“All matter is really cosmic substance in vibration.”
|
Synopsis:
A reclusive cripple (Ralph Morgan) with a seemingly insane daughter (Fay Helm), a lurking butler (Bela Lugosi), a skittish maid (Janet Shaw), and a menacing chauffeur (Leif Erickson) invites a diverse group of guests to his decaying mansion — including a mystic (Nils Asther), a psychiatrist (Irene Hervey) hoping to help Helm, two doctors (Frank Reicher and Francis Pierlot) who may or may not have played a role in botching Morgan’s recovery from his disabling accident, and a young crime novelist (Don Porter) intent on solving the series of murders that are shortly played out.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
While this “old dark house” thriller (directed by Hollywood workhorse Ford Beebe of Flash Gordon fame) will clearly be of most interest to Bela Lugosi fans, they’ll quickly find that his role is peripheral at best. Fortunately, the storyline — though predictably convoluted, and overpopulated by too many characters — is engaging while it lasts; of particular interest is the sequence in which Asther works his creepy mumbo-jumbo (“There are certain details in the process that we are not allowed to explain to the uninitiated.”), and Atwill’s nicely handled “big reveal” scene. Not must-see viewing, but not a total snooze, either.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Atmospheric cinematography (by Charles Van Enger)
- Some humorously corny dialogue: “How is it dames always know what’s on a guy’s mind before he knows himself?”
Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for diehard Lugosi fans.
Links:
|
Posted on February 28th, 2014 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | 2 Comments »
“We’re three strangers — that’s the point.”
|
Synopsis:
On Chinese New Year, three strangers — a socially-aspiring attorney (Sydney Greenstreet), the wealthy wife (Geraldine Fitzgerald) of a philanderer (Alan Napier), and a petty thief (Peter Lorre) — share in the outcome of a lottery ticket after praying to a goddess of fortune.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Jean Negulesco directed this atmospheric, fast-paced thriller, based on a script by John Huston and Howard Koch and featuring Maltese Falcon (1941) co-stars Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre (as well as luminous Geraldine Fitzgerald, who seemed to specialize in playing women with a potentially loose screw). Huston and Koch’s tight screenplay intrigues and invites from the very beginning; we’re held captive throughout, wondering what will befall each of our hapless, all-too-human protagonists. There’s really not a false step taken here, with uniformly strong performances, atmospheric cinematography (by Arthur Edeson), and a satisfyingly ruthless screenplay, complete with potent character names (“Crystal Shackleford”, “Icey Crane”, etc.). Enjoy this one!
Note: Warner Brothers teamed Lorre and Greenstreet in one other title — 1944′s The Mask of Dimitrios, also directed by Negulesco and listed in Peary’s GFTFF.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Excellent performances by the three leads
- Fine cinematography by Arthur Edeson
Must See?
Yes, as a most enjoyable sleeper.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on February 28th, 2014 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“An angel does not make love; an angel is love.”
|
Synopsis:
In the distant future, a sexually liberated female astronaut (Jane Fonda) is sent by the President of Earth (Claude Dauphin) to find a nefarious scientist (Milo O’Shea) who has invented the ultimate weapon — the Positronic Ray.
|
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that despite the dizzying amount of activity occurring throughout this cult futuristic film — based on an adult comic strip by Jean-Claude Forest — it’s nonetheless “quite dull”. He writes that “the whole production… lacks imagination” and that “Barbarella herself is a weak heroine”, given that “her actions have little effect on what transpires at the end”. He notes that the “film’s cult has to do with [both] the campy humor” — which he finds “unintentionally amusing” — as well as the “uninhibited, scandalously garbed Fonda”, who “gives her body to all men who assist her”. He complains that director Roger Vadim (married to Fonda at the time) “subjects his heroine to ghastly tortures while she is either nude or having her clothes ripped off”, and posits that “trying to stimulate men by showing pretty women being physically abused is irresponsible”.
In Cult Movies 2 (where he analyzes the film in more detail), Peary notes that Fonda herself has claimed Barbarella isn’t one of her “many mistakes” (“I like it — it’s fun”, she’s insisted, without elaboration). Actually, the erstwhile brouhaha over Barbarella‘s role in Fonda’s otherwise (mostly) esteemed acting career feels entirely irrelevant these days, given that she’s no longer so actively in the limelight, and her recent attempts at an acting comeback have been less-than-memorable. Ultimately, I agree with Peary that the film — while undeniably visually provocative — is essentially an “innocuous” and dull piece of ’60s soft-core fantasy erotica. For instance, where’s the humor in exchanges like the following (taken from IMDb’s Quotes page)?:
Dildano: [radioing instructions to the rebel army] And our password will be… Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.
