“That girl knows exactly what she’s doing — and she likes it.”
|
Synopsis:
An aspiring dancer (Carmelita Geraghty) befriends a kind chorus girl (Patsy Brand) who falls for the duplicitous friend (Miles Mander) of Geraghty’s upstanding fiance (John Stuart); meanwhile, the socially climbing Geraghty leaves Stuart behind for a chance to marry a prince (Karl Falkenberg).
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Hitchcock’s first feature film as a director — made after years of working as a title designer, set designer, writer, and assistant director — is a rather standard romantic melodrama distinguished only by the occasional evidence it provides of Hitch’s incipient creative genius. The storyline (based on a novel by Oliver Sandys) is frustratingly disparate: at first we believe we’re watching a movie about an ingenue (Geraghty) struggling to gain a foothold in the entertainment business, only to quickly realize that Geraghty is savvier and more calculating than she appears, at which point Brand inexplicably becomes the film’s primary protagonist, as we follow her romantic travails, and watch her eventual betrayal by a man she senses (well, her dog senses!) may not be as forthright as he appears. With exotic infidelity, madness, and murder thrown in for good measure, the result is basically a jam-packed 60-minute potboiler. With that said, as noted above, Pleasure Garden is primarily of interest for the glimpses it affords of Hitchcock’s early directorial sensibility at work; see the CineMonkey review for a detailed analysis of themes and motifs which foreshadow many of Hitchcock’s later films.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Incipient evidence of Hitchcock’s creative genius
Must See?
No; this one will really only be of interest to Hitchcock fans.
Links:
|
Posted on February 6th, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“It is the middle of the dark ages — ages darker than anyone had expected…”
|
Synopsis:
During the Middle Ages, a cooper’s son (Michael Palin) sets forth into the city, where a monstrous Jabberwocky terrorizes the citizens, and the king (Max Wall) has offered the hand of his daughter (Deborah Fallender) in marriage to anyone who slays the beast.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Terry Gilliam’s first post-Python directorial feature is a creatively conceived but ultimately enigmatic and muddled disappointment. Ostensibly based upon Lewis Carroll’s infamous nonsense poem “Jabberwocky”, the titular creature of fantasy — with “jaws that bite” and “claws that catch” — only makes a few cameo appearances throughout the film: s/he’s in partial view during the gruesome opening sequence and a later brief attack scene, and then shows up in disappointing full form during the climactic denouement. The rest of the movie is an almost unbearably muck-filled journey into what Gilliam clearly posits as the *real* Middle Ages, when Britain’s citizens lived a miserable life of dung and filth; only those “lucky” enough to see the world through rose-colored glasses, like Michael Palin’s clueless young cooper — who is desperately in love with the spoiled, sullen, obese daughter (Annette Badland) of a fishmonger (Warren Mitchell) — are able to make their way through the perils of daily life with enough nervy stupidity to survive, simply through dumb luck. Meanwhile, there’s precious little humor to be had throughout the movie, leaving one to wonder what the point of it all really is. Perhaps most frustrating is that Palin’s protagonist is an utterly hapless and accidental “hero”, never really demonstrating growth in either intelligence or bravery; his final fate is thus both undeserved and under-appreciated.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Impressively gloomy cinematography and sets
Must See?
No; feel free to skip this one unless you’re a diehard Terry Gilliam fan.
Links:
|
Posted on February 5th, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“Here, in this bachelor flat on Pacific, Professor can relax and get away from all those amorous college girls…”
|
Synopsis:
A British archaeology professor (Terry-Thomas) fights off amorous females while dealing with the sudden presence of a seventeen-year-old “juvenile delinquent” (Tuesday Weld) who is actually the daughter of his fiancee (Celeste Holm).
