the real fault (away from the tedious Phibes ballroom antics) is that the deaths are so stupid that they tend to become simply annoying.

Whereas the vastly superior "Theatre of Blood" used similar far-out methods of murder but had them carried out via realistic (if wonderfully theatrical) means, "Phibes" simply leaves common sense behind and relies on utter fantasy and glaring logic holes.

Any reason why Terry Thomas did not scream for help or put a damn sight bigger struggle instead of just sitting there in silence and being drained?

How good are those sleeping pills the Nurse takes for Phibes to be able to pour a gallon of green liquid over her face and hands without her waking?

A brass unicorn head was somehow catapulted through a public doorway from the street without anyone seeing anything and with such split second timing and accuracy that it impales the target, who was standing next to 3 other men, perfectly despite Phibes having no way of knowing where the guy was actually standing before the door was opened anyway.

The lack of blood and violence and dubious FX (the Nurses flesh stripped skull looks like it came from a joke shop) don't help these deaths either.

A film with some great ideas and unusual attributes certainly. But none of them were very well carried out and this for me will always remain a very poor relation to the excellent "Theatre of Blood" which does everything right that "Phibes" does wrong.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

I’ve started watching all the Oscar best picture winners and will try to watch as many as I can up through February 24th. I’m enough of a film geek to admit I love watching the Oscars and all that goes with it, including letting out audible shrieks and curses during the telecast. I also enjoy looking at Oscar’s history and trying to figure why certain films and performances received awards when future film scholars would later scoff at the selections. I know I’m going to be watching great movies over the next two months, as well as wondering, “What the heck were they smoking?”


Wings (1927)

The first official Best Picture winner, Wings is an enjoyable if formulaic picture that lessens the impact of its impressive aerial sequences with its soap opera –ish center story. Both Jack Powell (Charles 'Buddy' Rogers) and David Armstrong (Richard Arlen) are in love with Sylvia Lewis (Jobyna Ralston). While Sylvia truly loves David, she cannot bring herself to tell Jack of her feelings, knowing it will crush him. Meanwhile, the girl-next-door Mary Preston (top-billed Clara Bow) loves Jack. Both Jack and David end up serving together as fighter pilots in World War I. How will the rivals put their animosity behind to serve their Country? That is center story that drives (and sometimes stalls) the story during its two hour and twenty minute running time.

While the cast is overall quite good, the necessity of the filmmakers to add comedic elements to the story (the Swedish recruit who must prove his love of America, the extended “drunk sequence” where Jack sees bubbles coming out of everything and everyone), probably due to the grim subject matter, really weighs the film down and sometimes brings the story to dead stop. Clichés (the two rivals become friends) and coincidences (Mary is assigned security duty to location where Jack goes on his drinking binge) abound as the love triangle plays itself out amidst the brutality of war. Still, I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that I got a bit chocked up in the final scenes where a shocking turn of events leads to guilt and forgiveness for one of the main characters. In fact, nearly every scene in the movie has some payoff moment in the end, so the director (William A. Wellman) wasn’t just marking time with the comic interludes. Some trimming though could have helped the pacing.

Where the film really shines is in its depiction of war, especially the aerial battle sequences. These are realistic and thrilling. Wellman shoots in wide-angle and close-up so you really experience the danger of being alone amidst the enemy’s fighters. What’s more, there are several scenes where the pilots are hit, and we seen blood spurt and flow from their wounds. I certainly wasn’t expecting that from a film made in 1927. These scenes are what people remember and talk about today, and it’s understandable why such a film – which ultimately is about the tragedy and ugliness of war – won a Best Picture statue.

While Wings is not a great film in the way one would expect from a Best Picture winner, it nevertheless delivers enough entertainment value and poignancy to make it recommend viewing for any classic film fan.

Sunrise (1927)

The first Academy Awards actually had two Best Picture categories, the second one being “Unique and Artistic Production.” Sunrise was the first and last film to ever win this honor as the category was dropped after the first awards. Sunrise lives up to its status as a classic: a romantic, suspenseful, stirring, original, and haunting story about a man who re-discovers the love he has for his wife in a most unusual way.

Billed as the Man (George O'Brien), the husband is having an affair with a Woman from the City (Margaret Livingston) who wants him to leave his rural home and return with her to the city. What about his wife (Janet Gaynor in an Oscar-winning turn)? Drown her and make it look like an accident is her solution. (It’s never made clear what’s to become of the couple’s infant child.) But just as the Man is about to commit the crime, he is overcome with guilt and the realization he truly loves his wife. What follows is probably one of the couple’s most wonderful days together. But there are still more obstacles to overcome.

