Track the Films You Watch (2006) - Page 64

Michael Elliott · 12-14-2006, 10:12 PM

Re: HAXAN

I never really looked at this as a straight documentary. It certainly is a document of witchcraft but I think it's done in a movie like way. Either way, I think it's one of the greatest and most powerful silent films I've seen. It's quite disturbing in some ways and packs a nice punch and this is coming from a jaded horror fan. Hopefully Criterion or someone will get around to releasing the director's SEVEN FOOTPRINTS TO SATAN, which is another fine film.

Adam_S · 12-15-2006, 10:28 AM

Joyeux Noel* (Merry Christmas) - 9 of 10

This quiet and gentle film was a delight to watch. I think it could become one of my favorite movies on repeat viewings and I already want to rewatch it.

George, this is one you can probably add to your christmas classics once you see it.

Adam

*I think I spelled that right from memory, but I'm always half guessing with french since they triple the amount of vowels and don't pronounce any of the ones actually in the word.

But then I only know Spanish well and smatterings of German and Japanese... :p

Mario Gauci · 12-15-2006, 11:04 AM

12/13/06: THE MARK OF ZORRO (Rouben Mamoulian, 1940) ****

This is simply one of the greatest action adventure films and, hands down, the definitive incarnation of Zorro in cinema history (even if I loved the two Silents made by Douglas Fairbanks about the character – the original of 1920 and DON Q, SON OF ZORRO [1925] – which I’ve watched only once so far). It’s also the quintessential swashbuckler, with a simple yet thoroughly absorbing plot, a delightfully witty script and all the expertise of a Hollywood studio at its best – with luminous cinematography by Arthur Miller and a rousing, instantly-recognizable score by Alfred Newman.

In the accompanying Audio Commentary – a relaxed but generally insightful track – Richard Schickel argues that the film was a relatively modest undertaking (but, following its runaway box-office success, Fox then upped the ante for subsequent epics) mostly limited to cramped interior sets and rather short on action for its genre; as for myself, I was never bothered by these elements at all and, in fact, I hadn’t even thought of such ‘shortcomings’ before Schickel mentioned them! Another interesting comment he makes regards the script’s consciously ironic depiction of Old California as a rural sleepy town, a direct contrast to the bustling film-making center it would soon grow up to be!

Tyrone Power is ideally cast in the dual-natured title role (as fop and avenger), and he subsequently became synonymous with such action fare. The supporting line-up is equally satisfying: Basil Rathbone’s villainy here was seldom bettered (by himself or anyone else); J. Edward Bromberg is the corrupt ruler who is willingly manipulated by the latter – but his essential buffoonery is, ultimately, revealed to have been merely deceptive; Linda Darnell (one of Hollywood’s loveliest leading ladies of the 1940s and just 17 when this film was made!) is a most charming heroine; Gale Sondergaard and Eugene Pallette expertly fill their typical respective roles.

Rouben Mamoulian was once recognized among Hollywood’s foremost stylists: his career had proven somewhat spotty after an initial splurge of innovation but, even if conventional by his usual standards, the director regained some of his former stature with this classic; actually, it emerged as the last wholly satisfying film he would ever make – despite being followed immediately by another collaboration with Power and Darnell that was similarly inspired by a Silent success, the Rudolph Valentino vehicle BLOOD AND SAND [1922]).

For the record, the only other Tyrone Power film in my DVD collection is his own personal favorite, NIGHTMARE ALLEY (1947; via Eureka’s R2 “Masters Of Cinema” edition, which is superior to the R1 “Fox Film Noir” disc), though I’ve yet to check it out. Thankfully, a good number of his best-known vehicles have been blessed with a SE DVD by Fox – so I still need to pick up ALEXANDER’S RAGTIME BAND (1938), IN OLD CHICAGO (1938), THE RAINS CAME (1939), BRIGHAM YOUNG (1940), THE BLACK SWAN (1942; his most notable adventure film after THE MARK OF ZORRO) and THE RAZOR’S EDGE (1946). Besides, others like JESSE JAMES (1939), BLOOD AND SAND (1941) and THE SUN ALSO RISES (1957) are forthcoming – though, as yet, no supplements have been announced.

12/13/06: TYRONE POWER: THE LAST IDOL (TV) (Elizabeth Bronstein, 1996) **1/2

Typical A&E Channel biography offering an overview of Hollywood star Power’s life and career; some of the personal data I didn’t know (or had forgotten, given that I’d already seen this piece on TV!) but it’s rather skimpy when dealing with the films themselves: apart from failing to mention some of his best vehicles, even higher-profile titles (like THE MARK OF ZORRO [1940], on whose DVD this documentary was included – though it does feature an amusing outtake in which the cast and crew crack a joke at the expense of legendary Fox mogul Darryl F. Zanuck!) are dealt with quickly and in a disappointingly superficial manner.

