Browsed by
Month: April 2012

Living Desert, The (1953)

Living Desert, The (1953)

Comments 1 comment

“In her desert drama, nature knows neither hero nor villain; she’s impartial, and plans for the survival of all.”

Synopsis:
A host of diverse animals and plants struggle to survive in the often-harsh desert climate of the U.S.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Deserts
  • Documentary
  • Survival

Review:
Disney’s first feature-length entry in its “True-Life Adventures” series won an Academy Award as Best Documentary of the Year, and was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2000. It remains a reasonably compelling, carefully edited montage of desert footage (complete with soundtrack and authoritative voiceover), chronicling the harsh survival tactics of various savvy animals who understand each others’ strengths and weaknesses to a tee, in addition to knowing how to fully exploit their environment (a bobcat chased by wild pigs seeks refuge at the top of tall cacti; a kangaroo rat throws sand in the eyes of a vulnerable eyelid-less snake; two male tortoises wrestle each other onto their backs in pursuit of a female). Modern viewers may already be overly familiar with the type of “educational” footage presented here, which has been available for viewing in various forms for literally decades (on television, and now in snippets on YouTube) — but this shouldn’t diminish the historical relevance of the film, which was groundbreaking at the time of its release, and led to several other similarly-themed, award-winning documentaries.

Note: You may or many not enjoy one of the film’s most discussed segments, in which scorpions “square dance” with one another — helped by the clever cinematic technique of running the film reel backwards… It’s done for comedic effect, but does it sully the supposed veracity of the documentary?

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Plenty of fascinating footage of desert beauty…


  • … and desert survival

Must See?
No, though kids are likely to enjoy it. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Blood Bath (1966)

Blood Bath (1966)

Comments 1 comment

“That’s the essence of what I’m after — bring death to the canvas.”

Synopsis:
A crazed artist (William Campbell) kills his models, painting death-themed canvases to immortalize them; meanwhile, a vampire roams the streets at night, attacking beautiful women. Could the two killers be related in some way?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Horror
  • Roger Corman Films
  • Stephanie Rothman Films
  • Vampires

Review:
Produced by Roger Corman and co-directed by Jack Hill and Stephanie Rothman, Blood Bath (a.k.a. Track of the Vampire) is a notorious mess of a film, one which incorporates footage from an unfinished European vampire flick into an entirely different storyline about a psychopathic modern artist. (Click here to read about another such dubious “salvaged film” effort by the industrious, penny-pinching Corman.) Critics have noted Blood Bath‘s thematic parallels with Corman’s darkly humorous A Bucket of Blood (1959) — also about a crazed artist who kills for his art — but this comparison simply serves to remind one how much infinitely better the latter film is on every level. Scenes taking place in a Beatnik bar — as a cadre of wannabe artists listen intently to their mentor (Karl Schanzer) — are clearly an attempt to add some comedic relief, but ultimately fall flat. Working in Blood Bath‘s favor is its atmospheric b&w cinematography; and if one focuses exclusively on the modern-day tale of Campbell’s seduction and murder of beautiful young women, the storyline begins to makes some kind of sense (with Campbell’s visions of his ancestor seduced by a siren-like muse [Lori Saunders] simply a symptom of his deranged sensibility). Overall, however, this one remains a disappointing misfire.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for diehard Corman fans.

Links:

Bohemian Girl, The (1936)

Bohemian Girl, The (1936)

Comments 1 comment

“I can gyp that gypsy any time.”

