Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Reza »

Next Time We Love (Edward H. Griffith, 1936) 8/10

For all the soap opera ingredients on display this is surprisingly a fairly sophisticated view on marriage, ambition, infidelity and divorce. The plot covers the trials and tribulations of a married couple - a foreign correspondent (James Stewart) and an actress (the incandescent Margaret Sullavan) - as both find their careers coming in the way of their happiness. His roommate (Ray(mond) Milland) forms part of the love triangle. The first of four memorable teamings of Sullavan and Stewart and both are terrific here thanks to their exceptional screen chemistry.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Precious Doll »

Still slogging away at the Melbourne Film Festival

The Academy of the Muses (2015) Jose Luis Guerin 6/10
Newtown (2016) Kim A. Snyder 5/10
Soy Nero (2016) Rafi Pitts 3/10
The Bacchus Lady (2016) Je-yong Lee 9/10
Harmonium (2016) Koji Fukada 7/10
Staying Vertical (2016) Alain Guiraudie 5/10
Kedi (2016) Ceyda Torun 8/10
Sieranevada (2016) Cristi Puiu 8/10
I, Olga Hepnarova (2016) Petr Kazda & Tomas Weinreb 7/10
11 Minutes (2015) Jerzy Skolimowski 4/10
Things to Come (2016) Mia Hansen-Love 8/10
Elle (2016) Paul Verhoeven 10/10
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Mister Tee »

Big Magilla wrote: You should try watching the earlier films made from Molnar's1909 Hungarian play, Liliom (Carousel's source material). Take your pick between Frank Borzage's 1930 Hollywood version with Charles Farrell and Fritz Lang's 1934 French version with Charles Boyer. You'll hate them both even more.
As it happens, I just watched the Borzage version a month or two back. You're totally correct: the vile "wife beating is just another form of love" theme is baked into the material -- even more noticeable without the score to distract you. That even certified liberals like Rodgers & Hammerstein opted for this as source material tells you just how necessary the women's movement was from the 60s on.

As for that score -- I can't say I love everything about it. I can't stand "This Was a Real Nice Clambake", and most everything associated with Carrie Pipperidge I can also do without (the miracle of Audra McDonald's breakthrough performance in the role was it made me forget till well into Act Two how insufferable the character usually is). But "If I Loved You", "The Carousel Waltz" and "You'll Never Walk Alone" are among R&H's greatest triumphs, and there's plenty of other good stuff (plus a great number in "Soliloquy"). Overall, this is the finest score the pair ever came up with.
Kellens101
Temp
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:47 am

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Kellens101 »

Speaking of Henry King, I'm going to watch The Song of Bernadette again. I saw it for the first time about 4 years ago and I remember it being pretty moving and detailed in its portrayal of religious beliefs. Jennifer Jones, Charles Bickford and Anne Revere were all wonderful but I was blown away by Gladys Cooper's riveting performance. She should've gotten the Supporting Actress Oscar and it was her finest film performance that I have seen. And, yes, Carousel is a pretty dreary film adaptation of one of Rodgers and Hammerstein's best scores. I remember Oklahoma being better, but I haven't seen it in a few years and I'm curious to hear other's thoughts on it.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Big Magilla »

I was going to bring up Henry King, but I forgot. Zinnemann directed the 1955 film version of Oklahoma! which was also less than a great interpretation of the material.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by The Original BJ »

The movie version of Carousel is indeed lousy -- for me, it's pretty clearly the worst Rodgers and Hammerstein film adaptation, which is a real shame given that it's probably their greatest work. Henry King (who directed the film, not Zinnemann) made some notable movies throughout his career, but he doesn't have a musical OR fantastical bone in his body, and as a result, the whole thing just sits there like a dead fish.

The domestic abuse elements indeed mark the show as a product of its time, though most contemporary productions attempt to handle this aspect of the storyline with more contemporary awareness (i.e. "What's the Use of Wond'rin'" is usually directed to make clear that Julie is a delusional battered wife), something the film version obviously couldn't have had the historical foresight to do. (Though the line where Julie declares that it's possible for someone to hit you hard and have it not hurt at all is pretty much always a tough moment to stomach.)

But those songs...lifeless and dull?! I co-sign everything Magilla wrote. "If I Loved You" and "You'll Never Walk Alone" are two of the most gorgeous songs of the last century, and Billy's "Soliloquy" is probably the greatest musical number the American theater has ever given male actors in its history. One of the finest scores ever, I think.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Big Magilla »

ksrymy wrote:Carousel (Fred Zinnemann, 1956) 3/10

In order to return to Earth and solve some family issues, a man must recount his story to a heavenly gatekeeper. "Carousel: or, How Your Husband Abusing You Means He Loves You." Seriously, there is no way to discuss this film without talking about this subject. It's inherent to the plot of the film. There's even a conversation where a woman confirms to Julie, our abused wife, that, yes, a man can beat you and it won't hurt. Love! It's absolutely abhorrent. And it isn't like this is a tiny tangent the film brushes on; it's a full-blown part of the film. It's major. This is straight-up awful.

Now, the film certainly looks good and the production values are on-key. The costumes and sets are nice and the choreography isn't half bad. Now, the songs themselves are a bit lifeless and dull. "You'll Never Walk Alone," as crucial as it might be to the story, is yawn-inducing and choral in the worst ways. "What's the Use of Wond'rin'" only makes that "abuse is okay if he loves you" thing even worse.

Seriously, I don't even think I can focus on reviewing the rest of this movie. My blood boils at the thought of this.

Performance-wise, Gordon McRae is only good because he's so unlikable as Billy. We're supposed to like and sympathize with him, but he's such an asshole, and McRae plays him unflatteringly enough, that the performance works. Maybe. I don't know. This movie is terrible. I feel like I deserve a medal for even finishing it.
Granted the 1956 film version of Carousel might have been better had Frank Sinatra not walked out on the lead. Gordon MacRae, though a fine singer, is a rather bland actor, but Carousel itself is one of the greatest musicals of all time with a fantastic score from the lilting instrumental opening "Carousel Waltz" to the beloved standard "If I Loved You" to the plaintive "You're a Queer One, Julie Jordan" to the toe-tapping "June Is Bustin' Out All Over" to the charmingly old-fashioned "When I Marry Mister Snow" and "When the Children Are Asleep" to the raucous "Blow High, Blow Low" to Billy's haunting "Soliloquy" to the foot-stomping "This Was a Real Nice Clambake" to yes, the unyielding "What's the Use of Wondrin'" and certainly to the anthem, "You'll Never Walk Alone".

You should try watching the earlier films made from Molnar's1909 Hungarian play, Liliom (Carousel's source material). Take your pick between Frank Borzage's 1930 Hollywood version with Charles Farrell and Fritz Lang's 1934 French version with Charles Boyer. You'll hate them both even more.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote:An Officer and a Gentleman (Taylor Hackford) -- 5/10

I'm a little surprised this film didn't sneak into the Best Picture lineup. Was it not taken that seriously? A giant hit with a series of star-making or enhancing performances? Hackford managed a DGA nomination over Lumet and Costa-Gavras and eight Golden Globe nominations (albeit two throwaways for Best New Star of the Year Male & Female). I'll certainly laud the Academy for passing it up over more serious fare.
I had it predicted -- thought it was more likely to make the slate than Missing (which had got better reviews but fizzled at the box office, which mattered in those days). A small victory for art.

Winger was just so great in those days -- the best thing about Urban Cowboy, as well. Such a shame that Terms of Endearment was the only really first-rate material she ever got to work with.
ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by ksrymy »

Carousel (Fred Zinnemann, 1956) 3/10

In order to return to Earth and solve some family issues, a man must recount his story to a heavenly gatekeeper. "Carousel: or, How Your Husband Abusing You Means He Loves You." Seriously, there is no way to discuss this film without talking about this subject. It's inherent to the plot of the film. There's even a conversation where a woman confirms to Julie, our abused wife, that, yes, a man can beat you and it won't hurt. Love! It's absolutely abhorrent. And it isn't like this is a tiny tangent the film brushes on; it's a full-blown part of the film. It's major. This is straight-up awful.

Now, the film certainly looks good and the production values are on-key. The costumes and sets are nice and the choreography isn't half bad. Now, the songs themselves are a bit lifeless and dull. "You'll Never Walk Alone," as crucial as it might be to the story, is yawn-inducing and choral in the worst ways. "What's the Use of Wond'rin'" only makes that "abuse is okay if he loves you" thing even worse.

Seriously, I don't even think I can focus on reviewing the rest of this movie. My blood boils at the thought of this.

Performance-wise, Gordon McRae is only good because he's so unlikable as Billy. We're supposed to like and sympathize with him, but he's such an asshole, and McRae plays him unflatteringly enough, that the performance works. Maybe. I don't know. This movie is terrible. I feel like I deserve a medal for even finishing it.

While the City Sleeps (Fritz Lang, 1956) 6/10

A group of newspaper workers toil and try to find out the identity of a serial killer dubbed "The Lipstick Killer." First thing: I didn't know this was based on a real incident. That makes it kind of cool, especially for its era. Maybe it's just because the true crime genre is so pervasive and constant nowadays, but this felt rejuvenating.

But not necessarily because it was really good or anything. "While the City Sleeps" coasts mostly on the excellence of its cast with Dana Andrews, George Sanders, Thomas Mitchell, Vincent Price, and Ida Lupino putting in solid if uninspired work. But it's easy to forget how nice these folks are when John Drew Barrymore (aka the worst Barrymore) plays our killer. While "Autumn Leaves" the same year portrays mental illness effectively and understandingly, "While the City Sleeps" dials the killer's mental illness into overdrive and never lets up. Barrymore's acting is particularly atrocious. His bug eyes and heavy breathing and teeth gnashing are all hilariously bad. This only makes the film go downhill. While the journalistic aspect is very nice and should be regarded with dignity, every time we pan over to Barrymore, it feels like a hagsploitation flick without all the amazing camp.

I expect better from Lang. He's obviously a director with a great knowledge of human psychology as is evidenced by his better films. "While the City Sleeps" is still good but if only because the cast keeps an otherwise mediocre film afloat.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (Fritz Lang, 1956) 6/10

A newspaper publisher, wanting to prove a point about the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence, talks his future son-in-law into a hoax in an attempt to expose ineptitude of the city's hard-nosed D.A. "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt," Fritz Lang's final Hollywood film doesn't go out with the bang it deserves. The movie is crazy original in regards to its plot. It's convoluted, twisty, and fun. It's a bit over-the-top and unreasonable at times, but the movie's good enough to get us believing that these characters would go along with something like this.

Dana Andrews holds the film together with his typical hard-edged, soft-hearted demeanor that makes him so perfect for the genre. Andrews channels the frustrations of pleasing a father-in-law, coming to terms with one's self, and more in a very nice, fresh way. Again, maybe the script deserves all the credit though. Joan Fontaine is alright in a rather muted, blasé role. I expected her to be more of a force but that hope was sadly denied at the gates.

But the plot is consistently interesting even if a major twist is a really, really stupid, out-of-left-field twist, "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is still good and fun. I wish Andrews and Lang got to work together on a different, better pair of movies though. They could've been truly amazing.

La Pointe-Courte (Agnès Varda, 1956) 8/10

A married couple experiences troubles while on vacation all while the local fishing families war with the authorities. Agnès Varda's debut is a great film. It shows much of the promise she has to offer later with films like "Cléo from 5 to 7" among others. "La Pointe Courte" is a moving film and one about emotional wars grand and miniscule.

The couple central to the film, played exquisitely by Philippe Noiret and Silvia Monfort, are highly relatable and should remind anyone who has been in a significant relationship of any conflict they've had. These characters are almost a canvas for the audience to paint whatever they've experienced onto it. Their arguments are filled with great writing and the film's most interesting parts are about these two.

That isn't to say the trouble brewing between the fishermen and the authorities isn't absorbing; it is, but it doesn't carry nearly the weight of the pathos the couple do. The townsfolk's troubles are obviously meant to mirror yet contrast the central couple's; it's a classic, tried-and-true method of examination - macro- and micro- so to speak. I feel like these segments, though, are a bit better than the similar themes and feel of Luchino Visconti's "La terra trema" though. Varda had what would later be known as the French New Wave/Left Bank going for her while Visconti was working well into the point of Italian neorealism. This feels exciting and ripe while the Visconti feels a bit tired.

"La Pointe Courte" is, again, great. Films about couples with problems are always made, and it isn't easy to make a good one. But Varda's style and eye bring the picture to the brink. An excellent debut feature.

Rodan (Ishirô Honda, 1956) 2/10

After giant caterpillars appear across the nation, two prehistoric pterodactyl-esque creatures begin the rampage across Japan. "Rodan" is really bad. It lacks all the fun and ethics behind the original "Godzilla" film and behind most of the other Toho monster movies too. "Godzilla" was all about the horrors of nuclear war and power, and "Rodan" is about monsters 'n' shit. The film is mostly alright whenever we get destruction and action, but the human drama behind it all is dull and dry and painful. You can tell what the film's creators truly cared about when making this.

And, unlike "Godzilla," the creature(s) themselves are underwhelming and not as good-looking. The clumsy shots and effects of Rodan flying around look like thy belong on a '50s TV show more than anything else. There isn't much about the film that's redeemable and I don't have a lot more to say.

"Rodan" is a total bomb. It totally takes the wrong approach to a sequel/spin-off/whatever in that it's a blatant cash grab for everything that (they thought) was popular with the original film and left out any substance. "Rodan" is dreadful.

REWATCH: A Man Escaped (Robert Bresson, 1956) 10/10

A French Resistance activist is imprisoned by the Nazis and plans an elaborate escape only to be condemned to death and given a new cellmate who may be a Gestapo informant. Robert Bresson's "A Man Escaped" is a masterful exercise in tension, editing, and slow-burn action. It's also shot with an incredible eye for detail.

"A Man Escaped" is anchored not only by Bresson's command of the plot but by François Leterrier's excellent performance as Andre, our imprisoned hero. Leterrier's dolorous stoicism and subtle body language are put to use making Andre a smart, fully-rounded character. It's easy to make a character obsessed with something (breaking out of prison, in this case) really one-sided, but we get dimensions of Andre that add his his story and character in refreshing ways. And we're lucky to be treated to a script as tight and nice as Bresson's. Films that are predominantly/rely heavily on voice-over are always susceptible to feeling overwrought due to more telling than showing (and with film as a visual medium you know which one matters more). But the succinct lines punctuated by determined, focused thoughts match pace with the way the film is structured and crafted. It's a very well-thought-out piece of cinema.

I don't think it's Bresson's best work, but that statement feels a little goofy. Bresson's body of work is some of the most untouchable in cinema history, and "A Man Escaped" could certainly prove that to you. Andre is an easy person to root for, we feel his anguish, and our hearts pump overtime during its many rousing sequences. It's a masterpiece in mood and proto-action.

Baby Doll (Elia Kazan, 1956) 5/10

A frustrated man who will finally be able to consummate his marriage to a 19-year old once she turns 20 is disrupted when a rival cotton baron catches his wife's eye. "Baby Doll" should be really good. The movie has all the deep, filthy connotations it needs to capture the feel Tennessee Williams is going for. I'm surprised Hays allowed it. You can't fault the censors for the movie (though the Catholic protest behind the film is an unbelievable story in and of itself).

What you can fault is the acting because the entire cast is hamola. Carroll Baker is okay but she's mostly there to look good, suck her thumb, play dumb, and serve as the frustration vessel for the male characters. At least Eli Wallach comes in and livens things up a little bit. Wallach's performance is good sometimes. I found the most tolerable sections of the film involved him. His hide-and-seek, run-and-play seduction scene of Baby Doll is really, really good and is some of the best work I've seen Elia Kazan do. If only the rest of the film lived up to it. Kazan himself believed, along with me, that the seduction is the sexy part - not the act itself. It seems Kazan focused all his energy on this though. But this could just be because I found Karl Malden to be absolutely over-the-top in the worst way. There's nary a scene where he isn't screaming or seething at Baby Doll. I get that he's sexually-frustrated, but I've met even more sexually-frustrated people who aren't this awful. Malden emotes to the camera like he's being paid for every shout he utters. And I really, really like Malden usually. I think he's arguably the best character actor of his era.

"Baby Doll" should probably have been resigned to the stage. But in the age of Hays lightening up, Tennessee Williams was *the* dealer of adult entertainment. Williams is a brilliant playwright, but this adaptation doesn't work. "Baby Doll" is a hammy mess.