While George O’Brien is excellent in the role of remorseful husband, it’s Janet Gaynor’s turn as the Wife that sells the picture. As the film opens the Man leaves his home for an illicit rendezvous as the Wife prepares dinner. When she realizes what has happened (apparently the affair is town gossip) her face registers every emotion she is feeling, and one cannot help be moved. Later, Gaynor must navigate the emotional arc of fear, betrayal, pity, forgiveness, and joy upon realizing what her husband really intended to do during their boat ride. Gaynor has to sell us on the fact she’d forgive, let alone want to stay with, her husband after a murder attempt. But she pulls it off beautifully. We find ourselves cheering for her and the couple’s return to happiness.

Charles Rosher and Karl Struss’ Oscar-winning photography captures the film’s various moods, from the ominous opening sequences in the deserted marsh lands, to the busy city streets, and ultimately the final shot of the film. Director F.W. Murnau guides all this with a sure, confident hand, pulling us into what we think will a knuckle-biting thriller (it is) only to turn into a heartfelt romance (it is). Not many directors could have managed such a shift in tone, so well. But it works here and results in one of the most unique stories ever brought to film.

Sunrise is a must for fans of classic films. It deserves it place as one of the truly great silent films.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Broadway Melody (1929)

Frequently cited at the first all-talking movie musical, The Broadway Melody is historically significant, and it is that reason (and perhaps that reason alone) that makes its win as the Best Picture of 1928/1929 comprehensible. Studios were still experimenting with sound, and perhaps it was sufficient for viewers that just hearing actual dialogue or experiencing “real” musical numbers was enough to overlook a very conventional, predictable story. Today, The Broadway Melody is hopelessly dated and, but for the most diehard musical fan, sometimes difficult to sit through.

Sisters Hank (Bessie Love) and Queenie (Anita Page) Mahoney come to New York so Hank’s childhood sweetheart and Fiancée, Eddie Kearns (Charles King), can give them a job in his latest Broadway-bound show. But once Eddie takes one gander at the grown-up Queenie, the futures of Eddie and Hank and the Mahoney Sisters are no longer set in stone.

The highlights of the film are the obvious ones: the song and dance numbers. The film gets off to a good start as Eddie is seen composing his enjoyable new song, “The Broadway Melody.” The highlight is the elaborately staged "Wedding of the Painted Doll" (originally shot in Technicolor). These were just hints of what studios had in store for musicals but the musical sequences work just fine here. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough of them.

Most of the story is taken up by too-familiar plot points: Eddie falls in love with Queenie just because she’s a pretty face; Queenie falls for the wrong man despite warnings from others; Hank immediately is disliked by a fellow starlet (Mary Doran) for no discernible reason other than the “laws of screenwriting”; and the tired device of making comic relief out of the guy who stutters (Jed Prouty.) (Still, this may have been something of a novelty for a 1929 talking picture!) The problem is that all of this is just not terribly interesting. The dialogue sounds scripted, not natural. Anita Page does not do a convincing job as the “bad” Queenie. Scenes go on much longer than they need to (the arrival of the sisters’ at their hotel, for example). Hank is supposed to be the sympathetic one yet is too controlling and bossy most of the time. The biggest problem is, however, that the Mahoney Sisters just aren’t that good. It’s hard to cheer for people whom you think don’t belong where they want to be.

I’m glad I saw The Broadway Melody from a cinema education perspective. But it’s hard to imagine selecting this film when one is in the mood for a good musical – or film, for that matter.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)


A movie I thought I’d like more than I did, All Quiet on the Western Front is as unsubtle an anti-war film as you’re likely to see. The film makes its point over and over and over and over – with each character given their own monologue/soliloquy on what their hopes and dreams were and what they are now, each delivered in the same, quivering, tragic delivery that ultimately makes most of the characters indistinguishable. It’s a “too much” approach to material that would have been just fine following the main character’s through the horrors of war.

It’s Germany, 1917, and high schools are recruiting young men to join the armed forces. Paul Bäumer (Lew Ayres) joins along with several fellow classmates. Initially they are excited and eager to fight for the Father Land. But it doesn’t take long for the realities of war – hunger, no living accommodations, death – to convince them war is hell.