12/13/06: THE BLACK ROSE (Henry Hathaway, 1950) **1/2

I know this was shown on Italian TV during my childhood but I’m not sure whether I had watched the film in its entirety – after this viewing, I certainly didn’t recollect much of anything and, therefore, consider it as a first!

Anyway, I decided to catch up with it now as an accompaniment to star Tyrone Power’s most popular vehicle – THE MARK OF ZORRO (1940). Unlike that one (shot in black-and-white on studio sets), however, this was splashed with color and had the benefit of location photography: still, it’s a much inferior spectacle, and the main reason for this is that the plot itself singularly lacks excitement – despite being basically an amalgam of Ivanhoe (starting off in medieval England with our Saxon hero opposing the Norman rulers) and Marco Polo (he eventually travels to the Orient and brings back samples of their exotic heritage). Also, despite the imposing presence of Orson Welles as a fearsome but noble Mongol warrior, there’s precious little action in this two-hour film (though it’s never actually boring)!

Despite the Fox banner, this was a British-based production and, consequently, the supporting cast and technical credits are nothing to sneeze at – the former including such stalwarts as Jack Hawkins (an unlikely but amiable bowman and Power’s sidekick), Michael Rennie, Finlay Currie (as Power’s proud and cantankerous grandfather), Herbert Lom, James Robertson Justice and Laurence Harvey (impossibly young as a Norman prince), as well as Alfonso Bedoya (whose voice was allegedly dubbed by Peter Sellers!) and child actor Robert Blake; behind the camera were such talents as legendary cinematographer Jack Cardiff, composer Richard Addinsell and production designer Paul Sheriff. The weakest link in the film is clearly leading lady Cecile Aubry, who struggles too hard to be winsome but results only in being irritiating most of the time (not surprisingly, her career wasn’t a long-lasting one).

While certainly watchable and generally entertaining in itself, Power was better served by some of his other historical epics (among them the film that directly preceded it, PRINCE OF FOXES [1949], another – though more modest – collaboration with Orson Welles).

12/14/06: THE PIRATES OF CAPRI (Edgar G. Ulmer, 1949) **1/2

I wasn’t expecting much from this period romp but, following an uncertain beginning (actually, the solitary pirate sequence itself), once the scene shifted to the court intrigues, it settled down into being a likeable – if highly derivative – Grade ‘B’ costumer. Ulmer endows the location-shot film with a reasonable amount of style (his trademark shadowy lighting and odd camera angles coming into play most prominently during the busy climax). The plot basically revamps the Zorro saga (with Louis Hayward doubling as aristocratic fop and masked bandit) – thus making it an ideal companion to THE MARK OF ZORRO (1940), which I rewatched via the Fox SE DVD the previous day – but, given the lead character’s quest for vengeance and his involvement with a theatrical troupe, it appears that the film was equally inspired by Rafael Sabatini’s “Scaramouche”! The film emerges patchy as a whole (with the script failing to be witty, its attempts at comedy relief are especially resistible), but the dramatic scenes – particularly where villain Massimo Serato is concerned – compel some attention, and the derring-do is surprisingly adroit.

This had been released on DVD by All Day Entertainment, as both a stand-alone edition and as part of a collection dedicated to Ulmer. I had been tempted time and again to purchase some of them but eventually settled on just the individual disc of BLUEBEARD (1944) – which was excellent; I did manage to rent THE STRANGE WOMAN (1946) eventually by way of a cheap DVD edition from another label – but that film left no particular impression on me. As for the rest, thankfully, all but one turned up recently on Italian TV in their original language with subtitles: apart from THE PIRATES OF CAPRI, I recently watched DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL (1957) but still need to check out STRANGE ILLUSION (1945)…

Adam_S · 12-15-2006, 12:59 PM

Joyeux Noel is really sticking with me. The performances, the understated way the stories play out weave and come together, the unbelievably perfect use of music. the perfect and appropriate ending that only has a tinge of bittersweet without being overwhelmed by it because there is hope carrying the film to the credits. The spectacular way that faith, revenge, family, comraderie are presented and the fabulous performances.

The film is no Grand Illusion but it's very close. It's like someone plugged into my brain and made a movie exactly like what I want to see.

I'm probably going to buy it this weekend, and I've avoided buying a dvd for myself for months.

Right now this is going to the very top of my 2005 list, ahead of Munich and Brokeback Mountain, and about even with History of Violence, my current number 1, a second viewing of joyeuz noel will be need before I decide if it's my number one or not.

A film for the people who are always saying "they don't make em like they used to."

Adam

Joe Karlosi · 12-15-2006, 05:49 PM

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

Was this the same film I watched for the first time back in 2003 and which I originally only deemed as "fair" and "overrated"? Today I satisfied my urge to give this acclaimed film a second chance for the holiday season and I rented it from Blockbuster. As I said, it was a completely different experience for me this time around. Jimmy Stewart was great. I found his George Bailey to be not only tragic at times but funny too. I didn't even think the movie felt too long this time, which is probably because I had a better idea what to expect (for starters, that this wasn't consistently about Christmas with snow falling throughout the movie). I appreciated a lot of chuckles that I somehow missed initially. I also relished the photography and atmosphere (this being a better quality DVD than the first time I saw it).

