Track the Films You Watch (2009) - Page 11

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

It's funny to see how much we disagree on this one even though both of us watched the "extended" version years after seeing the American one. I don't think the extended opening credits, extra dialogue or the full pop song helped the movie in any way, shape or form. I hated both versions and I was hoping this "extended" version would help but it didn't. Best Buy is offering up a special package, which includes the theatrical cut but I don't see myself watching either one anytime soon. The name changes are stupid but even dumber is that Mario Bava's SHOCK was later retitled BEYOND THE DOOR 2 and another film (ATOMIC TRAIN) with nothing in common was called BEYOND THE DOOR 3.


John, ANNIE HALL is perhaps my favorite film. Certainly not the greatest but my favorite. I'm glad to see you enjoyed THE DEER HUNTER, which was one of the films that made me watch other stuff than just horror. I guess I was around 11 when I first watched it and it certainly hit me very hard. It's a shame some seem to attack the movie now because of future projects the director's did.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Pete, TCM is the place to watch them. These seem to be the series they show most often as new ones pop up weekly as well as several repeats. Some might even be on YouTube. TCM's website has a message board with a shorts section where a worker posts which shorts they will be showing throughout the week.


Video Violence (1987) Gary Cohen

Shot on video film has a couple from NYC arriving in a small town where they open a video store. They are shocked to see that everyone is renting horror movies but one day a returned video turns out not to be theirs. They decide to take a look at the returned video and it appears to be a snuff film. The local police don't seem to interesting as more and more people go missing and turning up on these videos. I must say that I was floored at how good this film was. No, it's not an Oscar-worthy film but for its low budget it's still mighty impressive. I've seen countless shot on video or direct to video movies and most of them just try to cash in on the genre by offering up some nudity and gore. We get that here but we also get a very interesting story that makes for a rather entertaining film. The biggest flaws are the rather slow pacing and the 97-minute running time but for the most part I was entertained. What also helps this film is a nostalgia thing because we get to revisit those Mom and Pop stores where all sorts of horror films, like this one, would turn up week after week. Many of these haven't made it to DVD and probably never will but they will always have a place in the hearts of those who rented such movies back then. It's nice seeing all the old horror posters on the wall as well as seeing the actual video cases to several films including a nice joke about the "chainsaw movie" Pieces. The film is very smart at who is going to be watching a movie like this and even makes a few jabs at itself about the low budget and being shot on video. The whole idea of a town loving horror films and deciding to make their own is a great idea and I'm really shocked no one has tried remaking this. The film really does have the feeling of a Herschell Gordon Lewis movie and that's a good thing as long as you know what to expect.

High Plains Drifter (1973) Clint Eastwood

A mysterious stranger (Clint Eastwood) comes to the small town of Lago where he's hired by the townspeople to help them kill three men about to be released from prison. At first the people think they've found a bargain but soon they start having second thoughts. This here is such a strange film that I can't help but wonder what Eastwood was exactly trying to do with it. Was it a homage to his earlier Spaghetti Westerns with Leone? Was it a spoof of the Western genre? Or was it a mixture of some sort of strange ghost story set in the West? I'm really not sure but it seems to try and mix all three to the point where this is just a downright surreal and at times rather frustrating film. I don't think it's bad filmmaking but in fact very good filmmaking because Eastwood never really lets on to what he's trying to do and that's where the film gets most of its power. I personally never saw this as a horror movie, although I know many fans claim that. To me the movie is simply about getting revenge against the so-called bad guys and the so-called good guys hiring the stranger. We even get a rather bizarre rape scene, which usually leads to quite a debate in what exactly it was going for. Was it saying women enjoy rape? Again, I'm not sure but this is a scene that's pretty ugly yet Eastwood follows it up with a hilarious scene of the woman seeking revenge while he's taking a bath. The strange mixture of seriousness, drama and then comedy makes for one strange film but the director and star does a fine job handling the subject even though I think the movie begins to lose some of its steam towards the end. Eastwood the actors turns in another fine performance because there aren't too many people who can say so much with such few lines of dialogue. Verna Bloom, Marianna Hill and Geoffrey Lewis all turn in fine supporting performances by it's midget Billy Curtis, who I had just watched in The Terror of Tiny Town, who steals the show with a wonderful performance as the other outsider in town.