The battle sequences are impressive and frightening. No one is safe – as gunfire or mortar shells may suddenly invade an otherwise calm scene. Characters may be given lengthy death scenes, or they may be suddenly killed without a further word. One of the most powerful scenes has the troops holed up underground, as the dirt from their makeshift ceiling rains on them as mortar fire bombards their surroundings. At least one character goes completely crazy just due the uncertainty of his survival. There is nothing quaint about the film’s portrayal of war: it is brutal, violent, and devastating.

With that in mind, why oh why did the makers of the film feel the need to have its young cast deliver repeated speeches about how this all sucks? They young cast, quite frankly, isn’t very good, although ultimately Lew Ayres creates a moving character. They are mostly clichés when the play the gung-ho soldier and clichés when they change their views. They feel like the same character. Had the film followed just Paul Bäumer as he processes what happens around him, or at least cut short some of the monologues, the film would still have made its point without beating us about the head.

The older cast fares much better, especially Louis Wolheim as Kat Katczinsky, the seasoned soldier who befriends Bäumer. Here is a character and performance who communicates his views more by how he says what he says, instead of endless speeches about the realities of war. The relationship that develops between Frank and Kat is what gives the film’s final moments such power.

I have a feeling that a second viewing of this film may prove a better experience. But the initial impression is a great film that is harmed by its insistence on repeatedly telling us things we can plainly see in front of us. Still, All Quiet on the Western Front has much to recommend it and scenes of great power. It’s rather shocking to compare this film and its message to the films Hollywood produced during the 1940s during the second World War.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Not really. Two different wars.
There is much to show that WW1 was an ultimately needless war that never really should have even started.
And the old school tactics used, so out of touch with mechanised destruction, were also unique even in war to the horror that came from them and the sheer soldier death toll.

WW2 was not remotely the same.

For a start it could never be called an unjust war, or a needless war.
Not with a Germany that was exterminating Jews and conquering lands and people on an almost global scale.
And the old guard of the Kaiser and their motives and ambitions were a far cry from The Nazis.

It's one of the few wars where there literally was a good and bad side.

Then add the unique factor compared to WW1 (where it was army vs army) where for the first time millions upon millions of CIVILIANS (those that went to the cinema if able to) were directly affected by the war and could end up dead.
That's something literally right in your front room...right in your cinema.
As such the cinema HAD to be different then, and right after when the wounds and trials were still at the forefront of day to day life.

When you then factor into all that the actual threat from Japan to America itself (unlike in WW1 where America was in no danger), the POW atrocities and racial extermination that the Japan was carrying out and the sheer scale of America's involvement.... then the different messages were not only going to obviously be there but quite frankly they SHOULD have been there.

Propaganda is utterly vital to winning any war where the people at home are directly involved either with masses of loved ones there, or if facing a direct threat to your home.
To me the reason why the films were different is obvious, valid and quite frankly as it should have been.

Why do you think we are losing the propaganda war NOW?
Now every film we get about Afghanistan or Iraq or anything related IS "All Quiet on the Western Front"!
And the effect that can have is astonishing.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Each Dawn I Die (1939)

Interesting prison drama with James Cagney as a newspaper reporter who is framed for a crime he didn't commit. Cagney is behind the wheel of a car and is knocked out cold and doused with alcohol. His car is started and rams into people killing them. He is sent to prison where he meets a gangster played by George Raft. Cagney keeps his mouth shut regarding a crime and Raft promises to look into his case when he gets out of prison.

The acting of both Cagney and Raft was stellar if the story was quite implausible. This was an enjoyable watch if dated. For a truly great prison movie, Shawshank Redemption can't be beat.

A Slight Case of Larceny (1953)

Hilarious little movie about two gas station owners in order to win a price war tap into a gasoline line that runs underneath their station.

Both Mickey Rooney and Eddie Bracken play off each other quite well. Bracken is the straight man to Rooney's zany protrayal. Though the plot is quite thin, this movie has quite a few laughs.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Thin Red Line

What's more ridiculous than a bunch of tough gang members ballet dancing through the streets of New York? How about an entire company of infantry on Guadalcanal consisting of philosophers/poets? Cause we all know that what the typical infantryman is thinking about while in the middle of a fierce battle isn't fear or survival, it's (not so) deep philosophical ruminations about fragmentation within contemporary society and how the exigence of fragmentation is relieved by mediated recourse to the perennial philosophy of monistic holism that is found by drawing on the perennial philosophic references found in the ancient Hindu text, the "Bhagavad Gita." In a word - three hours of yawning.