1984 (Michael Anderson, 1956) 6/10

A man falls in love with a woman which breaks the laws of a bleak, totalitarian state. George Orwell's novel is one of the many that's basically unfilmable. The best adaptation we've had some it was a Super Bowl commercial, but, to be fair, it's one of the best commercials ever.

1956's "1984" is interesting. The production designers had their ideas down pat. This is a really interesting-looking movie that captures the single tonalities of an authoritative, totalitarian state and government while feeling just futuristic enough to really unsettle us. It's probably the most effective part of the film.

The film probably would've been more effective with another lead though. As much as I tend to like Edmond O'Brien, he's about ten or fifteen years too old to play this role. I know Winston Smith isn't supposed to be some big hunky Rock Hudson type, but he isn't quite believable for the role. The same could possibly be said for Jan Sterling, but Sterling's performance is pretty good, so I'm slightly less inclined to note the age. I'm not saying middle-aged people can't fall in love; it just feels far less authentic in this story about dreamers and whatnot. Michael Redgrave also pops in every now and again to keep things interesting.

"1984" is messy and it fails to capture what Orwell goes at so beautifully, but it isn't a bad film. Maybe it's a bit misguided and was made too early ("1984" is nothing if you strip it of its libido). It's still a decent film though.

Bhowani Junction (George Cukor, 1956) 6/10

Amid the chaos of Britain withdrawing from India, an Anglo-Indian woman is tormented while trying to find who she truly is. "Bhowani Junction" is a lot like "Pinky" but with more melodrama and Ava Gardner being gorgeous. And this is probably Gardner's best performance. I've never sung her praises as an actress, but this is decent work. I say "decent" because for every deep, thought-out, well-executed scene, Gardner gives us one where she shakes her hands about and screams loudly to show she's upset. This is where Cukor shows his colors as a director because, boy, did he love melodrama. But rarely can a melodrama work without a solid male lead, and Stewart Granger is not the man for the job. He's as bland and eyeroll-worthy as ever.

The film does handle race very well for being in the '50s, but maybe that's because Americans have never had any problems with Indian people. Granted, it feels a little clumsy when it comes to Indian culture and tradition, playing up the obviously "out-there" cultural aspects in points, but it isn't super detracting.

Gardner deserved a true star vehicle, one in which she could shine and show off potential chops instead of just acting the vamp. I'd say this should probably be what people remember her for. If she had to have an Oscar nod, this is a far better choice than "Mogambo." "Bhowani Junction" is good and would probably be a lot less steamy and effective without Gardner's presence.

Yield to the Night (J. Lee Thompson, 1956) 8/10

A woman is put on death row after a string of abusive relationships ends with her killing her cheating partner whom she thought truly loved her. "Yield to the Night" is a great, hidden film. It has all the sleaze and sex of a pre-Code film with touches of early post-war noir that really carry a punch.

The film is most famous for Diana Dors, Britain's Marilyn Monroe, but that nickname/title feels really diminutive and unappreciative because, with this film, Dors gives a better performance than Monroe did in her entire career. Monroe was always playing herself with some small derivation or facet to keep it interesting. The public wanted to see the socialite and sex bomb but maybe grasping for stardom or in an intense game of cat-and-mouse. Dors, in "Yield to the Night," grasps all the complexities of her character (based on Ruth Etting) and, in the process, we don't think about the pretty face and that bust, but we see a woman losing hope, her mind, and her life. It's a travesty that wouldn't be effective without Dors. Sure, another actress could put a more conventional spin on it, but Dors carries the sex appeal to give it that undoubtedly grimy touch of noir that makes the picture magic.

"Yield to the Night" is a vehicle for Dors, and what a vehicle it is! More than anything, Dors's performance is touching and impactful. We see her as a martyr to partiarchal demands and double standards. Is it overtly feminist? No, but the tones are there and it's more than a coincidence that we get this point-of-view. This is a picture to be remembered.

REWATCH: The Searchers (John Ford, 1956) 9/10

A racist Civil War veteran spends years searching for his captured niece after a group of Comanches. John Ford's western, the most revered in its genre, deconstructs what it means to be a cowboy and bares its gnarly, file-sharpened teeth with all its glory. It's easy to see why the New Hollywood directors of the '70s and most people since have gravitated toward this film: Ethan's racism and character flaws make for a gripping tale of a person we don't know if we want to root for. Ethan's compulsive, desperate need to find his niece is great, but I don't think it really reaches the heights of the rare psychological western.

I don't think this film is an out-and-out masterpiece though. I think it's pretty clunky in places. Some of the lines and their respective readings are really off-putting. Jeffrey Hunter isn't really to good in the film either. In fact, at times, I think the film would've been better without him in it. If we let Wayne run free with this torment, things could get very interesting, but Hunter's there to play the young, naïve foil. I get it. I just think Hunter's cardboard performance isn't worthy of a film this good. The whole "Martin has a wife, and her name is Look! Ha!" bit feels astoundingly out-of-place. It serves no real purpose other than for a laugh. And this is not a film that needs laughs. And my hatred of Natalie Wood carries into this film as well. Not that she does anything awful here. She doesn't get too much to do. She's fine here. But why in the hell does she look like she's ready to debut at the next debutante ball? Everyone else in the Comanche camp looks rugged and gross, but Wood looks more radiant and glossy than a full-page spread in "Elle."

Wayne's performance, and, moreso, his character, are something I'm torn on. Wayne's given much better performances, but Ethan Edwards is a memorable, interesting character. He shoots the eyes out of a dead Comanche to leave a message. It's disgusting, but he's a fascinating character to see. His determination to kill his niece for becoming a squaw is another aspect like this. The only fault I find is that our main character is stagnant and static. Protagonists are supposed to change and go through a journey. Ethan's as bitter at the end as he is at the beginning but maybe only slightly less so due to circumstances. This machismo and racism never really develop. They're there for the sake of plot.

But those two long paragraphs are all fairly minor. "The Searchers" is still a very great film. Its influence on the '70s and today is great. It echoes through both "Star Wars" trilogies, fun enough which encapsulates two different generations of film and filmmakers. This is a great movie that I think could've been tightened up a bunch. But with that Max Steiner score and the cinematography by Winton C. Hoch, it becomes rather easy to get lost in.

Tea and Sympathy (Vincente Minnelli, 1956) 5/10

A headmaster's wife tries to help a an effeminate 17-year old boy discover who he is. I know the film was severely hampered by the Code, and homosexuality was still taboo and not talked about, but you think they would let more of it on in "Tea and Sympathy," a tale about which homosexuality is absolutely crucial.

And I expected better of closeted director Vincente Minnelli. You would expect he'd throw some sly references in or that he would capture it so well, but this film is just as repressed as the director must've been forced to be for the public eye. And it's unfair because this is a fascinating tale. The prejudice in the film is clearly there and infers homosexuality more than anything direct itself. "Sister-boy" becomes a thorn each time. It gradually sinks deeper and deeper every derogatory time we hear it uttered.

And John Kerr is pretty good as Tom Lee. One thing I will never understand is how he is considered supporting by so many. Granted, I never saw the original stage production for which he won the Tony for Featured Actor in a Play, but he's very much the main focus of the film. Though it may be lensed a little more through Deborah Kerr's Laura's eyes, there's zero doubt that Tom is the main character with the most screentime and the most lines. But, to the performance itself, Mr. Kerr captures sweet naïveté with his soft, subtle features and plays it very well off Deborah Kerr who is probably the greatest actress at portraying women who have never had an orgasm before. Whether it's in "Black Narcissus," "The Innocents," "Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison," or, here, in "Tea and Sympathy," Mrs. Kerr is a natural for playing these stolid, upset women who hide behind steely British façades. Kerr's performance is good. I don't think it's as good as her work in the two formermost films I mentioned, but it's certainly the brightest thing about the picture. And that curtain line ("Years from now, when you speak of this, and you will, be kind.") is perfection. I kind of wish the film ended there though. Everything after is aimless and drifts as if it knows it's an afterthought.

"Tea and Sympathy" is an important film, but it's an ultimately disappointing film. This really deserved to be made about ten years later when the censors were calming down.

Star Trek Beyond (Justin Lin, 2016) 6/10

The crew of the USS Enterprise to go a little-known part of the galaxy and butt heads with a madman who wants to wipe out humanity. "Star Trek Beyond" is a bit of a headscratcher. First off, why would the Federation be so gung-ho about sending its best captain, crew, and ship on an obviously risky, most-likely fatal mission to a place they know next to nothing about? I mean, it's fun seeing the Enterprise run through a canyon that's more like a paper shredder and it's fun to see it torn apart by the bees (which is a really unintimidating name for the creatures; they should've gone with "drones," but then people would probably think that's what the U.S. does in the Middle East, so...), but the whole of it is really underwhelming and riddled with not-too-thought-out plot points. But, to be fair, Doug Jung and Simon Pegg's script is actually fairly nice. It changes the picture into more of an ensemble effort even if Uhura really doesn't get much to do. I was most happy to see that the movie wasn't so much The Kirk and Spock Show as it was in the previous two entries. Instead, we get Bones and Spock which make for a naturally comedic duo. Karl Urban delivers all his lines in an over-the-top, through-the-teeth fashion, but it works for his temperamental character. And Spock seems less like Sheldon from "The Big Bang Theory" in this one, so that made me happy. The best addition to the film though is Jaylah who is not only a compelling character but is someone I hope we see more of in future films. I know it'll kind of be tainting the whole "original crew" aspect, but, nonetheless, you need to start spicing things up.

But these nice characterizations don't make up for the biggest crime: not fleshing out the villain. In an era of superhero movies being the predominant trend, villains have really had to beef up lately. Audiences aren't accepting villains who just want lots of money or notoriety. So what does "Star Trek Beyond" go with? Two of the biggest villain clichés ever: I want to destroy humanity and I did it because I went crazy. This is spectacularly unimpressive. There's almost no rationale behind it more than a twenty-second montage of "Captain's Log - Day 66: lol i'm goin bonkers here." And it's even sadder because Idris Elba is pretty good for the most part. I wish more of his character relied on his facial and body language. His English is distracting and off-kilter. It's the same problem I had with Bane in "The Dark Knight Rises." I wish they would've kept him subtitled for the most part.

I do think the movie would've been pretty mediocre or even bad if Justin Lin weren't behind the camera. Lin's command of the action scenes (and there are many, and they're all dragged way out) shows his proficiency in the genre. And Lin is also a smart choice because, after working heavily in the "Fast & Furious" franchise, we see the "crew as family" themes carry over into this and they work just as well.

"Star Trek Beyond" suffers major miscues from its underdevelopment, but it's as fun as the previous entries and certainly as good as them too.

Black Caesar (Larry Cohen, 1973) 8/10

A young boy whose leg is broken by a crooked cop aspires to be a kingpin criminal to exact his revenge on society. "Black Caesar" is actually very, very good. It might be the best blaxploitation movie I've seen. Most blaxploitation movies, while fun, are very much racial and sexual power fantasies. The problem doesn't square itself on the racial dynamics. Those are what make sticking it to the man so fun. It's the sexual dynamics (both misogyny and homophobia) that make them problematic. But "Black Caesar" is legitimately a great movie despite these minor setbacks (and I only say "minor" because they're not as blatant here as they are in other films of the genre).

This film, directed with grit and grace by Larry Cohen, is as great a tale of revenge and power-tripping as I've seen. The opening assassination is a very memorable sequence in how it's shot and constructed. It sets a nice, tight tone for the film that slowly loosens as Tommy becomes for powerful. It's a symbolic letting-go. Actually, Tommy's transformation here reminds me of Walter White's transformation on "Breaking Bad" albeit with a less naïve background.

Larry Cohen is also very good behind the camera here. Between this and "God Told Me To," Cohen sure knows his way around the low-budget '70s wheelhouse. I wish Cohen had more of a visual style to him though. He's a big fan of shots from on high, but you can only do it so much before it's either distracting or loses its meaning. I get the idea that we're supposed to be spectating from one of the many tall buildings in the city, but I don't think it quite works as well as Cohen wants it to.

Fred Williamson, Gloria Hendry, and D'Urville Martin round out a solid cast in "Black Caesar." It's Shakespearean in its attempts and follows a five-act tragedy's formula to a T. It's art and arguably the best of its very entertaining genre.

Black Belt Jones (Robert Crouse, 1974) 6/10

A semi-retired secret agent fights back against a bunch of white thugs and their boss after they take control of a karate school whose owner is behind on some payments. "Black Belt Jones" is nothing more than a bunch of set pieces for Jim Kelly to kick some whiteboy ass in, but, damn, if it isn't incredibly entertaining. There's no way to forget the sudsy car wash battle at film's end. The bubbles get more and more outrageous and make for slow-motion shots of bodies falling into them all the cooler.

There isn't too much of a plot really. Kelly just clobbers organized white crime and saves the day. Scatman Crothers is fun as the dojo's leader. Kelly himself really isn't that bad of an actor, but he's a good actor the way someone like Jason Statham is a good actor in that he's good at playing tough, he's funny, and that's about it.

"Black Belt Jones" is fun but weak. I was never bored with it though which is something I can't say for a bunch of other films. It lacks the political bite that makes other movies in the blaxploitation genre so fun and relevant though. Still, I can't complain much. I mean, the movie's called "Black Belt Jones." That's as black and kickass as you can get.

Truck Turner (Jonathan Kaplan, 1974) 7/10

An ex-football star turned bounty hunter is hired to capture a sociopathic pimp. Truck Turner is a badass motherfucker. "Truck Turner" also has perfect casting which is one of its biggest assets. Not only do we get an excellent score by Isaac Hayes (even if it doesn't quite reach "Shaft" levels) but we get an excellent performance by him as well. Hayes's cool, sexy, badass demeanor never lets us fear what might happen. We know this guy's too cool to stay down for long. The man never keeps him down.

Yaphet Kotto is a welcome presence as always in one of his best roles, but I was most impressed with Nichelle Nichols whose dirty, great performance was my favorite part of the cast. I didn't even recognize Nichols at first. It's such a departure from the role we all know her as. Her scenes with Hayes are undeniably hot. Even if they're usually followed by homophobic slurs and accusations, the chemistry between them is pal-pa-ble.

"Truck Turner" is really good. I'd like to visit it again. The action sequences are really well done - it's one of only a few films where the shootouts don't feel super routine. It's a steamy, kickass film.

Across 110th Street (Barry Shear, 1972) 7/10

The police and Italian mafia are after three small-time crooks after they make off with $300,000 in mob money and kill two officers and three of the mob's men in the robbery. "Across 110th Street," which I know from the theme song's use in "Jackie Brown," is a solid thriller. It shows how far black cinema was progressing in the '70s. This isn't even necessarily a blaxploitation flick but it gets similar messages across and comes off as a wholly effective, gripping thriller with betrayal and racism abound.

Anthony Quinn's racist police detective is a very intriguing character and Quinn plays him brilliantly. He gets the vileness of his racism down pat while also showing us the human underneath. I'm not justifying his racism, but I think it's good that the screenplay takes time to fully round him out. And Yaphet Kotto, opposite Quinn, keeps things cool and collected as the straight man on the case. Kotto was made for the genre. Whether he's playing cool or delivering a biting, nasty performance as a villain, Kotto's talent and charisma as an actor should not have gone as unnoticed as it did.

Barry Shear frames an enthralling story with the extrinsic qualities of a blaxploitation film and the intrinsic qualities of a solid criss-cross film noir. It's a very good film that feels far ahead of its time.

White Mischief (Michael Radford, 1987) 3/10

In 1940s Kenya, a circle of rich, lofty British expatriates become involved with drugs, wife swapping, and other torrid affairs, all of which causes one to mysteriously be murdered under cover of the night. "White Mischief" is undoubtedly the whitest film I have ever seen. It's 100-minute montage of wealthy, supercilious Brits smoking, laughing like Julia Roberts when she's embarrassed, and having rather bland sex. For a film that centers itself on passion and malaise, it sure only tackles the latter and I don't think that's because it tries to be boring.

There's no coherence through the picture either. It is detached and episodic in the worst way. We move staggeringly through a topless woman asking which of a group of men will sleep with her to Sarah Miles acting like Zooey Deschanel would have at the time (the quirkiness is beyond belief; eccentricity was lost on this film and, instead, they went for full ham) to a murder that really comes out of nowhere.

And as for the murder, I knew the case going in beforehand and knew it was never solved/proven, so I expected the movie to build up the suspense around it much more than they did. It seemingly drifts with the same breezy aloofness the rest of the film glides by on. And there's a way to get that feeling while being coherent, but Michael Radford is no Luis Buñuel. Buñuel does it with immense talent in "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie." This feels like the palest imitation of it.

