Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Joe, since you admit to not seeing LARCENY I don't see how you can follow that up with "a complete and bonafide "remake" is not accurate. Since I doubt you'll ever watch LARCENY I'll just ruin it for you that they end in the exact same manor and they also have certain characters going through the very same thing. Allen and Robinson's characters make the exact "switch" for the same exact reasons and the "others" do the exact same thing to keep the gig going. Considering I've actually seen both films I can say that they are certainly the same movie.

As for TERROR FIRMER, once again I'd recommend that you actually watch the film before you start saying people are wrong or trying to defend something. There are even Kaufman interviews where he talks about the two films and once again, it appears Allen has seen several Troma movies. This one? Who knows. TERROR is a complete piece of shit with a good idea. Perhaps Allen took the good idea and did something a lot better with it. Happens all the time. Perhaps it was just by chance. Either way red flags can and did go up.

Either way, this back and forth has gone on long enough so you can have the final word. LARCENY, INC. is on TCM all the time and it's on DVD through their Gangsters Collection Vol. 4 so you can actually watch it if you want.


MARIO, I too was duped into buy that Mondo Collection just a few hours before an eventual screener showed up. This was a pretty big bomb for BU, which is why many more re-releases eventually followed. The price tag was simply too high for the type of films these are. This is probably a big reason why so many studios like this have come and gone. I didn't think any of the films were that great either.

CUT AND RUN is one I hated more than you did. Italian cinema in this period is so interesting because you can pretty much see these directors putting a gun in their mouths and blowing their brains on the film. It seems every genre director from the late 70's "crash" from Bava to Fulci to Lenzi all tried to recapture that spirit in the 80's and delivered some truly horrid movies. It's rather sad to see but it's still interesting viewing all these Italian movies from the late 70's to the early 90's. Of course, the genre and these directors are mostly dead in terms of any type of cinema today, although it appears Bava and Mattei at least had some sorts of a comeback.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

It only took 18 days for Mike and I to have our first spat.

Right away you start the "I doubt you'll ever watch"... superiority snob routine again, and then earlier claimed you don't try to "show off". For your information, I caught the end of LARCENY, INC on TCM in recent months, and thought I might like to watch it in full one day, too. But so what? I may have seen some films you haven't. You never did get to MY MAN GODFREY which I gave you years ago. Have you ever seen Eddie Robinson in THE WHOLE TOWN'S TALKING (1935)? You may have ... maybe not ... I have. Either way, it matters not one iota.


Just because a director is blind in both films, that's not enough to make me cry "remake!" and "ripoff!" You need to understand I'm not disputing similar ideas - maybe even inspirations directly taken - but to declare something a complete "remake" is an exaggeration in most of your claims, and I am sticking to that.

And bear in mind that you haven't seen EVERYTHING either, nor can anyone, ever. There's bound to be some stuff you'll watch and like, not even knowing it was based on something else. You tend to disregard people's opinions of movies unless you deem them worthy of "knowing as much as they should", and that's not always fair.

Since we've both exhausted this I'd like to know what others feel constitute an official "remake", or not.

EDITED: Okay, the more I read about LARCENY INC and SMALL TIME CROOKS, the more similarities I am made aware of. Still in all, I've also read that Woody's never gone on record as saying it was a remake. Again, I think it's that conclusive word I have a problem with, rather than "inspiration".

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

I assume that anything that requires cooperation between studios, for the release of clips, that type of thing, will never, ever be available on a home video format. Or if it was, it ain't coming back soon (re: Brownlow and Gill's HOLLYWOOD). So I keep a lookout for stuff like this and was glad to have caught it.


01/17/09

Cheyenne (1947) Dir: Raoul Walsh
Production: Warner Bros.

Wyoming territory, 1867. Jim Wylie (Dennis Morgan) is a rakish gambler who’s good with a gun. Both proclivities require him to be two steps ahead of the law. But when a dogged lawman (Barton MacLane) finally catches up with him, Jim is given an option: track down and capture, dead or alive, a notorious outlaw who calls himself ‘The Poet’ and go free, or go straight to jail. The elusive ‘Poet’ has bedeviled the territory with his series of hold-ups, targeting the Wells Fargo stage, and his habit of leaving a rhyming note after each heist. That option is really no option and so Jim takes to the task.

The film is nearly as much a rom-com as a western. Jane Wyman plays a ‘lady’, Ann Kincaid, who is initially immune to Jim’s charms. Janis Paige is Emily Carson, an ‘entertainer’ whose earthiness contrasts with Ann. There is some rather risqué banter between Jim, Ann and Emily that is amusing. Alan Hale adds levity as a cowardly sheriff and Bruce Bennett is a Wells Fargo inspector. Arthur Kennedy stands out as Sundance, the vicious leader of a stick-up gang whose business has dried up because of The Poet’s proficiency. On the other hand, Dennis Morgan is boring, in his bland, z-grade Gregory Peck way. Max Steiner’s score can overwhelm. And the picture does take its time wrapping things up. But there are some nice ideas in the plot and Walsh is such a great storyteller that it’s all worth it. Does not seem to be related to the long-running TV show of the same name, also from Warner, that still airs today in reruns on EncoreWesterns.

out of 4
-------------------------------------
RAOUL WALSH – “Far Side of Paradise”
College Swing (1938) , Cheyenne (1947)


01/17/09

Down Three Dark Streets (1954) Dir: Arnold Laven
Production: Edward Small Productions/United Artists

Lesser known entry in the series of films that were paeans to the single-minded efficiency of the FBI, complete with adulatory voiceover narration expounding on the virtues of the FBI agent. In this case, our agent is Zack Stewart (Kenneth Tobey) and his supervisor is John ‘Rip’ Ripley (Broderick Crawford). The story follows the two men as they concurrently work on three cases; tracking down a ‘most wanted’-type murderer, an investigation of a car-theft ring, and an extortion case.

The extortion case features Ruth Roman as a single (widowed) mother whose little girl is threatened with being kidnapped unless she pays the receipts of an insurance settlement. Her fragile mental state and near breakdowns are quite believable. Marisa Pavan is also very good as a plucky blind woman whose small-fry husband is taking the rap for bigger fish in the car theft episode. Claude Akins, whose physical resemblance to the comic strip character Alley Oop always made him a perfect fit as a threatening lunk, executes a nasty piece of business with élan. Interesting that the director would go on to work extensively in TV, as the film somewhat has the feel of a couple of Dragnet episodes put together. But it’s better than that, there are a number of good thrills and surprises and a nice climax at the foot of the HOLLYWOOD sign that plays like a low-rent North By Northwest. Nice LA location work, as well. Don’t expect any shading in the characters, though. There’s obviously FBI cooperation in the making of the picture and as a result these boys are straight-arrow, focused, role model types.

out of 4


01/17/09

Journey for Margaret (1942) Dir: W.S. Van Dyke
Production: MGM

Based on a true story, we are told. War correspondent John Davis (Robert Young) and his wife, Nora (Laraine Day), find themselves fleeing to London following the fall of France. There they experience the nightly German bombing raids and witness the effects. When one attack results in a profound change in both of their lives, they become lost emotionally, detached to the horrors around them. Soon, John is assigned to do a story about a home for war orphans. It not only brings him back but he sees a chance to make Nora whole again too.