Synopsis:
The two-timing wife (Mae Busch) of a gullible gypsy con-artist (Oliver Hardy) runs away with her lover (Antonio Moreno), leaving behind the kidnapped daughter (Darla Hood) of a local count (William P. Carleton). Arline (Hood) is raised by Hardy and his business partner (Stan Laurel), and even as a young woman (Julie Bishop) has no idea about her true identity.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Con-Artists
  • Cuckolds
  • Gypsies
  • Kidnapping
  • Laurel and Hardy Films
  • Musicals
  • Royalty and Nobility

Review:
Laurel-and-Hardy fans are fond of defending this musical-comedy adaptation of Michael William Balfe’s 1843 opera, an innocuous melodrama which (not surprisingly) serves here as simply a narrative crutch for a series of semi-humorous L&H sketch pieces. The songs are primarily forgettable ditties warbled by a sound-stage full of would-be gypsies, though one — as Bishop croons the lovely aria “I Dreamt I Dwelt in Marble Halls” (more recently covered by Enya) — stands out as enjoyable enough to merit mention. Mae Busch (as Hardy’s wife) has fun with her role as perhaps the ultimate two-timing shrew, brazenly flirting with her lover in front of Hardy, but she’s not really given enough screen-time. Ultimately, this one will quickly fade from memory; diehard L&H fans will naturally want to check it out, but others can stay away.

Note: TBG is notorious as the final film of Thelma Todd, whose role was whittled away to hardly anything after her infamous “suicide” (considered by many to be murder).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bishop (dubbed) singing “I Dreamt I Dwelt in Marble Halls”
  • Creative visual effects at the very end

Must See?
No; this one is most definitely just for L&H fans.

Links:

I’m No Angel (1933)

I’m No Angel (1933)

Comments 1 comment

“When I’m good, I’m very good. But when I’m bad… I’m better!”

Synopsis:
An upwardly mobile, flirtatious carnival dancer (Mae West) falls in love with a wealthy businessman (Cary Grant), but must defend her seemingly unsavory past.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carnivals and Circuses
  • Cary Grant Films
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Mae West Films
  • Social Climbers

Review:
Along with She Done Him Wrong (1932), I’m No Angel is notorious as one of the films that finally put Hollywood’s self-appointed morality police over the edge, leading to much more stringent guidelines about what was permissible on screen. Indeed, with a script written by the inimitably salacious Mae West, one would expect nothing less than a series of barely-concealed sexual zingers — and that’s pretty much what you get here:

Grant: You were wonderful tonight.
West: I’m always wonderful at night.

West (to Grant, after refusing his money): You’ve got a lot of other things it takes to make a woman happy.

Unfortunately, as enjoyably giggle-worthy as these innuendos are, they aren’t enough to sustain the paper-thin plot, which is based on the wholly preposterous notion that West’s sexual allure is enough to turn nearly every able-bodied man she meets to mush (talk about giggle-worthy!). This one is purely a vehicle for West to demonstrate her exaggerated sense of narcissistic self-worth — but film fanatics curious to get a taste of West would be better off watching her in a more involving vehicle.

Note: I’m No Angel is also notable as the film in which West quips the infamous line “Beulah, peel me a grape” to her maid (Gertrude Howard).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Some fun gowns
  • Plenty of typically zingy West-ian retorts and one-liners:

    Nigel de Brulier (as Rajah the Fortune Teller): I see a man in your life.
    West: What? Only one?

Must See?
No; despite its historical relevance, this isn’t among West’s best films, and is only must-see for her admirers. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Doctor in the House (1954)

Doctor in the House (1954)

Comments 1 comment

“Don’t forget: to be a successful surgeon you need the eyes of a hawk, the heart of a lion, and the hands of a lady.”

Synopsis:
A naive doctor-in-training (Dirk Bogarde) and his classmates (Kenneth More, Donald Sinden, and Donald Houston) navigate through the challenges of medical school and dating.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • College
  • Comedy
  • Dirk Bogarde Films
  • Doctors and Nurses

Review:
I’ll admit to having little patience for this enormously popular British comedy (based on a novel by former doctor Richard Gordon), which broke box-office records and spawned no less than six cinematic sequels and a television series. Unfortunately, it’s little more than an extended situation comedy involving a cadre of not-too-likeable young medical students who are much more interested in having fun than gaining a solid footing in their future profession; Bogarde is nominally the sympathetic protagonist, but he doesn’t come across as much better (or more interesting) than his friends.