Barbarella: You mean the secret password is Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch?
Dildano: Exactly.
I’ve seen Barbarella twice, and read about it plenty — but the point of its needlessly convoluted storyline continues to elude me, and I can only understand its cult appeal on an intellectual level.
Note: The best-known piece of trivia associated with Barbarella is the fact that the ’80s English rock band Duran Duran named itself after the central villain, “Durand-Durand” (O’Shea).
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Imaginative set designs and costumes
Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its cult status.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on February 28th, 2014 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | No Comments »
“Would you like to talk about the meaning of life, dear?”
|
Synopsis:
British comedy troupe Monty Python enacts a series of sketches about the absurdity of birth, child-rearing, and human existence.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
The Trivia section on IMDb provides some revealing insights into the inception and production of this final Monty Python collaboration, openly acknowledged by the troupe as one of its lesser (and less coherent) efforts. Python claims to have refused to show Universal Studios a script, instead relying on collective inspiration and strategic ad-libbing to produce a series of loosely linked vignettes — some of which are (inevitably) more successful than others. After opening with a Terry Gilliam-directed live short entitled “The Crimson Permanent Assurance” (originally conceived as an homage to the cinematic convention of showing a short film before the feature presentation — though, in typically surreal Python fashion, it re-emerges later as part of the overall episodic arc), we’re presented with a developmental overview of humanity, beginning with the Miracle of Birth and proceeding through Growth and Learning, Middle Age, Live Organ Transplants (!), the Autumn Years, and Death (with the Middle of the Film and the End of the Film — as well as an exploration of the Meaning of Life — thrown in for the sake of cohesion and philosophical rigor).
Sketches in Part I (The Miracle of Birth) and Part II (Growth and Learning) are the most memorable and inspired, and could easily be considered must-see viewing in their own right — indeed, all film fanatics should likely be familiar with the magical “machine that goes ping”, with what happens when one believes that “every sperm is sacred”, and with the fact that a classroom setting can turn even a live sex act into a humdrum, yawn-inducing mundanity. Unfortunately, most of the later vignettes are decidedly less amusing, though the infamous “Mr. Creosote” sketch — in which a morbidly obese man is enjoined to eat one more “wafer thin” treat before literally exploding — should likely be endured once, simply for its cultural relevance. (Quentin Tarantino apparently admitted to finding it beyond his own considerable gruesome-tolerance level — no small admission.) Ultimately, however, film fanatics unfamiliar with Monty Python’s cinematic genius should start with their cult masterpiece, Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) — and decide from there whether they’re interested in exploring more.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Several genuinely surreal, hilarious, and memorable sequences
Must See?
No, though it’s obviously must-see for Monty Python fans, and certainly worth a look by all film fanatics. Listed as a Cult Movie and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.
Links:
|
Posted on February 25th, 2014 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“Vinnie, we have four children — if we’re not married now, we never will be!”
|
Synopsis:
In 1880s New York, the domineering father (William Powell) and scatterbrained mother (Irene Dunne) of four red-headed boys (Jimmy Lydon, Derek Scott, Johnny Calkins, and Martin Milner) deal with a series of household challenges — including Lydon’s crush on a beautiful visiting teen (Elizabeth Taylor), and Dunne’s distress that Powell has never been baptized.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Clarence Day Jr.‘s affectionate homage to his Victorian-era upbringing was originally published as an autobiographical memoir in 1935, then turned into the longest-running non-musical play on Broadway before gaining an even wider audience via this cinematic adaptation (directed by Michael Curtiz) and finally being made into a T.V. series in the mid-’50s. Clearly, Day’s recollections of his parents’ loving yet contentious pre-Suffrage marriage struck a nerve with audience members of the day, many of whom likely appreciated watching a domineering control freak effectively “managed” by his clever wife. To that end, Dunne’s ability to run her household the way she wants to — through strategic use of deception, feigned ignorance, and passive-aggressive techniques — is played for laughs, most notably in her extended ploy to trick her reluctant husband into getting baptized.
While dosing his anecdotal storyline with plenty of humor and nostalgia, Day makes it clear that one of his primary goals is to reveal the inanity (and futility) of his father’s dated patriarchal beliefs:
“Men have to run this world, and it’s not an easy job. It takes work and it takes thinking. A man has to reason things out. Now you take a woman, a woman doesn’t think at all. If a man thinks a certain thing is wrong, he shouldn’t do it. If he thinks it’s right, he should do it. You just have to let the women know that what you’re doing is for their good. Be firm.”