This film gets points for its subject, children left homeless and parentless by war, a subject tackled during the war, no less. Although it starts out as a typical morale booster (an allowance today’s audience must be prepared to give), it transcends that with the sensitive treatment of the children. The child actors, notably Margaret O’Brien in her first credited appearance, are mostly affecting, although some may find them a tad precious. Robert Young, however, not so much. He didn’t have the heft for this kind of melodrama, there always seems to be a touch of jocundity under the surface that distracts. Fay Bainter as the woman who runs the orphanage, excels. Nigel Bruce has a small role as John’s editor. Laraine Day is good enough. Van Dyke’s last film. Facing terminal cancer he committed suicide shortly after the premiere of this picture.

out of 4
-----------------------------
W.S. VAN DYKE – “Miscellany”
Journey for Margaret (1942)


01/17/09

Right Cross (1950) Dir: John Sturges
Production: MGM

Ricardo Montalban stars in this boxing world/love triangle film that coincidentally aired on TCM the day he died. Not as frequently mentioned as the fact that he played Mr. Roarke on TV, is that Montalban also had a fine resume of film work, including Right Cross.

Sean O’Malley (Lionel Barrymore), a fading boxing promoter, and his daughter Pat (June Allyson) try to hold onto their last champion, Johnny Monterrez (Ricardo Montalban), while a competitor tries to sign him away. Sean has a seemingly big edge; Johnny and Pat are in love. Along for the ride is Johnny’s best friend, sportswriter Rick Garvey (Dick Powell, real life husband of Allyson) who is a long-time torch carrier for Pat. Complicating matters is an injured right hand, Johnny’s, that will force decisions to be made in urgency and already sensitive nerves rubbed raw.

Give come credit to Montalban. First of all, the dude is ripped. But he makes the boxing look good. Obviously punches are faked and don’t land, but what he does well is the footwork, something often overlooked in boxing movies. I think it’s because the actor has to be in excellent shape. Well here, he is. It makes a difference. He’s also good in the part. It’s an excellent portrayal of a fighter who could lose it all with his next punch. That uncertainty makes him angry, scared. Believe it or not, the film also offers some insight into the Mexican-American experience. The generation ahead of Johnny was conditioned into thinking they were less than the “gringos”. Johnny is the champion of the world (his self-worth is practically tied to his title), but he still has to deal with that resentment, some of which lingers in his own family. His relationship with Pat doesn’t help. June Allyson is fine, if a little far-fetched as a boxing promoter. Dick Powell plays the hard bitten cynic well. This is one of Lionel Barrymore’s last roles and his physical deterioration dovetails effectively with his character's fading fortunes and inability to mount much of a fight for his ‘asset’. Marilyn Monroe has a brief role, early in her career, as a model (named Dusky Ledoux) who Rick unsuccessfully hits on. On a technical note, there is an interesting subjective camera shot in the boxing match (Raging Bull?).

out of 4
--------------------------------------
JOHN STURGES – “Strained Seriousness”
Right Cross (1950)

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Thanks. If the Woody Allen interview crops up on TCM again, I'd appreciate it if you (or Michael, or anyone) could give me a heads up on it. I'd like to try watching more of the channel anyway. But with the recent "theme weeks" I'm trying to do, that might not always work out.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

In retrospect, what with you going through a block of Allen, it seems silly for me not to have mentioned it beforehand. My bad.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Godard's 1986 film, MEETING WOODY ALLEN, is available on YouTube in three parts. It's certain a Godard film but interesting none the less. I reviewed it last year I believe.

You can see part one here:

YouTube - Meeting With Woody Allen (1986) Godard (1)

Links to the other two parts are there also.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

LARCENY, INC. Three ex-cons buy a luggage shop to tunnel into the bank vault next door.

SMALL TIME CROOKS Three ex-cons buy a cookie shop to tunnel into the bank vault next door.


Since no one saw fit to check this one out:


BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET: A group of incompetent robbers break into a disused apartment to tunnel into the bank vault next door.

Maybe Joe K. should just ask ol' Woody himself if he happens to catch a glimpse of him around the Big Apple and settle the matter once and for all? By the way, being a New Yorker and all, did you in fact ever catch sight of him or that other famous 'strict' New Yorker, Lou Reed (one of my most favorite musicians)?


Re: Roger Ebert


Whenever you or I or Michael or anybody else who posts here namechecks another movie in our 'reviews', it's done based on our 'limited' resources and in fun rather than to show-off our knowledge over someone or other...and, believe me, this year I've been trying to cut down on all that self-referential stuff (which I hope you've noticed).

However, when somebody like Ebert - who, like him or not, is arguably the best-known film critic alive today - says that SMALL TIME CROOKS (2000) is reminiscent of BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET (1958), he'd better be right because a) he's getting paid for his writing and b) he has a reputation to uphold. So, you better believe him.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

I'm sure I've also seen many different TV sitcom episodes (from various shows) with a similar theme as well. How many times do they do this to get inside Fort Knox, or sometimes they just wind up there by accident when tunneling? I think even The Three Stooges had a short like this (CASH AND CARRY, which pre-dates even LARCENY INC).

So it's not like the core of this idea is the most unique or original. If Woody did it all by accident, or even if he deliberately copied the general core for his own film, we're still at definite odds when it comes to what qualifies as a strict "remake". Nobody's really offering their view on that specific issue, though.


Not Lou Reed, but I did meet Woody. Back in the early '90s I used to be an autograph collector and very, very early one morning I took the train into Manhattan specifically to see if I could meet him and get an autograph. It was one of the best stories of my collecting days, because I stepped onto the Upper East Side on a beautiful Fall morning, expecting to walk about 15 long blocks ... but believe it or not, right away I saw two people far off in the opposite direction coming my way. It was so early that even in a crowded city like NY there was nobody else on the streets. I immediately recognized them as Woody Allen and his girl Soon Yi.

But as our paths were about to cross, Woody nervously reached into his pocket to produce the silly "fisherman's cap" he occasionally wore, to try and camouflage himself and avoid recognition. But it was too late, and I still was able to approach him nicely and ask him if I might have his autograph. He played off that he was in any way apprehensive and happily signed his name. I thanked him and added "Good luck with the movie" (I'd heard he had been having some difficulty shooting his latest film - this was October 1994 so I'm guessing it was MIGHTY APHRODITE). He seemed genuinely surprised to hear that I knew he was precoccupied with the film, and said "Oh -- thank you very much!"

It was short and sweet, non-invasive and simple. One of the best autograph experiences I ever had, and a stroke of luck to catch Woody so easily.


I namecheck too at times in my reviews.
In the case of the little thing with Michael several posts ago, he wasn't reviewing a movie... you can call me "paranoid" all you want (that's merely heightened awareness) but I believe he was at least partially trying to show me that things are remakes even when I don't realize it, yet I enjoy them all the same (for years I've been bashing the repetition of so many modern remakes). Maybe this wasn't Mike's route in this particular exchange, but it's only natural that I'd think that way after the two of us have covered such ground regularly over the years.