For what it's worth, though, Greta Scacchi and Charles Dance are pretty good. They were the only aspects of the film that really kept my interest. Scacchi is a very good actress. She's far above this material even if she succeeds in it. And Dance is always solid as characters George Sanders made a living off of in the '40s and '50s.

"White Mischief" is a messy, aimless film that, to me, is like a Lana Del Rey song: studio-made malaise with nothing inside it. It's made to make you feel like you're a sad, little rich person. So it works insofar as atmosphere is concerned, but it's a flop in almost every other regard.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by ksrymy »

The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz (Luis Buñuel, 1955) 8/10

After believing himself to have accidentally killed his governess in his youth, a man decides it's his destiny to become a notorious serial killer of women only for his plans to go terribly awry. Like most people writing about this film, I thought this was going to be some dark, broody piece of bourgeois pseudohorror, but the black comedy I got instead was an absolute delight. Luis Buñuel's wry eye for comic turpitude works tremendously well in "The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz." If you never thought a nun running to her death down an elevator shaft would be uproariously funny then you need to see this film.

The film is strong (its only weakness might be that the cast, across the board, aren't impressive as it should be) and uses glints of surrealism the director started out with and dives headfirst into the class struggles and ennui that plague us all. I think, partly because of this, that "Archibaldo de la Cruz" is a bit more successful than the similarly dark and funny "Ladykillers" from Ealing the same year.

Also Buñuel and Agustín Jiménez' cinematography gel in both startling and eerie ways. After he see Archibaldo's governess bleeding from a gunshot wound to the neck and head, we get a brief shot of her pantyhose-clad legs. This shows knowledge of psychosexual urges and how these early events in our lives form fetishes and primitive drives. This one small, well-shot moment in the film gives us the entire outline for our protagonist in only a few seconds. It's a smart bit of work by Buñuel and Jiménez.

"The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz" is another great film in the director's oeuvre. It sets the tone for the blacker, smarter comedies of his to come and remains hilarious and unique.

Love Me or Leave Me (Charles Vidor, 1955) 6/10

Future famous torch singer Ruth Etting' rises from being a dancer to a movie star while constantly under pressure from a mobster. "Love Me or Leave Me" strays from the saccharine qualities of most musical biopics which I find refreshing. Director Charles Vidor never was a great filmmaker, and this film still proves that; it also demonstrates his deft ability to pace films properly. The film is two hours but never feels it. It's opulent and brisk and engaging. The sets are nice and the costumes look straight out of MGM.

But the most powerful part of the film is Doris Day whose performance is some of the best work she ever put in. She doesn't really make Etting an unforgettable character, but, for these two hours, she's totally captivating. The problem is when Oscar-nominated Jimmy Cagney comes along. His Gimp Snyder is really hammy. I've always said that Edward G. Robinson was better at parodying his role in "Little Caesar" than he was actually playing that role; I feel like Jimmy Cagney is playing a parody of one of his many gangsters here but isn't aware of it. The ham is strong with this performance. I'm surprised it wasn't full of "N'yeah, see? N'yeah." It's a good thing the film focuses more on Etting herself than her relationship with Snyder because I'm not sure I could tolerate a film with the Snyder character in it the whole time.

The musical numbers are aplenty and stylized realistically and deftly. "Love Me or Leave Me" may not be super memorable or great, but it's a nice star vehicle for Doris Day whose rendition of the title song is simply splendid.

The Trouble with Harry (Alfred Hitchcock, 1955) 6/10

After a dead body is discovered on top of a hill in New England, all the townsfolk scramble about thinking they each had something to do with it. Hitch's most famous outright comedy is a bit middling for his collective body of work, though I'm not sure it really could've been improved upon by another director - Billy Wilder, maybe? Anyway, the film's cast is its most important aspect as Edmund Gwenn reminds us that he's always good for a few laughs as a silly curmudgeon. Shirley MacLaine is the real star though. In her breakout role, she shows deft comic timing and a keen sense of space and language. Both MacLaine and the young man who plays her son are the most buoyant, fun characters in the film. It's their arc that keeps things interesting.

The film could've been better had John Forsythe been replaced. He's so wooden and boring in this that he's dripping with termites. Having seen him here, I can understand one more reason why "Topaz" is much maligned. I'm not sure this is the same guy who played Blake Carrington.

The beautiful autumnal scenery underscores the film but mostly outshines the rest of the film. "The Trouble with Harry" is fun in parts but feels like a miss on behalf of the director. But, as I've said before with other movies, a miss by Hitchcock is way better than most people's mediocrities.

REWATCH: Lola Montès (Max Ophüls, 1955) 10/10

We're presented with the story of the title character, a once adventurous and flirtatious woman who becomes the main attraction of her own circus. Adam Kempenaar, a critic I adore, said the following about Lola:

"The tragedy for this Ophuls [sic] heroine is that, inevitably, the only place to turn for a woman who 'acts like a man' - doing what she wants when she wants to do it, regardless of society's rules - is the circus, where she can properly be put on display as a freak."

I think Kempenaar nails Ophüls' societal critique perfectly in this line. "Lola Montès" is a colorful explosion of depth and technical dazzling. The first extended, circular shot is Ophüls announcing his presence and crafting one hell of a scene. The way it's shot, with blues and reds, and the gorgeous costumes with Peter Ustinov entertaining a curious crowd is unforgettable. It's among the best scenes Ophüls ever made. And the absolutely gorgeous vibrancy and beauty of the film only makes one wish we got to see more color work from the director. His command of the palette is extraordinary.

As for the cast, Martine Carol is good. I think she may be the weakest part of the film, but that's only because she's the most reserved, quiet thing in a film full of brash, beautiful things. And, yeah, that's supposed to be her character, but you think she'd have done more. But this is nitpicking because it totally works within the confines of the film. Peter Ustinov, as the boisterous ringmaster, is the cast's best. Ustinov plays the crowd, and us (though, really, what is a crowd in a movie if not us?), with a skilled hand. He knows how to manipulate, and this becomes important to the story. It's the first great performance he ever gave.

"Lola Montès" is another masterpiece in the belt of the director who (not really) arguably moved the camera better than anyone else in the history of the medium. It's a stunning feature that lets no color go to waste and has leaps and bounds to say about feminism and power; I'll save that review for another day though.

REWATCH: Michael Cacoyannis, 1955) 8/10

A wild, promiscuous woman's stance against marriage becomes muddled when she falls in love with a soccer star. Michael Cacoyannis shows superb control over his cast and the gorgeous Greek setting as he delivers "Stella," melting, in our hands. It's a steamy, exciting, sweaty film. From the steamy love affair(s) to the intense dancing montage near film's end, "Stella" becomes a pool of bodily fluids and well-trod emotion.

It's hard to believe this was a 35-year old Melina Mercouri's film debut because she seems so professional and smart and natural in the film. Her angular features and strong grasp over tone paint a portrait of a fierce woman who isn't willing to let go of what she's earned. She refuses to settle into domesticity for fear of losing excitement. And make it all a retelling of "Carmen," replace a toreador with a football star, and you've got yourself a layered, complex yet accessible film. Stella is a great character who Cacoyannis creates as a mirror to ourselves and the other characters in the film.

The film's tragic ending, as you'd be dumb to not expect, is incredible. There's a long take of Stella in the arm's of a man as the camera rocks around trying to stay level that's indicative of the situation and waaaaay modern for its time.

Add in a great, authentic score, and you've got a great film. "Stella" is an excellent examination on fate, tragedy, love, and lust. A star is born in Mercouri who would go on to prove herself one of the best, fiercest actresses in European cinema.

Queen Bee (Ranald MacDougall, 1955) 6/10

A manipulative Southern woman begins plotting when her sister-in-law is engaged to be married to the woman's former lover, and her husband starts up an affair with her cousin. "Queen Bee" is a delicious, nasty little family drama in the vein of a more brutish "Jezebel."

Joan Crawford annihilates the film, traipsing around the the bitchiest and best attitude I've seen her have in a film ever. Crawford always exuded confidence in these kinds of roles, but I never remember one so vividly brusque. I guess I'm not including "Johnny Guitar" in this because that's a whole 'nother beast. Crawford owns the melodrama as she's spent so much time in it. On the other hand, Barry Sullivan, John Ireland, and Betsey Palmer flounder a little bit, ceding the floor to the seasoned vet who is eating the scenery and refusing the share.

You can see here, in "Queen Bee," that Joan was on her way to bigger, better things like "Strait-Jacket" and "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?." This role is small prep for her psychobiddy, hagsploitation expertise. The film is actually good, though. The cinematography and costumes were a nice surprise even if, at times, it seems like "Queen Bee: The Story of Another Costume Change." I dug it. I'll probably see it again some day and be happy with it. I'll gladly recommend this to someone looking for some melodrama.

Not as a Stranger (Stanley Kramer, 1955) 4/10

A medical student desiring to be a top-class surgeon questions his decisions after he courts an older woman with money and knowledge of medicine. I read that "Not as a Stranger" was one of if not the best-selling book of 1954. And this makes sense. The film is a little melodramatic, takes a look at something new and exciting, and has a large cast of characters.

Unfortunately, none of this translates to the screen particularly well. Robert Mitchum is rather dry and bland as the lead. He and Sinatra have one good scene together (when Sinatra calls him out on using Olivia de Havilland's character) and the rest is trite. Sinatra's performance is pretty good actually; it's one of the few redeeming qualities of the film. It's not a flashy role and he doesn't get any speeches like Maggio got in "From Here to Eternity," but he does it all well. Olivia de Havilland's role as Mitchum's sugar mama is interesting. She gives the film's best performance through quiet smiles, but, for some inexplicable reason, near the end of the movie, her speaking rhythms and cadences turn robotic. It flirts with dismantling everything she'd thus created.

Also, it is painfully laughable to picture Mitchum and Sinatra as med students. In the opening scene, all their classmates are fresh-faced twentysomethings and then the camera focuses in on these two men pushing forty and looking every bit of it. The film never suggests that they're going back to school in their older years; if it did, that would be a far more interesting subplot that the ones we got. And this is because they tried to shove everything from the book into the movie, I assume. The film runs on about twenty minutes longer than it is welcome. It gets dragged along by its hair at points. You just want the film to be mercy killed whenever the bland supporting cast comes up.

"Not as a Stranger" isn't very good. Its title isn't very good, and its story isn't very good. It's populist fare that predates the love for "Grey's Anatomy" and "ER" by multiple decades. At least things like "Dr. Kildare" and "Marcus Welby" in the coming years aspired to something.

Oklahoma! (Fred Zinnemann, 1955) 4/10

Tender passions crackle on the frontier as loves form and jealousies brew. The first Rodgers & Hammerstein adaptation hits the screen and trips immediately. I was talking with my mother-in-law tonight about this musical in general. I was shocked to hear she didn't like it because she loves most every musical. Whether it's the kitsch of the Old West and its glorification of saccharine (18/19)50s values or the unnecessary ballet sequence, "Oklahoma!" just doesn't work on the silver screen.

I really like Hollywood musicals for the most part, at least the bigger ones (once we veer into things like "Summer Stock," though...). "Oklahoma!" is possibly one of the dullest big studio musicals that I've seen on my cinematic journey through the years. There is absolutely nothing in this musical that hasn't been done before in every other musical. The extended, for-naught ballet sequence was a desperate grab at trying to do what "An American in Paris" did. The rural setting felt more alive and exciting in "State Fair." The Old West setting was far more effective in "Calamity Jane." It's like the producers were looking for a mishmash of everything popular from the last ten years, remembered there was a musical from the early '40s that hadn't yet been made, and went with it. I might be alone in this, but I thought the characters were a bit bloodless and unsympathetic. I was hoping to like Shirley Jones a little more because she's usually fabulous. For what it's worth, she's probably the best singer/performer in the film, but that might only be because the rest of the cast don't really look or feel like they're in a musical. The singing is was subpar. Once the romance introduced itself, it was hard to feel that it was anything other than forced. The 145 minutes of this film felt every bit like three hours. And Rod Steiger in a musical is a bit jarring. He's perfectly cast as the outsider villain, but he's a much better actor than everyone else and is working in a much more sinister, dark film than the light, fluffy atmosphere of "Oklahoma!" allows.

Now, not everything is terrible about the film. It sounds good and looks good for the most part. The cinematography is pretty great, especially in the opening scene(s). The sets are mostly nice and don't look too junky and falsified. It seems everything I praise about the film is rather superficial. But that's what this film is about: let's abuse and shun the weird outsider guy on principle, everyone says. To be fair, he ends up being a shitty person anyway, but that's not the point until we really, really figure out his motives.

"Oklahoma!" is a mess, and it isn't a glorious, hot, fun mess. It probably deserves a lower score, but that seems a bit harsh. At least we have "The King and I" next year to be the Listerine I need after tasting this film.

Le monde du silence (Jacques-Yves Cousteau, 1956 8/10

Jacques-Yves Cousteau, legendary oceanographer, inventor, and, now, filmmaker takes us into the deep, quiet world of the ocean. I will preface this review by saying that this is a great film. It isn't particularly smart or witty; it just shows us the world below in all its glory and explains what we're seeing. This is the grandfather of "NOVA" and "Planet Earth," and I mean that as a compliment.

"Le monde du silence" (and I call it that because "The Silent World" loses all the poetry of the French pronunciation) is an absolutely gorgeous film. The extensive underwater cinematography is truly, truly awe-inspiring. It's one of the most beautifully-photographed films I've ever seen, documentary or narrative. From what I've seen up to this point in history, the documentary was always very formal and straightforward; they seemed to imitate newsreels. "The True Glory" is an excellent documentary that shows the potential the genre had - I recommend it. That being said, I have yet to see "The Great White Silence," and I'm not counting any kind of pseudo-docs by people like Flaherty. But the fact of the matter is that this feels like so much more than a documentary.

Now, I know many people have problems with the film, especially in its treatment of animals. There are times where you basically see Cousteau & Co. stabbing, hacking, and slashing their way through animals. We see a puffed-up fish stabbed and see all the water slowly drain out of it as it wiggles about helplessly. It's tough to watch. Do I condone the actions? Not at all. I don't think they're humane in the least. But do I think the film is terrible because of it? Absolutely not. It isn't glorifying the actions at all. It isn't talking about how smart and brave Cousteau is for doing it. We see it to try and figure out this new kind of life we've never discovered before. Is it goofy to observe it in this deadly way? Yeah. But it's incredibly intriguing.

"Le monde du silence" is a great film. It's completely enrapturing and cool. The underwater scooters are still cool. They should show this on Shark Week, but I doubt it would get used because it isn't about Alien Sharks or Zombie Sharks which, yes, are both real programs.

The Burmese Harp (Kon Ichikawa, 1956) 10/10

In the Second World War's closing days, a conscience-weary Japanese soldier and harpist fails to get his countrymen to surrender to the peaceful British troops who simply want to tell them that the war is over; the soldier takes advantage of a tragedy to restart his life as a Buddhist monk.

First off, before I start, I have to say that I'd never have guessed this was the same director of "Fire on the Plains" if I knew nothing of the film before starting. They're so antithetical to one another.

Throughout "The Burmese Harp," we get treated to a front-row viewing of a phoenix and his rebirth. Shôji Yasui's quiet, devastating work as our lead is the biggest reward here. He's a man driven by morals, and, as this doesn't work out with his fellow soldiers, we come to side with him only more. Our sympathies lie in one place - with Mizushima. And how could they not? The man goes through hell. His spiritual rebirth is a magical, vicarious catharsis for the audience. It speaks to ours souls. It spoke to mine in a way few films have and do. Kon Ichikawa crafts with film with dexterity and emotional smarts. And to know that this story was originally a children's book. Not only is it very heavy material, the film's far more complex than you'd expect it to be with this base material.

And this is a war film unlike any other. In that it's only tangibly about the war itself and it focuses on the faith people lose and gain during these perilous times. What makes the film truly meaningful and beautiful is that, despite the awful conditions happening in the film, its always a little optimistic. There are disheartening moments of sadness and hair-raising moments of joy. That, for me, was an incredibly unique experience. This film is highly original and beautiful. It rises from the depths with a sense of uplifting that I've never seen elsewhere.

The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous and, as you'd expect from a film about music, the score is miraculous and beautiful. It's music to tremble by and music by cry by and music by smile by. The film has so many obvious merits to it. It's an easy candidate for a masterpiece. "The Burmese Harp" is truly one of the best films put to celluloid.