The humor is consistently lowbrow, and the episodic screenplay does little to hold our attention. The film’s only minor redeeming point is its willingness to show a diverse crowd of medical students on campus (including women and people of color):

Unfortunately, none of the latter are given substantial roles, and the former are reduced to either sex objects or shrews. Call me a grump, but this one’s simply icky; I couldn’t wait for it to be over.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Not much at all.

Must See?
No; feel free to skip this clunker.

Links:

Changeling, The (1980)

Changeling, The (1980)

Comments 2 comments

“That house is not fit to live in. No one’s been able to live in it. It doesn’t want people.”

Synopsis:
A recently widowed composer (George C. Scott) moves into a house haunted by the ghost of an unhappy child, whose tragic death is somehow linked to that of an aging senator (Melvyn Douglas).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • George C. Scott
  • Ghosts
  • Horror
  • Melvyn Douglas Films
  • Old Dark House
  • Widows and Widowers

Review:
This atmospheric haunted house flick by director Peter Medak is based on a genuinely disturbing premise (don’t read too much about it online if you want to remain surprised), but is poorly paced and takes far too long to build momentum. In addition, Medak relies too heavily on both wide-angle and low-angle shots — the latter presumably to make us feel we’re consistently viewing the action from the perspective of a (buried?) child, but it quickly feels derivative and overly stylized.

Scott is typically fine (if perhaps a tad too stalwart) in the lead role:

and his real-life wife (Trish Van Devere) registers an appropriate level of mounting trepidation as Scott’s realtor and amateur-sleuthing-partner (though their relationship remains frustratingly opaque).

Ultimately, this one is really only must-see for fans of the genre, who will likely enjoy the intermittent chills and thrills it provides. Best scene: the genuinely freaky seance, which suddenly and effectively shifts the film into high gear.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Some moments of genuinely creepy terror

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for fans of the genre, though others may be curious to at least check it out. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Hail the Conquering Hero (1944)

Hail the Conquering Hero (1944)

Comments 1 comment

“We’re doin’ it for your ma, kid!”

Synopsis:
A would-be Marine (Eddie Bracken) discharged with hayfever meets a group of veteran Marines who convince him to tell his mother (Georgia Caine) he was wounded in battle. Soon Woodrow (Bracken) finds himself nominated for mayor of his hometown, much to the dismay of the current mayor (Raymond Walburn), who hopes to be re-elected; meanwhile, Woodrow’s former fiancee (Ella Raines) tries to get up the courage to let Woodrow know she’s now engaged to Walburn’s son (Bill Edwards).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Ella Raines Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Naïve Public
  • Preston Sturges Films
  • Small Town America
  • Veterans

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “frantically paced satire” is “skillfully directed in the usual … manner” by writer/director Preston Sturges, with “confused, fast-talking, philosophical characters zip[ping] in and out of the crowded frame, fighting for space to stand in and time to say their two cents’ worth”. However, he argues that while “there are funny scenes and moments”, overall he “finds the script pretty weak, like Capra at his phoniest and corniest”, and points out that “the naive, easily fooled and manipulated common folk have counterparts in Meet John Doe” (which neither of us much likes). He accurately notes that “the most interesting aspect [of the film] is that in 1944 Sturges dared and got away with satirizing Momism, patriotism, politicians and the political process, honor, the military (imagine Marines pulling a hoax to influence an election!), hero worship, and the ingenuous American public”.