He also gave LIGHT OF DAY (1987) three and a half stars, and often puts his 'reputation' on the line by praising many lousy movies, so while I can admire that riskiness personally, I'll still have my reservations as to his being concerned about his rep! But how is it that Ebert didn't mention LARCENY INC at all -- what does this mean for his credentials?? (LARCENY INC seems more reminiscent for SMALL TIME CROOKS than BIG DEAL does! ) .

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

My Bloody Valentine 3-D (2009)

Remake of the 1981 slasher film about a maniac in a coal miner's outfit slaughtering everyone, and probably the better of the two for me simply because I can't recalll a single thing about the first version. These days there has been a return of sorts to the unrestrained gory days of early '80s slasher films, and this one delivers in all those typical categories you'd expect -- the over-the-top mutilations and gore sequences, the gratuitous sex (including full frontal female nudity) and people getting theirs in a variety of inventive ways. At least it's a step up in that the main cast and victims are not just silly teenagers, but rather silly 20-somethings and older this time out. And it is a very nice bonus getting a return from old timer Tom Atkins as a retired policeman in the mix, too.

This film is also released in standard flat 2-D, but I wouldn't have awarded it three stars if not for the added gimmick of third dimension, which is really what the fun is all about here. The 3-D effects are well done, seeing things fly off the screen and into your face. One wonders whether they might have taken this even farther with more deliberate situations designed to fully utilize the effect, but what's there is still cool. The "mystery" of the film kept me going back and forth in my guesstimates, up to the final second, so that was an added bonus to the usual trappings that worked for me.


The Curious Dr. Humpp (1971)

A crazed young doctor is interested in the libido of sexually active humans, so he sends his monster and henchmen out to kidnap couples while involved in the act, and keeps them prisoner at his laboratory to study them and induce them to have more sex, so the doc can seek to dominate sex (?) ... and also with a talking brain in a jar that deflates and inflates while it speaks. This is a foreign black and white sexploitation flick, with tons of nudity and all sorts of random sexual activity -- group orgies, lesbianism, female masturbation... Nothing out of the ordinary for this type of combo horror/softcore sleaze offering. For those who know what they want and what to expect, you know the deal.


Please Don't Eat My Mother (1973)

A 40-something mama's boy (Buck Kartalian in a starring role!) is still a virgin and can't get any girls, so he obtains a plant which he keeps locked in his bedroom. The damn thing speaks in a sexy woman's voice and grows to huge proportions as it keeps asking its owner for more and more food - starting out with flies, but gradually moving on to humans.

This is a completely ridiculous and crazy comedy that's reminiscent of Roger Corman's LITTLE SHOPPE OF HORRORS, and the main reason it gets one star is because Buck Kartalian is actually perfect for such a wacky part. It's very strange seeing him, an actor of many trades who's been in movies such as PLANET OF THE APES and COOL HAND LUKE, headlining a thing like this. When he's not trying to secure victims for plant food he's got a habit of being a voyeur who watches couples having sex - and I mean bordering on hardcore pornography, with even male frontal nudity as well as the females. This is pretty much a tiring film after awhile, and though it shouldn't have been more than 70 or 80 minutes, the damn thing stretches on for nearly 100.


The Private House of the SS (1977)

Interested in Nazi Sexploitation films? You're not? Well, if you were I'd say this Italian film from Bruno Mattei is one of the "better" of this kinky cult genre. The order of the day is depraved sex, sex, sex - and more sex. The story revolves around an SS officer who seeks to discover who the traitors are in the Third Reich. So he finds 10 whores who become trained to indulge in all sorts of wild sexcapades, so they can seduce the suspected turn-coats, and then get them to confess vital information. There is no point here really other than to indulge in a wide array of nudity and sexual insanity - ranging from S&M to lesbianism to plain old sex done with freaks ... even implied bestiality (yuck). I'm hesitant to say this, but sometimes the cinematography was actually impressive for such a concoction.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

01/18/09: INVASION (Alan Bridges, 1965)

This low-budget British sci-fi outing is so rare that I have had to make do with a copy sporting forced French subtitles for this first viewing! I was glad to confirm that the film’s solid reputation was well-deserved; plot-wise, it is not dissimilar from two other notable genre entries from this country which I caught quite recently – namely UNEARTHLY STRANGER (1963) and THE NIGHT CALLER (1965). I recall being particularly impressed with the former and, actually, I feel that INVASION is very much on a par with it; incidentally, the title is a misnomer since the aliens here are actually stranded on earth and their mission is to recapture an escaped prisoner they were escorting rather than occupation! Even so, we do get a show of their (typically advanced) technology and, needless to say, there are human casualties involved; to be fair, though, we never learn of their true intent until quite late into the game and, consequently, the carefully-built suspense and smart handling throughout (this was director Bridges’ feature-film debut) makes for consistently satisfying viewing. One rather clever notion has the aliens requiring to physically touch an Earthling before they can speak our language…though, of course, no explanation is given as to why they happen to have an Oriental complexion! In the long run, the modest scale of the production (the setting is largely confined to a hospital and the woods nearby, with events unfolding over just one night) works in its favor, making the central concept both gripping and persuasive. Hero Edward Judd was something of a fixture in British sci-fi around this time: his rugged good looks and evident intelligence were always good value for money in these fantastic surroundings; leading lady Valerie Gearon does well by her role too, familiar character actor Anthony Sharp has a prominent (if rather unlikely) role early on in the proceedings and, obviously, the intervention by the military is a requisite in this type of film. Among the more visually striking moments are a shot where a door opening leads into a doll-house, with the camera then panning up to reveal the actual room, and a car very realistically crashing (into the invisible barrier created by the aliens in order to isolate the area) with its driver spurting out of the windscreen. As to flaws, these are indeed negligible – but I suppose I should mention the fact that one of the alien women unaccountably disappears during the film’s last third, while the climax is a bit rushed (if still quite unique: the pursuing alien deliberately crashes her spaceship into a fleeing rocket bearing her quarry!).


01/18/09: THE BOY WITH GREEN HAIR (Joseph Losey, 1948)

Losey’s first feature film was this unexpected Technicolor fantasy with a strong anti-war message. Dean Stockwell is a boy whose parents are busy doing war duty during the London blitz; after they’re killed, he’s taken in by cheerful Irish former actor Pat O’Brien (who bursts into song at the drop of a hat) – in perhaps the least typical scene in the director’s entire oeuvre (more suited to an MGM musical, in fact!), he recalls his private performance before a European king! Anyway, things take a curious turn when, in direct opposition to children’s suffering in wartime, Stockwell’s hair goes from black to green (the color of Spring and, therefore, hope) overnight. However, this defiant gesture isn’t easily understood by either the boy’s peers (who take to bullying him) or the local elders (who treat him as an outcast); amusingly, milk-man Regis Toomey drops his consignment of bottles off-camera when the physical change which has occurred in Stockwell finally dawns on him! Medical science can’t help the boy either, but a ‘visit’ by other war orphans reassures him of the symbolic role he has to play. Even so, as with virtually every harbinger of an inconvenient truth, he still ends up victimized: his head is completely shaved and, running away, comes across sympathetic children’s doctor Robert Ryan(!) – to whom the story thus far is recounted in flashback. Given the vital importance of color here, this emerges a very pleasant-looking film indeed; the ensuing drama is remarkably well handled with, thankfully, little concession to sentimentality. Though there’s regrettably too little of Ryan to counterbalance O’Brien’s malarkey, the whole is undoubtedly boosted by the haunting tune “Nature Boy” (which would somehow find its way effectively into the eclectic MOULIN ROUGE [2001] score!).