Goofs and Saddles (1937) Del Lord

Spoof of the Old West has The Three Stooges playing Wild Bill Hiccup, Buffalo Bilious and Just Plain Bill as the three are sent out to try and gather information on some cattle rustlers. This here is a pretty good short as it contains a nice amount of laughs as well as some funny physical stuff but I wouldn't necessarily call it a classic. The highlight would have to be a scene where the three dress themselves as trees so that they can spy on the enemy but they end up getting too close and one of the bad guys things he sees a rabbit jump into the bushes. Axe and gun play soon follow. Another nice sequence is a poker game where the Stooges start cheating without knowing the man they're playing with just killed three other men for doing the same thing. The nice shoot out at the end makes for an entertaining way to spend 20-minutes.

April Fool's Day (1986) Fred Walton

Muffy invites eight of her friends out to her house deep in the woods, surrounded by water and soon all of them are getting picked off. Is it a boat captain the kids messed with earlier or is it Muffy's evil twin? Even though each year gave us at least a dozen slashers this one here has remained quite popular but controversial at the same time. The reason the film remains a hot topic isn't because of the gore scenes...because there aren't any. The performances, direction and art design aren't the reason people still discuss this movie either. The reason, and you can quit reading here if you haven't seen the movie, is because of the title and the fact that it plays a part in the twist at the end. The film didn't work for me the first time and it didn't improve any on this second viewing even though I was aware of what was happening the entire time. I think the filmmakers thought they were a lot more clever than they actually were and I'd go even further as to say the screenplay can't do enough justice for what they're even attempting to do. I think the biggest problem is that it's so obvious as to what's going on and this isn't helped because the red herring characters are so poorly thrown in our face that it's obvious as to who isn't doing the "killings". I think naming the film what they did was another mistake because thing might have worked a lot better had the ending been a secret and the movie didn't make it so obvious. Selling this movie off as a slasher is pretty much a cheat because we don't get any good gore scenes. Again, I know this is part of the joke but it still doesn't work for me. Even while watching the movie if you don't know what's going on you're eventually going to start asking yourself why you're watching a slasher and yet no slashing is going on. One good thing is that the film runs very quickly and the director keeps everything moving at a nice pace. Another plus is some nice humor as the teens start to find various objects to their pass in their rooms. In the end I've always seen this film as a wasted opportunity and I'm saying this knowing that there are fans out there. I've just never seen the charm in the film and this new viewing didn't help any.

Wagons Rolls at Night, The (1941) Ray Enright

Circus promoter Nick Coster (Humphrey Bogart) finds himself in trouble when a dangerous lion escapes his act but a grocery clerk (Eddie Albert) ends up saving the day. Nick, seeing the possibility for money, hires the kid on as a lion trainer but soon jealously gets involved as Nick's girlfriend (Sylvia Sidney) starts to fall for the kid but even worse is when his sister (Joan Leslie) falls for him. This film really comes off as a watered down version of Kid Galahad, which also featured Bogart in a supporting role. If you've seen that earlier film with Edward G. Robinson and Bette Davis (or the later Elvis remake) then you're going to know all the twists and turns that this film offers. The one thing this film has going for it is seeing the pre-fame Bogart playing this type of role so fans of the actor might get a kick out of this thing. I've read that Bogart really hated this film but he's actually not too bad in it. He certainly isn't giving a classic performance but he does a good job showing off his tough side and again, it's always fun seeing him in this type of role. Sidney ends up stealing the film as his troubled girlfriend who wants a better life outside the circus. She comes off very charming in her role and add a lovely realism to her character. Albert is also very good in his role and really comes across well as that bright eyed kid who is about to learn a lesson in life. There are some nice touches of humor thrown in including a great sequence when the lion escapes and wonders into Albert's grocery store. A woman is sniffing limburger cheese when she first sees the beast and Albert's reaction to what happens is great. It's also worth noting that this is the first film in which Bogart received top-billing so that's one historic reason, which might draw people to watch this.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Babysitter, The (1969) Tom Laughlin