While I agree with the gist of Peary’s sentiments, I’m impressed enough by Sturges’ astonishing ability to get away with so many pointed satirical barbs that I ultimately disagree with Peary’s assertion about the script being “weak”. Though the film made me uncomfortable at times (it’s truly relentlessly paced), there were enough clever moments and humorous performances to keep me fully engaged throughout. Freddie Steele gives a particularly focused (and quietly hilarious) performance as a ferociously mother-loving Marine, and Franklin Pangborn (perfectly cast as the reception organizer) simply steals the scene whenever he’s on screen (which is refreshingly often). Meanwhile, Bracken is note-perfect in the lead role; one can’t help empathizing with his plight from the get-go.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Eddie Bracken as Woodrow Truesmith
  • Franklin Pangborn as the Reception Committee Chairman
  • Freddie Steele as mother-loving Bugsy
  • William Demarest as Sgt. Heppelfinger
  • Raymond Walburn as weaselly Mayor Noble
  • Sturges’ boldly satirical screenplay

Must See?
Yes, as one of Sturges’ many enjoyable satiric comedies.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Miserables, Les (1935)

Miserables, Les (1935)

Comments 1 comment

“You can’t hear a baby cry for food and do nothing!”

Synopsis:
In 19th century France, an ex-convict (Fredric March) is given a second chance at life by a kind priest (Cedric Hardwicke), and becomes a successful businessman under an assumed name. However, his happiness — and that of his adopted daughter, Cosette (Rochelle Hudson) — are compromised by a relentless policeman (Charles Laughton) who is determined to send March back to jail at any cost.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cat-and-Mouse
  • Charles Laughton Films
  • Ex-Cons
  • Fredric March Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Literature Adaptation

Review:
While it’s probably best known by modern audiences as an enormously successful Tony-winning Broadway musical, Victor Hugo’s epic novel Les Miserables has been adapted for the screen numerous times (though Peary only lists this 1935 version in his GFTFF). Directed with visual panache by Richard Boleslawksi and DP Gregg Toland, the film is consistently stunning to look at, effectively utilizing stylized camera angles and atmospheric b&w cinematography to highlight the undeniably melodramatic nature of the storyline. March is appropriately stalwart and sympathetic as an ethically innocent man (unable to find work, he steals bread to feed his family) who is given an unduly harsh prison sentence, then treated with disdain and contempt by nearly all he meets upon his release; as fans of the story know, he’s not given a fair chance at life until a kind bishop treats him with unexpected kindness, and he is able to assume a new identity.

Laughton’s Inspector Javert, meanwhile, stands for all that is most corrupt about a legal system which leaves no room for contextual consideration or humanity; in a powerfully filmed opening sequence — as Laughton is inducted into his chosen profession — we’re told exactly what makes this vilest of persecutors tick, and we gain an unexpected measure of compassion for his motivations. Indeed, Laughton’s typically nuanced, brave performance is almost enough to make this film must-see — but the narrative itself is ultimately too much of a standard literary-adaptation (in which a rich and layered novel is condensed into just under two hours) to be entirely successful; too many of the later supporting characters are given short shrift, and Hugo’s complex social commentary is over-simplified. However, this one remains worth a look at least once, both for the lead performances and for the impressive visuals.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Charles Laughton as Inspector Javert
  • Fredric March as Jean Valjean
  • Cedric Hardwicke as the Bishop
  • Atmospheric cinematography

  • Fine sets

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look for Laughton’s performance. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book (though I’m not sure why).

Links:

Ninotchka (1939)

Ninotchka (1939)

Comments 1 comment

“Don’t make an issue of my womanhood.”