01/18/09: STRAIT-JACKET (William Castle, 1964)

This supremely silly yet undeniably entertaining offering by notorious schlock-meister Castle (albeit gimmick-free) proved to be veteran Hollywood icon Joan Crawford’s second in a series of belated horror vehicles – following the seminal WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE (1962) – which inauspiciously terminated her lengthy and illustrious career. She plays a typical grande dame whose double axe-murder of husband (a very young Lee Majors!) and his one-night stand throws her into the looney bin for 20 years; when she re-emerges, more violent deaths follow in her path (one of the victims is unrecognizably lanky farmhand George Kennedy) – so that the frail and disorientated woman’s sanity is once again threatened. Apart from Diane Baker (as the heroine’s daughter, who had witnessed the initial massacre as a child), Crawford is obviously the whole show here: she approaches the role as if it were the logical continuation of her long run of glossy (but histrionic) melodramas of the 1940s and 1950s. This one is high-strung, to be sure – indeed, one could only sensibly classify it as Camp (never more so perhaps than, when drunk, the star unaccountably and shamelessly seduces Baker’s understandably ill-at-ease suitor more than half her age)! The film’s most outrageous conceit, then, is its pathetic attempt to pass off Crawford as a girl of 29 in the prologue…especially since when, made to don a black wig later, the passage of time is effectively blotted out and she looks exactly like in those early scenes!; this alone ensures a good time is generally had by the viewer, smoothing over the occasional longueur (usually relating to instances of tedious exposition or clichéd characterization). Apparently, STRAIT-JACKET was a dream project for Castle who, ever the shrewd entrepreneur, sought to combine the vibe inherent in BABY JANE (by borrowing one of its leading ladies) with the particular feel of another runaway hit – Alfred Hitchcock’s PSYCHO (1960), whose central premise he had actually already pillaged for HOMICIDAL (1961)! – by acquiring the services of Robert Bloch, author of that film’s source novel, to pen the script. The mix, however, is not as congenial as the producer may have envisaged (I will, in any case, check out HOMICIDAL itself presently): for one thing, while certainly well handled, the final revelation (involving impersonation) hardly comes as a shock in this case; besides, its power is subsequently dampened by having Crawford provide ludicrous psychological elucidation in an obviously tacked-on epilogue!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

My Bloody Valentine is on my to see list.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

01/18/09

The Captive City (1952) Dir: Robert Wise
Production: Aspen Productions/United Artists

Ripped from the headlines, as they say, comes this story of a small town newspaper editor crusading against pervasive corruption and the mafia, despite the objections and warnings of many of the town’s leading citizens. The reporter is Jim Austin (John Forsythe), the paper is The Kennington Journal in the small town of Kennington. In a neat framing device the film opens with a frantic Jim and his wife speeding along the road in a car, pursued by another car. They come upon a police station and make a mad dash to get inside. Jim tells the officer on duty that he’s on his way to testify in front of the Kefauver Committee. He asks to be allowed to put his story on tape, in case he never makes it.

Obviously made to capitalize on the massive popularity of the 1950 Kefauver hearings on organized crime (one of the early television phenomenon’s), the film even has an appearance by Estes Kefauver. The first thing we see is a statement from him: “Ordinarily, Americans don’t think much about the existence of organized crime; they know vaguely that it is there, and they let it go at that…UNLESS PRODDED BY SOME UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES.” As goes the story. Jim is initially dismissive of a tip that widespread gambling and a wire syndicate has set up in Kennington, until something happens that PRODS him into thinking otherwise. The appearance on the scene of a man whose name ends in a vowel, Dante Fabretti, really sends Jim’s antenna into overdrive. The film ends with a stiffly delivered lecture from Sen. Kefauver, and the point is obvious: stamping out crime is largely a local matter and silence and inaction makes us all complicit--even small town America isn’t immune from the insidious grasp of the ‘Black Hand’.

Forsythe, with his limited range, is okay as Jim. I didn’t recognize any of the other actors, outside of Marty Milner (“Adam-12”, Sweet Smell of Success) in a Jimmy Olsen role as the boy photographer. They left little impression anyway except for the woman playing Jim’s wife, Joan Camden, who was irritating. The movie was interestingly shot, tending towards bright, high key lighting. Lee Garmes was the DP. The credits go so far as to mention that Garmes “photographed with the Hoge Lenses”. I don’t know what that means but I imagine they were specific to achieving the look of the picture. A lot of action was in the extreme foreground, with cars and people constantly invading that space, while something grabbed the eye in the rest of the frame. All in deep focus. Wise obviously applying what he took from Citizen Kane. While the look of the film is a very large part of what I liked about this, the story does hold the attention.

out of 4
-------------------------------------
ROBERT WISE – “Strained Seriousness”
The Captive City (1952)


01/18/09

Up the River (1930) Dir: John Ford
Production: Fox Film

A ‘Comedy Drama’ according to the credits. If you had asked me to guess which one Ford got right, and believe me, he only got one right, I would not have said comedy. But here it is, a genuinely amusing, if incredibly goofy, early sound film (there are even several title cards used). Spencer Tracy, Humphrey Bogart star and Ward Bond appears, all in very early roles. It’s amazing to see Tracy as almost fully formed right out of the box, Bogart less so, still learning. As befitting most productions of the time, the camera is static and uninteresting. The print was also in bad shape (I’m not sure how the DVD is but it couldn’t be much better).

Saint Louis (Tracy) and Dannemora Dan (Warren Hymer) are two inveterate criminals. Prison seems to be a mere irritant to them as they break out almost at will. The film opens with a nicely shot nighttime jail break of theirs. But soon they’ll be back. Upon their return they make pals with cellmate Steve Jordan (Bogart), a guy whose society family doesn’t know he’s in prison. When Steve is released he’s threatened with exposure by some creep unless he agrees to participate in a criminal enterprise. Saint Louis and Dannemora promptly break out to help Steve and return in time for the big inter-prison baseball game (not that we ever find out what happens to the blackmailer).