Giant (George Stevens, 1956) 8/10

"Giant" is a three-generation-spanning epic about a Texas cattle rancher, his wife, his associates, and the vices that consume them all. Full disclosure: I was not expecting to like this film very much. I find George Stevens is arguably the most heavy-handed prestige director of Old Hollywood and is usually his own worst enemy when it comes to his films. But this heavy-handedness comes in handy for "Giant." For nearly four hours, Stevens trades his strict fumblings in for grandeur and melodrama. There are times where I questioned whether or not I was watching a film by George Cukor.

There are great sequences in this film that blew me away. William C. Mellor's cinematography is breathtaking. The shot of Jett, played by James Dean, looking out on the land atop his own, handcrafted windmill is the American Dream in a single shot. It's just a shame that Dean's performance is so bad. Yes, he looks good reclining in his car, Stetson drooped slightly over his brooding face, but, as I've come to find out seeing his three features over the past month, Dean wasn't really a good actor apart from being a handsome brooder. Dean is especially bad once the old-age makeup comes in. And, before I continue, this has to be the most preposterous old-age makeup I've ever seen. Elizabeth Taylor has a platinum silver wig for most of the end, and it's hilarious. Back to Dean, though - I know Nick Adams did some dubbing, but, honestly, I didn't really notice it, so, for me, that easy excuse is gone. Dean can't play drunk well, and, as anyone who has listened to an actor talk before knows, drunk is the hardest thing to play well on screen or stage.

Luckily, he's the worst part of the film and he isn't in it for too much. Instead, we focus on Bick and Leslie, played by Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor, and they're the heart and soul of the film. Mercedes McCambridge appears briefly in the first act (and somehow earning an Oscar nod for it) playing Hudson's gruff ranchhand sister. Her role is more or less tertiary and more necessary simply to give way to Luz II. I'd have to say that this is Taylor's greatest performance at this point in her career. It's the first time I've seen her as a real, serious actress with talent to boot. Many would say "A Place in the Sun" is that film, but this was the first time I was truly wowed by her. And Hudson is solid too. He also broods like Dean but gets good lines to go along with it.

I also wasn't expecting the film to be as progressive as it was. Granted, the themes on Mexican-American relations and racism are a bit obvious (there's a white goat and a dark-colored goat by a cradle that has a white baby and a biracial baby. Get it, guys?), but they come off well because, by this point, the sense of grandeur has completely swept us up and it all feels perfectly normal.

"Giant" is not a film that tries to fool you. It's a four-hour-long film named "Giant," for God's sake. It knows it's big and it flaunts it, but it wears it well. I was preparing for a slog, but found those four hours flying by. A great epic of the American West (or, if you're a Texan reading this, I mean Texas and Texas only).

The Ten Commandments (Cecil B. DeMille, 1956) 6/10

The story of Moses and how he was raised royally and liberated his people after finding out his true identity. The annual Easter classic gets its first viewing by me since I was a child. It's a preposterous film in almost every way, but it's a gorgeously preposterous film.

The effects still hold up today. The film's iconic "parting of the Red Sea" scene actually looks the most dated of all the effects. The rivers turning to blood is a great sequence and, even in the smaller scenes of the sea parting, it looks convincing and great.

But the film is more than its effects. It's spectacle. It's Cecil B. DeMille doing the only thing Cecil B. DeMille knows how to do. It's one of the most over-the-top films I've seen in terms of budget. The fact that it made an incredible profit off of how much they spent frazzles me. All the costumes and sets look really nice if a bit too clean. And speaking of outfits, how about that blue dress Anne Baxter wears. Oh, boy. Anne Baxter's smokin' hot in it.

Which is also a bad thing because Baxter's performance is atrocious in the best way. It's a camp classic performance in a film that's not aiming for camp. But she's easily the most memorable part of the film (to me) for this. Charlton Heston is pretty bland as always, hired for his jawline and gruff exterior. The film has one, count it, one impressive performance and that's in Yul Brynner whose Ramesses is a nasty, wonderful villain. And Brynner seems to be the only actor really into it. Either that or he is just perfectly cast.

But why worry on the cast when that's the least of the reasons you see a three-and-a-half-hour epic? It doesn't get boring and makes excellent use of color and design. "The Ten Commandments" is ridiculous, but I can't help but like it.

The Spanish Gardener (Philip Leacock, 1956) 7/10

After his wife leaves him, a British diplomat takes up a lowly new post in Spain accompanied by his son who forms a relationship with their gardener of whom his father is displeased. Once you get past Dirk Bogarde looking and sounding like the least Spanish person ever, "The Spanish Gardener" is actually a nice little film grounded by a great cast and little thrills.

And even though Bogarde certainly doesn't look or sound the part, he gives a good performance. He exceeds in the role through charm and nearly charm alone. His bigger dramatic scenes are good enough, but he's at his most magical when he's flashing a handsome smile and playing with our protagonist. And I was kind of floored to see Jon Whiteley, who was nearly intolerable in "Moonfleet" the year before, give a good performance here. Granted, I think about a third of his dialogue is screaming out, "José! José!," and that gets grating really quick, but he's impressive in his smaller scenes, especially the ones opposite his father.

And speaking of the father character, that's the whole reason to see the film. Shakespearean titan Michael Hordern gives an absolutely, undeniably great performance. It's this performance here that I was expecting out of Ralph Richardson in "The Heiress." Hordern's stern disapproval and stiff upper lip are played to perfection by Hordern. You really don't doubt why his child starts to resent him. While the screenplay certainly wants to emphasize his being overprotective and, frankly, lame, Hordern gives us a performance to really dig in deep and see why he's doing what he's doing. He makes a one-sided character complex through his cadences and body language. It's a marvelous performance.

"The Spanish Gardener" is pretty solid. It's a bigger thrill than you'd expect with the last thirty-or-so minutes being a parade of tension. It's a really good film that deserves to be shown the light of day.

REWATCH: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Don Siegel, 1956) 10/10

A small-town doctor discovers that the population of his sleepy community is slowly being replaced by emotionless alien doubles. Cold War paranoia's greatest by-product. "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is a hit. It's a masterpiece in science fiction and social critique. Your neighbor could be an alien, but, man, what if they were a pinko commie? You'd be done for!

Every so often in filmdom, a great question arises: what is a masterpiece of cinema whose cast/performances aren't really exemplary. This is usually my answer. Kevin McCarthy is mostly good as is the rest of the cast, but they never really wow me. But, then again, I could be very wrong because their '50s Mayberry attitudes are tonally perfect. One of the most crucial parts of the film is its setting. This movie would never work in a big city. Big city folk are already stereotypically terse and liberal. But when small-town, conservative America gets attacked, that's when you know things have gone to Hell quickly.

It would be easy to call this propaganda, but it's too smart to be that. Don Siegel creates a timeless tale through his excellent direction and command over the film. It's a vast improvement over "Riot in Cell Block 11" and shows a lot of the brilliance he would flash in 15 years with Clint Eastwood. "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is a truly great film. It's a masterpiece in genre, mood, and the culture of the time.

Somebody Up There Likes Me (Robert Wise, 1956) 6/10

A young man on his way to becoming a career criminal finds boxing as a way to make quick money not realizing how good he is at it. This Rocky Graziano biopic is interesting because it's a bit messy. First off, it's worth noting that Paul Newman is one of my most favorite actors. But, here, he's a real shame. Firstly, his attempts at being Italian are laughable though at least not super racist. I was waiting for him to touch his fingers to his thumbs, shake his hands around, and and-a speak-a like-a diss. Once we get past this, he's alright. I don't think he had the right director behind him here. I generally like Robert Wise, but I think the film might've been a bit too lighthearted for him. He's talented at getting men like John Garfield to do great work. Newman's not quite there with Wise behind him. Pier Angeli, who plays his wife, is actually very good in something I didn't expect. I haven't been too big on Angeli in the few films I've seen her in before, but she's the soul of the film. Both Rocky and we, the audience, seek her out for comfort. And her warm performance makes this all work.

"Somebody Up There Likes Me" (and, every time I see it, I have to sing it in my head like Bowie did off "Young Americans") is good. It's better than a standard biopic. It looks good too; the production values and design were way better than I could've imagined. I wish this took a grittier approach instead of taking the underdog-biopic approach. It would've made this a bona fide classic possibly. But, what we have instead, is good nonetheless.

REWATCH: Bigger Than Life (Nicholas Ray, 1956) 10/10

After developing a rare arterial condition, a modest schoolteacher begins taking a miracle drug only to become dependent and, eventually fully addicted to it. Nick Ray's second-best film is just as great as the first time I saw it. It contains that heightened sense of Sirkian melodrama that he couldn't quite get right in "Rebel Without a Cause." This could also just be because he has a far superior James to work with. James Mason gives, probably, one of the ten or fifteen best male performances of all-time in "Bigger Than Life." I'm pretty sure the title references his performance. Mason's early scenes, stolid and complacent, only make his brutal ending scenes all the more harrowing. Near the end, he locks his wife, played by Barbara Rush, in the closet. This sequence, and the bit that follows it, are hair-raising. It's a chilling portrait of addiction and disorder. It's even better to see him descend into alcoholism in "A Star Is Born" and then watch this after because it shows you just how great Mason is. The man played addicted well but never the same way. He's smart enough to show that addiction is something an individual suffers and no two cases are the same.

Not including "Far from Heaven" or "Ali: Fear Eats the Soul," which are direct homages, this is probably the most Sirkian film there is that Douglas himself didn't work on. Godard called this one of the ten best American films of the sound era. I don't agree with him in that assessment, but ten is such a small number. Increase it to 100 and I may agree. "Bigger Than Life" is stunning. A brutal, hard-to-watch film that punches you in the gut whether you've experienced or seen addiction firsthand or not. A masterpiece.

High Society (Charles Walters, 1956) 4/10

After a very public divorce in her past seems to be behind her, a socialite is reapproached by her ex-husband before her second wedding is about to take place. "High Society" is not good. The only thing I thought while watching this was how much I would rather be watching "The Philadelphia Story." Musical adaptations are supposed to add something new to a previously-told story, and "High Society" certainly doesn't. It adds songs that are already explained through the fantastic dialogue of the original film. And while there are a few good numbers ("Well Did You Evah?" which, as everyone knows, is best performed by Debbie Harry and Iggy Pop), none of them really feel justified at all in the way that, say, we learn more about characters and usher the story along. The whole film is an excuse to get Bing, Frank, and Louis to be together. And none of them are really too good. They're all serviceable at best. They do, quite literally, everything you'd expect them to do. Bing acting charming and sings with a silky voice, Frank acts charming and sings with a silky voice, and Louis sits there acting like a caricature of himself. He doesn't do a whole lot other than go "bop bop a beepadoo" and play the trumpet and spout of some one-liners. Not even the radiant Grace Kelly saves this. She seems odd as Tracy. She doesn't have the neuroses that Kate Hepburn so memorably instilled in her. So, in this huge star vehicle, it's funny that the best performance belongs to Celeste Holm who's as solid as ever. She gets to be sassy and wry. Her character work is deeper than the lead work.

Also, can we talk about how creepy this film is? Crosby was 53, Sinatra was 41, and Kelly was 27. If we go by the half-your-age-plus-seven rule for dating, Crosby fails miserably and Sinatra fails by 6 months. She's so young and being pawed at by these old, honestly gross guys. I know this is what Hollywood did forever, but I don't ever recall it being so obvious - maybe back when John Barrymore was on his last legs as a leading man, but still...

Nothing in "High Society" makes you wish you were watching it instead of "The Philadelphia Story." Unless you love Bing, Frank, Louis, or Grace, there's no real reason to see this. It's not a terribly offensive, what-the-hell remake of a classic, but it's certainly no good.

REWATCH: Bob le flambeur (Jean-Pierre Melville, 1956) 9/10

An ex-bank robber and longtime gambler plans a huge heist at a casino. "Bob le flambeur" is an impressive feat in starting the French New Waves before it even knew it existed. What director Jean-Pierre Melville gets at, with his themes of searching for redemption and losing one's way, is a heavy bit of intensive, smart filmmaking.

My only complaint with the film is that it takes about 25 minutes to really pick up. This first act isn't really boring, but it's a little tedious with its set-up. I appreciate Melville taking his time to set the speed, but I wish it were a little cleaner and smoother.

But after these minutes, the film is fascinating until the end. Roger Duchesne gives a splendid performance as our title Bob. Duchesne is the heart of the film. While we slowly weave through menacing clouds of smoke that line the walls of the casino and the lungs of its prisoners, Duchesne's steely confidence and matter-of-factness oozes an unworldly kind of cool that would later be more associated with men like Alain Delon and Jean-Paul Belmondo; Duchesne does this at a certain age, though, while the other two have handsome, youthful features to help them. Duchesne's reptilian eyes cast a trance over the film.

The film is mercilessly edited and nearly impossible to take your eyes off of. "Bob le flambeur" is great. At this point, it was Melville's best film to date. His chic sense of style and cool pervade the film and seem like a trial run for "Le Samouraï." But what a trial it is!

Aparajito (Satyajit Ray, 1956) 7/10

As Apu heads to college on a scholarship, is mother is and torn between wanting him to be successful and not wanting him to leave her alone. I'm going to be incredibly alone in this, but I believe the second part of the Apu trilogy is better than the first. Where "Pather Panchali" is pure misery porn at points and flaunts its poorness in our faces, "Aparajito" looks a little more at the family in a way I wish the first film had.

Both actors who play young adult and young Apu are good. If this weren't a film, it would be entirely believable that it was the same kid grown up. But Apu isn't even close to the best part of the film. We spend a bit too much time with him, I think. The best part of the film, much like the first film, is Karuna Banerjee who plays Apu's mother. Banerjee's performance here is absolutely wonderful. There's a massive sense of loss and pride in her character. We see her struggle with her demons, her fears, her joys. And all this emotional wrestling looks beautiful on Banerjee's face. She guides us through this journey, and what becomes of her is unforgettable. It's the film's crux, and Satyajit Ray captures this splendidly. I was welling up. The cinemagic worked.

And as we keep traveling through Apu's journey, we stick with one particular image: the train, the sense of modernity and being flung into the present from the first film. It's used to all its best potential here.

But we spend too much time with Apu, and I wasn't truly impressed with the movie enough to call it "a great movie." "Aparajito" is really good though. I'm interested to see whether it'll be the peak of the trilogy (like "Samurai II" or "The Two Towers" (I know, I know...)) or whether it'll only get better.

Lust for Life (Vincente Minnelli, 1956) 5/10

The tortured life of Vincent van Gogh plays out in this film as he tries to find success and happiness. A reviewer I like named Andrew Willis had the following thing to say about Oscar bait roles:

"These roles are:
Mentally or physically handicap
The struggling artist
Europeans
Characters who must overcome insurmountable odds
Characters based on real people
And so forth...

Any one of these gives you a leg up in the competition. Combine these tropes to increase your odds. This year we have Collin [sic] Firth playing the will-be King of England who happens to have a speech impediment, and will be taking over as king as Hitlers army's begin their attempt to take over the world."

He's far from wrong, and this film is full of it. "Lust for Life" is interesting in the way that director Vincente Minnelli and his crew attempt to make everything look like a van Gogh painting. And they succeed at this. It's a very pretty film. When the film fades from painting to real location, it's very beautiful if a little overdone. Sometimes, though, it's overdone by the music which shows no signs of subtlety anywhere with it growing bafflingly loud and dramatic during every moment of high drama.

But "Lust for Life" didn't hold my attention very much. I watched the whole thing, but it wasn't super captivating. There are better films about tortured souls and struggling geniuses. And while the film certainly looks and tries to be progressive, it still feels very Hollywood and, what's the word? Musty, maybe? But, as Willis puts it perfectly, "These 50's [sic] MGM color roadshow attractions is that they were made to appeal to the largest audience possible. You couldn't really show the grime and filth and debauchery that was prevalent during the days of Van Gogh. Especially in Europe and even more so in Paris."

Van Gogh's taking upon himself to be a martyr for any cause is actually many can relate to in different ways. I, myself, usually put other people's needs before mine and then wonder why I can't get things together sometimes. I totally get what Vincent's going for here. I'm also glad we get to realize that he was never a prodigy.

As for Kirk Douglas, many say this is his best work, but I'm going to categorically say no to that. A) "Ace in the Hole" is his best work. B) his performance here is very off-kilter. He's doing really solid dramatic work in one scene and then hamming it up in the next. And this isn't to illustrate van Gogh's moodiness and problems. It could be him trying to stay on-par with Anthony Quinn who belongs in a different film entirely. Quinn's larger-than-life performance, for which he won the Oscar, is really odd. It's like he finished watching a soap opera or a Shakespearean drama before he did his scenes for the day. He eats the scenery, chews it up, swallows it, and then vomits it onto the screen to be shot. I honestly got tired of him pretty quickly, and I generally like Quinn.