But I think I was in a better frame of mind and mood this time as well, which goes to prove yet again how sometimes movies can really affect you differently at any given time. I also have to say this film touched me greatly emotionally because I just think I can personally relate to a lot of feelings in the film more today than I did yesterday. It touched a spot in me.

That's about all I can muster up for the moment. If Mario and Michael are reading this I'm sure they'll be shocked and wonder what happened. But I think I've also learned a little something about life and how to better live it from this classic this time out and it was a fully rewarding experience all around. It may be required every year now to give me that inspirational kick I may need. Go figure!

Jeff Reis · 12-15-2006, 10:50 PM

I rarely post comments--in the internet age it often feels like every possible opinion has already been expressed, but for my money Mario, Michael, Joe, Haggai and many others have made this thread my favorite on this forum. I'll try to do a little better on comments next year. That said...

King Kong (2005)

Watched the theatrical version on HD-DVD (downscaled to 480p for now, but still a notable improvement over SD on my pj) and came away just as frustrated and fascinated with it as I was when I saw it last year in the theater. I don't really have a problem with the length, mainly just some of the missteps in the action scenes, paramount among them Jimmy's ridiculous bug shooting spree. I love that Jackson embraced the b-movie aspects and wasn't afraid to go over the top, but he crosses into some pretty cringe-worthy territory on Skull Island. My other main beef is that Jack Black just has too much modern baggage for me to buy him completely as Denham. He gives a game effort, but I think ultimately someone older would have brought some much-needed gravitas to the role. But I still end up loving the movie anyway--the third act is pretty dazzling, but really achieves something special from the moment the biplanes fly into view. Kong's last stand is gorgeous, breathtaking stuff; here Jackson earned something from me that no movie in the past 20 years has; yeah, I'll admit it--actual tears. Only for about 30 seconds, granted, but for me that's big--I cry about as often as the Steelers change coaches.

For that I can't see giving this film any less than 4 out of 5, despite its significant flaws.

Michael Elliott · 12-16-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

If Mario and Michael are reading this I'm sure they'll be shocked and wonder what happened.

If you were reading me changing my opinion of this film you'd probably say I'm just trying to look "professional" by bumping the grade.

Either way, I'm not shocked you enjoyed it more because I'm the one who kept telling you to give it another shot and you'd probably like it more. That certainly happened to me after not caring too much for it the first time. That's why I always say these classic films have a reputation for a reason. One viewing usually won't let you "pick up" on everything that's going on. I know you also didn't care for VERTIGO, THE BIG SLEEP and a couple others but I'd be willing to bet if you watched them again, knowing what was going on, you'd probably enjoy them just as much as IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE.

Quote:

I rarely post comments--in the internet age it often feels like every possible opinion has already been expressed, but for my money Mario, Michael, Joe, Haggai and many others have made this thread my favorite on this forum. I'll try to do llittle better on comments next year. That said...

Well thanks. I've always found these threads fun and (usually) friendly. Movie debate can become rather heated but it seems like people enjoy themselves here (even though I've probably got a hated reputation

). These threads are a good way to learn about movies, hear others opinions and hopefully next year we'll see even more people taking part.

george kaplan · 12-16-2006, 10:32 AM

My Tivo is on the blink, which means I have been doing a marathon viewing of films I've recorded on there before they get lost, if the unit goes belly up. No time to post any thoughts right now, but it looks like I'll have 30 or so to talk about next time I post.

Tarkin The Ewok · 12-16-2006, 11:29 AM

12/9: Superman: The Movie (Theatrical Edition-1978)

/

This is still the best superhero origin movie ever made. The casting is perfect, the production values and creativity are through the roof, and the score by John Williams is one of his best. The three phases of the movie are all captivating in their own way. Watching this movie, I believe a man can fly.

12/9: Superman II (1980)

/

Being shot mostly at the same time as the first movie, it shares many of the strengths. The Kryptonian trio of villains and Lex are always captivating, and the Superman/Lois story is wonderful. The scenes in the small town of East Houston and the length of the wind-blowing phase of the Metropolis battle bring the movie down a little bit. They tend to lose focus on the main characters and the big picture and go for dumb jokes instead. I also do not care for the final diner scene. Superman should not be about taking revenge, even if it is justly deserved.

12/9: Superman III (1983)

/

This movie fails on so many levels. First, the story is too implausible. You can get away with a lot with Kryptonian stuff, but the material dealing strictly with Earth has to be possible, or the audience will be lost. The chain of coincidence over the opening credits was not funny in the slightest, and that turned me off toward what followed. The villains were pretty lame, and the less said about the fake Kryptonite, the better. In short, it is every bit as bad as its reputation. The only saving graces were the performances of Reeve, Pryor, and O'Toole.

12/9: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)