The fact that Day manages to salvage his father’s character while simultaneously skewering such nonsensical drivel reveals the secret to the film’s blockbuster success. Meanwhile, Michael Curtiz’s solid direction helps move the proceedings along smoothly. With that said, Life With Father will likely only hold minimal appeal for modern film fanatics, and remains of interest primarily to see Dunne and Powell’s typically solid lead performances.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- William Powell as “Father”
- Irene Dunne as Vinnie
Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for Dunne and Powell’s performances.
Links:
|
Posted on February 25th, 2014 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“The day wouldn’t come when I wouldn’t want to know everything about our town.”
|
Synopsis:
A narrator (Frank Craven) reflects on the lives, hopes, and dreams of citizens in the small American town of Grover’s Corners, focusing specifically on young sweethearts Emily (Martha Scott) and George (William Holden).
|
|
Genres:
Review:
This early cinematic adaptation of Thornton Wilder’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 1938 play remains a solid telling of an oft-staged, deeply philosophical tale about the beauty and value of everyday life. With effectively stylized sets by William Cameron Menzies, atmospheric cinematography by Bert Glennon, a typically distinctive score by Aaron Copland, and confident direction by Sam Wood, the film successfully “opens up” Wilder’s play, maintaining some theatrical conventions while also making creative use of cinematic possibilities. Other than a substantial change to a major event in the third act (sanctioned by Wilder himself, who agreed the play’s original ending would be too downbeat for movie audiences), the film remains relatively faithful to its source material. Watch for fine performances by Oscar-nominated Martha Scott (in her cinematic debut), a very young William Holden, and stalwart character actors Fay Bainter, Beulah Bondi, Guy Kibbee, and Thomas Mitchell as Emily and George’s parents.
Note: Film fanatics may be curious to watch this title on a “double bill” with Wood’s 1942 melodrama Kings Row, which offers a less nostalgic, more cynical glimpse into small town life in early-20th-century America.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Fine cinematography by Bert Glennon
- William Cameron Menzies’ stylized sets
- Aaron Copland’s memorable score
Must See?
Yes, as a solid adaptation of an American theatrical classic.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on February 5th, 2014 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
”Let’s face it – we’re in a trap.”
|
Synopsis:
A group of strangers invited to an isolated island learn that they all have one thing in common: they caused someone’s death in the past and were never punished. Soon they’re being killed off one by one, and must discover the identity of the murderer in their midst before it’s too late.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
As Peary notes, this “highly entertaining adaptation of Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians (called Ten Little Niggers in England, as was the film)” features “an unbeatable cast” (most notably Barry Fitzgerald, Walter Huston, Judith Anderson, and Louis Hayward), and benefits from both a “witty script by Dudley Nichols and light-touch direction by Rene Clair, who effectively keeps the multi-murder story from becoming bleak” (in part by making “good use of lively music”). He points out that while “it’s fun trying (and most likely failing) to figure out the murderer’s identity… this mystery is just as interesting the second time around when you can watch the killer closely and see how cleverly we are being manipulated by Christie and the filmmakers”.
I’m in complete agreement with Peary’s assessment of this enjoyable, surprisingly light-hearted “Old Dark House” mystery — based on the best-selling mystery novel of all time (though its ending was changed to that of Christie’s stage play of the same name). The characters are all smartly cast and play nicely against one another; this is truly a seamless ensemble piece, with no one performance standing out above the other (though the interactions between Walter Huston as Dr. Armstrong and Barry Fitzgerald as Judge Quinncannon are especially fun). Clair’s creative direction — beginning with the cleverly shot silent opening sequence on the boat, and extending through the exposure of each murder — is seamlessly fluid, keeping us consistently visually engaged, and on the edge of our seats in nervous anticipation.
Note: Film fanatics will likely recognize that this movie serves as a forerunner — both thematically and tonally — for the cult satire Murder By Death (1976); they would make a fun double-bill.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Effective direction by Clair
- Fine ensemble performances
- Atmospheric cinematography by Lucien Andriot
- Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco’s levity-inspiring score
Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable example of the “Old Dark House” genre.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on February 5th, 2014 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | 2 Comments »
“At least when you’ve got money, you can afford to buy your own kind of misery.”