"Lust for Life" is a mess. I was hoping Vincente Minnelli would be able to pull this off; he seems like the right guy for a van Gogh biopic after all. But it's all over the place. I didn't hate it. I think it's watchable, but I will not rush back to see this any time soon.

Autumn Leaves (Robert Aldrich, 1956) 9/10

An aging spinster falls in love with a younger man whose severe mental illness causes her to make an important decision in the relationship. While it's simply named so to capitalize off the success of the song of the same name which plays over the opening credits, "Autumn Leaves" is an absolutely marvelous surprise. I've always been a fan of Joan Crawford; I think she's a terribly underrated actress who gets swept away because she wasn't her rival Bette Davis and because she did a lot of melodramatic soaps. But nobody played better soap than La Crawford. "Autumn Leaves" is one of the best May/December romances put to the screen.

I'd actually dare say this is Crawford's best performance. I felt more emotionally connected to and invested in her Millie than in any of her other more famous characters. Crawford's face is on full patrol ranging from devastated to overjoyed in believable fashions. Her scenes alone, where she talks about being alone, are brutal. Crawford is superb and especially so opposite Cliff Robertson who should really, really be given a lot of credit for this film's success too. When I heard Robert Aldrich directed Joan Crawford in a May/December romance about a young man with a severe mental illness, I honestly expected it to unintentionally be along the lines of "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" more than "Tender Is the Night." The film actually takes a smart, sensitive, expert approach to the illness. Robertson isn't just screaming and flailing about like a madman. He has a problem he cannot help. And Robertson plays this believably (within the context of soap, of course). These two stars are at the top of their craft here.

And Aldrich shoots and directs and controls this film with a great sense of emotion and empathy. The story never becomes unbelievable. I find myself talking about believability a lot in this review, but I think it's because this film is unbelievably great. "Autumn Leaves" is undoubtedly amazing. An absolute home run of a film.

The King and I (Walter Lang, 1956) 8/10

A widowed schoolteacher and her son move to Bangkok as she is contracted to teach the royal family's children. To be perfectly honest, I was expecting this to be a mess, but "The King and I" gets everything right. Some people I know say I'm too critical of musicals; I say that musicals are hard to do, and in an era where musicals came out every other weekend, it seems, there are bound to be more mediocre to bad than good.

"The King and I" succeeds largely in two major aspects: everything in front of the camera and everything behind. I don't think I've ever seen such a pretty musical at this point in film. The sets and costumes are perfect. They're eye-catching and add to the sense of what we're viewing. They aren't detracting or just another costume for our leading lady to be in for production value's sake.

And while Deborah Kerr is mostly very good in an undemanding role, it's Yul Brynner who steals the film, and our hearts, away. I wasn't sure what to make of Brynner going in. I was expecting something slightly racist and insulting. But Brynner takes the dialogue, his accent, and his simplistic lines and turns King Mongkut into a marvelous creation. I've never been very impressed by Brynner as an actor, so to see him here with such a command over the screen and our attentions blew me aback.

What also took me by major surprise was the "Little House of Uncle Tom" sequence. After "An American in Paris," it seemed like every musical was contractually-obligated to throw in an unnecessary, overlong ballet sequence ("Oklahoma!"s is the wooooorst), so I was very pleased to see how well this Asian-inspired retelling of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" went over. It shows a merging of the two cultures clashing at the heart of the film and makes for an entertaining viewing in its own right.

"The King and I" is a great film. It's a musical I need to see again soon. It's probably Rodgers & Hammerstein's best work together. And, as I always do whenever I see this movie referenced, I'll have "Getting to Know You" stuck in my head for a week.

The Killing (Stanley Kubrick, 1956) 7/10

A group of ex-prisoners plan to rob a racetrack to set them up with enough money for life. "The Killing" is the first actually good movie Stanley Kubrick made. I don't find as much brilliance in it as his most loyal fans do, but I think it's a solid, entertaining film that feels a bit more light than most typical films noir.

The cast is really impressive, though, led by Sterling Hayden who's as reliable as always in the genre. The performance that gets the most attention here is Marie Windsor's as a double-crossing, spurned, cat-eyed wife, but I have to say that Elisha Cook, Jr.'s performance is the one that really caught my attention. His meek booth attendant is such a 180 from what he did in "The Maltese Falcon" and other tough guy roles he had that I couldn't really wrap my head around if this was really the same guy. It's a smart, excellent bit of work by Cook. I found myself drawn mostly to his story because of how he sucked me into the plot.

And the film's heist scene is as good as I'd hoped. I think the ideas that went into it were original too. It's more than "I'm going to distract the cops by running and you rob the place." There's horse assassination, bar fights, and more. It's nutty as it's supposed to be.

And everyone has to talk about the ending because what an ending. I feel like the film was built around the ending more than it was leading to it. The shots of the money flying everywhere is gut-wrenching and also tickled my justice bone.

I don't think it's a great film though, and I'm not sure Kubrick made a truly great film until "Dr. Strangelove," but I could be underestimating my viewing of "Paths of Glory" from, like, 8 years ago. "The Killing" is solid though. Is it one of the best films noir? Absolutely not. Is it riveting? Oh, you bet.

Pattern (Fielder Cook, 1956) 7/10

A top business executive begins grooming a man to become his right-hand man though the man becomes uncomfortable after seeing what may happen to the current number two man if he's forced out. "Patterns" is everything I wanted "Executive Suite" to be. All it takes is a more solid screenplay and a tighter, more focused cast. The ever-reliable Van Heflin is good as our lead and Everett Sloane is really good as a wicked, nasty exec, but it's Ed Begley who really steals the film away from the two. Begley plays the more-or-less betrayed second banana in the company. I've always liked Begley; he's one of the most welcome character actors in a film for me - whenever I see him pop up in a small role, I know I can count on it being solid. I like him a lot in both "12 Angry Men" and "Sweet Bird of Youth," but I'm not sure either outclasses his work here. Begley's wide range is navigating with precision and displayed with an amazing sense of control. It would be so easy to yell your was through this role, but Begley plays him as a small and scared man. The scene where he avoids his son coming to pick him up at the office slayed me.

And while Begley's excellent performance is what I took away most from the film, I was reminded, after a few years away from "The Twilight Zone," just how brilliant a screenwriter Rod Serling is. I need to go see the televised version of this because it may be more his medium. Serling's story is an excellent and biting look at corporate life as it started pervading and becoming the iconography of the American workplace. Serling's savviness to current culture and the near future are what make him so memorable.

"Patterns" is a really good film with a solid cast. We get not only Begley, Sloane, and Heflin but a young Beatrice Straight who is always wonderful. Rod Serling's tale of clawing for control still sizzles today.

The Beyond (Lucio Fulci, 1981) 10/10

After a series of strange occurrences, a young woman learns that the dilapidated hotel she inherited in New Orleans was built on one of the seven entrances to Hell. Oh, baby, this is just what I needed. After a friend would not stop singing the score to this song all night, I decided I finally needed to see the film to effectively get it out of my head.

Only it cemented it there instead of cleansing it out.

"The Beyond" shows giallo master Lucio Fulci's immense talent on display. It's probably his best film, at least from what I've seen. Maybe it's my love affair with New Orleans, maybe it's the tasteful, amazing gore; I don't know what it is, but "The Beyond" is truly amazing and one of the finest examples of work in the genre. It's finally with this film that I am able to look past the acting in gialli. Here, the acting (bad by most standards) adapts to the bleakness and camp of it all to make for an unforgettable trip. Catriona MacColl is as good a leading lady in horror as you could find for Fulci.

Oh, and the gore, the gore! There's enough blood, bone, acid, and eyeball torture for me to be happy forever. It's brutal, it's beautiful. The aesthetics are turned up on high and never stop. The sequence in which a young girl is stuck in a room flooding with the acidic, frothing blood of her parents if exactly the kind of amazing, horrifying stuff I love.

"The Beyond" is a masterpiece in horror. It's not quite "Halloween" or "Suspiria" or "Rosemary's Baby," but it's an intense exercise in style and fear. It's like the Crossfit of those things.

Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (Fred F. Sears, 1956) 5/10

Aliens start to destroy Earth targets after a miscommunication as they suck the knowledge out of military brains, and start threatening to take many, many lives. "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" isn't really very good as you'd expect. Nothing is particularly engaging and it seems to care far less about the scientific aspects of everything than its predecessors and contemporaries in the genre did.

The reason I watched this, as I assume most others did, was for the Harryhausen effects which are really stellar. It's some of his best and most seamless work. The jerkiness to Harryhausen's effects is something people either love or hate. I'm in the love camp. It creates a nice aesthetic that feels appropriate for the filmmaking of the time. So when these UFOs spin perfectly and look swell, I was pleasantly shocked.

But I don't have much to say here other than, "The effects were good." The film could've used some star power, a better script, and some lines that could maybe be considered liberally memorable though.

...And God Created Woman (Roger Vadim, 1956) 5/10

The only man whom a young, hypersexual woman likes fears extending their relationship to something larger because his friends and family don't want him marrying the town tramp. "And God Created Woman" gave us Brigitte Bardot which I can't be mad for, but the film itself isn't too good. You can tell Roger Vadim had a future (and present) as a playboy because this whole film is his wet dream. Bardot steams up the screen looking nothing like we know her now to look like. Well, save for the nude silhouettes.

Bardot was always a better actress than most gave her credit for and her performance here is good enough. She's strong and sexy in roles Hollywood never knew until the '70s. She's every bit of sexual dynamite that you'd expect.

But, really, apart from Bardot's blossoming sex kitten image, the film doesn't really do much for me. The men vying for her aren't really too interesting, the family drama behind Antoine marrying the town's local gutter trollop, and Juliette's guardian being harsh on her are all pointless because the film doesn't really seem to care about them. It's a voyeuristic film whose sole purpose is to photograph Bardot and turn her into a brand. And it worked. But the film fails to be anything other than a full-page spread in Elle. It wants to talk about the double standards women face, but Vadim isn't enough of an auteur or, actually, a storyteller to really get the job done.

"And God Created Brigitte Bardot" is a more apt title.

The Court Jester (Norman Panama, Melvin Frank, 1956) 8/10

A court jester in 11th-century England becomes involved with a group of ragtag rebels who plan to overthrow a tyrannical king and return an infant, the rightful heir, to the throne. So far, from what I've seen him in, I'm really hit or miss with Danny Kaye. I find him to be either pretty solid ("Walter Mitty") or pretty annoying ("Wonder Man"). But "The Court Jester" is far and away a great movie.

The movie plays on the themes and tropes that have pervaded years and years of retellings of Robin Hood and Ivanhoe adaptations. In that, it's a clever parody and one the creators obviously know well and have a grand affection for.

Kaye himself is a total riot as he showcases excellence in physical acting and wordplay. Kudos to the cast and especially the writers for giving us the confusing, memorable "vessel/pestle, brew/true, flagon/dragon" sequence. It's got to be some of the best comedy of its kind. The swordplay is nice, the knight training montage is hilarious, and, overall, this is just a very funny film. Everything looks good too as far as aesthetics are concerned.

I think the film would actually have worked much better if it weren't a musical though. The numbers detract from the story and throw us out of the drama of it all. It's this jarring impact that keeps the film from what could've been its full potential. Apart from the cheeky, meta opening credits number, the other musical sequences are fairly dry.

But it's easy to forgive when you have Kaye and a wickedly fun Mildred Natwick bantering about. "The Court Jester" is a great movie. It should probably be a bit more well-known than it is, but this is a hidden film I'd love to spread to others looking for a laugh.

Ghostbusters (Paul Feig, 2016) 7/10

After being laughed out of academia, a woman reunites with her former cohort and two new friends to try and prove the existence of the paranormal. Possibly the most polarizing film of all-time before it even came out is delightfully entertaining and fun but not without its problems.

The fan service in the film lays it on a little thick at points. Things like an appearance by Stay Puft are welcome and fun but things like making Slimer basically a supporting character are made simply to appease with no real value coming out of them at all. It's like the film was made simply to please these, for lack of a better term, meninist fanboys who gave the film a 1/10 as soon as the IMDb page became available. And yet, these bits of service are the worst part of the film. I mean, they even mention Reddit for God's sake.

But almost everything else is spot-on. The chemistry between our four leads is fantastic. McCarthy, Jones, Wiig, and McKinnon are all great in their own rights. None of them steal the show from any other castmate as this is truly an ensemble feature. But that's only the four of them because the greatest thing this picture gave us was Chris Hemsworth's performance as the dimwitted secretary Kevin. Hemsworth's comedic timing is absolutely unreal here. Everything he does feels like it's out of a Zucker or Brooks picture. He plays dumb so unbelievably well. That and he'll add a point to anyone's Kinsey scale. Like, I'd say Hemsworth is worthy of awards for this. Like major awards. If Melissa McCarthy can undeservedly get nominated for "Bridesmaids," this should be a no-brainer for consideration.

And the film does play around with the controversy behind the film a bit. The way they defeat the villain at the end is a pretty obvious indication of this. But I think it's fun that the writers got to jab back.

"Ghostbusters" is really good. It's not great, and I honestly think it's just as fine as the original film. Anyone saying that this "ruins their childhood" is being childish and clinging to nostalgia. They'll deny this as they play Pokémon Go in front of you too. This is a good movie. It's one I'd like to see again soon too. If you like Feig, you'll like this; if you dislike Feig, you'll dislike this. If ever there were a movie you really had to see to judge, this would be the one.

Seven Men from Now (Budd Boetticher, 1956) 6/10

A former sheriff is ousted from office and widowed after a bank robbery gone wrong as he spends the rest of his life searching for the remaining killers.

I never get as much out of Randolph Scott as most western fans do. I'll take Clint Eastwood or, here, supporting player Lee Marvin most every time. Scott, to me, feels like a TV version of John Wayne. And he's not much of an actor, sadly. Scott is shown up by the rest of the small but effective cast. Marvin is expectedly good as our vicious, frowning villain and Gail Russell, an e'er-underused gem of an actress, is also solid as a couple Scott crosses paths with and sticks by.

I doubt the film would've worked as well without Boetticher behind the camera. Boetticher is noted for his eye for action, but I always like the way he shoots and directs interpersonal relationships. The interesting companionship between Scott and Russell is better than most male-female relationships in the genre which seem so forced and clumsy.

But the film never once gets boring. It's a really interesting movie. And maybe I'm not giving Scott the credit he deserves. The depth of his pain is portrayed really well here, especially at the beginning. The revenge is cold and sweet and maybe moreso on the part of Boetticher and the script. It does all this in a succinct 78 minutes which feels just long enough. "Seven Men from Now" is good enough without really ever wowing me. If anything, I think Marvin and Scott switching roles would've been primo.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by ksrymy »

Rebel Without a Cause (Nicholas Ray, 1955) 7/10

After moving to a new town, a rebellious, trouble teen makes friends with a disturbed classmate, falls for a nice, local girl, and gets in trouble deep with the local tough kids. Nicholas Ray moves away from the brutality of the Old West and moves it to suburbia in "Rebel Without a Cause." While the film isn't as successful as its predecessor (and not many films are), it still manages to be pretty good despite its big shortcomings.

Ray has good control over the melodrama here. It's like Sirk Lite, and rightfully so as this is focused on teens. He reflects the drama on the screen the way these young adults view their own lives: larger than life and love. The use of color is great with a not-so-subtle red jacket always loving to steal the spotlight. If you never understood that red is symbolic for passion in literature, this jacket is like a hammer to the head.

But for all the work Ray builds in the mise en scène, it's torn apart by the inexperienced, jolting cast. James Dean is rightfully iconic. He broods and broods and looks good while doing it, but if a scene requires more than acting tough, he really drops the ball. His screaming, "You're tearing me apart!" at the beginning of the film should be heartbreaking and helping us delving deep into the Jim Stark character, but it comes off as super phony. Maybe it's because that line has become so trite over time, but you'd be hard pressed to ever find that line in a real, true, genuine working fashion. And the "I got the bullets!" at the end is a really bad delivery in arguably the film's greatest moment. Sal Mineo actually gives a decent performance, but the problem is that his character, Plato, doesn't ever feel real. Every scene with him feels oddly out-of-place. And Natalie Wood, as always, doesn't seem to know how to act human. Her sobbing and sputtering in the opening scene is pretty awful; it's in the smaller moments of the film that she really manages to bring something of substance to Judy. Worthy of an Oscar nod? I think not. But, honestly, it's probably the best work she'd done up until this point in time.