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Although it’s beloved by fans and has received reasonably positive reviews from critics (the All Movie Guide notes that it was “written and directed… with [director Frank Tashlin's] usual grace and elegance”), it’s truly difficult to understand the appeal of this dated and tiresome ’60s comedy, starring gap-toothed British comedian Terry-Thomas, heartthrob Richard Beymer (a year after his leading role in West Side Story), and 18-year-old Tuesday Weld. Tashlin does indeed keep the film moving quickly, and shows evidence of his skill at directing broad slapstick, but the storyline itself falls completely flat: Terry-Thomas’s “irresistible” appeal to women of all ages never once rings true (not even as a gag), and Weld’s rash decision to pawn herself off as a juvenile delinquent (rather than revealing that Terry-Thomas’s absentee fiancee is her mother) feels equally forced. If you enjoy this type of mindless, colorful piffle, certainly feel free to seek it out; otherwise, film fanatics should feel no obligation at all to watch it. It’s likely included in Peary’s book because of Tashlin’s fame as the director of so many Jerry Lewis films, as well as two enduring ’50s comedies: The Girl Can’t Help It (1956) and Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1957).
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Francesca Bellini as Gladys Schmidlapp — just one of Terry-Thomas’s seemingly countless pursuers
Must See?
No; definitely feel free to skip this one.
Links:
|
Posted on February 5th, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | 1 Comment »
“Wherever you go, I’m going with you.”
|
Synopsis:
A Texas ranger (Tom Mix) searches for his sister (Beatrice Burnham) and niece (Seessel Anne Johnson), who have been kidnapped by a ruthless lawyer (Warner Oland).
|
|
Genres:
Review:
According to Wikipedia, Riders of the Purple Sage (published in 1912) is not only Zane Grey’s “best-known novel”, but it “was one of the earliest works of Western fiction, and played a significant role in popularizing that genre.” As such, this silent movie — the second cinematic version of Grey’s novel — is an especially fitting choice for film fanatics wanting to see early Western star Tom Mix in action. The story itself, running under an hour, is standard melodrama, and not really worth elaborating upon; what one should pay attention to is Tom Mix (regal in his all-black cowboy’s outfit) coming to save the day, and the beautiful location footage surrounding him (shot in Lone Pines, California). Watch for Warner Oland in a pre-Charlie Chan role, and Anne Shirley in a small role as Burnham’s teenage daughter.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Beautiful location footage
Must See?
Yes, simply to see a representative Tom Mix western. Listed as a film with historical significance in the back of Peary’s book.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on January 30th, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“To be quite frank, Kevin, the fabric of the universe is far from perfect.”
|
Synopsis:
A group of six greedy dwarves (David Rappaport, Kenny Baker, Jack Purvis, Mike Edmonds, Malcolm Dixon, and Tiny Ross) steal a map of time holes from their leader, the Supreme Being (Ralph Richardson), and take a young boy (Craig Warnock) with them on their treasure-seeking time-travel adventures; meanwhile, Evil (David Warner) covets the map for his own nefarious purposes.
|
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, it’s “easy to see the influence of The Thief of Bagdad, Alice in Wonderland, and, especially, The Wizard of Oz” on this comedic adventure film, scripted by Terry Gilliam “with fellow [Monty] Python alumnus Michael Palin”. Yet Time Bandits is actually “totally opposite to them in theme”, given that (in Gilliam’s own words), “it is… a reaction against kids’ films which are wonderful but have no guts because they present children with false reassurance that everything will turn out all right… You give your characters strength by having them experience some of the nastiness [of the world]. I wanted to get back to Grimm.” Peary accurately points out that despite being “extremely fanciful and ambitious” — many of the historical and/or fantastical sets throughout the film are beautifully conceived — the movie ultimately “wears you out”, and could perhaps have benefited from an episode or two being cut. What he strangely neglects to note, however, is what a disappointing cop-out the film’s denouement is, with far too many narrative threads neatly tied up and simply explained away. Despite its flaws, however, Gilliam’s uniquely creative vision is in full force here, and fans of his work won’t want to miss this pivotal early entry in his oeuvre.