Fairly crazy drive-in flick has the future D.A. (George E. Carey) about to take on an important case of a biker killing a woman. He's having trouble at home with his unloving wife (Anne Bellamy) but soon finds comfort with his underage babysitter Candy (Patricia Wymer). The biker's girlfriend plans on blackmailing the D.A. because his daughter is a lesbian but she gets better stuff when she realizes the babysitter is doing more than just watching kids. This thing packs a lot of "story" into its short 75-minute running time but that's okay because it makes for one wild ride as far as "B" drive-in films go. This is certainly one of those "groovy" movies aimed at teenagers at drive-ins and on that level the film works because it's not a great piece of art yet it does keep you entertained with its nudity, silly story and insane dialogue, which includes plenty of "peace of love" hippie talk. The greatest line is when the elder D.A. says everyone would benefit from "a little hippie in them". Another great line is when the D.A., taking the babysitter out, says that he respects teens because of their willingness to try new things like tacos!!! Yes, tacos were apparently a way to show freedom. Wymer does a very good job in her role as the young babysitter who wants to experience life as well as teach an older man how to life. She's certainly cute enough for the role but she also has enough charm to make you understand how the old man would get caught up with her. She also comes off appearing to have a brain in her head, which also helps make her character more believable. Stone, who wrote the story for himself; imagine that, is pretty flat in his role, which doesn't demand too much except getting turned on by a teenager. He's pretty weak in the role, which doesn't help the film any. You really can't go into a film like this expecting anything great so the main goal should be to keep the viewer entertained and this film is successful at that. The nudity, silly rock music and wild story make for some decent fun as long as you know what you're getting into.

Weekend with the Babysitter (1971) Tom Laughlin

A hot shot director (George E. Carey) has a fight with his wife who then runs away with their young son. The babysitter Candy (Susan Romen) ends up coming over and gets offended by a screenplay he's about to do. To set him straight, the babysitter takes the director to hang out with her hippie friends and later the two have sex. While all of this is going on the wife has been kidnapped by her drug dealer. Yeah. As you can tell, part of this film plays out like a remake of the 1969 film The Babysitter as this features the same production company, director, actor and even the babysitter's name is the same. While that film worked this one here is a complete and utter disaster, which has perhaps one good scenes but the rest of the movie should be thrown in the toilet, although I'm sure even the toilet would try to spit it out. We basically get the exact same story as the previous film but this time out for some reason they tried to deliver an action movie, which is just downright stupid. This was obviously shot on a low budget so all the action scenes look incredibly bad and they really don't make any sense. The mean drug dealers are all fools and you hate the wife so much you really don't care what happens to her. The one decent scene is when the hippies are trying to explain to the old man how to smoke grass. His reactions to what he's being told is pretty priceless. Stone is a tad bit better here than he was in the 1969 film but that's still not saying too much. The biggest problem is with Romen who just doesn't work as Candy. She doesn't have any of the charm that the other film had and she just comes off rather bland.