"Rebel Without a Cause" is, what I assume, a unique take on growing up in the '50s. The existential angst that course throughout the film is obvious and ever-relevant. I think it's shy of being a great film because the three main characters don't mesh quite well. Still, it's a solid film because the director knows what he's doing.

Smiles of a Summer Night (Ingmar Bergman, 1955) 8/10

Bergman's most notable comedy winds its course around lovers switching partners for a summer night. It's the first film that brought Ingmar Begrman to the international stage. Oh, what I wouldn't give to see a few more like this and a few less angstfests against God not listening to the Swedes. To be fair, these angstfests are usually stellar, but I digress.

"Smiles of a Summer Night" is one of the most unusual films in Bergman's filmography. The laughs aren't outrageous and raucous, but they're plenty and easy to like. Had you asked me if Harriet Andersson could be so funny, I'd have scoffed. But Andersson steals the film with expert timing and, as always, a raw sensuality. Eva Dahlbeck is also magnificent as Desiree Armfeldt, the film's most famous creation. Bergman's women are always a step ahead of every other director's, it seems.

TIME Magazine chose this as one of the All-TIME Top 100 films over Bergman's better works, but it's not hard to see why this was their choice. It's unique and inspiring. It works incredibly well and has had great longevity through adaptations. It's a smart sex comedy that marks another great entry into Bergman's career.

REWATCH: Ordet (Carl Th. Dreyer, 1955) 10/10

The father of a good-hearted agnostic whose wife is pregnant, another who believes he is Jesus, and another son, in love with the tailor's daughter, gets caught in the complicated matrices of religion. Carl Th. Dreyer's "Ordet" is the greatest film about and centered around religion of all-time. There is no equal. "Ordet" is an outright masterpiece in every sense of the word. The film has a scathing, sweet, and smart script forcing us to fathom these different facets of religion. The film is rife with Dreyer's angst and anger; some say the ending subverts this tone throughout, but I wholly disagree - it reinforces it.

Henrik Malberg gives a stellar performance as the family patriarch at age 80. He's never frail and incredibly pensive. His stoicism reads deep instead of hollow. And Preben Lerdorff Rye's performance as the Christ figure, after studying Kierkegaard naturally, is mystifying. It's a magnetic turn - one that's almost impossible to look away from - and he carries the brunt of the film's message on his shoulders. It's a lofty task, but he does everything he needs to to make the film work. And where would this movie be without Birgitte Federspiel's performance as Inger? She's the heart and blood of the film. It's Inger for which we yearn and pray and hope. She's the most human of the bunch, so that's why we get so attached. She's magnificent.

Jonathan Rosenbaum said that the summits of mise en scène were Tati's "Play Time" and this film, "Ordet." It's hard to disagree with him. While Tati's sets in the 1967 film are used for play, delight, and confusion in the modern world, the mise en scène here is used to perfection, helping us feel lost, closed-in, and focused. The settings and especially the cinematography are absolutely masterful.

It's cliché to say "it's not a movie; it's an experience," but if I had to make that comment about any one film, this might be the one. "Ordet" is unlike any film I've ever seen or will see, probably. One of the brightest, most brilliant threads in cinema's fabled tapestry.

REWATCH: Night and Fog (Alain Resnais, 1955) 10/10

This documentary, set ten years after the Second World War, depicts the problems of Auschwitz with shocking images from the concentration camps. I'm not sure why I watched this again. I knew full well going in that I would be a wreck after seeing it. "It couldn't have been that bad, right?" I said to myself going in. I must've been overreacting.

I was not.

"Night and Fog" is probably the best Holocaust movie ever. It's stark, startling, disturbing, and depressing. It's everything it needs to be and then some. The stark black-and-white footage from inside the camps contrasted with the colorful shots of Auschwitz nowadays is obvious in concept, but it plays on our most basic emotions so hard that it's impossible to deny. It's an excellent stylistic choice. I've always thought Resnais was a great director, but this may be his masterpiece (on another day, I may say "Last Year at Marienbad" though). The film is short, sweet, and very, very to-the-point. The scene with the women's hair is one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen and will see again. There's no way I can't revisit this film every so often. No narrative Holocaust film that I've seen has done the tragedy justice like "Night and Fog" has. It's literally gut-wrenching. If I could only select one documentary to ever be shown again, I may very well pick this one.

Death of a Cyclist (J. A. Bardem, 1955) 9/10

A university professor having an affair strikes a bicyclist with his car and doesn't offer any help out of fear of his illicit relationship with a housewife, also present, being exposed. This movie really took me aback. I am not sure exactly why I sought this film out. I hadn't heard of anything by J. A. Bardem before going into the film. Maybe I just wanted a solid thriller. All I know is that I got something truly awesome.

"Death of a Cyclist" is Hitchcock by way of Buñuel, and I'm not saying that just because it's a Spanish production. It has all the thrills we'd expect from the Master of Suspense but with the social critiques Buñuel is so known for. Bardem damns the flighty attitudes of the rich with all the intensity of a T-bone wreck. Lucia Bosè is solid as the woman caught in the affair and the mess. Her eyes do most of the talking. And she's excellent opposite Alberto Closas whose nerve-wracking intensity really keeps the film on edge and on ice. It's unlike any Hitchcock leading men I can think of.

But the film's best surprise, in addition to its delicate, subtle set design, is Carlos Casaravilla as the housewife's friend who may or may not be onto them. His excellent performance is a more suave version of Donald Calthrop's character in Hitchcock's "Blackmail" but with more ambiguity. Casaravilla gets all the best lines; he's funny and he knows it. It still sticks within the tone of the film as the quips would fit right in in any society story. Casaravilla owns the film.

"Death of a Cyclist" is incredible. It's a film I'm super happy to have stumbled upon. It's another reminder that I need to delve into Spanish cinema outside of Buñuel and Erice.

Pete Kelly's Blues (Jack Webb, 1955) 6/10

The leader of a Depression-era Kansas City jazz band has to contend with a local gangster muscling in on his operations. "Pete Kelly's Blues" could've really been something. The film doesn't have much to say, but the story's engaging and never gets boring.

The major problem lies in Jack Webb. His direction is competent and he seems to know what he wants to do with the story, but, in all the hubbub of framing the story and performances, he seemingly forgets that he has to direct himself. I'm not sure if he's trying to make Kelly out to be a stoic hero or stonefaced in the face of danger, but something's not clicking. He blends in with the furniture which makes a majority of the film (since he is the main character and has significantly more screentime than anyone else) rather bland. So Webb's failure in the acting department makes the rest of the cast look good. They don't give great performances, but the film is much more exciting when they're around. Janet Leigh is pretty okay and comes especially alive in the final so-many minutes. Edmond O'Brien plays his usual character with not much else to really do. Peggy Lee is probably the best part of the film. She gets a few really good numbers ("Sugar" is fantastic) and her turn to the drink is sad to witness, but it's easy to see why Oscar nominated her: she's a big-name performer and manically clutches a doll while singing in an asylum. It's fifties as hell. Also, Lee Marvin pops in a few times and isn't half bad.

So "Pete Kelly's Blues" isn't bad. It's a pretty-looking film as well. The sets look sleazy yet refined. It reeks of the jazz era in the best way. And the cinematography is good too - the alleyway killing is framed and lit gorgeously in a Sirkian way. With a better lead and director, I'd say this could've been great easily.

Fear and Desire (Stanley Kubrick, 1955) 1/10

"There is war in this forest. Not a war that has been fought, or one that will be, but any war. And the enemies who struggle here do not exist, unless we call them into being. This forest, then, and all that happens now is outside history. Only the unchanging shapes of fear—and doubt—and death—are from our world. These soldiers that you see keep our language and our time, but have no other country but the mind."

This is how "Fear and Desire" starts: with a godawful metaphor. And not just a metaphor but an obvious metaphor. A condescending metaphor. Kubrick hated this film. It's obvious at this point to say that Kubrick's trying to destroy the film would've been great, but that statement isn't wrong. The dialogue fails to be as poetic as it thinks it is and it's not as artistic as it thinks it is either. And I've seen several Kubrick loyalists claiming that the film's failure is just the material Kubrick had to work with, but that's blind defending. Kubrick has no idea what he's doing here, and it shows. There are no flashes of his future brilliance. You'd hope never to see a movie by this guy again if you saw this first.

And the performances are awful. Paul Mazursky's performance should go down in the annals as one of the worst-ever. And maybe even worse than that is the narration, especially the narration of the paragraph I started this review with. It sounds more forced, unnatural, and ridiculous than something out of an MST3K film.

"Fear and Desire" might be the worst film ever made by a master-class director. It might be the worst film ever. At least things like "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and "The Touch of Satan" and "Snowbeast" are redeeming because they're goofy and campy. This is an abortion.

Killer's Kiss (Stanley Kubrick, 1955) 5/10

A welterweight finds himself caught in the midst of the relationship between his girlfriend and her violent employer. This is a huge step up from "Fear and Desire." We get to see flashes of Kubrick's brilliance to come in "Killer's Kiss."

To be fair, the first two-thirds of the film aren't really all that exciting. The boxing sequence is directed and edited well, but that's the climax of the doldrums of the film. The real reason to see the film is the incredible chase scene that occupies the last fifteen or twenty minutes of the film. We go across rooftops and end up in a factory full of mannequins. It's old hat now, but the way it's shot here makes it gripping and unforgettable. And even if the fight (which basically equals out to a samurai duel between a man with a fire axe and a man with anything he can get his hands on) is a bit goofy, it's still a load of fun to watch.

The performances aren't particularly good and the story isn't very investing. The sandwich/bookend style with the train station doesn't even seem too relevant. But I couldn't really care after seeing "Fear and Desire." This isn't a classic film noir by any means at all, but, man, it sure looks good next to its predecessor. Come for Kubrick, stay for the cinematography and the chase scene, leave moderately amused.

REWATCH: Kiss Me Deadly (Robert Aldrich, 1955) 8/10

After an attractive hitchhiker is tortured to death after he can't protect her, a hard-boiled private eye delves deep into who wanted her dead. I originally didn't like this movie. I remember not liking it because I remembered it being super misogynistic and poorly paced. I must have been drunk and/or stupid. While it is still misogynistic, the film flew by for me this time.

"Kiss Me Deadly" is solid, sleazy film noir. The opening image is of a beautiful woman running from an asylum in nothing but a trench coat; this sets the whole tone for the film. The camera work in this section alone is superb - the shot of Cloris Leachman, arms outstretched, with headlights coming fast is perfect. The film finds this balance of sleaze and artsy style to not only craft a stylish thriller but to symbolize our characters as well.

And the one thing that really keeps me from calling this a masterpiece or undeniably great are the performances and/or characters. Ralph Meeker is alright as Mike Hammer, but I'll be damned if Hammer isn't given much to do here. He kinds of drifts where the script tells him to go, does a scene, slaps a broad, beats a baddie, then goes somewhere else. It's a very dry lead. And as stoic and tough as Hammer is, you'd expect something more out of this. As for the women, Leachman is the most memorable part of the film for a reason. It's Gaby Rodgers though, as our covert villainess, who really makes the film rocky. She feels very amateurish compared to everyone else. It's like her entire knowledge of acting comes from repeated viewings of Stockard Channing's Betty Rizzo in "Grease."

But with that ending (that ending!), it's impossible to not reel in utter, catastrophic, symbolic delight. We were in the Cold War and we knew it. It feels a bit out of place, but it's chaotic and in-line with the film's tone. It works super well. "Kiss Me Deadly" is a real thrill.

A Murderer (Roman Polanski, 1957) 5/10

A trenchcoated man approaches a shirtless, sleeping man. And that's the whole thing. It's a two-minute student film made by Roman Polanski when he was 18. To be fair, it shows what talent it can and you can see Polanski is already toying with themes of vulnerability and the comfort of one's own home.

Is it good? Maybe. Is it bad? No. But it's only two minutes and I can't think of much else to talk about. It looks nice enough and is edited wonderfully.

It's a perfectly fine way to spend two minutes if you love the director like I do.

The Seven-Year Itch (Billy Wilder, 1955) 6/10

A man with an active imagination sends his wife and kid off on vacation for the summer and starts a teasing, awkward relationship with the beautiful blonde bombshell upstairs. "The Seven Year Itch" is definitely weaker Wilder. It doesn't have the consistency most Wilder comedies have as the jokes that stick are sparse. It's a very, very '50s film as well. Incredibly mismatched romantic duo? Check. CinemaScope for no good reason? Check. Based on a play from a few years earlier? Check. The list goes on.

I've never actually seen a film with Marilyn Monroe where she was the best thing about it, but "The Seven Year Itch" breaks that streak. Monroe's comic timing is impeccable. One critic I follow but mostly disagree with, Filmspotting's Josh Larsen, says that "Monroe’s timing is so perfect, it’s impossible to write the character off as a dimwit even though she seems barely aware of what room she’s in. There’s a particularly dexterous moment when The Girl demonstrates a toothpaste ad she’s the star of, and you can see Monroe working the various layers of allure – as Marilyn Monroe, as The Girl, as the toothpaste model – while being funny the whole time." I think Larsen really gets at what makes this performance work: it's Monroe making fun of her own image in a way. Today, people know Monroe as a sex symbol but also, apparently, as a genius with a massively high IQ (at least all the memes shared by trashy girls on Facebook say so, so...). Watching her toy around with this image is a treat.

But what keeps the film from really being good is Tom Ewell. The guy won a Tony for his work in the Broadway play, and I can see why. It's a lot of talking to one's self in a manic way. That works really well for theatre. For film, this performance does not translate well one bit. Any time Monroe isn't on screen, the film drags and grows old really quickly. Ewell isn't charming or sweet or endearing in any way. It's like watching an episode of "The Odd Couple" where only Felix Unger gets screentime - it doesn't work without the counterpart.

So "The Seven-Year Itch" remains good if only for Monroe's work. Chronologically, it's her best performance so far as an actress.

Guys and Dolls (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1955) 6/10

A New York gambler is challenged to take a cold female missionary to Havana, where they inevitably fall for each other, but the bet has a hidden financial motive to it. For it's two-and-a-half-hour runtime, "Guys and Dolls" mostly gets praise from me for never being boring. The characters are interesting enough though not compelling enough to lead a film of their own. It's an ensemble piece at heart.

And at the heart of the group, the film has about two-and-a-half characters worth anything. Frank Sinatra's Nathan Detroit is alright. The character himself isn't too special, but Sinatra plays him with a sense of suaveness and oiliness that works really well. Opposite him is Vivian Blaine who is the half-a-character worth anything. Blaine's numbers are pretty fantastic; I'd say they're all in the better half of the film's catalogue. However, Blaine can get pretty annoying at times with her mugging smile and infantile voice. It rings especially false during the film's regular sequences. But she's not nearly as bad as Marlon Brando who, in theory, is a perfect Sky Masterson but really blows the film apart as it chugs along. Brando's regular scenes are mostly good with the actor providing Masterson with a sleazy, misunderstood aura that makes you never doubt Sister Sarah would fall for him. However, his musical numbers are truly terrible. He relies on sprechgesang to get through the film, and it doesn't work one bit.

But then there's Jean Simmons who gets her own paragraph because she's absolutely radiant in this film. One wonders why she wasn't as big as the other actresses of her era. She sings beautifully, looks beautiful, and acts beautifully. She nails the frigidity of Sister Sarah, and her transition is an interesting one to behold. She doesn't go from ice queen to a lusty, slutty piece of meat like most movies do. She still retains all her initials characteristics only she learns to love. Sister Sarah's a surprisingly round, full-bodied character, and I was not expecting that one bit.

As for the production design, it's as fake as I've ever seen in a Hollywood musical. The kitschy pastels of everything is really detracting from anything happening in the foreground. This design works in scenes like the opening dance number and the dancing before "Luck Be a Lady," but it is very awkward any other time. The costumes are really nice though, I'll give them that. Costumes and sets are usually one-in-the-same in terms of quality, but that diversity here took me aback.

Mankiewicz gets a bit talky like normal, but he mostly avoids all the purple prose he's so keen on. "Guys and Dolls" is good. Does it deserve to be a well-remembered cornerstone of the genre? Probably not. Am I mad that is it? No. It's a fun musical that charges towards the end going full-blast the whole time. If Jean Simmons weren't in it, then I'd say we've got a big problem on our hands.

I'll Cry Tomorrow (Daniel Mann, 1955) 6/10

This biopic covers the life of film and stage star Lillian Roth who turns to alcohol after the death of a loved one and after years of her mother pushing her into a showbiz career. "I'll Cry Tomorrow" is '50s melodrama at its most melodramatic. Daniel Mann does okay guiding the film along. He never was a very good director, but he found his niche as a studio hack with an eye for sad women.

Our sad woman here is Susan Hayward who does pretty good work as Lillian Roth. Hayward has always been good at delivering dialogue, especially of the inflated variety, and she delivers her lines well here with enough emotion and reality behind them to sell the performance. One small thing that bothered me was that Hayward never seems at rest in the film. She's always moving and animated, and that doesn't really align with Roth's personality. It works when she has the DTs for what it's worth.

Maybe the most impressive work in the film comes from Jo Van Fleet as Katie, Roth's domineering stage mother. Van Fleet's cold, hard mother is a smart creation. Most stage moms on film are depicted as loud, brash, and bossy. Van Fleet takes a much better alternate route and makes her privately pushy. She tells her daughter exactly what to do without slaps and screaming. It's a more chilling path that makes her more monstrous. To have a grip on a child like that... Van Fleet's performance is wonderful.

The film ends on a cheesy though uplifting note. Hayward won the Actress award at Cannes for this. I can't get behind it as some of her best work, but I think, if anyone had to play this role, Hayward was the one. "I'll Cry Tomorrow" and its gloriously melodramatic title are good by me.

REWATCH: Se7en (David Fincher, 1995) 9/10

Two homicide detectives track down a serial killer using the seven deadly sins as his motivation. My wife had never seen the film (or had the ending spoiled for her somehow) and was curious to see it. A rewatch tonight has confirmed to me that this really is a great movie.

I think the only detractors to the film are Brad Pitt's performance which is wildly uneven even if Mills is written as fairly annoying. His "What's in the box?!" deliveries are pretty bad as are the "Oh, God!" lines and looks away he gives us while pointing his gun at Doe.

The only other grievance I have is that Fincher and Darius Khondji's incessant close-ups get really tiresome after a while. The film is shot superbly, but these close-ups of shirts being buttoned and other things seem really forced in at times.

But Morgan Freeman is excellent as always and keeps the film grounded and realistic. He wears hard-but-not-too-hard-boiled really well. His last scene opposite Gwyneth Paltrow is excellent mostly due to him. His exasperation is felt vividly. But while Freeman is good, Kevin Spacey is great. The movie is tense and interesting throughout, but the film turns absolutely electric once Spacey's John Doe enters the police station. And the car ride out to the powerline-ridden desert is some of the best writing the genre has ever seen. It's like a twisted, stomach-wrenching "On the Waterfront" car scene.

Yeah, the film feels a little brainless at times with all the literary references and cat-and-mouse which has become super tired since 1995 (and might have even been way tired by 1995 when the movie came out), but it feels so engrossing and great that you never think about it until the movie's over. "Se7en" is a fantastic film and one of Fincher's best still. It's a thriller, the likes of which we won't see again for a long time if ever. Often imitated, never replicated.

The Quatermass Xperiment (Val Guest, 1955) 6/10

After Earth loses contact with the passengers, a rocket crash lands to find that two of the occupants have vanished and the third begins to transform into a deadly creature. "The Quatermass Xperiment" is an exercise in interesting horror and sci-fi with Hammer showing signs of what was to come.

The practical effects and makeup are superb. It's some of the best work I've seen in the genre up to this point. Even if, at times, it's nothing more than a breathing blob, it's a realistic-looking breathing blob. It's better than Steve McQueen's titular Blob.

The film could've really been something too, but the acting is so poor that it's hard to get past sometimes. Margia Dale in particular is awful. She should gain all our sympathies as the suffering wife, but Dale is so wooden and irritating and ridiculous that it's hard to care about her at all. So goes the film's emotional core. That isn't to say it invokes no emotion because it's really thrilling, but thrills alone don't make for a good film. And having a tired old American like Brian Donlevy play a central part feels a bit goofy too. You can tell that he really doesn't care for this work at all.

"The Quatermass Xperiment" is sci-fi fun, but it also feels just as much like the radio drama you can tell it was and wanted to be. It's worth seeing for the effects alone, but it's disappointing overall.

The Rose Tattoo (Daniel Mann, 1955) 5/10

A grieving widow discovers a new romance after she finds out her now-deceased husband was cheating on her before he died. "The Rose Tattoo" is a messy film. On paper, it looks solid. Anna Magnani is perfectly cast as Serafina. I'm glad she won an Oscar even if it's for this role. She's one of the best actresses we've ever had the opportunity of watching. And even though "The Rose Tattoo" is an overly chatty, frankly boring melodrama, Magnani makes it tolerable. She grief is always deeply felt. She had a way with sadness that most never did.

As for the rest of the cast, Marisa Pavan doesn't do anything to really earn her Oscar nod or Globes win. But she's inoffensive and harmless compared to Burt Lancaster who's not only terribly miscast but who also gives a dreadful performance. Lancaster always seemed to get jobs just for his jawline; this is no exception. Since 1946, I think I've come to find Burt Lancaster is actually one of the worst leading men of the era. He's no Tyrone Power or Robert Taylor, but, man, he's insufferable and mugs the camera with his smile almost as much as Gene Kelly does.

There's a reason nobody lists this right away if you ask for someone's favorite Tennessee Williams work. It doesn't even feel distinctly like him. I love Williams' work, but this is a skidmark on his résumé. "The Rose Tattoo" is very mediocre. It's never truly bad because of the radiant Magnani, but it's not a film I'll run back to any time soon.

Finding Dory (Andrew Stanton, Angus MacLane, 2016) 8/10

Pixar's beloved blue tang goes to search for her family after she remembers she has one. "Finding Dory" ticks every box you'd expect in Pixar bingo, but it still works, works well, and stays massively entertaining and emotional. The film's new characters are fill the void we get by not having the original tank gang from the first film show up. Ed O'Neill's curmudgeonly octopus is an absolute delight. Ellen reminds us why her character was the breakout role of the first film and doesn't let us forget it. Dory is as entertaining and great as you'd want and expect.

I think I'd label this as a great movie too. It's a rare great sequel in this day of pre/re/sequel overload. It's not a necessary story to tell, but it's one that I'm glad we got to see. And the tonal change between this film and its predecessor is a nice change of pace. "Finding Nemo" was a grand adventure with action set piece after action set piece. "Finding Dory" trades in half of the adventure for truly touching, remarkable emotional scenes. Baby Dory is just about the cutest thing I've ever seen. I'd be lying if I didn't cry when she reunites with her parents too. The shells got me. This heightened emotion is excellent not only for the kids who will watch it relentlessly but for the adults, the parents taking their kids to see this. Parents have become big in Pixar's recent pictures. This is most likely because the kids who saw "Toy Story" in theaters are having their own children today. Everyone gets to be included now.

"Finding Dory" is great. It's an absolute treat. I'm glad it got made. I'll probably buy it.

The Man with the Golden Arm (Otto Preminger, 1955) 6/10

A former heroin addict and dealer tries to go straight after prison but struggles immensely with life, addiction, and his wife.

I have to give props to "The Man with the Golden Arm." It tries to take a daring look at drug addiction in the midst of the Code and its censor-happy presence. And it's a bit edgier than I expected it to be. The end of Eleanor Parker's story line took me waaaaay by surprise. It's dark and moody in ways I didn't expect. I'd be a bit more interested to see what would've happened if Preminger got a hold of "The Lost Weekend" around this time if it hadn't come out ten years before.

Frank Sinatra is the main reason to see the film, and he's very good in the lead role even if he looks a little goofy, uninspired, and unrealistic in his jazz drumming scenes. Sinatra tackles the role with gusto and plunges headlong into this character's downward spiral. The cold turkey scene near the end is hard to watch. Sinatra mostly does this well even if his body language is a little awkward at times.

The title sequence by Saul Bass is as excellent as you would hope; his distinctive style is one of my favorite things of the era. And Elmer Bernstein's evocative, moody jazz score is rightfully remembered. As for the filmmaking, there are some long takes that work really well. I wasn't expecting that level of filmmaking here.

And I never really got that level of filmmaking because the film never becomes anything other than a standard cautionary, drugs-are-bad-don't-do-them tale.

Every other cast member in this film serves up fresh, pungent ham. The characters are all so broad and vague which really hurts the film. The only character other than Sinatra's that the film invests in is his manipulative wife Zosh played by Eleanor Parker. And Parker, whom I usually enjoy, is absolutely atrocious here - Razzie-worthy even. She sits in her wheelchair bug-eyed and turns into a statue in each scene. It's honestly some of the absolute worst acting I've seen in my life. I'd never have expected this from Parker. As for Kim Novak, she doesn't get a lot to do. Her character is basically a deus ex machina. Sinatra spends a single night with her and we're to believe he's cured? That's hilarious. Maybe it was the lack of education on addiction at the time, but it seems awfully silly. She's there to look good and that's it. A really unnecessary role.

And even though the film aims to be a hard-hitting drama, the film couldn't look any worse. The set design is truly bad. It's like they filmed on sets immediately used after a TV show finished filming there. You'd expect the club(s) to look good too, but they're not. I wish there were more grime everywhere because the film aims to feel that way but never looks it.

"The Man with the Golden Arm" is good though. It's ballasted by Sinatra and the music. They're really the only good parts of the film. Maybe a 6/10 is too high a rating, but it feels wrong lowering it. Otto Preminger is better than this.

REWATCH: East of Eden (Elia Kazan, 1955) 7/10

A young man contends with winning the love of his father, meeting his absent mother, and finding love in pre-Depression California. If "Rebel Without a Cause" is the film James Dean's image is most remembered by, then "East of Eden" is probably the one his acting should be most remembered by. I don't think it's a great performance by any means, but, of his three performances, this one is probably his best. His angst and brooding is far more understood, conceptualized, and realistic here than it is in the Ray film. In the Ray film, Dean is too melodramatic to really come off well; here, under the direction of Elia Kazan, Dean finds himself a role that complements his talents as an actor, specifically his low speech. He does get a bit hammy whenever he yells which is unfortunate because all acting in pre-1967 Hollywood calls for it, it seems. His scenes opposite Julie Harris are alright. Harris isn't too good as Abra (she seems super miscast) so their arc comes off awkwardly.

If the cast gets kudos from me, it goes to mom and pop. Jo Van Fleet's turn as the deplorable Kate is amazing. Van Fleet, having a banner year in '55 with another solid turn in "I'll Cry Tomorrow," imbues Steinbeck's most evil creation with an underlying sympathy so that we question ourselves more than her motives. Our introduction to Kate is memorable largely in part to Van Fleet's shock and calm. She's marvelous. But it's Raymond Massey's turn as Adam that really dominates the film. Children don't care if their parents are mad, but, boy, if you hear they're disappointed, you really feel awful. And this drives the central relationship between Adam and Cal. Massey's righteous, holier-than-thou performance is as mesmerizing as it is terrifying. There's real hypocrisy emanating from him, but he's a fully realized character whose motives we slowly learn and understand. It's a brilliant turn.

The film is shot with overbearing beauty; the idea of California, Salinas Valley especially, as a kind of Eden and Hell in the same is very thoroughly evoked. Up to this point, Kazan's films were very simple and refined; this mixes it way up.

If Dean and Harris were better, we'd be looking at a truly great film. However, it's worth seeing simply for Massey and Van Fleet themselves. "East of Eden" is an engaging look at growing up, family drama, and jealousy.

Mister Roberts (John Ford, Mervyn LeRoy, Joshua Logan, 1955) 5/10

An officer, hungry for battle, is stuck on a noncommissioned Navy ship run by a bully of a captain. "Mister Roberts" really confused me. It's incredibly minor and light for someone like John Ford but not for Mervyn LeRoy and especially not for Joshua Logan. The film isn't enough like "Gone with the Wind" to where you can tell who directed what sequences which certainly would've made it more interesting.

The cast is the real reason to see the film. Henry Fonda, after years away, is okay as our lead. He doesn't really do much, and his comic timing seems off. I guess those years on the stage got to him. His jokes didn't translate too well. Actually, none of the jokes really translated well. I don't think I laughed once. I may have exhaled quickly through my nose a few times, but nothing was ever laugh-out-loud funny. And most scenes that are involve either William Powell, in his final performance, and an Oscar-winning Jack Lemmon. Lemmon's performance is super interesting. You can tell why this was a star-making turn for him. It seems to cater to his expert comedic cadences and love of language, but it comes off as really tonally different from the rest of the film. It's like an episode of "M*A*S*H" where something super serious is going on and then in comes Lemmon with an oddly-placed joke. "Mister Roberts" doesn't balance its comedy and drama too well. As for Jimmy Cagney, he's sleepwalking through an easy, unexciting, unoriginal part.

I can't say I actively disliked this film, but "Mister Roberts" is much worse than it could and should have been. Ford' temperament got the best of him, and the other two directors had to step in and do what they could. It's a messy film.

REWATCH: All That Heaven Allows (Douglas Sirk, 1955) 10/10

A widow falls in love with the son of her gardener, 15 years her junior, and her community bands against her because of it. No color film has looked or ever will look as beautiful as "All That Heaven Allows." Douglas Sirk's mastery of melodrama, his ability to balance style with substance while not going overboard, is perfected in this film. His other films can get a little sappy at times, but everything seems so justified and perfect here. The scene where Cary sees Kirby while looking for a Christmas tree is heart-shredding and yet totally uplifting in a way. It's a deadly cocktail of emotions from melodrama mixologist Sirk.

Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson, once again, are a scintillating couple, and the material here is even better than it is in "Magnificent Obsession." It's as good an "us against the world" tale as the screen has seen. Wyman's quiet reserve and Hudson's brawny quietude are refreshing in a genre so happy to scream and cry. They're a perfect match. And it has to be pretty brave for producers to have let this into the theaters seeing how quiet and smooth it is - that and Wyman's daughter, played by Gloria Talbott, who's giving the suburban couples in the audience lessons on sex throughout. Maybe best of all is Jacqueline de Wit's small role as Mona. All through the film, we hear about how snide and judgmental Mona is, and, when we get to meet her a few times, de Wit makes it all worthwhile. She gets the best lines, delivers them with acerbic sass, and steals every scene.

What more is there to say about this gorgeous film? It's the perfect melodrama. Nothing can compare.

One Froggy Evening (Chuck Jones, 1955) 10/10

A workman finds a singing frog in a time capsule, but, when he tries to get rich quick on this, he finds the frog will sing only for him. One of the three or five or so most perfect animated shorts. Michigan J. Frog is either a madman or the biggest inconvenience. His ragtime standards are simply amazing and I'd wager more people know them from this short than in general context.

"One Froggy Evening" has a couple different readings I've be interested in looking into. First, I'd love to see a scholarly article over this critiquing capitalism. The workman's instinct to immediately make money off this discovery is gross and hilarious. I think this lends itself to economic and Marxist criticism easily though that was obviously not the intention.

The way I've always read the film is as a humorous spoof on stage parents. The workman is out Mamma Rose, and Michigan J. Frog is Louise/Gypsy Rose Lee. Or Mama June and Honey Boo Boo. Whatever comparison you'd like to choose, the workman sees something special in his "child," so to speak, that nobody else sees. Whether the frog's doing it on purpose or not doesn't matter - the workman goes way out of his way to get this kid/frog noticed and it takes a toll on him. Stuck in a dead-end job, he pours all his juices into one last vicarious attempt at happiness.

"One Froggy Evening" is a total delight. It's one of Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies' best pieces of work. It's one of the best pieces of work ever. All it took was some recycled music and a cute frog too.

Wichita (Jacques Tourneur, 1955) 6/10

Buffalo hunter Wyatt Earp rolls into Wichita and refuses to be the town's marshal until he's truly needed.

This gorgeously shot western by genre-less Jacques Tourneur can't quite live up to the way it looks on paper due to the story being way sterilized.

Joel McCrea is fine. He's always been a solid actor, and, oddly, he's much better in the film's first half. He makes for a really interesting Wyatt Earp even if he's a bit long-in-the-tooth to be playing the part. He paints a smart portrait of the iconic lawman. Had this expert performance gone the whole way though, I'd say his performance would be the best the character's ever had. As for the rest of the cast, they all seem a bit out-of-sorts. Vera Miles is a bit wooden and mannequin-y here.

The most interesting part of the film is that, while it's very straightforward and doesn't seek to push an envelopes or boundaries, it goes out of its way to make points on gun control, and I'm not saying this simply because of today's political atmosphere. I think everybody who was afraid Obama would come for their guns saw this film in early, early November 2008. The film focuses more on this debate and Earp himself than the town itself like Tourneur did in "Stars in My Crown," but, with the tepid supporting cast, I'm glad it happened this way.