I’ve revealed the plot because it is pointless. Utterly ridiculous. Non-sensical. And Bogie’s romantic subplot is filled with dreadful dialogue and a dreadful performance from the girl (Claire Luce). But damn if I didn’t laugh throughout this film. Mostly one-liners and sight gags, but one of the highlights is the prison’s talent show (the ‘comedy’ stylings of ‘Black & Blue’ excepted, for those that have seen this). Witness Saint Louis’ knife throwing act, with what certainly appears to be real knives being thrown at Hymer (who’s blinking nervously). And the one trademark Ford moment; a quartet singing some sentimental number while the camera pans across the emotional faces of the inmates in the crowd. Crazy thing is, I might be willing to watch this again at some point.

out of 4
------------------------
JOHN FORD – “Pantheon”
Up the River (1930)

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

My Bloody Valentine (1981) George Mihalka

A small mining town cancels all Valentine Day events after a mine cave in where one survivor later killed several people. Twenty-years after this event the locals teens decide its time to party and sure enough the maniac shows back up to kill. This slasher seems to have a rather big following but I'm not one of its major fans even after viewing the "uncut" version via the recent LionsGate release. For a horror movie this isn't too bad but it certainly can't compare to the better films of the genre including several of the Friday the 13th movies as well as The Burning, which might be the best of the slasher era films. The biggest problem I have with this movie are the characters and the performances. Yes, you shouldn't expect Oscar worthy material but there are too many times where the performances left me wanting to smile or laugh and this isn't a good thing. Another issue are the characters themselves because I really didn't care for any of them. The love triangle side of the story never really works because it's so underwritten. The final issue I have with the film is some rather weak direction, which doesn't allow the movie any atmosphere or tension. I'd be lying if I said there was a single second of fear in this movie and it's a real shame because an underground mine allows for plenty of darkness but nothing is done with it. The film has plenty of scenes where the killer jumps out at you and there's even a "jump" scene at the end but none of them work too well. What does work are the special effects, which are pretty good especially when viewed in their uncut form. The pick axe through the eye is probably the highlight of the movie but there are other goods ones including the boiling water and another scene where a heart is ripped out. This type of movie is certainly made to show off various killings and it does live up to standards on that level. I just need a little more to go along with that violence and this film doesn't have enough for that. Horror buffs will certainly want to check this out but the genre does offer better.

Manhatta (1921) Charles Sheeler, Paul Strand

Cinematographer Paul Strand and painter Charles Sheeler teamed up to make this movie, which was their attempt to show their love for the city of Manhattan. The say they achieved in showing that love would be an understatement because this 11-minute movie is extremely well-made and contains some downright break taking visuals. The semi-documentary film has various images of the city put together in no real order nor do they try to tell a story out of the images. Instead we just see various items from the city, ranging from haze rising over buildings to various ships on the water. All of these images make for an incredible film because it really seems like you're watching a science-fiction film with a bunch of fake images. It's rather amazing at how well the cinematography is here because unlike many, or perhaps any film, this one here puts you so close to what you're looking at that it's nearly impossible to remember you're watching a movie. This is certainly one of the most beautiful looking films I've seen and perhaps the start of what would become avant-garde film and one has to wonder if Stanley Kubrick saw this and learned from it.

N.Y., N.Y. (1957) Francis Thompson

I've read a lot of different things about this film but the main thing appears to be that director Thompson spent over twenty-years making the perfect camera to put his strange and unique vision on film. The kaleidoscope lenses used here were Thompson's creation and the secrets he took to the grave with him. There's not really any story being told but instead we just see all sorts of visuals from the morning time through the evening up into the night. All of the images coming from New York City but we're seeing them unlike anything before or after. I'm really not sure how to explain this form of cinema except by calling it very original and unique. Needless to say I haven't seen a movie like this one before and I'm sure you'd see or feel something different with each new viewing because there's just so much going on here. I think the best stuff was the night scenes just because of how the beautiful colors leaped off the screen. The kaleidoscope lense certain made a true treasure in terms of visuals.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Gran Torino (2008)

Senior citizen Clint Eastwood portrays Walt Kowalski, a tough, old fashioned, angry, racist Korean War Vet who has just lost his wife of many years and is now going it alone in his home. The neighborhood has changed over the years and its citizens are now mainly Asians or black people, who Walt has nothing but disdain for, using each and every prejudicial slur in the book (and many others I don't think I've ever heard) as part of his regular hateful vocabulary. He even wants no part of his kindly Hmong next door neighbors until he encounters the young teenage brother and sister, who begin to make a slight dent in his cynical armor. Kowalski is eventually faced with a turn of events which will ultimately determine what he's made of at this late stage in his life.

If this is to be Clint Eastwood's last film, it would be a case of his going out on a high note. This is a very good film, though at this point I would hesitate to call it "perfect". At first I didn't know what to make out of Eastwood's over the top racial rantings ... they were so exaggerated and cartoonish that he was coming off as satirical. There are a lot of funny lines in the film in spite of this, and it's a relief that the script winds up making us care about Walt in contrast to his ways, which believe it or not actually begin to make him endearing as the story progresses (you have to see for yourself). If I am going to get picky, the acting wasn't the greatest. At times I thought even Clint's delivery seemed a bit false, or that he was pausing while delivering some of lines, or something. But this is a touching movie about people, heart, and responsibility. I really liked it.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Joe, have you seen any of the Dirty Harry films? I can't remember if you discussed them or not but I didn't see any reviews at IMDB.

Also, where did you see Mattei's PRIVATE HOUSE OF THE SS? I've seen three or four of his other WIP movies but not this one. You should check out SADOMANIA if you want a really trash one. You mention the almost animal stuff so you should stay away from certain D'Amato films like EMANUELLE IN AMERICA and CALIGULA: THE UNTOLD STORY as they go even further and actually show the crap.

I've got HUMPP here but haven't watched it yet. I did view PLEASE DON'T EAT during last year's horror challenge and enjoyed it more than you did. It certainly went on too long but I found it fairly funny, campy and pretty erotic as well.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

I'm pretty sure I saw TIGHTROPE in the theater, but that's not Dirty Harry, I don't think. I may have seen one or two other Eastwood cop films in the theater in the '80s. I saw some Dirty Harry stuff on TV, but not whole films. I'm thinking that this may just be Clint's "tough guy delivery", and I'm certainly familiar with the approach ... but something hit me as off in GRAN TORINO the way he delivered lines at times (not only the tough lines). I'm going to have to get those Harry films viewed.

I saw the PRIVATE HOUSE OF THE SS on a DVD last night (I should say 12:30 am this morning). Speaking of animal stuff, I still have the cannibal film here on DVD waiting for me to get up my nerve (I forgot the title, but you know the controversial one I mean).

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

No, I agree with you at least for the first fifteen-minutes. You can read the full thread at this site but I wasn't sure how to react to his delivery during the start of the film. Whenever he'd grunt they'd get the camera right up on him and make it comical. I believe this pays off in the end because the humor makes us come around to the character a lot more.

TIGHTROPE is one I enjoy because it seems more like a Bronson movie in its overall tone. As you said, it's not in the Dirty Harry series but it certainly could have been.

CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, CANNIBAL FEROX and EATEN ALIVE are the big three but I think JUNGLE HOLOCAUST is the best of the bunch. If you got HOLOCAUST it'll make an interesting debate depending on which side you're on. I'll discuss that more after you watch the film. I do remember when I first reviewed that the webmaster and I got three e-mails from PETA threatening to kill us if we didn't take the review down. Being a dumbass I gave one of them my home address but they never showed up.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Yeah - the grunting --- that kind of stuff, too. It was just really silly and comical at times. But the audience in the theater ate it up and laughed, and eventually it all worked to make the character more endearing. I guess I'll visit that other GRAN TORINO thread.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Thanks --- YouTube is a great place to see all sorts of interviews. I'm watching one with Woody Allen right now where he's asked 1o questions by TIME, and one of them is about stealing from other sources - and Woody freely admits: "I've stolen from everyone - I'm a shameless thief" ! ( )

YouTube - TIME Interviews Woody Allen

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

That Godard thing was an actual film released into theaters, although I don't think it ever made it to the U.S.. I'm sure Godard fans might disagree but it's certainly one of the best films I've seen from the director.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

You've saved me the trouble, as I agree with everything you wrote. These are two of the more fascinating pieces of film I've seen in a long time. Just to see South Ferry, Trinity Church, the Woolworth Building, etc. as they were in 1920 and to catch a glimpse of the old Penn Station in the Thompson film was amazing. N.Y., N.Y. was like being in someone's subconscious.