Day the Earth Stood Still, The (2008) Scott Derrickson

Remake of the 1951 classic has Dr. Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) and various other scientist being brought together by the government because they fear the world is going to end within two-hours. Turns out the world isn't ending but a UFO lands in Central Park with the visitor Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) who might just need to kill all the humans on Earth. Yes, it's not smart to remake one of the greatest movies ever made but I thought with the right screenplay it could be done. Updating the storyline to today's climate could have made for a very interesting movie but unfortunately this isn't it. While they did update the story to use destroying our planet they forgot to add any excitement or energy. I was really taken back by how standard everything from the performances to the direction were. I think a lot of the problem goes towards the screenplay, which really seems to be confused on what it wants to do. Does it want to be a strong message picture or does it want to be a mindless action film? We get a mixture of both but neither go well together and the lifeless direction is another problem. The poor direction really, really shocked me because I was a big fan of the director's previous film, The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Connelly, Reeves, Kathy Bates and even John Cleese are all actors capable of doing nice work but they don't have a lot to work with here. The screenplay doesn't allow any of them much character development and what they do get is usually a line of dialogue out of no where that just suits the film and never really seems to be coming from their characters. Jaden Smith, yes Will's son, is downright horrible in the role as Connelly's stepson. Perhaps it's wrong to attack a child actor but I'm going to do so anyways because he is that bad. I really couldn't believe how bad his line reading was and at one point I actually thought that perhaps the studio messed up and inserted a bad take instead. His attempt at doing emotional scenes were laughable as was the majority of his performance. He certainly needs some teaching lessons before moving on in his career because I'm sure his last night won't carry him alone. Reeves isn't as awful as I had read but he still wasn't right for the role. There are a few good scenes in the film including the opening where the government thinks armageddon is coming. The handling of these scenes make for some good action and some rather nice tension but then it's like the film hits a wall and just crashes. There's really no more energy after these first few scenes and in the end we're left with a rather bland film. Not horrible but just not worth the money that went into it.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

DOUBT is currently #6 on my list of the year but the performances were great. I'm sure Ledger will win but of what I've seen right now Hoffman would get my vote. I'd love to see Streep win but my vote there would go to Winslet in THE READER. It wouldn't shock me to see Streep walk away with it though.


I'm don't normally post monthly updates but will keep track of my director/star of the month things. This months:

Bogart:

Report from the Front (1944)
Swing Your Lady (1938)
Battle Circus (1953)
Kid Galahad (1937)
Bullets or Ballots (1936)
Sahara (1943)
Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The (1948)
Big Sleep, The (1946)
Dead Reckoning (1947)
Wagons Roll at Night, The (1941)

Eastwood:

Play Misty for Me (1971)
Bronco Billy (1980)
Pale Rider (1985)
Gran Torino (2008)
Unforgiven (1992)
Gauntlet, The (1977)
Heartbreak Ridge (1986)
High Plains Drifter (1973)


There are so many "classic" Eastwood acting roles out there that I might add him to the Actor of the Month at some point. Feb. has Tracy and DeMille taking the spots so hopefully I can knock a few out.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Third Dimensional Murder (1941) 3-D version George Sidney

Extremely fun Pete Smith short has him serving as narrator as a man walks into a creepy old house, which is full of monstrous things including a zombie, an evil witch with a pet spider and Frankenstein's monster. I've now seen this film in both 2-D and 3-D and I must admit that it doesn't matter which one you view. The 3-D effects here don't work too well with the exception of two scenes. One is when there's a car wreck and a branch comes towards the camera. The other is the scene where the witch has a stick with a spider on it and moves the thing towards the camera. Outside of these two scenes the 3-D effects really aren't too special even though the entire film goes for them. The ending has Frankenstein's monster throwing stuff down at the camera but none of these shots worked too well. As for the film, I think it's great fun no matter which version you watch. I'm sure horror buffs will get a bigger kick out of it due to the supernatural elements and Frankenstein buffs will get a kick out of the monster here, which seems to be spoofing Karloff's turn in Son of Frankenstein. The monster also gets the same look and sweater.

Alert Today - Alive Tomorrow (1956) Larry O'Reilly

RKO-Pathe short tries to show the viewing how the citizens of Reading, PA are preparing in case of an A or H-bomb attack. We see the people coming together in a civil defense mode and how they would not only fight the enemy but save those who are hurt. Today we know none of these attacks ever happened so it's hard to really judge these films fairly because today we look at them as being over dramatic. Thankfully most of these shorts remain quite campy but that's not the case here because this one is pretty straight-forward without any campy laughs. That doesn't mean this film is good because it's quite boring even though it clocks in under 20-minutes. Andre Baruch's tense narration doesn't add any entertainment value nor does the direction by O'Reilly. The film is mildly entertaining with a nice animation sequence but that's about it. Fans of scare-films might want to check it out but others can skip it.