"Wichita" is pretty good. If Tourneur ever made a film I'd call bad, I've certainly forgot about it. He's a journeyman, everyman, man's man. His talent behind the camera is what keeps "Wichita" from being the mediocre film it could've been under the reins of one of the studio hacks.

Tarantula (Jack Arnold, 1955) 7/10

A rapidly-growing spider, on a strict diet of a vitamin made to counteract humans eventually wiping out all of earth's food sources, escapes a lab and wreaks havoc on a nearby desert town. "Tarantula" is really, really good. Don't let people tell you otherwise. It's a lot smarter than it lets on.

"Tarantula" basically lures people into a monster movie and gives us a smart dialogue about human and animal testing and the inevitable problems of the future instead. John Agar and Mara Corday play a pair of scientists trying to figure out what the hell is going on, and there's a lot to figure out. The film plays well as a snappy procedural but without ever feeling like an episode of "NCIS" or "Law & Order." The scientific subplot (which is probably the film's real plot with a giant tarantula lurking in a secondary background) is well thought out and, gigantism aside, pretty believable. The injections and transformation are really, really cool too. Leo G. Carroll goes all in on these scenes and it's fun to see especially since he's always so reserved.

And the film's effects are still really solid. Granted, you can totally tell how they're doing everything and it isn't exactly seamless, but everything looks fantastic and realistic.

"Tarantula" is awesome. I remember briefly seeing part of it on TV as a kid, thinking it was cool, and remembering that I should watch it. I'm glad I finally got around to it. A really cool, smart movie.

House of Bamboo (Samuel Fuller, 1955) 6/10

A man is hired to get inside information on an ex-G.I. who's running a racket in Japan with a gang of other dishonorably-discharged vets.

Seeing as I love Samuel Fuller and Robert Ryan, I was really thinking I'd like this movie, but "House of Bamboo" comes off as a disappointment. The film's location shooting is marvelous, and, when it moves to sets like it does at the end, it's still seamlessly gorgeous. The film looks amazing with its vibrancy on full display. It's a brave, interesting thing Fuller did making a film noir in bright, loud color, taking place mostly during daylight. It works well - maybe not as well as a more night-savvy "Party Girl" from three years later, but it works well. Robert Ryan stealthily dominates scene after scene after scene, and Robert Stack is pretty okay as our detective lead. And Shirley Yamaguchi is alright as our token widowed love interest - where would film noir be without this character?

The opening train heist is thrilling as is the final rundown. Fuller's eye for movement and direction is as solid here as it ever has been. And the cinematography from Joseph MacDonald is breathtaking. These two men complement each other's styles well.

You know, though, for a Fuller film centered on ex-vet gangsters in Japan, you'd think this film would have a lot more bite, more acerb, more darkness. The film doesn't pack as many punches as it should have, so it feels a bit more lightweight than Fuller's other films. And I'm not sure who's to blame here. Maybe the screenwriter. It's the mid-'50s, you expect bad guys to get slapped about, people to fall off things, and vitriol to drip from the cold, white teeth of the villains. And those are all things sorely needed here.

But "House of Bamboo" is a good film nonetheless if not only for the bounty of beauty laid before our eyes. It's an aesthetic's film.

It Came from Beneath the Sea (Robert Gordon, 1955) 4/10

A giant octopus travels from the Philippines to San Francisco looking for food and havoc as H-bomb tests have altered its appetite and life. "It Came from Beneath the Sea" is worth seeing just for the now-legendary Harryhausen work, especially the Golden Gate Bridge attack sequence. This is also a great example of seeing a film for one thing and one thing only; Harryhausen is the one reason to see this film. The tentacles look really solid and the movement is more fluid than in other Harryhausen features, notably "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms."

The actors are all dreadful, the dialogue is poor, the logic is flawed, none of it works. Two full stars seems a bit nice, actually. But I can't say I wasn't entertained the whole time.

REWATCH: Artists and Models (Frank Tashlin, 1955) 7/10

A struggling artist uses his roommate's loud nightmares as fuel for stories and art. Upon rewatch, it's still true: Jerry Lewis is magnificently annoying and mugs the camera more than anyone else in history. His infantile screeching is absolutely intolerable. Granted, his character is supposed to be annoying, but this is overkill. Apparently, this is around the time Dean Martin and Lewis' friendship started to strain. I'm not sure you can tell so much. Their scenes opposite each other are good, but they also don't have a lot of scenes with each other once the story gets going. Lewis gets to hang out with Shirley MacLaine who is good fun in an early role.

The film is also a fun parlay into the world of pop art which was being born in the U.K. around this time. The look at comics pervading pop culture, making money off it, and seeking fame from it embodies everything Warhol is known for on a standard level. The only thing missing from the film are benday dots on the celluloid itself. The Technicolor and VistaVision here are glorious and used to full effect. The opening credits are a fantastic example of this. And the musical numbers, for the most part, are very colorful and cute even if they are rather lackluster in their choreography and overall production. Then again, I feel like Gene Kelly would've made this film worse. So maybe the conventionality of these numbers isn't a bad thing.

"Artists and Models" is basically a living cartoon but not in the way I mean it when I say the same thing about Russ Meyer. It's a total delight that runs on color, star power, and jokes. It's a film I enjoy visiting every now and then and will come back to soon. Frank Tashlin deserves a spot in the canon limelight for his work.

Moonfleet (Fritz Lang, 1955) 4/10

Dear Cahiérs du Cinema,

Why do you insist that this is the thirty-second most essential movie of all-time?

Love,

Ryan

But seriously, "Moonfleet" is a pretty bad film, and I'm not sure why it has received the acclaim it has. It doesn't have any kind of auteur theory going on behind it. It feels like a shoddily-molded adventure film you'd expect from someone like Delmer Daves, not Fritz Lang. Lang is one of the very best, but you'd never know from this. There are a few shots in the film that are taken right out of the German Expressionist Handbook, and they look good, mind you, but it never really makes the film feel any more dangerous or exciting. The film focuses on Viveca Lindfors and Stewart Granger and that terrible child actor while ignoring George Sanders and Joan Greenwood who are two proven professionals that usually elevate a film easily. But even Sanders feels a bit muted here and isn't allowed to go full cad like he usually succeeds at.

The film looks alright. The CinemaScope makes some of the action set pieces look nice and the sets themselves are really pretty, but the rest of the film is aimless and wandering. At 30 and 60 minutes in, I wasn't quite sure what we were supposed to be caring about. There's treasure and that's about it. I don't know whether the children's material held Lang back or if the material itself was just plain bad, but "Moonfleet" doesn't work, and I really hurts to say that Lang has made a bad movie.

The Shallows (Jaume Collet-Serra, 2016) 7/10

An injured surfer remains about 200 yards offshore while a shark stalks her after all help has gone. "The Shallows" is way better than you will expect it to be. It plays with claustrophobia in an agoraphobic setting really well and never gets boring or repetitive. On paper, the two-hour runtime looks a little long, but the movie flies by due to the merciless editing and brisk pacing. Also, that cinematography was absolutely astounding. There's a slow-motion scene during the shark attack sequence that's absolutely breath-taking; it's more memorable than all the beautiful landscape we get to take in.

Maybe the most surprising part of the film is the powerful performance we get from Blake Lively. Lively's always been an okay actress in my book. She never really got to stretch her dramatic chops in "Gossip Girl" and hasn't been in anything since that's let her experiment outside her comfort zone, so to see her fully capable and moving in this film took me aback. It's more than the typical "glamor girl goes unglamorous" role we expect in situations like this. To be fair, the first act of the film is pretty tepid and looks like nothing more than Lively modeling clothes, electronics, and jewelry, but it's nothing we haven't seen in other, artsier films. It isn't super distracting which is the biggest key to this not inducing groans. Lively's performance anchors this film.

A few things keep the film from being great though. One: the CGI used for the shark is really bad at points. There's a point where the shark is biting into a buoy, and it looks really, really fake. Some good practical effects would've been miraculous. And, speaking of bad CGI, there are several moments in the final fight between Lively and the shark that are look bad and are bad in concept. The shark's ultimate demise has been divisive, so I've read, but I think it's really badass. I think the way we get there, the moments leading up to it, are a bit contrived and unrealistic, but, in the moment, I was caught up in utter escapism.

Survival horror has been going strong and popular for about a decade now, but I can't think of a film about pure, natural survival recently that's been as good as this. Yes, that includes "The Revenant." I saw in "The Shallows" what everyone else saw in that contrived, overdirected monument to cinematography and begging for awards because of what you did behind the scenes. "The Shallows" is really good. It's the biggest surprise of the year so far. It doesn't even matter if the character I was most invested in was a seagull.

REWATCH: Floating Clouds (Mikio Naruse, 1955) 10/10

A married Japanese forester during WWII is sent to Indochina and has an affair with a young Japanese typist; he promises to leave his wife, doesn't, and, after the war, she turns up to resume the affair. Mikio Naruse's masterpiece is a searing, scorching slow burn of a romance with the sense of dread and longing by film's end being almost unbearable.

And this has almost entirely to do with the excellent work by both Masayuki Mori and Hideko Takamine. Their performances are master classes in subtlety and body language. "Floating Clouds" is a quiet film that relishes in the breaths that hover quietly between conversations. It lives on the wind. Takamine and Mori have an electric chemistry that sucks you in and steals your peripheral vision. Each time I see this, I forget I'm watching it on a screen. It feels like a dream.

And in addition to Mori and Takamine, who both won the Blue Ribbons for their work here, Naruse's impeccable direction showcases his brilliance. He does was Ozu is best known for doing but translates it into a much more modern feel. This movie feels like it could have been made in the '70s or yesterday. It feels drastically set apart from all other movies that take place in Japan after WWII. The relationship is modern yet flawed. It's a look at the toxicity of affairs and the human heart in general.

"Floating Clouds" is a masterpiece. I don't think there's any film in American cinema just like it which is one reason I love the cinema of Japan so much. A grand film packed into a small, quiet box. It's the most pleasant cinematic "pop goes the weasel" I can think of.

A Generation (Andrzej Wajda, 1955) 8/10

Two young Polish men become at odds with the Nazis during the German occupation. Andrzej Wajda's first film (and my first Wajda viewing) is a red hot, in-depth look at revolutionary views and attitudes during and after World War II. Wajda's impressive debut never quite endears us to the main characters like you would expect it to, but we're never so distant from them as to not care. If we grow to like them, it's more out of a sense of anger and sympathy than because we like them as people. That isn't to say they're played poorly or are awful people because neither of those statements are true. The performance that stands out to me isn't from any of the men though. Wajda gives us a great character in Dorota played marveously by Urszula Modrzyńska. She's simultaneously muse we need for inspiration when we're feeling down-and-out and a dynamic, intriguing character who shows women were important in revolution too.

Wajda's direction is what I keep finding myself thinking of though. His eye for placement and framing, coupled with the lighting talents of the cinematographer make for a highlight reel of indelible shots - most notably, the staircase finale is absolutely jaw-dropping. As we see everything unfold slowly and directly, it only draws out the horror and suspense more and more. The shot from the bottom of the spiral staircase up, people leaning over, is absolutely gorgeous.

"A Generation" is an angry Polish film with much to say and a ton to show. Wajda, who's still alive at 90 years old, lets us know everything he experienced and gives us a direct account of the war. It's something Hollywood was far too afraid to show (and because we never got attacked inland and/or occupied) and even the French, Italian, and German films I've seen were never quite this dark - I'd say only Rossellini comes close. But "A Generation" is a brilliant debut by a director I'm incredibly excited to see more from.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Sabin »

An Officer and a Gentleman (Taylor Hackford) -- 5/10

Aside from the fact that it's not a good movie, I'm trying to figure out why I didn't like it more. I think it's because films that give the appearance of something deeper frustrate me. At heart, Douglas Day Stewart is a TV writer and this film is a by-the-numbers playbook. Or maybe it's the Jack Nitzsche score, which is good but repeated to the point of meaninglessness. Or maybe it's Richard Gere. He's not bad but he doesn't suggest an inner-life of torment and obsession the role demands. He's not a bad boy. He's a himbo. Or maybe it's because without Debra Winger, it's inconceivable that anybody else could create such sparks with him and suggest a frank, alluring sexuality at the core of this film, which would tie it back to being frustrated by the appearance of something deeper. Aside from Terms of Endearment (which I haven't seen in some years), this is my first encounter with 1980s Debra Winger. She does incredible things with this role. Maybe one of the reasons why I'm less impressed by Richard Gere is because there's just no reason to look at him when she's on the screen. It becomes clear that this film isn't a romantic drama two-hander but a coming of age film for a man and everyone is there to serve his education -- but when Debra Winger is on-screen it feels like a two-hander. She's captivating. Maybe I should stop trying to think about why I didn't like it more, and why I didn't like it less. That reason is clear.

I'm a little surprised this film didn't sneak into the Best Picture lineup. Was it not taken that seriously? A giant hit with a series of star-making or enhancing performances? Hackford managed a DGA nomination over Lumet and Costa-Gavras and eight Golden Globe nominations (albeit two throwaways for Best New Star of the Year Male & Female). I'll certainly laud the Academy for passing it up over more serious fare.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Precious Doll »

The Fencer (2015) Klaus Haro 4/10 (Scandinavian Film Festival)
The Here After (2015) Magnus von Horn 5/10 (DVD)
Heart of a Dog (2016) Laurie Anderson 7/10 (DVD)

Melbourne International Film Festival Screenings

After the Storm (2016) Hirokazu Koreeda 7/10
Blood of My Bood (2015) Marco Bellocchio 6/10
Graduation (2016) Cristian Mungiu 6/10
The Salesman (2016) Asghar Farhadi 5/10
The Son of Joseph (2016) Eugene Green 6/10
Paris 05:59 (2016) Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau 4/10
Unlocking the Cage (2016) Chris Hegedus & D. A. Pennebaker 6/10
The Death of Louis XIV (2016) Albert Sera 9/10
The Lovers and the Despot (2016) Ross Adan & Robert Cannan 6/10
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Precious Doll »

Everybody Wants Some (2016) Richard Linklater 6/10 (Blu Ray)
4th Man Out (2016) Andrew Nackman 6/10 (Blu Ray)
Tumbeldown (2016) Sean Mewshaw 4/10 (DVD Rental)
Batman V. Superman (2016) Zak Synder 2/10 (DVD Rental)
No Home Movie (2016) Chantal Akerman 4/10 (DVD)
Love & Friendship (2016) Whit Stillman 8/10 (Cinema)
Losing Ground (1982) Kathleen Collins 6/10 (Blu Ray)
Rabin, the Last Day (2015) Amos Gitai 7/10 (Blu Ray)

Repeat viewing

Rush (1991) Lili Fini Zanuck 9/10
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

Post by Sabin »

No, I put the brackets around them because I've seen them before.

-- George Gaynes is very good in Tootsie. Bill Murray hadn't quite figured out how to act natural on-screen, but (to quote Michael Gebert) when you can quote an entire performance, you're doing something right. I'm very pleased that Teri Garr was nominated. She's quite good in the film. I got a newfound appreciation for Jessica Lange in the film. She brings an entirely different sad/sweet energy to every scene that she's in. This isn't a great part so the fact that she can do anything with it that feels genuine is worth something. She's helped immeasurably by the editors who linger on every shot that she's in -- it's probably no coincidence that she is at her best in close-ups, which is true of almost nobody else in the film. I'm probably Team Teri Garr.

(NOTE: although I need to see The World According to Garp, Frances, and Victor/Victoria again, there's very little chance my pick wouldn't be Lesley Ann Warren.

I wonder who the predicted nominees were. The Golden Globes chose Jessica Lange, Kim Stanley, and Lesley Ann Warren, but also Cher for Come Back to the Five and Dine... and Lainie Kazan for My Favorite Year. The National Board and LAFCAA chose Glenn Close for Garp, while NYFCC and NSFC chose Lange. Teri Garr's only citation was runner up to Lange at NSFC.

To my surprise, George Gaynes was actually first runner up to John Lithgow in New York.)

-- Charlotte Rampling is very good in The Verdict. My favorite scene with her was when Newman brings her back to the apartment for a drink, they kiss (drinks in hand), and then she sees a picture of his ex-wife on the bed. He goes to turn it over, slightly embarrassed. She looks at him for a long beat and then says "It's okay." Or something like that. The fact that we don't suspect anything about her motivations is because Charlotte Rampling is drenched in mystery herself. She's quite good.
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “Other Film Discussions”