Cigarettes and Soap: A Look at Classic Hollywood

Some Like it Hot (1959)

2011-03-13T22:09:00.000-07:00

And here we have a bona fide classic, the AFI's #1 comedy of all time. Some Like It Hot, Billy Wilder's classic comedy about gangsters, cross-dressing, and dumb blonds.

Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon are Joe and Jerry, two down on their luck musicians who have recently lost their job playing with a band in a speakeasy. When they witness the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and become the target of the mob, they're forced to dress as Josephine and Daphne and take a job with an all-girl band. The band's singer Sugar (Marilyn Monroe) soon becomes the center of both love and lust for the two men.

The film is obviously, a very funny film. The dialogue sparkles and the three leads are all brilliant at bringing out the humor from each of their characters. Marilyn Monroe may not be regarded as a particularly talented actress (I haven't seen enough to make a real judgment myself), but she's wonderful here. She's so ditzy and earnest that you buy that these two characters are able to pass as two ugly woman.

There's not much to say about the film that hasn't already been said, it's a brilliant and funny film that is able to sneak in some interest commentary on gender as well. Definitely one you need to watch.

Ali: Fears Eats the Soul (1974)

2011-02-28T13:01:00.000-08:00

Here's Fassbinder's German classic Ali: Fears Eats the Soul which is a remake of the Douglas Sirk film All That Heaven Allows which I actually wrote about, so check that entry out as well.

Where the film mainly diverges is removing the class division of the original film (with a wealthy widow falling in lover with a gardener) and instead adds a racial aspect in addition to the age different by having a widowed office cleaner falling in love with an Arab mechanic.

The story begins with Emmi (Brigitte Mira) stopping into an Arab bar in order to avoid a rainstorm. There she meets Alie (El Hedi ben Salem) and the two begin a romance that threatens their social standing as the two deal with racial prejudices at the time.

The film is going to be hard for some people to watch. Since it's a very Brechtian film. For those who don't know, Brecht was a figure in German theater who believed that theater (or in this case film) should not cause emotional responses in the audience instead we should take everything at face value and reflect on it. In other words, theater should be all head (No pun intended) and no heart. Because of this, the dialogue can be presented in an almost monotone manner by some of the actors and some more emotional moments are hampered by the fact that the film is dubbed over. I don't mean that I'm watching an English dubbed version, but all of the German dialogue was dubbed over post production, so you have moments where audio doesn't 100% match with that's going on the screen so it can be jarring.

If you can get past this method of acting, you'll find a very well-balanced story. It's far too easy when dealing with stories about forbidden love to have the central relationship as this perfect entity that is threatened by societal forces. Well, this isn't true in the film. We get to see that the differences in age, race, and culture do make a difference and that maybe this isn't a perfect pairing.

The film is also a rich commentary on society and human nature, with a lot of focus on what it means to be an outsider, the circumstances surrounding it and the ways in which people are asked back into society and the reasons why.

It's not going to be loved by everyone, but it's a film that has a lot to say and does so with an interesting twist on the melodrama subgenre.

And if you are interested in watching it, I also suggest seeing Douglas Sirk's original film since there's references to the original within this retelling.

Coffy (1973) and Foxy Brown (1974)

2011-02-26T16:01:00.000-08:00

PAM GRIER IS IN THE HOUSE Y'ALL. Tonight I am looking at the blaxploitation one-two punch of Coffy and Foxy Brown. You may be wondering why I'm doing one entry on two movies, well, it's simply because the movies are VERY alike. In fact, Foxy Brown was originally going to be a sequel to Coffy.

Both films feature the magnificent creature Pam Grier as an avenging angel, punishing pimps, drug dealers, and other corrupt criminals due to a wrong done to her. In Coffy, she's getting justice for her little sister who now has to live in a hospital due to getting hooked on drugs, and in Foxy Brown her undercover informant boyfriend is murdered right before the two head off to start a new life. And in both she sets about the bring down the empires responsible.

Coffy starts out a bit faster, since her vendetta against the drug kingpins is established before the movie even starts, where in Foxy Brown it takes a bit for her to begin her one-woman rampage. But regardless of which film it is, you will be entertained. The soundtrack can only be described as "groovy" and Pam Grier is a brilliant actress and a wonderful action heroine. Of course, these are low budget blaxploitation films, so don't expect a high gloss, big budget epic.

But who really cares? It's PAM GRIER killing people! You'll see her pull a gun from her epic afro, braid razor blades into her hair for a cat fight, and get into a karate fight in a lesbian bar. It's pure entertainment.

The films are both on Netflix Watch Now, and they are worth your time. I may be recommending this out of my love for the bizarre and the kitschy, but if you share any of that love, then you need to see these movies, you will not be bored.

Please Give (2010)

2011-02-23T13:06:00.000-08:00

I'm sorry for not posting in so long. I could make an excuse about the holidays or that I had some sort of family trauma, but in reality, I simply fell out of the movie watching habit for a while and I couldn't think of much to add. While that's a pretty piss poor excuse on its own, I've been watching more movies as of late, mostly recent due to my attempt to catch up on Oscar season (Which really shot my in the foot given the results of last year's Best Actress win). But, my long dead laptop has been fixed, so I should be able to post article more frequently since I could really only use the family computer in the mornings.

I considered posting on the amazing Winter's Bone but I decided to go with a really great movie that slid under the radar and probably should have resulted in some Oscar love for Catherine Keener.

The film follows Kate (Keener) and Alex (Oliver Platt) a New York couple who own a furniture store, where most of their stock is provided by offering cheap deals to the children of the recently deceased who are eager to clean out their parents' now empty homes. They're also anticipating the death of their 91 year old neighbor Andra (Ann Morgan Gilbert) since it will allow for them to expand their apartment. Their lives become intertwined with that of Andra's two granddaughters Rebecca (Rebecca Hall) and Mary (Amanda Peet). Rebecca dutifully takes care of her grandmother, feeling a sense of obligation and loyalty towards her whereas Mary has a rather different view of their grandmother, seeing her as a selfish bitch.

Catherine Keener really delivers a wonderful performance here, even though the cast as a whole is incredibly strong (Especially Peet, who surprised me with her incredibly bitchy lines). Kate is a rather conflicted woman, her life is funded by the death and misfortune of others, so as a way to comfort herself, she tries to do small acts of kindness to alleviate this guilt such a giving money to the homeless or even letting a transient sleep in her apartment. The film also demonstrates small little self-perpetuated lies that she tells in an effort to make her actions seem more charitable, such as her insistence that the building super's wife is ill, when the film later shows that it's not the case at all.

The film is smartly written and makes an effort to show that none of these characters are perfect, no one is "right". Rebecca and Mary have differing opinions on their grandmother, and through watching the actions of Andra, we see that neither is totally right. Even Kate and Alex's daughter Abby (Sarah Steele) exhibits teenage angst, , insight, and childishness. It's refreshing to see a movie where the characters so so well-rounded.

Plus, the film explores a universal trait that most people share. We all feel guilt in our lives about some action we did or some mean thing we said and we use acts of kindness as a way to pat our own backs, as reassurance that "Hey, I'm not a horrible person". It's not the best human trait, but it's something that's nice to see explored in such capable hands.

Dance, Girl, Dance (1940)

2010-10-16T16:15:00.000-07:00

Maureen O'Hara and Lucille Ball are dueling dancers in this film directed by one of the few female directors of the time, Dorothy Arzner.

Times are tough for the Judy O'Brian (O'Hara), she's a dedicated ballerina and is having a hard time landing jobs in the world that is more interested in sex appeal. Her fellow dance troupe partner is Bubbles (Ball), a brassy girl who can swing her hips in ways Judy could only dream. This sort of sisterly rivalry between the two is the main focus of the film, with a romantic triangle of sorts occurring (but the guy is a grade-A prick so it's hard to really care).

What's interesting about this story is that it's really a story of a young woman's journey into adulthood, but wrapped in the trappings of a musical-ish romance. We get to see various dance numbers which use dance to great affect. Judy is very classic ballet, but Bubbles is pure burlesque, perfectly establishing what kind of girls they are. But it's a very Hollywood type of film, given a touch of a modern edge with its main focus being on a female character's journey, especially considering how the end plays out.

Maureen O'Hara is good as a sort of insecure good girl, but Lucille Ball steals the film away from her. Bubbles may be a bitchy character, but she's given depth and Ball pulls it off perfectly. She's strong, smart and caring, but she presents this fun and slightly mean persona to the world almost as armor. It's a great performance to see especially if you've only associated her with her legendary sitcom.

The film itself is actually pretty good. As I said, the romance plot does hurt the film, because the male character is not worth the sort of girlhood swooning the Judy does (but that could be entirely the point), but it's a very entertaining film about the relationship between two very different women.

All That Heaven Allows (1955)

2010-10-15T19:49:00.000-07:00

I'm not even going to try to make an excuse, kids.

So here we have the classic soap in its purest form. The kind where middle class suburban women walk around in fabulous coats and live in fear of being gossiped about. If you've seen Peyton Place, it's a lot like it.

All That Heaven Allows is a melodrama about an older, middle-class widow Cary (Jane Wyman) who falls in love with her younger gardener (Rock Hudson). And of course, societal pressures fight to keep them apart.

That's it folks, it's one of those movies where the plot is established in the first few minutes (or at least hinted at) and the rest of the film is spent waiting for these two crazy kids to finally get together, with the likes of the neighborhood bitch and Cary's horribly obnoxious kids complaining and sniping enough to make Cary second guess her love.

It's in this sense that the movie is a bit of a sly social satire, using the film (much like Peyton Place) to condemn the sort of gossipy, country club set who place reputation and image over happiness and truth.

The two leads are serviceable, given the material. As I said, it's a straight up soap, so they aren't given much to do besides embrace, kiss, and look longingly at each other. Jane Wyman effectively portrays the conflicted woman, but her character is written as being so weak and malleable that it can be a bit hard to watch at times.

But this is also a movie where you're either going to love it or hate it. It's an absolutely gorgeous film, but it's such a soap opera that it's not going to appeal to those who are maybe more cynical or having acquired a taste of the good old fashioned Hollywood melodrama.

So, if you're into the DRAMA of the suburban middle class, I highly recommend this movie. It's exactly what you'd expect.

Aliens (1986)

2010-09-01T12:57:00.000-07:00

Ok, I'm aware that it's been a while since my last post and that my previous post was on the oh-so-stupid, but oh-so-fun Salt, and I appear to be following up with another action movie. But luckily for you, I have two recently watched old-school Hollywood movies to post on, so hold your horses.

Aliens stars Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, the lone survivor of the original film (Which I haven't seen, my cousins were visiting and this film was on Netflix Watch Now and they insisted we watch it). After 50+ years in hypersleep, Ripley awakens to discover that the planet where her ship first encountered the alien from the first film is now a colony, and she is asked to join a group of Space Marines to investigate the loss of contact with the colony. Of course, it takes no genius to figure out that aliens have overrun the colony and have taken every colonist except for a young girl named Newt, whom Ripley bonds with and will stop at nothing to ensure that the young girl survives.

The film is a brilliant action movie on its own, but features a lot of great suspense and tension as the group tries to survive on an overrun colony. But ti also serves as an examination of the maternal instinct, matching two "mothers" in a life or death battle to protect their "child" by having Ripley do battle with an Alien queen. It's in this context that Sigourney Weaver blows you away, justifying her Oscar nomination for her performance. Ripley isn't a badass, per se, she doesn't know how to use guns and she isn't a one-women army, but instead she's resourceful, intelligent, tough, and fiercely maternal. It's an important role for the portrayal of women in film, because she's not just a woman, she's a fully realized character and her gender really has nothing to do with it, she has no romantic leads, she isn't ostracized because she's a woman. She happens to be a great character who just happens to be female. And by the end of the movie, you will feel as exhausted and drained as Ripley, and I have no idea how Sigourney Weaver could do it, to walk on set and film a scene and appear as if she's been put through the ringer and about to drop in a heap, but she does and it's to the film's benefit.

Even though it's a sci-fi/action movie, it's one of the best movies I've seen. It's massively entertaining and insanely well-made.

Salt (2010)

2010-08-05T17:03:00.000-07:00

Indeed, I actually left my cave and went to the theaters. And before you frown on my for choosing something like Salt (I already saw Inception, so don't start on me), but I had my expectations reasonably lowered.

Going in, I knew the film was going to be ridiculous. I even wanted a plot so insanely stupid that the denouement would include a Scooby Doo reveal of a mask being ripped off someone's head and revealing the mastermind behind the whole plot.

And while this didn't happen, Salt was still ridiculous enough to keep me entertained for the entirety of its running time.

Here's all the plot you need to know, CIA agent Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) is accused of being a Russian Spy, causing her to go on the run in an effort to find her husband who has gone missing.

What follows are chase and action sequences that feature Angelina Jolie being a complete and total badass, which is really what I only wanted from the film. I wanted to see Angelina Jolie kicking ass and being cool. And she actually does deliver a good performance, to her credit.

I know this review is essentially scatterbrained and not terribly well-written, but if you're bored and wanting an enjoyable 2 hours, lower your expectations and see Salt. It's ridiculous, a bit confusing, but it's entertaining as hell.

The Lion in Winter (1968)

2010-08-03T08:46:00.000-07:00

Take Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and slap some period costumes on it and you would have The Lion in Winter.

King Henry II (Peter O'Toole) is 50 years old (That's Golden Girls old in those days), and he needs to name his heir to the throne. He favors his youngest, favorite sog John who is essentially a spoiled idiot teenager. His wife Eleanor favors the oldest, the more bloodthirsty Richard (Anthony Hopkins in his first movie role). Unfortunately for Eleanor, she's been imprisoned for the last ten years and Henry will only take her out for special occasions. But fortunately for Eleanor, it's Christmas, so she's brought to the castle and begins to plot to get her favored son on the throne. In the middle of this is the middle son, Geoffey, a schemer just like his mother, Alais, Richard's betrothed, Henry's mistress, and half-sister of King Phillip, as well as the newly crowned King Phillip of France (Tomothy Dalton) who is there to discuss the dowry of his half-sister. The presence of Phillip creates an opportunity for the sons, whoever can get Phillip's favor could gain his military aid and take the crown from their father by force.

Anyone familiar with history (Or in my case, Disney's animated version of Robin Hood), knows who will eventually become king, but that's not really the point. The film is less about the plotting and scheming and more about the dynamics of this truly messed up family, the love and hate that ties everyone together in a tangled web spun by Eleanor.

Of course, the two leads are fantastic with Peter O'Toole conveying the world-weariness of a man who is beginning to outgrow his reign as well as the fire that helped him become king in the first place. And Katherine Hepburn (in her Oscar-winning performance) is astounding. The verbal barbs that she trades with Henry are soaked in acid and bitterness, but we never get that she is truly committed to this role of the vengeful shrew, instead using it to mask the hurt and pain at having been locked away from the family she both loves and despises.

The problem that some people will have with this film is how little comes of the plot, that we get to see all this scheming, conniving and backstabbing but nothing really comes of it. Instead it's more of a window into this family, seeing how they treat eachother and the bitterness and resentment that ties them all together. In that sense, it truly is like Virginia Woolf, it's a study of a relationship as opposed to a tightly plodded tale of castle intrigue, and the script is witty and often funny.

Laura (1944)

2010-07-20T07:26:00.000-07:00

Several twists and turns make this classic mystery unforgettable and for some, frustrating.

Successful ad executive Laura Hunt (Gene Tierny) is dead, shot at point blank range by a shotgun. Detective Mark MacPherson (Dana Andrews) has been assigned to investigate and soon finds himself faced with 4 suspects, including a venomous writer who was Laura's mentor/lover (Clifton Webb), Laura's cad of a fiance (Vincent Price), her aunt who is madly in love with her fiance (Judith Anderson) and Laura's loyal maid (Dorothy Adams). He soon finds that all of them loved Laura, and he too begins to fall in love with the memories of a dead woman through her letters and journals.

The film's cast is uniformly excellent, each one playing their character well enough to where we are always guessing as to what secrets they may have and the screenplay is witty and entertaining. The only real problem with the film is that the number is suspects is so limited, and they don't receive the same amount of screen time, so we don't really feel as if this is a full blown whodunit. Plus, there's one major twist that may turn people off to the film, it's not necessarily a bad twist, but it could possibly make some people throw up their hands in frustration.

Those two issues aside, Laura is a classic film mystery that features a great cast and a great script, which seems to be a common thread is famous film noirs. So I heartily recommend it. It's on Netflix Watch Now, so watch it while you can.

Jackie Brown (1997)

2010-07-04T16:36:00.000-07:00

During Oscar Watch '10, one of the films I ended up watching was Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. Well, watching it sent my brother on a Tarantino kick and within a few weeks I had seen every single one of his movies, and I have to say that Jackie Brown may be my favorite.

Pam Grier stars as the titular character, a middle aged stewardess with a second rate airline that flies exclusively to Mexico, which makes her an ideal money runner for Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), an arms dealer. When Jackie is caught by the police, she is given an opportunity to sell Ordell out to avoid jail but instead Jackie decides to play both sides in a bid to avoid prison and to make off with Ordell's $500,000 stored in Mexico. Also involved are Ordell's old partner-in-crime Louis (Robert DeNiro) who is fresh out of prison and generally disconnected with the world and his pot smoking "girlfriend" Melanie (Bridget Fonda), and lonely bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster).

The film's cast of character is so strong that every single character could have easily been the focus of their own movie, with the level of acting so strong that it's hard to pick one as a stand-out. If anything, this is Pam Grier's movie. She has to take a character and make her strong, sexy, vulnerable, intelligent and cunning and she does it perfectly, creating one of the screen's most clever characters ever. Samuel L. Jackson is great as well, creating a criminal that can be frightening, charming, and endearing in a single scene.

The reason Jackie Brown is so great can be generalized to all of Tarantino's films. He's the master at casting his movies and he can blend comedy and drama better than anyone. It's rare for a film to feature such an in-depth plot and still be able to make you laugh more than most comedies. And the best part is that it never feels false, it never feels as if he is going for a laugh, instead it's humor the derives itself from the characters and their own unique quirks and personalities.

At 2 1/2 hours, this film is way too short, and an entire hour could have been added and I would be happy. One of my all-time favorites.

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969)

2010-07-02T19:31:00.001-07:00

Maggie Smith wows in this film that is incredibly different from what you may expect.

It's easy to look at the description of The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and assume it is another entry into the "Offbeat teacher inspires students to live life to the fullest" type of film, but this film almost serves as a counter point to such films.

Maggie Smith stars as Miss Jean Brodie, a teacher in 1930's Scotland who encourages her students to live and to love, teaching them about art and creativity, even though she's a history teacher. She also has a group of 4 students who follows her around outside of class, the "Brodie Girls" who are noted for being unusual and odd.

But the film veers into unexpected territory as it becomes obvious that Jean Brodie is really a spinster who wraps herself up in the mystery and mystique of being a woman in her "prime" and creating this mythology about herself. If you've seen the film Cabaret, it's very similar to Sally Bowles. She exerts this onto her students, defining their traits and trying to give them ideas about who they are, even trying to steer one girl into an affair with a married teacher with whom she has recently finished an affair of her own.

Eventually, one "Brodie Girl" named Sandy (Pamela Franklin) catches on to the falsehood surrounding the beloved teacher and a conflict develops between the two and the film ultimately forced you with a situation with neither character is inherently good or bad.

The film wonderfully exhibits a grey morality about the characters, is Jean Brodie a well meaning teacher or a psychotic spinster with a God complex? Or Sandy a maturing girl looking to bring down a potentially dangerous teacher or a jealous child? The film would work in every angle, and it's to the credit of the two main female actresses, Maggie Smith and Pamela Franklin that it works so well as both gives so much nuance and layers to their characters.

Maggie Smith actually won the Oscar for the film, and it's deservedly so. It's not easy to play a character and do so in a way that supports so many interpretations as to the nature of the character, but she pulls it off wonderfully, playing Jean Brodie as dramatic, inspiring, and witty, but also giving healthy doses of insecurity and arrogance.

It's sad that Pamela Franklin didn't receive an Oscar nomination, because it would have been deserved, having to carry a character through woman hood and effectively portraying the developing cynicism that causes her to see through Jean Brodie's facade.

It's a wonderful movie that could spawn hours of discussion as to the nature of the characters and it features two astounding performances, so watch it if you can.

Julia (2008)

2010-06-22T18:26:00.000-07:00

Tilda Swinton gives one of the greatest performances I've ever seen in a thrilling film that may try the patience of some.

Ok, so I did one old movie, I feel this balances out in the grand cosmic scheme of the universe.

Julia (Tilda Swinton) is not a good person, she's an alcoholic, a smartass, and she'll essentially go to bed with anyone who happens to be around when she's passing from sobriety to full blown drunken sluttiness.

One day, she is approached by a fellow AA member about her son, who was taken from her by her dead husband's wealthy father. She wants to enlist Julia's help in abducting her son and holding him for ransom, so that she can begin a new life with him in Mexico. But Julia takes things into her own hands and begins a frantic descent.

Tilda Swinton is THE MAIN reason to see this film. And that's not an insult to the film, it's simply that she creates a character so lived-in, so fascinating to watch that is is incredible. It's almost as if she is possessed by some sort of spirit as we see her frantically try to pull of a scheme, getting in way over her head. It's so raw and so captivating that it's hard to look away.

The film itself is a bit of a toss up. I found myself enjoying it, because I can bear almost anything if there's a strong performance in the forefront, but some people could understandably get annoyed with its long length and for some of the twists and turns that the film takes.

But for those who take the plunge, I doubt anyone could walk away without being wowed by Swinton's amazing performance, it's a shame that she didn't walk away from this with an Oscar, because it's so easily deserved.

This is another film on Watch Now, so watch it while you can.

Green for Danger (1946)

2010-06-22T17:52:00.001-07:00

This is a bit of return to form for the blog, since it's actually an older film, and a good old fashioned whodunnit on top of it, which has pretty much become a dead genre.

Green for Danger is a great little British mystery that tells the story of a group of doctors and nurses who become the suspects when an elderly postman dies on the operating table during a routing surgery for a minor injury. The film does a brilliant job of setting up the relationships between the hospital staff before the murder occurs and is even investigated. There's a love triangle between a nurse, a surgeon, and the anesthesiologist, the operating theater sister (whatever the hell that means) who is in love with the surgeon, a nurse suffering from nerves after her mother died in a bomb raid. It's obvious I didn't remember any of the characters' names, isn't it?

About halfway through the movie, we get Inspector Cockrill played by Alistair Sim who has been sent to investigate the situation. The sort of eccentric, comic-relief-ishness of the character is a bit jarring from the melodrama that so permeated the first half, but it's not so much as to make the character the general quirky detective, and Sim gives the character enough brutal honesty to keep things in check.

The film is pretty short, at only 91 minutes, but that's what makes it such an easy watch. It's always entertaining and never becomes to bogged down, we get the set up, the investigation, and the denouement which insists of recreating the surgery to try and catch the killer in the act. I know it's become to cliche to say that a film will "have you guessing until the end", but that's really the case with this one. I didn't have it figured out until the very end of the movie.

The film is available on Netflix Watch Now, for those who have, along with a lot of other movies I've recommended, so give it a watch if you have the time. It's a great underrated little film.

Peggy Sue Got Married

2010-06-12T08:12:00.000-07:00

Yes, I have returned from the dead. I wish I had a valid excuse for not posting in so long, but I will simply blame Sandra Bullock's win for Best Actress, because it works for me.

So for my triumphant return, I will be reviewing the film Peggy Sue Got Married. It stars Kathleen Turner Peggy Sue, a middle aged woman attending her 25th high school anniversary. She's a bundle of nerves, concerned with her appearance and her recent separation from her cheating husband and high school sweetheart Charlie (Nicolas Cage). When declared Queen of the Reunion, she faints and wakes up decades later as an 18 year old in the last few months of high school, effectively giving her a second chance at possibly preventing her pregnancy that led to her marrying Charlie.

The film features a tour-de-force performance from Turner, who effectively begins the film as a beaten-down woman who slowly begins to lose the hardened skin that life has given her until she becomes an 18 year old school girl again. It's brilliant to watch and she is easily the main reason to see this film.

The film itself is light fun, seeing how Peggy Sue navigates her senior year, fully aware of what will happen later on, and how she deals with the odd situation she finds herself in. There are also wonderfully touching moments such as when Peggy Sue answers the phone to hear her long-dead grandmother on the other end.

Really, only real detriment to the film is Nic Cage, who gives an overly mannered performance as the clumsy, bumbling teen who pines after Peggy Sue. He uses a voice that was said to be modeled after Pokey from the Gumby shorts, and that decision turns out to be a bad one as he grates on your nerves for the entire film with the nasally groan that makes Fran Drescher sound like Sigourney Weaver. He's not a bad actor (Just see Adaptation), but this performance is horrible, it's too self-aware, too much forced awkwardness, and is really hard to watch.

Luckily, the brilliance of Kathleen Turner's performance far outweighs the horribleness of Cage's, and she deservedly received an Oscar nomination for it and the film's fun tone and touching scenes makes it easily watchable and very enjoyable. It's a fun little movie.

Up in the Air (2009)

2010-02-13T07:45:00.000-08:00

Again, another Oscar nominated film that I've actually seen (My past history with viewing Oscar nominated movies is quite shoddy, since they never come to my town). And this one seems to channel the spirit of Billy Wilder, which is a good, good thing.