Four Frightened People (1934) Cecil B. DeMille

Claudette Colbert, Herbert Marshall, Mary Boland and William Gargan play the characters that the title refers to. The four escape a plague ridden boat only to wind up in the jungle where they must try to escape while battling not only each other but other items like wild animals and a lack of water. From what I've read this film was laughed off the screen in 1934 and it certainly doesn't fair much better when viewed today. I watched the edited 78-minute version, which I must say was the longest 78-minute movie I had ever seen. I couldn't wait for this thing to end so I'm really not sure I'd want to venture into the longer cut, which is apparently fifteen-minutes longer. I'm not sure where to start with this thing but it really seems like DeMille wanted some sort of epic but couldn't reach that goal. The film is quite a mess because I was never quite sure what was going on or why certain characters were acting the way they were. What really took me out of the film were the four characters who are all rather unlikeable so I had a hard time caring about which one lived or died. Even worse were some of the performances, which were quite bad and this includes Marshall. He's shouting is so over the top that I quickly grew tired of him and the character. Boland plays an annoying character and probably delivers the best performance as she is very annoying. Colbert is so hit-and-miss that it's hard to take her character too serious. Being one of the last pre-code films to be released, the movie does take on some sexuality with the most famous sequence being Colbert's semi-nude shower. It's funny how the film starts off showing her with too much clothes but then slowly taking them off to the nude scene, which then has her running around in leopard skin for the rest of the film. Another problem is that the film doesn't know if it wants to be an action/adventure type or a comedy because the thing is all over the map. With that said, the film does look incredibly good and realistic and features a rather nail-biting sequence with a cobra, which will probably make several viewers jump out of their seats. In the end this film comes off as a major disappointment considering the director and cast but the most shocking thing is how boring the movie is.

Old Wives for New (1918) Cecil B. DeMille

Charles Murdock (Elliott Dexter), a rich oil man, begins to neglect his wife (Sylvia Ashton) because he feels she has let herself go by gaining too much weight and just sitting around the house all day. On a hunting trip with his son he falls for the younger and prettier Juliet (Florence Vidor) but she isn't happy when she learns that Charles is married. As Charles tries to figure out what to do things take a turn for the worse. I was fairly surprised at how entertaining this film was as it still holds up quite well today in a society where looks are judged so harshly. I think the film loses a lot of its punch in the final twenty-minutes do to an over the top plot twist but outside at that this is certainly one of the best films I've seen from this period of DeMille's career. His directing is what really keeps this story moving because it's top-notch. I love the way he tells the story as well as the way he edits everything to build up more drama. On a visual level with get some nice cinematography, which helps a lot, especially during the outdoor hunting scenes. The performances are also very strong with Dexter stealing the film as the husband in love with another woman. He does a very good job in showing his uncomfort with his wife and believe it or not we start to feel for him in his situation. Ashton does a nice job as well even though the screenplay doesn't do her any great justice since several scenes just have her in bed eating cookies or ordering a large breakfast. Vidor is wonderful as the younger woman and really comes across as intelligent when caught up in this mess. DeMille regular Theodore Roberts is also very good in his supporting role. The storyline today is rather politically incorrect but that's what keeps the movie pretty fresh and entertaining. This film has pretty much been forgotten in DeMille's career but that's a shame because it's certainly a good one.

Last Chance Harvey (2008) Joel Hopkins

Dustin Hoffman plays Harvey Shine, a man on his way to London for his daughter's wedding but at home facing problems with his job. When he lands in London he learns that his daughter doesn't want him walking her down the aisle. Hurt, he goes to the airport bar where he meets a woman (Emma Thompson) also facing her own share of problems. The two hit it off and head out for the night hoping they can find comfort in each other. I wasn't sure what to expect walking into this movie but it was certainly very worthwhile and I must admit that this was one of the most memorable movies of 2008. The movie isn't brilliant but I don't think it was trying to be. The movie doesn't have a lot to say about relationships nor is it trying to be deep or thoughtful. The movie just tries to be entertaining and lets two great actors do their thing and the end result is something very moving, touching and at times funny. I was really surprised at how depressing the movie was but the screenplay allows both characters, and for that matter the viewer, to hit rock bottom in depression because the eventual climb up. I give screenwriter/director Hopkins a lot of credit for trying to stay as real as possible without trying to go over the top with any of its subject matter. To me the film felt very real and that's hard to find these days especially for a romantic comedy. Hoffman, one of our greatest character actors, does a masterful job here and really turns in his most memorable performance in several years. It was so much pleasure seeing Hoffman work this character because of the charm and pain he brings to the role. I've always found Hoffman to be a great comic actor and working with charm is a strong suit for him and that's on full display here. That smile of his mixed with his swooning ways were great to watch and he really nails it. The depressing scenes are brilliantly done as well with Hoffman replying a lot on facial gestures and not words. Many of these depressing scenes are done without words so Hoffman must rely on other emotions. Thompson is just as good and keeps up with Hoffman making the two the perfect couple that you really want to see together. Thompson's issues in the film are a lot different than Hoffman's but she too is able to be charming, funny and sad as well. Kathy Baker, James Brolin and Richard Schiff are all very good in their supporting roles. Again, this is the type of film that just lets the actors do their thing and to me it really comes off excellent in the end. I didn't like what happened to Hoffman's character towards the end as I felt the movie should have ended the scene earlier but this is just a minor issue. Seeing Hoffman and Thompson work their magic was great fun even though the more depressing scenes. It's a shame to see this movie not doing so well at the box office but it's true people enjoy more lightweight stuff. Oh well, as it's really their loss.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

I'm trying not to record anything off a TCM this "Oscar Month" so that I can watch the films I already have on there. I already messed up recording BREWSTER'S MILLIONS last night. I might try watching this along with the Pryor remake. Too bad the DeMille version is lost as it would fit it nicely this month.

My monthly average is probably around 30 features recorded off the channel but needless to say many of them get deleted overtime. I'm fairly anal in that I try to keep my DVR at 40% or lower but I've had it as high as 98% at one time. I read a funny report online about some sort of disorder where people freak out and are constantly trying to get their number down. It was rather funny because it was me 100%.

Re: WHITE DOG, I'd agree with you. I'm not an expert on Fuller yet but I found this film to be quite powerful in its message. The backstory is just as interesting since the movie was pretty much dead before anyone had watched it. I'm glad Criterion gave the film a release so that others can finally watch it. I've only seen it through a bootleg so I look forward to revisiting it one day with the crisp transfer.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2009)

Torture Money (1937) Harold S. Bucquet

Oscar-winning MGM short from their Crime Does Not Pay series. This episode takes a look at a group who are staging car wrecks so that they can sue the insurance company as well as the city. An undercover cop eventually breaks into the gang to determine how they're pulling the scam. This series is among my favorite and this here is one of the better episodes out there. There's isn't too much drama this time around but what we do get is a very entertaining story and I must admit I was captivated by the story. The way the scam is carried out was rather interesting and the direction really pulls everything together. The cast is pretty amazing as well as we get character actors Edwin Maxwell, George Lynn, Raymond Hutton and Roger Moore (no, not that one). Most of these actors are now forgotten but if you look up there credits you'll notice that they've appeared in several memorable movies. King Baggott, who played Jekyll and Hyde in the 1913 version, also appears as one of the witnesses.

Don't Talk (1942) Joseph M. Newman

Oscar-nominated short from MGM's Crime Does Not Pay series. This story centers around a Communist group who are spying through people simply going to a deli or beauty salon. The spies are working at these type of places and listening to people talk about their jobs, which is how information is spread around and various objects destroyed by these groups. This film comes off more like a WW2 propaganda film than an entry in the series but either way the movie works fairly well. The story itself, asking people not to talk, seems a bit far fetched today but I'm really not sure how it would have been taken back in the day. This wasn't the only short to deal with people talking too much as we also had Mr. Blabbermouth!, which was released the same year as this film and it too received an Oscar nomination. We also get some nice performances from a familiar cast including Barry Nelson as an FBI agent and Gloria Holden, from Dracula's Daughter, as a waitress doing some of the spying. There's some nice shoot outs at the end as well.

Inherit the Wind (1960) Stanley Kramer

Based on a 1925 case, the film tells the story of a school teacher (Dick York) who is arrested for teaching the theories of Darwin. His small, religious town is reading to hang him especially after the religious profit Matthew Brady (Fredric March) arrives on the scene. The teacher's only defense is a reporter (Gene Kelly) and the hard edged lawyer (Spencer Tracy) that his paper has hired. As a film buff the most entertaining thing for me to watch is a great story with great actors giving great performances as they battle against one another. A lot of times courtroom dramas are some of the best examples of this and that holds true here with this masterpiece, which to me is one of the greatest movies ever made. Quite often when I'm asked about some of the greatest performances in history both Tracy and March, from this movie, jump right to my mind. The two men were certainly towards the end of their careers and were already legends by the time this film went into production but I'm really not sure if either one had been better. With so many great performances behind them it's hard to narrow their best down to one but their work here could certainly be debated as their greatest. It's really amazing to see how much life, energy and raw power they bring their characters and watching them battle against one another just leaves me in amazement. Tracy's stern, straight forward performance mixes so well with March's hyped but sometimes comical performance that you can't help but marvel as the brilliance in front of you. I'm not sure if the two men spoke before the big courtroom scene at the end of the movie but it certainly feels like they're both hitting the right notes as they battle back and forth trying to get their feelings across. Kelly is just as impressive in his role and adds a nice comic touch that the film certainly needs. Kelly is very impressive from start to finish as is York as the teacher, Donna Anderson as his girl and Claude Akins as her preacher father. A lot of people bash this movie for being anti-religion but I don't think that's the case at all. I think the movie is about the right to think no matter if you think religion is right or if Darwin was right. I've read that the religious folks here are all crazy or shown in a bad light. Again, I'd disagree by saying fanatics are shown in a bad light or people who don't want others to think on their own are shown in a bad light. To me Kramer is one of the most under appreciated directors out there. Yes, he was respected for bringing certain moral films to the screen but I don't think he ever got the credit for how great many of his movies were. There are hundreds if not thousands of courtroom dramas out there but this here is certainly one of the best and Tracy and March make this film one of the all-time greats.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) Stanley Kramer

The parents (Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn) of a young woman (Katharine Houghton) are shocked when she brings home a black man (Sidney Poitier) and announces that they want to get married. This film is certainly a message movie but apparently the cast felt it was an important message to give, which will explain why Tracy, near death, came out of his retirement to do the film. Kramer is best known for his "message" movies and I think they all hold up incredibly well today because they don't preach to the viewer. This film gives us a situation and lets the viewer pick which side of the fence they are on. Every side of the coin is shown here and discussed at great length and I believe this is why the film still get played on various stations today. It's message is certainly about interracial marriage but I think the film's heart could go towards countless topics. What I love most about the film is that it's rather honest in its approach to the subject and each of the parents, including Poitier's, are given their own opinions on the matter. Whether the people approve or disapprove, they are given a voice and opinion. The film really plays out like a courtroom drama because we're given the case and then hear from both sides until a verdict is finally given in the film. The main joy in watching this film are because of the wonderful performances with Tracy leading the way in his final role. Tracy gets to display a lot of emotions in this film and I must say he nails each of them. It's amazing to know that he was near death yet that didn't stop him from delivering one of the most memorable characters of his career. As was the case with a lot of Tracy performances, he says so much without any dialogue. You can constantly look at his face and just tell that he's thinking. That might sound simple and Tracy makes it look simple but to actual show in on film isn't something too many actors have conquered. I'm guessing that Tracy knew his final speech in the film would be his last time in front of the camera and I can't help but think this added a little extra touch to his performance. His speech is very heartfelt and his remarks towards Hepburn are incredibly touching. Hepburn is also at the top of her game and her expression of shock early on is priceless. Poitier turns in another wonderful performance as does Beah Richards and Roy Glenn as his parents. Isabel Sanford almost steals the film as the family maid who isn't too happy about Poitier dating a white woman. The message of the film might be outdated today but I think the heart of it still shines through as do the remarkable performances.

Father of the Bride (1950) Vincente Minnelli

A father (Spencer Tracy) is shocked when his daughter (Elizabeth Taylor) informs him that she's going to be married in three months. That shock soon turns to horror for the father when he realizes how much work is going to have to be done in order to pull off the perfect wedding. This here is a wonderful little film, although I hesitate to call it a comedy since the film's main goal isn't necessarily laughs but just making a slice of life story. I think the majority of the credit has to go to the wise casting of Tracy as the father since by this time he was best known for his heavy roles. The actor was always able to pull off comedy but I think casting him as the father, with his everyman type of persona, was just a masterful piece of casting and the actor doesn't disappoint in the role. I love the way he plays the part so natural and I'm glad he doesn't go over the top to get the laughs. Most of the laughs are just genuine little chuckles because the film doesn't try to force the viewer to laugh at stupid set ups but instead just gives us natural laughs as they come across in the story. Tracy does a wonderful job at playing someone who gets in over their head and has to deal with one problem after another while trying to remember that it's all for the good of his daughter. Taylor also shines in her supporting role. Her beauty is certainly on full display but, unlike many stars of today, her talent is also on display. Joan Bennett adds great support as Tracy's wife. I love the pacing of the film and I think Minnelli made the wise choice of making the film seem like we're just peeking in on this family. There's almost a strange, documentary like feel to the movie, which is another major plus. In the end, there's enough charm here for two movies with Tracy once again leading the way with his Oscar-nominated performance.

Spencer Tracy Legacy, The (1986) David Heeley

Katharine Hepburn hosts this documentary to Spencer Tracy, which takes a look at some of his best films as well as opens a few doors to his personal life. It's well known that Hepburn and Tracy were quite the couple so she has plenty of nice stories to tell about him be them personal or other stuff about his career. There's talk about his hatred for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde plus his hatred of having to film on location. Hepburn also takes us on tour of the MGM studio lot where he get to see the exact place where the two first met. Other great stories include some by Tracy's only daughter as she shares yearly notebooks that her father kept from 1937-42. This legendary actor gets some legendary stars to talk about him and these includes Angela Lansbury, Elizabeth Taylor, Frank Sinatra, Joanne Woodward, Richard Widmark, Burt Reynolds, Joan Bennett, Stanley Kramer, Lee Marvin, Sidney Poitier and Mickey Rooney. The documentary doesn't go as deep as some people might enjoy but I think it gives some good, basic knowledge about the actor and it's clear everyone thought highly of him. Libeled Lady, Woman of the Year, Adam's Rib, Bad Day at Black Rock, Inherit the Wind and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner are just a few of the films looked at.

Ring of Steel (1942) Garson Kanin

Spencer Tracy narrates this documentary that tells us what it means to be an American soldier from the early wars up to the current one. The documentary tries to teach the viewer what a soldier must go through in order to defend his great country. Here's yet another WW2 documentary that isn't unlike many others released around the same time. With the country in the middle of a major war you can't blame Hollywood talent going out and doing films like this one but this here isn't the best of the bunch. Even though this only ran 8-minutes I found it quite boring because of the images they put to Tracy's voice. We really don't see anything new here and not once does it appear the footage was put into any order to drive home a story. The main reason to check this out is the reading by Tracy, which is pretty good and straight forward. Director Kanin would later write screenplays for two other Tracy movies, Adam's Rib and Desk Set.