01/19/09

The Unholy Three (1930) Dir: Jack Conway
Production: MGM

Sound remake (!) of the 1925 Tod Browning-directed silent original of the same title and with the same star, Lon Chaney. What is it about the carny atmosphere? Browning obviously understood its potential as a setting for great crime stories (this, The Unknown, Freaks, The Show). Perhaps it's because the whole enterprise is built on deceit in some form or another.

Anyway, after the carnival they're in is shut down, a ventriloquist named Echo (Chaney), Hercules the strongman, and a midget name Tweedledee (Harry Earles) agree to form a criminal partnership by...opening a bird shop? The shop, in addition to parrots and such, has a gorilla in a cage for some reason (the reason is that we know the gorilla is going to be heard from again at some point). Okay, well, it does have some internal logic it's operating by--the three crooks use the shop to attract customers that they eventually rob. But why a bird shop? Were birds as pets the exclusive domain of the rich in 1930? A fourth member of the crew, a pickpocket named Rosie (Lila Lee) is along for the ride but clearly not unholy enough to make the first tier. Also of importance is that Echo is posing as a kindly old grandmother and the midget is acting as 'her' grandson. I'm assuming Harry Earles went home at night and drank himself to sleep for all the indignity he went through in this one.

Chaney as 'Grandma' is quite amusing. His is certainly the best performance. You need a shooting script for reference to understand half the things coming out of the mouth of Earles and the guy playing Hercules. Early sound equipment didn't help. Lila Lee is actually pretty appealing, although prone to overacting. Elliott Nugent as the 'norm' beau Rosie wants to run away with is a drip. And the gorilla. Let's be honest, even by 1930 it was probably hard to pull off a guy in a gorilla suit. Still, all in good fun and the climatic courtroom scene, and the resulting scene with Chaney and Lee, was not bad.


---------------------------
JACK CONWAY - "Miscellany"
The Unholy Three (1930)


For the record re: remakes
When referring to remakes, I consider the direct remakes, KING KONG, THE THING, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, THE UNHOLY THREE, as well as films where the setting or another small thing is changed but the story the same, like THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER, IN THE GOOD OLD SUMMERTIME. But at the same time also understanding that people use the word 'remake' as a catch-all for films that are influenced by another or broadly adapted from. So when somebody says THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (since it came up recently) is a remake of THE VIRGIN SPRING, I know it's not literal but based on or inspired by. In other words, I think the usage is valid either way and usually from the context I know which one they mean. HARDCORE is certainly an interesting case because a lot of Schrader's work is clearly informed by THE SEARCHERS.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Carne - Gaspar Noe's short serves as an introduction to the butcher character from I Stand Alone (and, briefly, Irreversible). It does quite a bit to explain how he got to be so hostile and misanthropic, and fills in much of the background detail. The intertitles are even more heavy-handed than the ones in ISA, though. Rating: 7


Bells from the Deep: Faith and Superstition in Russia - Without a shred of narration, Herzog explores both commonplace belief and the more extreme side of religion. The ones on the fringes are naturally more interesting. Faith healers, exorcists, shamen, 2 fake Christs. As usual, there are some glorious moments: the scenes featuring the Tuvan throat singers and the bell ringer are transcendent. Herzog's atypical lack of commentary (the only time you hear his voice is when he's translating) is respectful, but it does prevent the film from being as informative as it could be. A little more context would be nice. Rating: 8

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

1/17 Yojimbo (1961):

The original is far superior to the later ripoffs in this case. Kurosawa, Mifune, and the other talented filmmakers make the most of a somewhat mediocre plot, infusing it with terrific dark humor and a high watchability factor. I could praise just about every area of the movie, but the standouts for me are Mifune's impressive physical acting and the lively music. The Criterion supplements are also top-notch.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

021) 01/15/2009 Tom Jones (1963) 1/2 (out of four)

The reason why some have lavished so much praise on Tom Jones escapes this viewer. A chaotic, characterless period piece that delights in its sexual audacity, Tom Jones reminds me of a Benny Hill episode, except it isn’t nearly as funny. The first hour or so is at times almost painful. Luckily the second half picks up nicely thanks to some plot complications and an increase in laughs. But that’s not enough to make it a film that demands more than one viewing.

Tom Jones (Albert Finney) is an illegitimate child who is raised by a wealthy squire in 19th Century England. A dashing, handsome figure he is a hit with the ladies and is unable to turn any adoring woman down, even though he is in love with Sophie Western (Susannah York). He is intensely disliked by the squire’s nephew Blifil (David Warner) who plots to have Tom ejected from the family home. Can the flawed but decent Tom Jones find true love and clear his name?

For much of Tom Jones’ first half the movie feels utterly formless. Incident is stacked upon incident as director Tony Richardson’s camera careens merrily catching every tryst and confrontation, and at times speeds up to move things along. Drunken and stuffy character types are overplayed. Sometimes an off-screen narrator will make pithy observations. The problem is that this is all not that funny. Nor is there any real attempt at character. It’s hard to get involved in the story and Tom Jones never connects with the audience the way he should.

Finney is handsome and strapping as Tom Jones but fails to make this guy the ingratiating cad he’s supposed to be. He does not so much act as be acted upon, giving in to any lass who desires him. Only when he’s forced out on his own does he get to show some canastas, such as dueling with a soldier in defense of a lady’s honor. But most of the time he seems so aloof that it’s hard to really care about him.

Even if we’re not to take this all seriously there is still the problem that Tom Jones isn’t terribly humorous. Hugh Griffith is fun as Sophie Western’s besotted, belligerent father. But it seems like the film makers take it for granted that the audience will find any challenges to the aristocracy and social conventions amusing. Sure, the cast seems to be having a good time. The same cannot be said for the viewer.

With few laughs and no characters Tom Jones succeeds neither as a comedy or drama, or some combination of both. Perhaps to a 1963 audience this was something new. But today Tom Jones is a film where seeing it once is more than enough.



My DVD Collection
My Film Blog

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

022) 01/17/2009 The Mad Monster (1942) (out of four)

This low budget shocker stars George Zucco as a vengeance-minded scientist who transforms simpleton Glenn Strange into a wolf man. He uses Glenn to murder the fellow scientists who scoffed at his idea to create a wolf man army. Zucco cuts it thick as the mad medico, and Strange overplays the idiot shtick. But there are some effective moments, such as when a ball rolls out of a child’s bedroom signaling a murder. One wonders if this would have been more fun with Bela Lugosi or Lionel Atwill in the lead.