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a professional downsizer. He works for a company that his hired when companies want to lay off employees, but are too afraid to do so. So Ryan spends the majority of the year traveling from city to city and firing people. He also occasionally gives motivational speeches focused upon letting go of what he deems to be baggage (family, friends, anything that may tie you down in one place). During one trip, he meets a fellow traveler Alex (Vera Farmiga), and they strike up a casual romance, planning future rendezvous based on their travel schedules. Soon, Ryan begins to question his life choices, is a life untethered a life he really wants?

Along the way, he must travel with the company's newest and most ambitious employee, Natalie (Anna Kendrick). She's a young upstart, fresh from college and full of ideas about how firings can be conducted via webcam in order to spare traveling expenses.

The three leads in the film, Clooney, Kendrick, and Farmiga are all excellent and deserving of their Oscar nominations. George Clooney creates a charming character who only feels comfortable when he is on the road, he revels in going from airport to hotel to airport to hotel and feels burdened only when he has to spend time at his home. Anna Kendrick's able to take a character that could have been completely annoying and make her human. We empathize with the young girl being exposed to the world and the harsh career of firing people. Vera Farmiga conveys perfect confidence and naturalness as the witty match to Ryan Bingham. She makes the character feel lived in and we sense a history within her, it's not overbearing, just a slight touch of sadness.

The film itself is wonderfully written, with director/writer Jason Reitman (his third film, with the others being Juno and Thank You for Smoking) As I said, this almost feels like a Billy Wilder film, like a modern day The Apartment. It's a somewhat funny film tinged with a sense of sadness that follows a man's journey of realizing what he truly wants in life. The writing is sharp, interesting and the performances are mesmerizing. And to be honest, if I had my choice, Anna Kendrick would be getting the Oscar come Oscar night.

Watch it. Of all the films on my "Oscar List", this is easily near the top.

Oh, and on a different note, I've been thinking of starting another blog. Since I have trouble finding time to sit down and watch a movie without school work or dog drama acting up, I've been thinking of creating a blog more about me (because I am fascinating individual) since that would be much easier to update regularly. I wouldn't be abandoning this blog, so it's just something I've been considering. What say you, readers? Of course, I'm assuming I have any readers at this point.

Julie and Julia (2009)

2010-02-06T05:13:00.000-08:00

Meryl Streep delights in this merging of two real-life stories. Amy Adams however....

Julie Powell is not happy. She works for a development center where she has to answer phone calls from people affected by 9/11, unable to work towards her goal of being a writer. At her husband's suggestion she begins a blog that chronicles her journey through Mastering The Art of French Cooking, Julia Child's landmark cookbook. The challenge is that she must cook every recipe within one year. Meanwhile, we get to see how Julia Child discovered French cooking and slowly but surely became the Julia Child so beloved by America.

The parts with Julia Child are easily the best parts of the film, with Meryl Streep fully embodying the warbly-voiced cooking maven. She doesn't try to add any sort of darkness to Julia Child, instead playing her as America remembers her, witty and full of life and a love for food (And according to Meryl Streep, she injects her mother into the performance as well). Stanley Tucci is great as Julia's supportive and adoring husband, and their relationship is beautiful to watch.

The parts about Julie Powell, however, aren't as successful. And before I go on, I must tell you that I love Amy Adams. Really, I adore her, and this movie actually made me find her slightly irritating. Something that in my book, is unforgivable. She just comes across as so selfish and treats her husband so poorly whenever a mistake occurs when she's cooking. Granted, a point of the film is that this whole blog process changes her, but with her being so grating, it's hard to really care if she changes or not.

Luckily for us, the film is greater than the sum of its parts, with the verve and zest for life injected into the film by Meryl Streep causing the film to ultimately leave a good taste in our mouths.

An Education (2009)

2010-01-28T18:35:00.000-08:00

Since I said that Mrs. Bullock doesn't deserve to win the Oscar, I should probably share that if I had my way, Carey Mulligan would be winning big on Oscar night (granted, I haven't seen Julie and Julia or The Last Station, which are expected to receive Best Actress noms).

Carey Mulligan plays Jenny, a young girl in Pre-Beatles Suburban London. She comes from a hard-working family who longs to see her enroll at Oxford university. Her slightly-naive but well-meaning father Jack (Alfred Molina) has her entire high school life planned out to make her the perfect potential pupil for the school. These plans are thrown for a loop when Jenny attracts the attention of the much older David (Peter Sarsgaard) who has the funds to take Jenny to art auctions and real concerts. Her parents don't seem to mind, they seem to think it's wonderful that a wealthy mn is taking it upon himself to offer culture to their young daughter, naively believing that David's older relative is acting as a chaperon for their young daughter. Jenny must then choose what she values more, her education or a chance at pursuing a life of fun.

Carey Mulligan acts as the second coming of Audrey Hepburn with her star turn in this film. She has to balance the tightrope of being smart enough to excel in school, but innocent enough to fall prey to David's initial advances and she pulls the act of splendidly, especially in the second half of the film, where things take a heavier turn and we get the feeling that Jenny is playing David as much as he is playing her.

The supporting case is great as well. Alfred Molina is wonderful as the loving, yet naive father who only wants the best for his daughter, and Peter Sarsgaard is able to make David charming, but almost creepily so, to where we can't tell what his true intentions are with Jenny.

Also, for any fan of the TV show Mad Men, this film is for you, besides the plot and acting, the film is a sumptuous feast for the eyes, filled with period costumes and beautiful locales.

In addition, the writing is sharp, and occasionally funny and offers a brief glimpse into the real life "education" that can occur in a young woman's life when she is confronted with the temptations of sex and a lif eof carefree luxury.

I heartily recommend this film, and I hope that you'll join me in a collective finger-cross for Carey Mulligan on Oscar night.

Precious (2009)

2010-01-28T05:44:00.001-08:00

Strong performances elevate would would have otherwise been a Lifetime movie of the week.

Clarice Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) is 16 years old, illiterate, poor, and pregnant for the second time with her father's baby. Not exactly the ideal life for anyone. She spends her days struggling in school and being teased and she spends her nights taking care of her verbally, physically, and sexually abuse mother Mary (Mo'Nique). After getting expelled for being pregnant, Precious is sent to an alternative school, headed by Mrs. Blu Rain (Paula Patton) who encourages writing and sharing. The class eventually begins to open Precious' world and give her a chance as escaping her current situation.

Sounds familiar? The plot isn't exactly blazing new territory, but luckily we have a wonderful cast of truly talented women to elevate the film above what could have been a predictable mess. The performance that grounds the film is Gabourey Sidibe's, who deserves the eventual Oscar nomination that she'll receive. It would be far too easy to make Precious a victim and make her seem so downtrodden by her situation, but instead Sidibe keeps the pain below the surface, as if Precious is determined not to show the anger and hurt. She is allowed about 1 breakdown in this movie, and it's absolutely heart shattering to watch as everything we've seen Precious endure through the film is allowed to finally be released.

The supporting cast is equally strong. Mo'Nique, who before this was doing films like Phat Girlz and Soul Plane is now the Oscar frontrunner, and deservedly so. Throughout the film, we see the monster that is Mary Jones as she strikes her daughter and insults her, but luckily we are given one scene in which a social worker (Mariah Carey, who is actually really good as someone who has seen it all) confronts Mary about the abuse and we are allowed to see the human being inside Mary, and how she is a victim as well. That one scene takes what could have been an easy character to play, the absolute troll of a human being and adds so many layers and nuances and Mo'Nique does it brilliantly.

And while we have Mo'Nique to be the villain, the film needs it's hero, someone to save Precious and we have it in the character of Mrs. Rain. It's actually sad that Paula Patton isn't receiving as much acclaim as Sibibe or Mo'Nique, because I happen to think that she's brilliant. She makes a character with an infinite amount of warmth and compassion without being schmaltzy, who also has some fire and fight within her and is able to inspire her students to do more.

And lastly, we have Mariah Carey as Mrs. Weiss, the social worker. While she only has 2 scenes in the film, Carey is instantly able to give us her character's history, with the "I've seen too much" eyes, the lax posture, and the tired voice, she creates a woman that has seen so much hardship that she's both weary and hardened because of it. When she hears that Precious is pregnant by her own father, what would make others drop their jaws, she only meets with mild surprise.

One issue I found with the film is the inconsistent directorial choices made by Lee Daniels. It seems like he wanted to simply do too much, so we have some scenes that are shot almost documentary style, then we have scenes with overly dramatic flourish like when Precious is walking down the hallway to her new class, she fades out, appears further down the hall, fades out, and is near the end and when she opens the door we see shining gold light. It's very odd and jolts us from a film that is supposed to be so based in reality.

Another issue I have are with the dream sequences in which Precious envisions herself as a famous celebrity or dancing in a music video. I understand that this is where we see the "Ideal Precious", the happy Precious who is no longer burdened by the live she leads, but the sequences are so jarring and come across as so cheap that it doesn't feel all that glamorous.

But overall, this is a strong film that can be VERY hard to watch, but it's not so much doom and gloom that you walk away feeling depressed. It also has some of the best performances of the year, which makes it worth watching alone.

The Blind SIde (2009)

2010-01-27T16:57:00.000-08:00

Sorry for such a delay kids, I've been busy trying to catch up on my potential Oscar nominees, so I should be posting entries on several of them within the coming days. For now, I'm going to do The Blind Side, which is probably the weakest film on the list.

For anyone interested in awards season, it's pretty much a fact that Sandra Bullock has pulled in front in the Oscar race for this film. It's sad, really, since I've seen 3 of the expected nominees, and Bullock's work is easily the weakest, but mor eon that later.

The Blind Side is the true story of Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron), a professional football player. But when the film begins, Michael is homeless, doing poorly in school and struggling to fit in. That is until the Tuohy family led by matriarch Leigh Anne (Sandra Bullock) take Michael in. Now as part of their clan, he flourishes, his grades improve and his protective instincts are put to use on the school football team.

The story is very run of the mill, anyone with a brain cell can see where the film is going, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing in some cases, the film isn't strong enough for you to simply enjoy the journey of the film. The weakest aspect of the film is how is tries way too hard to be meaningful and tug at your heart strings. Every single moment that could possibly elicit emotion is accompanied with uplifting music and/or slow motion. The film is like a kid at an orphanage, trying desperately to make you desire to take it home. It has all the subtlety of a drag queen. By the time Michael and the Tuohy's son are rapping to "Bust-A-Move" in the car, I had almost checked out.

Luckily, the best part of the film is that Sandra Bullock is able to play the character in a way that doesn't totally dissolve into saccharine sweetness. Leigh Anne is strong willed and willing to fight for her family, and Bullock gives the character an adequate amount of strength, humor and charm. But does she deserve the Oscar? Not really. The character is a strong-willed Southern woman, and there's not much there in the way of true character depth (though, I suspect the blame lies with the writer as opposed to Bullock). The rest of the cast flounders in parts that are way too one note. The biggest offender is the character of S.J., the Tuohy family's young son who only acts as the overly cutesy and sassy kid and offers nothing more to the film except mind-searing irritation.

In general, the film is simply too easy, in a sense. Michael is accepted with little to no argument from any of the family members, and over half of the film is "Look what the family is doing for Michael now!", getting him a car, taking him clothes shopping, it feels very condescending with the whole "The white family saves the poor black man" angle. And while they try to assert that Michael is changing the family just as much as they're changing him, that claim ultimately fails as the family is essentially perfect in the beginning of the film and perfect in the end.

And the end of the film presents a truly bizarre dilemma as Michael's admission to Ole Miss (the alma matter of both Tuohy parents and Michael's tutor played by Kathy Bates) is questioned as a sort of plot by the Tuohy's to trick Michael into going to the school and playing football for them. While this itself isn't that bad, it's suggested that now wealthy white families will be taking in poor black people an an attempt to bolster their football teams. It's ridiculous, and it's also handled so quickly that it feels almost like an afterthought to the film.

I'm not trying to say that the film is offensively bad. It's really just too generic of a film to suggest that people run out and see it. But as I said, Sandra Bullock gives a strong performance that saves the film from complete and total mediocrity. And if you're the sort who cries at the drop of a hat to films and you're look for something moderately uplifting, this should fit the bill. But for everyone else, you've been warned.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

2010-01-10T13:31:00.001-08:00

I know that I've strayed a bit from the "Classic Hollywood" mold as of late, but with a New PS3 brings Netflix Watch Now, which brings to me and my brother staying up late and watching movies, and since he's not a classic film fan....

Anyway, this should be my 100th entry, and luckily it's about a film that I loved.

Joel (Jim Carrey) has recently broken up with Clementine (Kate Winslet) and in a spur of the moment decision, she decides to undergo a radical new procedure and have her mind wiped of any memories of her past love. Joel, feeling slighted, undergoes the same process but becomes self-aware and decides that he still loves Clementine and he fights to preserve his memories.

The film can be a bit hard to follow, because once Joel undergoes the procedure, all of his scenes are taking place in his memories, which are rapidly being erased, which causes the world around him to break apart as the memories is being deleted. In addition, he cannot see anything beyond his memories. For example, he is recalling a fight he had with Clementine where she stormed off down the road, Joel didn't follow her so any attempts he makes to go after her fail because his memory doesn't contain that information.

Outside this cerebral spectacle, we have Stan (Mark Ruffalo), the technician assigned to erase Joel's memories, Mary (Kirsten Dunst), the receptionist for the Mind-Wiping company, and Patrick (Elijah Wood), another worker who has stolen Joel's identity and is using Joel's erased memories to try and woo a recently mind-wiped Clementine. Their stories are just as funny and as interesting as the main plot, thankfully.

But at the center of the film, we have two outstanding performances from Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet. Jim Carrey almost seems to become Jack Lemmon-y as he evokes a puppy-dog sense of sadness and loneliness, someone who is neurotic and tightly wound which is probably what causes him to fall for Clementine who is wild and impulsive. Kate Winslet creates a fully formed character, we see the humor, the quirkiness and the spontaneity that draw people to her, but we also get to see her pettiness, her restlessness with life, and her insecurities. It's a beautiful performance, especially during the scenes where a Self-Aware memory of Clementine travels with Joel from buried memory to buried memory in an attempt to "hide" from the brain-wiping machine. Everytime a memory of Clementine is erased and we see her suddenly disappear, out heartstrings are tugged as we will for the two to end up together.

For such a surreal movie (thankfully, it's not so bizarre that we are totally lost on what is going on), it needed a strong emotional core to ground it, and luckily we have Carrey and Winslet who are astounding as the mis-matched couple. Also, the supporting acting is very strong, with Kirsten Dunst showing a great range from comedy to drama as her character begins to show unexpected depth.

It's a wonderful, wonderful film that deservedly won the Oscar for best Original Screenplay and it creates a couple that I actually rooted for, which if you've read this blog, then you know that it's a big deal.

Hopefully I'll have 100 more posts (and hopefully 100 more followers). Thank you for reading and I'll see you again.

Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)

2010-01-09T07:28:00.000-08:00

Sally Hawkins is a revelation in an incredibly cheerful, happy British film.

Poppy (Sally Hawkins) is a bright and cheery primary school teacher who loves to bring sunshine and happiness to those around her. One day, her beloved bike is stolen, so she decides to finally get her license and begins taking driving lessons with Scott (Eddie Marsan), a depressing, angry, conspiracy theorist who is pretty much the opposite of Poppy's cotton-candy whimsy.

The film doesn't have a plot, so much as it has a premise, which I've just told you. It's various episodes in Poppy's life and we see how she deals with them, sometimes with cheery optimism and humor and other times with quiet kindness and gentleness. It's up to Sally Hawkins to make it work, and she does. Despite being so strangely happy, Hawkins keeps Poppy grounded and allows for the character to feel more like a realized person than just a character that is defined by the word "Happy". The film lives or dies by her performances and luckily for us, it soars.

The film itself is very funny, and a lot of the humor comes from Poppy's interactions with other people, like her sarcastic and dead-pan best friend Zoe or with the tightly wound Scott. The director was smart enough to not make Poppy the only cheerful person in the film. It could have been too easy to create a film about a optimist stuck in a depressing world filled with depressing people, but instead we are treated the the school principle who enjoys Flamenco lessons and with a school counselor who enjoys helping as much as Poppy does.

The result is a sweet film about someone who never allows life to get them down and finds joy in every single situation that she can, making it hard to keep from smiling during the film and after the credits have stopped rolling. Highly recommended.

La Vie En Rose (2007)

2010-01-03T06:21:00.000-08:00

Marion Cotillard delivers a stunning performance in this biopic of French singer Edith Piaf.

Edith Piaf didn't have the best life. She was a small sickly child who grew up in her grandmother's bordello before living at the circus with her father, eventually having to become a street performer, where her lovely voice is discovered. As expected, she eventually becomes famous, and has to deal with drug addiction, love, and her failing health.

The film tells the life of the singer in a non-linear way, which may be confusing to some to see the young Edith, then cut to an older arthritic Edith, but it eventually works out to the film's wonderful conclusion, which is much more of an emotional payoff than simply following her life until her eventual death.

The sets and costumes used in this film are rich and beautiful, perfectly capturing the wealthy lifestyle Edith finds for herself through her music. The make-up is insanely good, making Marion Cotillard's life spanning performance seem totally believable as we see her grow older and older.

The film ultimately works because of Cotillard's beautiful (and Oscar winning) performance as the singer. She fully embodies every stage of life she must portray. Her 20 ear old Edith is bubbly and full of life while her older Edith is hunched over and weak, wise from the hardknock life she is lived. Some have said her performance is melodramatic, which is true, but the character is portrayed so that it works. She's been a performer since the age of 9, she lives through emotions and feelings, so it makes sense for there to be a lack of emotional subtlety in someone who spends their life tapping into their feelings for the sake of performing. It's a haunting performance that is emotionally affecting. When we see her happy, we cannot help but smile and when we see her sad, our hearts break with her as Marion Cottilard delivers an astonishing performance that paints Edith Piaf as a fully realized, multi-faceted individual. We see her pettiness, her selfishness, her kindness, her humor, her warmth, and her charm. We see all of it while Marion Cotillard guides us through the life of the French singer.

It's a wonderful film, and the lead performance is something that must be seen.

Meet John Doe (1941)

2010-01-01T06:15:00.000-08:00

Frank Capra directs Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper in this comedy-drama about the plight of the everyday man.

Barbara Stanwyck is Ann Mitchell, a feisty journalist whoi is fired from her job at the newspaper, saying her writing lacks "fireworks". So for her last article, she prints a fake letter she claims to have received from a "John Doe" an everyday man frustrated with society who is going to jump off City Hall on Christmas Eve at midnight in protest. The article sparks outrage as people are angered that a man is driven to such actions by society, but when the governor claims that the letter is a fake, Ann convinces the newspaper editor to hire someone to play John Doe and offer a articles in which John Doe argues for the plight of the common man. They find their John Doe in Long John Willoughby (Gary Cooper), a former Bush League pitcher who injured his arm and was forced to drop out.

What starts out as a scheme to sell newspaper begins to have a widespread effect, especially after a radio speech which Anne writes based on the ideals of her dead father, that men should know their neighbors and help eachother out. This causes the creation of John Doe clubs across the nation, where communities gather together to help one another. While Ann and John begin to fall in love, they're forced to deal with the situation of whether or not a movement based on honesty, generosity and integrity can survive if based on a lie.

The film itself is pretty good, never getting bogged down in one plotline and instead moving along several until the films ultimate conclusion. But it does have one issue that bugged me. Ann and John simply fall in love too fast. They have a working relationship, then we get a montage of John Doe clubs spreading across the country and suddenly John is head over heels in love with Ann. It hinted that Ann had feelings for John Doe, since he seemed to embody the ideals held by her father and John begins to take those on as he becomes passionate about the movement, but for John to fall in love with Ann so much, it feels a bit rushed. And since the latter parts of the film NEED to have the two in love, it seems like they just needed to have it happen without adding to the film's running time (which is over 2 hours).

Luckily, the two leads are more than capable. Barbara Stanwyck is wonderful as someone in love with money, falling in love with ideals, and then the man who represents these ideals. And much like Barbara Stanwyck, Gary Cooper has to play someone not really invested in the whole John Doe movement, instead he's simply looking to make some money, but he too begins to fall in love with the movement and begins to truly feel as if he really is John Doe.

The film is a feel-good film that leaves you feeling happy, which is always nice, giving a message of hope in a world that is plagued with poverty, prejudice and hate. Plus, as I said, the two leads are great (But, Barbara Stanwyck is always great) and despite one issue, it's still a great little film.

All About Eve (1950)

2009-12-31T06:16:00.000-08:00

Here we are kids, All About Eve, possibly the greatest movie ever made with one of the greatest scripts ever written, and containing one of the greatest performances ever. That's a lot of "greatest"s.

Bette Davis plays Margot Channing, a stage star that is rapidly approaching the age in which actress are put out to pasture. It doesn't help that she has a younger lover Bill (Gary Merril, who would become the 4th Mr. Davis). She also has her best friend Karen, whose husband writes a great deal of Margo's plays, one of which is beginning to go into rehearsals with Margo as the lead.

Enter Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter), a young fan of Margo who watches performance after performance. One night, after seeing her standing in the rain, Karen takes her to see Margo and Margo takes pity on her, eventually hiring her as a personal assistant. But it becomes obvious that Eve isn't the poor downtrodden creature that she pretends to be, and she's nosing her way into Margo's inner circle to steal the limelight away from the aging actress, eventually making a deal with the devil by siding with acid tongued theater critic Addison DeWitt (George Sanders).

The real star of the film is Director Joseph L. Mankiewicz's brilliant script. It crackles with wit and intelligence. It's not natural human speech at all, but it's so smart and such a joy to watch and the actors do such a great job with it that it becomes one of the defining and best characteristics of the film.

Needless to say, the performances are all brilliant. Bette Davis essentially plays herself and allows to show the insecurities of an aging woman of the stage, offering depth, warmth and humor to the role. Anne Baxter is cold, calculating and ruthless as Eve, and Celeste Holm is warm, caring and slightly naive in the role of Karen. Also, George Sanders is brilliant in his Oscar winning performance of the witty and snide Addison DeWitt.

The film really is one of the finest ever crafted, the acting and writing is pitch perfect and the story is one of the best looks at the pressures of someone in show business, the pressure to stay young, to continue playing teenagers on stage when you're almost 40 year old. It's a wonderful movie, one that should be watched by anyone who enjoys classic films, because it's easily one of the best.

C Me Dance (2009)

2009-12-26T06:18:00.000-08:00

I'm going to hell for this one, children.

Yes, it's C Me Dance, which is quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. The trailer was brought to my attention by the magic that is THE INTERNET and it was just recently released on DVD, which resulted in my brother getting it via Netflix.

The film is a poorly acted, poorly written, and overly preachy Christian film that eventually turns itself into a joke and loses any real message it may have been able to depart.

The film follows Sheri, a young girl who loves ballet and stilted dialogue. She lives with her father (Greg Robbins) after her mother was killed in a incident that rips off the movie Duel. Greg Robbins is a bit of an auteur in the Christian film world. He wrote and directed this film, and has had his hand in several other productions including Pastor Greg, the first Christian Sitcom which is preview when you first put the disc in your DVD player. It's visual AIDS. One day, while dancing Sheri falls and is rushed to the hospital where she discovers that she has leukemia that is so advanced that treatment will do absolutely nothing. Despite being able to do everything she could have done before her diagnosis, Sheri is doomed to die.

But, fortunately for her and THE WORLD, God has decided to grant her with telepathy and the ability to turn someone into a Christian by simply touching them. This, of course, as the movie states "ticks off the Devil" so he appears in the form of an Arnold Schwarzenegger lookalike wearing a black trenchcoat. Right off the bat, we're told that the Devil can't hurt anyone, so any delusions that this film has of being a thriller are completely shattered. Of course, Sheri starts turning people towards God, the world becomes a better place because everyone is a Christian and then Sheri dees on Christmas Morning.

The film really does suck, the acting is so stilted that every single line feels written. There's not an iota of naturalness in this film. And Greg Robbins really had no business in making films, he can't write and her certainly can't act. Plus, the film becomes a joke of its own making. I mean, isn't the idea of faith that we're supposed to come to our own conclusions as opposed to being bewitched into Christianity? And later in the film, when Sheri and her father are trying to do a nationwide broadcast so that Sheri can convert the masses, she simply has to touch the Network Exec. and they'll do whatever she wants. Plus, we're treated to a ridiculous scene in which the effect of Sheri's converting people is shown in various newspapers "Murder and Rape are down such-and-such percent!" one person exclaims. We're also told that the owner of a Porno shop is closing his business because of its sinful nature and devoting money to families that have been destroyed by porn. Also, the next three films up for released have been shelved forever because they go against family values. It's ridiculous. Apparently every issue in the world will be solved if everyone were a Christian.

I know I said I would do Christmas in Connecticut but this film was so awful (in an awesome kind of way, I laughed quite a lot), that I figured I would share it with you. My day-late Christmas present to my wonderful readers (all three of you).

Here's the trailer, which will give you a taste of it's awesomeness.

The Man Who Came to Dinner (1942)

2009-12-21T09:54:00.000-08:00

I suppose this could be seen as a Christmas movie, since Christmas does occur during the film and it's all snowy and whatnot. But it has Bette Davis, so it doesn't really matter.

Anyway, the film stars Monty Wooley as Sheridan Whiteside a famous critic well-known for his wit and acid-tongued comments. When Sheridan is visiting The Stanleys, a well-to-do Ohio family, he trips on the stairs and hurts himself, and the doctor orders him to rest. Under threat of lawsuit, the Stanleys take him in and he takes over the household. Bette Davis co-stars as Maggie Cutler, Sheridan's secretary who begins a romance with a local writer.

The film is good for three reasons. Monty Wooley, who reprises his role from the Broadway play and delights in delivering the horrible snide and wicked insults that his character spews. The script, which provides him with the necessarily amount of venom with which to spew, and for Bette Davis who delivers a rare comedic performance. Granted, as I said in The Bride Came C.O.D. Bette Davis has the great quality of being able to play comedy straight, which works here as she allows Monty Wooley to cram in as many barbs as he can while she remains unflappable and devoted.

The film has a strong cast with excellent supporting performances, particularly Ann Sheridan as an actress friend of Sheridan's and Billie Burke playing a role almost identical to her role in Dinner at Eight, playing an overworked and anxious housewife.

This is a fun movie that revels in wit and nastyness (which may be off putting for some), but for others it can serve as a dash of spice to any sort of Christmas movie marathon, cutting through the treacle that is usually found during the holiday.

Up next, I'll most likely talk about Christmas in Connecticut. Alright, kids? Behave yourselves now.

Sleuth (1972)

2009-12-19T06:31:00.000-08:00

Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine play romantic rivals who engage in a dangerous game of wits in this Stage-to-Screen classic.

Laurence Olivier is Andrew Wyke, a wealthy mystery novelist who enjoys games and puzzles, so much so that his house is almost like an amusement park ride. Michael Caine is Milo Tindle, the hairdresser who is having an affair with Andrew's wife. Andrew invites Milo to his mansion one day, hoping to help in providing his wife with a comfortable life once she leaves him for Milo. What results is a dangerous game of cat-and-mouse where each man tries to out do the other.

One of the main successes in the film is the brilliant performances by the two leads. Laurence Olivier is wonderfully witty in the role of the snobby writer who believes that his intelligence and wit are much superior to the lower class Milo. And Michael Caine is equally good as a man who's struggled his whole life and is using his school of hard knocks education to one-up the wealthy Andrew.

The script crackles with wit, offering up zinger after zinger as the rivals attempt to cut eachother down, adding a touch of class-ism with Andrew's view of Milo. Considering that the film largely takes place within Andrew's estate, it's a challenge to keep the viewer interest, but director Joseph L. Mankiewicz keeps the set cluttered with Andrew's possessions so that there is always something to look at, even though the acting ensures that you shouldn't be bored.

It's a great film to see, with two wonderful performances with an equally great script.

And I'm sorry for neglecting you readers, I'll try to be better.

Addams Family Values (1993)

2009-12-07T17:58:00.000-08:00

Finals are almost over and a childhood favorite is revisited (Thanks Wal-Mart for finally getting it).

Ok, before you scoff, Addams Family Values is actually a good movie. It's not a Spice World-like guilty pleasure, it's sincerely a good film.

The film doesn't have much of a plot, though. Morticia (Angelica Huston) and Gomez (Raul Julia) have recently added Baby Pubert to the Addams clan. Of course, Wednesday (Christina Ricci) and Pugsley (Kid I've never heard of and never have since) attempt to kill the little thing until their parents hire Nanny Debby (Joan Cusack) who is really a black widow killer out to get Uncle Fester (Christopher Lloyd)'s vast fortune.

The film has to tread the line between camp and being serious enough to where the film doesn't come across as self-aware smugness, and for the most part it works, in part because of the casting. Let's get this out of the way, Christina Ricci is awesome beyond belief in this movie. It would have been so easy for a child actor to attempt to turn Wednesday's deadpan delivery into something overly sassy, but Ricci nails it by actually acting (just watch her performances in the play within the film to see how different she makes the two Wednesdays). Also, Joan Cusack is a wonderful addition to the film as the crazed murderess, making line after line hilarious and quotable. Her monologue at the end of the film about killing her previous husbands is brilliant (Just watch the many copycats on Youtube to gain an appreciation for the great Miss Cusack). The rest of the cast is great as well, but Ricci and Cusack OWN the film.

The script is great as well, offering great line after great macabre line. Sometimes it can be a bit too much, but overall the script is smarter than you would expect.

I know I've seen the first film, but I don't remember much of it and I've heard a lot of people say that this film is far superior, so I would definitely recommend this. I know it's not like the usual fare for this blog, but it's just such a fun film.

Cabaret (1972)

2009-11-30T06:13:00.000-08:00

Here it is, the musical classic Cabaret. It's actually pretty depressing, and a bit light on the whole "musical" aspect.

Anyway, the film stars Liza Minnelli as Sally Bowles, the daughter of a U.S. ambassador who sings at the Kit Kat Club in Berlin. The Kit Kat Club is a place of "divine decadence", where ladies and "ladies" wrestle in the mud or sing songs about threesomes. All of these wild acts are overseen by the creepy Master of Ceremonies (Joel Grey), a little man with painted on cheeks who looks like a marionette. Anyway, Sally meets British writer Brian Roberts (Michael York), who may or may not be gay, and establishes a relationship with him, talking about her relationship with her father as well as her aspirations to becoming a big star. While all of this is going on, the Nazis are gaining power and the political environment is becoming darker and more hostile. It's also interesting to point out that Bob Fosse doesn't make every musical number turn into some sort of cotton candy colored gay fantasia that seems to exist on a limitless stage, instead the costumes are pretty cheap and we see the entire size of the stage, which serves to remind us that the numbers take place in a sleazy little club, that this isn't a happy, magical place.

Being a musical, this film is pretty light on actual musical numbers, there are only a handful of songs, and they're all performed in the context of the Kit Kat Club. Which is one of the main themes of the movie, using the acts of the Kit Kat Club to juxtapose the violence occurring outside its walls. While a Jewish girl is being harrassed, we see the M.C. in drag goosestepping around the stage, mocking the Nazis, or he's singing a ballad about his love for a gorilla, asking the audience to accept their love because no one can choose the direction of their own heart. This theme adds a lot of very sudden, very random shots inserting themselves in the film. You may see a man being beaten to death with a quick flash to girls dancing in the Kit Kat Club, or to the M.C.'s grinning face. For some, I can imagine that it can be very off-putting.

Now, for the performances. Liza Minnelli totally knocks it out of the park as Sally, offering the performance of a lifetime. Sally is a insecure young woman who wraps herself in grand gestures and this overblown mythology about her sex appeal, her ability to shock people, and her own quirkiness. You can see just how deliberate this act is when Sally drops the facade, gone is the campiness, instead leaving a vulnerable woman with dreams that she knows will probably never come true.

Joel Grey (who won the Oscar as well as Minnelli) is brilliant as the M.C. He displays such twisted, impish delight at the ongoings at the club, and the fact that we never see him outside the Kit Kat Club (let alone outside a stage performances) just adds to the mystery and oddness of his character, since we have no idea who or what the hell he is.

This film holds the records for most Oscars ever won without an actual Best Picture win (it won eight), and it's truly deserved. Bob Fosse has crafted a masterpiece that is entertaining, but sad and shocking as we learn that the Kit Kat Club may be the only place in Berlin were people can be truly free, and even that may be coming to an end.

Gaslight (1944)

2009-11-29T05:07:00.000-08:00

Ingrid Bergman shines in this well-made, albeit predictable thriller.

Ingrid Bergman is Paula Alquist, the niece of the famous singer and actress Alice Alquist. When Alice is strangled one night, Paula goes to live with her aunt's closest friend to study singing, there she falls for Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer), a pianist, and they wed. But it becomes apparent that her marriage is not what it seems as Gregory attempts to drive his wife insane.

Now, I know that may seem a bit like a spoiler, but to be honest, the film essentially tells you the eventual twist that Gregory is evil right off the bat, so I didn't really find myself thinking "Maybe Paula really is crazy, maybe it's all in her head".

But aside from that small flaw, the film is really good. Ingrid Bergman won an Oscar for her performance, and it was well deserved. Paula is a genuinely sweet person, and its painful to watch her slowly lose her grip on reality as Gregory repeatedly tells her false stories about how she keeps losing things, or how she takes things and then hides them. Watching her doubt her sanity is heartbreaking since Bergman makes Paula's desperation palpable, and once the seed has been blossomed in her mind about her madness, she becomes a shell of her former self, her eyes glazed over and her movements slow and weary.

Charles Boyer also offers some fine work here (and was nominated for an Oscar for it). Whereas Paula begins doubting her self, Gregory becomes more and more assured, his wife's madness becoming a topic he returns to over and over. Also, we see small glimpses of his anger beneath his facade of a caring husband, moments where we see the true Gregory, a violent and rough man, far from the dignified gentleman he pretends to be. He plays the role with such conviction that had the film not spoiled itself, he really would have cast a doubt on Paula's sanity.

We also get Angela Lansbury's first film performance ever as Nancy, the rude housemaid. It's an interesting (and Oscar-nominated) performance, because Nancy seems so heartily disinterested in what's going on. She would much rather go out and flirt with the policeman on his beat, than listen to Paula talk about her sanity.

Overall, the film is really good. It's moderately suspenseful, and Ingrid Bergman really does deliver an absolutely fantastic performance full of desperation that begs to be seen.

The Great Lie (1941)

2009-11-19T07:05:00.001-08:00

Here we have one of Bette Davis' lesser known films, which happens to be one of her better films.

Anyway, Bette Davis is Maggie, a young woman living on the plantation full of obedient Negroes. Her former flame Peter (George Brent), has just married concert pianist Sandra (Mary Astor) only to find out that their marriage is legally void. Of course, the only reason these kinds of things happen in old movies is to have poor Sandra knocked up with Peter's baby, and unfortunately for her Peter has returned to Maggie and married her. And unfortunately for both women, Peter's plane disappears over Brazil and he is presumed to be dead (but we know better, right?). So Maggie and Sandra, who have been rivals, come to a truce and Maggie hopes to care for Sandra during her shameful, sinful pregnancy. This leads to a great scene where both women are in a cabin out in Arizona and Sandra basically goes insane.

Anyway, the baby is born, Peter returns from the dead and Maggie claims the baby is hers, an arrangement with which Sandra has no objections. Or does she? Tune in to find out!

The film is an above average soap, and what really makes it memorable is the performances by the two leading ladies (who actually re-wrote the script together). Bette Davis is in the most least Bette Davis-y role you can expect, as the southern good girl aiding the woman pregnant with her husband's child. But she pulls it off with genuine kindness and sympathy.

Mary Astor, however, steals the show as the vain, arrogant, and catty pianist who find herself stuck in a situation that she loathes. She has lost her man, but doomed to carry his child, and Astor gives an Oscar-winning performances full of bitterness and bile.

Luckily, the film never really switches the focus from either of the two women, so it's able to maintain your attention throughout.

It's a nice little film that doesn't really get a whole lot of attention (well, besides an Oscar), and it's also a good show of Bette Davis' range, that she could convincingly play the good girl of the movie. So, I suggest you watch it, especially if you're a Bette Davis or Mary Astor fan.

The Apartment (1960)

2009-11-14T05:31:00.000-08:00

Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine deliver some incredibly performances in this Best Picture winner.

Jack Lemmon is C.C. Baxter (though, most people call him Buddy Boy), a everyday Joe who works for an insurance company. But C.C. has discovered a way to get on the good side of his superiors, by allowing them to use his apartment for their torrid affairs. But when his boss Mr. Sheldrake's affair with elevator girl Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine), who C.C. has had a crush on for a while, ends badly and leaves the poor girl shattered, C.C. tries to help her and falls in love along the way.

The film was written and directed by Billy Wilder, easily one of the greatest people to ever get into film (He's responsible for Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity, and Some Like it Hot, for starters), and it shows. The film has a sharpness and a humanity about it that you typically find in a lot of Wilder's work. It also expertly balance the light and the dark, the film can take some heavy turns, but there's always a moment of humor or sincerity to break up the gloom.

The acting here is phenomenal. Jack Lemmon is wonderful as a frazzled everyman who places his own career advancement above his personal life and comfort. He has a lot of frantic mannerisms, but the performance has a lot of nuance to it, watching his heart break when he finds out about the affair between Fran and his boss, and observing him slowly fall in love with the poor elevator girl. He's just a decent guy, and Lemmon avoids adding any real darkness to the role, just a sense of puppydog sadness and weariness.

MacLaine is also wonderful. Fran is a romantic young woman who puts up a facade of humor and quirkiness to hide a lot of pain and remorse over her past romances that haven't ended all too well (she keeps a broken pocket mirror stating it "Makes me look the way I feel"). The role could have easily gone into far too much woe-is-me nonsense, but MacLaine keeps a humorous edge to a lot of what Fran says, even when she's allowing herself to be hurt and vulnerable.

Fred MacMurray is good here as well, playing a total slimeball, who uses the same ploys to land woman after woman, convincing each one that he's in love with them and on the verge of leaving his wife. It's amazing to see the sudden warmth and caring develop when he's turning on the charm, knowing that he's essentially a jerk trying to get what he wants.

The film is a very human story, showcasing two wounded, damaged people who slowly begins to heal themselves by their growing friendship and romance. We see C.C. change from a doormat to a more assertive man, who doesn't allow those to simply boss him around, and we see Fran begin to shift from being satisfied with being "the other woman" to realizing that she deserves someone better.

It's a wonderful film, regarded as one of the best ever, and I can't really disagree with that.

A Letter to Three Wives (1949)

2009-11-12T07:14:00.001-08:00

It's a husband-stealing whodunit that features moment of poignancy and insight.

The film (which was written and directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz who would win back to back writing and directing Oscars for this film and All About Eve the following year) tells the story of three friends, Deborah (Jeanne Craine), Rita (Ann Sothern), and Lora Mae (Linda Darnell) who are about to take a group of children on a riverboat trip when they receive a letter, informing them that that Addie Ross, a mutual friend/enemy has run off with one of their husbands.

The film then offers flashbacks that give us some insight into the marriage of all three women and the issues that could possibly propel their husbands into the arms of another woman. When it comes to Deborah, a sheltered farmgirl who married her social superior and feels out of place at the fancy outings and parties that her husband loves. Rita writes stories for the radio, which causes friction between her husband since she makes a substantial portion of the family's income and focuses more on the radio station's needs than her husbands. And Lora Mae is married to an older, wealthy man she forced into marriage.

One aspect in which the film works is that neither marriage is shown to be truly broken, in fact, we pretty much get the pros and cons of all the relationships in these little vignettes. While the men all have issues that may drive them away from their wives, they're also shown to love their female partners and be supportive of them. So it adds a great deal of suspense as to who has run off with the never-seen Addie, since it's not really obvious.

The three lead actresses all turn in great performances, with each wife creating a distinct personality and effectively conveying doubt and worry while agonizing over their potentially dead marriage. And the writing is sharp and smart, never bogging itself down in the cliches that could easily arise from the story, which is no surprise since the script was penned by someone who would go on to write what could be considered the greatest screenplay ever written.

This is a wonderful little film that doesn't really get much attention, so do yourself a favor and watch it.

Sorry, Wrong Number (1948)

2009-11-09T04:53:00.001-08:00

The brilliant Barbara Stanwyck elevates this pretty average thriller into something actually worth watching.

Alright, y'all, here it is, Sorry, Wrong Number. It stars Barbara Stanwyck (obviously) as Leona Stevenson, the invalid wife of Henry Stevenson (Burt Lancaster). One night, Leona is all alone, her husband is late so Leona tries to find out where he is. Her only means of communication is the telephone, so while waiting for her call to be connected to her husband's office, the wires are crossed and she overhears two men planning the murder of a woman. As the film progresses, we learn that Leona doesn't know quite as much about Henry as she thought, and that the murder being planned may be her own.

Now, that doesn't sound too bad, right? Well it's not, but the main problem with the film arises out of its narrative structure. You see, a great deal of the film consists of flashbacks, as Leona calls person after person hoping to find her husband and we get scenes of what someone observed about Henry the previous day or something like that. Also, we get the story of how Leona and Henry met, as well as the current state of their marriage. We learn that Leona stole Henry from a woman who loved him, and that Leona is a spoiled heiress to her father's prescription drug fortune, we also learn that Henry is frustrated with Leona, having to keep her happy to avoid upsetting her condition, which consists of a heart attack during times of stress.

The flashbacks are a nice way to flesh out the backstory of the film, but it takes away from the suspense, especially since most of the flashbacks concern themselves with the condition of the Stevenson marriage as opposed to the murder plot that Leona overhears, which seemed to be a higher storytelling priority, at least to me.

Luckily, we have Barbara Stanwyck in the lead. She delivers a wonderful performances, making Leona horrible and spoiled in the flashbacks, but adding levels of vulnerability and sorrow during the present, where the life she had constructed for herself falls down around her. She makes the character paranoia and fear totally real, which makes it easy to relate to her and to care about whether or not she survives the film.

Aside from that, the film is a solid thriller with a big hiccup in the story telling department due to the overabuse of flashbacks. But it features one of Barbara Stanwyck's best (and Oscar nominated) performances, which makes it watching simply for that.

The Dark Knight (2008)

2009-11-08T05:08:00.000-08:00

That's right readers, I'm tackling a new movie, and a giant, huge, money-making blockbuster at that (I have to do something to please the kids, right?).

Anyway, here we have The Dark Knight, the massive hit from last summer, featuring the last completed performance by Heath Ledger, for which he earned his only Oscar.

The film follows Batman/Bruce Wayne as he deals with the higher-ups of the crime world, who are now being led by a mysterious figure known as The Joker (Heath Ledger). He's also dealing with his former flame Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal)'s new relationship with crusading DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart).

The plot is easily one of the weakest aspects of the movie. Not because it's poorly constructed, but because the overall plot of The Joker is so convoluted, requiring him to have almost-psychic level powers to accomplish what he wants. Now, I know he's supposed to be a master planner, but he performs some actions that would have completely nullified his future plans if Batman hadn't intervened at exactly the right moment. At the time you're watching, this doesn't present itself as an issue, but upon 2 rewatches, you begin to question the structure of the plot and it eventually unravels.

Not to say that the plot ruins the film, it's still good, but it makes the film a bit hard to rewatch.

As for the acting, everyone involved gives great performances, with the obvious standout being Heath Ledger, who totally immerses himself in the role of an enigmatic killer who only desires to create chaos to create chaos, hoping to prove a point that everyone is like him deep down inside, they just need a push. Aaron Eckhart was mostly ignored for his performance as Harvey Dent, which is a bit sad, because he does deliver a much more subtle performance (but no less powerful) than Ledger, having to create a moral man fighting in an amoral world that doesn't fight fair.

The film deals a lot with this idea of order versus chaos. And the question is raised if Batman can truly protect people by limiting himself by certain rules (No killing being the chief one), it brings an interesting question regarding vigilantism and how low are people willing to sink in order to actually do good.

It's that regard that elevates The Dark Knight above standard action fare, it's an intelligent, but still entertaining examination of a moral question that a lot of people pose in post 9/11 America.

That said, director Christopher Nolan does a brilliant job of keeping our interest, and the action sequences are wonderful to behold. As I said, the main issue with the film is the actual plot, but besides that, it's an entertaining ride with some actual brains behind it.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

2009-11-06T05:53:00.000-08:00

First off, I know that I'm a bad. bad, blog writer. But if you'll forgive me, loyal readers, I had a doggy emergency that's kept me busy and frazzled the last few days. I'll try to be good, I promise I will.

Anyway, here is my much belated Halloween entry, The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It's easily one of the oddest (and possibly gayest) movies I've ever seen, so much so that it spawned a cinematic movement of audience participation.

It's hard to actually evaluate this as a film, since a showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show has since become an event, something you are part of as opposed to something you view. But anyway, the film follows two straight-laced kids Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon), who have the misfortune of having their car break down in front of the castle of Dr. Frank-N-Furter (Tim Curry), a pansexual transvestite from the planet of Transsexual Transylvania, who is unveiling his createst creation, a blond muscular man named Rocky who is essentially a love toy for the hedonistic professor. Mayhem, sex, and cross-dressing ensue into one crazy homage to the B-horror and sci-fi RKO films of yesteryear.

Performance wise, everyone is pretty competent, there's not real Oscar level acting on the part of the main cast, except for maybe Mr. Curry. But let's face it, Tim Curry is the main reason to see this film (though the songs are pretty catchy), he just seems to be having a total ball playing one of the oddest cinematic creations in history. He's funny, over-the-top, and generally brilliant, and it's hard to look away, even if he's in full on drag for the entire movie.

But really, this is The Rocky Horror Picture Show, I'm talking about. It's risen above any sort of real criticism and has become something to be experienced. Really, regardless of what I say, everyone should see this film. See it to love it, see it to hate it, see it to be offended. It's so out-there, and so bizarre, yet so fun that it's hard to tell anyone to avoid it. You really need to just see it for yourself.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)

2009-10-27T06:41:00.000-07:00

I apologize for being so lazy, dear readers, but school was particularly hectic last week, between two tests and the sudden revelation by a professor that I had to write a 10-15 page paper in a week (There was no procrastination on my part, just so you know).

Anyway, here is Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, the Tennessee Williams classic about lust and love. The film stars Paul Newman as Brick,a former high school football star who is a bit too fond of the bottle, and breaks his leg one night after attempting to jump some hurdles while drunk. Brick and his wife Maggie (Elizabeth Taylor) are in Mississippi, visiting Brick's parents because of his father, Big Daddy's birthday. Unknown to Big Daddy, he is dying of cancer, and the birthday festivities, Brick's alcoholism, and the scheming of Brick's brother and sister-in-law to ensure a large chuck of the inheritance once Big Daddy dies brings to light the issue plaguing the family and the marriage of Brick and Maggie.

The acting in the film is phenomenal. I know it's a crime, but this is the only Paul Newman film I've seen, and he's amazing in it, portraying a deep level of bitterness and hurt over his upbringing, which focused more on being spoiled as opposed to being loved. Elizabeth Taylor is also in fine form, showing a woman who is madly in love with a man who is repulsed by her. Burl Ives, who plays Big Daddy is just as good as the leads, he is larger than life and shows the strength and cunning that made Big Daddy the success he is today.

The film largely plays on the theme of truth and lies, mainly in the context of the lies we construct around ourselves in order to function, so that we don't have to face certain truths of our lives. That it's someone's fault that we're so messed up, or that deep down, someone really loves us. It's heartbreaking to see these various lies shatter upon the heads of the characters, leaving them to face the stark reality of the state they're in and the choices they've made.

It's a brilliant film that I completely recommend.

Murder on the Orient Express (1974)

2009-10-20T06:02:00.000-07:00

As a die-hard Agatha Christie fan, I was somewhat apprehensive about watching a film adaptation of one of her most famous novels, but luckily, the film is pretty good.

The film (like most mysteries) features a group of strangers on board the Orient Express, a luxury train traveling through Europe and Asia. When one passenger is murdered during the night, famed detective Hercule Poirot (Albert Finney) must solve the case. Of the suspects, we have a Count (Michael York) and his wife (Jacqueline Bisset), a British Colonel (Sean Connery), an annoying American tourist (Lauren Bacall), a missionary (Ingrid Bergman), a timid secretary (Anthony Perkins), and a Russian princess (Wendy Hiller). As you can see, the cast is pretty star-studded.

The film is a lavish production, with wonderful settings and costumes, with adds to the elegance of the whole film, and the direction by Sidney Lumet is tight and slightly claustrophobic, which it should be.

As for the acting, the cast is universally steller, even if some roles are a bit miscast. Lauren Bacall, I love her to death, but she doesn't really fit the frumpy, irritating character described in the books. She seems more like a cool older lady who you want to hang out with. But luckily, Albert Finney is insanely good as Poirot, completely and totally nailing his odd quirks, the body language, his humor, his slight arrogance, as well as his mental brilliance. It's a wonderful performance that was justified in its Oscar nomination.

Ingrid Bergman actually won an Oscar for her role, which really only consists of one brief minute scene, but she totally owns it, creating a character who is scared, saddened, and slightly coming undone due to her surroundings.

The film takes some liberties with the book (some character's roles are shortened to only a few lines), and the overall mystery is a bit easier to figure out, but the film is a lavish production of one of the greatest mysteries of all-time with a wonderful cast. So what's not to love?

Paper Moon (1973)

2009-10-16T06:06:00.001-07:00

A wonderful homage to depression-era films featuring a brilliant (and historical Oscar-winning performance) by Tatum O'Neal.

Moses Pray (Ryan O'Neal) is a conman who travels the country, deceiving people out of their money (which is kinda mean, since it's the depression). Anyway, the film begins at the funeral of Addie Loggins' (Tatum O'Neal) mother, a woman who wasn't exactly chaste. This woman once had an affair with Moses, so it's possible that the young girl is his daughter. He is charged with taking Addie to live with her aunt, and along the way finds the man who hit Addie's mother with his car and cons him out of $200, claiming that it belongs to the young girl. Thus, Addie claims that Moses owes her $200 and refuses to leave him, and the two become partners, conning people along their road trip.

The plot of the film is essentially three different "episodes", the forming of their partnership, the disruption of their partnership by the inclusion of Miss Trixie Delight (Madeline Kahn), a "Harem Dancer" Moses picks up at a fair, and then a con involving a bootlegger in which Addie and Moses may be in over their heads.

The film itself is really good, but the best thing about it is the young Tatum O'Neal as Addie. The character is almost like the anti-child character, because she's like a child. She's not a miniature adult like we see in a lot of films, she's just a normal kid. And O'Neal brings a great deal of cleverness as well as hurt to the performance, creating a fully realized character where there might not have been one in the screenplay, commanding the screen and overshadowing her father.

Another standout is the ever-brilliant Madeline Kahn as Trixie Delight (she also received an Oscar nomination). Like O'Neal, she creates a detailed character in what could have been a one joke role. Trixie is obnoxious, constantly needing to pull over to "go Winky-Tinky", and calling Moses "daddy". But there's one scene that suggests that she hasn't had the easiest life, and Kahn pulls it off without any sort of falseness about it.

Ryan O'Neal is good as well, making Moses a charming, yet slightly slimy character, and he also portrays his budding friendship with Addie quite well. They never become buddy-buddy, instead they rely on each other, and trust each other enough to perform cons together.

The script is sharp and funny, smartly dividing the film into 3 different stories to avoid the overall idea of the film from becoming stale or tired. The direction is great as well, with Peter Bogdanovich using a lot of one-take tracking shots and stark black and white cinematography.

This is a great film, one that I've seen several times now, and I can't see myself growing tired of it any time soon.

The Village (2004)

2009-10-13T06:05:00.000-07:00

Ok, for the most part, I've been pretty safe in my movie choices and what I say about them, so I figured it's time to insert a bit of controversy (though, it's kinda mild) into the mix.

I hate The Village.

Granted, this opinion isn't exactly a rebellious one (one look at the Rottentomatoes rating for this film actually puts me in the majority), but I cannot help it.

The film is about a small, 1800's town in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by dark and scary woods, which are said to be inhabited by "Those We Don't Speak Of", who might possibly be a relation to He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and He Who Walks Behind The Rows. Those We Don't Speak of Are Monsters who live in the woods as some sort of bargain between the villagers. They stay out of the woods, and they will stay out of the town.

Living in the town is Ivy Walker (Bryce Dallas Howard), a blind girl who is in love with Lucius Fox (Joaquin Phoenix), and the film essentially follows their romance as well as the events that lead to Ivy being forced to venture into the woods if she wishes to save the man she loves.

The film itself looks beautiful and the direction is varied and interesting, which is about the only positive things in this film. The acting is generally somber and joyless, everyone seems to have just walked away from a funeral and are incapable of expressing anything other than solemnity. Bryce Dallas Howard is able to inject some sunshine into her role, but everyone else seems so tired and sad.

Plus, the film makes an unforgivable mistake, it lies to you. Now, given that Shyamalan is known for his twists, you're going to expect one in this film, but the problem is that we are instantly established with one fact only to be told otherwise later. I know that there could be an argument made on this, but I'm standing firm. This film lies to you, which is a massive no-no.

In addition, the plot is just dull. Ivy essentally bullies Lucius until he makes some out-of-breath confession of love and instantly we're supposed to care about what happens to these two young'uns, when I didn't give a flying fig. And don't get me started on Adrian Brody as a mentally retarded man, because it's just all kind of ridiculous.

Really, I hate this film. It's so dull, lacking in anything that created a spark of interest inside me, and the film's lie to support its twist pushed it into full blown hatred. It's poorly acted, melodramatic, and franky awful. Don't watch it kids.

The Girl From 10th Avenue (1935)

2009-10-11T06:32:00.000-07:00

In honor of the recent anniversary of her death (the 8th), I'll make an entry about one of Bette's earliest starring roles.

Bette Davis plays Miriam Brady, a shop girl who discovers the wealthy Geoffrey Sherwood (Ian Hunter) drunk and angry on the streets, yelling at the wedding party of the woman who rejected him for a wealthier man. Miriam takes Geoffrey to a cafe, to avoid the police who may arrest him for being drunk. At the cafe, two of Geoffrey's friends offer Miriam $100 to keep an eye on Geoffrey for the day.

The two wake up the next morning to discover that they had gotten s-faced and married each other. Miriam gives Geoffrey the go-ahead to leave at any time, but he stays with her and she helps keep him sober. But soon Geoffrey's former flame enters the picture, which complicates things.

The film is watchable, only because of Bette Davis. Really, because Ian Hunter is so boring, and so weak that we don't really care about what happens to him. Whereas Bette Davis is dynamic and interesting (though it's a role we've seen from her many times) as a tough, yet sensitive woman who is falling in love with a man who could leave her at any moment.

Plus, the film tries to make Miriam's lower class upbringing and behavior a major factor as to why Geoffrey may leave her, since his old girlfriend is wealthier and refined. The problem with this is that Miriam isn't really shown to be uncouth or anything that would make this such a problem. Her speech isn't really any different from any of the upper class people seen in the film, so the main contributor of the "Will he or won't he stay with her?" conflict isn't even apparent to the viewer.

That said, the film is a decent soap opera, with Bette Davis saving it from total mediocrity, which is common in a lot of her films. So if you're a fan, then see it.

Charade (1963)

2009-10-08T06:55:00.000-07:00

Audrey Hepburn is a widow aided by Cary Grant, who may or may not be who he says he is, in finding a fortune hidden by her now deceased husband.

Hepburn is Regina Lampert, a recently widowed woman who discovers that he now dead husband is not who he claimed to be. After stealing a fortune in American money during World War 2, the deceased Charles Lampert hoodwinked his 4 partners-in-crime and took off with the money, leaving them to face German troops which resulted in the death of one of their number. Now that he's dead, the 3 still-living crooks (Played by James Coburn, George Kennedy, and Ned Glass) want Regina to hand over the money, which they believe she has.

Unfortunately for her, she doesn't, and she's helped by Peter Joshua (Cary Grant), a man she met on holiday who may or may not be after the money as well.

Grant and Hepburn are wonderful in this film. They have a great deal of chemistry and despite being in his late 50's, Grant is still as charming and suave as ever. Luckily, the film plays up the fact that this is a May-December romance, so it makes the somewhat implausible pairing more believable, especially since they make it clear that Audrey Hepburn's character is pursuing him, not the other way around, so it avoids any sort of creepiness of an older man leering over the younger Audrey Hepburn.

Hepburn is gorgeous in the film, and she shines as a woman who was trapped in a loveless marriage who finds herself falling for a man she may or may not be able to trust. The two have great chemistry and their dialogue crackles with wit.

The plot itself is filled with great twists and turns and it always has you guessing until the very end, which makes it all the more enjoyable. Even if you're able to guess a few of the upcoming reveals, I'm sure there are still a few that will take you by surprise.

The film is set in Paris, so it's obviously a gorgeous film at which to look. The settings are lush and beautiful, and Hepburn wears some great and stylish clothes.

It's a wonderful film, entertaining, thrilling, and funny and it features two screen legends reciting a fun and smart script. One to watch.

The Letter (1940)

2009-10-07T04:50:00.000-07:00

I apologize for not having a new entry recently, but the only movie I've seen of late was Spice World, which is a childhood favorite turned guilty pleasure, and I'm sure that if I did an entry on Spice World, I would soon be chased off by angry villagers carrying torches and pitchforks.

Anyway, here we have another Bette Davis classic, The Letter. Bette Davis plays Leslie Crosbie, a wife of a wealthy rubber plantation owner in Singapore who murders a man in, what she claims to be,
self-defense. Her husband believes her story completely, whereas the family lawyer Howard Joyce (James Stephenson) suspects that Leslie may not be telling the truth. This is confirmed when he receives the news there is a letter in the possession of the dead man's widow from Leslie, which sheds some light on the relationship between her and the man she killed.

William Wyler did a great job with directing this film (He's probably made some of Davis' best films), it's very moody and sultry, and he also gets a great performance out of Davis. Leslie Crosbie is someone who is constantly scheming, playing the role of a devoted and pure wife when she's anything but. And Davis portrays this cold, calculating nature perfectly, while also adding the confusion and forced emotionality she would need given her facade of being totally innocent of her crime.

But I must take this time to warn you, dear readers, that the ending of this movie sucks. Now, usually this is the fault of the director or screenwriter, but this movie has a tacked on ending that the crew was forced to add due to the Haye's Code that legislated morality in film. So, if you have an issue with the ending, it's not necessarily the fault of the filmmakers, instead the liability falls into the filmmaking bodies of the time that attempted to control what was and wasn't shown in the movies.

Aside from the ending, the film is fantastic. It's dark, it's moody, it's mysterious, and it has a series of strong performances all around with Bette Davis giving one of her best at the conniving wife. It's really one to see.

Queen Christina (1933)

2009-10-03T04:56:00.000-07:00

Greta Garbo gives a wonderful performance in this well-made period piece.

Let it be known from the beginning, that this film requires a large suspension of disbelief, because Miss Garbo is mistaken for a man in this film. And she pretty much looks like she does in the picture to the left when the gender confusion occurs. But anyway, Greta Garbo plays Queen Christina, the Queen of Sweden who took over at a very young age after her father was killed in battle. We jump several years into the future and she's a weary ruler, tired of living her life for Sweden. She's being pressured to marry her cousin, who also happens to be a war hero, but she finds her true love when she is horseback riding in the country side and encounters a Spanish envoy (John Gilbert). He mistakes her for a male, but once the boobs have been revealed, all is well and they fall in love.

Of course, their love can never be revealed, because Sweden is having very strained relationships with Spain, after years of warring with each other, so (as they must do in any sort of royalty romance story) Christina must make a choice between her love and her duty as Queen.

Garbo is great here, she exudes strength and power, but she allows her character to be multi-faceted. When she's addressing her subjects or her advisors, she's very hard, very cold, but when she's with someone she's more comfortable with, we get to see her playful side, her light and happy side. She pulls it off expertly.

The rest of the acting is good, but this is really Greta Garbo's film, I mean "Garbo" is twice as big as the actual title of the film on the DVD, so it's her show to allow to her command the screen with her magnificent presence.

The sets and costumes are all well-made and it appears to be a very lavish production for its time, and it shows, making the palace intrigue and romance more believable and easy to watch.

I should also point out one shocking thing about this movie, it portrays Queen Christina as bisexual. Now, I may be wrong in this assumption, but I was shocked when a female "friend" entered Christina bedroom, only for Christina to greet her by holding her head and kissing her on the mouth before talking about going away together in the country for a few days. Not that lesbians freak me out or anything, but when things like that happen when you're in "Old Movie Watching Mode", you can't believe you eyes.

Of the 3 Garbo performances that I've seen (I've made entires on all of them), this is easily her best, it feels more natural and less "acty" than her other two (not that they were bad), and the character of Queen Christina seems to fit Garbo, a strong woman who also longs for love. It's really one to watch.

Grand Hotel (1932)

2009-10-01T06:02:00.000-07:00

A Star-Studded cast perform in this melodrama that chronicles the lives of various guests at the famous Grand Hotel in Germany as they interact, fight, and fall in love.

Plot-wise, the film is essentially divided between the stories of these guests, which eventually merge with other stories and take on new stories and so on and so forth. We have Greta Garbo as The Dancer (her real name is kinda weird, and she's listed under both titles in the credits), a depressed, eccentric ballerina who wants to be both alone and in love. Joan Crawford is Flaemmchen, a stenographer for wealthy business man Preysing (Wallace Beery). Lionel Barrymore is Otto Kringelein, a dying man who is having his last hurrah with his life savings, and John Barrymore is The Baron, a down on his luck nobleman who must resort to some drastic measures to pay off his debts. The "main" plot (if there really is one) is the emerging love triangle between both The Baron, The Dancer, and Flaemmchen.

The acting for the most part, is pretty good. Joan Crawford is actually really likable and natural here, which serves as an odd counterpoint for Greta Garbo's performance. Now, I'm not bashing a legend here, but her performance is just so odd, in a sense. She successfully conveys the necessary emotion, so it's not a bad performance, just an odd one. She does a lot of grabbing her hair and wrinkling up her face and acting pretty tired most of the film. Granted, she's a suicidal ballerina, so that's a license to be out there. John Barrymore is charming and romantic, and it's very understandable why the two women would fall for him. Wallace Beery is essentially a brute, which is exactly what he's supposed to be, and Lionel Barrymore is so tragic and heartbreaking as someone who has been downtrodden their entire life only to still be treated poorly on his final stab at life.

The film is a great melodrama (it won Best Picture), well-made with wonderful sets and costumes, and as I mentioned, the acting is on a high level. It's also surprisingly sad in a lot of ways, but everything works out in a way that makes sense.

It's pretty easy to recommend this movie, especially given its classic status. Plus, it's got a great cast, and could be a great entry-level film into getting into Greta Garbos filmography, or Joan Crawford, or either of the Barrymores. So, watch it, it's a good little film.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

2009-09-30T04:56:00.000-07:00

Tim Burton adapts the Broadway classic into a brilliantly made, expertly acted, and incredibly bloody film.

Johnny Depp plays Benjamin Barker, a barber who lives with his wife and young daughter. Unfortunately for him, the corrupt Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) lusts after his wife and has Benjamin arrested and taken away. When he returns several years later, he encounters his former landlord and piemaker Mrs. Lovett (Helen Boneham Carter) where he learns that his wife had poisoned herself after being raped by the judge and his daughter is now being raised as Turpin's ward. He takes the name Sweeney Todd and sets about getting his revenge with Mrs. Lovett as his a partner in crime, disposing of his victims by baking them into her pies.

It's odd for a musical to tackle this sort of subject matter, since for the most part, film musicals have been happy, cheery affairs, but this one is pretty dark, dealing with revenge, lust and obsession. The plot really works as a musical revenge tale, and it has several twists and turns as the story unravels. It's aided by the brilliant Stephen Sondheim's songs, which serve as moments of humor as well as insight into the minds of these characters. Plus, the songs are just great to listen to. Granted, some of the actor's are not really singers, but I think the film succeeds in that they nail their characters so well that the singing really just becomes more of an extension of their own acting.

And the acting is phenomenal. Johnny Depp makes his Sweeney Todd and dark and brooding character, filled with anger and vengeance and not really thinking about much else. Which causes the "humanity" and humor of the film to fall into the responsible and capable hands of Helene Boneham Carter (who probably deserved an Oscar nomination more than Depp) who has to make her Mrs. Lovett vulnerable and darkly funny. She loves Sweeney Todd, and she actually makes you pity her as she falls in love with a man with a mind focused entirely on revenge.

Even if you dislike the story and characters, it's hard to not be taken the the visual feasts that the film presents before you. It's moody and melancholy, with a pallet of blacks, grays and browns, filled with sumptuous sets and wonderfully Gothic costumes.

This is a good idea for someone interested in getting into musicals, but yet ready to dive into the flamboyant, over-the-top campiness that permeates the genre. The "musical numbers" in this film feature no dancing, and no real bombastic qualities, instead it's almost like someone singing instead of talking (though, Chicago is another good starter musical too, I would think).

I can understand why someone could dislike this film, one it's a musical, one of the most reviled genres of the modern filmgoer, plus it's Tim Burton who has become the patron saint of the "Emo" movement. But being someone who has been a life-long fan of Burton, it was inevitable that I would enjoy this film, but it's also a well-crafted and unique film, one that I hope my lovely readers (all 9 of you and even that's assuming) will enjoy.

The General (1926)

2009-09-26T05:45:00.000-07:00

Yes childrens, today I am writing about a silent movie. But it happens to be a very good movie, probably one of my favorite of all time.

Buster Keaton stars as Johnny Gray, a southern train engineer who loves only two people, his train (The General) and Annabelle Lee (Marion Mack), and when both are stolen by Union soldiers, he chases after them, straight into enemy territory.

The film isn't really a "plot movie", the film is actually a set piece for some truly amazing stuntwork by Buster Keaton, who climbs all around a speeding train performing various acts of daring. It's fascinating to watch and made even more amazing by the fact that it's all real. No special effects, no CGI, no stuntmen, it's all Buster Keaton.

He's also a great comedic actor. Given that it's the silent era, you'd expect the acting to be more over-the-top, which is what makes Keaton's stoic performance so funny. He doesn't freak out at a set beck, jumping around and going for a laugh, instead he'll just furrow his brow and get to work.

This is a great entry-level silent movie for anyone interested in getting into the silent age of film. It's not dialogue based at all, so you aren't going to miss any talking, since the film is predominately all action, making it easy to watch without even realizing that it's silent. It was my first silent film, and since then I've added a few silents to my Netflix queue (though I've only watched one more, Sunrise, which I've made an entry about).

This film is cited frequently as being one of the greatest of all-time, and I really can't argue with them. Just technically, it's a marvel to watch Buster Keaton do what he does best, and it's also a very funny and expertly-crafted yet simple story. Regardless of whether it's silent or not, this is really a movie that I recommend everyone see, plus, it may be your gateway into the soundless films of yesteryear.

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)

2009-09-23T09:03:00.001-07:00

I finally got around to watching one of the many films I have blind bought at a local dollar store, which offers some good movies for only $3 a pop. For example, I've bought Anna Christie, Ninotchka, Queen Christina, Capote, Gosford Park, Funny Girl, A Man for All Seasons, My Man Godfrey, Cimarron, and Grand Hotel. The only problem is finding time to watch all of them, but hopefully with this Woody Allen classic, I'll start a habit of tackling the massive venture before me.

Anyway, Hannah and Her Sisters is the story of Hannah (Mia Farrow) and (surprise) her sisters Lee (Barbara Hershey) and Holly (Diane Weist), as well as Hannah's husband Elliot who is in love with Lee, and Hannah's ex-husband Mickey (Woody Allen). The film itself is presented in a vignette style, without a real concrete plot (besides Elliot's love of Lee and Mickey's existential crisis) going throughout the film, instead we are treated to small glimpses into the lives of these three people. Hannah is the backbone of the family, a woman enjoying her life as a mother, wife and occasional actress, she is independent and strong, which unfortunately, causes her family to resent her. Lee is the more emotional, down-to-earth sister, who is in a 5 year relationship with Frederick (Max Von Sydow), an artist who's distaste for people has caused him to practically withdraw from the world, with Lee as his only link to the outside. Holly is the flighty sister, venturing from one vocation to another, she's an actress, a singer, a caterer, a writer, and she's also a former drug addict. She's lonely and Dianne Weist totally breaks your heart as she wishes to somehow obtain what Hannah has secured for herself.

There's also Elliot, Hannah's second husband who has a burning love for Lee, wanting to hold her and "protect her" and watching his clumsy flirtations with his wife's sister is both funny, sad, and awkward. As is Mickey's crisis of faith. After hearing loss in one ear causes a doctor to suspect a brain tumor, Mickey begins a quest to try and find God, determining that he does not want to live in a world with a "Maybe".

The acting in the film is great, with Michael Caine and Dianne Weist giving Oscar-winning performances. So while I don't need to speak much about them, since they deserved the awards. which speak for themselves, I want to talk about Mia Farrow and Barbara Hershey. Mia Farrow is given the thankless role of Hannah, which she excels in, exuding strength and calm. It's easily the least showy part of the film, and Farrow allows herself to become an emotional center to the film and her presence is felt throughout the entire film.

Barbara Hershey has one great scene in this movie, I'm not saying it's because she isn't good, it's because her character is mostly relegated to being the "straight" person, people get to be neurotic and flighty around her without her getting a chance to do much of anything. But in the scene where she breaks up with her boyfriend, she allows herself to be full of guilt and sorrow, leaving a man who needs her and without her will be sentenced to a life on the outside of the human race.

The script is touching and funny, it's never "hilarious", but it's something that can make you chuckle at the humanity and flaws of its characters. Allen is a master at blending sincere humanity with humor and he does it again here, creating realistic people who act like adults, never sacrificing characters for plot or comedy. It's a brilliant script.

The film is something I heartily recommend, especially for those who enjoy Allen's other films like Annie Hall. And for everyone else, it's a touching, human comedy that has become an 80's classic (for the right reasons).

Angels in America (2003)

2009-09-21T12:06:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I'm doing a Mini-series, but I really could make the argument that this is simply one long movie. But it doesn't matter because Angels in America is one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

Based on the Tony Award winning play, the incredibly complex "film" follows Prior (Justin Kirk), a gay man in the 1980's who discovers that he has AIDS, causing his long-time boyfriend Louis (Ben Shenkman) to question whether or not he wants to spend the next few years watching the man he loves waste away to nothing. Prior also begins having dreams, telling him of an Angel who is to come to him and give him a message.

There's also a plot about the real life Roy Cohn, a self-loathing, anti-Semitic, homophobic gay Jewish lawyer who also discovers that he has AIDS, causing him to reflect on his accomplishments, mainly using his power to get Ethel Rosenberg executed (she appears to him in visions, where she is portrayed by Meryl Streep).

Also, there's the story of Joe Pitt (Patrick Wilson), a gay Mormon lawyer who keeps his Valium addicted wife Harper (Mary Louise Parker) at a distance because of his lack of attraction to her. The only real affection they show each other is the "buddy kiss", a quick peck on the lips. His plot follows Harper's mental descent as well as his own self-discovery of his own sexuality.

The storylines all interconnect, and you have actors playing multiple characters, for example, Emma Thompson plays The Angel of America, a homeless woman, and Prior's nurse and Meryl Streep plays a male Rabbi and Joe Pitt's mother. There's also Jeffrey Wright, who plays Prior's friend who is also Roy Cohn's nurse, having to put up with his homophobic, racist remarks. Also, it's very abstract, so for those who demand realism in their movies, please back away. For example, Harper has a drug induced hallucination that clashes with a dream of Prior's and the two meet in this weird dream space. Not mention the dreams where an angel may or may not be visiting Prior.

And while the plot seems very heavy, it's actually quite funny, something you wouldn't expect in a film chronicling AIDS in the 80's, but there are several moments where I laughed out loud. That said, it can also be very sad, breaking your heart in one fell swoop, one scene in particular left me emotionally drained.

It's a very layered piece, talking about politics, the AIDS epidemic, religion, faith, and several other topics all at once and without seeming preachy at all. In fact, you could watch the film straight through and simply take it as is and not try to get into the messages of the film, it's that subtle.

The cast is, of course, brilliant. The film actually won all 4 acting Emmys given out that year, and it's justly deserved, with every single person delivering an absolutely astounding performance. It really says something about the level of acting when everyone is on equal footing with Meryl Streep and Al Pacino, but they are. For me to try and explain why each person is brilliant could take all day, and really, you should discover it for yourself.

There is no way I could have even given the film the treatment is deserves, because it's simply one of the most powerful pieces of film/TV ever produced, having a basic human resonance that allows anyone watching it to feel a tug on their very soul, making them connect with every character and pity them, dislike them, laugh with them, or cry for them.

There is nothing else that can be said except that I implore everyone to watch this.

Sunset Boulevard

2009-09-20T07:10:00.000-07:00

Ok y'all, here we go. We're getting into serious classic territory with this one. Sunset Boulevard, Billy Wilder's classic dark comedy/drama about an aging star who is basically loosing her marbles.

The film stars William Holden as Joe Gillis a down-on-his luck screenwriter who stumbles across the home of faded silent film star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), who decides 2 things. 1. She plans on having Joe write her big comeback film, and 2. She is in love with him. Keeping Norma in her delusions of grandeur is her loyal butler Max (Erich von Stroheim), who continues to insist to her that she is still much loved and as famous as she once was. Joe settles into the life of a kept man, living off of Norma's money and hating himself for it, but things become complicated when he falls for Betty (Nancy Olson), a young woman with whom he begins working on a screenplay. Oh, and did I mention that Joe winds up dead? Yeah, that's not a spoiler, for those stamping their feet in frustration, the film actually begins with the police fishing Joe's dead body out of Norma's swimming pool, and the rest of the film is a flashback chronicling how exactly Joe ended up face down in the water.

The flashback is actually a brilliant addition to this film, because it lets us know, right off the bat, that this will get messy. We know that things aren't going to work out and it adds a layer of suspense as to who will kill Joe and why.

The performances in this film are legendary, at this point. The character of Norma Desmond is really something that has become ingrained into our pop culture, and for good reason, because Swanson delivers one of the best performances of all time. Now, the rest of the cast is great, really, but Gloria Swanson has to toe the line between over-the-top and realism. I mean, her character is a crazy former silent movie star, that's really a license to be as over the top as you would like, but instead she keeps herself from making the character a joke, someone to be laughed at because of how melodramatic they are. Instead it's a character that entertains us and breaks our heart as we watch her retreat more and more from reality. She eventually lost the Oscar to Judy Holliday, for Born Yesterday, which I also did an entry on, if you'd like to get my feelings on that one.

The script is also as flawless as the film. Full of intelligence and bite as it serves as a stark indictment of the Hollywood system that raises people up to God-like status, only to throw them away. It really is one of the best films about Hollywood that you can find.

If you like this film (which I certainly hope you will), I also recommend All About Eve, which came out in the same year and was Sunset Boulevard's main competition at the Oscars (For the record, All About Eve won most of them, and it's probably Bette Davis' best film, so watch it!), it's also about aging and stardom (though, focused more on the stage as opposed to the screen). There, you have two recommendations for the price of one (though I really should make an entry on All About Eve), so that should fulfill you for now. Jesus, that's a lot of parenthesis.

Labyrinth (1986)

2009-09-17T08:46:00.001-07:00

You get two entries today, lucky readers. If only because I figured if I did a "real" classic movie, I could allow a little self-indulgence and make an entry on the 80's cheesetastic fantasy film Labyrinth, which was a childhood favorite of mine.

It stars future-Academy Award winning actress Jennifer Connelly as Sarah, an angsty teen girl (who favors the phrase "That's not fair!") that spends more time indulging in fantasy than in dealing with the reality of the stepmother she hates and her half-brother Toby who she frequently has to babysit. One night, after a particularly angsty episode, she kind of loses it and asks the Goblin King, Jareth (the always awesome David Bowie), to take her baby brother away. Which he does, taking him to his kingdom in the middle of the labyrinth (a really big maze, for the uninitiated) , and Sarah must rescue her brother before it is too late, otherwise he will be turned into a goblin.

The technical aspects of the film actually hold up quite well (despite one scene involving creatures who dance and sing and are capable of removing their body parts, it's greenscreened to hell), the various creatures that Sarah encounters are all Jim Henson puppets, which works a lot better than attempted CGI that would have dated the film terribly. Instead it actually works and you buy them as actual characters, plus it helps that the actress is actually interacting with something that has a physical presence.

The rest of the film is pure cheese, though. I mean, how else can you describe a movie where David Bowie prances around in leotards (really, his bulge should have a supporting credit for the amount of time it spends on screen), with 80's hair that is mightier than Bono's old mullet, and singing corny songs about slapping babies?

One thing that the film does have is David Bowie, who revels in playing a very creepy, oddly sexual villain. He's in love with a 15 year old girl, and he makes it sick and twisted. It's an odd character that one wouldn't necessarily expect in a Family-Friendly movie, and Bowie seems to have a blast in the role that allows him to be funny, menacing, and outrageous, so much so that his performance borders on drag.

It's really hard to say "Watch this movie" or even say it's a good movie, because it is loaded with nostalgia, and it doesn't hurt that I enjoy some good cheese every now and then (See my entry on Adventures in Babysitting or Troll 2). But if you remember seeing this movie as a little kid, I highly suggest you revisit it, because it really does hold up.

And if you enjoy your movies chock full of 80's gooeyness, or you just love David Bowie, I would also give this movie a watch, because it's just so odd.

And for everyone else, well, it's really up to you.

Old Acquaintance (1943)

2009-09-17T05:03:00.000-07:00

Bette Davis and (the one woman she admitted to hating) Miriam Hopkins star together in this wonderful soap about friends who kinda hate each other.

Bette Davis is Kit Marlowe, an unmarried independent author who has written a critical hit of a book that is unfortunately, not selling very well. She is "friends" with Millie Drake (Miriam Hopkins), an over-the-top attention whore of a shrew who only is able to retain her friendship with Kit because Kit feels a deep sense of responsibility to her because of their childhood together. It doesn't help that she is in love with Millie's husband, who also feels the same way about Kit, and further adding to the friction is when Millie decides to become an author as well, writing trashy romances that make millions. The film follows their friendship as well as their fights and squabbles.

What works about the film is that you never really buy Kit and Millie as friends, Kit is simply too smart and too low-key to enjoy being in the company of the hysterical Millie and the film brilliantly adds conflict after conflict to eventually force the two to have it out. Plus, it's very soapy, with catfights and forbidden love and the stuff that classic films excelled at with class.

As to be expected, the two leads are great. Bette Davis is often cited as being a Hollywood "bitch" but she was much more versatile than people think and the strong, independent, yet still vulnerable woman is a role in which she excelled. Kit is intelligent, kind, warm, and strong, but clinging to a foolish sense of duty to Millie as opposed to following her own feelings. Miriam Hopkins has a license to be overly dramatic in this film, and she takes full advantage of it, not really making an effort to make Millie very likable, instead being as shrill as possible. And as I said, their friction is believable, in part because the two actresses publicly admitted to hating each other, which is odd since they made 2 films together (The other film, The Old Maid doesn't utilize their feelings towards each other in the way that this film does).

This seems to be (to me at least), a lesser known Bette Davis film, which is a bit sad, because it is one of her better films. Granted, at the end of the day, it's a big soap opera and the strong woman is a character that Bette Davis has played countless times before, so this is not new territory for her. But the film still succeeds at offering a good soap with good acting and some good bit of "frenemy" action before that became an actual term.

So watch it, if you can.

Soultaker (1990)

2009-09-15T05:25:00.000-07:00

I usually try to make entries based upon my Netflix viewings, since that way the films are fresh in my mind. Well, after Peyton Place, I decided to indulge myself and get a Mystery Science Theater 3000 Episode. Since I haven't been the best blogger in the world, what with school starting, I figured I would go ahead and take the opportunity to comment on this horrible little film, also known as Soultaker.

The film revolves around 4 teens who are killed in a car accident, the impact throwing their souls from their bodies, leaving their bodies comatose and their souls on the run from The Soultaker (Joe Estevez), a grim reaper type individual who harvests souls by placing little black rings against their bodies.

Things are complicated when The Soultaker realizes that Natalie (one of the teens) is either a reincarnated version of the woman he loved (and eventually killed for cheating on him) or she just happens to look exactly like her.

This is where Soultaker gets most of its "so bad it's good" moments, from he fact that Vivian Schilling, who plays Natalie also wrote the script, which seems like an effort to boost her self esteem. The entire film is basically about how beautiful she is and how she had two men madly in love with her, even though she looks like Tonya Harding. There's even a scene where she is undressing in slow-motion while her "mother" (The Soultaker in disguise) ogles her teenage body, it's really gross.

There's also an odd attempt at adding a Romeo/Juliet type aspect to the relationship between Natalie and her boyfriend Zach, making her upper class and making him lower class, but all it ends up doing is adding a bizarre homoerotic subtext to the story. You see, Zach's best friend, whose name I cannot remember, is totally against the relationship, because of the class difference. But he's a little bit too passionate about it, and he is the ultimate reason the teens die, because he's driving the car that crashes and it only crashes because he decides to go way over the speed limit because of his issues with the relationship (I'm not sure how that resolves anything, but there you go.) It's very odd and it seems like Zach's BFF has more interest than just being friends with him.

Plus, the film doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Apparently if you murder someone, you must become a Soultaker, which Zach's BFF eventually becomes, even though the crash was caused by THE Soultaker stepping in front of the car and making him swerve. Plus, according to this film, Heaven exists in an upper story of the local hospital, and if there is a heaven, where all the souls go, then how is Natalie the reincarnated version of this guy's long-lost love?

But really, it's just a horrible movie, the acting's horrible, the writing is horrible, but hopefully that poor unattractive girl got a bit of self-esteem out of the whole thing.

12 Angry Men (1957)

2009-09-13T05:51:00.000-07:00

I apologize for the inactivity lately, since school has started and my dogs have been sick, my time's been spent elsewhere. But I return, bearing gifts, in particular an entry for the classic 12 Angry Men.

For those not familiar with the film, it follows 12 All-male, All-white jurors in a single room in a courthouse, charged with the determining the fate of a young Latino who is accused of murdering his father. When they cast their initial vote, all are prepared to give a sentence of Guilty, except for one juror, Juror #8 (Henry Fonda).

What follows is a re-examination of the evidence that pulls into question if the jurors can say with absolute certainty that the young man is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What makes the film interesting is how diverse these men are. Since they are all of the same ethnicity and gender, you can get to the real issues that may effect jury votes. For example, one of the juror's has tickets to a sporting event, and is basically willing to vote any way that will end the trial as soon as possible, while another is hopelessly bigoted against minorities, talking about "those people" and "their kind".

It's hard to talk about the performances, since the cast is quite large and it's very much an ensemble piece. But you can't really talk about 12 Angry Men without talking about Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb.

Henry Fonda proves that he is probably the greatest "Everyman" actor with this film, as he gives Juror #8 nothing more than intelligence and a belief in justice. Other than that, he's a typical man, we know nothing of his past except that he's an architect. But we don't need to know, because Henry Fonda spells out his history with his own face, showing a man who believes in being fair and taking pull responsibility of the duty he has been given as a juror.

Lee J. Cobb serves as the "villain" of the film, he is a man who has a personal vendetta against the accused, because of his own broken relationship with his son, he sets out to act as executioner against the generation that has broken his heart. He is older and less educated than Juror #8 and he makes his decision based on emotion and from the get-go, we know that he is the one Juror that will be the hardest to convince, setting up for a interesting battle of the wills between the two actors.

Praise must be given to director Sidney Lumet who never makes us feel trapped or claustrophobic. Since the film, for the most part, takes place entirely in the jury room, it's up to the director to keep things interesting, visually. And Lumet pulls it off effortlessly, keeping the camera focused on the brilliant acting and dialogue and never letting us become aware that the action doesn't shift locations.

But really, you don't need me to tell you to see this movie, it's an American classic that speaks of the issues that the justice system faces as well as being a showcase for some truly great acting.

Peyton Place (1957)

2009-09-09T05:37:00.000-07:00

Well, I finally watched my Netflix movie, and boy was it worth it. Peyton Place may be one of the biggest soap operas to ever hit theaters.

The film "stars" (Though there doesn't seem to be one actual main character) Lana Turner as Constance McKenzie, a single mother who moved back to her childhood home of Peyton Place after her husband died, leaving her with her daughter Allison (Diane Barsi), a senior in High School. She keeps a firm hold on Allison, terrified that she may commit some sort of scandal, despite Allison being a very good-natures and intelligent young woman who wishes to become a writer.

Allison herself is having a budding romance with Norman Page (Russ Tamblyn), a shy young boy who lives with his oppressive mother, causing him to be totally inept when it comes to girls.

There's also a plot about Allison's friend Selena (Hope Lange) who lives in a small shack with her mother and stepfather, who has to deal with her step father becoming more and more abusive towards her. In addition, there's a story of a classmate of Allison's who is in love with the town slut, but is torn between his whore and his wealthy father who forbids the relationship.

It all takes place in (obviously) Peyton Place, a town which is sexually repressed and filled with gossip hungry people. It was Mad Men before Mad Men, dwelling on the themes of appearance anf perception.

In case you didn't get the impression already, this movie has a lot of plot. So much so that it feels like you're watching a TV series, and this is going to turn some people off. Well, it's also very long, over 2 and a half hours, and very episodic. There will be chunks of the film that are entirely devoted to side character like Selena, so some could view the film as unfocused.

But the film works because the level of acting is so high. Lana Turner, Hope Lange, and Diane Varsi are all brilliant as the three "main" women. Lana Turner keeps her character very reined in, very cool and repressed but she begins to slowly open up as the film progresses (this is actually symbolized by her hair, which is kept in a tight up-do for most of the movie and begins to slowly become looser). Hope Lange breaks your heart as Selena, who probably has to deal with more than any other character in the film, and she pulls it off with strength, never making her character a victim. And Diane Varsi adds intelligence and warmth to a character who sees Peyton Place for what it really is and wishes to expose it in her writings.

The film itself is quite brave, as it deals with the whole "Suburban Repression" topic that was considered to be untapped until the recent film American Beauty. And it deals with it all in an entertaining and soapy way, serving as an indictment of those who seek to ruin someone's reputation as well as serving as a wake-up call to those who value their reputations more than their own happiness.

Plus, as I said, the film is pure soap opera, but it has something behind it, something worth saying which elevates it above pure pulp trash. It's a well-crafted film and one that I heartily recommend.

The Star (1952)

2009-09-07T05:49:00.000-07:00

Bette Davis stars in a film that is apparently supposed to be a thinly veiled portrait of Joan Crawford. That alone makes this movie a must-see.

Well, not really. Bette Davis plays Margaret Eliot, a now has-been actress who is struggling to keep afloat, but through her renewed romance with former co-star Jim Johannson (Sterling Hayden), she may realize that love is more important than fame.

The film itself is one big cheese-fest, with Bette Davis showing why she may be one of the greatest actresses who ever lived. She may be over the top, but she is insanely entertaining here. I mean, this film has a scene where (I kid you not) Bette Davis throws her mooching sister and brother-in-law out of her house then grabs her Oscar and says "Come on Oscar, let's you and me get drunk!" only to cut to Bette Davis driving around the Hollywood hills with her Oscar propped up on the dashboard and a bottle of booze in her hand.

It may be the greatest scene in the history of film.

Ok, to be serious for a moment. Bette Davis is the only reason to see this movie. It's a corny, soapy film that Davis elevates by actually giving a good performance. Granted, it's over-the-top, but it can get a bit of a pass because she's an actress, and generally people in the arts can be over-the-top (or so says any movie review in which someone is playing an actor/dancer/artist). But aside from that, the film is pretty dull. Her romance with Jim lacks any sort of spark and Sterling Hayden (I keep expecting to write Sterling-Cooper) is wooden in a role that's not particularly fleshed out. The actual plot is pretty shallow too, and only really entertains on a pure campiness level, like when Margaret gets a role in a film as a frump, but she tries to sex it up using her hair, make-up, and costume only to watch the dailies and fall screaming to the floor.

To put it plainly, this is a film you could easily skip, unless maybe you are hardcore Bette Davis fan (like I am) and you're interested in seeing her Oscar nominated performance. But other than that, unless what I just described sounds like your idea of a good film, it's a pass. Campy entertainment and not much else.

Wait Until Dark (1967)

2009-09-06T05:08:00.000-07:00

Audrey Hepburn is a blind woman being terrorized by Alan Arkin in an attempt to get a drug-filled doll from her apartment.

Really, do I need to say anything else? But since I've been neglecting you, my poor readers, I suppose I'll try to flesh out as to why you should see this movie.

First of all, let's get to the plot. Audrey Hepburn is Susy, a woman was recently blinded and still learning how to live in a world she cannot see. One day, he husband brings home a doll that a woman asked him to hold for her at an Airport, claiming that she didn't want her daughter to see it and ruin a birthday surprise. In reality, she was hoping to prevent her partner Roat (Alan Arkin) from getting the doll, which is filled with heroin.

So the doll ends up in Susy's apartment, and one a day where her husband is working, Roat and two associates create a story about Susy's husband Sam being involved in a murder and that this doll is evidence that could implicate him, hoping Susy will hand it over since they can't seem to find it. Unfortunately for them, Susy begins to grow wise to their plan, setting up a confrontation between the murderous criminal and a blind woman adjusting to life.

One issue with the plot, it's a bit ridiculous. In fact, Susy seems to never lock her door, allowing for Roat and his henchmen to walk in and out without Susy noticing. This may bother some people, and I can totally understand that, though if you consider that for the majority of the film, one of Roat's henchmen pretends to be an old friend of Sam's, it makes sense that she would leave the door open for him.

Now the acting. Audrey Hepburn is magnificent in the role of Susy. She creates a character who is hanicapped, but not useless. She's realistically limited because of her blindness, but it's not to the point where she has to rely on other people to bail her out, she can hold her own. And Hepburn adds gallons of likability to the character, making Susy a smart kind woman who is able to catch on to what's going on, hitting every emotional note perfectly as she has to run the gamut from being angry, terrified, suspicious and happy.

Alan Arkin is good as well, effectively portraying a character that is essentially a killer Beatnik. He's menacing as Roat, and he adds a twisted pleasure out of his dirty dealings, elevating him from a simple criminal to a psychopath.

And the film totally works. Audrey Hepburn makes you care about Susy, which makes it all the more gripping as we see the noose tighten around her neck as she unravels the lies around her, forcing Roat and his men to take action, making for a very tense viewing experience.

I can't recommend this movie enough. As I said, it may turn some people off with what they may feel to be the "Idiot Plot", but I happen to love this film.

Atonement (2007)

2009-09-05T05:59:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the lack of updates, I've been busy with school and some dog issues.

But anyway, I'm back (Hopefully), and I think I'll start with a film I recently watched, and it's also a film that I disagree with the majority when it comes to this film.

As some of you may know, Atonement was nominated for a slew of Oscars, including Best Picture, and it tells the story of Cecilia and Robbie, two young adults who fall in love. Robbie is the son of Cecilia's family housekeeper and is attending the same college as Cecilia (on Cecilia's father's dime). Their romance is cut short, however when Cecilia's younger, would-be-writer sister Briony (Saoirse Ronan, then later Romola Garai, and then Vanessa Redgrave) accuses Robbie of a crime he did not commit, sending him to prison, and later into World War II.

The film itself is beautifully made, with great costumes, and sets and cinematography, but the plot falls flat. Not because it is poorly written or not well-acted (in fact, the cast is universally good), it's that the romance between the two characters is so rushed that I never bought into it and the tragedy of the film was lost. Maybe I have an issue when it comes to romances, but when it comes to "Here are two characters, now care about their relationship" type scenarios, I usually find myself indifferent. The film is still easy to watch, and it's not offensively bad, but it's a bit of an empty spectacle. It's well-crafted but lacks any real emotional connection to the main plot of the film.

As I said, the cast is great, with special mention for Saoirse Ronan for her portrayal of Briony. She creates an intelligent 13 year old girl who is a master of observation. She uses it to fuel her writings about love and romance as well as take in the wealthy, well-to-do goings on around her. And in the same instance, I must mention Vanessa Redgrave who plays an elderly Briony. She's only on screen for a few minutes, but those minutes pack more of an emotional punch than the rest of the film. Her Briony is a lonely, regretful woman, broken by her past sin of lying about Robbie and she totally breaks your heart in a matter of minutes sinply using her voice and subtle face movements. It's breathtaking and heartbreaking.

I don't really find much else to say about Atonement. I can't rightly say to avoid the film, because if you were to buy into the main romance, it's sure to be a pleasant viewing. But it can be a bit hard to finish if you find yourself ambivalent to the matter of whether or not these two crazy kids are going to get back together.

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)

2009-09-01T05:53:00.000-07:00

Sex, sin and Southern Belles collide in New Orleans as Vivian Leigh and Marlon Brando clash in a twisted tale based on a Tennessee Williams' play.

Vivian Leigh plays Blanche DuBois, a faded Southern Belle who has moved to New Orleans to live with her sister Stella (Kim Hunter) and her brutish husband Stanley (Marlon Brando). Unfortunately for Blanche, she's a little bit off-kilter and the film basically chronicles her her tragic downward spiral, which includes her new beau Mitch (Karl Malden).

The film itself is light on plot, but that's only because it serves as an amazing showcase for some absolutely fantastic performances from all 4 main actors.

Let's start with Vivian Leigh who delivers one of my absolute favorite performances ever (And it won her a second Oscar). Blanche is almost like a fallen Scarlett O'Hara, only crazier. She makes a big show of being a "lady" and being better than the squalor that her sister and brother-in-law live in, when in fact she has far worse demons in her past, but she makes you feel so sorry for her character, watching the world she has constructed for herself tumbling around her. It's almost like a performance in a performance, with the "Well, I do declare" Blanche taking control most of the time, only for cracks to appear and widen, exposing the troubled and unstable woman beneath.

Marlon Brando plays Stanley almost as if he were a cross between a child and an animal. The famous "Stella!" scene almost feels like a child calling for its mother, and he's filled with childish spite towards Blanche, always getting angry with her for appearing to think she's better than he is. The rest of the time, he's almost like a gorilla, skulking around the house and oozing animal sexuality that Stella almost seems addicted to. It's a shockingly natural performance in a time where acting was still theatrical and mannered.

And with that, it's a good time to point out how interesting it his that Vivian Leigh and Marlon Brando were paired in this film, since they are obviously from two different schools of acting, but it works brilliantly as both character represent two different eras. Blanche calls up the old fashioned gentility of the South whereas Stanley is the new-found worker of the era, a man who comes home and demands beer and sex from his wife. Both characters seem to be from completely different worlds, so their fireworks together spark and crackle.

Poor Kim Hunter has to serve as the mediator between the two (though she did win an Oscar so she's not that deserving of pity). It's a role that is much less showy than the two leads, but Hunter makes Stella an interesting character. She is torn between her crazed sister and her abusive husband who she seems to crave sexually, it's a dynamic that is not obvious, because Kim Hunter keeps it on the back burner, allowing the heavy flames to exist between Brando and Leigh.

Karl Malden (Who also won an Oscar) plays Mitch, the single, loser-ish friend of Stanely who becomes infatuated with Blanche, seeing her as a "real lady". His mother, who always hoped to see him settle down, is dying, and he sees Blanche as someone who could grant his mother's wish. Unfortunately for him, their romance is doomed from the start as Blanche begins to lose her grip on reality. Malden makes Mitch pitiable, and you ache for him when he discovers the kind of woman Blanche really is.

I know I haven't spokem much of the writing, plot of direction (though, I usually don't comment on those very much anyway), but in this film, there is a particular reason, it's almost an actor's showcase. It's 4 insanely talented individuals playing fully developed, well-written characters, and from someone who loves intimate films with a small number of characters, you can't get any better than that.

Mildred Pierce (1945)

2009-08-30T06:31:00.000-07:00

Joan Crawford stars in a rags-to-riches tale of a woman whose obsessive love for her daughter leads to her downfall.

Crawford plays Mildred Pierce a woman who is taken into questioning about the murder of her second husband. What unfolds is a series of flashbacks that tells us what brought Mildred to this point in her life, starting out as a married woman who divorces her husband who then has to work in order to support her two daughters. When one daughter dies, Mildred becomes obsessed with her eldest daughter Veda (Ann Blyth) and making her happy devoting her time and new found money from the opening of her own restauraunt to pleasing her spoiled, horrible daughter, leading to a tragic conclusion.

The cast in the film is uniformly good, with Joan Crawford creating a character that we root for, pity, and sometimes want to slap for being so dumb. She's an everywoman who is able to use her skills of observation and intelligence to seize opportunities and use them to further herself and her daughters. Crawford won the Oscar for this role, and it's hard to argue that she didn't deserve it. She creates a strong, intelligent character, but pulls no punches when it comes to her love of Veda, showing it as unhealthy and obsessive.

Ann Blyth also deserves a mention for going completely and totally into making a nasty, horrible character. Veda is spoiled, selfish, and manipulative, using her mother's resources for her own gain, and Blyth doesn't even attempt to make her likable, which is a great feat she was a teenager when she made the film, so be so into the character that sympathy goes right out the window.

The choice of making the film primarily consist of flashbacks works to great effect. Much like A Woman's Face it allows for our perceptions of the characters to shift and change as we see what occured in their past as well as offering various twists as to who actually committed the murder, even though it eventually becomes pretty obvious by the end.

The film is an interesting entry into the film noir genre, considering it focuses on a woman and her rise and fall, in addition to the flashback nature of the film and it's lack of a real "villain", but it's a great film nonetheless. While Joan Crawford has deliver better performances before, she shines in a role that allows for complexity and depth.

It's definately worth watching.

His Girl Friday (1940)

2009-08-26T05:57:00.000-07:00

Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant star in what may be the greatest screwball comedy ever made.

Russell is Hildy Johnson, an ace reporter for a Chicago newspaper who has decided to quit, upsetting her editor (and ex-husband) Walter Burns (Cary Grant). Hildy has decided that she wants a more quiet life and plans on leaving Chicago to marry insurance man Bruce Baldwin, causing Walter to scheme and plot to try and get Hildy to stay in the business by getting her to cover one last story about a murder.

The two leads in this film are absolutely fantastic, playing off each other in a brilliant love/hate relationship. They're both strong, hard-headed people who feed off their work, and it's brilliant watching Rosalind Russell become more and more invested in a story she didn't even want to cover in the first place, and Cary Grant again shows why he is the king of the screwball comedy, charming and funny, even when he's trying to steal another man's woman.

The main attraction of this film is the dialogue, which crackles with wit and humor and is delivered at such a rapid fire pace, it's easy to get lost when watching the film. I'm not joking when I say that, the lines are delivered so fast and often at the same time, that the film requires your attention in order to full enjoy it. It's a classic example of the kind of dialogue that doesn't really occur very much in movies anymore, and when it is attempted, it usually comes off as overly quirky and forced, which is sad.

The film is just a joy to watch, you have two of the greatest actors who ever lived going at eachother with intelligence and zeal and it all moves at a fairly brisk pace.

There isn't much left to say that it's hailed as one of the greatest comedies ever for good reason, and it's something I recommend for anyone.

Now, Voyager (1942)

2009-08-23T08:54:00.000-07:00

Alright, it's been a while since I've made a post on a classic film, so why not jump back into Old Hollywood with a Bette Davis movie? And better yet, this is one of Bette Davis' best.

Bette Davis plays Charlotte Vale, a frumpy spinster living in Boston under the thumb of her domineering older mother (Bette Davis actually appeared without any make-up during the films opening scenes), who is whisked away to a sanitarium by the kindly Dr. Jaquith (Claude Rains). There, she begins to change from a timid frump into a beautiful and more confidant woman. After leaving the sanitarium, she goes on a South American cruise and encounters Jerry Durrance (Paul Henreid), and the two fall in love, despite Jerry being married and refusing to leave his horrible wife out of the fear that he will lose his daughter. Complications arise and the story of the two lovers becomes intertwined with Charlotte's blossoming into the woman she always wanted to be.

Bette Davis is absolutely fantastic in the part of the neurotic young one who evolves into a swan. She doesn't turn it into a before and after type characterization, Charlotte slowly and slowly becomes more confidant as the film goes on and every step feels believable and real. We pity her for her mistreatment from her mother and we root for her to find love and happiness.