Note: The “true” ending of the film — after Warnock returns home from his adventures and confronts his parents — is utterly bizarre; it will surely leave you scratching your head in wonder.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- The exciting opening sequence in Warnock’s bedroom
- Impressive set designs
- John Cleese as (among other characters) Robin Hood
- David Warner as Evil
Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite by a unique director.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on January 23rd, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | No Comments »
“I’m sick?! Well, take a look at yourself!”
|
Synopsis:
A kleptomaniac (Tippi Hedren) with a troubled past is blackmailed into marrying her new boss (Sean Connery), who is intrigued by her problems and wants to help her recover.
|
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is clearly a fan of this once-maligned cult “psychological melodrama” by Hitchcock. He notes that it “wasn’t really appreciated until the seventies, when films were at last being examined in terms of sexual roles and relationships”, and that it “remains one of the rare films that allow viewers to be privy to the intimate problems of a married couple”. He also points out that this was the first (and only) film in which Hitchcock himself “finally sides with his [notorious icy] blonde.” Other modern reviewers are less enthusiastic, however, with DVD Savant arguing, for instance, that Marnie “is the Hitchcock movie where everything begins to slip”: he complains that “the story is a trite throwback to 1940s faux-psychology”; that Hitchcock “skimps on the detail work” by using egregiously obvious matte paintings and rear-view projections; that Connery and Hedren “never really click as screen lovers”; that Hedren isn’t up to the level of acting required of her; and that “Marnie’s childhood trauma is just too pat”, while “the whole business of being sent into shock by the color red [is] equally foolish”.
The truth about this undeniably polarizing film probably lies somewhere in between these two sentiments. Yes, Hitchcock’s use of rear-view projections definitely looks and feels artificial at this point in cinematic history (but would a Hitchcock film be complete without them?). Ultimately, for those who give themselves over to Marnie’s predicament, and who are willing to accept the inevitable artificialities sprinkled throughout any Hitchcock film, Marnie eventually becomes (as Peary argues) an absorbing story of psychological sleuthing and marital growth — a film “about a woman with many aliases who is involved in a desperate search for identity“. The fact that Connery drolly admits to Marnie that he’s far from perfect (when she accuses him of being just as screwy as she is) allows us to accept these two individuals as uniquely flawed; and although Connery’s amateur psychoanalyzing may indeed come across these days as “too pat”, we admire his determination to help Marnie, and can’t help rooting for them as a couple.
While Hedren’s acting doesn’t particularly impress during the earlier parts of the film (when her character in general is still a mystery to us), she eventually digs more deeply into her role, allowing us to clearly see Marnie’s vulnerabilities, and to understand that this is not a woman out to blithely take advantage of men — she has deep-seated “reasons” for acting the way she does. Connery’s casting is unconventional (and it’s true, as DVD Savant argues, that we never “believe that Sean Connery — looking his 007 best — is an American businessman”), but he’s appealing in an undeniably tricky role; and as Peary notes in his Cult Movies 2, the fact that “James Bond” — who’s “capable of seducing lesbian Pussy Galore” — is unable to seduce his own wife on his honeymoon speaks volumes about the depth of Marnie’s sexual neuroses. Supporting performances in the film are fine as well, with Louise Latham particularly impressive in a small but important role as Marnie’s mother — a woman we want to revile (since she’s clearly the cause of Marnie’s miseries) but are ultimately too intrigued by to simply hate.
Note: Watch for Bruce Dern in a tiny role as the key figure in Marnie’s recurring nightmares (only revealed at the end of the film); 12 years later, Dern would return to star in Hitchcock’s final film, Family Plot (1976).
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- A fascinating exploration of marital problems and psychological repression
- Louise Latham as Marnie’s mother, Bernice
- Bernard Herrmann’s score
Must See?
Yes, as a controversial cult favorite by Hitchcock. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies 2.
Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)
Links:
|
Posted on January 23rd, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | No Comments »
“I’ve heard about you, Gifford. First you go get yourself a silver star, then you get busted to private. Oh, it’s a rough war, ain’t it?”
|
Synopsis:
A spoiled Southerner (Robert Wagner) serving under a sadistic commander (Broderick Crawford) experiences a fundamental attitude shift.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Starring matinee-idol Robert Wagner, this unassuming WWII-era film (based on a novel by Francis Gwaltney) offers yet another perspective on the brutal ravages of war. Unfortunately, the ostensible focus of the film — arrogant Sergeant-turned-Private Gifford (Wagner) learns to love and respect his fellow soldiers, regardless of their station in life — comes across as somewhat heavy-handed, given that the brief flashbacks to his life as a callous plantation owner (married to Terry Moore) aren’t lengthy enough to give us a really good sense of who Gifford once was (or why). Much more effective is director Richard Fleischer’s ability to show us how the random brutality of wartime violence — starting with the death of his beloved father-in-law (Robert Keith) — has a deeply powerful effect on Wagner’s psyche; the type of PTSD he experiences wasn’t explored nearly enough in other wartime films of the era. Broderick Crawford is appropriately unhinged as a Kurtz-like commander slowly going off the deep end (with a weirdly homoerotic attachment to his two buff young henchmen, who often roam around shirtless). My favorite performance in the film, however, is given by Buddy Ebsen as Wagner’s lower-class “buddy”, who quietly befriends him and helps him see the good in himself. Much less fortunate is the casting of Harvey Lembeck as — what else? — an obnoxious wiseacre; fortunately, his role is relatively small. Note Hugo Friedhofer’s Oscar-nominated score, which draws heavily — and to nice effect — upon the “dies irae” motif.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- A powerful portrait of the effects of wartime death on soldiers
Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look, and WWII film fans will certainly want to check it out. Listed as a Sleeper and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.
Links:
|
Posted on January 22nd, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“Tell her they may soon be leaving us — leaving us for a long, long journey.”
|
Synopsis:
A man (Leslie Banks) vacationing in Switzerland with his wife (Edna Best) and teenage daughter (Nova Pilbeam) becomes privy to knowledge about an assassination plot, and must rescue his kidnapped daughter from the clutches of the plot’s ringleader (Peter Lorre).
|
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this early version of Hitchcock’s 1956 remake is rated more highly by many, but ultimately isn’t quite “as enjoyable” as its later counterpart. Yet it remains an economic little thriller which “blends droll wit and suspense”, and has plenty to recommend in its own right, including exciting sequences staged “in intriguing settings”, and an interesting mix of “refined continental types with sleazy, though educated East Europeans (like Peter Lorre’s strange-looking, memorable villain)”. While I agree with Peary that the 1956 version is ultimately the more enjoyable of the two, certain elements of this earlier film work better — namely the setting of the opening sequences in Switzerland rather than Morocco (I prefer Banks’ urbane Brit to Stewart’s “ugly American”), and the fact that Banks’ wife (Best) is a savvy sharpshooter rather than a ’50s housewife.
As Peary notes, however, 15-year-old Pilbeam (lovely as the central protagonist in Hitchcock’s The Young and Innocent, released three years later) “looks much too old for her part” — her age and gender imply the threat of something more egregious happening to her when she’s kidnapped, but these potential threats are simply ignored in the script. Peary describes the “climactic shootout” — in which Best uses her shooting skills to rescue Pilbeam, much like Day uses her singing skills to rescue Olsen — as something “straight out of American gangster films”, but it drags on for too long; much more rewarding is the earlier Albert Hall assassination sequence (with many shots duplicated in the 1956 version).
NB: This was Lorre’s first English-speaking role; accounts differ on whether he learned the language within three months, or recited most of his lines phonetically, but he does a remarkably polished job, and remains one of the film’s creepy highlights.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Peter Lorre as Abbott
- An exciting, fast-paced plot
Must See?
Yes, simply as one of Hitchcock’s better early thrillers — and “his most commercially successful” British film.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on January 22nd, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | No Comments »
“Don’t you realize that Americans dislike having their children stolen?”
|
Synopsis:
An American doctor (James Stewart) traveling in Morocco with his wife (Doris Day) and son (Christopher Olsen) becomes unwittingly embroiled in an assassination plot, and must find a way to rescue his kidnapped son while preventing the assassination from taking place.
|
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, although this remake of Hitchcock’s 1934 British film of the same name was “long regarded as one of [his] lesser efforts of the fifties”, it’s actually a “well-made, truly enjoyable thriller” with a number of “clever and suspenseful” scenes, and plenty of “wit” throughout. Doris Day is surprisingly well-cast as a once-famous singer (now housewife) whose rendition of “Que Sera, Sera” plays a pivotal part in the film’s suspenseful ending. (NB: This song won the film an Oscar, but it’s actually a bit saccharine and repetitive; Hitchcock himself apparently hated it.) Stewart is serviceable but not particularly distinctive in the title role; his “Ugly American” treatment of Morocco during the film’s opening half-hour is truly off-putting, and makes it difficult to sympathize as much with his predicament as one otherwise would. In addition, while it’s somewhat pointless to quibble over plot holes in Hitchcock’s films (he was notoriously indifferent to their presence), I can’t quite get beyond the fact that Day and Stewart allow relative strangers (new “friends” they only just met the night before — Bernard Miles and creepy Brenda De Banzie) to take off with their child in a strange city; then again, without this pivotal plot twist, there would be no story. Watch for composer Bernard Herrmann in a cameo as the conductor at Albert Hall, where the film’s exciting, oft-studied climax takes place. Also of note: skeletal Reggie Nalder as the assassin (has there been a creepier face in cinematic history?).
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Doris Day as Jo Conway
- The amusing taxidermist sequence — a classic Hitchcockian red herring
- The suspensefully filmed and edited Albert Hall sequence
Must See?
Yes. While it’s not one of his best films, this is certainly worthy Hitchcock viewing — and film fanatics will enjoy comparing it with his earlier version.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on January 22nd, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | No Comments »
“There is no evidence of a conspiracy.”
|
Synopsis:
While investigating a string of deaths associated with the murder of a politician (William Joyce), a journalist (Warren Beatty) learns about the mysterious Parallax Corporation, which trains assassins.
|
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s review of this “strangely satisfying” thriller by Alan J. Pakula largely focuses on its status as a “blueprint for conspiratorial machinery” and as the “definitive paranoia film”. Peary argues that the film effectively demonstrates how “even the cleverest, most resourceful individual cannot triumph against the corporation”, and that “truth [cannot] win out as in [Pakula's next film] All the President’s Men.” While it’s true, as Peary notes, that the film’s “major flaws result from Pakula sacrificing story-clarifying scenes for pacing” (it’s often devilishly difficult, as in Pakula’s Klute, to follow what’s happening from one scene to the next), I also agree with him that in this case, “the information left out [simply] builds our paranoia and disorientation”. Visually, The Parallax View is a triumph: Pakula’s stylized direction (utilizing many longshots or extreme close-ups) and Gordon Willis’s masterful camerawork make this is a film one doesn’t mind viewing key sections of several times. Especially notable are the opening assassination sequence atop the Space Needle in Seattle, and the deeply disturbing “brainwashing montage”, watched by Beatty when he visits the Parallax Corporation for the first time (see DVD Savant’s review for a more detailed analysis of this sequence’s progression). Beatty is fine and believable in the central role, but the supporting cast is even more impressive — particularly Paula Prentiss in an all-too-brief early role as Beatty’s former girlfriend (whose fear of being the next in line for assassination is realized all too quickly.)
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Warren Beatty as Joseph Frady (nominated by Peary as one of the best actors of the year in his Alternate Oscars book)
- Paula Prentiss in an early supporting role
- Hume Cronyn as Beatty’s editor
- The opening Space Needle assassination sequence
- The eerie brainwashing montage
- Gordon Willis’s cinematography
- Pakula’s effective directorial style
- Michael Small’s distinctive, trumpet-heavy score
Must See?
Yes, as a powerful thriller by a master director. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies 2, and nominated by Peary as one of the best movies of the year in his Alternate Oscars book.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on January 22nd, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | No Comments »