023) 01/17/2009 The Devil's Messenger (1961) 1/2

Three installments of a Swedish television program called 13 Demon Street were cut together to make this anthology film. Lon Chaney, Jr. was brought in to connect the segments together. He plays the Devil himself! The stories concern a photographer who’s haunted by a murder victim, a woman frozen in ice, and a fortune teller who predicts murder. The stories have neither the style nor wit of an average Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode, and the cast is merely OK. Chaney is fun as Beelzebub but is not around that much.

024) 01/17/2009 My Bloody Valentine (1981)

The town of Valentine Bluffs is holding its first Valentine’s Day party in nearly twenty years. Apparently a deranged coal miner named Harry Warden murdered the two supervisors he held responsible for a mining accident that claimed the lives of Harry’s fellow miners on Valentine’s Day. Harry warned he’d be back if the town ever celebrated the romantic holiday. When the police discover a heart-shaped box bearing a real human heart, they try to stop the celebration until they can find Harry Warden.

This Canadian slasher film is an above average entry in the subgenre. Director George Mihalka nicely captures the blue collar mining town atmosphere and forgoes stereotypes. The new Lionsgate DVD release reinstates the previously cut gore footage making for a much more gruesome and effective thriller. The formulaic nature of the script, however, prevents My Bloody Valentine from scoring a complete bullseye.



My DVD Collection
My Film Blog

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

025) 01/18/2009 My Fair Lady (1964) (out of four)

A thoroughly delightful musical version of George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion, My Fair Lady is a treat for Audrey Hepburn and musical fans alike. Sumptuously filmed with memorable songs and enthusiastic performances, My Fair Lady is a joy from start to finish.

Professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) is renowned for his book on phonetics. Just by listening to a person speak he can pinpoint from where that person comes. Colonel Pickering (Wilfrid Hyde-White), an expert on Indian dialects, is visiting Higgins when a strange opportunity presents itself. Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn), a Cockney flower girl, wants Higgins to teach her to speak like a lady so she’ll be able to open her own flower shop. Because Higgins has bragged he could pass any woman off as a duchess at an embassy ball, Pickering agrees to pay Eliza’s lesson costs if in fact Higgins can do such a thing with Eliza.

My Fair Lady is a deft blend of humor, song, and dance. Harrison’s stuffy Higgins is such an arrogant, sexist chap (“Why can’t a woman be more like me?”) that he is the film’s de facto villain. But his biting, self-serving soliloquies (“An Ordinary Man,” “A Hymn to Him”) are so witty and humorous that he becomes a character you love to hate. Not surprisingly Eliza starts to warm up this cold fish, even though the film’s final line suggests he could use some more thawing.

Hepburn is perfectly cast as Eliza. Already known for her beauty and classy roles she’s really something to behold when we first encounter Eliza, unkempt and speaking a thick-as-London-fog accent. She mines many laughs as Eliza overplays her plight, wailing at the slightest suggestion she’s not “a good girl.” On the flip side, her enthusiasm is contagious as she sings "I Could Have Danced All Night" after a breakthrough with Higgins. Her improvised monologue at a race track, about how a fictitious aunt was poisoned, is hilarious, as is her exclamation at the end of the race. And of course she’s absolutely stunning in her embassy gown. Hepburn is clearly having fun here, and the audience is behind her every step of the way.

Adding to the fun is Stanley Holloway as is Eliza’s no-good father, Alfred. He hits her up for drinking money when needed and extorts money from Higgins for using Eliza. (Alfred wouldn’t necessarily mind if Higgins intentions were not honorable. Higgins would just have to pay him more.) Alfred’s presence isn’t really necessary, unless it is to explain how Eliza could handle someone like Higgins. But Holloway contributes two of the best numbers in the film: "With A Little Bit of Luck," about how if you’re lucky you might be able to shirk your responsibilities, and “Get Me to The Church on Time," about how, even though a strange twist of fate has pushed him into respectability, he plans on having fun the night before his marriage. Alfred is wonderful in a horrible sort of way.

Other highlights of My Fair Lady include Hyde-White’s charming characterization of Pickering, and Gladys Cooper’s stern take on Higgins mother, which provides some clues on why Henry may have turned out so rigid. This viewer’s favorite song is "On the Street Where You Live", performed by a would-be suitor who waits outside Higgins’ house for a chance to spend time with Eliza. Director George Cuckor stages the musical numbers with verve, with the introduction of the stuffy upper class ("Ascot Gavotte") a particular standout. The gentry are presented in static cuts (instead of the flowing camera moves during other numbers) and are clad in outfits of strictly black, white and gray. It’s a clever visualization of the coldness present in a society based on appearance and convention.

But even the stuffed shirts in My Fair Lady have their good points. And ultimately My Fair Lady is too good natured to foster resentments. Rather the film is a treat for the eyes and ears. My Fair Lady is a great entertainment.



My DVD Collection
My Film Blog

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

026) 01/18/2009 The Sound of Music (1965) (out of four)

Inspired by the true story of the von Trapp Family Singers, The Sound of Music is one of the high points of the musical genre. With a mesmerizing Julie Andrews in the lead and one memorable song after another, The Sound of Music is a celebration of the power of song.

At an abbey located in Austria in the late 1930s, Maria (Julie Andrews), in preparation for taking her final vows, is having difficulty living the life of a cloistered nun. Sensing Maria’s struggle the Mother Abbess (Peggy Wood) sends Maria to work for widower Captain von Trapp (Christopher Plumber) as governess to his seven children. Horrified to see the children being ordered about as if they were navy personnel, Maria decides to educate the young ones in the ways of song and play. But while warmth is filtering through the von Trapp household, and the Captain’s heart, the threat of Nazi occupation looms over Austria, something of which the Captain wants no part.

Director Robert Wise wastes no time getting to the musical numbers in The Sound of Music. The opening shots glide silently through the Swiss Alps. Suddenly, in a sweeping camera pan we encounter Julie Andrews twirling about singing the title song. Not long after we are treated to several nuns crooning about the strengths and weaknesses of “Maria.” Later, as a thunderstorm brews outside, the children gather in Maria’s room and she eases their fears by sharing “My Favorite Things.” To aid in her charges’ musical education Maria teaches them "Do-Re-Mi." Other highlights include "Sixteen Going On Seventeen," "The Lonely Goatherd," "So Long, Farewell," and "Climb Ev'ry Mountain." The Sound of Music is practically a greatest hits album of movie musicals.

Julie Andrews, who the previous year had won Best Actress for Mary Poppins (1964), shines as Maria. Maria is a thoroughly charming character, and Andrews is perfectly matched with the role. Generally sweet natured and eager to please, Maria nevertheless will stand up for her beliefs if need be, such as when she challenges the Captain on his child rearing. As Andrews does her own singing, we’re never taken out of the story when the film segues to another of its first rate musical set pieces. While the rest of the cast is fine (Richard Haydn is a hoot as Max Detweiler, the agent who sets the von Trapps to sing at a music festival) it's Andrews’ joyful turn as Maria that gives The Sound of Music its emotional resonance.