The supporting cast is good as well, with Claude Rains excelling as the caring and wise doctor who takes Charlotte under his wing. Paul Henreid is fine too, playing a character that is conflicted in his love for another woman and for his own daughter. Gladys Cooper is brilliant as Charlotte's domineering mother, she never seems to give a second thought to making her character thoroughly despicable and unlikable.

This film is fine example of the superior soaps that were being made during this time, which were able to remain soapy and entertaining without venturing into eyeball-rolling territory. It also takes a few directions that one might not expect (Bette Davis herself had a theory as to what happens after the film, which I like to think is the truth), which helps it rise above being too corny, plus, the level of acting elevates the material to a point where it comes across as genuine emotion as opposed to hokey scenery chewing.

In case you haven't guess it by now, I heartily recommend this movie, especially for older film buff or fans of Bette Davis. While some people may find the films soap opera-ish story to be a turn off, it's such a finely crafted film that you should give it a chance.

Clue (1985)

2009-08-22T14:33:00.000-07:00

No, I have not lost my mind. Clue is actually far better than it has any right to be, featuring a great script and a cast that is absolutely to die for.

The movie basically follows the idea of the game, 6 strangers are gathered in a mansion and given aliases, and are informed that they are all there because they are being blackmailed by Mr. Boddy. The lights go out, a gun is fired and Mr. Boddy is dead, causing a investigation that leaves even more dead as the film goes on. The film features Tim Curry as Wodsworth, the butler and host of the evening, Martin Mull as Col. Mustard, Michael McKean as Mr. Green, Christopher Lloyd as Prof. Plum, Lesley Anne Warren as Miss Scarlett, Eileen Brennan as Mrs. Peacock and Madeline Kahn as Mrs. White. Of course, the cast is fantastic and they all have a ball with their characters, from Madeline Kahn being a sort of black widow murderess to Professor Plum being a total pervert, everyone has a sharply defined persona that they use to its fullest effect.

Tim Curry deserves a lot for grounding the film with his deadpan humor, being the perfect counterpoint to the crazy cast of characters, while everyone else is bickering, he's actually trying to solve the murder.

The script itself is smart and a throwback to old-fashioned murder mysteries of the day, it takes advantages of the absurdity of the situation and elevates it until the characters themselves become outrageous and over the top, right up until the denouement/re-enactment that leads the group running from room to room. There are several quotable lines such as "Well, it's a matter of life after death. Now that he's dead, I have a life. ", as well as a lot of funny dialogue between the characters.

The film is very fun and entertaining, and it really stands up to multiple viewings. While it's not a great film that will join the pantheon of Casablanca or All About Eve, it's a solid, fun film which is something you would never expect from a movie based on a board game.

Kill Bill

2009-08-20T05:30:00.000-07:00

I know that lately I've sifted away a bit from the "Classic Hollywood" aspect of my blog, but I just received Peyton Place in the mail yesterday which I plan on watching soon. Plus, Kill Bill was on Spike last night and it just reminded me how much I love them. And for those who haven't realized it yet, this entry is about both Vol.1 and Vol. 2.

The film stars Uma Thurman as The Bride (Also known as Black Mamba), a former assassin who used to work for her lover Bill (David Carradine). During her wedding rehearsal, Bill and the members of his Deadly Viper Assassination Squad show up and blast everyone away, after which Bill shoots the very pregnant Black Mamba in the head, sending her into a 4 year coma. When she wakes up, she sets about getting revenge.

Kill Bill is the perfect blend of style, smarts, and self-awareness. It knows what it is, and sometimes intentionally ventures into the over-the-top or corny, but it also features some fantastic dialogue that makes the scenes where people are just talking just as interesting as the scenes where the Bride is seeking bloody revenge. It's also the kind of film that tricks you, both in the time framing of its events (it's out of order) and in the emotional development of the film. The Bride starts out as a simply killing machine, a wronged woman hell-bent on avenging her lost child, but once you get into the slowly paced, more dialogue heavy Vol 2, she is actually developed as a character, giving us flashbacks into her past hardships as well as showing us the relationship she had with Bill. It leads to a final confrontation that is heartbreaking, as Bill (whose voice is only heard in Vol. 1) becomes someone we can empathize with, someone who we actually like.

Uma Thurman gives a brilliant performance as a character that requires her to be a badass, over-the-top, emotional, and realistic and she hits every single note perfectly. She makes us go on the emotional journey with her character, adding depth and nuance as the film plays out, which most people probably wouldn't expect from a film like this, so by the end of the film she has gone from a killing machine to a conflicted woman.

David Carradine also deserves special mention as Bill, adding warmth and humor to someone he himself describes as a "murdering bastard". He also adds regret for his actions against The Bride, knowing that their relationship will never be the same because of what he's done.

The cast of characters themselves are all interesting, from The Bride's former master Pei Mai who "hates Caucasians, despises Americans, and has nothing but contempt for women", to Gogo the teenager bodyguard of one of The Bride's intended targets who fights using a bladed yoyo, to Elle Drive, the eye-patch wearing rival of The Bride who is played to b*tchy perfection by Daryl Hannah.

Of course, the action scenes are brilliantly filmed and shot, from an epic battle against a personal army to a one-on-one showdown in a crappy trailer, it's all exciting and it's all fantastically made, oozing style and film homages from every single frame. The film is a blast and you get the feeling the Quentin Tarantino had a great time making this film from the energy he has instilled within it.

Kill Bill is easily one of my favorite films, entertaining from the performances, to the action, and to the dialogue, everything about the film is top notch. Some may find the shift in tone from Vol. 1 to Vol 2. a bit disappointing, since Vol 1. is a straight-up action film whereas Vol. 2 is much more dialogue heavy, but it's so well done that I don't mind at all. In fact, I have a hard time deciding which one I love more.

The Star Wars Prequel Trilogy

2009-08-19T08:55:00.000-07:00

Ok, the original trilogy is done, now it is time to go into the prequels, which have pretty much tainted the Star Wars name.

First of all, it's inconsistent with the original trilogy. Not horribly so, but little things about Anakin and Uncle Owen's relationship (which is painted as being much closer in the OT), and Obi-Wan not recognizing a droid whose name he spends most of the time shouting. It makes the series seem more like a cash in as opposed to being an organic part of the original trilogy.

Secondly, the acting. While Jake Lloyd was pretty bad in The Phantom Menace, he was a kid and therefore gets a pass. But Hayden Christensen completely and single-handedly ruins any chance of the Prequel trilogy succeeding. With the addition of these three movies, Star Wars was turned into a story about Redemption, based around Anakin Skywalker, the big issue with this is that Christensen is so bad in the role of Anakin Skywalker, that you can't wait for him to get his whiny behind torched and mutilated. His performance is so wooden that it boggles the mind. Apparently he decided to base his performance on Jame Earl Jone's voice work in the original trilogy, which is just a dumb decision, because the way he speaks his lines is so devoid of emotion that it becomes laughable. Not that anyone else is astounding, Natalie Portman flounders on screen, having zero chemistry with Christensen. Ewan McGregor is easily the best part of the trilogy, actually being able to infuse his character with some humanity.

But this probably has a lot to do with the writing, which is truly wretched. There are so many lines like when Padme screams "You're breaking my heart!", or "Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo.", and the now legendary "NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" that actually made me laugh in the theater. Not to mention the truly horrible puns in Attack of the Clones when C3PO is taken apart, like "This is such a drag" as he is being dragged around or "I'm quite beside myself" when his head rolls next to his body. It's borderline Mystery Science Theater 3000 territory.

The best film of the trilogy is easily Revenge of the Sith, which is must more focused on Anakin's decline, but because of the horrible acting, there's no emotional connection with the film. In addition, Anakin's fall to the dark side occurs only in a matter of minutes. There were hints and suggestions of his ego and anger, but for him to suddenly betray the Jedi and become a crazed child killer so fast strains believability. But it's an entertaining film at least.

Plus, the prequel trilogy has Jar-Jar Binks, a moden day version of the silly old slave you would find back in old racist 30's and 40's movies.

I don't consider myself a Star Wars fan, but I were one, I would be PO'd at George Lucas.

The Star Wars Original Trilogy

2009-08-18T16:37:00.000-07:00

Yes, I am tackling one of the biggest franchises (at least the first, but kinda last 3 films) to hit movies since...well..ever. And in doing so, I will most likely draw the wrath of, maybe 4-5 people in the process. But at least it means people are reading, I don't care.

Do I really need to explain the plot of Star Wars? Princess Leia, Luke Skywalker, and Han Solo and the Rebel Alliance fight against the evil Empire and Darth Vader. Yeah, I could go into specifics, but in this case, I don't really need to.

Let's get into the actual reason I write these posts, for me to spew my opinion upon the masses. And when it comes to Star Wars, opinions I do have.

Star Wars works on a particular level, and to be honest, only on that particular level. It's very much in the same boat as Indiana Jones as being this throwback to the Serials of yesteryear, where the good guys were good and the bad guys were bad and buckles were swashed. It's The Hidden Fortress, combined with Arthurian Legends, combined with Flash Gordan, and (if you believe some film scholars) a whole bunch of mythological, philosophical historical, and religious subtexts. It utilizes archetypes, the fated orphan with a destiny, a princess in distress, the older wizard-type mentor in the form of Obi-Wan, and the charming rogue, in addition to featuring a sinister, black-clad empire headed by one of the most enduring film villains of all time.

And it works, as a throwback, but when you start to take it seriously and view from to a strictly technical viewpoint, the writing is weak, the acting is stilted, but mostly because the characters themselves are pretty one dimensional. There are little attempts at depth, with Han Solo becoming more noble, Princess Leia being a lot tougher than you may expect, and Luke's toying with the dark side, but it all plays out predictably. The main fault lies with George Lucas who's writing skills leave much to be desired, the dialogue is so bland and exposition-heavy, never rising above the serials that Lucas himself is drawing from, though things slightly improve once someone else takes over for writing the last two.

Not to say the films are horrible, the films are a must-see simply because of its place in cinema history as a landmark technical achievement, and as the worldwide phenomenon that captured and stimulated the imaginations of millions and became a permanent fixture in American pop culture. But I don't really believe it's "that great", it's a fun, enjoyable film series as a blockbuster, as an homage to adventure films of the past, and that's perfectly fine. But beyond that, not really.

But then again, it's hard to actually review Star Wars because it's so much more than just the films, it's become to where I can't watch the film and not be aware of the history of the universe that George Lucas has created, it's evolved to such a point that the words "Star Wars" are referring to a film franchise, book series, video games,a religion, food brands, toys, and anything else that one can think of.

I don't really expect to get much of a reaction from this post (simply because I don't get much reactions in general), but if anyone feels like it, I would be interested in hearing other takes on the crazy, zaniness that is Star Wars. That is, if real-life Jedi don't car bomb me.

Seven Samurai (1954)

2009-08-16T15:57:00.000-07:00

My first post on a foreign language film is also a post on one of the great movies of all-time. Yays for you, readers.

Seven Samurai is Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece about a village of poor farmers who are threatened by bandits. In an effort to protect themselves, they hire 7 samurai to protect them and help prepare the town for the upcoming bandit raid. The samurai and the farmers have an uneasy alliance, as samurai are morally ambiguous characters of the time, capable of either helping you or killing you, but they must work together for their own survival, which is decided in a climactic battle in the rain.

The film is long (with some versions bordering on 3 hours), but that's to the strength of the film, as the story is sharply divided into three acts, the finding of the samurai, the fortifying of the town, and the final battle with the bandits. The long runtime also allows for the individual characters of the samurai to develop, with actually makes us invested in the outcome of the battle.

The samurai themselves are rich and fully developed. With most of the attention devoted to Kambei (Takashi Shimura), the "leader" of the samurai, he is a battled hardened man who has tired of war and fighting, Katsushirō (Isao Kimura), a young untested samurai who finds himself in awe of the other, more skilled warriors, and finally Kikuchiyo (Toshiro Mifune), a wannabe samurai who identifies the most with the villagers, he is a show off and dramatic.

It's actually Toshiro Mifune who delivers the strongest performance in the whole film, but this partly due to his character being the most developed, he's really a farmer wanting to be a samurai, and to make up for his lack of nobility, he makes up for it with attitude and showmanship. It's no surprise that the sword he wields is larger than the other samurai's.

It's easy to have issues with the acting of some of the lesser character, given the massive difference in acting styles between American and Japanese film, but that's really only a minor nitpick, because the characters that really do matter are all enjoyable to watch.

The film also has a very organic feel to it, Kurosawa showcases the village and landscape itself as much as he does the characters, and it makes everything seem very natural, where you don't really even feel like you're watching a movie.

The film also has a lot to say with its message, which comments on war and bloodshed, as well as the treatment of Samurai in Japanese history, and it does so without becoming preachy or obvious, instead allowing the viewer to glean from the film as opposed to the film spoonfeeding you.

The film has earned its place in film history, establishing many film conventions we now take for granted, such as the gathering of individuals to accomplish a certain goal, the reluctant hero, as well as the idea of introducing a character in the middle of accomplishing a mission.

Even without this historical pedigree, the film is one of the most finely crafted stories you will most likely see in your life, and I hope that anyone who may have an aversion to subtitles and overcome it to witness Kurosawa's finely told tale.

Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)

2009-08-16T04:58:00.000-07:00

Katherine Hepburn keeps Liz Taylor locked in an asylum to prevent her from telling the truth about her son's mysterious death. That's kind of an odd movie just from the premise, isn't it?

Montgomery Clift is Dr. Cukrowicz, a neurosurgeon who has been asked to perform a lobotomy on the disturbed niece of the wealthy Violet Venable, a grieving mother who was totally obsessed and in love with her son Sebastian, who had died last summer. Usually, Violet and Sebastian would on vacation during the summer, but on his final trip, he instead asked his cousin to go, where she witnessed his death. Upon meeting Violet's niece Catherine, it is apparent that she is only being kept away so she doesn't tell anyone about the way her son died. What follows is Dr. Cukrowicz digging to uncover the truth and hopefully set Catherine free from the trauma that is affecting her.

This film is particularly odd in structure, since it mainly centers around a few key scenes that are almost monologues on the part of either Violet or Catherine. But it certainly allows for the showcasing of some fantastic acting. Katherine Hepburn is brilliant in the role, portraying a woman that is full of wit and intelligence, but also hopelessly, unnaturally devoted to her son at one point referring to them as a couple, how no one ever said "Mrs. Venable and her son" or "Sebastian and his mother", but instead "Violet and Sebastian, Sebastian and Violet". She'll do anything to preserve the memory of her son, even if it means subjecting Catherine to a lobotomy to shut her up.

Elizabeth Taylor is equally as great, having to play a damaged young woman who is being told by everyone around her that she is insane, and possibly beginning to believe them as she deals with the shocking truth about her beloved cousin Sebastian and how he truly felt about her.

The actual resolution to what happened with Sebastian is shocking, but also unbelievable. But I think this has less to do with the quality of the film and more to do with the limitations that the filmmakers undoubtedly encountered in bringing the topics and themes from Tennessee William's play to the screen. If they had been allowed to say everything they needed to say, than the outcome probably would seem less out of left field.

Overall the film is fantastic, especially if you are a fan of the two leading actresses, because this is essentially a platform for them to deliver some brilliant (and Academy Award nominated) performances, as well as serving as a meditation on the brutality of humanity and other themes that were most likely shocking for its time.

Juno (2007)

2009-08-15T06:01:00.000-07:00

Wow, two entries on newer movies in a row. Anyway, here's the story of Juno, a film that is also torn apart by it's overly forced script.

Ellen Page plays Juno, a quirky outcast who finds herself pregnant by her bandmate/boyfriend Bleeker (Michael Cera). She decided to give the child to a middle class couple, only to discover that they have their own issues.

Ok, let's talk about the script, since it got most of the attention when the film came out. The script, written by Diablo Cody, lacks any sort of naturalness or humanity to it, at least for the first part of the film. It's entirely too wrapped up in being overly quirky, with horrible lines like "Honest to blog?" and "That's one doodle that can't be undid, homeskillet". Such attention is paid to making Juno into a sarcastic, concentrated lump of quirkiness that she becomes a cliche and not very believable. She has a hamburger phone, she listens to 70's rock music, she collects old thrown away furniture, and she speaks like a 30+ year old screenwriter with something to prove. She treats her pregnancy like one might treat a stray cat following them around with no sense of panic, fear, or urgency, she handles it all like it's nothing which just doesn't come across as resembling anything like the real world. In addition, none of the characters seem to have their own original voice, instead every actor on screen seems to have become a mouthpiece for Diablo Cody's glorification of the high school outsider that leaves little doubt in my mind that Juno is some sort of idealized version of High School Cody. And thank God for Ellen Page for making her dialogue seem at least somewhat believable, because in the hands of a lesser actress, the character who would have been a complete and total joke ruining any any good that is in the movie.

Thankfully the second half of the movie tones it down a bit and the characters are allowed to take a form that resembles actual people as an actual plot develops.

But if there's any standout in the movie, it's Jennifer Garner who plays Vanessa, one half of the couple hoping to adopt Juno's baby. She gives her character such vulnerability, due to a past experience where she was unable to get a child because the mother backed out, that you want her to get Juno's baby because she plays it as if it's the most important thing in the world to her. The scene where she feels Juno's belly hoping to feel the baby kick has you hoping and willing for that baby to kick. It's a great performances that was ultimately overlooked, probably because she doesn't have any showy dialogue or overly emotional "Oscar moment' scenes.

Overall, the film is similar to Moulin Rouge in that the first part of the film is simply too much, too much forced quirk, too much "Look at how different I am", and too much Diablo Cody patting her quirky self on the quirky back with her quirky hand. But once you get past that, and the film mellows out, it becomes a fairly good movie that deals with a current issue affecting the world from a unique perspective.

Plus, the cast is uniformly great, with Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, Olivia Thrilby, and Alison Janney delivering great supporting work. Unfortunately for anyone familiar with the brilliant Arrested Development, Michael Cera is essentially doing a retread of George-Michael Bluth, which he actually seems to have built his career upon.

So as a whole, Juno is a nice little movie, no more, no less.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

2009-08-14T08:29:00.000-07:00

Yes, Moulin Rouge, probably one of the more divisive films in recent memory, forcing people to make stands on the grounds of either loving it or hating it. Me? I kinda loved it, but I kinda hated it.

First, the plot. Christian (Ewan McGregor) is a writer who falls in love with the showgirl/hooker Satine, the leading star at the Moulin Rouge in Paris. They work together on turning the Moulin Rouge from a brightly colored den of large women in giant dresses jumping on people and flashing their panties into a theater with which to perform the musical Christian has wrote and in which Satine will star. Unfortunately, their financial backer, The Duke (He's not given a name), also desires Satine.

Ok, let's get this out of the way, Moulin Rouge is large scale musical that features modern songs such as Smells Like Teen Spirit, Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend, and Like a Virgin, it also has excellent production values with the costumes and sets covering the screen in bright and vibrant colors. This is where a bit of an issue comes out, it's simply too much. Especially in the first third or first half, where the music video style editing and the cheesy sound effects make it appear like you're watching a live-action cartoon. It's during this part that I almost stopped watching the film, because it was way too hard to watch. I suppose it could be a directorial choice to try and make us feel like Christian, being exposed to the razzle dazzle and craziness of the Paraisian night life, but it came at the expense of the watchability of the film.

Fortunately, the actual plot kicks in and everything mellows down and the film turns into a beautifully crafted and ultimately tragic love story (That's not a spoiler, you find out in the first few minutes of the movie that things don't end well). The musical sequences are brilliantly staged and the songs are used to great effect to compliment what is going on in the plot, and the two lead actors are brilliant (not to mention pretty good singers) in their roles. Christian is hopelessly romantic and slightly naive, slowly maturing as his loves deepens for Satine, and Satine herself is slightly world weary and underneath the glam and sex appeal is a fairly sad and lonely woman.

As a whole, the films ultimately leaves a good taste in my mouth, because the second half is just so good (even though the director relies a bit too much on randomly inserting slow motion), and if you can make it through the first half, then hopefully you'll feel the same way I do. Of course, someone could love the first half and become disappointed that the manic tone of the film tapers off and it settles into a more traditional film, so it's really hard to gauge how people may react to the film.

So just watch it so you can love it or hate it, or get mad at me for suggesting you watch it. But regardless of your view on the film, you can't deny that it's a unique one.

Overdrawn at the Memory Bank (1983)

2009-08-13T17:08:00.000-07:00

Ok, I've done a few classic films, now it's time to do a little trash.

Granted, my fondness for this film has much more to do with the fact that it was mocked on Mystery Science Theater 3000 as opposed to the film being hilariously bad, though it still kinda is.

Raul Julia plays Aram Fingal (easily the greatest named film character of all time), a lowly computer programmer who lives in an Orwellian type future where computers control everything and the obese "Chairman" is in charge. Apparently the Chairman is bad, I don't really know why, as far as I know, we aren't shown anything to suggest that he's evil.

Anyway, Fingal likes to "scroll up Cinemas", in other words, he likes to watch movies instead of working. His favorite happens to be Casablanca, which becomes a mjor part of the film. Once he is caught watching movies, he is forced to be "doppled" as a mandatory vacation in the hopes that it will do him some good. When someone is doppled, their conciousness is placed into an animal, as a sort of vacation. Since he doesn't have the money, Fingal has to become merged with a dirty old baboon named Daisy, but when he has to be taken out of the Dopple do to an emergency, his body is lost, causing him to be uploaded into the Main computer for safekeeping (Why you would put some poor guy in the computer that controls everything is beyond me). There, his romantic interest Apollonia James must monitor him to prevent his identity from being erased. But Fingal decides to incorporate Casablanca into his virtual reality, where Raul Julia also plays Rick and and his sidekick is a creepy Peter Lorre lookalike. But the Chairman enters this reality in the hopes of getting Fingal to stop fiddling with things.

Really, that's the plot, and I've seen the movie at least 10 times and I still don't understand it, because there's this subplot about Apollonia's friend being some sort of spy, though nothing comes out of it, and there's this matter of being "Interfaced" that doesn't make any sense, neither does the final showdown between Fingal and the Chairman.

Plus, the film features a Faux Casablanca set, including a bar called "The Place", not to mention that in order to coax Fingal out of messing around with the computer, Apollonia inserts herself into the reality and gets his attention by descending naked from the sky on a seashell, wearing nothing but some carefully placed foliage, carrying a set of Ten Commandments that say "Thou shalt not mess around with things thout does not understand" or some such nonsense. I'm not making that up.

Worst of all is when Fingal uses his powers in the computer to make a virtual version of frumpy co-worker spend days in bed with him and then makes her disappear when he gets bored with her (Apollonia's response to witnessing Fingal in E-Coitus is to say "Now he's playing around with himself!") And the entire medical system revolves around placing colored fabric circles on the hands of unconscious patients, so a child switching Fingal's circle with another circle basically causes society as a whole to melt down.

Really, it's just an awful movie that doesn't make very much sense, but the production values are so low, and the special effects are so bad, that it's hard not to be entertained.

Any movie that has the line "Electrons don't dance Fingal, they don't make love" needs to be seen.

I'm No Angel (1933)

2009-08-12T15:33:00.000-07:00

Yes, another Mae West movie, which guarantees entertainment. I know I've said it before, but Mae West's movie are endlessly entertaining. They aren't necessarily the best movies, but they don't need to be, it's essentially Mae West walking around being a sassy whore.

Mae West plays Tira, a circus performer who, of course, is the darling of all the men who visit the circus. When she needs some money, she decides to perform a risky new act involving tons of lions. The sequence itself is filmed pretty poorly, but it's entertaining in how bad it is. Tira becomes even more famous and begins to flirt with the various rich men that are enchanted by her. Until she meets Jack Clayton (Cary Grant), the love of her life, but her sordid past catches up to her and she must fight to keep her man.

Really, there's not much else to say, since the best part of the movie is Mae West wearing insane looking outfits and tossing out zingers, much like She Done Him Wrong. Which is probably the strength of Mae West's movie, you know exactly what's going to happen, yet you're entertained the entire time, because she doesn't try to make her movies anything more than they are. Like She Done Him Wrong, this film is very short, it's not even a full 90 minutes, which means it never wears out its welcome.

It's easy to recommend this movie, simply because it's pure entertainment, even when it gets into melodrama and cheese, it's still fun because it's Mae West, the queen of Pre-Code Comedy. It's especially fun to watch it (And any other Mae West movie) with other people, because it's just a big cheesy, sassy mess that is easy to enjoy.

The Big Sleep (1946)

2009-08-11T05:55:00.000-07:00

If you've noticed a pattern from any of my entries, it should probably be that I end to focus more on the female stars of the past as opposed to male. I'm not entirely sure why, but it led to my massive disappointment in the film Key Largo, which can read about in a past entry, when Lauren Bacall was simply placed in the role of "Decent War Widow" who didn't do much else but look frightened. Well, in The Big Sleep, she used to her best as a fast-talking, mysterious, and intelligent woman who may or may not be a killer.

Humprey Bogart is Phillip Marlowe, a Las Angeles private eye whose new client, General Sternwood (Charles Waldron) asks him to resolve some gambling debts of his impulsive, flighty daughter Carmen (Martha Vickers). Upon leaving, he is approached by Sternwood's recently divorced older daughter Vivian (Lauren Bacall) who suggests that there may be more to the case than some simple gambling debts. And as expected, Marlowe is submerged in a world of murder, lies, and crime, where the woman he's falling for may be the woman he's after.

The plot itself is a bit convoluted, in fact, there's one murder than never is solved, which apparently the author of the book on which the film is based was unaware of. But the plot is really only a vehicle for Bogart and Bacall to engage in the fast-paced, witty banter for which the film noir is famous. And both leads are fantastic, with Bogart nailing the persona he could play sowell, that if a morally ambiguous tough guy and Bacall adding wit, intelligent, and mystery to a quintessential femme fatale.

Much as been made of the Bogart/Bacall combination that started with To Have and Have Not, resulted in their marriage and lasted until Bogart's death, and resulted in 4 movies. I've only seen 2, but this film probably exemplifies what made the pairing so electric better than Key Largo. Bacall was essentially the perfect match for Bogart, able to be as cunning as he was, as witty as he was, plus she had beauty and an ability to keep Marlowe and the audience guessing as to what she was thinking.

The film has become a classic, and for good reason, the script is insanely clever, with some of the best dialogue put on film being spoken by some of the best actors put in film. The plot is incredibly complex, which will keep people guessing as to which person is really who they say there are and if they really did what they say they did. A true classic of the genre.

Deception (1946)

2009-08-09T10:15:00.000-07:00

Ok, it's been a while since I've actually given a write-up to a Bette Davis movie, and since yesterday was Bette Davis say on TCM's "Summer Under the Stars" I figured I would write about one of her lesser-known movies.

Bette Davis is Christine, a pianist who believed for many years that her long-lost lover cellist Karel Novak (Paul Henreid) was killed in the war. That is, until she encounters him during a concert and the two resume their romance. However, during Karel's absence, she had taken a new lover, the famed composer Alexander Hollenius (Claude Rains), a fact that she hopes to keep from the incredibly jealous Karel, even if she has to resort to desperate means to do it.

Karel is a jealous type, all right, which is actually the movie's downfall. Bette Davis and Claude Rains are on a high level here, especially Rains who revels in the part of the brilliant composer toying with Christine and Karel's romance. But the main problem is that Karel is such a jealous douche that it's hard to find yourself becoming tense or worried when Christine's affair comes close to being revealed. I mean, when he sees her beautifully furnished apartment when they first reunite, he tries to STRANGLE her, believing her to have taken up with another man, and later he slaps a glass out of her hand. I mean, I dunno what your views on monogamy are, but I would think that if you were thought to be dead for years, it would be ok for your significant other to find someone else, especially when they immediately come back to you. So it's hard to actually care for the character that would supposedly be destroyed by the revelation that the film hinges upon.

Luckily, Bette Davis makes us care for her character, so there is some investment in whether or not her relationship is revealed, but it's purely for her sake, not Karel's. But if there's any reason to see the movie, it's Claude Raines, who plays such an interesting character. He loves Christine, yet he's jealous enough to where he sets out to destroy her and her new husband and he does it all with a smile on his face and cheeky remark on his lips.

The film itself isn't horrible, it's just hard to invest yourself in the main romance, but aside from that, it's not a bad movie. But if you happen to like the cast from the film, check out Now, Voyager which features the same actors and is MUCH more enjoyable.

Born Yesterday (1950)

2009-08-06T05:59:00.000-07:00

Judy Holliday is the fiance of a corrupt businessman who undergoes tutoring to "smarten her up" and in the process discovers what she truly wants out out of life.

Ok, that sounds very Lifetime-ish, which the film is not. It's not nearly as melodramatic as that description would suggest, but it still applies to the film, so there's not much I can do about it.

Judy Holliday is Billie, a slightly dim former chorus girl who is now the stay-at-home fiance of crooked businessman Harry Brock (Broderick Crawford) who has made a big movie to Washington in the hopes of persuading some crooked politicians into passing laws and bills that benefit him and his business. Since he's going to be entertaining the wealthy and powerful, Harry hires Paul Verrall (William Holden) a newspaper writer to tutor Billie and make her presentable. From the beginning, Paul and Billie have an attraction to each other, and through Paul's tutoring Billie becomes more idealistic and begins to question the way that she and Harry lives their lives.

It is an understatement to say that Judy Holliday is 100%, totally, absolutely pitch-perfect in this film, nailing every single frame that she's on. Her character may originally appear to be a simple dumb blond, but Holliday has to be charming, full of vitality, slightly stupid but still give a hint that she possesses some intelligence, and then make a very subtle change to her character. Billie never becomes a genius, quoting Shakespeare and spouting scientific theories. The main change she undergoes is that she begins to latch onto a few key ideals that begin to shape the way she sees the world. So she has to change enough to forward the plot, but keep it subtle enough to wear it remains believable and Holliday pulls it off masterfully.

I know she's gotten a lot of flack over the years for winning against Bette Davis and Anne Baxter for All About Eve and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard, but I don't have any complaints after seeing this film. She takes a character that may seem like a movie staple and adds depth and charisma to make her entirely endearing.

The rest of the cast is suitable, but they aren't given a great deal to do. Harry yells all the time and is basically an ignorant bully, and Paul is an idealistic writer and neither character pushes beyond that. It makes sense, though, because Billie undergoes the primary change of the film, and both men serve as opposite ends of the spectrum that we see Billy travel upon, becoming less like Harry and more like Paul.

The script is sharp and funny and as I said, Judy Holliday is astounding in the role and make the film worth seeing just for her, but luckily the rest of the film is great too. It's definately one to watch.

Man's Castle (1933)

2009-08-05T07:42:00.000-07:00

Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young play a Depression Era couple who have to deal with poverty as well as the unique dynamics of their own relationships.

Tracy plays Bill, a poverty-stricken man who encounters Trina, who is also dealing with the Great Depression. Whereas Bill is able to somehow always able to find food, Trina is starving on the streets, refusing to take the easy route and prostitute herself. Upon seeing Trina jealously eying the popcorn that he is throwing to some pigeons, Bill takes her to dinner (which he can't afford) and then invites her to live with him in the shantytown in which he lives.

There, through a serious of vignettes, we see the relationship develop, as well as the issues plaguing the relationship. Bill is a somewhat childish man, who never sticks around for very long, but certain events occur that could keep him nailed down in one place, and he struggles with his urges to leave as well as his growing love for Trina.

What makes the film interesting is the dynamics between the two. It's very easy to see Trina as the poor downtrodden woman who only wishes to become a good wife for the man who saved her life, but she's probably the most stable and mature in the relationship. She understands who Bill is, and accepts it, giving him the independence that he so thrives on. Bill, however, seems to keep Trina at arm's length, trying to leave room open for the departure he feels is inevitable, but we get to see him change, particularly in a series of money-making methods to buy a new stove for Trina. The brilliant thing about the stove is that it requires monthly payments, so it comes to represent a commitment, one that Bill seems willing to make for Trina's happiness.

It goes without saying that the acting is top notch, with each actor fully embodying their character and giving in rich and subtle performances. Loretta Young is bright and happy as Trina, which serves as a brilliant counterpoint to Spencer Tracy's aloof Bill, who acts almost like a bird in a cage for most the film, hoping to somehow get free.

The film, which was directed by Frank Borzage, almost has the feeling of a bizarre fairytale. When we first see the shantytown in which Bill lives, it's almost idealized, like some sort of Fairy Land, due to the lighting and mist. Which is odd, because the film has more "real life" issues than a lot of older films, primarily because it was pre-code film. Just the fact that the film focuses on a unmarried couple who live together sets it apart from a lot of other films.

The film is really good, and it's probably hard to find, since it's quite obscure. I'll post a link to the first part of the movie on youtube at the bottom of this entry, and I hope you actually take a chance to watch it, because it's a great little movie that hasn't really received the attention is probably deserves.

Part 1

The Lady Eve (1941)

2009-08-03T06:09:00.000-07:00

Barbara Stanwyck is a tough cardsnipe who tries to take naive rich boy Hentry Fonda for a con, only to fall in love with him.

Barbara Stanwyck is Jean Harrington, a cardsnipe who travels from boat to boat with her father setting wealthy men up in card games to take them for all they're worth. So when Charlie Pike, son of a wealthy Ale maker boards their ship, Jean sets about romancing the poor fool and robbing him blind. unfortunately she falls in love with him, and to make matters worse, Charlie finds out what she is, lies and states that he was on to her the entire time and was only playing her for a sap and they part ways on the boat, leaving Jean broken-hearted and full of hate.

She plans to get her revenge, however, but showing up at Charlie's father's house as The lady Eve, winning Charlie over and then breaking his heart just like he broke hers. But, given that this is a romantic comedy, things don't necessarily work out that way.

Let's get this out of the way, Barbara Stanwyck is fantastic in this movie, especially when you consider that she's really only her "true" self a few times, and most of the time she's pretending to be someone else. She makes Jean tough, but still vulnerable, and she gives her an intelligence that makes her a believable card snipe and smart enough to realize that being in love with a man you've only known for a few days is pretty silly.

Henry Fonda is good as well. Making his character appear to be clumsy, naive and spoiled, but never to the point where he's unlikable. He has the task of making it appear believable that he could fall in love with the same woman twice, and it really works.

If there's any real fault with the film, it's that the comedy aspect of it is very light. I didn't find the film particularly humorous, but I still enjoyed the lightheartedness of it, as well as the script and the acting.

The film itself feels very brisk, despite being an hour and 40 minutes long, it seemed to fly by, which is great because it never seems to wear out its welcome.

While I wish the film would have been a bit funnier, the acting more than makes up for it, particularly on the part of Barbara Stanwyck. It may stretch your suspension of disbelief (though, the film plays on that by having on character constantly insist that Jean and Eve are the "same dame"), but it's a good film that's become a "must-see" when it comes to screwball comedies.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

2009-08-01T04:55:00.001-07:00

One of my favorites movies of all-time, featuring a brilliant cast, a great script, and an insane amount of venom and poison.

Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton are George and Martha, a middle aged married couple who spend their days insulting each other, insulting others, and engaging in various flights of fancy. George is a history professor at a college where Martha's father is the president. One night, after a part welcoming a new instructor, the couple have the new teacher, Nick (George Segal) and his wife, Honey (Sandy Dennis) over for a nightcap. What follows is a descent into the twisted relationship between George and Martha and the cruel games they play with others and themselves.

The acting in the film is phenomenal. Elizabeth Taylor (who at the time was too young to play a middle aged woman) gained a significant amount of weight to play a character whom she inhabits with great zeal and nastiness. Martha is loud, obnoxious, rude, nasty, and is willing to do whatever she can to break her husband's spirit, even if they happen to be entertaining guests at the time. But Taylor never does it to a point where it becomes unbearable to watch, instead, she fuses Martha with a great bit of humor that allows for several funny moments in the film, even though she happens to be digging into her husband.

Richard Burton is great here as well, playing a man who hasn't amounted to much in life, who speaks in an odd, roundabout manner, possibly because he seems to constantly drift in and out of some sort of daydream. While he tries to go toe-to-toe with Martha, he comes across as much weaker, usually letting her dig into him over and over. Burton gives George as great deal of weariness and sadness that never becomes too overbearing.

George Segall, unfortunately, seems to have the least to work with. His character, Nick, comes across as just a normal guy who happens to be stuck with a pair of old bitter people. But, this is probably intentional, because he has to serve as the main reaction to the anger and venom we see unleashed between the two, and they become a reminder of what he and his wife may eventually turn into one day.

Last but not least is Sandy Duncan as Honey. Duncan was the second Oscar winner for this film (Taylor also won Best Actress) and it's totally deserved. Honey is someone who wants to be the perfect housewife, so she deals with the craziness of the night by laughing it off, and by taking a drink. And another, and another, and another, until she's dancing around the room. Duncan has to make the more significant transition in the film, going from a seemingly happy housewife to a sobbing, drunk mess who discovers a few things about her marriage she never wanted to hear and she plays it off perfectly.

The script is insanely good, able to be both layered and entertaining. George and Martha's bickering originally starts as funny, only to descend into nastiness and anger, it also contains a lot of subtext about what is and isn't true about what George and Martha say about themselves. It's just fantastic.

I cannot recommend this movie enough, it's easily of on my top movies ever, and for those who don't mind "movies where they just talk" with a very small cast (only 4 characters), you're in for a brilliant movie.

Troll 2 (1990)

2009-07-29T08:22:00.000-07:00

Yes, within a matter of minutes I am going from Gone With the Wind to Troll 2. Easily one of the worst films ever made, it features no actual trolls, horrible acting, dialogue and an erotic scene featuring a corncob and popcorn.

The film follows young Joshua Waits, a troubled young boy who is having a hard time dealing with the death of his Grandpa Seth. Part of the reason is that Grandpa Seth appears to him from beyond the grave to tell him horror stories about Goblins and insist that they're true. In this film, Goblins are vegetarian creatures, who can turn into humans. They use their human disguises to trick people into eating their food, which turns them into half-human, half-plant blobs of goo, which they then eat. Joshua and his family, which includes his father, Mike, his mother Diana, and his sister Holly are going on an exchange. If you've seen the movie The Holiday, you'll know what I'm talking about. Two families switch houses for a predetermined amount of time as opposed to being normal human beings and going on a real vacation.

The Waits family is going to a small town called Nilbog, which just so happens to be occupied by about 25 Goblins. And despite Joshua's urgings, the family doesn't leave, despite Grandpa Seth goading him into peeing on the dining room table to prevent them from eating Goblin food.

Holly Waits is having issues of her own. Her gay boyfriend Elliot has settled in a RV outside Nilbog limits with his "friends" and Holly wants to force him to make a decision between living in a gay orgy in the RV or going into the closet and having a relationship with her. Unfortunately for Elliot, two of his "friends" are abducted by the Goblin leader Creedence Leonore Gielgud (of Ancient Druid Origins, according go her), who essentially looks like a homely librarian and acts like a community theater player who finally had a chance to play the villain and is going to milk that evil teat for all it is worth.

Eventually Joshua discovers that Nilbog is, in fact, Goblin spells backwards, despite Grandpa Seth informing him that Nilbog is the Kingdom of the Goblins, and the conflict between his family and the "Monstrous Beings" (As Joshua calls them) comes to a head in which a "Double decker bologna sandwich" serves as the deus ex machina of the film.

This film is so bad it must be celebrated, it must be lifted to the heavens so that all in the world may come to know its wretchedness.

Seriously, find this movie, find it on the internet, get it from Netflix, buy it for 5 bucks at a dollar store or something, but you HAVE to see this movie. Preferably with friends, and drinking would probably help.

Here is just a taste of what this movie has to offer. And if are not enticed by this, then I cannot help you.

Gone with the Wind (1939)

2009-07-29T07:27:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't posted anything in a while. My usual method when it comes to posting is to watch whatever movie I have from Netflix, make an entry about it and then do an entry about the next film I get, but it's taken me a while to watch my newest movie (The Lady Eve, for those interested).

So as a way of paying you people back (and celebrating a new subscriber, because I'm a WHORE), I'm going to make an entry about THE Hollywood movie. The blockbuster to end all blockbusters featuring the film Diva to end all film Divas.

Ok, do I really need to go into the plot of the movie. It's the South, Vivian Leigh is Scarlett O'Hara, a prissy southern belle infatuated with the oddly British Ashley Wilkes, but instead Ashley goes all Southern and marries his cousin Melanie. So Scarlett decided to marry a boy of her own, only for him to get killed when the Civil War breaks out. Then she begins a long love/hate relationship with Rhett Butler (Clark Gable).

Really, everyone knows the plot, everyone knows the quotes, and hopefully everyone knows that Scarlett punched that annoying Prissy right in the back of the head.

But really, the film's pretty good once you dispel all the Hollywood legend surrounding it. The sets and costumes all are fantastic and Vivian Leigh is brilliant in the role, as is everyone else in the movie, which goes without saying. Plus, it's full of b*tchery as Scarlett acts like a petty child who HAS to get what she wants.

If there's any major flaw to the film, it's the second half. The first half is great as it involves a Civil War backdrop and is very epic, but then it becomes very closed off and intimate, and pretty much becomes a big soap opera, but it's still a pretty good soap opera (But when am I going to bash the Soap Opera? Just look at the name of my blog).

I know that it's really hard to do a film like this justice when it comes to discussing it, because it's become a huge part of pop culture, but there's not a lot I can say about the movie that people won't already know. They know the movie is great (or people say it is), they know what it's about and so on and so forth. But for those of you that haven't seen it, please do. It's a very important movie that, regardless of it's quality, needs to be seen due to it's impact on film as a whole.

Double Indemnity (1944)

2009-07-25T07:05:00.000-07:00

To make up for the last two entries, we have a full-blown noir classic. Nothing obscure about this film, which has rightfully earned its spot on any sort of "must-see" list.

Fred MacMurray is Walter Neff, a insurance salesmen who stumbles into his insurance office, suffering from some sort of injury. He gets a recording device and begins to confess to his part in a murder. The rest of the film is a flashback as Walter recounts the events that led him to this predicament.

It begins when he meets Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck), the wife of a wealthy man who seduces him and together they create a plan to take out a double indemnity insurance policy on her husband (which pays double in the case of accidental death) and then murder him and make it look like an accident. The commit the crime, but Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson), Walter's friend and co-worker begins to unravel the case when it comes to him to investigate the insurance claim.

The acting in this film is superb, with MacMurray playing a bit of a cad who believes that he is truly in love with the woman who is clearly using him and he accurately portrays a man that is slowly being pulled into circumstances that are way over his head. Edward G. Robinson is very good too, playing an actual good guy for once. MacMurray and Robinson have great chemistry together as two close friends who begin to assume a cat-and-mouse dynamic.

But the standout is Barbara Stanwyck who plays Phyllis as a completely cold and frigid woman, totally ruthless when it comes to her husband and others around her. The scene where her husband is murdered is probably the best testament to her acting ability as the camera is focuses entirely on her face as Walter strangles her husband and we see several emotions play on her face: fear, excitement and eventual satisfaction.

The plot contains a lot of twists and turns, which is surprising since we have a general idea of how the film ends because of it's opening (Like another Billy Wilder film, Sunset Boulevard), but it's still able to keep you invested into what happens.

I know I can't really do a film like this justice in my own words, but this film really needs to be seen. It features one of the greatest performances of all time as well as being one of the best films of all-time. So please watch it.

Adventures in Babysitting (1987)

2009-07-23T17:48:00.001-07:00

Ok, here's another movie that falls a bit outside the boundaries of "Classic Hollywood", but you know what? I just turned 21 a few days ago, and I found this childhood favorite at K-Mart, so I'm going to make a post about it.

Elizabeth Shue plays Chris Parker, a teenager who takes a babysitting job after her boyfriend cancels their date. Unfortunately for her, this is the night her best friend Brenda decides to run away from home and ends up getting stuck in a bus station in downtown Chicago, so Chris ends up taking Brad (Keith Coogan), a teenager who is in love with her, his Thor-obsessed sister Sara (Maia Brewton), and Brad's perverted next door neighbor Daryl (Anthony Rapp). Once in Chicago, they end up on a string of misadventures, including a one-armed trucker, a Playboy magazine, and a carjacker who looks like Whoopi Goldberg.

The film is pure 80's cheese, don't get me wrong, but Elizabeth Shue actually does a pretty good job in this film. Chris is a smart young woman determined to get out of this situation with all of her kids intact. It never feels like it falls onto the "idiot plot", where the characters stupidly get themselves into mishap after mishap, instead they're forced into their various situations, and Elizabeth Shue does a great job of making Chris appear both capable and overwhelmed.

The film also features some very funny moments where we get to see what Brenda is going through at the bus station, which is populated with drug addicts, criminals, and homeless people.

The film is really one of my favorite movies from childhood, and rewatching it only reinforces my love for it. It's hard to actually recommend it, because the film is overflowing with nostalgia and I doubt there are a lot of people who necessarily feel the same way. But who cares, it's Adventures in Babysitting.

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997)

2009-07-23T08:03:00.000-07:00

Ok, I haven't lost my mind. I am totally aware that this film is a steaming pile of crap, but you know what? It's a family classic in my house, something that is constantly quoted and revered for being one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Everything about it is garbage, but it's good garbage.

Avoid the first Mortal Kombat movie, because it's just bad bad as opposed to good bad like this film. And to be honest, they give you a recap montage at the beginning of the film to get you up to speed. Not that you really need it, because within the first 3 minutes of this film it begins RAINING FLAMING NINJAS. Apparently, the whole point of the Mortal Kombat tournament is that if Earth people win, then Earth is safe for another generation. Well apparently that fell through, because this occurs as soon as Liu Kang, Princess Kitana, Sonya Blade and Johnny Cage (I would usually list the actors' names, but considering the movie, it doesn't really matter) return from the tournament. Apparently Shao Kahn, a villain from "Outworld" has opened the portals between the realms and basically everyone is going to die. And he's kinda right, because he promptly kills Johnny, sending Sonya into a shallow depression that requires her to occasionally mention Johnny's death in an incredibly cheesy line. Other than that, no one really seems to care anymore.

The group splits up to accomplish different goals, but this is when the story derails into a mass of confusion that I have yet to figure out after 10+ viewings. Ok, so Shao Kahn has resurrected Kitana's dead mother Sindel. And according a legend, once Kitana and Sindel are reunited, the portals will close. So Kitana is kidnapped so that she cannot be reunited with her mother. After she is kidnapped, Liu Kang encounters Jade, a mysterious woman who offers to help him save Kitana. In saving Kitana, they find Shao Kahn's castle and kill one of his generals, bringing them close to saving the world. BUT apparently Jade is undercover for Shao Kahn and that this legend (which is several thousand years old) was a lie to distract everyone, even though in saving Kitana, they find Shao Kahn and eventually save the day.

HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

If Jade hadn't led Liu Kang right to where Kitana was, they would have NEVER found her, because they had no clue as to where she was being held. Plus, how do you set about a plan that involved a several thousand year old legend that you MADE UP? It's like playing Capture the Flag and leading the other team to your flag only to say "Hah, I tricked you!" and run away, but STILL LEAVING THE FLAG.

Not that a coherent plot would have saved the film. The acting, special effects, and writing all suck. Johnny's death is reacted to with the same amount of sorrow one may feel writing their shopping list, and by that, I mean none at all.

There are scenes that attempt to add some level of depth to the characters. Such as giving Liu Kang this deep fear that he will somehow fail his friends, but it's only portrayed in word only. The acting is so bad, that he has to lay on the ground asleep, moving his head back and forth and saying "What if I failed?" for you to actually even become aware of this fear.

But really, the film is awful, but awesomely so. There's a lot of corny, cheesy action scenes, and the some truly hilariously bad lines. It's a perfect combination of corn and cheese.

The Little Foxes (1941)

2009-07-18T07:34:00.000-07:00

Another Bette Davis movie, but this one features what I believe to be her greatest performance.

When it comes to The Little Foxes, I am going to admit that I am extremely biased, since it's the kind of film that I love. Only a handful of characters, a lot of scheming and backstabbing in order to gain power, very dialogue-driven, and of course it has Bette Davis.

Bette Davis is Regina Giddens, a frozen ice-b*tch from Hell. Due to being a women, her father only viewed her two brothers as his rightful heirs, so while they have financial independance, she had to marry a wealthy man in pursuit of her own fortune. Regina's two brothers Benjamin (Charles Dingle) and Oscar (Carl Benton Reid) are planning on opening a cotton mill, but lack all of the necessary funds to do so, causing Regina to scheme and plot in the hopes of gaining control of the mill.

Let me say, this is Bette Davis' best performance, and that is saying a lot. For those who accuse her of being overly theatrical or hammy, this performance is anything but. She is an ice queen using and manipulating anyone she can to gain wealth and power, and Davis creates so much venom with her eyes that it's a marvel to observe. She is total restraint, yet she eminates power, greed, and corruption.

The rest of the cast is good as well, with Theresa Wright and Patricia Collinge giving Oscar nominated performances as Regina's innocent daughter Alexandra and Oscar's depressed and slightly off wife Birdy.

Another standout is Charles Dingle as Benjamin, who gives his character a sly wit that is a great counterpoint to the deadly serious Regina.

The script isn't as snappy as maybe one would expect, but it handles the backstabbing and trickery well by keeping it fairly low key and never going into theatrics or making the dialogue go too over the top.

This is a brilliantly made featuring some great performances, if you are a Bette Davis fan, you have to see this movie, because she is absolutely fantastic.

Rachel Getting Married (2008)

2009-07-14T11:07:00.000-07:00

Another recent film, one which explores alienation, family, and the events that can either tie us together or force us apart.

Anne Hathaway plays Kym, the now sober drug addict who leaves rehab in order to attend the wedding of her sister Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt). Kyms arrival brings with it the resurrection of old family wounds and the hurt that some have been keeping inside for years.

What may sound like a shallow plot is actually the vehicle for one of the best films of last year that examines the kind of pain that can exist inside families as well as the strength and love that can keep them together. The film is shot in a documentary style manner by director Jonathan Demme, which makes every argument seem uncomfortably real and the actors do a great job of turning the script into real-life conversation. Speaking of uncomfortable, if you prefer your films to be light and fun, skip this one. While Kym has a lot of sarcastic humor that can bring some laughs, there are also moments where you squirm in your seat as the film delves into some truly awkward and unsettling moments.

The cast is uniformly great, with Anne Hathaway delivering a brilliant performance as a woman who has to be a victim, an instigator, darkly humorous, and haunted all at once, and never once does Hathaway falter, bringing a great sense of realism to her character. Rosemarie Dewitt is equally incredible, playing the sister who has always been shoved to the side. Being the "good sister", she never received the attention that Kym had due to her addiction and misbehaving and this pattern once again sets in once Kym joins the wedding preparation as Kym hijacks the Maid of Honor position and uses her addiction and past history as a crutch to steal as much of the spotlight as she can.

One thing that I enjoy about the film is the amount of love and support shown by the family. While there is a lot of pain and arguing, we never get the sense that Kym is a total victim and that her family just mistreated her. Instead we have a caring family that was rocked by a tragedy in the past, which caused everyone to deal with it in their own way, be it good or bad.

If the film has one flaw, it's that once the actual wedding occurs, it goes on for a bit too long. It focuses entirely too much on people dancing to music and enjoying themselves. But maybe that's the point since there was so much tension and bickering beforehand and the wedding serves as the relief.

But other than that, it's a fine film, full of great performances with a layered and real screenplay that really can hit close to home.

9/10

(I decided maybe I should try rating the films I discuss. I dunno if I will stick with it or not, because I don't know if my posts are really in-depth or detailed enough to warrant an actual rating. But I'll just see how this goes.)

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

2009-07-10T06:56:00.000-07:00

My first Katherine Hepburn (And James Stewart) movie and it's a star-studden affair with a crackling script.

Katherine Hepburn is Tracy Lord, a Philadelphia socialite who called off her marriage with C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant) two years ago and is about to marry the fairly boring George Kittredge (John Howard). However, her wedding is disrupted when Dexter returns, bringing with him two "friends" of Tracy's brother, who are in fact a writer, Macaulay "Mike" Connor (Stewart), and photographer, Elizabeth Imbrie (Ruth Hussey) from Spy magazine, trying to get the scoop on Tracy's wedding. Will she go through with the wedding? If so, who will she end up marrying?

The performances in this film are all fantastic. Hepburn is brilliant as the perfection obsessed socialite who slowly begins to climb down from her ivory tower. She gives Tracy a strength that also reflects some insecurities and fears being held deep inside her that slowly become more and more apparant as the film goes on.

Cary Grant is also in fine form as well. Before the film was made, Grant was given the choice between the two male leads, instead doing with the less showy role of Dexter, and Thank God he did. In the Screwball Kingdom, Grant is king, able to fire off dialogue like a true master, making his verbal sparring with Hepburn crackle with wit and a few dashes of venom.

James Stewart is good as well, playing his character with a bit if intellectual snobbery that allows for Tracy to have someone to relate to. Where Tracy is very critical on anyone who cannot meet her demands for perfection, Mike is a bit if a jaded snob when it comes to the upper class and as the film goes on, we see their views and ideas changing. Stewart actually won the Oscar for this film (though it is generally considered undeserved and that it was a make-up for his loss the previous year). While he isn't given a whole lot to do for the first part of the film, he becomes one of the most entertaining aspects of the film once his character gets drunk halfway through the movie.

Ruth Hussey also deserves mention for her performance as Elizabeth. She's able to see right through everything going on as well as see Mike falling in love with Tracy, but she finds comfort that Tracy is supposed to be married to someone else, thinking it will leave Mike for her. She also gets some of the best lines in the film, standing on the sidelines and offering her imput every so often.

As previously mentioned, the film crackles with wit, and there's a lot of great wordplay and dialogue between all of the characters. It also creates a love triangle that could work on all sides of it, both couples involved make sense and could work.

If I didn't already make it obvious, this is a wonderful film that deserves to be seen.

Youtube Help

2009-07-08T10:52:00.000-07:00

In honor of my first follower (thank you so much), I have decided to give the poor girl some help. Unable to find any of the films on this list due to where she lives, I'm going to try and find as many of them on Youtube as I can and post links so that anyone remotely interested can give them a look.

Note: I will only be linking to Part 1 of any available films, because the other segments are usually in the Related Videos section anyway.

Key Largo
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
BUtterfield 8
Jezebel
Of Human Bondage
She Done Him Wrong
It Happened One Night
Anna Christie
Sunrise
Rain

If you found a film that I missed, or if the entire film is not available, please let me know so I can edit this post.

Also, there are a ton of great Youtube playlists that feature a lot of older films, such as The Apartment or The Little Foxes, so be sure to check those out at well.

If people like having the option of watching the film on-line, I'll start posting links to the films on-line in my reviews (if available).

Also, if you enjoy reading this blog, please become a follower. I'm not begging for validation or anything, I'd just like to get a general idea as to how many people are reading.

Key Largo (1948)

2009-07-07T12:04:00.000-07:00

Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, and Lionel Barrymore are held captive in a hotel during a hurricane by Edward G. Robinson in a film that feels like a jumble between The Petrified Forest and Casablanca.

Frank McCloud (Bogart) is a former army officer who makes a visit to Key largo to see the widow (Bacall) and father (Barrymore) of a man who was under him in the war, only to find that their hotel is under the control of Johnny Rocco (Robinson)'s thugs. Things are tense at first, but quickly grow more threatening and dangerous as a hurricane keeps everyone trapped inside, and it falls to Frank to save the day.

The plot of this film plays out as if Rick from Casablanca was dropped into the middle of the diner in The Petrified Forrest. Frank is given the "I stick my neck out for no one" mentality, when we know that deep down inside he's really a hero. That's not necessarily a problem per se, but it does add a lot of predictability to the film since we know that he's going to have saved the day by the end of the film. And Lauren Bacall is totally wasted. As anyone who has seen The Big Sleep can attest to, Bacall is capable of being a great femme fatale, able to add a great deal of intelligence and mystery to her characters, but in this film she's just given a character who is a decent war widow and not much else, in fact, she doesn't even have that big of a part.

The more interesting female character is Gaye Dawn (which sounds like a group of Gay Skinheads), who is Rocco's alcoholic mistress, played brilliantly by Claire Trevor. She isn't afraid to make the character pathetic as she shakes and begs for a drink, even singing for Rocco in the hopes that she will be rewarded with her booze. Robinsoon is good as well, but it's a role he perfected years before.

I'm not trying to say that the film isn't good, because it is. The atmosphere is great and despite what I said, the performances are all top-notch. What's also interesting is the idea of how the world has changed because of people like Rocco and the question is raised if the world will every be the same. It's almost like the main point made in the recent film No Country for Old Men regarding evil in the world.

If you like this film, I really recommend The Petrified Forrest, which has a similar plot and also features Humphrey Bogart, this time as the criminal.

Auntie Mame (1958)

2009-07-01T06:53:00.000-07:00

Rosalind Russell gives the performance of her life in a film about a woman who was truly ahead of her time.

It's the 1920's and Patrick Dennis (Jan Handzlik and then later played by Roger Smith) is newly orphaned when his father drops dead. As per his will, he is send to live with his Auntie Mame (Rosalind Russell) who was regarded by her brother as a kook. Mame hosts illegal cocktail parties where the guests range from foreign priests to liberal poets to, according to the IMDB boards "obvious" lesbians, living under the motto "Life's a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death", Mame embraces everything and everyone, changing the motif of her penthouse every few weeks, and dressing in some truly outrageous outfits.

It's hard to go into the plot of the film, because it's VERY episodic, with plot lines introducing themselves and then being resolved 30-40 minutes later. For example, the film begins with Mame trying to keep Patrick in her care after the executor of Patrick's father's will takes him away to boarding school after discovering that Patrick has been enrolled in a liberal co-ed school where the students do not wear clothes, suddenly the plot shifts to Mame struggling through the Great Depression, and so and on so forth culminating in the plotline of a now adult Patrick wanting to marry a very conservative girl from a very bigoted elitist family.

That's part of the main issue with the film, it's length. It's about 2 hours and 20 minutes long, but there are a few scenes that don't really do anything as besides provide for Rosalind Russell to be goofy and whacky. That said, Rosalind Russell owns this movie from start to finish. Mame is larger than life and Rosalind plays it that way, but avoids ever going too far over the top. She hits every emotional note perfectly and creates one of the screens most memorable characters.

The film is witty, entertaining, and actually inspiring, as we hope to emulate Mame and live life to the fullest. But if you're going to see this movie for any reason, it's going to be for Rosalind Russell's performance, which is probably one of the greatest of all time.

Doubt (2008)

2009-06-29T08:46:00.000-07:00

I recently saw Doubt for the third time the other day, and I'm amazed that the film still holds up, in fact, with every view the film feels shorter and shorter.

Meryl Streep plays Sister Aloysius, the stern principle of a Bronx Catholic school in 1964. She is hard-headed, old-fashioned, but fiercely devoted to her students and the other Sisters. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is Father Flynn, the new priest who has more progressive ideas, such as making the students feel like part of a family in addition to adding secular Christmas songs to the school Christmas show. When History teacher Sister James (Amy Adams) observes some odd behavior on both Father Flynn's part as well as Donald Miller, the school's first and only black student, she turns to Sister Aloysius with her suspicions and sets off a chain of events that call into question faith and certainty as Sister Aloysius sets out to expose Father Flynn without a shred of evidence.

First off, the mainy reason to see Doubt is for the high level of acting that you will see in this film. Meryl Streep is fantastic as the forceful and occasionally funny nun who is devoted to seeing a monster ejected from her school. Streep gives us a sense of fierce maternal instinct for her students as well as someone who has suffered hardships in the past and is now an excellent judge of people. Amy Adams is also great as the innocent Sister racked with guilt over bringing to light an indescretion that she believes never happened. Viola Davis (who has not been mentioned yet) is insanely powerful in her brief appearance as Donald Miller's mother. She is a woman who is simply trying to keep her life together between a son who has a few secrets of his own and her abusive husband. And when questioned by Sister Aloysius, she is able to drop the mask and show the deep fear, hurt, and maternal love bubbling underneath.

But the standout of the film has to be Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who has the difficult task of playing a totally ambiguous character. He has to straddle the line between guilt and innocence and he never tips his hand towards either, instead he plays the character in a way where every emotion could be seen as a confession or an absolution.

The film itself is almost like a mystery without a grand denoument. Which works in it's favor, because the film is so ambiguous as to what is and isn't happening, that it could have seriously hurt the film to go in one way or another. Plus, it allows for some great discussion, after seeing it last, my brother and my three cousins spent about an hour talking about out own theories as to what happened.

The film can be a bit heavy handed at times though, it constantly relies upon wind metaphors, with references made about the strengthening wind throughout the film, there is also a lot of dutch angles used in the film, which may turn some people off. It's also a very dialogue heavy movie, with no real action scenes which could turn some people off.

But if you enjoy smartly written, brilliantly acted films that can actually leave you discussing it for hours, you will love Doubt, like I did the first time, the second time, and the third time I watched it.

Oh, before you watch it, please keep in mind that you probably shouldn't take the last line of the film 100% literally. I know a few people who have stated that it ruined the movie because they didn't really look beyond what it could potentially mean, so please keep an open mind.

Dinner at Eight (1933)

2009-06-26T06:16:00.000-07:00

An All-Star cast save this film which felt like only half of a movie.

Millicent Jordan (Billie Burke) is hosting a dinner party as part of a social coup, she has secured a wealthy British couple as her guests of honor. The film basically follows the story of her guests as they prepare for the big event. Some of the guests include Carlotta Vance (Marie Dressler), a washed up actress who is the former lover of Millicent's husband Oliver (Lionel Barrymore), Dan Packard (Wallace Beery) who is a mining tycoon who is planning on using dirty business dealings to take over Oliver's shipping company, there is also Kitty (Jean Harlow), Dan's brassy wife who is carrying on an affair with another dinner guest, Dr. Wayne Talbot. There is also Larry Renault (John Barrymore), another washed up actor who is having an affair with Millicent's engaged daughter.

The main problem with the film is that it focuses on all of the tangled relationships of the guests, but the film actually only shows the dinner party for about 10 minutes at the end. It feels like all build-up with no payoff, because we have people who are having affairs who are going to be attending with their spouses, but it doesn't really amount to anything.

Luckily, the cast is uniformly excellent, with Jean Harlow stealing the show as the brash and spoiled Kitty, but Billie Burke is also great as a woman obsessed with planning her dinner party, only for it to slowly fall apart around her. John Barrymore also deserves from credit for the most dramatic role in this comedy as a man who slowly begins to realize that he is not as important or talented as he thought he once was.

I don't know if it's actually the fault of the film or my own expectations that led to my main issue with this movie. If I hadn't expected the film to primarily focus on a disasterous dinner party (which most summaries will say about the film), I probably would have enjoyed it more than I do, but I was just anticipating all of these characters finally coming together and watching the sparks fly. But if you walk into the film without any such expectations then that in combination with the stellar cast make this a fun little film worth watching.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (1962)

2009-06-19T10:41:00.000-07:00

Bette Davis and Joan Crawford are brought together for what should be considered the Holy Grail for fans of Classic Hollywood Catfights and B*tchery.

Bette Davis plays Baby Jane Hudson, a former child star who quickly lost her luster as she grew older. Unfortunately for her, her sister Blanche (Joan Crawford)'s career took off and she became a movie star. Unfortunately for Blanche, booze and jealousy combined in a car accident that left her in a wheelchair, leaving her in the care of her sister who begins to grow more and more unstable.

Let me get this out of the way and say that both leads are fantastic, but this really is Bette Davis' show. Blanche has to be the sympathetic character, so she remains much more one note than Jane, who gets to go from bitter alcoholic to going through a twisted second childhood. Davis hits all of the emotional beats perfectly in a role that could have easily been played to scenery-chewing camp, but Bette Davis gives Jane a sort of internal turmoil and humanity that could have otherwise been lacking.

In fact, the whole movie somewhat tricks you, it starts out as you would expect, with Jane mocking and abusing Blanche in a sort of dark-comedy, but it slowly fades away as Jane begins becoming more and more unstable and what we're left with is two wounded individuals who have hurt each other and have made some horrible mistakes.

The film is primarily about the two leads, with only two prominent secondary characters. Elvira (
Maidie Norman), the housekeeper who is Blanche's only ally in the house, and Edwin (Victor Buono), the pianist Jane hires to accompany her when she begins planning to resurrect her act. Buono actually received an Oscar nomination, but to be honest, I'm baffled by it. It's not that he does a horrible job, but his character is basically just a slimeball loser who lives with his mother.

This is a film that deserved to be seen. It's a very dark little movie, but you have two of classic cinema's biggest titans (who hated eachother) together in one film and delivering great performances. There's not really a whole lot to hate.

BUtterfield 8 (1960)

2009-06-15T09:45:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth Taylor plays a hooker in a film that is for the most part, pretty bad.

Oh, and by the way, the BU in the title is correct, it's not a spelling mistake, so I don't want any complains (though at this point any sort of reaction by someone would be desired)

Liz plays Gloria a part-time model and part-time hooker who begins a relationship with the married Weston Ligget, a commoner who has married into money.

Let me say this right off the bat, the only redeeming quality of this film is Elizabeth Taylor's performance, other than that, the film is light on plot and the actual plot evokes no emotional connection. Weston is a total pig, and we are never really shown anything to their relationship beyond scenes of them in various places and hints that they're getting ready to have sex.

The biggest mistake of the film is featuring Weston's wife as predominantly as the film does, because she's made out to be incredibly sympathetic, blaming the affair on herself for being from a rich family, it makes it almost impossible to want Gloria and Weston to make it as a couple. The best way to execute a love triangle (at least to make it interesting) is one of two ways. Make all of the character likable, so we have some sort of emotional investment in who ends up with whom, or make one of the two women or men some horrible person so we can cheer the moment they are left in the dust. Unfortunately, we feel for both women, but we want them to dump Weston as soon as possible. He's a very whiny drunk who's biggest issue is the fact that his wife comes from money, big woo.

There's a minor subplot about Gloria's musician friend Steve (Eddie Fisher, Taylor's then husband) who might be in love with Gloria, but has a girlfriend. Frankly, the plot is very underdeveloped and only serves as a catalyst for Gloria to make a decision later in the film.

As I said earlier, the only reason to see this film is to see Elizabeth Taylor's incredible performance. She plays a woman that craves attention and feels shame for doing so, as well as being extremely vulnerable. There is one scene (the best scene in the whole movie) where Gloria explains how when she was 13, a friend of the family raped her for a week while her mother was out of town. And through tears, anger, and shame Gloria admits to loving it. The scene, which would already be shocking if seen today, showcases Taylor's talent as she allows for a combination of revulsion, fury, sorrow to play across her face.

It's a shame that her Oscar win for this film is so tainted by the opinion (which she also shares, in addition to hating this film) that she only won due to a serious illness at the time, which many thought would have killed her, because she really deserved to win. I'm not saying she's better than the other nominees (I don't even know who they are, besides Shirley Maclaine for The Apartment) but she certainly gave an Oscar-worthy performance, which is the only reason for seeing this film.

Oh, and don't get me started on the ending. It's absolutely horrible and completely out of left-field.

Marked Woman (1937)

2009-06-12T10:13:00.000-07:00

Bette Davis is a hooker is sets out to destroy the mob. Really, do you need to hear anything else?

Ok, since this is a blog about movies, I suppose I should actually tell you something about the film. Bette Davis plays Mary Dwight, a "hostess" at a nightclub that has recently come under ownership of Johnny Vanning (Eduardo Ciannelli), a dangerous mob boss who has killed past "hostesses" for knowing too much. When one of her "clients" is murdered for paying his bill in bad checks, Mary is arrested and encouraged by D.A David Graham (Humphrey Bogart) to assist him in bringing Vanning down. Mary agrees, only to aid Vanning by presenting false evidence. However, Mary must turn to Graham when Vanning turns against her in an effort to bring Johnny to justice.

Bette Davis is pretty good in the title role. Granted, a tough girl is not exactly the hardest role for Davis to play, but she gives Mary some intelligence which at least adds some depth to the character. But there are some moments where she descends into melodrama, but at least in one scene it works, since it's supposed to be an act for the D.A.

Bogart is good in this film as well, despite his character being fairly shallow. He really only exists as a crusader out to destroy Vanning, and despite his character making claims of growing up in poor situations, we never get anything beyond. If the film would have gone a bit into his backstory, the character could have become more realized.

The rest of the cast is all serviceable. Since the film is mainly a vehicle for Davis, she gets most of the screentime and we don't really get anything from the other character to suggest any sort of well-roundedness. Though it's worth mentioning that Jane Bryan plays Betty, Mary's sister, and she has a very bizarre story arc. She is in town for a college football game and is under the idea that Mary is a model in a dress shop, but once she finds out about Mary's whoring, she suddenly decides to drop out of college and become a party girl. It's very odd and hardly believable, but it moves along the plot so we have to take it as is.

The actual plot of the film is a bit predictable, and we can guess all of the major plot points before they happen, but as with most films, the performances are what makes the film interesting and the two leads of Davis and Bogart are good enough to make this film easy to watch (it's also fairly short, only around 90 minutes)

Jezebel (1938)

2009-06-11T05:31:00.000-07:00

I apologize for doing another Bette Davis movie, but I actually rewatched this film last night and figured I should go ahead and do an entry on it, since it is a Bette Davis movie.

Bette Davis is Julie, a spoiled New Orleans woman who is engaged (again) to banker Preston Dillard (Henry Fonda). Their relationship has been marked by a series of petty quarrels, usually initiated by Julie in an attempt to make him jealous or simply to f*ck with him. This time, since Pres was at an important bank meeting and unable to go to her dress fitting, Julie decides to dress up as a whore to the Olympus Ball which basically gives everyone the vapors, most of all Pres who ends up breaking his engagement with Julie, who is convinced that Pres will return to her.

A year passes and Pres has moved to the North on bank duty, but is forced to return when Yellow Fever begins infecting the townspeople. Julie throws a party at the family's plantation only to get a shock when Pres shows up with his wife on his arm, a Yankee named Amy.

The plot isn't terrible surprising. The moment we hear that Pres is coming back and Julie's freaking out, we know that he's going to be married or engaged or in some other state to complicate things. But the film does have Bette Davis.

This is the performance that landed Bette her 2nd Oscar (though I think her two wins should have been for different movies), and it's a great performance. She plays Julie as very spoiled, petty, but strong-willed. She may be a spiteful young lady, but we get the sense that there is some strength within her. She also to make great highs and lows in the film, committing horrible acts as well as being self-sacrificing, and she pulls it off believably.

Fay Bainter (who also won an Oscar) plays Aunt Belle (apparently she is both Julie and Pres' aunt, which is messed up), and she really brings the necessary heart to a film about a mean-spirited southern belle. And special attention should be made to Margaret Lindsay who plays Pres' new wife Amy. She has to serve almost as the Anti-Julie in the film. She is low-key, thoughtful, but like Julie she is strong-willed woman and she really makes you feel sorry for her despite her character being relatively minor.

The rest of the cast is decent. Henry Fonda is passable, Pres is such a wishy-washy character that it's hard to get him any sort of real strength, he basically lets Julie screw with him over and over and only puts his foot down 1 or 2 times. George Brent is also decent as Buck, a former flame of Julie's who still loves her. But I've seen Brent in several movies and he's really not that great of an actor.

The sets, costumes and directions are all outstanding (it's terribly unfortunate that the film is black and white) and with the addition of the strong performance by Bette Davis, Fay Bainter and Margaret Lindsay, it makes this film one that is easy to recommend, especially if you love Gone with the Wind and you enjoy seeing b*tchy Southern women ruin other peoples lives.

A Woman's Face 1941

2009-06-09T09:23:00.000-07:00

s
A disfigured Joan Crawford, planned child murder, weird accents and Ma Kettle comes together in this flashback-filled film that contains Joan Crawford's best performance (that I've seen anyway).

Anyway, Joan Crawford is Anna Holm, who had the side of her face disfigured in a childhood fire that took her family. Suffering a life of mockery and abuse, Anna becomes a cold-hearted blackmailer. She meets a plastic surgeon who is able to fix her disfigurement, but she is tempted to go back down a the dark path when the man she is in love with concocts a scheme to murder his four year old nephew that is currently set to inherit his family's fortune.

The film is presented in a series of flashbacks during a murder trial in which Anna is the accused. It allows for the film to unfold almost like a mystery as it plays with our expectations and goes into all sorts of directions.

As I said, the film is the best Joan Crawford performances that I've seen. She has to play such a nuanced character, someone who has suffered a very hard life, but begins to let herself love and grow, and she pulls it off believably.

Unfortunately, the film falls into some predictable territory once the 4 year old nephew (Richard Nichols, who was also in Kitty Foyle and the Bette Davis film All This, and Heaven Too) enters the picture. The kid is overtly cutsey and "golly gee whiz, I love ya" and you begin to get an idea where Anna story arc is going to go. In addition, the other characters are not nearly as interesting as Anna. The plastic surgeon, Dr. Gustaf (Melvyn Douglas) is a fairly boring character who oddly offers to fix Anna's face in the middle of a break-in, and Anna's love, the sinister Torsten (Conrad Veidt) has a rather peculiar and unbelievable character arc where he descends into homicidal madness.

But the film is worth seeing alone for Joan Crawford's performance, because it really does showcase her talent for playing a variety of characters, having to be both cold-hearted and spiteful as well as vulnerable and maternal.

Three on a Match (1932)

2009-06-04T16:53:00.000-07:00

This won't spoil anything (since the film itself presents this information fairly early in the film), but Three on a Match is named for the urban legend that if soldiers during the war lite their match and kept it aflame long enough to light three cigarettes, one of the soldiers would be shot by an enemy soldier due to the cigarette signaling their location long enough to aim and fire.

The film itself (which is part of the Forbidden Hollywood collection from TCM) follows the lives of three classmates who meet later in life and become friends, the three women are Mary (Joan Blondell), Vivian (Ann Dvorak), and Ruth (Bette Davis). The film focuses mainly on the lives of Mary and Vivian, with Ruth being a supporting character that doesn't really do all that much. Mary was the "bad girl" of the group and is currently an entertainer, Vivian is the wife of a wealthy lawyer with whom she has a son, and Ruth is a secretary.

Vivian however, is bored with life and decides to run off with her son and shack up with Mary's gangster boyfriend, where she starts abusing drugs and drinking. Vivian's son is eventually found and Vivian's husband divorces her and then marries Mary. Because he is financial strapped, Vivian's boyfriend plots to kidnap her son and hold him for ransom.

The plot of the film is fairly predictable, but there is a very strong performance on behalf of Ann Dvorak, who has to play a very multifaceted character. She has to be a bored wife who throws it all away for a life of booze and then sinks into financial desperation, all the while maintaining a fierce maternal instinct that forces her to make some hard choices in order to protect her son. Joan Blondell is good as well, playing the former bad-girl who hasn't had the easiest life. Bette Davis, unfortunately is completely underutilized (though, that's to be expected since this is one of her first films) and her character is totally underdeveloped, almost like a glorified babysitter for Vivian's son.

Since the film is part of the Forbidden Hollywood collection (As was Baby Face and Red-Headed Woman), there's a fair amount of scandalous material in the film, such as the suggestion that Vivian is using drugs, as well as her staying in a motel room with a man who is not her husband, in addition to a fairly graphic (for its time anyway) death late in the film.

The main reason I watched this film was to add another notch in my Bette Davis film count, and while I was disappointed in how her character was handled, the film itself is pretty good. As I said, the plot isn't terrible complex, but the performance of Ann Dvorak is incredible and single-handedly makes this a film that should be seen.