|
Synopsis:
An eccentric millionaire (Charles Coburn) decides to secretly live with the descendants of a woman who once turned down his proposal of marriage, to determine whether they’re worthy of becoming his heirs. He quickly grows to like the Blaisdell family — including beautiful Millicent (Piper Laurie), her young sister Roberta (Gigi Perreau), her brother Howard (William Reynolds), her parents (Lynn Bari and Larry Gates), and her boyfriend (Rock Hudson) — but when he anonymously gifts the Blaisdells with $100,000, he learns that money is actually causing them more grief than true joy.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
The premise of this frothy ’20s-era “musical” by Douglas Sirk is preposterous — but the joy in seeing bristly character-actor Coburn given a rare leading role as an avuncular if screwy benefactor carries us along, and we can’t help hoping his “Secret Santa” maneuvers will yield positive results. Unfortunately, however, once Bari’s character shifts into bitchy petulance and snobbery, we get the sinking feeling that Coburn has put all his eggs-of-charity in the wrong basket, and interest immediately wanes. One wonders what Sirk’s satirical and narrative aims here are, exactly — especially given that the ultimate moral of the story (money can’t buy love or happiness) isn’t exactly groundbreaking. Sirk’s production values are as colorful as always, and the opening credits are fun — but this one ultimately remains simply a curiosity in Sirk’s oeuvre. For a more potent example of how unexpected wealth can yield surprising challenges, see the fast-paced comedy Brewster’s Millions (1945).
Note: Step away and you’ll miss a brief appearance by James Dean as an (uncredited) “youth at the soda fountain”! (Check out the strange writing on his pants in the still below… I can make out “HOT DOG”.) Does anyone have more info on his presence here?
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Charles Coburn as “John Smith”
- Coburn’s fun interactions with Gigi Perreau (as young Roberta)
- Typically fine “Sirk-ian” production values
- Fun opening credits
Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.
Links:
|
Posted on January 17th, 2014 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“An injured brain isn’t always logical.”
|
Synopsis:
A brain-injured man (John Mills) suffering from PTSD feels renewed hope for the future when he falls in love with a caring, beautiful young woman (Joan Greenwood) — but when he’s falsely accused of murdering a neighbor (Molly Newman), he must struggle to clear his name and convince police about the true identity of the killer.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Roy Ward Baker’s directorial debut — based on a novel and screenplay by Eric Ambler, who also produced the film — remains an intriguing if mildly disappointing exploration of the effects of trauma on one’s sanity and well-being. After a taut opening sequence — during which Mills’ “Jim Ackland” witnesses the death of his friend’s young child (Juliet Mills) in a train crash while sustaining a significant brain injury — we experience brief joy on his behalf as he slowly begins to find peace and happiness, then suffer with him as he’s cruelly taken advantage of by both a vicious gossip (Joyce Carey) and a sociopathic boarder (Edward Chapman). The parallels between Jim’s story and those of countless other WWII veterans suffering from PTSD are unmistakable and poignant — so it’s especially frustrating to find that the pacing and tone of the film become far too leisurely for the potentially gripping material. Atmospheric cinematography and fine performances (by Mills and the supporting cast) make it worth a one-time look — but, as noted by Craig Butler in his All Movie Guide review, “There’s so much that’s good about The October Man that it’s a shame it doesn’t end up as a really good film, rather than a merely satisfactory one”.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- John Mills as Jim Ackland
- A fine supporting cast
- Erwin Hillier’s noir-ish cinematography
Must See?
No, though it’s recommended.
Links:
|
Posted on December 23rd, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | 1 Comment »
“I suspect everyone!”
|
Synopsis:
A bumbling detective (Peter Sellers) is assigned to investigate a series of murders in which a beautiful maid (Elke Sommer) is the prime suspect.
|
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is clearly an enormous fan of this sequel to Blake Edwards’ The Pink Panther (1963), with Peter Sellers returning as the inimitably “prideful yet stupid, bumbling, and accident-prone Inspector Clouseau”. He argues that it’s a “hilarious… farce”, and that while “the storyline” (based on a play) “is fairly conventional”, “Sellers makes it unique”. He writes that “like Don Adams’s Maxwell Smart, [Clouseau] never realizes that he’s anything but a lethal, supercool detective, although everyone else sees that he’s a fool”. I’ll agree with Peary that Sellers is masterful here; one watches his portrayal with admiration and an occasional chuckle. But the film itself — while certainly watchable — simply hasn’t held up all that well. Comedies are notoriously challenging to call out as either successful or not, given how uniquely each viewer will respond to (potentially) humorous material; for my money, the Pink Panther films are semi-decent vehicles for Clouseau’s pratfalls, but little else.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
- The clever opening credits
- Henry Mancini’s score
Must See?
Yes, simply to see the best of the popular “Pink Panther” series. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in Alternate Oscars, though I don’t believe it deserves this status.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on December 17th, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | 1 Comment »