One of the refreshing elements of The Sound of Music is its treatment of the nunnery and the Mother Abbess. Eschewing the stereotype of the hardened, humorless Mother Superior for an observant, thoughtful one who knows God’s will can be served in various ways, The Sound of Music avoids what may have been a predictable glimpse in the abbey. Such an approach leads to a humorous punch line involving certain nuns who “sin.”

While The Sound of Music involves the audience in several plot complications – the threat to the Captain by the Nazis, Maria’s competition with a baroness for the Captain's heart, the eldest child’s romance with a boy who joins the Third Reich – the film emerges as the ultimate feel-good movie as the von Trapp family truly bring the sound of music to the hills in the film’s closing shot. Only a sour puss could fail to be enchanted by The Sound of Music.



My DVD Collection
My Film Blog

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

027) 01/19/2009 A Man for All Seasons (1966) 1/2 (out of four)

Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) finds himself in a difficult position. As Lord Chancellor of England and a devout Roman Catholic he refuses to support King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) in the latter's quest to get divorce approval from the Pope. When Henry decides to break from Rome and declare himself Supreme Head of the Church in England, More puts his life at risk by remaining loyal to the Pope and his own convictions.

Based on the true story of More, A Man for All Seasons is an engrossing look at power and corruption in 16th Century England, where both church officials and government leaders conspired to appease the king. While others left their consciences behind in order to move up the hierarchy, Sir Thomas More remained steadfast in his loyalty to God first, even if it meant defying the King of England. Scofield (Oscar winner for Best Actor) is excellent in his portrayal of More. Completely understanding where his conviction may take him, Scofield never plays More as arrogant or with an air of superiority, or even as a hero. More is simply a man who has certain principles and beliefs from which he will not deviate, even at the risk of his own life. No matter what political season he finds himself in, More will remain true to his beliefs. The film becomes a bit repetitive as More is warned by his friends, loved ones, peers, and even enemies that his refusal will only lead to his demise. Still, Scofield is so commanding in the lead that this is a minor quibble.

The supporting cast boasts strong performances from Leo Kern as Thomas Cromwell, Wendy Hiller as More’s wife Alice, Nigel Davenport as More’s friend the Duke of Norfolk, John Hurt as the conniving Richard Rich, and Orson Welles as a corrupt Cardinal, to name a few examples. Scofield’s More verbally duels with each at some point and all make for convincing opponents.

Cinematographer Ted Moore and Art Director Terence Marsh help bring 16th Century England to vivid life. Beautifully filmed with picturesque landscapes and ornately decorated castles, A Man for All Seasons looks and feels authentic. Director Fred Zinnemann allows Robert Bolt’s script to play out in slow-burn fashion, as the tension steadily builds, More’s situation becoming more and more desperate. Visually, A Man for All Seasons is a rich film that provides a stunning backdrop to the events taking place.

A Man for All Seasons does not sugarcoat the cost for standing by one’s morals. But it certainly raises the point that, for those that believe in an afterlife, deviating from personal integrity for riches in this world will have consequences in the next. The final scene shows More as someone who has no regrets for the decisions he made. More may have lost an earthly battle, but he won a spiritual war.



My DVD Collection
My Film Blog

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

My movie watching has suffered lately thanks to working 8 out of 9 days along with shoveling snow about a million times during that same span.

Updated my list with:

TransSiberian (2008) - *** 1/2

A suspense thriller that, for me anyways, got better and better as the movie went along. I thought I would know where the story would go, but the little twists along the way, threw me off enough so that when it did go where I thought it would go, it didn't bother me.

I think that Ben (excuse me, Sir Ben) Kingsley is one of the most versatile actors I've ever seen. I had no problem believing him as Gandhi or as an Iranian colonel in House of Sand and Fog and here I believed him as a Russian narcotics detective.

Woody Harrelson, Emily Mortimer and Kate Mara were terrific as well.

Doubt (2008) - ****

Easily one of the best of 2008, this is a tour de force of acting. With Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep, you're pretty much guaranteed powerhouse performances and they certainly deliver here. Amy Adams and Viola Davis are no less mesmerizing in career best performances that will probably win them Oscar nominations alongside their more honored brethren.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Foreign Day #2:


01/19/09: THEMROC (Claude Faraldo, 1973)

This is mainly noted for having no intelligible dialogue throughout: given its considerable length (105 minutes) and essential plotlessness, though, the series of grunts, growls, groans and other gibberish uttered by all the characters involved does become wearying after a while. Nevertheless, it’s a good example of the risks that film-makers were willing to take (and generally manage to pull off) during this most creative era in World Cinema; curiously enough, for being virtually a Silent film with barely established characters, this has one of the longest cast lists I’ve ever seen! THEMROC revolves around a laborer (Michel Piccoli) who goes berserk after getting the sack from work: he sleeps with his sister and destroys his apartment and, after the initial astonishment, his neighbors get the same anarchic bug. This streak of non-conformism also extends to sex (with plenty of non-graphic nudity on display), as Piccoli contrives to elicit uninhibited behavior from many of the females (be they nubile or frustrated) around him – including the secretary, Marilu` Tolo, he had been caught unwittingly peeping on and subsequently seduced. Despite the occasional brutality, police intervention in the matter largely proves ineffectual. Though the point of it all is obscure – unless it’s that one needs to revert to some form of primeval state in order to survive the exigencies of the modern world – a handful of situations which crop up are definitely amusing: Piccoli and policeman Patrick Dewaere engaging in a tit-for-tat routine while the latter is rebuilding the façade of his apartment; feeling liberated, a victimized wife tries to assert herself and finally escapes her husband’s tyranny through the window when he’s not looking; a man spends practically the entire film lovingly washing his car but, then, at the very end he joins in the chaos by nonchalantly taking a sledge-hammer to it. Still, when all is said and done, the best thing about the film is its extraordinary fragmented editing.


01/19/09: WE STILL KILL THE OLD WAY (Elio Petri, 1967)

Goodish blend of Mafia movie (still pretty much uncharted territory at the time) and political thriller, with a hesitant romance thrown in for good measure; the result is generally absorbing, thanks largely to uniformly excellent performances, gleaming location photography (Sicily, of course) and a wonderful score by the ever-reliable Luis Enrique Bacalov. Heading the cast is Gian Maria Volonte`: the film launched the political/social conscience phase of his career after a stint doing Spaghetti Westerns. His character is that of an intellectual loner who finds himself in over his head when he starts probing into the assassination of two friends – including philanderer Luigi Pistilli – which leads to his falling for the other’s wife (Irene Papas). Though the identity of the villain (as ever, an eminent member of the community and far closer to the hero than he envisaged) comes as no real surprise, the investigation – involving, among other things, the hushed participation of cleric and senator alike – and the disquieting revelations that emerge from it, lends the whole a deeply cynical tone (culminating in the downbeat climax depicting Volonte`’s own extreme fate) while cementing the Mafia’s reputation as strictly a ‘family business’. The Italian DVD includes an interesting half-hour featurette detailing the making and reception of the award-winning film (including the fact that the author of the source novel, Leonardo Sciascia, was dissatisfied with how the script turned out); the interviewees are co-scriptwriter Ugo Pirro, the wife of the late Elio Petri, and composer Bacalov (who is regretful that, given his felicitous working relationship with the director here, the opportunity never arose for another collaboration).