Synopsis:
Three Russian representatives (Sig Ruman, Felix Bressart, and Alexander Granach) sent to Paris to sell some jewels formerly belonging to a countess (Ina Claire) are converted into fun-loving capitalists by Claire’s lover (Melvyn Douglas). When a solemn Russian emissary (Greta Garbo) arrives to rectify the situation, Douglas finds himself smitten with her, and an unexpected romance ensues.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bela Lugosi Films
  • Cross-Cultural Romance
  • Ernst Lubitsch Films
  • Greta Garbo Films
  • Melvyn Douglas Films
  • Romantic Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that Garbo “gives an intelligent, witty performance” in this “comedy classic” by Ernst Lubitsch, which was marketed to audiences as the film in which “Garbo laughs!” Peary spends the bulk of his review analyzing the script (by Billy Wilder, Charles Brackett, and Walter Reisch), which he claims “levels so many zingers at bureaucratic Russia… that one believes [the screenwriters] are unfavorably contrasting it with France”, at least until it’s implied that “the country belongs to aristocrats (we rarely see the common folk) and other decadent elements”. He argues that “this is not one of Lubitsch’s funniest comedies”, given that “almost all of the humor is supposed to emanate from poor Russian characters being impressed by what we take for granted”, and notes that “the constant barrage of anti-Russian propaganda makes us feel we’re back in grammar school and having our first (manipulative) political-science lesson (indoctrination)”.

It’s true that the strongly anti-Communist bent of the screenplay feels a bit heavy-handed at times, but it’s difficult not to be impressed by the filmmakers’ ability to get away with such a bold political satire during a time of increasing turmoil on the global landscape. Meanwhile, what most people remember about the film — rather than its contextualizing narrative — is the central romance between Garbo and Douglas (who Peary argues “is an acquired taste”; I think he suits the role well). They have fine chemistry together, and while we don’t quite understand why Douglas falls so head-over-heels in love with icy-cold Garbo at first sight (she’s nearly robotic in her calculated responses to him), it’s undeniably charming to see her eventually “melting” in the heat of his charms.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Greta Garbo as Ninotchka (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  • A fine, witty script by Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, and Walter Reisch:

    “The last mass trials were a great success. There are going to be fewer but better Russians.”

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine comedic classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Cluny Brown (1946)

Cluny Brown (1946)

Comments 1 comment

“Nobody can tell you where your place is… Wherever you’re happy, that’s your place.”

Synopsis:
An itinerant Czech philosopher (Charles Boyer) is invited to stay at a country manor owned by the parents (Reginald Owen and Margaret Bannerman) of one of his admirers (Peter Lawford); meanwhile, a quirky, plumbing-loving housemaid (Jennifer Jones) sent to work in the manor falls in love with a stuffy local pharmacist (Richard Haydn), not realizing Boyer has his eye on her as well.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Charles Boyer Films
  • Class Relations
  • Comedy
  • Ernst Lubitsch Films
  • Jennifer Jones Films
  • Peter Lawford Films
  • Richard Haydn Films
  • Servants, Maids, and Housekeepers

Review:
While conceding that it doesn’t quite rank among his best work, critics nonetheless seem uniformly charmed by Ernst Lubitsch’s final completed comedy (he died midway through directing 1948’s That Lady in Ermine), based on a coming-of-age novel by Margery Sharp. I’m less impressed. Beautiful Jones (whose comedic performance is eerily reminiscent at times of Marilyn Monroe) puts forth her best effort, and comes across as appropriately free-spirited, but she nonetheless seems inappropriately cast as a lower-class maid-servant (and when she talks at a certain point about how make-up doesn’t do much to help her appearance, one can’t help snorting a bit).

Meanwhile, it beggars all belief that she would fall head-over-heels in love with an annoying prig like Haydn; what could she possibly be thinking? That she’s ultimately best suited for Boyer’s charismatic European refugee is made clear from the start; we thus spend the entire film waiting for them to finally realize this fact themselves. There’s subtle humor to be had, I suppose, in the running joke about Cluny’s obsession with plumbing —

“Whoever gets me won’t have to worry about his plumbing.”
“You know what plumbing does to me — I just can’t keep my hands off it.”

— but this humor ultimately feels somewhat forced and juvenile. Boyer fares well, and I’m fond of Helen Walker’s unabashedly privileged performance as the much-lusted-after “Betty Cream”, but the rest of the film simply leaves me unmoved.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Charles Boyer as Professor Belinski
  • Helen Walker as Betty Cream

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Lubitsch completists. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: